AMD Discussion

[cube]

The context here is Intel iGPUs. Intel presents TBv3 as a preferred solution. It only needs one cable for 5K. The '5K world' isn't going to collapse because the next gen Intel iGPU only has DP v1.2.



if Apple isn't suppressing the TB display market there will be more 3rd party solutions in the future. Doubtful LG is going to be the only one. Apple jumpstarting the first one more likely will expand not restrict the market.

If only select computers is a disqualification then don't buy 5K monitors because there are many millions of computers that can't.

I don't care what Intel does. AMD has had DisplayPort 1.3 for years.

 

[ManuelGomes]

Don't like Apple monitors? And like others?
If all you care is a high refresh rate then I see why, otherwise I don't.
But I guess each one's likings is not up for debate.
[doublepost=1479750272][/doublepost]Intel won't be supporting DP 1.3/1.4 for some time.
Still, with AMD and NVidia going strong I hope the monitor manufacturers will start pumping them out fast.

 

[cube]

Don't like Apple monitors? And like others?
If all you care is a high refresh rate then I see why, otherwise I don't.
But I guess each one's likings is not up for debate.
[doublepost=1479750272][/doublepost]Intel won't be supporting DP 1.3/1.4 for some time.
Still, with AMD and NVidia going strong I hope the monitor manufacturers will start pumping them out fast.

I don't care about any external displays with only one input, no buttons, or that are not 3D.

 

[ActionableMango]

Don't like Apple monitors? And like others?
If all you care is a high refresh rate then I see why, otherwise I don't.
But I guess each one's likings is not up for debate.

Apple doesn't make monitors any more, so there's not really a debate to be had anyway.

 

[ManuelGomes]

That's not set in stone really, although very likely.
Too bad, in my opinion.

 

[AidenShaw]

That's not set in stone really, although very likely.
Too bad, in my opinion.

Apple hasn't had a competitive monitor in years - regardless of the "mirror" problem.

Apple couldn't compete in server storage - axed the X-Serve RAID.
Apple couldn't compete in even entry level servers - axed the X-Serve.
Apple couldn't compete in monitors - axed the T-Bolt monitor long after its "best by" date.
Apple couldn't compete in wireless - bye-bye Airport.

Is the next entry in this sequence "workstations" ?

 

[Bubba Satori]

Apple hasn't had a competitive monitor in years - regardless of the "mirror" problem.

Apple couldn't compete in server storage - axed the X-Serve RAID.
Apple couldn't compete in even entry level servers - axed the X-Serve.
Apple couldn't compete in monitors - axed the T-Bolt monitor long after its "best by" date.
Apple couldn't compete in wireless - bye-bye Airport.

Is the next entry in this sequence "workstations" ?

Couldn't or wouldn't?
My theory is they wouldn't because it didn't fit in their premium ecosystem,
high volume and maximum margin business model.

What's a ship do during a storm?
Jettison overboard the least profitable stuff.
The storm was the passing of Steve Jobs
The last five years have seen this process in spades.
Short term financially it's been a brilliant strategy worthy of a bean counter on steroids.

Long term...?
We won't know that until the next CEO arrives.

 

[AidenShaw]

Couldn't or wouldn't?
My theory is they wouldn't because it didn't fit in their premium ecosystem,
high volume and maximum margin business model.

Yes, "wouldn't fit the margins" is better than "couldn't" for my list.

Coupled with "didn't value the demographics" for those products.

But, you can now get an AppleBook curiously named "Pro" with an EmojiBar® !

Just what professionals have been asking for for years.

I used to think that Apple hit rock bottom with:

​

Now I realize that the true rock bottom is:

​

Or maybe the four amigos will surprise us with an MP7,1 with an ARM processor and no software - but an astonishing array of new incompatible ports and a whole catalog of $99 dongles to connect all the new devices that your bought when the MP6,1 came out with new incompatible ports.

 

[ManuelGomes]

OK, that's Fudzilla but:
http://www.fudzilla.com/news/processors/42184-amd-zen-to-come-in-three-product-tiers
Clocks are looking better, if true.

And this:
http://www.fudzilla.com/news/42189-microsoft-plans-to-bring-x86-emulation-to-arm

 

[koyoot]

People on other forum got to simple Data in which they compared Steamroller A10 7700K to Haswell CPU i5-4690. And checked how big increase in performance would require for Steamroller to match Haswell. It is 45% for real world applications, when compared clock for clock.

And Zen is supposed to deliver 40% increase over Exacavator. So, it appears that things will be very interesting. And it appears that leaks might have been true.

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/first-summit-ridge-zen-benchmarks.2482739/page-80#post-38592073

 

[Bubba Satori]

People on other forum got to simple Data in which they compared Steamroller A10 7700K to Haswell CPU i5-4690. And checked how big increase in performance would require for Steamroller to match Haswell. It is 45% for real world applications, when compared clock for clock.

And Zen is supposed to deliver 40% increase over Exacavator. So, it appears that things will be very interesting. And it appears that leaks might have been true.

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/first-summit-ridge-zen-benchmarks.2482739/page-80#post-38592073

AMD's roadmaps have always been faster than the speed of light.
That's the good news.
The bad news is that means we never end up seeing products that are that fast.
Stay tuned.

Nothing spelled speed like blazing fast codenames Bulldozer, Piledriver, Steamroller and Excavator.

 

[koyoot]

AMD's roadmaps have always been faster than the speed of light.
That's the good news.
The bad news is that means we never end up seeing products that are that fast.
Stay tuned.

Nothing spelled speed like blazing fast codenames Bulldozer, Piledriver, Steamroller and Excavator.

Bulldozer was the only failure. Later AMD delivered what they promised in terms of IPC gains, in CPUs roadmaps. Steamroller was 10% faster on average than PD, XV is 10% faster on average Clock-for-clock than Steamroller.

 

[AidenShaw]

Bulldozer was the only failure. Later AMD delivered what they promised in terms of IPC gains, in CPUs roadmaps. Steamroller was 10% faster on average than PD, XV is 10% faster on average Clock-for-clock than Steamroller.

AMD has been great at obfuscating the conversation by claiming to be best at obscure metrics like IPC and GFLOPs/watt, while Intel usually wins on the "how fast is it" real application benchmarks.

I need to see how many people drooling about how fast the vaporware Zen with 32 cores will be, have also posted that "most software doesn't scale with cores, you don't need more than four".

In market share, just about every AMD CPU since the early Athlons has been a failure.

 

[koyoot]

AMD has been great at obfuscating the conversation by claiming to be best at obscure metrics like IPC and GFLOPs/watt, while Intel usually wins on the "how fast is it" real application benchmarks.

I need to see how many people drooling about how fast the vaporware Zen with 32 cores will be, have also posted that "most software doesn't scale with cores, you don't need more than four".

In market share, just about every AMD CPU since the early Athlons has been a failure.

Do you have actual benchmarks to substantiate your claims?

Like I have said. Bulldozer was failure. Performance claims for next uarchitectures, after the Bulldozer, were spot on for AMD, and they delivered on average IPC improvements on similar level to marketing material. If It is not true for Steamroller compared to Bulldozer, and Excavator compared to Steamroller, please show real world benchmarks that show the opposite.

Otherwise you spread misinformation based on your faulty perception of AMD based on Bulldozer fail. Or your previous experience with AMD. Who cares.

I do have benchmarks of Steamroller, and Excavator compared to previous generations of CPUs, that show that AMD delivered what they claimed(10% improvement with every generation per clock). But I am waiting for your benchmarks first.

That is why AMD has the benefit of faith in their claims, which is also substantiated with the information of the CPU core design(its resources, caches, etc).

 

[cube]

Today I put my Phenom II X6 1090T at 90%, so it would be time for a speed bump.

 

[koyoot]

Another day, another AMD Zen leak:

http://imgur.com/a/kPYc3


If this is true, that 6 core CPU is at 250$ price range and offers 6 core Broadwell-E performance levels...

Damn, AMD has a killer.

It is more logical. 8 core CPU performance - Haswell-E/EP, for half the price. 6 core - Haswell/Broadwell performance for more than half the price.

AMD wants to offer CPU, Motherboard, and high-end GPU for under the 1000$ mark. If 8 core CPU with Haswell-E level of performance is 350$ that would mean that for GPU and motherboard there is 650$ room for that.

Small Vega would be by the means of deduction 499$?

AMD Eng Sample: 1D3201A2M88F3_35/32_N
3.2 Base, 3.5 Boost. 3.35 All core boost as it appears.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

If the $250 one has full pci-e lanes 32 + 4? + chipset lanes them intel is in deep ****

 

[cube]

Getting Zen means building a new computer, so I think I'll just overclock an FX.

 

[AidenShaw]

Do you have actual benchmarks to substantiate your claims?

Be careful what you ask for, because you might get it.

If you keep scrolling, eventually you'll see some AMD CPUs...

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html#​

 

[koyoot]

Be careful what you ask for, because you might get it.

If you keep scrolling, eventually you'll see some AMD CPUs...

I am not arguing that AMD CPUs are slower than Intel's.

What you failed to understand however was the point I was making.

Show benchmarks that AMD did not delivered compared to Advertising/Marketing material when it goes for IPC improvements of uarchitectures that were AFTER Bulldozer.

Do you have them? That was the whole context of AMD NOT DELIVERING.

For example here:

IPC increase 9-13% with average 10% increase.

They have delivered it. How does Steamroller compare to this?

And what was AMD's Claim for IPC increases? Lets quote Bubba Sotori, shall we?

Nothing spelled speed like blazing fast codenames Bulldozer, Piledriver, Steamroller and Excavator.

40% increase in IPC for Zen is very courageous statement. If they fail, they can close AMD completely. If they are saying truth, and everything what we know points to that it is truth, they have woned in one specific way.

Some people will stop spreading FUD on forums based on their perception of brand which was defined by Bulldozer Failure.

Want to know how much faster Steamroller core has to be per clock to achieve Haswell level of performance? 45%. And Zen is supposed to be 40% faster per clock than Excavator core, which already was on average 10% faster than Steamroller.

TL;DR. STOP SPREADING FUD ON FORUMS THAT AMD DID NOT DELIVERED IMPROVEMENTS WITH EACH GENERATION OF CPU, BECAUSE CLEARLY THEY DID. NOBODY IS ARGUING THE CPUS ARE WEAKER THAN INTEL. BUT YOU SPREADING FUD SAYING THAT AMD WAS BLATANTLY LYING IN ALL OF PAST YEARS ABOUT THE CPUS.

 

[cube]

Some initial comparison with the HP system (SR vs XV2):

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compar...ON-R7-12-COMPUTE-CORES-4C-8G/m118648vsm178624

Note that a South Korean site ran this Bristol Ridge faster at 4.8GHz with Wraith in September.

 

[koyoot]

SR? Summit Ridge? All you compare is Steamroller chip with Bristol Ridge.

It has nothing to do with Zen.

But it shows that AMD delivered what they claimed.

 

[cube]

SR? Summit Ridge? All you compare is Steamroller chip with Bristol Ridge.

It has nothing to do with Zen.

But it shows that AMD delivered what they claimed.

Steamroller vs Excavator v2.
SR vs XV2

There's an abbreviation problem here.

 

[koyoot]

I have used the benchmark you provided, Cube, to compare Excavator single core performance to Haswell, and Skylake CPUs.

In essence, comparable CPU from Haswell is 28% in single threaded performance, despite comparing 3.5 GHz Haswell, with 3.8 GHz Excavator. Skylake on the other hand, the i5 6600 is 32% per clock, with Floating Point around 50% averaging in around 40% higher IPC in 3.3 GHz Skylake vs. 3.8 GHz Excavator core comparison.

What this means is, that core design of Zen most likely will not allow for the CPUs to reach Skylake in SingleThreaded performance, but will be most likely edging out Haswell.

If the rumored prices are also true, AMD still has a killer offer.

 

[Bubba Satori]

Look, I hope Zen is the Baby Jaybus chip, I really do.
Intel has been coasting for the last few years.
Same with Vega and Nvidia.
I just think it's as likely as a true workstation line up of regularly updated Mac Pros.
We'll know in a couple of months.

Happy Thanksgiving everybody!