[quote]So far we know AMD will have an 8-core, 16-thread chip on sale. Testing against an Intel Broadwell-E processor with the same specs, both clocked to 3.0GHz, the AMD product came out slightly on top.[/quote]
[quote]The "Naples" CPU has a beastly 32 cores and 64 threads with 512MB cache. [/quote]
I kind of want one just because
AM3 coolers will also mount and work with AM4, so Evo 212 lovers rejoice
[Quote]So far we know AMD will have an 8-core, 16-thread chip on sale. Testing against an Intel Broadwell-E processor with the same specs, both clocked to 3.0GHz, the AMD product came out slightly on top.
The "Naples" CPU has a beastly 32
[/Quote]
This sounds a bit too good to be true,
no offense, but I take this with a very heavy grain of salt.
I hope Zen will bring them back in the fight, Intel are getting way too much comfortable at the top.
Too bad ms doesn't want to support w7 on it.
[QUOTE=Coolboy;51263789]This sounds a bit too good to be true,
no offense, but I take this with a very heavy grain of salt.[/QUOTE]
There's a video of the live demonstration. They race to render a scene in Blender. It was almost a tie but AMD won by a second or so
[QUOTE=TheTalon;51264341]There's a video of the live demonstration. They race to render a scene in Blender. It was almost a tie but AMD won by a second or so[/QUOTE]
They'll probably be slightly even more faster since those were engineering samples.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;51264341]There's a video of the live demonstration. They race to render a scene in Blender. It was almost a tie but AMD won by a second or so[/QUOTE]
And what was this compared to? As the time difference of a couple of seconds is not even remotely worth it, since the pricing is obviously not going to be cheap.
The thing I never liked about that stage demo they did is that the broadwell E processors are capable of turboing much faster than the 3.0 GHz that was demonstrated. Why did they not demo the parts at 3.2, or 3.4 Ghz, and demonstrate a more substantial gap in said benchmark?
[QUOTE=nintenman1;51266453]The thing I never liked about that stage demo they did is that the broadwell E processors are capable of turboing much faster than the 3.0 GHz that was demonstrated. Why did they not demo the parts at 3.2, or 3.4 Ghz, and demonstrate a more substantial gap in said benchmark?[/QUOTE]
Comparing IPC at identical clock speeds?
[QUOTE=ghost901;51266651]Comparing IPC at identical clock speeds?[/QUOTE]
I realize that. What I was getting at is that IPC is only half the equation, with clock speed being the other part. The fact that the test wasn't run at a higher clock indicates to me that they weren't able to get the part they demoed going any higher frequency. the part they were comparing against (the 6900k) has a stock clock of 3.2 with turbo to 3.7. Deciding to only compare IPC at a lower than stock clock reeks of "we can't show our product winning in an unmodified end to end race" so they just decide to point out one metric where the Zen part was faster against a restricted Broadwell-E.
Granted, I could be entirely wrong but I'd suspect amd simply won't be able to hit the same clock speeds as processors manufactured on intel's (better) 14 nm implementation.
Engineering samples are not going to clock as high as the finished product.
[QUOTE=Coolboy;51263789]This sounds a bit too good to be true,
no offense, but I take this with a very heavy grain of salt.[/QUOTE]
It came out on top on exactly one test. Typical PCG clickshit. The real question that hasn't been answered is horsepower per dollar.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
