-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Leaked AMD roadmap schedules 14-nm bonanza for 2016
- Thread starter LordOfChaos
- Start date
Chronicjihad
Banned
I think you mean Celeron.
TouchMyBox
Member
Please be good.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Best of luck AMD, it's going to be an uphill battle to compete with Skylake/Cannonlake.
Saintruski
Unconfirmed Member
wtf is AMD trueaudio and what advantage does it hold over my Xonar essence STX...I have many years of hardware and software experience and it seems like they are going no where with this...and secure processor? to be honest the last AMD cpu I owned (still own my AMD rig still uses it never saw the advantage of jumping to FX) was a phenom II x6 1100t BE so I don't really follow there technologies anymore.
Astral/H3X
Member
Edit: Ignore this
Elfforkusu
Member
This is "14nm", right? Not actually a fully 14nm process?
andrerobot
Member
They are different things it seems.
Your card is a DAC and an amp.
Trueaudio is a hardware DSP.
Edit: In the old days sound cards usually had the first two (DAC and amp), plus DSPs for supporting multiple voices and FM synth (think midi) or wavetable. Some cards included advanced DSPs too for 3D audio processing (EAX from SoundBlaster), but with AC'97 and integrated audio, almost all those hardware features were replaced by software.
No foundry's 14nm is actually true 14nm as far as I know, including Intel's.
No one knows.
Probably bigger gains than Haswell->Skylake since there is so much room for improvement.
I know AMD gets a lot of hate but my FX 8320 works great with everything I ask it to do. There is nothing that I do right now that I need more than what this CPU offers. In everyday usage I don't notice a difference between my home system or the Intel machines we use all day at my work. I doubt most people would be able to tell the difference from an i3 to an A10 or an i5 to an i7. The HDD tends to be the slowest part of most systems nowadays anyway and that's actually been the case for quite some time now.
I'm not trying to suggest that the FX series or any offshoot of that architecture are amazing CPUs as they obviously have their shortcomings but they're not as bad as they're made out to be. In fact, for the price, I'd say they are a decent bargain.
I'm definitely looking forward to Zen and I hope it's priced competitively.
I'm not trying to suggest that the FX series or any offshoot of that architecture are amazing CPUs as they obviously have their shortcomings but they're not as bad as they're made out to be. In fact, for the price, I'd say they are a decent bargain.
I'm definitely looking forward to Zen and I hope it's priced competitively.
NumberThree
Member
I think Intel's is considered true 14nm, the scaling is pretty damn close at least.
They're not advertising anything, this is material shown to analysts. The realities of this business are that you can't just focus on what's in the stores now. Surprise, every single tech company has a better product in the pipeline before the previous one is available, even those that don't tell about it publicly.
anexanhume
Member
Yeah, TSMC, Samsung, GloFo use pretty much the same interconnect dimensions as their 20nm processes.
I'm running a phenom II x4 920 still with a HD 7850, I was thinking of upgrading now (to Intel) but with Zen coming up next year and directx 12, etc. I'll wait and see how this turns out, I'll eventually need a rig that can run Star Citizen...for now all I play is Dota 2, Civ 5 and SC2 which run fine.
On another note the best APU is still only 4 cores? I mean the ps4 has eight right and that came out in 2013. Zen better be awesome.
On another note the best APU is still only 4 cores? I mean the ps4 has eight right and that came out in 2013. Zen better be awesome.
jfoul
Member
First AMD "Zen" Chips to be Quad-Core
"Some of the first CPUs and APUs based on AMD's next-generation "Zen" micro-architecture could be quad-core. "Zen" will be AMD's first monolithic core design after a stint with multi-core modules, with its "Bulldozer" architecture. Our older article details what sets Zen apart from its predecessor. As expected, in a multi-core chip, Zen cores share no hardware resources with each other, than a last-level cache (L3 cache), much like Intel's current CPU architecture."
AMD "Zen" CPU Core Block Diagram Surfaces
"As a quick follow up to our older report on AMD's upcoming "Zen" CPU core micro-architecture being a reversion to the monolithic core design, and a departure from its "Bulldozer" multicore module design which isn't exactly flying off the shelves, a leaked company slide provides us the first glimpse into the core design. Zen looks a lot like "Stars," the core design AMD launched with its Phenom series, except it has a lot more muscle, and one could see significant IPC improvements over the current architecture."
"Some of the first CPUs and APUs based on AMD's next-generation "Zen" micro-architecture could be quad-core. "Zen" will be AMD's first monolithic core design after a stint with multi-core modules, with its "Bulldozer" architecture. Our older article details what sets Zen apart from its predecessor. As expected, in a multi-core chip, Zen cores share no hardware resources with each other, than a last-level cache (L3 cache), much like Intel's current CPU architecture."
AMD "Zen" CPU Core Block Diagram Surfaces
"As a quick follow up to our older report on AMD's upcoming "Zen" CPU core micro-architecture being a reversion to the monolithic core design, and a departure from its "Bulldozer" multicore module design which isn't exactly flying off the shelves, a leaked company slide provides us the first glimpse into the core design. Zen looks a lot like "Stars," the core design AMD launched with its Phenom series, except it has a lot more muscle, and one could see significant IPC improvements over the current architecture."
AMD pulling a Core 2 "the new architecture was crap, let's revisit the old one" moment?
michaelius
Banned
If those cores can at least match Haswell in single thread performance than 8 core desktop cpu might be good reason to get Zen.
Memorabilia
Member
Yeah, I agree with this. The 8320 (and in particular the 8320E) is a great bang-for-buck CPU (probably the best CPU in AMDs AM3 line-up since all of them will easily overclock to the same speed as the 8350/8370 at stock voltage). I'll probably pick one up for a quick upgrade to one of my older AM3+ systems when I find one on sale for $100. I do some video and 3D work and the Vishera line is excellent for those needs.
As to your point about a lot of people hating on AMD, have to agree its pretty rampant on GAF. I have multiple systems in my households using various combinations of AMD/Intel & ATI (AMD)/nVidia. For the vast majority of tasks - including gaming - its difficult to tell the difference. I have a couple low/mid range systems with Athlon II 760K CPUs + R9 270 in one & GTX 960 in the other. I picked up my 760Ks for $65 each. Both are hooked up to big screen TVs for 1080p gaming. I have another system hooked up to a 30" Dell monitor with a i5-4690k + GTX 970. When trying to run games at 2560 x 1600 on the Dell there is a noticeable frame-rate difference. However, its pretty much impossible to tell the difference between the 3 systems when running 1080P/60fps on my Vizio 65" or my 55" Panasonic plasma at 1080P. So, for practical purposes, when coupled with a capable video card my $65 CPU avails itself very well against my $240 CPU.
AMD CPUs are still a good value proposition at the $100 or under price point. The hate makes zero sense from a practical use or consumer standpoint. Even die-hard intel/nVidia fan boys should be hoping for AMD to come out swinging with Zen. Competition is good for all of us. Without it the market for CPUs & GPUs stagnates while Intel/nVidia keep prices higher than they would be otherwise.
General Lee
Member
Hopefully their plans work out in 2016. 14 nm is going to be a big improvement, though I think Intel is already going to be a node ahead by then. But if AMD can catch up with Zen it could still be enough to actually be competitive unlike with the Bulldozer derivatives. Add to that the move to HBM on the graphics side and DX12 AMD might actually have some great products coming in 2016. With some luck on their side I could see a future for AMD, but if Intel and Nvidia succeed in their products too, it probably won't matter if AMD has decent products, they'll probably run out of money sooner or later.
Memorabilia
Member
AMD pulling a Core 2, "the new architecture was crap, let's revisit the old one" moment?
As disappointing as Bulldozer has been, it is nowhere close to the disaster that Intel had on their hands with Netburst. There are parallels, but Netburst was by far a worse arch. AMD's Zen has been overseen by Jim Keller. They'll be back in the game with Zen. The main question is how much market share they can claw back in the face of intels anti-competitive practices. Intel doesn't want to kill off AMD or they'll face anti-trust charges (so all the doomsday talk about AMD bankruptcy is overblown...intel would never allow that to happen, similar to how MS didn't let Apple go under). But, Intel likes AMD where they are...the red headed step child they can take behind the wood-shed occasionally when he gets uppity. We'll see if AMD can produce something that grabs people with Zen. One thing is for certain, even if it doesn't beat Skylake it will be far more competitive than the current situation.
GamingArena
Member
They can finally match i7-2600k next year
RenegadeXV8
Banned
AMD pulling a Core 2 "the new architecture was crap, let's revisit the old one" moment?
They kind of have to, considering Bulldozer's single-threaded performance was worse than Phenom 2 and they were never able to make Steamroller/Excavator work for high-performance parts.
On stock maybe, heh.
brain_stew
Member
I don't think they even have to match Haswell. While single thread performance will remain important for games, with DX12 having more cores and threads will offer big gains. Matching Ivy's IPC would be enough for me. Skylake looks to be another ~10% increase in IPC so it's not going to radically change the landscape.
I'm pleased they're sticking to their guns and not including integrated graphics in the FX range. It gives them an opportunity to complete against a 4 core, 4 thread CPU, with an 8 core, 16 thread CPU. As long as IPC is within 10-25% of Intel then they'll have a compelling alternative.
Intel has the biggest interest in AMD becoming competitve again.
I can see AMD delivering with Zen, but I don't think they will be on par with Intel in terms of IPC per thread. However, it is possible that AMD is pushing real 8 cores into the enduser market at a lower pricepoint than Intel.
If AMD can deliver an 8 or more core CPU for around 400/$, I'm in. And if any of you are interested in moving forward with CPU technology, you might want to consider your next gaming rig in 2016 to contain AMD parts. Otherwise we will be stuck on 4 cores and IPC gains of less than 5% per generation for the next decades.
brain_stew
Member
A shame there's no mention of HBM for the mainstream parts. Offering Xbone beating performance with integrated graphics could be more than possible if HBM was included with the higher end models. It could be a decent alternative for anyone on an extreme budget that wants to dip their toe into PC gaming.
brain_stew
Member
AMD have lost too much ground to be able to limit their high end to $400+ price points. They need to hit $250 (I.e. i5 K territory) in order to complete. Ditching integrated graphics should help.
An unlocked 8 core, 16 thread CPU with Ivy Bridge level IPC for $250 sounds compelling to me. They'll need something of that level to even enter the high end discussion again.
Well, if you put 8 of these things in a CPU then at least on paper it looks competitive.
I hope they can deliver.
AMD stuff always looks competitive on Paper. Then on release its outdone ez.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
True, although I did read a report that suggested Zen could be absurdly powerful - basically AMD going all-in in terms of perf/tech. If true, it would match Skylake and then some.
Anyway, I read only yesterday that Zen was going to be out in 2017 according to insiders, and that AMD had new APUs for next year only.
GhostTrick
Banned
Nothing ARM related ???
SneakyStephan
Banned
On topic:
Please please please please have IPC that rivals sandy bridge, that is all I ask for amd...
It would save the cpu market for consumers...
Oh pretty please
The proper core talk and the 'high IPC gains' make me hopeful.
None of this is true if you play games
the fx cpus have the same ipc than the phenom II
I have a phenom II, a friend of mine has an fx 8350
We both bitch to eachother about the cpus being guttertrash for certain games
fx8350 friend gets 30-40 fps in dirty bomb with megastuttering, which is the same I get with my 100 euro 3 core phenom II from 2009.
Every game that puts most of the load on one core (still quite a lot of games) and that is cpu demanding will run like trash on these things.
Also in the low end market the pentium anniversary and the i3 beat the pants off the amd variants in the same price bracket
Only thing amd beats intel at is integrated gpu performance, both are still shit.
Please please please please have IPC that rivals sandy bridge, that is all I ask for amd...
It would save the cpu market for consumers...
Oh pretty please
The proper core talk and the 'high IPC gains' make me hopeful.
None of this is true if you play games
the fx cpus have the same ipc than the phenom II
I have a phenom II, a friend of mine has an fx 8350
We both bitch to eachother about the cpus being guttertrash for certain games
fx8350 friend gets 30-40 fps in dirty bomb with megastuttering, which is the same I get with my 100 euro 3 core phenom II from 2009.
Every game that puts most of the load on one core (still quite a lot of games) and that is cpu demanding will run like trash on these things.
Also in the low end market the pentium anniversary and the i3 beat the pants off the amd variants in the same price bracket
Only thing amd beats intel at is integrated gpu performance, both are still shit.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
I'm not highly enthused by this given how low amd's r&d budget is. Hope they can pull something out of the bag for competitions sake though. And so that they continue making APU's, I have one of their richlands in my HTPC and it's great.
Nostremitus
Member
I wouldn't say both are shit. I installed Dragon Age Inquisition on my A10 HTPC just to see of the game would work on it. At 720p with low settings it was completely playable, I was expecting ~5 FPS... But got ~30-40fps... Its not amazing, but its far from shit considering its running on integrated graphics.
Also, on topic:
Please be good. I'd like to go back to AMD on my next CPU upgrade (I went from Phenom IIX6 1045T to an OC'd i5 2500K.) I prefer AMD as a company but they need to produce a comparable product.
The Abominable Snowman
Member
Will they survive 2015? Seriously... that looks dire for this year.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Your scare story is not helpful. The vast majority of games when running on a decent AMD CPU and paired with a good graphics cards will run decent, if not good. It's just that there are Intel CPUs out there that will help them run better. Of course a small number of CPU intensive games may show the CPU's limit.
But that's why AMD CPUs are cheap. You can build a good system with certain AMD CPUs on a budget. I'm running an i7 5820K and there's nothing from AMD that comes close. But I paid a premium for it and I acknowledge that you can still build a cheap and capable system on AMD if you wanted to.
I agree with you, but you're talking to no one in here. Gamers like to throw away money at stuff they'll never ever use.
an FX8300/i5 is perfectly fine for 1080p gaming, yet people will tell you you're retarted for not buying a 300 i7
They still have money to spend.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Instead of bringing up counter arguments(you have none) you try to dismiss what you don't like to hear as fanboy bias... talk about shitposting.
an i5 is more than fine (and I never said otherwise and I certainly have no brand loyalty to intel, strawman gladiator)
an fx8300 is not, it's going to hopelessly bottleneck you in quite a few games. It makes no sense to buy a cpu with super gimped IPC for gaming, especially not when an i5 will trash it and even an i3 will trash it at 60 fps in those cpu bottlenecked single thread games at half the price.
Which brings us back to the OP and how important it is for amd to catch up to at least sandy bridge when it comes to IPC.
If this zen cpu has good IPC I will upgrade my phenom II to one of these, just like I upgraded my ahtlon xp to phenom II in 2009
Trying to twist facts into fanboy wars helps noone.
Btw
Shows how much you know, what cpu you choose has nothing to do with what resolution you play at.
an i3 is enough for gaming at 60 fps (at 8k resolution if you got a gpu set up that's up for it!)
If they can find themselves into a similar position as the Phenom II vs Core 2 Quad in terms of IPC then they are going to be a lot more competitive than they have been for a long, long time. Not quite sure they can get there with their first iteration though but will wait and see.
The K7 and the K8 were both incredible CPU architectures compared to what Intel had at the time but I really cannot see a repeat as much as I would like there to be one.