That was kinda my point.
Most people don't need an i7 yet people act like its the go-to CPU for everything.
-
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
That was kinda my point.
Most people don't need an i7 yet people act like its the go-to CPU for everything.
Nostremitus
Member
I'll just drop this here...
I think it's fairly relevant, especially with DX12 around the corner. There aren't many games coming out that rely on a single core anymore and DX12 and Vulkan will make threaded gaming even more evenly distributed and take chunk of the workload off of CPUs.
http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedi...-with-gtx-980-vs-gtx-780-sli-at-4k/index.html
E-Cat
Member
TSMC's 20nm has 1.9x the density, 30% higher speeds or 25% less power consumption than their 28nm process.
TSMC's 16FF+ has 2x the density, 65% higher speeds or 70% less power consumption than their 28nm process.
So basically, 20nm was crippled due to poor power savings. 16FF+ is 20nm with FinFET, along with slightly better area scaling and additional power savings. 28nm --> 16nm is like a typical node transition+. We should see some pretty kickass GPUs in 2016.
Moore's Law will march on with 10nm in late 2017/early 2018.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Noone in this thread is acting like you need an i7, noone. You're just making up strawmen.
That article compares an i7 with the amd fx
It makes much more sense to buy an i5 (which does not cost 180 dollars more) which will not cpu bottleneck any games
An i7 is indeed shitty value for gaming.
Also if you are on a very tight budget it also makes way more sense to just buy an i3 (won't bottleneck at 60 fps in games) as it's way cheaper than an fx8350.
and dx12 is great I cannot wait, but the sad fact is that right now no current games support it, that in the future not all games will support it (especially during the first 2-3 years) and that there are RIGHT NOW games out that will run poorly on the amd fx 8350
It's crazy to put down 180 euros for an amd fx 8350 and another 100 for a motherboard when it's already shit in some games before you even bought it.
Which again brings me on topic:
please amd deliver us from this shitty intel monopoly so we can enjoy some competitive pricing in midrange cpu market again
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Yeah I think DX12 and Vulkan are good news for AMD on both the CPU/GPU side of things. Both will be more of a factor in 2016 when the Zen is released too.
if they are only going to be hitting "14nm" next year, does that risk PS4/XB1 coming out with shrinks this year? If they are stuck on 28nm then you are limited on how much you can physically shrink the console because the cooling requirements aren't changing, and you aren't getting any cost reduction from die shrinks other than usual economies of scale.
I doubt it.
Worst case EU fines Intel.
Yeah Jaguar isn't shrinking until they get larger die 14nm node at good yields, that's a long time away.
"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."
That Zen image gives me hope, especially if memory latency is fixed.
Should come close to skylake but won't beat it. The real interest will be in the APUs and whether HBM is going to be involved, which will make their APUs the goto for htpc.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
AMD are doing
new architecture x new process
the ps4/bone designs will be:
old architecture x new process
So it's somewhat easier and can happen earlier, assuming the process isn't garbage. AMD woud probably welcome sony/ms asking them to do this, as they'd get to test out the process with less risk to them. I don't think MS/sony would want to do that though as it'd be pretty costly to be the pioneer for large die 14nm cpu.
It doesn't risk it. It simply isn't happening this year, 20nm is unsuitable for anything but low power SoC production. All the Foundries (other than intel) are still spinning up volume production of 16nm/14nm nodes. Then you have the waiting list to see when ms and sony get their SoCs into production.
Edit: shrinks of the Console? unlikely, but the consoles are constantly being revised. The PS4 PCB is already a work of art in minimalism when compared to the XB1 so I think MS can probably drop a few components and simplify the design but otherwise both consoles are limited by heat envelopes.
Nostremitus
Member
RIGHT NOW is you say, those benchmarks show the AMD chips doing fine, even against i7s... I don't follow your logic. The i3 is good but it can't be overclocked and you're giving up threads that help in non-gaming situations. i7s don't lose IPC that the i5s have as far as I know. So those benchmarks showing how it's performing against i7s are completely relevant to the discussion.
If Intel had decided to keep pushing forward with performance without regard to power consumption or heat, then it would be a different story.
As it stands, the FX chips aren't as bad as people make them out to be, they are power hungry and hot, but they don't run like shit.
When I upgraded my GPU, I bought my wife an Athlon 860K to pair with my old GPU (ROG MATRIX 7970) She's playing Skyrim with mods, Dragon Age Inquisition, and even old games like the Mass Effect Trilogy without any issues at all, and that's using a $75 AMD quad core. If she were going for 120+ FPS, then yes, she'd definitely need an i5 or i7, but for 1080/60... not really... AMD makes good low and midrange CPUs, just not high end or enthusiast, and their midrange CPUs swap blows with Intel's enthusiast chips on heavily threaded games.
My CPU has an i5 and I love it, but that doesn't mean that a 10% worse performing chip is utter shit, especially when said chip is more than 10% cheaper. It just means it's not as good.
What are these odd 'fps' metrics that are being thrown around? Are they rendering films or playing games?
Nostremitus
Member
What are these odd 'fps' metrics that are being thrown around? Are they rendering films or playing games?
So moments of frame stutter negate everything? Still doesn't mean shit, just means not as good. Also, is that the only benchmark of note? It's the same one I always see thrown out in these discussions. It's almost like you're cherry picking the most CPU intensive game you can find a benchmark for.
Don't go down this road. AMD's cpus are shocking. there is no question to it. We can only hope they get their shit in gear with Zen to make the market competitive again.
Than a Pentium.
Those are cases when CPU power really counts. Nobody cares about good performance when things are smooth, but how big the drops are and that's where any AMD will still fall flat on its face compared to an Intel CPU.
An i3 also means big savings in motherboard and PSU which is hidden from the cost. There are niche cases where an FX can be a good buy (rendering), but for gaming an Intel CPU is a safer option. Old games also don't just disappear as evident by Skyrim which only uses two cores.
Nostremitus
Member
It's a valid discussion. AMD chips are not as good as Intel. They aren't competitive on the high end. But for a mid range CPU, they're ok. Being mediocre isn't the same as being utter shit is all I'm saying. If they were selling them for the same price as an i5, then yes, totally shit for the price, but they aren't.
I agree though, that this is all getting a bit off topic.
Valid point on the motherboard, but I'd spend for a PSU anyway. Cheap PSUs are dangerous.
Exactly.
AMD stuff will struggle in any CPU bound game, there are numerous benchmarks out there. If anyone is seriously thinking about PC gaming and buys an AMD CPU they need their head examined. They're not competitive at any price point.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Those benchmarks don't show 1 thread reliant cpu heavy games.
Idk what you're talking about with the i7
yes the i5 has similar IPC to the i7, that's what makes it so much more interesting for gaming purposes than the i7 right now (which actually might change once dx12 is here, btw, but I would never recommend anyone making a purchase decision based on what ifs, especially not with gaming hardware)i7s are more expensive and not much faster than i5s in games, noone is telling you to buy an i7, you are ignoring the i5 and i3 ^^
and since you have one of those trashy amd apus, go ahead and install natural selection 2, dirty bomb, arma 3, world of tanks, ac unity (though I hear they finally patched that game? it ran like shittttttttt on fx8350s at launch and in the months after) and let me know how your performance is.
The games you mentioned are a frostbite game (one of the few engines that currently scale really well with more cores, it's an exception not the rule), ancient last gen console games that don't stress the cpu -I can get 100 fps on them too with my 2009 budget cpu- and skyrim which again isn't very cpu demanding.
Try some actual cpu reliant games like the ones I listed and come back to me. It will not be pretty
Again, i'm using a phenom II which has almost exactly the same ipc as the amd fx cpus, I live this low ipc hell every day, I speak from experience.
They're not ok man, not for gaming
an i3 and even a pentium are ok (BECAUSE they have similar IPC to a 350 dollar i7 and even an 800 dollar 8 core intel cpu)
the amd cpus will all give you terrible minimum framerates (which results in stutter), which is a much more meaningful metric than average fps for gaming.
You're paying 280 euros for an amd fx+mobo and the experience you'll be getting in cpu dependant games will be SHIT.
That is why you cannot recommend an amd fx to anyone for gaming, because the experience will be shit.
Buy an i3 if you're on a budget, it's cheaper, it does fine in all games and your experience will never be shit.
You're just giving people terrible advice, advice that will cause buyer's remorse in people you mislead. And for what? for the sake of 'fairness'?
This isn't a case of one being faster than the other but both being good for games (e.g one does 90 fps the other 150 fps or w/e) , it's a case of one being below the minimum requirements for a good experience in pc gaming.
AMD cpus are below the minimum requirements for a good gaming experience, full stop.
The zen cpus are an opportunity to have an amd alternative that is above these minimum requirements, and that is what we are all rooting for in this thread.
It depends on how well the node is working. 40nm was an awkward node so AMD used the 4770 as a pipe cleaner before the launch of the 5xxx series. It allowed them to take a well known design and sort out any issues with the process before making larger dies on it. With them being stuck at 28nm for so long I can see it happening again and the console SoCs seem like pretty good candidates. Not sure when it will happen though but if it does I would expect it to happen towards the end of this year so that they can make tweaks in anticipation for the 4xx GPU series in 2016.
The first to market with 14nm GPUs will get a huge boost in sales because I expect performance gains over the previous gen to be much, much higher than we have seen recently so for AMD it is imperitive they get theirs out before NV to have any hope of gaining back some market share.
intels i3's match amd's "high end" cpu's and when the i3's use less power and cost around the same why would you buy an AMD part?
And have an upgrade path too.
Nostremitus
Member
Hi Kharma.
I'm not saying that AMD CPUs are good, just that they aren't utter shit. I'm not advocating for people to purchase them.
Those benchmarks don't show 1 thread reliant cpu heavy games.
Idk what you're talking about with the i7
i7s are more expensive and not much faster than i5s in games, noone is telling you to buy an i7, you are ignoring the i5 and i3 ^^
and since you have one of those trashy amd apus, go ahead and install natural selection 2, dirty bomb, arma 3, world of tanks, ac unity (though I hear they finally patched that game? it ran like shittttttttt on fx8350s at launch and in the months after) and let me know how your performance is.
The games you mentioned are a frostbite game (one of the few engines that currently scale really well with more cores, it's an exception not the rule), ancient last gen console games that don't stress the cpu -I can get 100 fps on them too with my 2009 budget cpu- and skyrim which again isn't very cpu demanding.
Try some actual cpu reliant games like the ones I listed and come back to me. It will not be pretty
Again, i'm using a phenom II which has almost exactly the same ipc as the amd fx cpus, I live this low ipc hell every day, I speak from experience.
I wasn't ignoring the i5 or i3 at all. I was just saying that the IPC shouldn't be that different between them so benchmarks using an i7 should count as if you were benching an i5 or i3...
How many major 1 thread reliant CPU heavy games are coming out these days?
Serious question because I don't know. The only one I remember recently was the terrible Final Fantasy XIII port.
I've also never said that the AMD CPUs are good, just that they aren't complete shit.
Skyrim with 200+mods active can get CPU hungry, the older games have high single thread reliance, and the Frostbyte game is CPU hungry when you only have 4 "half-cores."
Do WoW or Starcraft 2 count as CPU reliant games? It plays those pretty well, I overclocked her CPU to 4.0GHz..
AMD doesn't make high end CPUs. They make low and mid.
Also, I'm not personally advocating the purchase of AMD parts, just that calling them utter shit is hyperbole.
I've never stated that AMD CPUs are better than Intel or a better buy than Intel chips. I think it's funny that I've spent this much time on chips I don't like. I like AMD GPUs but have always been dissatisfied with their CPUs. Yes, even the ones I mentioned earlier... Sometimes especially them... but them not being great CPUs and me not liking them doesn't mean they are complete shit CPUs either.
It's getting late and I'm finishing a course for work and have to test out in the morning. I'm gonna get off the computer and go study. I apologize if i worded things that made it seem as though I was saying that AMD chips were better than Intel... that wasn't my intent... Only that "not as good" doesn't equal "complete shit."
Also, we should wrap this up anyway as the thread is kind of derailing at the moment and I don't want to continue contributing to an environment that may stifle discussion of the thread topic. Sorry about that OP.
If anyone has anything further to discuss, hit me up in a PM. I won't try to change your mind, but try to explain my reasoning for believing that just because something isn't the best doesn't mean that it's automatically horrible.
SneakyStephan
Banned
at the bolded, sadly too many, and many of them are excellent games (dirty bomb and ns2 are two of the best pc gaming has to offer)
Games that put 90 percent of the load on a single thread should not exist, but they do , it's the unfortunate reality. And if you want to play them (and many of them are good games) then you want a cpu with high IPC, which amd does not currently have.
Not as good doesn't equal shit is generally true yes, but in this case the current amd cpus are indeed shit for these games.
Please save us zen architecture
The IPC that amd cpus offer was ok back in the phenom II days (2008-2009, my cpu was what you describe, back then, it was not as good as intel but it was still good for gaming -I was not cpu bottlenecked in anything except sc2 and if you were a starcraft player you definitely wanted an i5 or i7 instead) , and most importantly it was dirt dirt dirt cheap)
But over the years more and more and more and even more games (and at a faster rate) came/come out where this thing is bottlenecking me hard, and in too many cases it's because the game puts too much load on one core so amd could release a 1024 core fx cpu and it would not matter one bit if the IPC was still the same. My cpu is only a 3 core and in some of these games the other 2 cores are still half idling ..
This IPC performance is no longer adequate for gaming, it was 6 years ago but not today.
If there was no arma, ns2, dirty bomb etc etc then the amd fx would be a viable alternative to the i5, but we don't live in that world.
Nostremitus
Member
at the bolded, sadly too many, and many of them are excellent games (dirty bomb and ns2 are two of the best pc gaming has to offer)
Games that put 90 percent of the load on a single thread should not exist, but they do , it's the unfortunate reality. And if you want to play them (and many of them are good games) then you want a cpu with high IPC, which amd does not currently have.
Not as good doesn't equal shit is generally true yes, but in this case the current amd cpus are indeed shit for these games.
Please save us zen architecture
The IPC that amd cpus offer was ok back in the phenom II days (2008-2009, my cpu was what you describe, back then, it was not as good as intel but it was still good for gaming -I was not cpu bottlenecked in anything except sc2 and if you were a starcraft player you definitely wanted an i5 or i7 instead) , and most importantly it was dirt dirt dirt cheap)
But over the years more and more and more and even more games (and at a faster rate) came/come out where this thing is bottlenecking me hard.
This IPC performance is no longer adequate for gaming, it was 6 years ago but not today.
If there was no arma, ns2, dirty bomb etc etc then the amd fx would be a viable alternative to the i5, but we don't live in that world.
Ok, one last post. Which Phenom do you have? Because I went from the Phenom IIX6 1045T 2.7GHz locked multiplier (bought it about 6 years ago) before I bought a used 2500K that I'm using now and the Athlon 860K quad core seems to run circles around it (The Phenom.)
The only reason my wife has a 860K build is because I'd ordered the wrong motherboard when buying for my HTPC. I figured that having a spare motherboard would be easier than the return process so I kept it... So when I upgraded my GPU, I bought a cheap CPU for it and put it to work in a quick and easy budget build for my wife so she'd stop complaining about the games that weren't coming out on Mac OS.
jfoul
Member
AMD Zen-based 8-core Desktop CPU Arrives in 2016, on Socket FM3
"AMD "Summit Ridge" will be an 8-core CPU built on the 14 nanometer silicon fab process. It will feature eight "Zen" cores, with 512 KB of L2 cache per core, 16 MB of L3 cache, with 8 MB shared between two sets of four cores, each; a dual-channel integrated memory controller that likely supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory types; and an integrated PCI-Express gen 3.0 root complex, with a total of 22 lanes. We can deduce this from the fact that "Summit Ridge" will be built in the same upcoming socket FM3 package, which the company's "Bristol Ridge" Zen-based APU will be built on. "Summit Ridge" will hence be more competitive with Intel's 6th generation Core "Skylake" processors, such as the i7-6700K and i5-6600K, than the company's "Broadwell-E" HEDT platform."
"The mainstream APU based on Zen, codenamed "Bristol Ridge," features four Zen cores, 512 KB of L2 cache, 8 MB of shared L3 cache, an integrated GPU based on AMD's "Greenland" class stream processors, and a similar uncore loadout as "Summit Ridge."
"AMD "Summit Ridge" will be an 8-core CPU built on the 14 nanometer silicon fab process. It will feature eight "Zen" cores, with 512 KB of L2 cache per core, 16 MB of L3 cache, with 8 MB shared between two sets of four cores, each; a dual-channel integrated memory controller that likely supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory types; and an integrated PCI-Express gen 3.0 root complex, with a total of 22 lanes. We can deduce this from the fact that "Summit Ridge" will be built in the same upcoming socket FM3 package, which the company's "Bristol Ridge" Zen-based APU will be built on. "Summit Ridge" will hence be more competitive with Intel's 6th generation Core "Skylake" processors, such as the i7-6700K and i5-6600K, than the company's "Broadwell-E" HEDT platform."
"The mainstream APU based on Zen, codenamed "Bristol Ridge," features four Zen cores, 512 KB of L2 cache, 8 MB of shared L3 cache, an integrated GPU based on AMD's "Greenland" class stream processors, and a similar uncore loadout as "Summit Ridge."
DouglasteR
Member
The last thing AMD need now is something "zen".
They need something AGRESSIVE !
Otherwise i dont see a 2016-7 for AMD
They need something AGRESSIVE !
Otherwise i dont see a 2016-7 for AMD
LordOfChaos
Member
Yeah, from another thread:
Basically:
TSMC 16nm is 16nm FEOL + 20nm BEOL
Samsung 14nm is 14nm FEOL + 20nm BEOL
Only Intel is 14nm FEOL + 14nm BEOL
http://www.kitguru.net/components/g...smc-we-will-close-the-gap-with-intel-at-10nm/
http://www.kitguru.net/components/a...tion-of-chips-using-14nm-finfet-process-tech/
Intel 14nm vs Samsung 14nm vs TSMC 16nm
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/195897-samsung-and-apple-team-up-on-14nm-chips-expected-in-2015
Almost makes you feel dirty calling Samsungs and other plants "14nm" that, it's more an advertising point than any sort of parity with Intel.
E-Cat
Member
TSMC's FinFET+ is a bit smaller than the regular FinFET used in that example, though. And it will be the lion's share of their "16nm" output.
Anyway, the most important factor is scaling between the generations from the same manufacturer. In exponential growth, it's the coefficient that matters, not the constant.
As much as I'd love to I don't think I can wait that long. I could wait until January 2016 but I have a feeling it'll be close to January 2017 before it's out. It's disappointing that consumer Skylake parts will top out at 4 cores. I could be happy with an AMD "almost 8 core" part as long as its IPC was at least comparable to Intel.
So what's the difference between 20nm and 14nm with FF? Or is there no difference at all?
Agent_4Seven
Tears of Nintendo
Well, it's been almost 10 years (if I recall correctly) since AMD FX processors was most powerful CPU for gaming on a planet. Maybe this time AMD will rise again? Well, better late than never I think (^__^)
anexanhume
Member
Yup! The quoted post by 1st course above explains it much better than I did.
Yikes, only 22 PCI-E 3.0 lanes? That's ok for mainstream but they need an enthusiast option.
Hm... only PCI-E 3.0; isn't PCI-E 4.0 supposed to be rolling out sometime in 2016? Skylake-E will almost certainly have it; maybe mainstream Cannonlake will as well (late 2016/early 2017).
This thread isn't very zen
If people think i7 is go to I've failed.
14nm and IPC gains and also more room to shove high TDP POWERRRRR parts is all good news. I really want a real low priced budget entry again in the build sheets. Please make a good cheap OCable quad!
On the Intel vs AMD thing it isn't hate, is making the best investment for having performance with an upgrade path. The responses I see are 'it is good enough', but if a CPU is not pushing 60FPS (Amd at 4.0 to me is NOT OK for WoW/SC2) it's a serious problem if the competition can.
PCI-E lanes help keep costs down and crazy people can always get a mono with an extra chip that redirects bandwidth even if it isn't ideal.
If people think i7 is go to I've failed.
14nm and IPC gains and also more room to shove high TDP POWERRRRR parts is all good news. I really want a real low priced budget entry again in the build sheets. Please make a good cheap OCable quad!
On the Intel vs AMD thing it isn't hate, is making the best investment for having performance with an upgrade path. The responses I see are 'it is good enough', but if a CPU is not pushing 60FPS (Amd at 4.0 to me is NOT OK for WoW/SC2) it's a serious problem if the competition can.
PCI-E lanes help keep costs down and crazy people can always get a mono with an extra chip that redirects bandwidth even if it isn't ideal.
Caayn
Member
Chart seems strange. Why does a 0.5Ghz higher clocked cpu(i7 4790k vs i7 4770k) makes a bigger difference than an i5 2500k vs an i7 4770kWhat are these odd 'fps' metrics that are being thrown around? Are they rendering films or playing games?
anexanhume
Member
I wouldn't sweat that. Spec finalizes late next year and single GPUs don't immediately take advantage of full bandwidth.
https://www.pcisig.com/news_room/faqs/FAQ_PCI_Express_4.0/
It's not practicality I'm worried about, just find it interesting.
anexanhume
Member
Valid. If this proves to be a success, no doubt they'll go for a more enthusiast option is the subsequent rev. Either way, they have time to do a PCIE 4.0 rev.
LordOfChaos
Member
Ehh, I think that may be a bit on the dogmatic side. The FX-6300 in the 100 dollar range for example is competing with Intel dual cores. And yes, you may get better performance with an Intel dual in many current games. The issue being some games are now setting four physical cores as a hard limit, even if the dual would perform better. It's silly, but it's a reality that I think will only grow.
So you have that decision to make. Dual core Pentium which may have better frame times, but is locked out of certain games, or take those couple of late rendered frames for ensured compatibility with games of future core-iness.
Plus, DX12 does show scaling up to six cores.
In the $100 range the FX 6300 isn't competing with the pentium, it's competing with the i3.
LordOfChaos
Member
THe Pentium is a bit under, the i3 is a bit over, fair enough. Tomshardware rated the 6300 as the best for 100, the i3 as best for 120, and the Pentium as best for 80. Still could hit that hard limit of a quad in (admittedly few so far) some games though, just the same.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-2.html
Going by PCPartPicker both the i3 4150 and 4160 are available for under $100. The 4150 is $93.99 and the 4160 is $99.95.
By contrast the FX 6300 is $96.95. Both seem similarly priced to me. The Pentium isn't $80 either. The one to get, the overclockable G3258, is $64.98.
Four threads isn't a limiting factor either in the majority of games, and if you can even give a handful where the FX can beat a Haswell i3 I'd be very surprised. Might get one or two, likely no more.
LordOfChaos
Member
Right, that's what I'm saying though. The i3 will perform better in most games, but some games are now becoming obligate quad core.
So the decision becomes, more frames rendered past **ms, vs the risk of more and more games not supporting duals at all.
http://www.pcper.com/news/Processor...ual-Core-Processors-Budget-Landscape-Shifting
Some games are mandating 4 cores, and since the i3 has 4 threads that's a non-issue for it. Far Cry 4 and DA:I had no issues. Only the Pentium's were affected by that.
Makes sense from my layman view... in AMD's older charts, the ARM version is positoned towards lower power draw usage.
Apparently K12 is a much 'fatter' core compared to A57, given how AMD pack 2x K12 (14nm) vs 4x A57 (20nm) in the same SDP (God, I hate this metric).
(a cross-post from the other similar thread)