HSW to BDW-E is 3.3% IPC jump according to AT. Do you think that difference really matters much?
The article is worthless. Almost every single "financial analysts" writing these articles has a bachelor's degree in business management from their local college and think reading forums and a wiki page makes them qualified to write these articles.AMD stock is likely rising because of a recent column in Barron's saying that the stock could double in a year.
http://www.barrons.com/articles/this-time-amds-revival-is-for-real-1486188068
If AMD has a great server chip*, and if yields are good, and if the market accepts AMD server chips, and if Intel drops the ball when they release their next server chips this summer, then AMD has huge potential gain. The server market is massive and AMD has been cut down to a lean company without much excess cost. If all of those are true, then AMD could easily be worth $25/share (or more). But, that is a lot of "ifs".
AMD always shoots up before a launch. Most of the time, if falls back down after a short period. Either the AMD launch wasn't as hyped, or Intel responded (often by putting in one more top processor and knocking all other processors down one price range). I think AMD isn't $25/share now due to this risk.
* I speak of server chips because Ryzen seems to be geared for that at launch.
If it really is ~3% then Ryzen should have no problem being Broadwell-E level.HSW to BDW-E is 3.3% IPC jump according to AT. Do you think that difference really matters much?
16 threads at launch is not a gaming CPU, nor is it a typical business CPU, nor is it a cheap home CPU. The 4 core Ryzen won't come until much later this summer. At best you could call it a high-end workstation CPU which is basically the same as a low end server.Ryzen is 0% geared towards server at launch. Naples 32c part in 2Q Wil target the server/enterprise market.
16 threads at launch is not a gaming CPU, nor is it a typical business CPU, nor is it a cheap home CPU. The 4 core Ryzen won't come until much later this summer.
That isn't what the rumors have been saying. Nor were the AMD Blender benchmarks geared towards gamers.AMD said they are having top to bottom launch, meaning 4C/6C/8C variants launching at the same time in March. Also they said it won't be "paper" launch either.
That isn't what the rumors have been saying. Nor were the AMD Blender benchmarks geared towards gamers.
What have the rumors been saying? And yes 8c cpu is gaming/content creation for consumers.That isn't what the rumors have been saying. Nor were the AMD Blender benchmarks geared towards gamers.
I've heard August, but that is just a rumor. We'll know in a month.What have the rumors been saying? And yes 8c cpu is gaming/content creation for consumers.
I've heard August, but that is just a rumor. We'll know in a month.
And you are right, 16 threads does so well in gaming (roll eyes):
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10337...6900k-6850k-and-6800k-tested-up-to-10-cores/9
I've heard August, but that is just a rumor. We'll know in a month.
And you are right, 16 threads does so well in gaming (roll eyes):
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10337...6900k-6850k-and-6800k-tested-up-to-10-cores/9
6900K @ stock offers ~89% of 6700K's performance in games. That is great showing for 16T CPU that has 13.5% lower max. ST Turbo clock.
You'll need to spoon feed me with that link. The top performer is a 4-core part. But, that is a far newer part. So, looking at the next two performers as they were both the same generation and the 6-core is basically identical to the 4-core. Again, I just don't see that as proving that we need 16 threads to game.Cores can help in several newer AAA games http://www.techspot.com/review/1180-overwatch-benchmarks/page5.html and it's not always about averages but 0.1% frame times that become visible with some lower core/thread count CPUs in other games as well. And that's at the stock speeds, which tend to leave a large percent of overclocking headroom vs the lower core variants.
Also, running a single player benchmark is not the same as playing on a 64-player BF1 server with lower core counts.
So, the processor with more cores was slower, and triple the price, so I'm supposed be convinced to buy the processor with more cores to game?Try more CPU limited review like this one:
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/946-6/performances-jeux-3d.html
6900K @ stock offers ~89% of 6700K's performance in games. That is great showing for 16T CPU that has 13.5% lower max. ST Turbo clock.
I have found a link to a PDF explaining the AVFS, behind a paywall, on IEEExplorer. Since i am a researcher, my organization has access to this article and i read it.
In short, for Carrizo (and almost surely for all subsequent products) there are 10 units spread across the chips each of which have 50 replica of critical path circuits (for a total of 500) and with a complex circuit collect statistics on its delay at various Vcore, to calculate Fmax at those Vcores. This Statistic is calculated on demand by microcode or SMU and allow to precisely know what Vcore apply to a certain frequency. Obviously in Zen this will be useful also to calculate the Fmax, given the current situation (temperature, chip age, and so on)...
Hmm. Only in the case of XFR, it looks like there is no limit to the clockspeeds that can be reached in this fashion. Carrizo/Bristol Ridge still seem to be limited (or biased strongly towards) p-states.
You'll need to spoon feed me with that link. The top performer is a 4-core part. But, that is a far newer part. So, looking at the next two performers as they were both the same generation and the 6-core is basically identical to the 4-core. Again, I just don't see that as proving that we need 16 threads to game.
So, the processor with more cores was slower, and triple the price, so I'm supposed be convinced to buy the processor with more cores to game?
Would we be able to get a worthwhile manual overclock above the XFR auto-overclock? If we can only get 100Mhz, for example, it wouldn't be worth the effort.
Did you link to what you intended to link to? Here is what I'm seeing in your link:4 core / 8 thread vs 4 core / 4 thread has a huge gap. This shows that the game is using the extra threads available.
SMT logical cores aren't as effective as the equivalent number of physical cores. Hence, if this game is able to utilize 8 logical threads, then there is room for improvement having 8 physical cores. Probably best seen in maximum frame times, which equates to less stuttering, and smoother gameplay experience.
I agree with this bolded part - of the many people saying that they will purchase and manually overclock - what is the benefit if the turbo here is governed by only a thermal cap. Wouldn't leaving a lower base clock allow for more thermal headroom when the CPU power is needed as XFR kicks in. Is the delay too slow?The problem with manual overclock is that usually you disable turbo and seek a fixed frequency that must be stable under all conditions. The only creative OC modes that can be better than XFR are FSB OC leaving P-state unchanged or P-state editing. But XFR is better because adjust frequency dynamically based also on CPU temperature... So after long idle with fresh CPU it will give higher clock...
Did you link to what you intended to link to? Here is what I'm seeing in your link:
What I think you are seeing is the cache effect, since threads didn't help.
- 6700K (4 Core / 8 Thread) beats all. Doesn't make me want more threads for gaming.
- 4960X (6 Core / 12 Thread) is essentially tied with the lower clocked 4770K (4 Core / 8 Thread). Doesn't make me want more threads for gaming.
- 5960X (8 Core / 16 Thread) is the slowest of all i7 processors. Doesn't make me want more threads for gaming.
- The 4770k (8 MB Cache) does beat the identically clocked 4690k (6 MB cache).
lol neogaf think stock rises because of scorpio, pathetic.^^ why are AMD stocks rising so fast it is becouse of Ryzen if it is how does unreleased and untested CPU rises stocks so high?