What is this doing in a Zen / Summit Ridge benchmark thread? That's thead-crapping.
Xeon-D: 16C/32T @ 1.7 GHz OR 12C/24T @ 2.3 GHz at 65W TDP
What is this doing in a Zen / Summit Ridge benchmark thread? That's thead-crapping.
I don't care about 8c/16t CPU, I was talking about 4c/8t version, which would fit somewhere between i5 and i7. Intel is now selling Skylake i5 for ~200$ (6500 or 6600) and i7-6700 for ~300$. So ST performance of potential 4c/8t Zen based CPU will be lower than i5, and MT performance would probably be between i5 and i7. Plus, those CPUs won't have IGP, so OEMs need to add ~50$ dGPU, if they won't to sell it to advanced home or business users. It will not be competitive product if it costs more than 250$. And last, but not least, there will be no "Intel Inside" on the box So therefore I expect it to be positioned where FX-8350 was at launch, around 200$
Desktop / Server Zen Specifications (Rumor)
Frequency wall at 3.2 GHz?
If AMD has any hopes of regaining a large portion of the large enthusiast community (not just experts) it's a no-brainer to have two levels, at least, for AM4.cbn said:If that is the case maybe AMD needs to release a new AM4 platform with a higher TDP spec? (like they did with the FX chipset for the AM3+ platform)
That is a summary of clocks that originated from the leak on this very forum (the guy that was talking about ES core/clocks configuration AMD had thus far).Desktop / Server Zen Specifications (Rumor)
Frequency wall at 3.2 GHz?
That is a summary of clocks that originated from the leak on this very forum (the guy that was talking about ES core/clocks configuration AMD had thus far).
That is a summary of clocks that originated from the leak on this very forum (the guy that was talking about ES core/clocks configuration AMD had thus far).
Which were confirmed by the AoTS leak (at least for 95W AM4 part).
That is a summary of clocks that originated from the leak on this very forum (the guy that was talking about ES core/clocks configuration AMD had thus far).
Where did he say eg 2.750 all cores for a 32c part?? 2900 for 24c part?That is a summary of clocks that originated from the leak on this very forum (the guy that was talking about ES core/clocks configuration AMD had thus far).
True but I honestly doubt this is all AMD can get and will launch the retail SKUs at the same clock as the max ES clock. They gotta have 10-15% headroom within the same TDP and unless there is some uarchitecture clock wall there is no reason they shouldn't clock at 3.2/3.7Ghz when they launch.Which were confirmed by the AoTS leak (at least for 95W AM4 part).
Early 8 core prototypes (OR-A1) reached up to 3.6GHz at 95W. The fastest retail part at the same TDP operated 400MHz higher, three major and several minor revisions later (OR-B2G). The absolute fastest retail part, regardless of the TDP (125W) operated 600MHz higher than that (4.2GHz).
I was looking at those AotS benchmarks. A 3.00GHz 8 core i7-5960X scores 5700 ( on high setting), while a 4Ghz 4 core i7-6700K scores 6000. That is telling me that clockspeed is more important than number of cores in that particular benchmark. So, the Zen engineering sample has 8 cores, but is only clocked at 2.8Ghz and it scores 5000 - probably due more to the low clock speed.
I would tend to agree. It also puts Summit Ridge pretty close to the performance of a 5960X, which isn't too bad.
Guess we'll have to wait until someone does more extensive benchmarking before we can draw any real conclusions, then?
Did you even read the posts above mine? Someone said that 8C/16T at 2.1 GHz base is the best Intel got at similar/lower TDP, which is wrong (and I corrected).
If the others column are indeed right I'd like to share a little speculation:
Scale down both 24 and 32 core parts to 95W TDP with 8 core and clockspeed should be (using quadratic scaling for power)
2.75GHz*(95W/180W*4)^0.5 = 4 GHz
2.9GHz*(95W/180W*3)^0.5 = 4 GHz
Within a MHz, the two values are a bit too close to not mean anything... for a worst case use cubic scaling for power and the quad core could reach that same 4GHz at only 65W.
I hope the process does get better and they can reach those speeds, it smells too much of artificial limitation.
True but I honestly doubt this is all AMD can get and will launch the retail SKUs at the same clock as the max ES clock. They gotta have 10-15% headroom within the same TDP and unless there is some uarchitecture clock wall there is no reason they shouldn't clock at 3.2/3.7Ghz when they launch.