AtenRa
Lifer
- Feb 2, 2009
- 14,003
- 3,361
- 136
He's talking about the Zen based FX series.
It has no iGPU.
That doesnt mean they abandoning the APUs.
He's talking about the Zen based FX series.
It has no iGPU.
Lets say hypothetically that Samsung 14nm also clocks lower than 32nm.
will you same thing about 14nm?
I dont fault them for going out swinging, but I definitely question the way they are doing it.
They are going away from their area of expertise (APUs) just when HBM finally had a chance to really make the igp powerful enough to be a compelling purchase decision. And what about HSA? Why would a developer commit resources to HSA when AMD's only chip on their touted new architecture has no igpu? I thought even in servers HSA and microservers was supposed to be the magic sauce that would give them back marketshare. A major tenet of business planning is to concentrate on your own strengths and attack your competitor's weakest point. This is just the opposite, abandoning your greatest area of expertise (one the you paid 5 billion dollars for) and attacking the giant at their strongest point. This roadmap really does show that those who said AMD would be limited by their small research budget were in fact correct and not just picking on poor AMD.
Grand claims like Broadwell will be (insert xyz here) yeah I recall Intel parroting that line along with a number of posters on this forum or how Broadwell -> Skylake was to be a bigger leap than P4 -> CoreI, for one, dont expect AMD to reveal anything.
But I disagree with the handful of people making grand claims in the absence of information.
You are deeply confused.Grand claims like Broadwell will be (insert xyz here) yeah I recall Intel parroting that line along with a number of posters on this forum or how Broadwell -> Skylake was to be a bigger leap than P4 -> Core
14nm FF is not a regression over 32nm SOI or even 20nm SOI and certainly not over a 28nm Planar.
Also, HBM is a new tech and more expensive than DDR-3/DDR-4. And since AMD still has the lead in the APU performance both in Desktop and Mobile (in the low/mid price segments) they dont need to rush to release an HBM APU.
Doesn't the OP count ?You are deeply confused.
People may have referenced the original WCCF Tech article stating that, but find me someone who actually believed that.
Here is the thread, and not a single believer, yet you falsely claim people on this forum were peddling the new Conroe lie.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2425928
For cellphones and tablets, sure. Can you say the same thing about high power CPUs? I don't know where this confidence is coming from. How can you seriously use Intel as an example of clocks getting lower on finfet mobile oriented nodes, and then be convinced that AMD is immune to the same effect?
Mid price mobile? 15W Broadwell i5s have caught up to 19W Kaveri in graphics (Tomb Raider, Bioshock, not 3DMark) and pull farther ahead in CPU performance. There's a gap between CT/Core that AMD can currently squeeze into, but if AMD doesn't want to be "the cheaper solution" as they put it, then there's some serious execution work that needs doing across all of their product stack.
As he never stated he believed it, so clearly not.Doesn't the OP count ?
Yes, because it was a WCCFTech article.Secondly there is a good reason why that thread was based on a pile of BS,
What was Broadwell supposed to do that Haswell wasn't already doing?That was the point I was making & btw you didn't reply to the rest of my post as to how Intel hyped up Broadwell, with many posters here chiming in, or do you deny that too?
The big difference is that AMD supporters are claiming AMD will achieve market share gains, 5 to 10 times higher than AMD themselves have stated is likely.This thread is basically all speculation at this point just like 90% of the threads on AT & yet supposedly the AMD supporters are the only ones that make tall claims right, no one from Intel or any supporting Intel on this forum has done that ever have they?
Yeah, a *huge* market. That's why AMD is telling the guys that foot their bill tto expect a drop in revenue from this segment.Yeah there's definitely a market for high performance CPU in the enthusiast market. It fits perfectly with AMD's synergy given their high performance enthusiast class graphics capability. DX12, Mantle and Vulkan would have made that decision quite easy. A high performance, high core count/threaded ZenFX could very well be a gaming powerhouse.
The big difference is that AMD supporters are claiming AMD will achieve market share gains, 5 to 10 times higher than AMD themselves have stated is likely.
15W Broadwell i5s have caught up to 19W Kaveri in graphics (Tomb Raider, Bioshock, not 3DMark) and pull farther ahead in CPU performance.
Yeah, a *huge* market. That's why AMD is telling the guys that foot their bill tto expect a drop in revenue from this segment.
So, while I don't see it exactly the same way as you, the dog & pony show on Analyst day does appear to be designed to cover up this reality.
Yes, the return to high performance FX processors means people won't have to settle for intel's meager couple percentage point performance increases. Competition will be good! (well, maybe not for AMD shorts, but no one cares about them anyway. )
There is no particular reason to think that AMD, with access to a better process in 2016 (14nm FinFET+), could not do 8 high-IPC cores at 4.0 GHz stock if they wanted to. AMD is traditionally more aggressive about running their chips (both CPUs and GPUs) closer to the margins than Intel.
Oh so you want a signed statement is it, guess what no does that on AT & if the OP wasn't expecting such results (even for a sec) he would've stated his position in the first few pages itself wouldn't he? By the same token no one here has stated explicitly that Zen will be x times better than BD or y times more efficient, will sell z multiples more than what opterons are selling today.As he never stated he believed it, so clearly not.
Yes, because it was a WCCFTech article.
What was Broadwell supposed to do that Haswell wasn't already doing?
Oh hey look here now what would you call that - prediction, statement whatever else?And how about providing some actual quotes of ridiculous Broadwell claims by posters here.
You have already been proven wrong about posters here believing Skylake was another Conroe, you lack the credibility to be given the benefit of any doubt, so produce the quotes by forum members here, if they exist.
No, AFAIK no one has put a number as to what AMD will or will not achieve in the next two years, as for me I don't even know what AMD said their expectations was, so for you to say 5~10 times (boy that's some margin you've got covered) marketshare gains were predicted is disingenuous to say the least.The big difference is that AMD supporters are claiming AMD will achieve market share gains, 5 to 10 times higher than AMD themselves have stated is likely.
That is total detachment from reality.
It appears that despite being made fools of over Bulldozer, the same people are lining up again to predict super dooper things for AMD.
Oh hey look here now what would you call that, prediction, statement whatever else?
No, AFAIK no one has put a number as to what AMD will or will not achieve in the next two years, as for me I don't even know what AMD said their expectations was, so for you to say 5~10 times (boy that's some margin you've got covered) marketshare gains were predicted is disingenuous to say the least.
Yes, a 65W BDW chip, at stock I presume, beating a ~90W Haswell part clocked to its limit? The answer is obvious isn't it, unless the poster was hoping for some magic resultsDid you even read the post you linked?
Yes, a 65W BDW chip, at stock I presume, beating a ~90W Haswell part clocked to its limit? The answer is obvious isn't it, unless the poster was hoping for some magic results
You can find similar statements in this thread & vilify them plus hang the poster so why double standards now?
So I guess the poster was just trolling?Nobody claimed such thing in the post you linked.
Did you even read the post you linked?
Actually they did. People even started to dream about 30-40% PC marketshare if you look back in the thread. AMD expects flat to negative.
1. The Globalfoundries 14nm FF LPP can scale from low power to high performance devices. It is not be made for low power cellphones only.
2. ZEN is a new mArchitecture, It is designed for the 14nm FF from the start. Much like Broadwell and Skylake.
And if you have a look at Intels 22nm FF products, Haswell Refresh clocks (Core i7 4790K) are higher than 32nm SandyBridge (4GHz vs 3.5GHz) at lower TDP (with higher iGPU performance). And this was not an entire new mArch over SB like ZEN will be over BD.
Where did you see AMD talking about marketshare ??
So I guess the poster was just trolling?
Where did you see AMD talking about marketshare ??