Future PC Upgrade (Skylake or Zen)

[ShintaiDK]

The 16nm node used to build the A9 is 16FF+.

Are you sure? 16FF+ seems to be a 2016 process. And will be used for the A10.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Are you sure? 16FF+ seems to be a 2016 process. And will be used for the A10.

99.9% sure

 

[Fjodor2001]

Just look in the Apple thread. Battery run test on Samsung and TSMC. 6 vs 8 hours. (Then add the static usage from the rest of the phone)

I guess you mean this:

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/10/i...gests-bad-cpu-can-give-20-lower-battery-life/

Interesting. So then we got a chip lottery going on with the current Apple phones.

Anyway, I don't see how you got from 7h50m/6h5m=470m/365m=> 29% to 50%?

Also, maybe the Samsung process tech is more focused on high performance/clocks, where as TSMC is focused on low power consumption? Both chips are locked at the same max clock, so we cannot tell that by benchmarks.

Also, Samsung has better transistor density (Samsung: 96 mm^2, TSMC 104.5mm^2) for the same A9 chip:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9665/apples-a9-soc-is-dual-sourced-from-samsung-tsmc

There's always trade offs. Decisions, decisions, when prioritizing process tech metrics.

 

[Enigmoid]

I guess you mean this:

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/10/i...gests-bad-cpu-can-give-20-lower-battery-life/

Interesting. So then we got a chip lottery going on with the current Apple phones.

Anyway, I don't see how you got from 7h50m/6h5m=470m/365m=> 29% to 50%?

Other components such as the screen, RAM, antenna, etc suck a lot of power.

 

[Fjodor2001]

Other components such as the screen, RAM, antenna, etc suck a lot of power.

Yeah, but that should be the same, regardless of if the A9 chip is from TSMC or Samsung. Or what do you mean?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Yeah, but that should be the same, regardless of if the A9 chip is from TSMC or Samsung. Or what do you mean?

It means that to get 2 hours more from the SoC difference alone, it needs to be a lot more efficient than the total phones compared. So its a lot higher than 29%.

 

[Fjodor2001]

It means that to get 2 hours more from the SoC difference alone, it needs to be a lot more efficient than the total phones compared. So its a lot higher than 29%.

Ok, I see what you mean. But aren't there any benchmarks that have been run with e.g. display and radio networks switched off to isolate the CPU part of the power consumption?

 

[DrMrLordX]

if AMD delivers 40% more IPC than Piledriver (which is what they've stated),

No. AMD said that Zen will have 40% higher IPC than Excavator, not Piledriver. Big difference.

 

[Gunbuster]

I don't understand holding out hope for Zen. Intel has an entire family of Xeon CPU to choose from once Zen is out. They just need to pick the model that bests AMD, load a new template on the laser engraver and out pops a Xeon re-branded as an I7.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I don't understand holding out hope for Zen. Intel has an entire family of Xeon CPU to choose from once Zen is out. They just need to pick the model that bests AMD, load a new template on the laser engraver and out pops a Xeon re-branded as an I7.

This.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Well, we dont really know anything about Zen yet except some AMD projections which of course will be optimistic. Zen could be a home run and beat anything intel has or a dud and not even compete well vs Haswell E.

But I think it is dangerous complacency for Intel to neglect the higher performance segment since there is currently no real competition. They could well get blindsided by Zen, and it would serve them right.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

I don't understand holding out hope for Zen. Intel has an entire family of Xeon CPU to choose from once Zen is out. They just need to pick the model that bests AMD, load a new template on the laser engraver and out pops a Xeon re-branded as an I7.

I am not really holding out for Zen specifically. I am holding out for the new architecture, so ideally I won't need to upgrade again for a good while. Next year I plan on building a completely new system, minus the case and maybe PSU.

I don't feel that I need an upgrade atm. Well, that's not completely true, this cpu is likely on it's last legs. It can't even handle a medium OC without blue screen on occasion. But as long as I don't OC it, I believe it should be fine for another year. And as long as I can still play all my games on high with very good fps, then it's fine.

On a side note, I kind of want to support AMD so there is a competitor on the market. I believe that's in everyone's best interest, but I don't have the money to throw away, so they have to make a competitive product.

Well, we dont really know anything about Zen yet except some AMD projections which of course will be optimistic. Zen could be a home run and beat anything intel has or a dud and not even compete well vs Haswell E.

But I think it is dangerous complacency for Intel to neglect the higher performance segment since there is currently no real competition. They could well get blindsided by Zen, and it would serve them right.

I would consider Zen a success if it could put out such a product. I would buy a Haswell-E amd level cpu as long as it came at a competitive pricing.

 

[Yuriman]

To be frank, this is what I expect of the Zen launch:

Zen will come out with a few models of varying core counts, and be priced on-level or perhaps even above Intel CPUs with similar core counts, despite having somewhat worse IPC and performance per watt. AMD will do this because they're on the edge of bankruptcy, and need to squeeze every last drop they can from early adopters. Over the following months, prices will gradually drop until Zen is priced about the same as a similar-performance Intel product, though it will still be missing a few features. You'll then be able to get more slower Zen cores for the same price as fewer, faster Intel cores, and in some workloads (from a pure performance perspective) Zen will be more cost-effective than Intel, so long as you don't need Intel's IGP, higher per-core performance, or a few specific instructions or features than Zen will be missing.

Intel dictates performance price points right now because they're not competing with AMD, they're competing with themselves, and this will not change with Zen, even if it's competitive. AMD will most certainly not be undercutting Intel on launch day.

 

[Edgemeal]

How much will Zen Cost?

Thu Jan 31 2002 - top 10 best prices on pricewatch.com
===========================================================
CPU Name                                Avg   Low   Entries
Athlon XP 2000                          $272  $261   10
Athlon XP 1900                          $196  $194   10
Athlon XP 1800                          $141  $137   10
Athlon XP 1700                          $117  $114   10
Athlon XP 1600                          $109  $105   10
Athlon XP 1500                          $102  $99    10

CPU Name                                Avg   Low   Entries
Pentium 4 2.2GHz                        $554  $535   10
Pentium 4 2.0GHz                        $340  $334   10
Pentium 4 1.9GHz                        $241  $239   10
Pentium 4 1.8GHz                        $189  $183   10
Pentium 4 1.7GHz                        $164  $159   10
Pentium 4 1.6GHz                        $139  $135   10
Pentium 4 1.5GHz                        $135  $125   10


Fri Dec 03 2004 - top 12 best prices on pricewatch.com
===========================================================
CPU Name                                Avg   Low   Entries
Athlon 64 FX 53                         $761  $699   12
Athlon 64 FX 51                         $759  $670   12
Athlon 64 3800                          $738  $697   10
Athlon 64 3700                          $716  $688   7
Athlon 64 3500                          $513  $484   9
Athlon 64 3400                          $411  $398   12
Athlon 64 3200                          $274  $269   12
Athlon 64 3000                          $215  $204   12
Athlon 64 2800                          $194  $173   10

CPU Name                                Avg   Low   Entries
Pentium 4 3.4GHz Prescott               $458  $425   6
Pentium 4 3.4GHz 800MHz 2MB Extreme     $1017 $986   10
Pentium 4 3.4GHz 800MHz                 $402  $395   12
Pentium 4 3.2GHz Prescott               $282  $279   12
Pentium 4 3.2GHz 800MHz 2MB Extreme     $885  $840   12
Pentium 4 3.2GHz 800MHz                 $273  $266   12
Pentium 4 3.0GHz Prescott               $215  $208   12
Pentium 4 3.0GHz 800MHz                 $209  $208   12
Pentium 4 3.06GHz 533MHz                $215  $211   12
Pentium 4 2.8GHz Prescott               $172  $165   12
Pentium 4 2.8GHz 800MHz                 $171  $165   12

 

[ShintaiDK]

How much will Zen Cost?

The highest they can get for its performance. Perhaps way above in the start for those dedicated. 800$ release of FX9590 comes to mind.

 

[Edgemeal]

The highest they can get for its performance. Perhaps way above in the start for those dedicated. 800$ release of FX9590 comes to mind.

Well ya, thats how AMD chips have always been sold, they start out at unreasonably high prices, unless you got cash to burn it pays to wait 3~4 months, plus you see how bios/bugs get fixed, etc.

 

[frozentundra123456]

How much will Zen Cost?

Thu Jan 31 2002 - top 10 best prices on pricewatch.com
===========================================================
CPU Name                                Avg   Low   Entries
Athlon XP 2000                          $272  $261   10
Athlon XP 1900                          $196  $194   10
Athlon XP 1800                          $141  $137   10
Athlon XP 1700                          $117  $114   10
Athlon XP 1600                          $109  $105   10
Athlon XP 1500                          $102  $99    10

CPU Name                                Avg   Low   Entries
Pentium 4 2.2GHz                        $554  $535   10
Pentium 4 2.0GHz                        $340  $334   10
Pentium 4 1.9GHz                        $241  $239   10
Pentium 4 1.8GHz                        $189  $183   10
Pentium 4 1.7GHz                        $164  $159   10
Pentium 4 1.6GHz                        $139  $135   10
Pentium 4 1.5GHz                        $135  $125   10


Fri Dec 03 2004 - top 12 best prices on pricewatch.com
===========================================================
CPU Name                                Avg   Low   Entries
Athlon 64 FX 53                         $761  $699   12
Athlon 64 FX 51                         $759  $670   12
Athlon 64 3800                          $738  $697   10
Athlon 64 3700                          $716  $688   7
Athlon 64 3500                          $513  $484   9
Athlon 64 3400                          $411  $398   12
Athlon 64 3200                          $274  $269   12
Athlon 64 3000                          $215  $204   12
Athlon 64 2800                          $194  $173   10

CPU Name                                Avg   Low   Entries
Pentium 4 3.4GHz Prescott               $458  $425   6
Pentium 4 3.4GHz 800MHz 2MB Extreme     $1017 $986   10
Pentium 4 3.4GHz 800MHz                 $402  $395   12
Pentium 4 3.2GHz Prescott               $282  $279   12
Pentium 4 3.2GHz 800MHz 2MB Extreme     $885  $840   12
Pentium 4 3.2GHz 800MHz                 $273  $266   12
Pentium 4 3.0GHz Prescott               $215  $208   12
Pentium 4 3.0GHz 800MHz                 $209  $208   12
Pentium 4 3.06GHz 533MHz                $215  $211   12
Pentium 4 2.8GHz Prescott               $172  $165   12
Pentium 4 2.8GHz 800MHz                 $171  $165   12

I assume you mean this to imply Zen will be cheaper than comparable performance intel products. I dont have the specific figures or time to look them up, but I do recall that when AMD had the performance lead with the Athlon X2, they priced them outrageously high. Also as Shintai noted, they tried to get 800.00 for the 9590 until the market adjusted the price. I believe Lisa Su also said AMD wants to move into higher margins instead of continuing to compete on price in the budget segment (paraphrasing here). So *if* Zen is competitive or superior to intel's comparable models, dont count on a budget price.

Edit: If they do want to compete on price, they might do it in the server market to try to gain back market share. But I expect consumer Zen chips will be in short supply, and it will be a niche market anyway without an IGP, so I expect AMD to try to get top dollar in the consumer market, much like FuryX and Nano.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

The highest they can get for its performance. Perhaps way above in the start for those dedicated. 800$ release of FX9590 comes to mind.

Aside from the 9590, have they ever charged more than the item's relative comparable value from a competitor? Hopefully the consumers didn't buy that crap, and AMD learned from the 'mistake'.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

I don't understand holding out hope for Zen. Intel has an entire family of Xeon CPU to choose from once Zen is out. They just need to pick the model that bests AMD, load a new template on the laser engraver and out pops a Xeon re-branded as an I7.

Yeah, sure.... Because Intel is running a charity.

I'm sure they'd love to throw away all those high margin Xeon sales and rebrand them as cheap cpu's -- just to compete with the low hanging fruit.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Yeah, sure.... Because Intel is running a charity.

I'm sure they'd love to throw away all those high margin Xeon sales and rebrand them as cheap cpu's -- just to compete with the low hanging fruit.

Standard Oil used to sell their products at a loss in areas they had competition, and jack them up everywhere else to compensate. It's monopoly 101.

I am not saying Intel will do this, or has in the past, though I had vaguely heard of some questionable practices from their end.



Google is everyone's friend,

"The European Commission claimed that Intel gave "substantial rebates" to computer makers for buying most of their x86 computer processing units, or CPUs, from Intel; that it made payments to manufacturers to get them to delay or cancel product lines using AMD chips; and that it sold its own chips below cost on average to strategic server customers on bids against AMD products to try to muscle into that business."

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3428255

In a keynote address this morning to the American Antitrust Institute in Washington, D.C., AMD CEO Hector Ruiz gave attendees what he described as "an idea of what it's like to do business day in and day out when you are competing against an abusive monopolist." Although he also invoked the phrase "illegal monopoly," he left a convenient 846-word buffer zone between that phrase and his first invocation of the term "Intel."

http://betanews.com/2007/06/21/amd-ceo-intel-is-a-monopoly-microsoft-isn-t/

 

[ShintaiDK]

Aside from the 9590, have they ever charged more than the item's relative comparable value from a competitor?

Yes.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I am not really holding out for Zen specifically. I am holding out for the new architecture, so ideally I won't need to upgrade again for a good while.

Skylake is a fresh new architecture and it's here now. By next year, Skylake-E will arrive for HEDT.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Skylake is a fresh new architecture and it's here now. By next year, Skylake-E will arrive for HEDT.

do u know if b4 or after kabylake?

 

[krumme]

I don't understand holding out hope for Zen. Intel has an entire family of Xeon CPU to choose from once Zen is out. They just need to pick the model that bests AMD, load a new template on the laser engraver and out pops a Xeon re-branded as an I7.

Well for sure Intel have so much excessive capacity and is perhaps even going to fab for apple because they are on a capex edge. Another incentive in favor of dumping prices. So i agree in that sense.

But your argument is a total fail anyway as a consumer advice. If the above happens then why not wait if you want 8 cores for cheap? Be it intel or amd?

If zen is 40% higher ipc than excavator (and thats fairly certain as its an easy target) and its high clock (very uncertain given ss process so far) and perf w is acceptable for desktop. IF. If all that happens - and its not something i expect btw - then we are in a good situation as consumers.

But it would be about time. Those 300mm2 8 core xenon should be within our reach. Intel have plenty of leway. Things is slowing down. And in some way it looks to me Intel is milking this cashcow so hard its going to kill it.

No only is the desktop dying but it looks like x86 is replaced by arm mobile devices.

 

[krumme]

Unless there is a specific reason for mb upgrade i would go for the 6 core xenon 100 usd solution. Fantastic value and will last for years.
The satisfaction of plugging a much better cpu in a socket is fantastic !