I knew Sony was confirmed still the same. I mean the cpu performance has hurt games it's been shown that the higher clocked Xbox had better frames in games than the ps4 so some games definitely still are cpu bottlenecked.Consoles don't need high perf CPU when their API has lower CPU overhead and well threaded. Sony's documents to devs with the leak specs have it as Jaguar 8 core at 2.1ghz from 1.6ghz.
The only market that would benefit from high IPC APU of Zen + Polaris would be HPC, Servers and Enthusiast gamers who want mITX rigs.
Are you saying everyone has a Skylake K?
8 Core, 16 Thread Zen, 5960K performance, not an attractive upgrade for people on Lynnfield, Sandy or Ivy?
Intel is making record margins, AMD can afford to undercut them and be a viable option for upgrades or new rig builders.
So much doom & gloom, you wait and see. I'll need an upgrade from my Ivy Bridge by the time Zen arrives, if it's got 40% IPC gains from Excavator and can hit 4Ghz, it will be my go-to CPU for sure.
Low/midrange gaming laptops with Polaris 11, Zen and freesync. That sounds fantastic, especially if it eventually comes in APU form when using HBM becomes viable. I wouldn't be too interested if it's a traditional shared memory APU. G-sync laptops are great, but freesync has been excellent at bringing that variable refresh rate to people on tighter budgets.
How about the guys with Sandy/Ivy Bridge K ? What incentive does Zen have aside from "moar cores" ?!
BTW it's a 5960X and it maybe an attractive upgrade to Lynnfield or lower clocked Sandy Bridge users but just exactly how many of them want to upgrade to Zen when they've been content for half a decade ? There's practically almost no high end or enthusiast users left for AMD to target at this point ...
The problem with current CPU is the low improvements, which is why guys like me and even those on older SB/LF, have not upgraded.
Intel's 8 core is too expensive so gamers haven't been given an incentive for upgrading.
On 14nm FF, I don't expect an 8 core Zen (without an iGPU on die) to be a very big chip, ~160mm2 tops. If AMD can't make a profit selling an equivalent of 5960 with that small a die size to offer competitive $$ incentive... they should just quit now.
Some folks will say, if AMD can match the 5960, why would they price it low? Because they have to. To get folks to switch camps. Imagine the margins on a ~160mm2 chip at $399, surely, very profitable.
Intel is killing it, 55B revenue, 14B profit last year. Margins well beyond NVIDIA, on another level. There's room there for AMD to take a chunk out of Intel's marketshare. Zen doesn't need to be Skylake IPC. It only needs to be Haswell/Broadwell IPC with 8/16 at a good price and it'll be sold out.
I'm not expecting low/midrange HBM APUs (yet), but I am expecting low/midrange laptops with a discrete Polaris and freesync, although an Intel CPU would work just as well in that case.System bandwidth will severely bottleneck any iGPU, we see the 7870K for example, has some untapped performance left as we give it faster DDR3.
Without HBM2 on their Zen APU, it's pointless to put a more powerful iGPU than what's available already.
So if it happens, Zen/Polaris/HBM2 APU, it won't be low/mid-range gaming notebooks, it'll be high-end performance notebooks.
Then just get the i7-5820K, it'll probably perform better than the 8 core Zen in games when it's overclocked and best of all, it's been released!
Playing the waiting game with AMD CPUs has become utterly tiresome ...
AMD will probably only manage a 5% dent in Intel's profit at BEST with Zen realistically speaking ...
I'm not playing a waiting game. My IB CPU is just fine, but in 2017, I will build a new gaming rig. Like most people, we don't jump onboard to Skylake just because. All AMD has to achieve is in 2017, offer a competitive CPU landscape so it's no longer automatic Intel only decisions.
GPU is not a huge market, it's CPU, servers, HPC, etc. Where Intel makes their big bucks.
AMD is a CPU company first and foremost.
Or if AMD ceases to have the DX12 advantage ...
Console wins are good for keeping AMD afloat but they're not good enough for AMD to be profitable hence their reliance on the recent console effect taking place ...
It's not a huge market but it would be a whole lot more easier to compete there than competing with Intel ...
AMD stopped being primarily a CPU company with Faildozer and their most recently successful business relies on their GPU expertise ...
AMD will always be a CPU company first because that's where the money is. It's no harder competing vs Intel than it is vs Nvidia. Actually in some ways it's harder competing vs Nvidia because of Nvidia's mindshare.
Remember when Cypress was owning Fermi and they only got 50% market share? Well they hit 50% vs Intel as well at one point in the early 2000's, but Intel had to bribe their way out of trouble.
AMD just needs to leverage GPU to take some desktop market back from Intel. Nvidia has no future in PC anyway, every year they get more marginalised to the high end - a high end that won't accept all the broken console ports coming their way.
well given the specs it needs it shouldnt be a problem (unless they pull another pcars with effects that cant be disabled...:sneaky: )@Adored
If you are doing that video, don't forget to add this simple fact that NV can spoil AMD's master plan simply by sponsoring the PC port. Like Rise of the Tomb Raider, and the upcoming Mirror's Edge (http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38182278&postcount=146).
Basically they have the cash to spend on key AAA title to ensure GCN tanks. These key titles will often be ones in tech site benchmarks.
i wanted to buy when it was 1.90...
should have.
Like Silverforce, I saw what AMD was up to for 2016/2017 and stated that we wouldn't recognize them by end of 2016. I'm sticking to that statement.
They lost a ton of money and have not even touched their debt. They are on the verge of bankruptcy
Same old talk since 10 years ago, yet AMD is still here?Yep and when Zen turns out to be another steaming pile of fail AMD is history.