PS: The 65w tdp of the lowest 8c/16t seems like a red flag for the authenticity of the article IMO.
FX 8370E is an 8C 3.3/4.3 at 95W on the 32nm.
An 8c supposedly up to 3.7GHz (let's suppose 3.3 base) on the 14nm why could not have 65W TDP?
PS: The 65w tdp of the lowest 8c/16t seems like a red flag for the authenticity of the article IMO.
Too expensive. Try harder AMD
FX 8370E is an 8C 3.3/4.3 at 95W on the 32nm.
An 8c supposedly up to 3.7GHz (let's suppose 3.3 base) on the 14nm why could not have 65W TDP?
8370E shipped 2 years later than 8350 and was indeed a new stepping (Vishera-K), which itself shipped 1 year and something later than 8150, which was one of their first CPUs on their at-the-time new node, 32nm SOI.
Your comparison doesn't stand really.
There are 3 nodes and many energy saving technology more on Zen, but ok... We will see...
https://elchapuzasinformatico.com/2017/02/precio-amd-ryzen-r7-1800x-r7-1700x-r7-1700/
Prices apparently?
1800X - 4GHz Turbo - 600 Euro
1700X - 3.8GHz Turbo - 470 Euro
1700 - 3.7GHz Turbo - 390 Euro
Also, the 1700 is apparently rated at 65W TDP.
FX 8370E is an 8C 3.3/4.3 at 95W on the 32nm.
An 8c supposedly up to 3.7GHz (let's suppose 3.3 base) on the 14nm why could not have 65W TDP?
@Insert_Nickname
Depends on what you're doing with it. For games I doubt you'll see much improvement over your 3.4 Ivy..
Rendering or other heavily threaded tasks will of course be a different story..
Go with the current parts and let Zen settle in, both from a process maturity and pricing. And lose all the fun of testing ZenI got the parts for a 16c/32t 2670v2 server at home semi put together.. wondering if I am on the wrong path, could make due with an 8 core... hmmm
No, it is expected, these hacks would not bother with paywall.Is it a coincidence that wccftech posts about linley group from last august now?
32nm had a better clock/vcore/pwconsumption curve at the clocks we are talking about than 28nm, so that leaves 1 node less. The other one I can think is 20nm, and then 14nm LPP that mixes parameters from their 20nm and a true 14nm node.
We have seen a 3.4ghz 8c/16t consuming just a bit higher than 95w on blender/handbrake, with a little overvolt to assure completely stability on a live event. Suddenly the process improved so much or the binning is that aggresive (we are talking about AMD here) that now 3.7ghz all-core turbo or base at 65w is realistic at launch? Come on, blue tinted glasses are as bad as red tinted ones in my book.
Pro tip: The article implies they are talking about BASE clocks because they mention that turbo clocks aren't mentioned (so we can only think of an mild all-core turbo, or just base clocks).
You keep making comparisons to FX line in Zen threads but I don't think 8c FX are any similar to 8c Zen, short explanation:
FX quad module transistor count = 1.2 billions (for the whole 315mm2 cpu)
Zen quad cluster transistor count = 1.4 billions (ISSCC paper, 44mm2 CCX only)
You can easily see that Zen eight cores have more than twice the transistors, if that's true I doubt they could keep less than 65 watt under load even at iso frequency: 14nm and finfets help but 2x resources at 0.7x the power is pushing it way too much.
Can anyone link me the source for 1.4billion transistors in a CCX? I didn't see it, only people claiming it on forums.
Energy saving techniques do not reduce power consumption in prime95.Consider all the energy saving techniques that are in BR and will be in Zen
Thanks!
Energy saving techniques do not reduce power consumption in prime95.
You once 'calculated' 4GHz base 95W LAUNCH too... With 4.5GHz Turbo. Based on your FO4+Neon claims.David Kanter confirmed my theory that Zen has same FO4 than BD, so the matter is only the number of transistors. 8 zen cores so have double the transistors than BD, but the 14nm LPP has up to 60% less power consumption. Consider all the energy saving techniques that are in BR and will be in Zen and there are not in the FX8350 and you will see that we are not so far from the truth.
Moreover a 3.6GHz 95W sample exist. With cubic scaling 3.3GHz are 72W... But the 3.6GHz is an ES... With a little binning a 3.3GHz 65W can be feasible... Finally I once calculated 3GHz 45W...