New Zen microarchitecture details

Page 59 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

FlanK3r

Senior member
Sep 15, 2009
313
38
91
The second (or third ?) version http://docdro.id/BzFipU4

There has been so many different versions I've already lost count :sneaky:

I think, its cause less information now about performance. Hard to say, whats mean comparison with Excavator (propably single thread performance?)
In first version was Orochi and Cinebench R15. But Orochi...what is it exactly? ITs Orochi FX-8150, or 8350?

PS: I belive, Zen FX will be solid product, but not doing hype before launch. Top CPU coudl be with some lower frequency and massive multithread performance. Starting mdoels will be more for gamers with less cores/threads and classic frequencies
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,425
8,388
126
where we see that the 'Summit' processor for high end desktops appears to provide double the 'Orochi' score in Cinebench multi-threaded compute tests.
is there audio or something that makes people think it's cinebench? because the chart itself is silent as to that.

Tech site WCCFTech uncovered the above slide and did a bit of maths based upon the graphs. It came to the conclusion that the upcoming Zen CPU, as performance charted above, will be direct competition for the octa-core Intel Core i7 5960X.
wonder how many significant digits there are in graph measurements?
There's quite a lot of assumptions in there, considering the sketchy graphs, with the one on the right probably (but not necessarily) sharing the same axes/scale as the other graph.
considering the charts don't have the same number of horizontal lines (unless the slides changed. again.) there's no basis to assume they have the same scale.
 

KTE

Senior member
May 26, 2016
478
130
76
I don't want to kill hopes but this is looking so similar to Barcelona all over again... hello 2006.

18-28% IPC gain but poor power, clocks and execution compared to previous designs.

My estimate for Zen is 3.2GHz for the launch DT model, that just beats Piledriver at 4GHz - per clock/core. I'm not quite decided on the MT front yet...

Take it easy, I'm a noob
Sent from HTC 10
 

majord

Senior member
Jul 26, 2015
444
533
136
I made this up when the first graph version came to light. based off Anandtech bench.




Based on orochi being 8150, seems bang on expectations, if based on 8350, then I think would be wildly optimistic
 

el etro

Golden Member
Jul 21, 2013
1,581
14
81
I made this up when the first graph version came to light. based off Anandtech bench.




Based on orochi being 8150, seems bang on expectations, if based on 8350, then I think would be wildly optimistic

You have to put integer loads here too majord. Loads like 7-zip and WinRar are important because most of consumer loads are integer!
 

deasd

Senior member
Dec 31, 2013
554
867
136
I made this up when the first graph version came to light. based off Anandtech bench.


--img snip--

Based on orochi being 8150, seems bang on expectations, if based on 8350, then I think would be wildly optimistic

List of octo-core Orochi:

AMD FX-Series FX-8100 - FD8100WMW8KGU / FD8100WMGUSBX
AMD FX-Series FX-8120 - FD8120WMW8KGU / FD8120WMGUSBX
AMD FX-Series FX-8120 - FD8120FRW8KGU / FD8120FRGUBOX / FD8120FRGUWOX
AMD FX-Series FX-8140 - FD8140WMW8KGU
AMD FX-Series FX-8150 - FD8150FRW8KGU / FD8150FRGUBOX / FD8150FRGUWOX
AMD FX-Series FX-8300 - FD8300WMW8KHK / FD8300WMHKSBX
AMD FX-Series FX-8310 - FD8310WMW8KHK / FD8310WMHKSBX
AMD FX-Series FX-8320 - FD8320FRW8KHK / FD8320FRHKBOX
AMD FX-Series FX-8320E - FD832EWMW8KHK / FD832EWMHKBOX
AMD FX-Series FX-8350 - FD8350FRW8KHK / FD8350FRHKBOX
AMD FX-Series FX-8370 - FD8370FRW8KHK / FD8370FRHKBOX / FD8370FRHKHBX
AMD FX-Series FX-8370E - FD837EWMW8KHK / FD837EWMHKBOX
AMD FX-Series FX-9370 - FD9370FHW8KHK / FD9370FHHKWOF
AMD FX-Series FX-9590 - FD9590FHW8KHK / FD9590FHHKWOF
 

sirmo

Golden Member
Oct 10, 2011
1,014
391
136
I don't want to kill hopes but this is looking so similar to Barcelona all over again... hello 2006.

18-28% IPC gain but poor power, clocks and execution compared to previous designs.

My estimate for Zen is 3.2GHz for the launch DT model, that just beats Piledriver at 4GHz - per clock/core. I'm not quite decided on the MT front yet...

Take it easy, I'm a noob
Sent from HTC 10
This is a different company from the company AMD was back then. Besides if it's really that bad, why even bother releasing the processor? No one's going to buy it. Unless it's using half the energy of Intel competition perhaps, but then why not emphasize energy over performance? Would make no sense. Also they would be encroaching on dangerous legal territory with misleading investors.

Even under Dirk Meyer, prior to Bulldozer launch, AMD never mentioned IPC or performance per core, they hyped the multithreaded and modular design. Which if you go back the CPU delivered on, in spades. Too bad everything else about the CPU was horrible.

Personally I think Zen will be a solid CPU. May not be a world beater, but it will be good enough.

The timing of that THATIC Chinese Joint Venture which has been on the table for a long time tells me that they waited to see the Zen internal demo before signing the deal. And it probably looks pretty promising or they wouldn't have committed to it.
 
Last edited:

ksec

Senior member
Mar 5, 2010
420
117
116
You have to put integer loads here too majord. Loads like 7-zip and WinRar are important because most of consumer loads are integer!

Wow. Thx for putting together the numbers majord.

Yes, Integer is important, but also the Intel CPU inside the graph are all 22nm. And Zen is on 14nm.

Basically, this is not looking good.
 

Azuma Hazuki

Golden Member
Jun 18, 2012
1,532
866
131
Let's see what the actual silicon has to offer us, hmm?

Personally I'm interested in performance of code specifically compiled for the Zen uarch; Gentoo might be very well suited for this family of chips.
 

FlanK3r

Senior member
Sep 15, 2009
313
38
91
I made this up when the first graph version came to light. based off Anandtech bench.




Based on orochi being 8150, seems bang on expectations, if based on 8350, then I think would be wildly optimistic

your tips in graph seems the best to reality I think...Of course for topmodel of Zen.
 

majord

Senior member
Jul 26, 2015
444
533
136
Wow. Thx for putting together the numbers majord.

Yes, Integer is important, but also the Intel CPU inside the graph are all 22nm. And Zen is on 14nm.

Basically, this is not looking good.

Well, this is true (regarding all those HEDt parts being 22nm) , but with the exception of the 10 core flagship, the octocore and hex core broadwell (14nm) parts which Zen will compete against aren't much faster anyway are they:

5960x: 8 core @ 3.0/3.5t
6900K 8 core @ 3.2/3.7Ghz + a few % IPC (equiv to a 3.3/3.8Ghz)

So in other words a 6900K will be around 10% faster than the outgoing 22nm octocore's overall.


Now lets look at it another way completely:

Because we're talking about ultimately very similar architectures now (at a high level - i.e wide cores sharing similar resources for SMT) it's not too hard to see what sort of clockspeeds zen would need to match, say a 6900K's performance. based on IPC claims and core count alone.

Referencing my own results (i'm glad to incorporate other tests if one can find some data ) which conclude Skylake has a 60% higher IPC than excavator, Single threaded.

We can then use AMD's claim of 40% higher ipc over excavator to calculate that, if true Skylake would be left with a 14% IPC advantage over Zen

Now, we're talking about broadwell-e here though, and unfortunately i don't have any of my own or anyone elses data to use, so we have to use the commonly accepted figure of Skylake being 3-5% higher IPC than Broadwell. Feel free to correct that if you think it's wrong.

Which in turn gives a convienient round 10% figure for Broadwell IPC > Zen.

that's perfect for working out single/ <8thread performance , but to work out total throughput (that is - 8c/16threads utilized) it's all down to assumptions that Zen will fork out similar gains from SMT - and it should be similar, but technically this 10% figure can only be used on a per core basis , HT 'scaling' may differ - likely in broadwell's favour a little to be honest.

but lets run with it:

So for a zen part to match a 6900K by using clockspeed to cancel out its IPC deficit:

6900K: 3.2Ghz base(all theads) / 3.7Ghz Turbo (single thead+) +10% =

Zen: 3.5Ghz base / 4.0Ghz turbo.


Now to back a further generation to the 5960x you'd be looking at Haswell vs Zen IPC instead, which is getting tricky.. For arguments sake, ccould say it has a 7%? lead over zen's claimed IPC.

5960x: 3.0Ghz base / 3.5Ghz Turbo +~7%

Zen: 3.2Ghz Base / 3.7Ghz Turbo


Are these sort of frequencies possible? That's where everyones stuck on at the moment..

Looking back at the graph i posted though, actually makes the claim of double an FX8150 pretty plausible - you'd basically need less than 3Ghz to achieve the values for Zen in that graph based on the above
 
Last edited:

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,764
4,223
136
`
Are these sort of frequencies possible? That's where everyones stuck on at the moment..

Looking back at the graph i posted though, actually makes the claim of double an FX8150 pretty plausible - you'd basically need less than 3Ghz to achieve the values for Zen in that graph based on the above
That is roughly my own estimate too. Average IPC to be roughly between IB and Haswell (~5-7% lower than HSWL). Base/boost clock for top 8C/16T Zen to be 3.3/3.7Ghz, matching the overall performance of 5960x stock vs stock.
 

FlanK3r

Senior member
Sep 15, 2009
313
38
91
Im not sure aboput so high clocks for 8c/16t....For 4c/8t yes, for 8c/16t propably around the clear 3 GHz at stock
 

The Stilt

Golden Member
Dec 5, 2015
1,709
3,057
106
Not at 95W at least.
Zen should be pretty damn power efficient at low frequencies, however I would expect the power efficiency to deteriorate extremely rapidly (even faster than on GF28A & GF28HPP) as the frequency increases. I expect a Carrizo-like delta between the boost and the base frequencies. Quite logical, since Zeppelin in most likely also quite resticted by the power budget.
 

The Stilt

Golden Member
Dec 5, 2015
1,709
3,057
106
I find the comparsion AMD made against "Orochi" to be the most interesting part of the slide. Most likely because of that AMD removed it in the first place :sneaky:

Orochi can mean either Bulldozer or Piledriver, however AMD has used "current generation" at the same time. Bulldozer (Orochi Rev. B) is already discontinued and therefore it is not a "current generation" core. That leaves us with Piledriver.

Since Zeppelin is expected to ceil at 95W TDP, it would be logical that the chart displayed the difference between Piledriver and Zen, at the same TDP.

There are five different Piledriver CPUs which have 95W TDP:

FX-8300 - 3.3GHz / 4.2GHz
FX-8310 - 3.4GHz / 4.3GHz
FX-8320E - 3.2GHz / 4.0GHz
FX-8370E - 3.3GHz / 4.3GHz
Opteron 4386 - 3.1GHz / 3.8GHz

It would make sense that AMD used FX-8370E in this comparison, since it is the newest and the best known of these 95W SKUs. If the chart was about Cinebench R15 MT test like the one next to it was, then Zen should score ~1070 points since FX-8370E scores 534 and Zen's column was twice the heigh of Orochi's. That score is also in the range with the predictions I've made for Zen @ 3.4GHz with SMT yield matching Intel's 25% (in CB R15).
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
Not at 95W at least.
Zen should be pretty damn power efficient at low frequencies, however I would expect the power efficiency to deteriorate extremely rapidly (even faster than on GF28A & GF28HPP) as the frequency increases. I expect a Carrizo-like delta between the boost and the base frequencies. Quite logical, since Zeppelin in most likely also quite resticted by the power budget.

In servers, probably stock clocks matter a lot, since one may not want to overclock. However, for HEDT almost everyone will overclock. Cant be sure about BW, but so far Intel HEDT consistently overclocks to low to mid 4ghz range, so that is really what zen has to shoot for.
 

prtskg

Senior member
Oct 26, 2015
261
94
101
There are five different Piledriver CPUs which have 95W TDP:

FX-8300 - 3.3GHz / 4.2GHz
FX-8310 - 3.4GHz / 4.3GHz
FX-8320E - 3.2GHz / 4.0GHz
FX-8370E - 3.3GHz / 4.3GHz
Opteron 4386 - 3.1GHz / 3.8GHz

If Piledriver's 8 core can have such frequencies at 95 TDP, why can't zen have such frequencies?
 

The Stilt

Golden Member
Dec 5, 2015
1,709
3,057
106
If Piledriver's 8 core can have such frequencies at 95 TDP, why can't zen have such frequencies?

15h family was built as a 'speed demon' to begin with.

Below 4.2GHz the 32nm SOI (Super High Performance) process is working at it's most efficient range. Above 2.5GHz 14nm LPP (Low Power) is already expected to operate well beyond it's most efficient range.

Foundries / manufacturers make different process variants for different purposes for a reason. All of the different processes will have different compromises (density, power, frequency, etc). If that was not the case, I certainly doubt that TSMC wouldn't otherwise have made five different variants out of their 28nm process, or Intel three different variants out of their 14nm process. Process development isn't exactly cheap :sneaky:
 

el etro

Golden Member
Jul 21, 2013
1,581
14
81
If Piledriver's 8 core can have such frequencies at 95 TDP, why can't zen have such frequencies?

Longer Pipeline, that have many stages. Hits higher frequencies but is much harder to achieve good IPC on it. Zen likely achieves clocks similiar to Intel's or a bit lower this time.
 

el etro

Golden Member
Jul 21, 2013
1,581
14
81
Below 4.2GHz the 32nm SOI (Super High Performance) process is working at it's most efficient range. Above 2.5GHz 14nm LPP (Low Power) is already expected to operate well beyond it's most efficient range.

Foundries / manufacturers make different process variants for different purposes for a reason. All of the different processes will have different compromises (density, power, frequency, etc). If that was not the case, I certainly doubt that TSMC wouldn't otherwise have made five different variants out of their 28nm process, or Intel three different variants out of their 14nm process. Process development isn't exactly cheap :sneaky:

Finfets and Samsung/TSMC process seems to have more flexibility for different application types. It serves well from smartphones to desktop computers. Look at Nvidia, doing 300W GPUs at TSMC 16FF+ for HPC use.
 

The Stilt

Golden Member
Dec 5, 2015
1,709
3,057
106
Finfets and Samsung/TSMC process seems to have more flexibility for different application types. It serves well from smartphones to desktop computers. Look at Nvidia, doing 300W GPUs at TSMC 16FF+ for HPC use.

Sure, but Samsung LPP processes are power-efficiency targeted, where as TSMC 16nm FF+ supersedes their HPx processes.

Least to most performance targeted processes by Samsung:

- LPS
- LPP
- LPH
- FD-SOI

Sure, FinFets are different than planar processes but the point was that "LPP" has never been targeted to high performance by Samsung.
 

el etro

Golden Member
Jul 21, 2013
1,581
14
81
Sure, but Samsung LPP processes are power-efficiency targeted, where as TSMC 16nm FF+ supersedes their HPx processes.

Least to most performance targeted processes by Samsung:

- LPS
- LPP
- LPH
- FD-SOI

Sure, FinFets are different than planar processes but the point was that "LPP" has never been targeted to high performance by Samsung.

Is the info i have too. Exactly.

GF will out 14HP, SOI with Finfets, mid next year. May worth Zen+ being fabbed on it.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,003
3,361
136
14nm LPP brings higher fmax than 28nm HP.

Especially higher fmax than 28nm HDL (Carriso/BristolRidge)
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |