Yep, boost will suffer from that. But if base clock will end up at 3.2ghz which would be a 200mhz improvement over the ES in the video all should be fine considering the 95w TDP. If base clock stays below Intel it has to score via priceGiven the fact that AMD has confirmed to anandtech that they are using a density optimized version of GF 14nm I would say Zen will max out at 3.4 Ghz. For servers which are geared at maximizing throughput by using lots of cores at lower speeds that should not matter but for desktop those clocks would be an issue especially for single thread performance.
My guess is that clockspeeds will be lower, but for servers that might not be important as long as perf/watt is where it needs to be.
A marketing cynic might say that it's probably one thing Zen happens to do well.
Given the fact that AMD has confirmed to anandtech that they are using a density optimized version of GF 14nm I would say Zen clocks will max out at 3.4 Ghz. For servers which are geared at maximizing throughput by using lots of cores at lower speeds that should not matter but for desktop those clocks would be an issue especially for single thread performance.
Density optimized versions of a process tradeoff maximum attainable frequencies (my guess is around 30% compared to high performance which uses larger transistors to achieve those frequencies)
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10578...rs-micro-op-cache-memory-hierarchy-revealed/3
" The combination of FinFET with the fact that AMD confirmed that they will be using the density-optimised version of 14nm FinFET (which will allow for smaller die sizes and more reasonable efficiency points) also contributes to a shift of either higher performance at the same power or the same performance at lower power."
Is there any benchmarks made on that Blender version, at least I couldn't find any?
Would be nice to see where 6900K (and Zen) end up in this compared to the other processors/architectures.
And since it was a test performed by AMD for marketing purposes, I think it would be wise to take that Blender test as one of the best case scenarios for Zen and not get overhyped.
Does the performance delta (between CPU's) vary alot when using different objects?Unless you render the same object they did you won't be able to make a good comparison.
I have done my own "estimation" on Summit Ridge 8C/16T performance a while ago, I just waited for more information from AMD so I could see if I was near the expected numbers based on released data regarding the uarchitecture choices/features AMD opted for. Now when they released one benchmark and some new information on Zen, I am confident I can post this up now:
I used AT's article on Excavator and applied the ~40% ST uplift on Carrizo's number while adjusting for clocks I expect Zen will launch at (3.2Ghz base and 3.7Ghz ST Turbo). I also applied a 1.2x SMT boost to well threaded benchmarks and adjusted for scaling 12% penalty that Carrizo has when running 2 threads on a module( 0.88x scaling is an average, it varies from benchmark to benchmark). The rest of the numbers used in the sheet are from AT's bench page which is accessible from AT homepage.
This is just a rough estimate of course, Zen might end up at lower clocks and/or lower performance per clock than what I used in the table above. On the other hand, Zen might end up clocking even better and performing better than 40% . We will see on Computex 2017 I guess
you mean CES 2017 . Zen is scheduled for Q1 2017 launch. btw i doubt Zen can clock higher than 3.5 ghz using a density optimized version of GF 14nm process as opposed to a high performance variant like the one Intel uses for their big cores like Broadwell and Skylake which clock 4.6-4.7 Ghz at max OC. I also advise everyone to not get carried by AMD marketing and hype as we saw from Fury X / Polaris that AMD overhypes and underdelivers.We will see on Computex 2017 I guess
2017. Jesus.
Nice work (and a lot of it)!
I'm courious about the Dolphin benchmark, you expect Zen to be faster than a 6900K?
you mean CES 2017 . Zen is scheduled for Q1 2017 launch. btw i doubt Zen can clock higher than 3.5 ghz using a density optimized version of GF 14nm process as opposed to a high performance variant like the one Intel uses for their big cores like Broadwell and Skylake which clock 4.6-4.7 Ghz at max OC. I also advise everyone to not get carried by AMD marketing and hype as we saw from Fury X / Polaris that AMD overhypes and underdelivers
Lol - hopes is not always enough. Its density and efficiency optimized both in arch and process. Its comes at the cost of raw performance per core. The leaks we have just confirms it. There is no way around it.It can't hit a 3.5ghz wall. There's just no way. They had to know that wouldn't work and that they'd just get laughed at by PC enthusiasts and gamers. The enthusiasts are very important. They are the ones who praise the hardware and spread the word about the CPU to the general public. The enthusiasts are the ones who set the tone for whether or not the product is good for everyone else. Servers are a different thing and you don't hear people praising server performance publically very much. Its not exciting and most consumers don't care. If 3.5ghz is what they need to succeed in the server department, then good for them. They will fail on the desktop with clocks like that. And I do mean fail. If the CPU can't be OC'd past 3.5ghz or so, it will be seen as weak. Its practical performance will be limited to what we've already had since 2010.
I have more faith in AMD. I think Zen will be a good clocker and will pass the 4ghz mark with regularity. I think it will do well with water.