Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AMD Outlines Plans For Zen-Based Processors, First Due In 2016

Posted by samzenpus on from the check-it-out dept.

crookedvulture writes: AMD laid out its plans for processors based on its all-new Zen microarchitecture today, promising 40% higher performance-per-clock from from the x86 CPU core. Zen will use simultaneous multithreading to execute two threads per core, and it will be built using "3D" FinFETs. The first chips are due to hit high-end desktops and servers next year. In 2017, Zen will combine with integrated graphics in smaller APUs designed for desktops and notebooks. AMD also plans to produce a high-performance server APU with a "transformational memory architecture" likely similar to the on-package DRAM being developed for the company's discrete graphics processors. This chip could give AMD a credible challenger in the HPC and supercomputing markets—and it could also make its way into laptops and desktops.

166 comments

  1. Finally a replacement by Rellon · · Score: 2

    I've been hobbling along with my FX-8350 and AM3+ for awhile now and have been wanting to upgrade. If it lives up to the hype, unlike dozer, and piledriver, then I'll definitely get one. Now if only the process actually works....

    --
    "An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will" Wicca Rede
    1. Re:Finally a replacement by kalpol · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Hobbling???? I just upgraded TO an 8350 from a Athlon 5200+ (which did pretty much everything I asked of it, including MythTV and watching Netflix in Virtualbox). I don't know what to do with all these cores now.

      --
      12:50 - press return.
    2. Re:Finally a replacement by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Still trucking along on a Phenom II X6 1045T... 6x2.8 GHz or 3x3.2 GHz still seems like a lot. I can't remember the last time I was CPU-bound. I have to spend more than a hundred bucks on a GPU, I guess.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Finally a replacement by Zanadou · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This.

      I have a FX-8350 too. Given how much the the cores sit around idling at less than 5% usage, I don't think I'll need to upgrade my CPU before 2020. RAM, on the other hand...

      As many other people have noted: the CPU speed wars have been over since the Intel Wolfdale/AMD Deneb days of 2009-2010.

    4. Re:Finally a replacement by Rellon · · Score: 1

      Lol, yeah. I was running an Phenom 1100T when they first came out and upgrade to the FX-8350 when it was launched over 2 years ago. I've been considering buying the FX-9590 just to tide me over till these come out.

      To be honest, I have no real need to upgrade until I get more into 4K gaming and upgrade from the overclocked 290x that I have now.

      --
      "An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will" Wicca Rede
    5. Re:Finally a replacement by phoenix_rizzen · · Score: 1

      One of our HTPCs is rocking an Athlon64 with an All-in-Wonder 9800 AGP card. One of the last ones to support component video out. Plugged into a 27" CRT. Works great for Plex Web client (via Google Chrome).

      The main server in the house is a Phenom-II something-or-other. With a lowly, silent Nvidia 210 GPU for transcoding videos as needed via Plex Mediaserver.

      Neither system is CPU-bound, or even GPU-bound, for what they do. The lowly 1 TB SATA drives in the server (even in a 4-disk RAID10) are the bottleneck. Not worth upgrading the motherboard, CPU, or GPU until those get upgraded or replaced.

    6. Re:Finally a replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Athlon 905e is feeling a bit dated now. Maybe I'll upgrade it in a year or two.

    7. Re:Finally a replacement by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Moving up to a 1090T or 1100T Black Edition could be nice. 3.2 or 3.3 out of the box, but 3.8 or 3.9 is almost a given without worrying about voltage bumps and awesome cooling. My 1090 was throttling at 3.8 when running SuperPi on the stock cooler, but have no such problems with a Hyper212. I would need more cooling to run all-day-every-day at 4.0.

      Granted, 2.8 to 3.8 may not make a lot of real world difference when memory bandwidth comes into play, and as you pointed out, the GPU has a lot to do with it (when it's relevant at all, which it isn't when, say, running six sessions of WinRAR at once).

      AMD can hold their own in the mid-high end, though they aren't cranking out the high-margin "extreme" processors. Those are more of a status symbol anyhow, for both manufacturer and consumer, and I doubt that even Intel makes enough of them to be a big chunk of its gross income. That's why they're so damn expensive. Why make them any cheaper if you can't make them rapidly enough as it is?

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    8. Re:Finally a replacement by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Same here only the 1035T and with the 3.2GHz Turbocore this baby has NO problem playing the latest games and on medium settings Handbrake hits over 160fps.

      So while I might look into one of these if they hit 12 cores or better right now I'd say grab one of the AMD hexacore or Octocores if you haven't, because once you remove the benchmarks Intel admits they rigged you'll find the FX8s trade blows with chips costing more than double the price, numbers which the GCC compiled Linux becnhmarks attest to.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    9. Re:Finally a replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All-in-Wonder. Now that's a name I haven't heard in a long, long time.

    10. Re:Finally a replacement by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      If it is hobbling, you probably didn't do a very good analysis of if it matches your work load, because it is not a high-end general purpose CPU. ;)

      Mine is freakin' awesome. It does everything I ask of it so easily that I can't even hear the fans.

    11. Re:Finally a replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have an Intel Core i7-4980HQ 2.8GHz quad-core, which is a mobile processor. PassMark: 10179.

      AMD FX-8350 4GHz eight-core gets 8983 and Phenom II X6 1045T 2.GHz six-core only gets 4913.

      LOL!

    12. Re:Finally a replacement by ooshna · · Score: 1

      Still rocking my X3 720be

    13. Re:Finally a replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wait until you try to do some video encoding. The new instruction set support alone will justify the update.

    14. Re:Finally a replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you are running some crazy processes, I don't understand how you are "hobbling along with FX-8350". Most applications are single threaded so most users, even power users do very well with quad-core CPUs. I'm running an "old" FX-4170/OC with 6850/Crossfire and my PC can run most games at very high settings. Even media work doesn't overly tax my system. My home server is still running a Phenom-II with 8gigs of RAM and 2 virtual machines. I stopped feeling the need to purchase the newest CPUs and GPUs a long time ago. Now I just replace my machine ever few years and give my old machine to one of my kids. There just isn't enough of a bump in overall processing power to keep constantly upgrading, not like the old days.

    15. Re: Finally a replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You clearly never used Systemd, did you?

    16. Re:Finally a replacement by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      One of our HTPCs is rocking an Athlon64 with an All-in-Wonder 9800 AGP card. One of the last ones to support component video out. Plugged into a 27" CRT. Works great for Plex Web client (via Google Chrome).

      Nothing wrong with any of that... other than perhaps the 27" CRT. :) How you can stand to look at that anymore is beyond me, but to each their own...

      And that computer is fine for SDTV, but if you were running HDTV it probably would have issues.

    17. Re:Finally a replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a Sandy Bridge Core i3-2130 (3.4ghz) on my desktop, with a very chunky heatsink. Bought the CPU, mobo, and a Radeon 7850 together new in a clearance for $55 when Haswell came out.

    18. Re:Finally a replacement by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I have one of those too but I've been too lazy to badcap the system it's in. It was a really great processor too, got it to OC to 3.2 with a $20 cooler master heat pipe and arctic silver iv. I bought that originally for $100, and then upgraded to this twice-the-cores X6 1045T later, for $110 shipped or so. You just can't beat the value of these mid-range AMD chips.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:Finally a replacement by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      Agreed on the ram. When DDR4 hits the mainstream product lines that is going to be a nice bump.

    20. Re:Finally a replacement by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      Easily believable if PassMark was compiled using icc (Intel C Compiler).

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    21. Re:Finally a replacement by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I have an Intel Core i7-4980HQ 2.8GHz quad-core,

      Too bad your mother didn't give you a name.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:Finally a replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      An elegant weapon, for a more civilized age...

    23. Re:Finally a replacement by hsa · · Score: 1

      AMD processors multithread badly. The multithreading inside a module was terrible in Bulldozer and not much better in future generations. Shortly put: you have 4 "fast" cores and each of those cores is paired with a "slow" core. The scheduler doesn't really know, which core is fast and which core is slow and that results in poor real life performance - just look at any decent game benchmark!

      Meanwhile, Intel is transitioning to 14nm process, while your processor still is still 32nm from 2012, and this intel of mine actually 22nm from the same year. These numbers might not tell you much, but the main difference to me is that my processor runs much cooler and requires less power.

      AMD is way behind the competition.

      Luckily, the slides had great bullet points, like "40% more IPC" and "14nm process". If those happen sometime in 2016, Intel might actually have to compete and produce better CPUs. Last couple of years Intel has heavily invested in on-die GPU , and speed gains are minimal. That is why 2012's tech is still relevant.

    24. Re:Finally a replacement by Ayanami_R · · Score: 1

      I have the same chip and it is ridiculous at everything but gaming. It's single core performance is laughingly bad. My Girlfriends' 1st Gen i5 absolutely smokes it.

      --
      "Science is the power of man"
    25. Re:Finally a replacement by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      I won't say hobbling. I have both the fx-8150 and the fx-8350 and they are both de finally behind on the curve when it comes to technology. Both of these processors where gifted to me by a friend who was sick of always being behind on the curve when it comes to AMD. He hopped over to Intel with a couple of i7's last year.

      I'm convinced unless something changes an AMD gets on the ball with this release, my current AMD systems will be the last AMD systems I own.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    26. Re:Finally a replacement by Maxwell · · Score: 2

      Your $600+ intel CPU is slightly faster than a $195 AMD CPU. LOL, indeed.

    27. Re:Finally a replacement by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I have the same chip and it is ridiculous at everything but gaming.

      Ridiculously good for the amount of money I have spent on it versus the amount of time I've had it, I think you mean.

      It's single core performance is laughingly bad.

      Single-core performance? What is this single-core? Nothing which uses a lot of CPU is single-threaded, and hasn't been since forever. Whether I'm [de]compressing an archive, transcoding video, playing a game, or surfing the web, I'm using multiple threads which can be relocated across processors — and are.

      My Girlfriends' 1st Gen i5 absolutely smokes it.

      Bullshit. We all know you don't have a girlfriend.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    28. Re:Finally a replacement by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I might think about an upgrade like that when those processors are being thrown away, if I haven't upgraded before then. But right now they're still over $120 for the 1090T, and around $200 for the 1100T. The last time I spent that much I upgraded from a 720BE and doubled my cores. If I'm going to spend another hundred bucks, I need to double my performance again, which isn't really possible. It would make more sense to just buy a new MB+CPU, otherwise. The one I have now doesn't even support SLI, which I would consider now that there are low-wattage cards worth doing it with. I'm not interested in using a kilowatt or more for gaming, that's bullshit. My system TDP is around 300W and I can play current games, albeit not at top quality and top resolution at the same time. I mostly don't play current games anyway, so I mostly don't care.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    29. Re:Finally a replacement by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, Intel is transitioning to 14nm process, while your processor still is still 32nm from 2012, and this intel of mine actually 22nm from the same year. These numbers might not tell you much, but the main difference to me is that my processor runs much cooler and requires less power. AMD is way behind the competition.

      They tell me a lot, and you pretty much reached the same conclusions that I reached a year ago. AMD still makes good processors but they have been behind intel for awhile now. When it came to picking a new processor for my HTPC I picked a A5350 over a i3. It was a perfect processor for the job too.

      Next year I'll be sniffing around to replace the fx-8150 workstation I have. Unless AMD does something drastic to get caught up, I will probably be going with a i7 system this year.

      I've been a amd fan boy since the 486 days, so if I'm jumping ship.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    30. Re:Finally a replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He uses Vista.

    31. Re:Finally a replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I built an fx-9590 system last year(thanks ucenter, little lower than best 8350 price) for old time's sake.
      AMD486dx40->misc. Celerons(the good ones that just had less cache not the later gimped ones)->Tbird->period of waiting give up->3200+->x2 4800+->core 2->Sandy Bridge->Haswell->Skylake

      Also built an A10-7850k system to monkey with HSA. Truth to be told even on the desktop it "feels" smoother than the 9590. 9590 is paired with an r9 280x and the a10 w/a r9 270. A10 2400 mem, 9590 2133 mem. BOTH w/WD 10k mech drives. Both win8.1/linux. Any kind of gaming though, the better GPU on the fx-9590 makes it a smoother experience... still not close to my primary i7-3930k/780 Ti though.

      I'll wait for reviews and IF they can hit near ballpark skylake-e AND more importantly control those insane thermal/power reqs I just might opt for an 8-12 or more TRUE core zen desktop(none of this sharing important resources between cores BS! WTH thought that was a "good idea"(TM)). (I skipped ivy-e as it wasn't enough perf gain, haswell-e has whacked pricing for a tiny perf gain, so I'm holding out for skylake-e and expecting the $1k e chip to be it again(core count).)

      The best part is that I'm pretty sure that this all down to the primary k8(or was it 7 or both) architect that they rehired the other year as their current architects apparently couldn't architect their way out of a wet paper bag even IF it fell apart...

    32. Re:Finally a replacement by kriston · · Score: 1

      I just retired my 1045T desktop and moved it to a VMware server. With SSDs it performs very well in this application.

      --

      Kriston

    33. Re:Finally a replacement by armanox · · Score: 1

      The funny part is the Phenom II is a much better CPU then the FX.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    34. Re:Finally a replacement by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Why focus on clock speeds like that?

      The biggest advantage of newer chips is that they do the same job using less power.

      My 9-year old fileserver pulls 450W. Replacing the motherboard with a quad-core C200-atom or equivalent would drop that by 300W - and pay for itself in 3-4 months just in reduced electricity charges.

    35. Re:Finally a replacement by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Not so clear cut. The Phenom has a slight edge in single-core performance at the same speed, but the FX can give you more cores (8 are readily available but the Phenom topped out at 6) and is now available with higher clock speeds.

      One catch with the FX is that you need updates to the scheduling algorithm in the OS. In the case of Windows that means you have to run Windows 8 (or presumably the Windows 10 preview) because earlier Windows versions never got updated to take full advantage of the FX.

      The other catch with any AMD processor is the prevalence of Intel's C compiler. As one might expect, it is designed to produce code that runs really well on Intel's own CPUs; performance on AMD is at best an afterthought, and some have accused it of being deliberately pessimized.

    36. Re:Finally a replacement by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I just retired my 1045T desktop and moved it to a VMware server. With SSDs it performs very well in this application.

      That's probably what mine will do when I finally decide to upgrade to a newer processor in another year or two. The only problem is that it's relatively power-hungry compared to the C2D that I have doing this now. Well, it's a libvirt server, but anyway

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    37. Re:Finally a replacement by armanox · · Score: 1

      Other catches with the FX vs the Phenom II - floating point. Since the modules share FPU, the Phenom II x6 has more FPUs then the FX-8xxx does. And since most people are running Windows 7, not 8 or Linux, the processor scheduling never happens.

      Other things I noticed - since most games rely on single threaded performance, the Phenom II has the edge there (and Intel a much larger edge). For heavy math, the AVX on the FX-81xx series performs poorly compared to Intel.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    38. Re:Finally a replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem is that the i7-4790k runs 30-50% faster on most tasks per core. I stuck with my 8350 for a very long time but got tired of the single-core performance and upgraded to an i7. And I've been buying only AMD CPUs since around 2005. They really need to do something to fix their under-performing per-core and hopefully this helps.

      While there are a lot of multi-threaded workloads - some things just can't be multi-threaded and you need that single-core power. Eight cores doesn't help on those tasks when your per-core speed is 20-30% below Intel's i5/i7.

    39. Re:Finally a replacement by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      I won't say hobbling. I have both the fx-8150 and the fx-8350 and they are both de finally behind on the curve when it comes to technology. Both of these processors where gifted to me by a friend who was sick of always being behind on the curve when it comes to AMD. He hopped over to Intel with a couple of i7's last year.

      I'm convinced unless something changes an AMD gets on the ball with this release, my current AMD systems will be the last AMD systems I own.

      And I am hoping or expecting that AMD's cpus reach or exceed the comparable performance of Intel products. Intel 4790 stuff is about $200 too high per unit.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    40. Re:Finally a replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try some h265 encoding. The space savings are quite nice, and you quickly find yourself wanting to upgrade, if that is a good thing. Some image applications really speed up with those SSE4, AVX and FMA{3,4} instructions as well.

    41. Re:Finally a replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's mobile, a lot faster and uses a lot less power. AMD's best desktops get beaten out but mobile Intel CPUs.

    42. Re:Finally a replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also built an A10-7850k system to monkey with HSA. Truth to be told even on the desktop it "feels" smoother than the 9590.

      Try to disable the turbo core of the 9590 by disabling the APM master enable setting.

    43. Re:Finally a replacement by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      The shared FPU on the FX series is rarely a problem. Sure, there is only one that is shared between a pair of cores - but it is a 128 bit FPU that can do two 64 bit operations simultaneously. It's not likely to be a bottleneck unless you are working with long double or binary128 data, in which case it can only do one operation at a time.

      The most common problem with poor utilization of the core pairs in the FX series is cache contention. That's where the updated process scheduler comes in. To oversimplify a bit, you want to assign multiple threads of the same program to the same core pair, and assign different programs to different pairs whenever possible. If different programs get assigned to the same pair, they should be programs with small working sets. You need a scheduler that understands the unique constraints of the core pairs and does not consider all threads to be equal for scheduling purposes.

      Similar constraints apply to scheduling hyperthreaded cores on Intel processors. The important difference is that Windows 7 knows how to use those well, but does not know how to use the FX to best advantage. Microsoft made improvements in Windows 8 but did not backport them to older versions of Windows, whereas Linux systems get the improvements with their kernel updates.

    44. Re:Finally a replacement by Agripa · · Score: 1

      One of my requirements is ECC so I have been hobbling along with a Phenom II 940 and AM2+ which was less than half the price of the Intel equivalent at the time. The current Intel alternative would be a Xeon E3-1220 v3 to Xeon E3-1276 v3 which I will consider if I have to replace it but the Intel solution is still more expensive.

    45. Re: Finally a replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must have expensive electricity! For me, the difference in cost would be like $3 a month if running full duty, which it wouldn't be.

      Don't be trapped into the "will pay for itself ". Unless you use coal or whale blubber.

    46. Re:Finally a replacement by Ayanami_R · · Score: 1

      "I have the same chip and it is ridiculous at everything but gaming."

      There wasn't anything to translate here, I meant exactly what was said. It's good, until I try to run games, then performance is absolutely horrible.

      "It's single core performance is laughingly bad."

      And it is. Almost any game pegs one core at 100% while the rest are at 30% The 100% CPU core is the "main thread." If this is slow, the frame rate of your game WILL be bad no matter how many cores you have. I gained at least 50% performance switching to my quite real girlfriends computer, where the "main thread" pegs at about 40%.

      --
      "Science is the power of man"
    47. Re:Finally a replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmhm the 1054T, a mighty fine CPU, and apparently the last of the hand crafted x86 amd chips.
      I have the x6 and the 8350, generally the X6 out preforms the 8350FX (Unless its a heavily threaded, like video encoding or something) also the 8350 needs water cooling to behave like the X6 without melting.

      The FX chips were a disappointment however so was Phenom when it launched. I was surprised they develop[ed a new architecture only to abandon it.

    48. Re:Finally a replacement by phoenix_rizzen · · Score: 1

      Eh, it still works without any issues, it's in the bedroom, and really only used when we're too sick to walk downstairs. Why get rid of a perfectly working TV?

      Eventually, we'll replace the lowly 39" LCD downstairs with something larger, move that one into the bedroom, and move the CRT into the kids' room with the NES, SNES, and Wii. :)

      At that point, I'll have to replace the Athlon64 with something that can handle 720p or 1080p. Until then, we'll just keep on rocking.

    49. Re:Finally a replacement by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Eh, it still works without any issues, it's in the bedroom, and really only used when we're too sick to walk downstairs. Why get rid of a perfectly working TV?

      Because staring at an electron gun shooting at your eyes is bad for you?

      CRTs always gave me headaches, the flicker and refresh of the screen. The move to LCDs was very welcome.

      Eventually, we'll replace the lowly 39" LCD downstairs with something larger, move that one into the bedroom, and move the CRT into the kids' room with the NES, SNES, and Wii. :)

      Oh goodie, ruin the kid's eyes! :)

      At that point, I'll have to replace the Athlon64 with something that can handle 720p or 1080p. Until then, we'll just keep on rocking.

      And that was the point, you said your old Athlon was just fine, and I was simply pointing out for everyone else who isn't running a CRT that your statement had a catch to it. :)

    50. Re:Finally a replacement by kriston · · Score: 1

      Yes, it has a slightly higher power consumption, but at this processor's insanely high 6MB L3 Cache and 6 x 512KB L2 Cache, I can accept it. It is a solid performer.

      --

      Kriston

  2. Just in time for the End of the Line by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Insightful

    14nm tech may be the end of the line for CMOS. The 10 nm node that follows may not even be possible

    1. Re:Just in time for the End of the Line by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 0

      Pundits have been saying that at least since 90nm, you know. Then 65, and again at 45, 32, 33, and now at 14.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:Just in time for the End of the Line by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Insightful

      None of those other nodes pitches involved dimensions of which quantum mechanical tunneling was the dominant effect, nor of gate thickness being one atom. But that's what 10nm is.

    3. Re:Just in time for the End of the Line by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Pundits have been saying that at least since 90nm, you know. Then 65, and again at 45, 32, 33, and now at 14.

      And those limits were dodged by some new process: SOI, copper interconnects, what have you. He's not saying we won't see 10 nm, he's just saying there's a good chance it will have to be something other than CMOS.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    4. Re:Just in time for the End of the Line by Megol · · Score: 2

      10nm is proven possible. Samsung have demonstrated some 10nm chips already.

      Transistors have been made much smaller in process development labs so we know that the scaling will continue some time into the future.

    5. Re:Just in time for the End of the Line by ITRambo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      We are a ways away from not being able to shrink dies further using known technologies. One atom, in this context, is much smaller than 10 nm. The range is 0.1 to 0.5 nm using various methods of calculating the atom's diameter (see link following). . Source on atom size: http://hypertextbook.com/facts...

    6. Re:Just in time for the End of the Line by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Pundits were saying that about 90nm, but usually that was because they misunderstood when the engineers (who were multiple product cycles ahead of the consumer-pundits) were speculating that they "would" "soon" be reaching these limits. ;)

      Other times it was as simplistic as, "Can we keep shrinking this forever?" "No." "How far can we go using current technology?" "Using current technology we can only go as far as we can currently go."

    7. Re:Just in time for the End of the Line by Kjella · · Score: 1

      None of those other nodes pitches involved dimensions of which quantum mechanical tunneling was the dominant effect, nor of gate thickness being one atom. But that's what 10nm is.

      Not even close. They have on the research stage made functional 3nm FinFET transistors, if they can be produced in the billions is unlikely as it requires every atom to be in the right place but 10nm still has some margin of error. The end of the road is in sight though...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:Just in time for the End of the Line by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Maybe that could account for a few cases, but there were other issues at least some researchers didn't think would be solved so quickly either. In the link I provided (unfortunately, the original article isn't found, just the summary), a researcher in 2002 was claiming that CMOS would end up at 45 nm and halt there because of the issues with thermal noise. I also remember these types of predictions being made by researches at Intel as well.

      Look, I'll I'm saying is that *every* time so far the prediction was made, it's turned out that manufacturers figured out how to push the envelop a little further. Eventually, it's got to end at some point, but so far the scientists and researchers manage to surprise us each time. It's hard to predict when or how the next breakthrough will occur, because by nature, it's something that no one has though of yet.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    9. Re:Just in time for the End of the Line by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Quantum effects really start dominating when insulator or in some cases semiconductor (which acts as insulator) layers get to about 6 atoms thick.

      Still a way to go.

    10. Re:Just in time for the End of the Line by Megol · · Score: 1

      10nm chips have been manufactured and demonstrated by Samsung, Intel plans on producing 10nm chip in 2016. 10nm isn't a problem, process development is close to finished. 7nm doesn't seem to present any physical problem.
      And 3nm transistors have been manufactured. Not in a commercial manufacturing process but not only can they be made - they are demonstrated to be working.

      So you are way off.

    11. Re:Just in time for the End of the Line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, I'll I'm saying is that

      Look, I will I am saying is that

    12. Re:Just in time for the End of the Line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem is not building small structures. The problem is designing small structures to give you working chips. Sure, you build a 10 atom "isolator". Unfortunately a large number of electrons will disagree and act as if it's a conductor.

      This is made worse by the need to get all your isolator perfect, which is increasingly hard as the gate counts go up while the dimensions go down. An isolator that's 1 nm off is now a much bigger problem than it used to be.

  3. APU... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    App Processing Unit!

    1. Re:APU... by msobkow · · Score: 1

      Arsehole Puckering Up! :P :P :P

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    2. Re:APU... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ass Pooping Unit.

  4. Zen Architecture by hey! · · Score: 5, Funny

    Featuring GGL (Gateless Gate Logic).

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Zen Architecture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I had mod points... alas, all is emptiness.

    2. Re:Zen Architecture by nytes · · Score: 2

      Can it calculate the sound of one hand clapping?

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    3. Re:Zen Architecture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it sleeps or dozes while being in low power state, can I hit it with a bamboo stick for its benefit?

    4. Re:Zen Architecture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Mu.

    5. Re:Zen Architecture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sound of one hand clapping is like the sound of two hands clapping, only lower volume.

      Seriously, you can't clap just one hand? Are you retarded or do you have a physical impairment?

  5. what do they mean by simultaneous multithreading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do they mean synchronous or asynchronous? Maybe they mean all at once, at the same time, together? Or more likely they mean - you'll have to install your laptop on a houshold circuit similar to an instantaneous hot water heater and wear a fireproof suit on bootup. Once systemd recognizes the processor, it will shut 50-80% of the cores down depending on your local fire code.
    Of course this will be widely hailed as freedom of choice from Intel processors which has so much garbled microcode in them, that systemd has no chance to discover what you really have inside. Sorry to say 4k displays are no where near the hol9graphic porn we were promised. I'm sticking with xp. -Not for my phone though. For my phone nothing beats some melted plastic garbage from samsung, and we dont need intel or amd for that mess.

  6. So close... by lga · · Score: 2, Funny

    >40% higher performance-per-clock from from the x86 CPU core.

    That could very slightly close the gap between AMD and Intel!

    --
    A latent existence
    1. Re:So close... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      40% higher IPC vs bulldozer is not ">40% higher performance-per-clock [sic]". this basically says it'll take them until late 2016 or early 2017 to have a part that competes with haswell... ok, great... yay, AMD! your mommy is so proud...

    2. Re:So close... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and i see i misread, parent is making the same point... touche!

    3. Re:So close... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMD has a market cap of $1.7B. Intel has a market cap of $150ishB.

      I don't even see how they can compete. They've been sinking ever since I've known them.

  7. Please make it soon AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope that's early 2016. I'm way overdue an upgrade. I go for AMD if I can.

    1. Re:Please make it soon AMD by war4peace · · Score: 1

      I go for AMD if I can.

      Why?

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    2. Re:Please make it soon AMD by Totenglocke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good bang for your buck and ethical business practices. Hell, just the unethical business practices alone should make most informed people stay away from Intel.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    3. Re:Please make it soon AMD by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Funny

      A lot of people don't really understand that the CPUs are already "fast enough" and that they can include other important issues in their buying decisions.

      I mostly buy and recommend AMD because:
      1) better price/performance ratio
      2) code I write is designed to scale horizontally, which loops back to #1 even when it is a high load service
      3) better power/performance ratio on desktops and servers
      4) the motherboards are cheaper for the same components, and I hate over-paying even if the motherboard cost is too small a percent of the total system cost to matter very much

      Intel does mostly win on laptops due to lack of availability of alternatives.

    4. Re:Please make it soon AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I went AMD on my home file server due to the availability of more SATA ports at a cheaper price on the motherboard. At the time, Intel only offered 2 native SATA3 ports. CPU performance was irrelevant for my needs.

      3) better power/performance ratio on desktops and servers

      That's a reason to avoid AMD. Intel is leaps and bounds ahead in this metric. It's also why AMD struggles to compete in the laptop market.

    5. Re:Please make it soon AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah they seem real ethical.

    6. Re:Please make it soon AMD by dbIII · · Score: 3, Funny

      So I can get a 64 core machine with 512GB or memory for $8k instead of $80k.
      At the low end good enough and dirt cheap pushes towards AMD. In the middle there are niches where braindead developers still don't have a fucking clue in 2015 how to write multi-threaded code so a fast i7 with hardly any cores is the best tool for the job, but that's a diminishing niche as developers start to learn what they should have in 1995.

    7. Re:Please make it soon AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A single supply chain manager charged with insider trading. Not exactly comparable to official company action against a rival company.

    8. Re:Please make it soon AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I avoided AMD because they're power hogs. The chips and motherboards, for a given setup are usually cheaper. The performance, especially in multi-threaded applications like video editing, is good. But, dear god, the power consumption is insane. If your computer runs 16 hours per day, the AMD will cost about $50 more per year to run (there's a power spike even when running a single thread). Over a few years, it costs just as much as an equivalent Intel system.

      If that power consumption came down even close to Intel's levels, then I'd probably buy AMD.

    9. Re:Please make it soon AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just keep saying that catch phrase when AMD delivers this new wonder processor in 2017. Fighting AMD isn't required when their are playing with performance that is two years late. And that is being generous, others claim the results won't match Sandy Bridge (2011). Expect actual performance to be 4-5 years behind.

    10. Re:Please make it soon AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3) better power/performance ratio on desktops and servers

      I mean your other points seem like mild nonsense but this just isn't true. Intel has been crushing the performance/watt thing for years.

    11. Re:Please make it soon AMD by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      Cheaper. AMD always was and is cheaper than comparable Intel parts. Ditto AMD vs nVidia.

      For the lower price you lose some performance, especially in the edge cases. But for most tasks, the difference is almost negligible.

      P.S. Though the case is different in the gaming, where pretty much the whole market optimizes exclusively for the Intel/nVidia.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    12. Re:Please make it soon AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And an ex-CEO.

    13. Re:Please make it soon AMD by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      You lose more than "some performance". They also run hotter and use more power.

    14. Re:Please make it soon AMD by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      Hotter, but not so hot as to cause problems.

      N.B. Historically, I actually had more termal problems related to the Intel's than to AMD's CPUs.

      But it is true that in the power efficiency department, the Intel i-series are better than the AMDs.

      Though it is not a clear cut, if you take the whole system power consumption. Intel CPU + nVidia GPU would draw about the same (or more) power as AMD's comparable integrated CPU/GPU.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    15. Re:Please make it soon AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #2 is very context sensative. AMD has worse threaded performance when there is shared data. The exclusive cache increases average latency when one core makes a change to a cache-line and another core needs to grab the newest version, and copying from another core's L2 cache reduces cache bandwidth. The larger L2 cache also increases the latency. AMD is great for embarrassingly parallel work, but GPUs are even better. The small L1 caches put more stress on the L2 cache, which goes back to increased L2 cache latency and reduced bandwidth because of snooping and other issues.

    16. Re:Please make it soon AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think you're incredibly naive if you think AMD is some how more ethical in business than Intel... lack of opportunity to be a raging dick is not evidence that one is a nice guy...

  8. Extrapolate? by Hrrrg · · Score: 2

    Anyone care to extrapolate from current benchmarks as to how this new processor will compare to Intel's desktop offerings? I would like to see Intel have some competition there.

    1. Re:Extrapolate? by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Anyone care to extrapolate from current benchmarks as to how this new processor will compare to Intel's desktop offerings? I would like to see Intel have some competition there.

      FX-8350: 2012
      "Zen": 2016

      The 40% jump is more like 0%, 0%, 0%, 40%.

      If you compare a 3770K (best of 2012) to a 4790K (best of today) you get a ~15% frequency boost and another ~10% IPC improvements. If the leaked roadmaps are to believed Skylake for the desktop is imminent which will bring a new 14nm process and a refined micro-architecture at the same time as Broadwell missed their tick for the desktop, so in the same timeframe Intel will have improved 30-40% too.

      Anyway you asked about AMD and I answered with Intel but it's a lot easier to get a meaningful answer without getting into the AMD vs Intel flame war. In short, even if AMD comes through on that roadmap they're only back to 2012 levels of competitiveness and honestly speaking it wasn't exactly great and AMD wasn't exactly profitable. They're so far behind that you honestly couldn't expect less if they weren't giving up on that market completely, which honestly thinking I thought they had. And I wonder how credible this roadmap is, I remember an equally impressive upwards curve for Bulldozer...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Extrapolate? by hairyfeet · · Score: 0, Troll

      Uhhhh...just FYI but Intel has come right out and admitted it rigged the benchmarks so you can trust them about as much as the infamous FX5900 benches with its "quack.exe" back in the day.

      For those Intel fanboys, I have a simple question for you...if Intel is REALLY so far ahead, why would they risk the fines and antitrust by rigging benchmarks? If they are really THAT far ahead what would be the point of spending all those millions and taking all that risk? For bragging rights? If you have any common sense the answer should be obvious, a company with that large a warchest would NOT do such a thing if it were not necessary and the only reason Intel would take all that risk and go to all that trouble would be that their numbers do not justify their price and if the real numbers come out, like what the guys at Phoronix show is that they are a LOT closer than they would lead you to believe which means their 200%-300% price premiums are not in any way justified and would not exist in a free none rigged market!

      I don't give a shit if you like AMD, Intel, fucking SPARC it really should not matter because this should PISS YOU OFF because time and time again we have seen market rigging benefits nobody BUT the one doing the rigging! It certainly doesn't benefit those that like Intel CPUs, unless you consider it a fricking tithe to your church, because if it wasn't a rigged market 1.- the benches would show the chips a lot closer, 2.- More consumers would refuse to pay 300%+ for the Intel chips, and 3.- the PRICE WOULD GO DOWN, so you should be royally pissed right about now, cuz if you own an Intel chip you paid too much!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    3. Re:Extrapolate? by Kjella · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Uhhhh...just FYI but Intel has come right out and admitted it rigged the benchmarks so you can trust them about as much as the infamous FX5900 benches with its "quack.exe" back in the day.

      Yes yes, you spam that to every thread. That's exactly why I compared Intel with Intel. Unless you think they're creating benchmarks that's increasingly inaccurate for each new generation, the point was that AMDs "jump" isn't actually more than Intel has improved through yearly releases since. Do you think the benchmarks are more "rigged" for the 4790k than the 3770k? Is the lack of new FX processors not real? By the way, even Phoronix's conclusion says:

      From the initial testing of the brand new AMD FX-8350 "Vishera", the performance was admirable, especially compared to last year's bit of a troubled start with the AMD FX Bulldozer processors.
      (...)
        In other words, the AMD FX-8350 is offered at a rather competitive value for fairly high-end desktops and workstations against Intel's latest Ivy Bridge offerings -- if you're commonly engaging in a workload where AMD CPUs do well.

      In not all of the Linux CPU benchmarks did the Piledriver-based FX-8350 do well. For some Linux programs, AMD CPUs simply don't perform well and the 2012 FX CPU was even beaten out by older Core i5 and i7 CPUs.

      I guess "bit of troubled" was the most pro-AMD way he could describe the FX-8150. And the FX-8350 is a mixed bag. And there's been zero improvement since. I realize your anger but Bulldozer was a disaster, the number of AMD fanboys that swear to their AMD Phenom II X6s should be a clue. When you can't even sell it to the ones drinking the kool-aid, good luck selling it to everybody else.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Extrapolate? by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      I don't know why you were moded up.
      Zen is 40% IPC greater than EXCAVATOR. The FX-8350 is bulldozer core. Since Bulldozer there has been 3 cores: Piledriver, Steamroller and Excavator (to be released this year).
      Intel has in fact dropped the ball. They have not released a new desktop CPU in 2 years.

  9. Holy shit AMD does something right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fist graphic: 40% increase in IPC

    Thank. Fucking. God.

    Looks like a lot of new, great tech. If its near half as good as it looks then Intel might actually have some competition again.

    Maybe a real CPU+GPU combo that doesn't have laughably crippled graphics? Event the top-end shit they put in the PS4 and Xbone are at best equivelent mid-range gaming PCs from 2010.

    1. Re:Holy shit AMD does something right by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      What is the use case for a high end integrated APU? The current use case is for systems that need modern GPU capabilities, but not high graphics performance. Lots of use cases require something like OpenGL but would never have it maxed out. They are full-featured, they just don't have the number of cores that you want for playing fancy games.

      If you want both to be high end, it seems more logical to have discrete graphics. But if you need OpenGL for CAD, WebGL, or some other use, then an APU is indeed "full featured" not "crippled" at all. They support the latest APIs and technologies, just not the latest games at highest settings.

    2. Re:Holy shit AMD does something right by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "What is the use case for a high end integrated APU? The current use case is for systems that need modern GPU capabilities, but not high graphics performance."

      The reality of the situation is that right now, even at current tech, if AMD used a bit more actual die space, and embedded a couple gigs of eDRAM for the CPU/GPU to share apart from main system memory, the performance increase would be quite huge.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    3. Re:Holy shit AMD does something right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get why they didn't brush up and bring their "Sideport" technology along to the modern APU's. If you'd make it 64 bit and dual channel, it should be able to give a major boost to graphics, even if you're still using DDR3.

    4. Re:Holy shit AMD does something right by Khyber · · Score: 1

      A 64-bit memory bus is like the slowest available memory bus for GPUs. Minimum 256-bit wide memory bus path is recommended. Many GPUs are gimped specifically because of the low bit-width bus.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    5. Re:Holy shit AMD does something right by Agripa · · Score: 1

      The APU supports unified access to system memory which should be a big advantage in heterogeneous computing applications but I have not seen it pan out yet.

    6. Re:Holy shit AMD does something right by Agripa · · Score: 1

      The old sideport implementations maxed out at DDR3-1333 speeds (10.6 GB/s) so they might as well add another channel of memory. Integrated GDDR5 would only be 40 GB/s and DDR4 system memory about half that so it does not really make sense at this point.

    7. Re:Holy shit AMD does something right by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Do you think you even said anything? When you say it doesn't "pan out," you mean that my APU systems actually access their memory? Or, you did you just mean, the feature is just an implementation detail and it doesn't include any unicorns farting rainbows into your applications?

      Or is it just pure, "not my favorite team" type of fan-commenting?

      Is there a specific claim that they make that the chip can't achieve? That is what it would mean if what they did actually "didn't pan out." But that isn't the case, it did pan out; it does do the things they say it does. If you just mean, you haven't personally seen whatever it is people are doing or not doing, well gee, that isn't notable.

    8. Re:Holy shit AMD does something right by Agripa · · Score: 1

      When I say that I have not seen it pan out, I mean that I use engineering applications which should be able to take good advantage of heterogeneous computing with a unified address space as implemented in AMD's recent APUs but none of them do and AMD's existing APUs come with a significant cost in single thread performance. If I just wanted video acceleration and processing, then the existing PCIe interface GPUs can do that.

  10. Re:what do they mean by simultaneous multithreadin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but systemd!!

  11. Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Finally, a processor that will meditate on existential paradoxes and encourage us to push to deeper self-understanding as it half-assedly pretends to work on solving a task.

    1. Re:Finally by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You might consider the wisdom in having less attachment to what people think about the value of you or your CPU's meditations.

  12. Bake will be pleased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To be installed in the new Liberator socket?

  13. Dear AMD by faragon · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Please, focus. I don't know what "the market" need. I know what *I* need to buy from you again:
    • Netbook: 2-core CPU/APU at 2GHz with decent IPC for 30 USD
    • Laptop: 4-core CPU/APU at 2-2.5GHz with good IPC for 60-70 USD
    • Desktop: "PS4 on a chip" with twice the CPU frequency for 90-120 USD

    Note that, in comparison to ARM CPUs, x86 SoCs are *crazy* overpriced. There are superb ARM SoCs for just 20 USD. WTF are you doing selling similar consumer-grade chips for 100 USD??

    1. Re:Dear AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The best ARM CPUs (Apple) have close to Bay Trail Atom CPU performance in single-core mode, but Bay Trail is quad core and Apple's are dual core. Other ARM CPUs are quad core but don't have the single core performance Apple does.

      And once you get into better than Bay Trail performance (most everything x86 except cheapest AMD stuff), ARM is left in the dust.

      That and software backwards compatibility are why x86 is still a premium. But that's changing.

    2. Re:Dear AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah thats out now. It's called Cherry Trail. .. And there is no sign of intel slowing down. Quite the contrary. Every new iteration gets faster, yet consumes less power.

      Personally I think it's only a matter of time before Apple jumps to Intel for iOS devices. At some point they're going to decide that designing their own processors isn't worth the cost. (Fun fact: There are only 2 companies in the world that still do expensive hand layout for their processors. Apple, and Intel. There's a reason they're both on top - And a reason AMD's designs have gone to shit)

      I bet they maintain an internal port now, and have been since day one. (Just like they did with PowerPC and OSX)

    3. Re:Dear AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ARM is always left in the dust when it comes to desktop class performance!

      Atom is a weak chip anyway, one that a lot of customers end up regretting their buy decision on. And ARM can't even match Atom in "single core mode", while the desktop is so routinely multi-core that no one comments on the remarkable penetration of multi-processing capability. Right down to the smallest laptops.

      Don't get me wrong, I think that ARM has a great story to tell for phones and tablets. There power conservation and efficiency dominate. Once you leave that space then ARM is in a different world of expectations, with different business models and all the rest. That's why I always think that ARM servers are a bit of a fantasy. There are a lot of deluded people talking about how ARM is "gonna" revolutionize servers, and desktops. Yeah, so where are all these great products I keep hearing about? You know, the ones that never actually show up? And even if they manage to bring to market, there's no plan in place to support customers massive conversion and support needs?

    4. Re:Dear AMD by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Hell I'd settle for just having one FPU per core again and none of this "module" nonsense.
      AMD jumped the shark for me in 2012 when they killed off their Phenom 2 line.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    5. Re:Dear AMD by adolf · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong, I think that ARM has a great story to tell for phones and tablets. There power conservation and efficiency dominate. Once you leave that space then ARM is in a different world of expectations, with different business models and all the rest. That's why I always think that ARM servers are a bit of a fantasy. There are a lot of deluded people talking about how ARM is "gonna" revolutionize servers, and desktops. Yeah, so where are all these great products I keep hearing about?

      You mean like the Corel NetWinder? You heard it here first, but the year that the power-efficient ARM server is going to change everything is 1999.

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
    6. Re:Dear AMD by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      I bet they maintain an internal port now, and have been since day one. (Just like they did with PowerPC and OSX)

      No need to bet and it's not internal. It's called the "iOS Simulator" and has been around for years and years as part of Xcode.

    7. Re:Dear AMD by tabrisnet · · Score: 2

      AMD gets a lot of shit for this, and there's plenty to give 'em shit for... but that's not one of 'em.

      It's a shared FPU only when in 256bit AVX mode. When in normal 128bit (2x64) SSE mode that you share one FPU with 2 cores.

    8. Re:Dear AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ARM might make a decent low-intensity server: home web or FTP servers.

      Of course, Intel already has $20 atoms coming out. They've teamed up with RockChip and other companies to help bring that price down. Intel wants in on "smart everything". (There's no risk to their servers and desktops as cell phone processors don't have the power video rendering requires.)

    9. Re:Dear AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, focus. I don't know what "the market" need. I know what *I* need to buy from you again:

      • Netbook: 2-core CPU/APU at 2GHz with decent IPC for 30 USD
      • Laptop: 4-core CPU/APU at 2-2.5GHz with good IPC for 60-70 USD
      • Desktop: "PS4 on a chip" with twice the CPU frequency for 90-120 USD

      The netbook would a PS4 on a chip. The PS4 is using embedded CPUs, not desktop CPUs.

    10. Re:Dear AMD by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      Note that, in comparison to ARM CPUs, x86 SoCs are *crazy* overpriced. There are superb ARM SoCs for just 20 USD. WTF are you doing selling similar consumer-grade chips for 100 USD??

      ARM CPUs still do not have proper pipe-lining. Out-of-order execution is castrated too. That basically kills ARM CPUs in any workload with lots of math (think games and encryption).

      And how about the CPU cache? 1MB of cache for ARM is still a high-end feature, while most desktop CPUs have 4 or more MB of cache. Huge HUGE difference for the memory bandwidth.

      ARM has its niche (which if ARM really wanted could have been very very broad and not niche at all) but as soon as you start gaming or do any real work, they simply pale in comparison.

      P.S. The use case I was researching in the past was the VPN. Most modern ARM SoCs hit around 1-2MB/s of sustained traffic encryption (on single core). My very old Intel CPU easily hits ~8MB/s (probably more, don't have bandwidth to test) on single core. And the ARM SoCs with quad-core >1GHz CPUs, which can do more than 1MB/s, cost more than $20. (E.g. ODROID U3 - $70.)

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    11. Re:Dear AMD by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately no matter what mode it is in, the two FPU pipelines are still sitting behind a single FPU scheduler so the result is essentially the same.

      My numerous benchmarks with bulldozer processors back this up, particularly with the likes of Matlab. Those processors are great for multi-process servers (web, email, etc) but useless for floating-point math (gaming, render farms, compute servers, etc).

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  14. Re:AMD...credible next year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is a valid point... AMD has lost some significant credibility, and will have to work to earn it back. maybe 2015 is the year for that, maybe not, but they certainly don't get to make bold claims and have those taken at face value without proof. not anymore.

  15. probably too little too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AMD had some success bringing in tighter GPU capability onto the CPU and thus pushing GPCPU / APU. But all the while, the CPU cores's are hobbled. The new kit 40% better? Thats good, because in way too many cases today, never mind in 2016 AMD laggs well behind. And in almost every case where they don't - they only match by using more juice, more heat, and discounted pricing.

    The whole bulldozer line and family were off, and its cost them years. Technology wise its been interesting to see Intel's progress. It currently beats AMD in most tests, and only creative corners/marketing pricepoints keep AMD in play. Even in the APU / GPCPU space, the intel intergrated parts at least keep pace and keep wattage and energy use down.

    Not only does this new set of lines have to ace on landing, its going to have to have serious performance envelope development available. Its going to need to be very energy efficient, its going to have to have good thermal limits and its going to have to be able to perform down clock and up clock with lower and higher volt versions to cater for low end/ desktop/high end and mobile. AMD is out of chances. Its burning money, and almost all current lines are at breakpoint. AMD need a new Opteron moment, and frankly they need it now.

    Whatever they do, intel has stuff in pipe. Tough times for AMD. I hope they have sucess because its important for competition to breed and pay for development and evolutionary work.

    1. Re:probably too little too late by Aighearach · · Score: 0

      Dear Mr Coward,
      I've been reading almost exactly this same screed from you on this site since the late 90s. News Flash: AMD is doing great, and the APUs are designed for certain uses not all uses.
      News flash: Intel is bigger than AMD and will be targeting more use cases than AMD will. In no way does that tell us anything about if AMD is facing tough times. Judging by the availability of AMD-compatible motherboards now, compared to various times in the past, a person could easily think instead that they're in the middle of a Golden Age.

    2. Re:probably too little too late by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      AMD is doing great? In what alternate universe? Their net income for the most recent quarter was -$180 million. That is not what a company that is "doing great" has happen.

    3. Re:probably too little too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMD has been losing money for many quarters now. You seem to be blinded by your fangirlism.

    4. Re:probably too little too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMD is doing great!?!? Share some of what you're smoking? I guess we'll see what happens in the next 18 months, but aside from one quarter last year (console Xmas profits), it's been a long time since AMD turned a profit. I think you need to take your head out of AMD's ass, dude...

    5. Re:probably too little too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMD hasn't been doing great since Bulldozer shipped. At one point around 2005, they were looking really good. Intel was off chasing Itanium64, while AMD came out with the Opteron/Athlon64 lines which could run 32bit code at competitive speeds plus run 64bit code. It took Intel a few years to turn around, but by 2010-2012, Intel had taken back the per-core performance crown and AMD was blundering with Bulldozer.

      The Vishera CPU cores are just not competitive with the Intel Haswells, unless you have a task that is embarrassingly parallel. The Haswells are 30-50% faster at the same CPU frequency, which is important for certain workloads. As a result, AMD has had to drop prices on their CPUs in order to keep market share in the lower-middle parts of the market and has pretty much given up the high end market.

      Hopefully, they can pull things around before Intel has to give them money (again) to stay afloat.

    6. Re:probably too little too late by Agripa · · Score: 1

      AMD had some success bringing in tighter GPU capability onto the CPU and thus pushing GPCPU / APU.

      Their recent APUs look pretty neat but are there any applications which take advantage of their heterogeneous computing capability?

  16. Better Tell Intel Their 4nm Process Isn't Real by HannethCom · · Score: 4, Informative

    Intel develops technology which doesn't doesn't make it into their plant for 5 to 10 years. Also they don't put things on their roadmap until they've proven possible.
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/c...
    Intel's 2012 roadmap shows 4nm process in 2022. Which means they have a process that has been tested to work, they are just tweaking it to reduce errors and working on the best way to outfit a plant for it. Also costs billions and time to refit a plant.

    --
    Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
    1. Re:Better Tell Intel Their 4nm Process Isn't Real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. It means they have build sufficiently many transistors at 4 nm that they believe physics will hold up at that scale. Practically speaking, it's not Intel but ASML which dictates whether those designs can actually make it to mass production. And ASML is currently looking at 10 nm mass production, not 4 nm.

  17. Really? by edxwelch · · Score: 1

    TSMC has already produced test wafers on 10nm and plan to enter volume production in 2016
    http://www.fudzilla.com/news/p...

  18. Awesome marketing... by andyhhp · · Score: 1

    Because it is not like there is another Xen around in the world of servers...

    1. Re:Awesome marketing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool story, brah.

  19. Re:AMD...credible next year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Credible == still significantly weaker than equally priced Intel CPUs

  20. ZEN 40% performance is FAKE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now let's see y'all upvote an anonymous coward...
    http://juanrga.com/en/the-fake-zen-slides.html

  21. Thanks for "making my day"... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If you compare a 3770K (best of 2012) to a 4790K (best of today)" - by Kjella (173770) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @07:43PM (#49634193) Homepage

    Note the subject & bolded part of the quote: I just put one of those together today, & it absolutely SMOKES my last CPU (CoreI7 920) by a HUGE MARGIN when I run my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    * Over 4++ million records on deduplication, my old 920 (finally died @ mobo level after 7++ yrs.) took 57 minutes - this new Core I7 4790k only takes 31 minutes... made me happy!

    (So did your comment!)

    I typically buy every 5-7 yrs. & was planning on this 3 months or so from now, but when machines go, they go (what can you do, right?) - & I was forced to a wee bit early... It's nice to know I picked a good choice (I used Anandtech's benchmarks to give me a "rough indicator" of what I'd see 920 vs. 4790k http://www.anandtech.com/bench... , & it's around what I usually do, buying in 5-7 yr. timeframes (big increases usually)).

    You're correct it's pretty good (especially in terms of "bang for the buck", which was the basis I picked up the former 920 I had on, vs. 990 etc. from that CPU family by INTEL): It even bears up WELL vs. the "biggest/baddest" from INTEL I know of on that site too, in the 5960X, &, for considerably LESS monetary outlay http://www.anandtech.com/bench...

    APK

    P.S.=> Nicest part was that I ordered a 4770k, & they told me they might have issues getting THAT one... so, they sent me the better one (which bears out in the benchmark page below too) for the SAME price (bonus!!!)... apk

    1. Re:Thanks for "making my day"... apk by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      So you're an Intel troll now, too? Goody for you.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:Thanks for "making my day"... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just a troll. An off topic one.

    3. Re:Thanks for "making my day"... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything smokes the Core i7 920 by a huge margin. It's an ancient piece of shit.

    4. Re:Thanks for "making my day"... apk by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      *laughter*

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    5. Re:Thanks for "making my day"... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good to see you can laugh at yourself. You are laughable.

  22. Re:what do they mean by simultaneous multithreadin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They mean something akin to hyperthreading

  23. Where is the support for ECC RAM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but without ECC RAM support these chips are useless.
    AMD... please note, the Intel E3-1276v3 has ECC interface on the die (and also has GPU on die)... you need to do this, otherwise the server world is moving permanently to Intel.

    1. Re:Where is the support for ECC RAM? by dshk · · Score: 3, Informative

      What are you talking about? All AMD server boards support ECC. In contrast to Intel, AMD always puts every feature into every processor of the same generation. AMD does not dumb down artificially even its cheapest processor. That is one of the thing I like in AMD processors. I do not have to check which random feature is disabled in a particular processor. Even some desktop AMD motherboards have ECC support, like the SABERTOOTH 990FX.

    2. Re:Where is the support for ECC RAM? by FirstOne · · Score: 2

      Nearly all AMD CPU/APU's support ECC memory, you just need the right Mother Board... ASUS bios's have consistently supported AMD/ECC memory combinations for many years.

      Not long ago, I configured a number of Phenom II X6 1045t and FX-8320 systems with 8-16GB of ECC memory on ASUS M4A88T-M and M5A78L-M motherboards. This link indicates the Zen series will support 4 channel ECC/DDR4.

    3. Re:Where is the support for ECC RAM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMD don't dumb down their processors because they are already dumbed down enough. They'd be making their already tenuous ability to compete non-existent.

    4. Re:Where is the support for ECC RAM? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      The AMD processors which use socket AM2, AM2+, AM3, and AM3+ support ECC but the processors for the FM series of sockets including the APUs do not. The recent exceptions are the processors for the FP3 (notebooks) and AM1/FT3 (small form factor/mobile) processors which leaves ECC out for AMD's highest performance desktop Piledriver and Steamroller APUs.

      AM1 with ECC looks great for lower power network appliances, servers, and disk storage but the only thing faster with ECC is AM3+ without the APU. :/

  24. For me, it was a balance of price/performance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See here Hairyfeet http://hardware.slashdot.org/c... & the machine I told you of by email (that you called a "monster" & "what would I need that much power for" etc.) FINALLY 'busted', albeit, after nearly 8 yrs. of beating the hell out of it too - honestly, I was VERY happy to get THAT long out of it. I told you WHY I needed that much CPU power (for it's time, it was considered "best bang for the buck") - string processing on LARGE datasets I do via the program in the link above that I wrote...

    * I'm no 'fanboy' really - I've owned AMD before, but, it's just that I need to get as much "bang" as I can (that's my primary consideration" really), then, for the best BUCK value I can, to do that task... that's all.

    APK

    P.S.=> Per the 1st link above? The CPU Kjella noted, that I really "lucked-out" to if you read that link (they gave me the HIGHER model than what I ordered since they couldn't get the actual one I first wanted from them)?? You'll understand WHY I'm very happy about it - Kjella's statement only furthered my satisfaction... what this CPU does (cuts the task in 1/2 pretty much, time-wise taken), does the rest... apk

  25. I got my mileage out of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: I'm happy w/ that & the 4790x I have now in place of my old 920 (was great for its day & still was outperforming many chips - not "everything" smokes it, far from it).

    Kjella noted the 4790x I now use as "the best" along with the Phoronix website that another replier Hairyfeet noted that seconds his motion, stating the same:

    "the Core i7 4790K is currently the best desktop offering Intel has until desktop Broadwell CPUs make it out months down the road" from http://www.phoronix.com/scan.p...

    IT REALLY SHOWS IN MY CASE, for my needs (one of my main ones).

    The NICEST part is that the 4790k was only the cost of roughly 1/3rd of the "TOP DOG" INTEL offers in the 5960x currently

    AND

    The 4790k puts up a great showing vs. even the 5960x (especially considering that has more cores and far more L2/L3 cache too) -> http://www.anandtech.com/bench...

    * :)

    (I try to get the MOST out of what I purchase, & usually do, as was the case with my older 920 - then, when I do buy as I stated once every 5-7 years, I see HUGE performance increases... just as I did yet again now, Core I7 920 vs. Core I7 4790k)

    APK

    P.S.=> Works for me... apk

  26. What I'd like to know is this... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long ago did it happen & is INTEL still doing it? I don't see *WHY* they'd have to (in the 1st place initially, & secondly because of what I've seen here -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/c... as I've stated already...).

    * HOWEVER: I truly AM 'with you' on that note - I do NOT like b.s. tricks (especially ones that marketers are NOTORIOUS for), since a product, company OR even a person should be able to stand on their OWN merits & IF/WHEN you "take a beating" & lose to "the better man" etc., then, it's up to YOU to do better, if you can...

    APK

    P.S.=> "TIA" for that info. man... apk

  27. MB and Strategy by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    "Fast Enough" for you maybe. That usually depends on what you are using your computer for. Gaming is a driver. Most common applications I'll concede are not. However I have noticed in certain professional applications that used to be dependent on primarily graphic cards, are more dependent on CPU and system memory than anything else now. All that aside...

    I agree, while I have always bought Intel, I have always kept AMD in mind, One of the things that Intel does that is annoying, but probably linked to the fact that their chips are more advanced (and not some conspiracy to bilk more money out of me, adjusts tinfoil hat), is that the damn chipset and pinout keep changing each generation. While upgrading has become harder and less practical over the years, this pretty much drives the nail in the coffin. If EVERY release requires a new MB, you might as well solder the damn thing on. AMD has been at least better in that regard that they tend to support less chipsets (AM2/AM3).

    Lastly, I would like to see some actual direction from AMD, rather that try to be everyman. One thing Intel has done the last several releases is to focus on the laptop market, as that is where they see the growth. All their CPU while powerful, take power usage as their primary concern now it seems, and they all have throttling. Before it was that you made a CPU, and then you tried to make a variant of that work in a laptop. Now it seems, you make a laptop cpu and try to make it work in a desktop. As much as people keep tolling about the demise of the desktop, it hasn't happened, nor is it likely to. In addition, the other markets, tablets, phones, etc... have been eating into the laptop market, slowing that growth. I'd like to see AMD actually try some damn strategy and focus on desktop and server chips, rather than try to be baby Intel. The only way their current strategy is going to work is if they come across some crazy technology to beat Intel with, however they are trying to do this while Intel has probably several times the R&D budget they have... so the odds are not in their favor. Anyway they need to do something, as they've been in decline (as far as I have been concerned) for the last decade.

    They could even balance their portfolio out by using their graphics division to focus on laptops in integrated video, though the gains have been pretty small over the years.

  28. Answered it for myself... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was 2004, & I don't use "canned benchmarks" http://hardware.slashdot.org/c...

    Instead, I test using my OWN wares!

    (Which, when you come down to it, in reality that IS all that *really* matters, since getting a job done as FAST as possible IS what truly matters)

    In any event - So far, I know I've done well on this purchase (mobo reviews well too, & this was a "RUSH" buy, not a 'ton of research' this round as I usually would've done)...

    * One of these days, I'm going to hit a gamers forum to test my program vs. the 5960x especially (INTEL's top dog, since I *was* operating on 'canned benchmark' info. from ANANDTECH, which the YouTube video you pointed to rightly makes its point on INTEL's compilers doing CPU stepping & vendor type checks, omitting things like SSE/SSE2 etc. type better optimized processing routines vs. std. ones...)

    APK

    P.S.=> I'm also going to make a POINT of testing vs. AMD top offerings *IF POSSIBLE* on those gamer forums (they usually have HIGH end/HIGH speed rigs is why), again using MY program (not 'canned benchmarks' to avoid potential shenanigans you rightfully noted, that apparently were from the Pentium 4 vs. AMD X2 era long ago) - THAT is something I'd really like to see & know too, per YOUR points (just to know if it IS still happening of course, since I don't like it anymore than you do man)... apk

  29. Graphics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been in the same boat as you for a long time.

    Actually, my netbook is an AMD with integrated graphics (and the free driver still has a couple of issues).

    A couple of weeks ago I shopped for a desktop for my SO. No high-end graphics, just something decent (browser, office, video; no crazy games). I ended up with an Intel with integrated graphics. Why? Because they have the best X11 support, hands down. The whole ATI/AMD open-source thing seems to be just a scam, no real commitment.

    Sad, really. I't still prefer AMD, but until they clear this act (and no: user space blobs doesn't count for me as "clearing"!) I'm not interested.

  30. They messed up by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    "Zen will use simultaneous multithreading to execute two threads per core"
    That is the exact polar opposite of what everyone wants. We want one thread executed on multiple cores. The single core performance of AMD 6 and 8 core CPUs is PATHETIC. Most software still runs on just one core.

    1. Re:They messed up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to see an implementation of what you propose, but something like that is bloody near impossible. It's typically much easier to rewrite the software for multiple cores, and that's not exactly known as an easy problem.

  31. Details, please by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 1

    I see lots of announcements - not just this one - shouting about their new microarchitectures, how cool they are, the amazing benefits, and so on. But documentation of exactly what the new microarchitecture is, exactly what it does, seems thin-to-non-existent. Maybe I'm not looking in the right place.

    All "big" processors nowadays have fancy pipelines, out-of-order execution, branch prediction, multiple cores, and so on. Fine. But how is Zen different from past microarchitectures? What makes it revolutionary?

    Details, please.

    ...laura

  32. Currently shopping workstations, AMD competes? by samwichse · · Score: 1

    I'm currently bidding out a pretty hefty workstation (128GB RAM, RAID 5 disk array, highly parallel workload).

    From what I'm seeing, AMD is pretty competitive on price/performance. Our work load is integer heavy, and I can get a dual 16-core 2.8ghz AMD machine for $2500 cheaper than a dual 10 core 3.2ghz Intel machine. Even if you assume the AMD is 20-30% slower per core, it stacks up quite nicely.

    The MBs are cheaper, the processors are cheaper, and the registered DDR3 DIMMs are waaaaay cheaper than the DDR4 RDIMMs that Haswells seem to love.

    Sam

    1. Re:Currently shopping workstations, AMD competes? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Back when I built my workstation I went with the AMD Phenom II 940 because the Intel solution for ECC was a lot more money which was better spent on system RAM and disk performance. The Intel processor, motherboard, and FB-DIMMs would have more than doubled the cost. It is not that bad now but an Intel system still carries a price premium.

  33. What a loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AMD needs 100-200% performance increase per clock cycle. Their current offerings are clock per clock a match the the Core 2 series of almost a decade ago. A 40% increase will bring that to between the core 2, and ORIGINAL core i performance. Being that the original Core-i (Nehalem) performance is almost 100% faster clock-per-clock than the core 2 was.

    AMD is gonna die a stupid - management caused death.

    RIP AMD