pic related is overhyped
per clock performance is basically like haswell
why wait for it when you can buy haswell now?
>>54218383
>taking a fucking photo of a screen
>using paintbrush to cover shit up at random
what the actual fuck
>>54218495
32 KB per core? wtf???
>>54218383
what
is that supposed to be zen?
>>54218512
You stupid faggot. Every core have it's own L1 and L2 cache. L1 cache is splitted onto instruction cache and data cache.
>>54218522
yes you fucking nigger
>>54218558
rude
>>54218383
>why wait for it when you can buy haswell now?
Why fund Jewtel when you could fund AMD instead?
>>54218383
have we actually seen one of these being benchmarked? in various applications? How much does it cost? How well does it overclock?
>>54218383
>Why fund Jewtel when you could fund AMD instead?
Because it will be 8 core at lower power consumption.
>>54218594
it works in a very limited testing environment
don't expect proper benchmarks until late may at the earliest
Maybe it's clocked at 10GHz
>>54218383
>per clock performance
Define it.
>inb4 muh games, muh photoshop
>>54218621
So your saying that theres currentlly no way to judge the proper value/performance of these chips.
from that i would say if your current setup is adequate it would be wisest to see what the future holds, maybe intel willl still have the best chips, maybe not. Theres not long to wait now. Personallly i wont be upgrading for another 3 years at least, provided my hardware dosnt die, and generally i tend to go AMD but this system i had to go with an i5.
>>54218383
why does it say on-die near l2 cache but not near l1 or l3?
I just got myself a 4690K OC to [email protected]
I like it, I can hit 4.6 but it takes too much voltage and at 4.4Ghz I can use all those Intel saving powers settings without problems, CPU using 2 watts at idle is really good desu.
>per clock performance is basically like haswell
So it's a i7-5960X for a much lower cost? How is this bad?
>>54219191
And a 95W TDP instead of 140W
>>54218383
>per clock performance is basically like haswell
That's very good, that means we'll have competition, starting with AMD undercutting intels price.
>>54218647
Single thread benchmark results divided by clock speed.
>>54218383
So ES of zen actually exist?
Is it still releasing in 2016?
>>54218383
>per clock performance like haswell
That would be fucking amazing
So this doesn't come out for like another 8 months right?
Should I upgrade my FX 6300 to an i5 6600k?
>>54219648
Q4 or early Q1 2017
>>54218383
Pic related is the same paint effect OP uses when he share his homemade CP.
>into the trash it goes
>>54219691
Remember when AMDrones said it would be Q2 2016?
Tired of the lies and waiting desu.
>>54219709
I was on an older AMD until 2 months ago, I couldn't keep waiting.
>>54218383
is it an APU? then you got your response
btw, only 32KB/32KB/512KB per core? that's a bit... low
>>54219888
>only 32KB/32KB/512KB per core? that's a bit... low
No it's not, this is my 5820k here. >>54219712
6 cores, 32KB L1 data cache per core, 32KB L1 Instruction cache per core, 256KB L2 cache per core.
So that means zen is matching the L1 cache per core, and doubling L2 cache. L3 cache looks lower though (15MB in the intel vs 8MBfor AMD in that ES screenshot)
>>54219921
>L3 cache looks lower though (15MB in the intel vs 8MBfor AMD in that ES screenshot)
yea looks weird. But it is ES. Some cache could be disabled.
Also hopefully cache is not as bad as it was in bulldozer. The L3 cache was the same speed as RAM iirc.
>>54219979
Honestly, with double the L2 cache, having a smaller L3 cache is a fine trade off, 15MB L3 cache is a bit much afterall, the i5-6600k has 6MB L3 and the 6700k 8MB L3. So 8MB isn't an abnormal size for a desktop CPU.
hopefully it will be sold at a good price
>>54218383
AMD is done.
>>54220092
Read AMD at the top and literally lost all interest.
fake, zen has 8mb of l3 cache for every 4 cores, so there should be 16mb l3 in total.
>>54220291
it's an ES, could have half the cache disabled because of manufacturing defect or any number of other reasons.
>>54220291
>zen has 8mb of l3 cache for every 4 cores
didn't that come from the fake zen slides?
pretty sure it's not confirmed.
but as >>54220340 said
it could be just disabled in ES
>>54219712
you bought at the wrong time.
>>54220683
better deal than a 6700k, the 5820k is $30 more with 2 more cores, double the L3 cache.
>>54218550
Even for a single, dedicated cache for each core, 32Kb is still small, even for L1
>>54221467
see
>>54219921
>6 cores, 32KB L1 data cache per core, 32KB L1 Instruction cache per core, 256KB L2 cache per core.
>>54218383
HYPE
BENCHMARKS NOW
DO IT
NOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
>>54222571
am I seriously the only one excited about this?
>>54222730
yea pretty much
>>54218383
Nice, pretty sure this is the first screenshot of a running zen engineering sample. Any more details you could provide?
>>54218383
>OctalCore
>>54224765
I assume the pic in OP is of AIDA64. It always says octalcore on 8 cores iirc.
>>54225175
Didn't know that. Thank you.
>>54218579
Remember to report antisemitic posts, such as this one, fellow /g/ users.
It might be cool if they price it low and it overclocks well.
Probably won't upgrade from my i7 3770k at 4.4ghz yet.
How is that bad? Skylake isn't even 5% faster outside of synthetic benches and only comes with 4 cores.
>>54225681
MOAR CORZZZZZ = FASTER
>amdfags are this dumb
>>54225681
It's bad because it's made by AMD. Supporting AMD is antisemitic and, therefore, illegal.
Remember to report all pro-AMD posts for illegal content (hate speech is against US law).
>>54225852
Yes, a processor with more cores generally has higher throughput(that means faster) than a one with less assuming no huge discrepancies in clockspeed or architecture.
>>54225854
Actually, it is completely legal in the United States to say anything anti-Semitic that you want, so long as you do not encourage a boycott of Israeli products in general.
>>54225854
nope sorry hate speech is completely legal in US
>>54225905
>it's completely fine to speak ill of people
>but companies need to make their money at all costs
Sounds like Capitalism all right.
>>54225937
amen
LIVE FREE OR DIE BROTHER
>>54225681
It's bad because Intel completely shatters like glass at any sign of competition or threat to their 60% margins, they'd rather spend billions on lawyers and backalley deals to undermine than on a better processor.
We're gonna get another repeat of what happened over a decade ago.
>>54226098
It's real funny how they tried to pull the same shit in the tablet and smartphone market but fell flat on their face and lost a lot of money because there's way too much competition. And frankly, their SoCs were far too shitty for it to not smell funky.
