$1723 for a 6950X
Is Intel fucking serious?
Watch yourself, goy, I'll have you for hate speech.
Intel are offering a quality product at a reasonable price. If you disagree you can take your 'opinions' to Stormfront.
More of a reason to wait for Zen. I really wanted them to bump the price of the 8core down, but they know retards will buy their enthusiast chips. If Zen delivers an 8core in the range of $500-$600 with at least Haslel performance, then I'm buying. I'm buying and not only making a new desktop, I'll make a little homeserver as well.
>>54821306
>techology
>>54821306
Intel seriously want you to buy a 4790K which is still comparable in performance to any of the stuff since.
>>54821306
I find this pricing suspect because it's not competitive with Intel's own Haswell-E chips. If you already have X99, why would you pay more money for the same CPU, and if you don't have X99 yet, why not get Haswell instead for considerably less money across the board?
There's no way the performance is anything but 5% faster at best, if only from efficiency gains in going to a smaller node, so it can't be that they're charging a premium for that.
Let's just wait for the official Computex launch.
>>54821496
Also, these are well into Xeon prices, so you may as well get that if you're inclined to spend a ton of cash.
>>54821306
i have a pair of 8/16 core/thread processors that do 3.3 ghz with a 20mb cache and 40 lanes that cost 150 bucks each.
>>54821306
Yes and you're going to buy it because you have no other options.
>>54821306
Not really that shocking.
They are "rejected" Haswell-EP chips which are expensive to make.
Welcome to what happens when Intel doesn't have competition. They've played this game before. And all you idiots sat there laughing about AMD being "FINISHED AND BANKRUPT" while ignoring the consequences of that. Once AMD is out of the picture, Intel is going jack up their prices and shift all focus away from desktop CPUs, since they'll have a stranglehold on that market. Then they'll focus on low-power solutions for tablets because that's where they actually have competition.
whats gonna happen to my 6700k
>>54822919
Zen is going to fucking destroy intel, they better hike up the prices as much as possible before 16 and 32 core Zen server CPUs arrive.
>>54822987
but what if zen doesnt?
what if it is just mediocre?
what if it ISNT EVEN mediocre?
>>54823015
>AMD
>mediocre
excellent meme, goy. 17 rupees have been deposited into your account
>>54823055
i am very serious.
this could be very bad.
if amd under delivers yet again.
this could have dire consequences.
>>54823015
http://wccftech.com/amd-zen-cpu-performance-double-fx-8350/
pic related: intel
>>54822987
I'm just as hyped for Zen as anyone. But if AMD isn't completely serious about its performance, they're fucked, which means you're fucked.
>>54823103
>wccftech.com
That is the raggiest of rumor mills. It's a coin flip whether anything they write is true or not.
I can't wait til Zen undercuts all this shit.
>>54823184
Unless it's got a performance parity, it doesn't matter if they undercut it. And matching a 10-core i7 isn't going to be easy.
>>54823088
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEAyml3Fxgo&feature=youtu.be&t=40s
I will buy Zen, but let's be realistic and honest with ourselves. It'll stand toe-to-toe with the thousand dollar Haswell-E flagship 5960X, but it's doubtful the initial Zen flagship will compare to the Broadwell-E flagship. Zen will only compete with Broadwell on its second revision.
I have been steadily holding back each and every new release because the next is supposedly better. It's almost like there's no point buy now or ever...suddenly I'm depressed.
>>54823363
You joke, but wait until you see Intel jack their low-end desktop processors up to over $400, just like in the Athlon days.
>>54823015
A 40% IPC uplift over Excavator would put 8 core Summit Ridge in the range of Ivy Bridge-E to Haswell-E, with no hope of competing in heavy FPU centric workloads, and of course clocks are still in question. That definitely isn't bad, but it sure as shit isn't going to dethrone intel anywhere.
AMD might have a $500 8 core/16 thread chip that dominates at its price point, and thats realistically all people should be expecting.
>They have the monopoly
>>54823498
>no hope of competing in heavy FPU centric workloads
source?
>>54823274
For 140W, Zen could maybe hit 16 x 4.0GHz? It's not a huge core by comparison. Matching cache size would be more challenging. From what we know, that would meet or exceed performance parity. That's just theoretical, however.
The Summit Ridge chips seem to top out at 8 cores (2 x 4-modules), with A0 stepping currently running targeting a 95W TDP, testing 8 x 3.0GHz as conservative engineering samples, on the AMD Myrtle reference board (seems to be a Mini-ITX?), with one 16x PCIe 3.0 port connected to the CPU and the 4x PCIe 3.0 connected to the Promontory southbridge. This may not have a lot of relation to what they actually ship - it's an A0 stepping, they are validating and testing the tape-out, probably seeing how the packaging goes, how stable it is, how it clocks: we don't know any of this yet, and won't really until it comes out. Price will be a big factor, because as you've seen Intel are capitalizing on their lead and keeping their high-end costs very high, even as the competition starts to catch up.
They were looking at something like 16-32 core Opterons? We'll see if that actually pans out. Right now, we're just guessing based on the limited info we have available. Zen's going to go up against Kaby Lake in performance and price, and while Kaby Lake isn't going to be the 10nm step ahead Intel were hoping for, it's definitely going to be tough competition for AMD.
I think we're all sort of hoping for enough of a performance war between the two to start a price war, because that benefits everyone (except Intel's pockets).
>>54823647
ALU performance of early Zen cores seems to be good, right alongside Intel - which makes sense as one of Intel's big remaining multiplier patents has expired, so it may well be using the same general technique - but it's curiously slow with FMA3 for some reason? (Maybe they're still optimising the microcode on that one, maybe it's a hardware fault, or maybe it just bottlenecks the core and it sucks at FMA. Too early to tell.)
>>54823498
>AMD might have a $500 8 core/16 thread chip that dominates at its price point, and thats realistically all people should be expecting.
That should be enough though, most "enthusiasts" today only use i5s and quad i7s. They don't really need to compete with 10-core i7s that very few people actually buy.
>>54823647
Zen only has 128bit data paths in its FPU, and Su came out and said Zen would address 80% of the server market.
They can't compete against intel's monstrous AVX2 crunching FPU. By die area and transistors the FPU is the largest single part of intel's cores.
>>54823651
>They were looking at something like 16-32 core Opterons?
I hope so, but it's been so long since Opterons were viable that they'll probably still have trouble marketing them to businesses, which are often more hesitant to try new things than your average person, and your average person is hard enough to convince. Personally, I think they should just ditch the name and do a rebrand.
>>54823746
>>54823651
32 core Opterons are 4 die MCMs with 8 channel memory.
Thats the "disruptive" bandwidth Papermaster promised. 8 channels of 2800mhz ECC DDR4 is a lot. I can only imagine that they'll be able to use higher frequency DIMMs as they continue to improve as well.
>>54823716
Hm... Does Zen still use the fused 256-bit AVX design that Bulldozer uses? Is there anything else we know about Zen's FP scheduler and pipeline atm?
>>54823716
Ah, good point - didn't think of that! We simply don't know how it behaves there yet. Zen doesn't look like it uses the separate wide path approach of Intel's chips: which would mean less unused (albeit gated off for power reasons) transistors taking up core space, but maybe more bottlenecks - might well lag behind on things like video encoding - but maybe throwing more cores at it makes up for it? We'll have to see when it comes out, that's not an easy apples-to-oranges comparison.
I wonder how the hell it does scatter-gather?
>>54823746
Yep, P4 Xeons versus Opterons feel like a long time ago, but it also harks back to the Athlon 64 times when AMD chips were last truly competitive. It's not really "marketing them" to businesses exactly, but to big OEMs like HPE, Dell, and smaller ones like Supermicro. Really big companies like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, will use whatever works and definitely won't have a problem testing them - if they are efficient enough for most of their uses, they will consider them. Still early days to find out.
>>54823851
A bunch of info on general core width was found in a linux kernel patch a while ago.
The FPU in Zen is 4 wide.
Bulldozer and Piledriver both had a 4 wide FPU, but this was revised in Steamroller which was only 3 wide, and had slightly higher throughput per clock. One MMX was removed, and some stuff was switched around.
All we know aside from that is that Zen doesn't use the FlexFPU design, obviously, as it isn't shared between cores.
http://dresdenboy.blogspot.com/2016/02/new-amd-zen-core-details-emerged.html
A lot of info about cache structures and handling in there, totally useless unless you're a technician though.
>>54823876
>It's not really "marketing them" to businesses exactly, but to big OEMs like HPE, Dell, and smaller ones like Supermicro.
It's not just that. Vendors are obviously not going to exclusively carry AMD, so they will always offer an Intel alternative even if AMD convinces them to ship their product. And when a tech director is given the choice between Intel, which they view as tried and tested, or AMD, many of them will just buy Intel out of name recognition. For example, one of them I'm acquainted with only buys Dell because it's what has worked, even if there are comparable alternatives for cheaper. And if their Dell rep comes forward and offers something with AMD he's going to be skeptical, because everything else they've got is Intel.
Most businesses care more about reliability than saving a little bit of money. They look at the added cost like insurance.
ZEN
E
N
>>54821306
You could easily pay more than double that for a top of the line Xeon.
>>54821306
>family
why everyone has to use slang now
>>54821306
>6 core 12 thread Broadwell-E
>$617
>lower binned chip with less PCI-E lanes is $434
>8 core starts at over $1000
Summit Ridge at $500 at the top end would probably be positioned pretty well. If Zen clocks high enough to remain even somewhat competitive then it'll do well for consumer HEDT.
>>54824036
Which has more than double the number of cores
Based Zen.
ITT: mostly gaymers who think that this will be used in reddit battletations
>>54823651
>>I think we're all sort of hoping for enough of a performance war between the two to start a price war, because that benefits everyone (except Intel's pockets).
AMD has had losses quarter after quarter. I very much doubt they'd like a price war. Price wars always benefit the consumer at the expense of the companies - which is a mixed blessing when one of the companies is strong and swimming in cash and one is weak and struggling.
>>54821306
You dont have to buy it. Free market is a thing.
So should I buy the 6800k or the 5820k :)))
>>54822987
>back in the day, on /g/ when bulldozer is going to release
>constant threads IT'S OVER INTEL IS FINISHED
>bulldozer comes out
>oh wow it's fucking nothing.
As much as I wish it was 2001 again when AMD was king I just have a hard time thinking it will ever happen again.
Zen... I want to believe.
>>54821406
Why would they want you to buy a 4790k?
>>54821514
The motherboard probably cost more than both of them combined.
>>54826858
thats a pretty misleading curve
>>54826858
They won't be king, but they'll hold their own.
Now, if Jim Keller had stuck around, and continued working his magic, yes, AMD would again surpass Intel. The guy is a rockstar. Tesla is very lucky to have him.
>>54826817
>AMD has had losses quarter after quarter.
Thankfully that is slowing down, but even if they get back in the black over the next couple quarters, they still have that 2 billion dollar debt hanging over their head.
>>54823651
There is absolutely no way that a dual die MCM is hitting 140w at 4ghz. That would be an absurd miracle which would be remembered for all of semiconductor history. It would be the most energy efficient chip ever designed. Were that possible then consumer Summit Ridge would have no problem exceeding 4ghz inside of its 95w TDP.
We know that 14nm FinFET doesn't do high voltages, we know that AM4 has the most tight power fine grain power control of any socket ever, including intels, and we know how all current ARM SoCs clock per volt on the process. In addition we've seen the super low voltages that Polaris GPUs are operating at.
I would bet Vegas money that Summit Ridge will have a base clock around 3-3.4ghz at 1.1v max with incredibly aggressive turbo speeds touching 4ghz momentarily on a single core. I'd also bet that its going to have virtually no OC headroom. Pstates on Zen are going to be ridiculous, and switch faster than anything else to date.
The Raven Ridge APU is going to be AMD's strong serial performance contender to compete against mainstream i5s and i7s.
>>54827006
Keller had nothing to do at AMD. He was a department head, not an engineer or low level technician. He was in charge of everyone else who was doing the grunt work on K12 and Zen. The only project we know he touched personally was Excavator which is why Carrizo was delayed after Kaveri being delayed a full year.
The high level architecture of Zen and K12 were both finished, work at already started on Zen+ as of May 2015. AMD didn't hire him on permanently to sit in a corner office and collect a salary until retirement. He was contracted to handle a specific job, and left when it was finished.
>>54823716
>They can't compete against intel's monstrous AVX2 crunching FPU.
Except they ALREADY can.
Bulldozer FPU might be shit, but it's actually pretty nice on 'SSE5' Floating Point - too bad most every Floating Point test is done in pure 8087 FP - which Bulldozer doesn't even do natively anymore since it's deprecated as fuck.
>>54828184
Wow.
Go read any Bdver programming guide, then read a Ivy Bridge or newer programming guide. Look at the number of ops per clock each can pull. Bulldozer/Vishera are 4x slower than Haswell at AVX. The way they handle 256bit vectors is incredibly inefficient, and throughput gets halved in the module when handling them. Intel's cores can natively handle 256bit vectors, and they do so at twice the rate of the FlexFPU working with a 128bit vector.
Don't try to participate in a conversation you're under qualified for.
>>54828242
Name a single thing, outside of Scientific computing (which 0% of /g/ is involved in, don't even try to lie) that is even compiled for AVX2?
>>54828271
>I don't use it while browsing the web so it doesn't matter!
This is strawman bullshit, trying to redirect focus from yourself for making a stupid comment. You stated something 100% factually incorrect because you're talking out of your ass.
Stick to /v/idya thread, you clearly don't belong here.
>>54828320
don't be a dick
>>54821306
I hope retail edge in winter gets us the 6900K, but almost certain it'll max out at the 6850K. 6 cores is still good enough for an upgrade I guess.
>>54828271
with today's slow progress you don't have to think about what's compiled to use it now, but what might be in the next five years or more.
>>54821306
>$400+ for the lowest-tier i7
>actually putting out a $1,700 consumer-oriented processor
Fucking jews
>>54828112
>Keller had nothing to do at AMD.
So, after Zen, he had nothing to do? Do you really believe that's how management works?
>He was a department head, not an engineer or low level technician. He was in charge of everyone else who was doing the grunt work on K12 and Zen.
You say that like it's a bad thing. You do realize that brilliant groups of engineers fail miserably all the time because of inept management, right? Engineers doing 'grunt work' don't make decisions in a vacuum; they do as they're told, and generally do a shit job without clear direction.
>The high level architecture of Zen and K12 were both finished, work at already started on Zen+ as of May 2015. AMD didn't hire him on permanently to sit in a corner office and collect a salary until retirement. He was contracted to handle a specific job, and left when it was finished.
Again, I highly doubt he would have nothing to do if he had stayed. Management jobs don't work like that. He would have gotten general direction from folks like Lisa, and then would have set about aligning his groups in whatever manner he wished to meet those expectations. He would have had plenty to do.
AMD didn't eliminate his position, so it's fairly obvious that someone directly under him got the post. Hopefully they know what they're doing.
I wouldn't be shocked if the prices start out high to milk early adopters, and then the top model stays high and the others slowly decline.
>>54828578
>So, after Zen, he had nothing to do?
Yes, nothing AMD needed his expertise for, or nothing they felt like continuing to pay him for.
He didn't have his position eliminated, and he didn't quit. He met the terms of his contract and went on to do other things.
>>54826858
I remember when people were hyping up Bulldozer and saying the single core performance would be almost as good as sandy.
>>54823103
>Double FX 8350
You could just buy an i5 and get that already :^)
>>54828738
Do you have a source for him working on contract?
>>54828867
It was on AMD's investor page when he joined the company.
>>54828794
>using the smiley with a carat nose
>>54828794
It's actually more comparable to the haswell-E series. The price point will be the real question.
>>54821330
>>54821306
>quality product
>140w
housefires
>>54821306
>shitty 28 lane 6800k costing as much as the 40 lane 5930k
Wow that shit better oc to 5ghz
>>54829314
My guess is :
Top end Summit Ridge sells at $500
Top end Raven Ridge sells at $250
>>54821306
Does it really cost Intel more to make more cores? Whether it's an i3, i5, or i7 xXx_ExTrEmE_xXx, they just put silicon into the machine and out comes a chip. When a new version comes out, every version should be the "best" version. The tiered system of economy chip, mainstream chip, and enthusiast chip seems artificial, like they gimp certain chips just to sell the at a lower price. When you have a new machine that makes the new best chip, why make any other chip? Unless processors are like growing tomatoes where some come out ripe and some come out rotten, where the ripe ones are i7s and the rotten ones get sold as i3s.
>>54829380
It cost money to turn sand into facebook machines
Intel basically hires alchemists
>>54829380
Wafers have a base cost, running the machines has a base cost, the raw materials have a base cost, the man hours involved in design have a base cost.
Binning is not gimping, its recouping a loss. Intel isn't intentionally disabling half an i7 just to sell an i3. Parts of the die are defective so that i7 gets turned into an i3 so they don't have to just throw it away and write it off as a total loss.
I think they're trying to squeeze as much money out of people as possible before their profit margins get smashed by Zen, ARM and power9.
>>54829380
>>Does it really cost Intel more to make more cores?
Yes, to a varying extent. They design a chip with X cores and make a bunch of them. The yield varies. Some work perfectly, some don't work at all, a large number work, but not completely. These often get cores disabled and sold as X - 2 core chips or whatever. Fancier version of the clock-speed binning they've been doing since forever. Nvidia also does it, as does AMD with goth CPUs and GPUs. As a process matures and yields go up, more chips will pass with no defects, and you'll have a situation where it doesn't cost them any more, most of the time, to make the top-end model.
>>54829398
What I'm trying to say is... you have a machine that turns sand into CPUs. The labor involved is putting the sand into the machine and taking them out. It costs you the same "amount" of materials and labor to make an i3 as a 10-core i7. Once you have finished the research and development and made a better product... why continue making any lesser product? The labor and materials are the same. You're utilizing labor inefficiently by allocating some of it to the inferior product. You should have all your machines change to making the newer version.
>>54829445
Zen is going to take maybe 10% of the enterprise market, ARM micro servers probably won't be a very big sell, POWER9 is going nowhere but HPC, and I have a sneaking suspicion that a few current POWER customers will be switching over to comparatively cheap Opterons.
K12 has an extremely uncertain future.
>>54829360
I can get my 5820k to 4.7GHz, so I wouldnt be shocked to see broadwell-e hit 5GHz on the high end of the silicon lottery, most will probably be ~4.6GHz or 4.7GHz though. With more cores it's hard to get it stable.
>>54829372
If this is the case, AMD might actually off an alternative solution again. I don't know if I'd actually buy a product from them given mishaps in the past I've dealt with, but I'd like to at least see the option. As it stands, Intels just a better option for both desktop and server CPUs.
>>54829480
think of it like babies. You don't know what you're gonna get. On average you'll get a functioning one. If you get shit luck it'll come out retarded. (amd)
>>54829414
>>54829457
So it is like my analogy of farming where some product comes out bad, but still gets sold, just not as the "premium" brand that's big and juicy and wins first prize at the state fair. The shitty ones can at least go to the pet food factory or something so they're not wasted.
>>54829480
actually it isn't, if you take die size into account. You can fit more tiny i3s onto one wafer than giant 10-core server chips.
also they continue making lesser products as a market segmentation strategy. The people who are happy with any old thing and won't pay extra for something faster get their own product, the people who will definitely pay more for the fastest thing they can get get their own product, so as to charge them very different prices.
Also something that's done by many other chipmakers and in almost every industry everywhere
>>54829480
>The labor involved is putting the sand into the machine and taking them out. It costs you the same "amount" of materials and labor to make an i3 as a 10-core i7.
Yes but then you have RD costs to recoup.
You are forgetting that intel spends BILLIONS on research and development every year.
As for the i3 and i7 , let me give you an anlogy.
Intel , like say Ford doesn't make much money on their base models, like the i3 or the Ford Fusion,
its enough to keep the lights on, but not much extra.
So what you do is for a much larger profit margin you offer other things people might like.
Like the $3000 navigation system or in this case the $1700 10core monster.
This might be where your profits come from.
>The labor and materials are the same. You're utilizing labor inefficiently by allocating some of it to the inferior product. You should have all your machines change to making the newer version.
Old products are still selling so why stop making them ?
Older tech tends to have better yeilds than newer tech.
The machines themselves cost millions of dollars each.
A new fab costs as much as a nuclear reactor these days, and then you have to replace the machines inside every few years too.
Mannnnnnnnnnnnn all this amd hype makes me crack a fatty.
But.. last time I bought into amd it was for steamroller... and we all know how that ended up.
>10core/20threas Broadwell-E $1700 instead of $1500 predicted
>intelfags were unironically expecting it to be $1000
LOL
>>54829480
They have two production lines.
4 core + gpu chip on newest one for laptop and low end PC. These are close to ARM SoC in size, if there was any competition they would sell for about $150. As they are a small chip partially defective ones are not likely to be common.
18 core model, made on previous gen fab. All the lga2011 products are this chip. A huge scam, high end ones are sold for $4000+, as they always make them on the older production line yields are likely very good. They're no bigger than high end GPUs While there would be some with defective cores you would expect 12 or 14 cores left over not 6 or 8. In comparison I think the 48 core cavium thunderX sells for around $500 per chip and the top of the line power8 is a little over $1000. An 18 core xeon could likely be sold at $1500 and still make a huge profit.
>>54829493
>ARM micro servers probably won't be a very big sell,
ARM is chasing high powered servers now, see cavium thunder X2 and qualcomm server chip.
>>54829609
>Steamroller
Mistakes were made, and unfortunately it wasn't worth the money necessary to correct them given that the BD family was end of line at Excavator. AMD made enormous gains over Piledriver and they ended up lost in virtually every single real world workload because L2 latency significantly increased in a trade off for improved bandwidth. All other ares of the core which improved significantly basically got swept under the rug because of that one singular fact.
The architecture could be salvaged with $10-$20 million and tens of thousands of man hours, but starting from scratch would likely be just as much work.
The real comparison that Zen has to stand up to is a theoretical 8 module Excavator chip. If Zen doesn't have higher multithreaded performance than 8 Ex modules it spells pretty bad things for AMD's efforts.
>>54829582
You know, I thought the same thing about cars. Why not make every car look like a Bugatti? It's not like the shape itself is expensive. Their engines are probably machined by robot assembly lines just like those of Honda Civics. Does it really cost $2 million to make a car? You're paying for the branding. Honda could easily make a car just like it for $20k and undercut them. Then competition would bring down the price of "sports-looking" cars and they'd be ubiquitous.
>>54829699
>Does it really cost $2 million to make a car?
Considering the parts are built to order, and are often crazy things like carbon fiber everything (including the engine block), yeah it probably costs a lot.
>>54830065
luxury carmakers like Bugatti also have higher costs no matter what they make because they don't make as many. The big carmakers can make cars cheaply because they roll off the assembly line by the hundreds of thousands. They can easily afford to put a million-dollar robot in their factory, because if it saves so much as a dollar per car built, it pays for itself quickly. When you make, what, a thousand cars per year, you can't do that, and the cost per car built is much higher.
6950X Benches out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0THZo2vSInc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_JbFDe6afA
>>54826865
By not releasing any chip that gives better gaming performance for the price.
x% price difference should to x% perf difference. With these chips you're looking at hundreds of percent increase in price for 5% increase in performance.
>>54821330
>not doubling the price
what are you a friend of the goyim now?
>$1723
>Loses against the i7-6700K in benchmarks
>>54831150
Anand
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10337/the-intel-broadwell-e-review-core-i7-6950x-6900k-6850k-and-6800k-tested-up-to-10-cores
>>54831222
Yes, thats how clock speeds work.
>>54831222
This stupid site always has the weirdest results, none of those rankings makes any sense
>>54821306
>$1723 for a 6950X
I was thinking about it as an replacement for my old 3930K but I could build a brand new 16 or 20-core xeon system for similar money which would suit my non-gayming use better
>>54821306
It has 10 cores, with 20 threads.
This is basically a server processor packaged for gamer idiots.
>>54821306
jesus they bumped everything up 100$ from the last one, and 200 on the 10 core...
fucke me...
scares the hell out of me that amd may be close to skylake from the investor meeting, im willing to pay up top 500$ for an 8 core, but i cant go more then that.
>>54821514
able to tell me which ones they are? intel xeons are not the easiest thing to find info on without really diving into their naming.
>>54831950
It's very useful for 3d and video editing. However the price is pathetic, only 10 out of the 22 cores on the die are activated. They likely priced it so high as when clocked above 4ghz it probably beats 2x 6 core xeons.
The pricing will just push those users further towards GPU based solutions. Once GPUs with 16gb and 32gb are common GPU based rendering becomes quite easy.
>>54825117
god im willing to pay 500$, i really am, but its scarey how intel is so up their own ass, and how if zen is good, amd can literally put themselves anywhere between 600 and 1000$ and be a deal compared to this shit.
i really wish amd would kick intel's teeth in with their zen pricing,
I just spent $3,700 on an 1080 SLI build.
I have lost control of my life.
>>54829380
depends.
each architecture likely costs several million just to make derivatives of the high end chips, and the high end chips are several billion each.
intel also does use the entire wafer like amd will, where they cut down 8 core parts to 6 core or 4 core.
but the real kick in the teeth, intel hasn't lowered the price of performance yet they have gone through what 3-4 die shrinks sense the stagnation happened?
>>54826675
anyone done any benchmarks on this image?
>>54821306
>Oh no the only unlocked 10-core CPU on the market is expensive
Wow
Who would have thought, huh
>>54832035
You're retarded for buying a 6850K, even if you do have the money to blow.
>>54832142
>You're retarded for buying a 6850K, even if you do have the money to blow.
Why?
>>54832035
i spent $2300 on a laptop that's overclockable. you're still pretty sane, anon, i promise
>>54832102
intel got fucked on this one
>>54832151
It and the platform it's on are massive wastes of money. An extra 1% performance for $400 more? Sign me the fuck up.
Oh wait, you should have gotten more SSD, or more GPU, or something.
>>54832151
Could be just like the first 8 core processor and not be a true 10 core.
>>54832170
>An extra 1% performance for $400 more?
An extra 1% performance on what? You don't even know what my uses are. I'm running a server among other things, not just gaming.
>>54832177
crossing out the 800 on your dual channel ram to show 1600, do you really have your ram clocked at 3200? Are you stupid or something?
>>54823088
even if they under deliver, it will be at least sandybridge, not the best but not the worst, and intel wont have an answer for it under 8 cores.
i just hope the price is reasonable.
>>54821306
you do realize that with almost all modern games that you're perfectly fine with the 4 core equivalent right?
there's literally no reason to get a 6+ core processor if you're just gaming. those processors are for retards (and streamers, but then again they also fit in to the same classification)
>>54832187
I'm sure that processor will see lots of use in your server.
>>54832246
I'm sure it will too. :^)
My quad core now gets really hot and the fans sound like they're gonna take off when I'm running my server now so I figure 6850 should be better.
Isn't Intel basically bankrolling AMD to avoid antitrust suits?
>>54826817
amd could sell zen, as is, for 150$ and pull more profit than they do off of a 8350, and in enterprise they will fight intel by lowering the price quite a bit lower then intel and pull massive profits,
see, amd can sell the shit for nothing and pull profits, can intel? even 10% recapture of the server market would wipe any debt they have.
if i was amd i would be out for blood after the p4 bullshit that happened.
and for the record, zen is replacing a 350$ sku at launch, and i assume it will be up to 500~$ im just hoping if they have performance parity they dont decided to go price parity because that would drive me to intel and buying used.
>>54832342
Not really. For a very long time though intel had invested in AMD through some insurance hedge fund. The fund sold off all its AMD stock a long time ago. Funds like that buy into pretty much anything and everything if it looks like it'll turn a profit.
>>54823381
it will only be beaten by the 8 core chips, which are 1100$
>>54832102
kind of, they did simulations, its where the 40% came from, and when they got engineering samples, they found out they performed above expectations.
>>54829699
honestly i have wondered why we don't have sports car looks at cheaper prices for a long time.
every car looks the fucking same till you are willing to pay 75000$ or more.
>>54826774
If you're getting a workstation, there's basically no reason not to get a xeon instead and pay less for more cores.
>>54831193
>gaming
who cares
>>54832371
Nothing you said was accurate, at all.
>>54832208
6 and 8 core really make a difference when shit decided to do something stupid, like windows update eating an entire core for some retarded reason, something turning on that you forgot, or a program crashed and is pinging the processor to 100% while crashing.
its not so much an every day use necessity, but when you could use it you will like that its there, granted i can never justify 1000$ on a processor unless its gods gift to processing.
>>54829380
It's kind of both. A non-trivial amount of chips comes out of the factory functional but still damaged to a lesser or greater degree, and yet another portion comes out and can't reach the required frequency at the required voltage. These chips have parts of them disabled and are sold as lower end pentiums, celerons and i3s. It's also true that manufacturers deliberately disable fully functional chips to create market segmentation, so the people willing to pay more for better chips get the fully enabled part like top-end i7, while the people who can't or won't pay that much get a partially disabled part.
>>54831222
>benchmark CPU
>with a video game
>>54832482
the simulated performance jump was about 40%
at investor meetings they have said it's performing above expectations, but they never state how much
more recent interviews have them talking about how its the first time they are matching if not beating their competition, again, to investors who if they lie to, they are getting sued if not criminally liable.
>>54832526
Yet again every single thing you're saying is completely wrong.
Zen is a 40% IPC uplift over Excavator. This statement has never change, and at no point did they ever claim anything more than this.
In a presentation specifically about *data center* chips, they had a bullet point about new Zen parts having a larger uplift. That is because AMD's current *data center* chips are Piledriver based, not Excavator based.
The second point you're completely spinning was a statement from John Taylor. He only stated that Zen would be competitive, he also stated they are far closer to intel than ever before, which is an inaccurate exaggeration as AMD has outright surpassed intel in performance before.
During the 2015 May FAD it was stressed that Zen based parts would be "competitive" in the data center. This word was used about a dozen times inside of 3 minutes. Competitive is a term that is open to interpretation.
Su herself later clarified their new Opteron's positioning by stating they would address 80% of the market, meaning they'd be competitive in 80% of common server workloads.
Don't post FUD bullshit loosely stung together by your god fucking awful memory. Shitposting like that does nothing but hurt AMD when reality hits and you all get butthurt
>b-b-b-but it didn't live up to the hype!
>they said greater than 40%~
>they said competing with skylake!
>abloo bloo blooo
This type of bullshit is the worst, and your FUD spreading is what causes it
im thinking of an upgrade ina couple of weeks. Is there literally any reason to go for 6850k instead of 6800k?
>>54832525
It makes sense to do it so that retards don't buy them for gaming.
>>54832526
When the chips are out and underperforming what are you going to be shilling then?
>They always said it was going to be slower but cheaper!
>They never claimed it would out perform intel, only "competitors" which for a budget cpu means tablets and mini pc's!
>AMD king of integrated gpu's when their next chips release!
>>54832525
very dank
>>54832631
Broadwell-E is clock per clock ~5-6 percent increase over Haswell-E, and Broadwell-E release prices are even highter than Haswell-E, talk about "overperforming".
If Zen 8 core launch prices are around $600 the competition is full on.
>>54832713
You're gonna wait until November and thats assuming it's released early q4 for a processor that performs 6% worse than skylake??? There 16 core is also probably gonna cost around $1000. Its going to maybe compete but not blow it the fuck out
>>54832270
only difference between 6800k and 6850k is the PCIe lanes, so unless you think you're gonna be able to fully saturate over 28 PCIe lanes, the 6850k was just a wasted $200.
>>54834098
follow the replies back far enough and he says he's using SLI, so the extra 12 lanes bump him from x8/x8 to x16/x16
>muh coars
There is no improvement over 6800K, it's literally a downgrade.
>>54834365
No it moves from x16/x8 to x16/x16
Also, anandtech testing showed less than 1% performance drop from using x16/x8 vs x16/x16 when using SLI GTX 980Ti, PCIe bandwidth isn't holding you back unless you have triple or quad GPUs, and even then most people run x8 for those setups and they hardly notice.
>>54831995
Use the Wikipedia article for either the Intel Xeons or the specific architecture that you're interested in. You can narrow down the processors of personal interest quite quickly that way.
INTEL USE THERMAL PASTE ON 6950X!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06zzSSeJr70
BTFO, INTEL!
>>54837963
>
wats wrong with that
>Intel $1700 for CPU
>Nvidia $700 for GPU
Do you feel LUCKY?
>>54838052
At that price it should have a soldered IHS. Using a TIM is just cheap and less effective at transferring heat.
>>54837963
melting the solder wtf
>>54838052
It's a 140W CPU. You need to solder that shit (as they do)
>>54831222
>1280x720
>no Post processing
>no AO
>no AA
>no AF
>no bloom
the goyim who have been shilling for intel and only buying their products are about to start feeling the jewish dick. next generation of cpus will be even more expensive
nvidia will start doing this shit soon too. i predict either the 12xx or 13xx series (even though they've already been jacking up prices slowly too, but it's a process obviously)
>>54838839
>Let's create a GPU bottleneck to bench CPUs
>>54832422
Oh look, somebody gets it
>>54836379
If you are using a nvme add that can cut down 4 lanes and lanes are already used for usb and your actual bandwidth could be all over the place.
>>54838899
>lets create some unrealistic test that has no bearing on reality
>>54821306
>Is Intel fucking serious?
Monopoly™
>>54839748
Hi /v/
>>54839725
>lanes are already used for usb
Usb will use the lanes from the chipset.
The 6800K is more than enough for triple SLI and a NVMe SSD at full speed.
why are the 8 and 10 core slower?
>>54839915
More logic means more power used, and more heat to dissipate. They can't sustain the high clocks of a mainstream quadcore without paying for it in power consumption.
>>54839915
Amdahl's law
>>54838839
>bloom
>>54839725
x16/x8 still leaves the full x4 for the M.2 SSD (16+8+4=28) then the X99 Chipset itself provides another x8 PCIe 2.0 lanes.
