[News/Rumor] AMD Zen - 16 CPU threads at $300 [Update: Jan 17 Launch]

[StyM]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comment...ils_about_zen/
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/54945/...300/index.html

• There are some errata issues present in the current testing samples, similar in a way to the TLB bug of the Phenom. The workaround right now is done via the BIOS. The workaround however, strips around 30 ~ 40% of the CPU performance.
• The CPUs are well behind schedule and every day there's real progress and bug fixing being done. Unlike with INTEL's E0 CPUs which make it to the wild that are almost completely final silicon. AMD's samples will continue to get bug fixes right up until retail spec sampling to partners.
• In August Clock speeds were 3.8GHz, right now 4.2GHz overclocking is possible, with LN2 5GHz is doable. Again this will change of course, but it is just the current silicon that is behaving like this.
• AM4/ZEN uses an SOC design, that means even CMOS/BIOS configuration is on package (not necessarily on silicon, I can't confirm this) so it is possible to clear the "BIOS" and still have old value applied 30 minutes later. How this will be addressed remains to be seen. Perhaps it won't be the same scenario for final silicon
• Operating voltages (nominal) are 1.3v and all the way up to 1.5v should be fine it seems for AIO cooling. Frequency scaling isn't a strong point but again that may have everything to do with the process at this point rather than an inherent design limitation.
• Performance is particularly strong at this point vs. INTEL's latest offerings. Single thread performance is matching Haswell-E and of course multi-threading performance as well. Tests that are memory bandwidth dependent may go to the INTEL platform simply as a result of having more memory channels, but I can't confirm that right now and have no info on that. The important thing here is that the 16Thread/8-Core CPU is minimum 5960X performance if not better actually. (Based on Cinebench R15) with the error fix disabled.
• Can't speak to how well the IMC is working as current samples are locked to low DRAM frequencies (2133MHz and lower) and of course this has an impact on performance.
• As stated in the beginning, every week is progress and AMD is working at an unprecedented rate to get these ready by March.
• You're unlikely to see any high end boards for the CPUs prior to launch or at launch, simply because no vendors can commit to too much right now as plenty is changing at a rapid rate.
• All overclocking is done via Overdrive, you can't change any performance features at all in the BIOS (on to that next) at all.
• BIOS or UEFI is actually built into the CPU, so only AMD can update the "BIOS" or microcode. All overclocking must take place within the Operating system
• Right now it takes up to 30 minutes to clear the BIOS. If you remove the CPU and place it on another motherboard, it'll have the same settings applied as on the previous board. So debugging is a nightmare
• 6850K SKU (May not be final designation) is wait for it.... $300 roughly. That's 8 Cores and 16 Threads
• AMD's Hyper Threading is called SMU and it is ************ good. The same efficiency as Intel's HT.
• Performance is really good, be it SuperPi, Cinebench, 3DMark etc, it's FPU performance is incredibly good and easily matching that of what Intel offers.
• Current performance is staggering even though it is limited to 2133MHz (as mentioned before) and NorthBridge Frequency is limited to 2400MHz
• There will be a nigher SKU than the 6850K, but it is a higher bin so it will certainly overclock better than 6850K and that may carry a premium price, but unlikely to be double.
• There's plenty of excitement from all board vendors about the platform, so we will see how it all pans out. (Especially with the hot mess that INTEL has in store for us H2 2017, that we can leave to another thread)
• For Gaming, the CPU is neck and neck with INTEL, even at low res where CPU bound.

AMD's Zen Rumored for January 17th Launch; 8 Cores With 16 Threads for $300

As we inch ever closer to AMD's Zen launch, more and more information seems to be slipping through the cracks. This time, MAXSUN, an AMD China partner (poised to provide customers with AM4 platform motherboards) is the source of the proverbial leak, with information that, if true, is sure to stir the pot of bubbling Zen excitement even more.

According to MAXSUN, Zen's initial release date is pegged for January 17th, which, if true, would probably mean a product announcement around CES 2017 (scheduled from the 5th of January through the 8th) - at the same time as Intel is expected to fully unveil their Kaby Lake parts. The company also reports a second release window at March 2017, which lends further credence to AMD's expected staggered launch of Zen-based processors, first for the High-Performance-Desktop (HEDT) market, and trickling down from there. MAXSUN also confirms the pricing scheme we reported yesterday, with regards to the companies' SR7 processors (the top-of-the-line parts in the Zen line-up, and whose naming scheme I think isn't the final one) - the company states these are expected to be priced at around 1500-2000 Yuan SKU ($250-$300).

Performance levels for the price are reported to be not too shabby - that AMD's best performing offerings (8 core, 16 thread chips) would be competitive with Intel's $1089 i7-6900K, an equally 8 core, 16 thread offering (like AMD demonstrated with it's Blender test on-stage, though clock-speeds for the Intel processor were normalized at Zen's 3.0 GHz engineering sample). Taking those performance levels with a grain of salt, the value proposition does seem to be considerably high, especially if Intel's Kaby Lake performance improvements do end up being as rumored.

[xlink]

I can only hope that this is all true.

If AMD matches intel on clock for clock performance, OCs a bit worse and gives us MOAR CORES this would be amazing.

[qcmadness]

AMD used at least 3 months to fix the TLB bug (B2 (19/11/2007) > B3 (27/03/2008)).

[BenchZowner]

All overclocking via software in OS.
30 minutes to clear BIOS settings ( supposedly on the CPU ).

Don't know, it sounds like BS to me.

[AliG]

Haven't we learned our lesson on AMD rumors yet?

I fully believe Zen will be a great CPU. Doesn't mean it'll offer 5960X performance for $300 - and even if it did hit those numbers, why would AMD be so incredibly stupid as to price it that low?

[madmaxx]

I fully believe Zen will be a great CPU. Doesn't mean it'll offer 5960X performance for $300 - and even if it did hit those numbers, why would AMD be so incredibly stupid as to price it that low?

To disrupt the market place and regain market share maybe? As long as they are profiting is the important thing! They then can reinvest that into RnD and make even better products. Intel needs a good b1tchslap.

[Particle]

Until we get information from sources that don't have to hide in anonymity, I would suggest everyone treat rumors as nothing but conjecture or fabrication.

[xlink]

To disrupt the market place and regain market share maybe? As long as they are profiting is the important thing! They then can reinvest that into RnD and make even better products. Intel needs a good b1tchslap.

They'll price it at a profit optimizing rate. If they price it too low it'll just start a price war with Intel and both will end up making less.

[AliG]

To disrupt the market place and regain market share maybe? As long as they are profiting is the important thing! They then can reinvest that into RnD and make even better products. Intel needs a good b1tchslap.

I'd be really surprised if AMD could sell their top of the line, Intel beating, chip at $300 and still profit.

[xlink]

I'd be really surprised if AMD could sell their top of the line, Intel beating, chip at $300 and still profit.

If you exclude sunk costs (R&D) it'd probably be quite profitable.

CPUs generally need HUGE margins to overcome all of the upfront development costs though.

As stated, they can only charge what the market will bear. If they have a mediocre product then they won't be able to price it high.

[vario]

I'd be really surprised if AMD could sell their top of the line, Intel beating, chip at $300 and still profit.

I totally disagree, its not like intel couldnt do a very small 8 core HT enabled CPU without the GPU and sell it cheaper than skylake.They just dont, because they can.Intels CPU prices have almost nothing to do with how much they cost (r&D and all) but how much they can charge.
Broadwell-E prices ,Haswell-E prices are high because of the platform, huge L3 , and intels fear for Xeons and their market.
For gods sake, intel is on 4 cores for mainstream from 2008!, they went from 45nm to 14nm, and thats only counting the core architecture when they integrated memory controller.
Anyhow, lets just remember, that these chips are far from finished it seems, bugs, not that high frequency (but better than half a year ago) some other problems, and it says there that they SHOULD be ready in march...
Im staying positive, and if they will offer REAL alternative to an 8 core H-E fro 300$, i am coming back

[AliG]

I totally disagree, its not like intel couldnt do a very small 8 core HT enabled CPU without the GPU and sell it cheaper than skylake.They just dont, because they can.Intels CPU prices have almost nothing to do with how much they cost (r&D and all) but how much they can charge.
Broadwell-E prices ,Haswell-E prices are high because of the platform, huge L3 , and intels fear for Xeons and their market.
For gods sake, intel is on 4 cores for mainstream from 2008!, they went from 45nm to 14nm, and thats only counting the core architecture when they integrated memory controller.
Anyhow, lets just remember, that these chips are far from finished it seems, bugs, not that high frequency (but better than half a year ago) some other problems, and it says there that they SHOULD be ready in march...
Im staying positive, and if they will offer REAL alternative to an 8 core H-E fro 300$, i am coming back

False.

Look at AMD's current CPU margins. If they price their best product at $300, then that squishes their entire remaining lineup (4 and 6 core etc) back to where it is today. There's no way AMD can afford this pricing and actually pay for future R&D.

[vario]

False.

Look at AMD's current CPU margins. If they price their best product at $300, then that squishes their entire remaining lineup (4 and 6 core etc) back to where it is today. There's no way AMD can afford this pricing and actually pay for future R&D.

First, this 300$ 8 core product isnt supposedly the highest end, just the cheapest unlocked 8 core (like 8350 vs 9xxx series for example) .
Second, given the die itself isnt going to be that big (no igpu) and the fact that intels mainstream is also priced from 300$ down , how in the hell are you making that assumption ? 200-300$ for a midrange cpu was always the sweet spot and where most money was made.Current AMD cpu margins are low for many different reasons, and main being they are NOT COMPETETIVE in almost any market in anything besides price, and their prices for OEMs must be cut down from retail in order to attract big clients.
Also, we both are speculating here, if youre going to use phrases like "FALSE, PERIOD", then show us some hard facts man.
If 8 core zen, has a 500$ price point, its going to be a hard sell.Because there will be no big incetive to go AMD.If i can have same performance from INTEL and AMD for the same price, 90% of peeps will go for intel.

Ltes also remember, ZEN will be competing not with haswell, but with Skylake-E and Kabylake.Which means, it will be probably slower in single threaded from both of them.It will be faster than kaby in multi threaded, and slower than skylake E in everything.
I've looked up past prices:

FX 8350 $199
FX 8150 $245
X6 1090T $295 / 1055T $199
X4 940 $275 / 920 $235
X4 9850 $235 / 9550 $195
FX 62 $1031$ / X2 3800+ 303$ (pretty much same for 939)

As you can see, even in the glory days, 300$ gave you highest end die (almost minus some cache, but there were opterons... and some models with full cache)

[AliG]

That's not how companies work man. You make as much margin as possible on the high end chips to make up R&D costs, then try not to lose much on the low end (literally you're just clearing inventory). Don't believe me? Ask anyone who works on the financial side of an engineering company.

You can't point to the X2 3800+ being $303 and then completely ignore the FX 62 costing $1031 was what kept them afloat back then.

[Particle]

You are seriously suggesting that a $1000 halo part was what kept AMD from going bankrupt?

[Kain665]

That's not how companies work man. You make as much margin as possible on the high end chips to make up R&D costs, then try not to lose much on the low end (literally you're just clearing inventory). Don't believe me? Ask anyone who works on the financial side of an engineering company.

You can't point to the X2 3800+ being $303 and then completely ignore the FX 62 costing $1031 was what kept them afloat back then.

Retail sales are a drop in the bucket compared to overall revenue. The real revenue is in PC OEM, Server OEM (PowerEdge, Proliant, Sys.X, etc.), and CM (Hyperscale) business. The real margin is in Server OEM & CM business. If AMD can produce a performance competitive x86 alternative to Xeon E5-2600 series that is price competitive and attractive enough (Price/performance) to break into Server OEMs and Hyperscale bids, they'll be in great shape. If not, they're going to be relegated to retail and PC OEM business for another couple years.

[zanzabar]

That's not how companies work man. You make as much margin as possible on the high end chips to make up R&D costs, then try not to lose much on the low end (literally you're just clearing inventory). Don't believe me? Ask anyone who works on the financial side of an engineering company.

You can't point to the X2 3800+ being $303 and then completely ignore the FX 62 costing $1031 was what kept them afloat back then.

that was the second or third gen (depending how you count) that amd was the best performance. dont forget socket am2, they had an FX and it sold nothing. if you look back at the barton when they took the crown from intel they were selling the top chip the 3200 for $475ish at a time when intel was selling around $600 and they had no extreme part then. they have to get people back into not ignoring them and they are not going to be the best 8 core chip and wont have single threaded performance near an intel skylake.

they also are really pushing the dual die server socket that replaces g34 and that should have a nice premium for them.

[vario]

That's not how companies work man. You make as much margin as possible on the high end chips to make up R&D costs, then try not to lose much on the low end (literally you're just clearing inventory). Don't believe me? Ask anyone who works on the financial side of an engineering company.

You can't point to the X2 3800+ being $303 and then completely ignore the FX 62 costing $1031 was what kept them afloat back then.

Ehm, with all due respect, the old FX-es werent the bread and butter of the company, midrange and server was, FX was a show off piece.Yes ZEN should also bring back highly lucrative server market, and this is where they actually may get very high margins AND a large sales pool.
Your kinda logic would like me to believe intel is LOSING MONEY on 4 core i5/i7s , which is you know, absurd.
It comes down to the fact, that even if they WOULD charge 500+ for 8 core parts, not many would sell, because nowadays intel isnt like it was in P4 days.
However once again, i dont deny the fact that there MAY BE some extreme parts , better binned, that will sell for 500 or so.
but historically AMD always made very few die types, and the high end (for amd) they always made them at around 200-300. So everything points to it being the entry 8 core price point.It just makes sense from every perspective.Anyhow, we dont know how much AMD pays for each chip to glofo, and how much packaging exactly costs.So thats pretty pointless discussion.We have to agree to disagree.

[Greg83]

for intel their cpu's and apu's are funding the development of their gpu industry too along with many others.
for amd ati funds the gpu side with discrete gpus that r&d
the apu is just a drop in of the discrease gpu with a bus added for it and memory controller shared
for zen its gonna have the same r&d costs into it as went into FX . which resulted in those prices.
zen apu is will where amd can really dominate, the cpu has covered the cpu r&d the ati gpu's covered the gpu r&d . the apu is just cost based, with no r&d cost associated for developing markets, which intel has to subsidize with their atom market, which will not compete .

[vario]

One thing that puzzles me is the name "6850K" .Even if not final name, but why ? Its Broadwell-E name ...
It doesnt make sense, for ZEN they will surely go with something new and not copying intels name. This whole thing may be a troll..

[kromosto]

I have to go out to pick my son but before that I want to say I think nearly same with AliG. He needs a supporter on this thread

[StAndrew]

AMD has a lot of market to make up. I doubt they will start their prices at $300 but I wouldn't be surprised if they heavily undercut Intel prices, even to the point of losing profit and taking it out of hide just to rebuild market shares. They need to re-establish the old and grow a new base of users and even with a superior chip, they will have to be aggressively priced.

I wouldn't be surprised if they use low CPU prices to lure buyers and make it up on moboard and chipset sales.

[AliG]

You are seriously suggesting that a $1000 halo part was what kept AMD from going bankrupt?

100%.

That part was a derivative of the most profitable server chip AMD made. That provided the volume AND margin AMD needed. If they priced the FX-62 at $300 then it entirely devaluates their server lineup.

This isn't complicated guys. I can without a doubt promise you Ford would go bankrupt if we didn't bake our margin into the F150. We literally lose money on small cars but have to sell them to meet fleet emissions and fuel economy requirements.

[qcmadness]

100%.

That part was a derivative of the most profitable server chip AMD made. That provided the volume AND margin AMD needed. If they priced the FX-62 at $300 then it entirely devaluates their server lineup.

This isn't complicated guys. I can without a doubt promise you Ford would go bankrupt if we didn't bake our margin into the F150. We literally lose money on small cars but have to sell them to meet fleet emissions and fuel economy requirements.

I don't think the low-end products are sold at a loss, but at very small gross margins, like the PS4 / xBox One / xBox One S / PS4 Pro chips.
But of course the high-end / server products are sold at good margins.

[AliG]

I don't think the low-end products are sold at a loss, but at very small gross margins, like the PS4 / xBox One / xBox One S / PS4 Pro chips.
But of course the high-end / server products are sold at good margins.

Actually many of them are. Loss is relative. Does the product sell for more than the cost of manufacturing? Yes, absolutely.

But AMD posted quarterly losses for many consecutive quarters because they sold products at rate lower than their amortized development costs to maintain market share. You optimize the losses to bring in as much revenue as possible to keep people employed. The hope is that the engineers then deliver on something big, such as Vega (or even Polaris when consider the market share it stole) and Zen.