Why do people think Zen cores won't have similar IPC to

>>58268827
Can you prove that claim? Because AMD has historicaly had much weaker cores than Intel

>>58268868
>Can you prove that claim?
???

>>58268868
>Because AMD has recently had much weaker cores than Intel

ftfy.


Right now with numbers we're seeing from sites that have early engineering samples that aren't under NDA all put it trading blows with current gen Intel processors. CanardPC being probably the best source at the moment, their numbers on Athlon were good, and they had a sample 8 months prior to release then.

We can all speculate as much as we like, while the truth of the matter being that we'll know anytime within the next 3 months how Zen really holds up.

>>58268889
Recently is understanding things. Intel has dominated for a decade.

>>58268827
who cares you virgin

>>58268895
And "Historically" is inaccurate.
Recently is far more apt if you're to argue the semantics of it.

Intels domination came at a cost. $1B fine, and the close watching eyes of the EU Commissions, and now they've failed to gain sufficient ground and AMD are at their heels once more, and at a time where advancing the silicon is becoming increasingly difficult.

>>58268895
Nehalem was slightly faster than Thuban while Phenom II was quite close to C2Q.

The huge gap was created with Sandy Bridge and Bulldozer, which is 6 years.

>>58268868
>Because AMD has historicaly had much weaker cores than Intel
Only if "historically" you means "since bulldozer flopped." During Pentium 4 era AMD's cores were much better than Intel's.

>>58268934
>doesn't know that Phenom 1 and 2 existed.

>>58268868
Everything K6 to K8 was gold.

>>58268951
They might have been weaker, but they weren't "much" weaker.

>>58268827
I don't believ it, AMD has always been shittier in IPC

>>58268868
You must be 18 to browse this website.

File: Screenshot from 2017-01-01 12-34-28.png (94KB, 743x724px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 743x724px

No they're not, whatever AMD does in hardware Intel does better in hardware and software, AMD literally cannot compete and nothing you fanboy shills say will be proved otherwise.

File: instructions.jpg (34KB, 408x262px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 408x262px

Aside from AVX2 Zen is Broadwell level

>>58269336
>5 year old product vs 8 month old product
>5 year old product loses
Who the fuck would have thought.

>>58269338
>bigger numbers = better

AMD shills everyone

>>58268868
We have multiple leaked and official benchmarks of Zen with known clock rates. Handbrake, Blender, games and a few other things.
In all cases it performs like a Broadwell chip with the same clock wood.

>>58269338
according to:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4khwmo/misconceptions_about_zens_40_ipc_improvements/?st=ixel78e5&sh=71f7a567

You could multiple that single core performance by 2 and Zen would still be behind 6700k in single threaded performance.

File: netbsd_clean_anime_logo_wallpaper_by_ipodpunker-d678dba.jpg (768KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

768KB, 1920x1200px

>>58268827
It's just bait, everyone is either baiting over stupid shit, or seriously going full blown autism rage over stupid shit

Zen will be decent and no amount of shitposting will change that.

The real question is how much will it cost.

>>58269394
That would mean Broadwell is half the speed of Skylake in ST.
Meaning pure nonsense.

Because people are slow and still think about bulldozer.

Because people see a 3.3ghz zen and compare it to a 4.2 Intel and compare them directly.

A lot of them recently bought haswell or skylake i5s and i7s which, as it looks now, are going to be destroyed by zen counterparts.

>>58269394
>according to
>some guy on reddit
>doesn't even support your argument

Fanboys never learn. They're perpetual children.

>>58268827
wTF do these numbers mean, I want real benchmarks like >>58269336 not stupid bullshit that doesn't mean anything like that and >>58269338

>>58269532
>doesn't recognize basic core components
>doesn't recognize a simple chart of instruction throughput and latency

You have to go back.

>>58269532
>stupid bullshit
Go back to /v/, retard.

>>58269556
>>58269558
What does that mean anything to ME? I'm not a EE nor do I want to become one, these numbers mean SHIT to 99.8% of people buying components.

>>58269568
>>>/v/

>>58269572
I take your inability to refute as evidence of Zen being unable to compete with Intel once again.

because amd wasn't competitive in 7 years and nobody believes that they still can be

>>58269620
You're clearly not interested in technology, so what the fuck are you doing in a technology board?

And there are already benchmarks out which prove you wrong.

>>58269651
Stop rambling, fool.

>>58268868
>Because AMD has historicaly
>Historically
If by historically you mean 2006-2016, then no one can really argue.

K6-II and K6-III traded blows with Pentium II/III very well. K7 gave Intel a hard time. And K8 absolutely destroyed Pentium 4 Prescott