AMD's AM4 Platform could Launch As Early As March 2016
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
AlienALX
Well-known member
It's been finished for ages dude. Look at the date Jim Keller left AMD... Months ago !
I would say it's more the chipset that wasn't ready but certainly not the CPU itself.
WYP
News Guru
A lot of things really depends on how long things take to manufacture, if there are problems with the first few tries, yields etc.
It is possible that AMD will launch the AM4 platform with non zen parts as they already have DDR4 Excavator based SoCs.
I really do hope that Zen is good, It better not be another bulldozer or AMD is pretty much dead on the CPU side.
AlienALX
Well-known member
From what I have read about the tech itself in depth it would seem that it should perform around the same as Haswell E, maybe a little less (5-10%).
So that means it all comes down to the most important thing of all, price. And lately AMD have been taking the biscuit. So it remains to be see what will happen there.
I think their problem is that they need money desperately and thus are making themselves look a bit foolish with the tech they are selling. The Fury X is around the same stock as a 980ti. However, it's AMD and they need to compete. Competing with Nvidia is not charging the same price. They will be dead within a year if they continue this nonsense.
So if they think they can come along and start charging Intel price for Intel performance they'll be gone by 2017. I really, truly hope they have not over spent on Zen or it could all be over. Hopefully they kept it real and can offer a real product instead of any more of their recent jokes.
Porxster
New member
let's hope it's not just another hype.I built with AMD's platform since the Athlon and the 4890.
I have an FX 8350 that cripples my FPS although running 2X R9 290.
Good DX12 titles are scarce for now and I'm itching for an Intel set-up.
Zen or Skylake, AMD's results will decide of my next build.
I have an FX 8350 that cripples my FPS although running 2X R9 290.
Good DX12 titles are scarce for now and I'm itching for an Intel set-up.
Zen or Skylake, AMD's results will decide of my next build.
I think the industry itself needs AMD to get a win on this because there's no competition for Intel at present.
I'd happily Prior to my Q6600 and now 5820K, I always stuck with AMD as they were the best bang for buck option...want that to happen again.
barnsley
born in a.....
I agree, they really do need to have some boards that support DDR3. AMD can really take it to Intel if they also create great budget-midrange CPUS. I still think that DDR3 could enable them to make excellent budget options as well as fighting at the high end.
Totally with you on that. In the early days, I went with AMD. The Athlon range...superb. C'mon, AMD! Get the competition started!!!
I remember the days when AMD were better than Intel!!!!!!
AMD need to kick some arse!!!!!
...Still have the Opteron chip somewhere haha.
AlienALX
Well-known member
The funny thing is AMD were never better than Intel. Even back in the first FX days Intel had an answer and it was faster and better (the first P4 EE). However, the FX cost around £400 or so and the Intel P4 EE was a cool grand.
That was where AMD had Intel spanked - price.
The same used to be true of ATI graphics cards, too. They were rarely better than the Nvidia offering (apart from the 9800 Pro and a couple of others) but they were always better in price. And because the prices were so much cheaper people did not mind the sometimes flaky drivers.
As an example, the Radeon 5870 was not better than the Nvidia GTX 480. Not in performance terms. However, the Radeon was £100 cheaper and that's a lot of chuffing money.
The problem lately is that they are now charging Nvidia prices for cards that are inferior.
Had the Fury X launched without the silly cooler and even sillier price they would have been a roaring success. So basically somewhere around the £400 mark. People would have gladly overlooked the fact that the 980ti was better because at the end of the day £140 extra would be crazy.
But sadly AMD are being stupid with their products and prices. Every time they release something else with stupid prices attached I just cringe.
Technology over the years has actually gotten cheaper. Things like TVs, Microwaves and so on. In the 80s a decent TV cost about a grand. Now days you can get a 32" LCD for about £170 or so. Same thing with Microwaves, they cost a small fortune in the 80s.
So why, then, have GPUs reached ridiculous prices over the past two years or so?
Up until the 7970 AMD and ATI always offered up awesome products for awesome prices. They priced the 7970 3gb on the GTX 580 3gb @ £439 which I thought was expensive but fair. However since then they have been asking for Nvidia prices for products that are truly worse.
And it's this utter stupidity that they need to really sit down and think about. People are not going to pay the same price for inferior products no matter what they try and it's compounded by the fact that they are AMD, a company known for bargains.
Zen can be a success. Even if it is 20% slower than Haswell E. However, the price needs to be right. If they start quoting Intel prices (which have soared to ridicule lately) then they will be totally Donald Ducked.
I don't expect them to make a loss on every Zen sold like they did with the original FX series but I also don't expect them to want a kidney for it either.
AMD is no longer in dire straits they were purchased by Micron Fujitsu
AMD was purchased by Micron Fujitsu which has claimed they will support AMD in any of their financial needs to succeed. So I believe AMD is going to make a huge turn around in the next couple of years not only with their CPUs but also with their graphics division.
AMD mopped the floor with Intel fromm 1999 to 2005 in performance. The Athlon 2800+XP was clocked at 2.08 GHz (released in 1999) and had the same level of performance as the Pentium 4 clocked at 2.8 which was released in 2000, then came along the Athlon 64 2800+ which had twice the performance at 2.0 GHz than the Pentium 4 @ 2.8 Ghz . So yes, AMD kicked Intel's ass. And for some more info the Core I7 is a reverse engineered Nehalem FX architecture that Intel obtained by purchasing the Nehalem microprocessor fabrication plant from AMD (where the older FX processors were manufactured and where the I7 was born) but it's funny that after the Nehalem plant created the first I7 Intel shut the plant down shortly after.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Er not really. That's really only true for the Fury X/980ti comparison. Other than that..
Fury>980(about same price but 980 far slower)
390x>=980(390x cheaper)
390>970(about same price, but 8GB memory/both overclock well)
380x>960(960 is pretty weak of a card)
380>=960(380 tends to be faster, price about same, either is a good choice)
370x>960(370x can be overclocked, but draws far more power)
370=950(price dependent, usage dependent based off power draw requirements)
So really Nvidia win in two areas, one of which AMD doesn't compete in, the Titan X. The 980ti is probably faster more often than the Fury X however with the new Crimson suite, i'd like to see a new comparison to see if it really did help the FX. I don't think it would take over in overall performance, but i think it would be possible to at least equal it considering how close they were before.
Also add in the fact the whole AMD lineup in the US got pretty big price cuts off MSRP($50 off most cards) and will be happening globally in time. Just puts them in a much better position. New driver suite should also encourage consumer's to trust them more and hopefully keep them in market for longer.
