Forum Rules - Formats - Spotlights  -  Home - Library - New Additions

Thoughts on "Zen"?

SkoraSkora
edited August 2015 in Hardware
For those who don't know, Zen is AMD's newest architecture that's expected to launch sometime in 2016.

There has also been rumors spread about a particular Zen CPU that will have 16 cores, however i haven't seen any confirmed reports that this is official unless i'm not looking hard enough.

What are your thoughts guys?

To me personally it shows quite a bit of potential and may (if AMD plays their cards right) be able to closely compete with Intel's new Skylake release.

Comments

  • garirrygarirry
    Never heard of that before, but just checked on Wikipedia.

    Seems like a nice concept and a nice idea.
  • calvinbcalvinb
    Now as fast as Sandy Bridge from 5 years ago!

    I hope Zen isn't a technological dud, and that AMD can compete.
  • SkoraSkora
    ampharos wrote:
    Now as fast as Sandy Bridge from 5 years ago!

    I hope Zen isn't a technological dud, and that AMD can compete.
    I really don't get the bashing of AMD on here. The 8350 system i built for my brother is pretty snappy.
  • BlueSunBlueSun
    AMD stuff is snappy, Intel just tends to be a little snappier.

    My main desktop is a Phenom II X4 965 black edition and it's still quite snappy.
  • dosboxdosbox
    AM has had for a while 6 and 8 core CPUs, and yet Intel still is in the past with 2 and 4 core CPUs.
  • BlueSunBlueSun
    Intel has CPUs with more cores, but they're targeting servers that can actually make better use of the extra cores.

    They also have Hyper Threading to make up for it.
  • BODBOD
    I honestly feel that since I moved to SSDs for my system CPU performance for day to day tasks has been less of an issue. The computer I use at work is a first gen i3 with an SSD and honestly even that is perfectly snappy for most tasks.
  • BlueSunBlueSun
    Yeah, storage has been the major bottleneck for years.

    I can't stand using systems with the OS on a mechanical drive..
  • Doqtor KirbyDoqtor Kirby
    I can. Then again I'm too poor for even the minimal SSDs.
  • garirrygarirry
    edited September 2015
    BlueSun wrote:
    I can't stand using systems with the OS on a mechanical drive..
    When you run [I OVERREACTED SORRY], then yes. From my experience, an old Mac (running the latest version) boots faster on an HDD than a new computer with Windows 7 on an SSD. Luckily, they fixed most of the boot issues with Windows 8 and 10.
  • yourepicfailureyourepicfailure
    On the SSD thought, I can't use one for my main, and I don't want to. I'll hit the max read/write instantly, and that coupled with the heat my machine puts out makes the performance drop to intolerable. So I use a 7.2K and it works just as good, actually better than the SSD.

    On the AMD Zen thought- woopee, Xeon E5 on the consumer market. Now let's see E7.
  • calvinbcalvinb
    What? From my experience, OS X on spinning rust is completely abysmal while Windows is tolerable, but far snappier with an SSD. (I've found OS X has some real problems with memory management and archaic HFS+, both not problems on Windows.)
  • garirrygarirry
    I don't know, but for me I had a much better experience on a Mac, the newest version on a 2009 computer with an HDD. I built a new computer with great parts and after three months of using it, there are countless bugs, annoyances, driver issues, crashes, etc. And not just on Windows 10, on Windows 7 I also had problems.
  • BODBOD
    garirry wrote:
    BlueSun wrote:
    I can't stand using systems with the OS on a mechanical drive..
    When you run poorly programmed shit like Windows, then yes. From my experience, an old Mac (running the latest version) boots faster on an HDD than a new computer with Windows 7 on an SSD. Luckily, they fixed most of the boot issues with Windows 8 and 10.

    Please remove the crack pipe from your mouth. Thanks.
  • garirrygarirry
    edited September 2015
    I OVERREACTED SORRY
  • ndezoondezoo
    garirry wrote:
    I don't know, but for me I had a much better experience on a Mac, the newest version on a 2009 computer with an HDD. I built a new computer with great parts and after three months of using it, there are countless bugs, annoyances, driver issues, crashes, etc. And not just on Windows 10, on Windows 7 I also had problems.
    Surveys says: about ~85% fatal crashes because hardware problem/defects or poorly programed device driver and bad programmed software but it's not means windows is bad at all, but you just get bad hardware or software. I don't like what apple do because they only build a whole pc with their standards (it's the real reason why apple so stable, but vendor lock-in standard make you less freedom).
  • garirrygarirry
    ndezoo wrote:
    garirry wrote:
    I don't know, but for me I had a much better experience on a Mac, the newest version on a 2009 computer with an HDD. I built a new computer with great parts and after three months of using it, there are countless bugs, annoyances, driver issues, crashes, etc. And not just on Windows 10, on Windows 7 I also had problems.
    Surveys says: about ~85% fatal crashes because hardware problem/defects or poorly programed device driver and bad programmed software but it's not means windows is bad at all, but you just get bad hardware or software. I don't like what apple do because they only build a whole pc with their standards (it's the real reason why apple so stable, but vendor lock-in standard make you less freedom).
    True, you have a point, I never thought about it that way. Anyway, while Windows has more freedom with the hardware, OS X is adapted much better to their computers. IMO, good software is much more important than good hardware.

    EDIT: I feel like I totally overreacted in my first post in this thread. I apologize, I didn't mean to flame Windows.
  • BlueSunBlueSun
    garirry wrote:
    I don't know, but for me I had a much better experience on a Mac, the newest version on a 2009 computer with an HDD. I built a new computer with great parts and after three months of using it, there are countless bugs, annoyances, driver issues, crashes, etc. And not just on Windows 10, on Windows 7 I also had problems.

    Um... yeah... My Windows 7 install from 2011 works flawlessly and boots in about 10 seconds. Don't blame Windows for its users.
  • tattetatte
    Wait, what? You reboot your Macs?

    16 cores sounds excessive and honestly pointless. I'd much rather see AMD focusing on increasing individual-core performance. :/ That many cores has to hurt overclocking.
  • ndezoondezoo
    tatte wrote:
    Wait, what? You reboot your Macs?

    16 cores sounds excessive and honestly pointless. I'd much rather see AMD focusing on increasing individual-core performance. :/ That many cores has to hurt overclocking.
    Right, hope not like first generation of Intel Core 2 Duo does, that has compability issues with NVIDIA graphic card that causes major graphics corruption in some games (e.g Scarface).
  • dosboxdosbox
    You need a mechanical drive for games though.
  • BlueSunBlueSun
    dosbox wrote:
    You need a mechanical drive for games though.

    While it's typical to store games on a mechanical drive, you certainly don't *need* to. I don't.
  • SomeGuySomeGuy
    It depends on how much money you can spend :)

    It also depends if you are talking about desktop or laptop drives. I've found most desktop drives over all "adequate" speed wise over the years, but laptop drives have always been a slow pain in the butt. And more prone to failure to to mishandling.

    As for Zen, throwing "moar coars" at the problem has diminishing returns. I'm sure some programs will make good use of it, but lots won't and never will.

    My old 2-core turns my small poorly ventilated workroom in to a sauna as is, I would hate to see how much heat this thing puts off.
  • SkoraSkora
    SomeGuy wrote:
    It depends on how much money you can spend :)

    It also depends if you are talking about desktop or laptop drives. I've found most desktop drives over all "adequate" speed wise over the years, but laptop drives have always been a slow pain in the butt. And more prone to failure to to mishandling.

    As for Zen, throwing "moar coars" at the problem has diminishing returns. I'm sure some programs will make good use of it, but lots won't and never will.

    My old 2-core turns my small poorly ventilated workroom in to a sauna as is, I would hate to see how much heat this thing puts off.
    The extra cores would benefit me greatly in my music production, virtualization, livestreaming, and rendering.

    I could however see in terms of gaming, there being issues, but since i don't really "game" and the games i do play i can max out on an i3 with an HD 4400, i think i'll be fine.
  • calvinbcalvinb
    SomeGuy wrote:
    My old 2-core turns my small poorly ventilated workroom in to a sauna as is, I would hate to see how much heat this thing puts off.

    But I thought Windows 95 doesn't support SMP?
Sign In or Register to comment.