And I can agree with this as well, I already told Abwx he could have contributed with a more accurate translation (less prone to interpretation if you will), but instead he simply stated my translation is "100% wrong".But the word "easily" is a poor translation of what is actually written.
And I can agree with this as well, I already told Abwx he could have contributed with a more accurate translation (less prone to interpretation if you will), but instead he simply stated my translation is "100% wrong".
No worries though, you have just started yourself, good luck trying to convince him that "clearly exceeds 95W" means more than 1-2W margins, which is exactly what he was suspecting me with
See now you just making stuff up because you were 100% wrong! Regardless of your Fab or your process state you have to design your circuits and how they form together to create a processor in a way that allows for high clocking.Yea, sounds good. What was he going to say, that it would clock low and use alot of power?
may 2014 .. wonder if Keller knew how 14nm FF at glofo was gonna mature? Fab deals. Upcoming Errata.
I want Zen to clock to the skies but I dont see that you have the evidence to support the claim at this time, only conjecture.
I hope so too. I am beating my head against a wall for all the speculation and hope to get some real news soon. This is torture.You guys are clearly not going to agree anytime soon, and one can easily see that effectively you all have exceedingly demonstrated that the current subject has thoroughly surpassed beating a dead horse territory and I can't wait until it has ended for good and I suspect others are well over reading it every page.
Lets hope we get some solid news soon
I am not french, indeed, but translation given above your post suggests that the fact that latest ES exceeds 95W TDP is logical, given that their ES on much lower clocks is hitting the 95W mark. I.e. "logically" refers to connection of 2 facts, not the implication.They said given the power consumption of their ES, they say that using a reasonable extrapolation, that the retail version will exceed 95W TDP at 3.6/4.0 GHz.
And by the way, who gave birth to the whole "overvolted" idea? I see it repeated way more often than provided with evidence.CPC do not have the latest revision (or at least, did not at the time of writing that). Given AMD demonstrated with a later revision at New Horizon an overvolted Zen @ 3.4 with a ballpark 95W TDP, with further respins it is likely that the early revisions (as CPC had) used much more power per clock than later.
And the point is that "easily" serves the same purpose in certain context. Replace it with "definitely" if you want to.We dont use the word "bien" in such a sentence to say that something is exceeded well over but to confirm that our statement (that the TDP is exceeded) is good (to be trusted), and generaly when someone ask for confirmation.
What are you on about?20W for the graphic card? Anyway my considerations still stands: the CPU did not have turbo boost and the AMD's TDP in these days was calculated in worst conditions (Vcore=+10%, Tj=125C, power virus software).
Prove it that they are very wrong. And anyway it draws less than the 6900K so Zen TDP<6900K TDP
Except for the part where Jim Kellar talks about taking the DNA from there "high frequency designs" and their "low power designs" and mixing the best of both. he also talks about how amd know how to do high frequency circuit design and leveraging that for the next generation........
https://youtu.be/SOTFE7sJY-Q?t=4m45s
It clearly exceeds 95W, that is, by a margin and/or consistency that the author is comfortable with stating it clearly exceeds 95W.
And by the way, who gave birth to the whole "overvolted" idea? I see it repeated way more often than provided with evidence.
What are you on about?
Show us your method for guessing CPU power from AC is correct using past major AMD uarchs.
Otherwise every single one of your extremely positive power claims here are baseless, once again.
Don't pretend science or logical reasoning then use none of it.
I gave you a common example which shows AC system figures are extremely tricky and misleading to interprete CPU DC power from. Rather than find another example to the contrary, you resorted to making up misinformation to disprove my example. This shows you as a conman, not an honest intellectual.
Prove me otherwise. Show me how your deduction method is scientifically accurate, valid and repeatable.
Also your TDP calcs those days vs today is even more baseless misinformation. It's completely wrong. Had you physically tested any K8-Thuban CPU, you'd realize how ridiculous your comments are.
TDP does not stand for maximum power. Get this.
Sent from HTC 10
(Opinions are own)
Sounds like some talking points to me. I mean, that's been what we've been doing wrong all along?? Somebody better tell the automakers to mix the DNA from a Prius and Corvette to get a high performance car that sips gasoline!
I get that Keller (and others) have to put it in simple terms for the masses to understand, but this is still the real world, governed by physics. I don't mean to be a smart*** towards you as we won't exactly know what Zen really is until it launches. That day cannot get here soon enough, it's like being a kid on a Christmas Eve that never seems to end!
See now you just making stuff up because you were 100% wrong! Regardless of your Fab or your process state you have to design your circuits and how they form together to create a processor in a way that allows for high clocking.
But then if you break down the facts further your statement looks even more ridiculous
1. 14nm LLP is not worse then 28/20nm bulk, explain polaris ,pascal, moongoose, A9 etc clocks vs their predecessors.
2. According to the stilt Bulldozer is Fmax limited by the L2, meaning the Cores themselves could clock even higher then 8.4ghz reached under LN2, guess which processor has a much smaller and simpler L2?
3. Reality is backing this up with ES having 3.6ghz base clocks, that is the same as the FX-8150
So who is right, the person leading the design teams at the time when all this low level design work was in the process of being planned and created ( 2012-2015) or cytg111 who so far doesn't have a single tangible piece of evidence to support his position?
It exceed 95W but we dont know by wich margin.
Apparently Canard PC has no sample that say so, he just state that find it logical given what he got with his sample,so he s likely just extrapolating from what he measured with the early sample.
Now if we look at AMD demo the CPU used 74-75W at 3.4GHz despite being slightly overvolted, likely by 5% to not increase TDP too much in respect of the competiting product, at wich point TDP should have been about 67W at normal setting.
From here they can increase clocks by 6% over what they displayed at New Horizon, wich lead us right to 3.6GHz, and keep being within 95W TDP under Prime 95 (since this latter require 25% more power than usual MT loads).
If they max out the TDP even under regular loads then the chip will clock up to 3.9-4.0/95W.
BDW is a more power optimized/mobile part.Yea, I get all that. And the odds, IMO, is definitely in your arguments favor. Here comes another devils advocate; broadwell, how did that 14nm beastie clock vs. 22nm haswell?
ES get binned. SKUs get binned. You could receive multiple 3.15GHz ES with a power consumption distribution being close to 95W (them cut off). But it could also be a distribution resulting in many <80W parts.I am not french, indeed, but translation given above your post suggests that the fact that latest ES exceeds 95W TDP is logical, given that their ES on much lower clocks is hitting the 95W mark. I.e. "logically" refers to connection of 2 facts, not the implication.
Also, i dare suggest you are right [CPC did not have the last revision sample] and the info on TDP came from third party and not their own sample. So speculating about what sample did exceed the 95W mark is wasteful.
Let's see if I can take a swing at this. I think the misunderstanding here is that the native French poster is saying the quantified is for the person's certainty, not the actual data quantified. Here's the thing--you are likely BOTH right: Ask yourself, WHY would CPC be "100% confident" of the excess? That can only happen if the excess is by a comfortable margin. So no, the sentence did not literally say the excess is a large margin. But I think what the native English folks are trying to explain is that the only way to have "100% certainty of the truth" is if the excess is actually a good margin.
In other words, if you ran a test and it passed by 1-2w, you would not say I am 100% confident that it will surpass because you would first wonder if maybe it was just margin of error.
Actually what make him confident are his tests of an early sample, that s what he explicitely state.
Now he measured 93W on the 12V ATX rail, wich accounting for losses makes about 82W for the CPU, but he dont know to what extent the chip was overvolted since this is an ES and an early one.
If we take his number of 82W as basis and the fact that he state that the chip did turbo to 3.3, at least occasionaly, and that it s at frequency that he has indeed measured those 82W max power then he s uncautious to pretend that the chip exceed 95W at 3.6 (he didnt state the frequency@95W+..), because the chip wont consume significantly more than at 3.3, expect something like 20%, so if there s an excess it a couple watts, and still, likely due to a slight overvolting..
Notice that Keller actually says it.
He could chose to tell a lot of other stories.
So it has got a purpose and a point. And the point is excactly both high frequency and low power at the same time. The point is exactly zen adresses both at the same time. A prius and a bmw m5 at the same time. It is the point because the physics is so opposite here.
Designing a cpu is not only chosing between dilemmas but also the art of overcome those dilemmas and at reasonable r&d cost.
Do you really think *any* amount of data is enough to stop the arguing in these forums?I'll be glad when Ryzen is released so that all this arguing back and forth based on data from a tiny sample set can end
Do you really think *any* amount of data is enough to stop the arguing in these forums?