heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
This is where AMD will rule the roost imo. Intel's i3 line just wont compete.
I agree. But AMD really needs to have something that can rule at the top end, period.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is where AMD will rule the roost imo. Intel's i3 line just wont compete.
Nope. They only have to get close enough that on most work loads the difference doesn't matter much while also costing significantly less. Which they have achieved. You might not like that strategy but it worked well for them in the K6 days and it will work well now.I agree. But AMD really needs to have something that can rule at the top end, period.
I agree. But AMD really needs to have something that can rule at the top end, period.
Nope. They only have to get close enough that on most work loads the difference doesn't matter much while also costing significantly less. Which they have achieved. You might not like that strategy but it worked well for them in the K6 days and it will work well now.
Personally I prefer it this way since I'm a bang for the buck type guy. Whenever they have the top end chip they charge just as much as Intel.
What amd has is good enough at the top. With the R&D and manpower they had. They did good enough. They beat the matched intels 1000 dollar chip with 500 dollar one. Yea not as fast in gaming but I doubt people buy 8 core chips to game all day long. It did well where it mattered. As long as we know IPC Is there clock speeds with come as the process and architecture matures. Thats nothing to worry about.
What AMD needs more than ever is another Athlon. Regardless of cost AMD just needs parts people lust for. Ryzen is certain a good part especially for the price, but it's not lust worthy.
Only some PC enthusiasts lust over PC parts, the rest of the world cares mostly about performance vs cost, and the rest of the world still buys more PC's than enthusiasts. Also quite a few PC enthusiasts do care about bang vs buck too. That is how overclocking really got started anyways you know. So its quite valid and financially sound for AMD to target the bang vs buck with Zen.What AMD needs more than ever is another Athlon. Regardless of cost AMD just needs parts people lust for. Ryzen is certain a good part especially for the price, but it's not lust worthy.
Your Microcenter sucks? http://imgur.com/a/cl2H5Nope. Even the 350 chipset boards have tighter availability than I'd like and I wouldn't buy one of those unless you're trying to do a budget build on tight cash flow.
Supposedly mobo availability will pick up by around the end of the month but that is a rumor mill source.
If it were me and I HAD to buy now I'd get the X370 Asrock Taichi mobo which seems to be the best one ATM. Its still very early though for Ryzen and every BIOS update makes a difference right now. I'm personally trying to hold off until May or June before buying. I'm waiting for not only the dust to settle on Ryzen AM4 mobo's but also for Vega and better monitors so I can upgrade everything at once.
edit:
That isn't what I get when I search their store, only 1 in stock.
http://imgur.com/a/kJX0I
What amd has is good enough at the top. With the R&D and manpower they had. They did good enough. They beat the matched intels 1000 dollar chip with 500 dollar one. Yea not as fast in gaming but I doubt people buy 8 core chips to game all day long. It did well where it mattered. As long as we know IPC Is there clock speeds with come as the process and architecture matures. Thats nothing to worry about.
That is his Microcenter. I searched it using his original link. I have no Microcenter in my state. Or Fry's either.Your Microcenter sucks? http://imgur.com/a/cl2H5
Which is what will matter for the most part.It only matches it at stock vs stock in CPU performance.
No on really cares about the extra PCIe lanes or memory channels for X99 though. Neither matter much for most things outside of HPC or server style work loads. For Ryzen most of the gains from the higher clocked DDR4 RAM are actually from the IMC and IF getting clocked higher as a result of the faster RAM and not necessarily a main memory bandwidth issue.has more PCI-E lanes, and more memory channels.
It only matches it at stock vs stock in CPU performance. The i7 overclocks much higher, has more PCI-E lanes, and more memory channels. $500 is a reasonable price for what Ryzen is, and by no means a killer of the $1000 chip. The 1700 on the other hand… that is the chip that will really shake things up.
Only some PC enthusiasts lust over PC parts, the rest of the world cares mostly about performance vs cost, and the rest of the world still buys more PC's than enthusiasts. Also quite a few PC enthusiasts do care about bang vs buck too. That is how overclocking really got started anyways you know. So its quite valid and financially sound for AMD to target the bang vs buck with Zen.
Realistically given their limited resources and the non-Intel fabs they have to use Ryzen is about as much as you could hope from AMD right now. Ryzen 8 has a shot at taking the performance crown...at stock clocks anyways. If you really, personally, are only interested in a peak Intel-beating performance chip from AMD you're stuck waiting for that.
LOL no. They buy Dell's or Lenovo's. Very few people go custom build or to an enthusiast.The problem is that the average, bang-for-buck, Joe buys his PC from an enthusiast.
True, but I was kind of expecting 1080-at-launch levels of availability before I checked. I just upgraded, so I can't justify buying a Ryzen chip, but it's nice to see they're available. The ASUS Prime boards (they were renamed that) is the series I've been going with most upgrade cycles, so seeing it totally taunts me.That is his Microcenter. I searched it using his original link. I have no Microcenter in my state. Or Fry's either.
Also 4 mobo's is not a lot.
Yep, but "official" supported RAM speeds for Ryzen still max out at DDR4-2666
Terrible post man, Intel only officially supports DDR4 2400 on the 7700K yet you post junk about Ryzen's official DDR4 2666 spec. Kyle, you might want to pull his Staff Member banner. He's clearly biased or lacks the knowledge needed to be on the [H] Staff team.
AMD has a performance issue and they are recommending you solve it by running outside of their official specs. I found that amusing.
Which is what will matter for the most part.
No on really cares about the extra PCIe lanes or memory channels for X99 though. Neither matter much for most things outside of HPC or server style work loads. For Ryzen most of the gains from the higher clocked DDR4 RAM are actually from the IMC and IF getting clocked higher as a result of the faster RAM and not necessarily a main memory bandwidth issue.
10 core intel chip doesn't overclock that high either anyways. I was talking about the rumored x399 chipset even if it exists. obviously that will have more lanes from what it looks like. (Thats all up in the air and taking it with a grain of salt). Most people in desktop environment dont really use all those lanes anyways. I have an x99, rocking a single high end video card here lol.
LOL no. They buy Dell's or Lenovo's. Very few people go custom build or to an enthusiast.
LOL no. They buy Dell's or Lenovo's. Very few people go custom build or to an enthusiast.
The prices have nothing to do with the specs of the hardware. Intel sells those chips and the X99 platform for the price it does because they think people will pay that much.The point is the price difference is there because there are significant differences between the CPUs.
No magic needed. A mobo maker could just use a PLX if they wanted. Expensive, but it works. Most use just 1 video card though.there is no magical way to add GPU dedicated PCI-E lanes by chamging the chipset.
Some people do that but most don't have PC enthusiasts in the family to build for them or to talk to. Even among family people often buy OEM PC's. After a while it gets tiresome constantly fixing and building your family's PC's. Especially when they blame you for anything that goes wrong since you're the one who built it. There is a reason why many PC enthusiasts walk around with a "No, I will not fix your PC" T-shirt as a half serious gag.People with enthusiasts in the immediate family use computers built by the enthusiasts unless it is a laptop or tablet. Others buy based on input from friends, family, and salespeople, who may or may not be informed.
Actually yes it is. The OEM's sell millions of machines yearly for a reason.Not true.
Actually yes it is. The OEM's sell millions of machines yearly for a reason.
Yup. You're trying to goal post shift to making the argument seem about "people who want a good PC" which is completely different from what you claimed earlier which was that "The problem is that the average, bang-for-buck, Joe buys his PC from an enthusiast." which is obviously false and what I called out as such.Did you even read my post?
Either way, you even admitted you didn't know that Intel only officially supports DDR4 2400 for their latest top performance 4/8 cpu, 7700K......You should know that kind of basic information.
Anyway, I like that AMD is officially recommending overclocking, I find it very [H].
Yup. You're trying to goal post shift to making the argument seem about "people who want a good PC" which is completely different from what you claimed earlier which was that "The problem is that the average, bang-for-buck, Joe buys his PC from an enthusiast." which is obviously false and what I called out as such.
There is certainly an effect the enthusiast PC community has on sales, I'm not gonna deny that, but I don't think its a big effect. Certainly not one that will make or break Intel's or AMD's sales.You can't deny that biases trickle down, especially in a community so dedicated as ours.
I fully admit to not being up to speed on every last detail of new tech that I haven't researched for my own purposes yet.
A lot of enthusiasts fall into the "fan boy" category and irrationally love particular companies regardless of what's actually better performing or don't understand how to compromise and build for a particular budget.
The laptop buying public likes low res screens that are shiny to make viewing them in anything, but utter darkness impossible.
Those shitboxes you see on the walls for sale in big box stores are actually selling despite being mediocre, expensive, and not particularly upgradeable/expandable. Most people buying computers in stores are buying based on things like which box has the bigger hard drive inside. I haven't heard the "MHz Myth" recently, but ask a lay person what Intel or AMD's model numbers mean and let me know the answer because it's going to be some hilarious nonsense.
Most corporations/institutions are buying X number of boxes at price point Y that have whatever their preferred vendor is selling this year.
Sure, some people do actually ask somebody who knows what they're talking about before buying a PC, but most just find something they can afford with bonus points if it looks cool, is an AIO, or has a touch screen, and go with that and they're fine because a five year old PC with an SSD that's not buried in metric tons of garbage bloatware and malware can run Windows, Office, and surf the Internet just fine.
I'm not going to check Wikipedia to see what the low end graphics card market looks like right now, but are the 64-bit DDR3 cards sporting 6 or 8 GB of VRAM they could never possibly put to use in real time yet?
A lot of enthusiasts fall into the "fan boy" category and irrationally love particular companies regardless of what's actually better performing or don't understand how to compromise and build for a particular budget.
The laptop buying public likes low res screens that are shiny to make viewing them in anything, but utter darkness impossible.
Those shitboxes you see on the walls for sale in big box stores are actually selling despite being mediocre, expensive, and not particularly upgradeable/expandable. Most people buying computers in stores are buying based on things like which box has the bigger hard drive inside. I haven't heard the "MHz Myth" recently, but ask a lay person what Intel or AMD's model numbers mean and let me know the answer because it's going to be some hilarious nonsense.
Most corporations/institutions are buying X number of boxes at price point Y that have whatever their preferred vendor is selling this year.
Sure, some people do actually ask somebody who knows what they're talking about before buying a PC, but most just find something they can afford with bonus points if it looks cool, is an AIO, or has a touch screen, and go with that and they're fine because a five year old PC with an SSD that's not buried in metric tons of garbage bloatware and malware can run Windows, Office, and surf the Internet just fine.
I'm not going to check Wikipedia to see what the low end graphics card market looks like right now, but are the 64-bit DDR3 cards sporting 6 or 8 GB of VRAM they could never possibly put to use in real time yet?
My post was about the buying habits of the general public, enthusiasts having a minimal impact on it, and how those two things were likely to impact the sales of R5s to the public.And everything you just said has absolutely nothing to do with the Ryzen R5 release. Therefore, why don't you start your own thread instead? I am already on a 1700 and 1700X build but, the 1600 with the cooler seems to be the sweat spot for a lot of folks.
And that post was a direct reply to the twelve posts before it which were also about the R5's sales prospectives.There is certainly an effect the enthusiast PC community has on sales, I'm not gonna deny that, but I don't think its a big effect. Certainly not one that will make or break Intel's or AMD's sales.
Plenty of people bought K6's without knowing what CPU was in their OEM PC back in the day and were fine with it. All they knew was that it seemed fast enough and was cheaper than the others. I remember at the time the K6 was largely panned by most enthusiasts due to its relatively ho hum gaming performance too. Only the enthusiasts who were short on cash seemed to like it. Same went for the K5 for that matter. Or any of the Cyrix chips.
Ooops... Looks like someone over at Guru3D pulled a stupid and announced something they shouldn't have a little early
When Ryzen 5 was first announced we reported that 6 core models would be two CCX modules with one core each disabled (3+3) and 4 core models would be two CCX modules with two cores each disabled (2+2). There was some concern among our readers based on previous reporting that communication between CCX modules has relatively high latency, and that these layouts might result in lower than ideal performance.
Hardware Unboxed has quantified what type of differences we'll see between 4+0 and 2+2 layouts. From the looks of it, the theory is correct. Splitting things over two CCX modules instead of keeping it all on the same module does have a performance impact, but it seems pretty small to me.