• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990X Rumors

IdiotinCharge, so you say it won't - I say it will. We will find out shortly. Everything else is conjecture except for the fact Price to Performance - AMD is KIng now. Let's rejoice on that at least for cometition's sake. But I'm sure you'll have some follow up about next gen Intel will save the day. I have some serious doubts on that.
 
It will be a few more years until Keller saves Intel's ass.
 
Mega6 said:
IdiotinCharge, so you say it won't - I say it will. We will find out shortly. Everything else is conjecture except for the fact Price to Performance - AMD is KIng now. Let's rejoice on that at least for cometition's sake. But I'm sure you'll have some follow up about next gen Intel will save the day. I have some serious doubts on that.
Click to expand...

Intel charges a bit more for performance that AMD cannot offer for many/most consumer workloads. More specifically, Intel provides more performance for those things that are performance sensitive to consumers while providing competitive performance everywhere else.

Now, for many prosumer workloads and many price-sensitive builds, I'd point to AMD's Ryzen CPUs first.

As always, the split depends on budget and workload. Main point is that at US$350, the i7 8700k is the fastest gaming CPU you can buy, and it's damn fast at everything else. An R7 will be damn fast at everything else, and a bit slower at gaming (and other single-thread and/or AVX-heavy tasks, but those are rarely things that consumers are sensitive to with respect to performance).


Going forward:

Intel already has their updated architecture ready. It's the process node that's lagging. Opposite with AMD, who can rely on process giants Samsung, IBM, and of course TSMC, will have every opportunity to throw whatever improvements they can make to Zen at the market.

My prediction is that AMD will get close. Zen+/Ryzen 2, basically refined Ryzen, is very attractive despite the IPC and clock deficit, and AMD very likely has a nice checklist of improvements ready for implementation in Zen2/Ryzen3. My bet that they will fall short of Intel's likely gains is based on Intel's previous arch-to-arch gains (~10%). The likelihood that AMD will make a tremendous leap in IPC while also refining their architecture for higher clockspeeds looks quite slim.

And as always, I'll add my personal caveat: if AMD pulls it off, I'll buy it!
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Intel already has their updated architecture ready.!
Click to expand...

See. Who cares? Next Gen Intel will bring nothing based on the prior several gens. It's always the next one with Intel. Maybe the Keller's Intel CPU will be worthwhile, but right now nothing appeals to me from them. I'll run my SB-e into the ground. It's idling mostly now while running a VM and twenty browser tabs anyways. Oh, wait - my game get's 10 more FPS. BFD.
 
Mega6 said:
See. Who cares? Next Gen Intel will bring nothing based on the prior several gens. It's always the next one with Intel. Maybe the Keller's Intel CPU will be worthwhile, but right now nothing appeals to me from them. I'll run my SB-e into the ground. It's idling mostly now while running a VM and twenty browser tabs anyways. Oh, wait - my game get's 10 more FPS. BFD.
Click to expand...

Prior 'several gens' have all been the same architecture.

Mega6 said:
I'd rather have the extra cores any day.
Click to expand...

If I were dependent on things like rendering or compile times, I would too- but I'm not, and most aren't, while I do game. And after living with 120FPS+ for a few years, I won't settle for or recommend anything less.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Prior 'several gens' have all been the same architecture.



If I were dependent on things like rendering or compile times, I would too- but I'm not, and most aren't, while I do game. And after living with 120FPS+ for a few years, I won't settle for or recommend anything less.
Click to expand...

What resolution do you play at?
Because if it's 1440P or higher, then Ryzen will give you the same performance as Intel.

Even at 1080P with ant kind of decent settings you are going to get very very good performance. Will Intel give you 10 FPS more in some cases? Sure. . But you are still at very playable settings.

My 2700 @ 4.3 GHz and 1750Mhz VEGA deliver a wonderfully smooth gaming experience. It's smoother and FPS are more stable then my old 3770K 5Ghz paired with DDR3 2600.

I am very excited for Zen2, and will continue to buy every release AMD offers and will recommend it to others. Keeping AMD healthy is what is going to allow us to have the option of choosing between 2 high end offerings vs 1 overpriced option every 4 years from Intel alone.
 
ccityinstaller said:
Because if it's 1440P or higher, then Ryzen will give you the same performance as Intel.
Click to expand...

This is... silly.

It's entirely dependent on the games being played and the GPU used; the GPUs will get faster and the games will get more intense, but not all at the same time. When it's true, the Ryzen CPUs will be as fast, when it isn't, they'll be slower.

The same can be said for threaded tasks- so the question is reduced to which is more useful.

ccityinstaller said:
and will continue to buy every release AMD offers and will recommend it to others
Click to expand...

I'll continue to advocate for the best solution.

ccityinstaller said:
Keeping AMD healthy
Click to expand...

If AMD becomes unhealthy, Nvidia can buy their CPU business and give it a needed shot in the arm, or perhaps Samsung. I'm sure Intel would be interested in their graphics division. Intel can't let their token competition disappear, after all.
 
Nvidia can't buy AMD wholesale (x86 licensing), and a partial buyout wouldn't make much sense for nvidia, imho.
 
AMD is fast enough at the high end, remember when you had the option of 6700k or... Nothing?

Now it's a 10% difference at the high end with 10% high FPS in games for Intel and 10% faster productivity for AMD. It's a great time for CPUs, but GPUs on the other hand... :(
 
KazeoHin said:
AMD is fast enough at the high end, remember when you had the option of 6700k or... Nothing?
Click to expand...

Absolutely fast enough. Thing is, they both are- buy what's faster for what you do.

[also, the 6700k at the same clocks as the 7700k/8700k is just as fast in single/low-thread workloads that games and many consumer applications are most sensitive to]
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Still be more IPC than Ryzen :D
Click to expand...

At 150% of the price :meh:

If I had a nickel for every time someone mentions AMD and accuasition, I'd own the world. Read the agreement. No I'm not going to go find it again. Buy AMD and bye bye x86 everyone's get it through their heads. If Nv or Intel somehow even buy - which will never happen - it will be shot down as a monopolization. Deal with it. Who's going to buy AMD with no x86 license? Nvidia? See monopoly. Sorry it's just frustrating having to keep repeating this. It's bad enough with the financial morons that don't have a clue. Don't u think that if it was going to happen, it would of when AMD was buck and a half? This bullshit will never die.
 
If AMD manages to do so poorly that they're up for sale, I have no doubt that Intel would allow the license to transfer.

Only way that doesn't happen is if the world moves on from x86.

Otherwise they face the trust-busters.

Mega6 said:
At 150% of the price :meh:
Click to expand...

That's not the case now, why would it be then? Historically Intel has kept the top consumer i7 around US$300-$350. It's US$350 now, and the 2700X is US$320. That ain't +50%.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
If AMD manages to do so poorly that they're up for sale, I have no doubt that Intel would allow the license to transfer.
Click to expand...

You fail to understand and this appears to be beyond your comprehension. It's not a contract - it's called LICENSING. If AMD does so poorly, which was very close just a few years ago - it would be an RTG fire sale. the x86 license does not transfer. Period. It's not what Intel will do, it is already done.

Edit: I see you've quickly changed contract to licensing. Good job. I'm not going to go around changing my posts all day to reflect an ever changing target while you play catch up.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps people would struggle less with comprehending your posts if they didn't occasionally look like they were originally written in Russian, Google translated to English, then to Mandarin, then back to English.
 
ZeqOBpf6 said:
Perhaps people would struggle less with comprehending your posts if they didn't occasionally look like they were originally written in Russian, Google translated to English, then to Mandarin, then back to English.
Click to expand...
pehaps you should 1) let us know to whom you are referring to (just to be clear) 2) what topic is this a part of? I think the personal attack section is somewhere else.
 
Mega6 said:
Edit: I see you've quickly changed contract to licensing. Good job. I'm not going to go around changing my posts all day to reflect an ever changing target while you play catch up.
Click to expand...

There is a contract for the license.

They're not the same, but they both refer to the same overall thing. End of the day, Intel determines what happens to AMD's license. If they don't allow it to pass to a potential buyer in the future, then they risk government regulation.

Thus, I have no intention of rewarding AMD with purchases and recommendations for occasionally almost catching up to their competition. When they make the better product, I will recommend it and I will run it myself as I have in the past. If they don't, then I will purchase and recommend their competition.
 
I agree it's splitting hairs so Contract / Agreement close enough. We are not all Corporate Lawyers. But just remember, with advent of X86-64 - it's now CROSS-Licensing and it's two way.
 
It's just important that you understand the implications of the cross-licensing agreement before discussing AMD and ACQUISITION - which from your earlier posts indicate you do not.
 
The reason the Cross-licensing agreement is not typically referred to as a contract is because a contract implies a "set length of time". This AMD/Intel x86-64 cross-licensing agreement will more than likely live until the technology dies or the agreement is violated due to it's insestuous nature. Intel needs the 64 and AMD need the x86 as if not to be more "Captain Obvious" - but clearly some users need everything explained to them. Apparently, this FKN translator is not giving the correct context.

edit: added x-licensing agreement link. It has an effective starting date, ending with patent expiration. With constant technological updates to the x86 /64, the patent updates are ongoing as the technology continues to develop.
 
Last edited:
Mega6 said:
The reason the Cross-licensing agreement is not typically referred to as a contract is because a contract implies a "set length of time". This AMD/Intel x86-64 cross-licensing agreement will more than likely live until the technology dies or the agreement is violated due to it's insestuous nature.
Click to expand...

The agreement has a period of validity and it is periodically revisited. Example:

Under terms of the agreement, AMD and Intel obtain patent rights from a new 5-year cross license agreement,
Click to expand...
 
juanrga said:
The agreement has a period of validity and it is periodically revisited. Example:
Click to expand...

Let me know when AMD and Intel decide to stop using and updating x86/64 technology. THEN it will expire. I've already addressed this in my previous posts.

DAMN THAT TRANSLATOR IS BROKE AGAIN
must be the Russian to English? IDK. you tell me.
 
Mega6 said:
Even though I ignored u juanrga (the only member btw) the first week i joined - i just can't resist.

"From 2012 to 2015, he returned to AMD to work on the AMD K12[13] and Zen microarchitectures"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Keller_(engineer)
Click to expand...

The smart choice of ignoring me is the reason why you don't know that I have demonstrated that Wikipedia article is full of hype and false claims. In the first place, Keller isn't even mentioned by Lisa Su when someone asked her who was the relevant figure behind Zen:


Anonymous: "Who had the biggest role in the creation of Ryzen? Was it you? Jim Keller? Someone else?"

Lisa Su: "In terms of the creation of Ryzen, I am really really really PROUD of our team. To build something like Ryzen takes really smart people coming together around a big, audacious goal and the Ryen team did it. The lead architect on Ryzen was a guy named Mike Clark and together with the entire global team, made Ryzen a reality."


In this link I gave a photo of the whole Zen team, with the lead architect (Mike Clark) and the team leader (Suzanne Plummer) in front. In that link I also mention who was the lead architect of the K7 and the K8. Keller wasn't.

In that link I didn't mention who created the x86-64 architecture. I will say now. The architecture was created by Kevin McGrath and Dave Christie.
 
Last edited:
I do not want to argue with you just to argue since I am not always in disagreement with what you say, but you have a serious ANTI-AMD slant no matter what you say. Your lack of knowledge of properly configured FreeSync gaming setups and their wonderful gaming experience is telling.

I get it. You want the best. We all do. I've owned HIGH END rigs with high end watercooling/peltier cooling going back to the P1 era. I live on the ragged Edge of stability. I love speed, and knowing that I can do things faster then 99.9% of the computing world.

With this being said, as I have grown (and has my income) I have come to measure things in a different metric. My delidded direct die cooled 3770K @ 5~5.2Ghz (gaming) lived in my main rig from launch week until this January. Intel did not release a single CPU that could come near where I was until the 7700K, aside from the tiny ~5% of 6700Ks that were Platinum samples and could reach 5Ghz. Hell, not many of the 7700Ks were guaranteed to hit 5Ghz+. I swapped my DDR3 2133 for hand picked DDR3 2400 dimms that were blazing fast at 2600 and let me stay on a par/faster then most of the 7700Ks.

I hated having to go that long without an upgrade, but every time I tried to talk myself into it, I realized the money would be better spent elsewhere in life where I would see a meaningful difference. I dumped money into faster storage, a larger custom loop, top of the line displays and KB/mouse combos.

I applaud AMD for what they tried to do with Bulldozer, since it is the way of the future. If Microsoft had come on board like they had planned then launch BD parts would have STARTED as fast as the 3rd gen PD(or was it SR last?) parts were with the latest microcode/OS core patches. That would have given us at least a little bit more competition and might have kept Intel a little more motivated to give us 6+ fast cores and end the frigging dual core rein years ago.

Now lets address specifics.



IdiotInCharge said:
This is... silly.

It's entirely dependent on the games being played and the GPU used; the GPUs will get faster and the games will get more intense, but not all at the same time. When it's true, the Ryzen CPUs will be as fast, when it isn't, they'll be slower.

The same can be said for threaded tasks- so the question is reduced to which is more useful.



I'll continue to advocate for the best solution.



If AMD becomes unhealthy, Nvidia can buy their CPU business and give it a needed shot in the arm, or perhaps Samsung. I'm sure Intel would be interested in their graphics division. Intel can't let their token competition disappear, after all.
Click to expand...

You honestly think that Nvidia/Intel/AMD are going to release a GPU ANYTIME in the next 5 years (the useful life of a high clocked Ryzen1/Ryzen+ CPU) that will bottleneck a 3.8~4.3HGhz Ryzen setup? You cannot live that far into fantasy land. Stop it.

Let's say Nvidia released a 1180TI that was 100% faster then a 1080TI tomorrow. Do you think any Intel CPU on the market (aside from cherry picked 8086Ks delidded @ 5.3Ghx+) will offer any form of meaningful gain vs a 2600/2700 @ 4.2/4.3 in 1440P/4K High quality gaming? I do not, but I would LOOOOOOVE for that to happen tomorrow. I would be stoked to see that happen, and AMD say "Hold my Beer" and push Zen 2 to the moon to overtake Intel or die trying.

We NEED that to happen. But AMD cannot do that unless we, the consumers, look at the best price/performance ratio and buy AMD products. When you blindly recommend INTEL CPUs to your friends/family/online, do you take into account the crazy impact that Meltdown patches apply? Look at the 30%+ impact on storage. That doesn't happen on AMD platforms. So there are other ways of measuring what is "BEST".

Intel has skated by for decades with their Bullshit illegal marketing tactics, and they have reaped the benefits while we have suffered. The market needs competition, and like it or not, AMD is what we have. Any form of buy out is never going to happen. The best you might see is a joint partnership with AMD owning a majority share (ala the Chinese deal). Why ANYONE would want Nvidia to have a chance to apply their anti-consumer BS (GPP v 2.0?) to yet another vital market is just insanity. Pure insanity.



IdiotInCharge said:
Absolutely fast enough. Thing is, they both are- buy what's faster for what you do.

[also, the 6700k at the same clocks as the 7700k/8700k is just as fast in single/low-thread workloads that games and many consumer applications are most sensitive to]
Click to expand...

So you tell him AMD is "Absolutely fast enough" but tell me otherwise?
 
ccityinstaller said:
You honestly think that Nvidia/Intel/AMD are going to release a GPU ANYTIME in the next 5 years (the useful life of a high clocked Ryzen1/Ryzen+ CPU) that will bottleneck a 3.8~4.3HGhz Ryzen setup?
Click to expand...

They already have, and GPUs keep marching forward.

ccityinstaller said:
So you tell him AMD is "Absolutely fast enough" but tell me otherwise?
Click to expand...

Different perspectives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top