Centauri
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 2,471
That's wayyyyyy better pricing than I was expecting.
This should be fun.
This should be fun.
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.
They have gone on record stating that they intend to support the platform until at least 2025.Well, AMD has borrowed Intel's strategies in other areas (no boxed cooler, stagnant SKU progression), and as far as I know, there has been NO promise of AM5 forward-support like AMD promised with AM4 in 2017.
If so, then I'm mistaken and am sorry for spreading false information.They have gone on record stating that they intend to support the platform until at least 2025.
google is your friend https://www.pcgamer.com/amd-am5-support-thru-2025/If so, then I'm mistaken and am sorry for spreading false information.
I'll try to find where they said this, but... some help?
I think it was the engineer stating it, and then the slide in the background of him.If so, then I'm mistaken and am sorry for spreading false information.
I'll try to find where they said this, but... some help?
Oh you can count on it. Just not something they bring up during platform launch.hope they release processors below that $300 price point in the future
With Intel, you can also use DDR4 on Alder and Raptor Lake.So Intel:
is increasing core counts each generation
has the threaded advantage
has the cheaper platform
has the Price per SKU advantage
Has options for budget systems with cheap but fast enough i3 level SKUs
but has slightly SLIGHTLY slower single thread speed.
and now AMD:
Hasn't increased core counts for three generations
is raising prices on most of it's parts
Has a new, expensive platform.
So this is reversed roles of Ryzen first-gen vs 7th gen Core all over again.
My, how quickly did AMD sit on their throne and pull out their dick to auction off sucking privileges.
Not really... Intels core count increase are not real cores. The cut down extra cores are not really doing anything much for real performance. Intel draws 2-3x the power vs Zen3 under even a small load... and Zen4 is going to be even more efficient.So Intel:
is increasing core counts each generation
has the threaded advantage
has the cheaper platform
has the Price per SKU advantage
Has options for budget systems with cheap but fast enough i3 level SKUs
but has slightly SLIGHTLY slower single thread speed.
and now AMD:
Hasn't increased core counts for three generations
is raising prices on most of it's parts
Has a new, expensive platform.
So this is reversed roles of Ryzen first-gen vs 7th gen Core all over again.
My, how quickly did AMD sit on their throne and pull out their dick to auction off sucking privileges.
I agree on the 7600x...7600x and 7700x are going to be terrible values. 7950x is surprisingly cheaper than expected---$100 less than 5950x, and this is the case because many are expecting a 3D V-Cache model to take up that price point between $800-$900. If I were to build a highend AM5 system, I would wait for the 7950X3D or whatever it'll be called over the 7950x.
“We’ve built the platform around next-generation technologies so you can build today and upgrade over time as your needs grow,” AMD’s David McAfee explained at today’s event. “And, just like AM4, we’re committed to supporting the AM5 platform with new technologies and next-generation architectures at least through 2025. We’re really excited about the next era of desktop growth with AM5.”If so, then I'm mistaken and am sorry for spreading false information.
I'll try to find where they said this, but... some help?
Not really... Intels core count increase are not real cores. The cut down extra cores are not really doing anything much for real performance. Intel draws 2-3x the power vs Zen3 under even a small load... and Zen4 is going to be even more efficient.
More cores are good... but not the only way to increased performance. When intel was stuck at 4 cores... for years of course it mattered going to 8. Going from 16 to 24 ? Not really going to matter much 99% of the time. If Intel really does does drop the gauntlet with a 24 core rocket lake chip that is a clear winner over the 16 core Ryzen.... AMD could always revive threadripper, or drop a 3Dcache SKU... or I assume they could technically add one more chiplet for a 24 core part if the MOBOs are capable of pushing the required power. AMD is claiming they are going to easily win in single threaded performance... and as much as we go on about multi threaded software, the simple fact most multi threaded software is threading minor things... heavy calculation is still almost always relying on single thread speeds cause it can't easily be broken up. There comes a point where threading software doesn't gain you much anymore. 16 cores with 32 threads is pretty much that point for single user environments.
These are going to outperform Intels current chips. Intels rocket lake is a refresh part... so we'll see if a refresh is enough to pull back even with AMD and Zen4.
One has to remember Nvidia's MRSP on 3000 series ya? Corps MSRP is literately fluid at this time.That's wayyyyyy better pricing than I was expecting.
This should be fun.
7600x and 7700x are going to be terrible values. 7950x is surprisingly cheaper than expected---$100 less than 5950x, and this is the case because many are expecting a 3D V-Cache model to take up that price point between $800-$900. If I were to build a highend AM5 system, I would wait for the 7950X3D or whatever it'll be called over the 7950x.
I disagree from my perspective looking to upgrade to a new platform. Besides sudden need of an extra computer a few years ago (prebuild with AMD 3600) and a recent purchase of an HP Envy laptop for testing HoloIso (just for fun), I have only used Intel CPUs since good old Athlon days. For GPUs, its only been Nvidia since GTX 1080 launch due to VR (Before that a mix of AMD and Nvidia gpus).Intel's multi-core perf has AMD beat per-SKU. i7 beats Ryzen 7, because those little cores, while not great, are still cores, and still allow an MT workload to be further broken up. Meanwhile the ST performance of Zen 4 as presented by AMD is within single-digit percent of Intel's current-gen chips.
Yes, Intel is using more power. And has been since Zen2, yet their notebooks still have faster gaming performance, and with 12 gen, have huge MT performance advantages as well. I still like AMD for battery life, but even with Ryzen 6000 series mobile, it is not a clear victory.
Rocket Lake is rumoured to double ECore count. This will be a HUGE boost to MT performance where AMD usually has the advantage. And if Rocket lake increases ST performance by even a tiny, tiny bit: talking single-digit percent: They beat AMD with a clean sweep. The ONLY thing AMD will have is efficiency, which Enthusiasts ONLY care about when their team has it.
Yeah, can you imagine what features the 125 buck version will not have on it? If that's the entry level it's gonna be pretty stripped down.Mobos starting at $125 USD. Probably the B650 (non extreme edition I'm guessing).
Intel's multi-core perf has AMD beat per-SKU. i7 beats Ryzen 7, because those little cores, while not great, are still cores, and still allow an MT workload to be further broken up. Meanwhile the ST performance of Zen 4 as presented by AMD is within single-digit percent of Intel's current-gen chips.
Yes, Intel is using more power. And has been since Zen2, yet their notebooks still have faster gaming performance, and with 12 gen, have huge MT performance advantages as well. I still like AMD for battery life, but even with Ryzen 6000 series mobile, it is not a clear victory.
Rocket Lake is rumoured to double ECore count. This will be a HUGE boost to MT performance where AMD usually has the advantage. And if Rocket lake increases ST performance by even a tiny, tiny bit: talking single-digit percent: They beat AMD with a clean sweep. The ONLY thing AMD will have is efficiency, which Enthusiasts ONLY care about when their team has it.
While nice Intel can't even get the heat and power under control with E cores. Imagine the furnace if Intel did a 16 P core running at 5ghz.I could care less about efficiency cores, I want my chip with full performance cores and I dont have any need for more then 16 of them and even then thats a bit overkill for my needs. Unless Intel gets a handle on their power demands they can't afford to add more performance cores. I am more concerned about the continuing price creep on everything, as that is likely to due far more harm to the pc market then anything else, as people won't upgrade if they can't afford it.
Yes:Did I read correctly that all Ryzen 7000 series chips will include integrated graphics of some type ?
Yea, they are great for back up.I never thoughts I'd care about integrated graphics until late year. I had to operate sans GPU for about 6 weeks and it was a godsend.
Not really... Intels core count increase are not real cores. The cut down extra cores are not really doing anything much for real performance. Intel draws 2-3x the power vs Zen3 under even a small load... and Zen4 is going to be even more efficient.
More cores are good... but not the only way to increased performance. When intel was stuck at 4 cores... for years of course it mattered going to 8. Going from 16 to 24 ? Not really going to matter much 99% of the time. If Intel really does does drop the gauntlet with a 24 core rocket lake chip that is a clear winner over the 16 core Ryzen.... AMD could always revive threadripper, or drop a 3Dcache SKU... or I assume they could technically add one more chiplet for a 24 core part if the MOBOs are capable of pushing the required power. AMD is claiming they are going to easily win in single threaded performance... and as much as we go on about multi threaded software, the simple fact most multi threaded software is threading minor things... heavy calculation is still almost always relying on single thread speeds cause it can't easily be broken up. There comes a point where threading software doesn't gain you much anymore. 16 cores with 32 threads is pretty much that point for single user environments.
These are going to outperform Intels current chips. Intels rocket lake is a refresh part... so we'll see if a refresh is enough to pull back even with AMD and Zen4.
Intel's multi-core perf has AMD beat per-SKU. i7 beats Ryzen 7, because those little cores, while not great, are still cores, and still allow an MT workload to be further broken up. Meanwhile the ST performance of Zen 4 as presented by AMD is within single-digit percent of Intel's current-gen chips.
Yes, Intel is using more power. And has been since Zen2, yet their notebooks still have faster gaming performance, and with 12 gen, have huge MT performance advantages as well. I still like AMD for battery life, but even with Ryzen 6000 series mobile, it is not a clear victory.
Rocket Lake is rumoured to double ECore count. This will be a HUGE boost to MT performance where AMD usually has the advantage. And if Rocket lake increases ST performance by even a tiny, tiny bit: talking single-digit percent: They beat AMD with a clean sweep. The ONLY thing AMD will have is efficiency, which Enthusiasts ONLY care about when their team has it.
All of the leaks from yesterday morning seem to have been spot-on, so there were no surprises. I'm still interested to see what Rocket Lake brings to the table. I didn't see anything to make me think this is going to kick Intel's ass so much as it should be better at certain things and the platform will be around longer.
I'll have to do some research on the various mainstream motherboards to see which ones have the stuff I want without costing a fortune. Ditto with DDR5 RAM sticks and the supposed "sweet spot" that AMD stuff will have.
How long do we have to wait to compare to against Intel's 13th Gen?
September 27th is Intel's official announcement. Supposedly parts will be available by the end of October.
Did anyone hear any of the AMD presenters mention about IGP? I didn't hear it or maybe I missed it yesterday so wondering why they didn't promote it.
The AM5 platform is said to receive support through 2025, which is closer to three years. And that's not a maximum; it could be longer. I think that's reasonable for a consumer platform.So platform support until 2025, while launching the last quarter of 2022, 2 years after the 5950x launched, means they're only guaranteeing 2 CPU generations? This one and the 8xxx series? With maybe some refreshes like the 7800X3D thrown in? Not quite AM4 is it
Paul's HW mentioned all sku's will have a basic igp, but, just enough to get a display and do some web browsing if you don't have a dgpu. Nothing like the previous igp sku's that allowed some light gaming.Did anyone hear any of the AMD presenters mention about IGP? I didn't hear it or maybe I missed it yesterday so wondering why they didn't promote it.
Yep, that's me. Started out with a 1700X and an X470 board. Sold the 1700X to a friend and dropped in a 3700X. Now planning on building the kid a rig around the 3700X and upgrading to the 5800X/X3D and trying my best to sit AM5 out.For the people that bought the first revisions of Zen 3, did you end up upgrading your CPU while keeping the same mobo and/or RAM? I've always been a little curious about upgrade paths since I (usually) end up keeping a CPU/Board/RAM for at least 3 years anyway. By the time I'm ready to get something new, there has been a new platform rolling out anyway.
Paul's HW mentioned all sku's will have a basic igp, but, just enough to get a display and do some web browsing if you don't have a dgpu. Nothing like the previous igp sku's that allowed some light gaming.