Leaked AMD Ryzen Benchmarks?

CentroX said:
Intel wants to be the premium brand. They will not half their prices.
Click to expand...


They only need to cut down cost on CPU's that are close to competitive range they don't need to cut all their chips prices down.

Look at what nV does with their cards, Titan X is crazy expensive, but they did have 980ti against Fury X at the same price which was just 5% slower that Titan X.

The market is fluid, these companies are run by ego at least when there is competition, if they were, Intel would have been dead with P4. This isn't Apple where they make good products but sell to sheep, Intel sells to a 3rd party before they go into a system, that 3rd party knows what they are buying. That 3rd party is the one the recommends what the consumer should buy.
 
razor1 said:
They only need to cut down cost on CPU's that are close to competitive range they don't need to cut all their chips prices down.

Look at what nV does with their cards, Titan X is crazy expensive, but they did have 980ti against Fury X at the same price which was just 5% slower that Titan X.

The market is fluid, these companies are run by ego at least when there is competition, if they were, Intel would have been dead with P4. This isn't Apple where they make good products but sell to sheep, Intel sells to a 3rd party before they go into a system, that 3rd party knows what they are buying. That 3rd party is the one the recommends what the consumer should buy.
Click to expand...

Intel used illegal business practices to stay on top when P4 was found to be lacking... hence the billion and a half dollar lawsuit they lost.

So I would not use that era as a model of what's to come.
 
lolfail9001 said:
I agree that it is identical to 1700X. The point is that it will probably not go in actual final build.

I argue that it is OEM that cuts costs on base components, not a budget OEM. I mean, heck, https://www.boostboxx.com/ look at their variants and call them "budget".

It is not really a min/max, it is actually fairly common to get a quality CPU/quality GPU and then cheapest RAM and mobo you can find that will work, even in some custom builds.

Fair enough.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I do not think one cannot use his previous AMD builds to make too much of a point (and yes ironically I will be going on to do that as well :) ), none of this is really up to the level of Raven Ridge/Ryzen especially when looking at the CPU price range.
Looking at his basic 7700K, which I think we both agree is quite a bit below HEDT and that is where the 95W 8C Ryzen really fit.
He has basic 7700K with a 1060 (not a GTX 1080), a micro ATX but with option to Z270, but importantly default DDR 4 memory with timings of CL 15-15-15. Kingston HyperX Fury better than the leaked benchmark.

This really does not align with his leak benchmark setup for the 8C Ryzen.
I agree the 65W version of the 1700 is around 15euros cheaper than the 7700K so that could be put against that tier and spec, while the 1700X 95W is more expensive - going by the leaked prices at the Centralpoint, also their 7700k is 334 euros exc VAT, and 409 euros with VAT.

BTW the 1st time he shows a 6800k is under the Advanced section, and worth noting also under Advanced is the FX9590 that does not appear under Basic.
With his basic FX8350 he has an Nvidia 1060, and not the entry level Asus AM3+ motherboard.

To me this just adds to my points.
But I appeciate it is one of perspective and will split quite a few of us.
Cheers
 
Magic Hate Ball said:
Intel used illegal business practices to stay on top when P4 was found to be lacking... hence the billion and a half dollar lawsuit they lost.

So I would not use that era as a model of what's to come.
Click to expand...


Not saying they didn't do anything illigal lol, but they had to cut prices in fashion or another.
 
lolfail9001 said:
8th gen starts with ultrabook CPUs, coffee lake was never intended for these, the first are a kaby lake refresh according to roadmap.
Click to expand...


There is one reason that CentroX missed why Coffee Lake is important to Intel, is its platform, that will include higher core products on the less expensive socket if I'm not mistaken.
 
razor1 said:
There is one reason that CentroX missed why Coffee Lake is important to Intel, is its platform, that will include higher core products on the less expensive socket if I'm not mistaken.
Click to expand...

Yes. Early next year the mainstream platform will have an i7 14nm 6C / 12T i7.
 
razor1 said:
There is one reason that CentroX missed why Coffee Lake is important to Intel, is its platform, that will include higher core products on the less expensive socket if I'm not mistaken.
Click to expand...

I didnt miss that. All i said was arstechica reported that coffee has been pushed forward. Techical wizard durante also said it is because of ryzen.
 
CentroX said:
I didnt miss that. All i said was arstechica reported that coffee has been pushed forward. Techical wizard durante also said it is because of ryzen.
Click to expand...


The plan was already there prior to Coffee Lake's issues or changes, which they didn't pull Coffee lake forward, Coffee Lake was pushed back, Coffee Lake was to be on 10nm which was pushed back 6 months to a year and Kaby Lake was put in the interim ;), Intel road maps, where already stating that 3 months prior. That means pin compatibility would have been in the works prior to that.

Can't believe people don't remember why Kaby Lake was made in the first place, cause of the 10nm issues, there was no Kaby Lake till Intel made their Tick, Tock, Tock cycle change!
 
Last edited:
The road maps have had the 6C i7 mainstream processor for a long time now. If I had to guess I would say back into 2015.
 
As I mentioned in one of the other ryzen threads earlier, 10nm coffee lake is supposed to be out this year, but don't expect volume until next year (paraphrasing):
We were surprised to see Coffee Lake, the 4th generation 14 nm part, added to the roadmap late last year, but expected it to complement 10 nm products. But Intel basically conceded that this will be their go-to-market product for Christmas, the 8th generation Intel processor family – though they did tell us that there will be client product out this year on 10 nm, the volume will be mostly next year
Click to expand...

Joseph Moore, via Tiernan Ray of Dow Jones
 
OrangeKhrush said:
Why would intel drop prices to a CPU that can't match a sandybridge?
Click to expand...


Who stated it can't match sandy bridge?

I mentioned there is no reason to upgrade for people that already have sandy bridge, the performance in negligible for that because they can always purchase an ivy bridge CPU without touching any other components in their system so cost will be on Intel's side in that situation.
 
lolfail9001 said:
Final silicon is here bro and i bet you few bucks mobo makers pet OCers are on it already.

Is it winning when you do not actually win? In the end i do plan a Ryzen upgrade from my i5-6400 because no fucking way it will be slower in single thread department but let's call spade a spade: it does not push tech anywhere ahead and if Intel are actually stuck and not just slacking off... yup.

It is most definitely there in per clock department. The overclocks are the big open question with little leaks to suggest of what they will outside of cryptic comment from Stilt on Zen never getting actually power hungry and that 3dmark leak having a precisely 4Ghz OC set.
Click to expand...

If it is within 10% performance of Intel in most price ranges , yes it is a win. AMD will get the profit it needs to markedly increase R&D and match or beat Intel when Zen+ or Zen 1 arrives in 2019 on 7nm. Also AMD wins mindshare if it triples its marketshare and has a lot of happy users. The days of Intel dominance are drawing close to an end. Nobody stays on top forever. The US is in decline, Rome fell, now AMD's time is coming.
 
os2wiz said:
If it is within 10% performance of Intel in most price ranges , yes it is a win. AMD will get the profit it needs to markedly increase R&D and match or beat Intel when Zen+ or Zen 1 arrives in 2019 on 7nm. Also AMD wins mindshare if it triples its marketshare and has a lot of happy users. The days of Intel dominance are drawing close to an end. Nobody stays on top forever. The US is in decline, Rome fell, now AMD's time is coming.
Click to expand...


LOL and how much profit do you think will go into R&D vs. getting more talented engineers? I agree R&D will go up because margins will increase but we are talking about how much margins? Why is AMD predicting flat for next quarter? Is this what your stalwart industry insiders are telling you? If so please look below.

Rome fell over decades/ centuries, os2wiz, it didn't happen because the barbarians or the huns were equal in warfare, its because Rome was in decadence while the Huns had better military and better warfare technology (speed).

First and foremost AMD needs to ensure they have enough cash to pay of its debts while sustaining current expenditure, then increasing expenditure if they need it to meet increased supply and demand (if this happens unlikely in the first 2 Q's after Ryzen is released hence why AMD's bottom line will remain flat), second will be to ensure they have enough cash or capital incoming to ensure to get better talent, then only will we see R&D increase.

Remember Lisa Sue even stated they are taking things step by step, and its going to be slow. She is a strategist right? Would she put both feet into hot oil or test it out first and keep one foot for stability. Always make sure the products you have now are in safe ground before you think about future products when you have a 2 billion dollar debt to repay.

Why did she say that? Because it doesn't happen overnight cause they can't afford to make any mistakes.

PS Zen + is already set for its R&D, any future R&D increases will be for the processor after it. Increasing R&D expenditure for Zen + will be a fool's errand, no changing what Zen + is about.

Also interviews with AMD employees, it seems like their is another chip after Zen + that will be based on Zen so 3 "gens" of Zen chips then the next chip will be where R&D increases will be needed.

Now instead of looking at things in a one dimensional view of mind share, please venture over here, why that mind share is so important and where it came from to begin with, cause that is the underlying reason why Intel is where Intel is right now, and will stay even with AMD's equal products.

https://hbr.org/1975/01/market-share-a-key-to-profitability

This is an old article but its a good one, and if you think you know more about markets than these guys do, mind you they teach at Harvard Business School (Taught, they might have passed away)

Key things you need to know ROI is not about individual margins, but the bottom line of margins,fixed and variable costs associated with each product, things we don't have access to from AMD's or any companies financials for that matter.

Now gross and net margins, is where AMD will increase, ROI though, will not increase as much because % differences don't carry over as much, so net results, margins increase, but ROI remains flat due to the fact they are in debt, spending money they don't have and need to put up interest as a fixed cost then add in increased man power, increased volume sales (volume sales is not the same thing as marketshare, it can be it might not be, by the way AMD is predicting their bottom line, seems like it won't budge), on top of that their need to push further into server tech and infrastructure to remain on par of Intel's moves, its not an easy road.

With similar products, all AMD can do is play a war of attrition until they have superior products, then things will change to what you are saying, and it will happen quickly, if that ever happens, and that is up to Intel, if they fail to innovate even after AMD gets close to them.

The article also goes into vertical integration, Intel is a vertical company, AMD is not, this is a complex relationship with Intel capabilities vs AMD's, positive for Intel, negative for AMD, when concerning the current marketshare numbers.

There are so many factors in such a simple post you have made which contradict anything remotely possible in short or even mid term that would be favorable to AMD or in this case with your line of thinking.
 
Last edited:
Why is AMD predicting flat for 1st quarter?? That is a real easy one. Did Ryzen ship the beginning of the quarter, no it's shipping in March, the tail end of 1st quarter. Second console sales are highest in 4th quarter for the holiday season. !st quarter will show a drop in console sales and therefore apu sales. It is purely seasonal. The rest of what you say is not really important and was never contested by me. I never said Intel is going to shrivel up and die. But its unchallenged dominance is drawing to an end. It is a new ballgame now and we all will benefit from it. More innovation, better pricing. It is what we should all want and need unless we own tons of Intel stock.



razor1 said:
LOL and how much profit do you think will go into R&D vs. getting more talented engineers? I agree R&D will go up because margins will increase but we are talking about how much margins? Why is AMD predicting flat for next quarter? Is this what your stalwart industry insiders are telling you? If so please look below.

Rome fell over decades/ centuries, os2wiz, it didn't happen because the barbarians or the huns were equal in warfare, its because Rome was in decadence while the Huns had better military and better warfare technology (speed).

First and foremost AMD needs to ensure they have enough cash to pay of its debts while sustaining current expenditure, then increasing expenditure if they need it to meet increased supply and demand (if this happens unlikely in the first 2 Q's after Ryzen is released hence why AMD's bottom line will remain flat), second will be to ensure they have enough cash or capital incoming to ensure to get better talent, then only will we see R&D increase.

Remember Lisa Sue even stated they are taking things step by step, and its going to be slow. She is a strategist right? Would she put both feet into hot oil or test it out first and keep one foot for stability. Always make sure the products you have now are in safe ground before you think about future products when you have a 2 billion dollar debt to repay.

Why did she say that? Because it doesn't happen overnight cause they can't afford to make any mistakes.

PS Zen + is already set for its R&D, any future R&D increases will be for the processor after it. Increasing R&D expenditure for Zen + will be a fool's errand, no changing what Zen + is about.

Also interviews with AMD employees, it seems like their is another chip after Zen + that will be based on Zen so 3 "gens" of Zen chips then the next chip will be where R&D increases will be needed.

Now instead of looking at things in a one dimensional view of mind share, please venture over here, why that mind share is so important and where it came from to begin with, cause that is the underlying reason why Intel is where Intel is right now, and will stay even with AMD's equal products.

https://hbr.org/1975/01/market-share-a-key-to-profitability

This is an old article but its a good one, and if you think you know more about markets than these guys do, mind you they teach at Harvard Business School (Taught, they might have passed away)

Key things you need to know ROI is not about individual margins, but the bottom line of margins,fixed and variable costs associated with each product, things we don't have access to from AMD's or any companies financials for that matter.

Now gross and net margins, is where AMD will increase, ROI though, will not increase as much because % differences don't carry over as much, so net results, margins increase, but ROI remains flat due to the fact they are in debt, spending money they don't have and need to put up interest as a fixed cost then add in increased man power, increased volume sales (volume sales is not the same thing as marketshare, it can be it might not be, by the way AMD is predicting their bottom line, seems like it won't budge), on top of that their need to push further into server tech and infrastructure to remain on par of Intel's moves, its not an easy road.

With similar products, all AMD can do is play a war of attrition until they have superior products, then things will change to what you are saying, and it will happen quickly, if that ever happens, and that is up to Intel, if they fail to innovate even after AMD gets close to them.

The article also goes into vertical integration, Intel is a vertical company, AMD is not, this is a complex relationship with Intel capabilities vs AMD's, positive for Intel, negative for AMD, when concerning the current marketshare numbers.

There are so many factors in such a simple post you have made which contradict anything remotely possible in short or even mid term that would be favorable to AMD or in this case with your line of thinking.
Click to expand...
 
CentroX said:
does anyone know why bulldozer was on 32nm and not 28nm?
Click to expand...

Because Global foundries was slow on developing 28nm. After they acquired IBM's foundry operations, technology, and staff a few years after Bulldozers release. , they began on a more ambitious program of growth and faster process changes. AMD had little choice in releasing on 32 nm as GF had an exclusivity contract with AMD they could not source their chips to another foundry.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
Why would intel drop prices to a CPU that can't match a sandybridge?
Click to expand...



Sounds like your shooting your cannon over my bow. Your assertion is completely unproven and when the dust settles you and Juanrga will be proven wrong. Ryzen has better IPC than Sandybridge and better SMT throughput per core than Sandybridge clock for clock. On top of that Intel will have to eventually adjust their prices downward as chios that are within 10% of Intel but selling for 35% to over 50% less will not be ignored by either consumers or system builders. Market share for Intel will steadily erode and profits will driop. Intel stockholders will not accept this. The CEO's job will be under great threat.
 
Last edited:
os2wiz said:
Because Global foundries was slow on developing 28nm. After they acquired IBM's foundry operations, technology, and staff a few years after Bulldozers release. , they began on a more ambitious program of growth and faster process changes. AMD had little choice in releasing on 32 nm as GF had an exclusivity contract with AMD they could not source their chips to another foundry.
Click to expand...
ok thanks, and now ryzen is made on 3rd generation of 14nm.
 
I am not sure what that sarcastic statement is supposed to mean???? We know Ryzen is 1st gen 14nm. That means there is room on that process or a similar 14nm process to improve IPC , clock speeds , and energy draw. Is that a bad thing. GF also is not the same GF of 4 and 5 years ago. it is a stronger company with more skilled personnel. The IBM acquisition of their Kingston NY personnel , patents, and facilties gave GF a new shot in the arm. They are a major player in specialty chips and cpus. They will be close to schedule for 7nm in 2019 in my humble estimate.
 
os2wiz said:
Why is AMD predicting flat for 1st quarter?? That is a real easy one. Did Ryzen ship the beginning of the quarter, no it's shipping in March, the tail end of 1st quarter. Second console sales are highest in 4th quarter for the holiday season. !st quarter will show a drop in console sales and therefore apu sales. It is purely seasonal. The rest of what you say is not really important and was never contested by me. I never said Intel is going to shrivel up and die. But its unchallenged dominance is drawing to an end. It is a new ballgame now and we all will benefit from it. More innovation, better pricing. It is what we should all want and need unless we own tons of Intel stock.
Click to expand...


actually more like the next 2 quarters, AMD did not want to forecast for the following quarter ;), that means there is uncertainty, uncertainty means they don't want to make a commitment, that means guess what smoke.

Dominance in the market place doesn't end for Intel because there are competitive products by AMD, they will still dominant, competition yeah better for consumers as it lower prices and drives innovation as you stated, but that doesn't mean anything about how the market place will shift. Nor is it good for either company in the long run (unless one company gains an advantage vs the other, or a new market is opening up by the one of the competing companies that is synergistic to current market or markets they are in, which Intel has been doing all along, which AMD can't do yet), this is because the cost of the new nodes, and new architectures are doubling every generation. So R&D is doubling as well, which in turn increases over all cost and drops margins if prices remain the same for each bracket. What will happen if the market competition is stagnant for two companies over a decent amount of time, is innovation will actually decrease because of lack of resources, which is why its always better to have one or another company leap frogging one another as it keeps each company on their toes.

I suggest you look up papers on rule of three and four
 
Last edited:
os2wiz said:
I am not sure what that sarcastic statement is supposed to mean???? We know Ryzen is 1st gen 14nm. That means there is room on that process or a similar 14nm process to improve IPC , clock speeds , and energy draw. Is that a bad thing. GF also is not the same GF of 4 and 5 years ago. it is a stronger company with more skilled personnel. The IBM acquisition of their Kingston NY personnel , patents, and facilties gave GF a new shot in the arm. They are a major player in specialty chips and cpus. They will be close to schedule for 7nm in 2019 in my humble estimate.
Click to expand...


I agree its first gen 14nm for GF but IPC has nothing to do with the node, it has to do with architecture, now the node can stop the ability to increase IPC if the chip becomes too big to sustain on a specific node due to what ever reasons but that doesn't seem to be an issue.

7nm in 2019 seems too optimistic, 10nm by then sounds more reasonable for complex, large chips. IBM in the past couldn't keep up with Intel either when it came to new nodes either.
 
razor1 said:
Who stated it can't match sandy bridge?

I mentioned there is no reason to upgrade for people that already have sandy bridge, the performance in negligible for that because they can always purchase an ivy bridge CPU without touching any other components in their system so cost will be on Intel's side in that situation.
Click to expand...

You are going to spend a pretty penny buying new on Ivy. Used sure. But then again that's a different market. New? It would make no sense to choose Ivy over higher cores. Anything over Ivy would be smarter.
 
People that are penny pinching for systems, aren't going to be looking for new products that are going to cost them 1k to 2k , if they want performance close to a brand new lets say 4 core AMD Ryzen system, why not just upgrade their CPU with a 150 buck used ivy bridge, they might be what 10% slower with the clock difference they might actually end up being close when Ivy Bridge is overclocked.

That is AMD problems, who in the world is going to have a system that is oh greater than 5 years old and looking to upgrade......

When we start looking at software that makes sense for people to upgrade, the only ones have been in recent times been professional needs (or things done at home associated with professional needs, like video editing). Games haven't, OS's haven't (OS's have been going down the way of using less resources rather than more). Up until Haswell, software used the extra IPC, cores, etc. For the past 5 years, we have been sitting stagnant on software uses for regular home things.

Upgrade paths in the past for OS, Vista and 7 (7 to a lesser degree but still need for people with win xp systems) forced system resource needs Windows 10 didn't do that. Then we got games, after 4 core become the standard games started pushing 4 cores for 5 years now so. But only a few games came out that could take advantage of 6 core.

The need from a software side makes the need for the upgrade for a PC, for enthusiasts, its the same thing, if it wasn't for the fact I need to do 3d work on my system, I wouldn't be bothered with getting dual xeon's and all those goodies, I would be happy with my old haswell cpu that I use for my multi media machine as a gaming system. Why spend 4k on a system that won't give me benefits?

Typical gamers, have already decent systems for their needs lets look at steam survey for a bit.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/


2 and 4 core CPU's are pretty much all of the users.

now the marketshare figures, actually mimic the JPR and Mercury figures for CPU's

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/processormfg/

So I think its safe to say most 2 core users are using i 3 right? Would they need to upgrade, if they haven't yet, why would they now?

What is their upgrade path?

I would think they would just rather get an i5 that will fit in their socket rather than get an entirely new system wouldn't you?

If at this point they want a new system why would they choose AMD instead of Intel (when Intel drops prices to stay in the same pricing brackets)? What benefits will they get. Are they using a system that doesn't have a discreet GPU, I-3's are fairly low end gotta ask that too. Intel's performance advantage for the past 10 years or so gave them brand recognition and market share, both of these gave them mind share. AMD needs to over come both brand recognition and turning mind share away from Intel (if prices are the same for competing products) to gain market share. That is not easy to do when products are competitive and in a market where people tend to buy every few years.

This is why its so damn hard when a company after losing ground more than 1 generation to come back to status quo with competitive products, let alone surpassing their competition.
 
Last edited:
The only bad news for AMD right now would be if the headlines read "Intel terminates Krazysandwich", long may he be CEO
 
razor1 said:
People that are penny pinching for systems, aren't going to be looking for new products that are going to cost them 1k to 2k , if they want performance close to a brand new lets say 4 core AMD Ryzen system, why not just upgrade their CPU with a 150 buck used ivy bridge, they might be what 10% slower with the clock difference they might actually end up being close when Ivy Bridge is overclocked.

That is AMD problems, who in the world is going to have a system that is oh greater than 5 years old and looking to upgrade......

When we start looking at software that makes sense for people to upgrade, the only ones have been in recent times been professional needs (or things done at home associated with professional needs, like video editing). Games haven't, OS's haven't (OS's have been going down the way of using less resources rather than more). Up until Haswell, software used the extra IPC, cores, etc. For the past 5 years, we have been sitting stagnant on software uses for regular home things.

Upgrade paths in the past for OS, Vista and 7 (7 to a lesser degree but still need for people with win xp systems) forced system resource needs Windows 10 didn't do that. Then we got games, after 4 core become the standard games started pushing 4 cores for 5 years now so. But only a few games came out that could take advantage of 6 core.

The need from a software side makes the need for the upgrade for a PC, for enthusiasts, its the same thing, if it wasn't for the fact I need to do 3d work on my system, I wouldn't be bothered with getting dual xeon's and all those goodies, I would be happy with my old haswell cpu that I use for my multi media machine as a gaming system. Why spend 4k on a system that won't give me benefits?

Typical gamers, have already decent systems for their needs lets look at steam survey for a bit.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/


2 and 4 core CPU's are pretty much all of the users.

now the marketshare figures, actually mimic the JPR and Mercury figures for CPU's

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/processormfg/

So I think its safe to say most 2 core users are using i 3 right? Would they need to upgrade, if they haven't yet, why would they now?

What is their upgrade path?

I would think they would just rather get an i5 that will fit in their socket rather than get an entirely new system wouldn't you?

If at this point they want a new system why would they choose AMD instead of Intel (when Intel drops prices to stay in the same pricing brackets)? What benefits will they get. Are they using a system that doesn't have a discreet GPU, I-3's are fairly low end gotta ask that too. Intel's performance advantage for the past 10 years or so gave them brand recognition and market share, both of these gave them mind share. AMD needs to over come both brand recognition and turning mind share away from Intel (if prices are the same for competing products) to gain market share. That is not easy to do when products are competitive and in a market where people tend to buy every few years.

This is why its so damn hard when a company after losing ground more than 1 generation to come back to status quo with competitive products, let alone surpassing their competition.
Click to expand...

I am not entirely convinced by that Razor.
Most are stuck on a 4c/4t at best (i5) and usually older or lower models if you look at the clock speeds in the hardware survey.
Quite a few are put off by what seems marginal increases by Intel still for a 4c/4t (which is their focus rather than i7), but it seems AMD will be releasing the 6c/12t cheaper than the i7.
Even if that for now is similar performance to i5 in games (to be seen where it exactly fits in but possibly worst case in certain ones, in apps with threads will be massively faster) I can see it selling well as they are the 1st to offer a perceived hardware improvement at the price; a 6c/12t with a price between an i5 and i7.
Just my take on it, and consumer perception is also one that has to be taken into consideration.
And we are yet to see the final price-spec of the Ryzen 4c/8t models, but I can see quite a few stretching to reach the 6c or if AMD can get the final frequency good on their 4c/8t to that from the Intel lower quad models they own, although it needs be worked out where the top Raven Ridge APUs will fit with consumers.
Cheers
 
Last edited:
I told myself I would consider upgrading CPU's once a 5+ GHz (after overclock) 6C/12C was attainable. I was (still am) looking forward to see what the upcoming LGA2066 has to offer, but it sounds like Ryzen might be another solid option. Looks like 2017 will be a good year to be considering a CPU upgrade. I personally would not buy a 7700k right now (considering my nicely overclocked 3770k) since it sounds like some much better options are right around the corner.
 
CSI_PC said:
I am not entirely convinced by that Razor.
Most are stuck on a 4c/4t at best (i5) and usually older or lower models if you look at the clock speeds in the hardware survey.
Quite a few are put off by what seems marginal increases by Intel still for a 4c/4t (which is their focus rather than i7), but it seems AMD will be releasing the 6c/12t cheaper than the i7.
Even if that for now is similar performance to i5 in games (to be seen where it exactly fits in but possibly worst case in certain ones, in apps with threads will be massively faster) I can see it selling well as they are the 1st to offer a perceived hardware improvement at the price; a 6c/12t with a price between an i5 and i7.
Just my take on it, and consumer perception is also one that has to be taken into consideration.
And we are yet to see the final price-spec of the Ryzen 4c/8t models, but I can see quite a few stretching to reach the 6c or if AMD can get the final frequency good on their 4c/8t to that from the Intel lower quad models they own, although it needs be worked out where the top Raven Ridge APUs will fit with consumers.
Cheers
Click to expand...


AMD's clock speeds are what they are 3.4 for the 8 core with boost, that is the pretty much air cooled top end. The serial number tells us the clock speed targets ;), so unless they have another respin..... They are what they are, and launch is coming up in 2 or 3 weeks.

Its going to come down to a price war, and Intel is planning for it.
 
bjornb17 said:
I personally would not buy a 7700k right now (considering my nicely overclocked 3770k) since it sounds like some much better options are right around the corner.
Click to expand...

It's a no brainer to wait at this point. Ryzen is going to put the hurt on Intel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top