Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by FrgMstr, Jan 12, 2017.
Notorious Nathan Kirsch gives us a synopsis of what Legit Reviews pulled together at CES2017.
I don't want to buy one, but an AMD like the X2 days AMD is a good AMD for the entire market.
The PC is not dead, it just needs competition that its lacked, so its became stagnant on the CPU front. So, this is a good
thing if it holds true and honest.
Can't wait for your guys review Kyle
I'm ecstatic at the thought of a competitive CPU market coming back from the ether. Innovation has been in short supply over the last five years or so. Can't wait to see what happens.
Given the kind of theoretical technologies we soon must begin employing to maintain CPU advancements, I don't know how competitive any player can be without a huge R&D budget.
After reading the article, I really feel as if the AMD Ryzen needs to mature and improve over time. I don't think these are overnight issues that can be addressed. For me, it's not a platform I want to beta-test for AMD with my money. BUT, I will be paying close attention to them and seeing what they do in 2018 or 2019 after the CPU has been out, improved, the motherboards improve, drivers, etc etc.
I absolutely know without a doubt in my heart that the AMD Ryzen and AMD Vega will not touch Intel or nVidia. Unlike most people, I actually use my computer to very regularly edit video, music production, edit photos and play games several times a week. I need the best possibly performance within reason.
And I really do not care if I have to spend an additional $200 or $300 between the two to own Intel and nVidia. $300 will not make or break me and at the end of the day, its money well spent. Of course this is assuming AMD will have a cheaper price for their new CPU / GPU.
I'm hoping after a few revisions, market and driver maturity, newer Ryzen / Vega model refreshes in 2018 or 2019 that it's something that looks overwhelmingly positive across the board that I can truly consider.
My gut says that the cpu speed will be more than whats been led out of the bag. Its like government budgets, underestimate surplus, then show surprise when you exceed expectation. Well I can hope.
Please don't suck.
Please don't suck.
Please don't suck.
Bulldozer and its variants were better at similar applications than they were at the common desktop applications and games. I don't think this is enough to form too much of an opinion on Ryzen at this juncture. Like others, I'm hoping it doesn't suck.
You should want to buy one. I'll rather give my money to AMD, even if it's 15% slower. Screw intel gauging us for the last 20 years
Cool, thanks for the link to a good read. I will have to finish it up tomorrow though, time for bed, good night everyone.
That mentality is what allows inferior trash to be sold. It should want to be a good product for your money.
We aren't in the 12-18 months upgrade cycles anymore. Most systems will get 3-5 years of use now. So I should want to invest the best bang for the buck I can get, and if thats AMD ok
if its Intel ok. I've owned both in my day, but I'm 95% Intel 5% AMD in terms of what I've owned, unless you count video cards, then its been all AMD since like, the 5xxx series cards.
I want AMD to succeed, it'll make Intel better, and Intel knows that even.
Intel's prices have been....pretty reasonable for all but the highest end. The consumer end of their market really did a lot to put powerful machines into our hands, considering they are almost the only player.
If we exclude HEDT 10 core that's priced due to Xeons, CPU prices haven't been cheaper the last 10 years. If AMD got something better you can just replace Intel prices with AMD prices.
I wonder how much the memory bandwidth will limit Ryzen. We know its a problem for Skylake/Kaby Lake for example that can scale up to the max ICM speed at 4266Mhz or so. And Ryzen while slower, it got twice the cores to feed.
I will buy a Rysen and a Vega, regardless of how slow they are compared to intel and nvidia, given how both are willing to screw their customers (intel with ridiculous prices and nvidia with prices, spyware and trying to lock games down to their platform).
Edit. To clarify, I'm due for an upgrade and both Rysen and Vega will be faster than what I currently have, but don't care if they are a bit slower than whatever new Intel and NV have.
More to my point: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2017..._sandy_bridge_2600k_ipc_review/5#.WHkamxsrI8c
Intel has one of the largest R&D budgets for computing on planet earth. There has been little innovation in the last 6 years. AMD's offering could force innovation on all sides. That is all.
I've been buying AMD since I learned a lot of reasons to loathe current era intel and I honestly haven't noticed a difference in games or general computing for my use cases. If AMD can pull off a coup here and bring in the bleeding edge performance junkies, it will be a huge win.
Bleeding edge performance will remain with Intel, I'd lay any money on it. I realize I'm not shining a light on anything not obvious to anyone.
There's always this sad buildup of expectations before every new AMD launch in the last 5-10yrs, and each time it's either a big flop or just not what was hyped or promised.
It'd be great for the industry if AMD finally broke their losing streak, but I have a feeling that if they had an outright winner on their hands, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops and there would be far more "accidental" leaks about it from AMD marketing.
I'm guessing Ryzen will be the best CPU released from AMD in the last decade+ but Intel will still retain the overall performance crown...same with Vega (to a lesser extent)...either way AMD can't rest on their laurels with the success of Ryzen and needs to continue to refine, innovate and compete...
Since I just recently updated my system there is no chance to go AMD any time soon for me. So the only stake I have in this is to make a big boom and push enthusiast prices down, so the 6900K looses value, to make a switch viable for me.
Motherboard prices will be equivalent to Intel? That was one of AMDs main selling points.
Clock speeds look lower than they need to be. 40% IPC gains won't mean as much when they are clocked 20-30% slower. Bulldozer was bragged to have 10% IPC gains and we remember what actually happened.
Beats 3.4GHz Intel in cherry picked benchmarks. My processor runs at 4.8GHz, if Ryzen doesn't overclock that high, then it's not worth it.
Unlimited boost sounds great, but then I remembered that ever since I started custom water cooling I don't stop overclocking because of temps. Either it will cause system instability or not really be unlimited.