Who's planning to buy Zen?

Straight up! Are you buying a Zen?

  • Total voters
    415
Dan_D said:
I only bring Bulldozer into the mix to illustrate how AMD likes to make comments that are technically true, but still quite misleading. It has been very adept at this over the last decade or so.
Click to expand...

Yeah you could bring John Fruehe in the mix, where it was not clear where he got his statements from or some recent matters. But the difference is that how you want to scale the competence (or incompetence) of the AMD marketing team why would they do it again on purpose. As soon as someone gets a review sample it is clear isn't it ?

See what AMD says at Computex 2017 see if that will make things clearer. Hoping we get some decent AM4 X370 information as well.
 
I don't think I'll jump on it right away, but I live near a city with two Micro Center stores and a Fry's. Micro Center always has pretty good cpu and motherboard bundles, and sometimes lately Fry's does too. If one or the other has a great deal I might not be able to resist even if I don't really need it.
 
Eventually I will probably buy it but I feel that there could be a nice price war. Intel's only response until skylake-x is to try to undercut AMD which they can certainly afford but I don't know how low AMD can go. I like the idea of buying a quad ryzen and plopping in the octa core monster later instead of being stuck with a platform that will be obsolete quick.
 
jeremyshaw said:
I think I will, even though I have serious doubts it will be competitive with Intel on anything but price/perf. Whatever decent Mini-ITX AM4 board comes out will likely take the place of my Pentium G4400 setup.

If it straight up blows away my i7 2600k in every single metric, I will get the AMD chip on principle alone.
Click to expand...
I am in the same boat as you. Been running the rig in sig 5+ years, and have been holding off upgrading for at least 2 years for this.

If I can get something from AMD that allows me to support the underdog while netting a decent performance boost (at a discount relative to the competition) then I'm all for it.
 
Dan_D said:
I don't totally understand the enthusiasts who are still holding onto their Sandy Bridge rigs. Yes that platform and processor had some really long legs. There is no doubt that Sandy Bridge is one of the all time greatest CPUs ever made. For gaming alone, Sandy Bidge is fine with a modern GPU but there are still advantages to going with a newer platform. Skylake actually shows improvement with DDR4 RAM clocked high enough.
Click to expand...

In my case, I have the heart of an enthusiast, but not the wallet. I don't upgrade until I start to really feel like my rig is holding me back. It's usually around 4-5 years, with a GPU upgrade halfway through.

Previously, you would see HUGE gains from that upgrade. If we go back to all my rigs (the first couple I was just a kid, so more my parents rigs), I went from a Pentium 133, to a P3 800, to a P4 2.8Ghz, to a Core 2 Duo (2.4ish GHz iirc), to a 2500k that I run modestly at 4GHz. During each one of those swaps, the rig was getting barely tolerable by the time the next one was purchased. Right now I know my 2500k is long in the tooth, and there's definitely features I'm missing, but there's nothing unusable about it atm. It plays every game I throw at it just fine and I don't do anything too CPU intensive beyond that.

I'll probably build a new rig soon with either a 7700k or Zen, we'll see how that turns out. Not because I really feel like I need to yet, but because my Dad gets my hand-me-downs and that C2D system is PAINFUL.
 
I have a 3930K and I am biting at the bit to find something to replace it. Currently nothing intel offers is price worthy enough to replace this thing. So I wait for ZEN!
 
voted: gonna wait and see if amd blew it again

I so want Rizen not to suck. I'll go on record I'll take a slight dip in overall performance just to go AMD again, but and this is a BIG BUT; is how good is it compared to what I have now. If I take a huge hit, hell no. A 1% diff or something transparent to my apps/games then no biggie(I know we can all argue this as subjective so save it). I guess that will be my call based on reviews etc... and I'll wait for the early adopters to see how the oc'ing is. I run an i7 6700k @4.6ghz now so I "assume" that Rizen will need to be 4.2ghz+ oc'd or better, then have decent IPC which if reports of Ivy bridge/Haswell IPC levels would be good enough. My main game is CSGO so not too demanding. But I think I'd have some "psychological slowness" I'd perceive if I didn't get some decent clocks out of it as well.
 
FrozenSun said:
In my case, I have the heart of an enthusiast, but not the wallet. I don't upgrade until I start to really feel like my rig is holding me back. It's usually around 4-5 years, with a GPU upgrade halfway through.

Previously, you would see HUGE gains from that upgrade. If we go back to all my rigs (the first couple I was just a kid, so more my parents rigs), I went from a Pentium 133, to a P3 800, to a P4 2.8Ghz, to a Core 2 Duo (2.4ish GHz iirc), to a 2500k that I run modestly at 4GHz. During each one of those swaps, the rig was getting barely tolerable by the time the next one was purchased. Right now I know my 2500k is long in the tooth, and there's definitely features I'm missing, but there's nothing unusable about it atm. It plays every game I throw at it just fine and I don't do anything too CPU intensive beyond that.

I'll probably build a new rig soon with either a 7700k or Zen, we'll see how that turns out. Not because I really feel like I need to yet, but because my Dad gets my hand-me-downs and that C2D system is PAINFUL.
Click to expand...

Every CPU jump you mentioned had gigantic boosts in ST performance before OCing, plus an enormous OC headroom in C2D and SB and there was a real need for all that ST in games. Zen can be just as good as Intel now and is still a lot harder to swallow.

If I'm still using my old 4.2GHz 2500K rig, I would be more inclined to replace it with a Zen setup but it will be out of CPU/mobo degradation + boredom + curiosity than a real need for more CPU performance. Even then it will probably be a $100-200 4C/4T-8T SKU on a $60 cheapo mobo, I can care less for the 16C parts.
 
Have an i7-6700k, an Fx9590, and an Fx8320. Will definitely be buying a Zen/Ryzen within a month or 2 of release depending upon availability and price of 8c/16t part. Want to support AMD, and have been an AMD fan since the original Athlons.
Probably will be replacing the 9590 machine with Zen, since I doubt Zen would beat my overclocked i7-6700k for gaming as I am guessing the IPC/gaming performance will be ~10% slower then skylake.
 
I'm not spending $500 on a CPU. If there is something viable in the $200 range I might build a rig just for fun. I don't need an upgrade.
 
I don't need an upgrade...but if (Ry)Zen is decent, I'll buy it and replace my 8350. Because I want competition which will lower prices and I'm willing to pay extra for it...LOL. ;)

It all hinges on how well Ryzen performs as shown by reviews after release. If it's a hot, slow, chip then I'll be passing.
 
Provided it's better than my 4670k, yes. I enjoy new tech. However if it's like the 4xxx 6xxx FX CPUs I'll just never buy an AMD CPU ever again. I bought a FX 4100 as soon as they came out for a budget build and it was just complete garbage. I replaced an athlon 64 3400 with the 4100 and I could barely tell a difference. I could get it to 5ghz on their shitty stock cooler but, it doesn't matter with the abysmal IPC.
 
It's a wait-and-see for me. I have an increasing number of reasons to upgrade with video encoding, streaming and the need of more SATA3 ports for storage. I can be persuaded to upgrade right now but Kaby Lake isn't interesting in the least bit compared to the used Skylake market so for me Ryzen is only competing with that. Regardless, I hope Ryzen is excellent just to bring some sort of competition back to the fold. It's desperately needed and, if the price/performance was right, I wouldn't hesitate to switch back to AMD. I may have had Intel cpus for a long time now (XP 2500+ was my last AMD CPU) but that doesn't mean I'm not rooting for AMD to get back into the game as it would be good for everyone.
 
I want a cheap tablet that uses a Zen APU. I'm looking for something dirt cheap, all solid state with acceptable performance. Let's face it: I don't need super high power in my mobile. I'm hoping for some good "just enough" chips to come out of this.
 
I voted "Gonna wait".
But I think I will buy even if AMD slightly under-delivers on performance or power efficiency. The only way AMD and their motherboard partners can still blow it is skimping on ECC memory support, because that is non-negotiable for me.
 
chithanh said:
I voted "Gonna wait".
But I think I will buy even if AMD slightly under-delivers on performance or power efficiency. The only way AMD and their motherboard partners can still blow it is skimping on ECC memory support, because that is non-negotiable for me.
Click to expand...

Trust me it will not be BLOWING it if AMD doesn't have ECC just for you as most users and gamers could care less about ECC and would rather have more aggressively timed and overclockable ram. I am sure it will be enabled on the enthusiast platform but it is not going to ruin the chip line. I use ECC in my E5 Xeon NAS 24/7 for like 5 years with a powerdown of about 2 days total in that 5 years for cleaning. Even when my drive failed out of 8, I just replaced it with it on. In the meantime I have used my desktop in signature for gaming for those same 5 years and never had a ram issue and it is not ECC.
 
Of course, I meant the only way AMD can blow it for me.
I will use the PC not exclusively for gaming, but also for work and for handling documents/pictures/etc.

That ECC matters less to the enthusiast gamers than other factors like performance I understand.
tangoseal said:
never had a ram issue and it is not ECC.
Click to expand...
Then how do you know that you never had a RAM issue? The most problematic part of non-ECC memory is silent corruption of data. Older studies have found that error rates for server RAM are about 8% per DIMM per year, increasing with the age of the memory chips.
 
I will most definitely be upgrading my home computer. However, I may wait on my work desktop because I recently needed to replace my Band 2 so I bought a Garmin Vivoactive HR on sale. Was not expecting to have to do that.
 
i voted to wait since it's really going to depend on pricing for me and the performance of which ever processor ends up in my price range otherwise i'll probably try to grab a used 2500/2600k to hold me over til the ryzen platform becomes more affordable for me.
 
i voted to wait since it's really going to depend on pricing for me and the performance of which ever processor ends up in my price range otherwise i'll probably try to grab a used 2500/2600k to hold me over til the ryzen platform becomes more affordable for me.
Click to expand...

It is unclear what parts will be released at the start. I mean will the 4C versions (some should be priced in the $1XXs) be available in Q1?
 
if Ryzen is compatible with the ASUS AM4 board i bought, then yes. Otherwise I wait for Zen+ Cores
 
I've got a light-duty LAMP Nahelem server built back in late 08 that desperately needs to be replaced. Ryzen ~may~ be it, although i haven't so much been waiting on price/performance for this rebuild, I've mostly just been waiting on the damn thing to die already.
 
I have a strong suspicion that their 8 cores regardless of what the end performance is, NOT what they are saying now, will make the experience bitter for most. I really see this costing just as much as an Intel CPU / Motherboard setup with less performance to be had. Before anyone gripes at my comment, understand this, AMD is not the market leader. That's not going to change suddenly.

If the 8 core chip comes in at $300 and the motherboards around $200, this could be a big deal. But, that won't happen.

I see a continued slow death spiral. Hopefully they take full advantage and price this to be super affordable.
 
I might if it performs reasonably well and/or the TCO is low enough.
Otherwise, I'll just get my jollies by getting in on some cheap 16c/32t Sandybridge Xeon goodness from Natex :)
 
If they make a chip at the price performance ratio I want, I'd always consider the alternatives, always. I don't game beyond 4x types so I just run a basic 3820 at 4Ghz. My kid games so he has an i5 I overclocked. Just buy for what you need at the price you can afford. Some games really just benefit from the fastest four threads you can afford.


What draws me in these days are storage features and PCIe lanes , not so much CPU performance. So any interest I have in Ryzen personally will be as much about the boards as the CPU's.
 
Last edited:
chithanh said:
Of course, I meant the only way AMD can blow it for me.
I will use the PC not exclusively for gaming, but also for work and for handling documents/pictures/etc.

That ECC matters less to the enthusiast gamers than other factors like performance I understand.
Then how do you know that you never had a RAM issue? The most problematic part of non-ECC memory is silent corruption of data. Older studies have found that error rates for server RAM are about 8% per DIMM per year, increasing with the age of the memory chips.
Click to expand...

What I was saying was no ram error that matters for a gaming rig. Silent data corruption is something that has no real lattitude with a typical gaming or home use PC considering the duty cycle. For a server or 24/7 PC then hell yes ECC is the only way. Like I said my servers all have ECC running especially my NAS and it has been running on a ZFS storage system with ECC for about 99.5 % duty cycle for the last 5 years non-stop. Absolutely no detectable data corruption using FreeBSD and ZFS scrubs etc... No logs wth crash events... just rock solid stable. So yes I agree wtih you on the function of ECC but I do not agree it being a "this chip has no future" issue for almost all other people.

If it has ECC support I am going to run it just as you are but I will not be disappointed to the point of complete disregard for the platform if it doesn't. As I have said historically AMD will more than likely include it as all of their past (true) enthusiast lines and chipsets have included it, where as intel you had to fork out your pension and a kidney to buy a xeon that could run it.
 
SixFootDuo said:
I have a strong suspicion that their 8 cores regardless of what the end performance is, NOT what they are saying now, will make the experience bitter for most. I really see this costing just as much as an Intel CPU / Motherboard setup with less performance to be had. Before anyone gripes at my comment, understand this, AMD is not the market leader. That's not going to change suddenly.

If the 8 core chip comes in at $300 and the motherboards around $200, this could be a big deal. But, that won't happen.

I see a continued slow death spiral. Hopefully they take full advantage and price this to be super affordable.
Click to expand...
Well you are seeing nothing. Just idle conjecture from an Intel cynic. Wherever this octacore falls short of a 6900k it will be a very minimal difference for less than half the price ans a cheaper motherboard as well, I don't understand the bellyaching. The risk is small the reward will be great.
 
I won't personally be buying one because I have no need. I don't expect it to be anything earth shattering I just want it to perform well enough that Intel has to take a long hard look at their current product stack and adjust some of their prices. Intel has had the game to itself for years and the market desperately needs another company to step in and provide some competition.

If AMD does get it right then maybe the next time I build a system I won't have to drop $1000 on just the CPU.
 
Even if you have the need to build a new system you would not consider Ryzen if it is close to Intel and priced attractively?
 
BrianB said:
yes, it is pretty nice, suffers under its 65tdp tough (cpu throttling) but runs game's pretty well for a APU
Click to expand...

How did you purchase an AM4 motherboard from Asus when I see no product listing for AM4 boards on their web site???
 
Ira Wechsler said:
Well you are seeing nothing. Just idle conjecture from an Intel cynic. Wherever this octacore falls short of a 6900k it will be a very minimal difference for less than half the price ans a cheaper motherboard as well, I don't understand the bellyaching. The risk is small the reward will be great.
Click to expand...

It seems you are avoiding the lack luster single core performance to which from all the numbers out there are falling short of even the Intel 6700k. You talk as if 8 cores is something of a big deal for the typical PC user, it's not .. like, seriously not. Most are not even going to touch Hand-break, Solidworks, what have you. 1/2 the cost? 1/2 the cost of what? $350+tax+shipping a $200 fully featured Mobo ( we are assuming here ) tax on that, a bit more shipping. I mean, you're at what? ... $600 dollars almost. Let's forget about the 8 core $1,000 intel chip. As I mentioned and as you well know, not many people are going to fully utilize those cores.

That $600 is going to buy more performance with Intel than it will with AMD, for the typical web surfer, emailer and gamer types or 99% of the people out there.

This is just a cut to the chase no BS observation.

And if you want the 8 cores to be your crutch regardless of who when why will use those cores, then fine, I'll give in and say fine. I don't have to win this argument. That was never my goal here. I am just playing devils advocate to get people thinking. AMD has stung me more than once with buyers remorse. Yes, I admit I'm all about bleeding edge performance. I'm biased in that regard.

I wish the new AMD Ryzen was stomping ass across the board, trust me, I really really do. When the chip ships, we establish a baseline average overclocks, get some numbers, if I am wrong I will tell everyone I was a dick about Ryzen and how wrong I was. I will even try and learn a lesson from all of this. But, I don't think I will even come close to doing that.
 
It appears on any data thst there is to work with that the Ryzen uarch will have ~ haswell IPC which translates from single threaded performance to SMT.

The i7 5960X seems to be the appropriate match up for the flagship Ryzen SKU. Given the only other information that we have namely the Chinese cinebench SMT leak and AMD controlled demos I think there is enough to make that assumption.

The 1188 CB leak at 3.1, if you take the 5960X at the same clock 1184 multi thread and 124 single thread. The missing piece was Ryzens single thread in the absence of any data on SMT efficiency it was a sticking point, that was until CPC leaked a more comprehensive leak of benches i thereto draw inference on the SMT scaling between a 5960X and 6900K

5960 - 140/1337 @3.5 = 9.55 or 20%

6900K - 153/[email protected] = 10.1 or 25%

On that CPC productivity results the 3.1/3.3 Ryzen was well short of the 6900 and even factoring in final clocks the 6900 will be at least 8-9% faster.

The 5960X was not benched but DocT Mentioned similar results at 3.3 as Ryzen. The deduction is that Ryzen has similar SMT to Haswell and less than Broadwell. If you compare a E5 46XX to a 6900 the Xeon has a 44% SMT scaling and at lower clock whipes the 6900 clean in high levels of parallelism. ryzen doesn't show anything in that level.

1188 / 9.6 = 124 @3.1 which is equal to 5960X and any Haswell uarch for that matter. This works in the gaming metrics which shows the Ryzen being similar to the 6600K at lower clocks.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1317?vs=1544

That is a 5960X vs 6600K and the 6600K just about wins by a whisker in all the game benches by ~1%

I think Ryzen as it is now is about on par with Haswell,. By final silicon it may open up slightly on Haswell but I don't think by much.

AMD will use the more efficient finfet lpp to run higher clocks to compensate the difference in architectural throughput

EG

6900K @ 3.6 = 149/1505
RZ @ 3.6 = 144/1380

[email protected] = 153/1547

RZ @4ghz = 159/1533

So 6900 @3.7>SMT but Ryzen @4 > singlethread, which is why it appears like Ryzen is matching the 6900K but intrinsically it is clockspeed. Ryzen is however very much Haswell possibly slightly faster
 
I have a 4790S at 4GHz that I got on sale with a Z97 board in 2015 for $260. So it would take a pretty large performance increase to get me to jump. More cores could be interesting, but I have seen 6800k's go on sale for around $300 and figuring in an X99 board, to get a couple extra cores would cost me about $500. AMD would have to have the 6/12 Ryzen priced fairly low to gather my attention and take me away from Intel. A $50 price difference just wouldn't cut it for me. I plan to wait until Ryzen+ or Icelake to see some major improvements. Looks like my previous 2500k set the tone that I will do a "major" upgrade every 4 to 5 years. I am more of a performance/price kind of guy so I would love to see AMD be successful here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top