*** AMD "Zen" thread (inc AM4/APU discussion) ***

[brigantium]

You mean why are they sticking to the NDA date it has always been?

Because it gives reviewers a hard date to be done and ensures no one is getting screwed by someone else jumping the gun.

TBH, reviewers had plenty of time, the only ones with something to lose are those who preordered. I'm kinda trusting AMD but, if gaming benchmarks results were mixed, I would also set NDA until 2nd.

 

[brigantium]

I've not seen anywhere that lists a MB ETA other than next week, has me slightly concerned. I have my MB order somewhere other than here as they were the only place listing the one I wanted when I ordered, not sure whether to cancel and reorder to try and get it this week

I think the motherboard stock (in general) is far behind the CPU release stock (1 million?), even Gigabyte has tagged some of the motherboards as 1.0, which means a revision is coming shortly (this isn't unusual).

 

[dl8860]

my plan was to wait for the 1600x but went for a 1700x but this was mainly down to being impatient

Their staged release worked perfectly on you. And many others probably.

 

[Hotwired]

TBH, reviewers had plenty of time, the only ones with something to lose are those who preordered. I'm kinda trusting AMD but, if gaming benchmarks results were mixed, I would also set NDA until 2nd.

Hope no one has funny ideas about it being a rival to intels higher clock quad cores for straight gaming.

Clock to clock it should be similar but it won't be like that since the quad cores are higher frequency and rumour has the AMD 8 cores are not clocking much over 4ghz to boot.

The only reason a game should look better is if it for some strange reason is able to use more than 8 threads and make up frequency difference with thread difference.

 

[BlackAle]

I'll see what the situation is in June. I'd like to buy AMD again.

 

[old gamer]

Their staged release worked perfectly on you. And many others probably.

guess it did

 

[ubersonic]

Hope no one has funny ideas about it being a rival to intels higher clock quad cores for straight gaming.

Clock to clock it should be similar but it won't be like that since the quad cores are higher frequency and rumour has the AMD 8 cores are not clocking much over 4ghz to boot.

The only reason a game should look better is if it for some strange reason is able to use more than 8 threads and make up frequency difference with thread difference.

Indeed, buying the Q6600 over the E8400 is just a silly waste of money, you won't get any benefit in the long run.

 

[Techen]

You mean why are they sticking to the NDA date it has always been?

Because it gives reviewers a hard date to be done and ensures no one is getting screwed by someone else jumping the gun.

A hard date IE release day? Seems abit meh to me. I was hoping to get reviews in a few days before but now we have to wait. I don't really understand why'd they wait to release day unless they had somethings to sort out still. Ah well lets hope its not a complete flop and I have to ship it back at mah postage cost. ;(

 

[Techen]

Hope no one has funny ideas about it being a rival to intels higher clock quad cores for straight gaming.

Clock to clock it should be similar but it won't be like that since the quad cores are higher frequency and rumour has the AMD 8 cores are not clocking much over 4ghz to boot.

The only reason a game should look better is if it for some strange reason is able to use more than 8 threads and make up frequency difference with thread difference.

Why shouldn't it not be better for gaming? Blizzard has said it will support 6 core for overwatch. Ashes supports 8 cores. Etc etc

 

[DragonQ]

Hope no one has funny ideas about it being a rival to intels higher clock quad cores for straight gaming.

Clock to clock it should be similar but it won't be like that since the quad cores are higher frequency and rumour has the AMD 8 cores are not clocking much over 4ghz to boot.

The only reason a game should look better is if it for some strange reason is able to use more than 8 threads and make up frequency difference with thread difference.

Where does all this "it has to use more than 8 threads for it to make a difference" crap come from? You realise real cores are better than SMT virtual cores, right? A game could use 5 threads and it might end up faster on a 6-8 core CPU than a 4c/8t one.

 

[Jokester]

Aye, assuming 5GHz on an Intel 4c/8t, a 4GHz 6c/12t AMD Ryzen chip will pretty much match it given the similarity in IPC if a game fully uses 5 threads. The AMD chip will then run away with things the more threads above that.

 

[Chrisc]

The 1700 apparently doesn't clock as well as the 1800X, the 1700 has a 65 watt TDP while the 1700X and 1800X both have a 95 Watt TDP, that may or may not have something to do with it.

Pre-ordering before reviews are out is never a good idea, we don't really know anything about these chips yet.

I can always cancel it im desperate from an upgrade from ***cough*** bulldozer*** i held off buying intel and the Ryzen hypetrain got me good!

 

[Kelt]

Indeed, buying the Q6600 over the E8400 is just a silly waste of money, you won't get any benefit in the long run.

Heh, I remember that one. My Q6600 lasted for years, long after the E8 series bit the dual core dust.

 

[Chrisc]

Bored of waiting now, it's a long wait from 22nd Feb to the 2nd March, or it sure does feel like it. Want to get my hands on new shiny!

im working away for 2 weeks as of tomorrow you have no idea how much that hurts me

 

[Razor Time]

I went from a 4970k to a 6800k and have seen no difference in the games I play. It's been fairly much a non event bar seeing more threads in task manager.

 

[Hotwired]

Where does all this "it has to use more than 8 threads for it to make a difference" crap come from? You realise real cores are better than SMT virtual cores, right? A game could use 5 threads and it might end up faster on a 6-8 core CPU than a 4c/8t one.

Yes, cores are better than threads.

I'm saying temper expectations on how well you think it will look in the gaming tests on launch.

AMD itself didn't bother showcasing vs 7700K vs 1800x for gaming, no, they put it up against a 6 core 6800k, not exactly a gamers pick.

There are gaming scenarios real and theoretical where more cores are better.

 

[old gamer]

Heh, I remember that one. My Q6600 lasted for years, long after the E8 series bit the dual core dust.

yeh me too, when i bought a amd 4800+, the guy in the shop told me i was wasting my money as nothing used more than 1 core

 

[Drollic]

The 1600x at 4.5 would be a great chip for gaming. It gives you that little bit extra over 4c/8t Intel's with only a slight defecit in clock speed but should give a little extra in some games over the 8c/16t ryzens at say 4.2 plus a big saving upfront. If games really start taking advantage of more cores in another 12/18 months, you then have the motherboard to go next release of ryzen 8c/16t next year or further down the line.

 

[faceman123]

Indeed, buying the Q6600 over the E8400 is just a silly waste of money, you won't get any benefit in the long run.

lol the Q6600 outlasted the dual cores by a big margain. I'm glad AMD have made a comeback and believe as consumers we should support them, Intel have gotten away with murder for the last several years. I'll for sure be selling up and going all AMD.

 

[Kelt]

AMD will get my support at some time in the future for keeping the same socket for four years, having unlocked chips, and releasing 6/8 cores into the mainstream.

Weren't they the first ones to push 64bit chips as well?

Really dislike Intel's practises of holding back technology.