AMD 8 core RYZEN price

[Caracus2k]

A comparison of stock clocks is utterly irrelevant for K models. What's the purpose of those again?

So essentally what your left with is a beefier integrated GPU, and a small power reduction.

Because the clock speed went up within the same power envelope...


...come on its not that hard to work out why this might matter in a lot of usage scenarios surely?

Ill leave a hint in case you missed it last time.....

Spoiler

People just forget on this forum that performance pretty much regardless of power usage is a very niche customer base in a world where portability/battery life and apps that run fine on rather average hardware rule the roost

There's noting 'irrelevant' about the differences between Sandybridge and Skylake CPU's the differences just don't mean that much to you... but its not all about you...your presence on this forum alone is a good indicator that you are not a very 'typical' customer for PC hardware... for the bulk of sales (increasing mobile devices) increasing computing power without increasing power usage is a big deal especially if you can integrate other components.... like adding a competent iGPU for productivity/ general use and hell even some light gaming

(you also forgot the IPC improvements)

 

[greatash]

25% IPC increase and a slight boost in stock clock speeds in bad over 5 years imo. Not even an extra core or two for any of the range in over half a decade.

Thats 2nd gen i7s vs 6th gen i7s, never seen anyone defend that.

Not to mention they pretty much overclock to the same clocks anyway, 4.5ghz+

edit: I forgot the 6700k also costs more than what the 2600k did.

 

[ubersonic]

You AMD shills are hilarious!

You try to label Intel's steady but rather slow improvements post the 'Core' era 'almost embarrassing' whilst thinking that were going to forget that in the same timeframe that AMD managed to go so wrong that they released Bulldozer CPU's that were frequently found to be inferior to the previous AMD Phenom's before we 'progressed'- *several more paragraphs of nonsense*

No I don't/didn't (responding as you quoted me).

It's rather comical, for years people have called me an AMD hater or Intel shill because I was unbiased about a landscape in which AMD looked like a city of lepers, and now that they appear back on form I get called an Intel shill for being unbiased about a landscape where AMD appear to be back on form, cant win XD.

Bulldozer was AMD's Pentium 4, that much is obvious. Wrong design decision that cost them many years of sales.

Indeed.

 

[flopper]

25% IPC increase and a slight boost in stock clock speeds in bad over 5 years imo. Not even an extra core or two for any of the range in over half a decade.

Thats 2nd gen i7s vs 6th gen i7s, never seen anyone defend that.

Not to mention they pretty much overclock to the same clocks anyway, 4.5ghz+

edit: I forgot the 6700k also costs more than what the 2600k did.

Yea main reason I waited for Ryzen for years now, I dont want to buy Intel.
Now, I can buy Ryzen, well soon anyway.
Prices seems to be decent with Ryzen also

 

[ubersonic]

25% IPC increase and a slight boost in stock clock speeds in bad over 5 years imo.

Indeed, it's been nearly 8 years now since we've seen a generation double the performance of it's predecessor, I doubt we will get back to those levels of competitiveness but we should be guaranteed better than 5% a year from here on out

 

[SiDeards73]

Indeed, it's been nearly 8 years now since we've seen a generation double the performance of it's predecessor, I doubt we will get back to those levels of competitiveness but we should be guaranteed better than 5% a year from here on out

On that note Zen will more than double the speed of its predecessor hahahah

 

[Caracus2k]

Indeed, it's been nearly 8 years now since we've seen a generation double the performance of it's predecessor, I doubt we will get back to those levels of competitiveness but we should be guaranteed better than 5% a year from here on out

You don't get it do you? It's not so much about competitivness as it is about physics
.. quite simply it's no longer possible to reap the big gains of yesteryear with x86 silicon based CPU's. The fact that AMD are only boasting of IPC per core in the same ball park as a two year old Intel CPU lineup (broadwell) kind of demonstrates this.

Where do you think your 5% per year is going to come from?

Clock increases? Stalled at or below circa 5Ghz some time ago

More cores? - drops the max overclock per core as you add more cores and most consumer workloads show rapidly reducing gains as you add cores above around 4 cores.
Four to six cores is pretty optimal for most stuff. Few consumers would realistically be better of on more slower cores past around so rather than having fewer faster clocked cores to work with.


So your stuck pretty much stuck with conservative IPC gains from improved chip designs

Your 5% may be a little optimistic year on year

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

^ with Intel bringing 6 core coffeelake to mainstream it's good news for those using chips like x99 cpu's, we should see decent gains since more software will start to utilize it, even more so since both AMD and Intel will have mainstream 6 cores not too long from now.

4 core will definitely slowly become the new 2 core.

 

[robj20]

I have my eye on these, would love something new instead of Intel, just because really. More cores would be great for folding as well.

 

[Scramz]

My price prediction: SR3 £200 - SR5 £300 - SR7 £400 - SR7Black - £450

If they are 4/8 - 6/12 - 8/16 that is.

Prices no higher than these, good chance being lower. (Wishful thinking?)

Scenes if the 8/16 is £300, 200% wishful thinking.

 

[SiDeards73]

My price prediction: SR3 £200 - SR5 £300 - SR7 £400 - SR7Black - £450

If they are 4/8 - 6/12 - 8/16 that is.

Prices no higher than these, good chance being lower. (Wishful thinking?)

Hmm can see the 6/12 being a little more expensive and the 8/16 being £500 or so minimum.

If they launched at your prices, and the IPC is within 10% of current stuff, they will sell boat loads

 

[Legend]

Price point all comes down to performance. IF the top end 8/16 is truly in the 6900k performance bracket, I'm still predicting a UK price of circa £700. If not, it will be cheaper. I'm quite sure US prices will engender fury however, which will probably be around $600, but that's the way it always goes.

 

[Scramz]

Hmm can see the 6/12 being a little more expensive and the 8/16 being £500 or so minimum.

If they launched at your prices, and the IPC is within 10% of current stuff, they will sell boat loads

I am expecting AM4 will be a much cheaper platform than X99 and Z1/2xx. Will be very interesting.

My predictions seems very wishful thinking haha, but you never know.

 

[SiDeards73]

I heard a few people make a comment like "Zen is going to be cheaper, the cpu wont be expensive but the boards will be cheaper than Intel, making it cheaper overall"

Which makes me think the boards are potentially going to be cheaper but the chips will be competitively priced.

 

[DragonQ]

I heard a few people make a comment like "Zen is going to be cheaper, the cpu wont be expensive but the boards will be cheaper than Intel, making it cheaper overall"

Which makes me think the boards are potentially going to be cheaper but the chips will be competitively priced.

We don't know anything about pricing and we don't even know how many SKUs will allow overclocking to begin with. It's just reasoned guess-work based on the limited facts and the obvious position AMD is in, i.e. needing to regain market share and reputation, which can't be done by simply matching Intel's price structure.

For example, we know that AMD will be offering 4 chipsets, 2 of which allow overclocking. The top-end one is comparable to X99 in that it offers enough PCIe lanes for SLI/Crossfire. However, X99 is a purposely separate chipset with a different socket, which brings with it a premium price-tag. It seems very likely that AMD's X370 chipset will be cheaper. The second tier chipset, B350, is more akin to Intel's Z270 - a mainstream chipset that allows overclocking. Also remember that AMD is using a single socket for all their APUs and CPus, whereas Intel has two, which should in theory make it a bit easier for motherboard manufacturers to offer a wide, competitive range of products.

 

[Poneros]

I think that's actually the other way around. If you look at AM3+/FM2 etc you can see the mobos are just as expensive as Intel's variants, and in fact in some cases the lower priced Intel mobos offer more bang for buck than the AMD ones. I could very well see AMD CPUs being somewhat cheaper than Intel but even then anything more than 15-20% is wishful thinking imo.

Very happy about the cheap 8350 I got for my mum's PC back home though, that's the one good thing about hype & clearance.

 

[benjii]

I don't know if this has been mentioned or not, but a engineering sample has been seen at CES with a base clock of 3.6Ghz. Perhaps they might be approaching 4Ghz after all.

Spoiler

 

[Panos]

If they are able to overclock a 25% also under water, they will fly off the shelves......
The best B-E can do is 4.5-4.6, with great heat issues!

 

[Nutella33]

I don't know if this has been mentioned or not, but a engineering sample has been seen at CES with a base clock of 3.6Ghz. Perhaps they might be approaching 4Ghz after all.

Spoiler

It's been mentioned. That's the F3 stepping. Canard PC are claiming F4 is 3.7/4.0Ghz.

 

[sam77]

If it's not sufficiently cheaper than Intel, I will go Intel because of reputation for quality.
Let's see if AMD grab this opportunity...