• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD 8 core RYZEN price

Yeah, but people automatically assume he means Big Vega + Big Ryzen when he says 4K PC, when in reality it could mean the lowest versions. That's the problem with vagueness, people hear what they want to hear. There is no way in hell their 8c/16t CPU + Big Vega cost combined under $700-800.
 
Poneros said:
Yeah, but people automatically assume he means Big Vega + Big Ryzen when he says 4K PC, when in reality it could mean the lowest versions. That's the problem with vagueness, people hear what they want to hear. There is no way in hell their 8c/16t CPU + Big Vega cost combined under $700-800.
Click to expand...

This is very true, but you basically need better than 1080 GPU performance and even TitanXP performance for 4k, so at the minimum you can take away from that comment that they expect their Vega series to be competitive, and probably a 4/8 or 6/12 CPI to drive it.
 
the danger here is that what marketing people think playable 4k is and what we think playable 4k is, is different. A GTX 1070 can produce a "playable" 30 fps med - high settings 4k in most games, but that's not what we imagine when someone tells us it can do 4k... and the rubbish sony calls 4k gaming takes this even further.

I hope that before the end of CES we get some actual information. :(
 
Probably talking 4K gaming the same way RX480 was marketed as a VR GPU for the masses.

Likely mid-range Zen and mid-high Vega.
 
sam77 said:
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...
Click to expand...

Fair enough, if it doesn't hit the criteria, it's you choice. But I don't see the reputation for quality angle. Its a microchip, if it does what you want it to do computationally, without bugs (both Intel and AMD have had them on new platforms/chips) then they are as good as one another quality wise from my pov.
 
sam77 said:
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...
Click to expand...

This is a myth. When AMD had better processors than Intel from 2000-2006, their quality was just as good if not better.
 
sam77 said:
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...
Click to expand...

:confused::confused:

But this proves what AMD have to fight regards general consensus but, Going on the fact AMD solder their CPU's you could argue the fact that AMD CPU's are actually of better quality :rolleyes:

Don't see talk of having to de-lid a ryzen chip :p
 
I'm sooo hoping AMD do something good here. I'm due an upgrade from my 3570k and will likely pass it down. Nearly ended up with an i7 a few days ago but I can't bite until I know what AMD are doing price wise! Arrrrgh! What a non problem, problem that is!

Problem with me is, if I upgrade my CPU i'll want to do my GPU too! I know that's pointless as I have a 980Ti and it's more than enough. I get carried away though, haha.

I'll buy a new CPU and then sit on my hands I think! Shiny things make my day, I'm like a components magpie XD
 
Personally I would suggest that 4K gaming is a niche market at best. Making a 8C/16T CPU mainstream is a long way off. Making 4C/8T mainstream is probably a long way off. A billion PCs arnt able to play games apart from bejeweled type things. I think 1080p is struggling to me the new normal even now. Its all a niche market.
 
cosmogenesis said:
Personally I would suggest that 4K gaming is a niche market at best. Making a 8C/16T CPU mainstream is a long way off. Making 4C/8T mainstream is probably a long way off. A billion PCs arnt able to play games apart from bejeweled type things. I think 1080p is struggling to me the new normal even now. Its all a niche market.
Click to expand...

You say that, but look how well the 1080 has sold... that's hardly 'mainstream', yet it's one of the major contributing factors in Nvidia's soaring profits. Those billion and more PC's that can't play games are irrelevant. Do you know how many people in the world don't have the internet? Over 4 billion!! Does that mean the internet is 'niche' lol? Intel are going 6C in a couple of years... dual core already struggles with games. 4C is already mainstream in respect to high end gaming.
 
yes 4C is mainstream in respect to high end gaming which makes up a small amount of total PC and laptop sales. As for the irrelevance, it may be to you but Nvidia were speaking about some streaming (CITRIX) type gaming tech too allow a lot more PCs to game (if it works of course) so its not as irrelevant as you might suggest.

Gaming is about graphics cards and monitors mostly. I have an original i7 which I could not give away now and it is fine with Bf4, Dirt Rally etc.
 
cosmogenesis said:
yes 4C is mainstream in respect to high end gaming which makes up a small amount of total PC and laptop sales. As for the irrelevance, it may be to you but Nvidia were speaking about some streaming (CITRIX) type gaming tech too allow a lot more PCs to game (if it works of course) so its not as irrelevant as you might suggest.

Gaming is about graphics cards and monitors mostly. I have an original i7 which I could not give away now and it is fine with Bf4, Dirt Rally etc.
Click to expand...

OK, although I'm not sure what your original point was exactly. I don't think anyone suggested 4K or 6C/8C CPUs were mainstream, even within the subset of the gaming community. I was mostly referring to your statement about 4C not being mainstream... it actually is far more so than you probably think; Sandy Bridge had 4C after all, so it's hardly a new thing. Plus, looking at the cost of the Kaby dual core offering, it's obscenely overpriced and almost a suggestion Intel are pushing people towards quad.

My point is simply that saying 4C is not mainstream is only half a statement in absence of answering "who to"? For gamers? YES it is... a poll would find most gamers already have one given they've been available so long, and for gaming there's a big improvement over 2C in most titles, so it's clearly where you need to be as a gamer. For professional users? Largely NO, but only because many of them will be on 6C/8C, but 4C would certainly be the bare minimum. For your average PC/laptop user who surfs the net, uses MS Word and doesn't care about games... absolutely NO, and they most likely don't even know what a CPU core is lol! The latter group comprises the vast majority of the global PC owning population, so in that respect all gaming and professional use is niche in comparison, and therefore by definition so are 4C+ CPUs. But so what? This fact has little to no relevance to what Intel or AMD are doing with Kaby and Ryzen at the top end, and technology will still march on regardless... and that should benefit everyone of course.
 
Last edited:
I really hope AMD shake up the prices (although a lot of what we are seeing is due to the pound collapsing which they can't really help) as I just looked at 6800k prices and they are £400 :o WTF?

At one point you could get 5820k's for less than £250!
 
My current hope is that I'll be able to get an itx 6c12t 16gb ram with better single core performance than my 4790 for around £600 all in. If I get that I may be buying in after all :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom