-
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
- Thread starter cosmogenesis
- Start date
~>Dg<~;30486703 said:
BF1 is AMD sponsored game, that will be used as benchmark also, would you not accept it's result?
Maybe the only results you will accept are games that run in less than 4 cores and not utilise fully the CPU?
amd wernt that much a part of bf1.more near to the end.more promo.aots is a solid amd bench title.
bf1 is the most modern game that does what we want to see.it has to be in mp though.
i accept bf1 is a game that uses a cpu better than any modern title so thats what i would like to see benched
all older titles are going to be won by speed of the i7s anyway. so lets see some core usage and benefits.
the funny thing is in mp on big servers a x99 set up is quicker but every damn bench mark noob does single player.
so if the new amd chips can beat those chips in bf1 you know its good
bf1 is the most modern game that does what we want to see.it has to be in mp though.
i accept bf1 is a game that uses a cpu better than any modern title so thats what i would like to see benched
all older titles are going to be won by speed of the i7s anyway. so lets see some core usage and benefits.
the funny thing is in mp on big servers a x99 set up is quicker but every damn bench mark noob does single player.
so if the new amd chips can beat those chips in bf1 you know its good
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,336
- Location
- Planet Earth
RavenXXX2;30487692 said:
TBF,the only reason we are in his situation is because just to even get a basic quad core is nearly £200.
If Ryzen causes decentish quad cores to drop closer to £100 to £150,it would not be such an issue,especially if 4C/8T CPUs are around £200ish.
We really need to hope Ryzen can get to at least Haswell level IPC(or even Broadwell level IPC) in games with a decent clockspeed range.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,336
- Location
- Planet Earth
randal;30487778 said:
Also the exchange rates might add or deduct a few quid here and there unless the pricing quoted is including that.
randal;30487778 said:
i doubt it, AMD have that deal with Glofo for mandatory wafers per year, and seeing the product catalogue of AMD in 2016, they must have plenty of stock, especialy knowing the size of the dies they have been making on 14nm.
AMD Ryzen needs to best Intel by performance and price. If it's similar in price and performance, what's the point of it other than a Name change. Needs to be cheaper and offer similar or just beating performance. I'd love to use AMD but I would swap just because it's new and my Intel stickers look worn.
wellibob;30488144 said:
I'd go further and add the word appreciably.
With modest improvements in performance and value AMD will likely attract savvy users, as many are on these forums. However for widespread rapid adoption, with the AMD brand where it is now, they will likely need an even stronger value proposition. Even then it will probably take time for technical users and early adopters to help filter news of that value, down to mainstream consumers.
With that said the high end/enthusiast market is where their battle needs success short term success, I see the mainstream market a far less likely achievable goal. If they get it right they could position themselves as the champions of the segment at the exact time Intel is focused on the threat and value in the now traditional ARM markets.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
sam77;30489176 said:
So great performance, bringing 8 cores from what ~£700 down to half that and on a far cheaper platform, bringing great prices which will also force Intel to be better priced, none of that is good. The one thing that might save Zen, is it might not have a backdoor in it?
As for back doors, who knows, NSA is god damned everywhere.
kaku;30488044 said:
From the other camp, the 6800K to 6850K jump is 200MHz for over £100, so it's not unheard of... Well that and the extra PCI-E lanes if you actually need them.
The only competitive 8-core CPU around at the moment is the Broadwell-E 6900K for about £1000, so even if the lowest R7 is 10% or so slower IPC-wise and has around 3-3.2GHz base, if it's priced below ~£700 it's still going to be potentially quite competitive.
You also have the option of the Xeon E5-2630 V3 (8C/16T, 2.4GHz/3.2GHz, 85W) for about £600 but it's slower and non overclockable; or its E5-2630 v4 bretheren (10C/20T, 2.2GHz/3.1GHz, 85W) also for about £600, but while you gain another 2C you lose even more speed.
It's still very much speculation, we have to just wait a bit more and see what AMD actually comes up with. If the SR7 Black comes out at ~3.6GHz base and about £300 it'll be sheer madness, even £450 would be outstanding provided they haven't dropped the ball with any peculiar performance losses. It'd make me kick myself for getting a 6800K so close to launch...
There are at least another couple of admittedly not major potential disadvantages for AM4: "only" dual-channel DDR4, and the inferior number of PCIe lanes even in the X370 boards (8 PCIe lanes for the chipset, and max 24 PCIe lanes for the CPU - 16 for graphics, 4 for NVMe, and 4 to communicate with the chipset). In real life however I doubt that either of these will be an issue for the vast majority of users.