AMD 8 core RYZEN price

DONOHUE07 · 19 Dec 2016 at 10:27

Wasn't the FX9590 (I think that was the name) released at £1000? And that was just a FX8350 with a higher clock speed! I currently own a fx8350 and I was about to pull the trigger on a 2nd hand i7-5320k over a i7-6700k as I believe games will soon take advantage of more than 4 cores, im going to hold off and see what Ryzen is like for gaming before I get the 5320k, but I'm expecting to be disappointed

~>Dg<~ · 19 Dec 2016 at 10:47

Jokester said:
I remember when AMD were selling £600-£700 consumer CPUs... would be worth about £800 today adjusting for inflation.

If they're good, they won't be cheap.

yes i think this is the mistake many will make.if they are x99 fast dont expect them cheap.they going to be as their counterparts are.

Mauller · 19 Dec 2016 at 10:50

Jokester said:
And you're paying £1000 for a 4TB SSD...

Non-Comparable since it is different tech, a top end 10TB HDD goes for £400.

Columbo · 19 Dec 2016 at 11:12

IvanDobskey said:
It needs to be a good chunk of change cheaper than the intel equivalents or nobody except amd fanboys will buy it.

Intel is seen as the standard and people will buy accordingly unless price difference is significant.

AMD can't afford a loss leader but they also want market share so if performance is simply comparable (as suspected) rather than significantly better then there is no reason for people to jump across.

And if all things performance are equal, price war becomes the front line. Hopefully AMD's dev and manufacturing process aren't owing them a massive chunk of change and they can afford to price the range aggressively.

Hades · 19 Dec 2016 at 12:44

Really hoping AMD can get this right. Having said that my 3930K is still holding up admirably so I'm in no rush.

Akagi · 19 Dec 2016 at 12:47

Hades said:
Really hoping AMD can get this right. Having said that my 3930K is still holding up admirably so I'm in no rush.

I don't need to upgrade my 2700K either... I recently just upped it from 4.6GHz to 4.8GHz... Might stick it back on 5GHz again but I need to buy better cooling first.

But this interests me, and I could be tempted by it...

IvanDobskey · 19 Dec 2016 at 13:10

Well Ryzen certainly interests me.

I may hold off on buying an intel chip until we have some zen gaming benches.

I'd like more than 4 cores for my next cpu and intel just want silly money.

Columbo · 19 Dec 2016 at 13:39

Acme said:
I don't need to upgrade my 2700K either... I recently just upped it from 4.6GHz to 4.8GHz... Might stick it back on 5GHz again but I need to buy better cooling first.

But this interests me, and I could be tempted by it...

My X5650 is still seeing me through, even by today's standard its not exactly a slouch but the want for something new and shiny is strong currently!

Jokester · 19 Dec 2016 at 17:46

Mauller said:
Non-Comparable since it is different tech, a top end 10TB HDD goes for £400.

Well, want to pick GPUs, CPUs or motherboards out to compare prices?

Freddie1980 · 19 Dec 2016 at 18:09

cosmogenesis said:
Just wondered if intel were doing monopoly price, 1000 pounds tor 8 cores seems a lot but does anyone,really need it in a desktop pc

With so few home 8 core system available there is no incentive for programmers to write code that can take advantage of hardware. I doubt Ryzen will being 8 cores to the mainstream but it should certainly bring 6 core CPU's to an affordable level and as result it should in theory drive improved software.

Sayso · 19 Dec 2016 at 19:23

Lets face it if they price it right and it is as close to the 6900K as we hope it will be a massive seller for enthusiasts, i just hope they dont mess this up somehow, i was aeady to get as Bulldozer until they come out and haven't had a reason to go back to AMD since my 1090T.

cosmogenesis · 19 Dec 2016 at 20:54

Competition is good but its David vs goliath really

Cenuij · 19 Dec 2016 at 20:58

Columbo · 19 Dec 2016 at 22:42

cosmogenesis said:
Competition is good but its David vs goliath really

David won in the end ya know.

mmj_uk · 19 Dec 2016 at 23:06

According to *rumours* on another forum 6900K is about 30% faster than Zen R7 outside of AMD's exclusively provided benchmark, so *if true* it's going to have to compete with Intel hex core on price.

Core i7-6900K 30% faster @ FritzChess, 31% faster @ Cinebench R15.

littlepuppy · 19 Dec 2016 at 23:18

Dont forget the 10 core crowd!

Mauller · 19 Dec 2016 at 23:54

mmj_uk said:
According to *rumours* on another forum 6900K is about 30% faster than Zen R7 outside of AMD's exclusively provided benchmark, so *if true* it's going to have to compete with Intel hex core on price.

Sound like their info is the same super reliable Chinese leaks with little to no supporting information as found on WCCFTECH.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 20 Dec 2016 at 01:22

mmj_uk said:
According to *rumours* on another forum 6900K is about 30% faster than Zen R7 outside of AMD's exclusively provided benchmark, so *if true* it's going to have to compete with Intel hex core on price.

Apart from the fact,we have no clue what the clockspeed is or whether the leak is a fake.

IIRC,the Ryzen engineering samples were clocked at 2.8GHZ and the AMD sample did not have functional Turbo and was manually adjusted to run at 3.4GHZ - so if that is a 2.8GHZ 8C/16T ES sample against a 3.5GHZ Core i7 6900K(IIRC,the CPU runs at around 3.5GHZ with all cores used),that would give the Intel CPU a 25% clockspeed advantage.

ubersonic · 20 Dec 2016 at 10:39

cosmogenesis said:
Considering the Intel 6900k price can the AMD Ryzen be half the price?

Yes, quite easily.

Something that is quite easy to miss is that the 6900K is not a $1000 CPU, it's a $400-500 CPU that Intel are selling for $1000 because they know that without competition they can get away with it and that overcharging for the high end CPUs means they can overcharge for the entire lineup.

Seriously, the 6900K is one step down from the extreme models, it's the Q9650 (~£300) of this generation.

Hopefully AMD do take this opportunity to restore some normality to CPU prices, and hopefully it hurts Intel, god knows they deserve it.

~>Dg<~ · 20 Dec 2016 at 11:03

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Apart from the fact,we have no clue what the clockspeed is or whether the leak is a fake.

IIRC,the Ryzen engineering samples were clocked at 2.8GHZ and the AMD sample did not have functional Turbo and was manually adjusted to run at 3.4GHZ - so if that is a 2.8GHZ 8C/16T ES sample against a 3.5GHZ Core i7 6900K(IIRC,the CPU runs at around 3.5GHZ with all cores used),that would give the Intel CPU a 25% clockspeed advantage.

if its true its basically similar to a 5820k/6800k

zen scored 1100 a slightly oc 5820k scores at 4ghz 1200.the pricing if thats the speed needs to be bang on or its a flop.