• 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 ThreadRipper ***

Honestly had no issues with my Ryzen build, been solid as a rock since day 1.

Only real blip is memory compatibility which is something that will come with time, and it's not like the platform is unstable, you just have to run your memory slightly slower for now.
 
HeX said:
Honestly had no issues with my Ryzen build, been solid as a rock since day 1.

Only real blip is memory compatibility which is something that will come with time, and it's not like the platform is unstable, you just have to run your memory slightly slower for now.
Click to expand...

Exactly, Have to expect teething problems with something so new, Everyone seems to forget the immense amount of problems X99 had when that first came out :p
 
eyetrip said:
I wish I could disagree with you scone... But I'm starting to grow tired of waiting for them to get Ryzen properly sorted.

This new hedt sounds good and all, but is it going to be bullet proof?

I doubt it
Click to expand...

I'm not sure this is fair.
I did a trivial oc on an asus prime pro/1700 to 3.8 CPU 3000 mem, since then I found prime95 stable issues (cooling issues for tdie) I dropped back to 3.5 CPU and 3000 memory, gaming etc now as stable as you like.

For £470 ish and on 16 threads, could Intel do more?

I know a 1700 can go higher, for 5 to 10 performance increase I'm happy to wait 3-6 months before trying, frankly not worth my time/risk to stability.

Heck, If they throw out 20-32 threads at half price fast again, I'd consider a trade up and run it slowish again for a while, if needed
 
HeX said:
Honestly had no issues with my Ryzen build, been solid as a rock since day 1.

Only real blip is memory compatibility which is something that will come with time, and it's not like the platform is unstable, you just have to run your memory slightly slower for now.
Click to expand...

Apart from memory taking a while to get up to speed, fine for me as well.

A few bios annoyances initially, but get that with new motherboards quite often.
 
People who buy 16 core CPUs don't overclock them and game on them - pretty sure the stock clocks had no problems on Ryzen even day 1? Memory compatibility even, that was only OC on it.

Good to see competition in this market anyway, i7s performance should be no more than £250-300.
 
PhoenixUK said:
People who buy 16 core CPUs don't overclock them and game on them - pretty sure the stock clocks had no problems on Ryzen even day 1? Memory compatibility even, that was only OC on it.

Good to see competition in this market anyway, i7s performance should be no more than £250-300.
Click to expand...
If I get one of AMD's 16 core CPUs, I will be overclocking it and playing games with it.
 
PhoenixUK said:
People who buy 16 core CPUs don't overclock them and game on them - pretty sure the stock clocks had no problems on Ryzen even day 1? Memory compatibility even, that was only OC on it.

Good to see competition in this market anyway, i7s performance should be no more than £250-300.
Click to expand...

Well yes, cause at the moment the only 16 core CPU's you can buy are locked Xeon's :p

AMD have stated that the HEDT market is one they are going after, and that the enthusiast market place is one they are trying to embrace, and given that with the Ryzen CPU's they have them all unlocked and even said yesterday, they want people to get the maximum performance form all their CPU's whether that be a desktop CPU, or an enterprise class Epyc CPU.
 
FredFlint said:
Hope they undercut Intel by a large amount, £800-900 for a 16 core would be very tempting.
Click to expand...
i doubt it, now we are talking about margin products.
personally i see the prices as follow for 10-12-14-16 cores X variants , 799$-999$-1199$-1499$ with non X variants about 100$ cheaper, it would allow them to have comfortable margins while under cutting intel by a fairly big amount, and possibly out performing it in a large spectrum of multi-threaded apps.
 
AlamoX said:
i doubt it, now we are talking about margin products.
personally i see the prices as follow for 10-12-14-16 cores X variants , 799$-999$-1199$-1499$ with non X variants about 100$ cheaper, it would allow them to have comfortable margins while under cutting intel by a fairly big amount, and possibly out performing it in a large spectrum of multi-threaded apps.
Click to expand...
People said this about Ryzen. What you're not understanding is that AMD needs marketshare for long term health as a company. They understand that pricing their stuff against Intel's stupidly priced CPUs isn't going to get them marketshare. Also they're clocked slightly lower too.

The increased expenditure will come from the platform as a whole, not just from the CPUs. So the boards will be more, RAM will be more expensive as you'd be inclined to buy more due to its quad channel support.
 
spoffle said:
People said this about Ryzen. What you're not understanding is that AMD needs marketshare for long term health as a company. They understand that pricing their stuff against Intel's stupidly priced CPUs isn't going to get them marketshare. Also they're clocked slightly lower too.

The increased expenditure will come from the platform as a whole, not just from the CPUs. So the boards will be more, RAM will be more expensive as you'd be inclined to buy more due to its quad channel support.
Click to expand...
why not ? intel's 10 core sells for 1700$, so 799$ for AMD seem really reasonable, and so is the new intel 12 cores probably at 2000$, makes the 999$ seems more than fine.
don't forget that AMDs SMT is much better than intel's HT, so AMD can very well have the performance crown here, not only with multi-threaded apps, but possibly gaming also, since intel's won't clock as high as a 4core.
 
AlamoX said:
why not ? intel's 10 core sells for 1700$, so 799$ for AMD seem really reasonable, and so is the new intel 12 cores probably at 2000$, makes the 999$ seems more than fine.
don't forget that AMDs SMT is much better than intel's HT, so AMD can very well have the performance crown here, not only with multi-threaded apps, but possibly gaming also, since intel's won't clock as high as a 4core.
Click to expand...
Because they can't afford to. AMD is working on gaining market share for their long term success. They don't have the brand strength to do that. On top of that, you're comparing them to Intel's prices, that are ridiculously inflated.
 
AlamoX said:
why not ? intel's 10 core sells for 1700$, so 799$ for AMD seem really reasonable, and so is the new intel 12 cores probably at 2000$, makes the 999$ seems more than fine.
don't forget that AMDs SMT is much better than intel's HT, so AMD can very well have the performance crown here, not only with multi-threaded apps, but possibly gaming also, since intel's won't clock as high as a 4core.
Click to expand...

As below

spoffle said:
Because they can't afford to. AMD is working on gaining market share for their long term success. They don't have the brand strength to do that. On top of that, you're comparing them to Intel's prices, that are ridiculously inflated.
Click to expand...

I think people would be staggered if we saw the true numbers regarding how much consumer market share amd has. It (was) practically nothing. Ryzen is a step to change this to win back a % of the market. They IMHO will need to push even more, maybe another market smashing launch or two to get their foot well and truly back in the door. If they can do that then intel is really going to start to feel the heat as they slowly lose out on the easy ride they have had for so long.

And i think ( depending on the price ) the thread ripper is going to be one of those because this will be a showcase of their potential in the sever side of things too. If they can nail this to the wall i will take my hat off to them and buy one.
 
spoffle said:
Because they can't afford to. AMD is working on gaining market share for their long term success. They don't have the brand strength to do that. On top of that, you're comparing them to Intel's prices, that are ridiculously inflated.
Click to expand...

I have to say you are completely wrong about the brand strength, maybe in the tiny self build DIY market, but AMD are well recognised in the important SI, and large OEM market place, which is where true market share is gained, not from chips sold at retail. The reason for AMD's continued success previously was through innovation, and not just low pricing and they have once again shown innovation, especially with the much higher density 1 Socket server options, which will greatly appeal to the like's of Amazon, Google, Microsoft etc. who all run massive datacentres where rack space per U is blooming pricey.

AMD already announced that pretty much every large OEM, will have desktops out be the end of Q2 this year, and once the Threadripper SKU's are available I would imagine that the Workstation equivalents won't be far behind from the likes of Dell and HP etc. and the prices won't be hugely different to an Intel system, but maybe you'll end up with 14c/28t for the price of 10c/20t from Intel, so still a premium product but with a reason to chose AMD.

Anyhow we'll find out in 13 days time with regards to the pricing, lets wait and see. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom