• 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 Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) - *** NO COMPETITOR HINTING ***

For AMD to really win they need to capture market share in all three markets: OEM supply to corporate, Retail and DIY. A quick google doesnt cast a lot of light on how Intels CPU sales are split by channel and category. Any market where a dGPU is included should do well for AMD, but I wonder just how slow OEM and corporate uptake will be. I suspect corporate uptake will closely match server uptake, but that is only on the theory that once you can secure a server sale you have won the mind of the corporate involved.

There is a massive momentum shift required for this to happen though. In a lot of markets AMD just doesnt have the corporate sales team to push this hard and building that machine is hard and takes a lot of time. It is great having a stand up at a trade fair, but without the hard work afterwards you are not going to secure change. When a corporate amortises hardware over 3+ years or is on a long term lease deal $50 difference in the cpu is easily ignored, especially if someone can argue that an ancient piece of legacy software might not work as well.

For AMD to dominate they have to win in this market, otherwise they are merely going to be highly successful.
 
im just hoping they atleast matched the ipc of intel. other wise most will just assume think oh..its just another amd marketing fail.they have to atleast be level or above.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
im just hoping they atleast matched the ipc of intel. other wise most will just assume think oh..its just another amd marketing fail.they have to atleast be level or above.
Click to expand...
If the top 8C chip is within 5% or less of Intel's best desktop 8C in overall performance, is half the price, is much more power efficient, works with a platform with more PCIe lanes, is much less prone to security issues, that's a massive win for the majority.
If a 5% difference is a deciding factor then you almost definitely need more cores in which case AM4 with a 12 or 16 core is still your best option unless you need HEDT features in which case TR makes more sense to most.
#GetRealDude.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
im just hoping they atleast matched the ipc of intel. other wise most will just assume think oh..its just another amd marketing fail.they have to atleast be level or above.
Click to expand...
I think they need to be at least a few percent ahead in most metrics. It does look like in at least some tasks they are going to have a healthy lead, but of course we have only seen leaks based on tests that AMD have probably sanctioned. It is going to be very interesting to see how this new design handles gaming. The howls in here if AMD don't give concrete data on the 27th are going to be massive. The leaks have also built up expectation that the 16 core and 12 core are going to hit or get very close to 5ghz, I hope that is true.

-edit-
If the top 8C chip is within 5% or less of Intel's best desktop 8C in overall performance, is half the price, is much more power efficient, works with a platform with more PCIe lanes, is much less prone to security issues, that's a massive win for the majority.
Click to expand...
I whole heartedly agree - however if it is 5% less then Intel are still going to be able to claim the 'gaming' crown. That will slow uptake and potentially make people continue to choose i5 6core parts.
To me the 'win' comes if they can take the performance crown in most games as well as the productivity crown a they are going to have an impossible advantage over Intel in core count.
 
smilingcrow said:
If the top 8C chip is within 5% or less of Intel's best desktop 8C in overall performance, is half the price, is much more power efficient, works with a platform with more PCIe lanes, is much less prone to security issues, that's a massive win for the majority.
If a 5% difference is a deciding factor then you almost definitely need more cores in which case AM4 with a 12 or 16 core is still your best option unless you need HEDT features in which case TR makes more sense to most.
#GetRealDude.
Click to expand...

AMD won't position a top 8-core CPU against 9900. AMD will position a top 12-core CPU against 9900.
 
No, if AMD are ready to release the 16 core 3850x with a 5ghz boost clock then that is what they will position against the 9900k. They are clearly branding it Ryzen 9 to compete against the i9 9900k. They will expect it to completely demolish Intel in productivity and beat it in gaming. It also supports the pricing schedule for it to be perhaps $50 cheaper than the 9900k.

They will position their 12core against the 9700k for exactly the same reason and the 8 core part against the 6core i5.

You will be getting 100% more Cores at the top end and 25% more cores but with hyperthreading at the middle end.

Unless there is a significant drop in gaming performance going to two chiplets. I expect them to showcase the highest performing chip they have ready for gaming and likewise for productivity.

If the 8 core beats the 9900k then I expect them to start with that and then build up.
 
4K8KW10 said:
That was to show with how much less juice, the Ryzen can equal an i-something ;)
Click to expand...
So in order to demonstrate that, AMD positioned an 8-core, let alone a top 8 core, against Intel's top 8 core.

In terms of actual price and product positioning, I don't think AMD should even try to draw Intel comparisons. They have their 3, 5 and 7 (and maybe 9) brackets to indicate entry, mid and top range, which are also loosely analogous to Intel. But beyond that there's no point trying to position against Intel because a mid-range 8 core Ryzen 5 is going to batter Intel's current flagship, and AMD's 12 core Ryzen 7 will render any 14+++++++++++++++++++++ MOAR COREZ response totally DOA.

16 core Ryzen 9 will just salt the earth.
 
LePhuronn said:
Somebody missed CES...AMD did exactly that in their first demo.
Click to expand...
It would be a great powerplay if AMD targeted the the 9900K with their 8C/16T counterpart. And then, to add insult to injury, upped the ante with their 12c and 16c respectively. This would certainly get them all the headlines and the INTEL's suits covering themselves in their daiquirs...
 
~>Dg<~ said:
why are they showing multicore only though ?
Click to expand...
When making everything wider inside the core, SMT becomes even more effective. While single thread barely benefits. Some bonus from faster and bigger caches, some from faster AVX, thats it.

Orange Nexus said:
That i9 is 1400$ going against prolly a 600$ R3. Dam if that is true. WTH
Click to expand...
Saw somewhere that it also beats 18 core $2000 9980XE. Probably at half power usage
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom