-
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 ***
- Thread starter Jamin280672
- Start date
Intel were also able to build on Yonah chip to create the market changing Conroe chips. If they can build on these mobile chips just like they did in 2006, there might be a good fight.
Although the question is whether they can make 16 core chips etc. on their unreliable 10nm process.
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2019
- Posts
- 617
Most telling from that image is that Intel still plan on selling quads in 2 years time.
They are mobile chips.
10nm is a mess right now, so they are making smaller chips first.
Intel aren't stupid enough to make a desktop 4c/8t chip an i7.
Theres even a dual core version... honestly.
Either way, Intel seems to be skipping 10nm for desktops entirely, if they suddenly change their mind it could cost them fab time on a **** process.
Heh, it does feel a bit like that ship has sailed, from a marketing perspective if nothing else, having fewer anything relative to the competition isn't ideal.
The only thing that I care about is these leaks will give AMD much more initiative to sell Ryzen 3000 cheaper than they plan to.
Because AMD's primary mission and goal is to attract customers. High prices don't attract customers, the opposite, they make the customers angry.
If they accept the prices it wont make them angry forever, it'll be the new normal.
No, because greediness will strike, and if they'd like to sell the 3950X for 700 pounds, next 4950X will be 1050 pounds.
No one guarantees you that you won't fall into a spiral of ever increasing prices.
yeah because half the price of intels equivalent is being greedy, change the record already.
If the competition agrees that direction aswell (as long as both companies aren't communicating that), it's fine
Anyway the 16 core is under half it's sort-of-competition (16-18 core X series), so really depends what you want from it, but it doesn't seem that bad.
This is not correct - intel has no equivalent in the mainstream, their best proposition is the 8C/16T chip and AMD offers double the specs for 200 pounds more.
X series chips are Threadripper territory.
If the competition agrees that direction aswell (as long as both companies aren't communicating that), it's fine
Anyway the 16 core is under half it's sort-of-competition (16-18 core X series), so really depends what you want from it, but it doesn't seem that bad.
The point is to raise the baseline, to avoid dual-cores and quad-cores.
The AMD lineup, if this, looks good:
7 1700 8C/16T
7 1700X 8C/16T
7 1800X 8C/16T
7 2700 8C/16T
7 2700X 8C/16T
7 3700X 8C/16T
7 3800X 8C/16T
9 3900X 12C/24T
9 3950X 16C/32T
Why do people think AMD have to be mega cheap? They had the most expensive CPU on the market in 2000, they launched the Athlon 1000 (Slot-A) at $1299 (which is $1931 adjusted for inflation), and the Athlon 900 was $899 ($1337 adjusted for inflation), so you were paying $300 for 100MHz on a single core...
People need some perspective. AMD are giving you 16 cores and 32 threads of CPU for $749, if that isn't reasonable then you are a lost cause, for $749 two years ago you would have got 6 cores and 12 threads.
People need some perspective. AMD are giving you 16 cores and 32 threads of CPU for $749, if that isn't reasonable then you are a lost cause, for $749 two years ago you would have got 6 cores and 12 threads.
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2019
- Posts
- 617
They also offer equivalent performance at £100 less, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Stop drinking the blue coolade dude
I dont get why you are always moaning. The 3900x has the same launch price as the 1800x did 2 years agao with the like for like alternate to the 1800x being $100 cheaper. Based on thge history of Ryzen and Threadripper next gen AMD parts of comparable specs will either bye the same price or cheaper.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2019
- Posts
- 885
If you want the best you have to pay for it lol..
Well thats all i have heard for the past god know how many years from Nvidia and intel.
Well thats all i have heard for the past god know how many years from Nvidia and intel.
Because most of the people are like this:
And when they buy in the range 100-300, where 84% of the customers are, most often they get non-responsive configurations. Which means that we must push higher specs in the same price brackets and urgently so.
I am tired of fixing or trying to fix sluggish as snails machines which their users/owners can't normally use!
Em yeah but how far apart are the X chips of Intel compared to mainstream from AMD?
For
similar core counts
Similar PCIE lane count
No onboard GPU
Against
no quad channel support
Lack AVX-512 support
So with that unless you need to worry about AVX2 then really the new Ryzen could happily compete with the X series.
Regardless of how you dice it though, you want more than 8 core it going to cost you with Intel X and AMD Y.
So yes unless you really need that further 4 to 8 PCIE lanes or AVX2 meaning you have to go threadripper you can have cross branding competition.
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2019
- Posts
- 617
Pretty sure the R in the top left corner represents Radeon.Because most of the people are like this:
And when they buy in the range 100-300, where 84% of the customers are, most often they get non-responsive configurations. Which means that we must push higher specs in the same price brackets and urgently so.
I am tired of fixing or trying to fix sluggish as snails machines which their users/owners can't normally use!
Not entirely sure why you bring a GPU slide into a CPU discussion.