Soldato
LMAO... No, just... no.
-
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" thread (inc AM4/APU discussion) ***
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
LMAO... No, just... no.
All seems pretty clear. AMD going with a similar naming scheme to Intel that the masses are familiar with. Subsequent generations will retain the SR3,SR5 etc and a secondary generation signifying number will tell the enthusiast which is which. If you can't beat Intel then just try to use a similar model, they'll still make money even if they aren't No. 1
Caporegime
Intel copy a successful Apple naming scheme, AMD copy Intel....
Yep it's the smart way to do business. I like that AMD try to push things forward but they are often too far ahead of the game to make it work and their pockets aren't deep enough. Hopefully this is a new era of a more realistic and competitive AMD. That will be good for all of us.
I'd prefer AMD to use sensible naming schemes than copy Intel to be honest. On the desktop mainstream chips Intel's naming makes sense but as soon as you include enthusiast or mobile chips the whole naming scheme breaks down.
Surely there's nothing wrong with something simple like:
F-GCPM
F = Family (e.g. SR3, SR4, SR5...)
G = Generation (1, 2, 3...)
C = Cores (04, 08, 16...)
P = relative Performance indicator (50, 70, 85...)
M = Modifier (X for unlocked, M for mobile, etc.)
I'm not sure how the whole "SRx" thing fits in though because surely successors to Summit Ridge will have different codenames...will they keep the prefix as SRx or use that as a generation thing? The former is a bit weird but acceptable, the latter will be very confusing - without numbers how is one to know which of two generations is newer without looking it up?
I guess companies prefer naming schemes that sound cool than ones that are more informative though.
Surely there's nothing wrong with something simple like:
F-GCPM
F = Family (e.g. SR3, SR4, SR5...)
G = Generation (1, 2, 3...)
C = Cores (04, 08, 16...)
P = relative Performance indicator (50, 70, 85...)
M = Modifier (X for unlocked, M for mobile, etc.)
I'm not sure how the whole "SRx" thing fits in though because surely successors to Summit Ridge will have different codenames...will they keep the prefix as SRx or use that as a generation thing? The former is a bit weird but acceptable, the latter will be very confusing - without numbers how is one to know which of two generations is newer without looking it up?
I guess companies prefer naming schemes that sound cool than ones that are more informative though.
Yes, sounds sensible but the money is made selling to people who aren't really interested in what's inside. They're happy just knowing if it is ok, good or really good and does it fit their budget.
If that gets them more sales and means better and cheaper shiny things for the rest of us it gets my vote
If that gets them more sales and means better and cheaper shiny things for the rest of us it gets my vote
IMO the SR3, SR5 and SR7 are just the codenames and not what the final products will be called. Just the same as Bristol ridge is not called BR? but A10, A12 etc....Polaris 10 and 11 ended up as RX??? no mention of the pre production code name.
Prices sound interesting if that is what they really arrive at, of course when an article says SR5's and SR3's with pricing close to $200-$300 that of course would be the starting points. I would expect the best SR3 to be close to the price of the worst SR5, just the same as Intel's i3,i5 and i7.
Talk of specialist overclocking variants is a bit worrying, maybe AMD will be testing out something similar to Intel with locked down chips, even though the article does say all AM4 chips have unlocked multipliers, these specialist chips don't come with a cooler either.
Certainly interesting times ahead.
Prices sound interesting if that is what they really arrive at, of course when an article says SR5's and SR3's with pricing close to $200-$300 that of course would be the starting points. I would expect the best SR3 to be close to the price of the worst SR5, just the same as Intel's i3,i5 and i7.
Talk of specialist overclocking variants is a bit worrying, maybe AMD will be testing out something similar to Intel with locked down chips, even though the article does say all AM4 chips have unlocked multipliers, these specialist chips don't come with a cooler either.
Certainly interesting times ahead.
It makes me laugh when people try and extrapolate prices from a graph like that.
First the scale up the side isn't even close to linear.
Second we have no idea what the exchange rate against the Dollar, Euro or anything else is going to be by the time these launch.
Third we know from history that while AMD understand they need to be % cheaper than Intel they are never all that far away in $ terms from the chips that the cumulative benchmarks prove they compete against.
Once these chips are actually released, if by some miracle they out perform a i7 6700k they will absolutely be priced accordingly.
I would be overjoyed to be wrong, just as I will be overjoyed if they actually can outperform Intel offerings and really start pushing Intel hard again, but that is pure wishful thinking on my part.
First the scale up the side isn't even close to linear.
Second we have no idea what the exchange rate against the Dollar, Euro or anything else is going to be by the time these launch.
Third we know from history that while AMD understand they need to be % cheaper than Intel they are never all that far away in $ terms from the chips that the cumulative benchmarks prove they compete against.
Once these chips are actually released, if by some miracle they out perform a i7 6700k they will absolutely be priced accordingly.
I would be overjoyed to be wrong, just as I will be overjoyed if they actually can outperform Intel offerings and really start pushing Intel hard again, but that is pure wishful thinking on my part.
Associate
^^ this
Caporegime
"Outperform 6700K will be priced accordingly"
If you really think that its your emotions talking rather than your head, no-one will buy an Intel equivalent AMD chip priced anywhere near Intel let alone higher.
Seriously this old argument is utterly bizarre for apparently intelligent people to make, AMD may try to charge way above its market value but it will last about 3 minutes before it comes crashing down to well below Intel prices even if its better!
Why? Because Intel will sell 7x as many worse chips on branding alone.
Please Stop.
Last edited:
Intel have done really well with their branding, because all people want is an i5 or an i7. They hear those names and associate it with a good CPU. Even where I work people with no technology background make laptop requests and mention that it needs to be an i5 or i7.
Caporegime
Except history is against you on this.
AMD launched the FX8150 at the same price point as an i7 2600K.
The FX9590 was launched at 3930K pricing.
Yes, the prices dropped, but that's because the market dictates the price, but AMD will certainly try pricing it to their preference first.
Caporegime
You didn't even read all of what i said, what you clearly didn't read in bold: "AMD may try to charge way above its market value but it will last about 3 minutes before it comes crashing down to well below Intel prices even if its better"
If it's better, why should the price come crashing down?
It did so with the 8150 and 9590, for obvious reasons, but if it is a better chip (not that I think it will be) then I'm not sure I see why they would have to reduce the price.
It did so with the 8150 and 9590, for obvious reasons, but if it is a better chip (not that I think it will be) then I'm not sure I see why they would have to reduce the price.
Caporegime
So, why post the bit you did about the guy thinking with his emotions rather than his head, when that's clearly not the case?
Caporegime
No wonder AMD struggle to shift products at the higher end when their most ardent fanboys can't splash the cash on them
Permabanned
No wonder AMD struggle to shift products at the higher end when their most ardent fanboys can't splash the cash on them
I can buy what I want, the reason I'm butthurt is because retards keep propping up the intel/nvidia cartel whilst congratulating themselves for being fleeced. It inflates prices across the board.
Back to you, sparky.
Probably because of the Intel brand which joe public trusts. On a corporate level Intel is probably pretty ingrained and able to charge more of a premium.
It might take a while to change perceptions (if it's a success).
Caporegime
I don't disagree with the latter.
Although I don't understand the former. I don't care what you buy, people can buy what they want, but I get the impression that even the most ardent fanboys aren't willing to pay AMD a going rate for a top tier product.
Soldato
Gibbo, I call dibs to the first 8core Zen from the special pool of "black edition" which are designed for overclocking by AMD...