• 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) ***

Even if the top end Ryzen is 700-800, Ryzen isn't a single product.
Of course it's competing with Kaby :confused:

I know Ryzen isn't a single product lol! But we ARE getting the top end first, and that particular 8-core enuthusiast CPU, if at £700-800, is not going to be directly competing with a £300-400 4-core one. Different consumer. Of course some people who would be perfectly fine with a 7700k will be looking at a top end Ryzen chip (unnecessarily but just for utter overkill), but that's not who it's targeted at and the majority of Kaby buyers won't be going that route otherwise they'd be looking at Broadwell-E.
 
Last edited:
I know Ryzen isn't a single product lol! But we ARE getting the top end first, and that particular 8-core enuthusiast CPU, if at £700-800, is not going to be directly competing with a £300-400 4-core one. Different consumer. Of course some people who would be perfectly fine with a 7700k will be looking at a top end Ryzen chip (unnecessarily but just for utter overkill), but that's not who it's targeted at and the majority of Kaby buyers won't be going that route otherwise they'd be looking at Broadwell-E.

I'd be surprised if AMD launch Ryzen with only the flagship, that'd be silly.
 
I'd be surprised if AMD launch Ryzen with only the flagship, that'd be silly.

I thought that was always their plan based on the strategy witnessed so far. Nothing concrete at all has been revealed about the lower tier offerings, and I hardly think they'll pull them out the bag in a couple of weeks and have available to purchase! I'd love to be wrong, but I think a paper launch (for the full range) is surely the best we can hope for now, and that may indeed have an impact on anyone hovering over the Kaby trigger. We shall see.
 
I thought that was always their plan based on the strategy witnessed so far. Nothing concrete at all has been revealed about the lower tier offerings, and I hardly think they'll pull them out the bag in a couple of weeks and have the available to purchase! A paper launch is surely the best we can hope for now, and that may indeed have an impact on anyone hovering over the Kaby trigger. We shall see.

We don't tend to get any official announcements.
But it'd be an absolute disaster if they released a single SKU.

It's a platform launch, AM4. You can't launch a platform and a host of motherboards with one SKU.

No one knows anything, about when Zen is launching, whether we'll get a paper launch or what. But I'm confident when Zen is available to purchase, it'll be more than an 8 core SKU.
 
We don't tend to get any official announcements.
But it'd be an absolute disaster if they released a single SKU.

It's a platform launch, AM4. You can't launch a platform and a host of motherboards with one SKU.

No one knows anything, about when Zen is launching, whether we'll get a paper launch or what. But I'm confident when Zen is available to purchase, it'll be more than an 8 core SKU.

I agree, it would be a bit daft. I will be extremely surprised if it's available to buy as early as mid Jan though, but like I say, I'll happily be wrong on that.
 
We don't tend to get any official announcements.
But it'd be an absolute disaster if they released a single SKU.

It's a platform launch, AM4. You can't launch a platform and a host of motherboards with one SKU.

No one knows anything, about when Zen is launching, whether we'll get a paper launch or what. But I'm confident when Zen is available to purchase, it'll be more than an 8 core SKU.

Remember AM4 is a singular platform, the difference between SR7, SR5 and SR3 are the motherboard features.
 
While I would very much like you to be right, I do think Ryzen releasing in just a couple of weeks, i.e available to purchase, is being awfully optimistic. That said, it would be very savvy of AMD to do so with Kaby releasing the week before... although Kaby isn't exactly a competitor for Ryzen anyway and is appealing to a different consumer, especially if the £700-800 price point of Ryzen is correct. But it would be a good way for AMD to steal some of the limelight.

Remember that the Ryzen Event was probably to show that the Micro Code was working, the Chip is probably done now and they will launch other CPU's as well since not all CPU's will be 8 core, and there was also a Rumour of AMD pulling an Intel with higher priced Binned Black Edition CPU's even those who currently possess the CPU's like 8pack and testing them like crazy are also waiting for High quality motherboards with high quality capacitor's.
 
Remember that the Ryzen Event was probably to show that the Micro Code was working, the Chip is probably done now and they will launch other CPU's as well since not all CPU's will be 8 core, and there was also a Rumour of AMD pulling an Intel with higher priced Binned Black Edition CPU's even those who currently possess the CPU's like 8pack and testing them like crazy are also waiting for High quality motherboards with high quality capacitor's.

I agree these things are always further developed behind the scenes than we realise, but we've seen no real motherboard leaks, no real concrete word about the full Ryzen line-up (compared to all that we've seen on Kaby, which we KNOW is being released in early Jan), yet some are suggesting you can buy it in a couple of weeks? No, I just don't see it. Paper launch is what we'll get at best, I'm sure. Besides, we know now they will be doing a big VEGA announcement at CES... I don't think they'd be dropping Ryzen at the same time. It's going to be a couple of months at least before consumers actually get their hands on either.
 
A 4 Core from Intel dollar wise hasn't changed price in years, it will do what its always done and that is good enough for none professionals.

Aside from the fact it isn't true, that itself, what you're suggesting is a MASSIVE change to the past.

We didn't get 5-10% performance increase at the same price every generation.

You would have a single core at 2Ghz for say £200, then 2 years later it's a 3.5Ghz version at £200, with a 2Ghz version of the new chip down at say £80.

THen you had a single core P4 at 3.5Ghz at £200, the next year you had a dual core P4 at 3.2Ghz for £200, with the single core down to £100.

Then you had a dual core Conroe at about the same price but maybe twice as fast, with the dual core P4 dropped to £100. Then you had a quad core i5 at £200, etc, etc.

Stagnation is new, you're arguing that it's fine and that getting the same quad core with barely differing performance is the norm, when it isn't.

A long while back we should have gone from quad to 8 core at the SAME price, with quad core moving down a slot. Now GPU kinda screwed that, as it took up half the die(eventually, between 20-30% earlier on. So going from quad core cpu one year to quad core APU the next year at the same price made sense... that one time that happened, but the following new chip on a new process should have moved to 6-8 core + gpu at the same price. We never made that step, that is the rip off step where they just reduced the size of the core, increased margin and had everyone pay the same amount.

Stagnation in prices isn't good, it's not the norm, it fights against the concept of semi conductor industry. Everywhere else memory capacity doubled every couple of years, from 128MB chips for gpus, to 256mb, to 512MB chips at roughly the same cost.

People constantly use inflation as an argument for prices, inflation can be used to measure the fair cost of milk, a commodity that has no significant change in production price over the years, it isn't remotely applicable to electronics. The same way a 4k tv now costs the same as a 1080p screen, and more recently a 4k hdr tv has replaced 4k tv pricing from a couple of years ago. Electronics production capability moves forwards and makes quad cores cost a different and lesser amount with every new process.
 
Aside from the fact it isn't true, that itself, what you're suggesting is a MASSIVE change to the past.

We didn't get 5-10% performance increase at the same price every generation.

You would have a single core at 2Ghz for say £200, then 2 years later it's a 3.5Ghz version at £200, with a 2Ghz version of the new chip down at say £80.

THen you had a single core P4 at 3.5Ghz at £200, the next year you had a dual core P4 at 3.2Ghz for £200, with the single core down to £100.

Then you had a dual core Conroe at about the same price but maybe twice as fast, with the dual core P4 dropped to £100. Then you had a quad core i5 at £200, etc, etc.

Stagnation is new, you're arguing that it's fine and that getting the same quad core with barely differing performance is the norm, when it isn't.

A long while back we should have gone from quad to 8 core at the SAME price, with quad core moving down a slot. Now GPU kinda screwed that, as it took up half the die(eventually, between 20-30% earlier on. So going from quad core cpu one year to quad core APU the next year at the same price made sense... that one time that happened, but the following new chip on a new process should have moved to 6-8 core + gpu at the same price. We never made that step, that is the rip off step where they just reduced the size of the core, increased margin and had everyone pay the same amount.

Stagnation in prices isn't good, it's not the norm, it fights against the concept of semi conductor industry. Everywhere else memory capacity doubled every couple of years, from 128MB chips for gpus, to 256mb, to 512MB chips at roughly the same cost.

People constantly use inflation as an argument for prices, inflation can be used to measure the fair cost of milk, a commodity that has no significant change in production price over the years, it isn't remotely applicable to electronics. The same way a 4k tv now costs the same as a 1080p screen, and more recently a 4k hdr tv has replaced 4k tv pricing from a couple of years ago. Electronics production capability moves forwards and makes quad cores cost a different and lesser amount with every new process.

Exactly that ^^^^^
 
What he said ^^^^

They're struggling to provide a continuing improvement, disproving Moore's law, There is a limit and they're reaching it.

While fleecing consumers in the process. Who wouldn't? Especially in the same non-existent competition environment.

Take the Kabylake launch. Probably the most uninteresting and uninspiring launch ever. The epitome of laziness.
 
While fleecing consumers in the process. Who wouldn't? Especially in the same non-existent competition environment.

Take the Kabylake launch. Probably the most uninteresting and uninspiring launch ever. The epitome of laziness.

They know that at some point people simply won't need to upgrade the cpu making what they add to the platform the deciding factor rather than the need for more speed.
 
Someone quoted him.
So it becomes visible.

And no one can deny there's been a hardware stagnation, but is the hardware needed? At this current moment, what am I going to gain over my 4770K? Even if I magically ended up with an Intel 6 core tomorrow, nothing would change. That was more my point. The I5K and i7K (Mainstream for i7K) have been pretty level for price wise (Although that's from the 3XXX to 6XXX as Sandy was cheaper) and what the products did then, is the same now. The performance they give is still top drawer.

It might not be "right". But it is what it is.

All I hope is that Zen's prices forces Intel to change their tiers.
Frankly an entry i3 should be a 4C/4T and an i5 should be a 4C/8T while an entry i7 should be a 6C/12T these days for me. And hopefully that'll happen with Intels launch after Kaby (Because Kaby's boring)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom