*** AMD "Zen" thread (inc AM4/APU discussion) ***

[drunkenmaster]

if we honest unless in the loop no one knows nothing.its pretty much that simple.

just speculation.many are eager for real info and what the new amd cpus can do.

i havent seen one post that says this is how fast they are how much they cost.which is basically all we want to know and no one has shown or done it yet.

Seriously, we know nothing? Cost and exact clock speed are literally the only information that will ever be known about a chip? It would be really great if people could understand the difference between the information THEY WANT TO KNOW, and information in general.

If you want to say know one knows clock speeds and cost, go ahead, saying no one has ANY information repeatedly is absurd. Not only is ~80% of all information about Zen out there, official and easily findable, we have a ball park for shipping clock speeds, we have 3.6Ghz base and 4Ghz turbo as a pretty damn likely clock speed and it's fairly safe to say there will be 8 core 16 thread chips below £300.

Think about this RX480 is available for ~£220, after the pound has gone up, that is a 232mm^2 core, an 8 core Zen looks like it will be somewhere around 190mm^2....... That is sensible and fair pricing for a chip that size. the RX480 also has, an AIB inbetween who takes a cut of profit and comes with 8GB of gddr5, a pcb and power components as well as HDMI/DVI/DP outputs, a fan, heatsink.

How much do you think the RX480 chip alone costs when AMD sell that to a AIB? Now think about why that smaller chip, with no other parts and no AIB taking a cut will cost £300+.....

 

[Hagar]

Personally I am just waiting to click 'buy'. My AMD system needs a refresh and just like in Oct. 2012, I do not need to really justify it too rationally.

DDR4, a new chipset and a new CPU to explore the possibilities. What is not to like?

 

[~>Dg<~]

Seriously, we know nothing? Cost and exact clock speed are literally the only information that will ever be known about a chip? It would be really great if people could understand the difference between the information THEY WANT TO KNOW, and information in general.

If you want to say know one knows clock speeds and cost, go ahead, saying no one has ANY information repeatedly is absurd. Not only is ~80% of all information about Zen out there, official and easily findable, we have a ball park for shipping clock speeds, we have 3.6Ghz base and 4Ghz turbo as a pretty damn likely clock speed and it's fairly safe to say there will be 8 core 16 thread chips below £300.

Think about this RX480 is available for ~£220, after the pound has gone up, that is a 232mm^2 core, an 8 core Zen looks like it will be somewhere around 190mm^2....... That is sensible and fair pricing for a chip that size. the RX480 also has, an AIB inbetween who takes a cut of profit and comes with 8GB of gddr5, a pcb and power components as well as HDMI/DVI/DP outputs, a fan, heatsink.

How much do you think the RX480 chip alone costs when AMD sell that to a AIB? Now think about why that smaller chip, with no other parts and no AIB taking a cut will cost £300+.....

just read all that and all you have done is guess/speculate.after all the writing you done all you said basically it will be £300+.

everyone on here and the world knows that sherlock

 

[Hagar]

just read all that and all you have done is guess/speculate.after all the writing you done all you said basically it will be £300+.

I think he said below £300?

 

[jigger]

just read all that and

You didn't understand it?

 

[drunkenmaster]

just read all that and all you have done is guess/speculate.after all the writing you done all you said basically it will be £300+.

everyone on here and the world knows that sherlock

Well, done, you can't read and you didn't read my previous post with links to actual information while you state nothing is known and everything is a rumour.

 

[~>Dg<~]

sorry i did skim read as i only seen speculation.just spent 10 minutes reading it again and now its clear.

its only speculation

yes i was wrong on what i put but what you have put is exactly as i wrote.speculation.

you do not know the pricing.you do not know the actual speed.no need to punch out the words to reply.

 

[Curlyriff]

Well, done, you can't read and you didn't read my previous post with links to actual information while you state nothing is known and everything is a rumour.

Told you it's not worth the time.

The key part that DG missed was

It would be really great if people could understand the difference between the information THEY WANT TO KNOW, and information in general.

Anyways back in my cave, just wanted to see how you was doing in here and if you had started hitting your head against a wall

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Now lets see the deflection from certain forum members now:

https://www.techpowerup.com/230464/...urfaces-mark-your-calendars-for-february-28th


TPU has hinted base clockspeed of over 3.6GHZ and it seems the boost clockspeed is 4.2GHZ - now let the deflections start.

I also love how a certain user distorted what I said about the 8C/16T parts to mean all parts.

Plus I love the so called objective members here,who in ALL the Intel CPU rumours threads ignore every SKU in the leaks apart from the K series one including many low clocked SKUs made for OEMs.

Why?? Because its the K series SKUs which enthusiasts buy,not the numerous business class or low TDP models which tend to be usually found in HP or Dell PCs.

Instead despite Lisa Su and AMD saying 8C/16T Ryzen at launch would be running at least at 3.4GHZ they desperately want it to run at lower clockspeeds since they know it is the only way it won't be competitive against the Core i7 6900K.

 

[Curlyriff]

Now lets see the deflection from certain forum members now:

https://www.techpowerup.com/230464/...urfaces-mark-your-calendars-for-february-28th


TPU has hinted base clockspeed of over 3.6GHZ and it seems the boost clockspeed is 4.2GHZ - now let the deflections start.

There has been no deflection. You have still miss-read what has been given as comment, facts and evidence and no-one suggested that the limit would be 3.6GHz just that the base is 3.4GHz for 8C/16T.

The slide we looked at was speculation but not concrete, it still provides a good sample of the thought process and how a lot feel it will end up.

In regards to your link (that was already provided and discussed by way)
hasn't given anything about core count so we don't know which SKU this is or if it's even a place holder for their site.

 

[Curlyriff]

I also love how a certain user distorted what I said about the 8C/16T parts to mean all parts.

Plus I love the so called objective members here,who in ALL the Intel CPU rumours threads ignore every SKU in the leaks apart from the K series one including many low clocked SKUs made for OEMs.

Why?? Because its the K series SKUs which enthusiasts buy,not the numerous business class or low TDP models which tend to be usually found in HP or Dell PCs.

Instead despite Lisa Su and AMD saying 8C/16T Ryzen at launch would be running at least at 3.4GHZ they desperately want it to run at lower clockspeeds since they know it is the only way it won't be competitive against the Core i7 6900K.

See you called me out on this but got it wrong as I had never suggested anything different to what you did. Another member said thank you for providing evidence that it says all chips will run at 3.4GHz or more and I stated no it doesn't it clearly claims that the 8C16T chips will do so. I even put the info up about the Pro which you then also had a go at me for clearly either missing my post on that or choosing to ignore just to create more argumentation in this thread.

I don't really post in the Intel threads because I am not interested in them. I am interested in Ryzen and want to it to do well and be the best chip it can be.

You also suggested directly I wanted the opposite and that I want it to run lower GHz which has never been the case at all. Yet again attacking me for something I didn't say or even allude too and yet you try it again now.

 

[Panos]

The TUP post is an assumption based on the website that put on sale the cpu and is addressed here the last couple of pages.

I say wait 3 weeks. And food for thought. The last Ryzen vs 6900k head to head AMD presentation, they clearly stated the Ryzen CPU had Sense OFF because was still in development. And still the perf was up there in par, if not faster, with the 6900k.

So how better the Ryzen would perform with all the clever AI stuff on?

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

There has been no deflection. You have still miss-read what has been given as comment, facts and evidence and no-one suggested that the limit would be 3.6GHz just that the base is 3.4GHz for 8C/16T.

The slide we looked at was speculation but not concrete, it still provides a good sample of the thought process and how a lot feel it will end up.

In regards to your link (that was already provided and discussed by way)
hasn't given anything about core count so we don't know which SKU this is or if it's even a place holder for their site.

No it is utter deflection by you - you got overexcited the moment that leaked table came out and started spamming the thread trying to say Ryzen SKUs being launched for DIY sales would not be 3.4GHZ minimum - I specifically said AMD only showed 8C/16T SKUs and they will be launching at 3.4GHZ AT LEAST - you are terrified if this is the case since it means the Core i7 6900K will probably be matched or beaten even slightly.

I specially said we have no clue whether AMD is even lauching anything other than an 8C/16T variant first.

I have not seen you in any INTEL CPU thread where people have linked to lists of leaked SKUs spamming the thread about how Intel will be launching low clocked SKUs for us DIY purchasers at launch.

Instead every bit of discussion is centered around the K series SKUs which are running at higher clockspeeds - most of the low clocked SKUs end up being found in OEM desktops.

You are on purpose fixating on one business class SKU which might or might not be real,you have no clue if it if exists if it is a 65W cTDP one or whether any of us can actually buy one.

See you called me out on this but got it wrong as I had never suggested anything different to what you did. Another member said thank you for providing evidence that it says all chips will run at 3.4GHz or more and I stated no it doesn't it clearly claims that the 8C16T chips will do so. I even put the info up about the Pro which you then also had a go at me for clearly either missing my post on that or choosing to ignore just to create more argumentation in this thread.

I don't really post in the Intel threads because I am not interested in them. I am interested in Ryzen and want to it to do well and be the best chip it can be.

You also suggested directly I wanted the opposite and that I want it to run lower GHz which has never been the case at all. Yet again attacking me for something I didn't say or even allude too and yet you try it again now.

Oh,yes more false concern on your part - its all false. Why don't you spam all the Intel threads with the same concern.

You are magically absent from all of them despite all the leaks in those of the whole ranges.

Its the same in all AMD threads - in Intel ones everybody talks about those K series SKUs and ignores literally every other one there.

Why are you not talking about all the lower clocked Kaby Lake SKUs in those leaks,ie,the business class CPUs which nobody here will ever buy.

AMD said 3.4GHZ in a slide AT LEAST. Lisa Su said 3.4GHZ AT LEAST.

That is what 8C/16T Ryzen is launching at - 3.4GHZ AT LEAST.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Are you honestly delusional or just unable to read.

What has this got to do with a 6900k or launching at below that speed.

You repeatedly made the claim that AMD claimed ALL Zen's would have a 3.4Ghz or higher clock speed, you are wrong. You are now claiming we have stated that Zen will come below 3.4Ghz, again incorrect.

ONE 8 core/16 thread Zen will launch with at least 3.4Ghz minimum speed, and it's looking like 3.6Ghz, as I've stated multiple times. But she's talking about a flagship model, there will be other 8core 16thread chips available at launch and some of them are nearly certain to have lower than 3.4Ghz base clocks.

Also, we do have a clue if AMD will launch more than a 8core/16 thread... because AMD have specifically stated they are launching an entire Zen product stack on day one, that means multiple SKUs of different types, so you're wrong again.


It's pretty plainly clear that your ridiculous mistake and defence of said mistake has gone wrong so you are now trying to change what we were saying in an attempt to think yourself correct, problem is you're still getting it all wrong.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

See you called me out on this but got it wrong as I had never suggested anything different to what you did. Another member said thank you for providing evidence that it says all chips will run at 3.4GHz or more and I stated no it doesn't it clearly claims that the 8C16T chips will do so. I even put the info up about the Pro which you then also had a go at me for clearly either missing my post on that or choosing to ignore just to create more argumentation in this thread.

I don't really post in the Intel threads because I am not interested in them. I am interested in Ryzen and want to it to do well and be the best chip it can be.

You also suggested directly I wanted the opposite and that I want it to run lower GHz which has never been the case at all. Yet again attacking me for something I didn't say or even allude too and yet you try it again now.

Are you honestly delusional or just unable to read.

What has this got to do with a 6900k or launching at below that speed.

You repeatedly made the claim that AMD claimed ALL Zen's would have a 3.4Ghz or higher clock speed, you are wrong. You are now claiming we have stated that Zen will come below 3.4Ghz, again incorrect.

ONE 8 core/16 thread Zen will launch with at least 3.4Ghz minimum speed, and it's looking like 3.6Ghz, as I've stated multiple times. But she's talking about a flagship model, there will be other 8core 16thread chips available at launch and some of them are nearly certain to have lower than 3.4Ghz base clocks.

Also, we do have a clue if AMD will launch more than a 8core/16 thread... because AMD have specifically stated they are launching an entire Zen product stack on day one, that means multiple SKUs of different types, so you're wrong again.


It's pretty plainly clear that your ridiculous mistake and defence of said mistake has gone wrong so you are now trying to change what we were saying in an attempt to think yourself correct, problem is you're still getting it all wrong.

No,you and your best mate are delusional since you twist things to fit your argument.

Lets explain it in an easy way:
1.)Lisa Su and AMD slides said Ryzen would launch at 3.4GHZ minimum.
2.)I talked about 8C/16T DIY SKUs at LAUNCH which we can buy
3.)Everything else is rumour and speculation

All the rest is you and your mate waffling about other SKUs which nobody will probably buy.



That says 3.4GHZ+ for Ryzen 8C/16T SKUs AT LAUNCH.

Lisa Su said 3.4GHZ AT LEAST AT LAUNCH.

None of you and your mates deflecting and saving face means nothing - you have literally ZERO evidence to show that AT LAUNCH AMD will be launching anything other than a 3.4GHZ+ 8C/16T series of SKUs.

Nothing about 4C or 6C models or anything else.

Have you noticed how you and your mates don't spam any Intel thread talking about the lower clocked SKUs made for OEMs??

Nope,you all only steer it to K series SKUs which are available at launch.

You are all getting massively overexcited about some random SKU leak which could be wrong or correct and taking it as gospel truth.

Now PROVE TO ME NOW,AMD is on record saying 8C/16T Ryzen at LAUNCH will be launching at sub 3.4GHZ clockspeeds - show me an official statement.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Now lets see the deflection from certain forum members now:

TPU has hinted base clockspeed of over 3.6GHZ and it seems the boost clockspeed is 4.2GHZ - now let the deflections start.

I also love how a certain user distorted what I said about the 8C/16T parts to mean all parts.


Instead despite Lisa Su and AMD saying 8C/16T Ryzen at launch would be running at least at 3.4GHZ they desperately want it to run at lower clockspeeds since they know it is the only way it won't be competitive against the Core i7 6900K.

No she said at least 3.4ghz for Ryzen - not the top bin.


Watch the presentation again she said Ryzen would be shipping with AT LEAST a 3.4ghz clockspeed.

Jeez,why are alternative facts so popular now?

That chart does not say 3.4GHZ+ base clockspeed even for the top SKU.

It says 3.0ghz base clockspeed which means Lisa Su lied according to you all.

Yup, you never said all parts, you totally meant just the top bin. People have tried to explain it to you over, and over and over again. The slides in which LIsa said 3.4Ghz+ is for the FLAGSHIP, there could also be other 8core/16threads above 3.4Ghz, and there is almost certain to be one or more below 3.4Ghz. No one is trying to say AMD won't launch one above 3.4Ghz at all, this is just nuts.

You're trying to say every single Ryzen will launch with 3.4Ghz+ base clock, even if you just meant 8core/16thread, you're still wrong.

This is the usual type of product stack, say a Piledriver you get a fx8370 with 4Ghz base 4.5Ghz turbo, a fx8320 with 3.6Ghz base 4Ghz turbo(I don't recall the actual speeds, it's irrelevant), and lets say a Fx8320E(65W instead of 95W) which is 3.2Ghz base 3.6Ghz turbo.

What Lisa is saying is, that flagship model is going to be 3.4Ghz base or higher, so we might get top Zen 3.6Ghz base, 4Ghz turbo, the next chip down still 8core 16 thread, 3.4Ghz base, 3.6Ghz turbo, the next chip down is a 3.2Ghz base, 3.5Ghz turbo, and a low power 65W edition, 3Ghz base and 3.4Ghz turbo.


You're entire series of posts was saying, they are all 3.4Ghz or more base, that is the ONLY thing we've been calling you on, no one anywhere has said there will not be a chip at 3.4Ghz or higher, just that not EVERY Zen will be.

 

[Deleted member 651465]

Locking this until people calm down and have some respect toward others.

 

[Legend]

Main thread got locked (feel free to move moderator), so...

Not bad, but I await to see how they actually perform before getting excited about this.

 

[HeX]

1800X --- 599.99 = £511

1700X --- 469.99 = £400

1700 --- 389.95 = £333


Might be an unlocked 6core 12 thread I go for if that's the real pricing.

 

[d_brennen]

So £350, £450 and £600 when they reach our shores