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

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

only reason i mentioned it is because of the guy on about the 7700k and making it look like a joke for £100 more.

thing is realistically the stock speeds of the amd chips and oc or boosting to anything close to 5ghz is basically not happening.

so the £100 difference may not be a joke or that bad.if you understand what i mean.

i dont think the first revisions will clock well.until they have got the process right

we will soon see.

But it is a joke - if AMD were hitting SB level of IPC,it might be,but if they get anywhere close to Broadwell level,the Core i7 7700K is going to look very overpriced.

Remember,if AMD is having 8C from £300 onwards,it means 6C for between £200 to £300 and 4C and 4C/8T under £200.

What does Intel have under £200?? The 4C Core i5 7400 and Core i5 7500 which are locked.

The problem is they don't boost any higher than 3.8GHZ - if AMD gets even Haswell level IPC on their 4C/8T SKU at £175 to £200,its going to wipe out the Core i5 7400 and Core i5 7500.

All the Core i3 SKUs are going to look a joke at £100 to £175.

Realistically Intel need to drop the Core i5 7600K closer to £200 and the Core i5 7700K under £300.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

CAT..

Why do you ALWAYS come across as being so angry about these things?

Because its just one level of silly one up-manship over another. We had this stupid level of arguments over the Phenom II X4 and Core2 quads or a few percent extra overclocks or a few percent IPC improvements.

Now,looking back has a Core2 quad or Phenom II X4 lasted much longer than each other?? Nope.

Its why going for the cheapest one of them made sense.

In reality it basically meant nothing - its this silly one-upmanship which made Intel release a £175 Core i3 7350K,and why they made sure people were locked out of the Xeon E3 range. The latter ****ed me off,especially since it was an easy way to get a Core i7 for £175 to £200.

The PR pushes things like magical clockspeed numbers like MP on cameras,or Super PI scores like its the be all and end all of performance.

Single core performance is important but the problem 10% or even 15% is not going to make as a big difference as people on forums say. Is that 25FPS minimum suddenly going to get more playable at 28FPS...29FPS..?? Its like the whole MP thing with cameras too.

Most people are not running high end cards anyway. For most builds you tend to be GPU limited anyway.

If you can afford a Titan X,I am sure a £1000 Core i7 6900K is also affordable. This is what most of these tests are run on.

 

[mmj_uk]

The other important thing to note is that

6900K 140W TDP
1800X 95W TDP

I know the measures aren't directly comparable, but that is a big gap.

but if AMD have a TDP hard cap that might mean that the chip is capable of hitting 140W TDP but is being artificially limited in how much work it can do. Wasn't there a similar issue with AMD laptops rather recently, whereby their processors were being capped at 15W TDP which hurt performance in heavy loads?

I find it hard to believe that AMD's Ryzen 1700 is truly 65W TDP with higher clocks than i7 6900K, there must be some sort of TDP limiter?

 

[Harlequin]

no about the boost is based on heat. so some are saying oc to this or that 4.5 when the base is pretty low . so realistically the launch speeds ocing like others have hinted will be pretty low.

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/inte...rocessor-retail-bx80671i76900k-cp-615-in.html

i7 6900k has a lower starting frequency than the reported AMD 8/16

 

[~>Dg<~]

But it is a joke - if AMD were hitting SB level of IPC,it might be,but if they get anywhere close to Broadwell level,the Core i7 7700K is going to look very overpriced.

Remember,if AMD is having 8C from £300 onwards,it means 6C for between £200 to £300 and 4C and 4C/8T under £200.

What does Intel have under £200?? The 4C Core i5 7400 and Core i5 7500 which are locked.

The problem is they don't boost any higher than 3.8GHZ - if AMD gets even Haswell level IPC on their 4C/8T SKU at £175 to £200,its going to wipe the Core i5 7400 and Core i5 7500.

All the Core i3 SKUs are going to look a joke at £100 to £175.

Realistically Intel need to drop the Core i5 7600K closer to £200 and the Core i5 7700K under £300.

the thing is we are guessing at prices.trying to put chips in certain places.i agree intel chips are too expensive but thats uk/brexit gouging which dont help the situation.

i5s should be £200 i7s should be just under £300 which were prices they have been before people starting bumping prices.

without knowing how much the uk effect is going to hit when these launch and who has the stock across the board its going to be interesting to watch how it goes down.

i agree some games it matters not mainly single player games across the board what your cpu does if its out a small percentage. in mp though in many games that small percentage and we on a enthusiast forum that small percentage is what you pay for !

 

[humbug]

Please stop excusing Intel's pricing structure for Brexit, not everything is the fault of Brexit, Intel have been way overpriced since way before Brexit.

They are also overpriced in the US, they are having the same arguments.

 

[~>Dg<~]

my set up since brexit went up £150

it has made a difference.

 

[humbug]

AMD are not immune from Brexit, AMD prices vs Intel is not because of Intel Brexit when AMD exist in the same space.

If AMD can charge £100 less for more in a Brexit climate its just proof Intel are milking the market.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

the thing is we are guessing at prices.trying to put chips in certain places.i agree intel chips are too expensive but thats uk/brexit gouging which dont help the situation.

i5s should be £200 i7s should be just under £300 which were prices they have been before people starting bumping prices.

without knowing how much the uk effect is going to hit when these launch and who has the stock across the board its going to be interesting to watch how it goes down.

i agree some games it matters not mainly single player games across the board what your cpu does if its out a small percentage. in mp though in many games that small percentage and we on a enthusiast forum that small percentage is what you pay for !

I am talking about a MP game in PS2(Planetside 2) or even Rifts in certain versions of Diablo 3,would have stupidly drops even on decent systems,so even Intel would need much better IPC to improve on that.But some games are just poorly optimised,or have bugs,in the end you can spend a £1000 and still it won't hit a constant 60FPS.

The thing is the main issue is that a lot of builds are using sub £200 CPUs,so its not whether AMD can BEAT Intel in all metrics - is Ryzen going to do that??

I doubt it. But if we can get 4C/8T with reasonable ST performance at £180 to £200 and a 4C SKU at under that,with the option to overclock,its certainly means,much more rounded budget PCs.

Remember,when BF1 came out?? People were complaining about how a Core i3 was meh with it - well imagine if people had quad cores for Core i3 money,how many people would have been havingh issues??

Or a 4C/8T CPU for Core i5 money.

We need things to move down a notch,otherwise this is not helping PC gaming at all. All the people on lesser hardware are as important as all the people who buy a £500 CPU,as they make up the numbers. More of them with better CPUs means devs will probably want to pay more attention to PC.

The Core i3 7350K is just an indication of how things need to change.

Look at how much the Core i3 530 cost even adjusted to 2017 pricing??

Intel even made sure the overclocking trick with Skylake was locked out on Kabylake.

 

[humbug]

Right, AMD will not even match Intel in all metrics, but you know how it will go, no matter how little the difference and how meaningless and obscure that difference shills will point and shout this is all that matters and proves Intel superiority.

 

[Spyhop]

Right, AMD will not even match Intel in all metrics, but you know how it will go, no matter how little the difference and how meaningless and obscure that difference shills will point and shout this is all that matters and proves Intel superiority.

Doesn't matter, as long as good value products are actually on the market.

People in any niche online are always going to find something to argue about so that's a constant factor that can be ignored!

 

[harney]

Please stop excusing Intel's pricing structure for Brexit, not everything is the fault of Brexit, Intel have been way overpriced since way before Brexit.

They are also overpriced in the US, they are having the same arguments.

Agree prices where creeping up way before the brexit........but that new i3 at £170+ is a joke

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Sadly after the Phenom II and Core2 arguments yes,I know exactly how it will go,even silly tiny percentages which made hardly any difference,and it just made sense to look for deals on the day and go for the cheapest setup.

The worst thing is it just gives Intel PR an excuse to drop prices less,and they will instead release a £175 Core i3 8350K this time running at 4.5GHZ instead of 4.2GHZ and a faster IGP.

People were laughing at AMD for MOAR cores,now its gone the other way with MOAR MHZ.

 

[FredFlint]

Hopefully AMD can produce enough chips, if they cannot then the OEM's will stick with Intel and retailer will price gouge the rest of us.

 

[humbug]

*SNIP*
People were laughing at AMD for MOAR cores,now its gone the other way with MOAR MHZ.

On reading this I had to do this....

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

LOL.

 

[Apache14]

If the TDP of the 1800X is 95W and the 1700(X) is 65W i can see a LOT of OEM's putting these in top end / small form factor setups. There is even a chance that apple could start to use them along with vega in the next gen desktop macs

 

[Hotwired]

On reading this I had to do this....

aha didnt notice you swapped the names

 

[r7slayer]

funny how the goal posts move over time huh? lol.

AMD know what they have to do price wise. I can see ryzen being very competitive. If the IPC is right up at broadwell and manage to get 4.2 - 4.5Ghz with watercooling im jumping in. 8core16 thread will keep me tied over for a long time. Not to mention AMD seem to stick with the same socket unlike intel where u need a new board all the time.

 

[Stretlow]

Because its just one level of silly one up-manship over another. We had this stupid level of arguments over the Phenom II X4 and Core2 quads or a few percent extra overclocks or a few percent IPC improvements.

Now,looking back has a Core2 quad or Phenom II X4 lasted much longer than each other?? Nope.

Its why going for the cheapest one of them made sense.

In reality it basically meant nothing - its this silly one-upmanship which made Intel release a £175 Core i3 7350K,and why they made sure people were locked out of the Xeon E3 range. The latter ****ed me off,especially since it was an easy way to get a Core i7 for £175 to £200.

The PR pushes things like magical clockspeed numbers like MP on cameras,or Super PI scores like its the be all and end all of performance.

Single core performance is important but the problem 10% or even 15% is not going to make as a big difference as people on forums say. Is that 25FPS minimum suddenly going to get more playable at 28FPS...29FPS..?? Its like the whole MP thing with cameras too.

Most people are not running high end cards anyway. For most builds you tend to be GPU limited anyway.

If you can afford a Titan X,I am sure a £1000 Core i7 6900K is also affordable. This is what most of these tests are run on.

Its not. i'm relatively new here but you Silent Scone and that drunken bloke are so afraid of being wrong over something that no one is sure about .you have to argue like ****ing kids for hours.. when you're not on the thread its informative and interesting... away from that its tedious you all need to get a grip...