agreed, what i also love about this hype thread is it isn't full of all these crazy fan boys fighting each other like in the gpu threads.
-
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
agreed, what i also love about this hype thread is it isn't full of all these crazy fan boys fighting each other like in the gpu threads.
Because with the state of the CPU market currently its easy to see the effects of a one vendor dominant situation, that vendor rehashes the same stuff over and over and over again jacking the price up eachtime they do.
We're all sick to the back teeth of high premium priced 4 core CPU's, Intel didn't get the message last time AMD jumped up and down on them, maybe if they carry an anvil with them will Intel will know about it.
Most of us are in agreement.
was going to say that, i think its great pretty much everyone is wishing AMD can pull this off. I haven't been this interested in anything new coming out in years. Oh i miss the old Athlon days ha
To be perfectly honest I don't care if Zen's not as good IPC as Kaby. I'm not after top benchmark scores, frankly I couldn't care less about them. The only reason I use benchmarks is to make sure the system is performing as it should without problems.
The simple fact is, by the looks of it we will finally have some sort of competition in the CPU market.
What I care about is the fact that we could end up with 90% of the performance for around 50% of the cost.
I bought my i5 cpu in 2012 that had 4 cores, over 5 years later Intel are still churning out 4 cores for the i5 range, (same goes for the i3 and i7) All we've had in over 5 years from Intel is a slight increase in IPC and max attainable frequency
AMD finally look to have brought some movement to the intel stagnation.
4c/4t in the same price bracket as intels 2c/4t chip
4c/8t and 6c/12t chips to intels 4c/4t chip
and a true 8c/16t chip to the same price bracket as intels 4c/8t
That's why I'm looking forward to this release more than anything in the last 5 years. Finally what looks to be a proper upgrade path without having to pay much more than I did 5 years ago, because up until this release, all that would have got me was yet another 4c/4t CPU
The simple fact is, by the looks of it we will finally have some sort of competition in the CPU market.
What I care about is the fact that we could end up with 90% of the performance for around 50% of the cost.
I bought my i5 cpu in 2012 that had 4 cores, over 5 years later Intel are still churning out 4 cores for the i5 range, (same goes for the i3 and i7) All we've had in over 5 years from Intel is a slight increase in IPC and max attainable frequency
AMD finally look to have brought some movement to the intel stagnation.
4c/4t in the same price bracket as intels 2c/4t chip
4c/8t and 6c/12t chips to intels 4c/4t chip
and a true 8c/16t chip to the same price bracket as intels 4c/8t
That's why I'm looking forward to this release more than anything in the last 5 years. Finally what looks to be a proper upgrade path without having to pay much more than I did 5 years ago, because up until this release, all that would have got me was yet another 4c/4t CPU
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 5,849
At what point does having a high amount of GHz give diminishing to zero returns when gaming? Especially on a 1080p screen?
Surely there must be a certain amount of score a CPU needs minimum to not be a bottle neck on a 1080p screen, then again at 1440p and then at 4k?
Obviously as you go up resolution you become more GPU bound.
I want to know what frequency you need to run each architecture at to not be the bottle neck
Because as far as I can see there's a ton of people still rocking sandy i5s OC'd and not grumbling about performance in games, some even posted in this section to say they still see no need to upgrade.
So surely if a Sandy i5 is not struggling when OC'd with games, then by default RyZen even if it's only Sandy level at base, should be similar but with more threads to lob at stuff that wants them ? Therefore surely RyZen is an upgrade for anyone on a Sandy i5 if all they want is at the minimum more cores ?
Surely there must be a certain amount of score a CPU needs minimum to not be a bottle neck on a 1080p screen, then again at 1440p and then at 4k?
Obviously as you go up resolution you become more GPU bound.
I want to know what frequency you need to run each architecture at to not be the bottle neck
Because as far as I can see there's a ton of people still rocking sandy i5s OC'd and not grumbling about performance in games, some even posted in this section to say they still see no need to upgrade.
So surely if a Sandy i5 is not struggling when OC'd with games, then by default RyZen even if it's only Sandy level at base, should be similar but with more threads to lob at stuff that wants them ? Therefore surely RyZen is an upgrade for anyone on a Sandy i5 if all they want is at the minimum more cores ?
A better CPU will help the lows/stutters a lot more than a better gpu. Even though your gpu "bottle necked" you can still see an improvement from a better CPU in how tightly spaced frame times are and that's what matters. 60+fps average with constant dips to 20 or even 30 can feel worse than 30fps flat.
Your question has no answer, we all have different ideas on what a good experience is and play different games. Better performance is always good though, especially at lower prices.
That's a point I was also trying to make. Someone with a i5 now has an affordable way to have more cores/threads without having to fork out a minimum of £420 for a 6800k, another £200 minimum for a mobo. They can pick up a 6c R5 Ryzen cpu for what is looking like £220, and a mobo for about £100, so a mobo and cpu with the same amount of cores, with looking to be 95% of the performance, for less than the cost of intels cpu alone. Far easier on the wallet
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 5,849
Bingo, this man gets it!
What I find hilarious is the people rocking 1080's and 5ghz i7's on a 1080p screen. Yes yes minimums are better, but that's a lot of wasted power
I am looking to upgrade my i7 920 cpu,bought in 2009 for £201 from ocuk.
Looks like i could get the 6c/12t ryzen for roughly the same price,where as the intel 4c/8t 6700k and 7700k are £360.
If the ryzen prices are correct,well done Amd.
Fed up with seeing intel prices go up every year.
Looks like i could get the 6c/12t ryzen for roughly the same price,where as the intel 4c/8t 6700k and 7700k are £360.
If the ryzen prices are correct,well done Amd.
Fed up with seeing intel prices go up every year.
You're getting diminishing returns from the off versus old Sandy Bridge parts. An i5 2400 sells for about £40 used. Compare that to Skylake and Kaby Lake parts, then consider the impact of investing that money elsewhere in the system.
£150 extra buys an i5 7500. There's a considerable performance gap, but nothing like the gap between an RX460 and GTX 1060 6GB, or RX470 and GTX 1070.
I don't mean buying the better processor is pointless, but at current inflated prices it's tough to argue you're getting value for money vs investing elsewhere in the system.
Last edited:
Its a fair point, actually having competition in the CPU market will also drive down margins on CPU's for resellers, not just intel. For a long time I guess intel CPUs (with the no competition inflated price) have been a good money maker.
The binned CPU's.... I can imagine a horn sounding in the OCUK web sales office every time a top tier one sells...... If its not like that, it should be
The other refreshing thing is that every CPU is unlocked. I hope not only multi but bus clocks as well. I do not really think that clicking 44 or 48 and slightly adjusting cpu voltages really counts as overclocking. Any one with a deep pocket can do that. Finding the sweet spot above the reference speed using bus and multi and volts or equalling an expensive processor with a cheaper one is overclocking IMO.
It's not 2003 anymore?
Wondering how much extra heat the 8c chip will put out compared to 6c. Might see higher clocks on 6c if cooling is a limitation?
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 2,417
- Location
- Scotland
test
Suppose will have to see exactly what wattage they are drawing when we get propper reviews and benchmarks.
Also depends how they have fixed it to the IHS. I know intel use Direct solder on their X99 chips so would need to be something a long those lines to keep the heat down and allow for better/higher overclocking. As long as other factors are not in the way.