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

[tyler_jrb]

You mean 1:1 according to the current Intel pricing. So £1050 for the 1800x, £430 for the R5 1600x, and £350 for the R5 1300x.

You never know the 6900k may end up being better value for money

 

[Kelt]

well orange and grey blend very well, but they should have made the side of the box grey not orange, now it's just too much orange.

That's it! I'm not buying it now!!

 

[Toss3]

You never know the 6900k may end up being better value for money

LOL this is probably going to be the case. People expecting to see the 1800x for 599€ are going to be sorely disappointed come March.

 

[pandem0nium]

Clockspeed was about the only thing they didn't push for with Failburst lol. They raised the FSB, the cache, added HT, finally followed AMD in adopting DDR, then gave up and relaunched a modified Pentium 3 as Core XD

netburst was optimised for clockspeed at the expense of all else IIRC. We were supposed to have 10ghz cpus by 2011 going by their predictions at the time.

 

[harney]

28th supposedly.

Can't be too long now before intel have to do something. Doubt they will drop to ryzen prices though due to their greed.

Its kind of a win win for AMD not just in terms of performance if true but looking good thus far
but also it shows how greedy Intel have been and for far too long this will leave allot of Intel peeps with a bad taste in there mouth ...

Also the peeps that would love to have bought 6 or 8 core's but due to the asking price for them settled on 4 c ....AMD are very wise to offer the 8 cores 1st at launch and follow with the 4 & 6 later (it could be a yield thing easier to produce the 8 c 1st not sure)...now you are going to have them peeps who wanted them Intel 6 or 8 cores now selling there 4 cores to fund for the great asking price of an AMD 8 core ...great ...GO AMD

 

[harney]

I sense a massive disturbance in Intel's force.

As if millions of shareholders cried out in terror.

 

[harney]

I sense a massive disturbance in Intel's force.

Really Intel have been ahead of AMD ever since Conroe (the original Core 2 Duo) debuted back in 2005 I believe since then AMD have just slipped further and further behind. I remember when Conroe debuted it was a phenomenal chip which wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for the AMD gobbling up Intel's market share quicker then Robbie Coltrane eating a plate of chips with it's Athlon line at time 90% of enthusiasts was really happy because AMD spanking Intel all the time was getting boring as we needed competition but nobody. At time could have seen just how devastating for AMD as they lost their technology lead overnight and there market share lead within a couple of quarters.

Was that the chip that started great IPC run for intel

 

[ubersonic]

netburst was optimised for clockspeed at the expense of all else IIRC. We were supposed to have 10ghz cpus by 2011 going by their predictions at the time.

Yup, but the architecture was seriously flawed, they ended up implementing all manner of fixes like I said because it could barely get above 3.4Ghz without throttling. Intel had to cancel the launch of the 4GHz model because they couldn't get it stable on air lol.

 

[Sargatanas2511]

Clockspeed was about the only thing they didn't push for with Failburst lol. They raised the FSB, the cache, added HT, finally followed AMD in adopting DDR, then gave up and relaunched a modified Pentium 3 as Core XD

The P4 slowly climbed from 1.6Ghz to 3.8Ghz. It was the whole point of Netburst as has been mentioned before. They brought it in as an architecture that would scale to huge speeds. Obviously at that point they didn't realise how difficult that would actually be, and how thermal limitations would stop it but it was all about clock speed.

Back in the day I had a 3.0 Northwood '30 capper' P4 that clocked up to 3.8Ghz on air. I loved that thing and it gave AMD systems a good run for their money. All for £115 .

 

[ubersonic]

I remember when Conroe debuted it was a phenomenal chip which wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for the AMD gobbling up Intel's market share

Conroe would always have existed because after netburst slammed into a wall Intel were forced to largely abandon Pentium 4 development (aside from tacking on more cores and stuff) and hyper evolve the Pentium 3 into Core.

 

[ben90]

You never know the 6900k may end up being better value for money

This is a pretty good point when you consider its single core performance. If the price of all components was lowered to a decent price, it may still be favourable to gamers who want to upgrade. It will definitely be interesting to see what happens over the next few months.

 

[Goody_GTI]

These leaks are really impressive, is the NDA lifted next week? If so when do Intel drop there prices?

Hopefuly just after AMD drop their pants...

 

[AlamoX]

this is all good but i am trying to find a way how AMD could screw up this launch yet again
i have a bad feeling about XFR and overall OC, i also have a very bad feeling about Ryzen stock availability at launch.
and i have another bad feeling about my ability to pick the mobo/cooler/ram that i want, rather than settle for what's available, everything seem to be a bit late to where it should be for 28feb/2march big release.

 

[Yaayuh!]

I agree with the XFR worry, though only because we don't actually know how it works and if it gets in the way of overclocking or not.

 

[Hagar]

this is all good but i am trying to find a way how AMD could screw up this launch yet again
i have a bad feeling about XFR and overall OC, i also have a very bad feeling about Ryzen stock availability at launch.
and i have another bad feeling about my ability to pick the mobo/cooler/ram that i want, rather than settle for what's available, everything seem to be a bit late to where it should be for 28feb/2march big release.

Its always possible, I remember Sandybridge.

I am not too worried about OC beyond about 4 - 4.2GHz if the performance is there below. Nice to use a bit less power and produce a bit less heat and noise.

I will be reading a lot of manuals next weekend.

 

[Davedree]

this is all good but i am trying to find a way how AMD could screw up this launch yet again
i have a bad feeling about XFR and overall OC, i also have a very bad feeling about Ryzen stock availability at launch.
and i have another bad feeling about my ability to pick the mobo/cooler/ram that i want, rather than settle for what's available, everything seem to be a bit late to where it should be for 28feb/2march big release.

I'm confident that Xfr is just a marketing promotion for those with ''all the gear and no idea''=Fx9590. It looks to be taken from the Bristol Ridge design which is essentially a shadow p-state working in combination with the Avfs System.
Providing the multipliers are fully unlocked and there's no hard limit governor on the power sensor through the AVFS system (like apm mode on am3+), then in theory it's just voltage scaling vs silicon lottery.
But if Xfr has to be used to enable tweaking beyond the power limit, then I agree it's essentially an Intel 'K' situation both for the board and cpu choice.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Looks like I was correct when I expected Haswell to Broadwell level single core performance - whats more surprising is that SMT scales better on Ryzen!! This means the 4C/8T parts are going to be quite strong in any games which thread well. We might be seeing closer to Broadwell to Skylake levels for the 4C/8T CPUs in games which scale well with more threads.

 

[Silent_Scone]

I'm confident that Xfr is just a marketing promotion for those with ''all the gear and no idea''=Fx9590. It looks to be taken from the Bristol Ridge design which is essentially a shadow p-state working in combination with the Avfs System.
Providing the multipliers are fully unlocked and there's no hard limit governor on the power sensor through the AVFS system (like apm mode on am3+), then in theory it's just voltage scaling vs silicon lottery.
But if Xfr has to be used to enable tweaking beyond the power limit, then I agree it's essentially an Intel 'K' situation both for the board and cpu choice.

Whilst the shadow p-state theory does make sense, I've heard it's even more elementary than that - controlled via the given application. It would tie in with the granular clock adjustments that shadow p-states allows, though.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Also apparently someone noticed one of the pictures in the leak said the 25th too!!

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The P4 slowly climbed from 1.6Ghz to 3.8Ghz. It was the whole point of Netburst as has been mentioned before. They brought it in as an architecture that would scale to huge speeds. Obviously at that point they didn't realise how difficult that would actually be, and how thermal limitations would stop it but it was all about clock speed.

Back in the day I had a 3.0 Northwood '30 capper' P4 that clocked up to 3.8Ghz on air. I loved that thing and it gave AMD systems a good run for their money. All for £115 .

The Pentium D 805 was good value for money too.