1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'CPUs' started by Boomstick777, Apr 10, 2015.

  1. Alexrose1uk

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Apr 26, 2004

    Posts: 8,291

    Location: Milton Keynes

    I think its deliberate. Average Joe doesn't know what spec processor he's got, he knows it's i3/i5/i7 etc (The sticker on the front says so :D). AMD are likely wanting to tap into that by leveraging you get more with an R3 vs I3, i5 vs R5 etc. You're looking at an I3?...could get more with a Ryzen 3 etc.

    It's all about common denominators and essentially trying to crush Intel's current price stack in terms of given performance/clocks/cores at a given price point.
     
  2. Jeps

    Hitman

    Joined: Jul 9, 2009

    Posts: 964

    Is a deliberate move to make it easy for the average Joe to see where AMD's lineup slot in compared to intels more established brand names.
     
  3. AlamoX

    Wise Guy

    Joined: May 8, 2014

    Posts: 2,288

    Location: france

    1800X is simply for enthusiasts who likes to benchmark, Binned chips, you pay the extra money to increase your odds for the chip lottery, thats worth 100$, you should be glad, intel would have charged you 200$ for it.
    the 1700X is just AMD Overclocking the CPU for you, from the regular 1700, thats worth 70$, and again should be happy, intel would have locked the Overclocking for you on basic model, charge you 70$ for overclocking ability, and then charge you again another 100$ for the extra clock speed.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2017
  4. Alexrose1uk

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Apr 26, 2004

    Posts: 8,291

    Location: Milton Keynes

    That will depend to some extent if we find those binned chips clock better especially once the processes mature. People will pay the extra cash for higher guaranteed clocks; if you keep the CPU for several years, its not much extra in the scheme of things.
     
  5. Stretlow

    Gangster

    Joined: Aug 5, 2013

    Posts: 262

    Thanks for the info. I'm looking for a new board and CPU (and ram) but I'm still undecided

    Edit.. I am toying with the 1700 and the MSI carbon though. Which is obviously an upgrade from what I currently have..
     
  6. Alexrose1uk

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Apr 26, 2004

    Posts: 8,291

    Location: Milton Keynes

    If you don't have to buy now you have the luxury of waiting for the R5 and seeing what the final clocks will be. We already know the R5 1600X will be 3.6/4.0 6c/12t for example, pricing very likely to be around £250. The rest of the R3/5 stack may well also tweak.

    We thought the 8c Ryzen chips were going to be lower clocked previously afterall too!
     
  7. CAT-THE-FIFTH

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 9, 2009

    Posts: 18,167

    Location: Planet Earth

    Totally spot on - I went with an IB Xeon E3 over a higher clockspeed IB Core i5 and never regretted as it has lasted well. This was in a time when you could pay as little as £175 for one,and use it in normal motherboards.

    Intel was making enough money selling a Core i7 for Core i5 money,but probably realised more and more gamers buying one instead of the overpriced normal Core i7.

    OFC,Intel on purpose made sure from SKL onwards they blocked the normal 1151 motherboards from using them forcing people to use the "new" socket 1151 C232 based motherboards,just like the fact they blocked BCLK overclocking on KL too.

    There is nothing stopping Intel from selling even a locked 4C/8T Core i7 for £200 to £250 as they were selling them for years with no problem.

    All this concentration on MOAR MHZ,will lead Intel to barely drop prices,and might even cause AMD to quietly increase prices too.

    It seems people really loved to be milked with as high a price for CPUs as they can possibly get away with.
     
  8. Chrisc

    Hitman

    Joined: Jun 29, 2016

    Posts: 695

    Location: Up Norf


    :D:D Exactly!
     
  9. Alexrose1uk

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Apr 26, 2004

    Posts: 8,291

    Location: Milton Keynes

    The thing that sticks out to me is if I pick up at £250 R5 1600X@4/3.6 in a month or so, or R7 1700 at 3GHz/3.7GHz, it will have higher ST IPC than my 4.84GHz Sandy, considerably more MT processing power due to the additional cores and threads (and seemingly more efficient SMT) and will support newer technologies, and will offer me a much better rounded package than anything £250 from Intel right now.
    I'm pretty sure I paid around £300 for my 2700K, that's going to be able to get me a 8c16th chip now, that will perform AT LEAST as well core per core even with clock deficit differences and my hefty overclock, and realistically looking like it will perform better with much more overhead or total processing power at a given cost (50-100% or more), whilst consuming less power than my overclocked 2700k. THAT is finally progress.

    By contrast, Intel right now for that money would get me ~20% better per core performance...but thats it...same number of cores, same number of threads...and I'd need to pay MORE for the chip to do it.

    That's why this is a big deal.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2017
  10. Emlyn_Dewar

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 15, 2003

    Posts: 12,507

    Location: Chengdu

    I have no need for this CPU, but I'm all about the hype-train now. :D
     
  11. loxocemus

    Gangster

    Joined: Feb 12, 2017

    Posts: 233

    i have no idea what most of whats been said about it means, i just need a new cpu.

     
  12. Uriel

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Jan 15, 2006

    Posts: 7,610

    Lower end Kaby Pentiums still seem OK value though :)
     
  13. SiDeards73

    Soldato

    Joined: Feb 19, 2011

    Posts: 5,561

    Location: Kent

  14. shankly1985

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 25, 2011

    Posts: 18,752

    Location: The KOP

    You still living in early 2000? Most recently games are now using more core/threads I even seen an increase in performance switching from i5 to i7.
     
  15. CAT-THE-FIFTH

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 9, 2009

    Posts: 18,167

    Location: Planet Earth

    Ignoring any exchange rate fluctuations for a minute,we really need a shake up in pricing. Look at the current Intel range - under £175 is just dual cores with HT!!

    If you told people during the SB days we would be paying more for a Core i3 K series CPU in a few years than a Core i5 2500K in the UK they would have thought you were being a tad potty.

    Edit!!

    All this obsession about single core performance is what Intel wants,so they can price smaller and smaller CPUs ever higher. Its important,but its not the only metric when it comes to game performance.
     
  16. Alexrose1uk

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Apr 26, 2004

    Posts: 8,291

    Location: Milton Keynes

    Wouldn't surprise me if AMD has something in mind to crush those too!
     
  17. Alexrose1uk

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Apr 26, 2004

    Posts: 8,291

    Location: Milton Keynes

    Definately, and that's exactly why, as you say ignoring exchange rates, that AMD coming in at such competitive prices will definately do something to put that right.

    If Intel won't compete on prices, then OEMs, system builders etc will begin using AMD chips. There are talk of Apple swapping from Intel to Ryzen, and with the price difference, for production machines, why not?

    Every company/OEM/SI that begins to show a heavier AMD presence will put AMD into consumers heads more, and knock a small amount of influence away from Intel.

    They need to compete now on pricing, or they will lose market share...simple. They could be anticompetitive again, but the fines last time...
     
  18. mmj_uk

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 26, 2003

    Posts: 22,604

    Any buyers should wait for Intel price drops before diving in feet first, Intel could in terms of pricing position 6800K against Ryzen quad core, 6850K against hex, 6900K against 1700X and and 6950X against the 1800X. I doubt they they will but there's the possibility.

    7700K doesn't necessarily have to change since AMD have no competing APU's yet.
     
  19. CAT-THE-FIFTH

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 9, 2009

    Posts: 18,167

    Location: Planet Earth

    Its depressing,if I were to replace my current build with a Core i7 7700(since using a Xeon E3 is now not worth it due to the price of the C232 mini-ITX motherboards),it would cost MORE than the price of my Xeon E3 and a suitable mini-ITX motherboard just for the CPU alone.
     
  20. Alexrose1uk

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Apr 26, 2004

    Posts: 8,291

    Location: Milton Keynes

    I'm a massive geek, and there's a reason beyond just being married that I haven't done a complete system overhaul in so long. Once money is in place...the time is now finally coming.