Ryzen "2" ?

[kitfit1]

It all seems good, it will be nice if AMD can launch these without as someone put it earlier, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Just how can AMD get this wrong, with the decent leaks, it is all looking rosy.

It would actually be a good launch if AMD stick to the launch.............................................................ie, don't bring out out a 2800X a few months down the line. That would put them in the same "milking" bracket as Intel and Nvidia.

 

[jigger]

If true then its great to see them become cheaper.
I recon the 2800 is only a couple of months away, being saved for a big clocks release to counter intel - with a much higher price than the rest of the range.

Not sure what Intel could offer up as competition though. They can't match anything AMD have now, never mind faster versions offering better value.

I think Intels main focus over the next 3 years will be the graphics market.

 

[sideways14a]

Maybe a desperate attempt to win back the top of the review charts, assuming AMD takes it which is another thing entirely.
An 8750k maybe with 100Mhz bump?
A higher clocked 7820k, say 4.5 Ghz turbo...

Amd could return with a 4.5Ghz turbo 2800x

 

[jigger]

Maybe a desperate attempt to win back the top of the review charts, assuming AMD takes it which is another thing entirely.
An 8750k maybe with 100Mhz bump?
A higher clocked 7820k, say 4.5 Ghz turbo...

Amd could return with a 4.5Ghz turbo 2800x

Until Intel drop the ringbus and find a way to scale over cores they get beat.

 

[pandem0nium]

Until Intel drop the ringbus and find a way to scale over cores they get beat.

They'll have to glue them together

 

[4K8KW10]

Maybe a desperate attempt to win back the top of the review charts, assuming AMD takes it which is another thing entirely.
An 8750k maybe with 100Mhz bump?
A higher clocked 7820k, say 4.5 Ghz turbo...

Amd could return with a 4.5Ghz turbo 2800x

Except that in many applications, the difference in Ryzens' favour is so enormous, that no 100 MHz would do anything to remove it.

Not sure what Intel could offer up as competition though. They can't match anything AMD have now, never mind faster versions offering better value.

I think Intels main focus over the next 3 years will be the graphics market.

Yes:



The difference between the green bars, between 106 and 27 is 3.925x.



https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-R...-review-available-from-April-19.289396.0.html

 

[BongoHunter]

Would be better if there's done benches for something newer that a 6700k from 2015 tbh

 

[sideways14a]

In some applications yes its excellent, however in some others it is not - gaming ... which apparently according to many on this forum and the rest of the web is all that counts, the old 1st gen chips aint touching the intel chips (raw Mhz and a little better IPC)

So as gaming is the most important application any CPU can ever be used for - sod supercomputers, server farms, clouds, rendering, bla bla bla - will intel want to get the crown back if the 2700 takes it.. which it prob wont.

/sarc

 

[~>Dg<~]

just wait not long now. amd will push the selling point side of the multi side.not its weaknesses

 

[jigger]

In some applications yes its excellent, however in some others it is not - gaming ... which apparently according to many on this forum and the rest of the web is all that counts, the old 1st gen chips aint touching the intel chips (raw Mhz and a little better IPC)

So as gaming is the most important application any CPU can ever be used for - sod supercomputers, server farms, clouds, rendering, bla bla bla - will intel want to get the crown back if the 2700 takes it.. which it prob wont.

/sarc

It's neck and neck in gaming TBH.

 

[DragonQ]

Would be better if there's done benches for something newer that a 6700k from 2015 tbh

There's only really one relevant "newer" chip they could test, the i7-8700K, which tells you something about the state of Intel's CPU line-up.

 

[sideways14a]

It was not AMD who tested these either, it was Sisoft.

 

[gavinh87]

It's neck and neck in gaming TBH.

ROFL

 

[Beren]

I am really looking forward to seeing how the 2600x stacks up now. I dislike comparisons against chips that are two generations old - it feels disingenuous, I suspect that a month from release we are still going to be seeing driver development and they have kept the review like this so that they can re-edit if needed.

Price wise the 2600 is going to be all kinds of compelling. It looks like it is going to be very close to 8700k performance in an i5 price bracket.

 

[4K8KW10]

In some applications yes its excellent, however in some others it is not - gaming ... which apparently according to many on this forum and the rest of the web is all that counts, the old 1st gen chips aint touching the intel chips (raw Mhz and a little better IPC)

So as gaming is the most important application any CPU can ever be used for - sod supercomputers, server farms, clouds, rendering, bla bla bla - will intel want to get the crown back if the 2700 takes it.. which it prob wont.

/sarc

Gaming is the last point for justification of i5s and i7s sales. If they lose that, it is game over.
This is why they are holding for it so desperately, it's life saving.

 

[Jono8]

Would be better if there's done benches for something newer that a 6700k from 2015 tbh

This. The 2700x should be benched against the 8700/8700k as they are in the same sort of price bracket, not an EOL 6700k Seems rather pointless to bench AMD's new 2018 stuff with Intel's 2015 stuff.

 

[4K8KW10]

This. The 2700x should be benched against the 8700/8700k as they are in the same sort of price bracket, not an EOL 6700k Seems rather pointless to bench AMD's new 2018 stuff with Intel's 2015 stuff.

Err?! Two mistakes - first is that i7-8700K was released in Q4 2017, which means i7-6700K/i7-7700K was the latest and greatest thing till Q4 2017, nothing about 2015.
And second - the Ryzen 7 2700X has to be benched against an equivalent 8-core / 16-thread chip from Intel. Any suggestions which one it should be?

 

[Jono8]

Err?! Two mistakes - first is that i7-8700K was released in Q4 2017, which means i7-6700K/i7-7700K was the latest and greatest thing till Q4 2017, nothing about 2015.
And second - the Ryzen 7 2700X has to be benched against an equivalent 8-core / 16-thread chip from Intel. Any suggestions which one it should be?

What?

 

[Steveocee]

Err?! Two mistakes - first is that i7-8700K was released in Q4 2017, which means i7-6700K/i7-7700K was the latest and greatest thing till Q4 2017, nothing about 2015.
And second - the Ryzen 7 2700X has to be benched against an equivalent 8-core / 16-thread chip from Intel. Any suggestions which one it should be?

And that is the perpetual grey patch that means you can't "actually" bench them against one another. Ideal world, bench Intels top end i7 against AMD's top end Ryzen but the AMD fan bois will cry that it's not fair.

I want to see "real" benches of a stock 1700X vs a 2700X. Let that be the first difference, show an improvement against your own product before you go onto the offensive at another brand. Intel have a batter single core performance, Ryzen will naturally have better multi core as it has more cores. Yet more grey patches because X application uses multi cores better than Y.

There will always be pros and cons of each, I just hope that the gains over their own product are worth the hype train building.

 

[~>Dg<~]

Gaming is the last point for justification of i5s and i7s sales. If they lose that, it is game over.
This is why they are holding for it so desperately, it's life saving.

you think ryzen two are beating intels in gaming you in cuckoo land. thats why multithread is being marketed more.using the strengths to sell it not its weakness.