Blogs AMD isn’t planning to steal a little market share...

AMD seem to have set their sights on the X99 platform with the focus on Moar Cores and highly threaded benchmarks. This is great if you are already on X99 or looking at X299 and want a cheaper option.

Whether they can turn that into volume sales is yet to be seen. There is a gulf of workloads between single-threaded and embarrassingly multi-threaded where adding more cores actually nets you more performance. Gustafson's Law applies for easily threadable workloads, but those workloads have generally moved to GPGPU. The remaining workloads sit firmly under Amdahl's Law scaling.

 

I'm just hoping the 4 & 6 core chips will offer better over clocking than what seems to be the case with the 8 core variants.

Maybe having up to 4 less cores on the chip will add another 300-500mhz to their speed..hopefully.

Otherwise I just hope the sudden competition will drop the 7700K down to the £250 range.

 

On the CH6 box Asus state you can run Athlons. Ryzen Athlons...

Which should be as cheap as dirt tbh.

 

I havent owned an AMD CPU since 939 / AM2+ days, but I am really excited for the shake up that this will force at Intel.

 

To be brutally honest, I'm hoping Intel are going to take a repeated kicking to the genitalia in a metaphoric sense - they have offered little since Sandybridge other than ever increasing price tags, the i3 7350K being a prime example of the contempt they seem to hold the consumer in.

 

Can AMD really make a big comeback though when, or if, Intel could slash their prices overnight and afford to keep doing so, it seems to me AMD has to offer something Intel can't combat with an overnight management decision.

Obviously reduced prices is great for the consumer but a price war isn't going to benefit AMD.

 

If Intel price match or price lower than Ryzen I will put £5 into Gareth's charity.

Ed. Even the crappy P4 cost more than the Athlons even though it was total Thomas Tit.

 

Bit-Tech will still say it's worth buying lol

 

They wouldn't need to match or have a lower price, they'd just need to reduce prices enough to make the price/performance ratio competitive with AMD, when you're a company in AMD's situation you can't afford to enter a price war, you have to offer the customer something they can't buy from your competitor, you have to have a secret sauce (IMO).

 

I think that those are coming late this year, but the GPU will be far ahead of the IrisPro; I think that even the current APUs are ahead of IrisPro on the iGPU front.

 

If offered similar performance for similar price, id bet that quite a few single unit purchasers would opt for the underdog, a little bit if human nature.

 

Show me at anytime in history that Intel have lowered prices because of competition....

 

We shall see in 3 months when the next market share figures are live the AMD 480 gpu did little to nothing to dent nvidia market share

 

They did, just not for end users.

Remember the illegal deals they did with Dell and co that provided rebates on Intel Cpus in return for locking Amd out of the pre built market.

 

The reason they lowered prices is probably going to be disputed but IMO that's what they did with the P4, the last time they had real competition.

 

I agree with the above - AMD need to get their overclocking headroom sorted if they want to compete in the enthusiast market, which is made up primarily of gamers who want the best single thread performance.

 

Whilst I hope Ryzen is good and would be happy to buy it, I would be ecstatic if it forced Intel to slash prices and push the HEDT platform mainstream, that's what I want but not enough to pay current rates

That said part of me wants to support AMD to stick it to Intel and their dumbass platform changes with almost every chip release, I really liked how long my old AMD systems lasted sockets wise.

 

Still confused as to why this is an argument...

I was using a dual core Pentium G4400 in my Z170 rig for 3-4 months while I waited for a good deal on an i7 (which I got) - The ONLY game that ran well, without both cores maxing out on CPU usage and stuttering all over the place, was Binding Of Isaac. Literally.

Borderlands 2? Slideshow.
Battlefield 1? Not good for my KDR...
X-Com 2? Ok that game has issues anyways, but the difference after plugging the 6700 in was night and day.

This was in a system with a nVME SSD, 32GB of DDR4 and only running a 1080p monitor.

Honestly, if your playing games that are still only single-threaded, you're not really in the market for a current, high end system, are you?

 

I think you misunderstood my point. If it's already possible to buy a CPU that provides 8 threads which have exceptionally good single threaded performance, then there's no real reason for the enthusiast market to jump ship to 8C/16T if the single threaded performance is mediocre by comparison.

Which Ryzen CPU competes with the 7700K in terms of price? The 1700, which for all we know might not even make 4GHz and trundles along at 3-point-something...meanwhile the 7700K will do pretty much 5GHz guaranteed, so on that count it's a no-brainer for most enthusiasts.

I didn't ever say it was sensible or grounded, but the market is what it is, and most enthusiasts like teh GHz.