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

Gaming wise still a lot of unknowns in regards to Ryzen. If the future is huge Multicore multithreaded games we all might need a upgrade.

Let's be honest though we all thought 4 cores would become mainstream faster than it has. With basically just 2016 AAA games 4 cores. Hyperthreading support and 6 core+ is still a long way away is a feeling. I would love to see things move on that way.

Push the ground on 6 core + gaming. But think we are still years away which is rather sad in truth.

AMD have a great base ground it seems to build from in Ryzen let's hope they do gain the market share they need. Which you would assume is 30% minimum.

We shall see in 3 months where they are at.

 

They did release more Cpus with Iris Pro last year,
i7-6785R, i5-6685R and the Core i5-6585R

But the only way to get your hands on them is soldered on a mainboard as they aren't socketed... Why?

Intel Logic or Aliens, one of the two.

 

I see - and you're very right. But this is why the other half of the enthusiast market are so excited by Ryzen - because this is the road Intel has been forcing us all down for the best part of a decade (minimal IPC+higher clocks every generation).

Should it have taken AMD this long to get a 40-50% IPC improvement? Who can say, they've certainly had their share of hurdles to get over. But what excuse does Intel have for 7 generations of mainstream CPU's, all maxing out at 4c/8t, spread over 4 different sockets, capable of overclocking within 400-500Mhz of each other, while offering single digit performance increases incrementally?

Ultimately, it's nice to have choice. Can you imagine if we only had Ford and Renault to choose from in cars?!

 

The 1700 does 3.9-4.05ghz. This is according to Gibbo and we all know where he would have been getting his information from. 8 Pack may not be the most articulate fellow I have ever met but when it comes to clocking he's the best, at least in the UK.

At which point it doesn't really matter how hard you clock on a hex core, you ain't catching it.

It's funny how many people are saying how the 7700k can do 5ghz and so on. It would ! it's got four cores and a tiny die. It's taken Intel *years* to reach that stage and not all of them even do 5ghz. Most settle on 4.8ghz. Probably because of that cheap, rubbish TIM they have been using for years now.

Plus it's funny how all of a sudden Intel fans seem to have gotten amnesia and forgot how -

1. They lusted after the 5960x, even though it clocked like crap.
2. If you have those cores and threads you can take a massive hit mhz wise but still come out weeing all over a quad core in anything even remotely threaded.

This "single core" mentality is nuts. Just absolute nuts. It's what Intel want people to think, that is how to charge £185 for 2 cores with 4 threads. And literally every one has fallen for it.

Put it this way. If an 8 core 16t chip can absolutely demolish a 4c 8t chip in Cinebench then it would do exactly the same thing in anything that supported it fully and properly.

6950x? 4ghz if you are unlucky, 4.2 if you are lucky. Does any one want to tell me that a 7850k is faster per thread when overclocked and in a few very old games will actually beat the 6950x?

Of course not. Because we all know that the 6950x is a 10 core 20 thread beast.

Ryzen will be more than good enough for gaming, unless you are a FPS spotter and sit and watch your FPS instead of playing the games. I've got no complaints about my 3.2ghz Ivy chip, it chugs along in gaming just fine.

We know that in BF1 it is faster than a 7700k. It would be, BF has supported many cores for years (even BF3). Yes, AMD totally cherry picked that but it doesn't matter.

Try and remember these are 8 core 16 thread chips. And if you've ever overclocked an 8 core chip (even a crappy old AMD one) you would know how hot they get and how fast they get hot.

These are not rivals for a chip with half of the actual silicon. They are rivals for the Intel big boys, costing up to a grand.

 

Would the problem be the lack of support for said resources. Ignore the benches for a second.

List the software your average consumer uses that requires more than 4 threads ( not cores) just 4 basic threads.

I am struggling to name my one is a very blunt answer.

Enthusaists instead let's say,

Games the biggest by far, Photo and movie editing then that's it. Most of the other options will be sub 0.1% of users.

How it performs in games is very relivent to how the sales will be is a personal oppinion. Right or wrong.

We shall see in 3 months like I said before how much Market share AMD gains from the initial 8 core Ryzen. I personally feel the 4 core and 6 core will massively outsell the 8 cores.

I hope they gain the market share they need, price reductions are never a bad thing. We can all hope for that. Not sure it will force the price war that we seem to all want though.

 

Not disagreeing with this at all... but my point remains: does it really matter? I don't think so. Enthusiasts don't sit and run Cinebench all day; they use their machines for a bit of everything, and that's where single thread performance matters. It just makes a machine feel faster, placebo or not, and that's what's going to sell a product at the end of the day.

I agree 100% with rollo above - the actual requirement for multi-threaded processing (read: 16 threads) just isn't there for the average end user, so AMD are banking on people buying what they almost certainly don't need for day-to-day computing. It's the future-proofing myth all over again.

Add to that the mind-numbing folly of some prospective buyers, and you get "OMGZ... it's got an RGB cooler...WANT!!!!111!!ONE!!!ELEVEN!11"

At least AMD have their market absolutely tapped...

 

The effect on the prices of second hand chips will be interesting, I can see them taking a massive dive if Intel's price gouging bubble, that has been growing for years now, pops.

AMD are seemingly offering enough FPS for gaming with a competitive IPC, and a whole bunch of compute power for everyday multimedia tasks besides at a sane price. This will smash intel to bits for the DIY self build crowd, but as for the system integrator side, who knows what dirty games will play out.

I remember what an utter flop bulldozer was, would hate to see that happen again.

 

And that is because Intel have not progressed us any further forward than we were a decade ago with the Q6600.

It's been Intel's stage since Sandy, blame them.

As for stuff that uses four cores? loads of it now.

Well at least Intel don't have full control over the market any more. At least now AMD have what appears to be good IPC we can finally move on from quad core CPUs.

 

I remember hearing 4 cores was toast a few years ago when AMD were supposedly going to whoop the competition with their low cost "6 core" CPU's because even then it was said that "most modern games will use more than 4 threads".

It didn't quite work out that way though...

 

Nope. Totally different this time though.

We really need to move on. It's a joke tbh. Intel were doing so well right up until Haswell. Ivy was a decent price (about £170 for an I5 just a little more than Sandy) but at Haswell they started getting greedy *and* cutting corners.

They get treated like some sort of god when they released the 5820k. It wasn't a bad price at launch either (apart from the board and ram costs of course) but then they just went ridiculous after that.

 

How is it different this time?

 

We would like to as enthusiast see more of our available performance been used.

Question still stands what I wrote above, The future maybe Multicore Multithreaded stuff but honestly I dunno.

Pre scorpion we are a decent chunk away and with the PlayStation outselling Microsofts Xbox one at worst 2-1 maybe not even then.

The chips AMD have made seem good in the benches we have been shown, let's hope they do drive the price / performance war and gain AMD the market share they need for future survival.

As others have said single thread will still matter for most, Multi threaded stuff is in my personal oppinion still too far away.

If Scorpion takes off 2019 could be the year we see the 6-8 threaded games take off in a huge way.

 

When we see what they have to offer in the £150 to £170 price bracket, then I might get interested for my next build but until then, meh!

 

I'm excited just because my business does a lot of video and photo editing and batch rendering/exporting

 

Because this time Ryzen is competitive. Which means Intel need to compete.

 

We are not going to see drastic price reductions until we know the state of the 4 core and 6 core options and where they stand.

If the 4 core chip can beat the 7700k then Intel will have to price drop to match.

 

We don't know that yet. You're making assumptions again, just like last time.

 

Eh? I wasn't even around for the last launch (well not here any way). And I made no assumptions with BD. I don't ever make assumptions.. My lady and I talked about it one night. Expectations. If you have them you will usually always end up disappointed.

I don't have any for Ryzen, I'm not buying it

 

We don't know it in the sense that all the cards are laid out in front of us, plain to see (reviews) - but you'd have to be pretty blinkered at this point to deny the the results of the tests Linus did, along with the demos AMD performed live and the numerous leaks from well respected sources.

It's like saying Trump could end up being the best president in American history - sure, he COULD in the sense that we can't see into the future, but with the amount of evidence we have at this point what side of the coin would you put your money on?

 

Looks like intel just slashed there price big time?

http://www.microcenter.com/search/s...by=match&N=4294966995+4294964566&myStore=true