News AMD unveils Ryzen processors, boasts of Intel-beating performance

Ryzen sounds like a character from Street Fighter.

Looking forward to when us Jo public get to find out if the hype is borne out with real world testing.

 

Is it a play on word - Ryzen to rising. A hopeful comeback like Phoenix arising from the ashes.

 

Nope! Most people thought it would be because that would make sense, but instead it's pronounced rye-zen, though it sounded more like ricin at times on the stream.

 

Bit of a shame that it's the name that seems to be grabbing peoples attention rather than the performance that was shown. It's in everyone's interest for AMD to do well again and properly compete with Intel.

If performance really has improved that much then my next rig will be AMD-based, even if it's still lagging behind Intel a bit.

 

Probably because until that performance can be independently verified it's all but meaningless, it's even more meaningless seeing as AMD are still fine tuning SenseMI so we've no idea about boost clocks.

 

A "broken" cpu trashing a £1000 Intel cpu in handbrake isn't bad, but we have no confirmation still if AMD will be any less greedy than Intel, plus the fact that AMD can't even get a finished cpu for itself paints a very bleak picture regarding launch date.

 

I'd be surprised if they decided to be greedy. I imagine it's better for them to try and sell more for less and get market share. AMD CPU's are considered the budget option and I doubt that will change unless they are actually able to outperform Intel, and do it for a couple CPU generations.

Of course, I could be wrong.

 

AMD won't get market share even if it blows away Intel. These will be high prices cpus. To gain market share you need Dell or Lenovo to buy Millions of units. ( doubt AMD could produce millions of units)

The enthusiast sector alone is not big enough to get AMD it's market share gains. Look at Gpus the mid range 480 is more than good enough. Yet Nvidia still has its market share lead.

This cpu will be a high end tech demo with a price to match is a worrying feeling I have. We are meant to be a month from launch but have very little in finalised details.

Even the benchmark AMD used is fixed matched clocks. Neither cpu can boost we don't even know if it's Intels base clock.

Would rather see a AMD revival in gpu high end than cpus. It's much more realistic too.

 

Personally i think Zen, and by extension Ryzen, will be a very scalable architecture.

We already know it uses less power for around the same performance as Intel so AMD probably has room to maneuver on power and clock speeds, hopefully that will allow them to sell the same silicon across a wide range of markets.

It's also a newer basic design than what Intel's been using for what seems like an age, the Core series.

 

Having fried my PC I am in the market, I always liked the platform stability of AMD, always seemed to be able to drop in a new chip, lets hope they continue down that path rather than the path of obsolescence with every chip release Intel has, I can barely find parts to test out what has broken on my PC after a spillage.

 

Finally, something that might get me off my old i5-2400

 

I'm hoping AMD become competitive again. I'm not anticipating having to replace my CPUs for another 5 years and by that time I'd like to go AMD to save a few hundred £.

 

If you have a modern skylake chip or Haswell chip your not really looking to upgrade either way. Unless something major changes for gaming I am still gpu limited even with a nvidia 1080 ( how crazy is that lol)

Spending whatever this costs will likely give 0 gains. Most people are in similar situations. On sandy or Ivy chips at high ghz and looking at upgrades that will do little.

Well aware not everyone plays games but the software itemisation for more than 4 cores + hyper threading is really poor. Most photo and video apps do nothing with the extra threads.

Intels 10 core chip is basically a waste of space in the home sector, unless you have a business designed program.

For me at least what the 4/8 does is likely more realistic to 90% of people's future needs.

 

I wouldn't buy a £1k cpu for the sake of upgrading, but if they released that 6900k beater for lets say £500? I'd be jumping on that bandwagon on launch day, need or not.

 

£500 may well be nothing more than wishful thinking on my part, but look at it the other way round, Intel 6C/12T for £360... so it would still be a £140 premium for two more cores.

 

Intel have been far too precious of their cores for far too long tbh. I really don't know why.

Yesterday I bought an 8c 16t Ivy Bridge EP Xeon that clocks to 2.8ghz and boosts to around 3.4 IIRC. So I have managed to buy about 80% of a stock 5960x or possibly even more than that for £100. That's pretty nuts really !

There are 10 and 12 core variants of these chips too and they were released ages ago so I don't understand why Intel don't release more CPUs with more cores (well I do, greed).

I'm hoping AMD stick a boot up their jacksie and start a core war.

 

I've just gone AMD from Nvidia because I thought they were pricing their cards too high. I'm getting Ryzen, as long as they don't go silly on the price, for my new year setup, just because I've had enough of Intel mugging us off the last few years. Just keeping my fingers crossed everything we have been told about Zen/Ryzen isn't all misleading sales hype.

 

If Ryzen can do in the programs I use what it's demonstrated with Handbrake and Blender, I'll be seriously interested.

It'll depend partially on total platform cost as well. Even the 'good value' HEDT Intel chips come with a much larger price tag because X99 is so expensive.