Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
AMD Hardware

AMD Set To Launch Ryzen Before March 3rd (anandtech.com) 91

An anonymous reader shares an AnandTech report: Thanks to some sleuthing from various readers, AMD has accidentally let the cat out of the bag with regards to the official Ryzen launch date. While they haven't specifically given an exact date, the talk to be given by AMD at the annual Game Developer Conference (GDC) says the following: "Join AMD Game Engineering team members for an introduction to the recently-launched AMD Ryzen CPU followed by advanced optimization topics." The GDC event runs from February 27th to March 3rd, and currently the AMD talk is not on the exact schedule yet, so it could appear any day during the event (so be wary if anyone says Feb 27th). At this time AMD has not disclosed an exact date either, but it would be an interesting time to announce the new set of Ryzen CPUs right in the middle of both GDC and Mobile World Congress which is also during that week. It would mean that Ryzen news may end up being buried under other GDC and smartphone announcements.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD Set To Launch Ryzen Before March 3rd

Comments Filter:
  • AMD has (Score:5, Funny)

    by sirber ( 891722 ) on Wednesday January 11, 2017 @12:23PM (#53648725)
    Ryzen from the dead!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I hope AMD succeeds.

      We need competition on the x86 CPU space. Intel dominates the top end of the x86 space right now, and they have no incentive to come up with better CPUs. Today's top of the line CPU is just last year's top of the line CPU with a few features tacked on and less power consumption (which sounds great on paper, but in practice takes roughly 10 years for the savings to materialize... and by then, you've already swapped your CPU 3 times).

      But I don't think AMD can pull it off. It's been about 1

      • Re:AMD has (Score:5, Interesting)

        by barc0001 ( 173002 ) on Wednesday January 11, 2017 @01:06PM (#53648975)

        > in practice takes roughly 10 years for the savings to materialize... and by then, you've already swapped your CPU 3 times

        Actually these days, not so much. I've got an i5 2500K that I bought in early 2011 in my home workstation, and I have no plans to replace it any time soon. My general rule is that I won't replace a processor unless it's both old and I will get around twice the performance of the old one. Looking at what I'd replace it with if I was to build the same machine today - an i5 6600K - there's just no point. I'd get about a 50% boost over what I have, and what I have is already more processor than I need for just about anything I do with the exception of gaming. And for that the money is better spent on a new video card, and that's what I do replace every 2-3 years.

        In the past with Moore's Law that was around every 2 years, but Intel's been stagnant on progress for so long, they're now running ads like this:


        Oooo... up to 28% better performance than a 3 year old part! And all you need to do is replace your chip, motherboard and probably RAM. Pass. Instead of spending $600 on all that I'll just drop $200 on last year's hot high end video card.

        • Also the fact... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          That the older processors probably do a better job of 'respecting your rights', whereas the new ones from Intel, AMD, and ARM licensees all have Clipper Chip on steroid built in and very difficult if not impossible for the end user/hardware owner to disable.

          Hackaday just posted an article that claims to be able to disable the Intel ME via firmware hacking, but in order to do it you need either a socketed bios chip, or a programmer with clip leads to read, modify and reprogram a soldered down one.

          What that l

      • The fact that Intel is simply cashing in on their past success is probably the thing that will allow AMD to catch up. I don't think Intel even wants to blow AMD out of the water. This would cost more money and bring on monopoly accusations. That said, I'm glad we seem to be in the part of the cycle where AMD might overtake Intel and spur some competition. The other part of the cycle is boring.
      • The x64 is no longer the only game in town. Aside from ARM, which has been gaining traction, there is also RISC V coming along, and so there will be alternatives in the market. What's more - since Android seems to be in the driver's seat, rather than Windows, x64 has even less clout going forward.

        The fact that more semiconductor houses can make ARMs or RISC Vs, but only Intel and AMD the x64 means that those CPUs would be more attractive to vendors to support than x64. Don't be surprised to see even

      • No incentive or are physics in the way?

        Serious question because I am doubtful that they're just "not advancing" just because of "no competition" But rather I don't think it's possible to move as fast with performance increases now because we're rapidly approaching the limits of current silicon designs can do.

      • My main box uses an AMD Phenom II X6 3.7GHz. Built in 2009, I've upgraded the memory, graphics, and RAID array, installed a USB 3.0 card, and replaced a burned out DVD drive, but the CPU and motherboard still kick ass.

        Oh, and it runs Windows 7 Ultimate. I win.

  • Where is the competition though? I still feel like as far as speeds go Intel wins. So what is keeping AMD alive, price and a new flashy name...?
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I would say the fact that their processors compete with Intels $1,000 processors and will be expected to be between $500 to $800 for that level of performance would cause a great deal of competition.

      They don't have to beat them and their highest of high end offerings, the just have to match them at the levels the consumers buy which they appear to be doing just that. So I expect to see some great competition between them with Intel also being forced to lower their prices to remain competitive with them.

    • Where is the competition though? I still feel like as far as speeds go Intel wins. So what is keeping AMD alive, price and a new flashy name...?

      Price is enough. Half the performance for 25% of the price is a pretty compelling package for some of us, which is roughly how the current chips come out, maybe better. If the new chips are in the same ballpark, they'll sell like hot dogs.

      • As long as you're willing to settle for half the performance and also being perceived as really cheap.

        • I don't think many people buy CPUs as a status symbol. So yes, I suspect many people will be ok with the stigma of owning a cheap CPU if it means they were actually able to spend less money on it, and it does what they need.
        • As long as you're willing to settle for half the performance and also being perceived as really cheap.

          My current primary transport is a 1982 300SD, what do you think?

          • Pease drove a '67 bug and it ultimately killed him. Be careful.

            • Pease drove a '67 bug and it ultimately killed him. Be careful.

              I'm working on upgrading to a 1998 A8 Quattro. It's the only model they bothered crash testing, but it got five stars so that's cool for me if not for later A8 buyers. The W126 300SD is pretty much the safest car of its era as well.

      • Its not 25% of the price though. Not sure where you got that from. The benchmark Intel cpu that AMD is competing against is the I7-7700K, which is $350 on Amazon. It will be the AMD 6-core against that one.

        AMD will also be able to compete against Intel's i3's. An unlocked Ryzen *anything* (say, the 4-core ryzen) will be the hands-down winner against any Intel i3 chip on the low-end. Intel will have to either unlock the multipliers on all of its chips to compete, or pump up what they offer in their i3-

    • Ferraris are faster than Toyotas. That doesn't imply that Ferrari is doing better than Toyota as a company. Intel is doing better than AMD, but it's not because it makes the fastest chips. Very few people are buying the $1000 Intel chips. Intel is winning the $200-$300 chip market. AMD could very conceivably start competing or even start winning in this market even if it doesn't take the top spot.
  • by cheese_boy ( 118027 ) on Wednesday January 11, 2017 @01:23PM (#53649073)

    I have it on good authority that it'll be Feb. 29th.

  • Wasn't it ment to have been launched in 2016?

  • I am more excited by the use of a single socket (AM4) for the entire platform. It will now be possible to use their non-APU processors on an ITX board which previously have been limited to the FM# sockets. Don't need Intel overpriced crap for an extra 5FPS.

Murphy's Law, that brash proletarian restatement of Godel's Theorem. -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"