AMD Launches Ryzen, Claims To Beat Intel's Core i7 Offering At Half the Price (hothardware.com) 281
Reader MojoKid writes: AMD CEO, Dr. Lisu Su took to the stage at AMD's Ryzen tech day yesterday and opened the event with official speeds, feeds, pricing, and benchmark scores for the company's upcoming Ryzen series processors. AMD's goal with Ryzen, which is based on its Zen microarchitecture, was a 40% IPC (instructions per clock) uplift. As it turns out, AMD was actually able to increase IPC by approximately 52% with the final shipping product, sometimes more depending on workload type. Dr. Su also showed the first die shot of an 8-core Ryzen processor, disclosing that it consists of approximately 4.8 billion transistors. AMD's flagship Ryzen 7 1800X 8-core/16 thread CPU will have a base clock speed of 3.6GHz, a boost clock of 4.0GHz, and a 95 watt TDP. AMD claims the Ryzen 7 1800X will be the fastest 8-core desktop processor on the market when it arrives. The next member of the line-up is the Ryzen 7 1700X with a base clock of 3.4GHz and a boost clock of 3.8GHz, also with 8 cores and a 95 watt TDP. Finally, the Ryzen 7 1700 – sans X – is also an 8-core / 16-thread CPU, but it has lower 3.0GHz base and 3.7GHz boost clocks, along with a lower 65 watt TDP. AMD took the opportunity to demo the Ryzen 7 1800X and it was approximately 9% faster than the Core i7-6900K running Cinebench R15's multi-threaded test, at about half the cost. And in another comparison, Dr. Su put the 8-core 7 1700 up against the quad-core Core i7-7700K, converting a 4K 60 FPS video down to 1080P and the Ryzen CPU outpaces the Core i7 by 10 full seconds. Pricing for the three initial Ryzen 7 series processors will undercut competing Intel processors significantly. AMD's Ryzen 7 1800X will arrive at $499, Ryzen 7 1700X at $399, and Ryzen 7 1700 at $329. Based on current street prices, Ryzen will be between 20% — 50% lower priced but AMD is claiming performance that's better than Intel at those price points.
FINALLY! (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally competition from AMD! Stop this stagnation madness!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, I fell out of love with AMD due to their inability to compete on power/performance grounds but I'd very much welcome a serious competitor to Intel.
Similar to the AMD graphics cards. I'm unlikely to buy anything called 'Radeon' but I'm glad they exist and force Nvidia to continue to improve and innovate.
If these new AMD chips provide comparable performance at comparable heat levels (I don't care about the power used, I care about the noise needed to dissipate the heat generated) then I'm more than happ
Re: (Score:3)
>I don't care about the power used, I care about the noise needed to dissipate the heat generated
Umm... power used and heat dissipated are basically identical. The actual twiddling of bits does approximately zero work (as defined in physics), so essentially 100% of the power consumed by a CPU is converted into heat.
*(there's a theoretical limit, but it's many orders of magnitude less than anything built by humanity)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, I love spending my money on inferior products that don't work as well, because brand loyalty!
It's called 'voting with your wallet.' If the company isn't getting it done with their product line, they need to know it. And there's no better message delivery than a warehouse full of stale product that nobody wants to buy. How do we know? Because of this story right here - AMD may have come up with a winner. Same or better performance at far less price. And why did they do this? Because Intel was ki
Re:FINALLY! (Score:5, Interesting)
AMD- lately- is 90% of the performance at half (and often less) the price. I'll take that any day. My 8300 with R9 270x plays every game in existence without a problem. Well, it stutters a little on Star Citizen. But so does every PC ever made, no matter how much of a gaming beast it may be.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's a post-hoc justification, if AMD can't compete in a market they can:
a) Make a comeback
b) Exit that market
c) Fail as a company
If it's a market full of competition b) and c) aren't a big deal but if it's the last competitor and it'll become a monopoly it's a pretty big deal. You can still 'vote with your wallet.' but in a one-party state it's not worth much. A boxer on the ropes doesn't need a knock-out punch to know he's in trouble. It's obvious to everyone, including themselves. And AMD has been
Re: (Score:2)
Wow
You call him a consumerist sheep, yet you are the one supporting the, i guess from your comment, harder and more expensive solution. For what gains? do you own stock in AMD? Do you work at AMD? No? then why would you do that yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really rooting for AMD. Some of the first computers I used had K5/K6 chips, they were good, but still outperformed by the equivalent Pentiums. Later, many AMD processors for laptops suffered overheating problems (and all the laptops I wanted had Intel processors). Even though, as you say, competition is good and I'm really looking forward to getting an AMD-powered pc in the near future if there's a good enough one around.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm really rooting for AMD
Not only am I rooting for them, most of my PCs since the late 90s have been AMD whereas all my laptops and the majority of my servers have been Intel (with a few Sparcs & IBM Power thrown in). As AMD was lagging the past few years, I was seriously thinking of buying Intel for my next performance workstation.
Now it looks like I can continue with AMD a while longer and if Ryzen measures up, it'll be my 2017 Xmas present to myself.
Re: FINALLY! (Score:4, Interesting)
All but the first three are still in working order. Looking forward to building a new Ryzen desktop later this year.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, if you like hotter/slower.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not ALL that much though.
Like the 1700X vs 6800K both at $400.
One finish in 100 seconds the other in 112 seconds.
That's 11% faster, but with 33% more cores and a lower / core performance.
The major advantage there though is that a B350 motherboard you will likely be able to get for $100 whereas a X99 one will cost $200.
1800X vs 6900K is half-price for similar performance so that's of course massive but they aren't all that much faster than the cheaper processors. AMD just doesn't charge as much premium
Re:FINALLY! (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally competition from AMD! Stop this stagnation madness!
Don't worry the MBA's will find some way to screw this up they always do
All of this has happened before... (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems that every time Intel gets a significant pile of laurels, they like to rest on them. Then someone comes up from behind to kick them in the ass. AMD has done it before, perhaps with this generation they can do it again.
And who wins? We all do. Last time, Intel got off their ass and created the Core-series that has expanded PC processing power to the point where upgrade cycles have gone from 3 years to 6+. Let's hope that this shot across the bow ushers in a new era of chip design that brings features we want, rather than the features that they think we want.
Re:All of this has happened before... (Score:4, Informative)
So they haven't been resting on their laurels. They've been working hard at reducing power consumption. That's what really hurt AMD after they lost their performance lead. For a few years AMD still offered more performance per Watt, making AMD the natural choice for moderate-load servers and systems meant to be left on 24/7. But Intel soon beat AMD there, taking away AMD's only advantage. (That's when AMD used their ATI acquisition to integrate a GPU which could beat Intel's integrated GPU - essentially carving out a spot in the low-price gamer market.)
A Core 2 Duo system would use about 70 Watts idle, 150 Watts under load. A Sandy Bridge system would use about 45 Watts idle, 120 Watts under load. A modern Skylake system uses about 35 Watts idle, 80 Watts under load. Subtract the 20-30 Watts consumed by components other than the CPU, and the reduction in CPU power consumption over the last 10 years has been remarkable.
Re: All of this has happened before... (Score:3)
Really but why? I've quite enjoyed not having to upgrade my sandy bridge. I overclocked it to 4.5Ghz 6 years ago and it's still faster in everyday tasks than even the latest $1000 offering, only in extreme multi core tasks does it lack, which I rarely need.
A new system is such a distraction from my work. Days to reinstall and update everything, weeks to weed out issues and acclimate to a totally new setup.
Now if we could only get Microsoft to support Windows 7 indefinitely. I'd gladly pay $10/year for i
Re: (Score:2)
If only something similar would happen with operating systems....
I'd bet that most people would prefer it if Microsoft were still resting on its Windows 7 laurels.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're probably right except for the update madness. I sometimes dual boot to Windows 10 on a quad core I7 with 32GB and a ssd drive. All to often at boot I had to wait over half an hour looking at the blue screen telling me to 'not power down update in progress' . This is not exaggeration, over half an hour on boot!
If there is one area where Linux really shines compares to Windows it's on this. At most my distro will tell me that it needs a reboot for the upgrade to take effect. A normal reboot... no crap
Re: (Score:3)
If that's what Intel is doing, it's a stupid strategy. If Intel could produce a processor running at 8 GHz but otherwise identical to an I7-7700K, they could charge $3000 apiece for them and sell as many as they could make. Intel doesn't because it can't; physics and present technology don't allow it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Beware the hype train - And this is a hype train of the strongest degree. We're approaching No Man's Sky levels of hype here.
Keep in mind this is a soft launch. No launch silicon in reviewers hands.No objective reviews. Only "benchmarks" that came from AMD, which will always paint their product in a good light.
Intel isn't "stagnating" - They're responding to market forces. You really have not needed a faster CPU since the launch of Sandy bridge. What the market wants is more features, lower power. That is what Intel has been focusing on and delivering pretty well.
Lastly, remember that single thread performance is still king in the desktop space. Lots of cores are great for servers and some applications - But for user facing applications (Including games) the most heavily weighted cpu performance bottleneck is the top speed of your core(s). - Multi-threaded programming is hard and there is no magical compiler switch or library that will suddenly make lots of slow cores = One fast core. (For most applications)
We all want AMD to give Intel some competition and to push prices down.. But don't hold your breath until reviewers have shipping parts in their hands.
Reviewers have parts. Parts are up for preorder. Parts are going to be available worldwide on the same date. All signs point to it not being a "soft launch" or a "paper launch". We've seen photos over the past few weeks of people receiving trays of parts. Ryzen looks like it'll be out in volume.
The AMD-provided benchmarks are objective. They're showing multithreaded performance in a highly-multithreaded workload. They also show one single-threaded benchmark. Yes, the R7 1800X will lose out in single
we've been stuck at 4 core for too long (Score:5, Insightful)
Intel has had >4 core CPUs but the affordable stuff for consumers has all been 4 core / 8 thread with the rest of the die given over to GPUs that nobody who needs high performance graphics wants anyway.
I'd be nice to see AMD back in the game to provide some competition for Intel. Lots of workloads can benefit from more cores: compilation, video processing, simulations, many kinds of "embarrassingly parallel" tasks. Anything you might do with xargs -P.
If AMD supplies some competitive pressure to push larger core counts down into the affordable price ranges for average buyers, that'll be a good thing. It's been an artificial restriction anyway. Plus it is good for the health of the market to have competition.
and stuck at 16 + DMI pci-e with to much on the (Score:2)
and stuck at 16 + DMI pci-e with to much on the DMI link.
For video X16 or X8 X8 is good for most cards. But putting storage / network / sound / usb / etc on the DMI is overloading it.
Also Intel caped the $350+ lowend cpu's down from 40 lanes to 28 lanes in boards setup for 40 lanes per cpu making people take an $150+ jump for a small clock boost. Back in Ivy Bridge-E all chips had the same pci-e lanes.
Re: (Score:2)
QPI is not used for the chipset link.
and on desktop boards you have storage pci-e X4 (per card), usb 3.X upto X4, networking X1 per gig-e nic, sound x1, other stuff as well. All over an X4 dmi link.
Re: (Score:2)
QPI is only for to cpu to cpu not cpu to chipset.
Intel has been stuck on DMI + X16 pci-e for way to long.
AMD is uping Intel on the desktop side. I want to see what the ryzen serer / workstation systems will be like as well.
Re: (Score:2)
[...] the rest of the die given over to GPUs that nobody who needs high performance graphics wants anyway.
I wonder if AMD will allow applications to use the GPUs for their own purposes. When I click on the Nvidia applet in my Windows icon tray, it tells me which applications are using the Nvidia GPU.
I don't think many apps use multi core (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And besides Ashes of the Singularity I can't think of any that use more that four. Heck, Far Cry 3 only needed four cores because the devs bound to core 3 by mistake. There was a fan patch that forced it to bind to core two and got it running on dual cores. Multi core programing is dammed hard. It hasn't been worth it except for a handful of apps like video encoders...
What's so hard?
It's just a matter of semaphores and some intelligent decisions on what goes where.
Hell, Apple already did the hard part for you [wikipedia.org], and then gave it to the planet for free [github.io]...
Re:we've been stuck at 4 core for too long (Score:5, Interesting)
Old Xeons are, in fact, far cheaper than modern Intel consumer CPUs with a similar performance. Take E5-2670 for example. It costs around 100 bucks, has 8 cores/16 threads and 20 megabytes of cache. For the same money you'll get a Core i3-7100 at best, which has a somewhat better single core performance, but is utterly outclassed in multicore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My preferred choice of machines from that era would be the HP Z600 and Z620 - dual socket capable machines, taking X5600 series in the case of the Z600, and E5 and E5 v2 processors in the Z620 (v2 only if it's the later BIOS version).
Here in the UK, the Z600 with dual 6 core processors can be picked up with relative ease, and these work well. The Z620 can be harder to find, but can run with dual 8 core processors (say, E5-2670) or dual 10 core processors (E5-2670 v2). The v2s are still very expensive on the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. I don't play many modern games, maybe the odd simulator. The main issue I have is that I only have one slot left capable of more than 1x, unless I drop the GPU down to 8x as well. That might actually be okay since I don't game much.
Re: (Score:2)
that nobody who needs high performance graphics wants anyway.
So ... most people then?
Re: (Score:2)
Only caring what 'most people' want/need is a stupid race to the bottom.
Re: (Score:2)
with the rest of the die given over to GPUs that nobody who needs high performance graphics wants anyway.
That's certainly my biggest gripe with new CPUs. I don't want graphics. Or a kitchen sink. If I wanted a SoC, I'd go with an arm solution.
I want a pure CPU. One that doesn't need a nuclear power plant next door to drive. One that can run for a decade or more should it need to.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I'm concerned they never left the game, only lost popularity. I'm running a pile-driver core chip on my stuff at home and it doesn't get saturated on my day to day stuff and is quite speedy on my heavy duty stuff as well. I'm not by modern definition a gamer so I'm not pushing it as hard as I can with Windows on the latest AAA titles, but I do use Linux and 3D games - my limitations seem to revolve around my out of date GeForce 750 Ti.
I just built a pile-driver core machine for work, it's being
Re: (Score:2)
last gen, more workstation based , and caped pci-e lanes.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of us building high end machines don't 'just' game with them.
Re: (Score:3)
There are certain scientific and data processing applications
Amazing, that's exactly what I need them for! More the merrier. If you see me on Facebook, it's because I'm waiting on my PC to do something. I use "the cloud" for jobs that are worth the effort of setting up there. But most of the time I'm waiting on my local PC, and double the number of cores would approximately halve that wait.
Re: (Score:3)
There are certain scientific and data processing applications
Amazing, that's exactly what I need them for! More the merrier. If you see me on Facebook, it's because I'm waiting on my PC to do something. I use "the cloud" for jobs that are worth the effort of setting up there. But most of the time I'm waiting on my local PC, and double the number of cores would approximately halve that wait.
Ditto. I'm regularly maxing out local i7s on long simulations and computations. I look at all that GPU area on the die and think it would be nice if they added a few more cores instead. I think there are more of us out there than people think. Not everything is serving crappy XML over crappy REST protocols.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Some specialized applicatons would benefit from more cores, but these are things that are best done in the cloud and most everyday tasks are linear in nature and do not benefit from more cores.
No... they are very often not "best done in the cloud", because that would mean uploading a few TB of data over my home internet connection to a cloud server. That would take far longer than is practical not to mention bust my ISP cap.
There are a shitton of common tasks that benefit from having more cores. Hell, just compiling a large project benefits from having a lot of cores. Video transcoding. Image processing. Batch processing of almost any kind. Many kinds of scientific computing. Just becaus
Re: (Score:2)
There is a chicken and egg argument as well. Many games plateau at 4 cores, but that is no surprise. With 90+% of the installed base being =4 core machines, that is where game studios are going to target. Hopefully with a heap of 6 and 8 real core CPU's in the field there will be a push to take advantage of them.
In my day job I am a EE. I run a lot of SPICE, FEM, and other scientific apps. We have seen some surprising results with more cores. CST EMS (an electromagnetic simulation tool) claimed it sca
About time. (Score:5, Insightful)
I built myself a gaming PC about two years ago. I've been an AMD supported for decades, so I went with the best CPU AMD was offering at the time. Two years later, it's still the best CPU AMD offers.
I remember the heyday where AMD actually overtook Intel. Their CPUs were actually better and cheaper. That's no longer the case, but (at least when I built my gaming rig) I was not willing to pay 50%+ more for maybe 10% higher performance, so it was still AMD for me.
The important thing, though, is that we need competition in order to spur innovation. Before AMD started nipping at Intel's heels, it was all about the MHz (and who could get to GHz first). After that, we started seeing CPUs with more cores and better threading and all the good stuff. I hope Ryzen makes Intel very worried - worried enough that they innovate the hell out of their CPUs. I also hope Ryzen makes AMD enough money that they can continue to innovate, and continue to compete with Intel. Because when that happens, it is we the consumers who win.
Re: (Score:2)
I built myself a gaming PC about two years ago. I've been an AMD supported for decades, so I went with the best CPU AMD was offering at the time. Two years later, it's still the best CPU AMD offers.
Well, I built a PC 7 years ago. It STILL is within roughly 30% of the top comparable system you can build today. These are Intel CPUs btw. Their performance plateaued with the Sandy Bridge core design, although the Gulftown I have competes well with the top end available with even the current i7s. Yes, the 4790K is faster single threaded, but if you OC both the extra overhead available on the Gulftown closes the gap considerably. And overall performance the Gulftown doesn't get doubled until you go to the c
Re: (Score:2)
I hear what you're saying, but I'm not talking about it being close to the same performance. It's literally the same exact CPU model that was the top model 2 years ago. That's some crazy stagnation there.
But, going back to what you say, that reinforces my point. AMD hasn't done anything in the CPU arena in years. Why would Intel have to innovate? We need a competitor to nip at Intel's heels and get them moving again, and ideally it'd be great if Intel and AMD can race each other for supremacy forever becaus
Re: (Score:2)
Not cheaper by much. I remember comments here asking why if AMD had overtaken Intel, why were their high-end CPUs now almost as expensive as Intel's had been. The replies stating that if you're the market leader, you can set your prices as high as you want.
I think that's where they screwed up. Instead of keeping their prices low so they could gain market share, they raised their prices to try to reco
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, there were some questionable decisions, to be sure (remember Slot-A CPUs?)
Re: (Score:2)
AMD has been shipping approximately the same CPUs for like 5+ years now. Their last architecture flopped and they've been stalled ever since. Last relevant CPU release they had was the FX-8350, and that is from 2012. Even then, the IPC on them was so low, they benched lower than most i3 offerings.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and that made Intel sit on their laurels and not really bother. I'm hoping this means more competition!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm talking about 2 years ago, plus I'm talking about price/performance for a specific point, really, Either way, the price/performance thing is not linear - 50% higher price won't give you 50% higher performance.
Re: (Score:2)
I've only ever built one Intel-based PC in... well, ever since I got a... ugh, was it Cyrus? Something... CPU back in the '90s (: I built an Intel-based desktop about 5 years ago because I wanted to try and Hackintosh it, and at the time AMD couldn't do that.
I have to admit, that desktop still kicks butt. But it was built to last. No way could it run any current game in any decent quality, even if I stuck a GTX1080 in it.
Any one have a block-map as to how the pci-e is (Score:2)
Any one have a block-map as to how the pci-e is setup?
Also how will the server chips be setup in pci-e lanes?
More cores (Score:4, Interesting)
Four cores just ain't enough for me. I'm looking forward to 128 core processors...
Re: (Score:2)
I knew Windows wasn't good at multitasking, but what are you doing? Spinning up a new VM for each thread?
Re: (Score:2)
Intel MIC architecture (Xeon Phi) is probably the closest at 72 Xeon cores (and 4 threads/core).
Re: (Score:2)
Naples looks incredibly yummy. Hopefully it'll be launched soon too. If the prices are halfway reasonable I might build with that. Dual socket 32C64T?
I'll believe it... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When Newegg has listings for the new processors and motherboard. Although it might be too late for me since I retired my nine-year-old Vista-compatible AMD quad-core motherboard for a Windows 7-compatible AMD eight-core motherboard last year. I might let the platform mature before I spring for new hardware.
Based on the news articles, you should start seeing these on Newegg within a couple of weeks (March 2nd). Supposedly AMD primed the retail channel prior to the announcement.
Re: (Score:2)
I might let the platform mature before I spring for new hardware.
And also let intel bring out some new processors, or make some price drops, and let AMD make some price drops to compensate. Because I, for one, am not spending more than two hundred bucks on a CPU. (I have an FX-8350 right now.)
Yes, I am a cheap bastard. If I weren't, I would have bought an Intel processor.
Re: (Score:2)
Newegg has 7 Ryzen motherboards listed. They're posted as 'out of stock' probably until the launch on March 2. Found them simply by searching for 'ryzen'. No CPUs listed yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Newegg has 7 Ryzen motherboards listed.
Supposed to be 81 motherboards available at launch. The few that Newegg has listed are all ATX boards. I like to build my systems small with micro-ATX and mini-ITX boards.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Aren't you a special little princess.
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't you a special little princess.
In what way?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Amazon doesn't have any Ryzen CPUs or Motherboards, but they do have this Wait for Ryzen [amazon.com] t-shirt, perhaps you could order it in small while you wait?
I fail to understand why building small systems is an issue for some people. I have multiple systems in a limited space. My FreeNAS file server is a full ATX tower with six hard drives and room for another six hard drives. My gaming and Linux boxes are micro-ATX boxes. If I ever build out a Beowulf cluster, it will be four mini-ITX motherboards stacked on top of each other in a custom built, one-cubic-feet case.
Re: (Score:2)
Big hands.
So what? I got big hands and bad eyes Tweezers and magnifying lens help with those problems..
What about single thread performance? (Score:4, Interesting)
It still matters for most people, and it has been a problem for AMD.
Will they offer lower priced Core i5/i3 competitors based on this architecture?
Re: (Score:3)
Paper launch (Score:2)
Are they on sale yet? Are there any reviews of it? If the answer to both of those is no, then it hasn't launched.
Re: (Score:2)
And of course the comparison is a paper launch from AMD vs a shipping processor from Intel.
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
You can preorder them on newegg. Release is apparently Thurs/Fri next week.
Re: (Score:2)
Then the launch is next week, and the statement that "AMD Launches Ryzen" is false. I should note that it's highly suspicious for a new CPU's review embargo to be on the same day as retail availability.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, with only a week from "launch" to availability it's perhaps unkind to call it a paper launch - those boxes are already on their way to retailers.
20% isn't enough (Score:2)
Finally! Will it last for AMD? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's interesting that AMD finally got this CPU off the drawing board and actually onto silicon, finally. It has been a long time in development and has suffered many delays along the way, both from management changes and financial difficulty. They have put all their CPU eggs in this basket and I sure hope they have a good design here because Intel needs a bit of competition.
I'm confident that AMD will make a go of this new architecture. It was a totally clean sheet design and has some unique and innovative features which may spur another round of slugging it out with Intel. What I find interesting here is the price point. Where I'm positive Intel has been racking in profit on their current offerings and will easily match AMD's prices, I'm hopeful that AMD will be able to press this new design into better performance than Intel can manage with their current technology at this price point.
If history is any indicator, AMD will not be able to keep up once they wake the sleeping giant that's Intel. Where I'm not sure Intel really cares about the PC market (which is lagging a lot) they do care about profit. The question really becomes how much will this hurt Intel? I'm not sure it will be all that much, because Intel is diversified, doing lots of stuff in their own fabs. AMD has no fabs of their own anymore and really only have two business lines where they are the distant second player.
Will it last for AMD? Will this put them back into an increasing market share and profitability? I hope so, but the guys over at Intel surely already have a good idea what they will do and what affect this will have on their bottom line. AMD may be off the mat, but they are seriously out classed by a company with deep pockets and technical ability.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm hopeful that AMD will be able to press this new design into better performance than Intel can manage with their current technology at this price point.
Your optimism is cute, but unwarranted. AMD won't really be a threat until they can easily beat Intel at every performance level, price be damned.
Intel has no problem dropping prices to match the price/performance of anything AMD does. Inel is able to demand the prices they currently do because of AMD's decade-long streak of incompetence. Intel knows they
Cheaper... For now. (Score:2)
Oh, and I didn't see anything about power usage. AMD has always sucked in that regard.
Re: (Score:2)
While someone needs to put a stick in Intel's ass, I don't believe for a minute that this will remain a cheaper alternative, if AMD starts getting some traction.
Oh, and I didn't see anything about power usage. AMD has always sucked in that regard.
From the Ars Technica article [arstechnica.com]:
IPC is interesting in that it gives a sense of how cores are designed, but workloads aren't constrained by IPC or clock speed per se; they're constrained by thermal and power constraints. And AMD compares very favorably there, too: the Intel chip is a 140W part, so can use about 50 percent more power than the AMD.
Half price? Not for long (Score:2)
You think Intel is keeping the prices high because they can't cut them? Ha. They've arranged their line-up just so it looks like the i processors are good value for money. I imagine I'll see a bunch of Pentium processors withdrawn and i stuff prices sliced if AMD's CPU is that good and its price point is that low.
Incidentally, that same price strategy is used by Apple. Keep an oldie in the line-up (Intel: Pentium; Apple: iPad mini 2) and then everything from that baseline to the top is price locked inside t
AMD 95 Watts VS Intel 140 Watts (Score:2)
Not only are the CPUs less expensive... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
In the video Linus did https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] the difference was 99.xx vs 112.yy seconds.
But I don't think that one used a 7700K but a 6800K.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:frist ps0t (Score:4, Funny)
We used to call them "hot grits". In was an everyday topic of discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They have deleted and censored posts in the past. I actually had my account banned one for making comments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're saying a comparison to a CPU core nearly a year older is a fair comparison?
The story hasn't changed in nearly a decade: AMD boasts they have "massive" performance gains over their old hardware, and that they can selectively beat Intel's old hardware.
The problem is that Intel invariably has its own improvements, and they easily beat AMD's best-case hype.
I really would like to see AMD return to beating Intel's chips, but this doesn't leave me hopeful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're saying a comparison to a CPU core nearly a year older is a fair comparison?
It's not AMDs fault it's the latest and fastest Intel "High End Desktop Processor". The only thing higher end is the 6950X at 10 cores with an MSRP of $1700.
Re: (Score:2)
>> The only thing higher end is the 6950X
Well, only in parallel tasks. The 6950x is only a 3GHz device. Single-threaded stuff will suck compared to anything modern. By comparison even the most ghetto $58 kaby lake desktop cpu is running at 3.0.Ghz.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see a like-for-like benchmark between Ryzen and I7, such as single-thread at the same clock speeds.
Uh, they did. The Cinebench single-threaded results are in the slide. Right hand side. The 1800X is indistinguishable from Intel's 6900K at single-threaded performance. And Cinebench is compiled with Intel's compiler.
Undoubtedly there will be some benchmarks where Intel is still ahead, and yes we are waiting for third party testing. Still, from what we're seeing out of AMD, they're no longer down 10% in like-for-like comparisons. They're +/- 1% now. While being substantially cheaper. If the accompan
Re: (Score:2)
>> I can get exactly the same performance for half the price, and better peripheral support."
Please explain what you mean by better peripheral support?
Re:Why so expensive? (Score:4, Insightful)
8 cores vs 4 cores. You gotta compare the equivalent number of cores, then kvetch over different clock rates and other details to really compare.
Ryzen 1800X (8 cores) = $500
Intel's consumer grade i7-6900K 8 cores (latest available) = $1000 (i.e. Ryzen is 50% lower than $1000)
Intel® Xeon® Processor E7-4809 v4 (8 core) = $1600 (highway rape...)
To compare 4 core vs 4 core:
Ryzen 1400X (4 core with hyperthreading) = $200
Intel 7700K (4 core with hyperthreading, though higher clock rate) = $340
Re: (Score:3)
Intel has variants of the Core i7 7700 that have lower or the same clock as AMD Ryzen 1400X, but none of those costs less than $300 either.
Re: (Score:2)
As a game developer and gamer, I remember AMD invented the X64 architecture Intel licences. Intel have been pretty good at conforming to AMDs standard. ...also looking at those AMD powered XB1 devkits on my desk.
Re: (Score:2)
>> AMD invented the X64 architecture
My understanding is that AMD64 is really just an extension that adds 64 bit addressing mode and widened/added a few extra (64 bit) registers to the existing intel x86 spec.
Re: (Score:2)