AMD Announces Ryzen 5 Processors With 4 and 6-Core Chips Starting At $169 (hothardware.com) 173
MojoKid writes from a report via HotHardware: Today, AMD unveiled additional details with respect to the entire Ryzen 5 processor line-up. Unlike the Ryzen 7 series, which consists entirely of 8-core/16-thread processors, the Ryzen 5 family has two tiers consisting of 6-core/12-thread and 4-core/8-thread processors. The entry-level part is the Ryzen 5 1400, a 4-core/8-thread CPU with base and turbo clocks of 3.2GHz and 3.4GHz, respectively. The Ryzen 5 1500X has the same quad-core configuration, but with base and turbo clocks of 3.5GHz and 3.7GHz, and also has support for an extended XFR frequency range of up to 3.9GHz. The Ryzen 5 1600 is a 6-core/12-thread processor, with 3.2GHz base and 3.6GHz boost clocks. And at the top of the stack is the Ryzen 5 1600X -- which has a similar 6-core configuration -- but cranks things up even further to 3.6GHz/4.0GHz. With XFR, the absolute maximum frequency for all of the Ryzen 5 processors will be somewhat higher, but AMD hasn't disclosed specifics for all parts. AMD's Ryzen 5 processor line-up will work with the very same AM4 platform as the higher-end Ryzen 7. Ryzen 5 series processors will be launching officially on April 11, with prices starting at $169 for the Ryzen 5 1400. An additional $20 will get you a Ryzen 5 1500X, while the 6-core Ryzen 5 1600 and 1600X will sell for $219 and $249, respectively.
Intel (Score:1)
Is in real trouble if they don't turn around their operation, quickly
Re: (Score:2)
By "trouble", you mean having to decrease their CPU prices slightly more than expected over the next few quarters, sure. AMD can only dream of having profit margins that equal Intel's right now.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Intel is pretty much the best that's left of manufacturing in the US - most R&D, most innovative and headed by someone from their fabs. In the worst case situation - assume that the market for x86/x64 completely dries up, they can simply be a US version of a TSMC/GSMC, and still be above water.
Most companies would kill to be in that predicament. AMD, OTOH, has nothing left but the x64, and its hybrid ARM/x64 lines look interesting, but it's not much more valuable than any of the myriad number of fab
Re: (Score:2)
assume that the market for x86/x64 completely dries up, they can simply be a US version of a TSMC/GSMC, and still be above water.
Which would mean that the part of Intel that is analogous to what AMD is now would be dead along with AMD, and the part of Intel that is analogous to GSMC would still be around along with GSMC
Would it really make any difference in that scenario if GSMC was still called AMD?
Re: (Score:3)
Between then and now, AMD acquired a part of the DEC Alpha team, and had Dirk Meyer as their CEO. They did well w/ the Athlon, and later achieved a coup w/ the AMD 64 architecture, by getting Microsoft's endorsement. This was at a time when Intel was struggling w/ the Pentium 4, and the Itanium was such a disaster that Intel had to follow AMD's lead.
But AMD never grabbed the initiative to build on their fab capabilities and manufacturing processes, instead continuing to focus just on low cost CPUs. Ne
Re: (Score:2)
But AMD never grabbed the initiative to build on their fab capabilities and manufacturing processes
Thanks to Intels monopolistic practices. They were convicted of it on multiple continents.
instead continuing to focus just on low cost CPUs.
Wrong. Possibly intentionally.
Never a winning strategy, since not only did Intel have pockets deep enough to price match them anywhere they chose, they also had a 2-3 generation advantage in terms of process nodes.
Now we know you are lying.
Ultimately, AMD threw in the towel and sold off their fabs to Global Foundries.
AMD didnt sell their fabs. They spun off a new company. More proof that you are a liar, and the only motive here for lying is because you are a monopoly apologist that didnt mind getting fucked by Intel bribing companies to only sell their worse technology for higher prices.
Re: (Score:2)
You are totally clueless, and it shows:
1. How would anything Intel did prevent AMD from investing in their own fabs? The ones they had were anaemic - and while they attempted some good ones, like Dresden, their process methodologies never advanced much beyond their basics
2. They did decide to focus on CPUs that would beat Intel in price, ignoring the huge advantage Intel had in cost. Instead, had they focused more aggressively on next gen process nodes and improving their yields, they'd have done a lot
Re: (Score:2)
About the only thing left is the POWER series that IBM is pushing. I'd really like to see a desktop computer based on the AS/400 architecture. So different and much more logical. Tons of low level stuff normally handled by the OS is done in hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But AMD never grabbed the initiative to build on their fab capabilities and manufacturing processes, instead continuing to focus just on low cost CPUs.
Fabs cost money. It's not about initiative, but the ability to pony up billions for several years. Billions they never got because Intel bribed the major OEMS at the time to refuse to put AMD in their products, or to include them only in their shittiest products, and at small volumes. Even when the Ahtlon 64 was eating Pentiums for breakfast. Dell's existence was basically subsidized by Intel during these years thanks to the bribes
During the several years AMD had the performance crown, they were largely rel
Re: (Score:2)
TDP? (Score:2)
It's good to see a broad selection of cores/threads and clock coming out, but what I'd be really interested in knowing what the actual wattage/TDP of this processors is supposed to be.
I've had a mini-ITX box running with an A10 and a slotted GPU which can pretty much hold its own for any games etc, but I would like to get something a bit more powerful or more cores. Normally you're not going to be able to run a really high-wattage CPU on a mini-ITX board, and even if you could the tight spaces tend towards
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on your usage. The 1600X looks like a better gaming CPU than the 1700 and it's effectively $50 cheaper. (The list price is $80 less but no cooler is included.) On the other hand it will consume more power at peak; the 1600X is a 95W TDP processor while the 1700 is 65W TDP. We won't know what the idle power story is until the Ryzen 5 CPUs are released and benchmarked.
Looks like the i5-7600K and i7-7700K have some serious competition ahead. The AMD parts will cost less than Intel's, even after the rec
Re: (Score:1)
They did mention it in the article. 1600X is going to be 95W, the rest - 65W
Re: (Score:2)
Re: TDP? (Score:2, Informative)
Well AMDs thermal envelope is half of Intel's with Ryzen. Not to mention 3x treads for the same price.
So, it would be really retarded move to buy Intel atm.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Many of the new Ryzen chips have unlocked multiplier, so can probably get theme very close to Intel's power consumption by overclocking.
Re:TDP? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be really interested in knowing what the actual wattage/TDP of this processors is supposed to be.
Yeah, if only there was a way of knowing that, like for example reading the linked article!
Re: (Score:2)
It's Game over for Intel in the server market on power consumption. A slightly under-clocked Ryzen 1700 scores 850 in cb, and draws only 30 Watts at full load. Intel's low power offering Atom c2000 CPU's draw 33-35W under full load. Intel really will loose 15-30% new server chips sales on this alone, Xeons are 90-140w under full load.
Re: (Score:2)
Forgot link https://forums.anandtech.com/t... [anandtech.com] . I have Atom c2750 .
Re: (Score:2)
For normal youtube, browsing and games, published value TDP 65watts for the 1600x If you go for high frame rates, and super busy graphics, the likely hood is that the wattage could hit 80Watts
Re: (Score:2)
Worth noticing is that the 95 watt Ryzen 7 1700X and 1800X increase the power-demands more when going from idle to fully loaded than the 140 watt i7 6900K as well as the whole platform using slightly more power for the whole system:
http://www.sweclockers.com/tes... [sweclockers.com]
So take the TDP values with some salt. It doesn't tell the whole story. Neither have they done for AMD vs Nvidia graphics cards I've heard claimed but there with the advantage for AMD.
Ryzen 7 1700X and 1800X idle whole system at the wall: 45 watt
i
Re: (Score:2)
Crippled Ryzen 7 (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, it seem as if these 6-core and 4-core Ryzen 5 CPUs are only going to be eight-core Ryzen 7 CPUs with cores disabled in both compute-complexes.
The R5 1600X and 1600 are going to have one core disabled per compute-complex (CCX): 3+3. This was expected.
However, surprisingly, AMD has told Anandtech [anandtech.com] and Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] that the R5 1500X and likely also the R5 1400 are going to have two cores disabled per CCX: giving it a 2+2 config.
When clock and IPC have been taken into account, Ryzen's biggest performance bottleneck compared to Intel has been shown to be when threads on different CCX'es are accessing the same memory. Each CCX has its own L3 cache and there is an interconnect between the CCX'es L3 caches which while being slower than a single shared L3 cache is somewhat faster than going to main memory ... but the L3 caches are only victim caches to each core's L2 cache - and therefore not necessarily caching the entire working set.
This means that the 1500X and 1400 are going to be slower on many workloads than on a hypothetical Zen CPU with one single four-core CCX.
It is believed that this bottleneck is the reason behind relatively low Ryzen 1800X/1700X/1700 scores in many games - compared to Intel (even when clock speed and IPC have been taken into account).
(Curious enough, this is also a known issue among programmers for the XBox One and PS4 - both having AMD CPUs with a similar setup, but apparently it didn't really occur to game programmers that AMD would have a go at retaking the desktop?)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, it seem as if these 6-core and 4-core Ryzen 5 CPUs are only going to be eight-core Ryzen 7 CPUs with cores disabled in both compute-complexes.
If that's true then they are probably tweaking their design doing that to increase their production yields. QA is important when it comes to making complex chips and when you can identify issues before they become returns then you can turn them into sales instead of a loss. Sony did the same thing for the PS3 processor by disabling one core. This is actually a good practice to perfect your chip. However, beware of chips with "locked cores" because that's just pure exploitation.
Re: (Score:2)
On the flip side, some smart engineer is going to figure out how to re-enable those disabled cores through a firmware hack or some other trick. At that point, you'll be able to get the equivalent of a $400 CPU for $150.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much every fab laser-locks that out now days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, it seem as if these 6-core and 4-core Ryzen 5 CPUs are only going to be eight-core Ryzen 7 CPUs with cores disabled in both compute-complexes.
There's nothing unfortunate about this. By crippling the low end hardware they increase the number of units sold thanks to their lower price. This in turn pays back R&D costs that would otherwise be spread over a smaller number of sales making the high end even more expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still waiting to discover the on-chip interconnect. I'd imagine that some kind of on-chip TSV would provide a hefty upgrade in the width of the data path between the CCX modules, that would still have some penalty, though far less than the historic standard.
I really can't see how Naples is going to use the same CCX if AMD hasn't done something interesting here, but what do I know? Also, one active core per CCX helps with heat spreading and available boost.
Furthermore, AMD producing chips with four CCX
Re: (Score:2)
Zen has completely new way of loading from memory, but don't take my words for it, take Linus Torvalds. http://www.realworldtech.com/f... [realworldtech.com]
FUD about CCX latency most likely coming from Intel. AMd Zen ends up producing less cache misses.
Oh no will he make it (Score:2)
https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbc... [fbcdn.net]
Anyone benchmarked twitch streaming? (Score:2)
Right now Ryzen doesn't make a lot of sense unless you're a programmer or video editor (either hobby or pro). If you're just a gamer it's getting beat by cheaper Intel hardware and AMD motherboards (that aren't garbage) tend to cost more pushing the price higher (though that might not be true for Ryzen). Now, given
Re: (Score:2)
On paper, the Ryzen 1400 looks better than the I5-7500, and at $170 it's $30 cheaper. You can dump the money you save getting a cheaper CPU (intel or amd) into a faster GPU.
I actually do way more programming than gaming on my PC, but honestly I don't really care about compilations taking a bit longer. I am usually coding during long compilations anyway. But lag during gaming is really annoying. So I would definitely prioritize gaming performance over other sorts of benchmarks. The only other considerat
That only works if my mobo isn't $30 more (Score:2)
Also, that i5 has been out longer and is better optimized, supported & understood. The $30 bucks might be worth it. Now, if it was $50, $75... $100. You'd be talking. That's a pretty big GPU upgrade and it's what I got years ago with my Athlon 64. But $30? That takes me from one 6
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think $30 makes that much of a difference. I was more talking about the savings from getting a cheaper (e.g. sub $200) CPU as opposed to getting a high end one like an i7. At the high end is where it makes sense to still buy an Intel if what you care about is gaming. In the middle it seems like AMD might be a better value unless Intel drops the price of the I5-7600K to $170 or something.
Also I haven't really looke dinto MOBOs too much. But my brief research lead me to believe that AMD MBOs were
What I really want (Score:2)
Game over Intel in server power consumption (Score:2)
It's Game over for Intel in the server market on power consumption. A slightly under-clocked Ryzen 1700 scores 850 in cb, and draws only 30 Watts at full load. Intel's low power offering Atom c2000 CPU's draw 33-35W under full load. Intel really will loose 15-30% new server chips sales on this alone, Xeons are 90-140w under full load.https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/
FUD about CCX latency is FUD. Zen does memory access completely differently, but don't take my words, take
Re:processor line-up (Score:4, Informative)
Re: processor line-up (Score:1)
Ever. That's how it's worked ever since there have been speed-priced CPUs. The whole industry has done this forever.
What you do occasionally see is too-high yields on, say, 2GHz parts and the manufacturer is forced to label them as 1.8GHz to fill existing orders. That doesn't happen as often, but it does happen.
Re: processor line-up (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed. The Intel 486dx 66Mhz (early 1990s) was simply a 486dx 100Mhz that had failed a QA test at that speed and was re-tested at 66Mhz and then sold if it passed.
It's an efficient way to deal with inherent fragilities of manufacturing at the limits of technology.
That said, market segmentation whereby you make one product and sell disabled versions of it at different price points has been going on even longer. The economies of scale make it cheaper to do this than to make physically different products for each segment. VCRs in the 80s and 90s were made like this, such that they all had the same internals, and the difference in models was achieved in external styling and what buttons were made available, and what firmware was installed.
Re: (Score:2)
VCRs in the 80s and 90s were made like this, such that they all had the same internals, and the difference in models was achieved in external styling and what buttons were made available, and what firmware was installed.
Sure, some of them were. But they also still made play-only heads into the 90s. You couldn't necessarily turn a VCP into a VCR. I'd guess until 1995 when the heads changed anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Im going to tell you what I tell my father, who from what you said im assuming is rather close to you in age... SHUT UP OLD MAN! :)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The Intel 486dx 66Mhz (early 1990s) was simply a 486dx 100Mhz that had failed a QA test at that speed and was re-tested at 66Mhz and then sold if it passed.
While I agree with your overall point, the example you used here doesn't support it. The first Intel 486 running at 66 MHz was released in 1992 (the 486DX2). Intel didn't release a faster 486 until 1994 (the 100 MHz 486DX4). The 66Mhz 486DX2 was Intel's flagship 486 for 2 years after its release, it wasn't a marked-down unit that failed testing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So in all likelihood, your 1600x could be a crippled or "injured" 1800x that was put into the 1600x package
The birth of OC (Score:2)
This is what essentially birthed the whole OC enthusiast market, As when the lower clocked model became more popular and sold more they couldn't keep up with demand, and the chips all basically costing them they same, they simply took perfectly good chips that could pass the higher test, but down clocked them anyway for sale. People found out, and starting Over clocking them. I recall people trying to get chips with certain serial numbers so you could tell what batch they came from and what plant they were
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No one has fused off working features in over a decade. Every CPU manufacturer is supply constrained at the high end: if they had more top bin parts, they could sell them at top bin prices.
These days if a feature is fused off it is because it failed and the manufacturer is attempting die recovery.
Re: (Score:2)
GPUs also do this. A lot of the model differentiation in video cards involves selling of cards that are partially disabled and/or downclocked because they failed to meet specifications with everything turned on. They may have some completely broken parts, they may have failed at the full clock speed, or they may have consumed too much power at that speed. In some cases they actually passed all the qualifications but are sold as lesser (and less expensive) parts because of lack of demand for the most expensi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thats because Intel doesn't actually give a fuck about its consumers unless you have a net worth of at least $1 million dollars...
Re: (Score:2)
Those dirty cunts!
Re: (Score:2)
The Zen architecture uses four-core "Complexes", which combine cache and some cache-coherency logic (not execution resources, the way Bulldozer did). The six-core parts are confirmed to be two-complex (eight-core) parts with two cores disabled. The four-core parts are almost assuredly single-complex parts, ie. a die specific for four-core (and under?) chips.
Re: (Score:2)
Initially, these are probably all going to be eight core die with some cores disabled. But there are some interesting performance implications depending on what parts of the chip are disabled. It's entirely possible that different six and four core chips of the same model will not perform identically.
At the six core level there are two possible configurations: you could have one where one of the four cores of each complex is disabled, and another where one complex is fully enabled and the other has two core
Re:Frankly this is what they should have launched (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Programmers are going to be very happy with affordable 8-core chips, though. I know I will.
But programmers have already been happy with AMD's affordable 8-core chips. I have one in my PC right now (an 8350, gently overclocked) and the price:performance ratio was top-notch. It's lovely for running multiple VMs at once, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Going back a little further, I've been supremely happy with my Phenom II 1100T (6-core) for years and years.
Re: (Score:2)
Going back a little further, I've been supremely happy with my Phenom II 1100T (6-core) for years and years.
Yes, I also have a 1045T system and it is still chugging along nicely running Linux. It's got a used Asus GTS 450 OC in it, which is fine.
Re: (Score:2)
GTX 460 here, though I am considering an upgrade so I can play some newer games, or whether I should just buy a whole new system while I'm at it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Latency? What a crock of shit.
Re: (Score:3)
So everything above that line was based on pure guesswork?
Is this another one of those "social media workers" doing a "viral campaign" for Intel or does it just look that way?
Re: (Score:3)
Lets not pretend we didnt know this comment section was going to be filled with that shit. Some people have more money than brains. And it shows when they buy the intel CPU thats in the same class as a AMD CPU for almost double the price. Not to mention Intel's motherboards are normally another ~25% more expensive also. Even with the high end X370 boards going for almost $300. There are plenty of intel motherboards for $350+ when I walk the motherboard section at frys. And now with Ryzen the feature set is
Re: (Score:2)
As for performance, all I can do is read reviews for now.
Of course what I really want to see is their next generation of fast multi-way CPUs to get 128 fast cores on one motherboard but that's going to have to wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Only a few more months and there should be a Multi Socket Naples motherboard put on the market just before the server chips hit market..
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. Even those under-$100 B350 motherboards will take 64GB; all the ones I have seen have four sockets. I have seen pictures of A320 motherboards with two sockets as well as with four, but no A320 boards seem to be available in the real world yet. The small form factor A300 and X300 boards will be limited to two sockets and 32GB when they finally appear.
I doubt that AMD designed in any artificial roadblocks; it's not their style. So that ceiling will increase when larger DDR4 sticks become available
Re: (Score:1)
Well seeing as NO CURRENT CPU that is being released is going to have support for windows 7, your comment is null and void. Also, Anybody seriously considering the Ryzen 7 in a professional setting, Is going to be smart enough to disable all of that shit, Or spend the money on the enterprise versions without all the bullshit.. But most likely they will run a Unix based system on the processor and not give two fucks about what Microsoft OS they can run on the chip.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Security patches. MS has just started to make it impossible to install them on Win7 systems with the new CPUs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As with any new chip architecture it is going to take time to iron out the bugs. The chips have been out less than a few weeks. Give devs and manufacturers some time before you talk shit about the product. let it mature a little. Its already a known fact that devs and manufacturers favor intel, so you really think they stopped everything they were working on to start throwing ryzen code around? Think about how the real world works. Things like this take time, They always have.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Ryzen is stable and fine with the anniversary edition of10. Just not earlier releases.
I do not understand slashdoters who get enraged and think vast conspiracy when an 8 year old OS can't run on a new CPU. Oh it must be a conspiracy by Microsoft right? The exf clocking and power are millisecond interval rocks on Ryzen dependent on UEFI and Windows 10 algorithms and drivers. No the CPU does more than process x86 instructions.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, it is not AMD (or Intel) screwing up here, it is MS, but both AMD and Intel going along with it. No Win7 support (and the latest MS Win7 rollup-patch actively refuses to install on the new CPUs) means I will cancel the about $1500 I was planning to spend on a new Ryzen system and take a vacation for the money instead. There is no way I am going to switch to the Win10 Malware in its current state. Ads, spying and impossibility to block updates are each an absolute no-go.
Re: (Score:2)
Myself and other power users will stick to Windows 7 and the Intel i7 core.
Just don't let the door hit your bum on the way out, AMD. You deserve to fail, you fucking idiots.
Also sounds like you and your friends like being raped for a very small increase in IPC. Yet AMD is the one you're calling the fucking idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Also sounds like you and your friends like being raped for a very small increase in IPC. Yet AMD is the one you're calling the fucking idiots.
It very much depends on the use case. Intel processors with four cores deliver lower minimum frame rates in games than AMD processors with eight. I have an AMD processor anyway because the system came out around $300 cheaper with similar maximum performance as compared to using an intel chip, but I can notice what happens to the chip when it gets heavily loaded.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly "lower minimum" doesn't sound very attractive, I assume you meant higher minimum...
Er, yeah. Thanks for figuring that out, you do your species credit.
However, that's again putting the cart in front of the horse, since you have absolutely no idea why this happens,
I don't really care. It shows up in benchmarks over and over again (not just in one game or something) and it jibes with my own experiences. It was still worth it to me to go AMD, because it was so very much cheaper and if I get a few less FPS nothing bad happens, but if I have a few hundred less dollars, something bad could happen.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not one or two games. It's loads and loads of games. Maybe some games optimized extensively for AMD exhibit the problem less, but I haven't detected any correlation between an AMD logo splash and not having poor minimum frame rates on my AMD system. Then again, I don't have AMD graphics, because I am allergic to AMD graphics drivers.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
AMD has refused to support Ryzen on Windows 7. Instead AMD said they will only support it on Windows 10. This is stupid.
Maybe MS have convinced* AMD to make this decision?
* - With a nice, fat cheque
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe MS have convinced* AMD to make this decision?
* - With a nice, fat cheque
Only if they convinced Intel too. Because Kaby Lake isn't supported either. [overclock3d.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Processors don't need drivers. If they did, you'd be well fucked before you could ever boot, you'd be stuck bootstrapping it manually EVERY FUCKING TIME.
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as i can afford to build my Ryzen 1800X system. I will be ditching Windows as main OS and it will run from a VM on a Linux machine. And in a VM Windows doesnt give two fucks what the real processor is, Because it gets given a Generic HWID anyways. Therefor it will still Just Work! And Any optimization that is done will roll in with Linux and VM Updates.. And i will be able to reap the benefits on said Windows environment.
Re: (Score:1)
"When you try to scan or download updates through Windows Update, you receive the following error message: Unsupported Hardware [microsoft.com] .. Your PC uses a processor that isn’t supported on this version of Windows and you won’t receive updates."
Use Linux. I don't understand why people use OSes that dictate how they can use their computers.
Re: (Score:2)
And no I don't mean sublime, it's awful
ARE YOU SERIOUS?!
But ok, let me take a breath and calm down... have you tried Gedit? Kwrite? Vi/Vim? Emacs? Atom? Bluefish? Geany? Anjuta? Leafpad? and on and on?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Almost daily I see svchost.exe eating up a core and thrashing my drive.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft doesn't provide updates to an unsupported outdated OS on AMD Ryzen processors. ... And the latest Intel processors ... And in a few months EVERY processor since it's EOL.
Re: (Score:3)
Umm...Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 aren't EOL my friend.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows 7 hit end of mainstream support over two years ago, in 2015. Windows 8 will still be in mainstream support until January, but Microsoft announced they would not be supporting next generation hardware on the upcoming architectures over a year ago, largely due to driver support issues.
I'm sure that fueling adoption of Windows 10 is part of their motivation for the policy, but it is likely that the chip makers were not particularly interested in supporting one platform that has less than three years o
Re: (Score:2)
Windows 7 is. It ended mainstream support 2 years ago.
Windows 8.1 isn't EOL. It was however DOA.
Re:Lolz what a joke amd (Score:4, Funny)
Would someone tell me how this happened? We were the fucking vanguard of shaving in this country. The K7 was the CPU to own. Then the other guy came out with a three-core CPU. Were we scared? Hell, no. Because we hit back with a little thing called the Athlon. That's three cores and an aloe strip. For moisture. But you know what happened next? Shut up, I'm telling you what happened—the bastards went to four cores. Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, selling three cores and a GPU. Moisture or no, suddenly we're the chumps. Well, fuck it. We're going to five cores.
Sure, we could go to four cores next, like the competition. That seems like the logical thing to do. After all, three worked out pretty well, and four is the next number after three. So let's play it safe. Let's make a thicker aloe strip and call it the AthlonSuperTurbo. Why innovate when we can follow? Oh, I know why: Because we're a business, that's why!