I don't get why people distrust AMD, when Bulldozer/Piledriver came out, AMD never claimed to have the best IPC, they did however claim that their multithreaded performance was better (thanks to 2 threads in one module and multiple modules in even their most basic processor).
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2013
- Messages
- 579
- Trophies
- 1
- Age
- 26
- Location
- Where all things matter
- Website
- wiki.gbatemp.net
- XP
- 1,025
- Country
The Route I thought I would go
2016: AMD FX
2017: AMD Ryzen
The Route I went
2016: AMD FX
2017: Intel Skylake (Intel I5 6500 with a Z170-A, and Kingston 8GB)
I don't why I couldn't wait for Ryzen, I guess I'll wait for a Price Drop... which may be long time from now lol
I'm still rooting for AMD, I wish the best
2016: AMD FX
2017: AMD Ryzen
The Route I went
2016: AMD FX
2017: Intel Skylake (Intel I5 6500 with a Z170-A, and Kingston 8GB)
I don't why I couldn't wait for Ryzen, I guess I'll wait for a Price Drop... which may be long time from now lol
I'm still rooting for AMD, I wish the best
Last edited by Social_Outlaw,
You clearly weren't around for the 90s when AND and Intel were in direct competition. The Ryzen cpu finally puts AMD back on the same level as Intel again. They aren't going to let that slip away so easily. Things will be very competitive again in the cpu market, like the good 'ol days lol. That will result in better performance and lower prices overall. It's a huge win for consumers.
Welcome back AMD!
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,028
- Trophies
- 1
- Age
- 30
- Location
- Insomnia
- Website
- www.gbatemp.net
- XP
- 1,131
- Country
I don't quite understand the dislike for the FX lines. The price per performance makes sense on a budget build. Power consumption and single core performance was lacking but having 8 threads when multitasking.
Older games use 1-2 threads (like battlefield 3) but newer games are starting to use 4+ threads and this is where AMD is going to shine on the gaming industry.
16 threads is probably overkill but since it's becoming more relevant in computing and gaming I can see why AMD has 16 in all 3 tiers.
I will be hoping for better watt per performance though. I'd welcome a 4 core 8 thread or 6 core 12 thread options to suit more individual needs.
I would like to see a Ryzen cpu with 4 cores 8 threads that can hit 4.5-5Ghz core speed at 65 watts on watercooling. It would be a gamers dream if that would be priced at $200-300.
Older games use 1-2 threads (like battlefield 3) but newer games are starting to use 4+ threads and this is where AMD is going to shine on the gaming industry.
16 threads is probably overkill but since it's becoming more relevant in computing and gaming I can see why AMD has 16 in all 3 tiers.
I will be hoping for better watt per performance though. I'd welcome a 4 core 8 thread or 6 core 12 thread options to suit more individual needs.
I would like to see a Ryzen cpu with 4 cores 8 threads that can hit 4.5-5Ghz core speed at 65 watts on watercooling. It would be a gamers dream if that would be priced at $200-300.
are there updates or more info?
damn i am hyped
btw how is the integrated graphics on theese processors? are they shity like intel HD graphics?
damn i am hyped
btw how is the integrated graphics on theese processors? are they shity like intel HD graphics?
There isn't any intergrated gpu.
If you want onboard gpu, you'll have to wait for the apu varients.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Accelerated_Processing_Unit
Amds name for their chips with intergrated gpu.
The Ryzen based apus are coming later.
thanks..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_(microarchitecture)
just checked this. woa, now i am confused..
intel has i3 i5 i7 and the "extreme" (not sure what they call those nowadays)
which is easy to follow..
but amd zen, not only has ryzen 3 5 and 7 processors for the entusiastic (extreme) part but each "of theese 3 5 7 has several processors
Considering they've pretty much own the cpu market for close to two decades and now they have compete again, that pic is pretty accurate CD.Basically Intel right now :
I can't wait, because lower prices and higher performances from both companies are inevitable now....
No different from Intel.
Intel don't have just one i3, i5 & i7, but multiple processors in each range as well.
@migles Actually Ryzen has only a couple of processors inside the 3, 5, and 7 subsets.
In the other hand, Intel has a crapload right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaby_Lake#Desktop_Processors
So, if it is about "confusing" I suppose Intel wins.
In the other hand, Intel has a crapload right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaby_Lake#Desktop_Processors
So, if it is about "confusing" I suppose Intel wins.
but while intel 3 and 5 are concidered mainstream, i7 is performance, and there is the "special side" i7 extreme
amd had the 3 5 and 7 in the "performance" (and each type has several processors for that part)
amd then will have the mainstream, which their own 3 5 7 again... (which with several processors) (most likely)
The currently announced chips are all aimed at the performance sector. The mainstream will likely be the apus and will probably not have the SR name (SR=summit ridge, apu codename is raven ridge, so more likely they will br RR3,5,7).
I really don't see how it's anymore confusing. Intel have Celeron all the way to i5 as "mainstream", even though there is a huge performance difference between them and it's fine. Amd list 9 processors as "performance" and it's somehow confusing.
AMD just can't do any right by some people. No matter what someone will find something to complain about.
I really don't see how it's anymore confusing. Intel have Celeron all the way to i5 as "mainstream", even though there is a huge performance difference between them and it's fine. Amd list 9 processors as "performance" and it's somehow confusing
.AMD just can't do any right by some people. No matter what someone will find something to complain about.
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-gaming-benchamrks/
Leaked gaming benchmarks.
So it seems it's around Broadwell-e ipc.
8 cores, broadwell-e ipc, cheaper than intel 6 core. If it holds true once nda lifts (seems like it will at this point). AMD onto a winner here. IPC more than enough for gaming and 8 cores for cheaper than Intel 6. At the moment most games don't use much more than 4, but most people don't just exclusivly game and it should fly for stuff like video encoding. There's also SR3 & 5 yet to come, so cheaper 6 & 4 cores with that ipc for the budget builds.
Leaked gaming benchmarks.
So it seems it's around Broadwell-e ipc.
8 cores, broadwell-e ipc, cheaper than intel 6 core. If it holds true once nda lifts (seems like it will at this point). AMD onto a winner here. IPC more than enough for gaming and 8 cores for cheaper than Intel 6. At the moment most games don't use much more than 4, but most people don't just exclusivly game and it should fly for stuff like video encoding. There's also SR3 & 5 yet to come, so cheaper 6 & 4 cores with that ipc for the budget builds.
Last edited by Armadillo,
