This was fucking shit

RIP INTEL

The fuck are you talking about?

The 3.4Ghz RyZen beat the 3.2-3.7Ghz Intel 6900k by a good 10%. The AMD chip doesn't even have boost yet. The technologies in introduces with MI are innovative stuff. The 6900k is priced at $1100. If they release this shit for $700-900 they'll be doing incredible work.

Definitely recommending this to anyone who does encoding.

>>57988158
It was a 3.4+GHz Ryzen with Extended Frequency Range.

Just dont make new thread

One thing you can ALWAYS guarantee with AMD
is that there will be a fuckton of lawsuits regarding the advertised speed of their chips compared to actual speeds. Because AMD are shit and lie

>>57988204
Wrong. She said no boost function is implemented yet. Can't have EFR without boost.

>>57988369
DELET THIS

>>57988158
>If they release this shit for $700-900

Since when did AMD release CPU's in that range?

I'm betting it'll be in the 300-400 range and blow Intel out of the water. No one will want a 7700k when they could get a Ryzen for about the same price.

File: intel-ivy-bridge-laptop-gaming.jpg (71KB, 672x371px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 672x371px

>>57988211
This. With Intel you're always guaranteed honest to goodness communication.

>>57991331
Kek, I remember that video. People tested the same game and got no where near as good performance as the recording. Jews will be Jews.

>>57988211
The failure lawsuit about Bulldozer? Or do you mean some other lawsuit?

>>57988211
My FX-8350 box says 8 Core Processor on it.

They sold me a lie.

>>57990368
>Since when did AMD release CPU's in that range?
t. underage b&

>>57988158
And intel will immediately drop prices in response to crush amd yet again, you'll see how quickly the fanboy community will turn when it's time to pony up.

>>57991714
I'm 29.

I can't recall any Bulldozer or Piledriver priced that high, and Piledriver was getting the same kind of hype.

>>57988158
>The technologies in introduces with MI
I'm actually hyped for this, looks like ridiculous OC'ing if you're willing to push the chip really far, without any of the classic OC'ing process
>>57991787
Intel didn't drop prices back in the Athlon 64 days, they actually raised them
We actually know how that ended up, but how will Intel go this time? Dropping the prices also hurts them more than AMD, thanks to the fab R&D they do
>>57991839
The Athlon FX-55 was 830 dollars at launch, and that's without including the server motherboards they required
They kept their insane prices well into the Athlon 64 X2 era

>>57991839
>I'm 29.
k
http://www.anandtech.com/show/1722

Hope they can deliver enough chips at competitive prices to make a nice dent in the market. Intel needs a nice kick to begin innovating again. Fucking putting out the same architecture since sandy bridge.

>>57992060
>Hope they can deliver enough chips at competitive prices to make a nice dent in the market
They're smaller dies thanks to the lack of a iGPU, and the die is reused in their entire CPU range, from server to mainstream
The only part where Intel will be able to compete is on bribed out OEM's and on the TOTL chips, specially when they start to strawman with AVX-512 performance
Though, the real battlefield will be the APU OEM marker, I don't expect AMD to really pull a smaller die compared to Intel offerings, and Intel's process is more mature

>>57992056
Alright, I didn't know their pricing that far back.

Back then I had like a Pentium 2 or something like that. Didn't buy it myself either.

so long ago i was bought a pentium 4 "northwood" cpu

should i (we) have gone amd then?

which / when were amd's really great cpus?

No way will AMD release their 8 core for anything less than $600. Bulldozer was unique because it was designed to ship multi-core cpus for a cheap price. Its why it was CMT design. Plus AMD knew Bulldozer was going to be a faildozer.

They went back to a traditional SMT design with Zen. Its more costly to produce multi-core cpus compared to CMT design. AMD also no longer wants to be known as the budget competitor to Intel. They want to be a PREMIUM vendor just like Intel. This incitements shareholders and improves their image.

AMD can easily stay competitive against Intel without having to drastically undercut Intel. Releasing a direct competitor against Intel's $1,100 8 core 6900k for $400 would be a huge monetary loss and devalue their shares. They don't need to cut their profit margins that deep to regain market share. They can easily release it for around $600 - $800 and be a bitch slap to Intel but also cheaper without being dirt cheap in comparison. Still a premium product without the price gouging.

>8 core - the 6900k bitch slap
$800 for the 3.8ghz base model
$650 for the 3.4ghz base model
>6 core - direct 6800k / 6850k competitor
$550 for the 3.8ghz base model
$450 for the 3.4ghz base model
>4 core - intel Z seriers mainstream competitor
$350 for the 3.8ghz base model
$250 for the 3.2ghz base model - the bitch slap to the 6600k / 7600k by offering a quad core with SMT support unlike intel in this price range
>under $200 market
zen based APU's

i know they're "rumors" about $300 8 cores but there's no way. they would be severely devaluing their product if it truly matches broadwell level of performance.

>>57992104
i remember paying $1,000 for my AMD X2 4800+ back then. one of the worlds first dual cores.

>>57993416
>incitements
fuck auto correct. excites*

>>57988204
Wrong cunt

>>57990368
You are now aware AMD CPUs used to cost $1k+

>>57993151
>amd's really great cpus

The Athlon XPs in the early 2000s were glorious

>>57993428
I got a computer as a gift from my grandfather who worked in management at Seagate in 2004, it was a ~2001 PC of his that he was gifting me.

I used that thing until like 2010 when I started building my own since I had money to spend on that finally, and the 1.7 or 1.8ghz single core was dying on me.