>$800/$500 cost >delayed to April? >Still no real benchmark

AMD went full retard as usual they are suppose to primarily compete on price but instead they went for the 2% enthusiast tier instead of competing in the mainstream gaming market.

>>58135417
any source on the new rumor or complete ass pull?

>>58135798
intelfags inventing bullshit as a coping mechanism

Wow AMD fucks up as usual

File: 1459457822326.jpg (82KB, 720x479px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 720x479px

>>58135798
some retard decided that 800 is a good number and spreading it in every thread

simple deduction would be this:
>gaymer announcement with the doritos pope
>esports,dota2, mp bf1 demo =poorfag choice of gaming
>rumored die size of twice smaller than 8350 with zen cores calculated even smaller at 28nm
>low price competing with i5/i7s
worst case $400 CPU for top model

No real benchmarks, no turbo=stock clock benchmarks basically everything is FUD now.

on the other hand we had non consumer vega conference => $600 GPU

The Ryzen 8/16 chip competes with the i7-7700k, which will cost $350. The Ryzen chip will be $500? AMD would have to be full retard. It needs to be $300 max.

>>58135417
Will it release on April 1st?
:^)c

>>58135813
And generally what happens? come on lets be realistic now.
Everytime AMD release soemthing it gets hyped up beyond belief then on release its fucking dogshit.
480 was the 980ti killer.... seen it here way too many times.
If its so good theyd be throwing stats out there

In reality AMD are a few years behind still

Im betting
145w
40 degree idle
Performs just under a 4960
Some inane issue related to ram compatibility or something
And no mother boards for months

>>58136143
the 480, from what we have seen with stock numbers to people with golden chips is right where hype put it, the issue was the silicon lottery is real here, game gamers got the lowest binned chips till the xfx line

>>58135855
the public show was for mainstream, so would mainstream pay for a 500+$ gpu?
the dota 2 demo showed 6900 and a 6700, so my thought is why? why not an i3, or an i5, or a 6800/6850 matched up, why a 6700? and the only conclusion i can draw is 6700 price range for up to 6900 performance.

as for rumored die size, we had a comparison a long time ago that put it up against a 8350 and it was half the size, pretty sure its not rumor at this point.

>>58135860
how does it compete with a 7700? did the 7700 magically get 100% more ipc per clock, because i'm pretty damn sure its 1% over skylake.

a 350 for the base clock, with 500 for a higher end version, likely just binning.

will be interesting to see that overclock thing though, if it can scale itself based entirely on heat that would make for some very interesting chips.

imagine intel putting out the 6900 and it just scales itself up to 4.3ghz and sits there, as pretty much every 6900 can hit 4.3

>>58136143
to put things in perspective, AMD has had one failed arch. bulldozer and all subsequent products. that's it.

Intel had the P4 before it had Core and Sandy Bridge, and god knows that was shit. Nvidia had Fermi. I'm sure there were people back then who thought they were fiished. remember all the housefire and wood screw memes over the GTX 480? oh. you weren't here.

fact of the matter is, you're speculating. AMD has both surprised and disappointed and both could happen now.

>480 was the 980ti killer.... seen it here way too many times.
the 480 was overhyped by eager fanboys and the tech press. cherry picking benchmarks (AOTS, etc) was extremely stupid though, that's for sure.

there's no denying that Polaris delivered and is currently shitting on Nvidia's equivalent products. that is, unless you're a fanboy.

>>58136237
it's not even 1% over skylake. they just boosted clocks a little bit. and swapped out the thermal compound underneath the lid for mayonnaise.

they should have just held out instead of releasing a useless product line.

>>58136217
my prediction is simple, in non fpu heavy loads it matches a 6900, possibly surpasses it, in fpu heavy it shits the bed, in memory bandwidth intense shit it shits the bed.

and because amd aren't complete jews, they are pricing the base chip at a 300% profit uptick over a 8350 and calling it a day at least on the consumer side, they will likely be more aggressive on the server side, especially if they do have octa channel memory on their higher end shit as intel wont have an answer to that for a cycle at the very least, while amd will have the bandwidth, and look at it this way, you need the bandwidth you need the bandwidth, nothing is going to change that, so you go with intel or you go with a similar priced if not slightly more amd but you get more throughput, either way the need isn't going away.

>>58136250
You have some valid points there.

>>58136273
Thats one sentence and is impossible to read. Up you are grammar.

>>58136267
nah, this was there chance to wait on amd, and when amd pulls the trigger and either puts out review samples for people, or releases, you get judge your cpus and price acordingly.

imagine if zen is everything amd makes it out to be, normal people will never see a downside and it will be just like they have a 1000$ cpu in their computer for 350. intel put their shit out and priced it, so now amd puts theirs out can intel cut their prices to be competitive? how low would a 4 core 8 thread i7 need to go to be competitive, and how fucking pissed would everyone be if they spent 350$ and suddenly its 200$

Intel is locked into these prices for a cycle now.

>>58136296
Can anyone translate this from gibberish please?

>>58136296
i'm tired as fuck and forgot to period.

>>58136306
>how fucking pissed would everyone be if they spent 350$ and suddenly its 200$

If you're building pcs you're already accepting the fact that your shit is out of date in a year anyway

>>58136317
You're just lazy and I bet your room is a mess.

>>58136237
>the only conclusion i can draw is 6700 price range for up to 6900 performance.
sign me up, also no new socket every year would be a fresh change
I already forgot how it was to just change CPU

>>58136326
out of date in a year? god no, if you had sandybridge i5 or better you have had no need to upgrade, hell, only thing that would hold you back is if you are a professional but a computer would be a tax write of there, or a gamer, and even then, you are looking at the difference between 100 fps and 130 fps at most.

>>58136334
then buy me shelves and pay me to write, if not then I don't give a fuck.

>>58136342
God that would be nice. not only the same sockets, but worthwhile upgrades would be nice too, I think my current motherboard could hold an fx chip, but that would be a downgrade in many ways if it couldnt house at least a 8350.

>>58136306
I got very very lucky.
my i7-4790k cost me £269.98 , today if I were to buy itd be £338 (bought it back in June)

>>58136387
you know, you would expect older cpus to go down in price, not up.

>>58136403
6700k and 4790k same price here as well, sometimes 6700k is cheaper

>>58136403
its weird, also when I got that I sold my old i5-4460. I had it 16 months and I sold it for £10 less than it cost me.

I've had a fx6100 bulldozer for years

Even if everyone calls it shit, I still don't see a reason to upgrade just yet so I don't mind waiting

>>58135417
>$800/$500 cost
Not confirmed. Even if that's the price, it would be absolutely okay for an 8c/16t chip.

>delayed to April?
Lisa Su confirmed time and time again that they are absolutely on track for their planned Q1 2017 launch.
This has always been the case.

>Still no real benchmark available
Both the blender and the handbrake demo are available to download with detailed steps to reproduce and verify.
If you want "real" benchmarks, wait for reviews.
You can't get any for Kaby Lake either yet, for example.

Aren't the Zen chips supposed to compete IPC with Haswell-E? Why are people comparing it to Kaby Lake now?

Is this a repeat of the RX 480? It was supposed to compete with the GTX 980 and everyone changed it to GTX 980 Ti, so when it failed to meet the 980 Ti everyone deemed it a failure.

File: 173110r4gg3yq3usgrsnzg.png (59KB, 421x248px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 421x248px

>>58137041
Because Skylake was fuckall over Haswell and Kaby is literally just rebinned Skylake.

>>58135417
>$800/$500 cost
Still cheaper than the Intel equivalent.
>delayed to April?
Confirmed for Q1
>Still no real benchmark available
Blender and Handbrake benches have been available for about a week now?

>>58136250
All good points. It's also worth mentioning:

>amd housefires
this bullshit came to a head with the 290/x stock cooler fiasco over here and with mainstream tech reviewers.

Yes the reference coolers were sub-par. However, there were so many good 3rd party coolers available soon after release that this point realistically became moot. That did not stop the nvidia shillboys from using it as leverage to illegitimately shit on a good card. And that's true without mentioning that it is still effectively supported today (unlike its contemporary competitor the 780ti)

>>58137041
again it didn't fail to meet that, If you can clock your chip near 1500, you have golden silicon/the best they will let gamers get, and are well within that range at least under 1080p possibly keeping up 1440.

>>58137370
the reference coolers could keep the 290x cooled to 70~ degrees under full load if you allowed it to go full blast, honestly wasn't even that bad noise wise considering how fast that shit was spinning.

>>58137566
Yeah I never had a problem with them myself, but I understood where the flak was coming from.

I had two reference 290's running in xfire. I had a custom fan curve set which would keep then sub 80 on a substantial overclock. Good times

File: tic6i57uob5y.jpg (150KB, 708x733px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 708x733px

>>58135417
http://beta.canardpc.com/online/quand-canard-pc-hardware-enquete-sur-intel

Intel is about to get FUCKED.

>>58136143
>480 was the 980ti killer

Expecting the 480 to be a 980ti competititor when AMD themselves have stated that it's a mid range card is a dumb thing to do. Believing the shitposters who spouted this bullshit everywhere is an even dumber thing to do.

>>58137655

I don't know man, looks like it more or less breaks even with the 6700k and the 6900k beats it squarely. Processors which are both available right now, as opposed to 6 months from now.

>>58135417
what are you talking about anon
the zen event showed lisa su stating that with how things are going it is looking quite likely for a q1 release

>>58137820
ryzen is still clocked fairly low if these are real.
an nh-d15 or some sort of watercooling would easily push it past 4ghz i imagine

>>58137655
I can't read french

also why should I believe this? Where's their source?

>>58137888
Nice trips.

The thing you should be looking at is where it lands in multicore performance and power draw (compared to the 6900K).

The games they tested are not very well threaded and where it lands (between a 6500 at 3.2/3.6 and a 6600 at 3.5/3.9) seems to be dead in line with nearly-skylake performance, since it seems to be clocked at 3.15Ghz base, 3.3Ghz all core turbo, and 3.5Ghz single core turbo.

>>58137873
>>58137888
It's an engineering sample they got their hands on, hence the lower-than-stated base clock/boost/turbo.

And the article talks about their benchmarks (which will be in the next issue, this page was leaked) and a 6-month inquiry into Intel with off the record interviews and apparently the CEO cut costs on everything, has been firing people and cancelling projects to make them seem really good in the short term.

Sound familiar to another tech company a few years ago?

The magazine is real, the article is real. AMD is about to go on a tear against Intel.

File: 7e3[1].jpg (31KB, 600x750px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 600x750px

>>58138043
Pic related and I hear it's a reputable magazine that doesn't publish trash, but I'm still skeptical

>>58135417

>$800/$500 cost

Is this supposed to be something outrageous or unexpected?
Because if this thing is on par with 6900k, that's a 1100$ CPU.
Does some idiot actually realistically expect AMD to sell the only alternative to that 1100$ thing, for only 300$ or so?
That's fucking ridiculous.
The price will definitely be at least above 600$ and anything under that is a pipe dream.

>>58135417
Meanwhile, Intel released a chip that finally beats the 2500k for $180.

File: psst.png (47KB, 381x292px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 381x292px

>the zen doesn't exist

File: DIARRHEAAAAAaaahhhh.jpg (13KB, 468x287px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 468x287px

>>58137370
Ima let you finish, but the 290 with an aftermarket cooler was the greatest consumer gpu of all time

>>58138079
what's that?

>>58135855

holy fuck you AMD shills are desperate

>>58138652
>five threads spreading baseless doom and gloom about zen
>NO U!

>>58136250
People were retarded because they thought the 480 was a topend card when it wasnt ever priced or aimed to be one but everyone treated it as such and were thus disappointed.

>>58138073
>Does some idiot actually realistically expect AMD to sell the only alternative to that 1100$ thing, for only 300$ or so?
Yes. Because most of amdfags on /g/ are underage b& faggots who don't remember the prices of FX55-57 when amd was actually competetive.

ITT massive fanboying
Obviously Intel is dominating the market atm, and nobody likes the waiting game. So I recommend buying Skylake or Kaby Lake now as opposed to waiting for Zen.
Nonetheless, it's obvious the market would be better off for the consumer if Zen was good. These are companies, not fucking sports teams. They want to maximize profit, nothing more nothing less.
The ONLY reason you should cheer on a company is if you are a stockholder. Regardless, if you are a smart investor you're probably invested in AMD, Intel, and Nvidia anyways (as their stock prices are all correlated in the sector, regardless of the oligopoly in the market).

>>58135417
Oh look! Another fanboy thread in /g/