How expensive will it be? Knowing AMD and knowing that they will

>>58386877
350

If it is even close to as good as Intel's latest offerings, they will price accordingly.
If you seriously expect a competitive 8c16t for under $500 you are delusional.

250

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/new-product/pc-components/amd-zen-processor-release-date-price-specs-features-3643552/


february or march is this real

I'm gonna buy fucking intel

>>58386897
Yeah, people treat it like the second coming, but do they seriously think AMD can just shit out an i7 6700k for 200$?
>>58386930
AMD has already fucked themselves by not releasing it at CES, you should just get an i5 6th gen for 1080p gaming

>>58386940
I got a 3570K at 4.4ghz peaks at 65C on 212 evo cooler

I think I'm good am just sad

There will be multiple Ryzen cpu's.

2 core 4 threads: 100-150
4-8 threads: 200-250
8 cores 16 thread: 400-600 (perhaps 700)

>>58386877
Reminder that AMD hasn't been relevant since phenom II

>>58386940
You should've bought an i5 2500k years ago since intel is yet to offer anything significantly better.

>>58387293
t. poorfag

>>58386940

>>58386940

>AMD has already fucked themselves by not releasing it at CES, you should just get an i5 6th gen for 1080p gaming

This. AMD already blew their chances. Start off with Q2 2016, pushed to Q3/Q4 2016, moved to January 2017 then finally at March 2017

File: muhdrills.gif (570KB, 291x400px) Image search: [Google]

570KB, 291x400px

>poo in cpu won't be out before cannonlake

>>58387264
They'd be exceedingly stupid to not make hex-core chips that failed the cut for 8 cores but still have 2 extra viable cores.

How the cores will be distributed for the cut-down chips is the interesting question. Will AMD go assymetrical (4c active in one cluster, 2c active in the other) or will they go symmetrical (each cluster has 3c active)?

Quads are more likely going to be one intact cluster with the other turned off, and the 8c dies will not be used in dual cores. At that point the silicon is a dud and will likely be tossed.

If AMD does make any Zen dual-cores, it will stem from their APU dies.

>>58387561
>1%

>>58387673

Considering Zen is barely keeping up with the current i7s, AMD BTFO.

>>58387428
This NEVER happened, you FUD spreading shill.
The first engineering samples were only taped out at the beginning of the year. AMD's roadmap from back in 2015 said they were aiming for final silicon in production by October 2016. That hit that milestone. They never said it was going to release in early 2016.
Su and Papermaster both mentioned limited availability end of 2016, with full retail availability Q1 2017. They're still right on track, they've never said anything different.

Desperate little shill.

File: 1481671240637.png (418KB, 627x627px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 627x627px

>>58387561
>poo in cpu

Ryzen was designed by a white man

>>58387673
cannonlake is entirely new architecture and node shrink unlike kaby lake

>>58387669
>Will AMD go assymetrical (4c active in one cluster, 2c active in the other) or will they go symmetrical (each cluster has 3c active)?

AMD has been hyping their cache latencies. I wouldn't be surprised if the 4 core chips had two modules with simply half of the cores and caches disabled.

This all depends on the module to module cache performance.

However, it most likely they'll just price the 8 core part fairly high and put one 4 core module in the 4 core parts.

the 6 core variant will probably get the 2 module treatment.

>>58388348
Its also not coming out til end of the year, and its low power chips only.

I want to buy the 8 core, if its over $400 I'm not buying it.

>>58388330
it was designed by a shit wrecker

File: 1483627440062.jpg (62KB, 600x709px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 600x709px

>>58388375
To add,

again, it all depends on the cache performance as to weather they'll activate 3 cores on module and a few on the other.

>>58388385
a Certified™ shit wrecker

The RRP they'll announce will be like $200, but because the demand will outstrip supply like crazy for the first year you won't find one under $500

You know, the same thing that happened every single time has released something new for the past 20 years

>>58388390
Dresdenboy and The Stilt were talking about this a couple days ago.
A 6 core chip has 1 core and 1 L3 block per CCX disabled. The CCXs have to remain symmetrical. CanardPC also said on twitter that quad core chips were either coming later in the year, or not coming at all.

The lowest end SKU may only be 6 cores, with Raven Ridge APUs filling out the only quad core brackets they'll offer.

>>58386877
I can't give you a dollar value, but i can give you a more substantial one. Dignity.

>>58388348
it is also mobile only

>>58388422
depends where, where I live vendors up sale 10% even if it's new

>>58388607
t. Intel desperately trying to stop the onslaught of Arm

>>58388431
let's assume midrange 8c is $250

why would you want 4c/6c at all?

>>58388632
are there ARM laptops? when I say mobile mean laptops in intel case

>>58388431
That directly contradicts what AMD is saying.

>The key word there is “chips” as in, multiple chips, not just the high-end eight-core, 16-thread model that AMD has been talking up in recent demos. What’s more, AMD product manager Jim Prior revealed to the publication that every Ryzen chip you can buy can be overclocked (assuming you have a capable motherboard, of course).

http://www.techspot.com/news/67690-amd-talks-ryzen-hard-launch-lifespan-overclocking-plans.html

If the quad core part is the LOWEST end chip, a 6 month delay for that part wouldn't be bad... in the desktop segment at least.

I do hope though ALL Zen parts have SMT enabled.

>>58387264
There won't likely be a full range on release. I would bet the 8c/16t part they've been showing off to be the only option for a while, possibly even months after initial release.
Otherwise they would be demoing more chips than just the 8c/16t one.
In fact, I wouldn't even doubt there only being 2-3 different stock clockspeed offerings at first.
In time as production ramps up they'll start binning chips and have more options readily available, but I don't see them having a fleshed out product line until 2H2017 at the earliest.

We're also sure to see massive shortages for the entire year like we did with the rx 480. I just hope that doesn't mean the parts trading for 10-25% over MSRP like we did with the rx 480.
And your listed prices are a pipe dream. AMD has always priced their products according to how they perform. Or even unreasonably for how they perform. Remember the 9590? The $1000 chip that was nothing more than an 8350 at a stable 5ghz that pulled so much power only the very best motherboards could support it?

>>58388650
AMD is comparing their 8 core cpu to a $1000 Intel part.

No way it's costing less than $400.

AMD has been making this comparison for months to weed out a price that won't piss people off; but $250 ain't going to happen.

>>58388664
Windows 10 on Arm is a step there, and people obviously want small/portable devices that have the advantage of having a physical keyboard, hence ARM chromebook(s?)

And it's not like Intel hasn't tried getting in to Smartphones before with ultra-low power chips.

>>58388683
>We're also sure to see massive shortages for the entire year like we did with the rx 480
I would agree if it was like GPU launch where you can have reference design ready and sell that.
But two things happened one full range of motherboards are ready and were shown, two Papermaster said it twice in one interview they will have enough.

If there were no boards at CES, like there were no hints of partner cards for 480 for two months, that would be terrible sign of performance and availability.

>>58388480
That wasn't funny the first time you posted it, it hasn't gotten any funnier.
>>58388664
There are ARM Chromebooks. The whole Qualcomm windows emulation thing could also be indicative of something else looming in the near future. It'll be interesting.

>>58388676
That isn't a contradiction at all.
They'll have multiple SKUs available, they never said what the core counts would be.

>>58388703
They also compared it against an i7 6700k.
$400-$500 would still have huge margins, it wouldn't totally alienate 99.99% of the market, and it would successfully undercut 8c Haswell-E, and some of the comparable Broadwell-E SKUs.

>>58388703
>AMD has been making this comparison for months to weed out a price that won't piss people off
Or other way around, to shell shock everyone how intel jews whole world with their 8 cores for $1000. Just like they did with athlon64.

I agree top mdoel will be more than $400, but lower clocked same core less potential chips might be around 300 range.
It's just that math for die size aligns too well, they can afford price war, intel can't because they own the fabs that do not make anything besides intel parts.

File: just_bee_yourself.png (39KB, 914x1091px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 914x1091px

It can gp for three fiddy, I am still getiing Kaby

>>58388779
Hey also said there'd be plent of 480 chips to meet demand.
Problem was the demand proved to be even greater than they expected (despite retards who keep pointing to steam harware surveys being any kind of realistic measure).
Ironically, I remember reading the unreasonably high demand for the reference cards played a pretty big part into the huge delay for custom cards being available as AMD simply couldn't meet deman and supply enough chips to 3rd parties for them to start full production.

Obviously it's different when all they're supplying this time around is the chip itself, but demand is going to be insane. Especially if they offer the performance of a $1000 chip for <$700.
I personally don't see $500 being realistic, but maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised like with the 4870 launch so long ago.

>>58386940
>do they seriously think AMD can just shit out an i7 6700k for 200$?
You realize the actual cost of the CPU is a small fraction of the price right? The price is almost entirely determined by how much people are willing to pay and how the company thinks they can recover their design costs best. If AMD thinks they can recover their costs and get good press better by selling a lot of chips for cheap instead of fewer chips at a higher price there's no reason they can't.

>>58388901
>actual cost
you realize that the cost of a product is not only dependent on the ressource/factory cost of it? Now fucking leave, you have no idea what you are talking about

>>58388310
Pooinloo is angry lol

>>58388939
in case of integrated circuits? die size is 70% of the price

Ryzen 8c for $300 is a pipe dream.
400-500$ range is realistic but still quite optimistic.

a 6c chip with good clocks for $300 is also realistic but optimistic. It will beat all intels quads and rival their $500 hexacore.

Hopefully the motherboards will be cheaper than the Intel ones, Heck the X300 boards could be low as $40-5 thanks to it not doing much.

File: AYYMD-on-suicide-watch.jpg (434KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

434KB, 1920x1080px

>>58388855
>despite retards who keep pointing to steam harware surveys being any kind of realistic measure

KEKKED

6900k is $1100
ryzen will be $1099

ayymd drones on suicide watch lmao

File: 1480738482108.jpg (99KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 600x800px

Do you think the 4 core zen models can compete with skylake i5s?

File: amdvega.jpg (156KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 633x758px

>>58389211
DELET THIS

>>58389319
At equal clocks it should be really close.
I don't see AMD offering any 4c/4t chips unless they were dirt cheap bottom of the barrel binnings. Even the Raven Ridge APUs are 4c/8t.

>>58389319
Of course. It'll probably be roughly the same or just slightly worse single threaded performance thanks to better clocks on ryzen, better multithreaded thanks to multithreading on ryzen, and ryzen will be cheaper.

At the price point of say a 6600k there should be a c6 ryzen that will destroy all i5s.

>>58387306
Good goy

>>58389450
>thanks to better clocks on ryzen
You expect Ryzen to OC better than Skylake? Based on what?

>>58388310
it doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong,
AMD should have communicated their release dates better, when Intel states a release date they actually release the hardware - when AMD says something its vague leaving people guessing

People waited for Advanced Micropenile Devices hardware to come out for too long, enthusiasts upgrade on average every 4 years -some earlier some later, and releasing Zen practically 5 years after Bulldozer bulldozed them and missing the crucial release times - summer 2016 and christmas 2016 is pretty much suicidal

I have seen many AMD fanboys toss their old AMD junk and switch to Intel during summer 2016

Zen will not save AMD, it will only kill it, at least in the developed world that is - AMD might become popular in the developing and developing world

>>58389641
>You expect Ryzen to OC better than Skylake? Based on what?
>Implying only intel can have good OC

I dont see why not

>>58389641
Yes and no, I meant stock clocks, since there's only one i5 that can overclock, so large advantage vs. most i5s.

They should be about as overclockable as the 6600k. But cheaper and with HT.

>>58389699
>developing and developing world
Why would they? Apparently Zen is more expensive than the averange i3 (for example, an i3 6100 which is sufficient for 1080p)

>>58389875
Decent Intel CPUs since Sandy, besides Broadwell maybe, have been hitting 4.6-4.8GHz with good cooling. The only thing we know about Ryzen is that it managed 5GHz with 1 active core. We don't have any actual guess as to what Zen will manage in terms of OC.

>>58387561
>anime picture
>retard
All in order

>>58389985
they will be forced to price down their products within a year since Intel does yearly releases

also note that zen is o bunch of cpus ranging from cheap zen cores to the ryzen cpu

plus some reviewers note that Zen mobos at CES support lots of old crud you rarely see in the west,
AMD knows they don't have much of an image in the developed world anymore...but in the poorer regions of the world where people are slowly starting to buy their first computer they have a chance

just my guess though, lets see what happens when amd zen is released christmas 2017

>>58390052
>The only thing we know about Ryzen is that it managed 5GHz with 1 active core
That is what I mean. We have yet to see if Ryzen is going to be good oc or not, but people somehow assume that it will be impossible to oc past 4ghz. We just have to wait and see how it turns out. Hope for the best anon

>>58386877

8c/16t+ = 250
8c/16t poorfag edition = 200
6c/12t = 150
4c/8t = 100
4c/4t = 50

>>58390170
You are delusional

>>58390104
AMD is shit with pricing, their worthless FX CPUs still cost as much as i3/i5. They could easily beat NVIDIA if they would lower their GPU prices for about 20€

If you're that much of a poorfag just get an i3 6100, paired with a GTX1050 it's like 250€ and you can have a mid-settings gaming PC for 400-450€, if you buy everything new.

If you're a REALLY REALLY REALLY poorfag I suppose you could get a FX 4xxx or 6xxx used for 60€, but at that point you should just save for a proper PC

>>58390147
The only assumption I see in this thread is that it will beat a 6600k in terms of clocks. I hope it'll do 4.7GHz+ on the 8 core models with good (water) cooling, but that's quite high for an 8C CPU so I'm not too sure at all it will get that high.

Maybe the 4C models will OC higher, but I'm personally not interested in Zen if I don't get more cores than my 4790K.

>>58390170
8c/16t+ = 25
8c/16t poorfag edition = 20
6c/12t = 15
4c/8t = 10
4c/4t = 5

>>58390170
their best 16t cpu won't be priced below 350$, you can pretty much bet on it. I'd expect it to be closer to 500$ based on their pricing history.

>>58390250
(in cents)

>>58390217
I have 4690K myself, so I am good for 2+ years with my gaymes, but I would like to see good and cheap cpus for my next upgrade, so having Ryzen show good results and be competitive would be in the best interest of all consumers

>>58390104
>christmas 2017
it's today in orthodox countries

>>58386877
Apparently they're putting this thing in the next Xbox so it can't be all that expensive.

>>58386940
> but do they seriously think AMD can just shit out an i7 6700k for 200$?
Yes, considering Intel is basically price gouging because they can.

>>58390317
Competition is always good, as for myself if the 8C Zen CPU can give me the same single-threaded performance as my 4.7GHz Haslel, I'll upgrade for better performance with game live encoding and for more PCIe lanes.

>>58390415
$200 is way too cheap, maybe $300-$400

>>58390415
Lol, love those deluded AMD fans. Remember when you tried to shill the RX480 to be a 980ti for 200€? Same shit here.

>>58386877
$500 for an 8 core intel part would be insanity, so hopefully it's around that price, though I doubt they'll undercut them by that much

>>58390443
You've got it backwards. $200 is not cheap. It's what should be the normal price.
Instead, Intel is price gouging.

>>58390462
The only delusion would be to convince yourself that Intel is not price gouging.

File: 1459107328843.gif (3MB, 250x153px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 250x153px

how realistic is that AMD has no prices yet and just monitoring response and speculations to invent it on the go?

>>58388987
>die size is 70% of the price
Big fabs can get access to 300mm wafers for less than 100 bucks, and you can get some 60-100 chips out of that depending on die size. Photoresist and dielectric layer costs nil at the scale they're working on too. Main cost is licensing process, R&D, and then finally margins.

I can see MSRP of $400 but market price of $500 for the 8C16T version. Almost definitely there will also be 4C8T, which I think will be slightly more expensive than the i5 line also slightly less powerful than an i7 in multicore tests. Not sure what their low end offering will be but I think it will be interesting.

>>58390703
revealing prices too early will let intel steal their wind and of course deflate some of the hype too (unless they are wildly better than their intel counterparts)

>>58386877
Nobod, except some AMD execs knows. It depends on how the chip clocks and what yields are.

Assume that 1% of chips can reach 4.2/4.8 ghz on all 8 cores within 140W TDP. Those fuckers can be packaged as Ryzen FX and sold at $1500. There are people who would get them just for the bragging rights.

Bottom intel HEDT is about $400. You should expect AMD to undercut that at 300-350 with an 8 core part clocked at 3.4/whatever

>>58390746
>Though Pentium 4s can sell for up to $637, Intel's average cost for making a chip comes to $40, according to a report from analysts In-Stat.

first google result

Normal prices is $300 for 8core
Probably around $400 at the start when demand is so high

29,59

>>58386877
I can imagine the black edition sr7 being 500 dollaridoos

>>58388901
>If AMD thinks they can recover their costs and get good press better by selling a lot of chips for cheap instead of fewer chips at a higher price there's no reason they can't.
AMD isn't trying to "recover costs", they are trying to make a profit.
AMD is NOT a charity.

>>58389985
>Apparently Zen is more expensive than the averange i3 (for example, an i3 6100 which is sufficient for 1080p)

We don't even know what the APUs will cost

>>58388310
Look at this PR shill being indenial. They've been hyping this for a long time and the delays were real.

>>58386940
>AMD has already fucked themselves by not releasing it at CES, you should just get an i5 6th gen for 1080p gaming
Gaming is not the only workload in the world.

>>58391914
[citation needed]

File: 1445406303733.png (486KB, 526x700px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 526x700px

>>58391942

I don't understand - please extrapolate.

File: uwotm8.png (99KB, 318x400px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 318x400px

>>58387293
>spend hundreds of bucks several years ago for 2500k
>spend hundreds of bucks today for something like a 6700k that wipes the floor with the tears from 2500k users

yea, no difference...

>>58389985
>an i3 6100 which is sufficient for 1080p

lel wut. maybe in 2014 titles

>>58391914
Nope. See: >>58374866

Facts say you're a fucking liar.

>>58386930
>Update 6 January: At CES, AMD has revealed a few new details about the forthcoming processor launch. First and foremost, it won't just be the eight-core chip launching, but a whole range. AMD is keeping a lid on the details - and prices - but says that fans won't have to wait until the end of the quarter (i.e. March 2017) to get their hands on Ryzen - then plan is to launch before then.

Riddle me this, which site has more Intel shills - /g/, OCN or Hardocp's forum?

>>58390895
They can keep the special 8c-140W at $1500 FX. If I'm going to spend that type of dough, then I'll just buy Intel.

>>58390462
That was crazy, but you do understand that now a 480 can beat most if not all 980's and fall's behind the 980 ti about 10% for less than half the price.
Before 2017 is done I wouldn't be surprised if it cuts that gap to less than 5%
And it should be beating the 1060 by 5% as well by then. As it's already beating it in some categories and falls behind like 1-2% in others.

Not getting another gpu likely till navi or w.e nvidia has to offer then. But the high end vega should be stronger than the 1080, possibly even the 1080ti.
Really AMD just has to stick with 90-100% performance and 70% price. And they will gain a market share, larger than they have now. If they can stick to something like that for 2-3 years and actually gain a profit. They could pick one market and compete for #1 which would be an uphill marketing battle.

>>58391890
Yeah, the people thinking AMD is giving away competitve Zen 8c chips for $200 or less are beyond delusional.

Hell, they tried to fleece early adopters of Faildozer before dropping the price dramatically.

>>58388348
>cannonlake is entirely new architecture and node shrink unlike kaby lake
it's just a node shrink. Icelake will be the new architecture

>>58392013
>spend £90 on a 2500k and a p67 mobo last year
>overclock it to 4.5Ghz
>no need to upgrade for years to come

????

>>58392279
Why? Serious question. I would get that if Intel was faster at such level. But why to buy slower CPU for more money?

>>58392279
>>58393127
I doubt they would try and pull some bullshit like that off. Now thier special snow flake cpu's even if it's comparable i'd still say they would sell it at around 900 max. that way they still make a large profit and still "undercut" the competition.

File: laughing-black-man-7563376.jpg (170KB, 957x1300px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 957x1300px

>>58387293
>6600k isn't significantly better than a 2500k
Kek, look at this poorfag.
Look upon him and laugh.

>>58393368

They'd never go 900 burgers as the 1500 dorra Intel chip is 10c/20t. The 6900k is 1000 so I would expect AMD to go 800 for the top binned 8c/16t chip.

>>58392174
ur mums ass

>>58393127
I'm not saying it wouldn't sell but I doubt it would at that price. If they are going to price their snowflake CPU at $1500 then surely their regular 8c is going to be $1000. Although I'm an enthusaist to a degree I'm just not in the market for $1000+ CPUs and sure as hell don't want a $1500 one.

If some of the "leaks" are to be believed then the top 8c would $500 and the next 8c would be $350. I'll believe that when I see it. If they are correct they aren't going to price their special chip at $1000 more. Snowflake CPU would need to be significantly less.

Intel has an 8c at $1050 running 1Ghz less than the snowflake Ryzen at a theoretical 4.2 GHz. Then for $150 more you can get a 10c Intel at 1.2 GHz less. I just can't see AMD competing in that segment of HEDT market at this time.

People will generally go for the "safe" pick when it comes to $$$ just like they did in the early to mid 2000's. Yes, plenty of us did not go with Intel back then but plenty did even knowing that AMD had better CPUs for the money.

i5-7600k is $250

What will AMD sell for $250 and how does it compare to the i5-7600k?

>>58391008
>single core
>low performance
>much less R&D involved
Keep believing what you want to, but don't mislead others.

Another thing you're completely ignoring is that you're not buying directly from Intel or AMD, there's a couple of middlemen and retailers who make profit too.

Sorry, but too little, too late

I'll be waiting for Coffee Lake to upgrade to an 8 core

>>58394618
I thought Coffee Lake was supposed to top out at 6-core???

>>58389336
>posts the same picture and responds with the same DELET to his own post in every amd thread
Pitiful existence.

>>58391890
>AMD isn't trying to "recover costs", they are trying to make a profit.
The cost of development has already been spent. They have to make that back before they can make a profit. And in either case the logic is the same. Selling 100 of something at $10 profit is better than selling 10 at $20 profit. AMD has historically had lower margins and Intel's prices are clearly inflated right now.

>>58390274

Here is the thing, they are making only one sku.

Their higher binned shit will be for 2 3 and 4 die opterons first. however, what if they offered a single high binned cup for a consumer?

the 350$ base for the 8 core is their absolute worst binned cpu they will produce without physical fuck ups that relegate chips to 4 or 6 core variants. I could see the 8 core starting at i7 prices as it would kill off any use for an i7 outside of peak clocks, and the fucked up 4 and 6 cores will be higher binned, which would likely kill the higher clock excuse along with providing better performance for money along along the i5 and i3 cpu lineup. you then have the e line 6 core, which the 350 cpu will out preform most of the time, begging the question do you need a 400-500$ cpu? with the 350 touching the 8 core you again ask is it worth it, then amd offered up a higher binned 8 core for a bit more, likely clocks higher then intel's boost, and ocs better then it too, and you ask yourself, do you really need quad channel memory?

amd, if they price at 150 250 350 and 500, kill off all need/use for intel cpus, but if amd decided to try and price ball part their core count equivalents, then they are fucked because who won't shell out a pittance more for something guaranteed apposed to something that is up in the wind.

>>58393717
Nothing
And this is why this will go nowhere. Just like with every single thing AMD has done for the past 8 years

>>58387428
>>58388310

The only time amd ever mentioned was q1, everything else came from rumors at best, and in the case of the 2016 shit, that was based on tap outs and how long it usually takes to get to a releasable product.

>>58390415
the lowest amd could sell their 8 core for and make profit is 100$, as an 8350 is twice its size, and msrp for 200~

considering the 6 and 4 core would be fucked up dies, and the worst 8 core will be worse binning then the 6 and 4 core (as all the good binned will go toward the black edition/fx/whatever its called, and server chips) I could easily see a situation where the 8 core at 3.4 sucks cock, but is still better than intel equivalent chips, and the 6 core could clock higher then the 8 core to an extent it beats out the 8 core.

but this is going on the thought that they never sell a 12/14/20/22/28/30 core opteron, and instead only sell 100% working ones, if they sell some fucked up dies as operons, then the entirety of the amd consumer zen release will be lowest bin shit, still better than intel equivalents, but wont overclock for shit.

File: 1474784989997.gif (3MB, 264x242px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 264x242px

>>58392920
all while getting completely assraped by a 6600k

>>58390587
>>58390462

xfx gtr gets into the fury range in benchmarks, that puts it between a 980 and 980 ti, the only thing that fucked the polaris line and perception was gamers didn't get good binned chips till the gtr line, they all went to embed partners.

>>58396568
>Not a single game hits 100% usage ever.
Oh wow I better upgrade anyway right?

>>58396292
>Here is the thing, they are making only one sku.

>autism intensifies
They are making one _die_ which they intend to mix/match to make a shitload of SKUs.

>>58392293
based on the efficiency gains nvidia had over kepler, and how amd pretty much put that into vega, mix that with the tflop it should do, and you have a gpu that has a potential gap from little more then a 1080 to little more than a titan x

Them aping volta as their real competitor seems to not be to far fetched.

from the benchmarks they showed, it gets between 1080 and titan, we like to make fun of the one top to 35, but its a es on 6 months till finished drivers, going on the vram it had, which is 8gb, this is potentially not even the high end version.

>>58396547
>but this is going on the thought that they never sell a 12/14/20/22/28/30 core opteron,

12 core oppy would imply MCMing two 6 core parts. This does not exclude doing well binned 8/16 mainstream stuff. You don't need to bin 24 core 1.6 ghz low power oppy high, it is still going to sell well and hit all power requirements. Take a look how many mutations there are of Xeons, not all of them are golden silicon. From my experience Xeons ar just as shitty as regular CPUs, except for those halo 22 core ones.

>>58396703
I was more thinking 1 8 and 1 4 both being highly binned, but with that, they could make an 8 core out of 2 high binned 4 core dies, as that would also have quad channel support I believe.

>>58386930
did you read it or are you a goblin

>>58396703
on a side note, do you happen to know how many different dies they make in the xeon lineup? I wouldn't think they only make 24 core designs and anything with fucked up segments that gets cut off down to the 8 core ones.

But this is the difference between amd doing an mcm design, and intel doing a monolithic ones. intel cant afford to just not sell cpus because 1 or 2 cores are fucked up, but amd making only one die, could just sell those ones to consumers and only offer highly binned cpus to enterprise.

AMD still aims to make money, they'll probably be close to Intel's prices if they are comparable in performance. They are still a business and want to make money... Why undersell themselves.

>>58393658
The thing is, it depends.

Special snowflake 8/16 running at 4.2/4.6 will socket rape 6950x in anything, unless it chokes on memory bandwidth. That will sell, even at $1500 because intel has nothing that would match it.

Imagine this:

Super Special Snowflake - $1500 4.2/4.6 vs 6950x ( $1700 )
Special Snowflake - $800, 4.0/4.4 vs 6900k ( $1100 )
Ryzen Regular - $500, 3.8/4.2 vs 6850k ( $650 )
Ryzen Pleb - $350, 3.4/3.8 vs 6800k ( $440 )

It is pretty much HEDT pattern. Except it would perform better and cost less and require less expensive platform.

As I said - how it bins and clocks is how much it will cost.

>>58388703
if amds lowest binned chip is 400$-500$, i would go with an intel 6 core because that could be overclocked to 4.4 almost guaranteed meanwhile amd having their lowest binned one at 400-500 mean their higher binned one would be 7-800, and at that point i would go intel for being a known quantity.

350 is the perfect point for amd, it shits on the i7 lineup outside of the extreme oc, and calls into question why bother with intel's 6 and 8 core at the same time. a 500$ higher binned would likely call into question why bother with a high oc i7 and could possibly clock as if not higher than intel's 8 core, putting it between the 8 and 10 core, which begs the question, do you use the few workloads where intel is better? do you need quad channel memory?

This is the way I see it at least, if amd wants market share and mass sales, they have to go with this price point, if they go higher, its not the case of they will sell less, its the case of people will just go competition instead.

They put these out at the 150 250 350 and 500 price point they will get the mass sales till intel responds, the question is will they respond with a price drop and make everyone feel like they got screwed hard, or suck it up for a cycle and price drop with the 8000 series.

File: 1474088525338.gif (953KB, 310x233px) Image search: [Google]

953KB, 310x233px

>>58396857
>Those prices

GOODBYE CONSUMER MARKET

HELLO PROFESSIONALS WHO WILL STILL CHOOSE INTEL

>>58396945
Raven Ridge is the mainstream part, not Summit Ridge aka Ryzen.
It was known from the start that Summit Ridge would be HEDT.

>>58393658
there was a 4 month period where the 9000fx were over 1000$, and I can never find out why, was it amds actual msrp, or was it an oem that would sell the cpus themselves and because there was no price set for it, charged 1000~$?

but here is amd's history, when amd was better then intel, they sold a cpu that matched intel's 1000$ cpu for 300$, then sold one 20% better for 1200, and one 40% better for 1500$

I honestly doubt amd has a single 8 core that will challenge intel's 10, but amd could release an opteron workstation, with an mcm of 2 quad cores that has quad channel memory for less then intel, then sell a 10 core for less, then jack that shit up for 12+ cores to sub intel but still great levels, up to 24 cores, then jack that price up because intel currently has no answer for anything higher.

>>58393717
if price leak was real, a 6 core 12 thread.
the i5 will likely clock higher, but won't perform better than stock zen 6 outside of games, and even in some games.

>>58397004
it's what you call it, not amd.

>>58387561
you totally failed

>>58397146
...and how many of those FX9590's sold at those ridiculous prices? I have no idea how many sold but that was quite a rip off.

I remember the Athlon days too and AMD charged a hefty premium for their best FX CPUs.

The thing is I don't know if AMD can get away with stupid prices on this release. AMD has a serious PR problem with a lot of the enterprise, enthusiast and higher-end OEM community. AMD is viewed as a poor-person's alternative and they have to change that perception before they get into fleecing their customers like Intel can.

Just an anon /g/ opinion

>>58392174

Just because it bears repeating.

I have a Athlon 860k (o.c to 4.2) with a power color r9 380 and 8 gigs of ram. I was thinking of upgrading to a fx8350 and I use upgrade loosely.

My reasoning is that dx12 will be able to use the cores more efficiently than older dx versions.

Should I wait for new amd chips or just switch to Intel, like a 4690k or better.

Btw, I get console fps with everything maxed out if it is a shitty game like fallout 4 or any other poorly optimized game. Every other game gets me 40-50 fps

>>58389211
It's just like the 5xxx series cards, AMD had the better cards and the better tech

yet retards still bought nvidia cards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN7i1bViOkU

>>58398304
>unironically posting that scottish autistic poojeet
lmao

>>58398552

>Literally 12 years old and not even through puberty shitting on anything that hurts your bias

I can guarantee that AMD will have Ryzen CPUs from $150 all the way up to $500

Every time we hear something new about Ryzen there is a clock speed boost. The first test was a 3.0 Ghz part against the 6900k, then there was a 3.4Ghz part, then there was a 3.6Ghz part at CES.

AMD said that there would be a 3.4GHz part, but that it would be the absolute lowest they were going to release.

I forsee 3.4, 3.6, 3.8ghz parts and maybe some clocked higher with fewer cores.

I think the APU version is gonna be a 4 core part, so I don't think they'd release 4 cores until then.


I think basically they are keeping everything close to the chest so that Intel can't respond quickly.

>>58398863
Actually thinking about it, I think there will be quad core parts at release for the lower tier motherboards.

>>58398616
>adoredtv
>unbiased
LMAO
He's literally the most retarded fanboy on jewtube.

>>58386877
the price doesn't matter so much as the performance

>>58398863
Their 2 core 4 thread CPU better be around $100 and wreck i3s

although I'm heavily considering the overclockable i3, might have to give in just to be able to emulate games very well

>>58399013
I don't think there will be a dual core.

>>58399048
There has to be to compete well in the low end, it'll be 4 threads though, pure dual cores should finally be dead

>>58399080
A dual core die would mean 1 core per CCX. With a defect rate that high in a given candidate there are likely many other things wrong with it.
There probably won't be anything with 2 cores, unless its an APU with 2 cores selectively shut off to save power.
Even quad core Ryzen is looking unlikely.

>>58399125
How do you think CPU manufacturing works exactly? GPU manufacturing is sometimes broken up into multiple segments

but CPUs just get lasered off and sold as lesser parts

every haswell chip for example starts it's life trying to be a 4 core 8 thread CPU

if they have enough defects they get cut down into pure dual cores

it's how you end up with AMD's Tri-Core CPUs that you can sometimes enable a 4th core on

>>58397462
All i can find about the 9000's msrp is that it was 260, which makes me think what was being sold was an oem dumping the cpus before a retail boxed chip was sold.

>>58398899

>Butt hurt fanboying when facts don't reflect your perceptions.

>>58399231
you can go back to your jewtube channel now poojeet

>>58399209
That's like offering a single core.

Dual cores are done.

>>58399209
>you
>thinking you know more than me
>trying to explain the process of defect binning when you don't understand it
Hoo boy.
There is one singular die called Zeppelin.
Zeppelin is comprised of 2 CCXs, two clusters of 4 zen cores.
To maintain cache coherency the two CCXs have to remain identical in core and L3 block count.
For there to be a functional dual core die made out of Zeppelin means that 3 cores and or 3 L3 blocks per CCX are defective.
Only dies with corresponding functional cores per CCX would be viable, and this is already scraping the bottom of the barrel.
For a die to have this many defects present in the core logic, and not to have an issue in any other part of the die would be astronomically rare.
We're looking at only 1/4 of the executing units functioning at this point.

Don't try to correct people who know far more than you.

>>58399013
there wont be dual or 3 cores till the apus.

>>58399080
150$ is what we think the quad core i7 equivalent would be, Honestly think that's appealing on its own considering its a small jump from an i3 to 150$.

>>58399269
not necessarily, the apu in a laptop a dual core is enough, in a pc its a low enough cost to justify, but it would be fucked cpu parts.

>>58399209
the only way to get 2 from 8 would be 6 cores failing catastrophically, at that point fuck that die.

File: 264.gif (1MB, 170x196px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 170x196px

>>58399304
>the guy you responded to

>>58399452
A dual core on the desktop would be about 25W probably, I'm assuming the lowest they'll go to is 45W

>>58399304
You're trying to tell me that intel has entire wafers dedicated to make pure dual core parts?

>>58399548
Intel is not selling 8 core dies as functional dual cores, anon. Pull your head out of your ass.

>>58399548
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1724732/chip.html

You are so fucking ignorant

>>58386877
https://discord.gg/8BavGJw

>>58399548
He's a retard. Intel only makes true dual core ULV parts. Everyting else is disabled quad cores.

>>58399591
Nice false equivalency.
Try again, shit for brains.

>>58388348
>how does tick tock work
::the post

honestly, faggot. they never node shrink + new architecture at the same time
kys

>>58386877
https://discord.gg/8BavGJw
_

>>58399601
Intel abandoned tick-tock you cumguzzling cockmongering faggot.
>kys
back to plebbit and kill yourself

>>58399683
Yes, now it's tick-tock-tock.

>>58390170
HAHHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
WHAT THE FUCK WORLD DO YOU LIVE IN?

>>58399873
The one with DESIGNATED STREETS.

>>58390422
>4.7ghz
wouldn't count on it having same single thread

File: 1478652087819 (1).jpg (2MB, 900x6750px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 900x6750px

>>58396781
GOBBOS

>>58400011
God bless /twg/.

>>58400125
Ayyy

>>58390052
>he doesn't mention good cooling means top tier liquid or better
>ryzen got to 5ghz on air just fine

>>58400203
>1 core

>>58399484
its not about watts, its about what you get out of the silicon.

there will be skus that have 1 or 2 cores missing, and there will be skus with weaker gpus, its not a watt limit, its just how good the silicon is.

File: tmp_16211-calvin-on-academic-writing.gif_w_273&h_3102019530225.gif (17KB, 300x375px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 300x375px

If lower tier SKUs are just poorly binned 8c/16t chips with some cores disabled, why wouldn't they be available from launch?

>>58400209
>3 stage VRM

>>58400243
you won't get 8 cores@5GHz on air you fucking imbecile

>>58396568
>made an impulse choice rather than a wise one.
[email protected] seems to be going strong both in games and 3D software.
All that said I'm switching to AMD because lunix and hypervisors, need windows until Zbrush and a few other softwares make the jump.
Thanks for disabling features intell.

>>58400261
Yeah you probably said Trump couldn't win, too

>>58400297
you're a fucking retard
>>>/v/

eight core zen for anything lower than $700 will most likely not happen. no way amd will devalue their own product that much if its comparable to intel's $1,000 eight core broadwell-e 6900k. selling it for $300 less is already devalued enough. knocking it down $500? $700? that's just stupid economics and would upset shareholders. they have a premium product and wasted hundreds of millions in R&D and did nothing but bait shareholders promising a high return for more funding for that product. they can't recoup that cost and promises by being charitable.

amd can compete on price, but not stupid undercutting levels of price. they can't afford to enter a full fledged price war with intel because intel would easily win. unlike amd, intel can easily survive a price war. intel has PLENTY of capital to lose. amd is already on its last leg. they cannot afford to lose anymore and that right there implies they will price it as high as they feasibly can. plus, amd has already admitted to shareholders they no longer want to be seen as the underdog, value brand. but rather a premier, strong competitor and alternative to intel.

Faggot AMDucks

>>58400333
>Intelgoy pays whatever he asked by his master who monopolized hi-end cpus market
>AMD enters market again
>N-no way! It's devalued!

>>58401098
fuck off underage poojeet

>>58401098
I'd be stoked if AMD released something competitive. Based on performance since phenom II I'm not holding my breath though.

>>58401130
>Implying FX-s not still having best perf/price ratio in 8-threaded workloads

>>58401154
any used xeon takes a big dump on poojeet fx

>>58401154
this tbqh senpai, I use winrar everyday

t.pir8fag

>>58400333
Good goy.

I'd love for them to price match it to the 7700K and be like "double the cores, with none of the brand mark up"

>>58401184
>not using 7zip

Really if the 8 core is under 500 then it will be perfect. All of you fags saying how it will be worse than the high end intel cpus and you will buy those day one. Please tell me what do you do that uses this cpus so intensively. I am waiting

File: Clip2net_170109111841.png (8KB, 366x188px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 366x188px

>>58401171
Which ones?

>>58400333
> they can't afford to enter a full fledged price war with intel because intel would easily win.

intel has the shareholders and the bazillion dollar exec bonuses to pay. they're the ones who can't afford a price war, not amd.

>>58401214
70% this will happen
AMD priorities:
1: return to market no matter what, market share above all
2: devalue competition
3: making money, they can live with debt for all eternity if they wanted to

>>58400333
>they can't afford to enter a full fledged price war

actually they can, intel lose 7% of the market 10 thousand people lose their job
intel has to pay for their fabs, amd just makes orders

>>58396292
>Their higher binned shit will be for 2 3 and 4 die opterons first.
Nope, 4 of those higher clocking ones is a combined TDP of ~400W which is just something that is not going to happen. It'll be the lower 65W and bellow that have all 8c functioning that'll be used for those (and only those as the costs associated with mating the chips means it's not going to be worth it to do if not all 8 are ticking). That leaves high binned 8c, and all the variations of fuck'd up cores to be sold as HEDT.

>>58386877
>shit coloured background
What did amd mean by this?

>>58401781
All ryzen CPUs cooler will come with shit pre-applied instead of thermal paste.

>>58401779
The highest tier chips can be undervolted at little to no consequence to performance.

See: r9 nano vs fury x. It's not at all the only example but it's the best I can think of off the top of my head.

>>58400333
I more or less agree with you in that there's not a fucking chance we'll see a 6900k competitor for half cost, but I disagree with some of your other points.
Obviously there's no reason to target the enthusiast gayman market with something like that. It's a niche within a niche. The 8c/16t part will be targeted at work stations where cost is subsidized by quantity.

The real moneymakers shareholders care about are the massive core count offerings. Enterprise markets mean long term contracts and cashflow.

The 4c/8t parts will be the gaming chips. They'll oc better and will literally come as a byproduct of failed 8 core parts.

But AMD is better equipped for a consumer level price war. They've trimmed the fat of the company a great deal and can survive on low margins in the consumer space provided the rest pans out. Intel is massive by comparison.

But i expect consumer zen parts to debut within 15-20% of intel's prices to gauge their reaction. Obviously they'll try to maintain prices as much as possible, as profit is still the end goal, but they have less to lose than a giant company who wants to get out of the desktop market anyway.

>>58402410
And I expect AMD to flop