I haven't been keeping up with Ryzen since I think it's

>>58457735
The first demo AMD did had a Ryzen CPU competing against an i7 6900k both clocked at 3ghz.
Their recent public demo had a Ryzen CPU clocked at 3.4ghz competing against an i7 6900k at stock settings, and Ryzen still won in performance.

Dual vs quad channel has marginal to no performance benefits in the majority of workloads.

>>58457801
Okay thanks.

I'm not super smart with this kind of stuff, just wanted to make sure.

The blender demo numbers check out for the 6900k. It was on a publicly available version of blender to boot. I believe AMD also provided the sample files for the render test in the notes with the presentation.

The thing that most people were calling AMD on during the presentation was the streaming section, where they pitted it against a 6700k or something along those lines, and basically the intel was stuttering to fuck, in dota. Which doesn't happen depending on who you ask. Some streamers I speak to report some minor stutters when CPU encoding only on their 6700ks, others report none.

AMD said that Zen would be a 40% uplift in IPC over Excavator on average, and they've delivered. Right now Engineering samples place themselves at around Broadwell-E levels. As reviewers are getting their hands on later engineering samples they're reporting higher clock rates to boot. A0 samples at around 3.15/3.4, with A3 samples we're seeing 3.6/3.9 from some sites.

Zen is slated for a Q1 release, so anytime before or during March.

File: image.jpg (91KB, 959x721px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 959x721px

>>58457801
>dual vs quad channel has marginal to no performance benefits
Same with HBM2

>>58457801
>>58457814

It entirely depends on the workload. Some workloads, especially synthetic ones typical of benchmarks, actually do benefit quite strongly from higher memory BW. In fact, contrary to outdated belief, very recent games have experienced a performance gain when switching from dual channel, low end to high end DDR4, which is already high BW on a traditionally memory agnostic use case in the first place.

>>58457832
Memory bandwidth only does something if its being used. An 8 lane highway does nothing when there are 2 drivers on the road.

>>58457735
>I also remember reading that AMD actually did something to the 6900k to make it run slower
nope. it ran at stock settings. you got memed by a shill.

in fact, the Ryzen chip itself was clocked lower (3.2ghz IIRC) and had no boost enabled, yet still won in the shown benchmarks, proving its superior IPC in those scenarios at least. we know that the final product will clock even higher than that.

>Was it the memory channels?
since Ryzen only supports dual-channel memory and X99 supports quad-channel, it's likely that the 6900K would perform better in a memory-intensive workload if it happens to be equipped with quad-channel memory. but to the quasi-totality of desktop users this is meaningless.

>or did AMD stack the deck in their favor again?
it's possible that they showed us best case scenario workloads, and that in most real-world scenarios the 6900K will handily beat it.

it's also possible that Ryzen can truly duke it out with Intel's ultra-expensive HEDT stuff, but that the 4c/8t SKUs will fail to clock as high as Kaby Lake i5s and i7s making it worse in the market segments that actually matter. in this case, we would likely have another Bulldozer/Sandy Bridge situation (with AMD having moar weaker cores for the same price), but in this case Ryzen would be more than good enough to play games without throttling GPUs in many games unlike Vishera.

File: image.jpg (276KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1280x720px

>>58457846
So Zen is basically a 2-person village using an 8-lane highway, in cpu form?

>>58457832
HBM2 has an immediate benefit in being much more power efficient than GDDR5(X) though.

>>58457801
this. and the fact amd cherrypicks their benches and lies everytime you can be sure now that the ryzen with the goodygoodies 3.6ghz and turbo will compete for real with the 6900k

>>58457873

As someone who has written erotic slashfic featuring Lisa Su and yaoie featuring prince raja, even this made me laugh.

>>58457880
Why is it that mentioning AMD is the only way for anybody to give a shit about desktop power draw?

>>58457896

Because 290X uses 50w more then a 780ti in gaming workloads.

>>58457735
PAJEET GO
A
J
E
E
T

G
O

>>58457896
Because kids still read shit articles from 2011.

>>58457890
Blender and Handbrake are hardly cherrypicked, you retarded little kid.
CanardPC's ES review showed exactly what AMD's own demos did. They explicitly stated it, Zen has near Broadwell IPC.

>>58457896
>hurr le 10$ a year power bill
do I really need to mention heat/cooling (and noise), PSU requirements and laptop viability?

it doesn't matter as much as perf but it's still something that should improve.

>>58457918
Like I don't get it, so what if my nvidia GPU uses 300w? So what if my AMD CPU uses 220w? Nothing's overheating, and power is 8 cents per 1000 watts running for 1 hour
I don't care if a desktop component has low power draw or high power draw, I want performance

What about pricing? If its competing with a $1000 chip, certainly they won't price it to compete with shit like the 7700k, right?

Are there going to be more CPU's released with the one previewed, or is this it?

>>58457974
they're going to price it lower. design-wise Ryzen is much cheaper to fab than Intel's X99 stuff.

>>58457974
They're not competing with the Intel core line because it would get demolished core vs core, intels core line is specifically the line with the highest IPC.
AMD is going after what AMD does best, multicore multithreaded powerhouses. That's why they're going after the 6900K, because it's a multicore monster with normal single thread performance and an absurd pricetag
If AMD was releasing with a quad core chip focused for single threaded tasks for $300 they would not be able to do it.
That 6900k comparison is based on the fact that a 6700k would even beat it in single thread

>>58457974
>Are there going to be more CPU's released with the one previewed, or is this it?

Honestly if you think AMD are going to launch their best performing product in years, and only release one version of it, then I hate to be the one to say it, but you're retarded mate.

Pricing is yet to be established. But some anons ran the numbers, and if AMD priced Zen along the same lines as Bulldozer, so around $300, then they'd be making 400% profit on each chip. Roughly. The 8c/16t are no doubt going to be priced toward the higher end though, with quad cores no doubt taking their mainstream seat.

>>58458030
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/9
Skylake is less than 3% higher IPC than Broadwell.
Kaby Lake is only 1% different from Skylake.

All that mainstream quad core i5s and i7s have going for them is higher stock clock speeds.
Stop talking out of yoru ass, /v/irgin.

im so confussed by all these shills im outta here.

I guess it doesn't matter if you get intel of ryzen as long as it just werks

I eamn i'm a 6700k user and i think ryzen is just fine we need cpu wars we don't even care about kaby lake itr was such a let down that even the shills had to try jusify its pathetic upgrade with :oh but there is other features" and "oh but you unlock 4k netflicks etc"

and all this face saving is doing my head in.

HEEEEEELP!~

File: image.png (181KB, 922x1390px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 922x1390px

>>58458030
>Quad core zen will fail
>Multicore Zen is worth it
>>58458042
>Multicore Zen will fail
>Quad core zen is worth it

File: OG2hHwW.jpg (42KB, 634x480px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 634x480px

>>58458012
>>58458030
So should I be regretting getting a 7600k?

Tbh I'm not but should I?

>>58458060
I never said that Intel was getting better, just that they are better, especially for IPC
I mean if the IPC was actually equal then zen should've performed twice as well as the 6900k in blender

>>58458089
>I mean if the IPC was actually equal then zen should've performed twice as well as the 6900k in blender

They have the exact same core and thread count, you retarded /v/irgin. Stop posting here.

>>58458060
Intel hasn't improved for almost 10 years and they still will beat zen outside of multicore

>>58458113
CanardPC's game tests only had 1 title that used more than 4 threads.
While being clocked about 10% lower, their 3.15ghz A0 ES was about 10% behind the i7 6900k. That is neck and neck per clock performance with Broadwell.

You can't spin this any other way.
Consumer chips will come clocked up to 3.6ghz/4ghz turbo. They'll have plenty of OC headroom. That is competitive performance.

>>58458154
>Consumer chips will come clocked up to 3.6ghz/4ghz turbo.
Could* come clocked up to 3.6/4Ghz.

While signs are promising, nothing is set in stone.

>>58457735
do any of the currently announced AM4 boards have enough power headroom for serious overclocking?

I haven't tried that on a build in a long time, but I think I might with Ryzen.

File: image.jpg (76KB, 500x680px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 500x680px

>>58458072
>Quad core Zen will fail
>Multicore Zen will fail
>Intel will continue rereleasing 2600K's until the end of time

File: ASRock-X370-Taichi-713x840[1].png (897KB, 713x840px) Image search: [Google]

897KB, 713x840px

>>58458214
Judge for yourself.

File: NMR8eZjaDvNoxMrSQVQjPW-650-80.jpg (55KB, 650x429px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 650x429px

>>58458214
wtf who cares?

my board has rgb faggot

File: GA-AX370-Gaming5.png (688KB, 761x916px) Image search: [Google]

688KB, 761x916px

>>58458214
>do any of the currently announced AM4 boards have enough power headroom for serious overclocking?

There have been plenty of boards shown with seemingly decent VRM based on phase count, but we don't have any idea what kind of mosfets they're using per phase.

>>58457974
Expect $700 on the 8c/16t part and like $50 less than the nearest clocked i7 for the 4c/8t part. There will be a 6c/11t part too.
Maybe they'll drop a 4c part with hyperthreading disabled to compete with i5's but I wouldn't count on it until production has gotten far enough to start binning.

These are like the most optimistic I can be with prices. Expecting AMD to cut prices in half is retarded as it hinders their profit potential. They only need to undercut intel just a bit. There's enough fanboys and enthusiasts out there to swallow up stock for months like the 480.
Intel will retaliate with their first real, genuine, not for a limited time only, money back guarantee price cut since phenom ii.
Amd will try to keep some wiggle room but we'll have to wait to see how it turns out.

>>58458251
Judging from what's visible it would appear no

>>58458288
>these 16 phases don't look good for overclocking, guys
How do people like you even live day to day?

>>58457735
Zen arch is literally going to BTFO intel from two small sections of the enterprise market and take sales from their mid range consumer offerings. Zen is demonstrating vastly superior price/perf for the coprocessor/GPU-accelerated HPC market and in any situation where a large number of virtual machines are hosted.

All Ryzen chips are unlocked and early versions are getting 3.6/4.0Ghz clocks with a confirmed IPC very close to broadwell at a lower TDP. The 4 core version will be set at an attractive price/perf compared to the locked i5 and i7 offerings (in particular the i5-7400, i5-7500) and we can expect at the very least similar or better performance at that price range. The main contender for Ryzen 4 core offerings will be people who want performance over price for gaming and the 7600k will likely not have competition there. Interestingly though, the new unlocked dual core i3-7350k which was "competitively" priced at 170 USD from intel will probably be made irrelevant on Ryzen's release.

>>58458306
My GPU has more phases than your computer

>>58458251
Too bad ASRock is shit

>>58458288
>16+2 Power Phase
>4+4 CPU power
It's down to the mosfets to see what overclockers can get out of these things.

>>58458316
Everybody agrees that the unlocked i3 was priced retardedly, especially considering the unlocked i3 was an attempt to spice up their unchanging CPU lineup

File: image.jpg (103KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1000x1000px

>>58458333
>4+4 CPU power
>Implying this has any implications at all
I don't get it

>>58458271
> u.2 port

you have my attention, GB

>>58458271
Can't wait to SLI that with the gpus that people want

>>58458214
>>58458251
>>58458271
Are people able to make reasonable guesses yet about where Ryzen could clock for all cores with water?

>I also remember reading that AMD actually did something to the 6900k to make it run slower

they actually gimped their own chip efficiency by locking it at 3.4 ghz.

>>58457735
>I also remember reading that AMD actually did something to the 6900k to make it run slower

nope, they actually made the Zen CPU run slower; capped it at 3.4GHz while the 6900k was allowed to turbo freely.

>>58458404
No one apart from CanardPC has talked about it, mainly because they're one of the only organizations with a chip that isn't under NDA.

They got a single core to 5ghz on air. They also got all 8 cores to 4ghz. They could have went higher but their test board's VRM was lacking.
Still a 3.15ghz base clock engineering sample hitting 4ghz isn't bad.

I'd bet that consumer chips should hit 4.4 to 4.5ghz without power consumption being crazy. Should be able to hit higher if you can keep them cool enough.

>>58458404
We've got limited information in regards to overclocking on the engineering samples. But the boards are, in theory at the very least, quite capable. But we don't know much about the actual silicon itself. So it's hard to say. 400 Mhz would be expected at the very least with these boards and any decent cooler. If the silicon is solid, well. We don't know.

>>58458404
No.
Don't believe anybody who says they can.
All we know is that AMD made a huge step forwards in IPC and single core performance, assuredly enough to match intels "current" gen

>>58458376
CFX on Vega would probably start feeling PCIe bandwidth limitations given Summit Ridge's 24 free lanes from the CPU.
(and I don't see a PLX switch anywhere nor a board layout suggestive that it might be under the chipset shroud)

And Nvidia appears to be letting SLI wither on the vine, so I'm not sure you could convince me to buy 2 1080s or higher.

>>58458060
kabylake is 0% from skylake.
but they're better overclokers.

>>58458476
>AMD CPU can't even run AMD GPU
I'm gonna laugh when Radeon starts paying nvidia for gsync instead of the other way around
[spoiler]itll be a dark day

>>58458476
Luckily PCIe 4.0 will make all current gpus able to be fully run by PCIe x4

>>58458327
Blasphemy

>>58458476
>CFX on Vega would probably start feeling PCIe bandwidth limitations
First of all, bull fucking shit.
A GTX 1080 has virtually no performance loss between PCI-E 3.0 X16 and X8.
GPUs are still not even remotely close to being limited by PCI-E bandwidth. The only issue they have here is latency.

The X370 AM4 chipset provides lanes for an additional 2 X16 3.0 slots regardless.

>>58458327
no it's not.

File: perfrel_3840_2160.png (23KB, 500x490px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x490px

>>58458616
Even at 4k, an 8x slot is enough.

>>58458643
How do I plug my 1080 into my M2 slot I need to test this

> AMD monomaniacs unironically believe that AMD won't shoot again its foot

They haven't got their out Foundries. Get over it. As long as Intel have their own Foundries, they will be winning.

Do you have any idea how much a Foundry costs. 100s of billions of dollars. You have to beg others to make your chips for you at a premium.

Intel will always have the upper hand in that status quo.

>>58458616
>x370 alone can run 4 GPUs on the performance level of GTX 1080s
>the CPU can also run 2 with its available lanes
>FUD posters are trying to act like this is an issue

>>58458446
I believe that a couple of reviewers already have Ryzen chips on hands. The way they've been talking about Ryzen rumors always get me under the impression that they know exactly what's going on.

Bu i'll contradict myself by saying that it wouldn't make much sense for them to have the review samples 2 months away from launch, since I think that the most solid dates are falling towards the end of february.

>>58458476
Multi GPU is dead and buried forever.
Remember all the hype for better multi GPU scaling being a huge part of the low level api's? To such an extent that that stupid AotS bench allowed using a fury and a 980ti together for over 200% scaling? And then in beta 2 the scaling was closer to 150% and when the game came out it had no multi gpu support whatsoever and fucking still doesn't?

>>58458469
well if it turbo to 4.0ghz than I think it's a safe bet to say 500mhz on top of that, especially on water.

>>58458616
>>58458643
CFX pushes frames across the PCIe bus, unless SLI with its aging but barely functional dedicated bridge.

Individual UHD frames are 25MB each (or more for HDR), so you'd definitely be choking most of the bandwidth on 3.0 x4 interfaces, and on x8 interfaces you could expect to see more hiccups/MegaTexturing fail blobs than otherwise, but this would need actual testing.

>>58458542
The most likely sceanrio is for Nvidia to start paying for Freesync 2 certification.

>>58458172
They're unlocked, so if you want your chip to be 3.6/4 you can have your chip be 3.6/4. And they're coming with Hyper 212 equivalent stock heatsinks.

>>58458251
>>58458270
how much will they cost?

>>58458685
> As long as Intel have their own Foundries, they will be winning.

they're already losing to Qualcomm

>>58458251
Am I looking at this right? 16 stage VRM?

>>58457954
the cpu is a concern because there is only so much you can do to cool that effectively, and at 220 watts, you almost cant do air at all.

but that's besides the point, their efficiency dictates about how much you could overclock it, because if a motherboard is made to be able to handle 200~ watts, and the cpu at stock is only 95watts, you have a very large margin for oc headroom.

On the gpu side its almost a non issue

>>58458825
16+2

>>58458789
I thought freesync was free and open and nvidia were just to big of salty cunts to support it? Did they taksies backsies after it became clear manufacturers preferred not being price fucked by nvidia as much as their fans seem to?

>>58458785
>3.0 X8 performance: 100%
>3.0 X4 performance: 97%
>2.0 X8 performance: 98%

The GPU isn't in need of all the bandwidth provided by PCI-E 3.0 X8 if performance scaling ends there, and barely increases from an X4 slot.
There wouldn't be any issues.

A top end enthusiast tier GPU in 2017 still isn't anywhere near requiring an X16 slot.

>>58458725
Multi-GPU is inherently awful for modern renderer pipelines, which tend to rely heavily on previous frames for half their effects.

TXAA, screen space reflections, etc. all need the last frame (if not also G-buffers) to work, which just increases frame delivery latency since each GPU has to wait on huge framebuffer transfers. And then you have shadow maps, which are only feasible at all due to caching when at all possible, which is just another set of things that have to be pushed back and forth non-predictably.

>>58458859
I'm talking about CrossFire X only, as in AMD's multi-GPU solution.

Individual Nvidia card tests aren't relevant to this argument.

>>58458685
AMD doesn't have foundries because they spun them off because your logic is stupid.

>>58458857
Freesync is open and free, Freesync 2 will need certification.

>>58458836
But do I get performance?
Will Intels 5W Kaby lake mobile chip have good OC headroom?
Does a 980ti not have any OC headroom?

>>58458685
>100's of billions.
Intel newest fab was actually 19 billion dollars. Enough to put any car factory to shame but let's keep the hyperboles a bit more tame.

>>58458914
That's fucking cold holy shit.

How long before vulkan and HBM require licenses?
That'd be amazing. AMD has somehow been driving the entire market towards all this stuff, if they turned around a put up a toll booth they could fuck over so many companies and make massive profits. I mean it would be an awful thing and fuck us all over as consumers but it'd be like wolf on wallstreet shit.

File: qualcomm_booth.jpg (198KB, 1365x1024px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1365x1024px

>>58458685

>Intel will always have the upper hand in that status quo.

Yeah, you keep saying that big boy, Everything's gonna be alright.

http://www.fudzilla.com/news/processors/42586-intel-is-covering-qualcomm-s-success

>>58457863
an I7 for 200$ or less is still a fail, or are you thinking that they will price everything a few dollars short of the intel equivalent rather than where the chip should be priced?

amd has been floating the 8 core 16 thread costing the same as an i7 for a while now, but no one will listen to them.

Hell, during ces they basily confirmed they are price matching an i7 with the 8 core 16 thread but to get two stories out of it they went 'we could price it at 500$, and that would be a solid move but not affect most people, or we could price it at 330$, and change the landscape for good, but its not final yet'

going on the ryzen event, where they showed the 6700 v ryzen v 6900, they apparently already know the price point are are fucking with us for more press.

If they put it out at 500$, they lose the entirety of the consumer market because why not just get intel when you know intel will perform good, why go with amd? intels 6 cores have quad channel memory and a track record of being good if you need it. amd 8 core would be hard for normal people to notice, and hard to get anyone to buy if a reliable intel in a similar performance bracket was right there.

Then you have the 6 and 4 core skus, these are aimed at i5 and i4, and are areas where people don't care about multicore, but if amd went 500 at 8 that would be 350~ at 6 cores and 250~ at 4... there is a good chance that intel overclocks more and to the i5 segment they either don't care about 6 cores or only care about single thread, same with the i3 but that is even more budget so you will have people go there just for cost regardless of what amd does.

8 6 and 4 core being 350 250 and 150 respectively makes the most sense to shake everything up and call intel into question, not a 500 350 250 price point.

>>58458476
>And Nvidia appears to be letting SLI wither on the vine
I've switched from 290X CF to 1080 SLI last year when Pascal came out, while support is still lacking and far from perfect it's much better than CF. I don't know what/if AMD changed since then, but after a solid 2 years of utter disappointment regarding CF I wouldn't bet on it being all too amazing.

Also yeah, SLI at 4K at least does feel the PCIe bandwidth limit at x8/x8 and to a lesser extent at x16/x8 PCIe 3.0. Some games with certain settings enabled (temporal AA generally) are potentially restricted even at x16/x16 PCIe 3.0, though there's no way to test since that's the fastest we've got. PLX switches do help since the bandwidth constraint is between the graphics cards themselves and not on the CPU side. I've gotten a solid extra 15% out of TW3 at 4K on x16/x16 on a PLX Z97 mobo vs. x8/x8.

I'm pretty sure CF suffers similarly, especially since they dumped the dedicated bridge. I remember AMD recommending people to turn off AA in TW3 if they wanted CF to work decently.

>>58458975
I'm sure people could've seen it was an exaggeration, I mean there's only like 30 100's of billions of dollars in the world, Intel is not that rich

>>58459095
PCIe literally doesn't work like that

>>58459129
What?

>>58459002
More likely AMD will keep backwards compatibility with freesync and nobody will use Freesync 2 so it will die on the vine

Then after a decade of Freesync being dominant AMD will release an open Freesync 3 and /g/ newfriends will ask why they skipped a number

>>58459064
7700k is 349 usd.
I wish AMD would go for that price point for the 8c/16t Ryzen chip, but i think that 450 is an way more reallitically base price, up to 600 for the ceiling.

They should go against intel's mainstream core line, but I think that they'll match more closely to the extreme line, price wise. Inbetween both.

>>58459173
The person that talked and said anything at all likely doesn't know exactly what the high level finance and marketing group are considering though. The 8 core going for 500 has been rumored around for quite a while, and would still undercut the 6-core HEDT from intel. Even better odds since we've got AMD people specifically mentioning the price and documents showing up with the number too. On a price/perf basis the Zen 8c should look acceptable in comparison to the 6900k considering it's literally half the price. I would personally wager the final pricetag being very close to 500 rather than matching an i7/4c price tag. Besides, in the 200usd range AMD should be outperforming the locked i5/i7 and can disrupt the market that way.

>>58459173
There's probably going to be more than one sku for each core configuration, $350 for the 3.4ghz 8core which is the one they've been showing and getting press on. Black edition 3.6+ for 450-550.

Then the 6 cores, why not something like $200-250 for low to high clocked six cores.

Coming in last a 4/8 or even 6c/6t at the low end $130-170.

Just think how many SKUs intel has in those segments as well. They've established price points which oems are used to paying already, if amd hits them with superior performance heads will turn, finally bringing hedt performance to the mainstream tiers.

>>58459355
yeah, but the 6900k is a pipe dream even for hardcore enthusiasts, which will recommend or purchase themselves the 6850k for ~600-650.

I think their deca core pricing was Intel saying "lulz, whatevs, get it if you faggit" and testing the waters. They could bring that price point down on a whim while still keeping very high profit margins.

That's why I believe AMD will aim to undercut the 6850k. So my bet is on a price approaching 550... 529 MSRP, because marketing voodoo perception stuffs.

File: 1483559641431.png (254KB, 401x455px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 401x455px

>>58457735
No independent reviews have been done nor the price of the CPU.

>>58459616
>No independent reviews have been done
Factually incorrect.

>>58457941
where do you live? it costs more than that per month to have a pc on that does not even have a gaming gpu.

>>58459771
There are 720 hours in a month
1KWh is 1000 watts running for one hour, and in Idaho that costs 8 cents
To get a $10/month power draw you'd need to be running it at 175w 24/7 every second of the day. Unless you have a specific situation where you're using more power than this (at that point you should already know the power draw of what you're getting), nobody would reach that usage
Even with a more normal 8 hours a day of 100% maximum loaded PC usage you would still need to be running it at 550w for each 8 hours
That just does not happen consistently

>>58459922
A couple of the values were rounded, but I just rechecked and this is 96% accurate
Your opinion is literally worse than running a 1080 in an M2 slot

>>58457933
>. They explicitly stated it, Zen has near Broadwell IPC
And yet Intel is already on Kaby Lake... which is two generations past Broadwell
Bravo AMD, you just caught up to two years ago, I hope you're proud of yourselves!

>>58460001
They should be, you know how many generations behind bulldozer was?

>>58460001
>b-b-b-b-but muh babby faggot lake!
Keep on trying, shill.
Babby shit lake is just a refresh of Skylake, and Skylake isn't even a full 3% faster than Broadwell on average.

>>58460001

Are you acting like you don't know that there is virtually no increase in Kaby Lake IPC?

>>58460028
>there is virtually no increase in Kaby Lake IPC
That is false

>>58459922
its that here too but with all fees included it is 16 cents per kwh. its taxed twice and theres a usage based transfer/cable fee that they keep high so they can advertise that their power is cheap.

>>58460028
Look at this little retarded AMDshill
Look at him and laugh

>>58460039
>>58460057
You funny anons, I kill you last.

File: __aisaka_taiga_toradora_drawn_by_tasaka_shinnosuke__2485b28b641157fe88de7fd204687515.jpg (389KB, 869x650px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 869x650px

>>58459095
>PLX switches do help since the bandwidth constraint is between the graphics cards themselves
Tell me, how do these PLX switches work?

>>58460039
>>58460057

Looking at like 3% over two refreshes, that's so minimal.

I haven't had an AMD cpu since Athlon 64

File: image.jpg (24KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 460x276px

>>58460043
Hah, we got clean power here, no government bullshit involved (noticably), all we have to worry about is the 98% drop in the river salmon populations

>>58460075
>I haven't had an AMD cpu since Athlon 64
So your opinion is irrelevant, got ya.

>>58460097
His opinion is actually good and nobody should have bought an AMD CPU since athlon64

>>58460074
>PLX switches
Like any other switch. If the plx has enough lanes there's no reason why it can' support 16 lanes to each gpu and allow them to communicate with each other and have the 16 to the cpu nearly idle,

>>58460134
>nobody should have bought an AMD CPU since athlon64
Why?

File: dat incredible kabylake IPC.png (58KB, 980x720px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 980x720px

>>58460039
>>58460057
You're just pretending to be retarded, right?

>>58460176
Because athlon64 kicked ass and AMD hasn't brought out a worthwhile CPU over Intel since then

>>58460097

My opinion is irrelevant because I used the last good AMD CPU? Okay then.

Fact of the matter is that if Zen is within a few percent IPC of current Intel CPU's it's going to be viable and I might finally upgrade my i7 4790K

File: 1478884479934.jpg (236KB, 865x1296px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 865x1296px

>>58460163
Do you even know how Crossfire works, you dunce?

>>58459771
First world country, i pay a fixed amount no matter how much I spend.

File: (Guberman) Dating a Team Magma Grunt (Pokemon) [English] (Ongoing) NEW!! Chapter 09.zip-142_CH_09_7.jpg (30KB, 388x350px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 388x350px

I just want to upgrade the 3570k. It has served me well, but I want more cores with higher IPC.

>>58460190
>>58460197
>AMD hasn't brought out a worthwhile CPU over Intel since then
>athlon64 was the last good AMD CPU
Neither of you know what you're talking about. Seriously, you don't belong on this board.

>>58459998
Your /v/ shows.

>>58460001
>Kaby Lake... which is two generations past Broadwell

behold gentlemen, a glimpse into the mind of a faggot who's probably upgrading from a 6700k to a 7700k.

>>58457832
no, a high bandwith means a lot more data going to/from main memory to cpu/gpu cache. that's why hbm is good for high resolutions, for example

>>58460248
>being too poor to upgrade very year
Gone from a 3770K, to a 4790K, to a 5775C, to a 6700K, and now my 7700K is on its way. Don't be a h8r.

>>58457941
>heating/cooling
clean your dust filters
>PSU requirements
oh no gotta spend $5 more on a 600w psu
>laptop viability
>desktop power draw

>>58460288
kek

>5775C
The absolute madman.

>>58459064
>normal people are after an 8c/16t cpu
>normal people are even after a fucking i7 to begin with
>normal people have any idea what the difference between an i3, i5, or i7 even is besides "duh bigger number is better"

You're delusional. The 8c/16t part isn't even targeted at gamers, it's for professionals with jobs that need that kind of hardware.

4 core parts are for "normal people." You're forgetting the arch is supposed to go down to 4 core w/o hyperthreading. Possibly even shitty 2 core laughingstocks like the i3's. What are they going to sell those for when the 8c/16t chip that matches a $1000 enthusiast offering is going for $350? $50?
They'd literally be throwing money away and polluting their own market. Lisa Su isn't so short sighted to set that kind of precedent.

They have zero reason to "price them how they should be" if the market has set those prices and made them acceptable. It's fucking supply and demand 101.

>>58460322
It was breddy good. Too bad it couldn't overclock for shit. Only got up to 4.2GHz on an Gigabyte G1 Gaming board and I pulled it out of my case as soon as Skylake shortages came to an end. I used it for a total of three months. Worst purchase ever.

>>58460383
>. The 8c/16t part isn't even targeted at gamers,
It is targeted at *some* gamers. People who stream games on twitch absolutely do benefit from having 8 physical cores, and at present there is an ever growing catalog of games that make well use of additional threads like The Witcher 3. In those cases even though a highly clocked quad core may produced slightly higher max frame rates, they have more, and harsher frame rate dips.

It still is a niche, but the benefits are tangible.

>>58460383
>The 8c/16t part isn't even targeted at gamers,

That may be largely true today, but it's becoming less and less so as 8th gen consoles have forced game devs to not be shit at concurrent programming.

The PS4 and Xbone are both 8c parts, and the Scorpio may even end up being 8c Zen.

>>58460450
How many cores (at say 3+ GHz Broadwell level) does it take to encode h.264 content at 1080p60 or whatever levels?

>>58457735
will rysen be 22c/44t?

>>58460501
About 30 seconds

>>58460541
whether this is a joke or some abstract metric, you've lost me

>>58460383
>The 8c/16t part isn't even targeted at gamers, it's for professionals with jobs that need that kind of hardware.
Except AMD is obviously targeting gamers with their marketing, as they should if they want to make any money. You just feel like 8c/16t shouldn't be targeted at gamers and then assuming AMD thinks the same way while disregarding everything they actually do and say.

>>58460383
ok, you just said it
>Lisa Su isn't so short sighted to set that kind of precedent.

If I was in amd's shoes, and fucking look here you retard, I have the 8350 that was 200$ selling at a profit, and now i have a 8 core 16 thread sku that is half its size, that means I could turn proffit at 100$, selling it apposed to the i7 would get them 300-400% profit up tick if not more per unit sold.

Putting out an entire 150-350 4/8 to 8/16 sku range would effictive crush anything intel currently has. and it would DEFINITELY take sales away from their 6 core + line ups too.

Now, would you rather sell out of cpus for a good year or so selling them all at proffit, or would you rather have warehouses full of the shit because no one bought it and just went intel?

LOOK AT THE FACTS, intel has shrunk the cpus, and they have charged the same fuckin price for it, they make more money off each cpu because they are literally bending you over a table and going in dry.

so what is amd going to do? Personally, I would go with the 350$ base line 8 core, 500 for the higher binned, and anything were the smt is fucked give it over to desktop oems because god knows it would be better than what intel gave them.

intel cant drop prices in the same generation or else that would be a devastating pr blow. They would be stuck on kaby till the next part, or they will rush a new generation and say 'with refinements and bullshit we have made the chips cheaper' and it would still leave a bad taste in their mouth.

ALL WHILE amd selling at 350, is selling out and reaping profits they have not seen the likes of in at least 13 years.

after the mass market cpus come out, put out enthusiast that are 8-16 cores mcms, in the 700-1500$ range, just completely kill any enthusiasm or want for intel cpus.

THEN, on top of all that, you put out server parts that are prices competitively with intel, till intel has no answer, then you put that price at what you want.

That is how amd should do it.

>>58460569
he wants to know, in real time, how many cores it takes for streams, at least I think.

cpiu video rendering is better than gpu at the same bitrates.

>>58460288
>Gone from a 3770K, to a 4790K, to a 5775C, to a 6700K, and now my 7700K
Nobody is this stupid.

>>58460622
do you even internet?

>>58460574
and what they show, and what they hint at, and what the facts are on paper about die size, and how much intel has not lowered the prices despite larger yields and smaller die sizes, and basic economics where you would be better to sell 10 things at 350 then 2 things at 500+

so on, so forth.

Lets put it this way, I am entirely planning amd to be the 300-400$ range for their bare bones 8 core 16 thread, but will pay up to 500$ for it, as I can see using it for a good 5-7 years.

Short term, it will lose to a 7700 but long term it will beat it out in games due to them using more cores finally and this is the only area I really think amd is going to lose out in a significant way.

I want that fuckin head room, I have wanted it sense before sandy bridge but intel has gated it off to retarded prices for so god damn long.

>>58460503
8 core 16 thread with potential 4 core 8 thread and 6 core 12 thread.

all we know as fact right now is there are 8 core 16 thread cpus, a 16 core 32 thread one, and naples 32/64

everything else is unverified leaks/rumors/speculation.

>>58460676
This post is sinceless

>>58460477
That's completely irrelevant. We're talking about the current market for CPU's. Releasing a part that is considered extremely high end BY THE MARKET at a price point for "normal people" is fucking retarded. They would completely destroy their own potential for growth with something so stupid. AMD is a business, and Lisa Su is a businesswoman and a damn fine one at that. You think they give a fuck about how "fair" prices are? The free market is all about charging the least fair price you can get away with. That's the fucking definition of profit.

>b-b-b-buh everyone will buy it!
Yeah and then fucking what? They'd be left standing around in a polluted market with their dicks in their hands. And their 32c parts? What are those gonna go for $500? they stand to make LONG TERM GAINS by going with the flow of the market. Maintaining the current segments as best as possible so they can attack each and every one of them with their own offering.

Ultimately good old capitalist competition will set the final prices.

The important thing to note is within a year the prices will not be what they launched at. AMD WILL undercut, but only enough to get intel to respond, to capture the attention of enterprise markets, and to remind OEM's they're still around. Consumers are far, far down on their list. From then on the market will work itself out.

>>58460710
how?

>>58460622
Why is it stupid to stay ahead of the game? I can afford to pay for a new $300+ CPU and a $200 motherboard every year.

>>58460600
>I would go with the 350$ base line 8 core, 500 for the higher binned, and anything were the smt is fucked give it over to desktop oems because god knows it would be better than what intel gave them.

I agree here, and AMD has hinted at it as well.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/01/amd-ryzen-motherboards-hype/


Assuming Ryzen's performance really is that good, the big question is: how far will AMD go down the price/performance rabbit hole? At CES, the company openly asked journalists what it should be priced at. Price an eight-core Ryzen at around £400/$500 and you bring down the cost of eight-core chips to that of a six-core—a solid move for consumers, but not one that will greatly affect mainstream performance. Price it the same as a quad-core i7-7700K—about £300/$330—and you dramatically shake up the industry. The decision is yet to be made.

"There are a lot of discussions going on," says Hallock. "We're capturing the feedback. We wanna take share, we wanna be the best price/performance option, we wanna be the first on people's minds. That's part of the bounding box for pricing discussions as well as paying off the R&D investment... We're looking at what Intel does—and we're not gonna do that. We think people want the choice, and need the choice. The market needs the choice—hopefully we can turn it around."

A $350 8 core chip(one that actually has decent IPC now) would shake up the market, it'd be huge. AMD made dual core mainstream, they made quad core mainstream, and they have the ability to make octacore mainstream if they so choose. More affordably priced 6 core machines would solidify the move, and they'd still have solid margins. More so they'd be pricing these chips in the brackets that move the most volume on the consumer market, while they could still capture appreciable enthusiast tier sales with a highly binned $500 special edition SKU.

also nice get
Solid post, my nigga.

>>58460600
I'm not the guy you're responding to but you have no idea what you're talking about. If AMD has a competitive 8c/16t chip with Skylake level IPC that is both power efficient and overclocks well then it is going to be priced well over $750 and that's still a good deal.

>>58460721
It doesn't make any cents

>>58460674
>do you even internet?
What is this supposed to mean?

>>58460723
So assuming you aren't full of shit, that means that since you made your 3770k and mobo purchase a few years ago, you have invested something like $2500 in consumer level i7's and their respective motherboards that are almost identical in performance?

I mean, you could at least not be a total poorfag and get on X99 like the rest of us actual non-poorfags.

>>58460737
and you make no sales whatsoever because why would people go amd when intel isn't that far ahead in cost, and is a very known quantity? the zen architecture won't be a known quantity for a good year or two.

If you are relying on your computer to make money, you won't go with a 750~$ amd cpu you will go with intel.

but you make this cpu cost an i7, now you got the mainstream attention.

Keep in mind, 350 is the base price of the 8 core, the 6 and 4 or what ever amd makes its equivalents, will likely be 250 and 150, you also have the fact that ryzen is the only sku they are making outside of one apu, so everything from that 4 core 8 thread to the 32 core 64 thread are using the same die, this saves a fuck load of research and money because every single wafer you can just pick off the few golden chips for the 32 core, and sell the rest for lower binning, unlike intel where they make monolithic chips in different core counts and get far less yields because of the nature of it.

you could sell this cpu at 100$ and turn profit amd massive sales, you could sell it at 750 and turn more profit but few sales.

there is a balance, and amd looks to be decided to go for the i7 price range, because as they said, you change the industry. amd will be ground floor for this price and performance point, where intel either wont have an answer right away or cant have an answer for a product cycle, and even then, it looks like they won't have a true answer for the 8 core for more then 1 cycle unless they drop the 6900 down to the 500 range.

in servers where intel is making the least headroom, this is where amd will price close to intel, as they have a power advantage, and likely performance as well, so a slight undercut here would still be devastating for intel, but a boon for amd as this is the market that writes the initial cost off and only focuses on power or power/performance not just performance.

File: jpr_segments_q3_2016.png (56KB, 580x418px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 580x418px

>>58460724
Intel has basically already admitted that they need to compete with Zen in the mainstream by introducing a mainstream 6 core i7 with Coffee Lake. They know that the quad core era is coming to a close, and this is its death song.

>>58460737
> If AMD has a competitive 8c/16t chip with Skylake level IPC that is both power efficient and overclocks well then it is going to be priced well over $750 and that's still a good deal.
Top end performance and enthusiast parts do not sell well. Intel justifies the high prices on their i7Es because they're extremely low volume compared to all their other CPUs. Even their i5s sell more than their i7s.

The mainstream market wants something priced around $250 tops. The performance market wants something around $350 tops, and everything above that is gravy. Intel didn't randomly pick these price ranges, they're based on market research. If AMD priced their top end part drastically under intel's comparable i7E it would shake up their entire pricing structure. In many cases AMD would be offering a better chip in the same price bracket, and that is how you win market share. More importantly its how you win market share in segments that actually move volume.
One PR generating halo SKU, and one SKU below that is a slightly lower clocked part at $350.

AMD wouldn't gain ground if they tried to go head to head with intel on pricing.

>>58460724
I feel like the magic prices would be: $250 for 6c, $350 for the lower clocked (3.2 GHz?) 8c, and $450 for the highest clocked (3.6 GHz?) 8c.

Low enough to tempt consumer and give Intel the finger, high enough to help fill the coffers.

File: 1475238280426.jpg (58KB, 259x220px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 259x220px

>>58460737
> anything remotely resembling Intel's price/perf is a good deal

>>58460895
>>58460926
If AMD came in at $750 with their 8c/16t Ryzen that would be almost $300 less than the comparable Broadwell-E 6900k from Intel. How the hell is that not a good fucking deal? I would definitely buy it if that's what I was looking for.

People that are making purchases at this segment are very tech savvy and will be checking benchmarks to know what they're getting. They aren't going to flush hundreds of dollars down the drain just to stick with the intel brand.

I'm not saying AMD can price themselves head to head against intel, we all know that won't work. But when they undercut them they are going to undercut them sensibly so they can still make good profits. AMD isn't a fucking charity.

>>58460959
If you need 8c/16t, you need 8c/16t. It is what it is. You obviously aren't buying these kinds of chips to play faggy video games on.

>>58460782
I have a set budget for technology goodies, and that's a maximum annual spending budget of about $2000 on a good year, down to $1500 with poor returns. That's enough for at least two mid-level Nvidia cards in addition and rolling over the extra leftovers the following year for the semi-flagship cards (2x 780Ti when I started building, 2x 980Ti in 2015, now waiting on at least one 1080Ti this year and hopefully another one before 2018). There's not much room in my budget for an X79 or X99 system, nor do I really need it.

>>58460724
These cheeky little comments aren't targeted at you. AMD are not your friends. They are not fucking robin hood come to steal money from evil rich intel and pass the savings on to you. They are a business and these coments are targeted directly at intel.
She's literally saying "this is how far we're willing to take it if we have to. Do you really think you match that?"

Obviously intel can't without laying off a few thousand more workers, but obviously AMD doesn't want to take it that far either. You know what would be infinitely better than undercutting intel so hard it destroys the kind of price fixing they've enjoyed over the years? Undercutting them just enough, gradually, over the course of a year or two while slowly filling in the gaps of their product line in a grandiose manner that gets tech reporters talking about this fierce battle that's been raging in the CPU market until they find Intel's breaking point. Where they can't go any further, and AMD gets reap the benefits of being the price/performance champion without destroying the illusion of commodity that drives the tech industry in general and maximizing profits.

>>58460997
Products are priced at the equilibrium of profit margin and sales value.
A top end Ryzen chip at $750 does nothing for AMD. It doesn't matter if their profit margin is $700 per chip, they aren't going to move enough volume here for it to drastically alter their bottom line.
High performing chips priced where consumers are willing to buy, where OEMs can offer a sensibly priced system, that is how you make substantial revenue.

It seems like you're stuck in this paradigm of "if intel can do it then AMD should do it too." This isn't how a well run company does business. AMD needs brick and mortar stores flooded with high performance prebuilt desktops packing Ryzen CPUs at price points that are easy to digest. Sales volume in itself is indirect marketing. That increase in brand strength is an investment that pays dividends.

File: 1473631969031.jpg (33KB, 163x240px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 163x240px

>>58460288
Ahahahahaha fucking kek

>>58461055
I still don't believe you. Please, don't be a real person.

Your 3770k was like, 10% worse at the very most when compared than your 6700k. The 7700k is literally the same Skylake chip rebranded and overclocked right out of the box.

File: image.png (156KB, 362x259px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 362x259px

if you don't stop I'm gonna tell all the AMD investors about this thread

>>58460390
>It was breddy good.
>Worst purchase ever.
"9/10 it's shit" - IGN

>>58460997
Prices are just what buyers and sellers can mutually agree upon at a given time, not some magic intrinsic value.

If AMD wants to sell Zeppelin cores, they either need to expand the market for 8c chips or to steal a substantial piece of Intel's share, and both goals are greatly aided to say the least by pricing significantly below Intel's current levels.

At present, an RX 480 card sells for ~$250, requiring a 230 mm^2 chip, 8 GB GDDR5, a heatsink, fan, and an entire PCB with VRMs etc.

Zeppelin is speculated to be in the 160-200 mm^2 range and requires only a package and a heatsink in its Summit Ridge form, so it's not like AMD couldn't sell full blown 8c SKUs for under $150, still at a profit, if they had enough volume.

>>58460724
honestly, amd has made their mind up on price at the new horizon event when they showed a 6700 ryzen and 6900 going head to head, them tap dancing price is just more media coverage as they want to saturate it with everything they say, keep it on people's minds, keep it in news.

If amd goes for the price range of an i7, massive win
If they go with the 500 price range minimum for it, they fucked themselves with suggesting it time and time again at the i7 range. not to mention what I said before of people just going with their 6 core for a known quantity.

Amd has a golden egg, but their marketing team fucking blows cock, they could be hinting at an i7 range, then go with the i7e range and think its a win while everyone will just get pissed off because they are barely if at all competing. a 6 core 12 thread cpu against a 4 core 8 thread that 80%+ get 5ghz or over on air, or a 6 core 12 thread that will struggle to get over 4.5 (amd is on the worse process, thinking they will clock peak better then intel at this point is wishful thinking) and I would be hard pressed to go with the 6 core knowing how current computer programs work. you price this at i5 range however, and its a no shit, im going amd.

But like I said, I'm willing to go 500$ on the base or binned 8 core because I know i'll use it till the motherboard dies, then likely get a second motherboard and use it some more, but im in the vast minority for being willing to do that.

>>58460997
quad channel/dual channel
you get more extensions with the intel one
you get more guaranteed performance
You are on a known quantity
and for people that are in the market for the 8 core at its current price, you either want reliability, the known quantity, can use the extra ram slots/speed, or you are retarded.

for that market, the extra 300$ for what you get is not a bad deal, even if you dont go with more total ram, you get more speed.

You dont get mass sales, and your parts that wont clock as high are compared to parts that do in the exact same price bracket, going with the 8 core being 750 you would be pitting the 4 core at best at i5 price and at worse half way between i5 and i7, and intel will clock higher.

amd would be giving up the consumer and prosumer market almost entirely if they price it close to intel.

They have a chance to upset everything, a realistic chance, because of the die size of the chip and how they are making the big server shit, them not taking that shot would be giving intel a handjob for fucking them raw so long.

File: 1481484192769.jpg (36KB, 604x604px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 604x604px

>>58460288

File: ryzenslueth.png (846KB, 1023x768px) Image search: [Google]

846KB, 1023x768px

BYE BYE, INTEL

>>58461139
I was being ironic on the first statement and objective on the second. The 5775C and the Z97 board are the least used system I've upgraded to out of all of them.
>>58461111
>Your 3770k was like, 10% worse at the very most when compared than your 6700k
Don't bullshit me. The jump from Ivy Bridge to Devil's Canyon itself was a 15-20% increase overall. In order to get my 3770K to catch up to a stock 4790K in CPU benchmarks, I've had to get uncomfortably high temperatures at 4.7GHz, and even then it still couldn't break even with a stock 4790K.
The 5775C was a side-grade for all intents and purposes, but at 4.2GHz, it could beat a 4790K at nearly the same clock.
The 6700K was basically the 5775C with the overclock headroom of Devil's Canyon. It trounces both the 5775C at 4.2GHz and the stock 4790K.
tl;dr go fuck yourself with a rake

>>58460723
>ahead of the game?

What fucking game this aint the streets. Whats even stupider is you justify this by saying you got the money to do it, yes you can but thats just retarded.

>>58459022
For you

>>58460503
Nah, that's for opterons.

>>58461095
You seem to have this stupid fucking idea that the only thing that can possibly be considered high end at this point is an 8c/16t chip.
As if they won't have an 8 core chip without hyperthreading or a 6c/12t chip or a 6 core, or a 4c/8t chip or a 4 core chip. All at various different clock speeds to saturate a market with any option imaginable because of the very nature of the architecture (which just so happened to be ONE OF THE KEY FUCKING GOALS OF THE ARCH)

There are literally people RIGHT NOW buying pentium fucking dual core's for $200 because they can overclock well. You are severely overestimating what an OEM can cram into their shitty prebuilts and label "high performance gayman rig."

In fact, go look at some ibuypower or cyberpowerpc shit on newegg in the $1000-$1300 price range. Notice anything? Other than the fact these systems hilariously either have an FX cpu and a shit tier 3 generation old gpu like a 750ti or they have an i3 or a pentium and no gpu.

You have your head shoved so far up your ass you can't even fathom the possibility that they can still offer something better than intel's shit without doubling down on cores and threads and charging 1/3 the fucking price.

>>58460926
Another reason suggesting for mainstream prices on the Ryzen chips is that they'll have similar amount of PCIe lanes as Intel's core family. That might sound a bit silly first, but when someone is trying to build a system according to the best practices, such systems will top out at 2x CF or SLI and maybe one nvme drive and a low chance of another Sound or gigabit add in card. The real enthusiast market, will be going for the x99 40 lanes in order to populate raid nvme drives, and 4x SLI or CF.

I'm sure that AMD marketing will bring a sales pitch aimed at enthusiasts, but they're tru intention is to capture the mainstream. If they wanted to go after the x99 segment they would be shooting themselves in the foot with this specs.

File: 1443492529217.jpg (27KB, 600x500px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x500px

>>58461095
CPUs are going to get sold no matter what. You seem to be implying that if AMD prices Ryzen low enough to "flood the market" with inexpensive AMD powered PCs and laptops that that will somehow alter how many PCs and laptops end up getting sold over the next year or two.

AMD has no direct control over how many people are going to wake up this year and decide that that is the day they are going to purchase a new CPU. Those CPUs are going to get purchased no matter what because there is a demand for PCs to be bought and sold. AMD can win back market share while also making huge profits as long as Ryzen is a better deal than the comparable intel. They don't have to pick one or the other. They don't have to price themselves at bargain basement tier levels to get people to buy their shit.

>>58461169
>so it's not like AMD couldn't sell full blown 8c SKUs for under $150, still at a profit, if they had enough volume
Why the fuck would they do this? If demand dictates a market for an 8c/16t chip, then AMD will price it appropriately where it will move in volume and make them a fuckton of money. How is this hard to understand? AMD is in the business of pleasing its shareholders and that means PROFIT.

>>58461193
$300 apart is not "close" to intel, but if I said $600 instead of $750, would that make a difference? Either way AMD is going to make fucking bank of off Ryzen because it looks like it's a good chip. They're not going to be giving away their best chip in a decade just to fuck with the CPU market.

>>58461225
Keep trying to defend your idiotic purchases. I can't imagine what you are doing that could possibly make all of those sidegrades worth the effort. Your retardation is unfathomable.

>>58460997
40 lanes vs 28 should be a deal breaker for "tech savvy" people.

>>58461332
>I can't imagine what you are doing that could possibly make all of those sidegrades worth the effort
It's called a hobby, dipshit.

>>58461111
there are 2 benchmarks where haswell to broadwell and broadwell to skylake loose performance. but lets take one where they don't as an example, the average uptic over ivy to sandy is about 21% when shit doesn't actually lose performance gen over gen.

the gains are real just not worth it in most cases, some things such as dolphin emulator, its in total a 60% uptick with the biggest gain being haswell.

>>58461225
If you are including overclocking, then yea, ivy sucked for that, delid it and it was fantastic, at least a 25c drop in temps from that alone.

>>58461343
I don't see the problem. I have a GPU, maybe an NVMe drive, and lots of drives. Why do I need more lanes on a usual desktop? I won't be using fiber ports, raid cards, or any of that shit.

>>58461343
You mean people with a HDMI video capture card, an audio capture card, a hardware accelerator/workstation GPU for 10-bit color work, PCIe SSD as a media drive, a dual-port 10GbE NIC, an eSAS+SAS HBA card, and an M.2 adapter card?

File: 1476055519233.png (138KB, 275x263px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 275x263px

>>58461343
If they want to blow $300+ for the 12 extra PCI-E lanes for their meme SSDs and obsolete CF/SLI setups then you're right, X99 will be there waiting for them at a much higher price point.

>>58461347
Playing a musical instrument, working out, and reading books are hobbies. Building the same PC every year five years in a row because you have to have the newest label on the sticker is terminal autism. Check some fucking benchmarks.

>>58460503
Server ryzen will be 32c/64t

>>58461440
No thanks, I do run my own because I don't trust American SoCal fuckwit Youtubers and their Pajeet tech "reviewer"/shill allies. And because I can.

>>58461332
I am an amd shareholder.
Fuck trying to be competitive in the consumer space, this space is low volume, low profit to begin with unless you are intel in everything and dictating what performance should cost.

Price your shit in equilibrium, 8 cores 16 threads vs 4 cores 8 threads
6 cores 12 threads vs 4 cores 4 threads
4 cores 8 threads vs 2 cores 4 threads

do what intel did and fucking dictate what price performance costs, not just slightly undercutting them.

In the server space is where I want them to slightly undercut because this is a market where initial costs is a write off compared to over time power cost.

>>58461440
His hobby is "spending his parent's money" they give him so he'll stay in the pool house and stop jerking off naked im the yard while peering into the neighbor's bathroom window.

>>58461408
Exactly, because you're at the mainstream. Over the top builds would still go for the other option and that's why I believe that Ryzen is going after the i5 and i7 market share instead of the the extreme editions niche.

The best binned 8c/16t, 3.8 base/4.2+ boost: $699
Regular 8c/16t, 3.6/4.0: $499
6c/12t, ?/?ghz: $350
Best binned 4c/8t, ?/?ghz: $250
Regular 4c/8t: $199
4c/4t: $150

Source: My well educated ass.

Seems like the most reasonable price points to me.

>>58457912
25 watts

>>58461491
>spending his parent's money
Kek, it's like your parents never taught you the value of investing. Typical poorfag scum. How do you buy your computer parts? By working minimum wage jobs and blowing all your meager savings at once? Do you even have the patience to build a sizable slush fund or are you too busy blowing all of your savings on rent, food, and computer parts that get outdated within a year?

>>58461491
>jerking off while peeing
This is difficult

>>58461461
If the reviewers were shilling then why would they publish results that show how similar intel chips have been in performance over the past few years?

You are irredeemably stupid. I hope you aren't in charge of anything important enough to potentially cause harm to someone out there somewhere.

>>58457880
>AMD
>power draw
Lol

>>58461504
Sorry, but the best binned Zeppelin cores are gonna get bundled together in Naples modules.

Lower power/higher clock parts have much fatter margins in enterprise.

>>58461545
>how similar intel chips have been in performance over the past few years?
...But they haven't? Even Skylake BTFO out of a similarly clocked Devil's Canyon, and most of you consider that a "1% improvement" (even though it's more like a 5-10% improvement depending on the game and benchmark)

>>58461066
oh, amd costs 50$ less than intel and they are about the same performance, why would I chose amd? I would go the known brand.

You know what would be amazing for amd?
A short term 'we are the kings of the market' play that a 8 core 16 thread at i7 prices while likely being smaller than the i7 would give them.

a slight undercut only benefits intel in the consumer market.

>>58461577
>BTFO
>5-10%
You have a strange definition of BTFO.

>>58461603
6700K at 4.8GHz > 4790K at 4.7GHz >> 5775C at 4.2 GHz > 3770K at 4.6GHz

>>58461577
What the fuck are you talking about
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/16

>>58461479

Don't worry m8. I'm 100% convinced that Zen and Vega were designed first and foremost as HPC parts.
Currently, 8c/16t Zen is just over 95w. Intels 8c/16t is 140w. Now, Intels chip has a couple ddr4 controllers and AVX shit, but it doesn't make up the difference. Zen looks to be more efficient than what Intel is offering. Zen has a comparable +-5% IPC to Broadwell. Naples (the Zen server part) looks to support more features than Intel's Xeons, and on paper has more cache and more bandwidth.
Right now AMDs market share of HPC can be considered ZERO. Right now, it looks like Naples will be a better price/perf/watt than anything Intel has to offer. AMD can start a price war and win. They have nothing to lose, everything to gain. Another anon said, Intels HPC margins are going to fucking collapse for 2017, and AMD, even if they got 10% market share, would make fucking BILLIONS.

I wish I had more money to dump into the stock. The sell off the last couple days just hurts to watch with no capital.

>>58461500
I said time and time again, amd made concessions for the do everything chip. when mcm those concessions almost all go out the fuckin window, but when its one chip they are there and obvious when you set aside what the 8 cores can perform like.

There is a market for more than 4 cores, but not for 400-1500 fucking dollars on top of a far more expensive platform.

both companies had guns pointed at each other and were waiting on the other to shoot first, and amd at the very least is putting more than 4 cores in a 350 price range regardless of what that final count is.

>>58461576

Oh most definitely, but I think they will set aside some just to have as a top end/Halo whatever offering just to build mindshare among enthusiasts. Enthusiasts are more likely to be the same people making the decisions on buying HPC parts no?

>>58461537
Oh my god it's like I can smell you through the internet. I'm literally hearing your voice as I read your replies. It's that typical dopey tard voice where you don't stress any of your R's and they come out as W's. Like your nose is plugged with leggos or something.

I can see your filthy pot belly bulging out of your undersized shirt and resting gently atop your stained tighty wighties with your knocked knees permently driving your feet dressed in calf height yellowed white socks wrapped in dual strapped open toed sandals adorned with club correctors. I'll spare the details of your face.

>>58461589
>oh, amd costs 50$ less than intel and they are about the same performance, why would I chose amd? I would go the known brand.

Intel has the momentum going for them. Even if the reviews are all in favor of Ryzen, in performance, power consumption and price against kabylake or even x99, Intel will still have enough mindshare to keep them going reasonably well for one or two launch cycles.

AMD will have to price aggressively and deliver above expectations to even hope achieving parity on the consumer market. They actually have better chances on the server segment, because their purchases are more well informed, and they sure as hell won't show any mercy in account of brand loyalty.

Not every consumer is an avid tech forum eader, and Ryzen will only blip on their radar after they heard their nerd friend talk about it for the 20th time and how big of an idiot he was for buying Intel over AMD. Remember, even athlon64 didn't get market dominance back in the day, and the situation is a lot worse now.

>>58461676
I can't wait for amd to pull the trigger on zen.
If they price match an i7, that stock is going to explode, if they go for the price war on consumer hardware route, it won't change much till servers hit and amd telling investors their profits.

I put money into amd a bit to late to really be ecstatic with the results, but i'm up 5 grand now, and if they hit 20~$ a share, i'm going to buy a 4k 50~ inch tv and use it as my normal use monitor (I sit a bit farther away from my computer then most people, and get a 1080p or 1440p monitor for 144-240hz gaming.

Possibly get an oled tv just so I have the great contrast I always wanted.

As it stands, I'm on a phenom II 955 with a 280x, I got around 2400$ in my "OH FUCK MY COMPUTER DIED AND I'D RATHER BE DEAD THAN LIVE WITHOUT ONE" fund for the upgrade to zen... that is happening, but weather I get vega or not really depends on how shit performs when the massive cpu bottleneck is gone.

I wonder if that anon that anon whose wife invested his life savings on AMD stock back when it was $3 was telling the truth.

>>58461801

> Up 5k

I'm jelly, no lie anon. I'm just a poor student, put in 3.5k, made 1k. Really happy with that. Hopefully I can double my money, sell half the position, and buy a sick new Zen+Vega system with the proceeds, and write it off as school expenses :^)

>>58461820

There was a guy on reddit who dropped 50k pounds on AMD when it was ~$2. Showed a snippet when stock was around $6. Fucker made 100k clean in 8 months. I hope he didn't sell desu. I would have a raging boner all year if I was him.

>>58461576
not necessarily. they are going to cost some serious money, but they will likely also be sold in lower end cpus too because there is more market from 1-3 die skus then there is for the 4 die monster.

>>58461716
If i was amd this is where my crap would be

user buyable parts
XXX - top binned naples cpu, as we don't know its cost, we cant even estimate what it could be worth
500$ for good binned 8/16
350$ bottom bin 8/16
250$ 6/12
150$ 4/8

mcm part and an enthusiast chipset
die/core/thread

2500$ 4/16/32
2000$ 2/16/32
1500$ 2/14/28
1200$ 2/12/24
1000$ 2/10/20
700$ 2/8/16

Intel this way has no answer to the memory bandwidth or capacity at the highest end, no answer preformance wise for the step down through 12 cores, and nothing price performance worth while from 10 and 8, all with low binned or fucked 8 core cpus.

They then put out one more platform, that is server cpus made for a desktop market, as there is a market for a daily driver that also can handle heavy tasks, either from professional markets, or semi pro hobbyists, all while still turning the same profits per cpu until intel has a cpu that can mcm, assuming that current intel ones can't (if they could, why would they make a monolithic cpu)

any cpu where the threading is fucked, hand over to oems for a pittance but still proffit, get them to chose amd's 8 core cpu over intel's 4 core 8 thread.

>>58461577
http://images.anandtech.com/doci/9483/Generational%20CPU%20IPC_575px.png

>>58462047
>http://images.anandtech.com/doci/9483/Generational%20CPU%20IPC_575px.png
>i can't read my own charts
Those ARE 5-10% improvements because you have to add the percentage gains between Haswell-Broadwell and Broadwell-Skylake.
Idiot.

>>58461796
athlon didn't gain dominance due to intel paying and threatening oems for even considering using amd.

The question is, will intel be able to do that again?

It's not likely intel has a massive performance jump in the shadows either, from my understanding they have been riding the pentium 3 base from core 2 up through today. Amd got a cpu intel won't have an answer for, they also will have a performance tier that can't be ignored, to top off, intel has anti trust against them and watching em this time around.

I think AMD will pull and nvidia and advertise Ryzen SR7, 8c/16t, as high end enthusiast during the 1st half of 2017, and then come up with a Black Edition before the end of the year (with more pci lanes, 8 channel mem controller, maybe a couple different instructions) server part, and go oh wait guise, this is the real enthusiast chip for 1k burgers.

>>58461976
If i was you, keep the money in till mid way though zen+, that's as far as the jim keller road map goes for amd on zen, Its what I intend to do at least.

>>58462126
>The question is, will intel be able to do that again?
Most likely.
They STILL haven't paid the settlement fines to AMD. They got away with murder and I very much doubt they've grown a conscience since last time.

Not only that, they can also come up with an aggressive tv ad campaign and saturate the normies perception. Expect intel flooding your tv if Ryzen is a success.

>>58461577
:^)

>>58462126
Intel is more deeply entrenched in the market now, they have more leverage over OEMs, they don't need to bribe anyone.
Intel has the ability to make or break the mobile division of a company like ASUS. Every manufacturer of laptops and ultrabooks is relying on intel's favored pricing to meet their margins.
Sell a certain number of intel laptops and intel gives you a discount on CPUs.
Sell a certain number of intel laptops with a specific configuration and intel gives you 50% on SSDs.
Offer a certain number of premium "ultrabooks" and intel will even subsidize display costs.
For a while they were even giving away a free Atom CPU for every mainstream processor sold so companies could shit out cheaper tablets and entry level notebooks.

Intel isn't just a CPU vendor anymore. They have their hands in pretty much every area of the system. A manufacturer can make very good money selling a $1500 thin laptop, and AMD doesn't have the ability to incentive companies to the same degree. They've got to fight back for ever 1% market share.

>>58462119
well aware, you also notice that there are 2 benchmarks that are negative? lets discount the dolphin benchmark as its a clear outlier. in these synthetic tests the best they can come up with is about 20-30% over the course of ivy bridge to skylake/kabylake

in normal performance, as in not rendering, its not anywhere near these.

>>58462178
normies don't buy computers, they buy tablets or x brand laptop, they don't care about what's inside, this isn't the day where people walk into best buy and ask for the best intel box.

At best if they need a computer, they just look at the price and buy.

>>58462197
Those 3DPM benchmarks were affected by that Skylake AVX bug early on in its release. MIPS might have been in the same situation, but that's a memory benchmark so it's likely 7-zip not having the right patches during Skylake's launch. Anandtech should really update those benchmarks.

>>58462197
>the dolphin benchmark

wtf is going on there with post-haswell chips anyway?

>>58462192
>For a while they were even giving away a free Atom CPU for every mainstream processor sold so companies could shit out cheaper tablets and entry level notebooks.

in china where that practice isn't illegal.
If I was an oem, The moment amd brought out their apus, I would jump on it and who gives a shit about intel.

Amd will have the lower price, the better performance, and the better gpu. I want to show normal people this, simple. Pit a laptop against amd in a video and who intel's pathetic/anemic performance, because it looks like amd is going to be more power efficient than intel (see ryzen vs 6900) you could likely dump an amd cpu into the same form factor as intel, and because amd parts already sell for cheap as fuck, you would likely have higher margins.

remember, and this is key, some profit is better than no profit. If amd sells their cpus at proffit, and intel has to sell at a loss to keep up, they can't maintain that, amd would just have to wait it out till share holders revolt at intel.

worst case scenario, I would If i was amd I would contract out a company to design and build a laptop/desktop to my specifications, and sell it directly, possibly even sell a small box for a tv that you get a wireless keyboard and mouse for, and introduce a fairly powerful set top box pc to a new market in a slightly larger then old laptop form factor.

>>58462294
If i had to guess, haswell was a great cpu, and the benchmark benefited from faster ram.

File: 1442709046980.jpg (81KB, 826x890px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 826x890px

whats with all these text walls in this thread? usually posts on this board are much shorter.

>>58462346
Somewhat informed people are discussing a topic they find interesting, and or have strong feelings about.
It happens from time to time when kids keep away.

>>58462346
Shhh, don't jinx it.

>>58461778
lol

>>58458275
>6c/11t
that's a fuckin miracle, if they managed to fuck up bad enough to have 6 cores with 11 threads

I'm ready, Babbylake is a sham. It's AMD's turn to prove themselves. If they will deliver the final 8c/16t with comparable IPC like they did last month then Intel should lower their pricing.

Not to mention AMD says that all their Ryzen chips are unlocked. Well..

>>58458234
have 2600k and 390x, staying toasty waiting for something truly new.

Laughing hard at all these amdrones that think the 8c/16t ryzen will be $350.

File: 1463715349530.png (538KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

538KB, 1920x1200px

>>58464558
Watch out!

>>58461676
Every time AMD has gotten close to destroying the intel monopoly it's come from gaining 10-20% of the enterprise market share so you are entirely correct. Also remember they are also competing with the largely inflated e7 pricing,

i5-4460 is going to last me another 10 years because i dont play faggy video game

>>58457735

The only reason for me to move off my fx8350 before 2025 is to radically cut my main system energy use. Meaning, I'll look into what's affordable in 2018 and probably make a purchase early- to mid-2019.

Right now, I'm imagining something like a cluster of RasPi 7s or somesuch equivalent. Possibly even clustered with my Phenom II 965 &/or fx8350.

>>58457735
>its another intel (((marketer))) post

>>58462192

I think you're absolutely right. Intel has an iron grip over most OEMs right now, and they will try to get away with murder again. However, AMD has something this time around they didn't have last time. Extensive APU and custom SoC experience. ANDs APUs are actually really good, but the weakness was always the weak CPU cores. With Zen looking to be really power effecient and Vega around the corner, Raven Ridge APUs and SoCs are going to be far and away the best. It won't be a contest. If the rumors are true, MS Scorpio might have Zen cores and maybe Vega graphics. Remember, just the hardware needs to be ready, as far as I know MS and Sony both use their own OS/drivers etc on their consoles. The first console capable of 60fps High 1080p or 30fps REAL 4k? That's going to force Sony's hand to buy into Raven Ridge, and normies will take notice too. AMD will sure as hell let it be known they are in a system like that.
Alright, now you got MS and Sony fighting it out with Raven Ridge, you don't think other OEMs aren't going to notice the power of it, or the fact that AMD is apparently easy to work with? Youll have a couple just say, fuck Intel, Raven Ridge is going to enable me to make X product I couldn't before, and it's going to be a new market etc etc. Nvidia will have good mobile graphics, but it can't compete vs ANDs apus, and I think more vendors are interested in apus/socs than having to piece together a system. It's hard to compete with the margins of a SOC.

I don't think AMD needs to be super competitive in the desktop space this generation. Just enough to build some mind share that maybe AMD ain't so bad. What will help AMD the best is coming out with solid mobile and hpc parts. Here there is no mindshare competition. Who has the best price/performance/watt for our needs? That's it. There are plenty OEMs who don't like working with Nvidia and Intel, and are thirsting for something from the competition.

AMD has one shot.

>>58460001
>he thinks kaby kek has ipc increase
hahahahahahahahaha.
can't fool us, pajeet.

>>58467170
If you study the arch design very carefully AMD has selected two very specific sections of the enterprise market where price cutting from intel won't be nearly as useful as before.

Also yes, the APU/laptop market as well will finally get shaken up as Intel can't offer a GPU solution from Nvidia in an exclusive deal. It's also going to save an absurd amount of room in laptop designs (one chip instead of two, or better, not having a second PCB) giving AMD a real edge for OEM's that don't want to get left behind when mid-range gaming laptops become a thing.

>>58467295
will it finally increase battery life?

>>58467343
Not by efficiency in comparison to intel, but by reducing the size of the cooling solution and reducing physical space required on the logic board. The packaged HBM compared to regular GDDR5 however will be a noticeable improvement in wattage. Copper pipes are heavy as shit and each bit of weight they save on using less of it is going to go into having a larger battery.

I can wait no longer and will buy me a Kaby Lake i7 now

Sorry

>>58467388
Mr. Krzanich you posted that several times already.

>>58458616
same meme that happened before pcie 3.0 came out
everyone was like OMG PCIE 2.0 BANDWIDTH IS FUCKING DONE FOR IT'S SATURATED.. yet we had no performance loss from x8 vs x16
and then a month later pcie 3.0 came out and it still didn't matter.

>>58460001
>3 generations
>0.5% faster

why's it matter? AMD is going to release their fucking chip for half the price of intel probably, and everyone's going to go ape shit
and they probably would throw their 4c8t around 250 too
because that's going to be the money making chip.

>>58467768
Don't forget Ryzen chips are going to be soldered.

>>58467768
>AMD is going to release their fucking chip for half the price of intel probably
>he doesn't know
It's the 4c/4t non-SMT Ryzen that will cost $250. Anything below is exclusive to the Excavator-based APUs. So much for AMD's cost competitiveness.

>>58467798
hahahahah

>>58467809
https://twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/818932115270209537
It's true. AMD still needs to offload their A12-9800 for a profit, and they start at $150 with OEM prices. An unlocked A12-9800K will probably go for $20 more. The cheapest Ryzen will be at least over $200 to keep their prices from overlapping and it will have SMT diabled.

>>58467798
>People are retarded enough to actually think this is going to happen.

>>58467830
were your parents related like, before they got married?

>>58467843
>People think AMD is just going to let their last Excavator APUs get sold for pennies
Best case scenario, the non-SMT quad-core Ryzen will START at $200, but not any lower. AMD still stubbornly believes that the A12-9800 is competitive with the far superior Pentium G4650

>>58467870
Ryzen doesn't have an iGPU guy.
They aren't even the same market.

>>58467901
Yes they are in the same market, dumbass. They're both CPUs that you skip over in favor of Intel CPUs.

>>58461332
That photo made me kek really fucking hard, no idea why.

>>58467924
You literally cannot replace the APU with the Ryzen CPU in your product line. Your product would need a discrete GPU. Ryzen is targeted only for the market segment of desktops with discrete GPU's. The market segment is not the same.

>>58467959
Yes you can. They're both equally worthless silicon that no one in their right mind will buy over a cheap i3 or i5 CPU.

>>58468003
>>58467924
Can you stop it with your fucking memes?

>>58457832
Didn't google buy a ton of Fury X cards for datacenter use due to HBM?

>>58468617
>Anon tried to make some stupid point.
>Gets BTFO
>"I was trolling all along!"

>>58468003
Go be retarded somewhere else

>>58468643
Probably due to cost as well. 8tflops with the high speed memory for $300 is immense right now. Probably solves their captures by them selves.

>>58468704
And that's why AMD is aimed at enterprise market with Vega. Lotsa flops for reasonable price.

>>58458679
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00T7CI0MM?pldnSite=1

>>58467870
might buy an athlon 845 is it's $50 including mobo.

Reminded that there wont be a 4c Summit Ridge for you to buy, you'll need to wait for the Raven Ridge if you want a pleb tier CPU

>>58469908
But I have an i5 6500 already.

File: 1457032127185.jpg (305KB, 581x542px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 581x542px

Is there any credible benchmarks out there I can look up?

All the articles I find on gewgle only talk about rumors, even the articles within the last week.

>>58471056
the new horizon benchmarks

canard pc's benchmarks are plausibly legit but otherwise not confirmed to be so

>>58469908
6c/6t chips at $150 then please.