AMD Zen

What is pro? Unlocked?

>>58782144
all ryzen is unlocked

The 6 core chips look identical. What will be the difference? Better binning?

>>58782189
Turbo and TDP.

>>58782116
Stop posting every Chink and Indian rumor as if they're true, you miserable retards.

>>58782144
For AMD Pro chips are business SKUs.

>>58782144
Pro is usually for enterprise, enabled vPRO(or whatever AMD calls it), ECC, etc.

>>58782116
>no 8c/8t
why though

>>58782189
I'm guessing due to the way boost now works they will be specifying a minimum achievable boost and binning chips based on how well they respond to high end cooling

>>58782200
>>58782218

As long as they OC well and are dirt cheap I'll be happy.

AMD's bringing the heat it looks like. They copied Intel's "3-5-7" thing but theirs start at i5 equivalents vs i3s, i7 equivalents vs i5s, and i7e equivalents vs i7s

>>58782365
AMD has already been using the R3-7 nomenclature for graphics.

>r7 r5 r3
Such sucky numbering if true. It should be good old X8, X6, X4

>>58782175
Wrong. The 4 core ones aren't

>>58782116
If that's true then a single die will be in charge of the $120 - $600/$700 range.
That's pretty neat.

Nothing to compare to dual core poorfag pentiums/celleries though, unless AMD plans to sell the 1100 for $50

>>58782405
they have been using the R3 5 7 and 9 for graphics for a few years.

Seems like too many products. Well at least the low mid range will be covered pretty well.

>>58782532
Dropped in favor of RX. You can't sell shit now without putting X, basic marketing trend

>>58782541
Not really, only 9 consumer SKUs, the PRO ones are for business.
That's not a lot at all.

>>58782396
Not quite, and they use different numbers in their GPUS. R7, R9, RX(10)

>>58782175
>>58782512
Anyone else see that hilarious graphic where they compare with Intels locked/unlocked models and then state ALL RYZEN unlocked with a big arrow... then further down the page there's a table showing the low end ones locked. How do they get away with that shit?

>>58782619
There's no point in so much SKUs if you can just get a $220 6 core and overclock it to the moon.

Unless they plan to cannibalize their sales of course.

>>58782619
>Not quite, and they use different numbers in their GPUS. R7, R9, RX(10)

No.
They have R3, and R5 branded graphics as well.

>>58782218
>8/8
Y tho?

>make up a bunch of numbers
>put them in an excel spreadsheet
>save it as a screenshot
>your bullshit speculation is now credible enough to be a 'leak'

lmao

Power consumption and platform prices is what will make or break Zen, if they're at least equal to Intel's offerings, AMD wins.

File: 1479698977531.gif (2MB, 228x170px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 228x170px

>>58782723
>mfw i fear for 200-300$ motherboard options

>>58782723
They're releasing 65w and 95w SKUs.
Nothing in the line up is a leaky power sucking beast like the Zambezi and Vishera families.

>>58782746
Apparently the top end X370 boards are $200~

>>58782746
As if anyone fucking cares about your LED strips and plastic casings or fucking Wifi on a motherboard.
Rather buy a cheap but decent mobo with good power delivery and I/O for $140 and buy a decent sound card.

>>58782782
Right, I just worry about manufacturers raising prices, I just want a cheap MB I can overclock with.

Hex senpai ww@

>>58782723
Why do people make such a big deal about power consumption? Unless you have a Logisys timebomb in your setup it matters exactly 0%.

>>58783069
It doesn't matter much to us directly, but it matters for the company, a inefficient product isn't gonna sell, ergo company won't get money, followed by stagnation in the market.

>>58782782
so i don’t ant to make a thread. Im new to "building"a pc. How the fuck do i know what kinda of motherboard i need?

>>58782676
Those have been largely retired from dGPU use because of APUs.

>>58783133
A good one.

Google it.

>>58783149

i have been kid. this is my last resort asking /g/

>>58783161
Google it betteryou fucking spic.

File: Power Consumption Under Load.jpg (1MB, 2448x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x2448px

>>58783069
>Why do people make such a big deal about power consumption?
Because electricity is expensive and power consumption translates directly in to heat output

>>58782116
None of that is real. There has been no evidence of 6 core SKUs existing at launch. It's so blatantly bullshit that the author couldnt be arsed to guess at clockspeeds between the different tiers.

>>58783200
here comes the name calling. I have no drive to get into a child like argument on here. I was asking for help on a tech board trying to stay on topic and i get a reply from a 12 year trying to flex his e muscle to a stranger.

Fuck you faggot

>>58783247
This is a tech board not fucking tech support, READ THE FUCKING STICKY you degenerate spic.

>>58782782
Aren't the built in DACs and AMPs not good enough in mid-range mobos?

>>58782116
So confirmed for garbage that can't even beat Skylake performance?

>>58783305
Yep, useless for gaming

>>58782664
next to no one overclocks, oh, and there is no fucking chance in hell amd is going to have that many 4 core units because a 4 core unit is so statistically improbable without sacrificeing 8 core dies by the wafers.

Im betting there will be tonek 4 core cpus but in VERY low supplies, not 8 skus worth.

but because every 8 core is below 3.4ghz, chart is bullshit from the get go.

>>58782526
4-2 cores will be in full swing when they get apus out,

>>58783243
you mean besides the es samples of 6 core cpus, and defects taking cpus out of the 8 core binning, the only reason there would be no 6 cores at launch is if amd has SUCH good manufacturing potential to never have a die fuck up, or they are just cutting all 6 core potentials to 4 core cpus regardless of power.

>>58783457
more then good enough for gaming even at base clocks and when games use more than 4 cores shits on anything 4 core or less.

>>58782200
If amd is telling the truth, just binning, as all the cpus should have no maximum turbo frequency, just what your motherboard and cooling can push the cpu to.

File: tmp_2226-1485829804731-1391934612.jpg (59KB, 645x412px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 645x412px

>>58782782
>buying a meme card

>>58782116
i want a 8c/16t 65w at around 3.6GHz for 250 bucks

it must beat or at least compare to an i7-6700 with 8 threads working. if the other 8 threads kick in, i want it to beat the shit out of an i7-7700K

i won't buy any ryzen that isn't what i described. i won't spend more than 80 bucks in the mainboard either.

Will be exciting to see real life benchmarks of all the models. If their 4/8 processors beats i5's in price/performance the mainstream cpu market would be shaken up for sure.

File: 1392565384566.png (38KB, 180x216px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 180x216px

>Claims to know all the model names but no the frequencies
>Source is chink runes

>>58782116
I hope this is just their internal naming scheme, because so many X and Pro versions are going to confuse normies, garenteed.

>>58782116
>tfw R5 will be faster than i7
how can intel even compete?

>>58784135
>8c 16t with oc motherboard for 330 bucks

Multiply that by 2.5

Those threads just show how retarded AMD fans are when they talk about AMD finally trying to take on high end broadwell-e CPUs while expecting 7700k performance for less than 300 bucks including mobo.

>>58784434
who the fuck said anything about overclocking, shitrag?

a simple h110m mainboard with a i7-6700 is around 330 usd, and that's my price target, fuckwit.

>>58782512
Yeah but poorfags don't count

>>58782365
>bringing the heat
sensiblechuckle.bmp