>>61147703
Shouldn't less cores and threads equal to higher clocks and higher performance? What the hell went wrong?

>>61147703
I'm on a 3570k. Nice to see that after what, five fucking years of no improvements at all, we are finally getting newer chips that actually have better performance.

>>61147717
Nothing? The process limits clocks. These are bottom of the barrel ccx 4 cores with no hypertgreading. I would be shocked if they were more than $100 a chip. Pair it with a 1050 And you have your 12 year old kid buying a gaming pc with his allowance for a month.

File: 1493115430948.jpg (249KB, 957x1300px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 957x1300px

>we can expect the Ryzen 3 1300 and Ryzen 3 1200 to be priced at $149 and $129 respectively.

D O A
O
A

R5 and R7 already made i5 and i7 obsolete. R3 is now destroying i3. Did you expect anything else, OP?

>>61147703
>sittin' here with my 4790k
Probably wont upgrade until ddr5 is a thing

>>61147717
no? clock speeds is dictated by silicon design and architecture design (setup and hold violations and whatnot)

>>61147772
>4C/4T unlocked Haswell i5 for the price of a Kaby i3
>DOA
lmao

>>61147772
They are pulling those numbers out of their ass.

>wccftech
you never learn

Yea you would be an idiot to not get Pentium over this

>>61147808
>>61147793
wait these are 4 cores?

Where dem 50-70$ cpus?

>>61147818
Fast dual core > gimped 4 core

For gaming

>>61147703
As long as the chip is priced around €50, amd will crush intel

>>61147839
>HURR DURR INTEL IS ALWAYS BETTER AT SINGLE CORE WITH EVERY CPU

You are unbelivably stupid if you think the poorfag pentium has any single core advantage over Ryzen. The only CPUs from Intel with any significant single core advantage are the Skylake/Kabylake K-series i3/i5/i7.

Aren't these aimed more at enterprises as opposed to consumers?

Why would you even care?

>>61147871
cheapo builds

>>61147871
Budget PCs care a lot.

>>61147703
Assuming it really is the same as an i5-3570K, it's going to beat the poorfag pentium in single threaded by 10% and beat it in multithreaded by 60%
>>61147871
Ryzen 3 is also coming in consumer form, I think.

the jews shilling at night

File: Ryzen-3-1200-Processor-Sisoft-Sandra-Benchmark.jpg (128KB, 1531x873px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1531x873px

idk wat this mean

>>61147703
>wccftech
I'm actually interested in one for a home server though if it's cheap enough, and can eudimm.

119$ R3 @ 4.0ghz on stock cooler
64$ ASrock b350
105$ 3200mhz 16gb ram

This would be a great budget setup for anyone gaming or comp work

>>61147888
Poorfag Pentium can actually overclock though

>>61147772
But the R5 1400 is $140, those R3's will be sub $99

>>61147922
No, it can't, and Ryzen can.

>>61147904
2C for 130$? What about us poorfa/g/s

>>61147818
Yes, 4C 4T

The biggest problem for these, if they're actually priced that insanely high is:

a)G4560 absolutely being the better choice

and

b)3570k and the other shitty i5s haven't died because you can OC them to the moon,
but Ryzens can't. It'll probably top out at 4gHz again.


Soooo irl scenarios a shitty used 3570k or even 2500k is gonna destroy these.

IT MAKES SENSE FOR HTPC and other low power situations, not gaming or any kinda work.

>>61147717
Do you even understand how binning works? Those are literally aborted 1800X.

>>61147926
I would be really surpised if the R3 1200 wasn't $100. With the R3 1300 being $120.

>>61147904
It means the 1200 is ridiculously cheap, 2 core 4 thread is a direct competitor with i3

>>61147920
AMD gaming? pfft better off getting a Pentium for gaming than this. This r3 would be perfect for a cheapo server though, so I'm a little excited.

>>61147839
You're right. Guess which one you can overclock? Not the Intel option.

>>61147952
The poorfag pentium will straight up lose to these. Everyone really overestimates the specs on that thing. It's dirt cheap for a reason.

>>61147952
Fucking this. I want /v/ to leave this place

>>61147920
>119$ R3 @ 4.0ghz on stock cooler
Not happening, the binning is so low tier it won't go up to 3.3GHz

It's competing with the G4560 (which will finally get BTFO on price/performance)

>>61147957
Look up g3528 overclock. Then shut up

>>61147717
if the amd bottleneck was heat, then yea, it would be faster, but the amd bottleneck is voltage.

>>61147979
That's not the CPU we're talking about and nobody is going to dig up a mobo that you can ghetto overclock it with.

>>61147950
W hy does it say four core but then 2c/4t

Makes no sense

The article says they're both 4c/4t for some reason

>>61147973
>The poorfag pentium will straight up lose to these
Source?

>>61147952
This @ 4.0ghz will outperform the G4560 by a decent amount
Just compare a 1400 OCed its basically the same thing minus the HT which most games dont use very well unless its a 2c4t chip
1400 @ 4.0ghz is faster than a i5 7600 non k

>>61147992
we're talking about Pentiums so yes it is. you don't think lga 1150 motherboards are sold anymore? wrong

>>61147996
He's retarded, desktop Ryzen is 4 cores minimum.

>>61147979
Not hyperthreaded dumbass, everyones talking about a different Pentium.

>>61148046
No it says on the SiSoft Sandra picture, he didn't make it up

>>61148042
Old Pentiums are dead for gaming, the only reason Kaby Lake Pentiums are talked about is they have 4 threads. The 4560 has shit clocks though, an overclocked r3 would rape it.

File: 1495812218308.png (944KB, 1228x1502px) Image search: [Google]

944KB, 1228x1502px

>>61147703
ITS NOT FAIR INTELBROS

>>61147703

AMD should put out a Ryzen competitor for the Intel Pentium G4560. I've been seeing this get put into a lot of simple home PCs lately and it would probably be a great little niche for them to jump into

File: 1498749316963.jpg (199KB, 1918x1080px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1918x1080px

>>61148064
It's clearly misreading it. Straight from AMD marketing slides. It's 4c/4t.

>>61148061
I was the first one to specify a specific Pentium. keep deflecting.

>>61148031
Assuming that this can hit a stable 4.0, and you like playing GPU bound games.

Anyway fuck gaming. If this can ecc, and has an igpu then I would like to shove one in the darkest corner of a closet, and have it pump files. Unless it costs more than a pentium with ht ofc.

>>61148091
The pentium anniversary edition has beem dead for gaming for a while, almost every game needs 4 threads now or it stutters like mad. The 4560 is the only relevant Pentium now.

>>61148097
1600x can barely hit 4ghz and that is with high speed ram. amdtards delusional as usual.

>>61148097
>iGPU
None of the Ryzens have an iGPU. Only their Raven Ridge APUs will have those.

>>61147904

>Quad-Core Processor (2C 3.1GHZ

>>61148090
ok.
So a 1200 @80-90$ would be killer deal, when overclocked @4gHz is gun rape

>>61148106
no most games don't. I game on a duocore and it works fine on most games.

>>61148107
if these are 8 core with fucking 6 dead/killed cores, you bet your ass they gonna OC to 4gHz or at leas ON PAR with the r5 and 7

>>61148090

>Don't have a Pro 1800X because your CPUs sudoku if you try to pass 4GHZ and the 1700X already gets too close

>>61148131
how about you bet your own ass twink pajeet.

>>61148108
>None of the Ryzens have an iGPU. Only their Raven Ridge APUs will have those.
That's shitty. Still if it's priced low enough I wouldn't mind installing a low power GPU.

File: AMD-Ryzen-Vs-Kabylake-Single-THreaded-Test-IPC.png (20KB, 493x280px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 493x280px

>>61147978
I guarantee it will go 3.9ghz+ on the stock cooler
Ryzen has shown to have insane yields on the silicon. The 1200 might not 4.0ghz but it will get very close
People dont understand ryzen has better IPC than the intel chips they just dont clock as high compared to the OC models
You can buy this R3 with cooler + mobo + 8gb of ram for the price of a i5 7600k chip alone no cooler
I am betting this chip is $109 for the lowest cost model maybe even $99
B350 is ~65$
8gb of ram is ~50$
R3 1200 ~110$
$225 is less than the cheapest 7600k with the same performance if clocked @ 4.0ghz for both

>>61148123
I game on my trusty pentium 4

File: pi1m-1.png (10KB, 800x401px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 800x401px

>>61148146
That graph is based on extrapoliated values before release and is outdated. Here's something from when Ryzen was actually released.

>>61148146
Redteam+ pls go. You hurt amd more than you help.

>>61148131
Ryzen 3 are the worst silicon in the bunch, the Ryzen process is so efficient that people were wondering if Ryzen 3 would even be released. Look at the 1400, it overclocks like shit. The lower down the stack the worse the silicon, stop thinking in terms of Intel.

File: 1413913323099.jpg (293KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1000x1000px

>>61148184
>anything positive about amd is shilling

>>61148001
2 cores vs 4 cores

>>61148193
>anything positive about amd is shilling
Your bullshit isn't tolerated here, please go back to deleting posts on plebbit.

>>61148169
>DDR4 2400mhz

sure is gimp in here
@ 3200mhz+ ram the ryzen has better IPC than the intel chip

>>61148138
>needing that kind of CPU in a corporate environment

>>61148185
>the 1400, it overclocks like shit
Source?

>>61148207
>whaa i wanted to le epin trollee the ayyymde subrebbit
>WWOOOOOOOOOOWWWWW i got banned time to shitpost about it on /g/

>>61148205
>2 cores vs 4 cores
Fine argument you have there.

File: 1494014860926.jpg (62KB, 750x855px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 750x855px

>>61148184
>>61148207
Poor Intlelfag

>>61148221
I don't go on plebbit, so no ban poofriend.

File: 1295167999273.png (97KB, 325x325px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 325x325px

>vvait for vega
>turns out to be another indian turd stinker
>deluge of shitty future zen chips released
>AMD hype and lies mode activated

File: intel-g4560-wd2_1.png (100KB, 814x696px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 814x696px

>>61148205
Not just that but 4 cores @ 4.0ghz vs 2 locked cores @ 3.5ghz

G4650 is good but it wont compete with even a stock R3 1200
OCed no chance
Take a look at the stock 1500x here which is 3.5ghz

>>61148237
>I know about ALL the deleted posts on rebbit
>what i don't post on rebbit i heard it from my cousin
sure buddy, i believe you

>>61148227
>Poor Intlelfag
Was excited for this cpu, but the usual amdfaggery just changed my mind.

>>61148088
I wonder if Intel even makes money on the 4560. The price to performance is insane yet Intel doesn't advertise it at all, which leads me to believe it might be a Pyhrric move to undercut AMDs low end stuff. Even AMD's FM2+ APUs and Athlons typically go for more.

>>61148250
>I know about ALL the deleted posts on rebbit
Everybody knows about plebbits deleted posts. It was actually news fuccboi. CEO even made a public apology over diddling comments, but still pretty much iterated that it was okay.

>>61148225
Ryzens main disadvantage to Kaby Lake is clockspeed, not IPC. Ryzen cant beat the overclockable Intel CPUs, but stuff like the Pentiums are locked at lower clockspeeds so an overclocked 4 core Ryzen will sail above them.

>>61148282
That's not what you were talking about sweetie, itrs ok we all know you post on reddit now

>>61148123
Some of us would like to play more than indie text adventures.

File: 1050$builds.png (256KB, 1900x780px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1900x780px

>>61148220
His source is his ass

1400 OCs the same as the other ryzen 3.9-4.1ghz for 95% of the chips

Here is a 1400 compared to a 7700k(4.2ghz)
Shows the IPC on ryzen is better than the intel chips
Intel has to be higher clocked or have more cores to beat the AMD chips its that simple
If a i5 7600k was clocked to 4.0ghz vs a R3 at the same clock the AMD chip would be the faster chip

If we are comparing all non OC chips the ryzen they have no chance really. Even the 7700 non K is clocked too low to compete with a OCed ryzen chip
The k models are factory set to higher clocks compared to the base counterparts. 7700k is 4.2ghz compared to just 3.6ghz on the 7700 non k
You never see anyone benching the non K chips because they lose horribly

1080 build or 1060 build for the same price? you choose

File: 435235342523.gif (36KB, 180x148px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 180x148px

>>61147839
the 2c2t cpu that wont even run modern games?

pppffttthahaha

File: 140040GHZ.jpg (203KB, 1212x404px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1212x404px

>>61148308
Here is the 1400 @ 4.0ghz compared to the 7700k bench in CPUz
both are 4c 8t chips

>>61148088
They probably can't unless they operate at a loss per chip.
Each Ryzen chip costs the same to make. But a Celeron and a Pentium cost significantly less, since they aren't cut down i7s. Intel doesn't make much in margins at that segment, only by volume. But they can still turn a profit where AMD loses money.

I don't see AMD offering a competitor in that market anytime soon.

>>61148296
>That's not what you were talking about sweetie,
>sweetie
T. Malaysian shill clocked in

>>61148255
enjoy your overpriced, overheating, inferior product :^)

>>61148318
INTEL SHILLS SOON TO BE LAID OFF

File: 1498411735289.jpg (39KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 420x420px

>>61148334
it's ok sweetie
just take deep breaths

>>61147703
These are supposed to be priced at $129 at the high end. They're competing with dual core i3 and Pentium processors.

File: 1495466186056.jpg (101KB, 457x652px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 457x652px

>>61148358
not that poster, but who are you trying to kid? seriously.

>>61148326
You are right each chip cost the same on ryzen but each finished CPU is not the same price

Intel has the same thing with binning chips they all basically cost the same. But the really cheap pentiums are offset by the overpriced i7s in the same way the R3 will be offset by the 1800x 1700x ect
Once you have the R&D done the cost of the manufacturing is irrelevant assuming yields are not retarded low

>>61148337
>Like you could afford better.
I didn't know amds were premium, and isn't it almost time for a prayer break?

File: 20170629210124_1.jpg (322KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 1920x1080px

>>61148302
nope, fps games. steady 60fps on fermi e8400 not even oc'd. this..is the power of intel.

File: 1498770183682.gif (141KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 250x250px

>>61148370
what is it sweetie?

>>61148358
Desi/g/nated

>>61148318
B T F O

>>61148386
that's a 7 year old game

>>61148318
>on par with the 7700k

top kek jewtel on suicide watch

>>61148318
Delid this

File: Intel-Pentium-G3258_Battlefield-4.jpg (238KB, 1125x581px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1125x581px

>>61148386
BF1 is super light on the CPU yet on a dual core its pretty much unplayable
Games these days are starting to require 4 threads of compute
G4560 works well in BF1 as it has 2c but 4 threads

File: 1495143251007.jpg (50KB, 600x833px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 600x833px

>>61148318
>>61148424

>>61148296
/g/ was right amd shills was not a meme.

>want R5 1600
>will probably end up with a R3 1200

I will forever be a corelet.

>>61148416
>topkek

except the amd is OC'd to max and the 7700k is nowhere near it's max OC.

This thread has been desi/g/nated.

Why do people think the 4560 is actually amazing at gaming? Its whole gimmick is its amazing price/performance, if you're actually building a gayming PC for AAA games its a retarded choice. Pentiums don't even have turbo boost, you're going to be clockspeed limited in games. It's bottlenecked by anything better than a 1060 and stutters in anything remotely CPU-intensive.

>>61148457
They've been brainwashed to think anything Intel is always better than anything AMD in games. Poorfag pentium's days are numbered now.

>>61148457
because it was 60$ origano.
So all reviewers included it in the benches, tons of cheapos bought them and got a good rep.

>>61148318
yeah, but the 1400 definitely can't reach 5.1GHz.

The true power of Ryzen is the extra cores.

>>61148443
It's a clock for clock comparison. Intel's only advantage os clockspeed, the difference in IPC is negligible.

>>61148482
right, 1400 and 1500x pwn locked i5s, and are better than the 7600k or other unlocked because of 0.1% and 1% minimum fps.

However yea the i7 7700k or even other locked i7s are tough to beat.

You can argue that for multitasking and in the future 1600 and up are gonna be better.

>>61148443
You forgot that the 7700k is almost double the price and with Ryzen you can OC on almost any board. So yes the 7700k will be better OCd but the value is so much better with the Ryzen part

>>61148443
Its not to show the OC potenial its showing the non OC chips(pentium all non K skew ect) are no match for the ryzen CPUs when OCed

The price of the 7700k setup with cooler is about 2.5x the cost of a 1600 setup
95% of people even with K skew CPUs dont overclock them anyway.
>>61148457
Its not amazing its just the cheapest CPU that can run modern games.
R3 is compelling to anyone on a budget. Most people dont have 1500$ for a PC build they are looking at 450-750 and in that price the ryzen chips are much better overall.

PS I personally use intel extreme chips and xeons. I am not shilling for AMD just pointing the facts that AMD has much better price to performance

File: 1496089512952.jpg (220KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 960x540px

>>61148482
>5.1 ghz

>>61148503
Locked i7-7700 costs like $300 and is only going to be 10% faster single core. Not really worth it over an R7-1700 with 100% faster multicore.

>>61148478
I'm not saying it's not a great value. The issue is it's locked at 3.5GHz, yet some people think it's a gaming monster or something.

>>61148531
Oh absolutely I wasn't taking price into consideration with this at all.

>>61148471
>They've been brainwashed to think anything Intel is always better than anything AMD in games. Poorfag pentium's days are numbered now.
It was a great uncontested value, and now that amd might have a product in the same price point doesn't change that fact. Pentium possibly btfoed 6+months later after release how will Intel recover.

>>61148531
A locked i7-7700 is clocked at 3.6GHz so single core will only be negligibly faster than Ryzen at similar clocks.

>>61148517
Yeah, but pic related is the same for Ryzen, but at 4.1GHz

Don't get me wrong, I literally have a 1600, but Intel has some crazy clocks. Even for laptops they are able to get at 4.1 on a 45W CPU

>>61148547
>how will Intel recover
They will release Skylake again.

>>61148482
Neither does 99.93% of 7700ks
Almost no one is OCing the 7700k past 4.8ghz the few that are are for Epeen points.
Reviewers will use a 5.0ghz i7 for review purposes but that is not indicative of what most users have

Keep in mind only in the past month did the steam hardware database show more people using quad cores compared to dual cores.
Most people are on a very tight budget for computer hardware and if they can get much better peformance for the same price of less they will

>>61148559
>pic related is the same for Ryzen, but at 4.1GHz
what? why?
>I literally have a 1600
do you?
>Even for laptops they are able to get at 4.1 on a 45W CPU
You do realize those are not desktop cpus

>>61147770
> we can expect the Ryzen 3 1300 and Ryzen 3 1200 to be priced at $149 and $129 respectively

In Euroland it will probably be more like $169 and $149.

These chips should be more like sub $100, but they won't be (not at launch, anyway).

>>61147944
>MAKES SENSE FOR HTPC and other low power situations
No, they are 65W parts. Take the AM1 platform that AMD supported briefly, quad-core 2.0 GHz athlon with a iGPU at 25W TDP. It plays full HD h264 1080p just fine. I've got two of those, board and CPU were $60 at the time and a passive heatsink another $12. Those are, for their use (in my case, a HTPC and a 24/7 home server), totally amazing.

Those Ryzen R3's aren't with their 65W TDP aren't even an option or viable alternative. If they had a 25W or 35W TDP then sure.

You do need to have had or experienced a system with a passive or semi-passive PSU (that's passive below what the system uses at full load) with a passively cooled CPU and a SSD to "get it". Building and having a "quiet" PC that you barely hear is one thing. A totally silent one is something else.

>>61148249
>cherrypicking one of the most awfully developed games in recent years

Wew lad. And I actually like Ryzen.

>>61147770
The 14nm glofo/samsung process is so good for AMD that 80-85% of their Ryzen chips are fully functional. There is almost zero chance that the lesser-rated parts are actually incapable of using hyperthreading, or more cores for that matter.

But why am I explaining reality to trolls in a troll thread

>mobile spec parts are less capable than desktop consumer flagships
Wow.

>>61148326
Actually, AMD could offer Raven Ridge APUs with defective iGPUs as Athlons and fight for the Pentium space with otherwise useless chips.

File: intel-g4560-bf1.png (117KB, 830x842px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 830x842px

>>61148586
See this post
>>61148318
Its a 4041 mhz Ryzen 1400 vs a 4200mhz 7700k
AMD has better IPC which is instructions per clock not per core
If ryzen could clock to 5.0ghz it would beat the shit out of the intel chips
>>61148588
It was not cherrypicked lol its one of the few games that scale with CPU performance
could show BF1 which everything can max it basically
>>61148587
The 1400 is 145$~ Based on AMD saying 20$ less for the 1300 and 20 less than that for the 1200 we arrive at 105~ USD

File: intel-g4560-mll.png (136KB, 806x1065px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 806x1065px

>>61148588
http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2902-intel-pentium-g4560-review-vs-i3/page-3

>>61148631
>See this post
I was asking why he was saying that pic related (a fire) is the 1400 but at 4.1ghz

>>61148587
The 65W TDP is not going to be indicative of the actual heat output.
The 1700 is also a 65w part for 8 cores, the R3s again are only 4 core along with a soldered IHS.
I think is reasonable to infer that the R3s are going to be low power enough to be passively cooled or need very minimal airflow

>>61147717
Ryzen is still stuck at 4ghz

>>61148688
Pentiums and i3s are still stuck at 3.6GHz, unless you pay i5 prices for the meme i3K

>>61148704
>i3-7350K
That CPU has no reason to exist.

File: 1495153676312.gif (248KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 400x300px

>>61148683
>R3 running at 2GHz 0.8v
>run passively and silently for daily use
>clock up to 4GHz at 1.4v for gaming
>fan kicks on and it performs like a cheap i5

Best part
>All of this can be setup through the desktop app, so even normies can do it

>>61148731
Yes it does. It separates fools from their money.

>>61148704
Right so R3 will stomp them and has a much better upgrade path

Ryzen just lacks $40-60 motherboards that are decent

>>61148760
ASRock AB350M is $63 and it works just fine.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157763&cm_re=asrock_ab350m-_-13-157-763-_-Product

File: cUk.jpg (12KB, 837x39px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 837x39px

>>61148760
well there's this

>>61148793
Man that is a sorry looking motherboard.
Layout looks like it was tossed together by some idiot who hit the auto-route button

Ryzen 3 will destroy the Pentium "i3" clone if it releases the price for ~$100 or less.

Now at all price range, its completely stupid to go intel.

>>61148839
If it's functional who cares? As long as the corners were cut in aesthetics and not in things that matter.

>>61148839
>muh looks that I'll never see because it'll be inside of a fucking case and obscured by other assorted hardware
Go jack off to your RGAYB LEDs and neck yourself, gaymer fag.

>>61148839
VRM is robust but not as accurate as a higher phase one

Same VRM as all the other ASrock b350 mobos
Its a decent board for a cheap price

>>61148644
Why are i5 results so poor on this? I'm talking about the low fps. Is Metro targeted for more than 4 cores?

>>61147772
>Ryzen 3 1200 to be priced at $149
How can that possibly be when I just bought a 1600 for less than $200?

Buy AMD sweetie. It's the best CPU for gaming, and productivity. It's the prosumers dream sweetie. It's future proof, and can do everything sweetie. Trust me sweetie I promise you that sweetie.
Based AMD designated as fuck amirite?

>>61147871
No, they're aimed at pre-builts for grandma. They'll likely sell for less than $100.

>but grandma doesn't use a desktop anymore anon
Correct, which is why R3 is an after thought and non-priority.

File: 1411177440158.png (68KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 500x500px

>>61148931

Good goy, I mean boy

>>61148881
>>61148894
Not saying its a bad board just saying the layout could be better, the VRM is unheard of at the price. Also 4 memory slots would be better.

>>61148891
>implying

>>61148902
More games are going to hit 100% usage and drop frames like crazy on 4c/4t CPUs. Ryzen 3 is a budget option for a reason. You're crazy if you buy a full priced i5 today.

>>61148318
Oh fuck.

>mfw Zen2 on GloFo+IBMs 7nm process hits >5GHz

Ladies aren't interested in men who use AMD products.

>>61149077
Tell that to your mom when she texts me.

>>61148239
Vega hasn't even been released properly yet, you fucking retard.

All AMD did was release a WORKSTATION CARD with WORKSTATION DRIVERS meant for fucking 3D applications and CAD, and as expected it shits on Nvidia's Quadro cards at half the price.

File: rape_capybara.png (10KB, 464x325px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 464x325px

>>61149077
>Intel shills are the same people as "blue bubble" shitposters
Surprise level: 0%

>>61148793
>m.2 x4
>4xSATA 6Gb/s
>RAID 0/1/10 support ($400 Intel motherboards require a RAID key)
>two (2!) PS/2 ports if you swing that way
>six USB 3.0
>sixty burgers
Sick board.

>>61149111
A work station that gets about 95% of the performance of the P5000. 2000 dollars for the P5000, 1500 dollars for the watercooled Vega. Oh and guess what, CUDA is superior to everything done in OpenCL, and is used in more professional software.

Tell me why this is impressive to you?

I remember people talking shit of ryzen a month ago
But see people recommending it
Was it really good?

>>61149261
Ryzen is phenomenal.

>>61147920
>budget setup
>16gb of ram
you only need 8 for a budget set up..

>>61147818
The R3s are, the Kaby Lake Pentiums are Hyperthreaded Dual Cores (i3s with a different name and some removed instructions to have them work slightly worse performance than the i3s, basically).

>>61149188
> A work station that gets about 95% of the performance of the P5000.

So for all intents and purposes has the same performance as a P5000.

> 2000 dollars for the P5000, 1500 dollars for the watercooled Vega.

And 1000 dollars for the aircooled Vega.

> Oh and guess what, CUDA is superior to everything done in OpenCL,

Says who? Independent benchmarks I hope!

> and is used in more professional software.

Please define "more professional software".

> Tell me why this is impressive to you?

Because you are getting 95% the performance for literally 50% of the price.

>>61149261
don't believe the memes
look up benchmarks for the intensive programs YOU run and decide

File: 1491667833757.png (120KB, 360x323px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 360x323px

>>61149293
Yea it's misleading.
r3s are actually i5 equivalents not i3s
r5s are i7s (minus the 1600/x)
and r7s are i9s

>>61147904
>Quad Core Processor
>2C/4T

>>61147703
>Vega is a power hungry waste
>Now Ryzen is revealed to be another flop
AMD IS FINISHED

>>61149330
Then what's Threadripper?

>>61149348
The Intel shills is really running themselves ragged trying to panic-shitpost this thread.

>>61149313
Do "workstation" software take advantage of xfire yet?

>>61149362
Xeon Platinum

Too many Intel shills in here.

>>61149388
Then what is Epyc?

File: 1491872380551(1).jpg (56KB, 359x551px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 359x551px

Coffee Lake is gonna mess shit up even more.
i5s are gonna become i7s (4c/8t)
i7s gonna start at 6c/12t

>>61149412
Pretty much designed to replace every single one of Intel's current Xeon lineup, sans the Platinum.

>>61149446
Source? I heard somewhere they're delaying that another cycle.

>>61148731
simcity 4 and flight simulator X

>>61147703
They should have put these and fix-built them in (unremovable) into mobile devices. Trying to compete with a flooded used market thats getting more and more organized and risk free thanks to central repair and RMA is silly. It'll cannibalize the "I just need a computer" market down to throwaway prices.

>>61149313
>So for all intents and purposes has the same performance as a P5000

Except these are add-in cards, not CPUs, 5% performance, while consuming less power and producing less heat means cheaper ownership, and more performance.

>And 1000 dollars for the aircooled Vega

That has a 6+8 pin power connector and a reduced TDP, so you're looking at less performance than the 1500 dollar card that is already slower than the P5000.

>Says who? Independent benchmarks I hope!

Oh good, denial like a good little red team bitch.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gpu-pro-opencl&num=1

>Please define "more professional software".

Oh lord, Adobe, Finalcut, RED, Autodesk, Foundry, just to name some. All support CUDA. We won't even get in to HPC.

>Because you are getting 95% the performance for literally 50% of the price.

In OpenCL programs maybe. CUDA is faster. And it's used far more than OpenCL shit. And you have to use the 1500 dollar card to hit 95% performance since it won't throttle and be able to clock higher.

>>61147717
Ryzen is bottlenecked by the process, not heat

>>61149446
No, it's gonna be worse. the new i5s will destroy old i7s with 6c/6t. The i7 will be 6c/12t and that'll be the most powerful coffee lake.

oh wow
well luckily my 3770k still handles the 980ti pretty well

i'm planning to buy a pc with a G4560. should i wait for this instead?

>>61150637
The g4620 usually goes on sale for very near the price.

>>61150637
Holy fuck yes. Ryzen rapes the Pentium in Price vs Performance.

>>61148169
>4C/8T
Why did they deactivate half of the cores?
Might as well just pick up the 1700 if they're going to do that.

take notes guys 2017 is going to be a case study on how to destroy competitors in economic classes around the world

>>61148107
please find me a 5820k that can go above 4ghz on ALL CORES

please do please for the love of god

>>61150637
better price
better tdp
wont burn your house
nor nothing else from a 100km radius
dont need a ASME certification

yeah pretty much ryzen is what the core2duo of 2017 in all segments

Can you clarify this for me /g/. A G4560 is $90 dollars and this will probably be $100/120 but this is 4c/4t unlike the 2c/4t Pentium but it is also overclockable unlike the pentium and can reach up to 4.0 unlike the Pentium's 3.6? Those are what I got from all the replies here. Doing this because the thread needs a bottom line.

>>61150815
amd till november will certificate ram modules up to 4266 even if you dont overclock anything the ram speed alone will give you insane boost because the uncore speed of the infinity fabric is directly tied with the ram speed

tl dr better ram equals a free "overclock" to a ryzen cpu

>>61150815
For multitasking and non-gaming use, this is basically incomparable to the Pentium and it should perform at least as well as it in games too.

>>61150637
Yes, the G3258 was the only good Pentium because the second stage VRM inside the chip let you take it further on el cheapo boards

I have one that can run 4.6Ghz / 4.2Ghz uncore 24/7/365 and yet it still stutters in GTA5 at 60Hz (extremely noticeable and irritating on a plasma tv)

G4620 IS TRASH

>>61147740
Literally the cheapest worst peice of shit CPU in Ryzen lineup matches your chip. It took Intel how many cycles to do that? oh right they never did. Literally kept the low end SKU's stagnant since sandy bridge for profits.

Unless the new coffee Lake Chips offer a 6-core/12-thread with OC up to 4.7-4.8ghz for 350$ or less and then step down prices accordingly I will never look at intel again.

Because lets face it the fact that Ryzen performs this well on an inferior finFEt process AND with first generation problems means that secon gen Ryzen with 5-10% IPC gains and 7nm node will have single thread so close to intel that they become meaningless.

>>61147947
109$ and 89$ respectively.

At 89$ that R3-1200 will anally rape the Pentium trash that intel is continuing to peddle.

>>61147717
None of the Ryzen chips actually have less cores. Ryzen 3, Ryzen 5, and Ryzen 7 are ALL, as in every single one of them, is an 8 core chip.
So why the different core counts? Underperforming cores are deactivated and the chip is sold at a lower price. A 4 core Ryzen 3 or Ryzen 5 still has 8 cores, but only 4 of them (2 on each CCX) are being utilized.
A Ryzen 5 1600 or 1600X has 3 cores on each CCX activated.

>>61150950
I wouldn't go that far. Ryzen's golden eggs were its scalability and its multi-threaded performance. That multi-threaded performance lied largely on AMD's SMT technology, which is deactivated on Ryzen 3.
To be fair to AMD though, not having SMT makes a LOT more sense than Intel's idea of offering hyper-threaded Pentiums and i3's, but then you jump to the 4 core i5 and hyper threading disappears for the entire i5 range.

>>61147979
>that one pentium model they unlocked
amd threads should just be renamed "cherrypicking general"

>>61147839
You can't even run games on two threads anymore
A fast dual core it's nice for single threaded emulators and iTunes encoding along with Dwarf Fortress, literally nothing else relevant relies on a less than 3 threads

I wonder how AMD will brand their APUs when they finally come out.

Will i line up against the Risen series, i.e. A3, A5 and A7, or stick to the same numbers, or put them one digit below the R series, i.e. A2, A4, and A6

>>61148108
The Raven Ridges are probably going to be branded as Ryzen R3

>>61150702
>Why did they deactivate half of the cores?
To measure without inter-CCX penalties from Windows juggling the threads between them for no reason, at launch this hurted performance quite a lot on most motherboards
SuperPi it's strictly single threaded and doesn't require massive amounts of cache, so having the other 4 cores active would hurt performance in every scenario

>>61151602
Wouldn't running the Ryzen 1700 be a more fair comparison then because the core count is the same?

It's similar to comparing a car with two turbo with a car with 4 turbos, and for comparison reason remove 2 turbos from the latter where they could just used a 2 turbo car to begin with.

It gives a graph with information that can be interpreted with huge bias if you don't know about the standard Core/Thread count of the nerfed CPU.

>>61149384
Some of them do, not actually Crossfire, that's a games only thing
A lot of software can use more than one card, some of them regardless of vendor if their OpenCL support isn't broken but that's rare
>>61149883
>Oh good, denial like a good little red team bitch.
>http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gpu-pro-opencl&num=1
That's a OpenCL comparison between Nvidia and AMD on GNU/Linux, not a CUDA and OpenCL comparison, stupid Pajeet
>Oh lord, Adobe, Finalcut, RED, Autodesk, Foundry, just to name some. All support CUDA. We won't even get in to HPC.
Adobe supports OpenCL since years ago
FinalCut dropped CUDA long ago and they're OpenCL only, they probably will drop OpenCL soon in favor of Metal
Autodesk software supports OpenCL since 2013 or so
Foundry supports OpenCL too
Keep lying dumb faggot, pretty much everything but shit that went unmaintained circa 2012 supports both or just OpenCL
>In OpenCL programs maybe. CUDA is faster. And it's used far more than OpenCL shit. And you have to use the 1500 dollar card to hit 95% performance since it won't throttle and be able to clock higher.
You literally posted not a single source about CUDA being faster at anything than OpenCL and everything you said was CUDA only either dropped CUDA years ago or still supports both

>>61151684
>Wouldn't running the Ryzen 1700 be a more fair comparison then because the core count is the same?
The Ryzen 1700 it's a 8C/16T just like the 1800X, the only difference are clocks
>It's similar to comparing a car with two turbo with a car with 4 turbos, and for comparison reason remove 2 turbos from the latter where they could just used a 2 turbo car to begin with.
This is pants on head retarded, there's no car analogy that can work here
>It gives a graph with information that can be interpreted with huge bias if you don't know about the standard Core/Thread count of the nerfed CPU.
Kind of, they should had explained that they were measuring in 4+0 mode and list the CPU as the 8C it is

>>61148264
but who would wanna use a dual core in 2017? the performance is pretty good but damn it's a dual core. Dual core processors are dinosaur tier nowadays.

>>61151746
Of course the analogy sounds retarded, it's not 1 on 1 applicable since it's not possible to do so on a car, but it's valid IF it was, so it's still a valid comparison if we disregard the possibility or not.

My bad, should had been the Ryzen 1500X, just looked it up, that's when 4C/4T starts.
At least like you said, saying that they're not using all cores and optionally why.

>>61151684
>It's similar to comparing a car with two turbo with a car with 4 turbos, and for comparison reason remove 2 turbos from the latter where they could just used a 2 turbo car to begin with.
Holy fuck your knowledge about the CPU manufacturing is so vastly inadequate. I suggest you to do your research before shtting out analogies like that.

>>61147780
I'm calling attention to this post because it truly highlights how delusion ryzen and AMD cockboys in general are.

>>61152019
He speaks the truth though. Unless you consider games, in which case you should fuck off to /v/.

>>61152034
>>He speaks the truth though. Unless
>Unless

kek

>>61152006
>it's retarded because there is nothing in a car in comparison to a processing node to make a valid analogy, so using other parts that are a direct denominator to car performance to support that analogy is retarded
Not really, you're just so autistic you can't bend your head around it and interpret the analogy as it is.

>>61147703
>dozer
>ryżen R3
>unlocked i3
>DUDE i7s LMAO
What kind of comparison is that even

>>61152061
Turning off the cores is LITERALLY how they make CPU product lines. The die is the same for most of the models on the market. Turning cores on a higher end CPU thus makes it a full equivalent to a lower end CPU considering equal clock speeds and cache size. Meaning your retarded suggestion to use a 1700 instead of a tuned 1800x is retarded beyong imagination. They are the fucking same.

>>61148318
lol pootel housefires are obsolete pieces of shit

File: photo208.jpg (103KB, 1024x806px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1024x806px

>>61152006
Not him but it you can make a valid analogy using cars. He just did it wrong.
Pic related. The way Ryzen works is a bit like the work it took to get this monstrosity driveable

File: 1495598595832.png (394KB, 493x639px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 493x639px

>>61147703
why is OP comparing a 130$ product to a 1000$ product?
is he a nigger?

shouldnt the R3 be compared to a i3?

I'll wait until it releases to see how it is compared to what's available at that time. I'm not jumping on any hypetrains for any product.

>>61147703
Please don't tell me that's pissmark.

>>61152365
Because all Intel users have left is delusion. These things will be competing against the G4258, and will smash it.

>>61147922
Not the 2c/4t version. And newer bios updates from skylake locked the overclocking.

>>61147703
>i3 equivalent.
Looking good.

>>61152365
>>61152576
>3570k
>5 years old unlocked i5
>1000$
Is this the famous AMDlogic?

>>61153161
Even Ryzen 3 beats i5 at pretty much everything.

>>61152065
Pissmark is garbage anyway.

File: coffee lake wow it's fucking nothing.png (192KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1920x1080px

>>61149446
>coffee lake
Yeah I wouldn't get too excited about that.

>>61153468
>coffin lake

>>61153491
Keep in mind this is going to cost $350 and still have jizz under the lid.

>>61148042
look, if your point was gaming then new games won't even launch if your CPU only has two threads

>>61153468
>clock crippled ES sample already matching a 6800k
>i-it's gonna be shit!
Face it Pajeet, you have 6 months to enjoy your smugness then it's back to irrelevance.

AMD has been killing it with CPUs. I'm preordering this as soon as I can. R3 will be flying off the shelves at these prices, and AMD is always out of stock. Based.

File: my sides.png (173KB, 640x400px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 640x400px

>>61153575
>J-just wait!
You realize they can't crank up the clocks that high because they need to stay under 95 watts TDP, right? Those are likely close to the final clocks.

>>61153601
>3.2 Ghz
>close to final clocks
6 months, remember.

>>61153575
don't you have a 308W processor to cool or something?

File: [HorribleSubs] Kobayashi-san Chi no Maid Dragon - 10 [720p].mkv_snapshot_03.26_[2017.03.15_14.21.42].png (393KB, 462x497px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 462x497px

>>61153606
Sure, pal. You'll be lucky if it has a 3.6 GHz boost clock. Intel isn't going to go full retard and put a >100 watt TDP monster on the desktop again ... or will they? I would probably laugh pretty hard if we saw the same issues with X299 on Z370.

>>61148511
>95% of people even with K skew CPUs dont overclock them anyway.
Please don't let this be true.

>>61154025
The funny things is typically you're wasting money if you buy a k-SKU and don't overclock, Intel gimps the turbo boost so the locked version might match it in multithreaded applications. It adds new context to the "Don't overclock the 7700k" statement by Intel, if the unlocked processors weren't meant to be overclocked they would be bad CPU's.

>>61151690

>There you have it for those interested in the OpenCL compute performance with AMD's new GPU-PRO hybrid driver and how it compares to NVIDIA's offerings. The hybrid OpenCL support is certainly much better than what's made possible by the current OpenCL Clover-based Radeon compute offering, but based upon some of these benchmark results, more optimizations and improvements are still needed.

AMD was just slaughtered on it's home turf. That's what that says you stupid faggot. AMD is trying to compete with shit tier hardware and no software support.

All those OpenCL supported products also offer inferior experiences. Great it can use OpenCL, but compared to CUDA it is shit. And even when AMD tries to cheat CUDA by recompiling it in to C, the HIPS compiler is absolute shit and just adds more time trying to work around the advantage already inherent in Nvidia and CUDA.

>>61154062
>AMD tries to cheat CUDA
Nvidian shill

>>61152034
dude it's perfectly OK if some ryzen chips are good and some suck. a 4c/4t part isn't exactly playing on its strengths.

>>61150848
>what is hyperthreading

>>61154387
$100 for a 4 core is still pretty good though.

>>61147979
>Unlocked Pentium
WHOA! Hold up. Hold the fuck up. Stop this motherfucking train.
You mean to tell me. Intel made an unlocked cheap CPU.
Then expected you to pay twice the price of said CPU just so you could have a motherboard that supported overclocking that chip...
What kind of Jewish bullshit is this?

>>61147772
cheaper than most i3, yet beats the low end i5 and you can probably overclock to 4Ghz.

The age of the dual core is finally over.

HMMMMMMMMMMMMM...
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=3029&cmp[]=2925&cmp[]=2921
>higher TDP and more power hungry
>no iGPU
>worse single-threaded performance
>multi-threaded is not that much better

Why does Ryzen 3 even exist? Wouldn't it have been better if AMD waited for Raven Ridge to release these lower end consumer CPUs?

>>61154292
Reality is shilling to an AMD cult member.

>>61154482
Overclocking to 3.5GHz should be trivial on Ryzen 3 even with a stock cooler, and even then the turbo should boost two cores to 3.4 which puts it barely behind the Pentium. Remember, Pentium has no turbo so both cores run at 3.5 all the time. Also, as AMD mentioned in their marketing slide Ryzen 3 has business features that Intel doesn't put on Pentiums or even i3's.

File: 1261718725137.png (55KB, 181x251px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 181x251px

>>61154481
nope. dual cores will be with us for eternity. like God

>>61154482
>Pissmark
Fuck off forever.

>>61154025
>Please don't let this be true.

I've seen tons of comments where the K owner after like 3 years goes "oh, maybe it's time I finally try this overclock thing then" on tech sites.
Once there were 2500k guys saying that.

>>61154482
G4560 is a stutterfest though, Ryzen 3 would be a much better choice for a poor gamerfag. Pentium was only a meme choice because of the price, if you can get a true quad core for the price of an i3 that would be a much better long term option.

>>61154719
Pissmark is insanely biased against Ryzen. See how it compares the 1800X and 6900K, which are pretty much equal. It's a dumpster fire of a benchmark.

http://imgur.com/a/wMm1C

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2966&cmp[]=2794

>>61152365
It's from an article you dumbie

I don't need gaming CPU.

I just need a cheap quiet CPU that will do 4k hevc 10bit 60fps AND have HDMI 2.0... Coffee Lake will have this, but I'm not sure about Ryzen 3 having an iGPU.

>>61150973
>>61147717
kinda sad we can't do the Phenom/Athlon trickeroo to re-enable cores.

>>61154864
Would need to re-enable one on each CCX. And that's if they weren't lasered off. Good luck.

>>61148090
That's "Ryzen Pro".. isn't that something different?

>>61154847
Only Raven Ridge APUs will have an iGPU.

>>61154896
Ryzen Pro is Ryzen with Epyc security features. It's meant for business class desktops/laptops etc.

>>61154896
Ryzen and Ryzen Pro are the same things, Ryzen Pro just has more botnet features that businesses like. Also they say "better silicon" but that's probably just a marketing thing.

>>61154918
yeah but then maybe the business class will have 4 cores, while desktop will have 2/4 setup? Id on't know.

>>61154888
Don't know how the Athlon/Phenom magic worked, was just super awesome to find out you have a sleeper core or two in your CPU that actually works.

This further segmentation makes no sense.
They should've just dropped the price on the 1400 to about 80$.

THESE are just 1400 with HT turned off wtf

>>61154929
It's the same silicon.

>>61154962
Maybe HT wasn't working on these ones? I don't know. It also has lower cache so maybe the cache was damaged.

>>61154929
>yeah but then maybe the business class will have 4 cores, while desktop will have 2/4 setup? Id on't know.
No

>>61154994
>lower cache
I don't see it?
Is it in the article?

>>61154847
Bristol Ridge is already extremely cheap and energy efficient, albeit it's only in OEMs. The only disadvantage is it's still using R7, so no 10 bit as far as I know, but that should be solved with Raven Ridge.

>>61155026
Look at the marketing slides. >>61148090

>>61154962
>i5's are just i7's with HT turned off wtf

>>61147703
>http://wccftech.com

>>61147703
Why OP that have wccftech in them aren't autodelided?

>mfw artificial market segmentation
Looks like it's not an Intel-only thing anymore
There is no physical or practical reason to disable SMT on Ryzen 3. The cache structure , hierarchy, and core resources are completely the same.

>>61155088
the 1400 is not even on there.
the R3 have the same l3 gimped cache

>>61155098
Yea, it's disgusting.
I expected better from AMD

>>61155251
Have you considered that hyperthreading may not be functioning properly on R3's?

>>61155270
what are the physicalities of HT not being able to work?
How does that happen

>>61155270
You know that hyperthreading depends entirely on the core structure and thread scheduling itself? And that Intel (and now AMD) is disabling HT/SMT purely for marketing reasons, because if there was a physical or electrical defect in these silicon that would prevent HT/SMT from working, it would also prevent the cores from working too.

File: 1493116080004.jpg (61KB, 500x522px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 500x522px

>>61155310
It doesn't even make sense much from a financial POV.
AMD produces these at a HIGHER cost than a 1400 (even though minimal).

It's both a jewy and damaging thing to do, especially since intel is utterly dominating the cheapo segment with the g4560 atm and in the foreseeable future.

With a full fledged unlocked, OCable to 3.8/4.0ghz, 4c/8t at 80-90-100$ Intel would be RIP.

File: 1400-g560.jpg (70KB, 1737x627px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1737x627px

>>61155383
THIS.
The priority for AMD should be to aggressively reacquire marketshare at the moment, not optimize 10$+/- margins on feeble sales anyway.

>>61148739
>get a good passive cooler rated for 95W TDP
>run all 95W TDP CPUs completely silent
>no setup at all required

>>61154025
>>61154706

Well, if the price has been like 20-50 yuros premium for the K letter in the name, I guess I'd pay it just in case I'd like to overclock the rock some day.

I remember I overclocked my 300mhz amd to 450mhz and it was the greatest ever, saved hundreds of yuro equivalent monies. Lately I recall i7-920 which overclocked well, then 3570k was okayish. Then I hopped onto xeon train and havent been overclocking since.

Hopefully threadripper comes out with decent clocks out of the gate. I'm too lazy nowadays to tinker the hardware side.

>>61155536
t.your average K buyer right here

>>61154049
The 7700k is actually not that bad compared to 7700 if you only look at price/performance. 10% higher price, but 4.2 vs 3.6 base clocks and 4.5 vs 4.2 turbo.

>>61155552
True, true. But as I dont game anymore I dont really care for high clocks after some threshold. But what I want is amd-v, aes-ni, 10gigE, ecc, 64 pci lanes... As I run multiple VMs with pci-passthrough etc

I have dual 2670s currently, would like to upgrade to threadripper if price's right and amd-v works well

>>61155607
Which is why it makes no sense to buy non-K Intel these days. Go K or go Ryzen. Pretty simple.

>>61147772
>Quad core unlocked CPUs at the same price of dual core locked i3s
>DOA
Do you have Downs syndrome or are you just on the Intel payroll?

>>61155383
Why do people keep saying Ryzen 3 should be less than $100? How do you even know if they could sell it for that little? It already destroys the Pentium and i3 in performance, if you want a $60 CPU wait for the low power Raven Ridge APUs.

>>61155645
Are you seriously suggesting they would be successful at those prices?

Because the 1400 is about 10$ more expensive and selling like rubish.

They owuldn't be in the cheapo segment nor the budget one, where you got the 1500x and 1600 already.

AND competing directly with the 1400 which is a much better deal.


I realize the final price will probably be much lower than those, but the figs are from the article linked in OP.

>>61155686
I think the lowest end Ryzen 3 will be $100. Maybe $110.

>>61155686
Because people unlike many here are NOT autistic and have a basic grasp of marketing and consumer behavior.

The G4560 is coming in hot with 3 months of hype as THE best cpu for budget gaymen in history, and costs half that much.

Do a mental exercise and apply the same AMDshill argument about 10-15% higher fps but on the G4560 vs hypothetical r3 at twice the price.

Not to mention intel absolutely crushing brand image and loyalty for normies.

Heck, even moderately tech savvy normies are still sticking to POS i5s still for the most part.

>>61155707
It's just annoying how people keep wanting Ryzen 3 to be a Pentium G4560 killer. It was developed to compete with the i3 from the start, AMD had no way of knowing Intel would cannibalize their whole i3 line just to undercut them. I doubt Intel even makes any money at all on KL Pentiums, as I pointed out earlier in the the thread AMDs old APUs are the same price or higher despite being an older architecture. AMD can't beat the price to performance of the G4560 because it was purely a strategic move by Intel to preempt the launch of Ryzen.

>>61155824
Well, Raven Ridge APUs should be a good option. I agree Intel blowing up their entire line of i3's just to stave off Ryzen is pretty extreme.

>>61155824
>I doubt Intel even makes any money at all on KL Pentiums

We're talking about 90-100$, not 60$, so assuming intel sells the pentiums with 0 margin, and the costs are similar, AMD would have a hefty margin.

Unless the pentiums are sold at a loss or the r3 are 30-40% more expensive to make.

Keep in mind selling at 0 margin in the budget sector is a still a GOOD strategy for AMD at the moment anyways.

>>61155753
The g4560 is awful at gaming, it's only advantage is price. Despite what people say an i3 is slightly more stable albeit more expensive, the pentium stutters like crazy in any remotely CPU intensive game. A true quad core is a massive upgrade in stability. The ONLY reason to buy a Pentium for gaming is to throw it away and buy a better CPU once you get the cash. Ryzen 3 is actually something that you can live with for a more than 6 months.

>>61148193
what the fuck that image

>>61155870
Pentiums and Celerons are developed separately from the Core i line, to enable hyperthreading would take at least some R&D since this is the first time it's been enabled. That's why I'm wondering if Intel might actually be taking a loss, it's not just a gimped i3, its a different CPU and has almost 0 margins.

>>61155876
>ONLY reason to buy a Pentium for gaming is to throw it away and buy a better CPU once you get the cash

I don't think so. Most are paired with shitty mobos that don't support OC.

And anyways, if the "true quadcore" is gonna be 130$ then budget goes out of the window and you should get an R5 1400 for 20$ more in the first place.
THAT is the actually long term stable cpu you allude to.

>>61156006
Doubt it's going to cost that much. $120 at most.

File: 1480709010782.jpg (63KB, 1080x648px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1080x648px

>>61156025
They need to be 35-40$ less than a 1400, or else they make no sense.
Would you buy an i5 over an i7 for 30$ less?
Same cpu through an though.

And again, lowering the price of the 1400 itself would've made 10x the sense anyways.

>>61154928
Well, then it remains a mystery.

>>61147717
This is AMD we are talking about.

>>61147793
With 1/4th of the single core perfomance.

>>61147973
G3258 would like to have a word with you.

>>61159336
>if I continue to ramp up the hyperbole someone may believe me

File: celery x.png (123KB, 679x214px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 679x214px

>>61159384
I gotchu senpai.

>>61159376
Nobody cares about the 2 core 2 thread ghetto overclockable crapheap.

>>61159376
>two threads
Enjoy your s-s-stutter