bit-tech.net

AMD isn’t planning to steal a little market share; it’s plotting a true enthusiast comeback

Posted on 24th Feb 2017 at 12:41 by Antony Leather with 76 comments

Antony Leather
I’ve been following the rumour mill of AMD’s upoming Ryzen CPU product range quite closely over the last few weeks, and I’m honestly amazed by what I’m seeing.

For starters, there’s the sheer number of products. The leaks pointed at nearly 20 different CPUs, with four, six, or eight cores and up to 16 threads. This isn’t a small move at gaining some market share, this is an entire range of CPUs. Obviously, the massively exciting thing is that, if the performance figures are to be believed, we’ll be seeing some real competition again and have real choice between AMD and Intel, especially as the AM4 boards for Ryzen seem to be on par with their Intel equivalents too.

This is something that we haven’t seen in over a decade, and many of you may not have been buying hardware that long. Having been building my own PCs since the 1990s, I saw AMD's rise and fall. It’s easy to imagine, though – just think of the AMD and Nvidia scenario (at least in the mid-range) but with CPUs. It’s good for competition, it’s good for the consumer, and my hope is also that we’ll see some new apps and games across the board that make use of the increasing core counts.

However, the price rumours are another thing that caught my eye. AMD was always a little cheaper than Intel. It was the same even when the two were in competition in the pre-Intel Core architecture days when the likes of AMD’s Thunderbirds were doing the rounds against Pentium 3s and Pentium 4s. However, the gap this time could be astronomical. The latest rumours point at some AMD Ryzen SKUs being up to 70 percent cheaper than their Intel counterparts, despite sporting the same core and thread counts and similar frequencies. In fact, since writing this, AMD has confirmed a $499 price point for the Ryzen 7 1800X that's set to go head-to-head with Intel's $1,050 Core i7-6900K.

AMD isn’t planning to steal a little market share; it’s plotting a true enthusiast comeback AMD isn’t planning to steal a little market share from Intel; it’s planning its annihilation.

There are two main possibilities here. Either Intel has been over-charging for its products for a while, and AMD is simply offering a reset, or the latter has simply found a cheaper way to do things. There is a third option too, of course, which is that the rumours are way off, and it’s probably a bit of all three to be honest.

However, I love the fact that AMD’s SenseMI Technology, for example, seems to actually be encompassing features that could offer real benefits and be interesting to as well as sought after by enthusiasts. Intel really hasn’t taken advantage of things here. For example, its Turbo Boost Max 3.0 feature was very interesting but poorly implemented - it could have been very useful, and not just for its flagship CPUs.

Apart from this, there has been very little to be excited about with Intel for a long time. Yes, it has been gradually adding more IPC and some interesting things to its chipsets, but really, no one big standout feature has surfaced since the awesome overclocking and performance that Sandy Bridge offered. There have been plenty of enhancements since then, but we’re still only dealing with four cores for mainstream K-series CPUs, and as of Kaby Lake, these now cost well over £200, even for the Core i5-7600K.

AMD isn’t planning to steal a little market share; it’s plotting a true enthusiast comeback AMD isn’t planning to steal a little market share from Intel; it’s planning its annihilation.
Intel's mainstream desktop CPUs such as the Core i7-7700K haven't moved on from quad-cores for nearly a decade, and AMD is taking advantage of this.

I’ve been saying for a long time that Intel wasn’t doing the enthusiast scene any favours here – I remember when the scene was thriving, largely because of cheaper, overclockable products that enticed new people into buying and building their own PCs. This has been all but decimated since the introduction of the K-series i5 and i7, yet the enthusiast scene survived, probably partly through die-hard AMD fans overclocking their toasty Phenoms and partly through the continued growth of PC gaming.

The main attraction of Ryzen is, of course, the fact that it looks like you'll be able to bag a CPU with four, six, or eight cores for much less than Intel's equivalents. It's important to realise I'm not saying that more cores are always better: Ryzen will offer additional grunt from more cores and threads, but AMD's previous generations of CPUs offered more cores and threads too. The issue there was that even in multi-threaded tests, six and eight-core AMD CPUs were being beaten by Intel four-core CPUs simply due to Intel's superior IPC, and it's something that many AMD owners simply refused to admit even in the face of irrefutable benchmark scores.

More cores and threads also don't automatically mean better performance in general, though, especially in games, but there is another factor coming into play here, and it's one that Intel appears to have missed: Enthusiasts want these features. They want to upgrade, and they want big performance boosts, and a lot of the time they're willing to pay for it too. This is why Ryzen has been gaining so much traction, and it's why the enthusiast scene, which encompasses gamers, eSports, modding, and overclocking, has survived the downturn in the PC market as a whole.

Ryzen’s pricing points at some serious competition for Intel, and to make things worse, Intel hasn’t really grasped what enthusiasts want and why they’ve been complaining. Or maybe it has, but with so little competition there’s been no need to put the dollars into battling against a near non-existent foe. Combined with the number of CPUs apparently on the horizon, it’s clear that AMD isn’t just planning to steal back a little market share with a couple of half-decent offerings. It’s planning a full battleship broadside against Intel that will shake the entire PC industry to its core. This is a good thing, but I just hope that the rumours are true. Thankfully, we'll know soon enough.
Tags am4, amd, ryzen

76 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
edzieba 24th February 2017, 13:49 Quote
AMD seem to have set their sights on the X99 platform with the focus on Moar Cores and highly threaded benchmarks. This is great if you are already on X99 or looking at X299 and want a cheaper option.

Whether they can turn that into volume sales is yet to be seen. There is a gulf of workloads between single-threaded and embarrassingly multi-threaded where adding more cores actually nets you more performance. Gustafson's Law applies for easily threadable workloads, but those workloads have generally moved to GPGPU. The remaining workloads sit firmly under Amdahl's Law scaling.
Hustler 24th February 2017, 14:41 Quote
I'm just hoping the 4 & 6 core chips will offer better over clocking than what seems to be the case with the 8 core variants.

Maybe having up to 4 less cores on the chip will add another 300-500mhz to their speed..hopefully.

Otherwise I just hope the sudden competition will drop the 7700K down to the £250 range.
Vault-Tec 24th February 2017, 14:42 Quote
On the CH6 box Asus state you can run Athlons. Ryzen Athlons...

Which should be as cheap as dirt tbh.
nimbu 24th February 2017, 15:25 Quote
I havent owned an AMD CPU since 939 / AM2+ days, but I am really excited for the shake up that this will force at Intel.
23RO_UK 24th February 2017, 15:54 Quote
To be brutally honest, I'm hoping Intel are going to take a repeated kicking to the genitalia in a metaphoric sense - they have offered little since Sandybridge other than ever increasing price tags, the i3 7350K being a prime example of the contempt they seem to hold the consumer in.
Corky42 24th February 2017, 15:57 Quote
Can AMD really make a big comeback though when, or if, Intel could slash their prices overnight and afford to keep doing so, it seems to me AMD has to offer something Intel can't combat with an overnight management decision.

Obviously reduced prices is great for the consumer but a price war isn't going to benefit AMD.
Vault-Tec 24th February 2017, 16:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Can AMD really make a big comeback though when, or if, Intel could slash their prices overnight and afford to keep doing so, it seems to me AMD has to offer something Intel can't combat with an overnight management decision.

Obviously reduced prices is great for the consumer but a price war isn't going to benefit AMD.

If Intel price match or price lower than Ryzen I will put £5 into Gareth's charity.

Ed. Even the crappy P4 cost more than the Athlons even though it was total Thomas Tit.
Pookie 24th February 2017, 16:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by 23RO_UK
To be brutally honest, I'm hoping Intel are going to take a repeated kicking to the genitalia in a metaphoric sense - they have offered little since Sandybridge other than ever increasing price tags, the i3 7350K being a prime example of the contempt they seem to hold the consumer in.

Bit-Tech will still say it's worth buying lol
Corky42 24th February 2017, 16:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vault-Tec
If Intel price match or price lower than Ryzen I will put £5 into Gareth's charity.

They wouldn't need to match or have a lower price, they'd just need to reduce prices enough to make the price/performance ratio competitive with AMD, when you're a company in AMD's situation you can't afford to enter a price war, you have to offer the customer something they can't buy from your competitor, you have to have a secret sauce (IMO).
jrs77 24th February 2017, 16:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by 23RO_UK
To be brutally honest, I'm hoping Intel are going to take a repeated kicking to the genitalia in a metaphoric sense - they have offered little since Sandybridge other than ever increasing price tags, the i3 7350K being a prime example of the contempt they seem to hold the consumer in.

That's not entirely true. The best CPU released by intel during the last years is still the i7-5775C imho due to it's IGP, which actually can be used for something else than just watching videos. And the big level 4 Cache also has proven to offer better performance. And mind you, the $400 pricetag wasn't that outlandish either for that chip. For me it's the best CPU I've bought with regards to price/performance within the last 10 years.

As for AMD. If they don't release a 4c/8t chip with an IGP as powerful as the IrisPro I'll be heavily disapointed tbh.
Assassin8or 24th February 2017, 17:24 Quote
I think that those are coming late this year, but the GPU will be far ahead of the IrisPro; I think that even the current APUs are ahead of IrisPro on the iGPU front.
Plastic_Manc 24th February 2017, 17:38 Quote
If offered similar performance for similar price, id bet that quite a few single unit purchasers would opt for the underdog, a little bit if human nature.
Harlequin 24th February 2017, 17:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
They wouldn't need to match or have a lower price, they'd just need to reduce prices enough to make the price/performance ratio competitive with AMD, when you're a company in AMD's situation you can't afford to enter a price war, you have to offer the customer something they can't buy from your competitor, you have to have a secret sauce (IMO).

Show me at anytime in history that Intel have lowered prices because of competition....
rollo 24th February 2017, 18:01 Quote
We shall see in 3 months when the next market share figures are live the AMD 480 gpu did little to nothing to dent nvidia market share
Anfield 24th February 2017, 18:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlequin
Show me at anytime in history that Intel have lowered prices because of competition....

They did, just not for end users.

Remember the illegal deals they did with Dell and co that provided rebates on Intel Cpus in return for locking Amd out of the pre built market.
Corky42 24th February 2017, 18:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlequin
Show me at anytime in history that Intel have lowered prices because of competition....

The reason they lowered prices is probably going to be disputed but IMO that's what they did with the P4, the last time they had real competition.
LennyRhys 24th February 2017, 18:56 Quote
I agree with the above - AMD need to get their overclocking headroom sorted if they want to compete in the enthusiast market, which is made up primarily of gamers who want the best single thread performance.
sandys 24th February 2017, 19:22 Quote
Whilst I hope Ryzen is good and would be happy to buy it, I would be ecstatic if it forced Intel to slash prices and push the HEDT platform mainstream, that's what I want but not enough to pay current rates :D

That said part of me wants to support AMD to stick it to Intel and their dumbass platform changes with almost every chip release, I really liked how long my old AMD systems lasted sockets wise.
jrs77 24th February 2017, 19:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Assassin8or
I think that those are coming late this year, but the GPU will be far ahead of the IrisPro; I think that even the current APUs are ahead of IrisPro on the iGPU front.

The i7-5775C is actually on exactly the same level of graphics-performance, but the whole package runs at 65W TDP instead of 95W compared to the A10-7870K.

The newer implementations in the mobile chips allready show how much more powerful this iGPU can be. Would intel make another desktop-chip with Iris-graphics, then we would look at the graphics-performance of a GTX750 or better delivered by an iGPU.
Wakka 24th February 2017, 20:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LennyRhys
which is made up primarily of gamers who want the best single thread performance.

Still confused as to why this is an argument...

I was using a dual core Pentium G4400 in my Z170 rig for 3-4 months while I waited for a good deal on an i7 (which I got) - The ONLY game that ran well, without both cores maxing out on CPU usage and stuttering all over the place, was Binding Of Isaac. Literally.

Borderlands 2? Slideshow.
Battlefield 1? Not good for my KDR...
X-Com 2? Ok that game has issues anyways, but the difference after plugging the 6700 in was night and day.

This was in a system with a nVME SSD, 32GB of DDR4 and only running a 1080p monitor.

Honestly, if your playing games that are still only single-threaded, you're not really in the market for a current, high end system, are you?
LennyRhys 24th February 2017, 21:46 Quote
I think you misunderstood my point. If it's already possible to buy a CPU that provides 8 threads which have exceptionally good single threaded performance, then there's no real reason for the enthusiast market to jump ship to 8C/16T if the single threaded performance is mediocre by comparison.

Which Ryzen CPU competes with the 7700K in terms of price? The 1700, which for all we know might not even make 4GHz and trundles along at 3-point-something...meanwhile the 7700K will do pretty much 5GHz guaranteed, so on that count it's a no-brainer for most enthusiasts.

I didn't ever say it was sensible or grounded, but the market is what it is, and most enthusiasts like teh GHz.
rollo 24th February 2017, 22:02 Quote
Gaming wise still a lot of unknowns in regards to Ryzen. If the future is huge Multicore multithreaded games we all might need a upgrade.

Let's be honest though we all thought 4 cores would become mainstream faster than it has. With basically just 2016 AAA games 4 cores. Hyperthreading support and 6 core+ is still a long way away is a feeling. I would love to see things move on that way.

Push the ground on 6 core + gaming. But think we are still years away which is rather sad in truth.

AMD have a great base ground it seems to build from in Ryzen let's hope they do gain the market share they need. Which you would assume is 30% minimum.

We shall see in 3 months where they are at.
Anfield 24th February 2017, 22:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
Would intel make another desktop-chip with Iris-graphics, then we would look at the graphics-performance of a GTX750 or better delivered by an iGPU.

They did release more Cpus with Iris Pro last year,
i7-6785R, i5-6685R and the Core i5-6585R

But the only way to get your hands on them is soldered on a mainboard as they aren't socketed... Why?

Intel Logic or Aliens, one of the two.
Wakka 24th February 2017, 22:17 Quote
I see - and you're very right. But this is why the other half of the enthusiast market are so excited by Ryzen - because this is the road Intel has been forcing us all down for the best part of a decade (minimal IPC+higher clocks every generation).

Should it have taken AMD this long to get a 40-50% IPC improvement? Who can say, they've certainly had their share of hurdles to get over. But what excuse does Intel have for 7 generations of mainstream CPU's, all maxing out at 4c/8t, spread over 4 different sockets, capable of overclocking within 400-500Mhz of each other, while offering single digit performance increases incrementally?

Ultimately, it's nice to have choice. Can you imagine if we only had Ford and Renault to choose from in cars?!
Vault-Tec 24th February 2017, 22:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LennyRhys
I think you misunderstood my point. If it's already possible to buy a CPU that provides 8 threads which have exceptionally good single threaded performance, then there's no real reason for the enthusiast market to jump ship to 8C/16T if the single threaded performance is mediocre by comparison.

Which Ryzen CPU competes with the 7700K in terms of price? The 1700, which for all we know might not even make 4GHz and trundles along at 3-point-something...meanwhile the 7700K will do pretty much 5GHz guaranteed, so on that count it's a no-brainer for most enthusiasts.

I didn't ever say it was sensible or grounded, but the market is what it is, and most enthusiasts like teh GHz.

The 1700 does 3.9-4.05ghz. This is according to Gibbo and we all know where he would have been getting his information from. 8 Pack may not be the most articulate fellow I have ever met but when it comes to clocking he's the best, at least in the UK.

At which point it doesn't really matter how hard you clock on a hex core, you ain't catching it.

It's funny how many people are saying how the 7700k can do 5ghz and so on. It would ! it's got four cores and a tiny die. It's taken Intel *years* to reach that stage and not all of them even do 5ghz. Most settle on 4.8ghz. Probably because of that cheap, rubbish TIM they have been using for years now.

Plus it's funny how all of a sudden Intel fans seem to have gotten amnesia and forgot how -

1. They lusted after the 5960x, even though it clocked like crap.
2. If you have those cores and threads you can take a massive hit mhz wise but still come out weeing all over a quad core in anything even remotely threaded.

This "single core" mentality is nuts. Just absolute nuts. It's what Intel want people to think, that is how to charge £185 for 2 cores with 4 threads. And literally every one has fallen for it.

Put it this way. If an 8 core 16t chip can absolutely demolish a 4c 8t chip in Cinebench then it would do exactly the same thing in anything that supported it fully and properly.

6950x? 4ghz if you are unlucky, 4.2 if you are lucky. Does any one want to tell me that a 7850k is faster per thread when overclocked and in a few very old games will actually beat the 6950x?

Of course not. Because we all know that the 6950x is a 10 core 20 thread beast.

Ryzen will be more than good enough for gaming, unless you are a FPS spotter and sit and watch your FPS instead of playing the games. I've got no complaints about my 3.2ghz Ivy chip, it chugs along in gaming just fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
Gaming wise still a lot of unknowns in regards to Ryzen. If the future is huge Multicore multithreaded games we all might need a upgrade.

Let's be honest though we all thought 4 cores would become mainstream faster than it has. With basically just 2016 AAA games 4 cores. Hyperthreading support and 6 core+ is still a long way away is a feeling. I would love to see things move on that way.

Push the ground on 6 core + gaming. But think we are still years away which is rather sad in truth.

AMD have a great base ground it seems to build from in Ryzen let's hope they do gain the market share they need. Which you would assume is 30% minimum.

We shall see in 3 months where they are at.

We know that in BF1 it is faster than a 7700k. It would be, BF has supported many cores for years (even BF3). Yes, AMD totally cherry picked that but it doesn't matter.

Try and remember these are 8 core 16 thread chips. And if you've ever overclocked an 8 core chip (even a crappy old AMD one) you would know how hot they get and how fast they get hot.

These are not rivals for a chip with half of the actual silicon. They are rivals for the Intel big boys, costing up to a grand.
rollo 24th February 2017, 22:42 Quote
Would the problem be the lack of support for said resources. Ignore the benches for a second.

List the software your average consumer uses that requires more than 4 threads ( not cores) just 4 basic threads.

I am struggling to name my one is a very blunt answer.

Enthusaists instead let's say,

Games the biggest by far, Photo and movie editing then that's it. Most of the other options will be sub 0.1% of users.

How it performs in games is very relivent to how the sales will be is a personal oppinion. Right or wrong.

We shall see in 3 months like I said before how much Market share AMD gains from the initial 8 core Ryzen. I personally feel the 4 core and 6 core will massively outsell the 8 cores.

I hope they gain the market share they need, price reductions are never a bad thing. We can all hope for that. Not sure it will force the price war that we seem to all want though.
LennyRhys 24th February 2017, 22:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vault-Tec
At which point it doesn't really matter how hard you clock on a hex core, you ain't catching it.

Not disagreeing with this at all... but my point remains: does it really matter? I don't think so. Enthusiasts don't sit and run Cinebench all day; they use their machines for a bit of everything, and that's where single thread performance matters. It just makes a machine feel faster, placebo or not, and that's what's going to sell a product at the end of the day.

I agree 100% with rollo above - the actual requirement for multi-threaded processing (read: 16 threads) just isn't there for the average end user, so AMD are banking on people buying what they almost certainly don't need for day-to-day computing. It's the future-proofing myth all over again.

Add to that the mind-numbing folly of some prospective buyers, and you get "OMGZ... it's got an RGB cooler...WANT!!!!111!!ONE!!!ELEVEN!11"

At least AMD have their market absolutely tapped...

http://imageshack.com/a/img924/313/4wJ38F.jpg
Taua 24th February 2017, 23:17 Quote
The effect on the prices of second hand chips will be interesting, I can see them taking a massive dive if Intel's price gouging bubble, that has been growing for years now, pops.

AMD are seemingly offering enough FPS for gaming with a competitive IPC, and a whole bunch of compute power for everyday multimedia tasks besides at a sane price. This will smash intel to bits for the DIY self build crowd, but as for the system integrator side, who knows what dirty games will play out.

I remember what an utter flop bulldozer was, would hate to see that happen again.
Vault-Tec 24th February 2017, 23:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
Would the problem be the lack of support for said resources. Ignore the benches for a second.

List the software your average consumer uses that requires more than 4 threads ( not cores) just 4 basic threads.

I am struggling to name my one is a very blunt answer.

And that is because Intel have not progressed us any further forward than we were a decade ago with the Q6600.

It's been Intel's stage since Sandy, blame them.

As for stuff that uses four cores? loads of it now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
Enthusaists instead let's say,

Games the biggest by far, Photo and movie editing then that's it. Most of the other options will be sub 0.1% of users.

How it performs in games is very relivent to how the sales will be is a personal oppinion. Right or wrong.

We shall see in 3 months like I said before how much Market share AMD gains from the initial 8 core Ryzen. I personally feel the 4 core and 6 core will massively outsell the 8 cores.

I hope they gain the market share they need, price reductions are never a bad thing. We can all hope for that. Not sure it will force the price war that we seem to all want though.

Well at least Intel don't have full control over the market any more. At least now AMD have what appears to be good IPC we can finally move on from quad core CPUs.
Yadda 25th February 2017, 00:11 Quote
I remember hearing 4 cores was toast a few years ago when AMD were supposedly going to whoop the competition with their low cost "6 core" CPU's because even then it was said that "most modern games will use more than 4 threads".

It didn't quite work out that way though...
Vault-Tec 25th February 2017, 00:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yadda
I remember hearing 4 cores was toast a few years ago when AMD were supposedly going to whoop the competition with their low cost "6 core" CPU's because even then it was said that "most modern games will use more than 4 threads".

It didn't quite work out that way though...

Nope. Totally different this time though.

We really need to move on. It's a joke tbh. Intel were doing so well right up until Haswell. Ivy was a decent price (about £170 for an I5 just a little more than Sandy) but at Haswell they started getting greedy *and* cutting corners.

They get treated like some sort of god when they released the 5820k. It wasn't a bad price at launch either (apart from the board and ram costs of course) but then they just went ridiculous after that.
Yadda 25th February 2017, 00:49 Quote
How is it different this time?
rollo 25th February 2017, 01:24 Quote
We would like to as enthusiast see more of our available performance been used.

Question still stands what I wrote above, The future maybe Multicore Multithreaded stuff but honestly I dunno.

Pre scorpion we are a decent chunk away and with the PlayStation outselling Microsofts Xbox one at worst 2-1 maybe not even then.

The chips AMD have made seem good in the benches we have been shown, let's hope they do drive the price / performance war and gain AMD the market share they need for future survival.

As others have said single thread will still matter for most, Multi threaded stuff is in my personal oppinion still too far away.

If Scorpion takes off 2019 could be the year we see the 6-8 threaded games take off in a huge way.
el_raberto 25th February 2017, 01:46 Quote
When we see what they have to offer in the £150 to £170 price bracket, then I might get interested for my next build but until then, meh!
C-Sniper 25th February 2017, 02:20 Quote
I'm excited just because my business does a lot of video and photo editing and batch rendering/exporting
Vault-Tec 25th February 2017, 12:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yadda
How is it different this time?

Because this time Ryzen is competitive. Which means Intel need to compete.
rollo 25th February 2017, 12:59 Quote
We are not going to see drastic price reductions until we know the state of the 4 core and 6 core options and where they stand.

If the 4 core chip can beat the 7700k then Intel will have to price drop to match.
Yadda 25th February 2017, 13:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vault-Tec
Because this time Ryzen is competitive. Which means Intel need to compete.

We don't know that yet. You're making assumptions again, just like last time.
Vault-Tec 25th February 2017, 14:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yadda
We don't know that yet. You're making assumptions again, just like last time.

Eh? I wasn't even around for the last launch (well not here any way). And I made no assumptions with BD. I don't ever make assumptions.. My lady and I talked about it one night. Expectations. If you have them you will usually always end up disappointed.

I don't have any for Ryzen, I'm not buying it :D
Wakka 25th February 2017, 14:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yadda
We don't know that yet. You're making assumptions again, just like last time.

We don't know it in the sense that all the cards are laid out in front of us, plain to see (reviews) - but you'd have to be pretty blinkered at this point to deny the the results of the tests Linus did, along with the demos AMD performed live and the numerous leaks from well respected sources.

It's like saying Trump could end up being the best president in American history - sure, he COULD in the sense that we can't see into the future, but with the amount of evidence we have at this point what side of the coin would you put your money on?
Cr@1g 25th February 2017, 18:52 Quote
Harlequin 25th February 2017, 18:55 Quote
newegg prices haven't changed?
wolfticket 25th February 2017, 18:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cr@1g
Looks like intel just slashed there price big time?

http://www.microcenter.com/search/search_results.aspx?Ntk=all&sortby=match&N=4294966995+4294964566&myStore=true
Not actually checked myself, but this was the first tweet I saw regarding it: https://twitter.com/ryanshrout/status/835544361874116608
Quote:
Ryan Shrout
‏@ryanshrout
Anyone telling you Intel has cut CPU prices (from looking at only MicroCenter) doesn't looking at CPU prices very often. No cuts yet.
tristanperry 26th February 2017, 15:14 Quote
I don't overly see a change in prices either, especially comparing those Microcenter prices to comparable UK prices.
edzieba 26th February 2017, 16:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vault-Tec
Because this time Ryzen is competitive. Which means Intel need to compete.
It's not Intel that AMD need to convince: it's developers to do the (excruciating, if not impossible in many situations) task of breaking down game engines to thread even further than they already do. And it's not like developers of today (or the last decade) are just going "well, we've turned to dial up to '4 threads', that'll do let's go for a pint".

::EDIT:: AMD already ran into the 'Itanium problem' before with HSA: that big GPU on the APU never did end up getting used for same-package GPGPU in everyday applications.
Harlequin 26th February 2017, 17:34 Quote
They don't - AMD have the consoles so devs are already programming for 8 cores :D
aramil 26th February 2017, 17:45 Quote
The issue with developers is you write for what you estimate is the mainstream system is, so atm it's 2/4 threads, why go to extra effort/cost for a small percentage of the market.

4 threads took longer than expected to catch on for most people because "most systems" where running 2 threads (remember budget systems can shift very high volumes compared to higher spec more expensive ones), so again why go to the extra expense.

Also optomising a piece of software for a small market share is counter productive if it makes most of your market run worse.

Having more cores/threads is all well and good in extreme/enthusiast machines used for benching or custom software jobs / servers where they can be used correctly and to there max potential. But if your writing software to preform well in the mass market your writing it for 4/2 threads still.

Even if AMD manage to get a 30% market share, will all those CPUs be 4+ threads? Probably not. So the Most occuring Thread count will still be 4 threads, so thats what mainstream software will target.

I would love to see developers pushing up their system demands outside of the entusiast market, but it's not going to happen 6/8 core have been around for a while and software has only recently started to push 4 threads properly. will be along time before those extra cores are "required" instead of optional.

I shall wait to get my hands on a consumer chip/board before making any sort of real world judgement. I am just not to sure this will be as big as AMD would hope, which is a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlequin
They don't - AMD have the consoles so devs are already programming for 8 cores :D

You don't have that level of control when writing for consoles, you are writing for the system & HAL and not the actual HW
Yadda 26th February 2017, 19:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakka
We don't know it in the sense that all the cards are laid out in front of us, plain to see (reviews) - but you'd have to be pretty blinkered at this point to deny the the results of the tests Linus did, along with the demos AMD performed live and the numerous leaks from well respected sources.

Do you mean the tests that were performed (by various folk) during the AMD promo event?

If everything is as it seems, why is there a restriction on publishing independant testing results until March?

/OldCynic :D
Wakka 26th February 2017, 20:15 Quote
Because surely that's just how the industry works? When has any hardware manufacture ever sent out review units based on an entirely new architecture and said "yeah go on, put what you want up as soon as you got it"?

It makes sense for AMD to show off what their new products can do before anyone else - It's basic PR. They can control the variables and have the answers/knowledge should something not perform as expected.

There is on odd amount of paranoia circulating around regarding Ryzen performance, which is odd considering no-one is forcing anyone to buy into it (with cash or hype). It's almost as if people are waiting, with expectation, for the 'myth' to collapse... Which is all the more strange, considering we're all in the same boat as PC enthusiasts, and there's only gain to be had by competition in the market.

/eternal optimist ;)
Yadda 26th February 2017, 20:18 Quote
Would you like to buy some magic beans? :)
Wakka 26th February 2017, 20:29 Quote
Haha, optimism only stretches so far... There's still Vega to disappoint us all ;)
aramil 26th February 2017, 20:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakka
Because surely that's just how the industry works? When has any hardware manufacture ever sent out review units based on an entirely new architecture and said "yeah go on, put what you want up as soon as you got it"?

It makes sense for AMD to show off what their new products can do before anyone else - It's basic PR. They can control the variables and have the answers/knowledge should something not perform as expected.

There is on odd amount of paranoia circulating around regarding Ryzen performance, which is odd considering no-one is forcing anyone to buy into it (with cash or hype). It's almost as if people are waiting, with expectation, for the 'myth' to collapse... Which is all the more strange, considering we're all in the same boat as PC enthusiasts, and there's only gain to be had by competition in the market.

/eternal optimist ;)

I am not anti AMD or anti compertition, but we have been here before on several occations with several manufacturers of CPUs/GPUs, where all the official figures and controlled demonstrations, sample tests, all show large gains against another product, but when it comes to public testing and consumer units it's another storry of broken promises and poor compromises to get the product to fit a price point.

Time will tell.
jrs77 26th February 2017, 21:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by aramil
I am not anti AMD or anti compertition, but we have been here before on several occations with several manufacturers of CPUs/GPUs, where all the official figures and controlled demonstrations, sample tests, all show large gains against another product, but when it comes to public testing and consumer units it's another storry of broken promises and poor compromises to get the product to fit a price point.

Time will tell.

That exactly. I allways buy the current best option for my personal user-profile based on user-reviews.

I don't even care that much about most of the benchmarks, as I'm not a fanatic who needs the absolute best. Cinebench is the only somewhat relevant benchmark to my userprofile, and a quite good general accessment of raw CPU-power (single and multi-threaded).

Anyways. I'd rather have more IGP-performance at this point as CPU-power has been enough since SandyBridge for most of what I do, so the currently released AMD-chips are of no interest for me.

If AMD releases a 4C/8T APU with more performance (especially on the IGPU) as my current i7-5775C by the end of the year and intel doesn't release something better, then I'll buy into it. Easy as that.
Agrippa 28th February 2017, 10:19 Quote
I have no fear that Ryzen will disappoint when all is revealed on Thursday, be it in games or productivity. However, to compete effectively in the HEDT market AMD primarily needs to come up with a better chipset than X370. 24 PCIe lanes just won't cut it in the high-end where people need/want SLI/Crossfire, multiple M2 SSDs and HBAs/RAID cards.

I'm building a new machine this year, but I'm frankly still unsure whether to go Intel or AMD. I'd LOVE to go with Ryzen, not least because of the savings, but I want at least one M2 SSD, preferably two, and I've got an HBA which ideally should have 8x PCIe 3.0 lanes at its disposal. That leaves just 8 lanes for the GPU, which isn't exactly ideal. If they'd been PCIe 4.0 lanes it'd be different, but since they're not Intel has to remain in the running.
Anfield 28th February 2017, 10:33 Quote
You lose next to nothing running a Graphicscard at Pci-E 3 x8 rather than Pci-E 3 x16:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080_PCI_Express_Scaling/24.html
Agrippa 28th February 2017, 11:38 Quote
True enough - today. However, when I build a new machine I build it to last as long as possible. My current one was born in Q1 2012, so it's about to pass the 5-year mark. Ideally I'd like the next one to last as long, or longer. 8x 3.0 if fine right now, but I think it's a sure bet it won't be in 2020, 2021, 2012. However, 16x 3.0 will likely be OK for the full life of the next machine.

Hence my Intel or AMD dilemma remains.
Vault-Tec 28th February 2017, 12:03 Quote
Plus of course SLi and Crossfire are all but dead any way....
Digi 28th February 2017, 13:44 Quote
I'll back AMD and dump my Intel chip (read: pass it on to my son) and I'll tell you why..

I still remember that Intel were fined 1.4 billion dollars for using what amounted to bribery to stifle AMD out of the consumer PC market, and this is why they have been so far behind and taken so long to catch up. (if you're not aware: https://www.engadget.com/2009/05/13/intel-fined-1-45-billion-dollars/)

I overclocked Cyrix, I overclocked old AMD and I'll go back to supporting them again. Simply because we need this competition to keep innovation up and prices down.

And because Intel deserve a kick in the knackers.
sandys 28th February 2017, 14:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vault-Tec
Plus of course SLi and Crossfire are all but dead any way....

For now, but that is unlikely to remain the case.
23RO_UK 28th February 2017, 14:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digi
I'll back AMD and dump my Intel chip (read: pass it on to my son) and I'll tell you why..

I still remember that Intel were fined 1.4 billion dollars for using what amounted to bribery to stifle AMD out of the consumer PC market, and this is why they have been so far behind and taken so long to catch up. (if you're not aware: https://www.engadget.com/2009/05/13/intel-fined-1-45-billion-dollars/)

I overclocked Cyrix, I overclocked old AMD and I'll go back to supporting them again. Simply because we need this competition to keep innovation up and prices down.

And because Intel deserve a kick in the knackers.

I don't think your in a minority there ;)
Agrippa 28th February 2017, 16:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vault-Tec
Plus of course SLi and Crossfire are all but dead any way....

For me, they've never been alive. I still want more than 8 PCIe lanes available for my single GPU though, without ditching that M2SSD or my HBA. However, I'd get that and more with X99 or X299.
Harlequin 28th February 2017, 17:57 Quote
you get 16 lanes with a single gpu on z270 and AM4
Anfield 28th February 2017, 18:15 Quote
rollo 28th February 2017, 19:46 Quote
No Vega announcements, nvidia expected to announce 1080ti.
Anfield 28th February 2017, 19:53 Quote
Yep, unfortunately it turned out to be more of an all aboard the VR hype train event...
23RO_UK 28th February 2017, 22:28 Quote
Guys, I've just had a worrying thought

What happens if SOMEONE has gone travelling and bit are unable to produce a review on the 2nd??? >:(
Vault-Tec 28th February 2017, 22:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by 23RO_UK
Guys, I've just had a worrying thought

What happens if SOMEONE has gone travelling and bit are unable to produce a review on the 2nd??? >:(

Then look at the plethora of other sites.

I'm sure they'll get us a review eventually.
23RO_UK 28th February 2017, 22:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vault-Tec
Then look at the plethora of other sites.

I surely will :D ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vault-Tec
I'm sure they'll get us a review eventually.

Tainted with a blue bias :)
Vault-Tec 28th February 2017, 23:14 Quote
hahaha that did make me lol.

I think I am more interested to see how reviewers take this CPU than the actual CPU itself.

I've thought it over for days upon days now and to get better performance than I have now I am looking at £470. Anything less would be a side grade. And that's a lot of bread for a faster CPU.
LennyRhys 1st March 2017, 08:51 Quote
Do you really need better performance though? My upgrade was more of a refresh than anything else. Yeah, I'll get my 3D renders done a few seconds faster than before, and my Everest scores are really nice... but I now have native SATA III, M.2, DDR4, USB 3.1, the list goes on.

It's funny how things like this make us all hot and bothered about stuff we don't need.

(Yes, I want it too.)
Vault-Tec 1st March 2017, 13:33 Quote
No no and no. But then when has that ever mattered :D

CPUs are even less exciting than GPUs too. "Oh hey great benchmark score !". Load up a game "Oh, it's exactly the same".

I used to like buying GPUs but they have priced me out. I want the high end, but I have mid range money. And I am not parting with £400 for mid range performance.

Plus if I am honest GPUs this year do not offer the massive step forward that they have for years. IE - if I spend £700 on this GPU would it make the latest pile of slop look any better? no, not really.

DX12 games do not look much better than DX11 ones. We were promised better performance etc from DX12 not better looking games. And we've got neither. They look poo and they run like poo.
Anfield 1st March 2017, 14:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vault-Tec
They look poo and they run like poo.

Depends on the game a lot:

Shadow Warrior 2, Doom and some others both look good and run good (even without the absolute latest and greatest hardware).

Others *cough* Hitrman *cough* would need a bunch of patches we are never going to get to even run like poo.
faugusztin 1st March 2017, 14:47 Quote
So it seems there will be next to no Ryzen shipments in my country (Slovakia) this week. Let's hope in a week there will be at least some boards and CPUs. Not a good start for stealing the market share.
Pookie 1st March 2017, 14:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by 23RO_UK
I surely will :D ;)



Tainted with a blue bias :)

More than likely, probably find a way to recommend the i3-7350k over Ryzen :D
Vault-Tec 1st March 2017, 15:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anfield
Depends on the game a lot:

Shadow Warrior 2, Doom and some others both look good and run good (even without the absolute latest and greatest hardware).

Others *cough* Hitrman *cough* would need a bunch of patches we are never going to get to even run like poo.

So far, if I remember correctly no game has benefited from DX12. They have all suffered performance losses, not gains. Which is quite hilarious really.

Doom however? *that* is how you use a new API. Sadly ATM it's a one trick pony (and honestly doesn't look that much better than RAGE, released in 2010).

The best *looking* games I have played recently have all been remasters. So Dead Island Definitive and so on. It's just absolutely stunning and goes like crap from the proverbial digging instrument.

Deus Ex and a couple of others (The Division) looked OK but absolutely thrashed your GPU almost to death and didn't look that much better than games we've had for years.

Usually when a big GPU comes out there are a couple of monumental games that show you what you just shelled out £800 for. With the TI? I am struggling to see it. Maybe it will be able to finally run games at high settings at 4k but that doesn't interest me, given how few "true" 4k games there are.

Of course, you could probably max out Crysis 3 (as I am sure Bit Tech will inform us of) but what's exciting about that? most people I know didn't even complete it at 1080p because it was a "meh" game.

At least when DX11 launched Codemasters made Dirt 2 look like a next gen game, even if it was not (you could pretty much hack all of the new stuff it had into DX10). But yeah, it looked incredible, went like stink on a £300 GPU and sort of sold every one DX11.

They're having a much harder time selling me DX12.
Isitari 1st March 2017, 18:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vault-Tec
So far, if I remember correctly no game has benefited from DX12. They have all suffered performance losses, not gains. Which is quite hilarious really.

Doom however? *that* is how you use a new API. Sadly ATM it's a one trick pony (and honestly doesn't look that much better than RAGE, released in 2010).

The best *looking* games I have played recently have all been remasters. So Dead Island Definitive and so on. It's just absolutely stunning and goes like crap from the proverbial digging instrument.

Deus Ex and a couple of others (The Division) looked OK but absolutely thrashed your GPU almost to death and didn't look that much better than games we've had for years.

Usually when a big GPU comes out there are a couple of monumental games that show you what you just shelled out £800 for. With the TI? I am struggling to see it. Maybe it will be able to finally run games at high settings at 4k but that doesn't interest me, given how few "true" 4k games there are.

Of course, you could probably max out Crysis 3 (as I am sure Bit Tech will inform us of) but what's exciting about that? most people I know didn't even complete it at 1080p because it was a "meh" game.

At least when DX11 launched Codemasters made Dirt 2 look like a next gen game, even if it was not (you could pretty much hack all of the new stuff it had into DX10). But yeah, it looked incredible, went like stink on a £300 GPU and sort of sold every one DX11.

They're having a much harder time selling me DX12.
Warhammer total war in DX 12 mode for AMD cards receives a 30%+ boost. In my case it was over 35% boost in frame rate and far smoother generally.

Sent from my SM-N915FY using Tapatalk
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums