Thanks.
Even as an Intel user, I feel AMD has let 'us' down again.![]()
-
tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...
-
OverTallman Notebook Evangelist
Anyway, if I can build a 8-core Zen tower with a GTX 1060 or RX 470 within HK$3500-4000 then I'm all set. Goodbye Intel!
-
Pricing- the SR-7 black edition (flagship)
8- core will likely be $500, rather than the Intel 6850k which is over $600, but has 40 lanes and quad channel support, and the 6900K, which costs around $1000. If the prefetch works well, it positions the Ryzen 8 core to be a budget power house. If you have Broadwell-E, it is not worth the upgrade, but there is a chance that it has a position in high end computing, even among the upcoming skylake-X (for example, due to pricing and pcie lanes, it beats out the 6-core 20-24 lane S-X so long as Ryzen overclocks very well).
Sent from my SM-G900P using TapatalkLast edited: Jan 17, 2017triturbo likes this. -
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalktriturbo likes this. -
-
tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...
Confirmation bias? Possibly. But no less 'factually inaccurate' than your assumptions.
Because that is all they are (still) at this point.
-
Now, if skylake-x implements hexa-channel memory and your programs can fully utilize it, then that changes some, but not all, of my stated opinion.
Instead, you cheer for a loss when all factors point toward a qualified win. Will it outright beat Intel, no. Will it beat certain high end enthusiast chips from Intel? Yes! Will it be able to be built for cheaper than Intel machines? Yes! So, please try analysis and released facts than just assertions.
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalktriturbo likes this. -
tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...
Yawn. Spec's, BM's, 'scores' and other lies.
I don't care about the theory; I want to see real world results compared: platform vs. platform. There, I highly doubt an AMD 'win'. Even a 'qualified' one... again; for my workloads/workflows.
Not doubting for a second they'll be close - but like I've said before; let's see what Intel answers with...
JKnows likes this. -
Sent from my SM-G900P using TapatalkLast edited: Jan 17, 2017 -
hmscott and tilleroftheearth like this.
-
tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...
I'm the fanboy?
No; I'm realistic. Nothing points to the "AMD stomped on Intel's balls!" as you want everyone to believe.
If/when I'm wrong; I just admit it and move on.
Right now? You're trying to fit jigsaw puzzles of unicorns together*.
Your unchanging point of view is just as valid as my unchanging point of view and both move the conversation forward.
I think the difference is that I'm willing to change my mind - when actual facts are presented (real world; not BM 'scores' nor 'specs' comparisons), whereas you seem to think this is the hill to die on?
Just try to see it from my point of view - you don't have to concede to it publicly - I've seen many promising 'advancements' that were 'proved' on paper (theory/specs) that just vanished into thin air the minute the platform/component/system in question became available to normal people (cough, cough; if they became available at all...).
You keep claiming you want to discuss facts, yet the biggest fact you ignore: real world doesn't care about theory. Real world just wants something bigger/better/badder than what it already has 'now'.
*TradeMark @ tilleroftheearth 2017
-
After the speed increase, those numbers no longer reflect performance until you adjust for multiplier increases, which you have not done.
If you are an authority, state your name, job title, and the reasons you are an expert on estimating this sort of performance. Without this, you are a nameless person without the credentials to show why the **** your opinion, without any ****ing analyses, should be heeded.
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk -
@tilleroftheearth - I'm somewhat confused at your posts in this thread. You're not really bringing any arguments of value. I say this with the utmost respect (as we've had discussions in the past, and I feel you're a valued member of the NBR community).
On the one hand, you say that when Ryzen comes out, you're skeptical on what it can do. You'll not be putting much stock into Ryzen reviews, actual benchmarks, clock speeds, etc., because it has to work in your specialized environment. Fair enough. But without reading and researching what others are reporting, what are your plans on evaluating if it will be superior with your daily workloads?
Then on the other hand, you post that even if Ryzen does meet or exceed expectations computational expectations of everyone else, then you're still not interested. Instead you will wait for (BTW... who knows how long) an intel response, which may or may not exceed the current release from Ryzen. Again, fair enough, but this is where I become confused.
You don't want to discuss the current reviews, rumors, benches, etc. of the upcoming CPU release because that doesn't work for you. You don't say how you will evaluate once it is public, and even if it does become public, you're not interested in that, but rather the next big thing from intel. So, I'm a bit perplexed why strike up an argument with @ajc9988 to begin with?Last edited: Jan 18, 2017Raiderman, OverTallman, ghegde and 3 others like this. -
Support.2@XOTIC PC Company Representative
I wouldn't get too excited about Ryzen just yet. Wait till it releases... remember the RX480 hype? Patience, young Padawan.
-
The big question is whether the voltage supply was a matter of the VRMs, as detailed by canard pc, or if it is a pin delivery failure, preventing enough voltage from reaching the CPU (as Intel did which requires a mod to do extreme overclocking on specific chips). But, at stock, I will stand by my assessment of the chip based on currently available information. At most, 20% improvement between HW-E and skylake-x, if the improvement scales as on performance chips AND Kaby lake improvements are integrated into skylake-x. As such, and adding the speed improvements from early Ryzen samples, unless quad channel provides a significant boost, I will put Ryzen above broadwell-e, lower than skylake-x, with same core count, at stock. Overclocked is another matter, though....
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk -
Support.2@XOTIC PC Company Representative
ajc9988 likes this. -
Here is a description of the infinity fabric:
http://wccftech.com/amds-infinity-fabric-detailed/
The implications of it are truly remarkable if it works well...triturbo likes this. -
tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...
I don't know how much more clear I can make my point(s) - especially after my post #114?
Common sense tells us that nothing is 'leaked' or 'posted' by a manufacturer that won't show them in the best light. That tells me that platform setups, 'tests', 'scores' and other trivia is hand picked to create a buzz for the as yet to ship product.
Like Tanner@XoticPC states (full quote below); patience is required here.
Not just because this is AMD with their less than stunning track record over the last decade or so... but maybe; especially because of it...
jclausius, it's not that my environment is specialized - actually, it is the 'specialized' nature of the hand picked platform/scores that are presented that is my issue - those are nobody's environments unless all they do is run the exact same benchmarks with their platforms...
ajc9988, I agree; this isn't about me (never said it was...) but I sure can't stand by and take marketing fluff being passed off as 'facts'. Even by a well meaning member like yourself.
The litmus test for 'better' is what 'I' can achieve in 'my' workflows. And here, 'I' is every 'I' here; you and me and everyone else included - and based on each of our specific real world workflows and workloads.
Not marketing fluff sprinkled with theory, multiplied by anticipation and added to years and decades of yearning to see Intel knocked off their decade plus year old throne...
Like I said; where I'm at (platform-wise) where I can afford to wait to see Intel's 'answer' to Ryzen. What happens after that is anyone's guess (no matter how well educated that guess may be...).
But my take based on the years of years of 'proof' that AMD has shown us over and over so far? I'll be using Intel for a good long time.
For AMD to get a possible ~40% or higher increase in productivity is easy right now (that's how far behind they are...). To complain about Intel's 'mere' 5% to 10% increases per new platform/cpu generation just shows how little people understand TVM equations - and - how they correspond to 'productivity' and 'computing' in general.
My main point here is really just wait to see what AMD actually delivers. Because what they say and what they do is not jiving for a very long time... And my gut feeling still says that even if they catch up and ultimately surpass Intel with Ryzen... it won't be a position they are able to maintain/sustain for the long term (and I vote with my wallet for long term relationships - even as I'm adapt at minimizing the cost to me and my business with products/platforms/components that ultimately fell short of my expectations for them - even after all my due diligence, too...).
In the '70's and '80's I would read tech articles similar in style to your posts here. Most of those promised/anticipated/and eagerly awaited 'advances' never saw the light of day... and the 'science' and the 'analysis' of those ancient ideas/potential products was of a much higher caliber too (with all due respect).
All I can say to AMD is what Nike says' to would-be athletes all over the world; JUST DO IT!
(Then, we'll be having a conversation about more than marketing fluff).
-
Now, with that being the case, you extrapolate performance going from 3.1/3.4 on an early evaluation sample to 3.4/unknown for the show in December to 3.6/3.9 F3 variant to a 3.6/4.0 variant which is assumed to be the release flagship. That is a 10-17% increase over the numbers presented by the massive leak, while the 6900K was under 9% performance over the 3.1/3.4 early sample, suggesting that AMD has a winner. This is further compounded with the chipset not being optimized as well as other aspects of the architecture (the tests were performed in August, while the wait time for release of benchmarks was likely double checking imputation of NDAs, checking gray market importation, and waiting for maximum impact (considering the proposed announcement was pushed from October to CES, AMD holding a press conference to show it off in December, etc., lend the time frame of the leak in late December to reach the largest audience, after all, this is a tech magazine business first and foremost)). So, to assume this was a controlled, managed situation as all corporations do, you are wrong. In fact, the first article was very critical of AMD, while the second article explained the circumstances surrounding their acquisition, information on it being an early sample, etc., which sounded softer on AMD and likely an agreement found between the companies to avoid a lawsuit (give the surrounding context to lighten the negative publicity of the first article). But, once again, you speak without context (which you had ample time to research before responding, showing you just want your opinion to be pushed on others).
Instead, you are here as a cheerleader for Intel, the master of marketing fluff (skylake will be the greatest leap since core 2 then delivers around 10% over haswell while broadwell was a **** stain). Get over yourself.
Not only that, Intel hit a wall. Everyone did. It has to do with EUV lithography which was not ready in time for when Intel planned to use it. This, in addition to the market slowing on purchasing PCs because the performance reached the level it could allow longer than three years for expected replacements and everyday people are still reeling from the recession, caused Intel to bleed money developing on the tick tock with incremental improvements and causes a paradigm shift in their approach. But, once again, you do not examine the full picture on what led to now, including IP restrictions for use of SMT, also called hyperthreading (HT TM by Intel).
So, after factoring in improvements on yields by SMTC, GloFo, IBM, and Samsung, with the cross-licensing between Samsung, GloFo, and IBM on different upcoming design, manufacturing processes, etc., everyone meets at the same place from which we move forward. The figurative traffic jams formed by a railroad crossing or ferry crossing, at which all must wait to pass, leaves the situation where you cannot predict who will break out in front moving forward. Not only that, AMD has the first set of looming debt due next year, which Intel wants them to meet for antitrust reasons (which the tin foil hat suggests Intel may be making a move similar to how M$ helped Apple to avoid antitrust in the 90s and early 2000s). But this extends to 2021-22, meaning Intel's anemic release schedule looking forward may be correct (tin foil hat theory), or that they had already designed the chips without EUV (or have begun without it), so intend to ride that out, then try to jump ahead after. This gives an alternative, at least as plausible, to prevent collusion charges with AMD. But what do I know...
So, instead of opening your mouth to put down AMD and tout Intel on an AMD thread, like a fan boy, why don't you simply state what features you are dubious of, what you want to know more about, etc., instead of saying you will wait and buy Intel anyways, base assertions on an amorphous workflow no one cares about or knows, etc. Just move on!
Edit: I also forgot to mention the rise of ARM chips and Intel losing to mobile devices and trying to develop the IoT to sell more chips, which would help moving forward as this sector will grow being the PC market and can potentially be more profitable, which has also caused a paradigm shift at Intel.
Sent from my SM-G900P using TapatalkLast edited: Jan 25, 2017 -
tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...
Agreed 100%.
But their track record is why I am 'rooting' for them.
Actions speak louder than words. Always have. Always will.
At the very least, Intel delivers what it 'promises' - and many times even exceeds them. Even if those 'promises' seem to be artificially low for many here...
-
tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...
"This wasn't a controlled leak nor was it to show AMD in the best light..."
Okay... so you say.
Bottom line: all your theorizing and analysis will have no impact on the final product they deliver. And furthermore, will have little semblance to reality of what Intel answers with (if they have too, of course...).
The last Intel 'update' is almost a year old now. Yawn. Has nothing to do with what AMD will be releasing in a few months time - and is currently being compared to... (get it)?
Like I said; you can extrapolate, analyze, use past facts to get your best guestimate of what will land in the not too distant future from AMD - but as you're neglecting to do the same for Intel? We see the bias you have. All good!
But don't try to tell me how to read the cards that are on the table. I know this game better than most.
-
Meanwhile, no. Ryzen is currently being compared with Broadwell-E, not Intel's answer, skylake-x, which isn't really an answer so much as a planned release that has been pushed off for over 6 months to a year (if you add up all release push backs from haswell-e on). You have until the second half of this year before Intel's next release, if they release on time!
Also, Zen+ will use the same socket, as all will, until 2020. That was confirmed. Once we reach that, it will change with the release of DDR5 and incorporation of PCIe 4.0. But you don't bother watching the market or expanding your understanding of the market. You, instead, push Intel regardless of other facts.
This shows you don't pay any attention to facts nor can you read the cards. Talking, without substance, is very transparent. Your sophistry is betrayed by the facts on the table, including my prior analysis of Intel in this thread and showing skylake-x will likely outperform, but that if you need something now and on a budget, amd wins. You ignore everything to say I'm wrong and use only your assumptions. You say I'm wrong without saying why, including calling a release of two articles, which I described accurately, as a false release, without ever reading them. In fact, it is the painstaking detail given in the second, softer article, that makes it more believable due to the discussion of legal principles and the first half not discussing the chip at all, instead trying to build the record for a legal defense and to help shape public opinion in the magazine's favor. Instead, you go to your head and historical data. Let's examine another case like that: LCDs.
So, there was coordination between every LCD manufacturer before 2007. It was a price fixing scheme. But they used brand notoriety to say anything except them is cheap and not worth your money. LG busted on the scene and started unloading way under the market price, followed by other brands like vizio. They undercut the market and that gave way to an investigation proving price fixing collusion. So, to say any of the companies involved in price fixing before the fraud was exposed were the best and nothing else could stand against them on quality would have been considered true, just as you keep pushing Intel. If something disruptive happens, even in the budget category, then you want to say it isn't until it happened, then you further push it should be ignored even if it does occur. You are promoting ignoring future facts in a realization event (the happening of an event that makes a prediction of the future true in the present)! That is how much you cannot except a happening, you've forbid the future acceptance if the event occurs!
This makes you transparent and baseless! Do you own stock in Intel? Must have been a hard couple years!
Sent from my SM-G900P using TapatalkLast edited: Jan 25, 2017triturbo likes this. -
Unfortunately
- no 6 core raven ridge apus scheduled to be released
- wouldn't meet minimum vr spec
- the apu is supposed to be PS4 level graphics (around 2 Tflops, same as 1050Ti)
-
What a BIG wall with words
one of you will loose
Or put it the other way... All of us will win when the competition starts
Intel and Nvidia is a bit scared now. Intel loosing also on the smaller platforms. See the new ****y Jokebooks who will be pushed out. Yeah we will see other times now!!
ajc9988 likes this. -
tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...
Can't wait for 'other times'.
But that time is 'not yet'.
Papusan likes this. -
"For device makers, competition between ARM chips and x86 is a good scenario. It gives PC makers more choices to add to their product mix and gives them more leverage in negotiations with Intel"
"Intel will still offer x86 PC chips for low-cost PCs and continue to dominate that market. Another threat for Intel is coming from AMD's Ryzen chips in the high-performance x86 PC market"
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3161...ttle-intel-in-chromebooks-and-windows-10.htmlLast edited: Jan 25, 2017 -
I have absolutely zero interest in the consumer Zen due to dual channel memory. I am curious about their HPC offerings.
Last edited: Jan 28, 2017 -
AMD might not release a hexacore Ryzen
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-might-not-release-a-hexacore-ryzen.htmlajc9988 likes this. -
It's not that cards "saturate" the bandwidth, but rather the available bandwidth between cards. PCI/e 3.0 x8/x8 scales worse than PCI/e 3.0 x16/x16 in quite a few situations, mainly related to higher resolution or games/engines/tech that are AFR-unfriendly due to requirements from previous frames. The High Bandwidth bridge was intended as a (stupid, band-aid-ish) solution to this problem that has affected even 980Ti SLI cards. x16/x16 is even the difference in positive or negative scaling when forcing SLI on some titles. It's what's holding back some engines from flat out adding mGPU support at a base level, because they don't want to (they indeed can, though) add a SLI profile that only triggers if x16/x16 PCI/e 3.0 is detected... AMD mGPU would have no problem with the bandwidth once it's XDMA.
Rainbow Six Siege, Doom 2016 with Nightmare Shadows, Ark: Survival Unoptimized and other UE4 titles (not all) are games that benefit GREATLY from it, and from the HB bridge with older drivers, and it gets even more dependent on it at higher resolutions. Yes, I did say "older" drivers, as newer drivers force all the bandwidth improvements from the HB SLI bridge into frame pacing so things look smoother. I.E. they're wasting the bandwidth. AMD does not have this problem with Crossfire any longer, since XDMA grants full PCI/e bandwidth access. Even a PCI/e 2.0 x8/x8 configuration grants more bandwidth than the High Bandwidth bridge and PCI/e 3.0 x16/x16, I believe (it certainly surpasses the HB bridge on its own, by a factor of about 700MB/s). But AMD has crap for driver profiles and no NVPI alternative, so they can't force profiles where they'd actually be beneficial, so the benefit is pretty much moot, unfortunately.
Oh, and nVidia has XDMA-style tech, mind you. They just refuse to include it in their GPUs by default, because it doesn't make them extra money. NVLink is literally XDMA on steroids. Its primary focus is improved inter-GPU connection bandwidth, with a smaller focus on improving bandwidth to the processor as well. Since they can't sell NVLink (replaces PCI/e) to consumers as it'd be proprietary, they just decided to half-ass it with the HB bridge and cut loose 3-way and 4-way mGPU support. They could have simply used the XDMA-style connection with PCI/e to a lesser extent than NVLink provides, and the world would be happy, but screw that! Competition anyone? When I complain about AMD's drivers all the time, I'm saying it because if they were an actual blasted alternative worth purchasing, we wouldn't have to "settle" for these kinds of things.
ajc9988 likes this. -
@D2 Ultima - thank you for the more detailed analysis! I'm hopeful that the integration of L2 cache on the new GPUs (Nvidia has had for awhile) and AMDs use of infinity fiber (which allows for heterogeneous memory architecture, originally developed by AMD somewhere between 2011-13) will allow for some performance boosts and that the the new cards will be able to compete with the 1080 Ti and Pascal refresh. They have made efforts in driver optimization and working with companies, but still have a long way to go!
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalktriturbo likes this. -
But here's to hoping!ajc9988 likes this. -
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11002/the-amd-vega-gpu-architecture-teaser/3
Edit: Here is another article - http://semiaccurate.com/2017/01/17/amd-talks-vega-high-level/Last edited: Jan 31, 2017 -
AMD Ryzen CPUs to support Windows 7 with drivers http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-ryzen-cpus-to-support-windows-7-with-drivers.html
"Microsoft is not supporting Intel’s latest Kaby Lake range of CPUs on any OS below Windows 10, kind of weird right?"
Six Core AMD Ryzen Processors Might Still Possible http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/six-cores-ryzen-processors-possible.html
-
Ryzen 8 cores is probably not going to be as cheap as you think...
And the lack of quad channel is really questionable....Last edited: Feb 4, 2017 -
As to quad channel, that is a ball buster, admittedly. But, if doing memory intensive work, you weigh the cost versus the hit to productivity. In 4 weeks, all will be revealed...
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk -
If you are AMD, why would you not sell it higher since it got the performance? -
Then, if you compare to the older AMD chip prices, you see a willingness to hit that threshold for price/performance. That is why I think you are stating higher than what I think, but agreeing the stated $500 for the flagship being potentially low.
Sent from my SM-G900P using TapatalkLast edited: Feb 3, 2017 -
AMD is trying to brand itself differently than before with ryzen. SR7 wont be a product thats for price vs performance crowd. -
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk -
The price must be correct, if AMD shall manage to steal a lot of customers from Intel. A better performance + slightly lower price isn't enough.
-
AMD can sell the top end part for 750 usd fine. It will likely be 10%-15% slower than 6900k clock per clock though so that is a good price. AMD will be competitive with intel at that price point.
Tbh though, people looking for top end chips are going to lean towards intel's 6900k/6950x anyways. What AMD does is competing against 6800k and 6850k. -
Sent from my SM-G900P using TapatalkPapusan likes this. -
Its less about individual prices rather price segmentation. Something intel is very good at and AMD is bad at. -
Considering those focused on history instead of facts of the chip, you may need additional value in lower pricing to get some on board...
Sent from my SM-G900P using TapatalkLast edited: Feb 4, 2017 -
I dont see the 4c/8t version cheaper than 250-270. Probably settles at 300 at release. -
Forbes ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/antonyl...s-release-date-and-motherboards/#6458c397a954):
"
The top end 8-core parts, similar to Intel's $1,000 Core i7-6900K, are expected to retail between $580 and $720, I've seen rumors of 6-core parts with 12 threads, similar to Intel's $600 Core i7-6850K retailing for around $250 and the SR3 - potentially a 4-core part with 8 threads has been rumored to land at around $150, with Intel's current equivalent being the Core i5-7600K, which retails for $100 more.
The SR7 prices are a fairly concrete, but for the rest, notice how many times I said rumor - they will likely cost a little more, but the hope is that at the very least, they'll offer an alternative to Intel - personally I'm hoping for some genuine competition and lower price points for the same performance."
Christianpost ( http://www.christianpost.com/news/a...ch-6-core-variant-spotted-in-new-leak-174056/):
"The AMD Ryzen eight-core CPUs are expected to come with a price range of about $580 to $720. Meanwhile, the six-core variants could cost about $250."
"According to WCCFTech, there are at least four versions of the AMD Ryzen that have been entered into the benchmark database.
One AMD Ryzen eight-core model with the label "ZD3406BAM88F4_38/34_Y" has 16 threads of simultaneous multithreading (SMT) with a base clock speed of 3.4 GHz and a boost clock speed of 3.8 GHz. It features 16 MB of level 3 (L3) cache and 4 MB of level 2 (L2) cache. Furthermore, the CPU has a thermal design power (TDP) of 95 watts and supports overclocking via an unlocked multiplier.
Meanwhile, another eight-core variant was seen earlier this year during the Consumer Electronics Show (CES). This specific CPU has a "1D3601A2M88F3_39/36_N" codename and features a 3.6 GHz base clock speed and a 3.9 GHz boost clock speed. There is also a third eight-core model, "ZD3601BAM88F4_40/36_Y," with a 3.6 GHz base clock speed and a 4.0 GHz boost clock speed.
Finally, one AMD Ryzen six-core model with the label "ZD3301BBM6IF4_37/33_Y" was also spotted with 12 SMT threads, 12 MB of L3 cache, 3.3 GHz base clock and 3.7 GHz boost clock speeds and support for overclocking."
PCGamesN ( https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/amd-zen-release-date-specs-prices-rumours/#price):
"Current rumours have the Zen processors arriving in three distinct tiers - SR 7, SR 5 and SR 3 - following Intel's Core i7, i5, i3 structure. The top SR (Summit Ridge, innit?) tier will be the eight-core, 16-thread CPUs, and we're being told to expect the highest clocked version to retail for around $500 with a slightly slower octo-core costing around the $350 mark."
"I’d also expect to see similar pricing between the Core i5-6600K and the quad-core, eight-thread variant of the AMD Summit Ridge range. At the moment that would mean a price of around $250 (£215). It looks like AMD will again be betting on an increased thread count to tip the balance against Intel chips which will still have a higher straightline speed."
PC Advisor UK ( http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/new-prod...or-release-date-price-specs-features-3643552/):
"However, we'll stick our neck out and predict a few price points:
- Ryzen Quad Core: £200 inc VAT
- Ryzen Six Core: £300 inc VAT
- Ryzen Eight Core: £400-600 inc VAT
- APU Ryzen Quad Core: £250 inc VAT
As soon as we get more concrete prices, we'll update this article."
So, your prices are the high end, but both of our estimates are around the prices many are expecting. -
What is the purpose to skip Intel for AMD, if you do not get anything back?
Read more that http://hothardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-processor-lineup-leaked-17-skus#kjlWMCz1wihtHBjk.99ajc9988 likes this. -
Because is 50 dollars cheaper and you can upgrade to a 8 cores. If its on par with the intel quad cores i7.
And where are you getting that the 4c/8t version is on par with the I5s?
I mean, the website mentions a i5-6700k..... its questionable.
Also if a 8c/16t is competing with 6900k and another one is competing with a 7700k, I have a feeling it wont do well against a 6900k@ 4.2ghz.
It could be AMD pulling a fx9590 and taking all the OC room.Last edited: Feb 5, 2017ajc9988 likes this.
AMD's Ryzen CPUs (Ryzen/TR/Epyc) & Vega/Polaris/Navi GPUs
Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by Rage Set, Dec 14, 2016.