I will wait until the finalized CPUs are in third party hands and benchmarked before making an assessment. They have definitely peaked my interest and this is the first time I have even considered an AMD CPU in a very long time.
I will will wait until the finalized CPUs are in third party hands and benchmarked before making an assessment. They have definitely peaked my interest and this is the first time I have even considered and AMD CPU in a very long time.
I haven't purchased a desktop AMD CPU since year 2003/2004 K8 Athlon 64.
I have been holding off upgrading until AMD comes back, now I can finally ditch the old Phenom II x6 1100T, and get a Ryzen! I am hoping this is the real deal!
I'll have to wait for the third-party benchmarks, but this does look somewhat encouraging. As I said, I'd be impressed and very happy if they can go clock-for-clock with Broadwell. If they can also take on Skylake, that could put AMD back in the game - especially with how disappointing Kaby Lake look so far, as well as reports saying Intel are still struggling with 10nm yields, and that Cannonlake could be still be some way off.
Now lets hope AMD prices these much lower than Intel causing lower prices for both companies.
There have been a few notable jumps in the last 15 years that I remember like the ATI 9700 pro, AMD Athlon 64 or the intel core 2 and Nvidia 8800.
It's jumps like these that always stop me of impulsively upgrading my rig in wait for something big rather than small gradual changes.
The PC I built my friend in 2011 still has the i5 2500k in it since there really wasn't a reason to upgrade.
And while I would like to see serious competition between Intel and AMD, it still makes me wonder if these CPUs are needed when games are not as CPU intensive.
Games are still not that great for multi threading and the move to offloading CPU tasks to GPU and pushing for 4k really seems to take away the need for a high end CPU.
If anything this will just allow consumers to find budget CPUs that compete with the older high end ones.
It's nice to see some viable competition for Intel.
Two major questions to be answered. First, are these benchmarks legit? AMD has pulled shit in the past trying to oversell their CPUs. I'll doubt they'll repeat that mistake, but let's just wait for people to get their hands on the chips. Second the price. Will it be priced lower than Intel's chips and by how much.
If they can nail both of those things, and they probably will, then it'll be interesting to see how Intel responds. The ball is still in Intel's court no matter what. They probably have a lot of headroom on their price points currently and could probably shave off 25-30% of the price of their chips and still make a decent profit. Depending on how severe AMD hits, them Intel will most likely act accordingly. AMD is not out of the woods yet but it's nice for them to announce a promising product after their last few CPUs have been just bad.
All of this is good for the consumers too. AMD even forced Nvidia to keep mid-range hardware at appropriate prices with AMD's RX 400 line.
@Wasdie: It will have to be priced a lot lower then Intel if Intel 8 core CPU are $1100 this will need to be $600 to really stick it to Intel. I would love to see the 4 core 8 thred Ryzen came out $100 less then the i7 7700k
@Wasdie: It will have to be priced a lot lower then Intel if Intel 8 core CPU are $1100 this will need to be $600 to really stick it to Intel. I would love to see the 4 core 8 thred Ryzen came out $100 less then the i7 7700k
The thing with that $1100 price point is that it's probably artificially inflated. Intel could probably lop off $500 from that price and still be profitable on it. There is just no need to do so right now as there is no competition until AMD launches this line.
I do wonder about the per-core performance. From a gaming perspective, per-core performance is still much more important. Most games don't use more than 2 cores with the big ones using 4. Are these new AMD CPUs competitive on a per-core basis? If they aren't, then gamers will not benefit and would probably stick to similarly priced Intel chips. Right now it's better to have a powerful quad core than a similarly performing 8 core as only 4 of those cores are usually going to be used.
Obviously gamers aren't the whole market, but it's still something to take into consideration.
Synthetic benchmarks are nice and all, but I'm gonna wait to see some real world performance before I get properly hyped. Still, it's exciting that AMD is finally catching up but price is definitely gonna play the big factor here.
I will will wait until the finalized CPUs are in third party hands and benchmarked before making an assessment. They have definitely peaked my interest and this is the first time I have even considered and AMD CPU in a very long time.
I haven't purchased a desktop AMD CPU since year 2003/2004 K8 Athlon 64.
Same. I remember my Opteron that overclocked by 1ghz fondly.
My AMD FX-8350 and motherboard is almost 4 years old. I am planning to replace it with an Intel build. But, if this new CPU is good enough, I'll stay in the fold.
Although I have Intel builds at home, my primary gaming PCs have always been AMD since 2001.
Uuuhh. This might bode well for Scorpio (and onwards), depending on how pricey these might or might not be. Perhaps not the top of the line models, but I can see proper upgrades for next gen consoles assuming Sony & MS stick with AMD. We'll see.
On a more broader scale, this if of course great for consumers (helps keep Intel more in line with their prices).
I hope AMD is competitive again. Someone needs to make Intel stop being lazy and overpriced. This is the first gaming rig Ive made that is not AMD/ATi.
I'm open-minded. Even though my current system is an Intel + NVIDIA, I used to own two AMD CPUs, and all except two of the graphics cards I've ever bought were ATI/AMD.
I'm open-minded. Even though my current system is an Intel + NVIDIA, I used to own two AMD CPUs, and all except two of the graphics cards I've ever bought were ATI/AMD.
Oh. I was just thinking of a friend who recently assembled a budget PC. He made me do all the research for an FX CPU. He ended up buying an i3. I was like..... An i3? "SIGH* ;) I didn't even bother asking for his thought process.
Very excited to see AMD back on the saddle. Hopefully this chip is priced good and really does give Intel a run for the money. It is only good for the industry!
Intel is a juggernaut whose survival will never be threatened by a competitor. The only thing that can threaten it is an industry-wide swing to a totally new ecosystem such as mobile.
Although I can say I've stuck with AMD all these years (1992-1995, 2001-2017), I'm savvy enough to know it always has one foot in the grave because its main competitor is Intel.
How many here will actually buy an AMD CPU versus those who wish AMD competes with Intel and then continue buying Intel, regardless?
I went AMD when Athlon 64 was around. They've just been bad since then.
when i got my phenom 2 X4 it was considered very strong in the bang per buck department. but the writing was on the wall in terms of intel just pummeling them in performance. as time went on AMD even lost the value argument.
its a shame AMD went down the wrong path with bulldozer. that really stung. there was some interesting ideas in it but in the end it was the wrong direction. AMDs netburst.
anywho i have been waiting for vega and zen before building my next PC just to see what the lay of the land is. zen looks good indeed. its not a complete intel killer. it was never going to be. but if they get the price right it could be very interesting. i dont think i will go with an 8core/16 thread one though as, for gaming, that will be complete overkill. a 4 core/8thread one will do the job if i decide to go down the zen route.
Quad core Jaguar at 2 Ghz already has superior math IPC over Quad core Steamroller at 3.1 Ghz. ZEN is almost a straight 2X of Jaguar in terms of functional hardware.
Log in to comment