AMD announces RYZEN 8-core processor

Regardless of the price or performance of Zen, my primary system will be Intel powered for the foreseeable future. However, I have great interest in the Zen based APUs. Intel just has nothing that really suits my needs in regards to a proper APU. I've owned 4 AMD APUs to this point and the only one worth it's cost has been my Athlon 5350. The A8 6410 was complete garbage, even for a mobile chip. Hopefully Zen does better....

Some are just overly excited about the idea of AMD finally being able to compete with Intel again.

 

I know my next processor most likely will be that 8-core Zen. If it can clock roughly the same as 6900K it should be a steal (if the pricing is what -Tj-s picture shows). It's looking good for AMD they should possibly gain some share in server side considering that 95w tdp. It's rather good. Desktop well yeah, enthusiasts first.

 

Looks competitive.

Those Titan XP's though... I assume because they had to use those, then, Vega won't be as powerful.

Anyway, I enjoyed it, Lisa H paired with JHH could sell anything...scary thought actually. Just enough fluff so not showing the price wouldn't be too big of a deal.

However, this video kinda confirms my thoughts on Vega...not this year guys.

2 "paper" launches only.

Lisa H/AMD could still learn from JHH/Nvidia; for maximum impact you need to give both prices and release dates. As it stands...it's a good delay tactic.

 

IHMO, most of people (Including me) just hate the Intel pricing of thier product, not necessary a AMD fanboy or anything. Your sentence just seem Anti-AMD guy overall... sorry if you not one.

 

This actually reinforces the notion that Intel has just been milking everyone. Sandy won them the market as the final nail in AMD's coffin, and since that moment progress has been so measured and stale that our old CPUs are still amongst the top performers.

The issue here is not how good our Sandys are, because they are the product of an era when Intel was still competing. The issue is what happened in the five years that AMD needed to reinvent their CPU line and Intel was left alone.

What happened is that we got an iterated Sandy at 5% performance increments with mandatory mobo upgrades and an extra 10% in price of each cycle. No extra cores for the mainstream despite the tremendous space efficiency advances, and Intel will also launch a series of dual core x86 processors in 2017, costing more than $70, with a straight face.

 

Yes but I blame the market and the lack of competition for that. Intel had zero need to compete with itself. It would make no sense to make large performance leaps, they simply didn't have to.

 

That's true. Intel is like the constant builders who improve a little over time with rising costs, where-as AMD has had to save and pour everything into these 2 product lines.

Unfortunately, what gamers must also realise is that now that we're getting "mainstream" 8/16, the games will once again have to catch-up as well to utilise those cores to fully benefit from it.

I assume if you're not a content creator, gamer+streamer etc, then, the benefits will not be as immediately obvious and those with 4/4 will be fine for quite some time.

Kinda like looking at the first-gen of 64bit cpu's or the first dual-cores...

 

Remember when Intel poured everything into core2duo after AMD dominated the market for years? When AMD dominated, increasing the performance very little with each Athlon 64, then x2? Nobody in their right mind was running an Intel CPU. Until core 2 duo happened. Pretty much everyone switched to Intel. AMD has been stagnant ever since. Now it's their turn to see if they can steal the crown from Intel. I for one would like to hope they can. But I'll withhold my judgement until we see some reviews.

 

You see, that's bad even from a straight business perspective though. Look at NVIDIA's top end: Is it over priced? Sure as hell it is, but it delivers immense performance increases compared to their previous stuff. They still add features to their driver. They overcharge but they manage to maintain customer good will.

Intel hasn't been doing any of these things. We could at least have been in hexacores and not having to switch platforms every year (or every two years for workstations, which is insane).

Customer good will and brand reception are a huge part of business and Intel has been doing really bad at it in the name of a quick buck. They lost billions of dollars in retarded attempts to go into smartphones and "diversify" their workforce (effectively diluting their talent pool), go into phone antennas and modems, SSDs, and even GPUs like Larrabee. All failed and all in the backs of the desktop and server clients they treated like idiots and to whom they haven't given something back even as a gesture of good will, as business sense would dictate. "k" CPUs didn't even have VT-D until recently, because **** us, we would pay anyway, right?

All that with the continuous undercurrent arrogance that their designs were somehow destined to be faster.

No dude, that was bad business, in the most business sense of the way, and it's the third time they made the exact same mistake, from 486, to the P4 to now.

 

If the 8/16 CPU is in the same price ballpark with the 7700k, as implied, the 7700k has no reason to exist as a product. That's all with the reservation of tests confirming AMD's claims. Engines use 8 cores just fine for the last couple of years at least, even more this last year. Hilbert does tests on that, check them out.

 

But of course it is. Who's sitting on a big pile of $$$? Hint, it's not AMD.

BTW, you can't compare gpu and cpu markets. Neither competitor can release a gpu 12 months after a previous release with only 5% performance increase. If they could, they would, trust me. Both AMD and Nvidia would. We kinda see it with Nvidia, they play cat 'n mouse with AMD. They have the lead and they only release as much as they need to. As soon as AMD catches up, they have a card up their sleeve.

It's not good for customers but it's great for business, I fail to see how it's not.

BTW, AMD have been releasing CPUs that perform the same for years too, it's not only Intel. I fail to see how AMD are better here. If anything, Intel offers better value for money in the CPU market.

 

I haven't said a word about AMD deserving or not deserving anything. Business for large corporations with lifespans in the decades or more, is dictated by a large margin by the type of relationship they have with their clients.

Intel has been the only "shop" for high performance CPUs since Sandy. Now, since we're reasonable people, we expect them to raise their prices and relax a little to enjoy their victory of being the only "store" for that. It's ok, we understand. I get it until maybe Haswell. Even with the mandatory motherboard switching and everything. But after that we had Devil's Canyon, Broadwell, Skylake, Broadwell-E and now Kaby. Being essentially the same products we were getting, at even higher prices, with extortions like locked multipliers, virtualization options etc.

I don't know what kind of studies/hobbies you have done, but in business/marketing customer good will is essential in volatile markets with high competition. Five years are a blip in a large company's life time and the CPU market is the essence of volatility and high competition. Forgetting that you have to treat your clients like they have a brain and at least pretend to give out something, would buy Intel time for a response at least.

Not to be liked is bad business.

 

2500k launch price $216
6600k launch price $243

6 years later, if you look at inflation, that's pretty much non existant price hike.

 

AMD has the tendency to over hype their products so I wouldnt pay too much attention to the PR. lets wait till the benchmarks take place. The title is a bit dramatic.

 

The one is a 32nm CPU and the other a 14nm CPU. The 6600k could have had a $160 launch price and still have greater profit margins, inflation included. Even in the car market six years are a century.

They could have made it a 4/8 CPU and the 6700k a 6/12 one, and still get 2x the CPUs per wafer and have a much higher profit margin than 2011 with 32nm Sandy. I won't even speak about P67, Z68, Z77, Z87, Z97, X79, X99, Z170, Z270. All of them amazing and necessary upgrades in a six year span.

I'll say it again. I understand milking. But they don't even pretend any more, especially from Haswell and on. And it is bad for their brand.

 

im a little late to the party here, but let me chime in: lets just think about where the market would be if AMD had money to burn on ridiculous R&D at even a fraction of the rate that intels basically unlimited resources allow. they operate on a shoestring budget & their engineers are about to release a product that, by all interpretations but the subjectively biased ones, looks pretty damn impressive.

im not expecting them to trounce intel here, nor am i hyping zen...but i think we can all agree that intel has been sitting on their thumb for years now, & im glad that AMD finally has a potent response to that complacency...especially after the bulldozer debacle & selling off their fabs.

also, i might be hoping for too much here, but maybe if all goes well for team red, it could convince intel to stop switching sockets so frivolously! but thats neither here nor there.

 

Does no one remember the pricing when AMD had the crown? I sure do. They bent us over a barrel as bad or worse than Intel does now. Granted, that was almost 10 years ago.

I get that it's nice that they're finally competing again at the top (10 years!!), but they aren't going to sell these cheap. If they beat Intel, they WILL cost a lot more than the current AMD offerings and possibly more than comparable Intel CPUs.

Need real benches and prices.

 

Competition is essential. It would be great if there were more viable players who could enter. Intel will most likely lose Apple too, in the next couple of years. That will move them off their thumb.

I remember the Thunderbird/XP/x64/x2 transition. I went from an XP to a socket 939 x2 and the difference was crazy. The Pentium D was both slower and more expensive. It's been a long time, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

My question is why AMD pinning zen against the old Broadwell, as Intel has moved onto kaby lake with a 10-15% bump?

 

Can't compare 8 cores to 4 cores.