AMD Might Launch At Least nine High-end Ryzen 9 Processors

R5 vs i5
R7 vs i7
R9 vs i9

Who saw this coming?

 

Those model numbers though....

If the 16 core is able to do the same frequency as the 1600 though, that'd be impressive, in my opinion.

And did i read that right? AMDs HEDT sockets will have 4094 pins? Sheesh.

 

this is pussy sweet . I want and like competition!!!

 

Cool that they all support 44 PCIe lanes, makes for excellent motherboard features available, and lots of PCIe lanes for NVME SSDs to build an extremely powerful thing when it comes to database working.

On another note, AVX 512, that's the new thing Intel pushes? Does AVX2 actually work, wasn't there an issue on Intel with it?

 

All processors with 44 pcie lanes. Nice AMD.

 

Who's ready to party like it's 1998?

Interested to see 1080 gaming performance with quad DDR4.

 

Damm whats the price going to be on these?

 

What a year

I'm so glad I decided to wait for these i9/r9's before doing a new build. Its looking like 2017 may be one of the best years to build a high end PC in what a decade?

Begun, the core war has.

 

It's a good strategy imho.

Intel has a clear marketing advantage over AMD, the average joe is relatively familiar with i3/5/7,
while they probably haven't got a clue about AMD names (FX4/6/8xxx).... so AMD is piggybacking on Intel's popularity.

 

AMD seems to be in a worry to release their high end parts but i think it would be better, and wiser, to release the lower end parts first because i can´t see those expensive parts selling very well. But his is just my opinion.

 

What is up with those KBX CPU? Just kick those to the curb. If anyone needs more PCIE lanes, they will need more cpu power already.

I am unsure if a QC fiile/nas server can handle that much load if it really needed all those PCIE lanes. Unless someone needs it for workstation purposes but they would probably want more cpu cores anyways for graphics, engineering, music or medical work.

Those AMD processor specs looks fantastic against the Intel ones.

Even if these are fake, I would be sweating my balls off if I worked at Intels HEDT division right now!

 

Lol! Its going to take alot more then then to scare Intel dude iam sorry.But that was funny.:banana:

 

There was a time when AMD ruled the mass market with the K2 and X64 cpus. Those killed off the mighty (cue Nelson Munce voice "haha") Pentium 4, and made mince meat of the good old Pentium and Pentium Pros until Intel Israel team released Pentium-M (Banias and Dothan) which lead to the 1st CORE series of processors (basically supercharged Pentium 3s with x64).

If I was a product manager at Intel, I would be scared to lose even 10% of my market share to AMD.

 

AMD 16 cores at 3.9Ghz? If only i had money :eyebrows:

I guess the Ryzen 7 will drop in price in a few months too.

How much do you guys think the 10/12 cores will cost?

 

I can't see my 6700K holding up too long with all these sweet CPU's coming out... I want one!!!!

 

AMD = Absolutely Mad Devices

 

I disagree. Keep in mind, none of these parts are for at-home consumers. These are meant for high-end workstations and servers - this is where the real cash flow comes in. This is what determines if AMD stays afloat as a company. To put it into perspective, Intel could stop making desktop and laptop CPUs entirely and they'd still return several billion dollars in net revenue. Even Nvidia at this point likely makes more money from servers and industrial than they do from their GeForce series.

The way I see it, Ryzen is nothing more than a proof-of-concept. I bet Ryzen will be the least profitable Zen-based chips AMD will make. Their APUs will also be less profitable than the server models. Keep in mind AMD has a lot of reputation to build to make significant sales in the home PC market, but they don't have to try very hard to convince well-informed IT specialists to buy thousands of their more expensive Opterons.

It seems to me, AMD is making hardware from least to most complex. The AM4 Ryzen lineup seems to be the simplest processors they're making, when you consider they're dual-channel, no IGP, relatively few PCIe lanes, and they're distinctly limited up to 8 physical cores.

 

Those FX names had more sense than any i3/5/7 CPUs or ryzen and average joe could easily recognize number of cores by looking in names.
Average customer needs to google for differences between i3 and i5 for example.
Average customer needs to google for differences between R9 10 core and 16 core
Average customer needs to google for differences between R5 1500X and 1600X.

For people who can make this kind of things, I dont know how they cant make naming scheme that will inlcude important things in it, instead of some random numbers. Well, at least they are not using same name for a different product like nV...

Now imagine if you give a list with CPUs to average customer with names which includes spec of CPU (and tell him which number in name means what) and other list with this kind of naming. I think he would ditch the list with this kind of naming.

 

The problem is there's not really a way to do this without it getting confusing or cumbersome. For Intel, the name mostly has to do with features the CPU comes with (such as instruction sets) rather than performance levels. This is why they never made an i9 after so many years. For AMD, the number has always correlated to the performance level. But considering modern CPUs can range from 2 to 20+ cores, that gets difficult to represent in a 3 or 4 digit number. 5 digits becomes excessive.

For Intel, it's especially difficult because of how different their products are. Here's a list of some ways Intel products differ from each other (server or otherwise):
* Product generation
* IGP
* Overclockable
* Turbo-able
* Number of cores
* Hyper-threading
* Number of memory channels
* Number of PCIe lanes
* Level of virtualization support
* Available instruction sets
* Cache sizes
These all affect the product name. Some of these are represented in the "base name" (like E3, i5, i7, Celeron, and so on). Some of these can be represented using a suffix letter (like K or X). The rest has to be summarized in the product number, so that number bears a LOT of weight.

Unfortunately, it all becomes so convoluted that the name becomes effectively meaningless. You pretty much have to look up products based on a checklist rather than just look at the product name and think "this ought to work".

AMD has it much easier, since all of their products of a certain category are the same but have more or less of cores, cache, and speed. But even they don't have a way to represent everything in such a simple way, especially when it comes to APUs.