|
For those of us who don't need 8 cores, what is the latest on 4c/8t chips? Has there been any word on pricing for the lower end ryzen chips?
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
The main time I find myself lacking frames is when I'm playing a game while watching something on my second monitor. That's a very, common use that benchmarks aren't going to account for and where going to 6 or 8 cores would probably have a real impact on performance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
MrLogan posted:For those of us who don't need 8 cores, what is the latest on 4c/8t chips? Has there been any word on pricing for the lower end ryzen chips? Assuming the $490 leaked prices will be the actual bulk price, and the retail markups don't get crazy, we can expect 4C/8T for $200-$250. That's making a lot of assumptions though. It could be lower; realistically speaking, with an 8C SKU going for ~$300, a $250 4C/8T would leave zero room for the 6C parts. It might be that a mid spec 4C/8T is $150. If it is, that is the end of the reign of the i7. Potentially.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:The main time I find myself lacking frames is when I'm playing a game while watching something on my second monitor. That's a very, common use that benchmarks aren't going to account for and where going to 6 or 8 cores would probably have a real impact on performance. What is it about advancing to the next episode on Netflix that totally kills my frame-rates for about 1 second? I've got 32 gigs of RAM!
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
roadhead posted:What is it about advancing to the next episode on Netflix that totally kills my frame-rates for about 1 second? I've got 32 gigs of RAM! Stopping/starting the hardware accelerated decoding engine for the netflix stream, probably.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
RyuHimora posted:Assuming the $490 leaked prices will be the actual bulk price, and the retail markups don't get crazy, we can expect 4C/8T for $200-$250. That's making a lot of assumptions though. It could be lower; realistically speaking, with an 8C SKU going for ~$300, a $250 4C/8T would leave zero room for the 6C parts. It might be that a mid spec 4C/8T is $150. If it is, that is the end of the reign of the i7. Potentially. The R7 1700 seems to be going for ~400$, so my guess is that 6C/12T will occupy the $259-329 space. That should put the 4C/8T's in the 179-229$ space, and 4C/4T in the 99-149$ space, with Bristol Ridge occupying the under 100$ space. That still thrashes Intels current line up and pricing except for the highest end where absolute performance matters and the very low end whereas Raven Ridge hasn't appeared yet to compete. https://twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/status/829998206142541824 https://twitter.com/bjt2marco/status/830010222861307904 Based on the second guys math in the link, the R7 1800X chips are being binned to hell and back to get to 4.0Ghz on 0.9v while it looks like all other 8Cs will be on 1.05v. It's possible that this is a result of GloFo not getting it's poo poo together and still pumping out what AMD considers faulty product running at 1.1-1.2V and 8C chips that still have full functional cores but won't hit TDP targets because of the higher vcore are being turned into 4C and 6C chips. Knowing AMD, since they'll want to maximize volume, these will all be soft locked. I mean we saw what happened with Polaris - near 30-40W decrease in power consumption going from 1.15v to 1.05v. No brakes, no brakes, no brakes...
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:The R7 1700 seems to be going for ~400$, so my guess is that 6C/12T will occupy the $259-329 space. That should put the 4C/8T's in the 179-229$ space, and 4C/4T in the 99-149$ space, with Bristol Ridge occupying the under 100$ space. That still thrashes Intels current line up and pricing except for the highest end where absolute performance matters and the very low end whereas Raven Ridge hasn't appeared yet to compete. It means that the 1800X will be a tempting part even with the increase in price, due to a) still having insane value vs Intel's lineup and b) extra OC headroom at a lower voltage due to that binning. Wise, they had to give people incentive to not just get the 1700 and clock it up (although that still sounds like the best thing to do). HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Feb 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
roadhead posted:What is it about advancing to the next episode on Netflix that totally kills my frame-rates for about 1 second? I've got 32 gigs of RAM! DRM is my guess
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
I still not sold on 8C/16T at the rumored prices unless the OC headroom for at least 4 cores is really stellar, which I doubt with GF's track record on TDP above 4GHz.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Going to be so weird to go "LOL buying Intel TYOOL 2017". Thread title, please.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Thread title, please. x86-64 Thread - intel's answer to 8 haswell cores is overclocking an i3 to 5ghz
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
This looks really good, the $389 1700X is barely slower than the 6900k. http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-389-8-core-cpu-benchmarks-leaked/
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Ryzen coolers: http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-cpu-coolers-leaked-wraith-95w-65w-versions/ 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:This looks really good, the $389 1700X is barely slower than the 6900k.  If that benchmark really was without the turbo and stuck at 3.4GHz... oh my.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:This looks really good, the $389 1700X is barely slower than the 6900k. If these end up being true... :giz giz giz:
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Keep in mind that benchmark with with a trash board that might not be able to supply the power for Turbo, and using godawful memory speeds and latencies, while the Intel HEDT cores have better memory configs and quadchannel which matter in synthetic tests. We have gone beyond Plaid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
If those benchmarks are really at 3.4 Ghz Base without turbo then AMD turned the desktop CPU market upside down and it would be pretty hard to recommend Intel CPUs for gaming in 2017. That being said I don't think there's the slightest chance that these benchmarks were really without any turbo. The "n/a" is probably a result of the variable, completely cooling dependant turbo boost. I expect Kaby Lake with a realistic 5 Ghz OC to win out vs a OCed 1800 X in todays gaming loads but the 4 additional cores could cause Intel serious headache in the next 1-2 years. edit: wccftech 
eames fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Feb 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
I still think watching Intel is a better "benchmark" of how good or not that Zen is going to be. I've said this before: Given how incestuous the semiconductor industry can be, it would be foolish to believe that Intel *doesn't* have Zen silicon and prototype boards in one of their labs, and that THAT is what's gotten them in a tizzy. TL;DR: Salt heavily, watch the reactions from the people that matter.' edit:  I'm not convinced that this will actually earn AMD anything, but at least they look reasonably good. SwissArmyDruid fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Feb 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm shoveling salt into my mouth over here, but it still makes me excited to see real big kid benchmarks with well-defined test parameters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Wonder if we're going to see any AMD branded AIO liquid coolers to go with those...
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
I'd prefer that they not. I think the time for that is long past already. It was my belief that they should have partnered with like, EKWB, or Alphacool to bolt expandable AIOs onto the Fury X instead of the one that got them into legal trouble. Sadly, these heatsinks appear to have caught the same goddamn disease as everything else in the market: RGBitis.  Musical accompaniment to the above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6QZn9xiuOE
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:I'd prefer that they not. I think the time for that is long past already. It was my belief that they should have partnered with like, EKWB, or Alphacool to bolt expandable AIOs onto the Fury X instead of the one that got them into legal trouble. To be fair, they could have modified the heatsink to feature LEDs specifically for that photo op.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:I still think watching Intel is a better "benchmark" of how good or not that Zen is going to be. this sort of thing is way more indicative of how zen is doing than any synthetic benchmark until it's actually released
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:yeah the fact that intel is literally pushing a $70 platform cpu on a $200 platform and not doing anything with the leftover pins at all is one of the funniest things Are they putting the 7640K or whatever the gently caress it's called on LGA 2011-v3? If so, loving lol.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Kazinsal posted:Are they putting the 7640K or whatever the gently caress it's called on LGA 2011-v3? If so, loving lol. LGA 2066, actually
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
....that's desperation, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Desperation implies any logical basis existing behind the decision
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Ah, so panic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
The best part is even if AMD comes in a little behind, they still have the socket advantage. While they're unifying on AM4 for around 4 years at least, Intel will be moving to LGA115X and LGA2066 while also servicing LGA1151 and LGA2011-V3. That's some platform fragmentation that won't make customers happy, and can you imagine the hard sell on trying to get people to move to Cannon/Icelake when/if/godIhope AMD pushes AM4 platform unity and they're within margin of error for performance? Even if AMD is slower, I won't be buying Intel because of that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
don't forget LGA 3647!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
I think Intel is spending approximately 1% of their time worrying about desktop sockets and approximately 90% of their time worrying about how AMD is about to loving merk them in data centers across the globe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:This looks really good, the $389 1700X is barely slower than the 6900k.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Rastor posted:Ryzen coolers: Are those 4-corner pushpins I see? lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:I think Intel is spending approximately 1% of their time worrying about desktop sockets and approximately 90% of their time worrying about how AMD is about to loving merk them in data centers across the globe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:I think Intel is spending approximately 1% of their time worrying about desktop sockets and approximately 90% of their time worrying about how AMD is about to loving merk them in data centers across the globe. I think you're smoking crack if you expect mass datacenter platform turnover overnight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
Well, I expect mass datacenter platform turnover within a month of release or so, sure. AMD's _already_ lined up the Chinese clients to do so, now it's a matter of selling beyond the ones they've already got queued to keep the gravy train rolling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
AMD won't be getting into data centers with any significance for at least a couple of years. Brand new architectures and platforms need time to drivers sorted before trusting production level workloads. I have a raging AMD fan boy boner right now too, but typical hardware cycles are 3-5 years, and there will be a lot of hesitance on this new platform until real world data is available.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
The future is red 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
herp
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
God, I hope we see datacenter stuff go red. We use nothing but Cisco UCS at work and I want to unbox a whole bunch of 32C/64T dual socket UCS blades while yelling BAH GAWD THAT'S JIM KELLER'S MUSIC
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 07:46
|
|