New 12-core AMD Ryzen processor leaked

Swa said:
From the Intel fan boy.


People forget that you don't only buy a CPU but a complete system as well. Intel hasn't fared well in that regard and at one time even released a new board for every new processor such that at any time they have 10 supported platforms. Platform confusion doesn't help very much when it comes to consumer prices. Even in Bulldozer days people made the claim but couldn't exactly come up with an Intel system that would beat an AMD system for the same price.
Click to expand...

BS, AMD's FX-series was not quite on the cheap side. The FX-6300, however, was a good priced CPU. It doesn't change that Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge ran circles around and outlived the FX-series. Intel gave the consumer many more days than AMD could give their buyer's money worth.

i5 systems on average was a better option and on occasion better priced than the 'equivalent' priced AMD system. The AMD CPUs struggled to keep up with top end GPUs bottlenecking the systems.

Then came Haswell, AMD then was way behind Intel. The i5-4460 crushed AMD on the top end. Then came Broadwell and Skylake which introduced low-priced i3s more competitive than AMD's equivalent. Followed by more optimised Skylake variants, Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake and then AMD drew the line with Zen.
 
[QUOTE="..and then AMD drew the line with Zen.[/QUOTE]

Lets hope the future is brighter than the past, with AMD constantly giving Intel pause for thought regarding their pricing and changing of form factor / socket.
Intel have taken the piss for a bit now. Fast or not, they give little to no thought to their consumers when they rule the roost.
 
Fulcrum29 said:
BS, AMD's FX-series was not quite on the cheap side. The FX-6300, however, was a good priced CPU. It doesn't change that Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge ran circles around and outlived the FX-series. Intel gave the consumer many more days than AMD could give their buyer's money worth.

i5 systems on average was a better option and on occasion better priced than the 'equivalent' priced AMD system. The AMD CPUs struggled to keep up with top end GPUs bottlenecking the systems.

Then came Haswell, AMD then was way behind Intel. The i5-4460 crushed AMD on the top end. Then came Broadwell and Skylake which introduced low-priced i3s more competitive than AMD's equivalent. Followed by more optimised Skylake variants, Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake and then AMD drew the line with Zen.
Click to expand...
Yet nobody could ever show that. Whenever people made the claim they always had to make adjustments for the Intel system to come out on top. There was only two instances (Bulldozer was one, can't remember the other) where AMD's processors didn't deliver the performance expected and in both cases they were still only on par with Intel in the mid market segment.

Top end is a non concern as AMD has never competed in that segment and only now has the threadripper lineup.
 
KulRath said:
Lets hope the future is brighter than the past, with AMD constantly giving Intel pause for thought regarding their pricing and changing of form factor / socket.
Intel have taken the piss for a bit now. Fast or not, they give little to no thought to their consumers when they rule the roost.
Click to expand...
Intel was ahead for a few years but people forget how it took Intel years to compete with AMD after their flawed and cumbersome IA-64.
 
Genisys said:
Its called brand loyalty, I'm not jumping ship because a few AMD fan boys are making the argument that AMD has a better product.
Click to expand...

So who's the fanboy?

Every single pc I built in my life post Amiga had a amd cpu purely based on cost vs performance, last one was athlon 64 which killed intel. after that i went intel Q6600 and the next build was 4th gen intel haswell i5.

The current range of ryzen processors are exceptional value for money, intel simply cannot compete. If you want a processor with the highest ipc, clock speeds go intel but the performance is not directly proportional to price at all. You can get a r5 2600 for way cheaper than an i5 8400, overclock it which you cant do with the i5 and get very similar gaming performance. When it comes to productivity apps ryzen usually takes the cake.

People usually look at max fps achieved in games but that is no actual indication of actual gameplay, what you should be looking at is the minimum fps values as the spike between low and high has a way bigger impact on the feel of a game. Ryzen with more cores work really well in this area and if you look at fps graphs it's way smoother.
 
Swa said:
Intel was ahead for a few years but people forget how it took Intel years to compete with AMD after their flawed and cumbersome IA-64.
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct, however I still maintain that Intel have been ruthless on the consumer regarding form factor/socket, and I'm not convinced it was necessary. It all smells of taking the consumer for as much they can while the going is good. American companies are good at that. Apple is a decent example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swa
Swa said:
Yet nobody could ever show that. Whenever people made the claim they always had to make adjustments for the Intel system to come out on top. There was only two instances (Bulldozer was one, can't remember the other) where AMD's processors didn't deliver the performance expected and in both cases they were still only on par with Intel in the mid market segment.

Top end is a non concern as AMD has never competed in that segment and only now has the threadripper lineup.
Click to expand...

The FX-8xxx was as top-end as it could be. Bulldozer Core FX-8xxx was ~$200 up to ~$300. Piledriver Core FX-8xxx was ~$150 up to ~$900

Here is a list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_FX_microprocessors#Piledriver_Core_(Vishera,_32_nm)

which mostly was marketed as i7 competitors at a lower price. Except that it was going up against i5s at the same price or lower price point.

Sandy Bridge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge

Ivy Bridge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Bridge_(microarchitecture)

Haswell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haswell_(microarchitecture)

The good thing then about Intel was that when people upgraded to a new generation, people usually skipped 1 or 2 generations, they would dump their CPUs on the 2nd hand market at a bargain. Those knowledgeable enough could seek to purchase brand-new OEM CPUs at a ‘reduced’ price.

I honestly don’t know what people had to change in their Intel system to come out on top. Bulldozer wasn’t up there. I mean, an old i5-2500K cut down the FX-8350 to its knees.

Athlon and Duron were Intel slayers. Sempron had it, but then Intel dropped their Core 2 in 2006 and those E7xxx and E8xxx which came in 2007 gave AMD an uphill battle. Not to mention the Core 2 Quad.
 
Fulcrum29 said:
The FX-8xxx was as top-end as it could be. Bulldozer Core FX-8xxx was ~$200 up to ~$300. Piledriver Core FX-8xxx was ~$150 up to ~$900

Here is a list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_FX_microprocessors#Piledriver_Core_(Vishera,_32_nm)

which mostly was marketed as i7 competitors at a lower price. Except that it was going up against i5s at the same price or lower price point.

Sandy Bridge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge

Ivy Bridge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Bridge_(microarchitecture)

Haswell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haswell_(microarchitecture)

The good thing then about Intel was that when people upgraded to a new generation, people usually skipped 1 or 2 generations, they would dump their CPUs on the 2nd hand market at a bargain. Those knowledgeable enough could seek to purchase brand-new OEM CPUs at a ‘reduced’ price.

I honestly don’t know what people had to change in their Intel system to come out on top. Bulldozer wasn’t up there. I mean, an old i5-2500K cut down the FX-8350 to its knees.

Athlon and Duron were Intel slayers. Sempron had it, but then Intel dropped their Core 2 in 2006 and those E7xxx and E8xxx which came in 2007 gave AMD an uphill battle. Not to mention the Core 2 Quad.
Click to expand...
I skipped from Athlon 64 (original) to Ryzen. If I upgraded midway I might have gotten slightly better from Intel only during the Bulldozer years. If I were upgrading every year or two I would not since Intel isn't very friendly towards consumers on the socket front. I could actually take the cash I would save on a new platform and spend that on the processor to come out with something that would beat any Intel counterpart. That is really where the true AMD saving comes in. Other than that Intel systems have only ever managed to match AMD during their worst years. Like many you make the comparison on CPUs only.

Proves my point that with Intel people actually has to skip generations to make it cost effective where with AMD you can go like 2 or 3 or even 4 generations on the same platform.

Fulcrum29 said:
I honestly don’t know what people had to change in their Intel system to come out on top.
Click to expand...
Like lower specced HDD/SSD or cheaper motherboard with less accessories/ports. Where it would be argued that it didn't make a difference to performance. AMD systems no such cheating was necessary and when like for like was used the AMD system was cheaper.
 
ponder said:
The fx series was a load of kuk. In those days a lowly i3 2c/4t could trump an fx 8k cpu in quite a few games, an i5 4c/4t generally stomped on it.
Click to expand...

The local distributors generally stopped stocking Bulldozer, it was later outdated in comparison to Intel ‘current’ architecture. It was sad to see that when Ryzen hit the market that you could still buy FX Black Editions at close to double Ryzen’s price.

All that I was trying to convey was that Intel dominated between 2007 and 2017. I still don’t know what Swa is trying to convey with Intel vs AMD systems, but I’m not going into that argument anymore.

My next system will be Ryzen. This is my new system year, looking at my options when Navi hits the market (and reviewers) and the latest Ryzen’s should also then be around.
 
Genisys said:
Its called brand loyalty, I'm not jumping ship because a few AMD fan boys are making the argument that AMD has a better product.
Click to expand...

Brand loyalty is short-sighted. Brand loyalists don't even have the excuse of being paid \ extorted to use Intel like OEM's do \ did - all brand loyalists end up achieving is creating market conditions that let the winning brand abuse its position. Hence ever-higher prices for marginal performance improvements (Sandy Bridge to now) and built-in obsolescence (there is no technical reason a Coffee Lake CPU can't work in a Skylake motherboard apart from Intel wanting to get their chunk of OEM income from forcing people to buy new motherboards).

I expect the same thing would have happened if AMD were in Intel's shoes...monopolies (or near monopolies) are never kind to the consumer.
 
Genisys said:
Its called brand loyalty, I'm not jumping ship because a few AMD fan boys are making the argument that AMD has a better product.
Click to expand...

What has Intel done for you to earn this loyalty? I rather be loyal to myself. Whoever can offer me the best performance is the one I will go with.
 
Neoprod said:
Brand loyalty is short-sighted. Brand loyalists don't even have the excuse of being paid \ extorted to use Intel like OEM's do \ did - all brand loyalists end up achieving is creating market conditions that let the winning brand abuse its position. Hence ever-higher prices for marginal performance improvements (Sandy Bridge to now) and built-in obsolescence (there is no technical reason a Coffee Lake CPU can't work in a Skylake motherboard apart from Intel wanting to get their chunk of OEM income from forcing people to buy new motherboards).

I expect the same thing would have happened if AMD were in Intel's shoes...monopolies (or near monopolies) are never kind to the consumer.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget that Intel was found guilty of monopolistic behaviour a few years back and had to pay AMD for bribing and strongarming retailers into pushing their processors and incorrectly saying that AMD CPUs were terrible. At one stage it was hard in my country to even find a AMD CPU and it wasnt due to shortages
 
Crowley said:
So no real reason then? I thought they had some advantage over AMD that I didn't know about.

If you want the fastest processor you get a Intel 9900K CPU because at the moment that is the fastest processor. Anything below that you go for the best price vs performance. Brand loyalty when both products do exactly the same thing is stupid.
Click to expand...

https://www.theverge.com/2014/6/12/...billion-fine-upheld-anticompetitive-practices

Because AMD made less money from Intels interference they were not able to compete.
 
If I was a new buyer, I'd definitely go Ryzen now. I have a 8700 that I got for R4400 on Evetech March last year, which was a damn steal compared to prices now. But if I had no PC or had to upgrade it'd be Ryzen all day ereday.

Intel still massively has market dominance via laptops tho.
 
Fulcrum29 said:
As much as I like AMD, AMD is rather recently way overhyped. Yes, Ryzen (ZEN) is special and everyone in the tech industry agrees with that, it is only in certain applications where people will choose between the CPUs in regard to single thread vs multi-threaded computing.

However, to state that AMD has always on average delivered beaten Intel is plainly wrong.

AMD had it tight in Kryptonite up to Duron days and Sempron had its moments, but to clock you way into beating Intel downright in a straight line you had to shop around. Bulldozer didn’t quite get up there as many believe it did, going head to head, and only then the Zen Core Architecture came around.

We know that Intel isn’t chasing AMD down until 2020/21. From a B2B perspective, Intel pretty much has a grasp on volumes so they are willing to kick it out until they have a new architecture in production.

You are welcome to show me where AMD always beat Intel in 2011-2017 and where K10 came out competitively?
Click to expand...

In the early days of the Athlon XP, AMD had a few victories. But they couldn't keep up with Intel's clock speed increases and so were left behind

However, when the Athlon 64 came out, AMD had the performance crown for a number of years, right up until the Core 2 Duo came out. An AMD FX CPU back then was the highest performing monster available for any amount of money.

AMD's K7 700 also convincingly beat Intel Pentiums of the time.

As soon as Core 2 Duo came out though, AMD lost the performance crown and still has not regained it. Zen is at least within spitting distance of Intel though, and reports are that 3rd gen Ryzen will make up the IPC and clock speed deficits while using less power. And possibly having more cores for the same amount of money. In short, the holy grail of CPU performance.
 
stefan9 said:
What has Intel done for you to earn this loyalty? I rather be loyal to myself. Whoever can offer me the best performance is the one I will go with.
Click to expand...
Main reason I buy AMD is to avoid Intel having market dominance again that it can abuse. Those who say they are loyal to Intel are in fact saying they are loyal to corrupt practices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X