AMD's Ryzen is here!


#1

AMD’s hotly anticipated range of CPUs are here!

They promise amazing performance for an affordable price.
Thoughts?

Source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/11143/amd-launch-ryzen-52-more-ipc-eight-cores-for-under-330-preorder-today-on-sale-march-2nd


Eve G Gaming Laptop
#2

Technically still a week to go until we see the “real thing” :wink:


#3

Great news! Now Intel will show us what they really can do :wink: They’ve been in need for a kick in the rear for a long time now, nothing new during the past years, at least in the desktop side. I hope they actually introduce something new now, or make it cheaper :slight_smile:


#4

I planned to build a new PC next year anyways since I’ll finally start to work (let’s just hope that I will find any time to play around with it) and I’m so psyched about how the market will look like then :slight_smile:
I’m actually quite a fan of AMD due to it’s better price/performance rate and Intel’s borderline illegal practices they used to push their quasi-monopoly, but I also wouldn’t mind, if Intel starts a good fight with a (really) new architecture and good prices.
But they’ll probably rather pay manufacturers again to release intel PCs a month earlier than their AMD counterparts or something like that :sweat_smile:


#5

Releasing it earlier won’t help in the long term :slight_smile:
But Intel has been way ahead of AMD for a long time, that just shows how good they are. I have no doubts they will actually come up with something that will crush AMD’s hopes, just like Nvidia did with putting 10 series graphics cards into laptops :wink:


#6

They also paid around 5 billion $ (just quickly looked over wikipedia for that estimate) to settle lawsuits in the last ten years :sweat_smile: so, they’re definitely not just better, because they’re better in inventing chips.
I would personally even go so far to say that full compatibility of multicores is the future (and AMD was way ahead with that imo), but due to the Intel-controlled single-core heavy market they didn’t really stand a chance.


#7

Well, Intel can just put more cores in a chip. That way it will become multicore. So while a single Intel core can do just as good as two AMD cores, that means 4 Intel cores can do as good as 8 AMD cores. Of course this is not based on real numbers, just an imaginary situation. But the point is, since Intel has better single core performance, that means it automatically has better multi core performance, they just need to put as many cores in a CPU.


#8

I’ve used AMD CPUs off and on since they made 486s. While I love the idea of Intel facing some competition, I don’t plan on switching to Ryzen just yet, as the few times I’m CPU-bottlenecked on my desktop, I’m bottlenecking on a single CPU core (Dwarf Fortress, anyone?), and Ryzen’s IPC doesn’t quite beat out Intel’s (yet).


#9

Sadly, I can’t find anything to prove my point, haha. But I’m sure that when I built my current PC ~5 years ago AMD had a better overall performance for their price than Intel, especially when using all cores (but they used hexascores, when Intel still used quadcores). I’m not saying that they have the same performance in their top-level models, of course. But they are in the 1000€ region, which is way too high imo…

Edit: And one more thing: It’s not really the way that you can just put in more cores and consistently increase the speed with each core, but you probably know that :wink:


#10

I’ve also been working with the two platforms since the 486, and actually AMD has been up front with new technologies for a couple of times. I never noticed many differences in the use of one or another manufacturer, the difference was always the lowest price of AMD. But I think now they have everything to deliver new technologies becoming a real option to Intel. Maybe we could have a V option using some kind of AMD APU. Because we would have a great gain in graphic quality


#11

I’ll wait for Linus TechTips to post a video about this new lineup


#12

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3171161/components-processors/amds-ryzen-launches-march-2-outperforming-intels-core-i7-at-a-fraction-of-the-price.html?idg_eid=2e11ecad78f96d83fbe3aa6a725f5020&email_SHA1_lc=24098db3bc0967204be02ea12faecadbcb5d3b9f&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Top Stories %40PCWorld 2017-02-22&utm_term=pcw_tech_html

Don’t suppose we could get a Ryzen V later this year, could we? Ryzen chips (according to AMD anyway) outperform the highest end i7, and cost over $500 less! ($1000 for i7, $500 for Ryzen 7) I don’t totally trust manufacturers benchmarks, but at that price, even slightly lower power would be an INSANE value in cutting down the price of the V, giving yet another reason to prove that it’s absolutely awesome!


#13

Yeah they would need to optimize their threading controller for more cores, and maybe some other stuff… but they have a very strong core. And they can do whatever they want with it. AMD has a way to put many cores in a chip, but doesn’t have a strong core. I think overall performance is the most important here, and while some believe that multi-threaded performance is more important, I believe otherwise because not all software is good at parallelization. So in general, both are important, but with some software it’s only single core performance that matters, and it’s a good bonus to have :slight_smile:


#14

I suppose not, current Ryzen line-up is not targeting mobile markets.

And there are not much reports or rumors about the potential power consumption for Ryzen. An educated guess would be Ryzen’s trading performance for power. Rationale behind this is that Intel is using a superior fabrication process (Intel’s 14nm is arguably better than everyone else’s)


#15

Can’t hear that dude, his voice is obnoxious.


#16

I’m honestly not sure that Ryzen does, because of the rather low TDP we’ve seen at this point - 95W Ryzen 1800X outperforming the 6900K just so slightly while that CPU has a TDP of 140W.
Yes, TDP does not mean power consumption, but if the 6900K could be rated at 95W, why would Intel not do it? :wink:

I’m personally also really looking forward to Ryzen, I’m having a Haswell i5 in my machine and I’d not mind upgrading to a 6 Core CPU with Hyperthreading if the development of many programs utilizing more cores continues. :wink:


#17

Rating it at 95W would lock away some overclocking potential :wink:


#18

Since when do the OC ppl. care about ratings?


#19

Well, AFAIK TDP is actually a limit, not just a rating… You can’t go past it. Like with our Y-series processor, it will throttle when it reaches 4.5W power consumption. In desktop processors, it’s not a problem because you never really reach the TDP they set. Am I wrong? :slight_smile:


#20

You’re right, TDP is the limit of power the CPU can use at max.