AMD did only provide "40%" half a year ago. If you'd read the article or the quotes taken from it, you'd have seen, that David added 40% to the XV score and then assumed Zen specific compiler optimizations adding 10% on top.
AMD did only provide "40%" half a year ago. If you'd read the article or the quotes taken from it, you'd have seen, that David added 40% to the XV score and then assumed Zen specific compiler optimizations adding 10% on top.Sorry folks, but it is calculated on:
1) Assuming Excavator is 15% faster than Steamroller
2) Assuming Zen is actually 54% faster than Excavator (144/93.6~1.54).
So, if anything it is actually using later figure that AMD have provided.
According to this http://www.linleygroup.com/mpr/article.php?id=11666 analyst. Ryzen is on par with Ivy bridge and even lags behind haswell
Damn. Now if ST perf sticks then thats going to town and back.. Head on with Intel it is then.. they must have good yields and plenty of stock.. market penetration time..Ok here it comes!
Ok here it comes!
Ampuliivipul... So it looks like that crazy rumour about zillion Zen versions was right?Ok here it comes!
Background: I am formerly a purchaser for a computer retailer.
This site is hooked directly into the database for one of the largest "channel" suppliers in the world - Ingram Micro.
Channel suppliers like IM are the means for most vendors to get their products to retailers and system builders. I'm saying places like cyberpowerpc, and even retailers (to an extent Newegg), buy their parts from places like IM.
These are 100% legit SKUs, however pricing is not quite realistic. These are flat percentage markups of Ingram Micro's selling price.
Probably add $100 to the 1800x. Still good price.https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/commen...pus_for_preorder_prices_may_be_legit/ddia2b8/
I'll take the good news with the bad.
Probably add $100 to the 1800x. Still good price.
So the crappy sku names were legit lol
They kind of remind me of the Athlon XP names... Remember those? I think AMD is using such low numbers because it plans on using this system for the entire four year tock tock tock, so they should be going up from there over time... Makes sense right?
I want the Ryzen R7 3200 already, reminds me of the Barton core
I had to double check the date. lolWe're now reduced to looking at articles from last August?
If those are base clocks this is going to be a bloodbath. Pricing alone so far is setting up the market for a bloodbath. Those ridiculous prices Intel charges for their HEDT CPUs and mainstream i7s are going to come crashing down fast. AMD is giving more cores to a LONG stagnated 4c8t market, and more than decent performance to go with it.
At the new horizon demo and at least at those two real world workloads (Blender and Handbrake), 3.4GHz fixed 8c16t Ryzen was equal or a tiny bit faster than a stock 6900k (3.2/3.7GHz). We know there's a 3.6GHz base, 3.9GHz turbo sample out there. Remember canardpc's early results using a 3.15/3.4GHz A0 early sample? Moving base clocks to at least 3.6GHz already closes most of the gaps here relative to the 6900k. 4GHz base in the halo part is certainly faster across the board than a 3.2/3.7GHz 6900k if not close to the 10 core 6950k. 6900k performance for half the price or less. Now I understand why key executives are leaving Intel, along with that hilarious note avoiding the elephant in the room. They've seemingly been caught with their pants down.
7700k is another thing, although it provides half the cores it's clocked absurdly high and can do 5GHz when delidded. 4c or 6c Ryzen probably won't touch this.. Yet AMD is selling you a 8c16t 3.7??GHz CPU for say, $400 while $350 buys you a 4.5-5GHz 4c8t CPU. Some may have no use for the extra cores, some may... yet games are increasingly multithreaded and there are cases where 6c or 8c HSW-E or BDW-E are ahead of 6700k/7700k. This is not 2008-2010... games are catching up with the amount of cores available today and getting good use out of them. Not to mention the ocassional video encode or whatever... more strong cores at this stage is always welcome.
Come on, someone leak some key benchmarks so this is all finally over... BTW, finally there's some hint of competition! It's been a long 10 years... Phenom II was good... this is shaping up to be better.
First glimpse: 4.2 GHz for 299$ part? Ok. Lets move to another "strange" evidence.
All are 8C/16T CPU, but... 4.0 GHz? 3.8? 3.7? Something is not right...
And lastly, another source with the SAME clock speeds advertised.
https://www.lambda-tek.com/AMD-YD180XBCAEWOF~sh/B6920444 477 Punds including VAT, for 8C/16T 4.0 GHz WOF part.
https://www.lambda-tek.com/AMD-YD170XBCAEWOF~sh/B6920445 371 pounds including VAT, for 8C/16T 3.8 GHz WOF part.
https://www.lambda-tek.com/AMD-YD1700BBAEBOX~sh/B6920446 310 pounds including VAT, for 8C/16T 3.7 GHz part, with Wraith cooler, and 65W TDP.
Edit found another one with similar scheme:
Are we right now being trolled, by different sources, or are these clocks actually base clocks?
And the prices are very consistent regardless of the shops.
Most likely, yes.So it looks like the X models don't come with HSF? is this confirmation X = XFR models
Are we right now being trolled, by different sources, or are these clocks actually base clocks?
Going to be TDP throttled at near base clock probably. And no, i think 3.7/3.8/4 are boost clocks.65W for 8 cores running @3.7 GHz seems a little too optimistic, no?