You keep saying that when AMD directly compared the 8c/16t to a 6900k.
Because it is not 6900K competitor, but its Socket 1151 competitor.
Because it is not 6900K competitor, but its Socket 1151 competitor.
You keep saying that when AMD directly compared the 8c/16t to a 6900k.
Naa thats cheating . Its like one week back or so. What matters is 6 month plus.I think I have to quote myself
You keep saying that when AMD directly compared the 8c/16t to a 6900k.
Why couldn't Sr7 be desktop and some other variant be HEDT?Its both, 8C ZEN will compete against HEDT Intel SKUs (i believe up to $1K), 4C and 6C ZEN SKUs will compete in mainstream against Socket 1151
14nm LPP has 20% better transconductance than Intel s 14nm, so at equal input capacitance this mechanicaly get you 17% lower gate delay (at same VDD), or FO4 if you prefer.
Dunno for said input capacitance but there s no reason that it would be higher for GF s 14nm.
Despite the product isn't launched yet and the performance still isn't officially confirmed, yet I have to say that I'm simply stunned. Not only by Ryzen, but the sudden change AMD has gone through. In reality of course the change hasn't happened over night however it still feels like AMD has suddenly been waken from a bad spell, which has lasted for almost seven years. Most of you are familiar with the things I've very openly criticized during the past couple years, in regards of the products themselves and the marketing / general policies AMD has practiced and executed. I'm fully aware that many of the things I said were harsh, but that was mostly intentional and I don't regret any of it as I never had to lie about any of it. In those cases where the harsh comments weren't intentional, they became more harsh than intended out of plain frustration.
If a year ago I would have been asked to bet my life either on AMD or against AMD, I wouldn't have had any other choice but to bet against them.
- Hitting competitive frequencies on a design manufactured on a low power manufacturing process, targeted for handheld devices - (allegedly)
- Meeting, let alone exceeding the advertized marketing figures (in this case the 40% IPC improvement over XV). Let alone by a figure, which apparently can be nearly 40% higher than originally quoted (up to 55% absolute over XV) - (allegedly)
- Be able to even remotely keep up with the original promises, let alone vastly exceeding them.
For the record, I was wrong about Zen.
For the Fmax part due having a prejudice against low power processes in general and against GlobalFoundries in particular, and for the IPC part because I couldn't even dream that AMD could meet, let alone exceed their advertized IPC figures.
If I wore a hat, I would tip it to AMD right now.
Why couldn't Sr7 be desktop and some other variant be HEDT?
Sr7 against 7700 series and top end RyZen against HEDT chips.
I am sure they are going for the same segments and customers. The sr3 5 7 screams it out loud. Now they will probably go for the premium brand development meaning selling them 50-100 more expensive than equivalent i3 5 7. But they need to adress the meat of the market and there is like sold no 800 usd cpu. You can have black skull gamerz oc 150w edition selling for that but its not what they intend to do. I dont actually know if pricing is that dependant on the last plus minus 5% perf. Its all about segments and intel have made the groundwork here. Pretty smart imo to lean on that brand and core naming as amd have little marketing muscle and zero selling muscle compared to chipzilla.Hmm if it beats 6900K, why would you even think about comparing it to Socket 1151 SKUs? AMD is not a charity, they will price it above i7 s1151 mainstream range for sure. For sure they will undercut every single intel SKUs in similar performance bracket, they want both higher margins and higher market share.
This guy gets it.Im looking at the X300
SO can some of you smart people tell me that if these clocks are true for the 8c/16t chip, then I can likely pick up (let's say ~summerish?) a 6c/12t Ryzen chip with something like 3.8-4ghz base clocks minimum, a little under 90w TDP, for like, $300 bucks or less?
OK, I know that no one knows anything about pricing, but if the 6C are the "mainstream/ low enthusiast" Ryzen chips, I imagine they are going to be towards the top end of mainstream pricing, right? Let's assume they price the highest-base 8c/16t Ryzen chips at $500-600...
My bet would be that they're gonna go after the mainstream i7s with the 6c, maybe undercut them a bit. At least that would make the most sense to me.
Well here my view :
AMD Ryzen 95 TDP with unknown power consumption
Intel 140W power consumption with unknown TDP
No ? I think at 3.6 ghz , both does have same power consumption.
Well here my view :
AMD Ryzen 95 TDP with unknown power consumption
Intel 140W power consumption with unknown TDP
No ? I think at 3.6 ghz , both does have same power consumption.
AMD desperately needs to get market share.
Of course. It's all about balancing those 2. But all we can do here is speculate anyway...They desperately need to maximise profit. That will involve increased market share, but should not be sacrificed for it.
Except that it doesn't suck. Those boards which are fitted with an A320 chipsets are also going to have extremely poor VRMs. I'd be amased if an A320 board is able to support 8c ryzen without throttling because of high VRM temps. Disabling overclocking on the low end boards is going to save someones house from burning down.