Read more.We show you performance and price.
Read more.We show you performance and price.
Any word on motherboard pricing to go along with those CPU prices? I assume they'll be reasonable as so much is integrated in the CPU now. The fact that Intel CPUs are expensive is only part of the equation - socket 2011 boards are also not cheap!
I just watched a LinusTechTips video about the launch. XFR seems a bit anaemic to me - it just boosts the core frequency an extra 100Mhz providing you have sufficient cooling...
My Trust Profile: http://hexus.net/trust/users/96589/
It's disappointing that the 4/6 core chips aren't available at launch. They will probably offer much better value for gaming performance.
I'm kind of hoping there will be a nice 8 dimm amd ryzen board (3D design so lots of memory is good ) because that price difference between the intel and amd based on those stats is enough to double the memory of a 4 dimm board AND get another gpu to boost gpu rendering... hell depending on board prices I can likely build another rig to make rendering even faster via distributed rendering etc.
If there isn't an 8 dimm board then to be honest there will still be a lot of people going intel in the 'professional' field due to ram constraints. I'd like to think intel will now lower the prices of their 'top tier' cpu's at the very least.
The Cinebench numbers listed for the Intel CPUs are a little lower than I have seen elsewhere, Anandtech for example list a score of 1547 for the 6900K. Despite that a very encouraging numbers for AMD, just a shame it is only a single benchmark they have released... I really hope they didn't cherry pick something unrepresentative, that would be an awful marketing gaff if it comes to light.
Can't wait to read the proper reviews and see if those performance claims hold up, also can't wait to see the pricing and power characteristics for the whole platform, looks like it could be solidly cheaper than an Intel equivalent using i7-6900K and around the same as an i7-7700K build. Hopefully AMD haven't screwed Ryzen with a power hungry chipset, terrible idle power consumption or some other hidden handicap...
Fingers crossed for competitive choices in the market at last!
Apparently, there will be 82 boards available at launch, so hopefully ITX will be part of that.
I'm mATX so I have already seen a few options
Gonna have to get a load of popcorn in today because the whole interweb is going to kick off. Pity there is no real info on the boards available, from what I can pick up from rumours, the MSI X370 XPower Gaming Titanium seems to be the kiddie due to the power delivery system with Std ATX, EPS 8+4 and an auxiliary 6 pin for PCIe. It also has dual M.2 + U.2 support. Normally I am a Asus fan but this board has me thinking.
Another dependency will be who EK Waterblocks designs blocks for.
I am excited about Ryzen except for the fact of, no support for Windows 7. I'm one of those people who are not ready to use Windows 10 full-time. I have a dual booting right now and I'm slowly getting used to it. But I'm not really happy with.
If the legally promised full support till 2020 they should provide that especially to full retail purchasers. OEM users are on their own
I saw this mentioned on another forum:
Also as you know Ryzen is an SOC,so the chipset only really functions as a port multiplier of sorts.According to the slides, the i7-6900K scores 162/1474 single/multi threaded in CB r15. Per Anandtech, it does 153/1547.
I think the score discrepancies are due to a combination of two factors:
1) the Anandtech review explicitly tests with Turbo Boost Max 3.0 off, and
2) the cooler used in the review is a closed loop water cooler
With TBM3 off, the max single core clock is 3.7 GHz. If it were enabled, the chip could boost to 4 GHz (which would push the score to 165 if 153 were obtained at 3.7 GHz). And in past tests, AMD has claimed they are testing the Intel chip with "stock cooler." If you've ever seen Intel's 140W rated cooler you will instantly see that it is not up to the task. So when fully loaded, the chip is likely throttling back from its usual all-core turbo.
So I think the numbers are plausible, and it is based on enabling TBM3 and using Intel's terrible reference cooler with the 6900K.
Go!Go! Gadget Underpants!
If Ryzen cores was capable of more than 4.1-4.2GHz without major increases in heat and/or voltage then surely they would release 4.2GHz quads to fight the i5 7600K. Instead, the quads cap at 3.9GHz standard boost (according to the so far very accurate leaked list) and only the most expensive cherypicked octocore is offered at 4GHz standard boost. I'd actually say this is the biggest problem with the lineup; there really needs to be a 4GHz hexcore to fight the 7600K and 7700K near their price point but the hexcores are presumably low frequency to scavenge as many defective octocores as possible.
Lower frequencies are probably the cost of having such a compact core (and not using Intel's better fab process). I still think this gives good enough single threaded performance to justify the extra cores and/or lower cost they can offer.
Last edited by CAPTAIN_ALLCAPS; 22-02-2017 at 05:14 PM. Reason: Added comment
fantastic. we finally have a reason for intel to get up off their fat arse and try and do something. Hope we see lots and lots of people buying these CPUs, they look great.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)