Read more.Quote:
This HEDT processor will launch with X399 motherboards this summer say sources.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
This HEDT processor will launch with X399 motherboards this summer say sources.
Wouldn't Intel have a word to say about AMD calling a chipset X399?
You can't patent numbers :) Also the mainstream is X370, instead of X270... so what? It's one better :DQuote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
They haven't said anything about the B350 chipset.... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
I know that US trademarking considers numbers insufficiently distinctive to be protectable; perhaps the same applies even if you add a letter to the front.
Trademarking I guess rather than patent. There's a slight difference still - X370 vs Z270. X299 is the next HEDT chipset from Intel, but presumably they had plans for a X399 next - perhaps skipping to X499.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrisWragg
You can't patent numbers but, you can register a number as a trademark. Car manufacturers have been doing it for a long time, eg Peugeot.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrisWraggYou can't patent numbers :) Also the mainstream is X370, instead of X270... so what? It's one better :DQuote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
I get tired of AMD aping Intel's product codes. It does make it feel like AMD is still a follower when they do that, and Ryzen is better than that.
You certainly couldn't in America in the mid-90s, which is how the Pentium brand was born (Intel were refused a trademark on "586"). It may be possible to register the combination of a brand name and a number (e.g. "Peugeot 3008") as a distinct trademark, but that wouldn't stop e.g. Ford making a "Ford 3008".*Quote:
Originally Posted by Friesiansam
I can't imagine that there's been a shift in position since the mid-90s that would suddenly allow the trademarking of a sequence of numbers; the question here is whether a combination of letter and numbers is sufficiently distinctive to be trademarkable, and whether Intel had the foresight to register such a trademark if it was even possible.
The fact that they haven't taken action over the AMD B350 chipset (which would be the obvious progression from the existing B250 chipset for Kaby Lake) suggests to me that, even if they wanted to, there's nothing Intel can do about it....
* EDIT: intriguingly is you search Google for "Peugeot 3008", Peugeot's own advert styles it "PeugeotTM 3008", imply that Peugeot is trademarked but 3008 isn't...
Ignoring chipset numbers for a moment, interesting though it is ( :eek: ) ...
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by HEXUS Article
My mind is not yet made up IF a major system upgrade, over my existing 10-ish year old 'main' PC, but that decision rests at least in part in perceived performance benefits, versus system.
It has long been the case, and not just in PC hardware, that as you go up-scale, the marginal cost of each stage increases, and often, increases exponentially. My view is that I could get by without upgrading at all, and that given my (largely non-gaming) needs, it is very much a case of justifying entire upgrade cost (and that means mobo and RAM, at a minimum, on top of CPU) and the difference between R5 and R7 goes a long way towards paying for mobo and RAM.
So my calculation is what bang for buck I'll get for an R5 system, compared to the extra £100, 200, 300 etc if I go further up the tree, and I'm referring to MY benefit, in MY typicsl PC usage, and am militantly disinterested in artifical benchmarks, or in appendage-waving competitions and cores, threads or clocks.
There are things I still will spend out on top-end models, including things ranging from cars to kitchen equipment, but often that's not only about functionality but durability. For instance, £130 on a frying pan might seem excessive, but it's both exceptionally well-built and has a lifetime guarantee.
So while I MIGHT end up going R7, yes the R5 most emphatically piques my interest. Atcthe least, I wasn't about to commit to either until I'd had a proper chance to compare the benefits, for my needs and costs, of both. Which will be post-launch, and probably by several months, to allow launch prices to settle down.
Actually, Ford successfully blocked Ferrari from calling their Formula 1 car "F150", because Ford already has a pickup truck using that number.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjimYou certainly couldn't in America in the mid-90s, which is how the Pentium brand was born (Intel were refused a trademark on "586"). It may be possible to register the combination of a brand name and a number (e.g. "Peugeot 3008") as a distinct trademark, but that wouldn't stop e.g. Ford making a "Ford 3008".*Quote:
Originally Posted by Friesiansam
I can't imagine that there's been a shift in position since the mid-90s that would suddenly allow the trademarking of a sequence of numbers; the question here is whether a combination of letter and numbers is sufficiently distinctive to be trademarkable, and whether Intel had the foresight to register such a trademark if it was even possible.
The fact that they haven't taken action over the AMD B350 chipset (which would be the obvious progression from the existing B250 chipset for Kaby Lake) suggests to me that, even if they wanted to, there's nothing Intel can do about it....
* EDIT: intriguingly is you search Google for "Peugeot 3008", Peugeot's own advert styles it "PeugeotTM 3008", imply that Peugeot is trademarked but 3008 isn't...
http://www.reuters.com/article/ferra...21530920110304
Hm, implication there is that adding a single letter does make it trademarkable. Although why Ford would want to prevent an association between them and Ferrari is beyond me - surely that'd be good for them? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by iworrall
Ferraris aren't known for their rugged, load-lugging ability ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
A couple of years later Ferrari got stung over names again - they did a public vote and somewhat reminiscent of boaty mcboatface (and Labour party leader elections), the public went for F14T, ensuring the proud association with the parent company of fix it again tony ;)
I'm somewhat surprised? No doubting that R5 will produce the most mainstream bang for buck, but your view is almost always a long term "how will I live with it" scenario. R7 1700 specifically has been shown to run at a fairly low temperature, has very good energy efficiency, and is a full implementation of Ryzen's consumer chip at 2 full CCXs. If there's a chip that should be easy to live with and well supported by AMD it's that one. Unless you're aiming at a 4 core variant for around or less than 200... or just talking hypotheticals, bearing in mind we have no R5 data.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
Well, from a purely business perspective, seen by the office bods, the Ford F150 has sold in very high quantities and at least in America is a very recognisable product name. You want to defend such patents from competition, even if they're niche sports car makers from across the world who make vehicles your target audience can't afford. That said, it's not like Ferrari and Ford haven't ever competed (Ford GT)Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
From my own perspective, being able to tick off a name as big as Ferrari in your spare time has to be good fun.
I genuinely hope such practice pushes AMD and Intel to do something more along the lines of what AMD is considering for Vega, and naming the series after its codename. All this i3, R5 business is enough to give a headache to anyone trying to explain tiers of components to a non-techie. Of course it's worse for Intel but the motherboards could definitely use a new (and not immediately replaced) naming system on both sides. eugh
From what I have heard, you have to be seen to protect your trademark or otherwise loose your right to it. So even though it might seem like a good thing, it could cause problems. Although, there are limits to trademarks and it is there to prevent confusion between similar products. So you could call something unrelated to a car "F150" and it shouldn't impose on that trademark. A F1 car though is probably stretching it a bit though. Besides, between BMW, Mercedes, Peugeot and even Rover, I think most combos have been covered!Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
So workstation class Opterons then?
It's certainly currently hypothetical, as I did point out, both on assessing performance and letting prices stabilise after early launch prices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozaron
And you're dead on about my normal perspective. But I would draw attention to the bit where I said. I think that's where the diversion sets in. It's also why sticking with my existing Quad-Core 'antique' is an option I haven't ruled out.Quote:
what bang for buck I'll get for an R5 system, compared to the extra £100, 200, 300 etc if I go further up the tree, and I'm referring to MY benefit, in MY typical PC usage,
See, part of me says "upgrade overdue". That's the bit that likes new toys, and that had me reviewing new toys for 25 years. Play with evetything tech and new, and get paid for it? Great.
But 25 years of doing that with anything PC related, and a fair bit that wasn't, leaves me feeling very "Ho-hum, been there, done that, got the t-shirt (literally, in a couple of dozen cases), and wrote the book .... or at least, reviews".
I can't get excited, AT ALL, about things simply because they're new. That's point 1.
Point 2 = .... well, it's like this. Any good reviewer needs to understand his/her prospective readership, and their needs, and review with that in mind. So, a review of a specific product for, say, the Telegraph would be different from PC Pro, and different again for IT Week.
Now, however, I'm viewing this absolutely from MY perspective, and needs, based solely on what I need from a chip. Much of what you say about the R7 1700 is no doubt true for users whose needs are demanding-ish, or likely to increase over a few years.
My needs, however, are pretty modest. I still use a PC for image editing, but due to Adobe going subscription, and me absolutely NOT doing that, my current usage sees me sticking eith my current Photoshop version and Win7. The future sees me sticking with that, or going GIMP under Linux. For now, Win 7 and PS will do.
Also, I use voice dictation software (Dragon) a fair bit BUT, being semi-retired and tending towards fully retired, that usage will decrease .... or stop. Other than that, nothing I do is terribly processor bound. I mean, Word, Excel, accountjng (won't need that so much either), etc, typical admin-type uses, well, my existing 10-year old Quad copes and with 4GB of DDR2, so anything I upgrade to, R5 or R7, damn well ought to be major-league more powerful, or what's the point at all? If there is a point.
So in deciding R7 or R5, I ask, if 4 cores are currently coping snd I go to a 4C/8T R5, what really changes for me if I go 8C R7?
That is to say, while for most people, given my normal perspective, R7 might be "sweet spot" in the Ryzen range, I'm not interested in "most people" but specifically in bang for buck for my pretty modest needs.
What will an R7 1700 do for me than an R5 (whichever I opt for) won't? And does it justify the extra cost.
Well, maybe, but I'll need very clear evidence of real benefit, to me, given my uses, before I'll spend the extra it'd cost. And I'm yet to be convinced going above R5 represents good value for money, for me.