Read more.ShopBLT in the US, and Kikatek in the UK, let slip pricing details a bit early.
Read more.ShopBLT in the US, and Kikatek in the UK, let slip pricing details a bit early.
I think a 65W 8C 3.7GHz CPU from AMD (that likely is performance competitive with the Core i7 6900K) is verging on the miraculous. The fact that is seems to be under a third of the price of said Intel CPU just make it better.
I'm quite pleased that the flagship 1800X is hitting the UK market at <£500.
The 1800X is straight up half the price of the 6900k they were wanting to beat in this top end market. The 7700k is not the top end so the 1700x, which is it's AMD comparison, sits quite nicely in the ~£340 mark which matches nicely with the 7700k and at this time was priced at £337.49 on scan.co.uk (granted better deals could be had elsewhere).
So AMD has gone with a kick in the teeth for the top end, throat to throat for enthusiast.
I like this, AMD (with all their previous arrogance/stupidity taken into account) appear to be wanting to go head to head with Intel. Lisa seems grounded enough to only greenlight this if AMD really was bringing a new CPU war to the table. Bring on the Athlon vs. Pentium dogfight 2017
If this can get anywhere near Haswell-E at those prices it'll be pretty awesome. I hope they can get the chips into system integrator builds either way, and become a presence in CPUs again. I'd certainly be looking that way - haven't had an Intel CPU in any of my PCs for years (at home and at work) as the pricing was never appealing (and I like underdogs). As a halo product these really could do with being exceptional, with a roadmap to die shrink or optimise them in good time so that they don't fall behind again (I don't think they can survive if so).
Indeed, so far all we have seen though is AMD optimised benchmarks / AMD pre built systems that perform about the same as a 6900k.
Rumour is Skylake X is not a rebadged Xeon but a chip designed from the ground up to be HEDT.
Either way I am waiting for Skylake X before I buy a new chip, ideal situation would be Intel heavly cuts the price of the Broadwell E chips and I buy one cheap and drop it in my mobo
Bring on the independant reviews!
These are interesting prices, brilliant at the top for sure but a bit 'cloudy' at the £340/7700k area. Is the 8c/8t even the challenger AMD wants for the 7700k? I don't know. If AMD rolls out the 6c/6t with a 4.2-4.5 clock (bringing game fps in line with 7700k) at £250 as surmised, with maybe a £50 saving on your mainboard (which EVERY Ryzen buyer will need to buy) your total platform costs are looking very tasty indeed.
Thumbs up from me AMD.
In todays gaming benchmarks with no overclocking the 7700k should wipe the floor with the 1700 mainly due to clock speed, I am very interested though as to how much power it uses in real world, 65w sound great but in real world Intels i7's probably use less due to most people not using the GPU.
Erm ... 8 core/16 thread / 6 core/12 thread. The only SKU there's been any implication of not getting SMT was a 4C/4T variant at the very bottom end. The fact that they've got an 8C/16T chip leaked as cheaper than any current i7 (4C/8T) is pretty remarkable.
As to higher clocked less core parts, that's unlikely - there's been no indication of an engineering sample getting over 4GHz at top boost. If you look back over the last few generations it's actually not been the case the core-reduced processors have had significantly higher clock speeds that the top end chips - for either AMD or Intel.
EDIT for crosspost:
Doubt it - if you're bottlenecking on an i7 7700k in genuine gaming benchmarks than something's wrong with either the game engine or your settings. A lot will depend on base clock speed, but rumours would suggest single-thread performance not dissimilar to a 3770k, and I wouldn't call the difference between a 7700k and a 3770k floor wiping... scroll down towards the bottom of http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/551?vs=1826 and compare the gaming benchmarks ... barring the odd outlier (Gris autosport ona 290X, for some reason ) there's very little real difference there.
Last edited by scaryjim; 09-02-2017 at 03:48 PM.
Oh, Intel will still hold the lead in games.
AMD will get close to Intel's IPC, but close is not the same and they face a significant clockspeed deficit vs the 7700K.
The thing is though, does that actually matter?
Games are pretty much always GPU limited in real world resolutions and graphics settings. If Ryzen at 4GHz is good enough to keep the 95th and 99th percentile framerates reasonable (which is a real-world metric that does depend fairly heavily on the CPU) then you are getting a CPU that is largely identical gaming performance wise to the top Intel chips and an extra 2-4 cores for background tasks like streaming and Skype. You also get a much more powerful processor for any rendering, video transcoding or scientific/engineering work that you do in the rest of your time.
Last edited by CAPTAIN_ALLCAPS; 09-02-2017 at 05:09 PM. Reason: Removed double quote
Its not even that people are clinging to the hope that the only performance indications are the AMD ones so they can ignore it. However,sadly for them CPC,who leaked the Athlon 64 benchmarks too,showed that even their low clocked Ryzen 8C/16T on a buggy motherboard and with SMT issues,probably equated more to between Haswell and BW-E level IPC. Its like the game benchmarks they tested where,the Core i7 6900K they used was running at nearly 10% higher clockspeed and was nearly 10% faster in games,4 of which don't use SMT and at most use 4 cores.
Plus from China a $290 4.2GHZ SKU has been leaked:
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd...ilibility.html
Looking at the price I doubt its an 8C model,but most likely the top end 6C SKU.
The E-PEENers might desperately want to justify Intel 4C pricing so the secondhand values of their own CPUs don't crash,but you only have to look at a gaming website like DF:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...7-7700k-review
They test 7 games:
1.)Assassin's Creed Unity which is GPU limited even on an IB CPU
2.)Ashes of the Singularity which threads well
3.)Crysis 3 which threads well
4.)The Division which is GPU limited even on an IB CPU
5.)Far Cry Primal which seems to not really thread well
6.)Rise of the Tomb Raider which threads well
7.)The Witcher 3 which threads well
Even if the top bin 6C Ryzen CPU is lower clocked with lower IPC,than a Core i7 7700K,in six of the games a prominent gaming site like DF tests,its not going to lose,and by my estimations it might only the odd game like Far Cry where it might be a 10% to 15% difference,assuming Haswell level IPC.
If that is closer to BW-E level,then its even less.
I expect people will then desperately cart out the maximum overclocks argument and Super PI arguments in some weird syndrome to justify a £350 4C/8T Intel CPU or a £1000 Core i7 6950X.
So what is the magical Skylake X going to give you - another tiny IPC increase and a slightly higher overclock??
Who cares when the Core i7 6900K is £1000.
Instead of this weird emotional E-PEEN attachment to Intel,they should be glad AMD will try and offer Core i7 6900K level performance for half the price.
It means even the Core i7 6900K replacement will need to be WELL UNDER £1000.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 09-02-2017 at 04:28 PM.
Any idea behind 2 8-core chips with 30w & £50 difference? The other leak article, if accurate, suggested there's no chip with HT disabled.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)