LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.17 processors listed; quad-, hexa-, and octa-cores, all with unlocked multipliers.
Read more.17 processors listed; quad-, hexa-, and octa-cores, all with unlocked multipliers.
I like how they seem to have directly comparable range names with intel (R3/I3 R5/I5 etc.) it should be less confusing for a lot of consumer than the previous naming schemes.
Now I just hope the prices are competitive enough for me to be able to afford a top end R5 at the very least.
What the "Pro" stands for? Like Xeon (workstation class) or ?
The more you live, less you die. More you play, more you die. Isn't it great.
Shouldwe be worried that the 4 core 8 thread is boing up against a i5 7400 and not a simalar spec i7 7700k?
Salazaar : <Touching wood as I write this...>
Wild guess, but the Pro's might support ECC ram and have their multiplier locked, this is something that is more useful in a corporate environment where you don't want people tinkering with their machine.
Not if the prices of each are equal... not about matching the performance 1:1, it's about providing the same speed at a price. That's what AMD are good at, usually. We'll see.Originally Posted by Platinum
It's kind of a shame that the top end chip is only "comparable" with an existing rival octa-core chip, that will be getting on for a year old by the time the Ryzens are out.
I guess, for me, price is going to be the big deciding factor.
On a dubious Chinese leak? Doubt it. Given we don't have actual clock speeds, or any actual performance figures from retail silicon, that's obviously a wild assumption.
Most likely scenario is that the comparison are guesses at pricing - and if AMD do put out 4C/8T chips at i5 prices it's going to be good for the consumer.
If the prices compare, then things don't look good for intel's i3's - a 2C4T design against a 4C4T chip with comparable IPC? Not a chance
Even more dubious now it seems the original source, a forum post, has been deleted.
Didn't Lisa Su say Ryzen would ship with 3.4GHZ base clockspeeds as a minimum?? The line-up leaked in the article had no SKUs starting at 3.4GHZ!!
If the prices compare, then things don't look good for intel's i3's - a 2C4T design against a 4C4T chip with comparable IPC? Not a chance
Remember though that the i3 has an integrated GPU, and getting an extra discrete GPU will take more space, power and money than is necessarily desirable for a low cost home desktop. Great for cheap gaming computers, but I daresay that for now the i3 will still do well.
The true test will be when AMD releases its Zen-based APUs. They should offer good enough CPU performance with vastly improved graphics performance; just right for a general purpose home PC.
CAPS LOCK IS NOT A BUTTON IT IS A WAY OF LIFE.
I believe the middle column is base clock speed across that range of processors, not base speed and turbo. Engineering samples imply that the top rated chip will be 3.6GHz base 4GHz turbo (and that there is a 3.3/3.7GHz hexcore), though these are obviously leaks about engineering samples so caveat lector.
Last edited by CAPTAIN_ALLCAPS; 06-02-2017 at 01:34 PM. Reason: improved clarity
CAPS LOCK IS NOT A BUTTON IT IS A WAY OF LIFE.
R3, R5 and R7. Seems awfully close to the current i3, i5 and i7 that Intel do. Can they get away with something like that?
However, 16 threads running at 3.5GHz, or thereabouts, should provide some lovely numbers.
Will be interesting to see how well these things overclock and if they can push Intel to provide an actual performance increase with their 8th Gen CPUs.
R3, R5, R7 ... OK, I'm sure they want to line up next to Intel but I think this would've been a great moment to simplify the CPU range :
R4 - 4 cores
R6 - 6 cores
R8 - 8 cores
And the added benefit of being "one more" than Intel. Goes to 11 y'know?
And the "X" could be AMD's version of Intel's "K" = unlocked multiplier.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
