5 ms·

Nope. 6 core 12 thread CPUs came to the mainstream a while ago, AMD brought them. The Ryzen 5 1400 is $160. Intel is playing catchup.

by robhu 9y ago

dogma1138 9y ago
The Ryzen CPUs just came out, no OEMs yet, and the sales are not a blimp or Intel's radar yet. Coffee Lake is honestly a more interesting part, it's a 6 core with an IGP, AMD's APU will be 4 core maximum atm. I know it hurts but AMD needs to have ship an almost unreasonable number of units for several consecutive to be considered mainstream. If Ryzen will be anything like the Athlon 64, AMD would fail to capitalize on it and just be behind Intel when it comes to iterations.
013a 9y ago
Ever heard of the i7 5820k? It was released Q3'14. 6 cores. 12 threads. i7 name. Around $400. [1] AMD's great revolution was getting the TDP on that core count below 100W, and getting them onto a consumer chipset/socket instead of the enthusiast/server platform. That's it. We keep saying they forced some revolution in price/performance that Intel has had to respond to. Its 80% hype, 20% truth. Intel was complacent on the desktop, yes. But Ryzen's perf gains over Skylake aren't significantly more than Intel's tick/tock perf gains they push each year; the main difference is that Ryzen focused on the enthusiast, which is something Intel had de-prioritized. [1] http://ark.intel.com/products/82932/Intel-Core-i7-5820K-Processor-15M-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz http://ark.intel.com/products/82932/Intel-Core-i7-5820K-Proc...
- paulmd 9y ago
  Intel did a really shitty job marketing these (maybe the i9 name will help). They are hardly known even amount enthusiasts but they are really good processors for the exact same reasons that people like Ryzen. A moderate tradeoff in gaming for a big gain in productivity tasks. They are even priced essentially the same as the 4C8T i7s. I basically had Ryzen performance at Ryzen prices a year ago when I built my 5820K system. Motherboard, processor, and 32 GB of DDR4-3000 CAS15 cost me $600 all together. I hit 4.13 GHz all-core on stock voltage and still run well under the rated TDP. Ryzen was an incremental improvement at best. 8 core Ryzen is slightly faster (being that it has 33% more cores) but I'm still winning vs the 6-cores. The real change Intel needs to make is dropping the cost of the 8-core and higher chips, because they're just past any reasonable budget.
  - 013a 9y ago
    The 5820K was an amazing processor. I have one as well. Its coming up on two years old, yet for $390 (at release) its only ~10-20% slower than a brand new $490 Ryzen 1800x, and much of that drop can be attributed to two fewer cores. You're right on all counts. Ryzen was vastly overhyped. Its highly likely Cannonlake and KabyLake-X will destroy it when they are released in a couple months. The world needed Ryzen to push Intel to lower prices on their high end chips. But, like most of the times when AMD "pushes ahead", Intel will beat them within a year, and hold that position for another 4 years. And then the cycle repeats. I don't know how much longer AMD can keep this up. It seems like they're being propped up by their dominance in console tech.
  - dis-sys 9y ago
    Without the so called incremental improvement offered by Ryzen 7, there is no motivation for Intel to drop its prices on 8 cores chips. Intel now has to answer the challenges both on the 8c16t category and 16c32t as well.
    - paulmd 9y ago
      I suspect the answer to the 8C16T category is going to be "Skylake-X". Intel is still sitting on a ~10% lead in per-core performance in real-world applications, and Broadwell-E is handicapped in a number of ways. Skylake-X is going to be a huge step forward. I think the 6C Skylake-X chips are going to come real close to the 8C Ryzen 7s (let's call it within 5-10%). And that leaves the 8C Intel chips with a pretty solid lead. (Synthetics like Cinebench are definitely tilting AMD - but I don't see a corresponding lead in real-world applications, on a core-for-core basis) If Intel can maintain premium performance, they can also maintain premium pricing. No question the race is on, though. Next year is gonna be interesting, when both companies have sized up the other and fully prepared their responses. There's some obvious fixes for AMD (like the interconnect, or just getting memory stability fixed), and Intel could do something like put the L4 eDRAM back on their dies to get minimum framerates up[0]. [0] http://techreport.com/review/28751/intel-core-i7-6700k-skylake-processor-reviewed/6 http://techreport.com/review/28751/intel-core-i7-6700k-skyla...
- BuckRogers 9y ago
  It's 100% true that they've forced a revolution in price/performance. You forgot the much cheaper motherboards and RAM on Ryzen. Intel HEDT has been out of what most people consider a reasonable reach. The more attractive of the HEDT chips started at $1050+ (6900K). Add in your quad channel RAM and LGA-2011-v3 motherboard and you have quite a bundle. Not part of pricing but the AM4 promise for socket longevity further seals the deal for enthusiasts. Either way, I'm happily using a newly built R7-1700 in a Node 202 mini-ITX case with a Geforce 1060 Founders Edition. It's very quiet and having 8 cores and 16 threads is far more useful than I assumed it would be. It's one of those things that you didn't know you needed until you have it. I use it for so much stuff, and it handles it all with ease. If nothing else, the 16 threads get a workout daily as my Steam Link is set to do CPU encoding and that uses 8 threads. Beautiful image quality on the TV as a result when the fam is doing some gaming. I'm in love with this system, very happy with Ryzen. Thanks to AMD! :)
- robhu 9y ago
  Of course there have been 6 core processors before the Ryzen chips, the difference is Ryzen brought them to the mainstream. The Ryzen chip is a third of the cost of the Intel chip and doesn't require the expensive enthusiast X99 platform. AMD's great achievement is bringing 6 and 8 core chips /to the mainstream/, affordable by pretty much everyone. Intel's X99 enthusiast platform has been around longer but is massively more expensive.
Keyframe 9y ago
I bought 3930K 6C/12HT in 2012 and still rockin' it. AMD was not even on radar back then.
- trueSlav 9y ago
  My old 1090t from 2010 says hi.
  - Keyframe 9y ago
    I remember that one, the one that said hi to already-on-the-market i7 980x! :)

Nope. 6 core 12 thread CPUs came to the mainstream a while ago, AMD brought them. The Ryzen 5 1400 is $160. Intel is playing catchup.

by robhu 9y ago

Nope. 6 core 12 thread CPUs came to the mainstream a while ago, AMD brought them. The Ryzen 5 1400 is $160. Intel is playing catchup.

dogma1138 9y ago

The Ryzen CPUs just came out, no OEMs yet, and the sales are not a blimp or Intel's radar yet. Coffee Lake is honestly a more interesting part, it's a 6 core with an IGP, AMD's APU will be 4 core maximum atm. I know it hurts but AMD needs to have ship an almost unreasonable number of units for several consecutive to be considered mainstream. If Ryzen will be anything like the Athlon 64, AMD would fail to capitalize on it and just be behind Intel when it comes to iterations.

013a 9y ago

Ever heard of the i7 5820k? It was released Q3'14. 6 cores. 12 threads. i7 name. Around $400. [1] AMD's great revolution was getting the TDP on that core count below 100W, and getting them onto a consumer chipset/socket instead of the enthusiast/server platform. That's it. We keep saying they forced some revolution in price/performance that Intel has had to respond to. Its 80% hype, 20% truth. Intel was complacent on the desktop, yes. But Ryzen's perf gains over Skylake aren't significantly more than Intel's tick/tock perf gains they push each year; the main difference is that Ryzen focused on the enthusiast, which is something Intel had de-prioritized. [1] http://ark.intel.com/products/82932/Intel-Core-i7-5820K-Processor-15M-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz http://ark.intel.com/products/82932/Intel-Core-i7-5820K-Proc...

paulmd 9y ago
Intel did a really shitty job marketing these (maybe the i9 name will help). They are hardly known even amount enthusiasts but they are really good processors for the exact same reasons that people like Ryzen. A moderate tradeoff in gaming for a big gain in productivity tasks. They are even priced essentially the same as the 4C8T i7s. I basically had Ryzen performance at Ryzen prices a year ago when I built my 5820K system. Motherboard, processor, and 32 GB of DDR4-3000 CAS15 cost me $600 all together. I hit 4.13 GHz all-core on stock voltage and still run well under the rated TDP. Ryzen was an incremental improvement at best. 8 core Ryzen is slightly faster (being that it has 33% more cores) but I'm still winning vs the 6-cores. The real change Intel needs to make is dropping the cost of the 8-core and higher chips, because they're just past any reasonable budget.
- 013a 9y ago
  The 5820K was an amazing processor. I have one as well. Its coming up on two years old, yet for $390 (at release) its only ~10-20% slower than a brand new $490 Ryzen 1800x, and much of that drop can be attributed to two fewer cores. You're right on all counts. Ryzen was vastly overhyped. Its highly likely Cannonlake and KabyLake-X will destroy it when they are released in a couple months. The world needed Ryzen to push Intel to lower prices on their high end chips. But, like most of the times when AMD "pushes ahead", Intel will beat them within a year, and hold that position for another 4 years. And then the cycle repeats. I don't know how much longer AMD can keep this up. It seems like they're being propped up by their dominance in console tech.
- dis-sys 9y ago
  Without the so called incremental improvement offered by Ryzen 7, there is no motivation for Intel to drop its prices on 8 cores chips. Intel now has to answer the challenges both on the 8c16t category and 16c32t as well.
  - paulmd 9y ago
    I suspect the answer to the 8C16T category is going to be "Skylake-X". Intel is still sitting on a ~10% lead in per-core performance in real-world applications, and Broadwell-E is handicapped in a number of ways. Skylake-X is going to be a huge step forward. I think the 6C Skylake-X chips are going to come real close to the 8C Ryzen 7s (let's call it within 5-10%). And that leaves the 8C Intel chips with a pretty solid lead. (Synthetics like Cinebench are definitely tilting AMD - but I don't see a corresponding lead in real-world applications, on a core-for-core basis) If Intel can maintain premium performance, they can also maintain premium pricing. No question the race is on, though. Next year is gonna be interesting, when both companies have sized up the other and fully prepared their responses. There's some obvious fixes for AMD (like the interconnect, or just getting memory stability fixed), and Intel could do something like put the L4 eDRAM back on their dies to get minimum framerates up[0]. [0] http://techreport.com/review/28751/intel-core-i7-6700k-skylake-processor-reviewed/6 http://techreport.com/review/28751/intel-core-i7-6700k-skyla...
BuckRogers 9y ago
It's 100% true that they've forced a revolution in price/performance. You forgot the much cheaper motherboards and RAM on Ryzen. Intel HEDT has been out of what most people consider a reasonable reach. The more attractive of the HEDT chips started at $1050+ (6900K). Add in your quad channel RAM and LGA-2011-v3 motherboard and you have quite a bundle. Not part of pricing but the AM4 promise for socket longevity further seals the deal for enthusiasts. Either way, I'm happily using a newly built R7-1700 in a Node 202 mini-ITX case with a Geforce 1060 Founders Edition. It's very quiet and having 8 cores and 16 threads is far more useful than I assumed it would be. It's one of those things that you didn't know you needed until you have it. I use it for so much stuff, and it handles it all with ease. If nothing else, the 16 threads get a workout daily as my Steam Link is set to do CPU encoding and that uses 8 threads. Beautiful image quality on the TV as a result when the fam is doing some gaming. I'm in love with this system, very happy with Ryzen. Thanks to AMD! :)
robhu 9y ago
Of course there have been 6 core processors before the Ryzen chips, the difference is Ryzen brought them to the mainstream. The Ryzen chip is a third of the cost of the Intel chip and doesn't require the expensive enthusiast X99 platform. AMD's great achievement is bringing 6 and 8 core chips /to the mainstream/, affordable by pretty much everyone. Intel's X99 enthusiast platform has been around longer but is massively more expensive.

Keyframe 9y ago

I bought 3930K 6C/12HT in 2012 and still rockin' it. AMD was not even on radar back then.

trueSlav 9y ago
My old 1090t from 2010 says hi.
- Keyframe 9y ago
  I remember that one, the one that said hi to already-on-the-market i7 980x! :)