• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

*** AMD "Zen" thread (inc AM4/APU discussion) ***

Soldato
Joined
26 Apr 2004
Posts
9,348
Location
Milton Keynes
Anyone else find it weird that AMD have gone for such a similar naming convention to intel with the 3, 5 and 7?
I think its deliberate. Average Joe doesn't know what spec processor he's got, he knows it's i3/i5/i7 etc (The sticker on the front says so :D). AMD are likely wanting to tap into that by leveraging you get more with an R3 vs I3, i5 vs R5 etc. You're looking at an I3?...could get more with a Ryzen 3 etc.

It's all about common denominators and essentially trying to crush Intel's current price stack in terms of given performance/clocks/cores at a given price point.
 
Associate
Joined
9 Jul 2009
Posts
1,008
Anyone else find it weird that AMD have gone for such a similar naming convention to intel with the 3, 5 and 7?

Is a deliberate move to make it easy for the average Joe to see where AMD's lineup slot in compared to intels more established brand names.
 
Associate
Joined
8 May 2014
Posts
2,288
Location
france
Is the primary difference between the three models the clock speed? If so, is the 1800X really worth the £169 extra since the 1700 is overclockable?

On a side note, is stock of motherboards plentiful also? I can imagine if Ryzen lives up to expectations then they will be pretty hot products.

I'm hoping to wait a month or two to see reviews and user experiences of both the CPU and motherboards before I pull the trigger but it will be a challenge :D
1800X is simply for enthusiasts who likes to benchmark, Binned chips, you pay the extra money to increase your odds for the chip lottery, thats worth 100$, you should be glad, intel would have charged you 200$ for it.
the 1700X is just AMD Overclocking the CPU for you, from the regular 1700, thats worth 70$, and again should be happy, intel would have locked the Overclocking for you on basic model, charge you 70$ for overclocking ability, and then charge you again another 100$ for the extra clock speed.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
26 Apr 2004
Posts
9,348
Location
Milton Keynes
That will depend to some extent if we find those binned chips clock better especially once the processes mature. People will pay the extra cash for higher guaranteed clocks; if you keep the CPU for several years, its not much extra in the scheme of things.
 
Associate
Joined
5 Aug 2013
Posts
457
Yes, better multitasking if you want to do anything in the background minimised quickly, smoother system transitions, less framerate hits due to any background processes, voip/any streaming you may do, once again background resources available and more cores available to everything.

Honestly... I never regretted going I7-2700K over 2500K as over the years, the threads have helped keep my current system responsive and more fluid than it would have been, and helped keep minimum framerate up (OK a substantial OC has also helped!). This is more of the same, but this time around, people will have the choice of say a lower tier, moderately clocked Intel chip, versus a comparable AMD chip generally offering more cores and performance overall. AMD will be looking to get the balance of cores/threads/clockspeed correct to stay competive across the board, and I suspect except for the most highly clocked comparatives, they will be pretty competitive in single core performance across the range, whilst trouncing them when it comes to multicore...and therefore system fluidity...across the board at a given price point.

Intel i3 price point - 2c, maybe hyperthreaded, will be against genuine AMD quadcore with SMT bleeding in higher up the product stack
Intel i5 price point - 4c, maybe hyperthreaded, will be against genuine 4c8t and even 6c parts
Intel i7 price point - 4c8t, will be against AMD 6c/12th and 8c16th parts.

Providing clocks and pricing is competitive, thats a big deal, even for a pure gamer, as it means the system will last longer before it needs changed.

I can guarantee you if I'd bought a 2500k I'd have wanted to have changed it by now as my workload and games are demanding more.

Just to copy for reference one of the older tables:
ryzen-prices.jpg


Convert those prices to pounds and then consider based on what we've seen yesterday, the clocks may actually be higher than originally specced on the R5/R3 parts. 1600X is going to be 3.6GHz/4GHz boost for example, AMD may be releasing later so they can spend more time tweaking clocks before they release.

Compare the current Intel price stack. Those R3 will absolutely annihilate Intel's i3s for the money etc given reasonable single core IPC.

Thanks for the info. I'm looking for a new board and CPU (and ram) but I'm still undecided

Edit.. I am toying with the 1700 and the MSI carbon though. Which is obviously an upgrade from what I currently have..
 
Soldato
Joined
26 Apr 2004
Posts
9,348
Location
Milton Keynes
If you don't have to buy now you have the luxury of waiting for the R5 and seeing what the final clocks will be. We already know the R5 1600X will be 3.6/4.0 6c/12t for example, pricing very likely to be around £250. The rest of the R3/5 stack may well also tweak.

We thought the 8c Ryzen chips were going to be lower clocked previously afterall too!
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
24,767
Location
Planet Earth
Yes, better multitasking if you want to do anything in the background minimised quickly, smoother system transitions, less framerate hits due to any background processes, voip/any streaming you may do, once again background resources available and more cores available to everything.

Honestly... I never regretted going I7-2700K over 2500K as over the years, the threads have helped keep my current system responsive and more fluid than it would have been, and helped keep minimum framerate up (OK a substantial OC has also helped!). This is more of the same, but this time around, people will have the choice of say a lower tier, moderately clocked Intel chip, versus a comparable AMD chip generally offering more cores and performance overall. AMD will be looking to get the balance of cores/threads/clockspeed correct to stay competive across the board, and I suspect except for the most highly clocked comparatives, they will be pretty competitive in single core performance across the range, whilst trouncing them when it comes to multicore...and therefore system fluidity...across the board at a given price point.

Intel i3 price point - 2c, maybe hyperthreaded, will be against genuine AMD quadcore with SMT bleeding in higher up the product stack
Intel i5 price point - 4c, maybe hyperthreaded, will be against genuine 4c8t and even 6c parts
Intel i7 price point - 4c8t, will be against AMD 6c/12th and 8c16th parts.

Providing clocks and pricing is competitive, thats a big deal, even for a pure gamer, as it means the system will last longer before it needs changed.

I can guarantee you if I'd bought a 2500k I'd have wanted to have changed it by now as my workload and games are demanding more.

Just to copy for reference one of the older tables:
ryzen-prices.jpg


Convert those prices to pounds and then consider based on what we've seen yesterday, the clocks may actually be higher than originally specced on the R5/R3 parts. 1600X is going to be 3.6GHz/4GHz boost for example, AMD may be releasing later so they can spend more time tweaking clocks before they release.

Compare the current Intel price stack. Those R3 will absolutely annihilate Intel's i3s for the money etc given reasonable single core IPC.

Totally spot on - I went with an IB Xeon E3 over a higher clockspeed IB Core i5 and never regretted as it has lasted well. This was in a time when you could pay as little as £175 for one,and use it in normal motherboards.

Intel was making enough money selling a Core i7 for Core i5 money,but probably realised more and more gamers buying one instead of the overpriced normal Core i7.

OFC,Intel on purpose made sure from SKL onwards they blocked the normal 1151 motherboards from using them forcing people to use the "new" socket 1151 C232 based motherboards,just like the fact they blocked BCLK overclocking on KL too.

There is nothing stopping Intel from selling even a locked 4C/8T Core i7 for £200 to £250 as they were selling them for years with no problem.

All this concentration on MOAR MHZ,will lead Intel to barely drop prices,and might even cause AMD to quietly increase prices too.

It seems people really loved to be milked with as high a price for CPUs as they can possibly get away with.
 
Soldato
Joined
26 Apr 2004
Posts
9,348
Location
Milton Keynes
The thing that sticks out to me is if I pick up at £250 R5 1600X@4/3.6 in a month or so, or R7 1700 at 3GHz/3.7GHz, it will have higher ST IPC than my 4.84GHz Sandy, considerably more MT processing power due to the additional cores and threads (and seemingly more efficient SMT) and will support newer technologies, and will offer me a much better rounded package than anything £250 from Intel right now.
I'm pretty sure I paid around £300 for my 2700K, that's going to be able to get me a 8c16th chip now, that will perform AT LEAST as well core per core even with clock deficit differences and my hefty overclock, and realistically looking like it will perform better with much more overhead or total processing power at a given cost (50-100% or more), whilst consuming less power than my overclocked 2700k. THAT is finally progress.

By contrast, Intel right now for that money would get me ~20% better per core performance...but thats it...same number of cores, same number of threads...and I'd need to pay MORE for the chip to do it.

That's why this is a big deal.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
24,767
Location
Planet Earth
The thing that sticks out to me is if I pick up at £250 R5 1600X@4/3.6 in a month or so, or R7 1700 at 3GHz/3.7GHz, it will have higher ST IPC than my 4.84GHz Sandy, considerably more MT processing power due to the additional cores and threads (and seemingly more efficient SMT) and will support newer technologies, and will offer me a much better rounded package than anything £250 from Intel right now.
I'm pretty sure I paid around £300 for my 2700K, that's going to be able to get me a 8c16th chip now, that will perform AT LEAST as well core per core even with clock deficit differences and my hefty overclock, and realistically looking like it will perform better with much more overhead or total processing power at a given cost (50-100% or more), whilst consuming less power than my overclocked 2700k. THAT is finally progress.

By contrast, Intel right now for that money would get me ~20% better per core performance...but thats it...same number of cores, same number of threads...and I'd need to pay MORE for the chip to do it.

That's why this is a big deal.

Ignoring any exchange rate fluctuations for a minute,we really need a shake up in pricing. Look at the current Intel range - under £175 is just dual cores with HT!!

If you told people during the SB days we would be paying more for a Core i3 K series CPU in a few years than a Core i5 2500K in the UK they would have thought you were being a tad potty.

Edit!!

All this obsession about single core performance is what Intel wants,so they can price smaller and smaller CPUs ever higher. Its important,but its not the only metric when it comes to game performance.
 
Soldato
Joined
26 Apr 2004
Posts
9,348
Location
Milton Keynes
Ignoring any exchange rate fluctuations for a minute,we really need a shake up in pricing. Look at the current Intel range - under £175 is just dual cores with HT!!

If you told people during the SB days we would be paying more for a Core i3 K series CPU in a few years than a Core i5 2500K they would have thought you were being a tad potty.

Definately, and that's exactly why, as you say ignoring exchange rates, that AMD coming in at such competitive prices will definately do something to put that right.

If Intel won't compete on prices, then OEMs, system builders etc will begin using AMD chips. There are talk of Apple swapping from Intel to Ryzen, and with the price difference, for production machines, why not?

Every company/OEM/SI that begins to show a heavier AMD presence will put AMD into consumers heads more, and knock a small amount of influence away from Intel.

They need to compete now on pricing, or they will lose market share...simple. They could be anticompetitive again, but the fines last time...
 
Caporegime
Joined
26 Dec 2003
Posts
25,666
Any buyers should wait for Intel price drops before diving in feet first, Intel could in terms of pricing position 6800K against Ryzen quad core, 6850K against hex, 6900K against 1700X and and 6950X against the 1800X. I doubt they they will but there's the possibility.

7700K doesn't necessarily have to change since AMD have no competing APU's yet.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
24,767
Location
Planet Earth
Definately, and that's exactly why, as you say ignoring exchange rates, that AMD coming in at such competitive prices will definately do something to put that right.

Its depressing,if I were to replace my current build with a Core i7 7700(since using a Xeon E3 is now not worth it due to the price of the C232 mini-ITX motherboards),it would cost MORE than the price of my Xeon E3 and a suitable mini-ITX motherboard just for the CPU alone.
 
Back
Top Bottom