Intel should be very worried about AMD's Ryzen 7 processors

Mystere said:

AMD does this every 6-8 years. They spend a bunch of money to create a new architecture that beats Intel, but then they sit on it for years and let Intel decimate them. AMD just can't afford to create new architectures very often, and Intel has their Tick-Tock cadence which cycles the platform much faster than AMD can.

So yeah, enjoy the cheap, fast CPU's while you can, as Intel will likely have a response within a year. And then it will take another 6-8 years before AMD is able to afford to cycle.

Yeah, I see nothing here to make me say wow, I need to dump Intel. I remember when I first got into computers, Intel and AMD were fighting for the processor crown, but I went with Intel and never gave AMD a thought.

Today AMD would have to supplant Intel as the processor king for me to move to them. While Ryzen looks good now, in the long run, I don't see that happening. And while Ryzen looks good, what about their motherboards? Would be interesting to see the performance numbers there.

It'll be interesting to see how this works out. I used AMD CPUs years ago when they gave a lot more bang for your bucks than Intel did. However I drifted over to Intel just before Sandy Bridge CPUs came out then when my mobo developed a fault I returned it under warranty and got it replaced for a Sandy Bridge compatible one and bought a Sandy Bridge CPU. I'm still using it to this day and it does everything I ask of it. One of those scenarios where you feel like upgrading but keep putting it off because there's always something better coming out soon. However I'm looking to upgrade over the next few months but watching the AMD video doesn't really sway me from Intel, yeah the benchmarks they ran looked good but it's all too easy for manufacturers to optimise their products for their chosen benchmarks.

Interesting times though and I wouldn't like to bet on how it turns out :)

essenbe said:

I am still skeptical. We saw a couple of selected benchmarks. We've seen that before. The R7-1700 was also compared with a 7700K. Is anyone surprised that an 8 core CPU can beat a 4 core CPU? I really hope the AMD CPUs do, in fact, live up to their hype. That would be great for all of us. I wish they had been competitive all along. We would all be running cheaper, better CPUs than we are now.

Steve you know I'm just getting into overclocking, but one thing I have recently learned was, those 8 cores with hyperthreading turned off, will not get as hot, and will be more stable at higher OC's than a 4 core with hyperthreading turned on.

Cliff, if you want only 8 cores, why buy one with 8 cores and 16 threads? Personally, I disagree with turning threads off. Having said that, If you turn off hyperthreading on one, why can't you turn it off on the other one? Even if you did that, you still are pushing more cores in an overclock. The 6 and 8 core CPUs are just not able to overclock as high as the 'mainstream' CPUs.

Count how many times the AMD CEO said, during the presentation, "because we have more cores". Cores have been AND's emphasis for a lot of years. Back during the Phenom II days, they had 6 core CPUs in the mainstream market. They focused on adding cores and Intel focused on more efficiency and better performance.

Hmmm.... $299 for a Kaby 7700K. That's tempting. Luckily all I have to do is update my Z170X MB's BIOS and bam, Kaby ready. At a price of just $299 I may just do that. Only issue is how much will I gain from the 6700K.

Anyway I don't live near a Microcenter, but there's one 2 hours away from me. I've family in that area so on my visit to them I'll just stop by Microcenter should I decide to get the 7700K.

BTW I got my 6700K from them for $309, with a $30 dollar bundling discount on my Gigabyte motherboard. Basically saved $70 dollars on the package.