Intel should be very worried about AMD's Ryzen 7 processors
-
Uh huh, but the point is, you don't have to pay the higher prices for a regular 1151 board, so yeah, it kinda is a valid argument. 2011-3 isn't a mainstream offering.
Nor is it meant to be. Neither are the AMD 8-core processors. These are meant for the performance minded usually looking to custom build powerhouse PC's. That's not necessarily the "mainstream" public.
And I'm not sure what "mainstream" means but the "average joe" isn't going to buy the type of parts most here would. The average joe isn't going to pay $350 bucks for a processor and 300-400 hundred dollars for a MB. They'd just as soon buy a pre-built PC and be done with it.
-
-
![]()
And while doing so, will perform at an average Joe level. If you have specific software that takes advantage of multiple cores and threads...great. But many have average software which just doesn't excel in the multi core and multi thread level.
I guess Intel should be courageous and cancel coffee lake. No point in them mainstreaming 6-core processors if there is no benefit to the average user. Oddly, I bet Intel offers CL with an 8 core or more variant in response to Ryzen.
Gaming isn't everything but games will continue to evolve and make use of additional cores/threads. It's also nice to be able to multitask without the CPU pegged at 100%.
I hate to break it to you, but anything that you and I can buy is all average joe level. Companies determine through product segmentation and marketing what is high performance/enthusiast grade components and price accordingly.
Not sure why I'm feeling like I have to defend progress here. AMD pushing Intel to release better products with higher performance at lower pricing levels. This is a good thing for everyone. You may not think you need the extra power now, but you will eventually.
-
![]()
Vram, I think you don't understand something. I have a 6 core chip. I can tell you that unless you run software that will specifically use all 6 cores, there is no advantage to having 6 cores/12 threads. If you use that software very often, the extra money is worth it. If you don't use that type software, it will never be worth it. For normal everyday stuff, even gaming, there is no advantage of having 6 cores. It may one day, but not now.
the terms cheap and expensive are relative terms. The meanings are different to a lot of people. I don't consider a $200 Motherboard as expensive. It depends on the level of quality and features you want.
Almost any recent 4 core chip will multitask with no problem. I'm not sure why you are so down on Intel. They may charge higher prices, but so do the motherboard manufacturers; the same manufacturers who make AMD boards for a lot cheaper. AMD has, for quite a few years, survived by being the cheaper alternative. Intel has always had the performance lead. Have they charged too much for the performance lead? Probably, but don't tell me AMD wouldn't do the same thing if they could. They are a business and will charge just as much as they can and still sell their products.
It all boils down to what you want to do with a computer. If all you want is to read email, go to Facebook and browse the internet, it doesn't matter whether you run AMD or Intel. If you want to run in a production environment or game, it does make a difference and sometimes a big difference.
-
It all boils down to what you want to do with a computer. If all you want is to read email, go to Facebook and browse the internet, it doesn't matter whether you run AMD or Intel. If you want to run in a production environment or game, it does make a difference and sometimes a big difference.
And that's the bottom line.
Anyway I think an argument is being created where none existed. I don't think anyone here thinks AMD being back in the game isn't good for competition. We welcome them. Nor is anyone against higher performing products. Quite the opposite. If we were against progress, we wouldn't be constantly evolving our systems in hopes of gaining more performance.
If the Ryzen 7 lineup turns out the be he game changer AMD hopes it'll be, they'll sell in bucket loads. If it isn't, it's back to the drawing board. This is no different than any other new tech hitting the market - whether AMD, Intel, NVidia, or Samsung, performance sells, lackluster stalls. It's that simple.
My two cents 
-
-
![]()
Well said Drew. Personally I hope AMD comes out with a chip that beats every Intel chip. I think we may really see some gains when the race began. I'm reminded of an article I read about an interview with an Intel VP in charge of the design of the Sandy Bridge chips. He was asked when he thought Intel would come out with a stock 5 GHz CPU. He said we could have done that with Sandy Bridge, but we saw no reason to push the envelope. Personally, I wish AMD would give them a reason to push it. We would be the winners.
This debate is the same no matter what your interest/hobby is. I recall having the same debate when I used to play Golf. There were some heated arguments between the enthusiasts over which were the best Golf Balls or the best type clubs or the best brand and almost any other aspect of the game. It's the same debate whether you are into Baseball, Photography hunting or anything else. Just go to a car enthusiast club and say you think Chevy makes the best cars if you want to start a big fight. 
-
Speaking about pricing, ad another at least 100 bucks to those US prices in Europe, in some countries even more.
-
![]()
Hi there
I see this going 2 ways -- "Insanely power hungry" processors for "gamers" and mega number crunchers / graphic designers / VR systems etc while other people who need more things like servers etc will want things like more HYPERTHREADING in CPU's for throughput rather than raw power.
I've traded an i5 CPU for an older XEON one - the hyperthreading capability runs my VM's a lot better -- I have 2 Virtual NAS servers running most of the time serving multi-media and the XEON simply runs rings around the i5 (I've sufficient RAM and fast HDD's for the VM's) - I have sometimes around 12 concurrent users (it's a Home type of network but I let a few neighbours access some TV / sports / movie streams).
These days a "one type fits all" isn't going to work any more - markets need to be much more targeted --the days of simply producing FASTER or more powerful stuff just for the sake of it are over -- particularly as POWER consumption will be a problem --especially for mobile devices.
Some of the latest phones for example while having far more processing power than the entire computing power available in the planet between 1939 and early 1970's eat up battery so fast that what's the point of a device that you can only use for about 4 hours before it needs to be recharged.
I don't think Intel even considers AMD at all -it won't be a serious competitor -- but it should look at things like the Snapdragon processor and probably go into mobile technology.
Cheers
jimbo
-
![]()
This debate is the same no matter what your interest/hobby is. I recall having the same debate when I used to play Golf. There were some heated arguments between the enthusiasts over which were the best Golf Balls or the best type clubs or the best brand and almost any other aspect of the game. It's the same debate whether you are into Baseball, Photography hunting or anything else. Just go to a car enthusiast club and say you think Chevy makes the best cars if you want to start a big fight.
Yeah Steve, It's the same argument in the photography world. Right now the big argument is that Sigma (equivalent to AMD) is challenging both Canon and Nikon (equivalent to Intel) to lower prices as Sigma has produced some comparable award winning lenses at half the price. Sigma, like AMD, is fighting it's past as well as the brand name of both Nikon and Canon. Then there's lens tech, camera tech, and all the other tech improvements that goes along with any equipment. Honestly you could change the equipment name, but the arguments are the same... is it better than X, can they compete and lower prices, why do we need it, is it worth it... etc...
Same argument, different equipment :)
Well said Drew. Personally I hope AMD comes out with a chip that beats every Intel chip. I think we may really see some gains when the race began. I'm reminded of an article I read about an interview with an Intel VP in charge of the design of the Sandy Bridge chips. He was asked when he thought Intel would come out with a stock 5 GHz CPU. He said we could have done that with Sandy Bridge, but we saw no reason to push the envelope. Personally, I wish AMD would give them a reason to push it. We would be the winners.
Yeah, I think if AMD was more competitive in the past, we'd probably have affordable consumer grade octo-core chips from Intel by now. BTW I think it's time octo-core processors became the norm anyway. It's just a matter of time. With Ryzen, AMD is announcing that time is now. We just need the software, especially games... once that happens these processors will take off.
That brings me to another thought... The only real advantage AMD has over Intel is pricing. Yeah, AMD won a few benches head to head in the octo matchup, but the main is pricing. Once programs are optimized to take advantage of 8-cores, this will benefit both AMD and Intel. It will be very interesting to see how AMD fairs then.
-
![]()
There were performance benefits in AMD's Athlon64 CPU at the time even without running more than 4GB of RAM or a 64-bit capable OS. I moved from and Northwood core P4 to and A64 and there was a noticeable difference in everyday tasks. The added registers were the direct result of having a full 64-bit architecture.
Hold on here. Your argument was that *BEFORE* the Athlon64 was introduced, Intel made statements about there being no benefits to 64 bit. But you're trying to use arguments about performance based AFTER the 64 bit platform was introduced.
I made quite clear that there were performance benefits to the AMD64 platform that had little or nothing to do with it's "64-bitness", but that has nothing to do with Intel's argument that 64-bitness in general, at the time before AMD64 existed, didn't have any real benefits.
Windows XP had a 64-bit variant at the time but it was actually Server 2003 at the core. I ran 32-bit XP on up to 7 at which time I moved to 64-bit.
Again, Windows XP 64 bit didn't exist BEFORE AMD64, so you're making arguments from a different time frame.
Athlon64 was released in September of 2003. Windows XP 64 bit was released in April of 2005, more than 18 months later.
Even though it would take a few more years for users to see most of the benefits of 64-bit computing, I'd argue that if AMD had not gone 64-bit when it did, Intel would've stuck with 32-bit far longer and we wouldn't be as far along as a result.
Just to clarify, I'm not an AMD fanboy. I'll go where the performance is. My main rig is an i5 6500 along with an RX480. My HTPC is an Phenom II x4 paired with a 1050Ti.
We would have ended up with a totally different market if AMD had not basically defined AMD64. Intel's plans were to make 64 bit CPU's that were largely incompatible with existing x86. In some ways, that might have resulted in superior and cheaper CPU's, since they didn't need the x86 baggage, but ultimately the market decided.
-
-
Vram, I think you don't understand something. I have a 6 core chip. I can tell you that unless you run software that will specifically use all 6 cores, there is no advantage to having 6 cores/12 threads.
That depends entirely on your workload. If you only run a single app at a time, you're correct. But, more cores means more responsiveness when multi-tasking, because there are more cores available to service individual applications. So, even if you're (for example), transcoding a DVD, or some other task that takes 100% cpu of one or more cores, you can still have available cores for running the UI, or using other apps.
Quote