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

Mystere said:

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.

And VMs too, more cores can have real advantage.

essenbe said:

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.

At one point, single core cpus worked fine and then dual core chips came out. My point is that the extra horsepower will come into play sooner rather than later. I have 16GB of RAM and most of sits unused until I game. Same deal with the CPU. Maybe I want to game while running handbrake in the background. Strange supposed tech people are in the "good enough" camp....

I am in no way down on Intel. As I mentioned, I'm running an Intel CPU in my main rig. Just built last August.

As for mainstream vs. enthusiast, there is a pricing threshold that determines what the majority will buy. As I said 2011-3 boards and CPUs are not in the mainstream category. If they were, you'd see Dell, HP, Acer, etc. selling them in their general consumer line of desktops. Ryzen and Intel's upcoming coffee lake cpus will bring additional processing power to the general audience.

sygnus21 said:

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.

Who said this was all about building? Average people have uses/buy multicore cpus daily. There are plenty of OEMs selling i5/i7 rigs at affordable prices. You don't have to build your PC to game or do workloads that require multiple cores.

Mystere said:

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 probably didn't word that as well as I should've. Intel was downplaying 64-bit computing as unnecessary when AMD was promoting it. If I remember correctly, Intel's argument was based solely on the RAM aspect, completely ignoring the advantages of a real 64-bit instruction set/registers. When they finally caved and were forced to support AMD's 64-bit implementation, they begrudgingly termed it EMT64.

And yes, XP64 came into existence after AMD released their 64-bit cpus.

I used to use AMD CPUs in all my builds years ago. It will be interesting to see how these perform once all the bugs and everything are worked out.

Some review sites do get early releases of products so they have time to do the reviews and articles by release time. They are just usually under a NDA until a certain date, so no benchmarks and performance numbers.

To me until otherwise proven different, it's the same old AMD B/S.

More cores and faster. Stack a bunch of old cores together. Zap them with more volts and brag about it.
They end up making slower cpu's that put out a lot more heat.

Now, I do hope all the talks about being better and cheaper is true.
Intel like Microsoft could use a little competition the help get their heads out of their orifice.

Honest competition always helps the consumer.

Jack