Intel is still dominant on CPU market and the last Steam Survey showed that more than 70% of users preferred an Intel CPU over an AMD CPU , do you think this will change with release of Ryzen ?
New processors, new architecture, new platforms, DDR4 support - Ryzen potentially catapults AMD back into contention in the x86 space for PC gaming and more. Assuming the pricing and configuration details we've seen pan out - and there is close convergence in all of the recent leaks - Ryzen could have a profound impact on the price of a highly creditable gaming PC. And for those still holding on to their 2500Ks and 3570Ks, perhaps this potential leap in price vs performance might finally convince those users to upgrade.
They will not beat Intel.... they will force intel to be more competitive finally. If the leaked and rumored info of prices and performance of these processors is true. Intel will have to drop prices to begin with in the short term and then have to remove the artificial premium they have monopolized with introducing new socket with every little change done on the LGA 11** sockets and LGA 2011 and 6/8 core cpus.
Intel's response to Ryzen is what I'm waiting for. They've been holding back for years because AMD wasn't providing any competition. With an R&D budget that dwarfs AMD's, they'll quickly counter with new advances they've been sitting on and consumers will benefit.
I could careless about them. I mean, my CPU is almost 2 years old and still be good for maybe 5 more years to come. Don't get me wrong, its cool that AMD is going to finally compete with Intel again but other then that, I just don't see myself upgrading my CPU anytime soon.
With games starting to utilize 8 threads more and more becoming the standard, unless you have an i7 3rd gen or newer your cpu wont be good for another 5 years. Even the AMD FX 8 processing power in multithreading has starting to shine allowing better overall performance being equal to or slightly better than 4th gen i5's when done correctly.
With games starting to utilize 8 threads more and more becoming the standard, unless you have an i7 3rd gen or newer your cpu wont be good for another 5 years. Even the AMD FX 8 processing power in multithreading has starting to shine allowing better overall performance being equal to or slightly better than 4th gen i5's when done correctly.
I have an i5 6600k, TBH, I haven't had any issues with my CPU despite we seen more games using 8 threads, I figure I'd be okay until I'm ready to start replacing my CPU if only I really need to. My new PC build is almost 2 years old and I went with i5 6600k just for gaming only these days. I'll still check out what AMD has up on there sleeves.
Even my i5 4690k ive notice cpu side bottleneck with like BF1 MP unless I cap my framerate. While i5's do the job, we are in a transition like with dual cores and quad cores back in the day or even further back with single vs dual.
Even my i5 4690k ive notice cpu side bottleneck with like BF1 MP unless I cap my framerate. While i5's do the job, we are in a transition like with dual cores and quad cores back in the day or even further back with single vs dual.
I've got a i7 4770k and to date I haven't seen anything to make me think my 980Ti is being bottlenecked. I'm not expecting anything drastic in the next couple of years, especially with processors normally getting year on year increase of ~5%
Even my i5 4690k ive notice cpu side bottleneck with like BF1 MP unless I cap my framerate. While i5's do the job, we are in a transition like with dual cores and quad cores back in the day or even further back with single vs dual.
I've got a i7 4770k and to date I haven't seen anything to make me think my 980Ti is being bottlenecked. I'm not expecting anything drastic in the next couple of years, especially with processors normally getting year on year increase of ~5%
Well, not until games start to utilize more cores. An i7-5960X already outperforms an i7-7700K in well multi-threaded games such as Battlefield One and Watch Dogs 2. Hopefully AMD speeds this process up.
Even my i5 4690k ive notice cpu side bottleneck with like BF1 MP unless I cap my framerate. While i5's do the job, we are in a transition like with dual cores and quad cores back in the day or even further back with single vs dual.
I've got a i7 4770k and to date I haven't seen anything to make me think my 980Ti is being bottlenecked. I'm not expecting anything drastic in the next couple of years, especially with processors normally getting year on year increase of ~5%
Well, not until games start to utilize more cores. An i7-5960X already outperforms an i7-7700K in well multi-threaded games such as Battlefield One and Watch Dogs 2. Hopefully AMD speeds this process up.
Gargx you have to realize too your running an i7 which has eight threads, this allows better multithreading and usage of cpu resources simultaneity. people using a dual core with HT or a plain quad core are at a disadvantagewhen games make use of 8 threads.
@userneet: I should hope so, a i7 5960X was a £1000 CPU at launch, if I'd paid that and it was out performed by a £350 CPU a mere two years later I'd be rather pissed.
@04dcarraher: Only mentioned it as a balance to your post, I wasn't disagreeing with you. I haven't used i5 since my 2500K, which was a fantastic CPU.
What I find the most alarming is that AMD didn't show in their New Horizons event (was that a serious event for investors or more like a gig for a new music band?) a cpu that outperforms by far the 6900 but it just go toe to toe and none of all those "leaked" benchmarks show a direct winner in all categories (not to mention gaming).
If I was AMD and wanted to shake the waters I would start by showing a cpu that literally devastates both 7700 and 6900 everywhere. I am not convinced yet that AMD can do that because they didn't demonstrated it. Thats not good PR. Its seems that AMD enters the fight with the bar already lower. At least we will see some competition if nothing else.
AMD is a really strange company... I remember when they did the sneak presentation a half year back with the Ryzen and content producers got a look inside the hardware.. And it was a freaking mess of disorganization, like they got some unpaid intern 4 hours of time to slap together a machine with what ever they had laying around.. To me this really sent warning bells, how the company was operating.. Hopefully they do succeed simply to stop Intel's monopolization of the market place.
What I find the most alarming is that AMD didn't show in their New Horizons event (was that a serious event for investors or more like a gig for a new music band?) a cpu that outperforms by far the 6900 but it just go toe to toe and none of all those "leaked" benchmarks show a direct winner in all categories (not to mention gaming).
If I was AMD and wanted to shake the waters I would start by showing a cpu that literally devastates both 7700 and 6900 everywhere. I am not convinced yet that AMD can do that because they didn't demonstrated it. Thats not good PR.
Its seems that AMD enters the fight with the bar already lower. At least we will see some competition if nothing else.
Closing the gap is better than effectively zero competition.
This year I'll finally do a full upgrade on my PC. I got a lot out of my ivy bridge processor, but it's time to upgrade soon. Either to kaby lake or if AMD can prove themselves, go that route. I'll probably still stick with Intel.
they wont beat them in per core performance or efficency. that much is clear. but they could offer excellent bang per buck and give people something to think about. just looking roughly at the rumoured prices of rizen processors as per eurogamer:
i could get an i5 7600 (4 cores and 4 threads not overclockable), or a ryzen 5 1600X (6 cores and 12 threads, overclockable) for the same money roughly. thats not a clear cut winner. core for core the i5 is better. but ryzen offers more and a ryzen core is not a million miles off either. for someone who doesnt upgrade often that ryzen CPU may be more future proof as games start looking for more threads.
they wont beat intel in the sense of kicking them out of the market or beating them in sheer grunt of course. but if they can offer a genuine alternative to an intel CPU then I will call that a win for us at the end of the day and thats a really good thing.
Just about buy new PC, time to put that old SB 2600k to rest. I just hope Intel will drop the price on the 7700CPUs and i be happy. Ryzen will not beat intel but will probably do "ok" enough. Very bad time to buy new PC hardware when we may see big price changes in 2-5weeks. 1080Ti supposed to come late next month as well?
they wont beat them in per core performance or efficency. that much is clear. but they could offer excellent bang per buck and give people something to think about. just looking roughly at the rumoured prices of rizen processors as per eurogamer:
i could get an i5 7600 (4 cores and 4 threads not overclockable), or a ryzen 5 1600X (6 cores and 12 threads, overclockable) for the same money roughly. thats not a clear cut winner. core for core the i5 is better. but ryzen offers more and a ryzen core is not a million miles off either. for someone who doesnt upgrade often that ryzen CPU may be more future proof as games start looking for more threads.
they wont beat intel in the sense of kicking them out of the market or beating them in sheer grunt of course. but if they can offer a genuine alternative to an intel CPU then I will call that a win for us at the end of the day and thats a really good thing.
What makes you so sure about that? Its not even out yet and the leaks suggest otherwise.
I hope they get put back on the map, AMD has always made quality stuff but due to their market share loss they were just never able to afford something truly great since the mid 2000's in terms of architecture.
Ryzen seems to be what everyone has wanted from them.
Even my i5 4690k ive notice cpu side bottleneck with like BF1 MP unless I cap my framerate. While i5's do the job, we are in a transition like with dual cores and quad cores back in the day or even further back with single vs dual.
I've got a i7 4770k and to date I haven't seen anything to make me think my 980Ti is being bottlenecked. I'm not expecting anything drastic in the next couple of years, especially with processors normally getting year on year increase of ~5%
i also have a 4770k. Mostly every game i've also played its not bottlenecked on the cpu end.
Except for two i've noticed, GTA 5 i noticed some bottlenecking in some cases (FPS drops to 65-70 at times). And also in Batman Arkham Knight, i noticed some bottlenecking while driving around quickly and also in some areas in the city (FPS drops as low as 50-60fps). Both these games are not really optimized very well for PC, Batman especially and since i still get over 70-90fps at most times ... so upgrading cpu wouldn't really matter much for me. And both these games bottlenecked from their own poor optimization and were not maxing the cpu usage out.
MMO's are another thing, almost every mmo i play hit bottlenecks on the cpu end at some point and upgrading won't do much unless intel actually released a cpu with a massive boost in single threaded performance.
I think if this ryzen cpu can't at least match intels 4th gen cpus in thread to thread performance, most real gamers won't bother with it since this is what we need for performance.
AMD is ahead for now all cpu's unlocked and most threading. The prices also kick ass as well ass the mobo features and prices. Seems like AMD is back not sure about the oc limits but I hear 4.4 to 4.6 count me in.
I doubt it. They still don't have it where it counts - clock speed and efficiency.
It will be good for budget builds though. From what I've heard they have a 'hyper-threaded', over-clockable, 4-core, 3.5GHz CPU for less that $200. Very interesting.
I'll still probably go Intel for a few more years since they have been refining their processes and will most likely have a better, more consistent product. They also have that 5.0GHz which makes it very appealing for those looking to do new high-end builds.
Microsoft sells each Xbox One for $499 after spending $471 to build it, according to a peek inside Microsoft's new gaming console by research firm IHS, as shared with AllThingsD
@ronvalencia: Do you have a chart to prove that because the Xbone and Scorpio's APU is about the same size it will be priced similarly?
No need, RX-470/RX-480's price range is similar to year 2012 7850/7870, which indicates similar BOM.
Pitcairn has 212 mm^2 size. Later in year 2014, Tonga with 366 mm^2 size replaced Pitcairn's price segment. XBO's 363 mm^2 and PS4's 348 mm^2 arrived late year 2013.
Polaris 10 has 232 mm^2 size.
----
Scorpio will not be on the cutting edge of process technology since TSMC's 10 nm FinFET (Taiwan) and GoFlo's 12 nm (Germany) will be this year's cutting edge process technology.
Vega will be AMD's second generation 14 nm FinFET SKUs which refers to refinement/optimisation phase.
Polaris 10/11= new 14 nm FinFET process tech and half gen architecture improvement jump. Tick.
Vega 10/11 = full architecture improvement jump with current process optimisation . Tock.
Vega 20 = new 7 nm process tech and half gen architecture improvement jump. Tick
Navi 10/11 = full architecture improvement jump with 7 nm process optimisation . Tock.
GameSpot: Sony recently announced the PS4 Pro. What was initial your reaction to the announcement? It's coming out a year before Xbox Scorpio; how does that affect your plans, if at all?
Spencer: It didn't affect our plan at all. About two and a half years ago we started to look at a hardware refresh that we might want to do, which in the end led to the Xbox One S and Scorpio in terms of designs. We'd looked at doing something that was higher performance this year, and I'd say the [PS4] Pro is about what we thought--with the GPU, CPU, memory that was here this year--that you could go do, and we decided that we wanted to do something different. So we looked at Scorpio and 4K and what I thought was a bigger step in terms of performance. It was something that we wanted to focus on.
Xbox One S already has 16 nm FinFET Puma/Jaguar update!!!!!
GameSpot: Sony recently announced the PS4 Pro. What was initial your reaction to the announcement? It's coming out a year before Xbox Scorpio; how does that affect your plans, if at all?
Spencer: It didn't affect our plan at all. About two and a half years ago we started to look at a hardware refresh that we might want to do, which in the end led to the Xbox One S and Scorpio in terms of designs. We'd looked at doing something that was higher performance this year, and I'd say the [PS4] Pro is about what we thought--with the GPU, CPU, memory that was here this year--that you could go do, and we decided that we wanted to do something different. So we looked at Scorpio and 4K and what I thought was a bigger step in terms of performance. It was something that we wanted to focus on.
In regards to CPU, GPU and memory, MSFT wanted something different from PS4 Pro.
It wouldn't be PS4 Pro's CPU solution.
Project Scorpio ‘Beefier Than Expected’, Says Halo Director
“Haha, although I probably ‘know’ [what Project Scorpio’s specs are] in that I might have seen it in a slide or something, it’s literally not something I have time to think about now and I actually couldn’t remember whatever specs I’ve been exposed to even if I was tortured. I literally couldn’t leak or answer a question that went beyond, ‘Can I do this? Does it support that? How many of these could it render?’ What I do remember is that it’s beefier than I expected.”
GameSpot: Sony recently announced the PS4 Pro. What was initial your reaction to the announcement? It's coming out a year before Xbox Scorpio; how does that affect your plans, if at all?
Spencer: It didn't affect our plan at all. About two and a half years ago we started to look at a hardware refresh that we might want to do, which in the end led to the Xbox One S and Scorpio in terms of designs. We'd looked at doing something that was higher performance this year, and I'd say the [PS4] Pro is about what we thought--with the GPU, CPU, memory that was here this year--that you could go do, and we decided that we wanted to do something different. So we looked at Scorpio and 4K and what I thought was a bigger step in terms of performance. It was something that we wanted to focus on.
In regards to CPU, GPU and memory, MSFT wanted something different from PS4 Pro.
Branching from an image of Xbox Scorpio being advertised at the official Ryzen section of the AMD booth at this year’s CES Expo. A source close to ICXM visited the AMD booth at CES to ask the AMD staff about the situation to which they replied, “It's there for a reason but we can't talk about it yet.”
@ronvalencia: So 2.2 GHz FinFet Puma+. More might be pushing it.
The white paper has not defined specific CPU design i.e. the claim was manufactured by Digital Foundry.
I have already bashed DF's Richard Leadbetter's Scorpio GPU claims.
It's isn't Jaguar......but it's Puma....WTF! Architecturally there is no difference between the two. Just circuit-design different & probably different libraries since both are made on different foundries (TSMC & GloFo respectively)
A whitepaper was released on MSFT's development portal, entitled 'Reaching 4K and GPU Scaling Across Multiple Xbox Devices'.
For XBO game to work between XBO and Scorpio, 30 hz CPU AI/gameplay modelling has to be common for both machines while higher machine still has 60 hz graphics update.
@ronvalencia: So then 2.2 GHz isn't too much of an overclock?
The future game still has 60 hz graphics update i.e. CPU's create GPU command list thread(s) is being updated at 60 hz.
The same paper mentions low end PCs.
Against DF's
And to be fair, Microsoft has never suggested otherwise. It confirmed eight CPU cores out of the gate, suggesting a higher-clocked version of its existing CPU technology and all of its messaging has been about running existing game engines at 4K resolution with HDR rendering. The whitepaper we've seen primarily concentrates on how this is possible. A 4.5x boost to compute power suggests that 1080p engines will scale nicely to 4K on Scorpio, but the reality is that many Xbox One titles render at a 900p base resolution. The leap to 4K therefore becomes a 5.76x increase in pixel-count and at the same time, developers may not wish to spend GPU power on pixels alone.
RX-390X at 5.9 TFLOPS can run brain dead XBO ports with 1600x900p / 60 fps at 4K e.g. Killer Instinct Season 2.
5.6 TFLOPS R9-290X delivered 4K at 31.7 fps while XBO has 1600x900/30 fps. R9-290X is 5.76X effective over XBO.
This R15 benchmark hopefully is inaccurate. Because my ancient 4770k gets 176cb in single threaded test. Even my 2600k beats the Ryzen cpu. I even had a game and movie running while i was running test.
Back to the drawing board AMD if this benchmark is accurate because its useless for high end gaming. Even my 4770k is showing its age in some games due to its lower IPC compared to the newer skylake cpus.
Only saving grace would be if the performance is hugely improved from an overclock, it could be alright if this thing can hit 5ghz but this has me worried that a brand new cpu can't even beat my cpu i've been using for several years. This is smelling like a Bulldozer release all over again.... releasing outdated tech that can't even match intels 3-4 year old cpus in single threaded performance.
Log in to comment