Intel is freaked out about Ryzen, starts sampling new cpus

>Intel is freaked out about Ryzen, starts sampling new cpus.

what did he mean by this?

Other urls found in this thread:

win-raid.com/t2375f25-Guide-NVMe-boot-without-modding-your-UEFI-BIOS-Clover-EFI-bootloader-method.html
youtube.com/watch?v=HXQYl2LGYHE
arstechnica.com/business/2011/03/leaked-bulldozer-benchmarks-may-give-glimpse-of-amds-future/
anandtech.com/show/2881/2
slideshare.net/AMD/amd-hot-chips-bulldozer-bobcat-presentation-5041615
slideshare.net/AMD/amd-and-the-new-zen-high-performance-x86-core-at-hot-chips-28
tweaktown.com/news/55427/intel-unveil-skylake-kaby-lake-gamescom-2017/index.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>mfw I just ordered 6700k.

CANCEL RIGHT NOW

haha, froge

Still it's not like Ryzen is magically better than Intel kaby or broadwell-e, why to fuck won't they simply drop prices to remain competitive?

...

>canard PC
>still no price
>still independent benchmarks

pretty sure their demos showed that even without turbo they had a clear advantage over the 6900k...
let alone any other smaller one

4 core CPUs are done for at this point. 6 & 8 are the future. Open world games like GTA V and Watch Dogs 2 eat up all the cores/threads they can get.

They were aware of Zen being a competitive arch, so they started pushing more cores in everything. 10 cores for HEDT, 6 cores coming for mainstream.
In the meantime they've been trying to push clocks as high as possible to hold a performance lead, even at the cost of increase power consumption.
Its a good sign. A fire is officially lit under their ass.

>8c/16t Ryzen binning has 3.6ghz base clock, 4ghz turbo, lower TDP than Broadwell-E
>later in the year there might be a higher binned refresh, could conceivably reach 4ghz base clock
>Zen+ brings more IPC and more frequency
>AMD will be having chips fabbed on IBM's 7nm SOI FinFET process
>if intel doesn't radically increase performance then AMD will surpass them

2017 is the best year ever.

>AMD will be having chips fabbed on IBM's 7nm SOI FinFET process

Lmao when? It's been officially said that AMD is going to run on that 14nm FinFET for next 4 years.

They making 7800K next week.

aaayyyy lmao krappy fake $hilltel gore i$emen (cooler not included in a box) end of life edition at 0.90 GHz.

No, they amended their wafer supply agreement to have access to 14nm wafers for the next 4 years, there is a big difference there. That does not mean all high performance CPUs and GPUs will be 14nm LPP until 2021. It means they'll be able to keep producing stock if need. There are still 32nm Piledriver chips being produced right now, nodes stay online for far longer than they're used on the high end.

Work to bring the 7nm node online starts this year, there'll be 7nm parts on the market in 2019.

> It's been officially said that AMD is going to run on that 14nm FinFET for next 4 years.
After 5 years, maybe? GloFo 7nm will be sampled in 2018-2019.

lol

>mfw I still sit on 3770k
>Intel has been releasing same CPUS for last 3 gens.
>AMD is going to release 1 gen every 5 years that still aren't a upgrade but rather a catch up

This is pissing me off. a 10% upgrade in both cases will cost me $300 while I end up getting fucked by no m.2 support and old slow ass ddr3.

> while I end up getting fucked by no m.2 support
win-raid.com/t2375f25-Guide-NVMe-boot-without-modding-your-UEFI-BIOS-Clover-EFI-bootloader-method.html
Get a simple PCIE3x4 to M.2 adapter, transfer your data using Acronis 2017 BootCD, install Clover and you'll be able to boot from NVMe on any UEFI chipset.

>catch up
how is a 16 thread cpu considered catch up? Especially with ipc between haswell and skylake? Ryzen will age like fine wine as more and more applications start utilizing more cores.

>95w TDP
>a moderate underclock/undervolt gives an absurdly cool and quiet 65w CPU.

Its going to be fantastic.

You realize that Ryzen IPC is something between broadwell and Skylake right? They sure as heck won't oc as good as Kabylake so really only way to be competitive is to be cheaper than Intel. I expect 4c/8t Zen for $250 which would be pretty neat but I think retards in here who expect 6c/12t or 8c/16t competing with price of 7700k are kinda too optimistic.

It's a catch up to Broadwell-E user. Remember that you still only fucking speculate about Ryzen and if those prices were really so good and incredible AMD would let us know same way they were shilling for 480RX.

...

Damn thank you user. That changes things.

Can somebody explain to me or give me some links about what's good about having more threads than cores?

I still use my Q6600, most of games I play gain no performance if I enable them to use more than 2 cores. Why is there a need to threads in modern games and apps? When are more threads better than same cpu with equal numbers of thread and cores?
Outside games I'm fine with my CPU, the only heavy program I use is Solidworks but most of my projects have less than 1000 parts.

>as good
as well

My bad. Being German and all.

> They sure as heck won't oc as good as Kabylake
Why?

It's a budget sacrifice between having 4 cores and 4 threads and actual 8 physical cores.

4c/8t CPUs tend to OC better than 8c CPUS which gives you this desirable performance in low threaded software like games. You don't really need those 8 threads but more and more games are started to be bottlenecked in modern AAA games when only having access to 4 cores/threads and this is rather painful if you have something powerful like 1070/980 Ti or 1080 when you suddenly lose 50% of your GPU power because your CPU shits on your frame before GPU gets to full usage. I wouldn't recommend i7 to people with budget GPUs though.

>oc as good as Kabylake

Considering this was the worst chip for OC that intel has put out I cant see anything being inferior. Fucking Sandybridge is more stable.

Imagine that you are intel for a moment
you have been over pricing cpus for nearly 7 years
amd comes along and finally slaps your shit

What do you do?

drop the price of everything 8 core and below and let everyone know that THAT is the price they could have paid, then have everyone look into how big die size cpus use to be and realise THAT'S how much they could have paid all along have a massive pr nightmare that won't go away for years makeing you see the 'yea if you want to piss money away' choice

or

Do you eat the cost of one cycle put out the next one at cheap prices saying 'due to the advancements we made, we brought the cost of cpus down' even if there is no architectural change and the only change in fab is getting slightly higher yields. People in the know will shout the bullshit down, but average people will just lap the shit up.

now if ryzen is as good as intels 8 core, and its looking to be that case, if amd prices it low enough, intel wont have an answer outside of price drop for kabby lake, they wont have an answer inside of cannon lake either, and possibly coffee lake to boot as by that time amd will likely be moving to a now node too.

amd is currently set to dominate till intel makes a new core arch. and that's 2020 at best for that if not later due to delays.

> in low threaded software like games
Eh. GTA V, everything-Frostbite, Cryengine games can use at least 8 threads. Don't know about UE4, but come out, it's 2017, Epic shoud've figured that out.

>AMD is currently set to dominate
I can't wait for AMD to shit the bed again so you fanboys can finally kill yourselves.

Only good thing about AMD right now is the money-making potential from investing in it. I seriously regret not buying hundreds of its stocks back when the prices were like $2 a pop.

SMT exists because the execution units in a core are never fully loaded by a single thread. A 3 ALU wide core is likely neglecting that 3rd ALU the majority of the time, and there are still exploitable gaps in the first two. SMT allows a scheduler to run a separate logical thread in these gaps to extrapolate more performance for minimal costs to power consumption and die area.

If you're not utilizing SMT you're wasting potential performance in a wide core.

I know that this is an /sqt/ tier question but I'm not that knowledgeable on m.2. Your motherboard still needs to support nvme even if you are using a pcie adapter to fully utilize you ssd, right?

Hmmm... if they got rid of the PSP bullshit and made all of their stuff free and in freedumbs, I would actually invest thousands and start gaming with it. But for now I have Coreboot and partially de-blobbed management engine.

> Your motherboard still needs to support nvme
No, I installed Clover on a USB Flash, so motherboard boots the Clover, and then Clover, which supports NVMe and can see the drive, boots the OS. See the picture, I have a i5-2400S, it's Z77 board, to be precise, and they do not support NVMe.

look at the es sample benchmark, that is a worst case scenario for amd, and its still amazing.

Not to mention remove the validation board that threw errors on smt, and boost that clock to what we know base is, and its amazing.

then you have the server market which cares more about power use then it does performance or initial cost, and amd is better in both areas, possibly better then intel, and the kicker, intel has no answer for octa channel memory or 32 cores, so anyone bottlenecked performance or memory bandwidth has no where else to look.

intel sat on their dick not doing much of anything since sandy bridge and it's coming home to bite them in the ass.

I still believe that Ryzen shoots itself in the foot by making budget options run on actual lower clocks that their $500+ high end. I don't think they really are interested in competing with Intel's consumerist options and their aim is Broadwell-E.

yea sure their 8c/16t will give you 6900k performance for $300 less but it's not like this means anything for budget oriented buyers. Skylake and Kaby i5s and i7s both run at 1+ Ghz higher than 4c/6c Ryzen options while having a slightly better IPC. AMD once again won't be able to touch Intel in the gaymen market unless those fanboy prediction turn out to be actually true and you will be able to buy something like a 4c/8t for $200 but honestly that seems like too good to be true. AMD's 480RX was already price gouged to the point where their reference cards were unstable on stock voltage and clocks just so they could compete with 1060. But hey, maybe, just maybe you will be able to buy a slower alternative to 6700k/7700k for $100 less.

Isn't this only true for DX 12 vulkan stuff

> a slower alternative to 6700k/7700k for $100 less.
And overclock it. Good 4 me.

>Overclocking 3.4Ghz stock CPU to 4.5Ghz just to match its stock performance

Only in your wildest dreams, like I said only thing AMD can do to compete with "budget" (lel) Intel CPU's is being 33% cheaper across the board.

Thank you for your answers. If a game or application performs well with 8 threads will it work better with a 8c/8t or odds are that it will perform the same as 4c/8t because of ?

The increase of throughput from SMT is typically around 30% in a well threaded application.
Assuming IPC is equal: 8c/8t is superior to 4c/8t, but if you had 8 cores you should be running 16 threads across them.

Unless AMD has its mid-range CPUs deliver 6900K-tier performance at the price of the new Kaby Lake i3s, it isn't going to shit on Intel at all.

8c/16t to maintain the gain from SMT in well threaded applications. How will it influence old, not well threaded applications?

>90-95% of the performance
>66% of the price
>same threading
>same
And you think AMD isn't going to do well? You're fucking blind at this point.

If you're running a lot of them all at once then it'll help a bit.
Otherwise, no difference.

>How will it influence old, not well threaded applications?
It doesn't. Running a serial threaded program on a highly threaded CPU has no negative effects.

>800 Mhz lower out of the box
>Same performance
>Automatically assumes that it's going to cost 33% less because he wants so

AMD subhuman retards should be purged from this board.

Except it does because highly threaded CPUs have lower clock speeds. That's why a fucking 6700k is beating 6900k in video games.

I remember some times ago there was a game that performed better when Intel Hyper-threading was off. Sometimes I've read people suggesting to disable it. What was behind it?

>DX12
>Vulkan

When the operating system handles load balancing it determines what task gets sent to what core and thread. Windows used to have minor issues with this, and would sometimes populate only logical threads instead of the primary physical ones first.

Bullshit. GTA V doesn't scale on 16 threads. And it's fucking CPU demanding. Fucking pajeets.

I'm sure it will still outperform this Ryzen shit. People forget about Piledriver was supposed to bring AMD back to the top again.

And even if Ryzen ends up being better, it will only be a negligible difference. I have a 4790K and nothing comes close to taxing this beast out, and the 6700K is even better. You should've bought a 7700K though. The price is literally the same between Skylake and Kaby Lake.

Used until when? 10?

>People forget about Piledriver was supposed to bring AMD back to the top again.
No it wasn't you lying Sup Forums child.
The performance uplift of Piledriver over Bulldozer was only 10%~, and thats all AMD ever touted for the entire BD family. No one expected a huge performance uplift. You're utterly fabricating things to fit your fanboy narrative.

Ryzen performs roughly on par with the Broadwell-E chips, which are marginally faster per clock than your 4790K.

youtube.com/watch?v=HXQYl2LGYHE

While GTA V does utilize 8 threads now, it's certainly not eating them all up. That 7700K is still far from being fully taxed out on what is quite arguably one of the most CPU intensive games on the market.

I'm glad you did your research. Most games right now will now utilize up to 8 THREADS. This was a pretty recent advancement in the past few years. Games like Battlefield and Crysis were some of the first ones to utilize more than 4 threads. Previously, Core i7 processors were never fully utilized because games were not designed to utilize that many threads/cores. Many games were still only utilizing up to 4 threads, making hyperthreading fairly useless on these processors. Many people was turning hyperthreading off on their processors because they were not benefiting from the technology.

Now many games will utilize up to 8 threads/cores, but if that's all they utilize, having a CPU that has 16 threads is like having a CPU that had 8 threads from 4 years ago or so.

Is having 8C/16T the future? Yes. Are you going to notice a significant improvement? Not hardly, because games have to be developed to utilize that many threads. Maybe there are some games out there that do, but I guarantee many don't.

For a long time it was considered "falling for the meme" to buy a Core i7 because they provided zero benefit over a Core i5 due to games not properly utilizing more than 4 threads -- and many games flat out didn't even support hyperthreading.

That's not how it works. When hyper threading is activated, all cores are virtual cores. It would be impossible to have a real physical core visible by the system while having a virtual one, powered by the same core.

tl;dr: buy the 4c8t or 8c8t ryzen cpu because it will clock higher and muh games don't even support 16 threads?

Rypoo is a garbage architecture & uncompetitive

Canard is a lying piece of shit

If you care only about games - yes.
There are 6-core CPUs on the table, so maybe consider them.

>Trusting your futuresense

Threads are not addressed randomly, the OS knows exactly which are which. Microsoft and Intel aren't two entities existing in a vacuum, they work together to make sure software supports the architecture. AMD even got Microsoft to issue a patch to improve module load balancing.
When nothing else is running a serial threaded application will go to the first core, on the physical thread. It will not load the logical thread first.

Let's make sure we use the term marginally, because the difference in very marginally.

I'm not fabricating anything. Doesn't matter to me who is on top because I have the money to buy whatever product is bleeding edge at the moment.

I switched from AMD back to Intel last year because of how big of a complete failure the AMD FX line of chips turned out to be, when they were supposed to bring AMD back on a level playing field with Intel again.

That's why I'm not very optimistic about Ryzen.

If Ryzen is a success guess what? On launch day, I'll go out and buy one and build it. If not, I'll buy whatever chip Intel releases next. The best part about it? Either way it goes, I'll still have the fastest chip in my computer.

And that's all that matters.

2600Kfags BTFO!

>Tomb RIDER
>Random numbers
>No source
>Unlabeled axis
Took you about 15 minutes to make this, and you still couldn't get everything right?

I didn't buy 7700k because a) it runs really fucking hit which I don't like and I sure as heck won't delide it risking my warranty b) I live in UK where 7700k costs $40 more, so does any z270 mobo.

hot*

>Rumor

Then you weren't around before Bulldozer. Leaks showed Bulldozer was shit for single threaded before it was launched. AMD branded and pushed it for good multithreaded server workloads, which it was, and didn't talk about gaming or IPC, weaseled their way out when it was asked because they knew it was bad for that.

Read news from back in the day to get a picture of what was said in reality
arstechnica.com/business/2011/03/leaked-bulldozer-benchmarks-may-give-glimpse-of-amds-future/
anandtech.com/show/2881/2

All the Zen talks AMD gave shined IPC and power efficiency gains, getting into high performance and competing with Intel again, Bulldozer and Zen launches are not comparable at all. See Hot Chips presentations of Bulldozer and Zen to see what was hyped about each

slideshare.net/AMD/amd-hot-chips-bulldozer-bobcat-presentation-5041615
slideshare.net/AMD/amd-and-the-new-zen-high-performance-x86-core-at-hot-chips-28

The entire selling point of ryzen is that it finally matches a high end multicore Intel processor (6900k)

>my 5 year old cpu can only get 120fps
what will I ever do

>I don't know that non-gaming CPUs exist

so 2.5% below skykek?
ok.

>GTAV
>100% core 0
>15% other cores
It's about as badly optimized as any game, it just uses a lot of CPU

...

Yes, DX11 scales up to 4 threads, DX12 scales up to 12 threads. It's still up to the devs to optimize, as seen by all the shit-optimized crapcannon DX12 games of 2016

>there are people too young to remember the phenom line.

I know you're trying to make a point but the 6700k and the 6900k are basically the exact same CPU thread-per-thread

>12 fps gained going from a sandy bridge i5 to a $600 6 core broadwell-E CPU sounds marginal to me

>games
Everyone not living in their mom's basement will be just fine.

Do you have proof of running hot or is your source "some guy on Sup Forums called it kelvin lake!"

Piledriver wasn't designed by jim the shit wrecker keller

you mean mommy will buy it for you?

Alright fuckstick, i'm the first guy to advocate people buy zen, but that's complete and utter bullshit.

The 7700K is the first chip since the 2500K that commonly overclocks to 5ghz.

Intel should be sampling Skylake-X/Kaby Lake-X around this time, it's in their roadmap for late Q2/Q3, they are rushing it out to counter Ryzen

tweaktown.com/news/55427/intel-unveil-skylake-kaby-lake-gamescom-2017/index.html

The 6900k is what zen matched and Intel has better CPUs than the 6900k
If zen has some magical price I could see Intel MAYBE lowering prices (but Lisa herself said zen will not be positioned as budget hardware)

Zen's lowest clocked 8c16t matched the 6900k

We've already seen one clocked 200mhz higher and I bet they will have 2 skus that are faster at 3.8ghz and 4.0ghz

Intel

BLOWN THE FUCK OUT
L
O
W
N

THE
H
E

FUCK
U
C
K

OUT
U
T

There's a very big difference between 'not budget' and 'one fucking thousand US dollars for the CPU alone'

6900k is $1000, 6950X $1700. AMD can charge $600 for top end 8 core and it will still be a bargain. Age of 4 core is finally dead for all I care, even Intel is switching to 6 cores for mainsteam 8700k Coffee Lake

>shills shilling
keep us posted op

Zens ONLY clocked CPU matched it
And I'm not taking anybody's word as proof except Lisa's, and as of now she said they have a CPU on par with a 6900k in multithread and does not want to make a budget pricing
There's also a big difference between "absolutely zero reliable price information and one SKU matches on Intel SKU" and "Zen will be both cheaper and better than Intel"

I'd rather run a Skylake at 4.6Ghz than Kaby at 5Ghz and temps 30 degrees higher.

I agree
That's great and all but zen isn't giving a shit about cores right this second, they've had the cores since bulldozer abominations, zen is all about the IPC gain, the gain that takes all their pathetic Xeon-wannabes and boosts them up to match intel's enthusiast X99 line. That's not gonna be cheap.
I'm saying multicore CPUs with Intel-like IPC already exist. Zen isn't revolutionary in technology, the only thing that would make it a huge success is pricing, and there's is literally no information about that beyond bloggers' speculation

>3.8GHz CPU overclocked to 4.5 - colder
>4.3GHz CPU overclocked to 5.0 - hotter
>KABY LAKE IS HOTTER THAN SKYLAKE AT THE EXACT SAME OVERCLOCKS!!!
This is literally the exact inaccuracy that led to the kelvin lake meme to even exist

She said the lowest clocked they would release is 3.4ghz, they also demoed a 3.6

My 7700k at 5 ghz doesn't touch 80c with a h60

Then you're throwing performance away for no reason.

Intel macs last for years and they constantly sit at throttle temps, clearly the CPU doesn't give a fuck if it lives at 85-90c.

Not all of us live in a place with central air, that's just asking to make my room a sauna.