Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AMD Ryzen price and release date revealed

pcworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 139 posts

Re: AMD Ryzen price and release date revealed

#91

Post by IAmGraydon »

masklinn wrote: post #50
Asooka wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a bit dubious. If they have such an amazing part why is it being sold for so cheap? Why not 80% of the price of the comparable Intel part? Selling it at 50% or even less raises some heavy alarm bells for me.

> If they have such an amazing part why is it being sold for so cheap? Because they get exploded in single-threaded performances, so they have to pit their 8-core parts against Intel's 4 cores. The 1700X will be competing against the $350 7700K more than the $1100 6900K (which incidentally is a Broadwell-E part not a Skylake part despite de 6 prefix)

They are equal, if not a bit faster than Intel in single-thread performance.

Re: AMD Ryzen price and release date revealed

#92

Post by IAmGraydon »

2bluesc wrote: post #53
masklinn wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they have such an amazing part why is it being sold for so cheap? Because they get exploded in single-threaded performances, so they have to pit their 8-core parts against Intel's 4 cores. The 1700X will be competing against the $350 7700K more than the $1100 6900K (which incidentally is a Broadwell-E part not a Skylake part despite de 6 prefix)

> Because they get exploded in single-threaded performances, so they have to pit their 8-core parts against Intel's 4 cores. I assume that they are getting blown out of the water on single core performance and hence picked up an i7-7700k. We'll see if I made the right choice on March 2nd when real benchmarks surface.

You would be wrong. They are even or slightly faster than Intel in single threaded performance.

Re: AMD Ryzen price and release date revealed

#93

Post by icefo »

toxican wrote: post #43

I'm far too broke to shell out cash for a new Mobo and CPU right now, but I'm excited to see what this does to Intel's prices for older CPUs. I'd love to upgrade my i5-2400 soon-ish.

Unless you are regularly doing CPU intensive tasks you can probably stick with it a few more years. I noticed since I bought a SSD that most of time the hard drive is limiting the CPU.

Until my DVD reader burned my desktop motherboard I was using a core2quad and it was still fast enough. No lag whatsoever. Now I'm using a laptop with the first gen I5 and I feel no need to upgrade it (I'm using it as a desktop battery life does sucks)

I understand why PC sales drop every year. You just don't have to buy a new one unless yours die.

Re: AMD Ryzen price and release date revealed

#94

Post by s_m_t »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #90
RussianCow wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, most modern games aren't CPU-bound anymore; more and more work is being pushed onto the GPU with every generation. My brother has a quad-core AMD CPU (don't remember which) with a powerful GPU, and his CPU is very rarely the bottleneck—there are few games he can't max out at 1080. Also, according to AMD's benchmarks, the Ryzen CPUs are very close to Intel's in single-threaded performance.

This. Gaming hasn't been bottlenecked by the CPU in a long time. Anything from an i5 up performs pretty much the same with the same GPU.

And you'll only be bottlenecked by the GPU if you want to play AAA titles at high settings or at a resolution beyond 1080p. I'm still using an ATI Radeon HD 5770 and I haven't seen a compelling reason to upgrade my card.

Re: AMD Ryzen price and release date revealed

#95

Post by chm »

Cyph0n wrote: post #38
tracker1 wrote: post #27

I just have to say, I really hope that this is real. AMD has burned a lot of trust a few times in overzealously stating performance marks in their prior generations of CPUs. I ran AMD for several years until the Core-2 came out from Intel (currently very happy with an i7-4790K). If these comparisons are real, my next build may be AMD again.

Seems like you skipped over the FX series (Bulldozer, I believe). I got a FX-8320 a few years back, and my brother got a FX-6300. Both are capable processors and are MUCH cheaper than their counterparts (i5 and i3, respectively). Heck, if I built a PC in the past year, I would have gone with a FX-8350 just because it's so damned cheap yet very performant. Once Zen is out, it's really a no-brainer for me.

I really like my FX-8320E but it's definitely not a speed demon. It struggles in single-threaded performance, in such tasks as web browsing... Even running vanilla Debian 8, browsing Reddit in Firefox is a bad experience. Images load very slowly (I have a 200mbps connection) and seem to make the rest of the processing hang. It's good for compilation though, and I can play recent games with it and an R9 280x.

Re: AMD Ryzen price and release date revealed

#96

Post by edvinbesic »

mrb wrote: post #81
masklinn wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, the 6900K is a two years old µarch, and not one which was considered a great release in the first place. The 1700X will not be competing against the 6900K because nobody gives a rat's ass about the 6900K, the 1700X will be competing against the 7700K and its ilk.

The IPC difference between Broadwell (6900K) and Kaby Lake (7700K) isn't that big. 5-10%. The only redeeming quality of the 7700K is that Intel was able to raise the turbo freq to 4.5 GHz, while the 1700X only boosts to 3.8 GHz. So yeah single-threaded perf will be higher with Intel.

Isn't the IPC difference basically 0 and the 7 series only has slightly higher frequencies due to the optimization cycle? So clock for clock 6 and 7 series CPU should yield the same performance.

I should add that the above is the main reason the kaby lake release is so lackluster. There is very little reason to upgrade your desktop to a 7 series (laptops get power optimization and 4k playback support).

It's also the main reason why AMD might look appealing, lack of worthwile upgrade from Intel while AMD delivers twice the cores/threads for not a gread deal more then a 7600K.

Re: AMD Ryzen price and release date revealed

#97

Post by crudbug »

Interesting to see multi-core wars starting here.

Intel did not do anything as a market leader, 8 years back I could still buy 4 core machine. Waiting to see, how AMD does on Server parts, 32 cores / 64 cores ? Power9 does 24 cores/ 96 threads.

Re: AMD Ryzen price and release date revealed

#98

Post by walrus01 »

I was highly skeptical when the first info about Ryzen came out. This is looking really promising versus the $300 to $400 price range Kaby Lake i7 (7700, 7700K) CPUs.

And when comparing the 1700/1700X to the $200-250 price range i5-7600 Kaby Lake.

Re: AMD Ryzen price and release date revealed

#99

Post by cma »

RussianCow wrote: post #88
kayoone wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

just be aware that Ryzen is probably operating much closer to it's limit than the Intel counterparts, so overclocking could be limited. If that is not interesting for you anyway, then god speed. Also in terms of gaming performance, Intel will probably remain king, due to single threaded performance and OC potential. Personally, i'd always take 8 cores vs 4 for the same price even if they are 10-20% slower.

In my experience, most modern games aren't CPU-bound anymore; more and more work is being pushed onto the GPU with every generation. My brother has a quad-core AMD CPU (don't remember which) with a powerful GPU, and his CPU is very rarely the bottleneck—there are few games he can't max out at 1080. Also, according to AMD's benchmarks, the Ryzen CPUs are very close to Intel's in single-threaded performance.

It is a big deal in VR, at 90Hz, two eyes, you have 3x the draw calls of a game running at 60Hz.

There are some optimizations to reduce the per-eye overhead, but it is still a lot.

Sony's headset can run at native 120Hz, increasing things more, but not too many games are using that mode.

Re: AMD Ryzen price and release date revealed

#100

Post by wmf »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #92
2bluesc wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because they get exploded in single-threaded performances, so they have to pit their 8-core parts against Intel's 4 cores. I assume that they are getting blown out of the water on single core performance and hence picked up an i7-7700k. We'll see if I made the right choice on March 2nd when real benchmarks surface.

You would be wrong. They are even or slightly faster than Intel in single threaded performance.

A 4.0 GHz Ryen is faster than a 4.5 GHz Intel in single thread? At this point we might as well wait for the embargo to expire.
Post reply on HN