AMD Shows Its 8-Core Ryzen CPU Beating Intel's Best At Half The Price

Image: Kotaku

AMD has finally unveiled some details and specs surrounding their upcoming CPU, Ryzen. And not only did they put a price on the CPU, they revealed something far more important: instances where Ryzen not only matched Intel's top of the line eight core processor, but beat it, and for half the price.

Due out on March 2, AMD finally lifted the lid on their Ryzen 7 series of CPUs, targeted at gamers, content creators, workstations and others looking for high performance. But the key to the whole launch came in a couple of parts: the first being Ryzen's vast improvement, with more than a 52% increase in clocks per cycle on AMD's previous generation of CPUs, and the second being price.

AMD's new top-of-the-line consumer CPU, the Ryzen 7 1800X, will retail for $699 ($US499 internationally). It's designed to rival Intel's i7-6900K, which starts from $1449 in Australia, and is priced at $US999 overseas. The 1800X also has a rated thermal design power (TDP) of 95W, well below the i7-6900K's 140W TDP.

AMD's weakness traditionally, however, hasn't been price but performance. The company went to great lengths to put that to test at their launch event in San Francisco, showing multiple graphs and running live tests to showcase Ryzen's capabilities.

Before getting into that, here's the full breakdown of the specs between Ryzen's 7 series of CPUs, including their Australian pricing:

Image: AMD CEO Dr Lisa Su pictured with a Ryzen CPU.

Ryzen 7 1800X: $699

  • Speed: 3.6Ghz base speed, 4.0GHz boost speed
  • Cores: 8 cores, 16 threads
  • TDP: 95W

Ryzen 7 1700X: $569

  • Speed: 3.4Ghz base speed, 3.8Ghz boost speed
  • Cores: 8 cores, 16 threads
  • TDP: 65W

Ryzen 7 1700: $469

  • Speed: 3.0Ghz base speed, 3.7GHz boost speed
  • Cores: 8 cores, 16 threads
  • TDP: 65W

(For those in New Zealand, the CPU's are priced at $NZ799, $NZ639 and $NZ529 respectively.)

Using the Cinebench benchmarking tool, AMD showed that a Ryzen R7 1800X machine with 16GB of DDR4 RAM, using a NVIDIA 12GB TITAN X and an AM4-based motherboard was able to match a similar Intel i7-6900K machine (with the same RAM, GPU and storage, but an ASUS STRIX X99 Gaming motherboard) in a single-core test. In the multi-threaded version of the same test, the Ryzen machine returned a 9% better score than the i7-6900K system.

Images: Slides from AMD's presentation at the Ryzen Tech Day

Ryzen R7 1800X Intel i7-6900K
1601 (Cinebench R15 nT) 1474 (Cinebench R15 nT)
162 (Cinebench R15 1T) 162 (Cinebench R15 1T)
Image: The Ryzen 7 1800X packaging.

AMD also showed tests of the cheaper Ryzen 7 1700 CPU ($469) surpassing Intel's i7-7700K. The latter is a popular CPU for high end gaming PCs, but it also retails for around $500 locally. The same test was replicated with the 1700X ($569), which outperformed Intel's i7-6800K (a $600 CPU) in the multi-threaded Cinebench test by 39%. They weren't the only benchmarks shown during the Ryzen launch event, but those are held under an embargo until the chip's launch on March 2.

There were also a couple of live demos, showcasing the Ryzen 1800X against a i7-6900K in a singleplayer mission of Battlefield 1 and tutorial for Sniper Elite 4. Both were unscripted, so it's impossible to guarantee 100% variance in the test, and the two machines were running two Radeon RX 480s in Crossfire.

To the eye, the Ryzen 1800X machine was a handful of frames ahead, perhaps 10 at most. AMD didn't supply graphs or tabled data afterwards for that specific test, but we were able to observe it up close ourselves during a separate session. And the point was fairly obvious in any case: AMD wanted to show that Ryzen's top-of-the-line CPU could deliver 4K gaming performance on par, if not better, than Intel's best eight-core CPU, for half the cost - and they could.

There is a small elephant in the room: namely the fact that Intel's i7-6950X, the 10-core Broadwell-E behemoth, was excluded from the equation. But it's a moot point: very few gamers have the wherewithal to spend $2319 or more on just a CPU, and it wasn't relevant to the claim AMD was making.

AMD's argument: they have the world's fastest eight-core desktop CPU in the market today. The enthusiast community will make a firmer judgement on that in the weeks to come. But it's hard to ignore the greater theme: competition has returned to the CPU market and it would be a surprise if Intel did not respond in some form, although their 10 nanometre Cannon Lake CPUs are expected to start shipping towards the end of this year.

A slide shown at the end of Dr Su's presentation also showed that PC Case Gear would be taking pre-orders for the Ryzen 7 CPUs from today. Newegg, Amazon and Origin PCs were also listed, but it's not confirmed if they will accept pre-orders from Australians (or whether they will ship prebuilt Ryzen systems to Australia just yet, as in Origin's case). A Ryzen liquid cooler has already appeared online, the Corsair H60 (which is also compatible with Intel's Skylake series of CPUs).

Image: The slide in question, highlighting Origin, PC Case Gear, Newegg and Amazon

AMD added that they would reveal more about their Vega series of GPUs later this year - which are scheduled to ship during the second quarter - and the Ryzen offerings for laptops at a later date.


The author travelled to San Francisco as a guest of AMD.


Comments

    Im glad AMD are finally back in the CPU game after a while they have been completely out played by intel the last few years but these CPU's are shaping up to be a serious contender for common gaming builds.
    The questions of temperature and overclockability will sway me one way or the other for future builds.

    Last edited 23/02/17 1:27 am

      Few? AMD haven't had a competitive product in the CPU market since Intel launched the Core2, that was 11 years ago.

      I'm very keen to see this thing succeed, the market has barely moved an inch in terms of high end performance since Sandy Bridge.

      Ok, don't get me wrong, the Ryzen is a very solid performer, but this sites claim that it's beating top end intel is just bullshit.

      Why not throw that 1800X against a 6950X and watch what happens to those benchmarks.

      As it stands now, the 1800X is the equivalent to a 5930K in terms of bang for buck.

      And that margin of difference is going to be so little that NO ONE will ever notice it under normal circumstances.

      And it's by far impressive that it has hit 5.2Ghz, because AMD isn't the first to break 5.0Ghz. It was actually the intel northwood core that broke 5.0ghz about 10 years ago and that was only a 2.4ghz base clock speed.

        Correction to my own post, it wasn't 10 years ago, it was 16 years ago when the northwood core hit 5.0ghz.

        No offense AMD, but good job, it only took you 16 years to catch up?

    I've literally just upgraded to a 7600k but this is tempting me so much to upgrade mobo and cpu, will depend on ITX boards

    Scorptec is currently taking pre-orders for it. I just checked for my upgrade down the track.

    It's designed to rival Intel's i7-6900K

    No it isn't, the 6900K is a full generation behind. Ryzen is designed to compete with the 7900K, expected in the next couple of months. The price is definitely an advantage though, it's unlikely Intel will drop the 7900K price that low.

    Not at all meaning to detract from AMD here, but the benchmarks AMD has provided are pure multithreading tests from a single benchmarking suite. Hopefully we'll see some more meaningful tests like DX12/Vulkan in the coming weeks to make a more informed comparison.

    Edit: The top two tests are somewhat useless, comparing an 8C/16T CPU against a 4C/8T and a 6C/12T in multithreading tests is pointless. The only useful one shown there is the third test.

    Last edited 23/02/17 7:33 am

      That's not the message AMD has been selling, and they did publicly release single threaded tests along with the multithreaded versions. They also weren't the only benchmarks or tests released, but a stack of those are under NDA until the CPU launches proper. (But when that comes out, there should be a range of third party benches available too.)

        So you're saying AMD is intentionally trying to compete with a year old last-generation CPU from Intel that's about to be superseded? If that's what they want to do then that's their choice, but I imagine most customers tend to compare equivalent generations.

        I'm in the market for high core CPUs because of my work and I don't believe in brand loyalty, but the results (that you've been allowed to publish at least) are underwhelming for what should be a next generation design. The price is excellent, I agree, but Broadwell-E prices will drop when Skylake-X and Kaby Lake-X hit (leaks suggest Q2 2017) and I'd be surprised if the new generation Intels didn't improve on the previous generation's performance.

          Part of the messaging is "the fastest 8 core desktop processor on the market today". It's worth noting that there's some history with Cinebench being an Intel-friendly benchmark, but the general idea is a value proposition. But I wouldn't say they're intentionally trying to compete with older generation CPUs - more that they're trying to make the argument that they've improved their performance to the point where AMD is worth considering again. You could spin things around that way, but that's probably a touch uncharitable.

          The positioning of 6 core/12 thread AMD CPUs against Intel's 4 core/8 threads is probably the more interesting one, although for your use case maybe not so much.

            Fair enough. I'll reserve judgement until we see more benchmarks of course, I just wish this first round of tests was a little more decisive. More competitive pressure from both companies means better chips at cheaper prices for the rest of us.

          It's not an equivalent generation, though. Intel threw tick-tock out a while ago, and it's iterating stupidly fast. There's no generation war in CPU and GPU any more -- it's literally what's out whenever you're buying that you should choose from.

            Generations still exist without tick tock, that was just a way of alternating new and iterative releases. You might be confusing iterations on the architecture across different product lines with how long a particular product line sits out, which still follows year-long runs.

            For the category Ryzen competes in, Intel's last offering was 10 months ago and their next release is due in Q2 this year. It should be obvious with an annual cycle within the category that a few months apart puts Ryzen and KBL-X in the same generation.

          How can they compete with something that's not available?

            Someone has to put a product out first, doesn't mean the one that comes a month or two later isn't part of the same generation.

              It does if you are buying in March.

                It just means you're buying during a generation change, it doesn't mean they're not part of the same generation. The Xbox One came out before the PS4 did but just because people bought it in that week doesn't mean the two aren't obviously competing in the same generation.

                Last edited 23/02/17 2:31 pm

      Have someone try the two with Handbrake encoding a 4K video.

        There were some Handbrake tests run during the presentation, and the Ryzen chips came out a touch ahead. They weren't included in the publicly released slides, however, and I'd have to go back and check my notes to see if I wrote down the exact differences.

          They weren't included in the publicly released slides

          Most likely because they fears the copyright cartel will nap them.

          :-P

        AMD’s Ryzen 7 1700, consumes up to 65 watts and runs at 3GHz, boosting to 3.7GHz. It, too, includes 8 cores and 16 threads. According to AMD’s own tests, it recorded a score of 1,410 on the multicore Cinebench test, a whopping 46 percent better than the $339 Core i7 7700K. Using the Handbrake video-encoding test, the R7 1700 finished in 61.8 seconds, AMD said, versus 71.8 seconds for the 7700K.
        From PCWorld

          This is the one I'm looking at - great price/performance by the looks of it. I really want to see single-threaded benchmarks first though.

      They're main selling point is price.

      Why pay ~$1400 for a 6c/12t cpu when you can pay half that for an 8c/16t cpu. Plus the difference between Kabylake and Skylake is roughly 7% I remember hearing as they are just a refresh, there is no reason why the 7900k would buck the trend and be a huge leap forward from the 6900k.

      I'm more inclined to see what they offer in the range of something slightly lower (Ryzen 7 1600 anyone?) as I'm currently looking at a 7600K for my upgrade. If Ryzen can show similar gains in the high end but not quite enthusiast gaming area, then I'll make the switch, but I can't justify spending $150 more atm

        As below, the 6900K is a Broadwell-E CPU, not Skylake-X. The jump from 6900K to 7900K is not Skylake to Kaby Lake, it's Broadwell to SKL/KBL (E is being renamed to X but they're the same line).

        I do acknowledge the price is a strong competitive point for AMD here, but keep in mind it's a comparison against a 10 month old CPU that is about to be superseded in a few months. I said in my earlier post I don't expect Broadwell-E prices to drop as low as Ryzen is now when KBL-X hits, but the margin will certainly be lower which is important when you consider changing brands at this point would also require a motherboard change.

          lol, i'm still using an original i7 920, and only of just thinking of upgrading now. So for me at least, whether or not to replace the motherboard will not be a concern :P

            Ha. Well I suspect if you've been content with a 9 year old CPU for this long, you may not need the extra power and features that 8C brings. Depending on your usage, a cheaper 4C (from either manufacturer) might be better value for money.

            But yes, you're looking at a motherboard upgrade regardless!

      They can't exactly show benchmarks against an unreleased Intel CPU though, can they?

        I don't expect them to. I expect them to do more than single digit improvements over a previous generation CPU.

    Very cool stuff, I just noticed the processors are now listed on PCCG too.

    I will be waiting for the real world benchmarks as iv seen too many manufacturers base their benchmarks off tailored scenarios.
    Real world performance is where the jams at

    My experience with AMD products has always been pretty bad. The problem was almost never the hardware but their software/drivers. My experience with their Radeon catalyst drivers was that they were always far less stable than their competition and a few years flirting with AMD back in the Athlon days saw inexplicable random crashes and general system instability that I'd never experienced with Intel.

    That's not to say that they haven't improved, I honestly don't know. I hope they have. I'm unlikely to go back in the short term, but I wish them the best - as consumers we can only reap the rewards of decent competition no matter what side we're on.

      They have improved massively on that score. My Nvidia GTX machines have given me far, far more trouble than the RX480 based machines over the past 12 months.

        Which GTX models are you comparing with?

          GTX 1060 and GTX Titan X

          Last edited 23/02/17 9:09 pm

        That's really good news. Intel/NVidia have been allowed to rest on their laurels for far too long, IMO. Hopefully it'll bring about another explosion of development progress in CPU/GPU performance. Frankly, I'm tired of the main focus being on low power mobile solutions.

      Bad software/drivers isn't even a thing/characteristic of Radeon anymore, Hasn't been for ages, Still is propaganda for Nvidia fanboys though lol If Amd do well here, Then thats healthy competition which is a benefit for all gamers, Fan loyalty is stupid.

        They're different business units anyway, GPU driver problems don't reflect on AMD's CPU range. About the only thing in common is their reputation for running hot ;)

    How many lanes does Ryzen and the corresponding motherboards have available?

    Last edited 23/02/17 2:19 pm

      Roughly the same as a Z270.

        Which is...?

          4 more than the Z170.

            Thanks so much :/

            Roughly the same doesn't really help either....

              Sorry I couldn't help my self.

              In all seriousness its 24 PCIE lanes in the X370 models..

    Or you could just say Intel is overpriced...that's hardly news...

      It's overpriced, but at the same time Ryzen don't include any onboard graphics. Not an issue for the people who game really, but the chip can be much cheaper because of this.

    Hmm, well I have been thinking about upgrading my CPU although I wonder if these new ones will still have a problem with Unreal Engine 4.

    Intel must have a huge stock-pile of cash from selling those overpriced high end CPUs. So get ready for a come back in about two years.

    This is the first time in a very long time, I've felt like Moore's law was working, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

      Intels next core jump is still roadmapped to 6 cores mid next year. AMD has done something interesting - being slightly larger than intel's mainstream socket let them jam in more cores, whilst intel has a die size problem with mainstream, and an oversized problem with -E.

      Personally, I think Intel will have a problem till 2019, unless we see some very aggressive pricing for Kaby Lake -E

        I'd love to see aggressive pricing for KBL-X, but I suspect Intel will do what it always does and sell the performance gain while keeping roughly the same price target. Though we should see 10C CPUs cheaper than Broadwell-E did.

    I feel like ive been lucky with my amd ventures. Im still running a 8 year old phenom II 965 BE. I had a HD5850 up until a year and a half ago and only upgraded to a 280x because of the 1gb vram. Ive never had driver issues with my cards but i know there were issues with specific lines of cards. Im still playing current games and was even able to play the beta of Wildlands even though my cpu wasnt technically supported. Sure they arent ultra quality settings for graphics but its not on low either. And still decent frame rates. Ive definitely had my moneys worth out of AMD and it doesnt owe me anything. Im hoping to upgrade sometime in the not too distant future but prob wont be for another year at least. Good luck to them. I can wait to see the new GPUs coupled with ryzen chips and see whst they're capable of.

    wow, cant wait to see what the Vegas can do.

    Prices are great, that R7 1700 8C/16T for the same price as intels 4C/8T, not bad at all.
    I bought a xeon 1231 v3 (i7 4770 without an iGPU), for $280 a year or so ago, so need for me to upgrade yet but i'm very happy that when i do it appears AMD will actually be a viable choice

    Also it seems like we are getting a better price than the americans, the R7 1800X over there is $500 US which with conversion works out to what $650-660, then you add the 10% GST and that would bring price to ~$720, so we are getting it $20 cheaper than what it should work out to. Hooray for CPUs, no stupid "Australia Tax", its the same with the recent kabylake CPUs too, our price is pretty much exactly conversion+GST and thats your price (or cheaper like here).

      It's an excellent price point, just worth keeping in mind 4C/8T CPUs have much higher clock speed than the Ryzen 8C/16Ts do. If the bulk of your use is low-threading or single thread stuff, you'll get better performance from the higher clock than from more cores.

        Fairly true, though we still have to see how they overclock.
        Also i just saw that supposedly AMD will release a tool you can use to overclock/underclock each individual core, so its highly possible you could downclock 4 of them and overclock the other 4 to try and match the i7 while you are gaming and then go to a more middle ground clock for all 8 cores when doing highly threaded work. (EDIT: just looked again, the tool lets you easily completely shut off cores, so shut off 4 of them and it will give you way more thermal room for the other 4 to OC)

        Only one picture of the tool here but it looks promising, http://boards.4chan.org/g/thread/59074948

        Take this paragraph with some salt, but i also saw a couple leaks that show the 1700x matching a i7 7700k clock for clock (technically beating by a minuscule amount), the 1700x was locked at 3.4ghz while the 7700k was using boost, the 7700k had 26% higher single core score but adjusting for the clock speeds they had near identical IPC. So even if the 1700X can only OC to 4.4 that would only put it behind by ~10% of the 7700k (4.9 seems to be very plausible with the 7700k) in single core performance but have twice the cores

        Last edited 23/02/17 7:48 pm

          I'm definitely eager to see more benchmarks, I just think this first round of info is underwhelming, as I mentioned above.

          The overclocking tool in that photo looks pretty interesting, I'd like to see that kind of flexibility across all CPUs from both manufacturers. Thanks for linking that, I'll have to keep my eye on it.

            If you find similar and often better performance for half the price underwhelming, you are hard to whelm.

            Last edited 23/02/17 10:02 pm

              There's a longer explanation in my reply to thearbiter117 below on why I find it underwhelming, if you're interested.

            I cant see how its in anyway underwhelming, maybe not what you are looking for (i'm guessing you are mostly talking about gaming when saying single core is important). Even if they are 20% slower per core (it doesn't appear they will be though, appears to be similar IPC but slightly lower clocks), they would still dominate intel at anything multi threaded and be half the cost so that is objectively not underwhelming.

            Going by this price leak for the other ryzen CPUs to be released in the future (https://www.techpowerup.com/230916/pricing-of-entire-amd-ryzen-lineup-revealed), the R5 1400X is a pretty close equivalent to an i7 7700K feature wise but is going to be $300 AUD or less compared to near ~$480 for the i7. With a boost of 3.9 Ghz (plus XFR which means if you have semi decent cooling it will more likely be a bit over 4ghz), i would assume that means they can be OC'ed to low to mid 4s, even say if you needed a high end air cooler to get 4.4 that would only be %10 away from an overclocked i7 (and the OC i5 too i suppose) in single core performance and better than every other intel CPU in single core performance.

            Plus everyone has been saying AM4 motherboards should be cheaper than intel ones so i hope that is true. (anyone seen anything about any pricing for those?)

              The AM4 boards are on pccasegear now.

                Oh cool, thanks mate.

                Hmm, that $129 Asus one seems like a decent price for what its got, hopefully they have some more choices before launch though as half of those are $300 and up. Though i suppose if you are byuing a $500-700 CPU thats not too expensive haha, i guess cheaper ones will come when they release the R5 series and R3 CPUs

              It's underwhelming because it looks like it follows AMDs usual generation-behind approach. Intel puts a chip out and just before they replace it AMD puts their own one that competes with the old one and claims king of the hill, until two months later when Intel releases a CPU with 20-30% on the previous one.

              The price is great, but performance is consistently behind. Intel's chips are expensive because people buy them, and people buy them because there's basically no competition in high-end performance from AMD for 10 out of every 12 month cycle.

              AMD has been losing market share since 2006. Part of that was Intel's dodgy behaviour back in 2005 but even after that cleared out with the antitrust suit there's still been 8 years of decline. Q1 2017 has Intel at 82% market share (Passmark) and 78% from Steam's hardware survey. That's not competitive, and that's bad because Intel will bump their prices up in a heartbeat if AMD dropped off altogether.

              Price alone isn't cutting it, they'll be in single-digit market share in 3 years if they don't turn things around. We desperately need AMD to catch up and be competitive with current generation Intel, but they keep putting out minor speed upgrades against last-generation Intel CPUs instead of being genuinely competitive against new offerings in the same generation.

              That's what's underwhelming, is they're still following that 'generation behind for cheap' mindset that hasn't been working for them for over a decade. Things have to change.

              Hopefully the figures in the article really are just low-end results, and proper benchmarks will show a bigger margin once people can get their hands on evaluation units. Or maybe Intel's KBL-X won't end up being much improvement over the current Broadwell-E (though I couldn't say 'hopefully' on something crappy like that). I really do want Ryzen to be the CPUs that put AMD back in real competition, because as much as I like Intel's CPUs, the idea of a world where Intel has a total monopoly on them is horrible.

              Last edited 24/02/17 6:14 am

                What do you mean AMDs usual '"generation behind approach". their FX line (only one that is just regular CPUs) are like 5 (more possibly?) generations behind so they are literally catching up like 5 generations in one go with zen, and that is just talking about single core score, they have completely surpassed intel in core count by a massive margin (yes they kind of did that with FX line but this time they didn't completely sacrifice all single core speed to do it).

                Also "two months later when Intel releases a CPU with 20-30% on the previous one." what alternate earth are you living on and can i please join you, intel have only increased single core performance by like 30% over the last 4 generations, biggest one generation jump has been what a bit over 10% and that wasn't even particularly in response to anything AMD did.

                Im actually surprised AMDs market share is as high as 20%, that actually gives me a lot more confidence zen will be a massive success overall, i thought they would be battling from like 10% market share at best.

                if desktop KBL is anything to go by Skylake/KBL-X (not sure which they are doing really) is going to disappoint then. And talking about the HEDT chips, this is what these zen CPUs are going against and they are objectively the better choice, so they have won this battle (not saying the war though because i wouldnt be surpirsed if intel do something shady like last time this happened, because they sure as fuck made more money by doing it than the 1 billion they were fined)

                sorry to sound attack-y but its just what you were saying was completely wrong.

                  It's been pretty bad in the past but never quite as bad as five generations. One generation may be overly generous, but 1-2 is a fair comparison.

                  As for the 20-30% jump, I'll concede 30 was probably an exaggeration on looking at the data, but 20% is roughly accurate. Keep in mind I'm talking specifically about the HEDT range (Intel E/X families) which AMD has chosen to compare Ryzen against. The Broadwell-E 6950X rated about 20% higher than the Haswell-E 5960X it replaced and likewise for the Broadwell-E 6900K replacing the Haswell-E 5930K (this one also had a core bump from 6 to 8, Haswell-E only had one 8C so it's the most direct comparison).

                  I'm not suggesting AMD hasn't improved, but they haven't improved enough. Given their comparison against Broadwell-E performance I think it's reasonable to anticipate that Intel will surpass that margin, based on the previous Haswell-E/Broadwell-E performance jump. They may not, of course; we'll have to wait a few months to see. But if they keep losing market share it's not going to matter if next generation would have been 'the one' if they don't have the ability to take it back. They (and by extension we) need this generation to turn the trend upwards again.

                  Side note in response to your last sentence:
                  I believe I'm properly informed, but we're giving different weight to different things. I think you see the significant single core performance improvement as king, but in context we're entering a generation where single core performance is the least important it has ever been. Naturally there's always going to be legacy software, but even gaming is shifting to proper multicore support thanks to DX12 and Vulkan. Granted there's no marked improvement past 6C in either framework at the moment but it's nevertheless a colossal shift away from traditional clock speed dependency. Maybe we have different perspectives coming in to this, mine is as a software developer (both games and business) and a heavy gamer. I think my conclusions fit the data, they're just coloured by experiences like having to do hardware analysis runs for calculating minimum and recommended system requirements (which is fucking boring, just for the record, avoid this if you can). I'm certainly curious what your own perspective is, and I'm sure the two can be reconciled.

                have to reply back here because kotaku only allows a certian number of replies in a row.

                Right right HEDT specific improvement that makes more sense, i was just thinking of the increase in regular desktop as thats the info you more often see. Though even then, it appears AMD has actually surpassed intels current HEDT offerings in single core and equaled in core count and for half the price, so even if Skylake-X is the regular 20% improvement they will only be a bit ahead in performance but still far more expensive (i cant imagine intel dropping their prices any significant amount, and i would assume its too late for them to add more cores, so its unlikely they have anything crazy planned that would make the value better than Ryzen, but who knows maybe everyone including me is underestimating how willing intel would be to drop prices)

                about the side note, yeah i just misunderstood what you meant like i said above, sorry about that.
                The only reason it may seem like i think single core performance is king as you say is because they improved it by 50% and are matching intels current HEDT CPUS, in the space of one generation they have caught up on like 5 years of lagging behind in single core performance and because AMD could always match intel on core count but his is the first time in what 8 years or something that they can on single core performance. Also i was mainly talking about it because your first reply was saying to me about the higher clock speed of intels i7s and that they'll be better for low threaded jobs. Im just confused now because you are the one that brought up the single core performance, i was originally saying how good it was you could get twice as many cores for the same price (only good because single core is very similar of course)

                  Agreed, it's unlikely Intel will try to compete on price. I said in a post earlier, I think they'll market the performance premium (assuming they can get at least +10 on Ryzen) and if the market to date is any indication it'll probably still get eaten up.

                  My clock speed reply might have lost some context, I've been replying to a few different conversation threads here and I've lost track of what I've said where. This CPU generation is sitting right on the edge of a software shift, with DX12 and Vulkan poised to properly introduce actual functional multithreading support for really the first time in gaming aside from famous benchmarking tool and occasional game Ashes of the Singularity. But we also still have a huge amount of legacy games that just don't use it.

                  So it depends how often you change CPUs. If you're buying now and plan to upgrade again in two years, it might be better to go for the 4C/8T with higher clock because far more games are going to be optimised for that than DX12. Longer cycles will probably have a harder decision because the longer you wait the more DX12 games are going to be making good use of the extra cores. I say that in as brand-agnostic a way as possible because really it's down to the clock vs core tradeoff and not anything particular Intel or AMD are doing.

                  As for the rest, all good man! Having different conversation threads here and some more stuff elsewhere this past few days has left me not explaining myself very well, sorry about that. And I wholeheartedly agree the single core jump on show here is huge. I don't want to detract from what AMD have managed, I just see the noose tightening around their neck and want just a little more than what we're seeing here so far. And we may yet get it, there's always hope!

                haha, cant imagine having to reply all the way back here will help much with our confusion.

                You have a good point, they will market any small advantage they have, It will be just like nvidia vs amd now, where half the time in any given price point there is no reason to go for nvidia (slight exaggeration, but most of the time AMD is definitely better price/performance) but because of their far larger marketing presence they get far more sales anyway.

                haha "benchmarking tool and occasional game AOTS" hit the nail on the head there. You are quite right, we're in a transition sort of time, lots of games still really need single core performance but more and more are using all the cores they can get (GTAV, Batllefield 1, Watch dogs 2 etc), so it'll be tough for some to decide whether to go for the lower core count but higher single core performance or play the long game and get more cores now and sacrifice performance on older games. I have a feeling the top 6C/12T ryzen will be the sweet spot between high clocks and lots of cores that will cover you for gaming for the next 5 years and be very strong at enthusiast level workstation type work.

                I too have been getting a little muddled in what im trying to say due to being in multiple conversations about Ryzen on multiple sites, so sorry if i havent been clear in what im trying to say. But its been good to talk with someone who knows what they are talking about but is a bit less hyped than i am to present the other side of the argument if you know what i mean.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now