AMD provides a glimpse of it's new ZEN processor : breakthrough performance !

[othertomperson]

5 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

Shhh... You'll hurt the fanboy's self-esteem!

I'm intrigued as to who it is you're accusing me of being a fanboy of, exactly. Is it Nvidia for saying that the 980 Ti performed better, or AMD for saying that the Fury X retailed at a cheaper price?

 

Look I can't be fucked to spend my Friday trawling the Wayback machine to compare prices from more than a year ago for two cards that are now obsolete just to exercise your vanity, @djdwosk97. If you want to believe that the two were always the same price, then whatever. I don't care.

[79wjd]

Just now, othertomperson said:

I'm intrigued as to who it is you're accusing me of being a fanboy of, exactly. Is it Nvidia for saying that the 980 Ti performed better, or AMD for saying that the Fury X retailed at a cheaper price?

 

Look I can't be fucked to spend my Friday trawling the Wayback machine to compare prices from more than a year ago for two cards that are now obsolete just to exercise your vanity, @djdwosk97. If you want to believe that the two were always the same price, then whatever. I don't care.

Well, then I guess it's a good thing I did all the leg work for you. Hell, make a post and let a dozen other people tell you the same thing. The two cards were priced competitively. The Fury X was NEVER drastically undercutting the 980Ti. 

[othertomperson]

8 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Well, then I guess it's a good thing I did all the leg work for you. Hell, make a post and let a dozen other people tell you the same thing. The two cards were priced competitively. The Fury X was NEVER drastically undercutting the 980Ti. 

If you want to believe that, good for you. Have a pat on the head

 

You should make the post. You're the one who's looking for self-validation here, dear.

[patrickjp93]

14 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

I'm intrigued as to who it is you're accusing me of being a fanboy of, exactly. Is it Nvidia for saying that the 980 Ti performed better, or AMD for saying that the Fury X retailed at a cheaper price?

 

Look I can't be fucked to spend my Friday trawling the Wayback machine to compare prices from more than a year ago for two cards that are now obsolete just to exercise your vanity, @djdwosk97. If you want to believe that the two were always the same price, then whatever. I don't care.

Except only one of those is true. The 980TI performed better, but the Fury X pretty much matched price with it for the first 8 months of sales.

[othertomperson]

14 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

Except only one of those is true. The 980TI performed better, but the Fury X pretty much matched price with it for the first 8 months of sales.

So AMD then? You're calling me an AMD fanboy? One would normally expect such a person to have at least owned something by said company at one point in their lives to qualify as a fanboy of it. I'm glad we got that out of the way though. I do love how easily the word is thrown around these days.

[Citadelen]

5 hours ago, TheRandomness said:

-snip-

I want my hyper-threaded Zen hex core for £250-300! >:c

@othertomperson Oh that was so on point mate!  

[LAwLz]

AMD is not a charity. They will price their products to be competitive with Intel in terms of price:performance. If it matches Intel's 1000 dollar offering then AMD will price their product at or slightly below 1000 dollars. If it matches Intel's 200 dollar product then they will price it at around 200 dollars.

 

Don't expect $1000-tier performance for 300 dollars. You will just end up disappointed. Expect $320-tier performance for 300 dollars.

[Prysin]

3 hours ago, othertomperson said:

So AMD then? You're calling me an AMD fanboy? One would normally expect such a person to have at least owned something by said company at one point in their lives to qualify as a fanboy of it. I'm glad we got that out of the way though. I do love how easily the word is thrown around these days.

actually, you dont have to have owned a product to be a fanboy.

[othertomperson]

1 hour ago, Prysin said:

actually, you dont have to have owned a product to be a fanboy.

I do own products though -- exclusively of AMD's competitors. Also an AMD fanboy whose comments about Zen have so far been overwhelmingly negative is astounding shit at shilling.

[Valentyn]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

AMD is not a charity. They will price their products to be competitive with Intel in terms of price:performance. If it matches Intel's 1000 dollar offering then AMD will price their product at or slightly below 1000 dollars. If it matches Intel's 200 dollar product then they will price it at around 200 dollars.

 

Don't expect $1000-tier performance for 300 dollars. You will just end up disappointed. Expect $320-tier performance for 300 dollars.

I don't know how people can expect such low prices if AMD is even within 10% of Intel performance wise.

They need money, lots of it, and if they compete they will price accordingly.

Let's not forget AMD easily shipped $1000 CPUs when they were doing well against Intel. It would be silly for them not to price match if they do on performance.

Seems some folks are also forgetting that they're launching with their Enthusiast line of Summit Ridge first, in small quantities. So we should all expect high prices for competing performance.

[TidaLWaveZ]

How will this be groundbreaking?  I'm not trying to criticize, I just honestly don't see the appeal. Pseudo-Haswell-E performance for cheaper over two years later doesn't seem that appealing.  Is there something I'm missing?

[NinjaJc01]

21 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Less than half of the quoted i7 would actually be a damn good offering. Even middling performance at around the haswell mark but with reasonable (300 bucks) price and 6 or 8 cores would basically force intel to rethink their lineup.

 

That being said....I really smell BS with this claims. Is not the first time AMD would be flatout misrepresenting and lying about their performance.

It might be performance clock for clock in a custom, AMD favoring benchmark, of course.

[TheRandomness]

7 hours ago, wcreek said:

Sauce? Because if so it really gives people who were going to buy an i5 not much reason to go with the Zen CPU unless it has some really good single core and multi threaded performance. Which I suppose, is hard to say.

I am completely guessing. An overclockable 4C/4T would be very nice sub £200. 

[Coaxialgamer]

33 minutes ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

How will this be groundbreaking?  I'm not trying to criticize, I just honestly don't see the appeal. Pseudo-Haswell-E performance for cheaper over two years later doesn't seem that appealing.  Is there something I'm missing?

their demonstration showed higher performance than broadwell E . These should be taken with a grain of salt however

[Sintezza]

6 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

Except only one of those is true. The 980TI performed better, but the Fury X pretty much matched price with it for the first 8 months of sales.

This is correct.

If my memory doesnt let me down, AMD with the launch of the FuryX stated that they dont want to be "that" budget brand anymore.

And then launched the FuryX at same or similar price to the GTX980Ti that time.

I thought it was arround $749,- at launch, but dont fully pin me on that.

[TidaLWaveZ]

17 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

their demonstration showed higher performance than broadwell E . These should be taken with a grain of salt however

 

A day late and a buck short IMO.

 

Unless the price is unbelievably low, I don't see anything to write home about.

[Coaxialgamer]

7 minutes ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

 

A day late and a buck short IMO.

 

Unless the price is unbelievably low, I don't see anything to write home about.

I don't get what you're saying . If it does perform as advertised , it beats intel's highest end offering excluding the 6950x . Broadwell E is their current enthusiast platform .

[TidaLWaveZ]

1 minute ago, Coaxialgamer said:

I don't get what you're saying . If it does perform as advertised , it beats intel's highest end offering excluding the 6950x . Broadwell E is their current enthusiast platform .

IMO it's performance level has been available for awhile and unless it's much cheaper I don't see any significance.

 

I thought the saying "a day late and a buck short" was kind of a clever double entendre in a way. 

[Coaxialgamer]

1 minute ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

IMO it's performance level has been available for awhile and unless it's much cheaper I don't see any significance.

 

I thought the saying "a day late and a buck short" was kind of a clever double entendre in a way. 

broadwell E has been available since may. I wouldn't call that a while

[TidaLWaveZ]

2 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

broadwell E has been available since may. I wouldn't call that a while

I consider 5960X that performance level. Especially since the 6900k was clocked at 3.0ghz.

[79wjd]

31 minutes ago, Sintezza said:

This is correct.

If my memory doesnt let me down, AMD with the launch of the FuryX stated that they dont want to be "that" budget brand anymore.

And then launched the FuryX at same or similar price to the GTX980Ti that time.

I thought it was arround $749,- at launch, but dont fully pin me on that.

They both launched at $649 and stayed at relatively similar price points. 

7 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

I'm not seeing this wide price difference you're describing.... 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

The EVGA 980Ti SC ACX 2.0 was 550 from July until October. From October until February it was 530. From February to March it was 540-560. From March until June it was 500-520. Then the 10 series was released. 

http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/product/bWDzK8/evga-video-card-06gp44993kr?history_days=730

 

The MSI 980Ti Armor 2x was 540-570 from August (when it was released) until November. 510-520 from November until January. January-February looks like a supply issue as it jumped to 550 and then down to 510 when it came back in stock for a couple of weeks. 530 from march until may. 510 from may until june. http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/product/HFGj4D/msi-video-card-gtx980ti6gd5toc?history_days=730

 

Gigabyte Windforce was 540 from August until october. from october until june it was 480-500. http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/product/tYH48d/gigabyte-video-card-gvn98twf3oc6gd?history_days=730

 

--------

Club 3D Fury X was 550-570 from July until August. then out of stock until October. and then was priced at 520 until june. http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/product/smgPxr/club-3d-video-card-cgaxr9fx8?history_days=730

 

XFX was 520-560 until September. then 500 until april. then 540 from may until july. 

http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/product/CDx9TW/xfx-video-card-r9fury4qfa

 

Sappire follows a similar trend as XFX: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/product/Jtp323/sapphire-video-card-212460040g?history_days=730

Same for MSI: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/product/dx648d/msi-video-card-r9furyx4g?history_days=730

Similar for Asus: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/product/c4nG3C/asus-video-card-r9furyx4g?history_days=730
 

 

 

[Exotath]

I will say I am impressed that they have matched a 6900K broadwell with an equivalent chip.

 

I feel safe to have some hope AMD can give us something to be excited about in the CPU market. Competition... Finally. 

[TidaLWaveZ]

13 minutes ago, Valermos said:

I will say I am impressed that they have matched a 6900K broadwell with an equivalent chip.

 

I feel safe to have some hope AMD can give us something to be excited about in the CPU market. Competition... Finally. 

Underclocked 6900k*  The 6900k was clocked at 3.0ghz in the test while it's base clock is 3.2ghz and it's turbo is 4.0ghz.

 

I too really wish that AMD would throw some serious competition in the mix for everyone's benefit.  There's nothing wrong with getting excited about the possibilities but if we're not reasonable with our expectations then we'll end up disappointed. 

[Exotath]

41 minutes ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

Underclocked 6900k*  The 6900k was clocked at 3.0ghz in the test while it's base clock is 3.2ghz and it's turbo is 4.0ghz.

 

I too really wish that AMD would throw some serious competition in the mix for everyone's benefit.  There's nothing wrong with getting excited about the possibilities but if we're not reasonable with our expectations then we'll end up disappointed. 

Ah, I missed that tidbit. Thanks.

[Prysin]

1 hour ago, Sintezza said:

This is correct.

If my memory doesnt let me down, AMD with the launch of the FuryX stated that they dont want to be "that" budget brand anymore.

And then launched the FuryX at same or similar price to the GTX980Ti that time.

I thought it was arround $749,- at launch, but dont fully pin me on that.

MSRP was 649$ and never went above that. ALl prices above the MSRP was due to shortage of supply and thus the subsequent price jacking that retailers tend to do