Ryzen at stock without turbo beats intel 6900k Goodbye intel

[sazrocks]

6 hours ago, maria2244 said:

But  Ryzen also beats the 6900k without even the turbo .

I know, I just have a problem with AMD comparing to a non-comparable cpu, and saying, "Look guys, it's better!"

[Velvet Revolver]

9 hours ago, maria2244 said:

RYZEN without the turbo beats intel 6900k

Goodbye intel with your 1000$ weak CPU

 

-

 

the moment Ryzen beating intel

-

 

6700k vs RYSEN

no way

-

 

 

 

They scammed the outcomes.

[done12many2]

11 hours ago, maria2244 said:

RYZEN without the turbo beats intel 6900k

 

Goodbye intel with your 1000$ weak CPU

 

the moment Ryzen beating intel

 

I think you jumped on the hype bus a little too fast.  You may want to wait until someone other than AMD says so.  Otherwise this thread might look a little silly in a couple/few months.

[ARikozuM]

2 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

I think you jumped on the hype bus a little too fast.

Someone is being gentle on the delivery...

[lettuce head]

if we're honest here, the 6900k is a 600 USD cpu that intel jacked up to a grand because there was no competition...at all. it may beat it sure, but if they charge an ungodly amount, nobody will want it. Even if they charge 1000 dollars for it, intel knows that they'll make profit well below their current price point. AMD needs to outperform the 6900k at a lower retail cost to really stir the pot.

[done12many2]

4 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Someone is being gentle on the delivery...

 

After reading through the entire thread, she seems to have been convinced the second that the great Dr. Su said it was so.  You have to go easy on those that fall hard for something.  

 

3 minutes ago, lettuce head said:

if we're honest here, the 6900k is a 600 USD cpu that intel jacked up to a grand because there was no competition...at all. it may beat it sure, but if they charge an ungodly amount, nobody will want it. Even if they charge 1000 dollars for it, intel knows that they'll make profit well below their current price point. AMD needs to outperform the 6900k at a lower retail cost to really stir the pot.

 

I think if AMD prices it right, it'll be a great success even if future 3rd party tests reveal that AMD might have been a bit misleading.  The closer it performs to a 6900k and the lower the price, the more we all will reap the rewards of competition.  I'm just not very optimistic. 

[lettuce head]

5 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

After reading through the entire thread, she seems to have been convinced the second that the great Dr. Su said it was so.  You have to go easy on those that fall hard for something.  

 

 

I think if AMD prices it right, it'll be a great success even if future 3rd party tests reveal that AMD might have been a bit misleading.  The closer it performs to a 6900k and the lower the price, the more we all will reap the rewards of competition.  I'm just not very optimistic. 

amd is infamous for derailing between reveal and release. even if it doesn't beat the 6900k as you mentioned. competition is always a good thing for the consumer. im optimistic for that part, and im not even in the market for a new cpu, AMD needs this and/or vega to do really well. if not, it's going to be really really bad.

[YedZed]

11 hours ago, maria2244 said:

RYZEN without the turbo beats intel 6900k

Goodbye intel with your 1000$ weak CPU

 

 

 

Do we know that these Ryzen chips won't be $2000? Honest concern.

[ARikozuM]

Just now, YedZed said:

Do we know that these Ryzen chips won't be $2000? Honest concern.

AMD has stated that the CPU's will not be inexpensive or "the cheaper option". They will likely mark the CPU's around Intel's marks.

[YedZed]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

AMD has stated that the CPU's will not be inexpensive or "the cheaper option". They will likely mark the CPU's around Intel's marks.

Right. Meaning OP here might be a bit overenthused. Can't wait for some competition tho. Spice things up.

[YedZed]

26 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

I think you jumped on the hype bus a little too fast.  You may want to wait until someone other than AMD says so.  Otherwise this thread might look a little silly in a couple/few months.

Good point!

[done12many2]

11 minutes ago, YedZed said:

Do we know that these Ryzen chips won't be $2000? Honest concern.

 

No, we don't.

 

My favorite part of the New Horizon event was how much Lisa Su repeated that a 6900k costs over $1k, but never even hinted at the price of the Ryzen chip.  Why bring up price if you aren't going to disclose what yours is?  If it ends up anywhere close to the 6900k's price, they are going to look like some real winners.  <-- yes, sarcastic version.

 

My other favorite part of the event was the mention of the fact that they left the 6900k's 3.7 GHz Turbo enabled (7 times throughout the event).  This gives the viewers the impression that it had a distinct clock speed advantage.  The problem with that is that the 6900k, like any other Intel chip with Turbo, scales down clock speed based on core utilization. Guess what speed a 6900k's Turbo operates at when all cores are firing?  3.4 GHz.  Sound familiar?    

 

This is why it's not very smart to jump all over the hype train like OP did.  AMD might make you look silly.  

 

[Albatross]

PLOT TWIST: AMD prices match Intel prices.

[done12many2]

11 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

AMD has stated that the CPU's will not be inexpensive or "the cheaper option". They will likely mark the CPU's around Intel's marks.

 

If they do so, they better have some pretty decent single-threaded performance to go along with it.  Broadwell-E has the great advantage of Turbo Boost 3.0, which does great in the area of single-threaded performance.   Coming from a guy that believes in many cores, I also believe that single-threaded performance is a thing.  A very big thing.

 

AVX offset is another great BWE feature that I wish my HWE chip had.

 

I'm looking forward to seeing what happens.  If everything pans out, I'll build an AMD rig, which is something I haven't done in very long time.

[Wed15septoid2]

The thing is, clock speeds aren't everything. They sure as heck help, but they don't decide whether a cpu is amazing or not. Take the AMD FX 8370 for example with 8 cores at 4Ghz. Yet an Ivy Bridge i5 could beat the crap out of it with only 4 cores and a clock speed of 3.4 Ghz. Not to mention that 7 gamers 1 cpu only had a clock speed of around 2.2Ghz yet would destroy a cpu clocked at twice that. So clock speed isn't everything. Although AMD's CPU's could by some small miracle actually compete with Intel, AMD will always be a few steps behind its competitors in both the CPU and GPU market.

12 hours ago, maria2244 said:

RYZEN without the turbo beats intel 6900k

Goodbye intel with your 1000$ weak CPU

 

-

 

the moment Ryzen beating intel

-

 

6700k vs RYSEN

no way

-

 

 

[Paradine Sage]

For Ryzen to be a big success they have to crush Intel on pricing, at least at time of launch. Offering the same or slightly better performance for a fifty to hundred dollar discount just won't cut it in the market, the top tier Broadwell's are already priced at a point where the people who buy them are unlikely to quibble all that much over 50-100 bucks and anyone interested in an 8 core chip in the price range has already bought one.

 

For Ryzen to really compete it has to be priced at 450-600 bucks, where it is competing (price wise) against that one tier down Intel chip and it becomes the go to buy for anyone wanting/needing more than 4 cores.

 

Even at that price point to get those already using 6900k's to switch it would have to offer a huge performance increase simply because of the additional ~500 bucks you are looking at for the new motherboard. Priced at much more than that and its just not something that people already using a Broadwell-E chip will change systems for.

[Atmos]

Lol.

If performance is anywhere NEAR 6900k levels, then you can absolutely be assured it will cost near 6900k levels.

 

If AMD can get away with charging only slightly less for a faster cpu, then they absolutely will. They will NOT launch a cpu that powerful for as low a price as you are hoping.

[Paradine Sage]

1 hour ago, Atmos said:

Lol.

If performance is anywhere NEAR 6900k levels, then you can absolutely be assured it will cost near 6900k levels.

 

If AMD can get away with charging only slightly less for a faster cpu, then they absolutely will. They will NOT launch a cpu that powerful for as low a price as you are hoping.

If they don't then they won't sell.

 

Their only potential market will be people currently not on X99 that want to move up to 8 cores, because anyone already on an X99 chipset is going to just buy the 6900K and save the cost of the motherboard change. Anyone not already on X99 is also reasonably unlikely to see value in moving up from four cores to eight and anyone who actually has a reason to be on Broadwell-E is already there.

 

To get those already on Broadwell to switch while having a ~$1000 price for Ryzen, Ryzen would have to crush the 6900k. Not just be somewhat better but crush it. These are people who have already probably invested three to five hundred dollars into a motherboard, if they were willing to spend another fifteen hundred bucks on their CPU/MoBo then they would probably go with the 6950k over Ryzen plus the new board. Generally if you are doing tasks that can gainfully exploit 8 cores then you gain more by going to 10 cores than you do by going to a slightly higher clock speed on those 8 cores.

 

If AMD wants a serious market for this then they need to price it at the point where those on 6800k's and 6850k's would purchase it plus a motherboard instead of purchasing a 6900k when they want to upgrade.

 

---

Yeah, it does better if you are comparing totally new systems but the problem with that is that there just aren't all that many people in the market for totally new systems in that price/performance range at any given point in time. Then you also have to account for the Broadwell-E replacement that Intel is liable to announce within the next 12 to 24 months.

 

Ryzen is unlikely to be into the real general market until around April to May of 2017 (assuming that the chip goes on sale February of 2017), and Intel probably starts teasing the Broadwell-E replacement in late 2017 with a Q2 or Q3 drop date in 2018. It's a near certainty that that chip will crush Ryzen so you are looking at about a year or so for Ryzen's lifespan in the market.

 

Priced competitive to a 6850K (about $500) Ryzen would crush (assuming that Intel doesn't price drop the 6900k to the same point) because at that point it compares (price wise) very well with a 6900k upgrade for anyone already on X99 while offering better performance (assuming that AMD's numbers are honest) while also offering enough of a core and performance gain to likely get a number of Skylake users looking to upgrade to switch.

 

At five hundred to six hundred USD Ryzen becomes the market defining chip for high end desktops. At eight hundred to a thousand USD it's just another chip, priced too high for the average "enthusiast" to buy and yet not offering enough to get anyone already on an X99 mobo to switch (Ryzen doesn't, even with AMD's numbers, offer one to two hundred dollars worth of better performance over a 6900k and that would be the cost difference for the mobo to switch).

[dexT]

Four SKUs are thus rumored to exist:

• Zen SR3: (65W, quad-core, eight threads, ~$150 USD)
• Zen SR5: (95W, hexa-core, twelve threads, ~$250 USD)
• Zen SR7: (95W, octo-core, sixteen threads, ~$350 USD)
• Special Zen SR7: (95W, octo-core, sixteen threads, ~$500 USD)

 

*Guru3D