VEGA & RYZEN vs NIVIDIA and INTEL - Buy now or wait.

[Thinkfreely]

4 minutes ago, smokefest said:

Its RYZEN not ZEN

Yeah it's Potato not Patato. ?

[Thinkfreely]

4 minutes ago, App4that said:

I've also been at 100 since AMD has been making more press conferences than new product. 

The force is strong with this one...?

[App4that]

1 minute ago, Thinkfreely said:

The force is strong with this one...?

Intel announced pricing for Kabylake months in advance. No fancy shows, no biased benchmarks. (the 7GHz on a core was BS) Just pricing and a quiet launch. 

 

Tell me AMD hasn't been going overboard. I can be patience, it's being teased that ignites my lightsaber. I just want the pricing. 

[Thinkfreely]

46 minutes ago, App4that said:

it's being teased that ignites my lightsaber.

Funny that's exactly what ignites my lightsaber too, but not in the same context ?

[WereCat]

1 hour ago, smokefest said:

Its RYZEN not ZEN  

From leaked benchmarks, Ryzen seems to perform a bit under the i7 6950x for applications tasks,

And Ryzen seems to perform like an i5 6400 for GAMES...

So look like a good cpu but doesn't seem its going to beat intel for games...

... I was writing that from phone so I will use whatever word I can just to save some typing time

[He_162]

5 hours ago, Suika said:

Ryzen < Kaby Lake / Skylake

 

There's no way Ryzen is going to come out of the blue and beat Skylake, the only reason to wait for it is to see if Ryzen offers similar performance for cheaper or drops Intel's pricing, and chances are, AMD isn't going to undercut Intel enough to justify the wait, but that's my opinion. I'm also extremely impatient so there's that. If you're curious or a fanboy, you're more than welcome to wait, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I'm not saying, "hurr durr screw AMD," but rather that from what we know and what we can predict, purchasing Intel now isn't likely to screw you over.

 

Vega ~ Pascal

 

Not too sure on this, at all. If you're willing to wait up until June for a GPU, personally I would out of curiosity. AMD has released a Titan killer before, who's to say they couldn't do it again?

I wouldn't put Vega next to pascal if you consider their equivelant to the GTX 1080 running at 300 watts, vs the 1080's 170 watt TDP.

 

I should mention that Vega is essentially an improvement on their current architecture, but ramped up power usage as well to allow the same performance that a GTX 1080 can get.

 

This also means, (I'm assuming) that the GTX 1080 should be much easier to overclock, due to it being so much more efficient.

 

Also, fans. Cooling. You will want much better cooling for any AMD card than for any Nvidia card, and you need to keep that price in mind.

[App4that]

4 minutes ago, He_162 said:

I wouldn't put Vega next to pascal if you consider their equivelant to the GTX 1080 running at 300 watts, vs the 1080's 170 watt TDP.

 

I should mention that Vega is essentially an improvement on their current architecture, but ramped up power usage as well to allow the same performance that a GTX 1080 can get.

 

This also means, (I'm assuming) that the GTX 1080 should be much easier to overclock, due to it being so much more efficient.

 

Also, fans. Cooling. You will want much better cooling for any AMD card than for any Nvidia card, and you need to keep that price in mind.

Get the gas we have a thinker. 

 

My prediction is that once Vega hit Nvidia is going to slash the prices. So the 1080 counterpart will be much more expensive for the same performance. 

[He_162]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

Get the gas we have a thinker. 

 

My prediction is that once Vega hit Nvidia is going to slash the prices. So the 1080 counterpart will be much more expensive for the same performance. 

It costs Nvidia around 100 - 200$ per GTX 1080, if they wanted to keep up with AMD, it would not be hard, lol.

 

The RnD has been long paid off since they started working on Maxwell, but now they have Pascal. They need to pay that RnD off, so if they make their prices more competitive, it will take longer, but they could definitely beat AMD in pricing if more people buy their cards, so if you want them to lower their prices, buy more of their stuff, don't stop buying it, they need the money to produce them in larger quantities, which makes them cheaper in return, and therefore, can be sold for cheaper while still making a profit, and paying off that research and development costs.

[Apollo Refugio]

21 hours ago, Thinkfreely said:

Looking at your sig, you going back then to AMD?

huh lol no, the gpu and cpu were just good deals.

[Thinkfreely]

3 hours ago, He_162 said:

It costs Nvidia around 100 - 200$ per GTX 1080, if they wanted to keep up with AMD, it would not be hard, lol

Isn't that subjective though? I mean so much of the manufacture process for both companies is all 3rd party anyway.

[He_162]

53 minutes ago, Thinkfreely said:

Isn't that subjective though? I mean so much of the manufacture process for both companies is all 3rd party anyway.

I gave a general region of pricing to account for the various manufacturers, 200$ seems like quite a stretch to me though, and it's not just me, it's the research I've done, the most expensive part is ram, the actual processing unit is usually 1$ or less.

[Thinkfreely]

3 hours ago, Apollo Refugio said:

huh lol no, the gpu and cpu were just good deals.

When and when?