CPU Pricing

[_BJE_]

what do you guys think Intel is going to do about Ryzen destroying Intel's price. a price cut? and how much? lots of thing in my head now.

[TheOnlinePotato]

#waitforryzen #thehypeisrealwithryzen

[DarkBlade2117]

Depends. A price cut? I doubt it, hardcore fans will still buy Intel even if Ryzen is way better p/p because "they don't give a flying fuck" because "INTEL 4 LYFE". Though, 8th gen I think will be much different. I expect some higher core counts for main stream. I don't know if they'll go straight for a $330 8c/16 CPU but 8th gen won't be the typical 2c/4t 4c/4t and 4c/8t lineup IMO.

I'll be waiting for Zen+ though. Going to see how the war plays out for the next 2 years.

[rn8686]

X99 will have to drop in price to compete, but I dont think it will affect regular consumers much as Intel still has faster single core speeds. 

 

Edit: Better single core speeds for consumer platform, not enthusiast X99. 

[DarkBlade2117]

1 minute ago, rn8686 said:

Intel still has faster single core speeds. 

Can't prove this, don't say this. 

From what we can gather so far, Intel may have like a 5% faster single core speed, which isn't worth it if you are legit getting DOUBLE the cores and threads for the same price. Most people who buy a 6700k/7700k Record/Stream, possibly edit videos and usually do various other CPU intensive tasks which the R7 1700 will shine in more than likely.

[_BJE_]

How about Coffeylake? do you think it has a chance?

 

[DarkBlade2117]

1 minute ago, _BJE_ said:

How about Coffeylake? do you think it has a chance?

 

Coffelake is a mobile platform, I don't even think it is considered 8th gen. Cannon lake is their next "true" lineup.

[rn8686]

1 minute ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

Can't prove this, don't say this. 

From what we can gather so far, Intel may have like a 5% faster single core speed, which isn't worth it if you are legit getting DOUBLE the cores and threads for the same price. Most people who buy a 6700k/7700k Record/Stream, possibly edit videos and usually do various other CPU intensive tasks which the R7 1700 will shine in more than likely.

I fully agree its a better buy for those who render/stream, but for regular consumers who dont need (or wont use) those extra cores, Intel is still going to be a little better for them. 

[stealth80]

who said they need to drop anything? Wait for benches, we aint seen anything official yet that isn't from AMD or leaked.

[DarkBlade2117]

1 minute ago, rn8686 said:

I fully agree its a better buy for those who render/stream, but for regular consumers who dont need (or wont use) those extra cores, Intel is still going to be a little better for them. 

That's a big thing to say with little to nothing to back it up with. 

Your average consumer and even gamer isn't going to notice a 2-6% difference in FPS. The TDP and power draw of the R7 1700 is lower than a 7700k, which makes it better for Pre-Builts. It comes with a stock cooler (Though we don't know how good it is) might allow for a nice little 500Mhz OC. B350 boards are  <$120. With some X370 boards being at that $100-$120 range.

2-6% and even then we don't know for CERTAIN if this is true, how it will perform ect in these applications. And if more games start supporting more cores, it'll shine even brighter. Games like BF1 like more cores.

[LAwLz]

10 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

That's a big thing to say with little to nothing to back it up with. 

Your average consumer and even gamer isn't going to notice a 2-6% difference in FPS. The TDP and power draw of the R7 1700 is lower than a 7700k, which makes it better for Pre-Builts. It comes with a stock cooler (Though we don't know how good it is) might allow for a nice little 500Mhz OC. B350 boards are  <$120. With some X370 boards being at that $100-$120 range.

2-6% and even then we don't know for CERTAIN if this is true, how it will perform ect in these applications. And if more games start supporting more cores, it'll shine even brighter. Games like BF1 like more cores.

One store accidentally posted GTA 5 benchmarks before the NDA was up.

The i7 7700K was far better than the 1700 for gaming. I'm talking ~30% better minimum FPS, for the same money.

 

At least wait until we have proper benchmarks before saying that Ryzen is only 2-6% behind.

Those 2-6% numbers are:
1) Straight from AMD themselves and should therefore not be trusted.

2) Assuming clock for clock, but as we all know Intel's quad cores are clocked waaay higher. It doesn't really matter if your IPC is only slightly behind your competitor, if your competitor is capable of running their chips at far higher frequencies (and don' bring up overclocking either, because the 7700K can be overclocked too, and most likely overclocks better than the 8 core Ryzen chip).

 

 

My gut feeling after seeing (only two mind you) third party benchmarks is that anyone who was thinking of getting Skylake, will be better off with Skylake. Skylake is and will continue to be the undisputed performance king while you don't use more than 4 cores, which is (sadly) what most people use.

Anyone who was thinking of going X99, because they actually do tasks which can utilize 8 cores (the vast minority of people) will be better off with the 8 core Ryzen.

[rn8686]

1 minute ago, CoopTheYeti said:

Again, With Vulkun api and games like BF1 More cores is becoming better, and with the comment:

Ryzen (as we currently have seen it) is showing better single core performance than the intel counterpart

I meant for their consumer platform, not X99 (Probably should have phrased it better). 

[DoctorZeus]

Considering most consumer grade chips have been holding steady at 4 physical cores, moving to more cores, in the mainstream, may let developers invest in leveraging the additional cores with moves to those multi-thread favoring APIs

[DarkBlade2117]

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

One store accidentally posted GTA 5 benchmarks before the NDA was up.

The i7 7700K was far better than the 1700 for gaming. I'm talking ~30% better minimum FPS, for the same money.

 

At least wait until we have proper benchmarks before saying that Ryzen is only 2-6% behind.

Those 2-6% numbers are:
1) Straight from AMD themselves and should therefore not be trusted.

2) Assuming clock for clock, but as we all know Intel's quad cores are clocked waaay higher. It doesn't really matter if your IPC is only slightly behind your competitor, if your competitor is capable of running their chips at far higher frequencies (and don' bring up overclocking either, because the 7700K can be overclocked too, and most likely overclocks better than the 8 core Ryzen chip).

Ah.

-Can argue 1700 comes with stock cooler saving you $30 (lel) 

-Never seen these GTA V benches, and GTA V is 1 game. One. Also, yes, overclocking is something to considered. If the R7 1700 can hit 4.5-4.8Ghz, the numbers might not be as far. AGAIN. Let me say this, MOST people who buy a 7700k/6700k buy it BECAUSE they plan on streaming, recording editing videos and Ect. Which is a major factor to consider. Streaming on my 6700k, the frame rates are nearly as good.

-The R5 series may be better to put up against the i7-7700k for pure gaming as they'll likely be clocked higher. Since lower core count usually means higher frequencies. I'd expect the low end R5 series to have turbo clocks of 4.0Ghz.

Also.. with Ryzen. It may leverage devs to put better support towards gaming with 6-8 cores which will again, benefit Ryzen more.

[LAwLz]

6 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

-Never seen these GTA V benches, and GTA V is 1 game. One.

Yes, but if you think the majority of games will favor many but weaker cores over a few more powerful ones then you are delusional. Assuming those benchmarks were accurate (they match my expectations so obviously I think they are) then we will see the same kind of results in almost all games.

 

7 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

Also, yes, overclocking is something to considered. If the R7 1700 can hit 4.5-4.8Ghz, the numbers might not be as far.

Yeah, an overclocked 1700 might get close to the 7700K at stock... but what if you overclock both chips? All of a sudden the game is back, or possibly even larger. I would not be surprised if the 1700 overclocks worse than the 7700K, and I base that on the fact that the AMD chip has twice the amount of cores, and the manufacturing process is most likely not as mature as Intel's yet.

 

13 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

Let me say this, MOST people who buy a 7700k/6700k buy it BECAUSE they plan on streaming, recording editing videos and Ect. Which is a major factor to consider. Streaming on my 6700k, the frame rates are nearly as good.

If you are going to stream then Intel will still be better, because of QuickSync. If you have an Intel processor with an iGPU, but don't use QuickSync for steraming then you're doing it wrong.

(Or if you have an Nvidia GPU, use NVENC).

 

But like I said, Ryzen 7 is competing with X99. It Ryzen 7 will most likely not be able to compete with Skylake in the areas where Skylake is good (and it's good at what most consumers do, including gaming while streaming).

 

For video editing though, Ryzen will most likely be better.

 

19 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

-The R5 series may be better to put up against the i7-7700k for pure gaming as they'll likely be clocked higher. Since lower core count usually means higher frequencies. I'd expect the low end R5 series to have turbo clocks of 4.0Ghz.

Absolutely. I expect the R5 series to be better for gaming than the R7 too. The problem is that people seem to have drunk too much Ryzen cool-aid and think Ryzen 7 is the second coming of Jesus, and will destroy Intel at everything. It won't. If anything, the Ryzen chips we will get next week will get rekt by Intel at the tasks most people do.

Like I said before, if you were not interested in getting an X99 computer then chances are you should not be excited for Ryzen 7 either. Get excited for Ryzen 5 instead. That will probably suit your use cases more.

 

21 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

Also.. with Ryzen. It may leverage devs to put better support towards gaming with 6-8 cores which will again, benefit Ryzen more.

I doubt it. People said the same thing about Bulldozer as soon as third party benchmarks came out. Statements like that just reeks of desperation.

You should NEVER buy a product because you expect it to get better in the future. You should always buy the performance you need, when you need it. This whole concept of "future proofing" is extremely flawed and has been proven wrong time and time again.

 

Even IF it were to encourage developers to put more effort into making games utilize more than 4 cores, that change won't benefit us consumers for the next few years. Sure if Ryzen is a hit then we might see games take advantage of 8 cores 5 years into the future. But by that point we will hopefully have new exciting CPUs to buy.

[DarkBlade2117]

10 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Yeah, an overclocked 1700 might get close to the 7700K at stock... but what if you overclock both chips? All of a sudden the game is back, or possibly even larger. I would not be surprised if the 1700 overclocks worse than the 7700K, and I base that on the fact that the AMD chip has twice the amount of cores, and the manufacturing process is most likely not as mature as Intel's yet.

 

Didn't word it quite well, but this was comparing to an OC'd 7700k. a 7700k "can" reach 5GHz but most people hit 4.7.

 

11 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

If you are going to stream then Intel will still be better, because of QuickSync. If you have an Intel processor with an iGPU, but don't use QuickSync for steraming then you're doing it wrong.

(Or if you have an Nvidia GPU, use NVENC).

 

But like I said, Ryzen 7 is competing with X99. It Ryzen 7 will most likely not be able to compete with Skylake in the areas where Skylake is good (and it's good at what most consumers do, including gaming while streaming).

I cri because I don't use quicksync lol. But most serious streamers have a second PC they use to stream anyways, a topic I am not experienced enough to put more context into.

I do agree though, if you weren't looking at an X99 lineup, don't look into the R7 lineup.

12 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Absolutely. I expect the R5 series to be better for gaming than the R7 too. The problem is that people seem to have drunk too much Ryzen cool-aid and think Ryzen 7 is the second coming of Jesus, and will destroy Intel at everything. It won't. If anything, the Ryzen chips we will get next week will get rekt by Intel at the tasks most people do.

Agreed, in theory the R5-1600x should have higher turbo clocks than the 1800x and will also probably still be better in multi-threaded work loads than the 7700k.

 

13 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I doubt it. People said the same thing about Bulldozer as soon as third party benchmarks came out. Statements like that just reeks of desperation.

You should NEVER buy a product because you expect it to get better in the future. You should always buy the performance you need, when you need it. This whole concept of "future proofing" is extremely flawed and has been proven wrong time and time again.

One can dream... but according to JayzTwoCents Intel put out a brief statement saying something along the lines of "Don't worry, we got something coming" I expect Cannon Lake to completely change mainstream. I doubt the typical 2c/4t i3, 4c/4t i5 and 4c/8t i7 for Z370 is going to happen. Which is what I hope for, when both companies start launching out higher core counts they'll finally be like "oh, we should probably utilize these" because at that point, there is only so much AMD and Intel can do with IPC ect, the devs are the ones to blame at that point if they don't start utilizing more cores when Hexa cores/Octa cores are the norm from both Intel and AMD.

[TechGod]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

One store accidentally posted GTA 5 benchmarks before the NDA was up.

The i7 7700K was far better than the 1700 for gaming. I'm talking ~30% better minimum FPS, for the same money.

 

At least wait until we have proper benchmarks before saying that Ryzen is only 2-6% behind.

Those 2-6% numbers are:
1) Straight from AMD themselves and should therefore not be trusted.

2) Assuming clock for clock, but as we all know Intel's quad cores are clocked waaay higher. It doesn't really matter if your IPC is only slightly behind your competitor, if your competitor is capable of running their chips at far higher frequencies (and don' bring up overclocking either, because the 7700K can be overclocked too, and most likely overclocks better than the 8 core Ryzen chip).

 

 

My gut feeling after seeing (only two mind you) third party benchmarks is that anyone who was thinking of getting Skylake, will be better off with Skylake. Skylake is and will continue to be the undisputed performance king while you don't use more than 4 cores, which is (sadly) what most people use.

Anyone who was thinking of going X99, because they actually do tasks which can utilize 8 cores (the vast minority of people) will be better off with the 8 core Ryzen.

And you're willing to believe that benchmark? Why is that more trustworthy than AMD?

[TechGod]

51 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Yes, but if you think the majority of games will favor many but weaker cores over a few more powerful ones then you are delusional. Assuming those benchmarks were accurate (they match my expectations so obviously I think they are) then we will see the same kind of results in almost all games.

 

Yeah, an overclocked 1700 might get close to the 7700K at stock... but what if you overclock both chips? All of a sudden the game is back, or possibly even larger. I would not be surprised if the 1700 overclocks worse than the 7700K, and I base that on the fact that the AMD chip has twice the amount of cores, and the manufacturing process is most likely not as mature as Intel's yet.

 

If you are going to stream then Intel will still be better, because of QuickSync. If you have an Intel processor with an iGPU, but don't use QuickSync for steraming then you're doing it wrong.

(Or if you have an Nvidia GPU, use NVENC).

 

But like I said, Ryzen 7 is competing with X99. It Ryzen 7 will most likely not be able to compete with Skylake in the areas where Skylake is good (and it's good at what most consumers do, including gaming while streaming).

 

For video editing though, Ryzen will most likely be better.

 

Absolutely. I expect the R5 series to be better for gaming than the R7 too. The problem is that people seem to have drunk too much Ryzen cool-aid and think Ryzen 7 is the second coming of Jesus, and will destroy Intel at everything. It won't. If anything, the Ryzen chips we will get next week will get rekt by Intel at the tasks most people do.

Like I said before, if you were not interested in getting an X99 computer then chances are you should not be excited for Ryzen 7 either. Get excited for Ryzen 5 instead. That will probably suit your use cases more.

 

I doubt it. People said the same thing about Bulldozer as soon as third party benchmarks came out. Statements like that just reeks of desperation.

You should NEVER buy a product because you expect it to get better in the future. You should always buy the performance you need, when you need it. This whole concept of "future proofing" is extremely flawed and has been proven wrong time and time again.

 

Even IF it were to encourage developers to put more effort into making games utilize more than 4 cores, that change won't benefit us consumers for the next few years. Sure if Ryzen is a hit then we might see games take advantage of 8 cores 5 years into the future. But by that point we will hopefully have new exciting CPUs to buy.

Did you even see the AMD demo mate? The Intel CPU was streaming very choppily in comparison to the Ryzen chip. 

[LAwLz]

11 minutes ago, TechGod said:

And you're willing to believe that benchmark? Why is that more trustworthy than AMD?

That benchmark seems to align with what I was expecting, but of course I won't form my entire opinion of Ryzen based on two benchmarks released by one guy.

Why is that more trustworthy than AMD? Because it is an independent reviewer (or rather, a store in the UK). If you don't understand why you should not trust marketing then I am not quite sure what to say.

First party benchmarks should never be trusted because they are usually deliberately misleading in order to entice customers. I don't trust AMD's benchmarks, nor do I trust Nvidia's own Intel's. Even if they aren't technically lying, you can bet your ass that they have tried their hardest to make their own product appear as good as possible. So for example they might cripple their competitor by not letting it run in a quad channel memory configuration, or selecting benchmarks which deliberately gives them the biggest advantage without showing the drawbacks.

 

That's just how marketing and first party benchmarks are.

 

 

10 minutes ago, TechGod said:

Did you even see the AMD demo mate? The Intel CPU was streaming very choppily in comparison to the Ryzen chip. 

Not sure which part you are referring to here. Are you referring to the part where I said Skylake would be better for streaming? It would. In AMD's demo they were not using QuickSync on the Intel platform. That would remove all the strain of video encoding away from the CPU and onto Intel's integrated GPU.

 

This is why I don't trust first party benchmarks. They are misleading.

 

Hello VS.

[Djole123]

(whoops no not that)

 

Intel HAS to do something about it. Whether it is a price cut( likely) or a new gen (unlikely), Intel needs to do something in order to compete with Ryzen.

[VagabondWraith]

Now is not the time to ask. Wait a month for real benchmarks and in depth analysis is done by people other than AMD (or in AMD controlled environments).

 

If Ryzen is truly great, I am sure Intel will respond. If it's not, Intel will not do anything. They will not need to.

 

All this talk about what Intel will do is premature. 

[_BJE_]

2 hours ago, Djole123 said:

Intel HAS to do something about it. Whether it is a price cut( likely) or a new gen (unlikely), Intel needs to do something in order to compete with Ryzen.

yea i think a price cut is most likely but do you think Intel will halve its current chips and maybe the 7800k + when they release?