Is this the answer from AMD on the rumoured i9 lineup?

[Megah3rtz]

8 hours ago, LinusTechTipsFanFromDarlo said:

In my opinion it's really annoying. 

Annoying for you because your can't afford it, or because you simply don't need 12 or 16 core processors is a stupid reason to not want them. 

 

Even if you don't want one, somebody else most definitely will in the professional area, and there should always be competition. 

 

[AnonymousGuy]

24 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

If Intel can't figure out how to get a suitable ROI without overcharging their customers, then they're doing it wrong.

It's not overcharging if your customers are still willing to pay it.

[MrDynamicMan]

8 hours ago, LinusTechTipsFanFromDarlo said:

Both companies are trying to outdo each other now which is kinda childish...

"look at these companies trying to make better products than their competitors, so childish. "

[Juanitology]

9 hours ago, LinusTechTipsFanFromDarlo said:

Both companies are trying to outdo each other now which is kinda childish...

But it's awesome for us consumers

[Tam3n]

Wow, competition at the highest end offerings. Good!

 

Also, I like the name Threadripper and how the last digit tells the number of cores.

 

Hmm, Intel is going to introduce AVX-512 for consumers with Skylake-X. For a few of the supported applications, it's going to be a massive boost in performance.

[Valentyn]

7 hours ago, KenjiUmino said:

what's up ? if a three digit TDP shocks you, i assume you never had a pentium 4 ? 

No, I had an Athlon 64 instead, and then Athlon 64 X2. 

No Netburst was allowed in this household. 

[leadeater]

16 minutes ago, Valentyn said:

No, I had an Athlon 64 instead, and then Athlon 64 X2. 

No Netburst was allowed in this household. 

I had both, even multiple different generations of Pentium 4 and every single one sucked. Pentium 4 HT is passable in that if a process locked up the system didn't freeze with it.

 

AMD FX-55 was awesome .

[Valentyn]

25 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I had both, even multiple different generations of Pentium 4 and every single one sucked. Pentium 4 HT is passable in that if a process locked up the system didn't freeze with it.

 

AMD FX-55 was awesome .

Even as a little kid I wasn't impressed by the P4. It launched needing Rambus RAM, which jacked up the price, and had lower IPC than my current P3. 

 

I went K6-2, P3, Athlon 64, Athlon 64 X2, Core 2 E8500, Phenom II 940, and 2600K.

 

My socket 754 Athlon 64 is still working as well. Have it wrapped up in bubble wrap, and the only part changed in its life time was the Creative GeForce 4 4800Ti Se, for a 6600GT.

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, Valentyn said:

Even as a little kid I wasn't impressed by the P4. It launched needing Rambus RAM, which jacked up the price, and had lower IPC than my current P3. 

 

I went K6-2, P3, Athlon 64, Athlon 64 X2, Core 2 E8500, Phenom II 940, and 2600K.

 

My socket 754 Athlon 64 is still working as well. Have it wrapped up in bubble wrap, and the only part changed in its life time was the Creative GeForce 4 4800Ti Se, for a 6600GT.

The days of Pentium III 1.8GHz in most cases getting rekt by a 1GHz Coppermine Pentium III.....with only PC133 SDRAM.

[TacoSenpai]

I'll be interested in seeing how these 10-16 core CPUs keep cool or what will be needed to keep them cool rather.  Oh and seeing AMD's naming convention can we hope there is a 1999X or something so we can say overclock like its 1999?.... no?  I'll see myself out...

[Spenser1337]

5 hours ago, Tedny said:

if 10 core Ryzen will be less than 500$, maybe will buy it for a replacement for my  E5-2690 v2 in the workstation 

Their flagship 8 core is 499 and the cheapest real 10 core with good ipc and decent clockspeeds is 1700$ 

 

have realistic expectations 

[The Benjamins]

Just now, Spenser1337 said:

Their flagship 8 core is 499 and the cheapest real 10 core with good ipc and decent clockspeeds is 1700$ 

 

have realistic expectations 

agreed.

this is how I would kinda expect the pricing to be with a ±$100 

L = Low end

H = High end

10L $600

10H $700

12L $850

12H $950

14L $1100

14H $1200

16L $1350

16H $1450

[ResidentRad]

7 hours ago, Jito463 said:

 

Exactly.  Just because they have a lot of money to spend on R&D, doesn't mean they have to wastefully spend it.  AMD knows a thing or two about doing R&D with lean resources.  I'm not saying Intel needs to follow AMD's lead, of course, but they could learn a couple things from them.

 

If Intel can't figure out how to get a suitable ROI without overcharging their customers, then they're doing it wrong.

What exactly does Intel need to learn from AMD? 

Intel spends on a fab what AMD is worth as a company, Intel burns billions on RD even when that RD leads to nothing, they still spend on active research. Intel was one of the first to realize that Moore's Law was nonsense and unsustainable under the current silicon we have; there's a valid reason Intel abandoned tick tock and went to work on efficiency - its the only thing they can really still advance on without a major leap in how chips are made 

[79wjd]

7 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

It's not overcharging if your customers are still willing to pay it.

I'd argue that it is still overcharging, but their products are not overpriced. At least in my mind that's how I see it -- overcharging is charging more than they have to, while overpriced implies it wouldn't sell. 

 

Not to argue about some stupid technicality.

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, ResidentRad said:

What exactly does Intel need to learn from AMD? 

Intel spends on a fab what AMD is worth as a company, Intel burns billions on RD even when that RD leads to nothing, they still spend on active research. Intel was one of the first to realize that Moore's Law was nonsense and unsustainable under the current silicon we have; there's a valid reason Intel abandoned tick tock and went to work on efficiency - its the only thing they can really still advance on without a major leap in how chips are made 

They could have easily started adding cores if they couldn't get clockspeeds or IPC up, but they chose not to because they had no competition.

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, ResidentRad said:

What exactly does Intel need to learn from AMD? 

Intel spends on a fab what AMD is worth as a company, Intel burns billions on RD even when that RD leads to nothing, they still spend on active research. Intel was one of the first to realize that Moore's Law was nonsense and unsustainable under the current silicon we have; there's a valid reason Intel abandoned tick tock and went to work on efficiency - its the only thing they can really still advance on without a major leap in how chips are made 

I think I'd actually give that to AMD who did realize this and was the first to produce a dual core architecture, a full year before Intel.

 

Not that AMD was actually the first of all CPU manufactures, IBM had dual core POWER4 out in 2001 which is a good 4 years before AMD.

[Valentyn]

 

9 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I think I'd actually give that to AMD who did realize this and was the first to produce a dual core architecture, a full year before Intel.

Not just that, also unified proper dual cores, and quads, moving the memory controller onto the CPU, Hypertransport bus replacing the Front Side Bus, and of course lets not forget x64.

The latter still being licensed by Intel since their IA64 was truly niché compared to AMD's revolutionary x86-64.

 

AMD has innovated plenty given their miniscule R&D budget compared to Intel.

Even their latest Infinity Fabric which is replacing HT for them has amazing potential, scaling to 512GB/s and can be used as an interconnect for CPU CCXs, APUs, SoCs, and GPUs.

[ResidentRad]

16 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

They could have easily started adding cores if they couldn't get clockspeeds or IPC up, but they chose not to because they had no competition.

I do agree, they could have. And maybe if Intel had been able to scale up clockspeeds/IPC as well as core count in a logical manner, the software industry would've more happily adapted their software to follow along. 

 

TBH, AMD has been on the 'moar cores' diet for a long time, but it hasn't brought about the changes on the software end that you would expect, and its a bit of a chicken and the egg problem. 

 

 

 

[MadG4mer]

16 hours ago, Dogeystyle said:

Edit: Does the 6950X even come with a case sticker?

It comes with black Intel inside sticker

[Taf the Ghost]

12 minutes ago, Valentyn said:

 

Not just that, also unified proper dual cores, and quads, moving the memory controller onto the CPU, Hypertransport bus replacing the Front Side Bus, and of course lets not forget x64.

The latter still being licensed by Intel since their IA64 was truly niché compared to AMD's revolutionary x86-64.

 

AMD has innovated plenty given their miniscule R&D budget compared to Intel.

Even their latest Infinity Fabric which is replacing HT for them has amazing potential, scaling to 512GB/s and can be used as an interconnect for CPU CCXs, APUs, SoCs, and GPUs.

The main differences between AMD and Intel is that Intel has had consistently better Leadership, so they've been able to survive when things didn't go so great.  Add in some properly placed products during the Dot-Com Boom and they've had a solid mind-share to keep up their market share while furthering their R&D. Netburst probably kills most other companies.

[Jito463]

9 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

The main differences between AMD and Intel is that Intel has had consistently better Leadership, so they've been able to survive when things didn't go so great.  Add in some properly placed products during the Dot-Com Boom and they've had a solid mind-share to keep up their market share while furthering their R&D. Netburst probably kills most other companies.

It also doesn't hurt that Intel's marketing budget was greater than the total income of AMD, or that Intel was bribing OEM's to sell only, or mostly, Intel products.

[Ryujin2003]

8 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

By making such a superior product that it's worth a ridiculous premium. It's not like Intel deserves to have that three billion dollar surplus if they're not competitive with the market.

 Agreed; however,  it feels like you pay a premium just for their brand. Like Apple does. Intel just isn't as flashy I guess.

Intel can still be filthy rich, have money for R&D and have better prices for their consumers.

[Valentyn]

8 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

The main differences between AMD and Intel is that Intel has had consistently better Leadership, so they've been able to survive when things didn't go so great.  Add in some properly placed products during the Dot-Com Boom and they've had a solid mind-share to keep up their market share while furthering their R&D. Netburst probably kills most other companies.

 

AMD's previously manage were complete disasters; although that's that issue with having a normal business person in charge. Dr.Su worked at IBM in their R&D department, she gets business and understand the tech completely.

They hit a gem making her CEO, AMD's been doing well; and I hope for us all she can keep the ball rolling.

Raja's work is also finally going to come out as well; Vega and Navi. So we'll get to see if headhunting him back from Apple pays off as much as they hoped.

[79wjd]

25 minutes ago, Valentyn said:

Raja's work is also finally going to come out as well; Vega and Navi.

I thought Navi was Raja's baby, not vega.

[Valentyn]

9 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

I thought Navi was Raja's baby, not vega.

Both are, as before that he had to convince prior AMD heads that consumer graphics was still very much important.

Polaris was mostly Mobile and "next-gen" console tech; Vega leads up to Navi.
In 2015 AMD introduced hardware multi-user GPU virtualization with FireStream card, allowing the resources of the GPU to be shared and used between users like a normal CPU/RAM is in a Virtual Machine. Vega leading to Instinct further expands on that, and is in use in Liquid Sky Cloud Game Streaming doing just that.

 

It's most likely the reason for using HBM2 along with their new Scalable High-Bandwidth Cache Controller, that uses HBM2 as a GPU memory cache, and can use system RAM as well.

Navi blends it all for multi-core scalable GPUs, all featuring AMD's new Infinity Fabric, which is used in Zen, APUs, and even GPUs according to them.

Allowing multiple GPU cores with "cache" to be used as a single GPU.