Slashdot Mirror


AMD Set To Launch Ryzen Before March 3rd (anandtech.com)

An anonymous reader shares an AnandTech report: Thanks to some sleuthing from various readers, AMD has accidentally let the cat out of the bag with regards to the official Ryzen launch date. While they haven't specifically given an exact date, the talk to be given by AMD at the annual Game Developer Conference (GDC) says the following: "Join AMD Game Engineering team members for an introduction to the recently-launched AMD Ryzen CPU followed by advanced optimization topics." The GDC event runs from February 27th to March 3rd, and currently the AMD talk is not on the exact schedule yet, so it could appear any day during the event (so be wary if anyone says Feb 27th). At this time AMD has not disclosed an exact date either, but it would be an interesting time to announce the new set of Ryzen CPUs right in the middle of both GDC and Mobile World Congress which is also during that week. It would mean that Ryzen news may end up being buried under other GDC and smartphone announcements.

45 of 91 comments (clear)

  1. AMD has by sirber · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ryzen from the dead!

    --
    Be or ben't
    1. Re:AMD has by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hope AMD succeeds.

      We need competition on the x86 CPU space. Intel dominates the top end of the x86 space right now, and they have no incentive to come up with better CPUs. Today's top of the line CPU is just last year's top of the line CPU with a few features tacked on and less power consumption (which sounds great on paper, but in practice takes roughly 10 years for the savings to materialize... and by then, you've already swapped your CPU 3 times).

      But I don't think AMD can pull it off. It's been about 10 years since I've been excited about one of their products and they've been over-promising and under-delivering for a long time.

      But we'll see.

    2. Re:AMD has by barc0001 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > in practice takes roughly 10 years for the savings to materialize... and by then, you've already swapped your CPU 3 times

      Actually these days, not so much. I've got an i5 2500K that I bought in early 2011 in my home workstation, and I have no plans to replace it any time soon. My general rule is that I won't replace a processor unless it's both old and I will get around twice the performance of the old one. Looking at what I'd replace it with if I was to build the same machine today - an i5 6600K - there's just no point. I'd get about a 50% boost over what I have, and what I have is already more processor than I need for just about anything I do with the exception of gaming. And for that the money is better spent on a new video card, and that's what I do replace every 2-3 years.

      In the past with Moore's Law that was around every 2 years, but Intel's been stagnant on progress for so long, they're now running ads like this:

      http://www.ncix.com/article/intel_kabylake.htm

      Oooo... up to 28% better performance than a 3 year old part! And all you need to do is replace your chip, motherboard and probably RAM. Pass. Instead of spending $600 on all that I'll just drop $200 on last year's hot high end video card.

    3. Re:AMD has by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2

      The fact that Intel is simply cashing in on their past success is probably the thing that will allow AMD to catch up. I don't think Intel even wants to blow AMD out of the water. This would cost more money and bring on monopoly accusations. That said, I'm glad we seem to be in the part of the cycle where AMD might overtake Intel and spur some competition. The other part of the cycle is boring.

    4. Re:AMD has by unixisc · · Score: 2

      The x64 is no longer the only game in town. Aside from ARM, which has been gaining traction, there is also RISC V coming along, and so there will be alternatives in the market. What's more - since Android seems to be in the driver's seat, rather than Windows, x64 has even less clout going forward.

      The fact that more semiconductor houses can make ARMs or RISC Vs, but only Intel and AMD the x64 means that those CPUs would be more attractive to vendors to support than x64. Don't be surprised to see even Microsoft migrate to these alternate platforms

    5. Re:AMD has by Ayanami_R · · Score: 1

      No incentive or are physics in the way?

      Serious question because I am doubtful that they're just "not advancing" just because of "no competition" But rather I don't think it's possible to move as fast with performance increases now because we're rapidly approaching the limits of current silicon designs can do.

      --
      "Science is the power of man"
    6. Re:AMD has by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      A narrow vision... You will become one with the Borg. You will all become one with the Borg.

    7. Re:AMD has by m.dillon · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, Google did a study that showed that routine corruption without ECC is a fact of life. It is much more prevalient than people thought.

      -Matt

    8. Re:AMD has by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      dollars, watts, or outright performance. you choose the metric, it does not matter. intel owns the ENTIRE pc processor

      Ok. I choose dollars.

      the only people that buy amd processors are either clueless suckers buying on price alone, fanboys, or anti-intel for whatever reason.

      Did I win?

      Seriously, though. The only metric I need is: Does it perform well enough for my modest gaming/computing needs?

      My AMD processor from 2014 (or thereabouts) still does the job admirably. I really don't care if it is inferior to an Intel chip.

      If I can get the computing power I need for a cheaper price, why in the world would I choose to buy something more expensive?

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    9. Re:AMD has by Khyber · · Score: 2

      AMD processors have supported ECC for a long time (starting back in the AM2 days.) It's on the motherboard maker to support it, not AMD.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    10. Re:AMD has by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      I think his point is that the $x intel CPU is faster, and uses less power than the equivalent $x CPU from AMD for every value of x. Why did you by AMD?

    11. Re:AMD has by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I know what's been invested into the x86 infrastructure: however, the point I was contesting was that the existence of dual sources for the x86 is essential for the market

      As Apple illustrated some 10 years ago, they could switch from PowerPC to the x86 pretty smoothly, when they weren't happy w/ the architectural roadmap of the former. The same is true for x86 vs ARM, or even other CPUs. Simple reason for that: while in Apple's case, they had dual ported NEXTSTEP to not just PowerPC but x86 as well while creating OS X, the same is true for most of the OSs in question, and the only exception is Windows, which has frankly been struggling the last couple of years.

      Note that for things like ARM, they already have Linux and BSD, which are the 2 main widely ported platforms, which makes a migration in case of a weakening of the x86 infrastructure not as bad as it used to be in the 90s. During that time, one would have had to migrate from not just one CPU to another, but also one OS to another e.g. Intergraph CLIX/Clipper to Sun Solaris/SPARC. Which was typically a pretty major undertaking. In sharp contrast, not only does one have a common OS, w/ open sources to handle any wierdness in the CPU instruction sets themselves, but there are also things like bytecode and virtual machines that didn't exist 20 years ago. Making the migration process a lot smoother.

      The only case where it can be argued that portability would be a problem would be Windows, but even there, they've had Windows RT, Windows 10 Mobile and Windows 10 IoT. So it can be argued that all 4 major platforms - Windows, Linux, Mac OS and BSD - are there on both x86 and ARM, and if Intel tries to horn in on AMD's decline, they'd get slammed by the likes of Qualcomm, NVIDIA, NXP and everyone else. Which is why x86 is not the priceless gem that it was even 10 years ago, when AMD sabotaged Intel's Itanium plans by extending the x86 instruction set to 64- bit

      Also, Intel's biggest competitor is not even AMD, nor is it ARM. Over the last several years, their biggest competitor has been their own installed base. They have made CPUs that are so good that there ain't a compelling reason to upgrade, and it's that which has caused a relative period of stagnation for them. So they need to explore which new markets to enter and using which vehicles, and they need to make that vehicle competitive enough to take care of both their top and bottom lines

    12. Re: AMD has by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

      My main box uses an AMD Phenom II X6 3.7GHz. Built in 2009, I've upgraded the memory, graphics, and RAID array, installed a USB 3.0 card, and replaced a burned out DVD drive, but the CPU and motherboard still kick ass.

      Oh, and it runs Windows 7 Ultimate. I win.

      --
      *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
    13. Re:AMD has by strstr · · Score: 1

      What the poster is saying is there is no reason not to have ECC. Corruption of bits is very easy and its one of the secret NSA hacking tools (space based weapons corrupt- read- write RAM).

      When all you need is a few extra bits and some correction mechanism why the fuck not use it? It costs the same to make too.

      ECC unfortunately cannot stop space based hacking but it can guard from some attacks at least.

      https://www.obamasweapon.com/

    14. Re:AMD has by Agripa · · Score: 1

      AMD processors have supported ECC for a long time (starting back in the AM2 days.) It's on the motherboard maker to support it, not AMD.

      AMD's dedicated CPUs support ECC on the various AM sockets. Their APUs unfortunately do not and it is not clear if Ryzen does.

    15. Re:AMD has by Agripa · · Score: 1

      I have used AMD processors for years just for the cost/performance/ECC support. With Intel the issue has been the cost and particularly the availability of workstation motherboards in our local markets.

      I had the same reason to switch to AMD. When I built my last workstation to replace my Pentium 4 ECC system, the Intel premium for ECC was more than $1000 because all of the Xeon based systems used FB-DIMMs.

      Intel ECC systems still cost more than AMD ones but the premium is down to $100s of dollars.

    16. Re:AMD has by Agripa · · Score: 1

      There is already ARM CPUs for servers.

      There sure are. And the one available ARM workstation board cost 3 times as much as an Intel workstation board yet has pitiful I/O, memory, and performance ... sort of like an Apple laptop.

  2. Re:Intel needs a swift kick in the ass by slashdice · · Score: 1

    also, don't go buy the hype.

    --
    Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
  3. amd just needs to have more pci-e lanes with by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    amd just needs to have more pci-e lanes then Intel without having 10-15 lanes + sata + network + pci-e storage all stacked off of the X4 dmi link.

  4. Re:Intel needs a swift kick in the ass by KiloByte · · Score: 2

    But history shows AMD hasn't been able to be that kick in the past 10 years....

    5 years ago I did the research and it was AMD Phenom II x6 which was at the sweet bang-to-buck spot. Worse in single-threaded but for compiles/etc kicked the ass of similarly priced Intel chips.

    And despite its age I still don't feel an urge to upgrade -- it's adequate for software I work with, I don't compile anything bigger than the kernel these days. So unless I'll need to run big bisects or something, it stays for now. Being one of the last non-backdoored CPUs from both sides of the aisle is a big bonus.

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  5. Still no competition by JuanDavila · · Score: 1

    Where is the competition though? I still feel like as far as speeds go Intel wins. So what is keeping AMD alive, price and a new flashy name...?

    1. Re:Still no competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I would say the fact that their processors compete with Intels $1,000 processors and will be expected to be between $500 to $800 for that level of performance would cause a great deal of competition.

      They don't have to beat them and their highest of high end offerings, the just have to match them at the levels the consumers buy which they appear to be doing just that. So I expect to see some great competition between them with Intel also being forced to lower their prices to remain competitive with them.

    2. Re:Still no competition by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Where is the competition though? I still feel like as far as speeds go Intel wins. So what is keeping AMD alive, price and a new flashy name...?

      Price is enough. Half the performance for 25% of the price is a pretty compelling package for some of us, which is roughly how the current chips come out, maybe better. If the new chips are in the same ballpark, they'll sell like hot dogs.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Still no competition by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      As long as you're willing to settle for half the performance and also being perceived as really cheap.

    4. Re:Still no competition by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Ferraris are faster than Toyotas. That doesn't imply that Ferrari is doing better than Toyota as a company. Intel is doing better than AMD, but it's not because it makes the fastest chips. Very few people are buying the $1000 Intel chips. Intel is winning the $200-$300 chip market. AMD could very conceivably start competing or even start winning in this market even if it doesn't take the top spot.

    5. Re:Still no competition by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I don't think many people buy CPUs as a status symbol. So yes, I suspect many people will be ok with the stigma of owning a cheap CPU if it means they were actually able to spend less money on it, and it does what they need.

    6. Re:Still no competition by m.dillon · · Score: 1

      Its not 25% of the price though. Not sure where you got that from. The benchmark Intel cpu that AMD is competing against is the I7-7700K, which is $350 on Amazon. It will be the AMD 6-core against that one.

      AMD will also be able to compete against Intel's i3's. An unlocked Ryzen *anything* (say, the 4-core ryzen) will be the hands-down winner against any Intel i3 chip on the low-end. Intel will have to either unlock the multipliers on all of its chips to compete, or pump up what they offer in their i3-* series.

      The AMD 8-core is probably not going to be a competitive consumer chip.

      -Matt

    7. Re:Still no competition by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      As long as you're willing to settle for half the performance and also being perceived as really cheap.

      My current primary transport is a 1982 300SD, what do you think?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Still no competition by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Pease drove a '67 bug and it ultimately killed him. Be careful.

    9. Re:Still no competition by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Pease drove a '67 bug and it ultimately killed him. Be careful.

      I'm working on upgrading to a 1998 A8 Quattro. It's the only model they bothered crash testing, but it got five stars so that's cool for me if not for later A8 buyers. The W126 300SD is pretty much the safest car of its era as well.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. Re:Intel needs a swift kick in the ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    so it could appear any day during the event (so be wary if anyone says Feb 27th)

    My bet is February 29th

  7. It's coming Feb. 29th by cheese_boy · · Score: 3, Funny

    I have it on good authority that it'll be Feb. 29th.

    1. Re:It's coming Feb. 29th by Hydrian · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking April 1st is more realistic.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished.
  8. Re:Intel needs a swift kick in the ass by twistedcubic · · Score: 1

    My AMD Athlon II x4 is from 2010, and I still use on the Desktop (24GB ECC RAM, recent mobo upgrade only). I also don't feel the need to upgrade, but the hardware encryption from all the modern processors would be nice to have.

  9. Re:Intel needs a swift kick in the ass by Kjella · · Score: 1

    also, don't go buy the hype.

    Well, for the most part you can't actually buy the hype it's all pre-release, post-release benchmarks and reviews dominate. I'm not sure what the point of it is really, maybe it'll make a few people hang on to their old gear a tiny bit longer ahead of the release but I doubt it. I mean Apple newer showed previews of future products and I'd call them moderately successful. I guess it's more to please investors and creditors than customers, things are not so hot right now but right around the corner is the pot of gold. The problem is you often end up with a light Osborne effect, most people don't want the product you have now on the shelf they want the next one. And when that's for sale, they want the next one after that. That's not very good if you want to actually make sales.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  10. Re:BOTH AMD & Intel need this kick in the ass by NotAPK · · Score: 1

    Hey APK, why are you going around misusing my username? I've worked hard on Slashdot to build my reputation and you come along and spout garbage and start flame-wars for no reason at all. Just do a brother a favour, back off and leave me alone. Deal?

  11. Also the fact... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That the older processors probably do a better job of 'respecting your rights', whereas the new ones from Intel, AMD, and ARM licensees all have Clipper Chip on steroid built in and very difficult if not impossible for the end user/hardware owner to disable.

    Hackaday just posted an article that claims to be able to disable the Intel ME via firmware hacking, but in order to do it you need either a socketed bios chip, or a programmer with clip leads to read, modify and reprogram a soldered down one.

    What that leaves is Broadwell on the Intel side (GPU firmware signing on either Broadwell or Skylake, plus the ME code.) and FM2 (not +) and AM3+ as the max on the AMD side.

    Anything newer by either company, or anything touting trustzone that doesn't have an unsigned stage0/1 bootloader is essentially a trojan horse awaiting activation.

    There is no sane reason for individuals or companies to be buying processors of newer generations that they cannot guarantee are secure, and yet people are continuing to do so with the weak and extremely dangerous excuse of 'Don't you think if they were going to do that, they would have done it by now?' rather than noting that giving a few generations for complacency before bringing down the hammer always works better to trap people inside technological or institutional oppression, by which point they no longer have a mechanism to get back out.

    If you can, buy last generation systems that didn't have it, can be disabled, or can be circumvented while you still can, and hope I and others like me just get proven as unfounded kooks, rather than having our concerns brought to light in the sort of oppressive sweep we might not get another opportunity to step out of.

  12. late by edxwelch · · Score: 1

    Wasn't it ment to have been launched in 2016?

    1. Re:late by Not-a-Neg · · Score: 1

      It launched with embedded OEM systems in December.

      --
      -==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
  13. Re:Intel needs a swift kick in the ass by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm holding off on buying a new chip until ryzen comes out. Maybe it wouldn't make sense for Intel to do this kind of thing, since they might even prefer you buy one of their existing chips rather than waiting for the new one to clear out some old inventory, but for AMD, you might be holding off on buying a current Intel product to wait to buy a new AMD product. I'm sure as hell not buying an excavator now, and I don't think anyone else is either, and I think AMD knows that.

  14. misspelled by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

    Wasn't it ment to have been launched in 2016?

    Wasn't it supposed to be spelled meant?

    Do you see what I did there? Did this add anything to the discourse?

  15. Re:Too bad I shot you down easily... apk by NotAPK · · Score: 2

    OK mate, I've read enough of your BS to know there's no point arguing with stupid people: they beat you down to their level and then win from experience.

    Have a nice life...

  16. Re:Let's not hallucinate by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 2

    Why, yes I do. Simply put, all the low hanging fruit x86 processor development has been picked already. The only remaining advancements are incredibly expensive to make, both in time and money, and as a result even Intel can't appreciably speed up x86 processors anymore.

    Now that Intel is mostly standing still, AMD has a chance to catch up. It can benefit from all of the research work, process developments, etc, that have occurred, and implement its own version of the same advancements that Intel made over the past 7 years or so, much more cheaply than Intel did. AMD's limited budget may just be enough.

    I actually don'tt think that Ryzen will be as fast as Intel's best. But I expect it to come within 25%, and for a reduced cost. My prediction is that x86 won't get much faster as AMD becomes more competitive with Intel, but it will become a lot cheaper. Intel's high end consumer chips that cost $350 now will be available for $100 in a couple of years, whereas without AMD's Ryzen providing the competition, they probably would only have come down by $50 or so.

  17. Re:Let's not hallucinate by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    It just has to be as good as an i7 and not cost as much.
    Games like a few cores, as long as each can keep up with the best AMD and NVIDIA gpu's.
    The ability to add a huge cpu cooler and let the CPU ramp up will be interesting.
    As long as one or more GPU's get the CPU support they need for the most demanding 4K ready games vs an i7/i5 it will be fine.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  18. As an AMD fan since 1995 by Not-a-Neg · · Score: 1

    I am more excited by the use of a single socket (AM4) for the entire platform. It will now be possible to use their non-APU processors on an ITX board which previously have been limited to the FM# sockets. Don't need Intel overpriced crap for an extra 5FPS.

    --
    -==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!