Slashdot Mirror
AMD Launches Ryzen, Claims To Beat Intel's Core i7 Offering At Half the Price (hothardware.com)
Reader MojoKid writes: AMD CEO, Dr. Lisu Su took to the stage at AMD's Ryzen tech day yesterday and opened the event with official speeds, feeds, pricing, and benchmark scores for the company's upcoming Ryzen series processors. AMD's goal with Ryzen, which is based on its Zen microarchitecture, was a 40% IPC (instructions per clock) uplift. As it turns out, AMD was actually able to increase IPC by approximately 52% with the final shipping product, sometimes more depending on workload type. Dr. Su also showed the first die shot of an 8-core Ryzen processor, disclosing that it consists of approximately 4.8 billion transistors. AMD's flagship Ryzen 7 1800X 8-core/16 thread CPU will have a base clock speed of 3.6GHz, a boost clock of 4.0GHz, and a 95 watt TDP. AMD claims the Ryzen 7 1800X will be the fastest 8-core desktop processor on the market when it arrives. The next member of the line-up is the Ryzen 7 1700X with a base clock of 3.4GHz and a boost clock of 3.8GHz, also with 8 cores and a 95 watt TDP. Finally, the Ryzen 7 1700 – sans X – is also an 8-core / 16-thread CPU, but it has lower 3.0GHz base and 3.7GHz boost clocks, along with a lower 65 watt TDP. AMD took the opportunity to demo the Ryzen 7 1800X and it was approximately 9% faster than the Core i7-6900K running Cinebench R15's multi-threaded test, at about half the cost. And in another comparison, Dr. Su put the 8-core 7 1700 up against the quad-core Core i7-7700K, converting a 4K 60 FPS video down to 1080P and the Ryzen CPU outpaces the Core i7 by 10 full seconds. Pricing for the three initial Ryzen 7 series processors will undercut competing Intel processors significantly. AMD's Ryzen 7 1800X will arrive at $499, Ryzen 7 1700X at $399, and Ryzen 7 1700 at $329. Based on current street prices, Ryzen will be between 20% — 50% lower priced but AMD is claiming performance that's better than Intel at those price points.
Yeah, I fell out of love with AMD due to their inability to compete on power/performance grounds but I'd very much welcome a serious competitor to Intel.
Similar to the AMD graphics cards. I'm unlikely to buy anything called 'Radeon' but I'm glad they exist and force Nvidia to continue to improve and innovate.
If these new AMD chips provide comparable performance at comparable heat levels (I don't care about the power used, I care about the noise needed to dissipate the heat generated) then I'm more than happy to switch back to AMD and save some cash.
I run all my Windows machines Virtually. I really like to be able to dedicate a core or two to each Virtual machine and still have enough left over for my Linux host OS.
Four cores just ain't enough for me. I'm looking forward to 128 core processors...
- I live the greatest adventure anyone could possibly desire. - Tosk the Hunted
Yeah, I love spending my money on inferior products that don't work as well, because brand loyalty!
It's called 'voting with your wallet.' If the company isn't getting it done with their product line, they need to know it. And there's no better message delivery than a warehouse full of stale product that nobody wants to buy. How do we know? Because of this story right here - AMD may have come up with a winner. Same or better performance at far less price. And why did they do this? Because Intel was kicking their asses up and down the block on performance, at ANY price point.
Maybe not anymore. If AMD can deliver on this announcement, they will see sales uplift. Message received.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
It still matters for most people, and it has been a problem for AMD.
Will they offer lower priced Core i5/i3 competitors based on this architecture?
Old Xeons are, in fact, far cheaper than modern Intel consumer CPUs with a similar performance. Take E5-2670 for example. It costs around 100 bucks, has 8 cores/16 threads and 20 megabytes of cache. For the same money you'll get a Core i3-7100 at best, which has a somewhat better single core performance, but is utterly outclassed in multicore.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
All but the first three are still in working order. Looking forward to building a new Ryzen desktop later this year.
AMD- lately- is 90% of the performance at half (and often less) the price. I'll take that any day. My 8300 with R9 270x plays every game in existence without a problem. Well, it stutters a little on Star Citizen. But so does every PC ever made, no matter how much of a gaming beast it may be.