ShadowKingpin
Member
Overclocker Alva "Lucky_N00b", who has a Ryzen sample clarified his image where they looked 'shocked' by a Ryzen benchmark.
Well, he may be board committed and we know how much a good Intel board costs. For a new build it would be a no brainer (if the benches prove real). The competition this provides is the highlight of it all. Now I hope Vega does the same in the gpu segment.This is why we can't have nice things.
It's Intel, he will need a new board anyway.Well, he may be board committed and we know how much a good Intel board costs. For a new build it would be a no brainer (if the benches prove real). The competition this provides is the highlight of it all. Now I hope Vega does the same in the gpu segment.
This is why we can't have nice things.
If ryzen doesnt sell, because people buy intel anyways, we will have tge same problem again in a few years.I think his point was that if Ryzen provides decent competition from AMD again, we'll all have nice things.
If ryzen doesnt sell, because people buy intel anyways, we will have tge same problem again in a few years.
If ryzen doesnt sell, because people buy intel anyways, we will have tge same problem again in a few years.
It fucking better at that frequencyMy 7700k at 4.9Ghz get 2455 single core, 10609 multi core.
It fucking better at that frequency
lol!
Seriously though, maybe Ryzen will make intel get us mere peasants some 6 and 8 core chips on the mainstream line sooner than later - this is theur biggest sandbagging moment.
would it be easy for intel to ditch the iGPU and stick another 4 cores in there? i think i3's should have an iGPU but i5/i7 should not. or at least remove it from the K models.
Like what happened when AMD was last performance leader?I don't think that's likely. There are enough consumers in this market that like to read reviews and buy whatever provides the best cost/performance ratio, rather than sticking with brand loyalty regardless, that a well reviewed CPU range (and hopefully GPU range too) from AMD will impact on Intel's sales. It won't be huge, but it should be enough to make them take notice. At the very least you're going to see prices benefiting consumers as a result.
Well, yes, in the time of Athlon XP/64/X2 and Pentium 4 AMD gained significant CPU market share. In fact, they even overtook Intel for a bit.Like what happened when AMD was last performance leader?
2005 said:Last month, AMD's slice of the U.S. retail store pie reached 67.7 percent for desktops, up from 52 percent in September.
For a bit. In the US retail market. Meanwhile Intel continued to make big profit in the high margin markets and AMD lacked the profit to continue building on their success.Well, yes, in the time of Athlon XP/64/X2 and Pentium 4 AMD gained significant CPU market share. In fact, they even overtook Intel for a bit.
That was largely a result of Intel paying companies like Dell to not use AMD CPUs. They were found guilty and fined for it years later, but by then the damage was already done.For a bit. In the US retail market. Meanwhile Intel continued to make big profit in the high margin markets and AMD lacked the profit to continue building on their success.
I know. I was responding to Darkstorne writing that's unlikely the current issues of lack of competition would come back as people know what "provides the best cost/performance ratio, rather than sticking with brand loyalty". But the latter is exactly what happened in the high margin markets, and I don't think Intel's market corruption was the sole reason for it.That was largely a result of Intel paying companies like Dell to not use AMD CPUs. They were found guilty and fined for it years later, but by then the damage was already done.
More hype I guess. Alleged 1600X Cinebench results:
For some perspective, that's almost exactly in between a 6800K and 6850K. Additionally, AMD's current top CPU, the FX-9590 (a 4.7 GHz, 220W part), scores ~730 in this test.
Reminder that the 1600X has a rumored price tag of $259.
More hype I guess. Alleged 1600X Cinebench results:
For some perspective, that's almost exactly in between a 6800K and 6850K. Additionally, AMD's current top CPU, the FX-9590 (a 4.7 GHz, 220W part), scores ~730 in this test.
Reminder that the 1600X has a rumored price tag of $259.
More hype I guess. Alleged 1600X Cinebench results:
For some perspective, that's almost exactly in between a 6800K and 6850K. Additionally, AMD's current top CPU, the FX-9590 (a 4.7 GHz, 220W part), scores ~730 in this test.
Reminder that the 1600X has a rumored price tag of
Yes, single core performance within 10% of Intel's top line. 6 and 8 core processors will be mainstream priced, and comparable processors between the two are going to be 150+ cheaper in most price points.
This is my hope. I mean I don't need 6 or more cores, but I fucking want 6 cores.
This is crazy. For over 10 years, I haven't even blinked whenever AMD has released a new CPU and here I am now just excited beyond belief.
The 6-core Ryzen 1600X for $259 could be the CPU to own for hardcore gamers.
If that's too expensive, the 1400X at could be just as good deal and could blow the 7700K away in terms of value.
There is no way to say it:
If Ryzen doesn't end up living up to the hype then it will be the biggest PC gaming downer for me in god knows how long.
That can't be right..... surely........
Time for a new PC build.
Like what happened when AMD was last performance leader?
I'm in the same boat, and I recently paired my E3-1270 with a sibling for distributed computing. Little did I know.Can't wait, I'm going 1800X straight away....I just need to wait for Vega for a complete build....
The 6-core Ryzen 1600X for $259 could be the CPU to own for hardcore gamers.
Is intel ok?
Intel respond are you ok?
Damn, Joffrey's death was so brutal.....
Is intel ok?
Intel respond are you ok?