opticalmace
Member
What's this? AMD competitive in the non-integrated CPU market?
Is there a thread on this? I haven't paid attention to AMD CPUs in probably 10 years or more.
Try this: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1332713
What's this? AMD competitive in the non-integrated CPU market?
Is there a thread on this? I haven't paid attention to AMD CPUs in probably 10 years or more.
I think the 1200X (4 cores, 4 threads, 3.4 GHz, $149) will be THE gaming CPU to beat in that price range.Are the low-mid end Ryzens going to be competitive with Intel? I have no interest in spending $300-400 on a CPU which seems to be the range where people are most hyped.
Are the low-mid end Ryzens going to be competitive with Intel? I have no interest in spending $300-400 on a CPU which seems to be the range where people are most hyped.
Absolutely. The 179.99 Dollar R3 1300 is going to be 5-8% slower than a 7700K and be 150 dollars cheaper
Kinda this. PC gaming is better than it ever was.
Are the low-mid end Ryzens going to be competitive with Intel? I have no interest in spending $300-400 on a CPU which seems to be the range where people are most hyped.
Not if you know what competition actually is.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=225528040&postcount=695
Yeah maybe, it's more the X70/X80/X80ti segment I'm talking about. Somehow I got zero hope AMD will compete in the near future.
I dont really see how this will change PC gaming. People might be saving 25-40% on their next CPU purchase I guess?
I dont really see how this will change PC gaming. People might be saving 25-40% on their next CPU purchase I guess?
Vega will cover X70 and X80. X80Ti+ will be unreachable for them most likely.
Yes but CPU gains are stagnating. People are hopeful that Intel will respond hard, and hopefully AMD can keep up.
that would make vega a failure then. a furyx is already in the same performance bracket as a 1070
Ryzen is legit people. This is nothing like bulldozer. They came correct for Ryzen. Brought the chip architect who made the athlon 64 back to give them a winner.
It will be competitive and it will undercut intel on pricing.
I've been following for months and it's nothing but good. 2 weeks left! Im ready to upgrade!
As much "a failure" as Fiji or Polaris I guess. And Fury X is considerably slower than 1070.
I'd be skeptical too based on AMD's track record of over promising and not delivering (bulldozer). The price undercutting isn't too crazy at the lower end (3, 5 series). The 8 core 7 series is $500. Intel's matching chip is $1000, but that was only because of no competition so they charged a premium for 6+ cores cuz they could. These chips arent as complex as GPUs. There's no reason they should be $1000.Won't get myself hyped up like this. Can't be legit until it's out or someone has a thorough showing that they actually have it and can talk about it rather then seeing screens of random benches on different forums that focuses only on that and telling no more. It's the whole undercutting by like 1/2 the price of intel equivalent that has me cautious since AMD had been in dire situation.
If it's the real deal, they got me because I wouldn't mind replacing my main desktop with an i5 4690k.
Given the context of what I'm talking about your going to knock me on Semantics? Come on. You know what I meant.
AMD providing a product that can "compete" with Intels current line-ups at a lower cost will drive Intel out of their comfort zone potentially. That is what I meant.
that would make vega a failure then. a furyx is already in the same performance bracket as a 1070
Yes, because ~10% slower is considerably. And 4K score means nothing since Fury X isn't able to cope with 4K in the majority of modern games (and neither is 1070).
I'm not telepathic so no I didn't know what you meant. The context of what I posted stands on it's own merits.
Using 2-3 times more power, getting way hotter, requiring a hybrid cooler, and it's still slower.
If Vega also uses 2-3 times more power than 1080, gets way hotter, requires a hybrid cooler (?), and is still slower than 1080, you better damn well believe Vega will be a failure. Especially since it will be launching nearly a year after the 1080 did.
It will cause competition which should lead to innovation hopefully.
This example shows that participants in oligopolies are often able to set prices, rather than take them. For this reason oligopolies are considered to be able increase profit margins above what a truly free market would allow.
Nvidia get rekt.
While this has some validity, in the particular case of a 4GB card it simply doesn't make any sense to speak about how it holds up at 4k. Because in a great many modern games at high settings (which is what you want from a high-end card) you will get framtime spikes because of a need to transfer data over PCIE. Sure, it will work in others, but this type of unpredictable performance is not what you want when you buy a high-end card.I wouldnt say it means nothing seeing how gpus hold up when pushed harder. It is sometimes a sign of things to come
While this has some validity, in the particular case of a 4GB card it simply doesn't make any sense to speak about how it holds up at 4k. Because in a great many modern games at high settings (which is what you want from a high-end card) you will get framtime spikes because of a need to transfer data over PCIE. Sure, it will work in others, but this type of unpredictable performance is not what you want when you buy a high-end card.
i meant more long the lines of performance in future titles that are more demanding without needing to run at 4k. for example i wouldnt be too surprised if this time next year, the furyx is equal to or faster than the 1070 at 1440p in performance summaries
The Fury X is a lovely card but that 4GB of memory is not going to do it any favours vs 8GB, there's even games at 1080p that want over 4GB of memory if you max out the texture quality setting.
However if you're not maxing out the texture quality setting it's definitely got more to give in the games that don't play well with it's memory. I too wouldn't be too surprised if it is equal to or faster than the Fury X in such scenarios.
I think it's the only flagship I've seen AMD release in the past 5 years with a flaw which could impact it's capabilities in the future, the 7970 and R9 290X had more VRAM than their competitors so they were already secured in that area for the future, they pretty much bested the competing products when you see how they perform now. The Fury X however is not so future-proof in that aspect unfortunately.
Everybody mentions competition, but that's not really happening. 2 companies for CPUs and millions of consumers? That's an oligopoly. That's not really competition. It is better, but not much.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/oligopoly.asp
As someone sitting on a 3570k I'm curious to see where this goes. If AMD really can match or surpass Intel's IPC for these prices then I might just switch back to AMD afterall at the end of the year.
They aren't matching Intel's IPC. They never claimed that and everyone else in this thread assumes as much as well. They'll fall short in most scenarios but not by much.
It's the fact they caught up and offer better value per thread is one of their major hype talking points. The other is potentially better overclocking results. The only real negative (for non professional usage) that could come back to bite them is that they might have a mediocre memory controller.
I wouldnt say it means nothing seeing how gpus hold up when pushed harder. It is sometimes a sign of things to come
And 10% is now considerable? It was never considerable to you when its amd whos ahead by 10%