AMD 16-core Threadripper Processors Listed Online
Click here to post a comment for AMD 16-core Threadripper Processors Listed Online on our message forum
Phill-7
I hope it won't be a wallet ripper as well. 🙂
Emille
This is great for all consumers. Whether or not it can compete clock for clock with intels sklyake x etc is irrelevant, because if people see that they can buy a cpu with more cores with a motherboard that has 44pci lanes top to bottom, they might think long term it's a better and possibly cheaper option and intel will have to react accordingly.
The 4 core b.s race is over, and it would be pointless to say '10, 12, 16 cores is overkill' because then sooner it's available the sooner it will become mainstream and I applaud AMD for doing what intel held off doing for far too long because of their market dominance.
Elder III
Competition is a sweet sweet thing indeed.
Anarion
16 core & 32 thread CPU would make H.265 encoding almost bearable. I would definitely find use for all those cores. It also looks like the real competitions between AMD and Intel is finally happening again.
BigMaMaInHouse
I think those gonna be the prices for the upcoming Cpu's:
1998X $1599
1998 $1399
1977X $1299
1977 $1199
1976X $1099
1956X $999
1956 $849
1955X $699
1955 $599
BigMaMaInHouse
????
The Intel Core i7-6950X sells for $1649 on newegg now, and its only 10C cpu, so why AMD do suicide and sell the top 16core CPU for $999, remember it's not for gaming like 1800X vs 7700K, in CB and similar multi core rendering etc' already the 1800X comes near i7 6950X so the 16Core will crush it, this is why I think $1599 will be good price by AMD.
And like the 1700 vs 1800X the 1998 will be much cheaper and best seller 16Core .
Man I can't wait 🙂, last time I was so exited was 12 years ago when I finished High school 🙂.
JamesSneed
Pricing?
I suspect the pricing will start at $500 and will go up to $1,600. The 1800x will go down to $450. This is what my crystal ball says.
The reasoning is the AMD 10 core will compete against Intel's 6 core, 12 vs 8, 14 vs 10, 16 vs 12. This would land the pricing right around Intel in each bracket and if AMD's scaling is as good as I expect it to be then AMD should be the clear winner in each of the price comparisons.
RzrTrek
I really want AMD to get back into the game, but I think Intel still has the upper hand when it comes to performance per watt so it's going to be a tough race.
Loophole35
http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=28983
Vs.
6950x
http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=21996
LOL wut.
1800x
Undying
BigMaMaInHouse
http://hexus.net/media/uploaded/2017/5/a381289f-10c5-4bae-b4e9-535243edd8c7.png
LOL what/ look here:
Darkest
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/105961-amd-ryzen-5-1400-ryzen-5-1600-14nm/?page=9
Intel is at times ahead in offering more performance per watt. Granted, this isn't always the case, and it's not something I'd factor into a purchasing decision anyway.
Power Consumption:
http://hexus.net/media/uploaded/2017/5/3cfbda4c-c1ac-468e-bc14-8fd6504ccc70.png
Gaming Performance:
http://hexus.net/media/uploaded/2017/5/50cd5c59-182b-472e-bd65-345f087a2578.png
Intel is generally matching or beating AMD while using less power in the case of the 4c8t options. So you could say a 7700K has more performance per watt than the AMD 1400 (also a 4c8t processor). You could still argue the 1400 is better value as it isn't far behind and costs considerably less.
To be fair, that's a 10c20t CPU (Intel) up against an 8c16t CPU (AMD).
That chart lists value, not performance. If you'd linked to the actual page you got that chart from, it's explained in the article. I'll use the article you (sort of) linked to explain what I mean.
Loophole35
Darkest
I didn't even notice the 1500 there to be honest, although I was more using the same article that poster used as an example for performance per watt VS value than anything. The results seem odd given the 1500 is using less power than the 1400, but then I don't normally use the Hexus website.
I'm not disagreeing with the thought that AMD is better than Intel in certain respects at the moment. I wouldn't touch a 4c4t Intel processor with a barge pole at the moment if I was in the process of building a new system. I think Ryzen offers incredible price/performance for most consumer market segments, and that unless you have specific needs that favour Intel hardware you're better off saving a chunk of money.
Loophole35
warlord
Loophole35
http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=28911&admin=0a8fcaad6b03da6a6895d1ada2e171002a287bc1
http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=28907&admin=0a8fcaad6b03da6a6895d1ada2e171002a287bc1
Granted it gets beat some too but not by $1000 worth.
http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=28913&admin=0a8fcaad6b03da6a6895d1ada2e171002a287bc1
http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=28912&admin=0a8fcaad6b03da6a6895d1ada2e171002a287bc1
Lol wut? ;P
BangTail
zer0_c0ol
It is a big boy ( amd thread ripper )
https://twitter.com/*******/status/869063679316295680
https://i.redd.it/fb8obad77e0z.jpg
kapu
Intel fanboism is interesting ...
IT IS black and white that AMD has better performance per watt now and better multi-threaded architecture .
Competition is happening and we all should be glad.
I don't really get why people blindly defend Intel architecture, it doesn't make sense.
AMD has great product on their hands and You just can't deny with mindless arguments.