For $300 dollars a 8/16 thread cpu is a no-brainer! If that puppy will clock to even 4ghz it will be my Next cpu for sure. Only thing that worries me is pretty much all the major game devoloper's code games for Intel cpu's,Amd has been an afterthought now for 5+ year's if not more.If Ryzen does live up to its name it will take a few years time for the big players to start using them thus coding for amd's favor for a change,There is what maybe 1 or 2 games the Fx series can beat an i7 lol? That is just Sad! Edit- I take that back,I do not think the Fx can beat i7 in ANY game actually and that is including Battlefield which I do not play nor care about,But hey its Multi-threaded remember>? :wanker:

Edit- I take that back,I do not think the Fx can beat i7 in ANY game actually and that is including Battlefield which I do not play nor care about,But hey its Multi-threaded remember>? :wanker:

Zen was developed from scratch, I believe, it's not based on that Fx failure. Games these days are starting to be 64-bit. x64 was developed by AMD. Surely AMD would ace at least that.

WTF is wrong with people in these threads. I know we don't have concrete numbers yet, and it's stupid to judge without them, but we do have a very good idea about what is coming, right? Or we simply pretend?

I have no idea, I thought people would be hyped. AMD are essentially offering twice as many cores for prices comparable to quad cores. Yeah the top model is more expensive but the 1700X and 1800X are obviously cherry picked high binned dies which they don't have much of and they just want to offer it for enthusiasts. Sure I was hoping for slightly cheaper prices but on the low end I actually didn't expect the prices to be that cheap. A legit, good performing, quad core CPU for $129. Those on a budget should be jumping up and down in joy, especially if it OCs well.

Prices are ok; I was hoping they'd destroy intel in performance. That'd light a match under Intel's asses to make them actually innovate. But can't conclude anything really until reviews are out. Don't care or trust any sort of leaks.

Prices are ok; I was hoping they'd destroy intel in performance. That'd light a match under Intel's asses to make them actually innovate. But can't conclude anything really until reviews are out. Don't care or trust any sort of leaks.

I really can´t see AMD coming out with something that destroys Intel on performance because of how much lost ground they had to recover! I´m expecting that the upcoming Ryzen will lose around 10 to 30% on single thread performance and to offer around 40 to 80% more on multi thread performance against the 7700K. Where i think Ryzen is gonna shine is against the 6900/6800 cpus because i think they are going to offer 80 or 90% performance but much cheaper! I wouldn´t be surprised if the X99 MBs and CPUs suffer a nice price cut after Ryzen is released.

Core architecture is already 11 years old. Intel several years ago should begin work on a completely new, modern architecture. Unfortunately, Intel has deceived himself (believing that the Core will always have to compete only with an Bulldozer) and slept the best time. How much performance can still be squeezed out of the Core? 15, 25%? To compete with ZEN, Intel needs something really new, but it will take several years.

I really can´t see AMD coming out with something that destroys Intel on performance because of how much lost ground they had to recover! I´m expecting that the upcoming Ryzen will lose around 10 to 30% on single thread performance and to offer around 40 to 80% more on multi thread performance against the 7700K. Where i think Ryzen is gonna shine is against the 6900/6800 cpus because i think they are going to offer 80 or 90% performance but much cheaper! I wouldn´t be surprised if the X99 MBs and CPUs suffer a nice price cut after Ryzen is released.

The last excavator-based core, actually approached i5 performance, so things weren't that tragic. Keep in mind they were still at 28nm. I can see them having better IPC under certain situations and worse in others.

The last excavator-based core, actually approached i5 performance, so things weren't that tragic. Keep in mind they were still at 28nm. I can see them having better IPC under certain situations and worse in others.

I´m not expecting that much but i would love to be wrong. What i expect is for AMD to provide the better deal, cpus almost as good as the ones from Intel but it a much better price. If they do that, i´m gonna be happy. @leszy: i think the problem with Intel is that with the lack of competition from AMD, they just took advantage to milk customers without caring about performance or any other thing with the exception of power. In that regar they have made great progress. If Ryzen steals some serious sales from, specially in the server market, Intel will come up with something new and better very quick...

No dude, you're unfair. Their most successful recent product have been the iPhone modems, and even for them there are whole guides online on how to avoid getting a phone with them.

Read this though, and tell me that it's a well-run company.

Still too emotional. Arguing that Intel isn't a well run company and the most successful recent product is iPhone modems is futile. You cited some guy named Bill who proclaims "I connect the dots between the economy and business decisions" based on his 6 years as an "economist" at famous companies Nerco and First Interstate Bank. I don't see CEO, COO, CFO, or even VP on his bio. I would say Intel's 60B in full year revenue and non-GAAP 13.2 billion in net income justifies a pretty successful operation. Now don't confuse that with consumer-friendly. We are talking about how well a company runs with the companies interests as the guiding principal. I think most get emotional about Intel because of their desktop market domination. AMD slowed and Intel slowed progress with them while raising prices. We need AMD to pick up even if their product doesn't leap forward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plXoBXFodHI You watch this yet PrMinister? The more technical people here might find this interesting as well.

Still too emotional. Arguing that Intel isn't a well run company and the most successful recent product is iPhone modems is futile. You cited some guy named Bill who proclaims "I connect the dots between the economy and business decisions" based on his 6 years as an "economist" at famous companies Nerco and First Interstate Bank. I don't see CEO, COO, CFO, or even VP on his bio. I would say Intel's 60B in full year revenue and non-GAAP 13.2 billion in net income justifies a pretty successful operation. Now don't confuse that with consumer-friendly. We are talking about how well a company runs with the companies interests as the guiding principal. I think most get emotional about Intel because of their desktop market domination. AMD slowed and Intel slowed progress with them while raising prices. We need AMD to pick up even if their product doesn't leap forward.

It has nothing to do with emotion. IBM was doing great in the personal computer space, up until the point it was irrelevant. This is not fossil fuels, farms or mining. It's a cutthroat business. The profit that Intel is posting are all based on the back of the ridiculous profit margins they have in the x86 market. Their "Client" business, which includes units like mobile who where losing up to 4bn per year along with desktop CPUs and chipsets, reported a profit margin of 63%. That's with all the extra losses from the mobile division they piled up with it, so that it wouldn't look so terrible. Please tell me any investment that Intel has done in the last five years that has had any kind of meaningful return, that could possibly compensate for them losing a conservative 20% of the x86 market, let's say. AMD needed time to be competitive after the Bulldozer disaster, and Intel has basically been sitting on top of a an automated cash cushion called Sandy and derivatives. Once those margins are gone, it's more or less game over for them, unless they change.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plXoBXFodHI You watch this yet PrMinister? The more technical people here might find this interesting as well.

I'll watch later today. Thanks for the link!

So 1700X is more expensive than 7700K with similar performance...

8 cores dude. 8 cores vs 4 cores.

The last excavator-based core, actually approached i5 performance, so things weren't that tragic. Keep in mind they were still at 28nm. I can see them having better IPC under certain situations and worse in others.

The only problem is the lack of bigger lv2 + lv3 cache, Single threaded Performance is well, between 1st and 2nd gen i5 but multithreaded falls for the lack of that chasche configuration, even Steamroller with lv3 cache could be great

assuming price is irrelevant, the best performance bet is still a 6950X and a GTX Titan Pascal right now.

i do not get some people ....responses like ....ok so more expensive than the 7700 with the same performance .... ok first of all to note we can't know for sure till the review samples are out and hh show us in detail what these puppies are capable off although i would say that all the leaks seem to be indicating the same thing give or take haswell ipc amd her self showed the engineering sample beating the equivalent i7 even with lower clocks than intel (in blender most likely on settings and ideal conditions for amd)even if this is the case the 1700 is coming out on higher clocks than the showcase engineering samples ...and somehow someone can see the prices and say that is more expensive and slower than the 7700 ? :3eyes: i do not follow the logic here ... what it seems to be the case is very competitive clock to clock performance but double the cores if the leaks are accurate then ryzen is a nobrainer all across the board and about the overclocks well amd cpus where able to achieve some pretty high clocks all across the board on the fx series sure their ipc was bad in comparison but they where also still stuck in 28nm so i am somewhat optimistic that the 4.2-4.4 will be a realistic range on air hopefully for all we know they might be on almost their max already... now about the architecture changes ... what we see here seems like history repeating itself from pentium 1 to pentium 4 and pentium D intel was pretty much improving the same pentium 1 architecture and amd was competitive with their k6-2 k6-3 they where slower on the same mhz but the price performance was better then the athlons got a lot closer and a lot more closer to intel cpus continuing to close the gap with the athlon xp till they came out with athlon 64 and they trashed this old architecture resulting intel finally changing architecture .... today we see intel sitting on the same architecture for really long time and amd is about to lunch a new athlon xp (ryzen) a cpu architecture that is very competitive and if the claims of the zen+ will have 15% ipc improvement is anywhere near to what it will happen ... we are going to see finally cpu market getting finally interesting again ! .....anyway am i the only one that kind of seeing kind of a history loop here ?