I'd find it strange if the 4c and 6c models were to be released much later. I mean, if you look at GPUs, AMD released the entry/mainstream models a year earlier compared to the enthusiast models (Vega no sooner than this May, apparently). What kind of decision making is the company doing if they do the exact opposite with CPUs? They should release all models as soon as possible. While those 8c/16t prices are good (if the IPC is there), they aren't absolutely speaking cheap components (the cheapest costs well over 300 dollars/euros), so they won't attract the masses all over the world.

I completely understand what you're saying, but I think context is important here. When it comes to AMD vs Nvidia, anyone who isn't an elitist or a sheep knows that you'll have a good gaming experience with either brand. AMD's main source of revenue for gaming is likely the mainstream market, which also results in the highest yield. Since 1080p@60Hz displays are still pretty much mainstream, I'm guessing AMD's focus is to get themselves out there while Nvidia focuses on the hardcore enthusiasts. Both AMD and Nvidia tend to release low-end products later, since people aren't exactly anxious to see those. Also, I think it's within AMD's interest to just get as many sales as possible in order to get their name out there. It's better to have many satisfied customers than a handful of thrilled ones, when your competition has more customers of every kind. Meanwhile for CPUs, AMD is struggling hard and they need to distinguish themselves. They have never really had something that could easily or reliably compete with any i7, to the point that they dropped out of the high-end market entirely. They need to defeat any superficial beliefs, so it seems their priority is to outperform just about any i7 Intel has. Most people don't need anything that powerful, but right now it seems all they need to focus on is de-throning Intel. Meanwhile if they released their cheaper products first, people would see that Intel still has i7s that are faster, so people would get bored and move on. It is annoying though, I personally am tired of waiting and neither the motherboard chipsets or CPUs I'm interested in are being released first.

Ah, good news. Now, just fast forwards 2 weeks and...

I'd find it strange if the 4c and 6c models were to be released much later. I mean, if you look at GPUs, AMD released the entry/mainstream models a year earlier compared to the enthusiast models (Vega no sooner than this May, apparently). What kind of decision making is the company doing if they do the exact opposite with CPUs? They should release all models as soon as possible. While those 8c/16t prices are good (if the IPC is there), they aren't absolutely speaking cheap components (the cheapest costs well over 300 dollars/euros), so they won't attract the masses all over the world.

I don't. There's like zero point for current quad core users to get quad core Ryzen chips. They want those people to switch to Ryzen. 8 core Ryzen would be a real upgrade. Also if the yields are good and the chips are more or less flawless then it might take a while before they have enough defective chips to sell 4/6 core CPUs.

Hey, your thinking cap kind of slipped off there, my friend...;) AMD is "stupid" like a fox, etc. You are thinking in Intel-market/pricing terms. The market that AMD is establishing does not exist for Intel cpus--AMD is creating brand new markets (and Intel will be forced to follow suit as you will see.) In Intel's markets, the prices AMD is charging for its top-end cpus lines up with Intel's mid-to-budget cpus. When people see these prices the last thing they will be thinking is that AMD is gouging them, trust me...Yet, even at what appear to be current Intel budget-cpu prices, these high-end Ryzens will deliver 85%+ of Intel's $1k cpu performance, and they will be the most profitable for AMD at the same time. So when you look at the issue correctly, AMD would be stupid *not* to do it exactly this way--might as well capitalize on Intel's price-gouging for as along as it lasts, eh? It won't be lasting that much longer, for certain.

I understand all that but lets face it most of the money comes from the entry/mainstream markert! We all like to drool over high end parts and companies like to sell them because of the fat margins but the lower end parts are what brings on the profits because that´s what 90% of the people can afford. Even Intel makes most of it´s revenue/profits from the Celerons/Pentiums/I3s cpus not from the X99 cpus. Those cpus are important in the server market, for the desktop market they are halo produtcs and a way for Intel to sell leftover server cpus... If AMD really wants to profit from their 8 core parts, then sell them on the server side because for the desktop market they won´t bring a lot of money...

I understand all that but lets face it most of the money comes from the entry/mainstream markert! We all like to drool over high end parts and companies like to sell them because of the fat margins but the lower end parts are what brings on the profits because that´s what 90% of the people can afford. Even Intel makes most of it´s revenue/profits from the Celerons/Pentiums/I3s cpus not from the X99 cpus. Those cpus are important in the server market, for the desktop market they are halo produtcs and a way for Intel to sell leftover server cpus... If AMD really wants to profit from their 8 core parts, then sell them on the server side because for the desktop market they won´t bring a lot of money...

It's been nothing but 'blahblahblah buy this Intel refresh' for the last several years and most people equate i5 with good enough for the money (regardless of which i5 it is). AMD needs to take the performance crown to break that mindset before offering budget stuff. It's like how people ignore AMD for nVidia because 'power usage, they're the best, etc.' in spite of not actually caring about such things. I've tried to explain to friends why they should just go for an AMD card when it's a substantial performance difference for slightly more, and sometimes the same or less, and they ignore me because 'ohhhhh shiny nVidia'.

Both AMD and Nvidia tend to release low-end products later, since people aren't exactly anxious to see those.

Well, AMD released Polaris ages ago, but we are still waiting for the high-end.

Meanwhile for CPUs, AMD is struggling hard and they need to distinguish themselves.

Considering AMD's portion of the GPU market, I'd say they need to distinguish themselves there as well. It won't happen if Nvidia is holding the crown all the time and people keep dreaming of having the money for the real Nvidia card.

I don't. There's like zero point for current quad core users to get quad core Ryzen chips. They want those people to switch to Ryzen. 8 core Ryzen would be a real upgrade. Also if the yields are good and the chips are more or less flawless then it might take a while before they have enough defective chips to sell 4/6 core CPUs.

I'm sure some 2c/4t users, old 4c/4t, let alone 2c users would be drooling for a 4c/8t they couldn't dream of affording before (i7). I mean, I might be badmouthing HT every now and then, but of course I'd also rather have an i7, if only it wasn't 100+ euros more than the already overpriced i5. Besides, it's not like 4c/8t would be the same as 6c/12t, huh? Even simple mathematics would make 6c a lot better than 4c. I might have put my money on a 6c/12t Ryzen, had it been available a year ago, instead of this i5 that's no different from my previous i5, despite being 3 generations newer.

I completely understand what you're saying, but I think context is important here. When it comes to AMD vs Nvidia, anyone who isn't an elitist or a sheep knows that you'll have a good gaming experience with either brand. AMD's main source of revenue for gaming is likely the mainstream market, which also results in the highest yield. Since 1080p@60Hz displays are still pretty much mainstream, I'm guessing AMD's focus is to get themselves out there while Nvidia focuses on the hardcore enthusiasts. Both AMD and Nvidia tend to release low-end products later, since people aren't exactly anxious to see those. Also, I think it's within AMD's interest to just get as many sales as possible in order to get their name out there. It's better to have many satisfied customers than a handful of thrilled ones, when your competition has more customers of every kind. Meanwhile for CPUs, AMD is struggling hard and they need to distinguish themselves. They have never really had something that could easily or reliably compete with any i7, to the point that they dropped out of the high-end market entirely. They need to defeat any superficial beliefs, so it seems their priority is to outperform just about any i7 Intel has. Most people don't need anything that powerful, but right now it seems all they need to focus on is de-throning Intel. Meanwhile if they released their cheaper products first, people would see that Intel still has i7s that are faster, so people would get bored and move on. It is annoying though, I personally am tired of waiting and neither the motherboard chipsets or CPUs I'm interested in are being released first.

I don't understand why AMD can't service both markets at once. Intel's actual low-mid offerings are CPUs such as the i3-7100 that costs $119.00 at Newegg. AMD should be targeting both the high end and the low-mid range at launch, not staggered over several months. Sure, enthusiasts may be fine spending $400 on a CPU, but the vast majority of users are buying entire computers for $500. Think of how many people there are who don't live in the US/EU, and don't have the purchasing power to buy i5's and i7's. There's literally an order of magnitude more people who will buy a computer with a $200 CPU than those that will be a $400 CPU. I'm honestly shocked that AMD is doing this staggered release (if it's even true). A complete reversal of their GPU strategy for what exactly....bragging rights? They still won't have the fastest processor, just the fastest processor for $500. Big deal. Just like NVidia has a $600 GPU that's the fastest "enthusiast" card, yet the $250-$350 range sells multiples of that. There's a reason the 970 was such a popular card, and not the 980 or 980ti. The middle range is where the money is made; AMD had it right on their Polaris GPU line....this whole CPU strategy just defies logic. They should be shotgunning the whole lineup at once and getting as much market share and mind share as possible.

I might have put my money on a 6c/12t Ryzen, had it been available a year ago, instead of this i5 that's no different from my previous i5, despite being 3 generations newer.

Don't take this the wrong way...but if you admit your Skylake i5 is realistically no different than your previous one (assuming Ivy or Sandy), then why did you buy it? Surely you could've waited it out, knowing at this time a year ago that AMD had Zen in the works, if the new i5 was a marginal improvement at best? I ask because while everyone complains about Intel's greed and lack of innovation- which I wholeheartedly agree with- I fail to understand why many of these people are the ones who continue to throw their $ toward Intel- when the upgrade need is simply not even there (based on the products available)?

I don't understand why AMD can't service both markets at once. Intel's actual low-mid offerings are CPUs such as the i3-7100 that costs $119.00 at Newegg. AMD should be targeting both the high end and the low-mid range at launch, not staggered over several months. Sure, enthusiasts may be fine spending $400 on a CPU, but the vast majority of users are buying entire computers for $500. Think of how many people there are who don't live in the US/EU, and don't have the purchasing power to buy i5's and i7's. There's literally an order of magnitude more people who will buy a computer with a $200 CPU than those that will be a $400 CPU. I'm honestly shocked that AMD is doing this staggered release (if it's even true). A complete reversal of their GPU strategy for what exactly....bragging rights? They still won't have the fastest processor, just the fastest processor for $500. Big deal. Just like NVidia has a $600 GPU that's the fastest "enthusiast" card, yet the $250-$350 range sells multiples of that. There's a reason the 970 was such a popular card, and not the 980 or 980ti. The middle range is where the money is made; AMD had it right on their Polaris GPU line....this whole CPU strategy just defies logic. They should be shotgunning the whole lineup at once and getting as much market share and mind share as possible.

The problem is that people spending $500 on a PC aren't going to upgrade because there's something new unless it sounds like it's leagues better. Even then I have my doubts that many would buy into it.

Considering AMD's portion of the GPU market, I'd say they need to distinguish themselves there as well. It won't happen if Nvidia is holding the crown all the time and people keep dreaming of having the money for the real Nvidia card.

Well that kind of comes down to what Prince Valiant said in his last post (2nd paragraph). Even if the 490 ends up being better than the 1080 (which I'm not expecting), Nvidia will not give up that performance crown so easily, and people will still buy Nvidia anyway simply because of the name. So, all AMD can do is focus on offering affordable products that appeal to the widest audience and get their name out there. Sure, maybe a lot of Guru3D readers [will] own a 1070 and 1080, but most people don't.

I'm sure some 2c/4t users, old 4c/4t, let alone 2c users would be drooling for a 4c/8t they couldn't dream of affording before (i7). I mean, I might be badmouthing HT every now and then, but of course I'd also rather have an i7, if only it wasn't 100+ euros more than the already overpriced i5. Besides, it's not like 4c/8t would be the same as 6c/12t, huh? Even simple mathematics would make 6c a lot better than 4c.

I get the impression Anarion was implying 4c/4t chips, which seems to be what the average person has. If so, I too agree that there's not much of a point in releasing those yet. There's also the fact that there are still a lot of 4c/8t users out there, and it is within AMD's interest to grab their attention away from Intel, which any of their 4c models won't do. In order for AMD to really grab headlines and make sales (including from i7 users), they need to start out with something hefty. @Exige245 I completely agree. It's kind of like someone eating a donut while asking "why am I so fat!?"

I don't why they released so many 8core/16 thread(r7)versions of the same cpu, to many, just release the base one, mid range and a 4+ghz one, It ain't funny. <<<~~~~~Hair is being blown away!!! Just buy one of the cheap one and overclock those badboy's much higher then the highest priced one. Can't wait for benches on these bad boys, Comparable to thousand buck intel cpu? Can't wait.

I don't why they released so many 8core/16 thread(r7)versions of the same cpu, to many, just release the base one, mid range and a 4ghz one, lol, god so many, it ain't funny.

Uh... you said "lol" and "it ain't funny" referring to the same subject in the same sentence... Yes, it is a bit suspicious that they're all so similar (especially considering the chipset is apparently what determines overclockability) but there must be some other difference other than frequency, such as PCIe lanes.

Uh... you said "lol" and "it ain't funny" referring to the same subject in the same sentence... Yes, it is a bit suspicious that they're all so similar (especially considering the chipset is apparently what determines overclockability) but there must be some other difference other than frequency, such as PCIe lanes.

yup, same here, probably have to do with the amount of cpu lanes. Well I don't have to worry about that issue, 🙂 Far's I know, 40 lanes per cpu, so all good here.

I don't why they released so many 8core/16 thread(r7)versions of the same cpu, to many, just release the base one, mid range and a 4+ghz one

You suggested they release 3 models of 8c/16t...ummm they are releasing 3 models of 8c/16t...according to [URL="http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-ryzen-launches-march-2nd,2.html"]HH's post about Launch on March 2 [/URL] Base = 7 1700 Mid = 7 1700x High = 7 1800x :3eyes: Anything else suggesting otherwise is still "speculatory leaks" imo until I hear it from AMD or HH.

@Exige245 I completely agree. It's kind of like someone eating a donut while asking "why am I so fat!?"

LMAO agreed! :funny:

The problem is that people spending $500 on a PC aren't going to upgrade because there's something new unless it sounds like it's leagues better. Even then I have my doubts that many would buy into it.

Na, people who buy $500 computers buy them when their old one dies, or they give their old one away to a family member, donate it, etc. Then they stroll into their local electronics store (or Costco) and buy whatever is cheap because computers have been good enough for web browsing and solitaire for a long time. I'm talking about people like my parents, my computer illiterate co-workers, neighbors, etc. AMD should be owning this market and instead they're essentially ceding it to Intel. AMD has a full lineup of budget chips but for some reason they're holding off on releasing them for several months. These price sensitive people make up the vast majority of the computer buying public. They do not care who holds the crown for the fastest CPU, heck they probably don't even check to see who makes the CPU. AMD used to own this market (as well as Cyrix). This is their chance to take it back, or at least compete with Intel's Pentiums and i3's. Instead they're shooting for the huge market of buyers who pay $400+ for a CPU. :bang:

I don't why they released so many 8core/16 thread(r7)versions of the same cpu, to many, just release the base one, mid range and a 4+ghz one, It ain't funny. <<<~~~~~Hair is being blown away!!! Just buy one of the cheap one and overclock those badboy's much higher then the highest priced one. Can't wait for benches on these bad boys, Comparable to thousand buck intel cpu? Can't wait.

Yeah it reminds me of the variations of the Fx 83xx and the 9xxx series of CPUs where you could just chose something like an 8320 and overclock it to 8350 speeds and the same thing with the 8350 and overclock it to the speeds of the 9xxx CPUs. Im pretty sure that the same thing with the new RyZen CPUs.

I ask because while everyone complains about Intel's greed and lack of innovation- which I wholeheartedly agree with- I fail to understand why many of these people are the ones who continue to throw their $ toward Intel- when the upgrade need is simply not even there (based on the products available)?

I wouldn't have "upgraded", but due to external circumstances the old PC left my hands and I had to build a new one. If I could have, I'd have waited till Ryzen. Couldn't be helped at the time.

Well that kind of comes down to what Prince Valiant said in his last post (2nd paragraph). Even if the 490 ends up being better than the 1080 (which I'm not expecting), Nvidia will not give up that performance crown so easily, and people will still buy Nvidia anyway simply because of the name. So, all AMD can do is focus on offering affordable products that appeal to the widest audience and get their name out there. Sure, maybe a lot of Guru3D readers [will] own a 1070 and 1080, but most people don't.

What I don't understand about this logic is why AMD in the GPU market decides to settle for the second placement, yet in the CPU market it only eyes at the top. How is releasing only expensive 8c/16t CPUs appealing to the widest audience?

I get the impression Anarion was implying 4c/4t chips, which seems to be what the average person has. If so, I too agree that there's not much of a point in releasing those yet. There's also the fact that there are still a lot of 4c/8t users out there, and it is within AMD's interest to grab their attention away from Intel, which any of their 4c models won't do. In order for AMD to really grab headlines and make"

AMD wouldn't be aiming at current new 4c i5/i7 owners with the 4c CPUs. There are plenty of people who don't have one but would like to have if the price was less than Intel is asking for (especially outside of old industrialised coutries like someone already said). 2c/4t is a joke today for gaming or other heavier use. If you say there's no point in reasing a 4c CPU today, then how do you explain Intel sells them so much?

You suggested they release 3 models of 8c/16t...ummm they are releasing 3 models of 8c/16t...according to [URL="http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-ryzen-launches-march-2nd,2.html"]HH's post about Launch on March 2 [/URL] Base = 7 1700 Mid = 7 1700x High = 7 1800x :3eyes: Anything else suggesting otherwise is still "speculatory leaks" imo until I hear it from AMD or HH.

Take a look at this link: http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/us-prices-of-amd-ryzen-processors-surface-as-well-starts-at-316-59.html This is an older information then the one you provided eariler, things could have changed then.

I wouldn't have "upgraded", but due to external circumstances the old PC left my hands and I had to build a new one. If I could have, I'd have waited till Ryzen. Couldn't be helped at the time. What I don't understand about this logic is why AMD in the GPU market decides to settle for the second placement, yet in the CPU market it only eyes at the top. How is releasing only expensive 8c/16t CPUs appealing to the widest audience? AMD wouldn't be aiming at current new 4c i5/i7 owners with the 4c CPUs. There are plenty of people who don't have one but would like to have if the price was less than Intel is asking for (especially outside of old industrialised coutries like someone already said). 2c/4t is a joke today for gaming or other heavier use. If you say there's no point in reasing a 4c CPU today, then how do you explain Intel sells them so much?

Ahh, that makes total sense- I understand your plight now! If I were in your shoes, I'd probably cut my losses on the OS install, and try to sell the current cpu+mobo combo to go after the Ryzen 5 1600X when it launches. I too would prefer if AMD launched models at each level (4c, 6c, 8c) right away on March 2, because I'd love to see review comparisons between the R5 1600X 6c/12t and the R7 1700X 8c/16t!