If zen with 6c/12t will go against intel i5 4c/4t is bad, very bad, worst than vishera. I hope are only rumors.

No 8 Core / 8 Thread?

No non-hyperthreaded units? Huh, strange...

If the R7 1800X is a factory-oc model like the old FX-9590 Vishera, that needs advanced cooling to touch on the i7-6900K performance at almost double the power consumption, then I don’t need it. The fact that they are pitting 6C/12T CPU models against the Intel i5 (4C/4T) is not a good sign. Also, an 8C/16T CPU that hits at the 4C/8T Core i7-7700K is not going to do well in most games.

If the R7 1800X is a factory-oc model like the old FX-9590 Vishera, that needs advanced cooling to touch on the i7-6900K performance at almost double the power consumption, then I don’t need it. The fact that they are pitting 6C/12T CPU models against the Intel i5 (4C/4T) is not a good sign. Also, an 8C/16T CPU that hits at the 4C/8T Core i7-7700K is not going to do well in most games.

I7 6900 have a 140W TDP when the max TDP of AMD Ryzen is 95W ... what are you talking about ? The 7700 is the fastest Intel CPU in games, so if it meet it, why will you it is bad ? ( in fact this list put it at both the leve of the 8core (6900K) from Intel and the 7700K.. so i will maybe not much read in it as that will mean it touch both the quadcore at 4.4ghz, and the 8cores at 3.7ghz ) If you see the list, he put the faster Intel CPU as comparaison... ANd i enjoin to read the traduction ( even if google is really not reliable for it ) ..

If zen with 6c/12t will go against intel i5 4c/4t is bad, very bad, worst than vishera. I hope are only rumors.

Hmm..? That's what an Intel stock owner would say. From a consumer's point of view if the same price gets you a 6 core, 12 threads CPU with superior performance, it would be jolly good. It would be something Intel should have done years ago, but in lack of competition didn't bother, placing greed before vision and ambition. It has been repeated over and over again, but AMD is in a very bad underdog position in the CPU market. If they really want to make a glorious comeback, they absolutely need to offer something better for the same money, at least for the bulk of the selection even if they can't beat Intel's 1000+ dollars chips. We are only talking about consumer's money here. Let's not forget these Zen chips don't include a GPU at all, so manufacturing costs should be reasonable indeed.

If zen with 6c/12t will go against intel i5 4c/4t is bad, very bad, worst than vishera. I hope are only rumors.

I last heard was they not going to be doing any odd ball cores CPU only 8C/8T or 16T and 4C/4T or 8T with possible of 2C/2T or 4T with SMT (Simultaneous multithreading).

Hmm..? That's what an Intel stock owner would say. From a consumer's point of view if the same price gets you a 6 core, 12 threads CPU with superior performance, it would be jolly good. It would be something Intel should have done years ago, but in lack of competition didn't bother, placing greed before vision and ambition. It has been repeated over and over again, but AMD is in a very bad underdog position in the CPU market. If they really want to make a glorious comeback, they absolutely need to offer something better for the same money, at least for the bulk of the selection even if they can't beat Intel's 1000+ dollars chips. We are only talking about consumer's money here. Let's not forget these Zen chips don't include a GPU at all, so manufacturing costs should be reasonable indeed.

it dont include IGP, but they are a complete SOC.. including every parts you find in the northbridge and southbridge ..( sata chipsets,USB chipset,PCIexpress chipset etc )..

I admit, this looks bad when i5 7600 which is fresh model of my 6600 needs additional 2 cores and 8 threads from AMD just to compete. That means Ryzen core is not impressive, it will be slower in -up to 4 threaded games-, or maybe, a tiny bit of chance that this chart does not represent a performance segmentation, it is only a price segmentation which would mean that R3 1200X is good enough to compete with i5 7600...

I admit, this looks bad when i5 7600 which is fresh model of my 6600 needs additional 2 cores and 8 threads from AMD just to compete. That means Ryzen core is not impressive, it will be slower in -up to 4 threaded games-, or maybe, a tiny bit of chance that this chart does not represent a performance segmentation, it is only a price segmentation which would mean that R3 1200X is good enough to compete with i5 7600...

Look the list ... how can it compete with a 7700K, a 6900K and dont beat an 7600 then ? how a 8 cores with x clock speed can compete with the quadcore 7700K ( 4.4ghz ), and the 6cores will not match it ? ( the 7700K beat all high the 6900 in non professional applications ) if the 6cores is clocked the same of the 8cores .. why will it not compete too with the 7700K .. Dont read too much on this list. ( who seems aimed at price configuration more than performance ) We know so far that Ryzen have a faster IPC than Intel 6th series ( as we have allready the benchmark from canardPC released with an slow ES samples ( 3.3ghz on turbo who was mostly run at 3.15ghz ).. then dont need to be a genius for understand the IPC of Ryzen at 4ghz . ) The problem i got with this list is why will you have 4 different sku and price for the 8cores.. 4 different sku for the 6cores and even more for the 4cores.. it dont make much sense, specially when all cpus are unlocked.

So IPC wise if Ryzen is as good or faster than kaby-lake, the only thing Intel would have to do to offer me a better deal - they would have to offer me at least a 6 core 12 threaded part for the same amount of cash as AMD but it has to fit in my skylake socket that i already have.

If zen with 6c/12t will go against intel i5 4c/4t is bad, very bad, worst than vishera. I hope are only rumors.

Or, like, it's the only way to convince people with an Intel fetish to maybe even consider an AMD CPU again. If it is correct, this seems to be a price chart, not a performance chart. All indications show that Zen cores have similar IPC to Broadwell-E cores, and there are hints that when they are working together they are doing so in a better way than the Intel cores. Although I probably won't upgrade my CPU yet (my GPU is the first one to change), I hope that Zen is what it seems to be up to this point. From the Intel financial report at Deutsche Bank (read it, it's interesting for a lot of things), I got the feeling that Intel has really nothing to actually compete with it until Cannonlake.

Ross C. Seymore (Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc): That’s very helpful. I guess as my follow-up, you talked about the ASPs in answering a prior question. I wondered about the competitive intensity in the PC market. You’re taking a more conservative tack than the third-party vendors are forecasting, but your primary x86 competitor is coming out with a new architecture for the first time in many, many years. So, I wonder whether it’s on the ASP or the unit or the market share side how you’re factoring that into your forecast for the year. Brian M. Krzanich (Intel Corp): Sure. I would tell you that we always look at this environment and say there’s going to be a competitive risk in the environment. And we’re always focused on really, our own product roadmap and making sure that we have the highest performance product. So, when we look at 2017, we still believe that our product roadmap is truly the best ever it’s been.

Observe the language. He's basically telling them: This is a risky business, there are competitive risks. Then he goes into defensive mode saying "we don't care what they do", then he says that they have the highest performance product, but he gives no nuance to it, like, what does he mean? They have the fastest product per core? The product with the most cores? A 48-core Xeon will be faster than the 32-core Naples, if he means it this way. And a quad core i7 will probably be faster than a quad core Zen, so yeah, they will have the "faster product". Then he ends up by saying that their own 2017 roadmap has been the best roadmap they've ever had. Well, that's not news exactly, that happens every year. Every year's roadmap is better than the previous year one.

I admit, this looks bad when i5 7600 which is fresh model of my 6600 needs additional 2 cores and 8 threads from AMD just to compete. That means Ryzen core is not impressive, it will be slower in -up to 4 threaded games-, or maybe, a tiny bit of chance that this chart does not represent a performance segmentation, it is only a price segmentation which would mean that R3 1200X is good enough to compete with i5 7600...

Intel's brainwashing is strong... Normally when you want to beat something, you offer more, not the same. But since Intel has been offering the same old stuff year after year, generation after generation, it results in some people thinking that nothing can ever change. The truth that Intel didn't want you to think about is that we should have had 6 core i5s years ago already. The only reason we don't is Intel's greed and lack of ambition in the no-competition environment.

Intel's brainwashing is strong... Normally when you want to beat something, you offer more, not the same. But since Intel has been offering the same old stuff year after year, generation after generation, it results in some people thinking that nothing can ever change. The truth that Intel didn't want you to think about is that we should have had 6 core i5s years ago already. The only reason we don't is Intel's greed and lack of ambition in the no-competition environment.

But it's impossible to sell a 4c/8t CPU for $150! Impossible I say (if I don't look at their 63% profit margin for the whole company, that is almost 80% for CPU products).

I am confused. An 8c/16t amd cpu goes up against an 8c/16t intel cpu. That's great, that's what we want to see. But an 8c/16t amd cpu also goes up against a 4c/8t intel cpu? What's going on there? Also 6c/12t dukes is out with 4c/4t? There are so many things wrong with that table, I'm really hoping it's fake.

Hm, no 8c/8t. So many variants. Didn't AMD say the lowest base clock is 3.4Ghz? I'm taking this with 10kg of salt, waiting until official reports.

It´s good to see that Ryzen´s launch is gonna be a strong one! I was expecting 3 or 4 CPUs not an entire line up! Well done AMD. What i don´t like is the stupid names... WTF is a R7 1700X??? It looks the name of an entry GPU from an unknow vendor... They had to copy Intel and their stupid names.... As for AMD pitting 8 and 6 cores against Intel´s 4 core CPUs, i think it´s normal. Ryzen is probably going to have worst IPC than intel so they throw more cores to compensante this and make their CPUs more appealling. Don´t understand why so many members seem surprised by this... The only surprise for me, besides the extensive release line up, it´s the exclusion of and 8c/8t CPU and the R7 1800X going directly against the I7 6900K. Personally, i´m gonna keep an eye over the R5 1600 and the R7 1700.

Not having non-HT CPUs doesn't surprise me really.

Not having non-HT CPUs doesn't surprise me really.

Indeed. Only Intel can sell 4c/4t CPU for 250Eur.

No 8 Core / 8 Thread?

No non-hyperthreaded units? Huh, strange...

I don't think it's strange or unexpected at all. It costs ****-all to have Hyper Threading included, people just think it's costly because Intel charge a left nut for it with their BS monopoly holding an iron grip on the market. If AMD's implementation of HT is anything like the Intel's classic variation, there's very little hardware or increased cost that goes into it. Pray to Buddah, Poseidon, FSM, or whoever your prefered character is, that AMD will finally force some competition.