It's still nowhere close to 4 GHz let alone max boost Intel chips can do. It all depends on how well it will overclock.

5960x 4ghz would be a 200w cpu.

It's still nowhere close to 4 GHz let alone max boost Intel chips can do. It all depends on how well it will overclock.

What I know 5960x can boost up to 3.5GHz and this one should boost to similar levels This chip is 8c/16t and all depends on IPC, for me personally is most important multi performance more than single core performance Hope this helps Thanks, Jura

Hopefully this CPU will have real 8 cores,this will be enough for me.

RYZEN is a terrible, terrible name though. Who comes up with that stuff?

What about your avatar? It is terrible or not?

That name no sounds bad... +3.40GHz (Maybe 3.45GHz (34.5x100MHz)) stills sounds great on 8 Core @95w other thing we can´t talk about monothreaded performance (on stock clocks) because we don´t know the "Max Turbo" (1 Thread per Core) Frequency, it could be 4.25GHz with "Turbo" (All Cores) @3.85GHz i hope the best

This is looking very good for AMD. I wonder what Intel will have on the table by the time AMD brings their new CPU's.

This is looking very good for AMD. I wonder what Intel will have on the table by the time AMD brings their new CPU's.

Hah, Intel will have 400Eur Kaby Lake quad-cores, no thanks. This is going in favor of AMD.

I hope these RYZEN chips overclock well. While Intel still has 4c/8t in the mainstream market (as does AMD since this is all rumor and speculation), they turbo to 4.2/4.5 and overclock to 4.5/4.7 with ease. The high clock helps in so many games and is most meaningful to the majority of applications. If AMD gives 8c/16t at 3.4 and overclocks to 4.2 with ease, all is good and we have a much needed symbolic pounding of Intel's greedy butt. If RYZEN 8c/16t struggles to get to 4, there will be some hurt team red butts out there as the results in most real world applications will sink. edit - and that RYZEN chip would need to be under 550. If more it wouldn't really be an advancement; it would just be a doubling of the price for double the cores/threads.

I think we need to just calm down people!

We really really really need to stop directly comparing clock speed with performance. We not living in 20th century anymore. Different CPU architecture take different number of clocks to execute an instruction. While I am skeptical Zen is aiming for maximum per core performance, makes me wonder how well CPU will perform overall.

We need to know how the type of cooling used will affect how this cpus overclock as this will be a huge factor for most enthusiasts. I am hoping 4.3Ghz~4.5Ghz on custom water cooling loop , 4.1Ghz~4.3Ghz on high end air cooling and AIO H2O set ups.

We really really really need to stop directly comparing clock speed with performance.

ATM it's all about the 40% IPC gain claim versus FX running at 4.5-4.8GHz. 3.4 x 1.4 is FX@4.8GHz so nothing's changed (bit of baby math lol). Starting with the maxed out predecessor as a baseline isn't very glamorous, even though it's a good start if it pulls another GHz with the OC.

I really hope those CPUs deliver good performance at a decent price because Intel´s prices are getting ridiculous... Also i don´t understand why some guys continue to complain about the supposed speed of Zen cpus because it´s only natural that an eight core cpu is going to have a lower speed than a four core cpu... And lastely, Ryzen is a terrible name!!! C´mon who´s the idiot who cames up with this ****ty names!!!

ATM it's all about the 40% IPC gain claim versus FX running at 4.5-4.8GHz. 3.4 x 1.4 is FX@4.8GHz so nothing's changed (bit of baby math lol). Starting with the maxed out predecessor as a baseline isn't very glamorous, even though it's a good start if it pulls another GHz with the OC.

Zen IPC is 40% over Excavator Core, Excavator is 30-35% higher IPC than Vishera (2nd gen FX), 1.3x1.4 is near 1.8x, then... 3.45GHz Zen = 6.28GHz FX 34% over FX9590 at 1/3 Power compsumition...

The feature to automatically scale up performance with cooling is very cool, IMO.

Seems like a marketing gimmick to me. It's basically just the inverse of Turbo Boost, which scales down performance when cooling isn't adequate. It's much more appealing to say "this goes faster under ideal conditions" rather than "this runs at full speed but will slow itself down when it gets too hot".

It's still nowhere close to 4 GHz let alone max boost Intel chips can do. It all depends on how well it will overclock.

I will be blunt this time... Show me where Intel have 8 core cpu with 4+Ghz or shut up. Intel have 3.2 GHz base clock 8 core, it have higher TDP and cost $1100+ and require much more expensive mainboard to start with.

Seems like a marketing gimmick to me. It's basically just the inverse of Turbo Boost, which scales down performance when cooling isn't adequate. It's much more appealing to say "this goes faster under ideal conditions" rather than "this runs at full speed but will slow itself down when it gets too hot".

It depend, if you have water cooling you are most likely running on max boost already for me on Sandy runs with temps around 48 degrees after 2h 100% run with fans set to 700rpm and 42 degrees with fans on 1200rpm.

"Ryzen" :puke2: I'll buy it anyway.

I will be blunt this time... Show me where Intel have 8 core cpu with 4+Ghz or shut up. Intel have 3.2 GHz base clock 8 core, it have higher TDP and cost $1100+ and require much more expensive mainboard to start with.

I said what they can do. They are extremely conservative with their stock clocks for 6 and higher core parts. They overclock well past their stock speeds.

It depend, if you have water cooling you are most likely running on max boost already for me on Sandy runs with temps around 48 degrees after 2h 100% run with fans set to 700rpm and 42 degrees with fans on 1200rpm.

Yes, that's true. That doesn't change my point. Inevitably both processors do the same thing - they "go beyond their stock speed" where power and thermals allow. It's really all just a scam IMO, because the CPUs are perfectly capable of reaching their turbo speeds but it's cheaper for the company to ship crappy heatsinks. Since the stock heatsink can keep up with the "stock speeds", it isn't false advertisement when the CPU has to run slower than its turbo speed. To make matters more scummy, the CPU is advertised by its stock speed, not its turbo speed. So in most benchmarks you'll see a 3.4GHz CPU outperforming another one of similar specs when in reality it is running at 3.7GHz. The average benchmark doesn't last long enough to make thermals an issue, especially in controlled environments.

I said what they can do. They are extremely conservative with their stock clocks for 6 and higher core parts.

No, they're not. Intel isn't either. Get too far beyond 3.5GHz and you're approaching dangerous territory. Intel and AMD can't rely on customers being intelligent enough to get an adequate PSU. They are not going to be held responsible for unstable systems because somebody decided to use a 4-pin CPU connector on a 4GHz 8-core. EDIT: To my understanding, with the exception of the FX-9000 series, there are no [desktop] CPUs out there that require an 8-pin CPU connector at stock speeds.

If the learning algorithms are bad, how easy is it to update them if at all?