Ryzen 9 Threadripper up to 16 Cores & 4.1GHz

[Deletedmessiah]

Just problems in the past between AMD\ATI drivers and various security softs (most notably COMODO), SSDs (Samsung Evos) and such. Plus, Windows 10 upgrade killed an AMD system BIOS.

AMD is OK, but I prefer Intel. Less overall driver and other problems in my personal experience.

Thanks for clarifying!

AMD has always used slick marketing to convince buyers that AMD processors are every bit the equivalent or better than Intel ones.

Get the same or better performance at less than half the price...

In the real world, AMD claims have never lived up to expectations - at least not in my own personal experience with their processors.

I will believe it when I see it.

You're correct. I'll wait for Ryzen on Laptops and see other users real life experience and the problems they face. If its good, I'll buy a laptop with Ryzen. Pricing is important for me. If AMD lives up to hype this time, it will force Intel to reduce prices too.

 

[509322]

You're correct. I'll wait for Ryzen on Laptops and see other users real life experience and the problems they face. If its good, I'll buy a laptop with Ryzen. Pricing is important for me. If AMD lives up to hype this time, it will force Intel to reduce prices too.

I think it will end up being the "same-old, same-old." If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is...

When benchmarks are published that show AMD processors decisively besting Intel processors in the vast majority of benchmarks, then I will look further. Until then, not even on the radar.

 

[Deletedmessiah]

I think it will end up being the "same-old, same-old." If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is...

When benchmarks are published that show AMD processors decisively besting Intel processors in the vast majority of benchmarks, then I will look further. Until then, not even on the radar.

Man, you're crushing my hope. But you're being realistic. Truth hurts.

 

[509322]

Man, you're crushing my hope. But you're being realistic. Truth hurts.

AMD promotes cores, but in reality more cores do not, for most typical computing, translate into greater speed. The marketing takes advantage of consumer ignorance of this fact.

AMD and Intel are built using two different architectures. Intel is optimized for typical use - which emphasizes single core speed. You won't see any noticeable speed gain using AMD multi-cored processors unless you are using a program that will benefit from a multiple logical processors. This is why AMD's "best" processors generally perform at an overall level equivalent to an Intel middle-grade processor (e.g. an i5).

You're not going to get top-of-the-line Intel i7 performance out of a top-of-the-line AMD multi-cored processor.

 

[ant_gamal]

I think ryzen will be as Athlon

Athlon was the first multiple core with this amd rise and be come the biggest on the field that force INTEL to cut price and develop there line

After that amd fall till now

So will ryzen make it again

We need this
To force INTEL drop price

Also force each other to improve their technology

 

[mekelek]

AMD promotes cores, but in reality more cores do not, for most typical computing, translate into greater speed. The marketing takes advantage of consumer ignorance of this fact.

AMD and Intel are built using two different architectures. Intel is optimized for typical use - which emphasizes single core speed. You won't see any noticeable speed gain using AMD multi-cored processors unless you are using a program that will benefit from a multiple logical processors. This is why AMD's "best" processors generally perform at an overall level equivalent to an Intel middle-grade processor (e.g. an i5).

You're not going to get top-of-the-line Intel i7 performance out of a top-of-the-line AMD multi-cored processor.

did you even look at Ryzen benchmarks at least? Identical IPC to Intel with a bit lower Clock speed and double the Core amounts with Hyperthreading for cheaper price than Intel.
AMD finally delivered after all these years.

my 400 euros R7 blows the $1k Intel equivalent out of the window in streaming, encoding, gaming,rendering, etc.

sure the 4 core I7's are 15% better in Gaming due to their higher clock speed, but Ryzen keeps a way higher Minimum FPS due to not being 100% utilized.

 

[509322]

did you even look at Ryzen benchmarks at least? Identical IPC to Intel with a bit lower Clock speed and double the Core amounts with Hyperthreading for cheaper price than Intel.
AMD finally delivered after all these years.

my 400 euros R7 blows the $1k Intel equivalent out of the window in streaming, encoding, gaming,rendering, etc.

sure the 4 core I7's are 15% better in Gaming due to their higher clock speed, but Ryzen keeps a way higher Minimum FPS due to not being 100% utilized.

You are just re-stating what I posted earlier in a different way.

AMD is not delivering anything different now than what they did in the past. You get good value with an AMD processor, but in terms of sheer overall performance, take the best available i7 on the market and AMD cannot touch it. Is the Intel processor worth the heavy premium ? In my experience, yes it is - the Intel makes for a noticeably better experience over the long-run.

Anyway, personally, I think the CPU is of secondary importance to a fast SSD in one's experience with a system.

 

[BoraMurdar]

In 1% of cases when there is no budget limit...

 

[mekelek]

You are just re-stating what I posted earlier in a different way.

AMD is not delivering anything different now than what they did in the past. You get good value with an AMD processor, but in terms of sheer overall performance, take the best available i7 on the market and AMD cannot touch it. Is the Intel processor worth the heavy premium ? In my experience, yes it is - the Intel makes for a noticeably better experience over the long-run.

Anyway, personally, I think the CPU is of secondary importance to a fast SSD in one's experience with a system.

so you're comparing a $5k CPU to a $500 one. how does that even make sense?

 

[509322]

so you're comparing a $5k CPU to a $500 one. how does that even make sense?

I made no such comparison. What I said in a roundabout way is that AMD produces nothing that comes close to the top-of-the-line i7 on the market.

Comparing Intel and AMD is not comparing apples-to-apples. Instead it is comparing apples to pineapples. AMD vs Intel = two completely different companies, two completely different architectures, and two completely different optimization philosophies. AMD is a competitor of Intel, but it is not a head-to-head competitor.

AMD isn't going to be taking away meaningful market share from Intel anytime soon.

 

[Winter Soldier]

There are pros and cons to each processor and based on my (limited) experience, I would use Intel processors if you want to create a PC for gaming and then you need a high power without paying much attention to the costs

I would use AMD processors in the case you want a PC on a basic level, example for multi-media, because the mid/low processors are almost equivalent between Intel and AMD, but AMD has a lower cost.

 

[mekelek]

I made no such comparison. What I said in a roundabout way is that AMD produces nothing that comes close to the top-of-the-line i7 on the market.

Comparing Intel and AMD is not comparing apples-to-apples. Instead it is comparing apples to pineapples. AMD vs Intel = two completely different companies, two completely different architectures, and two completely different optimization philosophies. AMD is a competitor of Intel, but it is not a head-to-head competitor.

AMD isn't going to be taking away meaningful market share from Intel anytime soon.

you mean the 1% of people that actually want something more powerful than what AMD currently has, or to be more clear to you, than an i7 7700k.

AMD already took away meaningful chunk of market share with their R5's since nobody in their right mind would choose an i5 instead of an R5.
it's good to see your last argument is about AMD not having a matching CPU to Intel's stupid expensive X series i7's.

[mod edit]

 

[509322]

There are pros and cons to each processor and based on my (limited) experience, I would use Intel processors if you want to create a PC for gaming and then you need a high power without paying much attention to the costs

I would use AMD processors in the case you want a PC on a basic level, example for multi-media, because the mid/low processors are almost equivalent between Intel and AMD, but AMD it has a lower cost.

Of course.

No where in this thread did I say that AMD is less than Intel. What I am saying is that they are different.

Most typical users that do the usual stuff like web surfing, productivity, and occasional movie, etc - would benefit more by selecting a SSD first and then a decent CPU second - whatever the brand.

That being said, OEMs are not going to be lining up to replace Intels with AMD Ryzens in their PCs. There's a lot more to it than merely specification and price comparisons.

 

[BoraMurdar]

The things have changed from the last time AMD released the new line of CPUs. Now AMD has a direct competitor to Intel in every performance segment, which IMHO pushed Intel to release i9 series and going to slowly raise the idea that in a near future octa-core CPUs will be a mainstream.
Intel got lazy for the last few years as they didn't have competition. Promising 15% performance increase for last 2 years for each generation, which wasn't quite true on the paper. Now, with Ryzen, CPU technology will finally grow exponentially.

Good video to throw a look

 

[Adz.]

The things have changed from the last time AMD released the new line of CPUs. Now AMD has a direct competitor to Intel in every performance segment, which IMHO pushed Intel to release i9 series and going to slowly raise the idea that in a near future octa-core CPUs will be a mainstream.
Intel got lazy for the last few years as they didn't have competition. Promising 15% performance increase for last 2 years for each generation, which wasn't quite true on the paper. Now, with Ryzen, CPU technology will finally grow exponentially.

Good video to throw a look

you're right, now we have real competition, then again i think threadripper will be better than intel i9, intel had there mindshare days, i am so getting one of the threadripper processors over intels i9, i was so close to getting ryzen but hearing about the beast about to be released, i postponed, this year will be great, im happier than happy :--)


urgh, linus i cant bare to watch him lol.

 

[BoraMurdar]

urgh, linus i cant bare to watch him lol.

He's mostly OK. Sometimes funny sometimes unsuccessfully funny and cringy

 

[brambedkar59]

The things have changed from the last time AMD released the new line of CPUs. Now AMD has a direct competitor to Intel in every performance segment, which IMHO pushed Intel to release i9 series and going to slowly raise the idea that in a near future octa-core CPUs will be a mainstream.
Intel got lazy for the last few years as they didn't have competition. Promising 15% performance increase for last 2 years for each generation, which wasn't quite true on the paper. Now, with Ryzen, CPU technology will finally grow exponentially.

Good video to throw a look

Omg, i was reading those YT comments and
Fanboism (is that an actual word) is like cancer, spreading everywhere.

 

[ahity]

i want to buy this one and put on picture frame on my wall , cos dont have budget for buy other part