Some people are never happy, if you posted an Intel 6900K for £500, people would be going mental over how cheap it was, post the AMD equivalent for even less and it's over priced. *shakes head*

Closed thinking is the domain of peasants.

The price has Ryzen
Apologies for that, I couldn't actually resist :/

As someone who doesn't get paid in GBP, and has portfolios in four currencies, I'm not sure what you're talking about. The GBP is nowhere near where it was against the US$ a year ago. :smile:



Still, I do admire your optimism.

All retailers price gouging...

I thought AMD were pricing their CPUs cheaper than Intels ? :confused:

Hope AM4 boards don't carry the extra £40 price tag :disappointed:

This isn't price gouging this is the "X".

The intel equivalent is still over a grand isn't it?

The LGA2011v3 motherboards for Intel chips with 6 or more cores cost around £200 alone.

The ryzen 1700 is £320. Hardly shaking the cpu market up if that competes with a 6700k

If that price list is to be believed, the 1600X looks like the real bargain to me. (highly threaded use cases not withstanding)

Guess we will have to wait and see performance figures but in the past amd have released benchmarks showing their products competing with Intel only to admit after either there's no overclock headroom or the benchmark is altered.

I would truly love to see amd beat Intel though, they've monopolized the market for too long.

Pinch of salt...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/antonyleather/2017/02/21/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-performance-leak-faster-than-intel-core-i7-5960x/#6f301d7562fe

Is it only me who would nnever buy a cpu without looking at several gaming (thats what i would want it for) independent benchmarks .
Especialy amd as their last processors were dissapointing and intel processors are always a boring 10% ish better than last gen (so you know what your getting with intel)

I was going to buy a i5 7600k... what's the most comparable ryzen card, and what can I save / what benefits are there of choosing that rather than the i5?

Also... Ryzen motherboards. Where!?

Poor price, expect X1800 for that money

Some people are never happy, if you posted an Intel 6900K for £500, people would be going mental over how cheap it was, post the AMD equivalent for even less and it's over priced. *shakes head*

Nice to see CCL Setting the best price.. Scan, Amazon and Overclockers takes the p*** as per usual.

Waiting for 1500/1600/1600X prices, they are more in line with my budget and should go along nicely with the RX480.

Pretty sure all Ryzen 7s have 20MiB cache?

IMO Yes it *was* worth the price, they are premium chips with low production numbers and great performance and yes with no competition, that's how it works. For want of better language it was never meant for plebs and saying is it worth it is like saying is a Rolex worth it over a £100 watch, Rolexs sell, so simple answer yes. The chips sold, so simple answer yes, that's how price points work.

It's enthusiast/production level technology, I am blown away AMD can offer this at that price and now it's Intel's move.

Closed thinking is the domain of peasants.

Get that from a fortune cookie?

ooooh, all of two brands, go Overclockers :stuck_out_tongue: (Scan has more)

Bear in mind that all Ryzen chips are reputedly unlocked, so paying this much extra for the X variant could be a mistake.

We'll have to see what the reviews say about how useful XFR is

Actually the £ recently is up on the $ and the $ is floundering.

As someone who doesn't get paid in GBP, and has portfolios in four currencies, I'm not sure what you're talking about. The GBP is nowhere near where it was against the US$ a year ago. :smile:



Still, I do admire your optimism.

wccftech here we come!
seriously guyz get a grip

Question for y'all
If you u have a product which is £1,000. But it gets a discount of £50, so goes down to £950. It's real worth is say £500. Is this a good deal, because it's the cheapest anywhere? or a terrible deal as it's not worth anywhere near that after the discount and there are competiting products, half that amount?

Then you can ask, is this AMD CPU a good deal? yes or no?
what makes a good deal, value for money or discount off original prices?

:confused:

That bad eh? :stuck_out_tongue:

:laughing:

Indeed, which is why I will be partaking in the purchase of a Ryzen system. :smiley:

Small fluctuations compared to the 20% drop on referendum night

​They are, this is going against the i7-6800k which is £420

It's called prestige pricing mate. They only make that price because people will pay the premium for a 'top end' product. It's why they make certain trainers £100+ because people will buy them as a 'prestige' item, they aren't worth anything more, made from the same materials and same production line. A Rolex isn't worth £10000, intels top CPUs ain't worth £1000+. It's prestige pricing, it's what the term 'saw him coming' was made for :laughing:

Worth is how much something costs, since you can't get those items for cheaper, they are worth that much,and people buy it therefore it is worth that much. Value is completely subjective, if a company can sell an item at a high price point why should they sell it for less, so it is worth that much. It's not prestige pricing because at the time they were the only processors like that available, a polo shirt with a brand that costs £300 is prestige pricing because you can buy a polo shirt for £10-30 otherwise.

Why has this been expired? Link still working and seller still taking pre orders

because they have increased the price inline with other companies

So AMD after all this fanfare might have released a CPU capable of competing with last generation Intel CPU's? Its piledriver all over again.

RIP AMD, and well done for ruining ATI.

One would imagine the top 3.3ghz 6C/12T will be like £260 versus maybe £230 (I have seen it for £210 recently) for the 3.8ghz 7600k. What you should expect to see is the 7600k winning when using 4 cores or less, the Ryzen winning when you have something that needs more than 4 cores.

In other words 4 faster cores are going to win for gaming just like they do now against Intel's slower clocked 6 cores. If you are doing stuff like encoding or rendering Ryzen will be a better buy for the extra money. If you aren't, then it won't.

Ryzen's clear strategy is to offer more, but slower cores at equivalent prices or thereabouts. The question then lies with the consumer as to whether they are ready to utilise all those cores and get their money's worth on their desktop environment.

You have to love wccftech lol :smiley:

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-1700x-benchmarks-leaked-beats-kaby-lake-ipc/

Anyway Ryzen is exceptional, just what we needed.

You're absolutely wrong there. Everywhere, every single article on Ryzen is praising it, it's obviously a lot better performing for the money. No idea how you could have got it so wrong.

There's three 8 core 16 thread AMD CPUs coming out first, they are massively cheaper than the Intel equivalent, no one has released this much compute power for this money ever before. They're amazing for the money. Do you even realise what these three CPUs give you for £319, £389 and £489 and apparently the one at £389 can be overclocked to perform at the same level of the £489 one. So for £389 you can get £1,000 Intel performance, massive massive overkill for gaming, but still incredible for the price.

Ryzen is one of the greatest CPU releases ever. Staggering for the price. Lastly none of the three initial released Ryzen CPUs are necessary for gaming, but awesome for multithreaded tasks, for professional use.

Recently doesn't mean may last year.

I talked about 1600x versus 7600k. You're quoting a heavily cache dependent artificial benchmark with a cache rich 8 core against Intel's 4 cores, not really a comparison that will be made very often I suspect. Because of the nature of the advantages that gives the larger Ryzen parts improved IPC against the mainstream quads. It's a well known advantage for Broadwell-E against the mainstream Intel quads too.

In Cinebench R15 (not as cache dependent and a practical rendering test) single thread 1600x managed 146cb whereas a 7600k manages like 175. Obviously the clock advantage. But that suggests a 20 percentage advantage for having like 16 percent higher boost clock.

In short what I said stands about the mainstream parts like the 1600x v intel's faster quads. They will almost certainly be quite a bit faster single threaded out the box. You'll have to need the extra cores to want to pay for them.

Overclocking could alter the landscape in Ryzen's favour but it is difficult to tell presently, and if 1600x is £260 and you can get a 7600k for like £50 less with price adjustments that sounds like a good deal either way.

Sounds like fishmaster is a big amd fan

That link was an obvious joke, as I alluded to. wccftech are absolute wasters with regard to giving any credible information.

You're absolutely right as I said above these three initial Ryzen CPUs are massive overkill for gaming, but AMD are putting forth their best at a price which is massively cheaper than Intel.

Anyone who thinks I'm an AMD fanboy is as clueless as a few of the posts on this thread.

What will have Intel worried the most is the potential for server/workstation damage. AMD Naples platform.

They own 99 percent of that market space because power/performance efficiency is THE critical purchase decision when you're running like 1000 cores 24/7. Intel completely and utterly dominate the server market which is where some really big bucks are spent.

If AMD deliver something that is nearly as fast but with better power characteristics (we'll see) at a similar price it'll eat into that market quickly. Gaming chips are pifflingly unimportant compared to that.

These CPU's should be great for updating my white box VMware/Hyper V lab :smile:

Yes, on my easy-to-read picture I pointed to your "recently" compared with the Brexit referendum result last year. I took a guess that you meant January/February 2017.
March 2017 can't be "recently", as that hasn't happened yet... what other "recently" could you mean? Q108 seems a bit of a stretch..?

This is why AMD are coming out with their new gen Bristol ridge APUs based on zen architecture very soon. The mobile platform is critical to AMDs continyed survival. Having a low power base is a huge boon to laptops and heat draw, and having an 8 core with 65w power draw is incredible.

The ryzen stuff is flagship work. Real money is in the server and laptop market, and for AMD the console APUs.

​Haha what is this guys problem, your Mummy not love you enough as a kid or something?

Indeed it will take time as companies such as Facebook have massively invested in Intel, they would likely transition to AMD rather than replace entirely which will take time, unless Intel come straight back at them, this is all good. I dislike the fanboy insinuations on any discussion like this, it's obvious competition is good and I back whoever gives the best value for money at the time.

Intel will be forced to innovate for the first time in years.

Let's see how much the market shakes up, I don't see the enterprise shifting to an unproven processor any time soon and AMD will need to offer the OEMs chips for pennies to have them take notice.

If they can attack the consumer laptop and tablet markets in combination with feeding gamers and small businesses they'll do well, they have Scorpio in the bag too so that will be profitable as Xbox has been for them.

Let's hope Intel sink enough to give something back.

The world has changed, the data centre is now an old model. They have a lot to do to get proper enterprise onboard.

I've heard no interest in AMD at work (large media org).

I always thought of them as a poor mans cpu as intel as monopolised the extortionate prices