Best price I have seen yet for this CPU, includes the not too shabby Wraith Spire cooler.
This CPU seems to offer the best price/performance break especially when including the apparent easy overclock available on all cores to 3.7GHz+, if my ASRock Taichi X370 ever arrives I'll give an actual first hand experience.
Currently showing as due in 1-2 months, by which time some motherboards might be in stock :stuck_out_tongue: If it appears elsewhere, sooner for less easy to cancel, and no funds taken upfront.
Dispatched & Sold by Amazon!
Paid for in € with a fee free card, including shipping it comes in at €339.84, which translates to £297-301 depending on the card used, and exchange rate when you check out, and the product is shipped.
Top comments
canishu
11 Mar 1753#10
the only joke here is your reply. yes, AMD has been below Intel for years now, but this time price/performance report puts them on par or even higher than intel. if you have 1000£ to spend then go for intel, but at 300-400£ this time AMD wins. Intel needed some good competition and except AMD there is nobody on PC CPUs so you can see it in there prices.now it is time that Intel prices to go down.
my point is that supporting the underdog in a 2 competitors fight, it will make us consumers better of for performance per £ spent on the long run.
Joshimitsu91
11 Mar 1732#12
I guess you must enjoy paying over the odds to a company who has monopolized the market and then hiked prices year on year with little improvement.
Anyone with half a brain knows that AMD GPUs have always been better bang for buck and now it seems they are catching up once again in the CPU race. This is only good news for consumers.
eVohicks
11 Mar 1713#8
I've used AMD for years, usually playing catch up to Intel but a lot cheaper and great value. using my FX 8350 (which I had over clocked to a stable 4.7ghz)with 2 x Radeon 7970's in crossfire in an Asus Sabertooth 990FX board, does not miss a beat!
The new Ryzen CPU'S look good but very expensive right now, I think I'll hold off until something won't play smoothly with my system
matt101101 to UltimatePhoenix
11 Mar 1711#9
Being built to a price matters more than outright performance where consoles are concerned.
AMD could offer both CPU and GPU capabilities for the Xbox One and PS4, whereas an Intel CPU would have meant Microsoft and Sony would have, firstly, likely paid more for the CPU and secondly, still have to source a GPU from either AMD (who would likely have charged proportionately more than they currently do) or NVIDIA. Furthermore, AMD could offer the CPU and GPU on one chip, an APU (something neither Intel or NVIDIA could offer), which is likely cheaper and requires a less complex (read: cheaper) cooling solution than a separate CPU and dedicated GPU.
Basically, it was probably cheaper to have AMD provide both the CPU and GPU capabilities for the Xbox One and PS4. Cutting edge performance didn't matter as much as price; the whole unit was going to retail for ~£300-400 incl. VAT.
EDIT: I forgot to say, the CPUs in the consoles are not Ryzen chips and, aside from being 8 core CPUs made by AMD, have little to do with Ryzen.
All comments (80)
OldEngine
11 Mar 175#1
vardx to OldEngine
11 Mar 172#11
Took me longer than it should have.
tempt
11 Mar 174#2
If you want it now and don't mind a UK based seller, it's available from Laptops Direct for £304.
UltimatePhoenix
11 Mar 17#3
always been told to avoid AMD and always Intel but consoles use AMD everytime, anyone give me advice here? cheers
plewis00 to UltimatePhoenix
11 Mar 171#5
The new AMD Ryzen chips are surprisingly good but you should check out the reviews and make your own mind up. Still, you can't really go wrong with buying Intel.
tempt to UltimatePhoenix
11 Mar 171#6
AMD is a joke of the tech-industry - Always Making Duds. They spend more time on marketing and hype and less on product development / quality control. None of the big companies use AMD for critical applications. If you are looking long term, stick with Intel/NVIDIA. AMD will eventually go down like Nokia and you'll be left with no support.
matt101101 to UltimatePhoenix
11 Mar 1711#9
Being built to a price matters more than outright performance where consoles are concerned.
AMD could offer both CPU and GPU capabilities for the Xbox One and PS4, whereas an Intel CPU would have meant Microsoft and Sony would have, firstly, likely paid more for the CPU and secondly, still have to source a GPU from either AMD (who would likely have charged proportionately more than they currently do) or NVIDIA. Furthermore, AMD could offer the CPU and GPU on one chip, an APU (something neither Intel or NVIDIA could offer), which is likely cheaper and requires a less complex (read: cheaper) cooling solution than a separate CPU and dedicated GPU.
Basically, it was probably cheaper to have AMD provide both the CPU and GPU capabilities for the Xbox One and PS4. Cutting edge performance didn't matter as much as price; the whole unit was going to retail for ~£300-400 incl. VAT.
EDIT: I forgot to say, the CPUs in the consoles are not Ryzen chips and, aside from being 8 core CPUs made by AMD, have little to do with Ryzen.
catbeans to UltimatePhoenix
11 Mar 172#15
they are both fine.
When buying PC parts you need to first decide, what is your price range and what do you need it for. Then you will know what is best for you, AMD and Intel both have their places.
jaydeeuk1 to UltimatePhoenix
11 Mar 17#23
If you're into higher end gaming stick to Intel, AMD fell short again rushing something to market. If you use software which benefits from lots of cores (haven't checked if it's ecc compatible, would make a cracking xen host), then ryzen might be a cheaper solution.
bbfb123 to UltimatePhoenix
11 Mar 172#30
Intel have all the money in the world and release products that are barely better than their last release, but they do this because they have no competition.
AMD mean well but they have limited resources and as such are always performing below or almost same as Intel's offerings that have been out for a while.
So in essence Intel release a good product. AMD release their best effort 6 months later that competes until Intel decides to release their new better offering.
Intel could release a new processor today that would wipe the floor with AMDs best offering for years to come. But they chose not to do that since they only need to stay just ahead of AMD and people will still buy intel.
It's better for everyone if AMD release good products since it makes Intel release better products cheaper priced.
Uncommon.Sense
11 Mar 17#4
£314 after i just checked.
tempt
11 Mar 17#7
Sign up for a free trial of Which for £1 and they give you a £15 voucher which can be used against anything over £250 including this CPU.
eVohicks
11 Mar 1713#8
I've used AMD for years, usually playing catch up to Intel but a lot cheaper and great value. using my FX 8350 (which I had over clocked to a stable 4.7ghz)with 2 x Radeon 7970's in crossfire in an Asus Sabertooth 990FX board, does not miss a beat!
The new Ryzen CPU'S look good but very expensive right now, I think I'll hold off until something won't play smoothly with my system
canishu
11 Mar 1753#10
the only joke here is your reply. yes, AMD has been below Intel for years now, but this time price/performance report puts them on par or even higher than intel. if you have 1000£ to spend then go for intel, but at 300-400£ this time AMD wins. Intel needed some good competition and except AMD there is nobody on PC CPUs so you can see it in there prices.now it is time that Intel prices to go down.
my point is that supporting the underdog in a 2 competitors fight, it will make us consumers better of for performance per £ spent on the long run.
Joshimitsu91
11 Mar 1732#12
I guess you must enjoy paying over the odds to a company who has monopolized the market and then hiked prices year on year with little improvement.
Anyone with half a brain knows that AMD GPUs have always been better bang for buck and now it seems they are catching up once again in the CPU race. This is only good news for consumers.
![Fresh Breakfast Meat Box (Using code) @ Campbells Meat [Haggis / Lorne Sausage / Bacon / Black Pudding & More]](/images/topics/208684_1.jpg)
![[Xbox One] Q. u. b. e: Director's Cut on Deals with Gold](/images/topics/208716_1.jpg)
Opening post
This CPU seems to offer the best price/performance break especially when including the apparent easy overclock available on all cores to 3.7GHz+, if my ASRock Taichi X370 ever arrives I'll give an actual first hand experience.
Currently showing as due in 1-2 months, by which time some motherboards might be in stock :stuck_out_tongue: If it appears elsewhere, sooner for less easy to cancel, and no funds taken upfront.
Dispatched & Sold by Amazon!
Paid for in € with a fee free card, including shipping it comes in at €339.84, which translates to £297-301 depending on the card used, and exchange rate when you check out, and the product is shipped.
Top comments
my point is that supporting the underdog in a 2 competitors fight, it will make us consumers better of for performance per £ spent on the long run.
Anyone with half a brain knows that AMD GPUs have always been better bang for buck and now it seems they are catching up once again in the CPU race. This is only good news for consumers.
The new Ryzen CPU'S look good but very expensive right now, I think I'll hold off until something won't play smoothly with my system
AMD could offer both CPU and GPU capabilities for the Xbox One and PS4, whereas an Intel CPU would have meant Microsoft and Sony would have, firstly, likely paid more for the CPU and secondly, still have to source a GPU from either AMD (who would likely have charged proportionately more than they currently do) or NVIDIA. Furthermore, AMD could offer the CPU and GPU on one chip, an APU (something neither Intel or NVIDIA could offer), which is likely cheaper and requires a less complex (read: cheaper) cooling solution than a separate CPU and dedicated GPU.
Basically, it was probably cheaper to have AMD provide both the CPU and GPU capabilities for the Xbox One and PS4. Cutting edge performance didn't matter as much as price; the whole unit was going to retail for ~£300-400 incl. VAT.
EDIT: I forgot to say, the CPUs in the consoles are not Ryzen chips and, aside from being 8 core CPUs made by AMD, have little to do with Ryzen.
All comments (80)
AMD could offer both CPU and GPU capabilities for the Xbox One and PS4, whereas an Intel CPU would have meant Microsoft and Sony would have, firstly, likely paid more for the CPU and secondly, still have to source a GPU from either AMD (who would likely have charged proportionately more than they currently do) or NVIDIA. Furthermore, AMD could offer the CPU and GPU on one chip, an APU (something neither Intel or NVIDIA could offer), which is likely cheaper and requires a less complex (read: cheaper) cooling solution than a separate CPU and dedicated GPU.
Basically, it was probably cheaper to have AMD provide both the CPU and GPU capabilities for the Xbox One and PS4. Cutting edge performance didn't matter as much as price; the whole unit was going to retail for ~£300-400 incl. VAT.
EDIT: I forgot to say, the CPUs in the consoles are not Ryzen chips and, aside from being 8 core CPUs made by AMD, have little to do with Ryzen.
When buying PC parts you need to first decide, what is your price range and what do you need it for. Then you will know what is best for you, AMD and Intel both have their places.
AMD mean well but they have limited resources and as such are always performing below or almost same as Intel's offerings that have been out for a while.
So in essence Intel release a good product. AMD release their best effort 6 months later that competes until Intel decides to release their new better offering.
Intel could release a new processor today that would wipe the floor with AMDs best offering for years to come. But they chose not to do that since they only need to stay just ahead of AMD and people will still buy intel.
It's better for everyone if AMD release good products since it makes Intel release better products cheaper priced.
The new Ryzen CPU'S look good but very expensive right now, I think I'll hold off until something won't play smoothly with my system
my point is that supporting the underdog in a 2 competitors fight, it will make us consumers better of for performance per £ spent on the long run.
Anyone with half a brain knows that AMD GPUs have always been better bang for buck and now it seems they are catching up once again in the CPU race. This is only good news for consumers.