Looks like AMD Ryzen CPU can hit 5ghz OC on air

[mrgreenthump]

No, they don't always use synthetics.

They haven't used any synthetics with Ryzen as far as I remember.

If the actual retail versions don't perform as well as the marketing they'll be relegated to a second tier CPU for another generation.

It would be an achievment certainly, because so far they've marketed their product at it's minimum clock speed.

Which is nothing new to AMD.

It would neither be for Intel if their architecture would flop, though less likely due to brand loyalty.

[azurrei]

I'm just hoping AMD's new line is actually competitive with Intel with aggressive pricing...Intel needs a swift kick in the butt to actually start innovating again instead of near pointless iterations on the same thing. I'll probably never buy an AMD CPU over Intel (I've been a PC enthusiast to varying degrees for ~25 years now and have never not had an Intel Chip - dating back to my first PC purchase as a young teen (386 SX 20,)) but Intel needs some real competition again...

[Remilia]

You know... I grow tired of "I want x to succeed but I don't want to support them." How do you expect someone to be competitive and successful to bring competition when people have that mind set.

[Jtbrig7390]

You know... I grow tired of "I want x to succeed but I don't want to support them." How do you expect someone to be competitive and successful to bring competition when people have that mind set.

Agreed, brand loyalty is such a fucken joke it isn't even funny. I personally rather buy from AMD but sadly Intel is the better Price/Performance right now. AMD does better and ill switch back to them.

Whoever gives me the better deal gets my money. I really wanted the new AMD cards to be worth wild so I could leave Nivida (even more so after the GTX 970 BS) but sadly that isn't the case.

[Fascinate]

The real problem here is system upgrades arent as noticeable as they used to be. I used to have a athlon xp machine that was seriously having troubles with WoW. At first i upgraded from 1gb of ram to 2 and that was a MASSIVE noticeable difference, went from alterac valley being a stutter fest to actually playable. Then i went from athlon to a core 2 duo and that was also a big difference, but not quite as big as the ram upgrade. Nowadays you cant actually tell when you upgrade your PC, sure your FPS is higher but you cant actually tell any difference, this is probably while i will likely have my sandy bridge PC until the motherboard dies (or CPU i guess, but id put money on mobo crapping out first).

[chazus]

You know... I grow tired of "I want x to succeed but I don't want to support them." How do you expect someone to be competitive and successful to bring competition when people have that mind set.

A couple ways, really.

Right now, we know where intel is at. We know their system, and honestly I can make a pretty good guess what the 8600K will be at after Kaby Lake. Intel hasn't flopped or made anything outright bad. Sure, there's been little quirks (overclocking heat mainly), but Intel has been consistent for the past decade. I can be confident in what to expect for price and performance, and will continue to likely buy Intel unless I'm given a good reason not to.

That said, I really want AMD to succeed, even if I'd never buy a CPU from them in the next 5 years. The competition will change the market, and either A) Force intel to step beyond its consistency, or B) Provide a legitimate option for people to buy otherwise.

The problem I see is this: Lets say the flagship Ryzen is as good as the Intel 7700K, price and performance. That's a lose. if they want to compete directly, having something 'as good as' isn't good enough, because they don't have nearly the money, backing, or confidence. If it's just as good, I wouldn't buy it. They need to change the market, and this is their last chance to.

[Remilia]

"It needs to be better in every way for me to consider", a sentiment that I see way too often at this point. If the product is good for the price then it should be a consideration, that should be all that matters. Not because ____ has a better history, it should be cause this product is better. We don't know how the final cut is like and some amount of skepticism is fine, but speaking in absolute that someone will never buy it because it has the AMD tag and will only stick to Intel is... well, pointless. You don't expect a competitor to do better if you don't even give them a chance. Competition only exists if the product is being bought over another. Competition doesn't exist because the product is good, it only exist if people actually buy it. Hyperbole, random number and all, but if AMD has something that perform 30% better in all metric at 20% less power consumption and cheaper, if no one buys it then it doesn't matter. Even if you're just so dead set on buying from the Intel, they will only lower price if people are actually going to buy AMD's stuff to the point where they're actually hurting in revenue. They won't lower it if their revenue is still the same or within the predicted market trend.

While this obviously isn't something that applies to everyone, I've seen it a bit too much that even if AMD does have the better product in every single way possible, they still wouldn't do great in the consumer / public space.
At least in the server space they only care about throughput, power, some stuff we don't care about and price, not name.

[Denpepe]

There are enough people around that will buy AMD just because it is not intel and also if the prices are good, seeing there are still people around that still consider AMD's old and crappy CPU's (by todays standards) just because they are cheap.

Not to mention that in most "gaming" pc's most people are held back more by their GPU be it old, or on the lower end of the performance spectrum.

[Afrospinach]

What AMD showed us and the leak from the French magazine supporting it, there no real reason not to believe they could be competitive with their IPC when comparing to Intel's offerings.


It's healthy to be sceptical, but comparing past products into what is a brand new architecture.. Isn't the way to go.

You know I think it is so long since AMD has had something other than price to compete with(I would wager the whole of a lot of this boards adult lives lol) that some people can scarcely believe AMD can actually be better than intel.

[Deleted]

You know I think it is so long since AMD has had something other than price to compete with(I would wager the whole of a lot of this boards adult lives lol) that some people can scarcely believe AMD can actually be better than intel.

In truth, most people are worried that their $300 plus CPU will suddenly be challenged by a cheaper CPU with same performance, thats all it ever boils down to, the psychological need to convince one self they made a right buying choice at the given time and that the other option isn't good, even when the % difference is within 10% but the cost difference is greater

[DeltrusDisc]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comment...ut-zen-it-has/

If this is true, it will be a real game changer, heck if it can even hit 4.5 with 8cores w/proper cooling it will compete with best of intel, hopefully for much much less than $1000

What you all think about whether Ryzen can live up to this hype train?

I can't believe people still fall for this crap. It's been proven time and time again that clock speeds DON'T MATTER if you are comparing different CPUs that aren't from the same individual family. Hell, you shouldn't compare a 3.5GHz i5-6600K to a 3.5GHz i5-4950K... yes they're both Intel, yes they're both i5s, but DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURE. There's so much different it just doesn't matter. Stop saying this crap! AMD has pushed high clocks on CPUs before, air or not, but they STILL cannot fight core to core with Intel, and that's a fact. So stop spreading this crap about speeds, the MHz/GHz does NOT matter.

Another hype train, typical. Remember what happened with literally every last AMD hype train since Bulldozer? I have a feeling you don't, because you wouldn't be falling so easily for this one. Go look it up. Go look up AMD's share of the market vs Intel's... the fact anyone thinks AMD can easily compare to Intel is just laughable, I'm sorry. I'd love to see AMD compete more with them, but to expect it when Intel has gobs more money than AMD to invest into R&D... is just silly. Intel is like the Death Star when compared to a Super Star Destroyer. AMD is big, but Intel absolutely dwarfs it and could destroy it in one blast. :P

[mrgreenthump]

I can't believe people still fall for this crap. It's been proven time and time again that clock speeds DON'T MATTER if you are comparing different CPUs that aren't from the same individual family. Hell, you shouldn't compare a 3.5GHz i5-6600K to a 3.5GHz i5-4950K... yes they're both Intel, yes they're both i5s, but DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURE. There's so much different it just doesn't matter. Stop saying this crap! AMD has pushed high clocks on CPUs before, air or not, but they STILL cannot fight core to core with Intel, and that's a fact. So stop spreading this crap about speeds, the MHz/GHz does NOT matter.

Another hype train, typical. Remember what happened with literally every last AMD hype train since Bulldozer? I have a feeling you don't, because you wouldn't be falling so easily for this one. Go look it up. Go look up AMD's share of the market vs Intel's... the fact anyone thinks AMD can easily compare to Intel is just laughable, I'm sorry. I'd love to see AMD compete more with them, but to expect it when Intel has gobs more money than AMD to invest into R&D... is just silly. Intel is like the Death Star when compared to a Super Star Destroyer. AMD is big, but Intel absolutely dwarfs it and could destroy it in one blast. :P

It's nice that you completely skipped every comment in this thread and proceeded to post the typical "Intel is superior" crap, which really is not needed.


The fact is, this is a brand new architecture and you can't compare any of their previous CPUs to Ryzen.

[Deleted]

Their processors will still be the shittiest on the market. Maybe their 5ghz cpu's can compete with intel's 3.4ghz cpu's someday.

[Artorius]

It's nice that you completely skipped every comment in this thread and proceeded to post the typical "Intel is superior" crap, which really is not needed.
The fact is, this is a brand new architecture and you can't compare any of their previous CPUs to Ryzen.

This /\ post followed by this \/ post is comical again, I wonder why people who don't know anything about semiconductors at all bother posting if they don't have anything relevant to add to the thread..

Their processors will still be the shittiest on the market. Maybe their 5ghz cpu's can compete with intel's 3.4ghz cpu's someday.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Their processors will still be the shittiest on the market. Maybe their 5ghz cpu's can compete with intel's 3.4ghz cpu's someday.

Try reading the articles and not just their headlines.

[Auxora]

Ryzen looks very promising, and I hope AMD makes this comeback because Intel needs the competition. But AMD has a long history of overhype. It's easier for AMD to do marketing and they've been pretty successful at it, vs. R&D which is expensive and they don't have the resources for (at least to keep up with Intel). The Piledriver, Bulldozer, even the 480X on the video card side were all huge disappointments in performance. The 480X got so hyped people were thinking it would be as fast as the 1070 or 1080 before release, and it's just competition for the 1060 and barely faster than an old 390.

So I'm absolutely hopeful, but I need to see unbiased third-party head-to-head benchmarks with off-the-shelf samples before getting too excited.

[InventiveMeasures]

I'm rooting for AMD to succeed. With Lisa Su and Raja Koduri on board, I think AMD CPU & GPU will continue to do great things. The showcase of Ryzen seems pretty awesome. I'm guessing that it'll cost somewhere around $600 - $800, that'll be good. Seen comments hoping it'll be about $250. It's just unreasonable to expect high performance and solid build quality at a fourth of the price of Intel's.

[DeltrusDisc]

It's nice that you completely skipped every comment in this thread and proceeded to post the typical "Intel is superior" crap, which really is not needed.


The fact is, this is a brand new architecture and you can't compare any of their previous CPUs to Ryzen.

And it's nice you ignored where I said I'd like to see AMD compete more... Just I've learned my lesson about not hyping up, I've been sadly disappointed for several years, so I'm trying to keep people grounded. I only say Intel is superior for the facts: they have a tremendously larger market share and thus funds, which you cannot deny. I'm not saying AMD can't or won't compete, just that I've lost most hope and won't let myself get hyped again, I need to see REAL benchmarks from REAL testers. No prototypes, no pre-NDA often times fake numbers. No high bins. Average CPUs, the kinds most of us would receive. I'm waiting.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm rooting for AMD to succeed. With Lisa Su and Raja Koduri on board, I think AMD CPU & GPU will continue to do great things. The showcase of Ryzen seems pretty awesome. I'm guessing that it'll cost somewhere around $600 - $800, that'll be good. Seen comments hoping it'll be about $250. It's just unreasonable to expect high performance and solid build quality at a fourth of the price of Intel's.

Is Ryzen suppised to be enterprise class? Intel has plenty of $250~ CPUs that beat AMD's offerings... We need something from AMD at that price point.

[Deleted]

Ryzen looks very promising, and I hope AMD makes this comeback because Intel needs the competition. But AMD has a long history of overhype. It's easier for AMD to do marketing and they've been pretty successful at it, vs. R&D which is expensive and they don't have the resources for (at least to keep up with Intel). The Piledriver, Bulldozer, even the 480X on the video card side were all huge disappointments in performance. The 480X got so hyped people were thinking it would be as fast as the 1070 or 1080 before release, and it's just competition for the 1060 and barely faster than an old 390.

So I'm absolutely hopeful, but I need to see unbiased third-party head-to-head benchmarks with off-the-shelf samples before getting too excited.

Well AMD marketed rx480 to be ~r9-390/gtx970 performance and they delivered. Don't think anyone expected it to be something different, what I did hope for (befor it was known not to be the case) that the rx480 was the smaller chip and that there would be bigger one able to compete with 1070/80

Intel has plenty of $250~ CPUs that beat AMD's offerings... We need something from AMD at that price point.

So? Doesn't matter if they have cpus that can beat AMD's current offering. What is important is whether or not intel will have something to compete at the same price point when new arch is out, or will they have to drop their current prices. Srsly why do ppl think bringing old arch into the conversation is relevant in any way, shape or form?

[Remilia]

If there's anything I've seen about funding for silicon is that throwing an obscene amount of money doesn't make for a better product, more so the talent and management behind it. Just take a look at Netburst era for Intel, all that money and they still came up short.
Jim Keller along with the others (oddly forgot names D: ) are very knowledgeable in the field and with better management by Lisa Su it won't surprise me if they can produce a good product. Only issue with Lisa Su is my god she is cringey sometimes. Jim Keller is a huge influence during when AMD was the CPU king and looking at Apple's CPU, basically the best ARM CPU, which Jim Keller also head. His track record is damn good if not flawless to have at least some sort of optimism.