Price-wise, I thing the 4c/8t chips should start at 100$. Go as high as say 180$ for high clocked 4 core CPUs - pretty sure they should be able to release a 4Ghz base clock 4 core model that would be more then enough for gaming.

kanecvrPrice-wise, I thing the 4c/8t chips should start at 100$. Go as high as say 180$ for high clocked 4 core CPUs - pretty sure they should be able to release a 4Ghz base clock 4 core model that would be more then enough for gaming.

Awww, to be young and have dreams. So nice.

TheLaughingManAwww, to be young and have dreams. So nice.

young? not really. As for pricing, AMD needs to gain the public's trust once more. They lost most of what they built in 2000-2005 by constantly fucking up, and pricing ryzen well, coupled with good performance would go a long way to get some of that trust back. Then again, AMD is a company first - so I wouldn't be surprised if they went the intel way and priced 4 core chips at 150+.

My guess:

The sub 100$ will probably be covered by Bristol Ridge
3C/6T will go against higher end i3s and maybe low end i5s: probably between 100$ and 200$
4C/8T chips will be probably between 200$ and 300$
and so on.

krukMy guess:

The sub 100$ will probably be covered by Bristol Ridge
3C/6T will go against higher end i3s and maybe low end i5s: probably between 100$ and 200$
4C/8T chips will be probably between 200$ and 300$
and so on.

God I hope not. Bristol-Ridge sucks ass FPU-wise - it's not a good gaming CPU in the least. What I'd like to see is a good quad core CPU that does well in games for under 150$ - as much under 150 as possible. Currently the cheapest i5 retails in my country for over 200$ - that's way too expensive for what I consider a midrange CPU. Back in 2005-2006 you could get a good mid-range CPU for 150$. In 2001-2003ish you could do the same for a little over 100$ ( I think I payed 105$ for my 2500+ back in the day). A highschool kid could easily afford a good gaming PC out of money made by working odd jobs and saving up lunch money (witch is what I did).

kanecvrGod I hope not. Bristol-Ridge sucks ass FPU-wise - it's not a good gaming CPU in the least. What I'd like to see is a good quad core CPU that does well in games for under 150$ - as much under 150 as possible. Currently the cheapest i5 retails in my country for over 200$ - that's way too expensive for what I consider a midrange CPU. Back in 2005-2006 you could get a good mid-range CPU for 150$. In 2001-2003ish you could do the same for a little over 100$ ( I think I payed 105$ for my 2500+ back in the day). A highschool kid could easily afford a good gaming PC out of money made by working odd jobs and saving up lunch money (witch is what I did).

Yes the good old days. They are long dead and buried and they are never coming back. Low end parts will initally be Bristol Ridge, as Zen will not make it's way to the APUs (and a 4C/4T part) until later. 4C/8T for anything under $300 - assuming performance is about the same as Skylake, which it won't be - would be plain silly and they probably would not keep up with demand in any case. If the performance is at about Haswell levels, they have to be cheaper, that is true. But I can't imagine them being that much cheaper. And 8C/16T I fully expect to be as close to $1000 as they dare, probably $800 if at Haswell IPC. They don't do goodwill, and undercutting the competition by too much and they will have part shortages, which would suck for them. And I cannot see the shareholders/investors liking them selling parts too cheap.

I base this on AMD of the past ten years, as opposed to AMD from twenty to fifteen years ago, which - technologically and economically - is so long ago it's almost fiction.

I think AMD is not that stupid as some people here think. First of all they need to gain more market and that's the most important thing not to sell some overpriced CPU's. Intel can afford that but not AMD. This is a huge company and they know what they are doing. Selling it at a high price or matching with Intel would be foolish for them. I'm sure most of people on TPU will agree to this. What I think AMD would like to do is to fuck up Intel's lineup. Maybe I3 will come to pass as a lowest of the lowest performance wise CPU. I only hope that AMD will focus on 6c/12t as a mainstream competing with I7 4c/8t hopefully and crash it :)

ratirtI think AMD is not that stupid as some people here think. First of all they need to gain more market and that's the most important thing not to sell some overpriced CPU's. Intel can afford that but not AMD. This is a huge company and they know what they are doing. Selling it at a high price or matching with Intel would be foolish for them. I'm sure most of people on TPU will agree to this. What I think AMD would like to do is to fuck up Intel's lineup. Maybe I3 will come to pass as a lowest of the lowest performance wise CPU. I only hope that AMD will focus on 6c/12t as a mainstream competing with I7 4c/8t hopefully and crash it :)

Have you seen the hype AMD has generated in the past? They seem to have more sense now, but people have been burned by them time and again. Also, look at the Fury cards. Great cards, expensive as ... something very expensive. Too expensive. Polaris had the same problem at launch. Yes they need market share, but I just can't understand why they would undercut Intel with how much exactly? 8c/16t for $500? If they actually can compete with current Intel offerings on IPC/clocks/TDP ... why would they? Undercut Intel yes, but they are also starved for cash and Intel makes huge piles of money on those chips. Also, if they undercut Intel by too much while being competitive they better have a LOT of chips lying around, because people will dump their Sandy/Ivy/Nehalem boxes for them and there is plenty of those around. The multitude of AM4 boards showing up at CES is a good sign, but still. I'd rather be happily surprised than having my hopes crushed.

And the low end part will not be 6c/12t.

ratirtEverybody( well most of people) are stuck with 4c/8t which is not bad

What a wishful thinking :|

FrickHave you seen the hype AMD has generated in the past? They seem to have more sense now, but people have been burned by them time and again. Also, look at the Fury cards. Great cards, expensive as ... something very expensive. Too expensive. Polaris had the same problem at launch. Yes they need market share, but I just can't understand why they would undercut Intel with how much exactly? 8c/16t for $500? If they actually can compete with current Intel offerings on IPC/clocks/TDP ... why would they? Undercut Intel yes, but they are also starved for cash and Intel makes huge piles of money on those chips. Also, if they undercut Intel by too much while being competitive they better have a LOT of chips lying around, because people will dump their Sandy/Ivy/Nehalem boxes for them and there is plenty of those around. The multitude of AM4 boards showing up at CES is a good sign, but still. I'd rather be happily surprised than having my hopes crushed.

And the low end part will not be 6c/12t.

Hype. I don't get you people it would seem you don't focus on what is important here but what i know is that you love to use word HYPE it comes kinda fancy in my perspective. Fury cards where good but expensive. Do you thing that AMD will make the same mistake again? Doubt it. Polaris on the other hand is a brilliant card. It not expensive and delivers good performance. Not sure what is the base of your statement here.
Why would they undercut intel? You just answer that when you wrote "they need more market share" THAT's why dude. To make huge piles of money first you need market share and AMD has to get that. Getting piles of money from overpriced GPU's is a one shot thing and AMD doesn't want one shot but longer term share that would give them stable and firm place on the market. Ivy and sandy you say. i got an IVY I'd sell it and get a ZEN cpu than go with Haswell or something around especially if the price for zen is competitive. Why would you go with used 4core crap when you can get 6c or 8c for a bit more? Improvement. :)

FYFI13What a wishful thinking :|

Not sure what this describes. Physical CPU's is not core count per CPU. anyway if on top of the chart is 4 CPU's(core count) matching almost 2CPUs(core count) well its not that promising. Switching to 6cores or 8 would be great deal.

ratirtNot sure what this describes. Physical CPU's is not core count per CPU. anyway if on top of the chart is 4 CPU's(core count) matching almost 2CPUs(core count) well its not that promising. Switching to 6cores or 8 would be great deal.

Steam probably doesn't know the core count -- it's probably reporting thread count, which would make most of these either 2C/4T i3's, or 2C/2T Pentiums, which, considering what most "normals" run, makes sense.

You can't go by that chart because it counts local threads not actual physical cores. It also includes millions of people still running XP, people play Sims on 5 year old Laptops, etc. You have to take Steam specs with a boulder of salt.

ratirtNot sure what this describes.

Nearly half of PCs with Steam client installed running dual core CPUs. When they say "physical CPUs", they mean amount of cores.

twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/818429683633127424

Mais ils arrivent visiblement à faire passer (tout juste) leur 6C/12T dans 65W. C'est tout de même très respectable.

twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/818428797427052545

Les Ryzen 8C/16T actuels (3.6/4.0 GHz) dépassent bien les 95W de TDP. Logique vu les résultats obtenus dans nos tests.

So, 8C/16T and 6C/12T are already confirmed. Since 4C/8T will certainly exist, I see no reason why we shouldn't see a 3C/6T CPU.

kruktwitter.com/CPCHardware/status/818429683633127424



twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/818428797427052545




So, 8C/16T and 6C/12T are already confirmed. Since 4C/8T will certainly exist, I see no reason why we shouldn't see a 3C/6T CPU.

so far 8c/16t and 6c/12t are confirmed. rest is just speculation as for now.

FrickYes the good old days. They are long dead and buried and they are never coming back.

You say that like it's a good thing - it's not by a long shot. Trust me, the only major difference between now and "the good old days" is lack of competition from AMD. When competition is strong and products are of comparable quality / performance, the war move to pricing, and the winners are us - the consumers. This is why I hope AMD makes a comeback (that and I'm a bit of an AMD fan tough I like intel stuff too - just check out my collection in the signature :p )

FrickLow end parts will initally be Bristol Ridge, as Zen will not make it's way to the APUs (and a 4C/4T part) until later. 4C/8T for anything under $300 - assuming performance is about the same as Skylake, which it won't be - would be plain silly and they probably would not keep up with demand in any case. If the performance is at about Haswell levels, they have to be cheaper, that is true. But I can't imagine them being that much cheaper. And 8C/16T I fully expect to be as close to $1000 as they dare, probably $800 if at Haswell IPC. They don't do goodwill, and undercutting the competition by too much and they will have part shortages, which would suck for them. And I cannot see the shareholders/investors liking them selling parts too cheap.

I base this on AMD of the past ten years, as opposed to AMD from twenty to fifteen years ago, which - technologically and economically - is so long ago it's almost fiction.

I completely agree, but like I said above, a couple of years from now, if AMD is competitive, we'll be seeing things change.

To prove your point about AMD, back in the GTX 4xx / radeon HD 5xxx days, the Radeon 5850 was up to 20% more expensive then the GTX 460 1GB, even tough the latter wasn't that much slower. I bought nvidia of course.

On the GPU front, AMD was very competitive during the GTX 6xx/7xx vs HD 7xxxx era (5-6 years ago?). I fondly remember my HD 7950's - especially that they were slightly cheaper then the GTX 760 and a bit faster in a few games, but the 760's lead kept decreasing as AMD drivers matured, as opposed to nvidia cards witch plateaued in performance, then started to drop as nvidia released that gameworks crap, crippling the 6xx series and later the 7xx series shortly after the maxwell launch. I'm mentioning this because just today I re-tested my old Sapphire HD 7950 Dual-X Flex OC against a EVGA GTX 770 I got really cheap for my collection - and they are pretty much on par, with the 7950 leading in modern games, and the 770 leading in 2011-2012 games. I trew in a Gigabyte GTX 760 windforce just for kicks, and unlike the 7950 witch can handle all of today's games at 1080p / high (high-ultra in some cases with a bit of AA) the 760 struggles to match it in all but a few games... reverting both setups to 2012 drivers the 760 gets a 5-10% advantage in most games, but most modern games won't run well (or at all - ex Fallout 4, Doom) with the old drivers on either card.

FYFI13Nearly half of PCs with Steam client installed running dual core CPUs. When they say "physical CPUs", they mean amount of cores.

I thought so but i wanted to check with the owner of the link. Anyway as we all can see 4c/2c is the most common now. Switching even to 6c would be a real improvement. I really count on AMD to show some good will :D

ratirtso far 8c/16t and 6c/12t are confirmed. rest is just speculation as for now.

Maybe ... twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/818932115270209537

AMD a commencé à sampler des Ryzen 4C B-Step (prod) avec HT désactivé. Possible qu'on les retrouve dans la gamme commerciale.

4 cores, HT disabled.

krukMaybe ... twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/818932115270209537



4 cores, HT disabled.

Sort of like an i5 then.

krukMaybe ... twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/818932115270209537



4 cores, HT disabled.

I don't speak French and from my stand point still, This hasn't been confirmed by AMD and is an assumption unless the attached link says different. Well i can't tell.