UbersonicI hope to god this is fake, 6c12t CPUs competing with i5's = just as **** as faildozer :(

What? You do realise this is a SMT not CMT chip right? And Intel has been artificially constraining the market, nothing stopping a 6 core competing against an i5 in that price bracket.

CammWhat? You do realise this is a SMT not CMT chip right? And Intel has been artificially constraining the market, nothing stopping a 6 core competing against an i5 in that price bracket.

Can you explain what you mean please? It looks like you misquoted me as your post isn't really relevant to mine.

UbersonicCan you explain what you mean please? It looks like you misquoted me as your post isn't really relevant to mine.

Bulldozer sucked as it used Clustered Multi-Threading, which is just a fancy way of saying it packed two butchered cores into one logical SMT unit. Ryzen is back to using a traditional Simultaneous Multithreading design (i.e. Hyperthreading one full single SMT unit), so core counts between AMD & Intel are comparable again.

If your comparing where pricing lines up - Intel's been gouging the market for a while, and AMD desperately needs marketshare. Just because a hex core with MT is going against a quad without, doesn't really say anything about its performance.

CammBulldozer sucked as it used Clustered Multi-Threading, which is just a fancy way of saying it packed two butchered cores into one logical SMT unit. Ryzen is back to using a traditional Simultaneous Multithreading design (i.e. Hyperthreading one full single SMT unit), so core counts between AMD & Intel are comparable again.

Exactly, so hopefully the 6c12t Zen isn't really going to be the equivalent of an i5, or Zen is going to be as much of a letdown as Bulldozer was.

UbersonicI hope to god this is fake, 6c12t CPUs competing with i5's = just as **** as faildozer :(

Not necessarily. If this chart was realistic, these segments could be based on pricing. If that is the case then it just means AMD is going to force Intel to either drop price or give up the performance crowns in each price segment. That could be a very good thing for we consumers. I think others hear have poked enough holes in this post to accept this is complete BS though.

UbersonicExactly, so hopefully the 6c12t Zen isn't really going to be the equivalent of an i5, or Zen is going to be as much of a letdown as Bulldozer was.

12 threads versus 4, it's hardly fair.

TheLaughingManNot necessarily. If this chart was realistic, these segments could be based on pricing. If that is the case then it just means AMD is going to force Intel to either drop price or give up the performance crowns in each price segment. That could be a very good thing for we consumers. I think others hear have poked enough holes in this post to accept this is complete BS though.

This is what I thought when I first saw it. Why would they release an 8 core that performs on the same level as a 4 core? That's pretty much saying, "hey our tech is really inferior."

It's mindshare, not tech. When you ask people who's the best processor manufacturer in the world, the defacto response is "Intel." AMD has to offer a price and a product that makes stores convince people to buy AMD instead. This is why AMD is only going up to an 8-core: most people in the market for something that fancy will do their research and likely discover from that research AMD is the better buy.

Hopefully those 4c/8t parts perform well and overclock nicely...

FordGT90Concept12 threads versus 4, it's hardly fair.

Yeah that was my point.

I find it REALLY odd that AMD is taking a REAL pot shot at Intel, notice the fact that they are using the naming scheme similar to Intel now? R3, R5, R7... hmm... Will we see the final collapse of Intel? Will Intel sue AMD for similar naming scheme? Who knows but this will be an interesting fight... how about we call them AR7, AR5 and AR3 instead? Give them a true military theme LoL.

FordGT90ConceptIt's mindshare, not tech. When you ask people who's the best processor manufacturer in the world, the defacto response is "Intel." AMD has to offer a price and a product that makes stores convince people to buy AMD instead. This is why AMD is only going up to an 8-core: most people in the market for something that fancy will do their research and likely discover from that research AMD is the better buy.

I highly disagree with you on this one. AMD is and has been the best manufacturer in the world. Intel chickened out on 32nm technology because they struggled to keep their temperatures low with higher clocks. AMD pushed through made lots of awesome changes and such and continued on with 32. The reasoning behind this was really rather clear. Lets get one MAJOR thing straight here, AMD already has 16 and 32 core processors in the wings waiting, they've had them since the last launch of processors. They never got the attention they deserved, yeah they promised 16 cores for the FX8 and FX9 series of processors. It never came to pass because they wanted to change focus and redouble the efforts towards the new Zen architecture. I've been watching this development set for years. Their reasoning behind this was simple, They were not ready to release 28NM tech and needed more R&D time with the current one in order to get the speeds and performances they wanted with the 32 before they downsized the die to 28. The truth is Intel is the one that's actually behind on the times. AMD is using existing facilities to help manufacture both their Graphics, GPU and CPU chips and semi conductors.
Bottom line here is that AMD has done the smartest thing they ever could do in an industry with such competition. I miss the old days of Socket 7 and fully unified processor architecture. I have a feeling that AMD will lead us into another new ERA very soon and quite fast with Boards and Processors along with sockets. Intel's design while okay and helping to eliminate pin issues is very problematic because the pins inside the sockets can go bad, when this happens you have to go buy a brand new board and possibly a new processor if the board toasted the old one because of bad pins.