Rushed review (all reviews are rushed to an extent, I know this as I've been there, done that - nobody wants to be last with their review even if it means they're more accurate) vs 100s of hours with each platform. I know which I'd pick :)

Ryzen has a lot of untapped potential which you don't see straight out of the box - some of the scores in the review can be beaten at lower clock speeds.

[XC] Oj101Rushed review (all reviews are rushed to an extent, I know this as I've been there, done that - nobody wants to be last with their review even if it means they're more accurate) vs 100s of hours with each platform. I know which I'd pick :)

Yeahyeah :oops:

I swear I read that Intel's new platform is called "Brazen Balls". I need new glasses.

RejZoRQuad core. I stopped reading at that point. Can we please kill quad cores already as mainstream and make them the low end part already? The hyperthreaded dual core Core i3's are an insult.

I have yet to find a mainstream person that wasn't happy and couldn't do everything they needed with an i3.

[XC] Oj101For a very short period - they then introduced the Phenom with a maximum price of $ 235 (Phenom X4 9850 Black Edition), whereas Intel continued churning out $ 999 CPUs while being beaten.

The Extreme Edition parts are always overpriced, even compared to their own counterparts. This applied to AMD as well. However, AMD released locked, non-Extreme parts at nearly $1000. The Athlon x2 line game out in May 2005. They released the 4200+, the 4400+ and the 4800+. The 4800+ was $1000, the 4600+ was $600, and the 4200+ was $540. And the next month, AMD released the single core FX-57 for a staggering $1050! Yes, the PD 840EE was overpriced at $1000. But back then, people were used to being ripped off for an unlocked multiplier, that's why the FX-57 could be sold for more than the 4800+, despite being a weaker processor. It could be argued the FX-57 was just as much of a rip-off as the PD 840EE(or possible worse than the PD 840EE being the FX-57 was still a single core). And while the Pentium D line didn't perform as well as the Athlon 64 x2, they weren't that far behind, and there were some good values there. The Pentium D 820, which came out the same time as the Athlon X2s, was actually $250. That's less than half the price of the cheapest dual-core from AMD at the time. It didn't perform as well as the 4200+, but it wasn't half the performance either, maybe closer to 75%. Then there was the Pentium D 805, which came out shortly after the Athlon X2s, and it was priced at only $145! It was a tremendous value, and thanks to the low FSB and high multiplier, it ended up being a great overclocking value too.

So, if you exclude the Extreme Edition processors, the Pentium D line wasn't really overpriced compared to AMD's offerings. I don't really understand where people are saying that Intel was massively overpriced, or stuck to their price points, when the X2s were beating them. Yes, if you just look at the few EE processors, that can be true, but if you look at the whole line of processors, that really isn't.

Oh, and then when they Core 2 Duo line was finally released, Intel didn't exactly jack up their prices. Even though the E6600 easily beat the AM2 X2 4800+(which AMD has just released a month before at $670), Intel priced the E6600 at $320 at launch. Hell, Intel only charged $530 for the E6700 at lauch, even though the E6700 handed the 4800+ its ass on a silver platter with all the trimmings.

[XC] Oj101Intel is playing dirty now. Don't expect anything decent from them for a long time, just rehashes of what's already available.

I tend to agree with 101,

Intel need to dig a deep hole for a while. They are already losing some market shares to Ryzen and I hope it continues. This way Intel will start innovating for sake of innovation not for money!

It's really a David vs Goliath when it comes to AMD vs Intel. Amd has put out a nice performing line of CPU's for the first time in several years and lets hope that forces Intel to invest in more multi-core consumer products.

I would like to see 6-8 core hyper-threaded chips with more PCIe lanes to allow for NVMe and other bandwidth intensive technologies.

Honestly, I don't want Intel to push too hard too soon as I'm afraid the AMD won't have anything to compete with future products given how slow AMD is releasing new processor's.

evernessinceAnd you can also do the same on a tablet.

Why would I get a tablet that would be outdated in 6 months?

An i3 is no insult. I've proved on my secondary rig it is great not only for office work but also gaming. Yes gaming. Keep the GPU to mid-range and it's perfectly valid. It's also perfect for a cool, energy efficient and quiet HTPC for viewing streamed movies, etc.

mcraygsxIntel need to dig a deep hole for a while. They are already losing some market shares!

dont lie... you are chomping at the bit to 'upgrade' to this from you path of x99 to z270!!! :p

The higher priced processors were mostly irrelevant until they locked fsb overclocking anyway

prior to this you could get the fotm overclockable chip for roughly the same from either company

Please wait until Intel release AVX-512 for consumer chip. Maybe Cannonlake-X better. Sound like Intel having plan to replace Socket R4 2066 with Socket R5 2076.

Socket R5 2076 pin compatible with Icelake-X and Tigerlake-X the last long Core I family since Sandy Bridge.
DDR5 3200MHz Intel Optane Revision 2 PCIe 4.0 ...etc. waiting for us.

Keep Intel learn more loss from they're sandbagging today. No more Core i5 Extreme Skylake-X/Skylake EP/Skylake EX anymore.

My 3960X L3 cache size / Core count ratio was 2.5 MB per core 20-way set associative Full Speed.


OMG! Look at the flagship model which will release 15 August , 2017
Skylake -X Model Core i7 7960X 12 Core / 24 Thread / 15MB L3 (with uncore speed maximum 3.2-3.3GHz).

2017 L3 cache size of 12 core part same as 2011 L3 cache of 6 core part but the new L3 cache speed only target uncore speed 3.2GHz -3.3GHz max. Shame on intel.

So let me guess You pay like $435 for this new 7700K +40K = Intel recommendation" Don't overclock it"

phanbueythe only thing that could cause some issues is the 16 core naples variant (which is the one im waiting for)... if it comes in at 600-700 for the low end model and is still unlocked on x399 you have a real competition.

I totally agree and I am also waiting for X399 / LGA SP3r2 and Skylake-X / Kaby Lake-X before making any purchasing decisions. However, if such an AMD platform is also unlocked it won't necessarily matter if there is no real noteworthy overclocking headroom. That is to say I'm not impressed with current RyZen overclocking,....

Right now the best thing Intel can do is lower their prices to RyZen levels IMO. If Skylake-X / X299 prices are effectively lower then its predecessors pricing scheme then AMD has done the entire market a favor. If not then Intel is playing an interesting game of poker,......or chicken,.....

Lets see who flinches or has a tell,....

I'll definitely be buying an AMD X399 platform if I don't like what I see price / performance wise from Intel.

@FordGT90Concept needs to make an Intel product name generator lol