AMD CEO Talks Ryzen Threadripper and Ryzen 3 Series in Latest Company Video

[Liviu Cojocaru]

I think the're reasonably priced for the amount of features they have, curious to see prices for the motherboards

 

[efikkan]

AMD effectively murdered the entire Intel Core X lineup below the i9-7900X. Even if the i7-7800X or i7-7850X somehow scrape through in CPU performance using Intel's latest spate of PR bullshit; they still can't get away with crippled PCIe (28-lane).

Just the other day TPU were bashing Intel for their PR bullshit, yet you embrace AMD's PR bullshit. It's sad to see the days of unbiased reporting has ended. It's fine to be though on bullshit, but you have to strive for fairness and be unbiased.

I'm sorry, but what are you smoking? You think it's too much to pay $999 for a 16-core CPU when Intel wants $1,699 for their yet to launch counterpart.

You know very well Intel has higher IPC and higher clocks. You should compare actual performance levels, not "specifications". Ryzen surely does well in select benchmarks, and of course AMD focuses on those (as everyone does). But what really matters is actual performance in real workloads.

 

[Durvelle27]

Man I'm really interested in these

 

[R0H1T]

Just the other day TPU were bashing Intel for their PR bullshit, yet you embrace AMD's PR bullshit. It's sad to see the days of unbiased reporting has ended. It's fine to be though on bullshit, but you have to strive for fairness and be unbiased.


You know very well Intel has higher IPC and higher clocks. You should compare actual performance levels, not "specifications". Ryzen surely does well in select benchmarks, and of course AMD focuses on those (as everyone does). But what really matters is actual performance in real workloads.

You should also know that SKL-X dropped the ball on IPC, it isn't consistently faster than BDW-E across the board.
TR should be +5 to -15% clock for clock against it depending on the application being run atm, that's without more Zen specific optimizations that Linux or Windows may bring to the table.

 

[Countryside]

Just the other day TPU were bashing Intel for their PR bullshit, yet you embrace AMD's PR bullshit. It's sad to see the days of unbiased reporting has ended. It's fine to be though on bullshit, but you have to strive for fairness and be unbiased.

You know very well Intel has higher IPC and higher clocks. You should compare actual performance levels, not "specifications". Ryzen surely does well in select benchmarks, and of course AMD focuses on those (as everyone does). But what really matters is actual performance in real workloads.

You are trying to throw shite against the wall and hoping that it will stick.

 

[Lionheart]

Just the other day TPU were bashing Intel for their PR bullshit, yet you embrace AMD's PR bullshit. It's sad to see the days of unbiased reporting has ended. It's fine to be though on bullshit, but you have to strive for fairness and be unbiased.


You know very well Intel has higher IPC and higher clocks. You should compare actual performance levels, not "specifications". Ryzen surely does well in select benchmarks, and of course AMD focuses on those (as everyone does). But what really matters is actual performance in real workloads.

 

[Estaric]

Just the other day TPU were bashing Intel for their PR bullshit, yet you embrace AMD's PR bullshit. It's sad to see the days of unbiased reporting has ended. It's fine to be though on bullshit, but you have to strive for fairness and be unbiased.


You know very well Intel has higher IPC and higher clocks. You should compare actual performance levels, not "specifications". Ryzen surely does well in select benchmarks, and of course AMD focuses on those (as everyone does). But what really matters is actual performance in real workloads.

No offense but I'm not seeing the AMD PR bullshit, as with most announced products they showed scores and how it stakes up against the competition. Of course a company when announcing there products arnt gonna be like "oh yeah BTW our cpu doesn't stand a chance against Intel in single core performance" it wouldn't be smart for a company to come straight out with the flaws of there products

 

[Particle]

wake me up when you can slap those two on an AM4 socket then you can justify your $850 pricing

It's two of the same dies on a different PCB. Your point is nonsense.

Absolutely not. TR brings more pcie lanes and quad cannel.

It just connects all of the things that two of what is already on an 1800X already has. The 1800X has some of its PCIe lanes disabled.

I'm sorry, but how is this "two of those" stuck together? As far as I'm aware, the 1800X has a total of 24 PCIe lanes, which would make this a 44+4 lanes, which it's not, it's 60+4 for starters.

Secondly, is this retail price? The MSRP for the 1800X is $499, not $420 and this is MSRP, so retail might very well be lower, or higher, depending on the retailers selling the chips.

Seriously people, get a grip...

It is literally two of the same dies stuck together. The 1800X you're referencing has the same PCIe root hub inside of it. It's just not fully exposed. If anything, you should be complaining about how the 1800X is artificially limited.

MSRP doesn't matter, only what you can actually buy it for does. At launch, retailers are going to charge TR's full MSRP and it will fall over time as the 1800X's price has.

Totally flawless logic. So a 1800X should be $120 because the $480 8 core EPYC consists of 4 dies?

The 1800X is a fully enabled and fully functional die while the same is not true of the dies on an 8-core EPYC. Your point is nonsense.

This isn't like a fast food joint where you save money the larger size of soda you get.

This is a premium CPU and demands a premium price and yet it still isn't anywhere near Intel's pricing.

I agree that it's a good value compared to Intel's offerings, but that isn't the point I was making. I'm also not suggesting a savings where you get more cores per dollar with the high end, just not gouging where you get less.

well by your logic its pricing is fine as 1800x retail price announced by AMD was 499$..so if i am not wrong it does justify your logic of two cpu glued together and the retail price also..

The 1800X launched in the past obviously. It doesn't matter what it sold for back then, just what it sells for now. Double the current market price would be fine.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Just the other day TPU were bashing Intel for their PR bullshit, yet you embrace AMD's PR bullshit. It's sad to see the days of unbiased reporting has ended. It's fine to be though on bullshit, but you have to strive for fairness and be unbiased.

You're aware that it's two different writers that wrote the stories, right? Makes you bashing the writer of this story a bit unfair and unbiased as well...

You know very well Intel has higher IPC and higher clocks. You should compare actual performance levels, not "specifications". Ryzen surely does well in select benchmarks, and of course AMD focuses on those (as everyone does). But what really matters is actual performance in real workloads.

Uhm, Intel doesn't have higher clocks when the core count goes up. Assuming (although maybe a bit pre-maturely) that the i9-7980XE will be based on the Xeon Gold 6150, we have a base clock of 2.7 vs 3.4GHz. I doubt Intel can scare up the base clock 700MHz, although in all fairness there's a two core advantage in this case to Intel, but also a $1,999 price tag. The boost clock is 3.7GHz vs 4GHz, so again, advantage AMD. Let's assume Intel gets their boost clock up to 4GHz as well and you might be right that Intel performs slightly better, but will it really be worth the extra money?

Also, what are "real workloads" to you? Admittedly we've only seen a single benchmark so far for Threadripper and it's not a core to core comparison (as Intel has as yet deliver its higher core count parts), but if you were to spend $999 on a CPU, Threadripper looks like a much more attractive option to me compared to the i9-7900X, but each to their own.

 

[efikkan]

You should also know that SKL-X dropped the ball on IPC, it isn't consistently faster than BDW-E across the board.
TR should be +5 to -15% clock for clock against it depending on the application being run atm, that's without more Zen specific optimizations that Linux or Windows may bring to the table.

You know very well Skylake-X has the highest IPC of any x86 design at the moment.
There is nowhere a 16-core Threadripper will be on par with a 16-core Skylake-X, 1950X will be competing with 10 and 12 core Skylake-X in overall performance.

And once again, you default to the missing "optimizations" for AMD. The facts are simple; there are no special feature sets in Ryzen to optimize for. Stop this BS now.

 

[refillable]

How is this one not "PR Bullshit" and Intel's one "clearly" was?

 

[dir_d]

You know very well Skylake-X has the highest IPC of any x86 design at the moment.
There is nowhere a 16-core Threadripper will be on par with a 16-core Skylake-X, 1950X will be competing with 10 and 12 core Skylake-X in overall performance.

And once again, you default to the missing "optimizations" for AMD. The facts are simple; there are no special feature sets in Ryzen to optimize for. Stop this BS now.

You forget 1 Major factor and that is price.

 

[cdawall]

Well now it is a race to whom can deliver a matx board that is good first. I am really leaning towards this threadripper setup it will be a nice swap out for my x99 build I think. Hopefully Asus can deliver something with quality like the x99m-ws

 

[Deleted member 172152]

You know very well Skylake-X has the highest IPC of any x86 design at the moment.
There is nowhere a 16-core Threadripper will be on par with a 16-core Skylake-X, 1950X will be competing with 10 and 12 core Skylake-X in overall performance.

And once again, you default to the missing "optimizations" for AMD. The facts are simple; there are no special feature sets in Ryzen to optimize for. Stop this BS now.

Considering threadripper's clockspeeds and the fact it has 64 working pcie lanes, AMD must have done at least some optimizing.

 

[efikkan]

You forget 1 Major factor and that is price.

No I did not. i9-7900X and 1950X cost the same, so they are within the same range.

Considering threadripper's clockspeeds and the fact it has 64 working pcie lanes, AMD must have done at least some optimizing.

PCIe lanes have nothing to do with optimizations.

 

[Gasaraki]

AMD effectively murdered the entire Intel Core X lineup below the i9-7900X. Even if the i7-7800X or i7-7850X somehow scrape through in CPU performance using Intel's latest spate of PR bullshit; they still can't get away with crippled PCIe (28-lane).

Oh come on. Crippled the entire Core X lineup? Who running i5s and i3 care about more than 28 lanes of PCIe? If you are not running SLI 28 lanes is plenty. Ask the Ryzen users they only have 24.

 

[R0H1T]

You know very well Skylake-X has the highest IPC of any x86 design at the moment.
There is nowhere a 16-core Threadripper will be on par with a 16-core Skylake-X, 1950X will be competing with 10 and 12 core Skylake-X in overall performance.

And once again, you default to the missing "optimizations" for AMD. The facts are simple; there are no special feature sets in Ryzen to optimize for. Stop this BS now.

It;s not, SKL-X is not better than BDW-E across the board clock for clock, stop misrepresenting facts, also IPC depends on the application.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-7900x-skylake-x,5092-5.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-7900x-skylake-x,5092-6.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-7900x-skylake-x,5092-7.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-7900x-skylake-x,5092-8.html

What BS are you talking about did you not see the ROTR or AoS patches, what they did for Zen? That's just for two games, you're telling me win10 is running the best it can on Zen, when the chip itself was unveiled this year? How about SKL-X & that AVX 512, do programs simply run AVX (512) code without having SKL-X specific path as if it was Broadwell?

 

[f22a4bandit]

No I did not. i9-7900X and 1950X cost the same, so they are within the same range.

That's funny, the 16 core/32 thread part is predicted to sell for $999 compared to the 10 core/20 thread part that currently sells for nearly $1,200. How is the 10 core a better deal than the 16 core beyond the brand name?

 

[TheLostSwede]

It is literally two of the same dies stuck together. The 1800X you're referencing has the same PCIe root hub inside of it. It's just not fully exposed. If anything, you should be complaining about how the 1800X is artificially limited.

MSRP doesn't matter, only what you can actually buy it for does. At launch, retailers are going to charge TR's full MSRP and it will fall over time as the 1800X's price has.

Ok, please go ahead and make things up, because you clearly knows best. Got any proof that it's "literally two of the same dies stuck together"? How do you know AMD limited the PCIe root hub? Do you have side by side die shots to prove that? If anything, it's "literally" the same as the Epyc 7351P but at higher clocks and with half the PCIe lanes. Until we had die shots of all three side by side, no-one can say that they're the same part.

If you have a look at some of my Ryzen posts, I did point out that it should've had more PCIe lanes, as it's the one thing that disappointed me about it, but hey, I guess you didn't notice that as you were too busy bitching.

What do you mean MSRP doesn't matter? You just complained that AMD charged too much and then say it doesn't matter. Your logic is very confusing. So are you saying Intel's MSRP doesn't matter as well then, as their prices will maybe also drop over time? The only thing anyone can go by at launch is MSRP's until we see what the actual retail prices are. I think you need some serious help dude

 

[Countryside]

Time to open my beer and the popcorn will be ready in a few this is getting really interesting here.

 

[5DVX0130]

This thread at the moment.

Just ignore them, and try to actually comment on the news.

This year has been amazing so far, well at least in the CPU field. It truly reminds of the golden age of computing.
You know when changing the CPU actually made a difference, and you didn’t only do it because you wanted a new chipset.

Competition and innovation FTW

 

[efikkan]

That's funny, the 16 core/32 thread part is predicted to sell for $999 compared to the 10 core/20 thread part that currently sells for nearly $1,200. How is the 10 core a better deal than the 16 core beyond the brand name?

Overpricing in shops is not the maker's fault. At times the Fury X was sold for a 50% premium.

 

[EarthDog]

That's funny, the 16 core/32 thread part is predicted to sell for $999 compared to the 10 core/20 thread part that currently sells for nearly $1,200. How is the 10 core a better deal than the 16 core beyond the brand name?

7900x msrp (tray) is 1000. TR is (rumored) to be the same. It will see the same new cpu i flation as 7900x.

TR is a good value there if you can use more than 10c/20t. Otherwise, you are piling on cores for no reason. Id go for the 'generally' faster ipc chip too... especially since it can overclock to 4ghz+ with relative ease. I can run mine at 4.5ghz (custom loop 3x120mm rad)

 

[Particle]

Ok, please go ahead and make things up, because you clearly knows best. Got any proof that it's "literally two of the same dies stuck together"? How do you know AMD limited the PCIe root hub? Do you have side by side die shots to prove that? If anything, it's "literally" the same as the Epyc 7351P but at higher clocks and with half the PCIe lanes. Until we had die shots of all three side by side, no-one can say that they're the same part.

If you have a look at some of my Ryzen posts, I did point out that it should've had more PCIe lanes, as it's the one thing that disappointed me about it, but hey, I guess you didn't notice that as you were too busy bitching.

What do you mean MSRP doesn't matter? You just complained that AMD charged too much and then say it doesn't matter. Your logic is very confusing. So are you saying Intel's MSRP doesn't matter as well then, as their prices will maybe also drop over time? The only thing anyone can go by at launch is MSRP's until we see what the actual retail prices are. I think you need some serious help dude

I would encourage you to re-read my post as you have somehow managed to misunderstand the point I made about MSRP. I'd explain it to you again, but correcting your reading comprehension failure is not my job.

As for the dies being the same, what evidence do you have that they are not? AMD has talked extensively about how part of the beauty of their new product lineup is their extensive use of MCMs with Infinity Fabric since they can produce the smaller dies with much higher yields and then create products in their various product segments from that common stock at lower costs. I would say that your assertion that the dies would not be the same would less follow from common logic, and as such the burden of proof is yours.

 

[eidairaman1]

Attacking the writer was a big mistake... this thread is about AMD not intel, bias needs to be left at the door.