AMD's Upcoming Ryzen Launch to Prompt Reshuffle of Intel's CPU Line-up

[Assimilator]

Honestly doubt Intel will dilute the desktop i7 brand by pushing HT down to the i5s, even if it is the "top" i5 part. Would be much more interested in seeing an i5-7400K.

 

[Xajel]

That's why I'm saying that this time is a stupid time to build a new system or upgrade... Products will be interesting, prices will go down... and the winner is who waits.. the looser is the one who didn't...

Can't wait to see what Ryzen will actually do and how much it will actually be priced..

 

[bug]

Reminds me of P4 Netburst and Pentium D's going against Athlons , except this time it isn't IPC, its core count .

There's an important difference though: Athlons were better because they were faster running general purpose code (Netburst was actually faster when running code compiled specifically for it, but that's not what the average Joe ran at home). Generic code today uses maybe two cores and four cores can probably cover 95% of the software you have installed at home at any given moment.

So no, from that pov this is not Athlon vs Netburst again.

 

[Octopuss]

Intel would have to do lot more than this for me to buy new product from them again.

 

[Shihab]

Unless Intel is partaking in some Ninja-esque industrial espionage, all I see is yet another case of riding the hype train (on a different cart); only thing that can be inferred of this -assuming it's true- is that AMD's marketing's got Intel worried, not that the Zen itself will be competitive.

 

[Liviu Cojocaru]

Niceeee, this is a sign that Ryzen might be a really good competitor to Intel CPU's

 

[bug]

Unless Intel is partaking in some Ninja-esque industrial espionage, all I see is yet another case of riding the hype train (on a different cart); only thing that can be inferred of this -assuming it's true- is that AMD's marketing's got Intel worried, not that the Zen itself will be competitive.

It's not necessarily espionage, but rival companies know a lot better than the general public what the other party is up to.
In all honesty, it doesn't even matter how Ryzen performs, if AMD is marketing cores, intel needs to follow. If only because uninformed buyers always go for higher numbers. Personally, I don't see the need for that many cores on a home computer, but on the other hand, if I can get more computing power in the same power envelope and price bracket, why not?

 

[Hokum]

Intel should of changed this ages ago, the tiers should be i3 2 core+HT, i5 4 core + HT, i7 6 core + HT. With E boards offering 8+ cores.

 

[ShurikN]

Intel should of changed this ages ago, the tiers should be i3 2 core+HT, i5 4 core + HT, i7 6 core + HT. With E boards offering 8+ cores.

They would have if they had competition to worry about.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Unless Intel is partaking in some Ninja-esque industrial espionage, all I see is yet another case of riding the hype train (on a different cart); only thing that can be inferred of this -assuming it's true- is that AMD's marketing's got Intel worried, not that the Zen itself will be competitive.

Honestly, industrial espionage is a thing. I'm quite sure both AMD and Intel each know a lot more about the other side plans and lineup than the public do.

Thus, I tend to believe Intel is a little bit concerned, which is a good thing.

 

[Camm]

They would have if they had competition to worry about.

6 core is due in mainstream Intel sockets next year, but it all looks a bit lacklustre now doesnt it.

 

[Shihab]

It's not necessarily espionage, but rival companies know a lot better than the general public what the other party is up to.
In all honesty, it doesn't even matter how Ryzen performs, if AMD is marketing cores, intel needs to follow. If only because uninformed buyers always go for higher numbers. Personally, I don't see the need for that many cores on a home computer, but on the other hand, if I can get more computing power in the same power envelope and price bracket, why not?

Honestly, industrial espionage is a thing. I'm quite sure both AMD and Intel each know a lot more about the other side plans and lineup than the public do.

This, I tend to believe Intel is a little bit concerned, which is a good thing.

True, companies know more about each other than we do them, but to what degree does this knowledge go is a matter of too much speculation to have any merit beyond wasting time. I won't rule out that industrial espionage might exist, but I can't say surely that -in this case- it does either. So, to avoid going reductio ad absurdum (and I'm hoping I've got my logic right), I elect not bother with it in my end conclusion, that Zen will be good or not, which is -ironically- a speculation in it self. >_>

P.S: I'm rooting for Zen too, btw. Just trying to keep my expectations in check.
P.P.S: Intel felt threatened by Bulldozer too, btw.

 

[iO]

Thats Kaby Lake-X and not a direct counter to Zen

 

[bug]

True, companies know more about each other than we do them, but to what degree does this knowledge go is a matter of too much speculation to have any merit beyond wasting time. I won't rule out that industrial espionage might exist, but I can't say surely that -in this case- it does either. So, to avoid going reductio ad absurdum (and I'm hoping I've got my logic right), I elect not bother with it in my end conclusion, that Zen will be good or not, which is -ironically- a speculation in it self. >_>

P.S: I'm rooting for Zen too, btw. Just trying to keep my expectations in check.
P.P.S: Intel felt threatened by Bulldozer too, btw.

I'm with you 100%. I'm discarding almost everything I hear about Zen. I'm just saying, when Intel makes a move, they know a lot more than we do. But in this case, we can't even infer Intel is scared of Zen's performance, because they may be doing it just to have the number of cores out.

Just a little more patience is required at this point.

 

[rruff]

Generic code today uses maybe two cores and four cores can probably cover 95% of the software you have installed at home at any given moment.

Two cores and four threads can cover it. Maybe less.

when Intel makes a move, they know a lot more than we do. But in this case, we can't even infer Intel is scared of Zen's performance, because they may be doing it just to have the number of cores out.

I agree. Intel probably knows nearly as much about Ryzen as AMD does. When Ryzen launches, Intel will want to have all their bases covered and price their processors competitively. Same thing happened with Nvidia when AMD launched Polaris.

 

[Gasaraki]

OMG. How many of these stupid "Intel shaking in their boots, releases cpus to compete. Bla bla bla" articles are you going to keep writing?

All Intel needs to do to compete is to lower prices on their current chips. They already have cpus that are competitive (against the magical Ryzen).

AMD benched against the $1000 i7-6900K. They are around the same performance. Lets say AMD sells that cpu for only $600. All Intel have to do is drop their price to match. If they need more performance CPUs RIGHT NOW to fight the Ryzen onslaught, they just raid their 8-core/10-core Xeon bin, drop the price, boom, holds Ryzen till new chip designs come out.

 

[GhostRyder]

As far as a "reshuffle" goes, I am all for it as I think Intels processor line does need some adjusting on every corner. I honestly think they have way to many chips out there with many to me not needing to exist. As far as a Hyper-Threaded i5 goes, well I think that would be good if the i7 became a 6 core 12 threaded part (Or they completely dropped the i7 from the LGA 1151 line and left it only to the X99). But if they are keeping the i7, then I see no point nor do I think it would be smart (I doubt it will happen personally, but I have seen crazier things) as it would have to be cheaper than the i7 counter parts just on name alone (At least the unlocked ones) and would just butcher sales for the i7's.

I would like to see what happens when Ryzen is released, as we won't know for sure unless Ryzen lives up to the hype (At least part of the hype) and causes some real competition.

 

[RealNeil]

Anyone still think the unlocked KL i3 is a good buy

I never did. Their price sucks for a novelty part.
Giving an i3 part some awesome capabilities only makes sense if it retains that i3 price.

 

[rruff]

If they need more performance CPUs RIGHT NOW to fight the Ryzen onslaught, they just raid their 8-core/10-core Xeon bin, drop the price, boom, holds Ryzen till new chip designs come out.

Very true. Intel will likely have to endure lower profits, but not as much as people think. After the engineering and fab is done, the cost of popping out even these fancy CPUs is a small fraction of retail. They price the 6-8 core chips high now, because why not? There is no competition. They also don't sell many relative to 4 core chips. But if Ryzen beats Intel at their current pricing all Intel needs to do is make their 6-8 core chips mainstream and lower the price. They may still have higher margins on these 6-8 core chips than they currently do on the 4 cores, but they will lose some market share.

 

[xorbe]

[If] i5 gets HT, then i7 needs 6 core 135w top end part at $329

 

[Blueberries]

OMG. How many of these stupid "Intel shaking in their boots, releases cpus to compete. Bla bla bla" articles are you going to keep writing?

All Intel needs to do to compete is to lower prices on their current chips. They already have cpus that are competitive (against the magical Ryzen).

AMD benched against the $1000 i7-6900K. They are around the same performance. Lets say AMD sells that cpu for only $600. All Intel have to do is drop their price to match. If they need more performance CPUs RIGHT NOW to fight the Ryzen onslaught, they just raid their 8-core/10-core Xeon bin, drop the price, boom, holds Ryzen till new chip designs come out.

This.

If Ryzen is as good as these articles are assuming it will be the first AMD product to live up to its own hype. Many of us want it to be, but this isn't going to be some dramatic shakeup; there will still be a clear choice for performance and a clear choice for value.

 

[Camm]

This.

If Ryzen is as good as these articles are assuming it will be the first AMD product to live up to its own hype. Many of us want it to be, but this isn't going to be some dramatic shakeup; there will still be a clear choice for performance and a clear choice for value.

The problem comes to Intels market segmentation with its chipsets. Intel really can't compete against a chip that is 1/3 smaller, and especially when economies of scale (because of said segmentation and size) cannot be realised in the first place.

 

[Caring1]

If this rumor is true (which means right now Intel is in some sort of Plan B mode) I guess it's safe to say that Ryzen is gonna be good afterall

Or Intel is worried about losing market share to AMD.
AMD don't have to release a great chip, only a good one at a lower price, to win market share and damage Intel's profits.

 

[bug]

The problem comes to Intels market segmentation with its chipsets. Intel really can't compete against a chip that is 1/3 smaller, and especially when economies of scale (because of said segmentation and size) cannot be realised in the first place.

I'm not sure what you're implying, but intel has been working on making architectures that scale from the lowest mobile to the most monstrous server CPUs. They've had that for a few generations already. The only question is if AMD can do the same. Because if they can't, they have a serious cost issue on their hands.
I'm also not sure what the "1/3 smaller" is supposed to mean, the only numbers we have is 44sq mm for Zen vs 49sq mm for some unspecified Intel CPU.

As far as competing is concerned, Intel is 100x bigger than AMD is, they could sell CPUs at a loss for a year and barely feel any impact. Which is why it's so important for AMD to tick all the right checkboxes with Zen.

 

[Camm]

I'm not sure what you're implying, but intel has been working on making architectures that scale from the lowest mobile to the most monstrous server CPUs. They've had that for a few generations already. The only question is if AMD can do the same. Because if they can't, they have a serious cost issue on their hands.
I'm also not sure what the "1/3 smaller" is supposed to mean, the only numbers we have is 44sq mm for Zen vs 49sq mm for some unspecified Intel CPU.

As far as competing is concerned, Intel is 100x bigger than AMD is, they could sell CPUs at a loss for a year and barely feel any impact. Which is why it's so important for AMD to tick all the right checkboxes with Zen.

Gotta read the thread chain back to Gasaraki's assumption that Intel could simply drop prices on its 8 core E part to combat Ryzen. I'm also sure Intel could mount something competitive in a smaller socket, but at this point released roadmaps only show a six core coming to 115x next year. Which leaves 20xx sockets for anything with a higher core count - those chips are quite large (quad channel DDR controller and PCI lanes), and with a separate chipset, the platform as a whole is expensive, to the point that I'm not sure Intel could really 'just' drop prices in the E ranges to compete with Ryzen.