The Power of Marketing - AMD's Ryzen Hype Train Hyperloops On

[R0H1T]

And that is my point. Retail channel pricing won't change.

Yeah I understand that, I just hope things are more transparent now & we don't get a repeat of Intel's shens yet again.

 

[btarunr]

why let people preorder before having benchmarks of independent revierws?.. that just makes me worry.

People pre-order games months before actual gameplay and independent reviews, how is this different? You can cancel pre-orders?

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

According to your system specs you already own a i7 7700K?

He should have just shouted remember Intel.

Pre-ordering CPUs according to company's performance numbers is like pre-ordering a game according to trailers of the game company

Yeah but many do this anyway.
As some have said I'm more worried I'll have to pay more because I'm skint and Have to wait then this disappointing me.
And in many ways for people like me it's a safe bet ,it's not likely to be anything less than way better than an old platform like mine.

 

[infrared]

I doubt the benchmarks they've shown will be inaccurate in any way, they're far too easy for any idiot end user to replicate so no point lying. What will be interesting is how it overclocks, and how it does in various other benchmarks and real world applications. It's a cool time to be a hardware enthusiast

 

[moaka]

The rage is coming ( for intel user ) i have 4790k OC @4.7ghz but i'll buy Ryzen ( 90% sure ) after real benchmarks I believe in " LinusTechTips "

( was real test )

 

[Mescalamba]

Power of marketing or lack of common sense?

Its much like latest iteration of whatever unnamed FPS game.. hype, pre-orders, delivers same shtako as last year. And people still do buy that, millions of them.

Its not power of marketing, its using naturally occurring resource pool of idiots for your own benefit. Roughly 50% of mankind or so.

Im not saying Ryzen isnt as good as hypetrain believes it is. It might be, also might be not, since there are no real tests yet. But I wouldnt buy it without tests. And a lot of them. And OC results.

 

[newtekie1]

Don't hold your breath. Before Core 2 Duo, when Intel was consistently pwned by AMD Athlon64/FX/X2, Intel stuck to its price-points for the Pentium D and Pentium Extreme Edition. IIRC, you still had to shell out $999 for the Extreme Edition of that time, even through it was pwned by a $250 Athlon64 X2 model.

That isn't entirely accurate. IIRC, 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. In fact, even when the x2 3800+ came out a few months later in Aug 2005, it was still priced at $350. I don't think we saw a $250 x2 until the release of the x2 3600+, which I don't think came until the end of 2005. 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.

 

[Dethroy]

All this fanboy talk nonsense makes me sad. I as a tech enthusiast welcome every progress, no matter what company is driving it.
I for one am just glad that AMD seems to have finally catched up since that'll only be healthy for the market and the consumer.

 

[the54thvoid]

All this fanboy talk nonsense makes me sad. I as a tech enthusiast welcome every progress, no matter what company is driving it.
I for one am just glad that AMD seems to have finally catched up since that'll only be healthy for the market and the consumer.

Indeed. Now, if they can overclock to Broadwell-E level, we'll be quite happy.

 

[Captain_Tom]

Im just waiting on the 7700K price drop once Risen releases to the public

I wouldn't touch the 7700K unless it drops to $160, or maybe if I was an Intel fanboy.

Then again I'm not an Intel fanboy...

 

[Foobario]

Keep in mind, that a year ago there was great hope that AMD would come within 10% of Intel's Skylake offerings. Now a year later it appears that AMD has exceeded those expectations by surpassing Intel's Kaby Lake offerings. Yet some of you act surprised at the enthusiasm at which the market has reacted to this tectonic shift in the CPU hierarchy.

From some of the comments on here it is obvious that some of you don't care about reality and you will continue to buy Intel chips regardless of their price or performance compared to AMD. One poster even admits to wanting to by a second 7700K when the price comes down. Lol

Fortunately, I think most CPU enthusiasts go for performance/dollar more than brand loyalty and this bodes well for a shift in the dynamics of the enthusiast desktop segment.

As for those still putting all of their Intel loyalty behind the 7700K's current single core advantage you need to keep in mind that in two months AMD will have better yields and higher quality yields that will allow for higher clockspeeds that will take down the 7700K just like all other Intel offerings have been bested in multi core comparisons. After all, AMD has already matched single core performance of Intel on chips with similar clockspeeds.

Then again, AMD hasn't even released their four core offerings yet. They may have a SKU that runs at 4.2 with a 4.9 boost out of the box. They may be binning for a higher clocked four core chip right now which is why they are waiting to release four core chips until they build up sufficient inventory. If so, I guess that 7700K will drop out of the top five CPU sales list on Amazon and other sites rather quickly.

It is a great time to be a high end CPU user. Especially those that use software that takes advantage of multiple cores. As for gamers, the four to five frames that a 7700K currently might give you over an equivalent AMD offering isn't worth whatever premium you are required to pay. It isn't unlike that guy that buys a Titan X to play on his 1080p monitor that runs at 60hz. Sure your FPS are running at 135, but you can still only see 60 FPS on your monitor. Your friend with a GTX 970 is thinking "Hmmm, I wonder why my game play at 68 FPS looks identical to his at 135 FPS. Maybe he made a bad choice on his spending of funds."

 

[Yorgos]

 

[Camm]

From some of the comments on here it is obvious that some of you don't care about reality and you will continue to buy Intel chips regardless of their price or performance compared to AMD. One poster even admits to wanting to by a second 7700K when the price comes down. Lol

The techeditor over at PC Gamer let slip in the comments section that Ryzen doesn't clock as well as Kaby. I don't know what that means - does it mean that it won't hit 4.5Ghz reliably? 4.3Ghz? Anything over XFR 4.1Ghz? Being honest, at the point of 4Ghz, it doesn't really matter that much personally.

I have a feeling that with the larger clockspeed, Intel will maintain an advantage in 4 core parts. However, with IPC looking identical, and being honest the pretty small difference between 4Ghz and 4.5Ghz in fps if your running at any meaningful resolution (i.e. your GPU bound), I have no idea why you wouldn't take the extra performance from the extra cores for the price. I don't know if I'll shift from my 5960x (if I do, I'll be waiting for more boards to come out anyway), but if I was on any lower core part, I think Ryzen is a no brainer.

 

[john_]

Intel gets the top spots: Great products
Nvidia gets the top spots: Great products
AMD gets the top spots: Great Marketing

 

[kruk]

The techeditor over at PC Gamer let slip in the comments section that Ryzen doesn't clock as well as Kaby. I don't know what that means - does it mean that it won't hit 4.5Ghz reliably? 4.3Ghz? Anything over XFR 4.1Ghz? Being honest, at the point of 4Ghz, it doesn't really matter that much personally.

The clock speed is currently Ryzens 7 weak point, but by the time the 4 core CPUs come out, the process might improve enough, to get very close or even match the stock clocks of Kaby Lake parts. Maybe not the K series, but I'm pretty sure those will get beaten with Zen+

 

[tacosRcool]

AMD just needs to let us all know whey they plan on releasing their glorious 6-core processors!

 

[kruk]

AMD just needs to let us all know whey they plan on releasing their glorious 6-core processors!

Q2-2017, read more here: https://www.techpowerup.com/230928/amd-ryzen-5-six-core-processors-to-launch-in-q2-2017

 

[Ubersonic]

But keep in mind: this is a pre-order we're talking about, with nothing but leaks and marketing maneuvering for consumers to base their purchase on.

Well that and the fact that AMD showed benchmarks at their press event plus let respected journalists inspect the test systems hardware and software to validate the results ofc.

 

[Camm]

The clock speed is currently Ryzens 7 weak point, but by the time the 4 core CPUs come out, the process might improve enough, to get very close or even match the stock clocks of Kaby Lake parts. Maybe not the K series, but I'm pretty sure those will get beaten with Zen+

Looking at AMD's yields, I don't think that process has much maturing to do at all. All said though, why people are expecting an 8 core part to clock past 4Ghz is beyond me anyway - nothing from Intel past 4 cores clocks all that well past 4Ghz anyway (with max stock turbo's being around 3.7Ghz on 6 core and dropping), and AMD's top 8 Core part is coming with a stock 4.1Ghz XFR clock. And if pricing leaks on 4 core parts are to be believed, I dont know who will care at that point either considering half the price of a 7700k and still OC's.

 

[medi01]

That's just a sale on microcenter, it's not an official price drop from Intel. Newegg has the same prices as it did on launch.

But had Microcenter ever had that kind of price drops for practically entire Intel range?

 

[coolernoob]

for AMD it is "all in" situation - you can hype the shyte out of it, because if it will be bust - it will be the last hype from AMD ever. if I was in the market for new system I would preorder - why? because if it will be somewhat good - there will be few moths till prices will settle back to original (if there will be any avability - even at raised prices). it can not be worse than intels current (or next) lineup (like cpus performance from year 2010 + 20-30% IPC). I would pick seller with a return policy and go all in - and if indeed Ryzen would be bust - I would return it and drop a tear or two for a dead AMD

 

[cadaveca]

Well that and the fact that AMD showed benchmarks at their press event plus let tech influencers inspect the test systems hardware and software to validate the results ofc.

There is a difference between an actual journalist, and people like Linus... It's called schooling. Very few tech "journalists" are actually true journalists. Only Fortune Magazine and Forbes actual carry any of the AMD hype that I have seen.

 

[Ubersonic]

There is a difference between an actual journalist, and people like Linus... It's called schooling.

Well they could have invited a "real" PC journalist but they are all doing another job now after their publications went bankrupt

 

[infrared]

There is a difference between an actual journalist, and people like Linus... It's called schooling.

That's a really shitty thing to say... Not impressed.

 

[cadaveca]

That's a really shitty thing to say... Not impressed.

It's fact though. Most "tech journalists" never attended college to become a journalist, and do not have actual journalistic credentials. Please do keep this in the context of the post I responded to.

I'm not saying I have that education either, but the fact of the matter is that actual journalists, the ones that went to school to get that job, aren't talking about anything AMD, because they weren't really excited by this event. Actual news journals have very little to say about AMD< and are too busy with other "topics".