AMD RyZen CPU Architecture for 2017

I really need to upgrade, but I also want to wait so I don't get accessed by some bug as has happened in the past on both sides. Resist I shall.
 
Maybe it'll be time for me to upgrade my computer.
I wouldn't say no to 16 threads at reasonable price ^^
This and maybe a Vega GPU to update my 660 Ti
 
xEx said:
The problem with rumors is just that: they are not confirmed. but here is a link of an(supposedly) IT Director:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5w5pta/intel_already_offering_special_promotions_and/
Click to expand...

In another forum a reliable guy from a company buying only ~100k Intel CPUs per month said Intel doesn't care about them. They only care if you're buying millions of CPUs per month. Does Intel talk to "IT directors", even from a big company? They sell mostly CPUs to OEMs, not servers to IT directors. I call bullshit from some random IT guy thinking an "IT director" is somehow important in the scheme of things.

Of course I fully expect Intel to go into full asshole mode.
 
fuboi said:
In another forum a reliable guy from a company buying only ~100k Intel CPUs per month said Intel doesn't care about them. They only care if you're buying millions of CPUs per month. Does Intel talk to "IT directors", even from a big company? They sell mostly CPUs to OEMs, not servers to IT directors. I call bullshit from some random IT guy thinking an "IT director" is somehow important in the scheme of things.

Of course I fully expect Intel to go into full asshole mode.
Click to expand...

Well way back when I was in HPC I was involved in procurement of a middle-to-the-bottom-half of the Top 500 facility. Fairly small fry in the grand scheme of things. This was back when AMD was competitive - that long ago. Anyway even although we weren't buying directly from Intel, and we were buying <1k CPUs, they cared enough to turn up to our meetings with bidding OEMs (those who were unable to offer Opteron) to stress the level of "pricing support" that we would be receiving from them.
 
nutball said:
Well way back when I was in HPC I was involved in procurement of a middle-to-the-bottom-half of the Top 500 facility. Fairly small fry in the grand scheme of things. This was back when AMD was competitive - that long ago. Anyway even although we weren't buying directly from Intel, and we were buying <1k CPUs, they cared enough to turn up to our meetings with bidding OEMs (those who were unable to offer Opteron) to stress the level of "pricing support" that we would be receiving from them.
Click to expand...

People look at that list, it's a halo product. People also look at the making of that list (% POWER, % AMD, % Intel, ditto GPUs). An IT director buying 500 desktops for Milwaukee ACME, Inc probably won't get the same *wink wink* treatment as you did.

I'm convinced Intel will go aggressively about it's businesses. I was just dubious about that post in Reddit.
 
Haven't finish it but It will be interesting to see how people opinions are/will change from "it will prob be behind Intels" to " AMD prob have something big here" like this feeling of "too good to be true but I hope it is"
 
Before AMD64 or the Radeon 9700 people were skeptical as well, which I understand. I would be pretty skeptical also if I bought into companies which are going to lose the high end as well as the price /performance crown. Though it would not change my pc , it would still matter; it's psychological
 
fuboi said:
I'm convinced Intel will go aggressively about it's businesses. I was just dubious about that post in Reddit.
Click to expand...

Sure, I would tend to agree.

What I was getting at is that Intel may well not care about what the small-fry IT Director thinks, but they may well care about their relationship with the small-fry IT Directors' OEM, whoever that might be. The OEMs can have a whole bunch of other quasi-random reasons for wanting to show that Intel has their backs covered, so to speak. Small-fry IT Director is simultaneously small-fry (ie. clueless) and a Director (ie. thinks he is God's gift to IT) and hence probably can't disentangle the dance going on between him and his OEM and that going on between his OEM and Intel.

Lastly, if IT Director is willing to put the interests of a third-party company ahead of his own he should probably be sacked. I mean it's fine to support the under-dog with your own money, but not someone elses.
 
ProspectorPete said:
Before AMD64 or the Radeon 9700 people were skeptical as well, which I understand. I would be pretty skeptical also if I bought into companies which are going to lose the high end as well as the price /performance crown. Though it would not change my pc , it would still matter; it's psychological
Click to expand...

How quickly people forget. AMD produced faster 386 and 486 CPUs than Intel did. They had basically the same IPC (Intel 486DX4 had a slight advantage with a larger cache, however), but they made higher clocked versions at a significantly cheaper price. The higher clocked (100 and 120 MHz) versions of the 486 were actually faster than the first Pentiums that Intel brought to market and quite significantly cheaper than Intel's 486DX/100. They later upgraded these to enhanced versions with some minor upgrades.

The K5 and K6 were certainly disappointing, but the Athlon and Athlon XP were good products albeit lagging behind Intel slightly in some areas. People weren't all that skeptical of Athlon 64 potentially matching Intel's performance considering how well they had executed on the previous Athlon XP. But they were surprised when it didn't just match its performance but exceeded it. Added to that a consumer implementation of 64 bit memory addressing that Intel ended up having to adopt.

The 9700 Pro, however, caught almost everyone by surprise. While ATI had been one of the largest 2D graphics chip manufacturers, their 3D efforts (much like another 2D graphics power house S3) were underwhelming and even when the hardware was decent (Radeon 7xxx and 8xxx series, not to be confused with the later HD 7xxx and HD 8xxx series) they were seriously undermined by really bad drivers.

Regards,
SB
 
So has anyone seen an interface at looks remotely like the "GMI" interfaces before? I haven't? I have heard that there have been big improvements for PHY on organic sub strait but i dont remember where i read it.......


Ryzen%20Die%20Shot.jpg
 
I don't know exactly how long it's been since when, but this whole discussion makes me feel both old and fortunate at the same time. Old because I remember arguing on forums since the Pentium first came out, and fortunate because it really has been pretty much an eye-blink later and suddenly I'm living in a Star Trek like future from when I first played pong as a kid.

BTW- Great description of the 9700 Pro SilentB, it really was what I consider to be the first really modern graphics card as it could deliver AA with playable performance. I remember it blowing my mind, fantabulous!
 
Silent_Buddha said:
The K5 and K6 were certainly disappointing, but the Athlon and Athlon XP were good products albeit lagging behind Intel slightly in some areas. People weren't all that skeptical of Athlon 64 potentially matching Intel's performance considering how well they had executed on the previous Athlon XP.
Click to expand...
The original Athlon (K7) was clearly leading Intel Pentium 3. Intel was desperate enough to clock their P3 design too high (1.13 GHz) and had to recall the processor. AMDs 1.0 GHz and 1.1 GHz Athlons were beating P3 and Intel tried to combat with increasing clocks too high. Toms Hardware was the one to report the problems. See here: http://windowsitpro.com/windows-server/cpu-embarrassment-intel-recalls-pentium-iii-113ghz
"In commercial terms, the Athlon "Classic" was an enormous success —not just because of its own merits, but also because Intel endured a series of major production, design, and quality control issues at this time."
Click to expand...
The revised Thunderbird Athlon (K8) clocked up to 1.4 GHz. I had 1.4 GHz model and most of my friends had it. It was very popular CPU among gamers. Pentium 4 needed ~300 MHz higher clocks to reach the same performance. Thunderbird kept AMD very close to Pentium 4 performance for a long time and it was much more power efficient and didn't require expensive RDRAM. People kept their Thunderbirds for many years.
"On the test bench, the (Pentium 4) Willamette was somewhat disappointing to analysts in that not only was it unable to outperform the Athlon and the highest-clocked Pentium IIIs in all testing situations"
"On January 2001, a still slower 1.3 GHz model was added to the range, but over the next twelve months, Intel gradually started reducing AMD's leadership in performance. In April 2001 a 1.7 GHz Pentium 4 was launched, the first model to provide performance clearly superior to the old Pentium III. July saw 1.6 and 1.8 GHz models and in August 2001, Intel released 1.9 and 2 GHz Pentium 4s."
Click to expand...
Athlon 64 X2 was also regarded better than competing Intel products. Intel tried to fight with higher clocked single code P4 with hyperthreading and the lackluster Pentium D. Result was that AMD got the lead in CPU retail shipments in 2005. I upgraded my Thunderbird to Athlon X2. It was again the best choice for gamers. The first games using dual core were just shipped. Gains weren't dramatic, but Windows use also got smoother from two cores (background activity didn't block UI). Athlon X2 was also used by businesses. IIRC Athlon X2 was the most used CPU at RedLynx at that time.
A consensus arose that AMD's implementation of multi-core was superior to that of the Pentium D.[12][13] As a result of this and other factors, AMD surpassed Intel in CPU sales at US retail stores for a period of time, although Intel retained overall market leadership because of its exclusive relationships with direct sellers such as Dell.[14]
Click to expand...
AMD was leading Intel last time 12 years ago. Better performance, lower power consumption, more retail sales.

Intel Core 2 Quad was a huge jump. AMD now had both lower IPC and lower clocks. AMD had the first true quad core (C2Q was two duals clued together under heat spreader), but it couldn't compete against the better Intel architecture. I bought a Core 2 Quad (my first Intel CPU since Pentium MMX 233 MHz) and pretty much every gamer out there bought Core 2 Quad or the higher clocked Core 2 Duo (it was still beating quad in many games). This is when AMD started to shift their resources to Bulldozer research while Intel kept releasing a success after success (Nehalem, Sandy, Haswell, Skylake). We all know how well that ended up. Now AMD has recovered.

It is interesting to see how things pan out. It seems that 8-core will finally become mainstream. AMD has cost-efficient 8-cores in the market and Intel is dropping their 8-core prices. Finally we are going above 4 cores in common gaming PCs. It took way too long :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
RDNA5 Speculation
Replies
2
Views
1K
Erinyes
E
Rys
Reopening Architecture and Products + rules and guidelines changes
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
16K
Shifty Geezer
Shifty Geezer
A
AMD: Zen 3 Announced [2020-10-08]
10 11 12
Replies
220
Views
91K
davis.anthony
D
I
Apple A16 SoC
Replies
1
Views
3K
Entropy
E
A
  • Locked
"next generation RDNA architecture" with hardware accelerated ray tracing
2
Replies
24
Views
14K
BRiT
BRiT
Back
Top