WYP
News Guru
AMD's Zen CPUs are rumoured to release on January 17th, with an 8-core 16-thread model which will be available for $300.
Read more on AMD's Zen CPUs.
Read more on AMD's Zen CPUs.
Last edited:
AMD's Zen CPUs are rumoured to release on January 17th
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
Kourgath223
Member
OK so I ran the images located on the post from Baidu through an OCR to get the characters then ran those through Google Translate then did some Photoshop to include the translation in the image. You can see the translation via the Imgur album I have linked below. Hopefully the translation is good enough to understand what is being said.
http://imgur.com/a/JwC3y
P.S. The image at the top should be at the bottom. Imgur decided to rearrange the order a little after I had posted it.
http://imgur.com/a/JwC3y
P.S. The image at the top should be at the bottom. Imgur decided to rearrange the order a little after I had posted it.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Really hope this 8 core can beat a 6700/7700k or at least match it at that cost
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
A 6850K has been repeatedly referenced as Zen SR7's direct competitor. I imagine that's an exaggeration, or more hopefully it's only a competitor in certain areas while in others it is more in line with a 6700K. And the 7700K and Broadwell-E, then, will beat it in those areas.
Either way, if $300 is true and it's only matching a 7700K, that's still better value even if it's only by 30 quid or so. That's worth it for all those cores. When the 5960X came out, everyone collectively lost themselves. Now AMD has come out with the same core/thread count and it's $300. That's just cool even if the performance is not on par.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
It's been referenced once. And in addition, don't believe the numbers. It was a titled test along with not knowing anything else about either system. Cores and clocks don't tell the whole story.
Cannon lake is already faster. We pretty much know that, so all Intel has to do is lower the I7 prices and then force AMD to take smaller profit margins on a brand new multi billion dollar investment.
I also don't really believe the core thing. It can have more cores, but if they are weaker but it's the same amount as a 5960x, who cares?
It's basically what the 8350 is already if it had SMT, still not impressive. And when you think about it, they are apparently not having an iGPU, so they have so MUCH MORE room to work with. Intel CPU portions are already less than 50% of the total die, they could easily switch that so again imo still not impressed.
I want Zen to succeed and I'm rooting for it and possibly even changing to an all AMD system(because I can't stand Intel motherboards these days) but I'm definitely not on the hype train
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
If it can match a 7700K then I'm going AMD, If not then I'll stick to my 5930K for a while longer.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
It won't clock for clock. I don't even think it'll hit Skylake. I feel it's in between Broadwell and Skylake but closer to BW. But still, it seems to be pretty efficient so far for the amount of cores it has which is good, efficiency is going to be a huge benchmark for it, or it should be instead of raw numbers which don't tell the whole story. If it ends up being cheaper then efficiency/dollar(or whatever) is also critical.
demonking
New member
even if it doesn't as long as its close. cmon AMD
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
You're right, it was only once. I mistook the amount times it's been repeated from the same source to how many separate sources have stated it.
How do we know Cannonlake is faster? I'm not questioning per say; I am curious what you're basing that on. From what I see, the only things that point to that is what you say about Intel using roughly 50% of their chip size for the CPU and Intel adding another two cores to the i7 and potentially the i5. Will the price increase, though? If it does that still may leave a large market for AMD. As you say in your other comment, it's not just about raw performance; it's about hitting the sweet spot of price to performance. If it's all about raw performance then Intel will always be ahead due to their Xeon and X99 enthusiast platform.
Who cares about cores? I do. Many people on this forum have been asking for more cores for the last two Intel generations. Technology like this isn't just about FPS or raw data; it's the fun of watching the industry mature and being a part of it. We've had 8 cores from AMD before and it's not been a success for the average user like us who work with Photoshop, play video games, and multitask. But if Zen provides more with the SMT and improves IPC as they've said they have, and it's at $250-300, that's exciting to me. Plus, AMD's SR7 platform might provide motherboard advancements over Z170/Z270 or simply be cheaper.
All stipulation, of course.
Doomslayer
New member
I think everyone is missing the point here is the price the "$300" is what AMD is charging now everyone should know bye now that retailer aren't going to charge that they will bump the price up bye $50-$100 and TBH there's no way that this CPU is going to equal to the current Gen from intel i can see it equalling to lest Gen from intel.
AMD are not going to sell these CPU's at a lost they have lost so much money over the last 5-10 years so they need to make money back, To the people thinking that these are going to be cheap get ready to be disappointed.
I just can't see it being on par with a intel 7700K.
And i don't want to know what the prices are going to be when they get here maybe $500.
AMD are not going to sell these CPU's at a lost they have lost so much money over the last 5-10 years so they need to make money back, To the people thinking that these are going to be cheap get ready to be disappointed.
I just can't see it being on par with a intel 7700K.
And i don't want to know what the prices are going to be when they get here maybe $500.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
I don't understand these two statements. They seem to contradict each other. Why would AMD release a CPU that's more expensive than Intel ($50-100 more than $300 is more than what Intel charge for Skylake) that isn't even on par with it?
Lets face it, we're all talking in rudiments here as we're neither engineers nor professional analysts. So wouldn't it make sense for AMD to pick a side, so to speak, and go with it? In other words, be affordable but behind in power, or be ahead in power and more expensive. Again, this allows AMD to sit into their own market, not what Intel has created with their stagnant virtual monopoly. Maybe AMD have their own ideas based on their analysis of what the consumers really want, and that might include picking a side away from Intel and going with it. But I don't know why any consumer would want a $500 CPU that's only as fast as a year-old $330 CPU. If it's $500 and slightly behind in gaming, their gaming market will suffer. But they might recoup their losses by being as fast as a 6900K for $500 in more professional areas.
Again, this is all rather simple conceptually so I could be missing something integral.
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
I can't see AMD selling something that is more expensive than Intels offerings yet slower, That would be suicidal in business terms.
AlienALX
Well-known member
They've tried it before.... Selling Fury X, which were slower with less VRAM than a 980ti for the same price...
However, I think the guy who used to do all of that has been given the Spanish archer so hey, we shall see.
Doomslayer
New member
SIGH.....why do people not understand what i'm trying to say.
What i'm trying to say is.
The price of "$300" is what AMD wants retailers wants them to charge for it, But i can't see "The Retailers" only charging "$300" for it when they themselves want some profit from it so they will bump the price up to like "$50-100" more. Look at waht Nvidia did with the 10 series of GPU's said it was this price & the retailers charge an higher amount, I'm not blaming AMD for the price i'm blaming the retailers cause there going to be jacking the price like to like $350-400 dollars.
with the $500 amount i'm talking about Australian pricing cause we always pay more here, If AMD says to retailers here you charge $400 but they will jack the pricing up to to almost $500.00.
I still stand bye what i said i just can't see it equalling to the latest CPU from intel atm intel is always going to be one gen in front unless intel somehow stuffs up with the next 2 launches if i'm wrong i'm wrong.
Everyone hyped up the 400 series GPU's maybe not here as much as other forums but people did and a lot of people were disappointed maybe people should just wait until 3rd parties get there hands on them and test and once there results come out and it's as good as what AMD has said and then hype the you know what out of it.
Last edited:
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
I get what you're saying but I doubt the retailers are going to put an extra hundred or so on top purely for giggles, Maybe $50 or so but I can't see more than that.
Time will tell though
Time will tell though
Similar threads
