New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Probably not so much. You can get much better TDP on Intel based processors. That TDP will affect your long term cost. That long run cost may be more than saving a few dollars on the AMD processors.
65W TDP for this performance is not so bad compare it to similar performing Intel Xeon CPUs its very similar, even AMD has a lower TDP in some cases.
These seem overly expensive, a 500 dollar CPU, wat, do they have yields so bad on their new process that it has to be this overpriced? Less than 8 cores are not worth bothering with IMO, and those with 8 cores are way too pricey.
Looking at standard 8 core e5's they have 85W TDP, while the low powered ones have 55W TDP.
The Ryzens above are desktop ones. So for now all we can say is that they are close in TDP and have to wait for actual server chips to see more.
Exactly, these are the desktop/consumer ones, naples is the codename for the server chips of "zen".
AMD blog post about naples
Are these going to be worthwhile competition for Intel offerings, or is it just another AMD "hay guise we kan do servar CPUs 2" lackluster throw?
I suppose time will tell, but AMD has a pretty feeble track record as of late. Even if they do produce something roughly equivalent, or even better, market share can be a tough thing to steal in the enterprise world.
Most everyone is entrenched with Intel these days, and it's not like they're just going to roll over and take it up from the tailpipe. AMD would have to stay significantly ahead of Intel for several cycles to have any real impact.
As Google might say, it's a moonshot.
Not sure what you guys are smoking, but an 8 core 3+ GHz in 65W-95W is extremely good, particularly for that price. Intel has nothing that can match that - its closest competitor is the i7 6900K which has a 140W TDP with an RRP of >$1000.
An actual server offering (up to 32 cores per socket, lower clock) is likely to be very competitive to anyone who isn't an Intel fanboy.
Can't say about performance until actual benchmarks are out, but from design specifications revealed so far, I'd say that they'd be comparable to Haswell (so about equal in terms with Intel).
Sounds impressive right? In reality, not very meaningful until it's proven in the real world, which is where AMD has historically disappointed.
Not unlike like the last turds they dropped on server market.
There aren't a lot of "fanboys" in the enterprise market, it boils down to where you want to invest your time and money. Do you go with the proven solution or put your neck on the line to recommend switching to AMD and hope they don't fall flat on their face yet again?
Don't get me wrong, it would be great to have a sustainable competitor to Intel, I just find it unlikely given AMD's lackluster track record. Maybe they'll surprise us, but I doubt it.
btw are these still leaks/fakes, or are these now the official ones?
Historically, like how K8 ran circles around Netburst?
You mean, proven like Intel?
What do you mean by that?
AMD have had ONE poor performing uArch. And that's not unique to AMD - Intel has Netburst after all (Intel's Bonnell was pretty much a turd too, though it seemed like a rushed uArch, so I'd forgive them for that). On the flip side, AMD's current Jaguar/Puma cores are actually very good.
Perhaps not, but I'm clearly quoting one right now. If you're not strongly brand loyal, you pick the CPU that's best for the task. Brand doesn't matter. Neither does brand history or track record for that matter.
I don't believe there's any official info out yet, though all the leaked info seem to be converging at this point, so likely accurate.
My AMD Thunderbird was a beast back in the day :-). For the past few years I have been using Intel processors with AMD videocards on all my gaming rigs (fucking love my 290 and 480).
Given the recent official data released by AMD, has anyones feelings towards them changed at all? I also noticed that Intel have dropped the prices of their existing chips in response: http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/intel-cpu-prices-drop-ryzen-launch/
I am lead to believe the Ryzen 1700 will be a 65W chip with 8 cores (16 threads) at 3.0GHz base, 3.7GHz boost. http://www.gamersnexus.net/news-pc/2811-amd-ryzen-prices-specs-release-date
There's no meaningful official data released by AMD that I've seen. There are interesting rumors and 3rd party benchmarks that may or may not have been cherrypicked. Until someone actually gets their hands on these chips and runs their own tests I'd reserve judgment. Certainly we won't see any server offers til the chips are actually out there .
Will be interesting to see what they do with Opteron chips based on this tech.
Shouldn't have to wait long, I believe the launch is in less than 4 days
AMDs press event show the Ryzen 1700 at 46% faster than the i7-7700k
I guess probably WSI, or Hetzner, or Worldstream (in that order) will have some of these new guys
Placing bets now! : Hetzner, OVH, WSI, Worldstream
Runabove?
Go hetzner go
Boards and CPUs ordered - 02.03-05.03 ~
The TDP is not a measurement metric anyway.
Performance per watt - we have seen benchmarks against higher priced Intel CPUs on par which have about the same TDP - they seem to be very good.
Yes, these were AMD picked benches but standard tools, and promoting like this and not delivering... not going to happen (again).
AMD historically had the cheaper Quad socket systems so that is my main interest for then, desktop not so much.
They seem to have focused their prelaunch event on the desktop scene, we will have to wait and see I guess
I'd like to know what's happening with monstrous ARM servers like Cavium. OVH offered them without getting much traction. Packet.net currently has 96 core ones for 50 cents an hour ($300+ per month) and I'd guess the performance to be in the mid E5 range, but don't know, and it's way more than I'd want to pay per month.
I might try it out for an evening at the hourly rate sometime, just for laughs.
They are working nice - in the envs they were made for, which is not to sell them to "end-users" or "SMB". The Cavium eg. has a lot of PCIe lanes for the CPU design (8+8 or more on 3.0) and network (10/40G options) and very fast memory access time (DDR4, many channels),.
Well lots of folks have applications that need gobs and gobs of integer compute cycles, and the high performance MPU's/GPU's these days are mostly about floating point. So the Cavium seems interesting from that perspective. No one seems to have run geekbench yet though.
Embargo lifted, reviews generally fairly positive, eg: https://www.servethehome.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-linux-benchmarks-zen-buy/
These parts are clocked relatively high, being aimed for consumers (not servers). Have heard that underclockers have gotten much better perf/watt at around 2-3GHz, so am interested to see a proper server part.
Oh, and apparently supports ECC RAM as well, which is nice.
@northhosts You know you want to ;-)
This isn't the first time AMD has under cut Intel to get market share.
We have Ryzens in house and in testing. Unfortunately, while we had early access to the processor, we couldn't get a motherboard until Thursday.
So far we're having some issues with our common images taking. We're testing new images but I'll have to wait till Monday to see what the results are. We have the product specs in the inventory system and if everything goes okay we'll have them on the site next week.
Nice! (even though I have no use)