|
So is Bulldozer going to be worth waiting for or are they going to be a generation behind Intel again? I really want competitiveness between Intel and AMD again so Intel doesn't price gouge their chips.
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2011 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 18, 2024 12:22 |
|
|
Are we still looking at a June release for Bulldozer and will they have budget chips available then? Imagine an Athlon III X8 chip for $100.  
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2011 20:19
|
|
|
KillHour posted:i3's don't cost $650+. What the gently caress is AMD smoking? It's system price, not CPU price.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2011 04:59
|
|
|
So let me get this straight, you can put a BD chip in an AM3 motherboard with a bios update but you can't put a AM3 CPU in an AM3+ motherboard?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2011 19:26
|
|
|
So is Bulldozer going to be AMD's big comeback? My E8400 is three years old now and I would like to upgrade soon but I feel obligated to wait until Bulldozer is benchmarked against Sandy Bridge to see if Bulldozer is worth waiting for. I use my system primarily for gaming and AFAIK there are zero games that take advantage of eight cores. I guess eight cores would come in handy if you want to game and encode video at the same time.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2011 20:31
|
|
|
Nonpython posted:I mean the whole B65/H61/H67/P67/Q65/Q67/Z68 thing. I would have to agree with you on this chipset bullshit. What the hell are the Q65 and Q67 chipsets for?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2011 01:26
|
|
|
Now that I already pulled the trigger on a 2500K setup I'm sure AMD will now make their big comeback. 
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2011 22:25
|
|
|
Any word yet on the overclocking ability of these chips?
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2011 10:15
|
|
|
What would be neat is if Llano could make gaming on a laptop cheaper and more feasible.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2011 06:46
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:edit: Looks like we've got a good leak on BD clocks and prices from ASUS. Could this be AMD heralding their triumphant return?
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2011 06:39
|
|
|
I'm still on a 2500K@4.2 (Won't oc higher I tried) which is starting to show its age in some of the newer games so as a gamer what would be better: Ryzen with more and somewhat faster CPU cores or go with Kaby Lake with fewer CPU cores but said CPU cores are much faster?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
Gwaihir posted:Well, aside from the obvious bit of no one having any benchmarks of ryzen to compare against, and no data on OC ability, the best upgrade for just gaming purposes is still going to be the highest clocked quad you can grab paired with the fastest RAM. So get a i7-7700K and pair it with some DDR4-4000 RAM?  PerrineClostermann posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4chk3fWb6xI I actually watched that video a few days ago and that's what got me thinking of getting an i7 chip this time over an i5 chip but then Ryzen is coming out soon and where are the goddamn benchmarks for it? 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:If only PNGs could be thread titles. AMD CPU and Platform Discussion: RIP AND TEAR YOUR THREADS! YOU ARE HUGE! THAT MEANS YOU HAVE HUGE THREADS! RIP AND TEAR!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
So Intel CPUs are still going to be better for gaming?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 09:26
|
|
|
So it looks like Intel chips are still going to be better for gaming for now. Oh well, an i7-7700K it is then for my next build.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
RyuHimora posted:Ryzen was never going to be better than Intel. But you're going to be hard-pressed to tell the difference between a Ryzen chip and an Intel chip in a game, especially in DX12 or Vulkan games. How many DX12 and Vulkan games are there? The only ones I know of are Rise of the Tomb Raider for DX12 and DOOM for Vulkan.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 08:06
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:They're not lazy, it's that desktop CPUs are less of a revenue generator than server and laptops CPUs so it makes little economic sense to focus on them, combined with the fact that competition from AMD has been basically nonexistent for the past several years until now. From that position it makes sense to milk desktop users for minimal effort because what else are they gonna do? Who knows, maybe Ryzen+ or Ryzen 2.0 will finally force Intel's hand.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
I thought that Intel's Hyper-threading added substantially more complexity to their CPUs and therefore cost more to produce and that's why i7 chips cost substantially more than i5 chips for the consumer.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
fishmech posted:For some games yes, for others no. Which games though? There are newer games that scale very well with the number of CPU cores/threads a system has while other games only scale well with CPU clock speed regardless of the core/thread count because they are poorly optimized piles of poo poo. spasticColon fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
What's the CPU core config for the six-core R5 Ryzen chips? Is it 3+3 or 4+2 or 5+1 or what? The R5 1600X looks very tempting to finally upgrade from my 2500K but I'm going to wait for motherboards and motherboard bios' to mature first. spasticColon fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Apr 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
rex rabidorum vires posted:Both 1600x and 1600 are 3+3 the 1500x and 1400 are 2+2. Heh so the 1500x and 1400 are kinda like the old Core 2 Quad chips in that they're double dual-core.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 18, 2024 12:22 |
|
|
So when I do plan on building a Ryzen R5 1600X system late summer/early fall I might end up spending as much money on the RAM as I do on the CPU itself? The system would primarily be for gaming and internet (no game streaming) so I would hope 16GB would be enough RAM. I still have only 8GB RAM in my current 2500K rig (upgraded to faster DDR3-2133 for $70 to stretch this system out for a bit longer) and I have yet to max out my 8GB of RAM but then again I never have Chrome with 100+ tabs open in the background.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 21:06
|
|