vacancies advertise contact news tip The Vault
facebook rss twitter

QOTW: Does AMD Ryzen need to be faster than Intel Core?

by Tarinder Sandhu on 16 December 2016, 16:31

Tags: AMD (NYSE:AMD)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qadcdf

Add to My Vault: x

You surely could not have missed the bullish attitude with which AMD has let loose more information on the upcoming Ryzen processor.

Years in development and based on a grounds-up design, Ryzen, powered by the Zen architecture, is coming to market in the first quarter of next year.

AMD will have you believe that a non-optimised Ryzen chip, operating at 3.4GHz, and bereft of any turbo technology, is a good match for an $1,100 Intel Core i7-6900K. It's been a long, long while since AMD has been able to claim performance and power equality with one of Intel's finest chips. A long time.

Of course, AMD is showcasing Ryzen in the most positive light possible, but even so, it's not hard to be impressed with the performance potential, particularly for the legion of power users.

What is just as interesting is how you view Ryzen. Is simply being as fast good enough, especially as Intel, the incumbent, has a proven platform on which most motherboard guys have multiple boards and to which they have devoted almost all of their resources?

The AMD chip will compete at the high end first, then be distilled down to the mainstream four-core flavour later. Given that Intel is rock-solid in both segments and AMD is the relative performance newcomer, do you believe it necessary for the AMD Ryzen to be faster than the Intel Core for it to attract your hard-earned cash? Do let us know in the comments facility below.



HEXUS Forums :: 47 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
Getting close enough with a reasonable price is good enough IMHO OFC. At least from the viewpoint of a gamer,any savings on the CPU can be put into the graphics card for example and even from the viewpoint of a photographer the savings can be put into faster storage and more RAM.
being at the same speed as the 8 core but cheaper by $500 is worth killing intel for their high noncompetitive prices
It depends what you mean by faster; what are the metrics?
Gaming?
Productivity?
Media work?
Mathematics and Science?
AI?

I don't see AMD completely dethroning Intel and running away with the performance king of all possible metrics at all price points, but as long as they trade blows in enough of them, I think they should be back in the game.
As long as the figures for gaming and media work are solid, I may well be tempted.
that's like asking is hexus better than the reg ?
my 8350 does what it needs to @5ghz and in real terms plays anything out there like an intel chip would ..
but i'll be getting a zen and a vega ..and have change left over to buy the wife something :P
and if lasts as long and overclocks as my 8350 has money well spent ..
To be credible Ryzen needs to be around the same performance in most benchmarks with Core chips at a similar price, without using much more power or having any strange quirks. Most benchmarks means not just heavily multithreaded benchmarks but day-to-day average user type stuff where single thread performance matters.

If Ryzen can exceed performance in a few useful benchmarks, offer some sort of value add or just be straight up better value for money when the whole platform is taken into account then AMD might have some chance of selling them in good numbers.