Originally Posted by Blameless
Yeah, performance is mostly a given. We just need to know if Intel will price it competitively or just try to ride on their name recognition.
X99 was a lot smoother than X79.
So far we have not seen major price decreases from Intel. All we can do is wait and see. A big question is if enough people who are non-enthusiasts will buy AMD. Even bigger, will OEMs adopt AMD Ryzen CPUs and Opteron Ryzen gain some marketshare? They do need to do a few things, better virtualization support for one. I think that compared to AMD-V and AMDs IOMMU, Intel's VT-x and VT-d, unless there is something new from AMD that I do not know of.
I do wonder if Intel will resort to similar tactics though from the Prescott days when the AMD K8 was very strong.
It may be a few months before we see the full impact of Ryzen though. The low end with Ryzen 4 and 6 core are now in trouble. I guess you could get a 7600K where absolute single threaded performance is desired (the top bins at Silicon Lottery go up to 5.3 GHz https://siliconlottery.com/collections/all/products/7600k53g
, and 5.2 GHz for the 7700k - the extra 100MHz is probably because you can often get 100 MHz more performance with HT off).
Actually Blameless, one question, I am wondering if your view of X79 was colored by your experiences with Gigabyte X79 boards which were problem plagued as compared to the X99 OC Formula which you had. Most of the other vendors were more smooth on X79 from what I've seen (EVGA being the exception). However, Asus, MSI, and Asrock (although they had some issues with the X79 Extreme11) had issues, but nothing too serious.
Originally Posted by PostalTwinkie
Anyone in doubt can ask our good friends at EVGA about how it went.
EVGA had issues because they lost their entire BIOS team to Sapphire and they lost Shamino. They also had problems on their P67 line of boards right before.
Things did not get by the time of Haswell E I'm afraid.
It's very unfortunate, considering they are a good company otherwise. I'd considering buying if they offered a solid BIOS. Maybe with Ryzen they'll consider making an AMD motherboard? If Intel prices X299 the way they did X99, then AMD's Ryzen X390 with up to 16 cores should run wild. They might even have to offer MCC dies to try to compete.
Actually what I'm really looking forward to seeing is what AMD will offer for Zen+. In one of their Q&A, they said that there were many features left out of Zen to try to make the March 2017 goal. I've said this before, but I'm thinking we could see as much as 10% IPC, which would put it firmly in Skylake territory. Maybe with a wider queue (no SMT penalty, although even that is going away with the latest AGESA updates for the most part), and better AVX, it would be all around better. They sure could use more CCX bandwidth and lower latency. If this could be combined, perhaps with 14LPU
then we could see some truly amazing CPUs. Maybe they could squeeze a few hundred more MHz out of a few HBM optimizations.
We're due for Zen+ in 2018 - perhaps even H1 of 2018.
Actually, if you consider Zen 2 - it should be able to hold its own against Skylake E even at IPC, which if it is priced aggressively might be a big nail in the coffin for Intel. That's important because they will be able to win even more Opteron market share. I wonder what a 32 core 2P Zen+ will be like? They should be able to improve the clockspeeds too at a given power consumption. Alternatively they could fuse more Zen 2 8 core dies together at the same TDP at the same clockspeed.
Assuming this timeline, we are looking at Zen 2 a few months after the time for the Intel 8000 series with 14nm++ and then perhaps Zen 3 for the 10nm Skylake die shrink, assuming no further delays though on either Zen 3 or Intel's 10nm (already delayed many times).Edited by CrazyElf - 4/11/17 at 1:25pm