Farewell Zen, Hello Ryzen: AMD’s Eight-Core CPU Runs At 3.4GHz+

Not open for further replies.


Aug 25, 2016
Is there any word on it having access to DRM 4K content? I just got a really nice 4K monitor and it seems like only the Intel 7XXX series is going to have access to streaming 4K content...


Jun 6, 2008
Agreed with the reviewer that they should have tested more real world, more lightly-threaded stuff---Bulldozer/Steamroller would have also excelled at this particular great threaded benchmark, and we now know that meant very little in the real world.

Then again, its not like Intel doesnt cherry pick benchmarks too.


Sep 6, 2009
finally! hooray AMD! give intel some competition for the love of god.

i'll still buy intel, and hopefully at a cheaper price.

i know, i'm being an hypocrite, but lets face it, no way in hell that zen will dethrone even a skylake i7.
After reading both articles, the one from here and the one from Anandtech, I'm wondering if this "extended frequency range" is a way AMD is will try to limit overclocking and exactly how it will effect overclocking.

Don't take my hobby away now....


Nov 29, 2016

I don't think it was meant to dethrone. It was meant to give some fight back and at least shake up the market. Of course, AMD can't do the same price as Intel, so I hope that maybe 800$ 8 cores compare to Intel 1k$ for 8 cores should be good enough to steal some market share.


Dec 15, 2015
I think I read somewhere (of course speculations) that the 8core will have 2 difference base clock but the price is something between 400-600$ which I hope, but either ways I am getting the AMD 8Cores which I will need badly to process a hell load of data and for testing.

The 2nd interesting thing is Vega, the new AMD GPU, but no details about when they are going to release it but seems it can match Titan X performance.


Jan 23, 2009
It sounds like the zen chip has a large ipc improvement over past AMD stuff. They took two 8 core chips and put them through a highly threaded benchmark and they both scored very similar... sounds like they are almost equal core for core. Honestly that is good enough for me. I bought my first intel chip (4790k) because AMD was not improving. I dont need the fastest but I refused to buy something that was a flop (FX). As long as the price is right and the performance jump over FX is significant, ill be a happy buyer.


My last three rigs have been Intel. Prior to that every single rig I built but one had been AMD. AMD's fall from the enthusiast space KILLED me. When Conroe then Nehalem launched it became painful clear as a user who did a lot of gaming and video encode/decode AMD just wasn't going to be viable for the performance level I demanded. It's was one thing when they could give Intel a run for the money even if they didn't always have the fastest part it would at least nip at the heals of Intel (athlon/athlon XP era) with good performance at an excellent price. It was another even more beautiful thing when they slammed Intel with the launch of their 64bit processors. Oh how I loved my FX rigs. Then the epic fail that was bulldozer was a hard pill to swallow. Even the Phenoms weren't to bad which was the last AMD back-up rig I had. Now the idea of my primary rig being an AMD machine again with Intel levels or performance has me downright giddy. I am obviously waiting for full confirmation when launch reviews hit but to have a least some faith AMD is back in the game is a really great feeling. I truly hope the hype isn't just that.


Jan 23, 2012
Somewhere (maybe PC World?) reported that both systems were running Titans and the Intel machine had twice the RAM of the Ryzen, in quad channel no less. AMD was trying to go out of their way, apparently, to show that they didn't cripple the competition's chip with bad hardware just to score some points. If this thing can trade blows with that chip across multiple benchmarks I'll be ecstatic. As it is this thing is already a major improvement because no AMD chip in their lineup can come close to the 6900K.


Dec 4, 2009
Sure would be nice to actually get some new details. The only thing new I learned today about this is the clock rate is higher than the expected 3.0-3.2 range predicted.
I'm leery of a single benchmark. Hopefully more will follow. If we adhered to a single benchmark then we could cherry pick a benchmark where the fx 9590 matches an i7 5960x and call it a win. Of course that doesn't come close to painting the full picture. If looking at the webxprt benchmark scores, an fx 9590 slightly edges out the i7 6900k. Again it means very little.

In single threaded cinebench r15 the outdated 4790k beats out the 6900k and in many other tasks it's almost tied. Going back to that webxprt bench, the 4790k embarrasses the 6900k. There are several bench's where the outdated desktop i7 holds its own or surpasses the 6900k in performance and that's without overclocking it. I don't think it's time to pop the cork on the champagne just yet until more data is made available.



I agree the champagne needs to stay on ice a bit longer. I am just glad I can still be hopeful at this point. In the end until the launch reviews/benchmarks drop we don't know enough and I'll just be crossing my fingers, hoping for the best. Intel has dominated the HEDT space for to long I am sure we can all agree on that much.



Maybe maybe not. AMD has to deliver first. IF they do deliver they have a decent chance. Kaby lake had zero IPC gains compared to skylake so even when skylake-e launchs we will be looking at the same IPC for a few more years from Intel. And skylake is not exactly a huge leap over broadwell. Regardless AMD getting competitive is key to the slumping IPC gains we have seen from Intel the last 4+ generations...
Very true atomicWAR, the opterons used to at least compete with the xeons in that regard, or at least toward the server side of things. Don't hear about opterons too much these days. Pricing will also play a huge factor and is another unknown. At $700 the fx 8350 is a joke, at $150 it's at least somewhat competitive. Along with brute performance comes the price point at which it's offered. Even the lower performing fx chips have found plenty of buyers due to being priced appropriately.

Back when the fx 9590 came out it was over $900 usd. It soon fell but only to $880. Given its overall performance, it's now a $200 cpu. Amd was a bit over enthusiastic with their pricing on that one. Hopefully this time around they're more thorough in testing and base their prices accordingly. It will be much less embarrassing if it performs like a $500 cpu and is priced around $480-500 than if they slap a $1200 price tag on it only to have to quickly slash prices due to lackluster performance. Every company makes mistakes, hopefully they learn from them. I think it would go a long way in saving face.


Aug 5, 2009

the leaks that they had, which at least partially discredited now, had 2 8 core skus, 1 6 core and 1 4core that would come later, likely failed 8 core units.

the prices were 350 and 500 for the 8 core.

Personally, the only thing that makes me wonder is the moba benchmark, as they had a 6700 and a 6900 there for comparison... why use a 6700, why not an i5, or an i3, or even a 6800/6850?
I'm taking this as 'this is what you get (the 6900) for this price (the 6700)'

they showed off quite a few benches actually, though you would actually have to use the programs in a few of the cases to be able to gleam anything from them

1) blender
2) handbrake
3) vr
4) z brush
5) battlefield 1
6) keyshot
7) was that dota or lol + streaming?

then a non cpu

8) vega first look to the masses in battlefront, though not impressive, prior to this was doom on ultra at 4k

but for most people, the benefit of an actual 8 core never shows through in a benchmark as the benefit most people get are in tangible, things that aren't benchtable. my computer is rendering a video, i'm playing a game and OH NO windows decided to have update take out an entire cpu core.

On my quad core, windows doing that alone my computer may as well slit its wrists, but on 6 or even 8 cores, it can take the hit and not feel it. I render a video on my computer, and want to use chrome, well that is 1 cpu core at least, 2 if I want to have a smooth experience, and my render time just doubled, but with 8 cores, split the load and play a game unhindered.

you are going to have intel beat out amd just because they clock higher alone, at least till the 6 and 4 core variants come, that may change it, but if amd is even close to what intel can do, which it seems like they are, then thats it, my money is with amd for 8 cores 16 threads and a hell of alot better quality of life.
I'm not against amd, but I feel 3rd party benchmarks are needed. Of course the product is great when you ask the person who made it. Don't believe them, just ask them, they'll tell you. I'm the same way with intel, I don't have any love for them personally. It comes to performance, if the top of the performance charts were named 'lemon zest' then that's what I'd use. It's true that more cores can help especially if setting affinity when heavy multitasking but I'm not sure the market segment of those who encode a video while gaming while streaming live while watching youtube is the dominant one. There are and have been multicore cpu's in the enthusiast segment for those folks, including intel's 6950x 10c/20t cpu.
Not open for further replies.