Here is an English article: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-eight-core-cpu,33...
Man, if that holds true in more benchmarks, that's fantastic news. AMD chugged along by "competing" further and further down Intel's product line more or less since Sandy Bridge, if they can genuinely compete with the i7 now I can't wait to see the next few years. Intel has always seemed content to release incremental improvements until they get kicked in the pants by somebody else, I wouldn't be surprised if they have a bunch of stuff waiting in the wings to maintain their edge over AMD.
AMD fell the moment they failed to improve over K10.
I don't know if the designs were really absurd, or if the market couldn't understand AMD's value prop. Or if the programmers couldn't (or wouldn't) tap into their APU idea.
Multiple papercuts made them fall I guess.
The gaming consoles show how well the concept works, although, sadly for AMD, these deals may be high volume but don't have high margins.
AMD dedicated graphics have only minor issues imho, they're very competitive with nVidias offerings. But in the professional and compute segments they fail to take off, because nVidia established the popular, proprietary CUDA standard there. I don't think there's a (major) technical reason why AMD has much less market share there.
They're likely fairly consistent income, however, even if the margins are relatively slim. For a company in AMD's state, constant income no matter how small is likely a good thing.
AMD marketing tried to put GPU performance in the spotlight. The unfortunate effect was that a moderately informed consumer then had the choice between a somewhat predictable level of graphics performance paired with whatever CPU that came with it if buying AMD, versus a somewhat predictable level of CPU performance paired with whatever GPU that came with it if buying Intel. In most market segments, uncertainty about graphics performance has much less impact on buying decisions than uncertainty about general purpose compute. The (involuntarily, given their portfolio) focus of AMD's marketing on the graphics part of their APUs made it close to impossible to successfully communicate value-for-money advantages in their price range (assuming they had it).
Rumors went around that Intel paid manufacturers to do it intentionally, but nothing was ever proven. However, given how Intel has had similar behavior in the past, it isn't an unreasonable rumor either...
Also IIRC, ryzen wasn't using any form of boost while the 6900k was allowed to push its enveloppe.
Not a time to buy an intel cpu.
If there is no room for boost on Zen parts it's gonna be dead in the water for enthusiasts. My 5820k does 4.6ghz and it's a 6 core part.
That said what's even more important is going to be USB 3/3.1, storage and PCIe performance which ATM on AMDs current platforms are abysmal.
Would be interesting to see the boost stats in that case, 3.7 boost is a bit low for a 6900k part tho everyone I know that had it rubs it around 4.2-4.3ghz.
If AMD left a benchmark to run as a space heater right up to when they started the timed one, the CPU would start at 3.3GHz.
As for the boost, I haven't seen a load that would prevent a core i7 from boosting permanently on air cooling, with water you'll have no problems keeping it at 4.3-4.5 even with an AIO...
This is incorrect. They did a "both CPUs locked to 3.0GHz" test a few months back, today they did a "Intel CPU running absolutely stock, AMD one locked to without boost" test.
But Intel also has an ability to put pressure on OEMs (because of monopoly position and massive supply volume, so if they will not sell CPUs to some vendor as a punishment for buying AMD, AMD will not be able to supply enough CPUs on their own) and brand loyalty, so probably they will keep their "high-end" price points.
Also are the 8 cores they're claiming 8 physical cores or logical?
Shame they still seem to have a 15-year-old in charge of marketing though. Should have just stuck with "Zen".
Also, it sounds like "Ryzen" is their consumer product line. Their server product line might be called something else. It makes sense to have multiple product lines with different names and to refer to the common microarchitecture as "Zen".
AMD was never expected to beat Intel's best, they are expected to beat Intel on price performance.