Hacker News Reader

Comment by Noctix | Hacker News Reader

Can this be stated as an effect of Ryzen launch?

Probably, but more likely because of AMD's HEDT (high end dedktop) platform called Threadripper which will have up to 16 cores (32 Threads).

Before AMD announced Threadripper Intel had only a 12 core chip on the roadmap for the x299 platform, and charged around 1700$ for their 10 core chip. Now they will be charging 2000$ for 18 cores.

Competition is such a nice thing. Glad that AMD is back in the CPU game. Can only be good for us customers.

I'm personally looking forward to the times that this competition drastically lowers the price of mid-range CPUs for the benefit of the normal people who don't buy CPUs for 2000$.

(Yes, I know that "normal people" don't even buy laptops anymore, let alone desktops. Please excuse my fantasy-world in which people buy desktop computers and even upgrade the amplifiers of their at least 7-piece stereo sound system)

The AMD Ryzen R7 1700 is a $320 8 core/16 thread processor. Intel's cheapest 8 core/16 thread processor is their i7-6900K which sells for $1049. Even their 6/12 i7-6850K is over $600.

IMO the Ryzen R7's have been a huge "mid-end" win for anyone doing any sort of multicore/CPU intensive work. Without competition, Intel's been gouging the market for the past few years.

>drastically lowers the price of mid-range CPUs

Well, I think the current mid-range Ryzen's offer significant value and I imagine OEMs will start including them into their popular models sooner than later.

6 cores at 3.6ghz with a 4.0ghz boost for $239.

https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-1600X-Processor-YD160XBCAEW...

More than likely we won't see any kind of price war. Instead we'll see minor price fighting on a per category basis. Intel's mid vs AMD's mid, etc. There's no drive down to the bottom with a duopoly.

Competition breeds excellence. :-)

EDIT: I was getting excited by the i7-7820X until I saw it has only 28 pcie lanes. Talk about being pushed towards the way more expensive 7900x! My relatively cheaper 6850k has 40 lanes, wonder what the thinking behind this is?

Someone could explain why is important the number of PCIe lanes ?

It limits what peripherials can be attached. For instance, single graphic card uses 16 PCIe lanes, so having only 28 lines supported by processor makes it impossible to have two GPUs in SLI mode (ok, not impossible, because motherboard chipset can add some lanes, but performance will suffer)

NVMe SSD drives also use some lanes (typicaly 4), and you might want two of them in RAID.

Numerous tests show that performance is not meaningfully impacted by running two GPUs on 8x PCIe lanes vs 16x lanes, especially when using PCIe 3.0.

with current-gen GPUs

That could also change over the next few years.

What are the chances you will still be running the CPU and motherboard you buy today in a few years?

It's a huge difference for minimum frame times at 4K if you intend on getting a smooth 120fps.

So, if you not have plans of putting a NVM SSD plus two GPUs on SLI configuration, with 16 PCIe lanes will be enough.

Is there any way to see it as something else?

Apparently, Intel has years of runway vs AMD. The chips are literally designed and sitting there, only to be released if AMD comes up with something. Intel isn't scrambling in any sense, just announcing stuff that is already designed and built. All AMD was force Intel to release it earlier than their monopoly position was allowing.

This comment went as high as +4 before being downvoted to -1.

The down vote behavior is interesting. I simply mention that Intel has an early release of a previously constructed part. Monopolies behave in predictable ways.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com