安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
Consoles is where amd has a good chance to succeed. Its aim is to have no competition I bet. Hence the partnerships with developers.
"Enthusiast" pc computing is a small brand-driven market in comparison, in which amd has a minor share. Hanging your companies success on this market could be risky.
The server cpu side of things will be tough. There are many more companies that make server cpu's than just intel and amd. Most servers are sold as prebuilts pre-loaded with pre-configured software. The big costs in servers are datacenter costs, licence costs, data storage costs and support costs. Capacity planners are just as concerned with heat output as performance.
Some common o/s and database software licences are done on a per core basis. This might mean less cores more threads wins.
Server hardware is cheap. So the cost breakdown has meant increasing virtualisation/cloud computing onto servers with 100+ cpu's. CIO's want standardisation and simplification. A company will have to have a very good reason to risk introducing unknown servers to its SOE.
The top-end of the market is sown up by the IT blue-chips who sell their own super fast hardware usually running their own operating system.
Amd will need to find a niche which might be the "rats and mice" that often run linux. [/quote]
Enthusiast pc market is getting bigger and bigger as gaming pc sales rise ech year https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/01/as-pc-sales-shrink-the-gaming-pc-market-grows-faster-than-expected/
AMD sees that and that why now they are targeting pc gaming market with high end cpus like Ryzen7 and gpus like Vega. Consoles uses low end cpus and gpus that why a console costs only 400 euros. But a high end pc cpu or gpu is 500+ euros. So the money AMD is making from each Ryzen and each Vega sale is much more than the money they make from each xbox or playstation sold since most of it is taken by microsoft and sony. Also those who buy high end pc's is not only us gamers, but also those who need a strong pc for their work, like video editing, graphics designers, animators, e.t.c. While consoles only for 10 years olds kids who their parents dont have money yet to buy them a powerful pc to play the games the way they meant to be played.
However the USD has become somewhat cheaper in last months and that's likely reflected in the very weak price-drop we've gotten here.
We haven't got any noticable Ryzen-release price-drops from Intel.
You're free to provide any evidence for that happening in the US. I don't know which sites list prices over time in the US.
I know Wrench and u are correct to get back on topic about Ryzen.
It will only be better for gaming if it has higher clock speeds, although AMD has reported that higher RAM frequency improves FPS in the Ryzen 5 video.
Gaming PC sales may be rising, but it's still a relatively small part of the overall market for processors. At release, consoles have good hardware; PC tech just gets better while the consoles can't change. You don't know their margins, so no point in postulating. As I recall their division for console hardware is profitable whereas the last accounting statements I read showed CPUs/GPUs at a net loss. Plenty of non-10 year old play consoles man, stop being obtuse. Consoles are generally simpler and more convenient for living room gaming.
My PC is so crappy that even an FX-4300 would be an upgrade.
One speculation is that they still use two CCX and hence just 2+2 or 3+3 cores on what is still an eight core chip. I think we should also speculate that additional cores can't be unlocked.
As for binning Ryzen 5 sit at everything from 3.2-3.4 GHz (even lower than Ryzen 7 1700?) to 3.6-4.0 GHz which is on par with the Ryzen 7 1800X but for 6 cores.
Possibly they could overclock higher for disabled chips, if they just used one CCX there was the possibility of higher performance due to always having a shared cache but as is that may not be the case. I don't think we can expect them to overclock higher.
If we could assume that they would all overclock to 3.9-4.0 GHz then for someone who are fine with overclocking the Ryzen 5 1400 at i5 7400 price seem like a good choice. It adds SMT and overclocked it should have even higher ALU performance. Since it's just 3.2-3.4 GHz though we can't be sure it's silicon on par with the Ryzen 7. But it may be.
1500X cost a bit more for a bit higher clock and XFR but maybe it lack the fan as the 1700X and 1800X do too. Assuming one doesn't overclock it's of course a bit better for a bit more moneyi5 7500 competitor or something. Is it worth it?
Since for just a bit more and possibly even below i5 7600K pricing you get the Ryzen 5 1600 with six cores clocked at 3.2-3.6 GHz and I guess the fan here aswell I consider that better value. Relative the 7600K it will have better multi-threaded performance but it will be worse for games. Overclocked vs stock i5 7600K the Ryzen 7 often hold up and I guess the lack of 2 cores may not do much damage here and hence maybe this one do to, one risk factor is the spread of most active threads onto the two CCXses in case Microsoft would be willing to put up a scheduler which kept all game threads onto the same CCX for instance (assuming 3 cores / CCX here rather than 4, you also may lose 2 MB of L3 cache / CCX if they disabled that too which is likely I guess which mean less data in cache and hence worse performance due to that too, so there's a possibility the Ryzen 7 is stronger here. With that one was quad-core Ryzen 5 you could also disable one CCX completely and get quad-core whereas the quad-core chip may be a 2+2 design.
I think it could provide good value though at better multitasking performance than the i5 and almost the same performance if overclocked in games. With risk of not getting there due to the CCX design.
If overclocking isn't your thing and if you want a third party cooler anyway then the 1600X isn't priced so high it hurts. And for games if it wasn't for the CCX design once again maybe it would offer Ryzen 7 performance. As is with 3+3 cores and possible 6 MB L3 cache / CCX rather than 8 MB maybe it will be slightly worse. The Ryzen 7 1700 cost 31% more for 33% more cores and a lower clock so it doesn't offer a better package / dollar at-least.
Assuming they all overclock about the same I think the 1400 and the 1600 is the most attractive processors of Ryzen 5.
Assuming you are ok with the stock-cooler then maybe still.
If you don't want to overclock (which become weird considering you may have to buy cooler for these processors) then the 1500X and 1600X offer better clock stock for a higher price.
As for whatever the Ryzen 5 1600X or the Ryzen 7 1700 is the better buy I don't know.
Somehow since neither chip is perfect I kinda want to argue for not spending more than necessary and hence go with the cheaper chip to allow for future upgrades since the performance difference may not be large (even less so stock.)
I think the Ryzen 5 1400 and 1500X are great options vs i5 7400 and i5 7500 for those who don't want to spend more or for pre-built systems. The i5 1400 the most if one want to overclock and they overclock almost as well both of them.
However I don't think either is making it completely obvious one should choose them over what Intel offer. I think the Ryzen 5 1600 is the strongest offering vs what Intel offer since it's cheaper than the i5 7600K, come with a cooler, have 50% more cores with better multi-tasking performance and may not be far away in performance once overclocked.
I have no clue how to OC (Laptops and iMacs all my life), so I appreciate the higher out-of-box clockspeeds over the regular 1600.