Really looking forward to r3 showdown against intel in the budget sector

The chip to beat will of course be the g4560 (for gaming anyway..), but at £65 for that chip even the cheapest r3 is going to have to show quite a bit of a performance advantage to sway people away from the g4560 in budget gaming builds.

Would really like to know what the bill of materials is for the ryzen product stack as the only problem with being the budget darling is the high volume / low gross margin never really makes investors happy...

...but on the plus side its cockblocking intel and getting people on your platform.

The G4560 is pretty much not available at this point.
For some reason Intel wants you to buy the stupid i3 if you like HT.

1 Like

regardless of availability (I was aware of the issues.. I just remember seeing something recently that suggests that the availability was improving), you can guarantee that it will be the cpu wheeled out in benchmarks by youtubers

i3 7100 is dead to me > £100 for a dual core / 4 thread should just NOT be allowed to exist

best case scenario

It beats the pentium AND i3 by enough of a margin for people to overlook the price gap

Like it or not, they are the chips to beat and we know the games that will most likely be thrown at it

Ashes - will most likely favour the amd quad core
Watchdogs 2 - will most likely favour the amd quad core
Rise of the Tomb Raider - Not sure, havent looked up its core / thread scaling
GTA - Not sure, thinking this one might be a win for intel
DOOOOOM - will most likely favour the amd quad core
battlefield 1 - will most likely favour the amd quad core
Prey - runs fine on dual cores so it will most likely come down to frequency / ipc going to say slight win to 7100 with its 3.9ghz boost
Fallout 4 - god knows, runs like crap on almost everything

Just list other games and what will win what, its a fun way to pass the time until release :smiley:

Keep in mind one thing:
The game may run fine on dual core cpus and still take advantage of quad cores.
It's all depending on the method of multithreading.
Many games use the easier method of making a thread pool and let the OS assign the threads to the cores. So then the game will run on dual core, but will take advantage even of 8 cores.
There is another way, that is more optimized, but it's limiting. It's manually assigning threads to cores. That way the dev can synchronize calculations and make sure all available resources are properly utilized. In that case, do you make the game run on dual cores, so you don't lose the lower end of the market or do you make it run on quad cores and become FarCry 4, where people cried out about it? In console gaming you know you have 8 cores so you know how to optimize, but on PC you have the crap low end dual core pentiums, that should have died 5 years ago, but the media still pushed them over the amd quad cores at the time. So you can't automatically optimize for 4 or 8 cores, and Windows is not brilliant with assignment of threads.

No, it isn't.

1 Like

Your no fun :smiley:

Given that smt issues should not be present I cant see anything souring this range.

budget sector is amd's best chance to increase market share to a meaningful degree.

There have never been so many budget options, add in the R3's at 109 and 129 so much will depend on what is on sale locally.
Also if you have a microcenter nearby even if it does not say 30 off the bundle throw it in the cart. I did this with the I3-7350K and a cheap 1151mb, you get the 50 bucks off the cpu AND another 30 off the MB, considering that the I3 can overclock to 5ghz that starts to look really good.
My 8320e is now 79 bucks but the combo deal went from 40 off to 30 off, basically Ryzen has had very little effect on it's price and if you have a buddy with 8 gig of DDR3, GTX 660 and a bucket of pity that is still an option.
The Ryzen APU's will be interesting, When I first played Cyrsis 3 on my 7850K I found out two things: Crysis 3 is meh and getting advice from a forum will triple the price of a gaming PC. My current setup could blow up and I would still happily game on that sucker. Overclocking the iGPU was the the easiest 13% jump in actual FPS ever.

Motherboards and overclocking. Before AMD had a huge advantage mitigated by the army of trolls who said overclocking anything but a top end board is a firehazard. The hard part is finding people on the overclocking forums that have experience with the board. Most reviews shun budget boards.
There is also the actual FPS gain from overclocking issue, which varies from game to game. Going from 3.5 to 4 nad getting 15 fps is great. Getting 1 or 2 fps more when you take it to 4.5 ghz isn't great for gaming but hey it still feels good!

Ok I'm rambling :slight_smile:

I'm just waiting for Intel to hit their melting point. They are stupid close as of now. Hell its funny to me that the Phenoms are getting bought up like nutso and used for NAS and firewalls and shit. The G chips are getting turned into i3's more than likely so they can have a 7143.458K or some retarded shit.

I can imagine the people who used to buy i3 and celerons/atoms for spreadsheets, accounting, data entry, driving machinery, light file sharing... Things where CPU performance doesn't matter, would still be buying the i3 because of the integrated GPU.

The A320 motherboards cost about the same compared to H110, so AMD comes out as more expensive there.

Once Zen APUs are out it's going to be an interesting comparison.

1 Like