AMD should do something about the power consumption of it's products. Now that they moved to 14nm FinFET process, there is no excuse for being less power efficient than Intel or NVidia.
I was about to purchase an RX480 for occasional gaming (1-2 hours a week), until I saw the power consumption on *IDLE* for a multi-monitor setup (e.g. a 1280x1024 and a 1920x1080). It's 40 WATTS (!). FOURTY. NVidia needs 8.
Sorry AMD. I had every good intention to help you rise "back to your former glory" but you didn't let me.
What we know is that AMD has beat the company that has more "resources and money". Brilliant minds like Jim keller was involved in the product that best intel for years, the same guy has beeb deeply involved in the upcomming Zen chip.They aren't going to beat Intel, the resources and money they have can't be understated.
However, if the goal is to get "close" then it could be hopeful.
Also consider how stagnate the PC gaming technologies have been where even an i5-2500K is relevant for gaming still. If Zen is anywhere near or close to Broadwell-E, it could be a good chip for gamers as well as folks who do light media work.
None of that really matters though if the pricing isn't there.
Let's get our story straight, the "Athlon" CPUs were better than the Prescott Pentiums and that was in excess of a decade ago.What we know is that AMD has beat the company that has more "resources and money". Brilliant minds like Jim keller was involved in the product that best intel for years, the same guy has beeb deeply involved in the upcomming Zen chip....[ ]....
it will easily beat my 2700K@4.8Ghz and your little 3770K with no proper oc abilities. I can even tell you that Zen will murder even a highly oc 4790K !If it can match or beat my 3770k and come out at 249 my next upgrade will definitely be Zen.
I agree, the athlon was the "peak" for AMD. it's just impossible to compete with intel in the high end desktop and server market because of how much money intel has for R&D and marketing (and for some of the more illegal deals ).Let's get our story straight, the "Athlon" CPUs were better than the Prescott Pentiums and that was in excess of a decade ago.
And then boyz & girlz, in the 3rd quarter of 2006, Intel released the Core 2 Duo E-6300, and things were never really the same after that for AMD.
Since then, all AMD has really managed to do, is use up most of the names of heavy construction equipment, and run up everybody's electric bill.
Don't let hype with worthless marketing stats determine the future before we have it. At best it will be in par with Haswell. This is AMD we're talking about, not some new startup led by all the minds in the industry with more funds than Nvidia and Intel combined.it will easily beat my 2700K@4.8Ghz and your little 3770K with no proper oc abilities. I can even tell you that Zen will murder even a highly oc 4790K !If it can match or beat my 3770k and come out at 249 my next upgrade will definitely be Zen.
My view on it is that Zen will either match a 6700K or even beat a 6800K !
I however am waiting on 10nm tech and below ., not this 14nm old tech that zen and Kabylake delivers. Anything less than 10nm will bring us highend desktop cpus at 10 - to 20 watts tdp.
Let's get our story straight, the "Athlon" CPUs were better than the Prescott Pentiums and that was in excess of a decade ago.What we know is that AMD has beat the company that has more "resources and money". Brilliant minds like Jim keller was involved in the product that best intel for years, the same guy has beeb deeply involved in the upcomming Zen chip....[ ]....
And then boyz & girlz, in the 3rd quarter of 2006, Intel released the Core 2 Duo E-6300, and things were never really the same after that for AMD.
Since then, all AMD has really managed to do, is use up most of the names of heavy construction equipment, and run up everybody's electric bill.
For me the big no-go has always been AMD's power consumption. Their CPU TDP is just so much higher than Intels, and most of their GPU range as well.
I once tried a laptop based on their Brazos E350 platform (Two bobcat cores at 1,6 Ghz and integrated GPU). To be fair it did not consume much power, and its GPU could just show 720p video at 30 fps, but for office applications an Asus Eee pc netbook with an 1,6 Ghz Intel Atom single-core processor wiped the floor with the AMD. Only place it lagged was video. Mpeg4 hardware acceleration was non-existant. Could barely show 480p at 30 frames. But the Atom chip only sipped power from the battery, AMD drank it...
And I suspect the same applies now with regards to CPU computing power pr watt. If you don't care bout power consumption, an AMD cpu is cheap and powerful, so its an affordable bang-for-the buck, but give a little more for Intel, and you will save money in the long run.
I know prices for electricity varies throughout the world, but here in Denmark we pay the equivalent of 35 cents pr kilowatt, so it is quite expensive. And as noted by others, most programmes are optimized for Intel. And, if you're not a gamer (excluded the odd game of solitaire) Intels integrated graphics are quite enough for office word and watching video - even videp editing and rendering is possible, as long as the CPU is strong enough.