16-core Ryzen part would reportedly run at 3.1 GHz base and 3.6 GHz Turbo
Click here to post a comment for 16-core Ryzen part would reportedly run at 3.1 GHz base and 3.6 GHz Turbo on our message forum
Fender178
Heck if this thing could OC to 3.9-4 Ghz on 16 cores man that would be a good boost. Also this thing could be very useful for those Users who do alot with Virtual Machines.
tsunami231
I dont think anyone wants to see AMD start pulling the same thing INTEL does as it will drive prices up not down.
With AMD actual being able to compete for once, I like many are hoping to seeing pricing war.
FranciscoCL
I think that a 16c/32t CPU for $1000 is a fair price compared to the 10c/20t i7 6950X.
Elder III
It would be pretty amazing indeed for developers. It will be very interesting to see what comes out from Team Red in the pro-sumer, professional, and server market over the next 6 months. (plus the R5 and R3 CPUs of course).
GhostXL
I'm guessing this will be AMD's 800-1000 dollar chip.
holystarlight
damn, AMD not holding back are they? Thats one crazy beast, making me think about going over to AMD at some point if they keep this up!
wavetrex
Before I got this X99 I hoped "Broadwell-E" will move the cores up, so 8 cores would be just 500-600E (max).
Unfortunately, 6900K costs an arm and a leg so I had to settle with something simple. But... the rest of the platform is pretty kick-ass already (64 gig ram, etc.), so the only change needed is mobo + this new monster CPU.
6 cores => 16 cores .... yeah, definitely worth an extra 1200-1300 eur !
(Not to mention AMD's hypertheading seems to be slightly better implemented, so I'm probably looking at a solid 3x performance improvement in the stuff I do - 4K filtering/recoding)
... while the Intel upgrade wasn't much of a difference, just two more cores for 600 more Eur? Bleah!
Bring it AMD! Release the Kraken !
Aura89
This....logic makes absolutely no sense.
8 core for $500, 16 core for $600-$800? the $800 is a maybe, but it would most definitely be $800 and up.
And good faith? What does that even mean? It would vastly out-play anything intel has for that price, so their "good faith" would...still be there?
GeniusPr0
amd fx 9590 says hi
Aura89
in case he forgets, the 9590 was $920 i believe at release.
icedman
Didn't it release close to a 1000$ but drop really quick when people realized how crappy they where I think u can still buy them for like 250$
Venix
seems like amd will be able to stuck as many cores as they want ...to get this right they are making a waffer if ccx's and they just stuck as many as they want together ? like ...here 10 ccx 40 core cpu ? if this is the case sure the communication between ccx's is a bit slow comparing but those are really cost effective having a defective ccx is not such a big deal and you can use it on 6 or 4 core zen cpu so overall making a lot small "lego" pieces is much more cost effective to build ! ((except if i am missing something :P ))
Fender178
And it was a heavily OCed 8350 as well.
Aura89
I'm not sure how quickly it lowered in price, but you can get it for that now definitely. The reviews are generally pretty good for them too, quite frankly, if you have the cooling setup, they can still compete with modern CPUs in many scenarios. I'm not saying someone should buy them, especially with Ryzen being released, but the only thing that was ever really "bad" about them was the thermal requirements lol
And you can get them for under $200 now
https://www.amazon.com/FX-9590-8-core-Desktop-Processor-FD9590FHHKWOF/dp/B00DGGW3MI
