Still kinda confused about which part of the market these chips are being aimed at. The suggested price point says to me that AMD are going after Intel's Z170 platform but all the specs suggest that they're being aimed at the X99 platform for a fraction of the price which sounds like AMD would be shooting themselves in the foot. Am I missing something? Are the chips not performing as advertised or are AMD really pushing a loss leader to try and take a big chunk of the whole high-end market in one fell swoop?

Shooting them self in the foot? How about every customer who is being shafted by silly priced, limping i3 and not so special i5? While you can buy cpu and mobo combo for £100 which doesn't even cover cheapest i3 :banana: And lets not forget that there are more people struggling around the world than are prepared to paid whatever the price. So I say thank you AMD for an attempt to bring the prices to where they should be and I will be showing that with my wallet as soon as possible.

For me it's clear what AMD is aiming at. These CPUs have as target the whole Desktop Market. As we well know AMD now will use the unified AM4 socket for CPUs and APUs. No more FM4 or, Z170, H170, H110 and so on. Just AM4. Which practically means that Zen CPUs will be a choice for mainstream and High end Desktop users at the same time (let's say Z170, X99). The names of the models indicate that. SR3 to SR7. Simple as that. Just one socket to "rule them all". No more confusion. Instead more practical. One Motherboard, many CPU/APU types. No more questions like "which motherboard, supports the x CPU". And on top of that affordable prices (hopefully).

There are a few different chipsets, but they should all support all the CPUs.

I hope this works, I really do. It was about damn time. The analogy is obviously like this on the price range: SR3 -> i3 SR5 -> i5 SR7 -> i7 If they somehow offer double the core count for each category, Intel is in serious trouble. And judging by the confirmation that the smallest Zen core is a quad, then it could easily be: SR3: 4c/4t vs i3 2c/4t SR5: 8c/8t vs i5 4c/4t SR3: 8c/16t vs i7 4c/8t The only part I really don't know about is the SR5 one. For all we know, it could be a 8c/16t part with lower binning, and the SR7 taking the place of the "Black Edition" CPUs.

Yea. And well it's not like AMD has any chance of asking the same prices as Intel w/o losing loads of customers at the process even with similar performing chips. 3.2-3.5 with oc on air to 4.2 and ln2 to 5ghz I that would be good for an octacore really good imo. Rather similar to the Intels 6xxx lineup @Turanis why should it cost 500+? Because Intel has silly margins?

Shooting them self in the foot? How about every customer who is being shafted by silly priced, limping i3 and not so special i5? While you can buy cpu and mobo combo for £100 which doesn't even cover cheapest i3 :banana: And lets not forget that there are more people struggling around the world than are prepared to paid whatever the price. So I say thank you AMD for an attempt to bring the prices to where they should be and I will be showing that with my wallet as soon as possible.

my thoughts exactly 🙂

Yea. And well it's not like AMD has any chance of asking the same prices as Intel w/o losing loads of customers at the process even with similar performing chips. @Turanis why should it cost 500+? Because Intel has silly margins?

If AMD can deliver chips that are in the same performance ballpark as the Broadwell-E then they could charge €400-500 and still significantly undercut Intel. Just saying that something smells a bit off about these leaks vs peoples expectations

Hold our horses! If its real 8 cores CPU then should cost ~500$/EUR. Im not expecting a perf who will beat or equal Skylake or Broadwell.But if they do then STF and take my moooney. 🙂

It shouldn't. This is about the same size than any quad core Intel chip with igpu. There's pretty much zero reasons why it should cost as much like that. 8 core Zen will almost certainly cost about the same as quad core Core i7. They want to sell chips and gain market share. If it costs 500 € that's not going to happen especially since this will not match nor beat Skylake (or Kaby Lake).

They have the potential to shake up the market this time around,Lets see what happens I have high hopes for them.

If they are good 8/16 zen can bring true 8cores to consumers for a lot less then Intels charging, this can have a positive affect on the market as a whole.Intel charges way to much for there products but that's what happens when you have no contenders fighting against you.Its real important for Amd to price these in a way most of us can afford to reach them....$300 USD would be a perfect price in my opinion.

For me it's clear what AMD is aiming at. These CPUs have as target the whole Desktop Market. As we well know AMD now will use the unified AM4 socket for CPUs and APUs. No more FM4 or, Z170, H170, H110 and so on. Just AM4. Which practically means that Zen CPUs will be a choice for mainstream and High end Desktop users at the same time (let's say Z170, X99). The names of the models indicate that. SR3 to SR7. Simple as that. Just one socket to "rule them all". No more confusion. Instead more practical. One Motherboard, many CPU/APU types. No more questions like "which motherboard, supports the x CPU". And on top of that affordable prices (hopefully).

My only concern is that motherboard manufacturers will cheap out on parts. Then we would end up with boards that will blow up and AMD will fully take the blame even though it would not be their fault. (Or the CPU will throttle like made and make it look like their CPU's are slow and once again, AMD would take the blame.):bang:

I hope this works, I really do. It was about damn time. The analogy is obviously like this on the price range: SR3 -> i3 SR5 -> i5 SR7 -> i7 If they somehow offer double the core count for each category, Intel is in serious trouble. And judging by the confirmation that the smallest Zen core is a quad, then it could easily be: SR3: 4c/4t vs i3 2c/4t SR5: 8c/8t vs i5 4c/4t SR3: 8c/16t vs i7 4c/8t The only part I really don't know about is the SR5 one. For all we know, it could be a 8c/16t part with lower binning, and the SR7 taking the place of the "Black Edition" CPUs.

from what I saw it is double the threads SR3: 4core 8 thread SR5: 6core 12thread SR7: 8core 16thread SR7 BE: 8core 16thread

Still kinda confused about which part of the market these chips are being aimed at. The suggested price point says to me that AMD are going after Intel's Z170 platform but all the specs suggest that they're being aimed at the X99 platform for a fraction of the price which sounds like AMD would be shooting themselves in the foot. Am I missing something? Are the chips not performing as advertised or are AMD really pushing a loss leader to try and take a big chunk of the whole high-end market in one fell swoop?

Yes, you are missing something--you don't know AMD...;) Intel's prices are gouging prices--leaving plenty of headroom for AMD to manufacture chips in the equivalent or better performance range at a fraction of Intel's prices. Looking at Intel's pricing and making assumptions about AMD is doing it backwards. When AMD launched the Athlon and then the A64, it wasn't just pricing Intel had to drop through the floor--Intel had to *drop* the entire 32-bit Pentium architecture!...;) It was non-competitive with AMD at any price and Intel was forced to can the whole architecture and officially cancelled it. If not for the A64, Core 2 would never have been born. Intel was pushing Itanium for 64-bit performance, along with RDRAM, at huge prices no one was interested in, etc. That fact that Intel's route to 64-bit computing would have made everyone's 32-bit software and hardware *incompatible* didn't help Intel's case, either. The entire market dumped Intel's suggested route and went AMD's x86-64, DDR SDRM route, instead. We are still there today. Intel may be 10x as big but it has 10x the overhead of AMD, too, never forget. Intel's price gouging is so bad, in fact, that it leaves AMD plenty of room to offer equivalent or better performance for a fraction of the cost, and still make a ton of money. Never try to figure out what AMD is doing by looking at Intel...Gaaaaa....;) It only even works for Intel when Intel has no x86 high-end cpu competition. That said, these are desktop chips, remember--not server chips--where AMD charges much more--but will still provide better value than Intel, there, too.

Shooting them self in the foot? How about every customer who is being shafted by silly priced, limping i3 and not so special i5? While you can buy cpu and mobo combo for £100 which doesn't even cover cheapest i3 :banana: And lets not forget that there are more people struggling around the world than are prepared to paid whatever the price. So I say thank you AMD for an attempt to bring the prices to where they should be and I will be showing that with my wallet as soon as possible.

So you want AMD to keep pricing things below what it costs to make them so that they can definitely drive themselves to bankruptcy and out of business? They need to start pricing things so that they make a decent profit. They cannot keep up losing money year after year after year.

maybe it is far fetish but what if the SR refer to the Radeon graphics brand, like they did with there 7th generation processors R7, R5, R4 and R2 🤓

That's a sound idea actually. [spoiler]http://i.imgur.com/K77OSkh.jpg[/spoiler]

from what I saw it is double the threads SR3: 4core 8 thread SR5: 6core 12thread SR7: 8core 16thread SR7 BE: 8core 16thread

Where did you get these? I'm not sure we'll even see a 6-core Zen. As far as I understand the whole thing works in packages of 4.

For the folks out there thinking that AMD will shoot themselfs in the leg believe me the very same stuff i heard back in 1999 but they didn't bancrupted they shot Pentium III so badly that Intel was forced to bury it too fast instead of optimise it and released the Pentium IV which then was just blowned up by Athlon 64x again but fortunatelly the Israeli division of Intel kept the PIII architecture alive and well optimised as Pentium M for Notebooks they took it duested it off and created Core Duo and then Core 2 Duo which was finally on pair with K8 and K10 unfortunatelly for AMD back then Jim Keller left and the company went with the Buldozer bul****.I don't trust AMD i trust Jim Keller for his work on K7 , K8 , HyperTransport bus , Apple A4 and A5 and i have all the trust in the upcoming K12 architecture and that it will shoot down again the entire Intel CPU architecture which obviously reached it's limits 4 years ago and now is only die shrinking and new features the only thing that is happening. Trust Jim Keller not AMD after all they took ATI and since then it is only loosing market share.

That's a sound idea actually. [spoiler]http://i.imgur.com/K77OSkh.jpg[/spoiler] Where did you get these? I'm not sure we'll even see a 6-core Zen. As far as I understand the whole thing works in packages of 4.

That's how I understand it too. It's indeed package of four cores and I'm not sure if it's possible to disable invidual cores. 6 core variant is unlikely for that reason.

My only concern is that motherboard manufacturers will cheap out on parts. Then we would end up with boards that will blow up and AMD will fully take the blame even though it would not be their fault. (Or the CPU will throttle like made and make it look like their CPU's are slow and once again, AMD would take the blame.):bang:

My motherboards doing ok so far.. 8 core cpu, cheap motherboard.. *shrugs*

That's a sound idea actually. [spoiler]http://i.imgur.com/K77OSkh.jpg[/spoiler] Where did you get these? I'm not sure we'll even see a 6-core Zen. As far as I understand the whole thing works in packages of 4.

where.. In main news, check again 😉 This was also posted by someone few days ago (@overclock.net).. Its all in there + cinbench15 scores. And SR5 clearly states as a 6core 12thread. It can be split in 4-6-8 cores, its not like Buldozer module and even that was able to split it just like Intel does. Yes cache is apparently split between 4, but then again they can use defective 8cores and disable 2 cores, viola 6core 12 threads.. http://image.slidesharecdn.com/hc28amdmikeclark-160823152344/95/amd-and-the-new-zen-high-performance-x86-core-at-hot-chips-28-14-638.jpg?cb=1472000230 http://www.slideshare.net/AMD/amd-and-the-new-zen-high-performance-x86-core-at-hot-chips-28/1 http://www.amd.com/en-gb/innovations/software-technologies/zen-cpu

4/6/8 is also a good split. Sure much more than what Intel offers.