And which AMD CPU is this meant to compete with exactly? and how much are we expecting this to be? otherwise all I see is alot of blah blah blah and nothing about its performance.

Falls-X platform will support both Kaby Lake-X & Skylake-X processors. The Basin Falls-X platform will support the fastest Core i7 processors that will be launched next year. and also it features the new LGA 2066(Socket R4). Socket R4(LGA 2066) is of 2066 pins which doesn't support current CPUs. In the Sky Lake-X, will be getting 6 core, 8 core and 10 core SKUs with TDPs rated at 140W.
kaby lake x is awesome imagine CPU at 4-core with 5.5gHz surely perfect for gaming. I think new gaming modes like virtual reality will be more aggressive with these.

Intel X299 may loss native USB 3.1 that coming with those Intel 300 chipset platform.

Quad core. I stopped reading at that point. Can we please kill quad cores already as mainstream and make them the low end part already? The hyperthreaded dual core Core i3's are an insult.

RejZoRQuad core. I stopped reading at that point. Can we please kill quad cores already as mainstream and make them the low end part already? The hyperthreaded dual core Core i3's are an insult.

For multimedia and office apps an i3 is ideal from price/performance point of view, why is an insult?? You can use this without a video card to play 4K content even or play casual indie games.

surya kumarFalls-X platform will support both Kaby Lake-X & Skylake-X processors. The Basin Falls-X platform will support the fastest Core i7 processors that will be launched next year. and also it features the new LGA 2066(Socket R4). Socket R4(LGA 2066) is of 2066 pins which doesn't support current CPUs. In the Sky Lake-X, will be getting 6 core, 8 core and 10 core SKUs with TDPs rated at 140W.
kaby lake x is awesome imagine CPU at 4-core with 5.5gHz surely perfect for gaming. I think new gaming modes like virtual reality will be more aggressive with these.

Yes, it's going to be awesome spending $200+ just on the motherboard for a platform intended for professionals only to not use any of those features and just to game. The 7700K is already more than enough for games, no reason to spend even more on a quad core CPU that will likely need to be upgraded soon because it only has 4 dang cores.

Prima.VeraFor multimedia and office apps an i3 is ideal from price/performance point of view, why is an insult?? You can use this without a video card to play 4K content even or play casual indie games.

And you can also do the same on a tablet.

evernessinceYes, it's going to be awesome spending $200+ just on the motherboard for a platform intended for professionals only to not use any of those features and just to game. The 7700K is already more than enough for games, no reason to spend even more on a quad core CPU that will likely need to be upgraded soon because it only has 4 dang cores.

And does not even support quad channel memory, which for an X chipset is installed by default by 95% of the users....

Something happen with upcoming intel processor in these platform.

They have cutting down the L3 cache size from Core i7 level to Core i5 level ( Cut L3 cache size per core from 2MB to 1.5MB each ) for saving their manufacture cost but charge off full Core i7 price tags. This is the most disappoint CPU design. Lack of Intel AVX-512 or new instructions.

We must call its Core i5 Extreme better. Cheap on intel design.

Intel is playing dirty now. Don't expect anything decent from them for a long time, just rehashes of what's already available.

[XC] Oj101Intel is playing dirty now. Don't expect anything decent from them for a long time, just rehashes of what's already available.

What you're saying doesn't make sense, it's exactly now that they'll stop sandbagging, now that ryzen is a valuable competition.

oxidizedWhat you're saying doesn't make sense, it's exactly now that they'll stop sandbagging, now that ryzen is a valuable competition.

You don't believe that new architectures get released overnight, do you? Intel has no answer to Ryzen for a long time - Coffee Lake won't do it (IPC is already known as is target clockspeed), Cannonlake won't do it either (IPC is already known, as is target clockspeed), their first hope is Icelake which will be the first real IPC improvement.

There's a reason Intel is no longer doing Computex - they have nothing to show that won't just embarrass them.

[XC] Oj101You don't believe that new architectures get released overnight, do you? Intel has no answer to Ryzen for a long time - Coffee Lake won't do it (IPC is already known as is target clockspeed), Cannonlake won't do it either (IPC is already known, as is target clockspeed), their first hope is Icelake which will be the first real IPC improvement.

There's a reason Intel is no longer doing Computex - they have nothing to show that won't just embarrass them.

new architecture? they just need to cut the price of the current stuff rolling off the fab and make a new sticker.

phanbueynew architecture? they just need to cut the price of the current stuff rolling off the fab and make a new sticker.

You're suggesting that Intel sells based on value for money and not outright performance? You know you're talking about the company that was selling $ 999 CPUs that were beaten by $ 250 Athlon64s, right?

RejZoRQuad core. I stopped reading at that point. Can we please kill quad cores already as mainstream and make them the low end part already? The hyperthreaded dual core Core i3's are an insult.

evernessinceYes, it's going to be awesome spending $200+ just on the motherboard for a platform intended for professionals only to not use any of those features and just to game. The 7700K is already more than enough for games, no reason to spend even more on a quad core CPU that will likely need to be upgraded soon because it only has 4 dang cores.

This and the I5 7640k are good "starter chips" for most people. I for one can't afford to spend 1000$ on a CPU + MB combo at once, and refuse to finance or take out loans, so I prefer to get a good motherboard + a decent CPU witch I will upgrade later. CPUs get decent money second-hand even today, so getting rid of your old stuff in easy, and you don't lose much money, especially if you keep the box, stock cooler and warranty / invoice.

[XC] Oj101You're suggesting that Intel sells based on value for money and not outright performance? You know you're talking about the company that was selling $ 999 CPUs that were beaten by $ 250 Athlon64s, right?

AMD was selling Athlon X2s and FXs for $600-$1000 that were beaten by $183 e6300s...

This is an unpopular thing to say on a Tech Site but really there is a tremendous market for the i3. It's enough to run MS Office. Remember that the biggest market for PCs is the business market. It might not seem like a lot to spend $100 more on an i5 until you look at keeping 10,000 PCs going in a business and then that $100 turns into one million dollars.

For the enthusiasts and those that need the cores then there are options as well but I don't see the i3 going away anytime soon.

imo more cores is just a temporary fix for right now anyway. The future is going to be using some material other than silicon to reach what looks like impossibly fast CPU speeds right now. How about an i3 running at 20 GHz? The day is coming when even that will be taken for granted.

[XC] Oj101You don't believe that new architectures get released overnight, do you? Intel has no answer to Ryzen for a long time - Coffee Lake won't do it (IPC is already known as is target clockspeed), Cannonlake won't do it either (IPC is already known, as is target clockspeed), their first hope is Icelake which will be the first real IPC improvement.

There's a reason Intel is no longer doing Computex - they have nothing to show that won't just embarrass them.

IPC? Their IPC is already higher than ryzen's, their objective is just to decrease costs for 6/12 and 8/16 chips and relative platforms, they need to improve a little efficiency and gain a small margin with clocks, like they did in the latest years.
If they manage to launch some 6/12 or 8/16 with kaby lake's IPC and single-threaded performance (gaming especially) and price it around 1700/1600x and contain platform prices they're done, it's not that hard to do, it's actually pretty easy.

Intel has always been a more silent company compared to AMD, even when their products were sandy bridge level.

phanbueyAMD was selling Athlon X2s and FXs for $600-$1000 that were beaten by $183 e6300s...

For a very short period - they then introduced the Phenom with a maximum price of $ 235 (Phenom X4 9850 Black Edition), whereas Intel continued churning out $ 999 CPUs while being beaten.

oxidizedIPC? Their IPC is already higher than ryzen's, their objective is just to decrease costs for 6/12 and 8/16 chips and relative platforms, they need to improve a little efficiency and gain a small margin with clocks, like they did in the latest years.
If they manage to launch some 6/12 or 8/16 with kaby lake's IPC and single-threaded performance (gaming especially) and price it around 1700/1600x and contain platform prices they're done, it's not that hard to do, it's actually pretty easy.

Intel has always been a more silent company compared to AMD, even when their products were sandy bridge level.

This is not exactly true. There are plenty of situations where a lower clocked Ryzen 1700 (around 4 GHz) can beat a Core i7-7700K at 5 GHz with gaming - something that isn't multithreaded enough for the higher thread count to come into play. Heck, even with four cores disabled a Ryzen 1700 in the high 3 GHz range can equal or beat a stock Core i7-7700K turboing at 4.4 GHz (4.5 GHz is only for single threaded tasks).

Then take the fact that there are media tasks where a stock Ryzen 1700 can match a Core i7-6900K (same thread count, Intel running at a higher clock speed) and there's no denying the power of Ryzen.

Intel has no plans in place to beat Ryzen outright or on a price/performance aspect for at least the next year.

Add to that how SR3 steamrolls all Xeons in the same power envelope and/or price bracket and things don't look stellar for Intel.

That being said, Intel will not lose a significant market share - that I can absolutely guarantee you. They have tricks up their sleeve (which are blindingly obvious if you think about it) to ensure market domination regardless of their price or performance.

[XC] Oj101For a very short period - they then introduced the Phenom with a maximum price of $ 235 (Phenom X4 9850 Black Edition), whereas Intel continued churning out $ 999 CPUs while being beaten.
This is not exactly true. There are plenty of situations where a lower clocked Ryzen 1700 (around 4 GHz) can beat a Core i7-7700K at 5 GHz with gaming - something that isn't multithreaded enough for the higher thread count to come into play. Heck, even with four cores disabled a Ryzen 1700 in the high 3 GHz range can equal or beat a stock Core i7-7700K turboing at 4.4 GHz (4.5 GHz is only for single threaded tasks).

Then take the fact that there are media tasks where a stock Ryzen 1700 can match a Core i7-6900K (same thread count, Intel running at a higher clock speed) and there's no denying the power of Ryzen.

Source of this? Ryzen has been said having Haswell - Broadwell IPC, more towards the latter, so i really don't know which tests or graphs have you looked at.

[XC] Oj101Add to that how SR3 steamrolls all Xeons in the same power envelope and/or price bracket and things don't look stellar for Intel.

That being said, Intel will not lose a significant market share - that I can absolutely guarantee you. They have tricks up their sleeve (which are blindingly obvious if you think about it) to ensure market domination regardless of their price or performance.

Ryzen hasn't done anything more than bringing back AMD to competition, and once again, as always in AMD history, their advantage is price, rest is either on level or lower compared to Intel, but if you want to argue how good ryzen is i can agree all you want, facts remain. You people have this kind of habit of magnifying everything coming from the underdog, again, ryzen is very good, but it's nothing stellar or revolutionary in any way, and doesn't catch up with intel in many ways.

[XC] Oj101Intel has no plans in place to beat Ryzen outright or on a price/performance aspect for at least the next year.

Intel only needs to decrease the value of the dividend, the divisor is already better than its counterpart.

the only thing that could cause some issues is the 16 core naples variant (which is the one im waiting for)... if it comes in at 600-700 for the low end model and is still unlocked on x399 you have a real competition.

oxidizedSource of this? Ryzen has been said having Haswell - Broadwell IPC, more towards the latter, so i really don't know which tests or graphs have you looked at.

Independant testing as I have found most of the Ryzen 7 reviews to have been rushed (eg using a Windows installation performed on an Intel platform on Ryzen tanks gaming performance - I have not yet found a way to recover from this other than by reinstalling). Fresh installs of Windows on each with all hardware the same.



That shows, in some games, a Ryzen 1700X at 4 GHz beating a Core i7-7700K at stock 4.4 GHz, and in some cases beating (slightly) a Core i7-7700K at 5 GHz. All tests were run at least three times with restarts between each.

oxidizedRyzen hasn't done anything more than bringing back AMD to competition, and once again, as always in AMD history, their advantage is price, rest is either on level or lower compared to Intel, but if you want to argue how good ryzen is i can agree all you want, facts remain. You people have this kind of habit of magnifying everything coming from the underdog, again, ryzen is very good, but it's nothing stellar or revolutionary in any way, and doesn't catch up with intel in many ways.

That's not true. Even priced the same as the Intel equivalent you're getting better performance. Media benchmarks are a dime a dozen showing Intel's only desktop chips capable of beating it are (and not even 100 % of the time - there are exceptions where the Ryzen comes out on top) the i7-6950X and i7-6900K.

[XC] Oj101Independant testing as I have found most of the Ryzen 7 reviews to have been rushed (eg using a Windows installation performed on an Intel platform on Ryzen tanks gaming performance - I have not yet found a way to recover from this other than by reinstalling). Fresh installs of Windows on each with all hardware the same.



That shows, in some games, a Ryzen 1700X at 4 GHz beating a Core i7-7700K at stock 4.4 GHz, and in some cases beating (slightly) a Core i7-7700K at 5 GHz. All tests were run at least three times with restarts between each.



That's not true. Even priced the same as the Intel equivalent you're getting better performance. Media benchmarks are a dime a dozen showing Intel's only desktop chips capable of beating it are (and not even 100 % of the time - there are exceptions where the Ryzen comes out on top) the i7-6950X and i7-6900K.

"Indipendent testing". Seriously change your sources, ryzen IPC is Broadwell levels at best, stop fooling yourself. Intel has still the upper hand in terms of performance in single threaded and games. Also test 4/8 vs 4/8 not 8/16 or even 1700X with SMT disabled, get a 1500X and do the same test, even at the same frequencies you'll find out which one has the higher IPC, actually you can find them on the internet
www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-5-1500x-4c8t-cpu-review/all/1/

Hell even the i5 7400 does better in some games and it's being tested at 3-3.5GHz

oxidized"Indipendent testing". Seriously change your sources, ryzen IPC is Broadwell levels at best, stop fooling yourself. Intel has still the upper hand in terms of performance in single threaded and games. Also test 4/8 vs 4/8 not 8/16 or even 1700X with SMT disabled, get a 1500X and do the same test, even at the same frequencies you'll find out which one has the higher IPC, actually you can find them on the internet
www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-5-1500x-4c8t-cpu-review/all/1/
Hell even the i5 7400 does better in some games and it's being tested at 3-3.5GHz

If it'll make you that happy I'll include 4/8 vs 4/8 in the chart (for what it's worth I've already tested and it makes next to no difference in gaming as the games are not multithreaded enough for it to matter).

Why would I trust a rushed review when hours upon hours of hands-on with the chip shows it's better than what reviews make it out to be? And yes, they were rushed. Not one of the zero day reviews include the BIOS updates released two days prior to launch.

[XC] Oj101If it'll make you that happy I'll include 4/8 vs 4/8 in the chart (for what it's worth I've already tested and it makes next to no difference in gaming as the games are not multithreaded enough for it to matter).

Why would I trust a rushed review when hours upon hours of hands-on with the chip shows it's better than what reviews make it out to be?

Lol, why would i trust yours, at least kitguru is a known site, and they surely did more thorough tests than your screen with 3 games. I can find another one if you want, i'm pretty sure about what i've seen from multiple benchmarks, you on the other hand fool yourself with some "indipendent tests".