Does Ryzen potentially "kill" the unofficial consumer Xeon DIY PC builds?

Does Ryzen "kill" the albeit small market for Xeon-based gaming/multiuse PCs?

  • Yes, Ryzen fulfills this niche role pretty well

    Votes: 45 66.2%
  • No, Xeons will still be the preferred CPU

    Votes: 4 5.9%
  • This is a small specific market, and does not really change things much overall

    Votes: 19 27.9%

  • Total voters
    68
  • Poll closed .

thepaleobiker

Member
Feb 22, 2017
149
45
61
I've recently been following all the historical adulation and love for Xeon CPUs that could directly fit consumer boards (LGA 1366 or 2011) or the more recent ones that could easily overclock via BLCK (LGA 1151 on C232 chipsets), especially the E3 series of quad-code hyperthreading CPUs.

From what I have understood, the primary reason for someone to go the route of using Xeon CPUs in gaming/multi-use PCs was to get more cores for lower price than a flagship consumer Core i7 CPU or the mainstream HEDT platform for that generation.

Doesnt Ryzen "kill" this unofficial Xeon usage? For $149 you get an unlocked 4C/8T CPU, and for $219 you get 6C/12T CPUs.... While doing the math in my head, Ryzen seems to be the better long-term option for such a customer.

Can any current Xeon users share their thoughts on this? Do you get this same feeling? Thank you :)
 

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,862
1,408
136
I have an OC'd 5660, and I will be retiring it with a Ryzen build this summer. I'm just waiting on the bios to be out of 'beta'.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,414
1,606
136
It isn't just for Servers. They took a chunk out of the Intel HEDT market. I purchased my 3930k because I wanted to make sure I still had a valid gaming system on top of the cores. I didn't want to fight with lower clocked memory, harder memory qualification, and near zero customizability in workstation boards.

The R7 filled my desire to get more cores without waiting and hoping a SL-X came with a sub $1k 8 core CPU. The supposed 399x platform is equally tempting even if I question its existence. Even if it's expensive. As long as there is a hefty cost savings in comparison to Intel, like a 16 core for 1k versus a 10 core 1.7k these will be a strong enthusiast option for home grown servers, VM hosts, and various other high end home computing.
 

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,862
1,408
136
Me too, but these silly threads need to stop.. Nothing is going to "Kill" anything else in the cpu market. There's always room for competition..
Oh, I agree completely. Intel isn't going anywhere anytime soon. While they have made a number of missteps over the last decade, the are still 'Chipzilla' for good reason.
 

crashtech

Lifer
Jan 4, 2013
10,042
1,749
136
More like "invade" than "kill," but I think there are a good chunk of Intel loyalists that will continue to view AMD with distrust and/or disdain. But at non-bleeding-edge clockspeeds, Ryzen looks very competitive, and I think that's where most workstations live.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,574
126
RyZen and boards still look a little unsteady. Check back in a month. :D

Seriously though, we don't want competition killed. We want viable options.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nopainnogain

dark zero

Platinum Member
Jun 2, 2015
2,575
108
106
It won't kill the market. But it will definately put that market on a dire situation.
 

Rifter

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,522
750
126
Ryzen for sure should put serious pressure on intels HEDT lineup.

SL-X should launch with reduced prices to compete if intel is smart, if they are not smart and keep current pricing then AMD is going to get a serious boost in market share in HEDT. Most businesses dont care about intel vs AMD they care about price/perf above all and AMD is murdering intel in price/perf with ryzen.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,574
126
My guess is that SL-X is nicely faster than BW-E, and prices aren't moving too much.
 

Justinbaileyman

Golden Member
Aug 17, 2013
1,960
242
106
Oh totally... So you can all just go ahead and send me your unwanted Xeon E5's wink wink :)
Seriously though Ryzen isn't killing anything but it self right now. If I were you I wouldn't worry to much about whats killing what, and if you have a Xeon be happy with what you've got and that you are even lucky enough to have such an over powered piece of beautiful hardware.Nothing wrong with supporting AMD either though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thepaleobiker

PPB

Golden Member
Jul 5, 2013
1,118
168
106
Ryzen made anything but e5 v3-v4 ES irrelevant. Seriously, they will even make a bank of those moralists that wont touch an ES even if its a 2699 v3 at 50 bucks. Its really a win win for them.

Now if we had 2P am4 boards, THAT would put the final nail in the cheapo e5 build coffin

Sent from my XT1040 using Tapatalk

Ps: even 1x1700 is stronger than 2x 2670s v1 and probably v2 too. Its no contest really. And you can run that 1700 even on a a320 board. The whole value proposition of v1 and v2 2xe5 xeons got demolished. Only those having an agenda and the very owners that dont want the remaining value in their already built 2xE5 v1-v2 builds would advice for these setups anymore.

When all the big names will get rid of their v3s for cheap we can talk again about intel being back in the cheapo workstation builds again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thepaleobiker

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,574
126
2670 V1 is 5 years old now. I hope a 1700 defeats it handily.

The V2 was released in Q3 of 2013, so it's long in the tooth now too, although it does have 10 cores.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,414
1,606
136
My guess is that SL-X is nicely faster than BW-E, and prices aren't moving too much.
True but clock and IPC aren't all that matter in these use cases. Having a sufficient core and cache advantage are the two things that drive these types of CPU sales. Things that AMD seems to have done a really good job undercutting. But it also goes with one of the biggest complaints of Intel in the last 8 years or so, little to no changes on the consumer parts which which allow them to keep the core counts on the server workstation setups at a higher premium. Ryzen and AMD's pricing would put a dampener in both the HEDT platform and the "server chip as a workstation market" mainly because Ryzen should force a remapping of pricing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thepaleobiker

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,574
126
I guess we will have to wait and see exactly what Intel has done with the cache for SL-X. With 1MB L2 per core and 13.75MB of L3 for the 6 core chip, and possibly more L3 for the 8 and 10 core chips?

It seems to me this L2 cache is the biggest change.

If we take the 10 core chip and only give it 13.75MB of L3, it would have 23.75MB of L2 + L3.

What affect is 4X the L2 cache likely to have?
 

bigboxes

Lifer
Apr 6, 2002
34,064
11,521
146
RyZen and boards still look a little unsteady. Check back in a month. :D

Seriously though, we don't want competition killed. We want viable options.
Exactly. I want a choice when I build my next home server. Hopefully, the motherboard makers will get it right before I make that decision. I'd love to save $500-$1,000 a processor by going with Ryzen.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
107,580
23,495
146
well, all I can say is that I am going to be replacing my Xeon v3 1231 with either a Ryzen 1600x or 1700. I doubt I will be looking back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,574
126
well, all I can say is that I am going to be replacing my Xeon v3 1231 with either a Ryzen 1600x or 1700. I doubt I will be looking back.
1231 V3 was pretty much the cheapest way to get a 4C8T Haswell at reasonably high clock speeds.
 

nathanddrews

Graphics Cards, CPU Moderator
Super Moderator
Aug 9, 2016
965
534
136
www.youtube.com
I was on the fence to buy a slow 2.1GHz 8C/16T Xeon for $420 until the release of Ryzen 1700 which offers tons more performance for almost $100 less. So yeah, I'd say this niche will soon be dominated by AMD unless you need something specific to Intel-only features.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gikaseixas

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,574
126
I was on the fence to buy a slow 2.1GHz 8C/16T Xeon for $420 until the release of Ryzen 1700 which offers tons more performance for almost $100 less. So yeah, I'd say this niche will soon be dominated by AMD unless you need something specific to Intel-only features.
A 6800K would have made more sense for $400, though. Even with less cores, it has a massive clock speed advantage over that Xeon.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY