Official? Ryzen leaked slides

[The Sloth]

2 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

 

And here's Microsoft

 

 

[NumLock21]

Anyone doing a Ryzen review, must be in the same lying position as Raja.

 

[HKZeroFive]

I think this Reddit comment sums up my thoughts quite well when it comes to the hype surrounding Ryzen.

 

"I feel like some people have invested so much emotionally in this launch that it's almost a bit scary. People need to calm down and wait for proper reviews and stop getting carried away, because once reality hits them it could get nasty."

 

It happens every time with AMD. Everyone loves a good underdog story. But the people who are hyping this up a lot are only more likely to set themselves up for disappointment.

[Phate.exe]

1 hour ago, nerdslayer1 said:

most people don't OC 

If you get an -X chip, it will OC for you!

 

If I can just tell a 1400X that's it's totally fine for it to use 100+W under full load rather than 65W, and I can keep it cool enough, it will likely magic itself higher than I need it to go.

[Enderman]

13 minutes ago, vorticalbox said:

maybe not now put a lot of people I speak to still think chrome is light weight.

 

I haven't used chrome from google in a while, I like opera better free unlimited VPN and ad block built in.

It's about as lightweight as any other fully featured browser like edge, firefox, etc.

Also:

 

[Sauron]

41 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Sometimes the factor is performance, period. Not price to performance, not price.

When the best stock performance is required for the task, it doesn't matter if it's more expensive or has slightly worse price/performance.

Then why not overclock the cpu if performance is so paramount?

38 minutes ago, techstorm970 said:

Actually, being built for overclocking means being built like a tank.  Not only are K-skew CPUs overclockable, but they are also extremely reliable.

This is not true in the slightest, they are binned to be able to achieve higher clock speeds more reliably but at stock speeds non-k chips are just as reliable. In fact, the chips are manufactured in exactly the same way, binning is just the process of looking for the more "naturally gifted" chips that can take those higher voltages and frequencies - but every cpu has some headroom in frequency and voltage above its stock value to make sure it's reliable.

 

What you are saying may apply to motherboards etc. where overclocking capabilities often imply a higher build quality but not to the cpu itself.

[smokefest]

Am I the only one who always think the same when they see such leaked benchmarks...

Why no single core performance ? This is the most important stats for gaming.... They show us that in multicore performance in workstation tasks the ryzen beats intel extreme edition.. ok... but what about games ???

 

We all saw FX at launch having so gooood stats concerning multi tasking.. but the single core perofmance sucked so much the cpu was shit in games....

 

 

[79wjd]

1 hour ago, nerdslayer1 said:

safari is one of the worst browser ever for me, my i phone 7 plus can't connect with my MacBook running windows or my 6p, unless you are really dedicated to apple safari sucks. 

iOS safari is awful (well, I just hate the UI compared to chrome), but I like Mac OS safari (although since I use chrome on my phone I "have" to use chrome on my Mac).

[The Sloth]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

iOS safari is awful (well, I just hate the UI compared to chrome), but I like Mac OS safari (although since I use chrome on my phone I "have" to use chrome on my Mac).

 

i used IOS and OSX safari, my opinion is they all suck. 

[Doobeedoo]

Well, flagship and such clocks, I mean looks great and all, definitely prices are looking awesome. I wonder how much 4 core will be able to OC though.

[MakeAMDGreatAgain]

Using "Official" and "Leaked" in the same news title is an oxymoron.

 

But please, continue with the over hype and non professional titles.

[goodtofufriday]

2 hours ago, zMeul said:

you mean like they didn't lied at Fury launch or Polaris?

oh wait ... 

I will admit "over clockers dream" was not entirely accurate

[EminentSun]

2 hours ago, Citadelen said:

A safe bet, but I highly doubt AMD would lie that blatantly at a launch event. Not to mention all the leaks we've seen point to what they're saying.

I would, remember that intel slide saying kabylake would be 15% more powerful than skylake. It's all just marketing, not that I wouldn't love for this to be true.

[The Sloth]

7 minutes ago, EminentSun said:

I would, remember that intel slide saying kabylake would be 15% more powerful than skylake. It's all just marketing, not that I wouldn't love for this to be true.

 

he seems happy 

[ApolloFury]

3 hours ago, zMeul said:

might wanna take a look at Anand's Intel results vs what's on AMD's chart

We do not know what RAM is used for the AMD chart, I wouldn't be surprised if they benchmark 1800X with better RAM.

Though that single threaded score in Anandtech is lower for the 6900K.

2 hours ago, smokefest said:

Am I the only one who always think the same when they see such leaked benchmarks...

Why no single core performance ? This is the most important stats for gaming.... They show us that in multicore performance in workstation tasks the ryzen beats intel extreme edition.. ok... but what about games ???

 

We all saw FX at launch having so gooood stats concerning multi tasking.. but the single core perofmance sucked so much the cpu was shit in games....

It's in the chart. Both score ~162 at single threaded. Again we do not know what RAM is used.

[PlayStation 2]

3 hours ago, vorticalbox said:

They won't be close to fucked. Remember how chrome came out as this super light wright fast browser and people still think that enough they it eats so much ram and is so heavy?

 

people once they think something about a thing they are not quick to change.

 

I'm more interest in AMD and their stacked technology, just like cities when you run out of room you build up.

Admittedly, Chrome isn't real lightweight, but Google's done a damn good job at reducing general resource usage where it counts.

But that's a bit besides the point, I wish to see AMD succeed where it counts.

[imreloadin]

Seems like everyone forgot about Intel's "fibbing" in regards to fudged numbers...Don't act like only one side does this shit.

 

Cause we all know that Kaby Lake was 15% better than Skylake right? RIGHT!?!?!?

[79wjd]

5 minutes ago, imreloadin said:

Seems like everyone forgot about Intel's "fibbing" in regards to fudged numbers...Don't act like only one side does this shit.

 

 

Cause we all know that Kaby Lake was 15% better than Skylake right? RIGHT!?!?!?

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that first party benchmarks are irrelevant. 

[imreloadin]

4 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that first party benchmarks are irrelevant. 

I'm well aware of that, I just enjoy pointing out people's hypocrisy for which ever company they've decided to self identify with

[LAwLz]

9 hours ago, Drak3 said:

First party benchmarks hold weight when the companies are under constant scrutiny (especially after the creative interpretation publications and potential consumers are jumping to with what little REAL information AMD gave us). Especially as AMD's results, not necessarily the numerics of each component (FPS being the big one), but the % differences are being replicated, when tested as AMD stated.

You are very naive. Do you believe "best pizza in town" signs too?

"Well the sign said it was the best pizza, and why would a sign lie?".

 

Just look at the only benchmark AMD has officially shown, the Blender test. They didn't even give us info about what computers they were using. Did they cripple the i7 chip by not making it run in quad channel mode? We don't know, because AMD is withholding that info.

I might be crazy, but I think withholding information which might make your benchmark misleading is the same as lying.

A lie can be defined as:

Quote

something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture:

Do you agree that marketing material like what AMD, Intel and Nvidia pushes out all the time is meant to give a false impression? I mean, they don't fill them with * and really tiny text in the bottom corner because they want people to notice it. They do it because they don't want people to notice it.

 

That's why you shouldn't trust first party benchmarks. Because they are usually deliberately made to be misleading and/or don't tell the whole story. Besides, this is a "leaked" slide so even IF (that is a massive if) it is true, we don't know the context. Maybe the slide before it was "this is what we hoped our benchmarks would look like but they didn't", right? That's how you justified the statement regarding Fury X and it "being an overclockers dream".

 

 

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

How is it a cop-out? I literally don't listen to marketing from AMD, Intel or Nvidia. Why do I do this, for the reasons you just stated. Don't confuse an argument with a statement, I legit never heard anything about Fury X being an overclocker's dream.

"They didn't lie because I wasn't listening to what they said" is not a real argument.

It's like saying "no your honor, I did not shoot at that person. He dodged my bullet so clearly I am innocent".

 

The conversation went:

Person 1: AMD wouldn't lie.

Person 2: They have done in the past.

You: When?

Person 2: *gives some examples*

You: That doesn't count, because I wasn't listening at the time.

 

 

3 hours ago, imreloadin said:

I'm well aware of that, I just enjoy pointing out people's hypocrisy for which ever company they've decided to self identify with

I don't see any hypocrisy from Intel fanboys here.

Nobody in this thread has said that you can trust Intel's benchmarks, but you can't trust AMD's.

[maz]

9 hours ago, zMeul said:

all this hype always fucked AMD in the ass once people actually started benchmarking the HW

indeed.

I wonder how well ryzen does compared to an e5 16 core xeon.. or a puny 8 core xeon.

[Drak3]

42 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Do you believe "best pizza in town" signs too?

Here's the thing. Where I live, the only places with those signs have evidence by third parties that actually support it. The few that did went out of business within two years.

 

And so far, everything AMD actually said in the past few years have been proven true. It's 'creative interpretation' (lies) by reporters like WCCF that claim AMD said X, when AMD actually said Y occurs under Z scenario.

 

45 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

They didn't even give us info about what computers they were using. Did they cripple the i7 chip by not making it run in quad channel mode? We don't know, because AMD is withholding that info.

The systems were ran with identical spec with the exception of two things: CPU and Mainboard. This isn't some grand kept secret, it just takes an attention span longer than a goldfish's to know about it.

 

47 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Do you agree that marketing material like what AMD, Intel and Nvidia pushes out all the time is meant to give a false impression? I mean, they don't fill them with * and really tiny text in the bottom corner because they want people to notice it. They do it because they don't want people to notice it.

 

With AMD and NVidia, they present all the vital info to understanding their claims, in their claims. Anything that needs to be expanded for very concise details (basically, a weak form of protection from idiots), gets an asterisk.

Intel has no problem outright lying. As it stands, they're not under the same scrutiny as AMD, and they're the only viable x86 CPU manufacturer in the eyes of most customers, across most markets.

 

Even then, these companies are spelling out the asterisks that pertain to performance, to their benchmarks, when they have large announcements, when they actually talk about it on stage.

 

52 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Besides, this is a "leaked" slide so even IF (that is a massive if) it is true, we don't know the context. Maybe the slide before it was "this is what we hoped our benchmarks would look like but they didn't", right? That's how you justified the statement regarding Fury X and it "being an overclockers dream".

Yes, AMD is going to say 'We failed and lied the entire time.' Because that isn't corporate suicide.

We might not know the exact context of the system configuration to get these types of results, but with everything AMD officially said, the context is that their years of R&D, they've managed to hit somewhere between Haswell and Broadwell performance. These kinds of performance jumps aren't unheard of, provided that they can actually be made.

9 hours ago, Sauron said:

Then why not overclock the cpu if performance is so paramount?

Because there are customers that need the doesn't need a huge leap (or potential slight bump) over the stock speed of the K SKU, but they do need the bump from the non K SKU to the K SKU.

 

And this is assuming we're talking quad cores. If we're talking the Hexacores and Octocores, then they could easily just need those cores at those clock speeds.

[Drak3]

9 hours ago, Taja said:

Well,one would be ignorant to say that.

About the points you made:

 

Power draw is irrelevant. A bath will waste more power than the extra watts of the oc will in a year.

 

The cooling solution is also irrelevant: a k cpu will not come with a cooler, so you will have to buy one anyway. If you get a bad cooler, you will get worse temps and noise, but thats it.

 

The chipset part is real, but your own argument was "performance, not price x perf", SO by YOUR condition, the person would get the better chipset.

 

REAL WORLD CONCLUSION:

Want to oc? Go for k.

Dont want to oc? Dont go for k.

 

Its that simple, people can defend going for k and not overclocking, but it is not the best and most logical option. If you WANT to do that, go ahead. You can also buy a titan black in 2017 and pair it with a fx 4300, that is YOUR choice, but dont go arround saying it is a good choice "because". 

 

 

 

Power draw isn't irrelevant. If we're talking about business use, we could be talking multiple units. Also, one can easily double the power draw when overclocking. An X99 CPU, with a TDP of 140W, can see a TDP of 400W when overclocked to it's wit's end.

 

The cooling solution is also relevant. There are cheap air coolers that can handle a K SKU at stock, but not handle much overclocking.

 

The Chipset doesn't impact CPU performance, unless we're talking about a botched board. It impacts the feature set, which overclocking is the only feature exclusive to Z series chipsets. In which case, the choice of board doesn't contribute to the total performance of the system.

 

There are use cases out there where the difference between the K SKU and non K SKU can make a system acceptable or unacceptable, even if they do not occur to you or me.

[Citadelen]

9 hours ago, EminentSun said:

-snip-

That was in Sys Mark, it says it on the slides. There's not asterisks next to anything on the AMD slides, not to mention the leaks have been matching exactly what they're saying. The same did not hold true with Bulldozer, the Bulldozer leaks that came through were depressing at best.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

"They didn't lie because I wasn't listening to what they said" is not a real argument.

It's like saying "no your honor, I did not shoot at that person. He dodged my bullet so clearly I am innocent".

 

The conversation went:

Person 1: AMD wouldn't lie.

Person 2: They have done in the past.

You: When?

Person 2: *gives some examples*

You: That doesn't count, because I wasn't listening at the time.

Wasn't saying it doesn't count, was saying never heard of it and said why. A company can be found guilty of misleading advertising but it doesn't mean everyone got mislead, there has been plenty of times I have seen a company found guilty of this and never seen the advertisement, and I'm sure you know of at least one instance too.

 

I think you are trying to read too much in to what I'm saying and finding a meaning that isn't there. And it's nothing like the example you gave at all, not even close. At best it would be more like someone shoots at me but I never noticed then the police came to me and asked to give evidence, what evidence I didn't notice? Sure I could have still been shot and that is where your example falls down in comparison, a company spreading lies or false advertisements cannot effect people who don't see it.

 

Edit:

And not just that you actually have to believe the lie, where as a bullet can still hit me no matter if I believe it's been fired at me or not.