Jump to content

Official? Ryzen leaked slides

TrigrH
44 minutes ago, Citadelen said:

The same did not hold true with Bulldozer, the Bulldozer leaks that came through were depressing at best.

Something tells me you were not around when the Bulldozer hypetrain was around,

The "leaked" benchmarks about Bulldozer even put it above Sandy Bridge in terms of IPC.

 

Shown is a 3.5Ghz Bulldozer 4C getting the same performance as a 4.0Ghz Sandy Bridge 4C/8T in Vantage. Seems to be faster both clock-for-clock and thread-for-thread than Sandy Bridge, which is already a top-end performer. Not to mention, Turbo Boost to 4.2Ghz seems standard.

 

From the leaked benchmarks, AMD’s new Bulldozer CPUs have made an admirable showing. Should these benchmarks hold true, Intel will have some serious competition on its hands, something that the company has not had to deal with in a long time. Whether Bulldozer will result in price cuts or ramped up production on the Intel side remains to be seen; however, the results are not going to be easy for Intel to ignore.

 

And I can find a dozen of posts about how any benchmark that didn't look promising was just "using unoptimized software and Bulldozer will be great as soon as it comes out and developers can use it".

 

The only thing different this time is that people are even more hyped than they were about Bulldozer, and seem to have even crazies expectations that will inevitably not be met.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Drak3 said:

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.

That seems like an extremely specific scenario - certainly not something that applies to "most customers".

Don't ask to ask, just ask... please 🤨

sudo chmod -R 000 /*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Drak3 said:

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.

So did they use dual or quad channel memory, and do you have any evidence to support it?

If they didn't give the i7 quad channel then they essentially halved the memory bandwidth (and rumors is that Ryzen has a pretty bad IMC compared to Intel). If they then made the test fairly memory bandwidth heavy then that would end up being a quite misleading representation.

Sure you might say that "they technically didn't lie" even in that scenario, but that would, in my humble opinion, be a moronic thing to say and show very clear signs of a fanboy trying to rationalize their favorite company trying to mislead people.

 

2 hours ago, Drak3 said:

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.

 

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

So basically, if Intel says something you don't believe them, but if AMD says something you will? Sorry but, what? I could be making equally silly excuses for Intel to get them to appear "innocent" in terms of marketing material. Face it, all companies like AMD and Intel are piece of shit that want to make money. Their PR department is working as hard as they can to convince people to buy their products, even if it means being misleading.

You should not trust anything AMD says in their marketing material. If you do you are naive.

 

By the way, you seem to have this weird belief that because AMD has to succeed with this launch they will be more honest. That's really backwards logic. This might be AMD's last chance at competing at the high end (or even low and mid-range for that matter) with Intel. They desperately need sales. This is when they are at the most desperate and have nothing to lose. That is when you are the most likely to lie, not when you are already on top leading and crushing your competitors without even trying.

 

The fact that AMD is in the situation they are is just the more reason to NOT trust them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say those slides look pretty legit to me.  Scores look too low for the ryzen if anything. 

Rig Specs:

AMD Threadripper 5990WX@4.8Ghz

Asus Zenith III Extreme

Asrock OC Formula 7970XTX Quadfire

G.Skill Ripheartout X OC 7000Mhz C28 DDR5 4X16GB  

Super Flower Power Leadex 2000W Psu's X2

Harrynowl's 775/771 OC and mod guide: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/232325-lga775-core2duo-core2quad-overclocking-guide/ http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/365998-mod-lga771-to-lga775-cpu-modification-tutorial/

ProKoN haswell/DC OC guide: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/41234-intel-haswell-4670k-4770k-overclocking-guide/

 

"desperate for just a bit more money to watercool, the titan x would be thankful" Carter -2016

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

So did they use dual or quad channel memory, and do you have any evidence to support it?

If they didn't give the i7 quad channel then they essentially halved the memory bandwidth (and rumors is that Ryzen has a pretty bad IMC compared to Intel). If they then made the test fairly memory bandwidth heavy then that would end up being a quite misleading representation.

I would bet that the test was done with dual channel memory since someone somewhere in AMD would think that is a fair and proper comparison even though that is not a configuration someone would actually be using who actually owns an Intel HEDT system (with a brain).

 

I would also bet this slide was approved for release and not "leaked", a publication wouldn't want to lose access over something like this and with Vega coming up so soon that is even bigger reason not to do something that silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

So did they use dual or quad channel memory, and do you have any evidence to support it?

If they didn't give the i7 quad channel then they essentially halved the memory bandwidth (and rumors is that Ryzen has a pretty bad IMC compared to Intel). If they then made the test fairly memory bandwidth heavy then that would end up being a quite misleading representation.

Sure you might say that "they technically didn't lie" even in that scenario, but that would, in my humble opinion, be a moronic thing to say and show very clear signs of a fanboy trying to rationalize their favorite company trying to mislead people.

Both systems were ran in the same configuration, with the only exceptions being the mainboard and CPU. If you can't figure out that it means dual channel on both machines because Ryzen only supports dual channel (using quad channel with Intel would be FAR more misleading than your supposed "they didn't specifiy" bullshit).

 

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

I would bet that the test was done with dual channel memory since someone somewhere in AMD would think that is a fair and proper comparison even though that is not a configuration someone would actually be using who actually owns an Intel HEDT system (with a brain).

Eliminate as many variables when testing two products against each other. Otherwise, why do people and companies like BitWit, JayzTwoCents, LTT, Anandtech, etc., build a test bench for multiple GPU reviews? The point of AMD's demonstration was that, under the same scenario, the Ryzen chip has a very similar performance profile.

 

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

So basically, if Intel says something you don't believe them, but if AMD says something you will? Sorry but, what? I could be making equally silly excuses for Intel to get them to appear "innocent" in terms of marketing material.

I don't take Intel's statements point blank, just like I don't take AMD's or NVidia's. What I was saying is that if Intel were to lie about a product, they're not going to go under if their customers find out. The market currently considers Intel the only viable x86 manufacturer, outside of extremely small niches. The worse that happens to Intel is that a few products don't sell as well as they could have.

 

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

You should not trust anything AMD says in their marketing material. If you do you are naive.

 

By the way, you seem to have this weird belief that because AMD has to succeed with this launch they will be more honest. That's really backwards logic. This might be AMD's last chance at competing at the high end (or even low and mid-range for that matter) with Intel. They desperately need sales. This is when they are at the most desperate and have nothing to lose. That is when you are the most likely to lie, not when you are already on top leading and crushing your competitors without even trying.

 

The fact that AMD is in the situation they are is just the more reason to NOT trust them.

No, I paid attention to what happened with AMD's Bulldozer architecture. How it ruined their reputation. How it performed to AMD's actual statements, but not what publications said AMD said. Not what those publications lied about.

 

If ANY of AMD's official statements don't hold true, they've lost too many customers. What few fanboys they'd still have couldn't support the company for more than 5 minutes.

And AMD understands this, this is their last chance.

 

And as I've said, AMD themselves haven't lied about their products for quite some time. The creative misinterpretations of people like zMuel, and the flat out refusal to acknowledge 50% of what AMD is actually stating, is what caused the grand expectations of FX, of the Fury X's overclocking ability, of the RX 480, and ended up hindering, if not severely hurting AMD when product finally drops.

 

 

AMD has never given me a reason to not trust them before a launch. WCCF has. Anandtech has. Forbes has. Every other publication that reposts rumors under the sun, has. Moronic spreaders of those lies, have.

Come Bloody Angel

Break off your chains

And look what I've found in the dirt.

 

Pale battered body

Seems she was struggling

Something is wrong with this world.

 

Fierce Bloody Angel

The blood is on your hands

Why did you come to this world?

 

Everybody turns to dust.

 

Everybody turns to dust.

 

The blood is on your hands.

 

The blood is on your hands!

 

Pyo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Eliminate as many variables when testing two products against each other. Otherwise, why do people and companies like BitWit, JayzTwoCents, LTT, Anandtech, etc., build a test bench for multiple GPU reviews? The point of AMD's demonstration was that, under the same scenario, the Ryzen chip has a very similar performance profile.

That is all fine an dandy but when reviewing a product and comparing it to another you do it using configurations that are going to be used. You can test single, dual and quad channel configurations and that is something I'd like to see but if you are comparing a 6900K to anything it must be done with a quad channel configuration not what the other system can do.

 

Ideally you would show both the dual and the quad in the comparison but the real world configuration should always be held with more weight than the one that is less likely to be used. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Both systems were ran in the same configuration, with the only exceptions being the mainboard and CPU. If you can't figure out that it means dual channel on both machines because Ryzen only supports dual channel (using quad channel with Intel would be FAR more misleading than your supposed "they didn't specifiy" bullshit).

So what you are saying is this.

1) AMD kneecapped the Intel system by limiting it to only half of the actual memory bandwidth.

2) AMD did not tell anyone that they did this.

3) They ran the benchmarks and then went "look at how good our product is compared to Intel!"

4) You are completely fine with this, and don't think it is misleading or lying?

 

Also, do you have any evidence for this, or are you just making assumptions?

 

25 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

I don't take Intel's statements point blank, just like I don't take AMD's or NVidia's. What I was saying is that if Intel were to lie about a product, they're not going to go under if their customers find out. The market currently considers Intel the only viable x86 manufacturer, outside of extremely small niches. The worse that happens to Intel is that a few products don't sell as well as they could have.

What you fail to take into consideration is that if Ryzen fails, AMD might also be ruined. Do you honestly think that they would say "yeah, our product isn't good" even if it was true? You don't expect them to do what every other company would do and hype and lie as much as possible to try and sell as many chips as they can before consumers catches them? You know, by doing things like opening up pre-orders a week before reviews are allowed to be published (which is exactly what they are doing).

 

AMD needs a success at any cost. That's why you should be very skeptical about everything they say. It is not a reason to trust them.

And it's the reverse with Intel. They are less incentivized to lie because like you said, they are not in any danger and will get sales regardless.

 

 

49 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

AMD has never given me a reason to not trust them before a launch. WCCF has. Anandtech has. Forbes has. Every other publication that reposts rumors under the sun, has. Moronic spreaders of those lies, have.

Well earlier in the post you said that AMD crippled the Intel system, so you have given me a reason to not trust them (if you provide some evidence to support your claims).

I think it is really sad to see you say that you trust AMD's marketing department, but you don't trust independent reviewers like Anandtech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Drak3 said:

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.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree.

For me your arguments dont make sense, you are cherry picking unreal situations.

 

- i didnt say you have to oc to the max, so you dont need a better air cooler or worry about Power draw (you can just boost the multiplier by 1 or 2, you dont need to increase voltage even). And in business uses, it is EXTREMELY rare to use k cpus, they are not marketed towards that segment and again, it does not make sense to pay that price for that "Boost".

 

- The chipset does impact performance, because z chipsets can oc, and oc impacts performance. If you want the MAX performance, you HAVE to oc. 

 

- There are cases for everything, literally everything. There are cases when killing a innocent person just for Fun can lead to something good (the person in case was a serial killer of newborn babies). The point is: NO, it is not worth it buying k cpus if you wont oc. Its just not good. Ofc if you make extreme complex calculations and end up with the result that you need a i7 skylake with a clock of 4.2Ghz, more being irrelevant and less being bad, and your budget fits, then its ok to buy and not oc. 

Ultra is stupid. ALWAYS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

@LAwLz Let me fucking spell it out for you, since you can't seem to grasp what is actually going on here.

 

Intel's HEDT chips, ran in dual channel, is not crippling them until one actually needs the bandwidth. Bandwidth for bandwidth, AMD holds NO advantage. In the benchmarks AMD used, the Intel HEDT chips are NOT being crippled in any regard. It's the most apples to apples comparison possible.

 

AMD DID SPECIFY that the systems were RAN IN THE SAME CONFIGURATION. Only technologically uninclined people, and morons, would make the connection that dual channel and quad channel can qualify as the same configuration. Spec for spec, the machines only varied in two departments: the mainboard, and the CPU.

 

We'll have benchmarks day one of actual release. We'll know immediately if Ryzen fails or not. AMD lies, they're dead on arrival. Those that don't look at benchmarks aren't going to consider AMD, to them an unknown brand, until AMD has the reputation that they would be recommended at any capacity, again, dead on arrival if they lie.

 

 

Also, I said that I don't trust the bullshit "rumors" Anandtech pushes before the launch. Once they have actual benchmarks to put out, they're a credible source of information regarding Ryzen. But guess what, that hasn't happened yet, so even Anandtech's rumor spreading is worthless.

Come Bloody Angel

Break off your chains

And look what I've found in the dirt.

 

Pale battered body

Seems she was struggling

Something is wrong with this world.

 

Fierce Bloody Angel

The blood is on your hands

Why did you come to this world?

 

Everybody turns to dust.

 

Everybody turns to dust.

 

The blood is on your hands.

 

The blood is on your hands!

 

Pyo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Intel's HEDT chips, ran in dual channel, is not crippling them until one actually needs the bandwidth. Bandwidth for bandwidth, AMD holds NO advantage. In the benchmarks AMD used, the Intel HEDT chips are NOT being crippled in any regard. It's the most apples to apples comparison possible.

If AMD only let the i7 run in dual channel mode then they deliberately kneecapped the i7 chip.

It is crippling if you cut the memory bandwidth in half of the peak bandwidth for the chip.

 

When you make a comparison and your product doesn't match the competitor in some regard, you don't just bring the competitor down to your level. That's extremely misleading, especially if you don't tell the audience that's what you did.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

AMD DID SPECIFY that the systems were RAN IN THE SAME CONFIGURATION. Only technologically uninclined people, and morons, would make the connection that dual channel and quad channel can qualify as the same configuration. Spec for spec, the machines only varied in two departments: the mainboard, and the CPU.

Something tells me you don't understand what dual channel and quad channel RAM means... Because it is entirely possible to have "the same configuration" (as far as the hardware goes, except motherboard and CPU) and still allow the Ryzen to run its dual channel configuration, and the i7 to run quad channel.

How do you do this? By using 4 sticks of RAM on both platforms.

 

I know what you're thinking, "wow LAwLz. Are you seriously a genius? You're fucking brilliant!". First of all, I am very flattered, secondly you don't have to swear, and thirdly, it's not that hard to think of stuff like this.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

We'll have benchmarks day one of actual release. We'll know immediately if Ryzen fails or not. AMD lies, they're dead on arrival. Those that don't look at benchmarks aren't going to consider AMD, to them an unknown brand, until AMD has the reputation that they would be recommended at any capacity, again, dead on arrival if they lie.

Again, I don't understand how you fail to understand this simple logic. Let's assume that Ryzen is bad (I should clarify that I don't think it will be bad, and I hope it is a huge success).

So, Ryzen is a turd as big as Bulldozer was. What does AMD do, now that they are just a few weeks from launching? Do they:

 

1) Don't lie, try to mislead anyone, and just flat out tells everyone "our product isn't as good as we hoped. Sorry", at the risk of going bankrupt.

Or do they:

2) Hype it like crazy, release a bunch of misleading benchmarks, put it up for pre-order and then hope that their marketing and hype alone will sell a bunch of CPUs, and then when people realize how bad it is AMD has already gotten their money?

 

What do you think sounds more likely? My vote goes to number 2.

 

 

17 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Also, I said that I don't trust the bullshit "rumors" Anandtech pushes before the launch. Once they have actual benchmarks to put out, they're a credible source of information regarding Ryzen. But guess what, that hasn't happened yet, so even Anandtech's rumor spreading is worthless.

What rumors has Anandtech been spreading?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 2/22/2017 at 5:08 PM, Drak3 said:

If ANY of AMD's official statements don't hold true, they've lost too many customers. What few fanboys they'd still have couldn't support the company for more than 5 minutes.

Hey Drak3. Gamers nexus actually went though all the different ways AMD skewed the benchmarks they ran in their favor.

 

What was that about "AMD wouldn't lie!"?

Only idiots trust first party benchmarks.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Hey Drak3. Gamers nexus actually went though all the different ways AMD skewed the benchmarks they ran in their favor.

 

What was that about "AMD wouldn't lie!"?

Only idiots trust first party benchmarks.

 

 

 

still it's a great cpu, they didn't lose any customer, you can't expect miracles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nerdslayer1 said:

still it's a great cpu, they didn't lose any customer, you can't expect miracles. 

Yes it's good. Wouldn't call it great. But that does not take away from the fact that AMD were deliberately trying to trick people with their benchmarks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, LAwLz said:

Yes it's good. Wouldn't call it great. But that does not take away from the fact that AMD were deliberately trying to trick people with their benchmarks. 

 

...its marketing, i don't think anyone believed the marketing department. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Hey Drak3. Gamers nexus actually went though all the different ways AMD skewed the benchmarks they ran in their favor.

 

What was that about "AMD wouldn't lie!"?

Only idiots trust first party benchmarks.

 

-video snip-

 

Can I get a TL;DW? 

PSU Tier List | CoC

Gaming Build | FreeNAS Server

Spoiler

i5-4690k || Seidon 240m || GTX780 ACX || MSI Z97s SLI Plus || 8GB 2400mhz || 250GB 840 Evo || 1TB WD Blue || H440 (Black/Blue) || Windows 10 Pro || Dell P2414H & BenQ XL2411Z || Ducky Shine Mini || Logitech G502 Proteus Core

Spoiler

FreeNAS 9.3 - Stable || Xeon E3 1230v2 || Supermicro X9SCM-F || 32GB Crucial ECC DDR3 || 3x4TB WD Red (JBOD) || SYBA SI-PEX40064 sata controller || Corsair CX500m || NZXT Source 210.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

...its marketing, i don't think anyone believed the marketing department. 

The person I replied to did.

 

32 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Can I get a TL;DW? 

Me: First party benchmark doesn't hold any weight. Don't trust them.

Drak3: First party benchmark holds weight when the company is under constant scrutiny, especially AMD.

Me: No they don't. Stop being naive. We don't even know if they used dual or quad channel RAM for the 6900K they tested against.

Drak3: Everything AMD has said in the past few years have been proven true. Intel has no problem lying because most consumers think of them as the only CPU manufacturer. AMD lying would be corporate suicide.

Me: AMD has more reasons to lie than Intel. AMD are desperate and need sales right now. Intel doesn't, and I still wouldn't trust Intel.

Drak3: AMD has never given me a reason to not trust them before a launch. Anandtech has.

 

 

Now we have a video explaining what AMD did to skew their first party benchmarks in their favors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Now we have a video explaining what AMD did to skew their first party benchmarks in their favors.

No no, I meant what points did the video make.

 

Also, I assume you've looked through all the random videos/reviews at this point....so how does Ryzen fair? From the bits and pieces I've glanced through, it looks to be as expected -- solid performance, but obviously not able to compete with a 7700k in gaming (or single threaded performance) due to not being able to overclock as far (which is to be expected since it's an 8c/16t CPU vs. a 4c/8t CPU).

PSU Tier List | CoC

Gaming Build | FreeNAS Server

Spoiler

i5-4690k || Seidon 240m || GTX780 ACX || MSI Z97s SLI Plus || 8GB 2400mhz || 250GB 840 Evo || 1TB WD Blue || H440 (Black/Blue) || Windows 10 Pro || Dell P2414H & BenQ XL2411Z || Ducky Shine Mini || Logitech G502 Proteus Core

Spoiler

FreeNAS 9.3 - Stable || Xeon E3 1230v2 || Supermicro X9SCM-F || 32GB Crucial ECC DDR3 || 3x4TB WD Red (JBOD) || SYBA SI-PEX40064 sata controller || Corsair CX500m || NZXT Source 210.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

No no, I meant what points did the video make. 

 

 

-During AMD's Sniper Elite demo, they frequently looked at the skybox when reloading and often kept more of the skybox in view compared to the side-by-side Intel demo. The skybox has no geometry which inflated the framerate.

-During the BF1 demo, the AMD was zooming in more frequently or at different intervals compared to the Intel, making a fair head-to-head comparison impossible.

-Overall, gaming demos were run at 4K creating a GPU bottleneck, meaning they're no longer observing true CPU performance. 

 

The video link goes right to the section LAwLz is talking about, and it's not very long if you want to see it for yourself. (Actually, watching from that time stamp to the end makes for a decent TL;DW for his entire video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

No no, I meant what points did the video make.

I think it's best if you watch it for yourself. He goes over a lot of different ways AMD tries to "cheat" to make their processor look better during the performance in decent detail.

But here are the things:

1) Created GPU bottlenecks for their gaming benchmarks.

2) Looked at the sky box more during the Sniper Elite demo. For example looked up into the skybox when reloading in the AMD test, but not in the Intel test.

3) During the Battlefield test they zoomed in a lot more often in the AMD run, and zooming in means there is less draw calls to generate by the CPU (because there is less things to draw).

4) Their blender test was really lightweight. As Gamers Nexus says, it was basically "preview quality" and not settings you would actually use.

5) Did not allow the 6900K to use quad channel memory for the Cinebench run, thus halving its memory bandwidth.

 

Might be more things as well. AMD also told Gamers Nexus that they should do the benchmarks with a GPU bottleneck (might not have used those exact words, but those are the words Gamers Nexus describes their conversation with AMD as). AMD probably wanted them to do that to hide the big performance gap between their processors and the 7700K (which performs much better for gaming).

 

 

20 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Also, I assume you've looked through all the random videos/reviews at this point....so how does Ryzen fair? From the bits and pieces I've glanced through, it looks to be as expected -- solid performance, but obviously not able to compete with a 7700k in gaming (or single threaded performance) due to not being able to overclock as far (which is to be expected since it's an 8c/16t CPU vs. a 4c/8t CPU).

Pretty good if you ask me. Doesn't live up to the hype though. The more I read the more confident I become in this summary I wrote:

 

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I've been reading benchmarks for a few hours now and here is my current thoughts (which are still fairly "knee-jerk"-ish since I've only looked at benchmarks from three sites).

 

X99 platform - Dead... X99 is still a much better chipset but I don't think it will matter for most people. It seems like X370 is good enough, while X99 is complete overkill, for most people.

 

Z270 - Still alive and well. I am not even sure Intel will have to drop prices to stay competitive.

 

Ryzen - Very inconsistent but seems good overall.

 

Overall - Anyone who was looking at X99 should go with Ryzen. Anyone who was looking at Intel's mainstream platform should go with that. Anyone who buys Ryzen should really think about what that person will do with his/her computer before buying it. It is very inconsistent in how it stacks up against Intel's CPUs. Sometimes it wins with like 40%, and sometimes it loses by ~40%.

 

I am definitely going to order a 1700X in a few days. I'm just going to wait for prices to stabilize, and for the motherboard motherboards and Noctua mounting kit to come in stock (could get one for free, but I don't want to wait that long).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×