AMD RYZEN... A GAME CHANGER!

[vanished]

6 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

That feeling when you bought a 7700K a month ago. Ehh, got it for $250 so I'm not bugged by it and I kept the same motherboard.

For all we know, it will remain the single-threaded performance king for a while yet (and honestly all signs point to this being the case) so if that's your top priority, you're not in a bad spot    I think the real value of RyZen is for those interested the 8 core chips, or for those who just want an i5 but for half the price (RyZen 3 )

[Morgan MLGman]

8 hours ago, deXxterlab97 said:

Well there is i7 6950x Extreme Edition. Your money will fly so fast that you won't be bored anymore

Well, I work in IT, particularly in storage, backups, security and recovery, almost everything I work with has Xeons, I'm hoping Zen changes it as it seems to be a perfect architecture for that

[SageOfSpice]

21 hours ago, AG1233 said:

Ryzen 7 1800X: 8C/16T, 3.6 GHz base, 4.0 GHz turbo, 95W, $499

 

Ryzen 7 1700X: 8C/16T, 3.4 GHz base, 3.8 GHz turbo, 95W, $399 

Ryzen 7 1700: 8C/16T,  3.0 GHz base, 3.7 GHz turbo,  65W, $329

 

Wut.

 

3.0 base 3.7 turbo = 65W

3.4 base 3.8 turbo = 95W

3.6 base 4.0 turbo = 95W

 

I don't... get it.

[King_of_Oz]

Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaam! All aboard the hype train! Choo! Choo!

[Sacredsock]

I've been a fan of team blue since the death of single core CPU's. But I'm struggling to see a reason to stay right now

[stconquest]

1 hour ago, SageOfSpice said:

 

Wut.

 

3.0 base 3.7 turbo = 65W

3.4 base 3.8 turbo = 95W

3.6 base 4.0 turbo = 95W

 

I don't... get it.

No one does.  So beyond speculation (power limiting, binning, etc...), we wait.

[mark_smith85]

I do hope Ryzen and AMD does well as the marketplace does need shaking up (only the consumer wins when there is competition).

 

However I am getting a little tired of all the comments of 'Oh Intel's bricking it' and 'Intel are going to crash and burn' there not. Intel is such a large corporation they probably are just waiting for AMD to show their hand first then come out with some new products but I do hope they take the hint and cut their prices!

 

I bought a 7700k last month for a new PC build and more that happy with my purchase cpu rocks what I want it to do (mainly gaming and a bit of animation work).

 

Would be interested to see some i5 competitor Ryzen cpu's and making an ITX build.....

[lettuce head]

On 2/22/2017 at 9:06 AM, LAwLz said:

Well this was a pleasant surprise. I did not expect it to launch today. 

Now time to look at benchmarks! 

 

Edit: Never mind. Just a soft launch.

Doesn't seem like trustworthy benchmarks (as in, not from AMD's marketing team) exist yet either.

Its nice to get more info though. 

 

 

By the way people should NOT pre-order. Wait until benchmarks are out before putting money down. 

the way i see this, (even though AMD is famous for this, cough cough bulldozer), the fact that their middle of the line chip is within spitting distance of intel's 6900k at less than half the current price is fantastic news. 
and realistically, the 6900k is a 600 USD chip. always has been. but for lack of competition people who need the performance were willing to pay for it and Intel understood that. So assuming the 6900k becomes a 600 dollar chip... "the fact that their middle of the line chip is within spitting distance of intel's 6900k" for 200 dollars less is also fantastic news... with that evaluation, you can buy an nzxt kraken x62 and still have 50 bucks in your pocket and overclocking headroom that would cost even more money on intel's side.i wasn't excited before this. but now im stoked...also please dont pre-order.

[Simon771]

Well guys finally we can joke around Intel, because it uses more power -> producing more heat than AMD.

You filthy casuals running Intel build, burning your house to the ground.

 

Get on the cool side of AMD!

 

I bet no1 said that before  

[Drak3]

3 hours ago, stconquest said:

No one does.  So beyond speculation (power limiting, binning, etc...), we wait.

 

4 hours ago, SageOfSpice said:

 

Wut.

 

3.0 base 3.7 turbo = 65W

3.4 base 3.8 turbo = 95W

3.6 base 4.0 turbo = 95W

 

I don't... get it.

Ryzen cuts some corners in the 'nice to have, but not exactly necessary' department: it only supports dual channel RAM and 24 PCIe lanes, both of which take some extra power to run. AMD also won't be using any of Intel's proprietary hardware, meaning other slight power savings. That's it as far as we know.

 

But we can speculate that more of Ryzen's components are actually 14nm than equivalent Intel Core I. That'd result in some power savings.

[stconquest]

58 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

 

Ryzen cuts some corners in the 'nice to have, but not exactly necessary' department: it only supports dual channel RAM and 24 PCIe lanes, both of which take some extra power to run. AMD also won't be using any of Intel's proprietary hardware, meaning other slight power savings. That's it as far as we know.

 

But we can speculate that more of Ryzen's components are actually 14nm than equivalent Intel Core I. That'd result in some power savings.

Not the Intel vs AMD part.  More:  Why such a drastic change in price for similar CPUs?  How well can the $300-ish dollar 1700 be overclocked and if it hits 4.5 on air, why pay more?

[Simon771]

1 minute ago, stconquest said:

Not the Intel vs AMD part.  More:  Why such a drastic change in price for similar CPUs?  How well can the $300-ish dollar 1700 be overclocked and if it hit 4.5 on air, why pay more?

And that's exactly what I have been asking myself. So I will just wait few weeks after release to see what stable OC do guys get from 1800X vs 1700X vs 1700.

If 1700 can be OCed to at least 4,2GHz, I'm buying it immediately.

[Inkz]

1 hour ago, Simon771 said:

Well guys finally we can joke around Intel, because it uses more power -> producing more heat than AMD.

You filthy casuals running Intel build, burning your house to the ground.

 

Get on the cool side of AMD!

 

I bet no1 said that before  

To be fair AMD has been a performance leader before, just not in their recent history. So I am sure someone seriously has said that before, just a while ago.

[Simon771]

14 minutes ago, Inkz said:

To be fair AMD has been a performance leader before, just not in their recent history. So I am sure someone seriously has said that before, just a while ago.

Performance wise I know AMD was leading for some years, but that's more than 10 years ago if I'm not mistaken.

I was more focused on AMD power consumption, because there were always a ton of jokes on that. So now we can joke about Intel, since AMD will be using less power  

[seabass9990]

On 2/22/2017 at 9:11 AM, Jim-B said:

Cant watch the video yet, does it mention pricing at all?

 

Yep, half the price of the CPU's they claim to be competing against, all we need are non engineering sample benchmarks now.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

On 2/22/2017 at 5:09 PM, Simon771 said:

So if R7 1700X can be overclocked just alittle bit, it will be same performance as R7 1800X for 100$ less.

I'm realy interested in review from Linus, when he will be overclocking it.

 

Hopefully AMD gave them some of those CPUs to start testing already

I'm really looking forward to an in-depth comparison within the Ryzen lineup. I know most people are waiting for AMD vs Intel comparison and "real world benchmarks" (personally, I couldn't care less about how many FPS this or that game gets, especially when comparing 8-core parts, but to each its own), but I take for granted we'll get that. What I would like to see is what does XFR actually do for you, if there are any OC differences, etc.

Many seem to assume the 65W CPUs will overclock less than the 95W, even Linus said it in the video. I don't understand why, though. The TDP rating is based on stock values. Overclocking easily takes you out of the rated TDP (I guess it could be up to the motherboard to lock you at the rated TDP through throttling, but that isn't typically the case in OC boards anyway). For instnace, in the AM3+ platform we have "E" versions of the FX-8370 and FX-8320 rated at 30W lower TDP (95 vs 125), yet there doesn't seem to be a difference in overclocking (if anything, the E versions seem to reach the same clocks at lower voltages, but that's based on my ultra small sample ).

[LAwLz]

Someone posted a video DinoPC (UK PC builder/store) accidentally released too soon. Not sure how much you should trust the video since it seemed kind of rushed and I've never head of them before, but here are their benchmarks:

 

Link to the thread and post where the video was linked: HERE.

 

So if these benchmarks are anything to go by, the i7 is a lot better at stuff which can't use more than 4 cores (most games and programs) but once you run programs that can use more than 4 cores, or possibly multiple programs, then the 1700 wins by a lot.

But again, these are just two benchmarks from a single guy I've never heard of. Still best to wait for proper reviews.

[Drak3]

4 hours ago, stconquest said:

Not the Intel vs AMD part.  More:  Why such a drastic change in price for similar CPUs?  How well can the $300-ish dollar 1700 be overclocked and if it hits 4.5 on air, why pay more?

The drastic change is to fill a void between the 1800X and a Hexacore part. Keep in mind, the 1800X is guaranteed to clock up to 4.1GHz when adequately cooled. The 1700 is an absolute shot in the dark.

And there's the whole discussion of binning. The 1700 might OC to slightly out pass the 1800X at stock, but the 1800X could also overclock well past the range of the 1700 or 1700X. They all might just be the same CPU with different clocks, just to offer as many budget options without going crazy with the SKU numbers.

 

Also keep in mind, not every user is going to jump to overclocking these chips, especially the 1800X, or they won't do it immediately. The price bump could be justified if they want the extra stock performance now, and maybe OC in the future.

[vanished]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Someone posted a video DinoPC (UK PC builder/store) accidentally released too soon. Not sure how much you should trust the video since it seemed kind of rushed and I've never head of them before, but here are their benchmarks:

 

Link to the thread and post where the video was linked: HERE.

 

So if these benchmarks are anything to go by, the i7 is a lot better at stuff which can't use more than 4 cores (most games and programs) but once you run programs that can use more than 4 cores, or possibly multiple programs, then the 1700 wins by a lot.

But again, these are just two benchmarks from a single guy I've never heard of. Still best to wait for proper reviews.

Well those don't look great for gaming, but this is a 3 - 3.7 GHz chip up against Intel's 4.2 - 4.5 GHz beast.  And, remember, Ryzen is also at a slight IPC disadvantage too.  Hopefully when we see the 1800X it will be a different story.

[Lengran]

So excited to hear this. After so many years AMD finally brings us some good CPU again. Hope 1800X can beat the Intel i7 6950X, and keep the "higher performance lower price" thing for longer time!

[Lengran]

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Someone posted a video DinoPC (UK PC builder/store) accidentally released too soon. Not sure how much you should trust the video since it seemed kind of rushed and I've never head of them before, but here are their benchmarks:

 

Link to the thread and post where the video was linked: HERE.

 

So if these benchmarks are anything to go by, the i7 is a lot better at stuff which can't use more than 4 cores (most games and programs) but once you run programs that can use more than 4 cores, or possibly multiple programs, then the 1700 wins by a lot.

But again, these are just two benchmarks from a single guy I've never heard of. Still best to wait for proper reviews.

They are CPUs at different frequency. Ryzen has similar single core performance with Intel ones only when they are at the same frequency, or maybe a little bit better than intel ones, I think.

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, Lengran said:

They are CPUs at different frequency. Ryzen has similar single core performance with Intel ones only when they are at the same frequency, or maybe a little bit better than intel ones, I think.

Yes, and? 

I've seen so many people say this and I really don't understand what they mean. 

Yes, the Ryzen has a lot lower clocks. But that's how the chip was designed. And chances are it won't be able to overclock as well as the quad core i7, so it will always be behind in terms of clocks. 

 

So for things which can't use more than 4 cores, which are most programs, the quad core i7 will be faster. Ryzen will be faster when more than 4 cores can be used such as running multiple CPU heavy programs at once. 

[Lengran]

On 2017/2/24 at 2:16 PM, LAwLz said:

Yes, and? 

I've seen so many people say this and I really don't understand what they mean. 

Yes, the Ryzen has a lot lower clocks. But that's how the chip was designed. And chances are it won't be able to overclock as well as the quad core i7, so it will always be behind in terms of clocks. 

 

So for things which can't use more than 4 cores, which are most programs, the quad core i7 will be faster. Ryzen will be faster when more than 4 cores can be used such as running multiple CPU heavy programs at once. 

Not exactly. Ryzen 1700, 1700X, and 1800X they all can be overclocked. I've seen an article saying that, Ryzen 1700 can be easily overclocked to more than 4GHz and it runs very stable. So there won't be too much difference. And for those who need higher frequency, 1700X and 1800X will be their choice.

[LAwLz]

42 minutes ago, Lengran said:

Not exactly. Ryzen 1700, 1700X, and 1800X they all can be overclocked. I've seen an article saying that, Ryzen 1700 can be easily overclocked to more than 4GHz and it runs very stable. So there won't be too much difference. And for those who need higher frequency, 1700X and 1800X will be their choice.

1) Don't buy into the hype. What the article said was that one person has managed to overclock the 1700 to 4GHz. That does not at all mean all chips will be able to do that, nor does it mean they can do it very easily. We have absolutely no idea how well they will overclock. But even if it turns out the 1700 can easily be overclocked to 4GHz (it is usually not an issue to get a lower binned chip to the same frequency as the higher binned ones), we still have no idea how well the 1700X and 1800X overclocks. It might be that Ryzen 7 is extremely hard to get over for example 4.2GHz. That all those cores and the processing node just makes it so that the voltage required, and the heat output skyrockets at that point.

So just because the 1700 can overclock well doesn't mean the 1700X or 1800X will overclock well. We have no idea.

 

2) The 7700K can be overclocked too. Don't quote me on this, but I think the average with a decent cooler is something around 4.8GHz. This whole argument that "you can just overclock X so that it matches Y" is so fucking stupid. I have seen people even say that the i5 is just as good as the i7 because you can just overclock the i5. Well here is why that argument is stupid. YOU CAN OVERCLOCK THE i7 TOO! If you are going to look at how one chip performs when overclocked then you also need to look at how the other chip performs when overclocked.

Want to compare an overclocked Ryzen to Skylake? Then you need to compare the 1700 at 4GHz vs the 7700K at 4.8GHz. Then it's a fair comparison, and the 7700K will still win in lightly threaded workloads.

 

3) Now you're comparing an overclocked 500 dollar CPU against Intel's 340 dollar CPU at stock. That's stupid.

 

Stop buying into the hype and set your expectations at a reasonable level. Skylake will most likely be far better than Ryzen 7 for workloads which doesn't take advantage of more than 4 cores.

Like I said in my other post, people who were thinking of buying a Skylake system because that suits their needs should most likely not get Ryzen 7, because it will be behind in terms of things like single core performance, and lack features like QuickSync.

 

People who were interested in X99 will most likely be better off with Ryzen 7 though. Me included.

[vanished]

45 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

*snip*

I'm still waiting for someone to make a CPU with 4 fast cores and like 4 or 6 slower cores so you get the single-threaded of a high end quad core like a 7700k with the multi-threaded power of something like a 6900k / 6950x