AMD Ryzen HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED!!!

[DocSwag]

2 hours ago, ScootsMcgoots said:

Sorry if this was already answered in the thread, but  will the chipset(s) corresponding to these CPUs support the newest I/O tech ex: thunderbolt 3, USB type c etc.? 

It'll support most of the new stuff such as USB type c, etc., but it won't support thunderbolt 3 since that's an Intel thing.

1 hour ago, MyName13 said:

You're telling me that there are people who would rather spend 170$ more because they are too lazy to overclock? @_@ 

 

No, it's likely that the 1800x and 1700x have higher binned Ryzen dies, basically they're more power efficient and/or overclock better than the ones used in 1700s, so if you buy an 1800x or 1700x it might overclock higher than a 1700.

[LAwLz]

4 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

So was bulldozer. And Ryzen is following a similar: "we can't compete on IPC, so here's more cores" trend. With that said, it APPEARS as though IPC is close enough that it's going to be great, but we don't really know that yet.

I wouldn't say Ryzen is following a similar "more cores to make up for low IPC". Right now it seems more like "more cores to make up for low clock speeds, but the IPC is still good", which in my opinion is a far better position to be in because the 4 and 6 core models could potentially be clocked higher.

 

 

I have to say though... I am sitting here and planning a 1700X build, and I am really disappointed by the motherboard selection.

 

There are only 8 motherboards with the X370 chipset listed in Sweden.

And it appears like there are very few differences between them as well. Thinking of going with the AX370-Gaming 5 (not the K5) model.

[Techstorm970]

3 minutes ago, MageTank said:

You know, I often get accused of being a fanboy for AMD, Nvidia, Intel, basically every company ever, for defending the companies from misinformation that is said about them. My personal stance on this forum has always been anti-fanboyism, period. Doesn't matter which company, doesn't matter what I personally buy, I won't get involved in crusading on behalf of a company due to sheer blind devotion.

 

I have my preferred brands, it's no secret I like EVGA for their warranty and CS (and the fact that I can change paste without voiding warranties) but because I like EVGA, doesn't mean I'll tell others to buy EVGA for no real reason, or that their preferred brands are inferior. In fact, if another company has a better deal with similar warranty/CS history, I'll buy that brand over EVGA because I still care about price:performance. 

 

The biggest problem we face with fanboys, is the "us vs them" mentality. If you are not for one side, you are automatically against them, even if you talk about both sides equally. In one single thread, I was accused of being both an AMD and Intel fanboy. I used to post about 2 years ago back in the CPU sub-section regarding the old FX83xx series, and any time I defended AMD, even if I were right, I was labeled an AMD fanboy. God forbid I bring up the G3258 beating the FX 83xx in some older MMO's, because that just means I am another Intel shill. 

 

I just hope that one day, consumers understand that they don't owe any allegiance to a company. Somewhere along the way, we forgot that it should be the corporations fighting each other for us, and not the other way around. 

I am on the exact same page with you.  I admit that I've kind of turned into an AMD fanboy, but at the same time, I've never had an "us vs them" mentality.  To be honest, it's more of a "root of the underdog" mentality.  I've been promoting Ryzen so much because I want a cheaper option to work with when I build my next PC, not because I blindly follow AMD like I'm under mind control.  I also just have a genuine interest in computer technology.  I want tech to continue to advance, and the more competition there is, the better new tech products get.

 

...or maybe I've been rooting for AMD because I've gotten bored of people chanting "Intel" and "NVIDIA" all the time.    I guess that's kind of along the same lines, though....

[DocSwag]

13 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Returning stuff is often easy -- depending on the retailer/region. So, I don't necessarily have an issue with pre-ordering. 

So was bulldozer. And Ryzen is following a similar: "we can't compete on IPC, so here's more cores" trend. With that said, it APPEARS as though IPC is close enough that it's going to be great, but we don't really know that yet. It looks good, but I'm still a bit skeptical as to its general performance -- the price points are so low that their must be something differentiating it from Intel's offerings. Sure, there is an advantage to pricing them incredibly cheaply and enticing more people to upgrade, but I can't imagine they couldn't have done the same thing by pricing the R5 around $330 and the R3 around $120-$220 while pricing the R7 around $700. 

Cinebench is quite reliable IMO. Judging by it Ryzen IPC is around Haswell level. AMD's IPC isn't quite there with Intel but it's really close to the point where for the most part it doesn't matter much. It's like debating a 4790k and 6700k; there's a little difference, but it's pretty much the same. And the more cores makes sense; there's a reason why they aren't releasing 10 core or 12 core consumer processors.

[Ramaddil]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I wouldn't say Ryzen is following a similar "more cores to make up for low IPC". Right now it seems more like "more cores to make up for low clock speeds, but the IPC is still good", which in my opinion is a far better position to be in because the 4 and 6 core models could potentially be clocked higher.

 

 

I have to say though... I am sitting here and planning a 1700X build, and I am really disappointed by the motherboard selection.

 

There are only 8 motherboards with the X370 chipset listed in Sweden.

And it appears like there are very few differences between them as well. Thinking of going with the AX370-Gaming 5 (not the K5) model.

That sucks.. I personally am going with the ASUS Hero, but the X370 Pro looks good so does the carbon from MSI

[cj09beira]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I wouldn't say Ryzen is following a similar "more cores to make up for low IPC". Right now it seems more like "more cores to make up for low clock speeds, but the IPC is still good", which in my opinion is a far better position to be in because the 4 and 6 core models could potentially be clocked higher.

 

 

I have to say though... I am sitting here and planning a 1700X build, and I am really disappointed by the motherboard selection.

 

There are only 8 motherboards with the X370 chipset listed in Sweden.

And it appears like there are very few differences between them as well. Thinking of going with the AX370-Gaming 5 (not the K5) model.

there will be more just wait

[Brian McKee]

2 minutes ago, Ramaddil said:

That sucks.. I personally am going with the ASUS Hero, but the X370 Pro looks good so does the carbon from MSI

I just want mini itx damn it, oh and the 6 cores.

 

[Sprawlie]

18 hours ago, Orangeator said:

In multi-threaded the 1700 outperforms the 7700k by 50%... What the hell are you are you talking about on par?!?!

Sorry, all I've seen is the AMD presser. I may have mis-remembered an exact number.

 

Got a link to some data? Love analyzing performance numbers.

[flipped_bit]

2 hours ago, goodtofufriday said:

A few rapid fire questions.

 

What motherboard, chipset, bios rev, final or beta bios, is 28fps a momentary dip or sustained, is the data you have pulled from somehwere or did you somehow generate it and have a retail 1700.

 

That graph doesnt mean much without the above questions answered. 

 

Apples to oranges.  The 1700 (non-X) turbos at 3.7GHz.  The 7700K turbos at 4.5GHz.  

 

The best sign yet for these new chips is that the 1T comparison in Cinebench between the 1800X and the 6900K showed identical performance.  Now the 1800X boost is slightly higher at 4GHz than the 6900K's at 3.7GHz, but that shows AMD is in same ballpark.  They look to be within 10-15% of Broadwell E in terms of IPC, and they seem to have some special sauce that results in better multi-core performance.  All told that's a very compelling package at the price points they're talking about.

[Lays]

6 hours ago, cj09beira said:

1.42 is really pushing it, good luck

Previous to my 7700k I owned a 6700k that I ran daily at 1.43v 5 ghz since launch, I just sold it about a month ago and it still ran the same clock as the day I got it.

 

With a delid & PROPER cooling, 1.4v+ is not an issue.  My load temps are in the 50-60c range depending on what I'm doing.

[DocSwag]

3 minutes ago, Lays said:

Previous to my 7700k I owned a 6700k that I ran daily at 1.43v 5 ghz since launch, I just sold it about a month ago and it still ran the same clock as the day I got it.

 

With a delid & PROPER cooling, 1.4v+ is not an issue.  My load temps are in the 50-60c range depending on what I'm doing.

Well IMO delid shouldn't be necessary for anything under 1.45 volts. 

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, DocSwag said:

Well IMO delid shouldn't be necessary for anything under 1.45 volts. 

I've yet to see someone get 5ghz without a delid. If they did, they certainly are not stable. It's just not happening. 

[DocSwag]

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

I've yet to see someone get 5ghz without a delid. If they did, they certainly are not stable. It's just not happening. 

Well yeah  but over 1.4 volts around 4.8-4.9 ghz or so on a good cooler should be fine. Delid would just result in slightly higher clocks.

[done12many2]

3 minutes ago, MageTank said:

I've yet to see someone get 5ghz without a delid. If they did, they certainly are not stable. It's just not happening. 

Um.  I did with quite a few 7700k chips. 

 

Delidding made them even faster. 

[MageTank]

3 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

Well yeah  but over 1.4 volts around 4.8-4.9 ghz or so on a good cooler should be fine. Delid would just result in slightly higher clocks.

I still don't see it happening. Clock speeds are one thing when factoring thermals, but when it comes to voltage, it scales quadratically. No air cooler or AIO that I know of, can handle 1.4v at 4.8/4.9 under any thermally demanding loads.

 

2 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

Um.  I did with quite a few 7700k chips. 

 

Delidding made them even faster. 

At what voltage and temps? I'd be very curious to see those results. From what I saw when we last talked, you ran realbench for a very limited amount of time per-chip. Not exactly what I would personally deem "stable", lol. Poor @Lays still can't do 48k.

[Sprawlie]

1 hour ago, MyName13 said:

You're telling me that there are people who would rather spend 170$ more because they are too lazy to overclock? @_@ 

 

I know this might sound like a weird concept, but, hold on.

 

there are other use cases of CPU's other than just gaming and making a pretty computer (GASP!)

 

when you've got a job to do, and your box is a utility, not a piece of art, you generally want something to just work out of the box, as best it can. you aren't there to tinker. you aren't there to spend lots of money just to go "oh wow, so fast". you're there to work. you want to plunk in the CPU. put on the boxed cooler and get down to work. That means buying the fastest out of the box product. Not the cheapest, with hopes to get it "oh wow fast". 

 

that's not me. 

 

But I understand it

 

[Lays]

9 minutes ago, MageTank said:

I still don't see it happening. Clock speeds are one thing when factoring thermals, but when it comes to voltage, it scales quadratically. No air cooler or AIO that I know of, can handle 1.4v at 4.8/4.9 under any thermally demanding loads.

 

At what voltage and temps? I'd be very curious to see those results. From what I saw when we last talked, you ran realbench for a very limited amount of time per-chip. Not exactly what I would personally deem "stable", lol. Poor @Lays still can't do 48k.

Now that I fixed CLU I probably can 

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, Lays said:

Now that I fixed CLU I probably can 

Bench me IRL

[Sprawlie]

1 hour ago, MageTank said:

These are not "gaming CPU's". Yes, they are priced just as cheap as Intel's gaming CPU's. Yes, they have a lot of "lifting power" for their cost, but in no way will these CPU's outperform faster quad-cores in current gaming applications.

This is exactly what I was thinking.

 

This is not the Gaming enthusiast CPU. This is the content creator. The twitch streamer, the gamer who is gaming AND doing something else at the same time. These CPU's are aimed directly at the more cores for performance crowd. That's not the pure gaming crowd. 

 

Yes, so far it's looking like the i7-7700k is still the best gaming CPU. But what about gaming and twitch streaming? what are your in game FPS going to look like on the i7-7700k v the new Ryzen chips? What about if you're trying to game while your computer is running a flash video stream on one display, websites and other functionality on a 2nd display, and trying to game GTA @ 2k on Ultra!

 

I'm not a "hardcore" gamer. But I do want to play my games on the highest possible settings for hardware that I can afford. But being a casual gamer, I also tend to do other things while gaming. Like sitting, playing GTA, while watching the hockey game on another monitor, while also often having a slack window, and discord open. 

 

Something like RyZen is compelling to me, because those extra cores give me pause to consider that for my use case, they might ultimately give me better overall performance than the 7700k because of that shared workload taking advantage of more cores. Especially considering that the 1700 is cheaper than the 7700k. Heck, Regular CAD$ on newegg for the 7700k is $529 (though on sale right now), For that price, I could get the 1700x

 

Because I NEED an upgrade soon... my i5-4670 is really telling me it can't quite handle that load anymore!

[SurvivorNVL]

This is a better release than I thought.  Time to upgrade, just need VEGA.

[done12many2]

17 minutes ago, MageTank said:

At what voltage and temps? I'd be very curious to see those results. From what I saw when we last talked, you ran realbench for a very limited amount of time per-chip. Not exactly what I would personally deem "stable", lol. Poor @Lays still can't do 48k.

 

I know, I know.  Prime95 or it's not stable / didn't happen.  We've had this discussion before.

 

I'm using the same standards for stability considered acceptable by the majority of folks submitting to the Skylake statistics and Kaby Lake statistics threads on OCN.  I believe you've referenced that thread before in our previous comparative conversations.  

 

Anyways, Darkwizzie did something one better to the 7700k / Kaby Lake guys.  He made the accepted stability standards even harder for Kaby Lake chips, which disgruntled a few folks to include myself.

 

With that said, the numbers you see in the two threads are slightly skewed in favor of Skylake due to a lower stability verification standard.

 

So when I say I overclocked multiple 7700k chips to 5 GHz stable, I'm using the generally excepted standard for stability.  Not necessarily your standard.  

 

Skylake

http://www.overclock.net/t/1570313/skylake-overclocking-guide-with-statistics/0_100

 

Kaby Lake

http://www.overclock.net/t/1621347/kaby-lake-overclocking-guide-with-statistics/0_100

 

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, done12many2 said:

.

I know, I know.  Prime95 or it's not stable / didn't happen.  We've had this discussion before

 

I'm using the same standards for stability considered acceptable by the majority of folks submitting to the Skylake statistics and Kaby Lack statistics threads on OCN.  I believe you've referenced that thread before in our previous comparison conversations.  

 

Anyways, Darkwizzie did something one better to the 7700k / Kaby Lake guys.  He made the accepted stability standards even harder for Kaby Lake chips, which disgruntled a few folks to include myself.

 

With that said, the numbers you see in the two threads are slightly skewed in favor of Skylake lower stability verification standard.

 

So when I say I overclocked multiple 7700k chips to 5 GHz stable, I'm using the generally excepted standard for stability.  Not necessarily your standard.  

 

Skylake

http://www.overclock.net/t/1570313/skylake-overclocking-guide-with-statistics/0_100

 

Kaby Lake

http://www.overclock.net/t/1621347/kaby-lake-overclocking-guide-with-statistics/0_100

 

That's not my motto. My motto is "stable until unstable", lol. If your 5ghz hasn't crashed yet, it's stable. When it crashes, it's no longer stable. It's that simple.

 

It's probably safe to assume that your custom loop out-performs any air coolers or AIO's on the market, and you likely run at a low ambient, so i'll give you the benefit of the doubt. However, I'll let a quote from a friend of mine rest here.

 

Quote

More conduction doesn't scale in a straight line. It's better than that, lol.

The impact thermals have on your required voltage is pretty significant. I am sure you know this, and have likely tested this. I've seen people require less volts after delidding to maintain the exact same clock speeds pre-delid. I've also seen people maintain the same voltage, and achieve higher clock speeds. Improving ones thermal headroom, especially with superior conduction, is a very big deal when it comes to overclocking. I'll amend my previous statement to this: Nobody is going to hit 5ghz on any modern i7 without a delid OR a very decent custom loop. No air cooler/AIO on the market can handle high clocks AND high voltage without a delid. 

[leadeater]

6 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

-snip-

Also my stability requirement and stress for how I use my computer is different to other people. My computer never gets turned off, ever. Not matter what it needs to be running without crashing or small issues or require an odd reboot. It needs to be powered on and can live like that for years straight if I want it to. My CPU is overclocked to the point at which this is true, not what it can get and not what people would call stable based on some rules a collective came up with and now accept as the standard.

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Also my stability requirement and stress for how I use my computer is different to other people. My computer never gets turned off, ever. Not matter what it needs to be running without crashing or small issues or require an odd reboot. It needs to be powered on and can live like that for years straight if I want it to. My CPU is overclocked to the point at which this is true, not what it can get and not what people would call stable based on some rules a collective came up with and now accept as the standard.

For me, I just throw every possible load that I can at it, for an extremely long duration (For example, 27 hours of Prime95) and if it crashes, it's not stable. Different variations of folding, light and heavy stress, even gaming can cause instability. I've survived years of Prime95, just to crash mid-Overwatch, lol. Stress tests are one thing, but I've yet to find a single stress test that is all-encompassing. Prime95 is my favorite only because I can dictate which parts of my system get stressed. 48k for thermals, 1344k for vcore, 512k-1024k for IMC/IO lanes, 2048k+ for RAM, 448k if you have FIVR, etc. 

 

I hate this newfangled "prefix-stable" thing that has caught on. I know people that specifically have "gaming-stable" overclocks. It's a chore to repeatedly change BIOS profiles just because you want to load up a game with a couple hundred extra mhz. I'd rather sacrifice 200-300mhz and handle any workload thrown at my system at all times, than to have to stop what I am doing, change settings, and reboot. I know people that do this with GPU's too, and it sickens me. I dare anyone to try that with memory. You will learn quickly that ram instability is by far the worst, lol. 

[79wjd]

 

1 hour ago, Brian McKee said:

Facts are facts and the benchmarks used by AMD were industry standards. While I still think it's wise to wait for unbiased and well conducted reviews before EVER committing money to something like this, there's almost no doubt in my mind that these chips are going to cause an uproar.

 

As for your concern on pricing, the reason they can price these so low is because of great yields obviously, and the fact that intel has no doubt been price gouging due to a complete lack of real competition. GloFo's 14nm yields have been insanely good so there's probably very little lost per wafer.

There have been open-source benchmarks (which can easily be manipulated to favor one architecture over another), there have been gaming benchmarks (BF1 @ 4k -- which even an FX8320 does well in), and now the cinebench stuff. So, I'm withholding judgement until I've seen a full suite showing performance in all use cases. I've seen rumors of lacking AVX/FPU performance -- which could explain the low tdp and low price. 

 

I understand fully that Intel has ridiculous margins, but what advantage is there to undercutting Intel by such large margins? Intel will price match them anyway, so why not just price them 10-20% lower, where Intel is far less likely to react? They could be trying to get people with recent-ish i5s/i7s to upgrade because it's just "such a good upgrade", but at the same time, a cheap 6c/12 and enthusiast priced 8c/16t would have the same effect.  

 

1 hour ago, DocSwag said:

Cinebench is quite reliable IMO. Judging by it Ryzen IPC is around Haswell level. AMD's IPC isn't quite there with Intel but it's really close to the point where for the most part it doesn't matter much. It's like debating a 4790k and 6700k; there's a little difference, but it's pretty much the same. And the more cores makes sense; there's a reason why they aren't releasing 10 core or 12 core consumer processors.

Cinebench is definitely a good benchmark, but it also isn't all encompassing.