AMD Ryzen HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED!!!

[Ryujin2003]

2 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Here's the ways AMD can fuck it up:

 

• IPC being shit.  Hey no 6700K or 7700K single threaded comparisons?  Mmmmkay.  Y'all realize you pretty much never utilize 8 cores?
• Terrible yields.  March 2nd launch becomes June delivery.  Historically happens to their graphics cards.
• Being clocked already to the edge.  100Mhz "turbo"?  Really bruh?
• Mobo's lacking features.  First time AMD has put out anything natively supporting >USB2.0.

ASUS and MSI sell AM+ boards with USB Type C, USB 3.2, and M.2. Essentially everything the Intel boards have except for DDR4 and PCIE 3.

[Drak3]

24 minutes ago, Castdeath97 said:

To be fair intel 3.0 boost is just 200 MHz.

@lots of unexplainable lag

 

Typically, AMD and Intel's top boost only applies to 1 core, with a table of slower speeds that apply to more cores. It's also used for a short duration when the system is under load.

 

Whereas XFR is likely applied to all cores, and we currently don't have reason to thing it's a momentary thing either. It's likely that XFR is closer to Nvidia's Turbo Boost 3.0, and it will go past that (and AMD's just being conservative as to more easily deliver on any new promises), when cooling and thermals allow for it.

 

So, which seems better, an extra 400 MHz on just a single core, or a 500 MHz OC on all cores?

[randomhkkid]

27 minutes ago, Dietrichw said:

From Austin Evan's video which was taken down  showed LN2 overclockers getting 5.15 GHz on all 8 cores if I remember correctly. This shows hope for lower core count parts with lower TDP will be able to get above 4 GHz on air unless the chip in the video was very cherry picked to OC that much.

I hope so! But considering that the 7700k does 6.5 - 7ghz on ln2 the headroom does look more limited than Katy lake.

 

Also with an ipc disadvantage compared to Intel I'm doubtful we'll see any of these ryzen chips outperform the 7700k in terms of gaming because of the frequency deficit. 

[AnonymousGuy]

3 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

ASUS and MSI sell AM+ boards with USB Type C, USB 3.2, and M.2. Essentially everything the Intel boards have except for DDR4 and PCIE 3.

They use 3rd party controllers for that which end up with performance and compatibility issues.  http://www.amd.com/en-us/products/chipsets/9-series  See....only USB2.0.  Hence why I said "natively" as in "the chipset".

[Prysin]

35 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

I expect it to be close to intels offerings at a lower price.

 

Where is disappoint? AMD is god. Ryzen is christ. Vega is holy ghost. Praise be upon thee

sure it will be close, in some cases, others not. But you have to look at teh whole ecosystem. Look at the boards, the partners...

With this big a launch, you expect the board partners to bring their BEST boards out at launch. You know, the "Maximus EXTREME" brand. The top end boards. The expensive boards...

And what is on display? two tiers/generations behind intels current offerings... Sure there will be more feature rich boards eventually. But nobody is going to wait 6-18 months for a better board. They want RYZEN now, when there is hype.

 

RYZEN is doomed to flop. Even if the chip is pretty good, the boards, the overclocking, the actual TDP (please, as if 8 cores 16 threads is 95w in Prime95 or during Folding at home).  AMD also raised the bar for cooling. Given their decent stock cooling, you cannot just grab a 50$ cooler, because it will only improve things marginally, instead you need to go directly to 75-100+$ coolers... Which means any serious overclocking is going to cost you more then what you currently need on Intels offerings.

 

Just face it. RYZEN, IS, NOT, THAT, GREAT.

[DocSwag]

55 minutes ago, TOMPPIX said:

why would you hope for a higher price?

He's just surprised that the prices are this low, same as me.

45 minutes ago, Tenchev said:

Any idea when Ryzen 3 series are to come out? I'll be building a budget PC in the next few weeks so, if you have any clue, please let me know !

No idea, AMD hasn't said anything yet. However, it's possible Ryzen could cause an avalanche affect on Intel, Intel would be forced to lower prices of 6 cores which would lower prices of 4 cores which would lower prices of dual cores, etc.

15 minutes ago, SCGazelle said:

AM4 motherboards are also in Newegg:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007625&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&ActiveSearchResult=True&SrchInDesc=AM4&Page=1&PageSize=36&order=BESTMATCH

 

EDIT: A BioStar board says it releases March 2nd

THis is what a MSI board says

Are we getting Athlons too?

Thanks for the info! I'll edit it into the post. It seems x370 boards are priced similar to X99 and b350 is similar to z170/270.

5 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Here's the ways AMD can fuck it up:

 

• IPC being shit.  Hey no 6700K or 7700K single threaded comparisons?  Mmmmkay.  Y'all realize you pretty much never utilize 8 cores?
• Terrible yields.  March 2nd launch becomes June delivery.  Historically happens to their graphics cards.
• Being clocked already to the edge.  100Mhz "turbo"?  Really bruh?
• Mobo's lacking features.  First time AMD has put out anything natively supporting >USB2.0.

The IPC seems to be about Haswell level, but if Zen OCs better than Broadwell then it'd be better since the clocks would make up for the IPC. And they've been manufacturing Zen for half a year now so they should at least have some chips ready. And the turbo is a bit meager, I agree, but it's better than nothing! Plus that's just the XFR, the turbo is still 400 mhz on the 1800x.

[Dietrichw]

2 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

They use 3rd party controllers for that which end up with performance and compatibility issues.  http://www.amd.com/en-us/products/chipsets/9-series  See....only USB2.0.

And look at this. PCIE Gen 3, USB 3.0 http://www.amd.com/en-us/products/chipsets/a-series

[Poofu]

I'm thinking ill wait for their higher clocked 6c12t processors because if their IPC is a little better than Intel clock for clock, according to some of the reveal videos i've seen, then that would mean less overall CPU performance but faster single threaded operation.

[Techstorm970]

2 minutes ago, Prysin said:

sure it will be close, in some cases, others not. But you have to look at teh whole ecosystem. Look at the boards, the partners...

With this big a launch, you expect the board partners to bring their BEST boards out at launch. You know, the "Maximus EXTREME" brand. The top end boards. The expensive boards...

And what is on display? two tiers/generations behind intels current offerings... Sure there will be more feature rich boards eventually. But nobody is going to wait 6-18 months for a better board. They want RYZEN now, when there is hype.

 

RYZEN is doomed to flop. Even if the chip is pretty good, the boards, the overclocking, the actual TDP (please, as if 8 cores 16 threads is 95w in Prime95 or during Folding at home).  AMD also raised the bar for cooling. Given their decent stock cooling, you cannot just grab a 50$ cooler, because it will only improve things marginally, instead you need to go directly to 75-100+$ coolers... Which means any serious overclocking is going to cost you more then what you currently need on Intels offerings.

 

Just face it. RYZEN, IS, NOT, THAT, GREAT.

1. They are bringing their best boards out first thing.

2. The idea behind "their decent stock cooling" is that you won't need to buy another cooler for decent overclocking.  Yeah, liquid cooling is usually better than air, but that usually costs more than air, as well.  Plus, the people doing extreme overclocking would usually be willing to pay more for it anyway.  AMD isn't hurting themselves...they're hurting the air-cooling market.

 

"RYZEN, IS, NOT, THAT, GREAT."  Based on what????

[randomhkkid]

15 minutes ago, Poofu said:

I'm thinking ill wait for their higher clocked 6c12t processors because if their IPC is a little better than Intel clock for clock, according to some of the reveal videos i've seen, then that would mean less overall CPU performance but faster single threaded operation.

I think you've got it the wrong way around. Ryzen's IPC is roughly at Haswell levels but clockspeeds are higher than intels HEDT parts so it makes up for it when comparing single thread performance to X99 CPUs.

 

With more cores and the same single thread performance Ryzen is pretty killer for Intel's X99 lineup however compared to the mainstream ix 7xxx chips clocks are roughly the same so single threaded workloads Intel will win due to equivalent clocks and higher IPC. 

[Techstorm970]

Oh, so the hype WAS real...

 

Wait a second...

Now I have to choose between the Ryzen logo and CHEEZITplier...

Dammit...

[Poofu]

1 minute ago, randomhkkid said:

I think you've got it the wrong way around. Ryzen's IPC is roughly at Haswell levels but clockspeeds are higher than intels HEDT parts so it makes up for it when comparing single thread performance to X99 CPUs.

 

With more cores and the same signle thread performance Ryzen is pretty killer for Intel's X99 lineup however compared to the mainstream ix 7xxx chips clocks are roughly the same so single threaded workloads Intel will win due to equivalent clocks and higher IPC. 

These are the two things i've been seeing which has the 1800x with a faster per core score than the 6900k at +- .2GHz difference. So going off of this im thinking if you get a 1600X which has the 4+ GHz clock speeds and still more threads it could be comparable to a 7700k.

[Bananasplit_00]

3 minutes ago, Poofu said:

These are the two things i've been seeing which has the 1800x with a faster per core score than the 6900k at +- .2GHz difference. So going off of this im thinking if you get a 1600X which has the 4+ GHz clock speeds and still more threads it could be comparable to a 7700k.

 

 

less cores on the same architecture /= more GHz, take the broadwell E chips, they all clock about the same and they go from 6 to 10 cores. sure, heat wont be as much of a problem but i dont think that they will catch the 7700K with the first generation of Zen chips, especially when comparing overclocks. Ryzen is good for those that are at the low end entry market with the R3s, value streamers or similar will benefit from the R5 series and people who do heavely multi threaded workloads, benchmarkers and overclockers is who the R7 chips are for. the gamers will get the best preformance with the I7 7700K for now but once what we do becomes more multi threaded the Ryzen R5 and R7 chips will seem better.

[MValuableP]

2 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

less cores on the same architecture /= more GHz, take the broadwell E chips, they all clock about the same and they go from 6 to 10 cores. sure, heat wont be as much of a problem but i dont think that they will catch the 7700K with the first generation of Zen chips, especially when comparing overclocks. Ryzen is good for those that are at the low end entry market with the R3s, value streamers or similar will benefit from the R5 series and people who do heavely multi threaded workloads, benchmarkers and overclockers is who the R7 chips are for. the gamers will get the best preformance with the I7 7700K for now but once what we do becomes more multi threaded the Ryzen R5 and R7 chips will seem better.

Aaaaand then by the time our stuff becomes more multi-threaded, Intel will have upped the line of competitive 6-8 (maybe more) core/16-x threads CPUs anyway. AMD will probably never win, as I see it.

[TheRandomness]

2 hours ago, SeanAngelo said:

Seriously cannot wait for these processors, from the leaked benchmarks, I'm definitely gonna be having a Ryzen CPU in it. Now I gotta wait for those benchmarks from the reviewers!

 

shame they're releasing the R7 processors first as the R5 is the sweet spot for me imo, but meh, I can't complain  

I mean, the 1700, with 8 cores and 16 threads at $329...

[captain cactus]

5 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

I mean, the 1700, with 8 cores and 16 threads at $329...

Still $100 over my maximum budget for a CPU. I'd rather spend that on a beefier GPU or save it altogether.

[MValuableP]

5 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

I mean, the 1700, with 8 cores and 16 threads at $329...

If you need 8 cores and 16 threads, but don't need an OC, it's great news. OC'ing... not so much.

[JDMFTW]

i feel like the 1600X is a better buy over the 1700 

 

 

[randomhkkid]

12 minutes ago, Poofu said:

These are the two things i've been seeing which has the 1800x with a faster per core score than the 6900k at +- .2GHz difference. So going off of this im thinking if you get a 1600X which has the 4+ GHz clock speeds and still more threads it could be comparable to a 7700k.

If you look at the right hand side graph it shows equivalent score for single thread performance, however the 6900k runs at 3.7ghz on one core and the 1800X at 4ghz. This means that the Ryzen core has to run 8% higher clockpeed for the same performance.

 

If we take the 7700k at 4ghz without overclocking the Ryzen core would have to be at least at 4.42ghz to compete. Knowing most 7700k easily achieve 4.5ghz+ the Ryzen chips would need to be achieving 4.86ghz to compete in single thread benches.

 

TL;DR Ryzen has an ~8% IPC deficit compared to intel according to the graph and will not be able to compete with Intel's K series parts in single thread.

[Ubleron]

Actually thinking about buying whatever Ryzen has to offer that can outperform i5-7600k for lower price. Interesting.

[TheRandomness]

2 minutes ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

Still $100 over my maximum budget for a CPU. I'd rather spend that on a beefier GPU or save it altogether.

Well, the R5 6C/12Ts should be around $250.

2 minutes ago, MValuableP said:

If you need 8 cores and 16 threads, but don't need an OC, it's great news. OC'ing... not so much.

They can all overclock, just the X CPUs are binned and have the extended frequency range and whatnot. The 1700 can still go to 3.7GHz by itself

[MValuableP]

1 minute ago, TheRandomness said:

Well, the R5 6C/12Ts should be around $250.

They can all overclock, just the X CPUs are binned and have the extended frequency range and whatnot. The 1700 can still go to 3.7GHz by itself

Yeah they can all be overclocked, I'm aware of that. I just tried to say they won't do a very good job on overclocking compared to Intel chips since the lower (x)W. 

[TheRandomness]

1 minute ago, MValuableP said:

Yeah they can all be overclocked, I'm aware of that. I just tried to say they won't do a very good job on overclocking compared to Intel chips since the lower (x)W. 

(x)W? You mean TDP or actual power consumption?

[Bananasplit_00]

2 minutes ago, MValuableP said:

Aaaaand then by the time our stuff becomes more multi-threaded, Intel will have upped the line of competitive 6-8 (maybe more) core/16-x threads CPUs anyway. AMD will probably never win, as I see it.

i dont see why this would be the case? AMD can just drop CPUs with more cores aswell. games are already benefitting quite a bit from having 8 threads and games are being programed to use more and more threads all the time. the I7 7700K winns today because it has the clockspeeds, anyone on 3rd gen core I or older would see improvements moveing to Ryzen, maybe even those on 4th gen. but as i said Ryzen isnt for the mid range value gamers right now, its for the budget guys, the mid teir streamers and content creators and for the high end content creators and benchmark junkies. 

 

AMD could also just counter that will more core spam, not really anything stopping the core spam exept for costs which are about equal for both companies. AMD could easely drop a 12 core with second get Zen for the consumer market unless there is some fundemetal problem with that in the architecture, they have a 32 core with SMT called Naples on the way to be launched later this year based on the same architecture as Ryzen so i cant see why we cant have a 12 core later. For now Intel has the win for the gamers but if AMD can get second gen Zen to run at 5GHz on air then the competition is going to get even closer. if Intels slides are anything to go by Coffelake will just be another Kabylake with a clock speed bump and no real increase in IPC

[MValuableP]

4 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

(x)W? You mean TDP or actual power consumption?

I don't remember. If you saw Linus' video there was the part about them having lower (I believe TDP) such as 65W or 95W on the higher models.