Thoughts on Ryzen

[HotDiggityDaffodil]

We've had quite a few leaked Ryzen benchmarks by now and I'm starting to think these new processors will indeed be extremely competitive.

 

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-8-core-benchmarks/

The link above lists a single threaded CPU Mark score of 1980 for the 1800X at 3.6Ghz with boost disabled. These single threaded scores have a pretty linear relationship to clock speed, so it is easy to extrapolate what an overclocked Ryzen cpu would score. For instance, my 7700k has a single threaded score of 2645 at 4.5Ghz and 2999 at 5.1Ghz, which is an exactly linear score-to-frequency ratio. Assuming the top Ryzen cpus can reach 4.5Ghz, we'd be looking at a score of 2475, which is 6.5% lower than Skylake/Kabylake at the same clock.

 

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-389-8-core-cpu-benchmarks-leaked/

This other link shows a score of 2046 for the 1700X. It is not clear if boost was enabled during this benchmark, but assuming it was and the chip was running at (or close to) 3.8Ghz, this would be just 8.5% slower than Skylake/Kabylake at the same clock. Also, if the 1800X scored 1980 at 3.6Ghz, then it would score 2090 at 3.8Ghz, which is just above the leaked score for the 1700X at 3.8Ghz.  

 

Needless to say, this is promising. The question now is whether these chips can reach high overclocks.

[themctipers]

 

[You_are_a_cunt]

It would be nice to have a graph that factors in price alongside performance, just to see how Ryzen compares to Intel's offerings

[Megah3rtz]

6 minutes ago, HotDiggityDaffodil said:

 

http://wccftech.com

you lost me 

[Teddy07]

The hype train is really on high speed. I personally don't get it, because it´s only cheaper then intels product but not revolutionary

[The Sloth]

4 minutes ago, Teddy07 said:

The hype train is really on high speed. I personally don't get it, because it´s only cheaper then intels product but not revolutionary

that's the point, making things cheaper while having better performance. 

[PCGuy_5960]

6 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

that's the point, making things cheaper while having better performance. 

*the same performance

[WereCat]

8 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

that's the point, making things cheaper while having better performance. 

more cores

[The Sloth]

1 minute ago, WereCat said:

more cores

we are done beating the dead horse amd is not caught up to the intel IPC game, give them a break. competition is good for everyone. 

[WereCat]

1 minute ago, nerdslayer1 said:

we are done beating the dead horse amd is not caught up to the intel IPC game, give them a break. competition is good for everyone. 

 

Whoa ... easy, easy!

You assumed too much from my comment.

[Curious Pineapple]

7 minutes ago, WereCat said:

more cores

Nothing wrong with more cores, just needs highly threaded applications. Shame it's a bitch to get right.

[WereCat]

3 minutes ago, Curious Pineapple said:

Nothing wrong with more cores, just needs highly threaded applications. Shame it's a bitch to get right.

I am actually considering going from 4770k to the Ryzen 6-core or 8-core if the per core performance is similar because if I want to use OBS with x264 with nice quality then it has quite a bit of performance hit on my FPS in games. Few extra cores could easily take care of that.

[HotDiggityDaffodil]

31 minutes ago, Teddy07 said:

The hype train is really on high speed. I personally don't get it, because it´s only cheaper then intels product but not revolutionary

This is not about hype, and yes, there is nothing revolutionary about this new line up in terms of speed and IPC. But still, AMD is giving us over 90% of Intel's performance, more cores, at half the price. And also, Intel has not made any IPC improvements recently and won't do it for another 2 years, so this means AMD has finally caught up and will be very competitive for the foreseeable future. 

[dizmo]

I think it's pointless to look at benchmarks like that. Wait until some actual solid, real world benchmarks come out and then we'll see how it performs, especially when it comes to considering things like gaming. Sure, maybe they do great on all these synthetics and really shit the bed when it comes to real world use.

I hope they don't, but until we see real numbers...

 

36 minutes ago, Teddy07 said:

The hype train is really on high speed. I personally don't get it, because it´s only cheaper then intels product but not revolutionary

Half the price for similar performance with more cores? Definitely a reason to start the train up.

Only those expecting revolutionary performance are going to be sorely disappointed.

 

Their auto overclock is also pretty unique.

[ian666]

Hi

 

Anyone know if i will be possible to run vga at pcie x16@3.0 and pcie card intel 750 ssd at pcie x4@3.0 all from cpu lines?

Sure there is not that much of diff between x16 and x8 (i think ltt tested it on old gtx980?) but still this would be a step back!

 

Regards!

[Simon771]

I'm still waiting for cinebecnh benchmarks and how far can we overlock Ryzen.

Most of leaked benchmarks had turbo boost off, so I guess that doesn't even work on Ryzen.

So maybe there is no way to overclock it any higher?

 

Can't wait for Linus and Jay to OC and benchmark all those CPUs, so we know where we stand with Ryzen.

[dexT]

If this is legit then I think AMD should do alright

This is the 6-core part..