AMD Ryzen HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED!!!

[Space Reptile]

12 hours ago, techstorm970 said:

Ryzen 7 1700X vs FX-9590

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-Turbo-Disabled-vs-AMD-FX-9590/m243187vs1812

12 hours ago, techstorm970 said:

RYZEN 1700X ON PAR WITH i5-7500!!! (single & quad core performance)

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-Turbo-Disabled-vs-Intel-Core-i5-7500/m243187vs3648

13 hours ago, techstorm970 said:

Single-core performance is on par with i3-6300, just like in Cinebench R15.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-Turbo-Disabled-vs-Intel-Core-i3-6300/m243187vs3536

Based on this, it's probably credible.

12 hours ago, Drak3 said:

It's a tiny tad slower than the Sky i3, about the same as a similarly clocked Haswell or Broadwell. Which, again, all AMD actually promised.

 

 

KEEP IN MIND , 

Turbo is disabled on the Ryzen , so its at 3.4ghz wich is below the base boost speed of the 1700 and way below the 1800X 

[WMGroomAK]

1 hour ago, CTR640 said:

Gaming benchmarks please. You don't need a 8core Ryzen to play the fucking game Candy Crush or for some Office.

True, but you also don't need more than the lowest end Pentiums to play Candy Crush or use Office...

[WMGroomAK]

1 hour ago, DocSwag said:

So some of you have been intrigued by Ryzen 3 and 5 and are wondering when they are launching. Well it turns out that we now have some info on this (I haven't found anything coming directly from AMD but these pics seem to be of the actual event itself so I'm not too sure what to make of it).

So here are some of the additional articles on the 5 & 3 series as well as AMDs overclocking utility if you want to add them into the original thread...

 

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/amd_s_ryzen_5_and_ryzen_3_cpus_will_release_in_q2_and_2h_2017/1

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/leaks_on_amd_s_lower-end_ryzen_cpus_have_been_disproven/1

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/amd_ryzen_master_overclocking_utility_detailed/1

 

[Space Reptile]

HONK HONK 

[TVwazhere]

6 minutes ago, WMGroomAK said:

So here are some of the additional articles on the 5 & 3 series as well as AMDs overclocking utility if you want to add them into the original thread...

 

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/amd_s_ryzen_5_and_ryzen_3_cpus_will_release_in_q2_and_2h_2017/1

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/leaks_on_amd_s_lower-end_ryzen_cpus_have_been_disproven/1

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/amd_ryzen_master_overclocking_utility_detailed/1

 

Crap. I was hoping for R3's before May. Oh well, i3-7100 it is. Not that big of a deal I guess.

[done12many2]

16 minutes ago, Space Reptile said:

HONK HONK 

 

That's about what I expected.  I'm still interested in what more reviews will have to say and how all of this gets spun.

[TigerHawk]

50 minutes ago, Space Reptile said:

HONK HONK 

I was really interested at first but then they didn't even overclock the Ryzen cpu. There is a serious lack of clock for clock performance results so far for this cpu launch.We already know Ryzen is awesome if all you do is run cinebench all day.

[Space Reptile]

32 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

That's about what I expected.  I'm still interested in what more reviews will have to say and how all of this gets spun.

 

2 minutes ago, TigerHawk said:

I was really interested at first but then they didn't even overclock the Ryzen cpu. There is a serious lack of clock for clock performance results so far for this cpu launch.We already know Ryzen is awesome if all you do is run cinebench all day.

oh no the video is taken down , would have been a shame if someone downloaded it  ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[done12many2]

9 minutes ago, TigerHawk said:

I was really interested at first but then they didn't even overclock the Ryzen cpu. There is a serious lack of clock for clock performance results so far for this cpu launch.We already know Ryzen is awesome if all you do is run cinebench all day.

Doing things clock for clock will not help AMD's cause so I can understand the lack of those types of demos.  

 

AMD is shifting our focus to multi-threaded performance. We just need to determine how much that really matters at this point in time. 

[TigerHawk]

8 minutes ago, Space Reptile said:

 

oh no the video is taken down , would have been a shame if someone downloaded it  ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

I didn't bother. Was a worthless bench tbh. Wow a 3.4ghz  8 core Ryzen engineering sample without turbo is worse in GTA5 than a 7700k at 4.2ghz. Not much of a news flash.


Edit: For those interested it showed the 1700 3.4ghz ES(no ryzen logo) losing in average fps of the standard GTA5 benchmark by about 5 fps to a stock 7700k, as well as a 5ghz 7700k. What was more interesting was the max FPS difference was pretty huge between them, like 30fps or more. Was like 150 vs 180 or similar, but average was 85 vs 89. vs the stock 7700k.

They also threw in a cinebench, as if we hadn't seen enough of that already.

[LAwLz]

5 minutes ago, TigerHawk said:

I didn't bother. Was a worthless bench tbh. Wow a 3.4ghz  8 core Ryzen engineering sample without turbo is worse in GTA5 than a 7700k at 4.2ghz. Not much of a news flash.


Edit: For those interested it showed the 1700 losing in average fps of the standard GTA5 benchmark by about 5 fps to a stock 7700k, as well as a 5ghz 7700k. What was more interesting was the max FPS difference was pretty huge between them, like 30fps or more. Was like 150 vs 180 or similar, but average was 85 vs 89.

They also threw in a cinebench, as if we hadn't seen enough of that already.

Didn't the i7 also win at minimum FPS?

And the Cinebench results showed the i7 being something like 30% faster at single core performance, but the AMD one was like 70% faster at multicore performance?

 

Those single core scores seem very worrying to me, unless Ryzen can overclock really well to match the way higher frequency of the Intel chips. At least for things which can't take advantage of more cores.

[captain cactus]

9 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

Doing things clock for clock will not help AMD's cause so I can understand the lack of those types of demos.  

 

AMD is shifting our focus to multi-threaded performance. We just need to determine how much that really matters at this point in time. 

It's starting to become more and more important because consoles. At this point in time though it'd be a better investment to get a 6c/12t CPU that clocks higher rather than a lower clocked 8c/16t CPU. As soon as games start to get limited by 12 threads then an 8c16t option would be good, but we're probably about 2 years away from that. When it does happen though you can either get a 2nd hand Ryzen 8c16t CPU on the cheap or get the new flagship that's released at that point. 

[TigerHawk]

12 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Didn't the i7 also win at minimum FPS?

And the Cinebench results showed the i7 being something like 30% faster at single core performance, but the AMD one was like 70% faster at multicore performance?

 

Those single core scores seem very worrying to me, unless Ryzen can overclock really well to match the way higher frequency of the Intel chips. At least for things which can't take advantage of more cores.

True, but I didn't feel the single core score was too relevant because of the huge difference in clock speeds any more than the GTA 5 bench was. If it at least had turbo it would be a little more useful as we would see how well it scales with mhz. 3.4 to 4.2 is a huge gap though. I suppose the cost is pretty close though even if the mhz is not.

[LAwLz]

29 minutes ago, TigerHawk said:

True, but I didn't feel the single core score was too relevant because of the huge difference in clock speeds any more than the GTA 5 bench was.

If Ryzen isn't fantastic at overclocking, that difference will matter a lot.

Saying it's silly because the Ryzen has a lower clock is like saying "I didn't feel the multicore scores were too relevant because the Ryzen chip has 4 more cores".

 

Don't start rejecting benchmarks and make up silly excuses as for why they shouldn't count (although I wouldn't put too much trust into those benchmarks).

[TigerHawk]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

If Ryzen isn't fantastic at overclocking, that difference will matter a lot.

Saying it's silly because the Ryzen has a lower clock is like saying "I didn't feel the multicore scores were too relevant because the Ryzen chip has 4 more cores".

 

Don't start rejecting benchmarks and make up silly excuses as for why they shouldn't count (although I wouldn't put too much trust into those benchmarks).

No need to get aggressive. I just felt the video as a whole was a waste of time, but upon further contemplation the difference in clockspeed is a valid point because the price of the 1700 and the regular i7 7700 are pretty close, even though it was a slightly faster 7700k that was tested. So while the single thread result doesn't matter THAT much because there was no turbo for ryzen, its still relevant to mention. I think it was like 1.53 vs 2.10 or something? for the 7700k.

I really hope Ryzen chips can easily reach 4ghz+. That speed has been pretty much the startline for intel chip OCing for years now. If Ryzen can't even consistently clock that high, we're gonna have problems.

[DocSwag]

9 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

If Ryzen isn't fantastic at overclocking, that difference will matter a lot.

Saying it's silly because the Ryzen has a lower clock is like saying "I didn't feel the multicore scores were too relevant because the Ryzen chip has 4 more cores".

 

Don't start rejecting benchmarks and make up silly excuses as for why they shouldn't count (although I wouldn't put too much trust into those benchmarks).

I'm still holding off on my final decisions until we see how well it overclocks, though even if Ryzen can barely make it past 4.1 ghz then I still won't be too disappointed. Yes, once you overclock it Ryzen will be 10% behind the 6900k, but considering how much cheaper it is at the very least the market is going to change.

[VagabondWraith]

Interesting...

 

 

 

Salt and all that.

[LAwLz]

35 minutes ago, TigerHawk said:

No need to get aggressive. I just felt the video as a whole was a waste of time, but upon further contemplation the difference in clockspeed is a valid point because the price of the 1700 and the regular i7 7700 are pretty close, even though it was a slightly faster 7700k that was tested. So while the single thread result doesn't matter THAT much because there was no turbo for ryzen, its still relevant to mention. I think it was like 1.53 vs 2.10 or something? for the 7700k.

I am not aggressive. I am just saying that you should not make silly excuses like "this benchmark shouldn't matter because X and Y".

He did not list the turbo clocks for the Intel chips either. So either he disabled turbo on all chips, or the more likely explanation is that he listed the stock frequencies instead of the turbo ones for each chip (but kept turbo enabled).

In fact, in the video he says he left the AMD chip at stock, which would mean turbo was enabled.

 

 

 

 

Thanks to a certain reptile, I have the benchmarks here.

(Making my own graphs so that nobody can go "hey that image is from the video and should therefore be removed!")

 

 

With such a large difference in minimum FPS, and single core Cinebench scores, things aren't looking as bright as they did yesterday.

[WMGroomAK]

6 minutes 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.? 

The X370 chipsets should be supporting most of the current technologies such as USB 3.1 Type C, however, I'm unsure that it will get Thunderbolt support since that is an Intel technology and they would probably have to get a license from Intel for it...

[goodtofufriday]

20 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I am not aggressive. I am just saying that you should not make silly excuses like "this benchmark shouldn't matter because X and Y".

He did not list the turbo clocks for the Intel chips either. So either he disabled turbo on all chips, or the more likely explanation is that he listed the stock frequencies instead of the turbo ones for each chip (but kept turbo enabled).

In fact, in the video he says he left the AMD chip at stock, which would mean turbo was enabled.

 

 

 

 

Thanks to a certain reptile, I have the benchmarks here.

Making my own graphs though so that nobody can go "hey that image is from the video and should therefore be removed!".

 

With such a large difference in minimum FPS, and single core Cinebench scores, things aren't looking as bright as they did yesterday.

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. 

 

[done12many2]

10 minutes 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. 

 

 

It was an Asus Hero with the x370 chipset used in the reviewer's video posted on YouTube.  The video has been pulled.

 

I plan to use the same board when I pick mine up on the 2nd.  While I'm not expecting anything fantastic, I still want to see for myself.

[JuztBe]

One thing I noticed - everyone who does benchmarks aren't capable of telling all the required info or selecting proper settings. Always X or Y is lacking, so we are left analyzing how it would work with X or Y.

I wonder when NDA for reviews lifts. Could it be Feb 28th?

[done12many2]

2 minutes ago, JuztBe said:

One thing I noticed - everyone who does benchmarks aren't capable of telling all the required info or selecting proper settings. Always X or Y is lacking, so we are left analyzing how it would work with X or Y.

I wonder when NDA for reviews lifts. Could it be Feb 28th?

 

It would probably be better for AMD if the embargo/NDA lifted on the 2nd.  

[LAwLz]

12 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

What motherboard, chipset

AMD: Crosshair VI Hero

Intel: GA-Z270X-Ultra Gaming

 

But motherboard doesn't matter for performance.

 

12 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

bios rev, final or beta bios

Not mentioned but it should not matter. It is the BIOS version you will get when you buy the product (again, it's a PC retailer and they have the box and everything there. They just grabbed one from their store). So it is the final BIOS, not a beta (unless Asus thinks it is OK to ship their flagship motherboard with a performance-crippling beta BIOSes to customers and reviewers).

Also, don't expect any BIOS updates to help performance. I am not aware of it ever happening, outside of margin of error stuff.

 

12 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

is 28fps a momentary dip or sustained

Well it's the minimum FPS. Since the average and maximum are far higher it is pretty safe to say that they are dips, but dips that might last a few seconds. It's not like you run into an area and then your FPS goes to 28 FPS for several minutes, nor is it like the game locks up for 0.1 seconds and the minimum FPS goes to 0.

 

Not quite sure why this matters though, since the i7 was tested using the same methodology.

 

 

12 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

is the data you have pulled from somehwere or did you somehow generate it and have a retail 1700.

It's from the DinoPC video that was linked (but deleted) on the previous page.

 

 

13 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

That graph doesnt mean much without the above questions answered. 

Hehe, is that some salt I am sensing?

[LAwLz]

4 minutes ago, JuztBe said:

I wonder when NDA for reviews lifts. Could it be Feb 28th?

1 minute ago, done12many2 said:

It would probably be better for AMD if the embargo/NDA lifted on the 2nd.  

The NDA is lifted on the 2nd March. The same day pre-orders are shipped out.

That's why you should NOT pre-order. Wait for proper reviews before putting money down. We still don't know how good/bad Ryzen is.