AMD Ryzen HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED!!!

[Guest Darth Revan]

43 minutes ago, VagabondWraith said:

Interesting...

 

 

 

Salt and all that.

Where's the video, mate?

[done12many2]

4 minutes ago, Darth Revan said:

Where's the video, mate?

 

It was taken down.

[done12many2]

13 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

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

 

That's awesome.

[Ramaddil]

.

[goodtofufriday]

28 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Hehe, is that some salt I am sensing?

Not really. Just in the same way anything leaked isnt considered definite until March 2nd with NDA lift, same applies to the graphs. I disagree with some of your points too, but I dont feel like going at it again in this thread.

 

But a quote for that graph

 

Quote

We are first gonna focus on the result which many have been waiting to see. It’s one game but it tells a lot. GTA V is a game that loves fast CPUs  and that results in the Core i7-7700K to outperform the Ryzen processor at both stock and overclocked clocks. The Core i7-7700K chip operates at a base frequency of 4.2 GHz and boosts up to 4.5 GHz while the AMD Ryzen 7 1700 operates at 3.0 GHz and goes up to 3.7 GHz. So yeah, there would be a difference in a game that is optimized for faster clocked chips. The Mins of Ryzen 7 go below 30 FPS which might be something bothering but we are sure that OC can keep it up with the Kaby Lake series in such scenarios.

 

The second benchmark is for both chips in Cinebench R11.5 benchmark. The Ryzen 7 1700 was tested at a clock speed of 3.4 GHz which is higher than it’s stock 3.0 GHz base clock. It was compared against Intel based chips which featured frequencies beyond 4 GHz so it’s obvious that Intel won at the Single thread performance tests but was destroyed at multi-thread tests

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-gaming-performance-benchmarks-leak/

[MyName13]

Why would anyone buy r7 1800x when you can just buy r7 1700 and overclock it?

[JuztBe]

2 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Why would anyone buy r7 1800x when you can just buy r7 1700 and overclock it?

Because we don't know if it overclock well
If it does then your statement is true.

[Ramaddil]

2 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Why would anyone buy r7 1800x when you can just buy r7 1700 and overclock it?

Because the 1700x and 1800x are probably binned better and can achieve higher overclocks, or maybe the person buying the cpu does not want to overclock.

[MyName13]

3 minutes ago, Ramaddil said:

Because the 1700x and 1800x are probably binned better and can achieve higher overclocks, or maybe the person buying the cpu does not want to overclock.

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

 

[Ramaddil]

2 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

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

 

the difference between a 1700 and 1700x is roughly 70 dollars.. Not everyone wants to or knows how to overclock.  Also overclocking can shorten the lifespan of the chip.

[Orangeator]

24 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

Not really. Just in the same way anything leaked isnt considered definite until March 2nd with NDA lift, same applies to the graphs. I disagree with some of your points too, but I dont feel like going at it again in this thread.

 

But a quote for that graph

 

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-gaming-performance-benchmarks-leak/

I don't need benchmarks to tell me this, I could have told you this. The 1700 is for multi-threaded workloads. Ryzen will be releasing their r5 SKU's that will be intended for gaming and will be pitted up against the 7700k.

 

Edit: I am assuming the R5 1400x will be the i5-i7 competitor as it's clock speeds are much higher.

[captain cactus]

4 minutes ago, Ramaddil said:

Because the 1700x and 1800x are probably binned better and can achieve higher overclocks, or maybe the person buying the cpu does not want to overclock.

Yup. OCUK had a 1700 up to 4GHz but only with the top-tier Crosshair mobo (all other mobos were struggling with the VRM) so expect a normal 3.8-3.9GHz OC on the normal motherboards. (sauce: https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/amd-zen-thread-inc-am4-apu-discussion.18665505/page-401#post-30533503)

 

Makes me wonder: if you gonna spend a lot less on the CPU with a 1700 but then blow the rest of it on an expensive motherboard to get it to 4 GHz why not save a lot of money by going with a 1700x/1800x and a lower-spec X370/B350 board because you're guaranteed to get 4GHz out of that 1800X?

[Ramaddil]

I personally bought a 1700x and a ASUS Hero Mobo... I might do a moderate overclock but this is going in a 24/7 machine so i dont know yet what I am going to do.  This is a upgrade for my server.

[LAwLz]

23 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

We are first gonna focus on the result which many have been waiting to see. It’s one game but it tells a lot. GTA V is a game that loves fast CPUs  and that results in the Core i7-7700K to outperform the Ryzen processor at both stock and overclocked clocks. The Core i7-7700K chip operates at a base frequency of 4.2 GHz and boosts up to 4.5 GHz while the AMD Ryzen 7 1700 operates at 3.0 GHz and goes up to 3.7 GHz. So yeah, there would be a difference in a game that is optimized for faster clocked chips. The Mins of Ryzen 7 go below 30 FPS which might be something bothering but we are sure that OC can keep it up with the Kaby Lake series in such scenarios.

The game isn't "optimized for faster clocked chips" any more than any other program is "optimized" for it. No programmer has ever thought "I should optimize this game so that it scales better with higher frequencies!". Programs does that automatically (unless the developer explicitly limits it).

Programs performing better with higher frequencies is not something you have to specifically develop for. That's the "natural" thing to happen.

 

By the way, according to the (terrible excuse) logic of "GTA 5 scales well with frequency", the 9590 would be amazing for it with its 4.7GHz frequency. And yet, even the i5-3470 with its puny 3.2GHz beats it.

 

What you could say is that GTA 5 "isn't optimized for more than 4 cores", to which I would say yes and then go "but neither are the very vast majority of games and programs".

 

23 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

The Mins of Ryzen 7 go below 30 FPS which might be something bothering but we are sure that OC can keep it up with the Kaby Lake series in such scenarios.

No... We have absolutely no idea how well/poorly Ryzen overclocks. Also, going "yeah chip X is slower but if you overclock it it'll be on par with chip Y!" is a terrible excuse, because if chip Y overclocks just as well or better, then the performance gap is still there.

Saying that you could just overclock the weaker chip to catch up to the faster one, and then pretending like the faster stock chip can't be overclocked is something I see desperate fanboys do all the time. Stop it right now. Just stop. It is a horrible argument that makes you look stupid. Stop.

So sick and tired of hearing it. I've even heard that argument be used to justify why an i5 is better than an i7 (both which were K SKUs). "Just overclock the i5 and it will be faster than the i7".

 

 

 

23 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

The second benchmark is for both chips in Cinebench R11.5 benchmark. The Ryzen 7 1700 was tested at a clock speed of 3.4 GHz which is higher than it’s stock 3.0 GHz base clock. It was compared against Intel based chips which featured frequencies beyond 4 GHz so it’s obvious that Intel won at the Single thread performance tests but was destroyed at multi-thread tests

Is that suppose to be an argument for why the benchmark doesn't matter? Because all I hear is "yeah the Intel chip one at single threaded performance and the AMD chip won at multithreaded performance...", but then no counter argument.

So do you agree with the results and think they sound plausible and fair?

[Brian McKee]

1 hour 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 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.

Anyone not expecting something like this had their head in the clouds. There's no way an 8 core 16 thread is going to beat or even match a 4 core/8thread CPU in non multithreaded optimized loads. The quadcore just has more headroom for higher clocks while the 8 core is far more of a generalist CPU. 

 

But this is why I think the 6 core offering will be much more popular from AMD, still benefits from the additional cores but will close the gap in terms of raw gaming performance.

[MageTank]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

-snip snap-

This might get me into some hot water, but it needs to be said. Anyone that expected the 8 core SKU's to overclock well, or to even hold a candle against Intel's fast quad-cores in gaming, were delusional from the get-go. I am not surprised in the slightest by the performance of this 1700 relative to the 7700k. In fact, i'd say it's exactly where I had assumed it would be. On par in average, weaker in mins and max. The max is lower because the clock speed is likely bottlenecking the 1080 to some degree in a very specific/random part of the game, and the mins are dipping because the CPU can't feed the GPU fast enough in very demanding single-threaded parts of the application. This is exactly what we expect from slower cores (both in terms of raw clock speed and in terms of relative IPC).

 

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. If anything, the lower-end quad-cores have a much better chance at competing with the 7700k in gaming, assuming they overclock decent (talking around 4.5ghz or so). You only need enough CPU speed to prevent your CPU from bottlenecking the GPU for gaming. Anything beyond that is icing on the cake for minimum framerates (because no matter what, some parts of the game are just gonna be single threaded, and no matter your setup, you will dip. Faster CPU's/RAM will always aid in these situations).

 

I am sure you already know all of this, but I am only including the information so that others can see it and understand why I am not surprised by this information. Ryzen isn't game changing from a performance standpoint, and most of us did not expect it to be. Where it really shines, is what kind of performance you get for your money, and the potential of it's platform. A strong unified platform will allow for people to buy low-end quad cores for gaming, and branch out to moderate content creation (production) without swapping platforms. All for a very reasonable price.

[Ramaddil]

I agree with what was said above.  I think if you are buying this CPU you should realize that it can play games, it wont be the best at it but it wont be terrible either.  The one thing that aggravates me more than anything is when you have a Intel fanboy saying that AMD is doomed because of one benchmark.  The fact is this CPU will be a all around good CPU unless all previous information about it was false.  People that are buying this CPU in my opinion want something that is versatile that can play games but also do content creation/video editing and other cpu intensive tasks that are not completely revolving around single core performance.

[LAwLz]

2 minutes ago, MageTank said:

-snip-

You know MageTank, I used to think you were a bit of an AMD fanboy but looking back at your Ryzen posts I must have mistaken you for someone else, or been too quick in my judgement.

 

 

If anyone think I am sounding hostile or overly critical of AMD, please don't take my posts the wrong way. The only thing I am trying to do is reduce this ridiculous hype that is going around. I can already see signs of people who had waaaaaay too high expectations going into denial and trying to reject benchmarks because they don't fit their expectations. This exact thing happened with Bulldozer too.

We should all just calm down, look at things rationally with an unbiased eye, without any expectations, and then wait for third party benchmarks to be released... And especially don't pre-order hardware for 600 to 1000 dollars before looking at trustworthy benchmarks.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Ramaddil said:

The one thing that aggravates me more than anything is when you have a Intel fanboy saying that AMD is doomed because of one benchmark.

Has anyone actually said that or just what some overhyped AMD fanboys are projecting?

Because so far I have seen maybe 50 "Intel is doomed" posts, and 0 "AMD is doomed" posts (except a few which says "if Ryzen turns out shit, AMD is doomed").

[Ramaddil]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

You know MageTank, I used to think you were a bit of an AMD fanboy but looking back at your Ryzen posts I must have mistaken you for someone else, or been too quick in my judgement.

 

 

If anyone think I am sounding hostile or overly critical of AMD, please don't take my posts the wrong way. The only thing I am trying to do is reduce this ridiculous hype that is going around. I can already see signs of people who had waaaaaay too high expectations going into denial and trying to reject benchmarks because they don't fit their expectations. This exact thing happened with Bulldozer too.

We should all just calm down, look at things rationally with an unbiased eye, without any expectations, and then wait for third party benchmarks to be released... And especially don't pre-order hardware for 600 to 1000 dollars before looking at trustworthy benchmarks.

 

 

Has anyone actually said that or just what some overhyped AMD fanboys are projecting?

Because so far I have seen maybe 50 "Intel is doomed" posts, and 0 "AMD is doomed" posts (except a few which says "if Ryzen turns out shit, AMD is doomed").

Its not really this forum perse, I was just giving a overview of the past several months and more recently listening to everyone wanting to call it shit before actually trying it out.  I am not trying to defend the product just trying to let others know not to bash it before they try it.  I really want it to succeed to increase competition and hopefully lower prices and more innovation.

[Brian McKee]

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

This exact thing happened with Bulldozer too.

Not a fair comparison because Bulldozer was actually shit. Ryzen is poised to be incredibly good.

[MageTank]

13 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

You know MageTank, I used to think you were a bit of an AMD fanboy but looking back at your Ryzen posts I must have mistaken you for someone else, or been too quick in my judgement.

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. 

[79wjd]

15 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

And especially don't pre-order hardware for 600 to 1000 dollars before looking at trustworthy benchmarks.

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

9 minutes ago, Brian McKee said:

Not a fair comparison because Bulldozer was actually shit. Ryzen is poised to be incredibly good.

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. 

[Ramaddil]

2 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. 

Amazon FTW... I bought all my parts on amazon because they make it so easy to return anything.. Newegg is a lot more strict with returns on computer parts.

[Brian McKee]

1 minute 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. 

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.

[Tic-Tac]

Sooooo nothing can beat 7700K in games... AMD's 6 Core 1600X is coming in May! Nice....... NOT