Your thoughts on ryzen?

[Pauli343]

2 minutes ago, 19_blackie_73 said:

One of the things that will be interesting is if intel starts to change their way of releasing and positioning stuff. I don't think they can stay any longer at the level of only 4c/8t for the consumer and releasing their top chips for 1700$ or more for the 10c/20t or the rumoured 12c/24t cpu. they probably should put a least 6c/12t on the "consumer" level for way more affordable prices. And tbh: no one really needs the gimmicks of the x99 chipsets and ryzen did it the right way IMO with focusing on the important bits and pieces and leaving the gimmick out of the focus

But who needs more cores on the consumer level.

The people who edit videos mostly can afford to buy more expensive chips.

And for gaming is 4c/8t enough and you can push them to much higher frequencys than an 6c/12t one...

 

[Mira Yurizaki]

For stuff that can use more cores, Ryzen offers a compelling choice. For anything else, not really. It feels like what Bulldozer should've been.

 

But the end result is that Intel has something to worry about. Now all AMD has to do is market themselves. If they don't, then average joe is just going to want Intel all day.

[Pauli343]

2 minutes ago, manikyath said:

i'd rather say they are showing intel that their prices on the high end are bloated to hell

Thats one way to see it but just think about it. The one who needs that much cores propably uses it professionally and in that sector 1200 bucks is nearly peanuts.

But like Linus said on his newest video "competition is good for the costumer"

[thehardwarehacker]

having just watched linus's, and paul's initial review videos on ryzen, i would have to agree that there is a bit of guilt to be had as far as over hyping, but that said, AMD seems to have given itself a solid launching platform to becoming the old AMD we all knew and loved, especially at the mid range.

[i_build_nanosuits]

i think it has great multi-threaded performance for the price and for workstation purposes it's super good...but it's lacking in single-threaded performance and fall short in games so for a purely gaming PC i would stick with intel until AMD launch Ryzen 2 or something...

[michaelocarroll007]

48 minutes ago, 19_blackie_73 said:

Price to performance is very good imo, the slightly lower gaming performance is worth it imo for more productivity. (as I also heavily take use of multithreading)

What are your thoughts on the launch?

It was overhyped, but not as bad as some people hoped  

 

 As someone who plays at 4k 60hz CPU for gaming doesnt really matter a i5 from a gen or two ago is more then fine so will a ryzen CPU.

 

If your going for workstation/ Productivietly or any heavy CPU task applications that can use more cores its a no brainier. Gaming only id wait for a cheaper CPU you dont need a $330+ CPU to only game IMO but intel will probably get your money. 

 

Also game streamers/ People who try to mutitask a lot it is a much better performance- dollars ratio then anything intel has to offer. as it beats intels processor and or ties depending on reviews that are double the cost. 

 

 

[PlayStation 2]

My thoughts on Ryzen?

 

There's a lot to consider here. The R7 1700 really stood out for me as at its launch price of $329.99, it can hold its own in rendering against the fucking 6900K. Slower? Yes, but if you were on a budget and wanted a rendering CPU, you really couldn't go too wrong going for the R7 1700. The R7 1800X also does a nice showing.

Gaming is where it gets far more complex. In many games, it seems to hold its own maxed out, but when the load is placed basically solely on the CPU, the 6900K and the 7700K do beat it by quite a serviceable amount. In those games, as I said, Ryzen holds its own maxed out, and I'm not making any mistake by noting that. But it is sad to see it being handed to in certain games, namely GTA V.

 

In short, AMD delivered what they promised. A supposed 52% jump in IPC is fucking incredible FWIW. But, and this is a very big one, people were just hyping it up to fucking clobber Intel all-around, and that's where they got disappointed. I expected a good gamer and a great renderer, and it seems to hold its own there. Others were expecting Ryzen to whip the 7700K's ass.

[19_blackie_73]

17 minutes ago, Pauli343 said:

But who needs more cores on the consumer level.

The people who edit videos mostly can afford to buy more expensive chips.

And for gaming is 4c/8t enough and you can push them to much higher frequencys than an 6c/12t one...

 

well... consumer level does mean for me personally at the $300-350 max and option for "budget" oriented motherboards, x99 mobos are absurdely priced (I know they have a ton of features but as stated before, I and most other people don't need them). This would result in lower prices for the 4c 8t chips as well, so they would be the todays i5s and the i3s would become true 4c.

And remember 10years back: no one needed a 4 core...  

[XenosTech]

5 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

My thoughts on Ryzen?

 

There's a lot to consider here. The R7 1700 really stood out for me as at its launch price of $329.99, it can hold its own in rendering against the fucking 6900K. Slower? Yes, but if you were on a budget and wanted a rendering CPU, you really couldn't go too wrong going for the R7 1700. The R7 1800X also does a nice showing.

Gaming is where it gets far more complex. In many games, it seems to hold its own maxed out, but when the load is placed basically solely on the CPU, the 6900K and the 7700K do beat it by quite a serviceable amount. In those games, as I said, Ryzen holds its own maxed out, and I'm not making any mistake by noting that. But it is sad to see it being handed to in certain games, namely GTA V.

 

In short, AMD delivered what they promised. A supposed 52% jump in IPC is fucking incredible FWIW. But, and this is a very big one, people were just hyping it up to fucking clobber Intel all-around, and that's where they got disappointed. I expected a good gamer and a great renderer, and it seems to hold its own there. Others were expecting Ryzen to whip the 7700K's ass.

Anyone expecting an 8 core to beat a quad core in gaming seriously needs to take some IT courses.

[MakeAMDGreatAgain]

I bought the i7 2600k last month while in limbo waiting for R7.

 

Is there any benchmarks of the i7 2600k compared to the R7 in gaming? Obviously won't be near as good, but want to see if I should even upgrade.. lol

[Pauli343]

2 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

Anyone expecting an 8 core to beat a quad core in gaming seriously needs to take some IT courses.

Theres a fishy smell here and that is: AMD advertised it like it would beat the INTEL i7 product line. They compared their CPU with too many INTEL ones (only my opinion could be false or not objective)

[19_blackie_73]

4 minutes ago, Pauli343 said:

Theres a fishy smell here and that is: AMD advertised it like it would beat the INTEL i7 product line. They compared their CPU with too many INTEL ones (only my opinion could be false or not objective)

yeah that's true. but i think its a decent chip nonetheless

[XenosTech]

11 minutes ago, Pauli343 said:

Theres a fishy smell here and that is: AMD advertised it like it would beat the INTEL i7 product line. They compared their CPU with too many INTEL ones (only my opinion could be false or not objective)

Well I looked at it a lil differently... 1800x vs 6900k is good at multi-threaded workloads and can hold 4k gaming smoothly.

 

1700 vs 7700 well this was supposed to be gaming + streaming which benefits from having more cores since streaming is cpu bound and the extra cores will result in less frame drops but in raw gaming nope the 1700 wasn't going to stand a chance that's 8 weaker cores vs 4 strong ass cores

[MakeAMDGreatAgain]

 

LOL the i5 199$ Intel CPU at stock is higher than the 1800x in gaming.

 

Bottom line:

R7 for cheap production

Intel for gaming

 

AMD is great again, but only for productivity. So... I they are not back 100%, only about 50%. I give them credit though.

[iRileyx]

Just now, MakeAMDGreatAgain said:

 

LOL the i5 199$ Intel CPU at stock is higher than the 1800x in gaming.

 

Bottom line:

R7 for cheap production

Intel for gaming

 

AMD is great again, but only for productivity. So... I they are not back 100%, only about 50%. I give them credit though.

Depends how well the R3 and R5 line do, when theyre only using 4/8 and 6/12, can probably push more performance per core then.

[MakeAMDGreatAgain]

1 minute ago, RKRiley said:

Depends how well the R3 and R5 line do, when theyre only using 4/8 and 6/12, can probably push more performance per core then.

Yeah, let's continue to "wait for Ryzen!"... I'm sick of fucking waiting LOL.

[ybriK]

My i7-2700K seems to be more attracted to the 6700K/7700K for now. Who knows if the R5 chips are more seductive?

[manikyath]

1 hour ago, Pauli343 said:

Thats one way to see it but just think about it. The one who needs that much cores propably uses it professionally and in that sector 1200 bucks is nearly peanuts.

or rather, that you dont *need* to be a pro something to get your hands on that kind of performance.

[TheRandomness]

-Thread moved to CPUs, Motherboards, and Memory.

[Bouzoo]

1 hour ago, Kloaked said:

I am 100% aware of this. However, this seems like something crucial to how Ryzen is supposed to work and should have been caught and fixed. I'd even wager that they knew about it and released this stuff anyways.

 

I hope reviewers go back and redo their "benchmarks" whenever this is sorted out in a bios update.

I'm sure few reputable reviewers will, maybe not immediately but in couple of months. 

[Tech_Dreamer]

 i'm just glad the official reviews confirmed it actually does reach near the performance it boasted,  leaks  say one thing & official resuts says another thing usually, bu t this is pretty good for me. Never thought i'd see AMD standing on par with Intel as a budget competition without  compromising on performance