Is Ryzen worth investing in from X58?

[Aphexxis]

I don't have a run of the mill X58 system though i have a ASUS Rampage board with a 32NM E5640, which is a few steps above the Bloomfield i7's in terms of efficiency, cache size and a very very small IPC gain, and a better IMC.

 

In CPU-Z at 4.2ghz this CPU pushed 1510 single thread which is nothing to be sniffed at and an ok 6800 multithread score.

 

Is Ryzen worth investing in from a 32NM X58 build? i have had this for 3 years and it's been amazingly solid paired with a GTX 780.

 

 

[manikyath]

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Xeon-E5640-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700/m11771vs3917

 

up to you to decide if that's worth it or not, but as for my opinion i'd put it like this:

does your system still fullfill your needs? if so, dont bother upgrading.

[Aphexxis]

3 minutes ago, manikyath said:

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Xeon-E5640-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700/m11771vs3917

 

up to you to decide if that's worth it or not, but as for my opinion i'd put it like this:

does your system still fullfill your needs? if so, dont bother upgrading.

Huh i expected much higher scores on single thread, that's 2.66ghz E5640 too?

 

Surely Ryzen is more than 15 / 17% faster in IPC??

 

The E5640 gains more than 40% in IPC at 4.2ghz.

 

EDIT wrong info i looked at.

[jappypack]

6 minutes ago, Aphexxis said:

I don't have a run of the mill X58 system though i have a ASUS Rampage board with a 32NM E5640, which is a few steps above the Bloomfield i7's in terms of efficiency, cache size and a very very small IPC gain, and a better IMC.

 

In CPU-Z at 4.2ghz this CPU pushed 1510 single thread which is nothing to be sniffed at and an ok 6800 multithread score.

 

Is Ryzen worth investing in from a 32NM X58 build? i have had this for 3 years and it's been amazingly solid paired with a GTX 780.

 

 

If you're still satisfied with what you have, then wait for Ryzen 2, where the architecture will be more optimised. Redgardless though, Ryzen 7 is a great deal for the money, what some people didn't realise is that the 7 lineup competes against Broadwell-E; the IPC difference is pretty much negligible between Ryzen and Broadwell-E, but the fact that Ryzen costs so much less makes it great for AMD. Their objective has been successful, so Ryzen 2 (or rather Ryzen 3 since I think it's gonna be a new process) is probably (as a guess) going to have more money put into R&D, from the success of Ryzen. They did meet their goal, of course.

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, Aphexxis said:

Huh i expected much higher scores on single thread, that's 2.66ghz E5640 too?

 

Surely Ryzen is more than 15 / 17% faster in IPC??

 

The E5640 gains more than 40% in IPC at 4.2ghz.

i feel like you're confusing "IPC" and single core performance.

 

IPC= instructions per cycle

single core performance speaks for itself offcoure

[Aphexxis]

7 minutes ago, jappypack said:

If you're still satisfied with what you have, then wait for Ryzen 2, where the architecture will be more optimised. Redgardless though, Ryzen 7 is a great deal for the money, what some people didn't realise is that the 7 lineup competes against Broadwell-E; the IPC difference is pretty much negligible between Ryzen and Broadwell-E, but the fact that Ryzen costs so much less makes it great for AMD. Their objective has been successful, so Ryzen 2 (or rather Ryzen 3 since I think it's gonna be a new process) is probably (as a guess) going to have more money put into R&D, from the success of Ryzen. They did meet their goal, of course.

Ryzen is awesome, just a little on the meh side for pure gaming pursuits.

 

Ryzen 2 should be killer, or at least we hope.

5 minutes ago, manikyath said:

i feel like you're confusing "IPC" and single core performance.

 

IPC= instructions per cycle

single core performance speaks for itself offcoure

Yeah i looked at it a tad wrong lol

[jappypack]

Just now, Aphexxis said:

Ryzen is awesome, just a little on the meh side for pure gaming pursuits.

 

Ryzen 2 should be killer, or at least we hope.

There's also Raven Ridge and Ryzen 3(the cpu lineup), but that's going more for the i3's and Pentiums. If AMD can tackle the G4560, then they have become the best value of both low-end and high-end.

[PCGuy_5960]

Do you want to upgrade to Ryzen for gaming or for productivity tasks?

[Aphexxis]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

Do you want to upgrade to Ryzen for gaming or for productivity tasks?

Gaming really, the XEON handles anything up to 1440P (Video work)

 

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, Aphexxis said:

Gaming really, the XEON handles anything up to 1440P (Video work)

The 7700K is better for gaming. Therefore, I would recommend the 7700K for your use...

[Aphexxis]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

The 7700K is better for gaming. Therefore, I would recommend the 7700K for your use...

Well Ryzen 5 is coming soon so i will wait it out and see where it goes from there.

[PCGuy_5960]

5 minutes ago, Aphexxis said:

Well Ryzen 5 is coming soon so i will wait it out and see where it goes from there.

Ryzen 5 won't be better than Ryzen 7 in games... So the 7700K will still be faster

Edited March 18, 2017 by PCGuy_5960
Mistake xD

[jappypack]

14 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Ryzen 5 won't be better than Ryzen 7 in games... So the 7700K will still be faster

Except the 7700K costs more, a lot more when compared to the 1400 and 1500X, only for a 20% difference in games which will decrease as time goes on and games start to take advantage of the multiple cores. 

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, jappypack said:

only for a 20% difference in games

20% is not "only"

2 minutes ago, jappypack said:

games start to take advantage of the multiple cores. 

This won't fix Ryzen's poor gaming performance. Ryzen's gaming performance is a result of its CCX design, which means that it is an architectural issue.

[jappypack]

23 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

20% is not "only"

This won't fix Ryzen's poor gaming performance. Ryzen's gaming performance is a result of its CCX design, which means that it is an architectural issue.

Ryzen's gaming performance is only going to develop. It's a new architecture and games were designed better for Intel's architecture, but that won't be the case once games use more cores. 

Although I do believe quad cores are still going to stay relevant for a while, four threads aren't going to stay in the i5 lineup. 

The Ryzen 5's may be able to get better overclocks than Ryzen 7, and at that rate I doubt there would be much difference in real time gaming compared to Kaby Lake, unless you're playing games like cs go at 1080p on low. If that's what you do, then by all means go Intel.

EDIT: Ryzen 5 and 3's memory and cache handling should be improved.

[PCGuy_5960]

3 minutes ago, jappypack said:

Ryzen's gaming performance is only going to develop. It's a new architecture and games were designed better for Intel's architecture, but that won't be the case once games use more cores. 

No, no....... Ryzen isn't a simple 8 core die. It has 2 quad core CCXs. The latency between cores on different CCXs is very high compared to the latency between cores on the same CCX. This is what is causing performance issues. Even if games start using more cores, Ryzen will still be behind, because of this... Games use many threads that need to communicate to each other, if those threads are on cores on different CCXs, issues arise. Games could be optimized for Ryzen if games are coded to use up to 8 threads that belong to cores on the same CCX. Even if games use more threads, the way in which they use them will not change, so Ryzen's gaming performance is really hard to fix.

8 minutes ago, jappypack said:

The Ryzen 5's may be able to get better overclocks than Ryzen 7

No, it won't overclock better than Ryzen 7, because Ryzen 5 is made in the same fab as Ryzen 7. And the fab that AMD uses is notorious for bad overclocking results...