AMD Zen.. .. NO LONGER Excited.. bad news!!

[tp4tissue]

Sigh.......  Somewhat bad news guys..



only ~4.1ghz.. overclocked so far..

Tp4's worst fear realized..

And Apparently Tp4 predicted the performance gap EXACTLY.. I was right all along.. that -user- looncraz got my hopes up, all for nothing.. sigh......

Damn you looncraz.. hahahahaha


This is really bad....   even if it could concievably get to 4.5 the next cycle,  that's late... intel has so much time to respond..

Sigh......

fffffffffff..  now we gotta keep buying more bull**** intel motherboards



Ugh... want to cry.. just crawl under my bed and die.. jesus.. 











LATEST Rumors say,  AMD single core Performance AS FAST as 5xxx series (broadwell) Intel..




There will HAVE TO BE a price adjust, if Intel still wants to sell chips.




Title change to OFFICIALLY EXCITED in light of recent rumors.






So, from right here. notice the 4.8ghz 7700k benches 53% higher than the Zen @ 4ghz



So let's give zen an 800mhz boost.. to 4.8ghz..  1.2 * 2531 = 3037   

Intel benches 3893/ 3037 = 1.28


Which means,  Intel single core performance is still 28% faster than AMD..  This is consistent with the (rumors) and all the leaked benchmarks so far.. that the zen matches Sandybridge performance per core.



So, in VIDEO GAMES,   because the main simulation compositing thread will still be the bottleneck to the engine.. the SINGLE core performance will continue to define (gaming performance).


In the G4m3r scenario, 

The 4.8ghz Intel 7700k averages 500-600 fps in CSGO..   

That means on the ZEN 4.8ghz, we're going to get 390-468 fps..



This is assuming the Zen can Reach 4.8ghz in the first place.. which we don't know yet..



Sigh...     I think this would be a great CPU for Youtube gaming stars.. because this gives them the extra cores for streaming setups, while maintaining good enough baseline single core performance for the game..


However,  for anyone else, NOT streaming, Intel would still remain the better buy..


But we don't know what the final street price is going to be,   so it's still all up in the air.

[happylacquer]

I spent about 850 putting together a i7 rig in November 2016.
January 2017 i sold it for 750... (kept my ssd and HD's)
That money is sitting in the bank waiting for RYZEN to come out.

Anyone else watch the tech demo of it pumping out constant 60fps+ at 4k?

[looncraz]

The clock speeds listed in the original charts were base clocks for Intel CPUs - they were, therefore, wrong.

The updated graphic:



Further, it's not well known, but it is a fact, that 3dMark Physics score doesn't scale well beyond six cores which causes the comparative single-core score for the 8-core CPUs to fall (as also seen with Intel's 6900k...).

You should compare the 3.4Ghz Ryzen 8-core to the 3.7GHz Broadwell 8-Core.

The 3.4Ghz 8-core is, 100%, not using any turbo or XFR - it IS running at 3.4GHz (or very close) - you can tell because the 4Ghz Ryzen 8-core (manually overclocked, so 100% at 4Ghz) has exactly the additional performance anticipated from that difference in frequency.

There's no way around it: Ryzen has very similar IPC to Intel's Skylake architecture, but is simply clocked lower.

[tp4tissue]

I spent about 850 putting together a i7 rig in November 2016.
January 2017 i sold it for 750... (kept my ssd and HD's)
That money is sitting in the bank waiting for RYZEN to come out.

Anyone else watch the tech demo of it pumping out constant 60fps+ at 4k?

60+ fps isn't the problem right now..

to be competitive in csgo, you need at least 300+,,  which zen seems to be capable of..

But I suppose with nvidia's fast sync,  it's not a huge problem to have a little less than 300



But in the end,  will Zen be a good value.. if it doesn't have high ipc..

[tp4tissue]

The clock speeds listed in the original charts were base clocks for Intel CPUs - they were, therefore, wrong.

The updated graphic:

Show Image

Further, it's not well known, but it is a fact, that 3dMark Physics score doesn't scale well beyond six cores which causes the comparative single-core score for the 8-core CPUs to fall (as also seen with Intel's 6900k...).

You should compare the 3.4Ghz Ryzen 8-core to the 3.7GHz Broadwell 8-Core.

The 3.4Ghz 8-core is, 100%, not using any turbo or XFR - it IS running at 3.4GHz (or very close) - you can tell because the 4Ghz Ryzen 8-core (manually overclocked, so 100% at 4Ghz) has exactly the additional performance anticipated from that difference in frequency.

There's no way around it: Ryzen has very similar IPC to Intel's Skylake architecture, but is simply clocked lower.

That 3.7ghz interpretation of 6900k in the ADJUSTED Photo is incorrect..

Notice from the first photo that it was a 6900k multicore test through firestrike.  So the cpu would auto step down to 3.2ghz during a full bench as it is designed to by power gating.


The second photo is NOT a single core test ,  there is no single core firestrike test.   What they did to make the second set of numbers is merely DIVIDE the benchmark results from the first photo by the number of cores.


So the First 6900k  benched 18635 in the firestrike (full multi-core test),    THEN in the second photo (single core), it is listed as 2329.. 18635/8 = 2329..    --There is no way in hell that any single core benchmark can be ran separately and get this kind of perfect number matching.. they did not run a separate test, they just divide the numbers.

So this confirms that the second chart is not a separate set of single core test on part of the 6900k..   So that adjustment chart for 6900k to 3.7ghz should not be the interpretation, it is INDEED running at 3.2ghz.


If we use the IPC performance of 6900k @ 3.2ghz..   we have   ZEN 4ghz / broadwell 3.2ghz =   1.25x..

1.25x * 2329 (broadwell) = 2911.25  expected performance @ 4.0ghz for Broadwell..


Take the 2911.25(broadwell) /  2531(Zen)   we get   1.15x


SO.. Broadwell is still 15% faster than Zen IPC wise..


WHICH would mean this chart is Consistent with the IPC performance of Zen matching Sandybridge IPC, as Broadwell is ~ 10-20% faster than Sandybridge depending on benchmark used.



Zen is equivalent to Sandybridge, NOT broadwell..

[looncraz]

That 3.7ghz interpretation of 6900k in the ADJUSTED Photo is incorrect..

Notice from the first photo that it was a 6900k multicore test through firestrike.  So the cpu would auto step down to 3.2ghz during a full bench as it is designed to by power gating.

Sorry, but you're wrong.  Everyone who tests the 6900k notes that it does NOT clock down to its base 3.2Ghz under almost any circumstances - and the original review source noted, in the review, that it was running at 3.7Ghz through the test... which is why it was changed.   It would have been running 3.6GHz if the motherboard didn't have a feature which added the extra 100Mhz to the all-core turbo.  WhyCry mentioned this in the comments (good luck finding it, though :-( ).

The second photo is NOT a single core test ,  there is no single core firestrike test.   What they did to make the second set of numbers is merely DIVIDE the benchmark results from the first photo by the number of cores.

I know it's not, which is why multi-core scaling has an impact on the ranking...  Eight-cores don't scale well in the benchmark, whereas six cores will scale just fine.

If we use the IPC performance of 6900k @ 3.2ghz..   we have   ZEN 4ghz / broadwell 3.2ghz =   1.25x..
1.25x * 2329 (broadwell) = 2911.25  expected performance @ 4.0ghz for Broadwell..
Take the 2911.25(broadwell) /  2531(Zen)   we get   1.15x
SO.. Broadwell is still 15% faster than Zen IPC wise..

And you're very wrong on the clocks... so that mess is useless.

WHICH would mean this chart is Consistent with the IPC performance of Zen matching Sandybridge IPC, as Broadwell is ~ 10-20% faster than Sandybridge depending on benchmark used.
Zen is equivalent to Sandybridge, NOT broadwell..

Also very much wrong.

Other reviewers used numbers which used fixed frequencies to make the comparison - Ryzen matched Broadwell.

Further, AMD's Handbrake and Blender demos would have been an impossible feat using a CPU with only Sandy Bridge IPC.  Entirely impossible.

The worst-case scenario, based on these leaks, is Haswell IPC.  Best case is Skylake IPC.

[happylacquer]

Sandy Bridge isn't even bad when you have a modern GPU to back it up but I would certainly hope it doesn't end up being equivalent to Sandy Bridge.... for the reason that my machine is a Sandy Bridge

[tp4tissue]

Sandy Bridge isn't even bad when you have a modern GPU to back it up but I would certainly hope it doesn't end up being equivalent to Sandy Bridge.... for the reason that my machine is a Sandy Bridge

it's bad relative to what you can buy with the same money, if zen is going to cost $300-500

[looncraz]

Sandy Bridge isn't even bad when you have a modern GPU to back it up but I would certainly hope it doesn't end up being equivalent to Sandy Bridge.... for the reason that my machine is a Sandy Bridge

it's bad relative to what you can buy with the same money, if zen is going to cost $300-500

Absolutely... and AMD would be releasing 125W+ TDP models from the start in an attempt to be competitive and not soil their name any more than it already is...

And they certainly wouldn't have been making such a big point of running their CPUs at 3.4Ghz, fixed, against the 6900k with turbo enabled...  They would have hidden the frequency, clocked it high, and then showed that they could match the 6900k for less money.  They would have hidden the actual power draw as well as it would have given away the secret.

[happylacquer]

Sucks about that high TDP, no real reason to move off my Xeon then

[tp4tissue]

Sandy Bridge isn't even bad when you have a modern GPU to back it up but I would certainly hope it doesn't end up being equivalent to Sandy Bridge.... for the reason that my machine is a Sandy Bridge

it's bad relative to what you can buy with the same money, if zen is going to cost $300-500

Absolutely... and AMD would be releasing 125W+ TDP models from the start in an attempt to be competitive and not soil their name any more than it already is...

And they certainly wouldn't have been making such a big point of running their CPUs at 3.4Ghz, fixed, against the 6900k with turbo enabled...  They would have hidden the frequency, clocked it high, and then showed that they could match the 6900k for less money.  They would have hidden the actual power draw as well as it would have given away the secret.

What I'm worried about is that

AMD is still not competitive at this ipc


Because intel will just shift to the 6 core for mainstream @ the $300 price, and AMD will again have nothing to sell.



Those scores for multicore does nothing for most people, and the new generation of g4m3r kids understand that..


The 8350 had good multicore numbers  ,and it sat unsold

[looncraz]

What I'm worried about is that

AMD is still not competitive at this ipc

Because intel will just shift to the 6 core for mainstream @ the $300 price, and AMD will again have nothing to sell.

Those scores for multicore does nothing for most people, and the new generation of g4m3r kids understand that..

The 8350 had good multicore numbers  ,and it sat unsold

AMD is VERY competitive with Ryzen.  They do NOT have Sandy Bridge IPC.

New benchmarks, finally showing screenshots of CPU-z during the bench, illustrate this perfectly:

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-leaked-benchmarks-analyzed-faster-intels-fastest-6-core/

The focus on multi-threading, right now, is because Intel's fastest $1,000 8-core chips are slower than AMD's slowest 8-core Ryzen chips... which only run around $300...  It's a way for AMD to gain recognition and focus on where they are doing the best relative to Intel.  Saying: "Oh, look, we caught up!" isn't the best marketing strategy... though that's all they needed to do.

[tp4tissue]

What I'm worried about is that

AMD is still not competitive at this ipc

Because intel will just shift to the 6 core for mainstream @ the $300 price, and AMD will again have nothing to sell.

Those scores for multicore does nothing for most people, and the new generation of g4m3r kids understand that..

The 8350 had good multicore numbers  ,and it sat unsold

AMD is VERY competitive with Ryzen.  They do NOT have Sandy Bridge IPC.

New benchmarks, finally showing screenshots of CPU-z during the bench, illustrate this perfectly:

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-leaked-benchmarks-analyzed-faster-intels-fastest-6-core/

The focus on multi-threading, right now, is because Intel's fastest $1,000 8-core chips are slower than AMD's slowest 8-core Ryzen chips... which only run around $300...  It's a way for AMD to gain recognition and focus on where they are doing the best relative to Intel.  Saying: "Oh, look, we caught up!" isn't the best marketing strategy... though that's all they needed to do.

Yup.. we've seen that..

buhhhhhhhhhh... Almost certainly fake..


If that WERE the case.. why doesn't AMD just come out and say , WE WON... PERIOD..

There's no reason to cat and mouse this..

[looncraz]

Yup.. we've seen that..

buhhhhhhhhhh... Almost certainly fake..


If that WERE the case.. why doesn't AMD just come out and say , WE WON... PERIOD..

There's no reason to cat and mouse this..

AMD has actually demonstrated parity already (which is about all they've actually achieved, though there's some give and take).

They demonstrated the 3.4Ghz fixed-frequency 8-core Ryzen matching the 6900k (likely running at 3.5 to 3.6Ghz since its turbo was enabled)  in Blender, demonstrated it beating it in HandBrake, and demonstrated equal-to-slightly-better performance side-by-side in Battlefield 1.

AMD has made no secret that they are competitive on a core-to-core basis, they have shouted it from the roof-tops... Bulldozer had no such fanfare from AMD... they showed their 8-core CPU modestly beating the stock-clocked 2600k, but that's about it.

8/16 vs 8/16 with a clock deficiency... and still matching or winning against Broadwell is exactly what AMD showed us, and is exactly what the most trustworthy leaks have demonstrated.

What we don't know:

Memory performance (so far, the samples have had rather bad performance...)
Memory frequency support (apparently 3200 is fine, maybe even 3400, so that's looking up...)
Overclocking potential (we've only seen up to 4Ghz... nothing at all higher... not in the least... not even 4.1Ghz...)

AMD likes to keep things in the dark - that's just what they do.  It's risky to make specific claims yourself - you let reviewers disclose what they managed to do, much safer from a legal perspective.

And, of course, AMD is more likely to make headlines with a big reveal - and those headlines drive sales.  You don't want people thinking hard and saying... "Well, it's nice that AMD finally caught up to Intel, that might bring down the price of my next Intel CPU."

AMD wants headlines: "AMD Ryzen Beats Intel's Best!"

"AMD Takes the Performance Crown from Intel!"
"AMD Ryzen - World's Fastest Desktop CPU!"
"AMD Ryzen - Intel Destroyer!"

If they did a full reveal already, headlines would be:

"AMD Didn't lie - Ryzen doesn't disappoint."
"AMD Ryzen Delivers on Promises."
"AMD Ryzen - How Will Intel Respond?"

Not bad headlines, but the impact isn't there.

[tp4tissue]

IF those benchmarks are right.. this cpu is Faster than skylake by 10%...

47% faster than Sandybridge..


I want to believe...  Gonna go light a few candles.. 

[Halverson]

IF those benchmarks are right.. this cpu is as fast as skylake...

47% faster than Sandybridge..


I want to believe...  Gonna go light a few candles.. 

Light one for me too, bb

[tp4tissue]

IF those benchmarks are right.. this cpu is as fast as skylake...

47% faster than Sandybridge..


I want to believe...  Gonna go light a few candles.. 

Light one for me too, bb

just checked some of these cpuz numbers, (i've never used the cpuz bench before..


It is 10% faster than skylake..  THAN SKYLAKE..  if the 1888 is correct at 3.4ghz

[looncraz]

IF those benchmarks are right.. this cpu is as fast as skylake...

47% faster than Sandybridge..


I want to believe...  Gonna go light a few candles.. 

Light one for me too, bb

just checked some of these cpuz numbers, (i've never used the cpuz bench before..


It is 10% faster than skylake..  THAN SKYLAKE..  if the 1888 is correct at 3.4ghz

The CPU-Z numbers are at 3.7Ghz (turbo was enabled), which is why the results are out of line with other Ryzen numbers if you assume it was done at its 3.3Ghz base clock.  In fact, XFR was supposedly enabled, so it may well be 3.8Ghz or so, but probably not much more than that (otherwise AMD would just declare a higher turbo clock and have a better looking part to sale...).

The 3dMark numbers are at the clocks stated in the updated graphic from Videocardz... who has Ryzen samples and are actually testing them, so they know the clocks for the tests, and the rest of the clocks are obtained from Tom's Hardware, who did the benches, so they're accurate as well.

[tp4tissue]

@ 3.7,,  IF  NOT-Fake,  then it matches skylake 1:1

[looncraz]

@ 3.7,,  IF  NOT-Fake,  then it matches skylake 1:1

Indeed.

My blind estimate, last year, based on 40% IPC was 1300 in CPU-Z at 3Ghz... that would be ~1600 at 3.7Ghz.

Being 18% higher than that is very much in-line with CPCHardware's measurements which suggested a general 55% improvement over Excavator instead of the 40% claimed.

PS:

On a side note... these CAPTCHAs are terrible... and computers are better at reading them than humans, LOL!
.. try 3...

[dgneo]

http://imgur.com/a/VnE7y

Hot damn.

[tp4tissue]

http://imgur.com/a/VnE7y

Hot damn.

Cinebench,   Zen is 10% faster than Haswell (ipc)....   OMG,  PLEASE overclock to 4.8ghz.. PLEEEEEEEEEEE

[tjcaustin]

Hm.  This might be worth building most of a new pc for...

[tp4tissue]

Hm.  This might be worth building most of a new pc for...

Not really.. if you already have something POST sandybridge,  it's not worth upgrading ..

The multi core people might need it.. but that's m00t since, people who actually NEED powerful threaded performance use it for a living, so they'd be given the machines @ wurk.



All these years of milking the customers,  Intel might actually have something in their sleeves, tucked away ..

But IF Zen turns out to be as fast as these benchmarks..  Intel's response will be more interesting then buying Zen, since Intel still has the IPC lead..


If you're in the lead,  all you need is a price adjust.

[tjcaustin]

Hm.  This might be worth building most of a new pc for...

Not really.. if you already have something POST sandybridge,  it's not worth upgrading ..

The multi core people might need it.. but that's m00t since, people who actually NEED powerful threaded performance use it for a living, so they'd be given the machines @ wurk.



All these years of milking the customers,  Intel might actually have something in their sleeves, tucked away ..

But IF Zen turns out to be as fast as these benchmarks..  Intel's response will be more interesting then buying Zen, since Intel still has the IPC lead..


If you're in the lead,  all you need is a price adjust.

I have an i5-2500 (not k).

[tp4tissue]

Hm.  This might be worth building most of a new pc for...

Not really.. if you already have something POST sandybridge,  it's not worth upgrading ..

The multi core people might need it.. but that's m00t since, people who actually NEED powerful threaded performance use it for a living, so they'd be given the machines @ wurk.



All these years of milking the customers,  Intel might actually have something in their sleeves, tucked away ..

But IF Zen turns out to be as fast as these benchmarks..  Intel's response will be more interesting then buying Zen, since Intel still has the IPC lead..


If you're in the lead,  all you need is a price adjust.

I have an i5-2500 (not k).

u need to upgrade for m0re CSGO fps.. hahahaha

[swissdane23]

I dont know much about computers. But my buddy who is a computer technician helped me pick out a PC with core i7 7700k and a Zotac GTX 1070 amp 2 weeks ago. Now the same guy is telling me I should sell my i7 7700k and upgrade to Ryzen. He started showing me these charts that i dont understand and ive been scouring the net on what i should do. -_- If monitor matters or anything, I got the benq zowie xl2411z.

[noobas4urus]

I dont know much about computers. But my buddy who is a computer technician helped me pick out a PC with core i7 7700k and a Zotac GTX 1070 amp 2 weeks ago. Now the same guy is telling me I should sell my i7 7700k and upgrade to Ryzen. He started showing me these charts that i dont understand and ive been scouring the net on what i should do. -_- If monitor matters or anything, I got the benq zowie xl2411z.

You're chasing ghosts at that point, especially if all you do is play Hearth Stone    (kidding on that)

That's a solid set up and you're not going to be gaining by jumping to Ryzen.  Wait a few months and see how the market shakes out at least if you want switch over.

[swissdane23]

I dont know much about computers. But my buddy who is a computer technician helped me pick out a PC with core i7 7700k and a Zotac GTX 1070 amp 2 weeks ago. Now the same guy is telling me I should sell my i7 7700k and upgrade to Ryzen. He started showing me these charts that i dont understand and ive been scouring the net on what i should do. -_- If monitor matters or anything, I got the benq zowie xl2411z.

You're chasing ghosts at that point, especially if all you do is play Hearth Stone    (kidding on that)

That's a solid set up and you're not going to be gaining by jumping to Ryzen.  Wait a few months and see how the market shakes out at least if you want switch over.

Oh god. I seriously play hearthstone as my main game(ive never gotten under rank 9 despite spending a ton load of money because i suck) since back in 2013 when i got a beta key. Other than that I play overwatch(my most graphic intense game). With my old laptop(2006 toshiba) medium settings was killing me in overwatch. But i swear to GOD the experience has been better on hearthstone so far(and overwatch). Thanks for the advice. I thought with the release of Ryzen my procie wouldn't last a year(with the way my friend kept showing me graphs almost every 2 days).

[noobas4urus]

I dont know much about computers. But my buddy who is a computer technician helped me pick out a PC with core i7 7700k and a Zotac GTX 1070 amp 2 weeks ago. Now the same guy is telling me I should sell my i7 7700k and upgrade to Ryzen. He started showing me these charts that i dont understand and ive been scouring the net on what i should do. -_- If monitor matters or anything, I got the benq zowie xl2411z.

You're chasing ghosts at that point, especially if all you do is play Hearth Stone    (kidding on that)

That's a solid set up and you're not going to be gaining by jumping to Ryzen.  Wait a few months and see how the market shakes out at least if you want switch over.

Oh god. I seriously play hearthstone as my main game(ive never gotten under rank 9 despite spending a ton load of money because i suck) since back in 2013 when i got a beta key. Other than that I play overwatch(my most graphic intense game). With my old laptop(2006 toshiba) medium settings was killing me in overwatch. But i swear to GOD the experience has been better on hearthstone so far(and overwatch). Thanks for the advice. I thought with the release of Ryzen my procie wouldn't last a year(with the way my friend kept showing me graphs almost every 2 days).

The joke hits home lol.  To be honest, you're probably set for 4+ years for those titles, and probably more if you upgrade your GPU in a few years and start OC'ing your i7.  I'm playing Overwatch on High settings with a GTX 670, an i5 4670k (no OC) and 8gb ram and it's all gucci over here.

[looncraz]

I thought with the release of Ryzen my procie wouldn't last a year(with the way my friend kept showing me graphs almost every 2 days).

Ryzen is awesome for multi-threading while being efficient and no slouch in single-threaded workloads.

Your 7700k is faster than a similar 4/8 Ryzen, but it costs more (a lot more).  It will likely soon lose close to half of its resale value IF Ryzen can hit the same frequencies (which is no guarantee, by any means).

Ryzen won't make things faster for you, really, but you might be able to sell what you have and then buy Ryzen and save $100 or more with no real loss in performance... unless you go with a larger Ryzen, such as the six core or eight core models...  which won't help most games, but will help many other areas.

I agree with keeping what you have, though.  You need to sale *now* at no extra cost (no seller fees, no shipping costs to you, etc...) and then wait for Ryzen (a week to go!) and hope it's everything you need and that you can get your chip and motherboard while stock is still available (first runs are usually sold out quick, no matter how many CPUs or boards are made).  It's not worth the risk or effort.

If you were in the market for building a system today and were looking at the 7700k, I'd imagine everyone here would say the same thing as your friend: WAIT!  Ryzen, FTW!

[swissdane23]

I thought with the release of Ryzen my procie wouldn't last a year(with the way my friend kept showing me graphs almost every 2 days).

Ryzen is awesome for multi-threading while being efficient and no slouch in single-threaded workloads.

Your 7700k is faster than a similar 4/8 Ryzen, but it costs more (a lot more).  It will likely soon lose close to half of its resale value IF Ryzen can hit the same frequencies (which is no guarantee, by any means).

Ryzen won't make things faster for you, really, but you might be able to sell what you have and then buy Ryzen and save $100 or more with no real loss in performance... unless you go with a larger Ryzen, such as the six core or eight core models...  which won't help most games, but will help many other areas.

I agree with keeping what you have, though.  You need to sale *now* at no extra cost (no seller fees, no shipping costs to you, etc...) and then wait for Ryzen (a week to go!) and hope it's everything you need and that you can get your chip and motherboard while stock is still available (first runs are usually sold out quick, no matter how many CPUs or boards are made).  It's not worth the risk or effort.

If you were in the market for building a system today and were looking at the 7700k, I'd imagine everyone here would say the same thing as your friend: WAIT!  Ryzen, FTW!

To be honest most of that stuff was way over my head. -_- I'm just a writer. xD But your opinions gave me a bit of an idea than what my friend was saying(endless charts). I guess im gonna stick with what I have. Theres no way ill be able to sell something like this locally in this back-water country. Might be a good idea to go Ryzen for my brothers build though. Much appreciated.

[happylacquer]

Blah I was 100% sure I was getting Zen for the longest time, but now I'm feeling like it'll need to impress me enough to move off my Xeon E5 1620.
Not the newest CPU on the block but still a damn strong powerhouse

[tp4tissue]

To be honest most of that stuff was way over my head. -_- I'm just a writer. xD But your opinions gave me a bit of an idea than what my friend was saying(endless charts). I guess im gonna stick with what I have. Theres no way ill be able to sell something like this locally in this back-water country. Might be a good idea to go Ryzen for my brothers build though. Much appreciated.

The hassle to move from 7700k to zen wouldn't be worth it..


We're also still waiting for legit benchmarks, all the stuff so far is --rumor based--


If it's as good as the --RUMOR--  then it'll be a good choice for productivity and game streamers.. 


But for personal Gaming,  I think intel is a short price adjust away from staying in the lead for a very long time..

[swissdane23]

To be honest most of that stuff was way over my head. -_- I'm just a writer. xD But your opinions gave me a bit of an idea than what my friend was saying(endless charts). I guess im gonna stick with what I have. Theres no way ill be able to sell something like this locally in this back-water country. Might be a good idea to go Ryzen for my brothers build though. Much appreciated.

The hassle to move from 7700k to zen wouldn't be worth it..


We're also still waiting for legit benchmarks, all the stuff so far is --rumor based--


If it's as good as the --RUMOR--  then it'll be a good choice for productivity and game streamers.. 


But for personal Gaming,  I think intel is a short price adjust away from staying in the lead for a very long time..

My friend sent me this video and told me to skip to 9:18. Can you explain it to me? Im pretty close to unfriending his ass on facebook. -_-

[tjcaustin]

> Says old version was basically the same within a frame or 3
> shows game play with release version
> still within a frame or 3
> "ZOMG MUCH BETTER PERFORMANCE, CLEAR WIN"

[swissdane23]

> Says old version was basically the same within a frame or 3
> shows game play with release version
> still within a frame or 3
> "ZOMG MUCH BETTER PERFORMANCE, CLEAR WIN"

So... Uh... I dont get the sarcasm alot. Its good? Thats what the video means right? Im sorry. Im not a techie. They showed that chart thing again. and i saw higher numbers in FPS. So 3 fps is good right?

[SBJ]

Time to upgrade the server to an 8 core. 

[tjcaustin]

Reusing gtx970, power supply, back up ssd and hdd.

[looncraz]

Show Image

Reusing gtx970, power supply, back up ssd and hdd.

I wouldn't get the 960 Pro unless you will be REALLY writing a LOT of data.  Get the Evo and put more money into the motherboard.

I ordered the 1800X and Asus ROG Crosshair VI Hero from Amazon just a minute or so after they became available for pre-order, so I feel good about getting mine early :p

[Leslieann]

Not really.. if you already have something POST sandybridge,  it's not worth upgrading ..

Yes and no.
Even a good SB is enough for most people, even gamers, but more speed is always nice.

I just went from 2600k to to a 6700k, and there is a pretty big difference actually. Much more than I expected, however I think a lot of the gains where in the motherboard/chipset/efficiency than the processor itself.

But IF Zen turns out to be as fast as these benchmarks..  Intel's response will be more interesting then buying Zen, since Intel still has the IPC lead..

If you're in the lead,  all you need is a price adjust.

This. So much this.
It doesn't even matter if AMD beats Intel in performance, so long as they are close, and cheaper.

Competition is always good, especially with Intel. It's not that Intel rests on their laurels, it's that they will sit on advances and keep prices artificially high. This will light a fire under Intel's a$$.

[tjcaustin]

Show Image

Reusing gtx970, power supply, back up ssd and hdd.

I wouldn't get the 960 Pro unless you will be REALLY writing a LOT of data.  Get the Evo and put more money into the motherboard.

I ordered the 1800X and Asus ROG Crosshair VI Hero from Amazon just a minute or so after they became available for pre-order, so I feel good about getting mine early :p

Only one mATX board available right now.

[noisyturtle]

Didn't they rename it to something really stupid sounding?

edit - Ryzen lmao that is even worse than I remembered it  )

[xtrafrood]

Makes sense for rendering or general multi-threaded workloads. Makes less sense for gaming unless you're streaming.. unless gaming production companies decide to develop for multi-threading, which I guess is kind of like when gaming companies decided to develop for x86-64 instruction sets.. /shrug.

Anyway, thank you tp4

[Findecanor]

I am anxiously awaiting some real reviews ... or for intel prices to go down.

Including currency fluctuations, the local price of a Skylake CPU has gone up 20% since last summer.
Back then I had a 6700K, motherboard and RAM on preorder for a good price, the order waiting only for the cooler that I wanted, but the cooler did not arrive for a month so I cancelled the whole order.. and I still have not upgraded. Argh!

[Leslieann]

I am anxiously awaiting some real reviews ... or for intel prices to go down.

Including currency fluctuations, the local price of a Skylake CPU has gone up 20% since last summer.
Back then I had a 6700K, motherboard and RAM on preorder for a good price, the order waiting only for the cooler that I wanted, but the cooler did not arrive for a month so I cancelled the whole order.. and I still have not upgraded. Argh!

Even Haswell and Devil's Canyon has hardly dropped in price... That's Intel for you without competition. Even new old stock Sandy Bridge is commanding insane prices. Had AMD not run up on Intel a few times in the past, driving down prices, a modern I5 would probably be closer to $1000.

News for Nvidia lovers, they too would be two or three times higher without AMD/ATI giving them hell over the years. I only use Nvidia if I have no other choice, there is a special place in hell for them.

[tp4tissue]

I am anxiously awaiting some real reviews ... or for intel prices to go down.

Including currency fluctuations, the local price of a Skylake CPU has gone up 20% since last summer.
Back then I had a 6700K, motherboard and RAM on preorder for a good price, the order waiting only for the cooler that I wanted, but the cooler did not arrive for a month so I cancelled the whole order.. and I still have not upgraded. Argh!

Even Haswell and Devil's Canyon has hardly dropped in price... That's Intel for you without competition. Even new old stock Sandy Bridge is commanding insane prices. Had AMD not run up on Intel a few times in the past, driving down prices, a modern I5 would probably be closer to $1000.

News for Nvidia lovers, they too would be two or three times higher without AMD/ATI giving them hell over the years. I only use Nvidia if I have no other choice, there is a special place in hell for them.

It's important to keep in mind, that there are NO GOOD GUYS, in this..

When AMD was in the lead with their x64,   they did exactly what intel did..


So, competition is good relative to the consumer,  but AMD is no more virtuous a seller..

[Elrick]

So, competition is good relative to the consumer,  but AMD is no more virtuous a seller..

Geezus now comparing Corporations to being Virtuous..... what gives ?

Only glad that AMD is now providing gear worthy of purchasing and this hasn't happened in a long time.  Also very happy in ordering a AMD Ryzen 1700X cpu but still trying to pick which motherboard to buy.

Glad to be finally building some AMD gear instead of the same repugnant Intel junk pile.  Took a long time to get here but glad it's finally arrived, 2017 the year of AMD kicking back with some decent hardware.

YES, I am definitely excited about them returning to the fold  .

[Leslieann]

It's important to keep in mind, that there are NO GOOD GUYS, in this..

When AMD was in the lead with their x64,   they did exactly what intel did..


So, competition is good relative to the consumer,  but AMD is no more virtuous a seller..

I can't remember ever paying more for AMD than I have for Intel, even when AMD was in the lead.

Every company is out to make money, that's the idea and I can't fault them for that, however, Nvidia has done some seriously shady things not just towards their customers but even their own investors. And not just once, either. Say what you will, but AMD has never screwed me over and never knowingly sold me junk.

And then there is this.

[tp4tissue]

So, competition is good relative to the consumer,  but AMD is no more virtuous a seller..

Geezus now comparing Corporations to being Virtuous..... what gives ?

Only glad that AMD is now providing gear worthy of purchasing and this hasn't happened in a long time.  Also very happy in ordering a AMD Ryzen 1700X cpu but still trying to pick which motherboard to buy.

Glad to be finally building some AMD gear instead of the same repugnant Intel junk pile.  Took a long time to get here but glad it's finally arrived, 2017 the year of AMD kicking back with some decent hardware.

YES, I am definitely excited about them returning to the fold  .

There's still this small issue right now of overclocking..  AMD needs to hit 4.7ghz consistently on most chips..

(we don't know how difficult this will be)



Overall Zen should force intel to open the gate,  no more k-series bull ****..


the 7700k @ ~250ishh sounds plausible..



IMHO,  if intel just respond INSTANTLY , say,  TOMORROW,   they can kill off ALL momentum for AMD.. before it even arrives..


IDK, why they don't do that..   ATTACK MODE..

[looncraz]

There's still this small issue right now of overclocking..  AMD needs to hit 4.7ghz consistently on most chips..

(we don't know how difficult this will be)

Ryzen won't need to exceed 4Ghz with overclocking to be competitive.  8-cores and SMT make up for a lot of frequency when you have high IPC.  That's why the 6900k can command its premium and maintain good sales.  6900k can only rarely exceed 4.3Ghz without a massive voltage push.

Ryzen looks to be only slightly worse at overclocking than the 6900k but with better multi-threaded scaling, that'll likely become a wash.

The quad core and six core Ryzen CPUs should have a little easier time overclocking.  The 1600X, for example, is a mix of cut-down dice and almost cherry-picked dice... where one or two cores has a fault or can't clock well enough. With stock 3.6/4Ghz clocks, that's looking good.

The quad cores should do even a little better.

I don't expect 4.7Ghz to be the norm on any of them, though.

[tp4tissue]

There's still this small issue right now of overclocking..  AMD needs to hit 4.7ghz consistently on most chips..

(we don't know how difficult this will be)

Ryzen won't need to exceed 4Ghz with overclocking to be competitive.  8-cores and SMT make up for a lot of frequency when you have high IPC.  That's why the 6900k can command its premium and maintain good sales.  6900k can only rarely exceed 4.3Ghz without a massive voltage push.

Ryzen looks to be only slightly worse at overclocking than the 6900k but with better multi-threaded scaling, that'll likely become a wash.

The quad core and six core Ryzen CPUs should have a little easier time overclocking.  The 1600X, for example, is a mix of cut-down dice and almost cherry-picked dice... where one or two cores has a fault or can't clock well enough. With stock 3.6/4Ghz clocks, that's looking good.

The quad cores should do even a little better.

I don't expect 4.7Ghz to be the norm on any of them, though.

It can beat the 6900k , that's fine n'all..

But if it can't match 4.7ghz on MOST chips,   Intel will still have a good 10-20% lead on single thread.

AMD needs to be within 10% of Intel to be competitive..

Otherwise,  if they end up playing with PRICE only,   Intel would still win.

[looncraz]

It can beat the 6900k , that's fine n'all..

But if it can't match 4.7ghz on MOST chips,   Intel will still have a good 10-20% lead on single thread.

AMD needs to be within 10% of Intel to be competitive..

Otherwise,  if they end up playing with PRICE only,   Intel would still win.

Most people don't buy CPUs that are at the high-end.  AMD is aiming for the bulk of the market while apparently managing to topple the 8-core king.

Broadwell IPC at 4Ghz is more than most people have or need - even gamers.  AMD has, it seems, accomplished that... with eight cores.

Lower core count CPUs will have more overclocking headroom, but single threaded performance is becoming increasingly less important.  Even the FX-8350 is starting become usable in games.  Six cores is the sweet-spot for gaming now - and AMD can deliver a 4Ghz six-core CPU at bargain prices on a competent platform.  That's a win.

Internet browsers aren't even single threaded any more.  Firefox, which was one of the worst, currently has 112 threads running in two process on my system.  One window, 11 tabs.  If a plugin is used yet another process, with even more threads, is created.

I have 77 processes running on my system right now - only 6 of them have 1 thread.

[tp4tissue]

It can beat the 6900k , that's fine n'all..

But if it can't match 4.7ghz on MOST chips,   Intel will still have a good 10-20% lead on single thread.

AMD needs to be within 10% of Intel to be competitive..

Otherwise,  if they end up playing with PRICE only,   Intel would still win.

Most people don't buy CPUs that are at the high-end.  AMD is aiming for the bulk of the market while apparently managing to topple the 8-core king.

Broadwell IPC at 4Ghz is more than most people have or need - even gamers.  AMD has, it seems, accomplished that... with eight cores.

Lower core count CPUs will have more overclocking headroom, but single threaded performance is becoming increasingly less important.  Even the FX-8350 is starting become usable in games.  Six cores is the sweet-spot for gaming now - and AMD can deliver a 4Ghz six-core CPU at bargain prices on a competent platform.  That's a win.

Internet browsers aren't even single threaded any more.  Firefox, which was one of the worst, currently has 112 threads running in two process on my system.  One window, 11 tabs.  If a plugin is used yet another process, with even more threads, is created.

I have 77 processes running on my system right now - only 6 of them have 1 thread.

Well, multi-thread is important in Some consumer applications..

But, NOT-Really, because almost none of these utilize a constant-lengthy load, it's mostly sporadic..



Now, Games will continue to be dominated by Single Core performance, because no matter what,  It all has to composite via 1 thread..   This process will almost always determine the maximum final output..   Multicore will help certain games which thread physics and spreadsheet elements,   But, it ends there, if the final compositing is single core bound.



I don't know how intel will play this out,  But I don't see why they can't crush all amd purchases by price adjusting..


At the end of the day,  a lead is a lead..

[looncraz]

Well, multi-thread is important in Some consumer applications..

But, NOT-Really, because almost none of these utilize a constant-lengthy load, it's mostly sporadic..



Now, Games will continue to be dominated by Single Core performance, because no matter what,  It all has to composite via 1 thread..   This process will almost always determine the maximum final output..   Multicore will help certain games which thread physics and spreadsheet elements,   But, it ends there, if the final compositing is single core bound.



I don't know how intel will play this out,  But I don't see why they can't crush all amd purchases by price adjusting..


At the end of the day,  a lead is a lead..

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02/cpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test/#diagramm-battlefield-1-dx11-multiplayer-fps

The higher-core count CPUs are most frequently leading the pack when it comes to gaming than ever before.  And that's despite only hitting ~4Ghz.

And a lead is worthless if you're paying 30%+ more for 10% more performance in one confined usage scenario.  Unless you have more money than sense (which, I guess, is technically my case as I splurged for the 1800X).

[tp4tissue]

Well, multi-thread is important in Some consumer applications..

But, NOT-Really, because almost none of these utilize a constant-lengthy load, it's mostly sporadic..



Now, Games will continue to be dominated by Single Core performance, because no matter what,  It all has to composite via 1 thread..   This process will almost always determine the maximum final output..   Multicore will help certain games which thread physics and spreadsheet elements,   But, it ends there, if the final compositing is single core bound.



I don't know how intel will play this out,  But I don't see why they can't crush all amd purchases by price adjusting..


At the end of the day,  a lead is a lead..

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02/cpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test/#diagramm-battlefield-1-dx11-multiplayer-fps

The higher-core count CPUs are most frequently leading the pack when it comes to gaming than ever before.  And that's despite only hitting ~4Ghz.

And a lead is worthless if you're paying 30%+ more for 10% more performance in one confined usage scenario.  Unless you have more money than sense (which, I guess, is technically my case as I splurged for the 1800X).

A lead is worthless if you charge more..  Which is why Intel will be FORCED to price adjust..

But, AFTER the price adjust,  what will AMD do..

They're still playing second fiddle..



You're looking at the game as it is today..


But you SHOULD look at what's TO COME.



For example..  Intel Drops 6900k to $500 or even $450, because it doesn't actually cost anywhere near $1000 to make.. The size of the die determines price.. and they're about the same size.

THen drop the x99 to $200-250

Now we have 8 core Parity..


So, further down the line,  Drop 7700k to $200-250..   


Sell a new Intel 6 or 8 core against the 1700/1700x AMD @ $300-350



Now, what's AMD to do..   they go down another price tier ?   What is so compelling about AMD exactly..

[tp4tissue]

With reasonable certainty, that within 8-12 months, AMD will go back to 2-3 Dollars per share, within 1-1.5 year up to 4-6 dollars.. 


It's inconceivable that INTEL spend billions per year on R&D for 10 years , and have nothing up their sleaves..


(but the key here is,  INTEL is still In The Lead),   which means, it doesn't have to show-hand,  only reel in the Oppression a bit..

HAHAHHA



Don't mistake my posts for Intel-Fanboism,


I hope INTEL DIAF..    but I don't see that happening..   Unless the Zen can go to 5ghz+ within a short Refresh @ the fab..  (without 1.8volts and Liquid Nitrogen)

[looncraz]

A lead is worthless if you charge more..  Which is why Intel will be FORCED to price adjust..

Intel has only rarely responded to competition by reducing prices on existing products. They will release a new product with a more agreeable price, but they will continue to charge a premium.

Large companies are judged based on a few metrics.  Market competitiveness isn't one of them.  Product margin, revenue, and profit are.

If Intel can still sell its overpriced CPUs, which they can, they will keep the prices high because that doesn't hurt product margin or profit, though it may reduce revenue in that segment... but they can make up for that with lower-tier products, to hide the damage.

That is what Intel has always done, I don't expect them to change.  If the price drops on the 6900k, it will only be by $200 or so.  Intel will not acknowledge a competitor's claim to superiority.

But, AFTER the price adjust,  what will AMD do..

They're still playing second fiddle..

Not second fiddle, the reactionary party.  Right now, Intel is the reactionary party - because AMD has challenged their product marketability.  We are all waiting for Intel to react.  So many seem to think they will drop prices to match AMD... but they've never done that.  Pentium 4 carried a premium over the faster-tiered Athlons.

Athlon 64 3200+ was ~$200... as was the Pentium 4 530 (3Ghz).  The Athlon would win in 2/3rds of the benchmarks by 15% or more, but Intel still charged the same for less performance.  They did this because they knew they could sell more just fine = based purely on their name. That hasn't changed, except this time Intel HEDT platform has more to offer.  Much more connectivity, many more PCI-e lanes, and so on that attracts a certain crowd that wouldn't buy AMD if it were twice as fast at half the cost.

Now, what's AMD to do..   they go down another price tier ?   What is so compelling about AMD exactly..

AMD has more products coming out - FOUR Zen versions are planned, with one already only a year away.

Intel has more, of course, but they didn't expect AMD to catch up as much as they have (seriously, who did? I knew the architecture quite well and my highest-end estimate last year was 49% total performance uplift over Excavator... my lowest was an even 40%).  It takes years to make changes to architectures, We've been hearing about Coffee Lake for years now, and Intel has already disclosed that it is just another bump like Kaby Lake.

Sure, that's enough to keep current Ryzen at bay, but AMD will be hot on its trail with Zen version 2.  Intel will release more affordable Coffee Lake SKUs, most likely, in order to counter the looming AMD threat, but they will maintain the bulk of their high pricing structure.

After that, Intel has 10nm Cannon Lake.  This will be a data-center first product in 2018.  Zen version 3 should arrive fairly close to Cannon Lake's desktop appearance.  There's no telling how that match-up will fair out, but Coffee and Cannon Lake designs have been finalized for some time - Intel can't do much extra to them at this point... they have to let the chips fall where they may.  Intel has yet to break ground on 7nm... AMD is already working on 7nm products with Global Foundries using IBM's 7nm tech... which is derived from an earlier partnership before Global Foundries was separated from AMD.

AMD is in the superior position here, which is unexpected, they have three moves planned and ready, Intel has two and has been forced to re-envision the future after that.

It will be very interesting to see how this all works out in the end.  I don't expect AMD to be willing to play the bargain card if they hold the upper hand.  They didn't last time this happened.

[looncraz]

With reasonable certainty, that within 8-12 months, AMD will go back to 2-3 Dollars per share, within 1-1.5 year up to 4-6 dollars.. 

It's inconceivable that INTEL spend billions per year on R&D for 10 years , and have nothing up their sleaves..

(but the key here is,  INTEL is still In The Lead),   which means, it doesn't have to show-hand,  only reel in the Oppression a bit..

HAHAHHA

Don't mistake my posts for Intel-Fanboism,

I hope INTEL DIAF..    but I don't see that happening..   Unless the Zen can go to 5ghz+ within a short Refresh @ the fab..  (without 1.8volts and Liquid Nitrogen)

Intel hasn't been spending their money developing new architectures to compete with AMD, though.  They've been spending it all over the place.

And AMD only spends their money on designs, the process tech development was paid for by Samsung and Global Foundries.

Together, the amount of money invested in Zen DWARFS Intel's CPU investments. By billions.

Design was the cheapest part.  Four years of running AMD and paying for the engineering team.  AMD reused all of their existing IP.

Believe it or not, it has been LONG known that AMD has superior ALUs to Intel.  Think about it - AMD only used two ALUs in the construction cores, they had no choice but to make them as good as they could.  Zen's FPU is actually only some 20% better than Excavator's.  It just doesn't have the CMT penalty... and has one FPU per integer core.

AMD didn't do anything amazing on any singular part of the design, they just took their existing parts and put them together in a smarter way - and better than Intel's way of common ports on a unified scheduler.  They had no choice - they wanted this to be a product that came out in a reasonable time frame.

They reused Excavator's HDL (high density library), this is clearly visible from the die shots.  The decoders are a rip right from Bulldozer and everything else is just an evolution of existing AMD tech.  AMD wet their beaks on 14nm LPP using Polaris - but 14nm LPP is actually a mature process, having products millions of chips at multiple foundries.

About the only thing genuinely new in Ryzen are the caches and the uop cache.

Some Ryzen CPUs will probably already hit 5Ghz on a few cores, but not all eight.  Maybe not even on four.  I know someone has already achieved 6GHz on one core, so there's more hope coming.  Zen ver2 will have higher IPC and most likely clock higher.  That combination should lead to a 20% or so improvement in performance, but maybe only 15%.  So, at least for the next 24 months, Intel and AMD will be locked in their current relative positions, with only a few months leeway when Coffee Lake comes out before Zen ver2 does.

[tp4tissue]

It takes about a year to build a data center,  and another year of tweaking to get it to not bug-out..


AMD has at maximum , that 2 years to Compel a switch..


The consumer side is just for show.... If they can't land a deal in big data,  it's all going to fall back down.


That 95watt and 65 watt looks good..  But, it's not enough of a power save for a rebuild,  and there isn't an off the shelf board partner for them yet.

[Elrick]

Overall Zen should force intel to open the gate,  no more k-series bull ****..


the 7700k @ ~250ishh sounds plausible..



IMHO,  if intel just respond INSTANTLY , say,  TOMORROW,   they can kill off ALL momentum for AMD.. before it even arrives..


IDK, why they don't do that..   ATTACK MODE..

Having another competitor helps them to steal designs from others simply because Intel has always done that in the past.   Intel never truly innovates in anything but it knows how to apply other designs into their own hardware then later fight in court (if need be) for years until an outcome occurs.  Because certain companies become huge doesn't mean they are any smarter in implementing any real/unique designs into production.  In fact if AMD never existed we will most probably still be using P4 hardware and paying close to $1000USD per chip.

In the corporate world it's always good to have others around you, to help stem the tide of any anti-competitive organizations and groups hell bent on attacking your current status or position.  If you are the ONLY one dominating the field or industry, then you are subject to never ending attacks from the public and self absorbed parasites wanting to diminish your power within the marketplace.

[nubbinator]

Fingers crossed the X300 boards come out pretty quick.  I would love to do a Ryzen/Vega mITX build so I can actually support a company I like.

[Leslieann]

There's still this small issue right now of overclocking..  AMD needs to hit 4.7ghz consistently on most chips..

IMHO,  if intel just respond INSTANTLY , say,  TOMORROW,   they can kill off ALL momentum for AMD.. before it even arrives..

IDK, why they don't do that..   ATTACK MODE..

No, they don't need to hit that overclock, overclocking is a selling point to enthusiasts, the average person doesn't care.

Intel doesn't care, because they know, the people who want that level of performance, most will still buy Intel. Companies will also still buy Intel. There is an old saying that still rings true, "No one ever got fired for buying Intel"... Unless it was during the Rambus days, even then it was rare. Intel will probably act almost oblivious for 2 or 3 years and only if AMD builds momentum.  Why respond and cut your throat unless you need to when chopping prices will take years to return to what they want.

Intel always plays the long con. They will take a small hit now (lose a small segment) to reap the rewards later (maintain high prices).

Most people don't buy CPUs that are at the high-end.  AMD is aiming for the bulk of the market while apparently managing to topple the 8-core king.

This.
The average gamer doesn't buy an I7, they buy an I5 or AMD and then a nice video card. Getting an Intel Extreme chip for the price of a lower end I7 though... that might entice them and as they age, the price will probably drop (AMD tends to do this). By which point, the performance of an overclocked I7 for the price of an I5? Gamers will eat that up even if it doesn't overclock at all.

It's inconceivable that INTEL spend billions per year on R&D for 10 years , and have nothing up their sleaves..

They probably do, but don't expect Intel to really reveal it just because AMD appears to have caught up. They will want to make sure AMD can hold the course before breaking out the big guns and then they still have to ramp up production. Just because you have the technology doesn't mean you have the facility capable of producing it in large amounts. This is actually a place both companies have struggled especially as Moore's Law comes to an end.

That said, Intel may not have as much up their sleeve as you think, they've been focused on low power lately, trying to stave off ARM.

Also, in case you didn't know, AMD and Intel have a trade deal where they share their work.  Anything Intel has, AMD also has, minus the fabrication facility.

It takes about a year to build a data center,  and another year of tweaking to get it to not bug-out..

AMD has at maximum , that 2 years to Compel a switch..

This is precisely why Intel won't be terrified enough of AMD to lower prices right away, and also why AMD targeted workstations and gamers. AMD could take a decent chunk of the gaming market and Intel will just shrug it off or turn a different direction. When AMD finally caught them in Floating Point (grunt), Intel started pushing 3d, an area AMD wasn't necessarily weak, but not necessarily their focus.

None of this is new, many of us have seen this cycle a few times now.

[tp4tissue]

OKOKOK..


So many new rumors.. No way to cover them all..


But IT SEEEEEEEEMs   like AMD is really making a comeback.. 



Still waiting on overclocking results..   but intel PRICE ADJUST imminent

[tjcaustin]

OKOKOK..


So many new rumors.. No way to cover them all..


But IT SEEEEEEEEMs   like AMD is really making a comeback.. 



Still waiting on overclocking results..   but intel PRICE ADJUST imminent

Intel has already dropped some prices - http://hothardware.com/news/intel-reacting-to-amd-ryzen-apparently-cutting-prices-on-core-i7

[Findecanor]

About the only thing genuinely new in Ryzen are the caches and the uop cache.

Embrace the glory that is the right Alt key with an international keymap or spell it out as it should be pronounced. Please!

Or else I will beat you over the head with a ten ecks speed CDROM player ... :-þ

BTW. I would also like to encourage you to post in other parts of the forum, so that you don't look so much like an astroturfer ...

Intel has already dropped some prices - http://hothardware.com/news/intel-reacting-to-amd-ryzen-apparently-cutting-prices-on-core-i7

That is just Microcenter. It is too early to see a trend.
I have seen that news items everywhere the past couple days, and I'm a bit tired of it already. We don't have Microcenter over here. Wake me up when Intel slashes their prices to distributors more than 10% (which is how much Intel prices have risen since summer).

[tp4tissue]

OKOKOK..


So many new rumors.. No way to cover them all..


But IT SEEEEEEEEMs   like AMD is really making a comeback.. 



Still waiting on overclocking results..   but intel PRICE ADJUST imminent

Intel has already dropped some prices - http://hothardware.com/news/intel-reacting-to-amd-ryzen-apparently-cutting-prices-on-core-i7

Yea, microcenter's usually ahead on prices.. but it's ONLY microcenter so far.

[xtrafrood]

OKOKOK..


So many new rumors.. No way to cover them all..


But IT SEEEEEEEEMs   like AMD is really making a comeback.. 



Still waiting on overclocking results..   but intel PRICE ADJUST imminent

Intel has already dropped some prices - http://hothardware.com/news/intel-reacting-to-amd-ryzen-apparently-cutting-prices-on-core-i7

Yea, microcenter's usually ahead on prices.. but it's ONLY microcenter so far.

Random price cuts. Meanwhile no price cuts for i3. If you're going to randomly cut the prices of CPUs you might as well cut ALL THE PRICES of the CPUs. Gee whiz guys

[tp4tissue]

Random price cuts. Meanwhile no price cuts for i3. If you're going to randomly cut the prices of CPUs you might as well cut ALL THE PRICES of the CPUs. Gee whiz guys

Well i3s are not big sellers for microcenter..


If people go to microcenter to buy cpus,  they're gonna be the online crowd that go with the 6700k 7700k



What we're hoping here is Budget boards coming out which do decent OC on UNLOCKED i3s..


Back in the day,   Pentium 4 days..   We had $60 motherboards + $80 cpus that could overclock and play all the latest games a 85% the framerate of the Top end cpu ..


That might come back..

[Fire Brand]

Fingers crossed the X300 boards come out pretty quick.  I would love to do a Ryzen/Vega mITX build so I can actually support a company I like.

Same I'm hoping for the ITX boards to release soonish, most of the current boards shown are god aweful RGB trash hope Gigabyte or someone does just a normal board

[xtrafrood]

Random price cuts. Meanwhile no price cuts for i3. If you're going to randomly cut the prices of CPUs you might as well cut ALL THE PRICES of the CPUs. Gee whiz guys

Well i3s are not big sellers for microcenter..


If people go to microcenter to buy cpus,  they're gonna be the online crowd that go with the 6700k 7700k



What we're hoping here is Budget boards coming out which do decent OC on UNLOCKED i3s..


Back in the day,   Pentium 4 days..   We had $60 motherboards + $80 cpus that could overclock and play all the latest games a 85% the framerate of the Top end cpu ..


That might come back..

During those Pentium 4 days I was paying $0 for Pentium 2 or 3 CPUs and $0 for complimentary motherboards so I definitely would not know the prices off the top of my head. I guess people were reluctant to shuck PCs on to Ebay back then. The bubble popped and people hated computers? idk. I do recall that AMD was the king of heavy lifting back then, though.

[tp4tissue]

During those Pentium 4 days I was paying $0 for Pentium 2 or 3 CPUs and $0 for complimentary motherboards so I definitely would not know the prices off the top of my head. I guess people were reluctant to shuck PCs on to Ebay back then. The bubble popped and people hated computers? idk. I do recall that AMD was the king of heavy lifting back then, though.

Pentium 3 is conroe..  so it's like a really low clocked core2duo.. so the 1ghz version was pretty comparable to the p4s of the time.

[tp4tissue]

Sigh.......  Somewhat bad news guys..



only ~4.1ghz.. overclocked so far..

Tp4's worst fear realized..

And Apparently Tp4 predicted the performance gap EXACTLY.. I was right all along.. that looncraz got my hopes up, all for nothing.. sigh......

Damn you looncraz.. hahahahaha


This is really bad....   even if it could concievably get to 4.5 the next cycle,  that's late... intel has so much time to respond..

Sigh......

fffffffffff..  now we gotta keep buying more bull**** intel motherboards



Ugh... want to cry.. just crawl under my bed and die.. jesus.. 

[Halverson]

Sigh.......  Somewhat bad news guys..



only ~4.1ghz.. overclocked so far..


This is really bad....   even if it could concievably get to 4.5 the next cycle,  that's late... intel has so much time to respond..

Sigh......

Time to eat popcorn and cry

[tp4tissue]

Time to eat popcorn and cry

Here's what I'm hoping.. AMD Fine Wine..


SOMEHOW.... their software team has to pull out another 10-15% from software optimization..

the Overclockers, have to eek out another 300-400mhz..

AND The PRICE has to come down to $300 for the 1800x

[tp4tissue]

Shares already down 7% today.. 

//headdesk
//headdesk

[xtrafrood]

Aw, the real show is yet to come

[tp4tissue]

Aw, the real show is yet to come

idk..  i don't see how it's not game over..    we need a OPAC oil Prince to magic a cash infusion with AMD..


They need a huge software team to get some more optimizations on their architecture by working with the pro-app people.



This was a bad move positioning this CPU for Gaming / young people crowd..


They really should've made it all about prosumers..




The only true standout performance this CPU has is Streaming performance via Twitch/Youtube/ etc..


But the majority of gamers Prioritize PLAYING the damn game vs streaming it..


So we're looking at  Sandybridge level performance  in terms of gaming  WITHOUT streaming..



Is sandybridge good enough ?,  YES IT IS..  but if I wanted Sandybridge, I'd just go buy a used sandybridge setup for under $300

[happylacquer]

iBut the majority of gamers Prioritize PLAYING the damn game vs streaming it..


So we're looking at  Sandybridge level performance  in terms of gaming  WITHOUT streaming..



Is sandybridge good enough ?,  YES IT IS..  but if I wanted Sandybridge, I'd just go buy a used sandybridge setup for under $300

I would actually say the majority wants to be able to stream effortlessly and not impact performance!

[tp4tissue]

iBut the majority of gamers Prioritize PLAYING the damn game vs streaming it..


So we're looking at  Sandybridge level performance  in terms of gaming  WITHOUT streaming..



Is sandybridge good enough ?,  YES IT IS..  but if I wanted Sandybridge, I'd just go buy a used sandybridge setup for under $300

I would actually say the majority wants to be able to stream effortlessly and not impact performance!

It's a use-scenario sure.

But not a common one...



So here's the comparison..

THe problem for AMD is that, this Streaming ability,   EVEN on INtel's 4 core,  they're NOT actually penalized all that much..'


Especially since now NVIDIA has that GPU streaming support which takes some load off the CPU.

Gamers    vs   Gamers who stream..


$1000 pc..

You get 500 fps on CSGO via the Intel 7700k build.

You get 300 fps on CSGO via the AMD 1800x build.


In streaming,  the 7700k will drop to 200-400 average with streaming..

the AMD 1800x will likely maintain 300fps..  But 300 is as fast as it can go..

[xtrafrood]

Aw, the real show is yet to come

idk..  i don't see how it's not game over..    we need a OPAC oil Prince to magic a cash infusion with AMD..


They need a huge software team to get some more optimizations on their architecture by working with the pro-app people.



This was a bad move positioning this CPU for Gaming / young people crowd..


They really should've made it all about prosumers..




The only true standout performance this CPU has is Streaming performance via Twitch/Youtube/ etc..


But the majority of gamers Prioritize PLAYING the damn game vs streaming it..


So we're looking at  Sandybridge level performance  in terms of gaming  WITHOUT streaming..



Is sandybridge good enough ?,  YES IT IS..  but if I wanted Sandybridge, I'd just go buy a used sandybridge setup for under $300

AMD hasn't released all the goods is all I'm saying. We've only seen the x99 competition so far iirc, and from what I've seen it totally fits my use case but I understand where you're coming from

[tp4tissue]

AMD hasn't released all the goods is all I'm saying. We've only seen the x99 competition so far iirc, and from what I've seen it totally fits my use case but I understand where you're coming from

I'm doubtful the 4core 6core zen will clock that much higher.  the chip doesn't seem to be heat bound according to the reviews.  it just tops out at 4.1ghz period.. sigh.......

AMD fine wine (software optimization team) is the only thing in the near term to make an impact for the early buyers..

[tp4tissue]

I'm just so disappointed...

looncraz.. if you're reading this... h8n' you so hard right now.. hahahahahahahha

[xtrafrood]

AMD hasn't released all the goods is all I'm saying. We've only seen the x99 competition so far iirc, and from what I've seen it totally fits my use case but I understand where you're coming from

I'm doubtful the 4core 6core zen will clock that much higher.  the chip doesn't seem to be heat bound according to the reviews.  it just tops out at 4.1ghz period.. sigh.......

AMD fine wine (software optimization team) is the only thing in the near term to make an impact for the early buyers..

Also, from what Wendel (Level1techs) said, the virtualization support is not all there just yet. Dayum shame too. No point in virtualization if there is no support for GPU passthrough. Maybe firmware updates will provide an answer to everyone's prayers or concerns :shrug:

edit - on the other hand though, there's no need to delid Ryzen CPUs so that's a plus I guess

[tp4tissue]

AMD hasn't released all the goods is all I'm saying. We've only seen the x99 competition so far iirc, and from what I've seen it totally fits my use case but I understand where you're coming from

I'm doubtful the 4core 6core zen will clock that much higher.  the chip doesn't seem to be heat bound according to the reviews.  it just tops out at 4.1ghz period.. sigh.......

AMD fine wine (software optimization team) is the only thing in the near term to make an impact for the early buyers..

Also, from what Wendel (Level1techs) said, the virtualization support is not all there just yet. Dayum shame too. No point in virtualization if there is no support for GPU passthrough. Maybe firmware updates will provide an answer to everyone's prayers or concerns :shrug:

edit - on the other hand though, there's no need to delid Ryzen CPUs so that's a plus I guess

hahaha.. they got the delid tool now, so it's not so hard anymore.

You can even build a delid tool yourself out of some wood if you need to..


What I'm very worried about , is that Intel will respond swiftly and just ending ANY chance for pickup..  Maybe that's not to their best interest facing anti-trust..


But.........  at 4.1ghz,  there is a big enough Gap such that Intel can adjust prices by $50 such that all of 0 people actually buy Zen.


I just don't see the 1800x maintaining the $500 asking price.

[digi]

AMD IS FOR N00BS TP!!

[Elrick]

AMD IS FOR N00BS TP!!

INTEL is for FELCHERS, get use to that fact  .

[digi]

AMD IS FOR N00BS TP!!

INTEL is for FELCHERS, get use to that fact  .

AMD N00B detected, amber alert! amber alert!!

I LOVE Felchers!

[tp4tissue]

AMD IS FOR N00BS TP!!

INTEL is for FELCHERS, get use to that fact  .

AMD N00B detected, amber alert! amber alert!!

I LOVE Felchers!

had to google it..  yuk.

[nubbinator]

I'm still excited for the R5 Ryzen chips.  I have a 3570k, so it won't be a huge upgrade for gaming, but it will be for video encoding and I have a mess of DVDs I need to digitize.  Of course, if I could find am mITX mobo for my 3570K, I would probably hold off for a little bit.

[tp4tissue]

I'm still excited for the R5 Ryzen chips.  I have a 3570k, so it won't be a huge upgrade for gaming, but it will be for video encoding and I have a mess of DVDs I need to digitize.  Of course, if I could find am mITX mobo for my 3570K, I would probably hold off for a little bit.

See,  i don't like that argument for Zen..

GREAT CPU FOR ENCODING..    IMHO it's Better, but not $200 better than a 7700k...

If you do this stuff for a living, you'd already be on dual cpu..


If you do this stuff for fun.. an 8 core zen WILL NOT dramatically speed up encoding vs a 7700k..  EITHER WAY, if you had bulk encoding batches,  it'd run overnight..


So in that way,   it's like having 100Mbit internet vs 200Mbit internet,   yea 200Mbit is faster,  but NOT BY ENOUGH, such that it'd really make a difference in your actual UTILITY of the product..


From the benches so far, Zen is absolutely a no go.. ..  this is exactly like Faildozer..  especially @ $500 w/ NO OVERCLOCKING headroom.

[nubbinator]

The 1700 is a ****ing beast chip for the money for real world work tp.  It sucks a little at gaming, but, then again, I play at 1440p where I'm GPU bound and if I want to capture, encode, and stream my play, the AMD CPU will spank the Intel chip.

Completely disagree with your analysis. The 1800x is a no go, but the 1700 looks like a ****ing beast and the R5 chips may slap around the i5 chips.

Also note that this is before any Windows patches for the new architecture, before and game patches for the architecture, and before new BIOS has rolled out.  I'd be willing to bet that in 3-6 months time we see a nice boost from the launch performance.

[tp4tissue]

The 1700 is a ****ing beast chip for the money for real world work tp.  It sucks a little at gaming, but, then again, I play at 1440p where I'm GPU bound and if I want to capture, encode, and stream my play, the AMD CPU will spank the Intel chip.

Completely disagree with your analysis. The 1800x is a no go, but the 1700 looks like a ****ing beast and the R5 chips may slap around the i5 chips.

Also note that this is before any Windows patches for the new architecture, before and game patches for the architecture, and before new BIOS has rolled out.  I'd be willing to bet that in 3-6 months time we see a nice boost from the launch performance.

In the end, the gamer kids will gravitate towards the chip which benches with higher frame rate.. 

I think it's behind a little too much to count on AMD Fine-Wine to move chips for gamers..


They need to make a fast push into Server space as soon as possible where parallelism truly matters.

Consumers, and even Prosumers jsut don't need much multi-core.. because the multi-core that they can actually afford isn't much faster than quad core..


An encoding run usually takes 2 to 4 hours depending on complexity..   So now you got 1800x, which can do it in 1 to 2 hours..

That's faster, but not compellingly so,  because the average consumer / prosumer would've just let it run overnight or while they went out and had dinner..

So, in the end, the 7700k still serves better, because it has the Edge in gaming, and is Fast enough for encoding to be done in a reasonable time-frame.



Because Gaming has to be done NOW,   Encoding can always WAIT...  when you encode, whether it takes 2 hours or 4 hours,  that simply doesn't matter..

It's like if you're pirating a bluray movie,  if it took 2 hours great, if it took 4 hours , fine, you'd just download 2 movies overnight, watch it tomorrow, no big deal..

[Findecanor]

I find that the Ryzen is almost precisely what was expected.
If you had kept attention to what has been published before the release, you would not have been surprised!

It was already well known that most games are optimized for fewer cores/threads at higher clock.
That is why there is often relatively small difference in gaming performance between the Intel i3, i5 and i7 - with different number of cores/threads but all clocked high. For this reason most gaming media recommends that gamers spend their money on the i5 over the i7.

In total, a Ryzen 7 1700 still has more total computing power than an i7 7700K just that gamers don't take advantage of it as well.
There have been those that have measured the core usage of Ryzen and 6700K at the same games and found that several cores on the Ryzen are hardly used at all.

Anyway, single-core performance per clock is comparable to Haswell but each core uses less silicon than Skylake.
While the performance per clock is not market-leading the performance per watt is pretty good.
The chips have not overclocked very easily, but that may change.

[Leslieann]

I find that the Ryzen is almost precisely what was expected.

The chips have not overclocked very easily, but that may change.

It's pretty much what I expected as well, and that's actually good, for the exact reasons you stated.
If you need a high end video workstation, by all means, Intel, but most consumers will do just as well, or better using Ryzen. If I was buying today, Ryzen would be top of my list.


Regarding overclocking, it's fairly common for first gen chips to not overclock well. Also as an architecture ages and the manufacturer ramps up speeds, it's common to get less and less as they near end of life. So while Intel has the upper hand at the very top, as AMD's processor matures, Intel will begin showing signs of aging with people getting less and less overclocks from them. This isn't always true, some processors have overclocked poorly their entire life while others were fantastic from day one, but in general that is how things tend to progress.


-------------------------------------------------


As far as Intel crushing AMD with something new, while I was initially worried about it, I'm not any longer. Intel may be pushing a minor update, and they did lower prices at some stores, there is even rumors of a hyperthread I5, I'll believe that when I see it and if it does, it just proves they have been handicapping their chips. Why would they do this now? Because they know AMD just hit them pretty good.  It's not a knockout blow, we all can probably agree to that, Intel still holds the top tier, and Intel still has server sales and will more than likely screw AMD by offering insane deals to OEMs (like they have in the past).

More importantly though is that Intel just released Kaby Lake, they aren't going to scrap Kaby Lake right after it dropped, there is too much invested. OEMS, Intel, and motherboard makers put a lot of effort into Kaby Lake and it takes a while to bring stuff to market. Intel can't release Kaby Lake then scrap it without destroying other companies as well. And while Intel may have something up it's sleeve, it still has to ramp up production and get motherboard makers and OEMs on board and that takes time, no amount of money can fix that.

[digi]

That's faster, but not compellingly so,  because the average consumer / prosumer would've just let it run overnight or while they went out and had dinner at Popeyes..

FTFY 

[tp4tissue]

It's pretty much what I expected as well,

Ryzen seems very competitive for servers if yields are up and up.


But for the consumer.. if clockspeed doesn't get to 4.5-4.8 on the refresh..  Intel will still dominate the consumer space.

[Leslieann]

Ryzen seems very competitive for servers if yields are up and up.

But for the consumer.. if clockspeed doesn't get to 4.5-4.8 on the refresh..  Intel will still dominate the consumer space.

For servers, server centers tend to be MUCH more reserved, you need the infrastructure and a LOT of testing. Google isn't going to buy 5000 of these right out of the gate without serious testing. Saving money on efficiency if great, but not if a bug keep crashing the system. No one ever got fired buying Intel was an old saying and it still rings true. If you think best bang for the buck wins in the corporate environment, you obviously haven't dealt with enough sales reps, CIO's or heads of purchasing. You also apparently haven't heard of Intel's strong arm tactics where they pushed HP and Dell to not even carry AMD processors in exchange for kickbacks.

As for consumers...
AMD buyers (especially higher end ones)  tend to be all about bang for the buck, they aren't going to pay 40% more for a 2% increase (and neither should you!). You can throw mhz numbers around all day, no one cares except a small community who overclocks or those who actually REALLY need that last 2% and then some. If you doubt this, go look at how many gamers are using I5 and AMD processors as opposed to I7 processors.

[tp4tissue]

Ryzen seems very competitive for servers if yields are up and up.

But for the consumer.. if clockspeed doesn't get to 4.5-4.8 on the refresh..  Intel will still dominate the consumer space.

For servers, server centers tend to be MUCH more reserved, you need the infrastructure and a LOT of testing. Google isn't going to buy 5000 of these right out of the gate without serious testing. Saving money on efficiency if great, but not if a bug keep crashing the system. No one ever got fired buying Intel was an old saying and it still rings true. If you think best bang for the buck wins in the corporate environment, you obviously haven't dealt with enough sales reps, CIO's or heads of purchasing. You also apparently haven't heard of Intel's strong arm tactics where they pushed HP and Dell to not even carry AMD processors in exchange for kickbacks.

As for consumers...
AMD buyers (especially higher end ones)  tend to be all about bang for the buck, they aren't going to pay 40% more for a 2% increase (and neither should you!). You can throw mhz numbers around all day, no one cares except a small community who overclocks or those who actually REALLY need that last 2% and then some. If you doubt this, go look at how many gamers are using I5 and AMD processors as opposed to I7 processors.

They are not people.. they do not exist as you and I exist.

[Findecanor]

Hmm.. Steam's Hardware and Software Survey does not say how many are on i5 vs i7, but 22% of Windows users run AMD.

[Coreda]

fffffffffff..  now we gotta keep buying more bull**** intel motherboards

What's wrong with Intel tho, even you seem to be disappointed in AMD atm.

[noobas4urus]

fffffffffff..  now we gotta keep buying more bull**** intel motherboards

What's wrong with Intel tho, even you seem to be disappointed in AMD atm.

Everybody wants to root for the dark horse.  It's sucky when you need the performance and have to abandon them.

[FrostyToast]

What's wrong with intel is that they have been running around doing whatever they want because AMD is zero threat to them.
We need a competitor in the market because right now intel is pretty much unchallenged.

[Findecanor]

Hmm.. Apparently some reviewers had got motherboards with pre-production EFI that included old microcode that did not perform as well. It has primarily been with Asus and MSI motherboards where the reviewer didn't do an update before testing. Measurements on Gigabyte motherboards should be fine.

This still does not change anything overall, but it does explain why some reviews show somewhat lower scores than others.

[tp4tissue]

Hmm.. Apparently some reviewers had got motherboards with pre-production EFI that included old microcode that did not perform as well. It has primarily been with Asus and MSI motherboards where the reviewer didn't do an update before testing. Measurements on Gigabyte motherboards should be fine.

This still does not change anything overall, but it does explain why some reviews show somewhat lower scores than others.

The micro code nets maybe 1 to 5% gain.

AMD needs another 20-30% to sway a consumer purchase decision.


I think For productivity though.. Zen is a good move..    BUHHHHHH... I don't see why Intel can't price adjust to match.

[Leslieann]

They are not people.. they do not exist as you and I exist.

 
I guess this is the part where I whistle as I slowly walk away...

[tp4tissue]

They are not people.. they do not exist as you and I exist.

 
I guess this is the part where I whistle as I slowly walk away...

[Findecanor]

There is a theory going about that Windows gaming performance on Ryzen could be Windows OS's task scheduler moving threads between cores and between compute-complexes - which would cause unnecessary cache misses. This could explain some of the low core utilization compared to Intel.
It would be interesting to see if this really is an issue and if Microsoft will release a Windows update for Ryzen that would improve performance.

[tp4tissue]

There is a theory going about that Windows gaming performance on Ryzen could be Windows OS's task scheduler moving threads between cores and between compute-complexes - which would cause unnecessary cache misses. This could explain some of the low core utilization compared to Intel.
It would be interesting to see if this really is an issue and if Microsoft will release a Windows update for Ryzen that would improve performance.

the difference is small though.. it doesn't change the picture much..

fingers crossed for a quick refresh..    but AMD NEEDS CASH...

the issue is companies don't refresh their desktop all that often these days, because the last 10 years of i5 and i7s are more than fast enough..


So.... even if zen is a good replacement with more punch... the workplace is still slow to shift..




I hope intel just LETS amd have this opening for at least 2 years..

[xtrafrood]

Another issue brought up; AMD asked testers doing x99 comparisons to nerf a few x99 features that would give Intel an edge. Hearing this just crushed my initial impression of the rendering benchmarks. #sadfaceemoji

My new hope is AMD did this to match a prediction of how performance would be after software development implemented specific Ryzen 7 features (and bios..). Cuz science obviously.

[tp4tissue]

Another issue brought up; AMD asked testers doing x99 comparisons to nerf a few x99 features that would give Intel an edge. Hearing this just crushed my initial impression of the rendering benchmarks. #sadfaceemoji

My new hope is AMD did this to match a prediction of how performance would be after software development implemented specific Ryzen 7 features (and bios..). Cuz science obviously.

AMD fine wine IS REAL....

but can it net the 25%  AMD needs..


And this 25% is only what AMD needs if Intel does NOTHING..

If intel price adjusts..  there's nothing AMD can do to match besides bail out like 8350.

[Belfong]

After reading this, I’m sticking with 7700K. Have not been following the CPU games for years. I’m still using a Quad Core, can you believe it? I waited too long and will finally come on board with Kaby Lake. What’s a good mobo ? That Asus Maximums looked expensive.

[Findecanor]

the difference is small though.. it doesn't change the picture much..

Oh, you may be confusing it to when people disable SMT. When people did that some games got higher FPS, some games got lower FPS while others were not affected at all.

There is confirmation for the theory now!
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-9#post-38776310

This guy ran a program with 16 (operating system) threads and used a special program to force them to run all on a single compute-complex. That was significantly faster than having them scattered over both compute-complexes.

[Leslieann]

After reading this, I’m sticking with 7700K. Have not been following the CPU games for years. I’m still using a Quad Core, can you believe it? I waited too long and will finally come on board with Kaby Lake. What’s a good mobo ? That Asus Maximums looked expensive.

There's nothing wrong with choosing Intel, it's the "safe" choice here.

Asus ROG line is fantastic, but as you saw, expensive. Gigabyte is another good choice, Asrock is also not bad. For performance you want Z270 chipset.

Follow those, you should do fine.

[tp4tissue]

After reading this, I’m sticking with 7700K. Have not been following the CPU games for years. I’m still using a Quad Core, can you believe it? I waited too long and will finally come on board with Kaby Lake. What’s a good mobo ? That Asus Maximums looked expensive.

the more expensive boards have somewhat less buggy bios, because they go through longer validation..


Buhhhhhhhhh in terms of performance, you can get high OCs on all budget boards, because of how little power the chip is using overall..    ontop of the fact that there was little change in the 7xxx series chips, so the overclocking settings and optimizations have been tuned out, refined, and remain unchanged from the 6xxx series .

And unless you have 24/7 loads,  even lower vrm counts on the motherboards won't wear out..



Delid is still the most important aspect of buying intel 7700k..

[cribbit]

What's wrong with just buying cheap older gen Intel chips? Still by far the best $$$/performance you can get.

[Leslieann]

What's wrong with just buying cheap older gen Intel chips? Still by far the best $$$/performance you can get.

Nothing really, they can be an awesome value.
My 2600k was, and still performs fantastic. The person I sold it too, absolutely LOVES it.

Why upgrade then?
I wanted to switch to Mini-ITX and gain USB C and M.2 compatibility. I also wanted better Hackintosh compatibility.
It didn't hurt that after selling the 2600k I essentially got the processor and ram for free, I just had to buy a motherboard.

If you do go older, I don't recommend going older than 2nd gen. and the Z77 chipset. Z68 chipsets work just fine, but the USB 3.0 system is an add-on chip so it's not bootable in many cases (something to keep in mind) and UEFI was also brand new on Z68, most companies were still trying to figure it out and some gave up before getting it fully implemented.

If you go that old, I also recommend I7 and not I5.
While single thread performance isn't any better, hyperthreading and multi-core processing has matured since then, so while at the time of release there wasn't a huge difference between a 2500k and 2600k, that difference has grown since then, meanwhile their resale values have gotten closer, making the I7 a better value than it was when new. And while it's true, most games are still terrible at multi-core, not all are, and as time goes on, they will continue to get better. You may be buying an older processor, but you are still buying it for future use.

Get a 2600K with a Z77 board  and for the most part, the system is relatively modern by today's standards. It won't beat a new I7, but it still has more than has enough power for whatever you are likely to use it for. It may CPU bottleneck trying to game on multiple 4k screens, but if you can afford the video cards for that you can afford a newer processor as well.

Delid is still the most important aspect of buying intel 7700k..

And in my opinion the most moronic thing you can do with one.
"oh look I lowered my temps 1-2 degrees..."

And you risked killing a $300+ chip and voided the warranty, and for what? Wow, you gained a 0.5% increase on a benchmark. You risk a lot for very, very little in return.

If you are riding that overclock line to the extent that 1-2 degrees matter, you're pushing too hard and it WILL bite you at some point.
That said, it's your money.

[tp4tissue]

And in my opinion the most moronic thing you can do with one.
"oh look I lowered my temps 1-2 degrees..."

And you risked killing a $300+ chip and voided the warranty, and for what? Wow, you gained a 0.5% increase on a benchmark. You risk a lot for very, very little in return.

If you are riding that overclock line to the extent that 1-2 degrees matter, you're pushing too hard and it WILL bite you at some point.
That said, it's your money.

hahaha

No, delid is 15-25 Celcius difference for most chips.

[cribbit]

And in my opinion the most moronic thing you can do with one.
"oh look I lowered my temps 1-2 degrees..."

And you risked killing a $300+ chip and voided the warranty, and for what? Wow, you gained a 0.5% increase on a benchmark. You risk a lot for very, very little in return.

If you are riding that overclock line to the extent that 1-2 degrees matter, you're pushing too hard and it WILL bite you at some point.
That said, it's your money.

hahaha

No, delid is 15-25 Celcius difference for most chips.

Intel chips delidding is useful. AMD not so much, for zen.

[Leslieann]

And in my opinion the most moronic thing you can do with one.
"oh look I lowered my temps 1-2 degrees..."

And you risked killing a $300+ chip and voided the warranty, and for what? Wow, you gained a 0.5% increase on a benchmark. You risk a lot for very, very little in return.

If you are riding that overclock line to the extent that 1-2 degrees matter, you're pushing too hard and it WILL bite you at some point.
That said, it's your money.

hahaha

No, delid is 15-25 Celcius difference for most chips.

So it's going to drop me below room temp? Wow, Cool!!!
Why oh why did I buy that nice air cooler when I could have just used a stock block?


Temp drop or not, how much extra overclock do you get and what is that worth in terms of real world performance. Can you see it? Can you feel it? Very few things are cpu bottlenecked on a 7700k.

[tp4tissue]

And in my opinion the most moronic thing you can do with one.
"oh look I lowered my temps 1-2 degrees..."

And you risked killing a $300+ chip and voided the warranty, and for what? Wow, you gained a 0.5% increase on a benchmark. You risk a lot for very, very little in return.

If you are riding that overclock line to the extent that 1-2 degrees matter, you're pushing too hard and it WILL bite you at some point.
That said, it's your money.

hahaha

No, delid is 15-25 Celcius difference for most chips.

So it's going to drop me below room temp? Wow, Cool!!!
Why oh why did I buy that nice air cooler when I could have just used a stock block?


Temp drop or not, how much extra overclock do you get and what is that worth in terms of real world performance. Can you see it? Can you feel it? Very few things are cpu bottlenecked on a 7700k.

we're talking 15-25 Celcius on Load temps for most 7700k after delid.. this has been true since 3xxx series when delid first started.

SOME cpus come a little better, so you won't get as huge a delta,  but 10C off load is guaranteed from ANY delid.

That is significant enough to warrant the trouble..

As for risk.. 

It's not risky unless you're just that clumsy with your hands..  most adults are dexterous enough to pull it off..


As for Can you see it..   4.2 ghz vs 4.8ghz-5ghz is night and day in games..  outside of games, it also responds way faster due to increased memory performance from the OC.. which is substantial

[nubbinator]

Lol, no it's not TP.  A vast majority of games are GPU bound for people, not CPU bound.  You may notice a small benefit, but not a vast one.

[tp4tissue]

Lol, no it's not TP.  A vast majority of games are GPU bound for people, not CPU bound.  You may notice a small benefit, but not a vast one.

In 100% of games,  minimum framerate is determined by CPU frequency..

What overclocking gives you is not merely raw performance,  but also, a dramatic and NOTICEABLE improvement in gameplay Smoothness.

Both by raising minimum frame rate, AND reducing the probability of micro-stutter.. 


/Digital Connoisseur

[nubbinator]

Lol, no it's not TP.  A vast majority of games are GPU bound for people, not CPU bound.  You may notice a small benefit, but not a vast one.

In 100% of games,  minimum framerate is determined by CPU frequency..

What overclocking gives you is not merely raw performance,  but also, a dramatic and NOTICEABLE improvement in gameplay Smoothness.

Both by raising minimum frame rate, AND reducing the probability of micro-stutter.. 


/Digital Connoisseur

Again, not really TP.  If you look across a swath of games, you'll see that CPU clock speed has marginal impact on minimum framerate.  Look at Battlefield 1, For Honor, Titanfall 3, Gears of War 4, Doom, Dark Souls 3, The Division, Star Wars Battlefront, The Witcher 3, and I could pull up many others and use other sites as well.  There are games that can be CPU bound, generally RTS and some sim games, but you'll typically see a bigger hit from GPU in most games than CPU unless you have a dual core or an older chip...or a Bulldozer.

It can help sometimes with Crossfire or SLI, but it generally is not going to make a huge difference in minimum framerate. 

Any smoothness issues are almost always attributable to the GPU and drivers.  There have been issues in the past where hyperthreading caused scheduling issues, but, again, the CPU is not generally the culprit.

[tp4tissue]

Lol, no it's not TP.  A vast majority of games are GPU bound for people, not CPU bound.  You may notice a small benefit, but not a vast one.

In 100% of games,  minimum framerate is determined by CPU frequency..

What overclocking gives you is not merely raw performance,  but also, a dramatic and NOTICEABLE improvement in gameplay Smoothness.

Both by raising minimum frame rate, AND reducing the probability of micro-stutter.. 


/Digital Connoisseur

Again, not really TP.  If you look across a swath of games, you'll see that CPU clock speed has marginal impact on minimum framerate.  Look at Battlefield 1, For Honor, Titanfall 3, Gears of War 4, Doom, Dark Souls 3, The Division, Star Wars Battlefront, The Witcher 3, and I could pull up many others and use other sites as well.  There are games that can be CPU bound, generally RTS and some sim games, but you'll typically see a bigger hit from GPU in most games than CPU unless you have a dual core or an older chip...or a Bulldozer.

It can help sometimes with Crossfire or SLI, but it generally is not going to make a huge difference in minimum framerate. 

Any smoothness issues are almost always attributable to the GPU and drivers.  There have been issues in the past where hyperthreading caused scheduling issues, but, again, the CPU is not generally the culprit.

Take a look at those charts again..

In almost every case the cpu with faster clock speeds or more cores, or NEWER cpu with higher ipc, measured tangible increase in minimum and average framerate.


Now, they don't go into the frametime charts in most games..  But when we look at competitive csgo , there is a HUGE difference in frame times based on cpu frequency..

CS:Go nearly scales linearly with cpu frequency..

the Difference a cpu makes in game is not limited to RTS..   

GPU matters for eyecandy  ,  but the CPU is the glue which puts it all together..

[Niomosy]

Meh, it's AMD.  Most every time I went with AMD CPUs in the past when they were competitive, I ended up wishing I'd gone Intel.  Can't see myself having much any interest in trying them again until they're the clear winner at the time I need to buy.

[Skull_Angel]

[H]ard|OCP put a review up not too long ago as well. Overall consensus: traditional PC gaming - OCed Intel, VR gaming - Ryzen is totally competitive (VR seems to do very well with utilizing multiple cores), multi-threaded tasking (encoding/decoding/editing) - Ryzen is the price/core winner and competitive regardless due to a well tuned IMC.

[tp4tissue]

[H]ard|OCP put a review up not too long ago as well. Overall consensus: traditional PC gaming - OCed Intel, VR gaming - Ryzen is totally competitive (VR seems to do very well with utilizing multiple cores), multi-threaded tasking (encoding/decoding/editing) - Ryzen is the price/core winner and competitive regardless due to a well tuned IMC.

Zen @ the 8 core configuration @ $500 is a no go..

They should give us 12 cores @ $500,

for the 8core @ its current performance it should be $250 tops..

[xtrafrood]

Naples is now.

[tp4tissue]

Naples is now.

5 year plan..

[xtrafrood]

Naples is now.

5 year plan..

Naples is tomorrow..

[tp4tissue]

Naples is now.

5 year plan..

Naples is tomorrow..

u mean they built the datacenter already ?

[xtrafrood]

Naples is now.

5 year plan..

Naples is tomorrow..

u mean they built the datacenter already ?

You mentioned a five-year plan and AMD got scured. But seriously, what datacenter? iirc Naples is AMD's new line of server-oriented CPUs

[Skull_Angel]

[H]ard|OCP put a review up not too long ago as well. Overall consensus: traditional PC gaming - OCed Intel, VR gaming - Ryzen is totally competitive (VR seems to do very well with utilizing multiple cores), multi-threaded tasking (encoding/decoding/editing) - Ryzen is the price/core winner and competitive regardless due to a well tuned IMC.

Zen @ the 8 core configuration @ $500 is a no go..

They should give us 12 cores @ $500,

for the 8core @ its current performance it should be $250 tops..

Not arguing that it shouldn't be cheaper to draw in more ppl, but at half (or less than) the price of current 8-core Intel it creates accessible performance gains for multi-threaded tasks that can (more) properly use those extra cores. The increase in IMC performance seems to be the back-bone which Ryzen currently stands on, but unless they can make significant core clock gains in the future, they'll continue to trail further and further behind.

When it comes down to it, Intel needs competition to force them to up their game and/or reduce gouge in their prices; at least AMD is facing the right direction again, they just need a good kick in the pants to really step up.

[tp4tissue]

[H]ard|OCP put a review up not too long ago as well. Overall consensus: traditional PC gaming - OCed Intel, VR gaming - Ryzen is totally competitive (VR seems to do very well with utilizing multiple cores), multi-threaded tasking (encoding/decoding/editing) - Ryzen is the price/core winner and competitive regardless due to a well tuned IMC.

Zen @ the 8 core configuration @ $500 is a no go..

They should give us 12 cores @ $500,

for the 8core @ its current performance it should be $250 tops..

Not arguing that it shouldn't be cheaper to draw in more ppl, but at half (or less than) the price of current 8-core Intel it creates accessible performance gains for multi-threaded tasks that can (more) properly use those extra cores. The increase in IMC performance seems to be the back-bone which Ryzen currently stands on, but unless they can make significant core clock gains in the future, they'll continue to trail further and further behind.

When it comes down to it, Intel needs competition to force them to up their game and/or reduce gouge in their prices; at least AMD is facing the right direction again, they just need a good kick in the pants to really step up.

People should stop comparing PRICE to the 6900k..

Because just because the 6900k is poorly priced,  doesn't justify the 1800x @ $500

[Skull_Angel]

[H]ard|OCP put a review up not too long ago as well. Overall consensus: traditional PC gaming - OCed Intel, VR gaming - Ryzen is totally competitive (VR seems to do very well with utilizing multiple cores), multi-threaded tasking (encoding/decoding/editing) - Ryzen is the price/core winner and competitive regardless due to a well tuned IMC.

Zen @ the 8 core configuration @ $500 is a no go..

They should give us 12 cores @ $500,

for the 8core @ its current performance it should be $250 tops..

Not arguing that it shouldn't be cheaper to draw in more ppl, but at half (or less than) the price of current 8-core Intel it creates accessible performance gains for multi-threaded tasks that can (more) properly use those extra cores. The increase in IMC performance seems to be the back-bone which Ryzen currently stands on, but unless they can make significant core clock gains in the future, they'll continue to trail further and further behind.

When it comes down to it, Intel needs competition to force them to up their game and/or reduce gouge in their prices; at least AMD is facing the right direction again, they just need a good kick in the pants to really step up.

People should stop comparing PRICE to the 6900k..

Because just because the 6900k is poorly priced,  doesn't justify the 1800x @ $500

That's why I wasn't arguing that it shouldn't be cheaper. You can't tell me that price isn't a factor that makes Ryzen more accessible to people that can actually use the extra cores; role and budget determine the parts that go into a build (PC building 101).

Currently looking at [H] and PCPer, it seems that all 3 R7 chips are the same (binned differently, according to AMD based on voltage limitations/efficiency). So even with a possible (and slight, from current test results) clock limitation from 1700 to 1800x, most should look at the 1700 when considering Ryzen R7 for a workstation. That's effectively 1/3 the cost of Intel's current 8-core option, if I'm not mistaken. But, the fact is you should only consider options that meet your needs and are within your budget.

[xtrafrood]

If I can buy a $500 CPU I can probably afford a $1000/+ CPU. The way I see it, a $500 CPU might temp more people into trying a proper eight core CPU for fun or advancing a particular hobby whereas $1000/+ could be seen as a bit steep especially for people that know they won't see monetary gains in a year or sooner.

[swissdane23]

Hey, im back. What I miss? I've been watching a few videos and they be saying AMD is back. Is my i7 7700k still ok? My brother is wondering if he should upgrade is his core i7 4790k to one of dem r5 1600x chips when they come out.

[tp4tissue]

Hey, im back. What I miss? I've been watching a few videos and they be saying AMD is back. Is my i7 7700k still ok? My brother is wondering if he should upgrade is his core i7 4790k to one of dem r5 1600x chips when they come out.

NO.. he should not.

the new Zen 8 core optimize very SPECIFIC use case scenarios.


For what constitutes general computing, the intels are still better.

[cribbit]

Hey, im back. What I miss? I've been watching a few videos and they be saying AMD is back. Is my i7 7700k still ok? My brother is wondering if he should upgrade is his core i7 4790k to one of dem r5 1600x chips when they come out.

If your chip is anything newer than an i7 2600k you don't have to worry about upgrading this generation. The only reason to do so is if you have the disposable income to spare, desperately want DDR4 or M.2 SSDs, or need one of the new chipset features such as native 4k encoding. From a CPU performance standpoint the 2600k is fine, especially if you did a decent OC to it.

[tp4tissue]

Naples is now.

5 year plan..

Naples is tomorrow..

u mean they built the datacenter already ?

You mentioned a five-year plan and AMD got scured. But seriously, what datacenter? iirc Naples is AMD's new line of server-oriented CPUs

well, what i meant was,  the whole getting into servers is going to take 5 years at least, so 5 year plan.. i suppose it was a communication error.

[tp4tissue]

Hey, im back. What I miss? I've been watching a few videos and they be saying AMD is back. Is my i7 7700k still ok? My brother is wondering if he should upgrade is his core i7 4790k to one of dem r5 1600x chips when they come out.

If your chip is anything newer than an i7 2600k you don't have to worry about upgrading this generation. The only reason to do so is if you have the disposable income to spare, desperately want DDR4 or M.2 SSDs, or need one of the new chipset features such as native 4k encoding. From a CPU performance standpoint the 2600k is fine, especially if you did a decent OC to it.

i think 2600k is still good enough if you don't play any competitive games where the new gen would give you a sizable advantage in frame rates.   sandybridge is ~300fps in csgo,  kabylake is ~550-600fps

all the non-competitive games,  higher framerates (at least from the cpu side) isn't necessary

[digi]

Buy a PS4 and a 4k TV...press buttons from bed, don't have to sit upright or spend money on video cards that will be obsolete in 1 year.

[tp4tissue]

Buy a PS4 and a 4k TV...press buttons from bed, don't have to sit upright or spend money on video cards that will be obsolete in 1 year.

current upgrade cycle is 2.5 years..  hahaha..

[digi]

Buy a PS4 and a 4k TV...press buttons from bed, don't have to sit upright or spend money on video cards that will be obsolete in 1 year.

current upgrade cycle is 2.5 years..  hahaha..

Hey, I'm still on a GTX680! THAT'LL TEACH THEM!!! YEA!

[tp4tissue]

If they would've just priced the 1800x @ $250..  Everything would've went fine.. and the reviews would go, GOD TIER VALUE... Forget Intel, BUY AMD NOW..   but no.. they had to jump @ $500.. sigh.........

[tp4tissue]

Ryzen is like a mini-van..

Yes it seats more people, can carry more bags than a sports car.. 

BUT,  they've marketed the mini-van to young people, who don't have a family, and shop for 1 person, themselves..


In that way,  there's no reason to buy a mini-van for that market..



AND, now, it's an EXPENSIVE minivan which cost more than a sports car.. sigh.................



What they should've done, is went straight to the people who drove buses, and said,  HEY we got this new Mini-Bus..   buy one..


ALL the bus people would've went, wh000t,  new mini-bus..

[swissdane23]

Hey, im back. What I miss? I've been watching a few videos and they be saying AMD is back. Is my i7 7700k still ok? My brother is wondering if he should upgrade is his core i7 4790k to one of dem r5 1600x chips when they come out.

If your chip is anything newer than an i7 2600k you don't have to worry about upgrading this generation. The only reason to do so is if you have the disposable income to spare, desperately want DDR4 or M.2 SSDs, or need one of the new chipset features such as native 4k encoding. From a CPU performance standpoint the 2600k is fine, especially if you did a decent OC to it.

Thanks. My i7 7700k was getting a bit hot at 50 celsius when I was playing stuff like far cry primal and Biowatch Infinite. I dont know if thats normal(Is it?). So my technician friend recommended i trade out my ID Cooling 120L for a x62 kraken 280mm. Im having it shipped but i can cancel it if I should go for something else.

P.S. Im a writer. I don't know much about PCs and frames and stuff.

[swissdane23]

Hey, im back. What I miss? I've been watching a few videos and they be saying AMD is back. Is my i7 7700k still ok? My brother is wondering if he should upgrade is his core i7 4790k to one of dem r5 1600x chips when they come out.

NO.. he should not.

the new Zen 8 core optimize very SPECIFIC use case scenarios.


For what constitutes general computing, the intels are still better.

Should he spend his money elsewhere? Like a graphics card? His gtx 970 can still play games like Overwatch, DOOM and Revelations Online on ultra, but should he future proof?

[Porkins]

Hey, im back. What I miss? I've been watching a few videos and they be saying AMD is back. Is my i7 7700k still ok? My brother is wondering if he should upgrade is his core i7 4790k to one of dem r5 1600x chips when they come out.

If your chip is anything newer than an i7 2600k you don't have to worry about upgrading this generation. The only reason to do so is if you have the disposable income to spare, desperately want DDR4 or M.2 SSDs, or need one of the new chipset features such as native 4k encoding. From a CPU performance standpoint the 2600k is fine, especially if you did a decent OC to it.

Thanks. My i7 7700k was getting a bit hot at 50 celsius when I was playing stuff like far cry primal and Biowatch Infinite. I dont know if thats normal(Is it?). So my technician friend recommended i trade out my ID Cooling 120L for a x62 kraken 280mm. Im having it shipped but i can cancel it if I should go for something else.

P.S. Im a writer. I don't know much about PCs and frames and stuff.

50 degrees under load is not high at all. Mine is overclocked and hits 75 degrees or so when under load for a long time and it's fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tp4tissue]

Hey, im back. What I miss? I've been watching a few videos and they be saying AMD is back. Is my i7 7700k still ok? My brother is wondering if he should upgrade is his core i7 4790k to one of dem r5 1600x chips when they come out.

NO.. he should not.

the new Zen 8 core optimize very SPECIFIC use case scenarios.


For what constitutes general computing, the intels are still better.

Should he spend his money elsewhere? Like a graphics card? His gtx 970 can still play games like Overwatch, DOOM and Revelations Online on ultra, but should he future proof?

no such thing as future proof..

From the day you buy your graphics card..   count 2.5 years,  then buy a new one..  it's that simple.. hahahahaha

[swissdane23]

Hey, im back. What I miss? I've been watching a few videos and they be saying AMD is back. Is my i7 7700k still ok? My brother is wondering if he should upgrade is his core i7 4790k to one of dem r5 1600x chips when they come out.

NO.. he should not.

the new Zen 8 core optimize very SPECIFIC use case scenarios.


For what constitutes general computing, the intels are still better.

Should he spend his money elsewhere? Like a graphics card? His gtx 970 can still play games like Overwatch, DOOM and Revelations Online on ultra, but should he future proof?

no such thing as future proof..

From the day you buy your graphics card..   count 2.5 years,  then buy a new one..  it's that simple.. hahahahaha

My brother was contemplating if he should upgrade his core i7 4790 to a r5 1600x when it comes out. The r5 1600x is clocked similarly with the r7 1800x right? Does its smaller core count mean it will perform better in games?

[Findecanor]

I don't see any point for gaming in moving from four-core Haswell or better to Ryzen.
Get eight-core Ryzen if you want to game and want more horsepower for other things.
Get four-core Ryzen if you want to play games, have a limited budget and are upgrading from an older or underpowered system but don't need that much horsepower for rendering, video editing or whatever.

Six-core Ryzen is the really odd one. It is expected that it will have two computer-complexes with only three cores each, and therefore be even more limited by slow inter-CCX communication. It will therefore probably be worse for games than even four-core Ryzen. Get it only for well-parallelized programs.

Edit: I was wrong. The text above is invalid. Six-core Ryzen is going to be 3+3, four-core is going to be 2+2.
Yeah, I'm disappointed.

[tp4tissue]

I don't see any point for gaming in moving from four-core Haswell or better to Ryzen.
Get eight-core Ryzen if you want to game and want more horsepower for other things.
Get four-core Ryzen if you want to play games, have a limited budget and are upgrading from an older or underpowered system but don't need that much horsepower for rendering, video editing or whatever.

Six-core Ryzen is the really odd one. It is expected that it will have two computer-complexes with only three cores each, and therefore be even more limited by slow inter-CCX communication. It will therefore probably be worse for games than even four-core Ryzen. Get it only for well-parallelized programs.

Well it all depends on intel's move on the 8 core scenario.. it comes down to their pricing response


Single threaded IPC performance is only 1 of the limitations to final maximum framerate.


For example, if you got a special birds physics simulation running on a separate thread, you could include m0ar birds in the final frame if you had more cpu cores.

But those final frames will still be limited by the compositing thread for final output..



So, IN THE FUTURE,   if games decide to increase object variety and interactive presence, MORE cores will cater to that type of bottle neck

But a Faster Core will always be the bottle neck at the compositing stage..



For example,  GTA V is the best demonstration of this effect,  It has tons of things optimized for 8 cores to do, in attempt to maximize interactive objects.

So, on ryzen @ only 4ghz, the minimum FPS is 2x greater than the 7700k @ 5ghz..

In this game specifically,  the threaded processing is a form of bottlenecking.

But, if we look at the Maximum Framerate of the same GTA V,  we notice the 7700k well outpaces the 4ghz ryzen, because the Compositing thread where onscreen object loads are minimal, operates much faster on the higher single core speeds.



This is a balance between software and hardware.



Overall, AMD has done its job in getting there..   Even if the pricing is not optimal for market penetration on the Gamer side.


That said, gamers are a very small segment of cpu earnings, so I suppose AMD only needs from that segment is publicity as proof of concept..

The real money will be made in Enterprise..

[swissdane23]

I don't see any point for gaming in moving from four-core Haswell or better to Ryzen.
Get eight-core Ryzen if you want to game and want more horsepower for other things.
Get four-core Ryzen if you want to play games, have a limited budget and are upgrading from an older or underpowered system but don't need that much horsepower for rendering, video editing or whatever.

Six-core Ryzen is the really odd one. It is expected that it will have two computer-complexes with only three cores each, and therefore be even more limited by slow inter-CCX communication. It will therefore probably be worse for games than even four-core Ryzen. Get it only for well-parallelized programs.

So the 6 core is worse than the 4 core in gaming? Then why is it priced higher?(im just putting it out there im not a computer expert by any means.) Everybody in my local computer gaming community in the city is hyping up the r5 1600x as the "redemption" and "sweet spot" for gaming. They said AMD claimed it will be better than the core i5 7600k by 69%. I just dont understand all the hype if its performance cant match it. It has to right?

[tp4tissue]

I don't see any point for gaming in moving from four-core Haswell or better to Ryzen.
Get eight-core Ryzen if you want to game and want more horsepower for other things.
Get four-core Ryzen if you want to play games, have a limited budget and are upgrading from an older or underpowered system but don't need that much horsepower for rendering, video editing or whatever.

Six-core Ryzen is the really odd one. It is expected that it will have two computer-complexes with only three cores each, and therefore be even more limited by slow inter-CCX communication. It will therefore probably be worse for games than even four-core Ryzen. Get it only for well-parallelized programs.

So the 6 core is worse than the 4 core in gaming? Then why is it priced higher?(im just putting it out there im not a computer expert by any means.) Everybody in my local computer gaming community in the city is hyping up the r5 1600x as the "redemption" and "sweet spot" for gaming. They said AMD claimed it will be better than the core i5 7600k by 69%. I just dont understand all the hype if its performance cant match it. It has to right?

No it will not match the 7700k or 7600k performance in MOST games.

it WILL however be better for GTAV,   which is the only current game that works better on ryzen

[Findecanor]

The total computing power will be higher with 6 cores than with 4 four, but for applications where fast communication between threads is important, three cores/CCX is expected to be slower than four cores/CCX at the same clock.
Also, the four-core 1500X will be clocked lower than the 1600X by default, but people have been able to overclock the 1700 and 1700X to be as fast as the 1800X.
But we'll see. This is mostly speculation. All details are not out yet, and what matters is real-world performance in real games, which could differ a bit from game to game. I am also hoping that there will be some updates for games and Windows' own scheduler with optimizations for Ryzen.

[Krakob]

I'm still excited just for the 8 cores. If software and firmware fixes are coming, I'm absolutely sold.

[cribbit]

The total computing power will be higher with 6 cores than with 4 four, but for applications where fast communication between threads is important, three cores/CCX is expected to be slower than four cores/CCX at the same clock.
Also, the four-core 1500X will be clocked lower than the 1600X by default, but people have been able to overclock the 1700 and 1700X to be as fast as the 1800X.
But we'll see. This is mostly speculation. All details are not out yet, and what matters is real-world performance in real games, which could differ a bit from game to game. I am also hoping that there will be some updates for games and Windows' own scheduler with optimizations for Ryzen.

Be careful with statements like "to be as fast as ____". Remember, the 1800x can also OC. The thing that needs to be looked at is whether they both OC to the same level or if the 1800x has higher headroom.

[tp4tissue]

The total computing power will be higher with 6 cores than with 4 four, but for applications where fast communication between threads is important, three cores/CCX is expected to be slower than four cores/CCX at the same clock.
Also, the four-core 1500X will be clocked lower than the 1600X by default, but people have been able to overclock the 1700 and 1700X to be as fast as the 1800X.
But we'll see. This is mostly speculation. All details are not out yet, and what matters is real-world performance in real games, which could differ a bit from game to game. I am also hoping that there will be some updates for games and Windows' own scheduler with optimizations for Ryzen.

Be careful with statements like "to be as fast as ____". Remember, the 1800x can also OC. The thing that needs to be looked at is whether they both OC to the same level or if the 1800x has higher headroom.

NONE of the current zen iterations have much OC headroom.

They all top at 4.1 or so...  and they all come stock at almost 4..

[JaccoW]

NONE of the current zen iterations have much OC headroom.

They all top at 4.1 or so...  and they all come stock at almost 4..

1800x @ 5.35 Ghz - LNI breaks 8-core world record.

Besides, I think some software updates by various hardware makers will improve performance in the near future. Just see what a few tweaks do in F1 2016.

It's still competitive: Does Ryzen 7 REALLY suck for gamers? - JayzTwoCents

So I'm still excited for a build with a 1700 and a good GPU. Because that sounds like it's still a pretty damn good setup when it comes to spending money.

[tp4tissue]

NONE of the current zen iterations have much OC headroom.

They all top at 4.1 or so...  and they all come stock at almost 4..

1800x @ 5.35 Ghz - LNI breaks 8-core world record.

Besides, I think some software updates by various hardware makers will improve performance in the near future. Just see what a few tweaks do in F1 2016.

It's still competitive: Does Ryzen 7 REALLY suck for gamers? - JayzTwoCents

So I'm still excited for a build with a 1700 and a good GPU. Because that sounds like it's still a pretty damn good setup when it comes to spending money.

Suicide run on nitrogen = meaningless..

0 oc head room in all iterations of current productline..


That F1 2016 also is pointless,  because it's only a 35% increase relative to Their originally flawed benchmark run, NOT an improvement relative to what it should've benched,  WHICH is still much lower than intel for gaming.



If you  had money today, you would NOT buy zen.. PERIOD..

[JaccoW]

Suicide run on nitrogen = meaningless..

0 oc head room in all iterations of current productline..


That F1 2016 also is pointless,  because it's only a 35% increase relative to Their originally flawed benchmark run, NOT an improvement relative to what it should've benched,  WHICH is still much lower than intel for gaming.

If you  had money today, you would NOT buy zen.. PERIOD..

Then how about a Ryzen 7 1700 vs i5 6600k test where the Ryzen is just chilling @ 20-50% CPU vs. 70-95%.
I believe there are some serious optimization improvements to be seen here.

I like Intel CPUs as well, I mean I built a video editing machine for my parents last year using a 6700K. But now that I am thinking of upgrading my aging Intel C2Q Q9550 to something faster, more energy efficient and not overly expensive as I simply don't have much time to game anymore, why not go for something that offers excellent (not very best) performance at a decent price?
At 65W TDP even so it's quiet in a uATX case?

I'll be looking at it in a few months and while different pricing schemes might change the field by then it looks like a good choice.

[cribbit]

Suicide run on nitrogen = meaningless..

0 oc head room in all iterations of current productline..


That F1 2016 also is pointless,  because it's only a 35% increase relative to Their originally flawed benchmark run, NOT an improvement relative to what it should've benched,  WHICH is still much lower than intel for gaming.

If you  had money today, you would NOT buy zen.. PERIOD..

Then how about a Ryzen 7 1700 vs i5 6600k test where the Ryzen is just chilling @ 20-50% CPU vs. 70-95%.
I believe there are some serious optimization improvements to be seen here.

I like Intel CPUs as well, I mean I built a video editing machine for my parents last year using a 6700K. But now that I am thinking of upgrading my aging Intel C2Q Q9550 to something faster, more energy efficient and not overly expensive as I simply don't have much time to game anymore, why not go for something that offers excellent (not very best) performance at a decent price?
At 65W TDP even so it's quiet in a uATX case?

I'll be looking at it in a few months and while different pricing schemes might change the field by then it looks like a good choice.

You're comparing an 8 core CPU to a 4 core CPU on a game that only uses a couple of threads. A single core on the i5 is faster than a single core on the 1700, which is what gives it better performance when the task only needs a couple of cores. The remaining cores on the 1700 make it show a lower overall % of CPU used - but there's no actual way for the game to utilize that extra headroom.

Thankfully, game developers are getting better and better at using multiple threads, especially for VR stuff.

[swissdane23]

So I went to my local computer shop and they were testing out one of their Ryzen builds(In my city you have to pre-order it, most of the shops arent taking the risk in stocking up on Ryzen procies like Intel). It was a r7 1700x. So they tried out the RGB Wraith cooler thing. It was idle on 60c. Is that normal? They tried putting it through a few games and programs and it reached around 84c. The room had aircon doh. A aftermarket cooler is all you need to solve that problem right? My brother is still on the edge whether that jump from a core i7 4790 to a r7 1700x will be worth it with all the talk about optimization and updates and what not.

[tp4tissue]

So I went to my local computer shop and they were testing out one of their Ryzen builds(In my city you have to pre-order it, most of the shops arent taking the risk in stocking up on Ryzen procies like Intel). It was a r7 1700x. So they tried out the RGB Wraith cooler thing. It was idle on 60c. Is that normal? They tried putting it through a few games and programs and it reached around 84c. The room had aircon doh. A aftermarket cooler is all you need to solve that problem right? My brother is still on the edge whether that jump from a core i7 4790 to a r7 1700x will be worth it with all the talk about optimization and updates and what not.

It's down 25-30% in most games vs a new 7700k build.

Software tweaks within 1.5 to 2 years might net 5-15% tops.

Maybe we could squeeze out another 100-150mhz (possssible) given more mature motherboard tunings..
 
The very very best, 10-20%  performance boost within 1.5 to 2 years..



Here's why that's NOT worth it..

Because you can Buy a 7700k TODAY for less money.... and have a 30% more game performance TODAY...




Now,  assuming you're crazy, and you don't buy intel..

You buy AMD..   You wait 2 years,  and you get your 10-20% boost..

So what..  the CPU has already been refreshed twice.. and the new cpu clocks higher..

So you can get to that next 30% maybe even 35% boost..   But, this would be ridiculous, because your upfront cost is higher, AND with the additional upgrade cost..

By buying zen now,  then upgrade at 2 years to zen+,  You've paid roughly $300-500 more for a SLOWER CPU within this time span.

[JaccoW]

So I went to my local computer shop and they were testing out one of their Ryzen builds(In my city you have to pre-order it, most of the shops arent taking the risk in stocking up on Ryzen procies like Intel). It was a r7 1700x. So they tried out the RGB Wraith cooler thing. It was idle on 60c. Is that normal? They tried putting it through a few games and programs and it reached around 84c. The room had aircon doh. A aftermarket cooler is all you need to solve that problem right? My brother is still on the edge whether that jump from a core i7 4790 to a r7 1700x will be worth it with all the talk about optimization and updates and what not.

The answer according to Ryzen 1700 60c on Idle? - Reddit: "No"
Probably a motherboard that needs a software update because it is reading something wrong. See my link below. The 1700x and 1800x need to substract 20C.
And if they checked in BIOS... that is not idle.
EDIT: AMD's Ryzen CPUs Aren't Running As Hot As They Say They Are - Kotaku

As for the jump, it depends on what he uses it for.
Gaming? Then it is doubtful. Most modern games have a GPU bottleneck, even with a GTX1080 TI. If he does streaming however it does make a difference.
Video editing or other heavily multithreaded programs? Hell yes. Speed increases up 60%.

It has slightly worse power consumption than a 7700K but both will be a step up from his old CPU.

[tp4tissue]

Video editing or other heavily multithreaded programs? Hell yes. Speed increases up 60%.

I find the current argument for Zen being superior for productivity to be untrue for most use cases.


For example

Video editing.

If this is your job, and you need things done TODAY,  you would have those work provided mainframes to do it. 



If you're an amateur @ home videographer,  the Zen will not appreciably speed up composites.. 

If you got a 2 hour job on the 7700k in handbreak.

On zen,  that' turns into 1 hour..   

If you got a 4 hour job, 

On zen, that turns into 2 hours..


In MOST of these cases,  if you're not a professional with time constraints,  Waiting 2 hours or waiting 1 hour is not that different,  because in either case,  you'd click RUN,    and go do something else (dinner) and come back..


The zen has m0ar power for multithreaded apps, but it' doesn't have That-Much-More to make a worthwhile difference in use..


Let's say you're compressing a file,  ok great.. Zen makes that faster..   

How often do people even compress super large files..   

And if they did.. Again, if it took 2 hours or an hour, or even half an hour.. So what.. just have a cookie in the meantime and let it run..


So, Zen's increased multithread ability does not meaningfully improve typical multithreaded compute heavy tasks,  while it suffers a Severe penalty for all tasks outside of these extended compute scenarios.





Outside of the Aspiring (cheapskate/ Broke) youtube star..  Zen just isn't a good buy..

The only other niche win for Zen is GTA V..  which i suppppose you could argue building a new computer for 1 game..  but.. that's on some weird epic gta fan logic, and not practical for anyone else.

[sems]

I don't get this topic at all. Is it supposed to a personal journal about tp4tissue's personal feelings?

[tp4tissue]

I don't get this topic at all. Is it supposed to a personal journal about tp4tissue's personal feelings?

Hahahaha...


It started as a speculation thread, BEFORE zen came out..


But Now I am trying to dispel the CONFUSION around Zen's actual performance..


It's a no-go from the current buyer's perspective..



But watch out on enterprise.. Zen will work great for that..

[fanpeople]

I don't get this topic at all. Is it supposed to a personal journal about tp4tissue's personal feelings?

its a tp thread, its kind of like satire mixed with a bit of slapstick. But advertised as being a documentary, just dont confuse it with a mockumentary.

[tp4tissue]

I don't get this topic at all. Is it supposed to a personal journal about tp4tissue's personal feelings?

its a tp thread, its kind of like satire mixed with a bit of slapstick. But advertised as being a documentary, just dont confuse it with a mockumentary.

Tp4 has always thought of Tp4 threads as   __ Truth + 4__

[Findecanor]

Gah, I was wrong!
Several outlets are now reporting that 1600X and 1600 are going to be 3+3 cores (two CCX with one core disabled in each) like predicted.
However, the 1500X is going to be 2+2 cores spread over two CCX'es, probably the same chip as all the others just with two cores per CCX disabled.
I had been hoping for four cores on one CCX. Very disappointing!

[tp4tissue]

Gah, I was wrong!
Several outlets are now reporting that 1600X and 1600 are going to be 3+3 cores (two CCX with one core disabled in each) like predicted.
However, the 1500X is going to be 2+2 cores spread over two CCX'es, probably the same chip as all the others just with two cores per CCX disabled.
I had been hoping for four cores on one CCX. Very disappointing!

this probably won't make a difference relative to games.. the latency is not what's dropping frames. it's the low jigahertz

[swissdane23]

Gah, I was wrong!
Several outlets are now reporting that 1600X and 1600 are going to be 3+3 cores (two CCX with one core disabled in each) like predicted.
However, the 1500X is going to be 2+2 cores spread over two CCX'es, probably the same chip as all the others just with two cores per CCX disabled.
I had been hoping for four cores on one CCX. Very disappointing!

this probably won't make a difference relative to games.. the latency is not what's dropping frames. it's the low jigahertz

but people on dem AMD forums ive been to have been saying them jigahertz(r5 1600x) will hit 4.3 when you OC(probably).

[tp4tissue]

Gah, I was wrong!
Several outlets are now reporting that 1600X and 1600 are going to be 3+3 cores (two CCX with one core disabled in each) like predicted.
However, the 1500X is going to be 2+2 cores spread over two CCX'es, probably the same chip as all the others just with two cores per CCX disabled.
I had been hoping for four cores on one CCX. Very disappointing!

this probably won't make a difference relative to games.. the latency is not what's dropping frames. it's the low jigahertz

but people on dem AMD forums ive been to have been saying them jigahertz(r5 1600x) will hit 4.3 when you OC(probably).

that's not enough to close the gap.

[Binge]

Gah, I was wrong!
Several outlets are now reporting that 1600X and 1600 are going to be 3+3 cores (two CCX with one core disabled in each) like predicted.
However, the 1500X is going to be 2+2 cores spread over two CCX'es, probably the same chip as all the others just with two cores per CCX disabled.
I had been hoping for four cores on one CCX. Very disappointing!

this probably won't make a difference relative to games.. the latency is not what's dropping frames. it's the low jigahertz

but people on dem AMD forums ive been to have been saying them jigahertz(r5 1600x) will hit 4.3 when you OC(probably).

that's not enough to close the gap.

I've experienced this first hand for years.  I'm kind of tired of AMD hyping anything they do :-/  They should hype what you can do on a budget, but stay away from enthusiast grade benchmarks.  If they gave people an air of reliability to play the 'favorite games' and not the bleeding edge then they would grab fans who favor that idea of stability, but even then it's hoping for too much.  Their drivers and support are years behind intel :-/

[digi]

Gah, I was wrong!
Several outlets are now reporting that 1600X and 1600 are going to be 3+3 cores (two CCX with one core disabled in each) like predicted.
However, the 1500X is going to be 2+2 cores spread over two CCX'es, probably the same chip as all the others just with two cores per CCX disabled.
I had been hoping for four cores on one CCX. Very disappointing!

this probably won't make a difference relative to games.. the latency is not what's dropping frames. it's the low jigahertz

but people on dem AMD forums ive been to have been saying them jigahertz(r5 1600x) will hit 4.3 when you OC(probably).

that's not enough to close the gap.

I've experienced this first hand for years.  I'm kind of tired of AMD hyping anything they do :-/  They should hype what you can do on a budget, but stay away from enthusiast grade benchmarks.  If they gave people an air of reliability to play the 'favorite games' and not the bleeding edge then they would grab fans who favor that idea of stability, but even then it's hoping for too much.  Their drivers and support are years behind intel :-/

Bingie is spot on!

[swissdane23]

Gah, I was wrong!
Several outlets are now reporting that 1600X and 1600 are going to be 3+3 cores (two CCX with one core disabled in each) like predicted.
However, the 1500X is going to be 2+2 cores spread over two CCX'es, probably the same chip as all the others just with two cores per CCX disabled.
I had been hoping for four cores on one CCX. Very disappointing!

this probably won't make a difference relative to games.. the latency is not what's dropping frames. it's the low jigahertz

but people on dem AMD forums ive been to have been saying them jigahertz(r5 1600x) will hit 4.3 when you OC(probably).

that's not enough to close the gap.

I've experienced this first hand for years.  I'm kind of tired of AMD hyping anything they do :-/  They should hype what you can do on a budget, but stay away from enthusiast grade benchmarks.  If they gave people an air of reliability to play the 'favorite games' and not the bleeding edge then they would grab fans who favor that idea of stability, but even then it's hoping for too much.  Their drivers and support are years behind intel :-/

Bingie is spot on!

I didn't know AMD has been hyping stuff up for a long time(no sarcasm). I just thought all of the buzz and the articles everybody is posting had to mean it was going to outperform intel.
My friends have been posting stuff on FB saying "Intel ****s Bricks" and "Intel Get Wrecked". And there I was sitting with a core i7 7700k feeling bad.
I know this is off-topic but is the picture on your profile an Artisan Keycap? If it is, could you tell me which one? I'd kill to have that on my Lambo 60.

[tp4tissue]

I didn't know AMD has been hyping stuff up for a long time(no sarcasm). I just thought all of the buzz and the articles everybody is posting had to mean it was going to outperform intel.
My friends have been posting stuff on FB saying "Intel ****s Bricks" and "Intel Get Wrecked". And there I was sitting with a core i7 7700k feeling bad.
I know this is off-topic but is the picture on your profile an Artisan Keycap? If it is, could you tell me which one? I'd kill to have that on my Lambo 60.

hahahaha..... no, intel's still on top.. it's just the 6900k that is poop brix..    But even then, it's a pricing anomaly, rather than any performance deficit..

[cribbit]

I didn't know AMD has been hyping stuff up for a long time(no sarcasm). I just thought all of the buzz and the articles everybody is posting had to mean it was going to outperform intel.
My friends have been posting stuff on FB saying "Intel ****s Bricks" and "Intel Get Wrecked". And there I was sitting with a core i7 7700k feeling bad.
I know this is off-topic but is the picture on your profile an Artisan Keycap? If it is, could you tell me which one? I'd kill to have that on my Lambo 60.

hahahaha..... no, intel's still on top.. it's just the 6900k that is poop brix..    But even then, it's a pricing anomaly, rather than any performance deficit..

To be fair, CPUs are generally only considered for their $$$/performance ratio.

I'm curious what % of CPU price is recouping R&D and what % is actual production cost.

[swissdane23]

Any news on how r5 faired against the i5 7600k?

[tp4tissue]

Any news on how r5 faired against the i5 7600k?

Zen is no-go at ANY price..

Do Not Buy.


exception.. You're an aspiring utube star.. ONLY buy the 1700x, do not get any of the other iterations.

[sems]

1600 and 1700 @ 4ghz with 3600mhz rams matches 7700k @5ghz for single core performance. Multiplies it for multi core. Paying the same price for 4c8t cpu, when you can get 6c12t or 8c16t cpu for the same money or less, is pointless even if you don't go for 3600mhz rams. I hope they solve the ram compability problem and the stability issues soon. New architecture is definitely promising, especially excited about APUs.

[tp4tissue]

1600 and 1700 @ 4ghz with 3600mhz rams matches 7700k @5ghz for single core performance. Multiplies it for multi core. Paying the same price for 4c8t cpu, when you can get 6c12t or 8c16t cpu for the same money or less, is pointless even if you don't go for 3600mhz rams. I hope they solve the ram compability problem and the stability issues soon. New architecture is definitely promising, especially excited about APUs.

NO IT DOES NOT..     The results of the youtube test is wildly misinterpreted..

Those youtube game tests you're refering to are all games which don't rely heavily on single core ipc ..


Pop in CSGO,   That is the determinant of Gaming performance.. ryzen is NOT getting anywhere near what 7700k is getting.

Ryzen in CSGO, gets around 300 average, 450 max..  7700k gets 500 average, 650 max..


Why,  PRECISELY because it's not programmed/optimized  for multicore..





So look at it this way..  When you game,  you want Maximum FPS..


But there is a kink in this process which is unique to games,  in that the frames are viewed by humans.

So the final output is always 1 thread.. the Compositing stage..  funneled out to 1 output.


This final component of any game will be dependent upon single core performance.  Games of this variety, CSGO, Dota, Starcraft




Explained another way.  Lets say you have 8 cores,  you run a 700 physics bird sims on the 7 cores, and 1 composite thread on the remaining core.

So each core runs 100 bird simulations

OK..   a 4 core cpu... will generate less frames in the case that your engine enforces an amount of 700 birds, because its ipc would have to be 233% greater than the 8 core ryzen, which is not possible..

So this type of bottleneck situation happens in games like GTA and Crysis, where many things are threaded out, and then brought back in compositing.. where the Ryzen outperforms on average..

--- keep in mind, most games are not going to move forward like gta and crysis, because reducing CPU processing cost is important due to console development ---

ontop of,    cpu simmed objects simply not improving the artistry in most games, and are wasteful..



But to recommend Ryzen is to assume all the games going forward is going to rely heavily on CPU physics and sims,    WHICH is not the case..  Most games are moving AWAY from cpu heavy processes..





Then we move onto the competitive gaming scene, the games MOST PEOPLE PLAY, and PLAY ALOT OF...  1080p and even 720p with all eye candy stuff turned down or off..   This is the true test of gaming metal..   because it pushes the bottleneck onto that single core ipc.. because now you turned off all your bird physics, extra object physics, etc..    In the PRO gaming arena, Intel is superior by 30-50% more fps







I don't recommend anyone buy a Zen,  and Unless you need to buy something today, I don't recommend anyone buy a 7700k either.


Wait for intel's new series of processors with more cores to see the price shake up..

But the stance on Zen is firm..  No-Go @ any price..

[Leslieann]

Wait for intel's new series of processors with more cores to see the price shake up..

I wish I could be that optimistic, but I've been in this industry too long.

[tp4tissue]

Wait for intel's new series of processors with more cores to see the price shake up..

I wish I could be that optimistic, but I've been in this industry too long.

Looking at the current pricing..

For intel their xseries , 8 core is going to be above $500 and maybe a 6 core @ 300-400 which will force the zen 1800x to 200..

[iLLucionist]

i dunno. AMD says Ryzen is more affordable. But for gaming at least 7700K is enough and not that expensive right?

Ryzen is... you know... almost competitive. But not enough. Intel doesn't need to worry that much. Which I hate coz my i7 6700k already feels "normal" after 6 months.

[tp4tissue]

i dunno. AMD says Ryzen is more affordable. But for gaming at least 7700K is enough and not that expensive right?

Ryzen is... you know... almost competitive. But not enough. Intel doesn't need to worry that much. Which I hate coz my i7 6700k already feels "normal" after 6 months.

We just need to wait for intel to respond..

Zen is clearly designed well for data centers..  and it will perform great in tailored settings..

But it is not good for general purpose right now..   when intel code path has been optimized so much over the years by software programmers ..


For example on solidwurkz, intel beats ryzen on (not all) but most tasks even though it's a productivity software which does leverage multicore...


and solid wurks is defacto standard,  same with creo... 


In the future , ryzen might get optimized too,   but if you're buying now,  why would you buy into a platform that no one yet supports, when you can get better performance out of the intel, which is even cheaper.

[iLLucionist]

i dunno. AMD says Ryzen is more affordable. But for gaming at least 7700K is enough and not that expensive right?

Ryzen is... you know... almost competitive. But not enough. Intel doesn't need to worry that much. Which I hate coz my i7 6700k already feels "normal" after 6 months.

We just need to wait for intel to respond..

Zen is clearly designed well for data centers..  and it will perform great in tailored settings..

But it is not good for general purpose right now..   when intel code path has been optimized so much over the years by software programmers ..


For example on solidwurkz, intel beats ryzen on (not all) but most tasks even though it's a productivity software which does leverage multicore...


and solid wurks is defacto standard,  same with creo... 


In the future , ryzen might get optimized too,   but if you're buying now,  why would you buy into a platform that no one yet supports, when you can get better performance out of the intel, which is even cheaper.

I do digital photography... lightroom doesn't utilize more than about 4 cores at this point. IF adobe would optimize lightroom things with ryzen could get interesting.

[tp4tissue]

I do digital photography... lightroom doesn't utilize more than about 4 cores at this point. IF adobe would optimize lightroom things with ryzen could get interesting.

for sure.. but the question is now ,  WHEN..

they take their damn time on these hahahaha.