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

[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.