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?
The clock speeds listed in the original charts were base clocks for Intel CPUs - they were, therefore, wrong.
The updated graphic:Show Image(https://cdn.videocardz.com/1/2017/02/AMD-Ryzen-CPU-3DMark-Physics-Per-Core.png)
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.
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..
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 :-X
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 :-X
it's bad relative to what you can buy with the same money, if zen is going to cost $300-500
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 :-X
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
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/ (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..
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..
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
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
@ 3.7,, IF NOT-Fake, then it matches skylake 1:1
http://imgur.com/a/VnE7y
Hot damn.
Hm. This might be worth building most of a new pc for...
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.
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).
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.
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 :p (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.
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 :p (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).
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).
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. :)
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..
> 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"
Show Image(http://i.imgur.com/wNW8QC7.jpg)
Reusing gtx970, power supply, back up ssd and hdd.
Not really.. if you already have something POST sandybridge, it's not worth upgrading ..Yes and no.
This. So much this.
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.
Show Image(http://i.imgur.com/wNW8QC7.jpg)
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
I am anxiously awaiting some real reviews ... or for intel prices to go down.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.
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!
I am anxiously awaiting some real reviews ... or for intel prices to go down.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.
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!
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.
So, competition is good relative to the consumer, but AMD is no more virtuous a seller..
It's important to keep in mind, that there are NO GOOD GUYS, in this..I can't remember ever paying more for AMD than I have for Intel, even when AMD was in the lead.
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..
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 :thumb: .
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)
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.
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..
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..
Now, what's AMD to do.. they go down another price tier ? What is so compelling about AMD exactly..
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)
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..
No, they don't need to hit that overclock, overclocking is a selling point to enthusiasts, the average person doesn't care.
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..
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.
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.
It takes about a year to build a data center, and another year of tweaking to get it to not bug-out..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.
AMD has at maximum , that 2 years to Compel a switch..
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
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!
Intel has already dropped some prices - http://hothardware.com/news/intel-reacting-to-amd-ryzen-apparently-cutting-prices-on-core-i7That is just Microcenter. It is too early to see a trend.
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
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
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
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.
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
Aw, the real show is yet to come
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
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!
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
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..
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
AMD IS FOR N00BS TP!!
AMD IS FOR N00BS TP!!
INTEL is for FELCHERS, get use to that fact 8) .
AMD IS FOR N00BS TP!!
INTEL is for FELCHERS, get use to that fact 8) .
AMD N00B detected, amber alert! amber alert!!
I LOVE Felchers!
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.
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.
I find that the Ryzen is almost precisely what was expected.It's pretty much what I expected as well, and that's actually good, for the exact reasons you stated.
The chips have not overclocked very easily, but that may change.
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..
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.
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.
fffffffffff.. now we gotta keep buying more bull**** intel motherboards
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.
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.
They are not people.. they do not exist as you and I exist.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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!!!
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.
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.
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.
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
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 (http://www.techspot.com/review/1267-battlefield-1-benchmarks/page4.html), For Honor (http://www.techspot.com/review/1333-for-honor-benchmarks/page3.html), Titanfall 3 (http://www.techspot.com/review/1271-titanfall-2-pc-benchmarks/page3.html), Gears of War 4 (http://www.techspot.com/review/1263-gears-of-war-4-benchmarks/page4.html), Doom (http://www.techspot.com/review/1173-doom-benchmarks/page5.html), Dark Souls 3 (http://www.techspot.com/review/1162-dark-souls-3-benchmarks/page5.html), The Division (http://www.techspot.com/review/1148-tom-clancys-the-division-benchmarks/page5.html), Star Wars Battlefront (http://www.techspot.com/review/1096-star-wars-battlefront-benchmarks/page3.html), The Witcher 3 (http://www.techspot.com/review/1006-the-witcher-3-benchmarks/page5.html), 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.
[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.
Naples is now.
Naples is now.
5 year plan..
Naples is now.
5 year plan..
Naples is tomorrow..
Naples is now.
5 year plan..
Naples is tomorrow..
u mean they built the datacenter already ?
[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..
[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.
[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
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.
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.
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
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.
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. ;D
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. ;D
current upgrade cycle is 2.5 years.. hahaha..
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.1800x @ 5.35 Ghz - LNI (https://www.techpowerup.com/231265/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cracks-cinebench-r15-world-record-at-5-36-ghz) breaks 8-core world record.
They all top at 4.1 or so... and they all come stock at almost 4..
NONE of the current zen iterations have much OC headroom.1800x @ 5.35 Ghz - LNI (https://www.techpowerup.com/231265/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cracks-cinebench-r15-world-record-at-5-36-ghz) breaks 8-core world record.
They all top at 4.1 or so... and they all come stock at almost 4..
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 (https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2017/03/14/tips-for-building-a-better-amd-ryzen-system?sf62307686=1).
It's still competitive: Does Ryzen 7 REALLY suck for gamers? - JayzTwoCents (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-mMBbWHrwM)
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..Then how about a Ryzen 7 1700 vs i5 6600k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb0yfX8161M) test where the Ryzen is just chilling @ 20-50% CPU vs. 70-95%.
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..
Suicide run on nitrogen = meaningless..Then how about a Ryzen 7 1700 vs i5 6600k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb0yfX8161M) test where the Ryzen is just chilling @ 20-50% CPU vs. 70-95%.
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..
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.
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.
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 (https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5y7of8/ryzen_1700_60c_on_idle/): "No"
Video editing or other heavily multithreaded programs? Hell yes. Speed increases up 60%.
I don't get this topic at all. Is it supposed to a personal journal about tp4tissue's personal feelings?
I don't get this topic at all. Is it supposed to a personal journal about tp4tissue's personal feelings?
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.
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!
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
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).
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.
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 :-/
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. :(
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..
Any news on how r5 faired against the i5 7600k?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.