Ryzen

[Kevris]

I've seen the benchmarks. I've seen the pricing.

As someone running a 5930k on an X99 Deluxe motherboard, the only thing I have to say is: FUUUUUCK!!! I'VE BEEN ROBBED!!! FUCKING INTEL!!!

Rogean, you may want to send back that PC you just put together.

[Baler]

I like intel chips. :(
I'm hard pressed to believe that the latest Ryzen chip could compete on a professional overclocking level with the latest intel chip. If you're into that sort of thing. Like those competitions where they push these chips to their absolute limit with liquid nitrogen and shit.

I'm also highly upset with how the pc hardware market makes improvements. One company takes 1 step forward and that forces another company to take 1 step forward. None of them are releasing the real behind the scenes hardware. They're just edging us on to push stock so they can do it all over again. I think the biggest culprit is the gpu market. :mad:
And don't even get me started on prices of 'old' hardware,. artificially being kept high. grrr
So you know all this will do is cause intel to release their just ahead of the competition hardware. Then the competition will do the same and the cycle repeats. Why don't we ever get the real stuff. I believe they have chips for 2020+ that could potentially be released to market today.

ps. I5-4670k overclocked to 4.0ghz here. pretty much the only time it cranks up to max on all the cores is if I'm encoding video. Air cooled with a Noctua NH-D14 it has never gotten to uncomfortable temps even in the dead of summer. Voltage wise I've seen no issues so far.
Also I sometimes use intel's quick sync. So yeah.. Amd doesn't got that!

[dafier]

Umm....your multicore capabilities are still awesome. Since you are in the same position as I (with the exception of me having a 5820k), then watch the 2011-v3 processors drop in price in the next 6 months ish, and get yourself an upgrade.

We both have the same Motherboard, so if those 10 cores go down to half or less than what they are, I'll bite. Until then, my 5820k is freaking awesome and OC is real.

On a side note:
Ryzens are bad ass but about 1 year late. It took AMD a LONG time to come out with something better than their former architecture.

[Sage Truthbearer]

I don't need a CPU upgrade right now, but I am excited about Ryzen and the competition it will bring to the market. I hope it will match the hype and make Intel actually try again.

[dafier]

Kaby lake isn't something to scoff at. The single core performance is better than Ryzen. But, ya you're right Sage, about the competition. It's really about money loss. AMD does a great job bringing out quality items that compete well and it does keep Intel in check.

[Baler]

post some links or shut up we have no idea what you are talking about
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Ryzen

[Pokesan]

good thread. looking forward to heavy hitters giving a full analysis. for now I'm excited AMD is back in a big way.

[maskedmelonpai]

someone distill all these paragraphs into a sentence or two so I can know what to do please?

[dafier]

http://core0.staticworld.net/images/article/2017/02/ryzen_cinebench_multi_threaded-100709909-orig.jpg

Problem is, Cinebench is absolutely stupid. It's crap compared to several other benchmarks that are used by gamers. Plus, Cinebench revolves around a desktop user in a work environment, not at home. Just my opinion.

[Baler]

At the very least what we can all agree on and distill from this topic is that Intel will be pushing out a new chip sometime soon(tm).

[dafier]

http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-Matches-Kaby-lake-IPC.png

Here is another. This is a damn joke. Put that same Ryzen POS against my i7 5820k. That's what AMD is claiming. Ryzen will cream i7s in all these benchmarks. That img is the 1700X with turbo off verses a damn i5. Are you kidding!?

[Pokesan]

http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-Matches-Kaby-lake-IPC.png

Here is another. This is a damn joke. Put that same Ryzen POS against my i7 5820k. That's what AMD is claiming. Ryzen will cream i7s in all these benchmarks. That img is the 1700X with turbo off verses a damn i5. Are you kidding!?

english?

[Kevris]

english?

Bottom line:

The early (and I mean REALLY EARLY) benchmarks are showing that in certain scenarios, a $500 part is as fast/faster than a $1000 part. http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-i7-6900k-gaming-performance/

This means that things like the I7 6950 that is currently selling for $1700 will have to come down in price in order for Intel to sell any of them.

Nothing is certain, yet, but if you look at the buzz around Ryzen (combined with AMD's stock price in the last month) this new chip is going to do very good things for us as consumers.

Thanks, AMD. PS, bring back the pencil overclocking! Those were the days, son! Those were the days!!

[Kevris]

http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-Matches-Kaby-lake-IPC.png

Here is another. This is a damn joke. Put that same Ryzen POS against my i7 5820k. That's what AMD is claiming. Ryzen will cream i7s in all these benchmarks. That img is the 1700X with turbo off verses a damn i5. Are you kidding!?

Dude.

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-i7-6900k-gaming-performance/

That's Broadwell; we're on Haswell.

[Baler]

The early (and I mean REALLY EARLY) benchmarks are showing that in certain scenarios, a $500 part is as fast/faster than a $1000 part.

This is probably the coolest frigin part imho...
As a person who strives to look for deals on high quality computer parts,. I always hope that the prices get cheaper.

However knowing how the prices work in the pc harware industry,.. Intel will release something that's faster and it will be 100-200 bucks more expensive. BUT FASTER..

>_>

ps. I stand by what I said in my first post. We should have hardware that would be released in 2020 at the current rate of hardware releases. And companies are just dragging it out to make more of the almighty dollar.

[Fasttimes]

Meh they still aren't as good on single core. For emulation that at most requires 3 threads I'll pass. I hope they do catch up tho so intel chips become cheaper. But for my needs I'll stick to my i3 skylake.

[Baler]

The future is multi-core though.
right?

I cant wait for non server ram that's 256gbs sticks.

[maskedmelonpai]

ok, i think all you all need to step away from the technical jargon epeen stretcher for a moment and talk real for us >.>

i not paying $500 for a computer part. what this mean for the <$200 parts :confused:

[Fasttimes]

Your future. I mainly do emulation. It doesn't require multi core. Just 3 threads at most. Single core speed is way more important to me.

[Baler]

ok, i think all you all need to step away from the technical jargon epeen stretcher for a moment and talk real for us >.>

i not paying $500 for a computer part. what this mean for the <$200 parts :confused:

Which is totally fine,. Your average user and most average gamers really don't need the top of the line. But for people who's work is influenced by their hardware. This stuff is a big deal.

The grandma who gets an a high end pc rig and fiber optic net for checking her banking/facebook/family pics is spending way, way too much for a service and hardware that could be used by real enthusiasts.
Replace grandma with your relevant term...

[Kevris]

The real benches are out today.

It is not as great as the leaks made it out to be, but it is good enough to give some hope to the prospect of having two companies competing for the top spot again.

With that in mind, I take back the mean things I said about you, Intel.

[Fasttimes]

http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-Dolphin-Benchmark.png

That's dolphin benchmark (wii/GameCube) which is good indicator of single core speed. Not as bad as they use to be. Skylake/Kaby still better less you video edit or photoshop or VMware where you actually need cores.

[Sage Truthbearer]

I looked at the benchmark reviews and the gaming performance is pretty meh. Still, AMD has put out a great chip here. Ryzen will be extremely competitive with Intel CPUs for workstations, data processing, and rendering - AKA where all the money and marketshare is for selling CPUs. PC gaming is and always was a tiny and niche market, and Intel CPUs will remain the leader there.

[dafier]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3176191/computers/ryzen-review-amd-is-back.html?page=3

Great 3 page review with LOTS of benchmarks. So, keep in mind that the new Ryzen is actually 8 core with 16 threads, unlike Vishara and Bulldozer which were both 8 core/8 threads.

From what I see, where it matters the Ryzen is pretty bad ass. I especially like the Handbreak results. It's pretty awesome.

But, on my 5820k if I OC to 4GHz, it saves about 12 seconds on every minute it encodes a x264 video file. (MKV to MP4)

In short that's a 2 minute savings on a normal 10 minute encode. Enjoy and I am happy to see AMD kick it up a notch.

[Kevris]

Agreed; we as consumers need healthy competition between two companies. Without it, we get stagnation and decline.

[HalflingWarrior]

Ryzen is looking pretty decent overall. Around Broadwell-E levels of IPC in single threaded workloads, and obviously, really great in heavily threaded workloads (being an 8c/16t chip and all). I'm sure we'll see some improvements over the next few months/year with a new stepping of the CPU.

Several gaming benchmarks are showing as much as a 30% INCREASE in performance with SMT disabled; this reminds me a lot of the early days of Intel's HyperThreading. I remember back in 2009 disabling HT on my i7 920 to get higher frames in many games.

My largest disappointment has to be the lack of overclocking potential. They all (1700/1700x/1800x) seem to top out around 3.9/4.0GHz. This makes the base-line R7 1700 look like the most appealing offering as they seem to clock just as high (3.8-4.0GHz) despite their 65w TDP.

Damn shame they don't clock up to 4.5GHz or so!

Thinkin' I may build an R5 1600x rig when they release in a couple months. AMD has stated a sub-$300 pricetag (I've heard the $249.99 number thrown around) and with 2 fewer cores enabled there's a good chance they'll be able to clock up around 4.2GHz.

A 6core/12thread Ryzen CPU for $250 would be a really good fuckin' deal. At the VERY LEAST Ryzen should force Intel to stop charging their $100+ premium just for basic HyperThreading.

I feel like 4core/4thread CPUs are reaching their limit in modern games. My 4690k, overclocked @ 4.4GHz, hits 96%+ usage on all 4 cores in several games -- BF4, BF1, Overwatch.

[HalflingWarrior]

The Dolphin emu stuff is interesting.

Not sure what clockspeeds each CPU was running at -- the 1700x would definitely be higher if it was able to clock higher, unfortunately.

[Ahldagor]

So what programs utilize all those cores?

[Fasttimes]

Dolphin has a google doc of different processors at different clocks if you wanna see how they hold up. Since i mainly emulate and play p99 clock speed is more important to me.

[Ahldagor]

probably like encoding video or editing music, but you know they're spending $324441 on their RigZzzZ to play video games from 2006

anyone notice how videogames have essentially looked the same for a decade but the standards gamers hold to developers is so low now, so nothing ends up being optimized whatsoeverand you suddenly need astronomical specs to run mediocre looking games?

ESPECIALLY since kickstarter became a thing. publishing an unfinished game is the norm now.

yeah you're basically just subsidizing lazy shitty developers

Exactly.

[Fasttimes]

Intel already has come down some because of it. Competition is good but for now intel is better for me.

[HalflingWarrior]

i read ryzen stuff for 2 hours last night, its about 20% behind intel and its 20% more money ( probably because its new )

i think its great intel has competition now, being the only product means you can sell for whatever you want.

Ryzen will have to come down in price to compete even on the same level. Hopefully intel will come down a bit as well.

Things to keep in mind:

The Ryzen 7 1700 chip is only $329, $20 LESS than the 7700k. Additionally, the R7 1700 is an 8c/16t chip whilst the 7700k is a 4c/8t chip.

[Kevris]

amount of cores does not matter if its behind in performance

adding more cores ( which use more power ) isnt the answer to computing performance.

That's ..not accurate at all.

Think outside the gaming box.

[Sage Truthbearer]

Interesting topic.. Why wouldn't having more cores be a good thing as developers begin to program multi-threaded games for the PC?

Unless you can show that signs point to a multi-threaded revolution is not inevitable and that processing is instead being offloaded onto GPU.

[Kevris]

i need to replace my desktop soon and i dont know if i should go onboard with ryzen at early stages or grab an i7

generally buying into new technology is a bad idea, my gut tells me to wait a year or two and let things settle down.

i almost never use my desktop but i do need to have one available.

You have two options, and it all boils down to whether or not money is the limiting factor.

If it isn't, buy the top of the line parts and be done with it. 1080 TI, I7 6950, etc.

If money is the limiting factor: Determine how much you want to spend, look at the parts from competing vendors that match your budget number, compare them. One part will be faster than the other; buy the faster part.

There is no room for fanboyisim or brand loyalty. Just buy the part that's fastest at the price you want to spend. These companies aren't sports teams, they're part makers. One part is always faster than the other part at your budget number. If it's a literal toss-up between the two parts, then you can include some brand loyalty or fanboyisim.

They've made this all really easy over at www.logicalincrements.com, though I doubt they've had time to update for Ryzen yet.

[loramin]

Just buy the part that's fastest at the price you want to spend. These companies aren't sports teams, they're part makers.

That's not entirely true. For instance, even if ATI has a better graphics card than Nvidia for a certain price point you still might want to go with Nvidia card (because you know ATI is a shitshow, and even if you get the faster card it won't matter if you can't the %&$% drivers to work). Or if you're a big OSS person you might buy ATI anyway even though it's crap, because Nvidia is super closed-source and you want to support the more OSS vendor.

But in general this advice is spot on.

[Kevris]

That's not entirely true. For instance, even if ATI has a better graphics card than Nvidia for a certain price point you still might want to go with Nvidia card (because you know ATI is a shitshow, and even if you get the faster card it won't matter if you can't the %&$% drivers to work). Or if you're a big OSS person you might buy ATI anyway even though it's crap, because Nvidia is super closed-source and you want to support the more OSS vendor.

But in general this advice is spot on.

I would contend that both companies have had their fair share of issues over the years. Great example: http://gizmodo.com/373076/nvidia-responsible-for-nearly-30-of-vista-crashes-in-2007

My neutrality is based on my personal bias: I have never had any real issues with parts or software from either company.

[HalflingWarrior]

Interesting topic.. Why wouldn't having more cores be a good thing as developers begin to program multi-threaded games for the PC?

Unless you can show that signs point to a multi-threaded revolution is not inevitable and that processing is instead being offloaded onto GPU.

Absolutely, and it IS already happening...albeit slowly.

Was just looking at some graphs the other day that were showing the FX8350 outperforming the infamous i5 2500k in several modern gaming titles. Titles that are sufficiently threaded now to properly load the 8350's cores. Now when both of these chips were new, an i5 2500k overclocked @ 4.0GHz would absolutely DECIMATE an FX8350, clocked @ 4.8GHz, in gaming!

This is the argument people are making for the Ryzen7 chips; that you can buy a 7700k and have the best possible gaming performance RIGHT NOW but over time the 7700k is going to become comparatively slower than the Ryzen7. Until eventually their paths cross, and 8c/16ts of the Ryzen7 start to mean more than the 5.0GHz and higher single-threaded IPC of the 7700k.

[Fasttimes]

Still not as good for emulation tho :( maybe one day

[aMindAmok]

That's not entirely true. For instance, even if ATI has a better graphics card than Nvidia for a certain price point you still might want to go with Nvidia card (because you know ATI is a shitshow, and even if you get the faster card it won't matter if you can't the %&$% drivers to work). Or if you're a big OSS person you might buy ATI anyway even though it's crap, because Nvidia is super closed-source and you want to support the more OSS vendor.

But in general this advice is spot on.

It's been quite some time since AMD's drivers were an actual problem. Updates for games when they release used to be a big problem. Not so much any more though. But non-functional drivers? It's been many moons since anyone could claim that with a straight face.