Official AMD "Ryzen" CPU Discussion

[PEB]

Hmm, so I guess I should sit it out a few months then ?

If price is your primary motivation then I would wait till 4 core or 6 core Ryzen CPU's. By then driver issues should be resolved and these CPU's should be priced around 100 to 150 dollars.

 

[Yari]

If price is your primary motivation then I would wait till 4 core or 6 core Ryzen CPU's. By then driver issues should be resolved and these CPU's should be priced around 100 to 150 dollars.

Nah the price is not really the problem, I just don't know which one to go with. And if the 1800x might perform better down the line then I'd want to wait to see the improvements

 

[jefferz]

Anyone seen a chart for Cities Skyline yet?

 

[PEB]

Someone within AMD: "John Taylor, a spokesman for Advanced Micro Devices and vice president at Worldwide Marketing, told CNBC: "There are a few gaming oriented sites that have expressed some disappointment over gaming performance at low resolution. This is a matter of optimization by those games on Ryzen. The CPU performance shines through strongly in every CPU test reviewers have run.""

 

[Slobodan]

@TSO have you gotten yours yet?

 

[TSO]

@TSO have you gotten yours yet?

Nope, they have no ETA either. So I went to Frys electronics and waited in line, the guy right in front of me bought the last 2 motherboards.

 

[m52nickerson]

Nah the price is not really the problem, I just don't know which one to go with. And if the 1800x might perform better down the line then I'd want to wait to see the improvements

AMD talk about optimization all they want. The thing is games right now do not use more then four CPU threads at the most. There are a few games that will make use of more, but those are few and far between. That is why if you are building or buying a gaming system there is really little reason to spend money on a CPU above an Intel i5.

 

[jefferz]

Jayztwocents live show is going to start in a couple minutes, I'm sure he'll talk all about AMD

 

[Slobodan]

Picked up my CPU today and managed to find a B350 motherboard, they only had one in stock.

 

[Cygnus A]

Looks pretty legit. I can handle losing a few FPS in some games to have a much more powerful 8 core system.

 

[PEB]

Micro Center adjusted prices on most of the Intel CPU line.

Cores i7-7700k from 380 down to 300. Core i5-7600k to 200 from 270. Core i5-6600K To 179 from 270 and many more.

 

[Madmick]

LTT's video showed Crysis 3, Deus ex mankind divided, and Rise of the Tomb Raider all at 4k. The 1800x is running only a couple frames faster than a 7700k.

These are 8-core overclockable chips for $400-$500, so I don't think they have to trounce the i5's and the i7's in gaming. The big question mark, to me, surrounds the overall performance for general tasks, editing & media server decoding. The effective real world IPC advantage of Kaby Lake & Skylake (since the former offered no practical improvement) per core over the Piledriver chips was ~60-65%. Ungodly. This Ryzen release appears to reduce that advantage to around ~20-30%. That's just an extraordinary net gain. Ars Technica measures the Ryzen chips IPC improvement as 52% over Piledriver chips, so it seems to make sense.
Ars Technica > AMD Ryzen 7 1800X still behind Intel, but it’s great for the price

Sure, recent i5/i7 owners won't see a need to upgrade, and it appears unlikely to upend new builders of pure gaming rigs, but was that realistically achievable within the context of gaming benchmarks considering the multicore strategy AMD chose to pursue a decade ago? A Gaming-Class CPU + Unlocked-Motherboard replacement is never a trivial cost.

I think MMO gamers on the more graphically demanding titles out there who run custom "Extreme" settings (ex. 4K w/max view distance) might be the biggest winners of all. Take the 1800X into the heart of Dalaran on a busy day and watch it laugh.

Someone within AMD: "John Taylor, a spokesman for Advanced Micro Devices and vice president at Worldwide Marketing, told CNBC: "There are a few gaming oriented sites that have expressed some disappointment over gaming performance at low resolution. This is a matter of optimization by those games on Ryzen. The CPU performance shines through strongly in every CPU test reviewers have run.""

Which of course won't matter in the real world. If that's all they sacrificed, then what a fantastic management of resources. Who in the hell is going to run a "low-resolution" system on a $400+ overclockable CPU that itself doesn't include integrated graphics?

 

[Madmick]

This Reddit thread is the best resource I've seen yet:
I Recorded 85 Benchmark Results of the 1800X vs the 7700k and 6900k over Four Publications. Here are the results!
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5x4dw5/i_recorded_85_benchmark_results_of_the_1800x_vs/

 

[Madmick]

Passmark only has 7 samples up for the Ryzen 1800X, but it's smashing the i7-7700K so far in the overall:

• 15,517 = Ryzen 1800X
• 12,315 = i7-7700K

The Ryzen has more cores, which means more heat with an overclock, of course, but considering it's natively clocked to 3.5GHz one must expect it could at least keep pace in terms of overclocking headroom, and if it can, then each MHz you push it up, it will be out-gaining the Intel CPU in terms of overall performance.

UserBenchmark is also thin with just 18 samples (as of this posting), but so far, my estimates extrapolated from the above reviewer benchmarks are proving right on the money. Looks like the single-threaded effective performance of the Ryzen 1800X is trailing the 7700K by 26%:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-vs-Intel-Core-i7-7700K/3916vs3647
Take a gander at those Peak Overclocked Multicore (Overall) scores:

• 1788 = i7-6950X
• 1415 = Ryzen 1700X*
• 1403 = i7-6900K
• 1396 = Ryzen 1800X
• 1293 = Ryzen 1700
• 1020 = i7-6800K
• 836 = i7-7700K
• 593 = i5-7600K

*Fuck me, somebody got skillz

^^^
Double fuck me, the 1700X just became the new #1 bestselling desktop CPU on the market. Bank it.

Spoiler

New Price Point Buys for Gamers

• $60 = Intel Pentium 4560 [Kaby Lake]
  
• $115 = Intel i3-7100 [Kaby Lake]
• $195 = Intel i5-7500 [Kaby Lake]*
  
• $240 = Intel i5-7600K [Kaby Lake]
• $340 = Intel i7-7700K [Kaby Lake]
• $400 = AMD R7 1700X [Ryzen]
• $1625 = Intel i7-6950X [Broadwell-E]

*i5 for non-overclockers

Micro Center adjusted prices on most of the Intel CPU line.

Cores i7-7700k from 380 down to 300. Core i5-7600k to 200 from 270. Core i5-6600K To 179 from 270 and many more.

At the very least gamers win because of this alone. It's not like the i7's were taken off the market as a choice. Nothing but competition increased, and prices driven down. Gamers eat for free.

Go capitalism.

 

[Madmick]

Nevertheless, Steve was disappointed in the 1800X. Pretty harsh review from a supremely rational reviewer, IMO. So a bit of dissidence. Like Cygnus, I think the overall stomping for stuff like running media servers is just too useful for all the new intensive tasks that we're seeing deployed to home consumer-class computers:
http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreview...review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-7

 

[TSO]

Picked up my CPU today and managed to find a B350 motherboard, they only had one in stock.

Just got mine running, it's a nest of cables right now though so no pics but I settled on the B350 ASUS with the Ryzen 7 1700.

 

[TSO]

Going from an i7 930 to this is a huge leap, no more stuttering frames and I might even start streaming once For Honor downloads.

 

[Slobodan]

Going from an i7 930 to this is a huge leap, no more stuttering frames and I might even start streaming once For Honor downloads.

Yeah my leap was even more drastic, I went form an AMD A8-5600K APU lol

 

[jefferz]

These are 8-core overclockable chips for $400-$500, so I don't think they have to trounce the i5's and the i7's in gaming. The big question mark, to me, surrounds the overall performance for general tasks, editing & media server decoding. The effective real world IPC advantage of Kaby Lake & Skylake (since the former offered no practical improvement) per core over the Piledriver chips was ~60-65%. Ungodly. This Ryzen release appears to reduce that advantage to around ~20-30%. That's just an extraordinary net gain. Ars Technica measures the Ryzen chips IPC improvement as 52% over Piledriver chips, so it seems to make sense.
Ars Technica > AMD Ryzen 7 1800X still behind Intel, but it’s great for the price

Sure, recent i5/i7 owners won't see a need to upgrade, and it appears unlikely to upend new builders of pure gaming rigs, but was that realistically achievable within the context of gaming benchmarks considering the multicore strategy AMD chose to pursue a decade ago? A Gaming-Class CPU + Unlocked-Motherboard replacement is never a trivial cost.

I think MMO gamers on the more graphically demanding titles out there who run custom "Extreme" settings (ex. 4K w/max view distance) might be the biggest winners of all. Take the 1800X into the heart of Dalaran on a busy day and watch it laugh.

Which of course won't matter in the real world. If that's all they sacrificed, then what a fantastic management of resources. Who in the hell is going to run a "low-resolution" system on a $400+ overclockable CPU that itself doesn't include integrated graphics?

Remember this


I haven't seen anything to support it and I don't recall which show, either the WAN show or PCPer's weekly podcast, they talked about how AMD fudged settings to make it seem faster.

 

[TSO]

Remember this


I haven't seen anything to support it and I don't recall which show, either the WAN show or PCPer's weekly podcast, they talked about how AMD fudged settings to make it seem faster.

I heard that too, they said the Intel one was zooming in ways that made the FPS take a dive. I just think it's funny because the differences are like 1% at 4k resolution. For me having a 1080p monitor I get to play all games on ultra/max settings with a 1700 on a B350 mobo and an 8gb RX 480 with my games never dropping below 60fps and usually are 100-150fps.