Official AMD "Ryzen" CPU Discussion

[PEB]

Ryzen is definitely living up to the hype. It's giving me the itch to system build as I doubt AMD makes the mistake of releasing virtually the same CPU's just underclocked for 75% the price.

If Vega works out, those who bought AMD shares last January will be moonwalking. It's already gone from $2 to $15. Still kicking myself for missing that boat...

I been posting for over a year about a big AMD turn around.

Tey have fantastic IP and a great engineering team. I even posted that Apple should have bought them out over a year ago. Apple had been floating the idea about buying them out but AMD's deal with intel complicated any deal.

 

[PEB]

This video caused Apple to completely rethink their plans.

 

[m52nickerson]

Long story short, the R5 series are a bit behind the i5 in FPS but the R5 CPU deliver slightly better frame times in some games. So for the money very little reason not to get extra threads and go AMD.

 

[TSO]

Already have money set aside for an R5 1600 build. It gives me a reason to upgrade my R7 motherboard from a B350 to an X370. And the RX 480 will go with the R5 when Vega comes out. Exciting times to be a PC enthusiast.

 

[TSO]

Was I the only one that thought that all the seven series should be 8c/16t, the five series 6c/12t, and the threes 4c/8t?

It just sets off the OCD I wasn't aware I had the way they've done it.

 

[jefferz]

Already have money set aside for an R5 1600 build. It gives me a reason to upgrade my R7 motherboard from a B350 to an X370. And the RX 480 will go with the R5 when Vega comes out. Exciting times to be a PC enthusiast.

I can't wait for their APU's. An R5 1600 with a 460 built in would be a damn hard chip to beat.

 

[Jimmy Needles]

for someone like me building a pc for the first time, is Ryzen the right move? i5 7500 for $189 vs ryzen 5 1600 for $218?

not planning on anything intensive other than gaming, and I like that i5 has been out a while and established

 

[m52nickerson]

for someone like me building a pc for the first time, is Ryzen the right move? i5 7500 for $189 vs ryzen 5 1600 for $218?

not planning on anything intensive other than gaming, and I like that i5 has been out a while and established

First time...no. Since you are mainly going to be gaming I would go with an i5. Ryzen is new and with it comes with a lot of tweaking, UEFI or BIOS updates, making sure you have RAM with the right characteristics, ect. I have no doubt you are capable of handling all that, it just on your first build you may want to keep it simple.

 

[jefferz]

for someone like me building a pc for the first time, is Ryzen the right move? i5 7500 for $189 vs ryzen 5 1600 for $218?

not planning on anything intensive other than gaming, and I like that i5 has been out a while and established

I agree with @m52nickerson, unless you're really into tinkering with electronics.
If you live in the USA, check to see if there's a Microcenter in your area. They offer insane deals on motherboard/cpu combo's.
http://www.microcenter.com/

 

[Madmick]

for someone like me building a pc for the first time, is Ryzen the right move? i5 7500 for $189 vs ryzen 5 1600 for $218?

not planning on anything intensive other than gaming, and I like that i5 has been out a while and established

At first, I was adding my voice to the pile without a second thought, because if you are a pure gamer seeking the highest levels of CPU gaming performance, then you shouldn't even look at an AMD chip right now, of course, but then I noticed that you are deliberately asking about locked chips.

While the i5-7600K just destroys the R5-1600 or R5-1600X, at stock, and that advantage becomes even more gruesome with average reported overclocked scores, I did a quick comparison, and you would be abandoning a massive improvement in overall processing power or a somewhat modest improvement in single core and quad core scores due to the relatively very low clock of the i5-7500 (vs. the i5-7600K, for example):
UserBenchmark: R5-1600 vs. i5-7500
To be perfectly clear: the i5-7500 is still the superior pure gaming CPU (vs. the R5-1600), overall, across the gamut of games & their technologies. I'm not disputing that. But look at the overall score. Due to the additional 2 cores and hyperthreading the R5-1600 is literally about twice the CPU in terms of potential for those programs that take advantage of these things.

However...while the i5-7500 is a more sensible purchase than the i5-7600, in terms of bang for buck, if we're going to be perfectly fair, the i5-7600 makes more sense as it is priced identically to the R5-1600, and it widens the gap:
UserBenchmark: R5-1600 vs. i5-7600

Nevertheless, the i5-7600 doesn't make much sense as a purchase. I just present that for apples-to-apples theory in the context of price consideration. If you go Intel, it makes sense to get either the i5-7500 or the i5-7600K. Even non-overclockers must now consider the "K" processors due to the huge boost in stock frequency alone:
UserBenchmark: R5-1600 vs. i5-7600K
God, Intel are such dicks. They do this on purpose to force non-overclockers to still consider the 7600K as an attractive option by nerfing the shit out of the other i5's base clocks. Brilliant, I must admit. Of course, I don't think it's a coincidence that they first implemented this strategy in a generation that offered virtually no effective IPC improvement. Take a look below to see what I'm talking about.


INTEL
Quad Core i5's Core Clock Frequency History: Unlocked vs. Locked

• Kaby Lake
  • 3.8 GHz = i5-7600K
  • 3.4 GHz = i5-7500
  • -0.4 GHz
• Skylake
  • 3.5 GHz = i5-6600K
  • 3.2 GHz = i5-6500
  • -0.3 GHz
• Haswell Refresh*
  • 3.5 GHz = i5-4690K
  • 3.3 GHz = i5-4590
  • -0.2 GHz
• Haswell
  • 3.4 GHz = i5-4670K
  • 3.2 GHz = i5-4570
  • -0.2 GHz
• Ivy Bridge
  • 3.4 GHz = i5-3570K
  • 3.2 GHz = i5-3470
  • -0.2 GHz
• Sandy Bridge
  • 3.3 GHz = i5-2500K
  • 3.1 GHz = i5-2400
  • -0.2 GHz
• Nehalem
  • 2.8 GHz = i5-750**

*The Haswell refresh was particularly significant, and reigned on the market as an actual buying point because Intel never manufactured a desktop line of Broadwell chips.
**There existed no "K" series during the Nehalem generation, but the i5-750 was capable of overclocking with a x58 motherboard.

 

[bdreason]

Always been a Intel guy, but after getting a RX480, I'm thinking I might go with an AMD Mobo/Chipset when I eventually upgrade. I don't usually like to adopt new technology, for obvious reasons, so I'll have to wait and see how long my current Mobo (6 years old) holds up.

 

[TSO]

Always been a Intel guy, but after getting a RX480, I'm thinking I might go with an AMD Mobo/Chipset when I eventually upgrade. I don't usually like to adopt new technology, for obvious reasons, so I'll have to wait and see how long my current Mobo (6 years old) holds up.

I've had good luck as an early adopter of the Core 2 duo, i7, and now Ryzen. I know there are people with the opposite experience but it seems to come down to how much research you're willing to do before purchasing.

 

[TSO]

Beautiful. Yeah, that should mean for the single core the 3.9GHz will your specs should reap around 115pts & 4.0Ghz should get you ~116pts-117pts assuming your sample held as an average. Makes sense.

118 pts is the still the highest anyone has gotten (119pts for the 1700x; 121pts for the 1800x), so you're confirming that a relatively cheap air overclock is the way to go. No point in wasting money. Pretty incredible scores for a build under $1K, dude. Props.

Oh yeah, btw, for comparison, the averages at stock frequency are as follows for Intel CPUs:


Single Core

• 111 pts = i5-7500
• 113 pts = i7-6800K
• 114 pts = i3-7100
• 121 pts = i5-7600
• 121 pts = i7-7700
• 132 pts = i5-7600K
• 139 pts = i7-7700K

Quad Core

• 309 pts = i3-7100
• 415 pts = i5-7500
• 430 pts = i5-7700
• 450 pts = i7-6800K
• 455 pts = i5-7600
• 489 pts = i7-7700K
• 499 pts = i5-7600K

So nobody can say you're aren't balling.

After the latest BIOS updates I decided to retest my PC

So single thread went up from 113 to 114, not a noticeable improvement but an improvement none the less.

For some reason it keeps reading my HDD instead of my SSD as my boot drive even though windows(and all my games) is on the SSD, maybe I need to unplug it?

UserBenchmarks: Game 72%, Desk 82%, Work 88%
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 1700 - 97%
GPU: AMD RX 480 - 70.9%
SSD: OCZ Trion 150 480GB - 66%
HDD: Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000.C 1TB - 67.4%
RAM: G.SKILL F4-2400C DDR4 2x8GB - 87.8%
MBD: Asus PRIME B350-PLUS

 

[jefferz]

After the latest BIOS updates I decided to retest my PC

So single thread went up from 113 to 114, not a noticeable improvement but an improvement none the less.

For some reason it keeps reading my HDD instead of my SSD as my boot drive even though windows(and all my games) is on the SSD, maybe I need to unplug it?

UserBenchmarks: Game 72%, Desk 82%, Work 88%
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 1700 - 97%
GPU: AMD RX 480 - 70.9%
SSD: OCZ Trion 150 480GB - 66%
HDD: Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000.C 1TB - 67.4%
RAM: G.SKILL F4-2400C DDR4 2x8GB - 87.8%
MBD: Asus PRIME B350-PLUS

Go into the bios and set your ssd as the priority boot drive.

 

[TSO]

Go into the bios and set your ssd as the priority boot drive.

Yeah, apparently I screwed up and when I reinstalled windows I put it on the HDD. So looks like I'm doing a system wipe and fresh install tonight.

 

[Madmick]

Hardware Canucks


R5-1600X @3.6GHz > [email protected]
3DMark Firestrike
3DMark DX12 CPU
3DMark DX12 TIme Spy

R5-1600X @3.6GHz < [email protected]
Battlefield 1 (DX12)
Deus Ex (DX12)
Overwatch (DX11)
COD: Warfare (DX11)
DOOM (Vulkan)
GTA V (DX11)


Paul's Hardware


R5-1600X @3.9GHz > i5-7600K@4.8GHz
3DMark Firestrike Ultra, CPU & Physics
3DMark Timespy, Overall & CPU
GTA V @1080p
Civilization V @1080p
Metro Last Light @1080p
Overwatch @1080p
Overwatch @1440p

R5-1600X @3.9GHz = i5-7600K@4.8GHz
GTA V @1440p

R5-1600X @3.9GHz < i5-7600K@4.8GHz
Civilization V @1440p
Metro Last Light @1440p
The Witcher 3 @1080p
The Witcher 3 @1440p


Testing Games
Overclocked Matchup


R5-1600 @3.8GHz > i5-7600K @4.7GHz

R5-1600 @3.8GHz < i5-7600K@4.7GHz
The Witcher 3
Far Cry Primal
GTA V
Fallout 4
Project CARS
Rise of the Tomb Raider


Damn. I was a bit cynical about Ryzen 5 at first, since I don't think it holds the appeal to editors the Ryzen 7 does, but considering how well the 1600 held up against the 7600K in these games when both were overclocked you really are left stroking your chin over the trade-off. Games definitely run faster on the Intel, but the Ryzen is just sitting there yawning at sub-50% usage most of the time. That's 12 threads vs. 4 threads for the future. Hardware Canuck confirms the 4.1 GHz wall for overclocking either 1600 or 1600X, so the 1600 is definite the wise choice for he who OCs.

One would expect that weaker quad core performance will hurt its gaming longevity, but everyone seems to believe that VR will take over, and that VR must usher in the era of supreme multicore scaling (or at least consistent benefits above four cores). We're already seeing the first signs of these benefits with Microsoft's DX12 & Khronos/AMD's Vulkan. Also, you can see the top comment ridicules Intel's micro-stutter issues.

But I dunno. I'm skeptical. It just seems ingrained in the business model that fine-tuning isn't profitable to most software developers, and if all VR presents is a need for more processing power, then it isn't clear to me how that will disrupt the market model that has endured since the dawn of Moore's Law.

 

[TSO]

So what is AMD's next step, do they release a 1730, 1750, and 1770?

 

[Madmick]

So what is AMD's next step, do they release a 1730, 1750, and 1770?

With regard to their Zen CPUs, yeah, that's exactly what I'd expect since that's what they did with both Piledriver and Bulldozer before it.

Their great next technological advance and release, will be the announcement of their highly anticipated Vega GPU, a microarchitectural step about six years in the making, and before it has even been unveiled it is already melting in the press; barely beating a GTX 1070 in 3DMark's DX12 TimeSpy GPU-focused benchmark.

 

[TSO]

With regard to their Zen CPUs, yeah, that's exactly what I'd expect since that's what they did with both Piledriver and Bulldozer before it.

Their great next technological advance and release, that is about six years in the making, will be the announcement of their highly anticipated Vega GPU, a microarchitectural step about six years in the making, and before it has even been unveiled it is already melting in the press; barely beating a GTX 1070 in 3DMark's DX12 TimeSpy GPU-focused benchmark.

If it beats the 1070 and has a lower price its a win, just not the colossal win I was hoping for. I'd like to see the Vega that beats the 1070 to cost no more than $350, but I'm greedy like that.

 

[Madmick]

If it beats the 1070 and has a lower price its a win, just not the colossal win I was hoping for. I'd like to see the Vega that beats the 1070 to cost no more than $350, but I'm greedy like that.

Yeah, ultimately pricing always determines whether or not a component is a good buy, but I'm sure AMD fans were hoping they would be more competitive than that on an absolute scale. I think some were hoping that with DX12 advantages it might rival the GTX 1080 Ti.