Official AMD "Ryzen" CPU Discussion

[Madmick]

If the i5 rumors are true, then they need to bump i3's up to a true 4 core without hyperthreading. leave the pentium as 2/2.
I'm not liking those i5-8400 numbers, 2.8ghz wtf. The 7400 is 3.0ghz right now. I'm surprised it's only got a 65w tdp.
If you want to build a 1080p machine, it's a great time to buy a CPU. I wish the rest of the prices would fall back to normal.

Nothing else makes sense.

I was squinting sideways at that 2.8GHz figure, too. Then again, if it settles in at $170-$190 range the way its predecessors have, then that's a whole lot of overall power and cache value. I checked up to see how the 3.0 GHz i5-7400 fares against the 3.5 GHz R5-1500X, and in terms of the QC Score they're roughly equal despite the 500MHz clock, 2x L2 cache, and 2.5x L3 cache advantage for the 1500X.
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-7400-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1500X/3886vs3921
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/39/AMD_Ryzen_5_1500X_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-7400.html

If the 2.8 GHz i5-8400 can pull the same off against the 3.2 GHz R5-1600 while hitting the sub-$190 range, then it could definitely poach some non-OC pure gaming market buyers. The i5-8600K will do even greater damage in this same market to the R7-1700 if it stays under $275.

 

[jefferz]

Nothing else makes sense.

I was squinting sideways at that 2.8GHz figure, too. Then again, if it settles in at $170-$190 range the way its predecessors have, then that's a whole lot of overall power and cache value. I checked up to see how the 3.0 GHz i5-7400 fares against the 3.5 GHz R5-1500X, and in terms of the QC Score they're roughly equal despite the 500MHz clock, 2x L2 cache, and 2.5x L3 cache advantage for the 1500X.
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-7400-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1500X/3886vs3921
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/39/AMD_Ryzen_5_1500X_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-7400.html

If the 2.8 GHz i5-8400 can pull the same off against the 3.2 GHz R5-1600 while hitting the sub-$190 range, then it could definitely poach some non-OC pure gaming market buyers. The i5-8600K will do even greater damage in this same market to the R7-1700 if it stays under $275.

If that 8400 will turbo up to 3.5 then it won't be so bad, but that's a huge boost.
The 8700k is outta whack also, the 7700k is 4.2/4.5 and the 8700k is 3.8/4.3
Intel no.
About a year ago, intel said they were going to focus on power efficiency over performance.
I hope this more cores, lower clock rate isn't a new intel trend. This may force me into the HEDT level of cpu's.

 

[Cygnus A]

If that 8400 will turbo up to 3.5 then it won't be so bad, but that's a huge boost.
The 8700k is outta whack also, the 7700k is 4.2/4.5 and the 8700k is 3.8/4.3
Intel no.
About a year ago, intel said they were going to focus on power efficiency over performance.
I hope this more cores, lower clock rate isn't a new intel trend. This may force me into the HEDT level of cpu's.

I questioned it too, but they added 2 more cores, so probably to keep the same power draw they needed to lower clock speed. These will still probably overclock like a beast and smash Ryzen (which sucks because I was pulling for AMD this time around).

 

[Madmick]

I questioned it too, but they added 2 more cores, so probably to keep the same power draw they needed to lower clock speed. These will still probably overclock like a beast and smash Ryzen (which sucks because I was pulling for AMD this time around).

Yeah, and besides, the Ryzen 1700/1700X/1800X have an OC ceiling of 4.1 GHz with virtually everyone locking in at 3.7 GHz - 3.9 GHz. Considering the IPC advantage the i5-8600K at stock will likely outperform it in every single game out there including those that are optimized for 5+ cores and scale well like Overwatch.

That locks the processor in as the ultimate sub-$300 gaming processor for the foreseeable future. That's its market, and that is a market that buys.

 

[jefferz]

Threadripper's packaging

 

[Madmick]

Threadripper's packaging

Do they think they're selling limited edition Air Jordans?

 

[jefferz]

Do they think they're selling limited edition Air Jordans?

It looks like a portable tv to me.

 

[jefferz]

R3 reviews are starting to come out.
In gaming it looks like they're following their video cards. they don't perform on par with intels offering in that price range, but they're not far behind and cheaper.
If I was buying a budget CPU, My deciding factor would be whichever one was on sale.

 

[Madmick]

R3 reviews are starting to come out.
In gaming it looks like they're following their video cards. they don't perform on par with intels offering in that price range, but they're not far behind and cheaper.
If I was buying a budget CPU, My deciding factor would be whichever one was on sale.

Meh. I wouldn't even look at an i3, anymore. For anything.



Even after its huge price drop the 7350K ($150 reduced MSRP) is an inferior buy to both the R3-1300X ($130 MSRP) or R5-1400 ($160 MSRP). The i3 is king of neither world, and its price drop doesn't spare it against the cheaper R5's. Don't forget about its inferior stock cooler on the Intel vs. the Wraith.

Simultaneously, if you plan on an aftermarket cooler, while the 7350K is the only i3 that overclocks, it requires a Z170/Z270 chipset motherboard for fully unlocked OC capabilities. The R3-1300 can be OC'd on any AM4 board. I just checked PCPP, and the cheapest Intel Z170/Z270 board (of any form factor) currently is the ASRock Z170A-X1/3.1 for $98; the cheapest AM4 board is the ASRock A320M-DGS for a paltry $54 by comparison. So even if you plan on ramping up that IPC advantage for the 7350K it's going to realize an effective real-world premium of ~$65 over the 1300X.

Until Coffee Lake drops AMD is just ruling south of $250 right now.

 

[jefferz]

Meh. I wouldn't even look at an i3, anymore. For anything.



Even after its huge price drop the 7350K ($150 reduced MSRP) is an inferior buy to both the R3-1300X ($130 MSRP) or R5-1400 ($160 MSRP). The i3 is king of neither world, and its price drop doesn't spare it against the cheaper R5's. Don't forget about its inferior stock cooler on the Intel vs. the Wraith.

Simultaneously, if you plan on an aftermarket cooler, while the 7350K is the only i3 that overclocks, it requires a Z170/Z270 chipset motherboard for fully unlocked OC capabilities. The R3-1300 can be OC'd on any AM4 board. I just checked PCPP, and the cheapest Intel Z170/Z270 board (of any form factor) currently is the ASRock Z170A-X1/3.1 for $98; the cheapest AM4 board is the ASRock A320M-DGS for a paltry $54 by comparison. So even if you plan on ramping up that IPC advantage for the 7350K it's going to realize an effective real-world premium of ~$65 over the 1300X.

Until Coffee Lake drops AMD is just ruling south of $250 right now.

I screwed up, the chart I was looking at had the i5-7400.
No one should buy the 7350k, not even OC junkies even if they dropped the price. The price/performance is horrible. At least the g3258 was a good bang for the buck and you could use a B or H series board to oc.
I seen one article where they got the 1300x up to 3.9 on the stock cooler, that's damn impressive. They didn't show voltage though.

 

[UJustGotChaeld]

Until Coffee Lake drops AMD is just ruling south of $250 right now.

I have an FX-8350 with the wraith cooler last year and there isn't a game it doesn't play ultra settings on with ease. I have never seen a reason to spend the extra, AMD has always been better price/performance for me.

 

[Cygnus A]

I have an FX-8350 with the wraith cooler last year and there isn't a game it doesn't play ultra settings on with ease.

I don't believe you. Upgrade to a new gen processor and I guaranteed you will notice a difference, unless your GPU is severely underpowered.

 

[UJustGotChaeld]

I don't believe you. Upgrade to a new gen processor and I guaranteed you will notice a difference, unless your GPU is severely underpowered.

How. What will the difference be? I play ultra ultra everything with no problems at all. GTX 1070 GPU, basically half my system cost was the 1070.

 

[Madmick]

How. What will the difference be? I play ultra ultra everything with no problems at all. GTX 1070 GPU, basically half my system cost was the 1070.

He's just talking about the fact that the FX-8350 will bottleneck the GTX 1070 on some of the most demanding titles. It doesn't mean that it isn't still a viable gaming processor at the high end, but on today's most demanding titles the 8350@stock frequency will sometimes be holding the 1070 back when the games in Ultra presets would otherwise take the 1070 beyond their limit:



Sometimes the DDR3-RAM coupled with the 8350 will be responsible for the bottlenecks, not the 8350 itself, but that's moot. Look for the times when the GPU is sitting at 70%, for example, and the CPU (particularly the first two cores) are both hitting 99% usage numbers. That's the sign of an actual "bottleneck": a term too often misunderstood and abused.

Nevertheless, I think you're absolutely right. That processor is still a relevant gaming CPU for almost all the best titles. Your setup can handle just about anything in 1080p. Elytech talks about this in another video:

 

[UJustGotChaeld]

He's just talking about the fact that the FX-8350 will bottleneck the GTX 1070 on some of the most demanding titles.

Oh it definitely will be the case, it just isn't yet. At least not on anything I have played.

 

[Madmick]

Oh it definitely will be the case, it just isn't yet. At least not on anything I have played.

Yeah, and you can see how-- especially considering the FX-8350 was selling for ~$130 by late 2014 or early 2015-- the decision to go with 8 cores has paid off for its longevity as a mid-range value processor. It was above ~80% across the board while he was running Tomb Raider.

Its MSRP when it debuted in 2012 was $190. Its closest and most comparable Intel purchase at the time of its release was the i5-3470.

 

[UJustGotChaeld]

Yeah, and you can see how-- especially considering the FX-8350 was selling for ~$130 by late 2014 or early 2015-- the decision to go with 8 cores has paid off for its longevity as a mid-range value processor. It was above ~80% across the board while he was running Tomb Raider.

Its MSRP when it debuted in 2012 was $190. Its closest and most comparable Intel purchase at the time of its release was the i5-3470.

Every time I build a new PC I still look at intel, I don't think I have actually used an intel chip in my personal PC since the 90s.

 

[jefferz]

Yeah, and you can see how-- especially considering the FX-8350 was selling for ~$130 by late 2014 or early 2015-- the decision to go with 8 cores has paid off for its longevity as a mid-range value processor. It was above ~80% across the board while he was running Tomb Raider.

Its MSRP when it debuted in 2012 was $190. Its closest and most comparable Intel purchase at the time of its release was the i5-3470.

The fx-8350 wasn't a great choice, the fx-8320 was an under clocked 8350. Unless you really lost the silicone lottery, the 8320 performed just as good when overclocked.
Another benefit of the AMD FX series was you had a nice little space heater.

 

[Cygnus A]

How. What will the difference be? I play ultra ultra everything with no problems at all. GTX 1070 GPU, basically half my system cost was the 1070.

I am not telling you to upgrade, but there is definitely significant improvements to be had and I don't want misinformation spreading.

Just saying "I play on ultra settings with no problems" does not make the picture clear. Are you locked at 60FPS?. Define Ultra settings? Maxed AA/AF? Blur? HDR? DoF? 1080p? 1440p? ultrawide? There are a lot of variables at play here. Some people are fine with sub 60FPS. Some people want 120fps.

I am with @Madmick on this: Your CPU is probably adequate for a lot of games, but there is a threshold where upgrading will bring noticeable improvements. My kids play on a FX-6300 system I built years ago, and it is "fine" for most games too, at least for them.

 

[Madmick]

The fx-8350 wasn't a great choice, the fx-8320 was an under clocked 8350. Unless you really lost the silicone lottery, the 8320 performed just as good when overclocked.
Another benefit of the AMD FX series was you had a nice little space heater.

Yes, at launch, particularly for overclockers, the FX-8320 ($170 MSRP) was definitely the better value, as is almost always the case with the lowest end of any particular AMD CPU line, but this doesn't contradict what I wrote about his 8350; rather it applies to both. I remember when it cratered in cost a few years out and it was suddenly side-to-side with the Haswell Refresh i3-4350 in cost. I like that whopping multicore advantage for the long-term:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-4350-vs-AMD-FX-8350/2433vs1489

The i5-3470 can't overclock, obviously, but I'd like to see how it stacks up against the 8350 in today's titles at stock frequency. Probably still holds the edge, but I don't think you can say the FX-8350 was-- at any point in relevant market life-- a bad purchase:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-3470-vs-AMD-FX-8350/2771vs1489