AMD Ryzen CPUs

Inferior, nah. It was a marketing reality, no need to chase smaller dies just sell what you can till the market dries up. Looks like that market has dried up now time to jump up a few levels. Remember if it was not for Intel stealing AMD 64bit architecture Intel would be in the hinterland. I don't think anyone is thinking AMD are a small garage production team, they did what customers wanted and we bought them knowing we were going to be okay and not be bothered about having that video encoded 30 seconds quicker.

I'll put money on it Intel are going to drop their prices like a stone over the next twelve months though, that might damage their customer base more than AMD's.

 

Without prognosticating the future (so only going on previous generations of product) they're a couple generations behind Intel and a whopping great few FPS behind nvidia... guys, don't paint me in a fanbody shade here. I've been building systems since 486s were top-shelf. I ran AMD chips and AMD graphics cards when they were the best on the market, and they were for a spell, right about the time the 1GHz barrier was broken and for several years after. But that was a long time ago. I pick my hardware based on benchmarks and with that in mind, I haven't even considered an AMD product in this decade. It is what it is.

I hope they get their sh-- together, I really do. Competition benefits everybody and it genuinely makes no difference to me whose logo is on the best stuff. I await Ryzen with an open mind. (My 3700K has served me well for 5 years, as my 6-core AMD chip did before it... but it's about time I start looking at what's next. I'm in the market.)

 

Well, from what we have seen so far their 8/16 cpus looks pretty good. If they are in the same region as haswell-e in both single and multi, its a really good job done by them, specially if you consider how big the budget difference must be in development with intel vs amd.

Soon we'll see for sure. I am optimistic about this release.

 

I will wait.

For me will not be a surprise if the CPUs with only 4 cores will be faster than the others with more cores for games.

AMD now is doing this marketing for multithreading, but Lord Kunos can explain more about this thing. I dont see how more cores now or in the future can do more fps. The Ps4 pro and Xbox One Scorpio (probably) have both CPUs with 8 threads. Its hardly to see a game use 8 cores, more than that I think we wont see on the next 5 years.

AMD are doing the marketing to sell the 8 cores and 16 threads CPUs now. But these CPU arent good for overclocking, and in games that use 4 cores, other CPUs can reach better results. Its a wrong marketing in my point of view sell these CPU for gamers. I see some gamers saying things like that: now I can buy a CPU with 8 cores for the price of a CPU of 4 cores only. They will buy a new motherboard, new memories, probably new coolers, and not gain any perfomance. Specially for people that play games GPU bounds or use only 60 hz monitor.

Take a look as example Assetto Corsa. I have a 144 hz monitor and can do the benchmark. My i7 4790k can run 15 AI cars on 144 fps on the start of the race, more fps after the first lap. As a people like me, with a 4th generation of Intel CPU, am I really need buy another motherboard, memories and a new cooler to take a risk of less perfomance on Assetto Corsa (my favorite game)? I wont do that. If someone have a i7 6700k or a 7700k and want to make a change, it is not a smart choice to do.

So, I think the Ryzen is a good option to people with FX CPUs of AMD and i3, Pentium or something like that. Who already have a i5 or i7 dont need now the Ryzen. Yes, its cheaper, cost less, its good for someone buying a new PC now, but not to someone who already have a good PC. And the marketing of AMD are doing this wrong idea on people minds.

CPUs is not like GPUs. I have made a change on my system, from GTX 670 to GTX 1080, triple of fps, and more than triple on games that consume more than 2 GBs of VRAM. Dont expect something similar in a change of CPU, this dont work that way.

 

I'm definitely going to keep an eye out. I've been waiting for Cannonlake, so we'll just see how Ryzen stacks up when that chip is out later in 2017. It needs to be faster than Cannonlake to get my attention.

I may be a little weird here, but cost is literally no consideration for me. (Within reason... I'm not rich.) For one, as I said in my last post, I've owned 2 different systems in the last 11 years, and it'll be 12 by the time I upgrade. An extra couple hundred dollars, amortized over 5-6 years, is essentially nothing. And for two, I do my job on this machine. I play my games on this machine. I spend much of my life here at the keyboard. Where better to spend a little extra money to improve my experience?

 

@Trezoitao38
Just one thing about the coolers. Most big cooler makers (if not everyone?) are giving away free am4 brackets so that is not really a issue.

 

It is sadly still true that software support for multithreading still trails the available hardware and SMT technology. So it is also true that less cores with higher clock speed are more beneficial for more games right now. Having said that, I'd suggest not to look at what is optimal now, but what will be in the coming years. Mass Effect Andromeda which runs on the Frostbite engine for instance and other, similar games are going to benefit more from more cores, physical or otherwise. Don't forget this is also an perception issue. The overall faster CPUs are also more likey to have more cores.

We have 14nm FinFet technology now, but even with 10mn and especially below that, a higher clock speed is easy to explain and to market, but IPC (instructions per clock) and efficiency gains are the directions the industry aims for at the moment.

AMD (anagram: MAD) made many poor decisions with the Bulldozer architecture, so with Ryzen, they copied some principles from Intel and incorporated them into their design. The manufacturing process and the relationship with the fab (i.e. AMD with Globalfoundries for Ryzen) plays also a factor. For further details I can recommend a talk pcper had with David Kantor, a CPU architecture consultant who worked on Ryzen:

 

@aphidgod NOT KNOCKING YOU! But never believe benchmarks as you are very unlikely to see a difference in real world tests that mean a darn. If you are doing video editing, 3d modelling then it is worth the hit, but gaming and normal everyday computer users will never see a real time difference. I would also like to say that this is AMD's first adventure into <20nm dies, so it is going to take at least two generations to get that working as they wish. To be honest there is going to be very little difference between Intel and AMD for the foreseeable future unless one of them moves away from the separate CPU/RAM/SSD components. The next jump will be all of these on one chip/board. PC speeds have really hit the wall, but I really am looking forward to see what we get from the next real generation of PCs.

 

No, of course benchmarks aren't gospel... but it's a bit much to say there's no real world difference. There is. Now that I'm not a professional designer anymore it's less important, but I used to prioritize platforms that were good with rendering and image editing. I guess I can look more to game performance going forward... like you say, it doesn't take a high-end CPU to run my PCB layout suite or surf the web for datasheets.

Another part of the 'aim high' strategy goes back to my upgrade schedule, too. I buy a fast chip every 6 years, not a decent budget chip every 2. Neither is right or wrong, just two different plans.

 

In the Lord Kunos's YouTube channel, he explained the process flow between frame generation and CPU. If I remember correctly, the AC's DX11 engine uses core 1 for graphics handling; therefore, multithread capability is not heavily utilized. The bottom line is that you want to focus on single core performance reviews which is going to have the biggest impact in the current AC engine. You can verify the CPU performance disparity when you go up in resolution. As you increase resolution the DX11 benchmarks rely on GPU rather than CPU (apples to apples comparison).

If you use your PC for DX12(future proof?) or multithread applications (video encoding for example) then it might make sense buying a higher core and thread count CPU.

From what the rumor mill has been proclaiming the 1700 Ryzen is still behind the Kabby Lake 7700k in single core performance. http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-6950x-7700k-cpu-benchmarks/

IMO, a core i5 or even i3 7350 overclocked might be a better purchase and then spend the extra money on a GPU. Allocate most of the PC budget on GPU.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

Personally my intuition and I say this as a person that flips and flops between intel and AMD is that the AMD processors might be better in certain rendering and video scenarios but worse for gaming than an equivalent priced Intel CPU.

I Also think Intel will respond with price reductions so that Intel still edge out on top other than for very specific situations.

Lastly where AMD have typically managed to eat away at Intel is when it comes to full rig build at the £550-£650 price point or lower in that once you combine the cheaper AMD mobo with the cheaper AMD CPU you end up getting better value for money from the performance.

It looks like for the Top end and Overclocking Intel especially if they drop prices a bit will still have the edge.

I'm excited to see real world tests with more games though!

 

Well, I have a R 1700,16gb ddr4 3200 corsair ram and a gigabyte B350 gaming 3 motherboard being delivered Thursday so I can give some impressions later in the day.

 

ill be buying 2 ryzen chips cos intel are big aholes for ripping us off all these years..and as for the price cuts they are not even that great. Hope the new vega card will be priced well too.

 

Why not wait for real world AC benchmarks instead of conjectures? They will be avalable on Wednesday.

 

I can't wait to see the 'AC does not run with my new gaming rig' posts. I would jump onboard the Ryzen bleedin' edge ship if I had the money as it is always fun to play with something so new you know you are one of a few adventurers into a new AMD world. Good luck to all that sail that ship, I wish I could afford the price.

P.S. It's my Birthday in three days, so if anyone gets a spare bundle you know where to find me.

 

I was told on Anandtech that the NDA is lifted on Thursday, so expect reviews then.

Looking forward to seeing what Ryzen can do. Tbh I'm only interested in gaming performance, so I hope there will be many comparisons between 1700/1700X and the 7700K. That's really all I'm interested in: which one performs better in the games I play the most (and games I will play in the near future). Needles to say, AC benchmarks will put considerable weight on the decision.

That said, realistically there probably won't be a huge difference between them, as the GPU is usually a much more deciding factor when it comes to game performance, especially as the resolution increases. So I guess a lot of it will also come down to the cost of the other components.

 

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/first-ryzen-7-1700x-review-finds-its-way-onto-the-web.html

 

It's also worth noting that the 1700/1700X/1800X are 8 core processors. My opinion is that any comparisons between Ryzen and the Intel i7 7700k CPU should really be done when the 4 core versions are released.

 

The 1700 is priced (before release) at the same level as the i7-7700K is priced at dealers, so I think it's a fair comparison.

Too bad that for OC it needs to be the 1700X which is a jump in prices.

 

Every Ryzen CPU is overclockable, with a compatible motherboard ofc.