AMD Ryzen CPUs

Finally, after more then 10 years, AMD seems to be back in the game!
I wished I would need a new CPU right now, I'd without a blink of an eye choose Ryzen.
Its enough for me that AMD is finally able to offer performance figures roughly equalling Intel.
Its not that I have any kind of dislike against intel, nor do I see AMD as the underdog, but with Intel offering clearly better CPUs (performance/clock wise) for so long time, its refreshing to get some
competition in this market!

 

Considering that quite a few i7 7700k CPUs are apparently being pushed to 5Ghz, the AMD Ryzen will need to be capable of some serious overclocking to give Intel a run for their money in the single threaded performance sector.

 

Reviews are live, first thing I read (title only) that the headspreader is soldered.
One plus point for AMD.

OC, 1700X and 1800X both ran 4,15GHz on all cores, 1700 3,9GHz. Though the temp. readings on 1700 showed max. 60°C even as the system crashed.

 

I know it's not a reputable site; however, this has been done and Ryzen can beat the 7700K purportedly. www.wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-overclocked-4ghz/amp/

Where I live, the store microcenter, (US based) sells the 7700K for $300. This was a result of the Ryzen hype which forced Intel to lower the prices. Anyway, this is $USD29 less than the AMD 1700 CPU. I would suspect gamers will not pay more just to add cores they don't use.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

OK, so gamers probably are better suited with a 1151 i5 or i7 cpu in the reviews I read.
There are quite a view games where Ryzen is quite a bit behind, though it was rather low graphics, turn that higher and the gpu will become a bigger factor.

Mutli-core optimized software though shows really well the power of Ryzen, challenging or beating Intels 6- & 8-Core processors, which cost way more and probably aren't gamers first choice.

Interesting how the 6- and 4-core Ryzen will handle, mainly of they will have more OC-reserves.

 

Well, first benchmarks seem are online e.g. here (german language):
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/amd-ryzen-1800x-1700x-1700-test/
Not looking like Ryzen is thaaat much of a gamechanger as AMD hyped it to be, but its still early...

 

A bit disappointed by those gaming benches I have to say. I may just get a 7700K after all.

 

also slightly dissapointed here.
The chip seems to be really good, considering it runs at lower clocks compared to Intel.
But then again, intel have their fab running so smoothly that all chips are capable of doing 4.5-5.0Ghz, if one wants them too,
and Ryzen seems to not do more then 4.0Ghz.
Maybe there will be some optimization from the chipset and drivers in the coming weeks and months, and we've not seen the best yet!

 

Which cpu's do you mean with 4,5-5.0 GHz? If you mean i5-7600k or i7-7700k (or previous 1151/1150) cpu's than it's not really comparable.

Regarding OC you should compare Octa-core cpu's.


But with focus on gaming Kaby Lake with 4 cores is the way to go.

 

Pretty disappointed with the gaming results too from what I read. AMD claims that they will work with developers to optimize their games and bridge the gap with the best Intel CPUs as far as gaming is concerned. I guess it means it's still too early to really tell if developers will really implement these optimizations. .

My conclusions for now are that
1. today, any decent CPU with 4 cores / 8 threads running at 4 Ghz+ will do the job as far as gaming is concerned, at realistic resolutions.
2. Ryzen gaming results should get better over time as (especially DirectX 12) games make use of 8 cores / 16 threads.
3. There's actually no real need to rush to upgrade if you run an Intel processor that can already handle 8 threads.

This should prove my point pretty well.


I'll definitely upgrade to a 1080 GTX Ti in a month or so but seems like after 6 years, there's still no real reason to upgrade my 2600K yet! In real world use, there are very few games where I'll even notice the difference. The higher the resolution, the less you'll feel the need to upgrade your CPU, which is most likely why all AMD Ryzen benchmarks were at 4K to begin with.

Benchmarks show that at 1440p, in most recent games, the difference between a 5 year old 2600K and a 6700K is in the 5-10% range (i.e. barely noticeable).



It's quite crazy when you think about it but it just means that we've reached a stage where GPUs never have enough power to handle the always higher resolutions and that in real world scenarios, there's basically no need to upgrade your CPU if you're gaming at a resolution better than 1080p.

If you're still at 1080p, there are more noticeable differences between CPUs but either you have a good GPU and your framerates are so high that it's more than playable anyway (do you really care about the difference between 100 and 110 fps enough to upgrade your CPU/motherboard and RAM?), or you have a crappy GPU that keeps your framerates low regardless of your CPU.

 

Since this marks the introduction of potent 6-/8-core processors for reasonable prices it may get the game developers to develop for better multi-core performance after all. (also keep in mind the octa-core console)

 

That's true. The fact that consoles have 8 cores, x86 processors and run DX12 should definitely help too. PC games should make much better use of our hardware in the near future.

 

If someone find a test where they have tried to disable cores and see if the oc get higher, it would be appreciated if you link it here.

 

Whilst I agree, this is such a sad state of affairs for PC gaming in general. The fact that we are relying on console tech in order to "push along" PC gaming...

 

Seeing that current gen console hardware is very similar to pc hardware now instead of the previous gen's, which ran totally proprietary hardware before, I don't mind this development.

 

Unfourtunately for us pc gamers is that the place where the big money are for who develop videogame is console, simply because you have the same hardware for all and you can develop the game more "easy" without having problem with diff hardware, and the game sell more than pc counterpart, they have a price tag different for consolle, no piracy etc etc so less problem more money

BTW about Ryzen
This Cpu is not indeed for pc games even if they have showed gaming perfomance at presentation, this are more for professional use, this means that this cpu is more for professional software multithreading use(rendering, editing etc etc for example) infact the 1800x($499) is to be compared to the counterpart intel I7 6900K($1000) that cost double not with 7700k, for who that the main purpose on pc is gaming it's better wait the r5 1600x that is 6/12(core/threading) or the r5 4/8, this are better to compare with the 7700K, so we have to wait when they are released in the second quarter of this year and see what AMD have done on this model of cpu and if is a win like 1800x against 6900K. Keep in mind that this is a complete new architecture so the work are much to do on bios and software etc etc

 

Unlike some of you, reading "reviews" and listening to the mis informed....i have actual 1st hand experience of a Ryzen cpu.

"Not for pc games", that's actually quite funny.

 

i'm still on a 2600k ( with a gtx1080 soon to be a 1080ti )

see other thread re.someone trying AMD cpu ( bad performance with AC )

i'll stick with the 2600k until a good option comes up

 

Ryzen is slightly slower for single core performance in game that most won't even notice the difference. But very few people run a PC without any background task.

What interest me if Ryzen handle well streaming Assetto Corsa at a steady 60fps with OBS. I've only seen benchmark with Dota 2 & streaming, but that isn't that much intensive.