AMD Ryzen CPUs

I'm using a Ryzen 7 1700 overclocked at 3.87 Ghz for now (will try to push higher with future BIOS).

 

what do you guys think about the new threadripper cpu?
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-threadripper-16-core-cpu-849-us-price-x399-motherboards/
I'm thinking it's not for gaming?

 

Hehehe... yeah, you saw the size of it, it's like an SSD.

Saying that... it will or should be good for gaming though, when the soft catches up.

64 pci-e3 lanes @x16 throughout the whole "threadripper" lineup sounds great and it should make intel drop their prices again, even though they've already come down ~40%.
I really, really hope AMD can go somewhere with this and can back in the race.

Competition is a win/win for everyone, instead of monkeys cornering the market - no matter who they are.

 

Interesting benchmark results on Dirt4 with Intel vs. AMD.

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-06/dirt-4-benchmark/3/



The average FPS (upper part) is pretty similar and looks rather GPU limited to a certain point.

But the 99th percentile* shows that the Ryzen's perform better in terms of the minimal FPS / maximum frametime, even with the quad-core Ryzen.


*99 percent of the tests frametimes were lower than the shown number (converted to fps)

 

edit. nvm.

 

99th percentile and minimal FPS are similar things, but a bit different in the approach.

On minimal you simply take the lowest FPS that was measured.
On 99th percentile you take all frames and watch the limit where the frametime of 99% of the frames is below that value, therefore you cut off the worst 1% of the messured data.

Basicly it's cutting of extensive minimal values where the FPS just dips down for brief moments that happen very rarely.


(And 'average FPS seems similar' I meant between Intel and AMD.)

 

I didnt read it properly, thats why i edited by post.

 

Ah, ok.

 

advice plz~~
I'm using I5 6600 Non k, gpu gtx1070, and I'm going to buy cpu R5 1600.
Is it good choice?

 

Yes, it's a good choice, but I don't know how much better it will perform in AC.
If it's only for AC and you can run everything you like, then maybe not worth to upgrade.
Though if you also do other cpu-intensive stuff then it will be a decent step up.


You can consider to go for the 1600X, I've been reading in a german forum, on average the X models (R5 and R7) have more OC potential with the same voltage or same clock speed with lower voltage.
And if you don't want to OC yourself then I'd recommend the 1600X which has 3,6GHz instead of 3,2GHz of the 1600, price difference is ~35€ here in Germany. But this is only worth considering if you don't want to use the boxed cooler anyway since only the 1600 has a cooler included, the 1600X doesn't.

 

For single core performance, a Ryzen at stock clock is equivalent to an heavily overclocked i7 2600k at 4.7GHz.


It fall between a stock 3770K & 4770K. It's not like if you see people complaining about the performance playing old games at high fps on those.

 

I see that, but how cinebench single core performance are the "thruth" about real cpu performance? Also in gaming. Just numbers, it is a specific cpu work on cinebench maybe different while gaming Ryzen still a beast for the budget, not an Intel fanboy.

 

yes, but you need a bit of overlock at least 1600x speed.

 

woooops, misread.

 

Because game usually overload a single core while still multithreaded.

Cinebench is a good representation of the actual performance of a CPU & the single core is quite the representation of the performance in near all the games with unlocked framerate.

The closest Intel single core performance at stock clock is the i5 4690K(158.5) against the AMD R7 X1800(159.5).

If you put them against each other in gaming the i5 4690k will be neck to neck in not very multithreaded games.

 

It is and it is not a good bench. Because the test will select the best core with the highest core. So, on the turbo mode, the CPU have one core with higher clock and the others on lower clocks. This test is not a real representation of the perfomance for each core of the CPU individually.

 

These AMD Ryzen CPUs sound good for multi threaded applications, but the limited overclock potential is something that would probably stop me from buying one. As a user of flight simulators, I need the CPU to run at significantly increased clock frequencies (since flight simulators based on the Microsoft FSX/ESP codebase need all of the single threaded power that they can get), and the Intel Core i7 chips are apparently running at up to 5Ghz with decent coolers.

 

Mainstream Intel i7 generation comparison


Newer intel CPU are quite good at single core performance, but only useful at very high framerate & old games that no one bother to play.
All in all, Ryzen is superior to Ivy Bridge (3000 series) in every single area.

 

Single core doesn't mean so much lately... when you are being "bottlenecked" by 4 cores running at their fullest usage. Average framerate is pretty much on par between Ryzen processors and latest intel CPUs right now. With intel you can have slightly higher maximum framerate but in reality what matters are 1% and 0,1% lows and here is where Ryzen is superior and worth all days over Intel. If you are building a new PC right now and you are a gamer, you have two choices: Pick intel for having that 5-10 fps more on average/maximum when you are probably going to have more than 60 fps and at the expense of having a stuttering mess like me right now because my 4 cores haven't enough juice to feed my GPU. Second choice: Pick Ryzen and have a much more fluid experience sacrificing a few FPS that aren't worth considering. This should be the smartest choice for gamers right now. You can have an overclockable 6 cores/12 threads cpu for the same price of a locked 4 cores/4 threads i5. Higher minimum framerate is still underrated for too many gamers out there.

 

This is true. For each family, the X models are exactly the same chips, except that they are better overclockers.

Some interesting statistics here:
http://www.ocdrift.com/amd-ryzen-binned-processors-by-silicon-lottery/

The gist is this:

"Ryzen 7 1700
93% reach 3.8 GHz @ 1.376V
70% reach 3.9 GHz @ 1.408V
23% reach 4.0 GHz @ 1.440V

Ryzen 7 1700X
100% reach 3.8 GHz @ 1.360V
77% reach 3.9 GHz @ 1.392V
33% reach 4.0 GHz @ 1.424V

Ryzen 7 1800X
97% reach 3.9 GHz @ 1.376V
67% reach 4.0 GHz @ 1.408V
20% reach 4.1 GHz @ 1.440V"

For what it's worth, my Ryzen 7 1700 won't go higher than 3.75 Ghz @ 1.35V (super stable though). The excessive heat when running at slightly higher frequencies at 1.38-1.39V is not worth the trouble to me (although it runs stable too).

It's probably easier to get a Ryzen 5 higher though. All other things equal, it's easier to be stable at higher frequencies with fewer cores.