DouglasteR
Member
Thats what im betting on.
1700 faster than the 1800x, memory problems everywhere etc.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AMD Ryzen Thread: Affordable Core Act
- Thread starter ·feist·
- Start date
Thats what im betting on.
1700 faster than the 1800x, memory problems everywhere etc.
PCWorld Ryzen 7 1800X and Radeon Fury X: Building the water-cooled, fire-breathing apex of AMD power
Nostremitus
Member
I kinda don't expect a lot of CPU optimization on the game dev side until Ryzen is in consoles...
KingGreasy
Member
It looks OK. Not amazing. Good for productivity. I'd still consider it if I were to do a Linux build with GPU passthrough. On Haswell so performance is adequate. I won't be upgrading until probably more the end of 2018 when hopefully Icelake is out and AMD is releasing new stuff. AMD is at least competitive in productivity so hopefully they can slice out something nice in the server and workstation market so they can continue on independently. Now to wait and see how Vega is
Seems like AMD did it. Competitive now, but just needs a little more push on the Gaming side. Still good enough, especially if you're running older Intel and even older AMD CPUs. I'm going to wait for Ryzen to bake a little more, and perhaps do a Ryzen X Vega upgrade.
The future Ryzen+ should be interesting.
The future Ryzen+ should be interesting.
TheGreyHulk
Member
Overclocking seems to be at the 3.8 - 4.1ghz range. Dont expect massive overclocks. The good news is that the 1700 got nearly 4.1 ghz at overclockers club's review. The 1800x got 4 and 1700x was 3.9. They used a good liquid all in one cooler at max fan speeds to get it and voltages were north of 1.4.
Looks like it's the typical silicon loterry. Which is good for 1700 buyers.
Looks like it's the typical silicon loterry. Which is good for 1700 buyers.
Competitive is great step considering the pricing. I'm on skylake so I won't get one bt my brother is looking to update his old system to Ryzen. Hopefully they can claw back some market share and pump the money into R&D. Also will be interesting in a few months when the software issues start being ironed out and chips possibly start binning better where they stand.
TC McQueen
Member
Guess what - B350s support XFR:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5x4hxu/we_are_amd_creators_of_athlon_radeon_and_other/def5u0s/
Also, Ryzen might be suffering from scheduling issues in some games:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5x4hxu/we_are_amd_creators_of_athlon_radeon_and_other/def6yxg/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5x4hxu/we_are_amd_creators_of_athlon_radeon_and_other/def5u0s/
Also, Ryzen might be suffering from scheduling issues in some games:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5x4hxu/we_are_amd_creators_of_athlon_radeon_and_other/def6yxg/
prag16
Banned
Disappointing gaming benches especially after all the hype I was seeing for the past week.
This at least seems to get them back in the game compared to their situation prior to this launch; we'll see how much of the gap they can close via software.
But as a gamer looking for a new CPU, all I'd see is the $350 7700k stomping the $500 1800X. Which is a shame.
This at least seems to get them back in the game compared to their situation prior to this launch; we'll see how much of the gap they can close via software.
But as a gamer looking for a new CPU, all I'd see is the $350 7700k stomping the $500 1800X. Which is a shame.
That's a given, Intel had a similar problem in the beginning with their hyper-threading.
If the main purpose of your computer is to play games i7 7700k is your best option. Ryzen seems to be filling the gap between Intel's HEDT and mainstream stack.
Kataploom
Gold Member
I'm very excited for these CPUs, I do gaming and I just want good performance at 1080p@60 but I mostly care about performance for my work since I do design and 2D/3D animation so this is perfect for me now.
I'm not thinking on OC (maybe later since I'm affraid to try it lol) nor I want more than 1 graphic card, will a B350 mobo be enough for me or is there some difference between that and a higher-end chipset? Does that have front USB 3.0 port or is that up to the manifacturer? I'm planning on getting this one:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06WRWZNJC/?tag=neogaf0e-20
I'm not thinking on OC (maybe later since I'm affraid to try it lol) nor I want more than 1 graphic card, will a B350 mobo be enough for me or is there some difference between that and a higher-end chipset? Does that have front USB 3.0 port or is that up to the manifacturer? I'm planning on getting this one:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06WRWZNJC/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Jesus. I love their product manager. I wasn't expecting anything this detailed to come out of it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5x4hxu/we_are_amd_creators_of_athlon_radeon_and_other/def7o5z/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5x4hxu/we_are_amd_creators_of_athlon_radeon_and_other/def7o5z/
RenegadeXV8
Banned
From the AMA:
Hmmm
Hmmm
michaelius
Banned
Less cores usually overclock better due to heat and power issues but you are looking at maybe 100-200 Mhz with same architecture.
lol - I'm sure all those developers are just waiting to make massive rewrites of their game engines to use more cores
From what I have seen I am not too hopeful for AMD future here, yes they have managed to get a processor that is in competition with Intel offerings, which is genuinely amazing considering how far behind they were, however they aren't really surpassing what Intel can do, which means intel can easily price them out, and ofc with the exception of kaby lake which is clearly a single threaded focused processor (and winning at it), most of the processors that AMD is competing with are old offerings from intel, including the 6900k.
So good for consumers right now since we are getting some actual competition, but I would be surprised if AMD managed to keep up.
More reviews should also include the 6800k and 6850k since they are in the same price ranges of the 1800x, instead of just straight up comparing it to the 6900k
So good for consumers right now since we are getting some actual competition, but I would be surprised if AMD managed to keep up.
More reviews should also include the 6800k and 6850k since they are in the same price ranges of the 1800x, instead of just straight up comparing it to the 6900k
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Lol how many times.
Unless you play at 1080p with a Titan X, the 7700K is not stomping anything. It's only in those extreme cicumstances that are designed to expose the differences between CPUs that there are noticeable differences. Unless you have a Titan X of course, then I would understand your point more.
At 4K benched with a Titan X, there is like 2-3fps difference between Ryzen and the fastest 4-core. This is the real-world scenario for people with a Titan X:
What graphics card do you own?
Today's Titan X is tomorrow's mid-range though (upgrading graphics cards tends to be more frequent than upgrading CPUs after all), so it's normal to want the best option for gaming.Lol how many times.
Unless you play at 1080p with a Titan X, the 7700K is not stomping anything. It's only in those extreme cicumstances that are designed to expose the differences between CPUs that there are noticeable differences. Unless you have a Titan X of course, then I would understand your point more.
At 4K benched with a Titan X, there is like 2-3fps difference between Ryzen and the fastest 4-core. This is the real-world scenario for people with a Titan X:
What graphics card do you own?
michaelius
Banned
We are back to buy AMD you might not notice it's slower rhetoric already ?
Lol how many times.
Unless you play at 1080p with a Titan X, the 7700K is not stomping anything. It's only in those extreme cicumstances that are designed to expose the differences between CPUs that there are noticeable differences. Unless you have a Titan X of course, then I would understand your point more.
At 4K benched with a Titan X, there is like 2-3fps difference between Ryzen and the fastest 4-core. This is the real-world scenario for people with a Titan X:
What graphics card do you own?
You realize there are people that like to still use 1080p monitors because they prefer higher framerates? I much prefer locked 144fps to resolutions above 1920x1080. If an AMD CPU is going to hold me back compared to Intel, then I'm going to continue to buy Intel.
This will make the four core Ryzen models interesting, assuming they don't use two clusters (and disable four cores) for those as well.
franklyshankly
Member
Lol how many times.
Unless you play at 1080p with a Titan X, the 7700K is not stomping anything. It's only in those extreme cicumstances that are designed to expose the differences between CPUs that there are noticeable differences. Unless you have a Titan X of course, then I would understand your point more.
At 4K benched with a Titan X, there is like 2-3fps difference between Ryzen and the fastest 4-core. This is the real-world scenario for people with a Titan X:
What graphics card do you own?
Your pictures aren't working for me. But I have one question regardless. Even if its a couple fps difference, why would anyone pay more money for worse (or even the same) performance at any level?
DouglasteR
Member
Well, lots of reports of RAM problems.
Seems like some motherboard can´t pass 2400 or even 2133.
Hopefully this is what is wrong ! If there is something wrong at all.
Seems like some motherboard can´t pass 2400 or even 2133.
Hopefully this is what is wrong ! If there is something wrong at all.
Sure. Conversely if you're looking for it to last a long time you'd be wanting to future proof on the number of cores. Nothing is a given, as it stands now, if you don't need to upgrade you might want to wait and see, otherwise these seem fine for most tasks.
Yup, definitely not touching my old Haswell build, but my Phenom system will be getting an upgrade or swap out finally. Got a friend that does rendering and encoding work on an old Broadwell, in that case I can recommend finally an AMD system for price/performance.
Im a PC part noob who plans on building a very solid 1080/60 machine in 2 months...so I don't know much about these things even though I've been researching for months (its a lot of learnin').
But
I thought the advantage here wasn't going to be a peer to peer comparison, but a cost per performance comparison, in that you could by AMD's "i7" level chip for the cost of Intel's "i5" chip, and have it outperform the i5 (Im using i7 and i5 very casually here I know.)
But
I thought the advantage here wasn't going to be a peer to peer comparison, but a cost per performance comparison, in that you could by AMD's "i7" level chip for the cost of Intel's "i5" chip, and have it outperform the i5 (Im using i7 and i5 very casually here I know.)
prag16
Banned
Lol how many times.
Unless you play at 1080p with a Titan X, the 7700K is not stomping anything. It's only in those extreme cicumstances that are designed to expose the differences between CPUs that there are noticeable differences. Unless you have a Titan X of course, then I would understand your point more.
At 4K benched with a Titan X, there is like 2-3fps difference between Ryzen and the fastest 4-core. This is the real-world scenario for people with a Titan X:
What graphics card do you own?
Are you kidding me? This sounds like moving the goalposts. Last week Ryzen was going to trade blows with Intel's $1500 extreme enthusiast CPUs. This week I should be happy because at $500 it "only" gets "slightly" (a lot more than slightly if you're running a high end GPU at 1080p) beaten by the $350 7700K?
AMD touts how competitive they are in GPU bound situations? Am I taking crazy pills? This is a CPU, not a GPU...
Maybe AMD will bust their asses and make drastic improvements to drivers and software to make this happen (I'm skeptical), but as of now, no, you will not get that.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Sounds like AMD is faster for content creation but slower for games. Works for me if that's the case.
shark sandwich
tenuously links anime, pedophile and incels
So there are two completely different lineups of i7. There's Kaby Lake (i7 7700k) and Broadwell-E (6800K, 6900k, etc). Kaby Lake is the newest and greatest architecture but its quad core. Broadwell-E is based on an older architecture but it's 6-10 cores depending on which model you get (and it's expensive as hell).
Ryzen kicks Broadwell-E's ass in price/performance ratio.
-BUT-
For gaming, Kaby Lake is the best performer. In that space, Ryzen is disappointing.
Bottom line: i7 7700K is still the CPU to beat for gaming. Compared to the similarly-priced Ryzen 1700 it's a no-brainer.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Holy shit I just read the Anandtech review
NOW RYZE
NOW RYZE
This doesn't apply to this particular series of chips. For games an 7700k will obliterate these chips (while being cheaper), specially on certain games like Witcher 3, Watch Dogs 2, etc (things that actually task the cpu).
It MIGHT be different for their cheaper 5 series but we dont know yet.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
I don't know, because you get 90% of the performance for half the price.
Or I got another one, are you ready? You get double the cores and double the threads for a little bit more money, and all the huge multi-threaded performance advantages that brings.
I don't understand. It does trade blows with Intel's $1600 10-core. Have you not read the reviews?
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Those rendering benchmarks are insane :O
franklyshankly
Member
It certainly seems great value for people with content creation or similar workloads. But this is a gaming forum so I think it's understandable people are more interested in that here?
Now you're just being obtuse on purpose. People are obviously talking about gaming.
Joker put up raw footage of his gaming benchmarks (Vsync Off, 1080p). Much better showing by Ryzen 1700 overclocked to 4GHz.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXVIPo_qbc4
Honestly, with how poorly optimised some of these motherboards are I'm not shocked at the huge differences between reviews. Joker had his ram running much higher clock compared to other reviews too.
Overall, AMD has done a stunning job with Zen core. I look forward to seeing how the platform and manufacturing matures over the next few months, also when it comes to base core design it's very very sound.
Edit: Also, Ryzen 1700 is easily the chip to buy and true champ from the line up if you are going to overclock.
Also, people looking to buy a motherboard really need to wait to see in-depth reviews VRM design & bios support and optimisation is critical so you don't get stuck with a shitty motherboard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXVIPo_qbc4
Honestly, with how poorly optimised some of these motherboards are I'm not shocked at the huge differences between reviews. Joker had his ram running much higher clock compared to other reviews too.
Overall, AMD has done a stunning job with Zen core. I look forward to seeing how the platform and manufacturing matures over the next few months, also when it comes to base core design it's very very sound.
Edit: Also, Ryzen 1700 is easily the chip to buy and true champ from the line up if you are going to overclock.
Also, people looking to buy a motherboard really need to wait to see in-depth reviews VRM design & bios support and optimisation is critical so you don't get stuck with a shitty motherboard.
TC McQueen
Member
Here's some new stuff from the Reddit AMA:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5x4hxu/we_are_amd_creators_of_athlon_radeon_and_other/def500n/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5x4hxu/we_are_amd_creators_of_athlon_radeon_and_other/def500n/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5x4hxu/we_are_amd_creators_of_athlon_radeon_and_other/def54ai/Robert Hallock said:
Robert Hallock said:
The prepared model number codes AMD detailed indicate there won't be any pure Ryzen CPUs for laptops, just APUs.
They plan to use the same naming scheme across all products:
That was refreshingly insightful indeed.
D
Deleted member 59090
Unconfirmed Member
Just noticed that Tech Report did too.
http://techreport.com/review/31366/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-ryzen-7-1700x-and-ryzen-7-1700-cpus-reviewed
AstroNut325
Member
I'm still ok with this. I do more rendering and encoding in my PC than gaming. For the occasional gaming, it looks like the R7 can still be good. For people that game a lot on PC, Intel is still the choice.
Oh great, even after it's released and benchmarks are out you're still at this.
You're posting GPU-bottlenecked benchmarks - which is exactly what AMD pushed reviewers to do.
GPU bottlenecks happen when you select graphics settings beyond what your GPU can handle.
Unless you are gaming with an unlocked framerate, your GPU should never be hitting 100% load.
You think turning up the settings so high that even a Titan X is dropping below 60 FPS is a realistic scenario?
If a game is dropping to 30 FPS in places I would immediately start turning down settings until the framerate is above 60 FPS - and I expect most PC gamers would.
When you are trying to hit a framerate target, instead of pushing ultra settings at 4K on everything, you're going to start noticing when your CPU is holding you back.
You can keep turning down the graphics settings and further reducing GPU load, but the framerate just won't budge when your CPU is the limiting factor.
A CPU performance test should be designed so that you can find out what that framerate is for each CPU - whether it's 40 FPS, 60 FPS, 90 FPS etc.
When you have that information you can decide whether a CPU is suitable.
If one CPU can run the game at 80 FPS, and another CPU can run the game at 150 FPS (but costs a lot more) you might decide that the 80 FPS CPU is just fine because you play on a 60Hz display anyway.
But if you had a 144Hz display you would want a CPU which can hit 150 FPS.
In another game, the difference between those CPUs may be 40 FPS and 75 FPS instead though, in which case the slower CPU is not suitable even if you have a 60Hz display.
If you bottleneck these tests with your GPU so that the result is 30 FPS using either CPU, the test doesn't provide any useful information at all.
At most, it might show you that there are some old CPUs which are so slow that they can't even hit 30 FPS, but nothing about the differences between any other CPU in the test which can hit at least 30 FPS.
One CPU might be able to run the game at 31 FPS while another could run it at 500 FPS, but you wouldn't know because you set up a GPU-limited test.
And when you are trying to hit a framerate target - like keeping the minimum above 60 FPS - you can be CPU-bottlenecked with just about any GPU.
My previous card was a GTX 960 and it was being CPU-bottlenecked in recent games because I chose appropriate settings for it, instead of trying to run ultra settings at 4K.
Exactly. The Titan XP performance just dropped from $1200 to $700 and it will be $400 or less next year.
That's why you must set up CPU tests in such a way that eliminates the GPU from affecting their performance.
More on 1080p performance from AMA -
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5x55ey/the_answer_to_gaming_benchmark_discrepancies/
You're forgetting the server, semi-custom and APUs this Zen Architecture is to be competing with as well. Gaming PCs, while being the flashiest is far away from being the most lucrative venture AMD is striving to compete in.
DemonCleaner
Member
whats up with the DX11 vs. DX12 results on computer base? no one saw any need to comment on that?
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03.../#diagramm-battlefield-1-dx11-multiplayer-fps
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03.../#diagramm-battlefield-1-dx12-multiplayer-fps
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03.../#diagramm-battlefield-1-dx11-multiplayer-fps
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03.../#diagramm-battlefield-1-dx12-multiplayer-fps
Loving their honest approach.
SolidSnakeUS
Member
Fantastic answers there.