-
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
An update on my situation:
Was able to get my 16GB Corsair LPX RAM to post at 2993 MHz, had to set the timing to 14-14-14-45 in BIOS. CPU overlock now @3.9 ghz with 1.32 vcore. Paired with a GTX 1080ti OC'd. Everything stable. Running BIOS firmware for x370 titanium.Man I fucking love this PC now lol. Booted up Witcher 3 and made me realize just how ANCIENT the 2500k was, which I upgraded from. Mind you my 2500k was OC@4.8 ghz. Results around the cat inn, Witcher 3 at 1080p:
2500k 4.8ghz + 1080ti (OC) = 70-78 FPS MAX
Ryzen 1700 3.9 ghz + 1080ti (OC) + 2993 mhz = 144-160 FPS
I mean holy fuck batman. Sure this was not a full 'torture' test or benchmark, but got damn. Over double performance. Seriously I am so damn hyped with this setup. Temp readings are great and correct now. Idle is 29C, load 58C with Noctua DH15.
Was able to get my 16GB Corsair LPX RAM to post at 2993 MHz, had to set the timing to 14-14-14-45 in BIOS. CPU overlock now @3.9 ghz with 1.32 vcore. Paired with a GTX 1080ti OC'd. Everything stable. Running BIOS firmware for x370 titanium.Man I fucking love this PC now lol. Booted up Witcher 3 and made me realize just how ANCIENT the 2500k was, which I upgraded from. Mind you my 2500k was OC@4.8 ghz. Results around the cat inn, Witcher 3 at 1080p:
2500k 4.8ghz + 1080ti (OC) = 70-78 FPS MAX
Ryzen 1700 3.9 ghz + 1080ti (OC) + 2993 mhz = 144-160 FPS
I mean holy fuck batman. Sure this was not a full 'torture' test or benchmark, but got damn. Over double performance. Seriously I am so damn hyped with this setup. Temp readings are great and correct now. Idle is 29C, load 58C with Noctua DH15.
AstroNut325
Member
Nice! Like what I'm seeing.
Papacheeks
Banned
Nice.
I'm waiting for vega before I fully pull the trigger. Hope by then DDR4 prices stabilize a little more.
Btw what Res are you playing at?
I posted too fast, forgot to even put the name of the game in lol. This was Witcher 3 @ 1080p, on my 144hz Eizo FG2421. All settings max. Swam in the water, etc. Did not go into Novigrad though. Edited my post with info.
My main game setup is actually 4k@60hz. Just hooked the PC to this 1080p monitor so I would be more CPU bottlenecked, to better compare Ryzen with my old champ (2500k).
I set it to 1.35v
Along those lines:
MindBlank Tech Getting faster RAM working on Ryzen + ASUS Crosshair 6 Hero
↑↑ Apart from the aspects which are specific to the C6H mobo, there are some universal tips in there people have been using for years.
Some apps have been geared towards Intel, in certain cases companies have opted to use Intel's compiler instead of another option, while in other instances you have workloads which are nearly serial-only or very lightly threaded. Skylake and Kaby's higher clock speed will excel that much more for those types of jobs.
Despite their shortcomings, Bulldozer/Piledriver/Piledriver+ actually were competitive for certain uses (effectively matching or beating Sandy/Ivy Bridge), but AMD simply didn't have products which were fast enough in per-core metrics or efficient enough and despite continued evolution of the "Construction Core" family those improvements didn't make it into desktop or enterprise CPUs, as Intel pulled further away on performance.
With a fast and efficient Zen architecture there is a fully viable second platform for developers to begin targeting. We've seen some moves towards this, in part due to AMD's dev. reach-out, but you'll have your share of companies' applications which will have a hard time overcoming the inertia of several years of specifically coding for Intels which have been evolving essentially since Core2/gen1 Core-i.
There are a number of reasons we are where we are right now. Some things won't change.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu,4951-9.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-review,4987-7.html
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Wait until they fully roll out that memory BIOS update soon and run it at 3200Mhz in that setup and you'll get another 5% performance. You'll be laughing. As DF said, higher frequency ram with Ryzen gives more perf gains in games than CPU frequency.
Those results seem to disagree strongly with Digital Foundry's results, who tested the Ryzen processors with 3200mhz memory and a Titan X pushing 1920x1080. They get a consistent 10%+ difference between Kaby Lake and Ryzen.
I suspect that the GTX1070 he's using is causing a bottleneck, seeing there's no OTHER reason why there's such a huge disparity in results. I suppose that benchmark does prove that the CPU becomes a less limiting factor when you're GPU bottlenecked in games though.
·feist·;232944003 said:
I'm aware of the CPU/software situation right now. The problem for someone like who needs to upgrade their workstation yesterday is that I need performance right now. I'm not banking on the hope that Trimble, ESRI or Adobe get off their ass and fix their software. The unfortunate thing, as you noted, is that a significant number of tasks in "professional" software are still pretty much single threaded and for me the 4Ghz limit and lower IPC of Ryzen seems to limiting enough that the gap can't be closed to negligible levels.
As it is, Ryzen 7 is still an odd duck to me. It signifies that AMD is back but total single threaded performance is still too low and price still too damn high in Australia (the 1700 is the same price as the 7700k and X versions are basically the same price as Intel's 2011-3 platform processors so...). But the 4 and 6 core models should seriously shake the market up because Intel has seriously been dragging their feet with their i3 and i5 processors.
so I was waiting for the platform to mature but my 2500k build almost die yesterday, doesn't even recognize the PCIe slot anymore and basically limping along. Is there any development or timeline on Micro ATX board yet? I checked amazon and the options are disappointing (only 4 SATA?)
What A Time To Be Alive
Member
Not disagreeing with you but how would the 1070 be a bottleneck. Some of his benches are running at 720p medium to 1080p high which wouldn't be a bottleneck for the 1070 (basically a 1440p card).
Even a GTX1080 is still a bottleneck at 1920x1080 if you want to maintain a sufficient frame rate at sufficient settings. I mean, what does a 1440p card even mean?
I can't see what else could cause the differential between the majority of benchmarks, including Digital Foundry's results who also tested 4Ghz overclocks and 3200mhz RAM. Heck, some of his results don't only show that Ryzen closes the gap between Kaby Lake but outright beats it.
Yeah -- I cancelled the G.Skill 3200 ram I bought, seeing as the LPX got to 2993. Hell, I hope they can get RAM to scale beyond 3600 MHz, and have performance increase alongside it. Will gladly take an additional 5% in performance for free though
Does anyone know a bit more about AMD's approach to the AM4 platform? Specifically talking about whether future chip introductions will need new motherboard or not... would love to hold on to this motherboard for as long as I can. That's one of the things that ticked me off about Intel, the continuous MOBO changes.
TC McQueen
Member
IIRC, they've said it's a 4-5 year board. That makes sense, since they don't have the market share to do something as annoying/dickish as constantly changing sockets every few years for marginal gains.
Cow Mengde
Banned
Any info on how Dolphin runs on it? I have a low end i5 and while it runs most games well, it's not enough for the more demanding games.
I'm shocked to find that his system can't even cold-boot at those settings, and that there's a general "maybe don't do this with NVMe drives" warning without mentioning that raising the base clock is dropping the PCIe link speed and potentially going to cause issues for other PCIe devices.·feist·;232944003 said:
While the compiler has always been a potential issue, the bigger problem for a lot of these programs is that they don't benefit from having eight cores.·feist·;232944003 said:
Adobe's products other than Premiere basically cap out at 4 cores unless you're batch-exporting. That's true whether you're using an Intel or AMD system.
Anyone doing work in Lightroom, Photoshop, Illustrator etc. has been waiting for Adobe to improve the applications for years.
It has annoyed me that so many people have been acting like video editing is the only "professional" workflow that exists, since that's something Ryzen seems to do well in for the price, ignoring the rest.
That said, I'm still very close to buying the parts for a Ryzen build.
I just spent a few hours choosing parts and pricing up a new build only to find the Crosshair VI sold out (again) by the time I got to the checkout. Perhaps I should take that as a sign.
As I've said previously though, ECC support is the main thing which still makes Ryzen appealing.
But I'm still really concerned that I'm going to spend $2000 on a new workstation and it's going to drop the RAM speed to 1866MT/s when I put in 32GB (4x8GB).
I'm itching to build a new system, but if Intel didn't restrict ECC support to Xeons and i3 CPUs (you read that correctly) I'd be waiting for Coffee Lake/Skylake-X.
Of course if I do buy a Ryzen system, they're sure to change their policy on that, knowing my luck.
While it's something that I have been trying to avoid, having to build a separate gaming rig and workstation almost seems inevitable now though.
Even if the RAM can run at the full 2666MT/s, that's going to starve any game which relies heavily on fast low-latency memory, because the latency for ECC is much higher than non-ECC RAM too. (CL19)
If you want the best gaming performance, it seems like you're sacrificing a lot trying to do that on a workstation.
I don't think that's likely with this generation of CPUs.Yeah -- I cancelled the G.Skill 3200 ram I bought, seeing as the LPX got to 2993. Hell, I hope they can get RAM to scale beyond 3600 MHz, and have performance increase alongside it. Will gladly take an additional 5% in performance for free though
The highest multiplier available results in 3200MT/s at a 100MHz base clock.
3600MT/s would require a 112.5MHz BCLK at the highest multiplier (reducing PCIe speed/stability) and the 32x multiplier isn't stable for anyone right now.
Even MindBlank's game tests were using a 123MHz BCLK paired with the 29.33x multiplier.
I think they've said that AM4 should last two or three generations of CPU, but I would expect - or at least hope - that they update the chipset with newer CPUs.
Intel's platforms should also be lasting three generations of CPU now that they've moved from the Tick-Tock model to the Process-Architecture-Optimization model though.
So AMD might be preparing a direct HEDT rival, 4x CCX 16c32t and 12c24t, quad-channel DDR4 etc. pp. supposedly to be announced at Computex and launched shortly after.
TechPowerUp AMD 16-core Ryzen a Multi-Chip Module of two "Summit Ridge" Dies
TechPowerUp AMD 16-core Ryzen a Multi-Chip Module of two "Summit Ridge" Dies
Unknown Soldier
Member
This doesn't make any sense, you are literally the person that should be buying into HEDT. Why build two machines just to have AMD when you can build a single 6900K machine which breathes fire in both games and workstation applications, especially if you're going to overclock it until it cries? What do you specifically need ECC for?
If you really do need ECC, there's also this:
https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/X99E_WS/specifications/
X99 with ECC support. Put a 6900K in it. Have fun!
Legit Reviews AMD Ryzen Single-Rank Versus Dual-Rank DDR4 Memory Performance
As to pricing: In most regions the R7 1700, R7 1700X and R7 1800x are a fraction of the price of the i7-5960X, i7-6900K and i7-6950X.
Newegg Australia:
i7 Haswell-E/Broadwell-E - https://www.newegg.com/global/au/Pr...00535697 600213784 601192205&Manufactory=1157
R7 Summit Ridge - https://www.newegg.com/global/au/Pr...100203101 50001028 601295133&Manufactory=1028
I think it's important we remember which Intel parts the Ryzen 7 line are actually geared towards. The results of all the 4c/8t Sandy/Ivy/etc. Intels and 4m/8c/8t Bulldozer/Piledriver AMDs may have distorted peoples' perceptions of each company's product stack, though there's enough info on the current lineups to mostly clear up any confusion.
Yes, AMD have flirted with potential conquest sales in comparing the standard R7 1700 against the top 4c/8t i7s and 6c/12t i7s, but again that was more as an overall proposition and not as a king of gaming or single-thread clock speed. This isn't meant against you, though I have seen countless people begin pretending the 6-, 8- and 10-core Intels don't exist as a means of fitting their argument against the Ryzen 7s.
I'm sure you've seen this as well. They tend to omit the general performance parity the Ryzen 7s have in gaming and production to those Has-E/Broad-E parts, instead focusing on the i7 6700K and i7 7700K's higher stock and max OC single thread clock advantage as a sign of the R7s being inferior and overpriced... all while neglecting to mention how the 6/8/10-core Intels also perform in many of those comparisons. It's an odd thing.
Sure, you can compare anything including products in a broad price range, but the intellectual dishonesty in which this skewed comparison is often made will become increasingly difficult for people to try to uphold over the next ~2-3 years or less.
Mind, I'm not referring to valid general arguments entailing which of the Intel quads or AMD octas are best suited to some buyer's specific usage cases. Also, regardless of price brackets we all understand newest CPU vs newest CPU comparisons, particularly since Skylake-X has yet to see release, but important distinctions should still be noted.
Also, also, also #eleventy-five...
I don't anticipate Ryzen 5 or Ryzen 3 max OCs differing from the R7s all that much. Further production-related tweaks and manufacturing process maturation should help a bit. Still shy of a re-spin and/or arch tweaks I don't see 24/7 OCs being as high as what some are expecting.
IIRC, he did mention the PCIe difference, though he may not have gone into much of a technical breakdown or specifics.
Sure, Tommy DJ and I have both touched on that.
I believe as much as 5 years have been hinted at. As TC McQueen and Paragon mentioned, it's expected standard AM4 should see at least 1-2 new CPU gens. From there you likely have new PCHs with updated I/O, and possibly some CPU/APU-integrated features which may be disabled or running at a lower spec on current AM4+X3xx/B3xx/A3xx.·feist·;231164071 said:『 Architecture 』
AMD Claims Zen Architecture Powering Ryzen Processors Will Have A 4 Year Product Roadmap [HotHardware]
Aggregate benchmarks have Ryzen's overall IPC being roughly comparable to Broadwell-E clock-for-clock, with Broadwell-E's ~10-15% higher max OC potential tending to account for many of the differences (similar to Skylake/Kaby Lake's higher stock and potential max clocks). Sky and Kaby's overall IPC increase is in the single digit range, but having the top-end i7s with higher base and turbo give them a comfortable IPS lead where it matters.
As to pricing: In most regions the R7 1700, R7 1700X and R7 1800x are a fraction of the price of the i7-5960X, i7-6900K and i7-6950X.
Newegg Australia:
i7 Haswell-E/Broadwell-E - https://www.newegg.com/global/au/Pr...00535697 600213784 601192205&Manufactory=1157
R7 Summit Ridge - https://www.newegg.com/global/au/Pr...100203101 50001028 601295133&Manufactory=1028
I think it's important we remember which Intel parts the Ryzen 7 line are actually geared towards. The results of all the 4c/8t Sandy/Ivy/etc. Intels and 4m/8c/8t Bulldozer/Piledriver AMDs may have distorted peoples' perceptions of each company's product stack, though there's enough info on the current lineups to mostly clear up any confusion.
Yes, AMD have flirted with potential conquest sales in comparing the standard R7 1700 against the top 4c/8t i7s and 6c/12t i7s, but again that was more as an overall proposition and not as a king of gaming or single-thread clock speed. This isn't meant against you, though I have seen countless people begin pretending the 6-, 8- and 10-core Intels don't exist as a means of fitting their argument against the Ryzen 7s.
I'm sure you've seen this as well. They tend to omit the general performance parity the Ryzen 7s have in gaming and production to those Has-E/Broad-E parts, instead focusing on the i7 6700K and i7 7700K's higher stock and max OC single thread clock advantage as a sign of the R7s being inferior and overpriced... all while neglecting to mention how the 6/8/10-core Intels also perform in many of those comparisons. It's an odd thing.
Sure, you can compare anything including products in a broad price range, but the intellectual dishonesty in which this skewed comparison is often made will become increasingly difficult for people to try to uphold over the next ~2-3 years or less.
Mind, I'm not referring to valid general arguments entailing which of the Intel quads or AMD octas are best suited to some buyer's specific usage cases. Also, regardless of price brackets we all understand newest CPU vs newest CPU comparisons, particularly since Skylake-X has yet to see release, but important distinctions should still be noted.
Also, also, also #eleventy-five...
I don't anticipate Ryzen 5 or Ryzen 3 max OCs differing from the R7s all that much. Further production-related tweaks and manufacturing process maturation should help a bit. Still shy of a re-spin and/or arch tweaks I don't see 24/7 OCs being as high as what some are expecting.
Papacheeks
Banned
Having the 1070 gtx makes it more on the cpu. Regardless if it's a 1080 or a 1070 both of which can max out most games at 1440p.
When you go over 1080 that's when the gpu is more dependent for the system than the cpu.
And here's a video showing a percentage increase when properly overclocking without xmp profiles to get a pretty significant boost in single/multithread and games.
And here's a guide from the same guy I linked earlier showing how he achieved the bandwidth speed with what board, ram and how her got his tight timings.
You'd think so, but HEDT doesn't support ECC memory, Xeons are clocked even lower than the HEDT CPUs stock speed, and you can't overclock them.
Additionally, a lot of what I do is in Lightroom/Photoshop/Illustrator, so it's tough to justify a $1000 CPU when only half of it is going to be used a lot of the time.
If I repurpose some of the hardware I already have (case, power supply, CPU cooler etc.) it probably works out about the same price - or at least close enough - that it would be better to just build two systems.
The pricing here means that I can buy an R7-1700, X370 Crosshair VI, i7-7700K, and Z270 Strix for the same price as the i7-6900K on its own - which really puts things in perspective.
The more I start to think about it, the more I can see some utility in having separate systems, but I just really wanted to avoid that.
See, I've almost just talked myself into it again. The thing that's really holding me back is the uncertainty about memory speeds.
The fact that ECC memory is slower than non-ECC is bad enough, but Ryzen is not going to perform well if 4x8GB results in it dropping to 1866MT/s.
Better reliability; helping to reduce application crashes, silent data corruption etc.
I think a lot of general 'unusual behavior' from computers can likely be attributed to accumulating memory errors because systems are rarely ever shut down now, and only restarted when updates require it.
The "Ryzen optional CPU/APU in next MS Surface" speculation that has been around for weeks continues to circulate. I've still not seen a single credible source for it.
Post-launch, MSI recently showed 7 new AM4 boards including mATX models. I fully expect boards manufacturers to being showing some newer models around Computex 2017; Mini-ITX, mATX, some revisions of current models and new ones altogether.
With Gigabyte and Biostar mITX is slowly coming along: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=232090121&postcount=1815
X370 is overkill for mITX (X300 is better suited to "high-end" mITX), though it would be nice to see some X370 mATX options at Computex or sooner.
B350s seem to be doing fine, though: https://twitter.com/MAINGEAR/status/846819111753728000
I tend to prefer a higher feature set and more robust VRM for my upper end mATX builds (typing this on an Asus Rampage Gene + 3GHz 8c/16t Xeon), but quite a few users seem happy with their B350 builds hitting similar 3.8-4GHz clocks as ATX X370s.
Post-launch, MSI recently showed 7 new AM4 boards including mATX models. I fully expect boards manufacturers to being showing some newer models around Computex 2017; Mini-ITX, mATX, some revisions of current models and new ones altogether.
With Gigabyte and Biostar mITX is slowly coming along: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=232090121&postcount=1815
X370 is overkill for mITX (X300 is better suited to "high-end" mITX), though it would be nice to see some X370 mATX options at Computex or sooner.
B350s seem to be doing fine, though: https://twitter.com/MAINGEAR/status/846819111753728000
@MAINGEAR
So fresh and so clean @AMD F131 build. @AMDRyzen 1700x w/ @Radeon R9 Nano on @msiUSA B350M Gaming Pro.
Is your want for ECC just for Lightroom/Photoshop/Illustrator? I've been using the Adobe Suite for over a decade now... while also doing quite a lot of Video/3D/Motion Graphics. Both at work with ECC equipped workstations and at home on a more gaming oriented set up. I've never ran into an issue with not having ECC memory with the work I'm doing. And recently have not run into any issue while doing pipeline development.
·feist·;232956441 said:
When I say total single threaded performance, I am including the clock speed deficit that Ryzen has against recent Intel offerings.
As far as pricing goes, I'm personally not really concerned with the insanely priced Intel systems with similar core counts. For my work purposes, none of these processors make any sense. I can leverage the numerous core counts occasionally when I render/export/encode but that's a very small amount of time compared to the time I'm actually manually doing work.
For other people I work with, the price of the insanely priced Intel processors is barely a concern since most jobs they do pay for them multiple times over. They simply want the fastest solution available. Its a bit strange to hear cases where money is a non-issue but there are situations where its a justifiable purchase that you end up claiming under tax.
I don't dispute any of that. Heck, I even straight up say that Ryzen is a good proposition if all you do is render. Its lots of cores, that actually perform well, for a very good price and it even supports ECC memory without the bullshit Intel Xeon requirement that inflates prices considerably.
The claim I make is that it doesn't seem like a good proposition for most workstations due to most software's reliance on single threaded performance.
That's not an argument I remember making at all. I know they're not going to overclock better.
The argument I'm making is this:
- Ryzen 3 and 5 are presumably price competitive with Intel's i3 and i5 product stack.
- Ryzen 3 should completely bury the Intel i3 since its a dual core processor in 2017.
- Ryzen 5 should be completely competitive with the Intel i5 for similar reasons.
Ryzen 3 in particularly screams a lot of performance for very little money.
masterkajo
Member
So my i5-2500k@4.4GHz is on its last legs and will go to a friend who does mainly use the PC for light work. This leaves me with the option of going Intel or AMD for my next CPU.
I do mainly game, surf the web and watch movies on my PC. Though, I am not a gamer with the newest hardware all the time (as you can guess by holding on to my i5-2500k), I did buy a g-sync 1440p 165Hz monitor recently. So I would like to be able to get high refresh rates even if I have to turn down some settings.
Would Ryzen allow me to do that? I am leaning toward the new R5 1600 (which I would OC to ~4GHz) which offers a good price combined with a B350 motherboard. Or maybe a x370 to upgrade to a new Ryzen CPU in 2-3 years while not having to upgrade the motherboard or RAM. Or should I rather look at the i7?
I do mainly game, surf the web and watch movies on my PC. Though, I am not a gamer with the newest hardware all the time (as you can guess by holding on to my i5-2500k), I did buy a g-sync 1440p 165Hz monitor recently. So I would like to be able to get high refresh rates even if I have to turn down some settings.
Would Ryzen allow me to do that? I am leaning toward the new R5 1600 (which I would OC to ~4GHz) which offers a good price combined with a B350 motherboard. Or maybe a x370 to upgrade to a new Ryzen CPU in 2-3 years while not having to upgrade the motherboard or RAM. Or should I rather look at the i7?
If your price is in the $200 range, then the 1600 would probably be your best option from the simulated benchmarks. The B350s are generally fine, I'd really suggest them unless you're planning on going with multiple gpus. You wouldn't have to upgrade the motherboard or ram for new Ryzen cpus with the b350 either. At 4 ghz it performs about as well, if not better, in games than the 7600k overclocked to 4.8 ghz.
If you want to spend more, a 7700k would be better for your purposes, but a 1600 would by no means be bad.
FingerBang
Member
If all you're looking for is high fps in games at lower resolutions, then I think the i7 7700k is the one to get.
The 1600X will cost less, but there's no way it could beat the i7. If you were on a budget or if you were looking for a 60 fps gaming CPU then the the 1600(X) would probably be the best bang for your buck.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Yeah, ECC is actually for servers and that sort of thing. Home, gaming, and general workstation users don't need ECC at all. Chasing ECC in the non-server setting is a bit silly.
What A Time To Be Alive
Member
Runs them perfectly fine. Even better when overclocked.
Dolphin isn't that demanding when it comes to CPU's. I could play Mario Kart Double Dash at 16:9 2x MSAA on my laptop full speed no problems and my laptop is just a mobile i5.
I think something better to test in terms of emulators is Cemu which requires more horsepower right now.
DonMigs85
Member
Games vary widely in terms of how demanding they are on the CPU. Rogue Leader, Beach Spikers,Last Story and Xenoblade are far beyond Mario Kart.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
A shit-tonne of new AM4 boards are releasing alongside the R5's in 2 weeks. MITX boards are amongst them, so wait a couple weeks.
masterkajo
Member
Thanks for the input. I am still torn. I do want my high refresh gaming (having a 980 at the moment) and am totally ok with lowering settings. So my CPU should be able to provide me with enough power to do that.
An Intel Kaby Lake i7 processor + motherboard costs about €550 while I could get a R5 1600 + B350 for about €350. Will the R5 1600 allow me to play games at about 165fps with lowered settings (if the GPU is not bottlenecking)? Overwatch for instances ran at 165fps on my i5-2500k@4.4Ghz no problem. So an R5 would definitly be an upgrade for me, right?
I don't want to spend too much at the moment because I want to upgrade in about 2-3 years to the top of the line hardware when
/ if
Yeah, you are right. I might as well go big. By the time Star Citizen releases the i7-7700k will feel like my i5-2500k now
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Of course an R5 would be an upgrade, the R5 siumlated beats the 7600K, a 5-generation ahead of your CPU, in most gaming benches when overclocked to 4Ghz and with the Intel at 4.8Ghz (both max overclocks).
You're also looking at 6 cores 12 threads versus 4 cores and only 4 threads on your 2500K. It's ancient man, you should have got rid of that last year
Anyway don't take my word for it:
Also, with the Titan X the small performance disparity between a 7700K and Ryzen is most apparent. With a 1080 it is lessened, and with a 1070 it's almost inconsequential and so on.
Sorry for the newbie question, but I'm trying to overclock my Ryzen 7 1700 and hitting brick wall after brick wall.
I have an ASUS PRIME B-350+ Motherboard, and the options for overclocking it don't line up with ANY guides I can find on the subject. No multiplier, no place to set my clock, only "Auto" options. If I try to enable the "OC" setting to "ON" that would allow me to set these options, my BIOS crashes and I have to reset the CMOS to boot again.
I tried using the Ryzen master app, but any time I set a clock on it (even just to 3.7Ghz, which my 1700 should be able to do) I get a black screen as soon as I try to open a game or do anything at all.
Any help or advice would be much appreciated.
I have an ASUS PRIME B-350+ Motherboard, and the options for overclocking it don't line up with ANY guides I can find on the subject. No multiplier, no place to set my clock, only "Auto" options. If I try to enable the "OC" setting to "ON" that would allow me to set these options, my BIOS crashes and I have to reset the CMOS to boot again.
I tried using the Ryzen master app, but any time I set a clock on it (even just to 3.7Ghz, which my 1700 should be able to do) I get a black screen as soon as I try to open a game or do anything at all.
Any help or advice would be much appreciated.
psn
Member
Did you update your BIOS?
When you overclock the CPU with the Ryzen master app, do you raise the vcore as well?
masterkajo
Member
Of course an R5 would be an upgrade, the R5 siumlated beats the 7600K, a 5-generation ahead of your CPU, in most gaming benches when overclocked to 4Ghz and with the Intel at 4.8Ghz (both max overclocks).
You're also looking at 6 cores 12 threads versus 4 cores and only 4 threads on your 2500K. It's ancient man, you should have got rid of that last year
Anyway don't take my word for it:
Also, with the Titan X the small performance disparity between a 7700K and Ryzen is most apparent. With a 1080 it is lessened, and with a 1070 it's almost inconsequential and so on.
Yeah I get that. With my 980 there is hardly any difference between the cpus except if I turn the graphic settings down so as to not have the gpu bottleneck. Also for the future I might buy an 1170/80 card which will definitely be above titan level. I want to have good fps in that case too.
So I guess I will have to pay more to get the better performance. Unless the games change in the next 1 to 2 years so that all games utilise more cores. The R5 will still be a pretty good performance/price option.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Yeah because the 1600 is so ridiculously cheap, you can get that 6-core now and then upgrade next year with a 2700 Ryzen+ if you feel you need to. But tbh you could sit on a 1600 for a fair while.
So bit of an update: my 7 1700 overheats badly when I change any of the settings for it in Ryzen Master, even raising the clock from 3000MHz to 3100. When I do that, the graph also shows it treating 3100 as the ceiling and not the floor, wheras if I leave it on the default settings it runs without overheating anywhere near as badly and also spikes the clock to ~3750. Why is that? Does enabling any of the options at all in Ryzen Master disable the turbo for the CPU?
ColdDeckEd
Member
With all the trouble you are having something might be wrong with your board. Is there anyway to exchange it? Can you take some screen shots of your bios overclocking options?
Unless your board supports p-state overclocking in the UEFI, overclocking the CPU disables turbo on Ryzen.
Thanks for the info about the AM4 platform guys. And thanks Paragon for the explanation on overlocking. I am very much a novice in the world of OC and computers in general, so I learnt a lot from what you wrote.
Witcher 3 Novigrad @ 1080p, min 89 FPS
Witcher 3 Novigrad @ 4k, min 56 FPS
Only took 2 years, but I can finally play Witcher 3 @4k60. Well close enough anyway. Been saving both expansions for this!
Witcher 3 Novigrad @ 1080p, min 89 FPS
Witcher 3 Novigrad @ 4k, min 56 FPS
Only took 2 years, but I can finally play Witcher 3 @4k60. Well close enough anyway. Been saving both expansions for this!
What A Time To Be Alive
Member
Xenoblade played fine on my 4.5GHz 2500k.
Doubt there would be a difference between that Ryzen. Probably an inprovement tbh.
What A Time To Be Alive
Member
Ryzen Master is garbage. If you wanna mess with CPU clocks just go to the BIOS.
Your 980 is gonna be the bottleneck for 90% of games even at 1080p. It'll depend on the game, but a 1600 will get you to >144 FPS in a lot of games. Basically, if a 7700k will get you 165 fps in a game, the 1600 won't be too far behind. You may have to turn down the draw distance a bit in some games to get the results you're looking for.
As glitchy as it is, Ryzen master has been the only thing that I've used that's been able to get my ram to 3200mhz, the bios hasn't been helpful there.