-
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.
Ryzen could be PC Gaming's much needed shot in the arm.
- Thread starter JohnnyFootball
- Start date
SweetTeddie
Member
Are the low-mid end Ryzens going to be competitive with Intel? I have no interest in spending $300-400 on a CPU which seems to be the range where people are most hyped.
shark sandwich
tenuously links anime, pedophile and incels
I think the 1200X (4 cores, 4 threads, 3.4 GHz, $149) will be THE gaming CPU to beat in that price range.
PHOENIXZERO
Member
Everyone should be hoping if not outright praying that Ryzen rivals if not outright beaks i5s/i7s when it comes to the price/performance ratio, the lack of competition has absolutely allowed Intel to rest on their laurels and control the market, especially in the last six years that have been mostly minor incremental performance increases as Intel has shifted their attention to try to make their integrated GPUs not shit. A viably competitive AMD would be a great thing to have again.
xet72
Member
Absolutely. The 179.99 Dollar R3 1300 is going to be 5-8% slower than a 7700K and be 150 dollars cheaper
If the leaks we are seeing now are true most definitely. The AMD low end R3 (I3 competitor) will match or surpass most I7s with an overclock in gaming. For many years amd high end 8 cores struggled againt intels dual core I3....10 days from now the script will flip and high end I7 will struggle against low end R3 in gaming. Expect a $185 R3 1300 overclocked to 4.4ghz to about 8% slower than a $350 7700k in gaming. Last time something like this happened was when the Celeron 300A was roughly equivalent to Pentium II 400 flagship back in the day. It's even better as the old Celeron had no upgrade path whereas a R3 1300 can be upgraded to at least a newer stepping R7 1800x later on. I'm getting a R7 R7 17000x or 1800x but the value on a R3 1300 will be unprecedented in over a decade if leaks are true & no price gouging.
franklyshankly
Member
I'll be very curious to see if this ends up being true. I heard so many similar things about Bulldozer and other AMD releases, it's hard to imagine it actually turning out this time. But let's hope it does.
Yeah, but not a lot of competition within that space.
It depends on application.
Ryzen was deliberately designed with minimal support for AVX which will hurt them in certain high end calculations like Physics simulations. They have strengthened their CPU in other areas such as encryption/decryption and in theory gaming which is what their XFR functionality (performance scaling with better cooling) is supposed to help with.
Overall without getting into specific benchmarks Ryzen is like 8% slower in single core scenarios. In multicore scenarios you have to look at price brackets and with that Ryzen stomps all over Intel because priced rumors suggest multicore performance from AMD is $100-$150 cheaper than what Intel is offering for the same performance.
Aztechnology
Member
Given the context of what I'm talking about your going to knock me on Semantics? Come on. You know what I meant.
AMD providing a product that can "compete" with Intels current line-ups at a lower cost will drive Intel out of their comfort zone potentially. That is what I meant.
dr_rus
Member
Vega will cover X70 and X80. X80Ti+ will be unreachable for them most likely.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
The hope is that Ryzen will be competitive enough to spur some real innovation in a stagnated CPU field.
And yes, lower prices are a great thing. Anything that opens up the field to more gamers is a great thing.
It will cause competition which should lead to innovation hopefully.
icecold1983
Member
i think it will force intel to lower prices, but after watching that discussion with David Kanter from realworldtech, it seems like intel isnt beig lazy, just that theres not really much more that can be done to increase ipc within the confines of x86 compatibility.
that would make vega a failure then. a furyx is already in the same performance bracket as a 1070
that would make vega a failure then. a furyx is already in the same performance bracket as a 1070
CPU gains are stagnating because there's actual physical limits to it.
IBM, Intel, AMD, all stagnated. It's not just a competition issue.
dr_rus
Member
As much "a failure" as Fiji or Polaris I guess. And Fury X is considerably slower than 1070.
TheGreyHulk
Member
Ryzen is legit people. This is nothing like bulldozer. They came correct for Ryzen. Brought the chip architect who made the athlon 64 back to give them a winner.
It will be competitive and it will undercut intel on pricing.
I've been following for months and it's nothing but good. 2 weeks left! Im ready to upgrade!
It will be competitive and it will undercut intel on pricing.
I've been following for months and it's nothing but good. 2 weeks left! Im ready to upgrade!
Ricerocket
Member
Won't get myself hyped up like this. Can't be legit until it's out or someone has a thorough showing that they actually have it and can talk about it rather then seeing screens of random benches on different forums that focuses only on that and telling no more. It's the whole undercutting by like 1/2 the price of intel equivalent that has me cautious since AMD had been in dire situation.
If it's the real deal, they got me because I wouldn't mind replacing my main desktop with an i5 4690k.
Competition is good however, until CPUs have a meaningful impact on gaming performance in key categories, I'm not sure why Ryzen matters. Upgrading your intel CPU hasn't mattered in 4+ years really (unless you wanted integrated graphics improvements, which is not generally what this forum prizes).
Mr_Antimatter
Member
I'm still rocking a 2600k in this rig, so jumping to Ryzen, if the final chips review well, may be a nice upgrade for a gamer on a budget like myself.
TheGreyHulk
Member
I'd be skeptical too based on AMD's track record of over promising and not delivering (bulldozer). The price undercutting isn't too crazy at the lower end (3, 5 series). The 8 core 7 series is $500. Intel's matching chip is $1000, but that was only because of no competition so they charged a premium for 6+ cores cuz they could. These chips arent as complex as GPUs. There's no reason they should be $1000.
AMD is going to step in and offer similar performance at a resonable cost. Intel will have to answer and we consumers benefit!
Im not expecting AMD to beat Intel clock for clock, but im expecting them to be very close and worth the $ this time
dr_rus
Member
Yes, because ~10% slower is considerably. And 4K score means nothing since Fury X isn't able to cope with 4K in the majority of modern games (and neither is 1070).
Unknown Soldier
Member
I'm not telepathic so no I didn't know what you meant. The context of what I posted stands on it's own merits.
Using 2-3 times more power, getting way hotter, requiring a hybrid cooler, and it's still slower.
If Vega also uses 2-3 times more power than 1080, gets way hotter, requires a hybrid cooler (?), and is still slower than 1080, you better damn well believe Vega will be a failure. Especially since it will be launching nearly a year after the 1080 did.
icecold1983
Member
I wouldnt say it means nothing seeing how gpus hold up when pushed harder. It is sometimes a sign of things to come
And 10% is now considerable? It was never considerable to you when its amd whos ahead by 10%
2 to 3 times more power? You constantly just make up numbers in these discussions. It uses about 70% more power in typical scenarios
JustSomeone
Member
I have a 4 year old cpu, that wasn't even the best one available when i bought it, and i can run every new game on it.
I don't see what "shot in the arm" pc gaming needs.
I don't see what "shot in the arm" pc gaming needs.
Bl@de
Member
Everybody mentions competition, but that's not really happening. 2 companies for CPUs and millions of consumers? That's an oligopoly. That's not really competition. It is better, but not much.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/oligopoly.asp
Looks at nvidia financials..... they sure are doing fine and dandy.
While this has some validity, in the particular case of a 4GB card it simply doesn't make any sense to speak about how it holds up at 4k. Because in a great many modern games at high settings (which is what you want from a high-end card) you will get framtime spikes because of a need to transfer data over PCIE. Sure, it will work in others, but this type of unpredictable performance is not what you want when you buy a high-end card.
icecold1983
Member
i meant more long the lines of performance in future titles that are more demanding without needing to run at 4k. for example i wouldnt be too surprised if this time next year, the furyx is equal to or faster than the 1070 at 1440p in performance summaries
LelouchZero
Member
The Fury X is a lovely card but that 4GB of memory is not going to do it any favours vs 8GB, there's even games at 1080p that want over 4GB of memory if you max out the texture quality setting.
However if you're not maxing out the texture quality setting it's definitely got more to give in the games that don't play well with it's memory. I too wouldn't be too surprised if it is equal to or faster than the Fury X in such scenarios.
I think it's the only flagship I've seen AMD release in the past 5 years with a flaw which could impact it's capabilities in the future, the 7970 and R9 290X had more VRAM than their competitors so they were already secured in that area for the future, they pretty much bested the competing products when you see how they perform now. The Fury X however is not so future-proof in that aspect unfortunately.
EDIT: Equal to or faster than the Fury X? That doesn't any sense, the 1070 is what I meant.
Mistakenly I appear to have somehow mixed up the Fury X and GTX 1070 with the RX 480 and the performance discrepancies it has with the GTX 1060 6GB. My apologies.
Looking back on the performance of the Fury X I see that it would be unlikely for it to decrease the gap between it and the GTX 1070, regardless of the memory it has. Meanwhile the situation with the RX 480 and GTX 1060 is entirely different, with the RX 480 clawing back the majority of the performance lead the GTX 1060 once had.
GTX 1060 vs. RX 480 - An Updated Review
I'm not quite sure how I managed to mix up the Fury X and RX 480 while still taking about the Fury X, epic fail on my part sorry.
It was a lovely little card but it's performance wasn't so hot for it's price-point, it only had 4GB or vram and it also didn't have much overclocking headroom when compared to the 980 Ti in roughly the same market segment.
icecold1983
Member
i expect games that require over 4gb to remain rare. even today, the games needing over 4 gb can usually be completely fixed by turning down 1 or 2 settings that you likely wouldnt even notice without zooming in on a side by side comparison(if there is a difference at all)
Wait, why are we talking about Fury X, an old card? When it came out, it was actually a pretty neat card. Its small and fast. For awhile, it was the fastest small card on the market. With popular rise of mini-itx, this was/is a pretty big deal. Its still a solid card. If you got one when they were new, you probably aren't needing to upgrade. I'd still buy one if a good deal came about (I have a mini-itx rig).
Anyway, Ryzen seems cool. I hope its good. All indications seem to show that it at least should meet or beat Ivy Bridge. If that turns out to be true, that's a win. Ivy Bridge is a hell of a core.
But, I gotta see a suite of common benchmarks, on retail chips. *and I will repeat, I love AMD and am cheering for them, really!
Anyway, Ryzen seems cool. I hope its good. All indications seem to show that it at least should meet or beat Ivy Bridge. If that turns out to be true, that's a win. Ivy Bridge is a hell of a core.
But, I gotta see a suite of common benchmarks, on retail chips. *and I will repeat, I love AMD and am cheering for them, really!
You throw that term out but the fact of the matter is that Intel is effectively the only real player right now in the CPU market. Unless you sacrifice efficiency, Intel is pretty much the only option at the mid to high end. To say that AMD is part of an oligopoly is way off. They are pretty much subsisting on scraps that Intel leaves them currently.
Can't wait for ryzen. Have an ivy bridge it but it's getting long in the tooth feature-wise.
brain_stew
Member
If AMD really can offer an unlocked 6C12T CPU with Broadwell-E IPC for the same price as an i5 7600K then they're going to blow the market wide open.
Skyfireblaze
Member
As someone sitting on a 3570k I'm curious to see where this goes. If AMD really can match or surpass Intel's IPC for these prices then I might just switch back to AMD afterall at the end of the year.
They aren't matching Intel's IPC. They never claimed that and everyone else in this thread assumes as much as well. They'll fall short in most scenarios but not by much.
It's the fact they caught up and offer better value per thread is one of their major hype talking points. The other is potentially better overclocking results. The only real negative (for non professional usage) that could come back to bite them is that they might have a mediocre memory controller.
Skyfireblaze
Member
Well okay I wouldn't mind if they are a bit worse aslong as it's a definite upgrade over my 3570k in the end while I still save money which seems likely to happen.
The memory-controller might be a bit worrisome though, recent years have shown that faster memory can make a bit of a difference in overclock and high FPS scenarios :/
dr_rus
Member
It is considerable because you're using an average while it is comprised of results like this:
Or if you prefer DX12:
Fury/X isn't doing too hot lately, in many games of the last several months it is either on par or only slightly ahead of RX480 - whether this is because of it lacking VRAM or AMD not paying attention to GCN3 optimizations anymore I don't know - so I'm not sure what "sign of things to come" here means really.
And 10% was always considerable to me when anyone was ahead of anyone. 980Ti was ~10% ahead of Fury X which seems to be considerable to you since you've chosen one above the other.
Leonidas
Member
I don't see how Ryzen will change PC gaming.
Yes it appears to be a good option, but in terms of gaming results $240 Core i5s perform pretty close to $340 Core i7s. And the more expensive 6-8 Core i7s(which Ryzen is targeting) perform about the same as the 4 Core i7s in games.
It's always good to have another option though and I will probably look into Ryzen in 3-4 years once my current i7 falls a bit in gaming charts.
Yes it appears to be a good option, but in terms of gaming results $240 Core i5s perform pretty close to $340 Core i7s. And the more expensive 6-8 Core i7s(which Ryzen is targeting) perform about the same as the 4 Core i7s in games.
It's always good to have another option though and I will probably look into Ryzen in 3-4 years once my current i7 falls a bit in gaming charts.