Ahhh I see, confused the hell out of me!
-
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 CPUs will launch by March 3
- Thread starter TC McQueen
- Start date
Ahhh I see, confused the hell out of me!
TC McQueen
Member
Yup, that's what AMD says.
Oh, fair enough. I didn't get that.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
I wouldn't expect them to be as fast as Kaby Lake. I do fully expect them to be competitive in the bang for the buck department.
Louis Cyphre
Banned
With the wattage so low wouldn't that make them easier to overclock? As you can tell I don't know much about overclocking.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
We won't know until they're out in the wild.
s_mirage
Member
Low TDP might make them easier to keep cool, which would be helpful in situations where overclocking was limited by thermal output. Take my 3570k for example, I could probably overclock it higher but it would require a significant increase in voltage, which makes it run too hot with the cooling I have. However, there are lots of other factors involved so, as JohnnyFootball said, we won't really know until the chips are publicly available.
Those fat AVX pipes are really power hungry. The most effective power viruses currently are AVX based.
Maybe. Only if you like larger numbers, the effect on performance is negligible.
Skipping additional 1-2 CPU gens because we didn't cheap out on CPU is more bang for buck than GPU.
For the most part, sure, but in some cases there is a bit of a difference when using high-end GPUs (8x/8x would be slightly worse). I've not yet committed to picking up a pair of 1080 Tis, though.
Tacklemacain
Member
This might also be because of the HB bridge. With a 16x8 HB bridge you might not see a difference at all.
Nostremitus
Member
Buy a "nice" CPU once every 4-6 years, buy a "decent" GPU every other year. GPU performance doesn't scale well with GPU price. Last year's $600-800 GPUs are this years $300-400 GPU's performance.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Problem is you can't buy a nice GPU every other year as Nvidia has made them so f*cking expensive. I consider a GTX 1080 a nice card and decent upgrade from what I have but the price here is like £700 and has risen since launch.
The 1080 Ti will be another good card for 2017 but the price is going to be £850-900. F*ck that never.
Nostremitus
Member
That's why I said "decent" not "nice."
Also, the GTX 1080 isn't a nice card. It's a top of the line enthusiast card.
I'm more talking about buying the 1060s and 480s.
I think by decent GPU he's implying not buying the top of the line. Hence the "GPU performance doesn't scale well with GPU price".
Edit: What he said.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
It's isn't top of the line, or at least it wouldn't be in previous years. I picked up my GTX 980 for £350 couple years ago. Now the cost has doubled to get the same this gen! Can't see Vega disrupting these prices tbh as a HBM card isn't going to be cheap.
Lagspike_exe
Member
NVidia hasn't really doubled their prices. In this case, you're paying the inflation tax due to sterling depreciation. They have been jacking prices up, though.
Nostremitus
Member
Not top of the line? There's a 1090 on the market?
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
1080 Ti and Titan X do exist. The former is releasing the end of next month.
Lagspike_exe
Member
I personally consider Titan X more of a professional video card. It's like buying 6950X for gaming. The only difference is than Intel also offers 6900K, 68X0K, 7700K, 7600K, while due to lack of competition NVidia can afford to delay launch of 1080 Ti and keep up reaping enormous margins on the existing high end product portfolio. Vega should fix this.
Nostremitus
Member
ti isn't out yet, and as the guy above me stated, the titan is a professional card, not really considered a gaming GPU, per se. But I'll give you that... I suppose you could consider the Titan X to be the true top of the line overall. Doesn't change the fact that the 1080 isn't a "nice" GPU. It's still very much a top end and overpriced enthusiast card.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Well we need Ryzen to be good so that AMD gets some much needed readies in their back pocket that will allow them to keep up a less one-sided fight with Nvidia in the GPU space. This would bring prices down for all of us.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
R7 1700X Cinebench scores, blows away the 6800K and 5960X (and 6850K I think):
https://videocardz.com/66182/amd-radeon-7-1700x-pictured-and-tested
Firestrike physics score is 17916, my 5820K does 17412 running at 4.5Ghz. I don't know whether to laugh or cry!!
Ryzen is legit.
Wonder how fast the 1800X is. Must be a monster.
https://videocardz.com/66182/amd-radeon-7-1700x-pictured-and-tested
Firestrike physics score is 17916, my 5820K does 17412 running at 4.5Ghz. I don't know whether to laugh or cry!!
Ryzen is legit.
Wonder how fast the 1800X is. Must be a monster.
Ryzen looks legit but for us here it all comes down to games. I really hope the benchmarks are good. I want to upgrade from my 3570k
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Of course the benchmarks for games will be good lol. There will be no noticeable difference between this and Intel's fastest for 99% of gamers.
EDIT: What will be noticeable are the 4 extra cores and 8 more threads (if you've only got a 4-core 8-thread CPU).
RenegadeXV8
Banned
Cinebench single core is a decent indicator of gaming performance. And based on that leak, Ryzen has slightly higher IPC vs Haswell (same score, but stock clocks of 4670/4770 are 100 MHz higher).
Just comparing those cinebench scores to a database.. that MC score is faster than any of Intel's 8-core cpu offerings. Amazing. I'd like to know if XFR took effect though, or if the cpu stayed at 3.4-3.5GHz.
Fastest 8-core R15: Intel Xeon E5-1680 v3 8x 3.20 GHz (3.80 GHz) HT
1488
And this isn't even the 1800x... wtf.
Fastest 8-core R15: Intel Xeon E5-1680 v3 8x 3.20 GHz (3.80 GHz) HT
1488
And this isn't even the 1800x... wtf.
A 7700K at 5GHz scores 215 in the single-threaded Cinebench test.
That's 40% faster than this 1700X result, and we don't know whether Boost/XFR was enabled or if it was running at a fixed 3.5GHz frequency.
We also don't know what sort of frequency the chip will overclock to.
Since most games do not currently use more than four threads, I don't think it's a safe assumption to say that Ryzen will be competitive for gaming.
However, if that result was running at a fixed 3.5GHz frequency, and the chip will hit say 4.5GHz with a good air cooler like an NH-D15, that would significantly narrow the gap. (about 198 in the single-threaded test)
It's also another Ryzen test running with slow 2133CL15 RAM.
That all of these tests are using slower RAM is a bit of a concern.
That leaked ASUS board is only advertising "3200MHz+" and everything else seems to be ≤3000MHz.
EDIT: That Firestrike test shows the chip running at 3.9GHz, so it looks like XFR is enabled - the stock boost speed is 3.8GHz.
mordecaii83
Member
I'm sure comparing a pretty extreme overclock that not all chips will even hit to a CPU running at stock or at best with XFR on (3.9GHz will be nowhere near the max of these chips, I guarantee it) is completely fair...
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Ryzen won't be competitive for gaming?! Like I have said countless times, 5Ghz on a 7700K is NOT a guarantee, I've seen the owners club on OC,net. Eurogamer's review there's was not stable at 5Ghz etc etc.
Also, you're comparing the fastest and 5Ghz overclocked 4-core CPU to an 8-core at stock frequencies, of course it will be faster in cases where frequency is important. By your methods the $1500 i7 6950X comes out poorly too. Having said that, like you said, once you overclock the Ryzen's as well, the gap will narrow to something unnoticeable, which was my point, for the vast majority of gamers. I reckon the R7's will overclock to 4.5Ghz at least, possibly up to 4.8Ghz, which would be beyond Intel's HEDT chips.
Good pick up on that. I'd guess the cinebench was XFR too. Still impressive if 3.9GHz.
And remember, we do have that world record overclockers Facebook reaction to Ryzen overclocking. These chips are in a lot of hands now, so I tend to believe most of the leaks are real. Worst case scenario, that they don't overclock much beyond 4Ghz, they still manage to be quite impressive for the price.
Interface_2037
Banned
If you want the best bang for buck Ryzen chip just for gaming then you're probably best going for the 1400X 4c8t model.
The highest boost figure of all the (cheaper) models (3.9Ghz) suggests it might be the best overclocker as well.
According the leaked benches these CPU's have IPC performance equal to my Devils Canyon Haswell 4690K, which only makes them less than 10% slower than the latest Intel Sky lake/Kaby lake.
With the same amount of cores, threads and IPC of a 4790K, they will be more than enough for at least the next two years, after which you could always upgrade to the 6 or 8 core when gaming really needs it.
The highest boost figure of all the (cheaper) models (3.9Ghz) suggests it might be the best overclocker as well.
According the leaked benches these CPU's have IPC performance equal to my Devils Canyon Haswell 4690K, which only makes them less than 10% slower than the latest Intel Sky lake/Kaby lake.
With the same amount of cores, threads and IPC of a 4790K, they will be more than enough for at least the next two years, after which you could always upgrade to the 6 or 8 core when gaming really needs it.
ShadowKingpin
Member
These leaks are very consistent, which is really getting me hyped at the possibility of Ryzen being a legit great CPU.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
On this '7700K is the best gaming CPU Ryzen won't be able to compete with' trope that has quickly formed, let's examine that a little shall we. Because it is a claim that makes no sense for the vast majority of gamers or the 'average gamer'. And this is an important point so I've bolded it so I don't get a load of replies where I'm shown benches with Titan X's which nobody really owns, let's face it.
Let's assume most gamers have a card that's at least on the level of a 980 or 390, which is a lot more powerful than most gamers on average, and look at the most popular game out there:
There's less than a 5 frame per second difference between an ancient 2600K and a 7700K! And less than 0.5fps difference between a 6-core 5820K at 3.5Ghz and the 7700K @ 4.5Ghz.
This is the usual use-case scenario. The difference is utterly negligible. Ryzen is even closer to the Kabylake in terms of IPC and frequency as well.
Let's assume most gamers have a card that's at least on the level of a 980 or 390, which is a lot more powerful than most gamers on average, and look at the most popular game out there:
There's less than a 5 frame per second difference between an ancient 2600K and a 7700K! And less than 0.5fps difference between a 6-core 5820K at 3.5Ghz and the 7700K @ 4.5Ghz.
This is the usual use-case scenario. The difference is utterly negligible. Ryzen is even closer to the Kabylake in terms of IPC and frequency as well.
Who says it was running at that frequency during the test?
That CPU-Z screencap doesn't mean much like that
Interface_2037
Banned
Looking forward to the Ashes Of The Singularity benchmark being used as proof of Ryzen's gaming failure
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Looking forward to the Ashes Of The Singularity benchmark being used as proof of Ryzen's gaming failure
Yeah at 4K with 2X Titan X's
Well at the very least they've caught up. Athlon and R300 were really shockers and we're noticably better than the competition. In this case it's the parity and the price advantage that shock.
LelouchZero
Member
Those are GPU bound scenarios, not CPU bound scenarios so the CPU wont matter.
It's best to look at CPU performance as whole, in well multi-threaded games and single-threaded dependent ones, testing GPU bound scenarios serves no purpose and there's no minimum frame-rate in those benchmarks which can be affected by the CPU so you can't see the full picture of how it performs.
Some gamers like to target higher frame-rates such as 60 and above which they can do this on lower-end GPUs like the GTX 980 or R9 390 by reducing the settings without using the highest end GPU available, in these situations they can encounter CPU limiations, especially in GTA V.
Also, as new GPUs release more powerful GPUs will be available that are offer 980 Ti level and above power at lower price points.
Digital Foundry did much better CPU benchmarks featuring Ivy, Haswell, Sky and Kabylake CPUs, these higher frame-rates can also be achieved on lower end GPUs than the Titan X or a future GPU that costs lest than the Titan X.
Digital Foundry - i7 7700K Review
I'm not sure where the minimum benchmark table is as they usually have that, but you can see how it performs in the video they have here: Core i7 7700K vs Core i5 7600K Stock/4.8GHz Gaming Benchmarks
Far Cry Primal is heavily dependent on single-threaded performance and sees higher frame-rates on the Skylake CPUs due to their DDR4 memory and higher IPC, while Rise of the Tomb Raider takes advantage of multi-threaded performance as-well as Crysis 3.
In CPU bound scenarios with games that scale past 4 threads the 4C/8T and 6-8 core Ryzen CPUs will perform better than the i5.
Battlefield 1 is also another game that scales past 4 threads, targeting a stable 120+ fps in game modes like 64 Player Conquest can be really tough on the CPU.
I don't have any benchmarks for this but GTA V is also heavily dependent on single-threaded performance, and when you use the Extended Draw Distance slider and push it above 50% it can be pretty tough to push 120+ fps stable.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
You've just completely missed the multiple points in my post so that I wouldn't get a response like this so I'm not going to bother to respond to this, which misses the point again. That's a Titan X they're benching with for a start.
brain_stew
Member
All the leaks seem to be telling a very similar story now. For me, the one missing piece of the puzzle is overclock potential.
While a 4ghz Ryzen will still be an excellent gaming CPU, Skylake is still relevant for gaming if that is the max stable overclock. If Ryzen can reach ~4.4/4.5ghz on high end air or an AIO and 4.2ghz with the included Wraith cooler then Skylake isn't a worthwhile purchase in any scenario.
While a 4ghz Ryzen will still be an excellent gaming CPU, Skylake is still relevant for gaming if that is the max stable overclock. If Ryzen can reach ~4.4/4.5ghz on high end air or an AIO and 4.2ghz with the included Wraith cooler then Skylake isn't a worthwhile purchase in any scenario.