-
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
You have to think this is where it loses some appeal, otherwise they would have emphasized this more through all the leaks.
Weird to have preorders before the NDA lifts.
ethomaz
Banned
Huge images.
The system configuration of the tests.
http://images.anandtech.com/doci/11143/AMD Ryzen Tech Day - Lisa Su Keynote_IanCutress-page-036.jpg
The foornotes.
http://images.anandtech.com/doci/11143/AMD Ryzen Tech Day - Lisa Su Keynote_IanCutress-page-035.jpg
52% IPC is vs Piledriver... vs Escavator is 64%.
The system configuration of the tests.
http://images.anandtech.com/doci/11143/AMD Ryzen Tech Day - Lisa Su Keynote_IanCutress-page-036.jpg
The foornotes.
http://images.anandtech.com/doci/11143/AMD Ryzen Tech Day - Lisa Su Keynote_IanCutress-page-035.jpg
52% IPC is vs Piledriver... vs Escavator is 64%.
sunshine and gasoline
Banned
Eat shit, AMD. I finally build a new PC after six years and you decide to just come out with a solid product? Die in hell.
:C
:C
TC McQueen
Member
So... when's the OT?
I imagine it would perform like Haswell on stuff that doesn't benefit from more cores or something. That would fit with them using stuff like Battlefield 1 to show it off, since Frostbite likes more cores.
InquisitorAles
Member
Well damn. I've never been hyped for hardware before in my life, but wait for more Ryzen info and release date is killing me lol. March can't come soon enough, can't wait!
My current PC build is 5 year old, so this is perfect timing for me lol.
Tacklemacain
Member
I think the 4 and 6 core CPUs are the ones for gamers. They will probably promote them with gaming benchmarks, when they relrase in a few months.
McStickenstein
Member
I'm a little concerned about this as well. You'd think AMD would be bragging just as hard about gaming if they are the new #1. I guess gaming performance will be competitive, but may not take the crown from Intel's best.
We will wait for benchmarks and see.
regarding the "X" versions
The lead test guy (currently in SF) of the German site Computerbase (highly respected site) just posted on their forums that the rumors surrounding the X versions are completely untrue and it is NOT JUST the automatic overclock but something else they are not allowed to talk about yet.
X Hype?
The lead test guy (currently in SF) of the German site Computerbase (highly respected site) just posted on their forums that the rumors surrounding the X versions are completely untrue and it is NOT JUST the automatic overclock but something else they are not allowed to talk about yet.
X Hype?
unlocked multi is my guess.
michaelius
Banned
Single threaded performance looks to be tiny bit lower than Intel. Hard to say with all those weird turbo modes but if I'm counting right 5-10% compared to Kaby/Sky.
Last_colossi
Member
I'll wait for the benchmarks at launch to decide fully but so far they've shown a $329 8 core 16 thread CPU which beats the 7700K by almost 50% in cinebench with a TDP of 65W...
They all have unlocked multipliers.
If I wasn't currently on a 5820K, I most likely would've upgraded to a 1700X now (or 1700, since you overclocked that one manually right?) if the rest of the benchmarks hold up and they are fairly good overclockers.
I am really happy AMD is back in the game on the CPU front, because it was really needed. Even if they might not beat Intel by huge margins on all fronts, they are certainly delivering on the price/performance side (especially with the 1800X).
I am really happy AMD is back in the game on the CPU front, because it was really needed. Even if they might not beat Intel by huge margins on all fronts, they are certainly delivering on the price/performance side (especially with the 1800X).
Judging from the information available I think it will depend on the game. If the game scales well then the 6c and 8c CPUs will probably be a bit faster than the competition but if the game does not scale well past 4 cores then I would expect the 7700k and 6700k to be faster as the IPC and clocks are likely to be a bit higher on these processors. Thing is though if you can get an 8c 16t CPU for a bit less than the 7700k and you are only giving up 10-15% in peak single thread performance but gaining a lot of multi thread performance its an interesting choice if all you do is game.
Maybe it's because AMD doesn't have a fast enough GPU to run into CPU limited scenarios so they have to wait until someone else does the Titan X + CPU benchmarks
I can't wait to see extensive testing done with these chips. Right now, It looks like the 1700X might be the sweet spot. Not sure why it couldn't hit the same clocks as the 1800X with overclocking. They also have the same TDP, so I assume the overclocking headroom will probably be the same. The real game changer would be if the base 1700 could overclock over 4.0Ghz. If so, We will have an absolutely game changing value product.
Does anyone know if there are any other differences between the chips other than base clocks and TDP? The lower end models don't have less PCI-E lanes right?
Does anyone know if there are any other differences between the chips other than base clocks and TDP? The lower end models don't have less PCI-E lanes right?
Sectorseven
Member
So in theory could you buy a 1700 oem with no cooler, install your own premium cooler and get around 1800X speeds?
D
Deleted member 59090
Unconfirmed Member
Only the Sniper Elite 4 thing with 1800x and Crossfire 480s against 6900k delivering comparable performance at 4K. Linus showed BF1 on 1700x vs 6800k.
Nothing concrete is going to show up till reviews hit.
Personally I found this table from sweclockers to be the most informative piece of news out of this whole thing
Particularly the single threaded performance. Yeah it's still cinebench but w/e.
Ahh. It's finally time for me to replace my FX6300
.( Which funnily still manages to do much better than the console jaguars despite overhead)
Price is still king in my world and I don't see a scenario where this wouldn't be good enough for older single/dual core titles.
Yeah, I think game performance is going to be slightly weaker than Intels except for heavily multi-threaded games. Just an assumption based on the total focus on MT performance in all of the slides. That said, given how close the silicon is.. I would say it will be very close if trailing under certain scenarios. The key for enthusiasts is going to be how far they can be overclocked inside and outside of XFR scenarios. If it's possible to hit 4.2-4.5GHz on Ryzen, it will be amazing.
TheGreyHulk
Member
I'm really eager to see how these OC and what the real difference is between the regular 1700 and 1700x is.
PdotMichael
Banned
CPU benchmarks are my fetish
I'm gonna buy the 1800X so hard if it doesn't suddenly underperform in games.
I'm gonna buy the 1800X so hard if it doesn't suddenly underperform in games.
Bananajama
Banned
Maybe it's because AMD doesn't have a fast enough GPU to run into CPU limited scenarios so they have to wait until someone else does the Titan X + CPU benchmarks
http://www.amd.com/en-us/press-releases/Pages/amd-takes-computing-2016dec13.aspx
lol
SolidSnakeUS
Member
Seriously, those prices are aggressive as hell and I love it . AMD and the whole desktop community has been waiting for this moment for a long time.
. AMD and the whole desktop community has been waiting for this moment for a long time.In theory, yeah. There may be more overclocking headroom with the more expensive models, but until we've got a full raft of reviews it's impossible to know how much.
It's pretty sad that AMD has to do that right now, but it wouldn't be first time in the past 5-10yrs where they've been trailing at the top end.
ShadowKingpin
Member
My morning is made! I have never overclocked a CPU before (Don't really know much), but I am more than interested now. So excited to get my 1700X for film work and livestreaming!
They've already said no regarding Ryzen in Scorpo
Judging from another German site, the X might simply stand for faster speeds and all Ryzen processors will have XFR capabilities?
Rough translation:
also, judging from this picture, the 1800X can be overclocked quite well
1,853 V at 5144MHz with liquid nitrogen btw
Bananajama
Banned
Judging from another German site, the X might simply stand for faster speeds and all Ryzen processors will have XFR capabilities?
Rough translation:
also, judging from this picture, the 1800X can be overclocked quite well
CPU Voltage looks a little high there?
7 PM UTC+1
sleepnaught
Member
It's going to impossible to get these at launch, isn't it?
GinoFelino
Member
As someone who was waiting for Ryzen before building a gaming PC, this does nothing for me
Same price as 7700K, but Z270 motherboards are dropping in price whereas the Ryzen ones will be full price for a couple of months.
Same price as 7700K, but Z270 motherboards are dropping in price whereas the Ryzen ones will be full price for a couple of months.
also, judging from this picture, the 1800X can be overclocked quite well
1,853 V at 5144MHz with liquid nitrogen btw
Can't really draw any conclusions at all from an overclock made with LN2.
The X variants do, yeah.
Riesenfass
Member
From what I gather 1700 always comes with a stock cooler.
As for overclocking potential you'll have to wait and see but I'm guessing you'd have to win big-time in the die lottery for that to happen.
are all three new CPUs the best bang for the buck? A frind is building a PC, would he be future-proof (no need to upgrade for a looong time) with the cheaper one? And about the motherboards, would he lose much by taking the cheapest? From the comparions, it seems that the cheaper Rizen is already veeeeery capable.
He uses the computer for basic programming (he just started learning java and basic html stuff) and internet, no games or image/video editing.
He uses the computer for basic programming (he just started learning java and basic html stuff) and internet, no games or image/video editing.
Am I misunderstanding something here? Why is the launch 2nd March, but embargo's lift on the 7th? From PC Gamer....
"The actual hard launch of Ryzen products will occur on March 2...."
"........as soon as the embargo lifts, which is set for March 7."
http://www.pcgamer.com/amd-ryzen-7-...source=facebook&utm_campaign=buffer_pcgamerfb
"The actual hard launch of Ryzen products will occur on March 2...."
"........as soon as the embargo lifts, which is set for March 7."
http://www.pcgamer.com/amd-ryzen-7-...source=facebook&utm_campaign=buffer_pcgamerfb
Can't really draw any conclusions at all from an overclock made with LN2.
same guy I quoted above from Computerbase said that we should greatly (!) lower our expectations for overclock potential with air and water cooling, btw
They're going to show off the best gains for the lowest effort possible from their teams and that's going to be in these kind of synthetic benches and certain workloads like video transcoding.
The problem with "games" is that instead of one application, like Cinebench or blender, a selection of 100 games are obviously 100 different applications that may or may not show any significant difference, due to many complex factors that stem from the nature of game development and coding in general.
Also, benchmarking CPU performance in games in a way that makes sense requires much more effort than those other applications I mentioned. You need special tools and know-how. Does the game have its own benchmark? Is it representative? If not, how do you construct a worthwhile test? There's just not enough time for AMD to bother. They'll go with what they've shown and leave the games testing up to the reviewers who have more experience.
Unfortunately I bet we're going to get a whole load of worthless shite using average frame rates in GPU-limited scenarios from the majority of the press, with the usual handful of sites that know their stuff producing the only reports worth reading.