Aztechnology
Member
Soooo the question is. 1700 or 1700x. Also recommended boards? All the $100 seem to be more than enough for me. Never plan to SLI.
-
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
NXGamer
Member
I am just working through boards at the moment (of what I can get access to anyway) as I am building a new Amd rig based on this entire gen shift (new mobo/Cpu/memory) I will pass back my findings here later today on my recommendations. And you can see it all with my full tests next week
I am personally going to look into Asrock since I have good experience with the brand.
The X370 seems a bit to excessive for me though, heh.
Aztechnology
Member
I am just working through boards at the moment (of what I can get access to anyway) as I am building a new Amd rig based on this entire gen shift (new mobo/Cpu/memory) I will pass back my findings here later today on my recommendations. And you can see it all with my full tests next week
Sounds good. Time to peruse the options on my end as well. I'm partial to Asus though.
I can't really find any reason I would need to buy a $200 board again. Currently I'm running at MSI X99a SLI plus with my 5820k. The $100 boards seems more than competent.
I've heard a lot of good things about ASrock over the years. Unfortunately they seem to be out of pretty much everything (Or are they just not on sale yet?)
flipswitch
Member
Probably a stupid question and so used to intel, but these should make good gaming CPUs?
Yeah maybe I should also look into the B350 chipset ones. Retailers here in europe are out of stock it seems with 2 weeks waiting time.
Aztechnology
Member
If the leaks are to believed, absolutely.
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132965&cm_re=Ryzen-_-13-132-965-_-Product
The Asus board here is nearly a match for all other boards in the range, but the IO looks a little more robust. Will come down to OC for me, if the B370 is better, I'll go with that.
Here's the AB350
Asus B350
Tacklemacain
Member
If you just want to game, wait for the 6 cores.
I think the only thing Intel is unhappy with right now is their 10nm delay. The only reason Kaby Lake even exists as a disappointing generational bump and that Ryzen could threaten, is because of 10nm issues.
They should be but we have not seen gaming benchmarks yet and we don't know how well (or not) they overclock.
For just gaming I would probably wait for the 6 core chips because the money saved on that vs the i7 7700k will enable you to buy a better GPU which will offer an improvement vs the expected single thread deficit.
Same goes for the 4c/8t vs the i5 and the 4c/4t vs the i3.
Aztechnology
Member
At this point I'm just waiting to see the results of the three models to determine which one I'll grab. Pretty sure it's either the 1700 or 1700x for me though. I don't see where the extra value of the 1800x is.
I'm not sure what you're getting at except somehow you're hurt that AMD is doing well...?
I thought NDA expires on the 28th of Feb? Otherwise, you could always return it unopened?
real life is a satire these days. That is insane.
brain_stew
Member
For those interested in how games scale on >4 core CPUs, cumputerbase posted an article today
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02/cpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test/
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02/cpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test/
It's not going to suck
But the 7700K will probably offer better performance in games thanks to higher clock speed.
So the R7 series is a tradeoff with much better value for heavily multithreaded applications and lower value in poorly multithreaded applications like games.
That's incredibly promising for Ryzen isn't it? Although it seems like they only tested games that used more than 4 threads?
Nice, 3.6/4.0GHz clocks, early leaks were pointing at 3.3/3.7GHz for the 1600X, so with these news now I'm even more interested in the 1600X as a replacement for my very aging Phenom II X4 955.
Oh my, if this benches well its going to be my next build at years end. Theres is a high chance of it being my first full AMD build.
Delusibeta
Banned
Not really? It seems that they run into diminishing returns as soon as they try to go beyond 4 cores 8 threads. Subsequently, for gaming there appears to be little point in getting a R7 over a higher clocked R5 or even R3.
Maintenance
Member
The prices here are already dropping, the discount some stores are giving on the 6900k alone is enough to buy a 1800x.
I'm fine with my CPU right now though, probably for a long time until new tech arrive. I had a 950 until last year.
I'm fine with my CPU right now though, probably for a long time until new tech arrive. I had a 950 until last year.
Dictator93
Member
I love these 1280X720 benchmarks, it really shows those engines off which scale really nicely with thread count. Props to Watch Dogs 2 and Shadow Warrior 2
Dictator93
Member
I am not sure if you can read German, but the article states they used default XMP profiles supported by the boards on top of default clocks for all the processors.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
On the other hand if you use Photoshop, Lightroom, Illustrator and ZBrush for work, 4 cores 8 threads quickly becomes woefully inadequate, especially when you have your browser open and a music player on at the same time. 6 cores 12 threads is a minimum if you're serious, and then you get big performance gains in lots of games that make use of those lovely cors. 4 cores 8 threads is the new 2 core/4 threads - minimum you should go for if you like AAA PC games like Battlefield 1, Battlefront 3 etc
Well based on blender and cinibench we know that ryzen has a similar single thread performance and slightly higher multi thread performance to the 6900k, at stock settings.
None of those benchmarks saw the 7700k have a huge advantage over the chips with a higher core count despite having both a clock speed and an IPC advantage for single threaded work loads. Infact it was worse than the 8c 16t chip in all benchmarks apart from BF1 DX12 multiplayer, and only at 720p.
I was even surprised to see stuff like F1 2016 showing good threading performance which means Dirt rally, dirt 4 and F1 2017 should all be similar.
Of course it is entirely possible that ryzen is not as good in gaming workloads as cinibench or blender so still best to wait for proper benchmarks.
You assume wrong, given that the only company that seemingly produces Thunderbolt chipsets is Intel. The other alternative is that they charge exorbitant licensing fees.
LelouchZero
Member
Awesome, thanks for letting us now!
Watch Dogs 2 sure does love cores, wow! I've been wanting to see a CPU benchmark with 6+ cores since it released, it's really awesome to see this games scale like this!
Clock up a couple of these CPUs and they will fly, especially the 6+ core processors!
If the gaming benchmarks are good as-well as the real-world performance I'm totally down for a 7 1700 if I can get 4.3-4.4GHz out of it. I'll probably do a review of it too if I get a hold of one.
I love this i7 4790K at 4.8GHz, it's probably not going to have much trouble for 60 fps games in the future but an 8C/16T CPU that's priced this well is absolutely lubricious if it performs as good as we've seen in real-world applications, it will do a good job at speeding up by rendering too.
This is like the next coming of the i7 2600K, maybe even better! I can't wait to see the reviews of this CPU!
BOO. HOO. Intel has been fucking the consumer for nearly a decade now with price gouging and miniscule performance increases generation after generation. They caused this mess and can get out of it by putting the fuckery behind them and moving forward honest for at least a while.
kraspkibble
Permabanned.
if i'm just playing games is there much point in me spending £550 to replace my 6700K? i'd probably go for the 1700X and the board I am looking at is the Asus Prime X370 Pro. also i'd probably need to buy a new cooler on top of that...
That's my biggest issue as well. I know not that many are onboard, but I love my Thunderbolt peripherals. But TB2 to 3 has been such a shitty transition that I haven't been using them anyways, so I gusss I can live without.
It is running at stock clocks, but overclocking would still only improve performance by about 30%.
That's just how far behind the 2500K is in newer games - and it's something I've been saying for some time now.
The problem is that so many sites out there don't do proper CPU testing like this, which makes it look like Intel have made virtually no progress in the last six years.
Well part of what made Sandy Bridge such a big deal was not just that they were the fastest CPUs at the time by a noticeable margin, but that you were basically guaranteed at least a 30% overclock.
These don't seem like they are going to overclock a ton on air.
However if you can overclock most R7 1700 chips to run at 4GHz+ on all cores, then I think we may have a successor to the throne.
Intel is not going to be licensing out Thunderbolt.
If you want it, you need to buy an Intel board.
Their stupid restrictions, high costs, and vendor lock-in is why I've avoided it altogether.
Assuming that your 6700K is overclocked, I would wait for at least the second generation unless the games you're playing now have performance issues caused by your CPU.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
I love these 1280X720 benchmarks, it really shows those engines off which scale really nicely with thread count. Props to Watch Dogs 2 and Shadow Warrior 2
Examining CPU performance based on average FPS in games is about as useful as examining the entrails of fro....actually these are pretty sweet.
It is true, but I could hardly see a 8c/16t beast struggling with minimums and frametimes. It should be the opposite, unless AMD somehow bungled up the game performance. Those benches are very encouraging. Of course enthusiasts are going to want to see how far these things can overclock to compare to a 7700k. If it's able to match it in game performance, you have a winner with all the extra cpu power still available for other tasks.
Dictator93
Member
hehe
What Durante did say is very true of course, but I also just like seeing those bar graphs scale
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
I have a hard time caring. Such is business. AMD's been in the weeds so long that its ridiculous to feel bad for Intel who's reaped immense profit over the last decade.
I bought Intel for a decade, now I'll buy AMD. It's up to Intel to decide if they want to compete. I have no brand loyalty.
Competition alone has me tempted to buy AMD. I wanted to do it with the 480, but just wasn't impressed enough with the 480 and went with a 1070 instead.
Unless Ryzen ends up being a disappointment it will be my next CPU.
Of course if Ryzen ends up being a disappointment, it will be one of the biggest epic fails in memory.
LelouchZero
Member
It's a bit over the top to be honest. The i7 6700K has good life ahead of it so if you're playing games at 60 fps it's probably not going to be a much of an issue for a good while, that £550 would be better spent on a new GPU to be honest.
As I said earlier in this thread:
For 120+ fps a processor with more cores may be desirable for a game like Battlefield 1 and future games that heavily tax the CPU providing your GPU can keep up with it.
If you're interested in the new CPUs wait for the reviews and see if you like the performance, you could potentially sell you existing hardware not have to spend £550 if you really wanted it, maybe £100-200 at max. Although a new GPU will likely be a much better investment seeing as you already have a build.
This abundance of CPU power may lead to a i7 2600K situation, where 5+ years down the line it's still incredibly relevant in-terms of performance, or maybe there's something much better to be had at that time for a lower price, or even mainstream CPUs that go up to 16 cores. There's no real harm in waiting if you're happy with the performance your current CPU delivers, you may even be better off waiting to see AMD's and Intel's upcoming CPUs in the next 3 years.
Papacheeks
Banned
So R5 X1600 is Q2 anyone know roughly where that lays on the calendar?
May, June?
May, June?
Yeah, it might line up nicely with Vega's release.
longdi
Banned
Im more surprised 7700k out performing 4770k by such a margin in games, its way higher than early reviews. But but Intel not making IPC gains...
Q2 is from the start of April until the end of June.
If Ryzen is the real deal, the resale value of the 6700k (or any quad core) will drop hard
As I said earlier, if I was sure Ryzen was the real deal, I'd sell my 6700k/z170a board right now
I could then buy a R7 1700+b350 board without losing barely any money (if at all)
I've seen people mention April and May, but I'm not sure whether that was speculation or based on rumors. When AMD said that Ryzen was going to launch in Q1, they made it clear it wouldn't be at the very end of Q1. Perhaps the same applies to their R5s and they'll launch before late June.
Did you forget that the 7700k is clocked 20% higher? That's makes up for the entire difference in WD2 and the majority in SW2. If anything it just shows how little improvement there is in terms of IPC.
LelouchZero
Member
The IPC improvements coupled with the faster memory on the DDR4 platform increases it's speed.
Digital Foundry did excellent CPU testing featuring Ivy and up at the same clock-speeds with 2400MHz on the DDR3 platforms and 3000MHz on the DDR4 platforms.
The i7 4790K to i7 6700K/7700K is around 14-20% It will probably be even higher with memory speeds over 3000Mhz.
They're definitely going to drop hard, lord knows what the MSRP is going to be, AMD just destroyed Intel's mainstream platform lol.
If you at least eliminate GPU limitations (by e.g. using a high-end GPU at 720p like done by CB -- a step many publications skip) you can get some relative impression of CPU performance.
Compared to far more suitable metrics like 99th percentile frametime it still doesn't say much about how it actually feels to play the game though.
Edit:
One interesting thing to note here is that WD2, clearly one of the best-scaling games ever in terms of CU parallelism, is DX11. If you bought into the propaganda from some people around DX12 release then scaling beyond 2 threads in anything but a low-level API should be impossible
josecitoxnyo
Member
Has anybody spotted a full white motherboard??