-
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
Nostremitus
Member
·feist·;230778527 said:
Oh god.... It's gonna be more difficult to make sure it's not turned around...
opticalmace
Member
One corner is yellow.. easy.
Nostremitus
Member
You know as well as I do that's not going to be immediately apparent to a lot of people putting one together for the first time.
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
The instructions for both the motherboard and the CPU should clearly explain, with pictures, that you match the marked corner of the CPU with the marked corner of the motherboard socket. I don't think I've ever bought either that didn't.
Not all that difficult, really.
AM4, AM3 and FM1:
The majority of recent AMD motherboards have the "top" of the CPU socket parallel with the DIMM slots, wherein the wording on the CPU itself is installed facing the same sideways East-West orientation as the "top" of the socket. You can then read the socket name and CPU inscription below it.
While some of their boards deviate from this, and AMD's LGA server parts are different, this is a fairly common arrangement.
Plus, there are install vids in numerous languages.
Newegg Tutorial: How To Install an AMD CPU
I like AMD's system of pins being on the CPU. AMD's CPU installation is actually very simple with only one possible orientation.
Less chance of bent pin compared to Intel setup since you actually gently slide the CPU into the MOBO and it falls in with an audible click. It doesn't work if the processor isn't aligned correctly.
Less chance of bent pin compared to Intel setup since you actually gently slide the CPU into the MOBO and it falls in with an audible click. It doesn't work if the processor isn't aligned correctly.
Unknown Soldier
Member
I like Intel's system with the pins on the motherboard. The CPU is usually more valuable than the motherboard, so I would rather replace a trashed motherboard with bent pins than a trashed CPU with bent pins.
I don't get why we still need pins at all. There's probably some physical reason why direct contact isn't good enough.
I don't get why we still need pins at all. There's probably some physical reason why direct contact isn't good enough.
Chairmanchuck
Member
I can actually get the CPU about 100$ cheaper.
exmachina64
Banned
·feist·;230778555 said:
You're welcome and good luck! I'm sure you'll do a great job.
The future of AMD APUs with RyZen look extremely bright, well beyond Raven Ridge, which is meant to appear in H2 2017.
https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cp...a_exascale_mega_apu_in_a_new_academic_paper/1
https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cp...a_exascale_mega_apu_in_a_new_academic_paper/1
CarbonFire
Member
If you can get a i5 6600k for under $160 and you're pretty strapped for cash but want to upgrade, that may still be a viable option (1600x is rumored to be around $260 retail, 6core/12 thread).
I'd still wait until after benchmarks come out to see where the performance falls unless you need to build a computer right now. I'm not sure about AMD motherboard prices, but I think I recall AMD boards being slightly cheaper as well.
Nostremitus
Member
·feist·;230779411 said:Not all that difficult, really.
AM4, AM3 and FM1:
The majority of recent AMD motherboards have the "top" of the CPU socket parallel with the DIMM slots, wherein the wording on the CPU itself is installed facing the same sideways East-West orientation as the "top" of the socket. You can then read the socket name and CPU inscription below it.
While some of their boards deviate from this, and AMD's LGA server parts are different, this is a fairly common arrangement.
Plus, there are install vids in numerous languages.
Newegg Tutorial: How To Install an AMD CPU
Not difficult for us, of course, but in the real world we have people who've bent the hell out of pins on CPU and motherboards that have obvious physical characteristics beyond just a different color on the corner.
Obviously, you can't completely stop mistakes from happening, but this just seems like the occurrence of such mistakes could increase...
brain_stew
Member
To completely trounce Intel's SMT implementation that has been refined for over a decade in AMD's first attempt is nothing short of remarkable.
Those cheap 4C8T Ryzen chips should compare very favourably against Intel's core i5 range in games.
8+ threads for everyone!
LelouchZero
Member
I've seen videos where the game puts 5820Ks consistently above 70% usage, it's incredible to see a game scaling like this! I don't think I've ever seen a game load 12 threads so heavily.
Future proofing for 60+ fps you'll definitely want a 6 or 8 core, 4C/8T CPUs still have life in them though for 60 fps gaming, maybe around 2018-2019 they'll stop being viable for 60 fps gaming at max settings. They might already be for Watch Dogs 2 but I haven't seen much testing of the Extra Details option in the game so I'm not really sure.
To completely trounce Intel's SMT implementation that has been refined for over a decade in AMD's first attempt is nothing short of remarkable.
Those cheap 4C8T Ryzen chips should compare very favourably against Intel's core i5 range in games.
8+ threads for everyone!
It's incredible, AMD are partially to thank for the pushes we've seen for multi-threading in recent years thanks to the consoles having 8 core processors and developers creating games that take advantage of 4+ threads, the Ryzen CPUs releasing at this time fit right in with the current state of gaming and many existing and upcoming games will take advantage of the 6 and 8 core CPUs!
I wonder if we're going to see more and more PC games that work well with 6 or more cores since both the Xbox One and PS4 have 8 cores and the engines for many of these games are being created/optimized based on console architecture.
martino
Member
i want to resist but it begins to be hard to not get hyped with all thoses benchmark.
I expect that I7 7700K will have a bit better IPC [clock per clock] in gaming, but still, AMD's price for 4c/8t part will be much much cheaper than Intel's.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Cinebench comparison compared against 80 results.
With a small overclock, that $500 1800X would beat a $1600 6950K.
With a small overclock, that $500 1800X would beat a $1600 6950K.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
lmao that gif is the funniest.
Seriously though just thinking of how much a jump AMD might have on Intel here. As the Broadwell-E's hit an overclocking wall at 4.3-4.4Ghz. If the R5/R7's can hit 4.5Ghz they'd have the fastest 6 and 8 core CPUs on the market.
That's crazy when you think how far behind they were to soon somehow lead the market in this segment.
Aztechnology
Member
I thought info was on the 28th?
Sweclockers posted "15.00 CET #hype". No indication it being Ryzen but What else could it be?
dr_rus
Member
Chinese and Korean retailers leak AMD Ryzen marketing materials
Not a lot of new or interesting stuff there. No new benchmarks.
Not a lot of new or interesting stuff there. No new benchmarks.
RenegadeXV8
Banned
Videocardz workin overtime on those leaks:
Ahhhhhhhhh. I need them now. Too hyped for my own good!
Why?
kraspkibble
Permabanned.
aren't they pushing coffeelake forward? those will have 6 (and 8?) cores. this will be the mainstream cpu's and not the enthusiast/xeon ones so might be an i7-8700K. apparently about 15% better than Kabylake. still 14nm.
would expect price cuts too. if these benchmarks are accurate then there is no way intel can keep charging £1,000-1,600 if AMD have cpu's out in the £400-500 range that perform just as well if not better.
Price cuts right out of the gate and probably some shittalking PR.
Nostremitus
Member
Holy Hell...
At the overclocked 1700 matching the Briadwell-E clocked at the same speed...
And at that FX 8370 overclock... That had to be on liquid nitrogen, right?
The same thing that happened in the early 2000s. Intel has to cut prices and their chips aren't competitive for a couple of years. But they unleash their r and d for real we get a huge jump like the core series was from the pentium 4s again.
Could Intel already have some stuff in the pipeline they didn't bother to put out so far because why have huge performance gains when there is no competition?
I guess the question is is it really possible that AMD out rnd'd Intel on the CPU front this time? Sounds unlikely.
General Lee
Member
It'll be interesting to see for sure. I think Intel is in a difficult position if 1800X beats 6900K for 499$ and the rest of the lineup follows in similar vein. Their HEDT platform is expensive and it does have some extras that Ryzen will lack, but I think for a lot of consumers those might not be that important, so paying considerably more for otherwise equivalent performance isn't on the cards for most.
From what I've gathered, Intel has plans for Coffee Lake before the end of the year, and it's rumored to have 6 cores for the mainstream platform. I think for the HEDT platform what they could end up doing is creating a lower end chipset that's more cost effective, and perhaps some CPU SKUs too that are cheaper. But this is a more of a long term response, and right now I think the only thing they can do is drop prices to a degree, but I'm not sure how fast or significantly they can or are willing to react. I highly doubt they'll just match AMD's prices. Big ships take a while to turn.
s_mirage
Member
They could have stuff in development for a couple of years down the road, but I can't think of a single example where a tech company has had a superior product just sitting on the shelf waiting to be unleashed against the competition. Intel certainly didn't last time AMD were kicking their butts in the performance stakes, and AMD were competing well against Intel in both the Pentium 3 and 4 eras.
Price cuts will probably be the first move, which is great because I plan on building a new PC this year.
kraspkibble
Permabanned.
i think they'd be stupid to not have prepared for this but what can they really do apart from stick more cores in? i think kabylake will be the last quad core release. we know coffeelake will have at least 6 cores. can't see them going back to 4 cores for icelake.
coffeelake - 6c/12t at 14nm
icelake - 6c/12t or 8c/16t at 10nm
i don't think amd could possibly keep up with Intel. was it 2012 they released piledriver and we're only getting zen now? in that time Intel has put out haswell, broadwell, skylake, kabylake and will have coffelake out in response to Zen. looking at the successor to Zen which is Zen+ it says it will be 7nm. so that would suggest it won't be for a long time yet. intel are having trouble with 10nm as it is.
zen might have a big impact this year and will hopefully light a fire under intels ass but in a year or 2 i expect intel will be back on top.
No. The road from R&D to product in this industry is long and arduous. You can't simply hold back and develop production pipelines at the drop of the hat. The best reaction you'll see is a slight adjustment to timetables of products already in the pipes.
dr_rus
Member
Nothing for about half a year as the sheer inertia of the market will carry them for that time easily. Then CFL introduction with a 6-core option for 1155 platform and SKX introduction with a full stack from 4 to 12 core this time. This is where they'll adjust their relative prices most likely. I fully expect them to still push 6 cores against AMD's 8, 4 against 6 and so on though.
They do, it's in the roadmap: 6-core CFL, 4 core KBX and 6-12 core SKX. They will be expanding their "E" lineup (will be renamed "X" along side it) and will add 6 cores to mainstream/notebook lineup.
Remains to be seen if this will be enough though.
There will be 4 and even 2 core CPU for years to come. Most users don't need more than 2 cores in their laptops and the number of cores directly affect the more important battery life spec. They may become completely notebook exclusive though.
lordfuzzybutt
Member
Well, Piledriver was so fucking bad that AMD cannot compete. If Zen is successful, more money for them to do R&D. We'll see.
michaelius
Banned
That's some solid results - everything will depend on OC ability - if they can reliably hit similar speeds to Intel they will be amazing since IPC already seems to be there.
Nikodemos
Member
Actually, from what I remember of reading about the rumoured original designs, that's relatively close to the frequency those CPUs were initially supposed to run at.
Unfortunately, some terrible design shortcuts (ex. awful last-minute 3rd party-sourced memory controller) along with a bad silicon process (GloFo managed to fuck up all their own die shrink R&D, eventually needing to licence a process) pretty much scrapped those plans, and we ended up with those unfortunate piles.
Moreover, I don't understand why people keep insisting on claiming that those integer co-processors are full cores. They're not: AMD 'dozer CPU/APUs are basically 2C/4T, 3C/6T and 4C/8T, respectively. The only true 6C/6T AMD CPU from that list is the old Thuban.
RenegadeXV8
Banned
Bulldozer was a failed gamble, and they couldn't realistically make an 8-module Steamroller/Excavator part due to GlobalFoundries being terrible and... well, lack of money. In addition to that, CPU architectures take years to materialize into a product, so they had no choice but to stick with it until Zen was ready.
I don't think anyone is expecting AMD to constantly keep up with Intel. But with Zen, at worst I expect it to become another Penryn vs Phenom 2 situation.
If we learned anything from the early 2000s... a bunch of shady practices and the market won't care about the better product in an instance
Interface_2037
Banned
Makes sense, given that the original goal of 40% IPC gain was only ever going to match Sandybridge levels of performance, which may have been good enough if the original timetable for Zen/Ryzens launch was adhered to.
52% really puts into the Haswell/Broadwell league.