The Anandtech pic is from the Intel 6800 and 6900 reviews... they added the Ryzen with bad Photoshop skills.
Ahhh I see, confused the hell out of me!
The Anandtech pic is from the Intel 6800 and 6900 reviews... they added the Ryzen with bad Photoshop skills.
Yup, that's what AMD says.All Ryzen processors are overclockable, right?
Well that's because only the 8-core R7 1800x, 1700X and 1700 are releasing in a couple weeks' time. I think next would be the 6-cores, R5 1600X and 1500 and perhaps the R3's after that.
Man I really hope the 1600X/1700 offer similar/better real-world performance compared to the 7700k. I'm building soon and that value would be insane.
All Ryzen processors are overclockable, right?
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.
With the wattage so low wouldn't that make them easier to overclock? As you can tell I don't know much about overclocking.
With the wattage so low wouldn't that make them easier to overclock? As you can tell I don't know much about overclocking.
This is what I don't get. I find reasonable that Intel has been jacking up prices due to no competition, but AMD being so much more power efficient for the ~same performance?
Maybe. Only if you like larger numbers, the effect on performance is negligible.8x/8x multi-GPU is disappointing.
Skipping additional 1-2 CPU gens because we didn't cheap out on CPU is more bang for buck than GPU.On the other hand, spending that money on a better GPU will get you a lot more gaming performance for your money.
Maybe. Only if you like larger numbers, the effect on performance is negligible.
This might also be because of the HB bridge. With a 16x8 HB bridge you might not see a difference at all.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.
On the other hand, spending that money on a better GPU will get you a lot more gaming performance for your money.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not top of the line? There's a 1090 on the market?
1080 Ti and Titan X do exist. The former is releasing the end of next month.
1080 Ti and Titan X do exist. The former is releasing the end of next month.
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.
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
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
A 7700K at 5GHz scores 215 in the single-threaded Cinebench test.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).
A 7700K at 5GHz scores 215 in the single-threaded Cinebench test.
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.
Good pick up on that. I'd guess the cinebench was XFR too. Still impressive if 3.9GHz.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.
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.
On this '7700K is the best gaming CPU Ryzen won't be able to compete with' trope that has quickly formed
Looking forward to the Ashes Of The Singularity benchmark being used as proof of Ryzen's gaming failure
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.Feels like athlon and the R300 again.
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.
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 and 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 and they can still encounter CPU limitations in these situations, 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.