So X is dynamic higher clock, but not much headroom?
-
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
So X is dynamic higher clock, but not much headroom?
Has there been any info on those cpus?
ethomaz
Banned
That what I get from the pic... the clock is too low for LN2 and the vcore too high.
Makes me wonder if the vcore will limit a lot overclock.
this is exactly how I see it, judging from what all the guys are saying who already had a chance to test the CPUs (but are not allowed to tell us)
basically, the X versions appear to be selected samples that are able to reach higher clock speeds and it appears that the R7 Ryzen processors will generally run very hot and have very low overclocking headroom
exmachina64
Banned
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.
You were expecting the 8c/16t models to cost less than a 7700K and have cheaper motherboards than comparable Intel products?
AnythingBut
Member
1700x / 1700, is the price difference on the X worth the few extra pennies?
I know competition is good and one should expect lower prices, but some people really live in fantasy land.
Jibbajabbawockky
Member
I'm eagerly awaiting more news and gaming benchmarks. I've kind of been looking for an excuse to build a small form factor PC and AMD getting competitive again would be nice. I have very fond memories of my Phenom II X3 720. That thing lasted a good long while.
GinoFelino
Member
Not a fan of your tone, there.
I was expecting the product that has to go up against the 7700K to be more competitively priced than 'exactly the same', yes. Because even though it's really good of AMD to put out a competitive product at all, I don't really care about that when I'm buying it.
As for the motherboards, I don't know where you're reading that. I'm saying Z270 boards are likely cheaper than the Ryzen ones now, making AMD the more expensive option overall.
That's a given. As long as there are enough sites that run meaningful tests on a good selection of games though it's not a big deal.
Ricerocket
Member
So it begins...
MicroCenter has always had a deal with all Intel CPUs for years now.
Pagusas
Elden Member
So it begins...
They've had it at 299 several times sense launch. They had the 6700k at $250 for some time too, plus $25 off for spending over $200 and another $35 off a compatible motherboard.
Get a 7700k then, what we are seeing so far is that for the same price of the 7700k you are getting a massive increase in multi core performance. If you don't think that massive increase is worth the small increase in price for CPU+MOBO then just go with the 7700k. It seems like a no brainier for everyone else though.
But outside of gaming, the 1700x isnt competeing against a 7700k.
I mean if you want an intel quad core, go ahead.
Exciting stuff, though I'm still a bit concerned about that single-threaded performance for general gaming.
I think it's also kind of telling that AMD's video encoding tests have been pitting the 7700K against a 1700.
Video encoding - especially H.265 - loves AVX, and Ryzen basically has half-rate AVX2 support.
If you're comparing price, 15% better performance for $20 less is great.
But for an 8-core CPU vs a 4-core CPU that's pretty underwhelming.
As far as I can tell, X = XFR support, better binning, and higher TDPs.
XFR support seems worthless, as Linus said that it only gets you an extra 100MHz.
Sounds like another "overclocker's dream" from AMD really if that's all XFR gets you.
It will be interesting to see if that higher TDP rating will mean anything if you plan to overclock the CPU, but it doesn't seem like it will be worthwhile to buy the 1800X unless there's something special about them they haven't told us yet.
The model listed was: ZX3601BAM88F4_40/36_Y
Those are 1800X clockspeeds, it doesn't seem to be the 1700 as he stated.
I think it's also kind of telling that AMD's video encoding tests have been pitting the 7700K against a 1700.
Video encoding - especially H.265 - loves AVX, and Ryzen basically has half-rate AVX2 support.
If you're comparing price, 15% better performance for $20 less is great.
But for an 8-core CPU vs a 4-core CPU that's pretty underwhelming.
All Ryzen chips are unlocked.
As far as I can tell, X = XFR support, better binning, and higher TDPs.
XFR support seems worthless, as Linus said that it only gets you an extra 100MHz.
Sounds like another "overclocker's dream" from AMD really if that's all XFR gets you.
It will be interesting to see if that higher TDP rating will mean anything if you plan to overclock the CPU, but it doesn't seem like it will be worthwhile to buy the 1800X unless there's something special about them they haven't told us yet.
Unfortunately common these days, but Linus seemed to be wrong about that.
The model listed was: ZX3601BAM88F4_40/36_Y
Those are 1800X clockspeeds, it doesn't seem to be the 1700 as he stated.
I think AMD's marketing is being smart on this one.
While Intels offering will probably still remain the best for -just- gamers. Lisa Su admitted to Intels offerings having the clock advantage.
AMD is pushing this line of CPUs at gamers AND content creators. Also enthusiasts but meh. Where the extra cores matters. What major combined segment does this speak to? Streamers. While I don't stream, I have read about the set ups some streamers run and yeah I think it is smart.
Me personally, I will absolutely buy the $500 processor that beats the $1000 as MT workloads are way more important to me for my work. 82 motherboards and a dual socket ain't one... so far.
Nice find, were the clock speed differences noted?
- Below. Yeah I'm interested in hearing more about Ryzen Mobile as well. I was thinking the APUs for back to school season.
While Intels offering will probably still remain the best for -just- gamers. Lisa Su admitted to Intels offerings having the clock advantage.
AMD is pushing this line of CPUs at gamers AND content creators. Also enthusiasts but meh. Where the extra cores matters. What major combined segment does this speak to? Streamers. While I don't stream, I have read about the set ups some streamers run and yeah I think it is smart.
Me personally, I will absolutely buy the $500 processor that beats the $1000 as MT workloads are way more important to me for my work. 82 motherboards and a dual socket ain't one... so far.
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.
Nice find, were the clock speed differences noted?
- Below. Yeah I'm interested in hearing more about Ryzen Mobile as well. I was thinking the APUs for back to school season.
Colbert
Banned
They showed this slide and saying Ryzen Mobile will hit shelves 2H 2017. Maybe some of the lower end processors will fall into that category.
Awesome news! if I can get 68/6900k performance for half the price, then that'd be great for my rendering and production works.
Unless Intel slash their extreme cpu price in half, I'll probably just get the 1700x or 1800x for my next build.
Maybe even the 1700, a 8c/16t for slightly more than 7700k's price? why the hell not XD
Will wait for reviews and maybe about a month after release though, in case there's any problem or shortcomings with them.
Would be great if gaming performance is there too, but for rendering and 3D stuff, 8 cores would massively help me I think
*edit* imo anyone expecting 8c/16t cpu to be priced below 4cores 7700k is deluded. Just get the 7700k or maybe wait for the less cores 1600x.
Unless Intel slash their extreme cpu price in half, I'll probably just get the 1700x or 1800x for my next build.
Maybe even the 1700, a 8c/16t for slightly more than 7700k's price? why the hell not XD
Will wait for reviews and maybe about a month after release though, in case there's any problem or shortcomings with them.
Would be great if gaming performance is there too, but for rendering and 3D stuff, 8 cores would massively help me I think
*edit* imo anyone expecting 8c/16t cpu to be priced below 4cores 7700k is deluded. Just get the 7700k or maybe wait for the less cores 1600x.
Lactose_Intolerant
Member
also, judging from this picture, the 1800X can be overclocked quite well
1,853 V at 5144MHz with liquid nitrogen btw
I think using LN as an example for how well they overclock is a bit misleading.
Until consumers can actually buy them and test, all we have are handpicked samples that reviewers get.
GinoFelino
Member
????
????
So, even though it's very much up in the air how well the Ryzen chips perform re: gaming, it's a 'no brainer for everyone'?
Did I step into a hornet's nest of AMD fanboys? I was only talking about how I had expected a more aggressively priced 7700K competitor. At least a $30-40 difference. We are on a gaming forum, right? I would want to build a system that's great for gaming?
Strange reactions in here.
THEN GET A 7700K
Its the best for gaming. If you want to give up all the other massive improvements for a few extra fps in gaming, the 7700k is the right choice.
Nobody here wants to convince you of buying an AMD cpu. They were designed a certain way. What you asked for is for a 7700K with an AMD label at a cheaper price.
You're not going to get that. So if you want a 7700K you should get that.
GinoFelino
Member
Are you okay?
I'm not asking anyone to convince me to get AMD. I was expressing very mild disappointment about the fact that this first batch of chips is pretty uninteresting to people like myself wanting to build a gaming PC.
I would put it this way: The 1700 and 1800 is not a competitor for the 7700k per se. Its a 6800k and so forth competitor. Same way as an Intel 8 core gets beaten in pure clockspeed, and therefore games, by an Intel 4 core.
Im good, are you? Go get a 7700k, theres a great deal at microcenter now.
Osiris
I permanently banned my 6 year old daughter from using the PS4 for mistakenly sending grief reports as it's too hard to watch or talk to her
I hope this leads to a consumer 6-core Intel chip with iGPU, thats what I want for my next build, I can't imagine not having an iGPU to fall back on on a build these days, too useful.
longdi
Banned
Luckily for AMD, Intel 6 series HEDT also dont clock very well, averaging comfortably at 4.3Ghz only.
I guess if Ryzen can hit 4.3Ghz too, it is all good.
Im going in with 1700 and hope for the best. If not, a 65W multimedia 8 cores PC ain't bad.
These things are going to sell fast, better pre-order GAF!
I think using LN as an example for how well they overclock is a bit misleading.
Until consumers can actually buy them and test, all we have are handpicked samples that reviewers get.
Keep in mind that 7700k has only 2 cores and 2 threads enabled. If all 4 cores and 8 threads were active it wouldn't be stable at that frequency. Meanwhile the Ryzen had all 8 cores 16 threads active.
Plus overclocks tend to be higher post launch than pre launch. I saw enough 4.7+ hwell-e and 4.5+ bw-e post launch where reviews and pre launch numbers showed those wouldn't be achievable.
GinoFelino
Member
Yep, that's clear now that the pricing and some of the benchmarks are in.
But let's be clear here: I didn't start the narrative about AMD building a 7700K competitor. Even in their own press release they're putting their own chip up against a 7700K.
That's AMD doing that. That narrative has been going for a while now. And it turns out the chip is probably not super competitive after all in many use cases, including gaming.
Lactose_Intolerant
Member
So you think using LN as an example for how well they overclock is a bit misleading.
Sweet, so this reply is saying this is your last post in this thread since you've made your point. Wonderful news! EDIT: Nope, you're still failing attempts at trolling.
Back on topic, really anxious to see OC'ing headroom, really wanting the 1800x chip to be able to reach at least the mid 4's with higher end 280/360mm AIO cooling solutions.
Sweet, so this reply is saying this is your last post in this thread since you've made your point. Wonderful news! EDIT: Nope, you're still failing attempts at trolling.
Back on topic, really anxious to see OC'ing headroom, really wanting the 1800x chip to be able to reach at least the mid 4's with higher end 280/360mm AIO cooling solutions.
Dont u get it? He dissapointed that a chip not built solely around gaming is not the best for gaming.
Gawddddddddddd
What? It looks exceptional in most productivity benchmarks I've seen, in both performance and price, and at the very least competitive from a single threaded performance standpoint. If AMD isn't lying about either of these things, it isn't wrong to call it an i7 competitor. An i7 might be a consumer grade processor but its designed to be used for more than just gaming. Its specifically billed as a prosumer product designed to improve productivity.
Which is exciting because there are people who use their computers for more than just video games. And for those people, trading some single threaded performance for a potentially substantial increase in multi-threaded performance is worth the cost.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
'best' translates to what, 1 or 2 fps extra on average in games. Irrelevant.
Sami macci Mäkinen and Petri SF3D Korhonen went to town with overclocking and Ryzen 7 1800X, LN2 was used for cooling.
https://www.io-tech.fi/uutinen/suom...essorilla-uudet-cinebench-maailmanennatykset/
They also made new world record in Cinebench by pushing Ryzen 7 1800X to 5,3 GHz, -190C and ~1,9 CoreV.
https://www.io-tech.fi/uutinen/suom...essorilla-uudet-cinebench-maailmanennatykset/
They showed this slide and saying Ryzen Mobile will hit shelves 2H 2017. Maybe some of the lower end processors will fall into that category.
That's really interesting, as I'm pretty sure the Ryzen brand is only being used for their CPUs without IGP (this also predates any Zen-based APUs anyway). That means it's pretty unlikely to be low-end models, as there's not going to be much demand for low-end CPUs in laptops without integrated graphics. Although laptop parts without integrated graphics pretty much don't exist at all at the moment, they may make sense for higher-end parts where competitive options with IGP simply don't exist. That is, 6 core and 8 core parts. People with a professional need for mobile workstations to run heavily threaded tasks (video editing being one example) would pay very good money for a laptop with an 8C/16T CPU, and at that price point the addition of a dedicated GPU isn't prohibitive. The fact that AMD has an 8-core desktop part with a TDP of 65W bodes pretty well for their ability to release laptop variants with respectable battery life, too.
Yes. Im sure mid 4ghz range will be doable for the masses anyway. Broadwell e doesn't overclock that much higher either on ln2 if I recall.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
2363 Cinebench score! $1600 10-core 6950X is crying.
Broadwell E hits a wall at 4.3-4.4Ghz (not LN2 obviously) so Ryzen doesn't have to OC that high to best it.
????
We give you a sound suggestion regarding your requirements as a PC Gamer (get a 7700k) and we get labelled AMD fanboys when you are clearly showing disappointment over a CPU not even developed purely for gaming?
????
Keep and eye out for the 1600X if this is what you are looking for. We are expecting game performance from the 1800X right alongside the 6900k (which is twice the price!!) which can even lose out to the 4 core equivalents Intel has to offer. How is that not impressive? We are slowly moving in the direction of more cores and threads, something of which developers are going to take more and more advantage of as technology progresses. How this is a disappointment is beyond me and I myself am a PC Gamer
GinoFelino
Member
It's not quite clear how much single threaded performance is traded in, though. The overall value proposition could still be quite good. Not really clear how good at this point.
Sweet, so this reply is saying this is your last post in this thread since you've made your point. Wonderful news! EDIT: Nope, you're still failing attempts at trolling.
Back on topic, really anxious to see OC'ing headroom, really wanting the 1800x chip to be able to reach at least the mid 4's with higher end 280/360mm AIO cooling solutions.
Not sure what the troll is here, apart from apparently not appeasing people far too invested in AMD performance.
Like this guy.
The 'we' thing is a little scary. And yeah, the 1800X value proposition is very clear and impressive. But that's a different target audience altogether and not something I'm personally interested in.