AMD Ryzen release details

[BeastyBaiter]

AMD had an announcement today giving prices, specs and some performance benchmarks of their top end Ryzen CPU's. Looks like it's going to be a good year for AMD and PC gamers everywhere . AdoredTV has a pretty decent summary of it.

 

 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I have pre-ordered R7 1700X. Seems those cpus wont overclock very high, but then again, only a fraction of consumers actually overclock anything. Disappointing thing however is the fact that motherboards do not offer as many features as even older models for AM3+ or newer Z170/Z270 for Intel yet seem to cost as much (and everything indicated that they should cost less as chipset is actually integrated into CPU). Looks like a poor cash grab to me.  

[Dakpilot]

Personally I would wait for reputable benchmarks Vs 7700k in real world gaming, I see no advantage unless you are doing multithreaded encoding with a program that takes advantage of it

 

If it were cheaper than Kaby lake/Z270 it would be worth it, but for AMD fans and as competition for Intel who have had monopoly and become lazy since 2600K it is VERY good news

 

The fact that they did not benchmark it in gaming against 7700K at the launch (choosing to compare with much slower 6800K)  speaks volumes, very disappointed with AMD..was super excited but no longer

 

Am sure they will perform admirably and do great service, but meh...there are so few games programs that can take advantage of what Ryzen offers now, maybe in future, but Intel will have woken up by then

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Personally I would wait for reputable benchmarks

First you say this.

 

 

The fact that they did not benchmark it in gaming against 7700K at the launch (choosing to compare with much slower 6800K)  speaks volumes, very disappointed with AMD..was super excited but no longer   Am sure they will perform admirably and do great service, but meh...there are so few games programs that can take advantage of what Ryzen offers now, maybe in future, but Intel will have woken up by then

Then you say this.

 

Make up your mind Dak. Either you wait for something or you already passed your sentence.

None of the 8 cores was aimed at 7700k for obvious reasons. For that you have 1600X and 1400X reserved. It's quite obvious that Ryzen wont clock that high as Kabylake but then again, how many have Kabylake actually ? I saw maybe few enthusiasts switching to it from Haswell-E or Skylake since it offered absolutely nothing for them. Speaking of which, whats that in your signature ?  

[Dakpilot]

My point is to wait for benchmarks, AMD showed many but avoided the important one in the price point 7700K Vs R1700X

 

How many have the new Kaby lake 7XXX series is not very relevant, it is the current Intel product equivalent to Haswell or Skylake and comes out cheaper than R1700X

 

Logic would say that R14/1600X will not outperform R1700X series

 

I will wait for benchmarks and have not passed sentence yet, but what AMD were NOT showing in certain benchmarks has helped me with an opinion

 

I was really hoping that AMD would have competition (performance and price) for intel in the biggest 'enthusiast' level market, i5/i7K but they dodged the comparison, (not X99 platform which is outdated and very niche) why?

 

(I am trying to not sound like I am knocking AMD but it is hard)

 

against X99 2011 socket series AMD has a sure price AND performance winner but that is such a small segment

 

**edit** I was waiting for Ryzen for upgrade options from 3570K which still performs quite well at 4.5ghz (one button push O/C) each Intel upgrade path has not offered enough improvement cost wise, but right now cost wise Kaby lake seems the cheaper option for higher real world (in MY usage) performance with more features...colour me disappointed

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited February 24, 2017 by Dakpilot

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

AMD was coming from a gap that was absolutely massive: 

 

If you expected them to beat Intel in their own game of single core performance than no wonder you are getting disappointed. Unrealistic or overly optimistic expectations always lead to disappointments. What AMD does is an introduction of 4c/8t, 6c/12t and 8c/12t CPUs to mainstream at reasonable prices and with good performance. This is a good starting point, particularly because their next step and most profitable one will be server stations. And mainstream users gain something denied to them for years now. 

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

More cores and threads that no average user or no average piece of software will use?

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Except that more and more titles actually take advantage of them: https://videocardz.com/66354/core-count-vs-frequency-what-matters-for-gaming

It's also attracting those who stream in very high quality and to avoid stutters those additional cores make difference: https://youtu.be/3rUndzpdo1I?t=7m30s

 

Then again, nobody said one has to get 8 core. That's why 6 core and 4 core models will follow. But hey, at least they dont advertise dual cores with HT as future proof and sell them for 180 $. 

[BeastyBaiter]

I'm more interested in a high end 6 core model tbh, no use for 8 cores and 16 threads at this time. I don't think anything official has been said yet, but leaks have been suggesting their top end 6-core is going to be way up there in clock speeds much like the I7-7700k in addition to having 50% more cores and threads for those games that will use them.

 

In regards to multi-threading in general, it's actually pretty common now in gaming. Flight sims don't use it much, but most of our stuff, sadly, is cobbled together with spare parts and duct tape from the 1990's (DCS/FSX/P3D/XPlane) or the mid 2000's (BoX). If anyone did a major rebuild of an existing flight sim engine or built a new one from scratch, I promise they'd be eyeing that 1800X as a high end spec pretty hard. Just imagine what you could do in BoX with 3-4x the processing power we can currently use. No more 20-30 AI plane cap in missions, run it up to 80+ AI planes.

 

Not going to happen anytime in the next couple of years unfortunately, but one can dream.

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Always wondered why Dserver or the game had such small limits..

on my cruddy old Fx-8350 the game uses 4 cores pretty evenly but only upto 45-50% even max while in very heavy Multiplayer combat
I know Dserver is single core but would it be hard to add 3 more cores to it?

No use for 8 cores and 16 threads?
(unless you play Xplane 10 you can scale that over 128 cores across 16 Computers i think is the limit the Sim allows while rendering to upto 32 Monitors for Gauges and Screen as used i many home cockpits worth well over $40,000)

Anyways as for OP thanks for info and video.

 

Edited February 25, 2017 by =R4T=Sshadow14

[Dakpilot]

I'm more interested in a high end 6 core model tbh, no use for 8 cores and 16 threads at this time. I don't think anything official has been said yet, but leaks have been suggesting their top end 6-core is going to be way up there in clock speeds much like the I7-7700k in addition to having 50% more cores and threads for those games that will use them.

 

 

 

IF they can achieve that it will certainly shake things up a bit

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

In regards to multi-threading in general, it's actually pretty common now in gaming.

Yup - go to 38:15 :

It is becoming the thing. Particularly in Dx 12 titles. Wish that flight sims of current generation could take advantage of all of that.

Edited February 25, 2017 by =LD=Hiromachi

[Dakpilot]

Oh well the rumour of high clock speed Ryzen 6 core series and 4 core series did not last...

 

still six core will be good for DX12...in the future maybe for BoS?

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Wait, what rumor ? I thought clock speeds were presented at AMD event for 1600X and it was known thing:

 

 

 

 

And 1400X with 3.5 Ghz base clock and standard boost up to 3.9 Ghz so like Skylake i5 6600k. 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

You wanted some gaming tests Dak, there you go:

 

https://videocardz.com/66451/amd-ryzen-rumors-part-3

 

Games there :

Battlefield 1
Deus EX
Doom
H1Z1
H1Z1
Civ 6
Hitman 2016
Rise of the Tomb Raider
The Division
World of Tanks 

 

平均 Average FPS
最小 Min FPS

[Tuesday]

I'm looking forward to the NDA release.  I'm a little disappointed the 6-core models won't be available on launch, but I suppose it makes sense to use the excitement around it to sell the 8-core processors first. 

 

Can't wait to upgrade from the A10-5800k though...

[Dakpilot]

The tests I am waiting for are against cheaper 7700K/7600k not slow non gaming orientated 6 core 6800k running with dual channel memory instead of quad, not that it makes much real world difference but why do this? 

If it needs to be fair then run Ryzen on only six cores? why do the benchmarks with 6800K not using it's full capabilities as done at the launch and at other sites

 

Need to wait for much wider base/samples, but here is an early one

 

 

 

 

seems to be conflicting info on other Ryzen ranges, need to wait for actual release 

 

"Ryzen 5 1600X processor is a 6 core and 12 thread chip. It is also the fastest 6 core chip in the AMD Ryzen family that launches in a few weeks. The processor comes at clock speeds of 3.3 GHz base and 3.7 GHz"

 

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-processor-am4-ln2-cooling/

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

[Sokol1]

Ryzen forcing Intel drops his price is good for flight sims - they don't use all that threads technologies, so the old "muscle car" (more cubic inches) recipe still the way.

 

 

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X (U$499) vs Intel Core i7-6900K (U$999)

 

AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (U$399) vs Intel Core i7-6800K (U$359)

 

AMD Ryzen 7 1700 (U$319) vs Intel Core i7-7700K (U$299)

Edited February 27, 2017 by Sokol1

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

The tests I am waiting for are against cheaper 7700K/7600k not slow non gaming orientated 6 core 6800k running with dual channel memory instead of quad, not that it makes much real world difference but why do this? 

If it needs to be fair then run Ryzen on only six cores? why do the benchmarks with 6800K not using it's full capabilities as done at the launch and at other sites

 

Need to wait for much wider base/samples, but here is an early one

 

AMD-Ryzen-7-1700-vs-Core-i7-7700K-DinoPC_GTA-V.png

 

 

 

seems to be conflicting info on other Ryzen ranges, need to wait for actual release 

 

"Ryzen 5 1600X processor is a 6 core and 12 thread chip. It is also the fastest 6 core chip in the AMD Ryzen family that launches in a few weeks. The processor comes at clock speeds of 3.3 GHz base and 3.7 GHz"

 

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-processor-am4-ln2-cooling/

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Two tips Dak. 

Never ever trust wccftech. They are famous among both community and professional reviewers for making stuff up. Literally. From a single sentence they are able to make a whole article adding their own. Wccftech is not considered reliable or trustworthy source.

Hence, if official AMD slides indicate R5 1600X to be 3.6/4.0 Ghz CPU ... well, I'd stick to official info.

 

Second, 6800k is not slow at all. It's a Broadwell-e architecture and remains second to Skylake/Kabylake. Use of same clock speeds and memory mode was done most likely to get as close as possible to 1:1 comparison of IPC. It's not about fair but about finding the exact single core performance without anything that could skew results. Interesting thing is that an 8 core cpu draws less power even under full load than 6 core. But I guess thats not interesting for you in this case. 

 

In regard to that picture, well, its pretty crap since neither exact platform specs are given nor speeds at which cpus are running. Stock 1700 is a 65 watt model running at 3.0 Ghz stock and max single core turbo of 3.7 Ghz, 7700k stock is running at 4.2 Ghz with max turbo of 4.5 Ghz. Not to mention the overclocked version ... There is about 1 Ghz clock speed difference between the two so results are not surprising at all. That Chinese set of tests in games and benchmarks if frankly far more informative than a single graph from a one game. 

[Dakpilot]

Fully agree, which is why I say wait for wider amount of samples V's 7700k/7600k and for actual release of other Ryzen series

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

[Tuesday]

Here's a single thread performance benchmark of the 1700X found on CPU-Z that was posted to Reddit.  Overclock conditions are unknown but I still find it interesting. 

 

http://valid.x86.fr/bench/rjmzdu/1

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Yup. Here is overclocked to 5 Ghz Skylake: http://valid.x86.fr/eht05p

Or 4.9 Ghz one http://valid.x86.fr/ufgeb7 

I guess it depends on memory and few other factors and results fluctuate around that area. 

But its certainly more than even overclocked to 5 Ghz Haswell 4690k http://valid.x86.fr/1ww5nz

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Something somewhere is leaking a lot:

 

 

[banPilot]

That's amazing if true, finally time to ditch Intel and their milking practices.

[BeastyBaiter]

The first batch of reviews are in for the R7 1800X, results are mixed. The general conclusion across several reputable reviewers is it is a far more sensible option for video editing and rendering than the $1000 I7-6900k but falls short on gaming performance compared to the cheaper I7-7700k (though it generally matches the 6900k in games). This is at stock speeds for all chips or a modest 100MHz overclock. It looks like a lot of it is a matter of clock speed. Depending on how well it overclocks, it maybe able to close the gap. But I haven't seen any such reviews yet. Links to the videos I looked at below.

 

 

 

[Tuesday]

I'll give it some more time to allow for optimizations between game developers and to the BIOS before buying a new cpu, whether Intel or AMD.

 

Wonder if 1C/777 is currently working with AMD on this.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Its about what have I expected to happen. Software on many levers is unable to properly assign tasks to cores and not all of the cpu can be even used. Plus there are numerous problems with bios for motherboards, high frequency ram usage, lack of Microsoft patch for Windows (which is supposed to arrive in less than a month) and so on. If anything its just damn rushed, about the usual stuff with AMD, in a few weeks to few months most of this problems will vanish and performance will improve. 

 

As for results, I stopped looking since they vary so much on so many portals that its just a mess. Joker is one lucky guy who must have won a silicon lottery since his 1700 performs pretty darn well:

 

I mean ... look at this ? 

 

 

Who is right and who is wrong  

 

Better wait until updates come and things get to shape they should be from the beginning. 

[BeastyBaiter]

There is some truth to that. The RX 480 looked like junk compared to the GTX 1060 right up until December of last year, when suddenly it flipped and the GTX1060 became hilariously outclassed by it, though everyone still buys the 1060 instead cause of stupidity. Go figure. I don't think we'll see that kind of reversal with CPU's though, they don't have drivers in the same sense GPU's do. We might see some movement on the RAM front but I wouldn't expect miracles there. RAM speed is generally irrelevant in gaming.

 

In any case, I'm looking at a major rebuild this year. Ryzen still interests me but we'll have to see how things look once they stabilize. For me it's going to be I7-7700k vs R5-1600X I think. On a related note, I noticed something surprising last night after playing fallout 4 for the first time since replacing my GTX 770 with an RX 480. That game is CPU bound with my I5-4690. I noticed cause there were areas where I was getting 30-ish fps no matter the graphics settings and even with nothing going on (just staring at the landscape). I had that problem with the GTX 770 2GB but figured it was a GPU bottleneck. I was wrong. Anyone know if it will use more than 4 cores?

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I'm sticking with my 1700X, particularly as its yet to be delivered, not to mention motherboard availability. And I need it for different kind of tasks than gaming only

 

But all in all it looks like AMD spoiled itself by releasing Ryzen too early. Most motherboard manufacturers had 3 weeks only to develop bios for their motherboards. That is not enough, but most interestingly some still did better than others - Gigabyte appears to be best here, MSI had number of issues but by far ASUS screwed the most. And as it happens most of reviewer kits were shipped along with ASUS motherboards. I'm not surprised at all, frankly, since a few years ASUS products (particularly in regard to BIOS for their motherboards) are inferior to competitors. Asrock delivers far better motherboards and in terms of BIOS updates and versions its by far the best. 

Some German website, called golem.de, that reviewed Ryzen had to say this about motherboards from MSI :

 

The MSI board was delivered with BIOS version 113, until last Friday a new one appeared.

 

Version 117, which is still up-to-date, improved speed and stability. If we were still able to count on sporadic Bluescreens with the older UEFI, the board is currently stable. Much more important, however, is the drastically higher performance in games and the real pack with 7-Zip. The release notes include, among other things, a fixed problem with the memory act and its timing as well as the voltage.

 

Compared to the original bios, the new UEFI increases the image rate in our game course between plus 4 and plus 26 percent, on the average even plus 17 percent.

https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://www.golem.de/news/ryzen-7-1800x-im-test-amd-ist-endlich-zurueck-1703-125996-4.html&prev=search

 

Other user reported:

 

As i understand a lot of the reviewers use boards from asus.

Today i updated my asus bios on a b350m and and could change memory from 2133c15 to 2933c16/17 ! 

(on ddr4 3000 c15 corsair lpx 2*8gb)

 

This old bios seem completely unable to use the few memory profiles it had - and i couldnt set memory to 1.35V that is standard voltage for 2400-3000! - so even 2400 crashed. I wouldnt be surprised if some reviewers have used the spd standard setting of 2133 c15 of pure frustration. Because getting memory to run just 2400 using the bios was a mess.

 

Secondly - and here comes the point.

The bios i downloaded today - and was first made public today - doesnt seem to reset the prior settings for memory profiles. It means it eg keeps latency settings from 2400 and use it for 2933 ! 

 

Luckily I'm in queue either for Asrock X370 Kiler SLI or Taichi, though latter one for now might be beyond my budged  

[SJ_Butcher]

Ryzen is good, but there are problems with bios, windows and memories in a month or two we will see the true potential of ryzen, its a steal of CPU, 8 cores for the masses is awesome.

[skline00]

OK gang as we speak I am downloading Il2-Sturmovik on a Ryzen 1800x build. I had ordered an Asus Crosshair VI motherboard but thy are back ordered everywhere and since I already had a R7-1800x delivered on Friday and had my other parts I traveled to St. David's PA Microcenter to see if they had any AM4 mbs in stock. I had a gift card so I picked up an Asus Prime B350 Plus mb with the 350 chipset to hold me over until the C6H motherboard finally ships.  It allows me to run my 2 RX480s in Crossfire and it supports M.2 2280.

 

Once I get the game installed I post nmy impressions.

 

The build at present:

Mb         Asus Prime B350 Plus

Ram      2x8g of Gskill Trident Z DDR4 rated at 3200 BUT set at 2133 as most AM4 chipsets are struggling right now above 2666.

CPU      AMD Ryzen R7-1800x

Cooler   Corsair H110iGT but I have a custom water cooled build set up for the other mb.

OS         Win 10 64 Home on USB stick which allow re-installs

GPUs    2 reference Sapphire RX 480-8g set in Crossfire

PSU       EVGA 850W

Case      Fractal Define S but will move to a bigger Thermaltake V51 case with 2 360mm rads and an EK 140 pump/res

Monitor  LG29UM67   2560x1080 ultra wide Freesync

[skline00]

Played some of a campaign. Very smooth.  

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Asus Crosshair VI

Dont buy that one. Its reported around as one of the worst, with bugs and some physical flaws. Plenty of threads on reddit to avoid it. If you dont plan on having SLI there is no reason to go with X370, according to this, b350 is capable of same overclocking as x370:

 http://valid.x86.fr/top-cpu/414d442052797a656e203720313730302045696768742d436f72652050726f636573736f72

 

Otherwise consider Gigabyte Aorus or Asrock Gaming K4 / Killer Sli. 

 

Can you report cpu usage, frames and overall stability ? I'm not getting mine until ... well, at least a week. Poland is not a great place for electronics preorders Also, that Freesync must be amazing. I was planning on switching to 1440p 144hz Freesync/Gsync monitor in summer so comments about that would be fairly interesting to me as well.

 

Also, considering all the gaming issues right now ... I saw recently this review: http://www.zolkorn.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-vs-intel-core-i7-7700k-mhz-by-mhz-core-by-core/3/

Dude basically for gaming cranked his 8 core to 4 core with SMT enabled and results are very satisfying. Would be fine with checking that as well ? 

Edited March 6, 2017 by =LD=Hiromachi

[BeastyBaiter]

That review is unreadable for me (PC doesn't have those characters), but the pictures in it show the I7-7700k under clocked to 4.0 GHz from the 4.5GHz factory clock. It does show that the R7's are similar in performance at any given clock speed, but I don't think that was ever under dispute. The R7's are slightly faster than the Broadwell chips and slightly slower than the Kabylake chips according to AMD itself on a per clock per core basis. All the reviews I've seen seem to verify this. The I7-7700k's advantage comes almost entirely from that +500MHz factory clock, or +1GHz for those willing to overclock it. That's why I'm waiting on the 1600X. We know the 8 core models just won't clock beyond 4.1GHz, but with fewer cores heating the thing up, it might be more over clockable. It might have greater IPC as well, much like how the Broadwell chips actually have lower IPC than the Skylake and Kabylake chips. I haven't heard anything either way on that, it's just speculation on my part.

 

In any case, an R7 at 3.9GHz is a single thread performance boost compared to my I5-4690, so for me it's a question of best single thread performance but still a quad core or less than best single thread performance but a couple extra cores so that Windows, Steam and so on aren't stealing CPU cycles from my games. Incidentally, the games I'm CPU bound in are Fallout 4, Doom and TotalWar. BoS and DCS are GPU bound for me. So they actually don't factor into my decision, strange as that is.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

So far I only saw comments that say half of the results in the above are reasonable, but Far Cry and the other one are too low for Kabylake, even at 4.0 Ghz. So there is something weird about that test. But regardless, I'd not expect higher IPC at all due to simple fact that those are same chips. Just with a core disabled in each CCX in case of 6c/12t model or only one CCX in case of 4c/8t. Slightly higher overclocking is possible however, depends on temperatures and voltage.

[BeastyBaiter]

When you get the new system together, please give a comparison between your old one and the new. Incidentally, what are you upgrading from?

[Dakpilot]

Mini ITX AM4 MB's released, that is a good thing for AMD, with no competition in the price range, X99 productivity in a small package at an unbeatable price, that is something I could seriously consider

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

After all the comments and reviews I have switched my order to R7 1700 which can be easily overclocked to 3.8-3.9 Ghz practically rendering R7 1700X useless. However very few reached Poland yet, and few are scheduled to arrive next week or week after. Then I still need motherboard - date of arrival of Asrock Taichi is unknown. So I cant really say when this happens. Maybe in a month even. 

 

Currently I'm running core i5 4670(non-K), some crap Gigabyte mobo, GTX 660 and 16 GB of ram. GPU will be a limiting factor in a new PC (but I can do this - lower the res like in professional tests and look for the performance when gpu wont be a bottleneck, then see the frames difference) as I'm waiting for AMD Vega or discounts on Nvidia 1080s to make a jump into 1440p Freesyn/Gsync. I havent decided yet though whether I should look for 75hz, 100hz, 120hz or 144hz monitor. No idea if difference is that visible in BoS/DCS/CloD and if its worth it. 

[Tuesday]

Hard to fight the temptation right now to pick up a 1700 for the same price as an i7 7700k.

 

Will hold out until the release of the 6c/12t variants.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Trust me, at 144hz the difference is there, you will expierence a much much smoother expierence..

Well yes, but 144hz also requires immense compute power. One has to build a high end setup to push 1440p 144hz gaming, in some instances it seven easier to run 4k 60hz setup. 

So here is my question, where is the border or where it becomes so noticeable ? Would going to 100hz be enough ? Or maybe 120hz monitor ?