AMD Ryzen release details

[Sokol1]

Simulated Ryzen Rx 1500x (~200$):

 

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-4-core-benchmarks-intel-core-i7-7700k/

[BeastyBaiter]

It's an interesting experiment but they put a fixed 4.0GHz clock on both CPU's, not exactly a real world setup. There is no question in my mind that the 7700k will smoke a quad core Ryzen (thanks almost entirely to clock speeds), the more interesting comparisons are between the quad and 6 core Ryzens and the similarly priced I3's and I5's. The 6 core 1600X is also interesting against the 7700k despite being in the I5 price bracket. In a lot of ways it's the old FX processor vs sandybridge setup, more cores vs faster cores. The difference is, back in the FX days nearly every game was single threaded, now virtually all of them use no less than 4 threads. Quantity actually matters now, it didn't back then. The other big difference is they didn't sacrifice IPC to get those extra cores this time around, something that did happen with the old FX chips. Throw in much lower power requirements and I think they have a real winner both in the short term and the long term.

[Lusekofte]

In my point of view, who smoke who is not relevant. The question is Will Ryzen do the job? If it does how much cheaper can I build a rig? 

Personally I think we do not need the best there is, we need a rig capable to run a simulator with best possible resolution smoothly.

And will it be noticeable cheaper to do so?

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Few ever get to high end pc rigs, most settles on mid level or continue using what they had been using. There are numerous folks here that play still on FX cpus, Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge or Haswell and it works damn fine. Sure, Skylake, Kabylake or Ryzen are nice but its high end no doubt.

 

In regard to Ryzen, now only available is 8 core cpu which isnt much cheaper than what Intel has to offer in similar price range. But if compared to other 8 or 6 cores intel has, it is highly competitive. More mainstream cpus have yet to appear - R5 1600X and others. They will be noticeably cheaper and deliver good performance. 

[skline00]

I am writing this on a Ryzen &1800x OC'd to 4.0 with an Asus Crosshair Vi mb and 2 RX 480s in CF.

[Gambit21]

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 ?

 

Just got a 60hz 27" 4K panel, and I'm not going back - 120hz be damned.

I'm not a FPS twitch gamer, and I want my games to LOOK good. This monitor is just gorgeous, IL2 looks amazing

on it, and 60hz has been just fine for me. Can't argue with those pixels - plus I do a lot of content creation.

I couldn't pass up the deal that I got on this thing.

As soon as I get the 1080 installed that I have in hands as we speak I'll be golden. However I'm also building a new rig

to go with it, and was just researching the AMD chips. I think I have to stick with my i7 7700k plan as I'm not liking what I'm reading about stability and such with the Ryzen. My mind is open but I'm placing my New Egg order in the next few days - no time to wait for AMD's and partners to work the bugs out.

 

My panel accepts a 72hz overclock just fine - not I'm comfortable doing that though.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I will never ever go back to 60hz I had two 120 for years,now I have 100hz gsync ips 34 inch 3440x1440 is really nice and it is more that enough.

Edited April 2, 2017 by 307_Tomcat

[Gambit21]

Yeah that's too rich for my blood right now.

In 5 or so years I'll go with a higher refresh rate so long as I don't give up color rendition.

 

Real life doesn't look like 144hz to me - I see motion blur. I think that's why 60hz looks fine to me.

 

For now I'm managing how fast I'm becoming jaded about refresh rates and the like.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I am writing this on a Ryzen &1800x OC'd to 4.0 with an Asus Crosshair Vi mb and 2 RX 480s in CF.

So ? How is it man ? Dont be shy ! Share your experiences.

 

 

Just got a 60hz 27" 4K panel, and I'm not going back - 120hz be damned.

I'm not a FPS twitch gamer, and I want my games to LOOK good. This monitor is just gorgeous, IL2 looks amazing

on it, and 60hz has been just fine for me. Can't argue with those pixels - plus I do a lot of content creation.

I couldn't pass up the deal that I got on this thing.

As soon as I get the 1080 installed that I have in hands as we speak I'll be golden. However I'm also building a new rig

to go with it, and was just researching the AMD chips. I think I have to stick with my i7 7700k plan as I'm not liking what I'm reading about stability and such with the Ryzen. My mind is open but I'm placing my New Egg order in the next few days - no time to wait for AMD's and partners to work the bugs out.

 

My panel accepts a 72hz overclock just fine - not I'm comfortable doing that though.

Well, yes, but for you its as much gaming monitor as for daily work. And decent freesync/gsync 4k monitors actually cost a lot. I have a 24" 1080p monitor and having a choice between high res 1440p and 60hz 4k monitor I'd rather choose 1440p, particularly as this year also will mark an introduction of HDR/Freesync2 monitors, where all color depth will change and so far it seems to matter even more than just pixels. 

Either way, now that I have two jobs, I can keep thinking on what to spend money

 

Since you do a lot of work I'd seriously consider Ryzen. There arent that many stability issues anymore with Ryzen, it runs smooth. Currently major issues are related to RAM and how fast it will go - it seems that normally people can make it to 2666 mhz, however if you invest into higher end motherboard and better b-die rams you can make it to 3200-3600 mhz. Also, 7700k platform is a dead end from what I understood of Intel presentation. With AM4 it is expected that platform will last those 3-4 years as AMD intends to deliver Zen+ and following on the same socket. 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Games need build in native software support for hdr to work, togheter with hardware enabled monitor, but when they do it introduce significant amount of input lag. If those will be resolved and Bos would have software support maybe spotting objects on ground would be better, then why not...

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I guess I'll look for a 1440p 100+ hz 27-30 inch monitor once I select a GPU for me. Last question remaining is whether should this monitor be flat or curved ? 

[Gambit21]

Since you do a lot of work I'd seriously consider Ryzen. There arent that many stability issues anymore with Ryzen, it runs smooth. Currently major issues are related to RAM and how fast it will go - it seems that normally people can make it to 2666 mhz, however if you invest into higher end motherboard and better b-die rams you can make it to 3200-3600 mhz. Also, 7700k platform is a dead end from what I understood of Intel presentation. With AM4 it is expected that platform will last those 3-4 years as AMD intends to deliver Zen+ and following on the same socket.

 

Right now with my i5 2500k and over locked 970. the 970 is pinned at 100% at 40-60fps.

I'll report back again with the new system and 1080.

 

Looks fantastic - but those low res/low detail cockpits are what they are.

 

Crap - you have me second guessing my cart that is ready to check out on New Egg.

Should I switch to AMD this time? (had a 1ghz T-bird back in the day) You have me thinking now, but that article I read on teething troubles is just a few days old.

Edited April 2, 2017 by Gambit21

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Yes, but I dont build rig for BoS/DCS only, frankly those are of a lesser concern and I know I can run them smooth. But I'm also playing and consider playing couple other titles, far more demanding and there it just might be too much to play 4k. They advertise 1080Ti as first fully 4k GPU but there are new titles on the horizon that will likely force users to cut some settings to maintain 60 fps. 

 

Simple thing is simple. What kind of programs are you using for your work ? What programs you may consider using ? http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/18 -> Here are some rendering tests from the early March. Browse websites for the kind of programs you have in use and see if you may benefit from a Ryzen.

 

Troubles exist and will continue to exist for a while. It's a new architecture and some software developers must simply adjust to it. But from my perspective most noticeable is RAM where people are having issues with higher clocks or/and higher count, like 32 or 64 GB. Some things will simply take time but I dont think its causing any problems for day to day work. 

My Ryzen is hidden under desk and waiting for a bloody Asrock Taichi which is still nowhere to be found in Poland. 

[Gambit21]

This is the days old article that makes me hesitate on the AMD chip.
http://www.pcgamer.com/amd-ryzen-state-of-the-union-address/

I'm torn...I like the idea of being able to throw a new, faster processor in there in a few years.

Are with sure Kaby Lake is the last LGA 1151 processor?

 

On the other hand I can't afford to spend money in a new system that's not up to snuff/prone to problems.

 

I have to look at what is my percentage of improvement over my current i5 2500k for the dollars spent.

With the i7 it's roughly 35-40% faster (not too impressive for going on 6 years Intel) but with the Ryzen it's only roughly 20% - not doing backflips over that.

Although for some of my 3D tasks it looks like the Ryzen might be even faster...maybe.

 

In the end I'm having trouble justifying the AMD over the Intel still.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Gambit21

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Intel is save choice. I had i5 2500k @4,7 GHz on air, I switched​ to i7 6700k, 1070 and 3300 GHz mem. ,I'm pleased with performance gains , especially when game was at dx9. I have little time to play and just two games​ installed but I'm glad that I can enjoy them at 2,5 K resolution with nice framerates.

Edited April 3, 2017 by 307_Tomcat

[Gambit21]

Safe now but no upgrade path to speak of - on the other hand I can have a much faster system in a few years with a simple processor swap with the AMD chip.

 

This is a tough one.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

My upgrades ends in full platform change, otherwise it's nothing​ significant. Who knows for sure what would we need in couple of years ?

Edited April 3, 2017 by 307_Tomcat

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Intel is save choice. I had i5 2500k @4,7 GHz on air, I switched​ to i7 6700k, 1070 and 3300 GHz mem. ,I'm pleased with performance gains , especially when game was at dx9. I have little time to play and just two games​ installed but I'm glad that I can enjoy them at 2,5 K resolution with nice framerates.

Yes, if it was considered only for a gaming I'd say the same. 7700k is a winner here. But when it comes to work, particularly photo-editing, rendering and that kind of stuff Ryzen is a lot more reasonable choice. Hence why I asked what kind of programs is Gambit using in his daily work. It's not even an exact competitor, since for that kind of tasks Intel offers more expensive 2011 platform and Broadwell-E chips. And that platform is dead for sure since new Skylake-X is intended to replace it. 

 

 

 

This is the days old article that makes me hesitate on the AMD chip. http://www.pcgamer.c...-union-address/

I went though it quickly, overall nothing unusual there.

 

->"Users have reported bugs with task handling, memory support, FMA execute, storage support, and more."

Task handling was mostly addressed by Windows in a recent patch, memory support is a constant process that will be going on for a little while, that FMA issue was addressed as well recently. No idea about storage but when it comes to NVME I'd say its problematic anywhere, couldnt boot my Intel system with NVME as well.

 

->" Most modules will boot up at generic DDR4-2133 settings with relaxed timings, but the Asus Crosshair board doesn't even list AMP/XMP profile support as an option—you manually set the memory speed and hope for the best, or start digging into the complex array of subtimings."

I call this a poor research. Most of the records were hit on that motherboard, since a few days I'm following a guy running his Ryzen 7 now at 4.1 Ghz with 3200+ Mhz ram. Here is his moderate result - 3.8GHz @ 1.175v & 3200MHz CL14 :

 

 

 

 

 

And here is his 4.1 Ghz with 3700 Mhz CL 14 RAM:

 

 

 

 

 

Notice the motherboard. While Crosshair had major issues in the early weeks, including bricking and stability problems, its not the case anymore. Though I'd still invest into Asrock mobo, they seem to get best reviews so far with least amount of problems. 

[Gambit21]

My upgrades ends in full platform change, otherwise it's nothing​ significant. Who knows for sure what would we need in couple of years ?

 

Well...a few things.

First, we haven't been in a "who knows what we'll need in a couple of years?" situation for a whole lot of years now with regard to CPU's.

Our platforms that we're just now upgrading are 5 years old, going on 6 years, and frankly still doing the job.

Software is not developing at such a rate that we're worried about whether our not our boxes will be up to snuff in 2 years...that simply does not happen. Nor is the hardware developing at the rate that it was back

in the days of the "megahertz wars" in the late 90's, early 2000's.

In fact not with games, nor where my 3D programs and other content creation programs are concerned (which, Hiro...are Modo, Cinema 4D, Zbrush, Photoshop, Illustrator) this does not happen - things are fairly stable

with regard to hardware requirements.

 

It's the GPU that keeps us on our toes for games.

 

Second, simply planning on a new Mobo and processor in a few years, along with reinstalling all my apps, plug-ins etc doesn't work for me on any level.

It's always smart to take into account your upgrade path, and while it doesn't always work out (last round is a good example where the entire time it never made sense to upgrade the i5 2500k) it's 

nevertheless smart to take it into consideration just in case. 

 

In the case of the Intel chip I'm purchasing a 38% improvement but a dead end from a socket/CPU upgrade standpoint.

In the case of the AMD chip I'm purchasing a15-20% improvement if I'm lucky (for games) a bit more improvement for work stuff, and a much better upgrade path.

The rub is, my i5 2500K does the job for my 3D applications right now...which then has be asking WTF am I upgrading right now for?

 

Games...which brings me back to Intel.

F%@K

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I know that, but we don't know what future brings or what needs you would have, any way it is holding because there were no point to upgrade sice 2012, so upgrades was not significant. Whole platform change like motherboard cpu and memory plus sometimes peripherals works best. Only if you are buying not the best cpu at the time together with mobo that can run better models then you can think about near upgrade but it's wast of time and money. They can change socket in near future and then what?

Edited April 3, 2017 by 307_Tomcat

[Gambit21]

It's always a gamble, but the AMD socket will stay as is through 2020 it seems.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

2020 Really ??

[Gambit21]

Yep - that bodes well for an easy mid-term upgrade.

Assuming enough gains happen to make it sensible - another gamble.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Gambit21

[skline00]

With the new Ryzens and the I5-I7 Intels, the most important component now is the video card.

 

BTW, Changed over to the Asus Crosshair VI Hero and it is a GREAT mb!

Edited April 25, 2017 by skline00

[Gambit21]

...and also I've been forgetting a lesson that I learned a long time ago...buy what you want NOW and don't count on an upgrade path. I've been ignoring that the last few days trying to sus this out.

 

That said, with my 4K monitor I've placed myself in a graphics bound situation for some time to come. I can make an argument for either chip still.

 

I spend a lot of time waiting for test renders - then I game.

With the new Ryzens and the I5-I7 Intels, the most important component now is the video card.

That depends entirely on your application/game and resolution...far from a true across the board statement.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Well, I'm not sure what you are asking now for ? I told you that you should see how Ryzen works with programs you work on since that seems to me the most important thing for you, for your daily work. If it benefits you more than Intel chip than go for it, if not than go with Kabylake. Either way you win as you gain more power. 

[Gambit21]

Not asking for anything - just weighing the pros and cons. Across the board gains its Kaby Lake. Work only but by a larger margin it's Ryzen.

[Gambit21]

Oh I get it Hiro - what I need is the best across the board gains over my i5 2500k NOW . Work and gaming. Kaby Lake it seems - again ignoring upgrade paths at the moment.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Work only but by a larger margin it's Ryzen.

How so ? Most of the programs for rendering, photo editing and that kind of stuff should benefit from higher IPC of Ryzen, twice as many cores and hyper threading (or SMT as its called by AMD) ? It's should be vastly superior in such programs to a 7700k, at least thats what I've been seeing in tests across the internet.  

[Gambit21]

That's I what meant

Edited April 3, 2017 by Gambit21

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Than question is simple now - what is your life balance (and I dont mean whether you eat healthy or not ) ? You use PC more for daily work or more for gaming ? 

[Dakpilot]

I thought when doing any serious rendering one used the graphics card because it is much faster than any CPU?

 

this is not a subject I am particularly familiar with 

[Gambit21]

I thought when doing any serious rendering one used the graphics card because it is much faster than any CPU?

 

this is not a subject I am particularly familiar with

CPU - but there are GPU based third party render engines/plug ins.

[Sokol1]

... or more for gaming ? 

 

Games is my only reason for still using PC.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Check this Gambit - http://imgur.com/a/o4yDR 

 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

If some task are processing faster on Amd rather then on mainstream Intels how significant it is? In my opinion this milseconds aggregated to seconds really do not count even if you are working with video/photo/cad editing. Who cares that it decompress, encrypts files little faster - but when it comes​ to games all additional performance is important, not that you have to have 100 fps looking at empty sky but when there is real action concentration in front of yours guns!

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

BTW real work/ truly professional which demand lots of computation power is done on workstations or mainframes.

[Gambit21]

Thanks Hiro - I'll watch later today after work.

 

Tomcat, "real work" is done on all manner of systems and "workstations"

My computers are always workstations as I do some high end 3D work, including some demanding renders. All professional.

Workstations come in all flavors, and the definition of that term is not necessarily a pair of $1000 processors and a silly $1200 Quadro video card.

 

For my needs a high end "gaming" system does the job just fine.

Ryzen however may be at last a true workstation leaning, consumer level CPU that's also a decent gamer rather than a gaming CPU that's also decent at renders.

 

Thanks again Hiro - looking forward to watching that.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Gambit21

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

That is merely a video showing the changes between bios, platforms, windows update and that kind of stuff. After a month from release it has improved quite a bit and seems there is more to come. But if you do a lot of demanding renders than I'd argue 8 cores may benefit you.

Here is some testing of productivity/rendering: http://techreport.com/review/31366/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-ryzen-7-1700x-and-ryzen-7-1700-cpus-reviewed/12

 

Also, since you have a 4k monitor and plan on gaming at 4k looks to me like a gaming cpu will be less relevant since at such resolutions its a GPU that is a bottleneck and will be for years to come. Tests from March 2nd and following days show that Ryzen is the same as i7 7700k at 4k but can sometimes give a better minimum frames, either way however, they are not a concern. At 4k GPU is a concern. 

 

Here is latest finding, some "premium" workstation with multiple drives, 64 GB of RAM, 1080 Ti and plenty of other expensive stuff. It also looks to me that Asrock is a company to go when it comes to motherboards. 

 

Edited April 4, 2017 by =LD=Hiromachi

[Gambit21]

The more I read and watch, the more research I do, and the more NewEgg reviews I read - the less reason I'm finding to go Intel.

 

Between

...my 4K monitor (graphics bound system now)

...my 3D rendering...this chip is a work MONSTER

...Ryzen's game benchmarks which are looking more and more impressive (and don't matter to me much anyway, just a benchmark of Ryzen single core throughput vs Intel)

...the apparent Ryzen upgrade path vs Intel

 

Ryzen is looking better and better.

 

I've seen a few articles which are nothing more than Intel propoganda as well...pretty obvious those, especially when taking NewEgg reviews into account.

Thanks for giving me a push in this direction Hiro - I'm going to end up with a much better system because of you.