# AMD Ryzen Discussion Thread.



## Hood (Mar 6, 2017)

*Hello, this is the AMD Ryzen discussion thread. Please keep things on point and civil! -Staff*























Despite generally glowing reviews, not everyone is happy with Ryzen.  Hal B. wrote this review on Newegg's 1700X page;


*Ownership: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



*
*





Verified Owner*

*





Another Bulldozer flop.*


Pros: What pros? If I could return it for a refund would have been a pro.

Cons: Horrible overclocking ability, 95w TDP is idle not load. Only supports low speed DDR 4 ram and only two of the four slots on all motherboards are working. I could go on and on how bad this cpu really is but that would take more than 5000 letters.

Other Thoughts: AMD had 5 years to get this right and they blew it. Why have such a high end cpu only support dual channel and not even fully support all of the memory slots. The motherboard manufacturers all got the same data from AMD.
I doubt this is going to get resolved and we are stuck with bad cpu's that we cannot return for a refund.
Developers are not going to go out of their way to take the extra expense to write code to support this CPU. A few that AMD pays to do it maybe. I had to buy another motherboard from a local store so I had one ready to test since the one I ordered from Newegg won't be here until March 6th or 7th. Updated the latest bios and still only 2 memory slots are working correctly. I should have known better due to AMD's reputation "The Yugo of computer platforms". This cpu line should have been the iteration of Piledriver and code named Pileofcrap. At least I can make a file server out of it since I can't return it. Does not even deserve one egg to be honest but I can't post without an egg, so AMD gets one undeserved egg.

If this is real, Ryzen is looking more like the typical AMD CPU release; (disappointing).  Perhaps this is a rare problem, but others have mentioned RAM problems (systems will only POST at low frequencies/loose timings).   Also, overclocking on Ryzen seems to be limited to 4.1-4.2 (air/water) and requires high Vcore for even that.
I'm sure these will be useful to content creators, video editors, etc, who need many threads, but gamers/overclockers/enthusiasts will do better to stay with Intel...


----------



## Vario (Mar 6, 2017)

Only a fool buys based on hype rather than waiting for more information.  I am sure the bugs will be worked out in the future.


----------



## Steevo (Mar 6, 2017)

Sounds like a semi-newb at it all. And bitter as he lost the silicon lottery.

Its also what happens when you buy new stuff first out of the gate. 95w TDP is not idle. Many people have had issues with the RAM, but again, buy the kit that you know works, and why does it only being DDR4 matter?


Plus the board he ordered won't be there until later, and as someone who has built a lot of rings in the past, when a board sucks it makes the whole setup suck. Lastly, price/performance if you were expecting quad core overclocking out of a eight core, and especially given it wasn't a 1800X. He should try a P4 Willemette core or Preshott, or the difference between some of the wolfdale cores.


----------



## Mr.Scott (Mar 6, 2017)

Guy is a blowhard.
Everything he's bitching about was disclosed before release........and there is no guaranty on overclocking.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 6, 2017)

Not everyone likes them. What's new? I don't like the 6700k or 7700k for huge annoying to me reasons. You know how I fixed that? I didn't buy them.


----------



## alucasa (Mar 6, 2017)

From what I see,  Ryzen is very good Uarch. But the platform (mobo) currently sucks major ass.

What Ryzen needs is time for the platform to mature. So, I am currently waiting.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 6, 2017)

Despite the bugs the performance numbers of the CPU are amazing for the money.  Also there is a problem with the scheduler in win 10 that they are working to patch.


----------



## thesmokingman (Mar 6, 2017)

What's the point of this thread? Do you often make threads based on shit reviews found on newegg?


----------



## rtwjunkie (Mar 6, 2017)

You know that the people who post reviews on Newegg and other purchase sites are either very happy or very unhappy with the product.  Rarely are the normal satisfied and slightly dissatisfied moved enough to post a review.

I think until we get some top quality motherboards with bugs worked out we have to take a lot of these rantings with a grain of salt.


----------



## qubit (Mar 6, 2017)

Oh what a glorious rant! Clearly someone sold on the hype who didn't wait for the reviews.

And yeah, 95W is load, not idle.


----------



## XiGMAKiD (Mar 6, 2017)

I don't mind if that guy want to trade that crappy 1700X with my awesome Q9450, I'll throw in a 1GB flashdrive as a bonus


----------



## Hood (Mar 6, 2017)

thesmokingman said:


> What's the point of this thread? Do you often make threads based on shit reviews found on newegg?


Hardly ever.  It just struck me that, with all the positive reviews, hardly anyone is talking about the bugs and platform limitations.  So, the point of my thread was to warn people whose enthusiasm for Ryzen may cause them to overlook these problems, resulting in more complaints from disappointed buyers like Hal B.  Half the reviews for the 1800x have titles like "Please know what you are buying".  I think a lot of gamers will buy these before they realize they're not really optimum for gaming, just because it's a great new chip from AMD.  The more cautious will wait for the platform to mature, which I believe it will, unlike the hapless Hal B.
  Also, it's a slow Sunday and there are no new articles/hardware reviews to read, so I wanted to start a discussion about Ryzen, which seems to be on everyone's radar now (including mine; I still build systems for people occaisionally, and need to know about all the viable options and price points).


----------



## xkm1948 (Mar 6, 2017)

RyZen has solid improvements over faildozer. Good power efficiency and good pricing. I really see no reason of bashing the product.


And No f*ucks are given to some newegger who has less than 2 ozs of grey matter in their brain.


----------



## EntropyZ (Mar 6, 2017)

Ryzen didn't flop at all, it did what was shown. One guy said on a stream gamers are crazy people, and they are the ones most disappointed. I'm glad AMD made the strongest of their lineup available up front, and withhold Ryzen 5 and 3. They can use the time until release for fixing the problems and other nitpicks that were on launch day. At the end of the day I think we haven't seen anything yet.

For those that are mad should just chill and wait for the tweaked release of Ryzen+ or whatever it was called.

What the guy said on that review was just him being mad after having a Bulldozer chip. Those people that gamed on these CPU's felt burnt, just because Intel chips had higher Single-Thread performance.

I hope AMD pushes more towards optimized Multi-Threaded game applications. I'm sick and tired of playing console ports, I feel like a peasant.

And who the hell in the right mind buys an i7 7700K strictly for gaming? Apparently someone not knowing the i5 does just as well in gaming, why spend an extra 100 bucks for some FPS, especially if you're playing in 1080p.

AMD was shown that streamers should be happy with Ryzen 7.

I knew for several years that Ryzen was going to have gaming performance comparable to a Haswell i5 or better. That's what some intelligent people expected, and said they would still buy the chip so long as it has great Multi-Thread performance.

So much bit**ing from people, nobody forced you to buy/pre-order the thing. Should have waited for the benchmarks.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Mar 6, 2017)

LOL, he's complaining about that POS asus MB and doesn't know the difference.


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 6, 2017)




----------



## EntropyZ (Mar 6, 2017)

TheGuruStud said:


> LOL, he's complaining about that POS asus MB and doesn't know the difference.


I think we wish it was that simple. People in the tech world can't be this dumb.... Can they?

I think I shouldn't be surprised though, I'm 22 now, and seen some dumb crap in my lifetime that people do, I wonder what's next in store for me.

It's nice that OP started this thread. But it looks like most people here are just telling off the guy with the review, it wasn't the intention of the thread, but I guess I should get used to the trolling.

After all this, people are going crazy because we're finally seeing some competition? Damn. Most new hardware launches are bumpy, it has been this way for decades and someone is surprised? What...

After looking through all the benchmarks on YouTube, it was a rollercoaster of feelings for me. I'm still getting the Ryzen 5 after all that.

I want to support the company that actually innovates and picks up slack after Intel. Imagine what Intel with their budget could do if they remade the silicon to be nothing like the predecessor CPU's. You can trace their CPU's back to be mostly based off of a Pentium 3 die with more cores. They took a step back because the Pentium 4 couldn't do shit to the Athlon 64 X2 (some people didn't also forget how Intel manipulated benchmarks back then). But then the Core 2 happened and the rest is history.

Nah, Intel is fine selling CPU's with marginal improvements over their predecessors for stupid prices in the i3/i5/i7 series. I do realize that silicon is now starting to stretch it's limits but come on. And I have to admit it's not like AMD offered good competition for a long time.

What time to be alive. All I can see on the internet is a bunch of people with their trigger fingers on keyboards. I feel better by staying away from such things. They are like farts, they linger for a while and then they disperse somewhere else.

So yeah, I will be sitting out and see how all this plays out. It's not like people are getting killed from liking a brand, haha. Oh wait...

The future seems kind of ****ed. I didn't think it would all turn out this way 18 years ago but it did.


----------



## jaggerwild (Mar 6, 2017)

I think threads like this should be taken down, for the simple fact that techpowerup hasn't done a review of Ryzen yet. And people come here looking for info on ryzen, for them to base it off some noob Review at New egg............


----------



## -1nf1n1ty- (Mar 6, 2017)

I feel like everyone is being incredibly critical on *new* hardware. I get that it was hyped to be this and that, but the people that followed the hype expected more than AMD was hyping in my opinion. I was expecting a competitor to intel CPU's and honestly just overall better performance in games and in programs I use, or at least something that matched without the price tag. For the most part that's what I got. I basically got a 6900k for a fraction of the cost. Gaming could be better but even I know that this stuff takes a tremendous amount of time to optimize for (hasn't it ALWAYS been like this for whatever CPU, MoBo, Ram, whatever the hell youre going for?) So before I know I will get an update and holy crap everything runs at higher fps or renders faster etc. I don't know. Positive thinking?


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Mar 6, 2017)

Of course it couldn't be an Intel employee.


----------



## Grings (Mar 6, 2017)

It has been out for 4 days, why is it not a more mature platform than the 115x dynasty (released 2009) yet???


----------



## xkm1948 (Mar 6, 2017)

Grings said:


> It has been out for 4 days, why is it not a more mature platform than the 115x dynasty (released 2009) yet???



lol this nailed it.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 6, 2017)

Some people fail to see potential... nothing you can do to prove em wrong but enjoy it for yourself.

Not to mention all of the gaming on win 7 seems to be +20% win 10 so there is likely a patch inbound.


----------



## EntropyZ (Mar 6, 2017)

Grings said:


> It has been out for 4 days, why is it not a more mature platform than the 115x dynasty (released 2009) yet???


Hahahaaaaaa, made my day. Thanks.


----------



## R0H1T (Mar 6, 2017)

In other news Windows sucks ~


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 6, 2017)

It's the same case of Windows Vista syndrome. When there were so many BSOD's with Vista, people blamed Microsoft for it. But when you looked at the actual memory dumps and Event Viewer logs, majority of them were NVDIA drivers taking a dump on the system... But people naturally blamed Microsoft even though it was NVIDIA who wasn't making good drivers...

*Performance not up to the level in games*
Fast forward to AMD Ryzen release. So far, only person I've seen realistic about this situation was JayZTwoCents. The fact that AMD didn't have a viable CPU for what, 5 years means developers focused CPU optimization on Intel only pretty much, resulting in less than optimal performance on AMD, even though in terms of IPC and overall performance, they should perform almost the same.

*Memory issues*
Instead of placing 100% of blame on AMD, how about taking it with the motherboard vendors? It's them who make BIOS updates and add RAM profiles. Sure AMD needs to give them a hand as well, but people need to understand that this is a brand new, never to be seen before architecture with all new memory controller. Expecting zero issues on such historical launch would just be foolish.

*Overclocking capability*
People, for the love of god, this is 8 cores, 16 threads CPU. Stop taking 7700k (freaking quad core) as an example of overclocking capability and applying it to twice as many cores. If you look at Intel's 6900k, you also hit a huge overclocking wall at around 4GHz where you need quite high voltages and having to deal with massive amounts of heat. Yes, Intel has slight edge, but getting 6900k up to 4.2GHz is already a great achievement. AMD Ryzen isn't far off really...

*Power consumption*
But R7 1800X is not consuming only 95W! Yeah, well, neither does Core i7 6700k then for example...

Oh and lets don't forget the fact we're comparing 4c/8t CPU to a 8c/16t CPU at roughly similar clocks. And they have basically the same power consumption under load. Even under Handbrake and AIDA64 which really go all out on the cores unlike games where it might be core restricted.

Chart courtesy of @R0H1T


----------



## silkstone (Mar 6, 2017)

Even after all of the reviews I still want a Ryzen. 

Why? because I actually use my computer to do computery stuff. All sorts of things. If I wanted a computer to just play games, I would go with a console or a highly clocked 4T CPU and put all my money into a GPU.

I do also play games, but that is not the be-all-end-all measure of performance for the majority of users. And, even if performance is not as good, I doubt it would be noticeable on a mid-range GPU.


----------



## R0H1T (Mar 6, 2017)

silkstone said:


> Even after all of the reviews I still want a Ryzen.
> 
> Why? because I actually use my computer to do computery stuff. All sorts of things. If I wanted a computer to just play games, I would go with a console or a highly clocked 4T CPU and put all my money into a GPU.
> 
> I do also play games, but that is not the be-all-end-all measure of performance for the majority of users. And, even if performance is not as good, I doubt it would be noticeable on a mid-range GPU.


This is what most users feel tbh, unless you have a (separate) gaming rig or a rig dedicated (only) to gaming then R7 is a no brainer. This doesn't mean that the R5 or R3 won't be good buys, but that the octa core is simply outstanding VFM.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 6, 2017)

I personally think the R5 1400X will be a "normies" winner. It's basically a replacement for FX8350. Without the bad IPC drawbacks. But yeah, I agree, despite drawbacks R7 1800X is an awesome CPU.


----------



## Hood (Mar 6, 2017)

Grings said:


> It has been out for 4 days, why is it not a more mature platform than the 115x dynasty (released 2009) yet???


Zen was started 5 years ago.  So, 1800+ days to develop, 4 days for some nimrod to cry "Bulldozed again!"  That's hilarious...


----------



## silkstone (Mar 6, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> I personally think the R5 1400X will be a "normies" winner. It's basically a replacement for FX8350. Without the bad IPC drawbacks. But yeah, I agree, despite drawbacks R7 1800X is an awesome CPU.



A lower end Ryzen would also work as an amazing Plex server for the fraction of the cost of an equivalent Intel system.

People who are disappointed with it lack imagination.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 6, 2017)

Or even the R3 Ryzens, I mean, they are proper quad cores compared to crappy dual core Core i3's that really just need to die already.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 6, 2017)

Money talks , it's cheap and competitive so people will buy it , this will happen even more when R5 and R3 arrive. I feel like most complains come from die hard Intel fanboys or people with unrealistic expectation because of general lack of knowledge. Perhaps Ryzen wont make it's way in every PC , but it is no where near a failure.

Also , when did quad channel memory and up became such a must have feature ? Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't we already seen enough comparisons long ago showing close to 0 improvement over dual channel or even single channel ?

In addition to this many seem to believe AMD is also manufacturing the motherboards...


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 6, 2017)

Well, Bulldozer was sort of a failure and yet many people bought it anyway. Ryzen is actually good, so expectations can be higher by default.


----------



## Kei (Mar 6, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> It's the same case of Windows Vista syndrome. When there were so many BSOD's with Vista, people blamed Microsoft for it. But when you looked at the actual memory dumps and Event Viewer logs, majority of them were NVDIA drivers taking a dump on the system... But people naturally blamed Microsoft even though it was NVIDIA who wasn't making good drivers...
> 
> *Performance not up to the level in games*
> Fast forward to AMD Ryzen release. So far, only person I've seen realistic about this situation was JayZTwoCents. The fact that AMD didn't have a viable CPU for what, 5 years means developers focused CPU optimization on Intel only pretty much, resulting in less than optimal performance on AMD, even though in terms of IPC and overall performance, they should perform almost the same.
> ...



I'm offended by the overwhelming amount of totally logical thought in this post, please stop it and resort to sheeping uninformed internet comments. Thank you


----------



## Aenra (Mar 6, 2017)

Sorry, but...
You can all see my specs on your own. And i'm still here to say that i don't see Ryzen as a disappointment, not in the slightest; on the contrary, looking forward to its maturing and my eventually building an AMD-centric rig again 

I cannot hate a smaller team, working with smaller budgets, on "loaned" calibration lines, in a market targetted and controlled by a direct competitor. Just... cannot. Especially when the results speak for themselves.


----------



## Komshija (Mar 6, 2017)

AMD made a big improvement with Ryzen. It's a completely new design and AMD yet has to fine-tune their CPU's, which might happen late this year or the next year.
Either way, it's a very bad idea to buy ANY new product immediately after its release because of high initial costs and unknown real-world performance.


----------



## Vario (Mar 6, 2017)

I think the next Zen, zen+ with 7nm shrink, ipc improvements, and further refinements to the motherboards will be the version to buy.


----------



## OneCool (Mar 6, 2017)

You guys ( and gals) remember when the Athlon 64 was released and all we had was VIA chipset motherboards!! OMG!! It was like pulling a tooth just to get my rig to post. Buggy as hell.
Then Nvidia released the nForce 2 chipset and whoa it was like a whole new animal that Intel couldn't do anything with. Turned it into a beast.
In short they will figure out the issues and all the butt hurt people that jumped on the bandwagon will shut up and enjoy.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Mar 6, 2017)

OneCool said:


> You guys ( and gals) remember when the Athlon 64 was released and all we had was VIA chipset motherboards!! OMG!! It was like pulling a tooth just to get my rig to post. Buggy as hell.
> Then Nvidia released the nForce 2 chipset and whoa it was like a whole new animal that Intel couldn't do anything with. Turned it into a beast.
> In short they will figure out the issues and all the butt hurt people that jumped on the bandwagon will shut up and enjoy.



I never had a single problem out of my Asus A8V Deluxe. That PC was used hard for years and still worked until I finally tossed it 2 yrs ago (it hurt a little lol). I/O performance wasn't as good as the others, but it was rock solid from day one.

I kind of feel sorry for people that never have experienced the leap that was the athlon 64.


----------



## hat (Mar 6, 2017)

It's astounding how many early adopters get their knickers in a twist because the extremely complex techy stuff they bought, which just came out less than one week ago, doesn't work perfectly. If you want to be an early adopter, that's fine, but don't go around screaming "X sucks!!" when it's a brand new product that has had zero time for refinement. I've been around long enough to realize that brand new stuff tends to not work perfectly right away. Though I do want a Ryzen system, I would be holding my cash (if I had any) for a while, until the platform matured a bit.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 6, 2017)

hat said:


> It's astounding how many early adopters get their knickers in a twist because the extremely complex techy stuff they bought, which just came out less than one week ago, doesn't work perfectly. If you want to be an early adopter, that's fine, but don't go around screaming "X sucks!!" when it's a brand new product that has had zero time for refinement. I've been around long enough to realize that brand new stuff tends to not work perfectly right away. Though I do want a Ryzen system, I would be holding my cash (if I had any) for a while, until the platform matured a bit.




I hate to break this to you, but I have had nearly every modern Intel platform over the past 5-6 years many months before launch, and they all worked nearly perfectly then, never mind at launch. There were some BIOS teething issues only, and nothing quite as big as perfectly fine memory modules not working at all, even @ quite low 2133 MHz....

You could then say that perhaps Intel gave board makers more time, or more support than AMD has, and that has led to these "early adopter" problems. That said, there is no comparison between this AMD launch, and ANY Intel launch that I have been a part of. The closest thing would be the P67 recall, which actually wasn't that big of a deal, but it WAS a recall.


Now, that I have said that, I will say, I did run into issues with Ryzen, but once I had a proper memory kit, and the right board, things all work great and there are just some performance issues left over. Some of these cannot be fixed, contrary to many posts suggesting otherwise. Yet because I was able to get such an experience by merely choosing the right parts, this tells me that AMD has failed HARD because whoever sent out review samples to those that have already done reviews did not take the time to make sure that reviewers got the proper hardware for reviews, and as such, AMD failed hard on that aspect of the launch, and as such, you can only fault AMD for anyone's misconceptions about Ryzen at this time and point.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Mar 6, 2017)

This could easily be OP's own stupid brainless review....
Should this clickbait nonsense not be removed, seeing as the title has nothing to do with the content?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 7, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Well, Bulldozer was sort of a failure and yet many people bought it anyway. Ryzen is actually good, so expectations can be higher by default.



I skipped BD and went to PD


----------



## Hood (Mar 7, 2017)

ZoneDymo said:


> This could easily be OP's own stupid brainless review....
> Should this clickbait nonsense not be removed, seeing as the title has nothing to do with the content?


As the OP, I assure you I didn't write the Newegg review, don't own a Ryzen CPU, and probably never will.  Also, I would never write a review like that, or give up so easily while building a new system. Calling my post "clickbait" doesn't change the fact that most people who frequent TPU are interested in how the whole Ryzen platform pans out, for many different reasons.  I already stated my reasons for making the original post.  What is your reason for being offended by it?  All of us are now better informed about the situation, thanks to people on this site who built Ryzen systems and shared their experiences.  The post's title has everything to do with the content, sorry if that wasn't to your liking - were you hoping for a Zen miracle to replace your aging Sandy Bridge rig?  I thought Hal B's review was hilarious, on several levels, sorry you didn't see the humor.


----------



## qubit (Mar 7, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> *I hate to break this to you, but I have had nearly every modern Intel platform over the past 5-6 years many months before launch, and they all worked nearly perfectly then, never mind at launch.* There were some BIOS teething issues only, and nothing quite as big as perfectly fine memory modules not working at all, even @ quite low 2133 MHz....
> 
> You could then say that perhaps Intel gave board makers more time, or more support than AMD has, and that has led to these "early adopter" problems. That said, there is no comparison between this AMD launch, and ANY Intel launch that I have been a part of. The closest thing would be the P67 recall, which actually wasn't that big of a deal, but it WAS a recall.
> 
> ...


Agreed, especially the bold bit. This is looking like a botched launch of an interesting, but slightly underperforming product, especially in gaming. I'm skeptical of the claims that optimisation will fix the performance issues and I wouldn't be surprised if bugs persist for months. We'll see.

No wonder Intel products cost more and Intel weren't too worried about Ryzen. Clearly the quality control at Intel is so much better and that's worth paying a premium for. I just want the bloody thing that I spent hundreds, or even thousands of pounds on, to perform well and work properly. That's not too much to demand, even at launch time.

Some people might defend AMD and claim it's the mobo makers who didn't design their BIOSes and boards properly and that it's not a buggy CPU, but I don't buy that. The whole design and launch process is managed by the CPU manufacturer, so it's their responsibility to ensure that the supporting products all work properly.

It already looks like there's a problem with the L3 implentation that's causing the performance problems and that's unacceptable for a premium product intended to compete with Intel in my opinion. If I spend a pricey $500 on a CPU and hundreds more on mobo, RAM and cooling, the thing better work properly from the start.



Hood said:


> As the OP, I assure you I didn't write the Newegg review, don't own a Ryzen CPU, and probably never will.  Also, I would never write a review like that, or give up so easily while building a new system. Calling my post "clickbait" doesn't change the fact that most people who frequent TPU are interested in how the whole Ryzen platform pans out, for many different reasons.  I already stated my reasons for making the original post.  What is your reason for being offended by it?  All of us are now better informed about the situation, thanks to people on this site who built Ryzen systems and shared their experiences.  The post's title has everything to do with the content, sorry if that wasn't to your liking - were you hoping for a Zen miracle to replace your aging Sandy Bridge rig?  I thought Hal B's review was hilarious, on several levels, sorry you didn't see the humor.


Agreed. I'm glad you posted this thread. 

If I'd bought Ryzen to replace my aging, but silky smooth working and still well performing 2700K I'd be pissed now, I can tell you, lol.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 7, 2017)

qubit said:


> It already looks like there's a problem with the L3 implentation that's causing the performance problems and that's unacceptable for a premium product intended to compete with Intel in my opinion. If I spend a pricey $500 on a CPU and hundreds more on mobo, RAM and cooling, the thing better work properly from the start.




I think you're looking at it wrong, and do not agree with your summary here. What some people are relaying as a problem isn't necessarily actually so.


----------



## qubit (Mar 7, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> I think you're looking at it wrong, and do not agree with your summary here. What some people are relaying as a problem isn't necessarily actually so.


I'm not sure why  but ok.


----------



## OneCool (Mar 7, 2017)

If you " buy" it or not the big picture is still the same. I mean really Intel's R&D department alone is probably bigger than all of AMD.

AMD rushed it to market to keep people on board. Marketing?? Is it a new concept? Hell no. Should they have used that marketing money towards more R&D with their AIB partners....At this point YES it looks like it.

AMD has done some really great things in the computing world whether you like them or not!! They have a lot first in the CPU world....You know why because their not afraid to go out on a limb and try something new!!!.It's why people that like them ....Mostly love them. They stick Thier neck out and go for it instead of just putting along...Or " tick,tocking"


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 7, 2017)

Grings said:


> It has been out for 4 days, why is it not a more mature platform than the 115x dynasty (released 2009) yet???



While this is spot on, it doesn't solve the issue either.

Personally, I wouldn't recommend Ryzen to a professional "time is money" type now because of the tweaking required, and well, time is money.  But give it a few bios updates on the boards and time to mature, and I very well might.


----------



## Hood (Mar 7, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> I think you're looking at it wrong, and do not agree with your summary here. What some people are relaying as a problem isn't necessarily actually so.


True, it's early days to make any conclusive judgments.  The memory and L3 problems might be fixed soon, or may require "Ryzen 2.0" tweaks to the architecture.  Either way, it will get better.   We haven't even seen the 4 and 6 core varieties, they could be much better, or possibly delayed for optimization if they suck - we'll have to wait and see...


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 7, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> While this is spot on, it doesn't solve the issue either.
> 
> Personally, I wouldn't recommend Ryzen to a professional "time is money" type now because of the tweaking required, and well, time is money.  But give it a few bios updates on the boards and time to mature, and I very well might.



Yup Im not jumping the gun, im comparing the board specs via their manuals, I may grab the ryzen system in December after some better yields/steppings appear and bios are better, and maybe better boards to boot.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Mar 7, 2017)

Hood said:


> As the OP, I assure you I didn't write the Newegg review, don't own a Ryzen CPU, and probably never will.  Also, I would never write a review like that, or give up so easily while building a new system. Calling my post "clickbait" doesn't change the fact that most people who frequent TPU are interested in how the whole Ryzen platform pans out, for many different reasons.  I already stated my reasons for making the original post.  What is your reason for being offended by it?  All of us are now better informed about the situation, thanks to people on this site who built Ryzen systems and shared their experiences.  The post's title has everything to do with the content, sorry if that wasn't to your liking - were you hoping for a Zen miracle to replace your aging Sandy Bridge rig?  I thought Hal B's review was hilarious, on several levels, sorry you didn't see the humor.



The title is:
*Ryzen already falling?*

and your argument is linking one buyer on amazon.com or equivalent, and you think that that somehow equates that title?
You are hinting at something much larger that is just not taking place, or it might be but your are not providing the proof.

Do I have to dig up 1 person not happy with their Nvidia card and make a new threat with the header "Consumers lash back and poor performance from Nvidia" ?
Do I have to dig up 1 person not happy with their Tesla car because the autopilot did not prevent a fenderbender and add the header "Tesla Autopilot claims another consumer, will tesla survive?" ?

If you cannot see how this title with the provided content is blowing something way out of proportions and if you cannot see that's problematic at best, then idk what to say, its pretty much clear as day.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 7, 2017)

My god, Ryzen was released for freaking few days and you all go full on drama. I can't believe you people are "techies".


----------



## xkm1948 (Mar 7, 2017)

I wonder how much of these posts are paid Intel PR. Not just TPU, but every single major tech press forum site, enough to make people feel suspicious of something else going on in the background.


----------



## yotano211 (Mar 7, 2017)

I might be looking at Ryzen to do video editing for youtube and streaming games at the same point.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 7, 2017)

OneCool said:


> You guys ( and gals) remember when the Athlon 64 was released and all we had was VIA chipset motherboards!! OMG!! It was like pulling a tooth just to get my rig to post. Buggy as hell.
> Then Nvidia released the nForce 2 chipset and whoa it was like a whole new animal that Intel couldn't do anything with. Turned it into a beast.
> In short they will figure out the issues and all the butt hurt people that jumped on the bandwagon will shut up and enjoy.



Nforce2 was a socket A board. Nforce 3 was the first for K8.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 7, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> My god, Ryzen was released for freaking few days and you all go full on drama. I can't believe you people are "techies".



I can.  I blame the human race more than the occupation.  More often than not, stupidity prevails.  I've seen it in both the highs and lows of society.

-RTB, certified frog-philosopher


----------



## GreiverBlade (Mar 7, 2017)

Hood said:


> Hardly ever.  It just struck me that, with all the positive reviews, hardly anyone is talking about the bugs and platform limitations.  So, the point of my thread was to warn people whose enthusiasm for Ryzen may cause them to overlook these problems, resulting in more complaints from disappointed buyers like Hal B.  Half the reviews for the 1800x have titles like "Please know what you are buying".  I think a lot of gamers will buy these before they realize they're not really optimum for gaming, just because it's a great new chip from AMD.  The more cautious will wait for the platform to mature, which I believe it will, unlike the hapless Hal B.
> Also, it's a slow Sunday and there are no new articles/hardware reviews to read, so I wanted to start a discussion about Ryzen, which seems to be on everyone's radar now (including mine; I still build systems for people occaisionally, and need to know about all the viable options and price points).


i do mainly gaming ... and i will still plan a R7 1700 rig ...
gaming wise i saw 1080p video comparison that placed it straight in the same performance area of a 1.2ghz higher clocked 7700K ... yep Ryzen suck at gaming ... 

nonetheless if i can get a 8C/16T for a 3rd of the 6900K prices (and performances close enough, as a 1700 is the same as a 1700X/1800X... only without XFR and slightly lower clocked ... but quite cheaper ) i would be a fool to not take it ...
why paying 376chf for a 7700K in that case (the R7 1700 is also at that price for me )

now on that review ... it's funny ... just funny ... not even informative or slightly correct.

p.s. it's the 1st negative customer review i saw ... otherwise most i saw was "it's good enough" "so-so" and "well, good job AMD" (mostly from Youtube and "professional site" ) also ... Newegg reviews .... 

to me, Ryzen looks like the new Price/Perf king but unlike previous iteration of AMD's CPU, this time it has the performances to back it up (even the "pricey" 1800X is technically unbeatable, for now, at his own price) mobo need to mature a bit more (but their price is accorded to intel's mobo and not really too high either)


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 7, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> I blame the human race.
> 
> -RTB, certified frog-philosopher



You racist frog   Show us the papers


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 7, 2017)

He's the most racist frog right after Pepe and Kek.


----------



## Kanan (Mar 7, 2017)

I 99% agree with this, what do you guys think? 
Once again he did a great work on analysing informations over a long period of time to come to conclusions that make a lot of fucking sense.


----------



## springs113 (Mar 7, 2017)

Kanan said:


> I 99% agree with this, what do you guys think?
> Once again he did a great work on analysing informations over a long period of time to come to conclusions that make a lot of fucking sense.


First video that ever had me check results for myself.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 7, 2017)

It's specist, thank you very much.  I hate all humans equally.


----------



## qubit (Mar 7, 2017)

Gonna watch this video when I get time. Sounds intriguing.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 7, 2017)

Change power mode to high performance and disable SMT for highest scores.  Makes sense and nothing really new.

I don't think he ever really explained why Ryzen does poor at low resolution but he is right that running low resolutions to check CPU game performance is nonsense.  Makes more sense to run it balls to the wall and see if it bottlenecks.  Gaming CPU benchmarks should be bottleneck centric and not frame rate centric.


----------



## Basard (Mar 7, 2017)

I think it did better against Intel than the original Phenom did upon it's release release.  It's not an Athlon, but it's better than a Phenom, or a Phenom II even.  Can't wait for Ryzen v.2, some faster RAM would be nice.... I run DDR3 2133, so what's the point of that?


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 7, 2017)

What if the next gen Navi card and or Volta is so fast that at 1440p or even 4k the CPU becomes relevant? If the CPU holds back gaming at 1080p compared to the competition in certain games, it is relevant. 
I'm swinging like a pendulum over 7700k or 1800X so it's relevant to me. I'll keep this CPU for years do if it does have an issue for a design reason, it's really important to see what that is.
Let's not all be AMD protectionists here, let's use a little sense.  Yes, it's great at multitasking, why not so much at gaming (when cinebench single thread score is good)?

And I'll put my money where my mouth is here, even though I don't need the 1800X, I will but it if I go Ryzen to support AMD. It also helps that I think from reviews, the chips have been binned for their price.


----------



## qubit (Mar 7, 2017)

@the54thvoid Go Intel. It's a no-brainer. The thing is faster and works properly. Let AMD prove themselves to you. So far they haven't with lower performance and a buggy platform. It's not our job to have faith in them.


----------



## OneCool (Mar 7, 2017)

Ferrum Master said:


> Nforce2 was a socket A board. Nforce 3 was the first for K8.



Thank you... I realized that after posting lol

I'm old...CRS is becoming a thing now :/


----------



## springs113 (Mar 7, 2017)

I have no real need to upgrade/side grade from a 5930k-r5e10-290Xs but i will be going for Ryzen.  I think AMD already proved that its a helluva CPU for gaming and content creation.   IPC is very comparable to Intel(dwnclk 7700k) and compare and you'll see.  Not that any one would buy a 7700k to dwnclk it but ideally you get my point.  The 6900k/5960x performs similarly in just about all aspects yet ppl don't trounce upon Intel.   Given the budget that AMD have and with them also competing in the gpu front I'm glad with the performance of Ryzen in comparison to what they had before and definitely in comparison to what Intel is offering.  My last AMD build was a Phenom 955BE, my current Intel rig does wonders but I'm buying AMD.  I support those that support me, competition supports me.   The product being offered(Ryzen) is no dud, performs better than my 5930k, cost less, rivals  a $1,000 processor that i(wanted but not forking over that kinda money).  Why would i not support that.

I bought my x99 system launch day (deluxe mobo originally)  and although my system ran near flawlessly it still had its quirks.  It still does but very tolerable now...I'm just waiting this one out until it's ironed out for the most part and will purchase when the kinks are ironed out.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 7, 2017)

Any cliff's on this 20 min vid... jebus...


----------



## BiggieShady (Mar 7, 2017)

qubit said:


> I'm not sure why  but ok.


Maybe the fact that there is a cache latency jump when L3 spills over 8MB even when thread stays in single core cluster, so scheduling tweaks can't help (other than fix smt).


----------



## Aenra (Mar 7, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> I did run into issues with Ryzen, but once I had a proper memory kit, and the right board, things all work great and there are just some performance issues left over. Some of these cannot be fixed, contrary to many posts suggesting otherwise. Yet because I was able to get such an experience by merely choosing the right parts



Elaborate please!
Both in terms of the hardware (and i mean mobo brand + ram brand, specifics) _and_ in terms of solutions(?) advised elsewhere? So far, all i've come across is a 'disable the SMT' approach, but to be fair, no one has branded this as a "solution".
Not trying to disprove you, this is honest curiosity. You gals n guys often take things for granted that the rest of us are not even aware of


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 7, 2017)

I don't see a reason to turn of SMT. Have HT capable CPU for the cca 8 years and I couldn't ever see a reason to turn HT off. Because of 5fps difference in games, but getting 30-40% less performance in data crunching? WHY!?


----------



## xorbe (Mar 7, 2017)

Hard to take OP seriously when quoting cpu is 95w idle.


----------



## Kanan (Mar 7, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> What if the next gen Navi card and or Volta is so fast that at 1440p or even 4k the CPU becomes relevant? If the CPU holds back gaming at 1080p compared to the competition in certain games, it is relevant.
> I'm swinging like a pendulum over 7700k or 1800X so it's relevant to me. I'll keep this CPU for years do if it does have an issue for a design reason, it's really important to see what that is.
> Let's not all be AMD protectionists here, let's use a little sense.  Yes, it's great at multitasking, why not so much at gaming (when cinebench single thread score is good)?
> 
> And I'll put my money where my mouth is here, even though I don't need the 1800X, I will but it if I go Ryzen to support AMD. It also helps that I think from reviews, the chips have been binned for their price.


Do the leap of faith and trust that a 8 core! CPU will be (easily) faster over time compared to an 4 core. I don't care about brands right now writing this, it's just plain and fucking simple logic, for me it's insanity going with the 7700k just to have a few fps more in some games, and then be angry because the 1800X and even the lower ones WILL BE faster over time I'm 99% sure on this and I'm not talking many years either. But it's your decision and I won't talk you in. For those who have no faith and are overly suspicious and critical simply go with Intel - my time is too precious to change minds of those people anyway.


----------



## Aenra (Mar 7, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> I don't see a reason to turn of SMT. Have HT capable CPU for the cca 8 years and I couldn't ever see a reason to turn HT off. Because of 5fps difference in games, but getting 30-40% less performance in data crunching? WHY!?



They e-mailed Tom's Hardware, telling them that until proper Win10 drivers are written it is "best" (performance-wise) to disable SMT. Whether it is because of floating/integer issues as i mentioned in a different thread, the L3 issue or both, i know not.
Have since then found it mentioned here again, but obviously no one considers this a 'solution', hence my asking what he meant when he said that he tried all the proposed solutions.


----------



## springs113 (Mar 7, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Do the leap of faith and trust that a 8 core! CPU will be (easily) faster over time compared to an 4 core. I don't care about brands right now writing this, it's just plain and fucking simple logic, for me it's insanity going with the 7700k just to have a few fps more in some games, and then be angry because the 1800X and even the lower ones WILL BE faster over time I'm 99% sure on this and I'm not talking many years either. But it's your decision and I won't talk you in. For those who have no faith and are overly suspicious and critical simply go with Intel - my time is too precious to change minds of those people anyway.


Right about that one on all fronts.   I for one will go with the 1700 unless the binning process changes,  because it maxes out around the same speeds.  That $170 i can put toward my gpu/mobo/ram.  I'm quite surprised at what AMD did there but thinking about it, they've given us tremendous value before(my 720be, saphire x850gto) others with the 6850/6950 if i recall correctly.


----------



## v12dock (Mar 7, 2017)

Why is this threat still open...?


----------



## basco (Mar 7, 2017)

people go the easy way and that is in gaming amd has to go against fastest intel 4 core and in multicore against 10 core intel.
so benchmarks are still showing intel in front and unfortunately this is all that matters.

thx for the video this guy is looking in detail what happens in 3 to 5 years and not on 1 single benchmark.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 7, 2017)

Kanan said:


> I 99% agree with this, what do you guys think?



You actually understood anything of what he said?


----------



## alucasa (Mar 7, 2017)

I am more surprised that people actually watched the video.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 7, 2017)

alucasa said:


> I am more surprised that people actually watched the video.





EarthDog said:


> Any cliff's on this 20 min vid... jebus...


----------



## revin (Mar 7, 2017)

So with a faster GPU it reviles that AMD is still increasing performance at low rez.
Then the 16 core is just loafing along about 2/3 used.


----------



## r9 (Mar 7, 2017)

Kanan said:


> I 99% agree with this, what do you guys think?
> Once again he did a great work on analysing informations over a long period of time to come to conclusions that make a lot of fucking sense.


Interesting how fx pull ahead of 2500k. I believe that Ryzen its easier to optimise for compared to FX. What are we seeing now its how it runs unoptimised  software. Plus glitchy motherboard bioses and first batch of silicone. Not to mention Amd motherboards are cheaper. I was just looking at microcenter you can get B chipset asus or msi for $69 mobo. 1700x is $349 now plus $69 motherboard. Nice combo for just over $400.


----------



## Kanan (Mar 7, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> You actually understood anything of what he said?


Did you? 

Some people are only here to troll, thanks to all the others that are still open minded & positive thinking.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 7, 2017)

Im open minded... just don't have 20 mins to listen and asked for Cliff's notes.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 7, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Did you?
> 
> Some people are only here to troll, thanks to all the others that are still open minded & positive thinking.



That thick Scottish accent got really hard to listen to after about 3-4 minutes in, so I gave up.


----------



## kruk (Mar 7, 2017)

I agree with AdoredTV too. You can buy a 7700K instead of Ryzen 7 and have that 10 or 20% higher FPS, but there are games out there which already max out (or almost max out) all of the i7 cores/threads. Example is BF1 (images taken from Jokers 1700 v 7700K review):






As you can see the 7700K CPU it's almost at the limit, but 1700 has a lot of steam left. And this is a *clean, freshly installed* system! Imagine now a antivirus, chat, browser, etc. running. *You will have FPS dips all the time on the 7700K!*


----------



## alucasa (Mar 7, 2017)

There are already enough reviews out there to make a fair decision. It says to disable SMT to boost frame rates. And it takes just few minutes of reading to get that.

I don't need some random dude to tell me what to do and buy. At least, this guy isn't talking about mortgage where one's life could actually be depeneded upon.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 7, 2017)

ZoneDymo said:


> The title is:
> *Ryzen already falling?*
> 
> and your argument is linking one buyer on amazon.com or equivalent, and you think that that somehow equates that title?
> ...



To be fair, his title has a question mark and therefore he is not making any statements or arguments, he is asking a question, well that's what a question mark meant when I was at school, to be fair that was many many years ago I may be behind the times.  All that is left from that is his purpose, is it to create drama or to gain feedback and further information.


----------



## PerfectWave (Mar 7, 2017)

the problem of ryzen is motherboard. poor motherboard. even asus decide not to produce a real high end mobo but only the crosshair hero.


----------



## Papahyooie (Mar 7, 2017)

kruk said:


> I agree with AdoredTV too. You can buy a 7700K instead of Ryzen 7 and have that 10 or 20% higher FPS, but there are games out there which already max out (or almost max out) all of the i7 cores/threads. Example is BF1 (images taken from Jokers 1700 v 7700K review):
> 
> View attachment 84886
> 
> As you can see the 7700K CPU it's almost at the limit, but 1700 has a lot of steam left. And this is a *clean, freshly installed* system! Imagine now a antivirus, chat, browser, etc. running. *You will have FPS dips all the time on the 7700K!*




What is with that guy's pronunciation? RIzen?  BIAws? Ayeoras? lol.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 7, 2017)

For a long time I thought AdoredTV guy was Indian or something due to his really strong accent lol.


----------



## PerfectWave (Mar 7, 2017)

ryzen is a good cpu and the price of 1700x and 1800x are high and i think ppl with those cpu will play at 1080p. would be really a waste of money. and at 1440 has nothing to complain to intel cpu


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Mar 7, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Do the leap of faith and trust that a 8 core! CPU will be (easily) faster over time compared to an 4 core. I don't care about brands right now writing this, it's just plain and fucking simple logic, for me it's insanity going with the 7700k just to have a few fps more in some games, and then be angry because the 1800X and even the lower ones WILL BE faster over time I'm 99% sure on this and I'm not talking many years either. But it's your decision and I won't talk you in. For those who have no faith and are overly suspicious and critical simply go with Intel - my time is too precious to change minds of those people anyway.


No trust needed it's already faster in most things bar a few fps in gaming when you're hitting 100+fps anyway.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 7, 2017)

When I see many games using MORE THAN 8t... I'm on that bandwagon...


----------



## Kanan (Mar 7, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Im open minded... just don't have 20 mins to listen and asked for Cliff's notes.


Well it's too much data, but I'll try: FX 8350 was 10-20% slower than i5 2500K and is now ~10% faster. Ryzen will be about the same compared to the 7700K, but it's already in a very much stronger position than the FX 8350 was before, so it'll be faster over time compared to the 7700K and generally. Yeah pretty much it.


TheLostSwede said:


> That thick Scottish accent got really hard to listen to after about 3-4 minutes in, so I gave up.


I know what you mean, I'm used to it now, I've grown to like it I guess.


alucasa said:


> There are already enough reviews out there to make a fair decision. It says to disable SMT to boost frame rates. And it takes just few minutes of reading to get that.
> 
> I don't need some random dude to tell me what to do and buy. At least, this guy isn't talking about mortgage where one's life could actually be depeneded upon.


You don't have to read/react to everything written in these forums. Seems your mindset is kinda "completionist" but I can tell you, you don't have to digest any information that is out there. Your life will go on easily without it.



RejZoR said:


> For a long time I thought AdoredTV guy was Indian or something due to his really strong accent lol.


My first thoughts were:"is he a scott? Noo can't be, its way too extreme." He admitted that himself later, I think he even said it's acted for youtube and that his usual talking isn't that extreme.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Mar 7, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> To be fair, his title has a question mark and therefore he is not making any statements or arguments, he is asking a question, well that's what a question mark meant when I was at school, to be fair that was many many years ago I may be behind the times.  All that is left from that is his purpose, is it to create drama or to gain feedback and further information.



Hence I used the word "hinting".
Its honestly a pretty basic technique to plant an idea, but in the end and with the "proof" provided its deliberately (or not) misleading.
Not much different from the much used Fox News technique of saying "some people say" instead of "I think" because when you say "some people say" it suddenly seems like a common consensus and so it seems true/have backing when its just all a load of nothing.

Obama wiretapped Trump?
Nvidia spying on AMD again?
Ford killing millions?
America responsible for terrible suffering in China?
Is TPU being paid by AMD for favored reviews?

"what? Im just asking questions, its perfectly innocent"

Hell this can often also lead to carreers ending, the mere idea/hint that someone might be for example a child molester, even though they are cleared well and truly can and has completely ended people.

But hey, if TPU is fine with this, so be it, if the forums will devolve into more of this nonsense because of this pass given, so be it.


lastly, with you end sentence you are basically agreeing its just clickbait, making the story seem far more interesting then it is purely to get reactions that the story by all accounts does not deserve.
Thats exactly what clickbait is (for).


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 7, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> That thick Scottish accent got really hard to listen to after about 3-4 minutes in, so I gave up.



Dude - I'm Scottish and I can't listen to that noise.  That's a fabricated or very traveled accent.  He has told me in the past it's due to traveling around a lot.  But still, I'm 43, work with the public and I don't hear Scottish accents like that ever.  Plus, I don't see why we default to YouTube bloggers instead of tech journalists.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 7, 2017)

This is also worth watching. Basically it explains what I've been going on about for a while now. Throw all the comparisons and 5fps differences out the window and just observe the thing as individual CPU. Can it run games really well? If the answer is yes, does it even matter then?


----------



## alucasa (Mar 7, 2017)

I don't know, man. This thread reeks of desperation and fanboyism.

I think I will echo what I said in another thread.

Ryzen is a good Uarch but its platform needs time to mature.


----------



## Kanan (Mar 7, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Dude - I'm Scottish and I can't listen to that noise.  That's a fabricated or very traveled accent.  He has told me in the past it's due to traveling around a lot.  But still, I'm 43, work with the public and I don't hear Scottish accents like that ever.  Plus, I don't see why we default to YouTube bloggers instead of tech journalists.


First of all thanks for the insight regarding his language. I don't see the problem, we don't "default" to anything here, it's just another opinion on the matter I though worth sharing. Again, no one has to digest any information on the internet, whether he being a completionist or not.


alucasa said:


> I don't know, man. This thread reeks of desperation and fanboyism.
> 
> I think I will echo what I said in another thread.
> 
> Ryzen is a good Uarch but its platform needs time to mature.


It is not for you then, I though I made myself clear enough about that. You don't have to like everything that is out there. I'm not a fanboy, and Adored isn't either - he was overly critsizing AMD a while ago and calling "Doomsday" for them, does a fanboy do things like that? I guess not.


----------



## alucasa (Mar 7, 2017)

Youtubers have to do what his audiance wants to hear. That's all that is. They do whatever they can grab attention. He overly criticized to get attention. He is doing this now to more attention.

He's just giving his target audience what they wanna hear.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 7, 2017)

Kanan said:


> First of all thanks for the insight regarding his language. I don't see the problem, we don't "default" to anything here, it's just another opinion on the matter I though worth sharing. Again, no one has to digest any information on the internet, whether he being a completionist or not.



I understand what you are saying but YT (and the net in general) has given a voice to every man and his dog and the reason the Vloggers and YT'ers exist is to make money from advertising hits.  The biggest issue is that people will trawl the web looking for what supports their viewpoint and if you look hard enough you will finds some form of shadowy evidence to back up any hair brained theory.

@alucasa gets it - shout about what people find contentious and you shall be listened to.

FWIW, Techspot do a good mass gaming review at 1080p and 1400p.  Nothing wrong with Ryzen per se - just an immature, 'bug' ridden early release.  And by bug we mean - odd, unexplained performance deficits and board/BIOS issues.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1348-amd-ryzen-gaming-performance/


----------



## Kanan (Mar 7, 2017)

alucasa said:


> Youtubers have to do what his audiance wants to hear. That's all that is. They do whatever they can grab attention. He overly criticized to get attention. He is doing this now to more attention.
> 
> He's just giving his target audience what they wanna hear.


That's not entirely true. To some degree he is doing what others are _interested_ in but he isn't bending himself to do this. For example, when he called "doomsday" for AMD a lot of people were NOT liking this and thought he's depressive or so. Your opinion on youtubers generally is very negative, I have to say you're generally more wrong with this than right, it also depends on the person, not every guy out there is the same, you can't generalize this.

I'm a youtube too btw, I'm just doing gaming videos, do I bend myself - a bit, but I'm not doing things I don't like or I'm not supporting.


the54thvoid said:


> I understand what you are saying but YT (and the net in general) has given a voice to every man and his dog and the reason the Vloggers and YT'ers exist is to make money from advertising hits. The biggest issue is that people will trawl the web looking for what supports their viewpoint and if you look hard enough you will finds some form of shadowy evidence to back up any hair brained theory.


The whole world is about making money, if you have a problem with that, open a thread about capitalism and go into critisizing it.


----------



## alucasa (Mar 7, 2017)

Not every guy out there is the same. Very true.

But, in eyes, he is unfortunately.


----------



## Kanan (Mar 7, 2017)

alucasa said:


> Not every guy out there is the same. Very true.
> 
> But, in eyes, he is unfortunately.


That's just your opinion and nothing more. Please leave my thread I don't want any of this offtopic anymore. Thanks.

This is about Ryzen and CPUs, maybe AMD and that stuff, not about Youtube, politics and shit.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 7, 2017)

ZoneDymo
Well Trump made a statement, if there was a transcript I don't think it would show a question mark after it, your right about my last comment but you see I am not making assumptions and whilst you may well be right in yours the nature and tone of his posts suggest he is entitled to his "opinion" even if that was his intent and a number of members think it's flawed.  If you are suggesting that opinion should only be based on hard facts then actually it's not opinion.

Definition:

"_a view or judgement formed about something, *not necessarily based on fact* or knowledge_"
As a rule of thumb you are of course right, many threads do get closed because often they descend into crap, however not all of them as many of you manage to refute without the madness and that in itself can inform passers by, I think even closed threads are available with a google search.

There is even a lifelong AMD enthusiast who has built and tested a  Ryzen system in these forums that is critical of some things.


----------



## alucasa (Mar 7, 2017)

We are talking about Ryzen CPU, no?

It was thee who brought Youtube into this.


----------



## Kanan (Mar 7, 2017)

alucasa said:


> We are talking about Ryzen CPU, no?
> 
> It was thee who brought Youtube into this.


It's absolutely not important who he is and what media he is using to spread his opinion, stay on topic or I'll ask a mod to delete it. This isn't about politics and whether youtube is good or not.

Talk about the CPU/PC stuff or leave.


----------



## erocker (Mar 7, 2017)

I think we need a "Ryzen discussion thread". All of these threads devolve/evolve into the same discussion.


----------



## alucasa (Mar 7, 2017)

Kanan said:


> It's absolutely not important who he is and what media he is using to spread his opinion, stay on topic or I'll ask a mod to delete it. This isn't about politics and whether youtube is good or not.
> 
> Talk about the CPU/PC stuff or leave.



I would have respected your own opinion. Your own views on Ryzen.

Instead, you brought on some Youtube video and you say you agree 99%. Sorry, pal, if I was offensive. But, really, I would have liked your own view instead of someone else's.

Very well, I will leave this thread. My aplogies for the grief I've caused you.


----------



## erocker (Mar 7, 2017)

Merging redundant Ryzen threads into this thread. If or once a Ryzen review happens, discussion can move to that. Use this thread for Ryzen discussion.

Thanks.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 7, 2017)

People can call AdoredTV guy an AMD fanboy, but he does raise good points most of the time. I don't see anything wrong by being optimistic or more involved with one camp. I used to be Radeon "camper" for years now. And now I'm on GTX 980. And I look back and still admire R9 Fury X card. I also admire GTX 1080Ti's raw performance. And I'm looking forward to RX Vega with great optimism.


----------



## Kanan (Mar 7, 2017)

alucasa said:


> I would have respected your own opinion. Your own views on Ryzen.
> 
> Instead, you brought on some Youtube video and you say you agree 99%. Sorry, pal, if I was offensive. But, really, I would have liked your own view instead of someone else's.
> 
> Very well, I will leave this thread. My aplogies for the grief I've caused you.


No problem. My opinion (in part stated before) on Ryzen is: it's nice, it's not really finished yet (Ryzen II will probably be better, fixed CCX caching and maybe better latency) and it still needs some time because the software isn't yet there to fully support Ryzen, nor are Bioses entirely finished. That said, i'd still easily buy a Ryzen over a 7700K or a 6800K and take the chance. I had some AMD processors in the past, and they ran well, I expect Ryzen to be more of the same kind that Athlon TB/64 and Phenom II were, so this is part of why I'm optimistic. The other thing is, the data clearly points towards Ryzen being not yet 100% utilized (whether it's 4 core usage or 8) and I expect it to be better over time, I'm pretty sure developers are working on fixing this. Doom is a good example on how good Ryzen can be if it's used properly, I guess it's maybe the only game thats 100% working with Ryzen, I don't even think BF1 is there yet.

edit: I see, the thread is now merged with another one. Fair enough.


----------



## v12dock (Mar 7, 2017)

AMD managed to create a product that is very competitive against a company that has 12x its R&D budget. I don't see the point of shitting on them when they are doing an extraordinary levering its resources. Imagine what they could do if they actually had money.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 7, 2017)

Thats how you and me think. The others continue to shit on AMD for having memory issues on freaking release day pretty much and because it doesn't "overclock". Seriously?

Sure, it's important to raise the issues, warn the users and get the issues resolved asap. That's the more important element of review sites for me. But the bashing crusades some are going about Ryzen are just absurd.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 7, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Thats how you and me think. The others continue to shit on AMD for having memory issues on freaking release day pretty much and because it doesn't "overclock". Seriously?
> 
> Sure, it's important to raise the issues, warn the users and get the issues resolved asap. That's the more important element of review sites for me. But the bashing crusades some are going about Ryzen are just absurd.



*Some of those 'bashing' Ryzen have bought them or reviewed them*.  They are stating their issues with the platform and that platform by definition is hinged on the core item, the CPU.  And they are not bashing - they are stating experience with the chip and the platform.  I don't understand why you take great exception to that 'imperial' metric.  Their arguments are not anecdotal, they are based on physical evidence gained by reviewing said chip (@EarthDog & @cdawall are prime examples).  Neither are slating it - they are highlighting it's current flaws.  If i buy a 1800X (because I'm a total fanny and will buy the most expensive one that I don't need) and BIOS updates don't address caching and games don't improve at least folk can say I was warned about it.  I would rather people highlight it's minor flaws so my experience isn't unicorns and rainbows being slaughtered by Windows 10 on a reality trip.

As for overclocking - YES - that's a thing FFS.  Tech forum.  What did Lisa Su say?  Oh yes - they are all unlocked, hinting at how they would be available to overclock.  In fairness, all cores at 4.1Ghz would be okay (matches Haswell/Broadwell-E).  But, the chips are soldered to the heatspreader so 'everything' has been done to make it clock better so they are at limits. 

And if you read the reviews, *nobody* is bashing Ryzen.  Forum members are slightly disillusioned with the gaming benchmarks (I am) but all in all, nobody is disputing this is a good attempt.  The single greatest effect Ryzen has had will be seen when Intel releases Skylake-E.  How it will price it and how it will market it. Then we know if Ryzen is a success.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Mar 7, 2017)

I really do think a lot of the issues are from the Motherboard manufacturers. I also understand why. Try to look at this in a financial light. Intel has how big of a market share? Try 80%. So if you are a mobo manufacturer how many resources are you going to allocate to a product that will undoubtedly ship far fewer motherboards? What ever the number is the end result is - Not as much. AMD Could have incentivized this more, then again AMD was nearly broke.

 With the Price/Performance ratio AMD is now offering there will be a good increase in Market share and when that happens Mobo Manufactures will willing increase resources. This will happen because if they do not negative reviews will flood the internet and that will equate to loss even on their intel platforms.  They will also be missing out on revenue from AMD socket mobos.  So just give it some time.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 7, 2017)

^^ This exactly. While vendors had some insight on performance before for sure, they were taking it with huge reserve. And this shows in quality. If they dedicated same amount of resources to it as they do for Intel offerings, I bet you all that there would be way less issues. I mean, AMD didn't give vendors any reason for new boards for what, 5+ years? I bet most vendors were like, we'll make boards just because we have to, but whatever...


----------



## Filip Georgievski (Mar 7, 2017)

Wow so much nonsence in this thread, totally inappropriate.
Fact of the matter is Intel fanboys, if i may call them that, should be greatfull at this since Intel are lowering prices? Why? Because they are aware of Rysen's potential and how it may impact their market.
AMD was always considered second tier brand, and now that they came neck to neck with Intel means AMD MEANS BUSINESS. 
What to say of Intel's outdated Core Architecture? Most people arent spelling their kidneys to buy the latest and best of Intel just to get 4% improvement for the same price as last generation.
Ill give an example:
My I5 750 oced to 3.8ghz scored 75% on CPUZ Single Thread Bench when compared to 7700k.
Now take 100% - 75% = 25% from first Core I to last Core I.
Now devide 25% by 7 generations of Intel CPUs and you get 4.747638 (something) improvement from gen to gen.
Is it justifiable to buy gen for gen just to get non-noticable improvement over previous gen?
A smart man wont, i can tell you that.
No wonder im not waisting money on newest, no real improvement.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 7, 2017)

Filip Georgievski said:


> Now take 100% - 75% = 25% from first Core I to last Core I.


I have no idea what in God's name you measured. But there is ~25% increase in IPC from SB to Haswell. Outside of that, the 6700K/7700K are clocked higher stock, by 200 and 400 Mhz respectively, than your CPU is overclocked. And let's not forget the 6700K is good to 4.8+ while the 7700K is good to 5Ghz, further putting distance between your CPU. That also isn't counting the IPC increases from your Lynfield to SB. 



Filip Georgievski said:


> Is it justifiable to buy gen for gen just to get non-noticable improvement over previous gen?


Nope.. but nobody here has suggested to do so outside of you. In fact, this is a commonly held thought, even among Intel users... useless point is useless.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 7, 2017)

Hood said:


> Despite generally glowing reviews, not everyone is happy with Ryzen.  Hal B. wrote this review on Newegg's 1700X page;
> 
> 
> *Ownership:
> ...


Balls to starting a discussion with a trolling tone


erocker said:


> Merging redundant Ryzen threads into this thread. If or once a Ryzen review happens, discussion can move to that. Use this thread for Ryzen discussion.
> 
> Thanks.


Why did you merge into this bait nightmare bro a new one with an unbiased start might go the same way but casual passers by now read that purely negative crap and likely move on leaving the biased to lament.


----------



## Hood (Mar 7, 2017)

ZoneDymo said:


> Hence I used the word "hinting".
> Its honestly a pretty basic technique to plant an idea, but in the end and with the "proof" provided its deliberately (or not) misleading.
> Not much different from the much used Fox News technique of saying "some people say" instead of "I think" because when you say "some people say" it suddenly seems like a common consensus and so it seems true/have backing when its just all a load of nothing.
> 
> ...


Well, this "clickbait" generated 123 responses so far, mostly from people who are actually interested in Ryzen's success - some , however, tried to degenerate this thread into a political rant or a criticism of posting tactics, and to those people, I advise, stay on topic, preserve the quality of TPU, and post your rants in your own thread, so they can be properly ignored.  For now, Super Moderator erocker had merged all redundant Ryzen threads into this one (see posts 113, 115), until TPU publishes it's Ryzen review.  Thanks to all members who contributed facts or opinions that were relevant to the topic.  Intelligent discussion is what this site is here for, weeding through all the marketing BS,  common misconceptions, and misinformation, so we can all make good decisions when purchasing hardware.


----------



## OneCool (Mar 7, 2017)

Ryzen,Intel,1080p,L3,SMT,Cinebench,memory, latency!!!!



BOOM!!!!! Take that Ryzen thread!!!!!!! Truth bomb hurts don't it!!!


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 7, 2017)

Hood said:


> Well, this "clickbait" generated 123 responses so far, mostly from people who are actually interested in Ryzen's success - some , however, tried to degenerate this thread into a political rant or a criticism of posting tactics, and to those people, I advise, stay on topic, preserve the quality of TPU, and post your rants in your own thread, so they can be properly ignored.  For now, Super Moderator erocker had merged all redundant Ryzen threads into this one (see posts 113, 115), until TPU publishes it's Ryzen review.  Thanks to all members who contributed facts or opinions that were relevant to the topic.  Intelligent discussion is what this site is here for, weeding through all the marketing BS,  common misconceptions, and misinformation, so we can all make good decisions when purchasing hardware.


Are you having a laugh , you started the thread with a hugely negative bias not balanced so it is what it is but I'm out.


----------



## Kanan (Mar 7, 2017)

Hood said:


> Well, this "clickbait" generated 123 responses so far, mostly from people who are actually interested in Ryzen's success - some , however, tried to degenerate this thread into a political rant or a criticism of posting tactics, and to those people, I advise, stay on topic, preserve the quality of TPU, and post your rants in your own thread, so they can be properly ignored.  For now, Super Moderator erocker had merged all redundant Ryzen threads into this one (see posts 113, 115), until TPU publishes it's Ryzen review.  Thanks to all members who contributed facts or opinions that were relevant to the topic.  Intelligent discussion is what this site is here for, weeding through all the marketing BS,  common misconceptions, and misinformation, so we can all make good decisions when purchasing hardware.


A lot of what you say is redundant, but not my thread, trash talker.

I'm out here as well, I think my thread had a more positive feeling to it than this shit.

BTW get your head out of his ass.


----------



## Filip Georgievski (Mar 7, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> I have no idea what in God's name you measured. But there is ~25% increase in IPC from SB to Haswell. Outside of that, the 6700K/7700K are clocked higher stock, by 200 and 400 Mhz respectively, than your CPU is overclocked. And let's not forget the 6700K is good to 4.8+ while the 7700K is good to 5Ghz, further putting distance between your CPU. That also isn't counting the IPC increases from your Lynfield to SB.
> 
> Nope.. but nobody here has suggested to do so outside of you. In fact, this is a commonly held thought, even among Intel users... useless point is useless.



But remember my CPU is an I5 not an I7.
Now if we were to put the I7 875K and OC it will close down that gap again to around 25% again, making your claim invalid.

So all in all, Intel's gen to gen IPC improvement is just under 5%.
Now AMD has a real IPC improvement over last gen over maybe 25% real, and still people complain about AMDs lack of performance.
Now that to me is an improvement.

Word of advice, techies, give AMD a chance, they deserve it.


----------



## erocker (Mar 7, 2017)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Balls to starting a discussion with a trolling tone
> 
> Why did you merge into this bait nightmare bro a new one with an unbiased start might go the same way but casual passers by now read that purely negative crap and likely move on leaving the biased to lament.


Because it's all nightmare bait to someone or another. Just so happened his thread was made first so it went to the top.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 7, 2017)

Filip Georgievski said:


> But remember my CPU is an I5 not an I7.
> Now if we were to put the I7 875K and OC it will close down that gap again to around 25% again, making your claim invalid.
> 
> So all in all, Intel's gen to gen IPC improvement is just under 5%.
> ...


Remember you tested/said SINGLE thread....



Filip Georgievski said:


> My I5 750 oced to 3.8ghz scored 75% on CPUZ *Single Thread Bench* when compared to 7700k.



....so the number of threads has absolutely no relevance on your statement. None. Zilch. Nada. ZippO.

What was your single thread score on that 3.8 GHz Lynfield again???


----------



## Ethair (Mar 7, 2017)

Actually, it's more like 60-65%, according to cpu-z integrated benchmark, 1.78.3
(i5 750@4Ghz/i7 7700k stock) single and multi-thread score. (ST:1500pts/2300pts MT: 5500pts/10000pts)
although they are not in the same price range.

but I agree with the man, until recently, there's been nothing of interest, if we are talking value for money.

an i3 6100 OC maybe..., a pentium g4560 is quite great, but you wouldn't change for any of them, except the platform itself.

Ryzen is not so great for games?
If you put a ~180$ i5 750 OC against a ~180$ i5 6500 from today, together with a gtx 1070, 
it scores exactly the same in the uningine valley benchmark for example.
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/unigine-valley-benchmark-scores.183712/
min FPS 35/average 90, max 170-180
why would I change?

so ya, 7600k or a r5 1600x more all-around chip?  it's getting more interesting.

by the way; selling K and non-K chips with bad thermal paste, it must be a joke.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 7, 2017)

Valley isn't a game where cpu can matter, though. It also depends on settings etc. There are plenty of benchmarks of games showing fps disparity between cpus.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 7, 2017)

erocker said:


> Because it's all nightmare bait to someone or another. Just so happened his thread was made first so it went to the top.



I am surprised you didn't just close this and leave the bait free thread I had started open...


----------



## BiggieShady (Mar 7, 2017)

cdawall said:


> I am surprised you didn't just close this and leave the bait free thread I had started open...


I am surprised that from all RyZen discussion threads this one gets to be official ...


----------



## Hood (Mar 7, 2017)

Also of interest - AMD shareholders, such as Mubadala Development Corporation (owner of Glabal Foundries), and half a dozen AMD executives, sold off large blocks of stock the day after Ryzen was released.  (the high was $13.35/share - it's now around $13.05/share).  This doesn't show much faith in Ryzen's market potential...


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 7, 2017)

Hood said:


> Also of interest - AMD shareholders, such as Mubadala Development Corporation (owner of Glabal Foundries), and half a dozen AMD executives, sold off large blocks of stock the day after Ryzen was released.  (the high was $13.35/share - it's now around $13.05/share).  This doesn't show much faith in Ryzen's market potential...


Yes but the stocks have increased quite well recently, it's not unusual for some investors to cash in, not saying you are wrong...... just sayin.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Mar 7, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> ZoneDymo
> Well Trump made a statement, if there was a transcript I don't think it would show a question mark after it, your right about my last comment but you see I am not making assumptions and whilst you may well be right in yours the nature and tone of his posts suggest he is entitled to his "opinion" even if that was his intent and a number of members think it's flawed.  If you are suggesting that opinion should only be based on hard facts then actually it's not opinion.
> 
> Definition:
> ...



This has absolutely nothing at all to do with AMD, this is about clickbait titles that are on top of that just misleading.

"amd already falling?" is not an opinion at all and has nothing to do with opinions.
I could not care less whether they, or the person they linked the review off, liked the product, my problem entirely lies with the packaging of it.

I gave example as to why its a problem, really cannot be more clear than that so if it has not landed at this point then sadly I feel it never will.


----------



## mroofie (Mar 7, 2017)

Wednesday Ryzen Review !!!!!!!  

Just a few more hours


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 7, 2017)

mroofie said:


> Wednesday Ryzen Review !!!!!!!
> 
> Just a few more hours


I am going to start by reading the conclusion.........i think i know all the rest.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 7, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> Yes but the stocks have increased quite well recently, it's not unusual for some investors to cash in, not saying you are wrong...... just sayin.


because of the hype leading up to it...Notice on release day it dropped two points? Also agree that, at a minimum, doesn't 'look good'. It could also be they are just cashing in...

http://www.marketwatch.com/m/quote/amd


----------



## erocker (Mar 8, 2017)

cdawall said:


> I am surprised you didn't just close this and leave the bait free thread I had started open...


Yours seems more for posting bench's and what not. This thread is for normal pedestrian CPU raging.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 8, 2017)

erocker said:


> Yours seems more for posting bench's and what not. This thread is for normal pedestrian CPU raging.



Hahaha makes sense


----------



## OneCool (Mar 8, 2017)

erocker said:


> Yours seems more for posting bench's and what not. This thread is for normal pedestrian CPU raging.




How dare them!! Come shipped in cardboard!!
A friend of my cousins, uncle's,grandpa's,sister's friend that can install a app on a iPhone said they would be shipped in tempered glass and polished aluminum cases. 
I didn't sign up for this shit!!!


----------



## Mr McC (Mar 8, 2017)

Ryzen discussion thread? I expected better from TechPowerUp.


----------



## Vario (Mar 8, 2017)

Mr McC said:


> Ryzen discussion thread? I expected better from TechPowerUp.


Shame we have a negative first post for a neutrally named "discussion" thread.  Should be called Ryzen Rage thread.


----------



## OneCool (Mar 8, 2017)

Vario said:


> Shame we have a negative first post for a neutrally named "discussion" thread.  Should be called Ryzen Rage thread.



It's a soapbox thing. People need a place to bitch...


----------



## TheGuruStud (Mar 8, 2017)

OneCool said:


> It's a soapbox thing. People need a place to bitch...



Don't you tell me where I want to bitch!


----------



## OneCool (Mar 8, 2017)

TheGuruStud said:


> Don't you tell me where I want to bitch!




Would never ☺

With this atmosphere it's a pretty good start though


----------



## trparky (Mar 8, 2017)

I'm a casual gamer in the sense that my requirements aren't that high. I mainly play Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, and World of Warcraft. Most of my computing is done with heavy multitasking and virtual machine usage. Do you think that Ryzen would be a good chip for my needs?


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 8, 2017)

trparky said:


> I'm a casual gamer in the sense that my requirements aren't that high. I mainly play Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, and World of Warcraft. Most of my computing is done with heavy multitasking and virtual machine usage. Do you think that Ryzen would be a good chip for my needs?


yes


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 8, 2017)

It is sad that some people's focus is on the odd negative's as opposed to the architectural leap and potential, however think about it, that's always the case in Tech forums (sadly) but then again if I had bought a CPU, motherboard and Ram and couldn't get it to work properly I would possibly be a little frustrated, it does appear that a large proportion of issues are motherboard related but there are clearly issues......... blame does not get your system working again, fixes do.


----------



## mroofie (Mar 8, 2017)

Still waiting


----------



## Outback Bronze (Mar 8, 2017)

Hey guys,

Does anybody know if wizard will be doing a review of any of the new Ryzen CPU's?

Hopefully he will be including his 4K gaming setup as I have seen very little reviews of the Ryzen CPU playing games at 4K. Its all been 1080p with a few 1440p...

Cheers.


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 8, 2017)

To my knowledge, someone screwed up their delivery and they are getting the stuff late.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 8, 2017)

Outback Bronze said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> Does anybody know if wizard will be doing a review of any of the new Ryzen CPU's?
> 
> ...



He had to wait for more RAM as I think what he was sent didn't work, last thing I saw from him was he was hopeful it would be done by today or possibly tomorrow, he has also had other reviews to do also, I think the 1080Ti was one of them.


----------



## Outback Bronze (Mar 8, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> He had to wait for more RAM as I think what he was sent didn't work, last thing I saw from him was he was hopeful it would be done by today or possibly tomorrow, he has also had other reviews to do also, I think the 1080Ti was one of them.



Sweet mate sounds good.


----------



## mroofie (Mar 8, 2017)

Hope WIzzard will factor in the problems ryzen is facing at the moment (from hardware to software)

There is a possibility that more performance can be tapped in for usage (SIngle threaded performance)



---(off-topic)---

As I said before Amd should have delayed ryzen for at least another 6-8 months then they would have killed it!

But now Amd has put unnecessary doubt on their current product line 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
we need competition in the cpu market


----------



## OneCool (Mar 8, 2017)

If I know W1z he will definitely give you all the good and bad.
Always has IMO.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 8, 2017)

mroofie said:


> Hope WIzzard will factor in the problems ryzen is facing at the moment (from hardware to software)
> 
> There is a possibility that more performance can be tapped in for usage (SIngle threaded performance)
> 
> ...




Launching a product isn't a simple thing to do for the best of companies and in AMD's case, I think they had to deliver something as soon as they could, as not only did the "enthusiasts" demand something, but also the "market" and AMD's share holders. You can't announce that you have something coming and keep delaying it for too long in today's world, as people will lose interest, the market loses trust and the shareholders lose faith in the company. That's a quick way to go out of business.

So yes, Ryzen has for whatever reason disappointed left, right and centre, even though it seems to be a kickass processor for the money. Yes, the motherboards appear to be super flaky, but as I wrote elsewhere and which seemingly everyone has forgotten about, when the Slot-A Athlon launched, AMD had far worse problems. The chipset was utter shite, they had worse BIOS problems (as in the boards barely booted), the board makers wouldn't put their names on the boards as they were afraid of some kind of payback from Intel, software support was zero, power supply support was limited and it was nearly impossible to buy the thing due to so many shops being afraid of what Intel was going to say.

The situation is far from perfect now, but it's nothing like what it was back then. That time VIA kind of saved AMD by coming out with a decent chipset, something that's unlikely to happen this time around, although it looks like anyone could technically make a chipset for Ryzen, as the three chipsets are fairly basic in terms of what they offer and are in fact not needed to make a working system.

I just hope the motherboard makers get their act together and sort out the UEFI issues as the first priority. Then hopefully they figure out how to build better boards and then we'll see how things pan out.

Keep in mind that Intel has made less than stellar platforms over the years, like the 820 chipset, various "budget" versions of chipsets that were horrible as Intel cut too many features, the wonderful P67 with a bugged SATA interface that died over time and a few other blunders.

Let's not even talk about buggy BIOSes etc. for Intel boards, I have tested a fair share of boards over the years that just weren't production ready, yet were sent out to media for reviews and that's from every board maker and with every combination of chipsets.

No-one's perfect in this industry and the judgement that has gone out on Ryzen before it has even been given a chance feels very mean spirited for no real reason. AMD has really done an amazing job, but most people here should know better than point fingers, as every single tech company has screwed up at one time or another. Yes, the launch could've gone smoother, there could've been fewer issues, but hey, shit happens. And yes, we very much need competition in the x86/x64 CPU market and VIA isn't going to bring it...


----------



## Hood (Mar 8, 2017)

I wouldn't say mean-spirited - corporations have no soul, cannot feel shame or regret - so this "mean-spirited judgement" is the only way to keep them in check when they blow it (however minor the mistake).  History is great to recall, but has no bearing on the present situation.  Understanding why they failed to deliver doesn't fix it, or sell hardware.  When Intel makes a mistake, it's different - when your products are amazing 95% of the time, people tend to forgive mistakes more easily.  But AMD hasn't earned that status - more like, products OK 50% of the time, but low performance/high temps/high power draw, and even the best ones are dodgy at times, so much so that prices remained bargain-basement low for years..  Ryzen is a giant leap ahead in architecture, with good IPC and efficiency, but prices are much higher, and a dodgy flagship part will never succeed.  All this sentiment for the underdog and proclamations of "that's unfair" won't change the cold realities of the market.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 8, 2017)

Why does Intel get a pass when they fuck up monumentally like the P67 chipset, but AMD doesn't get the same? That's a load of tosh imho.

You're clearly not old enough to know what you're talking about, AMD has offered very competitive products in the past and they've been far from "bargain basement", in fact, their top-tier products used to cost more than Intel and they also performed vastly better. In fact, Cyrix used to be better than Intel... In this case, the CPU's seem to be plenty fine to me, the issue appear to be the normal problems AMD have, poor chipsets, poor BIOS/UEFI implementations and not enough commitment from their board partners. This is when shit goes south no matter how good your CPU is. 

History matters a lot, but mankind doesn't seem to want to learn from it and that's why we keep repeating our mistakes. In this case, Intel keeps getting cocky and so far, they've been taken down a few pegs every few years. I still think it's utter bull that it's somehow ok to give AMD shit, but you can't say a bad thing about Intel, as they're somehow being glorified as this perfect chip maker, which is a load of crap.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 8, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> Why does Intel get a pass when they fuck up monumentally like the P67 chipset, but AMD doesn't get the same? That's a load of tosh imho.
> 
> You're clearly not old enough to know what you're talking about, AMD has offered very competitive products in the past and they've been far from "bargain basement", in fact, their top-tier products used to cost more than Intel and they also performed vastly better. In fact, Cyrix used to be better than Intel... In this case, the CPU's seem to be plenty fine to me, the issue appear to be the normal problems AMD have, poor chipsets, poor BIOS/UEFI implementations and not enough commitment from their board partners. This is when shit goes south no matter how good your CPU is.
> 
> History matters a lot, but mankind doesn't seem to want to learn from it and that's why we keep repeating our mistakes. In this case, Intel keeps getting cocky and so far, they've been taken down a few pegs every few years. I still think it's utter bull that it's somehow ok to give AMD shit, but you can't say a bad thing about Intel, as they're somehow being glorified as this perfect chip maker, which is a load of crap.



I think that the issue is that AMD didn't give the final product over to the Mobo makers in time which is why the bioses are the way that they are.  I would believe this too... seeing as they were in a rush to get it out the door.  This CPU is a game changer... I love mine... I almost brought the rig to work today to crunch my sheets lol.  But I've already killed a sub par mobo by doing nothing (it just restarted on its own and would not boot up) and the chip is barely a week old.

It is what it is.... Intel is in a better position right now, which is why they get that benefit.  And AMD does deserve some shit for their keystone coppishness.


----------



## Hood (Mar 8, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> Why does Intel get a pass when they fuck up monumentally like the P67 chipset, but AMD doesn't get the same? That's a load of tosh imho.
> 
> You're clearly not old enough to know what you're talking about, AMD has offered very competitive products in the past and they've been far from "bargain basement", in fact, their top-tier products used to cost more than Intel and they also performed vastly better. In fact, Cyrix used to be better than Intel... In this case, the CPU's seem to be plenty fine to me, the issue appear to be the normal problems AMD have, poor chipsets, poor BIOS/UEFI implementations and not enough commitment from their board partners. This is when shit goes south no matter how good your CPU is.
> 
> History matters a lot, but mankind doesn't seem to want to learn from it and that's why we keep repeating our mistakes. In this case, Intel keeps getting cocky and so far, they've been taken down a few pegs every few years. I still think it's utter bull that it's somehow ok to give AMD shit, but you can't say a bad thing about Intel, as they're somehow being glorified as this perfect chip maker, which is a load of crap.


Yes, history matters.  Suppose you bought a series of Yugos back when you were young and poor, they sucked, but somehow you usually made it to work, as long as you kept repairing them.  Then, as you got older and made more money, you were finally able to afford a new Corvette.  It performed amazingly and you rarely had to repair it. and life was good.  Now, the Yugo company has come out with a new model, the Yugo Zen.  They claim that it's performance is just below the Corvette, for half the money.  Amazed, but still skeptical, you test drive one , and yes, this thing hauls ass!  So you buy the new Zen, and on the way home, a wheel fall;s off and the engine catches on fire.  Damn, you say, I should have known it was too good to be true - I should have remembered Yugo's history as a piece of crap!  So yes, history matters.  I am 58 years old, bought my first PC in 2000, built my first PC in 2008 - so I am relatively new to this game.  But I know better than to buy a Yugo, no matter what their claims are....


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 8, 2017)

Hood said:


> Yes, history matters.  Suppose you bought a series of Yugos back when you were young and poor, they sucked, but somehow you usually made it to work, as long as you kept repairing them.  Then, as you got older and made more money, you were finally able to afford a new Corvette.  It performed amazingly and you rarely had to repair it. and life was good.  Now, the Yugo company has come out with a new model, the Yugo Zen.  They claim that it's performance is just below the Corvette, for half the money.  Amazed, but still skeptical, you test drive one , and yes, this thing hauls ass!  So you buy the new Zen, and on the way home, a wheel fall;s off and the engine catches on fire.  Damn, you say, I should have known it was too good to be true - I should have remembered Yugo's history as a piece of crap!  So yes, history matters.  I am 58 years old, bought my first PC in 2000, built my first PC in 2008 - so I am relatively new to this game.  But I know better than to buy a Yugo, no matter what their claims are....


You are daft I had a Yugo, I never had to fix it once, they were tanks.

Soooo.
So back in ,Windows 10 has scheduling issues with RyZen , over stating an smt core as a full core whereas Intel's are noted by software as a light core.
Hey presto then , when GPU limited RyZen ain't bad , in some CPU limited situations (1080p) we have a possible culprit but likely at least part of the issue , I'd love to see some 1080p runs with smt off though it would indicate the validity of this theory.
Yes I read wccftech I read them all and mad German and Chinese sites so what, I'm only in One forum ,Tpu.


----------



## Hood (Mar 8, 2017)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> You are daft I had a Yugo, I never had to fix it once, they were tanks


Maybe in the UK, Yugo is considered to be a "tank"; in the US it's considered synonymous with the worst possible quality, as in, "Don't buy that Emerson TV from K-Mart, those are the Yugos of the TV world, get a Samsung instead"...  As an auto mechanic for the last 36 years, I can attest that they are poorly made crap with flawed engineering, and there' a good reason we never see them on the road (they have all been crushed in the scrapyards years ago).  That's in America, though, for all I know there's still thousands of them running around Europe - they stopped selling them here in 1992 due to U.N. sanctions.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 8, 2017)

Hood said:


> Yes, history matters.  Suppose you bought a series of Yugos back when you were young and poor, they sucked, but somehow you usually made it to work, as long as you kept repairing them.  Then, as you got older and made more money, you were finally able to afford a new Corvette.  It performed amazingly and you rarely had to repair it. and life was good.  Now, the Yugo company has come out with a new model, the Yugo Zen.  They claim that it's performance is just below the Corvette, for half the money.  Amazed, but still skeptical, you test drive one , and yes, this thing hauls ass!  So you buy the new Zen, and on the way home, a wheel fall;s off and the engine catches on fire.  Damn, you say, I should have known it was too good to be true - I should have remembered Yugo's history as a piece of crap!  So yes, history matters.  I am 58 years old, bought my first PC in 2000, built my first PC in 2008 - so I am relatively new to this game.  But I know better than to buy a Yugo, no matter what their claims are....



Right, so you missed a lot if you only started in 2000. Via was the Yugo if any company was, as well as Cyrix, AMD was more of a Volkswagen in your comparison. Intel might be a Corvette, a great car for driving fast in straight lines, but it hasn't really improved in years.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 8, 2017)

Hood said:


> Maybe in the UK, Yugo is considered to be a "tank"; in the US it's considered synonymous with the worst possible quality, as in, "Don't buy that Emerson TV from K-Mart, those are the Yugos of the TV world, get a Samsung instead"...  As an auto mechanic for the last 36 years, I can attest that they are poorly made crap with flawed engineering, and there' a good reason we never see them on the road (they have all been crushed in the scrapyards years ago).  That's in America, though, for all I know there's still thousands of them running around Europe - they stopped selling them here in 1992 due to U.N. sanctions.



Don't listen to him.  Yugo's were considered a serious downgrade from a Lada.  In the UK, they were not considered tanks.  They were also exceptionally rare (because they were shit).  We might drink tea and spell colour correctly but we're not bad with motor cars. 


And please - not with the car analogies - a CPU is not anything like a car - you may as well compare them to TV's.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 8, 2017)

So back in ,Windows 10 has scheduling issues with RyZen , over stating an smt core as a full core whereas Intel's are noted by software as a light core.
Hey presto then , when GPU limited RyZen ain't bad , in some CPU limited situations (1080p) we have a possible culprit but likely at least part of the issue , I'd love to see some 1080p runs with smt off though it would indicate the validity of this theory.
Yes I read wccftech I read them all and mad German and Chinese sites so what, I'm only in One forum ,Tpu.

Well dodged hood try again


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 8, 2017)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> So back in ,Windows 10 has scheduling issues with RyZen , over stating an smt core as a full core whereas Intel's are noted by software as a light core.
> Hey presto then , when GPU limited RyZen ain't bad , in some CPU limited situations (1080p) we have a possible culprit but likely at least part of the issue , I'd love to see some 1080p runs with smt off though it would indicate the validity of this theory.
> Yes I read wccftech I read them all and mad German and Chinese sites so what, I'm only in One forum ,Tpu.
> 
> Well dodged hood try again




- performance power profile (use now)
- SMT patch (pending)
- Faster 3600Mhz - 4000Mhz Memory (use now)
- Tweak to cache latency (future chip designs)
- Updated mobo microcode to provide higher OC (potential)

I am also going to try to use process lasso to see if it makes a difference.


----------



## Hood (Mar 8, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> Right, so you missed a lot if you only started in 2000. Via was the Yugo if any company was, as well as Cyrix, AMD was more of a Volkswagen in your comparison. Intel might be a Corvette, a great car for driving fast in straight lines, but it hasn't really improved in years.


I did build one AMD system, in 2013, when APUs were on the hype train, (A8-6600k, Asus A88XM-A, 8GB 1600 RAM).  It ran  slow, like my old Pentium 4, (but with better graphics), and was buggy with bad motherboard driver/BIOS support (yes, even Asus drops the ball sometimes, on their $75 AMD boards).  I sold that dog as soon as possible, and vowed to quit letting my curiosity get the better of my common sense.   Forward to 2017, and I really hoped that Ryzen would be different, and it is much better, but it's also more of the same old problem (buggy chipsets, drivers, and firmware, poor compatibility, iffy hardware validation).  I'm disappointed, but not really surprised.  I might never buy one, but I was hoping for it's success, (as we all were) to level the field and bring prices down.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 8, 2017)

Hood said:


> I did build one AMD system, in 2013, when APUs were on the hype train, (A8-6600k, Asus A88XM-A, 8GB 1600 RAM).  It ran  slow, like my old Pentium 4, (but with better graphics), and was buggy with bad motherboard driver/BIOS support (yes, even Asus drops the ball sometimes, on their $75 AMD boards).  I sold that dog as soon as possible, and vowed to quit letting my curiosity get the better of my common sense.   Forward to 2017, and I really hoped that Ryzen would be different, and it is much better, but it's also more of the same old problem (buggy chipsets, drivers, and firmware, poor compatibility, iffy hardware validation).  I'm disappointed, but not really surprised.  I might never buy one, but I was hoping for it's success, (as we all were) to level the field and bring prices down.


Now your strictly chatting rubbish unless that is you work at AMD,  I've had two AMD full systems and three Intel systems in the last five years personally and had no issues with either I couldn't fix easily.
I am not bothered though you have your opinion I think something different ah well.
I built a a8 pc for my cousin with a 7870 , he still loves it.

Your into drama about tech you Don't want then, now you have me chuckling.


----------



## kruk (Mar 8, 2017)

Hood said:


> It ran  slow, like my old Pentium 4.



How about no: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/92?vs=1282
And that is one of the last (and probably fastest) Pentium 4 generations that was built.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 9, 2017)

kruk said:


> How about no: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/92?vs=1282
> And that is one of the last (and probably fastest) Pentium 4 generations that was built.


Your trying to change the mind of one that's already made up, logic no longer counts, don't waste energy, he has his experiences and is allowed to have his opinion, let him keep them, I am past extending energy to lost causes, at the end of the day it does not really matter, its only silicon after all


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 9, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> at the end of the day it does not really matter



Indeed. I started a few replies on various related topics and in the end I just dropped it, as it's not worth my time.


----------



## xkm1948 (Mar 9, 2017)

Was looking for RyZen 1900/1900X rumors online, came across a RyZen discussion over chiphell. From what google translate can tell there will be an Intel HEDT level product coming from AMD later this year. It is based on the server grade Napless CPU instead of AM4.




			
				CHH said:
			
		

> Soon come back, more than salted fish, everyone wallet ready? The salted fish was turned over to the carp jump dragon ...





			
				CHH said:
			
		

> Are we talking about it? I came to reveal the answer
> X399, civilian desktop level, code-named "eel", the standard Intel's X299, and no accident will be released before the X299 listed ~



https://www.chiphell.com/thread-1713261-6-1.html


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 9, 2017)

> Soon come back, more than salted fish, everyone wallet ready? The salted fish was turned over to the carp jump dragon ...



Dafuq.....


----------



## Slizzo (Mar 9, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> Was looking for RyZen 1900/1900X rumors online, came across a RyZen discussion over chiphell. From what google translate can tell there will be an Intel HEDT level product coming from AMD later this year. It is based on the server grade Napless CPU instead of AM4.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, I mean they did just announce Naples, so I wouldn't be surprised that they would have a consumer product based off of that processor as well.


----------



## xkm1948 (Mar 9, 2017)

Give me a 16core octa channel ryzen 1900x! I would't mind paying $999for something like that.


----------



## Mike0409 (Mar 10, 2017)

Has anyone found any benchmarks with Windows 7 instead of Windows 10? or done any themselves?  Windows 10 has the SMT bug that is being worked out, while Windows 7 supposedly doesn't have this issue.  Just curious if there were some major differences or if its on par with turning SMT off in Win 10 with 1080p gaming performance.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 10, 2017)

I think someone posted a link some pages back to a review that focussed on 7.


----------



## kruk (Mar 11, 2017)

One of the motherboard makers (probably ASUS) has shared why currently there is a shortage of boards and interestingly, that Ryzen 7 was released prematurely:



> It’s all about the bad coordination, bad communication, bad support and bad timing to launch this platform in my opinion





> In late December, AMD decided to pull in the launch date (*it was scheduled to launch in late Q2*) and launched it right after Chinese New Year but AMD keep the CPU supply quantity secret from us the whole time.



They also shared some info on BIOS problems:



> Also, their BIOS team and engineers were doing terrible jobs on supporting us on the BIOS microcode updates, driver updates, CPU samples for testing



If true, not cool at all ...

In conclusion:



> In general, it’s been too long for AMD to launch a new CPU, so they forgot how to do it, so they launched the CPU just like they were launching the graphics card.



Credits LegitReviews, read the full article there.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 11, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> Why does Intel get a pass when they fuck up monumentally like the P67 chipset, but AMD doesn't get the same? That's a load of tosh imho.
> 
> You're clearly not old enough to know what you're talking about, AMD has offered very competitive products in the past and they've been far from "bargain basement", in fact, their top-tier products used to cost more than Intel and they also performed vastly better. In fact, Cyrix used to be better than Intel... In this case, the CPU's seem to be plenty fine to me, the issue appear to be the normal problems AMD have, poor chipsets, poor BIOS/UEFI implementations and not enough commitment from their board partners. This is when shit goes south no matter how good your CPU is.
> 
> History matters a lot, but mankind doesn't seem to want to learn from it and that's why we keep repeating our mistakes. In this case, Intel keeps getting cocky and so far, they've been taken down a few pegs every few years. I still think it's utter bull that it's somehow ok to give AMD shit, but you can't say a bad thing about Intel, as they're somehow being glorified as this perfect chip maker, which is a load of crap.



Considering the 970 and 990FX chipsets were and still are good.




Tatty_One said:


> Yes but the stocks have increased quite well recently, it's not unusual for some investors to cash in, not saying you are wrong...... just sayin.




Buy low, sell high, stock brokers need money at one point or another to pay for debts on stuff.

If a 16 core naples based Cpu comes out that is unlocked fully, i may skip the 1700 and jump on it.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 11, 2017)

Found this from PCPer.

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-and-Windows-10-Scheduler-No-Silver-Bullet

Essentially, the CCX latency is the issue, not how W10 addresses work loads.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 11, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> I think someone posted a link some pages back to a review that focussed on 7.





the54thvoid said:


> Found this from PCPer.
> 
> https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-and-Windows-10-Scheduler-No-Silver-Bullet
> 
> Essentially, the CCX latency is the issue, not how W10 addresses work loads.


Changes to the scheduler will definitely help this ,no silver bullet no but given how well RyZen performs with the present scheduler i think given a few months all will be fine.


----------



## mroofie (Mar 11, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Found this from PCPer.
> 
> https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-and-Windows-10-Scheduler-No-Silver-Bullet
> 
> Essentially, the CCX latency is the issue, not how W10 addresses work loads.


Windows 7..


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 11, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Found this from PCPer.
> 
> https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-and-Windows-10-Scheduler-No-Silver-Bullet
> 
> Essentially, the CCX latency is the issue, not how W10 addresses work loads.


After finally fully reading your linked article I think they missed something, as they should know.
In a smt core only the primary thread has priority and the most resources, this is the same with Intel and with Intel the scheduler knows this second core is not a fully resourced core and gives it appropriately planned work to do.
While they confirmed threads are being scheduled to different cores fairly correctly with improvement possible by avoiding CCx jumps they didn't check the weighting of each thread.
So with the main pipe(core) fully loaded there isn't a full core left for thread two but that's what it's expecting to see hence bad times.
I can still see some improvement to be had personally.


----------



## Hood (Mar 11, 2017)

mroofie said:


> Windows 7..


Windows 7 won't fix this, it's a problem with the basic architecture - no workaround possible.  Perhaps a redesign?  Ryzen 2.0 should have the workaround built into the chip.  This is bad news, because it allows Intel to keep prices high.  And Microcenter is already discounting the 1700X by $50 for in-store customers - not unusual for them, what's unusual is the timing (only a week after launch).  https://hardforum.com/threads/microcenter-amd-ryzen-1700x-349-99-in-store.1926641/


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 11, 2017)

Really, thats pretty normal for them at MC honestly. A couple of weeks at msrp and then they drop. They certainly lyndianne's aren't discounting it because of performamce... that makes no sense to me why it would happen at the retail level as they are only shooting themselves in the foot...


----------



## HTC (Mar 11, 2017)

Hood said:


> *Windows 7 won't fix this, it's a problem with the basic architecture - no workaround possible. * Perhaps a redesign?  Ryzen 2.0 should have the workaround built into the chip.  This is bad news, because it allows Intel to keep prices high.  And Microcenter is already discounting the 1700X by $50 for in-store customers - not unusual for them, what's unusual is the timing (only a week after launch).  https://hardforum.com/threads/microcenter-amd-ryzen-1700x-349-99-in-store.1926641/



I think you missed the point: *apparently*, this sheduling issue is *non present @ all* in windows 7. This points to it being a windows 10 issue rather then a chip issue.

EDIT

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-8#post-38775732

These results of total war: warhammer show an increase of 15 FPS in minimum frames when using windows 7 instead of 10. The avg frames are much less affected, though, in this particular game.


----------



## mcraygsx (Mar 11, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Really, thats pretty normal for them at MC honestly. A couple of weeks at msrp and then they drop. They certainly lyndianne's aren't discounting it because of performamce... that makes no sense to me why it would happen at the retail level as they are only shooting themselves in the foot...



It is normal MC had sales on 7700K for couple of months now for $299. My local MC even offer $30 discount when bundled with Z270 MB. $50 from newly released Ryzen was from MC alone.


----------



## Grings (Mar 12, 2017)

1700x's have dropped in price a few places in uk (£389 to 365ish)

and still no x370 boards in stock anywhere, a few retailers overdue since 6th-8th


----------



## Hood (Mar 12, 2017)

HTC said:


> I think you missed the point: *apparently*, this sheduling issue is *non present @ all* in windows 7. This points to it being a windows 10 issue rather then a chip issue.
> 
> EDIT
> 
> ...



If you didn't read the PCPer article linked in post #188 in this thread, their tentative conclusion was, there is no issue with the Windows 10 scheduler, the performance drop is caused by latency between CCX units, a diagnosis that's been noted by other sites - https://www.techpowerup.com/231268/amds-ryzen-cache-analyzed-improvements- improveable-ccx-compromises  http://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/03/02/amd_ryzen_1700x_cpu_review/6


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 12, 2017)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> I think they missed something, as so frequently in this thread have you.
> In a smt core only the primary thread has priority and the most resources, this is the same with Intel and with Intel the scheduler knows this second core is not a fully resourced core and gives it appropriately planned work to do.
> While they confirmed threads are being scheduled to different cores fairly correctly with improvement possible by avoiding CCx jumps they didn't check the weighting of each thread.
> So with the main pipe(core) fully loaded there isn't a full core left for thread two but that's what it's expecting to see hence bad times.
> I can still see some improvement to be had personally.


Cheap repost edited for hood.


----------



## toilet pepper (Mar 12, 2017)

Here in the Philippines, only 2 x370 boards are available - msi titanium xpower and aorus gaming 5. I'm waiting on the Crosshair Hero 6 to arrive as it has am3 compatibility. I doubt idcolling would send one to me without any cost.

This is what I was talking about. I dont see any reason why amd changed the mounting holes on these boards. 

With the way things are going, the mobos will be availble when r3 and r5 are out.


----------



## mcraygsx (Mar 12, 2017)

toilet pepper said:


> Here in the Philippines, only 2 x370 boards are available - msi titanium xpower and aorus gaming 5. I'm waiting on the Crosshair Hero 6 to arrive as it has am3 compatibility. I doubt idcolling would send one to me without any cost.
> 
> This is what I was talking about. I dont see any reason why amd changed the mounting holes on these boards.
> 
> With the way things are going, the mobos will be availble when r3 and r5 are out.



That is correct I was able to install Hydro 110i straight out of the box on Crosshair IV Hero. After great experienced with Maximus IX for 7700k, I would buy Hero series any day.


----------



## kruk (Mar 12, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Found this from PCPer.
> 
> https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-and-Windows-10-Scheduler-No-Silver-Bullet
> 
> Essentially, the CCX latency is the issue, not how W10 addresses work loads.



The latency might be problematic, but the Windows 10 scheduler also doesn't seem to work as it should: 










Instead of keeping the 2 threads on one CCX it sometimes splits them over two CCXs which causes performance problems.

It will be certainly interesting to see how quad core chips will be configured: 2-2 or 4-0 ...


----------



## mroofie (Mar 12, 2017)

Hood said:


> If you didn't read the PCPer article linked in post #188 in this thread, their tentative conclusion was, there is no issue with the Windows 10 scheduler, the performance drop is caused by latency between CCX units, a diagnosis that's been noted by other sites - https://www.techpowerup.com/231268/amds-ryzen-cache-analyzed-improvements- improveable-ccx-compromises  http://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/03/02/amd_ryzen_1700x_cpu_review/6


Windows 7 Likes ryzen more so there's definitely an issue...  might not be the scheduler but it's definitely os related


----------



## HTC (Mar 12, 2017)

mroofie said:


> Windows 7 Likes ryzen more so there's definitely an issue...  might not be the scheduler but *it's definitely os related*



The following 2 videos show the penalty of using both CCXs VS using just 1. The 2nd video also shows that windows 10 randomly assigns cores which may or may not be of the same CCX.



















Found this here: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-21#post-38789965


----------



## Hood (Mar 12, 2017)

There seems to be some disagreement on this issue, and it should be interesting to see how it plays out.  I rarely go to Anandtech, for reasons that should be familiar to most TPU members, and I feel that PCPerspective has matured into a respectable hardware review site ( my 2nd favorite, after TPU).


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 12, 2017)

Well after a chat with another forum member @Finners I've swung back to Ryzen. Reasoning? In one year Kabylake z270 platform will be replaced (i think for coffee or cannon). In one year AM4 will still be relevant. In 2 years, until 2020, so if a refresh of Zen comes out in a year or so, with higher IPC, i can keep the mobo and upgrade the CPU.
Intel outdates it's platform so quickly I'd rather go red. Stability. Well, it will be when the mobo makers get their bugs fixed and Devs start coding with CCX arch in mind.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 13, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Well after a chat with another forum member @Finners I've swung back to Ryzen. Reasoning? In one year Kabylake z270 platform will be replaced (i think for coffee or cannon). In one year AM4 will still be relevant. In 2 years, until 2020, so if a refresh of Zen comes out in a year or so, with higher IPC, i can keep the mobo and upgrade the CPU.
> Intel outdates it's platform so quickly I'd rather go red. Stability. Well, it will be when the mobo makers get their bugs fixed and Devs start coding with CCX arch in mind.


I do understand your reasoning, but part of the reason that Intel updates its boards so often is because it tends to offer more with each platform. Although the main CPU core in KabyLake isn't that much different from SandyBridge, the entire platform around that core has changed in huge ways, adding in things like PCIe 3.0, USB 3.1, M.2/U.2, better audio chips as well as better UEFI implementations. So why AMD has not changed their platform in many years, their boards quickly grew outdated, and the same is likely to happen with AM4.

To me, that's the real flaw in Ryzen; the platform that surrounds it. What AMD has done with Ryzen is adjusted core CPU performance to match the times, and then gone and removed the iGP that Intel has on it's mainstream platform, and provided more CPU cores in that space. With that, AM4 is NOT a high-end platform. Mainstream platforms get quickly outdated, and AMD will need to have new boards out with better features when they do release an updated ZEN-based CPU, just like Intel has done over the years when they had their good core design; incremental differences in CPU performance, but huge changes in the hardware that supports it. That is the future I see for AMD. So if you are cool with that, then by all means buy Ryzen.

But buy it because it gets rid of the useless iGP, and replaced that with usable cores. That is the true strength of Ryzen, and I haven't seen a review talk about that at all (but I could have missed it)


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 13, 2017)

Exactly the pitfalls of a stagnant chipset... now, they may update and add features, but, part of the reason some are not going with Intel is due to platform longevity. In that case, you are going to have to buy another motherboard and chip to do so. Well, to get the latest features on AMD and likely full function of Zen+, you will likely need another mobo in AM4 land as well. If you want Zen+, you will have to buy a CPU...so... yeah.

...I'd look into that line of thinking a bit more.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 13, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Exactly the pitfalls of a stagnant chipset... now, they may update and add features, but, part of the reason some are not going with Intel is due to platform longevity. In that case, you are going to have to buy another motherboard and chip to do so. Well, to get the latest features on AMD and likely full function of Zen+, you will likely need another mobo in AM4 land as well. If you want Zen+, you will have to buy a CPU...so... yeah.
> 
> ...I'd look into that line of thinking a bit more.


Looking into that line a bit more leads to the what will require a pin swap.
And the what is pciex4 for AMD and I'll wager Zen+ will be a minor tweak possibly a few more pciex lanes at 3 speeds, Zen++ will be AM4+ PCIEX4 and that's fairly reasonable timings.
Although there's no reason for pciex to Have to use more pins.
If we see quad channel memory (from AMD)in consumer land it will be a hedt type platform imho.


----------



## OneCool (Mar 13, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> I do understand your reasoning, but part of the reason that Intel updates its boards so often is because it tends to offer more with each platform. Although the main CPU core in KabyLake isn't that much different from SandyBridge, the entire platform around that core has changed in huge ways, adding in things like PCIe 3.0, USB 3.1, M.2/U.2, better audio chips as well as better UEFI implementations. So why AMD has not changed their platform in many years, their boards quickly grew outdated, and the same is likely to happen with AM4.
> 
> To me, that's the real flaw in Ryzen; the platform that surrounds it. What AMD has done with Ryzen is adjusted core CPU performance to match the times, and then gone and removed the iGP that Intel has on it's mainstream platform, and provided more CPU cores in that space. With that, AM4 is NOT a high-end platform. Mainstream platforms get quickly outdated, and AMD will need to have new boards out with better features when they do release an updated ZEN-based CPU, just like Intel has done over the years when they had their good core design; incremental differences in CPU performance, but huge changes in the hardware that supports it. That is the future I see for AMD. So if you are cool with that, then by all means buy Ryzen.
> 
> But buy it because it gets rid of the useless iGP, and replaced that with usable cores. That is the true strength of Ryzen, and I haven't seen a review talk about that at all (but I could have missed it)



Well said cadaevca. Totally agree.
People complain about Intel updating their chipset so much but they do it to keep up with all the peripheral connections that never stop coming out. 
That said does Intel take advantage of the CPU socket change with that... Of course they do. Money is money and for some reason .....people can't figure out...That will never change.


----------



## Hood (Mar 13, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Well after a chat with another forum member @Finners I've swung back to Ryzen. Reasoning? In one year Kabylake z270 platform will be replaced (i think for coffee or cannon). In one year AM4 will still be relevant. In 2 years, until 2020, so if a refresh of Zen comes out in a year or so, with higher IPC, i can keep the mobo and upgrade the CPU.
> Intel outdates it's platform so quickly I'd rather go red. Stability. Well, it will be when the mobo makers get their bugs fixed and Devs start coding with CCX arch in mind.


Good point, Intel wants our $ frequently, someone has to pay for their huge R&D budget.  I would love to have a CPU with 16 threads on tap for audio/video editing/conversion, etc, but I would not pay $1000 for it.  I would pay $500 for it, if everything else worked properly,, so I'm waiting to see how Ryzen is doing after a year has gone by.  But I'm also waiting to see how Xpoint/Optane matures - I don't see AMD supporting it anytime soon, and that probably means only Intel systems will run it, further widening the performance gap.  For now, AMD has mostly caught up with them on PCIe, SATA, M.2, and USB specs, but for how long?  AMD platforms are slow to adopt the latest standards (6 years since 990FX).


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 13, 2017)

Hood said:


> AMD platforms are slow to adopt the latest standards (6 years since 990FX).




AM4 should not have the same problems, since AMD is not the chipset maker. Board makers will release new boards with whatever they can when new AM4 CPUs drop.


----------



## Hood (Mar 13, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> AM4 should not have the same problems, since AMD is not the chipset maker. Board makers will release new boards with whatever they can when new AM4 CPUs drop.


Sorry, I forgot that Asmedia is making the chipset.  But AMD will still have to work with Asmedia on updates to standards and continue to update their CPUs, and that's the part I question, due to their track record (updates to SATA, USB, PCIe, and RAM speeds all fell behind Intel's, AFAIK).


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 13, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> AM4 should not have the same problems, since AMD is not the chipset maker. Board makers will release new boards with whatever they can when new AM4 CPUs drop.



I say it would be good to bring the chipset back in house


----------



## R0H1T (Mar 13, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> I do understand your reasoning, but part of the reason that Intel updates its boards so often is because it tends to offer more with each platform. Although the main CPU core in KabyLake isn't that much different from SandyBridge, the entire platform around that core has changed in huge ways, adding in things like PCIe 3.0, USB 3.1, M.2/U.2, better audio chips as well as better UEFI implementations. So why AMD has not changed their platform in many years, their boards quickly grew outdated, and the same is likely to happen with AM4.
> 
> To me, that's the real flaw in Ryzen; the platform that surrounds it. What AMD has done with Ryzen is adjusted core CPU performance to match the times, and then gone and removed the iGP that Intel has on it's mainstream platform, and provided more CPU cores in that space. With that, AM4 is NOT a high-end platform. Mainstream platforms get quickly outdated, and AMD will need to have new boards out with better features when they do release an updated ZEN-based CPU, just like Intel has done over the years when they had their good core design; incremental differences in CPU performance, but huge changes in the hardware that supports it. That is the future I see for AMD. So if you are cool with that, then by all means buy Ryzen.
> 
> But buy it because it gets rid of the useless iGP, and replaced that with usable cores. That is the true strength of Ryzen, and I haven't seen a review talk about that at all (but I could have missed it)


I don't agree with that, the x170 didn't offer much over & above x97 & the same goes for x270 vs x170, except the lock in for Optane via skylake refresh i.e. Kaby lake. There is no tangible difference between Haswell & Kaby Lake, apart from the IPC improvements & DMI 3.0 & in essence you're paying just to keep up with the tag of latest & greatest.


----------



## evernessince (Mar 13, 2017)

R0H1T said:


> I don't agree with that, the x170 didn't offer much over & above x97 & the same goes for x270 vs x170, except the lock in for Optane via skylake refresh i.e. Kaby lake. There is no tangible difference between Haswell & Kaby Lake, apart from the IPC improvements & DMI 3.0 & in essence you're paying just to keep up with the tag of latest & greatest.



I'd have to agree with this.  Intel chipsets are incremental at best.  Zen has all the latest features like M.2., which should be good for awhile.  Heck, you can even go and get sandy bridge CPUs and the chipset is still pretty good.  Point being, you don't need to update the chipset every year because technology simply isn't going to outpace it anytime soon.  USB 3.1 and M.2. aren't even mainstream yet.  By the time those go mainstream AMD will likely be past Ryzen.

Simply put, incremental platform upgrades are only going to be advantageous to those who seek the absolute bleeding edge, for which AMD will very likely release a high end platform for.  Forcing the mainstream market to upgrade every year though?  No point.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 13, 2017)

eidairaman1 said:


> I say it would be good to bring the chipset back in house



I couldn't disagree more. AMD has been shite at making chipset since the very beginning. VIA saved the Athlon and what came after that was chipsets with cripped features. AMD managed to make the second worst USB 3.0 host controller, only TI was slower, which is something of a feat. ASMedia suffers when it comes to SATA RAID as they don't go beyond 0+1 which will be a downside for AMD, but they have the in-house expertise to make everything else quite well. Keep in mind that ASMedia is a mashup of engineers from just about every Taiwanese chipset maker from the past, so they have the know-how when it comes to making a chipset, it's just a matter of what AMD lets them do as well.



R0H1T said:


> I don't agree with that, the x170 didn't offer much over & above x97 & the same goes for x270 vs x170, except the lock in for Optane via skylake refresh i.e. Kaby lake. There is no tangible difference between Haswell & Kaby Lake, apart from the IPC improvements & DMI 3.0 & in essence you're paying just to keep up with the tag of latest & greatest.



Not quite true, the 1x0-series added HSIO which was a huge improvement for the board makers when it comes to what ports they can add and the flexibility in the chipset to allow them to do so. This was further improved in the 2x0-series. Is it enough? Maybe not, but it's one of the biggest improvements Intel has done to its chipsets in a long time, it's just not a very obvious feature, as users can't directly take advantage of it.

Apart from that, Intel also added PCIe 3.0 to the 1x0-series and went from 8 to 20 PCIe lanes (obviously limited by the DMI interface and not all usable at once in most configurations) which allowed for things like NVMe, Thunderbold and USB 3.1 to be added.

What Intel need to do is what AMD did with Ryzen, add four lanes of PCIe 3.0 for NVMe directly to their CPUs. Sadly AMD didn't end up on parity with Intel on the chipset side and this might hurt them a little bit, especially considering the premium prices on some X370 motherboards.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 13, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> I couldn't disagree more. AMD has been shite at making chipset since the very beginning. VIA saved the Athlon and what came after that was chipsets with cripped features. AMD managed to make the second worst USB 3.0 host controller, only TI was slower, which is something of a feat. ASMedia suffers when it comes to SATA RAID as they don't go beyond 0+1 which will be a downside for AMD, but they have the in-house expertise to make everything else quite well. Keep in mind that ASMedia is a mashup of engineers from just about every Taiwanese chipset maker from the past, so they have the know-how when it comes to making a chipset, it's just a matter of what AMD lets them do as well.


The 990FX is pretty good, the SATA ports wouldn't crap out like on the P67/Z68 chipsets. However I believe my board uses Asmedia for usb 3.0


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 13, 2017)

eidairaman1 said:


> The 990FX is pretty good, the SATA ports wouldn't crap out like on the P67/Z68 chipsets. However I believe my board uses Asmedia for usb 3.0



AMD's 900 series was an exception when it comes to chipsets from them, a good exception, but AMD has proven that chipsets aren't their strength over the years.

AMD has made at least half a dozen crappy chipsets which is something of a record in this business. They often relied on third parties for good south bridges and they've messed up their USB implementation many times. Admittedly some of those chipsets were made by ATI, but none of the Taiwanese chipset makers had the same kind of problems, well, maybe SiS...

That's not to say that Intel hasn't messed up a good few times as well, such as the P67 and a few other older chipsets.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 13, 2017)

R0H1T said:


> I don't agree with that, the *x170 didn't offer much over & above x97* & the same goes for x270 vs x170, except the lock in for Optane via skylake refresh i.e. Kaby lake. There is no tangible difference between Haswell & Kaby Lake, apart from the IPC improvements & DMI 3.0 & in essence you're paying just to keep up with the tag of latest & greatest.



Hmmmm........ DDR4?


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 13, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> Hmmmm........ DDR4?



That's a CPU feature now, no? It was a long time since Intel had the memory controller in the chipset...


----------



## BiggieShady (Mar 13, 2017)

Console devs coding for jaguar cores have to be careful how they organize threads so they don't communicate across module boundary unless they want huge latency increase. Sounds familiar?
Games will suddenly start functioning optimally once they start being ported from PlayStation 5


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 13, 2017)

BiggieShady said:


> Console devs coding for jaguar cores have to be careful how they organize threads so they don't communicate across module boundary unless they want huge latency increase. Sounds familiar?
> Games will suddenly start functioning optimally once they start being ported from PlayStation 5



Sounds much better than coding for PS3 Cell anyways...


----------



## BiggieShady (Mar 13, 2017)

Ferrum Master said:


> Sounds much better than coding for PS3 Cell anyways...


Infinitely easier ... just by following the guidelines on how to properly size and align data structures to be cache friendly and grouping threads by purpose (non co-dependant threads) on each side of the boundary, you can get around limitations ... main problem is that typical gaming workloads rarely have non co-dependant threads with similar "weight"


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 13, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> That's a CPU feature now, no? It was a long time since Intel had the memory controller in the chipset...


Of course, the point however is that moving from Z97 gave us that opportunity so it was on offer due to the move to x170 which was significant as it moved DDR4 from enthusiast only to mainstream.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 13, 2017)

R0H1T said:


> I don't agree with that, the x170 didn't offer much over & above x97 & the same goes for x270 vs x170, except the lock in for Optane via skylake refresh i.e. Kaby lake. There is no tangible difference between Haswell & Kaby Lake, apart from the IPC improvements & DMI 3.0 & in essence you're paying just to keep up with the tag of latest & greatest.


Yeah, DDR4 made the change necessary from Z97 to Z170. Haswell to KabyLake made HUGE changes at the chipset level. Not everyone may notice those changes either, but once you start running multiple M.2 devices, you tend to notice the difference. Z170, depending on how those M.2 ports are wired, commonly had M.2 RAID slower than Z270. There is also the Optane support added, which again, is a HDD-level change. Since the HDD interface is the slowest interface we have next to USB, any changes that offer us more performance in this area are more than welcome in my books.



TheLostSwede said:


> That's a CPU feature now, no? It was a long time since Intel had the memory controller in the chipset...



It still necessitated the board-level change, since connectivity to that memory is the job of the board.


----------



## r9 (Mar 13, 2017)

Fix already in place for Linux kernel to properly assign threads to phyisical cores and  and smt to avoid latency.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3176...ves-linux-support-for-zen-multithreading.html
Now we are waiting on Microsoft to do the same with their scheduler.
This should speed up the process, MS can look into Linux code and get an idea how it needs to be done. lol


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 13, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> It still necessitated the board-level change, since connectivity to that memory is the job of the board.



Oh, sure, but in this case the discussion was about features brought by the chipset, not the motherboard itself.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 13, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> Oh, sure, but in this case the discussion was about features brought by the chipset, not the motherboard itself.


Yes and no. People were complaining about board changes, making note of how AMD kept their platform for nearly a decade, and only needing CPU swaps.  But I digress, you correct, that was a CPU change, but that's no different than the change to AM4 IMHO.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 13, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> Yes and no. People were complaining about board changes, making note of how AMD kept their platform for nearly a decade, and only needing CPU swaps.  But I digress, you correct, that was a CPU change, but that's no different than the change to AM4 IMHO.


dude whats that avatar about is it some kind of impalla or old goat

good facial expression on him though that look of shall i strike or abide


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 13, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> Yes and no. People were complaining about board changes, making note of how AMD kept their platform for nearly a decade, and only needing CPU swaps.  But I digress, you correct, that was a CPU change, but that's no different than the change to AM4 IMHO.



I just hope AMD planned forward with AM4. It doesn't seem amazingly future proof, unless AMD has left enough spare pins for additional PCIe lanes (which it doesn't really seem like) for future expansion. The chipsets so far are ho hum in my opinion, not terrible, but not really interesting either. In some ways, the old 990FX is more cutting edge than the X370 if you look at the platform as a whole, it just needed a bump to PCIe 3.0 and USB 3.x.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 13, 2017)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> dude whats that avatar about is it some kind of impalla or old goat
> 
> good facial expression on him though that look of shall i strike or abide


It's a horny old goat.

goat = Greatest Of All Time.



Wasn't my idea, TBH. You can blame another user here on TPU for dat. @Sir B. Fannybottom



TheLostSwede said:


> I just hope AMD planned forward with AM4. It doesn't seem amazingly future proof, unless AMD has left enough spare pins for additional PCIe lanes (which it doesn't really seem like) for future expansion. The chipsets so far are ho hum in my opinion, not terrible, but not really interesting either. In some ways, the old 990FX is more cutting edge than the X370 if you look at the platform as a whole, it just needed a bump to PCIe 3.0 and USB 3.x.



Yeah, I'm not that impressed with X370 either, since only one M.2 port is fast enough (one is usually 32 Gbps, the other 20 Gbps). I would have liked to have seen M.2 RAID possible, but if I stuck my Intel 600P drives in an X370 board, they'd be bottlenecked by the connectivity.

This makes my job doing board reviews even harder, since I have to remove my own personal feelings about the platform form those reviews and just relate to users what these boards can offer them.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 13, 2017)

M.2 raid (pcie x4 nvme) on intel is still useless for whatever reason.. barely scales past the single drive.. wonot go past 3000 MB/s on z270..


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 13, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> M.2 raid (pcie x4 nvme) on intel is still useless for whatever reason.. barely scales past the single drive.. wonot go past 3000 MB/s on z270..


It really depends on what board. Some boards are that way, yep, but not all.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 13, 2017)

I'd like to see the ones that arent... I am about 0 for 3 and counting! Yes, these are boards with 2 32 gbps m.2 slots and nothing else is populated...


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 13, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> I'd like to see the ones that arent... I am about 0 for 3 and counting! Yes, these are boards with 2 32 gbps m.2 slots and nothing else is populated...



You said :


EarthDog said:


> wonot go past 3000 MB/s on z270..



two 256 GB Intel 600P drives, 300 GB of data, doesn't go below 3000 MB/s....:










MSI motherboard.

I would like to see similar on X370. The one port on ASRock Taichi is good, better than some ports on Intel-based boards, but the other... not so much.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 13, 2017)

Nor above it. If I raid 2 2500MB/s drives, I should be around 5k.. not pegging 3.1k. Your numbers make sense with two 1500MB/s drives. Try it with faster drives and notice it wont go much above that. In other words, it's not close to doubling speeds when using faster drives than your example. The bus can reach 3k... but can't seem to let loose on two really fast drives.


----------



## Hood (Mar 13, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> I'd like to see the ones that arent... I am about 0 for 3 and counting! Yes, these are boards with 2 32 gbps m.2 slots and nothing else is populated...


Yes, I've been wondering about Z270 board's implementation of M.2 RAID, especially the Asrock Taichi, Professional Gaming i7, and SuperCarrier boards, all with 3 M.2 slots - how do they scale at 2x and 3x RAID, and what's the maximum speed, limited by the platform/CPU?  I hope that someone who has access to the hardware eventually makes a chart with these details for every board, how the M.2 slots are wired and expected throughput in single, 2x, and 3x RAID, similar to what Sin's Hardware did with vrmlist to help overclockers avoid Z87/Z97 boards with crappy power circuits/components.  Yes, it would be more work for board reviewers, but as you noted, (0 for 3 and counting!) it's info a lot of us could use.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 13, 2017)

AMD should be praised for an amazing CPU design. Ryzen is Amazing. Can't wait for the optimizations and Bios updates.


----------



## xkm1948 (Mar 13, 2017)

Current RyZen is mainstream. Once the HEDT equivalent RyZen comes out it would be dream come true for a lot of us who needs HPC at desktop scale.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 13, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Nor above it. If I raid 2 2500MB/s drives, I should be around 5k.. not pegging 3.1k. Your numbers make sense with two 1500MB/s drives. Try it with faster drives and notice it wont go much above that. In other words, it's not close to doubling speeds when using faster drives than your example. The bus can reach 3k... but can't seem to let loose on two really fast drives.



No it wouldn't, the DMI 3.0 interface is PCIe 3.0 x4, so there's your bottleneck. Sure, is faster than 3GB/s, but it won't even hit 4GB/s. It's also shared with all other peripherals connected to the chipset. How can you expect it to be faster than the chipset interconnect?


----------



## Super XP (Mar 13, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> Current RyZen is mainstream. Once the HEDT equivalent RyZen comes out it would be dream come true for a lot of us who needs HPC at desktop scale.


I wouldn't call current Ryzen mainstream. They are high performance CPUs. And they did achieve well beyond that promised 40% IPC Increase over the Bulldozer Design.  

I'm just looking forward to optimizations and the eventual Zen 2 via 2018.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 13, 2017)

just got my ryzen stable @ 4.0Ghz 1.44v and 3200Mhz ram @ C14....

Thing is screaming (had to use a phone shot) :


----------



## Super XP (Mar 13, 2017)

Bios updates should help you reduce that Voltage. A bit. I've seen Ryzen run stable at about 1.35v. At 4GHz. Nice OC though.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 13, 2017)

Super XP said:


> Bios updates should help you reduce that Voltage. A bit. I've seen Ryzen run stable at about 1.35v. At 4GHz. Nice OC though.


yeah the asus boards run pretty high from what I read... temps look okish tho - hoping I can push it a bit higher with more bios updates, gonna try for 3200 C13 today (not likely)

It games almost exactly like my OC'd skylake though, not much difference at all.  I think the ram is helping, I also have process lasso set to realtime priority on the non-smt cores, and that makes a good bit of difference.  For older games keeping in on one CCX, no SMT @ realtime priority works wonders (farcry 4).


----------



## Grings (Mar 13, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> I would like to see similar on X370. The one port on ASRock Taichi is good, better than some ports on Intel-based boards, but the other... not so much.



I assume thats better than chipset based intels z170/270 etc m.2 slots

And is it (roughly) the same as x99 m.2 slots (32gb ones obviously)

and how do the chipset and cpu sata ports compare, are the chipset ones slower? I assume a lot of us will want to use a pci m.2 at 4x, and a larger sata ssd plugged into the chipset rather than cut down the m2 lanes


----------



## cdawall (Mar 13, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> I'd like to see the ones that arent... I am about 0 for 3 and counting! Yes, these are boards with 2 32 gbps m.2 slots and nothing else is populated...



It only has 4 pcie lanes to the cpu. Hence why it behaves like that. You can't magically create bandwidth.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 13, 2017)

Super XP said:


> I wouldn't call current Ryzen mainstream. They are high performance CPUs. And they did achieve well beyond that promised 40% IPC Increase over the Bulldozer Design.
> 
> I'm just looking forward to optimizations and the eventual Zen 2 via 2018.


Mainstream or Enthusiast, it's pretty much determined by the platform/package not the CPU alone so in x370 guise some might call it enthusiast, not sure, in terms of multi card support and PCI-E lanes I don't think it compares to x99 but with an 8 core/16T setup I agree it is kind of difficult to call it mainstream.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 13, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> AMD's 900 series was an exception when it comes to chipsets from them, a good exception, but AMD has proven that chipsets aren't their strength over the years.
> 
> AMD has made at least half a dozen crappy chipsets which is something of a record in this business. They often relied on third parties for good south bridges and they've messed up their USB implementation many times. Admittedly some of those chipsets were made by ATI, but none of the Taiwanese chipset makers had the same kind of problems, well, maybe SiS...
> 
> That's not to say that Intel hasn't messed up a good few times as well, such as the P67 and a few other older chipsets.



Despite their 760 Chipset being the longest running unit to support AM3 cpus and some FX parts?


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 13, 2017)

cdawall said:


> It only has 4 pcie lanes to the cpu. Hence why it behaves like that. You can't magically create bandwidth.


but they come from the PCH (24 total from there shared)...

...what am I missing?


----------



## Super XP (Mar 13, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Not everyone likes them. What's new? I don't like the 6700k or 7700k for huge annoying to me reasons. You know how I fixed that? I didn't buy them.


I've heard the 7700K has some serious micro stuttering issues in games. Not sure if its all games, but there's enough people complaining of such a thing and has been mentioned in reviews too. The one key thing about Ryzen is despite its min fps, it maintains smooth game play, something many Intel chips fail to do.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 13, 2017)

Super XP said:


> I've heard the 7700K has some serious micro stuttering issues in games. Not sure if its all games, but there's enough people complaining of such a thing and has been mentioned in reviews too. The one key thing about Ryzen is despite its min fps, it maintains smooth game play, something many Intel chips fail to do.



My skylake did this too - it was like a hiccup... It would bomb along at 200FPS and then randomly freeze for .2 seconds and then rubber band to where it would be as if nothing happened - super distracting.  The ryzen just dips fps and slows, but the frames stay pretty consistent.

I'm pretty sure it was the way the platform/mobo was handling background IO since it was 100x worse when windows decided it was update time at 8PM in the middle of a match.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 13, 2017)

Super XP said:


> I've heard the 7700K has some serious micro stuttering issues in games. Not sure if its all games, but there's enough people complaining of such a thing and has been mentioned in reviews too. The one key thing about Ryzen is despite its min fps, it maintains smooth game play, something many Intel chips fail to do.


don't experience this...been smooth gaming on intel for years. 

Links...plz! I'd like to read about it from a review or something.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Mar 13, 2017)

Honestly, I've been seriously considering a 6 or 8 core CPU since seeing Total Biscuit's review on Arkham Knight before the performance patching. His hex core was playing it pretty smoothly, granted with 980 Ti SLI though.

Then again, I also wonder if 8 core would be more future ready, and I'm kinda doubting there will be any Coffee Lake 8 cores under $500 early next year. I just keep feeling Ryzen isn't quite what I wanted it to be.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 13, 2017)

I would like to know how the B350 does in the overclocking stakes, anyone seen any reviews on that? Am doing a MATX build and was thinking of putting a 1700 in with a B350 but torn between that and Kaby.


----------



## HTC (Mar 13, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> *I would like to know how the B350 does in the overclocking stakes, anyone seen any reviews on that?* Am doing a MATX build and was thinking of putting a 1700 in with a B350 but torn between that and Kaby.



According to this, not too bad!


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 13, 2017)

I wouldnt cheap out on the board personally...


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 13, 2017)

Any SATA benchmarks btw?


----------



## Mr.Scott (Mar 13, 2017)

I would like to see a review of the top Asrock board please.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 13, 2017)

Mr.Scott said:


> I would like to see a review of the top Asrock board please.


incoming... expect it soon. I just got actual AMD-certified memory on Thursday, so had to re-do all testing.


----------



## mcraygsx (Mar 14, 2017)

BIOS 0902 is available for Asus Crosshair VI Hero for those own the board.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Mar 14, 2017)

silkstone said:


> A lower end Ryzen would also work as an amazing Plex server for the fraction of the cost of an equivalent Intel system.
> 
> People who are disappointed with it lack imagination.



I built a dual, dual 6 core Xeon for $500 (for almost exclusively running my plex server). I could cut that price down substantially by not building the second test node and not _also_ filling it up with ram.

I'm extremely disappointed with Ryzen, if you're referring to any and all Plex use. I'm going to need more explanation on how you came to this conclusion if you're going with this use case example, because Ryzen is not a good option at any of it's price points currently offered.


----------



## johnspack (Mar 14, 2017)

Waiting for Ryzen v2 or whatever.  I'm going to hold out hope for this attempt.  Amd got it right from 286 to x64 x2,  so maybe they can again.....


----------



## OneCool (Mar 14, 2017)

Still no CF/ SLI scaling results?


----------



## Super XP (Mar 14, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> don't experience this...been smooth gaming on intel for years.
> 
> Links...plz! I'd like to read about it from a review or something.


Many users have been complaining about micro stutters here and there. I am not sure if its on all games or a select few. But just internet search it and you will find many pages about this issue. I read a couple of reviewers talking about this briefly. At the moment, I don't remember what review sites. The day the Ryzen reviews were released, I must have read 10 to 12 sites from top to bottom. lol,  that was a while ago.



Frag Maniac said:


> Honestly, I've been seriously considering a 6 or 8 core CPU since seeing Total Biscuit's review on Arkham Knight before the performance patching. His hex core was playing it pretty smoothly, granted with 980 Ti SLI though.
> 
> Then again, I also wonder if 8 core would be more future ready, and I'm kinda doubting there will be any Coffee Lake 8 cores under $500 early next year. I just keep feeling Ryzen isn't quite what I wanted it to be.


Fair enough, though keep in mind, Ryzen did pretty well for a chip that is still not industry or driver optimized, including most game developers that haven't fully tested Ryzen yet. I believe there's quite a bit more room for ZEN 1 improvements though X370 Bios updates and Ryzen optimizations. In Multi-Threading, Ryzen smashes Intel to pieces.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 14, 2017)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> I built a dual, dual 6 core Xeon for $500 (for almost exclusively running my plex server). I could cut that price down substantially by not building the second test node and not _also_ filling it up with ram.
> 
> I'm extremely disappointed with Ryzen, if you're referring to any and all Plex use. I'm going to need more explanation on how you came to this conclusion if you're going with this use case example, because Ryzen is not a good option at any of it's price points currently offered.



how old are those xeons? thats an amazing deal even if they are sandy bridge...



EarthDog said:


> don't experience this...been smooth gaming on intel for years.
> 
> Links...plz! I'd like to read about it from a review or something.



http://www.techspot.com/review/1345-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x/page7.html


----------



## cdawall (Mar 14, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> but they come from the PCH (24 total from there shared)...
> 
> ...what am I missing?



DMI is connected to the CPU by DMI 3.0, DMI 3.0 is 8 GT/s (source), conversion of GT/s to Gbps is 8GT/s * (128b/130b) = 7.88Gbps or PCI-e 3.0 8x link. So you cannot take 23.6Gbps of data and make transfer it across a link that only supports 7.88Gbps. I also do not know what kind of loss you see from the PCH, I imagine the lack of performance increase you are seeing is either the loss of the physical limitation of the interconnect. 

I also do not know what priority is set to within the PCH, but lets say I have a system with a 1Gbps lan, a SATA storage drive and 2 NVMe drives. That 7.88Gbps available sure did get burnt up quickly...


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 14, 2017)

cdawall said:


> DMI is connected to the CPU by DMI 3.0, DMI 3.0 is 8 GT/s (source), conversion of GT/s to Gbps is 8GT/s * (128b/130b) = 7.88Gbps or PCI-e 3.0 8x link. So you cannot take 23.6Gbps of data and make transfer it across a link that only supports 7.88Gbps. I also do not know what kind of loss you see from the PCH, I imagine the lack of performance increase you are seeing is either the loss of the physical limitation of the interconnect.
> 
> I also do not know what priority is set to within the PCH, but lets say I have a system with a 1Gbps lan, a SATA storage drive and 2 NVMe drives. That 7.88Gbps available sure did get burnt up quickly...



DMI 3.0 is actually only about 3.94GB/sec which is equivalent to PCIe 3.0 x4, not x8. You forgot to convert Gbps/GT/s to GB/s before you did your PCIe bus width conversion.

Not sure why Intel says it's only 8GT/s, as it's a four-lane interface, not a single-lane interface.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 14, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> I wouldnt cheap out on the board personally...


Well, where I am there is currently nothing 370 on offer for MATX so unless I want to continue waiting its a B350 or Kaby, might have to just go for Kaby as a safer option then look see where Ryzen is in a couple of years.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 14, 2017)

Yeah, an matx can be a problem within itself as far as case size and heat removal. I'm sure it will be fine at stock with decent airflow. Anything above that would be gravy.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 14, 2017)

I don't do stock, it's the principle of it lol, the case has good airflow, better than many mid towers to be honest but that's probably why it costs so much for such a small thing.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 14, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> DMI 3.0 is actually only about 3.94GB/sec which is equivalent to PCIe 3.0 x4, not x8. You forgot to convert Gbps/GT/s to GB/s before you did your PCIe bus width conversion.
> 
> Not sure why Intel says it's only 8GT/s, as it's a four-lane interface, not a single-lane interface.



Good catch I was a few beers in when I wrote that.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Mar 14, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> how old are those xeons? thats an amazing deal even if they are sandy bridge...



E5-2640's.Sandy bridge. They have quite a bit of power still when you can throw 12 cores at something.


----------



## Grings (Mar 14, 2017)

Now if AMD had a decent chipset with pci-e 3 lanes, and gave it all 8 lanes (4 for chipset+4 for nvme) they would (theoretically) have a better platform


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 15, 2017)

Grings said:


> Now if AMD had a decent chipset with pci-e 3 lanes, and gave it all 8 lanes (4 for chipset+4 for nvme) they would (theoretically) have a better platform



So you want the X300 then?


----------



## Grings (Mar 15, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> So you want the X300 then?



Thats going to be an itx chipset, probably with less connectivity than x370, i want more, i.e 16+ 3.0 lanes off he chipset like a z270 with am4 socket (and 8x pci-e dmi)


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 15, 2017)

Grings said:


> Thats going to be an itx chipset, probably with less connectivity than x370, i want more, i.e 16+ 3.0 lanes off he chipset like a z270 with am4 socket (and 8x pci-e dmi)



It's a "not" chipset. It simply gives you four PCIe 3.0 lanes from the CPU in place of the chipset. Then there's a small component that connects via SPI etc. that takes care of some of the minor stuff that's built into the chipset.


----------



## springs113 (Mar 16, 2017)

mcraygsx said:


> That is correct I was able to install Hydro 110i straight out of the box on Crosshair IV Hero. After great experienced with Maximus IX for 7700k, I would buy Hero series any day.


Im holding out for a rampage v ed 10 or maximus formula version board, it's hard settling for what's out there and the only 2 i saw that peaked my interest were the x titanium n the crosshair.  Come on ASUS


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 16, 2017)

Just bought:

*G.skill 16GB(8GBx2) Trident Z DDR4 PC25600 3200MHz*
*



*

It's on the QVL list for the Asus Crosshair motherboard.  Damn hard to find in the UK but it bloody better work.  Haven't bought the motherboard yet but it is back in stock at OcUK...

It's D-Day - do i buy AMD Ryzen for my next build?


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 16, 2017)

DO IT...


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 16, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> DO IT...




Yes master - all ordered:

Asus ROG Crosshair VI Hero
AMD Ryzen 1700X
G Skill 3200 Trident Z 16GB
Samsung M2 NVMe 960Pro 512Gb
Seasonic Prime Titanium 850W
Lian Li PC-V33 Cube Case (with window)
Thermalright Le Grand Macho RT cooler (AM4 mount)


still awaiting GTX1080ti stock......

Whoopsy!


----------



## Norton (Mar 16, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Yes master - all ordered:
> 
> Asus ROG Crosshair VI Hero
> AMD Ryzen 1700X
> ...



Nice combo! 


A nice stability test would be to see how far you can make this number go up between March 22nd and March 30th (link below) 

http://stats.free-dc.org/stats.php?page=user&proj=bwcg&name=826545


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 16, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Just bought:
> 
> *G.skill 16GB(8GBx2) Trident Z DDR4 PC25600 3200MHz*
> *
> ...


These are the ones I have - they are awesome.


----------



## nem.. (Mar 17, 2017)

in the next link some buddy post the next
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...and-upcoming-am4-updates.231518/#post-3620871


 

searching for myself , in the firts,  i do guess than intel platform have highter support of ram than ryzen , but its not , ryzen have highter native support for run 2667mhz without OC .
*
AMD X370*

Support for DDR4 3600(O.C.) / 3400(O.C.) / 3200(O.C.) / 2933(O.C.) / *2667* / 2400 / 2133 MHz memory *modules

*GA-Z270-Gaming K3 *

Support for DDR4 3866(O.C.) / 3800(O.C.) / 3733(O.C.) / 3666(O.C.) /
 3600(O.C.) / 3466(O.C.) / 3400(O.C.) / 3333(O.C.) / 3300(O.C.) /
3200(O.C.) / 3000(O.C.) / 2800(O.C.) / 2666(O.C.) /* 2400 / 2133 MHz memory modules*

link. http://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/GA-Z270-Gaming-K3-rev-10#sp






link. http://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/GA-AX370-Gaming-K7-rev-10#sp


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 17, 2017)

Arghh! Memory out of stock. Been refunded...


----------



## Lt_JWS (Mar 20, 2017)

Ordered a 1700, asrock fatality ab350, 2x8gb g.skill 3200mhz. Hope the MOBO holds up....


----------



## r9 (Mar 20, 2017)

Lt_JWS said:


> Ordered a 1700, asrock fatality ab350, 2x8gb g.skill 3200mhz. Hope the MOBO holds up....


Another rx 470 would look great.
Btw anybody came across  of any CF or SLI benchmarks on Ryzen platform ?

Has anyone managed to use memory above 3200MHz, and does it scale well ?


----------



## Lt_JWS (Mar 20, 2017)

r9 said:


> Another rx 470 would look great.
> Btw anybody came across  of any CF or SLI benchmarks on Ryzen platform ?


Thinking about it.... they are cheap enough....


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Mar 21, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> It's a horny old goat.
> 
> goat = Greatest Of All Time.
> 
> ...


I don't remember this


----------



## Super XP (Mar 21, 2017)

I've asked Wizard to re-due the Ryzen Benchmarks in 1080p and 1440p. Based on this proposed 30% to 35% performance increase after updating Windows 10. Microsoft provided a update, that supposedly increases Ryzen Performance. I am very curious to see results by a Reputable Website, like TechPowerUp. 

Here is the Link to the CLAIM:
https://twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/status/843864982320267265/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw


----------



## trparky (Mar 21, 2017)

Does anyone have Ryzen benchmarks for Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 21, 2017)

Super XP said:


> I've asked Wizard to re-due the Ryzen Benchmarks in 1080p and 1440p. Based on this proposed 30% to 35% performance increase after updating Windows 10. Microsoft provided a update, that supposedly increases Ryzen Performance. I am very curious to see results by a Reputable Website, like TechPowerUp.
> 
> Here is the Link to the CLAIM:
> https://twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/status/843864982320267265/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw


That's only one game though and it wasn't one of the titles that was really hurt by Ryzen.  Also, UT3 is a really old game.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 21, 2017)

Super XP said:


> I've asked Wizard to re-due the Ryzen Benchmarks in 1080p and 1440p. Based on this proposed 30% to 35% performance increase after updating Windows 10. Microsoft provided a update, that supposedly increases Ryzen Performance. I am very curious to see results by a Reputable Website, like TechPowerUp.
> 
> Here is the Link to the CLAIM:
> https://twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/status/843864982320267265/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw


might be a signed up insider ive noted game boost mode on off in my menu, who knows though?


----------



## GoldenX (Mar 21, 2017)

Valve patched Dota 2 for Ryzen.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 21, 2017)

GoldenX said:


> Valve patched Dota 2 for Ryzen.


I was just wondering if we can have a Re Benchmark just to see if MS's update actually did some good for Ryzen.


----------



## trparky (Mar 21, 2017)

No offense but I think that anyone who built a Ryzen rig wasted their money. A five year old Core i5 3570k Ivy Bridge chip not only kicked Ryzen's ass but kicked all the way down town.

AMD Ryzen 7 1700 vs. a 5-year-old gaming PC, or why you should never preorder | PCWorld

PCWorld
While I was pleasantly surprised by the ultimate AMD machine’s performance, the more mainstream Ryzen 7 1700 build left a bitter taste in my mouth. I wasn’t expecting it to blow Intel’s 3570K out of the water, but I was hoping for some sort of performance pick-me-up, or at least parity. Instead, Intel’s quad-core, 5-year-old chip smoked Ryzen in two out of the three games tested—and I mean smoked—and the CPUs traded blows in the third.

Wow.​
I was really rooting for AMD here but once again we had our hopes dashed against the rocks. To have a five year old Intel chip thoroughly kick Ryzen's ass is pretty damn bad. You had your chance AMD and like always, you blew it.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 22, 2017)

trparky said:


> No offense but I think that anyone who built a Ryzen rig wasted their money. A five year old Core i5 3570k Ivy Bridge chip not only kicked Ryzen's ass but kicked all the way down town.
> 
> AMD Ryzen 7 1700 vs. a 5-year-old gaming PC, or why you should never preorder | PCWorld
> 
> ...


I believe I'd take wizards multiple game and app based opinion over that 3 game trollfest.


----------



## OneCool (Mar 22, 2017)

trparky said:


> No offense but I think that anyone who built a Ryzen rig wasted their money. A five year old Core i5 3570k Ivy Bridge chip not only kicked Ryzen's ass but kicked all the way down town.
> 
> AMD Ryzen 7 1700 vs. a 5-year-old gaming PC, or why you should never preorder | PCWorld
> 
> ...




* Looks around for the spray bottle*


----------



## trparky (Mar 22, 2017)

The only thing that I can possibly think of is that the R7 series is being limited in clock speed by the number of cores on the package. The Intel Core i7 7700 (quad-core) has a base clock speed of 3.6 GHz whereas the R7 has 8 cores and it's base clock is only 3 GHz with not much room to overclock at all. My only explanation is that they seem to be bumping up against a heat related issue with all those cores on-board.

Now what does this mean for the Ryzen R5 that will be coming out soon? I don't know. What we do know is that the R5 1600X is only a six core CPU as versus the R7 series which is an 8 core chip and the R5 1600X is slated to come with a base clock of 3.6 GHz (with a boost clock of 4 GHz) which matches the base clock of the Intel Core i7 7700.

Will the extra 600 MHz on the base clock be able to close the gap between Ryzen and Intel? I don't know.

This looks interesting...
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700/3887vs3917
The Intel Core i7 7700 clocked at 3.6 GHz appears to be about 4% faster than the Ryzen R7 1700 clocked at 3 GHz.

Whereas the Intel Core i7 7700k clocked at 4.2 GHz is almost 19% faster than the Ryzen R7 1700 clocked at 3 GHz.
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700/3647vs3917

So here we start seeing the performance gap closing as the two chips start getting closer in clock speed, obviously.

So again I pose the question... Will the R5 1600X (six core) which is slated to be clocked at 3.6 GHz be able to close the performance gap between AMD and Intel? I'm thinking... yes. I figure that the R7's overall performance is being hurt by the number of cores on-board due to heat issues thus the inability to clock higher.


----------



## toilet pepper (Mar 22, 2017)

trparky said:


> The only thing that I can possibly think of is that the R7 series is being limited in clock speed by the number of cores on the package. The Intel Core i7 7700 (quad-core) has a base clock speed of 3.6 GHz whereas the R7 has 8 cores and it's base clock in only 3 GHz with not much room to overclock at all. My only explanation is that they seem to be bumping up against a heat related issue with all those cores on-board.
> 
> Now what does this mean for the Ryzen R5 that will be coming out soon? I don't know. What we do know is that the R5 1600X is only a six core CPU as versus the R7 series which is an 8 core chip and the R5 1600X is slated to come with a base clock of 3.6 GHz (with a boost clock of 4 GHz) which matches the base clock of the Intel Core i7 7700.
> 
> ...



Nope. AFAIK Ryzen can't clock high due to process limitation.

The high clock-speed of kaby lake is due to several generations of process refinement and milking


----------



## HTC (Mar 22, 2017)

Super XP said:


> I was just wondering if we can have a Re Benchmark just to see* if MS's update actually did some good for Ryzen.*



Look @ this post: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-44#post-38806406


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 22, 2017)

Just get around it and use Process Lasso...

The difference between farcry 4 - standing in town looking out @ max details, i get about 62 FPS.... if I prefer only physical cores, give it realtime priority (high works too) and keep it to one CCX i get 83 FPS in the exact same spot.

there are really no scheduler issues, and process lasso makes a HUGE difference when CPU bound (even on my alienware 6700HQ it boosted frames massively by locking threads to physical cores and boosting game priority to high / realtime).

Im pretty sure windows is equally inefficient with AMD and Intel (individual game engines may be a different story) just because i got a similar boost tooling around with thread priorities and affinity on my intel laptop.


----------



## qubit (Mar 23, 2017)

Looks like all those early memory glitches might soon be a thing of the past. 



> Looks like memory speed support is indeed increasing on the new AMD Ryzen platform and MSI is poised to be one of the first out the gate to do so.  This isn't immediately available so don't go running for the support site just yet, but it will be coming in the very near future through an EFI update.  MSI posted on their site regarding the A-XMP update as well as slew of new motherboards that will hopefully be hitting the market just in time for the launch of Ryzen 5 in April.  Just a quick aside, in the current MSI motherboard's EFI A-XMP already exists to a degree, but this will be a much more mature version that should expand compatibility.



http://wccftech.com/msi-enabling-axmp-ryzen-motherboards/


----------



## Lt_JWS (Mar 23, 2017)

Who else hates waiting for new hardware to showup?!




Corsair H60 works great FYI!





Mobo came with 1.3bios, wouldn't post with 2 sticks of ram. Flashed to beta 1.44 dual works but don't try to OC in bios :|


----------



## Artas1984 (Mar 23, 2017)

If you all just think for a minute or two...

Ever since the release of the FX Piledriver processors in 2012, AMD has not improved anything in the high performance market. The FX-8350 and later FX processors were beaten in games and single-threaded programs by Core i5 2500K and in content creation and multi-threaded programs by Core i7 2600K respectively...

Just the fact that AMD made competitive processors after *FIVE YEARS* (unheard) of literal absence those rival the very top of Intel lineup processors deserves your gratitude even if you are die-hard Intel fan! After Intel released first Core 2 Duo processors i started bashing AMD, and even more so after Bulldozer was launched, but i never was an anti AMD guy originally! 

In fact the biggest FUN in my life that i ever had in terms of computer testing and overclocking came from N-force 4 days with S939 system-boards like DFI LanParty NF4 SLI-DR. Back then the Athlon 64 was much cheaper than Pentium and when overclocked offered better performance. This is the same kind of return now!


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 23, 2017)

Just have to get power into it and give it a whirl...

There's  1700X somewhere in there.


----------



## P4-630 (Mar 24, 2017)

Don't know if it has been posted already but here:

*AMD Ryzen 5 1600 already selling*
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-ryzen-5-1600-already-selling.html


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Mar 24, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Just have to get power into it and give it a whirl...
> 
> There's  1700X somewhere in there.



How is the TR Le Grand Macho handling the thermals?


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 25, 2017)

Guys, new bios updates do make a difference...





same OC settings prior scores were 159 and 1779.....

this is on ASUS X370 Prime but im sure the other vendors have the same updates coming in.


EDIT also huge boost in farcry 4: 102 fps to 114 fps same scene farcry 4 (take with a grain of salt, what i use to bench)
EDIT2 random slowdowns gone too.....  used to drop to 60fps....


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Mar 25, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> Guys, new bios updates do make a difference...
> 
> View attachment 85474
> 
> ...



This looks promising too (3600MHz memory):


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 25, 2017)

Running at 3200Mhz on memory - I'm not sure if it's worth testing my board (CH6).  I've read so much about BIOS bricking and problems with people boosting over specified amounts.  I think for me, the G.Skill kit running at it's design speed is fast enough and any overclock on top isn't going top pay back dividends.  I'll need to OC the 1700X instead and play with that for a while withe the TR LGM cooler.


----------



## HD64G (Mar 25, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> I do understand your reasoning, but part of the reason that Intel updates its boards so often is because it tends to offer more with each platform. Although the main CPU core in KabyLake isn't that much different from SandyBridge, the entire platform around that core has changed in huge ways, adding in things like PCIe 3.0, USB 3.1, M.2/U.2, better audio chips as well as better UEFI implementations. So why AMD has not changed their platform in many years, their boards quickly grew outdated, and the same is likely to happen with AM4.
> 
> To me, that's the real flaw in Ryzen; the platform that surrounds it. What AMD has done with Ryzen is adjusted core CPU performance to match the times, and then gone and removed the iGP that Intel has on it's mainstream platform, and provided more CPU cores in that space. With that, AM4 is NOT a high-end platform. Mainstream platforms get quickly outdated, and AMD will need to have new boards out with better features when they do release an updated ZEN-based CPU, just like Intel has done over the years when they had their good core design; incremental differences in CPU performance, but huge changes in the hardware that supports it. That is the future I see for AMD. So if you are cool with that, then by all means buy Ryzen.
> 
> But buy it because it gets rid of the useless iGP, and replaced that with usable cores. That is the true strength of Ryzen, and I haven't seen a review talk about that at all (but I could have missed it)


Not being unable to use your Mobo when the next arch iteration comes out is a clear advantage imho. Whenever you need to change the mobo to get new features or take advantage of faster RAM it can be done but being obligatory is customer unfriendly and in that, AMD is always better than the Intel's miling strategy to give us 5-10% more performance each 2 years by changing CPU & Mobo and maybe even the RAM.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 25, 2017)

Ryzen needs Fast Ram. As fast as possible. Then it defeats Intel in PC Gaming.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 25, 2017)

Be nice if they compared the 2 again but both with 3600mhz ram, that would give me a fuller picture.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 25, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> Be nice if they compared the 2 again but both with 3600mhz ram, that would give me a fuller picture.


That and the vid this was sourced from (#306 for the record since it wasn't sourced) keeps switching places for things making it extremely difficult to read and walk away with anything from it...

The scaling doesn't seem to support the price difference from 3000-3600...


----------



## r9 (Mar 25, 2017)

trparky said:


> No offense but I think that anyone who built a Ryzen rig wasted their money. A five year old Core i5 3570k Ivy Bridge chip not only kicked Ryzen's ass but kicked all the way down town.
> 
> AMD Ryzen 7 1700 vs. a 5-year-old gaming PC, or why you should never preorder | PCWorld
> 
> ...



The fact is that 7700k is at its peak right now. Same shit different packaging from Intel.
On the other hand even though you think Ryzen is waste of money at least it did on thing right.
And that is to force Intel to drop prices and I  bet that in couple months after Ryzen 5 is out they will have to do it again.
All the games are build around quad core high clock CPU aka 7700k so no updates or patches will ever improve the performance of 7700k in the future.
On the other side AMD will have BIOS updates that will have higher memory support which will allow for the Infinity Fabric to run at higher clock and give significant boost in gaming.
Even though AMD will not admit that Windows Scheduler needs patching (probable because its their fault not to work it out with Microsoft in time) the current patch already increased performance and its still not perfect there is more to come.
Chess benchmark increase by 10% and UT3 by 35%.
There are patches on their way from the game developers.
Dota 2 patch increases Ryzen performance by 25-30%.
Not to mention all the future games that will be optimized for Ryzen coming out.
Have anyone tried running something parallel while gaming, those spare Ryzen threads will come handy.
And I read something very interesting recently.
Can't remember the site but what they did is they compared the fx8350 to i5 2500 performance during the years.
This is what they found out from fx8350 being 15% behind i5 2500 end up being %10 ahead.
Thats a 25% jump.
And that is nothing compared to what to expect with Ryzen once all I mentioned above is being ironed out



uuuaaaaaa said:


> This looks promising too (3600MHz memory):


+1

I wish I saw your video before I posted above.
I would have saved myself I lot of time.


----------



## Hotobu (Mar 25, 2017)

HD64G said:


> Not being unable to use your Mobo when the next arch iteration comes out is a clear advantage imho. Whenever you need to change the mobo to get new features or take advantage of faster RAM it can be done but being obligatory is customer unfriendly and in that, AMD is always better than the Intel's miling strategy to give us 5-10% more performance each 2 years by changing CPU & Mobo and maybe even the RAM.



It's with this in mind that, as someone who's building a 4K, I should go with Ryzen. I'm thinking that right now I can save a little over $100 and go with a Ryzen 6 core that will give me equivalent performance for a while, and perhaps, with any luck, will outright beat a 7700K *if* developers start to optimize for > 4 cores. Then when CPU performance trails off I can pop in Zen 2, or 3 and not have to buy a new motherboard.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 25, 2017)

I know this isn't a benchmark thread burt this is everyuthing at stock with the free Timespy bench.... I have no idea if it is any good - remember - no overclock on anything.


----------



## notb (Mar 25, 2017)

Hotobu said:


> Then when CPU performance trails off I can pop in Zen 2, or 3 and not have to buy a new motherboard.



I've seen this theory being spread all over the internet.
Are you sure? Where is this certainty coming from? I've seen no guarantees from AMD.

Anyway, looking at my PC history, I've never updated a CPU to something on the same socket (so automatically: without replacing the motherboard).
I'm really wondering if people are really updating the CPUs as often as it is being suggested.

I'm currently preparing a list of parts for my new desktop - built around the i5-7600.
I couldn't care less about this socket being replaced soon, but I value highly the fact that this is a well tested platform.
I expect this PC to work until 2022 (if it doesn't die on the way). At that point both Intel and AMD will have replaced their sockets twice.


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Mar 25, 2017)

notb said:


> I've seen this theory being spread all over the internet.
> Are you sure? Where is this certainty coming from? I've seen no guarantees from AMD.
> 
> Anyway, looking at my PC history, I've never updated a CPU to something on the same socket (so automatically: without replacing the motherboard).
> ...



AMD themselves have confirmed that socket AM4 will be here for zen2 and 3.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 25, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> I know this isn't a benchmark thread burt this is everyuthing at stock with the free Timespy bench.... I have no idea if it is any good - remember - no overclock on anything.


As a nice comparison i get 7200 at (8350)4.8ghz and two 480s at 1400, ie looks good to me 

Tweaking with upgrade itchinessbut skint


----------



## notb (Mar 25, 2017)

uuuaaaaaa said:


> AMD themselves have confirmed that socket AM4 will be here for zen2 and 3.


Socket AM4 - yes.
They said nothing about backward compatibility with Zen motherboards.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 25, 2017)

Whilst socket longevity is of course a good thing, to reap the benefits you in part have to sacrifice chipset features so after 3-5 years what will we be missing out on?  I would guess that quite a few will still change their AM4 board for another with an updated set of features sometime down the road, I did exactly that moving from 1366 to Z97, I was very happy with my old 930 @ 4.4gig but I was not happy with slower ram speeds, no SATA 3 or USB3 etc.


----------



## notb (Mar 25, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> I would guess that quite a few will still change their AM4 board for another with an updated set of features sometime down the road


True. E.g. from what I've seen you have to spend a bit more to get dual PCIe M.2 compared to current Intel-based motherboards. This could change in the next generation.

But let's not forget Ryzen is a SoC design - quite a bit more features are CPU-dependent than what we got used to. Replacing a mobo might not help.

E.g. even going for the top X370 mobo for your AMD APU leaves you with a fairly pedestrian number of PCIe lanes, which will cripple GPU and storage performance. We'll see if Zen APU is any better, but honestly - this makes the platform somehow difficult, if you're dependent on something else than raw processing power...


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 26, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> Whilst socket longevity is of course a good thing, to reap the benefits you in part have to sacrifice chipset features so after 3-5 years what will we be missing out on?  I would guess that quite a few will still change their AM4 board for another with an updated set of features sometime down the road, I did exactly that moving from 1366 to Z97, I was very happy with my old 930 @ 4.4gig but I was not happy with slower ram speeds, no SATA 3 or USB3 etc.


Ive been saying this all along in the AM4 will last longer go to it discussion. I mean who will sit there just to get another CPU, but miss out on the some of the latest goodies? Makes no sense to me unless you know you literally sit on it, garbage it and get another in 3+ years.


----------



## Hotobu (Mar 26, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Ive been saying this all along in the AM4 will last longer go to it discussion. I mean who will sit there just to get another CPU, but miss out on the some of the latest goodies? Makes no sense to me unless you know you literally sit on it, garbage it and get another in 3+ years.



But I still get the option to choose. If I decide the features are worth it then I buy a new mobo. If not I save about $200. It's win/win.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 26, 2017)

Yes.. your choices are to pay as much as 7700K (1700 $330), or $70 more (1700X - $400), or $270 more (1800X - $50), and drop a CPU into the same mobo. The point is, when considering TCO (total cost of ownership) The Intel CPU is right there. It really depends on your productivity needs (as I don't buy into all the "zOMG MOAR COARS will be good for gaming zomgbbq!" By the time less than 8 threads HINDERS performance in more than a handful of games is the day these many core chips hold their value across the gamut. until then... I'd rather stick with a more mature and proven platform...

... let's talk in 6 months when things are ironed out on the gaming side.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 26, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Yes.. your choices are to pay as much as 7700K (1700 $330), or $70 more (1700X - $400), or $270 more (1800X - $50), and drop a CPU into the same mobo. The point is, when considering TCO (total cost of ownership) The Intel CPU is right there. It really depends on your productivity needs (as I don't buy into all the "zOMG MOAR COARS will be good for gaming zomgbbq!" By the time less than 8 threads HINDERS performance in more than a handful of games is the day these many core chips hold their value across the gamut. until then... I'd rather stick with a more mature and proven platform...
> 
> ... let's talk in 6 months when things are ironed out on the gaming side.



i mean that is sound... but these are not gaming chips, and even for general purpose they have an amazing amount of allure...

Not all people who drive pickup trucks are hauling sh*T 100% of the time, but the capability to do so carries real value even when you're not using it.

I mean i can get a chip that with an easy OC punches in the same league as the 6950X for $330 for a variety of workloads... there is nothing from intel that can do that.


----------



## hat (Mar 26, 2017)

Super XP said:


> Ryzen needs Fast Ram. As fast as possible. Then it defeats Intel in PC Gaming.



That's not really a surprise. Even with Intel, fast RAM has been shown to make a difference, even in gaming. AMD's new platform has had a real rough start, especially with memory comparability.


----------



## notb (Mar 26, 2017)

Hotobu said:


> But I still get the option to choose. If I decide the features are worth it then I buy a new mobo. If not I save about $200. It's win/win.





phanbuey said:


> Not all people who drive pickup trucks are hauling sh*T 100% of the time, but the capability to do so carries real value even when you're not using it.


But now you're both valuating something based on potential, not how it will actually be used. This is a safe but wasteful approach.
Why not do it based on an estimated benefit? Like in finance, where value of an investment is the average outcome, not the best-case scenario.

I just love the fact that someone has mentioned pickups. How little I was surprised that you're from Texas (because an American was sure). 
So lets assume you'll benefit from the pickup's potential once a month (carrying logs or whatever you do). Is it still worth living with such a huge car? Difficult parking, fuel consumption, the initial cost?
Most things to consider can be quantified. Have you tried to calculate this? Maybe getting a sedan and paying someone for the occasional transporting (or renting a pickup) would turn out to be much cheaper?


phanbuey said:


> I mean i can get a chip that with an easy OC punches in the same league as the 6950X for $330 for a variety of workloads... there is nothing from intel that can do that.



For variety of workloads you actually perform regularly? Or is this the pickup approach, i.e. it'll be there if I need it?
I was actually waiting for the Ryzen release (honestly, I delayed replacing my PC by almost half a year) and thought about it for a while. I'm not gaming but running 30-60h of simulations a week. Surely I'm the kind of customer who would benefit the most from getting a 8C/16T.

So think about my confusion in this situation. Ryzen is a CPU that should appeal to me, but not so much to gamers. But as it turns out: it's the gamers that praise it. They do it not for Ryzen's gaming capabilities, but for things like movie encoding.... Oh come on...



phanbuey said:


> i mean that is sound... but these are not gaming chips, and even for general purpose they have an amazing amount of allure...


I think you'd be shocked how very single-threaded "general purpose" is.  But you're clearly not alone on this forum, which is - honestly - a bit surprising...


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 26, 2017)

I'm very unsure why i bought a Ryzen chip. Damn thing terrifies me. Also chose an odd time to leave water cooling for the CPU but overclocking it isn't as easy knowing it won't be anywhere near as 'generous' as my old Sandy-E.

But, I'll persevere with it and in a few months if it's annoying me i might return to Intel. My main issue for now is that I've also moved to W10 so getting used to that is a pain.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 26, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> I'm very unsure why i bought a Ryzen chip. Damn thing terrifies me. Also chose an odd time to leave water cooling for the CPU but overclocking it isn't as easy knowing it won't be anywhere near as 'generous' as my old Sandy-E.
> 
> But, I'll persevere with it and in a few months if it's annoying me i might return to Intel. My main issue for now is that I've also moved to W10 so getting used to that is a pain.


Whichever I move to I will be in the same dilemma as I will swap out to Win 10 too, I don't need (or want) 16 threads, I will now wait for Ryzen 5 and see how the 1500X shapes up, if it gets close to a 7700k then I am in for AM4, but as you mentioned, Win 10 scares me more than AM4.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 26, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> i mean that is sound... but these are not gaming chips, and even for general purpose they have an amazing amount of allure...
> 
> Not all people who drive pickup trucks are hauling sh*T 100% of the time, but the capability to do so carries real value even when you're not using it.
> 
> I mean i can get a chip that with an easy OC punches in the same league as the 6950X for $330 for a variety of workloads... there is nothing from intel that can do that.


Again, if you use all the cores it's worth it. If you don't, there are certainly many good reasons to go with the intel platform this moment. Maybe that changes when 'fixes' come, but likely when ryzen 3/5 hits, I don't know. 
Looking at pricing now, I wouldn't get cores just to have cores. Use em, or go intel until the 3/5 hits the shelves.


----------



## r9 (Mar 26, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> I'm very unsure why i bought a Ryzen chip. Damn thing terrifies me. Also chose an odd time to leave water cooling for the CPU but overclocking it isn't as easy knowing it won't be anywhere near as 'generous' as my old Sandy-E.
> 
> But, I'll persevere with it and in a few months if it's annoying me i might return to Intel. My main issue for now is that I've also moved to W10 so getting used to that is a pain.





Tatty_One said:


> Whichever I move to I will be in the same dilemma as I will swap out to Win 10 too, I don't need (or want) 16 threads, I will now wait for Ryzen 5 and see how the 1500X shapes up, if it gets close to a 7700k then I am in for AM4, but as you mentioned, Win 10 scares me more than AM4.



Only thing that was annoying is Microsoft moving stuff constantly or naming it differently, but since Vista start menu search you don't need to know where it is just what are you looking for. 
That made things easier.


----------



## Artas1984 (Mar 26, 2017)

The minimal FPS of Ryzen processors scares me when it comes to games. I've seen this in all of the Ryzen reviews in youtube. They show the Ryzen processors to be only equal or somewhere in between Core i5 6600K/7600K or Core i7 3770K/4790K, yet when it comes to minimal FPS, they most often beat overclocked Core i7 6700K/7700K...


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Mar 26, 2017)

r9 said:


> Only thing that was annoying is Microsoft moving stuff constantly or naming it differently, but since Vista start menu search you don't need to know where it is just what are you looking for.
> That made things easier.



And windows + x is a pretty invaluable shortcut with access to everything you could need system wise, just about.


----------



## r9 (Mar 26, 2017)

Artas1984 said:


> The minimal FPS of Ryzen processors scares me when it comes to games. I've seen this in all of the Ryzen reviews in youtube. They show the Ryzen processors to be only equal or somewhere in between Core i5 6600K/7600K or Core i7 3770K/4790K, yet when it comes to minimal FPS, they most often beat overclocked Core i7 6700K/7700K...



Even before all the benchmark number came out a lot of reviewers said that gaming on Ryzen felt smoother.
Which makes sense because I don't think you can notice a difference between 120 and 130fps but if it's in the 50s I think you can.
And I think the experience is more important than the numbers.

Do I think that right now Ryzen is better platform than Kaby Lake, definitely no.
Would I recommend Ryzen for professional use in like corporate environment and be held responsible, hell no.
But for home use by computer enthusiasts like us  I think is great, because so many things are coming  like new bios with better memory support, windows updates, game updates.
A lot of stuff to get exited about.
The platform will mature with time.
I even anticipate in couple months after the dust settles and all the fixes are in place to have second round of reviews that will show a significant difference.
I mean just look at these benchmarks compared to 7700K @ 5GHz.



Super XP said:


> Ryzen needs Fast Ram. As fast as possible. Then it defeats Intel in PC Gaming.



Granted it looks like picked games that work great on Ryzen and as we know not all do.
But this games were not optimized for Ryzen not even patched for Ryzen they just work.
And the games that don't like Dota 2. They released a patch that improved performance by 30%.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 26, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Again, if you use all the cores it's worth it. If you don't, there are certainly many good reasons to go with the intel platform this moment. Maybe that changes when 'fixes' come, but likely when ryzen 3/5 hits, I don't know.
> Looking at pricing now, I wouldn't get cores just to have cores. Use em, or go intel until the 3/5 hits the shelves.


People that upgrade now will most likely stick to there build for 5-7 years before they do another.
Going for a Quad Core today is a bad idea IMO. The more Cores the Better, Ryzen is the future proof build. That will help your build in the future. 
The 7700K already suffers from in game micro stuttering based on reviews and user comments. IMO this processor is obsolete at best.


----------



## trparky (Mar 26, 2017)

I may think about doing a Ryzen build after all but in a couple of months just to let the platform mature and the dust settle. I do a lot of multitasking myself with lots of programs open at the same time. I have a dual-monitor setup too. Throw in a VM and I've got my Core i5 3570k system begging for mercy.

I also hope that when AMD comes out with Ryzen v2.0 it can be just a drop-in replacement instead of the usual motherboard replacement game that Intel plays just for the sake of making us buy new motherboards. I swear Intel changes sockets every time the traffic light at my main intersection turns red.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 26, 2017)

There is one aspect of the ZEN Architecture that I find quite interesting. I believe Infinity Fabric is amazing, because it's "A Lot" more than a interconnect. SemiAccurate explains it very well. 
Here is that one component I find highly innovative. Would love a TechPowerUp read on this.

*Neural Net Prediction*
Built-in artificial intelligence that primes your processor to tackle your app workload more efficiently.


A true neural network inside every AMD Ryzen processor
Builds a temporary map of how your programs use the CPU
Prepares the fastest processor pathways for your app’s behaviors


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 26, 2017)

Super XP said:


> There is one aspect of the ZEN Architecture that I find quite interesting. I believe Infinity Fabric is amazing, because it's "A Lot" more than a interconnect. SemiAccurate explains it very well.
> Here is that one component I find highly innovative. Would love a TechPowerUp read on this.
> 
> *Neural Net Prediction*
> ...


That Seamicro buy out certainly appears to have been wise


----------



## notb (Mar 26, 2017)

Super XP said:


> People that upgrade now will most likely stick to there build for 5-7 years before they do another.
> Going for a Quad Core today is a bad idea IMO. The more Cores the Better, Ryzen is the future proof build. That will help your build in the future.



Is this the same philosophy that made you buy the FX-8350?



trparky said:


> I also hope that when AMD comes out with Ryzen v2.0 it can be just a drop-in replacement instead of the usual motherboard replacement game that Intel plays just for the sake of making us buy new motherboards. I swear Intel changes sockets every time the traffic light at my main intersection turns red.


Hmm... Mainstream desktop sockets since 2009:
Intel: 1156, 1155, 1150, 1151
AMD: AM3, AM3+, FM1, FM2, FM2+, AM1, AM4

Or did I miss something?


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 26, 2017)

notb said:


> Is this the same philosophy that made you buy the FX-8350?
> 
> 
> Hmm... Mainstream desktop sockets since 2009:
> ...


Quite a bit FM are entry level and how long was each Intel socket supported , wasn't there more than one version of 1151 possibly the 1150 too i can't recall just like 2011 had 3 versions but crack on trolling mate I'm sure you'll sound in the know at some point  ??


----------



## Kanan (Mar 26, 2017)

To say Ryzen is worse at gaming compared to Intel is kinda outdated now, since MB manufacturer are releasing updates with the new microcode AMD provided and reviews already proven that it helps big time. That said, who in hell goes for a 4 core for a horrendous price of 320-350 bucks instead of a 8 core for same price that will be easier, easier faster over time, and is in part, now or at least equal? Ryzen needed some time to mature, but if you simply go with a Asus board and 3200+ Ram and a 1700 or 1700X, you'll be fine and have great value. Nothing that Intel has, is remotely comparable to that. Maybe a used X99 board and used 5820K/6800K is comparable, but that would be used stuff and higher power consumption too. 

And btw. I get along with X79 and it's "limited features" pretty good (still has the holy trinity of 3's), I would easily get along with AM4 for 5 years or more. USB 3.1 Gen 2 and all the shit, that would easily easily provide me with everything I could ever want for 5 years and more. So anyone saying you would want to upgrade the MB as well, when you upgrade CPU on AM4, I'd call bullshit - not in 5 years at least. AM4 is right now, for me and most users, total overkill in features, as long as you go with a decent board. Generally mainboards are extremely packed with features nowadays, it wasn't like that a few years ago. PC Gaming and PC in general is kinda even more mature now than it was before, at least in my eyes.


----------



## trparky (Mar 26, 2017)

I'm hoping that the new microcode updates help Ryzen when it comes to the performance of games on the platform. I want to build a Ryzen system but not until the platform matures some more.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 26, 2017)

trparky said:


> I'm hoping that the new microcode updates help Ryzen when it comes to the performance of games on the platform. I want to build a Ryzen system but not until the platform matures some more.



I tried a little of BF1 at stock on a 1080ti @ 1440p and it was awful.  I had ultra settings on and was only getting 120+fps.  Pretty bad man.  Stock 1700X clocks (3.5Ghz all core) as well, not the 4.8GHz that @W1zzard uses in the FE review.  I think 120 ish fps on a chip running over 1 GHz slower isn't too far off the 130+ in the review.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Mar 26, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> I tried a little of BF1 at stock on a 1080ti @ 1440p and it was awful.  I had ultra settings on and was only getting 120+fps.  Pretty bad man.  Stock 1700X clocks (3.5Ghz all core) as well, not the 4.8GHz that @W1zzard uses in the FE review.  I think 120 ish fps on a chip running over 1 GHz slower isn't too far off the 130+ in the review.



That GTX 1080 Ti sure is a beast.


----------



## Lt_JWS (Mar 27, 2017)

I'll say this the stock cooler is cool looking and very very quiet! Waiting for my new case and another rx 470


----------



## trparky (Mar 27, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> I tried a little of BF1 at stock on a 1080ti @ 1440p and it was awful.  I had ultra settings on and was only getting 120+fps.  Pretty bad man.  Stock 1700X clocks (3.5Ghz all core) as well, not the 4.8GHz that @W1zzard uses in the FE review.  I think 120 ish fps on a chip running over 1 GHz slower isn't too far off the 130+ in the review.


I certainly hope you're being sarcastic man. I'd kill for 120 FPS. 120 FPS is not at all bad in my book, hell I'd call it f'in great!


----------



## notb (Mar 27, 2017)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Quite a bit FM are entry level


Entry-level? Like what? APUs? Either way, it's still a separate socket, when it doesn't have to be (AMD unifies these lines since AM4).



theoneandonlymrk said:


> and how long was each Intel socket supported , wasn't there more than one version of 1151 possibly the 1150 too i can't recall just like



This is not precise. There is only one version of a socket, but as each one covers 2-3 generations of CPUs, not all features might work.
The latest example is Optane. You can use any combination of LGA1151 stuff, but you'll need both 200-series chipset and Kaby Lake CPU to have Optane available.

But it's much the same in AMD world and could be even more severe with Ryzen, because it's a SoC.



theoneandonlymrk said:


> 2011 had 3 versions but crack on trolling mate I'm sure you'll sound in the know at some point  ??



2011 is not mainstream, so I haven't included them. Yes, they are replaced every 2 years or so.
But AMD also has server sockets and they also used to replace them fairly often. They stopped lately simply because they haven't released anything important in this segment since 2010 (Socket G/C). Naples will have a new socket as well.


----------



## notb (Mar 27, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> I will now wait for Ryzen 5 and see how the 1500X shapes up, if it gets close to a 7700k then I am in for AM4, but as you mentioned, Win 10 scares me more than AM4.


Seriously? 
Assuming 1500X will in fact match 7700K, it's just $100 difference on the CPU. Is this a big sum platform-wise?

I could understand getting a Ryzen 7 now, if someone is very core hungry and can live with the early adopting issues. Here the platform price difference is much larger because of the motherboards.
If one is simply after CPU performance and can live with poor feature choice, a Ryzen 7 1700 will work beautifully with a sub $100 AM4 mobo. However, the X99 models for the (similarly performing) 6800K start at around $250...

Of course, the other argument is that AM4 is new and will continue to be supported for a next ~2 years at least, while 1151 will most likely be replaced at the end of 2017.
But if you expect to replace this PC in 3+ years, then you'll be getting a new motherboard anyway.


----------



## pantherx12 (Mar 27, 2017)

Anyone saving their pennies for the rumoured am44 stuff? 

( if you are wondering, I absolutely do not need 16 cores and 32 threads let alone 32 cores and 64 threads! How ever I will enjoy just looking at all the core usage graphs, and running multiple instances of a game or program  just because i can. Will go with my decacore phone soc)


Quad channel memory oughta help with the infinity fabric. I just hope the 16 core models can still be pushed to 4ghz XD


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 27, 2017)

notb said:


> Seriously?
> Assuming 1500X will in fact match 7700K, it's just $100 difference on the CPU. Is this a big sum platform-wise?
> 
> I could understand getting a Ryzen 7 now, if someone is very core hungry and can live with the early adopting issues. Here the platform price difference is much larger because of the motherboards.
> ...



It's a combination of things, in the UK I can get a decent quality Z270 board cheaper than a decent quality X370, I am of course expecting that the CPU price will more than compensate for that however I doubt very much that the 1500X will match the 7700K for performance, if whichever way it's a close run thing then yes I am in for AM4 but I also overclock so if there is quite a margin overclocked I may pay the bit extra and go Kaby ..... I am open minded and I do quite like the challenge of a new platform but I am also lazy and have little time these days.......  I don't need 16 threads for the one game I play, MS Office and browsing.

The fact that I have not already bought yet suggests I am hoping for good things from Ryzen 5!


----------



## pantherx12 (Mar 27, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> It's a combination of things, in the UK I can get a decent quality Z270 board cheaper than a decent quality X370, I am of course expecting that the CPU price will more than compensate for that however I doubt very much that the 1500X will match the 7700K for performance, if whichever way it's a close run thing then yes I am in for AM4 but I also overclock so if there is quite a margin overclocked I may pay the bit extra and go Kaby ..... I am open minded and I do quite like the challenge of a new platform but I am also lazy and have little time these days.......  I don't need 16 threads for the one game I play, MS Office and browsing.
> 
> The fact that I have not already bought yet suggests I am hoping for good things from Ryzen 5!



Plenty of simulated benches for the 1600x and 1500x performance is precisely where you would expect it to be. 

If r7 isn't your bag I don't think r5 will be either as they will likely still hit that clock speed wall.


----------



## notb (Mar 27, 2017)

pantherx12 said:


> Anyone saving their pennies for the rumoured x390 or x399 set ups?
> 
> Quad channel memory oughta help with the infinity fabric. I just hope the 16 core models can still be pushed to 4ghz XD



At this point it's all about whether 16C Ryzen and Naples will inherit all the Ryzen issues or will it all be fixed before the launch.
Enterprise-wise this platform is hardly acceptable at this point - even for typical high-end workstations - not to mention servers or production-grade systems.
The home enthusiast group is too tiny to make such a product line sensible.

From what I've heard (but this is poorly backed leak, sadly) the big 3 - HP, Lenovo and Dell - have halted even the Ryzen-powered consumer stuff for a few weeks at least - they're waiting for the microcode patches and so on.
But even if you look at their official statements (also available on AMD site), they only mention home desktops, AIO and VR solutions. Nothing about commercial applications of Ryzen at this point...


----------



## pantherx12 (Mar 27, 2017)

notb said:


> At this point it's all about whether 16C Ryzen and Naples will inherit all the Ryzen issues or will it all be fixed before the launch.
> Enterprise-wise this platform is hardly acceptable at this point - even for typical high-end workstations - not to mention servers or production-grade systems.
> The home enthusiast group is too tiny to make such a product line sensible.
> 
> ...



From what I can gather problems are already starting to be fixed some I'm quite confident AMD will be able to have everything up and going  for enterprise markets quickly and effectively  


You may be surprised regarding the enthusiast home market though, AMD and nvidia make up most of their profit from the enthusiast stuff as the profit margins are so much larger.  ( I mean the entire Ryzen line up is same soc with cores disabled on low tier models. That means on say a 1200x Amd makes maybe 10 dollars on a sale, an 1800x they are making what like 300 or so?) 

The more pointlessly high end stuff Amd can make the better.  As people like me will buy it regardless of need.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 27, 2017)

pantherx12 said:


> Plenty of simulated benches for the 1600x and 1500x performance is precisely where you would expect it to be.
> 
> If r7 isn't your bag I don't think r5 will be either as they will likely still hit that clock speed wall.


I live in hope and whilst I have followed the simulations, I still want to see actuals, it's only a couple of weeks now albeit the upgrade itch is becoming unbearable but you are probably right.


----------



## notb (Mar 27, 2017)

pantherx12 said:


> You may be surprised regarding the enthusiast home market though, AMD and nvidia make up most of their profit from the enthusiast stuff as the profit margins are so much larger.  ( I mean the entire Ryzen line up is same soc with cores disabled on low tier models. That means on say a 1200x Amd makes maybe 10 dollars on a sale, an 1800x they are making what like 300 or so?)
> 
> The more pointlessly high end stuff Amd can make the better.  As people like me will buy it regardless of need.



Well... the thing about margins is a bit more complicated, I'm afraid.
First of all there is the basic business concept of dividing costs into allocated and unallocated.

You could be right about allocated cost: production, transport etc - manufacturing and distributing a Ryzen could cost the same regardless it being a basic R3 or top R7 (but this might *not *be true even if it's the same design with disabled parts!).

However, it's a very different story with unallocated costs that you have to assign (somehow) to your products.
Best example? Possibly almost all *marketing *costs are allocated to the high-end consumer stuff. This also includes partnership with gaming studios to optimize games and so on.

But it's even worse with *R&D*...
If AMD decided to do the same thing Intel did (tweaking what they had, moving to new node ASAP), they most likely could reach the performance of Ryzen 5 spending a lot less on the way.
What if the only true gain from new architecture is that they are able to make an Intel HEDT competitor (R7) in a consumer segment?
Allocating majority of R&D costs to R7 would totally change the margins. 

AMD is clearly fighting to save the situation - the release schedule being the most obvious thing. But will it be enough?


----------



## pantherx12 (Mar 27, 2017)

notb said:


> What if the only true gain from new architecture is that they are able to make an Intel HEDT competitor (R7) in a consumer segment?
> Allocating majority of R&D costs to R7 would totally change the margins.
> 
> AMD is clearly fighting to save the situation - the release schedule being the most obvious thing. But will it be enough?



R7 is not a hedt competitor IMO, just happens to compete with Intel current hedt range. If the am44 rumours are true then that will be AMDs Hedt platform. ( and has all the high end desktop features you would expect)

Regarding research and development costs it appears that AMD have gone with the scalability option. They designed the CCX in my opinion with enterprise in mind and put out a desktop part based on that system.

From the looks of things so far the whole design scales.

So basics we have Ryzen 3-5 and 7, all dual CCX designs even for the 4 core parts. The reason AMD have done this is because a single CCX design would not have enough pcie lanes and would in theory be capable of single channel only memory support.

Now this is where things get fun with AMD new design, let's stick 4 CCXs on one pcb.
You now have effectively double everything, including memory controller so quad channel memory enabled.  (two Imcs  should also help with running double sided ram)also  support for double the amount of pci lanes.

Now lets stick two of those on one board.

You now have octochannel memory support, even more pcie lanes and obviously 64 cores and 128 threads by this point.

Now if they do a 4 socket board that's potentially 16 channel memory.



Purely from a potential point of view AMD have something special on their hands.

It may not be the best desktop platform all around but the design is stupidily scalable for the enterprise market so we could be looking at a turn around for Amd.

If they of course don't fuck up or get fucked over by anti competitive practices.

Both highly likely if history is anything to go by.


By the by I'm sorry if this was hard to read. 

I struggle writing at the best of times let alone when I'm using a phone.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 27, 2017)

2 quad channel cpus don't make octo channel...


----------



## pantherx12 (Mar 27, 2017)

Yeah I just read that they are 16 channel. 

Still the doubling hardware point still stands.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 27, 2017)

Links..

Doubling doesn't stand... at least it never has worked that way. There are quad channel Xeon cpus, 4 on a board, and it's still quad channel.


----------



## notb (Mar 27, 2017)

pantherx12 said:


> R7 is not a hedt competitor IMO, just happens to compete with Intel current hedt range. If the am44 rumours are true then that will be AMDs Hedt platform. ( and has all the high end desktop features you would expect)


Sure. I meant the performance, not features. This is in fact an important selling point of Ryzen - "7" is way faster than what Intel has on LGA1151. It's in the 8 core HEDT territory.



pantherx12 said:


> Regarding research and development costs it appears that AMD have gone with the scalability option. They designed the CCX in my opinion with enterprise in mind and put out a desktop part based on that system.


And I think this will become the major issue with low-end models (and mobile variants).
E.g. Zen APU will not be as fast as it could be once designed from scratch. And that's possibly the most important CPU segment..
Seriously, I don't know how they're going to arrange their lineup.
If an APU is essentially a Ryzen with an IGP instead of a disabled CCX, how much will it cost?
They will have to add a premium for IGP and if Intel lowers prices in the meantime, that would shrink the difference to maybe $20-30. I doubt this would be enough.

I'm also wondering about TDP. If they want to stay at 65W, they'll have to clock the CPU lower than on Ryzen 5. In such case things might get pretty slow...



pantherx12 said:


> Now this is where things get fun with AMD new design, let's stick 4 CCXs on one pcb.
> You now have effectively double everything, including memory controller so quad channel memory enabled.  (two Imcs  should also help with running double sided ram)also  support for double the amount of pci lanes.
> 
> Now lets stick two of those on one board.


*Nope. *RAM channels are not additive. *Each CPU has it's own RAM *that it addresses and can quickly access.
If RAM was shared, the CPUs would have to communicate (exchange what's where). That would be a horror performance-wise.
On a dual-CPU motherboard you have 2 separate CPU+RAM blocks. If you use only 1 CPU, half of RAM slots are inactive.

However, 2 CCXs in a Ryzen 7 use the same connection outputs (via the same controller). This means that a CPU with single CCX can have the same number of PCIe lanes (and other things - remember this is a SoC). Of course AMD can disable them on purpose.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 27, 2017)

Seems there are some prices speculated for Ryzen 5 on at least one UK retailer, 1600 (non X) Hexcore at £219.99, Quadcore 1400 at £169.98.

https://www.cclonline.com/category/401/PC-Components/CPU-Processors/AMD-APUs-and-CPUs/


----------



## r9 (Mar 27, 2017)

Ok, I can't wait for the:
AMD Ryzen Quad-Core 2+2 vs. 4+0 Core Distributions Compared.
4+0 should have 8mb of L3 vs 16mb on 2+2.
In theory 4+0 should be faster, but now its hard to tell because of the Windows patch that improved the tread handling.


----------



## notb (Mar 27, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> Seems there are some prices speculated for Ryzen 5 on at least one UK retailer, 1600 (non X) Hexcore at £219.99, Quadcore 1400 at £169.98.
> 
> https://www.cclonline.com/category/401/PC-Components/CPU-Processors/AMD-APUs-and-CPUs/


The Polish prices leaked on 16.03 - same day US prices were revealed. Below some calculations assuming 1 USD = 3.9 PLN
1400: 819 PLN = 210 USD
1500X: 919 PLN = 235 USD
1600: 1090 PLN = 279 USD
1600X: 1210 PLN = 310 USD
So it's more or less in line with polish VAT 23%.

Assuming the 3 last digits are there to suggest Intel's competitor (in games at least), these prices are actually very similar (AMD is a little more expensive).

Sure, someone will turn up with an argument that they are still 30-50% better in multi-core tasks like rendering... Honestly, who cares at this price point?
Enthusiasts doing heavy multi-core stuff will buy a Ryzen 7.
Mid-range i5s are mostly bought by budget gamers and for commercial purposes. The latter will not even consider a Ryzen 5. The former might... maybe.

The only vaguely interesting thing here is the single-core performance of 5 1400. If it's as good as in 7 1700 (and it should be, theoretically), this CPU will be better than i5 7400 in any benchmark or game.
But again... who (today) buys an i5-7400 for custom-built gaming PC? 7500/7600 are way more popular. i5-7400 is, on the other hand, hugely popular in business desktops (as the cheapest 4-core).


----------



## pantherx12 (Mar 27, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Links..
> 
> Doubling doesn't stand... at least it never has worked that way. There are quad channel Xeon cpus, 4 on a board, and it's still quad channel.



There's a bunch if you search for Amd naples memory channels but here's the top result https://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2017/03/amd-naples-zen-server-chip-details/

Also some info regarding the possible hedt Amd platform http://www.tweaktown.com/news/56845/amds-high-end-x390-x399-mobo-dual-ryzen-cpus-possible/index.html


I'm not going to lie its completely possible I've got completely the wrong end of the stick here but from technical details and leaks I've read it does seem AMD have worked some kind of accumulative magic in Ryzen  in terms of its IMC. 
I'm no expert though I only got into pcs full on when I joined this forum so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 27, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Links..
> 
> Doubling doesn't stand... at least it never has worked that way. There are quad channel Xeon cpus, 4 on a board, and it's still quad channel.



We went over this in other threads this is the same marketing BS AMD used for BD/PD based Opterons. They only have dual channel memory controllers and are claiming that it is quad channel based off of dual dual channel controllers. Since I own a set of those I can tell you it is a crock of BS. The new chips will be the same way from the tech specs and design pics floating around already.


----------



## HD64G (Mar 27, 2017)

r9 said:


> Ok, I can't wait for the:
> AMD Ryzen Quad-Core 2+2 vs. 4+0 Core Distributions Compared.
> 4+0 should have 8mb of L3 vs 16mb on 2+2.
> In theory 4+0 should be faster, but now its hard to tell because of the Windows patch that improved the tread handling.


----------



## Kanan (Mar 29, 2017)

Well those "8 Channel" Ryzen server mainboards + CPUs at 64 Cores are way faster than anything Intel has to offer in that segment - at least the marketing video is saying that.  Take it with a grain of salt, but Intel didn't look good there, less cores, less lanes, less everything, and the last test didn't even run on Intel because it had not enough memory to even start it. Here I hope it's true, because Intel is a pain since they grew too strong (because FX was a mess), I want a good balanced market again, same on the server / workstation side of things.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 30, 2017)

pantherx12 said:


> There's a bunch if you search for Amd naples memory channels but here's the top result https://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2017/03/amd-naples-zen-server-chip-details/
> 
> Also some info regarding the possible hedt Amd platform http://www.tweaktown.com/news/56845/amds-high-end-x390-x399-mobo-dual-ryzen-cpus-possible/index.html
> 
> ...


That link calls Intel's xeon e5 v4 Chips 8 channel...they are quad channel platform, even with 4 on a board... not sure what's going on there.


----------



## pantherx12 (Mar 30, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> That link calls Intel's xeon e5 v4 Chips 8 channel...they are quad channel platform, even with 4 on a board... not sure what's going on there.



Aye it's hard to tell what's legit information right now.

But based on the information at hand the whole reason AMD have made this  infinity fabric "is so they can scale the core count to what ever they like whilst keeping inter ccx communication fairly low as well as inter socket communication at around the same level. ( could be Amd marketing rubbish though, but they have certainly implied that the infinity fabric isn't just for cross ccx communication )

I can only speculate that the infinity fabric helps with adding up the memory controllers as well.

I could be really super wrong and just getting excited over buzz words.

But if the infinity fabric is the magic sauce then we could be in for some interesting times  ( Even if it does seem to cause reduced performance in games the scalability is nerd boner inducing, means Amd may be able to earn some decent money for once from enterprise and pump that money into matching Intel IPC and clock speeds in the consumer space Yay!  )


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 30, 2017)

I don't think it's adding up memory channels... they call intel an octo, but it's clearly not... wondering if they are doing the same with amd...


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 30, 2017)

So......... based on what we know with R7, is it fair to say that even with R5 it is unlikely we will see higher than 3.9 - 4.1 overclocks as the limiting factors are not going to change at this time?


----------



## infrared (Mar 30, 2017)

Yup, I expect you're right, it's still the same die as the R7 so it'll hit a wall around 4.1 just the same. I think the R5 1500 (6c/12t) will be the sweet spot of the R5 lineup


----------



## Slizzo (Mar 30, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> So......... based on what we know with R7, is it fair to say that even with R5 it is unlikely we will see higher than 3.9 - 4.1 overclocks as the limiting factors are not going to change at this time?



Yes, still built on Samsung originating LPP process, so until the next spin of that process comes around (Zen+) I would not expect any better overclocking on this generation of Ryzen.


----------



## Dethroy (Mar 30, 2017)

infrared said:


> Yup, I expect you're right, it's still the same die as the R7 so it'll hit a wall around 4.1 just the same. I think the R5 1500 (6c/12t) will be the sweet spot of the R5 lineup


If you simply compare the Ryzen lineup itself, the R5 1600X and R5 1600 offer the best value. But if you add the cost of Motherboard, RAM, etc., then the perf/$ metric starts to swing in favor of the R7 1700 and 1700X.
You can play around with numbers in my *spreadsheet*.

Cell B2: choose SKU (point of reference)
Cell D9: choose either dual core performance/$ or all-core performance/$
Cell E9: choose to either compare the CPUs themselves or to include the cost of additional hardware
Cells E11:E18: add cost of additional hardware


----------



## infrared (Mar 30, 2017)

Dethroy said:


> If you simply compare the Ryzen lineup itself, the R5 1600X and R5 1600 offer the best value. But if you add the cost of Motherboard, RAM, etc., then the perf/$ metric starts to swing in favor of the R7 1700 and 1700X.
> You can play around with numbers in my *spreadsheet*.
> 
> Cell B2: choose SKU (point of reference)
> ...


That's interesting, although when overclocking the 1500 *1600 will be better than the 1600x in price/perf terms, similarly to the 1700 compared to 1700x & 1800x. They all overclock roughly the same. Edit-> But I guess some will want to pay more for the higher clocks out of the box with no tweaking.

A 1500 *1600 paired with a B350 board would be epic performance for not a lot of dollar!


----------



## Dethroy (Mar 30, 2017)

infrared said:


> That's interesting, although when overclocking the 1500 will be better than the 1500x & 1600x in price/perf terms, similarly to the 1700 compared to 1700x & 1800x. They all overclock roughly the same.
> 
> A 1500 paired with a B350 board would be epic performance for not a lot of dollar!


AFAIK there is no R5 1500 non-X SKU.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 30, 2017)

infrared said:


> That's interesting, although when overclocking the 1500 will be better than the 1500x & 1600x in price/perf terms, similarly to the 1700 compared to 1700x & 1800x. They all overclock roughly the same.
> 
> A 1500 paired with a B350 board would be epic performance for not a lot of dollar!


That's exactly what I was considering, well a 1400 or 1500X coupled with a decent B350 board, you would get both in the UK for less than the price of a 7700k, in fact you could almost get 16GB of 3200mhz DDR4 with your 1400 and B350 for the price of a 7700k.  16 threads would be a total waste for me currently.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Mar 30, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> That's exactly what I was considering, well a 1400 or 1500X coupled with a decent B350 board, you would get both in the UK for less than the price of a 7700k, in fact you could almost get 16GB of 3200mhz DDR4 with your 1400 and B350 for the price of a 7700k.  16 threads would be a total waste for me currently.


I'm holding out for 1600 non x, be nice to have 12 threads for the cost of an i5, I can't believe how much Intel have increased prices, when I bought my 2500k and after that my 3570k they were £180 with the i7's being around 250-260!! This generation you'll pay 250 for the i5 and about 340 for a k i7


----------



## Dethroy (Mar 30, 2017)

While you can easily OC an R7 1700/R5 1600 to reach the same clocks as an R7 1700X/R5 1600X, you will loose all power saving features though. That's why I'm starting to think, I'd favor the X models myself. The small additional cost may as well be zilch if you consider the amount of time you'll keep the CPU.


----------



## infrared (Mar 30, 2017)

Dethroy said:


> AFAIK there is no R5 1500 non-X SKU.


Ah ok, I was going off an old chart of the ryzen line-up, looks like they decided not to bother :/
https://www.techpowerup.com/230916/pricing-of-entire-amd-ryzen-lineup-revealed


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 30, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> I'm holding out for 1600 non x, be nice to have 12 threads for the cost of an i5, I can't believe how much Intel have increased prices, when I bought my 2500k and after that my 3570k they were £180 with the i7's being around 250-260!! This generation you'll pay 250 for the i5 and about 340 for a k i7


£219.99 from CCL ..........................................

https://www.cclonline.com/product/2...-Processor-with-Wraith-Spire-Cooler-/CPU0449/


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Mar 30, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> £219.99 from CCL ..........................................
> 
> https://www.cclonline.com/product/2...-Processor-with-Wraith-Spire-Cooler-/CPU0449/


Hadn't noticed they were available for pre-order already, £220 seems a very reasonable price


----------



## Ungari (Mar 30, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Hadn't noticed they were available for pre-order already, £220 seems a very reasonable price



What's interesting about pre-ordering is that you have a chance to get a higher binned chip that was downgraded just to fill inventory!


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 30, 2017)

But you may be paying top dollar for it unless you can find other sites with them and make price comparisons.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Mar 30, 2017)

I can't order until the end of April which should be ideal as reviews will be long out by then and motherboard's will have had a couple of BIOS revisions etc so seems like a good time to buy, hoping the RX 580's will be out around that time as well


----------



## Ungari (Mar 30, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> But you may be paying top dollar for it unless you can find other sites with them and make price comparisons.



Since we already know the SRP, you can be certain you are getting the best deal straight away as none will go below that.


----------



## notb (Mar 30, 2017)

pantherx12 said:


> I can only speculate that the infinity fabric helps with adding up the memory controllers as well.



There are a few more issues in sharing RAM between CPUs which seem to be really ignored, but I'll concentrate on one (I guess it should be obvious for physicists / electronic engineers):

*Speed of electric signal is finite. *

We are used to the idea that it is so large we don't have to think about it.
But there really is a reason why RAM slots are so close to the CPU, that we are getting coolers that block a RAM slot.

Just to give you an example on some very rough numbers, lets assume that:
- the distance in wiring between CPU and the "other" RAM is 20cm (possible on a large dual-CPU board),
- the speed of signal is 2.8 * 10^8 m/s,
- there are no additional slow downs.

The signal would need around 1.5ns. That would give our new and shiny DDR4-3000 latencies of DDR2-533. Meditate on that for a while.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 30, 2017)

Ungari said:


> Since we already know the SRP, you can be certain you are getting the best deal straight away as none will go below that.


You are not factoring in some retailers limited availability launch price hikes, I pre-ordered my current CPU 10 days before launch, I thought it was a decent deal, seems at launch some others were offering it at £30 less, I mean, I can only speak for the UK but amazingly within a few days after launch some Ryzen 7 prices have gone down by £30 already, indicating to me at least some hiked the price.


----------



## pantherx12 (Mar 30, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> I don't think it's adding up memory channels... they call intel an octo, but it's clearly not... wondering if they are doing the same with amd...



Maybe its just something as simple as ram slots? Definitely ambiguous. 



notb said:


> There are a few more issues in sharing RAM between CPUs which seem to be really ignored, but I'll concentrate on one (I guess it should be obvious for physicists / electronic engineers):
> 
> *Speed of electric signal is finite. *
> 
> ...



Oh I know about the physics I just like to have unrealistic expectations of AMD only to have them dashed so I can repeatedly root for the little guy! 

That and I want to see some genuine price wars.


----------



## Ungari (Mar 30, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> You are not factoring in some retailers limited availability launch price hikes, I pre-ordered my current CPU 10 days before launch, I thought it was a decent deal, seems at launch some others were offering it at £30 less, I mean, I can only speak for the UK but amazingly within a few days after launch some Ryzen 7 prices have gone down by £30 already, indicating to me at least some hiked the price.



Are you saying that retailers have been selling Ryzen for less than AMD's published SRP?


----------



## cdawall (Mar 30, 2017)

Ungari said:


> Are you saying that retailers have been selling Ryzen for less than AMD's published SRP?



Microcenter is.


----------



## Ungari (Mar 30, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Microcenter is.



Microcenter does not exist in the UK and my understanding is those combo CPU/Mainboard deals are available only for in-store pick-up unless there has been some change in policy.


----------



## BiggieShady (Mar 30, 2017)

notb said:


> *Speed of electric signal is finite. *


Yeah, unlike all those other phenomena that have infinite speeds ... wait, I think I can explain that smiley at the end of your statement


----------



## Ungari (Mar 30, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> I'm holding out for 1600 non x, be nice to have 12 threads for the cost of an i5, I can't believe how much Intel have increased prices, when I bought my 2500k and after that my 3570k they were £180 with the i7's being around 250-260!! This generation you'll pay 250 for the i5 and about 340 for a k i7



I think XFR will only improve and the price difference between the 1600 and the X is worth getting 4100Mhz and possibly higher clocks with future microcode updates!


----------



## cdawall (Mar 31, 2017)

Ungari said:


> Microcenter does not exist in the UK and my understanding is those combo CPU/Mainboard deals are available only for in-store pick-up unless there has been some change in policy.



Correct not my fault the EU pays more lol


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 31, 2017)

Ungari said:


> Are you saying that retailers have been selling Ryzen for less than AMD's published SRP?


No, I am saying at launch they were price hiking which was my original point, your response talked about none going below SRP, mine talked about all those that go above it, it is rarely an exact science translating a US $ price into a UK price and often there is some "artistic license" added for good measure you seemed to think if the price was set then that's what they would appear at on launch, as I said, I can't speak for anywhere else but the UK but often that is not the case here, hence why pre ordering can cost you more with some retailers.

Example:  Most on line retailers launched the Ryzen 7 1700 @ £329.99, a the odd one at £319.99 some of them are under £300 already.


----------



## wurschti (Mar 31, 2017)

I didn't read every post here ofc, but:
1- Ryzen was overhyped, both from AMD and from the community, this led to disappointment and death (lol no one died)
2- This is just the first attempt to make something better for the users. 8 core at the price of 4? You should be happy. Yeah they don't deliver the best clocks, but performance per watt per clocks per price is awesome. Period.
3- I was a little underwhelmed when I saw lower than 4GHz stock frequencies. I would have rather had a 120W 4GHz CPU with 4.2-4.5GHz Turbo. That is perfectly explainable. But I believe one year later we will have that.
4- We needed Ryzen. It's not the hero we want, it's the hero we need. Intel's monopoly has to end. I really hope Qualcomm will join the x86 CPU race and we can have more competitors, each of them offering something for every usage. I wouldn't mind an x86 platform with low cost and low price for my HTPC needs, or a high performance rig for gaming or rendering.

But now, it's all on the usage, it's just (for now, only with Ryzen 7, because Ryzen 5 could change this):

a. low budget gaming - Intel CPU (think G4560)
b. better budget gaming - Intel CPU (think i5, i7)
c. high overall performance at a good budget - AMD CPU (think 1700-1800X)
d. highest possible performance - Intel CPU (think 6950X)

This will change of course. AMD has not yet released the R3s and R5s, and they also have a 16-core up their sleeve.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Mar 31, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Correct not my fault the EU pays more lol


The UK isn't EU


----------



## cdawall (Mar 31, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> The UK isn't EU



Ah that's right you guys made it do we can't abbreviate Europe anymore. Thanks guys thanks...


----------



## Ungari (Mar 31, 2017)

3rold said:


> I didn't read every post here ofc, but:
> 1- Ryzen was overhyped, both from AMD and from the community, this led to disappointment and death (lol no one died)
> 2- This is just the first attempt to make something better for the users. 8 core at the price of 4? You should be happy. Yeah they don't deliver the best clocks, but performance per watt per clocks per price is awesome. Period.
> 3- I was a little underwhelmed when I saw lower than 4GHz stock frequencies. I would have rather had a 120W 4GHz CPU with 4.2-4.5GHz Turbo. That is perfectly explainable. But I believe one year later we will have that.
> ...



1) I disagree that Ryzen was over-hyped by either AMD or the community, and if anyone experienced disappointment it was due to unrealistic expectations.
2) I also don't subscribe to "higher clocks are the single most important measure of performance gains" and neither does AMD in both their GPU and CPU philosophies.
3) I totally agree here. I expected 4200Mhz and believe that there is an artificially imposed ceiling in the microcode that prevents XFR and manual OC from going higher at this time. See 1500X with it's 200Mhz XFR.
4) Yes we need Ryzen, and it looks like R3 has been cancelled as the 1400 is 4 Core is an R5.


----------



## Slizzo (Mar 31, 2017)

Ungari said:


> 3) I totally agree here. I expected 4200Mhz and believe that there is an artificially imposed ceiling in the microcode that prevents XFR and manual OC from going higher at this time. See 1500X with it's 200Mhz XFR.



Actually, I believe it's more an issue with two different things:

1. New chip on a brand new process.
2. Using Samsungs LPP process.  It's not meant to be a super fast chip, it's meant to be an efficient one. Thus the reason it appears that Ryzen consumes less energy than Broadwell-E.


----------



## GoldenX (Mar 31, 2017)

The Ryzen 5 1400 and 1600 appeared suddenly on my country for sale: http://computacion.mercadolibre.com.ar/am4_OrderId_PRICE_ItemTypeID_N_OtherFilterID_MEJVEN
The dolar>peso exchange rate is aprox. U$S1>$15,50.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 1, 2017)

Slizzo said:


> Actually, I believe it's more an issue with two different things:
> 
> 1. New chip on a brand new process.
> 2. Using Samsungs LPP process.  It's not meant to be a super fast chip, it's meant to be an efficient one. Thus the reason it appears that Ryzen consumes less energy than Broadwell-E.



There are many other reasons why it uses less power than broadwell-e and it only does that if you start trying to match the pair clock for clock.


----------



## r9 (Apr 3, 2017)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=107&v=QBf2lvfKkxA
Another proof that reviewing Ryzen with Nvidia GPU is flawed.
GTX1060 on average is 25% faster than rx470.
In Division RX470 is %30 ahead of GTX 1060 on Ryzen CPU.


----------



## notb (Apr 3, 2017)

r9 said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=107&v=QBf2lvfKkxA
> Another proof that reviewing Ryzen with Nvidia GPU is flawed.
> GTX1060 on average is 25% faster than rx470.
> In Division RX470 is %30 ahead of GTX 1060 on Ryzen CPU.


Well... people are usually reviewing CPU gaming performance using either a very popular or a top-performing GPU. At this point AMD makes neither of those...

But generally it's all true. NVIDIA does not support DX12 very well so the performance is fairly poor (just because of hardware usage - as shown in the link).
AMD latest stuff (Polaris, Ryzen, possibly Vega) are all built around DX12.

But then, honestly, DX12 is so awful coding-wise that's hardly a great handicap for AMD. We'll be seeing DX11 games for a long time.
Lets not forget DX12 has been around for almost 2 years and the adoption rate is just laughable. At this point all DX12-exclusive games are made by Microsoft. Most games released in 2017 don't even support DX12...

When DX10 and 11 were released they were both hits - in a year pretty much every AAA game was supporting the latest API.
DX10 is actually one of the reasons Windows Vista didn't end as a total disaster - many gamers updated from XP to have DX10.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Apr 3, 2017)

^Forget Dx12, Vulkan is where it's at. More devs need to get on board with it.


----------



## IRQ Conflict (Apr 3, 2017)

Not just Vulcan, but Linux as well. I am soooo tired of M$.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Apr 3, 2017)

IRQ Conflict said:


> Not just Vulcan, but Linux as well. I am soooo tired of M$.



I don't have much faith in Linux or SteamOS games. I was really hoping SteamOS games would give Windows/Dx games a run for their money, but they can't even perform as well as Dx11 games, let alone Dx12, and get slaughtered by Vulkan.

Vulkan is best option IMO.


----------



## IRQ Conflict (Apr 3, 2017)

That's because Linux has never been the gamers OS. Dollars to doughnuts that if more people moved from Windows to Linux that situation would drastically improve.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 3, 2017)

notb said:


> DX10 is actually one of the reasons Windows Vista didn't end as a total disaster - many gamers updated from XP to have DX10.


Which one of the 2 games released in DX10 do you mean?  Honestly, DX9 and DX11 were great so far, aside from the really old ones before them. We will see if DX12 will be great as well, but so far it's not looking bad. Vulcan is a great successor to OpenGL, I'm sure.


----------



## m0nt3 (Apr 4, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> I don't have much faith in Linux or SteamOS games. I was really hoping SteamOS games would give Windows/Dx games a run for their money, but they can't even perform as well as Dx11 games, let alone Dx12, and get slaughtered by Vulkan.
> 
> Vulkan is best option IMO.


Because wrapping direct 3D into OpenGL takes a lot of resources. Check out the Mad Max vulkan wrapper used by Feral (Mad Max has Vulkan only on linux) Vulkan will significantly close the gap to windows performance. It helps allviate the overhead presented by OpenGL.

https://www.gamingonlinux.com/artic...chmarks-and-opengl-vs-vulkan-comparisons.9345
EDIT: updated with correct link.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 4, 2017)

Vulkan guys... AMD has nothing to do with Star Trek! 

http://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/software-technologies/technologies-gaming/vulkan


----------



## Mr.Scott (Apr 4, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Vulkan guys... AMD has nothing to do with Star Trek!
> 
> http://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/software-technologies/technologies-gaming/vulkan



Fascinating.


----------



## Rickkins (Apr 4, 2017)

Hi guys...

So, I have my brand new Ryzen1700 cpu with the wraith cooler, GA-AB350-Gaming 3 motherboard and a couple 8gb ripsaws. Gonna put it all together in the morning...


----------



## m0nt3 (Apr 4, 2017)

Rickkins said:


> Hi guys...
> 
> So, I have my brand new Ryzen1700 cpu with the wraith cooler, GA-AB350-Gaming 3 motherboard and a couple 8gb ripsaws. Gonna put it all together in the morning...


You will enjoy it! Loving mine now that I have worked out some of the kinks.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Apr 4, 2017)

IRQ Conflict said:


> That's because Linux has never been the gamers OS. Dollars to doughnuts that if more people moved from Windows to Linux that situation would drastically improve.


Yeah of course it's that the devs build the games for Windows because it's still the most used OS, but I think it was fool hearty of Valve to think Linux and SteamOS would ever be able to compete with Windows on user base. Especially since W10 could be gotten free like them.


----------



## Ungari (Apr 4, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> Yeah of course it's that the devs build the games for Windows because it's still the most used OS, but I think it was fool hearty of Valve to think Linux and SteamOS would ever be able to compete with Windows on user base. Especially since W10 could be gotten free like them.



I'm looking to move to Ubuntu because I don't want to go to Win10 and MS says they wont give updates to 8.1 even though they are suppose to give support for another year.
I am bummed about how this will effect my gaming.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 4, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> Yeah of course it's that the devs build the games for Windows because it's still the most used OS, but I think it was fool hearty of Valve to think Linux and SteamOS would ever be able to compete with Windows on user base. Especially since W10 could be gotten free like them.


I think / hope they are playing the long game on Steam is but that rides on vulkan development imho


----------



## RealNeil (Apr 5, 2017)

Super XP said:


> People that upgrade now will most likely stick to their build for 5-7 years before they do another.



Really?
5-7 years on one system?

Never, ever that long for me. I change up in 1.5 years max. I built a pair of X99 systems a few months ago and I'm already sending one of them to one of my kids later on this week.
I'm far too interested in the new stuff coming out to stay locked in place. Now that I'm older and have a little disposable income I indulge myself.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 5, 2017)

Ungari said:


> I'm looking to move to Ubuntu because I don't want to go to Win10 and MS says they wont give updates to 8.1 even though they are suppose to give support for another year.
> I am bummed about how this will effect my gaming.


Not at all, unless you want to play in DX12 - you can't. And until there are DX12 exclusive games you can always use the DX11 mode, and Vulcan will run fine with 8.1 as well. Linux meanwhile only has limited game opportunities, just a few games support OpenGL/Vulcan.


----------



## m0nt3 (Apr 5, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Not at all, unless you want to play in DX12 - you can't. And until there are DX12 exclusive games you can always use the DX11 mode, and Vulcan will run fine with 8.1 as well. Linux meanwhile only has limited game opportunities, just a few games support OpenGL/Vulcan.



I have 206 games in my library, over half (112) have linux support and that number is growing. Deus Ex Mankind Divided, HItman, Tomb Raider (and likely Rise of the Tomb Raider), Borderlands 2 and The Pre Sequal, Bioshock Infinite, Dirt Rally, Company of Heros 2, The Witcher 2 (Witcher 1 works great in Wine), the new Unreal tournament is working on Linux, Ark Survival Evolved,Dying Light, and Shadow of Mordor. If there was ever a time to try Linux gaming. Now is it.

True, there is a performance penalty for game being converted from Direct 3D to OpenGL, but they are still very playable (even on open source drivers) and that performance gap is going to drastically shrink as Vulkan get implimented. This as already happening, Feral Interactive has their vulkan beta for Mad Max already and bringing that to their other ports and future ports. I dropped Windows gaming shortly after Windows 10 came and I have not looked back once. Don't even have Windows installed on my PC and never will again. I am free. 

PS: I can also play Doom 2016 at full windows performance including online play


----------



## trparky (Apr 5, 2017)

According to some of the benchmarks noted *here*, my takeaway is that the Ryzen 5 1600x = Performance Sweetspot.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Apr 5, 2017)

I would like to know how many people on TPU have managed a stable 4GHz OC on a 1700, and what MB, RAM, and cooler you used, and how long it took to get there? Also did you use auto or manual CPU voltage, and if manual, what voltage did you settle on?

There's a few review sites making it sound easy even with CPU voltage set to auto, but I'd rather hear it from end users.


----------



## Johan45 (Apr 6, 2017)

For stability it took 1.48v on my "better" 1700, CHVI and G.Skill 3600 CL 17 @ 2933 CL 15


----------



## GoldenX (Apr 6, 2017)

Hope that improves over the coming months.
Seeing the (pre-release) performance of the quad core models, wouldn't a tri-core part have some charm against Pentium and Celeron Kaby Lakes?


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Apr 6, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> For stability it took 1.48v on my "better" 1700, CHVI and G.Skill 3600 CL 17 @ 2933 CL 15


What MB, and are you running the latest BIOS version?


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 6, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> I would like to know how many people on TPU have managed a stable 4GHz OC on a 1700, and what MB, RAM, and cooler you used, and how long it took to get there? Also did you use auto or manual CPU voltage, and if manual, what voltage did you settle on?
> 
> There's a few review sites making it sound easy even with CPU voltage set to auto, but I'd rather hear it from end users.



Hell, I'm not happy pushing to 3.9Ghz on my 1700X. Takes a lot of volts and as good as my air cooler is, it's hard to be confident.

However, the thing boosts all cores to 3.8 (with 3.9) on two cores under heavy loading on stock settings. 1002 BIOS.

As for @Johan45 , they're a OC guru, i don't have the skills or patience for what they do.


----------



## Johan45 (Apr 6, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> What MB, and are you running the latest BIOS version?



Like I said it was the CHVI ver 1002. I feel this one might need slightly higher voltage but it works fine. No real issues with mem etc.. It is my second, the first one lasted about a day and a half before the BIOS bug got it. That's not an issue any more. If I were to run this chip (lesser of 2 1700's) 24/7 it would be around 3.8, the other does 3.9 with ~ the same voltage. The Ryzen voltage seems to fluctuate a lot in CPUz etc.. I have found HWinfo64 seems to be the most accurate ATM the author has been working hard to keep it up to date.  This pic is 1.35v BIOS set and I have marked the "actual" voltage in monitor for reference. The p95 test was ~ 80 minutes






This ones for you 54thvoid


----------



## Caring1 (Apr 6, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> This ones for you 54thvoidView attachment 85940


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Apr 6, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> Like I said it was the CHVI ver 1002. I feel this one might need slightly higher voltage but it works fine. No real issues with mem etc.. It is my second, the first one lasted about a day and a half before the BIOS bug got it. That's not an issue any more.


Still though, not at all the results I'd be shooting for, so that makes me hesitant. I'd be looking for a solid 4GHz at 3200 RAM speed, and with 3200 rated RAM, not 3600. I might be OK with CAS 16 RAM, but prices will no doubt drop on the B-dies by the time I'm ready to buy, which may not be until end of year.

I just get the feeling Ryzen needs an expensive MB and RAM combo to OC a 1700 to 4GHz at 3200, and that's not at all appealing. It seems the CCX interconnect needs a lot of work. It certainly wouldn't be the first time AMD's first gen of a CPU has significant flaws.

Another reason I'm hesitant is I already got burnt on my i7-950 not OCing worth a damn, and going from 3 to 4GHz is quite a jump,. It's just that a few sites have made it sound like it's easy to do with a 1700, even with auto voltage setting.

On the other hand I can't see paying $170 more just to get a 600MHz higher clock.


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 6, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> Like I said it was the CHVI ver 1002. I feel this one might need slightly higher voltage but it works fine. No real issues with mem etc.. It is my second, the first one lasted about a day and a half before the BIOS bug got it. That's not an issue any more. If I were to run this chip (lesser of 2 1700's) 24/7 it would be around 3.8, the other does 3.9 with ~ the same voltage. The Ryzen voltage seems to fluctuate a lot in CPUz etc.. I have found HWinfo64 seems to be the most accurate ATM the author has been working hard to keep it up to date.  This pic is 1.35v BIOS set and I have marked the "actual" voltage in monitor for reference. The p95 test was ~ 80 minutes
> 
> View attachment 85939
> 
> This ones for you 54thvoidView attachment 85940



Like I say. Bloody Guru!

Edit: 1.4v won't get me along at 3.9Ghz, temps rise to 75 ish.  SoC at 1.2 and LLC at 2. Prime crashed after a few mins.
Running same settings now but reduced clock to 3.8Ghz.  Temps at 71. Noticed air coolers heat fast but tend to cool a few degrees. Water always crept up until the temps stabilised.


----------



## Lt_JWS (Apr 6, 2017)

A surprise came for me today....





Ryzen 7 1700 vs Ryzen 5 1400 HSF




A quick OC 3.9Ghz @ 1.35vcore 2400Mhz ram


----------



## RealNeil (Apr 6, 2017)

I was gonna start my Ryzen 1700X build tonight but Newegg sent me 2400MHz RAM instead of 3200MHz.
I have some 3200MHz. Geil RAM in my i5-6600K system so maybe I'll trade them out for a while.

Has anyone used GEIL RGB 3200MHz RAM in a Ryzen build yet? (or am I breaking new ground?)

Also, I ~could~ strip 16GB of GSKill 3200MHz RAM out of my 6700K build if I had to, but I'd rather leave that one alone if I can.


----------



## HTC (Apr 7, 2017)

RealNeil said:


> I was gonna start my Ryzen 1700X build tonight but Newegg sent me 2400MHz RAM instead of 3200MHz.
> I have some 3200MHz. Geil RAM in my i5-6600K system so maybe I'll trade them out for a while.
> 
> Has anyone used *GEIL RGB 3200MHz RAM in a Ryzen build yet?* (or am I breaking new ground?)
> ...



Check your memory here: http://rymem.vraith.com/


----------



## RealNeil (Apr 7, 2017)

Thanks for the link HTC.

My GEIL 3200MHz isn't listed yet for the Crosshair board but I'll try it out just to see how it does.
The GSKill 3200MHz RAM I have ~is~ listed, so I know I have something that will work.


----------



## HTC (Apr 7, 2017)

RealNeil said:


> Thanks for the link HTC.
> 
> My GEIL 3200MHz isn't listed yet for the Crosshair board but I'll try it out just to see how it does.
> The GSKill 3200MHz RAM I have ~is~ listed, so I know I have something that will work.



No prob.

That doesn't mean it wont work: just that it isn't tested. That's what i think it means.

You can also check if it works on other AM4 boards instead of your current one.


----------



## Lt_JWS (Apr 7, 2017)

Loving the R5 1400 so far, it doesn't overclocked as good but it's an amazing value. Currently running Realbench @ 3.8ghz 1.375vcore. I will say this, it's running as hot as the R7 1700, I may just have bad contact on my H60    Gaming so far is nearly identical to the R7.
Got it from here,
://www.provantage.com/service/searchsvcs?QUERY=Ryzen&SUBMIT.x=0&SUBMIT.y=0


----------



## RealNeil (Apr 7, 2017)

I already pulled the GEIL RAM out of the EVGA board. 
I'll try it out first.
If it works well I'll probably get two more 8GB sticks of it for the Ryzen build.
I keep reading that Ryzen likes faster RAM.


----------



## HTC (Apr 7, 2017)

RealNeil said:


> I already pulled the GEIL RAM out of the EVGA board.
> I'll try it out first.
> If it works well I'll probably get *two more 8GB sticks of it for the Ryzen build*.
> I keep reading that Ryzen likes faster RAM.



Be carefull: 4 sticks are allot trickier to get working then 2 and they tend to work @ lower speeds too, when it comes to Ryzen. @ least for now anyway.

That doesn't mean it wont work, but it is a bit harder, atm.

Also: dual rank RAM is much trickier to get working on Ryzen but it CAN be done (pic is hard to see).


----------



## Hotobu (Apr 7, 2017)

So are there no plans to support ram speeds > 2933, or are MB manufacturers just not there yet?


----------



## HTC (Apr 7, 2017)

Hotobu said:


> So are there no plans to support ram speeds > 2933, or are MB manufacturers just not there yet?



*From what i can tell*, the problem is with the AGESA version that the boards have. Notice how even with the best high end boards you can't adjust memory subtimings. BIOSes need to mature: what doesn't work right now may work next week ...

AMD *really screwed up* in this department: their desire to have things tight-lipped led to this awful situation and the board makers should have the chips available a heck of allot sooner to prepare for a propper launch. It ended up hurting AMD allot, IMO.


----------



## RealNeil (Apr 7, 2017)

HTC said:


> Be carefull: 4 sticks are allot trickier to get working then 2 and they tend to work @ lower speeds too, when it comes to Ryzen. @ least for now anyway.
> 
> That doesn't mean it wont work, but it is a bit harder, atm. Also: dual rank RAM is much trickier to get working on Ryzen but it CAN be done (pic is hard to see).



It will all be trial and error for me with this build. I guess that if I want more than 16GB of RAM I may have to buy two 16GB sticks?
Whatever. I'll start the build tomorrow and we'll see how it goes.


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 7, 2017)

wrong thread but LOL.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 7, 2017)

HTC said:


> It ended up hurting AMD allot, IMO.


Well it's not really that important on the long run, because this architecture will run for many years. CPU's are a different matter, compared to GPUs for example, where such a "problem" can hurt the sales inevitably. I think Ryzen will be a big success on the long run (especially compared to FX).


----------



## HTC (Apr 7, 2017)

Kanan said:


> *Well it's not really that important on the long run*, because this architecture will run for many years. CPU's are a different matter, compared to GPUs for example, where such a "problem" can hurt the sales inevitably. I think Ryzen will be a big success on the long run (especially compared to FX).



When you're trying to make a comeback in a big way, any unnecessary problems are to be avoided and this particular memory issue is *both unnecessary and avoidable*, if only they just provided the mobo manufacturers with the required material for them to remove most of the kinks by launch day.

Instead, most RAM doesn't work @ advertised speeds, if @ all, and BIOSes are a general mess, mostly: as far as memory is concerned, that is.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 7, 2017)

HTC said:


> When you're trying to make a comeback in a big way, any unnecessary problems are to be avoided and this particular memory issue is *both unnecessary and avoidable*, if only they just provided the mobo manufacturers with the required material for them to remove most of the kinks by launch day.


Well it's easy for you to say.  AMD is a way smaller company than Intel, people seem to forget that all the time. A CPU launch is a big thing and AMD is not big atm. The way I see it, they were under a hell lot of a pressure to release Ryzen, that's why the release didn't go "perfect" (what in life is perfect anyway?). That all said, Intel didn't had perfect launches too, people seem to forget that as well. But when did Intel exactly launch a new architecture? Ah yeah, almost TEN years ago! Yes, the Core architecture is that old.

"Bioses are a general mess." Okay, then again I'd bet, if I'd lay my hands on it, everything would work fine. I'd simply buy the right MB, the right Ram and do the right things. Why? Because I'm not an early buyer. I simply watched and learned a fuc* lot by now about Ryzen, that's why I'm so sure I can avoid the mistakes others did that simply didn't knew better. My edge always is and always was knowledge. But whatever, I digress. In the end, all I wanted to say is this: "problems" of Ryzen are relative and I don't see them as a (big) problem, while others do.


----------



## HTC (Apr 7, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Well it's easy for you to say.  AMD is a way smaller company than Intel, people seem to forget that all the time. A CPU launch is a big thing and AMD is not big atm. The way I see it, they were under a hell lot of a pressure to release Ryzen, that's why the release didn't go "perfect" (what in life is perfect anyway?). That all said, Intel didn't had perfect launches too, people seem to forget that as well. But when did Intel exactly launch a new architecture? A yeah, almost TEN years ago! Yes, the Core architecture is that old.
> 
> "Bioses are a general mess." Okay, then again I'd bet, if I'd lay my hands on it, everything would work fine. I'd simply buy the right MB, the right Ram and do the right things. Why? Because I'm not an early buyer. I simply watched and learned a fuc* lot by now about Ryzen, that's why I'm so sure I can avoid the mistakes others did that simply didn't knew better. My edge always is and always was knowledge. But whatever, I digress. In the end, all I wanted to say is this: "problems" of Ryzen are relative and I don't see them as a (big) problem, while others do.



There was an unnamed manufacturer that complained about the lack of time between getting the samples to start working on BIOSes options and launch day. Why didn't AMD provide mobo manufacturers with samples @ an earlier date? Was the need for secrecy that high?

Giving the mobo makers more time would help them have better RAM compatibility from the start, IMO. That doesn't mean they would be problem free but i think having more time to work on something before launching it worldwide would be beneficial because it tends to minimize problems.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 7, 2017)

HTC said:


> There was an unnamed manufacturer that complained about the lack of time between getting the samples to start working on BIOSes options and launch day. Why didn't AMD provide mobo manufacturers with samples @ an earlier date? Was the need for secrecy that high?
> 
> Giving the mobo makers more time would help them have better RAM compatibility from the start, IMO. That doesn't mean they would be problem free but i think having more time to work on something before launching it worldwide would be beneficial because it tends to minimize problems.


Yeah I'm not really arguing this and I know it anyway, I just ask people to have more understanding for the problems that AMD had and still have.


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 7, 2017)

My system worked fine from start.  No hardware issues. Overclocking is not as generous as Intel but that doesn't make it bad.
W10 is way worse than Ryzen.


----------



## hat (Apr 7, 2017)

HTC said:


> There was an unnamed manufacturer that complained about the lack of time between getting the samples to start working on BIOSes options and launch day. Why didn't AMD provide mobo manufacturers with samples @ an earlier date? Was the need for secrecy that high?
> 
> Giving the mobo makers more time would help them have better RAM compatibility from the start, IMO. That doesn't mean they would be problem free but i think having more time to work on something before launching it worldwide would be beneficial because it tends to minimize problems.



I think secrecy was thrown out the window a long time ago. What about all those PR articles and "leaks"? Everything AMD said about Ryzen (PR) lined up with the "leaks" which also lined up with real reviews. That doesn't sound very secret to me.



Kanan said:


> Yeah I'm not really arguing this and I know it anyway, I just ask people to have more understanding for the problems that AMD had and still have.





Kanan said:


> Well it's easy for you to say.  AMD is a way smaller company than Intel, people seem to forget that all the time. A CPU launch is a big thing and AMD is not big atm. The way I see it, they were under a hell lot of a pressure to release Ryzen, that's why the release didn't go "perfect" (what in life is perfect anyway?). That all said, Intel didn't had perfect launches too, people seem to forget that as well. But when did Intel exactly launch a new architecture? Ah yeah, almost TEN years ago! Yes, the Core architecture is that old.
> 
> "Bioses are a general mess." Okay, then again I'd bet, if I'd lay my hands on it, everything would work fine. I'd simply buy the right MB, the right Ram and do the right things. Why? Because I'm not an early buyer. I simply watched and learned a fuc* lot by now about Ryzen, that's why I'm so sure I can avoid the mistakes others did that simply didn't knew better. My edge always is and always was knowledge. But whatever, I digress. In the end, all I wanted to say is this: "problems" of Ryzen are relative and I don't see them as a (big) problem, while others do.



I agree with most of this. While part of me thinks AMD could possibly have done a better job of making sure their product was more polished at launch, avoiding most of the current issues we're looking at, another part of me knows that they really needed a successful product after all these not-so-successful years. A lot of people were excited for Ryzen, but people only can wait for so long before they say "fuck it, I'm just going with Intel, I'm done waiting". I'm also sure they wanted to get it out the door ASAP so they could start making money on it sooner rather than later. And yet another part of me has been hanging around here long enough to know better than to jump right into a brand new product. Early adopter issues are not an uncommon thing.

AMD finally has a good product that can properly compete with Intel now. Once those early adopter issues get worked out, it'll get even better. I'm happy for AMD and I hope they get a decent piece of the pie that Intel's been hogging all these years, and I hope to have a Ryzen system myself in the not too distant future if at all possible.



the54thvoid said:


> My system worked fine from start.  No hardware issues. Overclocking is not as generous as Intel but that doesn't make it bad.
> W10 is way worse than Ryzen.



W10 is way worse than a lot of things.


----------



## bencrutz (Apr 7, 2017)

HTC said:


> When you're trying to make a comeback in a big way, any unnecessary problems are to be avoided and this particular memory issue is *both unnecessary and avoidable*, if only they just provided the mobo manufacturers with the required material for them to remove most of the kinks by launch day.
> 
> Instead, most RAM doesn't work @ advertised speeds, if @ all, and BIOSes are a general mess, mostly: as far as memory is concerned, that is.



actually, most RAM works OOTB at speed that AMD supported officially on ryzen


----------



## Johan45 (Apr 7, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> Still though, not at all the results I'd be shooting for, so that makes me hesitant. I'd be looking for a solid 4GHz at 3200 RAM speed, and with 3200 rated RAM, not 3600. I might be OK with CAS 16 RAM, but prices will no doubt drop on the B-dies by the time I'm ready to buy, which may not be until end of year.
> 
> I just get the feeling Ryzen needs an expensive MB and RAM combo to OC a 1700 to 4GHz at 3200, and that's not at all appealing. It seems the CCX interconnect needs a lot of work. It certainly wouldn't be the first time AMD's first gen of a CPU has significant flaws.
> 
> ...


Samsung "B" is what you want so the G.Skill 3200 CL14 if that's what you're after. I know they're B die. The 3200 CL 16 stuff could be hynix which is kind of hit and miss on AM4 at present. Auto worked out fine on the CHVI and wasn't overvolting terribly but on the MSI SLI I'm working with now it wouldn't boot on auto with only the multi raised. With the right ram though getting the CL down isn't all that hard with a bit of testing. This is CL 14-13-13 1.4v VDIMM on custom P95 using 8GB of 16 in the system. Still not 4GHz on the CPU but I have seen a few nice specimens in the 1700 line. Typical silicon lottery though. As I said this is my  "DUD" for lack of a better term. 




 


Here's a pic of my better one, this was for review with 20 minutes each AIDA64 stability, FPU test and P95 small FFT. Maybe not 100% stable but close. So there are better cpus out there, just no guarentee.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Apr 7, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> Typical silicon lottery though. As I said this is my  "DUD" for lack of a better term.


Yeah it seems the few review sites I saw getting 4GHz easily on a 1700 with just auto settings were probably sent specially picked review samples. At this point I'm thinking I don't want to risk another lemon OCer like my current  i7-950, and I sure as hell won't be satisfied with 3GHz.


----------



## Vario (Apr 7, 2017)

Wait for next gen, probably will clock much higher.  If it could just get to 4.5 with a 5-10% IPC increase, I think it would be a great buy.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Apr 7, 2017)

Vario said:


> Wait for next gen, probably will clock much higher.  If it could just get to 4.5 with a 5-10% IPC increase, I think it would be a great buy.


Not sure I can wait that long on a mere i7-950 at stock clocks. In fact even waiting to see performance and pricing on Coffee Lake might be a stretch. And I really don't want to pair a 1080 Ti with my current CPU.

I'm tempted by the 7700K, but I keep thinking in a couple years I'll regret it.


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 7, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> Not sure I can wait that long on a mere i7-950 at stock clocks. In fact even waiting to see performance and pricing on Coffee Lake might be a stretch. And I really don't want to pair a 1080 Ti with my current CPU.
> 
> I'm tempted by the 7700K, but I keep thinking in a couple years I'll regret it.



I mean... if you OC the 7700K 4.8-5.0 ghz it will be pleanty for a long time to come in terms of gaming.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Apr 7, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> I mean... if you OC the 7700K 4.8-5.0 ghz it will be pleanty for a long time to come in terms of gaming.


I'm more worried about smoothness than FPS. The 7700k has plenty of speed out of the box, even for high end GPUs, but quads often play less smooth than 8 cores.


----------



## RealNeil (Apr 7, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> quads often play less smooth than 8 cores



Depends on the game at this point. Coding hasn't caught up with today's hardware yet.
I was all set to pull the trigger on a 7700K when a friend offered me a 6700K for 200. I bought it and it's pretty nice.
I've run Crossfire RX480 8GB cards in it, and a pair of GTX-980Ti card as well.
It isn't holding any graphics performance back that I can see. Gaming is smooth.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Apr 7, 2017)

RealNeil said:


> Depends on the game at this point. Coding hasn't caught up with today's hardware yet.


It's surpassing quads in some games now since both Xone and PS4 use 8 cores, and that will only likely increase quite a bit going forward. I've kept my last two MBs and CPUs for 5 years, so I am looking more forward than present.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 7, 2017)

RealNeil said:


> Depends on the game at this point. Coding hasn't caught up with today's hardware yet.
> I was all set to pull the trigger on a 7700K when a friend offered me a 6700K for 200. I bought it and it's pretty nice.
> I've run Crossfire RX480 8GB cards in it, and a pair of GTX-980Ti card as well.
> It isn't holding any graphics performance back that I can see. Gaming is smooth.


did you bench your 480s id be interesteed in timepspy etc score.


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 7, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> It's surpassing quads in some games now since both Xone and PS4 use 8 cores, and that will only likely increase quite a bit going forward. I've kept my last two MBs and CPUs for 5 years, so I am looking more forward than present.



I know that now a 7700k is better for gaming but I'm hopeful that this 8 core Ryzen (which can do 3.8 and could do 3.9 once I'm happier with the temp and voltage) will have better overall performance in 2-3 years.  I'm also really, really hopeful the process matures and AMD release faster chips for the same board further down the line.  If they pull an Intel and make a whole new board, I'll go back to Intel for good.  That was one main reason I chose AMD, knowing they like to (or have to due to R&D) stay faithful to a board design.  If a faster chip is released and I need to buy a new board, I'll just switch back to Intel for the faster chip.


----------



## mcraygsx (Apr 8, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> Not sure I can wait that long on a mere i7-950 at stock clocks. In fact even waiting to see performance and pricing on Coffee Lake might be a stretch. And I really don't want to pair a 1080 Ti with my current CPU.
> 
> I'm tempted by the 7700K, but I keep thinking in a couple years I'll regret it.



7700K is perfect for next few years but Z270/X99 are dead platforms with Zero future path to upgrades.

But anyone looking at Ryzen right now, this deal is hard to beat. A motherboard for $9.99 but its free should you choose to fill in rebate form ( irritating inconvenience for 9.99 )


----------



## RealNeil (Apr 8, 2017)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> did you bench your 480s id be interesteed in timepspy etc score.



I'm on Win-7 here, so no timespy score.

Here is the API, Firestrike, and Cinebench score with the 480s in the 6700K system.

  

Both of those RX480s are going into my Ryzen 1700X build tomorrow. I'll probably leave them there.


----------



## Cosmo12 (Apr 8, 2017)

Hello guys! I'd like to update my laptop to ryzen7. I have written a benchmark, showing CPU speed in parsing text files.

Here is results for my CPU (i7-3610qm). Can you test your ryzens and upload results?

Benchmark
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/5fzk/GXCZpaDoe

Source code (c#)
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/Gi5v/j7i6tYdho


----------



## notb (Apr 8, 2017)

mcraygsx said:


> 7700K is perfect for next few years but Z270/X99 are dead platforms with Zero future path to upgrades.



But if you think a CPU is perfect for next few years, why would you want to replace the mobo in the meantime?
It's unlikely that we'll see a big revolution in next 2-3 years.

DDR5 is coming, but it'll most likely need a new CPU anyway.
Some Optane-like solutions might become standard (if they turn out useful) and actually Kaby Lake is the only platform that guarantees compatibility at this point.


----------



## Caring1 (Apr 8, 2017)

Cosmo12 said:


> Hello guys! I'd like to update my laptop to ryzen7. I have written a benchmark, showing CPU speed in parsing text files.
> 
> Here is results for my CPU (i7-3610qm). Can you test your ryzens and upload results?


Lol NO
First time poster and you want people to run something you wrote?


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 8, 2017)

Caring1 said:


> Lol NO
> First time poster and you want people to run something you wrote?



Could be a genuine case but it's worse that the location is Russia (no offence to cosmo12).

And lol at your sig, I vaguely remember that night.  Ended up with a bruised fist after punching a dance floor........


----------



## Cosmo12 (Apr 8, 2017)

I've attached the source code of a benchmark. Programm is written on c# with no obfuscator. You can easily check the exe with programms like ilspy. Also you can check exe on virus total.

I have got some results on Intel's CPUs here:
https://forums.overclockers.ru/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=574496&sid=3ad9a840b1796e8a8158cc039befb982
But I'd like to see results on Ryzen' 1700x and 1800x.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Apr 8, 2017)

Cosmo12 said:


> Hello guys! I'd like to update my laptop to ryzen7. I have written a benchmark, showing CPU speed in parsing text files.
> 
> Here is results for my CPU (i7-3610qm). Can you test your ryzens and upload results?



There are so far no announcements that we'll see Ryzen in its current form in notebooks, so if you want one, you're looking at getting a desktop system.


----------



## Cosmo12 (Apr 8, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> There are so far no announcements that we'll see Ryzen in its current form in notebooks, so if you want one, you're looking at getting a desktop system.


Yes, I want to buy desktop. I have to do a lot of work parsing big text files, and my laptop' i7 (even with 8 threads and SSD) is not that good, I suppose.

LGA2011-3 platform is too expensive, so I took a look to new Ryzen's family.


----------



## notb (Apr 8, 2017)

Cosmo12 said:


> Yes, I want to buy desktop. I have to do a lot of work parsing big text files, and my laptop' i7 (even with 8 threads and SSD) is not that good, I suppose.
> 
> LGA2011-3 platform is too expensive, so I took a look to new Ryzen's family.


Are you sure your problems benefit from parallel processing? Because some problems are serial by nature and it can't be helped.

If the problem can be solved by parallel processing, will your program utilize Ryzen's potential? A lot of software stops at well under 8 threads - you'll get literally zero gain from moving to a 16T Ryzen.

Moving to the hardware side of the issue - how big is the problem? How much performance boost do you need?
Your CPU is already pretty fast. A Ryzen 7 1700 (and the whole desktop around it...) will give you less than double of the performance you have now in multi-tasking (and a lot less in single-thread).
Is this a lot for you? I'm asking, because if you're not limited by the performance in general (e.g. you're not processing something live or your problems are not expected to take more than age of the Universe), you might hardly notice the difference.
I mean: something that took 6 hours a day, now might take 3 hours. That's not a huge boost if you can leave your PC working at night. 
At least for me it would not compensate for having to buy and live with a desktop, if I was already used to notebook's comfort.

If you need a higher boost in processing speed, you could think about GPGPU. It's pretty effective in some tasks. You might find it to be 100x faster instead of a mere 2x.


----------



## Cosmo12 (Apr 8, 2017)

notb said:


> Are you sure your problems benefit from parallel processing? Because some problems are serial by nature and it can't be helped.
> 
> If the problem can be solved by parallel processing, will your program utilize Ryzen's potential? A lot of software stops at well under 8 threads - you'll get literally zero gain from moving to a 16T Ryzen.
> 
> ...



Hello, notb!

Yes, I'm sure that will have behefits from parallel processing. One of my programs parses big text databases (about 30 Gb of data). CPU used on 100%, SSD used on 50 - 60% during multithread parsing. Thus, I think my CPU is a bottleneck. 

Total speed is about 80 Mb per second. So, when I'm testing my program, I have to run it many times, and every time I have to wait several minutes process to complete. That is why I'm thinking to change my laptop to desktop with more cores. If I will found with Ryzen or Xeon that SSD became a battleneck and CPU is not used on 100%, I will buy more speedy SSD or will make RAID with too SDD.


----------



## notb (Apr 8, 2017)

Cosmo12 said:


> Hello, notb!
> 
> Yes, I'm sure that will have behefits from parallel processing. One of my programs parses big text databases (about 30 Gb of data). CPU used on 100%, SSD used on 50 - 60% during multithread parsing. Thus, I think my CPU is a bottleneck.



Fine. 
I wanted to ask because I also process a lot of text/numerical data and honestly... I can't push myself to spend the extra $80 on a 7700 (instead of 7600 that I wanted in the first place). The extra 30% performance (if not less) is not giving me any new quality - just more idle time or slightly larger simulation samples.



Cosmo12 said:


> Total speed is about 80 Mb per second. So, when I'm testing my program, I have to run it many times, and every time I have to wait several minutes process to complete. That is why I'm thinking to change my laptop to desktop with more cores. If I will found with Ryzen or Xeon that SSD became a battleneck and CPU is not used on 100%, I will buy more speedy SSD or will make RAID with too SDD.



That depends on the tasks and data structure. For me data speed has always been crucial. In the next build I'm going for a HDD RAID + NVMe SSD... and maybe an Optane cache in the future.
I'm especially interested in the Optane. I use RAMdisk a lot, but it seems a fast cache could make it obsolete (which I would welcome gladly).

You could still check if GPGPU is a possible answer to your needs. And if it isn't... well... with Ryzen you'll have to buy a GPU anyway.


----------



## Cosmo12 (Apr 8, 2017)

notb said:


> Fine.
> I wanted to ask because I also process a lot of text/numerical data and honestly... I can't push myself to spend the extra $80 on a 7700 (instead of 7600 that I wanted in the first place). The extra 30% performance (if not less) is not giving me any new quality - just more idle time or slightly larger simulation samples.
> That depends on the tasks and data structure. For me data speed has always been crucial. In the next build I'm going for a HDD RAID + NVMe SSD... and maybe an Optane cache in the future.
> I'm especially interested in the Optane. I use RAMdisk a lot, but it seems a fast cache could make it obsolete (which I would welcome gladly).
> You could still check if GPGPU is a possible answer to your needs. And if it isn't... well. With Ryzen you'll have to buy a GPU anyway.



As I know, if you want to use Optane in future, you have to buy i7-7700, not i7-6700, because Optane will supports only last Intel CPU' family.

Using GPU in processing is not possible in my case, because my programs used to be run on office PCs with no powerfull GPU. Everage user' machine looks i5 or i7 with built in GPU, or Athlon FX with low end office' GPU.

That is pity that Ryzen doesn't have GPU, of course. Because I do not need gaming GPU, Built in' GPU would be enough.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 8, 2017)

Well this year is supposed to see an AM4 4 core 8 thread APU, not sure which quarter though (2nd or 3rd).


----------



## notb (Apr 9, 2017)

Cosmo12 said:


> As I know, if you want to use Optane in future, you have to buy i7-7700, not i7-6700, because Optane will supports only last Intel CPU' family.


Correct. That's why I'm only choosing between 7700 and 7600 (not 6700 ).
Anyway, in Poland 7700 is actually cheaper than 6700. I guess 6700 stock is running low and people still want it for wider OS support.
[/QUOTE]



Cosmo12 said:


> Using GPU in processing is not possible in my case, because my programs used to be run on office PCs with no powerfull GPU. Everage user' machine looks i5 or i7 with built in GPU, or Athlon FX with low end office' GPU.



Some data analysis environments let you switch between CPU and GPU pretty much without changing the workflow (some need a bit of tweaking). But if you write everything from scratch in C, this could in fact be fairly difficult. 



Cosmo12 said:


> That is pity that Ryzen doesn't have GPU, of course. Because I do not need gaming GPU, Built in' GPU would be enough.


Well - that's the price for having 8 cores at this moment.



Tatty_One said:


> Well this year is supposed to see an AM4 4 core 8 thread APU, not sure which quarter though (2nd or 3rd).


Current leaks (to be confirmed in few days) suggest that Ryzen 4C/8T is already losing to Intel counterpart in benchmarks. Zen APU will have to be either slower or more expensive than the non-IGP Ryzen.
So other than the fact that AMD's IGP will most likely be a lot more powerful than Intel's, APUs will hardly stand out (just like their predecessors).


----------



## Kanan (Apr 9, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Could be a genuine case but it's worse that the location is Russia (no offence to cosmo12).
> 
> And lol at your sig, I vaguely remember that night.  Ended up with a bruised fist after punching a dance floor........


Funny I'm not the only one here going to metal clubs


----------



## Rickkins (Apr 12, 2017)

Cosmo12 said:


> Hello guys! I'd like to update my laptop to ryzen7. I have written a benchmark, showing CPU speed in parsing text files.
> 
> Here is results for my CPU (i7-3610qm). Can you test your ryzens and upload results?
> 
> ...




Writing files for a test... done in 3.68 sec.

Processor - AMD Ryzen 7 1700 Eight-Core Processor         
Cores - 8, virtual cores - 16

Singlethread testing...  done in 22.17 sec.
Multithread testing...  done in 3.06 sec.

Multithreading coefficient - 7.25

So, I noticed my new ram didn't seem to be running at the listed speed, so I set it to the proper speed and got 3 beeps(and damn near a heart attack) upon reboot.

I guess it eventually reset itself back because after a few attempts it finally rebooted.

Thoughts...???

Thanks


----------



## HTC (Apr 12, 2017)

Rickkins said:


> *So, I noticed my new ram didn't seem to be running at the listed speed, so I set it to the proper speed* and got 3 beeps(and damn near a heart attack) upon reboot.
> 
> I guess it eventually reset itself back because after a few attempts it finally rebooted.
> 
> ...



Try the "baby steps" approach and see if that helps.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 12, 2017)

I am guessing your memory is dual ranked and defaulted to SPD of 2400 or 2666mhz?


----------



## Rickkins (Apr 12, 2017)

eries Ripjaws V 

Memory Type DDR4 

Capacity 16GB (8GBx2) 

Multi-Channel Kit Dual Channel Kit 

Tested Speed 3200MHz 

Tested Latency 16-16-16-36-2N 

Tested Voltage 1.35v 

Registered/Unbuffered Unbuffered 

Error Checking Non-ECC 

SPD Speed 2133MHz 

SPD Voltage 1.20v


----------



## erocker (Apr 12, 2017)

Need part number for your RAM. Specs don't matter as much as if they're actually supported by AMD.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 12, 2017)

erocker said:


> Need part number for your RAM. Specs don't matter as much as if they're actually supported by AMD.



They aren't the only gskill products on the QVL at 3200 CL14. Those are not samsung -b


----------



## Rickkins (Apr 12, 2017)

F4-3200C16D-16GVK


----------



## Rickkins (Apr 13, 2017)

Ok, I think I see where I went wrong. 

My ram does not appear on the officially supported list.

And not of the rams listed list at 3200.
But the board clearly says 3200.

I feel hosed...


----------



## cdawall (Apr 13, 2017)

Rickkins said:


> Ok, I think I see where I went wrong.
> 
> My ram does not appear on the officially supported list.
> 
> ...



Next time do a bit more research even before launch it was made completely known that they would not do over 2666 with dual rank dimms with launch BIOS's.


----------



## Rickkins (Apr 13, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Next time do a bit more research even before launch it was made completely known that they would not do over 2666 with dual rank dimms with launch BIOS's.



Quite right, shouldda wouldda couldda. But didn't.
I gotta wonder why the claim 3200 when clearly that is not accurate.

Mind you, it's not the end of the world, the system is already way faster than I'll ever need....


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 13, 2017)

Rickkins said:


> Quite right, shouldda wouldda couldda. But didn't.
> I gotta wonder why the claim 3200 when clearly that is not accurate.
> 
> Mind you, it's not the end of the world, the system is already way faster than I'll ever need....



I was super careful and paid extra due to the rarity of GSkill ram in the UK. But got the RGB version of the ones on the QVL. Been fine since the start.

Had problems in general with stability at 3.9Ghz but now I've sussed why. Huge Vdroop meant 1.43v was dropping to 1.36-1.39v.
Used a higher LLC, (4 or 5) and the 1.44 is coming through as 1.43 under stress test load.  Temps are okay on air (Tctl 70 max but average 65) and VRM only maxed at 65, despite phases on extreme.
Getting happier now. 4Ghz might be out of the question as the temps rise another 20 degrees just for 100mhz


----------



## Rickkins (Apr 13, 2017)

Yea, that's the thing too. I moved quicker than I might have because I wanted to hand down my fx-8350 to my son, who lost everything but the cloths on his back in a fire 1 month ago. He really needed a win.

So, it is what it is and no regrets.
http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/five-alarm-fire-destroys-pierrefonds-building-1.3321571


----------



## cdawall (Apr 13, 2017)

Rickkins said:


> Quite right, shouldda wouldda couldda. But didn't.
> I gotta wonder why the claim 3200 when clearly that is not accurate.
> 
> Mind you, it's not the end of the world, the system is already way faster than I'll ever need....



if you pick the correct ram it clocks just fine


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 13, 2017)

cdawall said:


> if you pick the correct ram it clocks just fine



What cooler are you using?  Not that I'm switching from my current one.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 13, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> What cooler are you using?  Not that I'm switching from my current one.



Custom loop


----------



## infrared (Apr 13, 2017)

I've had up to 3650mhz stable on the ram with no real difficulty, the memory controller on the chip seems very capable. I'd put money on it they can do more when new bioses are released with tertiary timings available.

Edit: iirc you got even further than that with high SoC voltage, right @cdawall ?


----------



## Aenra (Apr 13, 2017)

Does anyone have any 2x16Gigs to share results with? And if yes, paste their code please


----------



## cdawall (Apr 13, 2017)

infrared said:


> I've had up to 3650mhz stable on the ram with no real difficulty, the memory controller on the chip seems very capable. I'd put money on it they can do more when new bioses are released with tertiary timings available.
> 
> Edit: iirc you got even further than that with high SoC voltage, right @cdawall ?



3700-3800 was were I was stopped.


----------



## HTC (Apr 13, 2017)

Aenra said:


> Does anyone have any 2x16Gigs to share results with? And if yes, paste their code please



Have you tried searching here? What motherboard you want to pair it with?


----------



## Aenra (Apr 13, 2017)

HTC said:


> Have you tried searching here? What motherboard you want to pair it with?



I've got a combo in my head, but since i still got time to build it (it's a birthday gift rig) am waiting it out, see where we are in the near future.
Am asking because the few Ryzen mobos QVLed RAM sets i've seen at 16x2 go around 2400MHz. Tops. So was wondering if we've got anyone that's managed to push them higher/how much 

edit: combo.. forgot, lol. The ASRock 370 Pro gaming + GSkill Flares (2x8g) / Fortis (2x16g), depending on the above.


----------



## HTC (Apr 13, 2017)

Aenra said:


> I've got a combo in my head, but since i still got time to build it (it's a birthday gift rig) am waiting it out, see where we are in the near future.
> Am asking because the few Ryzen mobos QVLed RAM sets i've seen at 16x2 go around 2400MHz. Tops. So was wondering if we've got anyone that's managed to push them higher/how much



You can still search by motherboard or by RAM in that site: see if that helps narrow it down.


----------



## Aenra (Apr 13, 2017)

HTC said:


> You can still search by motherboard or by RAM in that site: see if that helps narrow it down.



Will check again, but unless i missed something, the ones you can click for further results are all 4x8g.


----------



## RealNeil (Apr 13, 2017)

So 4-8GB sticks don't work well? That's what would be ideal for my use.


----------



## hellrazor (Apr 13, 2017)

Does anybody know what kinds of numbers memtest gives for cache speeds?


----------



## cdawall (Apr 13, 2017)

RealNeil said:


> So 4-8GB sticks don't work well? That's what would be ideal for my use.



4-8GB sticks are the best actually just make sure it is a single dimm per channel load of single rank memory.


----------



## RealNeil (Apr 13, 2017)

cdawall said:


> 4-8GB sticks are the best actually just make sure it is a single dimm per channel load of single rank memory.



I have two brands (2-8GB sticks) to try out on the motherboard. 
Geil and GSKill. Both are 3200MHz speed, and both are a single sided design. 
Whatever works the best, I'll buy two more of.


----------



## Aenra (Apr 14, 2017)

cdawall said:


> 4-8GB sticks are the best actually



Was thinking that what with Ryzens being dual channel, i'd rather go with 2x16 theoretically; compatibility-wise it's also O.K., as they're single-sided too. 
(assuming of course people could push them to 3000ish, hence my enquiring)

That dumb?


----------



## notb (Apr 14, 2017)

Aenra said:


> Was thinking that what with Ryzens being dual channel, i'd rather go with 2x16 theoretically; compatibility-wise it's also O.K., as they're single-sided too.
> (assuming of course people could push them to 3000ish, hence my enquiring)
> 
> That dumb?



Dual-channel means the "dual-channel" thing (whatever it is - lets not get too nerdy ) is applied to pairs of DIMM.
So if your mobo has 4 slots, it actually has 2 pairs of dual-channel slots.

There are a few reasons why you should try to minimize the number of DIMM used (if it can fulfil your RAM size needs):
1) usually lower price ratio ($/GB)
2) less power used, less heat
3) lower stress on the memory controller
4) upgradability

Get 2x8GB.


----------



## Aenra (Apr 14, 2017)

Let me rephrase it. I meant that it being dual chanel, not quad, i'd have thought i'd be better off fitting all my gigs in two channels, rather than in four. Since only two at a time are interleaved.

Hence my enquiring about frequency differencies, assuming anyone's done it. Hope that's clearer now.


----------



## notb (Apr 14, 2017)

Aenra said:


> Let me rephrase it. I meant that it being dual chanel, not quad, i'd have thought i'd be better off fitting all my gigs in two channels, rather than in four. Since only two at a time are interleaved.


OK, I see the issue. Your last sentence is not true. 

"Dual-channel" means the memory controller can "join" 2 modules for improved performance. It doesn't mean this is applied to only two at a time. It works in pairs.
If you populate 4 slots, you'll end up with 2 pairs of modules - each working in a dual-channel setup. The "dual-channel effect" will be the same.


----------



## Aenra (Apr 14, 2017)

notb said:


> Your last sentence is not true



This has confused me from the start.. i am missing simpler, more basic information and i think this is what's causing the confusion 
May i ask it differently?

Assume a program requiring 17Gigs of RAM to function. Would there be a difference between a Ryzen rig's having 2x16g @3200 or 4x8g @3200 of RAM?
(because i thought the answer is 'yes', but if i understood you, you're telling me 'no').


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Apr 14, 2017)

notb said:


> There are a few reasons why you should try to minimize the number of DIMM used (if it can fulfil your RAM size needs):
> 1) usually lower price ratio ($/GB)
> 2) less power used, less heat
> 3) lower stress on the memory controller
> 4) upgradability



Also less latency with 2 vs 4 sticks.


----------



## RealNeil (Apr 14, 2017)

Aenra said:


> Would there be a difference between a Ryzen rig's having 2x16g @3200 or 4x8g @3200 of RAM?



Some people swear that the ~two larger sticks~ solution is best. I always use all of the slots on my boards.              
I heard that it's easier to OC with fewer sticks. (something about less stress on the memory controller)

The only system that I've had that was that way was an FX-9590 system. I had to have just two. No more.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 14, 2017)

Aenra said:


> Does anyone have any 2x16Gigs to share results with? *And if yes, paste their code please *



Does this help......

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/62vp2g/clearing_up_any_samsung_bdie_confusion_eg_on/


----------



## cadaveca (Apr 14, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> Does this help......
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/62vp2g/clearing_up_any_samsung_bdie_confusion_eg_on/


Oh look, it's a bunch of G.Skill only. 



Ok, well, maybe a few others.


----------



## notb (Apr 14, 2017)

Aenra said:


> This has confused me from the start.. i am missing simpler, more basic information and i think this is what's causing the confusion
> May i ask it differently?
> 
> Assume a program requiring 17Gigs of RAM to function. Would there be a difference between a Ryzen rig's having 2x16g @3200 or 4x8g @3200 of RAM?
> (because i thought the answer is 'yes', but if i understood you, you're telling me 'no').



If you think about a performance gain stemming from dual-channel, then NO. In both situations all of your modules will run at a performance granted by dual-channel configuration (so what a module offers + a premium from pairing).

But if you're thinking about general performance, then the 2x16GB will be faster. Less modules mean less work for the memory controller.



RealNeil said:


> Some people swear that the ~two larger sticks~ solution is best. I always use all of the slots on my boards.
> I heard that it's easier to OC with fewer sticks. (something about less stress on the memory controller)


Well... people swear different things all the time. Listening to them doesn't really make one smarter.

I know we're all very busy being "computer enthusiasts" - writing posts, doing benchmarks and thinking about hardware upgrades.
Still, why not find a few hours a week in our busy schedules and actually learn something about the computers that are so dear to us? 

Once one understands how RAM works (it's enough to know the idea and mechanisms - becoming an electronic engineer is not necessary), it's fairly obvious why less RAM modules are preferable.


----------



## RealNeil (Apr 14, 2017)

notb said:


> Still, why not find a few hours a week in our busy schedules and actually learn something about the computers that are so dear to us?



Smart-ass,.......

I can't tell for sure if you're a PAB or a BAP


----------



## Kanan (Apr 15, 2017)

I always started with half-populated Ram slots on my new systems/new mainboards (eg. Socket A, Socket 939, Socket AM2+) and later populated the other half (= full population) and never had any problems or performance decrease. Ryzen is a special thing atm though, for Ryzen I would go with 2x8 or 2x16 (single sided Samsung B) at about 3200 MHz speed. What's so special about it? Well it's maybe the first time in history you have to actually really know which Ram you're buying, meaning OEM and it's exact specifications so you don't buy the wrong ones. Nobody wants Hynix for Ryzen atm. and Samsung E is inferior as well. It's the first time there's so much fuzz about Ram, that I hear of, in my life.


----------



## HTC (Apr 15, 2017)

Kanan said:


> I always started with half-populated Ram slots on my new systems/new mainboards (eg. Socket A, Socket 939, Socket AM2+) and later populated the other half (= full population) and never had any problems or performance decrease. *Ryzen is a special thing atm though, for Ryzen I would go with 2x8 or 2x16 (single sided Samsung B) at about 3200 MHz speed. What's so special about it?* Well it's maybe the first time in history you have to actually really know which Ram you're buying, meaning OEM and it's exact specifications so you don't buy the wrong ones. Nobody wants Hynix for Ryzen atm. and Samsung E is inferior as well. It's the first time there's so much fuzz about Ram, that I hear of, in my life.



It isn't that simple: @ least not @ the moment, which may ofc change as BIOSes mature.

Atm (using Samsung B-die RAM), 2*16 GB 3200 work well with the AsRock Taichi but you'll be hardpressed to do the same with 4*8 GB 3200. OTOH, 4*8 GB 3200 work well with the ASUS CH6 but the same can't be said of 2*16 GB 3200.

Read this post and the following 3 replies.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 15, 2017)

HTC said:


> It isn't that simple: @ least not @ the moment, which may ofc change as BIOSes mature.
> 
> Atm (using Samsung B-die RAM), 2*16 GB 3200 work well with the AsRock Taichi but you'll be hardpressed to do the same with 4*8 GB 3200. OTOH, 4*8 GB 3200 work well with the ASUS CH6 but the same can't be said of 2*16 GB 3200.
> 
> Read this post and the following 3 replies.


I didn't said it's simple, read the whole post and don't stop after I said "what's so special about it?". I actually went ahead and described further.


----------



## HTC (Apr 15, 2017)

Kanan said:


> I didn't said it's simple, read the whole post and don't stop after I said "what's so special about it?". I actually went ahead and described further.



Either i miss understood you or you miss understood me, i think.

The approach you mentioned works for the Taichi but not for the CH6 (not with 2*16 3200 *atm*), which was my point.

Suggest you read the link i posted.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 15, 2017)

HTC said:


> Either i miss understood you or you miss understood me, i think.
> 
> The approach you mentioned works for the Taichi but not for the CH6 (not with 2*16 3200 *atm*), which was my point.
> 
> Suggest you read the link i posted.


I read stuff about Ryzen all the time and I saw the CH6 already do way higher clocks than just 3200 - it does 3200 with pretty much any Ram that is capable. I didn't mention any "approach" in regards to Ryzen aside from buying 2x8 or 2x16 3200 Ram which isn't something special - this should run on multiple boards by now. 

In the end, yeah I think you misunderstood me. I just talked about something in general.


----------



## Aenra (Apr 15, 2017)

Thank you all for your patience and help 
[it's why i occasionally ask the same thing in different ways, i know it can seem like stubborness, but things do have a way of coming up]

@HTC thanks for that link, will make an account over there so i can /sub to that thread.

If anyone else has working numbers (freq + model serial) on a 2x16g configuration, do please post them.


----------



## notb (Apr 15, 2017)

Kanan said:


> I always started with half-populated Ram slots on my new systems/new mainboards (eg. Socket A, Socket 939, Socket AM2+) and later populated the other half (= full population) and never had any problems or performance decrease.


No one said this is a significant effect. It should be just a few %, so you might have not noticed.
And keep in mind dual-channel also gives fairly small performance gain in real-world scenarios.

Thing is though: these small % add up. So if someone is really going for a highly optimized build, he should also consider such things. I'm not saying this is sensible, but most hobbies aren't. 
Let's be honest: people spend hundreds of $ on overclocking, but the actual gain in many tasks (including gaming) is often fairly marginal. One shouldn't waste a lot of this gain on something as silly as wrong RAM choice.


----------



## trparky (Apr 16, 2017)

This may seem like a really stupid series of questions but I'm going to ask them anyways. Sorry if I come off like a total n00b.

I've heard of the term IPC being thrown about, I know what it means (Instructions Per Clock) but what are the numbers for Ryzen? I've not seen an actual number. Everyone talks about gaming or encoding benchmarks but I've not seen any raw IPC numbers being thrown out. What are they? How do they compare to that of Intel? AMD said that the new Ryzen chip is 50% faster in IPC's than previous chips but 50% faster compared to what number? People have said that Ryzen has less IPC's than Intel but without actual raw numbers I can't even begin to personally compare them. Do these raw numbers mean anything?

Yeah... there's my n00b set of questions for the day. *walks away sheepishly*


----------



## bpgt64 (Apr 16, 2017)

trparky said:


> This may seem like a really stupid question but I'm going to ask it anyways. Sorry if I come off like a total n00b.
> 
> I've heard of the term IPC being thrown about, I know what it means (Instructions Per Clock) but what are the numbers for Ryzen? I've not seen an actual number. Everyone talks about gaming or encoding benchmarks but I've not seen any raw IPC numbers being thrown out. What are they? How do they compare to that of Intel? AMD said that the new Ryzen chip is 50% faster in IPC's than previous chips but 50% faster compared to what number? People have said that Ryzen has less IPC's than Intel but without actual raw numbers I can't even begin to personally compare them. Do these raw numbers mean anything?
> 
> Yeah... there's my n00b question for the day. *walks away sheepishly*




Read the site;  https://www.techpowerup.com/212315/amd-zen-offers-a-40-ipc-increase-over-excavator

Been on a 1700x for about a month, getting higher minimum frames and less drop outs than my old 6600k.


----------



## trparky (Apr 16, 2017)

OK I read that article you ( @bpgt64 ) linked to but I fail to see numbers. I see graphs, sure, but no numbers.


----------



## hellrazor (Apr 16, 2017)

notb said:


> No one said this is a significant effect. It should be just a few %, so you might have not noticed.
> And keep in mind dual-channel also gives fairly small performance gain in real-world scenarios.
> 
> Thing is though: these small % add up. So if someone is really going for a highly optimized build, he should also consider such things. I'm not saying this is sensible, but most hobbies aren't.
> Let's be honest: people spend hundreds of $ on overclocking, but the actual gain in many tasks (including gaming) is often fairly marginal. One shouldn't waste a lot of this gain on something as silly as wrong RAM choice.


You're smoking too much. Ryzen is kinda fucky, for sure, but outside of Ryzen the time it takes to get data from main RAM is determined solely by the memory controller, operating frequency, and timings - none of which change by simply adding more identical sticks.


----------



## r9 (Apr 16, 2017)

trparky said:


> This may seem like a really stupid series of questions but I'm going to ask them anyways. Sorry if I come off like a total n00b.
> 
> I've heard of the term IPC being thrown about, I know what it means (Instructions Per Clock) but what are the numbers for Ryzen? I've not seen an actual number. Everyone talks about gaming or encoding benchmarks but I've not seen any raw IPC numbers being thrown out. What are they? How do they compare to that of Intel? AMD said that the new Ryzen chip is 50% faster in IPC's than previous chips but 50% faster compared to what number? People have said that Ryzen has less IPC's than Intel but without actual raw numbers I can't even begin to personally compare them. Do these raw numbers mean anything?
> 
> Yeah... there's my n00b set of questions for the day. *walks away sheepishly*



IPC is relative performance Core vs Core at same frequency and its not a fixed number.
On one application Intel might be 20% faster on other Ryzen might be 20% faster the average of all of them would be the IPC but that  will always be relative to what you're comparing it to.
In office application rendering and stuff Ryzen seems to be on par in games lacking maybe 10% and this depends what games with what graphics card the test was done etc.


----------



## trparky (Apr 17, 2017)

OK, I thought IPC meant the raw number of instructions that the processor can carry out per clock cycle.


----------



## hellrazor (Apr 17, 2017)

Different instructions can take different amounts of cycles to complete.


----------



## trparky (Apr 17, 2017)

Does anyone have authenticated CPUz benchmark numbers on the R5 1600x? I've read about terms like Dhrystone and Whetstone. Do we have numbers for those? Compared to that of say... an Ivy Bridge 3570k?

I guess what I'm going to get answered is... If I bought an R5 1600x today and I compared the overall performance that my current Intel Core i5 3570k would I see a noticeable difference in performance in general computing and gaming? Or would the difference be so negligible that it would be laughable at best? I'm trying to decide on whether or not I should stay with the rig I have for another year or if I should just bite the bullet and build a new AMD Ryzen-based rig? Or should I wait for Ryzen v2.0?

I just can't decide.


----------



## notb (Apr 17, 2017)

hellrazor said:


> You're smoking too much. Ryzen is kinda fucky, for sure, but outside of Ryzen the time it takes to get data from main RAM is determined solely by the memory controller, operating frequency, and timings - none of which change by simply adding more identical sticks.



"*by the memory controller*" - exactly . MC performance varies depending on how much DIMMs it has to manage.

I've never said anything that's Ryzen-specific.


----------



## hellrazor (Apr 17, 2017)

notb said:


> "*by the memory controller*" - exactly . MC performance varies depending on how much DIMMs it has to manage.
> 
> I've never said anything that's Ryzen-specific.


No it doesn't.


----------



## GoldenX (Apr 17, 2017)

trparky said:


> Does anyone have authenticated CPUz benchmark numbers on the R5 1600x? I've read about terms like Dhrystone and Whetstone. Do we have numbers for those? Compared to that of say... an Ivy Bridge 3570k?
> 
> I guess what I'm going to get answered is... If I bought an R5 1600x today and I compared the overall performance that my current Intel Core i5 3570k would I see a noticeable difference in performance in general computing and gaming? Or would the difference be so negligible that it would be laughable at best? I'm trying to decide on whether or not I should stay with the rig I have for another year or if I should just bite the bullet and build a new AMD Ryzen-based rig? Or should I wait for Ryzen v2.0?
> 
> I just can't decide.



The longer you wait, the better components you get. I at the very least would wait for motherboards to be a little more matured on memory compatibility.
In general computing, the 1600X should be a lot better, you are comparing 12 threads to just 4 of a similar IPC. In games I expect the performance to be similar.
I would consider the non-X version, they all overclock the same, so a normal version would save you some money.


----------



## trparky (Apr 17, 2017)

I'm thinking I may wait another year for Ryzen v2.0, hopefully by then the following will be fixed...
*1.* The motherboard issues with RAM will be solved.
*2.* The IPC will be better and may even be more inline with what Intel has to offer.
*3.* Higher stock clock speeds.
*4.* Infinity Fabric improvements.

Unless of course my current system gives up its ghost, it is after all five years old which is quite old when it comes to high-end, always on electronics.

*pets the side of his case* You're a good PC, yes you are.


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 17, 2017)

trparky said:


> I'm thinking I may wait another year for Ryzen v2.0, hopefully by then the following will be fixed...
> *1.* The motherboard issues with RAM will be solved.
> *2.* The IPC will be better and may even be more inline with what Intel has to offer.
> *3.* Higher stock clock speeds.
> ...




2. IPC is just fine.


----------



## trparky (Apr 17, 2017)

Can you post the Single and Multi-Threaded Numbers instead of the percentages?


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 17, 2017)

trparky said:


> Can you post the Single and Multi-Threaded Numbers instead of the percentages?



Certainly.  Whatever the score is in comparsion to other folks, I find the chip performs very well in all scenarios for my uses.  Granted an i7 7700K would have been faster for gaming but I'm hopeful in 2-3 years 4+ cores will be minumums and the value of Ryzen is finally realised.  Like most things AMD, too much too early 

My chip is all cores at 3.9Ghz.


----------



## trparky (Apr 17, 2017)

Holy crap... Your numbers are 2279 for Single Threaded and 20188 for Multi-Threaded whereas mine are 1560 and 5337 respectively.

I would probably get the 1600x since the stock clock is higher, I'm really not into the overclocking scene. I don't exactly have the money to run out and buy a new motherboard and chip if I manage to f**k up hard while overclocking. I haven't even overclocked my 3570K CPU out of fear of frying it or bricking the motherboard (I have heard you can do that where even a BIOS jumper-based reset won't be able to get it to POST again).

*Edit:* JayzTwoCents managed to brick his motherboard while overclocking. Oops.


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 17, 2017)

trparky said:


> Holy crap... Your numbers are 2279 for Single Threaded and 20188 for Multi-Threaded whereas mine are 1560 and 5337 respectively.
> 
> I would probably get the 1600x since the stock clock is higher, I'm really not into the overclocking scene. I don't exactly have the money to run out and buy a new motherboard and chip if I manage to f**k up hard while overclocking. I haven't even overclocked my 3570K CPU out of fear of frying it or bricking the motherboard (I have heard you can do that where even a BIOS jumper-based reset won't be able to get it to POST again).



It's quite easy to get 3.8Ghz on a Ryzen chip and that's going to be good enough.  But with the price factored in it's damn superb.  People will still buy Intel (I might again in future) but I was not paying their prices for a 6-8 core chip when Ryzen were offering far, far better value for money.  My CPU is on air and it's running fine.  My 6 core 3930k hit 4.4 but needed to be at 4.2Ghz to be stable.  This 1700X is a good upgrade from that chip, at 3.9Ghz it's faster than it was at 4.2Ghz and it was part of a large custom water loop.


----------



## trparky (Apr 17, 2017)

Oh crap, your chip is the R7 1700X, I didn't notice that. I wonder what the confirmed CPUz numbers are for the R5 1600X at stock clock.

Edit: What gets me is that I can't find confirmed Ryzen R5 CPUz numbers. I've looked, I can't find them!


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Apr 17, 2017)

Reason IPCs are given in percentages instead of actual IPC count is because it varies a lot from game to game. So you're better off going by percentages.


bpgt64 said:


> Been on a 1700x for about a month, getting higher minimum frames and less drop outs than my old 6600k.


I really wish people would be more specific about their Ryzen experiences.

1. How much higher are the minimum frames?
2. Do the higher minimums make gameplay noticeably smoother?
3. What clock speed are you running the CPU at?
4. What CPU cooler are you using?
5. What RAM speed are you running?
6. What MB are you using?
7. If OCing, what method, just multi, or manual?
8. What CPU voltage (and other voltages)  if manual?
9. Why did you opt for the X model of 1700 when most non X models OC to same speed X OCs to?

I know that's a lot of questions, but often times when someone raves about Ryzen, I end up finding they did quite a lot of exhaustive tinkering to finally get the desired results. I'm also wondering why you still have just the 6600k listed in your system spec chart? If I have a new component to rave about on a forum, I right away want to upgrade my spec chart.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Apr 17, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> I know that's a lot of questions, but often times when someone raves about Ryzen,* I end up finding they did quite a lot of exhaustive tinkering to finally get the desired results.* I'm also wondering why you still have just the 6600k listed in your system spec chart.



I'm actually looking forward to my ryzen build for this precise reason, just feels more challenging and akin to how overclocking used to be, of course I'll be feeling different at the time when I'm trying to get my 3200 RAM stable and get past 3.9ghz just for the hell of it lol


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Apr 17, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> ...I'll be feeling different at the time when I'm trying to get my 3200 RAM stable and get past 3.9ghz just for the hell of it lol


It usually doesn't pay to try to go beyond the average OC limit due to minimal gains and shorter lifespan.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Apr 17, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> It usually doesn't pay to try to go beyond the average OC limit due to minimal gains and shorter lifespan.


Overclocking in general isn't recommended but where's the fun in that? ​


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Apr 17, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Overclocking in general isn't recommended but where's the fun in that? ​


Anyone who's ever had a chip that won't OC worth a damn already knows the answer to that.

OCing is always a gamble, and we all know gambling is skewed toward the house, not the customer.

That said, these Ryzen chips may get Intel to put their Coffee Lake offerings at slightly higher stock clocks than their current 6 and 8 core chips, but that's about the most industry influence they'll manage I think.


----------



## notb (Apr 17, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Overclocking in general isn't recommended but where's the fun in that? ​


Let's hope AMD also makes some products for people who like the kinds of "fun" other than worrying about OC stability and component compatibility.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Apr 17, 2017)

notb said:


> Let's hope AMD also makes some products for people who like the kinds of "fun" other than worrying about OC stability and component compatibility.


Such as what? They are plenty stable without oc so what's the point you're trying to make other than trolling? Go fap in the i7 owners forum


----------



## trparky (Apr 17, 2017)

Does anyone have confirmed CPUz numbers for the Ryzen R5 1600x? I've not been able to find them anywhere, at least not confirmed/authentic numbers. I've Googled


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Apr 17, 2017)

notb said:


> Let's hope AMD also makes some products for people who like the kinds of "fun" other than worrying about OC stability and component compatibility.


EXACTLY


NdMk2o1o said:


> Such as what? They are plenty stable without oc so what's the point you're trying to make other than trolling? Go fap in the i7 owners forum


It's never just about stability with high core count CPUs used for gaming. We all know they are clocked lower, especially lower than Intel quads, which is why so many are trying to OC them.

When the fall back is commonly, "Yeah, but they're great for productivity", that only makes it more obvious they aren't fully ready for prime time where gaming is concerned.

Honestly though, it's quite a step up for AMD from their Bullcrapper chips, but they kinda did shit the bed yet again, this time trying to be too secret and not communicating well enough with RAM and MB manufacturers, and that is on them.

If they can get CCX to be more optimized and not keep partnering manufacturers in the dark, maybe next go round they actually WILL compete with Intel better, but for now, Ryzen is a work in progress, and I don't like to experiment with my component money.


----------



## Aenra (Apr 17, 2017)

I know it's pointless (there is no reply i can respect, it being since there's no logical reply anyone could give), but i'm in the mood 

Tell me how "they shit the bed" again please, when they offer an 8core that is less than half the price of mine and is almost equal in performance; am curious.
(yes, almost equal. You would never 'feel' the 9, 10 [pick a number] FPS difference at an overall FPS of 130+, you would never 'feel' the 3nano second "delay" in 7zip compression or whatever)

Do you like paying 1200$ so you can post synthetic benchmarks in the internet? That it?

P.S. agreed on the launch issues, needless to say. That could have been handled a lot better. As long as we also keep in mind that: 

- when you make a day 1 purchase, you are in effect accepting such risks; in advance. No one to blame but you, lacking the patience to wait for a couple of months.
- i am well below the average in terms of knowledge, yet i built and OCed a Ryzen rig with literally zero issues. None. All i did was follow QVLs and use my head. Didn't even 'fish' for Beta BIOSes. As i'm no expert, this tells me there's been some gross exaggerating going around.


----------



## notb (Apr 17, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Such as what? They are plenty stable without oc so what's the point you're trying to make other than trolling? Go fap in the i7 owners forum


They work fine if you choose the other parts carefully. At least for now. We'll see how it goes down the line.

As for OC: I don't do it, so I don't care that much. But from what I've seen, OC (however difficult and little) is an important part of proving that Ryzen can be faster than Intel counterparts.
Today basically everyone can get an Intel -K, a good cooler and end up with a significant boost in performance. This is so much more complicated on the AMD side this time (and AMD used to be the OC-friendly company!).

Frag Maniac has already given the correct reason why this happened.
If AMD wasn't so secret about the new CPU tech (while they we're happily sharing "leaked" benchmarks), this would not happen. We'd have motherboards, RAM and coolers ready at the day of launch. Plus, the whole platform would be well tested, which could save us from some really weird initial bugs (like the FMA4).


----------



## Aenra (Apr 17, 2017)

notb said:


> OC (however difficult and little) is an important part of proving that Ryzen can be faster than Intel counterparts



I'd disagree. I think you've let your own predilections, hobbies, as well as what they entail (which sites you frequent, which people you talk to) color your judgement.
This is not the criteria for the majority of users; at best, it's an added bonus.


----------



## notb (Apr 17, 2017)

Aenra said:


> I know it's pointless (there is no reply i can respect, it being since there's no logical reply anyone could give), but i'm in the mood
> Tell me how "they shit the bed" again please, when they offer an 8core that is less than half the price of mine and is almost equal in performance; am curious.


Because if you're getting a high-end PC - especially for professional purpose (be it movie editing, computation or whatever) - chances are that you value stability and robustness at least as much as performance. So from such point of view it is an issue that currently Ryzen is basically in a public beta test stage...

Plus, the whole Ryzen strategy IMO seems incoherent.
AMD tells us that we need more cores, but with Ryzen* they're actually lowering the average number of cores in their products.*

On one hand AMD says that Ryzen 7 is the future of PC. That we'll all need 8 cores and applications will be optimized for this.
But at the same time they offer mainstream 4-core products (lower Ryzen 5, incoming Ryzen 3 and APU).

Mainstream Ryzen CPUs have 4 cores (Ryzen 5, 3, APU). When they show up in office workstations and laptops, 8-core models might end-up with under 5% share of AMD sales. Does this really change the market? 
Think how different this is from late Bulldozer era. It was also marketed with "8 cores is the future", but AMD offered you 8 cores also at a very low price point - even below Ryzen 5 1400.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Apr 17, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> EXACTLY
> 
> It's never just about stability with high core count CPUs used for gaming. We all know they are clocked lower, especially lower than Intel quads, which is why so many are trying to OC them.
> 
> ...


They have better ipc than Intel quads on a clock for clock basis, the fact they can't overclock to 4.9 ghz saves Intel some mighty big blushes.... and people aren't trying to overclock them cause they're clocked lower??? They're the same people who overclock regardless and have always done so, you make it out like no one overclocks an Intel chip lol


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Apr 18, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> They have better ipc than Intel quads on a clock for clock basis, the fact they can't overclock to 4.9 ghz saves Intel some mighty big blushes....[


All that matters where gaming is concerned is which chip performs better, and the 7700K is still the king.



> ...people aren't trying to overclock them cause they're clocked lower??? They're the same people who overclock regardless and have always done so, you make it out like no one overclocks an Intel chip lol


You totally misread my meaning on clocked lower. I'm saying 8 core chips are typically clocked lower than quads. A lot of people don't OC an i7-4970, or 6700k, or especially the 7700K, because you really don't need to. Plus those chips OC much better too. I don't see you making any valid points really.

That said, and I can't stress this enough, even AMD's highest end quad core Ryzen is clocked quite a bit lower than Intel's highest end quad, so yes, you can say AMD, even in ways that make no sense, are clocked lower. It's clear to me that AMD are still shooting from the hip with "value" product.

I'm not interested in slinging fanboy bait, maybe you are. I'll buy the brand that makes sense at the time. AMD clearly still has work to do. Maybe had they not been so paranoid about secrecy they'd have done much better, but this isn't just about component compatibility, it's about gaming performance, stock clocks, and OCing.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 18, 2017)

notb said:


> Because if you're getting a high-end PC - especially for professional purpose (be it movie editing, computation or whatever) - chances are that you value stability and robustness at least as much as performance. So from such point of view it is an issue that currently Ryzen is basically in a public beta test stage...


You're easily exaggerating. Ryzen is in no "beta test stage" unless you want Memory overclocks of 3200 or higher. Other than that it runs totally well, and OC is not a "guaranteed" part of a product, so it is indeed running 100% fine.


> Plus, the whole Ryzen strategy IMO seems incoherent.
> AMD tells us that we need more cores, but with Ryzen* they're actually lowering the average number of cores in their products.*


No, FX had 4 cores too, just those "4 cores" were not actual fully performing 4 cores. Ryzen APU's will have 4 cores for a long time, maybe even 2 cores whereas the Ryzen 3 will not have less than 4. Again, this is no change compared to their previous products. But since they added SMT and that increases threads to 8, 12 and 16 respectable, it's effectively more than with FX, so what you said is simply wrong.


> On one hand AMD says that Ryzen 7 is the future of PC. That we'll all need 8 cores and applications will be optimized for this.
> But at the same time they offer mainstream 4-core products (lower Ryzen 5, incoming Ryzen 3 and APU).


Of course, because not everyone can pay 6 or 8 core CPUs, nor does everyone want them. On the other hand AMD have to sell the defective parts (those 8 cores with lesser functioning cores) as well, so it's a perfectly fine strategy.


> Think how different this is from late Bulldozer era. It was also marketed with "8 cores is the future", but AMD offered you 8 cores also at a very low price point - even below Ryzen 5 1400.


8 Cores is the future / is now the present. FX is now better than at release, because those "8 cores" get better utilized now. When FX was released, even 4 cores were barely utilized, now 8 thread util is a regular thing in games, and some games do even up to 16 threads utilization.


----------



## trparky (Apr 18, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> All that matters where gaming is concerned is which chip performs better, and the 7700K is still the king.


Yes, it may be still king but king of what? Your wallet? I certainly don't want that. 



Aenra said:


> Tell me how "they shit the bed" again please, when they offer an 8core that is less than half the price of mine and is almost equal in performance; am curious.
> (yes, almost equal. You would never 'feel' the 9, 10 [pick a number] FPS difference at an overall FPS of 130+, you would never 'feel' the 3nano second "delay" in 7zip compression or whatever)
> 
> Do you like paying 1200$ so you can post synthetic benchmarks in the internet? That it?


It basically comes down to that. If you like paying the Intel tax and getting your wallet screwed, go ahead... it makes no difference to me. I however will no longer stand idly by and continue paying the Intel tax just to get a little bit better performance when I can save $200 to $300 on an AMD build.


----------



## notb (Apr 18, 2017)

Kanan said:


> You're easily exaggerating. Ryzen is in no "beta test stage" unless you want Memory overclocks of 3200 or higher. Other than that it runs totally well, and OC is not a "guaranteed" part of a product, so it is indeed running 100% fine.



Almost no support from cooler manufacturers at launch, bugs, RAM incompatibilities etc.
1.5 months have passed since the launch and we're getting second batch of mobos.
Honestly, it's really obvious that AMD didn't share specs early enough for other companies to prepare.



Kanan said:


> No, FX had 4 cores too, just those "4 cores" were not actual fully performing 4 cores.


Now this is new to me, but I'm no expert on the AMD lineup. How do you count cores in FX-8350?



Kanan said:


> 8 Cores is the future / is now the present.



How can you say it's "the present", when you have to pay over $300 for a desktop CPU and we're almost sure that APU and mobile processors will have 4 cores at most?

Maybe an educated guess? In a year from now, what percentage of all PCs (so excluding servers) will have more than 4 cores?



Kanan said:


> FX is now better than at release, because those "8 cores" get better utilized now. When FX was released, even 4 cores were barely utilized, now 8 thread util is a regular thing in games, and some games do even up to 16 threads utilization.



But why are you so sure history won't repeat itself? Once again AMD is doubling Intel's core count. Once again we are assured that AMD is correct, Intel is wrong and game creators are lazy/bribed by Intel.
Honestly, I don't know how old you are and whether you've been tracking the Bulldozer launch as well.
I was. I've seen all this already. I've taken part in almost identical discussions. I've read reviews with similar conclusions.
Here's one of them:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/11
And a few quotes from the text:
"Given the right workload, *Bulldozer is actually able to hang with Intel's* fastest Sandy Bridge parts. *We finally have a high-end AMD CPU* with power gating as well as a very functional Turbo Core mode. Unfortunately the same complaints we've had about AMD's processors over the past few years still apply here today: *in lightly threaded scenarios, Bulldozer simply does not perform*."
"AMD also shared with us that Windows 7 isn't really all that optimized for Bulldozer"
"In many ways, where Bulldozer is a clear win is where AMD has always done well: heavily threaded applications."
"The good news is *AMD has a very aggressive roadmap* ahead of itself"

The key difference is that FX-8150 was competing with a then-modern i7-2600K and lost badly in single-thread at launch already.
Intel overslept Ryzen launch - new LGA1151 processors (maybe final) will arrive in early 2018. We'll see what happens...


----------



## trparky (Apr 18, 2017)

I can partially understand why AMD was so secretive about Ryzen up to the launch, they didn't want Intel to spoil the party which they have been known to do. Unfortunately there's a point where you're too damn secretive and that's where AMD failed.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Apr 18, 2017)

trparky said:


> Yes, it may be still king but king of what? Your wallet? I certainly don't want that.
> 
> It basically comes down to that. If you like paying the Intel tax and getting your wallet screwed, go ahead... it makes no difference to me. I however will no longer stand idly by and continue paying the Intel tax just to get a little bit better performance when I can save $200 to $300 on an AMD build.



Apparently you haven't been paying attention to gaming benches. The 7700k still kicks butt in gaming, period, and given that, it's priced reasonably as well. People don't buy Intel CPUs merely on hype, they buy them because they perform well.


----------



## notb (Apr 18, 2017)

trparky said:


> It basically comes down to that. If you like paying the Intel tax and getting your wallet screwed, go ahead... it makes no difference to me. I however will no longer stand idly by and continue paying the Intel tax just to get a little bit better performance when I can save $200 to $300 on an AMD build.



Performance is not the only thing included in the price and not everything can be shown on benchmark graphs .
Intel platforms (all of them) are so easy, user-friendly and polished at this point, they're just pleasure to use.

Ryzen is designed for processing power and low cost. They wanted good memory performance, so they sacrificed compatibility. They wanted low TDP, so they didn't include any IGP (even a tiny one).
If I had a choice of computation VPS based on i7-7700 or Ryzen 1700, I'd choose the latter. But for a home PC? To build and maintain by myself...?

And keep in mind AMD has always been much cheaper than Intel, but people are choosing Intel a lot more often anyway. So you might no longer want to pay "Intel tax", but you're quite lonely in that resolution...



trparky said:


> I can partially understand why AMD was so secretive about Ryzen up to the launch, they didn't want Intel to spoil the party which they have been known to do. Unfortunately there's a point where you're too damn secretive and that's where AMD failed.



Just how could Intel "spoil the party"? 
IMO they were secretive because they were worried about the results and issues. It's easier to cover such things if you're doing a big launch with all the marketing fireworks.
If this was truly such a great platform - winning with Intel counterparts in all scenarios - there would be no point in hiding anything.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 18, 2017)

I have just ordered a Ryzen 5 but what Frag meant by "shit the bed" also mirrors my feelings a little, Ryzen 7 is largely a productivity CPU and it is damn good at it, also it is absolutely fine at gaming but is beaten by Intel in most instances, thing is there are many millions more gaming than there are delving into significant productivity so AMD are possibly not going to extract the business from the mass consumer market...... the first couple of quarters worth of market share will be interesting.

For me, 4 cores/8 threads is more than enough, I only play a couple of games, browse the net and do a little MS Office work, a 1500X therefore is more than enough and I am happy to be 10 or 15% behind a 7700k in terms of gaming for the 45% saving I am making, in fact I got the motherboard also and I still pay less than just the 7700k on its own.


----------



## Aenra (Apr 18, 2017)

@notb Obligatory disclaimer, as this is the internet 
Am --not-- here to fight. So that out the way?

- you talk to me about productivity and non-gaming market segments in order to highlight an issue considering Ryzen's instability. Where? I don't keep my power plan on eco or balanced, sorry, not on a work PC. Not on _any_ PC that is meant to work while i'm away. Now i don't understand younger people, so maybe all this trendiness and save the trees and wear some sandals mentality has gotten into peoples' heads, fine. But on a PC meant for _work_, my plan has and always will be that of high performance. So assuming one has had it there.. one never even had need of the latest patch.. where did you find those stability issues? Name me specific programs that you had issues to work with on a Ryzen build in high performance/all cores active.

- you tell me and i quote that "they're lowering the average number of cores".. Are we gonna play with words now? Their flagship is an 8c/16t CPU, just like Intel's was before the 6950X. Their products' range varies from mini CPUs (as i think of them) all the way up to their flagships; again just as Intel's.
Tell me how an objective individual can regard this as "lowering the number of cores". You can spin it thus, sure, lol.. they only had 8cores, now they offer cheaper products too so the average is lowered!! Mainstreaming! Traitors! (seriously? Broader options equal "lower" now?)
And if for some reason you wanna spin things that way, where were you when Intel was doing it? Hell, where were you when Intel was pimping (still is) 4cores as the future of gaming? When they stall software development by effectively making parallelizing optional?

- you talk about how the market may or may not change. I am uninterested in that. Uninterested because sadly, this market is comprised of people incapable or unwilling to think straight. As such, i do not judge any a one product based on said other peoples' "markets". I judge it as objectively as i can, i judge it in contrast/comparison with its counterparts. I understand how competition (a necessity in evolution in all aspects) may end up influencing buyer mentality, but i'm not here to refine the process of other peoples' thinking; nor should anyone else. What the "market" will do is something the market will do; anyway. Comes a time when we move past that and make our own judgements. And for a fair judgement, i won't read techpowerup.com, because they didn't even compare the 1800x to the 6900k.
That's the only judgement i should be interested in. One 8c/16t from AMD, only one 8c/16t from Intel. Which and why.

And once again, all things in perspective. One is entitled to spend four digit numbers for that extra % of performance; it's not wrong, it's not contemptible. Same thing in music, past some number, you end up wasting thousands for at best a 1-2% quality improvement. O.K. Your money (and i do just that, personally). This however does not entail the cheaper brands have "shat the bed". Yes? Perspective


----------



## trparky (Apr 18, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> Apparently you haven't been paying attention to gaming benches. The 7700k still kicks butt in gaming, period, and given that, it's priced reasonably as well. People don't buy Intel CPUs merely on hype, they buy them because they perform well.





notb said:


> Performance is not the only thing included in the price and not everything can be shown on benchmark graphs .
> Intel platforms (all of them) are so easy, user-friendly and polished at this point, they're just pleasure to use.


As many have said, Ryzen is an entirely new platform and architecture; there's going to be issues at first. We are in uncharted territory here people, the seas are going to be rough out here.

Now will these issues be ironed out in Ryzen v2.0? More than likely, yes. As with anything new it's going to take time to get the issues ironed out.

Even though there are issues it doesn't mean that the new platform isn't selling well. Someone earlier said that a lot of the boards are sold out or are selling so fast that as soon as stores get them they're out the door. If that's not a sign of a successful platform I have no idea what one may be.

I may wait for Ryzen v2.0 since I just don't have a cash to build a new system right now and if I do build this new system I want to do it right. I don't want to cheap out and use parts of my existing system which I have done in the past. That means new case, new power supply (mine is more than five years old), M.2 PCIe SSD as versus SATA, new video card, etc. which means money. Like I said, if I'm going to do this I'm going to do it right.

By then either Ryzen v2.0 will be out or the current issues with Ryzen v1.0 will be (mostly) ironed out. Even if I manage to get the money together before Ryzen v2.0 comes out I still have an upgrade path if I go with Ryzen, I can simply get a new CPU and do a drop-in replacement which is virtually unheard of in the Intel world.



notb said:


> Just how could Intel "spoil the party"?


Intel has been known to play dirty in the past, who knows... Maybe AMD was scared that Intel would steal their stuff or do one of any number of past dirty tricks that they've done before. Intel isn't exactly known for being nice.


----------



## Aenra (Apr 18, 2017)

That's another argument i steer clear off.. playing dirty..
Everyone does dude, too many millions, millions of dollars 

AMD was just business-savvy enough to grasp that being the underdog, the 'nice and open source' approach would end up being more benefitial in the long run. Had positions been reversed, they'd be doing exactly what Intel is. Too many millions, billions of dollars. You don't fuck around at such levels, no sir.


----------



## notb (Apr 18, 2017)

Aenra said:


> - you tell me and i quote that "they're lowering the average number of cores".. Are we gonna play with words now? Their flagship is an 8c/16t CPU, just like Intel's was before the 6950X. Their products' range varies from mini CPUs (as i think of them) all the way up to their flagships; again just as Intel's.


What I meant was: Piledriver CPU prices went down quickly and while AMD offered 4-, 6- and 8-core CPUs, most people didn't bother with the cheapest one. To this day the best selling AMD CPUs are FX-6300 and FX-8350 (currently $75 and $120 respectively).
But Ryzen comes along and it's way more expensive. FX-8300 MSRP was $130. Ryzen 1700 is $320.
This means that just because of the pricing an average number of cores in sold AMD CPUs will be lower than in the FX era.

Another thing is the launch strategy for Ryzen. First it's R7. A whole marketing campaign is organized to convince us that getting a 4-core Intel is pointless, because 8-cores are just better in every way. A month later AMD releases a 4-core Ryzen 5...


Aenra said:


> And if for some reason you wanna spin things that way, where were you when Intel was doing it? Hell, where were you when Intel was pimping (still is) 4cores as the future of gaming? When they stall software development by effectively making parallelizing optional?


I don't understand this statement. "Making parallelizing optional"? You'll have to explain that.


Aenra said:


> - you talk about how the market may or may not change. I am uninterested in that. Uninterested because sadly, this market is comprised of people incapable or unwilling to think straight. As such, i do not judge any a one product based on said other peoples' "markets". I judge it as objectively as i can, i judge it in contrast/comparison with its counterparts. I understand how competition (a necessity in evolution in all aspects) may end up influencing buyer mentality, but i'm not here to refine the process of other peoples' thinking; nor should anyone else. What the "market" will do is something the market will do; anyway. Comes a time when we move past that and make our own judgements. And for a fair judgement, i won't read techpowerup.com, because they didn't even compare the 1800x to the 6900k.


Sorry, but this approach is silly. How can you say that 8 cores are the future, if you're not interested in how market evolves? If you say that you don't care, because people are stupid? What if the market ignores Ryzen (like it did with Bulldozer before)? What if software still doesn't utilize 8 cores?


----------



## trparky (Apr 18, 2017)

Aenra said:


> That's another argument i steer clear off.. playing dirty..
> Everyone does dude, too many millions, millions of dollars


Yeah but there's playing dirty and then there's what Intel has been doing as of late. They've taken "playing dirty" to an all new low lately.


Aenra said:


> AMD was just business-savvy enough to grasp that being the underdog, the 'nice and open source' approach would end up being more beneficial in the long run.


I'm not sure where you're going with that one.


Aenra said:


> Had positions been reversed, they'd be doing exactly what Intel is. Too many millions, billions of dollars. You don't fuck around at such levels, no sir.


Oh yes, I'm not denying that but there's being cutthroat and then there's being a straight-up dick about things and that's what Intel has been doing lately.


----------



## Aenra (Apr 18, 2017)

@notb Aah, i see what you mean now.. 

- Personally, i just took it at face value.. better product, higher IPC, even from what they'd originally promised, ergo higher (relatively to their older 8cores) price; considering said price range is still well within the ballpark of what i'd expect from an AMD product? All good by me. You couldn't possibly have expected they sell their 8c variants at 9590 prices?

- In terms of parallelizing, i meant that when the company 99,9% responsible for market approach and mentality sells us 4cores, in 2017, there will be an obvious stall in further software development. Few will bother optimizing for more when they know most of the kids playing pew-pew have 4cores. This in turn however has had broader consequences. Now we could argue as to the extent of said consequences (or its slow and steady elimination on the contrary), but before we do and derail the thread, keep in mind that is a mere after-effect of the original issue; it being a market so distorted, so out of track, that even "experts" compare 8cores to 4 cores and find themselves justified to reach "conclusions".

- Because if i started listening to every random "expert" in the Internet, i'd also be having a 4790K or a 7700K. And an RGB mouse, and a neon-lit case with bubbles and lightning effects sitting so close to my keyboard i'd be in danger of going blind. As stated, after some point, one makes his own calls. Or should.. the river flows one way, yes, doesn't mean we should all dive right in 
I will make an attempt to keep me abreast, sure, i will keep the current direction in mind before investing, again sure, but in the end, my judgement must be my own.

(again, these are my personal views. Apologies if they appear offending. Am honest first, worried about misunderstandings a far second)

@trparky i meant that they have a specific business approach, the "we're nicer and fairer" one, on purpose. To some extent, yes, they literally have to be and i'm glad they are. But to some extent. It _is_ an approach and it is one of necessity. They evoke sentiment, maybe that helps more?


----------



## notb (Apr 18, 2017)

trparky said:


> As many have said, Ryzen is an entirely new platform and architecture; there's going to be issues at first. We are in uncharted territory here people, the seas are going to be rough out here.


Just the fact that something is new doesn't mean we have to accept it's issues. Things can be tested before launching a product.
Issues stemming from manufacturing (poor quality or something) can be explained, but not those directly connected with the design.
It's not like Ryzen was developed in a week. It took them 5 years. Windows 10 has been around for almost 2 years, so, among many other things, I would expect them to test for performance issues. It's not that hard.



trparky said:


> Even though there are issues it doesn't mean that the new platform isn't selling well. Someone earlier said that a lot of the boards are sold out or are selling so fast that as soon as stores get them they're out the door. If that's not a sign of a successful platform I have no idea what one may be.


Whether or not motherboards are sold out is a very poor indicator of platform's popularity. What matters are official sales statistics, which we'll get after the financial quarter.
What we know for sure is that AMD decided not publish any figures for the preorder phase (like smartphone manufacturers do) even though it's scale was yet unseen in CPU market. Or at least that's what we're told.
A month went by and still no sales figures. At this point even AMD stockholders got impatient. I think they expected a different scenario.



trparky said:


> By then either Ryzen v2.0 will be out or the current issues with Ryzen v1.0 will be (mostly) ironed out. Even if I manage to get the money together before Ryzen v2.0 comes out I still have an upgrade path if I go with Ryzen, I can simply get a new CPU and do a drop-in replacement which is virtually unheard of in the Intel world.


Because AMD said they'll support the platform for 5 years? What makes you so sure that new CPUs will be compatible with your mobo? Maybe they'll keep selling the old model? 



trparky said:


> Maybe AMD was scared that Intel would steal their stuff or do one of any number of past dirty tricks that they've done before. Intel isn't exactly known for being nice.



Designing a new CPU architecture takes years, so you can't just "steal stuff". Moreover, Intel and AMD are trading know-how and patents all the time. And if they don't get something legally, they can always spy on the other company (this happens all the time, in all business types). You can be almost sure that Intel knew a lot about Ryzen way before launch. Possibly more than cooler manufacturers...



Aenra said:


> - Personally, i just took it at face value.. better product, higher IPC, even from what they'd originally promised, ergo higher (relatively to their older 8cores) price; considering said price range is still well within the ballpark of what i'd expect from an AMD product? All good by me. You couldn't possibly have expected they sell their 8c variants at 9590 prices?


I'm just pointing out that the price threshold to get 8 cores went up significantly. At $300 this CPU is way to expensive for many potential buyers - especially those with smaller budgets that usually preferred AMD. And when you add the fact that Intel offers IGP in all LGA1151 CPUs, AMD becomes really expensive as a productivity platform. For gaming it's fine, because gamers usually buy discrete GPU. For everyone else it's a big problem.
Ryzen 7 has been around for 1.5 months and I still haven't seen any AIO or SFF workstations using it. How come? Is this a result of not sharing specs before launch?
Even so, big vendors should have already designed something. Maybe there are supply issues with the chipset?
When new Intel platforms arrive (even on new sockets), AIO solutions are offered almost immediately. 



Aenra said:


> - In terms of parallelizing, i meant that when the company 99,9% responsible for market approach and mentality sells us 4cores, in 2017, there will be an obvious stall in further software development. Few will bother optimizing for more when they know most of the kids playing pew-pew have 4cores.


Are you aware of the fact that some tasks can't be parallelized? It's really not a conspiracy.
A lot of software can't even use 4 cores, because it is heavily dependent on single-thread algorithms. What programmers do is they try to run few single-threaded tasks at the same time, but this is just forced optimization, not parallel computing. The result is erratic CPU load and some strange situations when a program uses e.g. 3 threads (no matter if you have 4 or 16 of them).
Such optimization has it's limits (obviously).

As a general rule, it's rather unlikely that a parallel algorithm will use only n of m available threads (n<m) because of bad coding.


----------



## trparky (Apr 18, 2017)

@notb No offense but you sound like a straight-up Intel fanboy.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Apr 18, 2017)

notb said:


> I'm just pointing out that the price threshold to get 8 cores went up significantly. At $300 this CPU is way to expensive for many potential buyers - especially those with smaller budgets that usually preferred AMD. And when you add the fact that Intel offers IGP in all LGA1151 CPUs, AMD becomes really expensive as a productivity platform. For gaming it's fine, because gamers usually buy discrete GPU. For everyone else it's a big problem.
> Ryzen 7 has been around for 1.5 months and I still haven't seen any AIO or SFF workstations using it. How come? Is this a result of not sharing specs before launch?
> Even so, big vendors should have already designed something. Maybe there are supply issues with the chipset?
> When new Intel platforms arrive (even on new sockets), AIO solutions are offered almost immediately.
> ...



went up significantly? what are you smoking? $300 wont even buy you 4c/8t from Intel and you're saying it's too expensive for 8c/16t? yea ok, sound logic right there. and afaik these are the desktop processors there will be a new chipset for workstations.... you're really trying sooooooo hard to convince everyone that Ryzen is crap, Intel rulez etc etc yada yada yada I think the lady doth protest too much!!! just go back to your 
*Better LGA1151 CPUs possible? (get a 7700 now or wait?) *thread and wait for your 1151 6c/12t processor, could be a while though...


----------



## trparky (Apr 18, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> what are you smoking?


Whatever it is I want a hit of it.


----------



## Lucas_ (Apr 18, 2017)

from my own expierance , till now its really good , but i dissapinted with performance using Autocad . 
I use mein for gaming and work , its treating me well till now in gaming , its pretty smooth , with the new bios it became better .
with streaming its awsome . but with AutoCad its not that impressive .


----------



## notb (Apr 18, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> went up significantly? what are you smoking? $300 wont even buy you 4c/8t from Intel


I was talking about AMD's offer. Intel never said 8 cores are the future. AMD did, so I would expect them to make it more affordable, not more expensive.



NdMk2o1o said:


> and afaik these are the desktop processors there will be a new chipset for workstations....


That's unknown yet. AFAIK Naples is marketed as a server architecture. I don't know if they plan to target it for workstations as well.
There are rumors about something in between (quad channel memory, new socket, 16C/32T).



NdMk2o1o said:


> you're really trying sooooooo hard to convince everyone that Ryzen is crap


On the contrary, I find Ryzen to be a great performance-wise. It's just not as robust and refined as I'd like.
But I'm clearly not a huge fan of AMD's marketing around Zen in general. And their product placement. And the logo. And the whole gaming theme they've created. I find it all repulsive. I hope it doesn't make me an Intel fanboy (maybe a "being an adult"-fanboy instead?)



NdMk2o1o said:


> *Better LGA1151 CPUs possible? (get a 7700 now or wait?) *thread and wait for your 1151 6c/12t processor, could be a while though...


It's really not my fault that AMD decided that Ryzen will not have an IGP - even though this is a SoC design and it houses a lot of really pointless stuff.
This is one of the reasons why I'm staying with Intel. You find it irrelevant?


----------



## GreiverBlade (Apr 18, 2017)

jawad said:


> from my own expierance , till now its really good , but i dissapinted with performance using Autocad .
> I use mein for gaming and work , its treating me well till now in gaming , its pretty smooth , with the new bios it became better .
> with streaming its awsome . but with AutoCad its not that impressive .


at last for gaming and streaming it's good ... tho i am surprised that Autocad has some performances issues on Ryzen, a bit... strange ...


----------



## Lucas_ (Apr 18, 2017)

GreiverBlade said:


> at last for gaming and streaming it's good ... tho i am surprised that Autocad has some performances issues on Ryzen, a bit... strange ...



sadly ya , Look (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu,4951-9.html) . 
I guess its fails some software modification or update ... I dont know !!


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 18, 2017)

notb said:


> I'm just pointing out that the price threshold to get 8 cores went up significantly. At $300 this CPU is way to expensive for many potential buyers - especially those with smaller budgets that usually preferred AMD. And when you add the fact that Intel offers IGP in all LGA1151 CPUs, AMD becomes really expensive as a productivity platform. For gaming it's fine, because gamers usually buy discrete GPU. For everyone else it's a big problem.
> Ryzen 7 has been around for 1.5 months and I still haven't seen any AIO or SFF workstations using it. How come? Is this a result of not sharing specs before launch?
> Even so, big vendors should have already designed something. Maybe there are supply issues with the chipset?
> When new Intel platforms arrive (even on new sockets), AIO solutions are offered almost immediately.
> ...


I bought said Fx8350 processor on their promises of 8 core goodness and all the New games im buying back them up and have been doing for 1+ years, the multi core aware future is already here.

You totally lost me so *AMD sell a 4 core 8 thread processor for about 180( 1400X)* same cores /threads as i7,seams ok to me , and I would wager nothing Intel sells at that price will play the games i play better(@4k gtaV Deus ex, civilisation V, farcry4 ).


You likely said bulldozer was shit to the same extremes yet i game at 4k well within 10-30% of what an i7 7700k + gtx1080 will do today 5 years on from when i bought it(again in the games i play and 2x480 was still cheaper then a 1080@launch).
Hyperbole by none AMD owners is epic and largely benchmark based ,in reality my old pc doesn't look so dated even today at 4k being that it's GPU limited.
If I'd taken the purely bench centric viewpoint this last ten years my car would be even shitter then it is ,no some of us are not chasing pure epeen ,we have beer to buy and I'd raise a glass to AMD for RyZen.

Issues, with memory can easily be discounted as EVERY set of ddr4 on the market at time of release was Made tested, certified and Even sold on its often specific Intel platform compatibility and they needed some specific things from memory.

What other issues have been about are reasonable fixable new platform type issues imho and not much to shout about.
Intel's hedt is on the ropes from AMDs mainstream i suspect when RyZen hits entry level Apus Intel's mainstream will suffer greatly because to me only the max FPS gamers actually need pay the premium on a i7 7700k , everything else they sell just won't cut it at that point at these prices.
As for a AMD Hedt platform that'll be an interesting aside but just for some I'd say


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Apr 18, 2017)

trparky said:


> As many have said, Ryzen is an entirely new platform and architecture; there's going to be issues at first. We are in uncharted territory here people, the seas are going to be rough out here.


The "seas" didn't need to be that rough though. Again, AMD shot themselves in the foot only making things harder by being too secretive. It's one thing if a CPU can only OC so high, quite another if you have to exhaustively sort through compatible RAM and MBs (the more viable ones being pricey) to get any chance of it's max potential, because they were too paranoid to talk to RAM and MB manufacturers to sort those things out pre launch.

You don't see these kind of monumental screw ups with Intel, but quite commonly with AMD. I'm not mad at AMD for anything but these bone head mistakes, because believe it or not, I really DO want them to do well. Going forward I'd rather have an 8 core CPU, but I also don't want to go through hell sourcing hard to find expensive parts just to get the best performance out of one. And that also makes Ryzen not as affordable as first glance indicates.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Apr 18, 2017)

jawad said:


> sadly ya , Look (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu,4951-9.html) .
> I guess its fails some software modification or update ... I dont know !!


well still close to a 6900K stock... which would still make it a better deal even with AutoCAD in mind  tho it might have something to do with Autocad not being core friendly ... gosh a 7700K as top dog ... urk...


----------



## trparky (Apr 18, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> You don't see these kind of monumental screw ups with Intel, but quite commonly with AMD. I'm not mad at AMD for anything but these bone head mistakes, because believe it or not, I really DO want them to do well. Going forward I'd rather have an 8 core CPU, but I also don't want to go through hell sourcing hard to find expensive parts just to get the best performance out of one. And that also makes Ryzen not as affordable as first glance indicates.


I suspect it's because (for the most part) nothing has changed on the Intel side of things. I mean, look at it Kaby Lake, it's damn near Ivy Bridge with a shot in the arm. Nothing really has changed in Intel land for the last five years, they have been riding the Core architecture's coattails.

I'm not apologizing for AMD here, yes, I admit they screwed up with the launch.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Apr 18, 2017)

trparky said:


> I suspect it's because (for the most part) nothing has changed on the Intel side of things.


Again, AMD is largely to blame for that for having defecated Bullcrapper, which left them literally non competitive CPU wise for years. However it's also because for some time Intel has been caught up with GPUs, being powerful enough to go toe to toe with any of them.

Intel aren't riding anything but common sense, and if AMD were as good at business decisions as they are, we wouldn't see such disparities in their success rates.


----------



## Mighty-Lu-Bu (Apr 18, 2017)

mcraygsx said:


> While I have to disagree with Trparky, Intel have been constantly updating (on minor scare due to lack of competition) their platform and processors for past few years while AMD had nothing new at all. And now they finally have Ryzen which performs close to haswell/broadwell. Hopefully this will put INTEL on high gear and Skylake-X/Coffeelake will be released with reasonable prices.
> 
> But anyone looking forward to building a 8 core Ryzen based system. I noticed prices drop from two retail stores.
> 
> Total saving of $130. Either 1800x is not selling at all due to R5 or they are making room Intel's upcoming processors.



Still doesn't make sense to me though. I have been a huge AMD fan for years (still am), but why buy a Ryzen 7 1800x at $469.99 when you can get an Intel i7-7700k for $330.99 that will generally be 99.9% in most games?


----------



## mcraygsx (Apr 18, 2017)

Mighty-Lu-Bu said:


> Still doesn't make sense to me though. I have been a huge AMD fan for years (still am), but why buy a Ryzen 7 1800x at $469.99 when you can get an Intel i7-7700k for $330.99 that will generally be 99.9% in most games?


Not just that, for pure gaming 7600k and 7700K are fantastic CPU's. Most of the review's show stock vs stock comparison. None of the Ryzen in its current state can match 7700K IPC/frequency at its stock speed let alone overclocked 7700k @5.0ghz.
Kabylake might be the last the quad core CPU from intel on mainstream platform.

Since the launch of Ryzen our local Microcenter is selling more 7600K then even before. They sell 3 Kayblake to 1 Ryzen. It might be due to bundle deals.


----------



## trparky (Apr 18, 2017)

Sure, Intel chips may be faster per core than AMD but the problem I keep coming back to is that most Intel chips (that are close to being affordable) are still *only* quad-core chips. Yeah, I know, it has Hyperthreading but the extra four _virtual_ cores are just that... virtual; virtual in the sense that they aren't real cores but "fake" cores in that sense that they don't offer up the full computing capacity of a real core. So your game may theoretically run faster on Intel but without the extra two cores where the heck is your OS going to run on? Some performance is going to be robbed from your game to run the OS itself. That's why six-core CPUs need to become more mainstream and I hope that with the advent of Ryzen that means that they will for us mere mortals to be able to afford.


----------



## Mighty-Lu-Bu (Apr 18, 2017)

trparky said:


> Sure, Intel chips may be faster per core than AMD but the problem I keep coming back to is that most Intel chips (that are close to being affordable) are still *only* quad-core chips. Yeah, I know, it has Hyperthreading but the extra four _virtual_ cores are just that... virtual; virtual in the sense that they aren't real cores but "fake" cores in that sense that they don't offer up the full computing capacity of a real core. So your game may theoretically run faster on Intel but without the extra two cores where the heck is your OS going to run on? Some performance is going to be robbed from your game to run the OS itself. That's why six-core CPUs need to become more mainstream and I hope that with the advent of Ryzen that means that they will for us mere mortals to be able to afford.



Right now 4 to 6 cores is all you need and I can definitely see 6 cores being more widely adopted in the very near future. That being said, I still think we are quite a ways off until we start really seeing the benefits of 8 cores.


----------



## trparky (Apr 18, 2017)

I'd say that six core should be the bare minimum, anything less than that is nowhere close to being future-proof.

Again, I keep coming back to the question with quad-core chips is where is your OS going to run while your game is running? Your OS still has to run along with all of its background services and antivirus and then what about your other user programs like perhaps your web browser that may have open while your game is running.

That's why I say that six-core CPUs should be the bare minimum from this point on. It gives you far more breathing room to have your system be able to handle things besides just your game.

Again I hope that Ryzen makes Intel wake up and realize that all of us, not just the rich folks, should be able to get a six-core CPU at an affordable price and not just some _fake_ cores.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Apr 19, 2017)

Mighty-Lu-Bu said:


> Still doesn't make sense to me though. I have been a huge AMD fan for years (still am), but why buy a Ryzen 7 1800x at $469.99 when you can get an Intel i7-7700k for $330.99 that will generally be 99.9% in most games?


well in 99.9% of the games it will have ... 4 to 8fps better indeed (judging by comparison during gaming session, day to day activities and not reviews), quite the bargain for having 4C/8T over 8C/16T ... for now it might not be the case but "IF" game developer optimize their games for more core ... the 4C/8T will be less advantageous ... (thought a 1800X is a 6900K level priced a little under a 6820K, ok not in all applications and uses ofc ... but the gap between CPU's is quite ... insignificant, well to people where 1 to 10 seconds or 5-10fps does not matter)
and the 1800X is not the one to have in that category, actually it's the 1700/1700X priced like the 7700K that actually make sense, versus the 7600/7600K it's the R5 1500/1600 that does it (1600X is a tad pricier than the 7600K but not that much and is still worth way more in regard of an eventual upgrade of my 6600K system)

Ryzen, bug or not, for me has the most appeal



mcraygsx said:


> Most of the review's show stock vs stock comparison. None of the Ryzen in its current state can match 7700K IPC/frequency at its stock speed let alone overclocked 7700k @5.0ghz..


yet it still manage to achieve same rank of FPS at a lower clock ... i wonder about the IPC nonetheless ...



mcraygsx said:


> Kabylake might be the last the quad core CPU from intel on mainstream platform.


knowing Intel ... likely not ... they like to milk mainstreamer, plus ... they did a lot to make people think their HEDT was worth it (not gaming wise most of the time) and that they couldn't go above 4 core if not paying around half a grand for a CPU alone with the HEDT platform



Mighty-Lu-Bu said:


> Right now 4 to 6 cores is all you need and I can definitely see 6 cores being more widely adopted in the very near future. That being said, I still think we are quite a ways off until we start really seeing the benefits of 8 cores.


then ... Ryzen is the most "future proof" solution 

actually the re-review show AMD did something to sort out some issues and i like that... on the other hand indeed the RAM issue and work needed to make all things go right is a bit tiring ... (tho it's fun for me ... i like tinkering ...)



trparky said:


> I'd say that six core should be the bare minimum, anything less than that is nowhere close to being future-proof.
> 
> Again, I keep coming back to the question with quad-core chips is where is your OS going to run while your game is running? Your OS still has to run along with all of its background services and then what about your other user programs like perhaps your web browser that may have open while your game is running.
> 
> That's why I say that six-core CPUs should be the bare minimum from this point on. It gives you far more breathing room to have your system be able to handle things besides just your game.


well ... not a bare minimum ... 4C/8T is also nice (1500 ... not 7700K ... pricing ... pricing...) although my 6600K being a quad ... i do not feel hindered by it (most game i play are MMO and RTS ... i should feel hindered  ... which also explain why i am eyeing Ryzen as next upgrade, since a X99 is out of the question pfahahah )

no misunderstanding ... i like Intel i like AMD i had both manufacturer CPU's in all gen they did, i just find AMD to do a not so bad job and i find them competitive, in performances and prices, enough to be considered as a worthy option for an upgrade path.


----------



## Mighty-Lu-Bu (Apr 19, 2017)

trparky said:


> I'd say that six core should be the bare minimum, anything less than that is nowhere close to being future-proof.
> 
> Again, I keep coming back to the question with quad-core chips is where is your OS going to run while your game is running? Your OS still has to run along with all of its background services and antivirus and then what about your other user programs like perhaps your web browser that may have open while your game is running.
> 
> That's why I say that six-core CPUs should be the bare minimum from this point on. It gives you far more breathing room to have your system be able to handle things besides just your game.



AMD has been using the term "future-proof" for almost a decade now and we still haven't seen a big push from video game developers. I can't think of a game off of the top of my head that even benefits from anything more than quad core because the industry isn't quite there yet. I don't really understand what you are saying about "where your OS is going to run" because that seems pretty irrelevant- just because you are gaming on a quad core CPU doesn't mean your OS is going to crap out. Quad core CPUs are the golden standard for gaming for a reason. Maybe in a year a two the golden standard will be hex cores, but I cannot see octa core processors being the standard for at least 4-5 years.


----------



## trparky (Apr 19, 2017)

GreiverBlade said:


> 4C/8T is also nice


Again... fake cores, they aren't real. That second thread that runs on a core giving you that second virtual core is given whatever computing capacity is left over in the core after the real core's thread is applied to it. In other words, you may have a thread running on a core and it's using 75% of the total computing capacity of that core leaving you with a gimped second virtual core.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Apr 19, 2017)

trparky said:


> Again... fake cores, they aren't real. That second thread that runs on a core giving you that second virtual core is given whatever computing capacity is left over in the core after the real core's thread is applied to it. In other words, you may have a thread running on a core and it's using 75% of the total computing capacity of that core leaving you with a gimped second virtual core.


yes indeed, but still it can be used for minor background task 

well AMD did good to give mainstream 6 and 8 core, Intel ... not that much

edit: now that i did read that Black Desert Online can use up to 6 core ... the 1600/1600X is almost confirmed for me


----------



## mcraygsx (Apr 19, 2017)

Mighty-Lu-Bu said:


> AMD has been using the term "future-proof" for almost a decade now and we still haven't seen a big push from video game developers. I can't think of a game off of the top of my head that even benefits from anything more than quad-core because the industry isn't quite there yet. I don't really understand what you are saying about "where your OS is going to run" because that seems pretty irrelevant- just because you are gaming on a quad core CPU doesn't mean your OS is going to crap out. Quad core CPUs are the golden standard for gaming for a reason. Maybe in a year a two the golden standard will be hex-cores, but I cannot see octa-core processors being the standard for at least 4-5 years.



Trparky is not wrong. This Comparison might help you understand what he is talking about. Pay attention to CPU ' usage ' on both Ryzen and Intel and tell me what you see.


----------



## bpgt64 (Apr 19, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> Reason IPCs are given in percentages instead of actual IPC count is because it varies a lot from game to game. So you're better off going by percentages.
> 
> I really wish people would be more specific about their Ryzen experiences.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mighty-Lu-Bu (Apr 19, 2017)

mcraygsx said:


> Trparky is not wrong. This Comparison might help you understand what he is talking about. Pay attention to CPU ' usage ' on both Ryzen and Intel and tell me what you see.



Ok so the i5-6600k is using more CPU usage. Does this also apply to the i7-7700k?


----------



## GreiverBlade (Apr 19, 2017)

mcraygsx said:


> Trparky is not wrong. This Comparison might help you understand what he is talking about. Pay attention to CPU usage on both Ryzen and Intel and tell me what you see.


mmhhh one more step and vote for the 1600 being a better choice than a 7600K or 7700K (if i decide to pull the trigger on a new rig, for me )



Mighty-Lu-Bu said:


> Ok so the i5-6600k is using more CPU usage. Does this also apply to the i7-7700k?


the same comparison i saw about the 1700 versus 7700K shown the same behavior and also it was a 5ghz 7700K versus a 3.8ghz 1700 (that gave +/- 10-15 fps) also that was a 7600K


----------



## mcraygsx (Apr 19, 2017)

Mighty-Lu-Bu said:


> Ok so the i5-6600k is using more CPU usage. Does this also apply to the i7-7700k?




I am using 7700K instead of 7600K exactly for that reason.  I play Rainbow Six quite often and at 2K resolution my CPU usage stay above 75% but never close to maxing out unless I am running AV, Netflix and 3 IE tabs opened etc along with it. To be honest Yes I alt tab out quite often while waiting in queue/operator selection and browse. This is where extra 4C/8T of 7700Khelps . In the video I posted above, I presume Ryzen based system offered better 0.1 and 1% frame time then 7600K thus providing better overall experience. Kabylake 7600K/7700K win's hands down when it comes to average and max FPS.

For tactical FPS games like Rainbow Six Siege, Overwatch  I myself prefer to have lower (<8) frame time then max FPS.

But at the end of the day like almost every reviewer said if you are gaming at 2K and 4K, GPU becomes the limiting factor not your CPU. Both 7700K & 1600 are more then enough for average user. Either will last you a long time.


----------



## Mighty-Lu-Bu (Apr 19, 2017)

mcraygsx said:


> I am using 7700K instead of 7600K exactly for that reason.  I play Rainbow Six quite often and at 2K resolution my CPU usage stay above 75% but never close to maxing out unless I am running AV, Netflix and 3 IE tabs opened etc along with it. To be honest Yes I alt tab out quite often while waiting in queue/operator selection and browse. This is where extra 4C/8T helps. In the video I posted above, I presume Ryzen based system offered better 0.1 and 1% frame time then 7600K thus providing better overall experience.
> 
> But at the end of the day like almost every reviewer said if you are gaming at 2K and 4K, GPU becomes the limiting factor not your CPU.



I think the Ryzen 7 1800x is overpriced at almost $500. With that being said, I can't really explain this article:

http://www.toptengamer.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-vs-intel-i7-7700k-1800x/

It shows the Ryzen 7 1700 going toe-to-toe with the i7-7700k and in a majority of the games tested it is either the same as the i7 or even surpasses it. What is going on?! That would mean that a Ryzen 7 1700 which is about $30-$45 cheaper than the i7-7700k would seemingly be the better option right? Does that mean that the Ryzen 7 1700 is AMD's "sweet spot" in terms of price and performance?


----------



## trparky (Apr 19, 2017)

Mighty-Lu-Bu said:


> AMD has been using the term "future-proof" for almost a decade now and we still haven't seen a big push from video game developers. I can't think of a game off of the top of my head that even benefits from anything more than quad core because the industry isn't quite there yet. I don't really understand what you are saying about "where your OS is going to run" because that seems pretty irrelevant- just because you are gaming on a quad core CPU doesn't mean your OS is going to crap out. Quad core CPUs are the golden standard for gaming for a reason. Maybe in a year a two the golden standard will be hex cores, but I cannot see octa core processors being the standard for at least 4-5 years.


Sure, your OS may not crap out, that's not what I'm talking about. I am however talking about what is known in computing science as a context switch. Every time your system incurs a context switch you face a performance penalty. The reason being is that when a context switch occurs (which is what happens when your CPU's task is changed) it first must flush the cache, load new code, load the cache, and then finally execute. This takes time to do which may be manifested in the hitches and graphical glitches that people occasionally see in some games due to a frame being waited on. This is more than likely a context switch that's occurring at the CPU core level which is hanging things up. The more cores you have the less context switches you have which results in less performance penalties.



GreiverBlade said:


> well AMD did good to give mainstream 6 and 8 core, Intel ... not that much


That's only because Intel wants us to pay top dollar for more than four cores making anything more than four cores damn near un-affordable for us mere mortals. I looked at an Intel Core i7-6800K Broadwell-E 6-Core | Newegg and it's priced at a whopping *$419!!!  *Seriously, what does Intel think we have? A money bin like Scrooge McDuck?



mcraygsx said:


> Trparky is not wrong. This Comparison might help you understand what he is talking about. Pay attention to CPU ' usage ' on both Ryzen and Intel and tell me what you see.


Bingo! This man gets it! Again... context switching incurs a performance penalty.


----------



## Mighty-Lu-Bu (Apr 19, 2017)

With all this being said, I am heavily leaning towards the Ryzen 5 1600X or the Ryzen 7 1700.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 19, 2017)

notb said:


> Almost no support from cooler manufacturers at launch, bugs, RAM incompatibilities etc.
> 1.5 months have passed since the launch and we're getting second batch of mobos.
> Honestly, it's really obvious that AMD didn't share specs early enough for other companies to prepare.


"Almost no support", isn't none and it isn't true anyway. There were more than enough coolers available for Ryzen as well as kits for older coolers to fit it on.
"Bugs, Ram compatibilities etc". and then again you're overly praising Intel. So I'm gonna say this:
a) you're comparing apple to bananas, Ryzen is new, Intel's stuff is very old and is still based on Core Gen 1 arch. So if you're unable to cut them some slack, it's just bad character. Intel's stuff wasn't perfect when first release, not the 1st gen Core stuff, not the X79 stuff and especially not the X99 stuff. Multiple problems with heat on Haswell / Ivy Bridge aside. You talk like Intel's perfect, but they never were.
b) you sound like a Intel fanboy, the way you praise them, that in effect lowers your creditability discussing AMD
c) you're again easily exaggerating those "bugs" etc. - Ryzen runs fine, as long as the user in front of the PC is no idiot. And I don't care about idiots.
d) it's clear you're here to make Ryzen bad, and are discussing this with every user that is not concurring with you or makes some positive statements about Ryzen. What exactly is your problem with AMD? Or why are you such a Intel fanboy?


> Now this is new to me, but I'm no expert on the AMD lineup. How do you count cores in FX-8350?


On one hand you try to discredit me as too young to understand FX and CPUs, and on the other hand you're asking me stupid questions about old tech? Strange behaviour I call that. Go to your beloved anandtech to get a explanation on FX - even if it's still not part of this discussion, look at the thread title if you care.


> How can you say it's "the present", when you have to pay over $300 for a desktop CPU and we're almost sure that APU and mobile processors will have 4 cores at most?


It was already "present" when FX and Gen 1 Core Intel CPUs hit the market, both with as much as 6 to 8 cores. Now it's nothing special and absolutely common, many people own a 6 core+ CPU and / or a CPU that has 8 or more threads which is essentially the same. Fact is i7 had untapped power because HT wasn't used, but it's well used now. Every desktop i7 has 8 threads or more. Consoles have 3/6 (Xbox360 3 cores + SMT = 6 threads) CPUs, now have 8 CPUs. Just because "most users" are still behind and only use 4 cores or less, doesn't mean it's still not part of the present. It is present technology.


> Maybe an educated guess? In a year from now, what percentage of all PCs (so excluding servers) will have more than 4 cores?


I'm not here to do fruitless speculations to feed moot points.


> But why are you so sure history won't repeat itself? Once again AMD is doubling Intel's core count. Once again we are assured that AMD is correct, Intel is wrong and game creators are lazy/bribed by Intel.
> Honestly, I don't know how old you are and whether you've been tracking the Bulldozer launch as well.
> I was. I've seen all this already. I've taken part in almost identical discussions. I've read reviews with similar conclusions.
> Here's one of them:


Honestly it's a sign of weakness and weak argument if someone starts his point by talking about the age of the other user. But I can tell you I'm easily old and experienced enough for you.


> And a few quotes from the text:
> "Given the right workload, *Bulldozer is actually able to hang with Intel's* fastest Sandy Bridge parts. *We finally have a high-end AMD CPU* with power gating as well as a very functional Turbo Core mode. Unfortunately the same complaints we've had about AMD's processors over the past few years still apply here today: *in lightly threaded scenarios, Bulldozer simply does not perform*."


"AMD also shared with us that Windows 7 isn't really all that optimized for Bulldozer"
"In many ways, where Bulldozer is a clear win is where AMD has always done well: heavily threaded applications."
"The good news is *AMD has a very aggressive roadmap* ahead of itself"[/quote]
So what? If you missed it, FX has not exactly much in common with Ryzen. Ryzen has similarities with Intel's Core lineup, not FX, and everyone knows that too - or should know it at least. Nobody said that 8 Core CPUs are mainly made for gaming, they are suited for gaming *and much more*, this is what every good reviewer says. So comparing those 8 cores and even 6 cores with old fashioned 4 cores of Intel is the wrong way. Also people exaggerate the performance of 7700K compared to Ryzen all the time. I have seen countless different reviews on that matter, and Ryzen holds itself pretty well and will be faster, once 4 cores are overburdened. That said, I would never buy a 4 core for 350 bucks, I'd instead go with the Ryzen 7 1700 or a Core i7 5820K/6800K, nothing else. The 7700K is just bad value, like the 6700K and 4770/4790K before it. The first Core i7 were priced at 200 bucks or less (i7 920 for example), those were HEDT parts, socket 1366 with Triple Channel, the predecessor of LGA 2011, and still way less expensive than the consumer parts are now. The prices Intel wants for their top of the line, overclockable i7 4 Core is just laughable. Since many years.


> The key difference is that FX-8150 was competing with a then-modern i7-2600K and lost badly in single-thread at launch already.
> Intel overslept Ryzen launch - new LGA1151 processors (maybe final) will arrive in early 2018. We'll see what happens...


The key here is, nobody is really talking about FX besides you. Peope don't give a damn about FX since Ryzen is released. Have a look at the topic name.


----------



## notb (Apr 19, 2017)

mcraygsx said:


> Trparky is not wrong. This Comparison might help you understand what he is talking about. Pay attention to CPU ' usage ' on both Ryzen and Intel and tell me what you see.



You know you're making a mistake here, don't you? 

What you see in i5-7600 is the correct situation: the CPU is utilized fully - maximizing the resulting framerate. That's how it should look.
In case of Ryzen the design is too slow to utilize all cores. Basically it does the same job as 7600 does - just divides it between more cores.

Furthermore, you can pair a Ryzen with a 2x1080Ti config, run the most demanding game and 4K and you'll see the same result - Ryzen will not work at 100% - even if it bottlenecks the setup.
Ryzen is not future-proof at this point. It's just not optimized correctly or inefficient. It simply can't work faster. It's a design problem in either the CPU or the software (games).
If it's solved, we could see it perform better in games. If not - it might just keep using 60% (even less with Ryzen 7).
Some say it's because games are not optimized for more threads. I find that hard to believe. We're in fact seeing games use all the cores available in Ryzen 5 and 7, so it's all about load per core.


And keep in mind that games are a very specific PC task. They're "live". For each game there will always be a limit of how many things the CPU has to do at a particular moment, because your interaction modifies what will happen next. It's very different from productivity tasks like encoding a movie etc.


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 19, 2017)

I see a lot of talking from people that don't own a Ryzen chip talking about how worse it is. It's obviously slower than a 4 core 7700k but my 1700X is giving me (along with my 1080ti) butter smooth fps in BF1 with zero hitching. 
I have an 8 core faster CPU than my old 6 core Intel.  My system worked from the start because i used the QVL list. Just like all mobos have.
Ryzen is where it ought to be, cheaper than Intel and almost as good. Far better value for money.


----------



## notb (Apr 19, 2017)

Kanan said:


> "Almost no support", isn't none and it isn't true anyway. There were more than enough coolers available for Ryzen as well as kits for older coolers to fit it on.


I don't measure this by how many there were, but how many of all coolers supported it. That is: not many.
As far as "more than enough" argument - one cooler is enough. You don't need more. So I assume you'll be fine even if just the AMD Wraith fitted. 



Kanan said:


> a) you're comparing apple to bananas, Ryzen is new, Intel's stuff is very old and is still based on Core Gen 1 arch.


I don't care as long as both apples and bananas can multiply integers.
If I'm buying a CPU right now, I'm looking at it's current status. No points for "being new" or "interesting" or "AMD HQ is closer to the ocean".



Kanan said:


> Intel's stuff wasn't perfect when first release, not the 1st gen Core stuff, not the X79 stuff and especially not the X99 stuff. Multiple problems with heat on Haswell / Ivy Bridge aside. You talk like Intel's perfect, but they never were.


But Intel has a better history when it comes to incremental improvements and fixing issues.

Sorry, but I don't have such feelings when it comes to AMD after the Bulldozer fiasco. I don't believe next Ryzen batch will be much better - just like I don't think software will suddenly use 8 cores, because (optimistically) 1% more of PCs have them. Maybe I'm unfair, but this safe approach has never let me down.



Kanan said:


> b) you sound like a Intel fanboy, the way you praise them, that in effect lowers your creditability discussing AMD


Actually I'm criticizing AMD, not praising Intel. You're implying the latter part.
BTW: does being an AMD fanboy lower creditability discussing AMD?



Kanan said:


> d) it's clear you're here to make Ryzen bad, and are discussing this with every user that is not concurring with you or makes some positive statements about Ryzen.


True, I don't like Ryzen (beside the performance). Am I allowed to share my opinion? Where should I do that if not in a "AMD Ryzen discussion thread"? Isn't "discussing" about pointing out pros and cons?
Or is this place only for worshiping? Maybe the title should be changed? 


Kanan said:


> Every desktop i7 has 8 threads or more. Consoles have 3/6 (Xbox360 3 cores + SMT = 6 threads) CPUs, now have 8 CPUs. Just because "most users" are still behind and only use 4 cores or less, doesn't mean it's still not part of the present. It is present technology.


It's a very small part of the whole market. You say all this like if every Intel-based desktop had an i7, while this is just a small group of high-end machines. Even many gamers/enthusiasts on this forum have chosen an i5. And desktops are a minority anyway.


Kanan said:


> So what? If you missed it, FX has not exactly much in common with Ryzen. Ryzen has similarities with Intel's Core lineup, not FX


Correct. But the issues are similar and so is everything else. It's not about Ryzen's partly weird architecture (although it doesn't help). It's about there is hardly any demand for such high thread count. This hasn't changed since FX.


Kanan said:


> Nobody said that 8 Core CPUs are mainly made for gaming, they are suited for gaming *and much more*,


That's just creating a problem for a solution.
E.g. 7700K is better at gaming, but Ryzen is better at gaming+streaming. So once again: which one is better for gaming? Of course it's Ryzen. And if you're not streaming, you should start doing that.


Kanan said:


> The 7700K is just bad value, like the 6700K and 4770/4790K before it. The first Core i7 were priced at 200 bucks or less (i7 920 for example), those were HEDT parts, socket 1366 with Triple Channel, the predecessor of LGA 2011, and still way less expensive than the consumer parts are now. The prices Intel wants for their top of the line, overclockable i7 4 Core is just laughable. Since many years.


Now this is just manipulation. 
First of all: i7-920 costed $300, not $200. Second, it was a very cheap outlier in a more expensive lineup. i7-940 was already over $500 and the highest i7-965 costed $1000 (all with 4 cores).
You can't criticize current Intel lineup because they used to give us a CPU with great value few years back. 

And keep in mind all LGA1151 CPUs have an IGP (4770/4790K also did). Nehalem i7 did not.

Generally speaking, PC parts prices went up lately - that's mostly due to shrinking desktop market, but also a few other effects. It's same with RAM, GPUs and so on.
And what about disks? Sure, SSD have many advantages over HDD, but the end result is simple: we're paying few times more per GB than we used to few years ago.
If "a disk" was just a black box that you connect to store files, hardly anyone would accept this price increase. But we're fed with the idea that it's a great new tech and it MUST be more expensive.



Kanan said:


> The key here is, nobody is really talking about FX besides you. Peope don't give a damn about FX since Ryzen is released. Have a look at the topic name.


You're right! I found it very weird when reading the reviews and the Ryzen launch materials. No one - including AMD - is comparing Ryzen to previous AMD CPUs. Why is that?
Check this out:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2992&cmp[]=1780


----------



## purecain (Apr 19, 2017)

I own a haswell system and for the past couple of years 4cores and eight threads have been fine. I always stream and in January of this year I started having problems streaming new games. my cpu simply could no longer handle the load. 

Ryzen is clock for clock faster than core architecture. only it clocks nearly 1000mhz slower. you would think those extra clock cycles would make up for there being only 8threads on the intel system. unfortunately it does not. I cant wait to get my new 1800x. my order was cancelled so Ive put the build off for a week.  but the anticipation of running my os on m.2 with a ryzen cpu is killing me. 

for comparative performance an intel build would of set me back £2000+. my budget for this build is £1400 and that's for the cpu,280ml aiocooler , 4000mhz ddr4, motherboard and 500gb m.2 drive.


----------



## P4-630 (Apr 19, 2017)

purecain said:


> 4000mhz ddr4



Not sure but is it possible to reach those speeds yet with a ryzen build?


----------



## HTC (Apr 19, 2017)

purecain said:


> I own a haswell system and for the past couple of years 4cores and eight threads have been fine. I always stream and in January of this year I started having problems streaming new games. my cpu simply could no longer handle the load.
> 
> Ryzen is clock for clock faster than core architecture. only it clocks nearly 1000mhz slower. you would think those extra clock cycles would make up for there being only 8threads on the intel system. unfortunately it does not. I cant wait to get my new 1800x. my order was cancelled so Ive put the build off for a week.  but the anticipation of running my os on m.2 with a ryzen cpu is killing me.
> 
> for comparative performance an intel build would of set me back £2000+. my budget for this build is £1400 and that's for the cpu,280ml aiocooler , *4000mhz ddr4*, motherboard and 500gb m.2 drive.



Just make sure the RAM is in the board's QVL.


----------



## infrared (Apr 19, 2017)

P4-630 said:


> Not sure but is it possible to reach those speeds yet with a ryzen build?


Should be able to get close with the right memory, I got to 3650mhz, cdawall got slightly further I think.


----------



## trparky (Apr 19, 2017)

Your logic is wrong @notb, if the Intel CPU is running at 100% then they means that the CPU is running at maximum capacity. If the Ryzen processor is running at less usage it means that it can better handle the load. More cores equals better distribution of the load. You don't ever want a CPU at full load, that means it's struggling; unless you're benchmarking it of course.


----------



## notb (Apr 19, 2017)

trparky said:


> Your logic is wrong @notb, if the Intel CPU is running at 100% then they means that the CPU is running at maximum capacity. If the Ryzen processor is running at less usage it means that it can better handle the load. More cores equals better distribution of the load. You don't ever want a CPU at full load, that means it's struggling; unless you're benchmarking it of course.


By all means, no!
Of course you want it at full load. Why wouldn't you?
Someone must have greatly deceived you. 

If a CPU is not working at 100% it just means that some computing power is wasted.
That's exactly why we got HT/SMT: to utilize CPUs even better.


----------



## HTC (Apr 19, 2017)

notb said:


> By all means, no!
> *Of course you want it at full load. Why wouldn't you?*
> Someone must have greatly deceived you.
> 
> ...



To avoid any other applications from having high interference with what you're playing unless, when you play, you shut down everything else so that the game can have all resources available.

If the CPU cores / threads are maxed, when something is introduced, the game suffers in the form of stutters or worse but, if you have a lower core / thread utilization, then it *may* not even affect gameplay @ all, depending on what it is, ofc.


----------



## notb (Apr 19, 2017)

HTC said:


> To avoid any other applications from having high interference with what you're playing unless, when you play, you shut down everything else so that the game can have all resources available.


If another application interferes, it should just result in lower fps.
OS scheduler should take care of job management. For a background process to "dominate" a game (played in full screen etc) would be fairly interesting. I haven't seen such behaviour since I got my first dual core CPU. Sometimes a game will halt, but that's usually a result of a larger problem: temp throttling or a part misbehaving (usually disks, PSU or mobo).


----------



## trparky (Apr 19, 2017)

If the game halts for any reason that's a sign of a resource contention and you don't want that. High CPU usage is bad, it results in higher power usage and more heat.

More cores are better, the more cores you have the less chance of context switching which can rob you of performance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_switch


----------



## HTC (Apr 19, 2017)

notb said:


> *If another application interferes, it should just result in lower fps.*
> OS scheduler should take care of job management. *For a background process to "dominate" a game (played in full screen etc) would be fairly interesting.* I haven't seen such behaviour since I got my first dual core CPU. Sometimes a game will halt, but that's usually a result of a larger problem: temp throttling or a part misbehaving (usually disks, PSU or mobo).



Lower FPS is always the case in such occasions, but the way this presents itself can vary from simple stutters to a generally worse gameplay experience: whatever the way, is bad for gaming, IMO.

The background process will not "dominate" a game, as you call it, but it can very much interfere, which is the point here. If the CPU cores / threads aren't maxed, then there's a chance it won't interfere @ all, depending ofc on what it is. This is not the case if the CPU cores / threads are maxed already because, to be able to run "whatever application" it needs resources, however small they may be, and that is enough to disturb gameplay.


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 19, 2017)

HTC said:


> Lower FPS is always the case in such occasions, but the way this presents itself can vary from simple stutters to a generally worse gameplay experience: whatever the way, is bad for gaming, IMO.
> 
> The background process will not "dominate" a game, as you call it, but it can very much interfere, which is the point here. If the CPU cores / threads aren't maxed, then there's a chance it won't interfere @ all, depending ofc on what it is. This is not the case if the CPU cores / threads are maxed already because, to be able to run "whatever application" it needs resources, however small they may be, and that is enough to disturb gameplay.



Like i said, butter smooth, no judder. Had that previously on my 3930k.  Judder during intense scenes.


----------



## HD64G (Apr 19, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> Apparently you haven't been paying attention to gaming benches. The 7700k still kicks butt in gaming, period, and given that, it's priced reasonably as well. People don't buy Intel CPUs merely on hype, they buy them because they perform well.


Who isn't paying attention? Check that video 1st...


----------



## notb (Apr 19, 2017)

trparky said:


> If the game halts for any reason that's a sign of a resource contention and you don't want that. High CPU usage is bad, it results in higher power usage and more heat.


Having a CPU in general results in higher power usage and more heat. What's the point of this arguments? 
You said:


> You don't ever want a CPU at full load, that means it's struggling


So first of all: was this a general rule or just for gaming? I don't want a CPU at full load ever? Also when compressing files or running simulations? Because full load is bad by definition? Seriously?

Even if it was just for gaming, I still don't get what's bothering you.
If Ryzen can hold 80fps with 60% load, it might as well hold 120fps at 90%.
Yes, it would use a bit more power, but at least it would mean that it can be properly utilized when needed. If you're bothered by high power usage of computers, just don't buy an RX580. 

You know what I'm afraid of? That this is an optimization issue. That if you run a more demanding game it'll still use a relatively small part of CPU potential - limiting fps to an unpleasant level.

I don't know if this can be checked today, i.e. IMO currently Ryzen is new and too powerful to become a bottleneck.
But if someone knows how to do this, I'd be really glad to see a 90% load on those 12-16 threads created just by the game (no streaming etc ).



trparky said:


> More cores are better, the more cores you have the less chance of context switching which can rob you of performance.


I never said more cores are worse. But it can't be done at a cost of worse single-thread performance. Keeping single-thread potential at a decent level should have a priority. That's why I never even considered an AMD Bulldozer.
But now it's Ryzen with a very strange architecture, the Infinity Fabric etc.
Mind you, I'm totally into innovation and interesting solutions, but they have to be deeply tested, not believed in.
And we've already seen some really weird stuff - like gaming performance improving with SMT switched off.


trparky said:


> More cores are better, the more cores you have the less chance of context switching which can rob you of performance
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_switch


Context switching is a fundamental idea behind a multitasking OS (basically the way we use computers). I don't know if you understand it properly...
Your CPU is doing this all the time - you play a game, but it doesn't take over the whole core. Once in a while a different job is processed.
This is the expected behaviour.
Sure, we don't want another process to take over the CPU for so long that it makes the game unplayable, but honestly... does this happen in the 4-core era? I expect Windows scheduler to take care of such things. I haven't seen that for a long time.
What are you running in the background? Prime95?


----------



## HTC (Apr 19, 2017)

HD64G said:


> Who isn't paying attention? Check that video 1st...



Them frame times are interesting: too bad the dude only shows up to 30 ms in those graphs. He should show the whole thing and not just to up to 30 ms.


----------



## Aenra (Apr 19, 2017)

infrared said:


> Should be able to get close with the right memory, I got to 3650mhz, cdawall got slightly further I think.



Careful 
Go have a look at cdawall's voltages.. i wouldn't dare leave it that high for 24/7, like ever. And that was for 3600ish mind. 4k frequencies are out of the question, let's be realistic here.


----------



## trparky (Apr 19, 2017)

notb said:


> Sure, we don't want another process to take over the CPU for so long that it makes the game unplayable, but honestly... does this happen in the 4-core era? I expect Windows scheduler to take care of such things. I haven't seen that for a long time.


What do you think is happening when a game glitches or you see a graphical stutter? That's the game being robbed of the CPU when it needs it the most. You want to have as much CPU time as you can dedicated to the game, with a quad-core you can't do that because you have your OS and background services that still need to run.


----------



## Mighty-Lu-Bu (Apr 19, 2017)

I think its funny that people are almost trying to discredit AMD. I currently have an AMD FX 8350 and guess what? I can run just about anything with my GTX 1070. If I upgraded to a R5 1600X or a R7 1700 and overclocked, I would get frame rates close to an i7-7700k. I have seen all of the new post launch benchmarks and the fact is that Ryzen is not too far behind the i7-7700k in terms of gaming at 1080p. Some people act like it is light years off, but this simply isn't true- it is literally right there in all of the top benchmarks for gaming. Does it need to be more optimized? Of course, but it has barely been out for a month and a half. With BIOS updates, game patches, Windows updates, etc. Ryzen will eventually dethrone the i7-7700k- whether that is next month, or 6 months from now.

I gave into the initial Ryzen hype, but I was letdown when I saw some of the first reviews and 1080p benchmarks, but the fact that AMD has actually been addressing these issues is huge. Yesterday I was convinced that an i7-7700k was the best route, but now I am thinking twice about that. Plus you really need to factor in that the AM4 platform will have support until at the bare minimum 2021 and the entire Ryzen CPU lineup is compatible with that board. That is HUGE! AMD has been saying future-proofing for years, but I actually think it is happening. They are already starting to convince developers to move to multi core so honestly I think it is just a matter of time. Is the i7-7700k the gaming king? Currently, at least as far as a quad core CPU goes. However, that might not be the case in 2 weeks or two months and you can be certain that new games are most likely going to benefit from 6-8 core CPUs.


----------



## infrared (Apr 19, 2017)

Aenra said:


> Careful
> Go have a look at cdawall's voltages.. i wouldn't dare leave it that high for 24/7, like ever. And that was for 3600ish mind. 4k frequencies are out of the question, let's be realistic here.


I don't know why he needed so much SoC, mine was 1.175v for 3650mhz, wierdly raising soc or vdimm, or timings didn't help at all, it was a brick wall at that point. I guess they're all gonna clock slightly different depending on how good the IMC is.


----------



## Mighty-Lu-Bu (Apr 19, 2017)

Well I just convinced myself- I am going with a Ryzen 7 1700!


----------



## Aenra (Apr 19, 2017)

infrared said:


> I don't know why he needed so much SoC, mine was 1.175v for 3650mhz



Ain't his, lol, it's yours 
Looks like you hit the jackpot (or as good as anyway) from what i've seen going around in the usual OC forums.


----------



## HD64G (Apr 19, 2017)

HTC said:


> Them frame times are interesting: too bad the dude only shows up to 30 ms in those graphs. He should show the whole thing and not just to up to 30 ms.


More numbers and especially about smoothness that matters most in gaming with a GTX1070 tested for both blue and red chips. Tbh I didn't expect i5 crushed so hard, especially in witcher 3. A great game engine that takes proper advantage of more than 4 cores.


----------



## Mighty-Lu-Bu (Apr 19, 2017)

HD64G said:


> More numbers and especially about smoothness that matters most in gaming with a GTX1070 tested for both blue and red chips. Tbh I didn't expect i5 crushed so hard, especially in witcher 3. A great game engine that takes proper advantage of more than 4 cores.



This is why I am upgrading the the Ryzen 7 1700. I am definitely going to get a much needed performance boost.


----------



## mcraygsx (Apr 20, 2017)

Just watched Joker Productions benchmark for Ryzen and was surprised that his review is way off. If someone can shed some light on this, why does Ryzen 1700 @3.9Ghz performs on par with a highly overclocked 7700K@5.0Ghz? While every other site including powertechup.com tells a different story at least when it comes to gaming. Ofcourse he is benching 1700 unlike most who used 1700x/1800x against 7700K.

Jokerproduction benchmark scores are way different then the rest.

Ryzen 1700 vs i7 7700K REVIEW | Best CPU Under $350?









Ryzen 1700 vs i7 7700K | An Unbiased Look at Benchmarks


----------



## Kanan (Apr 20, 2017)

notb said:


> I don't measure this by how many there were, but how many of all coolers supported it. That is: not many.
> As far as "more than enough" argument - one cooler is enough. You don't need more. So I assume you'll be fine even if just the AMD Wraith fitted.


More than enough supported it, you're basically talking nonsense.


> I don't care as long as both apples and bananas can multiply integers.
> If I'm buying a CPU right now, I'm looking at it's current status. No points for "being new" or "interesting" or "AMD HQ is closer to the ocean".


Yeah, goes a way to discredit yourself as not being a forward looking/wise/intelligent being. CPU's aren't GPU's and are bought for long term usually nowadays. Being shortsighted there isn't paying off on the long run.


> Sorry, but I don't have such feelings when it comes to AMD after the Bulldozer fiasco. I don't believe next Ryzen batch will be much better - just like I don't think software will suddenly use 8 cores, because (optimistically) 1% more of PCs have them. Maybe I'm unfair, but this safe approach has never let me down.


Believe what you want, talking to you is largely a waste of time anyway. Talking to a wall is better I guess.


> Actually I'm criticizing AMD, not praising Intel. You're implying the latter part.
> BTW: does being an AMD fanboy lower creditability discussing AMD?


You're doing both (go and read your own stuff you've written about Intel). And yeah of course it does.


> True, I don't like Ryzen (beside the performance). Am I allowed to share my opinion? Where should I do that if not in a "AMD Ryzen discussion thread"? Isn't "discussing" about pointing out pros and cons?
> Or is this place only for worshiping? Maybe the title should be changed?


No, but you're annoying, boldly stating things that are exaggerated or simply wrong.


> It's a very small part of the whole market. You say all this like if every Intel-based desktop had an i7, while this is just a small group of high-end machines. Even many gamers/enthusiasts on this forum have chosen an i5. And desktops are a minority anyway.


Ryzen is more or less for (semi-)highend users at the moment, so I'm only talking about those users.


> Correct. But the issues are similar and so is everything else. It's not about Ryzen's partly weird architecture (although it doesn't help). It's about there is hardly any demand for such high thread count. This hasn't changed since FX.


Demand is there, whether you're seeing it or not. Example: I upgraded from a i7 3820 to a 3960X and those 2 extra cores and 4 extra threads helped a lot in anything (productive, gaming, simple things such as starting windows and internet browser), so it's not a far stretch those 8 cores would help too. Not always, but often enough to buy it now. On top a CPU is now a long term usage item, so going for a 6 or 8 Core is simply smarter now, than going for a 4 Core. The problem is also their pricing is pretty bad.


> That's just creating a problem for a solution.
> E.g. 7700K is better at gaming, but Ryzen is better at gaming+streaming. So once again: which one is better for gaming? Of course it's Ryzen. And if you're not streaming, you should start doing that.


No it's just a example of what Ryzen can do compared to the 7700K. Another example would be it's increased work capabilities such as in decoding and other stuff. Jayz2cents (youtuber) used a Ryzen 1800X @ 3.9 GHz for over a month now and he says it's pretty good at anything, especially workstation and praises it's nice pricing compared to comparable Intel CPUs (6800 or 6900K). Pretty much every Ryzen user is happy with it.


> Now this is just manipulation.
> First of all: i7-920 costed $300, not $200. Second, it was a very cheap outlier in a more expensive lineup. i7-940 was already over $500 and the highest i7-965 costed $1000 (all with 4 cores).
> You can't criticize current Intel lineup because they used to give us a CPU with great value few years back.


Uh no, it costed 200€ and I nearly bought it - I was just hindered by high mainboard prices and high DDR3 tri-kit prices, because DDR3 was basically just released alongside with it. Instead I went for a Phenom II 940 for the same 200€ but cheaper MB/Ram.
I can critisize it like that, it's a way of explaining why Intel has bad pricing now compared to before. Now if the 7700K would have 6 cores instead of 4, I wouldn't say that. But they are extremely greedy. Good AMD is here to solve that, Intel already pulled the release date months ahead for their new products in reaction to that. 


> And keep in mind all LGA1151 CPUs have an IGP (4770/4790K also did). Nehalem i7 did not.


Yeah, nobody cares about having a worthless GPU in a highend CPU just for increasing die-space so that it's not too small to manufacture. You can ask people, maybe 1-5% would care about the IGPU. 


> Generally speaking, PC parts prices went up lately - that's mostly due to shrinking desktop market, but also a few other effects. It's same with RAM, GPUs and so on.
> And what about disks? Sure, SSD have many advantages over HDD, but the end result is simple: we're paying few times more per GB than we used to few years ago.
> If "a disk" was just a black box that you connect to store files, hardly anyone would accept this price increase. But we're fed with the idea that it's a great new tech and it MUST be more expensive.


The reason why that happened is mainly because of shortages. SSD and Ram prices went downhill for many months or even years before the increase, and it will continue again once the shortages are over.


> You're right! I found it very weird when reading the reviews and the Ryzen launch materials. No one - including AMD - is comparing Ryzen to previous AMD CPUs. Why is that?
> Check this out:
> http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2992&cmp[]=1780


Why should they - because Ryzen is good enough to compare to Intel. Essentially, comparing it to FX would mean it's not good enough. It was a smart move by AMD.


notb said:


> By all means, no!
> Of course you want it at full load. Why wouldn't you?
> Someone must have greatly deceived you.
> 
> ...


What he meant is, having a GPU bottleneck is better than having a CPU bottleneck, because that way the GPU is always fully utilized. I think he also meant that having headroom is better than having none. Actually care to understand people before you doubt them and start to discuss simple things to death.
Ryzen will be easily better than 7700K over time. Today people use CPUs for as long as 10 years, so it's easily a better investment. Just a fool would think 4 cores will always be what you need. 8 cores and more are the future, accept it or not, it's a 99% fact anyway.


----------



## notb (Apr 20, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Yeah, goes a way to discredit yourself as not being a forward looking/wise/intelligent being. CPU's aren't GPU's and are bought for long term usually nowadays. Being shortsighted there isn't paying off on the long run.


And GPU's aren't bought for long term? That's interesting - even more when you think about the price difference.
In a well balanced gaming rig the GPU is usually twice as expensive as CPU, isn't it?


Kanan said:


> Talking to a wall is better I guess.


It's fine as long as you're guessing - not deducing from personal experience. 


Kanan said:


> You're doing both (go and read your own stuff you've written about Intel). And yeah of course it does.


Like most, I'm not overly happy with Intel CPU performance. They could have left i7 as a HEDT part and give us a 4C/8T i5 at a lower price point.
But other than that... it's a good, stable and well-tested platform.
And as far as mobile solutions go, I couldn't really expect more from Intel. They're doing it beautifully.

Looking at Ryzen - the performance is great and it's clearly more affordable than Intel (as usual). But everything else is meh, IMO. Putting raw performance aside, there's nothing in Ryzen platform that I'd find more attractive than Intel's counterpart.
And when new generations arrive, your CPU will no longer have the performance advantage. You're left with just the meh stuff.

Actually someone here unwillingly gave me a very good analogy (in the RX580 thread he said that no one buys a Corvette to complain about fuel consumption).
To me Ryzen has an appearance of a muscle-car. It's very striking, it has great power and attractive price. But it's not a car for everyone. Most people end up buying sophisticated german high-end saloons or sensible hatchbacks. And just like I could not own a Corvette, I'm just not attracted at all by the whole Ryzen "encasement".


Kanan said:


> Pretty much every Ryzen user is happy with it.


Pretty much every Ryzen user is either an enthusiast interested in novelties, someone actually in need for multi-core performance or basically an AMD-fanboy. So I'm not surprised they're all happy with their choice.
Again, this is not a great representation of the whole market. And you are trying to persuade me that Ryzen is better in every way, aren't you? 


Kanan said:


> Yeah, nobody cares about having a worthless GPU in a highend CPU just for increasing die-space so that it's not too small to manufacture. You can ask people, maybe 1-5% would care about the IGPU.


Oh you're so wrong about this. But it shows that you don't really get how powerful CPUs are used in general. Maybe it's because you're looking at it with a gamer's point of view.
But I guess we can forgive you that. AMD does the same mistake and they should've known better. 


Kanan said:


> Why should they - because Ryzen is good enough to compare to Intel. Essentially, comparing it to FX would mean it's not good enough. It was a smart move by AMD.


Well... you're an AMD user, so you tell me. Don't you want to know how Ryzen performs compared to your CPU? How will you decide whether replacing your system is worth it?


Kanan said:


> Ryzen will be easily better than 7700K over time. Today people use CPUs for as long as 10 years, so it's easily a better investment. Just a fool would think 4 cores will always be what you need. 8 cores and more are the future, accept it or not, it's a 99% fact anyway.


So if 8 cores or more are the future, why is AMD selling 4-6 core CPUs?
As for the 10-year-old lifespan: I have a CPU from 2009 (bought in June, 2010). Honestly, I'd replace it years ago if I didn't have a good notebook provided by my company. And it's not even about performance. It's simply an old platform: old RAM, old interfaces, old drivers. The mobo doesn't work with modern GPU, it uses DDR2, has hardly any support for SSD, no USB 3.0 etc. For some reason I couldn't install W10 (even though it's working well on an even older laptop). It's very hard to upgrade. So when you're telling me that I could use Ryzen for 10 years - you're most likely right. But will I accept all the drawbacks of having a 10-y-o PC? I doubt that. Not in a main PC I use for everyday tasks - maybe in a home server or something (but again... as Ryzen lacks IGP, it's not the ideal choice).


----------



## infrared (Apr 20, 2017)

Notb, why are you so hung up on the IGP issue? Do you get an IGP in a 6900k - No, Do you get an IGP with a Xeon - No.... Only office cr@pboxes need an IGP, and there will be 4 core Ryzen APU's out soon which will fill the hole in the market you're obsessing about. In the mean time there are <£50 low end gpu's, or just use an old graphics card... who doesn't have an old gpu kicking around these days?



			
				notb said:
			
		

> So if 8 cores or more are the future, why is AMD selling 4-6 core CPUs?


Not everyone can afford an 8 core, so is AMD gonna tell everyone to go elsewhere? I don't think so. Also there's lots of dies with defective cores.. should they throw them in the bin or actually make some money back on them?



			
				notb said:
			
		

> And you are trying to persuade me that Ryzen is better in every way, aren't you?


And you're doing the exact same thing, trying to convince everyone that Ryzen is trash. Sure it's not perfect in every way but it's a good product if it meets your needs. If it doesn't do what you want then get something else obviously.

Now we get that you dislike Ryzen for multiple reasons, we've read your posts, got your points... but can you now just dial back the "Anti" attitude please. Be glad the CPU market just got a massive boot up the ass because you'll benefit from the shake-up too! 

Edited - I woke up grouchy, sorry.


----------



## notb (Apr 20, 2017)

infrared said:


> Notb, why are you so hung up on the IGP issue? Do you get an IGP in a 6900k - No, Do you get an IGP with a Xeon - No.... Only office cr@pboxes need an IGP, and there will be 4 core Ryzen APU's out soon which will fill the hole in the market you're obsessing about. In the mean time there are <£50 low end gpu's, or just use an old graphics card... who doesn't have an old gpu kicking around these days?


Because:
1) I find it great that you can have a PC without a dGPU - that you can build interesting (cheap, small, low-power) rigs for multiple scenarios (now or as a "second life" of a CPU),
2) it's nice to have a backup GPU, when your dGPU malfunctions,
3) actually there are no <£50 GPUs (not in the latest generations),
4) "office crapboxes" (including AIO) are most likely outselling large gaming desktops, so why doesn't AMD want that part of market?

And I'm pretty sure most people don't have a GPU kicking around.
E.g. I've been on IGP since 2007 and it's not like I use my computers for browsing facebook. 

Xeon is a server CPU - an IGP would be a waste of space and money by definition. As for the HEDT i7 lineup - I think not including an IGP was a mistake, but at that point it gave us more cores. There is no excuse with modern process node - Intel is able to squeeze a tiny IGP in there.

Generally speaking, I wasn't a huge fan of moving the IGP into the CPU package in the first place - IMO it limits their potential.



infrared said:


> This showcases your naivety perfectly... Not everyone can afford an 8 core, so is AMD gonna tell everyone to go elsewhere? I don't think so! Also there's lots of dies with defective cores.. should they throw them in the bin or actually make some money back on them?


8-core Bulldozer is way cheaper than 4-core Ryzen at this point and is not exactly much slower:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2992&cmp[]=1780
They could have updated the old platform (not necessarily moving it to AM4). I bet moving to a modern node would improve power efficiency as well.

Either way, it's not about the products as such. 4-core Ryzen is still a very good CPU. But if they base Ryzen strategy on a statement that 4-cores are obsolete, I find it funny that they're including such a CPU as well. 


infrared said:


> And you're doing the exact same thing, trying to convince everyone that Ryzen is trash. Sure it's not perfect in every way but it's a good product if it meets your needs. If it doesn't do what you want then get something else obviously, but don't hang around in here slagging it off to make yourself feel better about your choice.


I've never said that "Ryzen is trash". In fact the performance is excellent. But I find the platform to be somehow limited and I really don't like the whole "background" that AMD has created.
However, this forum is full of comments like "Intel is dead", "there is not point in buying Intel CPUs". No one is "hushing" their authors with arguments about "meeting one's needs". I wonder why. 
I'm simply trying to say that "a point" exists


----------



## cdawall (Apr 20, 2017)

The fx series is trash recommending anything that has to do with am3 at this point puts me at a loss for words.


----------



## notb (Apr 20, 2017)

cdawall said:


> The fx series is trash recommending anything that has to do with am3 at this point puts me at a loss for words.


Are there enough words left to give some proper arguments? 

Honestly, comparing the cheap Ryzen 5 1400 and even cheaper FX-8350 - the latter isn't far behind in performance. The passmark link is in the previous comment.
I couldn't find any direct comparison from a decent review site - apparently no one bothered (or maybe AMD didn't allow it? ).
You can find some results on the web, but they're hardly credible - here's an example (I hate these youtube slideshows...):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKp9h3SXmgs

I'm not saying FX-8350 is better than Ryzen 1400, but if you already have it and you can accept the outdated feature set, is it really worth replacing? You think it is? Why?

And keep in mind AMD is expected to release an even slower Ryzen 3 CPU (4C/4T) - still with a price tag over the $120 that you have to pay for FX-8350 at the moment.
No wonder FX-8350 is selling well lately...


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 20, 2017)

notb said:


> Pretty much every Ryzen user is either an enthusiast interested in novelties, someone actually in need for multi-core performance or basically an AMD-fanboy. So I'm not surprised they're all happy with their choice.



I owned an i7 3930k since 2011.  It was and still is a great chip.  However, I was looking to upgrade and my choices were to side/downgrade to 7700k which would be the wise choice for gaming or to try Ryzen.  Broadwell-E lost my interest because I knew that was a wasted platform and Skylake-E was coming soon.  Too impatient for Skylake-E (and possibly not willing to jump through Intel's pricing hoops) I bought Ryzen.

One of the factors that swayed me were numerous sites reported smoother FPS on a Ryzen than on a faster 7700k.  A definite lack of hitching.  Running a 980ti Kingpin and the 3930k I would experience hitching (albeit infrequently).  I cannot exclude my new 1080ti being the reason but gaming now has no stutter, at all.  I fully believe the Ryzen 8 core chip does a tremendous job at stable fps.  This is obviously subjective but it is there enough for some reviewers to notice it as well.

It probably helps I used the QVL list and bought 3200 GSkill memory that runs as it should and after some fun tinkering my chip is stable and steady on air at 3.9Ghz, never breaking 65 degrees gaming steady for hours.

One deciding factor that I went for Ryzen was knowing Intel will constantly churn out new platforms for new chips and simply keep that mill turning.  Ryzen was stated for a stable 3-4 year cycle.  Psychologically it's nice to know my chip wont be trumped annually by something incrementally faster that I need a new platform to buy.

I'm not interested in novelties, I don't need 8 cores (didnt need 6) and I'm not an AMD fanboy.  I bought Ryzen because it has an appeal Intel lost a very long time ago.  And Intel messed up the X58 and X79 platforms with old tech (PCIE 2.0, USB controllers etc - not forgetting odd bugs) that was usurped almost straight away by the mainstream offerings from Haswell and Skylake.  Intel almost seem to intentionally hobble platforms like Apple holds back tech to release as 'new' shit a year later.

Ryzen is an excellent choice.    So is Intel but for me, moving from a 6 core CPU my choice was a £500 'old' Broadwell E 6 core (side grade), a £1000 Broadwell E 8 core, or a £380 8 core Ryzen that games pretty much on par with that Broadwell.  Yes, 7700k would be faster at most games for sure but losing 2 cores seemed very shortsighted when looking to the future, especially when AMD have teamed up with Bethesda (whose games I play) to announce all AAA games will be AMD optimised.

Lets not be silly people.  Intel are the more robust bet for a platform but AMD have made a solid and unexpectedly competent return with the CPU.  Also, the money I saved to get an 8 core CPU that performs like an 8 core CPU with a decent IPC (£600+, six hundred pounds FFS!) went a long way to that GTX 1080ti.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 20, 2017)

notb said:


> Are there enough words left to give some proper arguments?
> 
> Honestly, comparing the cheap Ryzen 5 1400 and even cheaper FX-8350 - the latter isn't far behind in performance. The passmark link is in the previous comment.
> I couldn't find any direct comparison from a decent review site - apparently no one bothered (or maybe AMD didn't allow it? ).
> ...



Purchasing a platform that was outdated and lacking in features 3 years ago today. Oh what a great plan and those cpus even with the massive price cuts they have seen still aren't selling well.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make, but if the only goal is to say ryzen sucks, I'll be first to tell you no one cares. Everyone saw enough of that nonsense last month when the chip released. If you want to only have one cpu manufacturer then be my guest. I however would like multiple options and these new chips while not perfect offer excellent price/performance and depending on specific users needs outperform Intel options, something amd hasn't don't in almost 10 years.


----------



## notb (Apr 20, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Purchasing a platform that was outdated and lacking in features 3 years ago today. Oh what a great plan and those cpus even with the massive price cuts they have seen still aren't selling well.


As I said before: FX-8350 is out-selling Ryzen chips on Amazon most of the time (and FX-6300 is not far behind). You can check yourself:
https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers...r-CPU-Processors/zgbs/pc/229189&tag=tec06d-20

And I did mention, that Ryzen's feature set is better, but maybe not everyone needs USB3.1 and so on.
Furthermore, there are some AM3+ mobos with integrated graphics, which makes an even cheaper combo possible and opens a possibility to use cases that don't allow a GPU (only option until Zen APU arrives).



cdawall said:


> I have no idea what point you are trying to make, but if the only goal is to say ryzen sucks, I'll be first to tell you no one cares. Everyone saw enough of that nonsense last month when the chip released. If you want to only have one cpu manufacturer then be my guest. I however would like multiple options and these new chips while not perfect offer excellent price/performance and depending on specific users needs outperform Intel options, something amd hasn't don't in almost 10 years.


Now this is interesting. I haven't even mentioned Intel in that comment...
You're accusing me of hoping that AMD will fail, because I'm defending their last gen products. Lovely.

I'm sorry to say this to a long-term and generally liked TPU forum user, but you seem to be way to absorbed into high-end stuff.
I doubt you understand the situation of someone, who has a $300-400 budget on a whole PC. It clearly shows as you have no idea how the low-end Ryzen CPUs perfom. 
Why don't you concentrate on overclocking HEDT systems and stop attacking people actually interested in the low-end situation?


----------



## trparky (Apr 20, 2017)

I really don't care if the current crop of Ryzen CPUs don't have an iGPU on-board, I have an Intel Core i5 3570K CPU (which has an iGPU on-board) and it's never been used. Intel's iGPU's (in my opinion) have never been worth the silicon it was made from, the performance of them have been always less than garbage. Sure, it provides a picture on a monitor but that's about it.

*Edit:* When you can get a cheap add-on video card like this an iGPU is worthless.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 20, 2017)

notb said:


> As I said before: FX-8350 is out-selling Ryzen chips on Amazon most of the time (and FX-6300 is not far behind). You can check yourself:
> https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers...r-CPU-Processors/zgbs/pc/229189&tag=tec06d-20
> 
> And I did mention, that Ryzen's feature set is better, but maybe not everyone needs USB3.1 and so on.
> Furthermore, there are some AM3+ mobos with integrated graphics, which makes an even cheaper combo possible and opens a possibility to use cases that don't allow a GPU (only option until Zen APU arrives).



All amazon's purchase list proves is more people are willing to buy trash from 2013. That is also only a single etailer. I can tell you from in person the only reason any human salesperson sells them is because AMD is giving away prizes to top sellers. 

Ryzen is also more than just a feature set, the CPU itself is 60%+ faster per clock.




notb said:


> Now this is interesting. I haven't even mentioned Intel in that comment...
> You're accusing me of hoping that AMD will fail, because I'm defending their last gen products. Lovely.



Their last gen products were not good when released let alone 4-5 years later.



notb said:


> I'm sorry to say this to a long-term and generally liked TPU forum user, but you seem to be way to absorbed into high-end stuff.
> I doubt you understand the situation of someone, who has a $300-400 budget on a whole PC. It clearly shows as you have no idea how the low-end Ryzen CPUs perfom.
> Why don't you concentrate on overclocking HEDT systems and stop attacking people actually interested in the low-end situation?



$300-400 budget PC's don't matter, AM4 isn't HEDT. Even people buying low end are silly to purchase an outdated setup. There will never be another AM3 CPU released, DDR3 is already slipping off of the market, most of the boards don't support modern features like NVMe. I'm sorry, buying a dead end is exactly what detracted me from purchasing intel's socket of the week.

I have played this game many times. The 8350 on a budget board is a terrible combination. If the goal is to eek the most performance out of your dollar humanly possible in games I would still grab a pentium over an FX at least then I can slap an i7 in on any board at any time. This is coming from someone who gamed forever on a 9370@5ghz and watched it disappear into uselessness.


----------



## notb (Apr 20, 2017)

trparky said:


> I really don't care if the current crop of Ryzen CPUs don't have an iGPU on-board, I have an Intel Core i5 3570K CPU (which has an iGPU on-board) and it's never been used. Intel's iGPU's (in my opinion) have never been worth the silicon it was made from, the performance of them have been always less than garbage. Sure, it provides a picture on a monitor but that's about it.
> 
> *Edit:* When you can get a cheap add-on video card like this an iGPU is worthless.



Intel alone sells 400 mln CPUs yearly (AMD should add another 100 mln), while the figure for discrete GPUs is 45 mln. Intel's market share in GPU is more or less 70%.
So you might not care, but it seems there are more people on the planet and they might disagree. 

And here's the trend in discrete GPU sales (source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10864/discrete-desktop-gpu-market-trends-q3-2016):


----------



## cdawall (Apr 20, 2017)

Here is why that chart doesn't matter, nor does your statement about the $300-400 market.






Those are Q3 shipments of servers vs desktop/laptop. No one gives a rats behind about the desktop market. AMD built a CPU that scales and performs well, for the server market. They are currently using the desktop market as a blatant guinea pig to test the bugs out.


----------



## notb (Apr 20, 2017)

cdawall said:


> All amazon's purchase list proves is more people are willing to buy trash from 2013.


Soooo?
Is FX-8350 selling better than any Ryzen or not?



cdawall said:


> Ryzen is also more than just a feature set, the CPU itself is 60%+ faster per clock.


Oh man. I'm giving you data showing that FX-8350 is hardly slower than Ryzen 5 1400 in benchmarks/games (for 70% of the price) and your best counter argument is about IPC. Like who cares, really?


cdawall said:


> Their last gen products were not good when released let alone 4-5 years later.


I'm not saying they were good. I'm saying that Ryzen 1400 isn't much faster than FX-8350. But it seems you're not really interested in discussing that...


cdawall said:


> $300-400 budget PC's don't matter


It's nice you've finally admitted...


cdawall said:


> AM4 isn't HEDT.


I agree, but many Ryzen believers say it is. You should get your stories straight or something.


cdawall said:


> Even people buying low end are silly to purchase an outdated setup. There will never be another AM3 CPU released, DDR3 is already slipping off of the market, most of the boards don't support modern features like NVMe. I'm sorry, buying a dead end is exactly what detracted me from purchasing intel's socket of the week.


I don't think people with $400 budget on a PC care about NVMe support. You see? I told you: you don't understand low-budget consumers.
Also when you replace a PC every 4-5 years, it's usually a bad idea to upgrade just the CPU. E.g. there's usually a new DDR standard or a new disk/GPU interface.


cdawall said:


> I would still grab a pentium over an FX at least then I can slap an i7 in on any board at any time.


Again: oh man... Budget shopping in your world: get a pentium, so you can upgrade to i7. You really don't understand what I'm talking about, do you?


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 20, 2017)

@notb, what exactly is it you are trying to say, given you've successfully been derailing a discussion about Ryzen? This is a Ryzen discussion thread. You're not really saying much about it.
Talking about FX sales volumes, decreased discrete GPU volumes etc is not a discussion about Ryzen.  Can i politely ask you to make a contribution or if you have no interest, start another thread about why you have an issue with something?


----------



## notb (Apr 20, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Those are Q3 shipments of servers vs desktop/laptop. No one gives a rats behind about the desktop market. AMD built a CPU that scales and performs well, for the server market. They are currently using the desktop market as a blatant guinea pig to test the bugs out.


LOL. Consumer PC figures are in thousands. 

Also you seem to forget that CPU share in a consumer PC price is much higher than in a server.

From Intel's financial presentation YE 2016:
"

Client Computing Group revenue of $32.9 billion, up 2 percent from 2015

Data Center Group revenue of $17.2 billion, up 8 percent from 2015
"
So in case of Intel the PC stuff is worth twice as much as servers (figures above don't include storage solutions). Total revenue was $59.5 billion.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 20, 2017)

notb said:


> LOL. Consumer PC figures are in thousands.
> 
> Also you seem to forget that CPU share in a consumer PC price is much higher than in a server.
> 
> ...



Data center group is direct sale to data center, not client based server information. That is why I used the chart I did.



notb said:


> Soooo?
> Is FX-8350 selling better than any Ryzen or not?



on amazon.com? 



notb said:


> Oh man. I'm giving you data showing that FX-8350 is hardly slower than Ryzen 5 1400 in benchmarks/games (for 70% of the price) and your best counter argument is about IPC. Like who cares, really?



You didn't show anything you said it does. Quite a few benchmarks out there show a multitude of games, single threaded or lightly threaded applications and even encoding that never once does the 8350 exceed the R5's performance...



notb said:


> I'm not saying they were good. I'm saying that Ryzen 1400 isn't much faster than FX-8350. But it seems you're not really interested in discussing that...



They are faster. Period. They are also on a platform that isn't decrepit and never going to see an update again. 



notb said:


> It's nice you've finally admitted...



Admitted what the smallest market share and performance that is competitive with the iphone isn't that important. 



notb said:


> I agree, but many Ryzen believers say it is. You should get your stories straight or something.



Who? Everyone in this thread has pretty openly said Ryzen is mainstream.



notb said:


> I don't think people with $400 budget on a PC care about NVMe support. You see? I told you: you don't understand low-budget consumers.
> Also when you replace a PC every 4-5 years, it's usually a bad idea to upgrade just the CPU. E.g. there's usually a new DDR standard or a new disk/GPU interface.



Entry level laptops are starting to ship with 128GB NVMe drives, NVMe drive prices are dropping every single day. So your argument is buy something old and outdated so that from day one you can do absolutely nothing to improve performance of your PC? Sounds like phenomenal advice. I definitely don't work in this industry and throw away shit box fx rigs every day. 



notb said:


> Again: oh man... Budget shopping in your world: get a pentium, so you can upgrade to i7. You really don't understand what I'm talking about, do you?



Get a pentium so there is at least an upgrade path. Funny thing about 4-5 years down the road, the prices fall on their face.  2700s is something like $50 on ebay and is still a very usable CPU right now thanks to a lack of performance increase in the market. I have done several of those upgrades for customers on pentium and i3 based systems. It is quite a bit cheaper than buying a whole new system. Unluckily on the AMD side 4-5 years ago gave them crap and a board that wont support newer crap.


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 20, 2017)




----------



## EarthDog (Apr 20, 2017)

If your polite post didnt do it... just report it amd walk away. No need to add to it (like i just did..but wanted to make a point).


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 20, 2017)

This is not a Bulldozer discussion thread,, nor is it an Intel discussion thread, actually is not a sales and market share discussion thread either so stop it now or be prepared to have the door to this thread locked permanently.


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 20, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> If your polite post didnt do it... just report it amd walk away. No need to add to it (like i just did..but wanted to make a point).



I'm part of this discussion and have been since buying a 1700X.  It's here for discussion about Ryzen, pitfalls, the joys and surprises.  FWIW, there is a clubfor Ryzen owners but this thread is also an opportunity to talk about it and best way to utilise it etc.


----------



## notb (Apr 20, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> @notb, what exactly is it you are trying to say, given you've successfully been derailing a discussion about Ryzen? This is a Ryzen discussion thread. You're not really saying much about it.
> Talking about FX sales volumes, decreased discrete GPU volumes etc is not a discussion about Ryzen.  Can i politely ask you to make a contribution or if you have no interest, start another thread about why you have an issue with something?


Well... I was trying to learn whether Ryzen is an interesting choice in the low-end segment...
But I see this is a very difficult topic. I promise to stop being so inquisitive in this thread ASAP, as it's clearly getting nowhere.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 20, 2017)

notb said:


> Well... I was trying to learn whether Ryzen is an interesting choice in the low-end segment...
> But I see this is a very difficult topic. I promise to stop being so inquisitive in this thread ASAP, as it's clearly getting nowhere.



https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/amd-fx-ocers-club.153443/

Here just in case you are looking to talk to people about dead tech


----------



## notb (Apr 20, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> This is not a Bulldozer discussion thread,, nor is it an Intel discussion thread, actually is not a sales and market share discussion thread either so stop it now or be prepared to have the door to this thread locked permanently.



It's quite funny, really. This discussion is full of favourable comparisons to AMD FX and Intel that you haven't reacted to...
Sorry, but I do feel that the only reason why I'm being moderated is because I'm not praising a new favourite of some forum users and admins.

Fine: your forum - your rules. This is my last post in this thread.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 20, 2017)

notb said:


> It's quite funny, really. This discussion is full of favourable comparisons to AMD FX and Intel that you haven't reacted to...
> Sorry, but I do feel that the only reason why I'm being moderated is because I'm not praising a new favourite of some forum users and admins.
> 
> Fine: your forum - your rules. This is my last post in this thread.


It is quite funny, you are being moderated because you have written reams of off topic stuff and I mean reams of it, pretty much throughout the thread (in places), its also funny that my comment was not specifically mentioning you but you knew straight away who I was talking about, you see I deliberately kept it impersonal, by you throwing your kitten out of the pram you clearly ended that.
You really think that I care less about what you or anyone else cares to praise or otherwise? I was about to purchase a 1500X but I was unfortunately offered a deal of the year on a 6700k BNIB for literally £10 more than the 1500X so I went with that instead, simply because it meets my meagre needs better,  Your welcome to remain but as I said, please keep it on topic, it already has been derailed on more than one occasion.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 21, 2017)

notb said:


> And GPU's aren't bought for long term? That's interesting - even more when you think about the price difference.
> In a well balanced gaming rig the GPU is usually twice as expensive as CPU, isn't it?


GPUs are bought for 1-4 years, depends heavily on the user, while CPUs are usually bought for much longer.


> It's fine as long as you're guessing - not deducing from personal experience.


Trying to sound smart isn't the same as really being smart, you know?


> Like most, I'm not overly happy with Intel CPU performance. They could have left i7 as a HEDT part and give us a 4C/8T i5 at a lower price point.


They will maybe do that, after Ryzen gave them some competition - the same Ryzen you hate so much. 


> Looking at Ryzen - the performance is great and it's clearly more affordable than Intel (as usual). But everything else is meh, IMO. Putting raw performance aside, there's nothing in Ryzen platform that I'd find more attractive than Intel's counterpart.


Suddenly you accept Ryzen has great performance - but then again you try to talk down Ryzen with strange statements like "raw performance aside...". Too bad that raw performance is the main thing. Let me give you an example for that: I use a platform right now (X79) that has not much else than "raw performance". It does not have USB 3.1, not many 3.0, not many SATA 3.0, no NVME, no DDR4 ... etc. you get the idea. Performance is utterly important. No sense in talking it down.


> And when new generations arrive, your CPU will no longer have the performance advantage. You're left with just the meh stuff.


"My" CPU? I don't own a Ryzen and I'm not planning on buying one atm either, yet I'm very much interested in it and its success because it's simply important for me as a user and for the market. You also sound like a Intel fanboy here, very much so. For once, try to see the positivity in Ryzen and don't try to talk it down all the time. You take this way too personal anyway.


> Actually someone here unwillingly gave me a very good analogy (in the RX580 thread he said that no one buys a Corvette to complain about fuel consumption).
> To me Ryzen has an appearance of a muscle-car. It's very striking, it has great power and attractive price. But it's not a car for everyone. Most people end up buying sophisticated german high-end saloons or sensible hatchbacks. And just like I could not own a Corvette, I'm just not attracted at all by the whole Ryzen "encasement".


Comparing Ryzen to a RX 580 or a Corvette is just bad, because Ryzen is still more efficient than Intel's stuff. Did you even read a single review about Ryzen, or why are you making such boldly wrong statements?


> And you are trying to persuade me that Ryzen is better in every way, aren't you?


No I'm not. Actually I only recommended Ryzen to users that are in need for more than just gaming, I recommended it to streamers and users who do more than just gaming. Atm I'm recommending i7 5820K or 6800K for highend gamers for example.


> Oh you're so wrong about this. But it shows that you don't really get how powerful CPUs are used in general. Maybe it's because you're looking at it with a gamer's point of view.
> But I guess we can forgive you that. AMD does the same mistake and they should've known better.


I'm not. Even the workstation only users would simply go and buy a discrete GPU if Intel would not gift them one. Intel just did this to counter AMDs APU line and - as I already said and you so boldly ignored - increase die space in an effort to still have a usable CPU.


> Well... you're an AMD user, so you tell me. Don't you want to know how Ryzen performs compared to your CPU? How will you decide whether replacing your system is worth it?


There's a system spec button right under my name, did you care to check it before you made false assumptions like "you're an AMD user"?  My last AMD CPU was a Phenom II 940 and that was over 3 1/2 years ago. And your question: ofc I do, that's why I'm better informed on it than you!


> So if 8 cores or more are the future, why is AMD selling 4-6 core CPUs?


I thought I already said that? They need to sell defective CPUs, the DIE of 4-6 core Ryzen is the same as the 8 Core ones. Also not everyone wants a 8 core or needs a 8 core. Same with 6 cores. 4 Cores is still the sweetspot for a mainstream user. 6-8 is more enthusiast-like or for more than just gaming oriented.


> As for the 10-year-old lifespan: I have a CPU from 2009 (bought in June, 2010). Honestly, I'd replace it years ago if I didn't have a good notebook provided by my company. And it's not even about performance. It's simply an old platform: old RAM, old interfaces, old drivers. The mobo doesn't work with modern GPU, it uses DDR2, has hardly any support for SSD, no USB 3.0 etc. For some reason I couldn't install W10 (even though it's working well on an even older laptop). It's very hard to upgrade. So when you're telling me that I could use Ryzen for 10 years - you're most likely right. But will I accept all the drawbacks of having a 10-y-o PC? I doubt that. Not in a main PC I use for everyday tasks - maybe in a home server or something (but again... as Ryzen lacks IGP, it's not the ideal choice).


That's why I said "up to 10 years" or "5-10 years". I didn't say it's optimal to do something like that, I never did it myself. The longest I had a CPU was 5 years. That is, as an active gamer who plays AAA games and needs constant upgrades to be able to do that. Still, it doesn't change my point, the point was, a CPU is for longterm usage (nowadays), more than anything else in a PC.


----------



## hat (Apr 21, 2017)

About the IGP... I think it's a good thing, overall. It's finally good enough for mainstream users to actually get use out of it, even some light gaming. It's even useful for enthusiasts, in some specific scenarios. Maybe you need backup graphics because something happened to your card, or maybe you find QuickSync useful. Maybe for streaming, at least, freeing the load from the CPU.


----------



## purecain (Apr 22, 2017)

I never use the igp and it would of bumped up the price of the cpu.imo.

I just bought my AMD 1800x. ive had many years using both intel and amd systems, but theres just something about this build that's exciting.

I thought ''new build ,new case, new cooler'' ive even treated myself to a 512gb m.2 nvme drive for the os. ive got to get some new rear shocks on my old jag, an mot and car tax. so I cant purchase the last few parts for a couple of weeks. but I cant wait.

i'm enjoying reading all the owners threads. apart from the odd noob here and there everyone is impressed with their cpu performance. i'd say the enthusiast community is giving ryzen a big thumbs up.

and its nice to know amd wont be releasing an almost identical but slightly faster chipset in 6 months. Intel lost my business when they released kaby lake as their next desk top cpu. complete piss takers imo.

@hat - don't you think an igp would be better integrated into the motherboard chipset other than being on a cpu die.


----------



## GoldenX (Apr 22, 2017)

That's one point I don't understand, for years enthusiasts has complained about the unnecessary IGP on Intel CPUs, how it takes power and raise temperatures, and also the exorbitant price of the HEDT platform. Now an IGP is absolutely necessary on a half price 6900K competitor. Can't people wait for the APUs?

To me the IGP on the CPU is a good idea, you reduce cost by sharing cache and other resources, and also get better performance by accessing the IMC directly for the VRAM. Now, an option to have a dedicated RAM slot for the IGP would be a nice idea.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 26, 2017)

cdawall said:


> The fx series is trash recommending anything that has to do with am3 at this point puts me at a loss for words.


G , dude too much trash  , mine will crunch as a server for another 3-5 years before it sees the bin and I had a nice example of this Tonight that's even OT.
So my mate got a Asus b350 prime plus with Corsair 2400 memory (qvl checked by me) and a 1600 and him and my other mate built it behind my back but,,, they had to phone me because they couldn't get an OS to install.
I got it in two ,it was a hdd.
Anyway no problems after that besides one boot fail when I ocd the memory to it's proper running speed, upping it's voltage fixed that , i maybe should have upped the bios first but i did it last.
A benching session then ensued and here's the figures for three mate's pcs.
All using timespy default.
His 1600 @stock with an rx480 @1355 scored
4508gpu 5500cpu and 4450 overall.
My mates i7 950@3.6 with an R9 390 @ 1040 scored
4365gpu 2564cpu and 4336 overall.
My Fx 8350@ 4.8 with 2xrx480 @1400 scored
8640gpu 3444cpu and 7236 overall

He unfortunately had a 5400 HDD, as his OS drive but despite that and the reboots for drivers taking ages i really liked my first go with a RyZen system.
I'm looking forward to having the money at some point for one.

Wow @stock is that a username


----------



## trparky (Apr 30, 2017)

Now I have to decide which motherboard to get. I have four possible choices...

 ASUS PRIME B350-PLUS AM4 ATX AMD Motherboard
 ASRock Fatal1ty X370 Gaming K4 AM4 ATX AMD Motherboard
 MSI X370 Gaming Pro Carbon AM4 ATX AMD Motherboard
 ASRock X370 Taichi AM4 ATX AMD Motherboard
All of them seem like decent board but which one... damn, I can't choose. Any advice?


----------



## Final_Fighter (Apr 30, 2017)

helping my brother setup a new ryzen system. got all the parts together and finishing windows up right now.

Biostar B350gt3 - https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...13138451&cm_re=b350gt3-_-13-138-451-_-Product

Mushkin Enhanced Redline @2933mhz 17-18-18-18-36 - https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...20226836&cm_re=mushkin-_-20-226-836-_-Product

Ryzen 5 1600x @ 4.1ghz - https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...19113434&cm_re=5_1600x-_-19-113-434-_-Product

Cooler master AIO - https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...m_re=coolermaster_lite-_-35-103-236-_-Product

reused his gpu rx480, ssd, case and psu. seems to be going good so far.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 30, 2017)

trparky said:


> Now I have to decide which motherboard to get. I have four possible choices...
> 
> ASUS PRIME B350-PLUS AM4 ATX AMD Motherboard
> ASRock Fatal1ty X370 Gaming K4 AM4 ATX AMD Motherboard
> ...


Taichi is defo the best of those. Read the review from TPU.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 30, 2017)

trparky said:


> Now I have to decide which motherboard to get. I have four possible choices...
> 
> ASUS PRIME B350-PLUS AM4 ATX AMD Motherboard
> ASRock Fatal1ty X370 Gaming K4 AM4 ATX AMD Motherboard
> ...



Go to AsRocks site and compare power phases and chokes between the fatality pro and the K 4 and the Taichi.

the b350 platform has way less phases than x370 on most.

Look up reviews for all of those boards for power phases/mosfets/chokes.

That really only matters to overclockers


----------



## trparky (Apr 30, 2017)

So I was playing in CPUz and my Single-Thread and Multi-Thread numbers for my Core i5 3570k CPU are 355 and 1438 respectively. I then pulled up the numbers for R7 1700x and they are 370 and 4200 respectively. Single threaded numbers appear to be not that much of a boost but of course these are synthetic benchmark numbers, they don't show the real world performance differences that one is going to see from one CPU to another.

In terms of real-world performance when running Windows and games am I going to see that much of a performance increase or should I wait another year and get Ryzen v2.0?

I don't want to waste money on a build on which I won't see that much of a performance increase.


----------



## r9 (Apr 30, 2017)

trparky said:


> So I was playing in CPUz and my Single-Thread and Multi-Thread numbers for my Core i5 3570k CPU are 355 and 1438 respectively. I then pulled up the numbers for R7 1700x and they are 370 and 4200 respectively. Single threaded numbers appear to be not that much of a boost but of course these are synthetic benchmark numbers, they don't show the real world performance differences that one is going to see from one CPU to another.
> 
> In terms of real-world performance when running Windows and games am I going to see that much of a performance increase or should I wait another year and get Ryzen v2.0?
> 
> I don't want to waste money on a build on which I won't see that much of a performance increase.



Waiting always pays dividends, but one can wait for so long .
You can always OC the CPU and upgrade the GPU and that should hold you for a while, depending on the expectations.
Be wary of the upgrade bug .


----------



## Final_Fighter (Apr 30, 2017)

trparky said:


> So I was playing in CPUz and my Single-Thread and Multi-Thread numbers for my Core i5 3570k CPU are 355 and 1438 respectively. I then pulled up the numbers for R7 1700x and they are 370 and 4200 respectively. Single threaded numbers appear to be not that much of a boost but of course these are synthetic benchmark numbers, they don't show the real world performance differences that one is going to see from one CPU to another.
> 
> In terms of real-world performance when running Windows and games am I going to see that much of a performance increase or should I wait another year and get Ryzen v2.0?
> 
> I don't want to waste money on a build on which I won't see that much of a performance increase.



with your setup i would overclock. my i5 3570k@4.6ghz is as fast in single thread using cpuz as my brothers new ryzen 5 1600x@4.1ghz. his stomps mine in multi thread tho. if you are not doing anything that needs the extra threads i would hold off on upgrading.


----------



## trparky (Apr 30, 2017)

Yeah the upgrade bug has a hold on me. I just keep asking myself if it will be worth it or not. No wonder why the PC industry is in a slump, there's no real reason to upgrade unless you're really into benchmark numbers (which I'm not).

I'm debating on whether or not it would be worth it to upgrade.

As for multithreaded performance I'm a heavy multitasker. I have a lot of programs open at the same time along with Google Chrome with lots of tabs open.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 30, 2017)

trparky said:


> Yeah the upgrade bug has a hold on me. I just keep asking myself if it will be worth it or not. No wonder why the PC industry is in a slump, there's no real reason to upgrade unless you're really into benchmark numbers (which I'm not).
> 
> I'm debating on whether or not it would be worth it to upgrade.
> 
> As for multithreaded performance I'm a heavy multitasker. I have a lot of programs open at the same time along with Google Chrome with lots of tabs open.


Its really easy, just upgrade when you need it, when the CPU is slowing you down anywhere, whether its games or programs (no not browsing).


----------



## trparky (Apr 30, 2017)

Well I do use virtual machines often and my system slows to a crawl when I load up a VM.

I kind of made a mistake when I built this system, I should have gone with an i7 as versus an i5 for the added threads.

So if what @Final_Fighter says it's true I have to overclock my chip by a full 1.5 GHz to see performance numbers similar to the R5 1600x.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Apr 30, 2017)

trparky said:


> Well I do use virtual machines often and my system slows to a crawl when I load up a VM.
> 
> I kind of made a mistake when I built this system, I should have gone with an i7 as versus an i5 for the added threads.
> 
> So if what @Final_Fighter says it's true I have to overclock my chip by a full 1.5 GHz to see performance numbers similar to the R5 1600x.


Not with the scenario you described as you're still limited to your 4 threads, now 6c/12 would be a hell of a lot better


----------



## Kanan (Apr 30, 2017)

trparky said:


> Well I do use virtual machines often and my system slows to a crawl when I load up a VM.
> 
> I kind of made a mistake when I built this system, I should have gone with an i7 as versus an i5 for the added threads.
> 
> So if what @Final_Fighter says it's true I have to overclock my chip by a full 1.5 GHz to see performance numbers similar to the R5 1600x.


Well then Ryzen is worth the upgrade. I5 is not exactly the best chip for such purposes. Overclock all you want it's no match to an CPU with 6 cores and SMT.


----------



## purecain (Apr 30, 2017)

there is a real world reason to upgrade imo. 4cores no longer supports AAA titles and streaming. how long before those same cpu's are lacking in other areas. so 4 cores shows its first cracks in the paintwork. 

otherwise I wouldn't be upgrading... I have a ryzen 7 1800x in my hands now and I cant wait to swap out my haswell chip. even though haswell is still a rock solid cpu.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 1, 2017)

trparky said:


> Yeah the upgrade bug has a hold on me. I just keep asking myself if it will be worth it or not. No wonder why the PC industry is in a slump, there's no real reason to upgrade unless you're really into benchmark numbers (which I'm not).
> 
> I'm debating on whether or not it would be worth it to upgrade.
> 
> As for multithreaded performance I'm a heavy multitasker. I have a lot of programs open at the same time along with Google Chrome with lots of tabs open.




do  yourself a favour and get an old Xeon...........£ 200,00 gets 12 threads at no lower than 4.0ghz and a mobo.

a nice X5670 like mine, 12 threads at 4.4ghz for £ 60.00 a nice board to go with it is circa £ 130.00


----------



## cdawall (May 1, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> do  yourself a favour and get an old Xeon...........£ 200,00 gets 12 threads at no lower than 4.0ghz and a mobo.
> 
> a nice X5670 like mine, 12 threads at 4.4ghz for £ 60.00 a nice board to go with it is circa £ 130.00



Those 12 threads aren't exactly the fastest at anything anymore... I would much rather grab a 6 core ryzen at this point.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 1, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Those 12 threads aren't exactly the fastest at anything anymore... I would much rather grab a 6 core ryzen at this point.




i know its only one bench 

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...s-real-world-performance.232918/#post-3648812


----------



## cdawall (May 1, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> i know its only one bench
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...s-real-world-performance.232918/#post-3648812



What are the clockspeed between both and how many threads does that utilize?


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 1, 2017)

mine was at 4.4ghz


----------



## cdawall (May 1, 2017)

So it doesn't load the cores at all... What was the Ryzen chip at?


----------



## purecain (May 2, 2017)

ive had my system delivered and all ive done is look at the boxes..... I'm praying everything works.... its looking like tomorrows going to be the day....

this build is going to be monumental when its finished...  i'll start a system build thread for it.... I'm going aio cooling initially as I want to take my time making something a little different.

ive decided to etch the front glass panel as well, that's the only thing that hasn't arrived yet. I may etch the plastic panel as well and keep it out for marketing...

heres a pic of my bits,     (you cant see the memory, its g.skill trident rgb 4000mhz pc3200)


----------



## infrared (May 2, 2017)

purecain said:


> ive had my system delivered and all ive done is look at the boxes..... I'm praying everything works.... its looking like tomorrows going to be the day....
> 
> this build is going to be monumental when its finished...  i'll start a system build thread for it.... I'm going aio cooling initially as I want to take my time making something a little different.
> 
> ...


Nice! That's pretty much identical set up to me, so in theory you shouldn't hit any snags. It's a killer combo! When you've got it all going I'd be interested in what you think of the ROG Front base, they look pretty useful. Enjoy the build!


----------



## purecain (May 4, 2017)

I really appreciate that, now I really cant wait...


----------



## bencrutz (May 8, 2017)

just got my hands on THE first AM4 mini ITX motherboard


----------



## purecain (May 8, 2017)

ok so I decided against using am3. the problem being the backplate design that comes with the water 3.0 from tt.

for those people who are managing with it, be careful you don't bend your boards.

so I had a look at corsair and noticed they were offering a free bracket which will fit my tt cooler. as I have a corsair h100i they sent me one for free.
that was on Thursday and ive just received an email to let me know delivery will be on Wednesday. so not too bad of a turn around...

cant wait for it to get here..


----------



## Grings (May 8, 2017)

2 new Asus Strix boards just appeared for pre-order on overclockers, and 2 more prime ones

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asus...ocket-am4-ddr4-atx-motherboard-mb-69w-as.html
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asus...ocket-am4-ddr4-atx-motherboard-mb-69v-as.html

The X370 ones pre order price is a bit high, but some of overclockers prices have been higher than elsewhere recently, particularly Asus products

The X370 ones vrm looks very similar to the x370 pro, though may be slightly better
The B350 has a further reduced looking vrm, but still looks better than most B350 boards


----------



## cdawall (May 8, 2017)

Grings said:


> 2 new Asus Strix boards just appeared for pre-order on overclockers, and 2 more prime ones
> 
> https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asus...ocket-am4-ddr4-atx-motherboard-mb-69w-as.html
> https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asus...ocket-am4-ddr4-atx-motherboard-mb-69v-as.html
> ...



Thing about the VRM's is they aren't really holding these chips back on air...


----------



## alucasa (May 8, 2017)

bencrutz said:


> just got my hands on THE first AM4 mini ITX motherboard



I've been on lookout for that mobo. Hope it hits Canada soon.


----------



## Grings (May 8, 2017)

I'm really digging the B350 strix board in my previous post, i think its the 1st b350 I've seen with the new realtek audio and intel lan

If they can be found a bit cheaper than that listed pre order price elsewhere (likely) this could prove a decent semi budget option


----------



## Grings (May 9, 2017)

It looks more like an x370 pro pcb given a rog makeover, at least in terms of cpu and ram vrm sections

it looks like it should be priced a bit lower, closer to the msi carbon and such

On the z270 equivalent strix range the -f is midrange, and the -e model is a lot closer in quality to the proper rog boards

I would stick with the crosshair personally


----------



## Kanan (May 9, 2017)

bencrutz said:


> just got my hands on THE first AM4 mini ITX motherboard


Nice I'm curious about the finished build, give us some pictures.


----------



## phanbuey (May 9, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Thing about the VRM's is they aren't really holding these chips back on air...


had i known better i would have gone b350 and r1700


----------



## cdawall (May 9, 2017)

Right now microcenter is selling the 1700x/1800x with $100 off motherboards that's the better deal. 1700x and a free gigabyte b350 is a killer setup.


----------



## bencrutz (May 9, 2017)

alucasa said:


> I've been on lookout for that mobo. Hope it hits Canada soon.


well, this one hit retails here, in indonesia, just yesterday, and quite cheap too 
i think it will spread round the globe pretty soon



Kanan said:


> Nice I'm curious about the finished build, give us some pictures.


sorry to let you down but am not gonna build another AM4 rig atm as this board is a sample provided by the local distributor, just gonna do a quick test, have a peek to the UEFI and maybe try to see how far it will clock my 1800x


----------



## NdMk2o1o (May 9, 2017)

Grings said:


> I'm really digging the B350 strix board in my previous post, i think its the 1st b350 I've seen with the new realtek audio and intel lan
> 
> If they can be found a bit cheaper than that listed pre order price elsewhere (likely) this could prove a decent semi budget option


it does indeed look very nice, I've returned my Asrock AB350M as I bought the wrong one at the time but I may swing for this if it's available over the next couple of weeks and the price comes down a bit


----------



## trparky (May 9, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Right now microcenter is selling the 1700x/1800x with $100 off motherboards that's the better deal. 1700x and a free gigabyte b350 is a killer setup.


I'd still go with the AMD Ryzen 1600 because of the higher base clock.


----------



## cdawall (May 9, 2017)

trparky said:


> I'd still go with the AMD Ryzen 1600 because of the higher base clock.



3.9 doesn't seem hard on the combo even using the old wraith coolers.


----------



## trparky (May 9, 2017)

But I'm not going to pay close to half a grand for just the processor.


----------



## cdawall (May 9, 2017)

trparky said:


> But I'm not going to pay close to half a grand for just the processor.



Why? I have a 6850k currently and a motherboard that isn't cheap. Welcome to higher end parts...


----------



## alucasa (May 9, 2017)

bencrutz said:


> well, this one hit retails here, in indonesia, just yesterday, and quite cheap too
> i think it will spread round the globe pretty soon



I am hoping to see more ITX. It hurts that there is only one ITX mobo.

ITX + 1700 (non-x) + RX460 (or560) and Define Nano is what I've been thinking. I am actually waiting for APU more though.


----------



## purecain (May 10, 2017)

new dividers coming to ryzen cpus in September. ddr4000mhz possible...


----------



## cdawall (May 10, 2017)

purecain said:


> new dividers coming to ryzen cpus in September. ddr4000mhz possible...



Possible, but for most it won't be probable.


----------



## justimber (May 10, 2017)

will build an AMD rig soon due to Ryzen 
I totally abandoned the desktop after the Dozer-gate (was really excited to replace my Athlon64 and Phenom II rigs) and had to settle on a gaming laptop (to lessen the upgrade itch that I had that time.lol)
just waiting for prices to subside a little bit and for more mobos to be released then i'd sell my current lappy and return to desktops hehe

any recommendations on a build? just need a mobo, proc, ram....will use an old GPU for now since i'm waiting for vega to be released too.

edit: sorry. forgot to include budget  about $1500

Cheers!


----------



## Frag_Maniac (May 10, 2017)

purecain said:


> new dividers coming to ryzen cpus in September. ddr4000mhz possible...


SEPTEMBER? Just further proof these chips weren't ready at all for launch.


----------



## Caring1 (May 10, 2017)

justimber said:


> will build an AMD rig soon due to Ryzen
> I totally abandoned the desktop after the Dozer-gate (was really excited to replace my Athlon64 and Phenom II rigs) and had to settle on a gaming laptop (to lessen the upgrade itch that I had that time.lol)
> just waiting for prices to subside a little bit and for more mobos to be released then i'd sell my current lappy and return to desktops hehe
> 
> any recommendations on a build?


Start a thread here: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/forums/system-builders-advice.61/


----------



## NdMk2o1o (May 10, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> SEPTEMBER? Just further proof these chips weren't ready at all for launch.


Why? ddr4 4000+ is the top end of ddr4 in speed and price, how many R5 1500 owners are willing to spend more than their processor on 16GB RAM? anything 2666-3200 is where most of the DDR4 sales are sales are, not a small % of people who are going to be buying 4000+ RAM


----------



## RejZoR (May 10, 2017)

I'm waiting for Ryzen based APU's so I can finally retire my AMD E-450 lappy.  Buying Celeron or Core i3 feels like a ripoff with prehistoric dual core design, but a quad core Ryzen APU should be nice even at lower clocks for basic models. And if they'll come with Polaris/Vega GPU part, they're gonna be pretty sweet.


----------



## Mighty-Lu-Bu (May 10, 2017)

Just got all the parts for my system- everything should be here tomorrow. Yesterday I got the Ryzen 7 1700X for a steal... there was a sale on Amazon yesterday and I was able to get it for $330!!!


----------



## Frag_Maniac (May 10, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Why? ddr4 4000+ is the top end of ddr4 in speed and price, how many R5 1500 owners are willing to spend more than their processor on 16GB RAM?



1. I was obviously responding to purecain, whom bought the 1800x and pretty high end parts to go with.

2. High speed RAM matters more with Ryzen because it get's much more of a performance boost out of it than Intel.

3. It matters not what percentage of people buy it, there wouldn't have even been issues with high speed RAM had AMD talked more with manufacturers. You don't see these problems with Intel.

It's like you haven't been following the latest news on how to get best performance out of Ryzen. It may indeed be a small percentage of their business, but the high end customers are also the early adopters that keep their cash flow going when needed most.


----------



## Kanan (May 11, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> 2. High speed RAM matters more with Ryzen because it get's much more of a performance boost out of it than Intel.


Not really true. After 2400 to 2666 MHz DDR4, the curve flattens a lot, generally going for more than 2933 or 3200 is barely worth it, even 2933 or 3200 are barely worth it. Skylake/Kaby on the other hand scale endlessly based on DDR4 speeds, it's even scaling better because those architectures are absolute high performance and can't get enough bandwidth basically (it has to do with their possibly very high clocks as well).


----------



## toilet pepper (May 11, 2017)

I'm not sure if you all have watched this but Wendell from L1Tech tried to crack down on why Ryzen seems smoother in some games.


----------



## N-Gen (May 11, 2017)

Reporting after about a month of usage now, can't say I'm disappointed with my 1800X at all. I'm coming from a 4.8GHz i5-2500k and 16GB of 1600MHz RAM so it's been a while.

The only issues I have at the moment are, what I believe to be, motherboard related (Crosshair VI Hero, latest official BIOS). I'm keeping my OCs sensible for the time being and even that is causing issues sometimes, although not frequent. I did manage to boot and run prime95 at 4150MHz, so that was interesting. However, as soon as I started playing some Overwatch and launched OBS Studio the machine would crash, which was expected to be fair. I currently keep it running on 3.8-3.9GHz which is more than enough and I'm not really missing much in the extra MHz to be fair. 4 sticks of RAM, have been managing 2666MHz without issue, anything beyond that starts getting weird.

If I set the auto config to DOCP at 3000MHz it will bott at 2400MHz, report 32GB available but only 16GB usable in Windows. Bios only shows 16GB. Manually setting the OC to above 2666MHz has the same effect just with incremental effects. For instance setting the RAM at 2750MHz would launch it at 2450MHz on 16GB instead of the correct values. Timings are also automatically altered when going above 2666MHz. I manually set them up for 16-18-18-38 which is the sticks are rated for but the board decides it should run them at 15-17-17-36, so it's all a bit weird.

This is not the only board related issue I have right now. I'm usually turning off this machine at night and when trying to switch it on again it decides it wants to draw a Q-Code 8 for a few times, or get stuck at Q-Codes 20, 21 or 22, then after a few reboots and resets on the board, it boots just fine and will not give any issues unless it's switched off again. This morning was an exception where I just pushed power and it came straight on. 

These same issues have been evident on a friend's build with pretty much the same specs, same CPU, board, RAM, type of PSU and same GPU. Seems like there's a bit of ironing out left to be done.

But hey, it eats anything I feed it so thumbs up AMD.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (May 11, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> 1. I was obviously responding to purecain, whom bought the 1800x and pretty high end parts to go with.
> 
> 2. High speed RAM matters more with Ryzen because it get's much more of a performance boost out of it than Intel.
> 
> ...



1: I know you were replying to his specific scenario and in that case you are right however when you turn it into a sweeping generalisation then what I said stands correct all the way from Ryzen 1400-1700. Even then it's likely a small % of 1700x1800x owners who have bought 4000+ RAM which also doesnt work out of the box with some intel combos.
2: see reply below, this is true anything from 2800-3200 is seen as the sweet spot and performance gains are negligible beyond that
3: agreed, it was released a month too early and there should have been better collaboration between AMD and motherboard mfrs to iron out those release day issues and update microcode


----------



## RejZoR (May 11, 2017)

Actually for AMD, the higher the better because the Infinity Fabric runs at same clock then. And I've seen some tests where 3600 MHz basically negated the CCX cross communication penalty in games, pitting 1800X CPU's against 7700K in pretty much everything.

For Intel, sweet spot is actually 2666 MHz where you have the largest gains. Beyond that you're paying way more for hardly any benefits.


----------



## Johan45 (May 11, 2017)

N-Gen said:


> Reporting after about a month of usage now, can't say I'm disappointed with my 1800X at all. I'm coming from a 4.8GHz i5-2500k and 16GB of 1600MHz RAM so it's been a while.
> 
> The only issues I have at the moment are, what I believe to be, motherboard related (Crosshair VI Hero, latest official BIOS). I'm keeping my OCs sensible for the time being and even that is causing issues sometimes, although not frequent. I did manage to boot and run prime95 at 4150MHz, so that was interesting. However, as soon as I started playing some Overwatch and launched OBS Studio the machine would crash, which was expected to be fair. I currently keep it running on 3.8-3.9GHz which is more than enough and I'm not really missing much in the extra MHz to be fair. 4 sticks of RAM, have been managing 2666MHz without issue, anything beyond that starts getting weird.
> 
> ...



That "cold boot" issue is pretty widely known and that crash. All ram related. P95 doesn't test nearly enough ram unless you set it to custom and then select ~ 75-90% of you ram. That'll give you a much better idea of stability.


----------



## springs113 (May 11, 2017)

That boot issue is an Asus thing...I had it first happened to my Rampage V edition 10 board and also had that quite a few times where my Deluxe would do the same.  In fact my Deluxe did it for like 3 days straight, it wouldn't boot at all.  No amount of bios flashing would fix it either.  If I remember correctly this was back in march of last year for the issues with the Deluxe board.


----------



## N-Gen (May 11, 2017)

I'm not going to attempt more pushes at this stage since I still need it day to day, which it has been doing just fine. Hopefully they iron out the boot issue, that's the only thing annoying me since it will not crash at 3.9GHz and 2666MHz after booting. It's pretty much just the boot thing now.

I'm assuming they fixed the Deluxe issue?


----------



## springs113 (May 11, 2017)

N-Gen said:


> I'm not going to attempt more pushes at this stage since I still need it day to day, which it has been doing just fine. Hopefully they iron out the boot issue, that's the only thing annoying me since it will not crash at 3.9GHz and 2666MHz after booting. It's pretty much just the boot thing now.
> 
> I'm assuming they fixed the Deluxe issue?


I honestly don't know...I got rid of the board.  But I can tell you I experienced the same thing with my Rampage board.  I know Ryzen has its issues but I do believe this is more Asus than AMD.  It had me thinking I had a expensive paperweight for quite some time.  It is random though I haven't experienced something like that in maybe about 3 months on my R5.  

On another note:
How do you like the CHVI?  I have narrowed my board selection to this board, the Taichi and the Titanium.


----------



## N-Gen (May 11, 2017)

I only got it because ASRock didn't provide any info to my supplier, only for the Taichi to arrive 2 days later than the Crosshair. 

I'm a very loyal ASRock customer and so far it seems that the Crosshair and the Taichi seem to be the highest quality boards available for AMD. Except for the boot issue and some issues with overtightening and the back of the board touching cables it has been great to work with and Asus are putting a lot of work into it. I guess only time will tell if the boot issue is fixed.


----------



## springs113 (May 11, 2017)

N-Gen said:


> I only got it because ASRock didn't provide any info to my supplier, only for the Taichi to arrive 2 days later than the Crosshair.
> 
> I'm a very loyal ASRock customer and so far it seems that the Crosshair and the Taichi seem to be the highest quality boards available for AMD. Except for the boot issue and some issues with overtightening and the back of the board touching cables it has been great to work with and Asus are putting a lot of work into it. I guess only time will tell if the boot issue is fixed.


I've only remembered owning only 1 Asrock board...the only thing that scares me is their customer service.  Has it improved?


----------



## N-Gen (May 11, 2017)

Since my supplier is as distributor for ASRock I couldn't really tell you much about their actual support.

However, I've been using ASRock board exclusively since 2008. This ASUS board is the first non-ASRock board I've used since then. I've built many PCs for people, almost all built on ASRock boards. Any DOA/fault boards were exchanged, no questions asked. My guys say the RMA process is good. I feel safe to the point that my file server runs on an ASRock board.


----------



## Johan45 (May 11, 2017)

N-Gen said:


> I only got it because ASRock didn't provide any info to my supplier, only for the Taichi to arrive 2 days later than the Crosshair.
> 
> I'm a very loyal ASRock customer and so far it seems that the Crosshair and the Taichi seem to be the highest quality boards available for AMD. Except for the boot issue and some issues with overtightening and the back of the board touching cables it has been great to work with and Asus are putting a lot of work into it. I guess only time will tell if the boot issue is fixed.


We'll see in a month or so, there should be a big update in May sometime. That 32Gb of ram is tough right now and especially if it's hynix based which it sounds like it is. I was able to run my  4x8 samsung at 3200 but you need to use the BCLK on the 2666 strap. 32GB on 2933 or 3200 strap need CL18 or higher if not they refuse to boot. Just some odd behaviour still but it can be worked around. There's a new BIOS for the CHVI here if you're interested


----------



## N-Gen (May 11, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> We'll see in a month or so, there should be a big update in May sometime. That 32Gb of ram is tough right now and especially if it's hynix based which it sounds like it is. I was able to run my 4x8 samsung at 3200 but you need to use the BCLK on the 2666 strap. 32GB on 2933 or 3200 strap need CL18 or higher if not they refuse to boot. Just some odd behaviour still but it can be worked around. There's a new BIOS for the CHVI here if you're interested



I might give the BIOS a try. Not too fussed about the RAM at this stage, although of course it will be nice if they hit their 3000. It's nice to see ASUS constantly working on this though, gives me hope. Then again, we're still in very early stages.


----------



## Juvir (May 11, 2017)

N-Gen said:


> Reporting after about a month of usage now, can't say I'm disappointed with my 1800X at all. I'm coming from a 4.8GHz i5-2500k and 16GB of 1600MHz RAM so it's been a while.
> 
> The only issues I have at the moment are, what I believe to be, motherboard related (Crosshair VI Hero, latest official BIOS). I'm keeping my OCs sensible for the time being and even that is causing issues sometimes, although not frequent. I did manage to boot and run prime95 at 4150MHz, so that was interesting. However, as soon as I started playing some Overwatch and launched OBS Studio the machine would crash, which was expected to be fair. I currently keep it running on 3.8-3.9GHz which is more than enough and I'm not really missing much in the extra MHz to be fair. 4 sticks of RAM, have been managing 2666MHz without issue, anything beyond that starts getting weird.
> 
> ...



Interesting.  I have the same board, and i'm running my 3200 DDR4 at the rated speeds.  My OC is currently at 4.02ghz, running D.O.C.P. 4, 3200MHZ on the RAM, 16-18-18-18-36 timings, 1.375v on the CPU, and 1.35v on the ram.  I had to manually input the voltages for both, but i've had no issues at all.  Not in gaming, nor in ram being used or showing up.


----------



## N-Gen (May 11, 2017)

Juvir said:


> Interesting.  I have the same board, and i'm running my 3200 DDR4 at the rated speeds.  My OC is currently at 4.02ghz, running D.O.C.P. 4, 3200MHZ on the RAM, 16-18-18-18-36 timings, 1.375v on the CPU, and 1.35v on the ram.  I had to manually input the voltages for both, but i've had no issues at all.  Not in gaming, nor in ram being used or showing up.



I do have to input both voltages as well as timings manually as well.


----------



## Juvir (May 11, 2017)

I went with 32GB of Corsair Dominator Platinum for my setup


----------



## EntropyZ (May 11, 2017)

Replaced my Single stick of Corsair Veng. LPX 2400MHz which clocked at 2933MHz easy to Corsair Vengeance LED DDR4 3200MHz 2x8GB which only boots at 2666MHz measly on an R5 1600 as per Ryzen official RAM support. Slightly disappointed it didn't go at least to 2933MHz as well. All I could do is lower the voltage and tighten the timings.

These old non-Ryzen optimized DDR4 modules really suck, even though they were Samsung. No wonder they're on sale in my country right now. Corsair probably trying to get rid of old stock. These things were obviously meant for X99/Z170.

Anyone remember X99 being finicky on launch with DDR4 when it was first used?

I'm holding my breath on BIOS updates making 2933MHz possible at some point with Dual-Rank dotted PCBs. I don't know if the board is the limiting factor or most likely scenario that it is the CPU.


----------



## Johan45 (May 11, 2017)

EntropyZ said:


> Replaced my Single stick of Corsair Veng. LPX 2400MHz which clocked at 2933MHz easy to Corsair Vengeance LED DDR4 3200MHz 2x8GB which only boots at 2666MHz measly on an R5 1600 as per Ryzen official RAM support. Slightly disappointed it didn't go at least to 2933MHz as well. All I could do is lower the voltage and tighten the timings.
> 
> These old non-Ryzen optimized DDR4 modules really suck, even though they were Samsung. No wonder they're on sale in my country right now. Corsair probably trying to get rid of old stock. These things were obviously meant for X99/Z170.
> 
> ...


Are you certain they're Samsung "B"? 3200 CL 14-14-14 probably CL 16 probably not


----------



## gasolina (May 11, 2017)

Hi guys i intend to move to Ryzen since the x99 will be dead at the end of this month and it seems that ryzen platform will live at least until the end of 2018 or mid 2019.
I'm using a pair of 1080TI SLI and a 4,8ghz 5820k, i'm a gamer but also a multitask worker so this is kinda very trouble for me to choose since.......i've seen plenty reviews that Ryzen can't get along very well with Nvidia GPU since i've checked on anadtech bench that 5960x still give better gaming result than 1800x . I've got a very tempting offer 1700 + X370 Prime asus/ x370 killer sli asrock + cpu waterblock only 400$ so i don't know to sell my 5820k rigs and switch to ryzen or not . I always gaming at 3840x1600 or 3440x1440 but what trouble me that at base clock Ryzen would give me 20% lower fps than the intel one i want to that that if somehow can we make this gap closer like 10% that would be much much better.


----------



## Johan45 (May 11, 2017)

gasolina said:


> Hi guys i intend to move to Ryzen since the x99 will be dead at the end of this month and it seems that ryzen platform will live at least until the end of 2018 or mid 2019.
> I'm using a pair of 1080TI SLI and a 4,8ghz 5820k, i'm a gamer but also a multitask worker so this is kinda very trouble for me to choose since.......i've seen plenty reviews that Ryzen can't get along very well with Nvidia GPU since i've checked on anadtech bench that 5960x still give better gaming result than 1800x . I've got a very tempting offer 1700 + X370 Prime asus/ x370 killer sli asrock + cpu waterblock only 400$ so i don't know to sell my 5820k rigs and switch to ryzen or not . I always gaming at 3840x1600 or 3440x1440 but what trouble me that at base clock Ryzen would give me 20% lower fps than the intel one i want to that that if somehow can we make this gap closer like 10% that would be much much better.


You're fine the way you are IMO. The extra cores won't net you much if any in the way of FPS.


----------



## EarthDog (May 11, 2017)

+1 

With multi0le gpus, you want the fastsst clocks and ipc you can get... not ryzen.


----------



## cdawall (May 11, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> +1
> 
> With multi0le gpus, you want the fastsst clocks and ipc you can get... not ryzen.



I actually have a curious comparison for that. These two are just a CPU swap. The GPU actually boosted to a higher clock speed with the "weaker" Xeon 12c @2.2 vs the 5960@4.5. Performance difference is basically a wash.


----------



## purecain (May 11, 2017)

installed everything yesterday and noticed the Ethernet wasn't working... It was my second boot after i'd flashed 2007 and I hadn't seen any dodgyness at all. my ram set straight to 3200mhz. I never got the chance to push the cpu as I pulled the system apart for rma...

its nice to know that with the big improvement coming with more dividers etc I will get the full use of the ram and my system should be pretty fast.

with the m.2 nvme drive the os installed in about a minute. navigating the os was just fast. the machine felt quicker then my haswell sytem using a 960evo.

unfortunately there was something causing the case to be live and I think I killed the Ethernet port. it had partial functionality so had to rma... was absolutely guttered. so much so I went on a 4hour rant. lol which I absolutely regret after getting some sleep.

btw if you buy 2 1080's due to the drivers being immature you will get less performance than you do with one card in virtually every game except a couple of benchmarks which do show an improvement.

we have also reached a limitation on the pcie3 bus. when more people have stronger systems this time next year it will all be about minimum fps as max fps wont be a concern anymore.unless they release pcie4 on one of the new intel chipsets coming... 

don't base your second hand views on just one instance.  btw for people on ryzen my magic ic's on the g.skill trident RGB were   GTZR. the crosshair seemed to love them.

it will be interesting to see how my second board reacts...


----------



## Frag_Maniac (May 11, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> 1: I know you were replying to his specific scenario and in that case you are right however when you turn it into a sweeping generalisation then what I said stands correct all the way from Ryzen 1400-1700. Even then it's likely a small % of 1700x1800x owners who have bought 4000+ RAM which also doesnt work out of the box with some intel combos.
> 2: see reply below, this is true anything from 2800-3200 is seen as the sweet spot and performance gains are negligible beyond that
> 3: agreed, it was released a month too early and there should have been better collaboration between AMD and motherboard mfrs to iron out those release day issues and update microcode


Look, I don't really care to turn this into an ongoing argument. Just take my point of mentioning it for those interested in higher speed RAM, or not, I don't care, but you ARE being over defensive here. Plus no one's even HAD a chance to bench Ryzen at over 3200 speed yet, so how do you even know what the benefits beyond that are? Clearly you're just trying to defend your purchase of 3200 speed RAM before knowing the results of higher speed after the dividers are released.

This is what I mean by not interested, and not informed. If I say something that doesn't apply to you, just ignore it. Acting all defensive and justified about not being interested in things not even discovered yet is just ludicrous though. And that's without even mentioning that purecain got his 4000 speed at better pricing than the lower speed was in his area.

There's no point to acting like an over defensive fanboy here. His purchase of 4000 was more out of practicality than elitism. Many of us are just eager to see what results are obtained with speeds over 3200 on Ryzen, but I'd rather not speculate like you, and get actual feedback instead.  Despite what I say about AMD, I'm only wanting best case scenario so they can actually BE competitive this time around. I mean JEEZ, lay off dude. Time to give it a rest already.


----------



## purecain (May 11, 2017)

I forgot to mention, corsair sent the bracket I paid for today so I have a spare. someone can have it, is there anyone here using am3 with a plastic back plate on the ch6.

because I think you would be better off using am4 with the one provided. this is subject to my own reasoning, which I'm basing on the rog forums reports of bending boards or weird errors.

hopefully I can help someone out with it, comes with fittings and fits any new aio water cooling


----------



## infrared (May 11, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> no one's even HAD a chance to bench Ryzen at over 3200 speed yet



I don't mean to get in the middle of a discussion, but a few of us have been benching at 3600-3800mhz ram.  So far the best I've done is 3700mhz. When the newer bioses come out supporting some higher speeds without raising the base clock it should get pretty interesting.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (May 11, 2017)

infrared said:


> I don't mean to get in the middle of an arguement, but a few of us have been benching at 3600-3800mhz ram.  So far the best I've done is 3700mhz. When the newer bioses come out supporting some higher speeds without raising the base clock it should get pretty interesting.


I was referring to actual *game* benches, which you're not showing there. Show me ANY credible proof of the differences between 3200 speed and 3700 speed IN GAME PERFORMANCE, and I'll eat my hat on my comment.

Better yet, show me 3700 Ryzen game performance vs 7700k game performance at anything 3200 or higher. Those are the only real benches that matter, because for most gamers, they want to know if Ryzen 8 core is more for tasking than gaming when compared to Intel.

Until then, I stand by what I said. That said, anything you have to pay extra for to bring Ryzen's performance up is also one more check box against Ryzen. Especially now that extensively testing Ryzen 8 core vs a 7700k in GTA V is not showing any proof of why there's ever so slightly more hitching on Intel.

For all we know, the new Coffee Lake 6 cores coming out soon may also play GTA V smoother. There's just too many unknowns yet for many of us to trust Ryzen over Intel.


----------



## infrared (May 11, 2017)

That's fine, unfortunately I don't have a decent gpu for this rig so can't do any testing. I've seen some youtubers (grain of salt req'd!) testing and the benefit varies from game to game and is probably more to do with how the games are coded. There's only added latency if a lot of data is crossing between the two ccx's, so certain games won't be affected depending on how they're feeding instructions to the cpu.

Anyway, was only saying the hardware is capable, nothing more. Everyone's said their bit.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (May 11, 2017)

infrared said:


> That's fine, unfortunately I don't have a decent gpu for this rig so can't do any testing. I've seen some youtubers (grain of salt req'd!) testing and the benefit varies from game to game and is probably more to do with how the games are coded. There's only added latency if a lot of data is crossing between the two ccx's, so certain games won't be affected depending on how they're feeding instructions to the cpu.
> 
> Anyway, was only saying the hardware is capable, nothing more. Everyone's said their bit.


It's OK, I'm going to wait until Coffee Lake and Vega come out to compare all components possible first anyway, and by then the new dividers for Ryzen will be out, and there will be more credible bench sources. I think that is the main reason the serious benchers haven't even begun testing beyond 3200 on Ryzen yet, not that I've seen anyway, nor would I trust it this soon if they have. It means nothing without the new dividers.


----------



## cdawall (May 11, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> I was referring to actual *game* benches, which you're not showing there. Show me ANY credible proof of the differences between 3200 speed and 3700 speed IN GAME PERFORMANCE, and I'll eat my hat on my comment.
> 
> Better yet, show me 3700 Ryzen game performance vs 7700k game performance at anything 3200 or higher. Those are the only real benches that matter, because for most gamers, they want to know if Ryzen 8 core is more for tasking than gaming when compared to Intel.
> 
> ...



7700K there is none. 3000-3866 is all the same depending on timings. 2133->3000 is 20+ FPS

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/GSkill/F4-3866C18D-8GTZ/7.html


----------



## the54thvoid (May 12, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> I was referring to actual *game* benches, which you're not showing there. Show me ANY credible proof of the differences between 3200 speed and 3700 speed IN GAME PERFORMANCE, and I'll eat my hat on my comment.
> 
> Better yet, show me.....Ryzen game performance vs 7700k game performance........There's just too many unknowns yet for many of us to trust Ryzen over Intel.



Right now, if you want marginally faster but not perciptable higher frame rates - Intel is the obvious choice as the clockspeeds are far superior on a 7700k.  Only a cherry picking nut job would deny that.  Subjectively, Ryzen 1700X at 3.9Ghz is very smooth - across 3 games (BF1, GRW & Prey) I've seen no stutter that I can equate to frametime issues.  But that could also be the 1080ti.

Fact is, Ryzen is good for gaming.  Intel may be better but Ryzen is plain good.  I feel happy that I have an 8 core chip that gives me smooth gaming and for me the uplift from my previous 6 core Sandy-E chip @ 4.2 and memory at 1600Mhz is pretty obvious.

If people want more options and a more 'reliable' path - go Intel, it really is that simple.  But, for <£400 how could I not buy an 8 core powerhouse?  Even the most expensive Asus board (CH6) was about what a 'decent' Z270 would have cost.  I didnt need to buy a cheaper system but I wanted to try Ryzen and I am happy I gave AMD my money.


----------



## trparky (May 12, 2017)

Wait. What? I thought DDR4-3200 RAM was a necessity for a recommended Ryzen build? Are you guys saying that if I build a system tomorrow I don't necessarily have to buy 3200 and that I could get away with 3000 RAM instead and not see that much of a difference?


----------



## cdawall (May 12, 2017)

trparky said:


> Wait. What? I thought DDR4-3200 RAM was a necessity for a recommended Ryzen build? Are you guys saying that if I build a system tomorrow I don't necessarily have to buy 3200 and that I could get away with 3000 RAM instead and not see that much of a difference?



Get samsung -b modules and just overclock them as far as they go. Quite honestly the 3000/3200 bin doesn't make much difference the actual chips are making it all.


----------



## GoldenX (May 12, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> ...There's just too many unknowns yet for many of us to trust Ryzen over Intel.



Freaking PRICE man, have you seen the price of an 6900K+motherboard compared to a R7 1700+B350?, or an 7600K+good OC motherboard compared to a R5 1400+B350? AMD doesn't have to beat Intel in everything to sell well, like the Phenom II did against Nehalem. Now that I remember, the Phenom offered more cores (PII x6) and good enough performance, withput needing an expensive motherboard (I had a 980BE on a 770 chipset, and overclocked it to a max of 4700MHz on winter), while the i7 920 (the cheapest one) was expensive, needed a good (expensive) motherboard to overclock properly and was a house heater, like the 7700K.

Intel only solid product right now is the humble G4560, THAT is a good product, without any competition right now.


----------



## trparky (May 12, 2017)

GoldenX said:


> AMD doesn't have to beat Intel in everything to sell well


It comes down to that right there. It doesn't have to be perfect, it doesn't have to be the fastest, it just needs to be good enough and that's what Ryzen appears to be providing to users for a decent price. For the first time in five years we actually have a choice; have our wallets raped by Intel or get good enough performance at a decent price. I don't know about you but I'm going to choose the second option.


----------



## GoldenX (May 12, 2017)

Thanks to Ryzen we finally are going to get a 6 core Intel product that isn't a joke, and I will never forget the current unlocked i3, a dual core (like those from 2005, remember?) at $180, with virtually the same performance as the $64 Pentium G4560.
We used to have quad cores at $100 7 years ago, remember the Athlon II x4?


----------



## trparky (May 12, 2017)

GoldenX said:


> I will never forget the current unlocked i3, a dual core (like those from 2005, remember?) at $180, with virtually the same performance as the $64 Pentium G4560.


Say what?  Is that true?


----------



## GoldenX (May 12, 2017)

Intel Core i3 7350K: http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_i3/Intel-Core i3 i3-7350K.html


----------



## trparky (May 12, 2017)

GoldenX said:


> Intel Core i3 7350K: http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_i3/Intel-Core i3 i3-7350K.html


Dafuq? Epic fail Intel, epic fail.


----------



## EntropyZ (May 12, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> Are you certain they're Samsung "B"? 3200 CL 14-14-14 probably CL 16 probably not


Oh they are most definitely not, only G.Skill so far has guaranteed "B" dies. Corsair is sitting on their laurels to provide Ryzen compatible high clock speed modules.

Also off-topic, Corsair Link doesn't work with my RAM simply because I am not using the first RAM slots, using those would downgrade the clock speed even further as-is. Doesn't matter, it's not like the LED breathing mode as only option right now makes me value them less. It's the friggen clock speed which that won't run as advertised.


----------



## N-Gen (May 12, 2017)

Reporting after the 1201 bios flash. So far I had no cold boot issues.

RAM problem persists however this time instead of reading only 16GB post 2666, it's doing it post 2880. I did manage to boot at 2880 at some point but now it's back to giving me problems. I still have the timing issue as well, manually setting them up to CL16 but the board is forcing CL15. Them booting at 2880 CL15 wasn't a bad thing but I'm really trying to get my 3000 here, lol.


----------



## Kanan (May 12, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Actually for AMD, the higher the better because the Infinity Fabric runs at same clock then. And I've seen some tests where 3600 MHz basically negated the CCX cross communication penalty in games, pitting 1800X CPU's against 7700K in pretty much everything.
> 
> For Intel, sweet spot is actually 2666 MHz where you have the largest gains. Beyond that you're paying way more for hardly any benefits.


Those are just a few chaoticaly programmed games that profit that much from ram speeds for ccx increasement. Usually 2933-3200 ram speed is the sweet spot and 2666 the minimum I would buy because under that the performance goes down big time.



EntropyZ said:


> Replaced my Single stick of Corsair Veng. LPX 2400MHz which clocked at 2933MHz easy to Corsair Vengeance LED DDR4 3200MHz 2x8GB which only boots at 2666MHz measly on an R5 1600 as per Ryzen official RAM support. Slightly disappointed it didn't go at least to 2933MHz as well. All I could do is lower the voltage and tighten the timings.
> 
> These old non-Ryzen optimized DDR4 modules really suck, even though they were Samsung. No wonder they're on sale in my country right now. Corsair probably trying to get rid of old stock. These things were obviously meant for X99/Z170.
> 
> ...


AMD already released new agesa code and it will be implemented soon into new bioses to increase ram compatibility.



Frag Maniac said:


> Plus no one's even HAD a chance to bench Ryzen at over 3200 speed yet, so how do you even know what the benefits beyond that are?


Go and look in YouTube for mindblank tech, he did that. I'm on phone atm so don't expect me to do it.



the54thvoid said:


> But that could also be the 1080ti.


It's both of course.

Ppl these days... think gpus are everything. lol



trparky said:


> Wait. What? I thought DDR4-3200 RAM was a necessity for a recommended Ryzen build? Are you guys saying that if I build a system tomorrow I don't necessarily have to buy 3200 and that I could get away with 3000 RAM instead and not see that much of a difference?


A "necessity" is 2666 not 3200. 2933-3200 is the sweet spot for perf but if it's too expensive I would simply go for 2666.



GoldenX said:


> (I had a 980BE on a 770 chipset, and overclocked it to a max of 4700MHz on winter), while the i7 920 (the cheapest one) was expensive, needed a good (expensive) motherboard to overclock properly and was a house heater, like the 7700K.


4700 MHz on a phenom? Really? I have hard times believing that. Also calling a 920 and 7700k "heaters" is just ridiculous coming from a Phenom II. Don't get me wrong I had a Phenom II 940 for almost 5 years but I don't concur with your "selective memories". Intel was way more efficient back then and the 7700k is very efficient as well. I concur on the price being too high, whole reason which prevented me to get the 920 in the first place instead got the Phenom II with way cheaper board and ddr2 ram.



N-Gen said:


> Reporting after the 1201 bios flash. So far I had no cold boot issues.
> 
> RAM problem persists however this time instead of reading only 16GB post 2666, it's doing it post 2880. I did manage to boot at 2880 at some point but now it's back to giving me problems. I still have the timing issue as well, manually setting them up to CL16 but the board is forcing CL15. Them booting at 2880 CL15 wasn't a bad thing but I'm really trying to get my 3000 here, lol.


I applaud your optimism handling those start up problems without getting angry but I would replace that ram if you could, as it doesn't seem to like Ryzen or the board too much.


----------



## N-Gen (May 12, 2017)

Kanan said:


> I applaud your optimism handling those start up problems without getting angry but I would replace that ram if you could, as it doesn't seem to like Ryzen or the board too much.



Got the timings in order just doing a few tests this morning. I wouldn't say replacing them right now is the way to go but if it ends up staying like this when very high speed memory is supported I might change them. For now, as long as it's working at a minimum of 2666 with these 4 sticks it's acceptable.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (May 12, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> Look, I don't really care to turn this into an ongoing argument. Just take my point of mentioning it for those interested in higher speed RAM, or not, I don't care, but you ARE being over defensive here. Plus no one's even HAD a chance to bench Ryzen at over 3200 speed yet, so how do you even know what the benefits beyond that are? Clearly you're just trying to defend your purchase of 3200 speed RAM before knowing the results of higher speed after the dividers are released.
> 
> This is what I mean by not interested, and not informed. If I say something that doesn't apply to you, just ignore it. Acting all defensive and justified about not being interested in things not even discovered yet is just ludicrous though. And that's without even mentioning that purecain got his 4000 speed at better pricing than the lower speed was in his area.
> 
> There's no point to acting like an over defensive fanboy here. His purchase of 4000 was more out of practicality than elitism. Many of us are just eager to see what results are obtained with speeds over 3200 on Ryzen, but I'd rather not speculate like you, and get actual feedback instead.  Despite what I say about AMD, I'm only wanting best case scenario so they can actually BE competitive this time around. I mean JEEZ, lay off dude. Time to give it a rest already.


oh sorry cause I quoted you its an argument, my bad 
it's a forum, people have difference of opinions and discuss things.... as if you called me a fanboy haha  

FYI im not insulted, offended or couldnt give a rats ass, I wasnt being a dick with you so kinda expect the same in return though seems thats a little to ask for, have a good weekend anyway


----------



## Frag_Maniac (May 12, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Right now, if you want marginally faster but not perciptable higher frame rates - Intel is the obvious choice as the clockspeeds are far superior on a 7700k.  Only a cherry picking nut job would deny that.  Subjectively, Ryzen 1700X at 3.9Ghz is very smooth - across 3 games (BF1, GRW & Prey)


Are you implying you don't notice smoother gameplay in GTA V too, because that seems to be the most common title mentioned when it comes to Ryzen 8 core playing smoother than Intel.



GoldenX said:


> Freaking PRICE man, have you seen the price of an 6900K+motherboard compared to a R7 1700+B350?.


Seriously though, I know Intel's 6900k is priced ridiculously, but most gamers are comparing the Ryzen 8 core to Intel's quad, namely the 7700k. Maybe when the Coffee Lake 6 core comes out that will change, but let's not kid ourselves here. Most compare their options in at least close price ranges, not astronomically different ones.



NdMk2o1o said:


> oh sorry cause I quoted you its an argument, my bad
> it's a forum, people have difference of opinions and discuss things.... as if you called me a fanboy haha
> 
> FYI im not insulted, offended or couldnt give a rats ass, I wasnt being a dick with you so kinda expect the same in return though seems thats a little to ask for, have a good weekend anyway



Had you merely "quoted me", there wouldn't have even been an argument. What you DID was fly off the handle as if I labeled you gullible for the RAM you purchased for merely saying AMD dropped the ball (which BTW you ended up admitting by your agreeing the launch was botched). Considering that, I really don't see why you even jumped on me in the first place, especially since you're now kinda implying I'M being the "dick".

It's like no good deed goes unpunished on the net. I call out a manufacturer for screwing up their product planning with manufactures, and somehow I'M the bad guy? I also noticed you still haven't acknowledged that no one really knows yet what the above 3200 benefits in gaming will be, due to no proper dividers yet to do such tests.

Are we seeing yet the prematurity and nonsense of it all, or are we (you) just content to expect everyone else to exude your sense of anxiety and complacency? I mean, at first I was willing to keep it aimed at AMD, but if you want to go toe to toe, I'll tell you full well why they keep making these mistakes. Gullible customers that put up with it, that's why.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (May 12, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> Are you implying you don't notice smoother gameplay in GTA V too, because that seems to be the most common title mentioned when it comes to Ryzen 8 core playing smoother than Intel.
> 
> 
> Seriously though, I know Intel's 6900k is priced ridiculously, but most gamers are comparing the Ryzen 8 core to Intel's quad, namely the 7700k. Maybe when the Coffee Lake 6 core comes out that will change, but let's not kid ourselves here. Most compare their options in at least close price ranges, not astronomically different ones.
> ...


no, I did not "fly off the handle" what's wrong with you man? seriously go and get some more sleep, you have me completely wrong and now the thread is being derailed!

P.S you got PM


----------



## Frag_Maniac (May 12, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> no, I did not "fly off the handle" what's wrong with you man? seriously go and get some more sleep, you have me completely wrong and now the thread is being derailed!
> 
> P.S you got PM


I'd really rather you not PM me with insults of "having a bad day" and getting you wrong. Do you really need a history lesson?

You insisted I explain why people want access to higher than 3200 RAM, you accuse me of over generalizing, then in your second post you use BS examples that don't even exist. Get a clue, no one's even had a chance to do proper above 3200 game benching on Ryzen yet due to no proper dividers. Your not grasping that is mostly why this erupted into an argument. You should have just left what you don't understand alone.

And on that note, I'm going to insist you do, with me anyway, because I have very little tolerance for BS. YOU derailed this thread by talking as if assumptions were fact. And another thing, your overuse of emoticons only makes it more obvious you're not talking the conversation seriously enough.

Some of us do our component research diligently, not via assumptions and beers.


----------



## infrared (May 12, 2017)

Chill guys, without being able to hear or see each other it's easy to misunderstand or read things wrong, nobody's the bad guy here!  

3600mhz games testing


----------



## Frag_Maniac (May 12, 2017)

^I'd forgotten I watched that vid weeks ago. It makes a good argument for getting higher than 3200 RAM even without the new dividers, but with them I would think it would be an obvious choice. I just hope AMD can work wonders with getting the higher RAM working consistently. Maybe even 4000.


----------



## GoldenX (May 12, 2017)

Kanan said:


> 4700 MHz on a phenom? Really? I have hard times believing that. Also calling a 920 and 7700k "heaters" is just ridiculous coming from a Phenom II. Don't get me wrong I had a Phenom II 940 for almost 5 years but I don't concur with your "selective memories". Intel was way more efficient back then and the 7700k is very efficient as well. I concur on the price being too high, whole reason which prevented me to get the 920 in the first place instead got the Phenom II with way cheaper board and ddr2 ram.



The stable 24/7 OC was 4200, 4700 was for benching in winter (it's cold here). Intel processors were more efficient back there, but they were also house heaters, the 920 needed one expensive heatsink or liquid cooling to go anywhere.

As for the 7700k, it is having sudden spikes of temperature to 90 degrees, even Intel is saying to not overclock it until they fix it.


----------



## trparky (May 12, 2017)

OK so is DDR4-3600 really necessary or can I get away with 3200?

*Edit:* God damn, finding decent RAM at Microcenter is a pain in the ass. That's where I'm going to be going to get the parts to build my system in a few weeks. I want most if not all of the pieces and parts that I need already picked out before I walk into the store. I want to be able to just walk up to the sales agent and say "I want this, that, and that other thing". Of course none of the stuff is labeled if it's using Samsung chips or if it's B-die.

If anyone can help in this regard it would be much appreciated. Multiple options would be nice since who knows if they will have a particular memory module in stock in the store the day I walk in. I sort of want to walk in, buy it, walk out, put it together that day, and have it working that same day; no waiting for other parts to come in.


----------



## Kanan (May 12, 2017)

GoldenX said:


> The stable 24/7 OC was 4200, 4700 was for benching in winter (it's cold here). Intel processors were more efficient back there, but they were also house heaters, the 920 needed one expensive heatsink or liquid cooling to go anywhere.
> 
> As for the 7700k, it is having sudden spikes of temperature to 90 degrees, even Intel is saying to not overclock it until they fix it.


4 Cores and Hyper Threading at far higher IPC than Phenom II was worth that cost and extra heat. Every bit. My own Phenom II only did 3.7 GHz without going too high on Vcore.


----------



## trparky (May 12, 2017)

If we could get a Wiki put together regarding this topic it would probably be a hell of a lot better.

Yeah well, I'm coffee deprived. I need more coffee.


----------



## Kanan (May 12, 2017)

trparky said:


> f we could get a Wiki put together regarding this topic it would probably be a hell of a lot better.


I edited my other post, if you didn't see it.


----------



## trparky (May 12, 2017)

Yeah but unless I go into my local Microcenter, pull every DDR4-3200 RAM module they have on the shelf, tear the package open, and tear the heatsink off how am I going to know if the chips they use are Samsung chips and if they are B-die modules? By the way if I do that I'd probably be arrested and spend a night in the pokey until I put up bail.


----------



## Kanan (May 12, 2017)

trparky said:


> Yeah but unless I go into my local Microcenter, pull every DDR4-3200 RAM module they have on the shelf, tear the package open, and tear the heatsink off how am I going to know if the chips they use are Samsung chips and if they are B-die modules? By the way if I do that I'd probably be arrested and spend a night in the pokey until I put up bail.


Simply by not doing that, and searching proper memory on this website instead: http://rymem.vraith.com/  (it's a website for Ryzen memory info)


----------



## Juvir (May 12, 2017)

Easiest way is to check their website, check local stock.  Then check the model # against the manufacturer's site to check the chips.


----------



## trparky (May 12, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Simply by not doing that, and searching proper memory on this website instead: http://rymem.vraith.com/  (it's a website for Ryzen memory info)


Well that's an interesting site, I'll have to bookmark it.

*Edit:* Finally found some compatible RAM. Corsair 16GB 2 x 8GB DDR4-3200 PC4-25600 Desktop Memory Kit Should work just fine with the motherboard that I picked out, the Asrock X370 Taichi. Hopefully that stuff is in stock the day I go to Microcenter or I'm going to be a very unhappy camper.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 12, 2017)

Still not luck at all with my Crucial Ballsitix Tactical RAM 
If I change any memory related setting, the board won't boot. Doesn't matter if it's latency or speed related. The weird thing is that other people can run the same RAM at 2,400MHz, I can only run it at 2,133MHz using the auto setting. Even setting it manually to 2,133MHz causes the board fall over and not boot.

Looks like I'm going to have to get some different memory.

That said, got my 1700 stable at 3.9GHz https://valid.x86.fr/4m8l0f
It does get quite hot though at those speeds and peaks at over 1.5V, so I think I'm going to have to step back to 3.8GHz which used less power and didn't run nearly as hot.


----------



## Juvir (May 12, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> Still not luck at all with my Crucial Ballsitix Tactical RAM
> If I change any memory related setting, the board won't boot. Doesn't matter if it's latency or speed related. The weird thing is that other people can run the same RAM at 2,400MHz, I can only run it at 2,133MHz using the auto setting. Even setting it manually to 2,133MHz causes the board fall over and not boot.
> 
> Looks like I'm going to have to get some different memory.
> ...



Manually change your CPU voltage, boards generally auto them WAY over when you start to overclock.  Set your CPU volts to 1.350 or 1.375



Juvir said:


> Manually change your CPU voltage, boards generally auto them WAY over when you start to overclock.  Set your CPU volts to 1.350 or 1.375



Yeah you're running WAY over on your volts there, at 1.5 volts.  You'll burn up your processor!


----------



## trparky (May 12, 2017)

Now if only that Ryzen RAM compatibility web site gave you working Amazon and Microcenter links for those of us in the United States. Yes, I want my cake and eat it too.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 12, 2017)

I couldn't get it stable past 3.85GHz unless I cranked it up.

Went back down to 3.8GHz and 1.4V that I think I can still tweak downwards a bit. Not a huge difference in performance https://valid.x86.fr/wec3xf


----------



## Juvir (May 12, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> I couldn't get it stable past 3.85GHz unless I cranked it up.
> 
> Went back down to 3.8GHz and 1.4V that I think I can still tweak downwards a bit. Not a huge difference in performance https://valid.x86.fr/wec3xf



AMD does not recommend going past 4.5v iirc for even extreme overclocking, it will cause long term damage to your CPU.  Might have been 4.75, you would have to check their PDFs on overclocking the Ryzen.  5 is simply too high, you'll end up bricking your new processor.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (May 12, 2017)

Honestly, I would not source RAM for Ryzen until after AMD releases the new dividers. Only then will you have a full idea of what's compatible, what performs best, how much benefit there is from frequencies over 3200, and how high a speed RAM it will support. Due to the need for game updates, MB and RAM updates, and driver updates, this could go on until the end of the year. Such a bone headed mistake by AMD to not iron all this out with manufacturers well before launch. 

I would say better late than never, but they always pull this kind of idiotic crap.



GoldenX said:


> As for the 7700k, it is having sudden spikes of temperature to 90 degrees, even Intel is saying to not overclock it until they fix it.


I've seen someone say his going into the MB BIOS and taking the IGP voltage down to zero fixed his 7700k temps.


----------



## Caring1 (May 13, 2017)

Juvir said:


> AMD does not recommend going past 4.5v iirc for even extreme overclocking, it will cause long term damage to your CPU.  Might have been 4.75, you would have to check their PDFs on overclocking the Ryzen.  5 is simply too high, you'll end up bricking your new processor.


Tell us something we don't know 
Pretty sure you meant 1.5V.


----------



## phanbuey (May 13, 2017)

Do you guys know what the best way to test Ryzen stability is?  Ive kind of settled for an  hour of DOOM and 20 runs of cinebench...

Prime and linpack don't seem to work as well as they did on my intel system.


----------



## tacosRcool (May 13, 2017)

A honest review after the day it released? I don't think so. You can't honestly write a decent review when you haven't spent the time with the product.


----------



## Kanan (May 13, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> Do you guys know what the best way to test Ryzen stability is?  Ive kind of settled for an  hour of DOOM and 20 runs of cinebench...
> 
> Prime and linpack don't seem to work as well as they did on my intel system.


Prime95, Battlefield 1 as it has very high cpu util, yeah. Doom is a bad idea because it's not exactly hard on the cpu.



tacosRcool said:


> A honest review after the day it released? I don't think so. You can't honestly write a decent review when you haven't spent the time with the product.


Don't care about the op post basically everyone interested in Ryzen knows it's a pile of junk.


----------



## the54thvoid (May 13, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Prime95, Battlefield 1 as it has very high cpu util, yeah. Doom is a bad idea because it's not exactly hard on the cpu.
> 
> 
> Don't care about the op post basically everyone interested in Ryzen knows it's a pile of junk.



I absolutely also recommend BF1. It fully loads cores on loading screens. I was having system crashes at what I thought was a stable clock. Increased volts to fix. 1.45v here.


----------



## Kanan (May 13, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> I absolutely also recommend BF1. It fully loads cores on loading screens. I was having system crashes at what I thought was a stable clock. Increased volts to fix. 1.45v here.


Same here although for 3960X. The game had some very high util in debris heavy maps with a lot of buildings, using all 12 threads at 90-100%. That's why I can only recommend Bf1 as a CPU test.


----------



## droopyRO (May 13, 2017)

Did anybody upgrade from a 3770k to a Ryzen 1600/1700 for gaming ? http://gameranx.com/features/id/102034/article/upgrading-to-ryzen-the-r7-1700-reviewed/ this is the only benchmark i could find and the results are dissapointing. I`m not going to do work at home so my PC is used for video/audio/browsing and gaming(mostly singleplayer AAA titiles). The few times i do audio or video encoding are not time sensitive so i can do the dishes while it encodes an .mp3


----------



## purecain (May 15, 2017)

droopyRO said:


> Did anybody upgrade from a 3770k to a Ryzen 1600/1700 for gaming ? http://gameranx.com/features/id/102034/article/upgrading-to-ryzen-the-r7-1700-reviewed/ this is the only benchmark i could find and the results are dissapointing. I`m not going to do work at home so my PC is used for video/audio/browsing and gaming(mostly singleplayer AAA titiles). The few times i do audio or video encoding are not time sensitive so i can do the dishes while it encodes an .mp3


in that link he says benchmarks were completed at default values. no overclock. just after he says what he reached overclocking. I think that is very misleading. of course the ryzen chip did badly. remember we found that by using faster memory and increased the infinity fabric speed and gaming performance beat all of intels chips in 80percent of games...i'll come back and post a link when I come across the source again. I remember the intel chips also benefitting up to 3200mhz and then it levelled out. the amd system carried on increasing in performance. I'm not bothered if my maximum frames are lowered. as long as the minimum frames are high I'm fine with it. although I am using a titan.
quote 
The new power plan gives almost identical performance to the High Performance plan, but when the machine is idle, it offers some, if not all, of the power saving that the Balanced setting provides.

AMD should also be addressing some problems on its side. Ryzen shows a significant dependence on the speed of its memory. Faster memory obviously means that there is more bandwidth, but there's a less obvious advantage on Zen chips: internally, the chip is organised as two blocks of four cores, and the communication between these blocks of four cores runs at the memory clock speed. Make the memory clock faster by going from, say, 2400MHz RAM (on a 1200MHz clock) to 3200MHz RAM (on a 1600MHz clock) and not only does the memory bandwidth go up by fifty percent, but so too does the bandwidth between the two blocks of cores.


----------



## GoldenX (May 15, 2017)

I don't understand why they simply couldn't use a separate multiplier for the Infinity Fabric.


----------



## HTC (May 15, 2017)

Dunno which particular board this is but it seems proper BIOSes are coming: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...-of-the-Jedi&p=5258673&viewfull=1#post5258673


----------



## Tatty_One (May 15, 2017)

purecain said:


> in that link he says benchmarks were completed at default values. no overclock. just after he says what he reached overclocking. I think that is very misleading. of course the ryzen chip did badly. *remember we found that by using faster memory and increased the infinity fabric speed and gaming performance beat all of intels chips in 80percent of games*...i'll come back and post a link when I come across the source again. I remember the intel chips also benefitting up to 3200mhz and then it levelled out. the amd system carried on increasing in performance. I'm not bothered if my maximum frames are lowered. as long as the minimum frames are high I'm fine with it. although I am using a titan.
> quote
> The new power plan gives almost identical performance to the High Performance plan, but when the machine is idle, it offers some, if not all, of the power saving that the Balanced setting provides.
> 
> AMD should also be addressing some problems on its side. Ryzen shows a significant dependence on the speed of its memory. Faster memory obviously means that there is more bandwidth, but there's a less obvious advantage on Zen chips: internally, the chip is organised as two blocks of four cores, and the communication between these blocks of four cores runs at the memory clock speed. Make the memory clock faster by going from, say, 2400MHz RAM (on a 1200MHz clock) to 3200MHz RAM (on a 1600MHz clock) and not only does the memory bandwidth go up by fifty percent, but so too does the bandwidth between the two blocks of cores.



That appears to be quite the opposite of W1z's dedicated Ryzen memory speed review where it showed minimal gains in gaming...........................

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_Memory_Analysis/9.html


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (May 15, 2017)

OH BOY!

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-9-lineup-threadripper/


----------



## Caring1 (May 15, 2017)

uuuaaaaaa said:


> OH BOY!
> 
> http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-9-lineup-threadripper/


Already been mentioned in this thread, post #7, although a different source: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...hitehaven-engineering-samples-surface.233271/


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 17, 2017)

So, I got some Corsair LPX 3200 memory and I still have the same problem. Only 8GB accessible in Windows 10, the rest is "hardware reserved" and I can't change any memory settings, as the board ends up in a failover loop until the watchdog kicks in and tells me to press F1 as the "overclocking" failed. 

Do I have a borked board or processor? As it's the only thing I can think of at this point. Asus support has been useless and are just telling me that they don't have the RAM to test with.


----------



## trparky (May 17, 2017)

This may be a really dumb question but did you install the 64-bit version of Windows? And not the 32-bit version. Why I ask is that I have seen something similar to what you are seeing @TheLostSwede when people install the wrong version.


----------



## purecain (May 17, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> That appears to be quite the opposite of W1z's dedicated Ryzen memory speed review where it showed minimal gains in gaming...........................
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_Memory_Analysis/9.html


it does and that's to do with Elmore writing a new bios every week since release.
I'm sure w1z will return to ryzen memory improvements when the next big bios is released with new memory dividers. 

got my system up and running and I have to say that the working machine is pretty impressive. for everyone else, careful when performing a fresh install. make sure you allow windows to update and make sure to get your chipset driver from amd directly.
everything should install properly and you wont run into any trouble like I did with the gpu...


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 17, 2017)

trparky said:


> This may be a really dumb question but did you install the 64-bit version of Windows? And not the 32-bit version. Why I ask is that I have seen something similar to what you are seeing @TheLostSwede when people install the wrong version.



I haven't used a 32-bit OS since Windows 7 launched. This isn't my first build, but thanks for your concern.
This is what happens, and I have now plonked the other 16GB in the board, which resulted in 16.1GB of hardware reserved memory.




 

I have never come across this issue before and all the "solutions" I've found online don't work. I'm really at a loss here, in addition to the fact that I can't change a single memory setting in the UEFI and this is also regardless of UEFI version.


----------



## trparky (May 17, 2017)

Since most Windows 10 installation media comes with both 32 and 64-bit installation media I was thinking perhaps you chose the wrong install type. I made that mistake one day. I accidentally chose the wrong one. I double tapped the down arrow on the keyboard by accident.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 17, 2017)

trparky said:


> Since most Windows 10 installation media comes with both 32 and 64-bit installation media I was thinking perhaps you chose the wrong install type. I made that mistake one day. I accidentally chose the wrong one. I double tapped the down arrow on the keyboard by accident.



Sure, mistakes happen, but as you can see, that's not the issue. Even so, a 32-bit OS would only give me 4GB, not 8GB of RAM.

However, as you can see, the UEFI only shows 8GB, not 16GB, so there's something seriously weird going on here.


----------



## Johan45 (May 17, 2017)

Try going to MSConfig>boot>advanced check that the max memory isn NOT checked. This should be blank if it's checked then uncheck it and reboot.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 17, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> Try going to MSConfig>boot>advanced check that the max memory isn NOT checked. This should be blank if it's checked then uncheck it and reboot.



Tried that and the other five or six different "solutions" for this problem, at no avail.


----------



## Johan45 (May 17, 2017)

Now that I see it's not showing in BIOS you likely have a bad channel on the board or possibly a bent pin(s) on the CPU


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 17, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> Now that I see it's not showing in BIOS you likely have a bad channel on the board or possibly a bent pin(s) on the CPU



Doesn't matter which slots I use for the RAM. All the RAM is visible to Windows, regardless of if I insert 2x 8GB or 4x 8GB, but the UEFI does not see the memory properly. However, it does see all four DIMMs as present, it just doesn't want to let me access more than half of whatever I put in the board. I've now tested with Crucial Ballistix Tactical which is my old RAM and some brand new Corsair LPX modules, same problem.


----------



## Johan45 (May 17, 2017)

Is there a newer BIOS than 601?


----------



## Caring1 (May 17, 2017)

Try a clean install, I know it's not what you want to hear, but it might clear the bugs out.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 17, 2017)

Ok, this makes no sense at all. Just to check, I took out he CPU, no bent pins, put it back, did a hard CMOS reset and all of a sudden it works. This is admittedly with the new Corsair LPX RAM and I can now run it at 2933MHz.

No idea what's going on, but I'm happy as can be right now


----------



## Johan45 (May 17, 2017)

At a guess poor contact in the socket, the remount probably lined things up again.
I have seen this almost everytime I cold bench FX CPUs. I have to "re-adjust" the CPU after everything is frozen
Glad it's working for you though


----------



## trparky (May 17, 2017)

Maybe the BIOS reset fixed it, maybe it lost its mind.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 17, 2017)

Well, I really couldn't say, but hey, at least it all looks good now, or as good as we can expect until better UEFI's are released by Asus. https://valid.x86.fr/76famx


----------



## Frag_Maniac (May 17, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> I haven't used a 32-bit OS since Windows 7 launched. This isn't my first build, but thanks for your concern.
> This is what happens, and I have now plonked the other 16GB in the board, which resulted in 16.1GB of hardware reserved memory.
> 
> View attachment 88061
> ...


I was going to respond to your prior post that it sounds like a RAM incompat problem, which is why it's always best to stay within their QVL. If ASUS says they don't have the RAM to test with, it probably isn't on the QVL.

I know technically both are Corsair LPX, but if they made some update to it, it should have a different model number, which is why you always check QVL model numbers, not model names.

Anyways, I have a sneaking hunch this is more to do with AMD's not being communicative enough with MB and RAM manufacturer's about memory for AM4, even though it's about capacity vs frequency.


----------



## Vya Domus (May 17, 2017)

purecain said:


> btw if you buy 2 1080's due to the drivers being immature you will get less performance than you do with one card in virtually every game except a couple of benchmarks which do show an improvement.



SLI and Crossfire are to be avoided always. It's not the drivers. It simply isn't a perfect technology and it will never be.


----------



## purecain (May 17, 2017)

new bios out today..1201..  id try that... hopefully it helps...


----------



## bencrutz (May 18, 2017)

purecain said:


> new bios out today..1201..  id try that... hopefully it helps...


still AGESA 1.0.0.4a, was expecting 1.0.0.5, but i'd probably give it a try anyway......


----------



## purecain (May 21, 2017)

NEW BIOS 9945 with dividers for 4000mhz available!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## bencrutz (May 21, 2017)

purecain said:


> NEW BIOS 9945 with dividers for 4000mhz available!!!!!!!!!!


link?
i can't seem to access the download page from asus


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 21, 2017)

Not official, elmor posted them here http://www.overclock.net/t/1624603/rog-crosshair-vi-overclocking-thread/15900#post_26106654


----------



## purecain (May 22, 2017)

beat me to it.

I'm running my system with modified p-states giving me 4050mhz @ 1.375v max  on all cores and it feels fast.

I know my nvme drive will be having an effect but even in gaming playing tom clancys wildlands  I'm getting up to 70fps @4k and it feels smoother

than my haswell setup. its definatly a big improvement. more than I thought it would be. havnt been able to get my ram over 3499mhz. but I havnt really tried tbh.

I'm spending hours playing around with the p-states...


----------



## trparky (May 23, 2017)

Has anyone heard of a possible Gigabyte motherboard recall?

I've been reading that a number of Ryzen Gigabyte motherboards have suddenly ended up being dead. Working one day and the next dead as a door nail.

Maybe sticking to Asus and Asrock boards would be a good idea until Gigabyte says something.


----------



## bencrutz (May 23, 2017)

trparky said:


> Has anyone heard of a possible Gigabyte motherboard recall?
> 
> I've been reading that a number of Ryzen Gigabyte motherboards have suddenly ended up being dead. Working one day and the next dead as a door nail.
> 
> Maybe sticking to Asus and Asrock boards would be a good idea until Gigabyte says something.


source?


----------



## trparky (May 23, 2017)

Some people on the Gigabyte forums (it's not a widespread issue, a few users have posted about it) and one user over at another forum I post at. He had his motherboard just up and die and so he sent it in for RMA and they told him that they couldn't replace it, they instead gave him money to buy a new one. Very weird that they would give him money instead of replacing the board via RMA. Makes me think that there's a possible defect in Gigabyte boards.


----------



## cadaveca (May 23, 2017)

trparky said:


> Some people on the Gigabyte forums (it's not a widespread issue, a few users have posted about it) and one user over at another forum I post at. He had his motherboard just up and die and so he sent it in for RMA and they told him that they couldn't replace it, they instead gave him money to buy a new one. Very weird that they would give him money instead of replacing the board via RMA. Makes me think that there's a possible defect in Gigabyte boards.





Why?

Boards are made in limited quantities, and not all global region RMA centers have actual replacement boards yet since all boards that were made were likely sent to retailers so they could be sold. This is common for motherboards and VGAs in my experience. Since AM4 is a new platform, and they could not supply a suitable replacement since they do not have stock, the only choice they have is to refund the purchase price. This is standard practice throughout the industry.

Recall would be my LAST thought, not the first. This is how it works when the manufacturing plant is in one country, but an RMA center is "locally located" within each of the global regions. Since the RMA center doesn't make the boards, merely repairs them, they are actually very unlikely to have stock to replace items, and that's why for most retailers, they offer exchange at the store first, since stores DO have stock. Most stores are capable of processing RMAs and then get credit for the replacement board they give you. That's why going to the OEM is kind of a last-ditch attempt at warranty service for many OEMs (although there are a fair number of OEMs that ask you not return items to the store).

I have run into this myself with review samples, even, because the "local" office only gets limited numbers to give out on launch of a product, and they do tend to give out every single one they get in order to increase exposure of the product. But that only happens when dealing with reps in the US, while the companies I deal with that ship to me directly from Taiwan nearly always have a replacement (although I have had items repaired, too).

Let me put it into numbers, even. 14 million boards sold per year, OEM has 20% of market. That's 2800000 boards. But they have 140 different products, making it only 20000 boards of a particular model... meaning that nearly any board product you buy is actually kind of rare, given that there are billions of people on the planet. Of course, boards that will sell in higher numbers are produced with higher numbers, and things like halo products (such as $700 motherboards) are produced in far lower numbers... so it all balances out in the end.

It would be really silly for an RMA center, which doesn't have a storefront, and doesn't have any ability to sell things directly, to stock products and hold on to the "just in case", since this would lead to huge numbers of boards made that are never sold, and would end up in a landfill. That's a crazy thought... I'd love to see a motherboard graveyard filled with products that were never used, never unboxed...


----------



## trparky (May 23, 2017)

What with the massive amounts of recalls that we've seen as of late in the tech sector (Samsung Note 7, Panasonic tablet battery recall, etc.) it's not exactly hard to jump to thinking that there's going to be a massive recall. The conspiracy theorist in me jumps to that conclusion, perhaps too quick though.

Anyways, enough about that and onto some interesting videos I found showcasing the AMD Ryzen 1600.








And









The two videos show that the AMD Ryzen, despite what the naysayers think, is holding itself against the Intel Core i7 7700k quite nicely and as demonstrated in the second video it appears that the AMD Ryzen R5 1600 produces better results than the Intel chip in that it produces smoother frame rates. In other words, peak frame rate isn't all that you need to worry about; average is best to look at since if your frame rate jumps all over the place it will result in a less than ideal gaming experience.


----------



## alucasa (May 23, 2017)

A perv's advice: Avoid those Youtube videos.

Think for yourself. Don't let others think for you.


----------



## trparky (May 23, 2017)

alucasa said:


> A perv's advice: Avoid those Youtube videos.
> 
> Think for yourself. Don't let others think for you.


For those of us who can't build multiple machines and pit them against each other we kind of have to rely on those videos to make a decision.


----------



## alucasa (May 23, 2017)

Read reviews. Don't watch those. When reading you can tell easier whether a reviewer is full of crap or not. It's harder to tell in videos.

Read a fair amount of reviews, and make an informed decision.


----------



## Rehmanpa (May 27, 2017)

trparky said:


> Some people on the Gigabyte forums (it's not a widespread issue, a few users have posted about it) and one user over at another forum I post at. He had his motherboard just up and die and so he sent it in for RMA and they told him that they couldn't replace it, they instead gave him money to buy a new one. Very weird that they would give him money instead of replacing the board via RMA. Makes me think that there's a possible defect in Gigabyte boards.



So I was thinking about buying the gigabyte k5 (I think it's the k5), and I've read a lot of doa reviews on newegg, and it has 3 stars but has everything I need. I'm really starting to get unnerved by all the doa boards I've been reading about. Should I still get it or avoid gigabyte at all costs?


----------



## phanbuey (May 27, 2017)

my gigabyte died on like the 3rd day - ram slot went out.  Went with the ASUS prime and its actually a much better and more stable board.

Also regarding that Fallout video... - He is not in a City where the AMD chips will start microstuttering; that area is smooth as silk for me.  I think it has to do something with the lighting, but on my intel system everything was smooth... the AMD rig struggles a bit.


----------



## Cvrk (May 28, 2017)

alucasa said:


> Avoid those Youtube videos.









You mean THIS video : 









or THIS video :









or THIs video:









or THIs video:









or THIs video:









or THIS video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83NnGQ7tC0g

or THIs video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkmyKPzCq6k

or THIs video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G80uG3acg44

or THIS video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4k_ErEg-FU

or THIs video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFfcv6H5yxY&t=2633s  very long but he does not talk sht.


Or THIs video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64AmlVIosAI

Some people know exactly what are doing. A review is a review.


----------



## Rehmanpa (May 28, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> You mean THIS video :
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ayyyy lamo fam. Gr8 post. No h8. Also what do you think of the gigabyte k5 mobo?


----------



## purecain (May 28, 2017)

I only trust user reviews. I take info from those others but ultimately it will be a forum member that I look to for info.


----------



## Mr.Scott (May 28, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> So I was thinking about buying the gigabyte k5 (I think it's the k5), and I've read a lot of doa reviews on newegg, and it has 3 stars but has everything I need. I'm really starting to get unnerved by all the doa boards I've been reading about. Should I still get it or avoid gigabyte at all costs?


So....what's the difference between this and all the dead Asus boards?
Answer: nothing.
They all have growing pains on a new platform. Buy whatever you like.


----------



## Cvrk (May 28, 2017)

Mr.Scott said:


> So....what's the difference between this and all the dead Asus boards?
> Answer: nothing.
> They all have growing pains on a new platform. Buy whatever you like.


Exactly. You are smart. 
As long as you have warranty they will give you the money back.


----------



## trparky (May 28, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> Or This video:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I hate to admit it but I think he's right with that video, the Core i7 7700k really is the better choice for gamers. There's no doubt about that, Ryzen just isn't good enough in the per-core IPC to be good enough for gamers. I was really hoping to go AMD but alas it's just not the right choice.

However, my upgrade plan is officially on hold. One I want to save more money up but I also want to wait for Intel Coffee Lake. There's no sense in building a new system today with a new chip soon to be released in the next coming months. I want to be up-to-date as much as I can right from the beginning.


----------



## Vya Domus (May 28, 2017)

trparky said:


> I hate to admit it but I think he's right with that video, the Core i7 7700k really is the better choice for gamers. There's no doubt about that, Ryzen just isn't good enough in the per-core IPC to be good enough for gamers. I was really hoping to go AMD but alas it's just not the right choice.
> 
> However, my upgrade plan is officially on hold. One I want to save more money up but I also want to wait for Intel Coffee Lake. There's no sense in building a new system today with a new chip soon to be released in the next coming months. I want to be up-to-date as much as I can right from the beginning.



It has roughly the same IPC mate... Kaby Lake runs at higher clocks , I think you are confusing things.

7700K is the better choice for gaming if by gaming you mean 144hz and I wonder how many gamers actually game at 144hz to justify the choice. Other than that it really isn't great value compared to a 1700 no matter how you look at it. You're paying the same price for something  that gives 10-15% more performance in games at best (and keep in mind if you use a powerful GPU you are looking at 100fps+ at 1080p on either one of them) but at the same time it has half the cores and threads.

 Each to their own I suppose , I understand that after such a long time where AMD has been lacking on the CPU side people feel more confident about their purchase when they see the Intel logo , but it's time to let go.


----------



## trparky (May 28, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> It has roughly the same IPC mate... Kaby Lake runs at higher clocks , I think you are confusing things.


Yeah, the base clocks are higher than Ryzen and that's proving to be the down fall for Ryzen; the lack of a good high base clock.

Every review that I have read and every video that I have watched has proven (at least to me) that Ryzen just isn't up to the task yet. Maybe in three years when new and smaller process nodes are available it will be better because by then Ryzen will be able to clock much higher than what it currently is clocked at. It really comes down to clock speeds, games just aren't taking much advantage of a lot of cores yet so it doesn't really matter how many cores you have (sorry Ryzen); it's the clock speed that really matters in the performance of games and clock speed is where Ryzen is falling behind in.



Vya Domus said:


> 700K is the better choice for gaming if by gaming you mean 144hz and I wonder how many people actually game at 144hz to justify the choice.


I have been researching this situation like a mad man I have disagree with that statement. Even at 1080p the 7700k is smashing the Ryzen chip.



Cvrk said:


>


That video proves it! 7 to 15% more frames per second! There's no arguing about numbers here, the numbers show that the 7700k is just killing it.



Vya Domus said:


> I understand that after such a long time where AMD has been lacking on the CPU side people feel more confident about their purchase when they see the Intel logo


Maybe it is, maybe it is the fact that it has the Intel logo that's clouding my judgement. I'm not an Intel fanboy by any means, I was really hoping for AMD to come out swinging with a home run with all bases loaded (Grand Slam) and running on all cylinders firing and able to go from 0 to 60 in under three seconds but sadly, it's just not there yet.

And if you look at AMD's stock price the market even knows this. Ryzen, even with all of its good is still not good enough. I'm even reconsidering my stance on nVidia because unless AMD Vega comes out swinging it's game over for AMD.


----------



## Cvrk (May 28, 2017)

trparky said:


> That video proves it! 7 to 15% more frames per second! There's no arguing about numbers here, the numbers show that the 7700k is just killing it.



That video proves something.  Not everything.
The variables are huge.
No one knows what a game developer will wanna do next. Will they focus on more cores, will they focus on almost naked anime girls with semi automatic shotguns . But they are moving slow, very slow. So slow that even if in a perfect scenario the few more cores and 20mb of cache can make a difference it will only be few more fps.
I incline for the Intel, in a desperate need to like Ryzen.

I see Ryzen as a hot young versatile woman that may not stick around for long and end up cheating on you.... and Intel as an old confident  woman that you can always trust to be there for you.
Right now i am afraid to buy a Ryzen system. I keep trying to convince myself that i need an old woman.

Be careful. At 144Hz you need mostly the GPU, not the cpu.
If you wanna know witch one is better Amd vs Intel you should be gaming 720p. Take all the stress from the gpu and let the cpu do the lifting. 
Intel will do more lifting right now. It's when you wanna do more than just one single thing,where the Ryzen may shine.... but it may not shine enough.

This argument is for the poor people. If you got the money,get a sexy Ryzen system and change it again next year, or whenever you feel like it.


----------



## trparky (May 28, 2017)

As crazy as that sounds I kind of have to agree you @Cvrk.


----------



## Vya Domus (May 28, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> will they focus on almost naked anime girls with semi automatic shotguns



I sure hope so.


----------



## Cvrk (May 28, 2017)

trparky said:


> I'm even reconsidering my stance on nVidia because unless AMD Vega comes out swinging it's game over for AMD.


Go ahead and consider it. The Polaris RX 480 is a mess. They toked my hard earned money, NEVER again. Their not fooling me again. Vega...Wolverine , i don't care what their gonna call it. I had and still have so much trouble with this RX... the money difference was small ,next to nothing to the GTX 1070. I should have got that one!

In a perfect world i will love to see Ryzen + nVidia win it all. Who knows...


----------



## Vya Domus (May 28, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> Go ahead and consider it. The Polaris RX 480 is a mess. They toked my hard earned money, NEVER again. Their not fooling me again. Vega...Wolverine , i don't care what their gonna call it. I had and still have so much trouble with this RX... the money difference was small ,next to nothing to the GTX 1070. I should have got that one!



Just curios , what do you mean by "is a mess" ?


----------



## trparky (May 28, 2017)

AMD is in a very precarious position, they aren't on solid footing financially speaking. They've been bleeding money for quite awhile. When they come out with Vega it better be a solid slam dunk, it better be able to not only beat nVidia but be able to knock them out cold. If not, financially speaking this company is dead.

Ryzen seems like a good platform until you look at the base clocks, they just aren't good enough. And as for overclocking, unless you hit the silicon lottery it's not guaranteed.

If you're a gamer in any way, casual or hard-core, you really have no other choice. Go Intel.


----------



## Rehmanpa (May 28, 2017)

trparky said:


> AMD is in a very precarious position, they aren't on solid footing financially speaking. They've been bleeding money for quite awhile. When they come out with Vega it better be a solid slam dunk, it better be able to not only beat nVidia but be able to knock them out cold. If not, financially speaking this company is dead.
> 
> Ryzen seems like a good platform until you look at the base clocks, they just aren't good enough. And as for overclocking, unless you hit the silicon lottery it's not guaranteed.
> 
> If you're a gamer in any way, casual or hard-core, you really have no other choice. Go Intel.


I disagree. Ryzen is just fine in gaming. The whole "but the 7700k is still better in gaming" is only applicable in some situations, and st the price especially when people like doing things such as streaming or hosting a server and playing a game at the same rime, ryzen is hands down better than intel, especially with price which is ultimately what matters most.


----------



## Mr.Scott (May 28, 2017)

trparky said:


> AMD is in a very precarious position, they aren't on solid footing financially speaking. They've been bleeding money for quite awhile. When they come out with Vega it better be a solid slam dunk, it better be able to not only beat nVidia but be able to knock them out cold. If not, financially speaking this company is dead.
> 
> Ryzen seems like a good platform until you look at the base clocks, they just aren't good enough. And as for overclocking, unless you hit the silicon lottery it's not guaranteed.
> 
> If you're a gamer in any way, casual or hard-core, you really have no other choice. Go Intel.



Gaming is not the end all beat all. It's a very small percentage of sales. VERY small. So is the enthusiast market (overclocking). OEM's (prebuilt's), workstations, and server's are where the money is. That is the target audience.
Vega will not put the squeeze on Nvidia either. Nv already has a counter product cooking.

AMD isn't going anywhere. They were in worse shape financially years ago. 
You're a gamer and you like Intel?, go ahead and buy what you like. It won't change anything.


----------



## Vya Domus (May 28, 2017)

trparky said:


> If you're a gamer in any way, casual or hard-core, you really have no other choice. Go Intel.



I think you've blown your cover . It's pretty obvious what you're doing on here. There are definitely products from both Intel and AMD that smash each other in certain segments and scenarios including gaming , your claim is just ridiculous.

You have been presented many viable augments but in the end you always ignore everything and proceed with your now plain obvious fanboysm. I have nothing against that but you're wasting yours and our time.

This is supposed to be a discussion but from what I see there really isn't anything you want to discuss.


----------



## purecain (May 28, 2017)

if you think those extra frames mean anything in the real world your wrong. if your benchmarking and going after the highest fps then intel looks great but even with v-sync on intel chips do not have the same frame time consistency that the NEW amd chips give.

when I overclcocked my 1800x i lowered the voltage to see where the limits were for 1.3v. the system booted and even played games yet the gameplay had lost its smooth feeling. it felt like i was gaming on my old intel rig. i increased the volts and the system started to play games smoothly again. theres a definite effect. i much prefer playing games on my ryzen system than i did on any intel rig ive owned or built and that's saying something.

i havnt used a 10core intel chip yet though so id need feedback to see if the frame time behavior is the same as on their 4core cpu's.


----------



## trparky (May 29, 2017)

But everyone is saying go Intel. Benchmarks say it. YouTube people say it. Review sites say it.

There's so much negativity regarding Ryzen that at some point one has to wonder if it's true. It's just like with Trump, with all the bad news some of it has got to be true.


----------



## Mr.Scott (May 29, 2017)

Gaming benchmarks say it. Anything that has gaming attached to it says it. That's all.
.
Ryzen crushes Intel in multi threaded applications, in any benchmark. That includes their non target upper market as well (6950x)

It does very well in the tasks it was marketed for.


----------



## Rehmanpa (May 29, 2017)

trparky said:


> But everyone is saying go Intel. Benchmarks say it. YouTube people say it. Review sites say it.
> 
> There's so much negativity regarding Ryzen that at some point one has to wonder if it's true. It's just like with Trump, with all the bad news some of it has got to be true.


Don't bring politics into a computer tech forum. Just because there are intel fanboys hating on something doesn't make it true. Gaming is worse yes. I mean you have to remember that an i7 7700k at 5ghz is still 5ghz vs 3.9ghz for a ryzen processor. The IPC is quite similar between them, but In reality how many people would overclock their i7 7700k to 5ghz? My 4790k is running at 4.4ghz and it's just fine so why mess with it? Same with the ryzen processor, it's just fine. And there are plenty of games where they're neck and neck, and then others where the intel 7700k is ahead, but the ryzen is still more than playa me on. I know I'm going to be selling my 4790k to get either threadripper or ryzen depending on pricing.


----------



## Dethroy (May 29, 2017)

trparky said:


> But everyone is saying go Intel. Benchmarks say it. YouTube people say it. Review sites say it.
> 
> There's so much negativity regarding Ryzen that at some point one has to wonder if it's true. It's just like with Trump, with all the bad news some of it has got to be true.


I wouldn't care so much about what others have to say, and rather form my very own opinion with the help of facts, math and a sound mind. Then I'd simply check which option is most likely to align with my needs.


----------



## Mr.Scott (May 29, 2017)

Dethroy said:


> I wouldn't care so much about what others have to say, and rather form my very own opinion with the help of facts, math and a sound mind. Then I'd simply check which option is most likely to align with my needs.



Exactly.
If you're a hard core gamer that needs every single FPS you can get, you might want to stick with Intel. Everything has it's niche.


----------



## Rehmanpa (May 29, 2017)

Mr.Scott said:


> Exactly.
> If you're a hard core gamer that needs every single FPS you can get, you might want to stick with Intel. Everything has it's niche.


Iirc, the higher the res the less the cpu holds back fps right? So an i7 might get say 20%more fps at 1080p but like 12% at 1440p and maybe 5% at 4k? Or am I not remembering things correctly?


----------



## purecain (May 29, 2017)

gaming isn't worse, i get a couple of fps less maximum and its completely smooth. intel chips do not offer this. the same gpu on an intel system wouldn't give me this feeling of smoothness with any speed.  i wouldn't go back to an intel rig after this. not until it comes to light why amd's experience in games with frame times is so much better and intel copies it. the amd chips are scoring upto 20fps faster than with initial bios as it can now use faster ram speeding up data fabric times.... with even more improvements promised.


----------



## Mr.Scott (May 29, 2017)

Something like that. 

The percentages are pretty much in the single digits pending the game though.


----------



## Rehmanpa (May 29, 2017)

purecain said:


> gaming isn't worse, i get a couple of fps less maximum and its completely smooth. intel chips do not offer this. the same gpu on an intel system wouldn't give me this feeling of smoothness with any speed.  i wouldn't go back to an intel rig after this. not until it comes to light why amd's experience in games with frame times is so much better and intel copies it.


Most of the gains an i7 7700k has over the ryzen is being clocked an entire ghz higher. But what % of 7700k owners oc it that high?


----------



## Mr.Scott (May 29, 2017)

Less than a percent.


----------



## Rehmanpa (May 29, 2017)

Mr.Scott said:


> Something like that.
> 
> The percentages are pretty much in the single digits pending the game though.


And at that point, unless you're a hating fanboy, why not get the ryzen? More cores will benefit you because in reality nobody  (at least that I know, myself included) only ever games with 1 program open, I'm always doing things in the background.


----------



## Mr.Scott (May 29, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> And at that point, unless you're a hating fanboy, why not get the ryzen? More cores will benefit you because in reality nobody  (at least that I know, myself included) only ever games with 1 program open, I'm always doing things in the background.


I do not disagree.
It is that much better a buy. 
The difference is not as bad as everybody makes it out to be.


----------



## trparky (May 29, 2017)

What?! I thought the benchmarks that we've all been seeing were based upon a stock clocked i7!

I don't care if you can get x plus whatever the hell frames per second on an i7 after you overclocked it so damn much you're threatening to have it go Mount St. Helens on you.


----------



## Rehmanpa (May 29, 2017)

trparky said:


> What?! I thought the benchmarks that we've all been seeing were based upon a stock clocked i7!
> 
> I don't care if you can get x plus whatever the hell frames per second on an i7 after you overclocked it so damn much you're threatening to have it go Mount St. Helens on you.


Lol depends on the benchmarks. Most of what I've seen were oc.


----------



## trparky (May 29, 2017)

I've been seeing some numbers that show a 20 frame per second deficit. That's a huge amount! And now you're telling me that that's only because they overclocked the shit out of the Core i7 7700k? No! I don't want to see that! I want to see stock-against-stock! I don't give a rat's ass if you can push a 7700k to 5 GHz! Of course a chip running at 5 GHz is going to thoroughly kick the ass of a chip running a 4 GHz! Even a complete n00b would know that! That's a 20% increase in clock speed man!

I want to see stock-for-stock benchmark numbers, that's the only way we can see if Intel really is faster than AMD. We have seen time and time again that clock speed really doesn't matter, it's how efficient the chip is at that clock speed.

So all the videos I have seen and watched, all of the articles I have been reading for the last two and a half weeks are all worth a pile of shit. Great, I have been basing my decision on those articles and videos because they have all been written by people who I assumed I could trust to give me the right data to base a decision on.


----------



## Rehmanpa (May 29, 2017)

trparky said:


> I've been seeing some numbers that show a 20 frame per second deficit. That's a huge amount! And now you're telling me that that's only because they overclocked the shit out of the Core i7 7700k? No! I don't want to see that! I want to see stock-against-stock! I don't give a rat's ass if you can push a 7700k to 5 GHz! Of course a chip running at 5 GHz is going to thoroughly kick the ass of a chip running a 4 GHz! Even a complete n00b would know that! That's a 20% increase in clock speed man!
> 
> I want to see stock-for-stock benchmark numbers, that's the only way we can see if Intel really is faster than AMD. We have seen time and time again that clock speed really doesn't matter, it's how efficient the chip is at that clock speed.
> 
> So all the videos I have seen and watched, all of the articles I have been reading for the last two and a half weeks are all worth a pile of shit. Great, I have been basing my decision on those articles and videos because they have all been written by people who I assumed I could trust to give me the right data to base a decision on.



It really depends on the benchmark. Some of them are stock but some aren't. The turbo boost vs non x ryzen would mean that there is no effective turbo boost on it. The ipc, effectively meaning how fast the processor is at a certain ghz is VERY close. A 4ghz 1700 would almost be as fast as a 4ghz 7700k. However in reality the 7700k does have higher clock speeds but make a more heat than the 1700, as the 1700 only uses like 60 watts (idr what the 7700k is, my 4790k is 88-94watts). Truth is the fps differences that are most noticeable might be 170 vs 150. At that point, what does it matter? There are a lot of games where they're close together, neck and neck, and the games where they're not it's generally so high in terms of fps it doesn't realistically matter. Not to mention at higher resolutions the difference decreases. I play at 1440p so my ryzen will be less slow than the 7700k versus it at 1080p.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (May 29, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> I disagree. Ryzen is just fine in gaming. The whole "but the 7700k is still better in gaming" is only applicable in some situations, and st the price especially when people like doing things such as streaming or hosting a server and playing a game at the same rime, ryzen is hands down better than intel, especially with price which is ultimately what matters most.





trparky said:


> I've been seeing some numbers that show a 20 frame per second deficit. That's a huge amount! And now you're telling me that that's only because they overclocked the shit out of the Core i7 7700k? No! I don't want to see that! I want to see stock-against-stock! I don't give a rat's ass if you can push a 7700k to 5 GHz! Of course a chip running at 5 GHz is going to thoroughly kick the ass of a chip running a 4 GHz! Even a complete n00b would know that! That's a 20% increase in clock speed man!
> 
> I want to see stock-for-stock benchmark numbers, that's the only way we can see if Intel really is faster than AMD. We have seen time and time again that clock speed really doesn't matter, it's how efficient the chip is at that clock speed.
> 
> So all the videos I have seen and watched, all of the articles I have been reading for the last two and a half weeks are all worth a pile of shit. Great, I have been basing my decision on those articles and videos because they have all been written by people who I assumed I could trust to give me the right data to base a decision on.


Let me explain it this way, the only big % 7700k beats down AMD Ryzen in gaming is where you take a high end GPU and game at 1080p or lower... and then both are in the 100's FPS and the difference is negligible, now if you have a £300-£500 processor and £700 GPU, what are the chances you are going to be running a shitty 1080p monitor with that setup? you will be running 1440p/2k/4k and the 700mhz slower Ryzen is neck and neck with the 7700k, it's one scenario that isn't likely to be a common occurrence, but hey that's all some people have to go by and keep bringing up. Do I give a shit at over 100fps if I'm getting 100fps or 115fps? no.... but if I am getting 100fps and able to stream/record at the same time without affecting gaming performance as opposed to having an extra 15fps but the gameplay isn't as smooth, guess which I'm going to go with.

Shit.... Intel didn't get this kind of shit when they first released the Core I processors that where a big leap performance wise compared to C2Q and AMD have done an amazing job at improving IPC compared to their last architecture and are getting berated for it. A 4.5ghz Ryzen will destroy an 7700k in everything, gaming included whilst giving you 2x the cores at the same price, granted they aren't there yet with the core speed but neither were the first i7's coming clocked at between 2.66ghz and 2.9ghz when previous C2Q's had already been clocked past 3ghz but the clock speed didn't mean shit cause the IPC was much higher as is the case with Ryzen

I remember first hand when 600mhz slower AMD processors where beating the crap out of Pentium 4's because AMD's architecture and IPC was so much more refined, guess a lot of younger people will always only have known AMD as an underdog who can't compete with Intel and are still in denial at how a crappy little company like AMD could even compete with Intel....


----------



## trparky (May 29, 2017)

How would a Ryzen 1600 clocked at 3.2 GHz (stock clock) perform against a Kaby Lake chip that was under-clocked to 3.2 GHz? Or even a plain 7700 chip because it's not clocked as high. I'd like to see those numbers. That kind of test would really show the differences in the base architectures.


----------



## Mr.Scott (May 29, 2017)

No it wouldn't because people would bitch about the Intel being underclocked.


----------



## Rehmanpa (May 29, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Let me explain it this way, the only big % 7700k beats down AMD Ryzen in gaming is where you take a high end GPU and game at 1080p or lower... and then both are in the 100's FPS and the difference is negligible, now if you have a £300-£500 processor and £700 GPU, what are the chances you are going to be running a shitty 1080p monitor with that setup? you will be running 1440p/2k/4k and the 700mhz slower Ryzen is neck and neck with the 7700k, it's one scenario that isn't likely to be a common occurrence, but hey that's all some people have to go by and keep bringing up. Do I give a shit at over 100fps if I'm getting 100fps or 115fps? no.... but if I am getting 100fps and able to stream/record at the same time without affecting gaming performance as opposed to having an extra 15fps but the gameplay isn't as smooth, guess which I'm going to go with.
> 
> Shit.... Intel didn't get this kind of shit when they first released the Core I processors that where a big leap performance wise compared to C2Q and AMD have done an amazing job at improving IPC compared to their last architecture and are getting berated for it. A 4.5ghz Ryzen will destroy an 7700k in everything, gaming included whilst giving you 2x the cores at the same price, granted they aren't there yet with the core speed but neither were the first i7's coming clocked at between 2.66ghz and 2.9ghz when previous C2Q's had already been clocked past 3ghz but the clock speed didn't mean shit cause the IPC was much higher as is the case with Ryzen
> 
> I remember first hand when 600mhz slower AMD processors where beating the crap out of Pentium 4's because AMD's architecture and IPC was so much more refined, guess a lot of younger people will always only have known AMD as an underdog who can't compete with Intel and are still in denial at how a crappy little company like AMD could even compete with Intel....



AMD ryzen really shines at streaming. On the played upon computer both games are running fine. The stream however, the 6700k even at 4.5ghz is not as clear s the ryzen processors stream. Here is the video:









Also, please check out this video, it's a video that shows direct comparisons of the benchmarks being ran side by side (7700k vs 1700). I think the resolution is either 1080p or 1440p. 








As you can see from this video, there is very little noticeable difference, and they're trading blows back and forth. Each one is perfectly playable, personally I think the ryzen one looks a little more fluid but maybe that's just me.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (May 29, 2017)

trparky said:


> How would a Ryzen 1600 clocked at 3.2 GHz (stock clock) perform against a Kaby Lake chip that was under-clocked to 3.2 GHz? Or even a plain 7700 chip because it's not clocked as high. I'd like to see those numbers. That kind of test would really show the differences in the base architectures.


Based on the information that is out there and you can work out yourself from reviews and comparing clock speeds, Ryzen is likely there or there abouts in terms of IPC compared to intel. On a clock for clock basis, I shouldn't have to say that but a lot of people don't actually understand what IPC means and they see an 4.5ghz intel chip beating out a 3.6ghz AMD chip and assume the IPC is greater on intel smh.


----------



## Rehmanpa (May 29, 2017)

trparky said:


> How would a Ryzen 1600 clocked at 3.2 GHz (stock clock) perform against a Kaby Lake chip that was under-clocked to 3.2 GHz? Or even a plain 7700 chip because it's not clocked as high. I'd like to see those numbers. That kind of test would really show the differences in the base architectures.


Check out the last post I made with those two videos and see them running side by side. That 1700 I believe is going against the 7700k at 5ghz, and it's doing just fine. Same would be with the 1600 vs the 7600k as they're the same chip, just different amounts of cores. So you notice yeah the 7700k occasionally might have 10 more fps, but then the 1700 occasionally gets an extra 5-10 over the 7700k, so it's really misleading just looking at a bar graph.


----------



## trparky (May 29, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> A 4.5ghz Ryzen will destroy an 7700k in everything


Sure, if you just so happen to be the luckiest son of a bitch on the planet and you won the Mega Millions equivalent of the silicon lottery you can overclock a Ryzen to 4.5 GHz but let's face facts people, 99% of us are never going to be able to overclock a Ryzen that damn high. I've been reading about so many people barely being able to push a Ryzen R5 1600 to 3.8 GHz and maintain stability let alone 4 GHz.



Mr.Scott said:


> No it wouldn't because people would bitch about the Intel being underclocked.


I wouldn't be bitching, no sir, instead I would be studying the numbers like a fiend comparing the two architectures on a raw architecture-to-architecture comparison breaking it down to the littlest detail.



NdMk2o1o said:


> Intel didn't get this kind of shit when they first released the Core I processors


That's because most code written back then and still written today is geared towards running on an Intel chip. The industry standard C++ compiler is known to favor Intel vs AMD, it's a highly known fact. Now we need to see if AMD's Ryzen can overcome those obvious hurdles that have been stacked against it because of Intel's borderline anti-trust and underhanded behavior.



Rehmanpa said:


> AMD ryzen really shines at streaming.


But most of us aren't going to be streaming, most of us are going to just have fun playing the game against whoever the hell we're playing against.



NdMk2o1o said:


> Ryzen is likely there or there abouts in terms of IPC compared to Intel


But why do I keep hearing shit about how Ryzen's IPC numbers are really more in line with Haswell which is a two year old Intel architecture? Is that true or is it made up shit by Intel lovers?


----------



## NdMk2o1o (May 29, 2017)

trparky said:


> Sure, if you just so happen to be the luckiest son of a bitch on the planet and you won the Mega Millions equivalent of the silicon lottery you can overclock a Ryzen to 4.5 GHz but let's face facts people, 99% of us are never going to be able to overclock a Ryzen that damn high. I've been reading about so many people barely being able to push a Ryzen R5 1600 to 3.8 GHz and maintain stability let alone 4 GHz.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be bitching, no sir, instead I would be studying the numbers like a fiend comparing the two architectures on a raw architecture-to-architecture comparison breaking it down to the littlest detail.
> ...


oh..... ok you're one of those who are going to disregard 90% of my post and take out of context what I was saying, cool story bro....

And you also don't understand the whole IPC thing, that's fine, I don't hold it against you, just don't try and use your misunderstanding as an excuse to being wrong 

EDIT: f*ck it, lemme just say 1 thing... IPC = clock for clock basis, think about it! I know Ryzen's IPC beats Haswell, you need to learn the difference between difference in clock speed and what IPC means, apology accepted when you do 

Hell while I'm at it, what IPC improvements where there from Haswell to kabylake? I mean that's a 2 year old architecture and kabylake should be beating it's ass according to you?


----------



## Rehmanpa (May 29, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> oh..... ok you're one of those who are going to disregard 90% of my post and take out of context what I was saying, cool story bro....
> 
> And you also don't understand the whole IPC thing, that's fine, I don't hold it against you, just don't try and use your misunderstanding as an excuse to being wrong
> 
> ...


About maybe 5%. The 6700k is ~ 5% faster than the 4790k. Only big difference was z97 to z170, so ddr3 to ddr4.


----------



## Rehmanpa (May 29, 2017)

trparky said:


> Sure, if you just so happen to be the luckiest son of a bitch on the planet and you won the Mega Millions equivalent of the silicon lottery you can overclock a Ryzen to 4.5 GHz but let's face facts people, 99% of us are never going to be able to overclock a Ryzen that damn high. I've been reading about so many people barely being able to push a Ryzen R5 1600 to 3.8 GHz and maintain stability let alone 4 GHz.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be bitching, no sir, instead I would be studying the numbers like a fiend comparing the two architectures on a raw architecture-to-architecture comparison breaking it down to the littlest detail.
> ...


You should watch the second video I linked and maybe you would better understand, seeing it for your own eyes, the little amount of difference the two actually make in games. IPC is basically how many instructions per clock cycle that a cpu can output at a certain ghz. For example, an i7 3820 running at 4.0ghz will give overall LESS performance than an i7 4790k running at 4.0ghz because its IPC is lower than the 4790k. In games, this translates to an FPS difference, where as in rendering it would translate into rendering time. The i7 lineup has not advanced very much these last few years because there has been no competition, no competition=no innovation. Now there is seriously good competition, and maybe there will be innovation again. 

Studying the raw architecture-to-architecture is helpful to a limited point. There is the truth in the fact that you will never get your 1700 to 5ghz, or heck I don't think I've seen 4.5. I think 3.9 or 4.0 ghz is a good level. But if you overclock one, you gotta overclock the other. So if you for example had a 1700 running at 4.0ghz vs a 7700k at 5.0ghz, how big would that difference be? Theoretically, 20%. Reality? Not at all. The law of diminishing returns is a bitch, and it's effecting this to. You can see in that video a 3.9ghz ryzen 1700 vs a 5ghz 7700k, and there is a very small margin of difference. Your looking for average fps, and the average fps of the 1700 is damn good, just like the 7700k. 

Streaming is just an example of an application. I game, for example, usually while running a bunch of applications in the background (i.e. teamspeak or discord or skype, maybe netflix or music, a youtube video, and say if I'm playing a game I might be hosting a server for it as well where my friends can join me) and these extra background applications do make use of extra cores that the ryzen provides. I'm basically going to turn my ryzen rig into my server AND my gaming machine, and I could do video rendering effortlessly as well. You could dedicate 12 cores to rendering a video and game on the other 4. That way your pc is usable while you wait (just rendering as an example). 

As I said earlier, there has been no competition, and thus no innovation. IPC is not an exception to this. IPC from Haswell vs Kaby Lake is laughable. There is less than a 10% overall difference. to put that in layman's terms, 10fps vs 11fps. Now sure there could be a 15fps difference, once the ryzen processor is already at a 150fps vs the 7700k at 165fps (theoretically based off of a 10% ipc estimation). Who the hell cares? If you got 150fps, that's JUST FINE! And the best part is, you now have twice the cores and threads to do loads of other stuff with, such as hosting a server for your friends while you play the game to. Ryzen is a huge advancement, and it's a welcome sight in my eyes. I've never bought an AMD processor, I've owned Intel my entire life. For me, Ryzen is a game changer, and no matter what, it's going to force them to make a decent, non half-assed product in the future.


----------



## Final_Fighter (May 29, 2017)

I do have to admit that their is something about Ryzen that make the system ACTUALLY feel like its playing at 60 fps. When watching people i know game on their intel builds and some on the Ryzen, the Ryzen looks smoother. Both report they are getting 60+ fps but the smoothness is noticeable and you would have to run both systems side by side to see this. btw im talking about i5 7600, i7 6700k, compared to ryzen 1600x, and 1800x. those extra cores take care of everything in the background, witch lead to the smoother gameplay. thats the conclusion i have come to anyway. ive noticed this with my main system too witch is the one listed in my system specs.

Edit: unless intel comes out with a refreshed i5 line that has 6 cores and i7 with 6cores 12threads i will be updating to Ryzen+. also i bet that Ryzen+ is going to be like 1st gen i series to 2nd gen i series. thats part of the reason im holding off on updating.


----------



## Rehmanpa (May 29, 2017)

Final_Fighter said:


> I do have to admit that their is something about Ryzen that make the system ACTUALLY feel like its playing at 60 fps. When watching people i know game on their intel builds and some on the Ryzen, the Ryzen looks smoother. Both report they are getting 60+ fps but the smoothness is noticeable and you would have to run both systems side by side to see this. btw im talking about i5 7600, i7 6700k, compared to ryzen 1600x, and 1800x. those extra cores take care of everything in the background, witch lead to the smoother gameplay. thats the conclusion i have come to anyway. ive noticed this with my main system too witch is the one listed in my system specs.


Yeah, you can definitely notice that in the video I linked earlier that showed the 7700k vs the 1700 side by side.


----------



## trparky (May 29, 2017)

I fully understand what IPC means, it means Instructions Per Clock but there's more to it than just that. How good is the branch prediction? How good is the scheduler? Instruction decoder? If you factor in all of these things which makes up the whole of the architecture it can explain why one chip running at 4 GHz and another chip running at the same clock speed is beating the first chip or vice-versus. These things are very complex beasts and so many things come together to make a processor work.


----------



## Final_Fighter (May 29, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> Yeah, you can definitely notice that in the video I linked earlier that showed the 7700k vs the 1700 side by side.



ive witnessed that first hand. im sure it has to do with the presence of 4 more "native" cores. those 4 extra threads that the i7 has from hyper threading are not nearly as powerful as those extra cores on the 1700.


----------



## Rehmanpa (May 29, 2017)

Final_Fighter said:


> ive witnessed that first hand. im sure it has to do with the presence of 4 more "native" cores. those 4 extra threads that the i7 has from hyper threading are not nearly as powerful as those extra cores on the 1700.


Hyper threading actually out performs normal cores. Albeit, not by much, but still worth noting.











trparky said:


> I fully understand what IPC means, it means Instructions Per Clock but there's more to it than just that. How good is the branch prediction? How good is the scheduler? Instruction decoder? If you factor in all of these things which makes up the whole of the architecture it can explain why one chip running at 4 GHz and another chip running at the same clock speed is beating the first chip or vice-versus. These things are very complex beasts and so many things come together to make a processor work.


You are right, but the IPC is what is generally measured and used as a standard (I don't know about the other things you listed). So I think those other things make up/are the building blocks for the IPC (if the CPU had a worse instruction decoder, it's overall IPC would decrease).


----------



## trparky (May 29, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> if the CPU had a worse instruction decoder, its overall IPC would decrease


And you would be right in that assumption.

I guess the point I'm trying to arrive at is what architecture is better? Which one is stronger? More capable of standing the test of time? Which has more potential? Which has more un-locked potential in the sense that with incremental changes it can improve? We all know that Kaby Lake can trace its lineage all the way back to the original Nahelem processor meaning that all Intel processors since then have been incremental improvements upon the original Nahelem core. Has Nahelem reached the end? Has it reached the brick wall in the sense that there's nothing Intel can do hence the reason why we've only seen incremental improvements or is it because Intel has only been lazy?

I did watch the video that @Rehmanpa posted and it appears that despite the fact that the FPS numbers appeared to be the same (at least from what I saw while trying to quickly dart my eyes from the right to the left and back again) the appearance of the video was less "jerky" on the Ryzen 1700. Is that what I should be paying attention to?


----------



## Final_Fighter (May 29, 2017)

trparky said:


> the appearance of the video was less "jerky" on the Ryzen 1700. Is that what I should be paying attention to?



yes.


----------



## Rehmanpa (May 29, 2017)

trparky said:


> And you would be right in that assumption.
> 
> I guess the point I'm trying to arrive at is what architecture is better? Which one is stronger? More capable of standing the test of time? Which has more potential? Which has more un-locked potential in the sense that with incremental changes it can improve? We all know that Kaby Lake can trace its lineage all the way back to the original Nahelem processor meaning that all Intel processors since then have been incremental improvements upon the original Nahelem core. Has Nahelem reached the end? Has it reached the brick wall in the sense that there's nothing Intel can do hence the reason why we've only seen incremental improvements or is it because Intel has only been lazy?
> 
> I did watch the video that @Rehmanpa posted and it appears that despite the fact that the FPS numbers appeared to be the same (at least from what I saw while trying to quickly dart my eyes from the right to the left and back again) the appearance of the video was less "jerky" on the Ryzen 1700. Is that what I should be paying attention to?



That is definitely a hard question to answer. I believe that between Ryzen and what we have now from Intel, that Ryzen will be the better solution. In the next month or two, AMD will be releasing "threadripper," (Nahelem socket) which will consist of 10, 12, 14 and 16 core Ryzen processors, and it will be on a new socket that will boast a lot more features. Intel's top tier chip that I've read about them releasing is a 12 core processor that will use more power and perform less than AMDs 16 core monster (the 1998 or the 1998x). I mean, 32 threads on a 155w CPU is quite a feat. 

I've read that Intel is forced to slow it's higher end processors clock speeds down for some reason. I'm not an engineer so I don't know exactly why this is, but it kind of seems to be true looking at their xeon lineup and their i7 6950x vs the 6900k vs the 7700k, the 7700k has the highest clock speeds of those with the least amount of cores, the 6950x has the slowest clock speed but the most cores. 

We've seen incremental improvements because of the free market (yes that philosophy), there is no competition, so why not just price gouge and do nothing? There is really not much of a point in developing anything new because nobody will beat our current product. An i7 2600k is just starting to slow down, but is still good for gaming, and that thing was released back in January of 2011, over 6 years ago. Today we are slowly starting to see more and more applications and games that are taking advantage of multiple cores (battlefield 4 and battlefield 1 for example). 

As for Nahelem, I have a machine using dual Xeon X5670s and the thing renders faster than my i7 4790k by a factor of almost 3 fold. It has 24 threads vs 8 threads, and I'd say since I haven't overclocked it (so it's at 3.3ghz) and my i7 is at 4.4ghz, it's probably 2.8 times as fast. Runs games well, however in single threaded games it lags behind. Short answer, hell no. Long answer, other than not boasting nvme boot ssds, it's still a great socket and you can buy it at a fraction of the cost of a new system. 

yes, looking at the jerkyness is really important. The smoother your gameplay, the better the experience. Thus microstutters from SLI can really mess you up because your gameplay is not smooth. Sorry for the long post, I was trying to address your questions one at a time as I wrote this.


----------



## trparky (May 29, 2017)

If the video has that "jerkiness" to it then wouldn't that mean that the frames per second number is a lie?


----------



## kruk (May 29, 2017)

trparky said:


> If the video has that "jerkiness" to it then wouldn't that mean that the frames per second number is a lie?



Video could be jerky for number of reasons (encoder, compression etc.), but FPS kind of is a lie. FPS gives you number of frames rendered in one second. In that 1 second interval the frames could be unevenly spaced producing "jerkiness" (example 60 FPS: 56 frames could render in 0.2 seconds, the rest in 0.8 seconds). A much better metric is frametime, which tells you how long each frame takes to render. If there are spikes in frametimes, you will notice stuttering.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (May 29, 2017)

purecain said:


> if you think those extra frames mean anything in the real world your wrong.


Yeah I think most Ryzen owners are trying to get the best OC not to keep up with Intel, but because 8 core CPUs are always clocked lower. Realistically, it will be interesting to see if Intel's Skylake X 8 core can do as well.

At the end of the day though, if it's between two CPUs that are both getting well over 60 FPS average, I'll take the one with slightly lower FPS but smoother gameplay if it comes to that. This is where Intel has to prove itself with the new chips.


----------



## trparky (May 29, 2017)

I have this one friend of mine that brags and brags and brags some more about how his system has this insanely high refresh rate monitor and equally insane high frame rates. There's times I want to just knock him over the head because of his constant bragging.

He keeps telling me, go Intel. Go Intel. Go Intel.


----------



## Rehmanpa (May 30, 2017)

trparky said:


> I have this one friend of mine that brags and brags and brags some more about how his system has this insanely high refresh rate monitor and equally insane high frame rates. There's times I want to just knock him over the head because of his constant bragging.
> 
> He keeps telling me, go Intel. Go Intel. Go Intel.


Sounds like a fanboy.


----------



## trparky (May 30, 2017)

Yeah well I have him shouting in my ear telling me to go with Intel and then I have you guys telling me that I'll be fine going with AMD Ryzen. Both processors have their strengths and weaknesses.

I don't know what the hell to believe. I'm so stinkin' confused.

He's been my personal goto person for a lot of tech advice as of late because I've been out of the game for so long. It's been five years since I've seriously looked at hardware. Then I have you guys here at this forum and you guys are offering up conflicting advice.

ARG!!!


----------



## Rehmanpa (May 30, 2017)

trparky said:


> Yeah well I have him shouting in my ear telling me to go with Intel and then I have you guys telling me that I'll be fine going with AMD Ryzen. Both processors have their strengths and weaknesses.
> 
> I don't know what the hell to believe.


Fine. Let money do the talking. The 140 dollar ryzen quad core, which has the same single threaded performance the 1700 has, which is unnoticeable to the 7700k btw, is 200 dollars less. That 200 could be the difference between a gtx 1080 and 1080 ti. Or heck even the 1600 at like 100 less than the 7700k would allow you to spend that 100 on something far more noticeable, like a graphics card bump (1070 To 1080 will give a larger fps difference than a ryzen you to a 7700k). Amd has the advantage of:
Price, cores, things looking nicer on it (such as smoother gameplay), lower tdp, better future proofing.
Intel's advantage:
Better motherboard socket (if you want to do stupid things like quad sli), unnoticably better performance in some games.

Iirc, the 7700k is around 330 and the 1600 is around 230. Why get an overall worse cpu for more? Spend the saved money on a better gpu or cpu cooler.



trparky said:


> Yeah well I have him shouting in my ear telling me to go with Intel and then I have you guys telling me that I'll be fine going with AMD Ryzen. Both processors have their strengths and weaknesses.
> 
> I don't know what the hell to believe. I'm so stinkin' confused.
> 
> ...


Forgot to mention, since your friend hates Ryzen so much, you should link him this thread and have him write out why so the rest of us can see his "advanced knowledge." I'd like to see what actual reasons he really has for hating Ryzen and saying only Intel.


----------



## Final_Fighter (May 30, 2017)

trparky said:


> Yeah well I have him shouting in my ear telling me to go with Intel and then I have you guys telling me that I'll be fine going with AMD Ryzen. Both processors have their strengths and weaknesses.
> 
> I don't know what the hell to believe. I'm so stinkin' confused.
> 
> ...




my personal opinion would be buy the ryzen 5 1600 and a nice b350 board. avoid the ultra cheap boards and you will be good to go. asrock has some of the best boards right know. get yourself a nice set of ram 2667+ 16gb and take your saved cash and buy a gtx1070 or just keep using the card you got.

something like this:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...20232530&cm_re=flare_x-_-20-232-530-_-Product

and

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.3482340


----------



## Rehmanpa (May 30, 2017)

Final_Fighter said:


> my personal opinion would be buy the ryzen 5 1600 and a nice b350 board. avoid the ultra cheap boards and you will be good to go. asrock has some of the best boards right know. get yourself a nice set of ram 2667+ 16gb and take your saved cash and buy a gtx1070 or just keep using the card you got.
> 
> something like this:
> 
> ...



Nice Combo. Awful ram though, I would never spend that much on only 16gb of ram, the 32gb dual 16gb ddr4 kit was that price.


----------



## Final_Fighter (May 30, 2017)

ryzen infinity fabric is directly tied into ram speeds. lower latency and higher speeds actually help increase in game performance. i recommended that kit because it is actually one of the most flat out best kits for gaming on ryzen at the moment. plus most ram kits are not compatible at the moment with ryzen. the latency on that kit is crazy low for the speed. most kits will have like 16-17-17-36 timings at 2667.


----------



## Cvrk (May 30, 2017)

I don't care about that silly "jerkiness" video. I watch twitch, and i never see that bad quality video. Sure all the streamers use mostly intel.
Good thing about Ryzen, as we all noticed it never goes 99% or around. It's kinda all the time at 60% maybe more or less. So there is more room for something in the background.

Also i don't see myself playing a AAA title and rendering at the same time in Premiere. In real life for me i just don't think it will happen. As for clearing up apps , i don't do this now....cuz it does not make a difference. I am in playerunknown's battlegrounds, bad fps , closing Google Chrome, antivirus or uTorrent won't help.

yeah sure for the heavy user out there Ryzen will win in multitasking. All i wonder before making a purchase ,is.... em i that heavy user ? Do i need all those cores ?
there is a price difference. Hence the Ryzen is more expensive. I don't think that's good. Lets face it, i never actually looked at the i7 as an option. By best buy was the i5... All of the sudden i'm supposed to pay more that i would for an i7 ?! That seems a bit steep .And what exactly em i getting for my money ?


PS: i am referring to money difference with the 1700, 1700x , 1800x. I hear voices (witch might be a mental problem on my part) that the 1700 was never meant to compete on the market with the i7 7700 or less, but with it's big daddy i7-6950..or whatever number that is, you know the expensive one. Witch is not very realistic. 
No one will be crazy to ignore the 1800x if it brings the same performance as the Intel monster for the money difference! But is it.....


----------



## blacktruckryder (May 30, 2017)

I had an Asus z270g motherboard and an i5 7600k @ 5Ghz. Changed only the motherboard and CPU for an Msi x370 pro carbon and Ryzen 1600 @ 3.9, the rest of the system was unchanged ( see system specs). I have seen no noticeable difference in gaming whatsoever.


----------



## Vya Domus (May 30, 2017)

blacktruckryder said:


> I had an Asus z270g motherboard and an i5 7600k @ 5Ghz. Changed only the motherboard and CPU for an Msi x370 pro carbon and Ryzen 1600 @ 3.9, the rest of the system was unchanged ( see system specs). I have seen no noticeable difference in gaming whatsoever.



No way.


----------



## trparky (May 30, 2017)

I was personally thinking about going with this combination of hardware.

ASUS GeForce GTX 1070 Overclocked Dual-Fan 8GB GDDR5 Video Card
Corsair 16GB 2 x 8GB DDR4-3200 PC4-25600 Desktop Memory Kit
AMD Ryzen 5 1600 3.2GHz 6 Core AM4 Boxed Processor with Wraith Spire Cooler
ASRock Fatal1ty X370 Gaming K4 AM4 ATX AMD Motherboard
Crucial MX300 525GB SATA III M.2 2280SS Internal SSD
Corsair Vengeance Series C70 ATX Mid Tower Gaming Computer Case - Black
Corsair CX Series CX750M 750 Watt 80 Plus Bronze ATX Modular Power Supply
Grand total should be around $1220, $1317.60 after taxes. Any opinions?


----------



## R0H1T (May 30, 2017)

Not bad, I'd go with a lesser (600w?) PSU that's more efficient, gold rated if it's not overly expensive wrt CX750m.


----------



## trparky (May 30, 2017)

I just need to make sure that the RAM is compatible. The memory compatibility is still a complete pain in the ass.

Anyone know if I'm going to run into issues with RAM compatibility with that hardware combination?


----------



## purecain (May 30, 2017)

all I would recommend for anyone upgrading is they go and use a ryzen system at stock in pcworld or a friends pc. stop listening to youtube reviews by sell outs who are all sponsored by the same companies.  go to the ryzen owners thread on any forum and see what anyone thinks first hand. they are both good options at the end of the day. ryzen takes more work and knowledge to get working right.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (May 30, 2017)

I updated my bios before installing Windows or doing anything using the lan update feature so maybe that's why I've not had any issues with ram or overclocking, in fact everything has been very easy to setup and stable as long as I'm not pushing too high or lacking in voltage.


----------



## Cvrk (May 30, 2017)

blacktruckryder said:


> I had an Asus z270g motherboard and an i5 7600k @ 5Ghz. Changed only the motherboard and CPU for an Msi x370 pro carbon and Ryzen 1600 @ 3.9, the rest of the system was unchanged ( see system specs). I have seen no noticeable difference in gaming whatsoever.


the Ryzen is OC at 3,9 right ?
Is the system stable ?

Why did you change, just cuz you can afford it ? or did you have any problems with the i5 ?


@NdMk2o1o the Wraith Spire comes with the CPU ,right ? Is it a silent cooler ?


----------



## Frag_Maniac (May 30, 2017)

trparky said:


> Yeah well I have him shouting in my ear telling me to go with Intel and then I have you guys telling me that I'll be fine going with AMD Ryzen. Both processors have their strengths and weaknesses.
> 
> I don't know what the hell to believe. I'm so stinkin' confused.
> 
> ...


You're not wrong to be confused. The only real way to compare CPUs is core to core. When the Skylake X 8 core releases, then we'll know how AMD compares to Intel. Little else really matters. What people keep forgetting is comparing FPS alone when pitting an 8 core against a quad is not a fair fight, nor a realistic one because we don't yet know how the two will compare a few years from now when 8 core games are much more common.

What we DO know for now though is a stock 1800x compares pretty well to a 6900, and at half the price. In that sense there's no confusion.


----------



## the54thvoid (May 30, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> You're not wrong to be confused. The only real way to compare CPUs is core to core. When the Skylake X 8 core releases, then we'll know how AMD compares to Intel. Little else really matters. What people keep forgetting is comparing FPS alone when pitting an 8 core against a quad is not a fair fight, nor a realistic one because we don't yet know how the two will compare a few years from now when 8 core games are much more common.
> 
> What we DO know for now though is a stock 1800x compares pretty well to a 6900, and at half the price. In that sense there's no confusion.



I don't understand the confusion.

IPC is similar but AMD perhaps is on par with Broadwell (if not Haswell).
AMD isn't clocking as high as Kabylake or Skylake (even on 4 core parts).
For gaming, Intel will give the fps edge.
You don't need 4+ cores...yet.
If you don't run on a budget - buy Intel.
If you do run on a budget and wont use 8 cores - buy Intel.
If you're changing from a 6 core Intel - buy a Ryzen 8 core for the same price or less.
If you're chaning your old 4 core - buy a Kabylake chip (unless you NEED 8 cores).

Simple.

EDIT - I am perfectly happy going from a 4.2Ghz 6 core Sandy-E to a 8 core Ryzen at a stable 3.85Ghz.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (May 30, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> I don't understand the confusion.
> 
> IPC is similar but AMD perhaps is on par with Broadwell (if not Haswell).
> AMD isn't clocking as high as Kabylake or Skylake (even on 4 core parts).
> ...



Except it's not as "simple" as that.

1. There's more to judging game performance than just measuring FPS. Many games can exhibit stutter even when FPS is high.

2. Many keep their CPU/MB for a long time. Five years or more can be common. I've been on my i7-950 for well more than that. We don't yet know how 8 cores will compare to quad cores in 3 years, let alone 5 or more. For those on older chips like mine, you want to think ahead far more than a few years to make your choice.

3. Since 8 cores are inherently clocked lower than quads (same with Intel), it makes more sense to compare core to core.

4. For the above reason, many try to OC their 8 cores as high as possible. Therein lies the only confusion regarding Ryzen 8 cores, but only because AMD blundered in not ironing out details with MB and RAM manufacturers. The result is it can be a pain to make a Ryzen perform best.

5. For the above reason there will be much less confusion once AMD releases their finalized dividers.

That said, were it a quad vs quad discussion, I'd agree that AMD's quad Ryzens don't compare favorably to Intel's quads. I expected them to be clocked much higher.


----------



## blacktruckryder (May 30, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> the Ryzen is OC at 3,9 right ?
> Is the system stable ?
> 
> Why did you change, just cuz you can afford it ? or did you have any problems with the i5 ?
> ...



Totally stable at 3.9 @ 1.36v.
I wanted to go back to an Amd CPU to check out the performance for myself. Liked it so much I ended up giving the Intel board and chip to my son. Huge upgrade for him, coming from A10 7890.
The only issue I had with the 7600k was heat. Ended up delidding and applying some clu, problem solved.
Didn't even try the stock cooler. Running a custom loop.


----------



## Rehmanpa (May 31, 2017)

Everybody for years has said "don't get i7 if you're doing gaming" and now people are saying "get an i7 not an 8 core for gaming." It's  quite frankly very silly to me why people are debating a 7700k vs a 1700 or anything like that for gaming, because for years it's been the i5 for gaming, the  i7 for processes that need more cores, in which case the ryzen curbstops the i7. Has there been some suddenly huge jump in games/applications that benefit from more threads recently? Because if so, that proves that the # of applications where ryzen would be exceptional at (heavily multi threaded applications) are becoming more and more popular, leading to more and more situations where you would be better off with a ryzen over an i7.



blacktruckryder said:


> Totally stable at 3.9 @ 1.36v.
> I wanted to go back to an Amd CPU to check out the performance for myself. Liked it so much I ended up giving the Intel board and chip to my son. Huge upgrade for him, coming from A10 7890.
> The only issue I had with the 7600k was heat. Ended up delidding and applying some clu, problem solved.
> Didn't even try the stock cooler. Running a custom loop.


What's the temp at 3.9ghz? Also what's the cpu (Is it a 1600, 1700, 1800x)?


----------



## Cvrk (May 31, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> Has there been some suddenly huge jump in games/applications that benefit from more threads recently?


Yes.

@blacktruckryder why was the i7 heating ? For sure you where doing heavy OC , but how much volts and what freg did you managed to get it to ?

@Frag Maniac that was a very good point


----------



## blacktruckryder (May 31, 2017)

My ryzen 1600 idles around 30°c, mid 50s while gaming.

With my 7600k temps would constantly spike upwards of 90°c even at idle sometimes. Usually on just one core though. 70c after the delid/relid. But it would idle around 30c and game in the mid 60s.
That particular 7600k ran all day at 5Ghz @ 1.3v. It could hit 5.3Ghz but needed over 1.4v to be stress test stable.


----------



## purecain (May 31, 2017)

my ryzen clocks @ upto 4.1 ghz and runs 3566mhz ram... fastest system ive ever owned. every time I see the benchmark scores way above the 6950x I give myself a pat on the back for making ythe right upgrade choice.

my games now run smoothly on my titan xp. where as on any intel chip the experience felt jerky. I love gaming on the amd system.

this feeling I'm getting while playing games would be enough to sway me alone. the fact the chip excels in every other area is just amazing. I'm not bothering with the 32core as I just don't need it. my 1800x kicks ass. especially intel fanboy ass.... 

according to benchmarks my 1800x beats haswell easily.


----------



## Cvrk (May 31, 2017)

purecain said:


> my ryzen clocks @ upto 4.1 ghz and runs 3566mhz ram... f


That is one very expensive motherboard! So... you are telling me they fixed the 2933 ram cap ?
I see a MSI motherboard for half the price . Says it supports ram up to 3200, considering what you said ,i can actually hit that ? You are using GSkill ram, don't think Corsair ram paired with Amd can go to 3200 tho... I don't now. Can it ? GSkill is also very expensive. I rather get Corsair

Also does your motherboard has dedicated RGM lighting ? I mean the slot where you can insert a rgb strip and configure it via motherboard software . Gygabyte, MSI, and AsRock have it.


----------



## r9 (May 31, 2017)

I don't know if anybody else posted this but the latest Tomb Rider patch improves fps by 20%.
Confirmed on multiple websites.
Oh man I just feel sorry for people who invested in i7 7700 thinking that is better gaming CPU.
i7 beats the 1600 by 10%, and this is according to TPU, not some Amd fan youtuber.
And like I said that is only because none of those games are even slightly optimized for ryzen.
With Ryzen in laptops and prebuilt systems developers have incentive to optimize for it now.


----------



## trparky (May 31, 2017)

Does anyone have Ryzen benchmarks for Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3?


----------



## EarthDog (May 31, 2017)

Have you tried googling it?


----------



## trparky (May 31, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Have you tried googling it?


Yeah I have, nobody seems to have any.


----------



## Rehmanpa (May 31, 2017)

blacktruckryder said:


> My ryzen 1600 idles around 30°c, mid 50s while gaming.
> 
> With my 7600k temps would constantly spike upwards of 90°c even at idle sometimes. Usually on just one core though. 70c after the delid/relid. But it would idle around 30c and game in the mid 60s.
> That particular 7600k ran all day at 5Ghz @ 1.3v. It could hit 5.3Ghz but needed over 1.4v to be stress test stable.


Better temps than my stock 4790k under water.



trparky said:


> Yeah I have, nobody seems to have any.


I'd imagine that RTS games would take advantage of lots of thread, such as Planetary Annihilation.


----------



## phanbuey (May 31, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> Better temps than my stock 4790k under water.
> 
> 
> I'd imagine that RTS games would take advantage of lots of thread, such as Planetary Annihilation.



RTS and Virtual Reality games are all thread hogs... most FPS's are starting to be as well (BF1 for instance)


----------



## Rehmanpa (May 31, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> RTS and Virtual Reality games are all thread hogs... most FPS's are starting to be as well (BF1 for instance)



Yeah, which in my mind more of a reason to buy a Ryzen processor over the intel 7700k. People who compare it to AMDs quadcores and say "look, it's faster" don't understand the $150ish price difference.


----------



## Dethroy (Jun 1, 2017)

trparky said:


> Does anyone have Ryzen benchmarks for Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3?


There's no reason to. No current monitor is capeable of displaying the amount of FPS you'd be running anyways ...


----------



## trparky (Jun 1, 2017)

Dethroy said:


> There's no reason to. No current monitor is capeable of displaying the amount of FPS you'd be running anyways ...


Say what? Huh?


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 1, 2017)

trparky said:


> Say what? Huh?



Because they have very undemanding gfx for cards these days.  This is from 3 1/2 years ago.

It's not a Ryzen CPU, it's a 4770k at 4.2Ghz.





















A 780ti was matched and beaten by a 980.  So work out the fps for your card using some guestimation.

This is my CPU using the latest and corrected CPU-Z (which addressed a flaw that may have given Ryzen an edge previously).






So, my chip at 3.85Ghz is 98% the single threaded performance of a chip at 4Ghz.  So, the 1700X at 3.85Ghz is 96.25% the speed of the Devils Canyon but  gives 98% the performance, so IPC is higher per clock but of course, Ryzen doesn't clock as high.  But there you have it, an 8 core chip that is equal in IPC to Haswell and due to the cores, twice as fast in mutli-threaded.

Ryzen would have no issues replicating the above graph values.


----------



## trparky (Jun 1, 2017)

Am I correct in stating that my chip is actually faster in single-threaded tasks than the R7 1700? Or am I reading the numbers wrong?




*Note:* This processor (Core i5 3570k) has been overclocked to 4.3 GHz.


----------



## R0H1T (Jun 1, 2017)

trparky said:


> Am I correct in stating that my chip is actually faster in single-threaded tasks than the R7 1700? Or am I reading the numbers wrong?
> View attachment 88649
> 
> *Note:* This processor (Core i5 3570k) has been overclocked to 4.3 GHz.


The cpuZ benchmark was tweaked last month, saw a mini uproar on Guru3d.


----------



## Johan45 (Jun 1, 2017)

Ryzen 1700 is only 3.0GHz plus boost at stock


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 1, 2017)

trparky said:


> Am I correct in stating that my chip is actually faster in single-threaded tasks than the R7 1700? Or am I reading the numbers wrong?
> View attachment 88649
> 
> *Note:* This processor (Core i5 3570k) has been overclocked to 4.3 GHz.



Run the test and show the score:

My score at 3.85Ghz


----------



## trparky (Jun 1, 2017)

Yep, 440.4 on my processor and 359 on the Ryzen 7 1700.  So really Ryzen, at least for me, would be a downgrade as versus an upgrade. Double . That comes out to be nearly 19% slower in the single-core performance category. Triple 

Looks like Intel is my only choice at this moment on a per-IPC single-core performance basis.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 1, 2017)

trparky said:


> Yep, 440.4 on my processor and 359 on the Ryzen 7 1700.  So really Ryzen, at least for me, would be a downgrade as versus an upgrade. Double .
> 
> Looks like Intel is my only choice at this moment on a per-IPC single-core performance basis.



Yes, 440.4 at 4.3Ghz on your CPU?  440.2 on mine at 3.85Ghz.  It's not an IPC downgrade on architecture, it's a sidegrade to a better IPC but slightly lower clocks (giving the same performance).  However, double the physical cores.

Thing is, if you dont need the cores, buy a 7600k and clock it to 4.5Ghz.  

I had a 6 core Intel so I didnt want to drop to a 4 core 7700k (which was my plan until i thought, wtf and went AMD).

I go back to my initial thoughts.  If you need moar cores and you dont need the fastest gaming CPU, buy a Ryzen if you want to save cash for something else.  If you dont need/want the cores, why the hell would you buy an AMD chip?  I did on a whim.  A freaking whim.  Just so I could experience an AMD cpu for the first time in over a decade.  And it's absolutely fine and it flies.  Gaming - superb for me paired with a 1080ti.  Daily use - superb.  No issues.

But.... if you want the best platform with the faster CPU - spend the extra cash and buy a bloody Intel CPU.

My existential argument was this:

If I choose Intel, in one or two years, they'll release something faster on a new platform.  I'll feel left behind.  If i choose AMD, I don't expect them to release another 8 core CPU until a few more years and maybe I can get a refined, faster Zen 8 core on my same mobo.  

Thing is, if AMD release a faster 8 core Zen+ on a NEW platform, I'll abandon them and go back to Intel as a protest.


----------



## trparky (Jun 1, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> 440.2 on mine at 3.85Ghz


And what's your processor?

The Core i7 7700k scores 492 on single-threaded tests. That's an increase in IPC.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 1, 2017)

trparky said:


> And what's your processor?
> 
> The Core i7 7700k scores 492 on single-threaded tests. That's an increase in IPC.



Are you trolling me? 

The CPU-Z screenshots clearly state a 1700X.  Also the 7700k is at *4.2*Ghz (my chip is 91.6% of that at *3.85*Ghz).  My score is 89.4% of the 4.2Ghz 7700k.  So really, IPC is very close BUT, like I've already clearly stated the Intel chip clocks higher so the same clock for clock IPC (as measured by CPU-Z because real world doesn't work that way) means the higher clocking chip wins, i.e. Intel.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 1, 2017)

I get 525 on single and 2700 on multi I think but that's at 4.6, in relative terms there is little in it, the vast majority of users don't overclock in any case.


----------



## Cvrk (Jun 1, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> If i choose AMD, I don't expect them to release another 8 core CPU until a few more years and maybe I can get a refined, faster Zen 8 core on my same mobo.


AM4 + right around the corner ,just how it happened to AM3 in about 11 months it turned into AM3+ . So i'd say your mobo is almost old and useless for an upgrade of any kind. Oh my for me,and the rest of the poor people, that sounds so harsh (not for you cuz you can always afford it). Before purchasing we must w8 to see what happens this summer. 
Speaking of purchases , 37 thread page, and i have no idea what to buy. 

Btw @the54thvoid what frequency is your ram running at for that Ryzen ? Cuz i sense i liar among us , a few pages up this dude mentioned something about very high freq on his ram that i can't find anything about it on the net. Surely if it was true everyone one on youtube would have been screaming about it.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 1, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> AM4 + right around the corner ,just how it happened to AM3 in about 11 months it turned into AM3+ . So i'd say your mobo is almost old and useless for an upgrade of any kind. Oh my for me,and the rest of the poor people, that sounds so harsh (not for you cuz you can always afford it). Before purchasing we must w8 to see what happens this summer.
> Speaking of purchases , 37 thread page, and i have no idea what to buy.
> 
> Btw @the54thvoid what frequency is your ram running at for that Ryzen ? Cuz i sense i liar among us , a few pages up this dude mentioned something about very high freq on his ram that i can't find anything about it on the net. Surely if it was true everyone one on youtube would have been screaming about it.



My ram is 3200.  It was on the Crosshair 6 QVL for memory (one of only a few at that frequency). GSkill for the win! I researched before I bought and it worked without any fuss.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jun 1, 2017)

trparky said:


> Yep, 440.4 on my processor and 359 on the Ryzen 7 1700.  So really Ryzen, at least for me, would be a downgrade as versus an upgrade. Double . That comes out to be nearly 19% slower in the single-core performance category. Triple
> 
> Looks like Intel is my only choice at this moment on a per-IPC single-core performance basis.


You're comparing yours overclocked to a stock CPU


----------



## trparky (Jun 1, 2017)

440 divided by 4.3 (my overclocked speed) equals roughly 102.32. Take that number and multiply that by 3.4 (stock speed) and you get 348. I figure that a stock i5 3570k would have a score of around that number.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 1, 2017)

trparky said:


> 440 divided by 4.3 (my overclocked speed) equals roughly 102.32. Take that number and multiply that by 3.4 (stock speed) and you get 348. I figure that a stock i5 3570k would have a score of around that number.



Ryzen overclocks over 4.0Ghz were seen in the TPU review to actually throttle internally.  As such, performance (and thus IPC) on anything over 4.0Ghz is likely to suffer.  Sad reality of Ryzen land.

Relevant page, check the power consumption:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_1800X/15.html


----------



## purecain (Jun 1, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> That is one very expensive motherboard! So... you are telling me they fixed the 2933 ram cap ?
> I see a MSI motherboard for half the price . Says it supports ram up to 3200, considering what you said ,i can actually hit that ? You are using GSkill ram, don't think Corsair ram paired with Amd can go to 3200 tho... I don't now. Can it ? GSkill is also very expensive. I rather get Corsair
> 
> Also does your motherboard has dedicated RGM lighting ? I mean the slot where you can insert a rgb strip and configure it via motherboard software . Gygabyte, MSI, and AsRock have it.



there are two white 4pin RGB headers on the board.

I looked at what cpu-z said about making their test fair... I mean they have chosen a method which is similar to running a game, which amd is known to be having a performance issue with. so i don't agree with their change to the bench in cpu-z at all...
my multithreaded performance has been cut buy over 200points...wtf even with the intel advantage my chip beats a 6950x in single threaded and matches it in multithreaded.
ive taken a screen shot of the 4790 as a comparison seen as we have one above.





so my old chip was this good... no it wasn't.   my last chip was a 4.45ghz haswell and I am overly happy with my purchase...

we need a program to bench to replace cpu-z. its no longer valid....

that screenshot from the review must of been early days on bad silicon. because my chip never gets that hot and it will hit 4ghz @1.34v after vdroop. no problem.
I just checked all the benchmarks and to be fair, if my 4c 8t cpu could of kept up with my work load. I wouldn't of 'up' graded. this platform is definatly an upgrade. and everything runs much quicker than it did on haswell.  I enjoyed the build and learning about a new architecture.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 2, 2017)

I don't honestly feel from what I understand that CPU-Z is being unfair.  Didn't they simply update their benchmark to show a modern ISA test, instead of just SSE2 like before?  That may actually be a more acurate picture than we are willing to admit.  This doesn't make Ryzen a bad chip mind you, it just shows it sucks at things like AVX (which ironically, games hardly use).  It's more a mathematical test than a gaming one.


----------



## Cvrk (Jun 2, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> My ram is 3200.  It was on the Crosshair 6 QVL for memory (one of only a few at that frequency). GSkill for the win! I researched before I bought and it worked without any fuss.


Is it CL14  ? or what ? Can you link to a page with the exact specs of your ram please ?


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 2, 2017)

Ryzen just dropped their prices a bit on the higher end ones, now it's like 350 for a 1700x and 315 for the 1700. 1800x iirc is like 45(or was it a bit more)??

Would the 1700x be worth 30 over the 1700 for overclocking?? I.e. would you have a better chance overclocking a 1700x than a 1700?


----------



## GoldenX (Jun 2, 2017)

I think the 1700x is a better deal if you go for an A320 motherboard and forsake overclock, I'll use the 1700 for an overclock capable board.

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/ryzen_7_1700x/
http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/ryzen_7_1700/
Apparently the 1700x is a bit better of an overclocker.


----------



## Dethroy (Jun 2, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> Ryzen just dropped their prices a bit on the higher end ones, now it's like 350 for a 1700x and 315 for the 1700. 1800x iirc is like 45(or was it a bit more)??
> 
> Would the 1700x be worth 30 over the 1700 for overclocking?? I.e. would you have a better chance overclocking a 1700x than a 1700?


I'd say the 1700X is the much better option now if you're not looking to OC yourself (e.g. SFF PC with limited cooling options or not willing to play silicon lottery), and it might even be the better bargain when planning to OC as it _might_ clock a bit higher or need less voltage for the same results while also offering a better resale value.

I plan on building a SFF machine (backed the kickstarter for the DAN Cases A4-SFX v2), and if I were to buy a CPU now, it would definitely be the 1700X.

The added cost is utterly negligible considering how long that CPU is gonna be used... 35$ spread over 3-5 years - errh, yeah 
Albeit manually overclocking the 1700 may net the same results as a 1700X, I'd miss out on Ryzen's impressive SenseMI power saving features, thus increasing cooling needs - something I'm trying to avoid as much as possible since cooling options in the DAN Cases A4-SFX are rather limited.
Peace of mind.
Edit: This spreadsheet of mine may also help some people making a decision.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 2, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> Is it CL14  ? or what ? Can you link to a page with the exact specs of your ram please ?



https://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c14d-16gtzr






I'm not experienced at all with memory overclocking, that's why I bought the fastest I could out the box but the latency actually showsas 16, not 14 in the CPU-Z memory tab (16-16-16-39-75)


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 2, 2017)

Set xmp/docp profile...


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 2, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Set xmp/docp profile...



Hmm...  I simply selected frequency in BIOS of 3200.  There are multiple DOCP profiles and I'll need to look at my core clock again.....  Suppose it's worth fiddling for fun....


----------



## Johan45 (Jun 2, 2017)

Use the one labelled standard


----------



## kapone32 (Jun 2, 2017)

The fact that some people are stating that Ryzen sucks in gaming obviously do not own one. Most review sites or even Youtube use the 1080 or 1080TI paired with a Ryzen CPU. I do not feel that is fair as most gamers do not have a $800 GPU in their system. 
I cannot speak for Intel but I know I have done tests with one of my friend's vs my old FX 8320 system. He had a I7-6700K that he got for a huge discount because he works at a computer store (something else Intel does). I used his machine and he used mine for a week.  We both had a Sapphire HD 7950 clocked to 900MHz. We tried several games including TW Shogun 2, TItanfall and Just Cause 2. At the end of the week the only difference we could see was price. Now Ryzen has been released and I will tell you that Ryzen CPU(s) are excellent for anything you want to do. Just as an example I have an I5 on my work computer and MS Office 2010 on both home and work. My Ryzen has much more capability than the I5 in Excel just based on the way the system responds. Speaking of gaming I have TW Warhammer and a 1440P monitor. MY R7 1700 with a RX480 & RX470 in Xfire gave me and average of 49 FPS in the built in benchmark with extreme settings. I OC to 3.4 on all cores and I get an average of 59 FPS. My RAM is running at 2400 MHZ. As most should know just like FM2+ AM4 scales better with faster RAM. If you want to forget that AMD is like buying a Lexus and Intel is like buying a Cadillac. One is more expensive initially but over time the cheaper shows that it is better. Don't believe me look up reviews of the FX series 2012 vs 2016. OR even better look at the HD7970 vs the 980 over time the 7970 is a much better GPU. What I like most about AM4 though is that my computer only uses 420 W @ load vs over 640 with my FX 8320 and 7950 Xfire setup.


----------



## trparky (Jun 2, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> Ryzen overclocks over 4.0Ghz were seen in the TPU review to actually throttle internally.  As such, performance (and thus IPC) on anything over 4.0Ghz is likely to suffer.  Sad reality of Ryzen land.
> 
> Relevant page, check the power consumption:
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_1800X/15.html


So basically everyone who has overclocked their Ryzen chips past 4 GHz to get beyond the IPC deficit (vs Intel) has just been kicked in the shins.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 2, 2017)

trparky said:


> So basically everyone who has overclocked their Ryzen chips past 4 GHz to get beyond the IPC deficit (vs Intel) has just been kicked in the shins.



Not neccesarily, there are probably some chips that can manage it, they just are few and far between.


----------



## trparky (Jun 2, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> Not neccesarily, there are probably some chips that can manage it, they just are few and far between.


Hence the silicon lottery. I have a better chance of winning the Mega Millions.

I was reading the Ryzen 5 1600 review here at TechPowerUp and I have to say that there are some areas (like the people in the comments have said) that the Ryzen 5 1600 shines but there are just too many situations in which the Core i7 7700k is a much better choice.


----------



## infrared (Jun 2, 2017)

trparky said:


> So basically everyone who has overclocked their Ryzen chips past 4 GHz to get beyond the IPC deficit (vs Intel) has just been kicked in the shins.


I'm not convinced on this, ive always seen a fairly linear increase in benchmark scores beyond 4ghz. More testing required I think.


----------



## trparky (Jun 2, 2017)

I've been looking at mountains of performance benchmarking data for nearly the last two months (ever since Ryzen 5 showed up on the scene) and I'm still nowhere close to deciding just what chip I'm going to get. It's a toss-up between a Ryzen 1600 (hey, free cooler! ) and an Intel Core i7 7700k. Every time I think I've come close to having a firm decision on hand I read some more stuff on the subject and... well crap, back to studying the numbers again.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 2, 2017)

infrared said:


> I'm not convinced on this, ive always seen a fairly linear increase in benchmark scores beyond 4ghz. More testing required I think.



Certainly.  It's hardly 100% at this point.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 2, 2017)

infrared said:


> I'm not convinced on this, ive always seen a fairly linear increase in benchmark scores beyond 4ghz. More testing required I think.



Hmmph..... Kind a wish I'd bought a 1800X.  I'm certain now that they are binned for that 4Ghz clock.  I have my memory at the right speeds now (thanks @Johan45) and it's boosted the CPU-Z bench to 442 (0.5% increase, lol).  But I'm still bummed I can't get 3.9Ghz stable.  Perhaps on water but I've moved back to air (albeit with an awesome cooler) though I do need carzy volts. (1.43v)


----------



## kapone32 (Jun 2, 2017)

trparky said:


> I've been looking at mountains of performance benchmarking data for nearly the last two months (ever since Ryzen 5 showed up on the scene) and I'm still nowhere close to deciding just what chip I'm going to get. It's a toss-up between a Ryzen 1600 (hey, free cooler! ) and an Intel Core i7 7700k. Every time I think I've come close to having a firm decision on hand I read some more stuff on the subject and... well crap, back to studying the numbers again.



If you ever plan on streaming while game or not want your CPU to use 100% of it's potential in a game then get Ryzen. Just think of the fact that Ryzen is less than 2 months old..translation it can only get better!!!


----------



## infrared (Jun 2, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Hmmph..... Kind a wish I'd bought a 1800X.  I'm certain now that they are binned for that 4Ghz clock.  I have my memory at the right speeds now (thanks @Johan45) and it's boosted the CPU-Z bench to 442 (0.5% increase, lol).  But I'm still bummed I can't get 3.9Ghz stable.  Perhaps on water but I've moved back to air (albeit with an awesome cooler) though I do need carzy volts. (1.43v)


Hmm, my first one didn't clock very well, it could do 4ghz with 1.43v... I wanted moar! so paid a bit extra to get a silicon lottery one that does 4.0 @ 1.34v and 4.1 @ 1.4v.
It's easy to get hung up on reaching a nice square number, but realistically it's only a couple of hundred mhz which won't make much of a difference. I kinda regret throwing that money away on a whim!


----------



## r9 (Jun 2, 2017)

trparky said:


> Hence the silicon lottery. I have a better chance of winning the Mega Millions.
> 
> I was reading the Ryzen 5 1600 review here at TechPowerUp and I have to say that there are some areas (like the people in the comments have said) that the Ryzen 5 1600 shines but there are just too many situations in which the Core i7 7700k is a much better choice.


For one i7 7700 is  $300 and R5 1600 is $200.
All the applications and games are optimized for Intel.
Can't blame them, Intel have the same architecture for a while now.
And AMD failed with FX.
Ryzen is here to stay.
We can already see what a patch can do for Ruzen.
All the games that got patched got 20% and 30% boost.
We should see even better results for the upcoming titles that will have Ryzen architecture in mind from the get go.
My point is what you seeing now is the worst case scenario for Ryzen.
It can only go Ryzens way in the future.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 2, 2017)

r9 said:


> It can only go Ryzens way in the future.



I wouldn't go so far as to say it can "only" go Ryzen's way in the future (I'm sure Intel has some dirty tricks up its sleeves afterall) but it certainly is looking bright.


----------



## Johan45 (Jun 2, 2017)

trparky said:


> I've been looking at mountains of performance benchmarking data for nearly the last two months (ever since Ryzen 5 showed up on the scene) and I'm still nowhere close to deciding just what chip I'm going to get. It's a toss-up between a Ryzen 1600 (hey, free cooler! ) and an Intel Core i7 7700k. Every time I think I've come close to having a firm decision on hand I read some more stuff on the subject and... well crap, back to studying the numbers again.



It shouldn't be that hard of a decision. You either want six cores or you want a few FPS and faster 7zip times with the Intel. I have a 1600x for my HTPC/Gamer and it works just fine paired with a GTX 980



trparky said:


> So basically everyone who has overclocked their Ryzen chips past 4 GHz to get beyond the IPC deficit (vs Intel) has just been kicked in the shins.





infrared said:


> I'm not convinced on this, ive always seen a fairly linear increase in benchmark scores beyond 4ghz. More testing required I think.



Since day one almost we have know the limitations of Ryzen 3.8 -4.1 depending on luck and SKU. No one's getting short changed The internal throttling is more motherboard related than CPU. On my CHVI I can run the 1600x to 4300 without any throttling and 5.2 on LN2 with ~ 2.0v not throttling. Definitly pulling more that the rated wattage but the board allows for that with BIOS settings.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 2, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> Since day one almost we have know the limitations of Ryzen 3.8 -4.1 depending on luck and SKU. No one's getting short changed.



Absolutely this.  Even as a tech noob I knew I'd be SOL for 4Ghz on air but I'd push for 3.9Ghz on all cores.  Settled at 3.85 but hey - my memory runs as it should now.  In terms of a slightly future proof platform, I've got a Samsung 960 Pro m2 SSD, 16Gb of fast memory and a 11Gb gfx card, all running on a first generation Ryzen platform.

Truth is, had I waited.... yes, I'd probably be looking at a Skylake-E but that would all depend on price.  For me, with the emphasis on 1440p gaming and thinking more cores (over 4) may start to prove useful in a year or so, a <£400 8 core CPU at 3.9 ish is a damn good choice.  The money saved certainly made buying the 1080ti a lot easier.


----------



## r9 (Jun 2, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> I wouldn't go so far as to say it can "only" go Ryzen's way in the future (I'm sure Intel has some dirty tricks up its sleeves afterall) but it certainly is looking bright.


I was referring to the current lineup.
I don't think that you can optimize any further for i7 7700k.
I'm sure they have some nice toys lined up for the future.
I would be surprised if they didn't have very detailed plan for the next 5 years at least.


----------



## trparky (Jun 2, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> you want a few FPS


What's your definition of a few FPS?


----------



## r9 (Jun 2, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> It shouldn't be that hard of a decision. You either want six cores or you want a few FPS and faster 7zip times with the Intel. I have a 1600x for my HTPC/Gamer and it works just fine paired with a GTX 980
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm all about price vs performance.
According to TPU 1600 is 10% behind in both CPU and Games tests.
10% is nothing knowing that all the games that got Ryzen patch got 20%-30% fps increase.
And 1600 is 200$ vs 300$ for i7.
That is 50% cheaper.
I would say that is a good trade off.
Regarding the FPS just add those 100$ towards a GPU you will get more than a few FPS.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 2, 2017)

trparky said:


> What's your definition of a few FPS?


Why does it matter? It wont make something unplayable playable...but there is a small, couple %, difference. Some dont want that. 

Look at the big picture and dont get lost in the minutia.


----------



## Cvrk (Jun 2, 2017)

skeets sear said:


> 1700 with a RX480 & RX470 in Xfire gave me and average of 49 FPS in the built in benchmark with extreme settings. I OC to 3.4 on all cores and I get an average of 59 FPS.


You get your first like and welcome to the community. We argue a lot here,and people sometimes get called names.

Question: did your cpu came with a cooler ? You are not using the X, just the regular 1700 ?

You also have 2 gpu's in your system a Rx480 & a 470 ? That is a very interesting combo . What was your reasoning behind that ? One powerful card is better than 2  mediocre ones . What can you possible ever achieve with those cards, than you can't with a Gtx 1080 ?


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 2, 2017)

Take this with a grain of salt, but according to WCC tech, the 16 core 32 threaded threadripper will cost $849:
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-threadripper-16-core-cpu-849-us-price-x399-motherboards/

WAY lower than the $2,000 dollar Intel 18 core, and cheaper than the (iirc, 10 core) intel chip at like $999.

Really exciting news if this turns out to be true, I could see myself buying one at this price point. Motherboards for both sockets are bound to be expensive.

Will existing CPU coolers work with Threadripper, or will they not since the socket is so huge?

Also Apparently existing ryzen r7 chips will drop in price (again according to wccftech):
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-prices-drop-ahead-of-threadripper-launch/



R-T-B said:


> Certainly.  It's hardly 100% at this point.


CPU's don't scale linearly. There are diminishing returns


r9 said:


> I'm all about price vs performance.
> According to TPU 1600 is 10% behind in both CPU and Games tests.
> 10% is nothing knowing that all the games that got Ryzen patch got 20%-30% fps increase.
> And 1600 is 200$ vs 300$ for i7.
> ...


And their lowering prices of Ryzen to make way for threadripper which will decimate the upcoming Intel prices.


----------



## HTC (Jun 2, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> *Take this with a grain of salt, but according to WCC tech, the 16 core 32 threaded threadripper will cost $849*:
> http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-threadripper-16-core-cpu-849-us-price-x399-motherboards/
> 
> WAY lower than the $2,000 dollar Intel 18 core, and cheaper than the (iirc, 10 core) intel chip at like $999.
> ...



Seriously doubt it will be so. I'd guess around $1200 - $1300 for the 16 c 32 t model: still expensive but way *WAY* cheaper then Intel's.

Don't know how latency will be affected because of more CCXs in the chip but, judging by the fact that AMD's multi-threading is better then Intel's (slightly), this will only aggravate the difference. As always, proper benchmarks and final pricing will decide who wins.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 3, 2017)

HTC said:


> Seriously doubt it will be so. I'd guess around $1200 - $1300 for the 16 c 32 t model: still expensive but way *WAY* cheaper then Intel's.
> 
> Don't know how latency will be affected because of more CCXs in the chip but, judging by the fact that AMD's multi-threading is better then Intel's (slightly), this will only aggravate the difference. As always, proper benchmarks and final pricing will decide who wins.


I definitely hear you on that, but I'm still hopeful. If these leaks are actually true, then I might be dropping $850 on a CPU for the first time in my life.


----------



## toilet pepper (Jun 3, 2017)

trparky said:


> I've been looking at mountains of performance benchmarking data for nearly the last two months (ever since Ryzen 5 showed up on the scene) and I'm still nowhere close to deciding just what chip I'm going to get. It's a toss-up between a Ryzen 1600 (hey, free cooler! ) and an Intel Core i7 7700k. Every time I think I've come close to having a firm decision on hand I read some more stuff on the subject and... well crap, back to studying the numbers again.




No question. The numbers says it all - 7700k gets you more fps numbers. If you plan to upgrade maybe every 2 years or so, go with ryzen and a decent mobo. 

As most will say the smoothness in ryzen gaming can be felt. It wont show up in fps or percentiles. You'd have to check graphs to see consistency or experience it.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 3, 2017)

toilet pepper said:


> No question. The numbers says it all - 7700k gets you more fps numbers. If you plan to upgrade maybe every 2 years or so, go with ryzen and a decent mobo.
> 
> As most will say the smoothness in ryzen gaming can be felt. It wont show up in fps or percentiles. You'd have to check graphs to see consistency or experience it.


The Ryzen 5 1600 is $219.99 while the 7700k is $339.99. No reason at that price difference to buy the 7700k over the 1600.


----------



## Nuckles56 (Jun 3, 2017)

I've got to say that I'm very happy with the Ryzen 5 1500X I'm playing with right now, it happily does 3.9GHz @1.3V using the stock cooler (I'm going to see if I can get a lower voltage  for 3.9GHz and push for 4GHz)


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 3, 2017)

Nuckles56 said:


> I've got to say that I'm very happy with the Ryzen 5 1500X I'm playing with right now, it happily does 3.9GHz @1.3V using the stock cooler (I'm going to see if I can get a lower voltage  for 3.9GHz and push for 4GHz)


Everybody who owns one seems to love them, it seems to be for the most part only Intel fanboys who really hate them.


----------



## trparky (Jun 3, 2017)

toilet pepper said:


> If you plan to upgrade maybe every 2 years or so, go with ryzen and a decent mobo.


If I do go Ryzen there is the drop-in upgrade path that the platform provides in the sense that you can just take the old chip out and drop in a new one. You could do that every year if you wanted to. With Intel you can't do that.

I might eventually go down to my local Microcenter and ask some hard questions and see what the fellow geeks at the store say before I make my final decision.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 3, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> CPU's don't scale linearly. There are diminishing returns



Not really.  i7 7700k is damn near linear in it's overclock.  What's not linear is the voltage needed.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 3, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> The Ryzen 5 1600 is $219.99 while the 7700k is $339.99. No reason at that price difference to buy the 7700k over the 1600.


800 mhz clockspeed difference is one reason. If you overclock, figure that ends up a ghz difference. That translates into some fps and chews into a core lead as well. 




trparky said:


> If I do go Ryzen there is the drop-in upgrade path that the platform provides in the sense that you can just take the old chip out and drop in a new one. You could do that every year if you wanted to. With Intel you can't do that.
> 
> I might eventually go down to my local Microcenter and ask some hard questions and see what the fellow geeks at the store say before I make my final decision.


lol, you are much better off asking here... MC is a step up from geek squad, but.... yeah.



R-T-B said:


> Not really.  i7 7700k is damn near linear in it's overclock.  What's not linear is the voltage needed.


unless its not stable, thats spot on for intel.


----------



## trparky (Jun 3, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> MC is a step up from geek squad


That depends upon the idiot squad group, some are better than others while others are... not the brightest LED in the Amazon box.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 3, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> Not really.  i7 7700k is damn near linear in it's overclock.  What's not linear is the voltage needed.





EarthDog said:


> 800 mhz clockspeed difference is one reason. If you overclock, figure that ends up a ghz difference. That translates into some fps and chews into a core lead as well.
> 
> 
> lol, you are much better off asking here... MC is a step up from geek squad, but.... yeah.
> ...


If you look at the actual FPS differences it's hardly anything practical. You should read some of my previous posts on this forum that discusses this. Also if you overclock the 7700k to 5.0ghz you'll also overclock the 1600 to 3.9ghz or higher, and at that point it really catches up because overclocking does not scale linearly.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 3, 2017)

trparky said:


> If I do go Ryzen there is the drop-in upgrade path that the platform provides in the sense that you can just take the old chip out and drop in a new one. You could do that every year if you wanted to. With Intel you can't do that.
> 
> I might eventually go down to my local Microcenter and ask some hard questions and see what the fellow geeks at the store say before I make my final decision.


I'd wait a little bit longer dude, threadrippers pricing is getting released, and if the rumors are accurate it could lower current processors down even further (the 1700 is now $299 at newegg).


----------



## trparky (Jun 3, 2017)

I don't need eight cores, six would be enough along with SMT.



Rehmanpa said:


> you'll also overclock the 1600 to 3.9ghz or higher


I thought that's damn near impossible. I've read elsewhere that unless you win the silicon lottery the most you'll get is 3.8 if you're lucky.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 3, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> If you look at the actual FPS differences it's hardly anything practical. You should read some of my previous posts on this forum that discusses this. Also if you overclock the 7700k to 5.0ghz you'll also overclock the 1600 to 3.9ghz or higher, and at that point it really catches up because overclocking does not scale linearly.


ive read your posts. 

Reading my previous post again, youll find ive already ckmpensated for the overclocking ryzen can do...since that chip hits 4ghz, give or take 100mhz, and 7700k hits 5ghz regularly, i came up with that 1 ghz difference. 

As far as fps really matters... true, its only a few % difference. Some just dont want to put any glass ceiling on their performance. Where it shines in gaming is with any which can jse more than 8 threads... which many still cannot. In 3 years, perhaps the story will change. For nkw, its ipc and clock speed which shows greater performamce.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244...x-vs-core-i5-review-twelve-threads-vs-four/12



trparky said:


> That depends upon the idiot squad group, some are better than others while others are... not the brightest LED in the Amazon box.


Just saying, well, laughing (sorry), at going to MC when you have a forum where half the people on here know more than MC peeps.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 3, 2017)

trparky said:


> I don't need eight cores, six would be enough along with SMT.
> 
> 
> I thought that's damn near impossible. I've read elsewhere that unless you win the silicon lottery the most you'll get is 3.8 if you're lucky.


It's not that bad I don't think. Last time i checked like 70% of chips (maybe higher iirc) can get 3.9ghz.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 3, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> If you look at the actual FPS differences it's hardly anything practical. You should read some of my previous posts on this forum that discusses this. Also if you overclock the 7700k to 5.0ghz you'll also overclock the 1600 to 3.9ghz or higher, and at that point it really catches up because overclocking does not scale linearly.



FPS is often gpu-bound and a bad test of whether "a cpu scales linearly."  I stand by my statement.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 3, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> ive read your posts.
> 
> Reading my previous post again, youll find ive already ckmpensated for the overclocking ryzen can do...since that chip hits 4ghz, give or take 100mhz, and 7700k hits 5ghz regularly, i came up with that 1 ghz difference.
> 
> ...



First off not all games show much of an fps difference, and the games that do are usually about or less than 10 percent. 10 percent, that's like 10 fps vs 11 fps. Who needs 160fps when you have a 145fps


R-T-B said:


> FPS is often gpu-bound and a bad test of whether "a cpu scales linearly."  I stand by my statement.


Check out this forum here:
https://linustechtips.com/main/topi...e-boost-does-an-overclock-give-anyway/?page=2

CPU Scaling does not scale linearly with overclocking. An example from this post is, if you overclock your cpu by 20%, you will not gain a 20% performance increase.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 3, 2017)

Run CPU-z bench (or any actual cpu-bench) and you'll find it does.  That's really not up for debate, at least on intel.  Will a 20% faster cpu scaled linearly from a 20% OC make your computer automatically 20% faster?  No, of course not.  There are more subsystems at play.  That does not change the fact the CPU OC IS linear.

I feel the point you are arguing is getting lost in the details of your chosen use case (gaming).

The same argument would apply if you simply bought a 20% faster cpu, which is of course a 100% linear cpu performance boost.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 3, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> Run CPU-z bench (or any actual cpu-bench) and you'll find it does.  That's really not up for debate, at least on intel.  Will a 20% faster cpu scaled linearly from a 20% OC make your computer automatically 20% faster?  No, of course not.  There are more subsystems at play.  That does not change the fact the CPU OC IS linear.
> 
> I feel the point you are arguing is getting lost in the details of your chosen use case (gaming).
> 
> The same argument would apply if you simply bought a 20% faster cpu, which is of course a 100% linear cpu performance boost.



But it doesn't scale linearly in gaming  (at least as far as I and everybody on that forum I linked are). Going from 4 to 5ghz is a 25 percent increase in clock speed, but you will not get 25 percent more fps.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 3, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> But it doesn't scale linearly in gaming  (at least as far as I and everybody on that forum I linked are). Going from 4 to 5ghz is a 25 percent increase in clock speed, but you will not get 25 percent more fps.



Neither would a 25% faster cpu, even if you bought it clocked that much faster at stock.

The cpu itself is scaling linearly, is my point.  Gaming gains are a whole different animal, you are correct.


----------



## toilet pepper (Jun 3, 2017)

Rise of the Tomb Raider and The Division just got updated with Ryzen optimization which made the gaming gap between intel and amd cpus narrower.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 3, 2017)

toilet pepper said:


> Rise of the Tomb Raider and The Division just got updated with Ryzen optimization which made the gaming gap between intel and amd cpus narrower.


Sweet! I'm excited seeing more and more of this, especially with their ram update to allow for higher speed ram, and especially with the inevitable fact that programs/games will start to use more and more threads (there are already quite a few, but the number is growing). It's also worth mentioning that the Ryzen 1700 and i7 7700k have no discernible difference between each other in VR. Ryzen works just as well as a 7700k for VR (because they're both easily able to get more than 90FPS, which in reality is enough and it's the headset's limit). Here's a GREAT demonstration by Gamers Nexus for VR between the 1700 and 7700k:


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 3, 2017)

Anyone have any idea what I can expect from 4 single-sided sticks of Samsung B-Die ram (8GB per stick).  My kit is rated for 3200Mhz, but I understand that 4 sticks is a bit much to expect the full 3200.

I plan on using AGESA 1.0.0.6

My 1800X and GIGABYTE Aorus Gaming 5 are arriving tomorrow.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 3, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> Anyone have any idea what I can expect from 4 single-sided sticks of Samsung B-Die ram (8GB per stick).  My kit is rated for 3200Mhz, but I understand that 4 sticks is a bit much to expect the full 3200.
> 
> I plan on using AGESA 1.0.0.6


What motherboard/processor are you going to be using with it?


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 3, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> What motherboard/processor are you going to be using with it?



Just edited that in, heh.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 3, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> Just edited that in, heh.


Wow man I'm jealous of that processor/mobo, that's the mobo I wanted lol. I think if you update the bios first that you'll have decent luck with the ram, I'm quite interested in hearing about how it goes, please keep us posted!! 
This is the mobo I'm looking at for my planned ryzen build (depending on threadripper pricing): 
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813145001&ignorebbr=1
I think it's your motherboard just with the whole "rev.1.0" 
I was gonna get 2x16gb ddr4 sticks, hopefully those would work to.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 3, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> Wow man I'm jealous of that processor/mobo, that's the mobo I wanted lol. I think if you update the bios first that you'll have decent luck with the ram, I'm quite interested in hearing about how it goes, please keep us posted!!
> This is the mobo I'm looking at for my planned ryzen build (depending on threadripper pricing):
> https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813145001&ignorebbr=1
> I think it's your motherboard just with the whole "rev.1.0"
> I was gonna get 2x16gb ddr4 sticks, hopefully those would work to.



The K5 is actually a slightly higher SKU than mine, but it seems to lag behind in their bios releases.  Not to say it's not an excellent board, just be prepared to get the last update out of the series of boards for whatever reason.  One reason I chose the gaming 5 was it gets really early AGESA releases.

As sort of the "TPU Ryzen bios update-guy" around here, I know a thing or two about the software release schedules they tend to follow.


----------



## FR@NK (Jun 3, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> what I can expect from 4 single-sided sticks of Samsung B-Die ram



Just use 2 sticks. 16GB should be fine for most workloads anyways.



Rehmanpa said:


> I was gonna get 2x16gb ddr4 sticks, hopefully those would work to.



From what I've seen, the 16GB sticks are dual rank. Just get two single rank 8GB samsung B sticks.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 3, 2017)

FR@NK said:


> Just use 2 sticks. 16GB should be fine for most workloads anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> From what I've seen, the 16GB sticks are dual rank. Just get two single rank 8GB samsung B sticks.


I admit I don't know much about ram, but what's wrong with using 2x16gb ddr4 sticks and then getting 2 more later?


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 3, 2017)

FR@NK said:


> Just use 2 sticks. 16GB should be fine for most workloads anyways.



I'm more curious how much I'll lose so I can make that decision myself.  I know 32GBs isn't commonly used but I actually have some workloads that can benefit.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 3, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> I'm more curious how much I'll lose so I can make that decision myself.  I know 32GBs isn't commonly used but I actually have some workloads that can benefit.


I got 32gb in my current PC, and with what I'm planning on doing (hosting game servers and playing at the same time) I'll benefit. Plus it's nice when playing planetary annihilation, that game recommends at least 16gb of ram.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 3, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> I admit I don't know much about ram, but what's wrong with using 2x16gb ddr4 sticks and then getting 2 more later?



Ryzen basically doesn't like to use more than 2 "ranks" of ram.  The 16gb sticks tend to be "dual sided/rank" (basically two single sided sticks on one stick) and thus are like 4 "ranks" of ram.  The IMC speed suffers under this set of circumstances, at least right now.

My question is on AGESA 1.0.0.6, how bad this "penalty" for using 4 ranks will be.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 3, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> Ryzen basically doesn't like to use more than 2 "ranks" of ram.  The 16gb sticks tend to be "dual sided/rank" (basically two single sided sticks on one stick) and thus are like 4 "ranks" of ram.  The IMC speed suffers under this set of circumstances, at least right now.


By the time I'd get 64gb of ram I'd hope they'd have fixed it lol, that's hecka far in the future.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 3, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> By the time I'd get 64gb of ram I'd hope they'd have fixed it lol, that's hecka far in the future.



Yeah, why I just plan to probably use all my ram.  They'll fix it sooner or later I figure.


----------



## FR@NK (Jun 3, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> My question is on AGESA 1.0.0.6, how bad this "penalty" for using 4 ranks will be.



I thought the agesa *update* just enabled more ram dividers and sub timings? I dont think it will help much when you are pushing dual rank or 4x modules.

Some guys are *claiming* at even at slower speeds, dual rank does increase performance. Since you already have 4 sticks of samsung B, maybe you can do some tests? Will be interesting to see what kind of difference in performance and clock speeds your chip is capable of running.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 3, 2017)

FR@NK said:


> Some guys are *claiming* at even at slower speeds, dual rank does increase performance. Since you already have 4 sticks of samsung B, maybe you can do some tests? Will be interesting to see what kind of difference in performance and clock speeds your chip is capable of running.



I'll be glad to report back as soon as I know.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 3, 2017)

FR@NK said:


> I thought the agesa *update* just enabled more ram dividers and sub timings? I dont think it will help much when you are pushing dual rank or 4x modules.
> 
> Some guys are *claiming* at even at slower speeds, dual rank does increase performance. Since you already have 4 sticks of samsung B, maybe you can do some tests? Will be interesting to see what kind of difference in performance and clock speeds your chip is capable of running.


What's the difference between dual rank and dual channel ram/quad channel ram? Sorry I really don't know all that much about ram.


----------



## FR@NK (Jun 3, 2017)

Dual rank modules put a higher load on the memory controller. With ryzen it can greatly effect your memory speeds. And since memory clocks on ryzen are directly tied the infinity fabric speeds it can increase cross CCX access latencies which harms most desktop workloads. But really, if you are just wanting the best bang for your buck with a cheap 8 core system then none of this really matters. If you want ryzen to be close to what intel offers performance wise, then you will need to use single rank samsung B die sticks that are running at least 3200.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 3, 2017)

FR@NK said:


> Dual rank modules put a higher load on the memory controller. With ryzen it can greatly effect your memory speeds. And since memory clocks on ryzen are directly tied the infinity fabric speeds it can increase cross CCX access latencies which harms most desktop workloads. But really, if you are just wanting the best bang for your buck with a cheap 8 core system then none of this really matters. If you want ryzen to be close to what intel offers performance wise, then you will need to use single rank samsung B die sticks that are running at least 3200.


What kind of ram would you recommend then?


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 3, 2017)

This list may help you.  You generally want single-sided samsung b-die:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/62vp2g/clearing_up_any_samsung_bdie_confusion_eg_on/


----------



## toilet pepper (Jun 3, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> The K5 is actually a slightly higher SKU than mine, but it seems to lag behind in their bios releases.  Not to say it's not an excellent board, just be prepared to get the last update out of the series of boards for whatever reason.  One reason I chose the gaming 5 was it gets really early AGESA releases.
> 
> As sort of the "TPU Ryzen bios update-guy" around here, I know a thing or two about the software release schedules they tend to follow.




K5 is actually a lower tier than gaming 5 which is odd. It has bclk but fewer phases. I've seen people in giga forums able to hit 2933 with the new agesa.

I will warn you that voltage does not go down when overclock and there are no pstate options yet.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 3, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> First off not all games show much of an fps difference, and the games that do are usually about or less than 10 percent. 10 percent, that's like 10 fps vs 11 fps. Who needs 160fps when you have a 145fps
> 
> Check out this forum here:
> https://linustechtips.com/main/topi...e-boost-does-an-overclock-give-anyway/?page=2
> ...


10%... although its not a game changer, it solidifies my point there is a difference in most titles... again, that some people dont want. 10 vs 11 fps doesnt matter... but 60 to 66 or 60 to 54 can. Point is... glass ceiling...like i said.

I wasnt talking gaming performance with cpu scaling either. You are correct it doesnt in games. We weretalking cpu benchmarks. Where this all started, 
Trparky in post 928, was talking about IPC, which scales pretty linearly with intel. Yoy brought something unrelated into it.


----------



## Johan45 (Jun 3, 2017)

IPC scales very well on Ryzen as well right up till it runs out of gas


R-T-B said:


> This list may help you.  You generally want single-sided samsung b-die:
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/62vp2g/clearing_up_any_samsung_bdie_confusion_eg_on/


I can't speak for Gigabyte but 4x8GB samsung  on CHVI will run as rated at 3200 without issue. Even before the new AGESA I could get 2 mixed samsung B to run without issue.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 3, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> 10%... although its not a game changer, it solidifies my point there is a difference in most titles... again, that some people dont want. 10 vs 11 fps doesnt matter... but 60 to 66 or 60 to 54 can. Point is... glass ceiling...like i said.
> 
> I wasnt talking gaming performance with cpu scaling either. You are correct it doesnt in games. We weretalking cpu benchmarks. Where this all started,
> Trparky in post 928, was talking about IPC, which scales pretty linearly with intel. Yoy brought something unrelated into it.


Yes but if  you notice where that 10% difference is, is at lower resolutions. And there are still quite a few games where they're within like 1fps of each other. The games where the difference is bigger is generally at the point where you have plenty of FPS anyway and it doesn't matter all that much, plus more and more games are getting multithreaded optimizations


----------



## r9 (Jun 3, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> Yes but if  you notice where that 10% difference is, is at lower resolutions. And there are still quite a few games where they're within like 1fps of each other. The games where the difference is bigger is generally at the point where you have plenty of FPS anyway and it doesn't matter all that much, plus more and more games are getting multithreaded optimizations


The games that got optimized for Ryzen were optimized for the architecture not for more threads if that is what you are referring to.
If the optimization was towards multithreading  the same patch would have increased the fps for 6+ core Intel's not just Ryzen.


----------



## purecain (Jun 3, 2017)

BTW I keep reading about a wall at 4ghz or around... the only wall people will find, is at 80c when the chip internally throttles. avoid that and you will find your own chips particular limit under your cooling. 

realistically I cant see many of us getting beyond 4.15ghz on ambient water due to the voltage needed causing too much heat. 

my chip is performing really well and sits at 29c idle and 49c after an hours load. so not warm enough to cause heat creep across the socket either. 

I'm pretty much guttered about the memory corruption situation. ive spent a while on the g.skill forums. i'll update here when I hear anything. they say they are working on a solution...

in the meantime I'm left thinking if I should reflash my memory. I'm worried my system wont be able to apply the correct timings one day. 

what to do...?


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 4, 2017)

purecain said:


> BTW I keep reading about a wall at 4ghz or around... the only wall people will find, is at 80c when the chip internally throttles. avoid that and you will find your own chips particular limit under your cooling.
> 
> realistically I cant see many of us getting beyond 4.15ghz on ambient water due to the voltage needed causing too much heat.
> 
> ...


What's your 1800x running at? 4.1gh/z is plenty for me to be honest. Hell, I've left my 4790k to stock turbo at 4.36gh/z and it's fine enough for me (not worth the effort for overclocking), so I imagine that an overclock to 4gh/z would be fine.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 4, 2017)

If I could get 4.1Ghz with good temps I'd be thrilled to be frank.

Almost done with this Windows setup.  OC land is calling me shortly.


----------



## GoldenX (Jun 4, 2017)

First batch of Phenom IIs could barely reach 3,8GHz in the best of cases, last ones easily hopped over 4,1 with cheap cooling. Future revisions of even this first gen. of Ryzen should reach better clocks.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jun 4, 2017)

Looks like I can finally join the club!


----------



## purecain (Jun 4, 2017)

welcome to the dark side....

ps, if you havnt already. download typhoon burner and browse your memory spd.

the aura programs slowly corrupt the ram, whats not known is if this effects non rgb ram also... although I'm thinking probably not.

ive just ended up having to re-flash mine...






well stock boost is 4.1, only its with 2 cores. ive found 4.07Ghz at 1.395v with droop down to 1.34v to be perfect. no llc(auto). for all cores.
lets see how long it takes for the board to corrupt my memory this time.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 4, 2017)

purecain said:


> welcome to the dark side....
> 
> ps, if you havnt already. download typhoon burner and browse your memory spd.
> 
> ...


Wait, what corrupts the ram????


----------



## HTC (Jun 4, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> Wait, what corrupts the ram????



https://www.gskill.us/forum/showthread.php?t=14357


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 4, 2017)

HTC said:


> https://www.gskill.us/forum/showthread.php?t=14357


So it looks like RGB ram can get corrupted by the RGB feature? I guess that means that non-RGB ram is not at risk of corruption due to that then.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jun 4, 2017)

Hmmm, from reading the first few posts of that link looks like it happens with RGB ram and with ASUS boards mostly?  I don't think I'll be affected then, but it's good info and I'm glad you posted it!  Thank you


----------



## Nuckles56 (Jun 4, 2017)

Well thats really terrifyingly bad work on somebodies part


----------



## purecain (Jun 4, 2017)

just copy your spd's just to be safe... its not a problem reflashing using tiaphoon burner if your careful.

it effects both sets of data on the spd so I wouldn't expect to be safe if you have non rgb ram. just a heads up.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jun 4, 2017)

purecain said:


> just copy your spd's just to be safe... its not a problem reflashing using tiaphoon burner if your careful.
> 
> it effects both sets of data on the spd so I wouldn't expect to be safe if you have non rgb ram. just a heads up.


Thanks man, like I said it's good to know especially if you are new to the platform.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 4, 2017)

Do you still have to do that if you do not have RGB ram?


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 4, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> So it looks like RGB ram can get corrupted by the RGB feature? I guess that means that non-RGB ram is not at risk of corruption due to that then.



That's what it looks like yes.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 4, 2017)

Running since day one with a CH6 and rgb GSkill with no issues. I've never tried any manipulation of the ram LEDs. Aura software doesn't even show the memory as available to light up. Haven't installed any GSkill light software either.

Edit: does seem you need to be using software specifically to access the RGB on the ram.  If you're not manipulating the GSkill sticks you should be fine.

I actually didn't know I could alter the RGB's.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 4, 2017)

Just wanted to post that my 4 sticks work fine @ 3200MHz with AGESA 1.0.0.6. 

I only got to 4Ghz before heat got a tad too much to handle, but given my memory works great, I am more than happy.


----------



## Nuckles56 (Jun 4, 2017)

Nice work @R-T-B and 4GHz is what I'd expect to be honest


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 4, 2017)

Nuckles56 said:


> Nice work @R-T-B and 4GHz is what I'd expect to be honest



Yeah, 4.0 Ghz isn't bad for a simple air cooler.  I'm very happy with it.


----------



## Final_Fighter (Jun 4, 2017)

congrats on the new build!


----------



## Nuckles56 (Jun 4, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> Yeah, 4.0 Ghz isn't bad for a simple air cooler.  I'm very happy with it.


You did better than what I managed with a 1500X and the stock cooler (3.9) and you have better cooling too.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 4, 2017)

Nuckles56 said:


> You did better than what I managed with a 1500X and the stock cooler (3.9) and you have better cooling too.



Yeah, due to the fact I use blower fans my "air cooling" is pretty dang high performance, probably on the border of an AIO.


----------



## trparky (Jun 4, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> So it looks like RGB ram can get corrupted by the RGB feature?


I guess the answer is... though it looks cool, don't use RAM with pretty LEDs on them.



R-T-B said:


> I only got to 4Ghz


Whoa. 

So if one were to say... use water cooling, even a closed loop cooler, I wonder what speeds one could push a Ryzen to.


----------



## HD64G (Jun 4, 2017)

blacktruckryder said:


> I had an Asus z270g motherboard and an i5 7600k @ 5Ghz. Changed only the motherboard and CPU for an Msi x370 pro carbon and Ryzen 1600 @ 3.9, the rest of the system was unchanged ( see system specs). I have seen no noticeable difference in gaming whatsoever.


RAM speed of Ryzen's system make BIG difference in gaming. It has been shown up 3 months ago. So, running the RAM@2400MHz is bad to get the best out of your system. Try to get a 3200MHz kit and check again.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 4, 2017)

trparky said:


> I guess the answer is... though it looks cool, don't use RAM with pretty LEDs on them.
> 
> 
> Whoa.
> ...



4 or 4.1Ghz.

They have a bit of a known ceiling.


----------



## trparky (Jun 4, 2017)

Even with liquid cooling? I thought that was with air cooling not liquid.


----------



## Mr.Scott (Jun 4, 2017)

Air and water make little difference in clocks. 
You need cold to do any better than roughly 4.2


----------



## Final_Fighter (Jun 4, 2017)

my brothers  asrock board and 1600x can go to 4.2ghz @ 1.39v. temps don't get to high either. he just runs it at stock with the ram at 2933mhz.


----------



## Mr.Scott (Jun 4, 2017)

He is a lottery winner.


----------



## Final_Fighter (Jun 4, 2017)

Mr.Scott said:


> He is a lottery winner.



i was surprised that his could do that too. i recommended he just keep it stock cause he doesn't do anything that will need all that raw power. the xfr boosts up to 4ghz when hes only using like 1or 2 cores or something like that.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 4, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> 4 or 4.1Ghz.
> 
> They have a bit of a known ceiling.



Yep.

Still, this pleases me.






As far as CPU-Z is concerned, I'm getting Kaby-lake level IPC (I'm at 4.0, it's at 4.2).

I know it's actually a bit worse IPC wise, but it's pretty to look at.  And that multi-threading is a thing of beauty.


----------



## trparky (Jun 4, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> As far as CPU-Z is concerned, I'm getting Kaby-lake level IPC (I'm at 4.0, it's at 4.2).


What? You're running at 4 GHz?


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 4, 2017)

trparky said:


> What? You're running at 4 GHz?



yep.  CPU-Z is somewhat Ryzen biased though.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 4, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> yep.  CPU-Z is somewhat Ryzen biased though.



Not any more. It was fixed, if you're running the latest version.

Fact is, no matter the haters, the value/performance ratio of Ryzen is fantastic. And it's not like it's a cheapie shit CPU. It's actually really good.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 4, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Not any more. It was fixed, if you're running the latest version.
> 
> Fact is, no matter the haters, the value/performance ratio of Ryzen is fantastic. And it's not like it's a cheapie shit CPU. It's actually really good.



Indeed I am running the latest.  Good stuff then.


----------



## trparky (Jun 4, 2017)

OK, this may not make an ounce of sense but whatever, I'm going to say it anyways. If a Ryzen CPU at 4 GHz is getting Kaby Lake-like IPC against a Kaby Lake CPU at 4.2 GHz then that means (at least in my mind) the Ryzen CPU _technically_ is more efficient and gets more IPC per clock than Kaby Lake.

The only thing that's really holding Ryzen back at this point is its relatively low clock speeds in comparison to a Kaby Lake CPU. If Ryzen could only be clocked to 4.5 or 4.7 GHz I have a feeling that Ryzen would wipe the floor with Kaby Lake.


----------



## HTC (Jun 4, 2017)

trparky said:


> OK, this may not make an ounce of sense but whatever, I'm going to say it anyways. If a Ryzen CPU at 4 GHz is getting Kaby Lake-like IPC against a Kaby Lake CPU at 4.2 GHz then that means (at least in my mind) the Ryzen CPU _technically_ is more efficient and gets more IPC per clock than Kaby Lake.
> 
> The only thing that's really holding Ryzen back at this point is its relatively low clock speeds in comparison to a Kaby Lake CPU. If Ryzen could only be clocked to 4.5 or 4.7 GHz I have a feeling that Ryzen would wipe the floor with Kaby Lake.



I seem to recall a review with one of the Ryzen 7 chips @ 4.0 GHz (not sure which one) VS Intel 7700K @ 4.0 GHz and the 7700K still took the lead in most games but got trounced in pretty much everything else.

This was about 2 months ago IIRC, but there have been game, OS and several BIOSes patches / updates since then: do not know if this is still the case.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 4, 2017)

trparky said:


> OK, this may not make an ounce of sense but whatever, I'm going to say it anyways. If a Ryzen CPU at 4 GHz is getting Kaby Lake-like IPC against a Kaby Lake CPU at 4.2 GHz then that means (at least in my mind) the Ryzen CPU _technically_ is more efficient and gets more IPC per clock than Kaby Lake.
> 
> The only thing that's really holding Ryzen back at this point is its relatively low clock speeds in comparison to a Kaby Lake CPU. If Ryzen could only be clocked to 4.5 or 4.7 GHz I have a feeling that Ryzen would wipe the floor with Kaby Lake.



Indeed it would but intel has the edge on raw clockspeed.  The 7700k is far faster when overclocked.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 4, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Indeed it would but intel has the edge on raw clockspeed.  The 7700k is far faster when overclocked.



In singlethreaded anyhow, yeah.


----------



## trparky (Jun 4, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> The 7700k is far faster when overclocked.


Didn't you get the memo from Intel? They don't want you overclocking the 7700k. They told us.

Intel tells Core i7-7700K owners to stop overclocking to avoid high temps | PCGamer


----------



## m&m's (Jun 4, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> Just wanted to post that my 4 sticks work fine @ 3200MHz with AGESA 1.0.0.6.
> 
> I only got to 4Ghz before heat got a tad too much to handle, but given my memory works great, I am more than happy.



Alright, might sound like a stupid question but shouldn't it run stock @4GHz+ (XFR) on all cores?


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 4, 2017)

m&m's said:


> Alright, might sound like a stupid question but shouldn't it run stock @4GHz+ (XFR) on all cores?



I believe XFR doesn't provide turbo on all cores at once, but for 1-2 yeah up to 4.1 I believe.  I'm prefer more multithreaded power though.

If I am wrong, then I'd like to know for certain, heh.


----------



## FR@NK (Jun 4, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> If I am wrong, then I'd like to know for certain, heh.



If temp and power draw allows it will run all cores up to 3.7GHz under heavy threaded workload.

Under workloads that only stress one or two cores, it can clock any one or two of the cores up to 4.1GHz if temp and power draw limits are not hit.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 4, 2017)

FR@NK said:


> If temp and power draw allows it will run all cores up to 3.7GHz under heavy threaded workload.
> 
> Under workloads that only stress one or two cores, it can clock any one or two of the cores up to 4.1GHz if temp and power draw limits are not hit.



Ah.  I think I'll keep it OC'd to 4Ghz then, as I have a gentoo VM that does a lot of compiles and can benefit from the multiple faster cores all turboing at once (I run make with 8 jobs).

I really feel Ryzens power there:






That's a recompile of my whole install to use AMD specific flags.  It isn't even going to take an hour...  that's insane!


----------



## GoldenX (Jun 5, 2017)

Are you using any DE on that gentoo VM?
Why not make -j16?


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 5, 2017)

GoldenX said:


> Are you using any DE on that gentoo VM?
> Why not make -j16?



No DE, it's a daily build server for LineageOS builds.  -j16 would make my desktop laggy when a build kicked on.  I assign it 8 threads precisely so multithreading keeps things moving.  Works well.


----------



## infrared (Jun 5, 2017)

m&m's said:


> Alright, might sound like a stupid question but shouldn't it run stock @4GHz+ (XFR) on all cores?


It'll put all cores to 3.7 or 2 cores to 4.1 which is pretty decent imo


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 5, 2017)

trparky said:


> Didn't you get the memo from Intel? They don't want you overclocking the 7700k. They told us.
> 
> Intel tells Core i7-7700K owners to stop overclocking to avoid high temps | PCGamer


Yeah not to mention overclocking suffers harshly from diminishing returns. A 3.0ghz to 4.0 cuz of will provide more benefit than a 4.0ghz to 5.0ghz oc,  so overclocking a ryzen processor from 3.2ghz to 4.0ghz is going to have a larger performance increase than an i7 from 4.2 to 5ghz.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 5, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> Yeah not to mention overclocking suffers harshly from diminishing returns. A 3.0ghz to 4.0 cuz of will provide more benefit than a 4.0ghz to 5.0ghz oc,  so overclocking a ryzen processor from 3.2ghz to 4.0ghz is going to have a larger performance increase than an i7 from 4.2 to 5ghz.



Que?


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 5, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Que?



What was meant is if I have 3 ponies pulling a cart, adding another will increase the performance by a third. If I add another to go from 4 to 5, the performance increase over 4 is a quarter. It sounds like it makes sense but it's an unrealistic analogy.
You would need benchmarks to show the perf uplift in both cases as percentiles.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 5, 2017)

I can get behind that, but he never mentioned core count, just overclocking...

Oh wait...i see now...

That said, there isnt a single ryzen at 3ghz..1800x is 3.6 to 4ghz/4.1 ghz... say 500 mhz if you are lucky. 7700k is 4.2 to 5ghz+. 800 mhz. 1400x, if we are comparing apples to appes, is 3.5 to 3.9 xfr...so again 500 mhz assuming that cpu goes past it 100 mhz.


----------



## infrared (Jun 5, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> Yeah not to mention overclocking suffers harshly from diminishing returns. A 3.0ghz to 4.0 cuz of will provide more benefit than a 4.0ghz to 5.0ghz oc,  so overclocking a ryzen processor from 3.2ghz to 4.0ghz is going to have a larger performance increase than an i7 from 4.2 to 5ghz.


I agree with Rehmanpa in terms of % increase on example he gave, but the diminishing returns is wrong in relation to clock speed (I think?). Performance should go up fairly linearly per MHz increase, the only diminishing returns is MHz per mV which is obvious. That's my understanding anyway.
Game benchmarks might show a limited increase with a cpu overclock, but pure cpu benchmarks will always improve, hence the crazy cinenbench scores with DICE/LN2.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 5, 2017)

Exactly... and we went over that recently with him. His mindset is gaming only last i recall...(and we werent talking about gaming at the time).


----------



## Final_Fighter (Jun 5, 2017)

diminishing return really does not fit in this situation. as stated by infrared you could really only apply it to mhz per mv.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 5, 2017)

I got my memory running at DDR4-3466 without loosening timings.

It's official, the Ryzen IMC is running at a faster speed than my Kaby Lake could manage with this ram.

WTF?  Not complaining lol.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 5, 2017)

Id imagine the bios loosened some of the secondary/tertiary timings more. KL IMCs are typically a hell of a lot stronger (for the moment).


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 5, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Id imagine the bios loosened some of the secondary/tertiary timings more. KL IMCs are typically a hell of a lot stronger (for the moment).



But it's reading them out of XMP?  Does XMP leave some timings to bios?

I'm also using the new beta AGESA 1.0.0.6


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 5, 2017)

Those are the primary timings.


----------



## infrared (Jun 5, 2017)

I'm hitting a brick wall at 3700mhz on mine (3650mhz on previous 1800x). That was only with 1.125v SoC, going up to 1.20v didn't yield better results. Upping RAM, CPU, 1.8v pll, VDDP didn't help, loosening primary timings didn't help.. hmm. I haven't tried upping the VTTDDR yet. I'm going to try adjusting some of the tertiary timings next time I'm having a fiddle. So far 3600mhz 14-14-14-34 @ 1.45v is my best config.

@EarthDog - I'm a noob with tertiary timings, do you know any good guides? Or is it just a case of going through each one with trial & error with memtest86+? It'd take days to go through them all :/


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 5, 2017)

Not a huge ram overclocker as the returns are meh outsode of some benchmarks..(in intel).

Amd doesnt even show past primary last i heard... but my 1500x rig isnt updated either..


----------



## infrared (Jun 5, 2017)

That's fair enough, cheers  I'm looking forward to hearing your impression of the 1500x rig! I presume it's gonna go sub-zero at some point? 

The beta bioses 9943 & 9945 show the tertiary timings, but I'm lost with so many settings lol


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 5, 2017)

Its my son's gaming machine. There is a 270x in it and he only plays minecraft and roblox (9 years old), so... i dont have much to say, honestly. I havent done anything to it except fire it up.

Doubt it will go cold...we will see though.


----------



## r9 (Jun 5, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> Yep.
> 
> Still, this pleases me.
> 
> ...


Actually in the single core test it should boost to 4.5GHz.
So that makes it 6.7% slower while being 12.5% lower clocked.
According to my math looks like Ryzen has higher IPC, at least in CPUZ.


----------



## Johan45 (Jun 5, 2017)

infrared said:


> I'm hitting a brick wall at 3700mhz on mine (3650mhz on previous 1800x). That was only with 1.125v SoC, going up to 1.20v didn't yield better results. Upping RAM, CPU, 1.8v pll, VDDP didn't help, loosening primary timings didn't help.. hmm. I haven't tried upping the VTTDDR yet. I'm going to try adjusting some of the tertiary timings next time I'm having a fiddle. So far 3600mhz 14-14-14-34 @ 1.45v is my best config.
> 
> @EarthDog - I'm a noob with tertiary timings, do you know any good guides? Or is it just a case of going through each one with trial & error with memtest86+? It'd take days to go through them all :/


I will quite often take my cues from lower divider auto settings. Gives me an good outline as to what timings work well together then it's just a matter of getting them up to speed. If it's too tight i find voltage won't always help on this compared to Intel. Doesn't play the same game.


----------



## toilet pepper (Jun 5, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> Yep.
> 
> Still, this pleases me.
> 
> ...



Ryzen IPC isn't slow. Kabylake and Skylake just has higher clocks. If you check your cpu-z test it almost matches the 7700k at lower clocks.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 5, 2017)

toilet pepper said:


> Ryzen IPC isn't slow. Kabylake and Skylake just has higher clocks. If you check your cpu-z test it almost matches the 7700k at lower clocks.



What I meant was the IPC is actually a bit worse than the CPU-Z test would have you believe.  But no, I wasn't arguing it was slow, rather fast.


----------



## Cvrk (Jun 5, 2017)

@R-T-B do you think you can hit 3200MHz with any ddr4 ram or just the GSkills on AM4 motherboards ?
Also i saw a yb review can't find,wanted to link it (unfortunately) is showed that the GIGABYTE Aorus did not have a complex Bios . How do you feel about this ? Do you recommend the motherboard or not ?


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 5, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> @R-T-B do you think you can hit 3200MHz with any ddr4 ram or just the GSkills on AM4 motherboards ?
> Also i saw a yb review can't find,wanted to link it (unfortunately) is showed that the GIGABYTE Aorus did not have a complex Bios . How do you feel about this ? Do you recommend the motherboard or not ?



The motherboards bios has just what you need and not much more.  If you want to do "advanced" overclocking it may limit you but honestly it was fine for me.

I can't really say on the ram front.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 5, 2017)

How is this memory for Ryzen?
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...158190&cm_re=32gb_ddr4-_-20-158-190-_-Product

Or do I need to get the "Ryzen Version":
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...158242&cm_re=32gb_ddr4-_-20-158-242-_-Product

It's like $20 or $30 cheaper than the competitors, thus I was seriously considering it. Plus I think it would work with threadripper to in case I wanted to get threadripper vs the current ryzen lineup.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 5, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> How is this memory for Ryzen?
> https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...158190&cm_re=32gb_ddr4-_-20-158-190-_-Product
> 
> Or do I need to get the "Ryzen Version":
> ...



Honestly?  Slow.  You want faster ram to keep the Infinity fabric the two quad cores talk accross nice and latency free, or so I hear.  DDR4-2400 is a bit slow IMO.


----------



## trparky (Jun 5, 2017)

Anything less than DDR4-3000 and the Infinity Fabric in the Ryzen chip is going to cause performance issues.

My suggestion is this RAM... Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB (2x8GB) DDR4 DRAM 3000MHz C15 Desktop Memory Kit - Black (CMK16GX4M2B3000C15)
Amazon Link | NewEgg Link

And the 2x16 GB version... CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3000 (PC4 24000) Desktop Memory Model CMK32GX4M2B3000C15
Amazon Link | NewEgg Link


----------



## Aenra (Jun 5, 2017)

*edited for clarity, sorry*

@infrared
The only ones that make a difference are command rate, you're automatically sorted there with Ryzens, primary timings obviously and then the two following, nothing else really: 

1) if you can be asked, because it takes a really long time, you should start with the IoLs, they affect round trip latency (it being something you can only affect indirectly, hence the IoLs's importance).

- Fully manual RAM settings, ie each channel's settings added separately.
- As low IoLs as the mobo allows, one channel at a time, starting with A.
- reboot, it will hang.
- clear CMOS, 'cause it may never boot again (hence my saying if you can be asked, when it hangs because of IoLs, it really... hangs).
- load last stable, again channel A, again IoLs, just one notch up.
- reboot, will probably hang 

Until it doesn't. Once there, set the other channel to the same exact IoLs, reboot.
If it hangs, remove CMOS, default, load stable, increase voltage slightly* until it doesn't. Both channels must be the same, if voltage doesn't help, you need up both one notch.

*only increase voltage to match the second channel's IoLs to that of the first. As far as the first one goes, you only test to see how low it can boot with, don't mix it with voltage, this is a 'can or cannot'.

2) Then you go for tRFC, that one's just like the primary ones, increase voltage, lower it, test, rinse & repeat.
(occasionally, _slightly_ increasing [yes, increasing] TREFI and TREFIx9 might help in attaining stability without increasing voltage. Depends on your patience; emphasis on slightly and _never_ lower them).

The rest you won't even feel, not even in purely synthetic benchmarks. Only e-peening


----------



## infrared (Jun 5, 2017)

Hold up there trparky.. For the 32GB kit, at 3200mhz and $50 less, @Rehmanpa could get the G.skill flareX 2x16gb 3200 kit. Amazon US link 
Which is a lot more likely to run happily, I suspect you might not have as much luck with the Corsair LPX 3000mhz. 
Fail! that was a 16gb kit, wth.. Sorry, go about your business lol.

Edit:
Spot on, thanks for the tips and advice @Johan45 and @Aenra , I'll put that advice into action tomorrow


----------



## trparky (Jun 5, 2017)

I've checked several motherboard memory compatibility lists and the 16 GB kit is supported by many boards.


----------



## infrared (Jun 5, 2017)

Yeah, sorry, I'd been looking up the 32gig flare x kits and thought I'd come across a bargain.


----------



## trparky (Jun 5, 2017)

Yeah I swear you pay more for that AMD logo on the side of it.


----------



## Aenra (Jun 5, 2017)

Guys you're rushing..the 2x16GB Flare kits are not on most mobos' QVLs, that's true, but that's simply because they didn't test them.
You go to the GSKILL site, check _their_ QVL, you might be surprised. I was.


----------



## trparky (Jun 5, 2017)

Aenra said:


> Guys you're rushing..the 2x16GB Flare kits are not on most mobos' QVLs, that's true, but that's simply because they didn't test them.
> You go to the GSKILL site, check _their_ QVL, you might be surprised. I was.


http://rymem.vraith.com/


----------



## Aenra (Jun 5, 2017)

trparky said:


> http://rymem.vraith.com/



...
Who tells you what they tested and what not and whether they could be bothered to post their results or just.. didn't care to? I know i haven't, couldn't be asked really.

Did you even go to the manufacturer's site before coming back here to post me some 'anonymous' info? 

edit: My flares weren't on Gigabyte's QVL, were on GSKILL's. They worked flawlessly. Still do.


----------



## trparky (Jun 5, 2017)

More than likely someone already posted that your Flares works with your Gigabyte motherboard.


----------



## infrared (Jun 5, 2017)

TBF the link trparky put up is pretty specific on serial numbers and cpuz validations. 

The 2x 16gb Corsair lpx kit trparky found (CMK32GX4M2B3000C15)
http://rymem.vraith.com/detailed_ram/747
They seem to be topping out at 2933mhz, not bad though for high density sticks.

There's no results on there yet for the flarex  F4-3200C14D-16GFX yet (which would be 4x8gb).


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 5, 2017)

infrared said:


> There's no results on there yet for the flarex  F4-3200C14D-16GFX yet (which would be 4x8gb).



The part number is similar to mine, which is presently running 4 sticks at DDR4-3466.


----------



## toilet pepper (Jun 5, 2017)

Does anybody know if Ryzen just loves RAM speed or does it also have gains with lower latency?


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 5, 2017)

toilet pepper said:


> Does anybody know if Ryzen just loves RAM speed or does it also have gains with lower latency?



You'll get gains from lower latency, but you'll get more gains from ram speed because the Infinity Fabric will run faster.

Of course, you need to be able to actually get the IMC to that ram speed.


----------



## RealNeil (Jun 6, 2017)

I'm unable to get my RAM to run at rated speed. (3200MHz.)
The 1700X runs at 3.9GHz. and the RAM is at 2933MHz speeds so I guess that isn't so bad.

It's an ASUS Crosshair IV Hero with 16GB of GEIL EVO-X RGB (two 8GB sticks)
The Ryzen 1700X is cooled with a Corsair 280mm AIO cooler with two Cougar 140mm fans pushing the heat out of the top.
I used a Corsair Carbide Air-540 Chassis with custom fans installed into it. (the airflow is outstanding)
I have a Crucial 500GB M.2 drive, a Hyper-X 480GB SSD, and a 2TB Hitachi DeskStar HDD in it.
My two RX480 8GB Gigabyte G1-Gaming cards are inside running crossfire.


----------



## infrared (Jun 6, 2017)

@RealNeil You've got both sticks in channel A, you're in single channel mode atm. Move 1 across and you should get a decent performance bump and possibly clock better 

Edit: I like the red/black theme btw


----------



## trparky (Jun 6, 2017)

Not only that but...



You need to put those two memory modules into slots A2 and B2.


----------



## RealNeil (Jun 6, 2017)

Oops! (feel like a noob)
First Ryzen build.


----------



## trparky (Jun 6, 2017)

I know, we're men, we don't read the directions. Directions? Yeah, it's those things I threw in back of the couch.

If all else fails, read the directions.


----------



## RealNeil (Jun 6, 2017)

Yeah,...which way did I go?

So, no real change in performance. Cinebench was slightly faster.
Maybe I'll slap the BIOS setting around again.

Maybe not until tomorrow.


----------



## Cvrk (Jun 6, 2017)

I feel like i'm spamming but.... 
Is this RAM good for Ryzen ?
http://www.emag.ro/memorie-corsair-...xmp-2-0-red-cmk16gx4m2b3200c16r/pd/DQRQ62BBM/


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 6, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> I feel like i'm spamming but....
> Is this RAM good for Ryzen ?
> http://www.emag.ro/memorie-corsair-...xmp-2-0-red-cmk16gx4m2b3200c16r/pd/DQRQ62BBM/



That's probably good for AGESA 1.0.0.6.  It seems to run sticks like that ok.  Earlier ones if you don't have Samsung B-die have a real hard time hitting 3200MHz, and I have no idea what's under the heatspreader there, so I can only assume it's not.  

tl;dr:  Load the latest beta bios/whatever your board maker has and it should work.


----------



## Cvrk (Jun 6, 2017)

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132986

*"*1 Due to the limitation of AMD Ryzen processors, memory frequencies higher than DDR4 2666 MHz are supported only when using one DIMM. "*

One DIMM ?? I don't get it


----------



## Johan45 (Jun 6, 2017)

RealNeil said:


> Yeah,...which way did I go?
> 
> So, no real change in performance. Cinebench was slightly faster.
> Maybe I'll slap the BIOS setting around again.
> ...


Some of those Hynix kits will work if you use the BCLK to raise the speed verus the memory divider.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 6, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132986
> 
> *"*1 Due to the limitation of AMD Ryzen processors, memory frequencies higher than DDR4 2666 MHz are supported only when using one DIMM. "*
> 
> One DIMM ?? I don't get it



Sounds like they never updated the posting from early bios teething issues.


----------



## Cvrk (Jun 6, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> Sounds like they never updated the posting from early bios teething issues.


Could be cuz on this higher end mobo it does not mention the same 
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132963


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 6, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> Could be cuz on this higher end mobo it does not mention the same
> https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132963



Yeah.  I have a feeling there's no way in heck that warning is accurate given the bios situation today.


----------



## toilet pepper (Jun 6, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> Could be cuz on this higher end mobo it does not mention the same
> https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132963



You could look for a single rank Hynix kit as well. Mine is Hynix and I can clock it to 3200. i'm using a Gaming 5 w/ the latest bios as well. AFAIK, G skill kits with looser timings out of the box are Hynix kits. Mine is a 3000Mhz CL16 kit CL15 or lower is usually Samsung B-dies.


----------



## TommyT (Jun 7, 2017)

Hello everyone after long time i was away without any build at all... 

i"m back with nice upgrade. the only issue do you thing i pick the good memory modules?


----------



## Cvrk (Jun 7, 2017)

TommyT said:


> Hello everyone after long time i was away without any build at all...
> 
> i"m back with nice upgrade. the only issue do you thing i pick the good memory modules?


Join in. I pointed out the Corsair ones above. Since the GSKill are extremely expensive in my country.


----------



## _larry (Jun 7, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> That's probably good for AGESA 1.0.0.6.  It seems to run sticks like that ok.  Earlier ones if you don't have Samsung B-die have a real hard time hitting 3200MHz, and I have no idea what's under the heatspreader there, so I can only assume it's not.
> 
> tl;dr:  Load the latest beta bios/whatever your board maker has and it should work.





R-T-B said:


> Sounds like they never updated the posting from early bios teething issues.



I was going to trade in my 1x8gb stick of Viper DDR4 2400MHZ to upgrade to that same Corsair 3200mhz kit. My ASUS B350-prime plus mobo says it supports those speeds. So I'm guessing I will not have the same problem..?
I have a Ryzen 5 1600x.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jun 7, 2017)

infrared said:


> @RealNeil You've got both sticks in channel A, you're in single channel mode atm. Move 1 across and you should get a decent performance bump and possibly clock better
> 
> Edit: I like the red/black theme btw



I almost made that mistake too when putting mine together.  Luckily I checked and didn't


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 7, 2017)

_larry said:


> I was going to trade in my 1x8gb stick of Viper DDR4 2400MHZ to upgrade to that same Corsair 3200mhz kit. My ASUS B350-prime plus mobo says it supports those speeds. So I'm guessing I will not have the same problem..?
> I have a Ryzen 5 1600x.



I cannot be certain but I doubt you will have any issue.  If unsure, ask ASUS maybe.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 7, 2017)

Your best bet is qvl list and the latest bios...


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 7, 2017)

going to try the beta agesa 1.0.0.6 tonight see if i can get 3600 going.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jun 8, 2017)

What software do you guys recommend for temp monitoring with the Ryzen platform?


----------



## Johan45 (Jun 8, 2017)

Chicken Patty said:


> What software do you guys recommend for temp monitoring with the Ryzen platform?


HWInfo64, he's been right on the ball


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 8, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> HWInfo64, he's been right on the ball



I've been using Ryzen Master but will try this.  Does it compensate for the 20 degree offset?


----------



## Nuckles56 (Jun 8, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> I've been using Ryzen Master but will try this.  Does it compensate for the 20 degree offset?


I believe they have removed the offset in the more recent versions


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 8, 2017)

Nuckles56 said:


> I believe they have removed the offset in the more recent versions


What's up with the whole 20 degree offset anyway? Are ryzen processors monitors off by 20c.


----------



## Nuckles56 (Jun 8, 2017)

I honestly have no idea why AMD implemented it in the first place, it didn't make sense to me.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 8, 2017)

It never made sense, but yes, 1700X and 1800X have a +20C offset.  In other words, to get your real temp from a program that doesn't recognize this, you subtract 20C.

Ryzen Master recognizes this and will always show the right temp.

AMD's reason for that whole offset was astoundingly stupid:

"To maintain a consistent fan profile"

I mean really?  I love AMD, but that was just dumb.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jun 8, 2017)

I'll give Ryzen Master a try.  Been using HWinfo64but wondering if reporting right since temps do seem extremely high.


----------



## bencrutz (Jun 8, 2017)

Chicken Patty said:


> I'll give Ryzen Master a try.  Been using HWinfo64but wondering if reporting right since temps do seem extremely high.


on HWiNFO you should look at the Tdie instead of Tctl
Tdie = no offset
Tctl = Tdie+Tctl_offset
but you might have different Tctl_offset as mobo vendors might apply different /custom MI_Skew settings on their UEFI


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jun 8, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> I feel like i'm spamming but....
> Is this RAM good for Ryzen ?
> http://www.emag.ro/memorie-corsair-...xmp-2-0-red-cmk16gx4m2b3200c16r/pd/DQRQ62BBM/



I'm running the "black" version, 2933MHz pre Agesa 1.0.0.6, 3066MHz on a beta UEFI with Agesa 1.0.0.6.

The Beta UEFI with Agesa 1.0.0.6 for the Prime X370-Pro is available here btw https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/PRIME-X370-PRO/HelpDesk_Download/


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jun 8, 2017)

bencrutz said:


> on HWiNFO you should look at the Tdie instead of Tctl
> Tdie = no offset
> Tctl = Tdie+Tctl_offset
> but you might have different Tctl_offset as mobo vendors might apply different /custom MI_Skew settings on their UEFI


This is what I have.  Tdie and Tctl are together?


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 8, 2017)

Chicken Patty said:


> I'll give Ryzen Master a try.  Been using HWinfo64but wondering if reporting right since temps do seem extremely high.



Piece of advice.  Ryzen master comes with a big bad "overclocking is evil" warning on every startup.  The irony is, it's more useful as a monitoring utility than a OCing one IMO.  As long as you don't create an OC "profile" it won't change anything.

I'm an AIDA64 user, and I found the latest beta reports temps right, so I switched to that.


----------



## TommyT (Jun 8, 2017)

so should i give back my memory and swith to another one like hyperx savge or hyperx predator 3000mhx kit?

and thats the diff bettween predator and savge?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 8, 2017)

TommyT said:


> so should i give back my memory and swith to another one like hyperx savge or hyperx predator 3000mhx kit?
> 
> and thats the diff bettween predator and savge?



Go to their site by using google, figure it out.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 8, 2017)

TommyT said:


> so should i give back my memory and swith to another one like hyperx savge or hyperx predator 3000mhx kit?
> 
> and thats the diff bettween predator and savge?



One probably has different timings than the other, I am betting.


----------



## bencrutz (Jun 8, 2017)

Chicken Patty said:


> This is what I have.  Tdie and Tctl are together?



yeah, that would be the case if you use non X ryzen, as of now only 1800X, 1700X, 1600X have the offset, no offset for other ryzens so Tdie = Tctl

temp is too high, IMHO. I would re-apply thermal paste and re-seat the HSF if I were you 

edit: what's the ambient temp there? I got around 60-ish deg Celcius in a 27 deg-ambient room with 1600 and 1400, granted I use stock FX coolers (the one with heatpipes)


----------



## Cvrk (Jun 8, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> I'm running the "black" version, 2933MHz pre Agesa 1.0.0.6, 3066MHz on a beta UEFI with Agesa 1.0.0.6.
> 
> The Beta UEFI with Agesa 1.0.0.6 for the Prime X370-Pro is available here btw https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/PRIME-X370-PRO/HelpDesk_Download/


So your telling me that with these timings you can't hit 3200Mhz ?
http://www.cel.ro/memorii/kit-memor...b-ddr4-3200mhz-cl16-dual-channel-pNSA2MzQv-l/
Timing: 16-19-19-36


----------



## infrared (Jun 8, 2017)

I just had an extremely fun day (and night) of gaming on the Raisin now it's got it's shiney new 1080Ti (CPU @ 4.1, RAM @ 3200 C14). I was blown away by the smoothness of Witcher 3, Fallout 4 took some tweaking to get it to spread the load across the cores a bit better, but that runs very well now too, Assassins creed syndicate looked stunning when I was watching sister play (not my type of game tbh). Project cars was silky smooth. I couldn't be happier!
It's running on a 165hz 1440p g-sync monitor, I think it broke me, any time I see things on a 60hz monitor/tv now I notice it lol. I need to get the Vive installed and have a go with that.

I'm gonna put this out there, and anybody can feel free to quote me: Anybody who says Ryzen "sucks" for gaming is flat out lying!

Edit: to elaborate - I'm not saying it's better than it's competitors, just that it does a great job in games and doesn't deserve the bad rep from early on. If you will be taking advantage of the raw power and not just purely gaming on it, I'd wholeheartedly recommend this cpu!




bencrutz said:


> temp is too high, IMHO. I would re-apply thermal paste and re-seat the HSF if I were you



He's on the stock AMD cooler and that looks like 100% load. I agree though it is very hot, especially for such low voltage. Aftermarket cooler needed asap @Chicken Patty !


----------



## Cvrk (Jun 8, 2017)

infrared said:


> ook some tweaking to get it to spread the load across the cores a bit better,


This is by far the most interesting part of what you said. 
Please explain with details what kinda of tweaking was involved. 
Thank you


----------



## infrared (Jun 8, 2017)

Don't take this as a guide or anything, this was just the result of an evening googling and trying stuff, the game still runs like crud in comparison to Witcher3, but it's a lot better than it was. My 6700k rig suffers the same kinda thing, if anything compounded by running SLI.

Fo4 isn't very well coded, it puts far too much load on the first thread so any time you're in a city or very built up area the FPS will plummet, GPU Utilization will be less than 50%, I saw 30% a few times while thread 1 was ~70-100%, the rest of the threads weren't doing a lot. So I used the 'Fallout 4 Configuration Tool - By Bilago' to change the # of threads from 4 to 16, and then you need to open the console and type tMta ON, there were a couple of others recommended but they seem to be permanently stuck on OFF. Link to "How to enable Multithreading options" on steam forum.

After that it seemed to be spreading the load out more, all threads are actively doing stuff now. FPS still drops in certain areas but not to ~30fps but more like >55fps min. When gpu is at 99% util, it's usually 100-120fps, 1440p all settings maxed. (actually it's worth pointing out that this is with a few mods to make the wasteland look overgrown and vibrant, so my fps will be a lot worse than with unmodified game)


----------



## Cvrk (Jun 8, 2017)

infrared said:


> FPS still drops in certain areas but not to ~30fps but more like >55fps min.


On a 1080Ti ??! What!

Anyways, we will not turn this into a gaming related topic. Ryzen,is impressing from a smoothness point of view. More testing and googling is required
So far,so good. I have my eye on the 1700x


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jun 8, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> So your telling me that with these timings you can't hit 3200Mhz ?
> http://www.cel.ro/memorii/kit-memor...b-ddr4-3200mhz-cl16-dual-channel-pNSA2MzQv-l/
> Timing: 16-19-19-36



So far, no. I haven't wasted too much time fiddling with it yet, but the D.O.C.P. doesn't want to play at all at 3200MHz, 3066MHz is rock stable.


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 8, 2017)

infrared said:


> Don't take this as a guide or anything, this was just the result of an evening googling and trying stuff, the game still runs like crud in comparison to Witcher3, but it's a lot better than it was. My 6700k rig suffers the same kinda thing, if anything compounded by running SLI.
> 
> Fo4 isn't very well coded, it puts far too much load on the first thread so any time you're in a city or very built up area the FPS will plummet, GPU Utilization will be less than 50%, I saw 30% a few times while thread 1 was ~70-100%, the rest of the threads weren't doing a lot. So I used the 'Fallout 4 Configuration Tool - By Bilago' to change the # of threads from 4 to 16, and then you need to open the console and type tMta ON, there were a couple of others recommended but they seem to be permanently stuck on OFF. Link to "How to enable Multithreading options" on steam forum.
> 
> After that it seemed to be spreading the load out more, all threads are actively doing stuff now. FPS still drops in certain areas but not to ~30fps but more like >55fps min. When gpu is at 99% util, it's usually 100-120fps, 1440p all settings maxed. (actually it's worth pointing out that this is with a few mods to make the wasteland look overgrown and vibrant, so my fps will be a lot worse than with unmodified game)



How did you get it to do that? FO4 is the only game that still sucks on ryzen for me... everything is smooth @4.0 w 3200Mhz C14...


----------



## infrared (Jun 8, 2017)

Yeah it's just coded really badly  it runs beautifully in most settlements and the wasteland, but just watch thread 1 and gpu utilization when you go into a densely packed city or something. I think you can change the thread count in one of the .ini files, but it's easier just to use Bilago's Configuration tool. The annoying bit is you have to enter the tMta ON command every time you open the game, I don't think it stays set. (should say "Multi-Threaded Accumulation is ON", if it says off just repeat the command. For me to get in console is the @ on the uk keyboard, but ` or ~ might work.

Other than Fo4 everything else seems to run like a dream on Ryzen!



Cvrk said:


> infrared said:
> 
> 
> > FPS still drops in certain areas but not to ~30fps but more like >55fps min.
> ...


It's not the Ti's fault, the CPU just can't feed it instructions quick enough because the game is trying to do too much on thread 1 and is effectively creating a CPU bottleneck with bad coding.
Good luck with your decision, I don't think you'd regret buying an R7 but maybe a higher clocked R5 1600x would be better if it's just games you want to run?



TheLostSwede said:


> So far, no. I haven't wasted too much time fiddling with it yet, but the D.O.C.P. doesn't want to play at all at 3200MHz, 3066MHz is rock stable.



Is that with the SoC voltage bumped up a bit? I've got some non-samsung sticks I was going to have a play with, they would only run at 2666 before so it'll be interesting to see how they work with the 1.0.0.6 agesa code.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jun 8, 2017)

infrared said:


> Is that with the SoC voltage bumped up a bit? I've got some non-samsung sticks I was going to have a play with, they would only run at 2666 before so it'll be interesting to see how they work with the 1.0.0.6 agesa code.



No need at 3066MHz, but even bumping it doesn't help me get to 3200MHz


----------



## trparky (Jun 8, 2017)

infrared said:


> Anybody who says Ryzen "sucks" for gaming is flat out lying!


It may not suck for you since you're at 1440p where the bottleneck is in the GPU's court but for those of us who are still gaming at 1080p that's where Ryzen just isn't good enough. Many of us are still playing at 1080p and have no plans to go higher than that. Especially when a good 1440p monitor is damn near half the cost of building the system itself. A good 1440p monitor will cost around $500 USD.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jun 8, 2017)

trparky said:


> It may not suck for you since you're at 1440p where the bottleneck is in the GPU's court but for those of us who are still gaming at 1080p that's where Ryzen just isn't good enough. Many of us are still playing at 1080p and have no plans to go higher than that. Especially when a good 1440p monitor is damn near half the cost of building the system itself. A good 1440p monitor will cost around* $500 USD*.



You mean like the $280 Dell U2515H? https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01M0LDXTL/?tag=tec06d-20
So sure, it's "only" 60Hz and not really a "gaming" screen, but it's a damn good screen for the money.

Or how about an Acer for $200? https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N1J0B3Q/?tag=tec06d-20

Or a 27" 75Hz Asus for $313? https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01EN3Z7QQ/?tag=tec06d-20

I simply don't understand people that are happy with 1080p screens. Sure, they're fine for gaming and watching movies, but from a productivity standpoint they suck. In as much as my 4K AOC screen was crap, I do miss the higher resolution. Also, with Windows 10, things scale so much better at higher resolution than with previous Windows versions.

Honestly, I can't see any real world difference in gaming performance between my "borrowed" 6700K and my Ryzen 1700, but I guess I'm not a professional gamer either so...


----------



## trparky (Jun 8, 2017)

I would consider that to be a low-end 1440p monitor, barely worth getting because of the 60Hz limitation. If I were to go 1440p I would get at least 120 Hz. Go big or go home.


----------



## infrared (Jun 8, 2017)

I'd have to see a run of fresh benchmarks to put forward an opinion about 1080p gaming, to be honest I'm highly doubtful that there's a large gap in fps compared to a 7700k now that drivers, patches, agesa codes etc have been done. The platform has matured but unfortunately lingering views from the early days are still getting repeated. The problem with low res on badly coded games is it exaggerates how "poorly" the CPU is performing, based only on the fact the game isn't spreading out the load across all threads, like nearly all AAA titles do these days.

Edit: and I have to comment on how silky smooth games run, no occasional stuttering like I used to get on my 6700k setup.


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 8, 2017)

infrared said:


> I'd have to see a run of fresh benchmarks to put forward an opinion about 1080p gaming, to be honest I'm highly doubtful that there's a large gap in fps compared to a 7700k now that drivers, patches, agesa codes etc have been done. The platform has matured but unfortunately lingering views from the early days are still getting repeated. The problem with low res on badly coded games is it exaggerates how "poorly" the CPU is performing, based only on the fact the game isn't spreading out the load across all threads, like nearly all AAA titles do these days.
> 
> Edit:* and I have to comment on how silky smooth games run, no occasional stuttering like I used to get on my 6700k setup.*



^^ OH MY GOD... that used to drive me nuts... and then whenever i would mention it on forums, people would act like i was crazy...  I ended up ditching an SSD, and taking out my wifi card tryinng to figure out the cause.

i have a 144hz Gsync, and those stutters were like a cold slap in the face since everything else was buttery smooth.  The frame pacing is much more consistent with ryzen.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 8, 2017)

If tbe problem was really in the cpu, more people would be complaining about it, dont you think? Im not saying you didnt have tbe issue, but, cant say its remotely a rampant problem. System (user) specfiic.


----------



## trparky (Jun 8, 2017)

So what is the root cause of the frame stuttering?


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 8, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> If tbe problem was really in the cpu, more people would be complaining about it, dont you think? Im not saying you didnt have tbe issue, but, cant say its remotely a rampant problem. System (user) specfiic.



Yeah I think so - some people are really not sensitive to that kind of stuff;  I've seen one review and a few other people that have mentioned that, but nothing widespread.  I think it was really exacerbated by 100 - 140 fps G-sync (which is where i keep my games at) since it would render so smoothly that a .3 second hitch was just brutal.



trparky said:


> So what is the root cause of the frame stuttering?



I spent months trying to find it - it would get better / worse depending on what was plugged into the motherboard - but was still always there.  I think it was the chipset / bios being crappy and I was about to get a new motherboard when ryzen came out, so I decided to just sell the whole thing and go with an 8 core chip.

Since then ive had no hitching - FO4 and some games have lower overall FPS - but they are much more consistent/smoother than before.  Mass Effect Andromeda runs amazing at 1440P High settings - no hitching at all, where as before i would even get a hitch in the menus on the planet fly-through effect.


----------



## trparky (Jun 8, 2017)

How can it be the BIOS/UEFI? Correct me if I'm wrong but after the system POSTs and boots up the BIOS/UEFI steps out of the way for the OS to take control over the hardware.


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 8, 2017)

trparky said:


> How can it be the BIOS/UEFI? Correct me if I'm wrong but after the system POSTs and boots up the BIOS/UEFI steps out of the way for the OS to take control over the hardware.



AFAIK - The OS doesn't really take control over the low-level firmware aspects of the board - things like memory subtimings, how the board handles basic I/O interrupts from which devices and all that is still up to the BIOS before it ever hits the OS.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jun 8, 2017)

bencrutz said:


> yeah, that would be the case if you use non X ryzen, as of now only 1800X, 1700X, 1600X have the offset, no offset for other ryzens so Tdie = Tctl
> 
> temp is too high, IMHO. I would re-apply thermal paste and re-seat the HSF if I were you
> 
> edit: what's the ambient temp there? I got around 60-ish deg Celcius in a 27 deg-ambient room with 1600 and 1400, granted I use stock FX coolers (the one with heatpipes)



Yeah I might have to do that for now, just gets really hot. 



infrared said:


> I just had an extremely fun day (and night) of gaming on the Raisin now it's got it's shiney new 1080Ti (CPU @ 4.1, RAM @ 3200 C14). I was blown away by the smoothness of Witcher 3, Fallout 4 took some tweaking to get it to spread the load across the cores a bit better, but that runs very well now too, Assassins creed syndicate looked stunning when I was watching sister play (not my type of game tbh). Project cars was silky smooth. I couldn't be happier!
> It's running on a 165hz 1440p g-sync monitor, I think it broke me, any time I see things on a 60hz monitor/tv now I notice it lol. I need to get the Vive installed and have a go with that.
> 
> I'm gonna put this out there, and anybody can feel free to quote me: Anybody who says Ryzen "sucks" for gaming is flat out lying!
> ...



I got water cooling on the way.  Gets here Monday


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 8, 2017)

What you were experiencing re the stutters sounds like DPC latency issues, phanbuey.  I ran into a few Intel boards that suffered from it if you loaded up all the board specific utilities.  The cure was generally to not load anything but the bare drivers.

Still, Ryzen does seem smoother overall, but I think that's just by virtue of being an 8-core, not an inherent Intel problem.  Having the USB on the CPU-die may help as well.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jun 9, 2017)

Any idea why the discrepancy between both softwares CPU temp wise?


----------



## bencrutz (Jun 9, 2017)

Chicken Patty said:


> Any idea why the discrepancy between both softwares CPU temp wise?


not sure, but probably A-Tuning reads from sensor under the socket, not directly from the ryzen chip. maybe compare it with *CPU *temp under the _*AsRock X370 Taichi*_ on the HWiNFO instead?


----------



## purecain (Jun 9, 2017)

I'm going to buy some more trident rgb, only this time I'm going to buy 2400mhz version and flash them with the 4266mhz spd.

I'm interested to see how lucky I can get, I know there is only a limited quantity of those b-die Samsung chips.

http://www.samsung.com/semiconducto...8/8G_B_DDR4_Samsung_Spec_Rev1.11_Mar.15-2.pdf


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 9, 2017)

purecain said:


> I'm going to buy some more trident rgb, only this time I'm going to buy 2400mhz version and flash them with the 4266mhz spd.
> 
> I'm interested to see how lucky I can get, I know there is only a limited quantity of those b-die Samsung chips.


At that high of a speed, there is plenty of binning going on to get there. If your 2400Mhz sticks could make 4266 with a sane amount of voltage, they would be 4266 sticks. 

Anyway, do tell of your 'flashing' RAM adventures when you try.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jun 9, 2017)

bencrutz said:


> not sure, but probably A-Tuning reads from sensor under the socket, not directly from the ryzen chip. maybe compare it with *CPU *temp under the _*AsRock X370 Taichi*_ on the HWiNFO instead?



yeah, that temperature reading matches with the CPU temp under the motherboard in HWinfo.  So I guess just a different location.  Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## r9 (Jun 9, 2017)

trparky said:


> I know, we're men, we don't read the directions. Directions? Yeah, it's those things I threw in back of the couch.
> 
> If all else fails, read the directions.


Real men read directions not see how it's done, but to see what they did wrong. 
You did it the right way. Lol


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jun 9, 2017)

trparky said:


> I would consider that to be a low-end 1440p monitor, barely worth getting because of the 60Hz limitation. If I were to go 1440p I would get at least 120 Hz. Go big or go home.



You ever happy? You claim to have limited budget, but nothing appears to be good enough for you...


----------



## trparky (Jun 9, 2017)

I'm hoping that some of this high end stuff comes down in price in a couple of months. Besides, in a few more months I'll have a bigger budget to work with. I have nearly a thousand saved up but in a couple of more months I should have another half a grand.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 9, 2017)

trparky said:


> It may not suck for you since you're at 1440p where the bottleneck is in the GPU's court but for those of us who are still gaming at 1080p that's where Ryzen just isn't good enough. Many of us are still playing at 1080p and have no plans to go higher than that. Especially when a good 1440p monitor is damn near half the cost of building the system itself. A good 1440p monitor will cost around $500 USD.


Asus pb278q, they're like 300 iirc and I've gotten some on sale at like 250 a piece. They're awesome.


----------



## trparky (Jun 9, 2017)

Do you have any ideas about a monitor that's more like 23 inches instead. With my dual-monitor setup here a 27 inch monitor would take up way too much room on my desk.


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 9, 2017)

trparky said:


> Do you have any ideas about a monitor that's more like 23 inches instead. With my dual-monitor setup here a 27 inch monitor would take up way too much room on my desk.


The Dell 24" 1440P 144hz is one of the better ones.

It's a little pricey but one of the better picture quality ones:https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...gclid=CKjH75T0sNQCFQeIaQodYigB4Q&gclsrc=aw.ds


----------



## trparky (Jun 9, 2017)

Dell? Um... I don't if you're joking but usually the name Dell is not known for being synonymous with quality. Usually anything Dell is seen as being cheap junk, at least from what I've seen in recent years. Their desktop and notebook lines are cheap trash. It's the reason why I build my computers as versus buying cheaply made trash like what Dell and HP makes.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 9, 2017)

trparky said:


> Dell? Um... I don't if you're joking but usually the name Dell is not known for being synonymous with quality. Usually anything Dell is seen as being cheap junk, at least from what I've seen in recent years. Their desktop and notebook lines are cheap trash. It's the reason why I build my computers as versus buying cheaply made trash like what Dell and HP makes.



Dell aren't a bad brand....  Like most manufacturers they sell cheap and expensive - you get what you pay for.

http://www.pocket-lint.com/review/1...7-review-the-best-15-inch-laptop-in-its-class

As for monitors, they make very goods ones but you need to pay for them.  I'm still on an ancient UH27 or something.  Cost £500+ new.


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 9, 2017)

^ this...

I agree that they are cheap junk for mid range but for whatever reason their monitor department is pretty decent... I mean... who else is making an 8K monitor?

http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell...18k/apd/210-alez/monitors-monitor-accessories


----------



## trparky (Jun 9, 2017)

OK, do I absolutely need G-Sync? Because I'm looking at this monitor and it's significantly cheaper just because it doesn't have G-Sync in it.


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 9, 2017)

trparky said:


> OK, do I absolutely need G-Sync? Because I'm looking at this monitor and it's significantly cheaper just because it doesn't have G-Sync in it.


you dont need gsync, but you do want the 144hz... the gsync overclocks to 165hz from the options panel - not sure if they make a freesync one.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jun 9, 2017)

Dell makes some of the best monitors out there these days, whatever you think. They make a lot of other ho hum products, but their displays are top notch.


----------



## trparky (Jun 9, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> but you do want the 144hz


OK so that one is a no-go.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 11, 2017)

At this point is it worth buying Ryzen 7 since it's prices are a bit cheaper right now (only $300 for the 1700) or should I continue to wait for Threadripper?


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 11, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> At this point is it worth buying Ryzen 7 since it's prices are a bit cheaper right now (only $300 for the 1700) or should I continue to wait for Threadripper?



Personally, I'd go Ryzen.  I find it a nice balance between clocks and single threaded performance.  I don't see threadrippers clocks or inter-CCX communication doing well at all, but maybe that's just me.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 11, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> Personally, I'd go Ryzen.  I find it a nice balance between clocks and single threaded performance.  I don't see threadrippers clocks or inter-CCX communication doing well at all, but maybe that's just me.


The 1998 will turbo to 3.6ghz and the 1998x like 3.7ghz.
edit: I suppose that means they'll have the same performance as existing chips just with more threads. Wondering if 32 threads would be worth an extra $500 and continued waiting vs just getting 16 threads now. Either way a significant upgrade from my 4790k.


----------



## trparky (Jun 11, 2017)

Well there is the fact that you will have to buy a more expensive motherboard than if you go with Ryzen.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 11, 2017)

trparky said:


> Well there is the fact that you will have to buy a more expensive motherboard than if you go with Ryzen.


Yeah,  but it will be a lot better motherboard. I'm just wondering I'm when this summer threadripper is releasing.
edit: Just kind of tired of waiting to buy PC parts (vega, threadripper, etc.). Can't wait until I actually buy them!


----------



## infrared (Jun 11, 2017)

If you have things you'll be doing that use all available threads, then threadripper will be awesome. But for gaming I predict it'll do slightly worse than the R7's due to the number of infinity fabric links adding latency between all the ccx's. I guess we'll see when reviews start trickling in, but it's definitely not a gaming oriented cpu. Clock speeds are still high though so it might do ok. 

It's such a cool time to be a hardware enthusiast!


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 11, 2017)

infrared said:


> If you have things you'll be doing that use all available threads, then threadripper will be awesome. But for gaming I predict it'll do slightly worse than the R7's due to the number of infinity fabric links adding latency between all the ccx's. I guess we'll see when reviews start trickling in, but it's definitely not a gaming oriented cpu. Clock speeds are still high though so it might do ok.
> 
> It's such a cool time to be a hardware enthusiast!


Darn right about being a cool time to be an enthusiast. I also forgot to ask how much stock of these processors you guys tbink there will be. They'll probably be pretty darn popular.


----------



## trparky (Jun 11, 2017)

Apparently the few benchmarking sites that claimed that Starcraft 2 ran like shit on Ryzen were wrong, plain wrong.
Anyone with any variation of ryzen have starcraft 2 performance benchmarks? | Reddit

One person was saying that he had frame rates as high as 150 to 160 FPS on a 1700x overclocked to 3.8 GHz at 1080p@144Hz. That same person used a test map that's just loaded with a ton of units to stress things as far as possible, lowest was 40 FPS. I'm going to have to look at Ryzen again but not until I can get at least another $700 (I have $900 saved up already) for a total around $1600 to not only build a Ryzen system but to go for nVidia as well with a 1440p@144Hz monitor. Now I have to decide if I want to go with the slightly cheaper GTX 1070 or go all in with the GTX 1080ti.

I did do some testing of my own on my current system. When there's a lot of action on the screen the MSI Afterburner overlay was telling me that the GPU was getting absolutely hammered to hell and back with 100% usage the whole damn time yet CPU usage was barely 50% yet FPS was dropping in the low 30s. That tells me my bottleneck is the GPU, the R9 380 just can't cope.

Why oh why did I buy this cheap ass video card?


----------



## infrared (Jun 11, 2017)

You'd probably get a good price for that graphics card at the minute, with the mining craze going on! And good to hear it does better than we thought in Starcraft 2 as well.

I installed overwatch the other day and the 1800x was having no trouble at all maxing out the 1080ti, it was pinned at 99% all the time it was below 165fps (monitor refresh rate) and getting up to that 165fps pretty often. (all settings maxed at 1440p) I need to get some time in on that game now, I'm a total noob on it at the moment!  This is the first time I've played a first person shooter with a monitor capable of displaying such a crazy frame rate, it's a cool experience! I don't think I could go back to a 60hz monitor ever again now..

So far these games i've tried all run stunningly well on this hardware: overwatch, witcher 3, assassins creed syndicate, project cars, alien isolation..
as mentioned before, Fallout 4 is the only game I've tried that has problems, just because it's not coded well for multi threading. But it runs great most (>90%) of the time.

Just finished installing Prey, I'll try that out tomorrow, looks interesting.

I'm still not fully maxed out on the RAM clocks either, I'm back on the 1002 bios for the crosshair at the moment so running at 3200 14-14-14-34, but it's capable of running it at 3700mhz with base clock overclocking or with elmor's beta bios wither higher memory dividers. I flashed back due to weird stability issues while running WCG, but when the next official bios comes out supporting higher speeds it'll be pretty cool!


----------



## _larry (Jun 11, 2017)

Very pleased with my 1600X purchase. It's at 4ghz~ right now. Going to see how far I can push it on air and then move to my liquid cooler.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 12, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> The 1998 will turbo to 3.6ghz and the 1998x like 3.7ghz.
> edit: I suppose that means they'll have the same performance as existing chips just with more threads. Wondering if 32 threads would be worth an extra $500 and continued waiting vs just getting 16 threads now. Either way a significant upgrade from my 4790k.



Is that known, or speculation?

I'm a bit behind in news stuff, been spending most of this week taking care of my father from surgery for prostate cancer.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 12, 2017)

trparky said:


> Apparently the few benchmarking sites that claimed that Starcraft 2 ran like shit on Ryzen were wrong, plain wrong.
> Anyone with any variation of ryzen have starcraft 2 performance benchmarks? | Reddit
> 
> One person was saying that he had frame rates as high as 150 to 160 FPS on a 1700x overclocked to 3.8 GHz at 1080p@144Hz. That same person used a test map that's just loaded with a ton of units to stress things as far as possible, lowest was 40 FPS. I'm going to have to look at Ryzen again but not until I can get at least another $700 (I have $900 saved up already) for a total around $1600 to not only build a Ryzen system but to go for nVidia as well with a 1440p@144Hz monitor. Now I have to decide if I want to go with the slightly cheaper GTX 1070 or go all in with the GTX 1080ti.


Benchmarks can be misleading, because you never


R-T-B said:


> Is that known, or speculation?
> 
> I'm a bit behind in news stuff, been spending most of this week taking care of my father from surgery for prostate cancer.


I think it's mostly speculative, but I'm thinking it's gonna be really close to release clock speeds.
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/250258-amd-cuts-ryzen-7-prices-readies-threadripper-cpus
http://www.pcgamer.com/amds-ryzen-9-threadripper-cpu-lineup-leaked/

Also sorry about your dad. I hope the surgery went well. Fuck cancer.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 12, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> Also sorry about your dad. I hope the surgery went well. Fuck cancer.



It did, actaully.  They weren't even sure if they could do the surgery because he fell two stories from a ladder last year and thus his hip is reassembled from steel plates and screws.  But they did, the cancer is out, and I should be back to newsposts soon.

Thank goodness for Ryzen.  What little time away I have has been spent tweaking it, and I love that.


----------



## Cvrk (Jun 12, 2017)

Looking at the table in the link below 
https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-review-benchmarks
If i OC the clockspeed does the Turbo boost as well? 
For example on a Ryzen 1700x if rased the clockspeed from 3,4 to 3,6 ,will it increase the Turbo to 4ghz ?


----------



## infrared (Jun 12, 2017)

No, overclocking overrides the turbo and xfr. When overclocking normally it'll be at whatever clockspeed you set at all times. If you want to overclock and keep power saving features you need to set the P-States so that it drops the frequency and voltage when your system is under light or no load. I didn't bother with this because running WCG it's under full load all the time, but it's probably worth spending the time getting right.


----------



## Johan45 (Jun 12, 2017)

infrared said:


> No, overclocking overrides the turbo and xfr. When overclocking normally it'll be at whatever clockspeed you set at all times. If you want to overclock and keep power saving features you need to set the P-States so that it drops the frequency and voltage when your system is under light or no load. I didn't bother with this because running WCG it's under full load all the time, but it's probably worth spending the time getting right.



Setting the p-state is so easy, takes about two minutes. That's how I have my 1600x HTPC set up now. 4.0 with a .02V offset and LLC at 2. If you already have your OC down it's just a matter of changing the P-state setting and rebooting. DONE


----------



## infrared (Jun 12, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> Setting the p-state is so easy, takes about two minutes. That's how I have my 1600x HTPC set up now. 4.0 with a .02V offset and LLC at 2. If you already have your OC down it's just a matter of changing the P-state setting and rebooting. DONE


Thanks, I'll see if I can get that dialed in tonight.


----------



## Johan45 (Jun 12, 2017)

Easiest way , if you already have your offset figured, go to AMD CBS Custom Pstates and open up Pstate 0 and it will already be set at your OC numbers so nothing to figure out. Leave it on custom go back to tweaker and set core ratio on auto and disable core boost. Core boost is important for those running the "X" variant. If your PC doesn't boot and goes into a "safe" boot it holds your offset but the Pstate is gone so It boots into XFR ( if not disabled)  plus your offset and can give some pretty large voltages


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 12, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> Easiest way , if you already have your offset figured, go to AMD CBS Custom Pstates and open up Pstate 0 and it will already be set at your OC numbers so nothing to figure out. Leave it on custom go back to tweaker and set core ratio on auto and disable core boost. Core boost is important for those running the "X" variant. If your PC doesn't boot and goes into a "safe" boot it holds your offset but the Pstate is gone so It boots into XFR ( if not disabled)  plus your offset and can give some pretty large voltages



im going to try that today... the offset bumps my voltages into the 1.52 range from 1.45


----------



## Johan45 (Jun 12, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> im going to try that today... the offset bumps my voltages into the 1.52 range from 1.45


Does the prime have the custom P-State option?


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 12, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> Does the prime have the custom P-State option?



Not sure - but there is a CoreBoost option that I just left set at 'auto' ...  Maybe I misread, but I thought your post mentioned that this might be kicking off the voltage boost when sitting at a flat overclock.

i.e. the chip sits at 1.45 but at load creeps up to 1.524 and stays there until the load eases off.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 12, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> Setting the p-state is so easy, takes about two minutes. That's how I have my 1600x HTPC set up now. 4.0 with a .02V offset and LLC at 2. If you already have your OC down it's just a matter of changing the P-state setting and rebooting. DONE


You got a stable 4ghz oc that easily?


----------



## Johan45 (Jun 12, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> You got a stable 4ghz oc that easily?


This 1600X is a good sample, much better than average IMO. It's almost stable at stock and this is with a not so good CM V8 that has sat here for three years. That wasn't a wise purchase.



phanbuey said:


> Not sure - but there is a CoreBoost option that I just left set at 'auto' ...  Maybe I misread, but I thought your post mentioned that this might be kicking off the voltage boost when sitting at a flat overclock.
> 
> i.e. the chip sits at 1.45 but at load creeps up to 1.524 and stays there until the load eases off.


Yeah the XFR/CPB will kick the voltage up but I'm surprised your CPU would be using that much. You can't rely on a lot of SW for accurate voltage reporting.


----------



## Aenra (Jun 13, 2017)

Will be interesting to see how close to our expectations Threadrippers will come (considering they're basically two R7s interposed).

I've yet to draw conclusions out of thin air like others, we have a quad band to take into consideration this time and also, those 3 12core variants. That 1976X shows speeds we wouldn't have been expecting on a 12core R7, so that gives me some pause.

edit: On the other hand, because fair is fair, this may well all be moot. Those new i9 IMCs.. 4,2 and 4,4 GHz quad RAM freqs? If that happens, no way we're looking at a 7-10ish% performance difference, not again. Which is really sad, i wish they could compare similarly again. AMD needs the financial boost and we sure need someone to bring some variety and competition back to the table. They did in the mainstream segment, they need it in HEDT as well


----------



## Johan45 (Jun 13, 2017)

Aenra said:


> Will be interesting to see how close to our expectations Threadrippers will come (considering they're basically two R7s interposed).
> 
> I've yet to draw conclusions out of thin air like others, we have a quad band to take into consideration this time and also, those 3 12core variants. That 1976X shows speeds we wouldn't have been expecting on a 12core R7, so that gives me some pause.
> 
> edit: On the other hand, because fair is fair, this may well all be moot. Those new i9 IMCs.. 4,2 and 4,4 GHz quad RAM freqs? If that happens, no way we're looking at a 7-10ish% performance difference, not again. Which is really sad, i wish they could compare similarly again. AMD needs the financial boost and we sure need someone to bring some variety and competition back to the table. They did in the mainstream segment, they need it in HEDT as well


It'll really depend on consumers and how much they're willing to pay for that extra performance. Getting a 16c 32t for the price of an 8c 16t intel might convince some to go red


----------



## trparky (Jun 13, 2017)

I was watching a video in which they were talking about some kind of "one-click overclocking" on some Asus board. It was some kind of software that you run in Windows, it did some kind of auto overclock and test process for you to determine just how far you can overclock your chip. I think they were talking about it using a RoG motherboard but I have to wonder if it will work on any Asus motherboard. Anyone try?


----------



## GoldenX (Jun 13, 2017)

Had something similar on an old AMD 770 MSI board, it's not so good at determining limits.


----------



## trparky (Jun 13, 2017)

And since I'm looking at Asus motherboard for a future Ryzen build (I need to save up another $600 since I'm throwing in a GTX 1080 into the mix), I have to wonder if I should go with the B350-Plus or the X370-Pro. What they want for the RoG board is well... insane. $240 for just the motherboard is insane.


----------



## _JP_ (Jun 13, 2017)

trparky said:


> I was watching a video in which they were talking about some kind of "one-click overclocking" on some Asus board. It was some kind of software that you run in Windows, it did some kind of auto overclock and test process for you to determine just how far you can overclock your chip. I think they were talking about it using a RoG motherboard but I have to wonder if it will work on any Asus motherboard. Anyone try?


That is an old ASUS feature that goes way back to the Pentium4/Athlon64 days...back then as AI Booster, IIRC.
I used it...it was hit-or-miss. Usually, voltage tuning wasn't that good, it was just getting the highest clock possible to boot on [auto] or a fixed percentage above stock.
Considering we're in the days of "turbo" and XFR...I'm not seeing that feature being much of an advantage.


trparky said:


> And since I'm looking at Asus motherboard for a future Ryzen build (I need to save up another $600 since I'm throwing in a GTX 1080 into the mix), I have to wonder if I should go with the B350-Plus or the X370-Pro. What they want for the RoG board is well... insane. $240 for just the motherboard is insane.


Well, X370 boards are usually paired with better power delivery for overclocking stability, plus other extras...


----------



## Johan45 (Jun 13, 2017)

trparky said:


> I was watching a video in which they were talking about some kind of "one-click overclocking" on some Asus board. It was some kind of software that you run in Windows, it did some kind of auto overclock and test process for you to determine just how far you can overclock your chip. I think they were talking about it using a RoG motherboard but I have to wonder if it will work on any Asus motherboard. Anyone try?


Just out of curiosity I have tried it and honestly it sucks, it's part of AISuite It wasn't what I would consider stable and left my ram in the dust. Just google asus 5 way optimization. You can read about some of the fun other have had with it.


----------



## trparky (Jun 13, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> left my ram in the dust


What? Are you saying that it physically killed your RAM modules?


----------



## Johan45 (Jun 13, 2017)

NO it set them back to default during the OC process. The whole thing was a mess IMO. Personally I'll never use it again


----------



## trparky (Jun 13, 2017)

If given the choice between the ASUS B350-Plus or the X370-Pro, which would you choose? Or if none of them, recommend another one.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 14, 2017)

Does anybody here know how an x5650 xeon fares against an r7 1700 (or a dual x5650)? I'm thinking about replacing that system with it and want to make sure it's an actual upgrade, not either a downgrade or a useless sidegrade.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 14, 2017)

trparky said:


> If given the choice between the ASUS B350-Plus or the X370-Pro, which would you choose? Or if none of them, recommend another one.



X370-Pro is what I'd choose out of those.

EDIT:  And if you do not care about a ton of broken p-state (energy saving) functionality in bios, I am rather pleased with my gigabyte aorus gaming 5.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 14, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> X370-Pro is what I'd choose out of those.


Definitely


----------



## Sempron Guy (Jun 14, 2017)

G.Skill Aegis 2x4GB DDR4 2400 cl15
OC: Running at 3066mhz cl16-15-16-34-50 1T
Asrock x370 Taichi 2.40 bios

prior to the update I could not boot past 2400mhz


----------



## purecain (Jun 14, 2017)

new bios available 1401 https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?91766-Crosshair-VI-Hero-UEFI-build-1401


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 14, 2017)

purecain said:


> new bios available 1401 https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?91766-Crosshair-VI-Hero-UEFI-build-1401



Beta of course, just to let folk know.

I'm not experiencing any issues so I'm sticking on my current BIOS (pre AGESA)


----------



## trparky (Jun 14, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> gigabyte aorus gaming 5


I heard somewhere that Gigabyte's QC went to hell at some point and to avoid them like the plague.

I was looking at several AsRock boards but without a dual-BIOS setup I'm kind of leery of buying them since you're one bad UEFI flash away from Bricksville, population... You. Why in God's name they didn't include dual-BIOS when other board makers have included it for years I have no idea. At least with a dual-BIOS setup if a bad flash did occur a couple of reboots of the board triggers the board to go into fail safe mode and copies the last known good UEFI from it into the working UEFI space to get the board to function again.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 14, 2017)

I didnt hear that about gigabyte...I feel like anything suggested someone can poke holes in it...so, grab what you want if you are going to do that. 

Re: flashing... i guess, maybe, some boards work like that (i doubt it)??? Typically however, there are two bios chips. On some, higher end boards, there is a switch you can use to manually flip between bios'. On mainstream boards, it will just use the other flash...i dont think there is this copying to and fro thing you are talking about...its just there and used when there is a failure. You can put a bios on it, but no reindeer games of copying one to the other i  a failure state, it just boots from the other.


----------



## kurosagi01 (Jun 14, 2017)

Not sure if its right place to post but..
I've been contemplating on upgrading to AMD ryzen 5 for awhile now..is it worth upgrading my system*see system specs*?
I mainly use it for watching anime,movies and occasionally play games but when i do play games i still like playing major titles and i also do android programming if necessary for work. Only reason i have contemplating on upgrading is because it fell behind on rise of tomb raider on max settings at 1080p which i don't know whether its down to bottleneck from the CPU or the GPU or both.
The setup i'm looking at is:
AMD ryzen 5 1600
MSI B350 tomahawk
2x(4GB)8GB Corsair DDR4 Vengeance LPX 3000mhz 15-17-17-35

I will be looking at upgrading the GPU too but i am waiting on what AMD vegas has to offer or get RX580,i will be sticking with 1080p resolution but i may look at getting 1440p 144hz monitor aswell in future.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 14, 2017)

Seems the cpu thread is being taken over by build help requests...

...best to start your own thread, imo...


----------



## kurosagi01 (Jun 14, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Seems the cpu thread is being taken over by build help requests...
> 
> ...best to start your own thread, imo...


No worries earthdog


----------



## purecain (Jun 15, 2017)

so I'm on the asus ch6 web site earlier today... they updated the bios and elmore posted it on a filesharing website that's banned in the uk. I used a vpn to dll the file. yet when I posted Initially to let them know I used acronyms like wtf and ffs. I then went back into what I had written seconds later and deleted the acronyms as I was coming off as passive aggressive.
anyway raja pipes up and starts telling me off for using acronyms of expletives even though I had immediately deleted them. he also added that we all jumped on the bandwagon and shouldn't expect any support or technical info.  its lucky this guy isn't AMD as a whole because id never buy anything amd ever again.  to correct him, we bought early because amd released them in supposedly working condition and we wanted to support AMD. or at least I did.
I especially don't appreciate being told I'm a follower for buying the chipset on release. how could I build a pc for a customer if I didn't know how long it would work before needing attention.
so another bios has arrived months after the last and it has introduced new bugs to my build. I sat with error c0 for a good hour. until I finally managed to get back into the bios.

So now we have memory companies making ram which conforms to the new standards.
the highest AMD bin is 3466mhz. so do not waste money on highly binned ram for this system. the dividers will never work. if the engineers at g.skill couldn't hit 3600mhz stable I doubt this is something we will be able to achieve.





I have some 3466mhz single sided b-die g.skill ddr4 on the way. it should be here in a few days and I will report if it also hits 3466mhz like my other gtzr 4000mhz dims.


----------



## Cvrk (Jun 15, 2017)




----------



## Aenra (Jun 16, 2017)

Guys i got confused.. spare me a trip to my cousin's or my dad's please ^^

Assuming an 1800X with 4 cores disabled, aka 4 - 0; how much L3 is available to me? Its entirety, or half?

(i'm asking in anticipation of R9s)


----------



## toilet pepper (Jun 16, 2017)

trparky said:


> I heard somewhere that Gigabyte's QC went to hell at some point and to avoid them like the plague.
> 
> I was looking at several AsRock boards but without a dual-BIOS setup I'm kind of leery of buying them since you're one bad UEFI flash away from Bricksville, population... You. Why in God's name they didn't include dual-BIOS when other board makers have included it for years I have no idea. At least with a dual-BIOS setup if a bad flash did occur a couple of reboots of the board triggers the board to go into fail safe mode and copies the last known good UEFI from it into the working UEFI space to get the board to function again.[/QUOTE
> 
> I haven't heard anything about GB boards having a problem with QC but those MSI VRMs are something I'm worried about. They cheaped out on the VRMs on their boards. It does not mean it ain't capable but cheapping out when yoi charge a premium just leaves a bad taste.


----------



## Aenra (Jun 16, 2017)

I read that post @toilet pepper but to be honest?

- Too many Asus fanboys around in this place, not worth the effort even mentioning anything else.
- TParky (and honestly, 101% no offense to him) is a bit of an odd customer.. his comments are so often contradicting, or implying distinct, varied mentalities fused into the same one person, lol, that...

Have used the Gigabyte K7 twice, in two different rigs. Zero issues, zero hussle.
Cannot comment about cheaper mobos as i've got no experience, but what i _can_ say?

AM4 is at best a $250 cost. At best. If people wanna be cheapskates, buy $150 mobos and then wonder or complain why they cannot do anything.. their fault, not mine. We're talking peanuts here, so employ some semblance of sense and stay on the safe side of things, especially since here at least, you _can_. Because cheap.
I know the K7 has the right switch on it (and it's the only Gigabyte mobo sporting said switch), i know it sports all the necessary tuning settings required for R7s.
(and yes, i've read the same complaints you all have)

- They _do_ have an issue with BIOS updates, they are indeed slower than everyone else. So far this hasn't been an issue for me as i've never had to 'wait' for an update. Was O.K. as it was, K7 included.
- They _do_ have a zero presense in online forums.

edit: however, their online support is quick.. i had need of it for my X99 mobo, both times i got a response within the next day (and i mean response, not the usual outsourced support stuff, being asked the basics three times over; they immediately replied with suggestions). Assuming a second reply was needed (was for me), subsequent replies were made within the same day.

post edit: When i had to conctact Asus, first time it took a week, second time? Bout three months now and still waiting.. cool company


----------



## trparky (Jun 16, 2017)

Yeah, I can be a strange one indeed. 

What's wrong with ASUS? Their hardware is usually pretty stable.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Jun 16, 2017)

trparky said:


> Yeah, I can be a strange one indeed.
> 
> What's wrong with ASUS? Their hardware is usually pretty stable.


Their customer support makes Comcast look like the pcmasterrace vs console  peasants.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 16, 2017)

trparky said:


> Yeah, I can be a strange one indeed.
> 
> What's wrong with ASUS? Their hardware is usually pretty stable.


Nothing more than any other... some customer service horror stories, but, never heard more from that camp as opposed to any other.


----------



## Aenra (Jun 16, 2017)

I just think that it's overated, overhyped and that by now, important this, by now, no longer what it was but instead significantly declined; again, for me.

I think that barring exceptions (and these can only be gleaned after a good amount of time/research and assuming proper reviews are availabe [ie not "presentations" like this site does]), they are a company that shouldn't be number one in people's minds anymore.

And last but not least, the above in mind, its high end stuff is thus highly overpriced compared to those of other brands. At times, you can get both better performance and a lower price if you look elsewhere.
Again, just me.

(and irrelevant, but if only ASRock moved on to a UEFI that wasn't a clone of Asus's [ten thousands clicks and twenty sub-sections just for kids to feel cool], i'd actually rate it higher than Gigabyte, _assuming_ cost was no factor)


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jun 17, 2017)

So far what I've gotten it stable at.  1.376v and 3.8 GHz.  Earlier I had tried 1.360v and 3.9GHz and failed.  So I'll try 3.9GHz at this voltage to see if it passes.  The water cooling literally dropped my 100% load temperatures from 85ºC at 3.2GHz and 1.200v to 65.5ºC at 3.8GHz and 1.376v.  Room is about 72ºF for both tests.  Massive difference.


----------



## Nuckles56 (Jun 17, 2017)

Chicken Patty said:


> So far what I've gotten it stable at.  1.376v and 3.8 GHz.  Earlier I had tried 1.360v and 3.9GHz and failed.  So I'll try 3.9GHz at this voltage to see if it passes.  The water cooling literally dropped my 100% load temperatures from 85º at 3.2GHz and 1.200v to 65.5º at 3.8GHz and 1.376v.  Room is about 72ºF for both tests.  Massive difference.


Why with the mixed temperature units? I find that really frustrating.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 17, 2017)

Nuckles56 said:


> Why with the mixed temperature units? I find that really frustrating.



Probably because all software reads out in C, and we don't measure in anything but F in the USA.


----------



## Nuckles56 (Jun 17, 2017)

Most software does have options to got to Fahrenheit if you so desire though, which is why I said something


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jun 17, 2017)

I'm just used to Celsius when it comes to PC readings, seems more of a standard, or maybe not.  Clear enough to understand though. I've gone ahead and edited so it's even more understandable


----------



## Aenra (Jun 17, 2017)

Chicken Patty said:


> I'm just used to Celsius when it comes to PC readings



Yeah, more practical too. Mention Celsius in relation to PC temps, everyone understands you, because all software defaults to C. Mention Fahrenheits and you're bound to confuse some people


----------



## Johan45 (Jun 17, 2017)

I went through the transition of Imperial to metric in grade school so have learned both and some of the conversions. There's a simple conversion for F° to C° which is (F°-32°)/1.8. Using 2 instead of 1.8 makes this easier and close enough. 72°-32°=40°/2= 20°C


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 17, 2017)

Nuckles56 said:


> Why with the mixed temperature units? I find that really frustrating.


Pc in general has used C since i have been involved (2 decades). Anyone (here) saying F when talking pcs is confusing.


----------



## Johan45 (Jun 17, 2017)

I have no idea why some countries are so stubborn and refuse to conform ( resistance is futile), Metric is so damn easy compared to Imperial, that shit used to make my head hurt.


----------



## TommyT (Jun 17, 2017)

i just notice that mt top xft is top only to 3.4ghz ?

amd ryzen 1600 its not getting to 3.6ghz top?


----------



## Johan45 (Jun 18, 2017)

TommyT said:


> i just notice that mt top xft is top only to 3.4ghz ?
> 
> amd ryzen 1600 its not getting to 3.6ghz top?



When you're in windows start cpuz and then right click on it. You should see a list of all core speeds you might not be seeing the top speed on core one.


----------



## HTC (Jun 18, 2017)

Finally found a TaiChi board in my neck of the woods, so i made the order and should receive the parts in a few days.

I'll try to get it working with Win 7 but if i can't, already have an Ubuntu USB drive ready: should be a crash course in Linux because i've never used Linux before!


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jun 18, 2017)

HTC said:


> Finally found a TaiChi board in my neck of the woods, so i made the order and should receive the parts in a few days.
> 
> I'll try to get it working with Win 7 but if i can't, already have an Ubuntu USB drive ready: should be a crash course in Linux because i've never used Linux before!


If you need any help with that board, let me know.  Been messing around with it a bit since I got it


----------



## purecain (Jun 18, 2017)

Aenra said:


> Guys i got confused.. spare me a trip to my cousin's or my dad's please ^^
> 
> Assuming an 1800X with 4 cores disabled, aka 4 - 0; how much L3 is available to me? Its entirety, or half?
> 
> (i'm asking in anticipation of R9s)


the entirety...
I also picked this little gem up which will definatly help all overclocking on the chipset... these settings are from the c6h but should be on other 3rd party boards.
The Stilt 6/16/17

Those who are able to train the memory at high speeds (>=3466MHz), but are unable to stabilize it due to signaling issues, I suggest that you try decreasing the "Command & Address" related drive currents (increasing the resistance).

AMD CBS > UMC Common Options > DDR4 Common Options > CAD Bus Configuration > CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls:

Clock Drive Strength = 30.0Ohm
Address / Command Drive Strength = 30.0Ohm
CS / ODT Drive Strength = 30.0Ohm
CKE Drive Strength = 30.0Ohm

24.0Ohm is the default value for all of them, at >=2666MHz MEMCLK (regardless of the DRAM configuration).

These values are not very sensitive so anything up to 60Ohms should allow you to train the memory.

At default settings (24.0Ohms) anything above 3466MHz was unstable due to signaling issues (only B2 DIMM slot was able to run 3600MHz stable).

so it looks to me like the important settings for getting all ram working are coming to light...
procODT  @ 80ohms was the sweet spot for my b-die @3466mhz.
now I know the limiting factor for setting 3600mhz thanks to the the stilts advice above. I'm looking forward to testing these out. the possibility of higher clocks is a great news! 
I seem to be getting better performance in cpu-z aswell.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jun 21, 2017)

I love this latest agesa 1.0.0.6 update, I have 2x8GB *dual rank* sticks of *mismatched RAM and* have them both running at 2800mhz (their rated speeds) I couldn't run both sticks above 2133 on 1.0.0.4 and ohhhhh it tastes all the more sweeter knowing that I have them on a $60 Asrock board that can also clock my 1600 non-X to 3.9ghz @1.35v all day long, it's good to see AMD back in the game, though I guess I could of bought an i5 4c/4t for the same as my Ryzen 1600.....


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 21, 2017)

im having issues... 1.0.0.4 runs at 3200Mhz stable 1.35v but wont even post at that on 1.0.0.6 - :/ gonna have to wait for the non-beta i think...


----------



## purecain (Jun 21, 2017)

try going through the procodt settings. start at around 40ohms and keep moving it up one each time. I meant to put that 60ohms was the sweet spot for my kit. when ive looked at other threads across the net. I found maybe another 10 people saying they had found stability with that setting at 60ohms.... good luck anyway phanbuey.


----------



## Norton (Jun 21, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> *I love this latest agesa 1.0.0.6 update*, I have 2x8GB *dual rank* sticks of *mismatched RAM and* have them both running at 2800mhz (their rated speeds) I couldn't run both sticks above 2133 on 1.0.0.4 and ohhhhh it tastes all the more sweeter knowing that I have them on a $60 Asrock board that can also clock my 1600 non-X to 3.9ghz @1.35v all day long, it's good to see AMD back in the game, though I guess I could of bought an i5 4c/4t for the same as my Ryzen 1600.....



+1-  Asrock did a nice job on their boards with this update!
 My Trident Z sticks (F4-3200C16D-16GTZB) are running 3200 and they loaded their XMP profile first shot with no problem at all


----------



## Aenra (Jun 22, 2017)

Off topic, but i didn't want to start a Threadripper thread (before they're even out).

Wanted some opinions really.. I'm planning for a second rig and what i'm thinking is a bit.. well, you'll see 
- i don't want to go below or over 8 cores
- i want quad band, not dual
- i want it to be AMD
- better freqs obviously a bonus

Which would restrict me to some R9, or would have, if it wasn't for the core count. So what i'm currently having in mind is:

- buy the R9 flagship (16c/32t). I get me the quad band. Why the flagship you ask?
- disable an entire die; i keep it as an 8core. Why not buy a cheaper R9 and keep it 8core? Core configuration, that's one + this way, i only have one complex active no matter what, so i escape the CCX-to-CCX latency 'penalties'. And this is the only way to do that.
- extra bonus? Running it as 4+4 - 0+0 or 0+0 - 4+4 means i get double chance at getting a good OCing result; be it in higher freqs with either setup, or at the least, with a lower voltage. Do one, write down highest freq/voltage, do opposite and see which is best.
- possibly buy a binned one from siliconlottery.com, do the above, hope for a 4.2ish GHz 8core; ie basically an 1800X with quad channel RAM, lol

Now obviously, money for nothing, i know; i pay for the flagship and i end up running it as an 8core. But.. i don't want fewer cores, i don't want the CCX-to-CCX latency and i do want me the quad channel; most of all, i do _not_ want to buy a second Intel, i personally think AMD has earned my support again.
As such, excluding the price issue (they're so much cheaper anyway, it's... O.K.), what do you guys think? 

And most importantly (as i haven't disabled cores thus far in any R7, don't know how it goes), would i be able to achieve higher freqs the less cores i've got on? Not sure how it goes with Zens in this aspect, never even tried as neither build was mine.


----------



## Johan45 (Jun 22, 2017)

I'm not certain on the intricacies but the way I understood was 2 channels are handle by each die(2 X CCX) that's why epyc can handle soooo much ram in "8" channel. As for the OC that's just luck of the draw and I haven't seen anywhere that disabling parts of the complex actually get it any higher. 
What I can't understand is WHY ? If you need 8 cores/16t, why wouldn't 16c/32t be even better assuming you have the multithreaded SW to begin with. Double cores should more than make up for anf latency or Overclock penalty.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 22, 2017)

You won't escape inter-ccx penalties as you still use the l3 cache and memory controller from the disabled die.


----------



## Aenra (Jun 22, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> the way I understood was 2 channels are handle by each die(2 X CCX)



If that's so, we have our answer already 
Can anyone else verify this?

As to the rest of your question.. valid point, but it's about good measure. With what i do, anything near 8cores is fine. More is just bonus, not must. On the contrary, when i'm not into work/music and as such do not need all them cores, freqs come to be of some import. I will be using it for "mainstream"/"casual" stuff as well, you know?
So, a bit of both worlds is where i'm (currently) leaning towards.

@R-T-B hmm, i see. My impression was that with one die "dead", the L3 would only be occupied from one die and as such there'd no need for the extra 'hops'. Dumb huh..
Thanks for the info 

edit: dammit, i really want to buy something AMD this time around.. aaarrgh, lol


----------



## Johan45 (Jun 22, 2017)

Aenra said:


> If that's so, we have our answer already
> Can anyone else verify this?
> 
> As to the rest of your question.. valid point, but it's about good measure. With what i do, anything near 8cores is fine. More is just bonus, not must. On the contrary, when i'm not into work/music and as such do not need all them cores, freqs come to be of some import. I will be using it for "mainstream"/"casual" stuff as well, you know?
> ...


This is about Epyc but the Thread ripper works the same way.


> Within the processor, each chip has three IF links, one to each of the other three chips. Each link runs at up to 42GB/s in each direction. The speed of these links matches the 42GB/s of memory bandwidth offered by the two channels of 2,667MHz DDR4 memory that each individual chip supports, and what this means is that any one chip within the Epyc MCM can use the full memory bandwidth of the entire processor without bottlenecks.



So why wouldn't you just throw down fan an 1800x, best chance of higher clocks on all eight cores


----------



## Aenra (Jun 22, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> So why wouldn't you just throw down fan an 1800x, best chance of higher clocks on all eight cores



Greed, lol? Wanted the best of both 
Will obviously be waiting, i wanna see some tests first, but.. as you can see, better i asked first ^^


----------



## FightingFalcon (Jun 23, 2017)

Has anyone tried fiddling with lowering the frequency of idle cores on this beast to improve power consumption?


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 23, 2017)

FightingFalcon said:


> Has anyone tried fiddling with lowering the frequency of idle cores on this beast to improve power consumption?


its already idle... using barely any power... why would we choose that?


----------



## Johan45 (Jun 23, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> its already idle... using barely any power... why would we choose that?


If you alter Pstate 0 it will alter the remaining Pstates speed, that would be one reason. Just because you can would be another


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jun 23, 2017)

What cooler would you suggest


----------



## Johan45 (Jun 23, 2017)

Any good air cooler will do fine. These aren't nearly as hot as the FX were.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jun 23, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> Any good air cooler will do fine. These aren't nearly as hot as the FX were.


Any suggestions

Ryzen 1600


----------



## Johan45 (Jun 24, 2017)

I'm running a 1600x at 3.93 with a crappy CM V8 11 hrs on P95. I would go for one of the smaller noctuas if you don't want to put out for the D15. I have one and it's great. Cool and quiet


----------



## Johan45 (Jun 25, 2017)

Here's some work I did this weekend on the MSI Titanium


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jun 25, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> I'm running a 1600x at 3.93 with a crappy CM V8 11 hrs on P95. I would go for one of the smaller noctuas if you don't want to put out for the D15. I have one and it's great. Cool and quiet


V8 is far from crappy


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 26, 2017)

Durvelle27 said:


> V8 is far from crappy


Its far from great, too.. frighteningly mediocre?


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jun 26, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Its far from great, too.. frighteningly mediocre?


Alright sell it to me


----------



## Johan45 (Jun 26, 2017)

I bought that V8 when I was in a pinch once and for the money I spent it was not worth it. A Noctua wouldn't have been much more and by far superior TBH . This V8 isn't much better than a Hyper 212 IMO


----------



## purecain (Jun 26, 2017)

Id say the reason we arnt all using the features available because in my case anyway, is because I'm still on a beta bios. as soon as the official bios arrives I imagine most will spend hours trying to tune the bios to park most of the cores it isn't using. this system isn't that power hungry though. the power draw and heat goes up so much over 4.1 that it just isn't worth it. the cpu is already very fast. if amd could design a version that could hit 4.5 -5ghz we would be in 7700k territory. until then most of us will be @ 3.9-4.1ghz using 280-350w.
also there are many old threads which show the wrong levels of performance. basically with slow ram. these threads are misleading and a lot of opinions about this chips performance are way off. this chip equals the 4770k single core and beats it single core with fast ram. it literally doubles multicore performance across the board.  those that can keep their 4770k's cool will still have great gaming performance. but there is no comparison when you look at absolutely anything else. I'm really happy with my 1800x and 3466mhz ram. on an m.2 windows is almost instant. games load in seconds. desktop performance is accelerated. just amazing. my boot time is about 10s.


----------



## Johan45 (Jun 26, 2017)

You're right puecain, once you get past the quirks it really is a decent system. Would be nice if AMD could pick up the speed a bit but not likely till the nest release IMO


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jun 26, 2017)

Is the MSI B350 Gamig Pro a decent board


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 26, 2017)

Better asked in your build thread.. this is about CPUs, not your build thread bud.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jun 26, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Better asked in your build thread.. this is about CPUs, not your build thread bud.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 26, 2017)

LOL, better than spamming the forums with info requests for builds...

For what your uses are on that machine, it will be fine.. get your head out of the minutia and order your damn machine already.


----------



## trparky (Jun 28, 2017)

I've seen the name "Kyzen" thrown about being connected to the AMD. I'm assuming that it's connected to the Zen architecture but beyond that there's not much more. Anyone else have anymore ideas?


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jun 28, 2017)

Welp I'm excited, my Ryzen build is almost complete


----------



## Cvrk (Jun 28, 2017)




----------



## phanbuey (Jun 28, 2017)

so got the memory stable at 3333 mhz 14-15-15-36 2T - 1.4v on ram (probably excessive, will be dropping) and 1.15v on the SOC - latency down from 73ns to 68ns (aida) - noticeable improvement in the witcher 3 and consistent 1835-1840 cinebench scores...

I notice i have so much less stutter with the "Cinebench 15" Asus performance bias - it is by far the smoothest system i have ever had.


----------



## Cvrk (Jun 29, 2017)

@phanbuey  is this the motherboard you are using ?
http://www.pcgarage.ro/placi-de-baza/asus/prime-x370-pro/


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 29, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> @phanbuey  is this the motherboard you are using ?
> http://www.pcgarage.ro/placi-de-baza/asus/prime-x370-pro/


@Cvrk yeah thats the one.


----------



## purecain (Jul 1, 2017)

so much for ryzen pro - https://hothardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-pro-announced-on-chip-memory-virtualization-encryption


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 3, 2017)

this video really helped me with the ram overclocking... skip to 4 minutes for intro, 4:30 for start of tutorial.  Starts super basic but then goes into termination voltages that helped me stabilize, also ranks which voltages give you the best bang for the buck stabilization.


----------



## VulkanBros (Jul 5, 2017)

So I finally switched my FX-9590 to a RYZEN 1700X
The FX ran at 5.2 GHz ....
What have you guys & girls got it running at? 
What can I expect on this hardware:
ASUS Crosshair VI Hero (BIOS v. 1401)
RYZEN 1700X
Corsair Dominator 3200 MHz (CMD16GX4M2B3200C16 - v4.31)


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 5, 2017)

Probably 4 GHz +/- .2 GHz, I don't see anyone exceeding that range honestly, it's pretty predictable lol.

You'll want to run your ram at at least full speed, which is sometimes easier said than done, depending on the kit.  It will help Infinity Fabric latencies a lot.


----------



## VulkanBros (Jul 5, 2017)

I got it up to 4 GHz without any problems, but cant get over 2133 MHz on the mem.
Think I will watch @phanbuey ´s ram OC video.......


----------



## Sempron Guy (Jul 5, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> so got the memory stable at 3333 mhz 14-15-15-36 2T - 1.4v on ram (probably excessive, will be dropping) and 1.15v on the SOC - latency down from 73ns to 68ns (aida) - noticeable improvement in the witcher 3 and consistent 1835-1840 cinebench scores...
> 
> I notice i have so much less stutter with the "Cinebench 15" Asus performance bias - it is by far the smoothest system i have ever had.



hows your temps running cinebench R15 with those clocks?


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 5, 2017)

Sempron Guy said:


> hows your temps running cinebench R15 with those clocks?



Not great... Im changing out coolers to a bigger 280mm with a proper bracket and better thermal paste... but with a push pull h100 im sitting in mid 80's after a few cinebench runs.

Prime will take it to 92C


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jul 5, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> Not great... Im changing out coolers to a bigger 280mm with a proper bracket and better thermal paste... but with a push pull h100 im sitting in mid 80's after a few cinebench runs.
> 
> Prime will take it to 92C


Holy hell 

That's somw high temps for water


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 5, 2017)

Durvelle27 said:


> Holy hell
> 
> That's somw high temps for water


well it's "water" i moved from the box in my sig to a s340 with an H100 AIO, so my temps got crushed in the process.


----------



## Sempron Guy (Jul 5, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> well it's "water" i moved from the box in my sig to a s340 with an H100 AIO, so my temps got crushed in the process.



what temps are you getting with the custom loop?


----------



## Cvrk (Jul 5, 2017)

VulkanBros said:


> I got it up to 4 GHz without any problems, but cant get over 2133 MHz on the mem.
> Think I will watch @phanbuey ´s ram OC video.......


link the vid please


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 5, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> link the vid please



In this very page, the youtube Phanbuey linked.

I'd be more helpful but I am on mobile right now.


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 5, 2017)

Sempron Guy said:


> what temps are you getting with the custom loop?



low to mid 70's in cinebench, max 84C with Prime


----------



## Norton (Jul 6, 2017)

Sphinx said:


> Have they released that new AGESA update, that was supposed to increase RAM frequency already?



Click this search link to see who has released what for socket AM4 BIOS updates:

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/search/22676478/?q=digest&o=date&c[title_only]=1&c[node]=4
* updated posted regularly by @R-T-B 

Would be helpful if you filled out your *System Specs* in your user profile so we know what you're running


----------



## infrared (Jul 7, 2017)

@Sphinx I can't give an exact answer without rebooting, but there are options beyond 4000mhz on the crosshair. Based on what I've learned from mine, 3466-3600mhz is doable with good RAM, beyond that is where the IMC/infinity fabric starts to trip up (on my chip anyway, probably a case of ymmv).


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 7, 2017)

Sphinx said:


> Oh, sorry - I have a Ryzen 1600 on a Biostar x370 MB. Supposedly AMD released the new AGESA last month, but MB manufacturers appear too slow to get it to their BIOS updates...



Asus has had theirs for a few weeks now... looking at the forums looks like the biostar one is still pending.


----------



## ne6togadno (Jul 7, 2017)

https://www.techpowerup.com/234867/tpu-ryzen-bios-digest-issue-9


----------



## Johan45 (Jul 7, 2017)

infrared said:


> @Sphinx I can't give an exact answer without rebooting, but there are options beyond 4000mhz on the crosshair. Based on what I've learned from mine, 3466-3600mhz is doable with good RAM, beyond that is where the IMC/infinity fabric starts to trip up (on my chip anyway, probably a case of ymmv).


AFIK no one has gotten any Ryzen to 4000. I've seen 3800+ but I just don't think the Chip can take it


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 7, 2017)

Sphinx said:


> Oh, sorry - I have a Ryzen 1600 on a Biostar x370 MB. Supposedly AMD released the new AGESA last month, but MB manufacturers appear too slow to get it to their BIOS updates...



BIOSTAR is on the verge of a public shaming from me for their lack of updates in BIOSland.  It would not surprise me if you don't have the latest AGESA.

My chip won't go beyond 3333 personally.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jul 7, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> BIOSTAR is on the verge of a public shaming from me for their lack of updates in BIOSland.  It would not surprise me if you don't have the latest AGESA.
> 
> My chip won't go beyond 3333 personally.


Seems MSI just released the update for my board


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 7, 2017)

Durvelle27 said:


> Seems MSI just released the update for my board



I may need to do another update on Mondayish, just waiting for more than just MSI to include in it. 

May not happen.  MSI just seems to kick ass in the bios department.


----------



## Agamemnon123 (Jul 7, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> BIOSTAR is on the verge of a public shaming from me for their lack of updates in BIOSland.  It would not surprise me if you don't have the latest AGESA.
> 
> My chip won't go beyond 3333 personally.



I don't have a new update either. My CPU works flawlessly clocked at Turboboost speed and RAM is at 2666 without increasing voltage over specs.


----------



## Johan45 (Jul 7, 2017)

Durvelle27 said:


> Seems MSI just released the update for my board



Not to start a panic but I would do some reading around with the MSI before you update it. On the Titanium people were losing OC contrl and I read one guy blaming 1.4 for bricking his Carbon. Just might pay to do some research. I'd check the MSI forum if I were you


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jul 7, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> Not to start a panic but I would do some reading around with the MSI before you update it. On the Titanium people were losing OC contrl and I read one guy blaming 1.4 for bricking his Carbon. Just might pay to do some research. I'd check the MSI forum if I were you


I have the Gaming Pro


----------



## Johan45 (Jul 7, 2017)

OK, I'm just passing on info I have read, up to you what you do with it.


----------



## Mr.Scott (Jul 8, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> AFIK no one has gotten any Ryzen to 4000. I've seen 3800+ but I just don't think the Chip can take it


http://hwbot.org/submission/3588222_


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jul 8, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> OK, I'm just passing on info I have read, up to you what you do with it.


I'm reading buddy. Don't get your panties in a bunch


----------



## Nuckles56 (Jul 8, 2017)

Mr.Scott said:


> http://hwbot.org/submission/3588222_


But to do it, the CPU was clocked at 800MHz


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jul 8, 2017)

Well, I don't know if it's the replacement CPU that's a better overclocker, or the CH VI board is more stable than my X370 Taichi, but before my max stable overclock was 3.7 GHz at 1.392v.  This thing is crunching along at 100% load at 3.7 GHz and 1.329v.  I ain't going to complain.


----------



## Mr.Scott (Jul 8, 2017)

Nuckles56 said:


> But to do it, the CPU was clocked at 800MHz


Common place when benching memory frequency.
Nothing was said about being 24/7.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 8, 2017)

Dont bother.. this place doesnt seem to understand. 

Anyway, here is a spi run at 4ghz 4k mem...http://hwbot.org/submission/3592791


----------



## Cvrk (Jul 9, 2017)

Somebody commented 
"I had the SAME problem. Dimitry, disable the overtemp protection on your motherboard. I did so and it was stable 24/7 after. It's all about the incorrect temperature reading of the CPU. Your motherboard is thinking it's overheated when it's not. Hwinfo, HWmonitor, Aida64 all reported CPU temps of 60c when I'm at 3.9ghz, but using Cam (Nzxt x62 Kraken reported 109c. I realized it's the same temp that the Tctl was reporting; which was causing the crashes). I also thought it was the memory, but swapped it out with another kit and same thing. I also did change the GPU/mobo/another 1700x to rule out all variables. But in the end, it was the overtempt bs readings."


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jul 10, 2017)

As it is I'm still unsure what is the most accurate temperature reading software to use for Ryzen.  I get all sorts of different readings...  What do you guys use?


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 10, 2017)

Chicken Patty said:


> As it is I'm still unsure what is the most accurate temperature reading software to use for Ryzen.  I get all sorts of different readings...  What do you guys use?



Ryzen Master and AIDA64 here.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jul 10, 2017)

AIDA64 seems to match my Asus Suite III software, so that's what I'm guiding myself by now.  Also for CPU vcore I get 0.650v on CPU-z always.  The only two software that get matching results is AIDA64 and Asus Suite III.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 10, 2017)

Chicken Patty said:


> AIDA64 seems to match my Asus Suite III software, so that's what I'm guiding myself by now.  Also for CPU vcore I get 0.650v on CPU-z always.  The only two software that get matching results is AIDA64 and Asus Suite III.



Sounds correct.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jul 10, 2017)

What should I be watching in terms of CPU temperature.  I used to always go by the Tctl/Tdie reading, or the CPU Diode. Or should I be worried by the other CPU temp reading more?  This is all the current software I have installed now.  Just wondering which one should I be monitoring?


----------



## Sempron Guy (Jul 10, 2017)

aida64 detects cpu temp not core. CPU tctl/tdie is your core temp. My cpu temp usually has around -15c variance vs the tdie.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jul 10, 2017)

Sempron Guy said:


> aida64 detects cpu temp not core. CPU tctl/tdie is your core temp. My cpu temp usually has around -15c variance vs the tdie.



Right, that's the impression I was under.  So when overclocking or knowing when to "stop" per say.  Which one would we go by?


----------



## Sempron Guy (Jul 10, 2017)

i think the 95c thermal limit imposed on most boards which is enabled by default refers to the cpu temp so I'd go with that I guess. For me though, as my tdie is significantly hotter I couldn't imagine what would my tdie be if ever my cpu temp reaches 95c. So to sum it up, I have no idea tbh which is which.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jul 10, 2017)

Sempron Guy said:


> i think the 95c thermal limit imposed on most boards which is enabled by default refers to the cpu temp so I'd go with that I guess. For me though, as my tdie is significantly hotter I couldn't imagine what would my tdie be if ever my cpu temp reaches 95c. So to sum it up, I have no idea tbh which is which.


I guess for now I'll just go by my highest one just to be on the safe side.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 10, 2017)

On my AIDA64, the Thermal Diode reading is correct and matches Ryzen Master, which is known to obey the tctl offset on the thermal core.  So that's the one I'd use if not using Ryzen Master.  Mind you only the latest AIDA64 corrects the Thermal Diode reading for the 20C offset.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jul 10, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> On my AIDA64, the Thermal Diode reading is correct and matches Ryzen Master, which is known to obey the tctl offset on the thermal core.  So that's the one I'd use if not using Ryzen Master.  Mind you only the latest AIDA64 corrects the Thermal Diode reading for the 20C offset.



In my case both CPU readings are within 4-5º of each other, so it's not a huge difference but I was always told the CPU Diode is the accurate reading.  Anyhow, I have room on both so I'm not too worried about it for now.


----------



## infrared (Jul 10, 2017)

I like to go off the Tdie reading in HWinfo.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jul 10, 2017)

infrared said:


> I like to go off the Tdie reading in HWinfo.


That's what I was going by.  But it's the lower of my readings so... just kinda gets me thinking if it's really higher than that.


----------



## Johan45 (Jul 10, 2017)

Tctl is the actual reading from the board sensor ( with 20° offset for "X" ) Tdie AFIK is not a "real" reading


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jul 10, 2017)

So since no one really knows for sure we should just not over clock at all.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 10, 2017)

Chicken Patty said:


> So since no one really knows for sure we should just not over clock at all.



Frankly, AMD doing the temp offset thing for a "consistent fan profile" always struck me as really really strange.  Yeah, it's confusing as if they were trying.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jul 10, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> Frankly, AMD doing the temp offset thing for a "consistent fan profile" always struck me as really really strange.  Yeah, it's confusing as if they were trying.


Yeah, I'm not a fan of it at all to be honest.   This platform also has a lot of voltage reporting errors from what I'm seeing too, which adds to the confusion.


----------



## _JP_ (Jul 11, 2017)

So back to hard modding sensors to the board?


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jul 11, 2017)

_JP_ said:


> So back to hard modding sensors to the board?


Guess so


----------



## Johan45 (Jul 11, 2017)

Try disabling the sense MI skew for non X will give more realistic readings


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jul 11, 2017)

Johan45 said:


> Try disabling the sense MI skew for non X will give more realistic readings


That did the trick for me, it's how I've been running it since day one.  Temps are much closer to what should be accurate.


----------



## Johan45 (Jul 11, 2017)

NIce,disabling on the "X" removes the 20° offset as well


----------



## Sempron Guy (Jul 12, 2017)

where do you usually find that sense mi feature in the bios? or is it exclusive for asus chVI hero only?


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jul 12, 2017)

Sempron Guy said:


> where do you usually find that sense mi feature in the bios? or is it exclusive for asus chVI hero only?


I never had the Taichi running long enough that I messed with it and found it.  Unfortunately I have no clue if it has that setting


----------



## Caelestis (Jul 12, 2017)

Sempron Guy said:


> where do you usually find that sense mi feature in the bios? or is it exclusive for asus chVI hero only?



As far as I know, it is only related to the Crosshair VI Hero since it is a bug within the bios 0902.


_



*Temperature readings* (fixed in 1001 and later)

Tctl readings can be off on 0902, to fix set Sense Mi Skew = Enabled and Sense MI offset = 272. Most reliable sensor is the CPU sensor reading from SIO (listed under Crosshair VI Hero in HWInfo64). *New BIOSes should be OK with defaults SenseMi Skew setting of 272.*

Click to expand...

_


----------



## purecain (Jul 12, 2017)

my only issue with this chipset now is not being certain of the temps. my temp for the die jumps to 28 27 26 25 - 18c on the rog front base.  HWMonitor has it @39c then jumps to 46c and counts back down to 39 and then sits there for a few seconds. after reading what others are doing. this is probably sensemi related. i'll try turning it off later.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jul 12, 2017)

purecain said:


> my only issue with this chipset now is not being certain of the temps. my temp for the die jumps to 28 27 26 25 - 18c on the rog front base.  HWMonitor has it @39c then jumps to 46c and counts back down to 39 and then sits there for a few seconds. after reading what others are doing. this is probably sensemi related. i'll try turning it off later.


Mine were better with it off. But I am still skeptical about the temps to be honest.


----------



## _JP_ (Jul 13, 2017)

Okay, I haven't built my system yet, but not being able to check temps reliably is starting to worry me....not that I was going to OC from the get-go anyway, but still

Aside that, calling all MSI X370 GAMING PLUS/PRO (not carbon)/KRAIT/SLI PLUS owners!!!
I noticed two jumpers on my gaming plus that are not documented, JOV1 and JOV2...any idea what they might be?
Now...common-sense tells me, since one is near the socket and the other near the DIMMs, they must enable off-spec voltage settings, but I haven't assembled it yet, so I can't tell...but I'm curious


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 13, 2017)

VulkanBros said:


> I got it up to 4 GHz without any problems, but cant get over 2133 MHz on the mem.
> Think I will watch @phanbuey ´s ram OC video.......



Since no-one answered, I had an issue with my Asus board as well, same as you, being stuck at 2133MHz for the RAM. Turns out that after a UEFI update, you need to do a hard reset and then it works to set the memory frequency. Some weird Asus bug it seems. The best speed I get out of my RAM and 3000MHz though, no 3200 as yet.


----------



## purecain (Jul 15, 2017)

@jp there are 2 pin connectors for sensors. I have a couple so I thought I might try to get some readings. but where would I need to put the sensor and when you say hard modding sensors to the board, where and how.
I'm interested in trying...

ps have you seen the oculus rift price... ive dropped some cash on one... off topic I know so just a heads up.


----------



## Cvrk (Jul 15, 2017)

I really like what this guy is saying about this motherboard. Especially when it comes to memory. Also it has a bad look, i also don't like the black and white. and it has no rgb light on it....even though it does have the option to add rgb strips and play around with the msi app. 









I also have my eye on the more expensive 80$+ https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/X370-GAMING-PRO-CARBON.html#productSpecification-section
This one has an Intel lan chipset ,rather than Realtek ,better look,build in under the motherboard rgb lights. 
I think it all boils down to if you hate the black/white theme and if you wanna have Intel Lan.
What do you guys think ?


----------



## ne6togadno (Jul 16, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> I really like what this guy is saying about this motherboard. Especially when it comes to memory. Also it has a bad look, i also don't like the black and white. and it has no rgb light on it....even though it does have the option to add rgb strips and play around with the msi app.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/Fatal1ty X370 Gaming X/index.us.asp
http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/Fatal1ty X370 Gaming-ITXac/index.us.asp
http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/Fatal1ty X370 Gaming K4/index.us.asp
http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/X370 Killer SLI/index.us.asp
http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/X370 Killer SLIac/index.us.asp


----------



## _JP_ (Jul 17, 2017)

Right, so...I'm undefeated but not very happy right now.
Spent part of this weekend assembling the rig, more time troubleshooting than the dissasembly/cleaning thoroughly/assembling process. 

It doesn't POST.
EZ debug CPU LED stays on, then off, fans full blast and nothing more...
MSI says this means the CPU is not detected.

Tried the usual steps, reseating the CPU twice, ran all memory banks with both DIMMs individually...

My long-shot conclusion is, the board came with a very early BIOS build and its not playing along with the F4-3200C16D-16GTZB kit
I say this because, reading a bit about it, most MSIs that don't start from the get-go and signal that there is a problem with a CPU, it's actually the RAM that isn't getting pick-up. Run-of-the-mill QVL 2133MHz sticks seem to solve it until you can update the UEFI (which is somethign I don't have), however, it's a mess online when it comes to MSI boards not posting, every kind of situation and "snake-oil" solutions being found in forums.
I'm aiming at the DIMMs though. AMD has always been picky about this, my FM2 was no different.

EDIT: Okay, didn't word it like that, but also reaching for you guys for ideas to get the bugger to post at least


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 17, 2017)

Well, I came back my hols and my DOCP memory setting wouldn't post. Continually 3 beeps then nothing. Safe boot and reset, put timing manually to 3200 with latencies untouched 16's instead of the DOCP 14 value. Working fine.
Will upgrade BIOS when it's not a beta for the AGESA one.


----------



## _JP_ (Jul 17, 2017)

Okay so, I feel dumb right now. The kit I bought is not on the QVL list.  
That might be the very reason it doesn't post, but I'm still wondering how the hell I made the mistake because I know I checked for compatibility


----------



## HTC (Jul 17, 2017)

_JP_ said:


> Okay so, I feel dumb right now. The kit I bought is not on the QVL list.
> That might be the very reason it doesn't post, but I'm still wondering how the hell I made the mistake because I know I checked for compatibility



Which kit exactly did you buy?

Also, a stupid question: have you tried to reset CMOS?


----------



## Norton (Jul 17, 2017)

@_JP_  I'm using the same exact kit on my Ryzen setup and had no trouble with it. I'm using an Asrock board but the ram isn't on it's QVL either.

Note that I did have an initial issue with the ram not being fully seated in the slots (one stick wasn't showing up) but other than that it's doing fine.


----------



## _JP_ (Jul 17, 2017)

HTC said:


> Which kit exactly did you buy?
> 
> Also, a stupid question: have you tried to reset CMOS?


G.Skill Trident Z F4-3200C16D-16GTZB.
The C14Ds are on the QVL list. Mine having loose timings should help, I figure. They are SS B-dies, IIRC, so they should work (been thinking about it over lunch. That might have been my logic, tighter timings bring difficulties. I do remeber I picked this kit over another because it was the ones in stock.)

And yes, I've cleared the CMOS. Multiple times. 


Norton said:


> @_JP_  I'm using the same exact kit on my Ryzen setup and had no trouble with it. I'm using an Asrock board but the ram isn't on it's QVL either.
> 
> Note that I did have an initial issue with the ram not being fully seated in the slots (one stick wasn't showing up) but other than that it's doing fine.


I did find the slots a bit flimsy, but they seemed nicely seated and locked every time. I made each DIMM sit on every one, no only on DIMMA2, like MSI recommends.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 17, 2017)

_JP_ said:


> G.Skill Trident Z F4-3200C16D-16GTZB.
> The C14Ds are on the QVL list. Mine having loose timings should help, I figure. They are SS B-dies, IIRC, so they should work (been thinking about it over lunch. That might have been my logic. I do remeber I picked this kit over another because it was they stock they had.
> 
> And yes, I've cleared the CMOS. Multiple times.
> ...



Question:  Does the C14D refer to the latency of 14?

I ask because I have the C14D set and it works fine at 3200MHz.  BUT - when i use the proper setting the mobo bugs out with the latency at 14.  It has zero issues when runniung manually at 3200MHz and the latency at 16.

That's Ryzen for you....


----------



## HTC (Jul 17, 2017)

_JP_ said:


> *G.Skill Trident Z F4-3200C16D-16GTZB.*
> The C14Ds are on the QVL list. Mine having loose timings should help, I figure. They are SS B-dies, IIRC, so they should work (been thinking about it over lunch. That might have been my logic. I do remeber I picked this kit over another because it was they stock they had.
> 
> And yes, I've cleared the CMOS. Multiple times.
> ...



That's the exact model i'm using but i'm still @ the detected speeds, which is 2133 or 2400 (not sure) because i'm a complete noob when it comes to Linux so i figure learn to work with Linux 1st and then tinker with the speeds (CPU as well as RAM).

Ofc the mobo i'm using is different, so there's that ...

Could there be a problem with the RAM modules? Do you have a friend that can test the RAM for you to rule that out?


----------



## _JP_ (Jul 17, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Question:  Does the C14D refer to the latency of 14?
> 
> I ask because I have the C14D set and it works fine at 3200MHz.  BUT - when i use the proper setting the mobo bugs out with the latency at 14.  It has zero issues when runniung manually at 3200MHz and the latency at 16.
> 
> That's Ryzen for you....


It does seem like it to me , C14 for 14-14-14-34 and C16 for 16-18-18-38.


HTC said:


> That's the exact model i'm using but i'm still @ the detected speeds, which is 2133 or 2400 (not sure) because i'm a complete noob when it comes to Linux so i figure learn to work with Linux 1st and then tinker with the speeds (CPU as well as RAM).
> 
> Ofc the mobo i'm using is different, so there's that ...
> 
> Could there be a problem with the RAM modules? Do you have a friend that can test the RAM for you to rule that out?


Right, that's what I was expecting, for it to boot but at those speeds. Guess I wasn't that lucky.  I'm still convinced the board was shipped with an early UEFI version. I need it to post once so that I can update it.
Thing is I don't have extra DDR4...say, 2133MHz, but I'll try to source a stick this week.

I think the modules are fine, because I tested them both, individually and the result was always the same.


----------



## hellrazor (Jul 17, 2017)

Have you tried using 1 stick and putting it in the second memory slot?


----------



## _JP_ (Jul 17, 2017)

Yes I did. DIMMA2, by my board's manual. 
But it made no difference in behaviour from trying either on all other slots


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jul 17, 2017)

_JP_ said:


> Okay so, I feel dumb right now. The kit I bought is not on the QVL list.
> That might be the very reason it doesn't post, but I'm still wondering how the hell I made the mistake because I know I checked for compatibility



I have always used RAM that is not on the QVL from the get go on two different boards, you'd have to be s**t out of luck for it to be that.  But then again, Ryzen builds are very picky in regards to RAM.  What cooler is on the board right now?


----------



## _JP_ (Jul 17, 2017)

The noctua, but for further troubleshooting I'm going to use the stock HSF.
I just really wanted it to work.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jul 17, 2017)

_JP_ said:


> The noctua, but for further troubleshooting I'm going to use the stock HSF.
> I just really wanted it to work.



Try the stock heat sink.  I am maybe being paranoid after my issues on a different board, but just give it a go to be sure.  What about a visual inspection?  Any damage or anything out of place you can see?


----------



## Norton (Jul 17, 2017)

_JP_ said:


> The noctua, but for further troubleshooting I'm going to use the stock HSF.
> I just really wanted it to work.



I saw 2 items in the MSI forum that may help...

- give the board at least 35-45 sec to try and boot (this may be related to the "learning" function for the ram- my Asrock is supposed to try a few cycles to boot if ram settings aren't compatible)

- try your gpu in the lower PCIE slot

Not sure if this will help but it may be worth a try?


----------



## _JP_ (Jul 18, 2017)




----------



## Norton (Jul 18, 2017)

_JP_ said:


>


What did you find/ what was the problem?


----------



## _JP_ (Jul 18, 2017)

I guess I can try to excuse myself for being tired (as I've been lately, rest has been optional), but every try I've made to troubleshoot resulted in the same. Followed your recommendations after I ran out of ideas, but nothing.
Until I noticed I hadn't touched the board's battery.  It was still shiny.

So I popped it off for a few minutes, then assembled everything, plugged it in and powered it on. For starters, fans only rev'd to max for 5 seconds or so, then slowed down. That alone was an improvement, so I waited.
Sure enough, a minute or so later, that shows-up on screen 

EDIT: Oh, and like I figured. It has the first released UEFI.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 18, 2017)

_JP_ said:


> I guess I can try to excuse myself for being tired (as I've been lately, rest has been optional), but every try I've made to troubleshoot resulted in the same. Followed your recommendations after I ran out of ideas, but nothing.
> Until I noticed I hadn't touched the board's battery.  It was still shiny.
> 
> So I popped it off for a few minutes, then assembled everything, plugged it in and powered it on. For starters, fans only rev'd to max for 5 seconds or so, then slowed down. That alone was an improvement, so I waited.
> ...



Dem early UEFI's man...


----------



## _JP_ (Jul 18, 2017)

I felt silly because it is an old habit of mine to do both, short the CMOS header and take the battery off, for every step of troubleshooting a non-POSTing machine before powering it.
But this time, for no apparent reason of mine, I was just using the jumper and testing the definition of insanity...
Makes sense that it worked since none of the parts seem faulty or DOA, but this gave quite a knot on my brain. At least, some different reaction should happen with all the hardware changes I made, but guess not.
Like you say @R-T-B , dem UEFI's


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jul 18, 2017)

All that matters is that it's working.  Congrats man!  Now go enjoy it


----------



## GoldenX (Jul 19, 2017)

Should I get a R3 and keep my HD7750 or wait for the APUs?
Anyone remember one of the old leaks where AMD showed performance of 15 or 25w notebook Zen processors against Intel, anyone with the link? Can't seem to find it.


----------



## purecain (Jul 22, 2017)

theres a new bios out for the ch6... adds the stilts b-die memory profiles. I just managed this...


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jul 22, 2017)

Still haven't updated the BIOS, but this was my first boot with the new RAM.  I'll have to clock the FSB to get more though


----------



## _JP_ (Jul 23, 2017)

So, Windows 10 loaded generic AHCI drivers for the storage controller and the Crimson package included none...odd.



GoldenX said:


> Should I get a R3 and keep my HD7750 or wait for the APUs?
> Anyone remember one of the old leaks where AMD showed performance of 15 or 25w notebook Zen processors against Intel, anyone with the link? Can't seem to find it.


Too soon too call, imo, but I would wager the APUs should have a slight edge depending on the RAM, over your HD 7750.
If my A8 was anything to go by, it really liked high RAM speeds.
Can't seem to find that leak too.


----------



## GoldenX (Jul 23, 2017)

_JP_ said:


> So, Windows 10 loaded generic AHCI drivers for the storage controller and the Crimson package included none...odd.



Go to device manager and make the ahci driver scan the c:\AMD folder. Sometimes happens.


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 24, 2017)

so pulled back to 3950 for daily operation at 1.4v  4.0 was stable at 1.45v but couldnt make it through a prime 95 small fft without thermal shutdown... so bye 50Mhz... ill miss you *sniff*.

Seriously considering just leaving the 1800x at stock and let it do its xfr thing...



GoldenX said:


> I think with the clocking ability of Ryzen, AMD managed to make only the low models attractive to overclocking.



Aye.


----------



## GoldenX (Jul 24, 2017)

I think with the clocking ability of Ryzen, AMD managed to make only the low models attractive to overclocking.


----------



## _JP_ (Jul 24, 2017)

GoldenX said:


> Go to device manager and make the ahci driver scan the c:\AMD folder. Sometimes happens.


So that worked for one of the AHCI controllers detected. But there should be only one, the X370, so... 
I didn't thought of that because I really assumed the AMD package would take care of things, since it didn't list any AHCI controllers, else Win10 would take care of it...guess not.

Couple of things:
1 - Haven't bumped the RAM to 3200MHz. Call me silly, UEFI is updated to 5.30 but I want to read more about it first. (If I should go manual or A-XMP)
2 - No idea what the "Windows WHQL" option in the UEFI does. Online, people seem to have difficulty booting into Windows with that enabled (I have it off).
2 - Turbo must have a FIA restrictor...doesn't go above 3,2~3,4GHz. Thermals are normal during gaming (~50ºC).
3 - One of my fans started chirping once I set a speed profile in the UEFI. I suspect it's one of the NF-P14Ss 
4 - By the time I installed Windows, shutting down, going into sleep or rebooting, makes weird click/snapping sounds. Now...I know about buck converters and coils with dried-up glue, but still...  It sounds a bit more aggressive than it should be. I think it's static....and I do think I left spread-spectrum on...


----------



## purecain (Jul 31, 2017)

I had to return my first ch6 due to static... i'd never had a board give me electric shocks... straight back in the box.....

I'm looking at the new asus xenon board with a threadripper cpu aswell...wow


----------



## Cvrk (Aug 7, 2017)

Trying to figure out if i need a Ryzen 1600x , or a Ryzen 1700x , or a Ryzen 1800x.
I actually think i need a Coffe Lake, but for that there is much more waiting to be done. I have been waiting for a long time, ever since last year with Skylake .
Prices have been dropping, for real. And i once again, gathered enough money, to buy a new computer. It's never that easy. Mainly cuz poor people (myself included) tend to stick with the build for  long time.
I almost thought that a higher clocked 1600x is the answer for gaming. With just 2 cores short,but with 200 hz more. But if i OC (exactly what i wanna do) with 110$ i get the 2 cores extra back and same speed 3,6 Ghz for the 1700x. Since right now the Ryzen 1700x is actually 60$ cheaper than the Kaby lake i7 7700k.
But why OC the 1700x ,when you can OC the 1800x and be close to that 4Ghz but this time without  losing the 2 extra cores. Back few months the 1800x was 760$ (my country)...now dropped to 525$ . Can't convince myself that i need the 1800x , since the difference would be almost exactly the money for a motherboard.
My safe bet would be 1700x + motherboard ,for the same money as 1800x.

Witch brings me to ,why i need your guys help: _please convince me that i am the biggest idiot to waste my hard earned money on a Ryzen, and i should w8 for Coffe Lake!!! (screaming from inside) @Frag Maniac _
What motherboard to buy?
Few of you here on this thread own a Ryzen, witch means you also have a motherboard for it.
I hard googled. It was not regular google ,it was the hard version... and the results say MSI now a days brings the fastest updates to their bios. The motherboard that i want is the Msi x370 gaming pro. But boy, it's an expensive one. Asking myself if i need a X370 ?

Looking at the differences https://www.msi.com/comparison/motherboard Both motherboards (MSI X370 Gaming Pro & MSi b350 gaming Pro) can OC the ram to 3200 - if you are that lucky - since ram is very important to Ryzen. I get 2 DIMS instead of 4...i only need 2. Unfortunately the b350 is a MicroATX, but youtube shows that a big graphics card and a big cpu cooler can fit (almost).
I want the bequite Dark Rock Pro ,as cpu cooler... i already contacted bequite, a dude from there replayed to my mail,said they don't need a motherboard recipe ,and will send the AM4 kit for free...gaved him the address , haven't got the kit yet (it's been 4 weeks).

*In your experience guys ,if your gonna OC, will a x370 board will handle extra electric current better ? Will a x370 receiver bios updates faster,just cuz is the high-end product ? *

This guys explains a bit , he mentiones that the x370 cips get updates faster -  Is this true ? Can you guys confirm ?
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3175...crucial-differences-in-every-am4-chipset.html

Seriously,do i need a x370 motherboard for the Ryzen ? (it's twice more expensive)
This is where i choose my parts https://www.evomag.ro/Componente-PC.../Socket:AM4,Format:ATX,Ordonare:PretCrescator


----------



## HTC (Aug 7, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> I want the bequite Dark Rock Pro ,as cpu cooler... i already contacted bequite, a dude from there replayed to my mail,said they don't need a motherboard recipe ,and will send the AM4 kit for free...gaved him the address , haven't got the kit yet (it's been 4 weeks).



I requested an AM4 mounting kit to be able to use my NH-C14 with my R5 1600 this Saturday: got a reply today stating it's on the way.

I really like Noctua company: they are a bit expensive but the quality of their products is there and their customer support is top notch!


----------



## Cvrk (Aug 8, 2017)

the answer to my request came within 24 hours(from bequite) as well. the delivery ,never. maybe if you are in a different country....










*GOLDEN*: OC Memory on Ryzen, and this guy is smart!


----------



## HTC (Aug 9, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> *the answer to my request came within 24 hours(from bequite) as well. the delivery ,never.* maybe if you are in a different country....



Ouch 

In my case:



> The parts have been shipped by standard air mail. Please expect a delivery time of 4-10 working days within Europe and 10-18 working days overseas. Tracking number: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> XXXXXXXXXXX



They gave me tracking information: we shall see!

Didn't they give you tracking information for the package in your case? Perhaps it's stranded somewhere?


----------



## HTC (Aug 10, 2017)

Had i been awake @ the time the mail man showed up (working night shift, this week), i would have received the Noctua AM4 mounting kit already: will have to go pick it up tomorrow.

Ordered it this past Saturday: surprised it's already here, tbh!

It's the second time i post this: had posted it in the wrong topic ...


----------



## phanbuey (Aug 10, 2017)

I'm really digging this 1800x so far...

Gaming doing great, general performance is sweet.  Data crunching is super fast.

Getting it to run 100% stable and fast was kind of a nightmare though...  They still have a ways to go with optimization.

Also hoping that the core wars will spurn software dev to be more multi threaded.


----------



## Norton (Aug 10, 2017)

HTC said:


> Had i been awake @ the time the mail man showed up (working night shift, this week), i would have received the Noctua AM4 mounting kit already: will have to go pick it up tomorrow.
> 
> *Ordered it this past Saturday: surprised it's already here, tbh!*


Took about a week to get my kits and that's to the USA- pretty quick imo. Great job Noctua!


----------



## Mr.Scott (Aug 10, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> Also hoping that the core wars will spurn software dev to be more multi threaded.


Fat chance.
It's a lot of extra work for lazy coders without a pay incentive and the companies that use them would need to see a major increase in revenue in order to even think about increasing coders wages.. The percentage of people that really need more than 4 cores is very small.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Aug 10, 2017)

Any carbon owners


----------



## Cvrk (Aug 11, 2017)

@HTC can you do 3200 MHz on memory,on that Asrock ? Also do you have the Noctua NH-U14S  ? 
@Norton my mind was set for a long time on Bequite ...but they have not send yet the mounting kit . How quite is that Noctua ? What is the temp for an 200-300 Mhz OC on the cpu ? are you ok with this cooler ?


----------



## HTC (Aug 11, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> @HTC *can you do 3200 MHz on memory,on that Asrock ? Also do you have the Noctua NH-U14S  ? *
> @Norton my mind was set for a long time on Bequite ...but they have not send yet the mounting kit . How quite is that Noctua ? What is the temp for an 200-300 Mhz OC on the cpu ? are you ok with this cooler ?



I'm running it @ 3200: the RAM is the one in system specs.

The cooler i have is NH-C14. It's discontinued but, even so, i get a free AM4 mounting kit. I used this cooler with my A10-7850K APU, but i only used 1 fan (top one).

Noctua knows how to take care of it's costumers: their products are a bit on the expensive side but it's worth it, IMHO.


----------



## _JP_ (Aug 11, 2017)

I didn't bother to find the receipt from mine and just bought the adapter... 


HTC said:


> Noctua knows how to take care of it's costumers: their products are a bit on the expensive side but it's worth it, IMHO.


^This.

Mine has been stable and so fast I haven't dialed the RAM to 3200 yet


----------



## HTC (Aug 11, 2017)

_JP_ said:


> I didn't bother to find the receipt from mine and just bought the adapter...
> 
> ^This.
> 
> Mine has been stable and so fast I haven't dialed the RAM to 3200 yet



Couldn't find the receipt for mine so i opted to do what they asked when the receipt isn't available:



> We strictly require a valid proof of purchase (electronic version or scan/photo of the invoice) of both a Noctua CPU cooler and either an AM4 motherboard or AM4 CPU in order to process your request. *In case you've lost the invoice of your Noctua CPU cooler, please write your full name and the current date on a piece of paper, take a photo of the paper next to your CPU cooler and upload it as proof of purchase.* Please note that your name has to be clearly readable and that we can't process requests without proper proof of purchase.



Took a pic of the cooler (with the logo facing the camera) on top of the Taichi's box with the cooler's box behind it (yup: still have it) with a piece of paper stating my full name, date and email.

The mounting kit request form is located here.

Btw, @_JP_ : how are your temps?


----------



## Cvrk (Aug 11, 2017)

@Norton uses Noctua NH-U14S.
Here you can find 2 differen coolers.
https://www.pcgarage.ro/coolere/noctua/filtre/compatibilitate-socket-amd-am4-da/
1 is
Noctua NH-U12S SE-AM4 with 120mm fan & and the other much more expensive
Noctua NH-D15 SE AM4 with 2 140mm fans. I tend to believe that the examples i mentioned above already have mounting for AM4. Corect me if i am wrong.
I fear that i might need the bigger 2 fans cooler for a stable 4Ghz OC on a 1700x. Please corect me if i am wrong
Very interesting video, i tend to see the Noctua as a winner









Also how are the noise level and temps @_JP_


----------



## HTC (Aug 11, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> @Norton uses Noctua NH-U14S.
> Here you can find 2 differen coolers.
> https://www.pcgarage.ro/coolere/noctua/filtre/compatibilitate-socket-amd-am4-da/
> 1 is
> ...



Unless the cooler is AM4 version, you'll need the mounting kit. Since the 2 coolers you mentioned are AM4 versions, they come ready for Ryzen out of the box.

Motherboard compatibility:

- NH-U12S SE AM4
- NH-D15 SE AM4

Here's a review with both of these: it should help you decide.


----------



## Norton (Aug 11, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> @HTC can you do 3200 MHz on memory,on that Asrock ? Also do you have the Noctua NH-U14S  ?
> @Norton my mind was set for a long time on Bequite ...but they have not send yet the mounting kit . How quite is that Noctua ? What is the temp for an 200-300 Mhz OC on the cpu ? are you ok with this cooler ?


Very happy with the NH-U14S and yes it is quiet. 

Haven't checked temps in awhile and I haven't overclocked... however, the XFR is active on my 1600X so the cpu senses it is properly cooled and runs at 3.7Ghz under full load (+100Mhz from stock)


----------



## _JP_ (Aug 11, 2017)

HTC said:


> Took a pic of the cooler (with the logo facing the camera) on top of the Taichi's box with the cooler's box behind it (yup: still have it) with a piece of paper stating my full name, date and email.


D'oh  Could have done that 



HTC said:


> Btw, @_JP_ : how are your temps?





Cvrk said:


> Also how are the noise level and temps @_JP_


IIRC, didn't go above 70ºC during gaming, this with the room @ 32ºC...was just checking if things worked fine and because the fans react to the CPU temperature, I wasn't really paying attention to HWinfo...they barely revved up.
So even noise, @Cvrk, is very low. All my fans at 12V/100% PWM must be in the mid30's dBa and this is due to somewhat restrictive grills/holes on the exhaust fans. Smallest I have is 120mm, so I actually have low RPMs but tons of airflow 

Tomorrow I'll do a morning gaming round and record min/avg/max readings. Which program do you guys think is most reliable? HWinfo?


----------



## _JP_ (Aug 12, 2017)

HWiNFO reads VID=1.425v, MULTI=x37..
Room temps started at 27,5ºC and by the end was 30ºC.
So, this is the result for a normal gaming scenario, Dirt Rally@Ultra and BeamNG@High with a bunch of eye candy and 4 cars on map.






#1363​


----------



## psyko12 (Aug 12, 2017)

Norton said:


> Took about a week to get my kits and that's to the USA- pretty quick imo. Great job Noctua!



Almost 2 weeks to get my AM4 kits! That was pretty fast tho, From Austria to Philippines! Superb customer support too! Noctua is 

Used the Nh-d15 to take care of fx8350, now passed on to 1700x and it still takes good care of it, keeps the temps in check oc'd or stock!


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 12, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> @Norton uses Noctua NH-U14S.
> Here you can find 2 differen coolers.
> https://www.pcgarage.ro/coolere/noctua/filtre/compatibilitate-socket-amd-am4-da/
> 1 is
> ...



There's another awesome fan that gets little publicity (because it's so hard to find).  I use it on my 1700X.  Keeps it easily cooled at under 3.9Ghz.  Unfortunately, any try higher than 3.9 and the temps go up fast far too quickly.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Thermalright/Le_Grand_Macho/


----------



## psyko12 (Aug 12, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> There's another awesome fan that gets little publicity (because it's so hard to find).  I use it on my 1700X.  Keeps it easily cooled at under 3.9Ghz.  Unfortunately, any try higher than 3.9 and the temps go up fast far too quickly.
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Thermalright/Le_Grand_Macho/



The looks of it stand up to it's name! 

EDIT:
Anyone on here have played with sub timings for their ryzen rams?
Is it worth the time and effort? A tool was released "Ryzen Timing Checker" IIRC.
I haven't tinkered more with ram but I just had to set it manually to run xmp speeds but subtimings, there's like 20+ values to tinker with on there since AGESA 1.0.0.6


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 12, 2017)

psyko12 said:


> The looks of it stand up to it's name!
> 
> EDIT:
> Anyone on here have played with sub timings for their ryzen rams?
> ...



Funny, I've been thinking about trying it but it's way too complex for me - I know literally nothing about memory overclocking.  I'm on DOCP1 on my Asus CH6 which runs a baseclock of 109.2 and sets ram speed to 3204 with 14/14/14 timings (and with my CPU at 3.822, it's rock solid).  Not really sure how to get the latencies lower (aside form simply changing those settings in BIOS) without using other factors.  If that sounds dumb, I know that for CPU OC, with voltage increase you need steady volts, so LLC is good for keeping vdroop in check.  I understand the basics of CPU OC and what to tinker with but memory.... total stab in the dark, like a virgin in a dark room with a hooker.


----------



## psyko12 (Aug 12, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Funny, I've been thinking about trying it but it's way too complex for me - I know literally nothing about memory overclocking.  I'm on DOCP1 on my Asus CH6 which runs a baseclock of 109.2 and sets ram speed to 3204 with 14/14/14 timings (and with my CPU at 3.822, it's rock solid).  Not really sure how to get the latencies lower (aside form simply changing those settings in BIOS) without using other factors.  If that sounds dumb, I know that for CPU OC, with voltage increase you need steady volts, so LLC is good for keeping vdroop in check.  I understand the basics of CPU OC and what to tinker with but memory.... total stab in the dark, like a virgin in a dark room with a hooker.




If it works without problems I guess I won't touch those any more. Like the saying, "If it ain't broke , don't fix it."

Maybe read and research but I don't have the luxury of time at my hands to do tests again. Maybe soon. More info found on OCN, "Ryzen 24/7 Memory stability".


----------



## er557 (Aug 12, 2017)

Anyone here with ryzen threadripper? Please try linx 0.7.1 and post your raw GFlops power here, with a 12gb ram problem size. That's my turbo hacked xeon here:
http://i.imgur.com/TaGQUhh.jpg


----------



## TheLostSwede (Aug 12, 2017)

New chipset drivers from AMD - http://support.amd.com/en-us/download/chipset?os=Windows 10 - 64

New UEFI for the Prime X370-Pro as well - https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/PRIME-X370-PRO/HelpDesk_BIOS/


----------



## Cvrk (Aug 12, 2017)

Found this o Reddit. Man i love Reddit...all the smart people are there (sure after TPU)
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/62vp2g/clearing_up_any_samsung_bdie_confusion_eg_on/

Prices dropped and i found this in my country https://www.vexio.ro/memorii-ram/g-skill/155005-memory-d4-3200-16gb-c14-gskill-triz-k2-r/
A bit more expensive than the Flare X Ryzen memory kit, but these are rgb and according to the list Samsung B-Die


----------



## HTC (Aug 13, 2017)

To those that need to ask for an AM4 mounting kit from Noctua but have misplaced the cooler's invoice (like me), send this as proof of purchase instead of the coolers' invoice:





I covered in white my full name and my e-mail address but they are required.

Instead of the board, you can include the CPU together with the cooler: either one is OK.

The mounting kit request form is located here.


----------



## _JP_ (Aug 13, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> New chipset drivers from AMD - http://support.amd.com/en-us/download/chipset?os=Windows 10 - 64
> 
> New UEFI for the Prime X370-Pro as well - https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/PRIME-X370-PRO/HelpDesk_BIOS/


Uhm, does it finally include AHCI drivers?
Mine has new UEFI too, compatibility fixes mostly.


Cvrk said:


> Found this o Reddit. Man i love Reddit...all the smart people are there (sure after TPU)
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/62vp2g/clearing_up_any_samsung_bdie_confusion_eg_on/
> 
> Prices dropped and i found this in my country https://www.vexio.ro/memorii-ram/g-skill/155005-memory-d4-3200-16gb-c14-gskill-triz-k2-r/
> A bit more expensive than the Flare X Ryzen memory kit, but these are rgb and according to the list Samsung B-Die


Oh 
Guess I have Samsung's E-die, but I'll run the tool anyways since according to that post, my RAM's P/N might also mean Hynix ICs. So either 2933MHz or 3200Mhz depending on which it is. 
I'll make up for it when I upgrade to 64GB, sometime in the future


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 13, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> Found this o Reddit. Man i love Reddit...all the smart people are there (sure after TPU)
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/62vp2g/clearing_up_any_samsung_bdie_confusion_eg_on/
> 
> Prices dropped and i found this in my country https://www.vexio.ro/memorii-ram/g-skill/155005-memory-d4-3200-16gb-c14-gskill-triz-k2-r/
> A bit more expensive than the Flare X Ryzen memory kit, but these are rgb and according to the list Samsung B-Die



That's the exact same memory I have.  With the agesa bios update I have no complaints.  It always ran at the rated clocks, but struggled with the latency until I used the DOCP optimised setting.


----------



## Cvrk (Aug 13, 2017)

@the54thvoid how tall are the memory kits ? Do you think they can fit under a Dark Rock 3 be quite cooler ? You got rgb on them right ? How do you control that ? What software do you use to change the rgb ?


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 13, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> @the54thvoid how tall are the memory kits ? Do you think they can fit under a Dark Rock 3 be quite cooler ? You got rgb on them right ? How do you control that ? What software do you use to change the rgb ?



Couldn't help with the cooler clearance (my cooler is enormous but it is offset to allow higher memory kits) but I would say don't use any software on the RGB lights.  I read a while ago that the software to control the memory kit can actually corrupt the memory itself 

https://www.gskill.us/forum/showthread.php?t=14357


----------



## Cvrk (Aug 13, 2017)

Oooook! 
No more RGB for me  ...i need to find another ram kit right now. You saved me @the54thvoid


----------



## psyko12 (Aug 13, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Couldn't help with the cooler clearance (my cooler is enormous but it is offset to allow higher memory kits) but I would say don't use any software on the RGB lights.  I read a while ago that the software to control the memory kit can actually corrupt the memory itself
> 
> https://www.gskill.us/forum/showthread.php?t=14357



Yup there was some techtuber as well who encountered that problem with the rgb software, it corrupted the SPD of the ram kits. Altho there was another one who showed that it can somewhat be fixed by re-writing the proper SPD using thaiphoon burner.


----------



## Cvrk (Aug 13, 2017)

Then it's this
https://www.vexio.ro/memorii-ram/g-skill/91914-trident-z-ddr4-2-x-8-gb-3200-mhz-cl14-kit/
or just to play it 200% safe The Flare X Ryzen
https://www.vexio.ro/memorii-ram/g-skill/160779-memory-d4-3200-16gb-c14-gskill-flarex-k2/

The money difference i small. And seriously the Trident Z looks better. 

You see this is why  i love to talk,and discuss things. This is why the community is so good. I would have got the rgb kit, messed up, and searched google like a mad man for answers. This is why i am a part of TPU, and i wanna help people as much as i got help back.... not just troll with memes images (as i usually do)


----------



## drade (Aug 13, 2017)

How high has anyone clocked the 1700 on liquid? 4.0ghz is all I can see on a motherboard like thaichi or the asus ROG


----------



## Durvelle27 (Aug 13, 2017)

drade said:


> How high has anyone clocked the 1700 on liquid? 4.0ghz is all I can see on a motherboard like thaichi or the asus ROG


3.9-4.1GHz is the highest you'll get no matter the cooler


----------



## WhiteNoise (Aug 13, 2017)

and I don't think it matters either. Even stock the 1700x performs great. this chips don't need to be overclocked to perform. It's just icing on the cake when you do clock it to 4GHz.


----------



## drade (Aug 13, 2017)

4.1ghz why... I want Ryzen but that's little OC headroom


----------



## phanbuey (Aug 13, 2017)

drade said:


> 4.1ghz why... I want Ryzen but that's little OC headroom


yeah it's teeny... really the clocks are the major issue with ryzen.


----------



## infrared (Aug 13, 2017)

drade said:


> 4.1ghz why... I want Ryzen but that's little OC headroom


It's just the limit of the uArch on the 14nm LPP manufacturing process. They chose that since it's very energy efficient which is how the 8c/16t cpus are still only 95W, the problem is it also doesn't clock far, when you push the clocks to around 4.0ghz they start wanting loads of volts and making loads of heat, even with good cooling going beyond 1.4v is pretty pointless. It is what it is, they perform amazing in multithreaded stuff and still manage decent performance in games, they're a jack of all trades and since they're still slightly behind intel we can enjoy the good pricing.


----------



## _JP_ (Aug 13, 2017)

Confirmed for Hynix...3200MHz should be doable


----------



## GoldenX (Aug 13, 2017)

Notebook Ryzens could be impressive.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Aug 14, 2017)

_JP_ said:


> Confirmed for Hynix...3200MHz should be doable



I can only run my Corsair LPX modules at 3066 with Hynix chips, but maybe MSI's UEFI is better than Asus' when it comes to Hynix chips?


----------



## Recca29 (Aug 14, 2017)

Question, will an ICEEDGE 400 XT DEEPCOOL mount on the new AM4 socket. Bought it for my old phenom II 960T and would like to move it to the new 1700 system on ASUS Strix B350 board.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Aug 14, 2017)

Recca29 said:


> Question, will an ICEEDGE 400 XT DEEPCOOL mount on the new AM4 socket. Bought it for my old phenom II 960T and would like to move it to the new 1700 system on ASUS Strix B350 board.



It should work, the mounting mechanism is still the same.


----------



## _JP_ (Aug 14, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> I can only run my Corsair LPX modules at 3066 with Hynix chips, but maybe MSI's UEFI is better than Asus' when it comes to Hynix chips?


I'll answer you as soon as I get enough time to test it! 
X.M.P. through A-XMP first, if it fails I'll try manual settings.


----------



## drade (Aug 14, 2017)

For all you Ryzen pros.

I feel like a 300+$ custom loop may not be worth it for a Ryzen 1700 due to the small OC headroom on the AM4 platform right now.

I'm looking at the Noctua NH-D15. Massive cooler with some impressive fan noise and recorded user temps with 3.7-4.0 OC. A Ryzen owner got better temps with the Noctua cooler vs. an AIO and a custom beginner loop from EKWB. Thoughts ?


----------



## infrared (Aug 14, 2017)

drade said:


> For all you Ryzen pros.
> 
> I feel like a 300+$ custom loop may not be worth it for a Ryzen 1700 due to the small OC headroom on the AM4 platform right now.
> 
> I'm looking at the Noctua NH-D15. Massive cooler with some impressive fan noise and recorded user temps with 3.7-4.0 OC. A Ryzen owner got better temps with the Noctua cooler vs. an AIO and a custom beginner loop from EKWB. Thoughts ?


Sensible. IMO the budget ekwb aluminium kits actually look really good. You're a bit limited on the fittings but have really good cooling performance from what I've seen (within a few degrees of full copper kits!). Those Noctuas look good if you want the great cooling performance but can't be bothered with liquid cooling, quiet and simple install/maintenance. I'm running a coolermaster 212 evo on my 24/7 cruncher 1800X, I can't give you temps though since it's only running linux. It's only running at stock clocks atm but I'm sure you could apply a mild OC on it.


----------



## Norton (Aug 14, 2017)

drade said:


> I'm looking at the Noctua NH-D15. Massive cooler with some impressive fan noise and recorded user temps with 3.7-4.0 OC. A Ryzen owner got better temps with the Noctua cooler vs. an AIO and a custom beginner loop from EKWB. Thoughts ?


I'm using Noctua coolers on my Ryzen setups and they are doing really well at stock clocks (XFR senses the premium cooling and automatically steps them up 100Mhz at full load).

The 1600X is using the NH-U14S (2 fans) and the 1700X is using the NH-D14 (2 fans)- temps are fine and full load with XFR running and clearance for ram is good, better on the U14S obviously 

Would I recommend the NH-D15? Sure, but you would be better off imho to just get a U14S and add the second fan to it.... temp difference would be 1 or 2C (maybe)


----------



## Cvrk (Aug 14, 2017)

Just ordered MSi B350 gaming Pro Carbon motherboard with some Be quite toys  Will keep you up to date. New build is finally coming ,after long 1 year and a half of w8. I decided to pull the trigger on Ryzen.

this contributes nothing to the thread, i'm just here to brag


----------



## toilet pepper (Aug 15, 2017)

I haven't posted my rig so I took some crappy pics.


I managed to get the GSkill F4-3000C16-8GTZR kit @3200Mhz








Not enough RGB. lol


----------



## Durvelle27 (Aug 15, 2017)

toilet pepper said:


> I haven't posted my rig so I took some crappy pics.
> 
> 
> I managed to get the GSkill F4-3000C16-8GTZR kit @3200Mhz
> ...


Hynix or Sammy


----------



## toilet pepper (Aug 15, 2017)

Durvelle27 said:


> Hynix or Sammy



Hynix


----------



## Durvelle27 (Aug 15, 2017)

toilet pepper said:


> Hynix


Sweet

What board


----------



## toilet pepper (Aug 15, 2017)

Durvelle27 said:


> Sweet
> 
> What board



Gigabyte Aorus X370 with an r5 1600


----------



## Cvrk (Aug 15, 2017)

Wish i had more time. The motherboard comes today... soon my rig will be completed. I have to choose the ram,it's a matter of days.
I wish it won't happen #truly but those rgb rams always had problems. I love to get a kit, after reading so much about, everyone says they will fail. Here is just a example








https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/68j9bj/what_was_your_experience_using_gskill_tridentz/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6dfbac/g_skill_rgb_ram_good_for_ryzen/

In 2 months time, you will report back and tell us all about it. In the meantime i am looking for a romanian shop that will sell me these https://gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c14d-16gtzko
Found the red one in stock... but i want the orange
Keep us updated on your rig @toilet pepper Best of luck to you


----------



## toilet pepper (Aug 15, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> Wish i had more time. The motherboard comes today... soon my rig will be completed. I have to choose the ram,it's a matter of days.
> I wish it won't happen #truly but those rgb rams always had problems. I love to get a kit, after reading so much about, everyone says they will fail. Here is just a example
> 
> 
> ...



I've had it for several months. I also watched that video before buying the RAM kits. I didint experience those problems. I tried to recreate his problem and managed to fix it myself. Just dont use the gskill rgb software while using programs that use SMBUS like cpuz and hwinfo64.


----------



## Recca29 (Aug 15, 2017)

First time using a NVME SSD. any thing i need to know before installing windows 10.
Waiting for the case to arrive to start the build.


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 15, 2017)

Recca29 said:


> First time using a NVME SSD. any thing i need to know before installing windows 10.
> Waiting for the case to arrive to start the build.


Nope, but if your board has two M.2 ports, one of them is likely slower than the other, so make sure you use the right slot.


----------



## Recca29 (Aug 15, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> Nope, but if your board has two M.2 ports, one of them is likely slower than the other, so make sure you use the right slot.


Board is Asus ROG STRIX B350-F GAMING, and It has only 1 M2 slot.
I am little concerned with the drivers for Samsung 960 EVO, so downloaded the latest windows 10 version.


----------



## phanbuey (Aug 15, 2017)

i had no issues with my 960 and the asus prime x370 which i think is basically the same as the strix b350 bios wise.


----------



## Cvrk (Aug 15, 2017)

@toilet pepper as i understand ,if you don't install the G.Skill software,the ram will show rainbow colors ,witch is the default.


toilet pepper said:


> Just dont use the gskill rgb software while using programs that use SMBUS like cpuz and hwinfo64.


By "don't use the software" you mean make sure the G.Skill software is closed and not running in the background at the same time with the cpuz etc ? The point of having rgb ram is to set the color you like, either by using the ram software or (i don't know if this is possible ) using the motherboard ,in my case MSI Mystic Light.

To eliminate all problems, just don't install ever the G.Skill software, and you should be solid forever ?

No one can confirm that the Mystic Light can in fact control the ram rgb, but even in the worst case leaving it to rainbow default is not so bad. At least until G.Skill will fix stuff.



toilet pepper said:


> I tried to recreate his problem and managed to fix it myself.


 How exactly did you create those problems ? What was your solution ?

Please reply with details. This is a very interesting topic for me.

P.S. : Does the software controlling the rgb must run all the time ,so you can change the color ? Preferably ,making sure it boots at startup ?


----------



## _JP_ (Aug 15, 2017)

3200: NOPE.avi
2933: Uuuunnnhhgg...nope
2400 (please?): Yeah but with 3200's timings, 2T, 1,2v
2133: Yeah, no sweat.



So, back to 2133MHz (because I felt something was off @2400...although by this time it could just be paranoia on my end ).
Guess it pays to just buy a single, single rank 3200MHz DIMM, even though the word on the street is that DR@2933 renders better performance. And even then, odds are only in favor if it's with Samsung chips.
I'll wait for a few more UEFI updates before trying this again...


----------



## Norton (Aug 16, 2017)

_JP_ said:


> 2400 (please?): Yeah but with 3200's timings, 2T, *1,2v*


You likely need to go to 1.35-1.38v to get the higher speeds- 1.2v won't get you there

I set my Asrock boards to load the XMP profile but changed the speed down before rebooting- went with 2666 first and went up from there.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 16, 2017)

Hes running 2400mhz 1.2v....using looser 3200mhz timings.


----------



## toilet pepper (Aug 16, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> @toilet pepper as i understand ,if you don't install the G.Skill software,the ram will show rainbow colors ,witch is the default.
> 
> - Yes it would just show rainbow colors. It worked like that as soon as I plugged it in and turned it on the first time.
> 
> ...



Already answered, I think? Here's some screenies


----------



## _JP_ (Aug 16, 2017)

Norton said:


> You likely need to go to 1.35-1.38v to get the higher speeds- 1.2v won't get you there
> 
> I set my Asrock boards to load the XMP profile but changed the speed down before rebooting- went with 2666 first and went up from there.


I did set 1.35v for 3200 and 2933, didn't try 1.38v though. Didn't use the "memory try-it" because I was afraid of out of control voltages...autoOC features always (in my experience) go bonkers on that regard...A-XMP didn't work.


EarthDog said:


> Hes running 2400mhz 1.2v....using looser 3200mhz timings.


Yeah, I'm not happy with that, in fact disappointed, but it did load windows and games. I'm going to read more about these M-dies to see what I can muster off them. My guess is I'm also missing something on the CPU-side of things.


----------



## Cvrk (Aug 16, 2017)

W8 a second! Hey , HOO! Stop the horses @toilet pepper
Manufacturer Hynix ?! They should be samsung b-Die

But Thaiphoon Burner costs money


Yeah looking at the https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/62vp2g/clearing_up_any_samsung_bdie_confusion_eg_on/ sheet, you got the Cl16 ram...witch they are Hynix 
My bad.


----------



## toilet pepper (Aug 16, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> W8 a second! Hey , HOO! Stop the horses @toilet pepper
> Manufacturer Hynix ?! They should be samsung b-Die
> 
> But Thaiphoon Burner costs money
> ...



I forgot where I got the Thaiphoon Burner for free but it is locked out of some features.

To sum it all up gskill works and it is pretty. Differnce from 2933 or 3200 aint that big anyways. Nothing that I could feel or notice.


----------



## psyko12 (Aug 17, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> W8 a second! Hey , HOO! Stop the horses @toilet pepper
> Manufacturer Hynix ?! They should be samsung b-Die
> 
> But Thaiphoon Burner costs money
> ...





toilet pepper said:


> I forgot where I got the Thaiphoon Burner for free but it is locked out of some features.
> 
> To sum it all up gskill works and it is pretty. Differnce from 2933 or 3200 aint that big anyways. Nothing that I could feel or notice.



You can actually get the freeware version on the official site....


----------



## Norton (Aug 17, 2017)

psyko12 said:


> You can actually get the freeware version on the official site....


Thanks for that link 

Here's my ram (dual sided samsung E chips):





@_JP_  same ram as yours but built with totally different chips! 
*these are an older revision though...


----------



## Durvelle27 (Aug 17, 2017)

Norton said:


> Thanks for that link
> 
> Here's my ram (dual sided samsung E chips):
> 
> ...


Where did you get that spec list


----------



## Norton (Aug 17, 2017)

Durvelle27 said:


> Where did you get that spec list


Thaiphoon burner- see the link in @psyko12 's post (above mine)


----------



## Durvelle27 (Aug 17, 2017)

Norton said:


> Thaiphoon burner- see the link in @psyko12 's post (above mine)


Dang I need to try that


----------



## psyko12 (Aug 17, 2017)

Here are my non-RGB Trident Z's





And just based from my experience. I find that instability can be seen thru thaiphoon as well if you have oc'd your ram and or ran it with it's xmp profile but unstable the 
CRC check down at the status bar would say "Error" instead of OK. This is just based on what I encountered tho. But after a bit of tweaking and if you get the mix right for the rams the CRC check would read OK as well.
This also can detect if the xmp and spd profile get/got corrupted.


----------



## _JP_ (Aug 18, 2017)

Norton said:


> @_JP_  same ram as yours but built with totally different chips!
> *these are an older revision though...


Yeah, it seems that for some of G.Skill's Trident Z CL16 P/Ns, DIMMs that were at some point Samsung E-Die have started to surface as Hynix A/M-die.
Hynix A-die seems to hold itself better than M, but I've seen Ms easily reach 3200 stable on ASRocks....I believe @HTC is one of the privileged here 
Team Elite seems to be the most consistent with B-dies, but any 3200MHz DIMM rated CL14 should be B-die.
In Ryzen terms, this results in either easy 2933/3066/3200 settings or manual tweaking to reach, depending on manufacturer.
It's more than apparent that each UEFI has their "original" interpretation of AMD's AGESA releases and grabbing X.M.P.s used to be easier 

>Edited for better calarity


----------



## HTC (Aug 18, 2017)

Can anyone suggest a program to display RAM timings for Ubuntu? I'm having trouble locating one that displays the necessary info: my knowledge of Linux is still *very* limited!


----------



## _JP_ (Aug 18, 2017)

HTC said:


> Can anyone suggest a program to display RAM timings for Ubuntu? I'm having trouble locating one that displays the necessary info: my knowledge of Linux is still *very* limited!


Try 

```
sudo dmidecode -t memory
```


----------



## HTC (Aug 18, 2017)

_JP_ said:


> Try
> 
> ```
> sudo dmidecode -t memory
> ```



Got this:


```
# dmidecode 3.0
Getting SMBIOS data from sysfs.
SMBIOS 3.0.0 present.

Handle 0x000E, DMI type 16, 23 bytes
Physical Memory Array
    Location: System Board Or Motherboard
    Use: System Memory
    Error Correction Type: None
    Maximum Capacity: 64 GB
    Error Information Handle: 0x000D
    Number Of Devices: 4

Handle 0x0015, DMI type 17, 40 bytes
Memory Device
    Array Handle: 0x000E
    Error Information Handle: 0x0014
    Total Width: Unknown
    Data Width: Unknown
    Size: No Module Installed
    Form Factor: Unknown
    Set: None
    Locator: DIMM 0
    Bank Locator: CHANNEL A
    Type: Unknown
    Type Detail: Unknown
    Speed: Unknown
    Manufacturer: Unknown
    Serial Number: Unknown
    Asset Tag: Not Specified
    Part Number: Unknown
    Rank: Unknown
    Configured Clock Speed: Unknown
    Minimum Voltage: Unknown
    Maximum Voltage: Unknown
    Configured Voltage: Unknown

Handle 0x0017, DMI type 17, 40 bytes
Memory Device
    Array Handle: 0x000E
    Error Information Handle: 0x0016
    Total Width: 64 bits
    Data Width: 64 bits
    Size: 8192 MB
    Form Factor: DIMM
    Set: None
    Locator: DIMM 1
    Bank Locator: CHANNEL A
    Type: DDR4
    Type Detail: Synchronous Unbuffered (Unregistered)
    Speed: 3200 MHz
    Manufacturer: Unknown
    Serial Number: 00000000
    Asset Tag: Not Specified
    Part Number: F4-3200C16-8GTZB
    Rank: 1
    Configured Clock Speed: 1600 MHz
    Minimum Voltage: 1.2 V
    Maximum Voltage: 1.2 V
    Configured Voltage: 1.2 V

Handle 0x001A, DMI type 17, 40 bytes
Memory Device
    Array Handle: 0x000E
    Error Information Handle: 0x0019
    Total Width: Unknown
    Data Width: Unknown
    Size: No Module Installed
    Form Factor: Unknown
    Set: None
    Locator: DIMM 0
    Bank Locator: CHANNEL B
    Type: Unknown
    Type Detail: Unknown
    Speed: Unknown
    Manufacturer: Unknown
    Serial Number: Unknown
    Asset Tag: Not Specified
    Part Number: Unknown
    Rank: Unknown
    Configured Clock Speed: Unknown
    Minimum Voltage: Unknown
    Maximum Voltage: Unknown
    Configured Voltage: Unknown

Handle 0x001C, DMI type 17, 40 bytes
Memory Device
    Array Handle: 0x000E
    Error Information Handle: 0x001B
    Total Width: 64 bits
    Data Width: 64 bits
    Size: 8192 MB
    Form Factor: DIMM
    Set: None
    Locator: DIMM 1
    Bank Locator: CHANNEL B
    Type: DDR4
    Type Detail: Synchronous Unbuffered (Unregistered)
    Speed: 3200 MHz
    Manufacturer: Unknown
    Serial Number: 00000000
    Asset Tag: Not Specified
    Part Number: F4-3200C16-8GTZB
    Rank: 1
    Configured Clock Speed: 1600 MHz
    Minimum Voltage: 1.2 V
    Maximum Voltage: 1.2 V
    Configured Voltage: 1.2 V
```

Shame Thyphoon Burner doesn't work in Linux (@ least i don't know how to make it work).


----------



## _JP_ (Aug 19, 2017)

JOV1 and JOV2 headers on MSI motherboards if shorted activate #YOLO mode. (get rid of voltage limits for RAM and CPU, respectively)

@HTC You can also snapshot your DIMM's details from UEFI, I believe (usually F12). Probably not the IC information, but SPDs and JDEC detail should be shown.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Aug 19, 2017)

Recca29 said:


> First time using a NVME SSD. any thing i need to know before installing windows 10.
> Waiting for the case to arrive to start the build.



Actually yes, you need to disable CSM to boot from an NVMe drive on Asus motherboards. Sorry for the bad pictured, it's borrowed from the Asus forums.


----------



## Recca29 (Aug 19, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> Actually yes, you need to disable CSM to boot from an NVMe drive on Asus motherboards. Sorry for the bad pictured, it's borrowed from the Asus forums.


thanks for that. finally got all the parts. got the case this morning. 
will start tomorrow with the build.


----------



## Cvrk (Aug 19, 2017)

_JP_ said:


> #YOLO mode.








I'm still w8 for my parts. The benefits of leaving in Romania. Nothing is cheap, everything comes late...if ever comes at all


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 20, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> Actually yes, you need to disable CSM to boot from an NVMe drive on Asus motherboards. Sorry for the bad pictured, it's borrowed from the Asus forums.


That isnt disabled by default? Or only on a specific platform? I dont recall doing that.


----------



## HTC (Aug 20, 2017)

_JP_ said:


> @HTC You can also snapshot your DIMM's details from UEFI, I believe (usually F12). Probably not the IC information, but SPDs and JDEC detail should be shown.



  

This, right?


----------



## TheLostSwede (Aug 20, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> That isnt disabled by default? Or only on a specific platform? I dont recall doing that.



It wasn't for me and my NVMe drive would not work without disabling it. Maybe it's different for different drives? It should be Auto by default, but this didn't work for me.


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 20, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> That isnt disabled by default? Or only on a specific platform? I dont recall doing that.





TheLostSwede said:


> It wasn't for me and my NVMe drive would not work without disabling it. Maybe it's different for different drives? It should be Auto by default, but this didn't work for me.



I only have one drive, a Samsung 960 pro, NVMe and it auto booted windows without any changes in bios. Asus CH6.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 20, 2017)

Ive had a 950 pro, rd400, and hellfire...didnt need to change a thing on any asus, msi, or giga boards (not sure i had asrock). 

Id give it a go without changing that option. If it doesnt work, flip it.


----------



## _JP_ (Aug 20, 2017)

HTC said:


> View attachment 91229 View attachment 91230
> 
> This, right?


Right. 
Strange, my old FM2A75 Pro4 allowed to show more than that 
Yours might hidden in the "DRAM timing configiration".


----------



## HTC (Aug 20, 2017)

_JP_ said:


> Right.
> Strange, my old FM2A75 Pro4 allowed to show more than that
> Yours might hidden in the "DRAM timing configiration".



Dunno: will check next boot and take some screenshots.


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 20, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Ive had a 950 pro, rd400, and hellfire...didnt need to change a thing on any asus, msi, or giga boards (not sure i had asrock).
> 
> Id give it a go without changing that option. If it doesnt work, flip it.



950 Pro's have all kinds of legacy support onboard (as well as most other SSDs).  960 series not so much.  It's documented online somewhere.

950 will even boot on X58 boards as an example, with an adapter of course.


----------



## HTC (Aug 20, 2017)

_JP_ said:


> Right.
> Strange, my old FM2A75 Pro4 allowed to show more than that
> *Yours might hidden in the "DRAM timing configiration"*.



 

Haven't changed a thing: these are the XMP profile settings.

What i have to do is figure out how to undervolt and underclock the CPU so that i can have like 400 to 500 less base MHz: that should be sufficient. Later on, if need be, i can always revert it to stock clocks for "more performance".


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Aug 20, 2017)

I'm not going any higher until I put heatsinks on the ram and I get my AM4 bracket...
I'm still only hitting 63.1w...I know I can reduce the volts a little more and I don't think as of yet I'm getting the best out of that memory...I'm @1.39v and I've had them as high as 1.41 without any issue....I think I'll wait to get off of stock cooler and nothing else before I really push it.


----------



## Recca29 (Aug 22, 2017)

i have setup the system with a temporary psu and installed windows and drivers. i am now getting am issue.
the system doesn't shut down through windows, it just restarts every time i try to shut down. 
anyone have any idea why it's happening.


----------



## Cvrk (Sep 5, 2017)

Long day for me. Exhausted and sad. I need help. Advice. 
the bequite AM4 mouting kit fir garbage. I almost broke my motherboard, trying to tighten the screws on the back plate. It's made in such way that it's a double screw. Theoretically you need to hold the top and screw in the bottom . Impossible. I will show you pictures, that the cooler was so incredible lose it almost did not touch (make contact) with the thermal paste. There are builds on youtube using the bequite cooling with the am4 kit... maybe those guys are pro, maybe they know something i don't. 
I am also blaming it on the motherboard. I think the holes are to big. I will show you, don't know it those holes are standard and exist on every AM4 motherboard. 
At this point,  i have to try to get my money back on the Dark Rock Pro 3,and go for a Noctua. More ugly, more expensive. I will take ugly, even tho expensive is a problem. 

For those of you here, that have Noctua coolers : please help me. 
1. Tell me that they can be mounted easily . Did you struggle , or what ? Is it anything like this ? 









2. What cooler to get ? The big one,or the small one ? For a 200-300 Mhz 
https://www.emag.ro/cooler-procesor...ompatibil-amd-am4-cpntu12sseam4/pd/D7X7Z7BBM/

https://www.emag.ro/cooler-procesor-noctua-nh-d15-compatibil-intel-amd-cpntd15/pd/D9L81BBBM/






I used some tape to reduce the looseness, it had a jiggle. The entire cooler moved around with the back plate.It was not firm in place. Never seen anything like this. In the vertical position of the motherboard, it kinda felt into place, cuz it's very heavy. But it almost did not make any contact with the cpu. The screws in the back where never 100% tight. 

Wish i had an idea how to use this cooler with its mounting kit.... it's a pain just to think that i can't finish my build, i need to get a more expensive and ugly noctua






I have the exact same cooler as him 









How did he managed to set it up ? 
Please help


----------



## Norton (Sep 5, 2017)

Sorry to hear about your troubles @Cvrk 

In response to your Noctua question.... less than 60 seconds to install the mounting kit and about the same to install the cooler


----------



## Recca29 (Sep 5, 2017)

Cvrk said:


>


Dude, did you crack the board at 2 places?


----------



## Norton (Sep 5, 2017)

@Cvrk that is one lousy way to install a cooler 

Video is in german but you can see the process:


----------



## Dbiggs9 (Sep 5, 2017)

Are there any Motherboards AM4 that i could use my AM3 Water cooler on?


----------



## Rehmanpa (Sep 5, 2017)

Dbiggs9 said:


> Are there any Motherboards AM4 that i could use my AM3 Water cooler on?


Can't you just change the mounting bracket and use any of them?


----------



## Rehmanpa (Sep 5, 2017)

Does the threadripper TR4 socket have the same AM4 mounting issues or did they chsnge anything with it?


----------



## infrared (Sep 5, 2017)

Dbiggs9 said:


> Are there any Motherboards AM4 that i could use my AM3 Water cooler on?


The Asus Crosshair VI Hero has holes drilled for both AM3 & AM4 coolers, there's probably a few others also. Or just buy the AM4 bracket and use whatever motherboard you want 

@Rehmanpa TR4 is another bracket again, I doubt most coolers that would do an AM4 CPU would even cover the whole heatspreader of a Threadripper.


----------



## HTC (Sep 5, 2017)

Cvrk said:


> Long day for me. Exhausted and sad. I need help. Advice.
> the bequite AM4 mouting kit fir garbage. I almost broke my motherboard, trying to tighten the screws on the back plate. It's made in such way that it's a double screw. Theoretically you need to hold the top and screw in the bottom . Impossible. I will show you pictures, that the cooler was so incredible lose it almost did not touch (make contact) with the thermal paste. There are builds on youtube using the bequite cooling with the am4 kit... maybe those guys are pro, maybe they know something i don't.
> I am also blaming it on the motherboard. I think the holes are to big. I will show you, don't know it those holes are standard and exist on every AM4 motherboard.
> At this point,  i have to try to get my money back on the Dark Rock Pro 3,and go for a Noctua. More ugly, more expensive. I will take ugly, even tho expensive is a problem.
> ...



Dude: do not force! You risk breaking something if you attempt to force!

When putting the cooler in place, if you feel it has some slack then you did it wrong so i suggest you try and re-do it from scratch.

*The following applies only to Noctua coolers:*

A question: is your cooler the AM4 version? Perhaps it's not AM4 version, in which case you'll need the AM4 mounting kit adapter. I had to get this myself because my cooler is very old and it's even discontinued: instructions on how to do this here. You will not need this if your cooler is the AM4 version because, if so, it already has the proper parts for the assembly..

According to your 1st pic, there are 4 black spacers that should not be there: Noctua's spacers are grey, as seen in your youtube video. Furthermore, there are screws there? Huh? You should either see the holes for the screws or the heads of the screws but not what's shown in your 1st pic.

EDIT

In my case, i had to remove the FM2 adapter from the cooler in order to attach the AM4 adapter to it so that i could then mount it on the board.


----------



## Norton (Sep 6, 2017)

HTC said:


> According to your 1st pic, there are 4 black spacers that should not be there: Noctua's spacers are grey, as seen in your youtube video. Furthermore, there are screws there? Huh? You should either see the holes for the screws or the heads of the screws but not what's shown in your 1st pic.


He was installing a Be Quiet Dark Rock Pro 3 not a Noctua...


----------



## HTC (Sep 6, 2017)

Norton said:


> He was installing a Be Quiet Dark Rock Pro 3 not a Noctua...



Really? Then i completely miss understood: my bad ... ooooops ....


----------



## ne6togadno (Sep 6, 2017)

Norton said:


> @Cvrk that is one lousy way to install a cooler
> 
> Vidoe is in german but you can see the process:


fuck me. my car's engine is easier to assemble then this backplate/mounting bracket 
german engineering in its finest....


----------



## Rehmanpa (Sep 6, 2017)

ne6togadno said:


> fuck me. my car's engine is easier to assemble then this backplate/mounting bracket
> german engineering in its finest....


 unless it's a volvo, then it's German maintinence at it's finest


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Sep 6, 2017)

The mounting kit for the NZXT Kracken works great but kind of scares me...
It works with the provided AMD backplate with screw in posts that are spaced with metal that directly contact the PCB.
It doesn't feel like the heat exchanger is making good contact with the cpu but it is.

Temps are great... Given I have a 65w CPU I never go over 58°c..
This is my first CPU that over clocks with an under volt but craps out over 1.370v

Really wish I'd of gotten  a better motherboard for this CPU... I'm fairly certain I'm hitting the boards limits and not the CPUs... I'm also fairly certain that 2667 is the best memory speed I'm going to get..

All in all I am very happy with the platform.
Can't wait for the revision as well as Zen APU's
When I bought a 7850k apu I said I'd like to see how they perform with DDR4 because I felt there only thing holding them back was memory speed... But I never thought AMD would literally put 28nm APU's on AM4 with a slightly better imc... But I get it.. I bet a 3 core 6 thread Zen APU  would probably kill a lot lower end gfx sales.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Sep 6, 2017)

Will zen 2.0 and threadripper 2.0 chips work on current boards? Thinking about investing in one and if it's going to be replaced by early next year it's hard to know if I should or not.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Sep 6, 2017)

Rehmanpa said:


> Will zen 2.0 and threadripper 2.0 chips work on current boards? Thinking about investing in one and if it's going to be replaced by early next year it's hard to know if I should or not.


As of today Pinnacle Ridge (Zen2) is reported to be in AM4 as well as Zen3...
But honestly they could change that... But probably not.


----------



## Cvrk (Sep 7, 2017)

@Norton if it wasn't for the video you posted, yesterday and many days from now on would have been sad for me. The bequiet cooler costs so much, the Noctua would have been even more a financial burden. Not to mention that the build would have been finished, who knows when, 
This is because of you






I think these extra grommets that i used are also a good solution. But you don't have to. If you look at the video at minute 10, they also mess up., realizing their mistake. 





@Norton if it wasn't for your fast response, i would have shipped the bequiet cooler back,and w8 to get the money back...who knows when. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
I read stuff on this forum all the time, sometimes you drop a like(thank you) for encouragement.  For you, this ones worth all the praises. Maybe we will meet one day, i will treat you to a glass of lemonade ,or beer ...i don't really drink alcoholic beverages.


----------



## horsemama1956 (Sep 7, 2017)

Finally grabbed Ryzen parts. Opted for the 1400 because I plan on grabbing the refresh and in Canada the difference was $100+.. Running at 3.8Ghz at 1.3 no problem on stock cooler, but plan on grabbing a GAMMAXX 300 next week for a cheapo replacement(love the cheap deepcool stuff). BF1 is now a locked 60.


----------



## Rehmanpa (Sep 8, 2017)

horsemama1956 said:


> Finally grabbed Ryzen parts. Opted for the 1400 because I plan on grabbing the refresh and in Canada the difference was $100+.. Running at 3.8Ghz at 1.3 no problem on stock cooler, but plan on grabbing a GAMMAXX 300 next week for a cheapo replacement(love the cheap deepcool stuff). BF1 is now a locked 60.


Congrats what you upgrade from?


----------

