# AMD Ryzen 1700X, 1600X & 1300 Benchmarks Leaked



## Raevenlord (Feb 17, 2017)

A number of sites have been reporting on some leaked (as in, captured from Futuremark's database) scores on AMD's upcoming CPUs. Now, some benchmarks seem to have surfaced regarding not only the company's 8-core, 16-thread monsters, but also towards its sweet-spot 6-core, 12-thread CPUs and its more mundane 4-core offerings.

Taking into account some metrics (which you should, naturally, take with some grains of salt), and comparing Intel's and AMD's Ryzen offerings on 3DMark's Fire Strike Physics scores, we can see that a $389 Ryzen 7 1700X (8 cores, 16 threads) at its base clock of 3.4 GHz manages to surpass Intel's competing (in thread count alone, since it retails for $1089) 6900K running at its base 3.2 GHz frequency - with the Ryzen processor scoring 17,878 points versus the 6900K's 17,100. Doing some fast and hard maths, this would mean that if the R7 1700X was to be clocked at the same speed as the 6900K, it would still be faster, clock for clock (though not by much, admittedly). We don't know whether Turbo was disabled or not on these tests, for either AMD's or Intel's processor, so we have to consider that. However, if Turbo were enabled, that would mean that the R7 1700X's clockspeed would only be 100 MHz higher than the 6900K's (3.8 GHz max, vs 3.7 GHz max on the Intel CPU). 



 



We see the same when comparing AMD's six-core, $259 R5 1600X against Intel's $617 6850K, with the Ryzen sample posting virtually the same score, despite running at a 300 MHz lower base clock (3.3 Ghz against Intel's 3.6 Ghz).



 

Jumping to a per-core analysis of processor speed in the same test suite, though, also reveals some very interesting metrics. here is a test which clearly doesn't scale all that well with extra cores, actually becoming more inefficient, per core, as the number of those increases. However, we can clearly see how much of an improvement AMD has achieved in per-core performance, with the R7 1700X scoring within spiting distance of its much more expensive i7 6900K competition.

Can we just get some real reviews of these pieces of silicon already?

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## mouacyk (Feb 17, 2017)

"Doing some fast and hard maths, this would mean that if the R7 1700X was to be clocked at the same speed as the 6900K, it would still be faster, clock for clock (though not by much, admittedly)."

What kind of math exactly?  

1700X @ 3.2GHz = 17878 / 3.4 * 3.2 = 16826 (How is this faster than 6900K at 17100?)
6900K @ 3.4GHz = 17100 / 3.2 * 3.4 = 18168

Must be Friday math.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Feb 17, 2017)

These can no longer be called leaks but tsunami's!!! may aswell just rename the site TECHPOWERyzenUP.COM lol just give us some real benches AMD!!!!!


----------



## bug (Feb 17, 2017)

Strangely enough, I don't care about all those cores. But I would love to be able to get a dirt cheap 4-core CPU, because that's all I need at home.
I can hardly believe that after all these years AMD may finally have something I can actually consider buying, after so many let downs. Ok, I considered a 480 last year, but decided to pass till they get their Linux support straightened up.


----------



## Brusfantomet (Feb 17, 2017)

in your second pic, the "score per core" does not seam ti increase with the clock speed, is that just the alcohol and loud music afflicting my brain or does that look weird?


----------



## MrGenius (Feb 17, 2017)

Brusfantomet said:


> in your second pic, the "score per core" does not seam ti increase with the clock speed, is that just the alcohol and loud music afflicting my brain or does that look weird?


Let me quote myself from a previous thread.


MrGenius said:


> There's results from 3 different CPUs being shown there... With the results from ONLY ONE of them being shown at 2 different frequencies. So that's the ONLY ONE you can judge for any performance gained by clocking it higher. And it clearly shows that it, in fact, does gain performance at a higher frequency.
> 
> AMD Ryzen: ZD3406BAM88F4_38/34_Y @ 3.4 GHz = *2235*
> AMD Ryzen: ZD3406BAM88F4_38/34_Y @ 4.0 GHz = *2531*
> ...


----------



## kruk (Feb 17, 2017)

bug said:


> Ok, I considered a 480 last year, but decided to pass till they get their Linux support straightened up.



I have been using the opensource driver for years, first radeonsi on my SI card, now amdgpu on Polaris (since approx september). It works great and it's fast enough, however, I won't deny there might be problems with AAA games ...


----------



## JalleR (Feb 17, 2017)

so far the price is the most exciting thing.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 17, 2017)

Raevenlord said:


> Jumping to a per-core analysis of processor speed in the same test suite, though, also reveals some very interesting metrics. here is a test which clearly doesn't scale all that well with extra cores, actually becoming more inefficient, per core, as the number of those increases. However, we can clearly see how much of an improvement AMD has achieved in per-core performance, with the R7 1700X scoring within spiting distance of its much more expensive i7 6900K competition.



It scales perfectly if you assume the clockspeed is wrong. Every other CPU scales perfectly yet the 4 AMD chips do not. It is a pretty easy assumption to make that they are all clocked at the same speed. Don't feed the hype especially not based off of a WCCF article with data pulled by a russian GPU page...


----------



## buggalugs (Feb 17, 2017)

Hey Raevenlord, can I give you some advice bro? I know you're new, and you're doing a good job, but you need to improve your sentence structure. 

 It's something I've noticed in many of your news posts. You have too many run-on sentences.

 This is a good example of what I mean:

"Taking into account some metrics (which you should, naturally, take with some grains of salt), and comparing Intel's and AMD's Ryzen offerings on 3DMark's Fire Strike Physics scores, we can see that a $389 Ryzen 7 1700X (8 cores, 16 threads) at its base clock of 3.4 GHz manages to surpass Intel's competing (in thread count alone, since it retails for $1089) 6900K running at its base 3.2 GHz frequency - with the Ryzen processor scoring 17,878 points versus the 6900K's 17,100. "

 That's one sentence, its way too long. It reads very clumsily and it sounds awkward. It's a whole paragraph in one sentence. You need more full stops, and less run-on sentences. 

Also, less information in brackets in the one sentence. No more than one or two brackets in the same sentence, three is too much. Unless it's just basic information like CPU clockspeeds (3.4Ghz) or something, but if the brackets contain whole sentences, try to keep them to a minimum in the one sentence.

  I hope you dont take this personally, it's meant to be constructive criticizm.


----------



## doel (Feb 18, 2017)

damn, just damn!
i just move-on from amd to skylake a couple month ago, , , ,


----------



## Da Rooster (Feb 18, 2017)

mouacyk said:


> "Doing some fast and hard maths, this would mean that if the R7 1700X was to be clocked at the same speed as the 6900K, it would still be faster, clock for clock (though not by much, admittedly)."
> 
> What kind of math exactly?
> 
> ...



let get to the math! 6900k $1049 1700x $389 there the math that matters!


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Feb 18, 2017)

cdawall said:


> It scales perfectly if you assume the clockspeed is wrong. Every other CPU scales perfectly yet the 4 AMD chips do not. It is a pretty easy assumption to make that they are all clocked at the same speed. Don't feed the hype especially not based off of a WCCF article with data pulled by a russian GPU page...



Yeah. What he said. I believe nothing until someone can say, "NDA over. I tested Ryzen with high-end mobo, quality RAM, and compared it to B with the following the same and I got these metrics."


----------



## Jism (Feb 18, 2017)

JalleR said:


> so far the price is the most exciting thing.



AMD needs to gain market back again. And todo this is to offer performance that's equal if not equivalent towards intel's current offerings. It will proberly be the Zen+ that starts to hit at a higher price with even more performance.

If these leaks are genuine, then it means that the 1700X will be of best value. I cant wait to upgrade my system towards a AMD platform. I just love them being back in the game, taking a huge dump on Goliath with a much smaller budget & R&D.


----------



## Beastie (Feb 18, 2017)

Performance/price is what counts and it looks like AMD is doing spectacularly well on that front if these leaks are anywhere near accurate.

 If so it is a win for everyone.
 IMO even for Intel, they needed a kick up the posterior.


----------



## Brusfantomet (Feb 18, 2017)

MrGenius said:


> Let me quote myself from a previous thread.



Hmm.
If the 3.4 GHz = 2235 is true then a linear scaling should give:
2256 /3,4*4= 2654
Now it could be throttling and the 3.4 ghz chip is boosting but still, callously optimistic.
IF the leaks are true and zen is a power users wet dream and oc better than a nealhelm I will get one, have had enough problems with x99.

The leaks looks nice, and if they hold AMD will kick some intel ass, amd as MrGenius points out, a AMD chip at $400 that beats a $1000 intel chip does makes the CPU market interesting


----------



## puma99dk| (Feb 18, 2017)

mby it's time to try smth new with AMD Ryzen from all this looks like.


----------



## YautjaLord (Feb 18, 2017)

I'll dig more thoroughly into this thing in about 8 to 10 hours from now, (you don't exactly do math after an evening of melodic death metal & few litres of beverage, now do you? lol) but these pics/graphs draw some impressive picture for me. If these (1700X, 1600X & 1300) run at their base clocks, i can hardly imagine what will happen when Precision Boost kicks in. The real (call it slightly sober, lol) question for me is - what AM4 mobo was used.


----------



## Jism (Feb 18, 2017)

There is no more logical difference in AM4 motherboards, since the chipset is moved into the CPU. The difference would be a better VRM and all that stuff, but it's not like buying a Crosshair series would guarantee you a cherry picked chipset for example.


----------



## horsemama1956 (Feb 18, 2017)

mouacyk said:


> "Doing some fast and hard maths, this would mean that if the R7 1700X was to be clocked at the same speed as the 6900K, it would still be faster, clock for clock (though not by much, admittedly)."
> 
> What kind of math exactly?
> 
> ...


Is this a joke?


----------



## Nuckles56 (Feb 18, 2017)

Another day and yet another leak, I just want them to be released so the speculation can end


----------



## ensabrenoir (Feb 18, 2017)

.....leaks....yeah right.  People really do under estimate Amd's marketing.   Careful on all the hype though. While i wish it well....don't wanna see Zen identical to Haswell on launch day..... My pipe dream is intel cpu with Amd graphics core...from that other thread


----------



## Sigma957 (Feb 18, 2017)

It's too good to be true!


----------



## Naito (Feb 18, 2017)

horsemama1956 said:


> Is this a joke?



Must be! 


1700X @ 3.2GHz = (17878 / 3200) * 3400 = 18995
6900K @ 3.4GHz = 17100

OR

1700X @ 3.2GHz = 17878
6900K @ 3.4GHz = (17100 / 3400) * 3200 = 16094

This is what I think @mouacyk was trying to show - a rough estimation of score if we assume both processors share the same frequency. Obviously other factors come into play, in reality.


----------



## HD64G (Feb 18, 2017)

I just wish those numbers are for stock Ryzen CPUs. If so, the party for the PC HW enthusiasts will be on for long after their sale starts.


----------



## Vego (Feb 18, 2017)

should i be worry that my 6950X clock onlu 4,3 and my 5960X clocks only 4,7?
thats alot of money wasted


----------



## Vlada011 (Feb 18, 2017)

i7-6900K will stay better option than AMD 8 cores.
Performance difference between i7-6900K default frequency and OC is huge.
Not only CPU performance, memory write, read, copy, everything is improved a lot.
Overclocking Cache frequency is huge advantage of X99 platform and influence a lot on memory performance.
Now someone to ask me what you want i7-6900K or to wait AMD Ryzen with new board I would take i7-6900K without second thinking.




Vego said:


> should i be worry that my 6950X clock onlu 4,3 and my 5960X clocks only 4,7?
> thats alot of money wasted



You should sell i7-5960X, i7-6950X is enough. It's not wasted money if you can afford.
I would bought i7-6950X as well. Only I think his price is not real, Intel should stay in 1000$ range.
Before few days I saw one i7-6950X for 800 or 850 euro in my country. Excellent chance. But that's too much for me at the moment. I wait i7-6900K or i7-6850K for cheaper price.
I believe that AMD Ryzen could not beat score of overclocked i7-6900K. Both overclocked.


----------



## nemesis.ie (Feb 18, 2017)

Vlada011 said:


> Now someone to ask me what you want i7-6900K or to wait AMD Ryzen with new board I would take i7-6900K without second thinking.
> 
> 
> I believe that AMD Ryzen could not beat score of overclocked i7-6900K. Both overclocked.




Would it not make more sense to wait the 4 weeks until the real performance is known if you are in the market for this kind of chip? Even if it (Ryzen 1800X) is 10% slower OC to OC (bear in mind the 1800X is not in these charts) but nearly half the price, unless you absolutely needed the extra 10% for your work load and it justified the price difference, the AMD makes more sense. The total platform cost will likley improve the cost ratio in AMD's favour even further.

It may actually even match/beat it, we don't know yet.

Believe what you want, we should know the truth in a few weeks and making desicisions before all the facts are out seems a little backwards to me. If it was 6 months ago that would be another story.


----------



## NicklasAPJ (Feb 18, 2017)

That graph is so bad.

if 1700X @ 4Ghz only getting 20300 CPU score, is great but not that good.
My 6900K @ 4GHhz getting 21900 CPU score.

Ram Mhz/CL is doing so much work at CPU Score, so we cant use this to a thing sadly.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Feb 18, 2017)

NicklasAPJ said:


> That graph is so bad.
> 
> if 1700X @ 4Ghz only getting 20300 CPU score, is great but not that good.
> My 6900K @ 4GHhz getting 21900 CPU score.
> ...


So if it can match an Intel 8 core at half the cost its not that good..... Yea I'll have what you're smoking, hey, why don't they just give they away, would that make it a better deal?


----------



## PowerPC (Feb 18, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> So if it can match an Intel 8 core at half the cost its not that good..... Yea I'll have what you're smoking, hey, why don't they just give they away, would that make it a better deal?


 It's actually more like one third of the cost if you count in the motherboard cost.

What I want to know is how RAM speed will work with Ryzen. I got a sweet deal for 16GB of 3200 DDR4 memory and I'm betting on Ryzen to take some advantage of it. Have there been any reports about this?


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 18, 2017)

Zomg!!! So many cores, so few applications and games to use them....good thing the price is reasonable...can't wait to see actual benchmarks and single threaded performance!


----------



## moproblems99 (Feb 18, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Zomg!!! So many cores, so few applications and games to use them....good thing the price is reasonable...can't wait to see actual benchmarks and single threaded performance!



I'm not sure why everyone is so stuck on today.  Sure, there aren't many apps that are optimized for more than a couple threads.  But could that be because more than 4 cores have been relatively prohibitively expensive for the majority of people for the last several years?

If you are going to complain about the number of cores in Ryzen, you may as well complain about cars that have more than 200hp because most speed limits are under 65mph / 100kmh.


----------



## bug (Feb 18, 2017)

kruk said:


> I have been using the opensource driver for years, first radeonsi on my SI card, now amdgpu on Polaris (since approx september). It works great and it's fast enough, however, I won't deny there might be problems with AAA games ...


Eh, it's not that simple. First, I was sorely disappointed to see no OpenGL performance improvements whatsoever. That and the lack of application profiles is a guaranteed lag of performance between the closed source drivers.
Second, about 9 months ago when I was looking, open drivers only supported Polaris and GCN 1.2. Not a biggie when buying a 480, but considering how AMD mixed architectures within a years' lineup, support was like a russian roulette.
Third, to this day the open driver is not on par feature wise with the closed driver. And the closed driver doesn't work with recent kernels.
So I had to pass.


----------



## notb (Feb 18, 2017)

For me there is only one thing obvious when looking at the graphs: there are *no other AMD chips*.
Why the author didn't compare Ryzen to anything AMD currently offers?
There are some serious differences in the architecture and AMD always performance surprisingly well in some tests - even taking into account they've been using an outdated 28nm process.

Also, just from a realist standpoint, I deeply doubt the technological jump they would have to make to achieve such performance improvement, as this goes well beyond the obvious gain stemming from the 14nm process. Even when Intel and AMD used similar manufacturing tech, Intel was always extracting a bit more power from the silicon.
Nothing (e.g. takeovers or other know-how transitions) happened that could change this situation, but suddenly AMD shows a CPU that is rumored to be just as fast as Intel counterparts with similar power requirements and costing much less.

Also, we can expect Intel and AMD to be well informed on what the other company is developing at the moment. Just looking at the total laziness of Intel lately - crowned by the great joke called Kaby Lake - it seems they really aren't very worried about Ryzen. But while they most likely knew a lot about the performance and the manufacturing cost, they may have been surprised by the MSRP.

This instantly brings me to another idea: how many Ryzen CPUs does AMD expect to sell and how much are they willing to lose per chip, to regain some market share? Of course more CPUs mean more motherboards and possibly also more GPUs.


----------



## jaggerwild (Feb 18, 2017)

Vego said:


> should i be worry that my 6950X clock onlu 4,3 and my 5960X clocks only 4,7?
> thats alot of money wasted



 No Id be more worried about you hangin at EVGay.com, buying stuff like memory coolers.......

 On topic Id like to see a real link to a real score, not someones self made graph.


----------



## kruk (Feb 18, 2017)

notb said:


> Also, just from a realist standpoint, I deeply doubt the technological jump they would have to make to achieve such performance improvement, as this goes well beyond the obvious gain stemming from the 14nm process. Even when Intel and AMD used similar manufacturing tech, Intel was always extracting a bit more power from the silicon.
> Nothing (e.g. takeovers or other know-how transitions) happened that could change this situation, but suddenly AMD shows a CPU that is rumored to be just as fast as Intel counterparts with similar power requirements and costing much less.



I don't know why this is so hard to believe. Intel has been stuck on 14 nm for years and they they haven't been exactly putting a lot of effort in new generations - they didn't need to because AMD was so far behind; alternatively, they might have reached the architecture limits.


----------



## PowerPC (Feb 18, 2017)

This is why I'm a big fan of AMD. Because they always try to pull stunts like this even though they don't always work, but when they do... Wew lad....

PS 
Intel, you're fired!


----------



## HD64G (Feb 18, 2017)

PowerPC said:


> It's actually more like one third of the cost if you count in the motherboard cost.
> 
> What I want to know is how RAM speed will work with Ryzen. I got a sweet deal for 16GB of 3200 DDR4 memory and I'm betting on Ryzen to take some advantage of it. Have there been any reports about this?


Ram speeds will be ok if you buy a nice mobo. There are reports about 4GHz+ with oc in top quality MBs.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Feb 18, 2017)

notb said:


> For me there is only one thing obvious when looking at the graphs: there are *no other AMD chips*.
> Why the author didn't compare Ryzen to anything AMD currently offers?
> There are some serious differences in the architecture and AMD always performance surprisingly well in some tests - even taking into account they've been using an outdated 28nm process.



If we assume that most, if not all, of the leaks so far are true then the FX series can't hold a candle to Ryzen. So far any comparison there has anywhere from a 30% to 100% gap in performance. It is also because that is not going to be their competition because Ryzen will replace it the entire FX line period.



notb said:


> Also, just from a realist standpoint, I deeply doubt the technological jump they would have to make to achieve such performance improvement, as this goes well beyond the obvious gain stemming from the 14nm process. Even when Intel and AMD used similar manufacturing tech, Intel was always extracting a bit more power from the silicon. Nothing (e.g. takeovers or other know-how transitions) happened that could change this situation, but suddenly AMD shows a CPU that is rumored to be just as fast as Intel counterparts with similar power requirements and costing much less.



Well yes it is possible. AMD's Bulldozer design was a radical departure from CPU design. They intended for the industry to follow them and take better advantage of how it was designed and functioned, but no one did. Lets be honest, Ryzen is basically an Intel chip designed and built by AMD. No shared resources, using SMT, with a focus in design on fixing weaknesses and lower latency anyway they could by address every area Intel was curb stomping them on.



notb said:


> Also, we can expect Intel and AMD to be well informed on what the other company is developing at the moment. Just looking at the total laziness of Intel lately - crowned by the great joke called Kaby Lake - it seems they really aren't very worried about Ryzen. But while they most likely knew a lot about the performance and the manufacturing cost, they may have been surprised by the MSRP. This instantly brings me to another idea: how many Ryzen CPUs does AMD expect to sell and how much are they willing to lose per chip, to regain some market share? Of course more CPUs mean more motherboards and possibly also more GPUs.



Intel did know, they are a little concerned. Intel has too much market share, too much money, and too many CPUs. They are clearly concerned with the sudden announcement during these rumors about an unlocked i3 chip, possible i5 with HyperThreading (which is stupid), and two new SKUs for Kaby Lake this early. But nothing is stopping Intel from lower the price of older gen chips to compete over price even if AMD is faster than those chips.

And since you don't know that Intel has been price hiking because they had no competition.....well that. AMD will not be losing any money at these prices. Intel has just been over charging for years. AMD seems to be realistic right now and are targeting markets they have little presence in like the enthusiast PC market and server market first. Once they have some traction there, they can focus on trying to take market share away from Intel. This should get their foot in the door so to speak.


----------



## Grings (Feb 18, 2017)

Why is i5 with hyper threading still a stupid idea?

They recently gave it to pentiums, making clock speed the only difference from 3mb cache i3's, and are just about to face an onslaught of amd chips with more than 4 threads in the i5's price bracket


----------



## efikkan (Feb 18, 2017)

Just make sure you include a benchmark with XFR disabled, since the gains of XFR will vary a lot between different samples and builds.


----------



## Sharkyy (Feb 18, 2017)

I do not care what people speak  , i will buy amd cpu . For me it works always beter than intel cpu . I wait a lot of time for a new cpu from amd clan  . Cheers AMD  . With this price and 95 w it worth 10 times more than intel cpu , plus the performance is near the same .


----------



## Serpent of Darkness (Feb 18, 2017)

mouacyk said:


> "Doing some fast and hard maths, this would mean that if the R7 1700X was to be clocked at the same speed as the 6900K, it would still be faster, clock for clock (though not by much, admittedly)."
> 
> What kind of math exactly?
> 
> ...



The math isn't exactly accurate.  If you look at the first picture, there's some diminishing returns.  Another way to look at this, it doesn't scale 1 to 1 as the frequency goes up.

From the first picture:

1700X @ 3.4ghz = 17,878 pts.
1700X @ 4.0ghz = 20,249 pts.

If we do your math (proportions), then the following is true:

17,878 pts (3.4 ghz)^-1 = n (4.0 ghz)^-1; n = a number with a unit in points for a score.

17,878 pts (3.4 ghz)^-1 (4.0 ghz) = 21,032.9 pts.

A difference in the score is 783.9 pts for 0.6 ghz gains.

There are a few points I would like to add.

1. From the first image, i7 6950x Broadwell-E seems to have a higher physic score, at stock, because it has more cores (10 cores, 20 threads).  1700X has 8 cores and 16 threads, and so it could be concluded that more cores improves this score.  In addition, 1700X can exceed the score of the Broadwell-E if it is overclocked to 4.0 ghz, but if Broadwell-E was cranked up to 4.0ghz, its score would exceed by a large margin.

2. I don't understand the AMD-romance members are having about some Physics Scores related to Ryzen.  I think it is meat for the masses and fanboys.  Honestly, it doesn't tell the masses much, and Physic isn't necessarily needed for all PC games.  The measurements only become relevant when members play PC games like Battlefield, The Old Republic, Call of Duty, Elder Scrolls Online, ....  Basically the performance has meaning when physic calculations are being executed behind the rendering scenes of a FPS or game using it.

@mouacyk, I'm not arguing a point with you.  Basically I am stating my point, but I am using your thread as start off point.  So I hope you didn't take any offense of this.



Vego said:


> should i be worry that my 6950X clock onlu 4,3 and my 5960X clocks only 4,7?
> thats alot of money wasted



Broadwell-E doesn't OC that high in my opinion.  I have my 6950x at 4.0 ghz.  When rendering with VRay, it jumps into the low 70 deg C temperatures.  If you compare it to Ivy Bridge-E 4960x, I had that processor up to 4.7, 4.8 ghz.   It ran into the 90 deg C range when I use to render, and that setup was with a watercooling setup.  Generally speaking, 4960x and 5960x will run faster than 6950x because of the difference in cores.  The allure of Broadwell-E is you have a processor with 10 Cores.  10 Cores is ideal for a cheaper Xeon rig with no ECC memory, and you can render without spending $5,000 minimum on hardware alone.  This is not including the cost for CGI software and 3rd party render nodes that are roughly $1,000 a license.

To answer your question, it will depend on the situation.  If AMD came out with a 1900X with 10 cores, 20 threads at a higher clock speed, the answer would be yes and no.  Yes because if you really care about performance, a theoretical 1900X could possibly beat a Broadwell-E.  This thought is considering the scenario that Ryzen will live up to the hype.  No you shouldn't worry because AMD doesn't always live up to the expectations, and AMD has a bad habit of setting the bar high for itself.  It needs to set the bar high to compete with Intel, but AMD has a bad habit of falling a little short.


----------



## Mescalamba (Feb 18, 2017)

Grings said:


> Why is i5 with hyper threading still a stupid idea?
> 
> They recently gave it to pentiums, making clock speed the only difference from 3mb cache i3's, and are just about to face an onslaught of amd chips with more than 4 threads in the i5's price bracket



Recently?

Ehm ehm, Pentium 4 had HT. It was huge thing back then, especially huge in not really working or being worth much. 

HT isnt good for games, cause games lack ability to distinguish between real core and "just another thread". But its pretty good for stuff that scales with number of cores (eg. not games).

Also its reason why per-clock computation power of Ryzen is important. Gamers dont actually need multi-cores much. From what I play, it uses 2 cores in best case.. I could most likely live with high OC 2-core CPU in my games and never notice.

AMD in pre-Ryzen had a lots of multi-thread stuff but very poor actually computation power per-clock. Not much point in 5GHz CPU if its as effective as competition that has 3,2GHz.

Giving some CPU HT is about as useful for generic user as having old AMD. HT apart very specific stuff isnt actually good for ppl that dont know how to use it. Also due higher load per-core it tends to up watts consumed and heat created. Plus ofc due that it causes OC being less stable.


_Off-topic of my reply..
AMD scales really strange way. I smell dead fish. _


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 18, 2017)

moproblems99 said:


> I'm not sure why everyone is so stuck on today.  Sure, there aren't many apps that are optimized for more than a couple threads.  But could that be because more than 4 cores have been relatively prohibitively expensive for the majority of people for the last several years?
> 
> If you are going to complain about the number of cores in Ryzen, you may as well complain about cars that have more than 200hp because most speed limits are under 65mph / 100kmh.


Friend, we've been waiting on the 'core revolution' since q6600. Even now, a native quad is plenty for most...


----------



## Grings (Feb 18, 2017)

Mescalamba said:


> Recently?
> 
> Ehm ehm, Pentium 4 had HT. It was huge thing back then, especially huge in not really working or being worth much.
> 
> ...



Obviously i meant current day pentiums i.e. the chip below i3 that hasnt had it for the last few generations

And HT can be good for games, just compare dual core chips with and without it, its more a case that games dont scale past 4 threads well, so i7 sees no benefit over i5


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Feb 18, 2017)

Grings said:


> Why is i5 with hyper threading still a stupid idea?
> 
> They recently gave it to pentiums, making clock speed the only difference from 3mb cache i3's, and are just about to face an onslaught of amd chips with more than 4 threads in the i5's price bracket



Because that is literally the only difference between an i5 and and i7. The purpose of those designation is to divide which one has Hyper-threading. If they post could potential have it, what is the point? There is no reason to do this when the chip could just as easily be the entry level i7 chip with maybe a lower clock speed, smaller cache or something. Maybe drop the IGP to create a less expensive SKU. There is no reason to give 1 or 2 i5 chips HT.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Feb 18, 2017)

Vlada011 said:


> i7-6900K will stay better option than AMD 8 cores.
> Performance difference between i7-6900K default frequency and OC is huge.
> Not only CPU performance, memory write, read, copy, everything is improved a lot.
> Overclocking Cache frequency is huge advantage of X99 platform and influence a lot on memory performance.
> ...


If a part performs about the same for half the cost, who in there right of mind would get the more expensive part? Sounds real stupid.

If these leaks are true and ryzen 8 core chips are about the same performance as intels most expensive overclocked or not, but for half the cost it's a win for AMD.


----------



## Fouquin (Feb 18, 2017)

Low quality .gif for low quality leaks.


----------



## nemesis.ie (Feb 18, 2017)

Intel: "And we would have got away with too if it weren't for you pesky AMD folks."


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 18, 2017)

pissing match


----------



## rruff (Feb 18, 2017)

moproblems99 said:


> I'm not sure why everyone is so stuck on today.  Sure, there aren't many apps that are optimized for more than a couple threads.  But could that be because more than 4 cores have been relatively prohibitively expensive for the majority of people for the last several years?
> 
> If you are going to complain about the number of cores in Ryzen, you may as well complain about cars that have more than 200hp because most speed limits are under 65mph / 100kmh.



Nah, it's because most CPU tasks are *difficult to parallelize*. Forget 4 threads, most will only run at single thread speed. If you are running a bunch of hungry apps simultaneously, or one of those rare tasks that can be efficiently split, then the more threads the better. But reality makes the single thread speed super important most of the time. That isn't going to change.

The better analogy would be a race car where you worry about *how many cylinders the engine has, rather than how long it takes to complete the course.*


----------



## notb (Feb 19, 2017)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Intel did know, they are a little concerned. Intel has too much market share, too much money, and too many CPUs. They are clearly concerned with the sudden announcement during these rumors about an unlocked i3 chip, possible i5 with HyperThreading (which is stupid), and two new SKUs for Kaby Lake this early. But nothing is stopping Intel from lower the price of older gen chips to compete over price even if AMD is faster than those chips.



To me the i3 -K chip is just totally pointless. It's designed for people with small budget that want to try out OC more than anything else. As such I'm really to old and lazy to be excited. Problem is: IMO I'm representing the market quite well in this regard.
There was a time when everyone was overclocking and AMD was the CPU brand of choice. Older forum users will remember processors like the Athlon XP 1700+. We were all fascinated by it's abilities. Back then you didn't just order a CPU - you looked for the best series, because they had different OC characteristics. And it was way before large tower coolers or factory-bilt watercooling became so popular. People were actually making watercooling sets from things they got at a home improvement supply shop and they were leaking all the time.

Just think how much this whole market matured since then. Overclocking used to be an adventure that lured us all. Every page of PC part manuals told you that overclocking is pure evil and that you'll almost surely be killed if you try it. And now it's 2017: motherboards have auto overclocking modes doing everything for you, while efficient factory-built watercooling solutions are easier to get than a fresh croissant on Sunday.
I admit the current Intel offer isn't perfect, but is this cheap OC-friendly CPU what we actually need? 



TheLaughingMan said:


> And since you don't know that Intel has been price hiking because they had no competition.....well that. AMD will not be losing any money at these prices. Intel has just been over charging for years.



Honestly, I don't see this. Intel is (clearly) overcharging for the LGA 2011 processors (the socket itself being just a way to suck more cash on "specialized" motherboards etc), but as far as I can remember the prices in "consumer" segment looked pretty much the same. Under $100 for a decent entry-level gaming/multimedia CPU and around $200-400 for something that will work well for the next 3-5 years. So I would say the pricing for everything for LGA 1151 seems right (or what I would expect). AMD has always been the cheaper company, so it's not like Intel will drop prices just because AMD offers the same for 10% less.

Truth be told, software requirements slowed down lately and Intel took advantage of that concentrating more on power efficiency. Let's remember the problems for AMD started not because they couldn't match Intel's most powerful CPUs, but because they totally lost the battle for notebooks.
And even now we don't see much information about Ryzen mobile versions. So what is AMD hoping to achieve other than maybe regaining a few % market share coming from high-end gaming desktops?


----------



## rruff (Feb 19, 2017)

notb said:


> And even now we don't see much information about Ryzen mobile versions. So what is AMD hoping to achieve other than maybe regaining a few % market share coming from high-end gaming desktops?



Since AMD has gotten to be a pretty small company, they have to pick their battles.

Ryzen isn't going to beat 7700k gaming. The real strength will be applications that use the extra threads. I don't know if you noticed, but AMD has announced a full consumer lineup starting at $129. Server chips shouldn't be too far behind.


----------



## HD64G (Feb 19, 2017)

I can already see many people trying to downplay the big achievement of AMD Ryzen being very close in IPC to the last 2 gens of Intel's CPUs. Not a good sign of them being smart customers. And signs are that the X models will overclock up to 5GHz on air, so the gamers won't be dissappointed either from Ryzen if leaks are genuine.


----------



## efikkan (Feb 19, 2017)

And people keeps pretending they know the chip's IPC without sufficient data… These CPUs have XFR, so this has to be disabled if you want to _measure_ IPC, I'm sure someone will do this after the release.

Ryzen will have ~33% higher peak integer throughput per clock, so it will perform well in certain benchmarks, but always remember that pre-release benchmarks are always cherry-picked. We'll have to see how good the rest of the chip is; the front end, cache, etc.


----------



## kruk (Feb 19, 2017)

efikkan said:


> ... but always remember that pre-release benchmarks are always cherry-picked.



I agree with your XFR hypothesis, but it's really hard to believe leaked benchmarks are cherry picked. I mean, isn't Cinebench a *FPU* heavy benchmark? And that is all that is floating around these days. Think about it ...


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 19, 2017)

HD64G said:


> I can already see many people trying to downplay the big achievement of AMD Ryzen being very close in IPC to the last 2 gens of Intel's CPUs. Not a good sign of them being smart customers. And signs are that the X models will overclock up to 5GHz on air, so the gamers won't be dissappointed either from Ryzen if leaks are genuine.


Where are those signs? I've heard a sign I trust (person) say that it reached 5.7-5.8 on ln2 so far... if that is true, that doesn't bode well for 5ghz daily clocks, especially on air.

Here's to hoping he's wrong and it scales better for the extreme guys, and reaches mid 4ghz+ for the rest!


----------



## nemesis.ie (Feb 19, 2017)

Canard PC mentioned 5GHz *on a single core*, on air, I believe. I think that was also an ES sample with the power/XFR stuff not enabled.

They also mention the VRMs of the used board to not be up to the job of powering more than one core ...

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5l33or/canard_pc_confirms_5_ghz_ryzen_oc_only_on_1_core/


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 19, 2017)

Thank you!

That doesn't bode well either... single core??? Not a daily situation there...

And they didn't show squat at ces...


----------



## Patriot (Feb 19, 2017)

kruk said:


> I agree with your XFR hypothesis, but it's really hard to believe leaked benchmarks are cherry picked. I mean, isn't Cinebench a *FPU* heavy benchmark? And that is all that is floating around these days. Think about it ...




Meh, Cinebench is Intel compiler optimized...
If anything it shines poorly on AMD rigs in general.


----------



## lilunxm12 (Feb 19, 2017)

Grings said:


> Why is i5 with hyper threading still a stupid idea?
> 
> They recently gave it to pentiums, making clock speed the only difference from 3mb cache i3's, and are just about to face an onslaught of amd chips with more than 4 threads in the i5's price bracket


AVX and AES are exclusive to core i series (except server oriented J series). That could be a big difference for some users. HT-enabled i5 and normal i7 do not have such significant difference.


----------



## moproblems99 (Feb 19, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Friend, we've been waiting on the 'core revolution' since q6600. Even now, a native quad is plenty for most...



I agree to a point.  The world is not about need.  Again, if that was the case, everyone would have Ford Escorts and VW Jettas because that is plenty.

The difference here is that we MAY be getting Corvettes for the price of Escorts.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 19, 2017)

Exactly my point. Everyone has wood over Moar cores...which for most aren't really used past 4c/8t. It's nice to have, undoubtedly, even better if you can use them. I feel these are going to be around 5-10% slower IPC over BW-e. That is great for amd and certainly plenty to put them back in the game, particularly at the reported price points. But the amount of cores really won't matter much if you already have a 4c8/t cpu.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 19, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Exactly my point. Everyone has wood over Moar cores...which for most aren't really used past 4c/8t. It's nice to have, undoubtedly, even better if you can use them. I feel these are going to be around 5-10% slower IPC over BW-e. That is great for amd and certainly plenty to put them back in the game, particularly at the reported price points. But the amount of cores really won't matter much if you already have a 4c8/t cpu.



So you are in the same boat as me ivy bridge e like performance...


----------



## efikkan (Feb 19, 2017)

Patriot said:


> Meh, Cinebench is Intel compiler optimized...
> If anything it shines poorly on AMD rigs in general.


What do you mean by "Intel compiler optimized"?
Zen is quite different from Bulldozer, so it should scale differently. Zen seems even "better" than Intel in terms of superscalar abilities, with 4 ALUs and 2 FPUs (seemingly) on separate execution ports, while Intel have three ports with combined ALUs and FPUs. So there will be certain fairly well written software that scales slightly better on "better" superscalar CPUs, giving Zen an edge. Unfortunately most software wouldn't.


----------



## zo0lykas (Feb 19, 2017)

RRRRryyyyyyZZEeeeeEEnnnn !!!!


----------



## TheGuruStud (Feb 19, 2017)

efikkan said:


> What do you mean by "Intel compiler optimized"?
> Zen is quite different from Bulldozer, so it should scale differently. Zen seems even "better" than Intel in terms of superscalar abilities, with 4 ALUs and 2 FPUs (seemingly) on separate execution ports, while Intel have three ports with combined ALUs and FPUs. So there will be certain fairly well written software that scales slightly better on "better" superscalar CPUs, giving Zen an edge. Unfortunately most software wouldn't.



http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49   This was how most (if not virtually all) things ran before. It was intentional.

Using old code paths means lower performance.


----------



## Vlada011 (Feb 19, 2017)

Now we will see why X99 platform was smarter decision.
Because i7-6700K and i7-7700K overclocked will not be able to reach even Ryzen 5 in multi threaded application.
Price and value of Maxmus Extreme and Formula will be reduced significantly.


From other side our 3 years old platform is still alive and we need only CPU change for same or more performance than premium AMD.
Intel x86 domination is over but Intel have space to delay Skylake Xtreme and optimize him nicely and in mean time to start production of Intel i7-6900K and i7-6950X with reduced price.
For 400 and 700$ they will sell 100.000 processors. Their performance improvements after OC is up to 40%.
Many owners have chipset and premium motherboards and memory and need only better CPU.
Owners of i7-5820K, i7-5930K, i7-6800K and i7-6850K will have chance to install 8 and 10 cores.
Better to change only CPU than whole platform. Price of Rampage series will stay similar because they work and with Intel Xeon with far more cores.
We are even in better position, Quad Channel memory and after overclocking Cache frequency our performance will be better than AMD.
We will see... Everything is possible. I vote for delay of Skylake Xtreme and production of 8 and 10 cores Broadwell-EX with competitive price with AMD.

Aaaaa... Haahahaaaa
I'm very smart, Intel could put me as manager I will work on destroying AMDs hype sending performance of overclocked i7-6900K and i7-6950X and their price on Newegg will be
450$ and 650$... Intel X99 re-birth and stabb AMDs Ryzen from back. Name of Topic...
After 3 years STILL DOMINATE Intel Wellsburg - X99 with i7-6900K and i7-6950X.

And that's full experience, it's not only competitive CPU performance, offer everything as newest AMD chipset and more, NVMe, USB 3.1 Gen 2, SATA Express, Quad Channel, faster DDR4, overclocking Cache Frequency, and what customers love most overclocking CPU, performance improvements up to 40% after OC i7-6900K and i7-6950X.


----------



## m1dg3t (Feb 19, 2017)

Thread need some LoLoLoLs












zo0lykas said:


> just one word, IDIOT



Don't be 'that' guy


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Feb 20, 2017)

Vlada011 said:


> Now we will see why X99 platform was smarter decision.
> Because i7-6700K and i7-7700K overclocked will not be able to reach even Ryzen 5 in multi threaded application.
> Price and value of Maxmus Extreme and Formula will be reduced significantly.
> 
> ...



Delusional....


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Feb 20, 2017)

notb said:


> Let's remember the problems for AMD started not because they couldn't match Intel's most powerful CPUs, but because they totally lost the battle for notebooks. And even now we don't see much information about Ryzen mobile versions. So what is AMD hoping to achieve other than maybe regaining a few % market share coming from high-end gaming desktops?



Ironically entry level notebooks is the one market AMD still has a solid presence in. The APUs there have been doing ok. The issue is AMD lost in every single other market. Server space, high-end performance, mid-range desktops, professional PC market, etc. AMD lost respect because they could not compete with the higher end market space. Reviews, word of mouth, advertisement, etc. all steam from Intel being able to say without question they were the best you could buy. "We are less expensive" was not going to cut it especially when their chips use more energy. The high-end gamer market is more like a proving ground if you will. Can you hold your own in a market that really only cares about performance, will push everything to the limit, and will enjoy dissecting where the weaknesses are. IF that turns out well then AMD will have third-party material to back their claims.

AMD doesn't care about selling a few thousand chips to people like me and you. But if we can provided them the "proof" that their chips are exactly what they say, then they will be in a better position to renegotiate their console contracts, better position to sell 100K+ chips to a server hosting service, and enter markets like mid and high-end laptops and tablets.


----------



## Relayer (Feb 20, 2017)

IF the leaks are true what will Intel do? I don't think they can compete on price. AMD has a much lower overhead and Intel shareholders aren't going to be happy if they just cut their profits that dramatically.


----------



## Vlada011 (Feb 20, 2017)

Relayer said:


> IF the leaks are true what will Intel do? I don't think they can compete on price. AMD has a much lower overhead and Intel shareholders aren't going to be happy if they just cut their profits that dramatically.



Why you think Intel will not be happy if price drop? They charge much more than real value and they have huge profit even if they ask 800$ for i7-6950X and 500$ for i7-6900K.
That's almost as they didn't change nothing from previous years. They usually ask 1000$ for Xtreme... this year they have chance for 700$ more per Processor. Such profit give them oportunity to drop price later. Intel could sell a lot of Broadwell-EX if drop price, they could start again production and sell one more circle for lower price and don't need to launch nothing in premium segment next 18 months, until Skylake Xtreme is not ready.
Customers will be very satisfied and happy to see that same chipset old almost 3 years give them opportunity to beat AMD premium Ryzen.
People love such things when life time of one generation is longer, no situation or feature where AMD is in advantage to Broadwell-EX.
OK Intel don't need to sell only 8 and 10 cores. Whole Broadwell-EX line price will drop...
Example 200, 280, 450 and 800$. And they are in game, prices are only little reduced compare to Nehalem, Sandy Bridge-E, Ivy Bridge-E and Haswell-E, just little.

I will not allow you to enjoy in Ryzen completely... hahahaa hahahaa.


----------



## kruk (Feb 20, 2017)

Vlada011 said:


> Why you think Intel will not be happy if price drop? They charge much more than real value and they have huge profit even if they ask 800$ for i7-6950X and 500$ for i7-6900K.



They will have *less* *profit* than now and that is all that matters to the shareholders ... Also, if they dramatically drop prices, they will accumulate a lot of angry customers.


----------



## rruff (Feb 20, 2017)

kruk said:


> They will have *less* *profit* than now and that is all that matters to the shareholders.



Actually no, I explained this earlier. Intel designed their product stack and pricing to maximize total profit with a weak competitor. Even with Intel's "inflated" prices, AMD was nearly bankrupt. If the competition gets better, they can *increase production of the high end chips and make them mainstream. *Since the incremental cost of producing them is trivial compared to retail, this is something they can easily do. Losing market share is definitely a bigger problem for Intel than rearranging their product stack.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Feb 20, 2017)

rruff said:


> Actually no, I explained this earlier. Intel designed their product stack and pricing to maximize total profit with a weak competitor. Even with Intel's "inflated" prices, AMD was nearly bankrupt. If the competition gets better, they can *increase production of the high end chips and make them mainstream. *Since the incremental cost of producing them is trivial compared to retail, this is something they can easily do. Losing market share is definitely a bigger problem for Intel than rearranging their product stack.



But there's not millions of people that are just waiting for Intel to drop prices to buy X99 stuff. The high end desktop market isn't some infinite consumer land.


----------



## rruff (Feb 20, 2017)

TheGuruStud said:


> But there's not millions of people that are just waiting for Intel to drop prices to buy X99 stuff. The high end desktop market isn't some infinite consumer land.



Then I guess there aren't millions of people waiting for AMD to sell 8c16t CPUs either?

The implication is that Intel will just sit there and let AMD beat them on performance/price and lose half their market share in a hurry? That would be stupid, and there is no reason why they need to do that. If they don't have something new and better waiting in the wings, then reorganizing the placement of their chips and the volumes produced is the best solution. Ramp up production of the better i5s and i7s and drop them down a tier in price, assuming that Ryzen makes this necessary.


----------



## nemesis.ie (Feb 20, 2017)

Vlada011 said:


> *Customers will be very satisfied and happy to see that same chipset old almost 3 years give them* *opportunity *to beat AMD premium Ryzen
> *People love such things when life time of one generation is longer,*



The bold bits are true, but not the blue. An upgrade in perrformance makes sense not to "beat Ryzen".

What kind of fool upgrades just to wave their epeen at others saying their system is faster than another company's product? Especially if said product is dramatically cheaper.

You should only upgrade for needed performance or if you want a new system to tinker with or for a different form factor or some tangible benefit. Anything else is like diamonds on a mobile phone; bling/pose/wasteful nonsense (IMO of course).

And price/performance is a real factor too of course.

Historically it is AMD who has given these things to customers. How often have AMD changed socket/cooler support versus Intel? And it's not just changes (in Intel's case) needed to add new features, it's only been to force extra spend. Not very environmentally sound either.

AM4 looks to continue that trend.

I'm thinking you are just trolling TBH!


----------



## TheGuruStud (Feb 20, 2017)

rruff said:


> Then I guess there aren't millions of people waiting for AMD to sell 8c16t CPUs either?
> 
> The implication is that Intel will just sit there and let AMD beat them on performance/price and lose half their market share in a hurry? That would be stupid, and there is no reason why they need to do that. If they don't have something new and better waiting in the wings, then reorganizing the placement of their chips and the volumes produced is the best solution. Ramp up production of the better i5s and i7s and drop them down a tier in price, assuming that Ryzen makes this necessary.



There may be millions waiting to upgrade, but they're not going to spend X99 money and X99 ppl aren't upgrading. That's why AMD has the better position.


----------



## ivicagmc (Feb 20, 2017)

Sorry for my countrymen Vlada. He is having some intel based hallucinations. He probably spent much money on that intel premium motherboard and processor he has (about 2 average salaries in Serbia just for that) and now he is sorry for AMD kicking intel ass ruining his investment (ode mast u propast hehe).  Intel fans or not we all should be very pleased with upcoming price drops and finally getting some really better hardware for the same price.


----------



## Vlada011 (Feb 20, 2017)

You are badly wrong... I never made mistake choosing platform and people who followed me as well. I had sixth sense that Haswell i7-4770K could be only worse OCer than Ivy and hit better platform, later I estimate that when AMD show up whole 4 core generation will have problems and only X99 have chance for competition.
How I could affraid from AMD when my motherboard could hold more than 10 models stronger than premium AMDs Ryzen.
AMD should feel bad because after 5 years of reasearch after he finally launch chipset and CPU in 2017 I will be able to outperform him with Intel chipset from 2014 and processor from 2016.
How I could feel bad, and someone would say OK you can offer same performance but AMD have probably some newer and better features, but Noooo, we haver better features and WE are in advantage and he will choke with DDR4...
I only wait price optimization and many loyal Intel customers.
If owner of X99 platform install i7-6950X and OC he could extend life time of platform from 4 on 7 years easy and still to be competitive. Who knows when AMD will outperform i7-6950X. His high price was result of monopoly, that's not real price, tomorrow if situation allow he could cost 700$, what then? Than Intel could sell more i7-6950X than AMD Ryzens.

How X99 chipset can't beat premium AMD. 
Did you saw how perform Intel 10 core i7-6950X after 1.0 GHz OC.
Who will outperform him? 8 core Ryzen?


----------



## nemesis.ie (Feb 20, 2017)

"We"? Now I'm almost certain you are just trolling, never mind that  you have not even seen the AMD product yet to make the comparison.


----------



## Raevenlord (Feb 20, 2017)

buggalugs said:


> Hey Raevenlord, can I give you some advice bro? I know you're new, and you're doing a good job, but you need to improve your sentence structure.
> 
> It's something I've noticed in many of your news posts. You have too many run-on sentences.
> 
> ...




Hey buggalugs!

Of course I take it personally, that's my writing you're talking about  But that doesn't mean I take it the wrong way.

What you say is something I am keenly aware of that I need to improve. For me, the sentences read just fine, even aloud, but I sometimes look at the graphical blot of my posts and I see that there probably should be some more stops.

Thanks for the constructive criticism, and it's something I will try and increase awareness for in the future =)

Thumbs up.


----------



## kruk (Feb 21, 2017)

More 1700X benchmarks appeared: https://videocardz.com/66182/amd-radeon-7-1700x-pictured-and-tested
Benchmarks include CPU-Z shots.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 21, 2017)

Lol, love the ryzen 8 core mention... that's new...legit?


----------



## efikkan (Feb 21, 2017)

TheGuruStud said:


> http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49   This was how most (if not virtually all) things ran before. It was intentional.
> Using old code paths means lower performance.


Oh, what's a day without some conspiracy theories!?
Well for starters, that compiler is not even used for any of the benchmarks in question.
Of course, every time AMD fails to deliver on performance it's the competitor's fault.


----------



## Relayer (Feb 25, 2017)

Vlada011 said:


> *Why you think Intel will not be happy if price drop?* They charge much more than real value and they have huge profit even if they ask 800$ for i7-6950X and 500$ for i7-6900K.
> That's almost as they didn't change nothing from previous years. They usually ask 1000$ for Xtreme... this year they have chance for 700$ more per Processor. Such profit give them oportunity to drop price later. Intel could sell a lot of Broadwell-EX if drop price, they could start again production and sell one more circle for lower price and don't need to launch nothing in premium segment next 18 months, until Skylake Xtreme is not ready.
> Customers will be very satisfied and happy to see that same chipset old almost 3 years give them opportunity to beat AMD premium Ryzen.
> People love such things when life time of one generation is longer, no situation or feature where AMD is in advantage to Broadwell-EX.
> ...



I said why in my post. They have gigantic overhead costs compared to AMD and they can't just lop off a huge percentage of their profits. What do you think that would do to their share prices? While on the other hand AMD just getting profitable will make their share prices soar.


----------



## nemesis.ie (Feb 25, 2017)

I've ordered the parts, went for the Asrock Gaming pro despite the Fatality nonsense, as it seemed to have the most future proof "extras" like the built in WiFi and 5Gbit networking and still cheaper than the "top" MSI. 16 phase power too even if it doesn't have the extra feeds, the 8 pin via 16 phases should still work well.


----------



## R0H1T (Feb 25, 2017)

rruff said:


> Then I guess there aren't millions of people waiting for AMD to sell 8c16t CPUs either?
> 
> The implication is that Intel will just sit there and let AMD beat them on performance/price and lose half their market share in a hurry? That would be stupid, and there is no reason why they need to do that. If they don't have something new and better waiting in the wings, then reorganizing the placement of their chips and the volumes produced is the best solution. Ramp up production of the better i5s and i7s and drop them down a tier in price, assuming that Ryzen makes this necessary.


There are millions who are willing to buy (AMD) 8 cores at a reasonable price, you can't say the same about Intel since they've artificially jacked up prices & created segmentation detrimental for a mainstream (LGA 11xx) user who wants to get a hex/octa core CPU. When the people who want/need 8 cores get the R7 that'll be *lost sales* for Intel, they ain't getting it back no matter what.


----------



## Mescalamba (Feb 25, 2017)

Kinda hard to imagine plenty of ppl wanting hexa or octa cores.

For what exactly?

For very long time now, max users might want is quad. And for not much shorter future, its all they will buy and want. Apart very specific applications, 6 or 8 core CPU is useless for regular users.


----------



## R0H1T (Feb 25, 2017)

Mescalamba said:


> Kinda hard to imagine plenty of ppl wanting hexa or octa cores.
> 
> For what exactly?
> 
> For very long time now, max users might want is quad. And for not much shorter future, its all they will buy and want. Apart very specific applications, 6 or 8 core CPU is useless for regular users.


That's your opinion, if I'm getting an octa core (R7 1700) AMD which costs or will cost less than a quad core i7 7700k in most parts around the world, then the octa is more VFM objectively.
I know what I'll pick & most other users here would agree with that choice, it seems more logical to me & much more bang for buck besides the fact that it's much better in MT tasks.


----------



## Mescalamba (Feb 26, 2017)

R0H1T said:


> That's your opinion, if I'm getting an octa core (R7 1700) AMD which costs or will cost less than a quad core i7 7700k in most parts around the world, then the octa is more VFM objectively.
> I know what I'll pick & most other users here would agree with that choice, it seems more logical to me & much more bang for buck besides the fact that it's much better in MT tasks.



Cause more cores equals, what more.. power?

Just out of curiosity, what you plan to run on that?


----------



## kruk (Feb 26, 2017)

There are a lot of scenarios where 8 or more cored CPUs shine: video/image/audio editing, compiling, CAD, virtual machines, servers, etc. 
Gamers might not need them yet, but in the future this might change ...


----------



## R0H1T (Feb 26, 2017)

Mescalamba said:


> Cause more cores equals, what more.. power?
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what you plan to run on that?


Yes, contrary to some of the popular misconceptions still floating on the web, single core performance isn't everything.

I need more cores for encoding, archiving & audio file conversion. The file archiving part is essential since I want to move away from HDD completely & need a copy of important files for SSD. The cloud is not a viable option since the broadband plans are prohibitively expensive & ISP connection is unreliable at times.


----------



## medi01 (Feb 26, 2017)

Mescalamba said:


> Kinda hard to imagine plenty of ppl wanting hexa or octa cores.
> 
> For what exactly?



Most games out there are multiplatform.
And what CPUs do we have in major consoles? Weak 8 cores.

Consequences? A number of newer games can utilize more than 4 cores. (Overwatch, Battlfield 1, Tomb Raider to name a couple)
It should be a point to consider even for people frequently upgrading, even more so for those who normally upgrade once in 3-5 years.


----------



## medi01 (Feb 26, 2017)

From MSI manual, weirdo weirdo weirdo clocks on 6/4 cores (lower than on 8 core)







for comparison, Intel 4 cores (note that they have higher base frequency):


----------



## nemesis.ie (Feb 26, 2017)

It makes sense if the higher default speed chips (e.g. the 1800x) are better binned parts I think?


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 26, 2017)

R0H1T said:


> Yes, contrary to some of the popular misconceptions still floating on the web, single core performance isn't everything..


TRuth!

However, it's a big part. We've seen what deplorable IPC can do with more cores (read bulldozer).

The reality of things is many have a 4c8t cpu already. Many of those can't use more than 8t. For those that can, this is a great part. For those that can't, I'm sure 3 years down the road, an 8t processor is going to do juuuuust fine. The real benefit, for those that don't encode/render use more than 8t, is the unreleased R5 parts.

Rmemeber, people have been saying, with what they thought were good reason, you should go quad since Q6600 days... that has only paned out recently, really... especially in a gaming context. How many threads here with a budget in mind recommend quads over quads with ht?? So really it depends on the user and how they use their machine.

I think people are going to be pretty sad when they figure out there is barely any overclocking headroom and when they see the base turbo is only 2c4t...XFR is single core 100mhz up. I have a feeling you will again need beefy board and beefy cooling to use all cores much above 4.2ghz...I think these will top out on ambient well under 4.5ghz.


----------

