# Ryzen Leaks - Coolers and Benchmarks



## the54thvoid (Feb 11, 2017)

And me an Nvidia guy...

From WCCFtech (source is Hardware Battle).

Update: pics are renders from forum member at HWbattle.

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-cpu-coolers-leaked-wraith-95w-65w-versions/







and benchmarks.

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-389-8-core-cpu-benchmarks-leaked/

If true, then good things are happening.  IPC in line with Broadwell, according to source.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 11, 2017)

i like the sound of this

_Extended Frequency Range or XFR for short. We talked about what it does and the complementary technologies that work in tandem with it in our Ryzen article yesterday. In the simplest of terms it will push your CPU’s clock speed as high as it will go, as long as your CPU stays within safe thermal limits. The better the cooling the higher the clock speed you’ll get._


----------



## silentbogo (Feb 11, 2017)

Finally, 4 mount points. I thought AMD will never learn.
Not even 2 days ago I was explaining my colleague about why AMD socket frames break so often (he finally killed his, good thing we have donors)


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Feb 11, 2017)

I'm going to buy me one of these chips


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 11, 2017)

silentbogo said:


> Finally, 4 mount points. I thought AMD will never learn.
> Not even 2 days ago I was explaining my colleague about why AMD socket frames break so often (he finally killed his, good thing we have donors)



Hmm never had an issue with mine.

I will still turn off xfr and do the oc the old fashioned way


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 11, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> And me an Nvidia guy...
> 
> From WCCFtech (source is Hardware Battle).
> 
> ...


I was tempted to post something but too late eh

Sounds good, though I'm eager but definitely a bit too skint but who knows I might just get 12 loafes and two crates of beans and sausages.


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 11, 2017)

As your a perfectionist


eidairaman1 said:


> I will still turn off xfr and do the oc the old fashioned way


your run it with xfr  then turn it off and improve the OC the old fashion way  look forward to the results of course


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 11, 2017)

dorsetknob said:


> As your a perfectionist
> 
> your run it with xfr  then turn it off and improve the OC the old fashion way  look forward to the results of course



i agree with you, it is exciting, pretty much Turbocore 2.0

Thanks for the compliment, when it comes to building or tweaking my own I really am, same goes for automobiles. I am attentive to detail, that was proven for 6 years in 2004-2010 for my Service to the U.S.


----------



## Sasqui (Feb 11, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> If true, then good things are happening. IPC in line with Broadwell, according to source.



Awesome, Intel needs some competition to keep them honest.


----------



## Xzibit (Feb 11, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> And me an Nvidia guy...
> 
> From WCCFtech (source is Hardware Battle).
> 
> ...



If this pans out i'm in for a 1600X just for kicks


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Feb 11, 2017)

Very impressive, no wonder Intel is shitting it. Coolers look nice too, much better than intel's ancient crappy design.


----------



## thesmokingman (Feb 11, 2017)

The coolers are sexy, most attractive. Man, it's hard to imagine the previous coolers, then looking at these. They come from the same company?


----------



## Xzibit (Feb 11, 2017)

thesmokingman said:


> The coolers are *sexy, most attractive*. Man, it's hard to imagine the previous coolers, then looking at these. They come from the same company?


----------



## thesmokingman (Feb 11, 2017)




----------



## Outback Bronze (Feb 11, 2017)

tigger said:


> Very impressive, no wonder Intel is shitting it. Coolers look nice too, much better than intel's ancient crappy design.



Yeah I agree. Besides you don't even get a cooler on intel high end CPU's....


----------



## Fluffmeister (Feb 11, 2017)

Looks like something else has... Ryzen




The irony is he is looking at a Titan XP.


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 11, 2017)

Fluffmeister said:


> Looks like something else has... Ryzen


looks like Rolf Harris in his prison cell to me  
( you know how we pamper our celeb Prisoners )


----------



## TheGuruStud (Feb 11, 2017)

silentbogo said:


> Finally, 4 mount points. I thought AMD will never learn.
> Not even 2 days ago I was explaining my colleague about why AMD socket frames break so often (he finally killed his, good thing we have donors)



It's not meant for big coolers (or anything other than stock). Buy a real cooler that screws into the holes.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Feb 11, 2017)

dorsetknob said:


> looks like Rolf Harris in his prison cell to me
> ( you know how we pamper our celeb Prisoners )



I hear ya, hell... we even gave them Australia.


----------



## alucasa (Feb 11, 2017)

Looks good to me. If 1800k can reach cinebench score of 1500ish, I'd be more than happy.


----------



## Tomgang (Feb 11, 2017)

If these prices and performence hold to be true. I am not gonna buy a RYZEN, but steal one. I mean if price and performence is true when compared to Intels I7 6900K, when RYZEN is litterly a steal.

But i want to se some true review of RYZEN before i join the RYZEN hype trian. And i am an Intel man to the bone, but i hope RYZEN can hold its own Agains Intels top dogs cause intel realy needs to get there ass spanked after all these years and there stupid priced CPU´s.


----------



## silentbogo (Feb 11, 2017)

TheGuruStud said:


> It's not meant for big coolers (or anything other than stock). Buy a real cooler that screws into the holes.


It's not me you need to explain it to.


----------



## FireFox (Feb 11, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> I'm going to buy me one of these chips


 Me too


----------



## natr0n (Feb 11, 2017)

Let the memes flow


----------



## Tomgang (Feb 11, 2017)

natr0n said:


> Let the memes flow



You asked for it and i shall deliver.


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 11, 2017)

Knoxx29 said:


> Me too



all i can say is
Good lord


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 11, 2017)

Hey @Knoxx29 
do you know something we don't ???
You just Sold 2 Xeons  ??
Is there a duel Ryzen Board on the horizion and your up for buying 2 Ryzen Cpu's


----------



## FireFox (Feb 11, 2017)

dorsetknob said:


> You just Sold 2 Xeons ??



That is right, the 5680 but got 2 x 5677



dorsetknob said:


> Is there a duel Ryzen Board on the horizion and your up for buying 2 Ryzen Cpu's



You are disgusting 



dorsetknob said:


> Is there a duel Ryzen Board on the horizion and your up for buying 2 Ryzen Cpu's



The bin in my Toilet still have enough place for Ryzen


is it Ryzen a brand of Preservative


----------



## RejZoR (Feb 11, 2017)

Man, I wish AMD had Jim Keller in their ranks 24/7. This man is a legend.

Also good design on coolers. I haven't seen this nice looking coolers for decades. I hope they'll be effective as well.


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 11, 2017)

Knoxx29 said:


> Me too


Butt But you said
in reply to
NdMk2o1o said: ↑
I'm going to buy me one of these chips 
Is that not an indication that you been sold/Brainwashed into getting one ( and knowing your penchence for overdoing things probably 2 for a duel set up )


----------



## FireFox (Feb 11, 2017)

dorsetknob said:


> I'm going to buy me one



That's right, but i never said what i was going to do with it


----------



## Mussels (Feb 12, 2017)

so... single core performance matches intel (close enough, looked like ~10% off skylake), double the cores/threads, and cheaper price?


Yeah, i can see these doing good things for AMD.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Feb 12, 2017)

Mussels said:


> so... single core performance matches intel (close enough, looked like ~10% off skylake), double the cores/threads, and cheaper price?
> 
> 
> Yeah, i can see these doing good things for AMD.



About fecking time.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Feb 12, 2017)

Xzibit said:


> If this pans out i'm in for a 1600X just for kicks




 What is that old nerd doing to that poor computer


----------



## Caring1 (Feb 12, 2017)

jboydgolfer said:


> What is that old nerd doing to that poor computer


OLD????


----------



## Evo85 (Feb 12, 2017)

The coolers are damn SEXY! 

Those benchmarks are better than I was expecting (if they hold true). 

Single core performance is exceptional! 

Welcome back AMD!


----------



## Xzibit (Feb 12, 2017)

jboydgolfer said:


> What is that old nerd doing to that poor computer





			
				Raja Koduri said:
			
		

> My weekend companion! *Training her for launch*


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 12, 2017)

Raja's such a goof.


----------



## mastrdrver (Feb 12, 2017)

Can we please stop, my arms are getting tired. *continues to shovel more coal for the hypetrain*


http://www.overclock.net/t/1623058/hwbattle-upcoming-cpu-coolers-from-amd


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 12, 2017)

Knoxx29 said:


> That's right, but i never said what i was going to do with it



Give it to me and I'll give you a froggy hug.

Or a potato core.






Yep, I made dat.  It's a good intel potato.


----------



## kruk (Feb 12, 2017)

Xzibit said:


>



RGB stock cooler?


----------



## ixi (Feb 12, 2017)

kruk said:


> RGB stock cooler?
> 
> View attachment 83980



I think that you will have an option to disable LED. But if not... give me black, black magic and it will dissapear, hehe.






alucasa said:


> Looks good to me. If 1800k can reach cinebench score of 1500ish, I'd be more than happy.




Intel fanboy detected! "*1800k* ----> 1800x" How could you!?! /jokes aside.

God dammit, want to see real benches... and chipset performance...


----------



## the54thvoid (Feb 12, 2017)

Damn. Update on cooler pics - they're a render from a forum member at HWbattle......

Leaks, pfft!


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 12, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Damn. Update on cooler pics - they're a render from a forum member at HWbattle......


----------



## kruk (Feb 12, 2017)

More leaks, now with clocks: http://tieba.baidu.com/p/4975965039 (https://videocardz.com/65892/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-and-ryzen-5-1600x-will-require-special-coolers)


----------



## P4-630 (Feb 12, 2017)

I'll take one of those R7 1800X _graphic cards_.....

Preferably an R7 1800X*T*


----------



## ShurikN (Feb 12, 2017)

Don't know if anyone noticed, but the "alleged testing" was done on an A320  board, which is the cheapest one possible.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Feb 12, 2017)

ShurikN said:


> Don't know if anyone noticed, but the "alleged testing" was done on an A320  board, which is the cheapest one possible.



Just means the chips could be even better in a better board or they are cough faked cough


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 12, 2017)

Be nice to See what all those saying buy an i3 or I5 for gaming say now , I've argued consoles have 8 for the last two years , BA bye dual core yay.


----------



## Bert63 (Feb 12, 2017)

Still waiting for something from the real world before excitement.


----------



## Palladium (Feb 12, 2017)

Unless the 6C overclocks a lot better, I can't imagine not going straight at least for the base 8C model. The 4C variants are too much of a sidegrade for OC i5/i7s which is almost everybody.


----------



## FYFI13 (Feb 12, 2017)

Not impressed!












My i7 4790K running at stock (4.2GHz) gets more points. And that's with DDR3.


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Feb 12, 2017)

FYFI13 said:


> Not impressed!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The bench on the Ryzen were allegedly done on a board with a low end chipset. I think It had some implications on the clocks, like being stuck on the base clock? I'm not sure tho...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 12, 2017)

It's an 8-core processor running at 3.4 GHz doing a single-threaded benchmark (literally 12.5% CPU load).

4790K stock is 4.0 GHz, not 4.2 GHz.

It's not clear if Ryzen is running 3.4 or 3.8 GHz in the test so here's the theoretical math for both:
If 3.4 GHz, 4.09 GHz to get 2461.
If 3.8 GHz, 4.57 GHz to get 2461.

In either case, I'm spending $350 on an R7 1700 before spending $350 on an i7-7700K.  Literally double the bang for the buck (8c/16t vs 4c/8t).  It's not even a competition.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Feb 12, 2017)

And even if you want to believe a pile of shit synthetic like passmark.... it was running slow ram (2133?) with 17-17-17 timings LOL. The whole thing is a joke (fud, I imagine).


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Feb 12, 2017)

TheGuruStud said:


> And even if you want to believe a pile of shit synthetic like passmark.... it was running slow ram (2133?) with 17-17-17 timings LOL. The whole thing is a joke.



AMD is called sandbagging! So when it comes out it is better than expected! xD


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Feb 12, 2017)

FYFI13 said:


> Not impressed!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's one test, and it's not known if it was running at the 3.8ghz boost clock or the 3.4 base, when at 4.2ghz I am betting it will be there or there abouts, I see no issue here, what's your point?


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 12, 2017)

TheGuruStud said:


> The whole thing is a joke.



And Dave  with his pre production / engineering sample review


----------



## FYFI13 (Feb 12, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It's an 8-core processor running at 3.4 GHz doing a single-threaded benchmark.
> 
> 4790K stock is 4.0 GHz, not 4.2 GHz.
> 
> ...


I didn't know it was running at 3.4GHz, if so it looks promising. And i7 4790k base clock is 4GHz but it can boost up to 4.4GHz when 1 core is active, up to 4.2GHz with all 4 cores active. That's default settings.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Feb 12, 2017)

FYFI13 said:


> I didn't know it was running at 3.4GHz, if so it looks promising. And i7 4790k base clock is 4GHz but it can boost up to 4.4GHz when 1 core is active, up to 4.2GHz with all 4 cores active. That's default settings.



OCed haswell at 4.4 gives 2638 for the score (just ran it). But the uncore clock is  at least 4GHz on mine (don't remember).


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Feb 12, 2017)

FYFI13 said:


> I didn't know it was running at 3.4GHz, if so it looks promising. And i7 4790k base clock is 4GHz but it can boost up to 4.4GHz when 1 core is active, up to 4.2GHz with all 4 cores active. That's default settings.


Exactly, and I'm betting all of the 8 core chips wuill easily hit 4.2 without sweating, looks promising indeed, not too mention 8c/16t of goodness


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Feb 12, 2017)

TheGuruStud said:


> OCed haswell at 4.4 gives 2638 for the score (just ran it). But the uncore clock is  at least 4GHz on mine (don't remember).



In the mean time my 1100T is doing 1325 x'D


----------



## TheGuruStud (Feb 14, 2017)

No 3Dmark firestrike physics benchmark post? I am disappoint.


----------



## Kanan (Feb 14, 2017)

Don't overload the hypetrain or it will crash! hahaha


----------



## TheGuruStud (Feb 14, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Don't overload the hypetrain or it will crash! hahaha



Can't crash when it's already off the rails and flying!


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 14, 2017)

TheGuruStud said:


> Can't crash when it's already off the rails and flying!



Unless it crashes into the sun...

...But that would still be kinda awesome.


----------



## Kanan (Feb 14, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> Unless it crashes into the sun...
> 
> ...But that would still be kinda awesome.


Gives "Ryzen" a whole new meaning! haha


----------



## kruk (Feb 14, 2017)

3D Mark FireStrike Physics results appeared on Videocardz:


----------



## phanbuey (Feb 14, 2017)

nice to see... cant wait for reviews


----------



## Komshija (Feb 14, 2017)

It's nice how AMD numbered new CPU's to resemble i*3*, i*5* and i*7. *Interesting cooler designs despite fans looks like 80 mm or 92 mm at the most, so it would be interesting whether stock cooler will be able to properly cool down the CPU.

Nevertheless, numbers look very promising so far. If AMD really made a CPU which could beat i7 6700K or i7 7700K, than it is a great achievement, although I assume that its final price will be very close to (very expensive) Intel's competitors.


----------



## FYFI13 (Feb 14, 2017)

kruk said:


> 3D Mark FireStrike Physics results appeared on Videocardz:
> 
> View attachment 84045


I wouldn't trust this one too much, take a look at single thread performance: Ryzen results are almost same at 3.3GHz and at 4GHz, while Intel CPU's scaling nicely. That's simply impossible.


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Feb 14, 2017)

FYFI13 said:


> I wouldn't trust this one too much, take a look at single thread performance: Ryzen results are almost same at 3.3GHz and at 4GHz, while Intel CPU's scaling nicely. That's simply impossible.



wccf tech pulled results from the futuremark database:

http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/AMD-Ryzen-3DMak-Fire-Strike-Physics-Score-WM.jpg


----------



## FYFI13 (Feb 14, 2017)

uuuaaaaaa said:


> wccf tech pulled results from the futuremark database:
> 
> http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/AMD-Ryzen-3DMak-Fire-Strike-Physics-Score-WM.jpg


That's multi-threaded (which seems alright), i was talking about single threaded results from VideoCardz:






800MHz difference and no performance gains. This just makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Feb 14, 2017)

I am still reserved cuz I want Ryzen to be a success so I can buy it...so I will patiently wait for most of the reviews to come out...especially gaming ones if this is going to come close to Intel CPU's I am going for it.


----------



## FYFI13 (Feb 14, 2017)

Liviu Cojocaru said:


> I am still reserved cuz I want Ryzen to be a success so I can buy it...so I will patiently wait for most of the reviews to come out...especially gaming ones if this is going to come close to Intel CPU's I am going for it.


Most of games still use 1-2 cores only, that's why I'm so interested in single thread performance. If it can beat i7 4790k in it, even by 1%, I'll get Ryzen right away. I don't give a darn thing about what it can do with 8C/16T.


----------



## P4-630 (Feb 14, 2017)

FYFI13 said:


> Most of games still use 1-2 cores only, that's why I'm so interested in single thread performance. If it can beat i7 4790k in it, even by 1%, I'll get Ryzen right away. I don't give a darn thing about what it can do with 8C/16T.



Ok, depends on what games you are playing, I play GTA V mostly, it uses all cores you have and I think this is the same with all recent AAA titles.


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Feb 14, 2017)

FYFI13 said:


> Most of games still use 1-2 cores only, that's why I'm so interested in single thread performance. If it can beat i7 4790k in it, even by 1%, I'll get Ryzen right away. I don't give a darn thing about what it can do with 8C/16T.


I think that will depend a lot on the OC capacity for Ryzen but I don't think there are too many recent AAA games that still use only 2 cores or at least the most important (for me) are using more than 2c .But as you've said, if Ryzen is a good competitor to Intel CPU's I am going for it.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 14, 2017)

Doesn't matter... most use 4 or less... I'm with FY in the single threaded performance. Most can't use more than 4c/8t anyway...it sure isn't "all" AAA titles.  If you do need more than 4c/8t, these should be on your radar for sure. Otherwise, you need to see IPC performance before making the plunge.


----------



## FYFI13 (Feb 14, 2017)

P4-630 said:


> Ok, depends on what games you are playing, I play GTA V mostly, it uses all cores you have and I think this is the same with all recent AAA titles.


Arma 3  It can use up to 8 threads (geometry, texture loading, file operations, etc) but all rendering is done on one thread. That applies to most Direct X 9-11 games if I'm not mistaken. That's why Penitum 3258 was kicking ass to every single AMD CPU on earth in gaming.


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Feb 14, 2017)

I am using my PC for gaming but I also use HyperV for VM's on my PC and I think I would be OK using a 4c\8t CPU but if the price is right and by this I mean if 1700X is around the Same price as 7700K and it performs the same in games I would definitely go for the 1700X as who know maybe in the near future games will use more cores than they do now. I have my current CPU for about 3 years now so I would keep this one for at least the same period of time.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Feb 14, 2017)

The vast majority of games will not see improvement going from 4c8t to 8c16t. Strong IPC and high clocks is what matters. That's why I think the 7700K will come on top of every Ryzen CPU in 90% of the situations in gaming benchmarks.


----------



## Air (Feb 14, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Damn. Update on cooler pics - they're a render from a forum member at HWbattle......
> Leaks, pfft!


Thats a damn shame. They looked reeeally nice. Better than pretty much any other cooler. Some manufacturer should just copy it. Intel's stock cooler is the only component in a "casual build" that looks like shit. Everything else have nice designs.


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Feb 14, 2017)

Crap Daddy said:


> The vast majority of games will not see improvement going from 4c8t to 8c16t. Strong IPC and high clocks is what matters. That's why I think the 7700K will come on top of every Ryzen CPU in 90% of the situations in gaming benchmarks.



Maybe this is the situation for the moment but I think this will change in the near future as DX12 offers support for this and both Intel and AMD are offering CPU's with more than 4 cores. The game developers will adapt and they will probably make a better use of the number of cores...hopefully


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 14, 2017)

Liviu Cojocaru said:


> Maybe this is the situation for the moment but I think this will change in the near future as DX12 offers support for this and both Intel and AMD are offering CPU's with more than 4 cores. The game developers will adapt and they will probably make a better use of the number of cores...hopefully


you realize they have been saying this for years....it's going to take years for it to really matter.


----------



## FYFI13 (Feb 14, 2017)

Liviu Cojocaru said:


> Maybe this is the situation for the moment but I think this will change in the near future as DX12 offers support for this and both Intel and AMD are offering CPU's with more than 4 cores. The game developers will adapt and they will probably make a better use of the number of cores...hopefully


Yes, that's a whole point of DX12. The question is "when". Right now i wouldn't spend even 1 euro towards DX12 hardware, as when it becomes a thing we will have new processors, new graphics cards and so on.


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Feb 14, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> you realize they have been saying this for years....it's going to take years for it to really matter.



Remains to be seen, I agree with the idea that 8c\16t it's overkill for gaming now but if you can get 8c\16t for the same price as an 4c\8t and the performance is quite similar imo that is a good buy.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 14, 2017)

Again, it depends on where ipc comes in. If it's 10% less.. not sure I would go that route.. I'd rather have less cores and slightly better ipc for gaming for the next 3 years or so. I mean really..we've been holding our collective breath on multi core saturation for several years now and really it's just getting to the point where quads are being used... none the less the other 4t in a 4c/8t setup... we still have time...


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Feb 14, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Again, it depends on where ipc comes in. If it's 10% less.. not sure I would go that route.. I'd rather have less cores and slightly better ipc for gaming for the next 3 years or so. I mean really..we've been holding our collective breath on multi core saturation for several years now and really it's just getting to the point where quads are being used... none the less the other 4t in a 4c/8t setup... we still have time...


Even if the performance is 10-12% less I would pay for an AMD product because this will hopefully give them a better position in the market as I would like to see more competition and also hopefully this will make Intel step up their game and bring some real innovation with their new products. So I think buyers should keep this in mind as well when they make a purchase decision.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 14, 2017)

Honestly.. I really don't give a shit in that light. I'm simply at a point in life where I don't have to settle for second best, even if it's close enough I'd rarely notice. 90% of the things I do need IPC and 4 cores or less..


----------



## FYFI13 (Feb 14, 2017)

Liviu Cojocaru said:


> Even if the performance is 10-12% less I would pay for an AMD product because this will hopefully give them a better position in the market as I would like to see more competition and also hopefully this will make Intel step up their game and bring some real innovation with their new products. So I think buyers should keep this in mind as well when they make a purchase decision.


It's a good thing to support AMD but I'm not going to downgrade my personal rig if it fails to deliver. I guess i could switch to AMD if single thread performance was at least same as my i7 4790K, just to support AMD as I don't need more then 4 cores right now.


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Feb 14, 2017)

I am just hoping that Ryzen will bring good competition between AMD and Intel and the end user will benefit from this.


----------



## infrared (Feb 14, 2017)

I'm buying it straight away just because I'm interested, I bet it will do well at crunching, and if ipc is in line with skylake it should be an epic product.

I'll still have my 6700k rig as the main gaming setup for a while, and maybe just swap out the mobo & cpu when games are far enough along to utilize the extra cores. Until then I'm just going to play with and overclock, bench the snot out of an 1800x


----------



## kruk (Feb 14, 2017)

FYFI13 said:


> That's multi-threaded (which seems alright), i was talking about single threaded results from VideoCardz:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, this chart is strange, thats why I didn't include it. I seriously doubt you can just divide the result by core count and get something meaningful out of it ...


----------



## mastrdrver (Feb 15, 2017)

FYFI13 said:


> Arma 3  It can use up to 8 threads (geometry, texture loading, file operations, etc) but all rendering is done on one thread. That applies to most Direct X 9-11 games if I'm not mistaken. That's why Penitum 3258 was kicking ass to every single AMD CPU on earth in gaming.



Stop spreading misinformation.


----------



## MrGenius (Feb 15, 2017)

FYFI13 said:


> 800MHz difference and no performance gains. This just makes no sense whatsoever.


There's results from 3 different CPUs being shown there(who knows which is which, or which has how many cores/threads, or which has how much L3 cache? point being they aren't the same). 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*

Which makes perfect sense actually. 

EDIT: I guess we do know which is which(for the most part). I just had to look for myself to find out. 

*AMD Ryzen: ZD3406BAM88F4_38/34_Y* *— Eight-Core CPU*

AMD Ryzen: ZD3301BBM6IF4_37/33_Y — Six-Core CPU

AMD Ryzen: ZD3201BBM4KF4_34/32_Y — Quad-Core CPU
https://videocardz.com/65913/how-fast-is-ryzen


----------



## cdawall (Feb 15, 2017)

FYFI13 said:


> That's multi-threaded (which seems alright), i was talking about single threaded results from VideoCardz:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It makes perfect sense if the all use xfr and are running at a hype train level of 4.0+


----------



## Kanan (Feb 15, 2017)

cdawall said:


> It makes perfect sense if the all use xfr and are running at a hype train level of 4.0+


Would also mean Ryzens IPC is a lot worse compared to Broadwell-E, if "4 GHz+" loses to 3.6 GHz i7 6800K and has no chance against the higher clocked ones.

I rather come to the conclusion the source isn't right on the clocks, I don't think they are clocked at 4 GHz, 3.2 to 3.6 makes more sense. Let's wait and see, this is basically unreliable garbage.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 15, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Would also mean Ryzens IPC is a lot worse compared to Broadwell-E, if "4 GHz+" loses to 3.6 GHz i7 6800K and has no chance against the higher clocked ones.
> 
> I rather come to the conclusion the source isn't right on the clocks, I don't think they are clocked at 4 GHz, 3.2 to 3.6 makes more sense. Let's wait and see, this is basically unreliable garbage.



Yep and for reference my 6850K is hitting 20k overall in that benchmark no issues...


----------



## MrGenius (Feb 15, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Yep and for reference my 6850K is hitting 20k overall in that benchmark no issues...



So your i7-6850K 6 core/12 thread CPU Physics score of 20,057 @ ~4.5GHz is higher than the AMD Ryzen: ZD3301BBM6IF4_37/33_Y 6 core/12 thread CPU  Physics score of 15,271 @ 3.3GHz.

Which proves what? You should compare yours at the same clock at least. If you want to make a fair comparison anyway.

EDIT: It looks like @ 3.8GHz it's a much closer race. So it would probably be interesting to see what it does @ 3.3GHz. Before you can claim it's much better or worse.




Apples to apples people.


----------



## Xzibit (Feb 15, 2017)

Cue "R. Kelly - I Believe I Can Fly"


----------



## FYFI13 (Feb 15, 2017)

mastrdrver said:


> Stop spreading misinformation.


That's why i said "in most". There are very few games that can utilize CPU as good as BF1 does. And i was wrong only about DX11 part - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ff476891(v=vs.85).aspx Until DX11 this was impossible.



cdawall said:


> It makes perfect sense if the all use xfr and are running at a hype train level of 4.0+


On the picture they state CPU's were running at 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 4GHz. If that was with XFR, than... Results are pretty low I'd say.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 15, 2017)

FYFI13 said:


> On the picture they state CPU's were running at 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 4GHz. If that was with XFR, than... Results are pretty low I'd say.



Results are pulled from the futurmark server and there is literally zero proof of speed. That is all guesstimate based off of model numbers. 



MrGenius said:


> So your i7-6850K 6 core/12 thread CPU Physics score of 20,057 @ ~4.5GHz is higher than the AMD Ryzen: ZD3301BBM6IF4_37/33_Y 6 core/12 thread CPU  Physics score of 15,271 @ 3.3GHz.
> 
> Which proves what? You should compare yours at the same clock at least. If you want to make a fair comparison anyway.
> 
> ...



Use the graph below and my per core is 3342, none of the AMD chips are exceeding 2600 even at a supposed 4ghz, add some apples in there and per clock AMD is going to be balls ass slow if this is actually at 4ghz. That is why I have *ALREADY SAID* this is pure conjecture from a known web page that is full of it.



FYFI13 said:


>


----------



## yogurt_21 (Feb 15, 2017)

hype train must have run off the tracks...

AMD's first stab at competing with Intel comes close bit slower in some tests and suddenly that's "Balls Ass Slow" ? wtf?

compared to what? I get 4GHZ xfr is likely on in those tests which is why the 3 come back the same per core...but how is an AMD chip at 4GHZ beating a 6900k at 3.7GHZ bad?

I don't get where this argument is going at all. The physics test apparently favors the hell out of clock speed...and apparently has the lower/cheaper 6800k give more performance per core at 3.6 than the 6900k does at 3.7? Perhaps we're seeing a test that can only max quads and can deal with hex's but doesn't properly allocate octa's. 

I don't know about the validity of the bench, but the AMD results there are NOT "Balls Ass Slow" not by any means, not by overall performance, not by price per performance, not by multi-threaded performance. 3dmark cpu tests are notorious core clock whores. They matter not a bit in a real worth comparison and this is a case where synthetics would actually tell more. But even if they did matter, I'd take these results from AMD's necromancy event. Especially now that a cpu core on AMD pretty much matches one on the Intel side. The fact that you can even compare per core performance between the 2 is a massive leap forward for AMD.


----------



## the54thvoid (Feb 15, 2017)

Reviews out on 28th apparently, so one way or another hype train will be boarding on platform zen soon enough.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 15, 2017)

yogurt_21 said:


> hype train must have run off the tracks...
> 
> AMD's first stab at competing with Intel comes close bit slower in some tests and suddenly that's "Balls Ass Slow" ? wtf?
> 
> ...


The physics of the bench is fine. It scales WELL over 8 cores just fine. The physics test (not PhysX from nvidia mind you) responds well to cores and clockspeeds.

It is a notorious thread whore...clocks do matter but cores outweigh it in most cases.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 15, 2017)

yogurt_21 said:


> hype train must have run off the tracks...
> 
> AMD's first stab at competing with Intel comes close bit slower in some tests and suddenly that's "Balls Ass Slow" ? wtf?



4ghz+ for XFR all of them score the same regardless to number of cores when broken down per core, that score is 800 points lower than my absolutely average 6850k and requires a 4ghz XFR chip to compete 



yogurt_21 said:


> compared to what? I get 4GHZ xfr is likely on in those tests which is why the 3 come back the same per core...but how is an AMD chip at 4GHZ beating a 6900k at 3.7GHZ bad?



XFR exceeds 4ghz, 4ghz is normal turbo.



yogurt_21 said:


> I don't get where this argument is going at all. The physics test apparently favors the hell out of clock speed...and apparently has the lower/cheaper 6800k give more performance per core at 3.6 than the 6900k does at 3.7? Perhaps we're seeing a test that can only max quads and can deal with hex's but doesn't properly allocate octa's.
> 
> I don't know about the validity of the bench, but the AMD results there are NOT "Balls Ass Slow" not by any means, not by overall performance, not by price per performance, not by multi-threaded performance. 3dmark cpu tests are notorious core clock whores. They matter not a bit in a real worth comparison and this is a case where synthetics would actually tell more. But even if they did matter, I'd take these results from AMD's necromancy event. Especially now that a cpu core on AMD pretty much matches one on the Intel side. The fact that you can even compare per core performance between the 2 is a massive leap forward for AMD.



Anything that is only competitive with stagnant intels from 3 generations ago frustrates me especially when people hype up a product like it is gods gift to the CPU world. I will happily wait until real benchmarks and clockspeeds show up, but as it sits color me completely and utterly unimpressed that AMD can keep up with the 6900K. 





EarthDog said:


> The physics of the bench is fine. It scales WELL over 8 cores just fine. The physics test (not PhysX from nvidia mind you) responds well to cores and clockspeeds.
> 
> It is a notorious thread whore...clocks do matter but cores outweigh it in most cases.




Even with an absolutely dicked OS (work PC) the 5960X I am using still scales with 8 cores...


----------



## phanbuey (Feb 15, 2017)

i might have to throw another rad in the loop and get one of these... really looking forward to the OC potential


----------



## yogurt_21 (Feb 16, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> The physics of the bench is fine. It scales WELL over 8 cores just fine. The physics test (not PhysX from nvidia mind you) responds well to cores and clockspeeds.
> 
> It is a notorious thread whore...clocks do matter but cores outweigh it in most cases.



that doesn't correlate to the results *AT ALL.* either your post is bullshit or the bench is. there is no way an 8 core with 16 threads from intel would have less performance per core despite higher clocks than the 6 core variant of the same gen otherwise.

it either scales terribly or the test is random and thus useless.




cdawall said:


> 4ghz+ for XFR all of them score the same regardless to number of cores when broken down per core, that score is 800 points lower than my absolutely average 6850k and requires a 4ghz XFR chip to compete
> 
> 
> 
> ...



? there you go with the crazy talk again... "Absolute Average" 9 month old 600$ cpu... right... if you don't even know what average is, your parents, teachers, and workplace are terrible terrible educators. I'm pretty sure my 7 year old could properly teach someone that. Average cpu's do not cost 600$. They cost 150-200$ and come pre-assembled into whatever you're buying. Your cpu is 9 months old and expensive. Your expectations are moronic AT BEST. you have guzzled too much Kool Aid. 

Also you're completely ignoring the Intel results.

There's more than one Intel cpu in that chart. And I hate to break it to yah, but they do not make any sense whatsoever if the bench is legit. 8 core scales terribly, yet 6 runs better? Even despite a core clock deficiency? I smell bullshit.

Speaking of, your assertion that beating a 1100$ 9 month old cpu is unimpressive is bullshit. you either need to get laid or need to lay off something, but your attitude here is bullshit. 

also 4GHZ is only turbo for the 8 core 1800X which I did not see listed. All others turbo below that. So the XFR is likely 4GHZ. Running tests at 4.5 almost 4.6 isn't apples for apples at all. Post your 4GHZ numbers or don't bother posting anything at all. 

and ffs try to thing about price. Expecting a 300-500$ cpu to topple the best Intel has to offer is pointless. The days of AMD's Althon 64 besting Intel ended over a decade ago. This is a necromancy event, nothing more. 

Too much hype in your head, not enough logic.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 16, 2017)

yogurt_21 said:


> that doesn't correlate to the results *AT ALL.* either your post is bullshit or the bench is. there is no way an 8 core with 16 threads from intel would have less performance per core despite higher clocks than the 6 core variant of the same gen otherwise.
> 
> it either scales terribly or the test is random and thus useless.
> 
> ...



ALL of the amd chips scored the same per core a normal logical person would assert that means they are all at the same clock speed. Oddly enough searching futuremarks database isn't the most reliable place to get unreleased cpu clockspeed.

ALL of the amd chips scaled perfectly to 8 cores, yet again showing this bench scales fine.

ALL of the amd chips are clocked higher (if we assume 4ghz) than the Intel counterparts. AMD also has XFR which means if that is enabled we have NO idea what maximum clockspeed is.

Also my $500-600 cpu was less than half that price at purchase. Not my fault you don't have the ability to buy them cheaper.

Look at the per core stuff again and notice that the 3.6 and 3.7ghz Intel chips are besting the 4ghz amd model per core. I'm tired of this damn hype train every single benchmark released should come with a dump truck full of salt for the fanatics that assume this will be the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'm betting performance similar to ivy bridge e. Huge step forward for amd, not much of a threat to Intel. Hopefully it means Intel drops prices some.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 16, 2017)

cdawall said:


> ALL of the amd chips scored the same per core a normal logical person would assert that means they are all at the same clock speed. Oddly enough searching futuremarks database isn't the most reliable place to get unreleased cpu clockspeed.
> 
> ALL of the amd chips scaled perfectly to 8 cores, yet again showing this bench scales fine.
> 
> ...



That's all we can hope for is to bring competitive prices back where all end users win.


----------



## alucasa (Feb 16, 2017)

Nobody pays full price for xeons.

Well, corporations do, I suppose. Then, for them, few grands is gum change.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 16, 2017)

I bought all three Xeons I had at retail.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 16, 2017)

eidairaman1 said:


> That's all we can hope for is to bring competitive prices back where all end users win.



Dump Intels 6 core lineup prices down to $3-400 and its a whole new ballgame.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 16, 2017)

yogurt_21 said:


> that doesn't correlate to the results *AT ALL.* either your post is bullshit or the bench is. there is no way an 8 core with 16 threads from intel would have less performance per core despite higher clocks than the 6 core variant of the same gen otherwise.
> 
> it either scales terribly or the test is random and thus useless.


Or maybe just the result you see is bullshit... we are taking these results as The Gospel without any confirmation its actually true. I hear what you are saying, it doens't make sense. But its not the benchmark itself that is the problem here. 

The benchmark scales well with 10c/20t. It also scales with clockspeed.


----------



## alucasa (Feb 16, 2017)

Just wait few more weeks and all these nutshows will be over.


----------



## m1dg3t (Feb 16, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Dump Intels 6 core lineup prices down to $3-400 and its a whole new ballgame.



Intel can not do this over night, they would have to make cuts over, I think, at least 2 gens. Such a big slash in  prices would be extremely difficult to absorb all at once.

*Note*: This is conjecture, i'm a fool.

Edit: I been trying to watch this the last couple days


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Feb 16, 2017)

If I can figure out how the HELL FreeNAS works, this may go into that build...


----------



## cdawall (Feb 16, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Or maybe just the result you see is bullshit... we are taking these results as The Gospel without any confirmation its actually true. I hear what you are saying, it doens't make sense. But its not the benchmark itself that is the problem here.
> 
> The benchmark scales well with 10c/20t. It also scales with clockspeed.



Wait you mean a russian video card page reposted by WCCF isn't the most reliable source? Say it ain't so.



m1dg3t said:


> Intel can not do this over night, they would have to make cuts over, I think, at least 2 gens. Such a big slash in  prices would be extremely difficult to absorb all at once.
> 
> *Note*: This is conjecture, i'm a fool.
> 
> Edit: I been trying to watch this the last couple days



Intel could absorb it easily they posted AMD's net worth in profits for the last quarter. It just means less profit, guarantee at that price they are still making a good bit on each CPU.


----------



## m1dg3t (Feb 16, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Intel could absorb it easily they posted AMD's net worth in profits for the last quarter. It just means less profit, guarantee at that price they are still making a good bit on each CPU.



You honestly believe that an instant reduction in ASP of ~30% will have little to no financial effect? HaHaHa

You think they can maintain healthy margins on such large dies, as compared to Zen? Honestly?


----------



## alucasa (Feb 16, 2017)

Nope, but they can take the hit if required. They've been making insane profits for how many years?


----------



## m1dg3t (Feb 16, 2017)

alucasa said:


> Nope, but they can take the hit if required. They've been making insane profits for how many years?



Really, you think instantly devaluing your product line by such a significant amount will have no affect to your stock value? Lol


----------



## alucasa (Feb 16, 2017)

They've done it before. Remember Netburst era? How did that pan out?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 16, 2017)

alucasa said:


> They've done it before. Remember Netburst era? How did that pan out?



Amd Seriously needs to get on the program with 1 tv commercial and tons of ads online, they have enough on Social Media.


----------



## phanbuey (Feb 16, 2017)

m1dg3t said:


> Really, you think instantly devaluing your product line by such a significant amount will have no affect to your stock value? Lol



I would guess that most of the controlling shareholders would rather take a price hit now than lose market share and collapse slowly like a flan.

Also they have had no competition in the space for so long that the current prices are inflated and unclear how low they can go before it no longer becomes efficient with in terms of manufacturing costs.  They're probably charging a pretty healthy margin.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 16, 2017)

m1dg3t said:


> You honestly believe that an instant reduction in ASP of ~30% will have little to no financial effect? HaHaHa
> 
> You think they can maintain healthy margins on such large dies, as compared to Zen? Honestly?



So I take it you have no idea what intel values those chips at internal of the company? You do know they sold the 6700K fur sub $200 and 6850K for sub $300 this year on retail edge...Intel can comfortably drop prices on them they do it every single time they release a new chip. Do you really think Intel makes that much money on consumer grade shit?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 16, 2017)

cdawall said:


> So I take it you have no idea what intel values those chips at internal of the company? You do know they sold the 6700K fur sub $200 and 6850K for sub $300 this year on retail edge...Intel can comfortably drop prices on them they do it every single time they release a new chip. Do you really think Intel makes that much money on consumer grade shit?



It's not the Individual consumer that drives this market but businesses that buy OEM systems, the PC master race are the minority here.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 16, 2017)

eidairaman1 said:


> It's not the Individual consumer that drives this market but businesses that buy OEM systems, the PC master race are the minority here.



And OEM systems will just mark it up more. Remember Intel's number one business is still the server market....


----------



## alucasa (Feb 16, 2017)

As far as I know, AMD's presence in server market is almost non-existent. The only big corp I know of that still uses AMD Opteron is OVH.


----------



## kruk (Feb 20, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Damn. Update on cooler pics - they're a render from a forum member at HWbattle......
> 
> Leaks, pfft!



Update on the cooler pics - the HWbattle forum member nailed it 







https://videocardz.com/66163/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-1700-wraith-max-and-spire-coolers-confirmed


----------



## cdawall (Feb 20, 2017)

kruk said:


> Update on the cooler pics - the HWbattle forum member nailed it
> 
> View attachment 84302
> 
> ...



or the shady russian video card webpage is just using the information provided by hwbattle and is re-releasing it yet again to get more people to click on their terrible webpage.


----------

