AMD Ryzen Discussion Thread.

[Johan45]

Still though, not at all the results I'd be shooting for, so that makes me hesitant. I'd be looking for a solid 4GHz at 3200 RAM speed, and with 3200 rated RAM, not 3600. I might be OK with CAS 16 RAM, but prices will no doubt drop on the B-dies by the time I'm ready to buy, which may not be until end of year.

I just get the feeling Ryzen needs an expensive MB and RAM combo to OC a 1700 to 4GHz at 3200, and that's not at all appealing. It seems the CCX interconnect needs a lot of work. It certainly wouldn't be the first time AMD's first gen of a CPU has significant flaws.

Another reason I'm hesitant is I already got burnt on my i7-950 not OCing worth a damn, and going from 3 to 4GHz is quite a jump,. It's just that a few sites have made it sound like it's easy to do with a 1700, even with auto voltage setting.

On the other hand I can't see paying $170 more just to get a 600MHz higher clock.

Samsung "B" is what you want so the G.Skill 3200 CL14 if that's what you're after. I know they're B die. The 3200 CL 16 stuff could be hynix which is kind of hit and miss on AM4 at present. Auto worked out fine on the CHVI and wasn't overvolting terribly but on the MSI SLI I'm working with now it wouldn't boot on auto with only the multi raised. With the right ram though getting the CL down isn't all that hard with a bit of testing. This is CL 14-13-13 1.4v VDIMM on custom P95 using 8GB of 16 in the system. Still not 4GHz on the CPU but I have seen a few nice specimens in the 1700 line. Typical silicon lottery though. As I said this is my "DUD" for lack of a better term.

Here's a pic of my better one, this was for review with 20 minutes each AIDA64 stability, FPU test and P95 small FFT. Maybe not 100% stable but close. So there are better cpus out there, just no guarentee.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Typical silicon lottery though. As I said this is my "DUD" for lack of a better term.

Yeah it seems the few review sites I saw getting 4GHz easily on a 1700 with just auto settings were probably sent specially picked review samples. At this point I'm thinking I don't want to risk another lemon OCer like my current i7-950, and I sure as hell won't be satisfied with 3GHz.

 

[Vario]

Wait for next gen, probably will clock much higher. If it could just get to 4.5 with a 5-10% IPC increase, I think it would be a great buy.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Wait for next gen, probably will clock much higher. If it could just get to 4.5 with a 5-10% IPC increase, I think it would be a great buy.

Not sure I can wait that long on a mere i7-950 at stock clocks. In fact even waiting to see performance and pricing on Coffee Lake might be a stretch. And I really don't want to pair a 1080 Ti with my current CPU.

I'm tempted by the 7700K, but I keep thinking in a couple years I'll regret it.

 

[phanbuey]

Not sure I can wait that long on a mere i7-950 at stock clocks. In fact even waiting to see performance and pricing on Coffee Lake might be a stretch. And I really don't want to pair a 1080 Ti with my current CPU.

I'm tempted by the 7700K, but I keep thinking in a couple years I'll regret it.

I mean... if you OC the 7700K 4.8-5.0 ghz it will be pleanty for a long time to come in terms of gaming.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

I mean... if you OC the 7700K 4.8-5.0 ghz it will be pleanty for a long time to come in terms of gaming.

I'm more worried about smoothness than FPS. The 7700k has plenty of speed out of the box, even for high end GPUs, but quads often play less smooth than 8 cores.

 

[RealNeil]

quads often play less smooth than 8 cores

Depends on the game at this point. Coding hasn't caught up with today's hardware yet.
I was all set to pull the trigger on a 7700K when a friend offered me a 6700K for 200. I bought it and it's pretty nice.
I've run Crossfire RX480 8GB cards in it, and a pair of GTX-980Ti card as well.
It isn't holding any graphics performance back that I can see. Gaming is smooth.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Depends on the game at this point. Coding hasn't caught up with today's hardware yet.

It's surpassing quads in some games now since both Xone and PS4 use 8 cores, and that will only likely increase quite a bit going forward. I've kept my last two MBs and CPUs for 5 years, so I am looking more forward than present.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Depends on the game at this point. Coding hasn't caught up with today's hardware yet.
I was all set to pull the trigger on a 7700K when a friend offered me a 6700K for 200. I bought it and it's pretty nice.
I've run Crossfire RX480 8GB cards in it, and a pair of GTX-980Ti card as well.
It isn't holding any graphics performance back that I can see. Gaming is smooth.

did you bench your 480s id be interesteed in timepspy etc score.

 

[the54thvoid]

It's surpassing quads in some games now since both Xone and PS4 use 8 cores, and that will only likely increase quite a bit going forward. I've kept my last two MBs and CPUs for 5 years, so I am looking more forward than present.

I know that now a 7700k is better for gaming but I'm hopeful that this 8 core Ryzen (which can do 3.8 and could do 3.9 once I'm happier with the temp and voltage) will have better overall performance in 2-3 years. I'm also really, really hopeful the process matures and AMD release faster chips for the same board further down the line. If they pull an Intel and make a whole new board, I'll go back to Intel for good. That was one main reason I chose AMD, knowing they like to (or have to due to R&D) stay faithful to a board design. If a faster chip is released and I need to buy a new board, I'll just switch back to Intel for the faster chip.

 

[mcraygsx]

Not sure I can wait that long on a mere i7-950 at stock clocks. In fact even waiting to see performance and pricing on Coffee Lake might be a stretch. And I really don't want to pair a 1080 Ti with my current CPU.

I'm tempted by the 7700K, but I keep thinking in a couple years I'll regret it.

7700K is perfect for next few years but Z270/X99 are dead platforms with Zero future path to upgrades.

But anyone looking at Ryzen right now, this deal is hard to beat. A motherboard for $9.99 but its free should you choose to fill in rebate form ( irritating inconvenience for 9.99 )

 

[RealNeil]

did you bench your 480s id be interesteed in timepspy etc score.

I'm on Win-7 here, so no timespy score.

Here is the API, Firestrike, and Cinebench score with the 480s in the 6700K system.



Both of those RX480s are going into my Ryzen 1700X build tomorrow. I'll probably leave them there.

 

[Cosmo12]

Hello guys! I'd like to update my laptop to ryzen7. I have written a benchmark, showing CPU speed in parsing text files.

Here is results for my CPU (i7-3610qm). Can you test your ryzens and upload results?

Benchmark
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/5fzk/GXCZpaDoe

Source code (c#)
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/Gi5v/j7i6tYdho

 

[notb]

7700K is perfect for next few years but Z270/X99 are dead platforms with Zero future path to upgrades.

But if you think a CPU is perfect for next few years, why would you want to replace the mobo in the meantime?
It's unlikely that we'll see a big revolution in next 2-3 years.

DDR5 is coming, but it'll most likely need a new CPU anyway.
Some Optane-like solutions might become standard (if they turn out useful) and actually Kaby Lake is the only platform that guarantees compatibility at this point.

 

[Caring1]

Hello guys! I'd like to update my laptop to ryzen7. I have written a benchmark, showing CPU speed in parsing text files.

Here is results for my CPU (i7-3610qm). Can you test your ryzens and upload results?

Lol NO
First time poster and you want people to run something you wrote?

 

[the54thvoid]

Lol NO
First time poster and you want people to run something you wrote?

Could be a genuine case but it's worse that the location is Russia (no offence to cosmo12).

And lol at your sig, I vaguely remember that night. Ended up with a bruised fist after punching a dance floor........

 

[Cosmo12]

I've attached the source code of a benchmark. Programm is written on c# with no obfuscator. You can easily check the exe with programms like ilspy. Also you can check exe on virus total.

I have got some results on Intel's CPUs here:
https://forums.overclockers.ru/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=574496&sid=3ad9a840b1796e8a8158cc039befb982
But I'd like to see results on Ryzen' 1700x and 1800x.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Hello guys! I'd like to update my laptop to ryzen7. I have written a benchmark, showing CPU speed in parsing text files.

Here is results for my CPU (i7-3610qm). Can you test your ryzens and upload results?

There are so far no announcements that we'll see Ryzen in its current form in notebooks, so if you want one, you're looking at getting a desktop system.

 

[Cosmo12]

There are so far no announcements that we'll see Ryzen in its current form in notebooks, so if you want one, you're looking at getting a desktop system.

Yes, I want to buy desktop. I have to do a lot of work parsing big text files, and my laptop' i7 (even with 8 threads and SSD) is not that good, I suppose.

LGA2011-3 platform is too expensive, so I took a look to new Ryzen's family.

 

[notb]

Yes, I want to buy desktop. I have to do a lot of work parsing big text files, and my laptop' i7 (even with 8 threads and SSD) is not that good, I suppose.

LGA2011-3 platform is too expensive, so I took a look to new Ryzen's family.

Are you sure your problems benefit from parallel processing? Because some problems are serial by nature and it can't be helped.

If the problem can be solved by parallel processing, will your program utilize Ryzen's potential? A lot of software stops at well under 8 threads - you'll get literally zero gain from moving to a 16T Ryzen.

Moving to the hardware side of the issue - how big is the problem? How much performance boost do you need?
Your CPU is already pretty fast. A Ryzen 7 1700 (and the whole desktop around it...) will give you less than double of the performance you have now in multi-tasking (and a lot less in single-thread).
Is this a lot for you? I'm asking, because if you're not limited by the performance in general (e.g. you're not processing something live or your problems are not expected to take more than age of the Universe), you might hardly notice the difference.
I mean: something that took 6 hours a day, now might take 3 hours. That's not a huge boost if you can leave your PC working at night.
At least for me it would not compensate for having to buy and live with a desktop, if I was already used to notebook's comfort.

If you need a higher boost in processing speed, you could think about GPGPU. It's pretty effective in some tasks. You might find it to be 100x faster instead of a mere 2x.

 

[Cosmo12]

Are you sure your problems benefit from parallel processing? Because some problems are serial by nature and it can't be helped.

If the problem can be solved by parallel processing, will your program utilize Ryzen's potential? A lot of software stops at well under 8 threads - you'll get literally zero gain from moving to a 16T Ryzen.

Moving to the hardware side of the issue - how big is the problem? How much performance boost do you need?
Your CPU is already pretty fast. A Ryzen 7 1700 (and the whole desktop around it...) will give you less than double of the performance you have now in multi-tasking (and a lot less in single-thread).
Is this a lot for you? I'm asking, because if you're not limited by the performance in general (e.g. you're not processing something live or your problems are not expected to take more than age of the Universe), you might hardly notice the difference.
I mean: something that took 6 hours a day, now might take 3 hours. That's not a huge boost if you can leave your PC working at night.
At least for me it would not compensate for having to buy and live with a desktop, if I was already used to notebook's comfort.

If you need a higher boost in processing speed, you could think about GPGPU. It's pretty effective in some tasks. You might find it to be 100x faster instead of a mere 2x.

Hello, notb!

Yes, I'm sure that will have behefits from parallel processing. One of my programs parses big text databases (about 30 Gb of data). CPU used on 100%, SSD used on 50 - 60% during multithread parsing. Thus, I think my CPU is a bottleneck.

Total speed is about 80 Mb per second. So, when I'm testing my program, I have to run it many times, and every time I have to wait several minutes process to complete. That is why I'm thinking to change my laptop to desktop with more cores. If I will found with Ryzen or Xeon that SSD became a battleneck and CPU is not used on 100%, I will buy more speedy SSD or will make RAID with too SDD.

 

[notb]

Hello, notb!

Yes, I'm sure that will have behefits from parallel processing. One of my programs parses big text databases (about 30 Gb of data). CPU used on 100%, SSD used on 50 - 60% during multithread parsing. Thus, I think my CPU is a bottleneck.

Fine.
I wanted to ask because I also process a lot of text/numerical data and honestly... I can't push myself to spend the extra $80 on a 7700 (instead of 7600 that I wanted in the first place). The extra 30% performance (if not less) is not giving me any new quality - just more idle time or slightly larger simulation samples.

Total speed is about 80 Mb per second. So, when I'm testing my program, I have to run it many times, and every time I have to wait several minutes process to complete. That is why I'm thinking to change my laptop to desktop with more cores. If I will found with Ryzen or Xeon that SSD became a battleneck and CPU is not used on 100%, I will buy more speedy SSD or will make RAID with too SDD.

That depends on the tasks and data structure. For me data speed has always been crucial. In the next build I'm going for a HDD RAID + NVMe SSD... and maybe an Optane cache in the future.
I'm especially interested in the Optane. I use RAMdisk a lot, but it seems a fast cache could make it obsolete (which I would welcome gladly).

You could still check if GPGPU is a possible answer to your needs. And if it isn't... well... with Ryzen you'll have to buy a GPU anyway.

 

[Cosmo12]

Fine.
I wanted to ask because I also process a lot of text/numerical data and honestly... I can't push myself to spend the extra $80 on a 7700 (instead of 7600 that I wanted in the first place). The extra 30% performance (if not less) is not giving me any new quality - just more idle time or slightly larger simulation samples.
That depends on the tasks and data structure. For me data speed has always been crucial. In the next build I'm going for a HDD RAID + NVMe SSD... and maybe an Optane cache in the future.
I'm especially interested in the Optane. I use RAMdisk a lot, but it seems a fast cache could make it obsolete (which I would welcome gladly).
You could still check if GPGPU is a possible answer to your needs. And if it isn't... well. With Ryzen you'll have to buy a GPU anyway.

As I know, if you want to use Optane in future, you have to buy i7-7700, not i7-6700, because Optane will supports only last Intel CPU' family.

Using GPU in processing is not possible in my case, because my programs used to be run on office PCs with no powerfull GPU. Everage user' machine looks i5 or i7 with built in GPU, or Athlon FX with low end office' GPU.

That is pity that Ryzen doesn't have GPU, of course. Because I do not need gaming GPU, Built in' GPU would be enough.

 

[Tatty_Two]

Well this year is supposed to see an AM4 4 core 8 thread APU, not sure which quarter though (2nd or 3rd).

 

[notb]

As I know, if you want to use Optane in future, you have to buy i7-7700, not i7-6700, because Optane will supports only last Intel CPU' family.

Correct. That's why I'm only choosing between 7700 and 7600 (not 6700 ).
Anyway, in Poland 7700 is actually cheaper than 6700. I guess 6700 stock is running low and people still want it for wider OS support.
[/QUOTE]

Using GPU in processing is not possible in my case, because my programs used to be run on office PCs with no powerfull GPU. Everage user' machine looks i5 or i7 with built in GPU, or Athlon FX with low end office' GPU.

Some data analysis environments let you switch between CPU and GPU pretty much without changing the workflow (some need a bit of tweaking). But if you write everything from scratch in C, this could in fact be fairly difficult.

That is pity that Ryzen doesn't have GPU, of course. Because I do not need gaming GPU, Built in' GPU would be enough.

Well - that's the price for having 8 cores at this moment.

Well this year is supposed to see an AM4 4 core 8 thread APU, not sure which quarter though (2nd or 3rd).

Current leaks (to be confirmed in few days) suggest that Ryzen 4C/8T is already losing to Intel counterpart in benchmarks. Zen APU will have to be either slower or more expensive than the non-IGP Ryzen.
So other than the fact that AMD's IGP will most likely be a lot more powerful than Intel's, APUs will hardly stand out (just like their predecessors).