AMD Ryzen Discussion Thread.

[trparky]

OK, I thought IPC meant the raw number of instructions that the processor can carry out per clock cycle.

 

[hellrazor]

Different instructions can take different amounts of cycles to complete.

 

[trparky]

Does anyone have authenticated CPUz benchmark numbers on the R5 1600x? I've read about terms like Dhrystone and Whetstone. Do we have numbers for those? Compared to that of say... an Ivy Bridge 3570k?

I guess what I'm going to get answered is... If I bought an R5 1600x today and I compared the overall performance that my current Intel Core i5 3570k would I see a noticeable difference in performance in general computing and gaming? Or would the difference be so negligible that it would be laughable at best? I'm trying to decide on whether or not I should stay with the rig I have for another year or if I should just bite the bullet and build a new AMD Ryzen-based rig? Or should I wait for Ryzen v2.0?

I just can't decide.

 

[notb]

You're smoking too much. Ryzen is kinda fucky, for sure, but outside of Ryzen the time it takes to get data from main RAM is determined solely by the memory controller, operating frequency, and timings - none of which change by simply adding more identical sticks.

"by the memory controller" - exactly . MC performance varies depending on how much DIMMs it has to manage.

I've never said anything that's Ryzen-specific.

 

[hellrazor]

"by the memory controller" - exactly . MC performance varies depending on how much DIMMs it has to manage.

I've never said anything that's Ryzen-specific.

No it doesn't.

 

[GoldenX]

Does anyone have authenticated CPUz benchmark numbers on the R5 1600x? I've read about terms like Dhrystone and Whetstone. Do we have numbers for those? Compared to that of say... an Ivy Bridge 3570k?

I guess what I'm going to get answered is... If I bought an R5 1600x today and I compared the overall performance that my current Intel Core i5 3570k would I see a noticeable difference in performance in general computing and gaming? Or would the difference be so negligible that it would be laughable at best? I'm trying to decide on whether or not I should stay with the rig I have for another year or if I should just bite the bullet and build a new AMD Ryzen-based rig? Or should I wait for Ryzen v2.0?

I just can't decide.

The longer you wait, the better components you get. I at the very least would wait for motherboards to be a little more matured on memory compatibility.
In general computing, the 1600X should be a lot better, you are comparing 12 threads to just 4 of a similar IPC. In games I expect the performance to be similar.
I would consider the non-X version, they all overclock the same, so a normal version would save you some money.

 

[trparky]

I'm thinking I may wait another year for Ryzen v2.0, hopefully by then the following will be fixed...
1. The motherboard issues with RAM will be solved.
2. The IPC will be better and may even be more inline with what Intel has to offer.
3. Higher stock clock speeds.
4. Infinity Fabric improvements.

Unless of course my current system gives up its ghost, it is after all five years old which is quite old when it comes to high-end, always on electronics.

*pets the side of his case* You're a good PC, yes you are.

 

[the54thvoid]

I'm thinking I may wait another year for Ryzen v2.0, hopefully by then the following will be fixed...
1. The motherboard issues with RAM will be solved.
2. The IPC will be better and may even be more inline with what Intel has to offer.
3. Higher stock clock speeds.
4. Infinity Fabric improvements.

Unless of course my current system gives up its ghost, it is after all five years old which is quite old when it comes to high-end, always on electronics.

*pets the side of his case* You're a good PC, yes you are.

2. IPC is just fine.

 

[trparky]

Can you post the Single and Multi-Threaded Numbers instead of the percentages?

 

[the54thvoid]

Can you post the Single and Multi-Threaded Numbers instead of the percentages?

Certainly. Whatever the score is in comparsion to other folks, I find the chip performs very well in all scenarios for my uses. Granted an i7 7700K would have been faster for gaming but I'm hopeful in 2-3 years 4+ cores will be minumums and the value of Ryzen is finally realised. Like most things AMD, too much too early

My chip is all cores at 3.9Ghz.

 

[trparky]

Holy crap... Your numbers are 2279 for Single Threaded and 20188 for Multi-Threaded whereas mine are 1560 and 5337 respectively.

I would probably get the 1600x since the stock clock is higher, I'm really not into the overclocking scene. I don't exactly have the money to run out and buy a new motherboard and chip if I manage to f**k up hard while overclocking. I haven't even overclocked my 3570K CPU out of fear of frying it or bricking the motherboard (I have heard you can do that where even a BIOS jumper-based reset won't be able to get it to POST again).

Edit: JayzTwoCents managed to brick his motherboard while overclocking. Oops.

 

[the54thvoid]

Holy crap... Your numbers are 2279 for Single Threaded and 20188 for Multi-Threaded whereas mine are 1560 and 5337 respectively.

I would probably get the 1600x since the stock clock is higher, I'm really not into the overclocking scene. I don't exactly have the money to run out and buy a new motherboard and chip if I manage to f**k up hard while overclocking. I haven't even overclocked my 3570K CPU out of fear of frying it or bricking the motherboard (I have heard you can do that where even a BIOS jumper-based reset won't be able to get it to POST again).

It's quite easy to get 3.8Ghz on a Ryzen chip and that's going to be good enough. But with the price factored in it's damn superb. People will still buy Intel (I might again in future) but I was not paying their prices for a 6-8 core chip when Ryzen were offering far, far better value for money. My CPU is on air and it's running fine. My 6 core 3930k hit 4.4 but needed to be at 4.2Ghz to be stable. This 1700X is a good upgrade from that chip, at 3.9Ghz it's faster than it was at 4.2Ghz and it was part of a large custom water loop.

 

[trparky]

Oh crap, your chip is the R7 1700X, I didn't notice that. I wonder what the confirmed CPUz numbers are for the R5 1600X at stock clock.

Edit: What gets me is that I can't find confirmed Ryzen R5 CPUz numbers. I've looked, I can't find them!

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Reason IPCs are given in percentages instead of actual IPC count is because it varies a lot from game to game. So you're better off going by percentages.

Been on a 1700x for about a month, getting higher minimum frames and less drop outs than my old 6600k.

I really wish people would be more specific about their Ryzen experiences.

1. How much higher are the minimum frames?
2. Do the higher minimums make gameplay noticeably smoother?
3. What clock speed are you running the CPU at?
4. What CPU cooler are you using?
5. What RAM speed are you running?
6. What MB are you using?
7. If OCing, what method, just multi, or manual?
8. What CPU voltage (and other voltages) if manual?
9. Why did you opt for the X model of 1700 when most non X models OC to same speed X OCs to?

I know that's a lot of questions, but often times when someone raves about Ryzen, I end up finding they did quite a lot of exhaustive tinkering to finally get the desired results. I'm also wondering why you still have just the 6600k listed in your system spec chart? If I have a new component to rave about on a forum, I right away want to upgrade my spec chart.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

I know that's a lot of questions, but often times when someone raves about Ryzen, I end up finding they did quite a lot of exhaustive tinkering to finally get the desired results. I'm also wondering why you still have just the 6600k listed in your system spec chart.

I'm actually looking forward to my ryzen build for this precise reason, just feels more challenging and akin to how overclocking used to be, of course I'll be feeling different at the time when I'm trying to get my 3200 RAM stable and get past 3.9ghz just for the hell of it lol

 

[Frag_Maniac]

...I'll be feeling different at the time when I'm trying to get my 3200 RAM stable and get past 3.9ghz just for the hell of it lol

It usually doesn't pay to try to go beyond the average OC limit due to minimal gains and shorter lifespan.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

It usually doesn't pay to try to go beyond the average OC limit due to minimal gains and shorter lifespan.

Overclocking in general isn't recommended but where's the fun in that? ​

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Overclocking in general isn't recommended but where's the fun in that? ​

Anyone who's ever had a chip that won't OC worth a damn already knows the answer to that.

OCing is always a gamble, and we all know gambling is skewed toward the house, not the customer.

That said, these Ryzen chips may get Intel to put their Coffee Lake offerings at slightly higher stock clocks than their current 6 and 8 core chips, but that's about the most industry influence they'll manage I think.

 

[notb]

Overclocking in general isn't recommended but where's the fun in that? ​

Let's hope AMD also makes some products for people who like the kinds of "fun" other than worrying about OC stability and component compatibility.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

Let's hope AMD also makes some products for people who like the kinds of "fun" other than worrying about OC stability and component compatibility.

Such as what? They are plenty stable without oc so what's the point you're trying to make other than trolling? Go fap in the i7 owners forum

 

[trparky]

Does anyone have confirmed CPUz numbers for the Ryzen R5 1600x? I've not been able to find them anywhere, at least not confirmed/authentic numbers. I've Googled

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Let's hope AMD also makes some products for people who like the kinds of "fun" other than worrying about OC stability and component compatibility.

EXACTLY

Such as what? They are plenty stable without oc so what's the point you're trying to make other than trolling? Go fap in the i7 owners forum

It's never just about stability with high core count CPUs used for gaming. We all know they are clocked lower, especially lower than Intel quads, which is why so many are trying to OC them.

When the fall back is commonly, "Yeah, but they're great for productivity", that only makes it more obvious they aren't fully ready for prime time where gaming is concerned.

Honestly though, it's quite a step up for AMD from their Bullcrapper chips, but they kinda did shit the bed yet again, this time trying to be too secret and not communicating well enough with RAM and MB manufacturers, and that is on them.

If they can get CCX to be more optimized and not keep partnering manufacturers in the dark, maybe next go round they actually WILL compete with Intel better, but for now, Ryzen is a work in progress, and I don't like to experiment with my component money.

 

[Aenra]

I know it's pointless (there is no reply i can respect, it being since there's no logical reply anyone could give), but i'm in the mood

Tell me how "they shit the bed" again please, when they offer an 8core that is less than half the price of mine and is almost equal in performance; am curious.
(yes, almost equal. You would never 'feel' the 9, 10 [pick a number] FPS difference at an overall FPS of 130+, you would never 'feel' the 3nano second "delay" in 7zip compression or whatever)

Do you like paying 1200$ so you can post synthetic benchmarks in the internet? That it?

P.S. agreed on the launch issues, needless to say. That could have been handled a lot better. As long as we also keep in mind that:

- when you make a day 1 purchase, you are in effect accepting such risks; in advance. No one to blame but you, lacking the patience to wait for a couple of months.
- i am well below the average in terms of knowledge, yet i built and OCed a Ryzen rig with literally zero issues. None. All i did was follow QVLs and use my head. Didn't even 'fish' for Beta BIOSes. As i'm no expert, this tells me there's been some gross exaggerating going around.

 

[notb]

Such as what? They are plenty stable without oc so what's the point you're trying to make other than trolling? Go fap in the i7 owners forum

They work fine if you choose the other parts carefully. At least for now. We'll see how it goes down the line.

As for OC: I don't do it, so I don't care that much. But from what I've seen, OC (however difficult and little) is an important part of proving that Ryzen can be faster than Intel counterparts.
Today basically everyone can get an Intel -K, a good cooler and end up with a significant boost in performance. This is so much more complicated on the AMD side this time (and AMD used to be the OC-friendly company!).

Frag Maniac has already given the correct reason why this happened.
If AMD wasn't so secret about the new CPU tech (while they we're happily sharing "leaked" benchmarks), this would not happen. We'd have motherboards, RAM and coolers ready at the day of launch. Plus, the whole platform would be well tested, which could save us from some really weird initial bugs (like the FMA4).

 

[Aenra]

OC (however difficult and little) is an important part of proving that Ryzen can be faster than Intel counterparts

I'd disagree. I think you've let your own predilections, hobbies, as well as what they entail (which sites you frequent, which people you talk to) color your judgement.
This is not the criteria for the majority of users; at best, it's an added bonus.