AMD Ryzen Discussion Thread.

[notb]

I know it's pointless (there is no reply i can respect, it being since there's no logical reply anyone could give), but i'm in the mood
Tell me how "they shit the bed" again please, when they offer an 8core that is less than half the price of mine and is almost equal in performance; am curious.

Because if you're getting a high-end PC - especially for professional purpose (be it movie editing, computation or whatever) - chances are that you value stability and robustness at least as much as performance. So from such point of view it is an issue that currently Ryzen is basically in a public beta test stage...

Plus, the whole Ryzen strategy IMO seems incoherent.
AMD tells us that we need more cores, but with Ryzen they're actually lowering the average number of cores in their products.

On one hand AMD says that Ryzen 7 is the future of PC. That we'll all need 8 cores and applications will be optimized for this.
But at the same time they offer mainstream 4-core products (lower Ryzen 5, incoming Ryzen 3 and APU).

Mainstream Ryzen CPUs have 4 cores (Ryzen 5, 3, APU). When they show up in office workstations and laptops, 8-core models might end-up with under 5% share of AMD sales. Does this really change the market?
Think how different this is from late Bulldozer era. It was also marketed with "8 cores is the future", but AMD offered you 8 cores also at a very low price point - even below Ryzen 5 1400.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

EXACTLY

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

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.

They have better ipc than Intel quads on a clock for clock basis, the fact they can't overclock to 4.9 ghz saves Intel some mighty big blushes.... and people aren't trying to overclock them cause they're clocked lower??? They're the same people who overclock regardless and have always done so, you make it out like no one overclocks an Intel chip lol

 

[Frag_Maniac]

They have better ipc than Intel quads on a clock for clock basis, the fact they can't overclock to 4.9 ghz saves Intel some mighty big blushes....[

All that matters where gaming is concerned is which chip performs better, and the 7700K is still the king.

...people aren't trying to overclock them cause they're clocked lower??? They're the same people who overclock regardless and have always done so, you make it out like no one overclocks an Intel chip lol

You totally misread my meaning on clocked lower. I'm saying 8 core chips are typically clocked lower than quads. A lot of people don't OC an i7-4970, or 6700k, or especially the 7700K, because you really don't need to. Plus those chips OC much better too. I don't see you making any valid points really.

That said, and I can't stress this enough, even AMD's highest end quad core Ryzen is clocked quite a bit lower than Intel's highest end quad, so yes, you can say AMD, even in ways that make no sense, are clocked lower. It's clear to me that AMD are still shooting from the hip with "value" product.

I'm not interested in slinging fanboy bait, maybe you are. I'll buy the brand that makes sense at the time. AMD clearly still has work to do. Maybe had they not been so paranoid about secrecy they'd have done much better, but this isn't just about component compatibility, it's about gaming performance, stock clocks, and OCing.

 

[Kanan]

Because if you're getting a high-end PC - especially for professional purpose (be it movie editing, computation or whatever) - chances are that you value stability and robustness at least as much as performance. So from such point of view it is an issue that currently Ryzen is basically in a public beta test stage...

You're easily exaggerating. Ryzen is in no "beta test stage" unless you want Memory overclocks of 3200 or higher. Other than that it runs totally well, and OC is not a "guaranteed" part of a product, so it is indeed running 100% fine.

Plus, the whole Ryzen strategy IMO seems incoherent.
AMD tells us that we need more cores, but with Ryzen they're actually lowering the average number of cores in their products.

No, FX had 4 cores too, just those "4 cores" were not actual fully performing 4 cores. Ryzen APU's will have 4 cores for a long time, maybe even 2 cores whereas the Ryzen 3 will not have less than 4. Again, this is no change compared to their previous products. But since they added SMT and that increases threads to 8, 12 and 16 respectable, it's effectively more than with FX, so what you said is simply wrong.

On one hand AMD says that Ryzen 7 is the future of PC. That we'll all need 8 cores and applications will be optimized for this.
But at the same time they offer mainstream 4-core products (lower Ryzen 5, incoming Ryzen 3 and APU).

Of course, because not everyone can pay 6 or 8 core CPUs, nor does everyone want them. On the other hand AMD have to sell the defective parts (those 8 cores with lesser functioning cores) as well, so it's a perfectly fine strategy.

Think how different this is from late Bulldozer era. It was also marketed with "8 cores is the future", but AMD offered you 8 cores also at a very low price point - even below Ryzen 5 1400.

8 Cores is the future / is now the present. FX is now better than at release, because those "8 cores" get better utilized now. When FX was released, even 4 cores were barely utilized, now 8 thread util is a regular thing in games, and some games do even up to 16 threads utilization.

 

[trparky]

All that matters where gaming is concerned is which chip performs better, and the 7700K is still the king.

Yes, it may be still king but king of what? Your wallet? I certainly don't want that.

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

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

It basically comes down to that. If you like paying the Intel tax and getting your wallet screwed, go ahead... it makes no difference to me. I however will no longer stand idly by and continue paying the Intel tax just to get a little bit better performance when I can save $200 to $300 on an AMD build.

 

[notb]

You're easily exaggerating. Ryzen is in no "beta test stage" unless you want Memory overclocks of 3200 or higher. Other than that it runs totally well, and OC is not a "guaranteed" part of a product, so it is indeed running 100% fine.

Almost no support from cooler manufacturers at launch, bugs, RAM incompatibilities etc.
1.5 months have passed since the launch and we're getting second batch of mobos.
Honestly, it's really obvious that AMD didn't share specs early enough for other companies to prepare.

No, FX had 4 cores too, just those "4 cores" were not actual fully performing 4 cores.

Now this is new to me, but I'm no expert on the AMD lineup. How do you count cores in FX-8350?

8 Cores is the future / is now the present.

How can you say it's "the present", when you have to pay over $300 for a desktop CPU and we're almost sure that APU and mobile processors will have 4 cores at most?

Maybe an educated guess? In a year from now, what percentage of all PCs (so excluding servers) will have more than 4 cores?

FX is now better than at release, because those "8 cores" get better utilized now. When FX was released, even 4 cores were barely utilized, now 8 thread util is a regular thing in games, and some games do even up to 16 threads utilization.

But why are you so sure history won't repeat itself? Once again AMD is doubling Intel's core count. Once again we are assured that AMD is correct, Intel is wrong and game creators are lazy/bribed by Intel.
Honestly, I don't know how old you are and whether you've been tracking the Bulldozer launch as well.
I was. I've seen all this already. I've taken part in almost identical discussions. I've read reviews with similar conclusions.
Here's one of them:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/11
And a few quotes from the text:
"Given the right workload, Bulldozer is actually able to hang with Intel's fastest Sandy Bridge parts. We finally have a high-end AMD CPU with power gating as well as a very functional Turbo Core mode. Unfortunately the same complaints we've had about AMD's processors over the past few years still apply here today: in lightly threaded scenarios, Bulldozer simply does not perform."
"AMD also shared with us that Windows 7 isn't really all that optimized for Bulldozer"
"In many ways, where Bulldozer is a clear win is where AMD has always done well: heavily threaded applications."
"The good news is AMD has a very aggressive roadmap ahead of itself"

The key difference is that FX-8150 was competing with a then-modern i7-2600K and lost badly in single-thread at launch already.
Intel overslept Ryzen launch - new LGA1151 processors (maybe final) will arrive in early 2018. We'll see what happens...

 

[trparky]

I can partially understand why AMD was so secretive about Ryzen up to the launch, they didn't want Intel to spoil the party which they have been known to do. Unfortunately there's a point where you're too damn secretive and that's where AMD failed.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Yes, it may be still king but king of what? Your wallet? I certainly don't want that.

It basically comes down to that. If you like paying the Intel tax and getting your wallet screwed, go ahead... it makes no difference to me. I however will no longer stand idly by and continue paying the Intel tax just to get a little bit better performance when I can save $200 to $300 on an AMD build.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention to gaming benches. The 7700k still kicks butt in gaming, period, and given that, it's priced reasonably as well. People don't buy Intel CPUs merely on hype, they buy them because they perform well.

 

[notb]

It basically comes down to that. If you like paying the Intel tax and getting your wallet screwed, go ahead... it makes no difference to me. I however will no longer stand idly by and continue paying the Intel tax just to get a little bit better performance when I can save $200 to $300 on an AMD build.

Performance is not the only thing included in the price and not everything can be shown on benchmark graphs .
Intel platforms (all of them) are so easy, user-friendly and polished at this point, they're just pleasure to use.

Ryzen is designed for processing power and low cost. They wanted good memory performance, so they sacrificed compatibility. They wanted low TDP, so they didn't include any IGP (even a tiny one).
If I had a choice of computation VPS based on i7-7700 or Ryzen 1700, I'd choose the latter. But for a home PC? To build and maintain by myself...?

And keep in mind AMD has always been much cheaper than Intel, but people are choosing Intel a lot more often anyway. So you might no longer want to pay "Intel tax", but you're quite lonely in that resolution...

I can partially understand why AMD was so secretive about Ryzen up to the launch, they didn't want Intel to spoil the party which they have been known to do. Unfortunately there's a point where you're too damn secretive and that's where AMD failed.

Just how could Intel "spoil the party"?
IMO they were secretive because they were worried about the results and issues. It's easier to cover such things if you're doing a big launch with all the marketing fireworks.
If this was truly such a great platform - winning with Intel counterparts in all scenarios - there would be no point in hiding anything.

 

[Tatty_Two]

I have just ordered a Ryzen 5 but what Frag meant by "shit the bed" also mirrors my feelings a little, Ryzen 7 is largely a productivity CPU and it is damn good at it, also it is absolutely fine at gaming but is beaten by Intel in most instances, thing is there are many millions more gaming than there are delving into significant productivity so AMD are possibly not going to extract the business from the mass consumer market...... the first couple of quarters worth of market share will be interesting.

For me, 4 cores/8 threads is more than enough, I only play a couple of games, browse the net and do a little MS Office work, a 1500X therefore is more than enough and I am happy to be 10 or 15% behind a 7700k in terms of gaming for the 45% saving I am making, in fact I got the motherboard also and I still pay less than just the 7700k on its own.

 

[Aenra]

@notb Obligatory disclaimer, as this is the internet
Am --not-- here to fight. So that out the way?

- you talk to me about productivity and non-gaming market segments in order to highlight an issue considering Ryzen's instability. Where? I don't keep my power plan on eco or balanced, sorry, not on a work PC. Not on any PC that is meant to work while i'm away. Now i don't understand younger people, so maybe all this trendiness and save the trees and wear some sandals mentality has gotten into peoples' heads, fine. But on a PC meant for work, my plan has and always will be that of high performance. So assuming one has had it there.. one never even had need of the latest patch.. where did you find those stability issues? Name me specific programs that you had issues to work with on a Ryzen build in high performance/all cores active.

- you tell me and i quote that "they're lowering the average number of cores".. Are we gonna play with words now? Their flagship is an 8c/16t CPU, just like Intel's was before the 6950X. Their products' range varies from mini CPUs (as i think of them) all the way up to their flagships; again just as Intel's.
Tell me how an objective individual can regard this as "lowering the number of cores". You can spin it thus, sure, lol.. they only had 8cores, now they offer cheaper products too so the average is lowered!! Mainstreaming! Traitors! (seriously? Broader options equal "lower" now?)
And if for some reason you wanna spin things that way, where were you when Intel was doing it? Hell, where were you when Intel was pimping (still is) 4cores as the future of gaming? When they stall software development by effectively making parallelizing optional?

- you talk about how the market may or may not change. I am uninterested in that. Uninterested because sadly, this market is comprised of people incapable or unwilling to think straight. As such, i do not judge any a one product based on said other peoples' "markets". I judge it as objectively as i can, i judge it in contrast/comparison with its counterparts. I understand how competition (a necessity in evolution in all aspects) may end up influencing buyer mentality, but i'm not here to refine the process of other peoples' thinking; nor should anyone else. What the "market" will do is something the market will do; anyway. Comes a time when we move past that and make our own judgements. And for a fair judgement, i won't read techpowerup.com, because they didn't even compare the 1800x to the 6900k.
That's the only judgement i should be interested in. One 8c/16t from AMD, only one 8c/16t from Intel. Which and why.

And once again, all things in perspective. One is entitled to spend four digit numbers for that extra % of performance; it's not wrong, it's not contemptible. Same thing in music, past some number, you end up wasting thousands for at best a 1-2% quality improvement. O.K. Your money (and i do just that, personally). This however does not entail the cheaper brands have "shat the bed". Yes? Perspective

 

[trparky]

Apparently you haven't been paying attention to gaming benches. The 7700k still kicks butt in gaming, period, and given that, it's priced reasonably as well. People don't buy Intel CPUs merely on hype, they buy them because they perform well.

Performance is not the only thing included in the price and not everything can be shown on benchmark graphs .
Intel platforms (all of them) are so easy, user-friendly and polished at this point, they're just pleasure to use.

As many have said, Ryzen is an entirely new platform and architecture; there's going to be issues at first. We are in uncharted territory here people, the seas are going to be rough out here.

Now will these issues be ironed out in Ryzen v2.0? More than likely, yes. As with anything new it's going to take time to get the issues ironed out.

Even though there are issues it doesn't mean that the new platform isn't selling well. Someone earlier said that a lot of the boards are sold out or are selling so fast that as soon as stores get them they're out the door. If that's not a sign of a successful platform I have no idea what one may be.

I may wait for Ryzen v2.0 since I just don't have a cash to build a new system right now and if I do build this new system I want to do it right. I don't want to cheap out and use parts of my existing system which I have done in the past. That means new case, new power supply (mine is more than five years old), M.2 PCIe SSD as versus SATA, new video card, etc. which means money. Like I said, if I'm going to do this I'm going to do it right.

By then either Ryzen v2.0 will be out or the current issues with Ryzen v1.0 will be (mostly) ironed out. Even if I manage to get the money together before Ryzen v2.0 comes out I still have an upgrade path if I go with Ryzen, I can simply get a new CPU and do a drop-in replacement which is virtually unheard of in the Intel world.

Just how could Intel "spoil the party"?

Intel has been known to play dirty in the past, who knows... Maybe AMD was scared that Intel would steal their stuff or do one of any number of past dirty tricks that they've done before. Intel isn't exactly known for being nice.

 

[Aenra]

That's another argument i steer clear off.. playing dirty..
Everyone does dude, too many millions, millions of dollars

AMD was just business-savvy enough to grasp that being the underdog, the 'nice and open source' approach would end up being more benefitial in the long run. Had positions been reversed, they'd be doing exactly what Intel is. Too many millions, billions of dollars. You don't fuck around at such levels, no sir.

 

[notb]

- you tell me and i quote that "they're lowering the average number of cores".. Are we gonna play with words now? Their flagship is an 8c/16t CPU, just like Intel's was before the 6950X. Their products' range varies from mini CPUs (as i think of them) all the way up to their flagships; again just as Intel's.

What I meant was: Piledriver CPU prices went down quickly and while AMD offered 4-, 6- and 8-core CPUs, most people didn't bother with the cheapest one. To this day the best selling AMD CPUs are FX-6300 and FX-8350 (currently $75 and $120 respectively).
But Ryzen comes along and it's way more expensive. FX-8300 MSRP was $130. Ryzen 1700 is $320.
This means that just because of the pricing an average number of cores in sold AMD CPUs will be lower than in the FX era.

Another thing is the launch strategy for Ryzen. First it's R7. A whole marketing campaign is organized to convince us that getting a 4-core Intel is pointless, because 8-cores are just better in every way. A month later AMD releases a 4-core Ryzen 5...

And if for some reason you wanna spin things that way, where were you when Intel was doing it? Hell, where were you when Intel was pimping (still is) 4cores as the future of gaming? When they stall software development by effectively making parallelizing optional?

I don't understand this statement. "Making parallelizing optional"? You'll have to explain that.

- you talk about how the market may or may not change. I am uninterested in that. Uninterested because sadly, this market is comprised of people incapable or unwilling to think straight. As such, i do not judge any a one product based on said other peoples' "markets". I judge it as objectively as i can, i judge it in contrast/comparison with its counterparts. I understand how competition (a necessity in evolution in all aspects) may end up influencing buyer mentality, but i'm not here to refine the process of other peoples' thinking; nor should anyone else. What the "market" will do is something the market will do; anyway. Comes a time when we move past that and make our own judgements. And for a fair judgement, i won't read techpowerup.com, because they didn't even compare the 1800x to the 6900k.

Sorry, but this approach is silly. How can you say that 8 cores are the future, if you're not interested in how market evolves? If you say that you don't care, because people are stupid? What if the market ignores Ryzen (like it did with Bulldozer before)? What if software still doesn't utilize 8 cores?

 

[trparky]

That's another argument i steer clear off.. playing dirty..
Everyone does dude, too many millions, millions of dollars

Yeah but there's playing dirty and then there's what Intel has been doing as of late. They've taken "playing dirty" to an all new low lately.

AMD was just business-savvy enough to grasp that being the underdog, the 'nice and open source' approach would end up being more beneficial in the long run.

I'm not sure where you're going with that one.

Had positions been reversed, they'd be doing exactly what Intel is. Too many millions, billions of dollars. You don't fuck around at such levels, no sir.

Oh yes, I'm not denying that but there's being cutthroat and then there's being a straight-up dick about things and that's what Intel has been doing lately.

 

[Aenra]

@notb Aah, i see what you mean now..

- Personally, i just took it at face value.. better product, higher IPC, even from what they'd originally promised, ergo higher (relatively to their older 8cores) price; considering said price range is still well within the ballpark of what i'd expect from an AMD product? All good by me. You couldn't possibly have expected they sell their 8c variants at 9590 prices?

- In terms of parallelizing, i meant that when the company 99,9% responsible for market approach and mentality sells us 4cores, in 2017, there will be an obvious stall in further software development. Few will bother optimizing for more when they know most of the kids playing pew-pew have 4cores. This in turn however has had broader consequences. Now we could argue as to the extent of said consequences (or its slow and steady elimination on the contrary), but before we do and derail the thread, keep in mind that is a mere after-effect of the original issue; it being a market so distorted, so out of track, that even "experts" compare 8cores to 4 cores and find themselves justified to reach "conclusions".

- Because if i started listening to every random "expert" in the Internet, i'd also be having a 4790K or a 7700K. And an RGB mouse, and a neon-lit case with bubbles and lightning effects sitting so close to my keyboard i'd be in danger of going blind. As stated, after some point, one makes his own calls. Or should.. the river flows one way, yes, doesn't mean we should all dive right in
I will make an attempt to keep me abreast, sure, i will keep the current direction in mind before investing, again sure, but in the end, my judgement must be my own.

(again, these are my personal views. Apologies if they appear offending. Am honest first, worried about misunderstandings a far second)

@trparky i meant that they have a specific business approach, the "we're nicer and fairer" one, on purpose. To some extent, yes, they literally have to be and i'm glad they are. But to some extent. It is an approach and it is one of necessity. They evoke sentiment, maybe that helps more?

 

[notb]

As many have said, Ryzen is an entirely new platform and architecture; there's going to be issues at first. We are in uncharted territory here people, the seas are going to be rough out here.

Just the fact that something is new doesn't mean we have to accept it's issues. Things can be tested before launching a product.
Issues stemming from manufacturing (poor quality or something) can be explained, but not those directly connected with the design.
It's not like Ryzen was developed in a week. It took them 5 years. Windows 10 has been around for almost 2 years, so, among many other things, I would expect them to test for performance issues. It's not that hard.

Even though there are issues it doesn't mean that the new platform isn't selling well. Someone earlier said that a lot of the boards are sold out or are selling so fast that as soon as stores get them they're out the door. If that's not a sign of a successful platform I have no idea what one may be.

Whether or not motherboards are sold out is a very poor indicator of platform's popularity. What matters are official sales statistics, which we'll get after the financial quarter.
What we know for sure is that AMD decided not publish any figures for the preorder phase (like smartphone manufacturers do) even though it's scale was yet unseen in CPU market. Or at least that's what we're told.
A month went by and still no sales figures. At this point even AMD stockholders got impatient. I think they expected a different scenario.

By then either Ryzen v2.0 will be out or the current issues with Ryzen v1.0 will be (mostly) ironed out. Even if I manage to get the money together before Ryzen v2.0 comes out I still have an upgrade path if I go with Ryzen, I can simply get a new CPU and do a drop-in replacement which is virtually unheard of in the Intel world.

Because AMD said they'll support the platform for 5 years? What makes you so sure that new CPUs will be compatible with your mobo? Maybe they'll keep selling the old model?

Maybe AMD was scared that Intel would steal their stuff or do one of any number of past dirty tricks that they've done before. Intel isn't exactly known for being nice.

Designing a new CPU architecture takes years, so you can't just "steal stuff". Moreover, Intel and AMD are trading know-how and patents all the time. And if they don't get something legally, they can always spy on the other company (this happens all the time, in all business types). You can be almost sure that Intel knew a lot about Ryzen way before launch. Possibly more than cooler manufacturers...

- Personally, i just took it at face value.. better product, higher IPC, even from what they'd originally promised, ergo higher (relatively to their older 8cores) price; considering said price range is still well within the ballpark of what i'd expect from an AMD product? All good by me. You couldn't possibly have expected they sell their 8c variants at 9590 prices?

I'm just pointing out that the price threshold to get 8 cores went up significantly. At $300 this CPU is way to expensive for many potential buyers - especially those with smaller budgets that usually preferred AMD. And when you add the fact that Intel offers IGP in all LGA1151 CPUs, AMD becomes really expensive as a productivity platform. For gaming it's fine, because gamers usually buy discrete GPU. For everyone else it's a big problem.
Ryzen 7 has been around for 1.5 months and I still haven't seen any AIO or SFF workstations using it. How come? Is this a result of not sharing specs before launch?
Even so, big vendors should have already designed something. Maybe there are supply issues with the chipset?
When new Intel platforms arrive (even on new sockets), AIO solutions are offered almost immediately.

- In terms of parallelizing, i meant that when the company 99,9% responsible for market approach and mentality sells us 4cores, in 2017, there will be an obvious stall in further software development. Few will bother optimizing for more when they know most of the kids playing pew-pew have 4cores.

Are you aware of the fact that some tasks can't be parallelized? It's really not a conspiracy.
A lot of software can't even use 4 cores, because it is heavily dependent on single-thread algorithms. What programmers do is they try to run few single-threaded tasks at the same time, but this is just forced optimization, not parallel computing. The result is erratic CPU load and some strange situations when a program uses e.g. 3 threads (no matter if you have 4 or 16 of them).
Such optimization has it's limits (obviously).

As a general rule, it's rather unlikely that a parallel algorithm will use only n of m available threads (n<m) because of bad coding.

 

[trparky]

@notb No offense but you sound like a straight-up Intel fanboy.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

I'm just pointing out that the price threshold to get 8 cores went up significantly. At $300 this CPU is way to expensive for many potential buyers - especially those with smaller budgets that usually preferred AMD. And when you add the fact that Intel offers IGP in all LGA1151 CPUs, AMD becomes really expensive as a productivity platform. For gaming it's fine, because gamers usually buy discrete GPU. For everyone else it's a big problem.
Ryzen 7 has been around for 1.5 months and I still haven't seen any AIO or SFF workstations using it. How come? Is this a result of not sharing specs before launch?
Even so, big vendors should have already designed something. Maybe there are supply issues with the chipset?
When new Intel platforms arrive (even on new sockets), AIO solutions are offered almost immediately.


Are you aware of the fact that some tasks can't be parallelized? It's really not a conspiracy.
A lot of software can't even use 4 cores, because it is heavily dependent on single-thread algorithms. What programmers do is they try to run few single-threaded tasks at the same time, but this is just forced optimization, not parallel computing. The result is erratic CPU load and some strange situations when a program uses e.g. 3 threads (no matter if you have 4 or 16 of them).
Such optimization has it's limits (obviously).

As a general rule, it's rather unlikely that a parallel algorithm will use only n of m available threads (n<m) because of bad coding.

went up significantly? what are you smoking? $300 wont even buy you 4c/8t from Intel and you're saying it's too expensive for 8c/16t? yea ok, sound logic right there. and afaik these are the desktop processors there will be a new chipset for workstations.... you're really trying sooooooo hard to convince everyone that Ryzen is crap, Intel rulez etc etc yada yada yada I think the lady doth protest too much!!! just go back to your
Better LGA1151 CPUs possible? (get a 7700 now or wait?) thread and wait for your 1151 6c/12t processor, could be a while though...

 

[trparky]

what are you smoking?

Whatever it is I want a hit of it.

 

[Lucas_]

from my own expierance , till now its really good , but i dissapinted with performance using Autocad .
I use mein for gaming and work , its treating me well till now in gaming , its pretty smooth , with the new bios it became better .
with streaming its awsome . but with AutoCad its not that impressive .

 

[notb]

went up significantly? what are you smoking? $300 wont even buy you 4c/8t from Intel

I was talking about AMD's offer. Intel never said 8 cores are the future. AMD did, so I would expect them to make it more affordable, not more expensive.

and afaik these are the desktop processors there will be a new chipset for workstations....

That's unknown yet. AFAIK Naples is marketed as a server architecture. I don't know if they plan to target it for workstations as well.
There are rumors about something in between (quad channel memory, new socket, 16C/32T).

you're really trying sooooooo hard to convince everyone that Ryzen is crap

On the contrary, I find Ryzen to be a great performance-wise. It's just not as robust and refined as I'd like.
But I'm clearly not a huge fan of AMD's marketing around Zen in general. And their product placement. And the logo. And the whole gaming theme they've created. I find it all repulsive. I hope it doesn't make me an Intel fanboy (maybe a "being an adult"-fanboy instead?)

Better LGA1151 CPUs possible? (get a 7700 now or wait?) thread and wait for your 1151 6c/12t processor, could be a while though...

It's really not my fault that AMD decided that Ryzen will not have an IGP - even though this is a SoC design and it houses a lot of really pointless stuff.
This is one of the reasons why I'm staying with Intel. You find it irrelevant?

 

[GreiverBlade]

from my own expierance , till now its really good , but i dissapinted with performance using Autocad .
I use mein for gaming and work , its treating me well till now in gaming , its pretty smooth , with the new bios it became better .
with streaming its awsome . but with AutoCad its not that impressive .

at last for gaming and streaming it's good ... tho i am surprised that Autocad has some performances issues on Ryzen, a bit... strange ...

 

[Lucas_]

at last for gaming and streaming it's good ... tho i am surprised that Autocad has some performances issues on Ryzen, a bit... strange ...

sadly ya , Look (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu,4951-9.html) .
I guess its fails some software modification or update ... I dont know !!

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

I'm just pointing out that the price threshold to get 8 cores went up significantly. At $300 this CPU is way to expensive for many potential buyers - especially those with smaller budgets that usually preferred AMD. And when you add the fact that Intel offers IGP in all LGA1151 CPUs, AMD becomes really expensive as a productivity platform. For gaming it's fine, because gamers usually buy discrete GPU. For everyone else it's a big problem.
Ryzen 7 has been around for 1.5 months and I still haven't seen any AIO or SFF workstations using it. How come? Is this a result of not sharing specs before launch?
Even so, big vendors should have already designed something. Maybe there are supply issues with the chipset?
When new Intel platforms arrive (even on new sockets), AIO solutions are offered almost immediately.


Are you aware of the fact that some tasks can't be parallelized? It's really not a conspiracy.
A lot of software can't even use 4 cores, because it is heavily dependent on single-thread algorithms. What programmers do is they try to run few single-threaded tasks at the same time, but this is just forced optimization, not parallel computing. The result is erratic CPU load and some strange situations when a program uses e.g. 3 threads (no matter if you have 4 or 16 of them).
Such optimization has it's limits (obviously).

As a general rule, it's rather unlikely that a parallel algorithm will use only n of m available threads (n<m) because of bad coding.

I bought said Fx8350 processor on their promises of 8 core goodness and all the New games im buying back them up and have been doing for 1+ years, the multi core aware future is already here.

You totally lost me so AMD sell a 4 core 8 thread processor for about 180( 1400X) same cores /threads as i7,seams ok to me , and I would wager nothing Intel sells at that price will play the games i play better(@4k gtaV Deus ex, civilisation V, farcry4 ).


You likely said bulldozer was shit to the same extremes yet i game at 4k well within 10-30% of what an i7 7700k + gtx1080 will do today 5 years on from when i bought it(again in the games i play and 2x480 was still cheaper then a 1080@launch).
Hyperbole by none AMD owners is epic and largely benchmark based ,in reality my old pc doesn't look so dated even today at 4k being that it's GPU limited.
If I'd taken the purely bench centric viewpoint this last ten years my car would be even shitter then it is ,no some of us are not chasing pure epeen ,we have beer to buy and I'd raise a glass to AMD for RyZen.

Issues, with memory can easily be discounted as EVERY set of ddr4 on the market at time of release was Made tested, certified and Even sold on its often specific Intel platform compatibility and they needed some specific things from memory.

What other issues have been about are reasonable fixable new platform type issues imho and not much to shout about.
Intel's hedt is on the ropes from AMDs mainstream i suspect when RyZen hits entry level Apus Intel's mainstream will suffer greatly because to me only the max FPS gamers actually need pay the premium on a i7 7700k , everything else they sell just won't cut it at that point at these prices.
As for a AMD Hedt platform that'll be an interesting aside but just for some I'd say