AMD Ryzen Discussion Thread.

[NdMk2o1o]

How would a Ryzen 1600 clocked at 3.2 GHz (stock clock) perform against a Kaby Lake chip that was under-clocked to 3.2 GHz? Or even a plain 7700 chip because it's not clocked as high. I'd like to see those numbers. That kind of test would really show the differences in the base architectures.

Based on the information that is out there and you can work out yourself from reviews and comparing clock speeds, Ryzen is likely there or there abouts in terms of IPC compared to intel. On a clock for clock basis, I shouldn't have to say that but a lot of people don't actually understand what IPC means and they see an 4.5ghz intel chip beating out a 3.6ghz AMD chip and assume the IPC is greater on intel smh.

 

[Rehmanpa]

How would a Ryzen 1600 clocked at 3.2 GHz (stock clock) perform against a Kaby Lake chip that was under-clocked to 3.2 GHz? Or even a plain 7700 chip because it's not clocked as high. I'd like to see those numbers. That kind of test would really show the differences in the base architectures.

Check out the last post I made with those two videos and see them running side by side. That 1700 I believe is going against the 7700k at 5ghz, and it's doing just fine. Same would be with the 1600 vs the 7600k as they're the same chip, just different amounts of cores. So you notice yeah the 7700k occasionally might have 10 more fps, but then the 1700 occasionally gets an extra 5-10 over the 7700k, so it's really misleading just looking at a bar graph.

 

[trparky]

A 4.5ghz Ryzen will destroy an 7700k in everything

Sure, if you just so happen to be the luckiest son of a bitch on the planet and you won the Mega Millions equivalent of the silicon lottery you can overclock a Ryzen to 4.5 GHz but let's face facts people, 99% of us are never going to be able to overclock a Ryzen that damn high. I've been reading about so many people barely being able to push a Ryzen R5 1600 to 3.8 GHz and maintain stability let alone 4 GHz.

No it wouldn't because people would bitch about the Intel being underclocked.

I wouldn't be bitching, no sir, instead I would be studying the numbers like a fiend comparing the two architectures on a raw architecture-to-architecture comparison breaking it down to the littlest detail.

Intel didn't get this kind of shit when they first released the Core I processors

That's because most code written back then and still written today is geared towards running on an Intel chip. The industry standard C++ compiler is known to favor Intel vs AMD, it's a highly known fact. Now we need to see if AMD's Ryzen can overcome those obvious hurdles that have been stacked against it because of Intel's borderline anti-trust and underhanded behavior.

AMD ryzen really shines at streaming.

But most of us aren't going to be streaming, most of us are going to just have fun playing the game against whoever the hell we're playing against.

Ryzen is likely there or there abouts in terms of IPC compared to Intel

But why do I keep hearing shit about how Ryzen's IPC numbers are really more in line with Haswell which is a two year old Intel architecture? Is that true or is it made up shit by Intel lovers?

 

[NdMk2o1o]

Sure, if you just so happen to be the luckiest son of a bitch on the planet and you won the Mega Millions equivalent of the silicon lottery you can overclock a Ryzen to 4.5 GHz but let's face facts people, 99% of us are never going to be able to overclock a Ryzen that damn high. I've been reading about so many people barely being able to push a Ryzen R5 1600 to 3.8 GHz and maintain stability let alone 4 GHz.


I wouldn't be bitching, no sir, instead I would be studying the numbers like a fiend comparing the two architectures on a raw architecture-to-architecture comparison breaking it down to the littlest detail.


That's because most code written back then and still written today is geared towards running on an Intel chip. The industry standard C++ compiler is known to favor Intel vs AMD, it's a highly known fact. Now we need to see if AMD's Ryzen can overcome those obvious hurdles that have been stacked against it because of Intel's borderline anti-trust and underhanded behavior.


But most of us aren't going to be streaming, most of us are going to just have fun playing the game against whoever the hell we're playing against.


But why do I keep hearing shit about how Ryzen's IPC numbers are really more in line with Haswell which is a two year old Intel architecture? Is that true or is it made up shit by Intel lovers?

oh..... ok you're one of those who are going to disregard 90% of my post and take out of context what I was saying, cool story bro....

And you also don't understand the whole IPC thing, that's fine, I don't hold it against you, just don't try and use your misunderstanding as an excuse to being wrong

EDIT: f*ck it, lemme just say 1 thing... IPC = clock for clock basis, think about it! I know Ryzen's IPC beats Haswell, you need to learn the difference between difference in clock speed and what IPC means, apology accepted when you do

Hell while I'm at it, what IPC improvements where there from Haswell to kabylake? I mean that's a 2 year old architecture and kabylake should be beating it's ass according to you?

 

[Rehmanpa]

oh..... ok you're one of those who are going to disregard 90% of my post and take out of context what I was saying, cool story bro....

And you also don't understand the whole IPC thing, that's fine, I don't hold it against you, just don't try and use your misunderstanding as an excuse to being wrong

EDIT: f*ck it, lemme just say 1 thing... IPC = clock for clock basis, think about it! I know Ryzen's IPC beats Haswell, you need to learn the difference between difference in clock speed and what IPC means, apology accepted when you do

Hell while I'm at it, what IPC improvements where there from Haswell to Skylake? I mean that's a 2 year old architecture and skylake should be beating it's ass according to you?

About maybe 5%. The 6700k is ~ 5% faster than the 4790k. Only big difference was z97 to z170, so ddr3 to ddr4.

 

[Rehmanpa]

Sure, if you just so happen to be the luckiest son of a bitch on the planet and you won the Mega Millions equivalent of the silicon lottery you can overclock a Ryzen to 4.5 GHz but let's face facts people, 99% of us are never going to be able to overclock a Ryzen that damn high. I've been reading about so many people barely being able to push a Ryzen R5 1600 to 3.8 GHz and maintain stability let alone 4 GHz.


I wouldn't be bitching, no sir, instead I would be studying the numbers like a fiend comparing the two architectures on a raw architecture-to-architecture comparison breaking it down to the littlest detail.


That's because most code written back then and still written today is geared towards running on an Intel chip. The industry standard C++ compiler is known to favor Intel vs AMD, it's a highly known fact. Now we need to see if AMD's Ryzen can overcome those obvious hurdles that have been stacked against it because of Intel's borderline anti-trust and underhanded behavior.


But most of us aren't going to be streaming, most of us are going to just have fun playing the game against whoever the hell we're playing against.


But why do I keep hearing shit about how Ryzen's IPC numbers are really more in line with Haswell which is a two year old Intel architecture? Is that true or is it made up shit by Intel lovers?

You should watch the second video I linked and maybe you would better understand, seeing it for your own eyes, the little amount of difference the two actually make in games. IPC is basically how many instructions per clock cycle that a cpu can output at a certain ghz. For example, an i7 3820 running at 4.0ghz will give overall LESS performance than an i7 4790k running at 4.0ghz because its IPC is lower than the 4790k. In games, this translates to an FPS difference, where as in rendering it would translate into rendering time. The i7 lineup has not advanced very much these last few years because there has been no competition, no competition=no innovation. Now there is seriously good competition, and maybe there will be innovation again.

Studying the raw architecture-to-architecture is helpful to a limited point. There is the truth in the fact that you will never get your 1700 to 5ghz, or heck I don't think I've seen 4.5. I think 3.9 or 4.0 ghz is a good level. But if you overclock one, you gotta overclock the other. So if you for example had a 1700 running at 4.0ghz vs a 7700k at 5.0ghz, how big would that difference be? Theoretically, 20%. Reality? Not at all. The law of diminishing returns is a bitch, and it's effecting this to. You can see in that video a 3.9ghz ryzen 1700 vs a 5ghz 7700k, and there is a very small margin of difference. Your looking for average fps, and the average fps of the 1700 is damn good, just like the 7700k.

Streaming is just an example of an application. I game, for example, usually while running a bunch of applications in the background (i.e. teamspeak or discord or skype, maybe netflix or music, a youtube video, and say if I'm playing a game I might be hosting a server for it as well where my friends can join me) and these extra background applications do make use of extra cores that the ryzen provides. I'm basically going to turn my ryzen rig into my server AND my gaming machine, and I could do video rendering effortlessly as well. You could dedicate 12 cores to rendering a video and game on the other 4. That way your pc is usable while you wait (just rendering as an example).

As I said earlier, there has been no competition, and thus no innovation. IPC is not an exception to this. IPC from Haswell vs Kaby Lake is laughable. There is less than a 10% overall difference. to put that in layman's terms, 10fps vs 11fps. Now sure there could be a 15fps difference, once the ryzen processor is already at a 150fps vs the 7700k at 165fps (theoretically based off of a 10% ipc estimation). Who the hell cares? If you got 150fps, that's JUST FINE! And the best part is, you now have twice the cores and threads to do loads of other stuff with, such as hosting a server for your friends while you play the game to. Ryzen is a huge advancement, and it's a welcome sight in my eyes. I've never bought an AMD processor, I've owned Intel my entire life. For me, Ryzen is a game changer, and no matter what, it's going to force them to make a decent, non half-assed product in the future.

 

[Final_Fighter]

I do have to admit that their is something about Ryzen that make the system ACTUALLY feel like its playing at 60 fps. When watching people i know game on their intel builds and some on the Ryzen, the Ryzen looks smoother. Both report they are getting 60+ fps but the smoothness is noticeable and you would have to run both systems side by side to see this. btw im talking about i5 7600, i7 6700k, compared to ryzen 1600x, and 1800x. those extra cores take care of everything in the background, witch lead to the smoother gameplay. thats the conclusion i have come to anyway. ive noticed this with my main system too witch is the one listed in my system specs.

Edit: unless intel comes out with a refreshed i5 line that has 6 cores and i7 with 6cores 12threads i will be updating to Ryzen+. also i bet that Ryzen+ is going to be like 1st gen i series to 2nd gen i series. thats part of the reason im holding off on updating.

 

[Rehmanpa]

I do have to admit that their is something about Ryzen that make the system ACTUALLY feel like its playing at 60 fps. When watching people i know game on their intel builds and some on the Ryzen, the Ryzen looks smoother. Both report they are getting 60+ fps but the smoothness is noticeable and you would have to run both systems side by side to see this. btw im talking about i5 7600, i7 6700k, compared to ryzen 1600x, and 1800x. those extra cores take care of everything in the background, witch lead to the smoother gameplay. thats the conclusion i have come to anyway. ive noticed this with my main system too witch is the one listed in my system specs.

Yeah, you can definitely notice that in the video I linked earlier that showed the 7700k vs the 1700 side by side.

 

[trparky]

I fully understand what IPC means, it means Instructions Per Clock but there's more to it than just that. How good is the branch prediction? How good is the scheduler? Instruction decoder? If you factor in all of these things which makes up the whole of the architecture it can explain why one chip running at 4 GHz and another chip running at the same clock speed is beating the first chip or vice-versus. These things are very complex beasts and so many things come together to make a processor work.

 

[Final_Fighter]

Yeah, you can definitely notice that in the video I linked earlier that showed the 7700k vs the 1700 side by side.

ive witnessed that first hand. im sure it has to do with the presence of 4 more "native" cores. those 4 extra threads that the i7 has from hyper threading are not nearly as powerful as those extra cores on the 1700.

 

[Rehmanpa]

ive witnessed that first hand. im sure it has to do with the presence of 4 more "native" cores. those 4 extra threads that the i7 has from hyper threading are not nearly as powerful as those extra cores on the 1700.

Hyper threading actually out performs normal cores. Albeit, not by much, but still worth noting.

I fully understand what IPC means, it means Instructions Per Clock but there's more to it than just that. How good is the branch prediction? How good is the scheduler? Instruction decoder? If you factor in all of these things which makes up the whole of the architecture it can explain why one chip running at 4 GHz and another chip running at the same clock speed is beating the first chip or vice-versus. These things are very complex beasts and so many things come together to make a processor work.

You are right, but the IPC is what is generally measured and used as a standard (I don't know about the other things you listed). So I think those other things make up/are the building blocks for the IPC (if the CPU had a worse instruction decoder, it's overall IPC would decrease).

 

[trparky]

if the CPU had a worse instruction decoder, its overall IPC would decrease

And you would be right in that assumption.

I guess the point I'm trying to arrive at is what architecture is better? Which one is stronger? More capable of standing the test of time? Which has more potential? Which has more un-locked potential in the sense that with incremental changes it can improve? We all know that Kaby Lake can trace its lineage all the way back to the original Nahelem processor meaning that all Intel processors since then have been incremental improvements upon the original Nahelem core. Has Nahelem reached the end? Has it reached the brick wall in the sense that there's nothing Intel can do hence the reason why we've only seen incremental improvements or is it because Intel has only been lazy?

I did watch the video that @Rehmanpa posted and it appears that despite the fact that the FPS numbers appeared to be the same (at least from what I saw while trying to quickly dart my eyes from the right to the left and back again) the appearance of the video was less "jerky" on the Ryzen 1700. Is that what I should be paying attention to?

 

[Final_Fighter]

the appearance of the video was less "jerky" on the Ryzen 1700. Is that what I should be paying attention to?

yes.

 

[Rehmanpa]

And you would be right in that assumption.

I guess the point I'm trying to arrive at is what architecture is better? Which one is stronger? More capable of standing the test of time? Which has more potential? Which has more un-locked potential in the sense that with incremental changes it can improve? We all know that Kaby Lake can trace its lineage all the way back to the original Nahelem processor meaning that all Intel processors since then have been incremental improvements upon the original Nahelem core. Has Nahelem reached the end? Has it reached the brick wall in the sense that there's nothing Intel can do hence the reason why we've only seen incremental improvements or is it because Intel has only been lazy?

I did watch the video that @Rehmanpa posted and it appears that despite the fact that the FPS numbers appeared to be the same (at least from what I saw while trying to quickly dart my eyes from the right to the left and back again) the appearance of the video was less "jerky" on the Ryzen 1700. Is that what I should be paying attention to?

That is definitely a hard question to answer. I believe that between Ryzen and what we have now from Intel, that Ryzen will be the better solution. In the next month or two, AMD will be releasing "threadripper," (Nahelem socket) which will consist of 10, 12, 14 and 16 core Ryzen processors, and it will be on a new socket that will boast a lot more features. Intel's top tier chip that I've read about them releasing is a 12 core processor that will use more power and perform less than AMDs 16 core monster (the 1998 or the 1998x). I mean, 32 threads on a 155w CPU is quite a feat.

I've read that Intel is forced to slow it's higher end processors clock speeds down for some reason. I'm not an engineer so I don't know exactly why this is, but it kind of seems to be true looking at their xeon lineup and their i7 6950x vs the 6900k vs the 7700k, the 7700k has the highest clock speeds of those with the least amount of cores, the 6950x has the slowest clock speed but the most cores.

We've seen incremental improvements because of the free market (yes that philosophy), there is no competition, so why not just price gouge and do nothing? There is really not much of a point in developing anything new because nobody will beat our current product. An i7 2600k is just starting to slow down, but is still good for gaming, and that thing was released back in January of 2011, over 6 years ago. Today we are slowly starting to see more and more applications and games that are taking advantage of multiple cores (battlefield 4 and battlefield 1 for example).

As for Nahelem, I have a machine using dual Xeon X5670s and the thing renders faster than my i7 4790k by a factor of almost 3 fold. It has 24 threads vs 8 threads, and I'd say since I haven't overclocked it (so it's at 3.3ghz) and my i7 is at 4.4ghz, it's probably 2.8 times as fast. Runs games well, however in single threaded games it lags behind. Short answer, hell no. Long answer, other than not boasting nvme boot ssds, it's still a great socket and you can buy it at a fraction of the cost of a new system.

yes, looking at the jerkyness is really important. The smoother your gameplay, the better the experience. Thus microstutters from SLI can really mess you up because your gameplay is not smooth. Sorry for the long post, I was trying to address your questions one at a time as I wrote this.

 

[trparky]

If the video has that "jerkiness" to it then wouldn't that mean that the frames per second number is a lie?

 

[kruk]

If the video has that "jerkiness" to it then wouldn't that mean that the frames per second number is a lie?

Video could be jerky for number of reasons (encoder, compression etc.), but FPS kind of is a lie. FPS gives you number of frames rendered in one second. In that 1 second interval the frames could be unevenly spaced producing "jerkiness" (example 60 FPS: 56 frames could render in 0.2 seconds, the rest in 0.8 seconds). A much better metric is frametime, which tells you how long each frame takes to render. If there are spikes in frametimes, you will notice stuttering.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

if you think those extra frames mean anything in the real world your wrong.

Yeah I think most Ryzen owners are trying to get the best OC not to keep up with Intel, but because 8 core CPUs are always clocked lower. Realistically, it will be interesting to see if Intel's Skylake X 8 core can do as well.

At the end of the day though, if it's between two CPUs that are both getting well over 60 FPS average, I'll take the one with slightly lower FPS but smoother gameplay if it comes to that. This is where Intel has to prove itself with the new chips.

 

[trparky]

I have this one friend of mine that brags and brags and brags some more about how his system has this insanely high refresh rate monitor and equally insane high frame rates. There's times I want to just knock him over the head because of his constant bragging.

He keeps telling me, go Intel. Go Intel. Go Intel.

 

[Rehmanpa]

I have this one friend of mine that brags and brags and brags some more about how his system has this insanely high refresh rate monitor and equally insane high frame rates. There's times I want to just knock him over the head because of his constant bragging.

He keeps telling me, go Intel. Go Intel. Go Intel.

Sounds like a fanboy.

 

[trparky]

Yeah well I have him shouting in my ear telling me to go with Intel and then I have you guys telling me that I'll be fine going with AMD Ryzen. Both processors have their strengths and weaknesses.

I don't know what the hell to believe. I'm so stinkin' confused.

He's been my personal goto person for a lot of tech advice as of late because I've been out of the game for so long. It's been five years since I've seriously looked at hardware. Then I have you guys here at this forum and you guys are offering up conflicting advice.

ARG!!!

 

[Rehmanpa]

Yeah well I have him shouting in my ear telling me to go with Intel and then I have you guys telling me that I'll be fine going with AMD Ryzen. Both processors have their strengths and weaknesses.

I don't know what the hell to believe.

Fine. Let money do the talking. The 140 dollar ryzen quad core, which has the same single threaded performance the 1700 has, which is unnoticeable to the 7700k btw, is 200 dollars less. That 200 could be the difference between a gtx 1080 and 1080 ti. Or heck even the 1600 at like 100 less than the 7700k would allow you to spend that 100 on something far more noticeable, like a graphics card bump (1070 To 1080 will give a larger fps difference than a ryzen you to a 7700k). Amd has the advantage of:
Price, cores, things looking nicer on it (such as smoother gameplay), lower tdp, better future proofing.
Intel's advantage:
Better motherboard socket (if you want to do stupid things like quad sli), unnoticably better performance in some games.

Iirc, the 7700k is around 330 and the 1600 is around 230. Why get an overall worse cpu for more? Spend the saved money on a better gpu or cpu cooler.

Yeah well I have him shouting in my ear telling me to go with Intel and then I have you guys telling me that I'll be fine going with AMD Ryzen. Both processors have their strengths and weaknesses.

I don't know what the hell to believe. I'm so stinkin' confused.

He's been my personal goto person for a lot of tech advice as of late because I've been out of the game for so long. It's been five years since I've seriously looked at hardware. Then I have you guys here at this forum and you guys are offering up conflicting advice.

ARG!!!

Forgot to mention, since your friend hates Ryzen so much, you should link him this thread and have him write out why so the rest of us can see his "advanced knowledge." I'd like to see what actual reasons he really has for hating Ryzen and saying only Intel.

 

[Final_Fighter]

Yeah well I have him shouting in my ear telling me to go with Intel and then I have you guys telling me that I'll be fine going with AMD Ryzen. Both processors have their strengths and weaknesses.

I don't know what the hell to believe. I'm so stinkin' confused.

He's been my personal goto person for a lot of tech advice as of late because I've been out of the game for so long. It's been five years since I've seriously looked at hardware. Then I have you guys here at this forum and you guys are offering up conflicting advice.

ARG!!!

my personal opinion would be buy the ryzen 5 1600 and a nice b350 board. avoid the ultra cheap boards and you will be good to go. asrock has some of the best boards right know. get yourself a nice set of ram 2667+ 16gb and take your saved cash and buy a gtx1070 or just keep using the card you got.

something like this:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...20232530&cm_re=flare_x-_-20-232-530-_-Product

and

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.3482340

 

[Rehmanpa]

my personal opinion would be buy the ryzen 5 1600 and a nice b350 board. avoid the ultra cheap boards and you will be good to go. asrock has some of the best boards right know. get yourself a nice set of ram 2667+ 16gb and take your saved cash and buy a gtx1070 or just keep using the card you got.

something like this:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...20232530&cm_re=flare_x-_-20-232-530-_-Product

and

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.3482340

Nice Combo. Awful ram though, I would never spend that much on only 16gb of ram, the 32gb dual 16gb ddr4 kit was that price.

 

[Final_Fighter]

ryzen infinity fabric is directly tied into ram speeds. lower latency and higher speeds actually help increase in game performance. i recommended that kit because it is actually one of the most flat out best kits for gaming on ryzen at the moment. plus most ram kits are not compatible at the moment with ryzen. the latency on that kit is crazy low for the speed. most kits will have like 16-17-17-36 timings at 2667.

 

[Cvrk]

I don't care about that silly "jerkiness" video. I watch twitch, and i never see that bad quality video. Sure all the streamers use mostly intel.
Good thing about Ryzen, as we all noticed it never goes 99% or around. It's kinda all the time at 60% maybe more or less. So there is more room for something in the background.

Also i don't see myself playing a AAA title and rendering at the same time in Premiere. In real life for me i just don't think it will happen. As for clearing up apps , i don't do this now....cuz it does not make a difference. I am in playerunknown's battlegrounds, bad fps , closing Google Chrome, antivirus or uTorrent won't help.

yeah sure for the heavy user out there Ryzen will win in multitasking. All i wonder before making a purchase ,is.... em i that heavy user ? Do i need all those cores ?
there is a price difference. Hence the Ryzen is more expensive. I don't think that's good. Lets face it, i never actually looked at the i7 as an option. By best buy was the i5... All of the sudden i'm supposed to pay more that i would for an i7 ?! That seems a bit steep .And what exactly em i getting for my money ?


PS: i am referring to money difference with the 1700, 1700x , 1800x. I hear voices (witch might be a mental problem on my part) that the 1700 was never meant to compete on the market with the i7 7700 or less, but with it's big daddy i7-6950..or whatever number that is, you know the expensive one. Witch is not very realistic.
No one will be crazy to ignore the 1800x if it brings the same performance as the Intel monster for the money difference! But is it.....