AMD Ryzen Discussion Thread.

[Johan45]

Use the one labelled standard

 

[kapone32]

The fact that some people are stating that Ryzen sucks in gaming obviously do not own one. Most review sites or even Youtube use the 1080 or 1080TI paired with a Ryzen CPU. I do not feel that is fair as most gamers do not have a $800 GPU in their system.
I cannot speak for Intel but I know I have done tests with one of my friend's vs my old FX 8320 system. He had a I7-6700K that he got for a huge discount because he works at a computer store (something else Intel does). I used his machine and he used mine for a week. We both had a Sapphire HD 7950 clocked to 900MHz. We tried several games including TW Shogun 2, TItanfall and Just Cause 2. At the end of the week the only difference we could see was price. Now Ryzen has been released and I will tell you that Ryzen CPU(s) are excellent for anything you want to do. Just as an example I have an I5 on my work computer and MS Office 2010 on both home and work. My Ryzen has much more capability than the I5 in Excel just based on the way the system responds. Speaking of gaming I have TW Warhammer and a 1440P monitor. MY R7 1700 with a RX480 & RX470 in Xfire gave me and average of 49 FPS in the built in benchmark with extreme settings. I OC to 3.4 on all cores and I get an average of 59 FPS. My RAM is running at 2400 MHZ. As most should know just like FM2+ AM4 scales better with faster RAM. If you want to forget that AMD is like buying a Lexus and Intel is like buying a Cadillac. One is more expensive initially but over time the cheaper shows that it is better. Don't believe me look up reviews of the FX series 2012 vs 2016. OR even better look at the HD7970 vs the 980 over time the 7970 is a much better GPU. What I like most about AM4 though is that my computer only uses 420 W @ load vs over 640 with my FX 8320 and 7950 Xfire setup.

 

[trparky]

Ryzen overclocks over 4.0Ghz were seen in the TPU review to actually throttle internally. As such, performance (and thus IPC) on anything over 4.0Ghz is likely to suffer. Sad reality of Ryzen land.

Relevant page, check the power consumption:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_1800X/15.html

So basically everyone who has overclocked their Ryzen chips past 4 GHz to get beyond the IPC deficit (vs Intel) has just been kicked in the shins.

 

[R-T-B]

So basically everyone who has overclocked their Ryzen chips past 4 GHz to get beyond the IPC deficit (vs Intel) has just been kicked in the shins.

Not neccesarily, there are probably some chips that can manage it, they just are few and far between.

 

[trparky]

Not neccesarily, there are probably some chips that can manage it, they just are few and far between.

Hence the silicon lottery. I have a better chance of winning the Mega Millions.

I was reading the Ryzen 5 1600 review here at TechPowerUp and I have to say that there are some areas (like the people in the comments have said) that the Ryzen 5 1600 shines but there are just too many situations in which the Core i7 7700k is a much better choice.

 

[infrared]

So basically everyone who has overclocked their Ryzen chips past 4 GHz to get beyond the IPC deficit (vs Intel) has just been kicked in the shins.

I'm not convinced on this, ive always seen a fairly linear increase in benchmark scores beyond 4ghz. More testing required I think.

 

[trparky]

I've been looking at mountains of performance benchmarking data for nearly the last two months (ever since Ryzen 5 showed up on the scene) and I'm still nowhere close to deciding just what chip I'm going to get. It's a toss-up between a Ryzen 1600 (hey, free cooler! ) and an Intel Core i7 7700k. Every time I think I've come close to having a firm decision on hand I read some more stuff on the subject and... well crap, back to studying the numbers again.

 

[R-T-B]

I'm not convinced on this, ive always seen a fairly linear increase in benchmark scores beyond 4ghz. More testing required I think.

Certainly. It's hardly 100% at this point.

 

[the54thvoid]

I'm not convinced on this, ive always seen a fairly linear increase in benchmark scores beyond 4ghz. More testing required I think.

Hmmph..... Kind a wish I'd bought a 1800X. I'm certain now that they are binned for that 4Ghz clock. I have my memory at the right speeds now (thanks @Johan45) and it's boosted the CPU-Z bench to 442 (0.5% increase, lol). But I'm still bummed I can't get 3.9Ghz stable. Perhaps on water but I've moved back to air (albeit with an awesome cooler) though I do need carzy volts. (1.43v)

 

[kapone32]

I've been looking at mountains of performance benchmarking data for nearly the last two months (ever since Ryzen 5 showed up on the scene) and I'm still nowhere close to deciding just what chip I'm going to get. It's a toss-up between a Ryzen 1600 (hey, free cooler! ) and an Intel Core i7 7700k. Every time I think I've come close to having a firm decision on hand I read some more stuff on the subject and... well crap, back to studying the numbers again.

If you ever plan on streaming while game or not want your CPU to use 100% of it's potential in a game then get Ryzen. Just think of the fact that Ryzen is less than 2 months old..translation it can only get better!!!

 

[infrared]

Hmmph..... Kind a wish I'd bought a 1800X. I'm certain now that they are binned for that 4Ghz clock. I have my memory at the right speeds now (thanks @Johan45) and it's boosted the CPU-Z bench to 442 (0.5% increase, lol). But I'm still bummed I can't get 3.9Ghz stable. Perhaps on water but I've moved back to air (albeit with an awesome cooler) though I do need carzy volts. (1.43v)

Hmm, my first one didn't clock very well, it could do 4ghz with 1.43v... I wanted moar! so paid a bit extra to get a silicon lottery one that does 4.0 @ 1.34v and 4.1 @ 1.4v.
It's easy to get hung up on reaching a nice square number, but realistically it's only a couple of hundred mhz which won't make much of a difference. I kinda regret throwing that money away on a whim!

 

[r9]

Hence the silicon lottery. I have a better chance of winning the Mega Millions.

I was reading the Ryzen 5 1600 review here at TechPowerUp and I have to say that there are some areas (like the people in the comments have said) that the Ryzen 5 1600 shines but there are just too many situations in which the Core i7 7700k is a much better choice.

For one i7 7700 is $300 and R5 1600 is $200.
All the applications and games are optimized for Intel.
Can't blame them, Intel have the same architecture for a while now.
And AMD failed with FX.
Ryzen is here to stay.
We can already see what a patch can do for Ruzen.
All the games that got patched got 20% and 30% boost.
We should see even better results for the upcoming titles that will have Ryzen architecture in mind from the get go.
My point is what you seeing now is the worst case scenario for Ryzen.
It can only go Ryzens way in the future.

 

[R-T-B]

It can only go Ryzens way in the future.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it can "only" go Ryzen's way in the future (I'm sure Intel has some dirty tricks up its sleeves afterall) but it certainly is looking bright.

 

[Johan45]

I've been looking at mountains of performance benchmarking data for nearly the last two months (ever since Ryzen 5 showed up on the scene) and I'm still nowhere close to deciding just what chip I'm going to get. It's a toss-up between a Ryzen 1600 (hey, free cooler! ) and an Intel Core i7 7700k. Every time I think I've come close to having a firm decision on hand I read some more stuff on the subject and... well crap, back to studying the numbers again.

It shouldn't be that hard of a decision. You either want six cores or you want a few FPS and faster 7zip times with the Intel. I have a 1600x for my HTPC/Gamer and it works just fine paired with a GTX 980

So basically everyone who has overclocked their Ryzen chips past 4 GHz to get beyond the IPC deficit (vs Intel) has just been kicked in the shins.

I'm not convinced on this, ive always seen a fairly linear increase in benchmark scores beyond 4ghz. More testing required I think.

Since day one almost we have know the limitations of Ryzen 3.8 -4.1 depending on luck and SKU. No one's getting short changed The internal throttling is more motherboard related than CPU. On my CHVI I can run the 1600x to 4300 without any throttling and 5.2 on LN2 with ~ 2.0v not throttling. Definitly pulling more that the rated wattage but the board allows for that with BIOS settings.

 

[the54thvoid]

Since day one almost we have know the limitations of Ryzen 3.8 -4.1 depending on luck and SKU. No one's getting short changed.

Absolutely this. Even as a tech noob I knew I'd be SOL for 4Ghz on air but I'd push for 3.9Ghz on all cores. Settled at 3.85 but hey - my memory runs as it should now. In terms of a slightly future proof platform, I've got a Samsung 960 Pro m2 SSD, 16Gb of fast memory and a 11Gb gfx card, all running on a first generation Ryzen platform.

Truth is, had I waited.... yes, I'd probably be looking at a Skylake-E but that would all depend on price. For me, with the emphasis on 1440p gaming and thinking more cores (over 4) may start to prove useful in a year or so, a <£400 8 core CPU at 3.9 ish is a damn good choice. The money saved certainly made buying the 1080ti a lot easier.

 

[r9]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it can "only" go Ryzen's way in the future (I'm sure Intel has some dirty tricks up its sleeves afterall) but it certainly is looking bright.

I was referring to the current lineup.
I don't think that you can optimize any further for i7 7700k.
I'm sure they have some nice toys lined up for the future.
I would be surprised if they didn't have very detailed plan for the next 5 years at least.

 

[trparky]

you want a few FPS

What's your definition of a few FPS?

 

[r9]

It shouldn't be that hard of a decision. You either want six cores or you want a few FPS and faster 7zip times with the Intel. I have a 1600x for my HTPC/Gamer and it works just fine paired with a GTX 980





Since day one almost we have know the limitations of Ryzen 3.8 -4.1 depending on luck and SKU. No one's getting short changed The internal throttling is more motherboard related than CPU. On my CHVI I can run the 1600x to 4300 without any throttling and 5.2 on LN2 with ~ 2.0v not throttling. Definitly pulling more that the rated wattage but the board allows for that with BIOS settings.

I'm all about price vs performance.
According to TPU 1600 is 10% behind in both CPU and Games tests.
10% is nothing knowing that all the games that got Ryzen patch got 20%-30% fps increase.
And 1600 is 200$ vs 300$ for i7.
That is 50% cheaper.
I would say that is a good trade off.
Regarding the FPS just add those 100$ towards a GPU you will get more than a few FPS.

 

[EarthDog]

What's your definition of a few FPS?

Why does it matter? It wont make something unplayable playable...but there is a small, couple %, difference. Some dont want that.

Look at the big picture and dont get lost in the minutia.

 

[Cvrk]

1700 with a RX480 & RX470 in Xfire gave me and average of 49 FPS in the built in benchmark with extreme settings. I OC to 3.4 on all cores and I get an average of 59 FPS.

You get your first like and welcome to the community. We argue a lot here,and people sometimes get called names.

Question: did your cpu came with a cooler ? You are not using the X, just the regular 1700 ?

You also have 2 gpu's in your system a Rx480 & a 470 ? That is a very interesting combo . What was your reasoning behind that ? One powerful card is better than 2 mediocre ones . What can you possible ever achieve with those cards, than you can't with a Gtx 1080 ?

 

[Rehmanpa]

Take this with a grain of salt, but according to WCC tech, the 16 core 32 threaded threadripper will cost $849:
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-threadripper-16-core-cpu-849-us-price-x399-motherboards/

WAY lower than the $2,000 dollar Intel 18 core, and cheaper than the (iirc, 10 core) intel chip at like $999.

Really exciting news if this turns out to be true, I could see myself buying one at this price point. Motherboards for both sockets are bound to be expensive.

Will existing CPU coolers work with Threadripper, or will they not since the socket is so huge?

Also Apparently existing ryzen r7 chips will drop in price (again according to wccftech):
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-prices-drop-ahead-of-threadripper-launch/

Certainly. It's hardly 100% at this point.

CPU's don't scale linearly. There are diminishing returns

I'm all about price vs performance.
According to TPU 1600 is 10% behind in both CPU and Games tests.
10% is nothing knowing that all the games that got Ryzen patch got 20%-30% fps increase.
And 1600 is 200$ vs 300$ for i7.
That is 50% cheaper.
I would say that is a good trade off.
Regarding the FPS just add those 100$ towards a GPU you will get more than a few FPS.

And their lowering prices of Ryzen to make way for threadripper which will decimate the upcoming Intel prices.

 

[HTC]

Take this with a grain of salt, but according to WCC tech, the 16 core 32 threaded threadripper will cost $849:
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-threadripper-16-core-cpu-849-us-price-x399-motherboards/

WAY lower than the $2,000 dollar Intel 18 core, and cheaper than the (iirc, 10 core) intel chip at like $999.

Really exciting news if this turns out to be true, I could see myself buying one at this price point. Motherboards for both sockets are bound to be expensive.

Will existing CPU coolers work with Threadripper, or will they not since the socket is so huge?

Also Apparently existing ryzen r7 chips will drop in price (again according to wccftech):
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-prices-drop-ahead-of-threadripper-launch/

Seriously doubt it will be so. I'd guess around $1200 - $1300 for the 16 c 32 t model: still expensive but way WAY cheaper then Intel's.

Don't know how latency will be affected because of more CCXs in the chip but, judging by the fact that AMD's multi-threading is better then Intel's (slightly), this will only aggravate the difference. As always, proper benchmarks and final pricing will decide who wins.

 

[Rehmanpa]

Seriously doubt it will be so. I'd guess around $1200 - $1300 for the 16 c 32 t model: still expensive but way WAY cheaper then Intel's.

Don't know how latency will be affected because of more CCXs in the chip but, judging by the fact that AMD's multi-threading is better then Intel's (slightly), this will only aggravate the difference. As always, proper benchmarks and final pricing will decide who wins.

I definitely hear you on that, but I'm still hopeful. If these leaks are actually true, then I might be dropping $850 on a CPU for the first time in my life.

 

[toilet pepper]

I've been looking at mountains of performance benchmarking data for nearly the last two months (ever since Ryzen 5 showed up on the scene) and I'm still nowhere close to deciding just what chip I'm going to get. It's a toss-up between a Ryzen 1600 (hey, free cooler! ) and an Intel Core i7 7700k. Every time I think I've come close to having a firm decision on hand I read some more stuff on the subject and... well crap, back to studying the numbers again.

No question. The numbers says it all - 7700k gets you more fps numbers. If you plan to upgrade maybe every 2 years or so, go with ryzen and a decent mobo.

As most will say the smoothness in ryzen gaming can be felt. It wont show up in fps or percentiles. You'd have to check graphs to see consistency or experience it.

 

[Rehmanpa]

No question. The numbers says it all - 7700k gets you more fps numbers. If you plan to upgrade maybe every 2 years or so, go with ryzen and a decent mobo.

As most will say the smoothness in ryzen gaming can be felt. It wont show up in fps or percentiles. You'd have to check graphs to see consistency or experience it.

The Ryzen 5 1600 is $219.99 while the 7700k is $339.99. No reason at that price difference to buy the 7700k over the 1600.