AMD Announces Ryzen 7 1800X, 1700X, 1700 And Pricing, Pre-orders Begin Today

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

TJ Hooker

Titan
Ambassador

Tom's review of the 7700k found that it maintained 4.5 GHz turbo even with all cores loaded. Also, rather than than trying to calculate some theoretical value for IPC, why not look at the single threaded Cinebench results posted in the article? The 1800X and the 6900K both run at 4.0 GHz under single threaded load, and they got the same score, so that would indicate that they have about the same IPC, at least in that single (potentially cherry-picked) benchmark.
 

WRXSTIGuy

Reputable
Jul 8, 2014
47
0
4,540
I hope that in the next generation of cpu design for both Intel and AMD they can figure out how to speed up single threaded applications. Perhaps integrate a FPGA into the cpu!!
 

Nintendork

Distinguished
Dec 22, 2008
464
0
18,780
People with gaming focused rigs are now peasants for AMD. Want a sole gaming cpu? You got the cheapo 4c/4t Ryzen for the price of i3 and performance of i5.

Why should AMD care about less taxing demands?
 

XxAcydRaynexX

Prominent
Feb 22, 2017
1
0
510
A lot of haters here... I am personally glad there are more options for CPU now. As far as people praising Kaby Lake, gtfoh.... Intel has been doing what AMD has been doing for a decade. Small tweaks here and there on the same architecture. I just bought a Xeon socket 1366 cpu for 8$ that performs within 85-90% of anything released since from Intel. Clock for clock, and HT or AMD equivalent are good for me. Always been an AMD guy for the most part. Don't get mad that your 700-1000$ cpus you blow money on for a few extra FPS every year is about to be taken by something half the price.
 

homice

Distinguished
Sep 29, 2009
11
0
18,510
The fact AMD can match Intel's performance is great. That they do it for half the cost is AMAZING. Then consider AM4 is the ONLY (consumer) socket AMD will have for the forseeable future - Not this "new-motherboard-every-incremental-processor-release" that Intel has always been horrible with. knowing I'll still have a clean upgrade path 3 years from now is what sells me on AMD.
 
Yes that was the great selling point back when AMD came out with the AM2, AM2+, AM3 and AM3+ after the AM3+ things kind went strange you had the AM3+, FM, FM2, FM2+ and only the FM2+ could run FM CPUs too the rest couldn't use the other sockets. And at the time Intel had the better upgrade path from a Celeron, Pentium, i3, i5 and i7. It was like they switched places.

 

ttt_2017

Prominent
Feb 20, 2017
79
0
640
Intel is ready for this anyways ... they have Xeons upto 24 cores and can easy bring down the prices of the current flagships and replace them with 12 ,14, 16 cores i7 ...

even if Intel lowers their prices and introduce new i7 CPU , My next System will be an AMD just to thank AMD for the competition and for forcing Intel to lower their prices and offer more cores for the non Xeon .desktop market.

Good Job AMD . If we dont support AMD this time , Intel will take over forever.
 

bit_user

Polypheme
Ambassador
That test used a 6-core CPU and lacks Cinebench.

The effect of quad-channel depends on the workload and how many cores there are. Memory bandwidth requirements scale with the number & speed of the cores, in a workload with sufficient concurrency (such as Cinebench, which exhibits good multi-core scaling). Beyond concurrency, there's another workload-dependent variable, which is how memory-intensive it is. I think Cinebench might be one of the more memory-intensive tasks, as many of the others with good concurrency (e.g. WinRAR), can operate largely out of L2/L3 cache.

It's one thing to say that gamers needn't worry about quad-channel vs. dual, but it's another thing to say that the dual-channel config isn't hurting the Intel system in this benchmark. I think the latter claim is probably wrong.

Dozens of people must be doing this test, at this very moment. Let's see if we can find any results, and then we can put the debate to rest.

Update: the same benchmark, with quad-channel memory, narrowed Ryzen's lead to just 1.5%. See below.
 

TJ Hooker

Titan
Ambassador

Where have you heard that AMD is going to keep the same socket for 3+ years worth of CPUs? I think they've confirmed that Zen+ is going to be AM4, but I haven't heard anything beyond that (so currently two generations of CPUs confirmed for the socket, which is Intel's historical habit).
 

RainManBC

Prominent
Feb 22, 2017
2
0
510
If you stream your gameplay, you are saving a substantial amount by not having to buy a dedicated streaming rig. You'll be able to put those extra cores to some use in that situation.
 

harly2

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2007
124
0
18,680
AMD actually left room for reviewers to get better results. All systems were open to invited press. Intel had the premium setups....not AMD Wouldn't surprise me if Toms was left out.
 

Supporter

Reputable
Jul 28, 2015
58
0
4,630
What is said here will have no impact on what people actually going to buy. Wait and see. Intel and AMD are playing the same exact play. Intel overstating its xpoint and AMD is slapping Ryzen on peoples faces. Just pray they don't turn out boogers.
 

David_106

Reputable
Sep 21, 2015
8
0
4,510
I am thinking that most of the people here who don't seem to understand what is going on are probably the same people that say there is no advantage to running quad-channel ram or running an i7 extreme, because you know that a your shiny new kaby lake cpu is definitely faster because it has a higher clock and onboard graphics. I'm pretty sure it can run minecraft faster but let's look beyond and try to look at the big picture, oh and btw competiton is good for us as end users, I'm glad to see AMD with a cpu that compares with an i7 extreme. Let's leave the graphics processor off the cpu where it belongs so that we can have more powerful cpu's and discrete video cards. I can't wait to see how well these overclock, and see actual real world stat's. But please don't insult the intelligence of most of the readers and try to compare the Ryzen to an i5, that's hilarious. Oh well it takes all sorts to make the world go round.
 

bit_user

Polypheme
Ambassador
Lisa Su is largely responsible for AMD's turn-around, and probably more qualified than most in the industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Su


That said, I find Nvidia's Jen-Hsun Huang - at least at his overblown launch events - quite cringe-inducing. So, I can sympathize with not wanting to watch someone. But to boycott their products? That's a bit much, no?

In a tech CEO, I'd take competence over charisma, any day of the week.


<MOD EDIT: Removed quoted racist comment>

Update: I apologize for sloppy editing. I always try to avoid the worst bits, when I quote a questionable post.
 

hannibal

Distinguished
What this means is that we customers get cheaper multicore cpus in the future from both companies. Competition is good!
Finally we get past 4 cores in consumer segment. Intel could have done reasonable priced 6 and 8 cores for years but chosed to sell 4 cores for bigger price because there were not competition, now there is again, and that is good!
 

homice

Distinguished
Sep 29, 2009
11
0
18,510


Hey, I've had 6 cores since the phenom II days
 

bloodroses

Distinguished


Ryzen Cinebench tests from 2/22/17

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-world-record/
Impressive, although impractical for anything outside benchmarks.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3172555/computers/amd-ryzen-benchmark-preview-ryzen-7-outperforms-intels-best.html
With this article, they did a hybrid of their Intel benchmarks to the benchmarks given by AMD. It is too bad that they didn't mention whether they were using dual or quad channel memory though. :(

This is definitely very promising for AMD. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.