Discussion AMD Ryzen MegaThread! FAQ and Resources

[jdwii]

I'm liking what MSI and Asrock have which are typically what i go with used to be a Asus guy until i noticed their performance per dollar was highly unfavorable to me.

I definitely won't go with MSI again. The MSI X58 Platinum is the worst motherboard I've ever used.

To be fair MSI kind of sucked back then for motherboards plus i kind of don't like the look of that board either gross! If anything i'd argue that MSI has only started to become good for boards during the haswell days. Asrock was my go to back in the X58 days that is when i thought they started to become good before then i was strictly Asus and i had issues with them to such as having to reset ram or jump the bios to even boot the system(which would happen randomly).

 

[illegaloperation]

To be fair MSI kind of sucked back then for motherboards plus i kind of don't like the look of that board either gross! If anything i'd argue that MSI has only started to become good for boards during the haswell days. Asrock was my go to back in the X58 days that is when i thought they started to become good before then i was strictly Asus and i had issues with them to such as having to reset ram or jump the bios to even boot the system(which would happen randomly).

I wanted the Asus Sabertooth X58, but went with a cheaper option the last minute and I regret it.

Which motherboard should I get for Summit Ridge/Ryzen?

I want one that would last because I rarely upgrade (at least for processors/motherboards)

It doesn't need to be an overclocking king.

 

[cdrkf]

To be fair MSI kind of sucked back then for motherboards plus i kind of don't like the look of that board either gross! If anything i'd argue that MSI has only started to become good for boards during the haswell days. Asrock was my go to back in the X58 days that is when i thought they started to become good before then i was strictly Asus and i had issues with them to such as having to reset ram or jump the bios to even boot the system(which would happen randomly).

I wanted the Asus Sabertooth X58, but went with a cheaper option the last minute and I regret it.

Which motherboard should I get for Summit Ridge/Ryzen?

I want one that would last because I rarely upgrade (at least for processors/motherboards)

It doesn't need to be an overclocking king.

It's hard to know right now- although personally I'm a fan of ASROCK kit- I remember using a board of theirs years ago (when they weren't really considered above budget builds) and it was fantastic. I've used a couple since and they've never let me down.

Personally, I'd probably go with a B350 based board- just so long as it's got decent quality caps and so on. If you don't plan on messing about with X-Fire then that is all you should need. That said I'm usually working to quite a tight budget- the thing is though I do think there is a balance. People tell you not to skimp on the motherboard / psu and I agree- however mid range kit is usually ample if you aren't pushing high overclocks, and not everyone can afford £150 on a motherboard and £100+ on the PSU. To put it another way, I'm still running on the 970 chipset AM3+ rig I built for my Phenom II X3 (now with an FX 8320 after a bios update) with a 500W Coolermaster psu. The only major things I've changed have been the case + cooling due to having difficulty keeping the FX from throttling too much.

 

[salgado18]

It's hard to know right now- although personally I'm a fan of ASROCK kit- I remember using a board of theirs years ago (when they weren't really considered above budget builds) and it was fantastic. I've used a couple since and they've never let me down.

Personally, I'd probably go with a B350 based board- just so long as it's got decent quality caps and so on. If you don't plan on messing about with X-Fire then that is all you should need. That said I'm usually working to quite a tight budget- the thing is though I do think there is a balance. People tell you not to skimp on the motherboard / psu and I agree- however mid range kit is usually ample if you aren't pushing high overclocks, and not everyone can afford £150 on a motherboard and £100+ on the PSU. To put it another way, I'm still running on the 970 chipset AM3+ rig I built for my Phenom II X3 (now with an FX 8320 after a bios update) with a 500W Coolermaster psu. The only major things I've changed have been the case + cooling due to having difficulty keeping the FX from throttling too much.

A 970 board with cooling on the VRMs (Gigabyte 970A-UDx or Asus M5A97 Pro, for example) is basically all you need to run an FX processor without throttling (if cooler is suficient, obvs). 990 series is for dual GPU only, everything else you can get from a 970. Thinking about this, AMD made the B350, which gives you all except multi-GPU. I'd say go for a B350, no more and no less, and look for one with cooling on the VRMs if you plan on overclocking (or running high-heat processors).

 

[cdrkf]

It's hard to know right now- although personally I'm a fan of ASROCK kit- I remember using a board of theirs years ago (when they weren't really considered above budget builds) and it was fantastic. I've used a couple since and they've never let me down.

Personally, I'd probably go with a B350 based board- just so long as it's got decent quality caps and so on. If you don't plan on messing about with X-Fire then that is all you should need. That said I'm usually working to quite a tight budget- the thing is though I do think there is a balance. People tell you not to skimp on the motherboard / psu and I agree- however mid range kit is usually ample if you aren't pushing high overclocks, and not everyone can afford £150 on a motherboard and £100+ on the PSU. To put it another way, I'm still running on the 970 chipset AM3+ rig I built for my Phenom II X3 (now with an FX 8320 after a bios update) with a 500W Coolermaster psu. The only major things I've changed have been the case + cooling due to having difficulty keeping the FX from throttling too much.

A 970 board with cooling on the VRMs (Gigabyte 970A-UDx or Asus M5A97 Pro, for example) is basically all you need to run an FX processor without throttling (if cooler is suficient, obvs). 990 series is for dual GPU only, everything else you can get from a 970. Thinking about this, AMD made the B350, which gives you all except multi-GPU. I'd say go for a B350, no more and no less, and look for one with cooling on the VRMs if you plan on overclocking (or running high-heat processors).

The throttling wasn't due to VRM's- something people don't realise but FX 8XXX throttle cpu core speed at only 65C (it's higher on 6XXX)- that's really easy to hit under high load.

To keep my FX 8320 running at stock speed I've had to undervolt it, switch to an AIO liquid cooler *and* add 3 case fans. The motherboard isn't overheating- it's just as soon as the cpu decides it's at 65C it throttles to 1.4ghz. I have no idea how anyone runs one above stock as I don't see how you can get much more cooling than I've got on the rig as it is.

 

[salgado18]

It's hard to know right now- although personally I'm a fan of ASROCK kit- I remember using a board of theirs years ago (when they weren't really considered above budget builds) and it was fantastic. I've used a couple since and they've never let me down.

Personally, I'd probably go with a B350 based board- just so long as it's got decent quality caps and so on. If you don't plan on messing about with X-Fire then that is all you should need. That said I'm usually working to quite a tight budget- the thing is though I do think there is a balance. People tell you not to skimp on the motherboard / psu and I agree- however mid range kit is usually ample if you aren't pushing high overclocks, and not everyone can afford £150 on a motherboard and £100+ on the PSU. To put it another way, I'm still running on the 970 chipset AM3+ rig I built for my Phenom II X3 (now with an FX 8320 after a bios update) with a 500W Coolermaster psu. The only major things I've changed have been the case + cooling due to having difficulty keeping the FX from throttling too much.

A 970 board with cooling on the VRMs (Gigabyte 970A-UDx or Asus M5A97 Pro, for example) is basically all you need to run an FX processor without throttling (if cooler is suficient, obvs). 990 series is for dual GPU only, everything else you can get from a 970. Thinking about this, AMD made the B350, which gives you all except multi-GPU. I'd say go for a B350, no more and no less, and look for one with cooling on the VRMs if you plan on overclocking (or running high-heat processors).

The throttling wasn't due to VRM's- something people don't realise but FX 8XXX throttle cpu core speed at only 65C (it's higher on 6XXX)- that's really easy to hit under high load.

To keep my FX 8320 running at stock speed I've had to undervolt it, switch to an AIO liquid cooler *and* add 3 case fans. The motherboard isn't overheating- it's just as soon as the cpu decides it's at 65C it throttles to 1.4ghz. I have no idea how anyone runs one above stock as I don't see how you can get much more cooling than I've got on the rig as it is.

I had an FX 8120 with a Corsair H80, and a crappy mb that kept throttling due to VRMs overheating. But once I switched to a 970A-UD3, I left it at 3.6GHz base and 4GHz turbo (first gen Bulldozer was hot as hell, almost like the FX 8150). No throttling even under Prime95. I think an AIO, with a good motherboard is enough to overclock it nicely, you probably had bad luck at the binning lottery.

And that may be even better advice with Ryzen, which, thanks to the AIO cooler and XFR, will reach even higher turbos. But I think a quality motherboard is a must for R7 1700 and up, even if TDP is 95W.

 

[8350rocks]

It's hard to know right now- although personally I'm a fan of ASROCK kit- I remember using a board of theirs years ago (when they weren't really considered above budget builds) and it was fantastic. I've used a couple since and they've never let me down.

Personally, I'd probably go with a B350 based board- just so long as it's got decent quality caps and so on. If you don't plan on messing about with X-Fire then that is all you should need. That said I'm usually working to quite a tight budget- the thing is though I do think there is a balance. People tell you not to skimp on the motherboard / psu and I agree- however mid range kit is usually ample if you aren't pushing high overclocks, and not everyone can afford £150 on a motherboard and £100+ on the PSU. To put it another way, I'm still running on the 970 chipset AM3+ rig I built for my Phenom II X3 (now with an FX 8320 after a bios update) with a 500W Coolermaster psu. The only major things I've changed have been the case + cooling due to having difficulty keeping the FX from throttling too much.

A 970 board with cooling on the VRMs (Gigabyte 970A-UDx or Asus M5A97 Pro, for example) is basically all you need to run an FX processor without throttling (if cooler is suficient, obvs). 990 series is for dual GPU only, everything else you can get from a 970. Thinking about this, AMD made the B350, which gives you all except multi-GPU. I'd say go for a B350, no more and no less, and look for one with cooling on the VRMs if you plan on overclocking (or running high-heat processors).

The throttling wasn't due to VRM's- something people don't realise but FX 8XXX throttle cpu core speed at only 65C (it's higher on 6XXX)- that's really easy to hit under high load.

To keep my FX 8320 running at stock speed I've had to undervolt it, switch to an AIO liquid cooler *and* add 3 case fans. The motherboard isn't overheating- it's just as soon as the cpu decides it's at 65C it throttles to 1.4ghz. I have no idea how anyone runs one above stock as I don't see how you can get much more cooling than I've got on the rig as it is.

You can disable p-states, c-states, and throttling in the BIOS on some boards. Also, with the low amount of power phases in 970 boards, you are typically heating the socket to supply enough power for the 125W TDP SKUs.

I have the Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 for my 9590, and I never see thermal throttling...but I have water cooling, and 5 case fans, too...

 

[jdwii]

Box art for Ryzen as well as final picture of the processor heat-spreader and a quick look at their packaged cooler

http://www.mobipicker.com/first-look-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-1700-heat-dissipaters-packaging-box/

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-processor-pictures-final-heat-spreader-design-shown/

 

[truegenius]

more ryzen benchmarks
https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/amd_ryzen_1700x_benchmarks_emerge/1

 

[Rookie_MIB]

Let me put that in a graph

Disclaimer: I didn't make the graph. The estimated CB score for Zen is too high.

The one VERY sad thing that it shows is just how badly AMD stumbled with their previous gen architecture. Imagine if AMD had been semi-competitive during that 'lost half decade'. Ugh. Still - it's about time they put their <mod edit> together and got it pretty much right (from what we can see so far) - still going to reserve judgement until we see some official numbers.

NDA's are lifted officially on Feb 28th - we should see the reviews hit that day.

<Watch your language in these forums>

 

[ScrewySqrl]

Yeah it's looking good- just a side point- back in the 2003 - 2005 time frame *AMD were ahead* in IPC... Also fun fact, Athlon 64 is the oldest cpu that is capable of running Windows 10 Not bad for a chip that's over 12 years old.

Let me put that in a graph

Disclaimer: I didn't make the graph. The estimated CB score for Zen is too high.

If you draw a line from the K10 to Ryzen, it just about matches the trajectory it was on in the first place.

 

[cdrkf]

Yeah it's looking good- just a side point- back in the 2003 - 2005 time frame *AMD were ahead* in IPC... Also fun fact, Athlon 64 is the oldest cpu that is capable of running Windows 10 Not bad for a chip that's over 12 years old.

Let me put that in a graph

Disclaimer: I didn't make the graph. The estimated CB score for Zen is too high.

If you draw a line from the K10 to Ryzen, it just about matches the trajectory it was on in the first place.

Well it would certainly be closer- however I'd argue Ryzen looks somewhat ahead of that (probably by circa 15 points or so). It really is heck of a jump. It's a shame these results can't go back further- I'd imagine the jump from K7 - K8 would look similar (and Intel's move from P3- P4 would look very much like K10 - Bulldozer does).

 

[salgado18]

Yeah it's looking good- just a side point- back in the 2003 - 2005 time frame *AMD were ahead* in IPC... Also fun fact, Athlon 64 is the oldest cpu that is capable of running Windows 10 Not bad for a chip that's over 12 years old.

Let me put that in a graph

Disclaimer: I didn't make the graph. The estimated CB score for Zen is too high.

If you draw a line from the K10 to Ryzen, it just about matches the trajectory it was on in the first place.

Not quite. Look at the 2007-2009 jump for AMD: they were stalling on performance. Probably they were working on Bulldozer, so dropped resources from K10, but at that pace, they'd be out of market the same way. Also, Intel would push harder, and reach bigger improvements (like next arch's supposed 15%, held back by lack of competition).

Ryzen is a blessing to AMD, but also thanks to Intel being relaxed.

 

[illegaloperation]

It's hard to know right now- although personally I'm a fan of ASROCK kit- I remember using a board of theirs years ago (when they weren't really considered above budget builds) and it was fantastic. I've used a couple since and they've never let me down.

Personally, I'd probably go with a B350 based board- just so long as it's got decent quality caps and so on. If you don't plan on messing about with X-Fire then that is all you should need. That said I'm usually working to quite a tight budget- the thing is though I do think there is a balance. People tell you not to skimp on the motherboard / psu and I agree- however mid range kit is usually ample if you aren't pushing high overclocks, and not everyone can afford £150 on a motherboard and £100+ on the PSU. To put it another way, I'm still running on the 970 chipset AM3+ rig I built for my Phenom II X3 (now with an FX 8320 after a bios update) with a 500W Coolermaster psu. The only major things I've changed have been the case + cooling due to having difficulty keeping the FX from throttling too much.

I have used a few ASRock motherboards in budget built for other people.

I've heard any complain except for the cheap PSUs failing.

I am not sure how I feel about getting a high end ASRock motherboard though.

 

[Onus]

I'll likely go ASRock (due to long good personal history with the brand) or MSI (everything of theirs I've reviewed since a Z77 has been good to great, not like those pitiful excuses for 970A boards they did). Asus is faltering in the bang/buck department, although if I can get Sonic Radar at a good price (unlikely, as it's a ROG feature), that may win out.
I'm not sure I'm ready to drop $400 on a CPU, but Ryzen may really be the case where "moar cores!!!" will be worthwhile, so I don't think I'll be going below the 1500.

 

[jdwii]

more ryzen benchmarks
https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/amd_ryzen_1700x_benchmarks_emerge/1

Nice note how SMT is changing the score by 25% basically which is on-par with skylake SMT scaling getting really close to saying i was wrong ha ha and happy to be wrong. Perhaps Amd was hiding its single-core performance by only showing multi-threaded tests.

 

[jaymc]

more ryzen benchmarks
https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/amd_ryzen_1700x_benchmarks_emerge/1

Nice note how SMT is changing the score by 25% basically which is on-par with skylake SMT scaling getting really close to saying i was wrong ha ha and happy to be wrong. Perhaps Amd was hiding its single-core performance by only showing multi-threaded tests.

I think they were hiding single core IPC... An what a move... body blow or what.

No wonder she was smiling actually scratch that smirking all the through that new horizon presentation... hehe.
That's what you get when you have an engineer in charge I suppose... higher level of trickery. Shaping up to be a really nice product..

https://www.ekwb.com/news/ek-confirms-amd-socket-am4-compatibility/

 

[Rookie_MIB]

Asus is faltering in the bang/buck department, although if I can get Sonic Radar at a good price (unlikely, as it's a ROG feature), that may win out.
I'm not sure I'm ready to drop $400 on a CPU, but Ryzen may really be the case where "moar cores!!!" will be worthwhile, so I don't think I'll be going below the 1500.

I'm somewhat partial to Gigabyte and Asus boards. I've not had either have one go out on me. And for OC'ing, I do like Asus on their higher end boards. My Xeon X3470 (which may be replaced by a Ryzen setup) is going along fairly happily at 4.2ghz on a P7F7-E WS motherboard. Well, maybe not completely happily as stock speed is 2.9ghz. But it doesn't twitch at all.

As for the 'moar cores', that IS part of the advantage of the Ryzen equation. They don't quite have the IPC up to snuff - Intel has them beat on that. BUT - their core counts make up for that deficit in spades, and it's bolstered immensely by the price/core side of things. The cores are quick enough, and they're pricing them VERY aggressively. IMHO if you don't buy at least a hex-core, you should just stick with Intel since they have a higher IPC per core. But once you get past the quad core into hex core territory, the Ryzen chips will be the much better buy.

 

[cdrkf]

Asus is faltering in the bang/buck department, although if I can get Sonic Radar at a good price (unlikely, as it's a ROG feature), that may win out.
I'm not sure I'm ready to drop $400 on a CPU, but Ryzen may really be the case where "moar cores!!!" will be worthwhile, so I don't think I'll be going below the 1500.

I'm somewhat partial to Gigabyte and Asus boards. I've not had either have one go out on me. And for OC'ing, I do like Asus on their higher end boards. My Xeon X3470 (which may be replaced by a Ryzen setup) is going along fairly happily at 4.2ghz on a P7F7-E WS motherboard. Well, maybe not completely happily as stock speed is 2.9ghz. But it doesn't twitch at all.

As for the 'moar cores', that IS part of the advantage of the Ryzen equation. They don't quite have the IPC up to snuff - Intel has them beat on that. BUT - their core counts make up for that deficit in spades, and it's bolstered immensely by the price/core side of things. The cores are quick enough, and they're pricing them VERY aggressively. IMHO if you don't buy at least a hex-core, you should just stick with Intel since they have a higher IPC per core. But once you get past the quad core into hex core territory, the Ryzen chips will be the much better buy.

I'm not sure I'd agree on that- if the leaks are true you have choice of 4 real cores vs 2 core + smt on the low end... and then 4 core + smt vs 4 core without on the mid range. Given the performance is so close I'd still argue I'd rather have a true quad over the i3 (although I admit that the i3 copes remarkably well as a gaming chip). I guess that position does depend on the benchmarks of course, however based on what we've seen so far I'm fairly happy the Ryzen R3 should be ahead of an i3 due to 4 full cores (with turbo) vs 2...

 

[jdwii]

Asus is faltering in the bang/buck department, although if I can get Sonic Radar at a good price (unlikely, as it's a ROG feature), that may win out.
I'm not sure I'm ready to drop $400 on a CPU, but Ryzen may really be the case where "moar cores!!!" will be worthwhile, so I don't think I'll be going below the 1500.

I'm somewhat partial to Gigabyte and Asus boards. I've not had either have one go out on me. And for OC'ing, I do like Asus on their higher end boards. My Xeon X3470 (which may be replaced by a Ryzen setup) is going along fairly happily at 4.2ghz on a P7F7-E WS motherboard. Well, maybe not completely happily as stock speed is 2.9ghz. But it doesn't twitch at all.

As for the 'moar cores', that IS part of the advantage of the Ryzen equation. They don't quite have the IPC up to snuff - Intel has them beat on that. BUT - their core counts make up for that deficit in spades, and it's bolstered immensely by the price/core side of things. The cores are quick enough, and they're pricing them VERY aggressively. IMHO if you don't buy at least a hex-core, you should just stick with Intel since they have a higher IPC per core. But once you get past the quad core into hex core territory, the Ryzen chips will be the much better buy.

I'm not sure I'd agree on that- if the leaks are true you have choice of 4 real cores vs 2 core + smt on the low end... and then 4 core + smt vs 4 core without on the mid range. Given the performance is so close I'd still argue I'd rather have a true quad over the i3 (although I admit that the i3 copes remarkably well as a gaming chip). I guess that position does depend on the benchmarks of course, however based on what we've seen so far I'm fairly happy the Ryzen R3 should be ahead of an i3 due to 4 full cores (with turbo) vs 2...

I agree its not that big of a difference now if the leaks are true and i'm sure they are at this point. 10-15% more IPC isn't worth getting when you get half the amount of cores. That is coming from a person who would take a I3 skylake-haswell over a 8 core fx for my gaming.

 

[salgado18]

Asus is faltering in the bang/buck department, although if I can get Sonic Radar at a good price (unlikely, as it's a ROG feature), that may win out.
I'm not sure I'm ready to drop $400 on a CPU, but Ryzen may really be the case where "moar cores!!!" will be worthwhile, so I don't think I'll be going below the 1500.

I'm somewhat partial to Gigabyte and Asus boards. I've not had either have one go out on me. And for OC'ing, I do like Asus on their higher end boards. My Xeon X3470 (which may be replaced by a Ryzen setup) is going along fairly happily at 4.2ghz on a P7F7-E WS motherboard. Well, maybe not completely happily as stock speed is 2.9ghz. But it doesn't twitch at all.

As for the 'moar cores', that IS part of the advantage of the Ryzen equation. They don't quite have the IPC up to snuff - Intel has them beat on that. BUT - their core counts make up for that deficit in spades, and it's bolstered immensely by the price/core side of things. The cores are quick enough, and they're pricing them VERY aggressively. IMHO if you don't buy at least a hex-core, you should just stick with Intel since they have a higher IPC per core. But once you get past the quad core into hex core territory, the Ryzen chips will be the much better buy.

I'm not sure I'd agree on that- if the leaks are true you have choice of 4 real cores vs 2 core + smt on the low end... and then 4 core + smt vs 4 core without on the mid range. Given the performance is so close I'd still argue I'd rather have a true quad over the i3 (although I admit that the i3 copes remarkably well as a gaming chip). I guess that position does depend on the benchmarks of course, however based on what we've seen so far I'm fairly happy the Ryzen R3 should be ahead of an i3 due to 4 full cores (with turbo) vs 2...

I agree its not that big of a difference now if the leaks are true and i'm sure they are at this point. 10-15% more IPC isn't worth getting when you get half the amount of cores. That is coming from a person who would take a I3 skylake-haswell over a 8 core fx for my gaming.

It gets complicated when you think that the 1800X matched the i7 6900k on a heavily-threaded benchmark. It means that yes, Ryzen has lower IPC, but when threads are on use, the AMD can scale as well as an Intel. So, I'd say the R3 is always a better choice over the i3. And that's coming from a person who would take an 8-core FX over an i3 for everything else, and stick to adequate 60-fps gaming.

 

[8350rocks]

Asus is faltering in the bang/buck department, although if I can get Sonic Radar at a good price (unlikely, as it's a ROG feature), that may win out.
I'm not sure I'm ready to drop $400 on a CPU, but Ryzen may really be the case where "moar cores!!!" will be worthwhile, so I don't think I'll be going below the 1500.

I'm somewhat partial to Gigabyte and Asus boards. I've not had either have one go out on me. And for OC'ing, I do like Asus on their higher end boards. My Xeon X3470 (which may be replaced by a Ryzen setup) is going along fairly happily at 4.2ghz on a P7F7-E WS motherboard. Well, maybe not completely happily as stock speed is 2.9ghz. But it doesn't twitch at all.

As for the 'moar cores', that IS part of the advantage of the Ryzen equation. They don't quite have the IPC up to snuff - Intel has them beat on that. BUT - their core counts make up for that deficit in spades, and it's bolstered immensely by the price/core side of things. The cores are quick enough, and they're pricing them VERY aggressively. IMHO if you don't buy at least a hex-core, you should just stick with Intel since they have a higher IPC per core. But once you get past the quad core into hex core territory, the Ryzen chips will be the much better buy.

I'm not sure I'd agree on that- if the leaks are true you have choice of 4 real cores vs 2 core + smt on the low end... and then 4 core + smt vs 4 core without on the mid range. Given the performance is so close I'd still argue I'd rather have a true quad over the i3 (although I admit that the i3 copes remarkably well as a gaming chip). I guess that position does depend on the benchmarks of course, however based on what we've seen so far I'm fairly happy the Ryzen R3 should be ahead of an i3 due to 4 full cores (with turbo) vs 2...

I agree its not that big of a difference now if the leaks are true and i'm sure they are at this point. 10-15% more IPC isn't worth getting when you get half the amount of cores. That is coming from a person who would take a I3 skylake-haswell over a 8 core fx for my gaming.

It gets complicated when you think that the 1800X matched the i7 6900k on a heavily-threaded benchmark. It means that yes, Ryzen has lower IPC, but when threads are on use, the AMD can scale as well as an Intel. So, I'd say the R3 is always a better choice over the i3. And that's coming from a person who would take an 8-core FX over an i3 for everything else, and stick to adequate 60-fps gaming.

Videocardz.com leaked the official cinebench results. AMD was sandbagging the 1800X the whole time. All the chips they showed were the 1700X. The 1800X matches the 6900K in ST and blows the doors off in multithread by 150 points.

https://videocardz.com/66216/firefly-was-a-great-show

 

[juanrga]

Asus is faltering in the bang/buck department, although if I can get Sonic Radar at a good price (unlikely, as it's a ROG feature), that may win out.
I'm not sure I'm ready to drop $400 on a CPU, but Ryzen may really be the case where "moar cores!!!" will be worthwhile, so I don't think I'll be going below the 1500.

I'm somewhat partial to Gigabyte and Asus boards. I've not had either have one go out on me. And for OC'ing, I do like Asus on their higher end boards. My Xeon X3470 (which may be replaced by a Ryzen setup) is going along fairly happily at 4.2ghz on a P7F7-E WS motherboard. Well, maybe not completely happily as stock speed is 2.9ghz. But it doesn't twitch at all.

As for the 'moar cores', that IS part of the advantage of the Ryzen equation. They don't quite have the IPC up to snuff - Intel has them beat on that. BUT - their core counts make up for that deficit in spades, and it's bolstered immensely by the price/core side of things. The cores are quick enough, and they're pricing them VERY aggressively. IMHO if you don't buy at least a hex-core, you should just stick with Intel since they have a higher IPC per core. But once you get past the quad core into hex core territory, the Ryzen chips will be the much better buy.

I'm not sure I'd agree on that- if the leaks are true you have choice of 4 real cores vs 2 core + smt on the low end... and then 4 core + smt vs 4 core without on the mid range. Given the performance is so close I'd still argue I'd rather have a true quad over the i3 (although I admit that the i3 copes remarkably well as a gaming chip). I guess that position does depend on the benchmarks of course, however based on what we've seen so far I'm fairly happy the Ryzen R3 should be ahead of an i3 due to 4 full cores (with turbo) vs 2...

I agree its not that big of a difference now if the leaks are true and i'm sure they are at this point. 10-15% more IPC isn't worth getting when you get half the amount of cores. That is coming from a person who would take a I3 skylake-haswell over a 8 core fx for my gaming.

It gets complicated when you think that the 1800X matched the i7 6900k on a heavily-threaded benchmark. It means that yes, Ryzen has lower IPC, but when threads are on use, the AMD can scale as well as an Intel. So, I'd say the R3 is always a better choice over the i3. And that's coming from a person who would take an 8-core FX over an i3 for everything else, and stick to adequate 60-fps gaming.

Videocardz.com leaked the official cinebench results. AMD was sandbagging the 1800X the whole time. All the chips they showed were the 1700X. The 1800X matches the 6900K in ST and blows the doors off in multithread by 150 points.

https://videocardz.com/66216/firefly-was-a-great-show

The numbers for the 6900k in that slide are a bit strange

 

[jdwii]

"And that's coming from a person who would take an 8-core FX over an i3 for everything else, and stick to adequate 60-fps gaming."

Not really possible really unless you are talking about games that are not demanding. I've owned both 8350 is a terrible CPU compared to the I3 in a lot of games but in others its decent. Basically if the game can use all the cores the 8350 is pretty nice if not its pretty terrible unless you don't care about stutter and frame drops.

Gonna be very happy when Ryzen comes out to make Amd an option again for CPUs. I do mainly only play open world games and RTS games which are highly CPU intensive. I remember how often my old 770 dropped GPU usage on many games with a 8350 at times even below 70% usage. Some games even ran faster with my 1100T OC to 3.9Ghz vs the 4.3Ghz i could get with my 8350.

I just want to forget about bulldozer all together.

Edit
Does Tomshardware forums do "owner" threads if so i'd love to see one on Ryzen to see what most of the toms community is getting when it comes to benchmarks and scores. I just read Ryzen can possibly work with 3600Mhz+ ram. Like to see everyone's results.

 

[cdrkf]

Edit
Does Tomshardware forums do "owner" threads if so i'd love to see one on Ryzen to see what most of the toms community is getting when it comes to benchmarks and scores. I just read Ryzen can possibly work with 3600Mhz+ ram. Like to see everyone's results.

I don't think there is anything in the rules against an 'owners' thread- you should maybe start one once Ryzen comes out?