Discussion AMD Ryzen MegaThread! FAQ and Resources

[Eximo]

Not according to most of those results. Looks like the 7700k was holding its own against all but the 6900k most of the time, and even winning a few, and at stock clocks presumably. Tack on another 300-500Mhz and it will pull ahead. Though at 1920x1080, and there was a marked gap between 720p and 1080p there.

1700 should still be a great CPU though, particularly if it can be made to run at the same speed as its more expensive counterparts. Then it will be a good multi-purpose chip.

 

[jdwii]

Not according to most of those results. Looks like the 7700k was holding its own against all but the 6900k most of the time, and even winning a few, and at stock clocks presumably. Tack on another 300-500Mhz and it will pull ahead. Though at 1920x1080, and there was a marked gap between 720p and 1080p there.

1700 should still be a great CPU though, particularly if it can be made to run at the same speed as its more expensive counterparts. Then it will be a good multi-purpose chip.

Hi where you looking strictly at the gaming benchmarks?

6900K beat a 7700K in
Anno 2205, Ashes of the Singularity, BF1(by a decent margin even, until you use 12 ha ha directx 12 defenders want to chime in?), Dues ex mankind divided, Dishonored 2, F1 2016, Gears 4, Rise of the tomb raider(though agan the 4 core gets closer to the 8 core in directx 12), Shadow Warrior 2, Massive win in watch dogs 2

Tied with doom again Vulkan game, Vulkan defenders want to chime in?
Tied with Project cars, Witcher 3, Total War: warhammer
Rarely did it lose in any despite having a 4.0Ghz turbo speed and 3.2Ghz base frequency compared to 4.3Ghz base frequency with the 7700K and a 4.5Ghz turbo.

 

[Eximo]

I was looking at gaming benchmarks, as that is what I am using my PC for.

DX12 leaves a lot up to the developers, so you will see different results from different games and game engines.

All that says to me is that the 7700k is a bargain compared to the 6900k in most games. Ryzen can compete with the 6900k at stock clocks, but both can be overclocked, and I presume the 6900k can get a little farther than Ryzen. So Ryzen beats the pants off of Intel on pricing, and gets you roughly the performance. Quite the game changer.

Base is 4.2 for the 7700k if that isn't a typo.

 

[salgado18]

Well it's gonna take them three years to redesign their chip from the ground up... plus they are hitting the wall with their current architecture already... As the lady say's AMD are just getting started.

I wouldn't be surprised if they do it in less than three years... I'm sure they are already burning the midnight oil on it. They may drop a lot of older instructions sets. We might even be looking at a true 64bit chip.

When they finish their new architecture I'd say the tables will turn again.. but until then..lets breath in the fresh air.

I think that what Intel needs are three things:

1. release all the improvements they held back due to lack of need;

2. release a 6-core cpu for the LGA 1151;

3. rethink their lineup, to better match the market after Ryzen (example, HT-Pentium and i5, promote i3 to quad-core, etc)

They do this, they remain not only competitve, but possibly the best option. But if they do, then AMD has surely messed them up with Ryzen (which I hope is a huge success for the company).

 

[jdwii]

I was looking at gaming benchmarks, as that is what I am using my PC for.

DX12 leaves a lot up to the developers, so you will see different results from different games and game engines.

All that says to me is that the 100k is a bargain compared to the 6900k in most games. Ryzen can compete with the 6900k at stock clocks, but both can be overclocked, and I presume the 6900k can get a little farther than Ryzen. So Ryzen beats the pants off of Intel on pricing, and gets you roughly the performance. Quite the game changer.

Base is 4.2 for the 7700k if that isn't a typo.

But that could also mean a R7 1700 for 329.99$ could pull of similar numbers meaning that i personally think we are coming to a time where more cores could actually beat or at the very least meet a faster quad core in gaming. Its just something i actually didn't think was already happening and thought we were still years away from it. I simply ignored Intel's X99 platform as i found it way out of anyone's rational budget for gaming and i didn't even bother to pay attention when i saw them in reviews(for gaming) . Also i'd like to note that most of the tests where in directx 11 where the 8 core did really well despite having a lower clock speed meaning like Gamerk316 said awhile ago 12 and Vulkan are not the silver bullet to multi-core gaming its all up to the dev's which have to LEARN how to make use of low level work that they haven't really done since the 90's.

I'd also like to mention for the people back in the bulldozer days who said 8 cores would be better for gaming in the long run despite offering a massive difference in single core performance compared to sandy-bridge were basically wrong all it did was make it even to a 2500K or at best come close to a 2600K and that is with the superior piledriver processors.

Now we have close enough IPC with more cores

Also yes you are right 7700K has a 4.2Ghz base frequency

 

[cdrkf]

I was looking at gaming benchmarks, as that is what I am using my PC for.

DX12 leaves a lot up to the developers, so you will see different results from different games and game engines.

All that says to me is that the 100k is a bargain compared to the 6900k in most games. Ryzen can compete with the 6900k at stock clocks, but both can be overclocked, and I presume the 6900k can get a little farther than Ryzen. So Ryzen beats the pants off of Intel on pricing, and gets you roughly the performance. Quite the game changer.

Base is 4.2 for the 7700k if that isn't a typo.

But that could also mean a R7 1700 for 329.99$ could pull of similar numbers meaning that i personally think we are coming to a time where more cores could actually beat or at the very least meet a faster quad core in gaming. Its just something i actually didn't think was already happening and thought we were still years away from it. I simply ignored Intel's X99 platform as i found it way out of anyone's rational budget for gaming and i didn't even bother to pay attention when i saw them in reviews(for gaming) . Also i'd like to note that most of the tests where in directx 11 where the 8 core did really well despite having a lower clock speed meaning like Gamerk316 said awhile ago 12 and Vulkan are not the silver bullet to multi-core gaming its all up to the dev's which have to LEARN how to make use of low level work that they haven't really done since the 90's.

I'd also like to mention for the people back in the bulldozer days who said 8 cores would be better for gaming in the long run despite offering a massive difference in single core performance compared to sandy-bridge were basically wrong all it did was make it even to a 2500K or at best come close to a 2600K and that is with the superior piledriver processors.

Now we have close enough IPC with more cores

Also yes you are right 7700K has a 4.2Ghz base frequency

I think it's worth keeping in mind- the whole DX12 / Vulkan can use 'more cores' for gaming over DX11 is *specifically when using the cpu for driving the graphics card*- and it's true, in DX11 you are limited to 1 primary thread, with about 3 additional threads to assist (EDIT) for rendering.

The problem with that is it ignores how complex modern games are- physics, ai, networking, audio- they can all be handled on separate threads *if* the game engine is designed to do so. I think that is the change here- many major engines are separating out the various functions into different threads rather than having a single 'main' thread for the whole game.

 

[jdwii]

I was looking at gaming benchmarks, as that is what I am using my PC for.

DX12 leaves a lot up to the developers, so you will see different results from different games and game engines.

All that says to me is that the 100k is a bargain compared to the 6900k in most games. Ryzen can compete with the 6900k at stock clocks, but both can be overclocked, and I presume the 6900k can get a little farther than Ryzen. So Ryzen beats the pants off of Intel on pricing, and gets you roughly the performance. Quite the game changer.

Base is 4.2 for the 7700k if that isn't a typo.

But that could also mean a R7 1700 for 329.99$ could pull of similar numbers meaning that i personally think we are coming to a time where more cores could actually beat or at the very least meet a faster quad core in gaming. Its just something i actually didn't think was already happening and thought we were still years away from it. I simply ignored Intel's X99 platform as i found it way out of anyone's rational budget for gaming and i didn't even bother to pay attention when i saw them in reviews(for gaming) . Also i'd like to note that most of the tests where in directx 11 where the 8 core did really well despite having a lower clock speed meaning like Gamerk316 said awhile ago 12 and Vulkan are not the silver bullet to multi-core gaming its all up to the dev's which have to LEARN how to make use of low level work that they haven't really done since the 90's.

I'd also like to mention for the people back in the bulldozer days who said 8 cores would be better for gaming in the long run despite offering a massive difference in single core performance compared to sandy-bridge were basically wrong all it did was make it even to a 2500K or at best come close to a 2600K and that is with the superior piledriver processors.

Now we have close enough IPC with more cores

Also yes you are right 7700K has a 4.2Ghz base frequency

I think it's worth keeping in mind- the whole DX12 / Vulkan can use 'more cores' for gaming over DX11 is *specifically when using the cpu for driving the graphics card*- and it's true, in DX11 you are limited to 1 primary thread, with about 3 additional threads to assist (EDIT) for rendering.

The problem with that is it ignores how complex modern games are- physics, ai, networking, audio- they can all be handled on separate threads *if* the game engine is designed to do so. I think that is the change here- many major engines are separating out the various functions into different threads rather than having a single 'main' thread for the whole game.

Isn't the frosbite engine 3 scale beyond 4 cores i pretty much know it does as i got decent increase when i went to 4 to 6 FX CPU cores and even a little more with all 8 enabled. Plus watch dogs 2 is probably one of the best games currently that can make use of 8 cores(even a 7700K OC to 5Ghz will probably lose to a 6900K stock).

Though i'll admit basically every directx 11 game and before that have one core that is at higher usage then the rest of the cores.

 

[8350rocks]

I was looking at gaming benchmarks, as that is what I am using my PC for.

DX12 leaves a lot up to the developers, so you will see different results from different games and game engines.

All that says to me is that the 100k is a bargain compared to the 6900k in most games. Ryzen can compete with the 6900k at stock clocks, but both can be overclocked, and I presume the 6900k can get a little farther than Ryzen. So Ryzen beats the pants off of Intel on pricing, and gets you roughly the performance. Quite the game changer.

Base is 4.2 for the 7700k if that isn't a typo.

But that could also mean a R7 1700 for 329.99$ could pull of similar numbers meaning that i personally think we are coming to a time where more cores could actually beat or at the very least meet a faster quad core in gaming. Its just something i actually didn't think was already happening and thought we were still years away from it. I simply ignored Intel's X99 platform as i found it way out of anyone's rational budget for gaming and i didn't even bother to pay attention when i saw them in reviews(for gaming) . Also i'd like to note that most of the tests where in directx 11 where the 8 core did really well despite having a lower clock speed meaning like Gamerk316 said awhile ago 12 and Vulkan are not the silver bullet to multi-core gaming its all up to the dev's which have to LEARN how to make use of low level work that they haven't really done since the 90's.

I'd also like to mention for the people back in the bulldozer days who said 8 cores would be better for gaming in the long run despite offering a massive difference in single core performance compared to sandy-bridge were basically wrong all it did was make it even to a 2500K or at best come close to a 2600K and that is with the superior piledriver processors.

Now we have close enough IPC with more cores

Also yes you are right 7700K has a 4.2Ghz base frequency

I think it's worth keeping in mind- the whole DX12 / Vulkan can use 'more cores' for gaming over DX11 is *specifically when using the cpu for driving the graphics card*- and it's true, in DX11 you are limited to 1 primary thread, with about 3 additional threads to assist (EDIT) for rendering.

The problem with that is it ignores how complex modern games are- physics, ai, networking, audio- they can all be handled on separate threads *if* the game engine is designed to do so. I think that is the change here- many major engines are separating out the various functions into different threads rather than having a single 'main' thread for the whole game.

Isn't the frosbite engine 3 scale beyond 4 cores i pretty much know it does as i got decent increase when i went to 4 to 6 FX CPU cores and even a little more with all 8 enabled. Plus watch dogs 2 is probably one of the best games currently that can make use of 8 cores(even a 7700K OC to 5Ghz will probably lose to a 6900K stock).

Though i'll admit basically every directx 11 game and before that have one core that is at higher usage then the rest of the cores.

CE3.5+ and frostbite 3 scale quite well, unity does as well, not terribly sure about unreal to be honest...I think they lag behind the rest. Though some RTS engines use lots of cores as well...like the Civ engine, for example, and Oxide's engine in AotS.

 

[juanrga]

I first would like to say sorry to the mods for posting this but i wanted to show users here how multi-core performance in modern games have changed the charts are in English the article is not. I guess the 6900 is basically beating a 7700K despite having a lower clock speed.

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02/cpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test/#diagramm-anno-2205-fps

1700 vs 7700K gaming benchmarks might surprise us

Here a partial English translation

https://videocardz.com/66354/core-count-vs-frequency-what-matters-for-gaming

 

[winwiz]

Ryzen Vcore
I presume R7 with 65w tdp runs with a lower Vcore than the 95w versions?
If so I'm guessing the 65w version should have more overclock headroom if Vcore is increased to the same value (like 1.3 or whatever is max for the 14nm process)
Does anyone know what default Vcore the 65w and 95w versions use?
I know AMD bins the processors so the faster 95w versions likely have a higher max OC frequency, but if the 65w versions max OC frequency is only 100-200 MHz lower it would offer fantastic value for money...

 

[Redneck5439]

What a crazy time in CPUs. Hats off to you AMD, you have done the impossible. I've been busy and away from the forum for about 6 months now, but what a difference 6 months makes. Back just a few months ago we were all hoping for a 40% IPC increase over Steamroller, now AMD is claiming over 50% increase. We were all hoping Zen / now Ryzen, would be able to go toe to toe with the older Haswell, but now Ryzen is going toe to toe with Kaby Lake, who would have thought AMD could actually pull it off? As much as I like AMD I didn't think they had a chance to do basically the impossible, but all the early benchmarks show Ryzen is the game changer that no one really saw coming.

For anyone wondering about the gaming potential of the new Ryzen processors, this is really exciting:

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-i7-6900k-gaming-performance/

Now Ryzen hasn't released yet, and I always approach early benchmarking with skepticism, but every benchmark I've found is showing Ryzen samples benchmarking very well against Intel's high end Kaby Lake, and in this case Intel's 8 core 16 thread $1000+ best the Broadwell i7 6900K. It is beyond amazing that in one generation AMD hasn't closed the performance gap but for all appearances has regained the performance crown.

I had been telling people that I wouldn't buy Zen - now Ryzen - until it was in second generation, so AMD had time to work out any bugs and tweak the new arch, but it doesn't appear that AMD has any bugs to work out, I'm just hoping that the R7 1800X becomes available by March 3rd, looks like all the pre-orders are sold out already.

 

[Redneck5439]

Ryzen Vcore
I presume R7 with 65w tdp runs with a lower Vcore than the 95w versions?
If so I'm guessing the 65w version should have more overclock headroom if Vcore is increased to the same value (like 1.3 or whatever is max for the 14nm process)
Does anyone know what default Vcore the 65w and 95w versions use?
I know AMD bins the processors so the faster 95w versions likely have a higher max OC frequency, but if the 65w versions max OC frequency is only 100-200 MHz lower it would offer fantastic value for money...

In theory possible, but it usually comes down to binning. The best silicon is reserved for the flagship high end processors and the silicon that didn't fare as well are set to lower TDP and clocked lower. Now until the process is mature you will see "golden" samples of the R7 1700 - R7 1700X that can overclock to R7 1800X clock speed and beyond, however you have a much better chance of getting a better overclocker by getting the R7 1800X as they have the best binned silicon.

 

[jaymc]

They wont be able to control the media or the forums... we might get some unusual reviews, but the truth should win true in this day and age. Shouldn't it...??

It's a bit early for them to be resorting to such tactics, they will be treating OEM's next. Weren't they in court for that already ?

 

[eidolon171]

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-Turbo-Disabled-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4770K/m243187vs1537

4770K vs 1700X with turbo disabled. 4770K is ahead by <1% in single core.

It's listed as 0% difference compared with the Haswell 4770k as of today. Which is basically on par with the lower clocked Broadwell 6800k, and 16% under the higher clocked Skylake 6700k.

They also estimate that the 1700x's quad-core vs quad-core performance is a full 6% better than the 4770k. Just look at that scaling, it's 92% efficient! The earliest i7 7700's scaled with something like 80% efficiency, and when more samples came in that dropped down to about 65%. Imagine what the Ryzen 5 1400x will be able to do.
If AMD's SMT adds 44.5% of performance per core, as it does with these samples, then it should have multicore parity with the 4770k. That is amazing considering the 1400x is priced at $199 and Intel's best part for this market right now is the i7 6700k, which costs $310. Granted the 6700k does have that 16% higher single core performance edge, the base 100MHz higher clockspeed of the 1400x over the 1700x could narrow that gap almost out of existence, in this benchmark at least.

 

[Redneck5439]

Another interesting read on the upcoming R7 1800X:

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-overclocking-performance/

If true a one click auto overclock on the R7 1800X produced performance better than the i7 6950X, which is just beyond belief. If a one click "auto overclock" can produce results like that then imagine what a true manual overclock will be able to achieve. Better single core performance than the i7 7700K and better multicore performance than the i7 6950X on air, with a $500 processor. Looks like Ryzen is going to shake things up a lot. What is incredible is Ryzen is only in first generation. It will be interesting to follow benchmarks and overclock performance after the official release, but it is hard to believe that all these test samples are producing "hyped" results.

 

[Nope 1151]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5w2wld/report_of_intel_offering_kickbacks_again/
A fair bit of conspiracy here again.
Also, article from WTFTECH:
http://wccftech.com/intel-amd-price-war-ryzen-processors/

If Intel is dropping prices as said, then does make a desperation move like the Intel vs. AMD lawsuit plausible once again....

 

[Redneck5439]

They wont be able to control the media or the forums... we might get some unusual reviews, but the truth should win true in this day and age. Shouldn't it...??

It's a bit early for them to be resorting to such tactics, they will be treating OEM's next. Weren't they in court for that already ?

Ryzen should be able to stand just fine on its own merits, as long as the early benchmarks and performance tests we have seen are true. Intel will of course counter Ryzen in some way, how is yet to be seen. They have a very capable line of processors and may decide to enter a price war with AMD. Intel has a lot more disposable cash available to them and could actually afford to sell processors at a loss just to flood the market and make sure AMD doesn't sell their processors. Intel also may have been sitting on the next big advance in microarchitecture as there was no need to "waste" the money to fully develop it with no competition. They could totally blow Ryzen away shortly after release with a processor that has twice the performance- lord knows they have the R&D budget to do so. To count Intel out would be beyond foolish. For one thing one of Intel's strongest assets has always been their marketing department that could sell ice to Sibera and give the buyers the impression they got the "deal of the century".

As far as truth goes.... "The truth is out there" but truth doesn't always win the day, I think recent events in the world have proven that beyond doubt.

 

[Justiceinacan]

MERGED QUESTION
Question from Hootla1 : "How good is the AMD Ryzen 7?"

So obviously this new line of AMD CPU's have come out known as the Ryzen 7 series.

What I'd like to know is how good are they? Because AMD were always typically known for being substantially cheaper than Intel and the one I'm looking at here (1700X) is currently £389.99 which is over £50 more than the i7-7700K! Is it really that much better?

Thanks

Gaming wise? No. You're better off with the single core performance of the 7700k.

Doing anything really hard on the CPU, the Ryzen will benefit. Ex ; CPU intensive titles, video editing, server hosting, etc.

 

[thegentlewoman]

The battle has been started by Ryzen but years earlier by Intel with that illegal move ... happens in every country, it's the mafia of having contacts, knowing people and being power\money greedy. That simple. Rules say monopoly isn't good (as today), imagine a global monopoly or a national monopoly. Well we know it very well in my country for internet: we have one of the worse situation of the "developed world".

I wanna tell you this thing too: Prices of Ryzen might be part of a dumping, are they doing this for what reason? recover market share? (ok).
Are they going really razor like level of the cost they pay to produce those items?

I hope that people will accept it and buy in mass, (I will), because Intell will just check what is the reaction now by market adn already knows what is the performance of the new guys that entered the game, so they know already what might be the Market (demand) answer.
If quality we will buy at those prices, if not quality and all is hype we won't buy ...

There are new buyers coming in mass to be able to buy: Chinese, India ... (and I even not said all). Brasil is an other one, Africa I don't think it's considered even if China is a strong proxy there since 50 years at least (building infrastructure and even getting inside the cultural "stage").

At these prices I expect a regain of the share: MY "QUESTION" is, will AMD raise the prices once it has achieved the objectives (?) . Do you think this is possible?

 

[rgd1101]

MERGED QUESTION
Question from dgothi : "Ryzen 1800X or i7-7700"

I am going to use CPU for gaming and Graphic design/3D animation. which do you guys recommend - i7-7700k or Ryzen 1800x? explain? Thank you

Wait for real benchmarks and ask again.

Wait for real benchmarks and ask again.

Okay. that is fine. I can wait till benchmark result. thank you.

No one really knows as of today. But I hazard a guess that the i7 7700k will be better in gaming applications, and the Ryzen 7 1700x will be better in 3d animation and video rendering, all other hardware being equal. The earliest results might be skewed one way or the other but, here we have two sample Ryzen processors compared against many samples of the i7,

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X/3647vs3915

The single core performance of the i7 looks great compared to the Ryzen 7, which traditionally translates to better gaming performance. But the ryzen 7 has excellent multi core performance which usually translates to better 3d animation, and video rendering performance. Obviously there are a lot of factors to consider here. If you can, wait a month or two before making your decision, by then we'll have some Ryzen reviews to reference.

 

[thegentlewoman]

So if I get a PRime ASUS X370 Pro 100 and little more dollars, It says maximum 2600 mhz ddr. If I have a 3200 ddr, won't it work at 3200 unless I OC it?

 

[Redneck5439]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5w2wld/report_of_intel_offering_kickbacks_again/
A fair bit of conspiracy here again.
Also, article from WTFTECH:
http://wccftech.com/intel-amd-price-war-ryzen-processors/

If Intel is dropping prices as said, then does make a desperation move like the Intel vs. AMD lawsuit plausible once again....

Some of the price cuts really don't matter that much, such as the i7 6900K getting a price cut to $799.99 if the R7 1800X can outperform it at $499. However if Intel really wanted to they could down AMD by selling their processors at a loss long enough for AMD to fail. AMD has gambled everything on Ryzen, seems to have a winner, but Intel could still win by playing dirty. Intel is sitting on a virtual mountain of disposable cash that they have amassed over decades of price gouging the living **** out of their customers. They could easily afford to sell their processors at a loss until AMD goes under as AMD can't afford to do the same thing. Of course it is also possible that Intel is trying to clear out existing inventory of "older" processors in preparation of rolling out a whole new microarchitecture they may have been sitting on figuring it was more cost effective to just sell "modified" versions of what they already have and call it a new generation. And it is also possible that they will just keep their prices relatively high, use cherry picked benchmarks to show they are still ahead and "ride out" Ryzen the way they did back in the old Athlon days.

Another possibility is that AMD's Ryzen caught Intel as off guard as most experts. Most everyone, including me, thought Ryzen would have similar performance to Intel's Haswell architecture at best maybe roughly equal Skylake but Ryzen is shocking everyone and coming out of the gates swinging for Kaby Lake. Intel may have been caught with their "pants down" figuring Ryzen maybe will give Haswell a run for its money but would be no threat to their high end Kaby Lake processors. Now that Early benchmarks put Ryzen in striking distance of Kaby Lake Intel is having a "sale" to flood the market with its processors to ruin Ryzen's release. Anyone who buys an Intel processor on sale before Ryzen can release is one less person in the processor market and one less potential sale for AMD.

Whatever Intel is planning there is one clear fact- if Ryzen fails, AMD fails and I doubt can come back again. If Intel is the only player in the game they can, and definitely will charge whatever they feel like for their processors, and Intel are masters of price gouging.

 

[TechyInAZ]

So if I get a PRime ASUS X370 Pro 100 and little more dollars, It says maximum 2600 mhz ddr. If I have a 3200 ddr, won't it work at 3200 unless I OC it?

Stock (default) it won't run at 3200mhz. That's why you need to enable the overclocking profile (XMP) in the BIOS. All you need to do is enable that profile, you don't need to manually overclock it.

However, I'd run a memtest for a few hours to make sure it's stable. Reports are saying that the Ryzen memory controller is weaker than expected, it can't run 4 dimms at 2666mhz, the peak it's able to do is 3200mhz with 2 dimms.

Probably nothing, but I'd make sure just in case.

 

[8350rocks]

What a crazy time in CPUs. Hats off to you AMD, you have done the impossible. I've been busy and away from the forum for about 6 months now, but what a difference 6 months makes. Back just a few months ago we were all hoping for a 40% IPC increase over Steamroller, now AMD is claiming over 50% increase. We were all hoping Zen / now Ryzen, would be able to go toe to toe with the older Haswell, but now Ryzen is going toe to toe with Kaby Lake, who would have thought AMD could actually pull it off? As much as I like AMD I didn't think they had a chance to do basically the impossible, but all the early benchmarks show Ryzen is the game changer that no one really saw coming.

For anyone wondering about the gaming potential of the new Ryzen processors, this is really exciting:

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-i7-6900k-gaming-performance/

Now Ryzen hasn't released yet, and I always approach early benchmarking with skepticism, but every benchmark I've found is showing Ryzen samples benchmarking very well against Intel's high end Kaby Lake, and in this case Intel's 8 core 16 thread $1000+ best the Broadwell i7 6900K. It is beyond amazing that in one generation AMD hasn't closed the performance gap but for all appearances has regained the performance crown.

I had been telling people that I wouldn't buy Zen - now Ryzen - until it was in second generation, so AMD had time to work out any bugs and tweak the new arch, but it doesn't appear that AMD has any bugs to work out, I'm just hoping that the R7 1800X becomes available by March 3rd, looks like all the pre-orders are sold out already.

MicroCenter still has store pickup available, and B&H and Tiger Direct, and I believe NCIX still have pre-orders available.

AMD has said they have roughly 1 million CPUs that will hit retailers on launch day. That is not counting the boutique builders and OEMs. So, there should still be some pre-orders left.

 

[8350rocks]

So if I get a PRime ASUS X370 Pro 100 and little more dollars, It says maximum 2600 mhz ddr. If I have a 3200 ddr, won't it work at 3200 unless I OC it?

Stock (default) it won't run at 3200mhz. That's why you need to enable the overclocking profile (XMP) in the BIOS. All you need to do is enable that profile, you don't need to manually overclock it.

However, I'd run a memtest for a few hours to make sure it's stable. Reports are saying that the Ryzen memory controller is weaker than expected, it can't run 4 dimms at 2666mhz, the peak it's able to do is 3200mhz with 2 dimms.

Probably nothing, but I'd make sure just in case.

This is bad information. The AMD memory controller in SiSoft shows 33.9 GB/s with 16 GB DDR4-2133, which would have a theoretical maximum of 34.13 GB/s. Meanwhile, the 7700k gets 30 GB/s with the same RAM. Meaning that AMD's IMC is actually more efficient/powerful than Intel's IMC.

Reddit Link to SiSoft benchmarks: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5w4zr7/sisoft_benchmarks_begin_to_appear/

EDIT: The issue was the MB Bios was not setup to handle the higher clocked RAM timings properly. Gigabyte have already released a "day 1 patch" for the Bios to update for the newer speeds, as have Asus and Asrock. Cannot verify MSI or Biostar, but I would assume they would also follow suit as well.

Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5w4jhn/gigabyte_updates_gaming_5_bios_for_ddr4/