Discussion AMD Ryzen MegaThread! FAQ and Resources

[dgothi]

If that link is accurate, I wonder how the 1600X will stack up against the i7 7700k in terms of gaming value?

1600X - 6C/12T 3.6/4.0 = $250
i7-7700K - 4C/8T 4.2/4.5 = $350 + cooler

I guess the 1600X would be between the i3 and the 1700X

Just to be clarify. Does Ryzen CPU's run better on 1440p over 1080p in game?
-DG

 

[-Fran-]

Leave Ashes out of the average and take another look. Ashes is behaving as a heavy outlier.

Precisely.

Not true. The review says clearly that removing Ashes of the Singularity doesn't change the conclusion:

On average over the 13 games tested by ComputerBase, there is a difference of two percent, but in favor of Windows 10. This statement does not change if Ashes of the Singularity is deleted from the final result, which is significantly faster under Windows 10 than under Windows 7 due to DirectX 12.

Couldn't find that anywhere in the article. Not even in the German version...

Cheers!

 

[salgado18]

Take a look, link is down again:
http://i.imgur.com/UTHepzS.png
Original link:
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-announces-ryzen-series-5-with-six-and-four-core-processors-available-april-11.html
(Returns 404)

Looks like Juan's guess on the clockspeeds is accurate.

The clocks and models were presented a long time ago. What's new there are the prices and release date: April 11

1600X ($249) -> competes against i5-7600k ($240), 6c/12t vs 4c/4t, 3.6/4.0 GHz vs 3.8/4.2 GHz

I think the 1600X will trounce the 7600k, especially when CCX/threading issues are dealt with.


1400X ($189) -> competes against i5-7500 ($190) and i3-7350k ($185). i3 has no chance, but i5 has very close clocks, without HT. Could be a close match.


#anxious

 

[Nope 1151]

All we can do is wait now......
Keep the hype train on slowest speed.

 

[juanrga]

If that link is accurate, I wonder how the 1600X will stack up against the i7 7700k in terms of gaming value?

1600X - 6C/12T 3.6/4.0 = $250
i7-7700K - 4C/8T 4.2/4.5 = $350 + cooler

I guess the 1600X would be between the i3 and the 1700X

Just to be clarify. Does Ryzen CPU's run better on 1440p over 1080p in game?
-DG

 

[juanrga]

Leave Ashes out of the average and take another look. Ashes is behaving as a heavy outlier.

Precisely.

Not true. The review says clearly that removing Ashes of the Singularity doesn't change the conclusion:

On average over the 13 games tested by ComputerBase, there is a difference of two percent, but in favor of Windows 10. This statement does not change if Ashes of the Singularity is deleted from the final result, which is significantly faster under Windows 10 than under Windows 7 due to DirectX 12.

Couldn't find that anywhere in the article. Not even in the German version...

It is just there in the article...

 

[jaymc]

Adored Tv Ryzen review.

This is a very good review guy's check it out... He waited until the dust settled before doing his review, monitored discussions an debates that were going on. Very well informed an up to date info.

He does a Core Complex Test on Cinebench I think, an it show's some strange results:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0fgy4rKWhk

 

[James Mason]

I would love to be able to contribute more to this discussion with my own personal experiences with my ryzen R7 1700, that I have in my hand.

BUT!

I ordered an MSI X370 Pro Carbon mobo on Amazon 20 days ago and have heard zero shipping updates about it.

I contacted a few times, all they've been able to give me is 1-day shipping and $10 off my next order.

Now the board I want is out of stock everywhere, so canceling and trying to get it somewhere else is unlikely. There also aren't any good local tech stores in my area beyond a Best Buy.

I have everything to build a brand new ryzen computer, except the motherboard, so I can't even START building it.
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD RYZEN 7 1700 3.0GHz 8-Core Processor (Purchased For $329.00)
CPU Cooler: MSI CORE FROZR L 71.3 CFM CPU Cooler (Purchased For $49.99)
Thermal Compound: Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut 1g 1g Thermal Paste (Purchased For $8.95)
Motherboard: MSI X370 GAMING PRO CARBON ATX AM4 Motherboard (Purchased For $179.99)
Memory: G.Skill TridentZ RGB 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3200 Memory (Purchased For $171.59)
Storage: Crucial MX300 275GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive (Purchased For $89.99)
Storage: Western Digital BLACK SERIES 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive (Purchased For $74.99)
Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 8GB FTW Gaming ACX 3.0 Video Card (Purchased For $594.89)
Case: NZXT S340 (Black/Red) ATX Mid Tower Case (Purchased For $59.99)
Power Supply: SeaSonic G 550W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply (Purchased For $69.99)
Case Fan: Thermaltake Riing 12 RGB Triple Pack 40.6 CFM 120mm Fans (Purchased For $56.99)
Total: $1686.36
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-03-15 20:59 EDT-0400

 

[gamerk316]

Just to be clarify. Does Ryzen CPU's run better on 1440p over 1080p in game?
-DG

Ryzen performance comparatively better at 1440p because the GPU becomes the primary bottleneck. It's still slower on average, you just can't notice because the GPU becomes the slowest component, rather then the CPU.

 

[Nope 1151]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWdhLXl5a5s

 

[eathdemon1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWdhLXl5a5s

barley doing 120 fps in overwatch is concerning. I am doing 150ish fps in overwatch on a i5 6600k granted oced to 4.4. this is where we are gunna see the fact that ryzen is being pushed to its limit clock speed wise is gunna play in.

 

[AlexTheRoot]

Could owner of 1700/1700X/1800X test CPU using Indigo Bench? Here is link:
https://www.indigorenderer.com/indigobench
Unfortunately uploading isn't working right now, please post result here.

I can do that today. I have AMD Ryzen 7 1700 Will run it then let you know.

Thanks! Waiting impatiently!

here is result after benchmark on my PC.
https://goo.gl/photos/DaKwc35Dot8vHJQi7

-DG

Thank you a lot!

 

[juanrga]

Take a look, link is down again:
http://i.imgur.com/UTHepzS.png
Original link:
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-announces-ryzen-series-5-with-six-and-four-core-processors-available-april-11.html
(Returns 404)

Looks like Juan's guess on the clockspeeds is accurate.

The clocks and models were presented a long time ago. What's new there are the prices and release date: April 11

1600X ($249) -> competes against i5-7600k ($240), 6c/12t vs 4c/4t, 3.6/4.0 GHz vs 3.8/4.2 GHz

I think the 1600X will trounce the 7600k, especially when CCX/threading issues are dealt with.

1400X ($189) -> competes against i5-7500 ($190) and i3-7350k ($185). i3 has no chance, but i5 has very close clocks, without HT. Could be a close match.

My prediction of clocks was made much before any leak or official info...

The 1800X is behind the i5-7600k. How could the 1600X trounce the i5 with 2 cores less?

There is no 1400X. I guess you mean the 1500X. How the i3 "has no chance" when it is close to the 1700X with the double of cores?

 

[jwcrellin]

There should be better drivers and bios by the time ryzen 5 launches.

 

[gamerk316]

There should be better drivers and bios by the time ryzen 5 launches.

Same arguments we had after the BD launch. There's only so much software can do to optimize a hardware architecture.

Seriously people, Zen has been in incubation, what, three years? I'd imagine AMD had the BIOS/Drivers in a pretty good state given how long they were developing the hard\ware. It's not like they waited for the hardware design to launch before deciding to work on the software for crying out loud.

 

[randomizer]

Based on the quote from an uncredited board manufacturer in this article they may well have done that: http://www.legitreviews.com/one-motherboard-maker-explains-why-amd-am4-boards-are-missing_192470

 

[juanrga]

Confirmed by AMD. The new chips are 3+3 and 2+2

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11202/amd-announces-ryzen-5-april-11th

Anandtech makes a pair of performance estimations. For instance they place the top 6-core Ryzen just behind the i7-7700k on multithreaded benches. This just agrees with what we have been awaiting for the 6C RyZen since before launch

 

[-Fran-]

It is just there in the article...

I still can't find it, lol. I can't be that blind, can I? xD

There should be better drivers and bios by the time ryzen 5 launches.

Same arguments we had after the BD launch. There's only so much software can do to optimize a hardware architecture.

Seriously people, Zen has been in incubation, what, three years? I'd imagine AMD had the BIOS/Drivers in a pretty good state given how long they were developing the hard\ware. It's not like they waited for the hardware design to launch before deciding to work on the software for crying out loud.

Caveat: Zen is not Bulldozer at launch. That is a very important distinction to make.

The performance differences are not stark enough to make or say Zen (as a uArch) is a failure like we all did when BD appeared.

Also, all CPU makers have had issues with their CPUs introducing new uArchs. I still remember Sandy having a lot of issues with freezing and the infamous B-revision for the chipset as well.

I do understand why you're mentioning it, but it's also important to put into context that Zen is not BD all over again.

Based on the quote from an uncredited board manufacturer in this article they may well have done that: http://www.legitreviews.com/one-motherboard-maker-explains-why-amd-am4-boards-are-missing_192470

Makes sense and I hope they start putting MoBos on the shelves soon. People is not that patient. Specially with a Microcenter near *_______*

Confirmed by AMD. The new chips are 3+3 and 2+2

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11202/amd-announces-ryzen-5-april-11th

Anandtech makes a pair of performance estimations. For instance they place the top 6-core Ryzen just behind the i7-7700k on multithreaded benches. This just agrees with what we have been awaiting for the 6C RyZen since before launch

Spoiler

Interesting. Making the 4C versions 2+2 (only) seems dumb. I wonder why they'd do that... A pure 4+0 arrangement would be a better purchase if there's a choice. Could they be saving them for something? I mean, the error should be comparable for die harvesting, right? As in, the chance of getting a full CCX inteact with just 1 or 2 other cores defective is just as big as getting 1 and 1, right? xD

Oh welp, I wonder if AMD is being straight forward here.

Cheers!

 

[Eximo]

They could be saving such chips for the APU line. There it would make more sense in terms of saving room for GPU cores.

 

[BudgetBoy]

So the 6c 12t CPUs are essentially 2 tri-core dual-threaded processors smashed together with a lot of latency between them?

If that's the case, I would much rather have singular, full quad-core with no threading, faster clock, and faster IPC any day of the week.

 

[-Fran-]

They could be saving such chips for the APU line. There it would make more sense in terms of saving room for GPU cores.

No, the dies they harvest would effectively be 8C defective ones. AFAIK and adding intuition to this, they'll be using a separate production line for the APUs; as in, APUs are their own thing and don't share fab line with the 8C CPUs.

Still, I don't have any insight, so salt is advised, lol.

So the 6c 12t CPUs are essentially 2 tri-core dual-threaded processors smashed together with a lot of latency between them?

If that's the case, I would much rather have singular, full quad-core with no threading, faster clock, and faster IPC any day of the week.

Depending on the workload, you might be better off with a 3+3 then a 4+0 config. Broadly speaking, 3+3 should behave equally or better than a 4+0 in lightly threaded apps and better in highly threaded ones. If the scheduler starts bouncing threads around and you're very unlucky, then 4+0 might be better, but that would be a very unlucky scenario xD

That is even assuming we'll see 4+0 configs.

Cheers!

 

[juanrga]

Interesting. Making the 4C versions 2+2 (only) seems dumb. I wonder why they'd do that... A pure 4+0 arrangement would be a better purchase if there's a choice. Could they be saving them for something? I mean, the error should be comparable for die harvesting, right? As in, the chance of getting a full CCX inteact with just 1 or 2 other cores defective is just as big as getting 1 and 1, right? xD

From a pure combinatorial point of view there are many more ways to get 2+2 than 4+0. It seems evident that AMD prefers to offer a product with less performance but obtain higher benefit from reusing more ZP dies.

 

[Eximo]

They could be saving such chips for the APU line. There it would make more sense in terms of saving room for GPU cores.

No, the dies they harvest would effectively be 8C defective ones. AFAIK and adding intuition to this, they'll be using a separate production line for the APUs; as in, APUs are their own thing and don't share fab line with the 8C CPUs.

Still, I don't have any insight, so salt is advised, lol.

So the 6c 12t CPUs are essentially 2 tri-core dual-threaded processors smashed together with a lot of latency between them?

If that's the case, I would much rather have singular, full quad-core with no threading, faster clock, and faster IPC any day of the week.

Depending on the workload, you might be better off with a 3+3 then a 4+0 config. Broadly speaking, 3+3 should behave equally or better than a 4+0 in lightly threaded apps and better in highly threaded ones. If the scheduler starts bouncing threads around and you're very unlucky, then 4+0 might be better, but that would be a very unlucky scenario xD

That is even assuming we'll see 4+0 configs.

Cheers!

I hope they are testing each CCX before assembly into modules, not really sure how they put them together or if the entire thing is made as a wafer? Wouldn't make sense to me.

8C + GPU cores = Top of the line APU?

 

[thegentlewoman]

What about this graph folks:
(credit to AdoredTV)

Testing processors at low resolutions is not an indicator of future performance period

Hummm! A FX-8350 beating an i5-2500k in games? Well, I suppose that is possible if one cherry pick games and select only those that scale to 8 threads. Here we have the result of extensive gaming testing

FX-8370 is beated by i3s and Pentiums. There is no i5-2500k tested, but it seems evident that it will be not 50% slower than the i5-6600k

Nice article explaining why avoiding a GPU bottleneck is so important for testing and understanding CPU performance

http://www.techspot.com/news/68407-tackling-subject-gpu-bottlenecking-cpu-gaming-benchmarks-using.html

With the recent video going on twitter (official) with Lisa Su, it's very clear that the purpose is to hit with a "short blade" the market competitor and "nest in" that niche were "we are lower then 10 to 20% and most of the things we do it better plus there are a lot of tweaks to be done (RAM freq. wink wink)" ... so they make people choose to spend 100 to 500 dollars more to have a little 30 fps or other calculation 10\20 seconds (in a few cases) faster then Zen?

That is the point. Zen is not about being the best is about wounding the opponent (that is the effect it will come out, like the legionaries of roman empire sorry for the funny metaphor)... a massive product that will ask for a move in reponse by intel (OR MAYBE NOT!). And Intel or other competitor surely have a move in the sleeve.

Anyway, we are not considering also often the prices of the MOBO prices requested to build those intel based configs. so...really What we are talking about here?

Maybe Intell will move into Hyper miniaturization, all built in one Aio? is it called so? Total portability, will try to hit Amd or in general the market by moving the fight on the GFX or anyway graphic gaming territory.

The placement of the product just "below" Intel is clearly even for a donkey of marketing or business administration a clear killer ...

 

[salgado18]

Spoiler

Take a look, link is down again:
http://i.imgur.com/UTHepzS.png
Original link:
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-announces-ryzen-series-5-with-six-and-four-core-processors-available-april-11.html
(Returns 404)

Looks like Juan's guess on the clockspeeds is accurate.

The clocks and models were presented a long time ago. What's new there are the prices and release date: April 11

1600X ($249) -> competes against i5-7600k ($240), 6c/12t vs 4c/4t, 3.6/4.0 GHz vs 3.8/4.2 GHz

I think the 1600X will trounce the 7600k, especially when CCX/threading issues are dealt with.

1500X ($189) -> competes against i5-7500 ($190) and i3-7350k ($185). i3 has no chance, but i5 has very close clocks, without HT. Could be a close match.

My prediction of clocks was made much before any leak or official info...

The 1800X is behind the i5-7600k. How could the 1600X trounce the i5 with 2 cores less?

There is no 1400X. I guess you mean the 1500X. How the i3 "has no chance" when it is close to the 1700X with the double of cores?

Yes, I mean the 1500X, thanks

The i3 is close to the 1700X in unoptimized games. Everything else and the 1700X matches or beats Intel's quad cores. Life's not just games, you know. And would you buy a 4c/8t CPU that is good in almost anything, or a 2c/4t CPU that does only one thing well?