Discussion AMD Ryzen MegaThread! FAQ and Resources

[Gon Freecss]

Just so others know the Wall is real 1.425V fails at 4.0Ghz during testing but at 3.8Ghz i'm running at 1.3V just fine.

I ran at 1.425V as a suicide voltage as i would not run above that.

It's relatively safe to run the chip at 1.45V. Try it at that voltage.

Based on my testing at such settings i'd be at 4.0Ghz stable but it would result in 65-75C temps during benchmarks and pushing max temps for stress tests. Where 3.8 results in 50C temps at 1.3V running benchmarks and 55-60C during stress tests.

3.9Ghz is probably were i will end up. As i'm a fan of cooler temps.

What's your chip?

Ryzen 1700 with B350 TOMAHAWK I'm not 100% sure what voltage to use at max as the videos i saw from the MSI trip said 1.425V max while others say 1.45V and some even say as low as 1.35V. It's probably safe to say its to early and even Amd doesn't know what voltage to use at max. But i plan on keeping this CPU until at least Zen+ or Zen2 but i don't think i'll keep it past 5 years that is pushing it for me.

Plus i like having lower voltage so that means less heat and then less noise.

Well, AMD says 1.45V is the max voltage they'd recommend. 1.35V for longevity.

People need to stop saying that the X variant Ryzen chips are useless. They overclock better at lower voltages on average.

 

[jdwii]

Just so others know the Wall is real 1.425V fails at 4.0Ghz during testing but at 3.8Ghz i'm running at 1.3V just fine.

I ran at 1.425V as a suicide voltage as i would not run above that.

It's relatively safe to run the chip at 1.45V. Try it at that voltage.

Based on my testing at such settings i'd be at 4.0Ghz stable but it would result in 65-75C temps during benchmarks and pushing max temps for stress tests. Where 3.8 results in 50C temps at 1.3V running benchmarks and 55-60C during stress tests.

3.9Ghz is probably were i will end up. As i'm a fan of cooler temps.

What's your chip?

Ryzen 1700 with B350 TOMAHAWK I'm not 100% sure what voltage to use at max as the videos i saw from the MSI trip said 1.425V max while others say 1.45V and some even say as low as 1.35V. It's probably safe to say its to early and even Amd doesn't know what voltage to use at max. But i plan on keeping this CPU until at least Zen+ or Zen2 but i don't think i'll keep it past 5 years that is pushing it for me.

Plus i like having lower voltage so that means less heat and then less noise.

Well, AMD says 1.45V is the max voltage they'd recommend. 1.35V for longevity.

People need to stop saying that the X variant Ryzen chips are useless. They overclock better at lower voltages on average.

X CPU's are not useless but its not gurrenteed that one will get that extra 200mhz of overclocking room. One thing i will say is once Amd gets better and better yields the 1700X and 1800X will probably get better in terms of overclocking.

Just for us overclockers who don't care about 100-200mhz extra speed see no reason to buy anything more. Hey if i had the money i probably would have bought the 1700X or 1800X haha but this is by far my hobby no logical reason to do so.

Now the R5 1600 i'd recommend for most over the 1600X heck even if you are going to buy a after market cooler you save 30$ and can get a cooler master 212+ or in today day in age a CRYORIG H7 for the same cost as a 1600x.

 

[jaymc]

Here is a link to the AMD forums where I started a thread about infinity fabric. RAM latency was also tested for potential benefits. You might be able to answer some of your questions with the test they ran there. https://community.amd.com/message/2790538#comment-2790538

Excellent stuff, Great idea, fair play...

Huge difference's in performance, I can't wait to see what the CAS 10 is like.
Which 2400 CAS 10 are you refering to btw, Can you specify a brand or a link pls ? I presume it's expensive..

Microcode update is due out sometime this month an will add over 20 new memory registers that will allow compatibility with existing Intel friendly DDR4 RAM.
Read more: http://www.tweaktown.com/news/57410/amd-ryzen-microcode-update-improved-ddr4-support/index.html
It seem's there is plenty of untapped juice left in Ryzen.

Can't help wondering how far the Infinity Fabric can be pushed...
Increasing the speed the Core's talk to everything (can't wait see the impact Vega's has linked directly into the fabric)...

The x390 & x399 looking very interesting at the moment especially with quad channel ram an lot more pci express lanes allocated to the GPU's.. Looks like CrossFire may run better on these boards with a full 16 lanes allocated to each slot. Can't wait to see pricing... I suppose they will probably be mad money. I guess well find out soon enough.

 

[goldstone77]

Here is a link to the AMD forums where I started a thread about infinity fabric. RAM latency was also tested for potential benefits. You might be able to answer some of your questions with the test they ran there. https://community.amd.com/message/2790538#comment-2790538

Excellent stuff, Great idea, fair play...

Huge difference's in performance, I can't wait to see what the CAS 10 is like.
Which 2400 CAS 10 are you refering to btw, Can you specify a brand or a link pls ? I presume it's expensive..

When is the new microcode update coming out ?
It seem's there is plenty of untapped juice left in Ryzen.

Can't help wondering how far the Infinity Fabric can be pushed...
Increasing the speed the Core's talk to everything (can't wait see the impact Vega's has linked directly into the fabric)...

The x390 & x399 looking very interesting at the moment especially with quad channel ram an lot more pci express lanes allocated to the GPU's.. Looks like CrossFire will run better on these boards with a full 16 lanes allocated to each slot. Can't wait to see pricing... an hopefully a 12 core cpu available (or less even). I suppose they will probably be mad money. I guess well find out soon enough.

Originally, I was asking if anyone had tried this RAM in the AMD thread. It was the only CAS 10 RAM I could find. I wanted to get as many independent testers as I could. I'm sure you could overclock it, and with those tight timings it would be extremely responsive. Ultimately, CAS latency appeared to have a consistent impact on performance as opposed to frequency, which had an increasing impact on performance the higher it went.

"I have compiled the results below in a table. Overall I gained 15% in my fps by taking the memory from 2133MHz to 3200MHz. Interestingly, the gains from 2667MHz to 3200MHz were approximately double those from 2133MHz to 2667MHz, despite an identical 533MHz increase. Does this mean increasing returns as the frequency gets higher? The plot thickens."

"I ran the Gears4 benchmark at the three frequencies again, but with timings of 16-18-18-18-36. I will display the results in a table below. On average, going from 16-18-18-18-36 to 14-16-16-16-36 increased fps by 5% (max 8% at 2133MHz) regardless of frequency."

https://community.amd.com/message/2790538#comment-2790538

CORSAIR Dominator Platinum 16GB (2 x 8GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 2400
DDR4 2400 (PC4 19200)
Timing 10-12-12-28
Cas Latency 10
Voltage 1.35V
$184.99
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233999

 

[jdwii]

Spoiler

Here is a link to the AMD forums where I started a thread about infinity fabric. RAM latency was also tested for potential benefits. You might be able to answer some of your questions with the test they ran there. https://community.amd.com/message/2790538#comment-2790538

Excellent stuff, Great idea, fair play...

Huge difference's in performance, I can't wait to see what the CAS 10 is like.
Which 2400 CAS 10 are you refering to btw, Can you specify a brand or a link pls ? I presume it's expensive..

When is the new microcode update coming out ?
It seem's there is plenty of untapped juice left in Ryzen.

Can't help wondering how far the Infinity Fabric can be pushed...
Increasing the speed the Core's talk to everything (can't wait see the impact Vega's has linked directly into the fabric)...

The x390 & x399 looking very interesting at the moment especially with quad channel ram an lot more pci express lanes allocated to the GPU's.. Looks like CrossFire will run better on these boards with a full 16 lanes allocated to each slot. Can't wait to see pricing... an hopefully a 12 core cpu available (or less even). I suppose they will probably be mad money. I guess well find out soon enough.

Originally, I was asking if anyone had tried this RAM in the AMD thread. It was the only CAS 10 RAM I could find. I wanted to get as many independent testers as I could. I'm sure you could overclock it, and with those tight timings it would be extremely responsive. Ultimately, CAS latency appeared to have a consistent impact on performance as opposed to frequency, which had an increasing impact on performance the higher it went.

"I have compiled the results below in a table. Overall I gained 15% in my fps by taking the memory from 2133MHz to 3200MHz. Interestingly, the gains from 2667MHz to 3200MHz were approximately double those from 2133MHz to 2667MHz, despite an identical 533MHz increase. Does this mean increasing returns as the frequency gets higher? The plot thickens."

"I ran the Gears4 benchmark at the three frequencies again, but with timings of 16-18-18-18-36. I will display the results in a table below. On average, going from 16-18-18-18-36 to 14-16-16-16-36 increased fps by 5% (max 8% at 2133MHz) regardless of frequency."

https://community.amd.com/message/2790538#comment-2790538

CORSAIR Dominator Platinum 16GB (2 x 8GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 2400
DDR4 2400 (PC4 19200)
Timing 10-12-12-28
Cas Latency 10
Voltage 1.35V
$184.99
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233999

Went to find the link and he is just using a R9 fury according to tests i've seen a higher-end GPU needs higher speed memory even more.

 

[jaymc]

Sorry I read the thread wrong mate nobody has this ram I guess. looks like there could be vast impovements with though..

 

[juanrga]

As mentioned before, increasing RAM frequency helps both brands or help none. RyZen gets little more gains than other chips because of the link between RAM speed and Infinity Fabric speed, but this doesn't mean that non-RyZen chips don't get performance improvements on memory bound workloads. I have given ARMA III and FO4 examples before, now I will provide more examples

We can observe the same effect on latency-sensitive applications

but the lack of such one effect on throughput-optimized workloads

 

[jdwii]

I’m sure no one in their right mind is saying Ryzen is better than kabylake in single core performance if anything I personally think Ryzen is much closer to haswell than any other CPU from Intel in terms of performance per cycle.

I've ran as many tests as I could and I keep getting around haswell figures its ahead of sandy-ivy and beats the crap out of a sandy-bridge chip in a dual core sensitive benchmark like Dolphin emulator but it doesn't get that extra boost haswell gets in that test.

I tested several open world (CPU intensive) games and Ryzen excels well in them these games are Fallout 4 which I put 120+ hours into with my haswell chip and coming to ryzen feels about the same if not better. GTA5 is about haswell level, dying light does really well(80+FPS). Now I still think these older games do not see ryzen correctly and that is why ryzen is exceling really well in recent titles where the developer had actual access to the processor(games that came out in the last month).
If I had to claim what Ryzen is I’d say it’s a Haswell like processor with up to 8 cores but with a more limited overclocking potential. Then again this is when pairing it with high speed memory.

I said it before but the future is multicore gaming the 6900K is starting to meet or beat a 5Ghz 7700K we all know single core performance is hitting the wall or limit that one can get

I debated with some at this site and I said if Amd even got ivy IPC at a lower clock speed I would call ryzen a success but instead I personally think we got haswell level with more obviously 3.8-4.0Ghz speed. Since it’s just a new architecture I call that a huge success.
Now I’m not saying Amd is going to BUT Ryzen 2 or whatever could always go wider to the core using a 4AGU + 4ALU design once they can actually get to global foundries pseudo 7nm size meaning even more single core performance, sorry but I still hate global foundries


I'll edit and say Ryzen is no POS bulldozer in terms of single core performance man i don't think any of us will forget about that terrible CPU. Most of us Amd fans kept wishing for a 8 core Phenom at the time haha

 

[cdrkf]

I’m sure no one in their right mind is saying Ryzen is better than kabylake in single core performance if anything I personally think Ryzen is much closer to haswell than any other CPU from Intel in terms of performance per cycle.

I've ran as many tests as I could and I keep getting around haswell figures its ahead of sandy-ivy and beats the crap out of a sandy-bridge chip in a dual core sensitive benchmark like Dolphin emulator but it doesn't get that extra boost haswell gets in that test.

I tested several open world (CPU intensive) games and Ryzen excels well in them these games are Fallout 4 which I put 120+ hours into with my haswell chip and coming to ryzen feels about the same if not better. GTA5 is about haswell level, dying light does really well(80+FPS). Now I still think these older games do not see ryzen correctly and that is why ryzen is exceling really well in recent titles where the developer had actual access to the processor(games that came out in the last month).
If I had to claim what Ryzen is I’d say it’s a Haswell like processor with up to 8 cores but with a more limited overclocking potential. Then again this is when pairing it with high speed memory.

I said it before but the future is multicore gaming the 6900K is starting to meet or beat a 5Ghz 7700K we all know single core performance is hitting the wall or limit that one can get

I debated with some at this site and I said if Amd even got ivy IPC at a lower clock speed I would call ryzen a success but instead I personally think we got haswell level with more obviously 3.8-4.0Ghz speed. Since it’s just a new architecture I call that a huge success.
Now I’m not saying Amd is going to BUT Ryzen 2 or whatever could always go wider to the core using a 4AGU + 4ALU design once they can actually get to global foundries pseudo 7nm size meaning even more single core performance, sorry but I still hate global foundries


I'll edit and say Ryzen is no POS bulldozer in terms of single core performance man i don't think any of us will forget about that terrible CPU. Most of us Amd fans kept wishing for a 8 core Phenom at the time haha

Well I think that is essentially what we got Ryzen strikes me as positioned very similarly to Thuban (Phenom II X6) back in the day- it offered a genuine advantage over Intel at the price point in well threaded work. Performed nicely in games and had decent (albeit slightly lower) performance in single thread bound applications. If anything I'd say Ryzen is arguably slightly stronger than Phenom II was- as Ryzen has a few strong points where it is core for core *faster* out the box than Intel when you look at certain video encoding / rendering tasks. Phenom II could beet the original Core i7 quads but couldn't actually beat out the (lone) hex core part Intel had back then. Now I'm sure someone will point out that Ryzen is slower core for core than Broadwell E (it beats it thanks to a clock speed advantage- albeit a small one) however you do have to acknowledge that out the box both processors use about the same amount of power, have the same core count and Ryzen is the faster of the two- this is no FX 9590 220w power hog.

I really don't see how anyone could have expected much more from AMD on this one. Also it's worth noting to all the 'games wont use moar cores' that games *are* using more cores- and the recent re review of Phenom II backs up what I've been saying for a while- that CPU can still (just) about handle modern games. Not bad given it's age- whereas Phenom II x4s are just too long in the tooth (the most demanding games need the extra couple of threads). I am curious as to why Phenom II X6 falls flat in DX12- it must rely on a function not available in Thubans instruction set (Thuban does lack full SSE3 support apparently- it only has partial so that could be the issue). I'd be interested if someone has an old X6 to find out if it gains anything in Vulkan if anyone has a copy of DOOM?

The point of all that is though that I think it's worth keeping in mind- buying a 6 or even 8 core Ryzen chip now should last you a good long time. Titles do use more threads over time- I can see a Ryzen 8 core part still being a viable gaming cpu in 5+ years just like Phenom II.

 

[gamerk316]

I’m sure no one in their right mind is saying Ryzen is better than kabylake in single core performance if anything I personally think Ryzen is much closer to haswell than any other CPU from Intel in terms of performance per cycle.

I've ran as many tests as I could and I keep getting around haswell figures its ahead of sandy-ivy and beats the crap out of a sandy-bridge chip in a dual core sensitive benchmark like Dolphin emulator but it doesn't get that extra boost haswell gets in that test.

I tested several open world (CPU intensive) games and Ryzen excels well in them these games are Fallout 4 which I put 120+ hours into with my haswell chip and coming to ryzen feels about the same if not better. GTA5 is about haswell level, dying light does really well(80+FPS). Now I still think these older games do not see ryzen correctly and that is why ryzen is exceling really well in recent titles where the developer had actual access to the processor(games that came out in the last month).
If I had to claim what Ryzen is I’d say it’s a Haswell like processor with up to 8 cores but with a more limited overclocking potential. Then again this is when pairing it with high speed memory.

I said it before but the future is multicore gaming the 6900K is starting to meet or beat a 5Ghz 7700K we all know single core performance is hitting the wall or limit that one can get

I debated with some at this site and I said if Amd even got ivy IPC at a lower clock speed I would call ryzen a success but instead I personally think we got haswell level with more obviously 3.8-4.0Ghz speed. Since it’s just a new architecture I call that a huge success.
Now I’m not saying Amd is going to BUT Ryzen 2 or whatever could always go wider to the core using a 4AGU + 4ALU design once they can actually get to global foundries pseudo 7nm size meaning even more single core performance, sorry but I still hate global foundries


I'll edit and say Ryzen is no POS bulldozer in terms of single core performance man i don't think any of us will forget about that terrible CPU. Most of us Amd fans kept wishing for a 8 core Phenom at the time haha

Well I think that is essentially what we got Ryzen strikes me as positioned very similarly to Thuban (Phenom II X6) back in the day- it offered a genuine advantage over Intel at the price point in well threaded work. Performed nicely in games and had decent (albeit slightly lower) performance in single thread bound applications. If anything I'd say Ryzen is arguably slightly stronger than Phenom II was- as Ryzen has a few strong points where it is core for core *faster* out the box than Intel when you look at certain video encoding / rendering tasks. Phenom II could beet the original Core i7 quads but couldn't actually beat out the (lone) hex core part Intel had back then. Now I'm sure someone will point out that Ryzen is slower core for core than Broadwell E (it beats it thanks to a clock speed advantage- albeit a small one) however you do have to acknowledge that out the box both processors use about the same amount of power, have the same core count and Ryzen is the faster of the two- this is no FX 9590 220w power hog.

I really don't see how anyone could have expected much more from AMD on this one. Also it's worth noting to all the 'games wont use moar cores' that games *are* using more cores- and the recent re review of Phenom II backs up what I've been saying for a while- that CPU can still (just) about handle modern games. Not bad given it's age- whereas Phenom II x4s are just too long in the tooth (the most demanding games need the extra couple of threads). I am curious as to why Phenom II X6 falls flat in DX12- it must rely on a function not available in Thubans instruction set (Thuban does lack full SSE3 support apparently- it only has partial so that could be the issue). I'd be interested if someone has an old X6 to find out if it gains anything in Vulkan if anyone has a copy of DOOM?

The point of all that is though that I think it's worth keeping in mind- buying a 6 or even 8 core Ryzen chip now should last you a good long time. Titles do use more threads over time- I can see a Ryzen 8 core part still being a viable gaming cpu in 5+ years just like Phenom II.

You can apply this same line of thinking to a 2600k, or even an i7 920 (which holds up surprisingly well).

Just saying, we're long past the days where you needed to upgrade the CPU every other year. CPUs that are "good enough" will remain so for long periods of time.

 

[juanrga]

Well I think that is essentially what we got Ryzen strikes me as positioned very similarly to Thuban (Phenom II X6) back in the day- it offered a genuine advantage over Intel at the price point in well threaded work. Performed nicely in games and had decent (albeit slightly lower) performance in single thread bound applications. If anything I'd say Ryzen is arguably slightly stronger than Phenom II was- as Ryzen has a few strong points where it is core for core *faster* out the box than Intel when you look at certain video encoding / rendering tasks. Phenom II could beet the original Core i7 quads but couldn't actually beat out the (lone) hex core part Intel had back then. Now I'm sure someone will point out that Ryzen is slower core for core than Broadwell E (it beats it thanks to a clock speed advantage- albeit a small one) however you do have to acknowledge that out the box both processors use about the same amount of power, have the same core count and Ryzen is the faster of the two- this is no FX 9590 220w power hog.

At stock settings, it is "the faster of the two" in some benches; overall it is a tie or even a net loss depending of what applications are used to compute the average performance.

 

[-Sapphire-]

Not so long ago we've encountered problems with virtualization on Ryzen platform especially when dealing with old OSs such as WinXP and old software for it. I think it would be good to add to thread topic that Ryzen currently have such problems. I hope will be solved in future because many people thinking about choosing Ryzen as Virtualization Host.

 

[cdrkf]

I’m sure no one in their right mind is saying Ryzen is better than kabylake in single core performance if anything I personally think Ryzen is much closer to haswell than any other CPU from Intel in terms of performance per cycle.

I've ran as many tests as I could and I keep getting around haswell figures its ahead of sandy-ivy and beats the crap out of a sandy-bridge chip in a dual core sensitive benchmark like Dolphin emulator but it doesn't get that extra boost haswell gets in that test.

I tested several open world (CPU intensive) games and Ryzen excels well in them these games are Fallout 4 which I put 120+ hours into with my haswell chip and coming to ryzen feels about the same if not better. GTA5 is about haswell level, dying light does really well(80+FPS). Now I still think these older games do not see ryzen correctly and that is why ryzen is exceling really well in recent titles where the developer had actual access to the processor(games that came out in the last month).
If I had to claim what Ryzen is I’d say it’s a Haswell like processor with up to 8 cores but with a more limited overclocking potential. Then again this is when pairing it with high speed memory.

I said it before but the future is multicore gaming the 6900K is starting to meet or beat a 5Ghz 7700K we all know single core performance is hitting the wall or limit that one can get

I debated with some at this site and I said if Amd even got ivy IPC at a lower clock speed I would call ryzen a success but instead I personally think we got haswell level with more obviously 3.8-4.0Ghz speed. Since it’s just a new architecture I call that a huge success.
Now I’m not saying Amd is going to BUT Ryzen 2 or whatever could always go wider to the core using a 4AGU + 4ALU design once they can actually get to global foundries pseudo 7nm size meaning even more single core performance, sorry but I still hate global foundries


I'll edit and say Ryzen is no POS bulldozer in terms of single core performance man i don't think any of us will forget about that terrible CPU. Most of us Amd fans kept wishing for a 8 core Phenom at the time haha

Well I think that is essentially what we got Ryzen strikes me as positioned very similarly to Thuban (Phenom II X6) back in the day- it offered a genuine advantage over Intel at the price point in well threaded work. Performed nicely in games and had decent (albeit slightly lower) performance in single thread bound applications. If anything I'd say Ryzen is arguably slightly stronger than Phenom II was- as Ryzen has a few strong points where it is core for core *faster* out the box than Intel when you look at certain video encoding / rendering tasks. Phenom II could beet the original Core i7 quads but couldn't actually beat out the (lone) hex core part Intel had back then. Now I'm sure someone will point out that Ryzen is slower core for core than Broadwell E (it beats it thanks to a clock speed advantage- albeit a small one) however you do have to acknowledge that out the box both processors use about the same amount of power, have the same core count and Ryzen is the faster of the two- this is no FX 9590 220w power hog.

I really don't see how anyone could have expected much more from AMD on this one. Also it's worth noting to all the 'games wont use moar cores' that games *are* using more cores- and the recent re review of Phenom II backs up what I've been saying for a while- that CPU can still (just) about handle modern games. Not bad given it's age- whereas Phenom II x4s are just too long in the tooth (the most demanding games need the extra couple of threads). I am curious as to why Phenom II X6 falls flat in DX12- it must rely on a function not available in Thubans instruction set (Thuban does lack full SSE3 support apparently- it only has partial so that could be the issue). I'd be interested if someone has an old X6 to find out if it gains anything in Vulkan if anyone has a copy of DOOM?

The point of all that is though that I think it's worth keeping in mind- buying a 6 or even 8 core Ryzen chip now should last you a good long time. Titles do use more threads over time- I can see a Ryzen 8 core part still being a viable gaming cpu in 5+ years just like Phenom II.

You can apply this same line of thinking to a 2600k, or even an i7 920 (which holds up surprisingly well).

Just saying, we're long past the days where you needed to upgrade the CPU every other year. CPUs that are "good enough" will remain so for long periods of time.

Agreed- I am not suggesting that current Intel parts (at least the higher models) are going to suddenly no longer be useful. It is interesting that you mention specifically the 2600k and 920 though- both top end (and expensive) parts in their day with high core counts compared to the 'standard' Intel cpu. The i5 750 (highly recommended as a gaming cpu at the time) *and* 2500k are both struggling much more. I think that is where Ryzen offers something a bit special- for the price of a 7600k you can get an R5 1600- with 2 more cores and 8 more threads. I'd say for longeivty that is a *much* better buy even if it isn't faster now. The 7700k has enough threads to remain relevant for a similar duration to an R5 and probably even R7 but a quad thread i5 doesn't look like a smart buy. The issue I have is most non enthusiasts would still take the Intel i5 over Ryzen 5 because 'its better'.

Edit: To put it another way I also think Intels higher core count parts (e.g. 6800k and above) will also age much better than most of the mainstream parts. I think it looks good that for the next gen Intel are adding a couple of cores to the top of their mainstream platform.

 

[cdrkf]

Well I think that is essentially what we got Ryzen strikes me as positioned very similarly to Thuban (Phenom II X6) back in the day- it offered a genuine advantage over Intel at the price point in well threaded work. Performed nicely in games and had decent (albeit slightly lower) performance in single thread bound applications. If anything I'd say Ryzen is arguably slightly stronger than Phenom II was- as Ryzen has a few strong points where it is core for core *faster* out the box than Intel when you look at certain video encoding / rendering tasks. Phenom II could beet the original Core i7 quads but couldn't actually beat out the (lone) hex core part Intel had back then. Now I'm sure someone will point out that Ryzen is slower core for core than Broadwell E (it beats it thanks to a clock speed advantage- albeit a small one) however you do have to acknowledge that out the box both processors use about the same amount of power, have the same core count and Ryzen is the faster of the two- this is no FX 9590 220w power hog.

At stock settings, it is "the faster of the two" in some benches; overall it is a tie or even a net loss depending of what applications are used to compute the average performance.

Yes I fully agree- if you read my post you'll notice I say 'some'- the fact that AMD can compete core for core at the same power envelope however was a big surprise for me. That is a *huge* jump from FX (which needed twice the core count to almost compete in it's very best scenario). Honestly even Phenom II (which was generally reasonably well regarded) couldn't compete with Intel core for core- Phenom II x6 offered an advantage over the i7 of it's day thanks to offering 2 additional cores therefore pitting a hex core against a quad.

The other thing I think is worth stressing- the areas where Ryzen is strong are in my opinion important ones. CPU based rendering is as fast or faster core for core than Broadwell E- that is important because many rendering applications are inherently cpu based- Keyshot being a big name example. They have stated due to their engine they cannot be gpu accelerated, and when you are rendering animations a reduction in frame render time becomes much much more important. Saving 10 seconds per frame over 10,000 frames suddenly adds up to a lot of time. When you factor into the equation that you can get between 6 and 8 cores (and 12 - 16 threads) from AMD for the price of 4 cores / 8 threads from Intel and all of a sudden you are not even looking at a 10 second difference but more like a full 50% reduction in per frame render time. As a small business owner that is quite important- my current rendering rig is Intel based (a Haswell Xeon E3) as that offered by far the best render time / vs cost performance when I purchased the machine 2 years ago. However if I get another large animation project currently I can't see anything that competes with Ryzen in this field.

 

[-Sapphire-]

Well I think that is essentially what we got Ryzen strikes me as positioned very similarly to Thuban (Phenom II X6) back in the day- it offered a genuine advantage over Intel at the price point in well threaded work. Performed nicely in games and had decent (albeit slightly lower) performance in single thread bound applications. If anything I'd say Ryzen is arguably slightly stronger than Phenom II was- as Ryzen has a few strong points where it is core for core *faster* out the box than Intel when you look at certain video encoding / rendering tasks. Phenom II could beet the original Core i7 quads but couldn't actually beat out the (lone) hex core part Intel had back then. Now I'm sure someone will point out that Ryzen is slower core for core than Broadwell E (it beats it thanks to a clock speed advantage- albeit a small one) however you do have to acknowledge that out the box both processors use about the same amount of power, have the same core count and Ryzen is the faster of the two- this is no FX 9590 220w power hog.

At stock settings, it is "the faster of the two" in some benches; overall it is a tie or even a net loss depending of what applications are used to compute the average performance.

Yes I fully agree- if you read my post you'll notice I say 'some'- the fact that AMD can compete core for core at the same power envelope however was a big surprise for me. That is a *huge* jump from FX (which needed twice the core count to almost compete in it's very best scenario). Honestly even Phenom II (which was generally reasonably well regarded) couldn't compete with Intel core for core- Phenom II x6 offered an advantage over the i7 of it's day thanks to offering 2 additional cores therefore pitting a hex core against a quad.

The other thing I think is worth stressing- the areas where Ryzen is strong are in my opinion important ones. CPU based rendering is as fast or faster core for core than Broadwell E- that is important because many rendering applications are inherently cpu based- Keyshot being a big name example. They have stated due to their engine they cannot be gpu accelerated, and when you are rendering animations a reduction in frame render time becomes much much more important. Saving 10 seconds per frame over 10,000 frames suddenly adds up to a lot of time. When you factor into the equation that you can get between 6 and 8 cores (and 12 - 16 threads) from AMD for the price of 4 cores / 8 threads from Intel and all of a sudden you are not even looking at a 10 second difference but more like a full 50% reduction in per frame render time. As a small business owner that is quite important- my current rendering rig is Intel based (a Haswell Xeon E3) as that offered by far the best render time / vs cost performance when I purchased the machine 2 years ago. However if I get another large animation project currently I can't see anything that competes with Ryzen in this field.

I agree that from price / performance perspective Ryzen looks very promising for tasks that you describe. But will system on Ryzen be as stable as Intel competitors in present time?

 

[cdrkf]

Well I think that is essentially what we got Ryzen strikes me as positioned very similarly to Thuban (Phenom II X6) back in the day- it offered a genuine advantage over Intel at the price point in well threaded work. Performed nicely in games and had decent (albeit slightly lower) performance in single thread bound applications. If anything I'd say Ryzen is arguably slightly stronger than Phenom II was- as Ryzen has a few strong points where it is core for core *faster* out the box than Intel when you look at certain video encoding / rendering tasks. Phenom II could beet the original Core i7 quads but couldn't actually beat out the (lone) hex core part Intel had back then. Now I'm sure someone will point out that Ryzen is slower core for core than Broadwell E (it beats it thanks to a clock speed advantage- albeit a small one) however you do have to acknowledge that out the box both processors use about the same amount of power, have the same core count and Ryzen is the faster of the two- this is no FX 9590 220w power hog.

At stock settings, it is "the faster of the two" in some benches; overall it is a tie or even a net loss depending of what applications are used to compute the average performance.

Yes I fully agree- if you read my post you'll notice I say 'some'- the fact that AMD can compete core for core at the same power envelope however was a big surprise for me. That is a *huge* jump from FX (which needed twice the core count to almost compete in it's very best scenario). Honestly even Phenom II (which was generally reasonably well regarded) couldn't compete with Intel core for core- Phenom II x6 offered an advantage over the i7 of it's day thanks to offering 2 additional cores therefore pitting a hex core against a quad.

The other thing I think is worth stressing- the areas where Ryzen is strong are in my opinion important ones. CPU based rendering is as fast or faster core for core than Broadwell E- that is important because many rendering applications are inherently cpu based- Keyshot being a big name example. They have stated due to their engine they cannot be gpu accelerated, and when you are rendering animations a reduction in frame render time becomes much much more important. Saving 10 seconds per frame over 10,000 frames suddenly adds up to a lot of time. When you factor into the equation that you can get between 6 and 8 cores (and 12 - 16 threads) from AMD for the price of 4 cores / 8 threads from Intel and all of a sudden you are not even looking at a 10 second difference but more like a full 50% reduction in per frame render time. As a small business owner that is quite important- my current rendering rig is Intel based (a Haswell Xeon E3) as that offered by far the best render time / vs cost performance when I purchased the machine 2 years ago. However if I get another large animation project currently I can't see anything that competes with Ryzen in this field.

I agree that from price / performance perspective Ryzen looks very promising for tasks that you describe. But will system on Ryzen be as stable as Intel competitors in present time?

Well I've not heard people complaining about random crashes or anything. Lots of talk about the platform being 'immature' but that is more down to ram speed compatibility (getting higher speeds is tricky at the moment). I think it should be stable enough- quite a few you tube guys used it for video production instead of Intel rigs as a test and none have come back complaining of crashes.

 

[8350rocks]

Well I think that is essentially what we got Ryzen strikes me as positioned very similarly to Thuban (Phenom II X6) back in the day- it offered a genuine advantage over Intel at the price point in well threaded work. Performed nicely in games and had decent (albeit slightly lower) performance in single thread bound applications. If anything I'd say Ryzen is arguably slightly stronger than Phenom II was- as Ryzen has a few strong points where it is core for core *faster* out the box than Intel when you look at certain video encoding / rendering tasks. Phenom II could beet the original Core i7 quads but couldn't actually beat out the (lone) hex core part Intel had back then. Now I'm sure someone will point out that Ryzen is slower core for core than Broadwell E (it beats it thanks to a clock speed advantage- albeit a small one) however you do have to acknowledge that out the box both processors use about the same amount of power, have the same core count and Ryzen is the faster of the two- this is no FX 9590 220w power hog.

At stock settings, it is "the faster of the two" in some benches; overall it is a tie or even a net loss depending of what applications are used to compute the average performance.

Yes I fully agree- if you read my post you'll notice I say 'some'- the fact that AMD can compete core for core at the same power envelope however was a big surprise for me. That is a *huge* jump from FX (which needed twice the core count to almost compete in it's very best scenario). Honestly even Phenom II (which was generally reasonably well regarded) couldn't compete with Intel core for core- Phenom II x6 offered an advantage over the i7 of it's day thanks to offering 2 additional cores therefore pitting a hex core against a quad.

The other thing I think is worth stressing- the areas where Ryzen is strong are in my opinion important ones. CPU based rendering is as fast or faster core for core than Broadwell E- that is important because many rendering applications are inherently cpu based- Keyshot being a big name example. They have stated due to their engine they cannot be gpu accelerated, and when you are rendering animations a reduction in frame render time becomes much much more important. Saving 10 seconds per frame over 10,000 frames suddenly adds up to a lot of time. When you factor into the equation that you can get between 6 and 8 cores (and 12 - 16 threads) from AMD for the price of 4 cores / 8 threads from Intel and all of a sudden you are not even looking at a 10 second difference but more like a full 50% reduction in per frame render time. As a small business owner that is quite important- my current rendering rig is Intel based (a Haswell Xeon E3) as that offered by far the best render time / vs cost performance when I purchased the machine 2 years ago. However if I get another large animation project currently I can't see anything that competes with Ryzen in this field.

I agree that from price / performance perspective Ryzen looks very promising for tasks that you describe. But will system on Ryzen be as stable as Intel competitors in present time?

Considering X99 still has RAM problems, and the cold bug, as well as other issues, and it is about to be phased out for X299 that will likely inherit similar problems...I see no reason to think that Ryzen (which has no cold bug, and most of the RAM issues are getting sorted out) would not be even more stable.

 

[jdwii]

Spoiler

Well I think that is essentially what we got Ryzen strikes me as positioned very similarly to Thuban (Phenom II X6) back in the day- it offered a genuine advantage over Intel at the price point in well threaded work. Performed nicely in games and had decent (albeit slightly lower) performance in single thread bound applications. If anything I'd say Ryzen is arguably slightly stronger than Phenom II was- as Ryzen has a few strong points where it is core for core *faster* out the box than Intel when you look at certain video encoding / rendering tasks. Phenom II could beet the original Core i7 quads but couldn't actually beat out the (lone) hex core part Intel had back then. Now I'm sure someone will point out that Ryzen is slower core for core than Broadwell E (it beats it thanks to a clock speed advantage- albeit a small one) however you do have to acknowledge that out the box both processors use about the same amount of power, have the same core count and Ryzen is the faster of the two- this is no FX 9590 220w power hog.

At stock settings, it is "the faster of the two" in some benches; overall it is a tie or even a net loss depending of what applications are used to compute the average performance.

Yes I fully agree- if you read my post you'll notice I say 'some'- the fact that AMD can compete core for core at the same power envelope however was a big surprise for me. That is a *huge* jump from FX (which needed twice the core count to almost compete in it's very best scenario). Honestly even Phenom II (which was generally reasonably well regarded) couldn't compete with Intel core for core- Phenom II x6 offered an advantage over the i7 of it's day thanks to offering 2 additional cores therefore pitting a hex core against a quad.

The other thing I think is worth stressing- the areas where Ryzen is strong are in my opinion important ones. CPU based rendering is as fast or faster core for core than Broadwell E- that is important because many rendering applications are inherently cpu based- Keyshot being a big name example. They have stated due to their engine they cannot be gpu accelerated, and when you are rendering animations a reduction in frame render time becomes much much more important. Saving 10 seconds per frame over 10,000 frames suddenly adds up to a lot of time. When you factor into the equation that you can get between 6 and 8 cores (and 12 - 16 threads) from AMD for the price of 4 cores / 8 threads from Intel and all of a sudden you are not even looking at a 10 second difference but more like a full 50% reduction in per frame render time. As a small business owner that is quite important- my current rendering rig is Intel based (a Haswell Xeon E3) as that offered by far the best render time / vs cost performance when I purchased the machine 2 years ago. However if I get another large animation project currently I can't see anything that competes with Ryzen in this field.

I agree that from price / performance perspective Ryzen looks very promising for tasks that you describe. But will system on Ryzen be as stable as Intel competitors in present time?

Well I've not heard people complaining about random crashes or anything. Lots of talk about the platform being 'immature' but that is more down to ram speed compatibility (getting higher speeds is tricky at the moment). I think it should be stable enough- quite a few you tube guys used it for video production instead of Intel rigs as a test and none have come back complaining of crashes.

As a side note Ryzen is kind of funny when overclocking and Jayztwocents said the same thing with my 4790K i could OC to probably 5.0Ghz and boot to windows but not be stable with ryzen master if i set it to 1.4V 4.1Ghz instant black screen. Overclocking Ryzen is much easier then Intel as it crash's much faster when its not stable haha. With haswell i would OC to something crazy it would be stable after 12 hours of stress testing and then crash in GTA5.

It's just funny seeing how fast ryzen fails when overclocking, but besides that i never in my life had a Intel or Amd machine stop being stable over years of testing. Of course giving lets say a Pentium 4 or Athlon 2800+ a go with modern software is going to suck but that is a given.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I71ov8iiDP8

Jayzvideo on how fast ryzen crashes when overclocking skip to 9:25 if it doesn't automatically.

 

[jaymc]

Found this on memory latency..
http://www.legitreviews.com/ddr4-memory-scaling-amd-am4-platform-best-memory-kit-amd-ryzen-cpus_192259/6

It say's on pg 6 that they found recommendations from ASUS in a pdf saying that: "Best performance with Samsung B-die is achieved at 145 MHz REFCLK with 2400 DRAM ratio (3480 MHz) at 11-10-10-10-22 timings. Alternatively 135 MHz REFCLK with 2666 DRAM ratio and 11-11-11-11-22"

But no benches for this ram an I can't seem to find any anywhere... it's strange at this stage that someone hasn't tried it & posted results. Surely there must be something on a forum somewhere.
I have been looking but to no avail..
Jay

 

[goldstone77]

I was browsing Facebook and found this advertising link from arstechnica.com. I know some of you like this website. It has a range a performance and gaming revisits. Although, they only use Ryzen RAM at 2933MHz on a Asus ROG Crosshair VI Hero X370 motherboard, which is known to run 3200MHz RAM stable. Their Intel test set up has RAM running at 3000MHz. I don't agree with some of the conclusions the reviewer makes from these tests, but we can make our own opinions from the graphs.

Ryzen 5 review: AMD muscles in on Intel’s i5 sweet spot
Gaming performance still an anomaly, but the Ryzen 5 1600X and 1500X are great chips.
MARK WALTON (UK) - 5/8/2017, 9:35 AM
Note the performance of the 1500X@3.5 when compared to i7!

1500x actually beats the i7 in multithread performance here at 3.5GHz

They i7 barely manages a 12 point lead over the 1500x at 3.5GHz in single thread performance. I expected the difference to be much more pronounced considering all the talk about Intel's superior IPC.

Look at the low memory scores here on geek bench with Ryzen compared to Intel! There is definitely a memory deficit affecting Ryzen performance. I think most of have seen this at release, and it continues in Geek Bench 4 scores. This expresses itself in games as well.

"That said, picking the right CPU isn't a binary decision. Clearly, in production applications that make use of multiple cores, the 1600X offers a distinct advantage over a 7600K. Not only are there two extra physical cores, but SMT allows for a total of 12 threads. Render times in applications like POV Ray are dramatically improved—the 1600X is 43 percent faster than the 7600K, and 29 percent faster than the 7700K—while Handbrake encoding is 40 percent faster, and Cinebench is nearly 50 percent faster. When it comes to crunching numbers, Ryzen is an absolute monster."

"Yet, when it comes to gaming, Ryzen begins to falter. The physics scores in 3DMark's Firestrike benchmark highlight how much better Ryzen is at raw number crunching, with the 4C/8T 1500X even beating Kaby Lake at the same clock speed. But the overall score is disappointing, if at least higher. This disparity continues through to retail games. In Rise of the Tomb Raider the difference at 1080p is stark: 128FPS for the 1600X versus 169FPS for the 7600K. Under DX12, the disparity increases further to 105FPS versus 170FPS. There are similarly confusing results for Total War: Warhammer—a notoriously CPU-bound game—and Hitman, both of which are AMD-backed titles."

He picks games that Ryzen doesn't perform well in without showing games that Ryzen does perform well on, which I believe shows favoritism towards Intel in an attempt to show more greater disparity in gaming with Ryzen. One could easily use Crysis 3 and show a huge disparity with Intel in this manner.

Final thoughts benchmarks including those for gaming show Ryzen to be a much stronger competitor than what is happening in practice with some titles. One thing I noticed in Geek Bench was how much lower Ryzens memory scores were. I can't help wondering if that is partially having the huge impact in gaming vs. gaming benchmarks. Also, I want to add that I've seen Intel have better FPS scores on Nvidia GPU's vs AMD GPUs, and this was tested with a 1080Ti. But when the 1600 is having 29-50% performance compared to Intel while still being able to provide the same gaming experience how can you not buy Ryzen over Intel.

"Today, the performance hit isn't make-or-break. Yes, the framerates are lower than Intel's, sometimes significantly, but in all cases things are more than playable. "

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/05/amd-ryzen-5-review-1600x/2/

EDIT Also, I want to add that I've seen Intel have better FPS scores on Nvidia GPU's vs AMD GPUs, and this was tested with a 1080Ti. Ryzen has better scores on AMD GPUs as opposed to Intel GPUs.

 

[randomizer]

I'm not sure why reviews include POV-Ray. Better to include Blender. People actually use that.

 

[cdrkf]

I'm not sure why reviews include POV-Ray. Better to include Blender. People actually use that.

Actually POV-Ray is a render engine used for lots of render solutions in various CAD applications. Blender is a modelling / animation *end package* (that can do rendering)- I'm not sure what engine Blender uses but it could even be based on POV-Ray.

So, whilst you won't see 'POV-Ray' the standalone application being used, if you use SolidWorks, any of the Autodesk products, Rhino and quite a few others you may well be using POV-Ray as the renderer (although admittedly there are lots of other options).

Personally I use Flamingo NXT (where the NXT refers to a common render engine used in a number of packages, Flamingo being McNeals own implementation) and keyshot. I'd be very interested to see benchmarks for an NXT renderer and also Keyshot as both directly effect my workflow and both are pretty popular.

 

[jdwii]

As stated already my favorite review is this one

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-5-1500x-4c8t-cpu-review/

They compare a Ryzen quad core with SMT with a sandy bridge at the same clock speed.

 

[randomizer]

Actually POV-Ray is a render engine used for lots of render solutions in various CAD applications. Blender is a modelling / animation *end package* (that can do rendering)- I'm not sure what engine Blender uses but it could even be based on POV-Ray.

So, whilst you won't see 'POV-Ray' the standalone application being used, if you use SolidWorks, any of the Autodesk products, Rhino and quite a few others you may well be using POV-Ray as the renderer (although admittedly there are lots of other options).

I'd be interested to know for certain if there were any proprietary applications using the POV-Ray engine. I did a cursory search around what might be using POV-Ray, but didn't come up with anything. POV-Ray 3.7 is licensed under the AGPL, which is a viral copyleft licence that it makes it difficult to use POV-Ray in proprietary software. You might get away with an exporter that kicks off a separate process.

Blender has three renderers: the old scanline renderer, the game engine, and Cycles. The latter is the most similar to POV-Ray, but only in the sense that it's a path tracing renderer, and it's definitely not based on POV-Ray. The licences aren't even compatible.

 

[cdrkf]

Actually POV-Ray is a render engine used for lots of render solutions in various CAD applications. Blender is a modelling / animation *end package* (that can do rendering)- I'm not sure what engine Blender uses but it could even be based on POV-Ray.

So, whilst you won't see 'POV-Ray' the standalone application being used, if you use SolidWorks, any of the Autodesk products, Rhino and quite a few others you may well be using POV-Ray as the renderer (although admittedly there are lots of other options).

I'd be interested to know for certain if there were any proprietary applications using the POV-Ray engine. I did a cursory search around what might be using POV-Ray, but didn't come up with anything. POV-Ray 3.7 is licensed under the AGPL, which is a viral copyleft licence that it makes it difficult to use POV-Ray in proprietary software. You might get away with an exporter that kicks off a separate process.

Blender has three renderers: the old scanline renderer, the game engine, and Cycles. The latter is the most similar to POV-Ray, but only in the sense that it's a path tracing renderer, and it's definitely not based on POV-Ray. The licences aren't even compatible.

I was under the impression that POV-Ray was related to the propitiatory V-Ray ray-tracer, that is offered as a plug in for most CAD suits. That said looking at the page for POV-Ray it might be that the two just share a similar name.