Discussion AMD Ryzen MegaThread! FAQ and Resources

Page 78 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Juan was also talking about Intel's newer 7800X which has higher IPC then Haswell-E 6900K. Quite honestly if Intel would just bring the 6 core to their mainstream market. The IPC+Clock speed advantage would basically make them the better option. In my tests Ryzen is no where near skylake in IPC but near haswell skylake is a good 15% higher on average in performance per cycle.

Take into the fact that the 7800X will OC way past the 4.0 limit of ryzen at least 10% higher and i'm being nice.

8/6=33% Ryzen offers 33% more cores over Intel
15%IPC+15% OC potential= 30%

Keep in mind this only matters when software actually use all the 8 cores on ryzen if its only using 6, Intel will gain even more.

Ryzen is fine however IF Amd can keep up and continue to improve IPC while hoping for slightly better frequency in future fabrication+ again the higher motherboard costs of Intel's option, makes intel seem noncompetitive
 


I take it you mean the 8 year old 2600K might be able to rival the much newer 6900K in some benchmarks as well. We all know that the 1700 is just as good as the 1800x at the same frequency. And in multi-threading tasks Ryzen beats the 6900K in some workloads. There isn't a 1 chip beats them all. The 1800x was meant to be comparable and competitive with the 6900k, and was marketed that way. That's why the 1700 (a sub $300 CPU) overclocked rivals the $1000 6900k.

3D Mark Time Spy CPU Test (DX12).
"The stock Ryzen 7 1800X comes close to unseating Intel's Core i7-6900K during the DX12 CPU test. AMD's 1700X trails its faster counterpart by 383 points. However, overclocking both chips to 3.9 GHz shrinks the gap to 72 points...in favor of the 1700X."

The gaming benchmarks were done at 1080p with an EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE to remove the GPU as a bottleneck, which were the justifications used to test Ryzen IPC at launch vs Intel if you remember.

There were many more test available if you followed the link I just post a few. But here are a few more that have been on topic of late.

aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9NL0QvNjYxNzY1L29yaWdpbmFsL0ltYWdlOS5wbmc=

"Let's start by looking at idle power consumption. Intel's overclocked Core i7-6900K turns in a better result than the stock configuration because we also reduced the one-core Turbo Boost frequency."
aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9NL0EvNjYxNzYyL29yaWdpbmFsL0ltYWdlOC5wbmc=

"The same story applies to our measurements in games, where Ryzen 7 blows away the Core i7s. It's been a long time since AMD was at least equal in terms of efficiency."
aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9NLzkvNjYxNzYxL29yaWdpbmFsL0ltYWdlNy5wbmc=

"The 3.8 GHz Ryzen 7 sucks down more than 140W , but the Core i7-6900K is even worse at 166W. The Core i7-7700K down-clocked to the same frequency uses a conservative 86W or so."
aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9NL0UvNjYxNzY2L29yaWdpbmFsL0ltYWdlMTIucG5n

"Based on AMD's technology briefings, we know it has more granular control over clock rate. And it's notable that the 95W Ryzen 7 1700X we're reviewing today uses less power under our stress test than Intel's 91W Core i7-7700K. It takes a significant underclock to put the Kaby Lake flagship in first place."
aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9NL0IvNjYxNzYzL29yaWdpbmFsL0ltYWdlMTEucG5n

"Temperatures
We optimized our CPU cooler for Socket AM4 by using two nuts between the spring and bracket to increase force on the package to 0.4Nm. That is why these results differ from those in our launch article, where we only used washers.
The temperatures we recorded for the FX-9590 are a bit uncertain, since AMD’s older Bulldozer CPUs don't measure with 100% confidence. Moreover, the Ryzen 7 and Core i7 CPU readings aren't exactly comparable; both companies employ different sensor approaches."
aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9NL0MvNjYxNzY0L29yaWdpbmFsL0ltYWdlMTAucG5n

"Intel's Core i7-7700K is the only processor in our test field handicapped by cheap thermal paste between its die and heat spreader. Thankfully, AMD solders Ryzen's heat spreader, which results in good thermal transfer. This naturally shows up in the relationship between power converted to heat."
There is the mention of the cheap thermal paste vs. the soldered Ryzen heat spreader, which results in good thermal transfer.

Ryzen is also the best consumer CPU option for video encoding and game streaming.
Ryzen is THE BEST CPU for Game Streaming? - $h!t Manufacturers Say Ep. 2
Linus Tech Tips
Published on Apr 6, 2017
Is Ryzen REALLY the best consumer CPU option for video encoding and game streaming? Let's find out!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jludqTnPpnU
 


IPC and clock speed aside look at that multi-threading! You wouldn't have dreamed to get near 6900k level performance from a $300 CPU from Intel. Now, that dream is reality. People made a big deal about the IPC complaining that it was making Ryzen bad for gaming. You own a 1700, and know that once you hit ~150 single thread Cinebench score you are more than able to game with that CPU. Optimization being the only real hindrance to Ryzen's gaming performance. Most notable shown in the recent optimizations of Tomb Raider. But looking at synthetic benchmarks shown us that Ryzen should perform very well in gaming scenarios from the beginning.
 


Nope. People was complaining that RyZen was going to have a latency problem and this was going to affect workloads such as games. It was confirmed.
 


Yeah, most here were predicting Haswell-ish IPC, which was more or less spot on.
 


Also, provides double the amount of cores. That is a nice addition.

I do remember saying it would live or die compared to Sandy. It was on par with Haswell <mod edit> and brings a TON of additional benefits to the table with the surrounding platform that is way better than even the Z line. The only tangible drawback it was, is the limited OC potential that puts it under Haswell when heavily OC'ed (for current games, at least). Runs cool-ish, doesn't draw an stupid amount of power to do it's trick and is mostly on par with Intel in terms of power dissipation and draw; hell, I'd even say this 14nm is on par with Intel's tuned 14nm looking at gross numbers.

But hey, it's still AMD and it doesn't matter how good it is. Let's just talk about the flaws and understate the good things. And let's to it the other way around for Intel.

Cheers!

<Moderator Warning: Keep the personal attacks out of it. This will be your only warning.>
 


That is so very true...the double standard is real.
 


It's not going to stop their either as long as Intel keeps selling dual cores for 170$ and charging more money for less features on their high-end platform expect Ryzen to continue to grow.

16 cores for 1000$ vs what 10 cores from Intel with boards shipping with crappy VRM of course with a high price.

All i want to know is what the prices look like on X399 and how much quad-channel memory helps ryzen since ryzen needs the bandwidth.

 


Let's keep things in perspective. Most people who bought a mainstream Intel processor within the last ~5 years have had no compelling reason to upgrade. Beyond fairly modest speed increases and expanded chipset features, nothing has pushed those older machines past the brink of obsolescence.

The AMD side of things is a completely different story. Anyone with any pre-Ryzen AMD processor would benefit from upgrading. The fastest pre-Ryzen AMD chip is now beaten by the slowest, least expensive Ryzen you can buy right now. And there's a good chance even the upcoming budget R3's could beat out the 9590 overall.

The changes to the AMD product stack have been staggering. That would have been like the Sandy Bridge i3 2100 coming out and kicking the i7 980x to the curb, and possibly even the Pentium and Celeron joining in on the stomp party. Every current AMD owner is probably thinking about upgrading, and I'm guessing a lot of them have.

On the Passmark numbers though, funny story:

http://www.passmark.com/forum/general/38370-amd-cpu-marketshare-true-value-from-passmark

The author of the article grabbed the graph from our web site (without permission I might add) on the 1st July for his story. The graphs we produce are per qtr (i.e. 3 months intervals). The 1st July is the start of a new qtr. This means the last data point only contains data for 1 day. Which isn't a very good sample size. Numbers for 1 day can vary quite a bit, but after another week or so, the true trend for the current qtr should start to be visible.

Based on our numbers, it is absolutely true that AMD is gaining market share.
Click to expand...

Looks like GD read a wtfbbq article without enough salt:

http://wccftech.com/amd-takes-10-4-cpu-share-intel-q2-2017-largest-single-quarter-share-gain-history/

Anyway, I'm curious about quad-channel memory too, but I think Ryzen is more sensitive to latency and hence memory speed rather than bandwidth.
 


Not to be a party pooper but the charts is from passmark (as TMTOWTSAC has pointed out) and the chart only list benchmarks that have been uploaded by users . It not by actual sales.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/market_share.html

This graph counts the baselines submitted to us during these time period and therefore is representative of CPUs in use rather than CPUs purchased.
Click to expand...

Still exciting to see high adoption of ryzen but I would classify this as a survey (like how steam does it) over proper market share.
 


I'm pretty sure more then just PD and BD users are upgrading i've read a LOT of sandy-ivy users upgrading basically even reading from user reviews or the forums. Heck i even read comments that said they were going to get a 6900K until they saw ryzen. Reason why sandy-ivy users haven't upgraded is over Intel not moving not providing more cores since 2008 on the mainstream platform.

 


Still on my 2600k. Figure this PC has another year of life left in it before I (finally) junk it.

But yeah, people like me make Intels market share look a lot worse.
 
I have a 2500K@4.5GHGz and really there is not reason for me to upgrade other than I want to. Single thread Cinebench score is 155. 16GB CAS 9 running 2200MHz. 500GB Samasung EVO and 6TB western digital black. 27" 144HZ free sync monitor with a RX480. I've had to upgrade the video card every 4 years, but other than that I double click the mouse and web browsing opens almost instantaneous(~1 second). Microsoft word excel open in about the same time. I can monitor 8 live streams of stocks in real time. Every game even brand new titles play good enough for me at 1080p on Ultra a little choppy at times, but overall a good experience 60-100 FPS or more depending on the title(Doom 150-200FPS smooth). Now, I do want to upgrade to Ryzen, but I want to wait till next process node at 7nm, which I think will last a good while. All that being said I might just go ahead and get it now just because I want it not because I need it. LOL

Edit: If I was going to buy a system now it would be Ryzen over Intel without any doubt the best price for performance hands down.
 
My mother had a custom built $2k PII 400 with 128 MB RAM and Win 98. It started out fast of course. But she used it approximately 2 eternities, and every year it became a more and more miserable experience.

Her current computer is a $449 Dell prebuilt with an i5 2400 4 GB RAM and Win 7. For what she does, browsing, watching Youtube, spreadsheets, and way too many Flash games, her 5+ year old machine may as well be brand new. Unless she unexpectedly becomes a hardcore FPS streamer, it's hard to guess when she would be forced to upgrade again.
 
Actually sales would of had to be made prior to 1st of July as most people would be waiting on their chips to be posted to them.

I just checked the updated chart on Passmark website and as it stands today (4 july) it's 25.8%... Also please note it's pretty early in the day especially in the states, an especially early in the Quarter. Has to be said though it's showing a vast improvement..
I like the way it's trending..

Passmark's market share graph:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/market_share.html

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X processor is on sale for $400 from TigerDirect:
http://www.pcgamer.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-processor-is-on-sale-for-400/

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 Number 1 best selling Processor on Amazon.co.uk !
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Best-Sellers-Computers-Accessories-Processors/zgbs/computers/430515031/ref=zg_bs_nav_computers_2_428655031
 
I would expect Ryzen to sell very well outside of the US. Intel is just too expensive in some countries compared to Ryzen. Objectively, when you look at the price and performance of the 1600 I couldn't imagine why anyone would buy a i5 or i7.
 


Seeing people still buying a 8350 ew
 


Theoretically, there should not be one. In practicality, some modules (not necessarily "Intel friendly") don't work quite well with AMD. There's a lot of theories of why, but most of them are being patched through BIOS/UEFI updates.

So, long story short, to play it safe if anyone is on the edge between AMD or Intel, get the ones that people is sure work with AMD 100%, since they will work on Intel systems (theoretically, again) with no problems.

Cheers!
 


Yeah, there's no technical reason why RAM shouldn't be interchangeable, but there's enough people who have run into problems where you might as well just stick to what is known good for your particular motherboard. I'd *guess* the problems stem from speed/timing differences that certain CPU IMCs just don't like, but that's just speculation on my part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom