Farewell Zen, Hello Ryzen: AMD’s Eight-Core CPU Runs At 3.4GHz+

[rhysiam]

I was aware of your post and anandtech's both. I just wasn't getting drawn in by one test because even anadtech said AMD were meeting their power requirements. I will be interested to see after a hard launch how correct or not the 95w TDP really is.

It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out. Anandtech are reporting similar power draw to a 140W 8 Core intel (which I would absolutely expect to be pulling near tdp under a handbrake encoding load), while the follow up article here on TH confirmed the "95W TDP" value. So it doesn't quite add up.
More details to wait on I guess. There's reason for optimism though, no question about that.

 

[MrWu]

"By AMD’s own admission, Ryzen was designed for the high-end desktop market. "
Exactly no WS and no Server market, no serious chip set for that at the moment.
Desktop market means home user any serious professionals usage are excluded and Intel will keep having monopole on that market, what a shame.

 

[atomicWAR]

"By AMD’s own admission, Ryzen was designed for the high-end desktop market. "
Exactly no WS and no Server market, no serious chip set for that at the moment.
Desktop market means home user any serious professionals usage are excluded and Intel will keep having monopole on that market, what a shame.

That's not correct. Zen is their HEDT chip (ie Ryzen) but they do have a server oriented chip based on the same tech called naples which will be their new opteron chip. Whereas Ryzen will max out at 8 core and 16 threads the Naples variant will use up to 32 cores with 64 threads and it uses a different socket as well SP3 compared the the AM4. Also of note the 32 core variant uses a MCM package with two 16 core/32 thread chips on the same die to give the 32c/64t total I mentioned earlier. though it does have a later launch of Q2 2017 compared to Q1 for Ryzen.

 

[MrMachoWendall]

I still don't believe AMD is gonna take it home just yet

 

[atomicWAR]

I still don't believe AMD is gonna take it home just yet

I think many of us are skeptical on whether AMD will deliver or not. It would not be the first time some cherry picked benchies made a chip look like it performed better then it actually did. I think the overall impression from the Demo was hope is still alive for AMD pulling off a re-entry to the HEDT space for the first time in a long time. In the end until the launch reviews/benchmarks drop all of us on tom's are just crossing our fingers. Far to long Intel has been milking their IPC lead and screwing over consumers. The sad truth is if you have an Intel i7/i5 series chip from almost any generation your rig is at least capable. There was a time not to horribly long ago if you didn't have a CPU from the last two or three generations max, gaming and video encode/decode was not worth the effort. Today even someone running an overclocked i7 920/970 can easily game with some of the latest graphics hardware without much worry about heavy bottlenecks. Ten years ago going that long without a new platform and still being useful in the high end was unheard of.

 

[Kewlx25]

You left the most important part:

Ryzen was matching/beating Intel's flagship at ONLY 95 WATTS!!!

You mean the Ryzen engineering 95watt sample at 2.8ghz was beating the 140watt 3.7ghz flagship Intel. Ryzen was using not only 36% less power, but it had 24% lower clock.

I am not sure about it running at 2.8 GHz, because Sue kept saying 3.4 the whole time. But I can't believe Tom's Hardware, that always makes a big deal about power consumption (and rightly so), just decides to omit that Ryzen is achieving this performance at 95 Watts. It's kind of a big deal.

People need to know that this processor was matching Intel 6900K in performance... an $1,100 chip, that might have jumped to 3.7 GHz during the testing, and was consuming 140 Watts.

While the child is aggressively dynamically clocked, so hard to tell what frequency it was running at, she did say the current engineering sample is running at 2.8ghz and the chip will at least run 3.4ghz when released.

 

[sizzling]

If the final clock speed hasn't even been determined we are surely many months before they will be in the shops? They still need to decide this and get stock ready and shipped.

I really don't think they should have made another announcement until all specs were nailed down and delivery dates available. Whos to say it won't be another 6 months.

 

[TJ Hooker]

Far to long Intel has been milking their IPC lead and screwing over consumers. The sad truth is if you have an Intel i7/i5 series chip from almost any generation your rig is at least capable. There was a time not to horribly long ago if you didn't have a CPU from the last two or three generations max, gaming and video encode/decode was not worth the effort. Today even someone running an overclocked i7 920/970 can easily game with some of the latest graphics hardware without much worry about heavy bottlenecks. Ten years ago going that long without a new platform and still being useful in the high end was unheard of.

Wait, so being compelled to upgrade every few years is a good thing, while being able to get acceptable performance out of a CPU for 5+ years is being milked and screwed over? Interesting way to look at things...

 

[falchard]

When it comes to gaming rigs, I still see people running Phenom II x6 because it's good enough. However we are now running into titles that will be pushing the cpu more. Titles like Arizona Sunshine and Stellaris. These titles are more about cores than clock. If VR does start to take off, we will be seeing more demanding titles on the cpu.
I'm actually a little jealous of the people still running Phenom II. I bought mine in 2010, and last year the mobo failed.

 

[deadgamer2]

If the 6 or 4 core variants of Ryzen performs better and is cheaper than my 6600k (300 CAD) that I bought about a month ago, then I will not hesitate to sell my CPU and motherboard.

It's never too late. I've always needed a better CPU for games like Star Citizen, and future games as well.

 

[rhysiam]

If the final clock speed hasn't even been determined we are surely many months before they will be in the shops? They still need to decide this and get stock ready and shipped.

I really don't think they should have made another announcement until all specs were nailed down and delivery dates available. Whos to say it won't be another 6 months.

AMD are still committing to a Q1 2017 launch. With the server products ("Naples", sporting a 32 core 64 thread flagship) launching in Q2. That could still be 3 months, but not 6, unless it gets delayed, of course.

 

[atomicWAR]

Far to long Intel has been milking their IPC lead and screwing over consumers. The sad truth is if you have an Intel i7/i5 series chip from almost any generation your rig is at least capable. There was a time not to horribly long ago if you didn't have a CPU from the last two or three generations max, gaming and video encode/decode was not worth the effort. Today even someone running an overclocked i7 920/970 can easily game with some of the latest graphics hardware without much worry about heavy bottlenecks. Ten years ago going that long without a new platform and still being useful in the high end was unheard of.

Wait, so being compelled to upgrade every few years is a good thing, while being able to get acceptable performance out of a CPU for 5+ years is being milked and screwed over? Interesting way to look at things...

LOL!! I can see your point but I am talking about spurring innovation. I guess what I was getting at was when I do upgrade every three years or so I want the upgrade to feel worth while. As of late that has not been the case. Whereas in the past you could use a 5+ year old CPU but you would be forced to dial things back a lot and you couldn't handle the high end GPU's after say 3 years. Without innovation we get stuck with the same graphics in games with little or no improvement. So while there is the advantage of your rig lasting longer in the high end, everything from games to apps have to compensate for the lack of IPC improvement. So yeah I do feel screwed when it's been 3-4 years and my new PC is barely faster then my old one.

 

[George Phillips]

No any performance FIGURES. It doesn't sound right. If AMD couldn't or wouldn't show any real world performance numbers, the processor may not run well at all.

 

[atomicWAR]

No any performance FIGURES. It doesn't sound right. If AMD couldn't or wouldn't show any real world performance numbers, the processor may not run well at all.

Sadly these kind of vague(ish) benchmarks prior to a hard launch are common and AMD far from alone in doing this. Intel, nvidia and everyone else making chips has a tendency to do this. Using terms like 2.5 times the performance of...40 percent increase over...instead of giving us hard numbers to work with from universally accepted benchmarks and/or apps. On the upside this demo did have some numbers like times to completion and some of the games did have frame counters running but there wasn't much else benchmark wise. I am glad it wasn't a case of JUST of fancy charts with those vague terms of performance, though they clearly had those as well. I think that is why there are so many hopeful geeks on Tom's drooling over the idea of launch reviews/benchmarks coming soon. I know I am one of them.

 

[IT_Noob_2_Wiz]

Well, I was WONDERING when AMD might be working on getting their heads outta their collective arses, and do something to put them on a competitive playing field with Intel. Up to the present, Intel has just been taking a dump all over them for a long time, and it's about time we hear something fresh, and promising about their future.

UPDATE: I didn't realize this comment had been posted successfully, so I made a second, similar post. Sorry about that. I was going to delete this post, but I didn't see a way to do that.

 

[IT_Noob_2_Wiz]

AMD's Summit Ridge CPU for high-end desktop PCs is now known as Ryzen. What's more, company representatives tell us the flagship model will sport a base clock rate of at least 3.4GHz when it launches in Q1 2017.

Farewell Zen, Hello Ryzen: AMD’s Eight-Core CPU Runs At 3.4GHz+ : Read more

Sorry if I may seem a bit ignorant, but what does "Q1" mean; the first quarter of the year, as in the first 4 months of a given year? If that is so, we could see Ryzen in the marketplace sometime between now, and April?

 

[Karadjgne]

Not everyone plays BF1 or really any of the brand new, highly threaded games. There's still a huge percentage of gamers still hanging on to skyrim and other high single thread type games, which are still prevalent. With the way the FX bombed badly on those games, even vrs a measly Pentium, I think I'll reserve judgment on the abilities of Ryzen until real life drops some real numbers.

 

[IT_Noob_2_Wiz]

Far to long Intel has been milking their IPC lead and screwing over consumers. The sad truth is if you have an Intel i7/i5 series chip from almost any generation your rig is at least capable. There was a time not to horribly long ago if you didn't have a CPU from the last two or three generations max, gaming and video encode/decode was not worth the effort. Today even someone running an overclocked i7 920/970 can easily game with some of the latest graphics hardware without much worry about heavy bottlenecks. Ten years ago going that long without a new platform and still being useful in the high end was unheard of.

Wait, so being compelled to upgrade every few years is a good thing, while being able to get acceptable performance out of a CPU for 5+ years is being milked and screwed over? Interesting way to look at things...

LOL!! I can see your point but I am talking about spurring innovation. I guess what I was getting at was when I do upgrade every three years or so I want the upgrade to feel worth while. As of late that has not been the case. Whereas in the past you could use a 5+ year old CPU but you would be forced to dial things back a lot and you couldn't handle the high end GPU's after say 3 years. Without innovation we get stuck with the same graphics in games with little or no improvement. So while there is the advantage of your rig lasting longer in the high end, everything from games to apps have to compensate for the lack of IPC improvement. So yeah I do feel screwed when it's been 3-4 years and my new PC is barely faster then my old one.

I had built 4 rigs in the past year, one AMD, and all the others being Intel-based; in all of the Intel builds, each successive build was made to be a small upgrade to the previous, and in ALL cases I did see performance improvement, albeit a small one, but still it was there. I think that perception has a lot to do with what you are saying; it depends what a person defines as an 'upgrade' to what they have already. If it's been 3-4 years, but you feel as though the newer computer isn't much better, or faster than the old one, it boils down to your own particular definition of what you consider "better or faster". Sorta like that old adage "one man's trash, is another man's treasure". If you had a friend who uses your PC (just as an example) from time to time, than you do some upgrades, but you don't notice any real improvement, and then the friend comes over to use it, and WHOA!, he is like flabbergasted at the improvements you made, that is his perception, which may not jibe with yours, but being an individual with his own thinking and reasoning, the perceptions are going to differ.

 

[sarinaide]

CES showed AMD using their final silicon SR7 Black Edition used at new horizons with the final firmware tweaks running 3.6-3.9 with XFR turbo on official Gigabyte AM4 socket X370 board and it was good.

Canard PC has to much reputation to stake on faking benchmarks on an ES chip and very old testing AGESA board to suggest that the results were fabricated. Reputable source with a history and a ES chip that was performing exeptionally well with low frequencies ie: 3.1-3.3Ghz (CES showed a 15% uptick in clock speed which will obviously improve the performance on their benches accordingly).