SFF.Network AMD Ryzen announced, detailed and available for pre-order TODAY !

Ever since AMD first announced the work that would later be branded as Ryzen, the company has been strategically and masterfully orchestrating a narrative of dramatic change and disruption to the staid status quo of consumer and enthusiast-grade processors. Today, however, AMD has built up this performance into a crescendo, by revealing their top-performing Ryzen AM4 CPUs today.

Read more here.
 

Kmpkt

Innovation through Miniaturization
KMPKT
Feb 1, 2016
3,382
5,936
Looking forward to seeing more benchmarks on the vanilla 1800. Considering it comes it at a 65W TDP, if it can have single core performance on most titles that keeps playable frame rates on 1440p/4K while also offering the multithreaded performance that Kaby Lake cannot it might be a really compelling choice for a travel companion sort of PC.
 

CC Ricers

Shrink Ray Wielder
Bronze Supporter
Nov 1, 2015
2,234
2,557
The only reason I'd upgrade with Intel are its multithreaded Pentiums as they are the only interesting Kaby Lake CPUs to me, and because I still have the potential to make a Hackintosh build. It's already a huge hassle to get Hackintosh running on a current AMD system and Ryzen is very different from any previous AMD CPU.

Either way I'll need to wait a few months anyways to try my hand at building a Ryzen system. ITX mobos are still not out for AM4 and they take a while longer to develop requiring an extra layer or so in the PCB manufacturing process.
 

zovc

King of Cable Management
Jan 5, 2017
852
603
I want to see more overclocking on the "R7" lineup (which I'm still pretty salty they used the x3/5/7 nomenclature), but I'm pretty convinced the 1700 is the right chip to buy if you are going Ryzen.

I have a hard time believing that a 1800X can overclock significantly higher than a 1700 can, but I say that not knowing a whole lot about how this stuff works.

I am happy that Ryzen isn't a total flop, but I don't think it deserves as much hype as it got. My biggest gripe is that, like @3lfk1ng said, the 7700K is the better gaming chip right now. Even compared to the $500 1800X. AMD talked so much smack about value (and outside of gaming it totally is), but they also tried really hard (and kind of dishonestly) to make it seem like their processors were also better for gaming. This rubs me the wrong way because people are going to be disappointed that they could have gotten better performance in games for less and might end up giving up on AMD again--like always happens when AMD makes a new platform.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ceros_X

Soul_Est

SFF Guru
SFFn Staff
Feb 12, 2016
1,536
1,928
The thing that AMD did and should have emphasised harder on, is gaming and streaming or running a simulator as those tasks require every thread you've got.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CXH4 and zovc

3lfk1ng

King of Cable Management
SFFn Staff
Bronze Supporter
Jun 3, 2016
918
1,717
www.reihengaming.com
Well, there is talk over at PC gamer (apparently?) that a 2nd-gen bios netted an extra 10% in performance across the board.
Also, in the AMD AMA today, they said that they are working with developers now to improve game performance issues that we saw in the review.

It's all hearsay and talk at the moment but it will be interesting to see if the graphs will improve as the platform matures.

Intel has been milking every ounce of performance out of the same architecture year after year. This is really AMD's first attempt so I gotta give them credit for that.
 

zovc

King of Cable Management
Jan 5, 2017
852
603
I'm most excited to see what happens with newer motherboards or chipsets. I'm happy with the features of X370 for an ITX board, but not for a full-size ATX machine. Not even enough lanes to run PCI-e 3 x16 on two cards? I know it's theoretically overkill, but it still bums me out. There's not enough lanes without borrowing from other places to run two NVME/M.2 PCI-e drives like on that Z270 ITX board!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Soul_Est

MarcParis

Spatial Philosopher
Apr 1, 2016
3,669
2,784
Currently i'm not convinced by r7 1800x...but only on gaming side. Even on 4k (res i'm planning), it could bottleneck some games...but as stated, it's still early bios, and windows 10 needs some tweaks. clearly potential is here, and AMD is back.

For my personal setup, for cerberus-x, my current benchmark is still core i7 7700k...but i'll build it it several weeks. Let's see..:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Soul_Est and CXH4

MarcParis

Spatial Philosopher
Apr 1, 2016
3,669
2,784
What I understood is that Ryzen has bottlenecks in cache management,especially when windows 10 is switching threads. There are several solutions to that issue.

Let's see process that will be done...but clearly AMD has missed perfect release by a tiny margin..:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Soul_Est

3lfk1ng

King of Cable Management
SFFn Staff
Bronze Supporter
Jun 3, 2016
918
1,717
www.reihengaming.com
...AMD Fine Wine strikes again.

It's going to be months, if not years, before this is all solved (optimizing for a processor made by a company that had been widely ignored by developers for being non-competitive for 10 years).

The process definitely won't happen overnight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Soul_Est and CXH4

ChainedHope

Airflow Optimizer
Jun 5, 2016
306
459
After looking at reviews, I think im sold on getting at least a 1700. Bugs will get worked out eventually, software and firmware patches will come and bring greater performance, and with time motherboards will get better.

Reasons for getting the 1700 over the 1800X:
  1. Im a gamer at heart and a hobbyist streamer/media creator. That being said, I cannot justify the price difference of the 1800X over the 1700 when initial overclocking shows the 1700 doing a tad better than a stock 1800X. It is still 8c/16t and will do an amazing job at streaming and rendering.
  2. Small Form Factor, the power draw is lower even with overclocks to the 1800X which will just make my life easier in the long run in terms of cooling and psu support.

With that said I wont be building a system until late Q2 and by that time I am hopeful that more mATX and some mITX motherboards will be available to choose from. ATX is too much for me as I take my PC with me to various LANs and events, and theres no reason for me to go ATX. Hopefully we will see more in the coming months and I can finally build another AMD system (Havent had one since the K7 days, which was my first pc I put together for myself).
 

zovc

King of Cable Management
Jan 5, 2017
852
603
That being said, I cannot justify the price difference of the 1800X over the 1700 when initial overclocking shows the 1700 doing a tad better than a stock 1800X. It is still 8c/16t and will do an amazing job at streaming and rendering.

Hey, can you cite that? Most of the reviewers I looked at didn't give the 1700 much attention but it's the chip I'm most interested of the R7 line by far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Soul_Est

CubanLegend

Steely-Eyed NVFlash Man
Dec 23, 2016
834
1,011
smallformfactor.net
So after seeing all the benchmarks, I think it's hilarious that the 1800x performed better with SMT OFF, and it only matched an i5 from 2 years ago. XD

I'm glad AMD is back in the game, as competition is always good. But as far as *(building a PC to last into 1440p/4K) gaming is concerned... my 7700k purchase certainly feels redeemed.
 

TheHig

King of Cable Management
Oct 13, 2016
951
1,171
So after seeing all the benchmarks, I think it's hilarious that the 1800x performed better with SMT OFF, and it only matched an i5 from 2 years ago. XD

I'm glad AMD is back in the game, as competition is always good. But as far as *(building a PC to last into 1440p/4K) gaming is concerned... my 7700k purchase certainly feels redeemed.

Certainly anyone who is primarily gaming is better served with a 7700k overclocked even compared to intel's 6-8 core offerings. 4.8- 5Ghz on KL will get that done for a long while yet. That if anything was reinforced by Ryzen seemingly coming up short in a pure gaming sense.

Despite the gaming marketing push by AMD these are workstation chips first and gaming on the side.

However the fact that you can get a gtx 1080 and a workhorse Ryzen cpu for the price of on 6900k is pretty freaking fantastic. Hell R7 1700 and 1080ti even.

gpu assist on all the work stuff with 4k gaming chops to boot!
 
Last edited:

3lfk1ng

King of Cable Management
SFFn Staff
Bronze Supporter
Jun 3, 2016
918
1,717
www.reihengaming.com
Let's not turn this into a bash thread for poor game performance though, we should be praising them.

Being a first-gen architecture, from a company that has just 8% of Intel's R&D budget, that has been largely noncompetitive and easily forgotten for the past 10 years, their new processor did remarkably well, even as the resolution went up (especially in VR).
We gotta keep in mind that Intel has been rehashing the same design with minor improvements, perfecting their processors, year after year. Only time will tell if AMD can do the same for Ryzen. A 52% IPC improvement is nothing to shake a stick at.

Also, keep in mind that you're only looking at gaming benchmarks for which the R7, and all 8+ core Intel processors are not optimized for (source). Yet (1) (2)


Even at its worst, Ryzen 7 is going to offer you better multithreading value than a 6900k, though. If you're a gamer, most of the evidence strongly suggests staying with a 7700k, or waiting for Ryzen 5.

In reality, the 1800x was designed to compete with the 6900k and on average it's comparable to the 6900k in single-threaded applications. In multi-threaded applications, the 1800x matches or beats its competition(6900k) handily at just 50% of the price. Ultimately, that's how we should be praising it as that's the deal of a century.

To me, the best 'all arounder' is the 1700/x at just $329-399. For me that makes the absolute most sense for a price: performance build that will last well into the future and take anything you throw at it. However, if you plan to overclock ( possibly past ~4.6GHz), I think the 7700k may still be the better choice (understanding that the 1700/x is more energy efficient in watts per core) for system builders now.

At present, the 7700k is the better choice for dedicated gamers but over the next few years, as engines like Unity, Frostbite, Lumberyard, and now the new Bethesda engine are being built to take advantage of 8-core+ systems, this lead may change. This might even be accelerated by AMD's partnership with over 300 developers that make games and game engines that are already being optimized for the AMD components that are in today's game consoles. This is compounded by the fact that AMD has already been chosen to supply a Zen-based SOC for the Playstation 5 and XBox Two due out as early as 2018 (source).

Like the i5 arguments of yesteryear where people routinely spouted, "You don't need an i7 for gaming!", the i5's shined brightly until games started to take advantage of quad cores. Now i5's are widely considered not a good choice for a gaming PC.

Now that 8-cores are finally affordable to the masses for the first time in history, we're on the cusp of watching games evolve to take advantage of that extra horsepower that has been traditionally out of reach to the masses.

This definitely isn't going to happen overnight but it's nice to see AMD doing their part to help make this dream a reality and it's especially nice to have that competition bringing the prices down for everyone looking to build a new PC.
 

Kmpkt

Innovation through Miniaturization
KMPKT
Feb 1, 2016
3,382
5,936
The other thing I hate about all of these gaming benchmarks is half the time the frame rate difference is not actually going to be perceivable in real life. I don't know about the rest of you, but I can't tell the difference between like 60 FPS and 100 FPS. My eyes are shit, and perhaps that is the problem, but I saw very few benchmarks where the numbers suggested there would be a significant real world difference in the quality of what you're experiencing as an end user. Furthermore I believe that Ryzen did quite well on most tests with minimum frame rate when compared with the 7700K which I personally feel to be a vastly more meaningful number to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Soul_Est

IntoxicatedPuma

Customizer of Titles
SFFn Staff
Feb 26, 2016
992
1,272
I think in the real world, most average users are not going to be bottlenecked by any KL or Zen CPU. Unless you are pairing a Pentium with a 1080 ti and are gaming on a 144hz 4k monitor, is that 70fps performance on the CPU going to limit you?

For example, even the FX8370 was showing above a 60fps minimum frame rate on Battlefield 1. They also show FX4300 running around 55 fps minimum. Unless i'm pairing my FX4300 with a GTX 1060/970 or better, my CPU isn't going to be the bottleneck. Plus, if my monitor isn't so great, I'm probably going to never see those extra frames anyways. I see a lot of posts online with people saying they're getting a GTX 1070 and then you find out later they have a 10 year old dell 4:3 monitor with a 1600 x 1200 resolution.

It's just one example, but I think people building budget PC's should be focusing so heavily on CPU frame rate performance when paired with GTX 1080 ti or AMD Fury X. I know this isn't the reality - people do look at those numbers and base their decision on it. Unfortunately for AMD, that's going to really impact Zen's sales. some of the earlier posts are right though, AMD really needs to show how Zen can handle not only gaming, but streaming and other services in the background alongside the game. That will show off its true benefit for gamers. I have friends who are complaining their Haswell E3 xeons can't handle gaming + streaming very well, I think this should be the answer to their problems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Soul_Est