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.

 

[Kwirek]

Well, AMD must surely have known about these problems unless Microsoft released a very recent update that changed something fundamental?

Perhaps it is just a marketing decision, better to let the problems be discovered (or not) after launch when you already got the initial buzz and cash from the pre-order zealots. It works for games, and hardware is more bothersome to return...
Then you can patch out the problems (amd always get better so they gotta start slightly lower!) and hope any little storm blows over and none remembers.

 

[K888D]

Here is an interesting video, although the Ryzen offers amazing value for money in overall performance potential, it does not currently offer good value for money if your main priority is gaming:

 

[MarcParis]

There seem to be issues with SMT on Ryzen in Windows 10 according to a few users at Anandtech forum:

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-8#post-38775732



https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...and-discussion.2499879/page-128#post-38774366



To me what stands out is how this happened to be present in Windows 10 in the first place. Is this Microsoft not having the needed update out yet ? Or did AMD fumble in sending the required information to Microsoft ? Either way, this will end up costing them in sales.

In fact , as i've read, Ryzen cache have bottlenecks when windows is switching threads. Windows 10 loves switching threads and when he does that, ryzen is suffering.. This is explaining why removing SMT can improve performance on windows 10. On this point, Microsoft can clearly improve its support on Ryzen, but it will take a little bit longer.

 

[Phuncz]

Here is an interesting video, although the Ryzen offers amazing value for money in overall performance potential, it does not currently offer good value for money if your main priority is gaming:

OC'ed versus Stock doesn't seem like a fair comparison. I could just as well use my dual-core G3258 running at 4.8GHz and show with some benchmarks it's better than the 1800X or even the 7700K.

But one shouldn't buy an 8-core if 2 or 4 cores will do. It's not like Intel's 24-core is the best at everything because it costs upwards of $7000, but when you need more cores per chassis, you usually end up trading single-thread performance for parallel performance. At the moment the only way around this seems to be to use multiple processors and that becomes silly expensive fast, unless you look at older tech which is fine in my opinion.

Not directed at you @K888D but just in general, it amazes me how much media attention there is to show how the entire Intel lineup is somehow better than the three 8-core Ryzen lineup, except for the comparable 8-core Intels in applications that actually make use of the cores. It doesn't help that AMD's marketing is putting this straight in Core i7 territory but people should be able to figure out that AMD's 8-core 3.0 GHz isn't meant to take it up with Intel's 4-core 4.2 GHz, costing the same.
People don't seem to realise that it's not 8 x 3 = 24 which is a HUGER number than 4 x 4.2 = 16.8, so AMD should be faster.

 

[MarcParis]

Here is an interesting video, although the Ryzen offers amazing value for money in overall performance potential, it does not currently offer good value for money if your main priority is gaming:

The same argument could be sent vs core i7 7700k...

 

[Kwirek]

It doesn't help that AMD's marketing is putting this straight in Core i7 territory but people should be able to figure out that AMD's 8-core 3.0 GHz isn't meant to take it up with Intel's 4-core 4.2 GHz, costing the same.

I also think marketing was the issue, sadly. Since AMD was vague with details in general some people convinced themselves and others that you could close the frequency gap significantly with overclocking while keeping 8 cores of goodness. Instead of seeing that AMD apparently made a mighty fine job pushing all their cpu's to their limit (i.e. no real overclocking headroom) this is seen as a negative. It didn't really help that they even mentioned the XFR function, it should have been clear to them that it would disappoint users.

That they also position the R7 1700 against the 7700/k doesn't help since specification-wise the R7 1800X should be better than that at everything and still doesn't "beat" the i7700k in the first unveiling, in tests that matter to a lot of people. Since AMD in their wisdom didn't ship all processors at once to reviewers initial impressions more or less come from the 1800X with the higher price-point hanging around its neck like a noose.

Pah for marketing departments trying to ride the tiger called "hype-train".

 

[MarcParis]

I'll remind 2 stuffs from these Ryzen 7 :

• XFR is useless, really useless (like all automatic OC...high Wattage, high temperature for nothing..)
• You can OC all R7 cpu(1700-1700X-1800X) up to 3.9Ghz (quite easily)

At AMD place I'll have ONLY launched R7 1700...beating 1000$ Core i7 6900K by slight OC..but for a third of the price...

 

[K888D]

I'm not against AMD, I want them to succeed!

I know allot of people were holding out for the Ryzen 7's to be their next gaming CPU, including myself. But the point I was trying to show by linking that video is that Ryzen 7 is not good "value" for gaming alone. A CPU half its price can beat it quite convincingly in this segment of the market. £/ $ per fps is what I'm talking about.

If productivity is what your after though, then these Ryzen 7 is amazing value for money. These CPUs may show greater gaming value as software companies shift towards using more lower clocked cores rather than fewer higher clocked cores.

I am hoping that Ryzen 5 will be a different story and AMDs lineup will compete at least with current gen i5's for a lower price point.

 

[TheDreamingMonk]

I feel the also missed the price point so far. If they had released the 8-core chips at the maximum price range of the i7-700k ( $330'ish ), then it would have been better. So far, their $500 8 core chip is rivaling Intel's $300 unlocked i7-7700k... they missed the mark. Once they start releasing their others that are closer to Intel's prices, things may not look at good.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ryzen-1800x-linux&num=1

There's not many benchmarks the 1800x beat the 7700k at, and the few it did weren't exactly huge gains.

Their other problem is Intel still destroys them where it matters, single threaded performance. AMD's answer has pretty much always been throw more cores at them, and it's never worked. They did the same this time too.

The same argument could be sent vs core i7 7700k...

Nobody recommends an i7-7700k for gaming. That's what the i5 is for which comes in at $100+ cheaper and all you really lose is the hyper threading. And even then I'd go as far as not recommending the K version saving a bit more money. As overclocking yields overall negligible gains.

 

[K888D]

I don't think AMD were targeting gaming though with the Ryzen 7 and their $330 price tag is fully justified when compared against Intel equivalent CPUs.

 

[danger]

Nobody recommends an i7-7700k for gaming. That's what the i5 is for which comes in at $100+ cheaper and all you really lose is the hyper threading. And even then I'd go as far as not recommending the K version saving a bit more money. As overclocking yields overall negligible gains.

This is all completely false.

I'm not a big fan of ryzen and I maintain that kaby lake is a better value that will yield better performance for 95% of people because of single threaded performance, but I'm itching for ITX boards so I can do a ryzen build.

 

[Vittra]

The 1700 is compared vs the 7700K for gaming purely based on cost of both processors.

Hyperthreading is not the only thing you lose 7600K --> 7700K. Clockspeeds, cache, and hyperthreading are the differences. Since Skylake, the clockspeed gap between the i5 and i7 has been growing. We'll likely see a return to normalcy with the 6 core Coffee Lake parts.

http://ark.intel.com/compare/97129,97144

 

[TheDreamingMonk]

The 1700 is compared vs the 7700K for gaming purely based on cost of both processors.

Hyperthreading is not the only thing you lose 7600K --> 7700K. Clockspeeds, cache, and hyperthreading are the differences. Since Skylake, the clockspeed gap between the i5 and i7 has been growing. We'll likely see a return to normalcy with the 6 core Coffee Lake parts.

http://ark.intel.com/compare/97129,97144

400MHz ( 300MHz after boost ) is a negligible difference in clock speeds in gaming. Hell, my 2600k used to sit at a steady 4.8GHz stable ( a whopping 1GHz overclock ) and I still say it wasn't worth it. And why I don't bother to overclock anymore these days. Woohoo your e-peen grows a little and your benchmark scores go up a bit. It means little in the real world though.

And the vast majority of games / programs ( outside of higher end production software ) aren't written to take advantage of the hyper threading, let alone multiple cores.

And 2MB of cache isn't going to do you anything for the gaming aspect. Again, once you get into more production oriented programs, audio, video, programming, etc then that's where a little more cache helps the most.

You gain virtually nothing in the gaming realm by spending more money beyond the cost of the i5.

MOD EDIT: removed part of message according to the rules.

 

[Phuncz]

A friendly reminder to keep the discussion civil, don't insult, just keep the topic about the processors instead of the opinions. We all have those

Over on Anandtech forum, user The Stilt has made some interesting observations about Ryzen;, of which the potential to very easily underclock is interesting:

As indicated by the Vmin-Fmax curve, Zeppelin's voltage scaling is perfectly linear until 3.3GHz (25mV per 100MHz). The first deviation ("Critical 1") from this linear behavior can be seen at 3.3GHz. The second and the final deviation ("Critical 2") can be seen at 3.5GHz. Beyond this point the voltage scaling is neither linear or recovers even temporarily, and the CPU is requiring higher voltage in increasingly larger steps to scale further.

The ideal frequency range for the process or the design (as a whole) appears to be 2.1 - 3.3GHz (25mV per 100MHz). Above this region (>= 3.3GHz) the voltage scaling gradually deteriorates to 40 - 100mV+ per 100MHz.

This means that at ~3.8GHz pushing further usually becomes extremely costly (power / thermal wise).

This means that if you want to have one with a lower TDP and you have more use of the number of cores than the clock frequency, you can easily scale it down.

 

[Vittra]

@TheDreamingMonk
https://smallformfactor.net/forum/members/thedreamingmonk.782/
While your explanation is valid, stating that hyperthreading is the only difference was not. The only practical difference? Yes. The only difference? No.

Again, the only reason the 1700 squared off against the 7700K is due to the pricing being roughly equivalent. If the 7700K is better choice for gaming, the 7600K does indeed make the current AMD lineup look embarrassing. Until the Ryzen 5 and 3 lineup comes, that is the way of things.

For myself - I am hoping that Naples is competitive against Skylake-X, otherwise we aren't going to see any pricing changes from Intel.

 

[TheDreamingMonk]

@TheDreamingMonk
While your explanation is valid, stating that hyperthreading is the only difference was not. The only practical difference? Yes. The only difference? No.

Context is key. Relevance to gaming was that context.

 

[MarcParis]

Once again, cpu choice depends, even in gaming, to what gaming you mean..

If you mean 4k gaming, with one or two gtx 1080 ti in sli, core i5 7600k is simply out of question, as it will limit sli...

If you are aiming 1080p gaming with gtx 1060/rx 480, you can go for g4560 even..

Clearly, and nobody is complaining about that, Ryzen 7 is perfect for gaming 1440p or 2160p.

My concern with cpu testing at 1080p with gtx 1080 is just future proof feature. History with core i5 2500, that this kind of test is completely overkill.
What is important is Ryzen is able to handle gaming, even at 1080p, but with a more suitable 1080p card like gtx 1060/rx480. 1080p@200fps is something very unique and dedicated to some kind of gamers...and only one available monitor to support that..

In conclusion, people who want to spend around 300 bucks in cpu, they can choose both ryzen 7 1700 or core i7 7700k, both will be great for 1440p and 2160p gaming..

 

[MarcParis]

There seem to be issues with SMT on Ryzen in Windows 10 according to a few users at Anandtech forum:

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-8#post-38775732
"All of these were recorded at 3.5GHz, 2133MHz MEMCLK with R9 Nano:

Windows 10 - 1080 Ultra DX11:

8C/16T - 49.39fps (Min), 72.36fps (Avg)
8C/8T - 57.16fps (Min), 72.46fps (Avg)

Windows 7 - 1080 Ultra DX11:

8C/16T - 62.33fps (Min), 78.18fps (Avg)
8C/8T - 62.00fps (Min), 73.22fps (Avg)"

I just realized that we can install windows 7 with ryzen?..

 

[Phuncz]

Yes people have been generally confused about Kaby Lake and Ryzen not "supporting" Windows 7. What that basically means is that not all technology and features will be usable or supported and Microsoft will probably not give proper support either. But that doesn't mean they don't work perfectly like any other CPU. I believe AMD and Intel both have drivers for their latest platform for Windows 7 available.

 

[Dyson Poindexter]

Yeah, x86 is x86 (very generally speaking). It's the chipset drivers that kill you.

More on topic, I'm a bit miffed that a lot of the reviews of a 16 threaded processor hinge on games that use 2-4 threads. I'm thinking that a 65W 1700 would be amazing in an ITX sized home server. Mine runs DVR software, some VMs, and occasionally transcodes all while needing to sustain 50+ MBps of file server traffic. I currently have an AMD APU which gets its butt kicked with the load.