AMD Announces the Official Ryzen Launch Date

Lizard Testes said:
I very much enjoy the philosophy of "welp, I got it because even if it's not very good, it'll still be an upgrade from my current not very good AMD processor!"
Click to expand...

Really dude? Sorry but, my FX 8300 and FX 8350 are very good processors. However, the new architecture is definitely a leap forward. Oh well, I love the philosophy of INTEL FOR LIFE! :rolleyes:
 
Flogger23m said:
Also waiting to see how it performs in terms of temps. Will a Cooler Master Hyper 212 be enough to keep this within safe operation while being fairly quiet? Or will a new design be better?

Hopefully [H] will do some reviews with various coolers.
Click to expand...

They're more efficient than Intel chips across the board. The 1800x is equiv to 6900K at 45w less tdp iirc. And when you get to the consumer class, ie. 4/6 core they are soldered so they shouldn't run HOT like Intel.
 
thesmokingman said:
They're more efficient than Intel chips across the board. The 1800x is equiv to 6900K at 45w less tdp iirc. And when you get to the consumer class, ie. 4/6 core they are soldered so they shouldn't run HOT like Intel.
Click to expand...

It sounds good, but the 6 cores (not surprising) have a higher TDP than my current CPU. But if by design it is cooler that would be great. But that is why I want some reviews on this. It is all theory and guessing until some reviews experiential with them.
 
dgingeri said:
I loved AMD back in the A64 heyday, but the last AMD I bought was an AthlonX2 6400+. I am sincerely hoping these Ryzen chips are all they're expected to be. That, and that consoles are now AMD 8 core chips as well, might encourage game developers to actually make games that use all 8 cores effectively. That would be great.

I was bit by the hype around Bulldozer, thinking it was going to be so great, and it turned out to be a big, giant turd. I won't join so easily into the hype train again. I'll still wait for the reviews.
Click to expand...


I hear ya, exact same here. One of the differences this time is that we are seeing what is looking like reliable, difficult to manipulate results, straight from AMD, whereas with Bulldozer, the hype was mainly fan and online community based. Of course, it was fueled by a certain JF-AMD, but that is nothing like the CEO of the company going on stage and showing reliable benchmarks.
 
Flogger23m said:
It sounds good, but the 6 cores (not surprising) have a higher TDP than my current CPU. But if by design it is cooler that would be great. But that is why I want some reviews on this. It is all theory and guessing until some reviews experiential with them.
Click to expand...

What cpu are you using? The lowest 6 core Ryzen is 65w. If in the form of the 1500, that's 220 msrp. Not sure where the problem is lol.
 
I am leaning towards the 1700x, I'll know for sure after official reviews and tests. Anyone have opinions on 16GB of ram vs 32GB? And will the ram speed matter for gaming or other tasks?
 
thesmokingman said:
What cpu are you using? The lowest 6 core Ryzen is 65w.
Click to expand...

All the X variants use 95, I am on a 4670K. Will the X even be worth the extra money for "XFR"? Another thing I hope some reviews clear up. :)

Is an X variant worth the extra money, how well does it cool, what coolers work best for it, quality motherboards for a low price. Too bad DDR4 prices are so high. I recall deals for $80 for 16GB a few months back, now it seems to be $120.
 
Flogger23m said:
All the X variants use 95, I am on a 4670K. Will the X even be worth the extra money for "XFR"? Another thing I hope some reviews clear up. :)

Is an X variant worth the extra money, how well does it cool, what coolers work best for it, quality motherboards for a low price. Too bad DDR4 prices are so high. I recall deals for $80 for 16GB a few months back, now it seems to be $120.
Click to expand...

Omfg, hyperbole much. 4670K is a 84w tdp part, 4 core/thread. Even the upper end 1700 x or no x is 95w. Yea its more but its also two/three times the chip dude, c'mon man. All the other points are normal points that everyone juggles so its not much of a point in my book.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dgz
like this
cageymaru said:
AMD broke Cinebench world record @5.1GHz on LN2.
http://mirror.ninja/5vixv8
Click to expand...

This is good news, not because Cinebench is my favorite game, or because I give a rats ass about LN2 overclocking, as it is impractical for daily use, but the fact that they got a chip that could hit 5.1Ghz on all eight cores, if it were only chilled enough, suggests that high overclocks are at least possible, if cooling is good enough.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
This is good news, not because Cinebench is my favorite game, or because I give a rats ass about LN2 overclocking, as it is impractical for daily use, but the fact that they got a chip that could hit 5.1Ghz on all eight cores, if it were only chilled enough, suggests that high overclocks are at least possible, if cooling is good enough.
Click to expand...

Well LN2 at 5.1 on the 1800/x suggests not a very high ceiling but maybe 4.5ish is possible. The other thing is that we're gonna go back to the more IPC vs clockspeed paradigm. Then again Intel chips haven't really been hitting the fabled 5.0 mark in some time. Not sure how important that mark is if Krabby Lake is any indication.
 
thesmokingman said:
Well LN2 at 5.1 on the 1800/x suggests not a very high ceiling but maybe 4.5ish is possible. The other thing is that we're gonna go back to the more IPC vs clockspeed paradigm. Then again Intel chips haven't really been hitting the fabled 5.0 mark in some time. Not sure how important that mark is if Krabby Lake is any indication.
Click to expand...

If you can get 4.5Ghz on 8 core/16 thread with say even a 10% IPC discrepancy... thats amazing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dgz
like this
Woo woo! All aboard the Ryzen Hype Train! Just pre-ordered an 1800X for my daily driver (gaming, Office content creation, image and video editing, etc.) and a 1700 for my secondary work system that does 3D scientific modeling. I also bought a bunch of AMD shares.

Zarathustra[H] said:
I hear ya, exact same here. One of the differences this time is that we are seeing what is looking like reliable, difficult to manipulate results, straight from AMD, whereas with Bulldozer, the hype was mainly fan and online community based. Of course, it was fueled by a certain JF-AMD, but that is nothing like the CEO of the company going on stage and showing reliable benchmarks.
Click to expand...

Could not agree more - if Lisa Su is up on that stage feeding us manipulated BS, then AMD is finished, and this has been an incredible exercise in stock pumping and dumping...
 
dergreg said:
Disgusting. Trying to use objective data to determine something's value before you're willing to pull the trigger? You make me sick.

But really I shouldn't have bothered buying this considering how consistently disappointed I've been by everything AMD I've purchased lately.
Click to expand...


Lol. Released by the CEO at an official even = the 52% IPC increase is etched in stone. Catching up with Intel;s best IN ONE STEP is beyond massive, it's shattering, That's with the INITIAL Ryzen CPUss, expect another 5%+ IPC improvement and substantial higher frequencies with 1850X etal for the Xmas season followed by Ryzen 2 in 1H 2018 and more of the same through 2020.

Intel's performance and market share hurt is going to be AT LEAST a four year nightmare. By then it will be AMD driving the compute market, not Intel.
 
Last edited:
Saw this on anand. You can have per core overclock control. That's freaking awesome.

ZwY05FK.jpg
 
spaceman said:
Hmmm. Very interesting. I wonder how that will change things for gaming?
Click to expand...

Games stuck on a single thread where previously you had no control and now you can overclock just that thread on that core. Chips can typically overclock a lot higher on one thread vs all 8 in this example so you can set that single core higher w/o taxing the rest of the chip. You have some of this control on Intel but in bios so thats a set it once type of deal. AMD's driver applet gives potentially much tighter and finer control.
 
Anticipate some major investor lawsuits on the way after the Intel CEO recently assured them AMD posed no threat to Intel.
 
cageymaru said:
2410 cb was the old multithreaded record and 2449 cb seems to be the new one set by the Ryzen CPU.



WCCFTECH covered it a little.
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-world-record/
Click to expand...

OK, now THAT is substantial news. That means that average overclockers could probably get these up to 4.4-4.6GHz at good voltages and probably 4.8 at voltages where you wouldn't want to run for long, which would put it in good range with Intel's chips. (My 4790k can do 4.6 at 1.2v.) Couple that with the increased core count, and it makes for very nice chips.

Now, I want to see gaming benchmarks and how they compare to Intel's chips in gaming, particularly in WoW if that's possible. That's where things count.
 
dgingeri said:
OK, now THAT is substantial news. That means that average overclockers could probably get these up to 4.4-4.6GHz at good voltages and probably 4.8 at voltages where you wouldn't want to run for long, which would put it in good range with Intel's chips. (My 4790k can do 4.6 at 1.2v.) Couple that with the increased core count, and it makes for very nice chips.

Now, I want to see gaming benchmarks and how they compare to Intel's chips in gaming, particularly in WoW if that's possible. That's where things count.
Click to expand...

Live benchmarks: AMD Ryzen vs. Intel Core
http://www.pcgamer.com/live-benchmarks-amd-ryzen-vs-intel-core/?sf58073430=1

I think this was the biggest difference. I agree that MMOs kill CPUs. ;)
 
spaceman said:
Hmmm. Very interesting. I wonder how that will change things for gaming?

I ask this as a 2500k user looking for a new girlfriend.
Click to expand...

I'm 100 percent with you Dr. Spaceman, I've been looking for a compelling upgrade from my 2500k for years. The 7700k is nice in terms of IPC and a few extra threads, but I think an 8 core 16 thread processor would last me much longer. I usually only upgrade my CPU every 4-5 years, I might just take the plunge on a R7 1800x and have that system for 5 years. My last AMD CPU was a Athalon x2 3200+, haha.
 
dgingeri said:
OK, now THAT is substantial news. That means that average overclockers could probably get these up to 4.4-4.6GHz at good voltages and probably 4.8 at voltages where you wouldn't want to run for long, which would put it in good range with Intel's chips. (My 4790k can do 4.6 at 1.2v.) Couple that with the increased core count, and it makes for very nice chips.

Now, I want to see gaming benchmarks and how they compare to Intel's chips in gaming, particularly in WoW if that's possible. That's where things count.
Click to expand...

For World of Warcraft it depends where you are coming from if you are running it now on an overclocked Intel 4 core machine past 4.2ghz you most likely won't see an improvement since WoW does not scale over more cores.

https://translate.google.nl/transla...s/Legion-Test-Benchmarks-1204205/&prev=search

Had to find a relevant post on google it seems the Germans tested it with 6C12T for Intel and came to the conclusion:

World of Warcraft 7.0.3 presents an interesting scaling behavior with the provided processor cores and -threads. The core statement for the start: The engine is saturated from four physical cores, neither the change to six cores nor simultaneous multi-threading (SMT alias hyperthreading) lead to an increase in the average image rate - but a shift in the course of the 20 seconds test duration.With four cores + SMT (yellow line), such as a Core i7-4770K or i7-6700K offers, the highest frame rates are generated up to second 7. As of second 8, this configuration is deep - an important finding, because at this point, the test scene is much more challenging, because here various characters are embedded. Comparing the gray-blue line (4 cores without SMT), it is noticeable that this configuration goes deeper, but breaks down significantly less than with active SMT. The average result is also here at ~ 65 Fps, with minimum values by 56 Fps. 6 cores, whether with or without SMT, do not slow down the game, but do not help the frame rate.
Click to expand...
 
dgingeri said:
OK, now THAT is substantial news. That means that average overclockers could probably get these up to 4.4-4.6GHz at good voltages and probably 4.8 at voltages where you wouldn't want to run for long, which would put it in good range with Intel's chips. (My 4790k can do 4.6 at 1.2v.) Couple that with the increased core count, and it makes for very nice chips.

Now, I want to see gaming benchmarks and how they compare to Intel's chips in gaming, particularly in WoW if that's possible. That's where things count.
Click to expand...


I've been running my [email protected] at "Voltages you probably don't want to run at for long" for 5+ years. It's been humming along at 1.45V for all this time.

It's been a champ, but I do think it is slowly starting to take its toll.

I don't consider 5 years to be poor longevity for a CPU though. Heck I remember when I swapped them out every few months :p
 
The price point doesn't impress me. If I'm going to spend 300$ on a chip and 200$ on a mobo? I might as well go Intel at that point.
 
And on one glorious day in 2017, a miracle happened. All tech enthusiasts and Fanboys on both sides knowing full well how the outcome of this launch can affect their hobby positively joined in prayer together...

Please don't suck.
Please don't suck.
Please don't suck.
Please don't suck.
Please don't suck.
Please don't suck.
Please don't suck.
Please don't suck.
Please don't suck.
Please don't suck.
Please don't suck.
Please don't suck.

May AMD RYZE again! Amen.

66916895.jpg
 
viscountalpha said:
The price point doesn't impress me. If I'm going to spend 300$ on a chip and 200$ on a mobo? I might as well go Intel at that point.
Click to expand...

For me it comes down to how good the $400 and $500 AMD chips really are. Currently with Intel you can get the high-end quad core chips (4790K, 6700K, 7700K) for around $300-350.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top