AMD Announces the Official Ryzen Launch Date

ManofGod said:
Dude, if you are going to quote me, at least keep it in context. I cannot even find that and I am not going to search all my posts just for that.
Click to expand...

Its right there if you hit the link arrow on the quote... man your such a troll.

Context is important

"That is cool and good for you. I want to support AMD and buying into their new platform is not going to hurt me at all. I am on the FX platform now at home and work and will be upgrading both at the sametime. However, I am going to do the Asus B350 for work and the Asus Prime X370 for home. The Hero is nice but, I do not need all it is offering anyways."
 
Pieter3dnow said:
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:
Click to expand...
Blizzard is supposedly updating their game code on all their games when they end windows xp and vista support later this year. It is certainly possible they could be adding better multicore support.
 
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...

Uhh, they're literally giving you 6900k performance for half the price? Does it need to blow you and cook you dinner as well?
 
Decko87 said:
Uhh, they're literally giving you 6900k performance for half the price? Does it need to blow you and cook you dinner as well?
Click to expand...

Right, just because they don't launch next week, doesn't mean the rest of the rumored lineup doesn't exist. They just need some time to launch all models, and are starting at the top.

That's a 6-core for Core i5k money, and a quad-core with HT for under $200.

https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/amd-zen-release-date-specs-prices-rumours

If AMD's octo-core prices match the rumors, then there's nowhere else for the rest of the cores to go but to match those rumors too!

viscountalpha, of you think 8 cores is all you'll get, you're an idiot. That's got to be the most pointless Zen complaint I've ever heard.
 
Last edited:
So comparing their 1700 65w $329 CPU to Intel 7700k at $349 in handbrake, twice the cores and threads gets you done in 10 seconds faster? 60 vs 70 seconds. Someone do some math here to see the IPC/frequency. Then we need Kyle to overclock and compare. No, I don't buy $1000 Intel, nor $500 AMD, heck I don't buy $300 CPU,. I am a i5-k fan and a g4560 fan (the kids need something and they themselves are already breaking my budget)

And I sure don't preorder for hype. Waiting to see the whole lineup.
 
thesmokingman said:
Saw this on anand. You can have per core overclock control. That's freaking awesome.

ZwY05FK.jpg
Click to expand...

This looks great. For those shitty single threaded games just overclock one core like crazy and keep the rest at reasonable levels. I'm sure it still won't be up to Kaby Lake IPC, but I like this feature!
 
Pretty neat tool to have both per core overclocking and basic mem clocking from the manufacturer itself. That's like so not what Intel would offer. As a feedback and I hope more people would point it out, I hope they add per core temperature readings since you overclock now each core, it's pretty relevant to know how hot those cores run too.

Now the last question remains, overclocking. I have a bit bad feeling here as they have shown so little, they are very keen to show other things with Ryzen but not overclocking which either could be some strategy to add a 2nd wave of hype as the review surfaces OR the Ryzen doesn't overclock that well.

For me personally, I'd like to reach like 4.6~4.7GHz minimum on air to not be anymore than say 15% or whatever maximum behind a Kaby Lake 7700K @ 4.9~5.0GHz in IPC, otherwise I'd still be tempted to get Kaby Lake too (which likely drops to around Ryzen 1700 pricing of $329. If it only reaches like 4.3~4.4GHz on air (I know I know 8 cores and all) then despite the core count bonus, you have to start weighing your benefit between IPC vs core count, 20~25% behind in worst case scenario perhaps and maybe 30~35% ahead in best case scenarios of those few scenarios you get a good scaling of 8cores/16 threads.


In that sense I think you guys are brave for preordering already without knowing how it fares in 24/7 stable overclocks. :)
 
Last edited:
m_isom said:
So comparing their 1700 65w $329 CPU to Intel 7700k at $349 in handbrake, twice the cores and threads gets you done in 10 seconds faster? 60 vs 70 seconds. Someone do some math here to see the IPC/frequency. Then we need Kyle to overclock and compare. No, I don't buy $1000 Intel, nor $500 AMD, heck I don't buy $300 CPU,. I am a i5-k fan and a g4560 fan (the kids need something and they themselves are already breaking my budget)

And I sure don't preorder for hype. Waiting to see the whole lineup.
Click to expand...

Ya, I'd like to see a comparison with lightly threaded or single threaded applications, as that's my normal workload. For my usage, I think fewer, but faster cores gives me better performance.

Although, a 1700 would be great for a VM host machine.
 
I wonder if Intel will start making 8 core processors mainstream after this Instead of the usual 4.
 
m_isom said:
So comparing their 1700 65w $329 CPU to Intel 7700k at $349 in handbrake, twice the cores and threads gets you done in 10 seconds faster? 60 vs 70 seconds. Someone do some math here to see the IPC/frequency. Then we need Kyle to overclock and compare. No, I don't buy $1000 Intel, nor $500 AMD, heck I don't buy $300 CPU,. I am a i5-k fan and a g4560 fan (the kids need something and they themselves are already breaking my budget)

And I sure don't preorder for hype. Waiting to see the whole lineup.
Click to expand...

Ryzen is weak in AVX, which Handbrake uses heavily. Beating a 7700K is pretty decent considering it should be getting halved per core performance in AVX.
 
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...
you do know all those world records on LN2 with Intel CPUs use a single core right. this was using all 8 cores and threads.
 
Comixbooks said:
I wonder if Intel will start making 8 core processors mainstream after this Instead of the usual 4.
Click to expand...
I'm sure Intel has a plan to counter AMD and could easily crush AMD with it. Ryzen is great and all but it took them 5 years to just catch up to Intel. I wouldn't be surprised if Intel drops something in the next 6 months that will make Ryzen insignificant. AMD enjoy it and make as much money as you can because you just woke up the sleeping giant know as Intel.
 
Aireoth said:
Its right there if you hit the link arrow on the quote... man your such a troll.

Context is important

"That is cool and good for you. I want to support AMD and buying into their new platform is not going to hurt me at all. I am on the FX platform now at home and work and will be upgrading both at the sametime. However, I am going to do the Asus B350 for work and the Asus Prime X370 for home. The Hero is nice but, I do not need all it is offering anyways."
Click to expand...

Thank you for the full quote. Also, what the hell arrow are you talking about, I have no idea and I have been here for years.
 
vegeta535 said:
I'm sure Intel has a plan to counter AMD and could easily crush AMD with it. Ryzen is great and all but it took them 5 years to just catch up to Intel. I wouldn't be surprised if Intel drops something in the next 6 months that will make Ryzen insignificant. AMD enjoy it and make as much money as you can because you just woke up the sleeping giant know as Intel.
Click to expand...

Intel options:
1.\ 5 months to get the fabs ready and producing more 8 core cpu's.
2.\ Slash prices by minimum of 40% on top range.
3.\ Create competing chips for mainstream (no 2011 platform!) for 8 cores. - 12 months minimum for a proper hard launch like ryzen's 2.nd of march.

We will see 1 and 2 in action whilst doing 3 in the meantime I think.

Cpu's are not something you make overnight, if a new design is used it has to be tested, verified and all, I doubt intel had market strategy to dump 2011 platform to having only 10 core\quad channel premium.

On my bigger ??? Intel what will you do list:

Cheapest LGA2011-V3 mobo is 3x cost of the cheapest AM4 motherboard.
Most powerful LGA1151 cpu is a quadcore.

Intel's big issue is 2011 platform, what to do with it?, AMD is giving us 75 $ motherboards with 8 core support.

You buy AM4 platform and you go from 2011 performance all the way to LGA1151 lowest tier.
LGA2011-V3

if Intel can do LGA1151 with 8 or 6 cores they will keep a LARGE userbase that will possibly upgrade, if they cannot well they're a bit screwed.
If intel owners have to change to LGA2011-v3 platform at a higher cost why not go for same performance ryzen with a lower total platform cost with no actual drawbacks?

AMD seems way more consistent with platforms versus Intel.
 
whateverer said:
Right, just because they don't launch next week, doesn't mean the rest of the rumored lineup doesn't exist. They just need some time to launch all models, and are starting at the top.

That's a 6-core for Core i5k money, and a quad-core with HT for under $200.

https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/amd-zen-release-date-specs-prices-rumours

If AMD's octo-core prices match the rumors, then there's nowhere else for the rest of the cores to go but to match those rumors too!

viscountalpha, of you think 8 cores is all you'll get, you're an idiot. That's got to be the most pointless Zen complaint I've ever heard.
Click to expand...

All too often, you get what you pay for.
 
Presbytier said:
Blizzard is supposedly updating their game code on all their games when they end windows xp and vista support later this year. It is certainly possible they could be adding better multicore support.
Click to expand...

Unless Blizzard are updating it to Vulkan/DX12 the scaling will fall short.
 
ole-m said:
Intel options:
1.\ 5 months to get the fabs ready and producing more 8 core cpu's.
2.\ Slash prices by minimum of 40% on top range.
3.\ Create competing chips for mainstream (no 2011 platform!) for 8 cores. - 12 months minimum for a proper hard launch like ryzen's 2.nd of march.

We will see 1 and 2 in action whilst doing 3 in the meantime I think.

Cpu's are not something you make overnight, if a new design is used it has to be tested, verified and all, I doubt intel had market strategy to dump 2011 platform to having only 10 core\quad channel premium.

On my bigger ??? Intel what will you do list:

Cheapest LGA2011-V3 mobo is 3x cost of the cheapest AM4 motherboard.
Most powerful LGA1151 cpu is a quadcore.

Intel's big issue is 2011 platform, what to do with it?, AMD is giving us 75 $ motherboards with 8 core support.

You buy AM4 platform and you go from 2011 performance all the way to LGA1151 lowest tier.
LGA2011-V3

if Intel can do LGA1151 with 8 or 6 cores they will keep a LARGE userbase that will possibly upgrade, if they cannot well they're a bit screwed.
If intel owners have to change to LGA2011-v3 platform at a higher cost why not go for same performance ryzen with a lower total platform cost with no actual drawbacks?

AMD seems way more consistent with platforms versus Intel.
Click to expand...
All valid but I wouldn't doubt if Intel has a mainstream 6 and 8 core CPU ready to go now. I don't see Intel being screwed what ever happens even if it takes them a year to get out a 8 core mainstream CPU. Intel has piles of cash from no competition for the past 6 years. I find it funny people saying Intel is in trouble and Ryzen rekt them. When Intel been owning the CPU market and expanding into other for this entire decade. I'm happy AMD pulled out something to wake Intel up and get shit going again in the stagnant CPU market.
 
vegeta535 said:
Doesn't it even matter for Blizzard games? They aren't know to be very demanding to begin with.
Click to expand...

That is not so much the problem. What is the problem that Blizzard never had any good people for their engines they rely on what they can scrape by on , if their games could run in Visual Basic then they never would have looked anywhere else :) .

You could do very nice things with extra cpu power not just to drive the framerate up but you don't have to worry about it on games made by Blizzard.
 
-Strelok- said:
Sounds great, except so far DX12 seems to hurt performance 90% of the time.
Click to expand...

You say DX12 but you mean gaming engines using DX12. DX12 is not to blame for anything regarding this it is purely how the code is written
 
Pieter3dnow said:
You say DX12 but you mean gaming engines using DX12. DX12 is not to blame for anything regarding this it is purely how the code is written
Click to expand...

Again, that's great, but I really couldn't care less how the code is written or how it SHOULD work. As of right now, it's worse than DX11 in almost every title.
 
-Strelok- said:
Again, that's great, but I really couldn't care less how the code is written or how it SHOULD work. As of right now, it's worse than DX11 in almost every title.
Click to expand...

That is not the DX12 API fault. But if you know it is working faster on DX11 you have your answer don't you ?
 
Pieter3dnow said:
Unless Blizzard are updating it to Vulkan/DX12 the scaling will fall short.
Click to expand...
Overwatch scales to six cores and seems to be a heavily optimized DX11 game it's not implausible to think they could build in better multi-CPU support in their other games. DX11 doesn't natively handle multithreaded well but it's absolutely possible to program it into the game just look at BF4 or even the Whitcher that easily benefits in multithreaded CPU's.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
That is not the DX12 API fault. But if you know it is working faster on DX11 you have your answer don't you ?
Click to expand...

Well, he does have a point.

To the end user, the cause doesn't matter. The effect does. When he switches from DX11 to DX12 in every title he's tested, DX12 runs more slowly. It is irrelevant to an end user WHY this is. DX12 titles run slower on their machine.

Until / Unless that changes, the consumer will consider DX12 slower, and they are right to do so. The end effect is all that matters to a consumer.

That aside, one could also argue that due to its lesser hardware abstraction, DX12 is more challenging to write properly for, and because of that it will inherently have "poor code", and if you look at it from that perspective, then yes, it is a fault of DX12.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
That is not the DX12 API fault. But if you know it is working faster on DX11 you have your answer don't you ?
Click to expand...
It technically is the API's fault because things DX11 did implicitly now have to be explicitly coded by developers specifically to the hardware they want to support..
 
Pieter3dnow said:
That is not so much the problem. What is the problem that Blizzard never had any good people for their engines they rely on what they can scrape by on , if their games could run in Visual Basic then they never would have looked anywhere else :) .

You could do very nice things with extra cpu power not just to drive the framerate up but you don't have to worry about it on games made by Blizzard.
Click to expand...
I don't think you can look at a game like overwatch and see how well optimized it is as a fast paced online shooter and claim they don't have good game engine engineeers.
 
-Strelok- said:
This looks great. For those shitty single threaded games just overclock one core like crazy and keep the rest at reasonable levels. I'm sure it still won't be up to Kaby Lake IPC, but I like this feature!
Click to expand...

I suppose you could use CPU affinity to lock the game to that core.

But what if you need more than one fast core as you will with most everything else. How do you know the fast cores will get used, and not the slower ones.

Can you shut down 4 cores completely to make it a faster Quad Chip for most usages. If you spread 4 Hot cores among 4 shut down cores it is seems like spreading the heat that way and less power requirements should get you a faster Quad overclock.
 
Presbytier said:
I don't think you can look at a game like overwatch and see how well optimized it is as a fast paced online shooter and claim they don't have good game engine engineeers.
Click to expand...

Not something to be frowned upon but it does take Blizzard a long time and scaling is something different then just using 6 threads for the sake of using 6 threads ...
Zarathustra[H] said:
Well, he does have a point.

To the end user, the cause doesn't matter. The effect does. When he switches from DX11 to DX12 in every title he's tested, DX12 runs more slowly. It is irrelevant to an end user WHY this is. DX12 titles run slower on their machine.

Until / Unless that changes, the consumer will consider DX12 slower, and they are right to do so. The end effect is all that matters to a consumer.

That aside, one could also argue that due to its lesser hardware abstraction, DX12 is more challenging to write properly for, and because of that it will inherently have "poor code", and if you look at it from that perspective, then yes, it is a fault of DX12.
Click to expand...

Check mark marketing is not unheard of. Even at the start of most API the older one surpassed the newer one in performance. Claiming that it is all DX12 fault is just simply wrong.

If you program your game or engine for DX11 and make it run on DX12 is something completely different from writing something optimized using key DX12 features.

If you don't give it time then you can consider DX12 a failure but the only point that you prove is that you take a short sighted view on what is the problem.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
Not something to be frowned upon but it does take Blizzard a long time and scaling is something different then just using 6 threads for the sake of using 6 threads ...


Check mark marketing is not unheard of. Even at the start of most API the older one surpassed the newer one in performance. Claiming that it is all DX12 fault is just simply wrong.

If you program your game or engine for DX11 and make it run on DX12 is something completely different from writing something optimized using key DX12 features.

If you don't give it time then you can consider DX12 a failure but the only point that you prove is that you take a short sighted view on what is the problem.
Click to expand...
The big issue of DX12 is the fact it's a low level API. We have directx and OpenGL due to developers wanting abstraction layers to make programming easier for games that are allready pretty extensive code wise. Not every developer is id with quite literally the best game engine coders on the planet there is a significant plus to abstraction layers in DX11.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top