1800x or 1700x which one?

All things equal, unless you simply "gotta have something new", I don't see any advantages to buying this new AMD stuff if you already have
a solid computer.

I sure there's some nitch/knot/niche that this new stuff will fill.

I still have two boxes that run 4790K cpus and I'm not seeing anything I don't already have.

I'm waiting for the 1080 Ti myself.....
 
Luka said:
I agree, why would i pay $500 + mobo for the same or slightly higher performance where SLI can run only in 2x8x speed, overclocking is not that great, only dual memory channel and AMD v sucks for virtualization. Yes i paid nifty price for Intel already but not worth paying same again for pretty much same thing. I look forward socket 2066 and pricing on that one...that would be smarter choice at this point.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm hoping this change gives Intel a kick in the pants on their prices. Intel does have the advantage over AMD on features (both on-chip and motherboard chipsets) in my opinion, but I don't think that feature set will be worth a 2x premium on the CPU cost.
 
-Strelok- said:
Huh? https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080_PCI_Express_Scaling/24.html
Click to expand...

Look at individual titles, not the cumulative average. There is some small impact, but it's very small. That's why I said it's "starting to show" a difference. The Titan XP is a BIT more pronounced: https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Titan-X-Performance-PCI-E-3-0-x8-vs-x16-851/ but again, it's small. The next generation of cards will be faster, and will show a larger gap between 8x and 16x.

Mostly irrelevant with any of the current gen cards/motherboards/CPUs, but if you're looking for the next gen stuff, it may be something to consider. Then again, SLI is sort of dying a slow death, so it may be an entirely moot point.
 
Bandalo said:
Look at individual titles, not the cumulative average. There is some small impact, but it's very small. That's why I said it's "starting to show" a difference. The Titan XP is a BIT more pronounced: https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Titan-X-Performance-PCI-E-3-0-x8-vs-x16-851/ but again, it's small. The next generation of cards will be faster, and will show a larger gap between 8x and 16x.

Mostly irrelevant with any of the current gen cards/motherboards/CPUs, but if you're looking for the next gen stuff, it may be something to consider. Then again, SLI is sort of dying a slow death, so it may be an entirely moot point.
Click to expand...

A lot of them are so close that I would consider it to be within margin of error and others the difference is still minuscule. The Techpowerup article even mentioned them expecting a bigger difference compared to the Fury X, which they tested last year, but it ended up being roughly the same. Any variation in performance will most likely be so tiny that no one will notice. If you really care about less than 1%, then by all means Intel is the way to go, but for most of us, this doesn't matter.

This isn't directed towards you specifically!
 
Bandalo said:
Look at individual titles, not the cumulative average. There is some small impact, but it's very small. That's why I said it's "starting to show" a difference. The Titan XP is a BIT more pronounced: https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Titan-X-Performance-PCI-E-3-0-x8-vs-x16-851/ but again, it's small. The next generation of cards will be faster, and will show a larger gap between 8x and 16x.

Mostly irrelevant with any of the current gen cards/motherboards/CPUs, but if you're looking for the next gen stuff, it may be something to consider. Then again, SLI is sort of dying a slow death, so it may be an entirely moot point.
Click to expand...

I would call that within the margin of error.
 
-Strelok- said:
A lot of them are so close that I would consider it to be within margin of error and others the difference is still minuscule. The Techpowerup article even mentioned them expecting a bigger difference compared to the Fury X, which they tested last year, but it ended up being roughly the same. Any variation in performance will most likely be so tiny that no one will notice. If you really care about less than 1%, then by all means Intel is the way to go, but for most of us, this doesn't matter.

This isn't directed towards you specifically!
Click to expand...

I get your point and I'm not taking it personally or anything. My point is that we're just now starting to hit that limit on 8x, but we're just barely there with the current fastest card on the market. But that means the faster cards get, the more pronounced these changes are going to be. This gen, no difference. Next gen? Hard to say, but logically you're going to hit a point where the 8x bus is the limiting factor, and you'll need 16x.

That being said, there are OTHER advantages to the extra PCI lanes, like more m.2 drives, 10G network cards, etc.

Gideon said:
I would call that within the margin of error.
Click to expand...

If there was only one result, then I'd agree. But most of the games seem to trend the same way, which means it's likely not just the margin of error. But I do concede the difference is very, very small with current gen cards.
 
I'm not really an expert in this, but here goes my question. Ryzen CPU's have 24 PCI-E lane/support, is it possible for the motherboard to have additional PCI-E lanes or will the 24 lanes always be a limiting factor?
 
-Strelok- said:
I'm not really an expert in this, but here goes my question. Ryzen CPU's have 24 PCI-E lane/support, is it possible for the motherboard to have additional PCI-E lanes or will the 24 lanes always be a limiting factor?
Click to expand...

You're always going to be limited to the PCIe lane total provided by the CPU. Different motherboards will use bridges/switches/PLX chips to split up those lanes differently, but you're still capped by the CPU. I think the X370 does 16 lanes to the GPU (either 1x16 or 2x8) and then 4 lanes to the M.2 slot. The rest of the lanes are used for all the other onboard devices, USB 3.1/3.0 ports, etc. So your max for graphics with the current gen is 16x.

Current gen X99 boards will do either 28 lane or 40 lane CPUs, so you have a much wider set of options for SLI. (8x8x8x8 or 16x8 or 16x16 or whatever + 4 for M.2 slot)
 
New motherboard platforms are risky but I think we have a winner here. They better not do am4+ in 6months.
 
Luka said:
1700x and considering that 5820k and 3930k run at 4.6Ghz easily i don't see AMD bringing anything significant.
Click to expand...
Oc isnt everything brother.


An AmD with 6900k like IPC at 4.5ghz will absolutely DEVOUR a 3930K at 4.6ghz.

Sorry but true. The 6900k is about 30-35% faster overall in every meteric than the 6 year old Sandy. I sold mine 3 days ago to get my 1700x next week.
 
Luka said:
I agree, why would i pay $500 + mobo for the same or slightly higher performance where SLI can run only in 2x8x speed, overclocking is not that great, only dual memory channel and AMD v sucks for virtualization. Yes i paid nifty price for Intel already but not worth paying same again for pretty much same thing. I look forward socket 2066 and pricing on that one...that would be smarter choice at this point.
Click to expand...

Betcha didnt realize its 8x/8x at PCIE 3.0 speeds which is significantly faster than the GPU can even output already. Get away from all the marketing magic these companies infused your mind with.

Seriously who honestly SLIs anymore? The age of single card is truly here.
 
Bandalo said:
I don't think anyone who already owns a Haswell or Broadwell-E will be looking to switch to Ryzen. At least not THIS generation. Now I'm much more curious how Ryzen will compare to whatever Intel does for the next HEDT release. They're going to need to either offer a lot more performance or drop their prices considerably, or they're going to lose a lot of business from even the high end folks. Until now the only way to get >4 cores with decent IPC was with the HEDT series, so people HAD to spend the extra cash. If you're now looking at something roughly the same performance, but the AMD is $500 cheaper, Intel will have a hard time selling chips.

And I say this as a current Haswell-E owner...I don't mind SPENDING money for performance...I don't like WASTING money for performance.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why I pussed out in the pre order thread. I've said this before, but as a guy who has been running an octo core 5960X for 2 years, the Ryzen guys will be in for a treat. Not enough info for me to do a Ryzen build, still haven't seen how the real world OCing pans out. But the ol' 5960X will just have to do for this go around. And not to be flip, but after dropping a grand on just a CPU, it is kinda humorous seeing guys fretting over the $100 1700X/1800X difference. And no disrespect intended to guys wanting to keep that $100, that's just my perspective.

Back to the OCing... The main reason I didn't get a BW-E - and it would have been a 6950X had I bought one - wasn't over cost but clocks. It became pretty clear early on that getting the same 4.6GHz I'm running the HW-E wasn't going to happen with BW-E. Yeah, a couple of extra cores over the 5960X would have been nice, but I kinda like the clock speed. Was the couple percent better IPC enough to overcome a few hundred MHz clock? Just not enough juice for the squeeze. If the 6950X guys were all getting 4.6GHz or better, I'd have one right now.

But I'll say it again - You Ryzen guys are in for a treat with 8 cores! I remember one of the guys in Pink Floyd talking about how he wishes he could go back and hear Dark Side of the Moon for the first time again, that's what I'm hoping for guys buying Ryzen getting a taste of a nicely clocked 8 core machine for the first time. It's gonna be a blast, and I'm really looking forward to hearing your perspective when you're up and running.
 
1700X is the best value, but $100 more for bragging rights and possibly a few hundred more mhz isn't bad either. I would get the 1700X and put the $100 towards a better GPU.
 
isp said:
1700X is the best value, but $100 more for bragging rights and possibly a few hundred more mhz isn't bad either. I would get the 1700X and put the $100 towards a better GPU.
Click to expand...

Yeah, 100-200Mhz isn't something you'll probably notice in every day use with regards to CPU. However, the difference from a 460 vs 480 or 1060 vs 1070 (granted more than a $100 difference in most cases) would be quite noticeable.
 
Dew said:
I'll be waiting to see how B350 + 1700 does. Quite a compelling combo for $430 if it isn't absolutely OC neutered by the 65w TDP.
Click to expand...
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-overclocked-4ghz/
per that article only the Asus Crosshair and Asrock Taichi or w/e the heck they call that $$$ board are the ones that oc well. I guess most board will bake their mosfets with higher power draws :(. My initial guess from scouring rumors is that mild oc's will work with lower end 370/350 boards, but a marked drop off occurs. Maybe more mature bios's and revisions of boards will help????? We can hope I'm wrong.
 
cgaafary said:
...Or is this potentially coming from the perspective that overclockers will likely little to no extra benefit with overclocking headroom on the 1800X?
Click to expand...

That's what I'm wondering. It made little sense to buy the higher binned FX chips when Bulldozer and Piledriver each launched, the 8120/8320 could usually do 4.6 GHz-4.8GHz @ 1.45v and you were unlikely to achieve higher day-to-day clocks with better silicon unless you got really lucky. The 9590/9370 made more sense for people who wanted to pay a premium for good OC speeds right out of the box, but they didn't show up until later on.
 
JNavy89GT said:
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-overclocked-4ghz/
per that article only the Asus Crosshair and Asrock Taichi or w/e the heck they call that $$$ board are the ones that oc well. I guess most board will bake their mosfets with higher power draws :(. My initial guess from scouring rumors is that mild oc's will work with lower end 370/350 boards, but a marked drop off occurs. Maybe more mature bios's and revisions of boards will help????? We can hope I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Eh, you can pre-order the X370 Asrock Taichi for $190 right now.

That's not too much of a $$$ vs the good B350's.
 
Luka said:
I agree, why would i pay $500 + mobo for the same or slightly higher performance where SLI can run only in 2x8x speed, overclocking is not that great, only dual memory channel and AMD v sucks for virtualization. Yes i paid nifty price for Intel already but not worth paying same again for pretty much same thing. I look forward socket 2066 and pricing on that one...that would be smarter choice at this point.
Click to expand...

Can you link some examples where the PCIE bus is saturated at 2x8x in real world applications? How about some examples where Ryzen sucks at virtualization?
 
1700x for me. 200 MHz stock clocks isn't worth the $100 for my gaming needs. Considering my new h110i it's a pretty spendy combo already.
 
Ryzen 6 core 1600x might be better for gaming. Unless you want to future proof, like we all did when we bought 8 cores in the past :p
Rumored price is $259. I think that's where it is going to be at for a lot of cheapskate AMD fans like myself. If these chips can overclock, look out!
 
Im coming from a 2600k, which I never OC'd. I wanted to get the 1800x because its the top one, but 1700x might be a better buy for me, no OC. Just want a cpu that hauls ass with double the cores i'm used to.

Does anyone know if AMD will also drive the prices of mobos down?
 
RAutrey said:
Can you link some examples where the PCIE bus is saturated at 2x8x in real world applications? How about some examples where Ryzen sucks at virtualization?
Click to expand...

Lol its just unfounded claims due to chronic fan boy'ism of Intel. I find AMD virtualization on thier server parts very nice indeed and I cant tell a hoot of a difference between Intel and AMD virtualization in Vsphere and others.
 
atom said:
Ryzen 6 core 1600x might be better for gaming. Unless you want to future proof, like we all did when we bought 8 cores in the past :p
Rumored price is $259. I think that's where it is going to be at for a lot of cheapskate AMD fans like myself. If these chips can overclock, look out!
Click to expand...

Say that you have a game that only uses 4 cores.... you can disable cores and try to push the 4 active cores higher. This can be done quickly via an AMD provided program in windows so no reboot required. This would give you the best of both worlds, massive SMT performance when you need it, higher clocks on reduced cores when you need that. The program saves profiles so you can easily swap between them at the press of a button.

--------------------

AMD Ryzen Master Overclocking Utility Gives You Full Control of The High-End Chips – Per Core Clock Adjustment, Core Enable/Disable Feature, Full Voltage Adjustment And Much More
We first reported this utility last week and we didn’t get as much of a good look as we are getting today. First of all, this would be known as AMD Ryzen Master and will be part of the AMD Settings panel which are part of the AMD driver suite. The Ryzen Master overclocking utility will offer full range of overclocking and tuning features to enthusiasts that include:
  • Per Core Clock Adjustment For All Ryzen Chips
  • Enable / Disable / Set Core Count (0/2/4/6/8 as per needed)
  • Step Size: +25 ~ +50 MHz increments for Non-X and +100 ~ +200 MHz increments for X series chips (TBC)
  • CPU Voltage Adjustment


Personally as long as the program works well I will probably have 4 profiles on my 1700X and swap between them quickly as appropriate:
  • Browsing - 2c4t - low power usage when doing simple things on the desktop.
  • Gaming - 4c8t Max overclock on 4 cores.
  • SMT- 8c16t Max overclock on all 8 cores.
  • Default - Default 8c16t.
 
Last edited:
-Strelok- said:
I'm not really an expert in this, but here goes my question. Ryzen CPU's have 24 PCI-E lane/support, is it possible for the motherboard to have additional PCI-E lanes or will the 24 lanes always be a limiting factor?
Click to expand...
Additional lanes could be provided if a manufacturer adds a PLX chip to the board. No one has done that yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if more high end boards with extra lanes are released later down the road as more enthusiasts jump on the Ryzen bandwagon.
 
TordanGow said:
Say that you have a game that only uses 4 cores.... you can disable cores and try to push the 4 active cores higher. This can be done quickly via an AMD provided program in windows so no reboot required. This would give you the best of both worlds, massive SMT performance when you need it, higher clocks on reduced cores when you need that. The program saves profiles so you can easily swap between them at the press of a button.

--------------------

AMD Ryzen Master Overclocking Utility Gives You Full Control of The High-End Chips – Per Core Clock Adjustment, Core Enable/Disable Feature, Full Voltage Adjustment And Much More
We first reported this utility last week and we didn’t get as much of a good look as we are getting today. First of all, this would be known as AMD Ryzen Master and will be part of the AMD Settings panel which are part of the AMD driver suite. The Ryzen Master overclocking utility will offer full range of overclocking and tuning features to enthusiasts that include:
  • Per Core Clock Adjustment For All Ryzen Chips
  • Enable / Disable / Set Core Count (0/2/4/6/8 as per needed)
  • Step Size: +25 ~ +50 MHz increments for Non-X and +100 ~ +200 MHz increments for X series chips (TBC)
  • CPU Voltage Adjustment


Personally as long as the program works well I will probably have 4 profiles on my 1700X and swap between them quickly as appropriate:
  • Browsing - 2c4t - low power usage when doing simple things on the desktop.
  • Gaming - 4c8t Max overclock on 4 cores.
  • SMT- 8c16t Max overclock on all 8 cores.
  • Default - Default 8c16t.
Click to expand...

I'm also curious if you can get it clocked even higher with SMT disabled (I've seen this on i7's). 8 true cores vs 4c/8t in current games that utilize 8 threads well, how would the efficiency of having a real core behind each thread pan out? Think of it as the i3 vs the i5 currently?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top