AMD Ryzen Gen 2 Set For Q2 2018

Status
Not open for further replies.
the water mark is NOT visible to everyone, I CANT see it. I don't care if you addressed shit here here and here. do it right the first fucking time and we won't have to go through this again and again. quit being lazy in your quest for notoriety...
 
juanrga said:
Why do you insist on mentioning again the "30-40% difference favoring the 8700k", when this mistake was corrected and eliminated from the discussion?

You forgot that CFL also wins on CB15ST and ties on x264.

My point was summarized here
Click to expand...

The reason this is probably being brought up over and over is because this was your claim and you seem to want to teach other people how to do the math. Simply put, if you claim to know the math behind your statements it makes sense to assume you actually know how to do the math, but your earlier assertion of 30-40% kinda proves you don't know how to do the math. Only after your math was checked did you come back and say your statement was wrong, then scrubbed the offending information from your post. Before making claims based on math, it would make sense to actually do the math first and not let other people do it for you.
 
I wonder, if nobody checked your percentages, would the wrong information still be there.
 
juanrga said:
I did read your post entirely. Raven Ridge uses a different die than Pinnacle Ridge. So you aren't answering my question about why AMD would burn the PR dies with only four cores working. There is no technical or economic reason why AMD cannot sell four-core Pinnacle Ridge, plus four-core Raven Ridge, and maybe some additional four-core CPU derived from RR (APUs with disabled iGPU) [1].

[1] In the recent past AMD sold four-core Piledriver CPUs (FX-4000 series), four-core Piledriver APUs (A10 series), and four-core Piledriver CPUs derived from APUs (Athlon series).
Click to expand...

How would AMD even differentiate the products?

Would the average PC builders understand the difference between Raven Ridge with disabled iGPU and Pinnacle Ridge with four disabled cores?
 
Dayman said:
sgJYTOyB3AJ3QeFaQfHCN-PAGGtDaFkFl5GhNoAfXgY.jpg


Click to expand...
False headline. The second quarter date is complete speculation with AMD not saying anything about first quarter or second quarter. I'll stick with March 2018 until I see something more substantive than a false headline..
 
The difference between 3297.1 seconds and 3032.11 seconds is no where close to 30-40%. More like 8% faster and this is without knowing anything about the specs of the machines used for this comparison except for the CPU.
Again I pose the question, if this statement is true (And if the 6-core i7-8700k is a 30--40% faster than the 8-core R7-1800X) where is the proof.

blender-2.png
Click to expand...


On your cherry picked bench from your beloved website, the same guys that condoned their ASUS board auto OC benches just to point that out but on this that is not 30-40% difference so I will help you with the maths again:

3297-3032/(3297+3032)/2 x100
= 8.3%

Now lets just think about this, Intel can only beat a Ryzen CPU by 8.3% running at least 700mhz difference in clocks between it and a 1800X, that is rather pitiful.

Since you like this intel beats 8 cores we will just post an array of test reviews:

cinent.png

blender.png

91875.png

91880.png

8700k-cinebench-nt-production.png


8700k-blender-2.79.png


As you can deduct from 3 sources, a lower clocked Ryzen still shines in these loads and that is with a massive clock speed off set. And it is very far from your 30-40% claim, but then again you claimed Guru3D's 4% difference was 9% so it is not hard to understand your asinine claims.

Steve burke covered the MCE trickery and redid his benches which is in line with what just about everyone who didnt' test like that got.

multi-core-enhance-cinebench-score.png


I would like to see a Ryzen 1700 stock cooling vs Intel 8700K stock cooler showdown, this may prove AMD's heat and power to be another very impressive feature, I mean how long before the 8700K thermal locks?
 
Last edited:
kirbyrj said:
The funny thing is if you go to that pcper article (the whole article not just juan's cherry picked blender graph post) and then go to the "Media Encoding and Rendering" page of the article, the Ryzen chips (1800x/1700x) beat out the 8700k in every other graph except Blender and LAME. The only one that's anywhere near his claimed 30-40% difference favoring the 8700k is LAME.

So I guess juan's point is that if you encode MP3's all day you could save yourself some time.
Click to expand...

LAME Is actually single threaded, so its easy to imagine a higher clocked part beating a lower clocked part. LAME doesn't have a MT extension. Blender it depends, again clockspeed will help the 8700K as it looks like Blender reaches a limit where number of cores/threads are less beneficial than a clock bump.

Notice how we move from site to site to find an intel apologist, the biggest of them is PCPER.
 
"Intel 6 cores are faster than AMD's 8, derp derp"

multi-core-enhance-cinebench-score.png


3Ghz Showdown:

8700K (4.3ghz all core/ 4.7ghz Asus hack)

1578 * 3000 / 4700 = 1007.23
1447.8 * 3000 / 4300 = 1010.09

Ryzen 5 1600X (3.7 all core)

1245.2 * 3000/3700 = 1010

Ryzen 7 1700 (3.4ghz all core)

1421 * 3000/3400 = 1253.82

In reality on clock vs clock the 1700 at 3ghz is 21.53% faster in parallel workloads while on the thread vs thread showdown Intels 500 dollar part is equal to a AMD 250 dollar part, if one adds the 1600 which comes with a stock cooler and offers around 1004 at the same clock it is probably the best money value part out there for all load types.
 
Last edited:
OrangeKhrush said:
"Intel 6 cores are faster than AMD's 8, derp derp"
Click to expand...

Says the one that only post CB and Blender? ;)

You can try run a bench with the Cinema4D engine if you want some sort of semi modern performance recheck, rather than running 10 years old code in single SSE loops.
 
Shintai said:
Says the one that only post CB and Blender? ;)

You can try run a bench with the Cinema4D engine if you want some sort of semi modern performance recheck, rather than running 10 years old code in single SSE loops.
Click to expand...

Was it not you that claimed statistics, well here they are. I am sure you can run x y and z tailored benches, which tech report did with the caveat that they are heavily intel biased codes. Since CB and Blender are impartial I will go with them.

It is the normal defensive position, when something is exposed move the goal posts, at this rate I will make you the Danish teams goal keeper, nobody will be able to score when you can just move the goal posts.
 
Dermac said:
The reason this is probably being brought up over and over is because this was your claim and you seem to want to teach other people how to do the math. Simply put, if you claim to know the math behind your statements it makes sense to assume you actually know how to do the math, but your earlier assertion of 30-40% kinda proves you don't know how to do the math. Only after your math was checked did you come back and say your statement was wrong, then scrubbed the offending information from your post. Before making claims based on math, it would make sense to actually do the math first and not let other people do it for you.
Click to expand...

Yes, I wrote that, and it was a mistake that was corrected time ago. People insisting on asking about it implies people is not reading the thread because this issue was discussed in four of five posts.

Dermac said:
I wonder, if nobody checked your percentages, would the wrong information still be there.
Click to expand...

I detected the mistake soon after submitting the post, and then edited the post to correct it. When I did hit the submit button again, you had just posted your message.
 
_mockingbird said:
How would AMD even differentiate the products?

Would the average PC builders understand the difference between Raven Ridge with disabled iGPU and Pinnacle Ridge with four disabled cores?
Click to expand...

Didn't AMD differentiate between Piledriver A10, Athlon, and FX-4000 lines? Why cannot AMD do the same with Zen products?
 
juanrga said:
Yes, I wrote that, and it was a mistake that was corrected time ago. People insisting on asking about it implies people is not reading the thread because this issue was discussed in four of five posts.



I detected the mistake soon after submitting the post, and then edited the post to correct it. When I did hit the submit button again, you had just posted your message.
Click to expand...

But today it is now 50%, what will it be tomorrow 70%. Let me give you some undeniable statistics, you senor are 100% full of BS.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
"Intel 6 cores are faster than AMD's 8, derp derp"
Click to expand...

Some examples for your collection...

Review-chart-template-2017-final.001-1440x1080.png


Blender.png


blender2.png


8700K-8400-43.jpg


blender.png


blender-1.png


And that is Blender, which is a throughput workload that favors the RyZen muarch. The general situation is that 6-core Intel run circles around 8-core Zen in virtually everything:

Even though it has two fewer cores than the Ryzen 1800X (a CPU that costs a hefty £437), the 8700K comes in faster in many production workloads. It's four seconds quicker in Blender at stock, and 11 seconds quicker when overclocked. It's faster at Handbrake video encoding too, and miles ahead in 7-Zip's synthetic benchmark, which tends to favour clock speed even in multithreaded mode.

It's only in PovRay and Cinebench that 1800X comes out on top—and only then by a small amount.
Click to expand...
 
juanrga said:
Some examples for your collection...

Review-chart-template-2017-final.001-1440x1080.png


Blender.png


blender2.png


8700K-8400-43.jpg


blender.png


blender-1.png


And that is Blender, which is a throughput workload that favors the RyZen muarch. The general situation is that 6-core Intel run circles around 8-core Zen in virtually everything:
Click to expand...


Just to prove your bull crap over again

Cinebench-multi.png


1800X - 1500 @3.7ghz

Now lets just go with the general trend

8700k-cinebench-nt-production.png


*Steve corrected his score as he realized MCE boosted scores*


1640 is the average for a 1800X stock across reviews but Kitguru got 1500. Explain mr wise guy, Kitguru, ARS, tweaktown are like the bastions of Intel fanboyism, 3 of them cheated scores with MCE.
 
juanrga said:
I love as you move the goalpost continuously each time you are corrected.
Click to expand...

errr wrong Kitguru score is incorrect and all your posts showed boosted scores, I guess if you keep believing only your cherry picks, you will believe your lies.
 
Team IDF love ninja edits and cherry picking. How else are they supposed to do their job? Even once had shintel ninja edit a damn graph when they shot themselves in the foot, regarding the European union welfare system. I think what it really comes down to is they cannot ever admit they are wrong. They are always right and will D&C or shift goalposts to avoid this when they are not.
 
Epic European Union graph showing most countries at a deficit but the poster was competent in reading graphs :p
 
OrangeKhrush said:
On your cherry picked bench from your beloved website, the same guys that condoned their ASUS board auto OC benches just to point that out but on this that is not 30-40% difference so I will help you with the maths again:

3297-3032/(3297+3032)/2 x100
= 8.3%

Now lets just think about this, Intel can only beat a Ryzen CPU by 8.3% running at least 700mhz difference in clocks between it and a 1800X, that is rather pitiful.

Since you like this intel beats 8 cores we will just post an array of test reviews:

cinent.png

blender.png

91875.png

91880.png

8700k-cinebench-nt-production.png


8700k-blender-2.79.png


As you can deduct from 3 sources, a lower clocked Ryzen still shines in these loads and that is with a massive clock speed off set. And it is very far from your 30-40% claim, but then again you claimed Guru3D's 4% difference was 9% so it is not hard to understand your asinine claims.

Steve burke covered the MCE trickery and redid his benches which is in line with what just about everyone who didnt' test like that got.

multi-core-enhance-cinebench-score.png


I would like to see a Ryzen 1700 stock cooling vs Intel 8700K stock cooler showdown, this may prove AMD's heat and power to be another very impressive feature, I mean how long before the 8700K thermal locks?
Click to expand...

Lots of numbers! :D :) Ultimately, I think Ryzen 2 is going to be a big hit, especially when you consider the bios firmware is a lot more mature than when they started.
 
Dayman said:
I know it is, but it spans across Q2, so that's why I said as so
Click to expand...


That is b.s. logic if I ever heard it. Stop with your fake news headlines. It will be 1st quarter and next week at CES will confirm it.
 
os2wiz said:
That is b.s. logic if I ever heard it. Stop with your fake news headlines. It will be 1st quarter and next week at CES will confirm it.
Click to expand...

Someone is getting angry for no reason, damn...

but if that doesn't span across Q2 I don't know what does, guess its time to get my eyes checked :ROFLMAO:

6IcFEGJ.png
 
Dayman said:
Someone is getting angry for no reason, damn...

but if that doesn't span across Q2 I don't know what does, guess its time to get my eyes checked :ROFLMAO:

6IcFEGJ.png
Click to expand...

It catches part of quarter 1 as well, so I would expect a late quarter 1 launch is the goal.
 
Man I can't wait for Zen 2 in 2019 so I can play blender 12% faster...

Sarcasm aside, I wonder about improvements to the memory controller. Would be nice to consistently get some higher speed RAM working since it seems like Ryzen depends a lot on memory speed.
 
It does up to about 3000-3200 mhz. Then timings are more important to include secondary timings.
 
Dayman said:
Someone is getting angry for no reason, damn...

but if that doesn't span across Q2 I don't know what does, guess its time to get my eyes checked :ROFLMAO:

6IcFEGJ.png
Click to expand...
juanrga said:
Where it is confirmed it is Q1?
Click to expand...

It certainly is not confirmed to be 2nd quarter. CoffeeLake cpus did NOT all roll out at the same time. Did any of you geniuses claim the launch was over 2 quarters??? Availabilty will be in 1st quarter and CES will confirm it.
 
os2wiz said:
It certainly is not confirmed to be 2nd quarter. CoffeeLake cpus did NOT all roll out at the same time. Did any of you geniuses claim the launch was over 2 quarters??? Availabilty will be in 1st quarter and CES will confirm it.
Click to expand...

I said spans across Q2, implying it may come out earlier, no need for you to be so angry over such trivial things.
 
quasar56 said:
Why do you guys let certain people derail these threads????????!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Because the mods have stopped banning trolling, and ban people who report the trolls. Not much you can do in the AMD forum about it.
 
Last edited:
Nightfire said:
It does up to about 3000-3200 mhz. Then timings are more important to include secondary timings.
Click to expand...

It's very minute though the difference. Yeah id stop about right there though. It will probaly be nice with whatever it is with like CL14/15 stuff.
 
os2wiz said:
False headline. The second quarter date is complete speculation with AMD not saying anything about first quarter or second quarter. I'll stick with March 2018 until I see something more substantive than a false headline..
Click to expand...

os2wiz said:
That is b.s. logic if I ever heard it. Stop with your fake news headlines. It will be 1st quarter and next week at CES will confirm it.
Click to expand...

os2wiz said:
It certainly is not confirmed to be 2nd quarter. CoffeeLake cpus did NOT all roll out at the same time. Did any of you geniuses claim the launch was over 2 quarters??? Availabilty will be in 1st quarter and CES will confirm it.
Click to expand...

It is now confirmed to be Q2. You own an apology to Dayman.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top