Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
R5 1400 4c/8t unlocked CPU for the same price as the i3-7350k, sounds good to me. It's a shame Toms doesn't do it's System Builders Marathons any more, as I would love to see how Ryzen stacks up at a set budget, I think it would be a winner.
It's too bad you can't "dislike" posts on here.
The 1700X is barely above the i3
with lower clocks and half the number of cores/threads the R5 1400 would under the i3.
It is actually above the Skylake i5 in your own graph. You don't seem to be a gamer, otherwise you'd know that min FPS is much more relevant than avg FPS.
Minimum FPS means fuck all without frame pacing numbers. A higher minimum FPS doesn't mean shit if the FPS bounces between minimum and maximum consistantly; a one dip is better than several dips in FPS. As for the graph, it's an average graph depicting average numbers to get a rough look at performance.
The 1700X is barely above the i3
with lower clocks and half the number of cores/threads the R5 1400 would under the i3.
In other words, if AMD shows actual better minimums than Intel, it does not mean jack, got it.
Literally none, actually, slow ass data fabric did not go anywhere.There are a number of reasons to expect the 1500X to perform better than the Ryzen 7 chips in gaming
I wonder how they will clock with less cores, prices look good.
the 1500X do not need to OC above 4.1Ghz to perform better than 8 cores. there quite a few scenarios where no data jump between clusters will reduce latency and improve real life gaming benchmarks.
In other words, if AMD shows actual better minimums than Intel, it does not mean jack, got it.
Considering that the 7700K needs to be dellided to justify the yuugee price premium against Ryzen, i hope that Intel launches a 7790K with better TIM and clock bins to replace it.
It's too bad you can't "dislike" posts on here.
Sorry, I need to correct you here.
I know you aren't that dense and that my comment didn't go straight over your head. I'll take the smiley at the end there as a /sarcasm tag.
Confirmed by AMD. The new chips are 3+3 and 2+2
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11202/amd-announces-ryzen-5-april-11th
I think the ability for them to switch over to a single CCX would make way too many changes to their overall architecture which is probably why they went this route. The pricing is how they will stay in the game, hopefully they clock all to ~4ghz but i wouldnt expect much more.Unfortunately the choice to cripple the performance of the 4core parts by splitting their cores across two CCXs really sours me to this release. I'll probably pick up a 6 core in a few months, but they could have really laid the hammer down on intel by making their 4 core parts a single CCX without the cross ccx communication problem it would likely have soundly beaten the i5 at a lower price making it a compelling part. As it is I'm guessing its performance will be closer to i3 in gaming than i5, which will make it a part with questionable application. If you want real performance in multithreaded apps you'll go 1700, if you want performance in single threaded apps you'll go Kabylake i5.
You can't and if you voice any opposed opinion and it gets reported by anyone you get deleted. I get it ... these are not my forums, I don't own them, and they are privately owned, but what is the point in having a forum if you can't say anything if everything you say can be "Trolling". I bet I get a bad mark or banned for saying even this.
5000 posts and 7+ years membership and a huge follower of Kyle and crew and yet I get Trolling deletions often. I guess I am not a politically correct sensitive little snowflake like the modern effeminate generation millennial. Yeah I said that.
Canadian?
I usually thank those that corrected me.
In this case there is a misunderstanding, not a disagreement.
Some Ryzen gaming review pitted the poor 4.0GHz 1700 against a 5.0GHz 7700, some a 4.1 Ryzen ( an OC that quite a few 1800X can not perform) against a 5.1GHz 7700k. AFAIK, 5GHz is not your run of mill OC for a 7700K.
OC is a big part of the 7700k value equation and its cheap TIM forces the user to invest more money on cooling than Ryzen's solution- no one would call a gamer meek if they pick a 1700, OC to 3.9 (which most 1700 can do) with stock cooler and call it a day.
Nope, I said exactly what I meant and meant that I think that is exactly what you said. You may want to check out the previous few years where minimums where trumpeted and the end all be all of gaming. (Of course, that was because AMD could not meet the same minimums as Intel but hey, revisionist history and all that.)
Unfortunately the choice to cripple the performance of the 4core parts by splitting their cores across two CCXs really sours me to this release. I'll probably pick up a 6 core in a few months, but they could have really laid the hammer down on intel by making their 4 core parts a single CCX without the cross ccx communication problem it would likely have soundly beaten the i5 at a lower price making it a compelling part.
Confirmed by AMD. The new chips are 3+3 and 2+2
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11202/amd-announces-ryzen-5-april-11th
Anandtech makes a pair of performance estimations. For instance they place the top 6-core Ryzen just behind the i7-7700k on multithreaded benches. This just agrees with what we have been awaiting for the 6C RyZen since before launch
Confirmed by AMD. The new chips are 3+3 and 2+2
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11202/amd-announces-ryzen-5-april-11th
Anandtech makes a pair of performance estimations. For instance they place the top 6-core Ryzen just behind the i7-7700k on multithreaded benches. This just agrees with what we have been awaiting for the 6C RyZen since before launch
So even a quad will have the CCX penalty. Guess that saves the face of the 6 core.
And it is going to be fun to be a developer, oh joys designing a game around the cache-CCX-data fabric and 4+4/3+3/2+2, when one is trying to scale a more complex game engine with new advanced functions and features.
IMO they should not release the quad core until it has its own dedicated part with 1 CCX.
Cheers
Its pretty much like designing for a SMP system. Latency and all.
https://www.techpowerup.com/231585/amd-ryzen-infinity-fabric-ticks-at-memory-speed
Its pretty much like designing for a SMP system. Latency, bandwidth limitation and all.
https://www.techpowerup.com/231585/amd-ryzen-infinity-fabric-ticks-at-memory-speed
A single CCX would place the 6 core in a very bad position.
Have it been tested or released yet what the actual cycle latency is between the CCXes? With the consoles its 190 cycles and more or less making it useless. Developers avoid it like the plague.
So even a quad will have the CCX penalty. Guess that saves the face of the 6 core.