Ryzen 7 1700X Processor Blows Away Intel’s $1000 Core i7-5960X & goes toe to toe with Intel’s 6900k

Discussion in 'AMD Processors' started by pencea, Feb 22, 2017.

  1. pencea

    pencea [H]Lite

    Messages:
    74
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    AMD Ryzen CPUs Support 3600MHz DDR4 Memory

    http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-cpus-support-ddr4-memory-speeds-3600mhz/

    AMD Ryzen 7 1700X Processor Blows Away Intel’s $1000 Core i7-5960X & goes toe to toe with Intel’s $1000 Core i7 6900k

    Cinebench 15 scores

    The Core i7 5960X scores around 1318 cb
    The Core i7 6900k scores around 1565 cb
    The Ryzen 7 1700X scores around 1527 cb

    Firestrike Physics score.

    The Core i7 5960X scores around 14,640 points
    The Core i7 6900k scores around 17,100 points
    The Ryzen 7 1700X scores around 17,916 points

    http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-processor-tested/

    Updated working links for Newegg.

    http://www.hardocp.com/news/2017/02/22/dont_be_pussy_preorder_amd_ryzen_today_starts_at_1et
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 22, 2017
  2. TheLAWNoob

    TheLAWNoob Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    330
    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Whats the original source?
     
  3. pencea

    pencea [H]Lite

    Messages:
    74
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Live videos demos sessions of mostly the Ryzen 7 1800X pitted against the Core i7 6900K processor. The results have been nothing short of impressive.


    Battlefield 1 Ryzen 7 1800X Versus Intel 6900k




    Sniper Elite 4 Running on Ryzen 7 versus Intel 6900k




    Ryzen 7 1700 Versus Intel 7700 in handbrake




    1800X Against Intel 6900k in Cinebench

     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2017
    Xinmosni and Rvenger like this.
  4. pencea

    pencea [H]Lite

    Messages:
    74
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    AMD Ryzen 7 1800X CPU Performance:
    • Base Clock: 3.6GHz / Boost Clock: 4.0GHz / TDP: 95W
      Price: $ 499[Cinebench R15] Multi-Threading Score: 1601
      4% more performance than Core i7-6900K: 1474[Cinebench R15] Single-Threading Score: 162
      same Performance as Core i7-6900K: 162
    AMD Ryzen 7 1700X CPU Performance:
    • Base Clock: 3.4GHz / Boost Clock: 3.8GHz / TDP: 95W
      Price: $ 399[Cinebench R15] Multi-Threading: 1537 4% more performance than Core i7-6900K: 1474
      39% more performance than Core i7-6800K: 1108
    AMD Ryzen 7 1700 CPU Performance:
    1. Base Clock: 3.0GHz / Boost Clock: 3.7GHz / TDP: 65W
      Price: $ 329[Cinebench R15] Multi-Threading: 1410
      46% more performance than Core i7-7700K: 967



     
    PliotronX, TheLAWNoob and Xinmosni like this.
  5. Xinmosni

    Xinmosni [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,974
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    While I love AMD, let's keep in mind this is comparing stock to stock.

    If you're buying a 5960X/6950X and running it stock, you're a bit empty upstairs.

    Great news either way if no hidden caveats!
     
    pencea likes this.
  6. sover

    sover Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    129
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2016
    Why would someone buy the most expensive CPU to overclock it? Isn't the point of buying the highest of the high ends that you're supposed to not need to overclock it?
     
  7. Xinmosni

    Xinmosni [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,974
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Huh? No, I think you're confusing things.

    I'm posting from my phone so will let someone else chime in more thoroughly, but that's absolutely the opposite of why you'd buy the top non-Xeons
     
  8. Guille_arg

    Guille_arg n00b

    Messages:
    25
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    Amazing performance for that price!
     
    pencea and Xinmosni like this.
  9. TwistedAegis

    TwistedAegis [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,958
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2009
    Welcome to [H]. You buy the highest of the high ends...to take it even higher. And then if you're Kyle, you rip pieces of it off to try to take it even higher than that.

    Until we have complete realism in a holodeck situation, we'll always want moar processing power!
     
    pencea and IdiotInCharge like this.
  10. Magic Hate Ball

    Magic Hate Ball Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    366
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2016
    I thought this section was the most interesting part of the demo with Linus:



    This is a 6800k vs a 1700 (NON-X) as he has confirmed by hand in the demo. So the 1700 with 3.0ghz to 3.7ghz boost outperformed in BF1 single player a 6800k with 6c/12t 3.4ghz base 3.6ghz boost (if no turbo max 3.0 used).

    I find that very reassuring.

    EDIT I had been watching on my phone, Linus goofed, that is an 1800X clocked part beating the 6800K in BF1.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2017
    pencea and Xinmosni like this.
  11. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,346
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    That the IPC is there, and appears to be working in games (again, we need a battery, and a focus on frametimes not average framerates to be sure), but the clocks need to be there too, and they aren't on these eight-core parts.

    I wouldn't spend double to get something slower, if my goal was gaming.
     
  12. FrgMstr

    FrgMstr Just Plain Mean Staff Member

    Messages:
    48,385
    Joined:
    May 18, 1997
  13. {NG}Fidel

    {NG}Fidel [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,291
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Im getting a Ryzen Proc. No doubt about it now.
     
    pencea likes this.
  14. sover

    sover Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    129
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2016
    I guess I'm just too much of a reminiscer of the 300A/BH6 days or the E6400. Now while I overclock my GTX 1060 it's been years since I bothered to overclock a CPU.
     
  15. Evil Scooter

    Evil Scooter [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,928
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2000
    Dang... AMD is back on the menu! The only "issue" I have is the oc'd 5820k I'm sitting on right now barely breaks a sweat with anything I'm doing.
     
  16. Rvenger

    Rvenger [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,736
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2012
    Preordered the 1700x on Microcenter. Hopefully they have motherboards for me when I get there on the 2nd!
     
  17. {NG}Fidel

    {NG}Fidel [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,291
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    They need to hurry up and make an ITX Ryzen Motherboard. Then my money would have left my account by now...
     
  18. rehab

    rehab Gawd

    Messages:
    758
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    PayPal on standby for those that wish to be in the vanguard...

    [​IMG]
     
  19. pencea

    pencea [H]Lite

    Messages:
    74
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Breaks Cinebench R15 Multi-Thread World Record – Overclocked to 5.2 GHz on All 8 Cores With LN2 Cooling

    AMD Ryzen 7 1800X put through the test in Cinebench R15 at 5.2ghz. The chip was cooled with LN2 and voltage was bumped to 1.875V using LN2 cooling which kept the chip operating at -200c.

    At these speeds, the chip was able to score 2449 Cinebench points in the multi-threaded tests, breaking the previous world record of 2410 Cinebench points.

    http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-world-record/

    Quick recap summary

    AMD Ryzen 7 1800X CPU Performance:

    Base Clock: 3.6GHz / Boost Clock: 4.0GHz / TDP: 95W

    Price: $ 499

    [Cinebench R15] Multi-Threading Score: 1601
    4% more performance than Core i7-6900K: 1474

    [Cinebench R15] Single-Threading Score: 162
    same Performance as Core i7-6900K: 162

    AMD Ryzen 7 1700X CPU Performance:

    Base Clock: 3.4GHz / Boost Clock: 3.8GHz / TDP: 95W

    Price: $ 399

    [Cinebench R15] Multi-Threading: 1537 4% more performance than Core i7-6900K: 1474
    39% more performance than Core i7-6800K: 1108

    AMD Ryzen 7 1700 CPU Performance:

    Base Clock: 3.0GHz / Boost Clock: 3.7GHz / TDP: 65W
    Price: $ 329

    [Cinebench R15] Multi-Threading: 1410
    46% more performance than Core i7-7700K: 967
     
    {NG}Fidel likes this.
  20. Tsumi

    Tsumi [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    13,019
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Still waiting for NDA to lift.
     
    jmilcher likes this.
  21. Pillars

    Pillars Gawd

    Messages:
    516
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2016
    I wanna see air/water OCs and if they have actual core temp probes again.
     
    Finny76 and {NG}Fidel like this.
  22. Luka

    Luka Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    130
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2016
    I think this benchmark is bullshit and here is why

    http://www.3dmark.com/fs/11790011

    http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1259762

    This is on 10 Core xeon running 3.2Ghz with 800Mhz disadvantage based on i7 5960x Haswell E core.
     
  23. Monkey God

    Monkey God Mangina Full of Sand

    Messages:
    6,723
    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Neat. I hope all this hype turns into reality. But until NDA lifts and we have multiple confirmations, keep your wallet closed.
     
    jmilcher likes this.
  24. pencea

    pencea [H]Lite

    Messages:
    74
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    AMD Ryzen 1700X New Benchmarks Leaked, Beats Kaby Lake IPC

    The 1700X was clocked at 3.4GHz with Turbo disabled. The Core i5 7500 was running at the base clock speed of 3.4GHz with Turbo enabled at 3.8GHz.

    Because in single-threaded workloads the i5 7500 operates at its maximum Turbo frequency of 3.8GHz this means we’re looking at a 3.4GHz vs 3.8GHz single-core vs single-core comparison.

    The Ryzen 7 1700X manages to match Kaby Lake exactly, scoring 111 points despite a 12% clock speed deficit.

    http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-1700x-benchmarks-leaked-beats-kaby-lake-ipc/
     
  25. Luka

    Luka Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    130
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2016
    I agree. In fact i think the smartest thing is to wait for Skylake-x on new 2066 socket with really competitive pricing not to mention that Ryzen chipset is really crippled.
     
  26. pencea

    pencea [H]Lite

    Messages:
    74
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Love how you completely discredit everything that's posted which includes live videos demos..etc

    And choose to believe a random single image posted by a random source with no links whatsoever. :)
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2017
  27. Luka

    Luka Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    130
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2016
    I find this failure on Ryzen part comparing 8 core vs 6 core where Intel 6 core is running default clock stock speed. It tells me that Ryzen is bad for gaming. Should i also say that Intel is running only dual memory channel with crippled PCIe setup. AMD didn't pick 7700k because Kaby Lake eats it.
     
  28. ecmaster76

    ecmaster76 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,152
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    A 5GHz 7700K gets 1FPS average lower than stock but much higher min and max?!? right.....

    #Fakebenches

    EDIT::confused::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::facepalm:
     
    CSI_PC, Magic Hate Ball and {NG}Fidel like this.
  29. Andy735

    Andy735 n00b

    Messages:
    54
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2011
    Cit.png
     
  30. Luka

    Luka Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    130
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2016
    No. According to Linux in Battlefield 1 Ryzen 8 core barely beats stock Intel 6 core which means exactly what i said. AMD Ryzen is no faster than Intel i can assure you that in fact it is going to lose in every game against Kaby Lake. Only good think about Ryzen is pricing...
     
  31. pencea

    pencea [H]Lite

    Messages:
    74
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016


    Sure it is :)

    https://www.ocaholic.co.uk/modules/smartsection/item.php?page=4&itemid=1422
    http://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/3dmark+11+physics+score/version+1.0.2
     
  32. Monkey God

    Monkey God Mangina Full of Sand

    Messages:
    6,723
    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Even if Ryzen is only 80-90% of Intel performance this is good to get some competition back in the game.
     
    Napoleon and Andy735 like this.
  33. sover

    sover Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    129
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2016
    It has the strong look of assigning importance to the wrong numbers, anyway. The minimum instantaneous and maximum instantaneous numbers aren't very important, even in that graph the stock 1700 is within 4% of a 5GHz overclocked i7. If the guy's point was that the graph says something of significance I don't think it's the thing he's thinking it does.
     
  34. lolfail9001

    lolfail9001 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,509
    Joined:
    May 31, 2016
    I mean, i can think of such scenario.

    But yeah, #fakenews is more likely.

    Though it looks like there are quite a few qual samples hitting the youtube right now.
     
  35. jmilcher

    jmilcher [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,245
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Exactly. I remember Excavator and Bulldozer. Perhaps people should read up.
     
  36. pencea

    pencea [H]Lite

    Messages:
    74
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016

    Besides gaming, other things I do consist a lot of video editing, HD & 4K videos encoding/conversion, and lately started getting into 3D rendering using Maya & Cinema 4D. All which benefits hugely from more cores, which is where Ryzen will annihilate the 7700k. Even if it is slower than Kaby Lake for gaming, it's right up there with Intel's 6900k which itself is a extremely capable gaming processor.

    Also more and more modern games are already starting to benefit from the additional cores. :)
     

    Attached Files:

    {NG}Fidel likes this.
  37. pencea

    pencea [H]Lite

    Messages:
    74
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Except AMD only released a few slideshows of floating point performance, and one synthetic benchmark. After that they kept extremely quiet.

    This time they're more than happy to show live demos comparisons. But yeah, you have a good point.
     
  38. Luka

    Luka Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    130
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2016
    Either way my take on this is: Already invested in Intel platform. AMD chipset is crippled allowing me only to run SLI in 2x8x speed where in x99 i can do 2x16. Also x99 offers quad memory channel. Ryzen is a good performer but won't beat Intel in gaming in other words AMD is late 10 years and all they managed is to match Intel performance along with crippled chipset to keep a cost down. No, thanks. It is cheap and that is awesome in a sense that i will be able to get 2066 socket and Skylake-x for much cheaper than what Intel originally planned ;) and thanks to AMD for that.

    It would be really funny If Intel cut the price down across the board and decide to drop 12 / 24 Broadwell to i7 series. If i was Intel i would totally drop 8 core down to $350 and charge 10 core for $500 and release 12/24 for $700. AMD would have no answer for that.
     
  39. Rvenger

    Rvenger [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,736
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2012

    Glad you got it all figured out. 16x16 and 8x8 make no difference in most configurations as of now. In crossfire/sli, they are hamstrung in the same way. Most people are going single GPU nowadays due to the lackluster multigpu support.
     
  40. pencea

    pencea [H]Lite

    Messages:
    74
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Good on you for getting what you want. :)


    The fact that AMD being a much smaller company with signicantly less money, managed to catch up to the much larger Intel is a huge achievement, and just goes to show Intel has been sitting on their laurels for far too long.