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

pencea

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
74
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:

pencea

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
74
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:

pencea

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
74
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



 

Xinmosni

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 12, 2012
Messages
1,974
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!
 

sover

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
133
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.
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?
 

Xinmosni

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 12, 2012
Messages
1,974
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?
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
 

TwistedAegis

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
8,958
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?
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!
 

Magic Hate Ball

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
366
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:

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
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.
 

sover

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
133
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!
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.
 

Rvenger

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 12, 2012
Messages
2,101
Preordered the 1700x on Microcenter. Hopefully they have motherboards for me when I get there on the 2nd!
 

{NG}Fidel

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
6,286
They need to hurry up and make an ITX Ryzen Motherboard. Then my money would have left my account by now...
 

pencea

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
74
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
 

Luka

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2016
Messages
130
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
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.
 

Monkey God

Mangina Full of Sand
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
6,723
Neat. I hope all this hype turns into reality. But until NDA lifts and we have multiple confirmations, keep your wallet closed.
 

pencea

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
74
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/
 

Luka

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2016
Messages
130
Neat. I hope all this hype turns into reality. But until NDA lifts and we have multiple confirmations, keep your wallet closed.
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.
 

pencea

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
74
Sorry by i don't play user bench. I want to see things in gaming where no platform is going to be crippled by any means.

Here is how badly Ryzen is doing in gaming

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:

Luka

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2016
Messages
130
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.
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.
 

Luka

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2016
Messages
130
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 leaks whatsoever. :)
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...
 

pencea

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
74
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
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.
core.


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
 

sover

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
133
A 5GHz 7700K gets 1FPS average lower than stock but much higher min and max?!? right.....

#Fakebenches

EDIT::confused::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::facepalm:
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.
 

lolfail9001

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
1,509
A 5GHz 7700K gets 1FPS average lower than stock but much higher min and max?!? right.....
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.
 

jmilcher

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
4,641
Neat. I hope all this hype turns into reality. But until NDA lifts and we have multiple confirmations, keep your wallet closed.
Exactly. I remember Excavator and Bulldozer. Perhaps people should read up.
 

pencea

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
74
Soon. Just to let you know Ryzen will lose in all games against Kaby Lake.

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. :)
 

Attachments

pencea

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
74
Exactly. I remember Excavator and Bulldozer. Perhaps people should read up.
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.
 

Luka

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2016
Messages
130
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.
 

Rvenger

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 12, 2012
Messages
2,101
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.

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.
 

pencea

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
74
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.
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.
 
Top