I hope AMD can shake it up with vega as well. Waiting to see what AMD bring with that before jumping from my 290. Would prefer to go with AMD because of the ridiculous premium on G-sync monitors vs freesync, but only if AMD can bring the performance.
For Ryzen, I am far more interested in the SR3 & 5. Main machine has a 5820K, so not worth changing there. Second machine where the 290 is going when I'm done with it, has an 8350 in. So a cheap quad or hex would be a perfect pairing with the 290.
So is the jury out on this one yet?
AMD does what inteldon't?
AMD does what inteldon't?
It looks pretty good for AMD. Stocks have increased by $5 in one month, $2 since Ryzen was officially shown off. Ryzen's going 'head to head' with Intel on every level (except the 6950K). R5 and R3 will be revealed soon to compete with the i5 and i3. Leaked benchmarks show Ryzen outdoing the Intel counterpart by a decent margin. Obviously, wait for official reviews. AMD offers better performance with more features at a lower pricepoint.
so, if this thing is to believed.
AMD was not bullshiting with their 52 PERCENT MORE IPC AND BLABLA FANTATISC" BLABLABLA ?
Well they were not lying about it's performance. Whether or not it actually turns out to be 52% over bulldozer or not, I don't think anyone will actually care. It's seems to be competitive in ipc with Intel now and that's all that really matters.
Don't know why people are so skeptical, I'm not saying just jump on the hype the train, but it's not like it's come out of no where. AMD brought Jim Keller in on it (basically god of cpus, done work for apple and was invovled in AMDs older cpus when they were mostly better than Intel) and before the new FX line, AMD were fine as well (Phenom 2 was late to the party, but was a good chip).
Bulldozer and it's derivatives, while still not fantastic ipc wise, AMD just bet on the wrong horse (multi-threading). In games that scale well with threads (like frostbite), the 83XX is competative with Sandybridge (what it would have been competing with at the time). Of course in those games, modern intel mauls it, but AMD cut their losses with AM3+. Excavator already had some ipc improvements, just wasn't brought to the high performance desktop chipsets.
It's not like AMD are incompetant and incapable of making a good cpu, just had a little mistep and had to ride it out for years.
Don't know why people are so skeptical, I'm not saying just jump on the hype the train, but it's not like it's come out of no where. AMD brought Jim Keller in on it (basically god of cpus, done work for apple and was invovled in AMDs older cpus when they were mostly better than Intel) and before the new FX line, AMD were fine as well (Phenom 2 was late to the party, but was a good chip).
Bulldozer and it's derivatives, while still not fantastic ipc wise, AMD just bet on the wrong horse (multi-threading). In games that scale well with threads (like frostbite), the 83XX is competative with Sandybridge (what it would have been competing with at the time). Of course in those games, modern intel mauls it, but AMD cut their losses with AM3+. Excavator already had some ipc improvements, just wasn't brought to the high performance desktop chipsets.
It's not like AMD are incompetant and incapable of making a good cpu, just had a little mistep and had to ride it out for years.
Last edited by Armadillo,
Ryzen 1700x for gaming doesn't seem to be impressive, I see civ6 which i heard it requires a powerful cpu. For the rest of the games just 2/3 fps gain, however it has just 95W tdp compared to the i7 6800k and it's great for editing.
Apparently pre-ordering with Amazon doesn't mean you get it shipped on release day. Even when they say "will ship on release day"..... 
Reviews seem alright to me for gaming. Based on the negativity I see in some places I was expecting a disaster. It's a little behind the Intel chips, but far cheaper than the equivelent Intel. Unless you were expecting Skylake ipc, not sure what is so bad about it.
Intel is still ipc king, no one was expecting anything else, but AMD have a competitive alternate with good ipc at a cheaper price.
I don't expect SR3/5 will fair any different. Slightly less ipc, but at a far cheaper price than the equivelent Intel.
Intel is still ipc king, no one was expecting anything else, but AMD have a competitive alternate with good ipc at a cheaper price.
I don't expect SR3/5 will fair any different. Slightly less ipc, but at a far cheaper price than the equivelent Intel.
Last edited by Armadillo,
This is what I've gathered from reading the reviews: while Ryzen 1800x isn't better than the $1000 best of intel in single threading (which means "gaming" for a lot of folks), it is better/tied for multiple threads. And at half the cost, it's safe to say the bang-for-buck is about 2x over intel.
But if you don't care about throwing money at things, and only care about single-threaded optimized games, then stick with the best of Intel.
If you want best bang-for-the-buck, want to play games and maybe edit videos/stream those games/etc, then go with AMD.
But if you don't care about throwing money at things, and only care about single-threaded optimized games, then stick with the best of Intel.
If you want best bang-for-the-buck, want to play games and maybe edit videos/stream those games/etc, then go with AMD.
I've been reading reviews all day and I'm a little confused. I want to build a low power emulation rig and was thinking of the ryzen 1700 with a 1050 ti. would this be good for that purpose?
From what I understand, Ryzen is superior for multi-threading (so if you want to do a lot of multi-tasking, its better), but for gaming Intel still beats it as most pc games are still optimized for single thread performance. If you're an engineer or engineering major, Ryzen is the way to go, but for gaming I would go intel. Or if you like to have 8 million (exaggerated but you get the idea) different things open at once Ryzen is better haha
Finally. For the first time in a long time, it feels like there is going to be something happen in the CPU market
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,028
- Trophies
- 1
- Age
- 30
- Location
- Insomnia
- Website
- www.gbatemp.net
- XP
- 1,131
- Country
Looks like the i7-7700k dropped in price to match the R7 1700. I've seen reviews where they match up pretty well with better single core speed on the 7700k and better multi-core speed on the 1700. I guess it really depends on the game you play for gaming.
The biggest bottleneck for the Ryzen CPU setup is lack of quad channel RAM.
It would be really nice to see some dual CPU motherboards for the AM4 socket though. That could ruin the Xeon market for Intel.
The biggest bottleneck for the Ryzen CPU setup is lack of quad channel RAM.
It would be really nice to see some dual CPU motherboards for the AM4 socket though. That could ruin the Xeon market for Intel.
Here's a Cinebench for my rig. Still a bit more to do before I update my thread, but I figured people might like to see it.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,028
- Trophies
- 1
- Age
- 30
- Location
- Insomnia
- Website
- www.gbatemp.net
- XP
- 1,131
- Country
Looks like the same results others on YouTube have been posting. The best OC you could get was 3.8GHZ?
Not stable temp-wise, no. After this, I stressed the chip with CPUID to see where my temps maxed out. 69.5C on this setting. When I went 3.9 at 1.35, temps weren't stable.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
Veho:
Illinois is working to ban toxic food additives that have been banned for decades in other countries; additives that can be replaced and all those countries still have Skittles and Mountain Dew. Title of the piece: GUBMINT WANTS TO TAKE AWAY YOUR CANDY -
-
@
SylverReZ:
@Veho, Sounds and smells like bullshit. They don't give you cancer, and California should know that. I don't get why they stick labels that say "may or may not cause reproductive harm or cancer". -
-
-
-
-
