# [Videocardz] How fast is Ryzen?



## umeng2002

Depends on how hard you throw it...


----------



## Dhoulmagus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *umeng2002*
> 
> Depends on how hard you throw it...


:::doo doo dat:::








.. well, pretty tasty considering they are showing a 4 ghz 8 core for half the price of a 6900k. Finally the market will get shaken up.


----------



## xlink

Looks to be around 10% slower per clock.

This is about what I expected it to be.

I also expect Intel's chips to clock around 10% higher...

All in all 8 core Ryzen vs 6 Core i7 will be an interesting fight - 20% faster since threaded performance from Intel. 20% faster multi-threaded performance from AMD.

We'll see if that ends up being the reality. I place very little faith in the current speculation which is out there.


----------



## variant

No increase going from 3.2 Ghz to 4 Ghz? There's a bottleneck.


----------



## hokk

Looks like a well priced chip then.


----------



## Yorkston

Looks right in line with all the other leaked benchmarks we have seen so far, per-core strength nearly identical to Broadwell. Ryzen is really going to live or die on how well it can be overclocked. If the quad/hex-cores can reliably get into the 4.5ghz+ range, we have a winner.


----------



## ducegt

As a 7700k owner who plays games and am in no rush to render or encode when I do, wew lad. I still wish AMD would have taken the gaming crown, but happy I made the best choice for my needs. History continues to repeat itself. I'll be purchasing Vega regardless of anything nVidia does.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *variant*
> 
> No increase going from 3.2 Ghz to 4 Ghz? There's a bottleneck.


Could be anything from crappy RAM to crappy cooling to crappy motherboards


----------



## EniGma1987

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *variant*
> 
> No increase going from 3.2 Ghz to 4 Ghz? There's a bottleneck.


Likely the low memory speed with high timings we have seen every Ryzen chip using :/
I really hope all those extra encryption parts in their memory controller dont limit the speed but I know that isnt likely.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *variant*
> 
> No increase going from 3.2 Ghz to 4 Ghz? There's a bottleneck.


I think that was artificially done to not reveal all information and keep it unknown.


----------



## nakano2k1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> I think that was artificially done to not reveal all information and keep it unknown.


That's weird since they didn't do the same for the lower sku CPU under it. Could you not extrapolate per core overclock improvements based on that?


----------



## ducegt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> I think that was artificially done to not reveal all information and keep it unknown.


Perhaps they are all turbo boosting to a similar max clock.


----------



## variant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> Perhaps they are all turbo boosting to a similar max clock.


The turbo boost is in the CPU ID. 3.4 for the 4 core and 3.7 for the 6 core.


----------



## Game256

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> As a 7700k owner who plays games and am in no rush to render or encode when I do, wew lad. I still wish AMD would have taken the gaming crown, but happy I made the best choice for my needs. History continues to repeat itself. I'll be purchasing Vega regardless of anything nVidia does.


Yeah, right. Considering that for gaming needs it's enough of basically any CPU above average.


----------



## ducegt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *variant*
> 
> The turbo boost is in the CPU ID. 3.4 for the 4 core and 3.7 for the 6 core.


I'll take your word for that. I'm not sure how that works.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Game256*
> 
> Yeah, right. Considering that for gaming needs it's enough of basically any CPU above average.


No such thing as enough. A 20FPS difference between 90 and 110 is no big deal, but it makes a big difference down the road when comparing 30FPS with 50.


----------



## Newbie2009

hmm, run a quick test there.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Xuper*
> 
> Source : https://videocardz.com/65913/how-fast-is-ryzen


For comparison, my 3770k @ 4.8ghz scores 12,824


----------



## Xuper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> hmm, run a quick test there.
> For comparison, my 3770k @ 4.8ghz scores 12,824


oh , AMD Quad core at 3.2 Ghz => 10177


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Xuper*
> 
> oh , AMD Quad core at 3.2 Ghz => 10177


Yup


----------



## TopicClocker

This is amazing! Glad to see such a competitive CPU from AMD again!


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> This is amazing! Glad to see such a competitive CPU from AMD again!


Yup, the hype is real it seems.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Seems to be really close to Intels Skylake. Ehatever new architecture that gives 10%+ IPC from Intel in 2017/2018 wont mean a thing.
No more bottleneck no matter what you get, AMD or Intel.


----------



## SoloCamo

If all we have is true so far any future build for others or myself will likely be based off the platform.


----------



## Pantsu

Seems not very reliable numbers. Even if the Zen numbers are accurate, the Intel results are from Tom's I think, and there's quite a bit of variance. Not to mention that the single threaded Zen results don't make much sense at all.


----------



## Newbie2009

On mobile but I'd guess total score divided by number of cores?


----------



## Xuper

AMD Ryzen: ZD3201BBM4KF4_34/32_Y - Quad-Core CPU at 3.2Gh = 10177 (with 2544 Per core)

Intel Core i7-7700K at 4.2Ghz = 14208 (with 3552 Per core)

Intel Core i7-7700K at 4.8Ghz = 15571 (with 3893 Per core)

If AMD Quad Core gets 4.8Gz => (4.8/3.2 ) * (2544) = 3816 Per Core

Is My math Correct ?


----------



## Dragonsyph

So the fastest ryzen at 4ghz is slower then a 5960x in multi-core and single core clock for clock?

Are these benchmarks real? And all these prices you guys are saying are they real also? Or is all of this just speculations and rumors?

I would go for a cpu thats about 10-15% slower then a 5960x 8 core for half the price.


----------



## Dhoulmagus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> So the fastest ryzen at 4ghz is slower then a 5960x in multi-core and single core clock for clock?
> 
> Are these benchmarks real? And all these prices you guys are saying are they real also? Or is all of this just speculations and rumors?
> 
> I would go for a cpu thats about 10-15% slower then a 5960x 8 core for half the price.


Ah we'll never know for sure until release day, but either way I'm in the same boat as you. I think it's safe to assume that within the next year or two we're going to be able to get 5960x performance for a reasonable price. I'm certainly not shelling out over $300 for another 4 core that can barely pull ahead of a 4790k any time soon, not until something major happens in the single core world. 8 core is the next stop, hopefully without compromising on per core performance when I do make the jump


----------



## jezzer

Really nice, i mainly use my rig for gaming but also for video editing.
I currently have a 4790K so in both i will get a massive boost. In gaming due to DDR4 support (which is a much bigger difference than the IPC difference of my current chip and lets say the 7700k) and also a massive boost in editing/encoding due to more cores and good hyperthreading and all for a reasonable price.


----------



## Yorkston

It looks like that "score per core" chart is literally just the numbers from the overall physics score test divided by # of cores, not an actual test itself. I would ignore that chart.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

I can't believe how it kicks the 6900K's ass. For half the price! This is what we've all been waiting for. In AdoredTV's voice 'this is the bloody good shake up' we've all been waiting for.


----------



## Dhoulmagus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jezzer*
> 
> Really nice, i mainly use my rig for gaming but also for video editing.
> I currently have a 4790K so in both i will get a massive boost. In gaming due to DDR4 support (which is a much bigger difference than the IPC difference of my current chip and lets say the 7700k) and also a massive boost in editing/encoding due to more cores and good hyperthreading and all for a reasonable price.


Makes me wonder if we should be selling our z97 gear now before it takes a price hit


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yorkston*
> 
> It looks like that "score per core" chart is literally just the numbers from the overall physics score test divided by # of cores, not an actual test itself. I would ignore that chart.


Does that particular test even scale lineary like that with cores × clock?


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serious_Don*
> 
> Ah we'll never know for sure until release day, but either way I'm in the same boat as you. I think it's safe to assume that within the next year or two we're going to be able to get 5960x performance for a reasonable price. I'm certainly not shelling out over $300 for another 4 core that can barely pull ahead of a 4790k any time soon, not until something major happens in the single core world. 8 core is the next stop, hopefully without compromising on per core performance when I do make the jump


Ya and now days alot of the games are using 80% + cpu even on our 4790k's. And just like you said some like 4000mhz ddr4 would be such a nice upgrade with an 8 core cpu. I been wanting an 8 core also but im not paying 1000+ dollars for it.


----------



## dieanotherday

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Xuper*
> 
> AMD Ryzen: ZD3201BBM4KF4_34/32_Y - Quad-Core CPU at 3.2Gh = 10177 (with 2544 Per core)
> Intel Core i7-7700K at 4.2Ghz = 14208 (with 3552 Per core)
> Intel Core i7-7700K at 4.8Ghz = 15571 (with 3893 Per core)
> 
> If AMD Quad Core gets 4.8Gz => (4.8/3.2 ) * (2544) = 3816 Per Core
> 
> Is My math Correct ?


My it looks like from the graph that the ghz is not scaling with per core score.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> I can't believe how it kicks the 6900K's ass. For half the price! This is what we've all been waiting for. In AdoredTV's voice 'this is the bloody good shake up' we've all been waiting for.


I dont know about that.

edit:


----------



## nakano2k1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serious_Don*
> 
> Makes me wonder if we should be selling our z97 gear now before it takes a price hit


I just dumped all my Ivy Bridge stuff last week. Still lots of people willing to shell out ridiculous amounts for old processors and motherboards.


----------



## BinaryDemon

Someone overclock Ryzen already!


----------



## kd5151

ryzen 4ghz no turbo no xfr me happpppyyyy


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nakano2k1*
> 
> I just dumped all my Ivy Bridge stuff last week. Still lots of people willing to shell out ridiculous amounts for old processors and motherboards.


Smart.Yeah they all held value well,even a 2600k. Until now that is.


----------



## nakano2k1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> Smart.Yeah they all held value well,even a 2600k. Until now that is.


Yeah, given the fact that the Canadian dollar has fluctuated so much from when I bought everything new, I ended up actually making 20 dollars off of everything.


----------



## Dhoulmagus

Seems like the 4790k goes for $300 used on ebay.. Incredible considering I paid $329 or $339 in 2014. Hopefully the price stays up there for a year or so, I can't just pull this system apart yet







.

I don't think the 4 core Zens are going to cost much less than a typical 4c i7 are they? It's probably the 6+ core i7s that will take the biggest price hit right away


----------



## Dragonsyph

So ryzen is using SMT? And intel HT? Are these the same with different names? Does one perform better then the other? I'm wonder if the 16 threads from ryzen would be faster than 16 threads from an 8 core intel if both are overclocked to = core performance.

Also does FS single core use hyperthreading or would it be like cinabench being just a single core? If so you can't take multi core score and divided by cores to get single, you have to take in the performance hyperthreading and smt gave you in multicore.


----------



## fewness

I want to see 6950x + Pascal TitanX @ DX11 benchmarked head to head with Ryzen +Vega @ DX12







It will be the most legendary fight in benchmark history! Ever!


----------



## EniGma1987

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> So ryzen is using SMT? And intel HT? Are these the same with different names? Does one perform better then the other? I'm wonder if the 16 threads from ryzen would be faster than 16 threads from an 8 core intel if both are overclocked to = core performance.
> 
> Also does FS single core use hyperthreading or would it be like cinabench being just a single core? If so you can't take multi core score and divided by cores to get single, you have to take in the performance hyperthreading and smt gave you in multicore.


AMD has a lot of things in the core arch to help their SMT performance, but somehow I still think Intel's HT will perform just a bit better because they have been using it and designing with it for so long now.
But yes they are the same thing. Hyper Threading is just a trademark name for Intel's SMT.


----------



## dieanotherday

I still find these results confusing,

Why isn't the single core perf scaling with clock?


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yorkston*
> 
> It looks like that "score per core" chart is literally just the numbers from the overall physics score test divided by # of cores, not an actual test itself. I would ignore that chart.


This. It is a useless metric when turbo freq or scaling is unknown. What's impressive is the actual score. If we make the plausible assumption that intel chips turbo as usual, ryzen might actually be slightly faster per clock vs BW-E for this workload. Unless XFR is boosting Ryzen freq high, that is.


----------



## Tobiman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dieanotherday*
> 
> I still find these results confusing,
> 
> Why isn't the single core perf scaling with clock?


How isn't it scaling? Are you reading the chart or glossing over it?


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tobiman*
> 
> How isn't it scaling? Are you reading the chart or glossing over it?


He is talking about the "perf per core" table which has the scores divided by the amount or cores, which returns the same value on three ryzen CPUs which vary widely in frequency. People, this is NOT a single thread test, it is just a mostly pointless exercise.


----------



## Pantsu

Yeah, the scores make sense if they're just divided from the multi-threaded benchmark. It would simply imply that the multi-threading doesn't scale perfectly by adding cores lol.


----------



## AlphaC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xlink*
> 
> Looks to be around 10% slower per clock.
> 
> This is about what I expected it to be.
> 
> I also expect Intel's chips to clock around 10% higher...
> 
> All in all 8 core Ryzen vs 6 Core i7 will be an interesting fight - 20% faster since threaded performance from Intel. 20% faster multi-threaded performance from AMD.
> 
> We'll see if that ends up being the reality. I place very little faith in the current speculation which is out there.


I believe the real competition will be 6 core Ryzen vs 4 core Intel. 6c/12t is a stronger proposition for Z87/Z97/Z170/Z270 users , not just X79/X99 users.

The motherboards for X370 are reportedly $140-200. You'd be lucky to get a barebones X99 board that is $200.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> No such thing as enough. A 20FPS difference between 90 and 110 is no big deal, but it makes a big difference down the road when comparing 30FPS with 50.


But with the direction that consoles, games and the APIs they use are headed, it's entirely possible that per core performance won't be as much of a constraint by the time Ryzen or Broadwell are limiting games to 50fps and that they'll be much closer due to increased multi-threading. You can already see it in Hitman DX12 allowing an FX-9590 to double its FPS and come within 10fps of a stock 6700k.


----------



## Tobiman

He said," why isn't 'per core' performance scaling with 'clocks'" to which I would point him to look at the 8 core chip at 3.8ghz in comparison to 4.0ghz. It's a moderate bump at best but it's scaling.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> I believe the real competition will be 6 core Ryzen vs 4 core Intel. 6c/12t is a stronger proposition for Z87/Z97/Z170/Z270 users , not just X79/X99 users.
> 
> The motherboards for X370 are reportedly $140-200. You'd be lucky to get a barebones X99 board that is $200.


Are we talking about price or performance?

I don't see why a 4 core Ryzen won't compete with a 4 core i7.


----------



## Dhoulmagus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Are we talking about price or performance?
> 
> I don't see why a 4 core Ryzen won't compete with a 4 core i7.


Something is obviously off about the single core performance in these charts when a ryzen core at 4ghz is putting out a lower score than 3.2ghz, so we shouldn't really try to assume too much about how the 4 core will stack up against a consumer i7 yet until more reasonable benches come out.


----------



## ducegt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> But with the direction that consoles, games and the APIs they use are headed, it's entirely possible that per core performance won't be as much of a constraint by the time Ryzen or Broadwell are limiting games to 50fps and that they'll be much closer due to increased multi-threading. You can already see it in Hitman DX12 allowing an FX-9590 to double its FPS and come within 10fps of a stock 6700k.


No doubt that you make a valid point, but timing is everything. I remember having a similar line of thought when the Athlon 64 came out and the first dual cores. A year ago I thought we would be at the point you alluded to right now, but alas, single thread performance prevails. By the time future-tech is practical, the then present tech is so much better than older "future proof" models. Your point might stand if one only what's to upgrade every 10 years. I tend to think I'm rather patient at 5 to 6.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> No doubt that you make a valid point, but timing is everything. I remember having a similar line of thought when the Athlon 64 came out and the first dual cores. A year ago I thought we would be at the point you alluded to right now, but alas, single thread performance prevails. By the time future-tech is practical, the then present tech is so much better than older "future proof" models. Your point might stand if one only what's to upgrade every 10 years. I tend to think I'm rather patient at 5 to 6.


5-6 years ago 2500k/2600k was still boss. Guess which one is still doing very well in most modern titles.

Going with extra cores/threads for a slight bump in price is always worth it if you plan on keeping the rig a few years.


----------



## Tobiman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serious_Don*
> 
> Something is obviously off about the single core performance in these charts when a ryzen core at 4ghz is putting out a lower score than 3.2ghz, so we shouldn't really try to assume too much about how the 4 core will stack up against a consumer i7 yet until more reasonable benches come out.


The same thing happens with Intel chips. 7700k at 4.2ghz is faster than a 6800k at 4.2ghz per core.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serious_Don*
> 
> Something is obviously off about the single core performance in these charts when a ryzen core at 4ghz is putting out a lower score than 3.2ghz, so we shouldn't really try to assume too much about how the 4 core will stack up against a consumer i7 yet until more reasonable benches come out.


I agree. But it is ok to assume negative though?

Based on IPC core for core AMD is competitive to Intel. They dont need more cores to tackle Intel anymore.

Clock speed will determine who is on top.


----------



## Dhoulmagus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tobiman*
> 
> The same thing happens with Intel chips. 7700k at 4.2ghz is faster than a 6800k at 4.2ghz per core.


Yeah but in this case the AMD core is slower than the same AMD core running 800 mhz faster. That makes no sense outside of a major bottleneck limiting the CPU completely after 3.2 ghz, and an even bigger drop at 3.4ghz. Either these tests were some how bottlenecked, completely made up, or major details (SMT on or off?) were left out... Or drivers + firestrike just aren't able to use the new chipset + cpu to its potential at all yet.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> I agree. But it is ok to assume negative though?
> 
> Based on IPC core for core AMD is competitive to Intel. They dont need more cores to tackle Intel anymore.
> 
> Clock speed will determine who is on top.


IPC and achievable clock speeds will determine who is on top performance wise.. that's for sure. My guess is still that Zen will be a bit slower per core than kaby, but even still with the supposed price gap looking to be 50% less than a 6900k for the top Zen chip according to the source.. Major victory for us all.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serious_Don*
> 
> Something is obviously off about the single core performance in these charts when a ryzen core at 4ghz is putting out a lower score than 3.2ghz, so we shouldn't really try to assume too much about how the 4 core will stack up against a consumer i7 yet until more reasonable benches come out.


It's not exactly single-core performance, it's also affected by core scaling, which isn't uniform across all numbers of cores. An 8-core isn't necessarily a perfect twice as fast as a 4-core even in synthetics. The per core performance when comparing both 8-core Ryzens seems fine given the clock speed difference.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> It's not exactly single-core performance, it's also affected by core scaling, which isn't uniform across all numbers of cores. An 8-core isn't necessarily a perfect twice as fast as a 4-core even in synthetics. The per core performance when comparing both 8-core Ryzens seems fine given the clock speed difference.


Another factor is the software that are using the cores


----------



## Dhoulmagus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> It's not exactly single-core performance, it's also affected by core scaling, which isn't uniform across all numbers of cores. An 8-core isn't necessarily a perfect twice as fast as a 4-core even in synthetics. The per core performance when comparing both 8-core Ryzens seems fine given the clock speed difference.


Not really the point I was making. In the benchmarks for single core, the score for the same exact ryzen core drops as you increase clock speed beyond 3.2ghz. Logically, given the same IPC and cranking out way more clock cycles would increase performance of that core unless a bottleneck occurs. That's the very reason we all overclock our systems to begin with. So I still say something is obviously up with the single core results, bottleneck or driver/software issue. Note how the 7700k continues to improve from 4.5 to 4.8 ghz in single core while Zen somehow drops at anything above 3.2ghz, that's the point I'm making.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serious_Don*
> 
> Not really the point I was making. In the benchmarks for single core, the score for the same exact ryzen core drops as you increase clock speed beyond 3.2ghz. Logically, given the same IPC and cranking out way more clock cycles would increase performance of that core unless a bottleneck occurs. That's the very reason we all overclock our systems to begin with. So I still say something is obviously up with the single core results, bottleneck or driver/software issue. Note how the 7700k continues to improve from 4.5 to 4.8 ghz in single core, that's the point I'm making.


To me that is an error or done on purpose to hide info. There are no logical explanations that make sense as to why that happened.


----------



## WolfssFang

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> 5-6 years ago 2500k/2600k was still boss. Guess which one is still doing very well in most modern titles.
> 
> Going with extra cores/threads for a slight bump in price is always worth it if you plan on keeping the rig a few years.


Ehhh im starting to see a bottleneck in some games.


----------



## dragneel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> 5-6 years ago 2500k/2600k was still boss. Guess which one is still doing very well in most modern titles.
> 
> Going with extra cores/threads for a slight bump in price is always worth it if you plan on keeping the rig a few years.


I mean, relatively speaking they both are, considering they're 6 year old mainstream chips. the 2500k is still plenty capable, at least for 60hz.
I don't deny the 2600k is doing better now but we're already beyond expected product cycles for both, so whichever one is doing better now doesn't matter a whole lot when you consider that most people still hanging onto either are now pretty much ready to upgrade at the very least for DDR4, m.2 etc.

Don't get me wrong, there's no way I could consider another 4 core chip with only 40~% performance boost a real upgrade. I'm looking for another sandybridge, with multi threading taking hold, that's definitely going to be an 8 core chip that can give me those 6 years.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tobiman*
> 
> The same thing happens with Intel chips. 7700k at 4.2ghz is faster than a 6800k at 4.2ghz per core.


A 6800k is broadwell and a 7700k is kabylake/skylake

To thread:

SO im guessing on this but AMD will have a new memory controller yes? Im wondering if it and the cpu along with the motherboards can push 3000-4266mhz ram. This might be the factor if i buy one or not.


----------



## schubaltz

game over if it doesn't overclock? lol for what? a handful of people who does?


----------



## Tobiman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> A 6800k is broadwell and a 7700k is kabylake/skylake


Broadwell has skylake IPC give or take 5-7%. Look at the per core performance going from 5960X to 6950X. It's around 7% at 3.0Ghz. The per core performance of the mainstream processors will always be better in comparison to 6-8 core enthusiast chips in most workloads at the same clocks. Nothing new here.


----------



## Dhoulmagus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schubaltz*
> 
> game over if it doesn't overclock? lol for what? a handful of people who does?


Funny you mention that, I remember Phenom IIs flying off the shelf like hot cakes back in early 2010 and the c2 revision chips were horrible overclockers. That was because even at only 3.6 ghz they were still amazing for the price.

Now we get a new lineup coming that looks to be going toe to toe with the best offerings from intel at supposedly half the price and we still read about game over.


----------



## aDyerSituation

On videocardz site on the per core it shows the 5960x and 6950x both at 3.5ghz instead of 3.0.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aDyerSituation*
> 
> On videocardz site on the per core it shows the 5960x and 6950x both at 3.5ghz instead of 3.0.


So they have switched around the numbers? Makes me think the whole thing is just made up.


----------



## aDyerSituation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> So they have switched around the numbers? Makes me think the whole thing is just made up.


yeah, little fishy to meee


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> So they have switched around the numbers? Makes me think the whole thing is just made up.


Those are the Turbo speeds. Why VC thinks it's better to list those than the base speeds, I do not know. Maybe those are the clocks the chips actually run at?

For example, take this chart:



The base 5960X (at 3GHz?) scores 1337 while the 4.3GHz 5960X scores 1679, ostensibly, the clock speed increased by 43%, but the score only increased by 25.5%. Cinebench scales well with clock speeds, so perhaps the stock CPU is actually all-core turbo'ing to around 3.4GHz (4.3GHz is a 26% increase over that, just like its score).


----------



## rexolaboy

8 core 16 thread at 4 ghz is faster than the 8 core 16 thread at 3.4ghz. What are people confused about?

at 3.4 ghz 8c16th gets 2235 (17868 divided by 8)

at 4ghz 8c16th gets 2531 (20249 divided by 8)

The 4 core and 6 core are higher score per core only because of core scaling, this is really simple.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serious_Don*
> 
> Not really the point I was making. In the benchmarks for single core, the score for the same exact ryzen core drops as you increase clock speed beyond 3.2ghz. Logically, given the same IPC and cranking out way more clock cycles would increase performance of that core unless a bottleneck occurs. That's the very reason we all overclock our systems to begin with. So I still say something is obviously up with the single core results, bottleneck or driver/software issue. Note how the 7700k continues to improve from 4.5 to 4.8 ghz in single core while Zen somehow drops at anything above 3.2ghz, that's the point I'm making.


I still don't get it. The 4GHz 8-core is 13% faster than the 3.4/3.8GHz 8-core, reflected in the "single-core" chart. Seems like there's not much of an issue at all.

They're not actually single-core benchmarks, it's just the multi core score divided by the number of cores, hence the only variable is not clock speed scaling, but also core scaling.


----------



## Freakydude

I thought maybe this test could be true but then I saw the price column listed in Chinese Yuans. That did it, I really believe these are the most accurate stats I have ever seen

POW ding ding ding you have just been run over by the hype train lol
Why can't people wait for the release and real world comparisons, click the link and the test data clearly says that is not accurate


----------



## ZoomThruPoom

No combined test score huh? Shame that's where AMD always got it's keister reamed before so one would think they would show a combined score since it's AMD and Firestrike here.

Not Physics score per core bs. This is fishy stuff.


----------



## xzamples

what's up with people saying ryzen wont be a good overclocker? the cpus are unlocked and mobos offer overclocking for a reason...they also feature xfr

amd knows ryzen is going to be a good overclocker


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZoomThruPoom*
> 
> No combined test score huh? Shame that's where AMD always got it's keister reamed before so one would think they would show a combined score since it's AMD and Firestrike here.
> 
> Not Physics score per core bs. This is fishy stuff.


When I want bench a CPU, I generally bench a CPU. I don't do some combined GPU and CPU test where the score is generated who knows how and introduces, pointlessly, another variable.


----------



## rexolaboy

Moving the goal posts much?







Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZoomThruPoom*
> 
> No combined test score huh? Shame that's where AMD always got it's keister reamed before so one would think they would show a combined score since it's AMD and Firestrike here.
> 
> Not Physics score per core bs. This is fishy stuff.


----------



## mohiuddin

The question is, that 8c/16t ryzen running 4GHz @all core?


----------



## ZoomThruPoom

Was more about a comparison of the cpu performance of the bullet instruction set the combined test uses between the two, than cpu/gpu performance.

Should have been more clear.

Amd cpu's take the biggest hit in Firestrike because the combined test favors Intel so to speak.

As an AMD user I'm very interested to see if Ryzen overcomes the combined test, more so than care about it's physics score.


----------



## RyzenChrist

Does this mean we'll see the 6900K price dropped to 599.99?


----------



## FlyingSolo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RyzenChrist*
> 
> Does this mean we'll see the 6900K price dropped to 599.99?


I don't think Intel will lower the price. People out there are brand loyal. Intel knows this very well


----------



## RyzenChrist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FlyingSolo*
> 
> I don't think Intel will lower the price. People out there are brand loyal. Intel knows this very well


Agreed but I can dream. I guess I'll just oc the hell out of my 1700


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZoomThruPoom*
> 
> Was more about a comparison of the cpu performance of the bullet instruction set the combined test uses between the two, than cpu/gpu performance.
> 
> Should have been more clear.
> 
> Amd cpu's take the biggest hit in Firestrike because the combined test favors Intel so to speak.
> 
> As an AMD user I'm very interested to see if Ryzen overcomes the combined test, more so than care about it's physics score.


If you understood how the combined test worked in Firestrike you'd know that Ryzen won't be affected by the same issue that affected FX


----------



## ZoomThruPoom

Understanding how the combined test works, I just hope Ryzen can overcome/overpower some of the benchmark a$$hattery that's been going on the last few years.


----------



## RyzenChrist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZoomThruPoom*
> 
> Understanding how the combined test works, I just hope Ryzen can overcome/overpower some of the benchmark a$$hattery that's been going on the last few years.


Scores look good. I never thought I would see a 20k physics score from an amd processor


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZoomThruPoom*
> 
> Understanding how the combined test works, I just hope Ryzen can overcome/overpower some of the benchmark a$$hattery that's been going on the last few years.


It's nothing nefarious, it was something that was overlooked by Futuremark when they created the benchmark.

As I said, if you understood how it worked then you would understand why Ryzen won't be affected.


----------



## frunction

So if I have a 5820k, would upgrading to Ryzen be worth it?


----------



## Dhoulmagus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frunction*
> 
> So if I have a 5820k, would upgrading to Ryzen be worth it?


With a CPU like that I'd probably just sit back and watch. I mean what task are you doing that the 5820k isn't still tearing apart?

I'm going to just watch from the sidelines for a while. See what chips get revisions and what's the best bang for the buck by maybe late 2017.

On the other hand though, we could still sell our haswell stuff for almost what we paid for it to upgrade still







.. Maybe I'll just unload my z97 rig and use my FX 4350 as my main until I decide what to do.. Even that PC is still pretty much fine for the games and work I do


----------



## bmgjet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frunction*
> 
> So if I have a 5820k, would upgrading to Ryzen be worth it?


I got a 5820K as well at 4.4ghz
Its looking like its really going to depend what you use your computer for and how much the Ryzen overclocks if its going to be worth while upgrade.
So far the only pro looks to be more PCI-E lanes, And better performance in things that use all 16 threads.
If 4ghz is where it tops out tho then single thread is about the same.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bmgjet*
> 
> I got a 5820K as well at 4.4ghz
> Its looking like its really going to depend what you use your computer for and how much the Ryzen overclocks if its going to be worth while upgrade.
> So far the only pro looks to be more PCI-E lanes, And better performance in things that use all 16 threads.
> If 4ghz is where it tops out tho then single thread is about the same.


Is it realistic to think it will top out at 4Ghz? That's kinda of a ridiculous "if"


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> 5-6 years ago 2500k/2600k was still boss. Guess which one is still doing very well in most modern titles.
> 
> Going with extra cores/threads for a slight bump in price is always worth it if you plan on keeping the rig a few years.


Still going strong on my little 2600K I bought 6 years ago now. Especially now, since my sig rig X79/4930K has completely borked itself and I've been using the backup rig exclusively for over a month. Sure Crysis 3 runs a little choppy on the 2600K and 270X at 1440p but it does still get the job done while I contemplate a full tear down and rebuild of Night Fury...


----------



## Lord Xeb

I think these chips could potentially hit 4.5-5GHz.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frunction*
> 
> So if I have a 5820k, would upgrading to Ryzen be worth it?


I really doubt it. Not for the cost/hassle of buying a whole new platform and CPU. Also, who knows how much your used hardware will be going for after Ryzen. It could very well drop in value a whole lot. You might try selling it off now, but then there's still a risk if Ryzen isn't what you hoped (it's looking less likely by the day, but the risk is still there) and you'll be going a half a month or more without your hardware.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Xeb*
> 
> I think these chips could potentially hit 4.5-5GHz.


The potential is there for it, I want to know mem speeds though, I don't think I'd have an issue carrying over my current kit but it'd suck if 2667Mhz was the max :/


----------



## finalheaven

Honestly, it feels like anyone with 2500k/2600k can finally upgrade. As for everyone else... I would wait, but choice is yours. Hell us 2500k/2600k owners waited this long, so can you. Unless you really have a specific need that is or money to burn.

Also anyone that wants to purchase Ryzen and support AMD gets my vote. Not because one should be an AMD fan, but because you should support competition.


----------



## RyzenChrist

If you have a 5820K there is no reason to uograde


----------



## Loladinas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> hmm, run a quick test there.
> For comparison, my 3770k @ 4.8ghz scores 12,824


13343 for my 4790k @ 4.7GHz. Not quite double for the top AMD offering, but definitely enough for me to consider it.


----------



## chuy409

The real question is how intel is going to respond? They must lower the price of their cpus. I can see intel doing something crazy like using 20+ core xeons and put the i7 tag on them and unlocking them and still charge 1700$ for their flagship cpu.


----------



## RyzenChrist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chuy409*
> 
> The real question is how intel is going to respond? They must lower the price of their cpus. I can see intel doing something crazy like using 20+ core xeons and put the i7 tag on them and unlocking them and still charge 1700$ for their flagship cpu.


If Intel wanted to stick it to AMD the 6900K should drop to 599.99 and the 6850K to 399.99. I would EOL the 6800K


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RyzenChrist*
> 
> If Intel wanted to stick it to AMD the 6900K should drop to 599.99 and the 6850K to 399.99. I would EOL the 6800K


AMD would be back to failing if that happened.

I for one wouldn't bother buying Ryzen.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Loladinas*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> hmm, run a quick test there.
> For comparison, my 3770k @ 4.8ghz scores 12,824
> 
> 
> 
> 13343 for my 4790k @ 4.7GHz. Not quite double for the top AMD offering, but definitely enough for me to consider it.
Click to expand...

12130 for my 6700k locked at 4.0 with 2133 15-15-15-36 mem


----------



## RyzenChrist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> AMD would be back to failing if that happened.
> 
> I for one wouldn't bother buying Ryzen.


Depends on how well the 316 dollar 1700 overclocked


----------



## RyzenChrist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> 12130 for my 6700k locked at 4.0 with 2133 15-15-15-36 mem


My 5820K @ 4.8 pulled 18xxx in FS physics


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RyzenChrist*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> 12130 for my 6700k locked at 4.0 with 2133 15-15-15-36 mem
> 
> 
> 
> My 5820K @ 4.8 pulled 18xxx in FS physics
Click to expand...

I'd believe it, I've pulled over 15k at 4.7 with this chip too.

also means that AMD are doing quite well here



These are the results from the FM database (which the Ryzen results are also from)


----------



## Dhoulmagus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> AMD would be back to failing if that happened.
> 
> I for one wouldn't bother buying Ryzen.


Prices are going to get shaken up in the 6900k realm either way. If an 8c/16T Zen drops that even comes close to a 6900k for half the price, Intel will have no choice but to cut prices big time.. This is exactly what I've been waiting for. 8 core (well, besides FX 8xxx) is finally going to reach a reasonable price. I'm just hoping to make that transition in a year or two without spending any more than I did on a 4790k.

The real battleground is going to be what happens in the next year or two IMO. It's going to be extremely difficult to scale up even more cores without single core performance starting to hit games too hard, especially as newer nodes are becoming extremely painful to realize. An overclocked 6950x can pull well over 200 watts and can't compete with a 7700k single core. I doubt Intel has a magic trick up their sleeves that's going to crush Zen. The industry has also clearly reached a brick wall on per core performance as it is. I'm also willing to wager this is why Intel has been dumping new CPUs on the market like candy while they have the chance. Big money is going to have to go into R&D and the focus can't just be on lower power anymore, as progress there is going to crash land inevitably as well.

So in my crystal ball, I see the next two years being a major price war competition between two companies giving us pretty equal parts. Good times are coming for our wallets (I sure hope!)


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *variant*
> 
> No increase going from 3.2 Ghz to 4 Ghz? There's a bottleneck.


these look like a repeat of earlier numbers, I suspect they're from the same source. In which case this was done on a barebones trash motherboard with ddr4 2400 ram.


----------



## Ashura

I can't look at any more benchmarks, all I want to see is a release date & reviews.


----------



## Dhoulmagus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ashura*
> 
> I can't look at any more benchmarks, all I want to see is a release date & reviews.


I said that in 2015 when I was under the impression Zen would be out by Christmas 2015









:::rocking back and forth in chair, foaming:::


----------



## RyzenChrist

It's going to be a long 2 weeks. Have the itch to build already


----------



## chuy409

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azanimefan*
> 
> these look like a repeat of earlier numbers, I suspect they're from the same source. In which case this was done on a barebones trash motherboard with ddr4 2400 ram.


Does the motherboard really matter though? As far as i can remember, cpu scores are the same using some premium board vs oem garbage. They both turbo up to their spec. Idk why it would be different with ryzen. And does cas latency really affect a test which basically just tortures the cores, not really doing a calculation.

I feel like putting my ram at 800mhz and cas at 50 to see if it really drops my physics performance in firestrike.


----------



## Ashura

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serious_Don*
> 
> I said that in 2015 when I was under the impression Zen would be out by Christmas 2015
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :::rocking back and forth in chair, foaming:::


lol...you & me both!.

for the past few months I've been updating a friend on all the leaks & scores related to Zen & all he asks is 'But when is it gonna release?'


----------



## RyzenChrist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chuy409*
> 
> Does the motherboard really matter though? As far as i can remember, cpu scores are the same using some premium board vs oem garbage. They both turbo up to their spec. Idk why it would be different with ryzen. And does cas latency really affect a test which basically just tortures the cores, not really doing a calculation.
> 
> I feel like putting my ram at 800mhz and cas at 50 to see if it really drops my physics performance in firestrike.


A 3.4ghz 1700 with an X370 board and 3200 DDR4 pulled 145 in R15 Single threaded.


----------



## aDyerSituation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RyzenChrist*
> 
> A 3.4ghz 1700 with an X370 board and 3200 DDR4 pulled 145 in R15 Single threaded.


what's a good reference point for that?


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aDyerSituation*
> 
> what's a good reference point for that?












It's level with 6950X, if it's true. 6950X has a 3.5GHz turbo.


----------



## Chrono Detector

Two weeks can't come soon enough, can't wait to see the final reviews and benchmarks but according to these leaks it already looks promising.


----------



## Shiftstealth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chrono Detector*
> 
> Two weeks can't come soon enough, can't wait to see the final reviews and benchmarks but according to these leaks it already looks promising.


When Bulldozer was coming out there were a fair amount of leaks that indicated poor performance. I don't see that with Zen. I too, am excited.


----------



## DADDYDC650

I need to dump my 6800k asap. Too bad I'm addicted to Rocket League and 2 weeks with my crap laptop running @ 720p 30fps is garbo!!!









How much should I try and sell my 6800k that does 4.3Ghz @1.29v? It'll probably do better with 2 sticks of ram but I currently have 4 sticks of 8gb. Anyone?


----------



## Ashura

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shiftstealth*
> 
> When Bulldozer was coming out there were a fair amount of leaks that indicated poor performance. I don't see that with Zen. I too, am excited.


Its good to see some one here talking some sensible things related to bulldozer.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> I need to dump my 6800k asap. Too bad I'm addicted to Rocket League and 2 weeks with my crap laptop running @ 720p 30fps is garbo!!!


hehe, maybe yeah. But I think you would get a good price even after ryzen release & reviews.

btw, how is your experience with your Trident Z's ?
looking to get these - https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232210
Seems great for the price!


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ashura*
> 
> Its good to see some one here talking some sensible things related to bulldozer.
> hehe, maybe yeah. But I think you would get a good price even after ryzen release & reviews.
> 
> btw, how is your experience with your Trident Z's ?
> looking to get these - https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232210
> Seems great for the price!


They're great and sexy! Why not pay $20 more and go for these? https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232206&cm_re=G.SKILL_TridentZ_Series_32GB-_-20-232-206-_-Product


----------



## Ashura

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> They're great and sexy! Why not pay $20 more and go for these? https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232206&cm_re=G.SKILL_TridentZ_Series_32GB-_-20-232-206-_-Product


Good to know , Thanks!.

CL14 eh?
AFAIK, timings aren't making much of a difference in performance, I could be wrong though.
Will check it out anyways


----------



## Shatun-Bear

If I sell my X99 5820K system in my sig (CPU, motherboard, RAM and water cooler) I could get, maybe £500? With how cheap and performant these Ryzen chips are, I could probably get another system faster than it (and two extra cores) and come out with a small profit.


----------



## Silent Scone

The whole article is clickbait. They've divided the scores per core as if that gives you any meaningful data. Whycry, why you no try.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> How much should I try and sell my 6800k that does 4.3Ghz @1.29v? It'll probably do better with 2 sticks of ram but I currently have 4 sticks of 8gb. Anyone?


I don't know, depends how much you think a Zen CPU that won't do 4.1Ghz for love nor money is worth to you?

Don't be stupid, eh.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> The whole article is clickbait. They've divided the scores per core as if that gives you any meaningful data. Whycry, why you no try.
> I don't know, depends how much you think a Zen CPU that won't do 4.1Ghz for love nor money is worth to you?
> 
> Don't be stupid, eh.


Can you provide a link for the 4Ghz OC limit on Zen CPU's?


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Can you provide a link for the 4Ghz OC limit on Zen CPU's?


I think the question should be; can you provide me a link to say there isn't.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I think the question should be; can you provide me a link to say there isn't.


So no proof? Guess everyone will find out real soon.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> So no proof? Guess everyone will find out real soon.


I'm not the one selling their CPU on a clickbait article? lol


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I'm not the one selling their CPU on a clickbait article? lol


I'm pretty sure I asked a simple question? Not like I listed it.... You claimed that the Ryzen 8 core can only do up to 4Ghz and I asked for proof for which you had none. You might be right but without proof, I'm inclined to take a wait and see approach.


----------



## Xuper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> I'm pretty sure I asked a simple question? Not like I listed it.... You claimed that the Ryzen 8 core can only do up to 4Ghz and I asked for proof for which you had none. You might be right but without proof, I'm inclined to take a wait and see approach.


LOL , Just look at his Signatures!, It's obviously.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Oh no Silent Scone is angry again. He could start an argument in a phone box.


----------



## FLCLimax

What everyone should be discussing is what form Intel's next shady rebate initiative will take and who will take the money not to use or sell Ryzen chips.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> Oh no Silent Scone is angry again. He could start an argument in a phone box.


Oh that's who it is?

Couldn't see them haha


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> Oh no Silent Scone is angry again. He could start an argument in a phone box.


No anger here, just trying to make sense of someone who's so eager to sell his CPU based on basically no information at all







.

Arguments start from trying to make sense of such nonsense. Obviously made Bilko a bit bitter at one point too...It happens when reality sets in sometimes









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> I'm pretty sure I asked a simple question? Not like I listed it.... You claimed that the Ryzen 8 core can only do up to 4Ghz and I asked for proof for which you had none. You might be right but without proof, I'm inclined to take a wait and see approach.


You've made several posts in other threads about selling your CPU, just wondering why you're so eager.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> No anger here, just trying to make sense of someone who's so eager to sell his CPU based on basically no information at all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Arguments start from trying to make sense of such nonsense. Obviously made Bilko a bit bitter at one point too...It happens when reality sets in sometimes


Basically no information? AMD claimed their 8 core CPU goes toe to toe with the 6900k and the leaked benches are pointing towards that info being true. Not sure how you can blame anyone for being eager to buy an 8-Core Ryzen.


----------



## Silent Scone

And therein lies the rub, you don't have any performance data that's reliable. If you can argue that selling your CPU now isn't foolish, then more power to you...

And that,@Shatun-Bear (whoever you are?), is how arguments start. Life lesson over


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> Oh no Silent Scone is angry again. He could start an argument in a phone box.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No anger here, just trying to make sense of someone who's so eager to sell his CPU based on basically no information at all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Arguments start from trying to make sense of such nonsense. Obviously made Bilko a bit bitter at one point too...It happens when reality sets in sometimes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> I'm pretty sure I asked a simple question? Not like I listed it.... You claimed that the Ryzen 8 core can only do up to 4Ghz and I asked for proof for which you had none. You might be right but without proof, I'm inclined to take a wait and see approach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've made several posts in other threads about selling your CPU, just wondering why you're so eager.
Click to expand...

It was a number of years ago, can't remember what exactly it was but yes, you irked me, not just on this forum btw.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> And therein lies the rub, you don't have any performance data that's reliable. If you can argue that selling your CPU now isn't foolish, then more power to you...
> 
> And that,@Shatun-Bear (whoever you are?), is how arguments start. Life lesson over


If they want to sell their gear, let them, you can offer advice but never presume to know what's best for someone else....

I think I'm understanding why I blocked you in the first place


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> And therein lies the rub, you don't have any performance data that's reliable. If you can argue that selling your CPU now isn't foolish, then more power to you...
> 
> And that,@Shatun-Bear (whoever you are?), is how arguments start. Life lesson over


I'm eager to sell my CPU based off of AMD's claim and leaked info. I never said I was selling my CPU now. I'm eager to do so but that doesn't mean that it's listed.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> It was a number of years ago, can't remember what exactly it was but yes, you irked me, not just on this forum btw.
> If they want to sell their gear, let them, you can offer advice but never presume to know what's best for someone else....
> 
> I think I'm understanding why I blocked you in the first place


Because you have strict vendor bias if I remember correctly. You can carry on ignoring me now








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> I'm eager to sell my CPU based off of AMD's claim and leaked info. I never said I was selling my CPU now. I'm eager to do so but that doesn't mean that it's listed.


Fair enough. That's not how it looked from all the posts you've been making...but my mistake then.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> It was a number of years ago, can't remember what exactly it was but yes, you irked me, not just on this forum btw.
> If they want to sell their gear, let them, you can offer advice but never presume to know what's best for someone else....
> 
> I think I'm understanding why I blocked you in the first place
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you have strict vendor bias if I remember correctly. You can carry on ignoring me now
Click to expand...

Oh really?

Interesting viewpoint you have of me there.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Because you have strict vendor bias if I remember correctly. You can carry on ignoring me now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. That's not how it looked from all the posts you've been making...but my mistake then.


Never claimed I had listed my CPU or sold it. Just expressed my interest in a cheap 8-Core CPU that looks to hang with the $1000 6900k. Anyway, here's to hoping AMD comes through and shakes up the market.


----------



## Silent Scone

Given the nature of the results in the OP, just felt it pertinent to mention probably best to wait.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Given the nature of the results in the OP, just felt it pertinent to mention probably best to wait.


Are you interested in the 1700x? I'm guessing you are since we're both posting in this thread.


----------



## Silent Scone

I'll have Ryzen in one capacity or another, yes at launch. Whether it'll replace my current system is up in the air


----------



## FlyingSolo

I have a feeling these CPU's wont be cheap like everyone is thinking. If it's that good that is. If the 1800X beats the i7 6900k i say the prices will be for 8 core CPU's

1800X - $849
1800 - $749
1700X - $649
1700 - $549

There is no reason for AMD to sell these chips for so cheap. But i hope i'm wrong. So i'm gonna hold out until the real price of these chips are out.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FlyingSolo*
> 
> I have a feeling these CPU's wont be cheap like everyone is thinking. If it's that good that is. If the 1800X beats the i7 6900k i say the prices will be for 8 core CPU's
> 
> 1800X - $849
> 1800 - $749
> 1700X - $649
> 1700 - $549
> 
> There is no reason for AMD to sell these chips for so cheap. But i hope i'm wrong.


Wrong. Already listed for much cheaper, https://www.centralpoint.be/nl/zoeken/ryzen/


----------



## FlyingSolo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Wrong. Already listed for much cheaper, https://www.centralpoint.be/nl/zoeken/ryzen/


They can be price holder price right. Not confirmed by AMD. Remember the RX cards was gonna sell for cheap. But then we found out it was not the price everyone was thinking.


----------



## FlyingSolo

Think about it, even if the prices i listed was right and it beat Intel's chip. It's still cheap then Intel. And people will still by it.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FlyingSolo*
> 
> They can be place holder price right. Not confirmed by AMD. Remember the RX cards was gonna sell for cheap. But then we found out it was not the price everyone was thinking.


That's the listed pre-order price on that site.


----------



## FlyingSolo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> That's the listed pre-order price on that site.


I hope your right. I will hold out before i sell my i7 5820k. Gonna wait till amazon has a pre-order price or newegg etc. The prices of these chips are to good. And you know the saying when it seems too good to be true, it probably is.


----------



## FlyingSolo

The leak prices came from wccftech. And all small retailers are going by that leak prices that was obtained by wccftech. No big company's in the UK like overclockers, Scan, Amazon. Or even in the US Newegg or Amazon don't even have a pre-order page up yet. wccftech are never to be trusted.


----------



## xarot

While the benchmarks so far look promising, I am a bit surprised when looking at the announced motherboards especially from Asus. Only one ROG motherboard, the Crosshair? In comparison, Asus released 10x "gaming" and "ROG" branded motherboards at Kaby Lake launch...

I hope the motherboard lineup doesn't have to do anything with actual performance.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> While the benchmarks so far look promising, I am a bit surprised when looking at the announced motherboards especially from Asus. Only one ROG motherboard, the Crosshair? In comparison, Asus released 10x "gaming" and "ROG" branded motherboards at Kaby Lake launch...
> 
> I hope the motherboard lineup doesn't have to do anything with actual performance.


Doubt it, Asus, MSI, Giga and ASRock have more boards in the works, they just haven't been shown publically as yet.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xarot*
> 
> While the benchmarks so far look promising, I am a bit surprised when looking at the announced motherboards especially from Asus. Only one ROG motherboard, the Crosshair? In comparison, Asus released 10x "gaming" and "ROG" branded motherboards at Kaby Lake launch...
> 
> I hope the motherboard lineup doesn't have to do anything with actual performance.


The released 10 motherboards at the launch of kaby?


----------



## prjindigo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yorkston*
> 
> Looks right in line with all the other leaked benchmarks we have seen so far, per-core strength nearly identical to Broadwell. Ryzen is really going to live or die on how well it can be overclocked. If the quad/hex-cores can reliably get into the 4.5ghz+ range, we have a winner.


Not sure where you've been but that's a fallacy. Ryzen is going to live or die based on whether the AM4 boards are reliable or goofy and how well DDR4 ram works with it. Not based on fake benchmarks made by a trolling clickbait site.


----------



## xarot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> The released 10 motherboards at the launch of kaby?


I meant these Kaby Lake mobos, on top of these they had the regular lineups too.









ROG Maximus IX Apex
ROG Maximus IX Extreme
ROG Maximus IX Formula
ROG Maximus IX Code
ROG Maximus IX Hero
ROG Strix Z270E Gaming
ROG Strix Z270F Gaming
ROG Strix Z270H Gaming
ROG Strix Z270G Gaming
ROG Strix Z270I Gaming


----------



## czin125

Shouldn't Coffeelake/Apex beat Zen in encoding even with less cores?

http://www.techspot.com/article/1171-ddr4-4000-mhz-performance/page2.html

4.5ghz 6700K + DDR4-3000 = 441 fps
Skylake > Zen = 1.08x ?
Zen = 2x Cores
441 * 2 / 1.08 = 816fps ( possibly 900 at 3466? )

4.5ghz 8700K + DDR4-3000 = 661 fps ( 6 cores )
5.5ghz 8700K + DDR4-3000 = 808 fps
DDR4-4266 19-19-19-39 should be above this


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *czin125*
> 
> Shouldn't Coffeelake/Apex beat Zen in encoding even with less cores?
> 
> http://www.techspot.com/article/1171-ddr4-4000-mhz-performance/page2.html
> 
> 4.5ghz 6700K + DDR4-3000 = 441 fps
> Skylake > Zen = 1.08x ?
> Zen = 2x Cores
> 441 * 2 / 1.08 = 816fps ( possibly 900 at 3466? )
> 
> 4.5ghz 8700K + DDR4-3000 = 661 fps ( 6 cores )
> 5.5ghz 8700K + DDR4-3000 = 808 fps
> DDR4-4266 19-19-19-39 should be above this


What?


----------



## SuprUsrStan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xlink*
> 
> Looks to be around 10% slower per clock.
> 
> This is about what I expected it to be.
> 
> I also expect Intel's chips to clock around 10% higher...
> 
> All in all 8 core Ryzen vs 6 Core i7 will be an interesting fight - 20% faster since threaded performance from Intel. 20% faster multi-threaded performance from AMD.
> 
> We'll see if that ends up being the reality. I place very little faith in the current speculation which is out there.


If it is indeed 10% slower Clock per clock, it should be on par with a 5960X with it having 8 cores and all.


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> He is talking about the "perf per core" table which has the scores divided by the amount or cores, which returns the same value on three ryzen CPUs which vary widely in frequency. People, this is NOT a single thread test, it is just a mostly pointless exercise.


how they could get individual CPU Core performance if they were not tested? the point about the CPU Synthethic benchmark really doesnt show something useful synthehtic tends to scale with more cores/threads


----------



## Mahigan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Syan48306*
> 
> If it is indeed 10% slower Clock per clock, it should be on par with a 5960X with it having 8 cores and all.


The calculations I did set it at around 8%.


----------



## Yuhfhrh

I'll be picking up an 1800X to play with, maybe a 1700 too just to compare the two. Gotta wonder how hard AMD will be binning these.


----------



## JackCY

It's as fast as the hype train, hopefully the fans won't need to spin so fast that it turn into a chopper.


----------



## blode

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> As a 7700k owner who plays games and am in no rush to render or encode when I do, wew lad. I still wish AMD would have taken the gaming crown, but happy I made the best choice for my needs. History continues to repeat itself. I'll be purchasing Vega regardless of anything nVidia does.


wew lad


----------



## RyzenChrist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I think the question should be; can you provide me a link to say there isn't.


Some of the early samples couldn't clock for crap. The current QS samples that you're seeing leaks from go over 4ghz but are voltage hogs just like Broadwell E


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blode*
> 
> wew lad


Seems like purchase justification lol.


----------



## RyzenChrist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FlyingSolo*
> 
> Think about it, even if the prices i listed was right and it beat Intel's chip. It's still cheap then Intel. And people will still by it.


AMD's goal with Zen is to catch up and undercut Intel. The prices leaked are release day prices. 28th is going to be a great day for Amd


----------



## ducegt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blode*
> 
> wew lad


Wew
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Seems like purchase justification lol.


It is, so what's your point? I took a risk and it looks like I made the right choice. You might have a different strategy to meet your needs and budget. I'm not too concerned with my own budget so if you wana compare gaming benchmarks in the next year with my 7700k and whatever Ryzen chip you choose...you think you'd come out on top? My strategy and justification might not make sense in your world because of different needs and budget.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> Wew
> It is, so what's your point? I took a risk and it looks like I made the right choice. You might have a different strategy to meet your needs and budget. I'm not too concerned with my own budget so if you wana compare gaming benchmarks in the next year with my 7700k and whatever Ryzen chip you choose...you think you'd come out on top? My strategy and justification might not make sense in your world because of different needs and budget.


Trust me I'm feeling the burn. Went x99 in December. I should have just waited.

And no I won't compare gaming. I'll compare the overall computational power in which a 7700k doesn't stand a chance. I like balanced computers, computers that are great at everything.

If I want a pc that only games great then I would buy an XBox one or PS4.


----------



## ducegt

Wew so you had no point. That tends to happen when one makes an assertion without grasping the view of another person. If I wanted to play a smaller selection of games at low framerates, lesser quality, and at a greater cost...wew, that's not what I want. Who brings up the C word on this forum? And in a serious manner to boot.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> Wew so you had no point. That tends to happen when one makes an assertion without grasping the view of another person. If I wanted to play a smaller selection of games at low framerates, lesser quality, and at a greater cost...wew, that's not what I want. Who brings up the C word on this forum? And in a serious manner to boot.


I do have a point. I made it above. You came in with purchase justification after seeing Ryzen awesomeness. So who has no point again?

Hating on consoles doesnt make you anymore credible either.


----------



## ducegt

You still fail to understand that Ryzen doesn't look awesome for single threaded performance and that the 7700k will preform better in the majority games for the foreseeable future. That's what I was getting at in my first post to which you replied. Why you replied still eludes me.


----------



## Artikbot

No less awesome than a 6800K, a 6850K, a 6900K or a 6950X, which is the performance segment Ryzen is aimed at.


----------



## RyzenChrist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> You still fail to understand that Ryzen doesn't look awesome for single threaded performance and that the 7700k will preform better in the majority games for the foreseeable future. That's what I was getting at in my first post to which you replied. Why you replied still eludes me.


If all you're doing is gaming then a 7600K would even be fine. The 8 core isn't going to be bought for just gaming. Gaming, streaming, downloading etc etc etc.

The more leaks come out the more defensive Intel owners seem to get


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> You still fail to understand that Ryzen doesn't look awesome for single threaded performance and that the *7700k will preform better in the majority games for the foreseeable future.* That's what I was getting at in my first post to which you replied. Why you replied still eludes me.


You need to clean off that crystal ball, it's pretty clouded.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> You still fail to understand that Ryzen doesn't look awesome for single threaded performance and that the 7700k will preform better in the majority games for the foreseeable future. That's what I was getting at in my first post to which you replied. Why you replied still eludes me.


?
Are you on earth?

Where have you seen that Ryzen single thread performance isn't awesome? The 6900k single thread must not be awesome too.

Ryzen quad cores will have higher single thread performance. Those are what's competing with 7700k and i5s. 8 core Ryzen is for the big Intel chips which points 7700k in the ground. So I'll take 5 less fps for a way faster computer.

You must still stuck in year 2011


----------



## renx

Actually Battlefield One seem to get benefit from 8-cores. I can't confirm that myself, but I'm not so sure that the 4-core i7 will be beating 8-cores in games by 2018.


----------



## DADDYDC650

7700k is a bad choice @ $320 once the 1700 is released. Intel needs to drop it's price to under 300.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renx*
> 
> Actually Battlefield One seems to get benefit from 8-cores. I can't confirm that myself, but I'm not so sure that the 4-core i7 will be beating 8-cores in games by 2018.


Bf4, the division, crysis 3. Just to name a few from the top of my head


----------



## finalheaven

Honestly, I believe consoles will actually help 8-Core Ryzens. Most developers love making games for consoles because of its uniformity (don't need to worry about range of devices). Consoles now all have 8-core CPUs (Xbox and PS). If the trend keeps up, 8-cores will begin to be more utilized making 8-core CPU's more future-proof and safer purchase, irregardless of whether you purchase 8-core intel or amd processors.


----------



## RyzenChrist

Just a little food for thought. The 7700K at 4.8ghz is only 1.9% faster than a Zen 6 Core clocked at 3.3ghz in FS Physics

7700K - 349.99
R5 1500 - 229.99


----------



## renx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *finalheaven*
> 
> Honestly, I believe consoles will actually help 8-Core Ryzens. Most developers love making games for consoles because of its uniformity (don't need to worry about range of devices). Consoles now all have 8-core CPUs (Xbox and PS). If the trend keeps up, 8-cores will begin to be more utilized making 8-core CPU's more future-proof and safer purchase, irregardless of whether you purchase 8-core intel or amd processors.


And the Scorpio seems to be based on a lower end Ryzen.


----------



## ducegt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> No less awesome than a 6800K, a 6850K, a 6900K or a 6950X, which is the performance segment Ryzen is aimed at.


That's true to an extent, but by that logic the 4c8t Ryzen should target the other segment right? The gaming segment. And will it take the crown? Of course not. Will it be a good value? Probably. Same trend as the last 10 years.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RyzenChrist*
> 
> If all you're doing is gaming then a 7600K would even be fine. The 8 core isn't going to be bought for just gaming. Gaming, streaming, downloading etc etc etc.
> 
> The more leaks come out the more defensive Intel owners seem to get


Some games do benefit from extra threads and the additional cache. Flagships often have better OC headroom as well. An extra 100USD justified. I've owned several AMD chips and have built two dozen rigs with them. I haven't purchased a nVidia card since AMD aquired ATi. The irony is I'm not the fan boy, but an educated consumer.


----------



## RyzenChrist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> That's true to an extent, but by that logic the 4c8t Ryzen should target the other segment right? The gaming segment. And will it take the crown? Of course not. Will it be a good value? Probably. Same trend as the last 10 years.
> Some games do benefit from extra threads and the additional cache. Flagships often have better OC headroom as well. An extra 100USD justified. I've owned several AMD chips and have built two dozen rigs with them. I haven't purchased a nVidia card since AMD aquired ATi. The irony is I'm not the fan boy, but an educated consumer.


I don't see the Intel justification anymore after looking at these leaks. The 7700K should probably be 250 after Zen releases and the 7600K 179.99


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> That's true to an extent, but by that logic the 4c8t Ryzen should target the other segment right? The gaming segment. And will it take the crown? Of course not. Will it be a good value? Probably. Same trend as the last 10 years.
> Some games do benefit from extra threads and the additional cache. Flagships often have better OC headroom as well. An extra 100USD justified. I've owned several AMD chips and have built two dozen rigs with them. I haven't purchased a nVidia card since AMD aquired ATi. The irony is I'm not the fan boy, but an educated consumer.


They do not need to take the crown. they need to be competitive.


----------



## ducegt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> ?
> Are you on earth?
> 
> Where have you seen that Ryzen single thread performance isn't awesome


The link in the first post of this thread. Mind blowing, I know. Seems several people here just can't wrap their heads around it.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> The link in the first post of this thread. Mind blowing, I know. Seems several people here just can't wrap their heads around it.


nthing in this thread states that Ryzen does not have good single thread performance. It does show that 8 core ryzen >>>> 770k though while costing less.

Like all 8 core cpu the stock frequency is lower than a quad core. I see quad core Ryzen parts start at $129 while 8 thread starts at $175 if whats on the internet is correct so.
http://forums.windowscentral.com/microsoft-surface-pro-4/393877-why-did-my-screen-rotation-stop-working-my-surface-pro-4-a.html

While 6 core starts at $229. All skus so far are cheaper than a 7700k and have good single thread performance. Except 1700x and 1800x which cost $350-$399, and still are better buys than a 7700k.


----------



## FLCLimax

Does anyone else find it funny that people here will defend the pricin
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RyzenChrist*
> 
> Just a little food for thought. The 7700K at 4.8ghz is only 1.9% faster than a Zen 6 Core clocked at 3.3ghz in FS Physics
> 
> 7700K - 349.99
> R5 1500 - 229.99


----------



## reqq

https://www.nordichardware.se/nyheter/amd-ryzen-xfr-frekvenser.html


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renx*
> 
> Actually Battlefield One seem to get benefit from 8-cores. I can't confirm that myself, but I'm not so sure that the 4-core i7 will be beating 8-cores in games by 2018.


Six+ core CPUs will distance themselves just like how 4 core i7s distanced themselves from 4 core i5s, however at the moment they haven't distanced themselves as much as the 4 core i7s have.

Battlefield 1 is definitely a game which benefits from 4+ cores, as-well as Assassin's Creed Syndicate, there's a couple of other games too.

For some games single-threaded performance is still quite important even though they scale past 4 threads, Ryzen looks to offer pretty good single-threaded performance though so it may not matter too much.
It will be very interesting to see how high the CPUs can overclock.


Source


Source

At the moment there's a couple of games which scale past 4+ core CPUs such as:

Assassin's Creed Unity
Assassin's Creed Syndicate
Watch Dogs 2
The Division
Star Wars Battlefront
The Witcher 3
Dragon Age Inquisition
Battlefield 1
Fallout 4 (Performance improves notably on 4c8t processors over 4c4t processors, I haven't seen it scale much above that though, it seems to be quite dependent on single-threaded performance).
Crysis 3
Total War: Warhammer
Pretty much all the new games which utilize the Frostbite engine scale past 4 cores, so games such as Dragon Age Inquisition, Need For Speed 2015/6 and most likely the upcoming Mass Effect Andromeda as-well.

This list will certainly have grown by another 3+ games in 2018, it's great that more games are scaling past 4c8t processors! It's very beneficial for pushing over 60 fps in games.

Unfortunately there's still a lot of games which are highly dependent on single-threaded performance, but by 2018 on wards we should see a lot more games scaling past 4+ threads.


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> That's true to an extent, but by that logic the 4c8t Ryzen should target the other segment right? The gaming segment. And will it take the crown? Of course not. Will it be a good value? Probably. Same trend as the last 10 years.


If you take the rumoured frequencies as true and the rumoured IPC as true you get 7700K performance within a 5-10% on the low side, but at a hundred bucks less.

That's a 30% higher price/performance for only a single digit performance loss. Hardly leaves the 7700K in a good position, once you add up the expected prices of AM4 boards compared to Z270 boards.


----------



## Dragonsyph

I wanna see some memory controller benchmarks along with what kind of ram can these new motherboards push, if Ryzen can't push 3000-4266mhz ddr4 i might just wait for skylake X.


----------



## iLeakStuff

AMD have started shipping out review samples


----------



## flopper

cho cho


----------



## Pointy

I remember when ryzen used to be on par with sandy bridge. AMD sure have improved ryzen alot since then. They are competing with kaby lake.


----------



## iTurn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> I wanna see some memory controller benchmarks along with what kind of ram can these new motherboards push, if Ryzen can't push 3000-4266mhz ddr4 i might just wait for skylake X.


Why is the memory speed important? (i'm honestly curious)


----------



## RyzenChrist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> I wanna see some memory controller benchmarks along with what kind of ram can these new motherboards push, if Ryzen can't push 3000-4266mhz ddr4 i might just wait for skylake X.


3400 will be around the max from what I've heard. IMC is weak


----------



## nakano2k1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RyzenChrist*
> 
> 3400 will be around the max from what I've heard. IMC is weak


Where did you obtain that information? Could you provide a link?


----------



## RyzenChrist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nakano2k1*
> 
> Where did you obtain that information? Could you provide a link?


Information is from a friend who has a QS. In his testing 3400 was max before having to overvolt the IMC


----------



## mohiuddin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> AMD have started shipping out review samples


you are serious ,right?


----------



## czin125

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iTurn*
> 
> Why is the memory speed important? (i'm honestly curious)


Significantly faster in encoding and slightly faster in games.


----------



## criminal

Ryzen looking good.


----------



## ducegt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *finalheaven*
> 
> Honestly, I believe consoles will actually help 8-Core Ryzens


This prayer goes back years. I do agree, but it can only help so much. I'm not a senior programmer or anything, but it seems there must be good reasons why gaming performance is depdent on single cores at high clocks.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RyzenChrist*
> 
> Just a little food for thought. The 7700K at 4.8ghz is only 1.9% faster than a Zen 6 Core clocked at 3.3ghz in FS Physics


The physics score scales with cores while most games do not. Even so, how is a 4 core bearing a 6 core a win for AMD aside from price? I'll agree a million times AMD provides value but you do get more from Intel when you pay more. Almost all 7700Ks OC to 5ghz anyway.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> If you take the rumoured frequencies as true and the rumoured IPC as true you get 7700K performance within a 5-10% on the low side, but at a hundred bucks less.
> 
> That's a 30% higher price/performance for only a single digit performance loss. Hardly leaves the 7700K in a good position, once you add up the expected prices of AM4 boards compared to Z270 boards.


Again your looking at multi core performance which isn't as meaningful for gaming workloads.


----------



## dieanotherday

If they can down the votlage, I can imaging 8 core 16 thread in laptop pretty easily


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dieanotherday*
> 
> If they can down the votlage, I can imaging 8 core 16 thread in laptop pretty easily


That would be awesome. 2.5ghz 8 core in a laptop.


----------



## czin125

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> That would be awesome. 2.5ghz 8 core in a laptop.


That already exists

http://www.zdnet.com/product/eurocom-panther-5se/

http://ark.intel.com/products/75283/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2697-v2-30M-Cache-2_70-GHz


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *czin125*
> 
> That already exists
> 
> http://www.zdnet.com/product/eurocom-panther-5se/
> 
> http://ark.intel.com/products/75283/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2697-v2-30M-Cache-2_70-GHz


Lol I'm not walking around with that.


----------



## dieanotherday

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *czin125*
> 
> That already exists
> 
> http://www.zdnet.com/product/eurocom-panther-5se/
> 
> http://ark.intel.com/products/75283/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2697-v2-30M-Cache-2_70-GHz


We're talking 8 core <15W processors @ 2ghz


----------



## Ghoxt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> I wanna see some memory controller benchmarks along with what kind of ram can these new motherboards push, if Ryzen can't push 3000-4266mhz ddr4 i might just wait for skylake X.


I echo your sentiment.

On another vein, if AMD is indeed back with CPU's, 2nd and 3rd revisions should be the sweet spot of competition and the true win for consumers with competition being applied price wise...If Intel is forced to lower prices in the consumer space...we'll see...Nvidia never did, but oh nevermind...don't wanna go down that rathole debate jeesh.

Ive said it in another post, if AMD never fell wholly behind CPU wise for years, is Zen right where AMD would have been if they had competed?

And are we joyously celebrating them (AMD) taking a 7 year vacation and creating the environment where Intel was arguably raping enthusiasts on price? Of course the new Zen price is now very compelling from what we are told the range will be. Can't wait to see reality. IE our own benches.

I'll have to retreat to the dojo and meditate on these questions


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ghoxt*
> 
> I echo your sentiment.
> 
> On another vein, if AMD is indeed back with CPU's, 2nd and 3rd revisions should be the sweet spot of competition and the true win for consumers with competition being applied price wise...If Intel is forced to lower prices in the consumer space...we'll see...Nvidia never did, but oh nevermind...don't wanna go down that rathole debate jeesh.
> 
> Ive said it in another post, if AMD never fell wholly behind CPU wise for years, is Zen right where AMD would have been if they had competed?
> 
> And are we joyously celebrating them (AMD) taking a 7 year vacation and creating the environment where Intel was arguably raping enthusiasts on price? Of course the new Zen price is now very compelling from what we are told the range will be. Can't wait to see reality. IE our own benches.
> 
> I'll have to retreat to the dojo and meditate on these questions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :


If AMD took 7 years vacation there wouldn't be an AMD or Ryzen. A CPU takes years to develop.

Their APUs have also improved. Over the years.


----------



## Fancykiller65

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ghoxt*
> 
> I echo your sentiment.
> 
> On another vein, if AMD is indeed back with CPU's, 2nd and 3rd revisions should be the sweet spot of competition and the true win for consumers with competition being applied price wise...If Intel is forced to lower prices in the consumer space...we'll see...Nvidia never did, but oh nevermind...don't wanna go down that rathole debate jeesh.
> 
> Ive said it in another post, if AMD never fell wholly behind CPU wise for years, is Zen right where AMD would have been if they had competed?
> 
> And are we joyously celebrating them (AMD) taking a 7 year vacation and creating the environment where Intel was arguably raping enthusiasts on price? Of course the new Zen price is now very compelling from what we are told the range will be. Can't wait to see reality. IE our own benches.
> 
> I'll have to retreat to the dojo and meditate on these questions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :


I wouldn't call what happened a vacation...more apt I think would be calling it a suicide attempt. Celebrating the fact they aren't dead seems to be the way to go.


----------



## Dhoulmagus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fancykiller65*
> 
> I wouldn't call what happened a vacation...more apt I think would be calling it a suicide attempt. Celebrating the fact they aren't dead seems to be the way to go.


More likely that Bulldozer wasn't what they had hoped for and they had to push it to the absolute extreme from the get go to stay competitive.. 220W 8 core pushing 4.7 ghz (5 ghz turbo) out of the box that was advertised as requiring a liquid cooler on a refined architecture was pretty telltale that AMD had to hit the drawing board. There was just nothing more worth squeezing out of it.

Excited for the next year though, now we'll see if all the Lisa Su hype has been worth it, AMD shares have soared in anticipation and the threads about AMD being bankrupt and swallowed by Samsung have stopped. Not to mention I guarantee plenty of blog and mainstream news articles about the success of AMDs first female CEO are going to be rampant on social media and will boost AMD even further. Whatever it takes to get some solid competition to push back against Intel, the product just has to be capable and AMD gets new legs.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohiuddin*
> 
> you are serious ,right?


Yes.

CPCHardware tweeted "Coming Soon" along with that picture. The tweet have been taken down


----------



## epic1337

am i the only one who noticed that Ryzen scores better in MT?
can we take this as AMD's Hyperthreading is superior to Intel's?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Xuper*
> 
> https://videocardz.com/65913/how-fast-is-ryzen


how did they get this result to begin with? i refuse to believe a Ryzen at 4Ghz performs the same as a Ryzen at 3Ghz.


----------



## VegetarianEater

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> am i the only one who noticed that Ryzen scores better in MT?
> can we take this as AMD's Hyperthreading is superior to Intel's?
> how did they get this result to begin with? i refuse to believe a Ryzen at 4Ghz performs the same as a Ryzen at 3Ghz.


I'm going to say the ryzen 8 core scores are an anomaly, but otherwise look at the scores for the others, that test is all about clockspeed, which is why the 7700k at 4.8 is beating everything. The Ryzen chips are still beating their counterparts other than the 4 core parts, but that's obviously due to clockspeed. Hopefully the quad core ryzen chips OC to 4.5ghz or above to be competitive, but even if they don't, they will severly undercut the price of the Intel chip (Ryzen 8 core is about the same price as the 7700k, the 4/8 ryzen will be under $200).


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> am i the only one who noticed that Ryzen scores better in MT?
> can we take this as AMD's Hyperthreading is superior to Intel's?
> how did they get this result to begin with? i refuse to believe a Ryzen at 4Ghz performs the same as a Ryzen at 3Ghz.


It is just the scores of the actual bench divided by the amount of cores. It is a worthless table. We do not know exact frequencies or scaling,per core or SMT ,and we absolutely need those if we are to extrapolate ST perf from MT. In other words, BS.


----------



## rexolaboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> am i the only one who noticed that Ryzen scores better in MT?
> can we take this as AMD's Hyperthreading is superior to Intel's?
> how did they get this result to begin with? i refuse to believe a Ryzen at 4Ghz performs the same as a Ryzen at 3Ghz.


Multiply the 4ghz per core score by 8...and if you look a little harder you will notice the 4ghz clocked 8 core is much faster than the 3.4ghz 8 core.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rexolaboy*
> 
> Multiply the 4ghz per core score by 8...and if you look a little harder you will notice the 4ghz clocked 8 core is much faster than the 3.4ghz 8 core.


riiiight... i'm talking about the 4C and 6C at a much lower clock speed scoring roughly the same as the 4Ghz 8C Zen.


----------



## rexolaboy

Divide the 4 core total score by 4...divide the 6 core by 6....how can this be hard? The per core score is a flawed metric.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rexolaboy*
> 
> Divide the 4 core total score by 4...divide the 6 core by 6....how can this be hard? The per core score is a flawed metric.


you're missing the point.


----------



## rexolaboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> you're missing the point.


The total score per core will rise when divided by less cores...if you want to compare core speeds, 3200 + 41% equals 4512 which is the clock of the 7700k. This is the 4 core 8 thread ryzen...now add 41% to the total score 10177...it matches the i7 7700k

You can see the clock scaling effect on 3dmark by 3400 + 18% equals 4012, overclocked Ryzen. Now add 18% to 17878 which is the 3.4ghz ryzen score...it matches the 4ghz almost perfectly.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rexolaboy*
> 
> The total score per core will rise when divided by less cores...if you want to compare core speeds, 3200 + 41% equals 4512 which is the clock of the 7700k. This is the 4 core 8 thread ryzen...now add 41% to the total score 10177...it matches the i7 7700k
> 
> You can see the clock scaling effect on 3dmark by 3400 + 18% equals 4012, overclocked Ryzen. Now add 18% to 17878 which is the 3.4ghz ryzen score...it matches the 4ghz almost perfectly.


are you being serious? you aren't making any sense at all.
besides, firestrike scales nearly 100% in core count.
furthermore, you're still missing the point.

i7-7700K (4C/8T) @ 4.2Ghz MT = 14208
i7-7700K (4C/8T) @ 4.2Ghz ST = 3552 * 4C = 14208

i7-6950X (10C/20T) @ 3.0Ghz MT = 21576
i7-6950X (10C/20T) @ 3.0Ghz ST = 2158 * 10C = 21580


----------



## rexolaboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> are you being serious? you aren't making any sense at all.
> besides, firestrike scales nearly 100% in core count.
> furthermore, you're still missing the point.
> 
> i7-7700K (4C/8T) @ 4.2Ghz MT = 14208
> i7-7700K (4C/8T) @ 4.2Ghz ST = 3552 * 4C = 14208
> 
> i7-6950X (10C/20T) @ 3.0Ghz MT = 21576
> i7-6950X (10C/20T) @ 3.0Ghz ST = 2158 * 10C = 21580


Just so you know those scores for the Intel cpus are taken from Tom's hardware and not the 3dmark page. The official 3dmark scores for the Intel cpus are 2000 points less, the scores you are using are overclocked scores. 7700k is at 4.5ghz because the cpu was boosting the whole time. The 6950x is overclocked as well. Looks like the 6950x is boosting to around 3.3ghz to get that score.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rexolaboy*
> 
> Just so you know those scores for the Intel cpus are taken from Tom's hardware and not the 3dmark page. The official 3dmark scores for the Intel cpus are 2000 points less, the scores you are using are overclocked scores. 7700k is at 4.5ghz because the cpu was boosting the whole time. The 6950x is overclocked as well. Looks like the 6950x is boosting to around 3.3ghz to get that score.


you're still missing the point... and no, it doesn't matter whether they're boosted or not, the fact that their core scaling make sense is what matters more.

by the way, why are you comparing intel CPUs when i was asking about Ryzen vs Ryzen?


----------



## rexolaboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> you're still missing the point... and no, it doesn't matter whether they're boosted or not, the fact that their core scaling make sense is what matters more.
> 
> by the way, why are you comparing intel CPUs when i was asking about Ryzen vs Ryzen?


I compare the Intel cpus vs the amd for clock scaling only. There isn't a discrepancy, the scores are not official. Ryzen looks to be within 5% of intel cores for single threaded IPC. You need to divide the total 4 core score by 4, then divide the 6 core by 6, then the 8 core by 8 and the 4ghz 8 core by 8 and you get the "per core score" it's not a real metric, it doesn't mean anything. Videocardz did this to some how calculate IPC but it doesn't work that way. I'm not missing your point, I'm trying to answer your question to the best I can, I think it's a lot more simple than you realize.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rexolaboy*
> 
> I compare the Intel cpus vs the amd for clock scaling only. There isn't a discrepancy, the scores are not official. Ryzen looks to be within 5% of intel cores for single threaded IPC. You need to divide the total 4 core score by 4, then divide the 6 core by 6, then the 8 core by 8 and the 4ghz 8 core by 8 and you get the "per core score" it's not a real metric, it doesn't mean anything. Videocardz did this to some how calculate IPC but it doesn't work that way. I'm not missing your point, I'm trying to answer your question to the best I can, I think it's a lot more simple than you realize.


no, you still missed the point, and i'll point it out right now, if you still miss it then don't bother replying.

4C and 6C Zen firestrike score makes 100% sense, yet 8C Zen makes zero sense, this is firestrike we're talking about.

now explain to me why 4Ghz Zen 8core is only equal to 3.3Ghz~3.4Ghz 4C and 6C Zen?
if you compare 6C Zen and 4C Zen scores, they make 100% sense.


----------



## rexolaboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> no, you still missed the point, and i'll point it out right now, if you still miss it then don't bother replying.
> 
> 4C and 6C Zen firestrike score makes 100% sense, yet 8C Zen makes zero sense, this is firestrike we're talking about.
> 
> now explain to me why 4Ghz Zen 8core is only equal to 3.3Ghz~3.4Ghz 4C and 6C Zen?
> if you compare 6C Zen and 4C Zen scores, they make 100% sense.


You say there is an issue, but you haven't pointed it out. I want to understand you but you aren't explaining the issue you see. The firestrike score looks good for all the cpus, the 4ghz ryzen looks very competitive. You seems to be stuck on some basic math concept right now that I'm sure you will realize sooner or later and laugh. If you tell me I miss the point again I'm going to flag you because it sounds like you are trolling.

I'll go through this one more time so people stop repeating this error while reading the "leaked score"

The per core score is just dividing the the total score by core count, it's not a single thread test. The Ryzen at 4ghz is faster than the 6 core and 4 core, but dividing the score by core count doesn't show that because the only way you compare the score per core would be with an other 8 core cpu. Notice the 7700k has an unusually high per core score? Compare it only with the other 4 core 8 thread cpu which is the Ryzen 4 core. The 6 core should be compared to the i7 6800 and i7 6850, the Ryzen 8 core should compare to the i7 6900k. That is why it doesn't make sense to you.


----------



## mohiuddin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Yes.
> 
> CPCHardware tweeted "Coming Soon" along with that picture. The tweet have been taken down


thanks man. BTW, here... lol..
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-reviews-live-february-28th-testers-receiving-samples/


----------



## mohiuddin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> besides, firestrike scales nearly 100% in core count.


i think u are wrong.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rexolaboy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> no, you still missed the point, and i'll point it out right now, if you still miss it then don't bother replying.
> 
> 4C and 6C Zen firestrike score makes 100% sense, yet 8C Zen makes zero sense, this is firestrike we're talking about.
> 
> now explain to me why 4Ghz Zen 8core is only equal to 3.3Ghz~3.4Ghz 4C and 6C Zen?
> if you compare 6C Zen and 4C Zen scores, they make 100% sense.
> 
> 
> 
> You say there is an issue, but you haven't pointed it out. I want to understand you but you aren't explaining the issue you see. The firestrike score looks good for all the cpus, the 4ghz ryzen looks very competitive. You seems to be stuck on some basic math concept right now that I'm sure you will realize sooner or later and laugh. If you tell me I miss the point again I'm going to flag you because it sounds like you are trolling.
> 
> I'll go through this one more time so people stop repeating this error while reading the "leaked score"
> 
> The per core score is just dividing the the total score by core count, it's not a single thread test. The Ryzen at 4ghz is faster than the 6 core and 4 core, but dividing the score by core count doesn't show that because the only way you compare the score per core would be with an other 8 core cpu. Notice the 7700k has an unusually high per core score? Compare it only with the other 4 core 8 thread cpu which is the Ryzen 4 core. The 6 core should be compared to the i7 6800 and i7 6850, the Ryzen 8 core should compare to the i7 6900k. That is why it doesn't make sense to you.
Click to expand...

oh man......

ok, I understand what he is saying (it's pretty clear) , WHY is the 4Ghz Ryzen CPU slower than the 3.3Ghz and 3.2Ghz?

Just forget for a minute that it's an 8 core, Firestrike Physics scales well with cores so dividing the cores works to some degree and even at that level the 4Ghz CPU should be faster than the other Ryzen chips.

THAT is what you are missing.....


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> oh man......
> 
> ok, I understand what he is saying (it's pretty clear) , WHY is the 4Ghz Ryzen CPU slower than the 3.3Ghz and 3.2Ghz?
> 
> Just forget for a minute that it's an 8 core, Firestrike Physics scales well with cores so dividing the cores works to some degree and even at that level the 4Ghz CPU should be faster than the other Ryzen chips.
> 
> THAT is what you are missing.....


I really do not know what is so hard to understand


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> oh man......
> 
> ok, I understand what he is saying (it's pretty clear) , WHY is the 4Ghz Ryzen CPU slower than the 3.3Ghz and 3.2Ghz?
> 
> Just forget for a minute that it's an 8 core, Firestrike Physics scales well with cores so dividing the cores works to some degree and even at that level the 4Ghz CPU should be faster than the other Ryzen chips.
> 
> THAT is what you are missing.....
> 
> 
> 
> I really do not know what is so hard to understand
Click to expand...



Why are 3 of the Ryzen CPUs getting that same score when they are different clock speeds?


----------



## rexolaboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> oh man......
> 
> ok, I understand what he is saying (it's pretty clear) , WHY is the 4Ghz Ryzen CPU slower than the 3.3Ghz and 3.2Ghz?
> 
> Just forget for a minute that it's an 8 core, Firestrike Physics scales well with cores so dividing the cores works to some degree and even at that level the 4Ghz CPU should be faster than the other Ryzen chips.
> 
> THAT is what you are missing.....


I'm starting to laugh right now. Do the math yourself, it will make sense. Take the scores and divide by core count and don't compare the 8 core to the 6 and 4 core because it's a higher ratio of core:score. If you change the ratio then it doesn't compare... only compare the 8 core ryzen to the i7 6900k and call it a day. I really hope I'm being trolled right now.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> 
> 
> Why are 3 of the Ryzen CPUs getting that same score when they are different clock speeds?


Different core counts. Notice how this affects Intel CPUs as well. It's not just the clock speed either, when you factor in all-core turbo.

The assumption that Firestrike "scales well" with cores is not enough to write off core scaling as part of the equation.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> 
> 
> Why are 3 of the Ryzen CPUs getting that same score when they are different clock speeds?


I get it. I am talking about the back and forth lol


----------



## mohiuddin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> 
> 
> Why are 3 of the Ryzen CPUs getting that same score when they are different clock speeds?


they did that chart like this>>
R7 8c/16t @4GHz FS physics score total 20249 , right? divided by 8 (8 core) =~ 2531.
R7 8c/16t @3.4GHz scores total 17878 . Divide it by 8 . =~ 2235
R7 6c/12t @3.3GHz scores 15271 in total. divided by 6 =~ 2545.

They didnt run the FS physics bench with 1c/2t to get these single core results. they just divided the total score by core count.
So why same architecture ryzen 6 core @3.3 = 8core @4ghz single core ( not ran with single core, just divided total score by core count) ? .Well 3dmark FS physics score does not scale well with core count beyond 4c/8t i think. Thats why.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> Different core counts. Notice how this affects Intel CPUs as well. It's not just the clock speed either, when you factor in all-core turbo.
> 
> The assumption that Firestrike "scales well" with cores is not enough to write off core scaling as part of the equation.


The Intel cores 3.2ghz is not > 3.3ghz for the intel cpu.

4.4ghz Ryzen is< 3.2ghz Ryzen.

That should not happen under any circumstances.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> 
> 
> Why are 3 of the Ryzen CPUs getting that same score when they are different clock speeds?
> 
> 
> 
> Different core counts. Notice how this affects Intel CPUs as well. It's not just the clock speed either, when you factor in all-core turbo.
> 
> The assumption that Firestrike "scales well" with cores is not enough to write off core scaling as part of the equation.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't.

6900k at 3.2 Ghz is 2329

6800k at 3.4Ghz is 2645

6850k at 3.5Ghz is 2785

6800k at 4.2Ghz is 3160

All BW-E Chips and they have higher scores regardless how the core count.

Meanwhile:

Ryzen at 3.3Ghz is 2545

Ryzen at 3.2Ghz is 2544

Ryzen at 4.0 Ghz is 2531

Intel is scaling with clockspeed, Ryzen isn't and that is the question he is asking
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohiuddin*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> 
> 
> Why are 3 of the Ryzen CPUs getting that same score when they are different clock speeds?
> 
> 
> 
> they did that chart like this>>
> R7 8c/16t @4GHz FS physics score total 20249 , right? divided by 8 (8 core) =~ 2531.
> R7 8c/16t @3.4GHz scores total 17878 . Divide it by 8 . =~ 2235
> R7 6c/12t @3.3GHz scores 15271 in total. divided by 6 =~ 2545.
> 
> They didnt run the FS physics bench with 1c/2t to get these single core results. they just divided the total score by core count.
> So why same architecture ryzen 6 core @3.3 = 8core @4ghz single core ( not ran with single core, just divided total score by core count) ? .Well 3dmark FS physics score does not scale well with core count beyond 4c/8t i think. Thats why.
Click to expand...

I know how they got the results, I know the very very basic math the used, read my above comment.

FS Physics can use up to 64 threads btw


----------



## mohiuddin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> The Intel cores 3.2ghz is not > 3.3ghz for the intel cpu.
> 
> 4.4ghz Ryzen is< 3.2ghz Ryzen.
> 
> That should not happen under any circumstances.


look again. 6800k @3.6GHz = 2645
6900k @3.7GHz = 2329


----------



## mohiuddin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> But it doesn't.
> 
> 6900k at 3.2 Ghz is 2329
> 
> 6800k at 3.4Ghz is 2645
> 
> 6850k at 3.5Ghz is 2785
> 
> 6800k at 4.2Ghz is 3160


Nope 6900k is @ 3.7GHz . the pic may be updated. look here>>
https://videocardz.com/65913/how-fast-is-ryzen


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohiuddin*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> But it doesn't.
> 
> 6900k at 3.2 Ghz is 2329
> 
> 6800k at 3.4Ghz is 2645
> 
> 6850k at 3.5Ghz is 2785
> 
> 6800k at 4.2Ghz is 3160
> 
> 
> 
> Nope 6900k is @ 3.7GHz . the pic may be updated. look here>>
> https://videocardz.com/65913/how-fast-is-ryzen
Click to expand...

So you're telling me the numbers on the graph are wrong?

you're also assuming that every core was running at turbo clocks as well.


----------



## mohiuddin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> So you're telling me the numbers on the graph are wrong?
> 
> you're also assuming that every core was running at turbo clocks as well.


no im assuming that all core running at given clock speed . like if written ,[email protected] written on the pic? it is running 3.7GHz all core.
see this pic, look @6900k clock speed.

And now see the image thats been creating confusion here,


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohiuddin*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> So you're telling me the numbers on the graph are wrong?
> 
> you're also assuming that every core was running at turbo clocks as well.
> 
> 
> 
> no im assuming that all core running at given clock speed . like if written ,[email protected] written on the pic? it is running 3.7GHz all core.
> see this pic, look @6900k clock speed.
Click to expand...

Yes but the results in the second graph are taken from the results in the first which means the clockspeed listed in the second is wrong.


----------



## mohiuddin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Yes but the results in the second graph are taken from the results in the first which means the clockspeed listed in the second is wrong.


or first picture had an error, so that pic updated.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohiuddin*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Yes but the results in the second graph are taken from the results in the first which means the clockspeed listed in the second is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> or first picture had an error, so that pic updated.
Click to expand...

So either way we're at a stalemate


----------



## rexolaboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Yes but the results in the second graph are taken from the results in the first which means the clockspeed listed in the second is wrong.


You could answer all of your "questions" by going to the 3dmark site and looking at scores yourself. As reference, the Ryzen 4 core firestrike score is comparable to an i7 4790.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> So you're telling me the numbers on the graph are wrong?


i think it is, otherwise the graph's numbers wouldn't be all over the place.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rexolaboy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Yes but the results in the second graph are taken from the results in the first which means the clockspeed listed in the second is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> You could answer all of your "questions" by going to the 3dmark site and looking at scores yourself. As reference, the Ryzen 4 core firestrike score is comparable to an i7 4790.
Click to expand...

Not really, I've already said I understand how they got the "single core" scores, I just don't understand why the Ryzen chip at 4.0 is the same speed as others that are clocked much lower.

Since I've asked that someone else has some in and pointed out that the clock speed for the 6900k don't match up between the graph meaning the numbers are useless until Videocardz makes some clarification as to which processor is running at which speed.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> So you're telling me the numbers on the graph are wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> i think it is, otherwise the graph's numbers wouldn't be all over the place.
Click to expand...

Something is off, whether it's clock speeds or the scores themselves we don't know.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Since I've asked that someone else has some in and pointed out that the clock speed for the 6900k don't match up between the graph meaning the numbers are useless until Videocardz makes some clarification as to which processor is running at which speed.


i gave up a few hours ago lol, that last post i did was my final on that particular argument.


----------



## The Robot

It's irresponsible performance


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Since I've asked that someone else has some in and pointed out that the clock speed for the 6900k don't match up between the graph meaning the numbers are useless until Videocardz makes some clarification as to which processor is running at which speed.
> 
> 
> 
> i gave up a few hours ago lol, that last post i did was my final on that particular argument.
Click to expand...

it was a valid question that didn't need to turn into an argument, but this is the interwebz so it usually does


----------



## Malinkadink

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Robot*
> 
> It's irresponsible performance


Clicked last page of thread, saw this, LOLed, leaving thread now.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

We are still dealing with rumors so the definitive answers you seek will not come until we get the official reviews in a couple weeks. Rumors are not a good basis for making definitive assessments about specific performance but they are useful in painting a broad picture of likely performance. Given what we know (and factoring in the involvement of possibly the best CPU architect in the world today), I think its fair to assume that Ryzen will be very competitive with even Intel's newest CPU's in multi AND single thread workloads. We can't say exactly how competitive the single core performance will be and we know absolutely nothing about OC potential but at the least we can probably rule out any kind of catastrophic failure at this point. They will be very good chips and will be priced very competitively as well. There's really no reason for anybody to be salty about this.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Given what we know (and factoring in the involvement of possibly the best CPU architect in the world today), I think its fair to assume that Ryzen will be very competitive with even Intel's newest CPU's in multi AND single thread workloads. We can't say exactly how competitive the single core performance will be and we know absolutely nothing about OC potential but at the least we can probably rule out any kind of catastrophic failure at this point. They will be very good chips and will be priced very competitively as well. There's really no reason for anybody to be salty about this.


more or less, they'd have a performance between Thuban and Intel's latest, plus SMT support.
furthermore it wouldn't have the clock speed limitation that Thuban had, so at the very least it'll be faster than Thuban.
note, the reason why i'm using Thuban as the bottom line is because Thuban has a higher IPC than Piledriver.

though i'm still in an opinion of wait and observe, even after Ryzen launch and it's been benchmarked.
my reasoning is due to potential early launch issues, specially glitches like those from intel's "B3" issue.
one thing is for sure though, the next one after Ryzen would be the best one AMD can offer.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Not really, I've already said I understand how they got the "single core" scores, I just don't understand why the Ryzen chip at 4.0 is the same speed as others that are clocked much lower.


It's not when you compare apples to apples. 8-core vs 8-core. The non-OC'ed 8-core is substantially lower.

And yes, turbo boost is most certainly active for Intel and all core turbo is a thing. The clock speeds listed don't necessarily mean anything.



The 5960X has a base clock of 3.0GHz, a 4.3GHz increase is a 43% increase over that. The Cinebench score increases by 26%. Why? I believe it's because of all-core turbo. Cinebench responds well to clock speed increases, so either the benchmark is wrong or Intel base clocks are just that - base clocks, a lower bound on clock speed. We can't know how fast something is running with just a lower bound or just an upper bound, or even both, if they're different values. All we know is that they're operating somewhere between those two bounds.

6950X - 3.0 - 3.5GHz
6900K - 3.2 - 3.7GHz
6850K - 3.6 - 3.8GHz
6800K - 3.4 - 3.6GHz

And all of them could be running at any frequency within that range, making the task of figuring out core scaling for Intel chips really difficult. It seems like 6900K and 6800K would probably be running at similar clocks speeds. Assuming they are (a big assumption), Intel is suffering core scaling penalties too.


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> Again your looking at multi core performance which isn't as meaningful for gaming workloads.


Nope, I'm looking at the higher clocked quad with XFR and turbo taken into account.


----------



## VegetarianEater

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rexolaboy*
> 
> Divide the 4 core total score by 4...divide the 6 core by 6....how can this be hard? The per core score is a flawed metric.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rexolaboy*
> 
> You could answer all of your "questions" by going to the 3dmark site and looking at scores yourself. As reference, the Ryzen 4 core firestrike score is comparable to an i7 4790.


quoting your most recent post since it's short...

The point that one guy was trying to make is that the 8 core ryzen cpu at 3.4 ghz should have around the same PER CORE performance as all the others, but for some reason it has a lot lower PER CORE performance.

With the 8 cpu/10 core intel CPUs it makes perfect sense, because their clockspeed is a lot lower than the 7700K, but with Ryzen it's not making any sense, the 4.0 ghz ryzen 8 core should be way higher than the 6 core ryzen at 3.3 ghz...

Do you understand now? Obviously he and everyone else knows how they got the per core scores, they divided the score by the cores, but that's not what he is trying to say at all.

My 2 cents: something is wrong if the 8 core part is slower than the 6 and 4 core parts at similar clockspeeds, and if that ends up being the case i'll get the 6 core part instead, as it will have the best mix of single thread and multi-thread performance.

The other possibility I've thought of is that threads are not equal to cores at all, and so having more threads means more overall performance, but less performance "per thread". But it's nearly 6am so maybe I'm just spewing nonsense right now


----------



## Newbie2009

The new Rysen/Vega APUs in the pipeline could potentially be awesome.


----------



## rexolaboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VegetarianEater*
> 
> quoting your most recent post since it's short...
> 
> The point that one guy was trying to make is that the 8 core ryzen cpu at 3.4 ghz should have around the same PER CORE performance as all the others, but for some reason it has a lot lower PER CORE performance.
> 
> With the 8 cpu/10 core intel CPUs it makes perfect sense, because their clockspeed is a lot lower than the 7700K, but with Ryzen it's not making any sense, the 4.0 ghz ryzen 8 core should be way higher than the 6 core ryzen at 3.3 ghz...
> 
> Do you understand now? Obviously he and everyone else knows how they got the per core scores, they divided the score by the cores, but that's not what he is trying to say at all.
> 
> My 2 cents: something is wrong if the 8 core part is slower than the 6 and 4 core parts at similar clockspeeds, and if that ends up being the case i'll get the 6 core part instead, as it will have the best mix of single thread and multi-thread performance.
> 
> The other possibility I've thought of is that threads are not equal to cores at all, and so having more threads means more overall performance, but less performance "per thread". But it's nearly 6am so maybe I'm just spewing nonsense right now


I think you need coffee, because I already said if you divide the scores by core you can't compare 8 core to 6 or 4 because the ratio changes...the 8 core at 3.4ghz should be considerably less per core score than the 3.2ghz 4 core. The overclocked 8 core makes up for the ratio.

The i3 7350k scores a bit less than the Ryzen 4 core, but it's per core score is 3680.


----------



## Artikbot

And just a stupid question that someone else made a few pages earlier... Do 3DM physics scores even change in a known relationship with the amount of available cores?

Because we could be grasping at straws.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> And just a stupid question that someone else made a few pages earlier... Do 3DM physics scores even change in a known relationship with the amount of available cores?
> 
> Because we could be grasping at straws.


This is what I never understood earlier, after reading all back through it no-one stated plainly about the core scaling and no-one bothered to put any numbers forward so it was hard but I went at looked at HWBOT scores for Firestrike with the 6800k, 6900k and 6950x.

I did the same thing that Videocardz did and this is what came out as "per core performance"

2668 per core - 6950x @ 4.5Ghz

3116 per core - 6900k @ 4.5Ghz

3397 per core - 6800k @ 4.5Ghz

Yes there is a difference in scaling, I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong so I found out how much clock speed it would take for the 6900k and 6950x to have the same "per core" performance as the 6800k in FS

3270 per core - 6950x @ 5.25Ghz

3440 per core - 6900k @ 5.1Ghz

a 600Mhz overclock for the 6900k and a 700-800Mhz overclock for the 6950x.

Now what's more confusing is why the Ryzen numbers are so close together, since scaling does exist and it's not great they should be further apart that what they are.


----------



## VegetarianEater

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rexolaboy*
> 
> I think you need coffee, because I already said if you divide the scores by core you can't compare 8 core to 6 or 4 because the ratio changes...the 8 core at 3.4ghz should be considerably less per core score than the 3.2ghz 4 core. The overclocked 8 core makes up for the ratio.
> 
> The i3 7350k scores a bit less than the Ryzen 4 core, but it's per core score is 3680.


Now that I'm awake, you're still not understanding at all. IT"s ALL ABOUT CLOCK SPEED, which is why the 7700K is dominating that per core metric. Theoretically the ryzen chips should all have similar performance at the same clock speed, IT DOES NOT MATTER that one is an 8 core part and one is a 6 core or 4 core part. It's the same architecture, so technically the cores should be just as fast as one another.

Here's another way of putting it. If you set the Intel chips to the same clockspeed, they should all score about the same (give or take, Broadwell-E IPC vs Sky/Kaby IPC) PER CORE, unless something is holding them back, and the same is true of the Ryzen chips.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VegetarianEater*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *rexolaboy*
> 
> I think you need coffee, because I already said if you divide the scores by core you can't compare 8 core to 6 or 4 because the ratio changes...the 8 core at 3.4ghz should be considerably less per core score than the 3.2ghz 4 core. The overclocked 8 core makes up for the ratio.
> 
> The i3 7350k scores a bit less than the Ryzen 4 core, but it's per core score is 3680.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that I'm awake, you're still not understanding at all. IT"s ALL ABOUT CLOCK SPEED, which is why the 7700K is dominating that per core metric. Theoretically the ryzen chips should all have similar performance at the same clock speed, IT DOES NOT MATTER that one is an 8 core part and one is a 6 core or 4 core part. It's the same architecture, so technically the cores should be just as fast as one another.
> 
> Here's another way of putting it. If you set the Intel chips to the same clockspeed, they should all score about the same (give or take, Broadwell-E IPC vs Sky/Kaby IPC) PER CORE, unless something is holding them back, and the same is true of the Ryzen chips.
Click to expand...

See the post above ^


----------



## rexolaboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VegetarianEater*
> 
> Now that I'm awake, you're still not understanding at all. IT"s ALL ABOUT CLOCK SPEED, which is why the 7700K is dominating that per core metric. Theoretically the ryzen chips should all have similar performance at the same clock speed, IT DOES NOT MATTER that one is an 8 core part and one is a 6 core or 4 core part. It's the same architecture, so technically the cores should be just as fast as one another.
> 
> Here's another way of putting it. If you set the Intel chips to the same clockspeed, they should all score about the same (give or take, Broadwell-E IPC vs Sky/Kaby IPC) PER CORE, unless something is holding them back, and the same is true of the Ryzen chips.


You are correct about clock speed being the largest factor, you are incorrect about the Ryzen cores staying the same when score divided by core, the 3.4ghz 8 core demonstrates this when you divide the score by core count. It's why it looks so low compared to the other Ryzen cpus at similar clockspeeds. The 4ghz ryzen alleviates this discrepancy with clock speed. I did simple math and got a score of about 12500 points for the Ryzen 4 core at 4ghz which would put it the same as an i7 6700k at stock clocks. 12500 points is clearly less than the 15000ish points the 6 core yet the per core score would be at least 500 points higher. You can get a good indicator of core strength by comparing the points gained from the overclocked 8 core at 4ghz from 3.4ghz. Ryzen clearly has Haswell ipc.


----------



## LuckyImperial

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rexolaboy*
> 
> You are correct about clock speed being the largest factor, you are incorrect about the Ryzen cores staying the same when score divided by core, the 3.4ghz 8 core demonstrates this when you divide the score by core count. It's why it looks so low compared to the other Ryzen cpus at similar clockspeeds. The 4ghz ryzen alleviates this discrepancy with clock speed. I did simple math and got a score of about 12500 points for the Ryzen 4 core at 4ghz which would put it the same as an i7 6700k at stock clocks. 12500 points is clearly less than the 15000ish points the 6 core yet the per core score would be at least 500 points higher. You can get a good indicator of core strength by comparing the points gained from the overclocked 8 core at 4ghz from 3.4ghz. Ryzen clearly has Haswell ipc.


http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-cpu-specs-confirmed/

All indications are pointing towards Broadwell-E IPC. I mean, if the demo's are true, 3.4GHz 8 Core Rzyen beats out 3.7GHz 8 Core Broadwell-E. Either way, the Ryzen chips are putting out some seriously impressive benchmarks.


----------



## ducegt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rexolaboy*
> 
> I did simple math and got a score of about 12500 points for the Ryzen 4 core at 4ghz which would put it the same as an i7 6700k at stock clocks.


That would be decent. My 7700k is still more than 25℅ faster with a FS Physics score above 16500


----------



## rexolaboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> That would be decent. My 7700k is still more than 25℅ faster with a FS Physics score above 16500


At what clocks? Kbl has zero IPC increase over skl.


----------



## VegetarianEater

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> See the post above ^


First off that 6950x score seems wrong, especially for that clock speed. (2000 pts at 3 ghz (or 3.5 if we're to believe all 10 cores were on turbo clocks, which i dont believe happens by default, someone correct me though) vs 2600 at 4.5 ghz? and 7700K is 1000 points higher?)

Secondly, I'm not convinced that the intel CPUs in the comparison were running all cores at their turbo clocks, aren't intel turbos based on single core, and using all 6 or 8 cores + all their threads would lower the clocks?

Finally, It still does not make any sense if you look at the ryzen 6 core vs 4 core, the 4 core would have a higher per core score if the scaling was correct.

finally part 2: Does firestrike use all the threads of these processors? because threads are worth a lot less than cores, and would account for some of this scaling, as i mentioned in my original post...


----------



## ducegt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rexolaboy*
> 
> At what clocks? Kbl has zero IPC increase over skl.


5200. It's about 16600 and 16300 at 5100.


----------



## tp4tissue

There has to be something wrong with that second photo.

Why is the Zen at 4ghz benching the same on single core as the Zen at 3.2ghz.


----------



## ACleverName

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *umeng2002*
> 
> Depends on how hard you throw it...


Bhahahahaha!!!!


----------



## RyzenChrist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> 5200. It's about 16600 and 16300 at 5100.


Yeah let's compare 4ghz vs 5.1ghz.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tp4tissue*
> 
> There has to be something wrong with that second photo.
> 
> Why is the Zen at 4ghz benching the same on single core as the Zen at 3.2ghz.


This has already been discussed: in short, the single core number is just the multithread score divided by the number of cores. The more cores you have, the less ideally it scales. Intel processors are affected the same way.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Who cares what the multi is, if you have ryzen cpus and they are all ONE core, why would a 4ghz one score lower than a 3.2ghz? Only way this could be a thing is all 3 cpus boost to the same clock speed using 1 core.

Ya they took the multi and produced numbers for single when they never ran a test for it. When most all CPU single core tests just use a SINGLE core with no hyperthreading/smt.

So taking the mutli score divided by the cores to get a single score is faulted by the fact you have to take in the performance gains for all the threads.

But who cares, Ryzen is slower then 3 generation old intel cpus, the only thing this is gonna bring to the market is performance for cheap.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> Who cares what the multi is, if you have ryzen cpus and they are all ONE core, why would a 4ghz one score lower than a 3.2ghz?


We have no reason to believe they would. Honestly, I don't know why VC even made that graph, all it's doing is misleading people.


----------



## epic1337

what i want to know is whether AMD's Ryzen is physically smaller than intel's at equal core counts.


----------



## Slaughterem

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> what i want to know is whether AMD's Ryzen is physically smaller than intel's at equal core counts.


I know this is from wccf but it does show that a ryzen core is smaller than intels on 14 nm
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-architecture-detailed/


----------



## Hequaqua

I'm not a expert on all this CPU jargon, but wouldn't the Ryzen be smaller compared to Intel because there is no iGPU?

I just ran a quick comparison on my 4770k....4.0ghz-4.6ghz. About a 15% overclock. Physics scaled almost perfectly on Firestrike 11247-12946(15.1% increase).

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/11718902/fs/11718920

I also ran 3.5-4.0 No HT....around the same scaling(14.29%OC) 3.5/6944-4.0/7942(14.37% scores)

It appears like everyone has noted, they just took the overall score and divided it by number of cores.

I'm interested in the Hexa cores depending on all these unknowns. If it can clock to 4ghz on all cores, and be decently priced...I may move up to it. I would have moved from Haswell a while back, but Intel keeps changing sockets every 3 months it seems. At least with Ryzen, they will stay with this socket for a few years.


----------



## ryan92084

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slaughterem*
> 
> I know this is from wccf but it does show that a ryzen core is smaller than intels on 14 nm
> http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-architecture-detailed/


since wccf is cancer http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1331317&page_number=2


----------



## RyzenChrist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> I'm not a expert on all this CPU jargon, but wouldn't the Ryzen be smaller compared to Intel because there is no iGPU?
> 
> I just ran a quick comparison on my 4770k....4.0ghz-4.6ghz. About a 15% overclock. Physics scaled almost perfectly on Firestrike 11247-12946(15.1% increase).
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/11718902/fs/11718920
> 
> I also ran 3.5-4.0 No HT....around the same scaling(14.29%OC) 3.5/6944-4.0/7942(14.37% scores)
> 
> It appears like everyone has noted, they just took the overall score and divided it by number of cores.
> 
> I'm interested in the Hexa cores depending on all these unknowns. If it can clock to 4ghz on all cores, and be decently priced...I may move up to it. I would have moved from Haswell a while back, but Intel keeps changing sockets every 3 months it seems. At least with Ryzen, they will stay with this socket for a few years.


Ryzen will have no problem hitting 4.6 on a D15. Custom water and not an AIO will max out at around 4.8 on the 8/6. cores.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> I'm not a expert on all this CPU jargon, but wouldn't the Ryzen be smaller compared to Intel because there is no iGPU?


Intel HEDT doesn't have an iGPU either. If a Ryzen chip is smaller than an HEDT Broadwell chip, there is some kind of advantage, but keep in mind that Broadwell-E comes with quad-channel memory, more PCI-E lanes and other goodies.


----------



## BulletSponge

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> 
> 
> Why are 3 of the Ryzen CPUs getting that same score when they are different clock speeds?


Have all these benchmarks been updated yet to officially support Ryzen? If not there are gonna be some big changes come release time.


----------



## willibj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RyzenChrist*
> 
> Ryzen will have no problem hitting 4.6 on a D15. Custom water and not an AIO will max out at around 4.8 on the 8/6. cores.


This is certainly nice to consider, and slightly higher than my educated guesstimates were at. I was thinking about that for the 6core and about 200mhz lower for the 8 cores, on average .

Do we have anything to validate these numbers with? Any leaks, or comments from insiders etc??


----------



## RyzenChrist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *willibj*
> 
> This is certainly nice to consider, and slightly higher than my educated guesstimates were at. I was thinking about that for the 6core and about 200mhz lower for the 8 cores, on average .
> 
> Do we have anything to validate these numbers with? Any leaks, or comments from insiders etc??


I can't post anything till the 28th


----------



## willibj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RyzenChrist*
> 
> I can't post anything till the 28th


Yes, and I want to believe you. My heart is basically set on an SR5 1600X or SR7 1700X and I'm thinking 4.5ghz as a baseline on a Cryorig R1 Universal which is easy Nh-D15 level. I'm really hoping for 4.7 to 4.8ghz with enough cool air, good thermal paste, stable voltage and a little luck.

But we all know when the NDA lifts and I have zero reason to trust that you have any insider knowledge at all. Ugh ... I'm not *****ing at you, just at the frustration of the wait lol.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

If RyzenChrist is correct and 4.6GHz OC's will be the norm for the 8C/16T chips we will be looking at an astonishing feat by AMD with Ryzen. He could've just made that up but it sure sounds good! Would be nice to see Intel finally starting to sweat a little bit in the x86 consumer CPU segment...


----------



## willibj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> If RyzenChrist is correct ...


I've done a little internet snooping and digging, and have found a thread of evidence running through forum profiles, a Facebook profile, and a certain hardware review site tester currently leaking bits of RyZen information which suggests that RyzenChrist is, in actual fact, all of these sources, as one person.

It's a hunch, and I'm going to approach him with it privately, for his privacy's sake, but I'm inclined to believe him.

The amount of work required to build this back story and have it coincide, were it fake, would be ridiculous with little to nothing to gain.


----------



## finalheaven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RyzenChrist*
> 
> I can't post anything till the 28th


Do you recommend 1800x or 1700x?


----------



## CoolZone

Also would like to ask what to choose between the 1700 and 1700X. Interested to purchase the one which overclocks better.


----------



## Artikbot

1700X has XFR (auto overclocking feature thing), 200MHz higher base clocks and 100MHz higher turbo clocks.

At least that's what's been leaked.


----------



## CoolZone

I am more interested in manual overclocking potential; if both CPUs will reach about the same speeds when overclocked, then they basically have the same value.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CoolZone*
> 
> I am more interested in manual overclocking potential; if both CPUs will reach about the same speeds when overclocked, then they basically have the same value.


To us as enthusiasts, yes. That's why I've got my eye on the 1700 pending additional information. If it's the 83xx to the 1800X's 9590, I'll be more than fine with putting in the work to make her sing. I just need to know exactly what advantages the X moniker imparts.


----------



## CoolZone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> To us as enthusiasts, yes. That's why I've got my eye on the 1700 pending additional information. If it's the 83xx to the 1800X's 9590, I'll be more than fine with putting in the work to make her sing. I just need to know exactly what advantages the X moniker imparts.


Guess we are on the same page, great! Guess I will watch this thread much closer from now on.


----------



## Ha-Nocri

I'm also hoping there will be some tuning for manual OC-ing. I mean, I don't want my CPU to be at the voltage it needs for 4.5GHz all the time, while it's idling on desktop. So, we need voltage and clocks scaling even when OC-ed.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> I'm also hoping there will be some tuning for manual OC-ing. I mean, I don't want my CPU to be at the voltage it needs for 4.5GHz all the time, while it's idling on desktop. So, we need voltage scaling even when OC-ed.


https://videocardz.com/66015/amd-preparing-overclocking-tool-for-ryzen

Looks like AMD Overdrive is getting a major update











The blur is real....


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> That would be decent. My 7700k is still more than 25℅ faster with a FS Physics score above 16500


Rysen @4ghz would have similar performance to ivybridge at 4.8ghz


----------



## Ha-Nocri

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> https://videocardz.com/66015/amd-preparing-overclocking-tool-for-ryzen
> 
> Looks like AMD Overdrive is getting a major update
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The blur is real....


Oh man, AMD seems to be hitting every nail right on the head. Can't wait









Now all I need is a beefy, ASUS Gene level, mATX board for my new mATX system


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Looky what we have here.....


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!









EDIT: Added more pics


----------



## 364901

I'm on the list for review samples. Now I wait and see what I end up with.


----------



## SuperZan

My home was not built to contain this level of hype. I'm going to need to be put into stasis for a couple of weeks.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My home was not built to contain this level of hype. I'm going to need to be put into stasis for a couple of weeks.


Can't remember if Suffolk is sleepy England or the loud and rowdy england, might want to be careful if it's the former


----------



## SuperZan

It's Farmville UK







I can run around in the wheat fields cheering for AMD's return.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> It's Farmville UK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can run around in the wheat fields cheering for AMD's return.


Haha, my nearest neighbour is around 2km away but we'll see, 12 day to go


----------



## f1LL

AdoredTV's interpretation of the PassMark leaks:




Interesting


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CoolZone*
> 
> I am more interested in manual overclocking potential; if both CPUs will reach about the same speeds when overclocked, then they basically have the same value.


Same. I don't even care if it gets to 2 or 300MHz less than the 1700X.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *f1LL*
> 
> AdoredTV's interpretation of the PassMark leaks:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting


The fact he's only just realised most boards assign the highest turbo ratio to all cores speaks words. "Look at the shiny shiny"


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My home was not built to contain this level of hype. I'm going to need to be put into stasis for a couple of weeks.


Would you upgrade? Processor you have already is pretty beefy?


----------



## tp4tissue

Guys, that 3.7ghz interpretation of 6900k in the ADJUSTED Photo is incorrect..

Notice from the first photo that it was a 6900k multicore test through firestrike. So the cpu would auto step down to 3.2ghz during a full bench as it is designed to by power gating.

The second photo is NOT a single core test , there is no single core firestrike test. What they did to make the second set of numbers is merely DIVIDE the benchmark results from the first photo by the number of cores.

So the First 6900k benched 18635 in the firestrike (full multi-core test), THEN in the second photo (single core), it is listed as 2329.. 18635/8 = 2329.. --There is no way in hell that any single core benchmark can be ran separately and get this kind of perfect number matching.. they did not run a separate test, they just divide the numbers.
_*
So this confirms that the second chart is not a separate set of single core test on part of the 6900k.. So that adjustment chart for 6900k to 3.7ghz should not be the interpretation, it is INDEED running at 3.2ghz.*_

If we use the IPC performance of 6900k @ 3.2ghz.. we have ZEN 4ghz / broadwell 3.2ghz = 1.25x..

1.25x * 2329 (broadwell) = 2911.25 expected performance @ 4.0ghz for Broadwell..

Take the 2911.25(broadwell) / 2531(Zen) we get 1.15x

SO.. Broadwell is still 15% faster than Zen IPC wise..

WHICH would mean this chart is Consistent with the IPC performance of Zen matching Sandybridge IPC, as Broadwell is ~ 10-20% faster than Sandybridge depending on benchmark used.

_*Zen is equivalent to Sandybridge, NOT broadwell.. .*_


----------



## Vesku

Odds of 6900k running at 3.2GHz are very low, even all core load, unless the user deliberately configures the UEFI of a system to not turbo.


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tp4tissue*
> 
> Guys, that 3.7ghz interpretation of 6900k in the ADJUSTED Photo is incorrect..
> 
> Notice from the first photo that it was a 6900k multicore test through firestrike. So the cpu would auto step down to 3.2ghz during a full bench as it is designed to by power gating.
> 
> The second photo is NOT a single core test , there is no single core firestrike test. What they did to make the second set of numbers is merely DIVIDE the benchmark results from the first photo by the number of cores.
> 
> So the First 6900k benched 18635 in the firestrike (full multi-core test), THEN in the second photo (single core), it is listed as 2329.. 18635/8 = 2329.. --There is no way in hell that any single core benchmark can be ran separately and get this kind of perfect number matching.. they did not run a separate test, they just divide the numbers.
> _*
> So this confirms that the second chart is not a separate set of single core test on part of the 6900k.. So that adjustment chart for 6900k to 3.7ghz should not be the interpretation, it is INDEED running at 3.2ghz.*_
> 
> If we use the IPC performance of 6900k @ 3.2ghz.. we have ZEN 4ghz / broadwell 3.2ghz = 1.25x..
> 
> 1.25x * 2329 (broadwell) = 2911.25 expected performance @ 4.0ghz for Broadwell..
> 
> Take the 2911.25(broadwell) / 2531(Zen) we get 1.15x
> 
> SO.. Broadwell is still 15% faster than Zen IPC wise..
> 
> WHICH would mean this chart is Consistent with the IPC performance of Zen matching Sandybridge IPC, as Broadwell is ~ 10-20% faster than Sandybridge depending on benchmark used.
> 
> _*Zen is equivalent to Sandybridge, NOT broadwell.. .*_


3770k Ivybridge (which is on par, marginally faster than sandy bridge) with a stock base of 3.5ghz and a boost to 3.9ghz nets a score of 8690

Zen @ 3.2 ghz with a boost to say what, 3.5 or 3.6ghz? scores over 10k in the OP bench, so it is about 1500 points faster with lower clocks.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> 3770k Ivybridge (which is on par, marginally faster than sandy bridge) with a stock base of 3.5ghz and a boost to 3.9ghz nets a score of 8690
> 
> Zen @ 3.2 ghz with a boost to say what, 3.5 or 3.6ghz? scores over 10k in the OP bench, so it is about 1500 points faster with lower clocks.


You remember his last posts?


----------



## 364901

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tp4tissue*
> 
> Guys, that 3.7ghz interpretation of 6900k in the ADJUSTED Photo is incorrect..
> 
> Notice from the first photo that it was a 6900k multicore test through firestrike. So the cpu would auto step down to 3.2ghz during a full bench as it is designed to by power gating.


This might not be the case. Haswell-E dropped clocks to stay within the TDP range because it still had an integrated FIVR, which pushed up temperatures. Broadwell-E holds on to higher clock speeds much more easily, and it shouldn't ever drop to a 3.2GHz base clock unless you're really stressing it with something like Prime95.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *tp4tissue*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Guys, that 3.7ghz interpretation of 6900k in the ADJUSTED Photo is incorrect..
> 
> Notice from the first photo that it was a 6900k multicore test through firestrike. So the cpu would auto step down to 3.2ghz during a full bench as it is designed to by power gating.
> 
> The second photo is NOT a single core test , there is no single core firestrike test. What they did to make the second set of numbers is merely DIVIDE the benchmark results from the first photo by the number of cores.
> 
> So the First 6900k benched 18635 in the firestrike (full multi-core test), THEN in the second photo (single core), it is listed as 2329.. 18635/8 = 2329.. --There is no way in hell that any single core benchmark can be ran separately and get this kind of perfect number matching.. they did not run a separate test, they just divide the numbers.
> _*
> So this confirms that the second chart is not a separate set of single core test on part of the 6900k.. So that adjustment chart for 6900k to 3.7ghz should not be the interpretation, it is INDEED running at 3.2ghz.*_
> 
> If we use the IPC performance of 6900k @ 3.2ghz.. we have ZEN 4ghz / broadwell 3.2ghz = 1.25x..
> 
> 1.25x * 2329 (broadwell) = 2911.25 expected performance @ 4.0ghz for Broadwell..
> 
> Take the 2911.25(broadwell) / 2531(Zen) we get 1.15x
> 
> SO.. Broadwell is still 15% faster than Zen IPC wise..
> 
> WHICH would mean this chart is Consistent with the IPC performance of Zen matching Sandybridge IPC, as Broadwell is ~ 10-20% faster than Sandybridge depending on benchmark used.
> 
> 
> 
> _*Zen is equivalent to Sandybridge, NOT broadwell.. .*_
> 
> 
> 
> 3770k Ivybridge (which is on par, marginally faster than sandy bridge) with a stock base of 3.5ghz and a boost to 3.9ghz nets a score of 8690
> 
> Zen @ 3.2 ghz with a boost to say what, 3.5 or 3.6ghz? scores over 10k in the OP bench, so it is about 1500 points faster with lower clocks.
Click to expand...

Doing Napkin math Ryzen has roughly the same IPC as Haswell.


----------



## ducegt

Do we know exactly which Ryzen chip did the blender render at 35 seconds? And if it was done in Windows and not Linux? My 7700k is about 25℅ slower at 44s with Win10 despite it likely has half the cores.


----------



## Ha-Nocri

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> Do we know exactly which Ryzen chip did the blender render at 35 seconds? My 7700k is 27℅ slower at 45 despite I assume it has half the cores.


It was a 8c/16t @ 3.4GHz, no turbo


----------



## qwertymac93

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> Do we know exactly which Ryzen chip did the blender render at 35 seconds? And if it was done in Windows and not Linux? My 7700k is about 25℅ slower at 44s with Win10 despite it likely has half the cores.


Newer builds of blender are significantly faster than the one used by AMD in that test.


----------



## ducegt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwertymac93*
> 
> Newer builds of blender are significantly faster than the one used by AMD in that test.


I used the exact same version.


----------



## BBEG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serious_Don*
> 
> :::doo doo dat:::
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .. well, pretty tasty considering they are showing a 4 ghz 8 core for half the price of a 6900k. Finally the market will get shaken up.


Are these true 8-cores or AMD 8-cores?


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> I used the exact same version.


Now clock your 7700k to 3.4ghz and tell us the score


----------



## teh-yeti

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BBEG*
> 
> Are these true 8-cores or AMD 8-cores?


From what we've been told, true 8 cores.


----------



## BBEG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *teh-yeti*
> 
> From what we've been told, true 8 cores.


Nifty. I'm still committing to upgrading only when we can get a true 8-core consumer CPU, so this interests me. I'll have to keep an eye out for power draw / heat numbers.


----------



## Yttrium

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BBEG*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *teh-yeti*
> 
> From what we've been told, true 8 cores.
> 
> 
> 
> Nifty. I'm still committing to upgrading only when we can get a true 8-core consumer CPU, so this interests me. I'll have to keep an eye out for power draw / heat numbers.
Click to expand...

65 watt/TDP for the lower end zen 8 cores, 95 for the high end 8 cores.


----------



## ducegt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Now clock your 7700k to 3.4ghz and tell us the score


Comparing clocks between two completely different designs doesn't make sesne. There were Pentium 4s that did 3.4ghz. Nobody should care about clocks except that they correlate with performance for a given architecture. Why would I down clock my chip? If McDonalds released a 1ghz chip that had more performance than a 7700k, I'd run it. You don't seem to understand all the variables relevant to this discussion.


----------



## aDyerSituation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> Comparing clocks between two completely different designs doesn't make sesne. There were Pentium 4s that did 3.4ghz. Nobody should care about clocks except that they correlate with performance for a given architecture. Why would I down clock my chip? If McDonalds released a 1ghz chip that had more performance than a 7700k, I'd run it. You don't seem to understand all the variables relevant to this discussion.


screenshots please


----------



## ducegt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aDyerSituation*
> 
> screenshots please


Of what? The McChip? I'm afraid I'm under a NDA.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aDyerSituation*
> 
> screenshots please


a sceenshot of a mcdonalds 1Ghz processor outperforming a 7700K sounds awesome.


----------



## aDyerSituation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> Of what? The McChip? I'm afraid I'm under a NDA.


mannnnn


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> Comparing clocks between two completely different designs doesn't make sesne. There were Pentium 4s that did 3.4ghz. Nobody should care about clocks except that they correlate with performance for a given architecture. Why would I down clock my chip? If McDonalds released a 1ghz chip that had more performance than a 7700k, I'd run it. You don't seem to understand all the variables relevant to this discussion.


Want to know which has better IPC? compare clock for clock. Your comparison makes no sense.

You mention you have half the cores but do not mention that the 7700k is clocked way higher almost 1ghz higher.

You do not need to justify your purchase. Be happy...









unless Ryzen can overclock to 4.5ghz and beyond... then you wasted your money lol


----------



## teh-yeti

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Want to know which has better IPC? compare clock for clock. Your comparison makes no sense.
> 
> You mention you have half the cores but do not mention that the 7700k is clocked way higher almost 1ghz higher.
> 
> You do not need to justify your purchase. Be happy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unless Ryzen can overclock to 4.5ghz and beyond... then you wasted your money lol


I think the point he was making from his original post is that he is comparing the overall package, including clock speeds. Not just IPC. Though that has been the main discussion in every zen thread known to man.

Grats on the 7700K ducegt. I hear that they are pretty awesome.









I'm anticipating the comparison between the more entry level chips though. The X edition 4/4 chip is presumably going for about the cost of an i3 6100 or 6300. That's pretty neat. I wonder how that one will stack up against the other entry level products.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *teh-yeti*
> 
> Grats on the 7700K ducegt. I hear that they are pretty awesome.


intel nailed it with kabylake, makes me wonder why skylake was such a half-baked release of the skylake architecture.
did they somewhat rushed skylake release or something?


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *teh-yeti*
> 
> I think the point he was making from his original post is that he is comparing the overall package, including clock speeds. Not just IPC. Though that has been the main discussion in every zen thread known to man.
> 
> Grats on the 7700K ducegt. I hear that they are pretty awesome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm anticipating the comparison between the more entry level chips though. The X edition 4/4 chip is presumably going for about the cost of an i3 6100 or 6300. That's pretty neat. I wonder how that one will stack up against the other entry level products.


3.4ghz is not the overall package though.


----------



## ducegt

I did some math based upon the info in the graphs. If I scale the 7700k to 5.2 and assume the Ryzen single thread scores (I know how they were calculated, so save your breath) were while they boosted to 4ghz, Ryzen needs only 6.7ghz to match. If I assume it was at 3.3ghz, Ryzen needs only 5.5ghz which is still a stretch from 4.5.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> Would you upgrade? Processor you have already is pretty beefy?


It's not bad at all, but it (and X79) are beginning to show their age. Two more cores, four more threads, better performance, and a new platform all add up to a nice upgrade from SB-e.


----------



## epic1337

speaking of upgrades, will they release APUs with 6cores or are they only restricting them to 4cores?
it sucks that the APUs lacks on the CPU side, although 4C/8T is quite plenty for most users.

on that note, an IGP with a modest performance of somewhere below RX460 would be great.
just enough to work with general workloads and some games at 1600x900 windowed mode.


----------



## Tojara

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> speaking of upgrades, will they release APUs with 6cores or are they only restricting them to 4cores?
> it sucks that the APUs lacks on the CPU side, although 4C/8T is quite plenty for most users.
> 
> on that note, an IGP with a modest performance of somewhere below RX460 would be great.
> just enough to work with general workloads and some games at 1600x900 windowed mode.


Raven Ridge has a 99% chance of having a single Zen module. With that amount of GPU power (<460) the CPU makes little difference, 2C/4T Zen should be enough to never bottleneck a 11 CU iGPU. Even if the CPU was 4C/4T running at just 3GHz it would basically never bottleneck a 470. With DDR4 3200 and memory compression the GPU should be as powerful as a 750 ti.


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> intel nailed it with kabylake, makes me wonder why skylake was such a half-baked release of the skylake architecture.
> did they somewhat rushed skylake release or something?


They did? I thought skylake=kabylake.... explain how intel nailed it with a almost identical release yet zen needs to be 5,000,000,000% faster than any cpu made yet needs to cost less than a big mac.

Free pass intel, AMD will fail mentality is awesome.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> They did? I thought skylake=kabylake.... explain how intel nailed it


process improvement (14nm+), speedshift+, optane, and native 4K HEVC decoding.
https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/microarchitectures/kaby_lake

i'm talking about skylake vs kabylake, and not Ryzen vs Kabylake.
simply put, Kabylake is way better than Skylake, it makes Skylake look like some premature baby.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tojara*
> 
> Raven Ridge has a 99% chance of having a single Zen module. With that amount of GPU power (<460) the CPU makes little difference, 2C/4T Zen should be enough to never bottleneck a 11 CU iGPU. Even if the CPU was 4C/4T running at just 3GHz it would basically never bottleneck a 470.


why is it that you speak as if gaming is the only thing a PC could do.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tojara*
> 
> With DDR4 3200 and memory compression the GPU should be as powerful as a 750 ti.


sounds great, 750Ti is plenty for watching movies and running photoshop.


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> process improvement (14nm+), speedshift+, optane, and native 4K HEVC decoding.
> https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/microarchitectures/kaby_lake
> 
> i'm talking about skylake vs kabylake, and not Ryzen vs Kabylake.
> simply put, Kabylake is way better than Skylake, it makes Skylake look like some premature baby..


You left out same ipc as skylake, and 10x more performance/watt over nehalem. Nehalem being introduced in 2008 so rounding near 10 years old compare. So its cool to release the same product with a few almost meaningless tweaks and same ipc from last release. They nailed it alright....

Good to know where people stand on things like this. Amazing the free pass intel/nvidia get on things like this...


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> You left out same ipc as skylake, and 10x more performance/watt over nehalem. Nehalem being introduced in 2008 so rounding near 10 years old compare. So its cool to release the same product with a few almost meaningless tweaks and same ipc from last release.


like i said, kabylake is an improved version of skylake, just by the fact that they can "improve" skylake means skylake was lacking to begin with.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> They nailed it alright....


they definitely did, for one Kabylake supports optane out of the box unlike Skylake.
they also managed to make it clock higher than Skylake did.
furthermore Kabylake supports higher DDR4 clock speed out of the box, i don't even get why Skylake only supported 2133Mhz.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> Good to know where people stand on things like this. Amazing the free pass intel/nvidia get on things like this...


i'm not quite sure where you're getting with this, AMD haven't even released their chips yet.
you simply can't appraise something that doesn't exist you know.

well anyway i give up.


----------



## czin125

Shouldn't you be wanting higher instructions per second ( total ) vs instructions per clock ( doesn't mean anything if it can't clock very high )

IPC changes if you include ram.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *czin125*
> 
> Shouldn't you be wanting higher instructions per second ( total ) vs instructions per clock ( doesn't mean anything if it can't clock very high )
> 
> IPC changes if you include ram.


well yeah, it'll depend on how far Ryzen can clock though.

skylake and kabylake already clocks well over 4.5Ghz so they're fine as it is.
but Ryzen has a bit lower IPC than skylake uarch, so unless it can also clock to well over 4.5Ghz i don't see them surpassing skylake uarch at the same core count.

which then points to the part where Ryzen is supposedly much cheaper than intels, this might be a hint at how far Ryzen can OC.
their 8core chips might be able to OC to 4.2Ghz easily, but hitting 4.5Ghz or higher may be too much to ask with a casual cooler setup.
with this in mind, one must remember that single-thread performance matters more than simple raw core count.

this gets further painted with the alleged firestrike "leak", i7-6800K (broadwell 6C/12T) @ 4.2Ghz scored way too close to Ryzen 8C/16T @ 4.0Ghz.


----------



## LancerVI

Optane????

So for now, it's 16GB or 32GB modules for caching like a Hybrid SSD/HDD drive setup up on the mobo?

That's not revolutionary in the least. Not yet at least.

Don't get me wrong. Kabylake is pretty nice, but I would hardly list Optane as a serious selling point yet.


----------



## Power Drill

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> They did? I thought skylake=kabylake.... explain how intel nailed it
> 
> 
> 
> process improvement (14nm+), speedshift+, optane, and native 4K HEVC decoding.
> https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/microarchitectures/kaby_lake
> 
> i'm talking about skylake vs kabylake, and not Ryzen vs Kabylake.
> simply put, Kabylake is way better than Skylake, it makes Skylake look like some premature baby.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Tojara*
> 
> Raven Ridge has a 99% chance of having a single Zen module. With that amount of GPU power (<460) the CPU makes little difference, 2C/4T Zen should be enough to never bottleneck a 11 CU iGPU. Even if the CPU was 4C/4T running at just 3GHz it would basically never bottleneck a 470.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why is it that you speak as if gaming is the only thing a PC could do.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Tojara*
> 
> With DDR4 3200 and memory compression the GPU should be as powerful as a 750 ti.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sounds great, 750Ti is plenty for watching movies and running photoshop.
Click to expand...

Like dagged said, meaningless improvements that I'm sure they could have brought from the start, but why do it when thay can milk people like you by introducing the same thing over and over again.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LancerVI*
> 
> Optane????
> 
> So for now, it's 16GB or 32GB modules for caching like a Hybrid SSD/HDD drive setup up on the mobo?
> 
> That's not revolutionary in the least. Not yet at least.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. Kabylake is pretty nice, but I would hardly list Optane as a serious selling point yet.


the same could be said when DDR4 first came out didn't it?
clock speed below 2800Mhz, latency above CL15, furthermore price more expensive than DDR3.
back then you could buy DDR3 with clock speed above 2800Mhz and latency around CL13.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Power Drill*
> 
> Like dagged said, meaningless improvements that I'm sure they could have brought from the start, but why do it when thay can milk people like you by introducing the same thing over and over again.


thats exactly what i'm saying, Skylake is premature.
i'm not even sure why you're agreeing with dagget.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> like i said, kabylake is an improved version of skylake, just by the fact that they can "improve" skylake means skylake was lacking to begin with.
> they definitely did, for one Kabylake supports optane out of the box unlike Skylake.
> they also managed to make it clock higher than Skylake did.
> furthermore Kabylake supports higher DDR4 clock speed out of the box, i don't even get why Skylake only supported 2133Mhz.


Improved by a miniscule amount.

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_6700k/
http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_7700k/

Average overclock improved by 2.8%, and Skylake was already at parity with Haswell Refresh. There was nothing wrong with Skylake either, the process just got a little better so the refresh gets a small clock bump. I can't imagine how you came to the conclusion that there was a problem with Skylake.

Are you arguing that it would have been sensible to wait an extra year for a 3% increase in clock speed?

Optane isn't even out yet and probably won't be for another year or so, way longer for anything with useful storage capacity.

Z170 boards exist and overclock to support DDR4-4000+ just fine. DDR4-2400 is still a pathetic limit for non-overclocking boards.

The new graphics stuff is nice, but most people don't need that either. There's no problem with re-releasing it, but "nailed it" is not the term I'd use. If anything, Skylake "nailed it" and Kaby is just slightly more refined.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> Improved by a miniscule amount.
> 
> http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_6700k/
> http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_7700k/
> 
> Average overclock improved by 2.8%, and Skylake was already at parity with Haswell Refresh. There was nothing wrong with Skylake either, the process just got a little better so the refresh gets a small clock bump. I can't imagine how you came to the conclusion that there was a problem with Skylake.
> 
> Optane isn't even out yet and probably won't be for another year or so, way longer for anything with useful storage capacity.
> 
> Z170 boards exist and overclock to support DDR4-4000+ just fine. DDR4-2400 is still a pathetic limit for non-overclocking boards.
> 
> The new graphics stuff is nice, but most people don't need that either.


every bit of clock speed improvement counts, specially so for locked chips, no? yes?

having support for Optane is much better than having no support for Optane.

DDR4-2400 is much better than the pathetic DDR4-2133, not everyone owns overclocking boards.

it is quite nice, HW decoding of HEVC made low-end chips even more worth it, specially when kaby's pentium has hyperthreading.

wait, why am i replying to this same thing again?


----------



## LancerVI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> every bit of clock speed improvement counts, specially so for locked chips, no? yes?
> 
> having support for Optane is much better than having no support for Optane.
> 
> DDR4-2400 is much better than the pathetic DDR4-2133, not everyone owns overclocking boards.
> 
> it is quite nice, HW decoding of HEVC made low-end chips even more worth it, specially when kaby's pentium has hyperthreading.


Who's going to use Optane??

How many people actually use iGPU here? Seriously?

Clock gains are certainly an improvement, but nothing great at the end of the day. It's a soup'ed up sky, which is a soup'd up....well you get the point.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LancerVI*
> 
> Who's going to use Optane??
> 
> How many people actually use iGPU here? Seriously?
> 
> Clock gains are certainly an improvement, but nothing great at the end of the day. It's a soup'ed up sky, which is a soup'd up....well you get the point.


potentially everyone on OCN?

more like who doesn't? HW decoding can be selected via media player, speeds up decoding and frees up resources for the more beefier renderer (MadVR).

i do, but you don't seem to get mine, my point is kabylake should've been what skylake is, skylake shouldn't have existed.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> well yeah, it'll depend on how far Ryzen can clock though.
> 
> skylake and kabylake already clocks well over 4.5Ghz so they're fine as it is.
> but Ryzen has a bit lower IPC than skylake uarch, so unless it can also clock to well over 4.5Ghz i don't see them surpassing skylake uarch at the same core count.
> 
> which then points to the part where Ryzen is supposedly much cheaper than intels, this might be a hint at how far Ryzen can OC.
> their 8core chips might be able to OC to 4.2Ghz easily, but hitting 4.5Ghz or higher may be too much to ask with a casual cooler setup.
> with this in mind, one must remember that single-thread performance matters more than simple raw core count.
> 
> this gets further painted with the alleged firestrike "leak", i7-6800K (broadwell 6C/12T) @ 4.2Ghz scored way too close to Ryzen 8C/16T @ 4.0Ghz.


Did the definition of good overclocking change?

A 7700k is 4.2ghz. How is over 4.5ghz good? That's 300+mhz.

That doesnt seem great me.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> every bit of clock speed improvement counts, specially so for locked chips, no? yes?
> 
> having support for Optane is much better than having no support for Optane.
> 
> DDR4-2400 is much better than the pathetic DDR4-2133, not everyone owns overclocking boards.
> 
> it is quite nice, HW decoding of HEVC made low-end chips even more worth it, specially when kaby's pentium has hyperthreading.


It counts for whatever the increase is, which is around 5% across the board. Given that the two overclock on average to within 3% of each other, it's likely that Intel was holding locked Skylake back a bit anyway in case they wanted to make their "optimization" step look a bit more impressive.

Who has any use for 32GB Optane drives? That's all that's on the horizon, and it looks more like an early adopter curiosity than anything useful.

DDR4-2400 is barely any less pathetic than DDR4-2133. It's nice, but it's another incremental improvement. If memory speed is a priority, you get a Z170/Z270 board.

The hyperthreaded Pentium was nice, but there's no reason there couldn't be a Skylake one. Sure the HEVC decoding is good to have, because then you have it, but it's hardly a selling point.

There's nothing wrong with Kaby Lake, but there's also nothing wrong with Skylake. Kaby Lake is a year newer and it has some mild new features. Is that really shattering your expectations? You really think they should have been releasing Skylake just now?


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Did the definition of good overclocking change?
> 
> A 7700k is 4.2ghz. How is over 4.5ghz good? That's 300+mhz.
> 
> That doesnt seem great me.


i'll be borrowing pyrotagonist's post.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_6700k/
> http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_7700k/


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> It counts for whatever the increase is, which is around 5% across the board. Given that the two overclock on average to within 3% of each other, it's likely that Intel was holding locked Skylake back a bit anyway in case they wanted to make their "optimization" step look a bit more impressive.
> 
> Who has any use for 32GB Optane drives? That's all that's on the horizon, and it looks more like an early adopter curiosity than anything useful.
> 
> DDR4-2400 is barely any less pathetic than DDR4-2133. It's nice, but it's another incremental improvement. If memory speed is a priority, you get a Z170/Z270 board.
> 
> The hyperthreaded Pentium was nice, but there's no reason there couldn't be a Skylake one. Sure the HEVC decoding is good to have, because then you have it, but it's hardly a selling point.


that. is. exactly. what. i'm. saying.

kabylake should've been what skylake is.

are you guys so blind-sided by crooked values where you all simply dismiss even a little improvement as nothing but trash?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> There's nothing wrong with Kaby Lake, but there's also nothing wrong with Skylake. Kaby Lake is a year newer and it has some mild new features. Is that really shattering your expectations?


if you take note of what CPU i'm using, yes my expectations was shattered by seeing how much better it would've been if i waited for kaby lake.
for one, i'm aiming for locked chips, and when i look at locked chip's base clocks, i see 200Mhz better clocks.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> i'll be borrowing pyrotagonist's post.
> 
> that. is. exactly. what. i'm. saying.
> 
> kabylake should've been what skylake is.
> 
> are you guys so blind-sided by crooked values where you all simply dismiss even a little improvement as nothing but trash?


I consider a little improvement as a little improvement. I don't consider it as a sensible reason for holding back an entire architecture for a year and half. It's not even remotely worth that, and I have no idea why it means that Skylake wasn't ready. You think Intel should have let their 14nm fabs sit around for a year and half until we could get Optane support, 5% higher clock speeds and DDR4-2400 support in the chips? What?


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> I consider a little improvement as a little improvement. I don't consider it as a sensible reason for holding back an entire architecture for a year and half. It's not even remotely worth that, and I have no idea why it means that Skylake wasn't ready.


we don't even know whether kaby lake was or wasn't ready back then, for all we know intel may have just posponed it for the sake of launching their initial chips.

plus, it didn't even matter whether skylake launched 1~2years later, Ryzen wouldn't even be launched by then.
i mean look at when broadwell launched june 2015, where as skylake launched august 2015, it hadn't even a full year before they released skylake.
it would've been better if they had let broadwell sink in first before they released skylake at it's best state.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> You think Intel should have let their 14nm fabs sit around for a year and half until we could get Optane support, 5% higher clock speeds and DDR4-2400 support in the chips? What?


i find it more sensible that they get 14nm fixed (14nm+) first before they release their new uarch, and let the previous uarch live for at least a year.
and you talk as if intel hadn't delayed their next chips for the sake of fixing things up, look at the gap between Haswell (2013) and broadwell (2015) release.

furthermore, broadwell is 14nm, their fabs would be fine with broadwell in production.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> It's not bad at all, but it (and X79) are beginning to show their age. Two more cores, four more threads, better performance, and a new platform all add up to a nice upgrade from SB-e.


Especially for ~$350. Its the same thing I'm thinking about with regards to my 4930K X79 setup. Sure my rig still does everything I need it to do and more to this day but if Ryzen is as competitive as it appears it would be hard to not go for the shiny shiny especially when the cash outlay is so low...


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> we don't even know whether kaby lake was or wasn't ready back then, for all we know intel may have just posponed it for the sake of launching their initial chips.
> 
> plus, it didn't even matter whether skylake launched 1~2years later, Ryzen wouldn't even be launched by then.
> i mean look at when broadwell launched june 2015, where as skylake launched august 2015, it hadn't even a full year before they released skylake.
> it would've been better if they had let broadwell sink in first before they released skylake at it's best state.
> i find it more sensible that they get 14nm fixed (14nm+) first before they release their new uarch, and let the previous uarch live for at least a year.
> and you talk as if intel hadn't delayed their next chips for the sake of fixing things up, look at the gap between Haswell (2013) and broadwell (2015) release.
> 
> furthermore, broadwell is 14nm, their fabs would be fine with broadwell in production.


For all we know, they didn't do that. That's pure speculation.

It would have mattered to people who wanted improved CPU performance if Skylake hadn't launched a year and a half ago. Broadwell seemed not to be really aimed at the mass market for whatever reason, probably because it was more of a low power design (poor clock speeds) and a bit of testbed for stuff like eDRAM and Iris Pro updates, with only very mild CPU arch improvements over Haswell. Haswell had been around for long enough, and needed to be replaced by a real, new high performance updated architecture. Broadwell wasn't and isn't that, while Skylake is.

I don't understand why you believe 14nm was broken or not ready. Sure, a year later, they were able to improve it 10%. If anything, that means that there wasn't much left to improve. Everything improves over time, how long do we wait? Consumers wouldn't have been happy being stuck on Haswell an extra year and a half in exchange for 10% better efficiency and 5% better clock speeds at launch, and it doesn't make sense for Intel either.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> It would have mattered to people who wanted improved CPU performance if Skylake hadn't launched a year and a half ago. Broadwell seemed not to be really aimed at the mass market for whatever reason, probably because it was more of a low power design (poor clock speeds) and a bit of testbed for stuff like L4 cache, with only very mild arch improvements over Haswell. Haswell had been around for long enough, and needed to be replaced by a real, new high performance updated architecture. Broadwell wasn't and isn't that, while Skylake is.
> 
> I don't understand why you believe 14nm was broken or not ready. Sure, a year later, they were able to improve it 10%. If anything, that means that there wasn't much left to improve.


broadwell isn't that flat, look at HEDT broadwell.

14nm wasn't ready, why else do you think broadwell was delayed for a full 2years?

you know they could've kept their tick-tock cycle if they just switched to 2year-interval for architectural releases.
and they could still keep the yearly releases by staggering HEDT and mainstream.
2013 (haswell mainstream)
2014 (haswell HEDT)
2015 (broadwell mainstream)
2016 (broadwell HEDT)
2017 (skylake mainstream)
2018 (skylake HEDT)
2019 (cannonlake mainstream)
etc.

now we have what, skylake, kabylake, coffeelake? 10nm is delayed due to issues so we wouldn't be getting anything from it anytime soon.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> Everything improves over time, how long do we wait? Consumers wouldn't have been happy being stuck on Haswell an extra year and a half in exchange for 10% better efficiency and 5% better clock speeds at launch, and it doesn't make sense for Intel either.


i'd say the same with skylake and cannonlake.
how long do we have to stay on skylake before we get the ever delayed cannonlake?
nobody in their sensible mind would side-grade to kaby or coffee from a skylake either.
they're literally stuck with skylake for a long, long while.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

If BD had never been a thing and a Ryzen-analog had come out instead back in 2011 then Intel wouldn't have gotten away with these pitiful incremental increases the last 6 years. Kaby Lake would be far faster than it is today for instance. There's no question that Intel has rested on their CPU laurels, coasting through releases since SB because there was no other competition than their previous CPU's to contend with. Now with a competitive AMD we might finally get to see Intel get off their butts and release the next SB. I just hope AMD can somehow keep up this time around.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> If BD had never been a thing and a Ryzen-analog had come out instead back in 2011 then Intel wouldn't have gotten away with these pitiful incremental increases the last 6 years. Kaby Lake would be far faster than it is today for instance. There's no question that Intel has rested on their CPU laurels, coasting through releases since SB because there was no other competition than their previous CPU's to contend with. Now with a competitive AMD we might finally get to see Intel get off their butts and release the next SB. I just hope AMD can somehow keep up this time around.


for now i'd be happy if the price gouging settles to a reasonable point.

Ryzen is the right weapon for this, though i wouldn't say Ryzen would be enough to topple Intel either.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> i'll be borrowing pyrotagonist's post.
> 
> that. is. exactly. what. i'm. saying.
> 
> kabylake should've been what skylake is.
> 
> are you guys so blind-sided by crooked values where you all simply dismiss even a little improvement as nothing but trash?
> if you take note of what CPU i'm using, yes my expectations was shattered by seeing how much better it would've been if i waited for kaby lake.
> for one, i'm aiming for locked chips, and when i look at locked chip's base clocks, i see 200Mhz better clocks.


Maybe if you're aiming for locked chips, you should stop posting on *Over*clock.net


----------



## czin125

If you look at the max frequency for all core turbo, 6700K is only 200mhz for a single core but Kabylake is 200mhz for all cores
4.2->4.4 all core turbo


----------



## rage fuury

Ryzen 1600X CPU-Z BenchMark (supposed)

http://imgur.com/a/2TCUl
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5ul5yt/ryzen_1600x_cpuz_benchmark/


----------



## Mahigan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rage fuury*
> 
> Ryzen 1600X CPU-Z BenchMark (supposed)
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/2TCUl
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5ul5yt/ryzen_1600x_cpuz_benchmark/


Yeah... more here: http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-benchmark-leak/

Not sure what RAM they used but according to tests folks were doing on their Skylake CPUs in the comment section... the RyZen 1600x is an IPC match to Skylake.

This is all unconfirmed of course and this could be fake.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> Yeah... more here: http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-benchmark-leak/
> 
> Not sure what RAM they used but according to tests folks were doing on their Skylake CPUs in the comment section... the RyZen 1600x is an IPC match to Skylake.
> 
> This is all unconfirmed of course and this could be fake.


Is this a good score?


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Is this a good score?


Yep, now all it need is to match KBL frequencies and we have an awesome chip from AMD.

if it can give same performance as cpu-z bench on all other apps.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *rage fuury*
> 
> Ryzen 1600X CPU-Z BenchMark (supposed)
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/2TCUl
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5ul5yt/ryzen_1600x_cpuz_benchmark/
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... more here: http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-benchmark-leak/
> 
> Not sure what RAM they used but according to tests folks were doing on their Skylake CPUs in the comment section... the RyZen 1600x is an IPC match to Skylake.
> 
> This is all unconfirmed of course and this could be fake.
Click to expand...



Admittedly my OS is a little bloated and running chrome in the background but I'm slightly optimistic


----------



## Newbie2009

Colour me impressed


----------



## teh-yeti

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> 3.4ghz is not the overall package though.


Yeah, but we still don't know the full package. Overclocking is still generally unknown. For a 3.4 GHz part, it does pretty well. We'll see about the rest.


----------



## teh-yeti

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> like i said, kabylake is an improved version of skylake, just by the fact that they can "improve" skylake means skylake was lacking to begin with.
> they definitely did, for one Kabylake supports optane out of the box unlike Skylake.
> they also managed to make it clock higher than Skylake did.
> furthermore Kabylake supports higher DDR4 clock speed out of the box, i don't even get why Skylake only supported 2133Mhz.
> i'm not quite sure where you're getting with this, AMD haven't even released their chips yet.
> you simply can't appraise something that doesn't exist you know.
> 
> well anyway i give up.


Don't worry, I see where you're coming from. I agree. Intel did well with Kaby Lake, but Kaby Lake is what I think Skylake should have been. Maybe if Intel wasn't releasing products at such a quick pace, they'd have some time to nail some other features, like optane.

Looking purely at Kaby though, I certainly still have my reservations. Having the 4K decoder is great, but limiting the technology to the i5 and i7 line is unnecessary segmentation I believe. Pentiums and i3's aren't to spec with 4K Blu-ray, which is frustrating because putting a 7700 in an HTPC just seems... illogical.

There are probably other gripes I may have, but I agree that Kaby Lake was in fact a cool product. Intel done did good.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Maybe if you're aiming for locked chips, you should stop posting on *Over*clock.net


this never gets old, does it?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *teh-yeti*
> 
> Looking purely at Kaby though, I certainly still have my reservations. Having the 4K decoder is great, but limiting the technology to the i5 and i7 line is unnecessary segmentation I believe. Pentiums and i3's aren't to spec with 4K Blu-ray, which is frustrating because putting a 7700 in an HTPC just seems... illogical.


actually all kaby chips supports it?
HD610 on G4560 and HD630 on G4620 supports native fixed function HEVC/VP9 decoding for 4K playback at 60fps (10-bit) as well as fixed function HEVC/VP9 encoding for 4K (8-bit).


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> 
> 
> Admittedly my OS is a little bloated and running chrome in the background but I'm slightly optimistic


Haswell for comparison



Sandybridge


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> 
> 
> Admittedly my OS is a little bloated and running chrome in the background but I'm slightly optimistic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haswell for comparison
Click to expand...

My score was junk, no idea whats going on there but anyway, WCCF added comparison graphs so I updated this over here: http://www.overclock.net/t/1623472/wccf-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-z-benchmark/0_50#post_25850446


----------



## Newbie2009

This one is pretty close on single thread, but the 5820k is about 1 GHZ higher clocked.

 

I'm not sure how reliable this GPUZ benchmark is, that looks like a low score for 4.8GHZ Haswell.


----------



## teh-yeti

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> this never gets old, does it?
> actually all kaby chips supports it?
> HD610 on G4560 and HD630 on G4620 supports native fixed function HEVC/VP9 decoding for 4K playback at 60fps (10-bit) as well as fixed function HEVC/VP9 encoding for 4K (8-bit).


My bad then. I was aware of the HEVC support, but I was under the impression that only the iGPUs on the i5 and i7 line were HDCP compliant, hence the Blu-ray specific comment. If not it's just one less potential gripe.


----------



## Newwt

"How fast is Ryzen?"


----------



## DADDYDC650

https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/5ukybd/came_across_this_at_work_today/


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/5ukybd/came_across_this_at_work_today/


That's the highest end chip afaik? Under 500 bucks..


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/5ukybd/came_across_this_at_work_today/
> 
> 
> 
> That's the highest end chip afaik? Under 500 bucks..
Click to expand...

Yep, that's the top end.......this gonna be gud


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Yep, that's the top end.......this gonna be gud


http://www.overclock.net/t/1623472/wccf-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-z-benchmark/80#post_25850992


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Yep, that's the top end.......this gonna be gud
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1623472/wccf-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-z-benchmark/80#post_25850992
Click to expand...

Am already looking at anandtech trying to find it


----------



## DADDYDC650




----------



## FLCLimax

aww yeah.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Yep, that's the top end.......this gonna be gud
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1623472/wccf-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-z-benchmark/80#post_25850992
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Am already looking at anandtech trying to find it
Click to expand...

Found it btw: http://www.overclock.net/t/1623472/wccf-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-z-benchmark/50_50#post_25851015


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Found it btw: http://www.overclock.net/t/1623472/wccf-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-z-benchmark/50_50#post_25851015


Good man,on mobile so couldn't be bothered looking


----------



## Hequaqua

I found this via Guru3D and then Reddit.

I guess this guy has won some OC competitions, Alva "Lucky_n00b" Jonathan.

Here is a supposed pic of him reacting to Ryzen:



He later confirmed this...your guess is as good as mine though if true or not.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5ulmff/alva_lucky_n00b_jonathan_reaction_on_his_fb_for/


----------



## Mahigan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> I found this via Guru3D and then Reddit.
> 
> I guess this guy has won some OC competitions, Alva "Lucky_n00b" Jonathan.
> 
> Here is a supposed pic of him reacting to Ryzen:
> 
> 
> 
> He later confirmed this...your guess is as good as mine though if true or not.
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5ulmff/alva_lucky_n00b_jonathan_reaction_on_his_fb_for/


So RyZen overclocks well...

Is that what this is insinuating?


----------



## Hequaqua

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> So RyZen overclocks well...
> 
> Is that what this is insinuating?


Yes, Skor Tinggi=High Score.

Of course, there are some saying, "The look on your face when you fry the first Ryzen chip."









It say's he posted this on his FB page. I mean, he seems to be pretty well known in the OC circle. So, his reputation would be a little on the line.

Again, who knows. I found it a bit humorous, with maybe a bit of truth involved.


----------



## FLCLimax

BD clock to 5Ghz tho.


----------



## Hequaqua

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> BD clock to 5Ghz tho.


OK.

I'm not sure what that has to do with Ryzen though.


----------



## Hequaqua

Don't take that the wrong way...just trying to see your point.

EDIT: I meant to post this in my response as a edit....I messed it up somehow, and made a new post.


----------



## Vesku

My guess is they are reacting to XFR results after putting some ln2 on a Ryzen CPU.


----------



## Hequaqua

They could have been watching America's Got Talent(Joking).

We just don't know.....

Sorry for my twisted humor. Not enough coffee or sleep.


----------



## ducegt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vesku*
> 
> My guess is they are reacting to XFR results after putting some ln2 on a Ryzen CPU.


And its likely high clocks not stable enough to compete a workload.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *teh-yeti*
> 
> Yeah, but we still don't know the full package. Overclocking is still generally unknown. For a 3.4 GHz part, it does pretty well. We'll see about the rest.


Who doesn't know the full package? It is all over the internet. 3.7ghz to 4.0ghz


----------



## rexolaboy

http://m.imgur.com/a/sWdoM

Supposed r7-1800x stock


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rexolaboy*
> 
> http://m.imgur.com/a/sWdoM
> 
> Supposed r7-1800x stock cpuz score.
> 
> R5-1400x
> 
> http://m.imgur.com/a/yM9l4


Source?


----------



## teh-yeti

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Who doesn't know the full package? It is all over the internet. 3.7ghz to 4.0ghz


So are you implying that Ryzen chips will not clock over 4.0GHz? Can you tell me what the average overclock will be for every 1700X and 1800X? As for everything on the internet, they're leaks and rumors. These are great for getting a general picture, but exacts will come when the NDA is lifted. Let's just hold our horses and wait a week or two to draw final conclusions. Everything we've been discussing has been in regards to say a 7700K and a 1700X or something along those lines. It's okay to say "I want to hang on to my 7700K because it's running at 5.0GHz". We wouldn't want to say "well, the 1700X is better because it gets x score in x benchmark at x.xGHz clockspeed, which is basically a guaranteed overclock". There are just some things that we don't know yet, and that's okay. We will find out soon what the entire picture is. That's all that I'm saying.


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Who doesn't know the full package? It is all over the internet. 3.7ghz to 4.0ghz


That's stock, within-TDP turbo speeds. You can bet your balls it goes higher than that and I guarantee you will not lose them.


----------



## TokenBC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rexolaboy*
> 
> http://m.imgur.com/a/sWdoM
> 
> Supposed r7-1800x stock cpuz score.
> 
> R5-1400x
> 
> http://m.imgur.com/a/yM9l4


R5 1400X is faked. That's Skylake, look at the L2 cache.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *teh-yeti*
> 
> So are you implying that Ryzen chips will not clock over 4.0GHz? Can you tell me what the average overclock will be for every 1700X and 1800X? As for everything on the internet, they're leaks and rumors. These are great for getting a general picture, but exacts will come when the NDA is lifted. Let's just hold our horses and wait a week or two to draw final conclusions. Everything we've been discussing has been in regards to say a 7700K and a 1700X or something along those lines. It's okay to say "I want to hang on to my 7700K because it's running at 5.0GHz". We wouldn't want to say "well, the 1700X is better because it gets x score in x benchmark at x.xGHz clockspeed, which is basically a guaranteed overclock". There are just some things that we don't know yet, and that's okay. We will find out soon what the entire picture is. That's all that I'm saying.


No I'm saying we know the stock package.

Did you really need to reply with a 3 paragraphs? Lol


----------



## teh-yeti

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> No I'm saying we know the stock package.
> 
> Did you really need to reply with a 3 paragraphs? Lol


Yes. Short responses haven't portrayed my points accurately. I apologize.


----------



## rexolaboy

Totally saw that after i looked again. Sorry about that.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Just ran the CPU-z bench at stock on my 6 year old 2600K with 1600MHz DDR3 and this is what I got:



If the leak is true, Ryzen straight pummels SB...


----------



## SuperZan

3930k with 4.6GHz turbo OC. Whatever else Ryzen is, it is certainly going to be an upgrade for me. X79 has been good to me, but it's starting to feel its years and the price looks to be very right on Ryzen.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rexolaboy*
> 
> http://m.imgur.com/a/sWdoM
> 
> Supposed r7-1800x stock


No way... I get 2083 with my 6800k @4.3Ghz and RAM @3200Mhz CAS 14....


----------



## artemis2307

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> Ya and now days alot of the games are using 80% + cpu even on our 4790k's. And just like you said some like 4000mhz ddr4 would be such a nice upgrade with an 8 core cpu. I been wanting an 8 core also but im not paying 1000+ dollars for it.


depends on the game and devs
good optimized games like GTAV, BF1 or Mirror's edge catalyst have my 1231v3 at 6x-8x% usage constantly
so anyone saying 2 cores 4 threads for gaming is enough I'll just laugh at them


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *artemis2307*
> 
> depends on the game and devs
> good optimized games like GTAV, BF1 or Mirror's edge catalyst have my 1231v3 at 6x-8x% usage constantly
> so anyone saying 2 cores 4 threads for gaming is enough I'll just laugh at them


Enough for gaming is pretty vague and that's what misleads people when talking about a CPU being "enough"

For 30 fps gaming you're not going to have much trouble with a 2 core 4 thread CPU providing it's clocked at 3.5GHz+

For 60 fps gaming a 4 thread CPU is okay, but a 4 core 8 thread processor would be ideal as more games are scaling to 4+ threads.

For 120+ fps gaming a 4 core 8 thread would be good, but a 6+ core CPU would be ideal for the future.



I'm glad to see AMD making such a huge comeback, hopefully people really can look towards getting a 4 core 8 thread CPU without spending over $200 for one.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Enough for gaming is pretty vague and that's what misleads people when talking about a CPU being "enough"
> 
> For 30 fps gaming you're not going to have much trouble with a 2 core 4 thread CPU providing it's clocked at 3.5GHz+
> 
> For 60 fps gaming a 4 thread CPU is okay, but a 4 core 8 thread processor would be ideal as more games are scaling to 4+ threads.
> 
> For 120+ fps gaming a 4 core 8 thread would be good, but a 6+ core CPU would be ideal for the future.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad to see AMD making such a huge comeback, hopefully people really can look towards getting a 4 core 8 thread CPU without spending over $200 for one.


At 720p with a 1080, it's kind of a waste of money to buy such powerful hardware, the bench was made to have CPU limit. At 1080p and above with the midrange $250ish GPUs the importance of a beefy CPU for games almost vanishes beyond a fast 4C/4T. Gotta be CPU core limited in games to see an improvement and truth be told most game engines run their best when "GPU limited" with a preset in game FPS cap as such there is no CPU or GPU limitation, no added crap prerendered frame delays in driver etc. Most won't even scale beyond 4 threads, it's getting "better" though with newer titles.

I would certainly pick up an 1700, the cheapest 8 core and OC it if I was building a new machine. It's what the FX 83xx should have been.

Ryzen might stomp on Intel CPUs in some workloads especially multithreaded but single threaded hopefully it will be around HW/BW which is not far behind SL/KL. Clocks and max performance after OC will decide for some. I would put the AMD line up between Intel 4core and 6+core lines, sort of a mix of both worlds on a single platform where as Intel segmented it into 4C max and 6C min with different features and prices. With AMD it shouldn't matter if one drops in a 4C or 8C it will hopefully work fine on all boards and chipsets, providing a better upgrade path for initial low budget systems.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *artemis2307*
> 
> depends on the game and devs
> good optimized games like GTAV, BF1 or Mirror's edge catalyst have my 1231v3 at 6x-8x% usage constantly
> so anyone saying 2 cores 4 threads for gaming is enough I'll just laugh at them


Ya i been playing bf1 this week and it just pounds my cpu. So even a 4 core 8 thread is getting to the point were its not enough. Im guessing an 6 or 8 core could net better performance even with slightly lower single thread.


----------



## DADDYDC650

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-8-core-benchmarks/


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-8-core-benchmarks/


I thought we saw these before.


----------



## jasjeet

Seems like intels boat is about to be rocked.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Just sold my 6800k. AMD, here I come! I've missed you oh so much!









1700x or 1800x? Hmmm....


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Just sold my 6800k. AMD, here I come! I've missed you oh so much!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1700x or 1800x? Hmmm....


Damn, now that's a leap of faith if ever I saw one....


----------



## SuperZan

I know, right? I thought I was living on the edge by selling off my X79 platform, though of course Ryzen is almost certainly going to be better than SB-e.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> I know, right? I thought I was living on the edge by selling off my X79 platform, though of course Ryzen is almost certainly going to be better than SB-e.


Well I've already sold my 6700k, just waiting on Ryzen to come in so the one I'm currently using can go back to the (ex)wife.

So much waiting......


----------



## CriticalOne

I have an Haswell Core i3. I am counting down the days until Ryzen launches.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Well I've already sold my 6700k, just waiting on Ryzen to come in so the one I'm currently using can go back to the (ex)wife.
> 
> So much waiting......


Their 8 core should be at least just as fast as the 6800k according to leaks and I want those 2 extra cores. I'll sit on a 1700x/1800x for 2-3 years. Plus my favorite number is 8.









I've been wanting to go AMD since the Athlon XP 2800 and I'm eager to support them.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Well I've already sold my 6700k, just waiting on Ryzen to come in so the one I'm currently using can go back to the (ex)wife.
> 
> So much waiting......
> 
> 
> 
> Their 8 core should be at least just as fast as the 6800k according to leaks and I want those 2 extra cores. I'll sit on a 1700x/1800x for 2-3 years. Plus my favorite number is 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been wanting to go AMD since the Athlon XP 2800 and I'm eager to support them.
Click to expand...

I'll be the same, my main rig will be rocking a Ryzen 8 core for quite some time









8 is my favourite number too! this is weird.....


----------



## finalheaven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Their 8 core should be at least just as fast as the 6800k according to leaks and I want those 2 extra cores. I'll sit on a 1700x/1800x for 2-3 years. Plus my favorite number is 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been wanting to go AMD since the Athlon XP 2800 and I'm eager to support them.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> I'll be the same, my main rig will be rocking a Ryzen 8 core for quite some time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8 is my favourite number too! this is weird.....


Doesn't this mean you guys should obviously both get the 1800X? And not the 1700X?


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Their 8 core should be at least just as fast as the 6800k according to leaks and I want those 2 extra cores. I'll sit on a 1700x/1800x for 2-3 years. Plus my favorite number is 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been wanting to go AMD since the Athlon XP 2800 and I'm eager to support them.


I know that feeling. I'll almost certainly be buying more than one chip. I could see redoing the HTPC with the 4/4 Ryzen, maybe move my work PC from the i3 to a hexa... possibilities!


----------



## amstech

It will lower the prices of Intel's chips, finally.
Intel still has the fastest stuff, but the gap has been closed considerably.

And with newer games like Gears 4 and Overwatch taking advantage of CPU's properly, i'll be interested to see those benchmarks.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> I'll be the same, my main rig will be rocking a Ryzen 8 core for quite some time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8 is my favourite number too! this is weird.....


Doesn't this mean you guys should obviously both the 1800X? And not the 1700X?







[/quote]

pretty much yeah


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Doesn't this mean you guys should obviously both the 1800X? And not the 1700X?


1800x is just clocked higher. Why waste the money when you can do it yourself.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> pretty much yeah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1800x is just clocked higher. Why waste the money when you can do it yourself.
Click to expand...

Because it's my money?


----------



## finalheaven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> 1800x is just clocked higher. Why waste the money when you can do it yourself.


1800x may also be binned much better, resulting in much higher overclocks. Plus for those that can afford it, it's supporting competition by supporting AMD.


----------



## BulletSponge

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *finalheaven*
> 
> 1800x may also be binned much better, resulting in much higher overclocks. Plus for those that can afford it, it's supporting competition by supporting AMD.


Once we see what kind of results Silicon Lottery is getting from these chips the choice will be obvious.


----------



## finalheaven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BulletSponge*
> 
> Once we see what kind of results Silicon Lottery is getting from these chips the choice will be obvious.


Indeed. I've heard though, the best time to buy the lower clocked model is at the beginning. For instance because most people will purchase 1700 compared to 1800, they may purposefully just sell a chip as 1700 even though it is good enough to be 1800. Overtime, when they increase production for 1700 and have enough inventory, that disappears because there'll be enough chips that don't meet 1800 standards to sell. Apparently this is also why GPU's o/c extremely well in the beginning but stop later on as well.

Also historically, I believe the higher binned chips still overclock better, even if its a small 100-200mhz difference. Of course there are exceptions where a lower clocked chip clocks higher. But overall (even if it might not be worth the cost difference), the higher binned chips can reach the same clock speed at lower volts.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *finalheaven*
> 
> 1800x may also be binned much better, resulting in much higher overclocks. Plus for those that can afford it, it's supporting competition by supporting AMD.


I didn't post that....


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *finalheaven*
> 
> 1800x may also be binned much better, resulting in much higher overclocks. Plus for those that can afford it, it's supporting competition by supporting AMD.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't post that....
Click to expand...

The quotes got screwed up and weren't corrected before hitting enter.


----------



## finalheaven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> I didn't post that....


Odd. Corrected. You are getting 1800x too though I presume? Lucky number?


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

From the leaks so far i don't really see a compelling reason to buy an 1800X over the 1700X unless it OC's significantly better (which I very much doubt). 1800X would look a lot better in the sig but not $100 better! My guess is that the average max OC for both SKU's will be in the 4600-4800MHz range with high end air cooling and possibly even 5GHz with a custom loop. That may be a tad optimistic but even if Ryzen maxes out around 4.5GHz that would still be more than enough performance for me to consider dropping my 4930K and picking up a 1700X and Asus Crosshair VI.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> From the leaks so far i don't really see a compelling reason to buy an 1800X over the 1700X unless it OC's significantly better (which I very much doubt). 1800X would look a lot better in the sig but not $100 better! My guess is that the average max OC for both SKU's will be in the 4600-4800MHz range with high end air cooling and possibly even 5GHz with a custom loop. That may be a tad optimistic but even if Ryzen maxes out around 4.5GHz that would still be more than enough performance for me to consider dropping my 4930K and picking up a 1700X and Asus Crosshair VI.


All I'm gonna say is it'll be good to see some AMD CPUs in the OCN bench threads again


----------



## finalheaven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> From the leaks so far i don't really see a compelling reason to buy an 1800X over the 1700X unless it OC's significantly better (which I very much doubt). 1800X would look a lot better in the sig but not $100 better! My guess is that the average max OC for both SKU's will be in the 4600-4800MHz range with high end air cooling and possibly even 5GHz with a custom loop. That may be a tad optimistic but even if Ryzen maxes out around 4.5GHz that would still be more than enough performance for me to consider dropping my 4930K and picking up a 1700X and Asus Crosshair VI.


You may be right. It might not overclock better at all (although I think it should be able to at least hold a 100-200mhz better o/c because of the default). Then again it might hold the same clocks at lower volts. People who purchase 1800x is taking the risk as well as supporting AMD.

But how much did you pay for your hexacore 4930k? Assuming $600+? Is it not acceptable to pay $500 to support AMD for an octo-core which will also help fund competition and overall even make intel lower prices? If AMD competed back then you would have paid less.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *finalheaven*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> From the leaks so far i don't really see a compelling reason to buy an 1800X over the 1700X unless it OC's significantly better (which I very much doubt). 1800X would look a lot better in the sig but not $100 better! My guess is that the average max OC for both SKU's will be in the 4600-4800MHz range with high end air cooling and possibly even 5GHz with a custom loop. That may be a tad optimistic but even if Ryzen maxes out around 4.5GHz that would still be more than enough performance for me to consider dropping my 4930K and picking up a 1700X and Asus Crosshair VI.
> 
> 
> 
> You may be right. It might not overclock better at all (although I think it should be able to at least hold a 100-200mhz better o/c because of the default). Then again it might hold the same clocks at lower volts. People who purchase 1800x is taking the risk as well as supporting AMD.
> 
> But how much did you pay for your hexacore 4930k? Assuming $600+? Is it not acceptable to pay $500 to support AMD for an octo-core which will also help fund competition and overall even make intel lower prices? If AMD competed back then you would have paid less.
Click to expand...

4930k was cheaper than 4960x while having the same specs minus a small amount of cache, overclocking wasn't any better on the 4960x compared to the 4930k either.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *finalheaven*
> 
> You may be right. It might not overclock better at all (although I think it should be able to at least hold a 100-200mhz better o/c because of the default). Then again it might hold the same clocks at lower volts. People who purchase 1800x is taking the risk as well as supporting AMD.
> 
> But how much did you pay for your hexacore 4930k? Assuming $600+? Is it not acceptable to pay $500 to support AMD for an octo-core which will also help fund competition and overall even make intel lower prices? If AMD competed back then you would have paid less.


I never buy products to support corporations. I buy whatever is the best for my personal application at the time accounting for budget. When i bought my X79 setup I didn't have a massive child support bill so now I need to be more thrifty with my PC purchases, of which I haven't made any in a long time. The great thing about a 1700X / Crosshair VI combo is that I could likely do it with little out of pocket cost as my 4930K / RIVE would probably still get me $400 or so on Ebay.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> From the leaks so far i don't really see a compelling reason to buy an 1800X over the 1700X unless it OC's significantly better (which I very much doubt). 1800X would look a lot better in the sig but not $100 better! My guess is that the average max OC for both SKU's will be in the 4600-4800MHz range with high end air cooling and possibly even 5GHz with a custom loop. That may be a tad optimistic but even if Ryzen maxes out around 4.5GHz that would still be more than enough performance for me to consider dropping my 4930K and picking up a 1700X and Asus Crosshair VI.


I have a 4 Core version of your CPU and still not 100% about getting Zen. You also got a fantastic MB. If you dont end up spending much for the upgrade then its good upgrade.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

There's no question that I don't need to upgrade at all. My PC is still way more powerful than i need for my usage (considering I don't benchmark anymore). Even my old as dirt Titans are still capable of maintaining my 1440p monitor's 60Hz refresh rate in almost every game there is. If I were to upgrade to the 1700X it would be more for the extra cores and threads, the better efficiency of the 14nm process, and because i have never built an AMD rig before. I really doubt I'd notice much of a difference in performance in day-to-day operations (but it would give me the kick in the pants I need to gut my ancient and breaking down loop and redo it or switch back to air cooling).


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> There's no question that I don't need to upgrade at all. My PC is still way more powerful than i need for my usage (considering I don't benchmark anymore). Even my old as dirt Titans are still capable of maintaining my 1440p monitor's 60Hz refresh rate in almost every game there is. If I were to upgrade to the 1700X it would be more for the extra cores and threads, the better efficiency of the 14nm process, and because i have never built an AMD rig before. I really doubt I'd notice much of a difference in performance in day-to-day operations (but it would give me the kick in the pants I need to gut my ancient and breaking down loop and redo it or switch back to air cooling).


I am wanting to go ITX and drop Custom Loop and Full Tower. I just do not care anymore really. Much easier to upgrade a Air Cooled PC.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I spent too much $$$ on my TJ11 to ditch it now! But a switch back to air-cooling is a definite consideration as I don't have time to maintain the loop and parts are pretty expensive. If I were to go with a 1700X and there were very tangible benefits to a water setup (like 5GHz or something) then it would make that decision a bit tougher.


----------



## Niobium

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> From the leaks so far i don't really see a compelling reason to buy an 1800X over the 1700X unless it OC's significantly better (which I very much doubt). 1800X would look a lot better in the sig but not $100 better! My guess is that the average max OC for both SKU's will be in the 4600-4800MHz range with high end air cooling and possibly even 5GHz with a custom loop. That may be a tad optimistic but even if Ryzen maxes out around 4.5GHz that would still be more than enough performance for me to consider dropping my 4930K and picking up a 1700X and Asus Crosshair VI.


If the real differences between the 1700X and the 1700 non-X is only paper TDP and XFR, I don't even see much reason to get any of the X models either.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

You could be right about that...


----------



## DADDYDC650

February 28 can't come soon enough. I want official benches!


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *finalheaven*
> 
> Odd. Corrected. You are getting 1800x too though I presume? Lucky number?


I'd only get a 1800x if they are cherry picked. I can easily settle for a 1700/1700x if they clock just as high.


----------



## Hequaqua

From what I have read....read a lot...hard to keep it straight....the X parts are going to be binned. I found this on reddit...pretty in depth.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5uh3x4/overview_ryzen_cpu_am4_mainboard_lineup/?st=izc2jr5g&sh=15c81e59

Interesting to say the least.


----------



## finalheaven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> From what I have read....read a lot...hard to keep it straight....the X parts are going to be binned. I found this on reddit...pretty in depth.
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5uh3x4/overview_ryzen_cpu_am4_mainboard_lineup/?st=izc2jr5g&sh=15c81e59
> 
> Interesting to say the least.


I guessed that the X parts would definitely be binned. What have you read about the difference between the X parts though, especially 1700x vs 1800x, since they are both 8/16 cores/threads.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> From what I have read....read a lot...hard to keep it straight....the X parts are going to be binned. I found this on reddit...pretty in depth.
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5uh3x4/overview_ryzen_cpu_am4_mainboard_lineup/?st=izc2jr5g&sh=15c81e59
> 
> Interesting to say the least.


It's possible that the 1800x might be binned but there's no proof yet.


----------



## black96ws6

Made this today. Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8JLBq4xoAw

(Hitler finds out about the leaked Ryzen benchmarks







)


----------



## finalheaven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6*
> 
> Made this today. Enjoy!
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8JLBq4xoAw
> 
> (Hitler finds out about the leaked Ryzen benchmarks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


That was really funny.


----------



## sage101

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6*
> 
> Made this today. Enjoy!
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8JLBq4xoAw
> 
> (Hitler finds out about the leaked Ryzen benchmarks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )










 Well done


----------



## Hequaqua

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *finalheaven*
> 
> I guessed that the X parts would definitely be binned. What have you read about the difference between the X parts though, especially 1700x vs 1800x, since they are both 8/16 cores/threads.


From the reddit post...looks like base clocks and turbo clocks are different. Other than that I don't know. It also says right before the MB listing:

*The pricing structure makes it likely that the R7 1800X is a binned "Black Edition".*

I'm sure over this next week, we'll see more and more info, charts, rumors....


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Come on guys, don't be naive. There's no way the 1700 clocks as well as the 1800X and you'll be lucky if it matches 1700X. The 1700X has XFR like the 1800X so it stands to reason that will overclock well.

Recently I got bitten by the binned chip reality when I bought a 480 1306Mhz Nitro that didn't overclock to 1330Mhz stable. Then I bought a slightly more expensive 1340Mhz Nitro that managed to overclock to 1380Mhz stable.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> Come on guys, don't be naive. There's no way the 1700 clocks as well as the 1800X and you'll be lucky if it matches 1700X. The 1700X has XFR like the 1800X so it stands to reason that will overclock well.
> 
> Recently I got bitten by the binned chip reality when I bought a 480 1306Mhz Nitro that didn't overclock to 1330Mhz stable. Then I bought a slightly more expensive 1340Mhz Nitro that managed to overclock to 1380Mhz stable.


Got proof that the 1700 doesn't overclock as well 1700x/1800x?

BTW, not sure how you can compare Ryzen to an AMD 480 GPU that does 1320Mhz vs 1380Mhz.. That's a difference of .3 frames.


----------



## flopper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> Come on guys, don't be naive. There's no way the 1700 clocks as well as the 1800X and you'll be lucky if it matches 1700X. The 1700X has XFR like the 1800X so it stands to reason that will overclock well.
> 
> .


Love when people say "NO WAY" when having no evidence what so ever.
its like saying, no way its going to snow tomorrow and it did.

internal tests makes up how a cpu is set and we seen many times how a low end cpu clocks higher than a high end.
no way that ever did happen...


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flopper*
> 
> Love when people say "NO WAY" when having no evidence what so ever.
> its like saying, no way its going to snow tomorrow and it did.
> 
> internal tests makes up how a cpu is set and we seen many times how a low end cpu clocks higher than a high end.
> no way that ever did happen...


The same people who said no way AMDs 16 thread cpu would be under $700.

No way...


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> The same people who said no way AMDs 16 thread cpu would be under $700.
> 
> No way...


That was predictable. Intel only price things the way they do because there is no competition to be found. Prices are progressively driven up as long as sales continue. They'd eventually plateau and that's as high as they'd eventually go.

We were close to that point anyway, a 4c8t chip selling for 360€ is an absolute joke.


----------



## Hueristic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6*
> 
> Made this today. Enjoy!
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8JLBq4xoAw
> 
> (Hitler finds out about the leaked Ryzen benchmarks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


You did that? I LOVE IT!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> From the reddit post...looks like base clocks and turbo clocks are different. Other than that I don't know. It also says right before the MB listing:
> 
> *The pricing structure makes it likely that the R7 1800X is a binned "Black Edition".*
> 
> I'm sure over this next week, we'll see more and more info, charts, rumors....


Important to use Qualifiers!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> The same people who said no way AMDs 16 thread cpu would be under $700.
> 
> No way...


Yup, they never cease to amaze.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Yeah, the best evidence that the "X" models will be binned is the presence of the same features on both X and non-X SKU's but for significantly higher prices. Mind you, I'm not convinced there will be any binning at all, but the "X" chips may well be marketed as Black Editions promising higher OC's, so who knows. I'd definitely go for the 1700X over the 1700 if it were guaranteed to reach 5GHz or something like that. Then the question remains, why the $100 premium for the 1800X over the 1700X? It may be that the 1800X is the only binned, Black Edition but we just don't know.

As an aside, I really hope they do do a Black Edition in the marketing. Premium editions are just cool IMO, even when they are largely just different stickers etc from the regular SKU's (still use the black i7 sticker from my 3960X on my case, even though I switched to a 4930K).


----------



## finalheaven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Yeah, the best evidence that the "X" models will be binned is the presence of the same features on both X and non-X SKU's but for significantly higher prices. Mind you, I'm not convinced there will be any binning at all, but the "X" chips may well be marketed as Black Editions promising higher OC's, so who knows. I'd definitely go for the 1700X over the 1700 if it were guaranteed to reach 5GHz or something like that. Then the question remains, why the $100 premium for the 1800X over the 1700X? It may be that the 1800X is the only binned, Black Edition but we just don't know.
> 
> As an aside, I really hope they do do a Black Edition in the marketing. Premium editions are just cool IMO, even when they are largely just different stickers etc from the regular SKU's (still use the black i7 sticker from my 3960X on my case, even though I switched to a 4930K).


I thought binning always happened, just not to the extent where the price difference was worth it. Also, if binning didn't happen then no point at all to get even the X versions over the regular. AMD should bin though just to create the market for it including making the 1800X get the highest o/c, just as you have suggested for black edition.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *finalheaven*
> 
> I thought binning always happened, just not to the extent where the price difference was worth it. Also, if binning didn't happen then no point at all to get even the X versions over the regular. AMD should bin though just to create the market for it including making the 1800X get the highest o/c, just as you have suggested for black edition.


CPU's are binned as a matter of course, but amongst enthusiast overclockers binning refers more specifically to Silicon Lottery-type binning.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

There should not be any "Overclocking" binning going on. That adds cost.


----------



## SuperZan

One would hope. But, that's been mentioned several times with regard to the X appellation and specifically 1800X.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Yeah, the best evidence that the "X" models will be binned is the presence of the same features on both X and non-X SKU's but for significantly higher prices. Mind you, I'm not convinced there will be any binning at all, but the "X" chips may well be marketed as Black Editions promising higher OC's, so who knows. I'd definitely go for the 1700X over the 1700 if it were guaranteed to reach 5GHz or something like that. Then the question remains, why the $100 premium for the 1800X over the 1700X? It may be that the 1800X is the only binned, Black Edition but we just don't know.
> 
> As an aside, *I really hope they do do a Black Edition in the marketing. Premium editions are just cool IMO*, even when they are largely just different stickers etc from the regular SKU's (still use the black i7 sticker from my 3960X on my case, even though I switched to a 4930K).


Main reason I'm going for the 1800x. The bigger the number the better and 8 is my favorite one. Might as well give AMD my full support.


----------



## finalheaven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> There should not be any "Overclocking" binning going on. That adds cost.


So if that's true, basically the lowest 8/16 core should o/c the same as the highest? Basically 1700 (non-x) should go as high as 1800x?

Other than the features it enables like XFR, absolutely no difference in the chip itself?


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *finalheaven*
> 
> So if that's true, basically the lowest 8/16 core should o/c the same as the highest? Basically 1700 (non-x) should go as high as 1800x?
> 
> Other than the features it enables like XFR, absolutely no difference in the chip itself?


more or less, the difference is, at most, the voltage level to stay stable.

its like the OC potential of FX8320e compared to FX8350.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Ryzen porn

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-processor-pictures-final-heat-spreader-design-shown/


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Ryzen porn
> 
> http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-processor-pictures-final-heat-spreader-design-shown/


Even though I won't see it I'm happy they put Ryzen across the IHS, it's a nice touch imo


----------



## Silent Scone

Might not be legible come the time for resale if you plan on overclocking it lol.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Might not be legible come the time for resale if you plan on overclocking it lol.


Who says I'd sell it?

I still have my Athlon XP 2800+ haha


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Who says I'd sell it?
> 
> I still have my Athlon XP 2800+ haha


beastly chip


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Who says I'd sell it?
> 
> I still have my Athlon XP 2800+ haha


Nice!


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Who says I'd sell it?
> 
> I still have my Athlon XP 2800+ haha


Very cool. I have 2 2800+ chips. Although 1 died years ago.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Who says I'd sell it?
> 
> I still have my Athlon XP 2800+ haha
> 
> 
> 
> beastly chip
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Who says I'd sell it?
> 
> I still have my Athlon XP 2800+ haha
> 
> 
> 
> Nice!
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Who says I'd sell it?
> 
> I still have my Athlon XP 2800+ haha
> 
> 
> 
> Very cool. I have 2 2800+ chips. Although 1 died years ago.
Click to expand...



2600+ sorry, wasn't rich enough for the 2800+


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> 
> 
> 2600+ sorry, wasn't rich enough for the 2800+


That's okay. I was too poor and couldn't afford the 3200+. Times have changed and the 1800x will be mine!


----------



## nakano2k1

Please let the heat spreader be soldered to the crystal, PLZ!! No more of this thermal paste crap!!

Mmmm... Too bad they took all that time printing "Ryzen" on the chip. Mine is getting lapped and immediately put under water. Mmmm....


----------



## fromthewatt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nakano2k1*
> 
> Please let the heat spreader be soldered to the crystal, PLZ!! No more of this thermal paste crap!!
> 
> Mmmm... Too bad they took all that time printing "Ryzen" on the chip. Mine is getting lapped and immediately put under water. Mmmm....


ouch


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2600+ sorry, wasn't rich enough for the 2800+
> 
> 
> 
> That's okay. I was too poor and couldn't afford the 3200+. Times have changed and the 1800x will be mine!
Click to expand...

I'm still unsure about which one I want, Logic tells me I should just get the 1700x and be happy but for no sane reason I want the 1800x, I blame the number


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> I'm still unsure about which one I want, Logic tells me I should just get the 1700x and be happy but for no sane reason I want the 1800x, I blame the number


YOLO.


----------



## nakano2k1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fromthewatt*
> 
> ouch


Yup... I'm not big on foreplay.


----------



## dieanotherday

i wonder how many people are not going to upgrade simply because they already got a good intel that can last for a long time.


----------



## Hequaqua

I just found this on Guru3D. Ryzen 6c/12t:

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cinebench-r15-score-close-to-intel-core-i7-6800k.html


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dieanotherday*
> 
> i wonder how many people are not going to upgrade simply because they already got a good intel that can last for a long time.


Me








The investment to upgrade even to Zen is still too steep ($319+ CPU +$100-150 mobo +$150+ DDR4, that's well over $500, +21% tax +% other, makes it about $700+) for what extra performance it brings and how much I need that performance.
Extra 4 cores even at equal ST performance aren't worth $700 to me.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> I just found this on Guru3D. Ryzen 6c/12t:
> 
> http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cinebench-r15-score-close-to-intel-core-i7-6800k.html
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


http://www.overclock.net/t/1623472/wccf-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-z-benchmark/0_50


----------



## nakano2k1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The investment to upgrade even to Zen is still too steep ($319+ CPU +$100-150 mobo +$150+ DDR4, that's well over $500, +21% tax +% other, makes it about $700+) for what extra performance it brings and how much I need that performance.
> Extra 4 cores even at equal ST performance aren't worth $700 to me.


Ah thank you. Whenever I think that our sales tax is bad at 15%, I just think... Europe.

But you're right about the whole upgrade path though. Switching platforms (especially on a separate memory standard) is crazy expensive. Having said that, there are more and more intel products for sale on local forums and ebay (albeit still at ridiculously inflated prices)

Better act fast!


----------



## GHADthc

I have a pretty crappy 5820K with a pretty poor IMC in it..I can`t wait to palm it off to family or friend and get an all AMD build up and running, its been too long since the last (skt.939).

I`ve still got my Lian Li PC-60 case that once housed that old 939 rig..waiting for an AMD based heart and soul for ressurection, I`ve been looking forward to it.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nakano2k1*
> 
> Ah thank you. Whenever I think that our sales tax is bad at 15%, I just think... Europe.
> 
> But you're right about the whole upgrade path though. Switching platforms (especially on a separate memory standard) is crazy expensive. Having said that, there are more and more intel products for sale on local forums and ebay (albeit still at ridiculously inflated prices)
> 
> Better act fast!


If I had a second PC to fallback to, might have sold the 3 main components months ago and wait it out. But buying a PC now is not that great, RAM is inflated again as it goes through some cycles of high and low prices due to shortages.
My poor 4690K does in Cinebench R15 @ 4.5GHz:

Code:



Code:


CBCPU1=181.312156
CBCPUX=710.694171

Which is OK for most of my usage.

On top of the tax the exchange rate between USD and EUR is pathetic and on top of that our own central bank is still locking the rate between EUR and local currency. Screwed 3 times over.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GHADthc*
> 
> I have a pretty crappy 5820K with a pretty poor IMC in it..I can`t wait to palm it off to family or friend and get an all AMD build up and running, its been too long since the last (skt.939).
> 
> I`ve still got my Lian Li PC-60 case that once housed that old 939 rig..waiting for an AMD based heart and soul for ressurection, I`ve been looking forward to it.


Is a 5820k that bad?

Does not seem like a bad chip. I don't think Ryzen will do much for you.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10337/the-intel-broadwell-e-review-core-i7-6950x-6900k-6850k-and-6800k-tested-up-to-10-cores/9


----------



## Woundingchaney

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dieanotherday*
> 
> i wonder how many people are not going to upgrade simply because they already got a good intel that can last for a long time.


This is the boat I am in. There is virtually no reason for me to upgrade my current processor. While I am pleased to see AMD make a return to the world of desktop cpus what performance upgrade/sidegrade I could expect really isn't worth the trouble at this point. I am not in a position where I am cpu bottlenecked in the least bit.

Having said that I am fairly sure that the chip will sell well simply because they look to have an excellent price performance ratio.


----------



## Newwt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> Come on guys, don't be naive. There's no way the 1700 clocks as well as the 1800X and you'll be lucky if it matches 1700X. The 1700X has XFR like the 1800X so it stands to reason that will overclock well.
> 
> Recently I got bitten by the binned chip reality when I bought a 480 1306Mhz Nitro that didn't overclock to 1330Mhz stable. Then I bought a slightly more expensive 1340Mhz Nitro that managed to overclock to 1380Mhz stable.


Of course it will, I'm not saying every chip will, but I'll willing to bet that most 1700x will clock just as high as a 1800x. the 1700 might not since the lower tpd(I'm still don't understand what tdp means completely).

as far as XFR is concerned to me it is a gimmick and will be disabled just like turbo boost.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dieanotherday*
> 
> i wonder how many people are not going to upgrade simply because they already got a good intel that can last for a long time.


My CPU more then good enough but I want to build an ITX system. If I cant find a used Z77 ITX I might as well get Zen. Problem is ITX for Zen right now seem to be a 3rd though.


----------



## JackCY

I ran my system through Passmark for lulz, 10550ish CPU score (when I close everything else), comparing to the only available supposedly Ryzen baseline 36/39 same as in the leaks, the 4.5GHz 4690K sure loses in some of the subtests but so does 7700K coz 4C vs 8C, on the other hand there are some sub tests where even the Ryzen cannot keep up with 4C 4690K @ 4.5GHz, some where the 8C seems to be slow. Prime numbers, Physics and single threaded performance were weak on the Ryzen baseline especially for an 8C/16T CPU.
It really gotta clock over 4GHz and average at least around HW/DC 4.5GHz clocks, otherwise it will be falling short in some usage. Having an 8350 loaded as baseline as well, seems like the same old repeats, CPU is strong in integer and floating point but the rest not as much. Sure a big improvement but the max performance using a well built machine and good OC remains to be seen in a couple of weeks.
As long as it can match HW/DC ST performance it should do well. Intel won't sleep for long though.


----------



## flopper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dieanotherday*
> 
> i wonder how many people are not going to upgrade simply because they already got a good intel that can last for a long time.


4670k works well but I am upgrading as I waited for more cores to a price that is reasonable.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The investment to upgrade even to Zen is still too steep ($319+ CPU +$100-150 mobo +$150+ DDR4, that's well over $500, +21% tax +% other, makes it about $700+) for what extra performance it brings and how much I need that performance.
> Extra 4 cores even at equal ST performance aren't worth $700 to me.


Same boat I'm in - the enthusiast in me wants more cores, but practically speaking there's nothing I do that this high-clocked 4790K can't handle. If it wasn't for having to buy (now expensive) DDR4 also...


----------



## GHADthc

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Is a 5820K that bad?


No its performance in BF1 (among other newer titles) is quite good, especially coupled with this 1080, but in terms of overclocking mine is quite average/borderline poor, and the IMC is shockingly bad, had very little luck with 2x 5820k`s now and a whole lot of bad luck with my previous x99 board..I dont need much of an excuse to jump ship to a Zen rig as of the moment, and I`m pretty sure I can get most of what I payed for this rig back and put it toward the new one.

Besides I`d really like to support AMD, and try and play a little part in getting them some marketshare back.


----------



## lombardsoup

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flopper*
> 
> 4670k works well but I am upgrading as I waited for more cores to a price that is reasonable.


Many of the games I play are just starting to utilize 8c/16t, this pricing in the under $400 range is very attractive.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The investment to upgrade even to Zen is still too steep ($319+ CPU +$100-150 mobo +$150+ DDR4, that's well over $500, +21% tax +% other, makes it about $700+) for what extra performance it brings and how much I need that performance.
> Extra 4 cores even at equal ST performance aren't worth $700 to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Same boat I'm in - the enthusiast in me wants more cores, but practically speaking there's nothing I do that this high-clocked 4790K can't handle. If it wasn't for having to buy (now expensive) DDR4 also...
Click to expand...

I'm happy I picked up a couple of kits when DDR4 was cheaper, selling my skylake platform means I only need to throw a couple hundred at a Ryzen platform thankfully


----------



## CriticalOne

I think that games for this generation of console hardware are going to be able to use 8 threads well at the maximum. Currently, game developers can only access 7 of 8 cores, but Sony and Microsoft can unlock the last one by shutting off the OS when loading up the game, like the old Nintendo 3DS does when playing Pokemon Sun and Moon.

This is why quad cores with hyperthreading get saved with their extra threads. Since they are able to operate 8 hardware threads, there is less congestion on the CPU as you have more hardware threads that software threads can be scheduled to. With a simple quad core, the game wants to have access to 8 threads to schedule but only has 4 to work with, creating a lot of congestion as the processor gets maxed out and/or has to start playing musical chairs with the functions it has been scheduled to execute.

This is why I think that 6C/12T will be the minimum to get the best performance out of video games that are coming up. Games such as Watch Dogs 2 are already maxing out hyperthreaded quad cores. Six core, twelve threaded processors seem to enjoy much lower CPU utilization than their four core cousins, suggesting that they still have room in case games get even more intensive. 8C/16T is going to get marginally better performance but the real usage of them is to play a game while x.264 encoding and/or streaming.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CriticalOne*
> 
> I think that games for this generation of console hardware are going to be able to use 8 threads well at the maximum. Currently, game developers can only access 7 of 8 cores, but Sony and Microsoft can unlock the last one by shutting off the OS when loading up the game, like the old Nintendo 3DS does when playing Pokemon Sun and Moon.
> 
> This is why quad cores with hyperthreading get saved with their extra threads. Since they are able to operate 8 hardware threads, there is less congestion on the CPU as you have more hardware threads that software threads can be scheduled to. With a simple quad core, the game wants to have access to 8 threads to schedule but only has 4 to work with, creating a lot of congestion as the processor gets maxed out and/or has to start playing musical chairs with the functions it has been scheduled to execute.
> 
> This is why I think that 6C/12T will be the minimum to get the best performance out of video games that are coming up. Games such as Watch Dogs 2 are already maxing out hyperthreaded quad cores. Six core, twelve threaded processors seem to enjoy much lower CPU utilization than their four core cousins, suggesting that they still have room in case games get even more intensive. 8C/16T is going to get marginally better performance but the real usage of them is to play a game while x.264 encoding and/or streaming.


Or... Running an ide, 1 or 2 VMs, 150 browser tabs, kodi and play doom lol


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flopper*
> 
> 4670k works well but I am upgrading as I waited for more cores to a price that is reasonable.


bingo.

I have a i5-4690k, it clocks like junk (4.2ghz), never meant this to be a long term solution when I lost my fx8 core, and have hated the 4 core i5 since I got it. (I do a lot of stuff that pressures true 4 core cpus badly)

I can't believe the pricepoints for these 8c16t cpus that i'm seeing, I'm basically salivating. If i can get similar IPC to my intel at similar clock speeds but with 8c16t? I'm all over that like white on rice. I mean my old fx8320 was better for what i do then this i5 is, and that had significantly worse IPC then this haswell cpu. all those cores for reasonable money? sign me up.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CriticalOne*
> 
> I think that games for this generation of console hardware are going to be able to use 8 threads well at the maximum. Currently, game developers can only access 7 of 8 cores, but Sony and Microsoft can unlock the last one by shutting off the OS when loading up the game, like the old Nintendo 3DS does when playing Pokemon Sun and Moon.
> 
> This is why quad cores with hyperthreading get saved with their extra threads. Since they are able to operate 8 hardware threads, there is less congestion on the CPU as you have more hardware threads that software threads can be scheduled to. With a simple quad core, the game wants to have access to 8 threads to schedule but only has 4 to work with, creating a lot of congestion as the processor gets maxed out and/or has to start playing musical chairs with the functions it has been scheduled to execute.
> 
> This is why I think that 6C/12T will be the minimum to get the best performance out of video games that are coming up. Games such as Watch Dogs 2 are already maxing out hyperthreaded quad cores. Six core, twelve threaded processors seem to enjoy much lower CPU utilization than their four core cousins, suggesting that they still have room in case games get even more intensive. 8C/16T is going to get marginally better performance but the real usage of them is to play a game while x.264 encoding and/or streaming.


I've seen Watch Dogs 2 put both 6C/12T CPUs and 4C/8T CPUs like the i7 6850K and i7 6700K over 80% usage, the game is a real CPU eater.

*i7 6850K Titan X Pascal SLI*


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Or... Running an ide, 1 or 2 VMs, 150 browser tabs, kodi and play doom lol


You know how I did that with a dual core laptop and some more hundreds of tabs in the crappy old FF? Close IDE, close FF, stop VMs, play








Am I gonna browse while playing? No. Write code while playing? No. Am I working on a game that I test play? Yeah, but rarely and as such it doesn't need much performance to run a few hundred FPS because it's simple graphics and I can keep the rest happily open and running for those.
And that is for a system that's RAM limited, the CPU not such an issue but the amount of available RAM used to be which is what IDE, VMs and hungry web browsers eat. On idle they barely need CPU time but they will consume all the RAM they can.
More cores comes in handy for computing, encoding, some games.


----------



## lombardsoup

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> I've seen Watch Dogs 2 put both 6C/12T CPUs and 4C/8T CPUs like the i7 6850K and i7 6700K over 80% usage, the game is a real CPU eater.


BF1 is also known to use 8c/16t. It'll be the norm with most games pretty soon.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lombardsoup*
> 
> BF1 is also known to use 8c/16t. It'll be the norm with most games pretty soon.


i hope not, being able to utilize available resource, and requiring lots of resource are two different things.
the latter must not happen, simply put having a game that requires a super-computer to run makes no sense.

the best engine design is something that puts out the greatest quality at the lowest resource usage.


----------



## dieanotherday

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> I'm happy I picked up a couple of kits when DDR4 was cheaper, selling my skylake platform means I only need to throw a couple hundred at a Ryzen platform thankfully


yea i'm on devil's canyon

I really don't wanna waste my 32gigs of ram, it's why i didn't go sky/kaby

and why i proly won't go ryzen unless i can offload my stuff for a good price.


----------



## aDyerSituation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lombardsoup*
> 
> BF1 is also known to use 8c/16t. It'll be the norm with most games pretty soon.


Then graphics better be better than real life and/or I better be getting 500fps.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aDyerSituation*
> 
> Then graphics better be better than real life and/or I better be getting 500fps.


BF1 will use 8 Cores + and get 200 fps if you have a fast GPU.


----------



## amstech

Games like Overwatch, Crysis 3 and Gears 4 have shown that newer games will take advantage of CPU power more.
This has happened with a game here or there, but now its inarguable.
I've come around, Ryzen is definitely impressive.



-


----------



## Br3chtel

Some infos from a german BTO-Site about the pricing (Gamemachines):



Source: http://bit.ly/2lhn13q

!THIS IS NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR THE SITE!


----------



## Ha-Nocri

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Br3chtel*
> 
> Some infos from a german BTO-Site about the pricing (Gamemachines):
> 
> 
> 
> Source: http://bit.ly/2lhn13q
> 
> !THIS IS NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR THE SITE!


So, how much is RyZen 3 1100?


----------



## Br3chtel

I've read about 130-140 $, so the 1800X would be roughly about 680 € / $, don't forget it's a BTO-Site who also wants a pice of the cake








But to get an idea for the pricing it's quite a lucky find.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Archived 1700x review

http://archive.is/wh5HU

https://videocardz.com/66182/amd-radeon-7-1700x-pictured-and-tested


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Archived 1700x review
> 
> http://archive.is/wh5HU


Interesting, 1537 cb in R15 for the 1700x while the 5960x gets 1318?

FS Physics is 17916 for the 1700x and 16126 for the 5960x

Not bad at all


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Interesting, 1537 cb in R15 for the 1700x while the 5960x gets 1318?
> 
> FS Physics is 17916 for the 1700x and 16126 for the 5960x
> 
> Not bad at all


If these chips overclock to 4.4Ghz or higher, Intel is in DEEP doo doo.


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> If these chips overclock to 4.4Ghz or higher, Intel is in DEEP doo doo.


All they have to do is lower prices. They have been creaming off the market for years, they will survive.

Someone must have OC benchmarks to leak by now ...


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Interesting, 1537 cb in R15 for the 1700x while the 5960x gets 1318?
> 
> FS Physics is 17916 for the 1700x and 16126 for the 5960x
> 
> Not bad at all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If these chips overclock to 4.4Ghz or higher, Intel is in DEEP doo doo.
Click to expand...

Oh this is so good.....


----------



## Newbie2009

I'm not hugely familiar with air cooling these days. Am I right in saying AMD are releasing these chips with medium to high end coolers? - Wraith coolers? I've heard the name before I think.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> All they have to do is lower prices. They have been creaming off the market for years, they will survive.
> 
> Someone must have OC benchmarks to leak by now ...


http://m.imgur.com/gallery/rGo3GFu


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> http://m.imgur.com/gallery/rGo3GFu


LOL, Safe to say the hype train has entered orbit.


----------



## Cyrious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> LOL, Safe to say the hype train has entered orbit.


As someone who's currently playing KSP, dont tempt me. I will build and launch an orbital Hype-train. Edit: and will strap Jeb onto the front so he can go out in a blaze of glory.


----------



## reqq

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> I've seen Watch Dogs 2 put both 6C/12T CPUs and 4C/8T CPUs like the i7 6850K and i7 6700K over 80% usage, the game is a real CPU eater.
> 
> *i7 6850K Titan X Pascal SLI*


That game is so poorly optimized.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *reqq*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> I've seen Watch Dogs 2 put both 6C/12T CPUs and 4C/8T CPUs like the i7 6850K and i7 6700K over 80% usage, the game is a real CPU eater.
> 
> *i7 6850K Titan X Pascal SLI*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That game is so poorly optimized.
Click to expand...



^ BF1 at 3440x1440 with Fury Crossfire

The guy is pushing Titan XP SLI as well, you need speed + cores to do that, Ryzen cannot come soon enough for me.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Oh this is so good.....


Not sure how much the RAM makes a difference but that is only using DDR3-2133 CL15 which is bottom of the barrel.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Oh this is so good.....
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure how much the RAM makes a difference but that is only using DDR3-2133 CL15 which is bottom of the barrel.
Click to expand...

In FS mem speed can make a difference but nothing over the top, same with Cinebench.

tbh I would have been happy if they launched something that was equal in speed and cores to the 5960x for half the cost, anything over that is a bonus imo


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> In FS mem speed can make a difference but nothing over the top, same with Cinebench.
> 
> tbh I would have been happy if they launched something that was equal in speed and cores to the 5960x for half the cost, anything over that is a bonus imo


Technically speaking people expected Intel to have 8-Core in $500 price point with BW-E but decided to scale up the price. Just like we go 6-Core for $400 from them will see 8-Core at around the same price replacing 6850K .


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyrious*
> 
> As someone who's currently playing KSP, dont tempt me. I will build and launch an orbital Hype-train. Edit: and will strap Jeb onto the front so he can go out in a blaze of glory.


Do it or I will task Meredith with it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Not sure how much the RAM makes a difference but that is only using DDR3-2133 CL15 which is bottom of the barrel.


Apparently all the leakers can get their hands on unreleased CPUs but cannot get or buy a decent RAM...
DDR4 2133 CL15... I wouldn't touch that crap even if it was DDR3. The sweetspot for DDR3 used to be around 2133-2400 CL11, later even better CL. Now with DDR4 it's around 3000-3200 CL14-15. Yet all these benches are done with RAM worse than DDR3 systems should run.
Either the memory profiles don't work and they gotta put in the numbers manually so they just put in crap to make it at least run at all or they really don't have decent RAM.


----------



## ducegt

MT again looking great, but single thread not so much. 154 when 7700K outs out more than 220.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> MT again looking great, but single thread not so much. 154 when 7700K outs out more than 220.


at what speeds?


----------



## jackalopeater

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> at what speeds?


It's over 5GHz...has to be. My i7 7700k at 5GHz with 2x8GB DDR4 3200 and Cinebench R15 Priority set to 'High' yields 215cb Single Core. While excellent no doubt, you can't just say a 7700k puts out more than 220 w/o context.


----------



## Ha-Nocri

I expected Haswell's single threaded performance, but it seems to be somewhat higher. MT is in broadwell's area, also as expected


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> I expected Haswell's single threaded performance, but it seems to be somewhat higher. MT is in broadwell's area, also as expected


Think it right in line with BW-E and a tad slower then Skylake.


----------



## Miklo

Time to replace my 2600k


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> MT again looking great, but single thread not so much. 154 when 7700K outs out more than 220.


7700K is high clocking SL. So over 5GHz to get that 220. 5GHz is around 21x/106x. Usually 220 and more is 5.2GHz+ on SL/KL.
On the other hand that is not something very impressive when HW/DC does 4.5Ghz 181, 4.6GHz 192 and only shows how little performance Intel has added with newer CPUs, close to nothing and pushed it all only with higher clocks. I bet they are making a completely or very reworked new architecture, if not, they are nuts because the Core arch. seems at it's limit after over 11 years.


----------



## Hequaqua

I just ran Cinebench on my HW(4770k)(1866mhz Ram)

4.0ghz
807 Multicore
157 Single Core

4.5ghz 12.5% OC
891 Multicore +10.41%
178 Single Core +13.38%

I'm really a "noob" when it comes to all of these numbers. I would like to get the Hexacore if it can beat these numbers though.

Does Ram speed affect Cinebench? I can crank it up to check, but easier to just ask.


----------



## Cyrious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Do it or I will task Meredith with it.


You'll have to wait for tomorrow for the _Flaming Hype-train of Awesomeness_™, I'm about to go to sleep actually after I deliver this particular chunk of a space station to the Mun.

And if I feel like it I'll even post video.

On topic: Has anyone normalized Ryzen's recent Cinebench score so we can get a better comparison between other CPUs?


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *reqq*
> 
> That game is so poorly optimized.


A game that uses 8 cores is not poorly optimized. The games that use 1 core are poorly optimized. Learn the meaning of optimization.

Maybe it is poorly optimized for graphics.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> 7700K is high clocking SL. So over 5GHz to get that 220. 5GHz is around 21x/106x. Usually 220 and more is 5.2GHz+ on SL/KL.
> On the other hand that is not something very impressive when HW/DC does 4.5Ghz 181, 4.6GHz 192 and only shows how little performance Intel has added with newer CPUs, close to nothing and pushed it all only with higher clocks. I bet they are making a completely or very reworked new architecture, if not, they are nuts because the Core arch. seems at it's limit after over 11 years.


We need to start ignoring people that mention the 7700k in every thread. The 7700k competitor is not out yet.it will be a slower inferior quad core just like the 7700k.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> 7700K is high clocking SL. So over 5GHz to get that 220. 5GHz is around 21x/106x. Usually 220 and more is 5.2GHz+ on SL/KL.
> On the other hand that is not something very impressive when HW/DC does 4.5Ghz 181, 4.6GHz 192 and only shows how little performance Intel has added with newer CPUs, close to nothing and pushed it all only with higher clocks. I bet they are making a completely or very reworked new architecture, if not, they are nuts because the Core arch. seems at it's limit after over 11 years.
> 
> 
> 
> We need to start ignoring people that mention the 7700k in every thread. The 7700k competitor is not out yet.it will be a slower inferior quad core just like the 7700k.
Click to expand...

QFT!


----------



## ducegt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> at what speeds?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jackalopeater*
> 
> It's over 5GHz...has to be. My i7 7700k at 5GHz with 2x8GB DDR4 3200 and Cinebench R15 Priority set to 'High' yields 215cb Single Core. While excellent no doubt, you can't just say a 7700k puts out more than 220 w/o context.


You need context or clocks? Context is evident by the nature of forum and that the chip is marketed for overclocking. My 7700K can drive daily at 5.2 and this is with a corsair H115i AIO so nothing extreme. I did 237 at 5.4. My ram is also 3600 CL14. I came from Lynnfeild and if I would have known this is how things would have turned out, I would have done things differently.


----------



## jackalopeater

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> at what speeds?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> You need context or clocks? Context is evident by the nature of forum and that the chip is marketed for overclocking. My 7700K can drive daily at 5.2 and this is with a corsair H115i AIO so nothing extreme. I did 237 at 5.4. My ram is also 3600 CL14. I came from Lynnfeild and if I would have known this is how things would have turned out, I would have done things differently.


Thanks for clearing that up, helps a lot to see where you're coming from


----------



## DADDYDC650

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


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> at what speeds?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need context or clocks? Context is evident by the nature of forum and that the chip is marketed for overclocking. My 7700K can drive daily at 5.2 and this is with a corsair H115i AIO so nothing extreme. I did 237 at 5.4. My ram is also 3600 CL14. I came from Lynnfeild and if I would have known this is how things would have turned out, I would have done things differently.
Click to expand...

so you're running 1700Mhz higher than the Ryzen chip at best and 1300Mhz at worst (we've no idea about which speeds the clocks were ran at)

Good to have the clocks you're running though, means I should push mine a little higher.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-cpus-support-ddr4-memory-speeds-3600mhz/


Nice, IMC isn't as weak as previously thought


----------



## naz2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> A game that uses 8 cores is not poorly optimized. The games that use 1 core are poorly optimized. Learn the meaning of optimization.
> 
> Maybe it is poorly optimized for graphics.


a game that uses 8 cores while looking like crap is poorly optimized. where is all that power going?


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *naz2*
> 
> a game that uses 8 cores while looking like crap is poorly optimized. where is all that power going?


What does the cpu have to do with the graphics?

*checks to see if I am on Linus forum*


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *naz2*
> 
> a game that uses 8 cores while looking like crap is poorly optimized. where is all that power going?


physics compute, like object vectors and AI, technically anything that isn't directly related to rendering.


----------



## Hequaqua

AMD stock up up .81 today.


----------



## kd5151

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD stock up up .81 today.


almost 14


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

That Cinebench score shows a CPU-z window with the clock speed of 3500MHz. If that's what it really ran at, that 154cb single threaded score is extremely impressive. Add 1GHz to the clock speed and we could be looking at close to 200cb score.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> That Cinebench score shows a CPU-z window with the clock speed of 3500MHz. If that's what it really ran at, that 154cb single threaded score is extremely impressive. Add 1GHz to the clock speed and we could be looking at close to 200cb score.


I'm hoping that it was run at 3.5Ghz but in all likelihood it was 3.9, still impressive regardless


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> I'm hoping that it was run at 3.5Ghz but in all likelihood it was 3.9, still impressive regardless


It is easy to check... Run Cinebench and see if it registers the base or boost clock.


----------



## Hequaqua

It reads the base clock. It did in my runs earlier.

EDIT:


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> It reads the base clock. It did in my runs earlier.


Ok I'm leaning towards 3.9ghz then.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> I'm hoping that it was run at 3.5Ghz but in all likelihood it was 3.9, still impressive regardless
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is easy to check... Run Cinebench and see if it registers the base or boost clock.
Click to expand...

Cinebench registers the base clock even when the CPU is overclocked.

CPU-Z on the other hand is showing 3500Mhz but not showing the Multi limit, the Firestrike test has it at 3.9Ghz so that's why it's hard to guess.



^ Example


----------



## Hequaqua

All of the 3DMark tests report the frequency correctly. Valley/Heaven/Cinebench don't even report CPU clocks correctly. Just sayin.









EDIT: Valley/Heaven don't show correct GPU clocks correctly either, unless you are on a modded bios. Hopefully that will change with their new GPU benchmark set to release.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> All of the 3DMark tests report the frequency correctly. Valley/Heaven/Cinebench don't even report CPU clocks correctly. Just sayin.


I'm not looking at Cinebench or Firestrike since in those screenshots the frequency isn't shown, I'm looking at the CPU-Z windows.

The one with Cinebench shows 3500Mhz and a Multiplier of x35, the one with Firestrike shows 3900Mhz and a multiplier of x39

CPU-Z shows the minimum and maximum multiplier (like in my screencap) but it's not for the Ryzen CPU because it's an older CPU-Z version (Ryzen supported was added in 1.78.3), meaning we don't know if the CPU is operating at it's normal frequencies (3.5/3.9) or it was locked to 3.5 for Cinebench and 3.9 for Firestrike.

I'm thinking it's operating as normal.

And no, 3DMark doesn't always report the correct CPU Frequency


----------



## Mahigan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *naz2*
> 
> cpu doesn't affect the detail and fidelity of open world games? how stupid are you


Within reason.

Meaning that if your CPU Framerate is, say, 400FPS but your GPU can only scale to say 200FPS then your FPS will be 200 FPS. If your CPU is able to push 230FPS and your GPU can scale to 200FPS then your FPS will be 200FPS.

Of course... if your CPU has to run a complex simulation every so often and that this simulation is run on a single core and drops the CPU frame rate to 34FPS then evidently your overall frame rate is going to be 34FPs for that frame even if your GPU can handle 200FPS.

This isn't what we're talking about here. We're talking about RyZen vs Intel i7 competitors and none of those CPUs is "weak" so the perceived difference in frame rate (what you're going to feel in game) won't differ between say a Core i7 7700K and RyZen 1060X. So arguing that the 7700K can get higher FPS when both CPUs can muster over 200FPS in CPU frame rate is ridiculous.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> Within reason.
> 
> Meaning that if your CPU Framerate is, say, 400FPS but your GPU can only scale to say 200FPS then your FPS will be 200 FPS. If your CPU is able to push 230FPS and your GPU can scale to 200FPS then your FPS will be 200FPS.
> 
> Of course... if your CPU has to run a complex simulation every so often and that this simulation is run on a single core and drops the CPU frame rate to 34FPS then evidently your overall frame rate is going to be 34FPs for that frame even if your GPU can handle 200FPS.
> 
> This isn't what we're talking about here. We're talking about RyZen vs Intel i7 competitors and none of those CPUs is "weak" so the perceived difference in frame rate (what you're going to feel in game) won't differ between say a Core i7 7700K and RyZen 1060X. So arguing that the 7700K can get higher FPS when both CPUs can muster over 200FPS in CPU frame rate is ridiculous.


Fps is not in question. Fidelity is. Which the CPU has nothing to do with.


----------



## Hequaqua

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> I'm not looking at Cinebench or Firestrike since in those screenshots the frequency isn't shown, I'm looking at the CPU-Z windows.
> 
> The one with Cinebench shows 3500Mhz and a Multiplier of x35, the one with Firestrike shows 3900Mhz and a multiplier of x39
> 
> CPU-Z shows the minimum and maximum multiplier (like in my screencap) but it's not for the Ryzen CPU because it's an older CPU-Z version (Ryzen supported was added in 1.78.3), meaning we don't know if the CPU is operating at it's normal frequencies (3.5/3.9) or it was locked to 3.5 for Cinebench and 3.9 for Firestrike.
> 
> I'm thinking it's operating as normal.
> 
> And no, 3DMark doesn't always report the correct CPU Frequency


It's always shown mine correctly. AFAIK. It doesn't if I have turbo enabled I think. I don't use it though. I keep my clocks hardlocked via the multiplier. I'm either at 4.0 or somewhere above that.









EDIT: I'll take your word though...like I said I'm a bit of a noob on the CPU side of things.









EDIT II: Isn't the Ryzen stuff supposed to be paper launched tomorrow? I read that somewhere, but can't find the source.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> I'm not looking at Cinebench or Firestrike since in those screenshots the frequency isn't shown, I'm looking at the CPU-Z windows.
> 
> The one with Cinebench shows 3500Mhz and a Multiplier of x35, the one with Firestrike shows 3900Mhz and a multiplier of x39
> 
> CPU-Z shows the minimum and maximum multiplier (like in my screencap) but it's not for the Ryzen CPU because it's an older CPU-Z version (Ryzen supported was added in 1.78.3), meaning we don't know if the CPU is operating at it's normal frequencies (3.5/3.9) or it was locked to 3.5 for Cinebench and 3.9 for Firestrike.
> 
> I'm thinking it's operating as normal.
> 
> And no, 3DMark doesn't always report the correct CPU Frequency
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's always shown mine correctly. AFAIK. It doesn't if I have turbo enabled I think. I don't use it though. I keep my clocks hardlocked via the multiplier. I'm either at 4.0 or somewhere above that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: I'll take your word though...like I said I'm a bit of a noob on the CPU side of things.
Click to expand...

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/11465903

Reported stock core clock 5,900 MHz

Maximum turbo core clock 4,800 MHz

It doesn't happen as much anymore but it still can happen


----------



## Hequaqua

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/11465903
> 
> Reported stock core clock 5,900 MHz
> 
> Maximum turbo core clock 4,800 MHz
> 
> It doesn't happen as much anymore but it still can happen


I would say that was a bit off huh?


----------



## ducegt

Comparing 240FPS to 200 isnt so significant, but what about 60 to 20 down the road? More is better. What's ridiculous is to argue otherwise.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/11465903
> 
> Reported stock core clock 5,900 MHz
> 
> Maximum turbo core clock 4,800 MHz
> 
> It doesn't happen as much anymore but it still can happen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that was a bit off huh?
Click to expand...

Just a little yeah.

It happens to GPUs all the time, until recently it would only report the SPD of the memory, Futuremark have been updating it but things do still slip through the cracks.


----------



## Hequaqua

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Just a little yeah.
> 
> It happens to GPUs all the time, until recently it would only report the SPD of the memory, Futuremark have been updating it but things do still slip through the cracks.


Yea, it still reads the GPU clocks wrong. I'm not sure if it's Pascal(boost 3.0) or what. I believe it read them correctly on my 970's with a modded bios.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Just a little yeah.
> 
> It happens to GPUs all the time, until recently it would only report the SPD of the memory, Futuremark have been updating it but things do still slip through the cracks.
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, it still reads the GPU clocks wrong. I'm not sure if it's Pascal(boost 3.0) or what. I believe it read them correctly on my 970's with a modded bios.
Click to expand...

It's read my Fury X at 1932/966 before......that's a far cry from 1050/500









Either way, I'm still thinking those tests were at the 3.9Ghz turbo clock, of course we don't know how many of the cores ramp up to 3.9 when under load.


----------



## budgetgamer120

I can't wait to see the APUs. 8 cores please.


----------



## Hequaqua

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> I can't wait to see the APUs. 8 cores please.


Aren't they going to start referring to them as NPU(Next Processing Units)? Again, I read that somewhere...lol

EDIT: @kd5151








AMD just cracked the 14.00 barrier!


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> I can't wait to see the APUs. 8 cores please.


I think we'd be guareented 4c/8t at this point.

An 8 core APU would be.......interesting......and pricy


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> I think we'd be guareented 4c/8t at this point.
> 
> An 8 core APU would be.......interesting......and pricy


I wonder when we will be able to use the compute units in everyday programs.


----------



## kd5151

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> Aren't they going to start referring to them as NPU(Next Processing Units)? Again, I read that somewhere...lol
> 
> EDIT: @kd5151
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD just cracked the 14.00 barrier!


14.03 now woot woot :]


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> Comparing 240FPS to 200 isnt so significant, but what about 60 to 20 down the road? More is better. What's ridiculous is to argue otherwise.


How did we just go from 5/6 to 1/3????


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> How did we just go from 5/6 to 1/3????


Because exaggeration.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

huh, just noticed the date listed on the Firestrike screenshot



guess we know when the NDA is lifting huh?


----------



## ducegt

Hyperbole. Man oh man. Lots of people here that just see trees instead of the forrest. Budgetbrains.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyrious*
> 
> You'll have to wait for tomorrow for the _Flaming Hype-train of Awesomeness_™, I'm about to go to sleep actually after I deliver this particular chunk of a space station to the Mun.
> 
> And if I feel like it I'll even post video.
> 
> On topic: Has anyone normalized Ryzen's recent Cinebench score so we can get a better comparison between other CPUs?


No the clocks are unknown, you can only guess clocks like anyone else. But overall it looks around HW/DC/BW level of ST performance at equal clocks, better at MT.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> You need context or clocks? Context is evident by the nature of forum and that the chip is marketed for overclocking. My 7700K can drive daily at 5.2 and this is with a corsair H115i AIO so nothing extreme. I did 237 at 5.4. My ram is also 3600 CL14. I came from Lynnfeild and if I would have known this is how things would have turned out, I would have done things differently.


7700K at 5.2+ with an expensive H115i and expensive 3600 CL14 is extreme. Should rather say "nothing short of extreme".


----------



## pengs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Fps is not in question. Fidelity is. Which the CPU has nothing to do with.


Physics and simulations. That is fidelity - in fact I think better and more believable environments have been the source of graphical fidelity and improvements for the last few years. Games wouldn't look half as convincing if it wasn't for particle effects/ragdoll and basic physics in general. Think BF1 with static objects (BF2 physics), it would not be nearly as impressive looking.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pengs*
> 
> Physics and simulations. That is fidelity - in fact I think better and more believable environments have been the source of graphical fidelity and improvements for the last few years. Games wouldn't look half as convincing if it wasn't for particle effects/ragdoll and basic physics in general. Think BF1 with static objects (BF2 physics), it would not nearly as impressive looking.


look over the context of the argument please... we aren't talking about physics or particles. we are talking about graphics... The original person I responded to anyways.

Not sure what it spun into.

The argument that a game that uses 8 cores and still looks bad is unoptimized cpu.


----------



## pengs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> look over the context of the argument please... we aren't talking about physics or particles. we are talking about graphics... The original person I responded to anyways.
> 
> Not sure what it spun into.
> 
> The argument that a game that uses 8 cores and still looks bad is unoptimized cpu.


Yeah I know the context and was agreeing with you in a way because at the end of the day it doesn't really matter. Vulkan and DX12 will keep those 7700K's chugging for a long time. But it's easy to see where a 8/16 threaded CPU could make the difference when it comes to developers cranking up the amount of physics and simulations being calculated. A 1800X or 1700 is a sure fire way of being set long into the future.


----------



## flopper

6 and 8 cores cpu become mainstream, thanks AMD and Lisa Su.
price is reasonable.
using Vega/Polaris with freesync and a Ryzen seems like the best deal anyone could make.

I waited until amd could get their cpu line out and its been worth it.
time to drop the Intel and go red as once you do you always feel great.


----------



## sage101

Anyone in here can translate what this guy is saying?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5XyRQpS-eI


----------



## jezzer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sage101*
> 
> Anyone in here can translate what this guy is saying?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5XyRQpS-eI


Chili San is all i heard
Bet he doesnt say anything of use tbh.


----------



## iLeakStuff

*PRICE AND RELEASE DATE CONFIRMED*
(Amazon made a boo boo)









Note: This is a bundle with water cooling. Deduct $99 and we now know the official price of the CPUs.

R7 1800X
http://archive.is/2017.02.21-212937/https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06W5Q7B38/

R7 1700X
http://archive.is/2017.02.21-212855/https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06X6N8QGB


----------



## FLCLimax

https://videocardz.com/66216/firefly-was-a-great-show


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> https://videocardz.com/66216/firefly-was-a-great-show


There's my baby. Nice to see how well it's doing. See ya soon 1800x!


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> *PRICE AND RELEASE DATE CONFIRMED*
> (Amazon made a boo boo)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note: This is a bundle with water cooling. Deduct $99 and we now know the official price of the CPUs.
> 
> R7 1800X
> http://archive.is/2017.02.21-212937/https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06W5Q7B38/
> 
> R7 1700X
> http://archive.is/2017.02.21-212855/https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06X6N8QGB


Oh damn! Did you hit the pre-order button?


----------



## ToTheSun!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> *PRICE AND RELEASE DATE CONFIRMED*
> (Amazon made a boo boo)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note: This is a bundle with water cooling. Deduct $99 and we now know the official price of the CPUs.
> 
> R7 1800X
> http://archive.is/2017.02.21-212937/https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06W5Q7B38/
> 
> R7 1700X
> http://archive.is/2017.02.21-212855/https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06X6N8QGB
> 
> 
> 
> Oh damn! Did you hit the pre-order button?
Click to expand...

SEE? I TOLD YOU IT'D RELEASE WITH AN AIO!


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ToTheSun!*
> 
> SEE? I TOLD YOU IT'D RELEASE WITH AN AIO!


Think you got the wrong guy, lol.


----------



## JackCY

That's unlikely a bundle sold by AMD. Rather made by a shop.
No thanks to a leaky Corsair AIO. Half the price aircooler works almost as well and quieter, never leaks. These AIOs gotta die, well they do actually just in a different way lol


----------



## ToTheSun!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ToTheSun!*
> 
> SEE? I TOLD YOU IT'D RELEASE WITH AN AIO!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think you got the wrong guy, lol.
Click to expand...

I wasn't addressing anyone specifically. Your post just happened to be there.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> That's unlikely a bundle sold by AMD. Rather made by a shop.


Yes, that's pretty obvious. An AIO in this case would be more like the Fury X's, which isn't the case here. I was just making a funny.


----------



## OutlawII

So a 8 core chip beats a quad core chip in cine bench ? Not sure whats so impressive about that. What am i missing?


----------



## WhiteCrane

Would someone explain why this is good news to me?



It looks to me like the 7700K is 36% faster in single threaded performance than the fastest Ryzen. Didn't we think it would be much closer?


----------



## OutlawII

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WhiteCrane*
> 
> Would someone explain why this is good news to me?
> 
> 
> 
> It looks to me like the 7700K is 36% faster in single threaded performance than the fastest Ryzen. Didn't we think it would be much closer?


Everyone was assuming it was but maybe not afterall


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WhiteCrane*
> 
> Would someone explain why this is good news to me?
> 
> 
> 
> It looks to me like the 7700K is 36% faster in single threaded performance than the fastest Ryzen. Didn't we think it would be much closer?


Because that particular chart is not a good representation of ST performance?


----------



## Mahigan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> Comparing 240FPS to 200 isnt so significant, but what about 60 to 20 down the road? More is better. What's ridiculous is to argue otherwise.


Down the road we have Vulkan and DX12 so the RyZen CPU will be ever faster than the 7700K.

Point being that... RyZen 6 and 8 core CPUs look like they're going to be well priced. Around $700 CAD for the 1800X (CrazyElf sent a PM to me about it)... that's very good (compared to the 1,200 to 1,500 CAD I'd pay for an Intel equivalent.

So with the 7700K then you either don't see the difference in FPS right now (compared to RyZen) and it is probable that RyZen won't overclock as well as Kabylake but it probably will still overclock rather well and in the future... the performance for RyZen in games will only improve whereas it won't for that Quad core Kaby Lake CPU.

So unless all you want to do is sit down and post a benchmark score in a game (which won't impress anyone because the 7700K is considered to be only a "mere" mainstream CPU in the CPU epeen hierarchy) then I fail to see what is so compelling about the 7700K at its current price vs the RyZen competition thus far (assuming the RyZen leaks are true).


----------



## Robenger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WhiteCrane*
> 
> Would someone explain why this is good news to me?
> 
> 
> 
> It looks to me like the 7700K is 36% faster in single threaded performance than the fastest Ryzen. Didn't we think it would be much closer?


Yes, EVERYONE expected Ryzen to overcome 5 generations of Intel optimization. Durrrrrrr

But seriously, most estimates I saw thought Ryzen would come in at or just above Haswell IPC.


----------



## WhiteCrane

I never realized Kaby Lake was that far superior to Broadwell. Why doesn't the 4.0 Ghz Ryzen perform faster than the 3.3 Ghz Ryzen in single threaded performance? I thought clockspeed ruled single threaded performance when you're comparing similar chips.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robenger*
> 
> Yes, EVERYONE expected Ryzen to overcome 5 generations of Intel optimization. Durrrrrrr
> 
> But seriously, most estimates I saw thought Ryzen would come in at or just above Haswell IPC.


Everybody knows that the best way to assess single-threaded performance is to take a Firestrike physics score and divide by the number of cores. Silly goose.


----------



## WhiteCrane

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Because that particular chart is not a good representation of ST performance?


What is this chart a good representation of?

Sorry guys, long time OCN'er but I have been struggling to understand the Zen news.


----------



## SuperZan

If these benches are real, that's the one that makes sense. FireStrike Physics isn't a single-threaded benchmark, so assessing ST performance with it is far from scientific. There are purpose-built ST benches that can much more accurately assess that sort of performance.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WhiteCrane*
> 
> What is this chart a good representation of?
> 
> Sorry guys, long time OCN'er but I have been struggling to understand the Zen news.


It's a good representation of how even synthetics don't always scale perfectly with core/thread count. It's just the multithread score divided by the number of cores. Don't put much, if any, stock in it. The benchmark is multithread.


----------



## Robenger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> It's a good representation of how even synthetics don't always scale perfectly with core/thread count. It's just the multithread score divided by the number of cores.


Exactly, when I want to figure out how fast I can run I just divide by the number of toes I have.


----------



## mohiuddin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WhiteCrane*
> 
> Would someone explain why this is good news to me?
> 
> 
> 
> It looks to me like the 7700K is 36% faster in single threaded performance than the fastest Ryzen. Didn't we think it would be much closer?


Your pic is wrong. this is right>>


i'll quote my post, from a few pages behind.
Quote:


> they did that chart like this>>
> R7 8c/16t @4GHz FS physics score total 20249 , right? divided by 8 (8 core) =~ 2531.
> R7 8c/16t @3.4GHz scores total 17878 . Divide it by 8 . =~ 2235
> R7 6c/12t @3.3GHz scores 15271 in total. divided by 6 =~ 2545.
> 
> They didnt run the FS physics bench with 1c/2t to get these single core results. they just divided the total score by core count.
> So why same architecture ryzen 6 core @3.3 = 8core @4ghz single core ( not ran with single core, just divided total score by core count) ? .Well 3dmark FS physics score does not scale well with core count beyond 4c/8t i think. Thats why.


Read post from 235 to 247


----------



## FLCLimax

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WhiteCrane*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Because that particular chart is not a good representation of ST performance?
> 
> 
> 
> What is this chart a good representation of?
> 
> Sorry guys, long time OCN'er but I have been struggling to understand the Zen news.
Click to expand...

LOL. That's the MT score divided by the number of cores. It's not accurate for ANY CPU on that list.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robenger*
> 
> Yes, EVERYONE expected Ryzen to overcome 5 generations of Intel optimization. Durrrrrrr
> 
> But seriously, most estimates I saw thought Ryzen would come in at or just above Haswell IPC.


All they did was divide the cores by the score. That's not ST performance.


----------



## comagnum

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WhiteCrane*
> 
> I never realized Kaby Lake was that far superior to Broadwell. Why doesn't the 4.0 Ghz Ryzen perform faster than the 3.3 Ghz Ryzen in single threaded performance? I thought clockspeed ruled single threaded performance when you're comparing similar chips.


Because those are just divided from the total score and aren't a good representation of single threaded performance. Also, no one has ran the test on a decent motherboard/ram combo yet afaik, and there's no indication that xfr/oc at all is happening. Expect Ipc to improve a bit from decent reviews.


----------



## WhiteCrane

Thanks guys. I'm clear now. So it looks like summit ridge is in fact comparable to Skylake / Kaby Lake.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohiuddin*
> 
> Your pic is wrong. this is right>>
> 
> 
> i'll quote my post, from a few pages behind.
> Read post from 235 to 247


Also CPU performance in 3DMark is greatly effect by memory speed.

My 4.6Ghz i7 does 12K so that 3000 for me. Yeah right lol. Its only IVY. Even Core i7 920 @ 4.4GHz did 10K and thats 2500.


----------



## BackwoodsNC

Yall see these yet?


----------



## Serandur

Intel had better get out those mainstream 6-cores (or 8) ASAP. And if they're not compatible with Z170 and Z270 both, there'll be nothing to stop current Skylake-owning enthusiasts from jumping ship outright presuming that Ryzen can hit at least the mid 4.x GHz range. So personally tempted to go all in on Ryzen right now... unless I can get a higher core-count on my current mobo.

Uh, I mean... resist the hype. Yeah.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> That's unlikely a bundle sold by AMD. Rather made by a shop.
> No thanks to a leaky Corsair AIO. Half the price aircooler works almost as well and quieter, never leaks. These AIOs gotta die, well they do actually just in a different way lol


Um, my original H80 from 2012 is still working every day with no issues in my backup rig. Never have had a single problem out of it...


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> That's unlikely a bundle sold by AMD. Rather made by a shop.
> No thanks to a leaky Corsair AIO. Half the price aircooler works almost as well and quieter, never leaks. These AIOs gotta die, well they do actually just in a different way lol
> 
> 
> 
> Um, my original H80 from 2012 is still working every day with no issues in my backup rig. Never have had a single problem out of it...
Click to expand...

I can beat that, I've still got the FX cooler that shipped with the 8150, it's clocked at 4.6Ghz and it's been running like that since I got it.

Air coolers will undoubtedly last long but it's not like AIOs break within 3 months....


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OutlawII*
> 
> So a 8 core chip beats a quad core chip in cine bench ? Not sure whats so impressive about that. What am i missing?


Because in the graphs we have seen its not just beating a quad core. Its beating the 6900K which has the same 8C / 16T config as Ryzen. Well, its beating it in MT and ties in ST scores...


----------



## Hequaqua

All I know is if these numbers hold true.....price/perf/etc....I want one!



My checking account is asking me how many days till launch!


----------



## SuperZan

I've already got my build-fund sequestered in my fun-times account. The money from parting out my X79 build will be blown on rainbow LED everything. I want my Ryzen build to look like the interior of a disco circa 1986. It'll be like a journey back to where I began.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I'd probably have already parted out my X79 rig if it wasn't in a custom loop which I can't seem to be bothered with taking apart...


----------



## Hequaqua

My current rig will be parted out to my son's rig. Get him off the old i5. He games, broadcasts, and a lot of other things that the HT will help it with.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> I've already got my build-fund sequestered in my fun-times account. The money from parting out my X79 build will be blown on rainbow LED everything. I want my Ryzen build to look like the interior of a disco circa 1986. It'll be like a journey back to where I began.




arr gee bee!

^ Z270 Gaming Pro Carbon btw


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

RGB gets so much hate around here and I still haven't worked out why??? Lighting is undoubtedly an important part of our builds (judging by the pics of OCN rigs I've seen around here) and RGB allows for choosing whichever color you wish to base your theme around, rather than being stuck with one color or, worse, having mismatched colors in the rig. I can't see how that's a bad thing? I get that some don't even have a window and couldn't care less about aesthetics, but there seriously is no downside to giving us the option to light and coordinate colors.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> RGB gets so much hate around here and I still haven't worked out why??? Lighting is undoubtedly an important part of our builds (judging by the pics of OCN rigs I've seen around here) and RGB allows for choosing whichever color you wish to base your theme around, rather than being stuck with one color or, worse, having mismatched colors in the rig. I can't see how that's a bad thing? I get that some don't even have a window and couldn't care less about aesthetics, but there seriously is no downside to giving us the option to light and coordinate colors.


Easy, people think the cost of implementing RGB and shrouds drive up the prices of the boards by 100000000% (exaggeration of course) so they complain about it in hopes that the motherboards manufacturers will make boards without LEDs or shrouds and they will be much cheaper.

I like RGB and shrouds when done tastefully, if I don't like them I can always remove the shroud and turn off the LEDs.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I'm a huge sucker for shrouds and lighting, I'll be honest. The Maximus IX Formula is the best looking board I've ever seen for example. And I bought one of the very first P67 Sabertooths 6 years ago simply because I loved the look of the "Thermal Armor".


----------



## Dhoulmagus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> RGB gets so much hate around here and I still haven't worked out why??? Lighting is undoubtedly an important part of our builds (judging by the pics of OCN rigs I've seen around here) and RGB allows for choosing whichever color you wish to base your theme around, rather than being stuck with one color or, worse, having mismatched colors in the rig. I can't see how that's a bad thing? I get that some don't even have a window and couldn't care less about aesthetics, but there seriously is no downside to giving us the option to light and coordinate colors.


Omega type people always rebel against that which becomes popular. Once it's popular, it's no longer unique, so they will seek to do something new. There is also the fact that now we're just buying these colorful parts, slapping them together, and posting pics on the net..While it's still somewhat creative selecting your color scheme, it's all ready made. It's like buying a corvette instead of a z28 camaro and gutting it to bits in your garage to turn it into something truly personal. I personally like people who put in the effort to make something totally original. I think the RGB lit pcs look great in pictures, but in reality, in low light room set up for gaming the LED lighting really bugs my eyes (I have bad eyes), so its really not for me. I can't say much though because I'm not much of a visual person, I've always just enjoyed the loudest possible delta fans in a wind tunnel ugly case. I'm also still fond of the minimalist ultra clean look with only 2 tone colors and a big fat air cooler


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Totally understand, different strokes etc, etc. My only point is there is no downside to giving us the option. If you don't like LED's you can turn them off. And there are plenty of cheaper boards that don't have lights if you want to go that route.


----------



## Dhoulmagus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Totally understand, different strokes etc, etc. My only point is there is no downside to giving us the option. If you don't like LED's you can turn them off. And there are plenty of cheaper boards that don't have lights if you want to go that route.


Of course, especially when it comes to having the lights right on your PCBs or RAM heat spreaders.. you just can't make them that nice on your own. I think the little accents look cool. I think the hate comes from the modern era of youtube and this hobby being more publicized, because there is always some new idea that literally ends up in every PC.

10 years ago I had to sleeve every single cable in my PC by hand, now it's just an expectation with your PSU. We went to plumbing outlets to find the fittings to water cool and getting the right block was a nightmare, now you can just order full kits that just work. Nobody ever complained about that getting easier, so yeah.. Youtube


----------



## DaaQ

Not to mention complaining for the sake of complaining. Also epeen shrinkage due to not having to get a farbworks or Aquero and the individual led strips and wiring.


----------



## Dhoulmagus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DaaQ*
> 
> Not to mention complaining for the sake of complaining. Also epeen shrinkage due to not having to get a farbworks or Aquero and the individual led strips and wiring.


That seems to be a popular thing to do, once again in the era of Youtube. I think the whole thing stems from trolls and their insane expectations just for kicks. They'll whine if you use too much of those 'ugly' pre-made RGB strips, then turn around and whine more if you didn't use enough color coordinated cable sleeves as if everybody doesn't just order them from cablemod these days anyway. It's really just envy from people who either can't have those things or who have too much money and free time.

The RGB topic also made me realize the anti AMD brigade have been bone silent these past few weeks, suddenly everybody is waiting to board the Zen train







.. Silly humans


----------



## Artikbot

I personally dislike RGB all the things because it's yet another feature I don't need and yet another feature I cannot opt out when shopping for mid-high end boards.

Mice, keyboards and stuff... Eh whatever. Plenty of choice so not a big deal.

And on the subject of epeen I believe any build can look as good as any other, RGB galore or not. But I do see splattering rainbows all over without any reason or particular pattern (how most people seem to do it) as a rather vulgar attempt at doing what everyone else is doing (AKA doing things how popularity dictates and not how one's taste dictates).


----------



## ryan92084

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> arr gee bee!
> 
> ^ Z270 Gaming Pro Carbon btw


How would you rate your experience with the pro carbon? I ask since the am4 version looks to basically be a clone.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ryan92084*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> arr gee bee!
> 
> ^ Z270 Gaming Pro Carbon btw
> 
> 
> 
> How would you rate your experience with the pro carbon? I ask since the am4 version looks to basically be a clone.
Click to expand...

Only had it in for a few days but so far so good, solid board, well made, good range of features, vrms aren't hot.

Would recommend it


----------



## DaaQ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serious_Don*
> 
> That seems to be a popular thing to do, once again in the era of Youtube. I think the whole thing stems from trolls and their insane expectations just for kicks. They'll whine if you use too much of those 'ugly' pre-made RGB strips, then turn around and whine more if you didn't use enough color coordinated cable sleeves as if everybody doesn't just order them from cablemod these days anyway. It's really just envy from people who either can't have those things or who have too much money and free time.
> 
> *The RGB topic also made me realize the anti AMD brigade have been bone silent these past few weeks*, suddenly everybody is waiting to board the Zen train
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .. Silly humans


Right, the "unofficial" zen benchmark thread is eerily reminiscent of the similar style thread at Anand forums for I believe the same reasons stated there. (positive benchmark leaks, unupdated by op) For those that don't know.


----------



## Hequaqua

[Guru3D]AMD Ryzen Goes Preorder Today + Info and Event Demo Benchmark Videos

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-ryzen-goes-preorder-today-info-and-event-benchmark-videos.html
Quote:


> Below an overview of the three processor released, all data in this chart is now 100% confirmed including prices.


Well....here we go.....


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Hey.....

Check it out: http://computers.scorptec.com.au/ppc/Ryzen


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Hey.....
> 
> Check it out: http://computers.scorptec.com.au/ppc/Ryzen


What is MSRP of 7700K? Want to compare it to the 7700K they sell there.


----------



## Hequaqua

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> What is MSRP of 7700K? Want to compare it to the 7700K they sell there.


489.00

https://www.scorptec.com.au/product/CPU/Intel-Socket-1151/66423-BX80677I77700K

[email protected]

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117726&cm_re=7700k-_-19-117-726-_-Product


----------



## DADDYDC650

https://videocardz.com/66280/amd-announces-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-and-1700-preorders-start-today

1 pm Eastern can't come soon enough!


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> What is MSRP of 7700K? Want to compare it to the 7700K they sell there.
> 
> 
> 
> 489.00
> 
> https://www.scorptec.com.au/product/CPU/Intel-Socket-1151/66423-BX80677I77700K
> 
> [email protected]
> 
> https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117726&cm_re=7700k-_-19-117-726-_-Product
Click to expand...

Yeah, 7700k Launched at $510 here, it has dropped over the past couple of weeks


----------



## DADDYDC650

Might wait it out until The 28th. I'd like know if the 1700x clocks just as well as the 1800x.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Yeah, 7700k Launched at $510 here, it has dropped over the past couple of weeks


7700K is ~ 450-470 CAD here. So 1700X probably 510-540 CAD which is not bad. 1700 in the other hand could be what I might get.


----------



## iRUSH

I look forward to 4 and 6 core variants of their price is right.

I also look forward to seeing how Intel counters.

Then hopefully we'll see some mobile Ryzen chips with Polaris and Vega this year.


----------



## amstech

All the results seem very competitive at this point, if your rocking an i7 I don't see a reason to jump ship.
Especially from a gaming perspective.. can't wait to see those benchmarks.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *amstech*
> 
> All the results seem very competitive at this point, if your rocking an i7 I don't see a reason to jump ship.
> Especially from a gaming perspective.. can't wait to see those benchmarks.


Why not? I know my i7 is fine but will have to upgrade eventually. 5 years are enough for this CPU.


----------



## Darkpriest667

Oh we're not getting benchmarks today or what? none of the sites have them.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

If your current CPU still performs up to your satisfaction there's never a need to upgrade to a new one. Doesn't mean I don't still want to...


----------



## Dragonsyph

SO what day is ryzen coming out so we can get user benchmarks?


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> SO what day is ryzen coming out so we can get user benchmarks?


28th?


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> 28th?


Nice, can't wait to see if it matches all the hype. Hope the motherboards are all good too. \


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> SO what day is ryzen coming out so we can get user benchmarks?


I'm pretty sure purchases of Ryzen for the consumer is March 2nd.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Because in the graphs we have seen its not just beating a quad core. Its beating the 6900K which has the same 8C / 16T config as Ryzen. Well, its beating it in MT and ties in ST scores...


So it seems Ryzen has a faster HT implementation but slower single-threaded speed.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> RGB gets so much hate around here and I still haven't worked out why??? Lighting is undoubtedly an important part of our builds (judging by the pics of OCN rigs I've seen around here) and RGB allows for choosing whichever color you wish to base your theme around, rather than being stuck with one color or, worse, having mismatched colors in the rig. I can't see how that's a bad thing? I get that some don't even have a window and couldn't care less about aesthetics, but there seriously is no downside to giving us the option to light and coordinate colors.


For me its the lack of non-RGB components. I just want a nice looking build without the flashy lights, but if I want (For example) non-RGB RAM I'm pretty limited in options, here in Australia I can't think of any options above 3000Mhz that don't either cost a whole lot more or limit me to 4x4GB rather than the 2x8GB I'd prefer for future proofing. I don't particularly mind it with ODDs, Fan Controllers, etc because those LEDs are in parts that don't tend to fail, are cheap to replace if they do fail and are generally easy to cover/disconnect/remove entirely.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DaaQ*
> 
> Right, the "unofficial" zen benchmark thread is eerily reminiscent of the similar style thread at Anand forums for I believe the same reasons stated there. (positive benchmark leaks, unupdated by op) For those that don't know.


So, it's eerily reminiscent of most leaks? Some get updated, yeah but plenty don't.

You know what isn't reminiscent of BD at all? The code commits in gcc that have been telling people how Zen actually works for months now and that people who know far more about it than either of us have poured over and worked out roughly how Zen should perform. They did the same with BD and had a very good idea of its performance months before release, likewise with Zen. (Most of the leaks are lining up fairly well, post release BD benchmarks are pretty spot on for where they expected it to be to boot)


----------



## Menta

I will just leave this here


----------



## Lipos

stock 7700K higher avg. fps than a 7700K @5GHz?


----------



## Robenger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lipos*
> 
> stock 7700K higher avg. fps than a 7700K @5GHz?


Yeah I thought the numbers were strange as well. Of all the games you could have tested why GTA5?


----------



## RedM00N

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lipos*
> 
> stock 7700K higher avg. fps than a 7700K @5GHz?


More so the 5ghz has a higher min fps and higher max fps but has the same avg fps as stock.

Also mid 3ghz rizen vs mid 4ghz 7700k stock seems a bit...why even make this comparison lol. At least make it clock speed fair Reguardless of one having more cores.


----------



## teh-yeti

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robenger*
> 
> Yeah I thought the numbers were strange as well. Of all the games you could have tested why GTA5?


GTA5 probably because it's considered to be pretty CPU intensive.

As for the the fps results, is there anything groundbreaking here? I mean... We've basically been these exact results for about a month here in this thread or other threads. The single threaded performance isn't as good as Kaby Lake, but it's very close and the multithreading is really awesome. For the price you're essentially getting Broadwell-E performance for mainstream prices.

Something else to note from the graph: The min and max fps for Ryzen is lower than both stock and oc'd 7700K, but averages are all very close to each other, with the 2 7700K figures being probably within a margin of error. This presumably means that even though the 7700K had the largest outliers in terms of max frame rate, they also had a wider range of fps, whereas the 1700 would have necessitated it being much closer to 82 at all times.

The host did say, "in a side by side test, you probably wouldn't be able to tell which was which", and then continued to say "considering that more games are becoming CPU intensive... and multithreaded... you may also say that the 1700 is edging out the 7700K".

So... hype train confirmed? Independent reviews are confirming all of our speculation?

Edit:
Sorry, you hadn't responded in time for me to see when I originally posted, and I do happen to have an opinion...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RedM00N*
> 
> More so the 5ghz has a higher min fps and higher max fps but has the same avg fps as stock.
> 
> Also mid 3ghz rizen vs mid 4ghz 7700k stock seems a bit...why even make this comparison lol. At least make it clock speed fair Reguardless of one having more cores.


I agree with the comparison they did. This is how AMD is marketing the 1700, they'll have to deal with how it clocks at stock compared to the 7700K and deal with the results. Crippling the 7700K just to show how superior the 1700 is could be compared to only comparing GTX 1060 and RX 480 results from running the game in OpenGL since AMD has an advantage in Vulkan. Let the advantages stand where they are.


----------



## Rocozaur

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RedM00N*
> 
> Also mid 3ghz rizen vs mid 4ghz 7700k stock seems a bit...why even make this comparison lol. At least make it clock speed fair Reguardless of one having more cores.


Pretty much what @teh-yeti has said. AMD presented the R7 1700 as having +46% MT performance compared to the i7-7700K at a lower price. They are the ones who started this comparison regardless of the CPU Frequency. Ergo, R7 1700 better keep itself in front of the i7-7700K in as many benchmarks as possible, including multi-core optimized games. And this ends up as being one in which it was slower.









Another argument that you should take into consideration is that 10-12 years ago, the Athlon64 at 2GHz was able to beat a 3GHz+ Pentium 4. Were all the comparisons made back then moot because they weren't done at the same frequency? No, AMD had a better architecture which allowed it to be just as good and many times better than a higher clocked Intel. This is what all the hype has been giving us the past few days. A Ryzen 8/16 which beats the Cinebench world record of an Intel CPU with higher clocks.

You can't just come with the excuse of "hey, they should do it at the same clockspeed for both CPUs" every time AMD ends up being slower than Intel in a certain benchmark.


----------



## FLCLimax

The GTA comparison is pretty good imo. 7700K avg 89, 1700 avg 85. minimum sucked a bit for the 1700, but it's much lower clocked. I just hope that when other games show more parity that people don't exalt GTA as the one true ring.


----------



## Dragonsyph

How can you have higher min and higher max but have the same avg?


----------



## FLCLimax

Hey, i just had a thought! are reviewers going to now emphasize the importance of maximum frame spikes?


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> Hey, i just had a thought! are reviewers going to now emphasize the importance of maximum frame spikes?


I thought only low dips was important? Or are you being sarcastic?


----------



## FLCLimax

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> Hey, i just had a thought! are reviewers going to now emphasize the importance of maximum frame spikes?
> 
> 
> 
> I thought only low dips was important? Or are you being sarcastic?
Click to expand...

we have to wait to see what Intel beats AMD's 1800X in to see what's important.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> we have to wait to see what Intel beats AMD's 1800X in to see what's important.


Lol... Performance per watt doesn't matter anymore. I wonder what will be next


----------



## teh-yeti

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> I thought only low dips was important? Or are you being sarcastic?


Nah, both are important. I tried to express this earlier. Since the average is total frames displayed divided by total time of the benchmark, this indicates that the 1700 still pushed almost the same number of frames, so over the course of the test the fps probably stuck closer to the average with less frequent outliers. It's actually a really good sign.


----------



## Rocozaur

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> How can you have higher min and higher max but have the same avg?


That's...actually pretty easy to explain









Let's say I have a test that ends up rendering 6000 frames in the span of one minute. What would the average be? 100 fps.
I'm testing another CPU and I get 6240 frames during the same time span. Average would be pretty close at 104 fps.

During the test, for one second, it ends up rendering 170 frames. What is the average value? Still 104 fps because during the other 59 seconds the frame rate has been lower than this value and in the end, resulting in the same average result.
During the test, for one second, it ends up rendering 38 frames. What is the average value? Still 104 fps because during the other 59 seconds the frame rate has been higher than this value and in the end, resulting in the same average result.

I hope this makes it clear


----------



## gtz

I am very excited for this CPU.

The idea of getting a R7 1700 and B350 overclockable motherboard for 400 dollars is making my head explode. If a 1700 manages to hit 4.0 on a B350 I will be making a RyZen build.

But as exciting as this can be, as of now AM4 can only be considered mainstream. Someone looking for over 24 PCIE lanes will have to look at Intels HEDT. I strongly believe AMD will make a HEDT segment as well, I see them doing what Intel is currently doing. X99 chipset for consumer and C612 for server, but both use socket 2011V3. That is why you can put a 22 core Xeon on X99 (if you really wanted to).

I can see AMD releasing an R9 2X00 (a cut down version of the rumored 32 core Ryzen) CPU in a year with 32 PCIe lanes, quad channel ram and 10+ cores. Like my self, if this CPU came out a year ago I would have not considered it because I was running tri-fire (biggest waste of money in my life, mostly e-peen) and a NVME drive. But now since I am only running a single 980Ti, the 40 PCIe lanes I have are doing nothing.

I have been wanting to upgrade my 14 core (28 thread) Haswell Xeon for sometime now since all the cores only go up to 3.1GHz. Which is great for multitasking (video encoding, etc)but lacking single core performance.

If Intel does not do any price cuts on the 6900K (or 6950X) I will buy the 1700/B350 combo and see if AMD will release an HEDT platform and move to that.

Time will tell I guess.


----------



## finalheaven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gtz*
> 
> I am very excited for this CPU.
> 
> The idea of getting a R7 1700 and B350 overclockable motherboard for 400 dollars is making my head explode. If a 1700 manages to hit 4.0 on a B350 I will be making a RyZen build.
> 
> But as exciting as this can be, as of now AM4 can only be considered mainstream. Someone looking for over 24 PCIE lanes will have to look at Intels HEDT. I strongly believe AMD will make a HEDT segment as well, I see them doing what Intel is currently doing. X99 chipset for consumer and C612 for server, but both use socket 2011V3. That is why you can put a 22 core Xeon on X99 (if you really wanted to).
> 
> I can see AMD releasing an R9 2X00 CPU in a year with 32 PCIe lanes, quad channel ram and 10+ cores. Like my self, if this CPU came out a year ago I would have not considered it because I was running tri-fire (biggest waste of money in my life, mostly e-peen) and a NVME drive. But now since I am only running a single 980Ti, the 40 PCIe lanes I have are doing nothing.
> 
> I have been wanting to upgrade my 14 core (28 thread) Haswell Xeon for sometime now since all the cores only go up to 3.1GHz. Which is great for multitasking (video encoding, etc)but lacking single core performance.
> 
> If Intel does not do any price cuts on the 6900K (or 6950X) I will buy the 1700/B350 combo and see if AMD will release an HEDT platform and move to that.
> 
> Time will tell I guess.


http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-overclocked-4ghz/

Check out the article. Someone got the 1700 to 4.0 but stated it only works with high end motherboards like the crosshair and taichi. Was only able to get 3.8 with other boards.

"We just tested a 1700, it hit 4.0GHz stable in everything, but ONLY in the Crosshair mainboard, the lower-end boards it was hovering around 3.80GHz as the VRM's were cooking with extra voltage. It however was maxing around 4050MHz, so I'd say 1700 can do 3.9-4.1GHz, of course the 1800X will probably do 4.1-4.3 as no doubt better binned, but if your clocking the motherboard has a big impact on the overclock and so far Asus Crosshair and Asrock Taichi seem the best two."

Seems like even if you go with the 1700, you should go with a high end motherboard to overclock.


----------



## kd5151

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *finalheaven*
> 
> http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-overclocked-4ghz/
> 
> Check out the article. Someone got the 1700 to 4.0 but stated it only works with high end motherboards like the crosshair and taichi. Was only able to get 3.8 with other boards.
> 
> "We just tested a 1700, it hit 4.0GHz stable in everything, but ONLY in the Crosshair mainboard, the lower-end boards it was hovering around 3.80GHz as the VRM's were cooking with extra voltage. It however was maxing around 4050MHz, so I'd say 1700 can do 3.9-4.1GHz, of course the 1800X will probably do 4.1-4.3 as no doubt better binned, but if your clocking the motherboard has a big impact on the overclock and so far Asus Crosshair and Asrock Taichi seem the best two."
> 
> Seems like even if you go with the 1700, you should go with a high end motherboard to overclock.


----------



## Menta

Ha but disable 4 cores and push OC, that I would like to see on the 1700\X


----------



## kd5151




----------



## FLCLimax

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kd5151*


Am i just missing the FPS counter or is there not one?


----------



## kd5151

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> Am i just missing the FPS counter or is there not one?


I think the fps counter is in the upper left hand corner but its way to small to see.


----------



## Menta

Shows nothing but the cpu usage being higher on Ryzen...and yet another sketchy show


----------



## kd5151

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menta*
> 
> Shows nothing but the cpu usage being higher on Ryzen...


yes.


----------



## Menta

First the 1700 turbo boost is not kicking in, at a first glance what is this video trying to say when cpu is almost maxing out...bottleneck! i hate that word by the way!


----------



## Rocozaur

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menta*
> 
> First the 1700 turbo boost is not kicking in, at a first glance what is this video trying to say when cpu is almost maxing out...bottleneck! i hate that word by the way!


Keep in mind that 3.7GHz is only when one core is being used








3.4GHz Boost on all 8 cores sounds just about right so I see no problem here.


----------



## CriticalOne

I am personally happy with 3.7GHz on one core and 3.4GHz on all. Ryzen will have higher IPC than my current Haswell i3 processor plus more single threaded performance with a 3.7GHz boost. For PCSX2 and Skyrim the single threaded is good enough.

This is a 65W CPU after all.


----------



## Menta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rocozaur*
> 
> Keep in mind that 3.7GHz is only when one core is being used
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.4GHz Boost on all 8 cores sounds just about right so I see no problem here.


But i think its not boosting to 3.7 on any cores...so


----------



## Rocozaur

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menta*
> 
> But i think its not boosting to 3.7 on any cores...so


From start to finish the video shows 16 threads in high load => All 8 cores require Turbo Boost on them => 3.4GHz on all of them by the looks of it


----------



## Dragonsyph

So 8 core 16 thread at 90-100% load while the 6 core is only at 70%?


----------



## kd5151

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> So 8 core 16 thread at 90-100% load while the 6 core is only at 70%?


thats what i see.


----------



## DaaQ

On the task bar the left side has many tabs or open things on it vs the right side with nothing.

Edit. Are those instances of multiple games running on the right hand side as well?


----------



## RedM00N

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DaaQ*
> 
> On the task bar the left side has many tabs or open things on it vs the right side with nothing.
> 
> Edit. Are those instances of multiple games running on the right hand side as well?


I'm pretty sure those are 6 android emulators(running the same game). So yes, to your question


----------



## kd5151

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RedM00N*
> 
> I'm pretty sure those are 6 android emulators(running the same game). So yes, to your question


i noticed this and was wondering what those where. cool! thanks!


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Wait, so the only CPU anybody should have is the 7700K because it averages 4FPS more in GTAV? What does that say about every single other Intel processor then? If you are saying that Ryzen sucks because of this benchmark, then you are also saying that every X99 chip sucks even more considering their staggering price tag.


----------



## Dhoulmagus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Wait, so the only CPU anybody should have is the 7700K because it averages 4FPS more in GTAV? What does that say about every single other Intel processor then? If you are saying that Ryzen sucks because of this benchmark, then you are also saying that every X99 chip sucks even more considering their staggering price tag.


Another case of different strokes. I'd take the multitasking / massive boost in multithreaded applications over 4 puny FPS in GTA.. Not to mention the 7700k at stock boosts to about 800 mhz higher than the stock ryzen 1700







, not like a little OC can't close that gap as it is, while streaming to twitch simultaneously


----------



## Diogenes5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Wait, so the only CPU anybody should have is the 7700K because it averages 4FPS more in GTAV? What does that say about every single other Intel processor then? If you are saying that Ryzen sucks because of this benchmark, then you are also saying that every X99 chip sucks even more considering their staggering price tag.


I really hate how people focus on average framerates. PC perspective and other outlets have pushed for more holistic measures encompassed in a Framerate experience benchmark that encompasses the user experience. For example, SLI and Xfire cards often display a ton of microstuttering that makes many games unplayable for any competitive player and can really annoy casual players. That's also why ram matters; better ram increases the minimum framerate in most cases.

Ryzen looks like a good product but let's not get ahead of ourselves here before real benchmarks. I could've gotten a 6800k or a 6700k and chose the 6700k because it suited my needs (good enough multitasking and better single-threaded performance after overclocks). And people keep talking as if every game in the future will be multicore and how great Ryzen is for that. Maybe triple-A games where developers have time to optimize for a hardware setup that only encompasses 2-3% of the market. Like it or not, most developers aim for a minimum viable product that addresses the most common platforms in the market. That means the fastest clocks and the highest IPC is the most important for games now and into the future aside from select triple-A games.

Ryzen is a good product but as mainly a gamer I'm waiting for the 7700k to drop in price to sidegrade from my 6700k (getting about 10% more performance with overclock) and calling it a day. The 6-core suits my needs and pricepoint but it's not coming soon enough and all the Ryzen motherboards are incredibly overpriced right now IMO.

Kudos to AMD. I was excited when they said Ryzen would come out last year but a person can only wait so long.


----------



## Dhoulmagus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Diogenes5*
> 
> I really hate how people focus on average framerates. PC perspective and other outlets have pushed for more holistic measures encompassed in a Framerate experience benchmark that encompasses the user experience. For example, SLI and Xfire cards often display a ton of microstuttering that makes many games unplayable for any competitive player and can really annoy casual players. That's also why ram matters; better ram increases the minimum framerate in most cases.
> 
> Ryzen looks like a good product but let's not get ahead of ourselves here before real benchmarks. I could've gotten a 6800k or a 6700k and chose the 6700k because it suited my needs (good enough multitasking and better single-threaded performance after overclocks). And people keep talking as if every game in the future will be multicore and how great Ryzen is for that. Maybe triple-A games where developers have time to optimize for a hardware setup that only encompasses 2-3% of the market. Like it or not, most developers aim for a minimum viable product that addresses the most common platforms in the market. That means the fastest clocks and the highest IPC is the most important for games now and into the future aside from select triple-A games.
> 
> Ryzen is a good product but as mainly a gamer I'm waiting for the 7700k to drop in price to sidegrade from my 6700k (getting about 10% more performance with overclock) and calling it a day. The 6-core suits my needs and pricepoint but it's not coming soon enough and all the Ryzen motherboards are incredibly overpriced right now IMO.
> 
> Kudos to AMD. *I was excited when they said Ryzen would come out last year but a person can only wait so long*.


So I'm not crazy? I remember telling people sometime in late 2015 that Zen would be coming out soon. I feel like March 2017 is far beyond the planned launch window.

All good points with gaming, different strokes for different folks again. I do agree with you though that for gamers who want max performance you just can't beat a 7700k, maybe a Zen 4 core that can handle a good OC will wrestle the prices down a bit on the i7 4 core market, but there is no denying that 4 core is still the sweet spot and is going to continue the lead in single core performance which will likely encompass MOST (but not all) games over yet another few years. Comments like this just cue the benchmarks showing the games that do scale up beyond 4 cores, if you play those games.. cool!

I was personally considering moving on from my current system to a Xeon(s), but now a good 8c/16T unlocked consumer chip is looking viable in the near future, where the 6900k was completely out of my reach. But that shows my use case, I don't play too many games and the games I do play would run fine on a modern Xeon under 3 ghz. If I were building strictly for games, I'd be looking at 4 core. Gaming and streaming at the same time is where the 6-8 core are going to shine.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Diogenes5*
> 
> I really hate how people focus on average framerates. PC perspective and other outlets have pushed for more holistic measures encompassed in a Framerate experience benchmark that encompasses the user experience. For example, SLI and Xfire cards often display a ton of microstuttering that makes many games unplayable for any competitive player and can really annoy casual players. That's also why ram matters; better ram increases the minimum framerate in most cases.
> 
> Ryzen looks like a good product but let's not get ahead of ourselves here before real benchmarks. I could've gotten a 6800k or a 6700k and chose the 6700k because it suited my needs (good enough multitasking and better single-threaded performance after overclocks). And people keep talking as if every game in the future will be multicore and how great Ryzen is for that. Maybe triple-A games where developers have time to optimize for a hardware setup that only encompasses 2-3% of the market. Like it or not, most developers aim for a minimum viable product that addresses the most common platforms in the market. That means the fastest clocks and the highest IPC is the most important for games now and into the future aside from select triple-A games.
> 
> Ryzen is a good product but as mainly a gamer I'm waiting for the 7700k to drop in price to sidegrade from my 6700k (getting about 10% more performance with overclock) and calling it a day. The 6-core suits my needs and pricepoint but it's not coming soon enough and all the Ryzen motherboards are incredibly overpriced right now IMO.
> 
> Kudos to AMD. I was excited when they said Ryzen would come out last year but a person can only wait so long.


Nope there's a thread on this frequency vs more cores and Computerbase's test the other day with a large set of newer games. It showed that if 'you just game' like yourself you should be getting the CPU with more cores as opposed to higher frequency. It was clear.

Also, swapping out a 6700K for 7700K is not the most sensible thing I've heard. At least get a 6-core or wait for Ryzen's 6 cores.


----------



## Menta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Diogenes5*
> 
> I really hate how people focus on average framerates. PC perspective and other outlets have pushed for more holistic measures encompassed in a Framerate experience benchmark that encompasses the user experience. For example, SLI and Xfire cards often display a ton of microstuttering that makes many games unplayable for any competitive player and can really annoy casual players. That's also why ram matters; better ram increases the minimum framerate in most cases.
> 
> Ryzen looks like a good product but let's not get ahead of ourselves here before real benchmarks. I could've gotten a 6800k or a 6700k and chose the 6700k because it suited my needs (good enough multitasking and better single-threaded performance after overclocks). And people keep talking as if every game in the future will be multicore and how great Ryzen is for that. Maybe triple-A games where developers have time to optimize for a hardware setup that only encompasses 2-3% of the market. Like it or not, most developers aim for a minimum viable product that addresses the most common platforms in the market. That means the fastest clocks and the highest IPC is the most important for games now and into the future aside from select triple-A games.
> 
> Ryzen is a good product but as mainly a gamer I'm waiting for the 7700k to drop in price to sidegrade from my 6700k (getting about 10% more performance with overclock) and calling it a day. The 6-core suits my needs and pricepoint but it's not coming soon enough and all the Ryzen motherboards are incredibly overpriced right now IMO.
> 
> Kudos to AMD. I was excited when they said Ryzen would come out last year but a person can only wait so long.


Trading in a 6700k for a 7700k and lose money for what 10% of nothing ? Its your choice and i respect that but seriously only if your an extreme OverClocker trying to beat some benchmark that would be justified, Hobby is a hobby never the less.


----------



## JackCY

You can forward all the unwanted SL and KL to me







"I will recycle them"


----------



## comagnum

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> You can forward all the unwanted SL and KL to me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I will recycle them"


I'll trade someone my 6600k for their 6700k, free of cost


----------



## LongtimeLurker

This just in: WCCFTech is reporting Ryzen has better IPC (SINGLE THREADED) than KABY LAKE:



Souce: http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-overclocked-4ghz/


----------



## sage101

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LongtimeLurker*
> 
> This just in: WCCFTech is reporting Ryzen has better IPC (SINGLE THREADED) than Skylake:
> 
> 
> 
> Souce: http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-overclocked-4ghz/


Let's not get ahead of our self now. It's @ broadwell-e IPC @ best which is very impressive knowing what mountain AMD had to climb to get to that level of performance.


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LongtimeLurker*
> 
> This just in: WCCFTech is reporting Ryzen has better IPC (SINGLE THREADED) than Skylake:
> 
> 
> 
> Souce: http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-overclocked-4ghz/


1) WCCFTECH
2) Userbench?
3) system config?

Most of the early benches seem to point to a -10% IPC disadvantage to Kaby for Ryzen. Which would put it pretty close to Broadwell IPC.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Its not going to be as fast as KL in IPC. AMD's own tests have shown parity with Broadwell-E which is fast enough. If all you want is the fastest quad core processor for gaming then KL is still the best choice.


----------



## rbarrett96

For someone who hasn't done a build since 2010, can someone explain exactly how the difference between CPU SKUs directly affects gaming?. I've been on a i7 930 and have been doing well just upgrading the graphics card a couple times since then. I believe the main difference between the Ryzen and Intels are the cache? Not sure how that affects gaming exactly. Thanks.


----------



## spyshagg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rbarrett96*
> 
> For someone who hasn't done a build since 2010, can someone explain exactly how the difference between CPU SKUs directly affects gaming?. I've been on a i7 930 and have been doing well just upgrading the graphics card a couple times since then. I believe the main difference between the Ryzen and Intels are the cache? Not sure how that affects gaming exactly. Thanks.


Its unclear (until march 2nd). Either way the best AMD cpus for contemporary games will likely be the high clocked yet unannounced R5's. The R7's are not really for this segment. And although they are cheap, the R5's will be cheaper if you can believe this madness.


----------



## Delirious84

You just can't beat that price to performance...


----------



## sLowEnd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Delirious84*
> 
> You just can't beat that price to performance...


If street price matches MSRP, sure. If stock can't meet demand, you can be sure etailers will price gouge.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sLowEnd*
> 
> If street price matches MSRP, sure. If stock can't meet demand, you can be sure etailers will price gouge.


What does this have to do with anything?


----------



## sLowEnd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> What does this have to do with anything?


Reality?


----------



## Robenger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sLowEnd*
> 
> Reality?


Given what we know about the fab and the amount of chips it's producing it does not seem likely that unsavory price fluctuation will occur.


----------



## ducegt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> What does this have to do with anything?


Lol. You don't know what that means. That Ryzen will be so expensive you'll be looking for second hand parts. Maybe you can grab a 7700K from someone so foolish to sell it. -budgetgamer121


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sLowEnd*
> 
> If street price matches MSRP, sure. If stock can't meet demand, you can be sure etailers will price gouge.


To be fair, if there is a lot of gouging going on and the 1800X is costing something stupid like $650-$700 then I personally would have no problems just waiting until stock levels stabilized and getting one for retail then...


----------



## Diogenes5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> Nope there's a thread on this frequency vs more cores and Computerbase's test the other day with a large set of newer games. It showed that if 'you just game' like yourself you should be getting the CPU with more cores as opposed to higher frequency. It was clear.



These comparisons don't take into account overclocking. They are stock for stock comparisons. You can overclock a 7700k much more than the other top CPU's listed and it makes a significant difference for many older games.
These benchmarks are only for some newer games and even then the performance delta of 4+ core-systems is slight. For older games the single-threaded performance matters way more and most of us play those games. If you play a lot of an older game like StarCraft 2, you want the fastest possible single-threaded performance.
Framerate experience matters. You minimum fps and dips will be more noticeable on a slower processor even if average framerates are the same.
This article from PC perspective is far more instructive about the differences between CPU's. Basically it doesn't matter at all at higher resolutions when you are GPU capped which is a feather in Ryzen's cap. However, this isn't to say that a faster CPU doesn't provide a better experience. This article compares Sky Lake to Sandy Bridge and finds Framerate experience to be significantly better with a faster chip with less fps variance and higher fps minimums. This will be similar to what a 5ghz 7700k vs something like the a 4ghz ryzen chip would show.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> Also, swapping out a 6700K for 7700K is not the most sensible thing I've heard. At least get a 6-core or wait for Ryzen's 6 cores.


All AMD ever makes me do is wait. We've waited years for this because Global Foundries took forever to get 14nm out there. Meanwhile Intel was chugging straight ahead and Samsung and TSMC beat them to market. I waited in 2016 for their Ryzen chip which was delayed from late 2016 to this year and now they delayed their mainstream chips again to Q2 or later. Time is money and quite frankly, for how much I use my computer, even a few hundred dollars price difference isn't enough to make me wait.

Ryzen is an excellent product. And if the 6-core model was out now with good motherboards that were comparable to a Z270 chipset, I'd be willing to sacrifice some single-threaded performance to go with them. So in my case I'll pay the Intel premium for the fastest possible single-threaded performance in the PC market for now and the foreseeable future and enjoy its benefits in the kinds of software I normally use and the games I normally pay.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menta*
> 
> Trading in a 6700k for a 7700k and lose money for what 10% of nothing ? Its your choice and i respect that but seriously only if your an extreme OverClocker trying to beat some benchmark that would be justified, Hobby is a hobby never the less.


This is overclock.net. I come here to find news about what performs best. If people made purely value-conscious decisions, nobody would pay 50% more for a gtx 1080 over a 1070 that has 80% of the performance. I value that 10% in the kind of things I plan to use my computer for and the price of sidegrading is basically $30 with my ebay account and proiximity to Microcenter. I will wait a little bit longer and see if the 7700k goes down in price due to Ryzen, but I'm pulling the trigger relatively soon either way.


----------



## Mad Pistol

This is going to be an awesome CPU. Just the fact that we're having a discussion about this is huge!!!


----------



## epic1337

i'm putting my bet on this:

8C/16T = 4.2Ghz on air / 4.5Ghz on water
6C/12T = 4.4Ghz on air / 4.7Ghz on water
4C/8T = 4.7Ghz on air / 5.0Ghz on water


----------



## Shiftstealth

Quote:


> This is overclock.net. I come here to find news about what performs best. If people made purely value-conscious decisions, nobody would pay 50% more for a gtx 1080 over a 1070 that has 80% of the performance. I value that 10% in the kind of things I plan to use my computer for and the price of sidegrading is basically $30 with my ebay account and proiximity to Microcenter. I will wait a little bit longer and see if the 7700k goes down in price due to Ryzen, but I'm pulling the trigger relatively soon either way.


If you were after a faster experience because this is OCN, then you'd wait for ryzen.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> i'm putting my bet on this:
> 
> 8C/16T = 4.2Ghz on air / 4.5Ghz on water
> 6C/12T = 4.4Ghz on air / 4.7Ghz on water
> 4C/8T = 4.7Ghz on air / 5.0Ghz on water


I think the 1800X will probably get to 4.4-4.5GHz on high end air cooling. Water may get it to 4.6-4.7GHz tops. Then again, maybe it can't OC at all, we just don't know yet. Even at stock, this is an amazing processor especially for the price.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Diogenes5*
> 
> 
> These comparisons don't take into account overclocking. They are stock for stock comparisons. You can overclock a 7700k much more than the other top CPU's listed and it makes a significant difference for many older games.
> These benchmarks are only for some newer games and even then the performance delta of 4+ core-systems is slight. For older games the single-threaded performance matters way more and most of us play those games. If you play a lot of an older game like StarCraft 2, you want the fastest possible single-threaded performance.
> Framerate experience matters. You minimum fps and dips will be more noticeable on a slower processor even if average framerates are the same.
> This article from PC perspective is far more instructive about the differences between CPU's. Basically it doesn't matter at all at higher resolutions when you are GPU capped which is a feather in Ryzen's cap. However, this isn't to say that a faster CPU doesn't provide a better experience. This article compares Sky Lake to Sandy Bridge and finds Framerate experience to be significantly better with a faster chip with less fps variance and higher fps minimums. This will be similar to what a 5ghz 7700k vs something like the a 4ghz ryzen chip would show.
> All AMD ever makes me do is wait. We've waited years for this because Global Foundries took forever to get 14nm out there. Meanwhile Intel was chugging straight ahead and Samsung and TSMC beat them to market. I waited in 2016 for their Ryzen chip which was delayed from late 2016 to this year and now they delayed their mainstream chips again to Q2 or later. Time is money and quite frankly, for how much I use my computer, even a few hundred dollars price difference isn't enough to make me wait.
> 
> Ryzen is an excellent product. And if the 6-core model was out now with good motherboards that were comparable to a Z270 chipset, I'd be willing to sacrifice some single-threaded performance to go with them. So in my case I'll pay the Intel premium for the fastest possible single-threaded performance in the PC market for now and the foreseeable future and enjoy its benefits in the kinds of software I normally use and the games I normally pay.
> This is overclock.net. I come here to find news about what performs best. If people made purely value-conscious decisions, nobody would pay 50% more for a gtx 1080 over a 1070 that has 80% of the performance. I value that 10% in the kind of things I plan to use my computer for and the price of sidegrading is basically $30 with my ebay account and proiximity to Microcenter. I will wait a little bit longer and see if the 7700k goes down in price due to Ryzen, but I'm pulling the trigger relatively soon either way.


In other words Ryzen will never be on your radar because of this and that and that and this.

Perfectly understandable. So it seems better to buy a 7700k and gain ~2% performance. And let us Honor Intel's ~ 2% increase.
Quote:


> Very little is different about the 7700K compared to the 6700K. If you clock both at the very same clock frequency, they both will perform roughly similar. As such, the architecture does not make a tremendous step forward in terms of IPC performance seen over Skylake.


http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/core_i7_7700k_processor_review_desktop_kaby_lake,23.html


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Yes, but 7700K is one better than 6700K in the sig.

Intel, shut up and take my money!!!


----------



## Sand3853

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> i'm putting my bet on this:
> 
> 8C/16T = 4.2Ghz on air / 4.5Ghz on water
> 6C/12T = 4.4Ghz on air / 4.7Ghz on water
> 4C/8T = 4.7Ghz on air / 5.0Ghz on water


I hope this is close. Maybe for the X series chips. I personally would be happy to get 4-4.2 on the 1700 under water.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I think the 1800X will probably get to 4.4-4.5GHz on high end air cooling. Water may get it to 4.6-4.7GHz tops. Then again, maybe it can't OC at all, we just don't know yet. Even at stock, this is an amazing processor especially for the price.


take note that this is an 8core chip, the cooling requirements at 4.7Ghz may not be attainable with simple water cooling.


----------



## Raghar

More likely high binned Ryzen would get 4.2 GHz on air and water. And lower bined Ryzens would need water to reach 4.2 GHz.
That when they would solve the RAM bug and stuff I heard about cache latency.

(Folks remember, we are talking about wastly different 14 nm technologies. You can't use Intel 14 nm as an example.)


----------



## Dhoulmagus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I think the 1800X will probably get to 4.4-4.5GHz on high end air cooling. Water may get it to 4.6-4.7GHz tops. Then again, maybe it can't OC at all, we just don't know yet. Even at stock, this is an amazing processor especially for the price.


This is why it's worth waiting a bit. I stopped rushing in and buying day one CPUs after the Phenom II, my phenom was never able to break 3.6 GHz but a year later you had people running RB-C3s at 4+ GHz on air.

I would wet my pants if the 1800x could hit 4.7GHz under water at 24/7 temps. We shall see!


----------



## finalheaven

Out of curiosity, why do people think that water cooling will result in higher clocks? Is there something special about water cooling over high end air? High end air cools as well if not better than most water coolers, which is why I'm asking. Assuming you can keep the temps similar, it doesn't matter if its air or water right?

For instance: http://www.relaxedtech.com/reviews/noctua/nh-d15-versus-closed-loop-liquid-coolers/1


----------



## ryan92084

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *finalheaven*
> 
> Out of curiosity, why do people think that water cooling will result in higher clocks? Is there something special about water cooling over high end air? High end air cools as well if not better than most water coolers, which is why I'm asking. Assuming you can keep the temps similar, it doesn't matter if its air or water right?
> 
> For instance: http://www.relaxedtech.com/reviews/noctua/nh-d15-versus-closed-loop-liquid-coolers/1


Don't confuse aio with actual water cooling.


----------



## C2H5OH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *finalheaven*
> 
> Out of curiosity, why do people think that water cooling will result in higher clocks? Is there something special about water cooling over high end air? High end air cools as well if not better than most water coolers, which is why I'm asking. Assuming you can keep the temps similar, it doesn't matter if its air or water right?
> 
> For instance: http://www.relaxedtech.com/reviews/noctua/nh-d15-versus-closed-loop-liquid-coolers/1


They are not talking AIO but custom water cooling.


----------



## finalheaven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *C2H5OH*
> 
> They are not talking AIO but custom water cooling.


Ah thank you. That explains it.


----------



## Diogenes5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> In other words Ryzen will never be on your radar because of this and that and that and this.
> 
> Perfectly understandable. So it seems better to buy a 7700k and gain ~2% performance. And let us Honor Intel's ~ 2% increase.
> http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/core_i7_7700k_processor_review_desktop_kaby_lake,23.html


A 6700k hits 4.6ghz on average, a 7700k hits 5ghz on average (source: Silicon Lottery). 10% higher IPC for overclockers. This is overclock.net, not budgetgamer.net.

Also please don't bother to respond respond. I posted something long, granular, and intelligent with citation. Given the quality of your post, you clearly weren't who I was addressing.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Yes, but 7700K is one better than 6700K in the sig.
> 
> Intel, shut up and take my money!!!


It's 10% faster and costs only the ebay fees of reselling on ebay to upgrade at the moment. Intel will take more of my money if they keep the single core IPC crown just like Nvidia will likely take more of my money by having the only high-end card out there with the 1080 TI (I'm rooting for Vega though). Adopting the best stuff is expensive. This is why you work hard and make good money folks: to buy overpriced technology because you can afford it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> More likely high binned Ryzen would get 4.2 GHz on air and water. And lower bined Ryzens would need water to reach 4.2 GHz.
> That when they would solve the RAM bug and stuff I heard about cache latency.
> 
> (Folks remember, we are talking about wastly different 14 nm technologies. You can't use Intel 14 nm as an example.)


The ram bug will hurt Ryzen's Framerate Experience even more. Good, fast ram raises minimum framerates. Hopefully they will solve it eventually but the high-end Ryzen boards don't really hold a finger to Intel's boards. Hopefully Ryzen 2 comes matures the chipset wtih more PCI-E Lanes and better storage options (m.2 raid PCIE raid 0 please).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> i'm putting my bet on this:
> 
> 8C/16T = 4.2Ghz on air / 4.5Ghz on water
> 6C/12T = 4.4Ghz on air / 4.7Ghz on water
> 4C/8T = 4.7Ghz on air / 5.0Ghz on water


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *finalheaven*
> 
> Out of curiosity, why do people think that water cooling will result in higher clocks? Is there something special about water cooling over high end air? High end air cools as well if not better than most water coolers, which is why I'm asking. Assuming you can keep the temps similar, it doesn't matter if its air or water right?
> 
> For instance: http://www.relaxedtech.com/reviews/noctua/nh-d15-versus-closed-loop-liquid-coolers/1


4.4 and 4.5 would be incredibly solid. I would adopt if thats true and give up the 10% IPC for 2 extra cores. Maybe if you disable some cores, it's possible. But I'm not jumping onto the hype train like so many people. AMD as well as Intel has burned us so many times already.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Diogenes5*
> 
> A 6700k hits 4.6ghz on average, a 7700k hits 5ghz on average (source: Silicon Lottery). 10% higher IPC for overclockers. This is overclock.net, not budgetgamer.net.
> 
> Also please don't bother to respond respond. I posted something long, granular, and intelligent with citation. Given the quality of your post, you clearly weren't who I was addressing..


So you grossly understates the 6700k potential to prove your point.

Guru had no problem getting their 6700k to 4.8ghz








http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/core_i7_6700k_processor_review_desktop_skylake,18.html

Not trying to tell you what to buy as that is non of my business, but get with the facts.

I added the citation too.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Diogenes5*
> 
> 4.4 and 4.5 would be incredibly solid. I would adopt if thats true and give up the 10% IPC for 2 extra cores. Maybe if you disable some cores, it's possible. But I'm not jumping onto the hype train like so many people. AMD as well as Intel has burned us so many times already.


indeed, depending on the overall IPC of Ryzen, a clock speed above 4Ghz may be enough to out-perform my current i5 on single-thread workloads.
this makes upgrading to a Ryzen 6C/12T and gain that extra 2C/8T worth it, even more so if Ryzen 8C/16T (SR7 1700X or 1700) can easily reach 4.0Ghz on air.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Diogenes5*
> 
> A 6700k hits 4.6ghz on average, a 7700k hits 5ghz on average (source: Silicon Lottery). 10% higher IPC for overclockers. This is overclock.net, not budgetgamer.net.
> 
> Also please don't bother to respond respond. I posted something long, granular, and intelligent with citation. Given the quality of your post, you clearly weren't who I was addressing.
> It's 10% faster and costs only the ebay fees of reselling on ebay to upgrade at the moment. Intel will take more of my money if they keep the single core IPC crown just like Nvidia will likely take more of my money by having the only high-end card out there with the 1080 TI (I'm rooting for Vega though). Adopting the best stuff is expensive. *This is why you work hard and make good money folks: to buy overpriced technology because you can afford it.*
> The ram bug will hurt Ryzen's Framerate Experience even more. Good, fast ram raises minimum framerates. Hopefully they will solve it eventually but the high-end Ryzen boards don't really hold a finger to Intel's boards. Hopefully Ryzen 2 comes matures the chipset wtih more PCI-E Lanes and better storage options (m.2 raid PCIE raid 0 please).
> 
> 4.4 and 4.5 would be incredibly solid. I would adopt if thats true and give up the 10% IPC for 2 extra cores. Maybe if you disable some cores, it's possible. But I'm not jumping onto the hype train like so many people. AMD as well as Intel has burned us so many times already.


Everybody look out, we got us a true "Balla" in here! I guess all us "poor people" should just clear on out...

Seriously though, how insufferable can you possibly be?


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Everybody look out, we got us a true "Balla" in here! I guess all us "poor people" should just clear on out...
> 
> Seriously though, how insufferable can you possibly be?


Apparently budget gamers dont overclock... Is not that where overclocking originated?

Gaining more performance than what you paid for.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Apparently budget gamers dont overclock... Is not that where overclocking originated?
> 
> Gaining more performance than what you paid for.


intel vetoed that prospects by locking their lower end chips though.
when requiring to splurge for an i5-K as a minimum, i wouldn't call those budget gamers.

though AMD still offered a lee-way for that, AMD's FM2 Athlons were fantastic in this position.
good core performance, overclocks well, and at a fraction of an i5's cost.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

No, to be a true enthusiast you simply buy the fastest and most expensive hardware that is currently available and then flaunt your mighty epeen all over the threads so that everyone can bow to your superior PC building skills...


----------



## Dhoulmagus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> intel vetoed that prospects by locking their lower end chips though.
> when requiring to splurge for an i5-K as a minimum, i wouldn't call those budget gamers.
> 
> though AMD still offered a lee-way for that, AMD's FM2 Athlons were fantastic in this position.
> cheap, good core performance, and overclocks really well, this literally puts an OCed Athlon between intel's i3 and i5 at a fraction of an i5's cost.


Truly unfair what Intel does with their lower tier chips because budgetgamer is mostly right. Buying a lower end chip and trying to squeeze every drop out of it to get it to match a system we couldn't afford was the heart and soul of overclocking 20 years ago. If they had locked the pentium, it would have just meant more sales of K5s and K6s or Cyrix 6x86. Of course in those days it was one socket for ALL THREE BRANDS! And in those days overclocking could make games go from totally unplayable to enjoyable, it could make a huge difference.

Now I know it doesn't apply to everyone, especially not now, but back then the people I knew who ran flagship hardware really just boasted about what their computer could do and never actually used them.

Edit: I'm pretty sure lower end non k skylake chips flew off the shelves last year when there were select motherboards that could OC them


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> No, to be a true enthusiast you simply buy the fastest and most expensive hardware that is currently available and then flaunt your mighty epeen all over the threads so that everyone can bow to your superior PC building skills...


well, not quite.

with how the community is pushing for more cores = better, it makes choosing a 4core chip now a bit of a "wasteful decision".
i mean, even amongst the camps weighting the 6C/12T and 8C/16T, people would insist that 8C/16T is more worth it.
let alone ask whether a 4C/8T is worth it, nope people would say its just a waste of money and recommend to get a 8C/16T Ryzen instead.
something something about "games supports more cores" so 4core chips are a waste of money.

while its still possible to OC both 6C/12T and 8C/16T chips, its not exactly "budget" either.
the only choice for a budget is intel's 2C/4T, or AMD's 4C/8T or 4C/4T, of course this places AMD's at a much better position.


----------



## Diogenes5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> So you grossly understates the 6700k potential to prove your point.
> 
> Guru had no problem getting their 6700k to 4.8ghz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/core_i7_6700k_processor_review_desktop_skylake,18.html
> 
> Not trying to tell you what to buy as that is non of my business, but get with the facts.
> 
> I added the citation too.


You're just embarrassing yourself. You provided an anecdote of one reviewer hitting 4.8 ghz. We have tons of people in the 6700k thread and also siliconlottery.com who bins 6700k's as a source. They sold 4.9 ghz 6700k for a premium and they were the top 3% of all 6700k's binned. Meanwhile the top 59% of all 7700k's hit 5.0 ghz.

If you don't have a basic understanding of statistics and why hundreds of data points is better than just one, I can't have a logical argument with you.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Everybody look out, we got us a true "Balla" in here! I guess all us "poor people" should just clear on out...
> 
> Seriously though, how insufferable can you possibly be?


Do you have reading comprehension problems? I'm fully admitting I'm overpaying and I admit I work harder to make more money to be basically a little more wasteful with that money. We've all been overpaying for years because AMD couldn't get a product competitive with Intel. I'm super glad AMD is out giving customers options and lower prices. They have the performance to dollar locked down it seems. But that's not the entire market; plenty of people will pay a premium for the highest single-threaded performance.

There are lots of uses where single-threaded is king. I've already cited a lot of them to counter the ridiculous overgeneralizations people have been making from that german article. People have been saying for years that multi-core increases are just around the corner and it may have finally happened just a little bit recently but the performance delta between newer games is in the single digits percentage-wise between 4-core and more-core devices. In older games, the performance delta is in the double digits percentage-wise. And higher single-threaded means better framerate experience overall as well. There are still good reasons to prefer a Kaby Lake processor over Ryzen.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Diogenes5*
> 
> We've all been overpaying for years because AMD couldn't get a product competitive with Intel. I'm super glad AMD is out giving customers options and lower prices. They have the performance to dollar locked down it seems. But that's not the entire market; plenty of people will pay a premium for the highest single-threaded performance.


its not that AMD wants to lower their prices, but rather AMD needed to lower their prices.
and its not because of Intel's chips either, but because of existing rigs of users.

to put it simply, users with Haswell / Skylake / Kabylake systems would be reluctant to upgrade, even more so when neither Intel nor AMD are offering drastically faster chips.
the only way AMD could pull those users to buying their chips by either upgrading or a secondary rig, is to tempt them with a good offering, and the only way to do this is to lower their price.

what AMD did is quite like what they did with Polaris, field a study on which price segments sells the most unit count and not by sales.
and from what i could see, they chose the $500~$100 bracket as their playing field, with their premium chip at $499 as Ryzen 7 1800X.
strictly speaking, an 8C/16T at $329 is already ridiculously cheap, people often told me that i'm deluded when i said it, yet look at AMD now.


----------



## JackCY

I'm sure many of the "3rd world" countries are eagerly waiting for the Ryzen 4/4 4/8 variants. You have to remember not everyone in the world spends $300+ on a CPU. There are significantly more low budget builders than the rest. Sadly the market right now is set with Intel and Nvidia catering to the top 1% with the fastest and most expensive they can offer because it gives them the best profit per unit sold even if they sell only so few. Then they spit out some lower budget stuff that sometimes isn't even worth buying and the wait for AMD to offer something more decent at low prices continues. Lack of competition due to no regulation of the monopolies and oligopolies being created by buying competition or bribes to keep them out of market.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> I'm sure many of the *"3rd world"* countries are eagerly waiting for the Ryzen 4/4 4/8 variants. You have to remember not everyone in the world spends $300+ on a CPU. There are significantly more low budget builders than the rest. Sadly the market right now is set with Intel and Nvidia catering to the top 1% with the fastest and most expensive they can offer because it gives them the best profit per unit sold even if they sell only so few. Then they spit out some lower budget stuff that sometimes isn't even worth buying and the wait for AMD to offer something more decent at low prices continues. Lack of competition due to no regulation of the monopolies and oligopolies being created by buying competition or bribes to keep them out of market.


LoL, people still use that word, but don't really know the meaning, it seems.


----------



## Dhoulmagus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> LoL, people still use that word, but don't really know the meaning, it seems.


I think it's been redefined to mean developing countries rather than anything outside of the capitalist and communist bubble.

Anyway, developing country or not people who aren't enthusiasts in general have no interest in the desktop segment as it is, nor do they comprehend or care about how many cores are in their computer. Your friends will tell you their laptop has an i5 or an i7 but they likely have no clue what generation it is, or how it differs from a monster $1000 desktop i7. My father worked on DEC superminis when I was still in the womb and is on his computer every single day and probably couldn't tell you how many cores it has since I built it for him. I built my mother a core 2 duo machine that she still uses, it does all of her libreoffice (we're linux users), youtube, facebook, whatever exists in her world runs fine on that.

Funny way to think about it, ever do PC repairs/maintenance for the average person who curses about their PC saying it's a piece of junk because it runs slow and windows keep popping up for no reason? They live totally unaware of new hardware and only upgrade when they riddle their PC with so much malware they can no longer use it. So all that said, people outside of our little bubble aren't even aware that ryzen is coming out next week









Oh and I'm going to buy a Zen 4 core, probably a 1400x unless the lower end versions overclock better. Will be a bday present for my brother who actually plays the latest games on a phenom II and a 7770 no less


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Diogenes5*
> 
> You're just embarrassing yourself. You provided an anecdote of one reviewer hitting 4.8 ghz. We have tons of people in the 6700k thread and also siliconlottery.com who bins 6700k's as a source. They sold 4.9 ghz 6700k for a premium and they were the top 3% of all 6700k's binned. Meanwhile the top 59% of all 7700k's hit 5.0 ghz.
> 
> If you don't have a basic understanding of statistics and why hundreds of data points is better than just one, I can't have a logical argument with you.
> Do you have reading comprehension problems? I'm fully admitting I'm overpaying and I admit I work harder to make more money to be basically a little more wasteful with that money. We've all been overpaying for years because AMD couldn't get a product competitive with Intel. I'm super glad AMD is out giving customers options and lower prices. They have the performance to dollar locked down it seems. But that's not the entire market; plenty of people will pay a premium for the highest single-threaded performance.
> 
> There are lots of uses where single-threaded is king. I've already cited a lot of them to counter the ridiculous overgeneralizations people have been making from that german article. People have been saying for years that multi-core increases are just around the corner and it may have finally happened just a little bit recently but the performance delta between newer games is in the single digits percentage-wise between 4-core and more-core devices. In older games, the performance delta is in the double digits percentage-wise. And higher single-threaded means better framerate experience overall as well. There are still good reasons to prefer a Kaby Lake processor over Ryzen.


You have been over paying because you wanted to. AMD didn't take money from your pockets.


----------



## sugarhell

I think there is a huge variable that most benchmarks/reviews doesn't show.

When a reviewer bench a game he just bench a game. On the system the only app that is running is just the game.

This is good for measuring the ultimate performance but in normal conditions most people do more things at the same time.

For example when i am playing i have discord open, google chrome, some notifications tools for my job , a lot of jet brain tools , foobar and some other things. Sometimes i go extreme and i have open all the time Unity, photoshop.

I remember trying to play bf mp on a i5 and while the performance was identical to my i7 i couldn't open almost anything else because all the cores was maxed out. Just by opening an application my performance in game was a bit lower.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> I think there is a huge variable that most benchmarks/reviews doesn't show.
> 
> When a reviewer bench a game he just bench a game. On the system the only app that is running is just the game.
> 
> This is good for measuring the ultimate performance but in normal conditions most people do more things at the same time.
> 
> For example when i am playing i have discord open, google chrome, some notifications tools for my job , a lot of jet brain tools , foobar and some other things. Sometimes i go extreme and i have open all the time Unity, photoshop.
> 
> I remember trying to play bf mp on a i5 and while the performance was identical to my i7 i couldn't open almost anything else because all the cores was maxed out. Just by opening an application my performance in game was a bit lower.


And this is exactly the reason why I'm going to Ryzen, well said.


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> And this is exactly the reason why I'm going to Ryzen, well said.


It's not only about ryzen. Intel should release a 6core as a mainstream i7.


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> It's not only about ryzen. Intel should release a 6core as a mainstream i7.


And what they're doing instead is releasing a dual-channel-only quad-core i7 on the replacement of socket R.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> And this is exactly the reason why I'm going to Ryzen, well said.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not only about ryzen. Intel should release a 6core as a mainstream i7.
Click to expand...

My next CPU was going to have 6 or more cores, I didn't care which side of the fence it came from, AMD is just offering better value so that's the way I'm going.

I'm hoping that Ryzen might convince Intel to bring Hex cores to mainstream.


----------



## ducegt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> You have been over paying because you wanted to. AMD didn't take money from your pockets.


Lol that's what he said himself. What don't you understand? That other people can have different and ideas than your own? Please don't respond to anything unrelated to this.

I'm in eastern Europe right now in my second country where tech is more expensive and less available. Incomes are a fraction as well. I've been a teenager who needed my mom to fund my first rig...and it was an AMD. I paid for my college by working before it, during, and after. Before and during, I bought AMD. Not only were they cheaper back then, but with OC they were better. I've been with Intel since Conroe, but AMD has my complete loyalty for their video cards. I'm okay paying more If I get more. The US federal minimum wage is 7.25 a hour. A 350 7700K is probably a 60 hour work week split between fast food chains. Doss 60 hours sound insane to some of you young people? No time during Xmas break or the summer? Too much pride to work an entry job? Do you do that and spend on higher priorities? Anyway, I digress. Don't have any bar graphs to prove what's better for everyone because there is no such thing.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> Lol that's what he said himself. What don't you understand? That other people can have different and ideas than your own? Please don't respond to anything unrelated to this.
> 
> I'm in eastern Europe right now in my second country where tech is more expensive and less available. Incomes are a fraction as well. I've been a teenager who needed my mom to fund my first rig...and it was an AMD. I paid for my college by working before it, during, and after. Before and during, I bought AMD. Not only were they cheaper back then, but with OC they were better. I've been with Intel since Conroe, but AMD has my complete loyalty for their video cards. I'm okay paying more If I get more. The US federal minimum wage is 7.25 a hour. A 350 7700K is probably a 60 hour work week split between fast food chains. Doss 60 hours sound insane to some of you young people? No time during Xmas break or the summer? Too much pride to work an entry job? Do you do that and spend on higher priorities? Anyway, I digress. Don't have any bar graphs to prove what's better for everyone because there is no such thing.


Dont tell me when and how to respond. Read and understand my posts before replying to me.


----------



## czin125

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Apparently budget gamers dont overclock... Is not that where overclocking originated?
> 
> Gaining more performance than what you paid for.


You still need a more expensive board for high end phases/caps/vrms/2oz copper especially on the 1800X or something?


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *czin125*
> 
> You still need a more expensive board for high end phases/caps/vrms/2oz copper especially on the 1800X or something?


Do you have any proof of this?

I have never bought am expensive board and have always overclocked until I got my x99 system.


----------



## 2002dunx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Um, my original H80 from 2012 is still working every day with no issues in my backup rig. Never have had a single problem out of it...


Mine too !

dunx


----------



## Alwrath

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2002dunx*
> 
> Mine too !
> 
> dunx


I got my H50 running in my backup rig from 2010 still going perfect lol.


----------



## 2002dunx

I don't need a new rig, but this is starting to get me interested.....

Please give me at least 3x PCIE slots at a decent speed....

BOINC needs me to fund an 8 core CPU !









dunx


----------



## Wishmaker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Why not? I know my i7 is fine but will have to upgrade eventually. 5 years are enough for this CPU.


5?? My I7 920 is still kicking







.


----------



## Superplush

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wishmaker*
> 
> 5?? My I7 920 is still kicking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Still on i7 950 here *High five*, sadly my 7970 died this year but just in time for vega !







lol


----------



## Dhoulmagus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Superplush*
> 
> Still on i7 950 here *High five*, sadly my 7970 died this year but just in time for vega !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol


What a shame to have a 7970 die. That card is still such a beast for a 1080P gaming rig still.

I was actually just over a buddies house and he was playing The Witcher 3 on his 1366 rig.. Looked smooth as butter to me, crazy.


----------



## one-shot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serious_Don*
> 
> What a shame to have a 7970 die. That card is still such a beast for a 1080P gaming rig still.
> 
> I was actually just over a buddies house and he was playing The Witcher 3 on his 1366 rig.. Looked smooth as butter to me, crazy.


My 7950 craps on Fallout 4 and GTA V. The cards are rubbish now.


----------



## Dhoulmagus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *one-shot*
> 
> My 7950 craps on Fallout 4 and GTA V. The cards are rubbish now.


at 1080P? I get a buttery smooth 60 FPS on a 280x / 4790k in both games @ 1080. I have a 7950 with an FX 4350 that runs GTA V pretty well but the CPU hits max and I lose some frames. Either way, they had a nice long life.


----------



## nakano2k1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serious_Don*
> 
> at 1080P? I get a buttery smooth 60 FPS on a 280x / 4790k in both games @ 1080. I have a 7950 with an FX 4350 that runs GTA V pretty well but the CPU hits max and I lose some frames. Either way, they had a nice long life.


Same here. Especially when I OC the core to 1240 on mine. Still a great card although i'm somewhat concerned for the future given the 3gb only of Vram.


----------



## OutlawII

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Dont tell me when and how to respond. Read and understand my posts before replying to me.


Is this like saying dont assume my Gender lol


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OutlawII*
> 
> Is this like saying dont assume my Gender lol


----------



## Dhoulmagus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nakano2k1*
> 
> Same here. Especially when I OC the core to 1240 on mine. Still a great card although i'm somewhat concerned for the future given the 3gb only of Vram.


Are there games out there loading up > 3 GB @ 1080P on stock textures?

I don't think these old boys could handle much more memory even if they had them within a frame time. Makes me wonder how the 290x 8gb version is standing up against the 4gb version in current games.

Either way, I still run every last game I play at pretty much ultra settings @ 1080.. If I have to start dialing back textures to medium i won't complain. I think it's about time to upgrade though since I've had this 1440 / 144hz monitor sitting here for almost a year now. Of course with all the Ryzen hype, I'm waiting for vega


----------



## nakano2k1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serious_Don*
> 
> Are there games out there loading up > 3 GB @ 1080P on stock textures?
> 
> I don't think these old boys could handle much more memory even if they had them within a frame time. Makes me wonder how the 290x 8gb version is standing up against the 4gb version in current games.
> 
> Either way, I still run every last game I play at pretty much ultra settings @ 1080.. If I have to start dialing back textures to medium i won't complain. I think it's about time to upgrade though since I've had this 1440 / 144hz monitor sitting here for almost a year now. Of course with all the Ryzen hype, I'm waiting for vega


The games that I mainly play? No... which is why I haven't upgraded yet. I did have a RX 480 but I gave it to my friend so he could have some fun while he's in the hospital.

I do notice that with every year that my textures are being dialed back more and more when it comes to AAA games however. I usually do a mishmash of settings nowadays in order to get the best experience. I miss the old days where I just double click and go without having to worry about turning down the textures. Oh well, i'm just about to retire this guy soon anyways so we'll see what I can pick up.


----------



## Superplush

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serious_Don*
> 
> Are there games out there loading up > 3 GB @ 1080P on stock textures?
> 
> I don't think these old boys could handle much more memory even if they had them within a frame time. Makes me wonder how the 290x 8gb version is standing up against the 4gb version in current games.
> 
> Either way, I still run every last game I play at pretty much ultra settings @ 1080.. If I have to start dialing back textures to medium i won't complain. I think it's about time to upgrade though since I've had this 1440 / 144hz monitor sitting here for almost a year now. Of course with all the Ryzen hype, I'm waiting for vega


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nakano2k1*
> 
> The games that I mainly play? No... which is why I haven't upgraded yet. I did have a RX 480 but I gave it to my friend so he could have some fun while he's in the hospital.
> 
> I do notice that with every year that my textures are being dialed back more and more when it comes to AAA games however. I usually do a mishmash of settings nowadays in order to get the best experience. I miss the old days where I just double click and go without having to worry about turning down the textures. Oh well, i'm just about to retire this guy soon anyways so we'll see what I can pick up.


Yeah I know what you guys mean, my Vapor-X 7970 6gb was one that died.. jesus I've never had such a beast of a card. Bought in the days of "Yeah 6gb vRam is a waste of money" just before all the games bumped up the system requirements, it brute-forced some of the crappist releases of the past few years. I remember playing Watch dogs, day one and only having afew problems with shadows flickering and the witcher 3 ran at 55FPS on ultra when that was released. Sadly it died earlier this year playing WoW .. heh a sad, sad death







Playing Witcher 3 now on another one and with most of the Crappy post-processing things turned off ( Motion blur etc ) it runs on Ultra really smoothly.

So I've ended up with my partners stock Sapphire 3gb 7970 and she got a MSI RX 480 8GB and a 43" 4k monitor .... I can't help but feel I got the raw end of that deal ...


----------



## amstech

I ran into a few VRAM issues when I had my U3011 but no trouble yet with my old Acer.
Playing through the Crysis 3 campaign now (finally, beat all the others) on high settings/FXAA, silk smooth, no mods though.


----------



## nist7

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> I'm sure many of the "3rd world" countries are eagerly waiting for the Ryzen 4/4 4/8 variants. You have to remember not everyone in the world spends $300+ on a CPU. There are significantly more low budget builders than the rest. Sadly the market right now is set with Intel and Nvidia catering to the top 1% with the fastest and most expensive they can offer because it gives them the best profit per unit sold even if they sell only so few. Then they spit out some lower budget stuff that sometimes isn't even worth buying and the wait for AMD to offer something more decent at low prices continues. Lack of competition due to no regulation of the monopolies and oligopolies being created by buying competition or bribes to keep them out of market.


It would be interesting to see internal data from AMD/Intel and other CPU manufacturers about % sales of their enthusiast vs mid tier vs lower end CPUs. These numbers probably do exist but likely corporate secrets.

While we here at OCN are enthusiasts and feel like we're surrounded by thousands of enthusiasts....the majority of the market/public probably has no idea even what is a i5 or i7 and hundreds of thousands of PCs are sold without any care to that (brick & mortar vs amazon vs others).

So it's possible that we enthusiasts are a TINY fraction of the overall market. Similar to cars, which I love, and on car forums we debate this and that but in the end of the day out of the millions of cars sold....only a tiny fraction are enthusiast/performance cars and vast majority are appliances....and this is similar to PCs.

But would be interesting to actually see what % of the market we OCN/enthusiasts take up. Probably 1% or so and likely less...?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serious_Don*
> 
> I think it's been redefined to mean developing countries rather than anything outside of the capitalist and communist bubble.
> 
> *Anyway, developing country or not people who aren't enthusiasts in general have no interest in the desktop segment as it is, nor do they comprehend or care about how many cores are in their computer. Your friends will tell you their laptop has an i5 or an i7 but they likely have no clue what generation it is, or how it differs from a monster $1000 desktop i7. My father worked on DEC superminis when I was still in the womb and is on his computer every single day and probably couldn't tell you how many cores it has since I built it for him. I built my mother a core 2 duo machine that she still uses, it does all of her libreoffice (we're linux users), youtube, facebook, whatever exists in her world runs fine on that.
> 
> Funny way to think about it, ever do PC repairs/maintenance for the average person who curses about their PC saying it's a piece of junk because it runs slow and windows keep popping up for no reason? They live totally unaware of new hardware and only upgrade when they riddle their PC with so much malware they can no longer use it. So all that said, people outside of our little bubble aren't even aware that ryzen is coming out next week
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Oh and I'm going to buy a Zen 4 core, probably a 1400x unless the lower end versions overclock better. Will be a bday present for my brother who actually plays the latest games on a phenom II and a 7770 no less


Exactly.

Out of my friends/acquiantances, 1 is as into PC as me and many other friends have 0 clue on computers. I was helping another friend pick out a laptop and she had no idea what was different between one laptop and another and was asking if a i3 or a i5 was better after a salesman pointed those out to her.....

As I mentioned just in this post...it would be interesting to see what % of the total market are of enthusiasts...and I wouldn't be surprised if its right around 1% or less.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> My next CPU was going to have 6 or more cores, I didn't care which side of the fence it came from, AMD is just offering better value so that's the way I'm going.
> 
> I'm hoping that Ryzen might convince Intel to bring Hex cores to mainstream.


Indeed. No bias is the best way. I just don't get AMD or Intel fanboys. Competition is always great and of course value/budget is a priority for many of us even in the enthusiast circle.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Superplush*
> 
> Still on i7 950 here *High five*, sadly my 7970 died this year but just in time for vega !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol


Dang! And I thought I was retro-cool still rocking my 2600K.....


----------



## Silent Scone

http://edgeup.asus.com/2017/02/22/ryzen-am4-motherboard-guide/


----------



## Raghar

Quad cores have nice communications between cores. (Actually Ryzen is also quad core kinda, it's just connected on die with another quad core.) Pure 6 cores might also have nice communication with relatively low latency. 10+ is a problem even with ringbus.


----------



## hatlesschimp

So whats the go with RYZEN is it just a cool name or is it AMD's long awaited INTEL killer? I havent given AMD much thought in the last few years, I really have been in the NVIDIA and INTEL camp for a bit now and I'm getting a little bored.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> http://edgeup.asus.com/2017/02/22/ryzen-am4-motherboard-guide/


Would not buy a single one of those. B350s cheaped out with Realtek LAN etc. ASUS cost cutting continues. Better wait for "underdog" brands that offer better hardware for same or lower $$$.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Would not buy a single one of those. B350s cheaped out with Realtek LAN etc. ASUS cost cutting continues. Better wait for "underdog" brands that offer better hardware for same or lower $$$.


Thinking maybe ASRock?


----------



## FlawleZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serious_Don*
> 
> Are there games out there loading up > 3 GB @ 1080P on stock textures?


I play a game called The Isle that's built on UE4 engine and @1080P everything max it sometimes creeps to 3.1-3.2GB ov VRAM. This game is still early access so is possible there will be more optimizations at a later date considering with Shadows on max setting my R9 Fury doesn't always hold 60 FPS.


----------



## rbarrett96

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I think the 1800X will probably get to 4.4-4.5GHz on high end air cooling. Water may get it to 4.6-4.7GHz tops. Then again, maybe it can't OC at all, we just don't know yet. Even at stock, this is an amazing processor especially for the price.


Where would you put these clocks on a half solution like a corsair all in one liquid cooler?


----------



## rexolaboy

First gen Zen isn't clocking higher than 4.2ghz on water. 5.2ghz on ln2 is a big indication of this. If all you want is the "5ghz" then get a kaby lake or wait for zen+. Meanwhile ryzen at 4ghz will be more than enough for gaming and productivity.


----------



## ducegt

The part 2 video shows XFR taking 1800X to 4.1 for one core on water. 3.7 on all cores. They tried to do 4.1 on all cores and it crashed cinebench. Kind of embarrassing.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hatlesschimp*
> 
> So whats the go with RYZEN is it just a cool name or is it AMD's long awaited INTEL killer? I havent given AMD much thought in the last few years, I really have been in the NVIDIA and INTEL camp for a bit now and I'm getting a little bored.


Well so far it's looking like Broadwell-E performance at half the price tag, might lose a little in single thread but faster in multi thread.


----------



## xzamples




----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xzamples*












Man... makes me want to dump my AIO.

AMD is putting out everything high quality in 2017.

Why did I switch to Intel at the time I did


----------



## Hueristic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> http://edgeup.asus.com/2017/02/22/ryzen-am4-motherboard-guide/


I believe that chart is wrong and should say Hybrid CrossfireX rather than CrossfireX.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hueristic*
> 
> I believe that chart is wrong and should say Hybrid CrossfireX rather than CrossfireX.


Why Hybrid Crossfire and not Crossfire?


----------



## Hueristic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Why Hybrid Crossfire and not Crossfire?


CrossfireX is multi card correct? Hybrid is onboard and single card. thats why.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Since XFR makes the 1800X basically a 4.1GHz card at stock, it would be pretty weird if it couldn't OC from there at all. If 4.1GHz really were the maximum clock speed the chip could run at it would be odd for AMD to have clocked it so high at stock. They generally don't max out their chips at stock speeds.


----------



## Shiftstealth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Since XFR makes the 1800X basically a 4.1GHz card at stock, it would be pretty weird if it couldn't OC from there at all. If 4.1GHz really were the maximum clock speed the chip could run at it would be odd for AMD to have clocked it so high at stock. They generally don't max out their chips at stock speeds.


I remember when i bought my Kuma 7750 Black edition. I think i could only get 100-200Mhz above stock out of it. I was pretty mad. All i want is 4Ghz out of my 1700x though


----------



## ducegt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Since XFR makes the 1800X basically a 4.1GHz card at stock, it would be pretty weird if it couldn't OC from there at all. If 4.1GHz really were the maximum clock speed the chip could run at it would be odd for AMD to have clocked it so high at stock. They generally don't max out their chips at stock speeds.


Did you not see the leaked video? 4.1 on a single core. Cinebench 3.7 on all cores. They attempted a manual OC of 4.1 on all cores and cinebench froze the system during their presentation. And that was on water and supposedly organized by some OC specialists.

Why would they limit XFR to 4.1 on a single core if they can go to 4.6 on all cores or whatever number you would like imagine. Your claims are baseless. Why wouldn't they want to max stock clocks? Especially with a XFR feature.


----------



## Shiftstealth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> Did you not see the leaked video? 4.1 on a single core. Cinebench 3.7 on all cores. They attempted a manual OC of 4.1 on all cores and cinebench froze the system during their presentation. And that was on water and supposedly organized by some OC specialists.
> 
> Why would they limit XFR to 4.1 on a single core if they can go to 4.6 on all cores or whatever number you would like imagine. Your claims are baseless. Why wouldn't they want to max stock clocks? Especially with a XFR feature.


Why doesn't intel clock all 7700k's at 4.9Ghz since they all reach it?


----------



## ducegt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shiftstealth*
> 
> Why doesn't intel clock all 7700k's at 4.9Ghz since they all reach it?


Several reasons. The 7700 non Ks are binned to work with a modest cooling solution. The 7700K can work with the same cooling at bumped stocks clocks...even in a tropical climate or India. So, TDP. Your mind is blown, I'm sure. 7700K is one SKU so they chose to not bin several products like with Ryzen. Their architecture scales with cooling. Multiplier and voltage can be changed on the fly in Windows with an Intel app. 7700K at stock is still leading the pack. Higher OCs would reduce attraction to higher core counts. Not all 7700Ks hit 4.9; and even less do on modest cooling. Not the most intelligent question to ask as a devils advocate... AMD has every incentive to come out swinging out of the box and as if isn't enough, they have XFR. You really think they would limit XFR and boost clocks so that people can get their socks off by moving a slider bar themselves? It's smart of AMD to push the chips as far as they can scale on conventional cooling out of the box and it just seems they have already done so, but we can hope for more. Hoping is different than pulling expectations out of our rear ends.


----------



## Shiftstealth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> Several reasons. The 7700 non Ks are binned to work with a modest cooling solution. The 7700K can work with the same cooling at bumped stocks clocks...even in a tropical climate or India. So, TDP. Your mind is blown, I'm sure. 7700K is one SKU so they chose to not bin several products like with Ryzen. Their architecture scales with cooling. Multiplier and voltage can be changed on the fly in Windows with an Intel app. 7700K at stock is still leading the pack. Higher OCs would reduce attraction to higher core counts. Not all 7700Ks hit 4.9; and even less do on modest cooling. Not the most intelligent question to ask as a devils advocate... AMD has every incentive to come out swinging out of the box and as if isn't enough, they have XFR. You really think they would limit XFR and boost clocks so that people can get their socks off by using a bar themselves? It's smart of AMD to push the chips as far as they can scale on conventional cooling out of the box and it just seems they have already done so, but we can hope for more. Hoping is different than pulling expectations out of our rear ends.


I'm hoping for 4 Ghz. I don't expect more. Some people are expecting too much. Just because their unit failed at 4.1Ghz doesn't mean much. While it was on water we aren't aware of other variables. OCUK was able to hit 4.05Ghz on a 1700 on the CH 6 Hero. So perhaps the wall is 4.1Ghz, if they aren't binned at all. I still think that is a respectable number. Before any of these newer architectures from intel in the past 3 years most CPU's didn't hit 4Ghz. i7 920, largely was limited to 4.0 Ghz unless you had extreme cooling. AMD Phenom 945. Largely limited to 4 Ghz. I feel 4 Ghz is a modest clock speed, and we are letting recent products from intel dictate our expectations. I personally will be A-OK with a 4 Ghz Octo-core over a 4.5Ghz Quad (I had a 6700k running at 4.5). I thought about going the Kaby lake route, and getting a 5.2Ghz one, but that just isn't the future. That is like backing the Pentium 4 netburst architecture, and to a large extent Bulldozer. In my opinion i'd rather have a robust CPU, rather than one that favors frequency. As we saw the issues with Netburst, and Bulldozer, it just isn't scalable past a certain point.


----------



## OutlawII

So ryzen is going to be a very hot chip it looks like


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shiftstealth*
> 
> Why doesn't intel clock all 7700k's at 4.9Ghz since they all reach it?


At what voltage and can 100% reach 4.9ghz


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> Thinking maybe ASRock?


It changes all the time, but could be, yes. There are plenty brands beyond the most popular 2-3 just online people won't brag about voting with their wallet and buying something else but an ASUS Crosshair/Maximus/Compensator.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shiftstealth*
> 
> Why doesn't intel clock all 7700k's at 4.9Ghz since they all reach it?


Because the RMAs and returns they would get would be too high for their liking. Coupled with: bought a 7700 at 4.9GHz and 7700K at 4.9GHz and my 7700K will only OC to 5.0GHz, while both are rated at 125W compared to 6700K 95W








And, AVX2 crashes Kaby Lake, OMG OMG hyperbole.


----------



## Mr.Eiht

Hey lads,
while looking at some Cinebench scores on a german side I saw the cinebench results for the

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X 8x 3.6 GHz (4 GHz) HT
whooping 1617 points!

They just have the numbers there but if you want to check it out:
http://www.technikaffe.de/cpu_benchmark-cinebench_r15_multi_core-8


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OutlawII*
> 
> So ryzen is going to be a very hot chip it looks like


Based on what?


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr.Eiht*
> 
> Hey lads,
> while looking at some Cinebench scores on a german side I saw the cinebench results for the
> 
> AMD Ryzen 7 1800X 8x 3.6 GHz (4 GHz) HT
> whooping 1617 points!
> 
> They just have the numbers there but if you want to check it out:
> http://www.technikaffe.de/cpu_benchmark-cinebench_r15_multi_core-8


They also have the 6c/12t and 4c/8t CPUs in there too, either they know something we don't or they guessed where they'd land.


----------



## kd5151

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> They also have the 6c/12t and 4c/8t CPUs in there too, either they know something we don't or they guessed where they'd land.


google cpu-monkey


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kd5151*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> They also have the 6c/12t and 4c/8t CPUs in there too, either they know something we don't or they guessed where they'd land.
> 
> 
> 
> google cpu-monkey
Click to expand...

Interesting, they have the clock speeds for the 1600x wrong, that means all the data is from engineering samples.


----------



## ryan92084

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Interesting, they have the clock speeds for the 1600x wrong, that means all the data is from engineering samples.


They also have the 1500 as a 6 core part when with have a rep from amd stating that is the 4c/8t part


----------



## kd5151

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Interesting, they have the clock speeds for the 1600x wrong, that means all the data is from engineering samples.


Yes ...Note: The information shown below is based on a pre-sample. Technical details or benchmark results may be different in the final version of this processor.


----------



## Mr.Eiht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> They also have the 6c/12t and 4c/8t CPUs in there too, either they know something we don't or they guessed where they'd land.


See how bad I am...I am at work, check Cinebench scores for unreleased CPUs and stuff and I dont even scroll down








So thanks for sharing the content of "my" source with me sir!


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ryan92084*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Interesting, they have the clock speeds for the 1600x wrong, that means all the data is from engineering samples.
> 
> 
> 
> They also have the 1500 as a 6 core part when with have a rep from amd stating that is the 4c/8t part
Click to expand...

Always figured there'd be a lower clocked 6c/12t chip so I never doubted that, got a source though?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kd5151*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Interesting, they have the clock speeds for the 1600x wrong, that means all the data is from engineering samples.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes ...Note: The information shown below is based on a pre-sample. Technical details or benchmark results may be different in the final version of this processor.
Click to expand...

I did see that, it wasn't shown on the original link








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr.Eiht*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> They also have the 6c/12t and 4c/8t CPUs in there too, either they know something we don't or they guessed where they'd land.
> 
> 
> 
> See how bad I am...I am at work, check Cinebench scores for unreleased CPUs and stuff and I dont even scroll down
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So thanks for sharing the content of "my" source with me sir!
Click to expand...

Hey, can't complain about checking this out while at work, sounds pretty sweet


----------



## ryan92084

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Always figured there'd be a lower clocked 6c/12t chip so I never doubted that, got a source though?


Sorry no sound right now so i can't find the exact point but it should be toward the end. Definitely after 21:00 maybe after 24:00 https://youtu.be/GFoOG00DseE

There is still room for lower clocked non x chips or he could have been mistaken.


----------



## ryan92084

Now that i'm not stuck on a phone with a baby in hand
"..and then we'll also bring out another version of the ryzen 5 that'll be the 4 core 8 thread and that'll be the 1500x"


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ryan92084*
> 
> Now that i'm not stuck on a phone with a baby in hand
> "..and then we'll also bring out another version of the ryzen 5 that'll be the 4 core 8 thread and that'll be the 1500x"


Interesting, was hoping there'd be a low clocked 6c/12t chip but not sure where in the stack it would fit now.


----------



## helis4life

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> Did you not see the leaked video? 4.1 on a single core. Cinebench 3.7 on all cores. They attempted a manual OC of 4.1 on all cores and cinebench froze the system during their presentation. And that was on water and supposedly organized by some OC specialists.
> 
> Why would they limit XFR to 4.1 on a single core if they can go to 4.6 on all cores or whatever number you would like imagine. Your claims are baseless. Why wouldn't they want to max stock clocks? Especially with a XFR feature.


Thats not right, it wasnt the system that crashed. The guy says they "lost the feed"


----------



## renx

These are new and supposed to be legit:

1700X and 1700 gaming benchmarks.

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-1700-official-gaming-benchmarks-leak/

edit: actually they come from reddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5wsmtg/1700x_1700_gaming_benchmarks/

-


----------



## ducegt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *helis4life*
> 
> Thats not right, it wasnt the system that crashed. The guy says they "lost the feed"


They lost the feed because it crashed. If they only lost the feed, they still had cameras...and legs.


----------



## Serios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> They lost the feed because it crashed. If they only lost the feed, they still had cameras...and legs.


I can't see what makes it such a big deal.
That is what happens with live demos even if they tested the system before at 4.1 ghz and it worked.


----------



## ducegt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serios*
> 
> I can't see what makes it such a big deal.
> That is what happens with live demos even if they tested the system before at 4.1 ghz and it worked.


In other words, the chip and/or software isnt stable running all cores at 4.1. Surely you arent saying it means nothing. I never said it was huge. A 4.2 absolute OC wall, bar LN2, isnt surprising to me, but will be to many.


----------



## Particle

The first review for Ryzen would appear to be online, but it's in Arabic or something with a similar script. Google translate broke when I tried to use it, so I'm not sure.

http://www.shahrsakhtafzar.com/fa/review/cpu/11652-amd-ryzen-7-1700x-review


----------



## kaosstar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Particle*
> 
> The first review for Ryzen would appear to be online, but it's in Arabic or something with a similar script. Google translate broke when I tried to use it, so I'm not sure.
> 
> http://www.shahrsakhtafzar.com/fa/review/cpu/11652-amd-ryzen-7-1700x-review


Thanks for the link. It works with Bing translate, and apparently it's Persian.

Their gaming benchmarks suck though. It's basically old DX11 games.


----------



## Wishmaker

As expected.
Quote:


> Strengths
> • The high number of cores and Thread
> • Ultra-high performance algorithms based on tests Multithread and modern
> • The price is very affordable and competitive
> 
> • cooling performance and high efficiency
> 
> • impressive performance in testing energy management
> 
> weak points
> • Do not support quad-channel memory (Quad Channel)
> 
> • Single Thread weaker performance compared with competitive processors
> • weaker-than-expected performance in the gaming tests


----------



## azanimefan

weaker then expected gaming results?

Its basically even with a much higher clocked i7-7700k in all but the most single threaded titles, and even those it's pretty close. the only title I see it performing "poorly" was civVI which as well all know is a poorly coded under performing mess.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> In other words, the chip and/or software isnt stable running all cores at 4.1. Surely you arent saying it means nothing. I never said it was huge. A 4.2 absolute OC wall, bar LN2, isnt surprising to me, but will be to many.


What 4.2ghz absolute oc?


----------



## Hequaqua

[Guru3D] First Ryzen Benchmarks
Quote:


> Iranian website ShahrSakhtafzar just went online with a review on the Ryzen 7 1700X processor. Shahryar states that they did not receive the processor and motherboard from AMD, but was obtained (likely) through a regular e-tail channel.
> 
> The content released prior to the embargo tomorrow was bound to happen I guess. Earlier this year a french magazine already posted a wide scope of results.
> 
> The review carries a good number of benchmarks based on a B350 motherboard from MSI as well as a AMD Ryzen 1700X processor. That model would be the 3.4 GHz base and 3.8 MHz Turbo clocked version. They us a GeForce GTX 980 for gaming, which definitely forms a bit of a GPU bottleneck. ShahrSakhtafzar goes through the benchmark paces with a Core i7 7700K, 6700K and 6950X for comparison.
> 
> Their full review is posted here. Below a couple of benchmarks courtesy of ShahrSakhtafzar, click the thumbnails to enlarge.











*Source*


----------



## ryan92084

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> [Guru3D] First Ryzen Benchmarks
> 
> *Source*


Already has a thread http://www.overclock.net/t/1624432/shahrsakhtafzar-first-full-amd-ryzen-1700x-review-and-benchmarks/20#post_25882333


----------



## Hequaqua

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ryan92084*
> 
> Already has a thread http://www.overclock.net/t/1624432/shahrsakhtafzar-first-full-amd-ryzen-1700x-review-and-benchmarks/20#post_25882333


Thanks! I haven't/didn't see it listed....


----------



## ryan92084

For anyone that doesn't check the thread before commenting on those results do note that they were using an engineering sample board (and chip?) that stuck at 3.4ghz no boost and was locked to poor ram speed and timings.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> Thanks! I haven't/didn't see it listed....


Easy to do with different sources and headlines


----------



## Particle

I saw speculation that it might be an ES, but no source for that. Did the article itself say so?


----------



## kaosstar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Particle*
> 
> I saw speculation that it might be an ES, but no source for that. Did the article itself say so?


Yes, the reviewer stated the motherboard is an ES, so he was stuck using 2133 DDR4. My understanding is that XFR and turbo were disabled as well, so the Ryzen CPU was stuck at the base clock for all the testing.


----------



## ryan92084

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaosstar*
> 
> Yes, the reviewer stated the motherboard is an ES, so he was stuck using 2133 DDR4. My understanding is that XFR and turbo were disabled as well, so the Ryzen CPU was stuck at the base clock for all the testing.


Correct on all accounts although they did do a manual OC to 4.0 on all cores for 1? bench.

The chip may not have been an ES but it wasn't a retail version iirc.

Also looks like the thread has been moderated away...


----------



## BinaryDemon

Oh god, just saw this on Reddit...

https://twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/836967901399744513



If true... Not sure how I feel about this, I can't say it's unfair but I guess I'll have to use non-standard benchmarks to gauge real performance.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BinaryDemon*
> 
> Oh god, just saw this on Reddit...
> 
> https://twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/836967901399744513
> 
> 
> 
> If true... Not sure how I feel about this, I can't say it's unfair but I guess I'll have to use non-standard benchmarks to gauge real performance.












I guess Asus are making things easier. This is no different than disabling all but one cores to do a Cinebench suicide run.

If I understood that pic correctly.


----------



## Hueristic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BinaryDemon*
> 
> Oh god, just saw this on Reddit...
> 
> https://twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/836967901399744513
> 
> 
> 
> If true... Not sure how I feel about this, I can't say it's unfair but I guess I'll have to use non-standard benchmarks to gauge real performance.


Well if they start kicking out tuned bios updates for various software it would be pretty cool, not that I think that will happen.


----------



## BinaryDemon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hueristic*
> 
> Well if they start kicking out tuned bios updates for various software it would be pretty cool, not that I think that will happen.


I guess there's no reason Asus couldnt do it for Intel boards as well.


----------



## Raghar

I thought it was a joke. Performance bias for benchmark...


----------



## Hueristic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raghar*
> 
> I thought it was a joke. Performance bias for benchmark...


It's a unique market play.


----------



## OutlawII

Wow 1.35 volts for that clock speed


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BinaryDemon*
> 
> Oh god, just saw this on Reddit...
> 
> https://twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/836967901399744513
> 
> 
> 
> If true... Not sure how I feel about this, I can't say it's unfair but I guess I'll have to use non-standard benchmarks to gauge real performance.


"Performance Bias: Cinebench"

















Well at least they're honest about artificially boosting benchmark scores rather than some companies stealthily introducing benchmark-sensitive boosts to their hardware.


----------



## kd5151

lmao


----------



## Kuivamaa

Board vendors have to fight other vendors too for customers. I recall early in nehalem era where some boards would clock i7 920 chips a step or two higher, arguably to appear better in mobo reviews. These days it is commonplace, but this trick is a new one. I have a C6H coming, will definitelt check this setting out.


----------



## epic1337

thats why the best benchmark to use as a baseline are real-world benches like games, video transcoding and such.


----------



## Scotty99

That has to be a joke right lol? There is no possible way that is actually an option in the bios.....is it?


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> thats why the best benchmark to use as a baseline are real-world benches like games, video transcoding and such.


How is this different from users here who do suicide runs for Cinebench records?

The board just provides an easy way. This is not cheating. It does the optimization for you so you don't have to.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> How is this different from users here who do suicide runs for Cinebench records?
> 
> The board just provides an easy way. This is not cheating. It does the optimization for you so you don't have to.


I can almost guarantee that is a photoshop, if not i may have to reconsider my ryzen plans.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> I can almost guarantee that is a photoshop, if not i may have to reconsider my ryzen plans.


Doesn't look photoshoped to me. Actually makes sense and is a genius idea by Asus lol


----------



## BinaryDemon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Doesn't look photoshoped to me. Actually makes sense and is a genius idea by Asus lol


Personally I'd like more information on what it's doing. I don't have a problem with optimizing for a certain workload.


----------



## Scotty99

YOu dont have a problem with this?

The only concrete information we have about ryzens performance is cinebench tests vs broadwell E, all of this hype is based around those cinebench results....and this does not bother you a little bit? Ive seen videos of youtubers with millions of subscribers telling their followers how great these chips are BASED OFF THOSE CINEBENCH tests, how do you not realize how big of a deal this is?

Again i dont think its legit, but the outside chance that it is.....OMG asus/amd will never hear the end of it.


----------



## BinaryDemon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> YOu dont have a problem with this?
> 
> The only concrete information we have about ryzens performance is cinebench tests vs broadwell E, all of this hype is based around those cinebench results....and this does not bother you a little bit? Ive seen videos of youtubers with millions of subscribers telling their followers how great these chips are BASED OFF THOSE CINEBENCH tests, how do you not realize how big of a deal this is?


Because Cinebench, is a benchmark based on an actual working product Cinema 4D. I assume that optimizing to perform better at Cinebench would optimize for Cinema 4D. I'm not sure how it would accomplish this but if you actually used this product then obviously a Ryzen CPU might be desirable.

On the other and if it does something like 'disable thermal throttling' for 30 seconds, just enough time to complete a multithreaded benchmark run, then I would be less impressed.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BinaryDemon*
> 
> Because Cinebench, is a benchmark based on an actual working product Cinema 4D. I assume that optimizing to perform better at Cinebench would optimize for Cinema 4D. I'm not sure how it would accomplish this but if you actually used this product then obviously a Ryzen CPU might be desirable.
> 
> On the other and if it does something like 'disable thermal throttling' for 30 seconds, just enough time to complete a multithreaded benchmark run, then I would be less impressed.


If it increases a cinebench score by even a little bit, its a huge deal. That makes AMD claims of it being faster than 6900k false.

If this turns out to be a thing, it could bury ryzens launch.

Again im 99% sure that screenshot is fake, but on the off chance....


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> YOu dont have a problem with this?
> 
> The only concrete information we have about ryzens performance is cinebench tests vs broadwell E, all of this hype is based around those cinebench results....and this does not bother you a little bit? Ive seen videos of youtubers with millions of subscribers telling their followers how great these chips are BASED OFF THOSE CINEBENCH tests, how do you not realize how big of a deal this is?
> 
> Again i dont think its legit, but the outside chance that it is.....OMG asus/amd will never hear the end of it.


My FM2+ Giga board has an option in it to help boost 3DMark 2001 scores, I never seen anyone kicking up a stink about that









Optimisation has always been a key factor to getting higher scores, If anything I'll give credit to Asus for doing this (if it works).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *BinaryDemon*
> 
> Because Cinebench, is a benchmark based on an actual working product Cinema 4D. I assume that optimizing to perform better at Cinebench would optimize for Cinema 4D. I'm not sure how it would accomplish this but if you actually used this product then obviously a Ryzen CPU might be desirable.
> 
> On the other and if it does something like 'disable thermal throttling' for 30 seconds, just enough time to complete a multithreaded benchmark run, then I would be less impressed.
> 
> 
> 
> If it increases a cinebench score by even a little bit, its a huge deal. That makes AMD claims of it being faster than 6900k false.
> 
> If this turns out to be a thing, it could bury ryzens launch.
> 
> Again im 99% sure that screenshot is fake, but on the off chance....
Click to expand...

If this were true then AMD wouldn't have sent out anything but Hero boards with the reviewers kit, they also sent TItaniums and Aorus Gaming 5s as well.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> My FM2+ Giga board has an option in it to help boost 3DMark 2001 scores, I never seen anyone kicking up a stink about that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Optimisation has always been a key factor to getting higher scores, If anything I'll give credit to Asus for doing this (if it works).


So you guys think this is a real setting in the bios? Ive personally never encountered such a thing.

But trust you me, if this is real and disabling this setting puts a stock 1800x below a stock 6900k......oh my god the **** storm that will come lol.


----------



## SuperZan

I'm not too worried, even if it is real. If real, it would most likely only be able to make tweaks that a user could make on their own... and that many of us probably do make when overclocking as a matter of course.

You can't press a magic button and turn junk into a high-performance part. If that were possible then AMD would have done it years ago with the construction cores, no? If that pic turns out to be real, it still won't reflect a magical panacea setting that makes a bad chip score well nor will it be likely to reflect any sort of real-world performance deficit. It's just another ROG super-hip setting for those who like to win at benchmarking.


----------



## Scotty99

Try and see the big picture zan. AMD claimed this chip is faster than a 6900k for half the price, if it turns out it actually isnt (with that setting off) the media is gonna run with that like nothing you have ever seen lol.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> I'm not to worried, even if it is real. If real, it would most likely only be able to make tweaks that a user could make on their own... and that many of us probably _do_ make when overclocking as a matter of course.
> 
> You can't press a magic button and turn junk into a high-performance part. If that were possible then AMD would have done it _years_ ago with the construction cores, no? If that pic turns out to be real, it still won't reflect a magical panacea setting that makes a bad chip score well nor will it be likely to reflect any sort of real-world performance deficit. It's just another ROG super-hip setting for those who like to win at benchmarking.


Haha, I agree, I'm not seeig it as an issue here at all tbh, if it works then cool, if it doesn't then oh well.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> My FM2+ Giga board has an option in it to help boost 3DMark 2001 scores, I never seen anyone kicking up a stink about that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Optimisation has always been a key factor to getting higher scores, If anything I'll give credit to Asus for doing this (if it works).
> 
> 
> 
> So you guys think this is a real setting in the bios? Ive personally never encountered such a thing.
> 
> But trust you me, if this is real and disabling this setting puts a stock 1800x below a stock 6900k......oh my god the **** storm that will come lol.
Click to expand...

Read the second part of my post (I edited afterwards)


----------



## Scotty99

That isnt relevant if the boards they used to do the cinebench testing at the AMD presser were crosshairs, and how do you not these settings arent present in the other brands boards?

Again lol, i think its a phothshop.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Try and see the big picture zan. AMD claimed this chip is faster than a 6900k for half the price, if it turns out it actually isnt (with that setting off) the media is gonna run with that like nothing you have ever seen lol.


Again, I am looking at the big picture. The one where, as the good Sergeant pointed out, AMD is sending out review kits that don't include the Hero board. If these unverified settings were required to recreate the numbers we've seen thus far, then AMD would only send out review kits with Hero boards.

And the tech media already runs with anything AMD like it's proof of their imminent collapse, so I'm pretty sure I've seen it. We can't get through one of these threads without people opening up about their Bulldozer-related pain like we're at a survivor's support group.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BinaryDemon*
> 
> Personally I'd like more information on what it's doing. I don't have a problem with optimizing for a certain workload.


For example Cinebench whatever the user normally does to achieve top score the board does it for you. Their is no magic or foul play.


----------



## Scotty99

You obviously arent seeing the big picture, its actually IRRELEVANT what boards are being sent to reviewers because that clearly isnt what i am talking about. AMD told the world at the press event their chips were faster than a 6900k, if it turns out that setting in the bios is the thing that pushed it over the edge.....AMD needs to prepare their bungholes.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> So you guys think this is a real setting in the bios? Ive personally never encountered such a thing.
> 
> But trust you me, if this is real and disabling this setting puts a stock 1800x below a stock 6900k......oh my god the **** storm that will come lol.


How would disabling put the 1800x below a 6900k? The board does not add any processing capabilities .


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> How would disabling put the 1800x below a 6900k? The board does not add anybprocessing capabilities .


I have no idea ive never seen such a setting in the bios, thats why i think its faked lol.

I am only spitballing here, if its real and it actually does increase cinebench performance like the setting implies (performance bias), it will take over the ryzen launch lol.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> You obviously arent seeing the big picture, its actually IRRELEVANT what boards are being sent to reviewers because that clearly isnt what i am talking about. AMD told the world at the press event their chips were faster than a 6900k, if it turns out that setting in the bios is the thing that pushed it over the edge.....AMD needs to prepare their bungholes.


Don't jump, leap to conclusions. You've only got 6 more hours, so act fast!


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> How would disabling put the 1800x below a 6900k? The board does not add any processing capabilities .


Well it must do something, otherwise why would it be there?

I'm sure someone will test it tomorrow and we'll know for sure.


----------



## Seijitsu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> You obviously arent seeing the big picture, its actually IRRELEVANT what boards are being sent to reviewers because that clearly isnt what i am talking about. AMD told the world at the press event their chips were faster than a 6900k, if it turns out that setting in the bios is the thing that pushed it over the edge.....AMD needs to prepare their bungholes.


Just leave the setting turned on if it makes that big of a difference...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> I have no idea ive never seen such a setting in the bios, thats why i think its faked lol.
> 
> I am only spitballing here, if its real and it actually does increase cinebench performance like the setting implies (performance bias), it will take over the ryzen launch lol.


I think this is similar to the Xtreme tweaking option already present in Asus boards.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> Don't jump, leap to conclusions. You've only got 6 more hours, so act fast!


I thought it was in 12 hours?


----------



## CryWin

Choo choo


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> That isnt relevant if the boards they used to do the cinebench testing at the AMD presser were crosshairs, and how do you not these settings arent present in the other brands boards?
> 
> Again lol, i think its a phothshop.


Boards have different features in them, my MSI board has similar options for 3DMark 11 in it.

This is nothing new and I'm not sure how you've never known about it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> That isnt relevant if the boards they used to do the cinebench testing at the AMD presser were crosshairs, and how do you not these settings arent present in the other brands boards?
> 
> Again lol, i think its a phothshop.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> So you guys think this is a real setting in the bios? Ive personally never encountered such a thing.
> 
> But trust you me, if this is real and disabling this setting puts a stock 1800x below a stock 6900k......oh my god the **** storm that will come lol.
> 
> 
> 
> How would disabling put the 1800x below a 6900k? The board does not add any processing capabilities .
Click to expand...

^ This guy gets it

It may just increase clock speeds (which would increase the score) or it might just optimise the OS for that application (nothing a proper bencher wouldn't do anyway)


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> You obviously arent seeing the big picture, its actually IRRELEVANT what boards are being sent to reviewers because that clearly isnt what i am talking about. AMD told the world at the press event their chips were faster than a 6900k, if it turns out that setting in the bios is the thing that pushed it over the edge.....AMD needs to prepare their bungholes.


Again, I'm seeing it. You are not. It's completely and totally relevant because the numbers AMD has shown thus far will tomorrow be verified or debunked by a deluge of reviews. Further, everyone with a press kit has been giggling and holding in their hype. If people with Titanium and Gaming 5 boards were seeing completely different numbers, somebody would have said something. This is the Wikileak age.

There is no way that AMD has put up numbers and then sent out review kits with 2/3rds of the review-kit boards being incapable of recreating said numbers.

What are you thinking is going to happen? AMD collects our cash, pulls up the stakes of their circus tents, and rides out to the next town full of unsuspecting rubes? This is not a likely scenario.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> How would disabling put the 1800x below a 6900k? The board does not add any processing capabilities .
> 
> 
> 
> Well it must do something, otherwise why would it be there?
> 
> *I'm sure someone will test it tomorrow and we'll know for sure*.
Click to expand...

Am adding it to my priority list


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> I have no idea ive never seen such a setting in the bios, thats why i think its faked lol.
> 
> I am only spitballing here, if its real and it actually does increase cinebench performance like the setting implies (performance bias), it will take over the ryzen launch lol.


You Your commom sense please. The board isn't enabl8ng extra cores or cache... Lol


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> You Your commom sense please. The board isn't enabl8ng extra cores or cache... Lol


Why would it be there if it didnt increase the score...what would be its purpose. Again this is just spitballing lol, i am just trying to make you guys aware this is something the media could take ahold of and run with.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> I thought it was in 12 hours?


Actually it's 10. 7:00 PST/9:00 CST.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> Actually it's 9. 6:00 PST.


Hmm i heard 12 est, that works too


----------



## BinaryDemon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> You Your commom sense please. The board isn't enabl8ng extra cores or cache... Lol


http://www.amd.com/en-gb/innovations/software-technologies/zen-cpu

AMD claims the Ryzen architecture has:

"Neural Net Prediction- Built-in artificial intelligence that primes your processor to tackle your app workload more efficiently. Builds a model of the decisions driven by software code execution. Anticipates future decisions, pre-load instructions, choose the best path through the CPU.

Learning algorithms- that predict and pre-load needed data for fast and responsive computing. Anticipates the location of future data accesses by application code. Sophisticated learning algorithms model and learn application data access patterns. Prefetches vital data into local cache so it's ready for immediate use."

I would guess a BIOS setting could tune the hardware prefetcher for a very specific and repeatable workload... like Cinebench, but I don't know.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BinaryDemon*
> 
> http://www.amd.com/en-gb/innovations/software-technologies/zen-cpu
> 
> AMD claims the Ryzen architecture has:
> 
> "Neural Net Prediction- Built-in artificial intelligence that primes your processor to tackle your app workload more efficiently. Builds a model of the decisions driven by software code execution. Anticipates future decisions, pre-load instructions, choose the best path through the CPU.
> 
> Learning algorithms- that predict and pre-load needed data for fast and responsive computing. Anticipates the location of future data accesses by application code. Sophisticated learning algorithms model and learn application data access patterns. Prefetches vital data into local cache so it's ready for immediate use."
> 
> I would guess a BIOS setting could tune the hardware prefetcher for a very specific and repeatable workload... like Cinebench, but I don't know.


No... That has nothing to do with the bios setting.

You guys are over thinking this...


----------



## flippin_waffles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BinaryDemon*
> 
> http://www.amd.com/en-gb/innovations/software-technologies/zen-cpu
> 
> AMD claims the Ryzen architecture has:
> 
> "Neural Net Prediction- Built-in artificial intelligence that primes your processor to tackle your app workload more efficiently. Builds a model of the decisions driven by software code execution. Anticipates future decisions, pre-load instructions, choose the best path through the CPU.
> 
> Learning algorithms- that predict and pre-load needed data for fast and responsive computing. Anticipates the location of future data accesses by application code. Sophisticated learning algorithms model and learn application data access patterns. Prefetches vital data into local cache so it's ready for immediate use."
> 
> I would guess a BIOS setting could tune the hardware prefetcher for a very specific and repeatable workload... like Cinebench, but I don't know.


Which would be great, and pretty cool actually, since thats the way the processor would be designed to work.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> If it increases a cinebench score by even a little bit, its a huge deal. That makes AMD claims of it being faster than 6900k false.
> 
> If this turns out to be a thing, it could bury ryzens launch.
> 
> Again im 99% sure that screenshot is fake, but on the off chance....


It's probably optimised settings for benching, disables everything that's not needed and makes sure any internal timings, etc we don't normally get access to/get limited access to are set up properly for that benchmark.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> *Well it must do something, otherwise why would it be there?*
> 
> I'm sure someone will test it tomorrow and we'll know for sure.


OCTuner and other bios auto-OC utilities do stuff too, but its nothing that can't be done (and better) by the user manually. This is likely just a series of auto bios optimizations keyed specifically for CB or whatever. Stuff that people like us already do anyway, but that noobs wouldn't even begin to know how to do properly. There's not a "magic" setting in the bios that makes a CPU perform better than it actually can.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> OCTuner and other bios auto-OC utilities do stuff too, but its nothing that can't be done (and better) by the user manually. This is likely just a series of auto bios optimizations keyed specifically for CB or whatever. Stuff that people like us already do anyway, but that noobs know how to do properly. T*here's not a "magic" setting* in the bios that makes a CPU perform better than it actually can.


Exactly, else AMD could've saved a bundle by rebranding Piledriver and using magic BIOS toggles to slay the reviews.


----------



## Catscratch

I dont like linking wccftech but here it is

"AMD Ryzen 7 1700X Buyer Gets Early Delivery, Benchmarks It & Publishes The Results"
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-delivered-early-benchmarks/


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I am highly skeptical of that auto Vcore of 1.417V. I did read somewhere about a voltage reporting bug though.


----------



## Scotty99

**** that performance bias is ACTUALLY a setting.


----------



## SuperZan

Well, it was nice to have you on the hype train with us while it lasted. o/


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Well, it was nice to have you on the hype train with us while it lasted. o/


I know someone in this thread has said they seen something similar like this in a bios before, i have been building PC's since the athlon xp days never have i ran across something like that.

Does it not rub you the wrong way, the mere fact it exists? Does it not seem sketchy as all hell to you?

I am very very curious if you turn that setting off if your cinebench scores drop, and oh man if it does the youtube videos that are going to come out about it.....WOW.


----------



## Damn_Smooth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Catscratch*
> 
> I dont like linking wccftech but here it is
> 
> "AMD Ryzen 7 1700X Buyer Gets Early Delivery, Benchmarks It & Publishes The Results"
> http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-delivered-early-benchmarks/


They must have turned on all the magic toggles.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Damn_Smooth*
> 
> They must have turned on all the magic toggles.


Another person who simply cannot grasp what i am saying lol.

Listen AMD came out and said their 500 dollar CPU is faster than intels 1000 dollar CPU based on a cinebench score. Nearly their ENTIRE PRESENTATION was based around cinebench, if it turns out that the score drops with that setting off, AMD is in for a media ****storm!

People have said in this thread its impossible for that setting to increase the cinebench score.....but what if it does?


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> I know someone in this thread has said they seen something similar like this in a bios before, i have been building PC's since the athlon xp days never have i ran across something like that.
> 
> Does it not rub you the wrong way, the mere fact it exists? Does it not seem sketchy as all hell to you?
> 
> I am very very curious if you turn that setting off if your cinebench scores drop, and oh man if it does the youtube videos that are going to come out about it.....WOW.


The PC I'm typing to you on has some 3DMark enhancement option in the UEFI. Gigabyte Z170-XP-SLI.

No, it doesn't bother me in the least. It's just another option to add to the overstuffed ROG UEFI to make it even more cool and x-treme. I would bet my next year's wage on it consisting entirely of obscure options that hardcore overclockers already make use of for their benchmark runs. It cannot make a bad product look like a good product. That's just not a thing that exists in reality in this context. It doesn't seem sketchy in the least. It seems like exactly the sort of thing ROG would use in their UEFI for the amateur benchmarker to get that extra three points in CB or whatever.

We'll find out soon enough, but all it will take is one benchmark not done on a Hero to put it to bed.


----------



## comagnum

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> I have no idea ive never seen such a setting in the bios, thats why i think its faked lol.
> 
> I am only spitballing here, if its real and it actually does increase cinebench performance like the setting implies (performance bias), it will take over the ryzen launch lol.


Stop it. You're going off the deep end over something that is meaningless. It's like right clicking and running under high priority. Relax.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> Stop it. You're going off the deep end over something that is meaningless. It's like right clicking and running under high priority. Relax.


Not exactly meaningless if when you turn it off puts the 1800x under the 6900k in cinebench. Do you not remember how close those scores were?


----------



## Damn_Smooth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Another person who simply cannot grasp what i am saying lol.
> 
> Listen AMD came out and said their 500 dollar CPU is faster than intels 1000 dollar CPU based on a cinebench score. Nearly their ENTIRE PRESENTATION was based around cinebench, if it turns out that the score drops with that setting off, AMD is in for a media ****storm!
> 
> People have said in this thread its impossible for that setting to increase the cinebench score.....but what if it does?


I couldn't care less if it scores a 5 in Cinebench as long as the magic toggles on those game scores come true.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> I know someone in this thread has said they seen something similar like this in a bios before, i have been building PC's since the athlon xp days never have i ran across something like that.
> 
> Does it not rub you the wrong way, the mere fact it exists? Does it not seem sketchy as all hell to you?
> 
> I am very very curious if you turn that setting off if your cinebench scores drop, and oh man if it does the youtube videos that are going to come out about it.....WOW.


No on all counts. It is a motherboard feature.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> No on all counts. It is a motherboard feature.


Why can people not actually understand what i am saying lol.

Do i need to caps or bold?

*IF THE CROSSHAIR WAS USED AT THE EVENT WITH THAT SETTING ON, AND IF CINEBENCH SCORES DROP WHEN YOU DISABLE IT.......AMD MAY HAVE TO MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT THEIR CLAIMS OF A STOCK 1800x BEING FASTER THAN A 6900k.*

Only if the intel board had the SAME FEATURE would their results been accurate.

Of course there are factors at play here, but this could be an actual story lol.

Im still likely going to buy a ryzen chip, its just really disappointing to me that setting even exists, and i hope for AMD's sake whatever board they used at the event didnt have a bios setting of that nature.


----------



## Robenger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Why can people not actually understand what i am saying lol.
> 
> Do i need to caps or bold?
> 
> *IF THE CROSSHAIR WAS USED AT THE EVENT WITH THAT SETTING ON, AND IF CINEBENCH SCORES DROP WHEN YOU DISABLE IT.......AMD MAY HAVE TO MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT THEIR CLAIMS OF A STOCK 1800x BEING FASTER THAN A 6900k.*
> 
> Only if the intel board had the SAME FEATURE would their results been accurate.
> 
> Of course there are factors at play here, but this could be an actual story lol.
> 
> Im still likely going to buy a ryzen chip, its just really disappointing to me that setting even exists, and i hope for AMD's sake whatever board they used at the event didnt have a bios setting of that nature.


I feel like you've been waiting for months for something like this to happen. Like this was the golden smoking gun you've been praying for.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robenger*
> 
> I feel like you've been waiting for months for something like this to happen. Like this was the golden smoking gun you've been praying for.


Umm ive been planning my ryzen build for a week, i have everything picked out except the cpu and mobo (because i have a brain and wait for product reviews before i spend my money).


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> No on all counts. It is a motherboard feature.
> 
> 
> 
> Why can people not actually understand what i am saying lol.
> 
> Do i need to caps or bold?
> 
> *IF THE CROSSHAIR WAS USED AT THE EVENT WITH THAT SETTING ON, AND IF CINEBENCH SCORES DROP WHEN YOU DISABLE IT.......AMD MAY HAVE TO MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT THEIR CLAIMS OF A STOCK 1800x BEING FASTER THAN A 6900k.*
> 
> Only if the intel board had the SAME FEATURE would their results been accurate.
> 
> Of course there are factors at play here, but this could be an actual story lol.
> 
> Im still likely going to buy a ryzen chip, its just really disappointing to me that setting even exists, and i hope for AMD's sake whatever board they used at the event didnt have a bios setting of that nature.
Click to expand...

Crosshair wasn't used, it was an AMD board.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Crosshair wasn't used, it was an AMD board.


Well then this is likely a non story lol (unless on the off chance that is a standard bios feature, and not asus exclusive?)

I still dont like the fact it even exists, it just rubs me the wrong way. I was convinced it was a photoshop, thats how absurd and offputting it was to me.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Crosshair wasn't used, it was an AMD board.
> 
> 
> 
> Well then this is likely a non story lol (unless on the off chance that is a standard bios feature, and not asus exclusive?)
> 
> I still dont like the fact it even exists, it just rubs me the wrong way. I was convinced it was a photoshop, thats how absurd and offputting it was to me.
Click to expand...

It could well be an Asus exclusive thing, as I said, I like the fact it exists, whether it does anything substantial or not we'll have to wait and see.

Not sure why you'd feel this way tbh, if it's extra performance for the end user then why would you be against it?


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Why can people not actually understand what i am saying lol.
> 
> Do i need to caps or bold?
> 
> *IF THE CROSSHAIR WAS USED AT THE EVENT WITH THAT SETTING ON, AND IF CINEBENCH SCORES DROP WHEN YOU DISABLE IT.......AMD MAY HAVE TO MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT THEIR CLAIMS OF A STOCK 1800x BEING FASTER THAN A 6900k.*
> 
> Only if the intel board had the SAME FEATURE would their results been accurate.
> 
> Of course there are factors at play here, but this could be an actual story lol.
> 
> Im still likely going to buy a ryzen chip, its just really disappointing to me that setting even exists, and i hope for AMD's sake whatever board they used at the event didnt have a bios setting of that nature.


It does not matter if you buy Ryzen or not.

Regardless... Whether the setting was on or not it is the CPU that performed, the board can't make the cpu perform better than it can.

Also I think you know this is only an Asus feature but you were looking for something negative to run with. You are rubbing with nothing.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> It could well be an Asus exclusive thing, as I said, I like the fact it exists, whether it does anything substantial or not we'll have to wait and see.
> 
> Not sure why you'd feel this way tbh, if it's extra performance for the end user then why would you be against it?


Maybe its the way its named? "Performance bias" Or the fact in my 16 years of PC building have i ever ran across a bios setting that is even close to resembling something like that.

We don't even know if it actually increases cinebench scores, but why would it exist if it didn't i guess?

I dunno, i just dont like it lol.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> It could well be an Asus exclusive thing, as I said, I like the fact it exists, whether it does anything substantial or not we'll have to wait and see.
> 
> Not sure why you'd feel this way tbh, if it's extra performance for the end user then why would you be against it?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe its the way its named? "Performance bias" Or the fact in my 16 years of PC building have i ever ran across a bios setting that is even close to resembling something like that.
> 
> We don't even know if it actually increases cinebench scores, but why would it exist if it didn't i guess?
> 
> I dunno, i just dont like it lol.
Click to expand...

Performance Bias makes sense, it would Bias the system to run better in that application.

I explained to you before that this is nothing new, maybe you've just never looked at the BIOS closely before?


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Performance Bias makes sense, it would Bias the system to run better in that application.
> 
> I explained to you before that this is nothing new, maybe you've just never looked at the BIOS closely before?


Again, new thing to me. Its just really odd there is a setting in the bios to increase the performance of a specific program, not only just specific but the program that AMD has screamed at the top of their lungs about how great their CPU's are.

I know you don't understand my perspective here, but many will.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Performance Bias makes sense, it would Bias the system to run better in that application.
> 
> I explained to you before that this is nothing new, maybe you've just never looked at the BIOS closely before?
> 
> 
> 
> Again, new thing to me. Its just really odd there is a setting in the bios to increase the performance of a specific program, not only just specific but the program that AMD has screamed at the top of their lungs about how great their CPU's are.
> 
> I know you don't understand my perspective here, but many will.
Click to expand...

I do understand your perspective, it only makes sense if AMD did nothing but test on the Hero but they didn't.

AMD used Cinebench because people wanted them to (including myself), there are many more MT benches where Ryzen beats the 6900k


----------



## Scotty99

Even if they didn't use the crosshair at the event, its just a weird setting to have in a bios.....and obviously threw up some major red flags for me.

All will be told tomorrow lol.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Even if they didn't use the crosshair at the event, its just a weird setting to have in a bios.....and obviously threw up some major red flags for me.
> 
> All will be told tomorrow lol.


It's not really, as I said before my Gigabyte F2A88XN-Wifi has a similar option for 3DMark2001, I've never tried it out because I don't bench 01 but it's there, It's called 3DMark 2001 BOOST (rather straightforward)

Hell, the Lanparty boards were among the first (if not the first) to have tertiary timings available in the BIOS.

I'll be testing it out myself when I get my Hero in and while I do expect it to perform better I don't expect it to perform worse with it disabled.....


----------



## Scotty99

Its just probably not the best idea to have that feature on any motherboards of a major launch like this, especially one that apparently increases the score of the main benchmark they used to show the CPU's overall power against their competitor.

Yes, we don't know if the mobo they had at the event had that or not, but in my eyes you just simply don't put it on any of the boards.....else you have people like me questioning the validity of those tests.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Its just probably not the best idea to have that feature on any motherboards of a major launch like this, especially one that apparently increases the score of the main benchmark they used to show the CPU's overall power against their competitor.
> 
> Yes, we don't know if the mobo they had at the event had that or not, but in my eyes you just simply don't put it on any of the boards.....else you have people like me questioning the validity of those tests.


Send an email to Asus advising them to remove it


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Its just probably not the best idea to have that feature on any motherboards of a major launch like this, especially one that apparently increases the score of the main benchmark they used to show the CPU's overall power against their competitor.
> 
> Yes, *we don't know if the mobo they had at the event* had that or not, but in my eyes you just simply don't put it on any of the boards.....else you have people like me questioning the validity of those tests.


I do, it wasn't


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Send an email to Asus advising them to remove it


AMD should have done this, believe you me.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> AMD should have done this, believe you me.


AMD does not make retail motherboards.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

So boards shouldn't have auto-OC features either? That gives them an unfair advantage? I guess they shouldn't be allowed to have UEFI at all? Or bios utility settings in the OS? None of these board "features" changes the fundamental performance of the processor. They are auto-tweaks for settings readily available to be manipulated manually by the user. They are not magic "go faster than Intel" switches that AMD has cooked up to pull a fast one with. Asus (or any board partner for that matter) are free to make optimization settings for their boards all day long.

It. Has. Nothing. To. Do. With. AMD.

Got it?


----------



## Shiftstealth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> So boards shouldn't have auto-OC features either? That gives them an unfair advantage? I guess they shouldn't be allowed to have UEFI at all? Or bios utility settings in the OS? None of these board "features" changes the fundamental performance of the processor. They are auto-tweaks for settings readily available to be manipulated manually by the user. They are not magic "go faster than Intel" switches that AMD has cooked up to pull a fast one with. Asus (or any board partner for that matter) are free to make optimization settings for their boards all day long.
> 
> It. Has. Nothing. To. Do. With. AMD.
> 
> Got it?


But what if.......


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

"What if" what? What if AMD snuck a few million extra Cinebench-only transistors into Ryzen's silicon? For God's sake guys, come on...


----------



## Shiftstealth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> "What if" what? What if AMD snuck a few million extra Cinebench-only transistors into Ryzen's silicon? For God's sake guys, come on...


I should have added a /s to my post.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Lol, on the car forum I frequent we use red text for /s. That sort of thing would really come in handy in threads like this one...


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> "What if" what? What if AMD snuck a few million extra Cinebench-only transistors into Ryzen's silicon? For God's sake guys, come on...


Lmao... Cinebench only transistors.


----------



## Kuivamaa

This is what happens here.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

They sure coulda used those Cinebench transistors in BD...


----------



## ducegt

Regarding the bias feature, it likely presets settings that otherwise can be set manually. So who cares? It makes things easy for benching. No single amount of settings has been well rounded for all workloads.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I'm pretty sure any such bias settings are defaulted to "off" so the reviewers will be reviewing "stock" systems anyway. They might mention this feature but probably just as an aside.


----------



## ducegt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> What 4.2ghz absolute oc?


Hope you are smelling the roses before you see all the reviews which show which predictions were more accurate.


----------



## mcg75

http://www.overclock.net/t/1624507/various-amd-ryzen-7-reviews


----------

