# [WCCF] AMD Ryzen 5 1600X CPU-Z Benchmark



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> The latest AMD Ryzen benchmarks are here, showcasing the performance of the 6 core, 12 threaded SKU. The performance leak was posted over at Chinese forums and not only shows a 6 core processor with in the leakers hand, but also an 4 core Ryzen chip.


Ryzen 5 1600X or Ryzen 5 1500?:




See post here: http://www.overclock.net/t/1623472/wccf-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-z-benchmark/50_50#post_25851015
Quote:


> For comparison purposes, we used a Core i5-7600K running in our test rig and loaded the same CPU-z version (v1.78.1 x64). The quad core (non hyper-threaded) chip achieved a score of 2130 in single-threaded and 8206 in multi-threaded



Quote:


> We can note here that the Zen processor has lower single-threaded performance than the Kaby Lake chip which is clocked at a higher frequency of 3.8 GHz. The AMD rig was using 16 GB of DDR4 memory like our test rig but we don't know the exact clock speeds. Our test rig was running DDR4 ram clocked at 3600 MHz.


AMD Ryzen 5 1300:


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

EDIT: WCCF has added more scores for comparison: http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-leaked-benchmarks-analyzed-faster-intels-fastest-6-core/

*Single Core Performance*

Quote:


> We've borrowed the above graph from Guru3D and added the Ryzen 5 1600X to it for the purpose of comparing it with the current roster of high-end CPUs. Assuming that Turbo wasn't disabled and the chip was boosting to 3.7Ghz+ (with XFR) it actually manages to outpace both of Intel's 6 core Broadwell-E chips. Including the fastest SKU on the market, the i7 6850K which has a boost clock speed of 4.0Ghz with Intel's Turbo Boost 3.0 technology. The Ryzen 5 1600X establishes a very impressive lead here. Outperforming every stock clocked Intel Broadwell-E chip.


*Multi Core Performance*

Quote:


> Once again the Ryzen 5 1600X manages to outperform every other six core Intel chip out there and even manages to close in on the $999 8 core i7 5960X Extreme Edition Haswell-E flagship. This is an incredible showing for the 1600X. Especially when we consider that it's a $259 chip that's outperforming Intel's $600+ i7 6850K in both the single and multi-core CPU-Z benchmarks. It's going to be very interesting to see how these numbers translate to productivity or gaming performance. Suffice to say, we can't wait!


*Cinebench R15 numbers from these articles*: http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-processor-benchmark-cinebench-leak & http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-1600x-cinebench-r15-performance-confirmed





And Multicore:


----------



## Kuivamaa

So that KL chip is doing [email protected], while Ryzen does [email protected] or 3.6? If there isn't some hidden overclock of some sort in there, ipc seems excellent for this application. Skylake levels.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> So that KL chip is doing [email protected], while Ryzen does [email protected] or 3.6? If there isn't some hidden overclock of some sort in there, ipc seems excellent for this application. Skylake levels.


3.4 Base with a 3.7 Turbo on the 1600X


----------



## JackCY

There is a comparison on reddit already.
Your 6700K @ 4GHz seems slow, very slow.
My 4690K @ 4.5GHz is around 2050/7950 which gives better ST/MT effectiveness per core than your Skylake. Maybe your RAM is slow, very slow, dunno how much CPUz is RAM sensitive.

The 1600X is running IMHO with XFR, 3.8GHz or so in ST, 3.6 even in MT, which puts it below Skylake in ST which where we know it should be, in MT it's better in this simple bench.


----------



## Ashura

If the 1600x is a good overclocker then sayonara i7.


----------



## tpi2007

Aren't they also masking the true potential of the chip by simultaneously copying almost six thousand items to the desktop (not to mention eventually something else we can't see)?


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> There is a comparison on reddit already.
> Your 6700K @ 4GHz seems slow, very slow.
> My 4690K @ 4.5GHz is around 2050/7950 which gives better ST/MT effectiveness per core than your Skylake. Maybe your RAM is slow, very slow, dunno how much CPUz is RAM sensitive.


It is slow, CPU-Z bench has the 6700k listed as 2031 Single and 8554 Multi at stock [4.0/4.2]

I'm also running on a B150 board atm with 2133Mhz CL 11 mem and a daily (semi-bloated OS)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tpi2007*
> 
> Aren't they also masking the true potential of the chip by simultaneously copying almost six thousand items to the desktop (not to mention eventually something else we can't see)?


Very true this.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tpi2007*
> 
> Aren't they also masking the true potential of the chip by simultaneously copying almost six thousand items to the desktop (not to mention eventually something else we can't see)?


I doubt it, but feel free to test yourself how much copying files hurts your CPU performance in CPUz bench. Having monitoring software in background such as HWiNFO, does hurt every time everywhere though.


----------



## mickeykool

added for comparison, I'm running intel 6800K @ 4.3 --> 2077 / 9184. I have lots of stuff running in background plus several tabs opened in chrome.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *tpi2007*
> 
> Aren't they also masking the true potential of the chip by simultaneously copying almost six thousand items to the desktop (not to mention eventually something else we can't see)?
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it, but feel free to test yourself how much copying files hurts your CPU performance in CPUz bench. Having monitoring software in background such as HWiNFO, does hurt every time everywhere though.
Click to expand...

SSD to M.2 (Desktop)


SSD to SSD


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *tpi2007*
> 
> Aren't they also masking the true potential of the chip by simultaneously copying almost six thousand items to the desktop (not to mention eventually something else we can't see)?
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it, but feel free to test yourself how much copying files hurts your CPU performance in CPUz bench. Having monitoring software in background such as HWiNFO, does hurt every time everywhere though.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing, the AV kicks in and the Windows Explorer's usage also rises. In my case the AV uses between 2 and 9% of the CPU, on average around 5%, and the Windows Explorer 1% - 2%. Considering that Windows 10 has an AV built-in, and those files will most likely be from outside the computer, I guess it will kick in. Heck, mine kicked in and I was just copying files from the HDD to the SSD.


----------



## rainzor

And how do you know that the test wasn't finished before he started to copy stuff? Also, how do we know at what frequency was the test ran? They show 3.6GHz in another screenshot but that doesn't prove much, if anything. As every chinese leak out there this test shows nothing concrete.


----------



## kd5151

moar cores!!!


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rainzor*
> 
> And how do you know that the test wasn't finished before he started to copy stuff? Also, how do we know at what frequency was the test ran? They show 3.6GHz in another screenshot but that doesn't prove much, if anything. As every chinese leak out there this test shows nothing concrete.


We don't, so we can't be sure either way. But it would seem odd that the person doing the benchmark would do it, then start copying a huge amount of files to the desktop and then remember to bring CPU-Z to the foreground because he / she forgot to take a screenshot. I mean, it could happen, but it's not what it seems. Especially when in two other screenshots you see the person installing drivers in the background while they take screenshots and the CPU is being used at 12% and 20%.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Well ,Hard drive activity in that leak image might have initiated after the bench ended.


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Well ,Hard drive activity in that leak image might have initiated after the bench ended.


But the copying process is in the background. Hence my previous post.


----------



## jackalopeater

Just a quick shot of my i7 6800k at stock with 32GB (4x8GB) DDR4 2400 running the CPU-Z bench. providing for stock results.


----------



## kd5151

stop teasing me!!!


----------



## Dygaza

OS language changes from english to chinese between those 2 cpu-id shots. Also cpuid font and frames are different. Most likely different machine.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dygaza*
> 
> OS language changes from english to chinese between those 2 cpu-id shots. Also cpuid font and frames are different. Most likely different machine.


CPU-Z is in English on all three shots.

CPU-Z bench looks like Win 10 while the others look like Win 8 or 8.1


----------



## kd5151

darn it.


----------



## JackCY

Still no Ryzens on eBay from China?








Someone gotta do it proper.


----------



## tp4tissue

HOLY balls ,, if this is true.. This is as fast as skylake..


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tp4tissue*
> 
> HOLY balls ,, if this is true.. This is as fast as skylake..


Well BW is almost as fast as Skylake and Ryzen is supposed to be on par with BW according to AMD, so there you go, nothing new








What decides in the end is cost for some and for others the OC abilities. SL/KL clocks sky high now, I highly doubt Ryzen is gonna push over 4.5GHz especially on 6+ cores using sane cooling and voltages.
You can check how much Intel improved it's IPC each generation, often around 5% on average, sometimes overall performance even went down because of worse clocks (BW), sometimes up only due to higher clocks (KL).


----------



## BinaryDemon

Ryzen score seems to be in-line with the other leaked benchmarks.

Not sure what the CPU-z benchmark is actaully testing but OP's [email protected] score does seem a little low.

My 5960x @ 4.2 ghz.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BinaryDemon*
> 
> Ryzen score seems to be in-line with the other leaked benchmarks.
> 
> Not sure what the CPU-z benchmark is actaully testing but OP's score does seem a little low.
> 
> My 5960x @ 4.2 ghz.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Mine is low for a 6700k, I put it in there to provide some level of reference.


----------



## madweazl

If you're able to pull 95% of the performance at something like 65% of the cost, you have a pretty good thing going. If you can get that 5% back (hopefully even 10%) via overclocking, you have an outstanding deal. I sure hope everything we're seeing actually pans out for AMD (and the consumers).


----------



## NexusRed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *madweazl*
> 
> If you're able to pull 95% of the performance at something like 65% of the cost, you have a pretty good thing going. If you can get that 5% back (hopefully even 10%) via overclocking, you have an outstanding deal. I sure hope everything we're seeing actually pans out for AMD (and the consumers).


Formula like that will get em back in the green and give Intel some good competition!


----------



## Phixit

Time to sell my 6700k.


----------



## Newwt

This is what I've been waiting for!

Looks like I'll be getting a 1600x on water ASAP!


----------



## Ha-Nocri

Also, this is a 6-core CPU which has the most L3 cache per core, so should theoretically have the fastest IPC of any RyZen CPU.


----------



## PontiacGTX

If it has XFR enabled aswell high frequency DDR4 and the Benchmark could get better performance than it could,also the benchmark could be run different times


----------



## Phixit




----------



## mutantmagnet

Ryzen is a bit more worse and better than I expected. Single IPC performance is better than expected. I thought it would lag by 15% but it's more like 8%.

Mult threaded IPC seems to be worse than expected. Looking at these benchmarks and extrapolating how a 7700K would run under this benchmark it's 5% slower. Still would need a direct comparison but right now the big advantage in going AMD is the huge performance per dollar being offered by slashing prices across the board.

But we still don't know how good overclocking is with any of these chips and the XFR versions potentially could blow away anything Intel could hope to offer this year.

[edit]

*Thanks for posting that benchmark PhixIt.* So my previous estimate of the 7700k is like 2% more than your actual results so AMD and Intel will trade blows in this area.


----------



## sage101

Single threaded performance looks really good. I scored 1664 with my 2500k @ 4.4ghz, good to see AMD finally back in the cpu game. I can finally retire this legendary cpu(2500k), here I come ryzen.


----------



## prznar1

Holy moly. This might be the sweetspot for gaming and little work in one rig.


----------



## Ricwin

Anyone able to run this test on an older AMD CPU for comparison?


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rainzor*
> 
> And how do you know that the test wasn't finished before he started to copy stuff? Also, how do we know at what frequency was the test ran? They show 3.6GHz in another screenshot but that doesn't prove much, if anything. As every chinese leak out there this test shows nothing concrete.


Never believe the numbers coming out of China, Ever!


----------



## Mahigan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ricwin*
> 
> Anyone able to run this test on an older AMD CPU for comparison?


AMD FX 8350... system specs below in my signature (system name is Pati3nce):


So 4GHz nets me 1,160

RyZen 1600X at 3.4/3.7 gets around 1,880

That's a pretty crazy performance boost.


----------



## prznar1

More or less 40% of performance increase. For once marketing is telling the truth?!?


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prznar1*
> 
> More or less 40% of performance increase. For once marketing is telling the truth?!?


Accident I'm sure


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> Accident I'm sure


I do not belive it. How is this possible. Dont care about ryzen anymore, just want to know how this happened that marketing division didnt lied.


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prznar1*
> 
> I do not belive it. How is this possible. Dont care about ryzen anymore, just want to know how this happened that marketing division didnt lied.


They thought 20%


----------



## mutantmagnet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> AMD FX 8350... system specs below in my signature (system name is Pati3nce):
> 
> 
> So 4GHz nets me 1,160
> 
> RyZen 1600X at 3.4/3.7 gets around 1,880
> 
> That's a pretty crazy performance boost.


AMD really hit it out of the park.

Going back to that previous Videocardz thread about the 1700X it looks like the 8 core edition has 14% slower IPC. I feel more confident I'll be happier with the 1600X as I was planning to get.


----------



## TokenBC

The "BB" in the sample specification indicates this is a 65W TDP part, so probably no XFR given that it is also a final/retail version since it starts with "ZD", and there is no X part with 65W TDP.

On the other hand turbo boost was probably enabled.


----------



## FLCLimax

1600X for me.


----------



## TokenBC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> 1600X for me.


Same here. Thought I'd hold out until Zen 2 since my 3770k is serving me fine but with how good Ryzen seems I don't think I'll be able to resist getting one to play around with. Those extra 2 cores/4 threads are going to be nice too.


----------



## FLCLimax

I've always said that whenever AMD can get within 10% of Intel i'm switching back. Now i can keep my AM4 platform and drop in the next CPU as required without changing my MB and RAM along with it.


----------



## Ricwin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> AMD FX 8350... system specs below in my signature (system name is Pati3nce):
> 
> 
> So 4GHz nets me 1,160
> 
> RyZen 1600X at 3.4/3.7 gets around 1,880
> 
> That's a pretty crazy performance boost.


Many thanks. Stuck in work right now








The performance is pretty much what I was expecting to see for single thread, but multi thread is lower than I was anticipating.

Good to see that the Ryzen product range is so far living up to the hype.


----------



## PontiacGTX

That CPU z read default tdp doesn't mean the reading is decetected as the frequency changes it is rating for Thermal and if CPUz doesn't get an update for reading XFR won't change from default TDP


----------



## Mahigan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ricwin*
> 
> Many thanks. Stuck in work right now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The performance is pretty much what I was expecting to see for single thread, but multi thread is lower than I was anticipating.
> 
> Good to see that the Ryzen product range is so far living up to the hype.


Yeah, I think AMD RyZen might be using HyperTransport rather than the shared cache in order to ensure cohesive core to core communication. This would add a tiny delay (handshake style delay at the beginning of any transfer and a termination at the end).

Perhaps this is leading to RyZen not scaling as well once more cores are tied together on the same package? I guess we'll find out after launch when we get an in-depth architectural review.


----------



## Newwt

Just need to see the OCability of the 1600x now, If it can get atleast 4.2GHz I feel this will be the most popular chip, especially if the $259 price tag is true.


----------



## RyzenChrist

Nows the time to start unloading those Broadwell E chips before the retail market crashes boys


----------



## Mahigan

Putting my 3930K for sale tonight on Ebay. Motherboard and RAM as well.

I'm looking at the 1800X. Don't matter if it can't overclock well as I'm probably not going to be overclocking my CPUs anymore. I'm after complete and total silence in a smaller and more compact design (Goodbye Cosmos II).

Might even go ITX.


----------



## FLCLimax

Anybody want a 4690K for cheap? I'll throw in a ham sandwich.


----------



## PurdueBoy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> Anybody want a 4690K for cheap? I'll throw in a ham sandwich.


Pm'ed offer for sandwich, might accept processor for a small recycling fee.


----------



## madweazl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> Putting my 3930K for sale tonight on Ebay. Motherboard and RAM as well.
> 
> I'm looking at the 1800X. Don't matter if it can't overclock well as I'm probably *not going to be overclocking my CPUs anymore.* I'm after complete and total silence in a smaller and more compact design (Goodbye Cosmos II).
> 
> Might even go ITX.


Blasphemy!


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> Putting my 3930K for sale tonight on Ebay. Motherboard and RAM as well.
> 
> I'm looking at the 1800X. Don't matter if it can't overclock well as I'm probably not going to be overclocking my CPUs anymore. I'm after complete and total silence in a smaller and more compact design (Goodbye Cosmos II).
> 
> Might even go ITX.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> Anybody want a 4690K for cheap? I'll throw in a ham sandwich.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *madweazl*
> 
> Blasphemy!


Ah yes, finally something to replace the horrid Nvidia vs AMD threads. Reminds me of simpler times.


----------



## FLCLimax

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> Putting my 3930K for sale tonight on Ebay. Motherboard and RAM as well.
> 
> I'm looking at the 1800X. Don't matter if it can't overclock well as I'm probably not going to be overclocking my CPUs anymore. I'm after complete and total silence in a smaller and more compact design (Goodbye Cosmos II).
> 
> Might even go ITX.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> Anybody want a 4690K for cheap? I'll throw in a ham sandwich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *madweazl*
> 
> Blasphemy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah yes, finally something to replace the horrid Nvidia vs AMD threads. Reminds me of simpler times.
Click to expand...

There's no replacing that. Fresh fuel will be poured on that fire on the 28th.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Updated the OP with comparison graphs


----------



## ToTheSun!

Guess i'll have to find someone to buy this 6700K and mobo from me.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

A $259 CPU keeping up with a 5960X in single thread and multi-core? Yes please.. Of course we'll have to wait for release to know for sure but it looks like AMD is back in the game, about damn time.









If mid-range Vega turns out alright, it may be possible to build a 4K 'capable' system for $799 ~ this year!


----------



## Xuper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> AMD FX 8350... system specs below in my signature (system name is Pati3nce):
> 
> 
> So 4GHz nets me 1,160
> 
> RyZen 1600X at 3.4/3.7 gets around 1,880
> 
> That's a pretty crazy performance boost.



*CPU**Single thread**Multi Thread**Ratio (MT/ST)*AMD Ryzen R5 1600X1880125446.67AMD FX-8350116074796.45Different (%)62%67%


----------



## CriticalOne

For another reference point, this is the i3 4370 benchmarked.


Compared to the i3 the R5 1600X tested is:
1.09x or 9.7% faster in single threaded
*3.3x* or 230% faster in multithreaded

Compared to Mahigan's FX 8350 @ 4.5 GHz the R5 1600x is:
1.62x or 63% faster in single threaded
1.67x or 67% faster in multithreaded

Based on these results, Ryzen is even faster than Haswell/Broadwell and is more closer to Skylake/Kaby Lake in terms of single threaded performance.


----------



## PureBlackFire

my i7 4770k scores:

*@ stock* (3.9ghz turbo): 1553/7315 ST/MT

*@ 4.5ghz*: 2032/8907 ST/MT

looks like I'm coming home.


----------



## CriticalOne

I will be getting the R7 1700. Various sources point to the X series processors not coming with the Wraith cooler. I'm only interested in overclocking on stock voltage, so the Wraith cooler will be good enough for that function.


----------



## amd-dude

My name would be great again, after selling my FX4100 and going to the 2500k I felt dirty. It would be nice to return home.


----------



## Newbie2009

The 6770k in the WCCF Graph VS Below, something off - maybe ram speed is a big factor


----------



## Newbie2009

For people looking for cpu z benchmark comparisons:

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/share-your-cpuz-benchmarks.216765/page-2


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> The 6770k in the WCCF Graph VS Below, something off - maybe ram speed is a big factor
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Graphs are from Guru3D, WCCF just added in where the 1600X would fit in.

CPU-Z has the 6700k listed at 2031 Single and 8554 Multi


----------



## Wishmaker

I did not know that the 6700k needs 1.82V for 4.5 GHz


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PurdueBoy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> Anybody want a 4690K for cheap? I'll throw in a ham sandwich.
> 
> 
> 
> Pm'ed offer for sandwich, might accept processor for a small recycling fee.
Click to expand...









The award for today's best post exchange right here.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Updated the OP with comparison graphs


Thanks! Rep+


----------



## verovdp

Those cpu-z bench numbers look fantastic!!!









The only problem is, why didn't this guy have the CPU tab open in one instance of cpu-z running put side by side with the another instance of cpu-z running / showing the benchmark numbers??







I want to believe, but it still kinda leaves a mystery about which cpu this guy was _actually_ running the benchmark on.







After all we've already had the faked Cinebench leaks from a Baidu leaker already so far...


----------



## MoRLoK

I5-7500 .... i knew i should have waited ...


----------



## Wishmaker

Ignoring certain factors , CPU manufacturing has hit a wall and this has been pretty clear since Chipzilla cannot sort out various issues with the nodes. INTEL is at the top in terms of know-how and infrastructure. Just because AMD has caught up with INTEL, it does not mean that 10nm and 7nm will not follow suit with refreshes.


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wishmaker*
> 
> Ignoring certain factors , CPU manufacturing has hit a wall and this has been pretty clear since Chipzilla cannot sort out various issues with the nodes. INTEL is at the top in terms of know-how and infrastructure. Just because AMD has caught up with INTEL, it does not mean that 10nm and 7nm will not follow suit with refreshes.


You said in the previous sentence that Intel was having problems with the nodes. And indeed they are. Later this year Intel will release another batch of CPUs still on 14nm, according to the latest news.


----------



## Mahigan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wishmaker*
> 
> Ignoring certain factors , CPU manufacturing has hit a wall and this has been pretty clear since Chipzilla cannot sort out various issues with the nodes. INTEL is at the top in terms of know-how and infrastructure. Just because AMD has caught up with INTEL, it does not mean that 10nm and 7nm will not follow suit with refreshes.


Global Foundries is working on 7nm no? Said to be available by 2H 2018: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10704/globalfoundries-updates-roadmap-7-nm-in-2h-2018


----------



## Ricwin

2h 2018 is not in time for Kaby Lake replacement as INtel do enjoy milking the consumer every 12 months with 5% performance increases.


----------



## FLCLimax

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PureBlackFire*
> 
> my i7 4770k scores:
> 
> *@ stock* (3.9ghz turbo): 1553/7315 ST/MT
> 
> *@ 4.5ghz*: 2032/8907 ST/MT
> 
> _*looks like I'm coming home*_.


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ricwin*
> 
> 2h 2018 is not in time for Kaby Lake replacement as INtel do enjoy milking the consumer every 12 months with 5% performance increases.


Bah nobody forces anyone to buy anything


----------



## Wishmaker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tpi2007*
> 
> You said in the previous sentence that Intel was having problems with the nodes. And indeed they are. Later this year Intel will release another batch of CPUs still on 14nm, according to the latest news.


Known for a while now and if you recall the original plans were for Cannon lake, however, things did not pan out and Coffee Lake will show up. Something must be truly wrong with the 10 nm / 7nm for INTEL to constantly refine 14nm and ramp up fabs for this.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> Global Foundries is working on 7nm no? Said to be available by 2H 2018: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10704/globalfoundries-updates-roadmap-7-nm-in-2h-2018


Do not take AMD's progress on the current node as gospel for future nodes. You said it yourself in various threads, performance wise we have not had a significant improvement for years and certain fingers point to manufacturing. GloFo can promise a 2H 2018 7nm release but they also need to deliver. It is highly unlikely that GloFo will put out a better node than INTEL, be it 7nm or not.


----------



## Newwt

PLOT TWIST:

Anandtech is saying this the the 1500 not the 95w 1600x!


----------



## Xuper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newwt*
> 
> PLOT TWIST:
> 
> Anandtech is saying this the the 1500 not the 95w 1600x!


Link?


----------



## Newbie2009

no way


----------



## ducegt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sage101*
> 
> Single threaded performance looks really good. I scored 1664 with my 2500k @ 4.4ghz, good to see AMD finally back in the cpu game. I can finally retire this legendary cpu(2500k), here I come ryzen.


Since there is an endless amount of 2500k users saying there is no need to upgrade (obviously not you), I'd like to share my 7700k scores a 1000 more on Single thread.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Xuper*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Newwt*
> 
> PLOT TWIST:
> 
> Anandtech is saying this the the 1500 not the 95w 1600x!
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/summit-ridge-zen-benchmarks.2482739/page-229#post-38743777
Quote:


> I would like to point out something that nobody seems to notice, about the 6C/12T CPU in that benchmarks.
> 
> 
> 
> ZD3301BBM6IF4_37/33_Y
> 
> Now lets look at what Eng Sample numbers mean, and focus on TDP package.
> 
> 
> The 6C/12T CPU here has TDP indicator as: BB = 65W(!).
> 
> Every other CPU Eng sample, especially with ZD is final version that we will see in retail.
> The CPU benchmarked does not have XFR. It is not 1600X. It does not cost 259$.


Exciting stuff!


----------



## renx

Hmmm... this model is:

ZD3201BBM4KF4_34/32_Y

And we know this:



So this is a 65W CPU. It doesn't look like it's the 1600X, but most likely a 1500.


----------



## sage101

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> Since there is an endless amount of 2500k users saying there is no need to upgrade (obviously not you), I'd like to share my 7700k scores a 1000 more on Single thread.


Most 2500K owners say that because upgrading to the latest i7 might be too expensive and I share the same sentiments. With these new ryzen processors if the rumoured price and performance are true then that would give us 2500K owners incentive to finally upgrade. I for 1 will be eyeing out the R5 1600 if it actually cost $220 and performance is inline with the leaked benches.


----------



## Newwt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renx*
> 
> Hmmm... this model is:
> 
> ZD3201BBM4KF4_34/32_Y
> 
> And we know this:
> 
> So this is a 65W CPU. It doesn't look like it's the 1600X, but most likely a 1500.


ZD3201BBM4KF4_34/32_Y

That looks like it might be for the 1300, 4 cores BB code for no XFR


----------



## renx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newwt*
> 
> ZD3201BBM4KF4_34/32_Y
> 
> That looks like it might be for the 1300, 4 cores BB code for no XFR


Yes. Actually I was looking at the wrong picture.

ZD3301BBM6IF4_37/33_Y


----------



## FallenFaux

I didn't think I was going to upgrade but... anyone want to buy a 5930k?


----------



## czin125

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ricwin*
> 
> 2h 2018 is not in time for Kaby Lake replacement as INtel do enjoy milking the consumer every 12 months with 5% performance increases.


Intel changed their schedule for Coffeelake-S. Their new lineup is

Kabylake-S = Jan 2017
Skylake-X = Aug 2017
Coffeelake-S= Nov/Dec 2017
Cannonlake-H = Nov/Dec 2017
Cannonlake-X = ???? 2018


----------



## rv8000

If all of this ends up true, good god AMD, welcome back


----------



## madweazl

I code doesnt translate so who knows.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

If this new revelation is true..

I'll believe it when I see it, would be fantastic if it is.



Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## PontiacGTX

Which is the source of the picture? Reddit,so it is just speculation

Based on the leaks it is 95W


----------



## Ricwin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> Bah nobody forces anyone to buy anything


I didnt say they forced anyone to buy anything. Intel release 'new' products with barely any significant gain over the previous generation, yet consumers still rush out to buy the 'latest and greatest'.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *czin125*
> 
> Intel changed their schedule for Coffeelake-S. Their new lineup is
> 
> Kabylake-S = Jan 2017
> Skylake-X = Aug 2017
> Coffeelake-S= Nov/Dec 2017
> Cannonlake-H = Nov/Dec 2017
> Cannonlake-X = ???? 2018


Old news. Coffee Lake is coming early because they're stuck on 14nm and not yet ready (or able) to offer a consumer level 10nm product yet, despite their previous intentions.
So we will see another Lake code name product on 14nm with another 5% performance increase, for another £300 asking price?....


----------



## bossie2000

Hype,hype,hype.Im smoking that pipe!!


----------



## Cyrious

I would post my CPU-Z benchmark, but for some stupid reason CPU-Z's multi-thread bench refuses to extend to the extra 8 threads.

If someone with a i7-3820 could cut their chip to 3.3 then run the bench, we'd (I'd) get a good idea of how this stacks up against good old SB-E, as all that would need to be done after that is double the MT score.


----------



## Slaughterem

If BB is 65 watt and BA is 95 watt, then the leaks that we have seen have not been any of the X chips which have BC in the code.


----------



## jprovido

6/12 ryzen is faster than my overclocked 7700k? that's crazy bruh









edit:
7k post yeaaaaa


----------



## renx

Me: Boss, I need a day off.
Boss: When?
Me: Around Feb 28th, I guess.
Boss: And why is that?
Me: Ryzen's NDA lift. Gotta see benchmarks.
Boss: What does that mean?


----------



## RnRollie

FX-8350 results
I must say that Ryzen is looking good


----------



## Uns33n

my 4770k @ 4.1Ghz

1852/6751


----------



## bossie2000

Can i take a pill and wake-up in ten days please!!


----------



## y2kcamaross

my [email protected]

2346/10213


----------



## kzone75

I could do with an upgrade.


----------



## LancerVI

My 5820k @4.0 hit 1815/11038 with CPU-Z.


----------



## doritos93

my 8320 @ 4.3


ryzen cant come fast enough


----------



## MadRabbit

Guess Keller actually did some magic on this chip huh...


----------



## budgetgamer120

That single Thread performance is boss


----------



## nakano2k1

Here's my i5-4200u AKA superbeast.

Ryzen doesn't stand a chance...


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Updated OP with Ryzen 5 1400X Pictures


----------



## budgetgamer120

Stuck between selling my x99 setup our getting a cheap 14 core from someone...


----------



## Slaughterem

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Updated OP with Ryzen 5 1400X Pictures


Maybe if possible edit thread title from 1600x to 6c/12t 65 watt. (Don''t repeat wccf mistake)


----------



## amd-dude

Pretty much what I expected, the ones we got in the office were ES F3 stepping and a bit behind these so makes sense that this is where we are at now. Pricing has changed a bit from what we were initially told but I'm not mad.


----------



## sinholueiro

My 5820k does almost 2100 in ST. It's at 4.5Ghz in core and 3.5Ghz in cache. I paid enough for my X99 combo (525€ for CPU+MoBo), but it was 1.5 years ago, so it's fine by me, I encoded a lot of videos and OCing was very fun. It's a bit sad to watch burn the X99 platform. For me the benefit would be in power consumption, as I can see. Let's hope it sells well and we can finally see more multithreading games, I'm tired of friends spending a lot in QC+HT.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slaughterem*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Updated OP with Ryzen 5 1400X Pictures
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if possible edit thread title from 1600x to 6c/12t 65 watt. (Don''t repeat wccf mistake)
Click to expand...

Words in quotes are taken direct from the WCCF article, their words, not mine


----------



## Particle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nakano2k1*
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my i5-4200u AKA superbeast.
> 
> Ryzen doesn't stand a chance...


Your 1.6 GHz cores score about like 4.0 GHz PD cores at least. That's kind of amusing.


----------



## chasefrench

My 2500k still gets 1685 @ 4.5ghz. If this gets 1880 at a 3.7ghz boost then like skylake, not thinking its a big enough improvement in cpus in general yet to upgrade


----------



## Tobiman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Updated OP with Ryzen 5 1400X Pictures


That chip is apparently a shopped skylake given the l2 cache. The scores could still be legit regardless.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tobiman*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> Updated OP with Ryzen 5 1400X Pictures
> 
> 
> 
> That chip is apparently a shopped skylake given the l2 cache. The scores could still be legit regardless.
Click to expand...

I seen that, Ryzen quad cores should have 2MB of L2 cache, I'm going to leave it up atm but will edit and state as such.


----------



## Horsemama1956

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chasefrench*
> 
> My 2500k still gets 1685 @ 4.5ghz. If this gets 1880 at a 3.7ghz boost then like skylake, not thinking its a big enough improvement in cpus in general yet to upgrade


You use your computer for gaming? Are you only playing games that use a single core? That AMD CPU will destroy your i5 in games like BF1, Witcher 3 etc if the GPU is up for it. People just want decent IPC, not Intel crushing.

AMD looks like they have a winner at this point, solid single threaded performance and massive multi threading performance for a very attractive price.


----------



## chasefrench

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Horsemama1956*
> 
> You use your computer for gaming? Are you only playing games that use a single core? That AMD CPU will destroy your i5 in games like BF1, Witcher 3 etc if the GPU is up for it. People just want decent IPC, not Intel crushing.
> 
> AMD looks like they have a winner at this point, solid single threaded performance and massive multi threading performance for a very attractive price.


I use my PC for everything from gaming to programming and financial modelling. I just completed witcher 3 with a 980ti at 1440p ultra and it was 60fps 90% of the time.

I completely agree this new 6 core or 8 core chip will produce a smoother experience overall, but I cant really complain yet about 2500k letting me down......

I guess only those who have experienced proper multi threading in a game like bf1 know what people like myself are missing


----------



## kd5151

my i3 4170 @ 3.7ghz htpc scored 1,668.
cinebench r15 single threaded score was 144.
passmark single threaded scored 2,2xx i forgot the actual score, I tested it it the other day but it was higher than 2,200.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chasefrench*
> 
> My 2500k still gets 1685 @ 4.5ghz. If this gets 1880 at a 3.7ghz boost then like skylake, not thinking its a big enough improvement in cpus in general yet to upgrade


Yeah keep thinking that lol. How does a 2500k does in everything else?


----------



## FLCLimax

It's really too bad AMD killed the FX brand with their last CPU.


----------



## amd-dude

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Yeah keep thinking that lol. How does a 2500k does in everything else?


Mine's doing ok, most people here don't do crazy stuff like rendering and all that and even when I do it does't take that long to render out a 3-4min video. Unzipping large archive files are no problem as well, a few extra min wait isn't going to kill me.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

The benchmark picture is a different size and in a different OS from the CPU-Z pictures that identify Ryzen. Honestly, looks totally fake.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> It's really too bad AMD killed the FX brand with their last CPU.


And here I am thinking AMD seems to kill all Intel generation CPUs with RyZen's perf/$.

Now Intel might need to hire Zim Keller.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *amd-dude*
> 
> Mine's doing ok, most people here don't do crazy stuff like rendering and all that and even when I do it does't take that long to render out a 3-4min video. Unzipping large archive files are no problem as well, a few extra min wait isn't going to kill me.


That's what piledrivet users said and I'm willing to bet you disagreed.


----------



## wolfej

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *amd-dude*
> 
> Mine's doing ok, most people here don't do crazy stuff like rendering and all that and even when I do it does't take that long to render out a 3-4min video. Unzipping large archive files are no problem as well, a few extra min wait isn't going to kill me.


I have a 2600k, and gaming is a problem at this point. I have a 1080 and this 2600k is holding back quite a bit in games that are CPU intensive at all.

Especially if you have anything else running while gaming.


----------



## RyzenChrist

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/amd_s_ryzen_7_1700x_has_been_priced_at_389_99_by_frys_us/1


----------



## amd-dude

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> That's what piledrivet users said and I'm willing to bet you disagreed.


I was one of the first to buy a bulldozer chip (within 2 weeks), it was always ****, you won't find me disagreeing there. Sold my 6100 to get this 2500k just to tide me over till this point in time. Don't get me wrong it is showing its' age now but it's still alright.


----------



## paulerxx

If real..


----------



## finalheaven

Yes, my 2500k isn't bad, but definitely showing its age. I know it can't keep up with my 1070 but still acceptable in most games.

However, with the release of Ryzen, I think its time to upgrade.


----------



## paulerxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *finalheaven*
> 
> Yes, my 2500k isn't bad, but definitely showing its age. I know it can't keep up with my 1070 but still acceptable in most games.
> However, with the release of Ryzen, I think its time to upgrade.


That's exactly how I feel with my 3570k.


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Yeah keep thinking that lol. How does a 2500k does in everything else?


it seems that for Games like BF1,DE MD, WD2, AotS the i5s(even Haswel) is holding back the performance really bad


----------



## paulerxx

For a comparison, my old i5 did better than I thought it would.


----------



## flash2021

my i7-4770K stock does

1761/7671 (ST/MT)

on CPU-Z bench

edit: will try to get more benches after I get my old OC back on, its been a while, I think 4.3 daily was where I used to have it


----------



## sumitlian

Does anybody have any idea what exactly cpu-z tests for in their benchmark ?


----------



## zGunBLADEz

4790K @ 5GHZ 2262/10019


----------



## LongtimeLurker




----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LongtimeLurker*


https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/amd_s_ryzen_7_1700x_has_been_priced_at_389_99_by_frys_us/1


----------



## DisgruntldTek37

My work 4790 does 1750 single thread and 7670 multi thread.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Decided to keep my x99. It is cheaper gto get a 14 cores Xeon from someone instead of buying a new cpu and motherboard


----------



## ducegt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Decided to keep my x99. It is cheaper gto get a 14 cores Xeon from someone instead of buying a new cpu and motherboard


What about the cost of a coke and fries? That's like 8℅ more. You really ought to wait for the McChip. It's going to be better and it can do yuuuge computations lol


----------



## xx9e02

X5650 4.0ghz - 1433 / 9315

IM READY D:


----------



## madweazl

With Neverwinter running in the background.


https://flic.kr/p/S2m8RM


----------



## czin125

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Decided to keep my x99. It is cheaper gto get a 14 cores Xeon from someone instead of buying a new cpu and motherboard


Are you waiting until a xeon 1691 v3 is available ( unlocked 14 cores? )


----------



## Yorkston

Fingers crossed for ryzen being a good clocker. My old 3570k is starting to show its age in multi-threaded stuff.


----------



## Newwt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LongtimeLurker*


Isn't it suppose to have 16mb cache?


----------



## iLeakStuff

Beating Intel in Multi threading looool.

GG Intel.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newwt*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *LongtimeLurker*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it suppose to have 16mb cache?
Click to expand...

20MB all up (L1, L2 and L3)


----------



## iLeakStuff

Also AMD will beat Intel in efficiency as well.
The only 6 core Intel got is a 140W 6800K.
Meanwhile AMD gpt both 65 and 95W 6-cores

GG Intel


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newwt*
> 
> Isn't it suppose to have 16mb cache?


16 MB L3 + (512 KB L2 per core x 8 Cores ) = 20 MB Total Cache


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *czin125*
> 
> Are you waiting until a xeon 1691 v3 is available ( unlocked 14 cores? )


I did not know about this. I'll check it out. I was thinking of just getting the locked one


----------



## sumitlian

What do you all say about this though ?








Quote:


> _The Stilt in Anandtech forum_
> 
> The CPU-Z benchmark uses legacy code. The benchmark it runs is compiled with extremely old MSVC 2008, without SSE2 instructions being enabled.
> In this type of a workload Zen is extremely strong.


----------



## Tobiman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> What do you all say about this though ?


So is intel.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> What do you all say about this though ?


Lol it matters now that AMD is competing lol ..


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tobiman*
> 
> So is intel.


I beg your pardon ?









....Oh the Intel compiler Bias







, yeah yeah I think we all have known about this by now.
But seriously how RyZen is going to run like on 99% applications is what interests me.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Lol it matters now that AMD is competing lol ..


Or you fear you might not be able to do some budgetgaming in 14 core Xeon LOL.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Should get proper names now if leakers run the updated program

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/cpuid_release_a_ryzen_ready_version_of_cpuz/1


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> Or you fear you might not be able to do some budgetgaming in 14 core Xeon LOL.


I already am budget game on a 6 core Xeon. So 14 core will be fine lol.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Should get proper names now if leakers run the updated program
> 
> https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/cpuid_release_a_ryzen_ready_version_of_cpuz/1


They've updated the benchmark tab as well so it'll read what Processor is currently being used, I was hoping they might have added at least one Ryzen chip in the comparisons but nope, they are too smart for that


----------



## Scotty99

This is pretty cool and ill most likely be getting one of the 6c 12t variants as an upgrade to my 2500k, but lets not start giving AMD tons of praise here they are merely catching up lol.


----------



## C2H5OH

It speeds the hype train, but it just looks so funny!










https://twitter.com/VideoCardz/status/832583990284517381


----------



## PostalTwinkie

I think the Hypetrain has broken the speed of light!

Are there any Physicists on this ride?!?!

We have gone Plaid!


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> They've updated the benchmark tab as well so it'll read what Processor is currently being used, I was hoping they might have added at least one Ryzen chip in the comparisons but nope, they are too smart for that


lol you wish


----------



## C2H5OH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> I think the Hyptrain has broken the speed of light!
> 
> Are there any Physicists on this ride?!?!
> 
> We have gone Plaid!











Well it appears that AMD PR team have created the first warp drive then... And some said it was not possible, pfu!


----------



## iLeakStuff

So is anyone thinking that AMD might have the fastest CPU with 1800X when that launches?
What if it overclocks better than what Intel offer, TDP of only 95W vs Intels 140W 8-cores, have better multi core performance, and on top of that only cost around $500 vs Intels $1000 6900K....

I mean all of that would have been laughed at 1 year ago, but here we are with more leaks pointing towards that...its sick


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> They've updated the benchmark tab as well so it'll read what Processor is currently being used, I was hoping they might have added at least one Ryzen chip in the comparisons but nope, they are too smart for that


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> I think the Hypetrain has broken the speed of light!
> 
> Are there any Physicists on this ride?!?!
> 
> We have gone Plaid!


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *C2H5OH*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it appears that AMD PR team have created the first warp drive then... And some said it was not possible, pfu!


I think, by the 1st March we'll be in Andromeda.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> So is anyone thinking that AMD might have the fastest CPU with 1800X when that launches?
> What if it overclocks better than what Intel offer, TDP of only 95W vs Intels 140W 8-cores, have better multi core performance, and on top of that only cost around $500 vs Intels $1000 6900K....
> 
> I mean all of that would have been laughed at 1 year ago, but here we are with more leaks pointing towards that...its sick


All depends on the applications used will determine the fastest. But yeah I think things will swing AMD way. Going by the benches and bf1


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> So is anyone thinking that AMD might have *the fastest CPU* with 1800X when that launches?


No, not at all.
Yeah I know It is my worthless opinion.


----------



## Scotty99

Ive got a weird feeling AMD is still gonna suck in games like WoW and other MMO's, i dont know why...


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Ive got a weird feeling AMD is still gonna suck in games like WoW and other MMO's, i dont know why...


I don't know why either. If the IPC is Haswell-plus. as everything we've seen indicates, then it should be more than fine in WoW and other single-threaded games.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> They've updated the benchmark tab as well so it'll read what Processor is currently being used, I was hoping they might have added at least one Ryzen chip in the comparisons but nope, they are too smart for that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> I think the Hypetrain has broken the speed of light!
> 
> Are there any Physicists on this ride?!?!
> 
> We have gone Plaid!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *C2H5OH*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it appears that AMD PR team have created the first warp drive then... And some said it was not possible, pfu!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think, by the 1st March *we'll be in Andromeda*.
Click to expand...

23rd of March for that








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> They've updated the benchmark tab as well so it'll read what Processor is currently being used, I was hoping they might have added at least one Ryzen chip in the comparisons but nope, they are too smart for that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol you wish
Click to expand...

Well it would have been nice haha


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Also AMD will beat Intel in efficiency as well.
> The only 6 core Intel got is a 140W 6800K.
> Meanwhile AMD gpt both 65 and 95W 6-cores
> 
> GG Intel


ITT we don't understand TDP.

TDP is at best a ballpark estimate of power consumption and often is horribly incorrect. Do you really think a 6-core 6800K uses more than twice as much energy as a 4-core 5775C?


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Ive got a weird feeling AMD is still gonna suck in games like WoW and other MMO's, i dont know why...


WoW uses SSE ISA (by their minimum system requirement of Core 2 Duo E8500), and AMD RyZen 8 Core CPU is equal to current Intel HEDT in Core vs Core battle in Blender without AVX, in other words when Blender was only utilizing SSE part of the CPU.

It looks very promising to me that RyZen seems very good in core vs core and clock vs clock in Skylake-E when it comes to SSE optimized applications (given that that specific application has not been compiled by Intel compiler(ICC) since ICC has been known to not let non genuine CPUs use optimum code path/ISA ). if other MMO games have not been compiled by ICC or thoses games don't use AVX, I think RyZen is going to do well in those games.









but..but.. Handbrake does run AVX and AMD has shown us that RyZen has defeated Intel in there as well. This also gives us hope that RyZen is doing great in AVX1 at least.

This is extremely confusing, we can't actually predict how well will RyZen do in current generation of applications








we need more benchmark LOL.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> WoW uses SSE ISA (by their minimum system requirement of Core 2 Duo E8500), and AMD RyZen 8 Core CPU is equal to current Intel HEDT in Core vs Core battle in Blender without AVX, in other words when Blender was only utilizing SSE part of the CPU.
> 
> It looks very promising to me that RyZen seems very good in core vs core and clock vs clock in Skylake-E when it comes to SSE optimized applications (given that that specific application has not been compiled by Intel compiler(ICC) since ICC has been known to not let non genuine CPUs use optimum code path/ISA ). if other MMO games have not been compiled by ICC or thoses games don't use AVX, I think RyZen is going to do well in those games.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but..but.. Handbrake does run AVX and AMD has shown us that RyZen has defeated Intel in there as well. This also gives us hope that RyZen is doing great in AVX1 at least.
> 
> This is extremely confusing, we can't actually predict how well will RyZen do in current generation of applications
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we need more benchmark LOL.


I agree that we need more info, of course! But, AVX1 should be fine. Not exceptional, but absolutely fine. AVX2 is where there could be issues, as Ryzen has to split the operations, but I don't think it will be crippling. As far as tradeoffs go, for my use case, taking a hit on AVX2 is one of the more acceptable ones. Obviously, people working with loads of AVX2 may disagree.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Ive got a weird feeling AMD is still gonna suck in games like WoW and other MMO's, i dont know why...


...also WoW's minimum requirement is even better as it says Phenom II as well. Phenom II doesn't even support SSSE3 and SSE4. So you can be sure that WoW at least, needs only SSE2. That means RyZen is definitely going to do good in WoW.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> ITT we don't understand TDP.
> 
> TDP is at best a ballpark estimate of power consumption and often is horribly incorrect. Do you really think a 6-core 6800K uses more than twice as much energy as a 4-core 5775C?


It definitely can. A 6900k can use 139w. It rated at 140w tdp


----------



## IRobot23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> ...also WoW's minimum requirement is even better as it says Phenom II as well. Phenom II doesn't even support SSSE3 and SSE4. So you can be sure that WoW at least, needs only SSE2. That means RyZen is definitely going to do good in WoW.


Yep,
ZEN (Ryzen) core is much more balanced. FPU looks to be very fast (skylake/broadwell), only problem will be AVX/2.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> It definitely can. A 6900k can use 139w. It rated at 140w tdp


6900K is also a higher clocked chip. Intel I think allows chips to reach but not exceed the TDP when boosting. That does not however indicate anything about actual efficiency, and AMD being a totally different company likely does things a bit differently.


----------



## IRobot23

http://core0.staticworld.net/images/article/2017/02/amd_ryzen_isscc_2017-100707753-orig.jpg

This is very confusing...
Intel L3$ is around *20% larger?* 8MB vs 8MB.
From this graph core (without L2) size is:
AMD 5.5mm^2
INTEL 6.57mm^2

which means that Intel core is around *20% larger*


----------



## Mad Pistol

Stock i7 4790k


Looking better and better. This is exactly where AMD needs to be in terms of performance.

My stock i7 4790k hits 1995 single-core and 8543 multi-core on the CPU bench. Bear in mind, that's with a constant Turbo to 4.4 Ghz. If AMD's six core chips are nearly matching my score at a lower clock frequency and roughly 50% faster on multi-core (it's a 6-core chip vs the 4790k 4 core)...

Yep... Haswell+ IPC.

Welcome back to the game, AMD!


----------



## ryan92084

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> http://core0.staticworld.net/images/article/2017/02/amd_ryzen_isscc_2017-100707753-orig.jpg
> 
> This is very confusing...
> Intel L3$ is around *20% larger?* 8MB vs 8MB.
> From this graph core (without L2) size is:
> AMD 5.5mm^2
> INTEL 6.57mm^2
> 
> which means that Intel core is around *20% larger*


nah but amd is 10% smaller http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1331317&page_number=2


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> 
> For a comparison, my old i5 did better than I thought it would.


Here is mine. http://valid.x86.fr/t76p8h

I think ill get some just decent mobo and cheapest 6c ryzen. But first ill have to see how those overclock.
And the motherboard must have similar layout to my z77 mpower. With buttons and post code in top right corner or side.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> I agree that we need more info, of course! But, AVX1 should be fine. Not exceptional, but absolutely fine. AVX2 is where there could be issues, as Ryzen has to split the operations, but I don't think it will be crippling. As far as tradeoffs go, for my use case, taking a hit on AVX2 is one of the more acceptable ones. Obviously, people working with loads of AVX2 may disagree.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> Yep,
> ZEN (Ryzen) core is much more balanced. FPU looks to be very fast (skylake/broadwell), only problem will be AVX/2.


True. With the current set of benchmark numbers that we have seen, I think it can be safely said that apart from AVX2 based applications, RyZen is going to do great. Great because all locked Intel CPUs are going to become garbage, every single one of them regardless of Intel's so called generation gimmick.


----------



## DNMock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> So is anyone thinking that AMD might have the fastest CPU with 1800X when that launches?
> What if it overclocks better than what Intel offer, TDP of only 95W vs Intels 140W 8-cores, have better multi core performance, and on top of that only cost around $500 vs Intels $1000 6900K....
> 
> I mean all of that would have been laughed at 1 year ago, but here we are with more leaks pointing towards that...its sick


The most well rounded maybe, gonna be really tough to beat a Kaby Lake in single threaded applications and the 10 Core Broadwell E should still outperform in multi-threaded applications. The ability to be competitive in both fronts at the same time on a $500 CPU is extremely impressive.


----------



## naz2

my 2500k @ 4.5ghz gets 1700 single-thread on cpuz. 1900 for zen is kinda meh tbh


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prznar1*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For a comparison, my old i5 did better than I thought it would.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is mine. http://valid.x86.fr/t76p8h
> 
> I think ill get some just decent mobo and cheapest 6c ryzen. But first ill have to see how those overclock.
> And the motherboard must have similar layout to my z77 mpower. With buttons and post code in top right corner or side.
Click to expand...

MSI Xpower, Asus Hero, Biostar GT7, ASRock Fatal1ty Professional and Taichi all have Q-Code readers, not sure if the Biostar and Taichi have buttons but the Xpower, Hero and Fatality Pro all do








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *naz2*
> 
> my 2500k @ 4.5ghz gets 1700 single-thread on cpuz. 1900 for zen is kinda meh tbh


The Ryzen CPU is also clocked 800Mhz slower.


----------



## Nickyvida

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DNMock*
> 
> The most well rounded maybe, gonna be really tough to beat a Kaby Lake in single threaded applications and the 10 Core Broadwell E should still outperform in multi-threaded applications. The ability to be competitive in both fronts at the same time on a $500 CPU is extremely impressive.


Given Ryzen's architecture, is it possible for AMD to release a 10 core version of Ryzen? If not now, then perhaps Zen+ or ++?

A 10 core Ryzen would demolish everything on paper.


----------



## DNMock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nickyvida*
> 
> Given Ryzen's architecture, is it possible for AMD to release a 10 core version of Ryzen? If not now, then perhaps Zen+ or ++?
> 
> A 10 core Ryzen would demolish everything on paper.


It's possible, but iirc the Opteron server chips are scaling 4 cores at a time, so more likely to see a 12 core zen than a 10 core zen.


----------



## Uns33n

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *naz2*
> 
> my 2500k @ 4.5ghz gets 1700 single-thread on cpuz. 1900 for zen is kinda meh tbh


lol you do realize that ryzen was at 3.7ghz...800mhz difference....


----------



## Lipos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *naz2*
> 
> my 2500k @ 4.5ghz gets 1700 single-thread on cpuz. 1900 for zen is kinda meh tbh


What?

your 2500k @4.5GHz = 1700 single thread
Ryzen @3.7GHz = 1888 single thread

800MHz less but an 11% higher score. What's meh about that?


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> MSI Xpower, Asus Hero, Biostar GT7, ASRock Fatal1ty Professional and Taichi all have Q-Code readers, not sure if the Biostar and Taichi have buttons but the Xpower, Hero and Fatality Pro all do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ryzen CPU is also clocked 800Mhz slower.


Yea, but most of those boards are top of the line. P67 mobos were great. Even the entry lvl overclocking boards had lots of goodies. Now is just meh and ledz for everyone....


----------



## paulerxx

your 2500k @4.5GHz = 1700 single thread
Ryzen @3.7GHz = 1888 single thread

800MHz less but an 11% higher score. What's meh about that?[/quote] Yea that's actually impressive lol


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> MSI Xpower, Asus Hero, Biostar GT7, ASRock Fatal1ty Professional and Taichi all have Q-Code readers, not sure if the Biostar and Taichi have buttons but the Xpower, Hero and Fatality Pro all do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ryzen CPU is also clocked 800Mhz slower.


2500k released over 6 years ago...

We need to keep things in perspective, CPU's tech just hasnt done anything lol. I am still interested because of the extra cores for video rendering but if i didnt have use for them, i would be keeping my 2500k.


----------



## The-Beast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ryan92084*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> http://core0.staticworld.net/images/article/2017/02/amd_ryzen_isscc_2017-100707753-orig.jpg
> 
> This is very confusing...
> Intel L3$ is around *20% larger?* 8MB vs 8MB.
> From this graph core (without L2) size is:
> AMD 5.5mm^2
> INTEL 6.57mm^2
> 
> which means that Intel core is around *20% larger*
> 
> 
> 
> nah but amd is 10% smaller http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1331317&page_number=2
Click to expand...

He's referencing that.

AMD packed the chip tightly. The l2 and l3 are both more size efficient.

6mm2 for 512 l2 vs 3.6 for 256 for intel


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> your 2500k @4.5GHz = 1700 single thread
> Ryzen @3.7GHz = 1888 single thread
> 
> 800MHz less but an 11% higher score. What's meh about that?


Yea that's actually impressive lol[/quote]

Again perspective people, 2500k released in january of TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN.

Its not impressive, but its better late than never for AMD.


----------



## sammkv

About time AMD spice things up in the CPU market! I honestly didn't think it would be this fast.


----------



## paulerxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Yea that's actually impressive lol


Again perspective people, 2500k released in january of TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN.

Its not impressive, but its better late than never for AMD.[/quote]

i7 6700k or better IPC + 6 cores + 12 threads for a similar price = impressive


----------



## naz2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Again perspective people, 2500k released in january of TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN.
> 
> Its not impressive, but its better late than never for AMD.


this. i've had my 2500k for 6 years now which is basically a century in computer time. i get that people are hyped because of the low prices but if we look strictly at performance then you're essentially just doubling the cores with a similar IPC. that said i'll still probably buy a 1700x but let's keep things in perspective


----------



## Scotty99

Disagree, its nice and i will probably buy the 1600x but its NOT impressive considering the timelines here.


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> Again perspective people, 2500k released in january of TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN.
> 
> Its not impressive, but its better late than never for AMD.
> 
> i7 6700k or better IPC + 6 cores + 12 threads for a *similar price* = impressive


I wouldn't say a similar price, especially after just taking a look at a silicon lottery thread surveying for ryzen binning prices. That $255 bait is looking mighty tempting


----------



## paulerxx

holy smokes the i7 goes up against the 8 core 16 thread? hahaha that's not even fair!


----------



## The-Beast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Disagree, its nice and i will probably buy the 1600x but its NOT impressive considering the timelines here.


It matches the 6600k reference in cpuz. Which we know the 7600k is within the margin of error. The impressive part is that they're offering 8 cores while you have not been impressed by Intel offering you 4 marginally better cores for the same price as your original purchase. What they've done is impressive because they've given you an option other than a turd sandwich and golden turds.


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> holy smokes the i7 goes up against the 8 core 16 thread? hahaha that's not even fair!


Yea, CPU market is about to get serious. I'm excited!


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The-Beast*
> 
> It matches the 6600k reference in cpuz. Which we know the 7600k is within the margin of error. The impressive part is that they're offering 8 cores while you have not been impressed by Intel offering you 4 marginally better cores for the same price as your original purchase. What they've done is impressive because they've given you an option other than a turd sandwich and golden turds.


Thats the "nice" part. Intel could have been doing this for years now but they didnt have to. Its a nice perk that moves core counts forward and will make sure intel does the same for the mainstream soon, but what ryzen is isnt "impressive" from a technological standpoint. For the vast majority of games, intel is still going to have lead on them with their current tech lol. Impressive would have been AMD throwing down 20% IPC leads on kaby lake. Lets not forget AMD's lineup for the past 6 years, do you people not remember that the fx 8150 was slower than the phenom x6 was when it released? They have been a laughing stock, and are finally now just catching up.5


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> Yea, CPU market is about to get serious. I'm excited!


"make Intel great again"
LOL


----------



## BackwoodsNC

wonder if that is high voltage? My 1090t would take 1.5 all day.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lipos*
> 
> What?
> 
> your 2500k @4.5GHz = 1700 single thread
> Ryzen @3.7GHz = 1888 single thread
> 
> 800MHz less but an 11% higher score. What's meh about that?


And how much better is a 7700k that was released recently?


----------



## prznar1

Perspectives you say? AMD did the easy way tbh. They have designed core in similar way to intels so software producers can have easier life with blending the code to both amd and intel just right. There was a guy here on OCN that prepared a linux for fx 8000 and it was beating without a sweat intels i7. But who cares about small AMD if everyone is using intel







Now software will work on both cpus as it should be. That is what we all needed. That is important more than IPC gain from my perspective. Sure its not that impressive but i dont care if its beating kaby by 20% or by 0.2% I care that prices will drop, i will have some decent choice, and everyone will be happy


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prznar1*
> 
> Perspectives you say? AMD did the easy way tbh. They have designed core in similar way to intels so software producers can have easier life with blending the code to both amd and intel just right. *There was a guy here on OCN that prepared a linux for fx 8000 and it was beating without a sweat intels i7*. But who cares about small AMD if everyone is using intel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now software will work on both cpus as it should be. That is what we all needed. That is important more than IPC gain from my perspective. Sure its not that impressive but i dont care if its beating kaby by 20% or by 0.2% I care that prices will drop, i will have some decent choice, and everyone will be happy


sdlvx ?


----------



## iiiankiii

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Thats the "nice" part. Intel could have been doing this for years now but they didnt have to. Its a nice perk that moves core counts forward and will make sure intel does the same for the mainstream soon, but what ryzen is isnt "impressive" from a technological standpoint. For the vast majority of games, intel is still going to have lead on them with their current tech lol. Impressive would have been AMD throwing down 20% IPC leads on kaby lake. Lets not forget AMD's lineup for the past 6 years, do you people not remember that the fx 8150 was slower than the phenom x6 was when it released? They have been a laughing stock, and are finally now just catching up.5


Would you prefer AMD release a CPU that is 100% faster than Intel; but priced at $3000? Or would you rather have AMD release a CPU that is ~intels at 50% the cost? The overall picture is much more important than absolutes. I think you're looking at this from the wrong perspective.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prznar1*
> 
> But who cares about small AMD if everyone is using intel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now software will work on both cpus as it should be. That is what we all needed. That is important more than IPC gain from my perspective. Sure its not that impressive but i dont care if its beating kaby by 20% or by 0.2% I care that prices will drop, i will have some decent choice, and everyone will be happy


No truer statement has ever existed than ^this.


----------



## jincuteguy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prznar1*
> 
> Perspectives you say? AMD did the easy way tbh. They have designed core in similar way to intels so software producers can have easier life with blending the code to both amd and intel just right. There was a guy here on OCN that prepared a linux for fx 8000 and it was beating without a sweat intels i7. But who cares about small AMD if everyone is using intel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now software will work on both cpus as it should be. That is what we all needed. That is important more than IPC gain from my perspective. Sure its not that impressive but i dont care if its beating kaby by 20% or by 0.2% I care that prices will drop, i will have some decent choice, and everyone will be happy


How do you know if prices will drop? Intel cpus prices are still the same, even if when Ryzen come out.


----------



## RnRollie

Y'all don't get yer panties in a twist... before this spirals down into fanboyism, you'll have to remember that we -the Gaming/Enthousiast community- are actually small potatoes.
I wouldn't go as far that Intel/AMD doesn't care about us, the gaming industry is a bit too big for that with its 30 billion dollars worth. But in the larger scheme of things -read $$$- we are not that important.

After a lot of puffing & oomhhing & aahming for weeks/months we finally chose a CPU, hand over some hard earned money and that's it for a while... how many of us buy a new CPU every 6 months to a year?

And on top of that, the self build "gaming" desktop is the only one that still sells. Prebuild Home Office desktop sales are in freefall, as everybody is buying tablets & smartphones. Only "gamers" that want more as Angry Birds & Farmville still buy laptops or build desktops. Intel/AMD is quite happy to shift a lot more CPUs & APUs into the mobile market vs the self-build market.

The real money is in "Corporate" .
Businesses look at uniformity, reliability & energy efficiency for their desktop systems, most corporate buyers really dont care if the CPU's in those systems are Intel/AMD and if they OC or not. But even there the Corporate buyers a wavering a bit.. they are asking the question if they should not switch to tablets. But most corporate buyers are quite happy to receive a truckload of desktops from Dell every 3 or 4 years or so. And Intel/AMD is quite happy to ship containerloads of chips to Dell.

Xeon/Opteron is also where a lot of money is... The Corporate Server market is worth billions more as the Gaming/Enthousiast market; if AMD can gain 30% on Intel in that market, they are making lots & lots of money more.
Not to mention that the Server market is firmly shored up by Google alone... their ever expanding data centers require server delivery by the container/truckload on an almost daily basis. They are expanding at such a rate that adverse weather conditions like icy roads can throw them off their schedule. Lotsa money there, even if you consider that because of the large volumes they are probably only paying something like $79 for a CPU where we have to fork over $999,-

Intel/AMD wont say "buzz off, go fuzzle yourself" to us, because that would be bad marketing. But as far as the cash register is concerned we are the little kid that spends all of his 50 cents of pocketmoney on candy in the cornershop. So, dont get too excited about "Intel-killers" and dont go into fanboyism

For us, it IS important that AMD comes with a CPU that is on par or better while cheaper as Intel, because it *might* have as a result that Intel goes to more democratic pricing for the Gaming/enthousiast market... but they dont have to (and probably wont) ... for the above reasons.

In short: Intel is NOT afraid of AMD Zen/Ryzen as far as Gaming/enthousiast market is concerned, Intel cares about the possibility that AMD would be able to make a better & cheaper Opteron and with it be able to gain a (much) larger corporate market share. WE, we are small potatoes.


----------



## Vesku

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> What do you all say about this though ?


That should mean it will run old games and VM many business apps really well.


----------



## Sir Slappy

See you later i7-4790K and Xeon E3-1245 v5! I see a 1800X in my future


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Disagree, its nice and i will probably buy the 1600x but its NOT impressive considering the timelines here.


Lol, I'm trying to work out what you consider impressive? Parity with Intel's very best (and far more expensive CPU's) is extremely impressive for AMD, a company which has had absolutely nothing close to Intel for nearly a decade. I would have been impressed if AMD had managed just Ivy Bridge single core performance with Ryzen; for them to come close to matching Skylake, while offering 8 cores and 16 threads is astounding. You seem to have no perspective on where AMD is coming from here.


----------



## paulerxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Lol, I'm trying to work out what you consider impressive? Parity with Intel's very best (and far more expensive CPU's) is extremely impressive for AMD, a company which has had absolutely nothing close to Intel for nearly a decade. I would have been impressed if AMD had managed just Ivy Bridge single core performance with Ryzen; for them to come close to matching Skylake, while offering 8 cores and 16 threads is astounding. You seem to have no perspective on where AMD is coming from here.


This x 100.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Lol, I'm trying to work out what you consider impressive? Parity with Intel's very best (and far more expensive CPU's) is extremely impressive for AMD, a company which has had absolutely nothing close to Intel for nearly a decade. I would have been impressed if AMD had managed just Ivy Bridge single core performance with Ryzen; for them to come close to matching Skylake, while offering 8 cores and 16 threads is astounding. You seem to have no perspective on where AMD is coming from here.


Even if you ignore the past, its amazing how close they have gotten given the R&D budget difference. So yeah, I 100% agree here.


----------



## Pro3ootector

AMD can finaly come back to the game, maybe even we will see some AMD only hardware like Quantum book for example. Maybe there will be PC that AMD will offer as the most high end solution. Like Ryzen and X2 graphics.

BTW:












Anyone found it while playng Deus Ex?


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pro3ootector*
> 
> AMD can finaly come back to the game, maybe even we will see some AMD only hardware like Quantum book for example. Maybe there will be PC that AMD will offer as the most high end solution. Like Ryzen and X2 graphics.
> 
> BTW:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone found it while playng Deus Ex?


Found what?


----------



## Pro3ootector

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Found what?


----------



## FlyingSolo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Also AMD will beat Intel in efficiency as well.
> The only 6 core Intel got is a 140W 6800K.
> Meanwhile AMD gpt both 65 and 95W 6-cores
> 
> GG Intel


That's one of my reason selling my i7 5820k. Plus it's a crap overclocker. With a TDP of 65W or 95W like the 1600X or 1700,1700X. Should do nicely in a steam box like case. Now need them AM4 300X ITX board.


----------



## Dom-inator

*i5 6600k @ 4.7Ghz for comparison and epeen*


----------



## Niobium

My 4790K @ 4.2GHz scored 1912 / 8543.

The $300 8C/16T 1700 @ OC 4.5GHz would score ~2300 / 20000.

Thankfully I got 23GB DDR4-3200 for $200 last month, I can imagine DDR4 prices skyrocketing in March thanks to AMD.


----------



## Arturo.Zise

My 5820k @ 4.0ghz



So the 6 core Ryzen beats my 6 core HW-E at 300mhz less speed. The 8 core will be a nice upgrade I think.


----------



## CortexA99

After considering I decide to share this to you, reason why I consider to post just because I can not sure this is true or fake.

These screenshots are taken by a leaker which from Chinese forum Baidu, but I think you should take them with a grain of salt. The original thread has been deleted.


----------



## diggiddi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RnRollie*
> 
> Y'all don't get yer panties in a twist... before this spirals down into fanboyism, you'll have to remember that we -the Gaming/Enthousiast community- are actually small potatoes.
> I wouldn't go as far that Intel/AMD doesn't care about us, the gaming industry is a bit too big for that with its 30 billion dollars worth. But in the larger scheme of things -read $$$- we are not that important.
> 
> After a lot of puffing & oomhhing & aahming for weeks/months we finally chose a CPU, hand over some hard earned money and that's it for a while... how many of us buy a new CPU every 6 months to a year?
> 
> And on top of that, the self build "gaming" desktop is the only one that still sells. Prebuild Home Office desktop sales are in freefall, as everybody is buying tablets & smartphones. Only "gamers" that want more as Angry Birds & Farmville still buy laptops or build desktops. Intel/AMD is quite happy to shift a lot more CPUs & APUs into the mobile market vs the self-build market.
> 
> The real money is in "Corporate" .
> Businesses look at uniformity, reliability & energy efficiency for their desktop systems, most corporate buyers really dont care if the CPU's in those systems are Intel/AMD and if they OC or not. But even there the Corporate buyers a wavering a bit.. they are asking the question if they should not switch to tablets. But most corporate buyers are quite happy to receive a truckload of desktops from Dell every 3 or 4 years or so. And Intel/AMD is quite happy to ship containerloads of chips to Dell.
> 
> Xeon/Opteron is also where a lot of money is... The Corporate Server market is worth billions more as the Gaming/Enthousiast market; if AMD can gain 30% on Intel in that market, they are making lots & lots of money more.
> Not to mention that the Server market is firmly shored up by Google alone... their ever expanding data centers require server delivery by the container/truckload on an almost daily basis. They are expanding at such a rate that adverse weather conditions like icy roads can throw them off their schedule. Lotsa money there, even if you consider that because of the large volumes they are probably only paying something like $79 for a CPU where we have to fork over $999,-
> 
> Intel/AMD wont say "buzz off, go fuzzle yourself" to us, because that would be bad marketing. But as far as the cash register is concerned we are the little kid that spends all of his 50 cents of pocketmoney on candy in the cornershop. So, dont get too excited about "Intel-killers" and dont go into fanboyism
> 
> For us, it IS important that AMD comes with a CPU that is on par or better while cheaper as Intel, because it *might* have as a result that Intel goes to more democratic pricing for the Gaming/enthousiast market... but they dont have to (and probably wont) ... for the above reasons.
> 
> In short: Intel is NOT afraid of AMD Zen/Ryzen as far as Gaming/enthousiast market is concerned, Intel cares about the possibility that AMD would be able to make a better & cheaper Opteron and with it be able to gain a (much) larger corporate market share. WE, we are small potatoes.


Hear Hear! BTW same thing applies to GPU market 'specially Vega


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sir Slappy*
> 
> See you later i7-4790K and Xeon E3-1245 v5! I see a 1800X in my future


I would wait until it is actuall out and see what Intel does regarding prices or new versions.

I hadn't upgrade yet and I'm in no hurry to rush for AMD before we see them out, priced and perform as well as OC.
If it comes between a 7700k at 4.9-5ghz vs a rayzen which might not reach 4.5 and give very little extra performance for games vs Intel, I see no reason to get AMD as a top end pick.


----------



## Norz

My workhorse Xeon 1230 v3

EDIT: Adding Cinebench


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CortexA99*
> 
> After considering I decide to share this to you, reason why I consider to post just because I can not sure this is true or fake.
> 
> These screenshots are taken by a leaker which from Chinese forum Baidu, but I think you should take them with a grain of salt. The original thread has been deleted.


vs 6-core i7-6800k at 3.6GHz


----------



## outofmyheadyo

I sold my 5ghz 7700K and the motherboard for what I paid for them, now waiting to see what AMD really has to offer or if it`s a bust I can always buy a new 7700K and perhaps get better silicon try a different mb or just get both for cheaper.. But to compare with the chart above my 7700K did 221 cinebench single @ 5.1 dont remember if I ran memory @ 3200 or @ 3600
Should get a decent mb + cpu for 600 eur


----------



## iLeakStuff

i7 7700K runs at 4.5GHz. That Ryzen CPU ran at 3.7GHz.

IPC gains from Skylake to Kaby Lake was like less than 5%. Which means running that 7700K at 3.7GHz would score more or less like the Ryzen.

The reason why AMD will be hugely successful vs Intel is lower price and 95W TDP vs 140W TDP.
Plus recent leak actually showed Ryzen with better multi core performance than Skylake.

Not only have AMD regained all the lead Intel had but have now possibly better designs...


----------



## IRobot23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> i7 7700K runs at 4.5GHz. That Ryzen CPU ran at 3.7GHz.
> 
> IPC gains from Skylake to Kaby Lake was like less than 5%. Which means running that 7700K at 3.7GHz would score more or less like the Ryzen.
> 
> The reason why AMD will be hugely successful vs Intel is lower price and 95W TDP vs 140W TDP.
> Plus recent leak actually showed Ryzen with better multi core performance than Skylake.
> 
> Not only have AMD regained all the lead Intel had but have now possibly better designs...


Kabylake = Skylake with higher clock. There was no IPC gains.


----------



## IRobot23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> holy smokes the i7 goes up against the 8 core 16 thread? hahaha that's not even fair!


Yep
i7 6900K goes against ryzen 8C/16T


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Again perspective people, 2500k released in january of TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN.
> 
> Its not impressive, but its better late than never for AMD.


[email protected] consumes maybe 160-180W. A stock 6C/12T ryzen who is beating it on ST and moping the floor with it on MT while consuming less than half the power at sub-300 price point, is meh?


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> [email protected].5GHz consumes maybe 160-180W. A stock 6C/12T ryzen who is beating it on ST and moping the floor with it on MT while consuming less than half the power at sub-300 price point, is meh?


No a ~30% IPC increase over a CPU from the beginning of 2011 is not impressive, i understand part of this is the lack of power needed for desktop applications for the general population but still i would expect more over a 6 year period. Power consumption really isnt a thing you can make as a talking point, those come down with the times and node shrinks.

I am glad AMD is finally back in the game the first PC i built had an athlon xp 1600 that i kept for like 10 years, and its awesome AMD is pushing the core counts up compared to what intel is offering. But no i do not consider ryzen to be impressive.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> Kabylake = Skylake with higher clock. There was no IPC gains.


Exactly.

Which is why Intel have moved the launch of Coffee Lake from 2018 to H2 2017.
They fear that AMD will take the throne with 1800X + XFR.

Intel have had a major con on the gamers for so many years now with outrageous prices, only that gamers have gotten accustomed to it so they felt it was "normal" prices. Now AMD comes with a top end 8-coreto turn it all upside down with less than half the price of what greedy Intel have charged for their top CPU.

The result?
Intel panicking and preparing their employees what to say to cover up their bs prices. http://xtreview.com/images/anti_ryzenhelium.jpg
And layoffs will for sure eventually come.

Anyone that buy Intel or defend them in discussion from now on doesnt understand what they are doing.
Everyone should support AMD now imho


----------



## GMcDougal

If these leaks are true, good bye 6600k. Single core performance is close enough that i will take a small hit in single core performance to get better multi core performance. Games in the next few years will take advantage of these extra cores on a regular basis.


----------



## kd5151

2-18-2017. 1 less day to go.


----------



## BinaryDemon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CortexA99*


Again seems to be in-line with the other released scores. My 5960x @ 4.2ghz gets 166 cb on single core.


----------



## czin125

Is there a limit to the XFR clocks and you'd have to use manual to get to 4.6+ghz?

Does it automatically scale up the clocks to 4.6/4.7/4.8ghz if you used 1x480x120mm^2 vs 1x540*180mm^2 vs 1x420*420mm^2 radiator?


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> 6900K is also a higher clocked chip. Intel I think allows chips to reach but not exceed the TDP when boosting. That does not however indicate anything about actual efficiency, and *AMD being a totally different company likely does things a bit differently*.


^THAT.
it would be an error to compare chips from different platform or even generations let alone manufacturers.

but yet many _*cough*_experts_*cough*_ will do just that.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> Your posts are too comical, even for someone excited about Ryzen. Aren't you that anti AMD troll who fake hypes their stuff all the time?


No really i am genuinely excited for this launch, i just dont feel the need to praise AMD just for *possibly (remember these are still leaks) catching up to intel after all this time. I will say its great they are pushing core counts as intel could have easily been releasing i5's with hyperthreading this whole time, great incentive for me to upgrade from my i5 as hopefully games start making use of more cores going forward.


----------



## BinaryDemon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> No really i am genuinely excited for this launch, i just dont feel the need to praise AMD just for *possibly (remember these are still leaks) catching up to intel after all this time. I will say its great they are pushing core counts as intel could have easily been releasing i5's with hyperthreading this whole time, great incentive for me to upgrade from my i5 as hopefully games start making use of more cores going forward.


Everyone should be excited for this launch. Even just based off the information AMD released at CES2017, its obvious that Ryzen will force Intel to be competitive again. For nearly 10 years, Intel has been raking in the cash and give us only incremental performance upgrades. That looks like it's about to change, at the least Intel is going to be forced to lower prices.


----------



## Aaron_Henderson

This is looking incredibly promising...if there is no funny business, I will definitely start buying AMD CPU again...already moved from Nvidia to AMD GPUs and have been more than happy with the switch.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BinaryDemon*
> 
> Everyone should be excited for this launch. Even just based off the information AMD released at CES2017, its obvious that Ryzen will force Intel to be competitive again. For nearly 10 years, Intel has been raking in the cash and give us only incremental performance upgrades. That looks like it's about to change, at the least Intel is going to be forced to lower prices.


That i absolutely agree with, but again i dont think these ryzen processors in and of themselves are "impressive".


----------



## RnRollie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BinaryDemon*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> No really i am genuinely excited for this launch, i just dont feel the need to praise AMD just for *possibly (remember these are still leaks) catching up to intel after all this time. I will say its great they are pushing core counts as intel could have easily been releasing i5's with hyperthreading this whole time, great incentive for me to upgrade from my i5 as hopefully games start making use of more cores going forward.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone should be excited for this launch. Even just based off the information AMD released at CES2017, its obvious that Ryzen will force Intel to be competitive again. For nearly 10 years, Intel has been raking in the cash and give us only incremental performance upgrades. That looks like it's about to change, at the least Intel is going to be forced to lower prices.
Click to expand...

Nope

We HOPE that intel will lower prices, but in reality they don't have to. We're just not that big a market.
They might shave off a few dollars left & right, but that'll be more in a belittling way and not so much in a pandering-to way.


----------



## RedM00N

If Ryzen can deliver (and can deliver in overclocking too) I'd see myself going with the 8c 16t 1800x over a 10c 20t Skylake x.

Interesting times we're about to be in indeed.


----------



## BinaryDemon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RnRollie*
> 
> Nope
> 
> We HOPE that intel will lower prices, but in reality they don't have to. We're just not that big a market.
> They might shave off a few dollars left & right, but that'll be more in a belittling way and not so much in a pandering-to way.


I'd say Ryzen looks to be performance competitive in many markets. Gaming, High-end Workstation, Typical Home Desktop use (although AMD may need a few more low end models, I see nothing price competitive with a G4650). Honestly I think the CPU would be great in a server space as well, but that really depends on motherboard support and it's really hard to make inroads in the server market.

Intel may not lower prices to match Ryzen prices, but I'm betting we will see some movement.


----------



## mAs81

Well from what I've seen,at least here,there's already been a small price drop..

Intel's pricing was already a joke here , but for your reference :

4790K - 391,05€
6700K - 399,90€
7700K - 398,80€

This is of course today's pricing from one online shop that I prefer, and got from there my 4790K back in August 2014 for 334,38€

My point is that a couple of weeks ago the 4790K priced around 410€ with the 6700K and 7700K around 415-420€

There will be a further price drop imho , but let's not expect miracles...


----------



## C2H5OH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> That i absolutely agree with, but again i dont think these ryzen processors in and of themselves are "impressive".


A company with 1/10 of Intel R&D, nearly avoiding bankruptcy, and catching or closing on CPU performance and power, while presumably keeping lower prices to Intel is not impressive?
I'm all for keeping the hype train to normal, but let's keep our respect for the company and engineers that will help you buy your next PC, huh?

Not impressive...


----------



## BackwoodsNC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RnRollie*
> 
> Nope
> 
> We HOPE that intel will lower prices, but in reality they don't have to. We're just not that big a market.
> 
> They might shave off a few dollars left & right, but that'll be more in a belittling way and not so much in a pandering-to way.


If so why even bother with unlocked skus. If AMD picks up 50% of enthusiasts, gamers that be massive for them. You think Intel will not counter? They wont sit back and let AMD get back on its legs to have war chest funds for other maekets.


----------



## RnRollie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BinaryDemon*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *RnRollie*
> 
> Nope
> 
> We HOPE that intel will lower prices, but in reality they don't have to. We're just not that big a market.
> They might shave off a few dollars left & right, but that'll be more in a belittling way and not so much in a pandering-to way.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say Ryzen looks to be performance competitive in many markets. Gaming, High-end Workstation, Typical Home Desktop use (although AMD may need a few more low end models, I see nothing price competitive with a G4650). Honestly I think the CPU would be great in a server space as well, but that really depends on motherboard support and it's really hard to make inroads in the server market.
> 
> Intel may not lower prices to match Ryzen prices, but I'm betting we will see some movement.
Click to expand...

Home Desktop is dead, its all portable & mobile nowadays... see my wall of text a few pages back.

Dont get me wrong, i DO hope that AMD manages to give Intel a kick in the nadgers and also manages a larger % in the Corporate/Server market. And i DO hope that as a result we'll see more democratic pricing.

But it all remains to be seen...
NDA needs to lift and some "real" test results need to flood in... because.. i DO remember the Bulldozer hype also.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *C2H5OH*
> 
> A company with 1/10 of Intel R&D, nearly avoiding bankruptcy, and catching or closing on CPU performance and power, while presumably keeping lower prices to Intel is not impressive?
> I'm all for keeping the hype train to normal, but let's keep our respect for the company and engineers that will help you buy your next PC, huh?
> 
> Not impressive...


I guess instead of saying "lets keep perspective" it should have read "i guess its a matter of perspective". Had AMD put more focus on desktop chips (their CEO admitted this was not a focus of theirs for quite some time) us enthusiasts would have cheaper and faster chips from both sides by now. Its great they finally got here, but again i dont know why we should be praising a company for something they should have done at an earlier date? I think sites like twitch are what pushed them to finally develop for the desktop side more, as PC gaming is growing massively right now, so i guess we have them to thank for a lot of this.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> That i absolutely agree with, but again i dont think these ryzen processors in and of themselves are "impressive".


If its all about raw single thread performance then yeah Ryzen is not impressive as they don't bring more performance than Kabylake at 5 Ghz. But Ryzen is going to bring better perf / $ for everyone and probably better perf/watt than Broadwell-E in the vast majority of desktop workloads. Intel Haswell and later generations will hold the advantage in AVX/AVX2 optimized benches, but those are a small minority. Most importantly for consumers AMD will offer a 4C/4T at i3 prices. Its very clear that a lot of games nowadays show better performance with 4C over 2C/4T even using mid range GPUs.


----------



## Scotty99

Right again thats because of the stagnating desktop segment tho. AMD deserves praise for upping core counts and lowering prices, but the performance of the chips as per the leaks does not qualify as impressive to me.


----------



## outofmyheadyo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> I guess instead of saying "lets keep perspective" it should have read "i guess its a matter of perspective". Had AMD put more focus on desktop chips (their CEO admitted this was not a focus of theirs for quite some time) us enthusiasts would have cheaper and faster chips from both sides by now. Its great they finally got here, but again i dont know why we should be praising a company for something they should have done at an earlier date? I think sites like twitch are what pushed them to finally develop for the desktop side more, as PC gaming is growing massively right now, so i guess we have them to thank for a lot of this.


If they were struggling to survive for a while it absolutely makes sense to not prioritize desktop market, because in the grand scheme of things it's not what puts the majority of the money in their pocket. Just because u think you and others like u are terribly important for amd doesn't make it true.


----------



## C2H5OH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> I guess instead of saying "lets keep perspective" it should have read "i guess its a matter of perspective". Had AMD put more focus on desktop chips (their CEO admitted this was not a focus of theirs for quite some time) us enthusiasts would have cheaper and faster chips from both sides by now. Its great they finally got here, but again i dont know why we should be praising a company for something they should have done at an earlier date? I think sites like twitch are what pushed them to finally develop for the desktop side more, as PC gaming is growing massively right now, so i guess we have them to thank for a lot of this.


Had the business been a fair game, we would have had a stronger AMD, but its not! And Intel has a fat finger in that.

It's not praising, it's respect as to what a focused and disciplined company can do! It's a matter of survival and brilliant distribution of resources.

For the new CPU - it's not Twitch, as I said, it's a matter of survival and business and engineering thinking.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Right again thats because of the stagnating desktop segment tho. AMD deserves praise for upping core counts and lowering prices, but the performance of the chips as per the leaks does not qualify as impressive to me.


You have to understand where AMD is coming from. They are at their lowest ever share in servers (probably <0.5%) and over the past 4 years have had to face major losses due to falling revenues in all segments of the PC and server market. AMD's goals for Zen were to provide a competitive core against Intel in the vast majority of workloads. More importantly AMD wanted a power efficient core which could compete with Intel on perf/watt. This is not an easy task given Intel's superior process for high performance CPUs. Intel has much more experience with FINFET than the foundries and has been in FINFET production from early 2012. For AMD to even get close after having fallen behind so badly with Bulldozer is impressive and very commendable. AMD's design choices for Zen clearly show they avoided a direct fight against Intel in raw core performance for every workload. AMD wisely chose to go with 128 bit FP units as they have a very strong Vega based GPU and Vega/Zen APU for HPC workloads. Zen is a very focussed design and targetted the vast majority of workloads which consumers and servers run and provides very competitive performance. More importanly Zen is a start of a multi year roadmap to return to high end desktop and server market. We are going to see Zen+ / Zen in 2018 and Zen++ / Zen 3 in 2019 with significant improvements. Maybe AMD might impress you within the next couple of generations. 7nm Zen++ in 2019 is very likely and could be a really impressive chip.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> No a ~30% IPC increase over a CPU from the beginning of 2011 is not impressive, i understand part of this is the lack of power needed for desktop applications for the general population but still i would expect more over a 6 year period. Power consumption really isnt a thing you can make as a talking point, those come down with the times and node shrinks.
> 
> I am glad AMD is finally back in the game the first PC i built had an athlon xp 1600 that i kept for like 10 years, and its awesome AMD is pushing the core counts up compared to what intel is offering. But no i do not consider ryzen to be impressive.


There is no lack of demand for power on desktop. On the contrary, hardware holds software back. Encoding/decoding/streaming, rendering etc are all tasks hungry for computational power. You may judge a CPU based on CB15 single thread metric using instruction sets that ignore CPU evolution and this is your right as a consumer. Bur that doesnt change the facts - this 6 core ryzen sample is almost twice the CPU a 2500k is and at a lower power consumption. Power is a very valid arguement because it responds to the question "what happened during the 6 yrars between SB and ryzen?".This coupled with the low price is nothing short of impressive.


----------



## Mad Pistol

If I had the money, I'd love to drop some cash on an R7 1800x just to thank AMD for finally bringing out a competitive product. Unfortunately, I have other things that are higher on my priority list, so I may have to wait for the Ryzen refresh, or whatever comes next, to support AMD.


----------



## Arengeta

Overclocked i5 6400.


----------



## DRKreiger

I am slightly kicking myself for grabbing a 4690k and a board. This would have been a great change of pace, and apparently quite a jump in performance. But I did score the board, and "semi golden" 4690k for $225. So i can not complain.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

I was a bit worried about memory speed but I'm ok now:

$299

Quote:


> Four DDR4 DIMM slots allow for really fast memory support with capacity of up to 64 GB and speeds running past 4000 MHz (O.C.+)


$179

Quote:


> There are four DDR4 DIMM slots that are shielded by a metallic plate on this motherboard. We can expect some impressive speeds beyond 3600 MHz (OC+) on the DRAM with OC profiles enabled.


Sauce: http://wccftech.com/msi-am4-motherboard-x370-b350-a320-price-amd-ryzen-leak/


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> No a ~30% IPC increase over a CPU from the beginning of 2011 is not impressive, i understand part of this is the lack of power needed for desktop applications for the general population but still i would expect more over a 6 year period. Power consumption really isnt a thing you can make as a talking point, those come down with the times and node shrinks.
> 
> I am glad AMD is finally back in the game the first PC i built had an athlon xp 1600 that i kept for like 10 years, and its awesome AMD is pushing the core counts up compared to what intel is offering. But no i do not consider ryzen to be impressive.


Since when was IPC everything?

The R7 1800X will run at over 4.0GHz. The i5 2500K runs at 3.7GHz.
Then add the IPC gains on top of that.
Thats way above 30% more performance which is the metric that should matter for gamers and alike









Then its the other stuff that isnt directly CPU performance related:
2500K doesnt support DDR4.
Ryzen have support for 24 PCIe lanes. 2500K have 16. That is important for those who run PCIe SSDs (2500K platform doesnt support NVMe) as well as dual graphic card setups


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

*1680 V2 @4.5GHz 1954/17392:*


----------



## stryker7314

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> *1680 V2 @4.5GHz 1954/17392:*


I still need to pick one of those up, though they seem to be holding on to their value pretty well on ebay.









Anywho, here's my overclocked 6700K, mostly just to show off, but also for comparison.


----------



## Newbie2009

My ivy for comparison @ 4.8ghz


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Four DDR4 DIMM slots allow for really fast memory support with capacity of up to 64 GB and speeds running past 4000 MHz (O.C.+)



Quote:


> There are four DDR4 DIMM slots that are shielded by a metallic plate on this motherboard. We can expect some impressive speeds beyond 3600 MHz (OC+) on the DRAM with OC profiles enabled.


Sauce: http://wccftech.com/msi-am4-motherboard-x370-b350-a320-price-amd-ryzen-leak/

Looks like high speed DDR4 won't be much of an issue


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> I would wait until it is actuall out and see what Intel does regarding prices or new versions.
> 
> I hadn't upgrade yet and I'm in no hurry to rush for AMD before we see them out, priced and perform as well as OC.
> If it comes between a 7700k at 4.9-5ghz vs a rayzen which might not reach 4.5 and give very little extra performance for games vs Intel, I see no reason to get AMD as a top end pick.


So replacing a Xeon e3 with a 7700k seems like a good idea to you? Lol


----------



## GHADthc

I`d been eyeing off the CVIH for awhile now..but it looks like I might be springing for that Xpower Titanium, 4000+ ddr4 speeds?..yes please!


----------



## outofmyheadyo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> I guess instead of saying "lets keep perspective" it should have read "i guess its a matter of perspective". Had AMD put more focus on desktop chips (their CEO admitted this was not a focus of theirs for quite some time) us enthusiasts would have cheaper and faster chips from both sides by now. Its great they finally got here, but again i dont know why we should be praising a company for something they should have done at an earlier date? I think sites like twitch are what pushed them to finally develop for the desktop side more, as PC gaming is growing massively right now, so i guess we have them to thank for a lot of this.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> 
> 
> Sauce: http://wccftech.com/msi-am4-motherboard-x370-b350-a320-price-amd-ryzen-leak/
> 
> Looks like high speed DDR4 won't be much of an issue


Good to see that my trident kit will work nicely!


----------



## FLCLimax

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> Your posts are too comical, even for someone excited about Ryzen. Aren't you that anti AMD troll who fake hypes their stuff all the time?
> 
> 
> 
> No really i am genuinely excited for this launch, i just dont feel the need to praise AMD just for *possibly (remember these are still leaks) catching up to intel after all this time. I will say its great they are pushing core counts as intel could have easily been releasing i5's with hyperthreading this whole time, great incentive for me to upgrade from my i5 as hopefully games start making use of more cores going forward.
Click to expand...

Talking to ileakstuff.


----------



## sinholueiro

Although the board supports such high speeds, the IMC of the CPU has to be able to handle them. It's like the X99 boards that said 3600+, but then HW-E tops out at 3400Mhz if you're lucky. I doubt a Ryzen CPU will have a strong IMC that can hold 4000Mhz. Let's start with 3200Mhz with decent timings, that's more realistic than 4000, don't let the hype drive you. AMD can polish the IMC in Ryzen+.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Right again thats because of the stagnating desktop segment tho. AMD deserves praise for upping core counts and lowering prices, but the performance of the chips as per the leaks does not qualify as impressive to me.


And how much gain in performance has Intel made Since AMD bulldozer failure?


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sinholueiro*
> 
> Although the board supports such high speeds, the IMC of the CPU has to be able to handle them. It's like the X99 boards that said 3600+, but then HW-E tops out at 3400Mhz if you're lucky. I doubt a Ryzen CPU will have a strong IMC that can hold 4000Mhz. Let's start with 3200Mhz with decent timings, that's more realistic than 4000, don't let the hype drive you. AMD can polish the IMC in Ryzen+.


I'm happy because It means my current 3200 kit will work just fine, I understand that the IMC still hase to be able to run it but I don't think anyone here was seriously thinking about buying a 4133 kit for Ryzen


----------



## outofmyheadyo

The decision to get the 3200 14-14-14-34 kit seems to work out nicely this thing even runs on 13-13-13-29


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> My ivy for comparison @ 4.8ghz
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


nice volts









(@4.6)


----------



## Tobe404

5820k @ 4.4

2001 Single / 13337 Multi


----------



## Sgt Bilko

pretty much all the motherboards we know about atm: http://www.overclock.net/t/1623547/videocardz-amd-ryzen-motherboard-update/0_50#post_25853248


----------



## finalheaven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sinholueiro*
> 
> Although the board supports such high speeds, the IMC of the CPU has to be able to handle them. It's like the X99 boards that said 3600+, but then HW-E tops out at 3400Mhz if you're lucky. I doubt a Ryzen CPU will have a strong IMC that can hold 4000Mhz. Let's start with 3200Mhz with decent timings, that's more realistic than 4000, don't let the hype drive you. AMD can polish the IMC in Ryzen+.


So is it better to get the highest speed that AMD IMC can support at the lowest timings, rather than going for whatever the boards support?


----------



## iLeakStuff

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-8-core-benchmarks/


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-8-core-benchmarks/


interesting stuff!


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> I'm happy because It means my current 3200 kit will work just fine, I understand that the IMC still hase to be able to run it but I don't think anyone here was seriously thinking about buying a 4133 kit for Ryzen


I do not see people getting faster than 3200 RAM for Zen because after looking at the prices it goes out of the window after 3200MHz kits. Also I hope people dont pair Zen with 2133MHz RAM lol. 4233MHz kits are cool for benchmarks but that about it. If you want to play 1080p with 2 x Titan XPs then you might needs the fastest RAM you can get.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> I'm happy because It means my current 3200 kit will work just fine, I understand that the IMC still hase to be able to run it but I don't think anyone here was seriously thinking about buying a 4133 kit for Ryzen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not see people getting faster than 3200 RAM for Zen because after looking at the *prices it goes out of the window after 3200MHz* kits. Also I hope people dont pair Zen with 2133MHz RAM lol. 4233MHz kits are cool for benchmarks but that about it. If you want to play 1080p with 2 x Titan XPs then you might needs the fastest RAM you can get.
Click to expand...

That's why I got 3200









I'm just very interested to see if memory speed plays any role in Ryzens performance, if it does then I may look at grabbing a faster kir later on.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-8-core-benchmarks/












okay.. I was already a bit hyped, and my best case was that AMD would be able to get within 15% of Intels $1100 8 core for around half the price. But now it looks like the 1800x is keeping up with it/even exceeding it while turbo is _*disabled*_?? For less than half the price?

I'm going to try my best to keep it together until "real" benches drop, but man... I'm finding that difficult, I've got my ticket and the hype-train is nearly here..

It looks like it is going to OC well on top of it


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> That's why I got 3200
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just very interested to see if memory speed plays any role in Ryzens performance, if it does then I may look at grabbing a faster kir later on.


I forgot how and if XMP works with AMD platforms. My 2400MHz DDR3 which was Z77 certified worked fine with 3770K but did not work 2400MHz with FM2+. Could be wise to wait for Zen certified RAM with AMP maybe? Might even just get some very cheap 16GB DDR-2400 I sow recently for under $100 CAD and then upgrade to better stuff when I get 32GB.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> No a ~30% IPC increase over a CPU from the beginning of 2011 is not impressive, i understand part of this is the lack of power needed for desktop applications for the general population but still i would expect more over a 6 year period. Power consumption really isnt a thing you can make as a talking point, those come down with the times and node shrinks.
> 
> I am glad AMD is finally back in the game the first PC i built had an athlon xp 1600 that i kept for like 10 years, and its awesome AMD is pushing the core counts up compared to what intel is offering. But no i do not consider ryzen to be impressive.


Then you really can't count Kaby Lake as impressive either...


----------



## finalheaven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I forgot how and if XMP works with AMD platforms. My 2400MHz DDR3 which was Z77 certified worked fine with 3770K but did not work 2400MHz with FM2+. Could be wise to wait for Zen certified RAM with AMP maybe? Might even just get some very cheap 16GB DDR-2400 I sow recently for under $100 CAD and then upgrade to better stuff when I get 32GB.


Hmm I was planning to get 3200mhz c14 DDR4s figuring it'll work. Maybe I should wait..


----------



## outofmyheadyo

If zen requires some special snowlake ram that would be so dissapointing, it's highly unlikely I think.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *finalheaven*
> 
> Hmm I was planning to get 3200mhz c14 DDR4s figuring it'll work. Maybe I should wait..


Not sure what the average 3200 kit timings are but CL14 seem like its on the low side with CL16 being the average. Probably best to sacrifice timings for comparability or wait for people to make purchase and see how things work out. This is one of the problems with new MB, new DDR4 for AMD and new CPU. Nobody know the limits.


----------



## finalheaven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Not sure what the average 3200 kit timings are but CL14 seem like its on the low side with CL16 being the average. Probably best to sacrifice timings for comparability or wait for people to make purchase and see how things work out. This is one of the problems with new MB, new DDR4 for AMD and new CPU. Nobody know the limits.


Yea CL14 is one of the fastest timings for 3200mhz. I plan to build a ryzen on launch day though so would need to order at the same time. So I guess I'm in a pickle.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *finalheaven*
> 
> Yea CL14 is one of the fastest timings for 3200mhz. I plan to build a ryzen on launch day though so would need to order at the same time. So I guess I'm in a pickle.


You can always increase timings but you do not want to pay a lot of extra $ for CL14. What kit is that? I might want to look it up.


----------



## finalheaven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> You can always increase timings but you do not want to pay a lot of extra $ for CL14. What kit is that? I might want to look it up.


G.SKILL TridentZ F4-3200C14D

G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series F4-3200C14D

I believe they all use Samsung chips that can also go up to 3600-4000+ mhz if you want to push for higher speeds (but with higher timings of course).


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> okay.. I was already a bit hyped, and my best case was that AMD would be able to get within 15% of Intels $1100 8 core for around half the price. But now it looks like the 1800x is keeping up with it/even exceeding it while turbo is _*disabled*_?? For less than half the price?
> 
> I'm going to try my best to keep it together until "real" benches drop, but man... I'm finding that difficult, I've got my ticket and the hype-train is nearly here..
> 
> It looks like it is going to OC well on top of it


Well it is 1900X @ 3.6GHz vs 6900K @ 3.7GHz and the Ryzen beats the 6900K in 5 tests, lose in 2 and score even in 2.
http://m.imgur.com/a/0fNbU
The software says "N/A" in turbo with the 1800X, but could we get a little fooled here?
http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-System-Specs-WM.jpg

Could it run in speeds above 4.0GHz but the XFR is so new that the test cant read the clocks properly? Is that a possibility?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *finalheaven*
> 
> G.SKILL TridentZ F4-3200C14D
> 
> G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series F4-3200C14D
> 
> I believe they all use Samsung chips that can also go up to 3600-4000+ mhz if you want to push for higher speeds (but with higher timings of course).


https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/product/McH48d/gskill-trident-z-16gb-2-x-8gb-ddr3-3200-memory-f4-3200c14d-16gtzkw

They where $170 CAD. Now $195. God dam RAM prices.


----------



## finalheaven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/product/McH48d/gskill-trident-z-16gb-2-x-8gb-ddr3-3200-memory-f4-3200c14d-16gtzkw
> 
> They where $170 CAD. Now $195. God dam RAM prices.


Yea, ram prices have actually been increasing. It would have been cheaper to buy 6 months ago for all speeds/timings.


----------



## sinholueiro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *finalheaven*
> 
> So is it better to get the highest speed that AMD IMC can support at the lowest timings, rather than going for whatever the boards support?


Of course. You can buy a extremely fast RAM, but if the IMC can't handle it, you will have to underclock it and adjust the timings. I bought 3200Mhz for my 5820k, so it was hard to get such a bad IMC that couldn't handle that. The MoBo says 3600+, but that's not gonna happen.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Then you really can't count Kaby Lake as impressive either...


Of course it isn't, i have been disappointed with intel since sandy (which i STILL own lol). Like i have said multiple times in here AMD deserves praise for core count and pricing, but zen itself is not some marvel of achievement, this is coming from some who is LIKELY going to have a 1600x in my PC in the next few months lol. Intel has been ripping people off on the higher core stuff for far too long, this move from AMD should make i5's have 4c 8t at the very minimum and thats a great thing.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Well it is 1900X @ 3.6GHz vs 6900K @ 3.7GHz and the Ryzen beats the 6900K in 5 tests, lose in 2 and score even in 2.
> http://m.imgur.com/a/0fNbU
> The software says "N/A" in turbo with the 1800X, but could we get a little fooled here?
> http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-System-Specs-WM.jpg
> 
> Could it run in speeds above 4.0GHz but the XFR is so new that the test cant read the clocks properly? Is that a possibility?


Yeah, I guess all of that is possible. That's why I'm still keeping my hype in check, but the fact that they're even near Intel is a monumental engineering effort on AMD's part, can't wait to see the real-world scenarios in the coming weeks.

It was this that made me look at Ryzen a bit differently, XFR might actually not be in play yet.. Might be the 1500

We'll see, exciting stuff.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Yeah, I guess all of that is possible. That's why I'm still keeping my hype in check, but the fact that they're even near Intel is a monumental engineering effort on AMD's part, can't wait to see the real-world scenarios in the coming weeks.
> 
> It was this that made me look at Ryzen a bit differently, XFR might actually not be in play yet.. Might be the 1500
> 
> We'll see, exciting stuff.


The only thing is that X99 platform really is just server grade hardware sold to customers. It has a lot of stuff in the die that do not benefit customer workloads. Intel might have to ramp up Z platform or ramp down X platform to match AMD.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Yeah, I guess all of that is possible. That's why I'm still keeping my hype in check, but the fact that they're even near Intel is a monumental engineering effort on AMD's part, can't wait to see the real-world scenarios in the coming weeks.
> 
> It was this that made me look at Ryzen a bit differently, XFR might actually not be in play yet.. Might be the 1500
> 
> We'll see, exciting stuff.


Yep, that fits the recent spec sheet that was posted.
https://www.custompcreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/amd-ryzen-leaked-full-sku-list-800x600.jpg

BA = 95W
BB = 65W
BC = 95W + XFR

Since the codename was *YDBB*3301BBM6IF4_37/33_Y, its a 65W CPU and 1600X is BC.
So the result in OP is either from a R5 1500 or 1500 PRO.

Indeed sick that it beats i7 6800K and 6850K by over 10%


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> The only thing is that X99 platform really is just server grade hardware sold to customers. It has a lot of stuff in the die that do not benefit customer workloads. Intel might have to ramp up Z platform or ramp down X platform to match AMD.


Yeah, that's true.

The Z platforms problem won't be performance, but its value is certainly going to take a hit. Ryzen chips getting anywhere near them in single-thread (and from what we've seen recently may actually get very close) while offering double the cores for around the same price, will put Ryzen in a strong position.

Going to be interesting to see what Intel does, they have a lot of hands they can play. We'll see if Intel have been telling the whole truth regarding performance improvements, or just how expensive their chips really are to make. Or perhaps (would suck if this turns out to be the case) their mindshare and stranglehold on the market is strong enough for them to have no incentive to do anything.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Yep, that fits the recent spec sheet that was posted.
> https://www.custompcreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/amd-ryzen-leaked-full-sku-list-800x600.jpg
> 
> BA = 95W
> BB = 65W
> BC = 95W + XFR
> 
> Since the codename was *YDBB*3301BBM6IF4_37/33_Y, its a 65W CPU and 1600X is BC.
> So the result in OP is either from a R5 1500 or 1500 PRO.
> 
> Indeed sick that it beats i7 6800K and 6850K by over 10%


Looking very good so far, AMD have also been treating Ryzen a bit differently, they're being very modest about it. I think they want to let it speak for itself this time, that makes me even more confident that it's a very competitive product.


----------



## outofmyheadyo

Havent had an amd cpu for a solid 10+ years, it's about time.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Yeah, that's true.
> 
> The Z platforms problem won't be performance, but its value is certainly going to take a hit. Ryzen chips getting anywhere near them in single-thread (and from what we've seen recently may actually get very close) while offering double the cores for around the same price, will put Ryzen in a strong position.
> 
> Going to be interesting to see what Intel does, they have a lot of hands they can play. We'll see if Intel have been telling the whole truth regarding performance improvements, or just how expensive their chips really are to make. Or perhaps (would suck if this turns out to be the case) their mindshare and stranglehold on the market is strong enough for them to have no incentive to do anything.
> Looking very good so far, AMD have also been treating Ryzen a bit differently, they're being very modest about it. I think they want to let it speak for itself this time, that makes me even more confident that it's a very competitive product.


I dont know man. When I heard the name "Ryzen" for the first time I thought "Here we go again. Hyping it up with a name. I remember Bulldozer







"

But yeah. They even only promised +40IPC over previous Excevator architecture.
Take A-10 7860K and compare with 1500 Ryzen.

Both clocked at 3.6GHz.

7860K single core performance: 1119
1500 single core performance: 1888
http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=21514

Thats not +40%


----------



## tweezlednutball

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> I dont know man. When I heard the name "Ryzen" for the first time I thought "Here we go again. Hyping it up with a name. I remember Bulldozer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "
> 
> But yeah. They even only promised +40IPC over previous Excevator architecture.
> Take A-10 7860K and compare with 1500 Ryzen.
> 
> Both clocked at 3.6GHz.
> 
> 7860K single core performance: 1119
> 1500 single core performance: 1888
> http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=21514
> 
> Thats not +40%


7860K was steamroller wasnt it?


----------



## Mad Pistol

Wow... higher IPC than Broadwell-E???

God, I hope this is true. We NEED this!


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tweezlednutball*
> 
> 7860K was steamroller wasnt it?


Kaveri, based on Excevator
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Two-Kaveris-And-An-Excavator

Crap. Forger it. I read wrong. Its steamroller indeed


----------



## iLeakStuff

X4 845 is an Excevator and runs at 3.8GHz. 200MHz faster than the R5 1500.

Single core perf:
X4 845: 1187
R5 1500: 1888

http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=22530

Still way over 40% gain


----------



## tweezlednutball

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> X4 845 is an Excevator and runs at 3.8GHz. 200MHz faster than the R5 1500.
> 
> Single core perf:
> X4 845: 1187
> R5 1500: 1888
> 
> http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=22530
> 
> Still way over 40% gain


true, but its a very synthetic workload. amd is probably also saying ipc across all cores rather than single core, because it seems amd has the upper hand over intel when it comes to multi-thread scaling still.


----------



## AlphaC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> X4 845 is an Excevator and runs at 3.8GHz. 200MHz faster than the R5 1500.
> 
> Single core perf:
> X4 845: 1187
> R5 1500: 1888
> 
> http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=22530
> 
> Still way over 40% gain


Might be DDR4 and improved PCH advantage?

1187 score +40% = 1661 (a bit behind Haswell)

I've ran this on the CPU of my ultrabook with Broadwell and it achieved about 1200 (max turbo was 2.7GHz), which is also coincidentally what CPU-Z has the FX-8350 at.


----------



## ToTheSun!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *outofmyheadyo*
> 
> Havent had an amd cpu for a solid 10+ years, it's about time.


I mentioned a few months ago that i would love to build an all AMD rig soon in a justified manner (without sacrificing optimal value to me). If Vega is any good, May may be the month. Exciting times ahead!


----------



## soth7676

I cant wait for the release and reviews of this....been wanting a AMD CPU once again....and with motherboard manufactors releasing win7 drivers for it...I have no need to go linux or Win10...


----------



## lombardsoup

-40-50% faster than i5 7600k
-Near/same perf as i7 6850K

My god the hype is real!


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lombardsoup*
> 
> -40-50% faster than i5 7600k
> -Near/same perf as i7 6850K
> 
> My god the hype is real!


Dont forget the TDP is at 65W vs 6850Ks 140W.

How is this even possible?


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Dont forget the TDP is at 65W vs 6850Ks 140W.
> 
> How is this even possible?


This is possible by having way less money than your competitors.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Intel HEDT TDP accounts for heavy AVX workloads-it shouldn't consume all that much outside of this scenario.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Intel HEDT TDP accounts for heavy AVX workloads-it shouldn't consume all that much outside of this scenario.


So your saying that this is like TDP with AMD vs Nvidia?


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Dont forget the TDP is at 65W vs 6850Ks 140W.
> 
> How is this even possible?


because intel and amd uses different standards for TDP.

people need to stop that comparison.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Which is why Intel have moved the launch of Coffee Lake from 2018 to H2 2017.


Rumors of cannon lake (and later coffee lake) with 6 cores for 2H 2017 are almost 2 years old.
The only difference is that cannon lake was originally rumored to be 10nm, and coffee lake is expected to be an updated 14nm.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> The R7 1800X will run at over 4.0GHz. The i5 2500K runs at 3.7GHz.


That comparison is irrelevant so I don't know why people keep talking about it.
If someone owns a 2500K and wants to upgrade, he will not buy another 2500K. He has the 7600K or the 7700K which are both cheaper than the expected 1800X by a 100$+.
And that is the benchmark today. And those will rival the 1700X at most, if not the 1700, for price/performance. The 1800X will be the x99 rival.

Problem is not that AMD brings a 2500K 4.5ghz performance 6 years later (especially considering 32nm, DDR3), which is overshadowed by stocks of now released intel counterparts in ST.
My problem is that while AMD has the advantage of having more cores, it doesn't mean it will perform better at games which are the aim for intel with those chips.

As for the workstation side, intel has a huge range of xeons, from 4 core to 22 cores.
Intel has a 1.8ghz/2.9ghz 55W 10/20 CPU for 600$ which does a 12K score in cpu mark.
They also have a 2.2ghz/3.1ghz 85W 10/20 cpu for under 700$ which does 18K+ in cpu mark.
And those are 1 year old CPUs, and before V5 full release.

While AMD can potentially "bring down" intel's domination, intel can potentially bring out updated CPUs any day now, taking AMD's advantage away.


----------



## lombardsoup

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Rumors of cannon lake (and later coffee lake) with 6 cores for 2H 2017 are almost 2 years old.
> The only difference is that cannon lake was originally rumored to be 10nm, and coffee lake is expected to be an updated 14nm.
> That comparison is irrelevant so I don't know why people keep talking about it.
> If someone owns a 2500K and wants to upgrade, he will not buy another 2500K. He has the 7600K or the 7700K which are both cheaper than the expected 1800X by a 100$+.
> And that is the benchmark today. And those will rival the 1700X at most, if not the 1700, for price/performance. The 1800X will be the x99 rival.
> 
> Problem is not that AMD brings a 2500K 4.5ghz performance 6 years later (especially considering 32nm, DDR3), which is overshadowed by stocks of now released intel counterparts in ST.
> My problem is that while AMD has the advantage of having more cores, it doesn't mean it will perform better at games which are the aim for intel with those chips.
> 
> As for the workstation side, intel has a huge range of xeons, from 4 core to 22 cores.
> Intel has a 1.8ghz/2.9ghz 55W 10/20 CPU for 600$ which does a 12K score in cpu mark.
> They also have a 2.2ghz/3.1ghz 85W 10/20 cpu for under 700$ which does 18K+ in cpu mark.
> And those are 1 year old CPUs, and before V5 full release.
> 
> While AMD can potentially "bring down" intel's domination, intel can potentially bring out updated CPUs any day now, taking AMD's advantage away.


Oh boy, another 14nm Intel 4 core with ~5% IPC gain


----------



## jprovido

ryzen is hyping me up man. let's go!!


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Rumors of cannon lake (and later coffee lake) with 6 cores for 2H 2017 are almost 2 years old.
> The only difference is that cannon lake was originally rumored to be 10nm, and coffee lake is expected to be an updated 14nm.
> That comparison is irrelevant so I don't know why people keep talking about it.
> If someone owns a 2500K and wants to upgrade, he will not buy another 2500K. He has the 7600K or the 7700K which are both cheaper than the expected 1800X by a 100$+.
> And that is the benchmark today. And those will rival the 1700X at most, if not the 1700, for price/performance. The 1800X will be the x99 rival.
> 
> Problem is not that AMD brings a 2500K 4.5ghz performance 6 years later (especially considering 32nm, DDR3), which is overshadowed by stocks of now released intel counterparts in ST.
> My problem is that while AMD has the advantage of having more cores, it doesn't mean it will perform better at games which are the aim for intel with those chips.
> 
> As for the workstation side, intel has a huge range of xeons, from 4 core to 22 cores.
> Intel has a 1.8ghz/2.9ghz 55W 10/20 CPU for 600$ which does a 12K score in cpu mark.
> They also have a 2.2ghz/3.1ghz 85W 10/20 cpu for under 700$ which does 18K+ in cpu mark.
> And those are 1 year old CPUs, and before V5 full release.
> 
> While AMD can potentially "bring down" intel's domination, intel can potentially bring out updated CPUs any day now, taking AMD's advantage away.


Whaat? I dont think you read what I said at all.

I said that +30% IPC over i7 2500K combined with 300-600MHz clocks over 2500K, means it will be MUCH faster.
Its not "another" 2500K.

Looking at current leaks of 1800X it may be as fast as i7 7700K. With 4 cores more.

As for the Coffee Lake, it have never been planned for 2017. It was suddenly moved up to 2017 after the leaks of Ryzen started ticking in.
Intel is really scared to lose market share right and you know it

Article from 5 days ago...
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/02/intel-coffee-lake-14nm-release-date/


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> So your saying that this is like TDP with AMD vs Nvidia?


Oh look : https://ark.intel.com/products/91317/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2699-v4-55M-Cache-2_20-GHz

22 Cores and only 145W. That is impressive.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Intel HEDT TDP accounts for heavy AVX workloads-it shouldn't consume all that much outside of this scenario.


This.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Dont forget the TDP is at 65W vs 6850Ks 140W.
> 
> How is this even possible?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> So your saying that this is like TDP with AMD vs Nvidia?


Single Thread Power Consumption(DC) Test, Haswell core (Open Hardware Monitor)
CPU: Core i3 4150 (DDR3 2x4 GB 1600 MHz CL9)

IBT v2.54(AVX2):
14-16 Watts

LinX 0.6.4(AVX):
9-10 watts

Cinebench R11.5(SSE):
7-8 Watts

Cinebench R15(SSE):
7-8 Watts

Hyper Pi 0.99b:
7-8 watts

Winrar:
5-6 Watts

7zip:
6-7 Watts

2160p 30fps 29.2mbps Video Playback(MPC-HC with LAV VD, CPU Threads: 1, No hardware Acceleration):
7-9 Watts

AVX2 load shows significant power consumption over others. I have to admit now, even if you are a professional and your software don't support AVX2, RyZen will be the best CPU overall, imo.

Edit: Using 'the best' in here can be taken as exaggeration, but nevermind.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Rumors of cannon lake (and later coffee lake) with 6 cores for 2H 2017 are almost 2 years old.
> The only difference is that cannon lake was originally rumored to be 10nm, and coffee lake is expected to be an updated 14nm.
> That comparison is irrelevant so I don't know why people keep talking about it.
> If someone owns a 2500K and wants to upgrade, he will not buy another 2500K. He has the 7600K or the 7700K which are both cheaper than the expected 1800X by a 100$+.
> And that is the benchmark today. And those will rival the 1700X at most, if not the 1700, for price/performance. The 1800X will be the x99 rival.
> 
> Problem is not that AMD brings a 2500K 4.5ghz performance 6 years later (especially considering 32nm, DDR3), which is overshadowed by stocks of now released intel counterparts in ST.
> My problem is that while AMD has the advantage of having more cores, it doesn't mean it will perform better at games which are the aim for intel with those chips.
> 
> As for the workstation side, intel has a huge range of xeons, from 4 core to 22 cores.
> Intel has a 1.8ghz/2.9ghz 55W 10/20 CPU for 600$ which does a 12K score in cpu mark.
> They also have a 2.2ghz/3.1ghz 85W 10/20 cpu for under 700$ which does 18K+ in cpu mark.
> And those are 1 year old CPUs, and before V5 full release.
> 
> While AMD can potentially "bring down" intel's domination, intel can potentially bring out updated CPUs any day now, taking AMD's advantage away.


You do know that there are 16-32 core chips in AMDs workstation/server pipeline, right?
You are also aware that there are games out now that run better on CPUs with more than 4c/8t, right?

The 'moar cores' thing is actually becoming a feasible approach with where new software is at. And the ST difference is small enough that there is no real reason to buy into a 4c/8t platform anymore. Especially if prices are driven down a notch or two.

Your argument mirrors the single core vs dual core gaming one from way back. It was common practice to get a single core CPU that could clock higher because it was better for gaming at the time. Those systems were likely the shortest lived gaming PC's in the last 20 years.


----------



## sumitlian

Sometimes it looks to me that Defoler is to nVidia/Intel as Paul Heyman is to Brock Lesner.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> So your saying that this is like TDP with AMD vs Nvidia?


I think in was clear enough.


----------



## ducegt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Your argument mirrors the single core vs dual core gaming one from way back. It was common practice to get a single core CPU that could clock higher because it was better for gaming at the time. Those systems were likely the shortest lived gaming PC's in the last 20 years.


It's more like when 64 bit first came out and it was a good 3-5 years before it came to fruition.


----------



## yawa

Astounded how anyone watching this unfold can still find ways to try to dampen this with their "it's not that big a deal," arguments.

Guys, to put this back into perspective, AMD, with a fraction of the R&D budget of Intel and Jim Keller's genuis, has designed a chip, that in 2017, has brought it back to parity with modern Intel enrhusiast chips. Not Ivy Bridge like we all thought was a "best case scenario." Not Haswell, which we all thought was a "pipe dream." But Skylake. AMD in 2017, has a chip that you can buy in two weeks, that boasts performance somewhere between Skylake and Kaby Lake, and there are STILL people on these boards who think it isn't a big deal or that AMD didn't do enough.

Just stop it. AMD did something amazing here, and is now able to compete with Intel toe to toe for the next 4 to 5 years. Stop trying to find flaws in a chip that is performing at a level even the most delusional AMD cheerleaders ( like me) couldnt have predicted or hoped for in my wildest dreams.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yawa*
> 
> Astounded how anyone watching this unfold can still find ways to try to dampen this with their "it's not that big a deal," arguments.
> 
> Guys, to put this back into perspective, AMD, with a fraction of the R&D budget of Intel and Jim Keller's genuis, has designed a chip, that in 2017, has brought it back to parity with modern Intel enrhusiast chips. Not Ivy Bridge like we all thought was a "best case scenario." Not Haswell, which we all thought was a "pipe dream." But Skylake. AMD in 2017, has a chip that you can buy in two weeks, that boasts performance somewhere between Skylake and Kaby Lake, and there are STILL people on these boards who think it isn't a big deal or that AMD didn't do enough.
> 
> Just stop it. AMD did something amazing here, and is now able to compete with Intel toe to toe for the next 4 to 5 years. Stop trying to find flaws in a chip that is performing at a level even the most delusional AMD cheerleaders ( like me) couldnt have predicted or hoped for in my wildest dreams.


The most convenient thing that those 'unimpressive' arguments ignore is what a set-up coup Ryzen is for AMD. It's amazing enough that they've come near catching up with Intel's latest... just imagine what they can do with Ryzen+ refinement?


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yawa*
> 
> Astounded how anyone watching this unfold can still find ways to try to dampen this with their "it's not that big a deal," arguments.
> 
> Guys, to put this back into perspective, AMD, with a fraction of the R&D budget of Intel and Jim Keller's genuis, has designed a chip, that in 2017, has brought it back to parity with modern Intel enrhusiast chips. Not Ivy Bridge like we all thought was a "best case scenario." Not Haswell, which we all thought was a "pipe dream." But Skylake. AMD in 2017, has a chip that you can buy in two weeks, that boasts performance somewhere between Skylake and Kaby Lake, and there are STILL people on these boards who think it isn't a big deal or that AMD didn't do enough.
> 
> Just stop it. AMD did something amazing here, and is now able to compete with Intel toe to toe for the next 4 to 5 years. Stop trying to find flaws in a chip that is performing at a level even the most delusional AMD cheerleaders ( like me) couldnt have predicted or hoped for in my wildest dreams.


Some users here in OCN seem more intelligent as compared to the engineers at AMD/Intel.









Because,

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

This Link was first posted in here by ryan92084.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> Some users here in OCN seem more intelligent as compared to the engineers at AMD/Intel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because,
> 
> http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1331317&page_number=2
> 
> This Link was first posted in here by ryan92084.


AMD and Intel have not been in same footing in a long time. When both CPU are very competitive then other factors come to play. For example in GPU space AMD is competitive to Nvidia but makes much less money per GPU.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> AMD and Intel have not been in same footing in a long time. When both CPU are very competitive then other factors come to play. For example in GPU space AMD is competitive to Nvidia but makes much less money per GPU.


The last time Intel and AMD were @ Parity was during the Athlon 64 and X2 era. At that time, AMD had the superior architecture.

Then Intel released Conroe (Core 2 Duo), and AMD never caught back up... until now.


----------



## lombardsoup

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> The last time Intel and AMD were @ Parity was during the Athlon 64 and X2 era. At that time, AMD had the superior architecture.
> 
> Then Intel released Conroe (Core 2 Duo), and AMD never caught back up... until now.


Haven't considered an AMD build since the socket 754 days. 14 years later, its nice to see them compete again.


----------



## PontiacGTX

Somene tested cinebench for the same cpu


Source


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> because intel and amd uses different standards for TDP.
> 
> people need to stop that comparison.


Keep telling yourself that. When peoe go to shop parts that's what they compare.

Reviewers compare them on specs sheet


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Keep telling yourself that. When peoe go to shop parts that's what they compare.
> 
> Reviewers compare them on specs sheet


http://www.intel.com/content/dam/doc/white-paper/resources-xeon-measuring-processor-power-paper.pdf


Spoiler: Thermal Considerations



The processor TDP is the maximum sustained power that should be used for design of
the processor thermal solution. TDP is a power dissipation and junction temperature
operating condition limit, specified in this document, that is validated during
manufacturing for the base configuration when executing a near worst case
commercially available workload as specified by Intel for the SKU segment. TDP may be
exceeded for short periods of time or if running a very high power workload.
The processor integrates multiple processing IA cores and graphics cores on a single
package.This may result in power distribution differences across the package and must
be considered when designing the thermal solution.
Intel® Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 allows processor IA cores to run faster than the base
frequency. It is invoked opportunistically and automatically as long as the processor is
conforming to its temperature, power delivery and current control limits. When Intel®
Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 is enabled:
• Applications are expected to run closer to TDP more often as the processor will
attempt to maximize performance by taking advantage of estimated available
energy budget in the processor package.
• The processor may exceed the TDP for short durations to utilize any available
thermal capacitance within the thermal solution. The duration and time of such
operation can be limited by platform runtime configurable registers within the
processor.
• Graphics peak frequency operation is based on the assumption of only one of the
graphics domains (GT/GTx) being active. This definition is similar to the IA core
Turbo concept, where peak turbo frequency can be achieved when only one IA core
is active. Depending on the workload being applied and the distribution across the
graphics domains the user may not observe peak graphics frequency for a given
workload or benchmark.
• Thermal solutions and platform cooling that are designed to less than thermal
design guidance may experience thermal and performance issues.


----------



## yawa

019600
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> Some users here in OCN seem more intelligent as compared to the engineers at AMD/Intel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because,
> 
> http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1331317&page_number=2
> 
> This Link was first posted in here by ryan92084.


Exactly this.

I mean, I bought my sig rig because I thought it was hopeless. I figured i'd have to wait for Zen+ before i could even consider replacing it with a superior AMD build. Now, I'm already making plans to gut my system, give the guts to my friend, and grab an AM4 Mobo, 1700X, Waterblock, and DDR4 next month. I promise you, I am not the only one either. That is a sign that this is in fact, a very big deal. Heck, if Zen+ is on AM4, that's even more of a reason to switch as you can just sell the Zen chip, and slot in the Zen+, which is far better than the "buy a new mobo every 2 years," Intel plan.

Just waiting to see now how it clocks. 4.2Ghz underwater is all it will take to make this "buy soon" situation a "buy now" one.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PontiacGTX*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.intel.com/content/dam/doc/white-paper/resources-xeon-measuring-processor-power-paper.pdf
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Thermal Considerations
> 
> 
> 
> The processor TDP is the maximum sustained power that should be used for design of
> the processor thermal solution. TDP is a power dissipation and junction temperature
> operating condition limit, specified in this document, that is validated during
> manufacturing for the base configuration when executing a near worst case
> commercially available workload as specified by Intel for the SKU segment. TDP may be
> exceeded for short periods of time or if running a very high power workload.
> The processor integrates multiple processing IA cores and graphics cores on a single
> package.This may result in power distribution differences across the package and must
> be considered when designing the thermal solution.
> Intel® Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 allows processor IA cores to run faster than the base
> frequency. It is invoked opportunistically and automatically as long as the processor is
> conforming to its temperature, power delivery and current control limits. When Intel®
> Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 is enabled:
> • Applications are expected to run closer to TDP more often as the processor will
> attempt to maximize performance by taking advantage of estimated available
> energy budget in the processor package.
> • The processor may exceed the TDP for short durations to utilize any available
> thermal capacitance within the thermal solution. The duration and time of such
> operation can be limited by platform runtime configurable registers within the
> processor.
> • Graphics peak frequency operation is based on the assumption of only one of the
> graphics domains (GT/GTx) being active. This definition is similar to the IA core
> Turbo concept, where peak turbo frequency can be achieved when only one IA core
> is active. Depending on the workload being applied and the distribution across the
> graphics domains the user may not observe peak graphics frequency for a given
> workload or benchmark.
> • Thermal solutions and platform cooling that are designed to less than thermal
> design guidance may experience thermal and performance issues.


http://www.anandtech.com/show/10337/the-intel-broadwell-e-review-core-i7-6950x-6900k-6850k-and-6800k-tested-up-to-10-cores/10


----------



## th3illusiveman

Higher IPC than sandy with moar cores? Yes please!


----------



## yawa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PontiacGTX*
> 
> Somene tested cinebench for the same cpu
> 
> 
> Source


Do we know if it's boosting in these little leaks yet? Can you get a stable Overclock? Because I'm dying to see ryzen at post 4.2 Ghz single core performance at this point.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *th3illusiveman*
> 
> Higher IPC than sandy with moar cores? Yes please!


I hope Ryzen+ gives us 20+ cores


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yawa*
> 
> 019600
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> Some users here in OCN seem more intelligent as compared to the engineers at AMD/Intel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because,
> 
> http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1331317&page_number=2
> 
> This Link was first posted in here by ryan92084.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly this.
> 
> I mean, I bought my sig rig because I thought it was hopeless. I figured i'd have to wait for Zen+ before i could even consider replacing it with a superior AMD build. Now, I'm already making plans to gut my system, give the guts to my friend, and grab an AM4 Mobo, 1700X, Waterblock, and DDR4 next month. I promise you, I am not the only one either. That is a sign that this is in fact, a very big deal. Heck, if Zen+ is on AM4, that's even more of a reason to switch as you can just sell the Zen chip, and slot in the Zen+, which is far better than the "buy a new mobo every 2 years," Intel plan.
> 
> Just waiting to see now how it clocks. 4.2Ghz underwater is all it will take to make this "buy soon" situation a "buy now" one.
Click to expand...

AM4 will be supported for 4 years, can find the quote somewhere if people need it.

EDIT: can't find it for some reason, either way we know that Raven Ridge will be on AM4 and supposedly Zen+ will be as well so it'll be close to 4 years support on the socket.


----------



## yawa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> AM4 will be supported for 4 years, can find the quote somewhere if people need it.
> 
> EDIT: can't find it for some reason, either way we know that Raven Ridge will be on AM4 and supposedly Zen+ will be as well so it'll be close to 4 years support on the socket.


No worries, I believe you.


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *C2H5OH*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> That i absolutely agree with, but again i dont think these ryzen processors in and of themselves are "impressive".
> 
> 
> 
> A company with 1/10 of Intel R&D, nearly avoiding bankruptcy, and catching or closing on CPU performance and power, while presumably keeping lower prices to Intel is not impressive?
> I'm all for keeping the hype train to normal, but let's keep our respect for the company and engineers that will help you buy your next PC, huh?
> 
> Not impressive...
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RnRollie*
> 
> Home Desktop is dead, its all portable & mobile nowadays... see my wall of text a few pages back.
> 
> Dont get me wrong, i DO hope that AMD manages to give Intel a kick in the nadgers and also manages a larger % in the Corporate/Server market. And i DO hope that as a result we'll see more democratic pricing.
> 
> But it all remains to be seen...
> NDA needs to lift and some "real" test results need to flood in... because.. i DO remember the Bulldozer hype also.


1980's: home desktop is a niche, it's expensive, nobody plays games on it, it's for work and even for that there are all in one solutions that do everything better: the Atari ST, the Commodore Amiga, the Macintosh. Oh, you want to play games only? Get a Master System or a NES, or did you hear about the portable Game Boy? It's all the rage right now. And the first portable console with a color screen, the Atari Lynx? Awesome.

1990's: home desktop? Pfff. Get an Amiga, an Atari ST, or the SNES or the Genesis / Mega Drive or the new Playstation, etc. Portable? Never been better: the Game Boy in all its glory, Sega has the awesome Game Gear, NEC has the TurboExpress and Atari has the Lynx 2.

2000's: Hey, you hear about Snake on the Nokias? Oh, and what about those Nokias with colour screens starting with System 40 and 60 you can already buy third party games and all. Woot! Playing Bejeweled, Prince of Persia and Who wants to be a millionaire! And the iPhone? Awesome.

Yeah, yeah, the desktop is dead. For the bazillionth time. To each his own. Frankly, let everybody have their own, it's for the better.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sinholueiro*
> 
> Although the board supports such high speeds, the IMC of the CPU has to be able to handle them. It's like the X99 boards that said 3600+, but then HW-E tops out at 3400Mhz if you're lucky. I doubt a Ryzen CPU will have a strong IMC that can hold 4000Mhz. Let's start with 3200Mhz with decent timings, that's more realistic than 4000, don't let the hype drive you. AMD can polish the IMC in Ryzen+.


Good point, It will probably do well enough for a first gen chip with their first DDR4 memory controller. Considering that they will be attractively priced, it's illogical to think that people will then turn around looking for the most expensive 4 Ghz+ memory kit to pair it with. Having said that, the platform itself was probably built to be able to accommodate Zen+ and Zen++'s better IMCs, just like Intel's chipsets are.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> No a ~30% IPC increase over a CPU from the beginning of 2011 is not impressive, i understand part of this is the lack of power needed for desktop applications for the general population but still i would expect more over a 6 year period. Power consumption really isnt a thing you can make as a talking point, those come down with the times and node shrinks.
> 
> I am glad AMD is finally back in the game the first PC i built had an athlon xp 1600 that i kept for like 10 years, and its awesome AMD is pushing the core counts up compared to what intel is offering. But no i do not consider ryzen to be impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you really can't count Kaby Lake as impressive either...
Click to expand...

Nor Devil's Canyon.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Intel HEDT TDP accounts for heavy AVX workloads-it shouldn't consume all that much outside of this scenario.
> 
> 
> 
> This.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Dont forget the TDP is at 65W vs 6850Ks 140W.
> 
> How is this even possible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> So your saying that this is like TDP with AMD vs Nvidia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Single Thread Power Consumption(DC) Test, Haswell core (Open Hardware Monitor)
> CPU: Core i3 4150 (DDR3 2x4 GB 1600 MHz CL9)
> 
> IBT v2.54(AVX2):
> 14-16 Watts
> 
> LinX 0.6.4(AVX):
> 9-10 watts
> 
> Cinebench R11.5(SSE):
> 7-8 Watts
> 
> Cinebench R15(SSE):
> 7-8 Watts
> 
> Hyper Pi 0.99b:
> 7-8 watts
> 
> Winrar:
> 5-6 Watts
> 
> 7zip:
> 6-7 Watts
> 
> 2160p 30fps 29.2mbps Video Playback(MPC-HC with LAV VD, CPU Threads: 1, No hardware Acceleration):
> 7-9 Watts
> 
> AVX2 load shows significant power consumption over others. I have to admit now, even if you are a professional and your software don't support AVX2, RyZen will be the best CPU overall, imo.
> 
> Edit: Using 'the best' in here can be taken as exaggeration, but nevermind.
Click to expand...

That may go some way in explaining how they got them under a 95w TDP. The other factors are the dual channel IMC instead of four channel and less PCIe lanes. Still, for the foreseeable future, strong AVX performance will suffice. Games are still being made to accommodate the Phenoms, which lack SSE 4.1, so it will take a while for AVX2 to become needed and then relevant. Of course, productivity may be another case.


----------



## Malinkadink

Can't wait for official release and benches from some reliable sources so we can lay all this speculation to rest.


----------



## amstech

Are there really people still saying the home desktop is dead after the sales numbers each and every year prove otherwise?
As far as Ryzen, its competing well but against older Intel architectures.


----------



## BinaryDemon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *amstech*
> 
> Are there really people still saying the home desktop is dead after the sales numbers each and every year prove otherwise?


Is anyone doing real work on Tablets? Personally, I still see either a laptop or desktop in every home.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yawa*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> AM4 will be supported for 4 years, can find the quote somewhere if people need it.
> 
> EDIT: can't find it for some reason, either way we know that Raven Ridge will be on AM4 and supposedly Zen+ will be as well so it'll be close to 4 years support on the socket.
> 
> 
> 
> No worries, I believe you.
Click to expand...

ok, after some more digging it looks like Grey Hawk (7nm) will be on the AM4+ socket (still unconfirmed) and it's due out sometime in 2019 (but will probably be delayed) so between 2-3 years with AM4 being "current"

I'm ok with a new platform every 2-3 years, every 12 months is a pain though.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Crap... now I want to build a m-itx toaster with a Ryzen 8-core and the new Vega card. It would be a PS4 Pro/Scorpio slayer.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Crap... now I want to build a m-itx toaster with a Ryzen 8-core and the new Vega card. It would be a PS4 Pro/Scorpio slayer.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*


Yes please!


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducegt*
> 
> It's more like when 64 bit first came out and it was a good 3-5 years before it came to fruition.


You could say that in 2011 when FX launched. There are software and SDK's out now that support more well threaded content.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes please!
Click to expand...

I've been wanting to build one of these for such a long time, might actually have an excuse soon


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Dont forget the TDP is at 65W vs 6850Ks 140W.
> 
> How is this even possible?


Different rating methods. It's not universal and comparable especially between brands.
On Intel consumer line it's sort of an average expected consumption during max load with nothing too crazy. The CPUs themselves are unlimited though at least the ones I had my hands on, the limit in UEFI is like 4000W by default and the power protections don't kick in, same with Amps it's like 1000A by default.

Very much doubt AMDs 8 cores are gonna run 65W average/typical power consumption or even those 95W when loaded. The 4 cores, yeah, maybe if the clocks and volts are low.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Wow... higher IPC than Broadwell-E???
> 
> God, I hope this is true. We NEED this!


Amen.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*


No PCIe extensions in those open slots to add GPUs? What a shame


----------



## renx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *amstech*
> 
> As far as Ryzen, its competing well but against older Intel architectures.


Really?
And losing miserably against the latest HEDT Intel architecture? As opposed to everything that's being shown?
Same performance or better...half the price?


----------



## Nukelear

What people kept on sleeping on is that the greatest advantage of Ryzen is motherboard. You cannot put a 6+ core chip in LGA1151. You will have to ditch $300+ to get a good x99 board. AMD Ryzen allows you to put an 8-core chip into a 70$ board (not overclocking) or on a $200 ROG board.


----------



## jprovido

my 7700k @ 5ghz is losing against ryzen 6/12 @ stock. this is crazy bruh


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nukelear*
> 
> What people kept on sleeping on is that the greatest advantage of Ryzen is motherboard. You cannot put a 6+ core chip in LGA1151. You will have to ditch $300+ to get a good x99 board. AMD Ryzen allows you to put an 8-core chip into a 70$ board (not overclocking) or on a $200 ROG board.


Not really. https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157600


----------



## jprovido

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Not really. https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157600


this. my msi X99A-SLI PLUS was like 180+ USD


----------



## Fancykiller65

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> ok, after some more digging it looks like Grey Hawk (7nm) will be on the AM4+ socket (still unconfirmed) and it's due out sometime in 2019 (but will probably be delayed) so between 2-3 years with AM4 being "current"
> 
> I'm ok with a new platform every 2-3 years, every 12 months is a pain though.


http://www.pcworld.com/article/3155129/components-processors/amd-says-its-zen-cpu-architecture-is-expected-to-last-four-years.html

So 4 years of Zen on AM4. Or is "Zen+" being used to refer to any chips after intital launch?


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fancykiller65*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> ok, after some more digging it looks like Grey Hawk (7nm) will be on the AM4+ socket (still unconfirmed) and it's due out sometime in 2019 (but will probably be delayed) so between 2-3 years with AM4 being "current"
> 
> I'm ok with a new platform every 2-3 years, every 12 months is a pain though.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/3155129/components-processors/amd-says-its-zen-cpu-architecture-is-expected-to-last-four-years.html
> 
> So 4 years of Zen on AM4. Or is "Zen+" being used to refer to any chips after intital launch?
Click to expand...

Zen is the architecture, Zen+ is an improvement, Zen++ (no idea if that's the name) will be an improvement on that etc etc

No idea if they'll keep using AM4 all that time or not.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I just realized, in all the excitement over Ryzen, I never have known how this word is pronounced. Is it "Rye-Zen" or is it "Risen"? I've been pronouncing it in my head as the former all this time.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I just realized, in all the excitement over Ryzen, I never have known how this word is pronounced. Is it "Rye-Zen" or is it "Risen"? I've been pronouncing it in my head as the former all this time.


First one, I was very disappointed when it wasn't Risen, would have suited the product well


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I just realized, in all the excitement over Ryzen, I never have known how this word is pronounced. Is it "Rye-Zen" or is it "Risen"? I've been pronouncing it in my head as the former all this time.


The first one. People though it was Rising Zen but its Horizon Zen.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Updated OP with Cinebench numbers


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jprovido*
> 
> my 7700k @ 5ghz is losing against ryzen 6/12 @ stock. this is crazy bruh


It does?


----------



## jprovido

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> It does?


yes in cinebench


----------



## Lays

Hopefully it clocks well, otherwise Kaby is going to destroy it in single thread, and considering most games still only use ~4-8 threads, that's important.


----------



## Derp

Here's an image for those individuals who think Ryzen is "Meh". Also point and laugh at Bulldozer one last time.


----------



## Ashura

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lays*
> 
> Hopefully it clocks well, otherwise Kaby is going to destroy it in single thread, and considering most games still only use ~4-8 threads, that's important.


But, you still bought the 7700k, even @5ghz its only better in games by a small margin, compared to previous gen i7 & i5 CPUs.


----------



## czin125

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lays*
> 
> Hopefully it clocks well, otherwise Kaby is going to destroy it in single thread, and considering most games still only use ~4-8 threads, that's important.


That's DDR4-3200 14-14-14?


----------



## Lays

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *czin125*
> 
> That's DDR4-3200 14-14-14?


3600 16-16-16


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lays*
> 
> Hopefully it clocks well, otherwise Kaby is going to destroy it in single thread, and considering most games still only use ~4-8 threads, that's important.


That 2-5 fps in the few games the 7700k will have is sure worth the huge drop in overall computational powee


----------



## Lays

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ashura*
> 
> But, you still bought the 7700k, even @5ghz its only better in games by a small margin, compared to previous gen i7 & i5 CPUs.


That's extremely relevant to which GPU is in the system, the game and resolution. In some games the 7700k is showing near 30 FPS more than say an i7 3770k.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-intel-kaby-lake-core-i7-7700k-review

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> That 2-5 fps in the few games the 7700k will have is sure worth the huge drop in overall computational powee


If all you do is game, a small loss in computational power isn't a big deal if you see a massive 20-30% single thread increase. This all depends on how well Zen OC's though.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> because intel and amd uses different standards for TDP.
> 
> people need to stop that comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that. When peoe go to shop parts that's what they compare.
> 
> Reviewers compare them on specs sheet
Click to expand...

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/opinion/1050824/amd-talks-acp-vs-tdp
Quote:


> David Kanter from Real World Tech told the INQ, "It's absolutely true that AMD's TDP is a more conservative measure than Intel's TDP and the two cannot be compared. But ACP definitely cannot be compared to TDP".


http://www.anandtech.com/show/2807/2
Quote:


> In a nutshell:
> 
> AMD's ACP uses a "round down" average of power measurements performed with industry standard benchmarks (usually running at 100% CPU load, with the exception of Stream).
> AMD's TDP is close to the electrical maximum a CPU can draw (when it is operating at its maximum voltage).
> Intel's TDP is a "round up" average of power measurements of processor intensive benchmarks.


http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2236657/intel-says-chip-vendors-tdp-figures-are-not-comparable
Quote:


> Adam King, Intel's director of notebook product marketing told The INQUIRER, "At this time we are not prepared to talk specifically [about] what workloads we are using. It is something we haven't disclosed publicly to date and so that would be a pretty big decision for us to do that and we are not prepared to do that today, mainly for competitive reasons. . . .
> 
> Not only did King say that TDP values are not transferable between chip vendors, he added that TDP figures cannot be compared between Atom and Core processors.


iirc, intel uses maximum thermal dissipation for nominal voltage where as AMD uses the average thermal dissipation at maximum voltage. amd also doesn't use some of benches that intel does, claiming bias.

other people doing it _or reading it_ wrong is not an excuse.

.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lays*
> 
> That's extremely relevant to which GPU is in the system, the game and resolution. In some games the 7700k is showing near 30 FPS more than say an i7 3770k.
> 
> http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-intel-kaby-lake-core-i7-7700k-review
> If all you do is game, a small loss in computational power isn't a big deal if you see a massive 20-30% single thread increase. This all depends on how well Zen OC's though.


A small loss Lol? 8 core Ryzen way more computational power than a 7700k. Get out your cave.

You dont need to justify your 7700k purchase. We don't care. This is not 2011. Lol Single thread performance...


----------



## Lays

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> A small loss Lol? 8 core Ryzen way more computational power than a 7700k. Get out your cave.
> 
> You dont need to justify your 7700k purchase. We don't care. This is not 2011. Lol Single thread performance...


The thread in OP is a 6 core ryzen chip, which is what I was comparing to, not a 8c16t one. I could care-less about justifying my 7700k purchase, if it turns out that Ryzen is some sort of god send and Intel does nothing to answer, I have no problem selling parts of my system to make way for Ryzen.


----------



## czin125

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lays*
> 
> 3600 16-16-16


https://bbs.io-tech.fi/threads/intel-kaby-lake-lga-1151-z270-kellotukset-kokemukset.6251/page-26
One of them has a 5400mhz Core / 5000mhz cache / DDR4-4000 16-16-16-36 24/7 clocks on the same board as yours.

You may be able to get tighter timings?


----------



## Lays

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *czin125*
> 
> https://bbs.io-tech.fi/threads/intel-kaby-lake-lga-1151-z270-kellotukset-kokemukset.6251/page-26
> One of them has a 5400mhz Core / 5000mhz cache / DDR4-4000 16-16-16-36 24/7 clocks on the same board as yours.
> 
> You may be able to get tighter timings?


Judging by the fact that all he did was run hyperpi and a realbench benchmark, I wouldn't call that 24/7 stable. If he's running 4000 mhz 16-16-16-36 with 700 TRFC, I can 100% guarantee you his RTL, and Tertaries are loose as hell, most likely negating all the speed benefit he'd be getting from the increase in speed and dropping the primaries.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lays*
> 
> The thread in OP is a 6 core ryzen chip, which is what I was comparing to, not a 8c16t one. I could care-less about justifying my 7700k purchase, if it turns out that Ryzen is some sort of god send and Intel does nothing to answer, I have no problem selling parts of my system to make way for Ryzen.


So why are you trying justifying it?

Well the 8 core and the 7700k ate similarly priced. That's why I compared it.

6 core is bound to clock higher than the 8 core. So I'm not sure about the over exaggerating about single thread performance.


----------



## Lays

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> So why are you trying justifying it?
> 
> Well the 8 core and the 7700k ate similarly priced. That's why I compared it.
> 
> 6 core is bound to clock higher than the 8 core. So I'm not sure about the over exaggerating about single thread performance.


Not sure where I said I was trying to justify it? Was just saying if ryzen doesn't OC well, it's going to be at a massive single thread disadvantage, LOTS of games still only use a few threads, even AAA titles. The more and more games we see that start supporting more cores the better, but I'm sure you & both know how lazy devs are, and how lately it seems they just rush through development just to get their game out ASAP whether it's fully functional and optimized or not.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lays*
> 
> Not sure where I said I was trying to justify it? Was just saying if ryzen doesn't OC well, it's going to be at a massive single thread disadvantage, LOTS of games still only use a few threads, even AAA titles. The more and more games we see that start supporting more cores the better, but I'm sure you & both know how lazy devs are, and how lately it seems they just rush through development just to get their game out ASAP whether it's fully functional and optimized or not.


I don't know any AA game released in 2016 that uses 2 threads. So again please calm down with the over exaggerating.

Even so they will will run great on Ryzen.


----------



## Ashura

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lays*
> 
> That's extremely relevant to which GPU is in the system, the game and resolution. In some games the 7700k is showing near 30 FPS more than say an i7 3770k.
> 
> http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-intel-kaby-lake-core-i7-7700k-review


Exactly, a few games are cpu bound that use less cores would run better, but more & more modern games are using/running better on more than 4c8t now. So I fail to see how Ryzen 6c12t @ around $70-$80 cheaper than the 7700k would be 'destroyed' in games.


----------



## Lays

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ashura*
> 
> Exactly, a few games are cpu bound that use less cores would run better, but more & more modern games are using/running better on more than 4c8t now. So I fail to see how Ryzen 6c12t @ around $70-$80 cheaper than the 7700k would be 'destroyed' in games.


Like I said previously, it all depends on the game. Not everyone plays only new games that are newly released with more support. People should always look into what will suit them best for their needs & price to performance in those needs.


----------



## Ashura

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lays*
> 
> Like I said previously, it all depends on the game. Not everyone plays only new games that are newly released with more support. People should always look into what will suit them best for their needs & price to performance in those needs.


I'd agree, But everybody doesn't play older games only now do they? So, your initial statement was wrong.

7700k, would still be great in games, & even do better is most, But won't destroy a 6c/12t ryzen. Not in games(overall) & definitely not in overall computing.


----------



## Niobium

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lays*
> 
> Like I said previously, it all depends on the game. Not everyone plays only new games that are newly released with more support. People should always look into what will suit them best for their needs & price to performance in those needs.


Didn't you know no true scotsman gamer play non-AAA single-threaded games that drops to <60 fps when CPU limited.


----------



## Lays

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Niobium*
> 
> Didn't you know no true scotsman gamer play non-AAA single-threaded games that drops 60 fps when CPU limited.


lol XD


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lays*
> 
> Like I said previously, it all depends on the game. Not everyone plays only new games that are newly released with more support. People should always look into what will suit them best for their needs & price to performance in those needs.


But everyone buys $400 CPUs to play older games right? Lol


----------



## jtypin

CHOO CHOO.


----------



## Lays

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> But everyone buys $400 CPUs to play older games right? Lol


*People should always look into what will suit them best for their needs & price to performance in those needs.*


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lays*
> 
> *People should always look into what will suit them best for their needs & price to performance in those needs.*


6 core Ryzen will suite anyone. All round performer. And doesn't need purchase justification a buyers regret arguing.


----------



## Lays

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> 6 core Ryzen will suite anyone. All round performer. And doesn't need purchase justification a buyers regret arguing.


Enjoying my purchase, getting to dry ice my chip to 6ghz, being able to get loads of points on hwbot enjoying my hardware, playing all the games I want, #buyers-remorse I tell u what boyo. I'm the type of person that upgrades literally every time something that interests me comes out, I sell my previous hardware to offset most of the cost, and continue enjoying my purchases. Everytime I upgrade I bench it for hwbot and have fun doing it. I'm a firm believer in enjoying the present, rather than sitting around waiting for a few extra percent for some small savings.

There's always something new and improved around the corner, it's just life man.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> A small loss Lol? 8 core Ryzen way more computational power than a 7700k. Get out your cave.
> 
> You dont need to justify your 7700k purchase. We don't care. *This is not 2011. Lol Single thread performance...*


I've got a pretty heavily overclocked 5960x and an overclocked 7700k and I can say with certainty that a 7700k is superior in current day gaming then my 5960x. To crack jokes about single-threaded performance shows that you're leaning a little too much on too few examples. While a great deal of games are using more than one core, most aren't using 6, let alone 8. With that said, a 4 core with very high single-threaded performance is going to continue to remain the optimal chip for gaming for a while to come.


----------



## Menta

INTEL really needs a good spanking they have controlled the market far to long, Kabylake is living proof just how awful Intel has been with no performance upgrades what so ever...and yes reviewers have all helped them out claiming all good reviews just copy past of recent generations. denying that fact Intel is reselling the same crap over and over again!

I really hope INTEL roadmap gets screwed for the next 2 years.


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lays*
> 
> Enjoying my purchase, getting to dry ice my chip to 6ghz, being able to get loads of points on hwbot enjoying my hardware, playing all the games I want, #buyers-remorse I tell u what boyo. I'm the type of person that upgrades literally every time something that interests me comes out, I sell my previous hardware to offset most of the cost, and continue enjoying my purchases. Everytime I upgrade I bench it for hwbot and have fun doing it. I'm a firm believer in enjoying the present, rather than sitting around waiting for a few extra percent for some small savings.
> 
> There's always something new and improved around the corner, it's just life man.


The simple question? Why you want to impose your point of view to others so much? Say what you have to say and move along.


----------



## Menta

X99 will be be by by Kansas if these results hold up! it will be massive drop in worth, thinking Intel might have to change their precious scheme.

right now X99 is about to crash big time!


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menta*
> 
> X99 will be be by by Kansas if these results hold up! it will be massive drop in worth, thinking Intel might have to change their precious scheme.
> 
> right now X99 is about to crash big time!


I would hope so. It's 2 years old already.


----------



## Menta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> I would hope so. It's 2 years old already.


Sure Intel should have brought down six cores or eight a long time ago instead of caging the entire market for so long...old but still true and valid.

But i get it they never had pressure now they do!


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> I've got a pretty heavily overclocked 5960x and an overclocked 7700k and I can say with certainty that a 7700k is superior in current day gaming then my 5960x. To crack jokes about single-threaded performance shows that you're leaning a little too much on too few examples. While a great deal of games are using more than one core, most aren't using 6, let alone 8. With that said, a 4 core with very high single-threaded performance is going to continue to remain the optimal chip for gaming for a while to come.


Yes it is so much faster lol. Unless Guru3d got all their gaming tests wrong. That 2 fps advantage in 2 games -_- http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/core_i7_7700k_processor_review_desktop_kaby_lake,14.html

You guys should have bought an i3 if you were only after single thread performance.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lays*
> 
> Enjoying my purchase, getting to dry ice my chip to 6ghz, being able to get loads of points on hwbot enjoying my hardware, playing all the games I want, #buyers-remorse I tell u what boyo. I'm the type of person that upgrades literally every time something that interests me comes out, I sell my previous hardware to offset most of the cost, and continue enjoying my purchases. Everytime I upgrade I bench it for hwbot and have fun doing it. I'm a firm believer in enjoying the present, rather than sitting around waiting for a few extra percent for some small savings.
> 
> There's always something new and improved around the corner, it's just life man.


Ryzen owners will be able to do all of that and still have over all better computational power.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Whaat? I dont think you read what I said at all.
> 
> I said that +30% IPC over i7 2500K combined with 300-600MHz clocks over 2500K, means it will be MUCH faster.
> Its not "another" 2500K.
> 
> Looking at current leaks of 1800X it may be as fast as i7 7700K. With 4 cores more.
> 
> As for the Coffee Lake, it have never been planned for 2017. It was suddenly moved up to 2017 after the leaks of Ryzen started ticking in.
> Intel is really scared to lose market share right and you know it
> 
> Article from 5 days ago...
> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/02/intel-coffee-lake-14nm-release-date/


I was referring to the overall comparison to 2500K which was irrelevant. No one cares how much IPC has been over the 6 years old CPU. And any comparison with 2017 to a 2011 CPU is completely irrelevant.

And coffee lake was not "suddenly moved up". It was in the first place not planned or even rumored.
Cannon lake was suppose to come in 2017 and it was talked about back in 2015.
Coffee lake appeared recently (in the last year or so) under a 14nm manufacturing process because the 10nm process showed issues and been delayed.


----------



## Niobium

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Yes it is so much faster lol. Unless Guru3d got all their gaming tests wrong. That 2 fps advantage in 2 games -_- http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/core_i7_7700k_processor_review_desktop_kaby_lake,14.html
> 
> You guys should have bought an i3 if you were only after single thread performance.


http://techreport.com/review/31410/a-bridge-too-far-migrating-from-sandy-to-kaby-lake/2

Nearly 2x the fps from OC 2600K to OC 7700K in DayZ at, still at <60fps.

But-but-but nobody should play single-threaded only games now according to you amirite.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Yes it is so much faster lol. Unless Guru3d got all their gaming tests wrong. That 2 fps advantage in 2 games -_- http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/core_i7_7700k_processor_review_desktop_kaby_lake,14.html
> 
> You guys should have bought an i3 if you were only after single thread performance.


I don't need an i3. I have a 7700k that's plenty fast in that area. If I need more, I have a 5960x. If Ryzen proves to be good, guess what? I get one of those too.

I don't need to sit around and hope that Ryzen is the answer. It will do great or it won't. Either way, I'm still good. That's why I tend not to get as personal as some seem to over the silly stuff.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ashura*
> 
> I'd agree, But everybody doesn't play older games only now do they? So, your initial statement was wrong.
> 
> 7700k, would still be great in games, & even do better is most, But won't destroy a 6c/12t ryzen. Not in games(overall) & definitely not in overall computing.


You don't know that. 7700K with superior speed might give better results in games even it doesn't have 6/12 core setup.
Let alone how much you can easily push a CPU in OC. If you can easily OC the 7700K without needing a special cooler to 4.8ghz or more, and if the 6/12 cores ryzen can't OC that well, intel will also can keep their lead.

it is still very open, and you have no idea how each one will go until they are actually out and well reviewed.


----------



## finalheaven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> I was referring to the overall comparison to 2500K which was irrelevant. No one cares how much IPC has been over the 6 years old CPU. And any comparison with 2017 to a 2011 CPU is completely irrelevant.
> 
> And coffee lake was not "suddenly moved up". It was in the first place not planned or even rumored.
> Cannon lake was suppose to come in 2017 and it was talked about back in 2015.
> Coffee lake appeared recently (in the last year or so) under a 14nm manufacturing process because the 10nm process showed issues and been delayed.


I care. So does all the other people who have found no reason to upgrade after sandybridge. There are quite a few people from these threads alone. Most don't upgrade ever year or two or three for that matter. The improvement over sandybridge matters. I've had no motivation to upgrade my 2500k until now.


----------



## Menta

Amd does not have to beat Intel in single just be close by, beats the rest.

AMD FTW







THINKS ITS TIME and will be good for consumers.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Niobium*
> 
> http://techreport.com/review/31410/a-bridge-too-far-migrating-from-sandy-to-kaby-lake/2
> 
> Nearly 2x the fps from OC 2600K to OC 7700K in DayZ at, still at <60fps.
> 
> But-but-but nobody should play single-threaded only games now according to you amirite.


Who cares about 2600k? We are talking about Ryzen. Which has same single thread performance as a 6900k. Stay on topic.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> 6 core Ryzen will suite anyone. All round performer. And doesn't need purchase justification a buyers regret arguing.


The 6 core ryzen might be good, if reviews actually show that outside of pointless raw numbers, depends on what you do.

It doesn't mean it will fit everyone, or needed by everyone. If in games performance between the 6 core and the similar priced 7600K shows almost no advantage to the ryzen, or if the 7600K higher clocks and (if) higher OC room, I would find getting a 7600K a much better deal.

For 99.999% of home usage or even home office needs, a 6 core is pointless as you will not really utilize it that it matters much more than a 4/4 or 4/8 cpu. Most people can even be just fine with a 2/4 cpu.

i remind you that CPU mark or cinebench and the sort, do not simulate real usage. They test raw power in a test lab type environment. And just like bulldozer showed higher raw power because of it 8 cores, it was not better than intel CPUs.
So those claims are way too much of an assumption to be considered as truth, until the CPUs are actually out, we see their true potential and see how they act in real usage.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menta*
> 
> Amd does not have to beat Intel in single just be close by, beats the rest.
> 
> AMD FTW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THINKS ITS TIME and will be good for consumers.


Absolutely correct. They just have to be close enough while remaining the lower cost choice and they will be successful for sure.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> The 6 core ryzen might be good, if reviews actually show that outside of pointless raw numbers, depends on what you do.
> 
> It doesn't mean it will fit everyone, or needed by everyone. If in games performance between the 6 core and the similar priced 7600K shows almost no advantage to the ryzen, or if the 7600K higher clocks and (if) higher OC room, I would find getting a 7600K a much better deal.
> 
> For 99.999% of home usage or even home office needs, a 6 core is pointless as you will not really utilize it that it matters much more than a 4/4 or 4/8 cpu. Most people can even be just fine with a 2/4 cpu.
> 
> i remind you that CPU mark or cinebench and the sort, do not simulate real usage. They test raw power in a test lab type environment. And just like bulldozer showed higher raw power because of it 8 cores, it was not better than intel CPUs.
> So those claims are way too much of an assumption to be considered as truth, until the CPUs are actually out, we see their true potential and see how they act in real usage.


What a bunch of none sense. The 6 core cost the same as an i3 and you would advise someone to buy a 2 core cpu instead? Lol

Sorry no comprehend.


----------



## Menta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Absolutely correct. They just have to be close enough while remaining the lower cost choice and they will be successful for sure.


I have a 6700k at this moment so i am pretty covered, i am not planing at this point changing hardware, but still very exited to have new options on the horizon, better options, cheap builds, new projects....that is what its all about any anyway.

AMD being competitive will shake the market, exciting times again, until now very boring times have plagued the entire enthusiast community. The best CPU Intel launched in kaby is the Pentium G4560 great performance for 60 bucks..it will be cool to see what AMD brings to the table down the road, budget is nice...people tend to start new projects when the price is just right!


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *finalheaven*
> 
> I care. So does all the other people who have found no reason to upgrade after sandybridge. There are quite a few people from these threads alone. Most don't upgrade ever year or two or three for that matter. The improvement over sandybridge matters. I've had no motivation to upgrade my 2500k until now.


Why? Isn't the 7600K better than the 2500K?

It can have from 20% to 70% better performance on the 2500K in more synthetic work.
In games where the 7600K shows no benefit over 2500K, it also match a 6 or 8 core CPUs because of the crappy game engine not supporting extra cores, so getting a 6/12 core CPU regardless of its manufacturer, means absolutely nothing, as you will stay on the same boat.

And in games that do show higher performance with better cores, even the small IPC increase, with higher clocks, better memory speeds, overall package, the 7600K is definitely worth upgrading, if you need those things.

And if you don't need any of those things, like faster memory, M.2 speeds, more USB 3.1 ports, than why ryzen suddenly makes any difference?
Can you not get it from intel as well? The 7600K apparently will be cheaper, gives you all the benefits of the ryzen except the 6/12 cores. And unless 6/12 will really be much faster than the 7600K in games, and OC well to match intel as well, the 7600K will be a better choice. Or you can wait a few more months and get coffee lake.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> What a bunch of none sense. The 6 core cost the same as an i3 and you would advise someone to buy a 2 core cpu instead? Lol
> 
> Sorry no comprehend.


Talking about non sense, the 6/12 cores are expected to start at 229$, which is around the 7500-7600K prices.
The i3s prices are around the 4/4 cores.

Of course you "no comprehend", since apparently reading is hard stuff.


----------



## finalheaven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Why? Isn't the 7600K better than the 2500K?
> 
> It can have from 20% to 70% better performance on the 2500K in more synthetic work.
> In games where the 7600K shows no benefit over 2500K, it also match a 6 or 8 core CPUs because of the crappy game engine not supporting extra cores, so getting a 6/12 core CPU regardless of its manufacturer, means absolutely nothing, as you will stay on the same boat.
> 
> And in games that do show higher performance with better cores, even the small IPC increase, with higher clocks, better memory speeds, overall package, the 7600K is definitely worth upgrading, if you need those things.
> 
> And if you don't need any of those things, like faster memory, M.2 speeds, more USB 3.1 ports, than why ryzen suddenly makes any difference?
> Can you not get it from intel as well? The 7600K apparently will be cheaper, gives you all the benefits of the ryzen except the 6/12 cores. And unless 6/12 will really be much faster than the 7600K in games, and OC well to match intel as well, the 7600K will be a better choice. Or you can wait a few more months and get coffee lake.


Because Ryzen will hold up much more better than the 7600k. Except the small percentage of people who would need kabylake for specific tasks/games, Ryzen and its additional cores will be far more valuable and future proof. Anyone who asks for my advice on what CPU to get, even if kabylake would give 5% for fps in that one game they play currently, I would recommend ryzen.

Yes, it is true that certain games rely on single thread will perform better on kabylake. Yes it is true that if you overclock a kabylake massively to get even more single thread performance, you'll do even better for single thread software. However, the future, even though it is slow, will be more and more cores, as some of the newer games are showing. Given a choice right now, 95% or more people should choose Ryzen unless they really intend to only play those certain games that rely on single thread performance, and plan never to play anything else or use software that'll rely on more cores.


----------



## Ashura

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> The 6 core ryzen might be good, if reviews actually show that outside of pointless raw numbers, depends on what you do.
> 
> It doesn't mean it will fit everyone, or needed by everyone. If in games performance between the 6 core and the similar priced 7600K shows almost no advantage to the ryzen, or if the 7600K higher clocks and (if) higher OC room, I would find getting a 7600K a much better deal.
> 
> For 99.999% of home usage or even home office needs, a 6 core is pointless as you will not really utilize it that it matters much more than a 4/4 or 4/8 cpu. Most people can even be just fine with a 2/4 cpu.
> 
> i remind you that CPU mark or cinebench and the sort, do not simulate real usage. They test raw power in a test lab type environment. And just like bulldozer showed higher raw power because of it 8 cores, it was not better than intel CPUs.
> So those claims are way too much of an assumption to be considered as truth, until the CPUs are actually out, we see their true potential and see how they act in real usage.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Talking about non sense, the 6/12 cores are expected to start at 229$, which is around the 7500-7600K prices.
> The i3s prices are around the 4/4 cores.
> 
> Of course you "no comprehend", since apparently reading is hard stuff.


Man... Amd is giving you an alternative to the 6c/12t 5820k,6800k,6850k for at least $100 cheaper, what else should they do?

Also, 4c/8t cpus for under $200.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menta*
> 
> I have a 6700k at this moment so i am pretty covered, i am not planing at this point changing hardware, but still very exited to have new options on the horizon, better options, cheap builds, new projects....that is what its all about any anyway.
> 
> AMD being competitive will shake the market, exciting times again, until now very boring times have plagued the entire enthusiast community. The best CPU Intel launched in kaby is the Pentium G4560 great performance for 60 bucks..it will be cool to see what AMD brings to the table down the road, budget is nice...people tend to start new projects when the price is just right!


Gonna be hard for AMD to compete with that pentium. That's the only thing I see AMD might have a problem with.


----------



## Menta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Gonna be hard for AMD to compete with that pentium. That's the only thing I see AMD might have a problem with.


Lets see what the cheapest S3 i think its the 1100, it will cost around 130 bucks double price but if plays nice and really offers a solid performance maybe it could be coupled with a cheaper board and eliminate some price difference.

for the now the g4560 is a great CPU offering 6100 i3 performance so really nice.


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RnRollie*
> 
> Y'all don't get yer panties in a twist... before this spirals down into fanboyism, you'll have to remember that we -the Gaming/Enthousiast community- are actually small potatoes.
> I wouldn't go as far that Intel/AMD doesn't care about us, the gaming industry is a bit too big for that with its 30 billion dollars worth. But in the larger scheme of things -read $$$- we are not that important.
> 
> After a lot of puffing & oomhhing & aahming for weeks/months we finally chose a CPU, hand over some hard earned money and that's it for a while... how many of us buy a new CPU every 6 months to a year?
> 
> And on top of that, the self build "gaming" desktop is the only one that still sells. Prebuild Home Office desktop sales are in freefall, as everybody is buying tablets & smartphones. Only "gamers" that want more as Angry Birds & Farmville still buy laptops or build desktops. Intel/AMD is quite happy to shift a lot more CPUs & APUs into the mobile market vs the self-build market.
> 
> The real money is in "Corporate" .
> Businesses look at uniformity, reliability & energy efficiency for their desktop systems, most corporate buyers really dont care if the CPU's in those systems are Intel/AMD and if they OC or not. But even there the Corporate buyers a wavering a bit.. they are asking the question if they should not switch to tablets. But most corporate buyers are quite happy to receive a truckload of desktops from Dell every 3 or 4 years or so. And Intel/AMD is quite happy to ship containerloads of chips to Dell.
> 
> Xeon/Opteron is also where a lot of money is... The Corporate Server market is worth billions more as the Gaming/Enthousiast market; if AMD can gain 30% on Intel in that market, they are making lots & lots of money more.
> Not to mention that the Server market is firmly shored up by Google alone... their ever expanding data centers require server delivery by the container/truckload on an almost daily basis. They are expanding at such a rate that adverse weather conditions like icy roads can throw them off their schedule. Lotsa money there, even if you consider that because of the large volumes they are probably only paying something like $79 for a CPU where we have to fork over $999,-
> 
> Intel/AMD wont say "buzz off, go fuzzle yourself" to us, because that would be bad marketing. But as far as the cash register is concerned we are the little kid that spends all of his 50 cents of pocketmoney on candy in the cornershop. So, dont get too excited about "Intel-killers" and dont go into fanboyism
> 
> For us, it IS important that AMD comes with a CPU that is on par or better while cheaper as Intel, because it *might* have as a result that Intel goes to more democratic pricing for the Gaming/enthousiast market... but they dont have to (and probably wont) ... for the above reasons.
> 
> In short: Intel is NOT afraid of AMD Zen/Ryzen as far as Gaming/enthousiast market is concerned, Intel cares about the possibility that AMD would be able to make a better & cheaper Opteron and with it be able to gain a (much) larger corporate market share. WE, we are small potatoes.


Server market isn't as vocal as gaming/enthusiast market, so AMD, Intel and NVIDIA can't scour the Internet and read discussions and make themselves feel good. There is a lot of "feel good" value in gaming/enthusiast market.


----------



## outofmyheadyo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menta*
> 
> Lets see what the cheapest S3 i think its the 1100, it will cost around 130 bucks double price but if plays nice and really offers a solid performance maybe it could be coupled with a cheaper board and eliminate some price difference.
> 
> for the now the g4560 is a great CPU offering 6100 i3 performance so really nice.


Cant really cut down the mb price the cheapest ones for 1151 are like 50€ anyway.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lays*
> 
> Hopefully it clocks well, otherwise Kaby is going to destroy it in single thread, and considering most games still only use ~4-8 threads, that's important.


Here is the thing. Once a game starts to use a 5th and a 6 core, ryzen hexa is gonna close the gap with 7700k , because it has 6 cores. The intel chip will have to rely on HT above 4C which doesn't scale anywhere as good as real cores. AMD needs a hexa chip at 7700k price or lower that [email protected] steady, maybe with XFR. That should be able to combat kaby i7.


----------



## reqq

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stryker7314*
> 
> I still need to pick one of those up, though they seem to be holding on to their value pretty well on ebay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anywho, here's my overclocked 6700K, mostly just to show off, but also for comparison.


this is mine 6700k at 4600.. This benchmark cant be taken seriously.

http://imgur.com/TeI9Scj


----------



## IRobot23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Here is the thing. Once a game starts to use a 5th and a 6 core, ryzen hexa is gonna close the gap with 7700k , because it has 6 cores. The intel chip will have to rely on HT above 4C which doesn't scale anywhere as good as real cores. AMD needs a hexa chip at 7700k price or lower that [email protected] steady, maybe with XFR. That should be able to combat kaby i7.


Well games are using more than 4 thread quite well, but if you are playing CS:GO... then NOPE, hexa wont help.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Here is the thing. Once a game starts to use a 5th and a 6 core, ryzen hexa is gonna close the gap with 7700k , because it has 6 cores. The intel chip will have to rely on HT above 4C which doesn't scale anywhere as good as real cores. AMD needs a hexa chip at 7700k price or lower that [email protected] steady, maybe with XFR. That should be able to combat kaby i7.


So what will the Ryzen 8 thread CPU compete with?


----------



## reqq

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> 
> 
> Sauce: http://wccftech.com/msi-am4-motherboard-x370-b350-a320-price-amd-ryzen-leak/
> 
> Looks like high speed DDR4 won't be much of an issue


Ye but how come Asus stated on their Hero board just 3200? Either Hero board sux or MSI just boosted the memory speed as marketing rather then actual speed it can handle.


----------



## IRobot23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *reqq*
> 
> Ye but how come Asus stated on their Hero board just 3200? Either Hero board sux or MSI just boosted the memory speed as marketing rather then actual speed it can handle.


3200MHz*+* (OC)


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *reqq*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sauce: http://wccftech.com/msi-am4-motherboard-x370-b350-a320-price-amd-ryzen-leak/
> 
> Looks like high speed DDR4 won't be much of an issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ye but how come Asus stated on their Hero board just 3200? Either Hero board sux or MSI just boosted the memory speed as marketing rather then actual speed it can handle.
Click to expand...

Maybe Asus is being conservative with their numbers?

Hard to say at this point until they release.


----------



## Ha-Nocri

There are many games today where i7 is being utilized fully and where it's faster than i5::




Hexa-core will obviously be better choice in these cases than i5-7600k, for the same price.


----------



## IRobot23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> There are many games today where i7 is being utilized fully and where it's faster than i5::
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hexa-core will obviously be better choice in these cases than i5-7600k, for the same price.


It is better choice in any case. You can get same quad core for 120-130€ with OC enabled.

If benchmarks and prices are real then i7 7700K will soon drop under 230€ and i5 6600K under 180€
We might expect INTEL to do the same, next generation with 6 or even 8 core (without iGPU) on LGA115x.


----------



## czin125

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> So what will the Ryzen 8 thread CPU compete with?


At the moment? 6900K until August ( 7900K )
Nov/Dec for the ultra high clocked 8700K ( should be able to match the 8 core ( 8/6 = 1.33x if it's only encoding ) with the clock gains over the 7700K


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> It is better choice in any case. You can get same quad core for 120-130€ with OC enabled.
> 
> If benchmarks and prices are real then i7 7700K will soon drop under 230€ and i5 6600K under 180€
> We might expect INTEL to do the same, next generation with 6 or even 8 core (without iGPU) on LGA115x.


I don't think Intel will drop prices. They retain the single thread crown.


----------



## IRobot23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> I don't think Intel will drop prices. They retain the single thread crown.


Do they? As you can see from this benchmarks RYzen is as fast as Skylake clock per clock?

What happened in the past with Q6600? From ~800$ to 260$ in less than a year? (OMG only in six months)


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *finalheaven*
> 
> Because Ryzen will hold up much more better than the 7600k. Except the small percentage of people who would need kabylake for specific tasks/games, Ryzen and its additional cores will be far more valuable and future proof. Anyone who asks for my advice on what CPU to get, even if kabylake would give 5% for fps in that one game they play currently, I would recommend ryzen.
> 
> Yes, it is true that certain games rely on single thread will perform better on kabylake. Yes it is true that if you overclock a kabylake massively to get even more single thread performance, you'll do even better for single thread software. However, the future, even though it is slow, will be more and more cores, as some of the newer games are showing. Given a choice right now, 95% or more people should choose Ryzen unless they really intend to only play those certain games that rely on single thread performance, and plan never to play anything else or use software that'll rely on more cores.


How do you know that it will hold better?
Really. How?

The 2500K have been holding people for 6 years regardless of people saying that more cores are better.
We are in 2017 now and most games still barely utilize more than 4 cores. And when GPUs are pushed, you rarely see a difference between 4 and 8 if at all, and that is even post DX12/vulkan.

You have no idea how game engines will progress in the future. And currently they are still "single minded" and barely run on more than a single thread for the engine itself.
The future can be a very long way from now, or very close, but you have no idea.

You also have no idea the performance of OC on those chips. If a 7600K running at high clocks keeps a good lead over the 6 cores for price/performance, it most likely will survive several good years from now.
Point is again, you have no idea. You speculate but we have seen no basis for it to come true.

Also one small thing to remember:
AMD's GPUs have been very consistent in the long run. They might not perform at their max ability on release, but over time they gain a lead over nvidia's counter part.
This has been true for several good yeas now.
Yet it didn't help AMD to sell their GPUs. So I can see the same thing happen here as well. They might in the long run be better once game engines start to really utilize more cores, but, it might also not help them.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ashura*
> 
> Man... Amd is giving you an alternative to the 6c/12t 5820k,6800k,6850k for at least $100 cheaper, what else should they do?
> 
> Also, 4c/8t cpus for under $200.


I'm ok with it. I'm not going against AMD's new chips.
I'm against speculating how they will perform, or their impact on intel in the long run, based on leaks and wild speculations.
I'm against pulling a bulldozer again. People over hyped, ready for intel's death. Same scenario. Almost step by step as bulldozer over leaked stuff. So I prefer to keep the wild speculations to a minimum.

And I want those chips to rival intel. That means less prices, hopefully intel will reduce prices as well, faster new technologies as both try to out-do one another constantly.
Its fine, and how it should be. But I prefer to be more careful. I don't hate intel like others here that say "omg AMD are going to kill intel" etc etc.

And those 6/12 most likely aren't going to be alternatives to broadwell-e at all. No quad memory channels, no high PCIE count. I see them as overall different usage.
Multi GPU users and bechmarkers will most likely still use X99 or its replacement.

Again, I welcome AMD to the field. But I don't expect it to go head-to-head with intel for various reasons. Most likely because intel can reduce prices more freely than AMD, and their ability to respond is higher.
AMD might make a small dent, but if AMD can really push it (and we don't know if they will, so I'm careful), they might really finally put their foot in and say "we have come!".
And for that to believe, even the slightest, I want to see real performance, not just bulldozer type hype and numbers.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> I don't think Intel will drop prices. They retain the single thread crown.


They will if a 6/12 core 200$ cpu can beat their 4/4 240$ cpu.
And that will depend on OC and game support.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> It is better choice in any case. You can get same quad core for 120-130€ with OC enabled.
> 
> If benchmarks and prices are real then i7 7700K will soon drop under 230€ and i5 6600K under 180€
> We might expect INTEL to do the same, next generation with 6 or even 8 core (without iGPU) on LGA115x.


That depends on OC ability. Kaby lake is a decent OCer. How will the AMD perform?
Will a 4.8 7600K be beaten by a 6/12 core AMD cpu?


----------



## FLCLimax

This will happen again once Ryzen is released.

http://www.game-debate.com/news/22338/nvidia-fanboy-jailed-for-9-5-years-for-murdering-amd-fan

Quote:


> If you want to see how rampant fanboyism can get out of control, look no further than 31-year-old Russian manager Alexander Trofimov. A dedicated fan of graphics card manufacturer Nvidia, he murdered his 37-year-old friend Yevgeny Lyulin during a heated argument about AMD's products.


----------



## jprovido

my 5820k @ 4.7ghz 3200mhz quad channel had frame drops with dota 2 and overwatch at 1440p 144hz. my 7700k had no problems whatsoever. how will zen perform is the question


----------



## Power Drill

I personally don't like the idea of spending over half the transistor budged to completely useless iGPU. Thank you AMD making CPU's great again. I'll vote with my money and upgrade my 4770k to ryzen.


----------



## Erick Silver

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ricwin*
> 
> Anyone able to run this test on an older AMD CPU for comparison?


I'll try and run a test on my 1090T when I get home this afternoon to see how it compares to the numbers we have been given here.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nukelear*
> 
> What people kept on sleeping on is that the greatest advantage of Ryzen is motherboard. You cannot put a 6+ core chip in LGA1151. You will have to ditch $300+ to get a good x99 board. AMD Ryzen allows you to put an 8-core chip into a 70$ board (not overclocking) or on a $200 ROG board.


$179+ not $300+ according to newegg, maybe even less on a less popular shop.
Sure AM4 might be cheaper, B350 or even other nonOC chipsets with even less features. x99, x299 have more features overall, more lanes, etc.
AMD is aiming between Intel's two lines, they are not competing head on but try to find any space in between anywhere. Will see if XFR is supported on all chipsets would be a bummer not to.


----------



## dieanotherday

makes u wonder wth happened to amd in the past decade

id fire the whole team behind bulldozer that was an embarrasement


----------



## Ha-Nocri

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jprovido*
> 
> my 5820k @ 4.7ghz 3200mhz quad channel had frame drops with dota 2 and overwatch at 1440p 144hz. my 7700k had no problems whatsoever. how will zen perform is the question


It will have single-thread performance matching Haswell's and be as good as Broadwell in MT tasks... that is what we've seen so far, more or less


----------



## Nukelear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> $179+ not $300+ according to newegg, maybe even less on a less popular shop.
> Sure AM4 might be cheaper, B350 or even other nonOC chipsets with even less features. x99, x299 have more features overall, more lanes, etc.
> *AMD is aiming between Intel's two lines, they are not competing head on but try to find any space in between anywhere*. Will see if XFR is supported on all chipsets would be a bummer not to.


That is the point that I am trying to make. 8 core on cheaper boards. AMD saw that sweet spot and worked on it for 4 years.


----------



## BinaryDemon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Gonna be hard for AMD to compete with that pentium. That's the only thing I see AMD might have a problem with.


I'm guessing AMD will have Ryzen APU's that will address that market. Just not yet.


----------



## BinaryDemon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nukelear*
> 
> That is the point that I am trying to make. 8 core on cheaper boards. AMD saw that sweet spot and worked on it for 4 years.


I agree that $70 is cheaper than any x99 motherboard, but I hope AMD enforces certain quality standards for AM4. Overall I've always been disappointed with AMD's lowend boards, while they function according to spec it's a risk exceeding that spec at all. With AM3 the lowend boards usually have a caveat like 'Only for 95W CPU's', and if you overclock or exceed that you get vrm throttling or failure. Hopefully since AMD cpu's are using less power this will be less of an issue with Ryzen. IMO, Intel tends to over engineer all their specs. I'm literally using the cheapest x99 motherboard - 'Asrock x99 extreme3' and it still lets me push the 5960x to 4.2ghz.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dieanotherday*
> 
> makes u wonder wth happened to amd in the past decade
> 
> id fire the whole team behind bulldozer that was an embarrasement


Well, AMD began designing Bulldozer during 2007, targeting Conroe and the rest of its monolithic progeny-CMT would offer similar ST perf and much better MT one for the given die investment. Some very unfortunate ,for AMD,things started to happen. First, about a year and a half after BD work began, intel came up with nehalem. Monolith no more, intel had now HT enabled chips once again, which can get decent MT scaling with minimal die investment without much sacrifice in ST perf. That alone threw CMT BD out if the window. Then AMD and GloFo were both late in execution so Sandy came before BD, which was supposed to go against westmere. On top of that BD had a bit if extra performance that went mostly untapped due to early windows issues with it, exotic instruction sets and lack of compiler care. By mid 2012 , AMD realized there was no point investing further in this architecture ( too compromised and GloFo botched its 28 and 20/22 processes as well) so they decided to scrap it altogether and git Jim Keller back to work on a new core.


----------



## FLCLimax

What will AMD ever do to address the billions of gamers playing Day Z on a $60 Pentium?


----------



## Nukelear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BinaryDemon*
> 
> I agree that $70 is cheaper than any x99 motherboard, but I hope AMD enforces certain quality standards for AM4. Overall I've always been disappointed with AMD's lowend boards, while they function according to spec it's a risk exceeding that spec at all. With AM3 the lowend boards usually have a caveat like 'Only for 95W CPU's', and if you overclock or exceed that you get vrm throttling or failure. Hopefully since AMD cpu's are using less power this will be less of an issue with Ryzen. IMO, Intel tends to over engineer all their specs. I'm literally using the cheapest x99 motherboard - 'Asrock x99 extreme3' and it still lets me push the 5960x to 4.2ghz.


I agree with this. But when I saw the line up of mobos my doubts are gone. I am pretty confident this board 
will allow a 1700x to 4.2-4.3 with no sweat.


----------



## RedM00N

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jprovido*
> 
> my 5820k @ 4.7ghz 3200mhz quad channel had frame drops with dota 2 and overwatch at 1440p 144hz. my 7700k had no problems whatsoever. how will zen perform is the question


Define frame drops in OW. Do you mean dropping while uncapped or dropping while locked at 144/154fps?

Specifically ask because I have the same cpu, but slower clocks and slower ram, but never dipped from 175fps. Only did while uncapped, which I never really saw go below the mid 200's. (Though each update to the game kept lowering performance







)


----------



## AmericanLoco

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dieanotherday*
> 
> makes u wonder wth happened to amd in the past decade
> 
> id fire the whole team behind bulldozer that was an embarrasement


If you did that, you'd also be firing the lead Zen engineers. The same guys that worked on Zen also worked on Bulldozer.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RedM00N*
> 
> Define frame drops in OW. Do you mean dropping while uncapped or dropping while locked at 144/154fps?
> 
> Specifically ask because I have the same cpu, but slower clocks and slower ram, but never dipped from 175fps. Only did while uncapped, which I never really saw go below the mid 200's. (Though each update to the game kept lowering performance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


7700K will play Dota 2 and Overwatch better than 5820K so that is no surprise. It does not matter really.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> What will AMD ever do to address the billions of gamers playing Day Z on a $60 Pentium?


increase their haldol dosage.


----------



## RedM00N

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> 7700K will play Dota 2 and Overwatch better than 5820K so that is no surprise. It does not matter really.


Wonder how much though. I see all 6 main cores active (+80% load) and some load on the HT cores in OW. I'd imagine dota would run better on the 7700k since it's the source engine ala heavily cpu bound.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RedM00N*
> 
> Wonder how much though. I see all 6 main cores active (+80% load) and some load on the HT cores in OW. I'd imagine dota would run better on the 7700k since it's the source engine ala heavily cpu bound.


Yes, but as this video demonstrates, extra threads will make a massive difference in some cases. This will be the second generation where I have said that if you get a quad core, make sure it has hyper-threading. With the launch of Zen, I will begin recommending a minimum of 6-cores for modern games.

I started recommending a minimum of a quad core for gaming back when Bad Company 2 launched back in early 2010. That's nearly 7 years ago.

The fact is, if you're a gamer, a quad-core without HT is a ticking time bomb as far as performance is concerned. The age of 6+ core gaming CPUs is now here with the launch of Zen.


----------



## Erick Silver

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Yes, but as thisvideodemonstrates, extra threads will make a massive difference in some cases. This will be the second generation where I have said that if you get a quad core, make sure it has hyper-threading. With the launch of Zen, I will begin recommending a minimum of 6-cores for modern games.
> 
> I started recommending a minimum of a quad core for gaming back when Bad Company 2 launched back in early 2010. That's nearly 7 years ago.
> 
> The fact is, if you're a gamer, a quad-core without HT is a ticking time bomb as far as performance is concerned. The age of 6+ core gaming CPUs is now here with the launch of Zen.


I would say that the age of 6+ core gaming started with the Phenom II X6 line way back when. It was just barely starting to dawn then. Now its in full sunrise and from my point of view, it is beautiful....


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jprovido*
> 
> my 5820k @ 4.7ghz 3200mhz quad channel had frame drops with dota 2 and overwatch at 1440p 144hz. my 7700k had no problems whatsoever. how will zen perform is the question


Dota 2's minimum CPU support is Pentium 4 (SSE2). You can be 100% sure that either Dota 2 uses legacy scalar type ISA or SSE2 for SIMD and nothing else, where RyZen so far is looking good at.
RyZen might not defeat 7700k but it also should not do any significant worse than 7700k. Dota 2 performance will also depend on which CPU will overclock more.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RedM00N*
> 
> Wonder how much though. I see all 6 main cores active (+80% load) and some load on the HT cores in OW. I'd imagine dota would run better on the 7700k since it's the source engine ala heavily cpu bound.


We are talking 100 fps+ here which in reality is a pointless comperason.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> We are talking 100 fps+ here which in reality is a pointless comperason.


This.

What could the market share be of Dota 2 players who want 144 fps minimum ? My guess is 0.000001%.


----------



## Redwoodz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Not sure what the average 3200 kit timings are but CL14 seem like its on the low side with CL16 being the average. Probably best to sacrifice timings for comparability or wait for people to make purchase and see how things work out. This is one of the problems with new MB, new DDR4 for AMD and new CPU. Nobody know the limits.












No one knows the limit on any CPU/ motherboard combination, before having it.


----------



## finalheaven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> How do you know that it will hold better?
> Really. How?
> 
> The 2500K have been holding people for 6 years regardless of people saying that more cores are better.
> We are in 2017 now and most games still barely utilize more than 4 cores. And when GPUs are pushed, you rarely see a difference between 4 and 8 if at all, and that is even post DX12/vulkan.
> 
> You have no idea how game engines will progress in the future. And currently they are still "single minded" and barely run on more than a single thread for the engine itself.
> The future can be a very long way from now, or very close, but you have no idea.
> 
> You also have no idea the performance of OC on those chips. If a 7600K running at high clocks keeps a good lead over the 6 cores for price/performance, it most likely will survive several good years from now.
> Point is again, you have no idea. You speculate but we have seen no basis for it to come true.


I am willing to bet that overall all software will head towards utilizing more cores. You can see it happening already if you just open your eyes. DirectX 12 (the future) and the games made using it will use more cores than ever before and the difference can be seen. There are AAA games that are out currently that also use more than 4 cores including, but not limited to, Assassin's Creed, the Division, Battlefield, and Overwatch. Both Playstation 4 Pro and Xbox Scorpio have more than 4 CPU cores as well.

I don't know how anyone can reasonably claim that they don't see the move to more than 4 cores are happening. Is it slow? Yes, it's been slow as hell, but then again because AMD was not competing, nearly everyone has had only 4 cores. Now that Intel will be forced to compete, I believe 6 and 8 mores will be released faster and cheaper.


----------



## FLCLimax

People like him already have to resort to cherry picking a handful of OLD games and low GPU utilizing games from Blizzard that run at 120+ fps on mainstream hardware.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> People like him already have to resort to cherry picking a handful of OLD games and low GPU utilizing games from Blizzard that run at 120+ fps on mainstream hardware.


I personally wont be buying zen until i see WoW benchmarks as its my most played game. This old ass game is still the 2nd most PC game in the world (behind league) with 7-8 mil estimated paid subscribers.


----------



## Erick Silver

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> People like him already have to resort to cherry picking a handful of OLD games and low GPU utilizing games from Blizzard that run at 120+ fps on mainstream hardware.


Funny. I didn't know that Assassins Creed, Battlefield, and The Division were Blizzard titles.


----------



## flopper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *finalheaven*
> 
> I am willing to bet that overall all software will head towards utilizing more cores. You can see it happening already if you just open your eyes. DirectX 12 (the future) and the games made using it will use more cores than ever before and the difference can be seen. There are AAA games that are out currently that also use more than 4 cores including, but not limited to, Assassin's Creed, the Division, Battlefield, and Overwatch. Both Playstation 4 Pro and Xbox Scorpio have more than 4 CPU cores as well.
> 
> I don't know how anyone can reasonably claim that they don't see the move to more than 4 cores are happening. Is it slow? Yes, it's been slow as hell, but then again because AMD was not competing, nearly everyone has had only 4 cores. Now that Intel will be forced to compete, I believe 6 and 8 mores will be released faster and cheaper.


once people asked to buy 4 cores as 2 cores did all so well.
then you have option to buy 6 or 8 and the same reasons apply, more core allows the computer to run better overall.
I know I am getting a substantial upgrade as its either 6 or 8 cores Ryzen that will be the buy


----------



## renx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *finalheaven*
> 
> I am willing to bet that overall all software will head towards utilizing more cores. You can see it happening already if you just open your eyes. DirectX 12 (the future) and the games made using it will use more cores than ever before and the difference can be seen. There are AAA games that are out currently that also use more than 4 cores including, but not limited to, Assassin's Creed, the Division, Battlefield, and Overwatch. Both Playstation 4 Pro and Xbox Scorpio have more than 4 CPU cores as well.
> 
> I don't know how anyone can reasonably claim that they don't see the move to more than 4 cores are happening. Is it slow? Yes, it's been slow as hell, but then again because AMD was not competing, nearly everyone has had only 4 cores. Now that Intel will be forced to compete, I believe 6 and 8 mores will be released faster and cheaper.


I agree because there's also another issue. Games need to move to 8 core support, because CPU performance has been improving at a very slow rate for many years, whilst GPUs keep dramatically increasing performance every single year. Pascal just came up with a 50-60% increase out of the blue, and it may happen again soon.
Bottleneck with high end 4-core cpus is imminent now, which is something that we've never imagined some years back.
So they have to.


----------



## FLCLimax

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erick Silver*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> People like him already have to resort to cherry picking a handful of OLD games and low GPU utilizing games from Blizzard that run at 120+ fps on mainstream hardware.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny. I didn't know that Assassins Creed, Battlefield, and The Division were Blizzard titles.
Click to expand...

Funny, i didn't think those titles got 120fps on a RX 480 LOL! And all these titles SCALE WITH CPU THREADS PAST 4...LOL.

What are you intel guys even doing anymore? Justify your purchase to your accountant or your wife and move on.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> Funny, i didn't think those titles got 120fps on a RX 480 LOL! And all these titles SCALE WITH CPU THREADS PAST 4...LOL.
> 
> What are you intel guys even doing anymore? Justify your purchase to your accountant or your wife and move on.


Like i said, im waiting for WoW benchmarks lol. I want the 1600x trust me, first pc i ever built had an athlon xp 1600 in it, its like full circle lol. I just refuse to buy until i see WoW and overwatch benchmarks, and if AMD really can bring it in the games i play.


----------



## Erick Silver

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> Funny, i didn't think those titles got 120fps on a RX 480 LOL! And all these titles SCALE WITH CPU THREADS PAST 4...LOL.
> 
> What are you intel guys even doing anymore? Justify your purchase to your accountant or your wife and move on.


Better check your facts mate. I'm no Intel user. Better look at both my wifes and my SigRigs.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Like i said, im waiting for WoW benchmarks lol. I want the 1600x trust me, first pc i ever built had an athlon xp 1600 in it, its like full circle lol. I just refuse to buy until i see WoW and overwatch benchmarks, and if AMD really can bring it in the games i play.


Why do you have to wait for WoW benchmarks running on Ryzen? A sandwich toaster can run that game. I don't understand? Either you'll get 120 fps with an R3 Ryzen or 115 fps with an i3.


----------



## Erick Silver

There was a time that my LGA 775 E7500 Core2Duo would run games like a Banshee out of Hell. But then I had to upgrade to a Q6600, then a Phenom II X4 955 to run my games as my games taste evolved. Then up to an X6 1090T(which I have been stuck at for a while now. Thanks Faildozer). GPU Upgrades also along the line from a GT240 to a AMD HD5XXX series and GTS450 to a AMD HD7950 then 7970 and GTX770 SC. Multicore gaming is happening. 4 cores are the minimum now for a lot of todays newest games.

Edit coming....

I made the switch to AMD at the time for budgetary reasons in 2011. The first being that I was donated the AMD gear. As I upgraded my AMD gear I realized that the AM3/AM3+ line was just as easy to upgrade as the Socket 775 series of Intel Chips and boards. So I stuck with it with the intention of upgrading to Bulldozer when it was released. Glad I didn't do that. Intel was switching sockets faster than a USPS letter sorting machine. So the upgrade path at that time for Intel meant switching boards as well. A cost I was not able to eat due to my financial situation. I have been running my 1090T since early 2012 and its time for an upgrade. I'll stick with my AMD.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> Why do you have to wait for WoW benchmarks running on Ryzen? A sandwich toaster can run that game. I don't understand? Either you'll get 120 fps with an R3 Ryzen or 115 fps with an i3.


I just need to see it with my own eyes, AMD has ran WoW so incredibly poorly these past few years i cannot take the leap of faith lol.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> 7700K will play Dota 2 and Overwatch better than 5820K so that is no surprise. It does not matter really.


A 5820k at 4.7ghz though?


----------



## Catscratch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Yes, but as this video demonstrates, extra threads will make a massive difference in some cases. This will be the second generation where I have said that if you get a quad core, make sure it has hyper-threading. With the launch of Zen, I will begin recommending a minimum of 6-cores for modern games.
> 
> I started recommending a minimum of a quad core for gaming back when Bad Company 2 launched back in early 2010. That's nearly 7 years ago.
> 
> The fact is, if you're a gamer, a quad-core without HT is a ticking time bomb as far as performance is concerned. The age of 6+ core gaming CPUs is now here with the launch of Zen.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erick Silver*
> 
> I would say that the age of 6+ core gaming started with the Phenom II X6 line way back when. It was just barely starting to dawn then. Now its in full sunrise and from my point of view, it is beautiful....


Bad Company 2 - 1090t vs i7 980x



http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/phenom-ii-x6-1055t-1090t-review,18.html

Back in the day, and overclocking didn't change much, 1-2 fps. If I can put a dx12 capable gpu into my 1090t machine, i can test dx12 games on an ancient 790fx + phenom platform. Either this 280x will go to that machine or i'll get a budget dx12 card when the dust settles after vega.


----------



## Scotty99

So when do you guys think these chips we be available to purchase from microcenter?


----------



## Erick Silver

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> I just need to see it with my own eyes, AMD has ran WoW so incredibly poorly these past few years i cannot take the leap of faith lol.


My wife runs WoW on a Phenom II X4 955BE paired with a R7 260X OC 2GB with no real issues
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Catscratch*
> 
> Bad Company 2 - 1090t vs i7 980x
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/phenom-ii-x6-1055t-1090t-review,18.html
> 
> Back in the day, and overclocking didn't change much, 1-2 fps. If I can put a dx12 capable gpu into my 1090t machine, i can test dx12 games on an ancient 790fx + phenom platform. Either this 280x will go to that machine or i'll get a budget dx12 card when the dust settles after vega.


Looks like the 1090T and the i7 980X were very comparable performance wise at the time. But does anyone recall the price points of those CPUs for the same time period?


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erick Silver*
> 
> My wife runs WoW on a Phenom II X4 955BE with no real issues
> Looks like the 1090T and the i7 980X were very comparable performance wise at the time. But does anyone recall the price points of those CPUs for the same time period?


Then she does not do mythic raids on ultra lol. WoW is actually quite demanding if you play all of the game, most people dont understand this.


----------



## Erick Silver

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Then she does not do mythic raids on ultra lol. WoW is actually quite demanding if you play all of the game, most people dont understand this.


She does raids. Not on Ultra Settings. High Settings. And I would say that WoW is a little underrated by the masses when it comes to how demanding it actually is.


----------



## Scotty99

Ya what people dont get is the faster CPU you have the higher FPS minimums you get, which is a huge deal. It kind of annoys me when people say "anything will run wow". That is true for questing and what not, but in raids you really want a highly overclocked high end CPU for the best experience possible.


----------



## jprovido

In dota 2 my fps was going as low as 100fps on 1440p 144hz (5820k & 4.7ghz) when it gets into the late game with team fights. Overwatch with vsync on goes as low as 120fps only stays at 144fps when on less intensive places. Sidegraded to 7700k was able to maintain 144hz with little to no drops.

If I had a gsync monitor this wouldnt have bothered me so much but I only have freesync. Switching to 7700k made my gaming experience a lot smoother


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Catscratch*
> 
> Bad Company 2 - 1090t vs i7 980x
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/phenom-ii-x6-1055t-1090t-review,18.html
> 
> Back in the day, and overclocking didn't change much, 1-2 fps. If I can put a dx12 capable gpu into my 1090t machine, i can test dx12 games on an ancient 790fx + phenom platform. Either this 280x will go to that machine or i'll get a budget dx12 card when the dust settles after vega.


That is just GPU bottleneck. The GPUs from then and GPUs now are 10x as fast while CPUs are not. Core i7 will decimate PII X6 in today's games with a fast GPU.


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> That is just GPU bottleneck. The GPUs from then and GPUs now are 10x as fast while CPUs are not. Core i7 will decimate PII X6 in today's games with a fast GPU.


that is just poor multithreading


----------



## Catscratch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erick Silver*
> 
> My wife runs WoW on a Phenom II X4 955BE paired with a R7 260X OC 2GB with no real issues
> Looks like the 1090T and the i7 980X were very comparable performance wise at the time. But does anyone recall the price points of those CPUs for the same time period?


They were released very close, 1 month gap in Q1 2010. $999 vs $295


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PontiacGTX*
> 
> that is just poor multithreading


What is the point of the picture? I played BF3 with 2500K and HD 6990 and CPU was holding me back.


----------



## Erick Silver

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Catscratch*
> 
> They were released very close, 1 month gap in Q1 2010. $999 vs $295


$999 for the i7 and $295 for the X6? So 3x as much for "about" the same performance "overall" at the time for Intel? Yeah I definately would have gone the AMD route at that time if I had been buying new. That was insane at the time, eh?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erick Silver*
> 
> $999 for the i7 and $295 for the X6? So 3x as much for "about" the same performance "overall" at the time for Intel? Yeah I definately would have gone the AMD route at that time if I had been buying new. That was insane at the time, eh?


Lol. Core i7 920 came before and was cheaper.


----------



## chuy409

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> That is just GPU bottleneck. The GPUs from then and GPUs now are 10x as fast while CPUs are not. Core i7 will decimate PII X6 in today's games with a fast GPU.


My phenom x6 oc to 4.1 can drive a 1080 around 60-70% usage in BF1. Id call that a pretty dam good cpu despite being 7 years old. In other "lighter" games like killing floor 2, overwatch, dishonored 2, and witcher, it keeps gpu usage around 80+. Even though all cores are almost capped in some of the games. Pair it with the likes of a 980, 390x, 480, 1060 and you will probably get pretty dam close to 99% usage.


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> What is the point of the picture? I played BF3 with 2500K and HD 6990 and CPU was holding me back.


that the i7 would not make any difference,it cant use all the threads and even the i3 is around the performance of FX and i5


----------



## FLCLimax

Passmark multithread doesnt matter > passmark single thread doesnt matter > waiting for cinebench > cinebench doesnt matter > waiting for WoW. Lol.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> Passmark multithread doesnt matter > passmark single thread doesnt matter > waiting for cinebench > cinebench doesnt matter > waiting for WoW. Lol.


Lol


----------



## LancerVI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> Passmark multithread doesnt matter > passmark single thread doesnt matter > waiting for cinebench > cinebench doesnt matter > waiting for WoW. Lol.


There definitely appears to be a trend.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> Passmark multithread doesnt matter > passmark single thread doesnt matter > waiting for cinebench > cinebench doesnt matter > waiting for WoW. Lol.


I still raid just fine in Legion with the old [email protected] There are frame drops ofc with lots of people around but these are also commonplace to my guildies with their 4790k CPUs. WoW runs well enough on laptops even, I am not getting Ryzen or BW.-E for it, it is BF1 etc that I feel I need something more powerful than the old vishera and that is for pushing 1440p-144Hz.


----------



## ToTheSun!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erick Silver*
> 
> $999 for the i7 and $295 for the X6? So 3x as much for "about" the same performance "overall" at the time for Intel? Yeah I definately would have gone the AMD route at that time if I had been buying new. That was insane at the time, eh?


The 980X was more expensive because it was much more powerful than competing products by AMD at the time. Bad Company 2 is no CPU benchmark.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chuy409*
> 
> My phenom x6 oc to 4.1 can drive a 1080 around 60-70% usage in BF1. Id call that a pretty dam good cpu despite being 7 years old. In other "lighter" games like killing floor 2, overwatch, dishonored 2, and witcher, it keeps gpu usage around 80+. Even though all cores are almost capped in some of the games. Pair it with the likes of a 980, 390x, 480, 1060 and you will probably get pretty dam close to 99% usage.


That is very interesting because my PII 955 @ 4.4GHz would get maxed out by 7870 in BF4. If X6 can get 60-70% usage with 1080 you must be in 130 fps +


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Catscratch*
> 
> Bad Company 2 - 1090t vs i7 980x
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/phenom-ii-x6-1055t-1090t-review,18.html
> 
> Back in the day, and overclocking didn't change much, 1-2 fps. If I can put a dx12 capable gpu into my 1090t machine, i can test dx12 games on an ancient 790fx + phenom platform. Either this 280x will go to that machine or i'll get a budget dx12 card when the dust settles after vega.


I made my "minimum Quad Core for Bad Company 2" statement because I remember that I had a rig with a Core 2 Duo E8400 overclocked to 4Ghz and a Phenom II X4 965 BE overclocked to 3.8 Ghz. While the Core 2 Duo was fine in single-player, you would get significant stutter in multiplayer. The Phenom II quad core was smooth as butter in both single player and multiplayer.

This was the first truly next-gen Battlefield title, and it required next-gen hardware to max it out (I have a Phenom II X4 965BE and Radeon HD 5870).


----------



## Catscratch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erick Silver*
> 
> $999 for the i7 and $295 for the X6? So 3x as much for "about" the same performance "overall" at the time for Intel? Yeah I definately would have gone the AMD route at that time if I had been buying new. That was insane at the time, eh?


For multi-threaded games, yes. Very few back then. And most of them sacrificed performance by going multi-threaded a bit, because overclocking didnt help much. I dunno how much performance sacrificed on that game but dx12 should be a easier to code than dx11 on that regard.


----------



## FLCLimax

TBH, I'm waiting for Dark Age of Camelot benchmarks.


----------



## dagget3450

I'm waiting for duke nukem 3d benchmarks myself. I have high hopes for zen!


----------



## PontiacGTX

Crysis benchmarks,anyone?


----------



## chuy409

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> That is very interesting because my PII 955 @ 4.4GHz would get maxed out by 7870 in BF4. If X6 can get 60-70% usage with 1080 you must be in 130 fps +


1440p so around 70+fps. Definite dips to the 50s but isnt something extreme.


----------



## SuperZan

Gotta see if this Ryzen deal can handle my Carmen Sandiego frame-dips before I buy in.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Gotta see if this Ryzen deal can handle my Carmen Sandiego frame-dips before I buy in.


Those Minesweeper frame dips and skips are really annoying. Hopefully Ryzen will be up to the task.

Also... Hello Kitty Island Adventure 2... I still can't find a chip that can run this thing.


----------



## dagget3450

Muhahahaha


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Gotta see if this Ryzen deal can handle my Carmen Sandiego frame-dips before I buy in.


I don't know, that Crime Computer really needs some better IPC, I don't know if we can catch Nick Brunch the next time...


----------



## Malo

why has nobody brought up starcraft 2 yet???? lol


----------



## iLeakStuff

To put the score of R5 1600X (R5 1500) in perspective:



The supposed price of the Ryzen 1500 is $229. i7 6850K cost $600 while 7700K cost $349....
http://www.pcgamer.com/new-amd-ryzen-details-and-pricing-leaks/

GG Intel


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> To put the score of R5 1600X (R5 1500) in perspective:
> 
> 
> 
> The supposed price of the Ryzen 1500 is $229. i7 6850K cost $600 while 7700K cost $349....
> http://www.pcgamer.com/new-amd-ryzen-details-and-pricing-leaks/
> 
> GG Intel


That ST performance with such low clockspeed


----------



## FLCLimax

CPU Z means nothing. I'm waiting to see how Ryzen handles Half Life.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> CPU Z means nothing. I'm waiting to see how Ryzen handles Half Life.


The real story of how ryzen is received and how well it sells IS GOING to be determined by sites like twitch. People know nothing about PC's they just listen to what everyone else has, if ryzen fails match the 7700k in the popular games no one is going to be buying ryzen.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> That ST performance with such low clockspeed


Almost 20% higher in multi core performance too if you account for that its running 200MHz lower than i7 6850K


----------



## dagget3450

If these numbers turn out to be true it will be refreshing to see OCN top30 threads with something BESIDES intel competing for ranks. Now just have to hope Vega delivers and it would be fun to see something different than the same old intel/nvidia ranks.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> The real story of how ryzen is received and how well it sells IS GOING to be determined by sites like twitch. People know nothing about PC's they just listen to what everyone else has, if ryzen fails match the 7700k in the popular games no one is going to be buying ryzen.


Yes keep telling yourself that...


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Yes keep telling yourself that...


Its common sense dude lol. Until AMD comes out with a stock clocked CPU that can beat intels fastest out of the box CPU they are still going to be looked at as inferior.

AMD hasnt even been an option for years, its going to take more than this round of CPU's to erase the terrible image they have to gamers especially. Round 2 of ryzen needs a super high clocked out of the box CPU, it HAS to happen if AMD wants to repair their image to the gaming crowd.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Its common sense dude lol. Until AMD comes out with a stock clocked CPU that can beat intels fastest out of the box CPU they are still going to be looked at as inferior.
> 
> AMD hasnt even been an option for years, its going to take more than this round of CPU's to erase the terrible image they have to gamers especially. Round 2 of ryzen needs a super high clocked out of the box CPU, it HAS to happen.


Speak for yourself. Ryzen is just what it needs to be. Maybe it doesn't work for you. Seems to work for most other people on the internet.

And writing in all caps doesn't make your point anymore relevant.


----------



## FLCLimax

lol stock clocks. at this point you're just praying it doesn't clock higher than 4ghz.


----------



## Scotty99

Im not speaking for myself....i am going to likely buy the 1600x. I am talking about how people perceive AMD especially gamers. I realize how much of a bargain these CPU's are, but most people just want the CPU that plays their games the best, and when its all said and done and the benchmarks are tallied up that will still be the 7700k.


----------



## dieanotherday

so if we get a 1800x to 7ghz... can intel beat that? @ $500


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Im not speaking for myself....i am going to likely buy the 1600x. I am talking about how people perceive AMD especially gamers. I realize how much of a bargain these CPU's are, but most people just want the CPU that plays their games the best, and when its all said and done and the benchmarks are tallied up that will still be the 7700k.


Only if we're talking about Blizzard games and MOBA's. If we account for AAA titles, as almost every review site does, then it's going to come down to what it should always come down to in a competitive market, use-case. Do I need an extra 10 FPS on top of the 12,000 FPS I get already in Smite/HoTS/whatever? Or do I need an extra 10 FPS and better minimum frames on games like Battlefield 1 that want my cores and threads? IMO, Haswell or better and Ryzen is already serving the needs of the ST crowd.

To put it simply, 10 more FPS in a scenario where I'm already over 100 FPS? Or 10 more FPS in a scenario where I'm dipping below 60 FPS now and again?

My OC'd 3930k eats MOBA/WoW/CSGO without issue and does well in BF1 at the same time. Instead of paying through the nose for Skylake-X I'd rather improve on what I have with Ryzen. I don't think that's going to be a niche opinion.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Only if we're talking about Blizzard games and MOBA's. If we account for AAA titles, as almost every review site does, then it's going to come down to what it should always come down to in a competitive market, use-case. Do I need an extra 10 FPS on top of the 12,000 FPS I get already in Smite/HoTS/whatever? Or do I need an extra 10 FPS and better minimum frames on games like Battlefield 1 that want my cores and threads? IMO, Haswell or better and Ryzen is already serving the needs of the ST crowd.
> 
> To put it simply, 10 more FPS in a scenario where I'm already over 100 FPS? Or 10 more FPS in a scenario where I'm dipping below 60 FPS now and again?


Even in blizzard games. Its not like Ryzen ST is bad. The difference won't be 10fps or anything close.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Even in blizzard games. Its not like Ryzen ST is bad.


That's what I'm saying. The ST looks to be very good. I don't think that most gamers are on 144Hz screens trying to peg 300 FPS on DOTA 2.


----------



## motoray

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Only if we're talking about Blizzard games and MOBA's. If we account for AAA titles, as almost every review site does, then it's going to come down to what it should always come down to in a competitive market, use-case. Do I need an extra 10 FPS on top of the 12,000 FPS I get already in Smite/HoTS/whatever? Or do I need an extra 10 FPS and better minimum frames on games like Battlefield 1 that want my cores and threads? IMO, Haswell or better and Ryzen is already serving the needs of the ST crowd.
> 
> To put it simply, 10 more FPS in a scenario where I'm already over 100 FPS? Or 10 more FPS in a scenario where I'm dipping below 60 FPS now and again?
> 
> My OC'd 3930k eats MOBA/WoW/CSGO without issue and does well in BF1 at the same time. Instead of paying through the nose for Skylake-X I'd rather improve on what I have with Ryzen. I don't think that's going to be a niche opinion.


This is dead on.


----------



## iLeakStuff

As long as any Ryzen CPU doesnt bottleneck a GPU, gamers would be far better off with a 8 core than a quad from Intel


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> That's what I'm saying. The ST looks to be very good. *I don't think that most gamers are on 144Hz screens trying to peg 300 FPS on DOTA 2*.


Wrong.

Most people also run their 7700K's at 5.2GHz @ over 1.4v..

_/s Just in case._


----------



## motoray

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Most people also run their 7700K's at 5.2GHz @ over 1.4v..
> 
> _/s Just in case._


That is no even close to true. Overclockers are such a small percentage of the industry.


----------



## yawa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> As long as any Ryzen CPU doesnt bottleneck a GPU, gamers would be far better off with a 8 core than a quad from Intel


Pretty much. This is why im dying to see Ryzen at post 4.0Ghz and up to 4.5Ghz (if possible of course) more than anything else at this point. Because if it scales like we think it does, it is going to turn the enthusiast gaming market on it's head.

I mean, who here wouldnt want an 8 core 1700X for $389, that when overclocked to 4.5Ghz is literally catching a 10 core $1000+ Intel chip in multi-threading, and performs better than a 6850 in gaming? If you were saving up with intention to intending to build a system with said $1,000 Intel chip, you do realize you can wait two weeks, swotch to Ryzen, and now have $500+ more to put towards a better GPU/WaterCooling/Ram if you want.


----------



## PureBlackFire

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *motoray*
> 
> That is no even close to true. Overclockers are such a small percentage of the industry.


^ somebody missed the fine print.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Most people also run their 7700K's at 5.2GHz @ over 1.4v..
> 
> _/s Just in case._


Considering that most 7700k CPUs won't run 5.2 stable regardless of voltage, I find it odd that you say the most folks run 5.2 @ over 1.4v.









Don't get me wrong, there are a hand for a people doing it, but it's far from the norm.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Considering that most 7700k CPUs won't run 5.2 stable regardless of voltage, I find it odd that you say the most folks run 5.2 @ over 1.4v.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong, there are a hand for a people doing it, but it's far from the norm.


/s = sarcasm


----------



## PureBlackFire

^


----------



## pittguy578

**** this looks good.

Only issue is I have dual boot system with a Hackintosh on a second drive.
Unsure if an AMD Ryzen would be compatible


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> /s = sarcasm


----------



## motoray

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> /s = sarcasm


I guess i need to get hip.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Well, I almost didn't bother with the fine print, luckily I've been around here long enough to know better.









Sad that "/s" has to exist, but it comes in handy when trying to separate the purposely crazy from the rest of the crazy.









Just been seeing a lot of posts similar to the one below and couldn't help myself..
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lays*
> 
> Hopefully it clocks well, otherwise Kaby is going to destroy it in single thread, and considering most games still only use ~4-8 threads, that's important.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


I'm a bit surprised with some of the reactions, I'm still in "won't believe it till I see it" mode, it seems too good to be true to me (especially for the price), and yet some are treating it like a joke and nowhere near good enough .. I thought most of the blue-brigade would be saying it can't be true, etc. I'm thoroughly impressed with what they've achieved if what we've seen so far holds true. I thought AMD wouldn't get anywhere near Intel again considering the budget differences, etc.


----------



## BinaryDemon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yawa*
> 
> Pretty much. This is why im dying to see Ryzen at post 4.0Ghz and up to 4.5Ghz (if possible of course) more than anything else at this point. Because if it scales like we think it does, it is going to turn the enthusiast gaming market on it's head.
> 
> I mean, who here wouldnt want an 8 core 1700X for $389, that when overclocked to 4.5Ghz is literally catching a 10 core $1000+ Intel chip in multi-threading, and performs better than a 6850 in gaming? If you were saving up with intention to intending to build a system with said $1,000 Intel chip, you do realize you can wait two weeks, swotch to Ryzen, and now have $500+ more to put towards a better GPU/WaterCooling/Ram if you want.


This... It's obvious AMD selected Ryzen's stock CPU speeds so that it's capable of beating it's Intel counterparts at their stock speeds. I feel bad for all those Intel users running K and X class CPU's at stock speeds. Now I need to see what Ryzen is really capable of.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BinaryDemon*
> 
> This... It's obvious AMD selected Ryzen's stock CPU speeds so that it's capable of beating it's Intel counterparts at their stock speeds. I feel bad for all those Intel users running K and X class CPU's at stock speeds. Now I need to see what Ryzen is really capable of.


Don't feel bad bud. We're allowed to by Ryzen too if it proves to be what is speculated.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Don't feel bad bud. We're allowed to by Ryzen too if it proves to be what is speculated.


I'm waiting for "that game" that causes my i7 4790k to no longer be relevant. Once that happens, I will jump ship to Ryzen (assuming all the leaks are true) in an instant.

For the time being, even at stock, an i7 4790k can handle every game out there literally perfectly.


----------



## DaaQ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> The real story of how ryzen is received and how well it sells IS GOING to be determined by sites like twitch. People know nothing about PC's they just listen to what everyone else has, if ryzen fails match the 7700k in the popular games no one is going to be buying ryzen.


Wrong, how Ryzen will be received and sells will be directly related to the "reputable" review sites, which will work extra hard to hide their bias and lack of journalistic integrity.
Glowing reviews of Kaby, only improved clockspeed.
AMD should have been here anyway IF they had been competing for the last 5-6 years.

I will be shocked if review sites give the chip its due.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Im not speaking for myself....i am going to likely buy the 1600x. I am talking about how people perceive AMD especially gamers. I realize how much of a bargain these CPU's are, but most people just want the CPU that plays their games the best, and when its all said and done and the benchmarks are tallied up that will still be the 7700k.


The perception is from forum warriors who love to post graphs and percentages from "reputable" review sites. Without consideration to ANY testing methodologies ie. stock vs OC, settings used to hamper one vs the other, disabling/enabling features to provide the skew.
It was done with 480/1060 it will be done again. USER reviews from members here _should_ hold more weight, but it doesn't.
Point is take off the glasses and actually read the intention behind these so called reviews and you will see it as well. (this is not directly at you Scotty99 just in general to people)


----------



## Lays

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DaaQ*
> 
> Wrong, how Ryzen will be received and sells will be directly related to the "reputable" review sites, which will work extra hard to hide their bias and lack of journalistic integrity.
> Glowing reviews of Kaby, only improved clockspeed.
> AMD should have been here anyway IF they had been competing for the last 5-6 years.
> 
> I will be shocked if review sites give the chip its due.
> The perception is from forum warriors who love to post graphs and percentages from "reputable" review sites. Without consideration to ANY testing methodologies ie. stock vs OC, settings used to hamper one vs the other, disabling/enabling features to provide the skew.
> It was done with 480/1060 it will be done again. USER reviews from members here _should_ hold more weight, but it doesn't.
> Point is take off the glasses and actually read the intention behind these so called reviews and you will see it as well. (this is not directly at you Scotty99 just in general to people)


Twitch and other mainstream gaming "media" will have a big impact though, twitch has MILLIONS of viewers that are susceptible to blatant and non-in-your-face advertising. I'd be willing to bet a very very large percentage of our DIY build / pre-assembled gaming PC builders/buyers don't visit review sites, and instead go to their favorite twitch streams and see what all of them are using.


----------



## FLCLimax

What's the next goal post when twitch streamers like Ryzen?


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> What's the next goal post when twitch streamers like Ryzen?


Its going to take time, AMD first needs to come out with a super fast out of the box CPU then hope big streamers take notice and build AMD rigs and post their specs down in their info. Most people on twitch just look at the specs of the big streamers sites and buy/build that.

Its not gonna happen til ryzen v2, but its possible AMD can turn the rep around with the gaming community especially since streaming and content creation really benefits from all these cores AMD is giving us, they just need to step up stock clocks to compete or beat intel.


----------



## kd5151

but 8c/16t ryzen is better for streaming than the i7 @4.5ghz iam i rite?


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Well, if we're only talking about the "big" streamers who get given their stuff for free, then AMD doesn't have a chance of outbidding Intel anyway.

But Ryzen should actually appeal to the majority of other streamers..

You think AMD has targeted this very thing by accident?









https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5ONXgQrdqc

The only chips Intel has that can compete with an 8 core Ryzen while gaming _at the same time_ will cost these average Joe's at least $1000, or they'll need to fork over more money for a dedicated streaming machine.. For people who already have decent I7's I don't think Ryzen is a killer (nor is Kaby by the way), but for people looking to get a new system, or want to upgrade to more cores with pretty damn good single thread performance (if the leaks are true), then Ryzen is easily the better choice in my mind.

I actually think the Twitch et al argument is a going to be important these days, I just think it's going to benefit AMD, not Intel.

Some of you are running out of goal posts.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kd5151*
> 
> but 8c/16t ryzen is better for streaming than the i7 @4.5ghz iam i rite?


Not entirely because streaming isnt THAT intensive anymore (programs have gotten a lot better). But what it will smoke it on is video encoding, which all youtubers have to do. AMD has a real shot here to take a HUGE chunk of the market by aiming at streamers and youtubers, but trust me most people care more about how fast games run first and foremost and an i7 has enough multithreading for streaming/encoding so that alone wont do it.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BinaryDemon*
> 
> This... It's obvious AMD selected Ryzen's stock CPU speeds so that it's capable of beating it's Intel counterparts at their stock speeds. I feel bad for all those Intel users running K and X class CPU's at stock speeds. Now I need to see what Ryzen is really capable of.


I think they are clocked that low because AMD wants to be know as good overclocker.


----------



## dieanotherday

ok the only way that AMD can fail now is if Ryzen doesn't overclock at all.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> I'm waiting for "that game" that causes my i7 4790k to no longer be relevant. Once that happens, I will jump ship to Ryzen (assuming all the leaks are true) in an instant.
> 
> For the time being, *even at stock, an i7 4790k can handle every game out there literally perfectly*.


That is generally true, so why on the other hand, you have people repeating 'the 7700K (or other fast quads) are the better gaming CPUs over Ryzen' when it's a given the R5's and R7's will also handle every game out there perfectly?

People that keep repeating this need to look at benchmarks of how 4-10% better IPC on Kabylake translates to FPS gains over Ryzen in a normal use case. It's completely negligible. Even if somehow 10% better IPC on Kabylake translated DIRECTLY to 10% more FPS, that would be tiny. But we all know the gains don't even translate like that.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dieanotherday*
> 
> ok the only way that AMD can fail now is if Ryzen doesn't overclock at all.


Well all they have to do is 4.4GHz+ and they already ahead of BW-E.


----------



## renx

Well Canard took 1 core to 5Ghz with an early chip and who knows what motherboard and bios.


----------



## GMcDougal

The only problem i see with overclocking is the max temp for the core of Ryzen is like 60c. I saw this somewhere and immediately thought that this was a low thermal ceiling. If this is indeed true, its going to be tough to get to 4.5ghz.


----------



## Tojara

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> I think they are clocked that low because AMD wants to be know as good overclocker.


I'm thinking efficiency and yields. Even fairly bad chips should be able to do mid-3s, and at those clock speeds they're going to make Intel quads look bad on efficiency.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GMcDougal*
> 
> The only problem i see with overclocking is the max temp for the core of Ryzen is like 60c. I saw this somewhere and immediately thought that this was a low thermal ceiling. If this is indeed true, its going to be tough to get to 4.5ghz.


60C was only for specific chips, most likely for XFR. The others had a temp limit of 72C, and if any of the previous archictures are any indication that's basically as much as Intels have.


----------



## BinaryDemon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dieanotherday*
> 
> ok the only way that AMD can fail now is if Ryzen doesn't overclock at all.


Actually I don't even think that would be a failure, it would just be disappointing based on the hype it has going. Unless Intel plays hardball with pricing, Ryzen is going to sell very well.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GMcDougal*
> 
> The only problem i see with overclocking is the max temp for the core of Ryzen is like 60c. I saw this somewhere and immediately thought that this was a low thermal ceiling. If this is indeed true, its going to be tough to get to 4.5ghz.


If we're referring to the same ostensibly leaked thermal specs, the 1700 has a thermal limit of 72C, so who knows? Getting the specific number for Vishera was like pulling teeth, so hopefully it will be more straightforward this time.


----------



## FLCLimax

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GMcDougal*
> 
> The only problem i see with overclocking is the max temp for the core of Ryzen is like 60c. I saw this somewhere and immediately thought that this was a low thermal ceiling. If this is indeed true, its going to be tough to get to 4.5ghz.


That's probably for XFR and not normal turbo boost.


----------



## BackwoodsNC

Is rhat core temp or tcase or something


----------



## Lipos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BackwoodsNC*
> 
> Is rhat core temp or tcase or something


tcase


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lipos*
> 
> tcase


Those are heatsink values....

Smh


----------



## Lipos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Those are heatsink values....
> 
> Smh


And?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GMcDougal*
> 
> The only problem i see with overclocking is *the max temp for the core of Ryzen is like 60c. I saw this somewhere and immediately thought that this was a low thermal ceiling.* If this is indeed true, its going to be tough to get to 4.5ghz.


Now look at the pic and you know what he (most likely) meant.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lipos*
> 
> And?
> Now look at the pic and you know what he (most likely) meant.


Those are tdp the different coolers can Handle. Not the processors.

So maybe you should re-read

The lowest class cooler can only handle 60c


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Those are tdp the different coolers can Handle. Not the processors.
> 
> So maybe you should re-read
> 
> The lowest class cooler can only handle 60c


The discussion is about the listed Tcase, not the TDP.

Wonder if Tctl is the equivalent of TJmax?


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> The discussion is about the listed Tcase, not the TDP.
> 
> Wonder if Tctl is the equivalent of TJmax?


I meant tcase. Regardless the pic is about the stock heatsinks.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> I meant tcase. Regardless the pic is about the stock heatsinks.


It's a design spec for heatsink manufacturers, which is why it is listed there, but Tcase is for the CPU. It's only of limited relevance for users/overclocked, of course, but it's the best we have for now.

Edit: for clarity of meaning


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> It's a design spec for heatsink manufacturers, which is why it is listed there, but Tcase is for the CPU. It's only of limited relevance for users/overclocked, of course, but it's the best we have for now.
> 
> Edit: for clarity of meaning


Why is it relevant? When no overclocker will be using a stock heatsink?


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Why is it relevant? When no overclocker will be using a stock heatsink?


Stock heatsink or aftermarket makes no difference. It is the CPU's Tcase, not the heatsink Tcase. The idea is that they design the heatsink to be able to maintain a temperature no higher than that at the interface between the CPU and heatsink - and a higher Tcase means a hotter CPU, no matter what heatsink is attached. So there is a reason one of them is 10C lower than the others.

AMD is specifying the Tcase, not the heatsink manufacturer, that's why it is relevant.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Stock heatsink or aftermarket makes no difference. It is the CPU's Tcase, not the heatsink Tcase. The idea is that they design the heatsink to be able to maintain a temperature no higher than that at the interface between the CPU and heatsink - and a higher Tcase means a hotter CPU, no matter what heatsink is attached. So there is a reason one of them is 10C lower than the others.
> 
> AMD is specifying the Tcase, not the heatsink manufacturer, that's why it is relevant.


It is clear the temps there refer to to heatsink. A 95w 8 core has lower tcase max than a 65w 8 core. Yes makes total sense.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> It is clear the temps there refer to to heatsink. A 95w 8 core has lower tcase max than a 65w 8 core. Yes makes total sense.


The specifications are there to guide the heatsink design. The heatsink for group A has to dissipate 95W and maintain a Tcase of 72.4C, a heatsink for group B only has to dissipate 65W while maintaining the same 72.4C Tcase (which allows for a smaller heatsink than for group A). That makes sense since you are trying to keep the CPU the same temperature in both cases.

The interesting part is that the group F heatsink has to be able to dissipate 95W with a Tcase of only 59.9C (so a beefier cooler than the others) - but that raises the question of why the F group has to be cooler than the others.

Edit: So yes, they do refer to the heatsink, but they are specified by AMD and so can provide some information while we wait for reviews. Here's AMD explanation:
Quote:


> The processor thermal solution should be designed to accommodate thermal design power (TDP) at Tcase Max. TDP is measured under the conditions of all cores operating at CPU COF, Tcase Max, and
> VDD at the voltage requested by the processor. TDP includes all power dissipated on-die from VDD,
> VDDNB, VDDIO, VLDT, VTT, and VDDA. TDP is not the maximum power of the processor.


----------



## Slaughterem

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> I'm waiting for "that game" that causes my i7 4790k to no longer be relevant. Once that happens, I will jump ship to Ryzen (assuming all the leaks are true) in an instant.
> 
> For the time being, even at stock, an i7 4790k can handle every game out there literally perfectly.


I agree with this sentiment. The Haswell 4790k a 4 c 8t 88 watt chip is the min standard single thread IPC for gaming on old to some new games. Future looking games as they become more Multi threaded and as gaming becomes more and more streamed having a min of 6 cores will be required. If Ryzen 1400x 4c 8t at 65 watt matches or is 5% slower than 4790k, and costs only $199. Add an ASROCK X370 KILLER SLI/ac: which will retail for my guess is $129 based on the z170 killer being that price, this would be a good upgrade build for anyone who is running any slower Haswel, IVB, SB, FX system. The Asrock killer appears to have the capability to cross fire, 12+2+1 power for overclock, wifi and BT HDMI if you want to use this for future APU or Zen++. A flexible platform for future upgrades is important for my purchasing decision.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> The specifications are there to guide the heatsink design. The heatsink for group A has to dissipate 95W and maintain a Tcase of 72.4C, a heatsink for group B only has to dissipate 65W while maintaining the same 72.4C Tcase (which allows for a smaller heatsink than for group A). That makes sense since you are trying to keep the CPU the same temperature in both cases.
> 
> The interesting part is that the group F heatsink has to be able to dissipate 95W with a Tcase of only 59.9C (so a beefier cooler than the others) - but that raises the question of why the F group has to be cooler than the others.
> 
> Edit: So yes, they do refer to the heatsink, but they are specified by AMD and so can provide some information while we wait for reviews. Here's AMD explanation:


There has never been a cpu with such low tcase. So I won't take that a being the CPUs tcase. That's just rudiculous.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> There has never been a cpu with such low tcase. So I won't take that a being the CPUs tcase. That's just rudiculous.


Well, the other possibility is that a heatsink company made a heatsink that can maintain that specification even though AMD hasn't made it one, but then you'd have to ask why would they'd bother.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> There has never been a cpu with such low tcase. So I won't take that a being the CPUs tcase. That's just rudiculous.


http://www.overclock.net/t/1318995/official-fx-8320-fx-8350-vishera-owners-club/45150#post_23402497

The Overdrive software indicated that 72C was the -actual- max temp, while AMD's website has varying 62C and 72C entries listed on the various Vishera chips.

It's not a perfect comparison because all we have to go on is a single leak that may or may not be true, but Vishera had considerably lower thermal limits than most Intel chips.


----------



## ryan92084

That heatsink chart matches up with another that shows which cpus are getting paired with which sink. The beefy cooler with the low tcase is for the "X" cpus. I assume the low tcase is to allow XFR to do its thing.

edit: chart in question from http://www.overclock.net/t/1623058/hwbattle-upcoming-cpu-coolers-from-amd


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Well, the other possibility is that a heatsink company made a heatsink that can maintain that specification even though AMD hasn't made it one, but then you'd have to ask why would they'd bother.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1318995/official-fx-8320-fx-8350-vishera-owners-club/45150#post_23402497
> 
> The Overdrive software indicated that 72C was the -actual- max temp, while AMD's website has varying 62C and 72C entries listed on the various Vishera chips.
> 
> It's not a perfect comparison because all we have to go on is a single leak that may or may not be true, but Vishera had considerably lower thermal limits than most Intel chips.


Well then I take that back lol.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ryan92084*
> 
> That heatsink chart matches up with another that shows which cpus are getting paired with which sink. The beefy cooler with the low tcase is for the "X" cpus. I assume the low tcase is to allow XFR to do its thing.


That would make sense. It would also lend credence to the idea that whatever binning occurs is focused around thermal and power concerns first and foremost. Given AMD's public reputation for power-hog chips it would make sense to push that side of Ryzen with binning in that direction.


----------



## Erick Silver

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erick Silver*
> 
> I'll try and run a test on my 1090T when I get home this afternoon to see how it compares to the numbers we have been given here.


As promised. CPUZ Bencj and Cinemark Bench.



Keep in mind. This is stock. No overclock. 1090T and GTX770 Superclocked bone stock.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Eh, a 60C Tcase on a 95W chip still makes little sense to me, and its not exactly confirmed. That's barely hot enough to burn you (140F in freedom units)! At any rate, my 140W 4930K at 4.7GHz barely reaches 60C with my loop so i imagine a Ryzen chip would at least do as well...


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Eh, a 60C Tcase on a 95W chip still makes little sense to me, and its not exactly confirmed. That's barely hot enough to burn you (140F in freedom units)! At any rate, my 140W 4930K at 4.7GHz barely reaches 60C with my loop so i imagine a Ryzen chip would at least do as well...


What's Tcase on some of the 125W chips? There is a relationship between the TDP and Tcase, so a cooler that could do 70C on a 125W TDP could probably be expected to do 60C on a 95W TDP - and if it is destined for the XFR chips it would make some manner of sense for them to keep Tcase lower than previously.

Edit: they've actually got Phenom thermal profiles that call for 62C at 125W, and that one shows 95W at 57.7C. So it's not unprecedented.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> The interesting part is that the group F heatsink has to be able to dissipate 95W with a Tcase of only 59.9C (so a beefier cooler than the others) - but that raises the question of why the F group has to be cooler than the others.


This is something to do with, "TDP is not the max power of the processor" -AMD.
For example, Phenom II X6 1055T came in two models; 125 watts and 95 watts.
HDT55TFBK6DGR: Tcase Max for 125w 1055T is 62c
HDT55TWFK6DGR: Tcase Max for 95w 1055T is 71c

The difference you see in the part number is FB = 125 / 140 Watt, Socket AM3 and WF = 95 Watt, Socket AM3.
And the second thing to notice is that they both differ in operating voltage range.


if R7 1700 and R7 1700X are both 8 core 95w TDP, then I think that both models should have different factory Vcore (default min-max). Now this is where they may need different coolers.


----------



## czin125

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *motoray*
> 
> That is no even close to true. Overclockers are such a small percentage of the industry.


No need to overclock it if you can buy a binned chip nowadays + a compatible board.


----------



## Serios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Yea that's actually impressive lol
> Again perspective people, 2500k released in january of TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN.
> 
> Its not impressive, but its better late than never for AMD.


You are talking like Intel's progress has been amazing since the 2500k.


----------



## Xuper

My brother has PC : Asrock 980DE3/U3S3 , AMD Phenom II X2 B59 , Patriot DDR3 1600 CL11 , Deepcool Gammax S40

Here Screenshot after Unlocking CPU :



Yes It's 159w !!! But Temp won't pass 42c after 10 minute with 100% full load ( ambient temperature Is probably 19 or less , It's winter).So you might have Ryzen 65W but Temp is around 70 or 80 due to 14 nm LLP.Low voltage with high amp.


----------



## Carniflex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GMcDougal*
> 
> The only problem i see with overclocking is the max temp for the core of Ryzen is like 60c. I saw this somewhere and immediately thought that this was a low thermal ceiling. If this is indeed true, its going to be tough to get to 4.5ghz.


Also worth keeping in mind that AMD and Intel measure and list different things for their allowed temperature. The real operating temperatures are in the same ballpark for both if one would be measuring the same temperature.


----------



## Valybadboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lipos*
> 
> tcase


Nobody seems to see the Tctl_max is 100 ...

Edit: it was around 70 on bulldozer


----------



## Hattifnatten

Tctl is just a scale from what I gather. Does not show temperature.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

some 1600x slides:







3.6/4.0 clocks, releasing Q2 with Ryzen 3 to follow in 2H 2017.

@Erick Silver I know you were keen on one of these yeah?


----------



## sage101

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> some 1600x slides:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.6/4.0 clocks, releasing Q2 with Ryzen 3 to follow in 2H 2017.
> 
> @Erick Silver I know you were keen on one of these yeah?


Man that's disappointing, I was really hoping to build a 1600X rig in march. I guess I got to wait it out a bit more.


----------



## Newbie2009

Maybe a launch beside VEGA? This would be a nice upgrade for me, 6 core 12 thread and a good clocker.


----------



## OcCam

From the picture of the OC software looks like an 8 core can be a 6 core. We just don't know if this is exclusive to the "x" branded chips.


----------



## JackCY

They have too few chips so they gotta wait to collect enough defective ones to be able to sell R5 and R3 lines and not waste good full 8C chips on it.
With such a huge delay really hoped they would launch it all at once in March. I guess they are still stretching it all and the supply issues may show again.
Mobo prices so far look terrible from my POV but maybe the Intel prices of late aren't any better, used to be better though some years back. Seems like long gone are the days you could buy a CPU + mobo under $400 and it was enough for mainstream, now it's more like $500+.


----------



## ryan92084

Q2, hrm hopefully not too late into Q2 but at least I'll have plenty of time to read motherboard reviews.


----------



## Ha-Nocri

Hopefully we will have good mATX motherboards selection by then...


----------



## ryan92084

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> Hopefully we will have good mATX motherboards selection by then...


We've only seen 45 of the 82+ release day motherboards so I'm sure there will be at least 1 or 2 in there.


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sage101*
> 
> Man that's disappointing, I was really hoping to build a 1600X rig in march. I guess I got to wait it out a bit more.


Hey Q2 is April May and June! So i guess you should be able to do that

NVM, for some reason i read May instead of March


----------



## GMcDougal

I think the 1600x is going to be the sweet spot. $259ish for a 6 core with hyperthreading that boost to 4.0ghz sounds great. Hopefully it comes in early April.


----------



## Newwt

ugh, what is 2nd quarter...might as well just buy a 1700x I'm tired of waiting


----------



## sage101

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oxidized*
> 
> Hey Q2 is April May and June! So i guess you should be able to do that
> 
> NVM, for some reason i read May instead of March


lol


----------



## oxidized

I think the 1600X should a good compromise between good single core performance and multithreading where 1700/1700X/1800X should be more balanced towards the multithreading, so probably not the perfect thing for nowadays games. 1500/1400X and the other 4C should be at the end of their days for gaming, so i guess an exacore should be proof future and should also deliver a proper performance on recent and older games


----------



## Redwoodz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> They have too few chips so they gotta wait to collect enough defective ones to be able to sell R5 and R3 lines and not waste good full 8C chips on it.
> With such a huge delay really hoped they would launch it all at once in March. I guess they are still stretching it all and the supply issues may show again.
> Mobo prices so far look terrible from my POV but maybe the Intel prices of late aren't any better, used to be better though some years back. Seems like long gone are the days you could buy a CPU + mobo under $400 and it was enough for mainstream, now it's more like $500+.


There has been zero indication of "supply issues". AMD is releasing top tier first, as they stated long ago would be the case. Have to cash in on the "must have " crowd. They would be fools not too. And 1 month is not a huge delay. A huge delay would be more like Nvidia's Titan - 1080Ti release dates.


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GMcDougal*
> 
> I think the 1600x is going to be the sweet spot. $259ish for a 6 core with hyperthreading *SMT* that boost to 4.0ghz sounds great. Hopefully it comes in early April.


ftfy








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newwt*
> 
> ugh, what is 2nd quarter...might as well just buy a 1700x I'm tired of waiting


April-May-June is Q2


----------



## Tobiman

My issue is the max attainable all-core turbo of the 1700 and 1700X. If all cores can be overclocked to 4.2 - 4.4 with a slightly higher single core then I'll go with the 1700X/1700 and hope I'm lucky, otherwise, I'll downgrade to a 1600X just to get the higher base clocks. Can't wait for reviews and private run benchmarks.


----------



## Newwt

In case anyone missed it


----------



## Sgt Bilko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newwt*
> 
> In case anyone missed it
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> some 1600x slides:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.6/4.0 clocks, releasing Q2 with Ryzen 3 to follow in 2H 2017.
> 
> @Erick Silver I know you were keen on one of these yeah?


----------



## Scotty99

Man that is really disappointing, was hoping to build in march as well.


----------



## wholeeo

Well got a 1700x reserved at Micro Center in case the hype is real.


----------



## Scotty99

So what is the story with the 65w 1700? Like, what does the lower TDP actually mean? Is it limited in overclocking, how would it stack up to the x model in games? I know none of you probably know but at 329 i could justify that over a 259 dollar 6 core, i am getting impatient and want to build lol.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> So what is the story with the 65w 1700? Like, what does the lower TDP actually mean? Is it limited in overclocking, how would it stack up to the x model in games? I know none of you probably know but at 329 i could justify that over a 259 dollar 6 core, i am getting impatient and want to build lol.


Lower stock frequency. thus 65w TDP. but imo it won't clock that high or if it does then power consumption will be a bit higher vs 1700x/1800x at same oc frequency.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> Lower stock frequency. thus 65w TDP. but imo it won't clock that high or if it does then power consumption will be a bit higher vs 1700x/1800x at same oc frequency.


Stock i dont care about really, i mean if they overclock similarly to 1700x/1800x what would be the downside of the 65w tdp?


----------



## ryan92084

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Stock i dont care about really, i mean if they overclock similarly to 1700x/1800x what would be the downside of the 65w tdp?


If they all overclock the same and you are into overclocking then as far as we know right now* nothing. The 1700 would become the defacto no brainer chip for anyone with the money and not needing the HEDT platform's extra features.

*unlikely but there still could be some mystery features behind the X that no one has talked about.


----------



## kd5151

Rip i5 7600k! thanks for the slides!


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ryan92084*
> 
> If they all overclock the same and you are into overclocking then as far as we know right now* nothing. The 1700 would become the defacto no brainer chip for anyone with the money and not needing the HEDT platform's extra features.
> 
> *unlikely but there still could be some mystery features behind the X that no one has talked about.


Ya i was originally eyeing the 1600x, but for another 70 bucks that does not seem unreasonable for the 8c. Guess ill just have to wait for benchmarks, hopefully some review sites get to test all 3 chips against each other.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kd5151*
> 
> Rip i5 7600k! thanks for the slides!


Rip every quad core.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Stock i dont care about really, i mean if they overclock similarly to 1700x/1800x what would be the downside of the 65w tdp?


If it can achieve same clocks as other 2 ? lower p/w. that's the only thing i can imagine.


----------



## zealord

Sorry to jump in like that. Lots of information I have been missing lately

Do we know when the 1600X does release?


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Sorry to jump in like that. Lots of information I have been missing lately
> 
> Do we know when the 1600X does release?


Just says Q2, sucks but maybe ill be getting a 1700 instead lol.


----------



## ToTheSun!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kd5151*
> 
> Rip i5 7600k! thanks for the slides!


I'm actually surprised some people bought it instead of the 7700K. 4 threads stopped being "sufficient" some time ago.


----------



## ryan92084

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Ya i was originally eyeing the 1600x, but for another 70 bucks that does not seem unreasonable for the 8c. Guess ill just have to wait for benchmarks, hopefully some review sites get to test all 3 chips against each other.


Same boat here. Hopefully we'll get some good OC head to head reviews on the embargo lift day.


----------



## Erick Silver

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgt Bilko*
> 
> some 1600x slides:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.6/4.0 clocks, releasing Q2 with Ryzen 3 to follow in 2H 2017.
> 
> @Erick Silver I know you were keen on one of these yeah?



You might say that......yeah


----------



## Newwt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Just says Q2, sucks but maybe ill be getting a 1700 instead lol.


This is where I am now, I was hoping the 1600x would be released on the 2nd. I'd rather just spend the $120 on a 1700x than have to wait another 1-3 months


----------



## Erick Silver

Well I can manage the wait. I need to move at the end of next month so all my computer funds just got re-appropriated. The apartment complex I am living in just jacked the rent on my 1 bedroom that I pay $660 for now to $880 *after* the *forced* remodel at the end of this next month. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for Granite Counter tops, laminate floors, stainless appliances etc. But I have already been here for a while, why you gotta jack me like that? So we are moving.


----------



## AlphaC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> Lower stock frequency. thus 65w TDP. but imo it won't clock that high or if it does then power consumption will be a bit higher vs 1700x/1800x at same oc frequency.


You'll need a decent motherboard to push a R7 1700 as per OCUK (under AIO water 240mm AIO cooler, made by Asetek with two fans on it)
Quote:


> 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.


https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/amd-zen-thread-inc-am4-apu-discussion.18665505/page-401#post-30533503

I'm slightly disappointed that they needed a 12 phase VRM just to get 4.0GHz

The R5 1600X will be a beast if it comes with 4 GHz out of the box boost.

It does beg the question on how high the 4 cores will clock with a $100 B350 board. If they only hit 4.3GHz then they will not be able to compete with the Skylake and Kabylake i5/i7 unlocked CPUS but can deal with all the other ones (65W TDP means more thermal headroom).


----------



## Scotty99

If these things are basically maxxed out at stock i dont think i am interested anymore.


----------



## EightDee8D

Well, it's 8 core afterall. so don't expect more than 4.2-4.4ghz . just like BW-E. best way will be running split OC, 4c @ 4.4 and other 4c @ 4.0 ghz. something like that.


----------



## 1n5aN1aC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> best way will be running split OC, 4c @ 4.4 and other 4c @ 4.0 ghz. something like that.


I've always wondered about those. Is the OS smart enough to schedule demanding tasks on those cores, or do you manually have to set affinity for that to work?


----------



## DaaQ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Redwoodz*
> 
> There has been zero indication of "supply issues". AMD is releasing top tier first, as they stated long ago would be the case. Have to cash in on the "must have " crowd. They would be fools not too. And 1 month is not a huge delay. A huge delay would be more like Nvidia's Titan - 1080Ti release dates.


Really a huge delay would be like Broadwell, adding in a 7th and 8th generation of product to the roadmap or like adding a product into the roadmap like how Pascal was.
Will also add that the B company must release a whole product stack on launch day like company A does.

/S.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Between X1600 and rumoured 1700 OC potential it might be better to get 6-core now for gaming and wait better Zen CPUs in the future. Probably better for me to get 1600X instead for ITX if overclocking is a problem.


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> You'll need a decent motherboard to push a R7 1700 as per OCUK (under AIO water 240mm AIO cooler, made by Asetek with two fans on it)
> https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/amd-zen-thread-inc-am4-apu-discussion.18665505/page-401#post-30533503
> 
> I'm slightly disappointed that they needed a 12 phase VRM just to get 4.0GHz
> 
> The R5 1600X will be a beast if it comes with 4 GHz out of the box boost.
> 
> It does beg the question on how high the 4 cores will clock with a $100 B350 board. If they only hit 4.3GHz then they will not be able to compete with the Skylake and Kabylake i5/i7 unlocked CPUS but can deal with all the other ones (65W TDP means more thermal headroom).


I really wouldn't look too much into it (not dissing Gibbo), but there are too many factors to play into bad overclocking at the moment.

- Did they OC the CPU and try to get non-rated DDR4 kits to run at speeds that could potentially hurt the core oc
- How are the bioses for other boards
- Is this "change two voltages, get out of the bios, set it and forget it" overclocking we're used to with the K series from intel
- How many boards did they actually have to test
- Where's all the data on these VRM's "cooking"
- How many retail cpus did they test

It's way to early to say much conclusively about overclocking potential. I will admit that aside from covering SKU bases to match intel, I don't see much point for the 1700 and 1700x to exist outside of not meeting binning requirements for the 1800x, could definitely mean the 1700/1700x could be fairly poor clockers.

Gimme mahhh reviews internet!


----------



## bonami2

Wish i could have waited instead of buying my 4790k.

Aint too bad in singlethreaded at 4.7 with 2400 cl10 ram still


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1n5aN1aC*
> 
> I've always wondered about those. Is the OS smart enough to schedule demanding tasks on those cores, or do you manually have to set affinity for that to work?


Well, usually in ST workload, core 0 does most of the work. so splitting first 4c higher than other 4c is best way to OC and get best of both worlds.

or you could set base to 4ghz, n core boost to 4.3-4.4ghz so whatever core gets loaded will boost to max as long as workload is ST.


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Rip every quad core.


Even Ryzen 3?


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> Even Ryzen 3?


Every quad core...


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Every quad core...


If you are saying so for hardcore online gaming then I can agree.

Since I have 0 interest in so called AAA games for now and have no plan on being a serious gamer for at least 3 years, I am doing just fine in dual core (of course with HT). It is also smooth in browsing and compiling stuff. Hence for me, Quad Core is still 100% relevant and my next CPU is going to be a Quad Core period, Intel or AMD I can't say about that.


----------



## umeng2002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Every quad core...


Every quad core with SMT?


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *umeng2002*
> 
> Every quad core with SMT?


For any case where you need the extra threads, yes.


----------



## umeng2002

AMD needs the 1600x to OC better than the 1800x.

If it does, the 1600x will be great for gaming.


----------



## tashcz

My thougts too. I'd like it if the story was like 5820K vs 6900K on clocks. 5820K can overclock like hell while the 6900 can't. If the Ryzen 6 core brings us 4.5GHz clocks, we're gonna have a winner here. If it doesn't go above 4.3GHz, well... we might see some dissapointment, unless the pricing puts smiles on our faces.


----------



## geoxile

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *umeng2002*
> 
> AMD needs the 1600x to OC better than the 1800x.
> 
> If it does, the 1600x will be great for gaming.


Based on thestilt's review of the uarch I doubt it will. Apparently it's densely packed and produced on a process meant for lower power chips, so the optimal frequency is around 3Ghz and AMD just did hell of a job getting it up so high in the first place. I wouldn't hold your breath personally.


----------



## manitox

Im really shure that almost all ryzen line up will get same score at gaming!


----------



## umeng2002

The other thing too is that devs optimize for Intel parts.

Some Ryzen reviews have said AMDs response to the lower than expected Gaming scores was that they're working with game devs to get them to also optimize for Ryzen chips.

Can you disable cores in the BIOS?

Have any reviews disabled a few to see if the OC can go up?

With my old 1090t, I could turn off 2 cores and increase my OC by like 100 or 200 MHz.


----------



## diggiddi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *umeng2002*
> 
> The other thing too is that devs optimize for Intel parts.
> 
> Some Ryzen reviews have said AMDs response to the lower than expected Gaming scores was that they're working with game devs to get them to also optimize for Ryzen chips.
> 
> Can you disable cores in the BIOS?
> 
> *Have any reviews disabled a few to see if the OC can go up?*
> 
> With my old 1090t, I could turn off 2 cores and increase my OC by like 100 or 200 MHz.


Thats what i'd really like to see at this moment


----------



## sinholueiro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tashcz*
> 
> My thougts too. I'd like it if the story was like 5820K vs 6900K on clocks. 5820K can overclock like hell while the 6900 can't. If the Ryzen 6 core brings us 4.5GHz clocks, we're gonna have a winner here. If it doesn't go above 4.3GHz, well... we might see some dissapointment, unless the pricing puts smiles on our faces.


The 5820k is Haswell-E and the 6900k is Broadwell-E. The 5960x OC the same as the 5820k and the 6800k OC the same as the 6900K.


----------



## tashcz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sinholueiro*
> 
> The 5820k is Haswell-E and the 6900k is Broadwell-E. The 5960x OC the same as the 5820k and the 6800k OC the same as the 6900K.


I've seen 5820K's hit 5GHz with good cooling, but haven't seen 5960X's hit 4.5 easily, or am I mistaken?


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *manitox*
> 
> Im really shure that almost all ryzen line up will get same score at gaming!


That'd be kinda bad, so far gaming performance was a let down, not huge, but enough of


----------



## sinholueiro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tashcz*
> 
> I've seen 5820K's hit 5GHz with good cooling, but haven't seen 5960X's hit 4.5 easily, or am I mistaken?


In fact, you are mistaken. Take a look at the Haswell's-E owners thread. At release, 4.5Ghz at 1.3V was the norm. The last ones run at 4.7Ghz, more or less (I have mine at 4.5Ghz at 1.225V). 5820k, 5930k or 5960x, it doesn't matter. It's the same die and OC the same.


----------



## RnRollie

Has anybody checked SSD SATA performance/throughput yet?

When i switched my Samsung 850 from Intel platform (P67) to AMD platform (CH5Fz - SB950) its throughput was almost HALVED.
After some research, it turns out that i wasn't the only one







...

And a few weeks back Samsung has dropped "fast mode" for AMD chipsets, God only knows why. But it isn't helping.
As it is now you can get the same performance numbers from the cheapest, meanest previous gen SSD out there, without have to cough up +400 Euro.

So, i was wondering if the X370 brings SSD back to max on SATA comparable to Intel numbers, or if it is more of the same previous gen.


----------



## nakano2k1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RnRollie*
> 
> Has anybody checked SSD SATA performance/throughput yet?
> 
> When i switched my Samsung 850 from Intel platform (P67) to AMD platform (CH5Fz - SB950) its throughput was almost HALVED.
> After some research, it turns out that i wasn't the only one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> And a few weeks back Samsung has dropped "fast mode" for AMD chipsets, God only knows why. But it isn't helping.
> As it is now you can get the same performance numbers from the cheapest, meanest previous gen SSD out there, without have to cough up +400 Euro.
> 
> So, i was wondering if the X370 brings SSD back to max on SATA comparable to Intel numbers, or if it is more of the same previous gen.


This was a graph used in the LTT review. Doesn't seem to be any major issue concerning sata bandwidth.


----------



## nakano2k1

Does anyone know as of yet if the Ryzen 5 and 3 series CPUs will be original dies or if they'll simply be Ryzen 7 cpus with cores deactivated?


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nakano2k1*
> 
> Does anyone know as of yet if the Ryzen 5 and 3 series CPUs will be original dies or if they'll simply be Ryzen 7 cpus with cores deactivated?


Afaik, zen comes in clusters of 4 cores. The 4 core chips will probably just be fully enabled 4 core chips, however; the 6 core chips will likely be 8 core chips with one of the 4 core clusters half disabled.

TLR the 4 cores are, the 6 cores aren't.

Would be cool if the 6 cores unlocked


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nakano2k1*
> 
> This was a graph used in the LTT review. Doesn't seem to be any major issue concerning sata bandwidth.


What data issue? Aren't all the processors in the chart basically equal? With Ryzen having the highest write speed.


----------



## nakano2k1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> What data issue? Aren't all the processors in the chart basically equal? With Ryzen having the highest write speed.


Really??

I was responding to someone else who was saying that he had issues when he went from an older intel chipset to amd's last generation. He asked if this was an issue with the current generation Ryzen platforms.


----------



## CryWin

I can't decide whether to buy the 1700 or wait for the 1600x... maybe by then they will have better binned chips that overclock better.


----------



## philhalo66

those single thread R15 scores are extremely low. my 3570K gets 178 at 5GHz and this a CPU from 2012. something must be wrong with the test systems.


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> those single thread R15 scores are extremely low. my 3570K gets 178 at 5GHz and this a CPU from 2012. something must be wrong with the test systems.


Quote:


> those single thread R15 scores are extremely low. my 3570K gets 178 at 5GHz


Quote:


> my 3570K gets 178 at 5GHz


Quote:


> 5GHz


----------



## philhalo66

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*


yes.... and a 6700K is 4.2 stock Skylake, that should completely smash my 3570 and it doesnt even come close. either the benches are fake or very biased.


----------



## RnRollie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nakano2k1*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> What data issue? Aren't all the processors in the chart basically equal? With Ryzen having the highest write speed.
> 
> 
> 
> Really??
> 
> I was responding to someone else who was saying that he had issues when he went from an older intel chipset to amd's last generation. He asked if this was an issue with the current generation Ryzen platforms.
Click to expand...

Yes,
Thank you for the wccf chart.

To clarify:

My issue was/is that on my Asrock Fatality Pro P67 - i7-2600K the throughput IOPS was as advertised for the Samsung 850
Namely ~98000 Read and +90000 Write
(no "proof" pictures, because i knocked off a cap from the P67 and had to find something to replace the P67 the same day and the only thing within driving distance was the Crosshair)

While on the Asus Crosshair V Formula-Z - FX8350 the IOPS dropped to
~60000 Read and ~50000 Write
(as i found out the same day, it all felt like it was "dragging its feet", and bench confirmed that)

And last update of Samsung Magician dropped the "Fast mode" for AMD chipsets and this is now the average
~56800 Read and 48500 Write



Of course nothing changed for the Sequential Read/Write as those still overwhelm the SATA 3 max throughput. But i "feel" the lower random access. (70% fragmentation is probably not helping). If i wouldn't have noticed/felt it, i wouldn't have looked into it.
But i did notice it when i booted up the CH5Fz the first time and it felt like dragging its feet compared to the P67...

And thus, i was therefore asking if this was still an issue with the Ryzen/X370 generation.

And nakano2k1 provided the wccf chart. Thanks, i looks as if it is no longer an issue.

(however, still gonna wait to buy till the hype is over and there are more specific tests and benches)


----------



## sinholueiro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> yes.... and a 6700K is 4.2 stock Skylake, that should completely smash my 3570 and it doesnt even come close. either the benches are fake or very biased.


You have around 180 at 5Ghz (Ivy 3570k). I have the same at 4.5Ghz (Haswell-E 5820k). The 6700k the same at 4.2Ghz (Skylake). I don't know, but it seems perfectly fine to me.


----------



## Sand3853

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> those single thread R15 scores are extremely low. my 3570K gets 178 at 5GHz and this a CPU from 2012. something must be wrong with the test systems.


I think you should clock your i5 down to 3.4-3.7ghz and see what it gets.... should paint a little different picture


----------



## RnRollie

Has anybody referred to AMDs "learning neural net" as Skynet yet?

Or am i just 6 months late in thinking that?


----------



## philhalo66

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sinholueiro*
> 
> You have around 180 at 5Ghz (Ivy 3570k). I have the same at 4.5Ghz (Haswell-E 5820k). The 6700k the same at 4.2Ghz (Skylake). I don't know, but it seems perfectly fine to me.


Then im glad ryzen is competitive if this is true then intel hasn't done jack for IPC improvement since ivy Skylake should be crapping all over this thing at any clockspeed.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sand3853*
> 
> I think you should clock your i5 down to 3.4-3.7ghz and see what it gets.... should paint a little different picture


still gets 143 which damn near matches the 1600x, something is wrong here my old ass ivy CPU should not be matching anything from the last year.


----------



## sinholueiro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> Then im glad ryzen is competitive if this is true then intel hasn't done jack for IPC improvement since ivy Skylake should be crapping all over this thing at any clockspeed.


Yeah, it should. The 2 year cycle of CPU upgrades was murdered 10 years ago.


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> yes.... and a 6700K is 4.2 stock Skylake, that should completely smash my 3570 and it doesnt even come close. either the benches are fake or very biased.


Lol i just realized what you were comparing your score to... CARRY ON, sorry friend


----------



## umeng2002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RnRollie*
> 
> Has anybody referred to AMDs "learning neural net" as Skynet yet?
> 
> Or am i just 6 months late in thinking that?


https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~lin/papers/hpca01.pdf


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> Then im glad ryzen is competitive if this is true then intel hasn't done jack for IPC improvement since ivy Skylake should be crapping all over this thing at any clockspeed.
> still gets 143 which damn near matches the 1600x, something is wrong here my old ass ivy CPU should not be matching anything from the last year.


IB is not very far behind anything new in general math. The only place where SL got big gains was in workloads that are heavy on AVX and some things that are latency sensitive, like pushing 300+ FPS.

Ryzen sits somewhere around Haswell in IPC, meaning that in ST benchmarks your IB chip @ 5ghz will be better because of its 25% clockspeed advantage. Same thing will happen when comparing with i5-7600k/i7-7700k at stock. Though 7600k/7700k can OC quite well from what I have seen, unlike Ryzen which seems to top out at around 4ghz.


----------



## daman246

seems like a good CPu so far but not upgrade material for a 4930k user like me.
anyone mind telling me why is always china or Russia that has Leaks with Computer parts like GPU and CPu?


----------



## RnRollie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daman246*
> 
> seems like a good CPu so far but not upgrade material for a 4930k user like me.
> anyone mind telling me why is always china or Russia that has Leaks with Computer parts like GPU and CPu?


Maybe because :
1. everything is made in China...
2. the Russians hack everything...
3. both have a bit of a cavalier attitude towards NDA, copyright, EFF, etc and tend to shrug their shoulders in the face of lawsuit threats...

Yay, post 2000


----------



## VeritronX

What is this? I see a thread titled "AMD Ryzen 5 1600X CPU-Z Benchmark" and expect to see a new thread just for the 1600X.. and it's just an old ryzen rumor thread that's been renamed? and there's 8 pages i haven't read and I have no Idea where the info I came here for is in that mess?

Edit.. wow, it's actually just an old thread. I shouldn't be up this early I guess.


----------



## Xeno1

Thats a bit of a gentle attitude towards Ru and China. But fair. Manhatten Project was "hacked" to hell as well. LOOLZ


----------



## Xeno1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RnRollie*
> 
> Maybe because :
> 1. everything is made in China...
> 2. the Russians hack everything...
> 3. both have a bit of a cavalier attitude towards NDA, copyright, EFF, etc and tend to shrug their shoulders in the face of lawsuit threats...
> 
> Yay, post 2000


Russians hack everything. Da TAHK

Yup they even Hacked the United States Government starting with Hary Dexter White. Even before that really. Esp. the USA intellengence agencies- NSA included. Walker spy ring, ALdrich Ames, Robert Hansen.... USA is FRAAPPED hard. Nice to see someone gets this. Peace bro. Lets not mention Clintonkovna and Obamarussa.

Whats in your oatmeal? Hacked.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/04/05/opinion/the-epidemic-of-traitors.html


----------



## sumitlian

While Russia hacks USA, Israel hacks the world.


----------



## BulletSponge

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> While Russia hacks USA, Israel hacks the world.


Shut it down......!


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BulletSponge*
> 
> Shut it down......!


Who else is left to do so when whole congress bow down to Israel ?


----------



## trparky

Does anyone have real confirmed CPUz benchmark numbers on a stock-clocked Ryzen 5 1600x? Unless my Google-fu is failing me, I can't find confirmed numbers. Oh, I can find some Chinese screenshot but they're not real if you ask me. I don't believe anything coming out of China. Unless someone can post a screenshot confirming CPUz numbers on an English operating system running in the United States I'm not going to believe the numbers.


----------



## DaaQ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *trparky*
> 
> Does anyone have real confirmed CPUz benchmark numbers on a stock-clocked Ryzen 5 1600x? Unless my Google-fu is failing me, I can't find confirmed numbers. Oh, I can find some Chinese screenshot but they're not real if you ask me. I don't believe anything coming out of China. Unless someone can post a screenshot confirming CPUz numbers on an English operating system running in the United States I'm not going to believe the numbers.


http://www.overclock.net/t/1628508/ryzen-5-1600x-1600-1500x-1400-owners-club/0_20


----------

