AMD Ryzen 5 processors detailed, launching April 11

[Evernessince]

I don't understand, my comment was purely about the FX-8370 yet you somehow made it about Ryzen? You must be a nightmare to live with:

Me: Morning Evernessince. These new PG Tip Tea Bags aren't very good!
Evernessince: RYZEN MAKES A GREAT TEA BAG!
Me: Rrright...

(Just FYI I like Ryzen, I just wasn't talking about Ryzen, I was talking about how the i5 2500k was possibly the deal of the century compared to the FX-8370).


Even Duel Cores and modest GPU's run Counter Strike, Team Fortress, DOTA, LOL, HotS, WoW and many other popular online games at over 60fps.
My question is, why wouldn't you want that in the Steam Survey? It could give developers something to test and make sure their games work on higher refresh rate screens (I'm looking at you Bethesda!). We can see how the market for higher Hz monitors pickup in the coming years as the prices go down etc...

You complaining about me bringing up Ryzen on a Ryzen article is ironic at best so please don't try to act like it was out of place. It's like going to a dog show, you bringing up cats, and then you complaining that I brought up dogs.


"Even Duel Cores and modest GPU's run Counter Strike, Team Fortress, DOTA, LOL, HotS, WoW and many other popular online games at over 60fps."

Ah, no. Not even the latest dual cores are any good for a decent high FPS experience in most games. Just look at OW

https://www.techspot.com/review/1180-overwatch-benchmarks/page5.html

Even with 4 threads the minimums are awful. That's completely eliminating the memory and GPU bottleneck as well. Those are also newer dual cores as well. Most people aren't running Skylake or Kaby Lake.

 

[Evernessince]

According to pcper's podcast last night, it was revealed that Ian Cutress from Anandtech has said Ryzen 5 CPU's will consist of 3+3 and 2+2 physical core configurations per CCX on Ryzen 5 CPU's, so I'll be waiting for pcper's testing and various CPU gaming reviews before I pull the trigger on one of these alleged Ryzen 5 KBL killers.

I don't want more cores if performance is going to suffer from CCX to CCX communications, but if the performance is better than good enough, then I'm probably going to go all in on a 1600X if gaming and overall system performance from future UEFI's and software optimizations are impressive - and only then.

*fingers crossed*

That latency between the CCXs is something AMD is going to have to fix, they would be stupid not to. Whether that be through a micro-code update or through working with Microsoft so that windows doesn't bounce threads around from CCX to CCX.

 

[oranuro]

I'm going to be salty if that 6/12 performs better than my recently built x99 Haswell-E.

 

[Sarcasm]

Damn just did the numbers.

Even if the performance is 10-20% close to the 6800K, that's an amazing deal considering the 6800K as a platform costs 39% more than the 1600.

Decent $170 X370 + $220 1600 = $390
vs
Decent $200 X99 + $30 cpu cooler + $400 6800K = $630

Does anybody know what the Ryzen 3's are supposed to be? Dual Core with 4 threads?

 

[Evernessince]

Damn just did the numbers.

Even if the performance is 10-20% close to the 6800K, that's an amazing deal considering the 6800K as a platform costs 39% more than the 1600.

Decent $170 X370 + $220 1600 = $390
vs
Decent $200 X99 + $30 cpu cooler + $400 6800K = $630

Does anybody know what the Ryzen 3's are supposed to be? Dual Core with 4 threads?

That's also assuming you need the features of the X370 platform. If you don't need the SLI/Crossfire or the few extra ports then you could easily save another $70 and get a B350 mobo. It still has OC support. The included AMD coolers are pretty darn good.

 

[Burty117]

You complaining about me bringing up Ryzen on a Ryzen article is ironic at best so please don't try to act like it was out of place. It's like going to a dog show, you bringing up cats, and then you complaining that I brought up dogs.

I don't mind if you actually had anything relevant to say back to my comment. You responded to my comment with something completely off the subject of what I was saying. Lets take your analogy shall we.
I go to a Dog Show, I mention "Cat A was a waste of money back then, Cat B was so much better". Then you shout back "But New Dog is much better". You're not really contributing to the conversation or following on from anything I said. If you had responded "But Cat A was cheaper". Now you're continuing the conversation and is relevant to my comment.

Ah, no. Not even the latest dual cores are any good for a decent high FPS experience in most games. Just look at OW

https://www.techspot.com/review/1180-overwatch-benchmarks/page5.html

Even with 4 threads the minimums are awful. That's completely eliminating the memory and GPU bottleneck as well. Those are also newer dual cores as well. Most people aren't running Skylake or Kaby Lake.

So lets take the benchmark you linked:

Intel Core i3 4360 - min 77 - high 138 FPS

So they would benefit from a higher than 60Hz screen? Especially G-Sync / Free-Sync since the framerate is changing so much it would eliminate Tearing and provide an overall smoother game-play experience. This would make the Steam survey even more interesting.

Also:

Even with 4 threads the minimums are awful.

But they are above 60fps? Which means on a 60Hz screen, it would be buttery smooth just the same as if you had a Core i7? I'm confused as to what you were trying to prove here, apart from people with Duel Cores would benefit from a higher refresh rate screen on a very popular and competitive First Person Shooter?

 

[Evernessince]

I don't mind if you actually had anything relevant to say back to my comment. You responded to my comment with something completely off the subject of what I was saying. Lets take your analogy shall we.
I go to a Dog Show, I mention "Cat A was a waste of money back then, Cat B was so much better". Then you shout back "But New Dog is much better". You're not really contributing to the conversation or following on from anything I said. If you had responded "But Cat A was cheaper". Now you're continuing the conversation and is relevant to my comment.


So lets take the benchmark you linked:

Intel Core i3 4360 - min 77 - high 138 FPS

So they would benefit from a higher than 60Hz screen? Especially G-Sync / Free-Sync since the framerate is changing so much it would eliminate Tearing and provide an overall smoother game-play experience. This would make the Steam survey even more interesting.

Also:

But they are above 60fps? Which means on a 60Hz screen, it would be buttery smooth just the same as if you had a Core i7? I'm confused as to what you were trying to prove here, apart from people with Duel Cores would benefit from a higher refresh rate screen on a very popular and competitive First Person Shooter?

So you are going to completely ignore that this is a Ryzen article? You are the one who went off topic with your comparison, I was just bringing it back on topic.

Even in your own words

"I go to a Dog Show, I mention "Cat A was a waste of money back then, Cat B was so much better". "

So why are you complaining again that I mention dogs?


"So lets take the benchmark you linked:

Intel Core i3 4360 - min 77 - high 138 FPS

So they would benefit from a higher than 60Hz screen? Especially G-Sync / Free-Sync since the framerate is changing so much it would eliminate Tearing and provide an overall smoother game-play experience. This would make the Steam survey even more interesting."

Ah yes, even in less demanding games AND WITH THE MEMORY AND GPU BOTTLENECK REMOVED (as you conveniently ignored) you get passable frames but nothing anyone with a 120 Hz or 144 Hz would be satisfied with as you are nowhere near utilizing the monitor to it's full potential.

So the point you are trying to make is "People with dual cores should have monitors 3 times the cost of their computers that won't even utilize them to their full potential, especially in demanding games"?

Your argument is the example of frivolity. You are holding on to a few paper straws to prove a hollow point.

 

[Vulcanproject]

My main interest is exploring the clock limits of AMD's silicon. Intel have had much refinement, and that means stuff like many 7600K samples capable of reaching 5GHz when overclocked.

7600K might 'only' have 4 threads but it is still very fast at ~5GHz and even extra Ryzen threads may not be able to reach this sort of all round performance. A $190 4C/8T Ryzen @ 4GHz is going to have a hard time against a $200 7600K @ 5GHz.

So really we need to be seeing if the 4 cores can go way beyond 4GHz, and hoping that the 6 cores can go a bit beyond it as well.

A 6 core $220 Ryzen @ like 4.2GHz would be near perfect for a mainstream consumer. That is a big chunk of single thread performance good enough for any game coupled with a crap load of multi thread performance.

8 cores are still a bit of a niche because you're still talking $500 for the 1700 with a quality board. The 4 cores may struggle against the i5s despite the SMT. But the 6 cores always looked like the biggest potential to take the mainstream market by storm to me.

 

[Burty117]

So you are going to completely ignore that this is a Ryzen article? You are the one who went off topic with your comparison, I was just bringing it back on topic.

Even in your own words

"I go to a Dog Show, I mention "Cat A was a waste of money back then, Cat B was so much better". "

So why are you complaining again that I mention dogs?

God you are difficult. I put it in bold before but I guess you didn't really get it. You REPLIED to my comment with something completely pointless as a REPLY. If you hadn't replied or quoted my comment, Fair enough, Ryzen is really good. The point of the quoting system and the Reply button is to continue (or start) a conversation. Not randomly shout something else entirely. Whether it was to do with the article is irrelevant because you hit the reply button to my comment, thus trying to start a conversation about whatever I said. In future articles when I see you comment on stuff, I'll hit the reply button and just shout "Ryzen is really good!" or whatever the case may be and hopefully you'll understand.

Ah yes, even in less demanding games AND WITH THE MEMORY AND GPU BOTTLENECK REMOVED (as you conveniently ignored) you get passable frames but nothing anyone with a 120 Hz or 144 Hz would be satisfied with as you are nowhere near utilizing the monitor to it's full potential.

Have you ever used a G-Sync or Free-Sync screen before? You do realize they help even more at lower FPS right?
You're now deciding on behalf of the entire world a satisfaction level for everyone who buys a higher refresh rate screen? My point was nothing to do with Satisfaction either, it was the experience. Would you have a smoother experience on a higher refresh monitor? Yes, yes you would. End of story.

Games like Overwatch and Lol don't exactly eat a lot of memory anyway so that's a moot point. GPU bottleneck sure but again, popular online fps and moba's don't need all that much and look absolutely fine with some of the graphical settings turned down a notch. I still don't see your point?

So the point you are trying to make is "People with dual cores should have monitors 3 times the cost of their computers that won't even utilize them to their full potential, especially in demanding games"?

How expensive are you going? Why so extreme? A standard 60Hz 1080p monitor can be had for not a lot of money granted. I just had a quick look online (scan.co.uk not the cheapest place either) and it was about £10 more for a free-sync enabled
monitor that goes to 75Hz. Not exactly "3 times the price of their entire computer" is it?

Your argument is the example of frivolity. You are holding on to a few paper straws to prove a hollow point.

It's purely logical, Does your game run above 60fps? If Yes, you will benefit from a higher refresh rate screen. Pure and simple.

Edit: My Brother games on a core i3 and AMD RX460 and he happily sits at 60fps in Overwatch with the graphics cranked up to High and looking at Techspots Review of the RX460 that lines up perfectly. If my brother had spent that extra £10 on the better screen he'd get a smoother image and absolutely no tearing.