Intel is finally receiving their wake-up call!
When I read some of the comments, I wonder if some of you guys read the same article as me...
Already questionning the perfs of thoses CPUs... *read the damn text*! And google a few videos of Ryzen benchmarks, which are *not* AMDs, but Cinebench or other third party...
Same or better than Intel for less than half the price? Heck, that alone is a fantastic feat from AMD, and probably has Intel scratching their heads a little here...
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 Overclocked To 4GHz On All 8 Cores – Provides 1800X+ Performance With Decent Motherboards & Cooling
OCUK staffer “Gibbo” reports successfully overclocking a retail Ryzen 7 1700 processor with an ASUS Crosshair VI Hero motherboard to 4.05GHz on all 8 cores. With this overclock the CPU would effectively be running 450MHz higher than the Ryzen 7 1800X flagship. “Gibbo” estimates, based on his results, that the 1800X should be able to hit 4.3GHz on all 8 cores.
The overclock was achieved using a 240mm Asetek built liquid cooler, which is similar to the Corsair H100i.
At 4.05GHz on all 8-cores an overclocked Ryzen 7 1700 effectively outperforms every other desktop 8-core CPU on the market. Including Intel’s $1000+ Haswell-E and Broadwell-E i7 5960X and i7 6900K.
When running at 4.05GHz on all 8-cores, the Ryzen 7 1700 effectively outperforms every other desktop 8-core CPU on the market. Including both Intel’s Haswell-E and Broadwell-E i7 5960X and i7 6900K.
AMD Ryzen 1700X New Benchmarks Leaked, Beats Kaby Lake In IPC / Single-threaded Performance
The 1700X entry is clocked at 3.4GHz, with Turbo disabled. .
While the Kaby Lake Core i5 7500 with a base clock speed of 3.4GHz had Turbo enabled at 3.8GHz. Due to the nature of single-threaded workloads the i5 7500 operates at its maximum Turbo frequency of 3.8GHz this means we’re looking at a 3.4GHz vs 3.8GHz single-core vs single-core comparison.
The Ryzen 7 1700X manages to match Kaby Lake exactly, scoring 111 points in userbench despite a ~12% clock speed deficit.
Here's what you're not getting - there is a review embargo right now. Any specs/benchmarks/etc that are coming out are so at the discretion of AMD or are being leaked without AMD's permission. It's normal to assume if they're controlling the information that this will put their new product in the best light.
Cautious optimism would be warranted here until the embargo lifts.
No need for any optimism. It's 100% sure that some sites will replicate tests made by AMD and if it becomes evident AMD cheated, sh*tstorm is just not worth it.
I wasn't alleging cheating. I am saying that the current benchmarks are the most favorable. Until the embargo is lifted there cannot be a clear, total picture of performance hence the caution.
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Vs Intel Core i7 6900K Gaming Performance Benchmarked
The first gaming performance face-off between the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X and the Intel Core i7 6900K. Both processors were put in a head-to-head comparison running the same game, the same in-game scenery and at the same time in Sniper Elite 4 at 4K. Both systems were identically spec’ed with dual RX 480s in Crossfire and 16GB of DDR4 memory.
Jarred Walton from PCWorld positioned the character and the camera in the exact same position on both systems. To ensure that both systems were rendering the exact same scene.
The Intel core i7 6900K averages at 90.5 fps while the Ryzen 7 1800X manages to push over 95 FPS and averages at 96.6fps. This is 6.7% performance lead.
Anyone with an i7 won't have a reason to budge but this should force Intel to drop their prices considerably.
Handbrake, Cinebench, Passmark, Blender etc. have traditionally been LEAST favorable for AMD. Leaving out AVX2 optimized software (very rare), I cannot figure out worse benchmarks for AMD to show. So your point is simply not valid.
Again you're not understanding what I am saying: AMD is controlling the information that is coming out and not allowing independent reviews until the embargo is lifted. In that respect my point is entirely valid.
I am not saying that AMD's new processors won't perform better across the board but one must ask if they do why not release all the benchmarks or lift the embargo?
You were suggesting AMD was cherry picking benchmarks, I.e. picking most favourable benchmarks. As I already pointed out, for cherry picking (leaving AVX2 heavy software out) AMD has made almost worst possible choices (Cinebench, Blender, Handbrake all have favoured Intel heavily).
Release what benchmarks? AMD knows many people (like you) will anyway wait for hardware site reviews for "more reliable" and "more comprehensive" etc. benchmarks so there is no point publishing much more benchmarks than already shown. Lifting embargo right now? Eh? AMD has supplied Ryzen review kits to hardware sites saying NDA ends xx.yy.zzzz. So all sites who got those review kits are preparing their articles for publishing on that date. What do you think if AMD lifts NDA earlier than expected? How many sites are able to make their Ryzen article as complete they want? Very few.
So, your point is still not valid.
HMMM Hoping to put together a new system based on AMD by next year
Okay let's play this game - you don't have the hardware so your supposed point is purely speculative and biased. You have no idea how these processors perform in the benchmarks versus other benchmarks or real-word performance.
What is certain is that AMD is controlling the information and it's natural for a company to put itself in the best light. AMD also has a history of over-hyping and overselling, releasing products that don't match the performance they claim.
From that comment I am not sure english is your first language so I will try and spell it out for you - if the claims being made in this thread were true (a "total win" over Intel at 50% of the cost) then there'd be no need for an embargo or selective benchmarking (again in threaded workloads where AMD has been "more competitive"). AMD could just "drop the hammer" on Intel, much like Sony did with their "This is How You Share Games" advert.
Here are my thoughts: nothing. Absolutely nothing.
I'll wait for tech site reviews to start rolling out, then decide how I feel. Anything else at this stage is utterly pointless. That's the beauty of getting older.
That's my view on the topic. All this pre-release BS over potential lies.
We have already seen benchmarks. Since you agree that AMD does not cheat, so what's the problem? So because agree that benchmarks released by AMD are valid, then we already have many valid benchmarks. It does not make valid benchmark result any more valid that some hardware site re-runs it.
It's natural to every company. Give examples of AMD CPU products that do not match performance AMD claim, thanks. And I really mean performance AMD claim, not performance some hype sites claim AMD claimed etc. To be honest, I cannot figure out single example.
English is not my first langage, I can admit that with no problems.
It seems you don't have too much experience about this. As far as I recall (1992-), for CPU releases, there is always review embargo. No matter how good product. There was embargo on Pentium (1993), AMD Athlon (1999), Athlon64 (2003), all "total wins". Same applies to all Intel releases too. So even if Ryzen would have 200% better performance with 10% of Intel cost, there would still be embargo. There is always.
Main reason is business. If reviews say product is simply awesome, but you cannot buy that awesome
product soon, people will get angry. That's why, according to rumours, review embargo lifts February 28 and Ryzen is available to two days later.
Threaded workloads are quite logical choice because first Ryzens are 8C/16T parts. Who buys 8 core 16 thread part for low threaded workloads? Even Intel does not compare their 8C/16T parts against 4C/8T parts on low threaded workloads because 4C/8T parts win easily (higher clock speed) with much lower price.
That Sony advert was about service (not product) that no other company can compete with (Sony is only who can offer that kind of service for PlayStation). Also AMD is only releasing 8-core parts now so total hammer is not even possible.
That makes so much more sense and I apologize if there were misunderstandings for my lack of comprehension
Here's where I would disagree - the embargo is for preorders. Ryzen was available for preorder on 2.22.17, a week before launch. It's possible that AMD doesn't want to appear to play favorites by holding all the reviews for 1 date of release but if that were the case they could easily lift the embargo the day preorders are accepted. Waiting until launch only builds the hype.
I hope AMD delivers and will be picking up their lower end processors if they compete well with the i3/i5 range. Today we have little evidence to support that they will deliver.
No need to apologize.
It seems Ryzen was available on pre-order same day AMD provided review kits. I'm not sure why AMD even decided to allow pre-order so early. I suspect it was because retailers expected strong demand and asked AMD if they could offer pre-order. However as review kits were supplied three days ago, AMD cannot move review NDA day earlier as reviewers are preparing articles for certain date. Moving that day earlier would mean most articles cannot be ready in time or are shorter than expected.
We have quite lot support those lower end models will deliver. As only difference is amount of cores and L3 cache, only possible problem is clock speed. As AMD is able to reach 4 GHz @ 95W on 8-core, same clocks on 65W for 4-core are no problem. However first 4-/6- core models are cut down 8-core CPU's and availability may be limited. Native quad core (with integrated graphics) is coming before back to school season.
So when are we going to see the Ryzen benchmarks?
I hope today as the official release happens, you can post the article on an in-depth Ryzen performance review.
Maybe when this counter goes down to 0?
right on cautious optimism... I was cautious, but that was not obvious, what I mean is that, even if AMD's products are presented in the best light mode, their achievement can be praised, even if their overdo it a little. It's been a long time since AMD last churned out something a little exciting regarding CPUs...