AMD Ryzen goes on sale March 2nd for under $500

[HardReset]

Too lazy to google it but can you OC these CPUs? I haven't built an AMD PC in since my Phenom II X4 955 which was replaced by my current i5-2500k.

All models have multiplier unlocked so manual overclocking is possible if motherboard supports it.

 

[OcelotRex]

LTT has the bf1 at 4k demo in his ryzen video, they now know it's a r7 1700 (not the x) vs a 6800k and the 1700 is beating the 6800k by around 5-7 FPS. I don't think we are gonna see the best gaming chips until ryzen 5 launchs.

I just watched the video (I think) you're referring to (CES 2017). Again it's exciting but it's BF1 which I seem to remember AMD hardware favoring. I think overall testing a suite of games will be a better factor and will show that each one of these will be "close enough" to their Intel counterparts without costing near the same. Otherwise all these reviewers should not appear to be so excited about this launch.

 

[Wizwill]

Just because a certain CPU gives a faster fps rate doesn't make it better or even a good choice for a non-gamer system. There are LOTS of non-gaming users who are sick and tired of having to pick and choose among unsuitable (gamer-centric ) parts when designing systems for personal use. I'd like to see a $100-$200 video card that would have truly accurate color and also play DVDs well. I don't needto pay for FPS rates I won't ever use.

 

[meric]

So the only difference is the operating frequency? assuming these ryzen 7s are all unlocked, who'd pay more for the highest end part?

 

[HardReset]

So the only difference is the operating frequency? assuming these ryzen 7s are all unlocked, who'd pay more for the highest end part?

Because it's faster without overclocking and probably will overclock higher. Overclockers are large minority of all users and many want more speed without overclocking.

 

[mosu]

What are the news here? AMD's boat sank from so many leaks weeks ago. What wasn't leaked before.

It really hurts, right?

 

[OcelotRex]

Just because a certain CPU gives a faster fps rate doesn't make it better or even a good choice for a non-gamer system. There are LOTS of non-gaming users who are sick and tired of having to pick and choose among unsuitable (gamer-centric ) parts when designing systems for personal use. I'd like to see a $100-$200 video card that would have truly accurate color and also play DVDs well. I don't needto pay for FPS rates I won't ever use.

If I am not mistaken accurate color representation is more dependent on your monitor and the connection to it than the video card itself. DVD playback is a fairly simple affair and any decent iGPU from a modern APU would be sufficient.

I am also unaware of any "gamer-centric" processor other than AMD APUs. As far as RAM/Mobo/PSU/Case etc. there's so many non-gamer options that focus on server/business/value. Video cards would be the only area that I can see you referring to and that makes sense since the lion's share of sales volume is to gamers.

 

[EEatGDL]

It really hurts, right?

I don't get it.

 

[Forebode]

Welp I know what I am upgrading to next! 3770k you served me very very well for 5 years but god damn that 1700X is looking like the sweet spot.

ditto, though. I want benchmarks for specific games.

 

[KernTUG]

AMD is positioning the 7 1700 as a competitor to the Core i7-7700K, but the 1700 only boosts to 3.7 Ghz whereas the 7700K boosts to 4.5 Ghz.

Does the Ryzens make more calculations pr. clock than Intel? You know, like the Barton/AMD 64 3200+ days.
Because if not, I would suspect the 1700 to be slower in games which "only" uses 2-4 cores.

 

[OcelotRex]

AMD is positioning the 7 1700 as a competitor to the Core i7-7700K, but the 1700 only boosts to 3.7 Ghz whereas the 7700K boosts to 4.5 Ghz.

Does the Ryzens make more calculations pr. clock than Intel? You know, like the Barton/AMD 64 3200+ days.
Because if not, I would suspect the 1700 to be slower in games which "only" uses 2-4 cores.

Slower today? Yes.

If that's because games only use 2-4 cores though it would be more likely to change when more 6-8 core CPUs are present in more gamer's PC's. Most i7's have only 4 physical cores.

 

[theBest11778]

AMD is positioning the 7 1700 as a competitor to the Core i7-7700K, but the 1700 only boosts to 3.7 Ghz whereas the 7700K boosts to 4.5 Ghz.

Does the Ryzens make more calculations pr. clock than Intel? You know, like the Barton/AMD 64 3200+ days.
Because if not, I would suspect the 1700 to be slower in games which "only" uses 2-4 cores.

Many of today's modern games use more than 4 cores already. Ps4/XBO both have 8 core CPUS, ps4 pro/Xbox scorpio do as well. Games like gears of war 4 and battlefield 1 prove the days of quad core gaming are coming to an end. Gamers nexus shows a 3.4ghz 6800k beating the 4.2ghz 6700k in BF1. Techspot showed the i5 horribly behind the i7s. If you're buying today or in the future, regardless of brand, getting a 6core or greater cpu will hold value for a lot longer.

 

[Cryio]

If you're using it mostly for gaming, hold off the 1700 until you see the benchmarks... i7 7700K will still score higher than 1700 in games, because it has a higher base clock and games are slightly less optimized for multi-threading than your typical Photoshop or Video Encoding app.

Skylake is what, 5%, if that, faster in IPC than Broadwell? Which Ryzen is equivalent in IPC to. Sure, your i7 Kabylake will overclock to 4.8-5 GHz. Ryzen will overclock to 4.5 hopefully. Do you think this will make any noticeable difference in gaming? Not only that, for the same money as an i7, you get TWICE the number of cores and threads. Are you doing to take twice that or 2 more FPS in a game running 78 FPS?

The decision is obvious for everyone. Especially when a 1700/1700X is cheaper than an i7 7700K.

 

[namesrejected]

Personally, I'm going to wait awhile due to the fact that ALL will be unlocked. Prices suggest that they are having a good turn out, so the cheaper chips may easily overclock above the more expensive chips. " not saying that the expensive one is expensive ", but more bang for the buck is more bang for the buck.

 

[pencea]

Recap and summary for everyone.


Live videos demos sessions of mostly the Ryzen 7 1800X pitted against the Core i7 6900K processor. The results have been nothing short of impressive.

Battlefield 1 Ryzen 7 1800X Versus Intel 6900k

Sniper Elite 4 Running on Ryzen 7 versus Intel 6900k

Ryzen 7 1700 Versus Intel 7700 in handbrake

1800X Against Intel 6900k in Cinebench

The entire press video of Ryzen

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Breaks Cinebench R15 Multi-Thread World Record – Overclocked to 5.2 GHz on All 8 Cores With LN2 Cooling

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X put through the test in Cinebench R15 at 5.2ghz. Voltage was bumped to 1.875V using LN2 cooling which kept the chip operating at -200c.

At these speeds, the chip was able to score 2449 Cinebench points in the multi-threaded tests, breaking the previous world record of 2410 Cinebench points.

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-world-record/

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X CPU Performance:

Base Clock: 3.6GHz / Boost Clock: 4.0GHz / TDP: 95W

Price: $ 499

[Cinebench R15] Multi-Threading Score: 1601
4% more performance than Core i7-6900K: 1474

[Cinebench R15] Single-Threading Score: 162
same Performance as Core i7-6900K: 162

AMD Ryzen 7 1700X CPU Performance:

Base Clock: 3.4GHz / Boost Clock: 3.8GHz / TDP: 95W

Price: $ 399

[Cinebench R15] Multi-Threading: 1537 4% more performance than Core i7-6900K: 1474
39% more performance than Core i7-6800K: 1108

AMD Ryzen 7 1700 CPU Performance:

Base Clock: 3.0GHz / Boost Clock: 3.7GHz / TDP: 65W

Price: $ 329

[Cinebench R15] Multi-Threading: 1410
46% more performance than Core i7-7700K: 967

 

[pencea]

If you're using it mostly for gaming, hold off the 1700 until you see the benchmarks... i7 7700K will still score higher than 1700 in games, because it has a higher base clock and games are slightly less optimized for multi-threading than your typical Photoshop or Video Encoding app.

Clock for clock, core for core and thread for thread AMD's Ryzen architecture offers very competitive IPC, single and multi threaded performance against equivalent Intel processors.

Just like Intel, AMD's 4 core Ryzen chips will likely run at higher core frequencies than their 6 and 8 core chips.

Based on all the leaked benchmarks and information we've seen, it does appear that AMD's Ryzen chips across the range highly competitive against all i5s and i7s from 4 right though to 8 core.

The Ryzen 1600X seems to be very comparable to the 7700k, it offers superior multi threaded performance and slightly lower but still very competitive single threaded. Not bad given its peak boost core frequency is only 3.7Ghz vs the 7700k's 4.5Ghz.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/antonyl...ance-leak-intel-will-be-worried/#2637328b69ce

Most modern games now are making use of 4 or more threads. So out of the two, I'd be going for the 1600X for gaming. I'd take an extra two cores and better multi threaded performance over a 5-10% deficit in single threaded. Even better is the 1600X is going to be priced at sub $400 AUD while the 7700k is presently almost $500. That means you can throw and extra $100 elsewhere in your system, like a better GPU.

That's not even considering overlocking.

I don't see any reason to be concerned about Ryzen's gaming abilities, its single threaded IPC seems highly competitive against Intel's Kabby, Skylake and Broadwell-E chips.

 

[Evernessince]

Just because a certain CPU gives a faster fps rate doesn't make it better or even a good choice for a non-gamer system. There are LOTS of non-gaming users who are sick and tired of having to pick and choose among unsuitable (gamer-centric ) parts when designing systems for personal use. I'd like to see a $100-$200 video card that would have truly accurate color and also play DVDs well. I don't needto pay for FPS rates I won't ever use.

If I am not mistaken accurate color representation is more dependent on your monitor and the connection to it than the video card itself. DVD playback is a fairly simple affair and any decent iGPU from a modern APU would be sufficient.

I am also unaware of any "gamer-centric" processor other than AMD APUs. As far as RAM/Mobo/PSU/Case etc. there's so many non-gamer options that focus on server/business/value. Video cards would be the only area that I can see you referring to and that makes sense since the lion's share of sales volume is to gamers.

Accurate color representation requires that each part of the chain be up to snuff. The GPU, the cable, and the monitor.

Of course, his assertion that "non gamer" GPUs are hard to find is funny. AMD's lowest end card, the RX 460 support 12 bit color, which is the highest HDR standard out right now. That's at $100 or less. What he wanted to see has already happened. In addition, "play DVDs well" is something any system from the last 10 years can do.

 

[OcelotRex]

Accurate color representation requires that each part of the chain be up to snuff. The GPU, the cable, and the monitor.

Of course, his assertion that "non gamer" GPUs are hard to find is funny. AMD's lowest end card, the RX 460 support 12 bit color, which is the highest HDR standard out right now. That's at $100 or less. What he wanted to see has already happened. In addition, "play DVDs well" is something any system from the last 10 years can do.

Thanks for the clarification as I am mistaken often.

 

[amghwk]

It's still wise to wait and see the customer reviews. Too many "leaks" are more suspicious of pre-release marketing hype.

 

[EClyde]

If I ever upgrade again I will give AMD a serious look. Glad they appear to be back

 

[KernTUG]

Many of today's modern games use more than 4 cores already. Ps4/XBO both have 8 core CPUS, ps4 pro/Xbox scorpio do as well. Games like gears of war 4 and battlefield 1 prove the days of quad core gaming are coming to an end. Gamers nexus shows a 3.4ghz 6800k beating the 4.2ghz 6700k in BF1. Techspot showed the i5 horribly behind the i7s. If you're buying today or in the future, regardless of brand, getting a 6core or greater cpu will hold value for a lot longer.

I've just seen the BF1 CPU benchmark and I'm quite surprised to see hyperthreading fare so well. I just moved from a i5 6600K to an i7 7700K because I found a good deal.
I can't feel any difference in the games I play right now, but I might down the line as it seems. I expect my build to hold it's own in 4-5 years, just like my sandy bridge.

 

[Peter Farkas]

2nd of March is the day we have been waiting for sooo long! ready your wallets fellow geeks!

 

[OcelotRex]

2nd of March is the day we have been waiting for sooo long! ready your wallets fellow geeks!

Don't forget 2.28.17 -
AMD Capsaicin & Cream

 

[pencea]

AMD Ryzen 1700X New Benchmarks Leaked, Beats Kaby Lake IPC

The 1700X was clocked at 3.4GHz with Turbo disabled. The Core i5 7500 was running at the base clock speed of 3.4GHz with Turbo enabled at 3.8GHz.

Because in 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.

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-1700x-benchmarks-leaked-beats-kaby-lake-ipc/

 

[GreenNova343]

Many of today's modern games use more than 4 cores already. Ps4/XBO both have 8 core CPUS, ps4 pro/Xbox scorpio do as well. Games like gears of war 4 and battlefield 1 prove the days of quad core gaming are coming to an end. Gamers nexus shows a 3.4ghz 6800k beating the 4.2ghz 6700k in BF1. Techspot showed the i5 horribly behind the i7s. If you're buying today or in the future, regardless of brand, getting a 6core or greater cpu will hold value for a lot longer.

I've just seen the BF1 CPU benchmark and I'm quite surprised to see hyperthreading fare so well. I just moved from a i5 6600K to an i7 7700K because I found a good deal.
I can't feel any difference in the games I play right now, but I might down the line as it seems. I expect my build to hold it's own in 4-5 years, just like my sandy bridge.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1267-battlefield-1-benchmarks/page4.html

I'm not sure which benchmark you're looking at...but Techspot's benchmark clearly shows a 4C/4T i5-6600K offering identical performance to the 4C/8T i7-7700K (note that, especially when both are already over 100FPS, a 1FPS difference for both minimum & average rates using DirectX 11 is statistically insignificant). The only "edge" the i7 showed over the i5 was for the minimum framerates under DirectX 12 (69 vs. 79), but even then their average framerates were identical. And those results are particularly interesting, given that the i7 in question is clocked higher than the i5.

Although AMD's FX processors weren't quite as good, they were at least close enough that I think it's better to say that the days of 2C/2T & 2C/4T CPUs is probably going away (given the performance drop-off for both the i3-6100T & the FX-4320 compared to their brethren with higher core counts), & that going forward it's best to at least have a 4C/4T or 4C/8T CPU for gaming.