AMD Ryzen Discussion Thread.

[notb]

But I still get the option to choose. If I decide the features are worth it then I buy a new mobo. If not I save about $200. It's win/win.

Not all people who drive pickup trucks are hauling sh*T 100% of the time, but the capability to do so carries real value even when you're not using it.

But now you're both valuating something based on potential, not how it will actually be used. This is a safe but wasteful approach.
Why not do it based on an estimated benefit? Like in finance, where value of an investment is the average outcome, not the best-case scenario.

I just love the fact that someone has mentioned pickups. How little I was surprised that you're from Texas (because an American was sure).
So lets assume you'll benefit from the pickup's potential once a month (carrying logs or whatever you do). Is it still worth living with such a huge car? Difficult parking, fuel consumption, the initial cost?
Most things to consider can be quantified. Have you tried to calculate this? Maybe getting a sedan and paying someone for the occasional transporting (or renting a pickup) would turn out to be much cheaper?

I mean i can get a chip that with an easy OC punches in the same league as the 6950X for $330 for a variety of workloads... there is nothing from intel that can do that.

For variety of workloads you actually perform regularly? Or is this the pickup approach, i.e. it'll be there if I need it?
I was actually waiting for the Ryzen release (honestly, I delayed replacing my PC by almost half a year) and thought about it for a while. I'm not gaming but running 30-60h of simulations a week. Surely I'm the kind of customer who would benefit the most from getting a 8C/16T.

So think about my confusion in this situation. Ryzen is a CPU that should appeal to me, but not so much to gamers. But as it turns out: it's the gamers that praise it. They do it not for Ryzen's gaming capabilities, but for things like movie encoding.... Oh come on...

i mean that is sound... but these are not gaming chips, and even for general purpose they have an amazing amount of allure...

I think you'd be shocked how very single-threaded "general purpose" is. But you're clearly not alone on this forum, which is - honestly - a bit surprising...

 

[the54thvoid]

I'm very unsure why i bought a Ryzen chip. Damn thing terrifies me. Also chose an odd time to leave water cooling for the CPU but overclocking it isn't as easy knowing it won't be anywhere near as 'generous' as my old Sandy-E.

But, I'll persevere with it and in a few months if it's annoying me i might return to Intel. My main issue for now is that I've also moved to W10 so getting used to that is a pain.

 

[Tatty_Two]

I'm very unsure why i bought a Ryzen chip. Damn thing terrifies me. Also chose an odd time to leave water cooling for the CPU but overclocking it isn't as easy knowing it won't be anywhere near as 'generous' as my old Sandy-E.

But, I'll persevere with it and in a few months if it's annoying me i might return to Intel. My main issue for now is that I've also moved to W10 so getting used to that is a pain.

Whichever I move to I will be in the same dilemma as I will swap out to Win 10 too, I don't need (or want) 16 threads, I will now wait for Ryzen 5 and see how the 1500X shapes up, if it gets close to a 7700k then I am in for AM4, but as you mentioned, Win 10 scares me more than AM4.

 

[EarthDog]

i mean that is sound... but these are not gaming chips, and even for general purpose they have an amazing amount of allure...

Not all people who drive pickup trucks are hauling sh*T 100% of the time, but the capability to do so carries real value even when you're not using it.

I mean i can get a chip that with an easy OC punches in the same league as the 6950X for $330 for a variety of workloads... there is nothing from intel that can do that.

Again, if you use all the cores it's worth it. If you don't, there are certainly many good reasons to go with the intel platform this moment. Maybe that changes when 'fixes' come, but likely when ryzen 3/5 hits, I don't know.
Looking at pricing now, I wouldn't get cores just to have cores. Use em, or go intel until the 3/5 hits the shelves.

 

[r9]

I'm very unsure why i bought a Ryzen chip. Damn thing terrifies me. Also chose an odd time to leave water cooling for the CPU but overclocking it isn't as easy knowing it won't be anywhere near as 'generous' as my old Sandy-E.

But, I'll persevere with it and in a few months if it's annoying me i might return to Intel. My main issue for now is that I've also moved to W10 so getting used to that is a pain.

Whichever I move to I will be in the same dilemma as I will swap out to Win 10 too, I don't need (or want) 16 threads, I will now wait for Ryzen 5 and see how the 1500X shapes up, if it gets close to a 7700k then I am in for AM4, but as you mentioned, Win 10 scares me more than AM4.

Only thing that was annoying is Microsoft moving stuff constantly or naming it differently, but since Vista start menu search you don't need to know where it is just what are you looking for.
That made things easier.

 

[Artas1984]

The minimal FPS of Ryzen processors scares me when it comes to games. I've seen this in all of the Ryzen reviews in youtube. They show the Ryzen processors to be only equal or somewhere in between Core i5 6600K/7600K or Core i7 3770K/4790K, yet when it comes to minimal FPS, they most often beat overclocked Core i7 6700K/7700K...

 

[NdMk2o1o]

Only thing that was annoying is Microsoft moving stuff constantly or naming it differently, but since Vista start menu search you don't need to know where it is just what are you looking for.
That made things easier.

And windows + x is a pretty invaluable shortcut with access to everything you could need system wise, just about.

 

[r9]

The minimal FPS of Ryzen processors scares me when it comes to games. I've seen this in all of the Ryzen reviews in youtube. They show the Ryzen processors to be only equal or somewhere in between Core i5 6600K/7600K or Core i7 3770K/4790K, yet when it comes to minimal FPS, they most often beat overclocked Core i7 6700K/7700K...

Even before all the benchmark number came out a lot of reviewers said that gaming on Ryzen felt smoother.
Which makes sense because I don't think you can notice a difference between 120 and 130fps but if it's in the 50s I think you can.
And I think the experience is more important than the numbers.

Do I think that right now Ryzen is better platform than Kaby Lake, definitely no.
Would I recommend Ryzen for professional use in like corporate environment and be held responsible, hell no.
But for home use by computer enthusiasts like us I think is great, because so many things are coming like new bios with better memory support, windows updates, game updates.
A lot of stuff to get exited about.
The platform will mature with time.
I even anticipate in couple months after the dust settles and all the fixes are in place to have second round of reviews that will show a significant difference.
I mean just look at these benchmarks compared to 7700K @ 5GHz.

Ryzen needs Fast Ram. As fast as possible. Then it defeats Intel in PC Gaming.

Granted it looks like picked games that work great on Ryzen and as we know not all do.
But this games were not optimized for Ryzen not even patched for Ryzen they just work.
And the games that don't like Dota 2. They released a patch that improved performance by 30%.

 

[Super XP]

Again, if you use all the cores it's worth it. If you don't, there are certainly many good reasons to go with the intel platform this moment. Maybe that changes when 'fixes' come, but likely when ryzen 3/5 hits, I don't know.
Looking at pricing now, I wouldn't get cores just to have cores. Use em, or go intel until the 3/5 hits the shelves.

People that upgrade now will most likely stick to there build for 5-7 years before they do another.
Going for a Quad Core today is a bad idea IMO. The more Cores the Better, Ryzen is the future proof build. That will help your build in the future.
The 7700K already suffers from in game micro stuttering based on reviews and user comments. IMO this processor is obsolete at best.

 

[trparky]

I may think about doing a Ryzen build after all but in a couple of months just to let the platform mature and the dust settle. I do a lot of multitasking myself with lots of programs open at the same time. I have a dual-monitor setup too. Throw in a VM and I've got my Core i5 3570k system begging for mercy.

I also hope that when AMD comes out with Ryzen v2.0 it can be just a drop-in replacement instead of the usual motherboard replacement game that Intel plays just for the sake of making us buy new motherboards. I swear Intel changes sockets every time the traffic light at my main intersection turns red.

 

[Super XP]

There is one aspect of the ZEN Architecture that I find quite interesting. I believe Infinity Fabric is amazing, because it's "A Lot" more than a interconnect. SemiAccurate explains it very well.
Here is that one component I find highly innovative. Would love a TechPowerUp read on this.

Neural Net Prediction
Built-in artificial intelligence that primes your processor to tackle your app workload more efficiently.

• A true neural network inside every AMD Ryzen processor
• Builds a temporary map of how your programs use the CPU
• Prepares the fastest processor pathways for your app’s behaviors

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

There is one aspect of the ZEN Architecture that I find quite interesting. I believe Infinity Fabric is amazing, because it's "A Lot" more than a interconnect. SemiAccurate explains it very well.
Here is that one component I find highly innovative. Would love a TechPowerUp read on this.

Neural Net Prediction
Built-in artificial intelligence that primes your processor to tackle your app workload more efficiently.

• A true neural network inside every AMD Ryzen processor
• Builds a temporary map of how your programs use the CPU
• Prepares the fastest processor pathways for your app’s behaviors

That Seamicro buy out certainly appears to have been wise

 

[notb]

People that upgrade now will most likely stick to there build for 5-7 years before they do another.
Going for a Quad Core today is a bad idea IMO. The more Cores the Better, Ryzen is the future proof build. That will help your build in the future.

Is this the same philosophy that made you buy the FX-8350?

I also hope that when AMD comes out with Ryzen v2.0 it can be just a drop-in replacement instead of the usual motherboard replacement game that Intel plays just for the sake of making us buy new motherboards. I swear Intel changes sockets every time the traffic light at my main intersection turns red.

Hmm... Mainstream desktop sockets since 2009:
Intel: 1156, 1155, 1150, 1151
AMD: AM3, AM3+, FM1, FM2, FM2+, AM1, AM4

Or did I miss something?

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Is this the same philosophy that made you buy the FX-8350?


Hmm... Mainstream desktop sockets since 2009:
Intel: 1156, 1155, 1150, 1151
AMD: AM3, AM3+, FM1, FM2, FM2+, AM1, AM4

Or did I miss something?

Quite a bit FM are entry level and how long was each Intel socket supported , wasn't there more than one version of 1151 possibly the 1150 too i can't recall just like 2011 had 3 versions but crack on trolling mate I'm sure you'll sound in the know at some point ??

 

[Kanan]

To say Ryzen is worse at gaming compared to Intel is kinda outdated now, since MB manufacturer are releasing updates with the new microcode AMD provided and reviews already proven that it helps big time. That said, who in hell goes for a 4 core for a horrendous price of 320-350 bucks instead of a 8 core for same price that will be easier, easier faster over time, and is in part, now or at least equal? Ryzen needed some time to mature, but if you simply go with a Asus board and 3200+ Ram and a 1700 or 1700X, you'll be fine and have great value. Nothing that Intel has, is remotely comparable to that. Maybe a used X99 board and used 5820K/6800K is comparable, but that would be used stuff and higher power consumption too.

And btw. I get along with X79 and it's "limited features" pretty good (still has the holy trinity of 3's), I would easily get along with AM4 for 5 years or more. USB 3.1 Gen 2 and all the shit, that would easily easily provide me with everything I could ever want for 5 years and more. So anyone saying you would want to upgrade the MB as well, when you upgrade CPU on AM4, I'd call bullshit - not in 5 years at least. AM4 is right now, for me and most users, total overkill in features, as long as you go with a decent board. Generally mainboards are extremely packed with features nowadays, it wasn't like that a few years ago. PC Gaming and PC in general is kinda even more mature now than it was before, at least in my eyes.

 

[trparky]

I'm hoping that the new microcode updates help Ryzen when it comes to the performance of games on the platform. I want to build a Ryzen system but not until the platform matures some more.

 

[the54thvoid]

I'm hoping that the new microcode updates help Ryzen when it comes to the performance of games on the platform. I want to build a Ryzen system but not until the platform matures some more.

I tried a little of BF1 at stock on a 1080ti @ 1440p and it was awful. I had ultra settings on and was only getting 120+fps. Pretty bad man. Stock 1700X clocks (3.5Ghz all core) as well, not the 4.8GHz that @W1zzard uses in the FE review. I think 120 ish fps on a chip running over 1 GHz slower isn't too far off the 130+ in the review.

 

[Fluffmeister]

I tried a little of BF1 at stock on a 1080ti @ 1440p and it was awful. I had ultra settings on and was only getting 120+fps. Pretty bad man. Stock 1700X clocks (3.5Ghz all core) as well, not the 4.8GHz that @W1zzard uses in the FE review. I think 120 ish fps on a chip running over 1 GHz slower isn't too far off the 130+ in the review.

That GTX 1080 Ti sure is a beast.

 

[Lt_JWS]

I'll say this the stock cooler is cool looking and very very quiet! Waiting for my new case and another rx 470

 

[trparky]

I tried a little of BF1 at stock on a 1080ti @ 1440p and it was awful. I had ultra settings on and was only getting 120+fps. Pretty bad man. Stock 1700X clocks (3.5Ghz all core) as well, not the 4.8GHz that @W1zzard uses in the FE review. I think 120 ish fps on a chip running over 1 GHz slower isn't too far off the 130+ in the review.

I certainly hope you're being sarcastic man. I'd kill for 120 FPS. 120 FPS is not at all bad in my book, hell I'd call it f'in great!

 

[notb]

Quite a bit FM are entry level

Entry-level? Like what? APUs? Either way, it's still a separate socket, when it doesn't have to be (AMD unifies these lines since AM4).

and how long was each Intel socket supported , wasn't there more than one version of 1151 possibly the 1150 too i can't recall just like

This is not precise. There is only one version of a socket, but as each one covers 2-3 generations of CPUs, not all features might work.
The latest example is Optane. You can use any combination of LGA1151 stuff, but you'll need both 200-series chipset and Kaby Lake CPU to have Optane available.

But it's much the same in AMD world and could be even more severe with Ryzen, because it's a SoC.

2011 had 3 versions but crack on trolling mate I'm sure you'll sound in the know at some point ??

2011 is not mainstream, so I haven't included them. Yes, they are replaced every 2 years or so.
But AMD also has server sockets and they also used to replace them fairly often. They stopped lately simply because they haven't released anything important in this segment since 2010 (Socket G/C). Naples will have a new socket as well.

 

[notb]

I will now wait for Ryzen 5 and see how the 1500X shapes up, if it gets close to a 7700k then I am in for AM4, but as you mentioned, Win 10 scares me more than AM4.

Seriously?
Assuming 1500X will in fact match 7700K, it's just $100 difference on the CPU. Is this a big sum platform-wise?

I could understand getting a Ryzen 7 now, if someone is very core hungry and can live with the early adopting issues. Here the platform price difference is much larger because of the motherboards.
If one is simply after CPU performance and can live with poor feature choice, a Ryzen 7 1700 will work beautifully with a sub $100 AM4 mobo. However, the X99 models for the (similarly performing) 6800K start at around $250...

Of course, the other argument is that AM4 is new and will continue to be supported for a next ~2 years at least, while 1151 will most likely be replaced at the end of 2017.
But if you expect to replace this PC in 3+ years, then you'll be getting a new motherboard anyway.

 

[pantherx12]

Anyone saving their pennies for the rumoured am44 stuff?

( if you are wondering, I absolutely do not need 16 cores and 32 threads let alone 32 cores and 64 threads! How ever I will enjoy just looking at all the core usage graphs, and running multiple instances of a game or program just because i can. Will go with my decacore phone soc)


Quad channel memory oughta help with the infinity fabric. I just hope the 16 core models can still be pushed to 4ghz XD

 

[Tatty_Two]

Seriously?
Assuming 1500X will in fact match 7700K, it's just $100 difference on the CPU. Is this a big sum platform-wise?

I could understand getting a Ryzen 7 now, if someone is very core hungry and can live with the early adopting issues. Here the platform price difference is much larger because of the motherboards.
If one is simply after CPU performance and can live with poor feature choice, a Ryzen 7 1700 will work beautifully with a sub $100 AM4 mobo. However, the X99 models for the (similarly performing) 6800K start at around $250...

Of course, the other argument is that AM4 is new and will continue to be supported for a next ~2 years at least, while 1151 will most likely be replaced at the end of 2017.
But if you expect to replace this PC in 3+ years, then you'll be getting a new motherboard anyway.

It's a combination of things, in the UK I can get a decent quality Z270 board cheaper than a decent quality X370, I am of course expecting that the CPU price will more than compensate for that however I doubt very much that the 1500X will match the 7700K for performance, if whichever way it's a close run thing then yes I am in for AM4 but I also overclock so if there is quite a margin overclocked I may pay the bit extra and go Kaby ..... I am open minded and I do quite like the challenge of a new platform but I am also lazy and have little time these days....... I don't need 16 threads for the one game I play, MS Office and browsing.

The fact that I have not already bought yet suggests I am hoping for good things from Ryzen 5!

 

[pantherx12]

It's a combination of things, in the UK I can get a decent quality Z270 board cheaper than a decent quality X370, I am of course expecting that the CPU price will more than compensate for that however I doubt very much that the 1500X will match the 7700K for performance, if whichever way it's a close run thing then yes I am in for AM4 but I also overclock so if there is quite a margin overclocked I may pay the bit extra and go Kaby ..... I am open minded and I do quite like the challenge of a new platform but I am also lazy and have little time these days....... I don't need 16 threads for the one game I play, MS Office and browsing.

The fact that I have not already bought yet suggests I am hoping for good things from Ryzen 5!

Plenty of simulated benches for the 1600x and 1500x performance is precisely where you would expect it to be.

If r7 isn't your bag I don't think r5 will be either as they will likely still hit that clock speed wall.