AMD officially launches Ryzen processors

[Draconian Guppy]

2 minutes ago, Boo Berry said:

In regards to the BSOD and issues with Windows, that's up to Microsoft to add compatibility for Ryzen to Windows, AMD themselves can't do this. Apparently Microsoft doesn't work as closely with AMD as they do with Intel and Nvidia. Big surprise, huh?

 

Same with Linux to a certain degree and the Linux kernel itself, though it's pretty decent in 4.10 and continues to get better.

My point exactly!

[Boo Berry]

One final thing, it's worth noting that Ryzen 7 wasn't meant to go up against the 7700K (or any Skylake or Kaby Lake CPUs), but instead the $1,000 6900K and $600 6850K (Broadwell-E).

 

Apparently Ryzen 5 will be more in position to go up against the 7700K, but time will tell. Hopefully they can be awesome overclockers!

[xendrome]

30 minutes ago, Draconian Guppy said:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/23

 

 

Though I want to wait for the second part of the review. I love anandtech deep and thorough reviews.

Check this out, pretty comprehensive - http://www.techspot.com/review/1348-amd-ryzen-gaming-performance/

 

Honestly it tells me that the i7-7700k is still a better purchase, at around $330 it outpreforms the Ryzen 1800X by 10-20% in most benchmarks, especially at 1440p + combined with the stability and maturity of the Intel platform/chipset, I can't see why someone wants to spend $500 on the 1800X.

[hagjohn]

47 minutes ago, Draconian Guppy said:

Then more proof that there needs to be optimization on platforms, sadly, AMD didn't foresee this? Didn't care

Exactly! 

Or couldn't get Microsoft to release a patch quick enough. Not sure why someone would assume AMD "didn't care" about it. Microsoft will probably put it in the creators update that will be coming out soon.

[Yogurth]

3 minutes ago, xendrome said:

Check this out, pretty comprehensive - http://www.techspot.com/review/1348-amd-ryzen-gaming-performance/

 

Honestly it tells me that the i7-7700k is still a better purchase, at around $330 it outpreforms the Ryzen 1800X by 10-20% in most benchmarks, especially at 1440p + combined with the stability and maturity of the Intel platform/chipset, I can't see why someone wants to spend $500 on the 1800X.

it is better purchase for gaming, but that is where the list ends.

[Boo Berry]

11 minutes ago, xendrome said:

Honestly it tells me that the i7-7700k is still a better purchase, at around $330 it outpreforms the Ryzen 1800X by 10-20% in most benchmarks, especially at 1440p + combined with the stability and maturity of the Intel platform/chipset, I can't see why someone wants to spend $500 on the 1800X.

For gaming, sure.

 

But remember the 1800X isn't meant to be going up against the 7700K, it's meant to be going up against the $1,000 6900K.

[xendrome]

25 minutes ago, Boo Berry said:

For gaming, sure.

 

But remember the 1800X isn't meant to be going up against the 7700K, it's meant to be going up against the $1,000 6900K.

And if you check the link, you'll see that the i7-7700K is even above the 6900K in almost all gaming benchmarks.

[Boo Berry]

Which isn't surprising either, as Kaby Lake is technically a newer architecture than Broadwell-E (which is two generations behind). The enthusiast chips are usually one to two generations behind mainstream.

[xendrome]

56 minutes ago, Boo Berry said:

Which isn't surprising either, as Kaby Lake is technically a newer architecture than Broadwell-E (which is two generations behind). The enthusiast chips are usually one to two generations behind mainstream.

Right, so claming the 1800X is marketed to compete with a CPU that was launched in Q2'16 that costs $1000 retail, when a Q1'17 CPU exists at $200 less then the 1800X and $700 less then the 6900K with better performance and newer architecture is just complete crap.

[Andre S. Veteran]

37 minutes ago, xendrome said:

Right, so claming the 1800X is marketed to compete with a CPU that was launched in Q2'16 that costs $1000 retail, when a Q1'17 CPU exists at $200 less then the 1800X and $700 less then the 6900K with better performance and newer architecture is just complete crap.

Except the i7 7700K is not a competitor to the i7 6900K in the first place. Different architecture, different chipset, different market. Broadwell-E has never been good value for games, it's slower than even the old i7-4790K for that purpose. Games generally don't leverage more than 4 cores very well (DirectX 11 etc.) and Broadwell-E trades clock speed for throughput.

 

Ryzen 7 does the same thing. The question is what AMD has against the 4-core i7s (i7 7700 etc). Based on pricing and naming, Ryzen 7 is also meant to compete with these, but benchmarks show it doesn't quite hold up there. But it's still an interesting proposition if you're building more than just a gaming PC and are ready to trade some framerate for compute power in other types of workloads. It brings Broadwell-E levels of performance to prices where you could only get 4-core CPUs until now.

[Yogurth]

12 minutes ago, Andre S. said:

Except the i7 7700K is not a competitor to the i7 6900K in the first place. Broadwell-E has never been good value for games, it's slower than even the old i7-4790K for that purpose. Games generally don't leverage more than 4 cores very well and Broadwell-E trades clock speed for throughput.

 

Ryzen 7 does the same thing. The question is what AMD has against the 4-core i7s (i7 7700 etc). Based on pricing and naming, Ryzen 7 is also meant to compete with these, but benchmarks show it doesn't quite hold up there. But it's still an interesting proposition if you're building more than just a gaming PC and are ready to trade some framerate for compute power in other types of workloads. It brings Broadwell-E levels of performance to prices where you could only get 4-core CPUs until now.

Ryzen 7 is brand new architecture and developers will need time to develop/patch for it, once that has been done we will have a more accurate picture of what is Ryzen capable of, gaming included.

 

Buying now price competitor to the R7 1700, the i7 7700k is waste of money, imho. We know that Ryzen tech is going to consoles this year and Ryzen will be the best selling 8 core CPU on the market in foreseeable future and software including games is going multi-threaded too, then buying i7700K makes sense only if You are going to play older games and only that. In no other circumstance is the i7 7700K a better purchase, not to mention a better CPU.

[Andre S. Veteran]

1 minute ago, Yogurth said:

Buying now price competitor to the R7 1700, the i7 7700k is waste of money, imho. We know that Ryzen tech is going to consoles this year and Ryzen will be the best selling 8 core CPU on the market in foreseeable future and software including games is going multi-threaded too, then buying i7700K makes sense only if You are going to play older games and only that. In no other circumstance is the i7 7700K a better purchase, not to mention a better CPU.

As long as most games keep using DirectX 11 and Open GL, single-threaded performance will win over multi-threaded performance. There are cases where this is pretty dramatic, for instance the Dolphin emulator:

 

http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-overclocking-best-ryzen-processor_192191/4

 

As 6- and 8-core CPUs become more common we can safely assume games will begin to scale better, but it's not happening overnight. And by that time new CPUs will come out. So I would not buy a CPU based on the performance on hypothetical future software, but on the software you want to use now that actually exists. If it's mainly gaming you're doing, Ryzen 7 is hard to recommend I think.

[Yogurth]

10 minutes ago, Andre S. said:

As long as most games keep using DirectX 11 and Open GL, single-threaded performance will win over multi-threaded performance. There are cases where this is pretty dramatic, for instance the Dolphin emulator:

 

http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-overclocking-best-ryzen-processor_192191/4

 

As 6- and 8-core CPUs become more common we can safely assume games will begin to scale better, but it's not happening overnight. And by that time new CPUs will come out. So I would not buy a CPU based on the performance on hypothetical future software, but on the software you want to use now that actually exists. If it's mainly gaming you're doing, Ryzen 7 is hard to recommend I think.

I only disagree in hypothetical, as we already saw what Ryzen can do when properly multi-threaded. New CPUs will come that is certain, but new Intel architecture is not expected before 2020, while, AFAIK, we can expect at least two more Ryzen revisions by that time. Intel will certainly try and use the 10 nm to partially soften the blow from Ryzen with higher frequencies and lower TDP, but it is highly questionable will that be enough since AMD won't sit around either and I am not sure if they can offer 8/16 CPU for 500$.

 

I expect within a year to have tables completely turned as far as gaming and multi-threading is in question, and that isn't a distant future, imho.

[xendrome]

13 minutes ago, Andre S. said:

As long as most games keep using DirectX 11 and Open GL, single-threaded performance will win over multi-threaded performance. There are cases where this is pretty dramatic, for instance the Dolphin emulator:

 

http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-overclocking-best-ryzen-processor_192191/4

 

But lets ignore everything as it sits right now, who cares about facts and real benchmarks, lets get look to the future because people are using their PCs in the future and not here and now. I think we should worry about hyphothetical benchmarks for something that may never happen and potentially may or may not have an effect on performance. Lets also ignore the fact that Intel will release their next CPU with even better performance. /S

[Andre S. Veteran]

11 minutes ago, Yogurth said:

I expect within a year to have tables completely turned as far as gaming and multi-threading is in question, and that isn't a distant future, imho.

That would be beyond optimistic Game development cycles are way longer than that and even assuming a complete switch by game studios overnight (and I'm not sure Ryzen market share will have that much impact honestly), it will be many years and many many titles before one can say most games you can buy scale well to 8 cores. And then there's software that inherently doesn't scale well, Dolphin is a prime example of that. It has to perfectly simulate another computer architecture and that certainly requires tons of synchronization between threads that will prevent it from scaling freely. Taking advantage of multiple threads is just a hard problem in general, and the more threads the harder it gets.

[xendrome]

3 minutes ago, Andre S. said:

Taking advantage of multiple threads is just a hard problem in general.

Andre, you are spewing too many facts and AMD is going to send you a cease and desist letter

[Yogurth]

1 minute ago, Andre S. said:

That would be beyond optimistic Game development cycles are way longer than that and even assuming a complete switch by game studios overnight, it will be many years and many many titles before one can say most games you can buy scale well to 8 cores. And then there's software that inherently doesn't scale well, Dolphin is a prime example of that. It has to perfectly simulate another computer architecture and that certainly requires tons of synchronization between threads that will prevent it from scaling freely. Taking advantage of multiple threads is just a hard problem in general.

It may be optimistic, but developers have been developing for Scorpio for almost a year now and for who knows what Sony is cooking, we also know that AMD sent out 1300+ developer kits mostly to gaming developers, so it isn't like the work did not already begun

[LaP]

29 minutes ago, Andre S. said:

 

 

As 6- and 8-core CPUs become more common we can safely assume games will begin to scale better, but it's not happening overnight. And by that time new CPUs will come out. So I would not buy a CPU based on the performance on hypothetical future software, but on the software you want to use now that actually exists. If it's mainly gaming you're doing, Ryzen 7 is hard to recommend I think.

No it's not. But these days you don't buy a cpu for 2 or 3 years. I'm still rocking my old core i5 750 at home. That cpu is almost 10 years old. And believe it or not it's still good enough.

 

But i'll upgrade it later this year as it is showing its age more and more.

 

I'll surely look into Ryzen. It's better price/perf than intel for a workstation right now. And for gaming it's not that far behind intel in most of the case at resolutions higher than 1080p. I've not checked yet but usually amd chipset mb are less expensive too.

[hagjohn]

41 minutes ago, Andre S. said:

That would be beyond optimistic Game development cycles are way longer than that and even assuming a complete switch by game studios overnight (and I'm not sure Ryzen market share will have that much impact honestly), it will be many years and many many titles before one can say most games you can buy scale well to 8 cores. And then there's software that inherently doesn't scale well, Dolphin is a prime example of that. It has to perfectly simulate another computer architecture and that certainly requires tons of synchronization between threads that will prevent it from scaling freely. Taking advantage of multiple threads is just a hard problem in general, and the more threads the harder it gets.

Doom has a Vulcan API. I would assume that Ryzen would pay very well with Vulcan (in theory, anyway). I haven't seen any benchmarks, so don't know.

[LaP]

12 minutes ago, hagjohn said:

Doom has a Vulcan API. I would assume that Ryzen would pay very well with Vulcan (in theory, anyway). I haven't seen any benchmarks, so don't know.

 

https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/245204-amds-ryzen-7-1800x-reviewed-zen-amazing-workstation-chip-1080p-gaming-achilles-heel

[Yogurth]

52 minutes ago, LaP said:

No it's not. But these days you don't buy a cpu for 2 or 3 years. I'm still rocking my old core i5 750 at home. That cpu is almost 10 years old. And believe it or not it's still good enough.

 

But i'll upgrade it later this year as it is showing its age more and more.

 

I'll surely look into Ryzen. It's better price/perf than intel for a workstation right now. And for gaming it's not that far behind intel in most of the case at resolutions higher than 1080p. I've not checked yet but usually amd chipset mb are less expensive too.

Indeed, gone are the times where You would upgrade CPU on regular basis, now we are building our systems for longevity.

[Circaflex]

1 hour ago, xendrome said:

But lets ignore everything as it sits right now, who cares about facts and real benchmarks, lets get look to the future because people are using their PCs in the future and not here and now. I think we should worry about hyphothetical benchmarks for something that may never happen and potentially may or may not have an effect on performance. Lets also ignore the fact that Intel will release their next CPU with even better performance. /S

With AMD it is always "coming soon," "in the future," or "down the road."

[Draconian Guppy]

7 minutes ago, Circaflex said:

With AMD it is always "coming soon," "in the future," or "down the road."

Aye, same story with bulldozer and windows 8.

[Andre S. Veteran]

I think we can all agree Ryzen 7 basically obsoletes Broadwell-E. As for Skylake (e.g. i7-7700K), you're trading off ~28% single-threaded performance for twice the cores*. It's not always a good tradeoff. It would be nice if the situation was as simple as saying Ryzen 7 is the best, moving on, but it's unfortunately not like that.

 

Also, I've been following this scene for quite a while now. The "games will soon scale better on multiple cores" line dates back to the first dual-core CPUs more than 10 years ago, and while pretty much all games now benefit from 2 and even 4 cores, it's been a slow progression, and ST performance is still king in that domain. So I think it's better to think of Ryzen 7 as something like Broadwell-E than something like Skylake. Would you buy Broadwell-E for gaming? Would you buy it if it was half the price? That's a hard question we've never had to answer, because Broadwell-E was prohibitively expensive. If I was buying a new CPU now I would be asking things like: where is performance most important to me? What would make me consider this CPU obsolete and go buy another one? If the answer is "my games run too slow", Ryzen is probably not the best choice for the money.

 

I know I'd choose Ryzen for my workstation; definitely not on my living room PC running mostly emulators like Dolphin and other games.

 

*Going by Cinebench single-threaded benchmark, Ryzen 7 1700 vs i7 7700K.

[Yogurth]

16 minutes ago, Andre S. said:

I think we can all agree Ryzen 7 basically obsoletes Broadwell-E. As for Skylake (e.g. i7-7700K), you're trading off ~28% single-threaded performance for twice the cores*. It's not always a good tradeoff. It would be nice if the situation was as simple as saying Ryzen 7 is the best, moving on, but it's unfortunately not like that.

 

Also, I've been following this scene for quite a while now. The "games will soon scale better on multiple cores" line dates back to the first dual-core CPUs more than 10 years ago, and while pretty much all games now benefit from 2 and even 4 cores, it's been a slow progression, and ST performance is still king in that domain. So I think it's better to think of Ryzen 7 as something like Broadwell-E than something like Skylake. Would you buy Broadwell-E for gaming? Would you buy it if it was half the price? That's a hard question we've never had to answer, because Broadwell-E was prohibitively expensive. If I was buying a new CPU now I would be asking things like: where is performance most important to me? What would make me consider this CPU obsolete and go buy another one? If the answer is "my games run too slow", Ryzen is probably not the best choice for the money.

 

I know I'd choose Ryzen for my workstation; definitely not on my living room PC running mostly emulators like Dolphin and other games.

 

*Going by Cinebench single-threaded benchmark, i7 1700X vs i7 7700K.

It will be interesting to see how and if the Ryzen performance will improve with upcoming, BIOS, memory and OS fixes in gaming. You mentioned Dolphin quite a bit but that is a fringe case scenario, there just aren't that many gamers using emulators compared to native gaming, though in your case it is a valid point.