AMD Zen Discussion Thread

Dair76

Most speculation seems to be pointing towards the 5 series being on a par with the 7s as regards overclocking... Many think it's a limitation of the new architecture holding them back, rather than thermals/voltages etc.

AlmightyCushion

god's toy wrote: »

Going to do a new build this year, stuck between a 1700 and the new (not officially announced) intel 7740 6 core... I the short term suppose the intel would have it (for gaming) but down the road...?

Perhaps a 1700 would be the best bet...

Cant wait to see what comes out around the 11th.

PCper had a good vid of why it's probably not windows fault its not so hot for gaming.

The 7740K isn't a 6 core CPU, it'll have 4 cores, 8 threads.

Inviere

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

The 7740K isn't a 6 core CPU, it'll have 4 cores, 8 threads.

...and the 7640k is still a 4/4 also. It just has a higher base, and lower boost than the 7600k The big difference in the kabylake-x range seems to be quad channel memory support is all...

I'm still really unsure of whether to buy a 1600x or a 7600k for gaming and emulation

god's toy

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

The 7740K isn't a 6 core CPU, it'll have 4 cores, 8 threads.

Yea reports were wrong so. I'm not waiting till 2018 for Coffee Lake's 6 core (HT/SMT) chip. I think with DX12 pushing out the door now and games starting/using more threads we will need a minimum of 4 cores in games to run them well. .. Would you go back to a dual core phone chip?

Really hope game devs get off their butts and optimise for Ryzern, I want to move out of the intel 'nothing really changes cos it doesn't need too' world... why I haven't updated the cpu in a few years.

Gehad_JoyRider

god's toy wrote: »

Really hope game devs get off their butts and optimise for Ryzern, I want to move out of the intel 'nothing really changes cos it doesn't need too' world... why I haven't updated the cpu in a few years.

I think the current Ryzen benchmarks look very promising, I think the fact. That there showing that level of performance, unoptimised really shows there strength.

Cuddlesworth

Dair76 wrote: »

Most speculation seems to be pointing towards the 5 series being on a par with the 7s as regards overclocking... Many think it's a limitation of the new architecture holding them back, rather than thermals/voltages etc.

They are 7's, just with cores turned off. So performance will be pretty much the same.

beno619

The consensus on most other forums is that Ryzen gaming performance deficit is almost none existent in real world scenarios.

In a proper system with other applications running in the background those extra cores are providing better mins and fewer cpu spikes.

Samuel T. Cogley

beno619 wrote: »

The consensus on most other forums is that Ryzen gaming performance deficit is almost none existent in real world scenarios.

In a proper system with other applications running in the background those extra cores are providing better mins and fewer cpu spikes.

I don't think it's as simple as that, nothing ever is. But I think it's fair to say at 1440p and above (3440 x 1440, 4K etc.) it's not noticeable. At 1080 high refresh Intel is still king, albeit that's a market segment I've never really understood. I'd be interested to see which is better for VR in terms of frame rate. (Anyone remember VR? :pac:)

There are still some issues, memory, core complex communication seems a little sub-optimal but it'll all be sorted out in time. I'm grateful for AMD shaking up the market it's just they're not as compelling as I'd hoped. Their over segmentation and very disappointing XFR is not helping. The 1700X and 1800X are meh, the 1700 on the other hand is a 'serious users' wet dream.

It's early days the six core budget end looks like is could be epic.

L

Speaking of interesting, rumours have it that there's a 16 core Ryzen in the works at €999.

Inviere

For gaming on Ultra settings, 1080p @ >60fps, and cpu intensive emulation like PCSX2 and CEMU, am I right in saying either a 7600k or a 7700k is still the way to go, over a 1600x or a 1700?

god's toy

Well I done it, Have just placed an order for a X370 Taichi Motherboard and G.SKILL F4-3200C14D-16GFX DDR4 3200 MHz RAM.

TL;DR is games/overclocking/long term focus

MOBO: http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/X370%20Taichi/

RAM: http://gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c14d-16gfx

But still no proc picked yet...

It's primary role is a gaming rig so I guess some would question the reasons I went with Ryzen over intel? Well we have slowly moved into a multi threaded universe for gamers (Albeit a little more slowly than expected...) with DirectX 12 and even Windows 10 using more and more simultaneous threads now, and that's before we even look at what programmers are doing with the games themselves, it's clear (to me at least) that going forward gamers are going to be needing to utilize more threads and cores than ever before.


So I had two choices, Intel or AMD. Well IMO, intel is barely iterating on its cpu's now, I feel the last few years they have given us little or nothing to upgrade to and the attitude of 'oh you want more cores'? 'yea pay the big bucks there pal' kinda doesn't sit well with me....
Knowing AMD's track record of keeping a platform alive for a few years on the trot, plus the intent that the AM4 platform will be at least here till 2020... (more CPU upgrade opportunities on existing hardware) and that this may be their last chance to be taken seriously as leading edge CPU maker... I didn't feel I really had a choice. I'm a new tech junky! I want there to be competition in this space to move things forward for everyone, so I think I'm helping by putting my money where my mouth is, today .


X370 Taichi has everything I want in a motherboard with overclocking potential and a 12 plus power phase design (yea overkill I know but thinking long term) but with bluetooth 4.2 and AC wifi as standard without spending mad money, plus everything that the x370 chipset gives you out of the box, it's a good deal.


The G.SKILL Flare X Series DDR4 3200 is super fast and has a good pedigree, already approved for use with the Taichi and it's looking like faster DDR is going to make up for Ryzens gaming performance limitations (at least until they get the SMT problem sorted)


OK so none of the parts are in stock yet but at 3 am this morning I said f*$k it, and bit the bullet. ... still time to cancel if I fine a reason to...intel... :eek:

BloodBath

I think it's madness buying a quad core for a high end rig at this point anyway. All these testing scenarios are on formatted ssd's with only windows, drivers and testing programs. That's not a real scenario. Most of us have programs, browsers with multiple tabs ect open in the background or on a second screen.

Those who want to record or stream at a good quality will want something better than a quad as well. The best quality recording is still done on the cpu.

A handful of older titles performing 10-20% worse at 1080p shouldn't be the deciding factor. I'll be getting the 1700 once things settle down and we have more info on how to max performance through memory/DF bus speeds etc.

ED E

The big question years ago was "Can it run crysis?". Next year that question will be "Can it run Star Citizen?". If RSI parallelize well AMD will clean up.

Inviere

BloodBath wrote: »

A handful of older titles performing 10-20% worse at 1080p shouldn't be the deciding factor.

Is it just a handful though, or is it everything so far that hasn't been optimised for Ryzen (genuinely asking as I'm on the cusp of buying at this point). I'll be 1080p gaming for the forseeable future, but want something that'll handle Ultra settings & give me a minimum of 60fps. My head says wait for the R5's, but my heart says go 7600k/7700k now....

beno619

Tech power up have the 1800X 10% slower in there test suite.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_1800X/13.html

BloodBath

Inviere wrote: »

Is it just a handful though, or is it everything so far that hasn't been optimised for Ryzen (genuinely asking as I'm on the cusp of buying at this point). I'll be 1080p gaming for the forseeable future, but want something that'll handle Ultra settings & give me a minimum of 60fps. My head says wait for the R5's, but my heart says go 7600k/7700k now....

It depends on your own use case and if you think you can make use of the cores on Ryzen or not.

If your main purpose is gaming I still think the intels are better in the here and now. The way I see it atm. For 1080p/60Hz any i5 will do until we get 4/4 and 4/8 Ryzens. For 1080p/144Hz-1440p/144Hz then a 7700k if you have a GPU that can push high frames.

Even if you want to record you can use shadowplay or whatever even with the i3's or i5's without losing much performance. The recording will be just a bit lower quality than one done using OBS through the CPU.

Ryzen then if you need more cores for whatever the case may be.

Inviere

BloodBath wrote: »

It depends on your own use case and if you think you can make use of the cores on Ryzen or not.

If your main purpose is gaming I still think the intels are better in the here and now. The way I see it atm. For 1080p/60Hz any i5 will do until we get 4/4 and 4/8 Ryzens. For 1080p/144Hz-1440p/144Hz then a 7700k if you have a GPU that can push high frames.

Even if you want to record you can use shadowplay or whatever even with the i3's or i5's without losing much performance. The recording will be just a bit lower quality than one done using OBS through the CPU.

Ryzen then if you need more cores for whatever the case may be.

Cheers, by the above then I feel Intel is the way to go for what I need. I'm hearing more & more about modern games taking advantage of more cores & threads though, so am hoping a 7600k being a 4/4 won't suddenly be up to the job in a year or two.

Also, I need something that can manage demanding emulators so need something that can push the best IPC I can afford. I wonder how the R7's are faring in the land of emulation...

BloodBath

Inviere wrote: »

Cheers, by the above then I feel Intel is the way to go for what I need. I'm hearing more & more about modern games taking advantage of more cores & threads though, so am hoping a 7600k being a 4/4 won't suddenly be up to the job in a year or two.

Also, I need something that can manage demanding emulators so need something that can push the best IPC I can afford. I wonder how the R7's are faring in the land of emulation...

I doubt these emulators have much multi core optimization so single core high IPC is probably best so an overclockable i5/i7 should do the trick to max performance.

If you can afford the i7 go for that imo. I always regret not going for higher cores down the line. I'm on a 3570k and wish I had stumped up the extra €100-120 for the 3770k.

If you decide to upgrade to a 144Hz monitor down the line with a higher end GPU at least you will have a cpu up to the task.

Inviere

Great, you're saying more or less what I'm thinking myself. Perhaps Ryzen 2, whenever that comes out, will be enough to take me to the red side. For now though, for what I need, I think a 7700k makes the most sense, or if cash is tight, the 7600k. Thanks again

Lukker-

Don't get the 7600, it's already antiquated. 4c/4t doesn't barely cuts it now, by next year it will be redundant. You already get a CPU bottleneck on many games like Witcher 3, BF1, Watch Dogs with all threads maxed out at 100%. Avg FPS may be decent but will stutter like mad. Stump for an i7 or go Ryzen. I'm nearly certain that this is the last gen where i5's wil be 4c/4t.

Mr Crispy

Hi guys and gals. Does anyone know when the reviews for the 5 series should drop?

god's toy

Darch Nemesis wrote: »

Hi guys and gals. Does anyone know when the reviews for the 5 series should drop?

Probably a week after the CPU go on sale. They would want to keep the hype train on track before the backlash of 'over hyping' it kicks them in the butt...

Not saying it will be bad or lacking but it's not all things to all people thats for sure, no chip is.

I'm still getting one however (unless intel lash out a 6 core with HT with two weeks)



*EDIT*

Just an edit to add this 'simulated' benchmarks!... so OK so we won't know for sure until we get our hands on the chips but it's on par with what most tech channels are predicting.

Gehad_JoyRider

god's toy wrote: »

Probably a week after the CPU go on sale. They would want to keep the hype train on track before the backlash of 'over hyping' it kicks them in the butt...

Not saying it will be bad or lacking but it's not all things to all people thats for sure, no chip is.

I'm still getting one however (unless intel lash out a 6 core with HT with two weeks)



*EDIT*

Just an edit to add this 'simulated' benchmarks!... so OK so we won't know for sure until we get our hands on the chips but it's on par with what most tech channels are predicting.

I'm beginning to dislike him :mad:

god's toy

Gehad_JoyRider wrote: »

I'm beginning to dislike him :mad:

Yeah I can see why. Was better when he was working for NCIX. But his comparisons/tests are mostly on the money.

Gehad_JoyRider

god's toy wrote: »

Yeah I can see why. Was better when he was working for NCIX. But his comparisons/tests are mostly on the money.

Im torn between two sides. One is he giving AMD poorish reviews, hes not mentioning that amd are working on the problems at hand hes not mentioning that some gaming companies are moving to amd.

Hes just showing a bunch of numbers, this 7700k got this much more and considerable lead of a hole 4 frames for GOD sake how is that helpfull. why do I need an extra 4fps whats it going to change in my life.

I dunno its been a very interesting few weeks on you tube for me in terms of whos saying what.

The interesting video last night with jayztwocents.

Where he pitched his x99 to his 1800x . It was 2 minutes slower. At rendering footage to an iver clicked x99

Redfox25

All those reviews would be more meaninful if reviewers added a bar to the graphs cutting down the benchmarks at 60fps, 120fps and 144 fps breakpoints.

I dont think anyone cares if X CPU can drive your game at 200+ fps, as its meaningless if your monitor only goes to 60fps.

Mr Crispy

There are a few 200+ Hz monitors on the market now as well though. Granted, they're definitely in the minority.

god's toy

Gehad_JoyRider wrote: »

Im torn between two sides. One is he giving AMD poorish reviews, hes not mentioning that amd are working on the problems at hand hes not mentioning that some gaming companies are moving to amd.

Hes just showing a bunch of numbers, this 7700k got this much more and considerable lead of a hole 4 frames for GOD sake how is that helpfull. why do I need an extra 4fps whats it going to change in my life.

I dunno its been a very interesting few weeks on you tube for me in terms of whos saying what.

The interesting video last night with jayztwocents.

Where he pitched his x99 to his 1800x . It was 2 minutes slower. At rendering footage to an iver clicked x99

I wouldn't say Poor reviews as such, some reviewers have been fairly level headed but we will always get the extremes one way or the other... Simply put (IMO) It's a fantastic cpu no question as for the price, core count and where we are heading in terms of optimisation wise and programming over the next few years ( Direct x multi core gaming and the like) it's very good deal.

There is a suggestion that the industry is biased against AMD in general ( I agree...) To be honest I feel it's there own fault for over promising and under delivering. Sinply put their processors have not been great since the athlon.. now they are back with a super fast proc that has the potential to win over the gamers and the industry.

The industry needs to realise what AMD have done here and once the programmers are in and make the updates and optimisations needed we will see the gains thick and fast.
If anything ( and at least) it reopens the conversation about Intel not innovating and let's us give them the middle finger while it forces them to do better.

K.O.Kiki

Redfox25 wrote: »

All those reviews would be more meaninful if reviewers added a bar to the graphs cutting down the benchmarks at 60fps, 120fps and 144 fps breakpoints.

I dont think anyone cares if X CPU can drive your game at 200+ fps, as its meaningless if your monitor only goes to 60fps.

It's not meaningless, higher FPS (and especially good frame-times) are crucial to smooth gameplay, especially if you play competitively.

Gehad_JoyRider

god's toy wrote: »

I wouldn't say Poor reviews as such, or at all. It's a fantastic cpu no question. I would say for the price, core count and where we are heading in terms of optimisation wise and programming over the next few years ( Direct x and the like) it's still very good deal.

There is a suggestion that the industry is biased against AMD in general ( I agree...) To be honest I feel it's there own fault for over promising and under delivering. Sinply put their processes have not been great since the athlon.. now they are back with a super fast proc that has the potential to win over the gamers and the industry.

The industry needs to realise what AMD have done here and once the programmers are in and make the updates and optimisations needed we will see the gains thick and fast.
If anything ( and at least) it reopens the conversation about Intel not innovating and let's us give them the middle finger while it forces them to do better.

I agree completely, I think they have some what over promised, but if the cpu is getting the results we've seen on un-optimised programs. What are they going to be like when we see the programs optimised for ryzen. I just can't help but look forward.

Im sold im thinking a 1700x for my self