AMD Ryzen price/spec leaks

[Ares]

I have trained pigeons to run on a treadmill which powers the +5v rail.

Plz tell me the pigeons are wearing LED lights and glitter... maybe cover them in glow in the dark paint too

 

[fatbeard]

Ryzen 1800X reviews popping up. Seems to be the same story across the board, amazing value, incredible workstation performance, lags behind 7700K in gaming (which was expected), and still some chipset/mobo/memory issues that should get sorted out over time.

Edit: Also, very little OC headroom in the release steppings.

 

[Ares]

Crys, you think this would be a good opportunity for me to build the machine I was talking about to serve as my box for video editing/processing?

What purpose(s) do you intend for the box you are building with Ryzen?

 

[fatbeard]

The whole Ryzen lineup is very exciting. Its batshit crazy how hard they are undercutting Intel. The shit is gon be good for everyone.

I am concerned though that it looks like their entire lineup is leaning toward productivity. Doesn't look like theres any sku tailored for gaming. The single thread performance looks like it could be a little bit disappointing, but we will see.

As an aside, holy **** I can't fucking believe people are pre-ording fucking CPU's. Before they even see benchmarks. I mean, holy ****. It doesn't matter how amazing Ryzen turns out to be, pre-ordering a completely new product line with a new architecture is stupid as ****.

I think the 1600X 6/12 is going to be the gaming sweetspot for Ryzen. It's clocked at 3.6/4.0, the same as the 1800X (which makes sense since the 1600X are just 1800X that had bad cores). Hopefully by the time the 1600X comes out in a few months most of the driver/BIOS/mobo bugs will be worked out, and it will actually have some OC headroom. Benchmarks are all over the place right now because of those things. AMD probably would've been best served by giving the flagship SKUs a little more baking time; there was a lot of hype from the leaked synthetic benchmarks and the gaming community is a bit underwhelmed by actual real-world performance now.

 

[Monsieur Tirets]

Well, keep an eye on hardwareswap. Bet you it will get flooded with intel CPUs during the Ryzen frenzy.

microcenter has the 6700k for 260 again so ill probably just go for that(not really worth spending 40 more on the 7700k) while selling my 6600k on ebay where its still going for around 200 bucks used. and it should stay there with ryzen disappointing on the gaming front.

 

[AussieBear]

I think the 1600X 6/12 is going to be the gaming sweetspot for Ryzen. It's clocked at 3.6/4.0, the same as the 1800X (which makes sense since the 1600X are just 1800X that had bad cores). Hopefully by the time the 1600X comes out in a few months most of the driver/BIOS/mobo bugs will be worked out, and it will actually have some OC headroom. Benchmarks are all over the place right now because of those things. AMD probably would've been best served by giving the flagship SKUs a little more baking time; there was a lot of hype from the leaked synthetic benchmarks and the gaming community is a bit underwhelmed by actual real-world performance now.

after having this xeon 6/12 theres no going back for me... 1600x will be my next purchase down the road unless intel can get in that price range.. do it.. post data

 

[Crystallas]

Welp, going to get boring for you guys, since I think I'm the only casual gamer here.

Also should note, for my personal tests, I dropped two sticks of ram to get a fair comparison, 32GB to 32GB. Just my own use cases, I don't care THAT much about synthetic benches or single threaded gaming for a number of reasons. Install took 13 minutes, which is 2m faster than the Xeon 2667v3 that it replaced. The DB module takes 73 seconds to initialize and use on the Xeon, on the Ryzen it's taking 61 seconds. OSSL 4096 was 734.20 on the Xeon and 862.60 on Ryzen(higher is better). Gzip tests were almost 2x as fast, and 7zip was about 20% quicker. The rest I'm dropping all memory in and I'm satisfied with what is essentially marginal improvements and more money in my pockets. Although, for what I'm doing, once kernel 4.11 is stable and GCC 6.4 is used, the gap will widen. AMD takes a bit to mature when new architectures come out, because all of the compilers for all systems have Intel optimizations but only AMD compatibilities. Once the AMD opts are in, everything will go up, making it a better long term system, at least for my purposes. I'll do power usage at the wall next. Noise profile is lower, obviously, can tune fans to lower speeds. Not that it was particularly loud before, but I have the fans running even lower speeds now.

 

[Monsieur Tirets]

Welp, going to get boring for you guys, since I think I'm the only casual gamer here.

Also should note, for my personal tests, I dropped two sticks of ram to get a fair comparison, 32GB to 32GB. Just my own use cases, I don't care THAT much about synthetic benches or single threaded gaming for a number of reasons. Install took 13 minutes, which is 2m faster than the Xeon 2667v3 that it replaced. The DB module takes 73 seconds to initialize and use on the Xeon, on the Ryzen it's taking 61 seconds. OSSL 4096 was 734.20 on the Xeon and 862.60 on Ryzen(higher is better). Gzip tests were almost 2x as fast, and 7zip was about 20% quicker. The rest I'm dropping all memory in and I'm satisfied with what is essentially marginal improvements and more money in my pockets. Although, for what I'm doing, once kernel 4.11 is stable and GCC 6.4 is used, the gap will widen. AMD takes a bit to mature when new architectures come out, because all of the compilers for all systems have Intel optimizations but only AMD compatibilities. Once the AMD opts are in, everything will go up, making it a better long term system, at least for my purposes. I'll do power usage at the wall next. Noise profile is lower, obviously, can tune fans to lower speeds. Not that it was particularly loud before, but I have the fans running even lower speeds now.

the thing im most surprised about is during all the hype people kept referring to how well it would do in recent heavily threaded cpu bound games such as bf1 and wd2 and yet the 7700k crushes it even in those games, and dx12/vulkan doesnt change things much. overall it performs on par with recent i5s in games, but often with worse fps dips. and its ridiculous that amd actually suggested reviews benchmark at 1440p+, essentially taking the cpu out of the equation(where it still happens to lose out). i had a feeling when the only gaming benches amd showed leading up to release whe re at 4k.

like i originally thought, its a great content creation/muli-threaded workload cpu, and a solid performing 8c 16t cpu for 330 bucks is a great deal for the right person. but for gaming there are better options. it kind of sucks for the market and the industry that its a bit of a disappointment in gaming(the largest market in the dying desktop market), and overall its not great for consumers, intel prices will stay put(thankfully theres microcenter) but for this individual consumer at least i dont have to suffer buyers remorse in regards to going z170.

 

[Crystallas]

the thing im most surprised about is during all the hype people kept referring to how well it would do in recent heavily threaded cpu bound games such as bf1 and wd2 and yet the 7700k crushes it even in those games, as well as in dx12/vulkan benches. like i originally thought before getting sucked into the hype, its a great content creation/muli-threaded workload cpu, but for gaming there are better options.

Like I said, I'm a casual gamer at best. I don't follow all that stuff. If I were going after an application that specifically targeted single thread as the main use case, then obviously, you build a machine that has the most benefit to you. Also, I'm not here to answer for bad speculation on shit reviewsites. This happens with every release. Skylake was supposed to be a massive leap over Haswell, but it would up not being much of anything. Everyone does this misleading jargon that leads to bad speculation, that leads to unmade promises that felt like they were broken. It's stupid, but you learn to read between the lines. Like I said, I would be perfectly happy with the machine you built.

The big question is, have those games released optimization patches for Ryzen(it's going to sell millions upon millions of units, so I see no reason not to)? Because to me it's silly that in 2017 that so many applications and games that are single threaded are even relevant. Everyone had plenty of time to optimize for multithreaded machines, and Intel will even follow design models in the future to push the industry to that direction. It's silly, devs need to get their shit together. The reason they don't optimize for higher core systems, is because for whatever reason 2 core systems are still sold as a solution to yield issues. It's not forward thinking whatsoever, instead it's just a way to flood the market with low end PCs that wind up in the trash after a year, super eco-friendly

 

[Crystallas]

Crys, you think this would be a good opportunity for me to build the machine I was talking about to serve as my box for video editing/processing?

What purpose(s) do you intend for the box you are building with Ryzen?

Prices are dropping, sure. This is a good time to spec your build. I have such a different philosophy on how to accomplish that goal, as we've discussed, and the only time I'm on a windows system, is when I'm backing up files to install linux. So I wouldn't be much help in specifics.


This machine is my business workstation. It runs samba and databases, budget stuff, and is isolated to local networking. I'll also offload tasks onto other systems, like en/de stuff(encode/decode/decrypt/encrypt, not english german). Sometimes I'll chill and watch movies off the media server so I can keep my main system's screen and resources clean for massive CAD projects. CAD projects are considerably more intensive than any game, that's why all this is critical for people like me.

 

[Monsieur Tirets]

those games were constantly thrown around during the hype as games ryzen would shine in due to heavily relying on additional threads. and bf1 was the main showcase game used by amd themselves to show off ryzen(albeit at 4k only). and dx12/vulkan is all about taking advantage of additional threads, and yet the modern i7s outshine ryzen.

i know your probably trying to defend your purchase here a bit, but last year when i was debating over what to do when building my system i recall you saying single core performance will take precedent regardless of how threads programs become. and theoretically an extremely powerful single core would be preferable. at least for gaming. though i may have misread what you said.

 

[Crystallas]

I'm definitely clarifying why I made this purchase. To save $700 and get better performance and use less power. But I'm also stating that my use case and your use case are worlds apart. Also based on history, AMD optimizations are released later in compilers, so performance will only get better over time. Gamers would benefit from all of this if they make the purchase, even if the current landscape of ST applications aren't as favorable. Especially streamers who play the game, keep a web browser open in the background, stream the game, etc. Then it all adds up to why multithreaded focus is superior.

The big purchase is coming up later in the year for me. My main machine. What I need to see is who offers the best solution for SMP systems. I don't fanboy this stuff, so when that 28-core Xeon is finally out and Naples is finally out, I'm just going to buy whatever gets me the best of what I need. It's a waste of time to join a team and root for one over the other. The better one is, the better the other, competition and all that jazz.

 

[fatbeard]

those games were constantly thrown around during the hype as games ryzen would shine in due to heavily relying on additional threads. and bf1 was the main showcase game used by amd themselves to show off ryzen(albeit at 4k only). and dx12/vulkan is all about taking advantage of additional threads, and yet the modern i7s outshine ryzen.

AMD's SMT tech (Hyper-threading), which is actually superior to Intel's, is not being implemented correctly. That's why there are some funky benchmarks on the games that can really take advantage of multithreading. AMD is already working with game devs on a fix.

 

[botfly10]

the thing im most surprised about is during all the hype people kept referring to how well it would do in recent heavily threaded cpu bound games such as bf1 and wd2 and yet the 7700k crushes it even in those games, and dx12/vulkan doesnt change things much. overall it performs on par with recent i5s in games, but often with worse fps dips. and its ridiculous that amd actually suggested reviews benchmark at 1440p+, essentially taking the cpu out of the equation(where it still happens to lose out). i had a feeling when the only gaming benches amd showed leading up to release whe re at 4k.

like i originally thought, its a great content creation/muli-threaded workload cpu, and a solid performing 8c 16t cpu for 330 bucks is a great deal for the right person. but for gaming there are better options. it kind of sucks for the market and the industry that its a bit of a disappointment in gaming(the largest market in the dying desktop market), and overall its not great for consumers, intel prices will stay put(thankfully theres microcenter) but for this individual consumer at least i dont have to suffer buyers remorse in regards to going z170.

I still think the idea of "heavily cpu bound" games is being greatly overstated. Games just don't take good, efficient advantage of multiple threads at this point. Even when games peg multiple cores at or near 100%, most of the instructions are still being fed through one core. It's a fact that single thread performance ultimately wins in gaming. At least until games start getting developed to explicitly leverage high thread counts.

 

[Ares]

Prices are dropping, sure. This is a good time to spec your build. I have such a different philosophy on how to accomplish that goal, as we've discussed, and the only time I'm on a windows system, is when I'm backing up files to install linux. So I wouldn't be much help in specifics.


This machine is my business workstation. It runs samba and databases, budget stuff, and is isolated to local networking. I'll also offload tasks onto other systems, like en/de stuff(encode/decode/decrypt/encrypt, not english german). Sometimes I'll chill and watch movies off the media server so I can keep my main system's screen and resources clean for massive CAD projects. CAD projects are considerably more intensive than any game, that's why all this is critical for people like me.

I don't even Linux bro

 

[Monsieur Tirets]

and people have talked about games becoming more about core count/threads for years and years and it still hasnt really happened. even in watch dogs 2 which was benched by ryzen reviewers due to the fact that its known to evenly spread the load across as many cores as possible, ryzen still gets crushed by the 7700k. and it doesnt beat out the intel chips in dx12 ashes benches either which is amds darling. if that game(which is as much an amd benchmark as a game) wasnt optimized for ryzen all this talk about future optimization magically fixing gaming performance is just more marketing bullshit. same goes with it supposed better smt. fixing it might bring performance up to where it is where it off and thats probably about it. all this time leading up to launch, years of hype, but they didnt bother to make sure shit was ready to launch? its essentially the fx chips all over, great multi threaded performance (at least at the time) but shit gaming performance. granted its not nearly as disappointing and they can at least compete now, but in the end the chips were hyped to hell and failed to live up to it and now they are in damage control mode. they did they same thing with the fx chips..."wait for optimization."

plus theres the fact that 4 core intel chips make up the majority of the gaming market, a fact that isnt going to change anytime soon, meaning any game currently in development or entering development in the next few years will enter said development with that fact in mind. plus 4 core ryzens will likely be the best selling syzen chips. and with dx12s/vulkans purpose being to take the cpu out of the equation as much as possible, if anything in gaming the cpu will matter even less going forward. then theres vr where single threaded 1080p performance becomes even more important, if you believe vr is the future. which i dont.

i like amd as an underdog and intel might do some shady shit, but lets not pretend amd wouldnt take advantage if they were in position themselves, but amd annoys the hell out of me in regards to how they run their company nowadays. they come across like incompetent fools constantly shooting themselves in the foot over and over, hyping the shit out of their next product, as if it were the greatest thing on earth, just to disappoint and making themselves look foolish. and then its the same shit all over again. they put themselves in their current position and gave intel the opportunity to take over the market. though i am happy with my 390 and i am looking forward to vega. doesnt hurt that their gpu side of things is now its own separate division.

anyway, in the end i think im going to be happy with my 7700k for some time. yeah, i decided to go with the 7700k. if i already had a 6700k then it wouldnt be worth it but since im upgrading from an i5 i might as well just go with the newer chip. for someone building a pc right now ryzen is definitely worth considering, but for straight gamers its defiantly not worth upgrading to if your on a modern i5/i7. which most people interested in gaming already have. hence all the 2500/2700 still going strong. and those building a new system, unless the are dead set on amd, are still going to keep going with intel i5/7s do to reputation and brand name alone. meaning 4 cores will continue to dominate the market and keep the necessity of 8+ threads far in the future for gaming. by the time such a thing is required every current chip on the market will likely have been long obsolete.

just realized i ranted a bit there, and went on a bit of a tangent. lol my apologies. im admittedly a little happy about my z170 platform not being rendered completely obsolete by ryzen like the crazy hype was seeming to suggest.

 

[botfly10]

Even if the 7700K is a bit overpriced compared to the 6700K, it will be fun as **** to be running 5.0+ gHz. I would think about getting one if I already had a mobo.

Plus, for me anyway, I stick with a CPU for long as ****, so might as well go all out when making a change.

 

[botfly10]

Also, tellin you guys, hardwareswap is way better than ebay if you are trying to buy stuff (though ebay is better for selling).

 

[AussieBear]

and people have talked about games becoming more about core count/threads for years and years and it still hasnt really happened. even in watch dogs 2 which was benched by ryzen reviewers due to the fact that its known to evenly spread the load across as many cores as possible, ryzen still gets crushed by the 7700k. and it doesnt beat out the intel chips in dx12 ashes benches either which is amds darling. if that game(which is as much an amd benchmark as a game) wasnt optimized for ryzen all this talk about future optimization magically fixing gaming performance is just more marketing bullshit. same goes with it supposed better smt. fixing it might bring performance up to where it is where it off and thats probably about it. all this time leading up to launch, years of hype, but they didnt bother to make sure shit was ready to launch? its essentially the fx chips all over, great multi threaded performance (at least at the time) but shit gaming performance. granted its not nearly as disappointing and they can at least compete now, but in the end the chips were hyped to hell and failed to live up to it and now they are in damage control mode. they did they same thing with the fx chips..."wait for optimization."

plus theres the fact that 4 core intel chips make up the majority of the gaming market, a fact that isnt going to change anytime soon, meaning any game currently in development or entering development in the next few years will enter said development with that fact in mind. plus 4 core ryzens will likely be the best selling syzen chips. and with dx12s/vulkans purpose being to take the cpu out of the equation as much as possible, if anything in gaming the cpu will matter even less going forward. then theres vr where single threaded 1080p performance becomes even more important, if you believe vr is the future. which i dont.

i like amd as an underdog and intel might do some shady shit, but lets not pretend amd wouldnt take advantage if they were in position themselves, but amd annoys the hell out of me in regards to how they run their company nowadays. they come across like incompetent fools constantly shooting themselves in the foot over and over, hyping the shit out of their next product, as if it were the greatest thing on earth, just to disappoint and making themselves look foolish. and then its the same shit all over again. they put themselves in their current position and gave intel the opportunity to take over the market. though i am happy with my 390 and i am looking forward to vega. doesnt hurt that their gpu side of things is now its own separate division.

anyway, in the end i think im going to be happy with my 7700k for some time. yeah, i decided to go with the 7700k. if i already had a 6700k then it wouldnt be worth it but since im upgrading from an i5 i might as well just go with the newer chip. for someone building a pc right now ryzen is definitely worth considering, but for straight gamers its defiantly not worth upgrading to if your on a modern i5/i7. which most people interested in gaming already have. hence all the 2500/2700 still going strong. and those building a new system, unless the are dead set on amd, are still going to keep going with intel i5/7s do to reputation and brand name alone. meaning 4 cores will continue to dominate the market and keep the necessity of 8+ threads far in the future for gaming. by the time such a thing is required every current chip on the market will likely have been long obsolete.

just realized i ranted a bit there, and went on a bit of a tangent. lol my apologies. im admittedly a little happy about my z170 platform not being rendered completely obsolete by ryzen like the crazy hype was seeming to suggest.

i guess it comes down to what you want out of your system. workstation, gaming, all rounder.. and what price you are willing to pay

since jan 7700k has come down from 540 to 475 aud depending on where you get it in oz..

1800x $662 (aud) vs 6850k 859 (aud) 6900k 1339 (aud) vs 5960x 1503 (aud)

for what i need to do.. im happy with my old cheap potato

 

[Monsieur Tirets]

Even if the 7700K is a bit overpriced compared to the 6700K, it will be fun as **** to be running 5.0+ gHz. I would think about getting one if I already had a mobo.

Plus, for me anyway, I stick with a CPU for long as ****, so might as well go all out when making a change.

yeah, as much as id like to say yeah, im rocking an 8c 16t machine, the idea of rocking a modern 8 threaded cpu at 5ghz sounds just as appealing. though im not sure ill be able to hit it with my mid level air cooler. its a solid cooler(cryorig h7) but i dont know if its good enough to hit 5ghz on air. we shall see.

on a side note, 6 core mainstream coffee lake might still be on the 1151 socket as well, meaning yet another potential upgrade path. and if not the 7700k will still be more than enough.