• Hardware

  • AMD has Ryzen - Ryzen 7 announced - 1700 / 1700x / 1800x

anayman_k7 wrote Check this out, and also, 2000$ CPU and 2 of those also! CMON! What are you compiling? GOOGLE?
i have a solution for ISPs(almost my own OS), that is compiled from sources, starting from linux kernel, ending golang programs.
Often when i change some options under the hood it is better to rebuild all, because it might have some dependencies, that will change with this option.
https://openbenchmarking.org/showdown/pts/build-linux-kernel
Here you can see E5-2690 with 30 seconds and 4770K - 109.27 seconds quite huge difference.
MrClass wroteSee AMD is missing the point. They are just trying to get back into the game. They want to just reach the same performance level as Intel, but not exceed it. If AMD wants to gain back part of the market share (basically stealing customers from Intel), they should give us a reason. It's is not easy to do so with their current lineup. Should have they released a processor with faster clocks than a 7700K and more/equal cores to let's say a 6950X for cheaper cost, people would switch instantly. But now you'll see people are not that interested, they are happy with what they have and don't have the incentive to switch.
For many of my servers key question is power efficiency + computing cost. AMD in latest model are much better than Intel in such aspects.
I was looking for a 1700 review and I found this one, this dude managed to OC it to 3.9Ghz at 1.3v and max temo was 57c on air cooling, the amazing thing is the gaming benchmarks, neck to neck the 5Ghz 7700k, I don't know what to believe anymore, maybe the 1800x needs some driver/bios tweak and the 1700 doesnt have such issues! I'll wait more 1700 reviews

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5RP1CPpFVE&feature=youtu.be
This is really reminding me of when the C2D CPUs starting coming out (2007 i think ?) and everyone said intel is back into the game after all the crap with the socket 478 CPUs.
Now I really hope AMD does the same thing and gets back into the game, we really need some competition in the CPU market and better prices.

Heres a review from linus tech and its mostly positive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wJQEHNYE7M&t=405s
anayman_k7 wrote
Future is bright, competition is back, we all win
Yes I want AMD to compete. We customers want more options and we all hate monopolies.

I wish more science was put into this to leap forward. We are nearing the max potential of a silicon based chip. Light is indeed the right direction. Just a matter of time till we discover how to harvest and integrate it into the digital world
nuclearcat wrote For many of my servers key question is power efficiency + computing cost. AMD in latest model are much better than Intel in such aspects.
Indeed I don't deny that AMD is now the king of power workstations. My only concern was that they promised a processor that will topple all Intel processors in all operations. But unfortunately was not the case for some scenarios like gaming.

I would definitely recommend Ryzen if someone asked me what specs needed to build a rendering machine; indeed it costs a fraction compared to Intel.

Do you think they'll release boards that have dual CPU sockets? Or that is not compatible with the Ryzen series?
I dont think dual cpu will be possible on non-server CPU's, after vendors started to embed north bridge functionality, such as memory controllers - to CPU.
17 days later
Forgot to wrote - i got it. Totally worth it and match my expectations.
nuclear@nuclear-desktop:~$ lscpu
...
Model name: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Eight-Core Processor
14 days later
Still an 2014 4th Generation i7 4790 that is released in 2014 beats an 1700x in gaming , for pure gaming I will stick with intel and upgrade to Canon Lake (10nm)
Tech Guru wroteStill an 2014 4th Generation i7 4790 that is released in 2014 beats an 1700x in gaming , for pure gaming I will stick with intel and upgrade to Canon Lake (10nm)
Ryzen 5 are around the corner, 170$ for 4c/8t that is overclock-able on its stock cooler with 80$ motherboard, I'll take that over the cheapest i5 7400 any day in the week.

As for top performer, yes Ryzen7 even Ryzen5 1600x will not match the i7 7700k performance, but for what it offers for its cost, and the fact it doesnt bottleneck any gpu in normal cases (which is not playing at 720p using low preset), also add the fact that a simple game update will drastically change the performance like in Ashes Of Singularity also BIOS updates improved FPS on Hitman/Tomb Raider.

AMD are back to their playground with a good CPU that will force Intel to reduce the prices of normal CPUs and the stupid prices of workstation CPUs.
anayman_k7 wrote
Tech Guru wroteStill an 2014 4th Generation i7 4790 that is released in 2014 beats an 1700x in gaming , for pure gaming I will stick with intel and upgrade to Canon Lake (10nm)
Ryzen 5 are around the corner, 170$ for 4c/8t that is overclock-able on its stock cooler with 80$ motherboard, I'll take that over the cheapest i5 7400 any day in the week.

As for top performer, yes Ryzen7 even Ryzen5 1600x will not match the i7 7700k performance, but for what it offers for its cost, and the fact it doesnt bottleneck any gpu in normal cases (which is not playing at 720p using low preset), also add the fact that a simple game update will drastically change the performance like in Ashes Of Singularity also BIOS updates improved FPS on Hitman/Tomb Raider.

AMD are back to their playground with a good CPU that will force Intel to reduce the prices of normal CPUs and the stupid prices of workstation CPUs.

I am interested to see if AMD with Ryzen 5 fixed some serious issues with Ryzen 7 that affected the raw performance of the CPUs:

AM4 Mothboards Bios Frimware
Memory Compatiblity Issues
Windows 10 Scheduling Issues

But in general AMD used a very bullish marketing stategy in the pre-Ryzen release period , and stated very big promises, especially beating Intel , it nailed the over all performance increaae compared to old gen AMD CPUS and closed the gap with Intel to a large extent but not matching their "exaggerated" promises.
It is not "exaggerated" promises, they are very real, as i use 1800X and i am more than satisfied with performance and stability.
They did beat Intel in Cinebench if you compare the 1800x with 6900k, yes they exaggerated but a 500$ workstation CPU that is few percentage slower than a 1050$ CPU, also it has much less power consumption 95w vs 140w, You cant say NO for that! can you!
anayman_k7 wroteThey did beat Intel in Cinebench if you compare the 1800x with 6900k, yes they exaggerated but a 500$ workstation CPU that is few percentage slower than a 1050$ CPU, also it has much less power consumption 95w vs 140w, You cant say NO for that! can you!
As a Gamer Enthusiast I will always go with an Intel + Nvidia Combination less compatibility issues and more performance. Competition is healthy for the end customers and Intel is "obligied" now to cut their CPU prices & if that happened it will be very problematic for AMD.
Tech Guru wrote
anayman_k7 wroteThey did beat Intel in Cinebench if you compare the 1800x with 6900k, yes they exaggerated but a 500$ workstation CPU that is few percentage slower than a 1050$ CPU, also it has much less power consumption 95w vs 140w, You cant say NO for that! can you!
As a Gamer Enthusiast I will always go with an Intel + Nvidia Combination less compatibility issues and more performance. Competition js healthy for the end customers and Intel is "obligied" now to cut their CPU prices & if that happened it will be very problematic to AMD.
Compatibility issues with Ryzen is something to expect for a new Architecture, as for AMD Video cards they are more stable than Nvidia counter part (low freq bug with driver update, also 378.49 breaking steam hardware encoding, etc) and AMD drivers gets better with time unlike Nvidia where the benefit with time is minimal.

As a gamer Enthusiast as yourself that like to plays at 1440p 144hz you will find out that there is no difference between Intel and Ryzen for your use case :)

Edit: I was wrong, there is a difference, the GTX1080 Ti can bottleneck the 7700k so you never know, you might change your mind soon
anayman_k7 wrote
Tech Guru wrote
anayman_k7 wroteThey did beat Intel in Cinebench if you compare the 1800x with 6900k, yes they exaggerated but a 500$ workstation CPU that is few percentage slower than a 1050$ CPU, also it has much less power consumption 95w vs 140w, You cant say NO for that! can you!
As a Gamer Enthusiast I will always go with an Intel + Nvidia Combination less compatibility issues and more performance. Competition js healthy for the end customers and Intel is "obligied" now to cut their CPU prices & if that happened it will be very problematic to AMD.
Compatibility issues with Ryzen is something to expect for a new Architecture, as for AMD Video cards they are more stable than Nvidia counter part (low freq bug with driver update, also 378.49 breaking steam hardware encoding, etc) and AMD drivers gets better with time unlike Nvidia where the benefit with time is minimal.

As a gamer Enthusiast as yourself that like to plays at 1440p 144hz you will find out that there is no difference between Intel and Ryzen for your use case :)

Edit: I was wrong, there is a difference, the GTX1080 Ti can bottleneck the 7700k so you never know, you might change your mind soon
"Edit: I was wrong, there is a difference, the GTX1080 Ti can bottleneck the 7700k so you never know, you might change your mind soon" Give me the source mate , actually Nvidia with latest drivers boosted Direct 12 performance with a more efficient Asyn Compute. I am runnig the 1080ti now on an i7 4790 with no bottle necks witnessed using MSI after burner to monitor CPU/GPU usage , very stable experience on native 2160p with no stutter. Ryzen gaming performance still lags behind Intel and every additional fps matters on 1440p 144hz. My next major upgrade is Canon Lake (more likely to suppor DDR 5 Rams - JEDEC are currently developing the DDR5 Stamdards- comlined with Volta and HBM 2.0 as a GPU.
you are not playing at 720p low settings to simulate the bottleneck :)
6 days later
anayman_k7 wroteMacrotronics has listed Ryzen 7 CPUS

I checked the prices , they seem overpriced here and I7 7700K is more affordable.