*** AMD "Zen" thread (inc AM4/APU discussion) ***

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I think the problem is your attitude is mostly condescending for the majority of your posts, i think most people are wise to you now and your attitude and are quite frankly at their limit of tolerance.

People come to these forums to learn as well as gossip / chat nonsense / rumor products, and attitudes like yours put off people who want to ask questions but dont want to be ridiculed off these boards for doing so.

Anyhow, no new RyZen news today, whens the next show they are likely to demo stuff? is it not end of this month?

He is doing it in the Pentium G4560 thread too - it can't hit 60FPS constant,blah,blah when there are games out there even with an overclocked Core i7 which can't do it or people don't even have a strong enough graphics card either. The sad thing it actually makes people seriously consider getting a console instead of a budget PC.

That's the sad thing - the oneupmanship E-PEEN promoted by companies in the last 5 years has lead to a new generation of "enthusiasts" who are detached from the reality of what most realworld PC gamers actually have or buy.

It makes me wonder how many survived gaming 10 or even 20 years ago TBH,or even the roots of the enthusiast genre.

Even with Ryzen it will be the pricing and performance of the 4C and 4C/8T which will ultimately be more important IMHO for mass market sales for DIY builds.

 

[SiDeards73]

I don't know who that is, sorry. I can tell you I don't have an AMD logo on my profile pics, though?

I do! im not ashamed to admit im an AMD fanboy, even though i currently have an Intel CPU and Nvidia GPU lol.. Still once Ryzen comes, if it betters my 4770k im moving across for more cores, and once Vega lands as long as it equals my 1070 Amp Extreme out of the box performance im moving over as i miss Freesync.

Just hoping AMD dont stick the price too high and the motherboards arent priced in the same region as Intel ones (dont think theres a reason they should be?) then again AMD and their not wanting to be a "budget" brand has me a little worried they will release both CPU's and GPU's with unrealistic price tags haha

 

[SiDeards73]

He is doing it in the Pentium G4560 thread too - it can't hit 60FPS constant,blah,blah when there are games out there even with an overclocked Core i7 which can't do it or don't even have a strong enough graphics card either. The said thing it actually makes people seriously consider getting a console instead of a budget PC.

I have an Xbox One and a PC, i play certain games on the Xbone as the controller method and a 65" TV is just better for them (Fifa, Forza, Lego Games even D3 plays better) but then theres plenty of games that are just so much better on the PC (ESO, FF14, CoD, BF:SW etc)

Generally i find controllers suck for FPS and MMO type games, but are brilliant for sports type games or platformer types, and PC is best for anything that requires a ton of keybinds or twitch reactions (FPS, MMO etc)

With that said, i dont think i could buy a low end PC that was barely console grade performance, as there is no point, a console is far cheaper, better off pumping your cash into a higher spec PC if your into playing games a lot, as it has a secondary use of being able to do many other functions ontop of game playing.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I have an Xbox One and a PC, i play certain games on the Xbone as the controller method and a 65" TV is just better for them (Fifa, Forza, Lego Games even D3 plays better) but then theres plenty of games that are just so much better on the PC (ESO, FF14, CoD, BF:SW etc)

Generally i find controllers suck for FPS and MMO type games, but are brilliant for sports type games or platformer types, and PC is best for anything that requires a ton of keybinds or twitch reactions (FPS, MMO etc)

With that said, i dont think i could buy a low end PC that was barely console grade performance, as there is no point, a console is far cheaper, better off pumping your cash into a higher spec PC if your into playing games a lot, as it has a secondary use of being able to do many other functions ontop of game playing.

The problem is the E-PEEN has gotten so bad,it seems a Core i3/Pentium with HT and a £150ish to £200ish card is obviously not worth it now. That is hardly a low end PC its only warped because people are spending £300+ for a 4C/8T CPU. A sub £200 graphics card is not low end - not even JPR calls it low end.

The reality of actually seeing most gamers in the realworld,is plenty have sub £300 cards and older/or cheaper CPUs.

There are plenty of games even with a modern Core i7 which will hit low FPS during intensive parts,ie,PS2 or Eve Online. FFS,Diablo 3 and even WoW. So many,and yet many will hit a decent 60FPS too.

Look on Steam - most people are on GTX970/R9 290 level performance at MOST and how many are running a Core i7?

Plenty are running older quad cores,and Core i3 type CPUs.

It annoys me forums tend to overstate the cost of PC gaming - I generally don't buy top end parts,yet I have still managed to get a better than console gaming experience despite this.

The thing is I knew so many PC gamers who ditched the PC for consoles,since they kept seeing on forums how you need to spend £300 on a graphics card and £200 on a CPU,etc to run a game.

I then actually showed them a well optimised budget gaming PC would do,and guess what for most intents and purposes they are PC gamers now.

Sure,you are going to get games which need silly amounts of hardware,etc but in the end we need to realise the PC is quite a flexible as a platform.

The thing is so many hardware review sites and forums are only really interested in top end,high margin hardware which did not used to be the case many years ago(think how PC modding started out for example),and IMHO it probably is one of the reasons why we are starting to see more and more YT channels talk about cheaper hardware,optimising games,etc,and they do seem to be getting more and more popular.

 

[Silent_Scone]

He is doing it in the Pentium G4560 thread too - it can't hit 60FPS constant,blah,blah when there are games out there even with an overclocked Core i7 which can't do it or people don't even have a strong enough graphics card either. The sad thing it actually makes people seriously consider getting a console instead of a budget PC.
.

You need more context, sorry. I'm not doing anything wrong. The tests you're speaking of were done on the same GPU, so even what you have given above isn't valid.

 

[humbug]

mmh... just in case i get branded a fanboy.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

You need more context, sorry. I'm not doing anything wrong. The tests you're speaking of were done on the same GPU, so even what you have given above isn't valid.

You viewpoint is not valid if you want to use "its not constant 60FPS so its meh" as a gold standard- even with a Core i7 there is no guarantee you will hit 60FPS constant in plenty of games. Try hitting 60FPS constant with a Core i7 in EVE during a large battle - the load is so huge you get time dilation. Its the same with a number of RTS games and MMORPGs,a Core i7 won't save you there.

Plus,what happens when you have a RX470/GTX1060 in the mix,which is not the GTX1080 or Titan X cards which are normally used - the difference narrows.

In the end,plenty of people have real-world budgets and for most games a Pentium G4560 and a RX470 will still do outdo a Core i5 7400 with a RX460/GTX1050.

Looking at deals online now,I can get a Pentium G4560,small SSD and a RX470/RX480 for around the same price as a Core i5 7400 and a GTX1050.

All the Pentium G4560 has done has made the Core i5 look overpriced and the Core i3 CPUs look even more overpriced.

It would also not surprise me,that in some online MMORPG games,the Core i5 won't be noticeably faster especially if they still only use two cores at most.

The thing is the Core i5s are so overpriced,is if AMD offers a Ryzen 4C CPU which can be overclocked for the price of a Core i5 7400,it still won't be as good value as a G4560 but it would be still far better than the current £100 to £200 Intel range.

Even with BW-E level IPC it won't be double the performance on average and Intel knows this.

They need to have a counter for it,so I think a cheaper sub £150 quad core is required even if it is locked.

 

[Silent_Scone]

You viewpoint is not valid if you want to use "its not constant 60FPS so its meh" as a gold standard- even with a Core i7 there is no guarantee you will hit 60FPS constant in plenty of games. Try hitting 60FPS constant with a Core i7 in EVE during a large battle - the load is so huge you get time dilation. Its the same with a number of RTS games and MMORPGs,a Core i7 won't save you there.

Plus,what happens when you have a RX470/GTX1060 in the mix,which is not the GTX1080 or Titan X cards which are normally used - the difference narrows.

In the end,plenty of people have real-world budgets and for most games a Pentium G4560 and a RX470 will still do outdo a Core i5 7400 with a RX460/GTX1050.

Looking at deals online now,I can get a Pentium G4560,small SSD and a RX470/RX480 for around the same price as a Core i5 7400 and a GTX1050.

All the Pentium G4560 has done has made the Core i5 look overpriced and the Core i3 CPUs look even more overpriced.

It would also not surprise me,that in some online MMORPG games,the Core i5 won't be noticeably faster especially if they still only use two cores at most.

The thing is the Core i5s are so overpriced,is if AMD offers a Ryzen 4C CPU which can be overclocked for the price of a Core i5 7400,it still won't be as good value as a G4560 but it would be still far better than the current £100 to £200 Intel range.

Even with BW-E level IPC it won't be double the performance on average and Intel knows this.

They need to have a counter for it,so I think a cheaper sub £150 quad core is required even if it is locked.

Sorry, don't understand why you've brought this into this thread? Are you looking for moral support? I've already replied to you.

 

[Stanners]

**This is getting tiresome, We see RTM after RTM and the very same people are then doing the same thing in another thread. This stops now or people will be suspended**

 

[Nelly]

This is the most in-depth coverage of the present leak information I've seen:
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-am4-processor-family-leak-r7-1800x-flagship/

I would say that's quite a credible original source; coolaler has always got new gear/info before the majority of people in the past.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I would say that's quite a credible original source; coolaler has always got new gear/info before the majority of people in the past.

It does contradict with what Lisa Su said about 3.4GHZ being the minimum base frequency for Ryzne UNLESS the base frequency is for different cTDP modes.

 

[Sargatanas2511]

It does contradict with what Lisa Su said about 3.4GHZ being the minimum base frequency for Ryzne UNLESS the base frequency is for different cTDP modes.

I took Lisa as meaning the top end will be at least 3.4Ghz (and were still testing to push that clock higher) but time will tell.

 

[Curlyriff]

In fairness I thought she meant across all chips but the above plus other notable conversations I have had via PM's/emails also suggest that was not the case and that she took the information wrong that she was asked to provide us.

I mean it shows their that the minimum clock speed for the highest of each range is 3.4GHz but that is not the same. The problem I have with the figures is I cannot see anywhere where 3.0GHz minimum is correct with the previous info I have seen for the R7 range.

What is to be noted is that these are base frequencies and so turbo speeds will be around 400Mhz more for them. However when we are seeing that lower core count isn't pushing the minimum GHz high enough to really compare to that of Intel still.

Bearing in mind we are talking Intel are doing 4.2GHz base - 4.5GHz turbo. The equvilant core count R5 1300/1400 are still 1GHz off.

I also don't believe this is a price competing and is a performance noted spreadsheet for their target market. It isn't looking like the info I saw numbers wise. The main product listing for the SKU's is similar to what I have seen but the other columns seem to be filled out based on logic from someone at the moment.

 

[drunkenmaster]

The fastest clock speed of an Intel chip with more than 4 cores is absolutely not 4.2Ghz. 3.6Ghz base 4Ghz turbo on an 8 core Zen would be beyond anything Intel offers at 8 or 10 core in regards to clock speeds.

 

[Curlyriff]

The fastest clock speed of an Intel chip with more than 4 cores is absolutely not 4.2Ghz. 3.6Ghz base 4Ghz turbo on an 8 core Zen would be beyond anything Intel offers at 8 or 10 core in regards to clock speeds.

Did you read what I said?

Bearing in mind we are talking Intel are doing 4.2GHz base - 4.5GHz turbo. The equivalent core count R5 1300/1400 are still 1GHz off.

Equivalent core count (ie 4 cores/8 threads) of the R5 1300/1400 series is still 1GHz off the speed that Intel are already providing for the last few years. That is what was stated and what I still find at odds.

It does question a few things about how AMD see multicore being the way forward still after all this time that at least for the mainstream that core speed up to 4 cores is still generally more important and if they are not able to match at this time still.

 

[humbug]

It does contradict with what Lisa Su said about 3.4GHZ being the minimum base frequency for Ryzne UNLESS the base frequency is for different cTDP modes.

It also contradicts what the CPU's were actually running at at CES.

3 Weeks to go....

 

[Curlyriff]

It also contradicts what the CPU's were actually running at at CES.

3 Weeks to go....

Why does it? For all things stated it was said that the CPU running at CES was running at 3.6GHz with turbo to 3.9GHz with F3 Stepping with F4 stepping at 4.0GHz. Which was expected to be the flagship chip.

That is the same as shown for the R7 series base clock in the table with 3.6GHz showing to be the highest. It doesn't state boost/turbo clock.

 

[humbug]

Why does it? For all things stated it was said that the CPU running at CES was running at 3.6GHz with turbo to 3.9GHz with F3 Stepping with F4 stepping at 4.0GHz. Which was expected to be the flagship chip.

That is the same as shown for the R7 series base clock in the table with 3.6GHz showing to be the highest. It doesn't state boost/turbo clock.

Maybe i'm misunderstanding Nelly's slide but it reads for all 8 core chips 3Ghz - 3.6Ghz.

Not 3.4Ghz - 3.9Ghz and 3.6Ghz - 4.0Ghz.

 

[Curlyriff]

Maybe i'm misunderstanding Nelly's slide but it reads for all 8 core chips 3Ghz - 3.6Ghz.

Not 3.4Ghz - 3.9Ghz and 3.6Ghz - 4.0Ghz.

Yeah I think you are. The chip that was used in the CES is base clock 3.6GHz

The slide there is showing that all the R7 range base clock will be between 3.0 & 3.6Ghz. The boost of 3.9/4.0GHz that we are expecting isn't stated anywhere, just the base clocks.

So from that we are expecting the lower end chips in the R7 range to be the 3.0GHz with a boost clock of 3.3/3.4GHz and the higher end to be the 3.6GHz with the boost of 4.0GHz for F4 stepping as confirmed.

 

[humbug]

Yeah I think you are. The chip that was used in the CES is base clock 3.6GHz

The slide there is showing that all the R7 range base clock will be between 3.0 & 3.6Ghz. The boost of 3.9/4.0GHz that we are expecting isn't stated anywhere, just the base clocks.

So from that we are expecting the lower end chips in the R7 range to be the 3.0GHz with a boost clock of 3.3/3.4GHz and the higher end to be the 3.6GHz with the boost of 4.0GHz for F4 stepping as confirmed.

None of AMD's chip's at CES ran as low as 3Ghz, it was 3.4Ghz+ and 3.6Ghz+.

So given that ^^^^ The slide citing 3Ghz is lower than the slowest chip at CES, thats what i said and its what i meant.

Its like you are on a different plane of reasoning to what's written in black and white.
Its not at all complicated nor does it have alternative meaning, it is just that the slowest chip at CES was running a minimum of 3.4Ghz and the slide stated a minimum of 3Ghz.... 3Ghz is a lower number than 3.4Ghz.