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

[~>Dg<~]

Blooming heck that 1600X is going to make the 7700K look like a joke at £100+ more expensive, especially with 2 less cores and 4 less threads.

if its faster it might.remember the 5ghz speed is gunna be close in 99 percent or faster than any of the amd stuff in games and many day to day uses.

people need to just inhale a little and breathe in fresh air and not helium

 

[humbug]

if its faster it might.remember the 5ghz speed is gunna be close in 99 percent or faster than any of the amd stuff in games and many day to day uses.

people need to just inhale a little and breathe in fresh air and not helium

There is nothing to say RyZen can't also run 5Ghz 99%, the XFR ones on a good board maybe even out of the box.

Besides that the 7700K only boosts 10 to 15% higher than RyZen, thats not going to be enough to justify £100 more for a two thirds comparison chip even if the RyZen chip don't boost past 4Ghz... in which case XFR would be a none thing.

 

[~>Dg<~]

some have already hinted and as by design the oc will be throttled.that doesnt sound like they going to oc well.that sounds like limited oc to me. maybe the process will be refined . later revisions.

 

[humbug]

some have already hinted and as by design the oc will be throttled.that doesnt sound like they going to oc well.that sounds like limited oc to me. maybe the process will be refined . later revisions.

"Some Have" Some here being you....

 

[~>Dg<~]

have you not read any of the articles linking oc to heat ?

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Oh goodness,this is going to be the Phenom II X4 vs Core2 quad stupid level of arguments again.

But,but its 8.37838% faster in Super PI,or overclocks 7.48923490% better.

I mean seriously,overclocking is a fad now with all these boost mechanisms since the CPUs run at higher clockspeeds - it used to mean something when you could overclock a 1.8GHZ E4300 to 3.1GHZ+ or a 2.4GHZ Q6600 to between 3.2GHZ to 3.6GHZ,its nothing but more one-upmanship now especially if you are not rocking a Titan X or something similar.

A few percent here or there is not going to make games like PS2 any better,and that is stupidly bottleneck during battles. Yes, that 30FPS minimum is so much better if it is 33FPS.

Edit!!

No wonder Intel released the £175 Core i3 7350K. I am going to wait until some wheel out the Core i3 7350K is better than a top bin Ryzen since they got their one to 4.8GHZ or something similar.

 

[humbug]

have you not read any of the articles linking oc to heat ?

Yes, like any CPU and GPU the key is always keeping it cool, Intel also have a TJmax, you can't just overclock it and run it at 150c, it will not have it, it will throttle.

Nothing abnormal about that, its a meaningless point to make.

 

[Hotwired]

Since when have auto settings allowed anything risky.

It boosts it boosts, you overclock it you fiddle the settings yourself.

How can you see an angle of DOOOOM in highly expected stuff like that.

 

[DragonQ]

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-full-lineup-pricing-clock-speeds-leaked/

Since these have unlocked multipliers, why would you buy the higher end ones?

Speculation is the -X ones have XFR and the others don't. Not sure if that matters if overclocking manually. They may or may not be binned also.

 

[~>Dg<~]

Yes, like any CPU and GPU the key is always keeping it cool, Intel also have a TJmax, you can't just overclock it and run it at 150c, it will not have it, it will throttle.

Nothing abnormal about that, its a meaningless point to make.

no about the boost is based on heat. so some are saying oc to this or that 4.5 when the base is pretty low . so realistically the launch speeds ocing like others have hinted will be pretty low.

 

[Spyhop]

Is the R5-1400X going to be a single-thread performance champ? Presumably it's the top-binned single "CCX" (4-core module) SKU, and it has XFR.

R5-1500 and above are presumably dual "CCX", sometimes with 2 cores disabled.

 

[humbug]

no about the boost is based on heat. so some are saying oc to this or that 4.5 when the base is pretty low . so realistically the launch speeds ocing like others have hinted will be pretty low.

Thats XFR.

The idea is, take the 1800X as an example, with its Wraith cooler its designed to run at 3.6Ghz to 4Ghz, as is the thermal efficiency of its boxed cooler.

Beyond that it may have some thermal ceiling left in the Wraith cooler, maybe its only running at 65c and has another 250Mhz to clock before it gets to 73c, so it will overclock another 250Mhz.

Or you may have a much better cooler running on it, so it may actually overclock its self another Ghz before it reaches 73c, so its actually running at 5Ghz, because its not reached its TJmax below that Mhz.

 

[muon]

The other important thing to note is that

6900K 140W TDP
1800X 95W TDP

I know the measures aren't directly comparable, but that is a big gap.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

no about the boost is based on heat. so some are saying oc to this or that 4.5 when the base is pretty low . so realistically the launch speeds ocing like others have hinted will be pretty low.

Who gives a rats arse anyhow - is it a 30% or 40% performance difference when both are overclocked?? Or are you measurebating if in super PI one is 10% faster than an other??

People like me and a few others actually play games like PS2,which are single thread bottlenecked,yet the framerates can crash so low,it makes no difference whether you have a 10% or 20% slower CPU anyway.

A lot of those single threaded bottlenecked games are based on ancient engines,and if a modern Core i7 overclocked at 4.5GHZ+ makes hardy a difference then its all silly on-upmanship which won't make much of any difference.

This is why we have stupid £175 Core i3 K series CPUs when two years ago you could a Haswell Xeon E3/Core i7 for something similar.

Even look at Digital Foundry who are the hardware test site of Eurogamer:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-intel-kaby-lake-core-i7-7700k-review

They test 7 games - two of them show virtually the same performance on a Core i5 or Core i7,even an IB one.

Four show scaling from a Core i5 to a Core i7 and only one actually seems to like faster cores over more cores.

All of them,outside the single RTS tested,push over 95FPS on a Titan X anyway.

If they tested a Ryzen 6C/8C with Haswell/BW-E level IPC,in six of those seven games tested it won't be loosing to a Core i7 7700K even if the latter is overclocked.

Looking at the pricing of the 4C and 4C/8T Ryzen CPUs under £200,those Core i5 7400 and Core i5 7500 not only won't have a massively clockspeed advantage but will be undercut in price,ability to overclocked by the 4C SKUs and will have less threads in similarly priced SKUs.

If AMD gets anywhere near Broadwell level IPC in gaming the £100 to £200 level Intel CPU range is absolutely going to get thrashed.

 

[Cooper]

CAT..

Why do you ALWAYS come across as being so angry about these things?

 

[Silent_Scone]

Don't expect XFR to scale drastically, you'll have a maximum turbo target which will operate within the specified TDP or there abouts.

It's not the most compelling feature, as anyone who wants to get the most out of these CPU will wind up manually overclocking them.

 

[~>Dg<~]

only reason i mentioned it is because of the guy on about the 7700k and making it look like a joke for £100 more.

thing is realistically the stock speeds of the amd chips and oc or boosting to anything close to 5ghz is basically not happening.

so the £100 difference may not be a joke or that bad.if you understand what i mean.

i dont think the first revisions will clock well.until they have got the process right

we will soon see.

 

[Davedree]

CAT..

Why do you ALWAYS come across as being so angry about these things?

what's more funny is how many edits are carried out from the first post.

 

[~>Dg<~]

most of the games in the bench also are not even great ones to show cpu gains.

as usual no one benches bf1 64 mp online.witcher can show massive gains depends where its benched.wow can in big raids.

 

[humbug]

only reason i mentioned it is because of the guy on about the 7700k and making it look like a joke for £100 more.

thing is realistically the stock speeds of the amd chips and oc or boosting to anything close to 5ghz is basically not happening.

so the £100 difference may not be a joke or that bad.if you understand what i mean.

i dont think the first revisions will clock well.until they have got the process right

we will soon see.

If the IPC and price turns out as rumoured I agree with him, even ignoring XFR completely its a 4Ghz 12 thread chip for £250 vs a 4.5Ghz 8 thread chip for £350.

IPC permitting at worst the 12 thread £250 RyZen is 90% the performance of the £350 8 thread Intel, at best the RyZen chip is 40% better.

Yeah, the 8 thread Intel at £100 more is a joke.