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

[Glaucus]

Even if the 4C/8T Ryzen is more like a Core i7 4770K for £200ish,I think for most people buying one of those and spending the £150 saved over the Core i7 7700K on a better graphics card makes more sense.

too true, is amd making any zen equivalent to the core m range for ultrabooks.

 

[Gibbo]

Was that on water or air?

240mm AIO

 

[labbby]

Somehow I don't think he'll get it. 8 pack said the same thing and look how he's being treated at the moment

I don't 8pack is being treated that way because of the over clocking side of things.. It has more to do with him stating most games only use single core that got him a bit of a lash back..

 

[Silent_Scone]

Somehow I don't think he'll get it. 8 pack said the same thing and look how he's being treated at the moment

I really don't care, it's born of people's anticipation and wanting more. Truth is, the price is what counts here. It's still exciting

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Kinda funny cos even if it was 25% if your getting 100fps in a game on Ryzen and 125fps on a clocked 7700k your not really going to notice it too much, if your using an adaptive sync monitor, your not going to notice it at all, only question is really minimums, and both of those chips will have you ok in that area.

Then you add that the 6C and 4C Ryzen CPUs will be cheaper than the Core i7 7700K,meaning you can plonk in a faster graphics card. Even if a 4C/8T Ryzen R5 1400X "only" matches a Core i7 4770K but is like £200ish,unless Intel drops the price of the Core i7 7700K,that £150 saved would mean the difference between an RX480 or GTX1060 and a GTX1070.

 

[Uriel]

Somehow I don't think he'll get it. 8 pack said the same thing and look how he's being treated at the moment

The thing is - does overclocking matter if the CPU is already bang for buck king at stock? Or if it's performance king at stock?

Had AMD been providing this sort of competition a few months ago, the 7700K would have probably been about 4.8GHz at stock and perhaps a little over £200 - don't you think?

 

[shankly1985]

I don't 8pack is being treated that way because of the over clocking side of things.. It has more to do with him stating most games only use single core that got him a bit of a lash back..

This, if five8five thinking he 8pack is getting bad treatment from overclocking, five8five clearly isn't reading this thread.

 

[Ayahuasca]

Great to see AMD back in the game, tempted to sell my 5820k setup just to have a play with something new.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The thing is - does overclocking matter if the CPU is already bang for buck king at stock? Or if it's performance king at stock?

Had AMD been providing this sort of competition a few months ago, the 7700K would have probably been about 4.8GHz at stock and perhaps a little over £200 - don't you think?

You see the problem is that the more some obsess about MOAR MHZ,the less likely Intel will drop prices since they will first try to sell MOAR MHZ as being MOAR important until Coffee Lake is out.

Then suddenly see how MOAR cores is suddenly important once Intel has it on a mainstream platform.

 

[DragonQ]

So, if the 1800X is ~9% faster than the 6900k...

It's about ~0.8% better IPC than Broadwell, with the rest of the gains coming from higher clocks.

So, I'd expect Skylake/Kaby Lake to be ~5% faster IPC than Ryzen.

Why? Skylake and Kaby Lake are barely 3% better than Broadwell in terms of IPC.

Kaby Lake, 7700k, will hit ~4.8GHz pretty reliably, 5GHz if you delid.

7700k is ~£50 cheaper than 1700X, and clocked 18.4% higher, so I'd expect ~24% better single thread performance than 1700X at stock, rising to 32% if overclocked to 4.8GHz. For less money.

Unless Ryzen really does overclock well, the 7700k is still a better buy for most people, only if you need 8 cores (and most people still don't) is Ryzen going to be worth it.

Sounds like you're forgetting about the 4c/6t and 6c/12t parts, which may clock slightly higher. Even if they don't and Kaby Lake has a near 1 GHz advantage, Ryzen will still be significantly cheaper.

 

[Legend]

So, if the 1800X is ~9% faster than the 6900k...

It's about ~0.8% better IPC than Broadwell, with the rest of the gains coming from higher clocks.

So, I'd expect Skylake/Kaby Lake to be ~5% faster IPC than Ryzen.

Kaby Lake, 7700k, will hit ~4.8GHz pretty reliably, 5GHz if you delid.

7700k is ~£50 cheaper than 1700X, and clocked 18.4% higher, so I'd expect ~24% better single thread performance than 1700X at stock, rising to 32% if overclocked to 4.8GHz. For less money.

Unless Ryzen really does overclock well, the 7700k is still a better buy for most people, only if you need 8 cores (and most people still don't) is Ryzen going to be worth it.

Well it's obviously not going to be a mid 20% difference in real world FPS figures in games. As already mentioned, plenty of games can use extra cores, and even those that don't, the difference won't be as great as you say. Besides, although it's not necessary, the big bump you get de-lidding a 7700K is nice, but it obviously voids the warranty... so that needs to be factored in. I HATE that you have to do this to get the best performance from it, and on principle alone it's made me stay well clear of Kaby. Intel just p*ss me off generally with their pricing... I'd far rather support AMD personally, Intel need a wake up call.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

too true, is amd making any zen equivalent to the core m range for ultrabooks.

Lisa Su said something about the Ryzen APU for laptops towards the end of the year IIRC.

 

[SiDeards73]

Then you add that the 6C and 4C Ryzen CPUs will be cheaper than the Core i7 7700K,meaning you can plonk in a faster graphics card. Even if a 4C/8T Ryzen R5 1400X "only" matches a Core i7 4770K but is like £200ish,unless Intel drops the price of the Core i7 7700K,that £150 saved would mean the difference between an RX480 or GTX1060 and a GTX1070.

Yeah like i said i bet you can prob build a 1070 6c/12t Ryzen Rig for less than £1k.

 

[shankly1985]

The thing is - does overclocking matter if the CPU is already bang for buck king at stock? Or if it's performance king at stock?

Had AMD been providing this sort of competition a few months ago, the 7700K would have probably been about 4.8GHz at stock and perhaps a little over £200 - don't you think?

Someone pointed out couple pages back that years ago the high end CPU was never the very good overclockers anyway, it was the lower priced CPU that was the overclocking Chips that brought them closer to the higher tier chips making them better bang for buck.

I have overclocked my i7 3770k to 4.5 and now back on 4.2 and I can honestly say 4.5 for gaming is pointless they just isnt worth the extra heat from the chip. To me CPU overclocking only helps to a point over stock unless you can gain 1 GHZ anything in between adds very little.
For example going from
3.2 to 4.2 is a nice gain,
3.5 to 4.5 = nice gain
3.2 to 3.8 = very little gain
3.8 to 4.2 = very little gain
3.8 to 4.8 - nice gain

In performance

 

[haszek]

I wonder how is MSI Titanium doing mem/oc wise...

 

[HeX]

Yes the more phases on VRM's the better, because the VRM's are the weak link on the lower-end boards when overclocking, end of the day you get what you pay for with motherboards when it comes to VRM and power phase.

You don't happen to know which mATX board has the most VRM/Power Phases?

 

[SiDeards73]

Welp me minds made up....

Spoiler

My 4770k is getting relegated to the kids, its time to get my Ryze On!

 

[ltron]

I am not biased towards either!

But we just tested a 1700, it hit 4.0GHz stable in everything, but ONLY in the Crosshair mainboard, the lower-end boards it was hovering around 3.80GHz as the VRM's were cooking with extra voltage. It however was maxing around 4050MHz, so I'd say 1700 can do 3.9-4.1GHz, of course the 1800X will probably do 4.1-4.3 as no doubt better binned, but if your clocking the motherboard has a big impact on the overclock and so far Asus Crosshair and Asrock Taichi seem the best two.

I say it how it is, Intel is still selling and always will, we have no exposure on Intel.

What do you think about the MSI XPower Titanium? I've got my eye on this and it looks to be of very good quality. It's also the most expensive so I wouldn't want to buy an inferior board for more. The Carbon looks good too, any thoughts on this?

I have two family members waiting to buy and I'm helping them pick the best components for their needs. I'm feeling a bit jealous and am half tempted to sell my 5820k system and get one for myself too.

 

[humbug]

I'm interested in the 6 core ones, they are more affordable to me, with less cores they may even clock a little higher, they don't need to clock a lot high to match KabyLake core for core.

 

[humbug]

Welp me minds made up....

Spoiler

My 4770k is getting relegated to the kids, its time to get my Ryze On!

well will you look at that, across what, 15 games? the low clocked 6 core performs better than the high clocked 4 core........

Predictably, even the 1600X would probably match the 6800K in those. its the one i'm going to go for... ya'all can keep yer peasant 4 cores chips