• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

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

Bonjour said:
Just like an entire iteration of the P4 following the A64's launch.
Click to expand...

So true

come to think of it i never liked Intel always thought they where way overpriced even back in the 486 days but hats off to Intel with the core 2 & on ward times...

If i could i would have stuck with AMD but hard to resist that core 2 performance

glad there back in the game for all of us ...

Anybody else have a bad taste in the mouth re Intel and there trickle drip feeding performance and sky rocket prices per core ?
 
~>Dg<~ said:
specualtion much the 7700k is still going to be quicker than most of you mention yet with no knowledge the new stuff is quicker lol.amd pulled a blinder here they got people buying on speculation with no benchmarks.i can tell you now when the actual benchmarks hit and people see chips like 7700k still ahead and with price reductions its going to make fun reading.

i love that amd have a decent range of cpus coming but just dont jump in double footed just yet.
Click to expand...
Everything I have seen you post has been knocking AMD are you that in love with your beloved intel that nothing can compare to it?
 
Spyhop said:
If you look at the alleged full Ryzen Lineup, there are two models at each ?c?t grade: one X, one non-X. Except 8c16t where there are 3 models.

I'm starting to think they got better yields of working 8c16t parts than they expected and so crammed in an extra cheaper model at the last minute.

Probably what is now called the 1700X would have originally been called 1700.
Click to expand...

Could be a valid point ...but could be they had not so good yields hence we have the 1700

I would love to know how they sort these chips out what makes a chip be a 1700 or 1700x ,1800x

are the 1700 b grades of the X types ?

would love to know ....i personally can not see them having the time to pick sort out the good ones and just randomly stamp them who knows?
 
~>Dg<~ said:
specualtion much the 7700k is still going to be quicker than most of you mention yet with no knowledge the new stuff is quicker lol.amd pulled a blinder here they got people buying on speculation with no benchmarks.i can tell you now when the actual benchmarks hit and people see chips like 7700k still ahead and with price reductions its going to make fun reading.
.
Click to expand...

I keep seeing this. When you say we might see gaming benchmarks where the '7700K is ahead', what exactly are you expecting? 1,2,3,4 or 5 fps more? 90fps instead of 87 fps for the Ryzens?

Realistically, this is what we are talking about here, as 99.99% of gamers don't have a Titan X to expose the CPU as any kind of bottleneck and don't play at 720p. So you are talking about absolutely negligible and inconsequential 'leads' in average fps for the 7700K, if any.

I mean look:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10968...w-review-the-new-stock-performance-champion/8

This is the normal set-up for 'gamers' with a card on the level of a GTX 980 or 390X and as you can see, the 7700K's 'lead' over a 2600K is under FIVE fps. So I don't understand how people are expecting the 7700K to have anything other than an utterly inconsequential performance edge over the Ryzen's in normal set-ups.
 
harney said:
Could be a valid point ...but could be they had not so good yields hence we have the 1700

I would love to know how they sort these chips out what makes a chip be a 1700 or 1700x ,1800x

are the 1700 b grades of the X types ?

would love to know ....i personally can not see them having the time to pick sort out the good ones and just randomly stamp them who knows?
Click to expand...

Well, basing an assumption on the overclocked systems OCUK are listing and what Gibbo said the 1700 and 1700x are justabout making it to 4.0.

But the 1800x starts at 4.0 with a known boost depending on cooling to 4.1 before any overclocking, it's heavily pointing to it all being the same chip but binned.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
specualtion much the 7700k is still going to be quicker than most of you mention yet with no knowledge the new stuff is quicker lol.amd pulled a blinder here they got people buying on speculation with no benchmarks.i can tell you now when the actual benchmarks hit and people see chips like 7700k still ahead and with price reductions its going to make fun reading.

i love that amd have a decent range of cpus coming but just dont jump in double footed just yet.
Click to expand...

I did not say they will be faster than the 7700k, but even if they just bring IPC between Haswell and Skylake imho its just not worth to buy the 7700k. Its not 1.5 times faster, more like just a few percent, but it is 1.5 times more expensive.
 
Mtom said:
I did not say they will be faster than the 7700k, but even if they just bring IPC between Haswell and Skylake imho its just not worth to buy the 7700k. Its not 1.5 times faster, more like just a few percent, but it is 1.5 times more expensive.
Click to expand...

Only it isn't 1.5x the price, a 7700k is what, £50 more expensive than a 1700 and the same price as a 1700x
 
~>Dg<~ said:
specualtion much the 7700k is still going to be quicker than most of you mention yet with no knowledge the new stuff is quicker lol.amd pulled a blinder here they got people buying on speculation with no benchmarks.i can tell you now when the actual benchmarks hit and people see chips like 7700k still ahead and with price reductions its going to make fun reading.

i love that amd have a decent range of cpus coming but just dont jump in double footed just yet.
Click to expand...

You have to remember that most people are shelling out £800+ for near full systems. A lot of those people probably couldn't care less if there is a slight lead in most games being on clocked i7s as longer term, it's very likely the r7s will hold a big advantage. Then you have to consider the other uses outside gaming where again the r7 is in a different league. Coming from a 3770k at 4.3, I personally wouldn't buy a 7700k even if it cost £250. The gains just aren't worth the upgrade cost when you consider these r7s and coffee lake 6 core around 10 months away at what should now be reduced cost. The last few months have been a terrible time for full system upgrades.
 
Was just looking at my emails for when I bought my current system, my 2500k cost £165 (currently OC'd to 4.5Ghz), the Z68 mobo cost £125 and 8GB DDR3 1600mhz cost £35. That was in November 2011...

Currently eyeing up a 1700X with Asrock Taichi and 32GB DDR4 for roughly £800 compared with £325 for my previous machine... I can't help but think it's going to cost me over twice as much and probably won't last 6 years like my current machine!
 
Boot_Loop said:
I keep seeing this. When you say we might see gaming benchmarks where the '7700K is ahead', what exactly are you expecting? 1,2,3,4 or 5 fps more? 90fps instead of 87 fps for the Ryzens?

Realistically, this is what we are talking about here, as 99.99% of gamers don't have a Titan X to expose the CPU as any kind of bottleneck and don't play at 720p. So you are talking about absolutely negligible and inconsequential 'leads' in average fps for the 7700K, if any.

I mean look:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10968...w-review-the-new-stock-performance-champion/8

This is the normal set-up for 'gamers' with a card on the level of a GTX 980 or 390X and as you can see, the 7700K's 'lead' over a 2600K is under FIVE fps. So I don't understand how people are expecting the 7700K to have anything other than an utterly inconsequential performance edge over the Ryzen's in normal set-ups.
Click to expand...

Ey someone sees the light. Gpus do all the work in gaming, i might loose 5fps from my intel going to ryzen but what happens when games like ashes that support 8 cores come out. Then what :p
 
Techen said:
Ey someone sees the light. Gpus do all the work in gaming, i might loose 5fps from my intel going to ryzen but what happens when games like ashes that support 8 cores. Then what :p
Click to expand...

Not completely true.

Single player it usually is the GPU but start stacking up the players in multiplayer and the CPU can become more important.

Problem is that kind of benchmark is not common.
 
Hotwired said:
Not completely true.

Single player it usually is the GPU but start stacking up the players in multiplayer and the CPU can become more important.

Problem is that kind of benchmark is not common.
Click to expand...

Thats also not entirely true. Its not players that stress the cpu too much thats networking. Its AI hence Ashes does do well with more cores.
 
So it's all very exciting and I get a little upgrade itch like anyone else, but realistically is there any point for me?
I see all these % increases and improvments over X/Y/Z generation or comparitive chips, but even with my old 2500K @ 4.5GHz will I ACTUALLY notice any real difference? The most tasking thing I'd do is gaming, and currently at 3440x1440 with a GTX 1070 and aforementioned CPU I don't have any problems with The Witcher 3 at the moment. Admittedly I haven't even checked frame rate since owning my x34a but what's the point if I don't notice any problems..

Seems people get carried away with academic results :p (Each to their own might I add)

Not sure what point I'm trying to make but whereas the 1070 was a big upgrade over my pathetic 6970, even an old 2500K doesn't strike me as being problematic in real life application.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom