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

[harney]

Intel and Nvidia have taken us consumers round the price gouging fun fair, hopefully AMD new graphics card can also equally dominate
nvidia so that consumers can get better and more fair price whatever brand they choose. I can finally upgrade my OLD AMD system with RYZEN and Vega.

I been waiting for ages AMD, about time.

Respect for holding out....

 

[humbug]

Enough of Intel's crap! hopefully yes nVidia are next....

 

[P.B]

im also holding high hopes for vega

 

[Thekwango]

if someone is a gamer they go with top performance.for their money.

So best bang for buck, yes?

So you're basically agreeing Ryzen is the better option?
Which is in stark contrast to everything else you're posting.

 

[Spyhop]

so while some games will use those extra cores and mp side the majority of console ports and such will most likely still favour faster core speeds.which intel still has in its bag.

The consoles have abysmal clock speeds compared to even the slowest R7 at stock.

So every console port always finds itself in a high clocked system.

 

[Thekwango]

Edit: random double post.

 

[RavenXXX2]

If the 1700 does not kill the 7700k off because of similar pricing, the 4Ghz 1600x hex core will at £250. My next CPU, Intel can do 1.

 

[awaybreaktoday]

Which will better for how I will use my PC:

Ryzen or Intel?

I want to game and stream to twitch, while doing this I also want to record game play. While these things are all going on my linux virtual machine in vmware workstation will be downloading torrents....

 

[AlamoX]

Core i7 7740K and i5 7640K : Kaby Lake-X on LGA2066
CPC article after they got their hands on some samples, and chat with few intel enginners, intel's response to AMDs Ryzen, it's an interesting read for those who haven't already, shows how the new kabylakeX is just a marketing stunt.
translation from french
Source : Canard PC

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Which will better for how I will use my PC:

Ryzen or Intel?

I want to game and stream to twitch, while doing this I also want to record game play. While these things are all going on my linux virtual machine in vmware workstation will be downloading torrents....

Read the reviews on Ryzen.

 

[labbby]

Which will better for how I will use my PC:

Ryzen or Intel?

I want to game and stream to twitch, while doing this I also want to record game play. While these things are all going on my linux virtual machine in vmware workstation will be downloading torrents....

I stream on twitch (feel sorry for me because i have no viewers). I tried using a 4790k and it was terrible, i went back to my 3930k and it was so much smoother with hardly any lag. I play at 4k and stream at 1080p. The cores made a massive difference.

On one of the ryzen videos it shows the ryzen 1700 playing dota whilst being streamed on twitch via OBS, There was also an intel machine doing the same ( cant remember the cpu ) the 1700 had no buffering issues but the intel one did.

 

[AlamoX]

Enough of Intel's crap! hopefully yes nVidia are next....

i can only imagine the hype if AMD anounced on the 28th feb, that Vega used to demo doom and battlefront, is Vega 11...not 10
but chances of that happening is like meh...

 

[Silent_Scone]

Was the 7700K iirc

 

[Boot_Loop]

http://www.pcgamer.com/intel-core-i7-7700k-review/

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02/cpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test/#diagramm-f1-2016-fps

These are talking about more modern games, but not games out in the last 2 months, the last 2 years I guess. Flick through the results, which do the 7700k win? The first link is to a GTX 1080 running mostly 1080p at higher settings, the 7700k loses multiple benchmarks, it wins some, winning and losing most results are within 1-2% anyway. The second link is at lower settings, showing 720 and 1080p(not sure on settings), which shows with less gpu limiting, the 7700k loses in almost every scenario to a chip that has a 3Ghz base clock and a 3.5Ghz boost. From most accounts it would seem Zen is basically beating the 6900k. A LOT of games use over 4 threads now, some use two.... as can be seen in pcgamer from The Division link where the i3 comes joint second, but is ahead of the stock 7700k... and, well it's obviously very CPU limited and within the margin or error on multiple runs basically. But that the i3 Kaby is second suggests clock speed matters as much as cores, but it has basically the same performance as a 6950x. I actually revise my statement, it doesn't use specifically 2 threads. It seems to scale brilliantly but runs equally well with two very fast threads as it does on many slower threads by the looks of it. So even then, it looks like a scalable engine rather than a clock speed limited one.

What evidence do you have that there are enough games out there that rely purely on clock speed for performance and have low thread count that make the more expensive 7700k better?


http://gamegpu.com/mmorpg-/-onlayn-igry/tom-clancy-s-the-division-test-gpu.html

Actually if you scroll down to the CPU test here for The Division... quite interesting. Under DX11 we get a 6700 at the top, a FX9370 is not that far behind it, higher mins then the 4770k. It's obviously older so doesn't have Kaby but the quad core Skylake is way ahead of dual core Skylake. But if you go to DX12... weird. Every single CPU has effectively 70fps minimum, from a 5960x, to a 6700, to a FX4100... yes, you read that right. Also everything down to a FX4300 all get effectively 101fps average.

So DX12 is just down right strange, DX11 gives more expected numbers and shows higher clocked quads not beating out lower clocked 8 core from the previous architecture, and not far ahead of an 8 core Piledriver.

So I'd ask again, in which newer games is a 7700k easily superior? We are noticeably past the point where games can effectively use more than 4 cores AND beyond the point where the majority of bigger performance requiring games do equally well if not better on more cores rather than higher clock speeds.

Yes, for gaming, the Ryzen's are the CPUs to get, or an Intel HEDT if you can get one for cheap.

The 7700K is going to have such a short shelf life.

 

[~>Dg<~]

So best bang for buck, yes?

So you're basically agreeing Ryzen is the better option?
Which is in stark contrast to everything else you're posting.

the better option is obvious . if you a gamer.its the fastest/ best performance in games which is a i7 7700k on avg over everything.its quite clear cut.yes you get a better probable all round system for multitasking with teh ryzen but for performance on gaming platforms the i7 7700k will be the choice.

 

[jigger]

I think the next year will see AMD do really well. If they follow Ryzen with strong APU's they'll take the graphics market. Open up the server market

the better option is obvious . if you a gamer.its the fastest/ best performance in games which is a i7 7700k on avg over everything.its quite clear cut.yes you get a better probable all round system for multitasking with teh ryzen but for performance on gaming platforms the i7 7700k will be the choice.

But back in the real world that will probably not be the case. The 7700K has never been the better option. Kaby lake is no better than the i7's that come before it...

 

[Boot_Loop]

i can only imagine the hype if AMD anounced on the 28th feb, that Vega used to demo doom and battlefront, is Vega 11...not 10
but chances of that happening is like meh...

RTG need to learn from AMD's CPU division. Raja needs to stop this ridiculous hype all the time and do the opposite - sandbag (is this what that means?). It not only means people are pleasantly surprised when performance is actually revealed, but more importantly, it means your rival doesn't know what you're bringing to the table.

AMD said 40% IPC advancement from last gen, and they just announced 53%. Now Intel has been caught with their pants around their ankles. Looks like they had no idea like the rest of us. If Raja is sensible, those demos would have been Vega 11 but we have been lead to believe they are the flagship Vega 10.

 

[Boot_Loop]

the better option is obvious . if you a gamer.its the fastest/ best performance in games which is a i7 7700k on avg over everything.its quite clear cut.yes you get a better probable all round system for multitasking with teh ryzen but for performance on gaming platforms the i7 7700k will be the choice.

Not for new games. More cores > higher frequency. The higher cores/threads on average are the gaming CPUs to get, not the 7700K.

https://videocardz.com/66354/core-count-vs-frequency-what-matters-for-gaming

 

[KrisWragg]

Sod it, ordered a 1700X, Asrock Taichi and an 960 evo 500GB. Order went wrong the first time, OC website said my bank declined the payment, then I got an SMS from the bank asking if I had tried to purchase and reply Y if yes, second time it went through OK

Going to pair it with a Noctua D15 for now, if it gets too toasty I'll look at a new case and a good AiO or finally go proper watercooled.

 

[~>Dg<~]

we on about a gaming machine with the better performance over games on the whole.will the ryzen do that over a 7700k ? nope. already seen some benchmarks.the i7 is quicker for gaming.its not a guess.it is quicker.so for just gaming a i7 7700k is the better option.

what would i buy ? for my pc i would go with a ryzen because i use it more than just gaming.