• 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) ***

flopper said:
I debated 8 or 6 but for my needs a 6 core fits perfectly.
I can wait and the cost wont be a factor at those price ranges.
Getting a Vega card along the way so have to fit the budget to
Click to expand...

At those prices, assuming the £ doesn't tank some more, and as said, you end up paying launch 1700 prices for a 1600X or whatever.
 
h4rm0ny said:
I didn't say that your reaction to Polaris was due to overclocking, just that you were - against what many of us kept telling you - expecting it to be much more powerful than it was. And then when it turned out to be what AMD consistently portrayed it as (an efficient and capable mid-range card at a lower price point), you railed against it. You got tripped up by your own expectations that people had kept trying to save you from all along. AMD's high-end cards are Vega and are yet to come.



Well I wont derail this thread by debating that here. Suffice to say I strongly disagree and if you do it to yourself all over again with Zen, don't say we didn't try.

RyZen seems to be an excellent chip - much better than most of us hoped a year ago. My own predictions were low 3GHz to 3.5GHz clocks and my chief worry was a poor IMC. Seems I was wrong on the clock speeds and I'm reserving judgement on memory performance till I see real reviews. (Though cautiously pleased to see Gibbo claiming capability up to 3200).
Click to expand...

You just did completely derail this thread by brining up a year old topic, you say i was expecting it to be more powerful as if that is not what i just told you i was expecting, lol...., again, that is exactly what i was expecting, after rehashing the 290/X once the last thing i expected was their top end GPU to be yet another one, ####### right i was upset, i had an AMD GPU in the past and was looking forward to having another one, two years with a 290 which they then rehashed to a 390, a year later with a 970 i was looking to AMD again having forgiven them for rehashing the 290 they practically did it again, "oh.... but its more power efficient" yes but its not faster and its not actually that power efficient is it?

Am i supposed to congratulate AMD on that ^^^^^?
 
Harlequin said:
I am still waiting for anyone to actually demonstrate when Intel have cut prices in the past in regard to a new launch? They were fined billions after they went and blackmailed the OEM`s when AMD had the lead last time , they didn't cut prices !
Click to expand...

Intel did react to AMD's final AM2 chips. But I guess they were just putting the final nail in the coffin.
 
humbug said:
You just did completely derail this thread by brining up a year old topic, you say i was expecting it to be more powerful as if that is not what i just told you i was expecting, lol...., again, that is exactly what i was expecting, after rehashing the 290/X once the last thing i expected was their top end GPU to be yet another one, ####### right i was upset, i had an AMD GPU in the past and was looking forward to having another one, two years with a 290 which they then rehashed to a 390, a year later with a 970 i was looking to AMD again having forgiven them for rehashing the 290 they practically did it again, "oh.... but its more power efficient" yes but its not faster and its not actually that power efficient is it?

Am i supposed to congratulate AMD on that ^^^^^?
Click to expand...

Yes it is power efficient, if you're lucky to get a decent sample. I think Adored sums it up nicely in this video:-


With improvements in yield and to the 14nm process since the Polaris launch last year, I think we'll see re-badged cards at much better clocks later this year.
 
mmj_uk said:
With clocks like that the only way Intel will be able compete is by slashing prices. It'll be an interesting decision to have to make if 6950X becomes super affordable.
Click to expand...
It's somewhat incredible that the 8 core processors have the HIGHEST clocks and out of everyone outside AMD the board makers have had the most time to fiddle about with chips and overclocks.

You'd expect lower core counts to have the best clock unless the best chips are being used to make the various grades of 8 core and everything below is a disabled 8 core o.0
 
Jokester said:
If they're offering 4.2GHz OC bundles, would be reasonably confident with decent cooling and proper tweaking that 4.4GHz+ is going to be achievable.
Click to expand...

I wonder if more recent BIOS updates have improved things. Memory support seems to be improving every day.

The numbers mentioned in these forums are now out of date. It seems hard to believe only the Crosshair is just about able to reach 4ghz.
 
PiKe said:
I haven't been following Ryzen for long as forgive me for not reading the previous 451 pages but what is the point of the 1700? The i7 7700 is a tenner more but appears to have better single threaded performance, all I keep seeing is cinebench results being banded around because of the multicore performance but games will not be written to take advantage of 8 does let alone 16 threads.
Click to expand...

If you play single thread 8 year old games, yes go buy a Kaby Lake.
Few pages back we posted numerous Kaby lake gaming reviews (15 games had one of them) against other CPUs. Is very interesting read, complete negating the argument "Kabylake is better for gaming"
One of the review showed that argument when used overclocked 7700K to 5.1Ghz. Way more than the significant majority of the users will ever try.

Found one of them

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

rotate the image with the 15 games.....
 
Hotwired said:
It's somewhat incredible that the 8 core processors have the HIGHEST clocks and out of everyone outside AMD the board makers have had the most time to fiddle about with chips and overclocks.

You'd expect lower core counts to have the best clock unless the best chips are being used to make the various grades of 8 core and everything below is a disabled 8 core o.0
Click to expand...
8 core wont be the highest clock, even though some leaks show that, i doubt reviewers or motherboard makers got any 4/6 cores samples yet, so whatever clocks in there are probably from what AMD told them few months back, when they were still working on the chip with no final clock.
i expect the 4 core ryzen to be 3.8-4ghz base, and 4.2-4.4ghz boost, 6 core was already offcialy announced with 3.6ghz base and 4ghz boost.
AMD is going to make 1800X best multi-threading performance, and the 1400X best single core performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom