• 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) ***

brigantium said:
They haven't, a guy posted it for fun on another web and wccftech copy and pasted.
Click to expand...

Yet,you made sure you actually ignored what he said and what loads of people translated here from the review. Its not a Ryzen 7 1700X - its an ES and it does not even have any markings on it like review samples or ones you can buy. The picture is there in the review.

The chap said both the CPU and the board were ES,and the board BIOS was buggy and it would not run the RAM above 2133MHZ. Its there in the review. It does not boost above 3.5GHZ which again is in the review.

So that is a 3.5GHZ 8C CPU against Core i7 6700K running at up to 4.2GHZ and a Core i7 4770K running at upto 3.9GHZ and the former has 3200MHZ DDR4.

You even looked at the power consumption its LOWER than a Core i7 6700K which indicates its probably not boosting that high.

BUT,BUT AMD IS DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!
 
Last edited:
drunkenmaster said:
Jesus, read the information along with the list of benchmarks. The news article showing them says it's an ES chip and the benchmarks themselves show 2133Mhz memory on the Zen and 3200Mhz on the 7700k, both way out of stock and both in the opposite direction. Again, Zen natively supports 2666Mhz officially, Intel support only 2400Mhz. Zen has 533Mhz underclocked memory, Intel has an 800Mhz overclock.... but yeah, we're being picky over the review. Even if that was a retail chip, the memory comparison is inarguably invalid.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification, I hope sites just go 3200 vs 3200, it's easy and simple.
 
drunkenmaster said:
Completely and utterly wrong, we've seen several reviews of modern games recently and in MOST the 7700k LOST. Because most games now can use more than 4 threads and do so effectively. F1 2016 was 25% faster on a 6 core Broadwell-e with way lower clocks than a 7700k, yet when the 7700k was faster in the two games it was, it was within 1% of the lower clocked Broadwells. Amongst newer games the majority use more cores and beat out a 7700k.

If you benchmark games that are 18+ months and older only, yeah the 7700k will win, but marginally in 98% of those wins. In newer games Broadwell-e beats 7700k, and Zen will beat/match Broadwell, beat at stock with higher clock speeds at lower prices, but about even maybe at max overclocks... yet to be seen, depends where Zen really overclocks to.
Click to expand...

We will see. You can't honestly say it's utterly wrong as you haven't seen the benchmarks and don't own any ryzen 7 chip. I also wouldn't take much note of indirect comparisons. In most games (comfortably over 50% ignoring basic indie titles) over the last 24 months including upcoming releases like mass effect, I still think a stock 7700k will come out on top vs Ryzen 7 and certainly against a 1700. All stock. It's not as though I want that to be the case and I won't be buying one.

Please don't refer me to benchmarks of the Kabylake i7 against higher core count Intel chips, it's indirect :D
 
Last edited:
drunkenmaster said:
Yeah, I've said before part is that Intel always had such a big process advantage dedicating time and money to making them awesomely efficient was unnecessary, just bank that profit and due to process alone have slightly better power. AMD has always had relatively similar power usage to Intel despite being a process node or two behind, Intel always kinda sucked on power in reality but most people don't notice.
Click to expand...

What's actually interesting is that process improvements are slowing down and some say we may just have a couple of more node shrinks left, before we hit physics limits (and need some sort of new paradigm to go further). This makes it very unlikely that Intel will enjoy a process advantage going forward.

Right now, Intel's 14nm is superior to GF/Samsung's 14nm, so AMD are outperforming on the power front even though they're still at a minor process disadvantage!

Intel will soon move to 10nm (supposedly second half of this year for mobile and first half of next year for desktop) and likely regain the lead, but that'll be a VERY short-lived breather, as GF's 7nm is coming in 2H of 2018!

Not only that, but when AMD do move to 7nm the may even have a minor advantage (GF's 7nm is said to be slightly better than Intel's 10nm) so...

Interesting times ahead!
 
brigantium said:
Thanks for the clarification, I hope sites just go 3200 vs 3200, it's easy and simple.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping they test all setups with the max 24/7 settings we'd all use, a nice real world comparison not suicide runs that no one uses other than for benchmarks. Worst case is we now have a choice and if you prefer one manufacturer to another you don't have to handicap yourself.
 
Troezar said:
I'm hoping they test all setups with the max 24/7 settings we'd all use, a nice real world comparison not suicide runs that no one uses other than for benchmarks. Worst case is we now have a choice and if you prefer one manufacturer to another you don't have to handicap yourself.
Click to expand...

Yes,I have no interest on suicide runs, 3000/3200 RAM is quite reasonable.
 
Drollic said:
We will see. You can't honestly say it's utterly wrong as you haven't seen the benchmarks and don't own any ryzen 7 chip. I also wouldn't take much note of indirect comparisons. In most games (comfortably over 50% ignoring basic indie titles) over the last 24 months including upcoming releases like mass effect, I still think a stock 7700k will come out on top, and certainly against a 1700. All stock. It's not as though I want that to be the case and I won't be buying one.
Click to expand...

Yet,computerbase.de recently disproved that yet since they showed a Core i7 6900K>>>>Core i7 7700K over loads of newer games.

OFC,an R7 1800X will have less IPC and lower boost clockspeeds over an 8C Ryzen and its no wonder when you have so many cores with a limited TDP.

But if ST games are all you care about,why get a Core i7 7700K??

A Core i3 7350K is a better buy.
 
Are people actually hanging their reputation around here on a bodged Iranian farce?

If you're going to stick yer neck on the line like that do it with a more credible source, even then the dodgy source doesn't bareout anything negative at all about Ryzen, the results are completely positive. Intel are matched or outright beaten in far more aspects than not even in that bodged Iranian review.
 
Drollic said:
We will see. You can't honestly say it's utterly wrong as you haven't seen the benchmarks and don't own any ryzen 7 chip. I also wouldn't take much note of indirect comparisons. In most games (comfortably over 50% ignoring basic indie titles) over the last 24 months including upcoming releases like mass effect, I still think a stock 7700k will come out on top vs Ryzen 7 and certainly against a 1700. All stock. It's not as though I want that to be the case and I won't be buying one.
Click to expand...

We will see soon...

but a 1700 is cheaper and you get 4 more cores and its the same ish power .....Its a mega win for AMD ..i will raffle my pc ....sod it i will also raffle my Moog synths and a Roland Jupiter 8 if its a loss for AMD once we see the reviews ....
 
humbug said:
Are people actually hanging their reputation around here on a bodged Iranian farce?

If you're going to stick yer neck on the line like that do it with a more credible source, even then the dodgy source doesn't bareout anything negative at all about Ryzen, the results are completely positive. Intel are matched or outright beaten in far more aspects than not even in that bodged Iranian review.
Click to expand...

Its not even that - look at the scores. 2 it is holding its own.In three its literally 10% to 15% behind whilst not running proper boost clockspeeds and gimped RAM and that is at 768P.

Plus everyone of us knew AMD won't best SKL/KB for IPC and KB has a 10% clockspeed advantage anyway.

Whats amazing is AMD has such lower power,which really means they can launch clock boosted 4C and 6C models to take advantage of that once the node matures a bit more.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Yet,computerbase.de recently disproved that yet since they showed a Core i7 6900K>>>>Core i7 7700K over loads of newer games.

OFC,an R7 1800X will have less IPC and lower boost clockspeeds over an 8C Ryzen and its no wonder when you have so many cores with a limited TDP.

But if ST games are all you care about,why get a Core i7 7700K??

A Core i3 7350K is a better buy.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it's worth replying at this point, so many things wrong with this :(

Just to add, I should probably stay quiet anyway as within a month or so I'll probably be asking bios related overclocking questions relating to x370 and the 1700 having spent four figures on a mostly new system :D

Stand by the comment though regardless of comparisons with high core count Intel. Last 24 months including close upcoming releases, stock only, a 7700k on the whole will be better for gaming than any ryzen chip, certainly the 1700.
 
Last edited:
Drollic said:
I'm not sure it's worth replying at this point, so many things wrong with this :(
Click to expand...

No its not worth replying since computerbase.de just showed that in many games and if you are so desperate to say otherwise go and moan at them on their forums.

Plus if you are that desperate to show all games only use a core or two,then get a Core i3 7350K - people like you are hypocrites.

If ST performance was the only metric which was important, why did you get a Core i7 3770K??

Why did you get a 4C/8T CPU years ago,instead of just getting a Core i5 2500k,disabling half the cores and clocking it to 5GHZ?

Your own computer contradicts your stance since you went 4C/8T 5 years ago instead of 2C/2C.

You are so desperate to push your purchase justification,you are contradicting your own purchasing habits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom