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

ubersonic · 11 Apr 2017 at 14:24

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Ryzen balanced power plan tested:

http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryzen-balanced-power-plan-benchmarked_193344

Installed it the other day, it's better than default balanced but still not as good as high performance.

DragonQ · 11 Apr 2017 at 14:28

N19h7m4r3 said:
TechPowerUp for 1500X review. 10% slower overall compared to 7700K at 1080p Gaming.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1500X/19.html

Ridiculous results. 4% slower at 1440p and 10% slower at 1080p (with their particular test suite of course) but for nearly half the cost and with a better stock cooler. The advantage of cheaper motherboards are probably counteracted by the greater need for faster RAM though. Also bear in mind that the i7-7700K has a bit more overclocking headroom too. Having said that, this doesn't even touch on the fact that there's an even cheaper R5 1400 which will probably clock just as well as the R5 1500X. Why would anyone buy an i7-7700K now unless they literally didn't care about money?

N19h7m4r3 · 11 Apr 2017 at 14:42

DragonQ said:
Ridiculous results. 4% slower at 1440p and 10% slower at 1080p (with their particular test suite of course) but for nearly half the cost and with a better stock cooler. The advantage of cheaper motherboards are probably counteracted by the greater need for faster RAM though. Also bear in mind that the i7-7700K has a bit more overclocking headroom too. Having said that, this doesn't even touch on the fact that there's an even cheaper R5 1400 which will probably clock just as well as the R5 1500X. Why would anyone buy an i7-7700K now unless they literally didn't care about money?

All that, the stock cooler will easily handle the 1500X at 4Ghz overclocks, so less money saved yet again! It's a cheaper overall platform, where more money can be spent of a GPU.

As TechPowerUp says in their conclusion:

Intel has the gall to ask $189 for the dual-core i3-7350K with unlocked multiplier, and half the L3 cache.

teppic · 11 Apr 2017 at 14:48

Yeah any decent review of the 1600 will strongly point out that you can achieve the maximum standard overclock on the stock cooler, and that with current games, the CPU still has a lot more power to give whereas the i5 (not even worth mentioning the i3) is mostly maxed out.

harney · 11 Apr 2017 at 14:51

N19h7m4r3 said:
All that, the stock cooler will easily handle the 1500X at 4Ghz overclocks, so less money saved yet again! It's a cheaper overall platform, where more money can be spent of a GPU.

As TechPowerUp says in their conclusion:
"Intel has the gall to ask $189 for the dual-core i3-7350K with unlocked multiplier, and half the L3 cache."

Nice conclusion

teh_captain · 11 Apr 2017 at 15:00

I just ordered a 1700 this morning before the R5's got released. I'll still be happy with it for what I paid - I'm just excited that AMD are really shaking things ups and really sticking it to Intel in the CPU stakes. Just have to see what R3 and Vega bring to the table now!

harney · 11 Apr 2017 at 15:08

AdoredTV

N19h7m4r3 · 11 Apr 2017 at 15:33

Bloody hell the 1500X is really cool on the stock cooler at 4Ghz!

So let's sum up, 1500X is ~10% Slower than 7700K, but $160 cheaper.
Hits 4Ghz on STOCK cooler, on cheap B350 motherboard, and runs at ~60degrees under load.

So can someone tell me why you'd want the 7600, 7500, 7400, or i3 7350, all which cost $190 and over?

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 11 Apr 2017 at 15:38

harney said:
AdoredTV

Wow,he didn't like the R5 1500X much(!) - but TBH the R5 1600 is only £30 more,so looks pretty awesome for the price.

Relentless81 · 11 Apr 2017 at 15:42

just ordered a 1600x and ended up getting a noctua u12s as its the only decent cooler that ships with the mounting kit

seems a bit daft because the cooler is over 50 quid but the way I see it is a just want to game and been without a pc for 2 weeks now, really can't be bothered to mess around ocing so this way ill get a speedy CPU that will maintain decent speeds with a nice cooler

I think

teppic · 11 Apr 2017 at 15:45

It seems pretty clear the 1600/1600X is in a different league to the i5s, it can double performance for productivity, well ahead for streaming, and still has tons of optimisation ahead of it for gaming. Add on the fact you need a higher end board with the 7600K to overclock it, while you can use a mid range board and stock cooler with the 1600.

eddiew · 11 Apr 2017 at 16:11

Sanity check me if you would please chaps... single thread Ryzen performance @ 3.9-4.0: not going to be WORSE than my 2500k @ 4.2, is it? :confused:

(I have some things that only use one core and I want them not to get any slower if I switch.)

Also, we're sure the AM4 boards will be compatible with the next wave of Zen? I'll be happier buying into it if I know there's an upgrade path available

opethdisciple · 11 Apr 2017 at 16:13

eddiew said:
Sanity check me if you would please chaps... single thread Ryzen performance @ 3.9-4.0: not going to be WORSE than my 2500k @ 4.2, is it?

(I have some things that only use one core and I want them not to get any slower if I switch.)

Also, we're sure the AM4 boards will be compatible with the next wave of Zen? I'll be happier buying into it if I know there's an upgrade path available

Not 100% But I'm going to safely say yes, IPC is better. I haven't even overclocked my 1700 and it's faster than my 3570k was at 4.4Ghz in games.

Plus AMD have said AM4 will be around for another 2-3 generations of Ryzen so unless something drastically changes (big promise broken) then yes AM4 is around for another 3 years.

N19h7m4r3 · 11 Apr 2017 at 16:13

eddiew said:
Sanity check me if you would please chaps... single thread Ryzen performance @ 3.9-4.0: not going to be WORSE than my 2500k @ 4.2, is it?

(I have some things that only use one core and I want them not to get any slower if I switch.)

Also, we're sure the AM4 boards will be compatible with the next wave of Zen? I'll be happier buying into it if I know there's an upgrade path available

Not slower in the slightest! It has 7% less IPC than intel Kaby-Lake.

Even then a 4Ghz 1700 is 7% slower than the 5Ghz 7700K in gaming. These tests are even before Ryzen got game patches. Like in Ashes where a patch added 31% extra performance for AMD there, and Total War got another 10%.

https://youtu.be/64AmlVIosAI?t=8m18s

kieran_read · 11 Apr 2017 at 16:15

Glad I picked up 1700 don't feel like I have got a bad deal, the 1600 looks great and I would have had got that if my funds were lower.

Annoyingly though the only thing I ordered on OCUK was my AIO (was significantly cheaper elsewhere) everything else arrived at 9am this morning, still waiting on DPD and they wont be here till 7.... took the entire day off to play around with my new build and i'm just waiting and now wont have time.

Was looking forward to playing with my new toys =(

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 11 Apr 2017 at 16:16

eddiew said:
Sanity check me if you would please chaps... single thread Ryzen performance @ 3.9-4.0: not going to be WORSE than my 2500k @ 4.2, is it?

(I have some things that only use one core and I want them not to get any slower if I switch.)

Also, we're sure the AM4 boards will be compatible with the next wave of Zen? I'll be happier buying into it if I know there's an upgrade path available

Even in FO4 which is one of the lower performing games for Ryzen,its faster than SB.

eddiew · 11 Apr 2017 at 16:23

opethdisciple said:
Not 100% But I'm going to safely say yes, IPC is better. I haven't even overclocked my 1700 and it's faster than my 3570k was at 4.4Ghz in games.

Plus AMD have said AM4 will be around for another 2-3 generations of Ryzen so unless something drastically changes (big promise broken) then yes AM4 is around for another 3 years.

N19h7m4r3 said:
Not slower in the slightest! It has 7% less IPC than intel Kaby-Lake.

Even then a 4Ghz 1700 is 7% slower than the 5Ghz 7700K in gaming. These tests are even before Ryzen got game patches. Like in Ashes where a patch added 31% extra performance for AMD there, and Total War got another 10%.

https://youtu.be/64AmlVIosAI?t=8m18s

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Even in FO4 which is one of the lower performing games for Ryzen,its faster than SB.

Excellent news, thanks peeps! I figured it only needed to have 5% better IPC to not be a downgrade in any circumstances. If it's an all around upgrade, then that's even better

(I know it's low OC for a 2500k, but I think driving 32gb of memory is a problem. Lots of memory controller voltage to get the ram happy makes for a very hot chip!)

opethdisciple · 11 Apr 2017 at 16:24

When are the new AMD chipset drivers going to be available? I thought it was going to be April the 11th.

teppic · 11 Apr 2017 at 16:29

eddiew said:
Excellent news, thanks peeps! I figured it only needed to have 5% better IPC to not be a downgrade in any circumstances. If it's an all around upgrade, then that's even better

(I know it's low OC for a 2500k, but I think driving 32gb of memory is a problem. Lots of memory controller voltage to get the ram happy makes for a very hot chip!)

There aren't many games that are totally reliant on single thread IPC - mostly really old ones and DX9 titles. But as others have said, you'll gain over 2500K in even those anyway. For anything current it's miles ahead.

harney · 11 Apr 2017 at 16:32

eddiew said:
Sanity check me if you would please chaps... single thread Ryzen performance @ 3.9-4.0: not going to be WORSE than my 2500k @ 4.2, is it?

(I have some things that only use one core and I want them not to get any slower if I switch.)

Also, we're sure the AM4 boards will be compatible with the next wave of Zen? I'll be happier buying into it if I know there's an upgrade path available

That will be a fantastic upgrade in games and more so productivity ..chalk n cheese

Competitor rules

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

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