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

[gavinh87]

I think now its just going to be bug fixes, the attention will be on threadripper from now on.
And then onto zen2 etc.

 

[HeX]

As Threadripper and Ryzen are essentially the same any BIOS improvements made for one should be applicable to the other.

 

[AiiR]

Just upgraded the sibling from an x5650 to a Ryzen 1700 and he is over the moon. Render times down from around 45mins to 15 and his FPS has doubled. He was amazed at the RGB stock cooler, said he couldn't believe it came bundled for free. I explained my Intel chip didn't come with anything and was more expensive with half the cores. His response was "what scumbags".

 

[DragonQ]

What GPU does he have?

 

[2013]

Hi guys,
I've been aiming to upgrade to ryzen

I have a some questions,

1. Is it worth paying more for the 1700 or Would it be best to get a 1600 the extra £100 and upgrade with zen2 if i want ?

2. would the extra two cores make much difference ?

3. intel still mostly uses 4 cores but with the expected core war threadripper and intels offering would thinks change withing the next 12-18 months ?

4. im still not sure about what motherboard to get im aiming to spend around £150 ive been looking at gigabyte x370 5 and asus prime x370 pro, or the k5 which has been dropping in price( if it comes withing my budget) I don't really know about anything about VRM's. Blk chip, ext.

5. Ram prices and GPU price hikes have been putting me off, AMD only showing 2 high GPUs, Nvidia not coming out with anything till next year Ram & GPU prices not expected to get any better should I just take what I can get or hold out a little longer if i can.

 

[opethdisciple]

Hi guys,
I've been aiming to upgrade to ryzen

I have a some questions,

1. Is it worth paying more for the 1700 or Would it be best to get a 1600 the extra £100 and upgrade with zen2 if i want ?

2. would the extra two cores make much difference ?

3. intel still mostly uses 4 cores but with the expected core war threadripper and intels offering would thinks change withing the next 12-18 months ?

4. im still not sure about what motherboard to get im aiming to spend around £150 ive been looking at gigabyte x370 5 and asus prime x370 pro, or the k5 which has been dropping in price( if it comes withing my budget) I don't really know about anything about VRM's. Blk chip, ext.

5. Ram prices and GPU price hikes have been putting me off, AMD only showing 2 high GPUs, Nvidia not coming out with anything till next year Ram & GPU prices not expected to get any better should I just take what I can get or hold out a little longer if i can.

Completely up to you. Either the 1600x or the 1700 will be great choices. My personal take on this is that a CPU will last around ~ 4-5 years providing gaming performance. For this reason went with the 1700 because over time it will stretch it's legs more.

It depends on how often you upgrade, whether you use the PC for anything other than gaming... but me... my choice was the 1700.

 

[2013]

Completely up to you. Either the 1600x or the 1700 will be great choices. My personal take on this is that a CPU will last around ~ 4-5 years providing gaming performance. For this reason went with the 1700 because over time it will stretch it's legs more.

It depends on how often you upgrade, whether you use the PC for anything other than gaming... but me... my choice was the 1700.

Thanks for the reply,

I can understand why 1700 over the 1600 but why 1600x ? I would be overclocking anyway, or is it worth paying the ext £30 or so for a factory 4ghz turbo boost ?

Yea my full system upgrades is also 4-5 but i start wanting a upgrade 2-3 years down the line like most on here, minor upgrade is quicker if it a cheap upgrade, I upgraded from a 6300 fx to 8320 withing 6 month GPUs every 2 years .


s
I use the PC for General PC use, Gaming, Streaming, some (one off) editing, image, video editing creating. multi tasking. Nothing that i would need a super powerful PC for at this point.

 

[opethdisciple]

Thanks for the reply,

I can understand why 1700 over the 1600 but why 1600x ? I would be overclocking anyway, or is it worth paying the ext £30 or so for a factory 4ghz turbo boost ?

Yea my full system upgrades is also 4-5 but i start wanting a upgrade 2-3 years down the line like most on here, minor upgrade is quicker if it a cheap upgrade, I upgraded from a 6300 fx to 8320 withing 6 month GPUs every 2 years .


s
I use the PC for General PC use, Gaming, Streaming, some (one off) editing, image, video editing creating. multi tasking. Nothing that i would need a super powerful PC for at this point.

The price difference is only £30, But the stock speed difference is quite a bit. The 1600 is 3.2Ghz base and 3.6Ghz with XFR whilst the 1600x is 3.6Ghz base and 4Ghz with XFR.

Probably something that could be made up with overclocking, but the price difference is pretty small.

 

[muon]

Thanks for the reply,

I can understand why 1700 over the 1600 but why 1600x ? I would be overclocking anyway, or is it worth paying the ext £30 or so for a factory 4ghz turbo boost ?

Yea my full system upgrades is also 4-5 but i start wanting a upgrade 2-3 years down the line like most on here, minor upgrade is quicker if it a cheap upgrade, I upgraded from a 6300 fx to 8320 withing 6 month GPUs every 2 years .


s
I use the PC for General PC use, Gaming, Streaming, some (one off) editing, image, video editing creating. multi tasking. Nothing that i would need a super powerful PC for at this point.

If it matters to you (purely superficial) the 1600x is far more likely to get a 4ghz overclock. Otherwise as you've said no other reason not to save the £30 (£100 vs 1700) for a future upgrade. 1600X will also require you to buy a cooler adding another £20 to the cost.

6c/12t at 3.8/3.9 will easily see you through to until 7nm Zen2 appears in early 2019.

R5 1600 + B350 for < £290 is great value.

 

[RavenXXX2]

Ryzen 5 1600/ 1600X vs Core i5 7600K Review: It's an AMD Win!

 

[gavinh87]

Ryzen 5 1600/ 1600X vs Core i5 7600K Review: It's an AMD Win!

But void said the i5 is better......
Those frametimes are terrible.

 

[humbug]

Ryzen 5 1600/ 1600X vs Core i5 7600K Review: It's an AMD Win!

Womp....

 

[gavinh87]

4 cores are enough though

 

[2013]

Does anyone know if Asus Warranty is transferable ?

The price difference is only £30, But the stock speed difference is quite a bit. The 1600 is 3.2Ghz base and 3.6Ghz with XFR whilst the 1600x is 3.6Ghz base and 4Ghz with XFR.

Probably something that could be made up with overclocking, but the price difference is pretty small.

Thanks, it's something to consider.

If it matters to you (purely superficial) the 1600x is far more likely to get a 4ghz overclock. Otherwise as you've said no other reason not to save the £30 (£100 vs 1700) for a future upgrade. 1600X will also require you to buy a cooler adding another £20 to the cost.

6c/12t at 3.8/3.9 will easily see you through to until 7nm Zen2 appears in early 2019.

R5 1600 + B350 for < £290 is great value.

Thanks, The cooler would be nice and I would expected one if I paid more but I'm not too bothered about it because I would be watercooling.

Does anyone know if the non X models have XFR ? im assuming not.

Whats the average overclock if rge 1600x ?
I know the 1600 and 1700 is about 3.80

1600 Stock 3.20 16 MB 6/12 Turbo 3.60 OC 3.80
+ £30 or so 1600x Stock 3.60 16 MB 6/12 Turbo 4.00 XFR 4.00+ OC 4.00
+ £100 or so 1700 Stock 3.00 16 MB 8/16 Turbo 3.70 OC 3.80

it purely comes down to if i want to pay more

 

[Gerard]

Random question, is it worth installing these 1 gigabyte plus amd chipset drivers for the crosshair hero? I'm assuming the windows install probably already has installed chipset drivers as these seem to have amd display and audio drivers bundled with them.

 

[Glanza]

 

[humbug]

Random question, is it worth installing these 1 gigabyte plus amd chipset drivers for the crosshair hero? I'm assuming the windows install probably already has installed chipset drivers as these seem to have amd display and audio drivers bundled with them.

Install them, You wouldn't run Windows GPU drivers.

 

[Gerard]

Install them, You wouldn't run Windows GPU drivers.

I have the latest radeon drivers installed, just seems a bit over the top 1.3 gigs for chipset drivers.

 

[humbug]

I have the latest radeon drivers installed, just seems a bit over the top 1.3 gigs for chipset drivers.

It probably has other things bundled, stuff it wont install, like GPU drivers.

Just try them.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

DF tests the Ryzen 5 1600/1600X against the Core i5 7600K:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-ryzen-5-1600-1600x-vs-core-i5-7500k-review

The Witcher 3, Rise of the Tomb Raider and especially Crysis 3 love frequency of course, but they also benefit heavily from as many cores and threads as you can throw at them, with both Ryzen 5s offering a significant advantage over Intel's stock Core i5. Here, Ryzen 5 sits comfortably at a mid-point between Core i5 and Core i7. However, not everything is as it seems based on the numbers alone. Assassin's Creed Unity posts a lead on the i5, but when studying performance at the per-scene level, i5 is pulling ahead in relatively empty scenes in our benchmark, with Ryzen 5 performing better in areas packed with NPCs. There's the suggestion that the i5 frame-rate average is boosted by big performance gains in less useful, more 'empty' rendering scenes. Similarly, in the Crysis 3 benchmark, the i5 and indeed i7's scores are skewed higher when the viewpoint shifts to similarly sparse scenes.

We've got a complete breakdown of this behaviour in our video review, but the bottom line is that it's not just different game engines that can favour i5 or Ryzen 5 processors - it can actually vary on a scene-by-scene nature in many games. And of course, therefore, results can vary depending very much on what scenes are chosen for benchmarking.

To illustrate, The Witcher 3's Novigrad City - our test area - can easily max an i5 quad with 100 per cent utilisation across all cores, and Ryzen 5 is faster here. However, benchmark a less demanding area or an engine-driven cut-scene and the i5 takes the lead. We've tried to tailor our tests to concentrate more on these heavier workloads and for our money Ryzen 5 is the more versatile, capable performer in areas where the CPU matters most in gaming.

But with the CPUs available to buy right now, Ryzen 5 1600 is our choice as the best mainstream gaming CPU on the market. And that's a simply phenomenal achievement - since the debut of the Core i5 2500K back in 2011, Intel's i5 K chips have earned their place at the heart of millions of users' gaming PCs. The Ryzen alternative is faster where it needs to be, better suited to more modern game engines, and comes across overall as a kind of hybrid of i5 and four-core/six-core i7s depending on how its resources are deployed. This is AMD at its best: innovative, disruptive and bringing about radical change in a static market, with a simply superb alternative product.