Ryzen "2" ?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Also, things might be closer in terms of bottlenecks now. But what about the next lot of GPU's etc? Phenom II wasn't *too* bad when it launched but it didn't hold anywhere near as well as the i7 920.

People always seem to forget this. It's all about grunt left in the tank, however this time, if games do heavily make use of high levels of multithreading, then the Ryzens will be pretty good then.

Except the Phenom II was priced similar to the 45NM Core2 CPUs which were its main competition:

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/18149-amd-phenom-ii-x4-955-black-edition-back-bang/?page=12

Look at the pricing table,and more importantly the X58 motherboards were massively more expensive and they required expensive triple channel memory. Its a moot point if it lasted longer,since by the time you factored in the costs of the expensive motherboards and DDR3,a few years later you could have gotten a £150 Core i5 2500k and a motherboard,etc for not much more,especially if you factored in the cheaper price of the Phenom II X4 and Core2 quad. You could run a Phenom II X4 or 45NM Core2 quad off a £80 motherboard if you wanted to overclock a bit with some much cheaper DDR2.

I mean that does not even consider the fact the Phenom II X4 and 45NM Core2 quad CPUs were worse value than the Q6600 which dropped quite close to £100ish at one point.

My overclocked Q6600 lasted for years and did so for many gamers.

Yet look at all the stupid dorks arguing which was one was better due to the "maximum overclocks argument" and 5% more IPC,whilst running FPS counters comparing which FPS is better FPS. In the end the Phenom II and 45NM Core2 didn't really outlive each in terms of lifespan.

Its like buying a GTX1080TI to last 5 to 6 years - in most cases with computer tech its just better if you buy a bit cheaper and upgrade a bit more often.

 

[4K8KW10]

Except that transitions to better manufacturing processes now take longer time and in 5-6 years that GTX 1080Ti might still be middle class, thus losing the reason to upgrade.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Except that transitions to better manufacturing processes now take longer time and in 5-6 years that GTX 1080Ti might still be middle class, thus losing the reason to upgrade.

People buying a GTX1080TI to last 5 to 6 years are wasting their money. I would only buy one for the performance I needed now and for the immediate two to three years(which is how long I tend to keep cards).

Plus are people thinking AMD and Nvidia won't be pushing newer features on their newer cards which will run like crap on old ones,or at the very least they will push more VRAM usage.

They want you to upgrade not sit on old cards.

I give you an example - between 40NM and 28NM,we had one cancelled process node and one extended one in 28NM. Yet if someone spent £500 on a GTX580,how fast do you think it was compared to a £250 GPU at the end of 2015,ie,5 years later.

The cheaper GTX970 was DOUBLE the performance:

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_970_Gaming/images/perfrel_1920.gif

The GTX580 was quite close to the HD7950 at launch,but as time progressed it got worse due to lack of VRAM,etc. So basically the 2015 GTX970 was half the cost of the 2010 GTX580 whilst being double the speed,despite 32NM being cancelled and 28NM living on for years.

Edit!!

OTH,if someone bought a GTX570 instead and then upgraded quicker they would have consistently better performance over time,then sticking with a slightly faster GTX580.

The same is true with the AMD cards.

 

[jigger]

People buying a GTX1080TI to last 5 to 6 years are wasting their money.

Plus are people that naive to think AMD and Nvidia won't be pushing newer features on their newer cards which will run like crap on old ones,or at the very least they will push more VRAM usage.

I give you an example - between 40NM and 28NM,we had one cancelled process node and one extended on in 28NM. Yet if someone spent £500 on a GTX580,how fast do you think it was compared to a £250 GPU at the end of 2015,ie,5 years later.

The cheaper GTX970 was DOUBLE the performance:

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_970_Gaming/images/perfrel_1920.gif

The GTX580 was quite close to the HD7950 at launch,but as time progressed it got worse due to lack of VRAM,etc. So basically the 2015 GTX970 was half the cost of the 2010 GTX580 whilst being double the speed,despite 32NM being cancelled and 28NM living on for years,.

It's all about hype nowadays it seems CAT. I had a GTX780Ti and before that bought a R9 290X. When I bought them the 780Ti was a good margin faster. Move forward a year and the 290X was comfortably beating the much expensive 780Ti. Lesson learned.

 

[4K8KW10]

People buying a GTX1080TI to last 5 to 6 years are wasting their money.

They aren't. GTX 1080 Ti is one of only two or three cards capable of normal 4K gaming right now.

We know AMD cards age better, so in the long term, the Radeon RX Vega 64 might be the better choice. Wider architecture with more shaders.
But the GTX 1080 Ti has 3 GB more memory.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

They aren't.

Yes they are and I have proven that with evidence. No one playing at 4K will be using a GTX1080TI in 5 years time.

Even buying a GTX1080TI for 1080p expecting it to last 5 years is silly.

I mean look at the person who bought a GTX580 for use at 1080p for £400 to £500,and expecting to to last 5 to 6 years. Their mate who bought a GTX570 for £250ish,and then selling that on and buying a £300 to £350 R9 290/GTX780 a few years later,would have had consistently better gaming performance over time and spent more or less the same kind of money.

Also the second hand value of graphics cards plummet quicker than almost any other computer component,so upgrading quicker means you retain more value.

A GTX580 after 5 to 6 years would have probably been worth less than a GTX570 after 2 to 3 years I suspect.

Now if that person bought an R9 290 and sold it during the mining craze they probably could have got even a faster card a few years later and got a free upgrade.

Heck,I remember not hanging onto my HD5850 when the first mining craze hit and I essentially got a GTX660 for free which was a nice 40% bump in performance in certain games I was playing.

My mate did the same with his RX480 and got a special offer GTX1070,which meant he went from a RX480 to a GTX1070 for free,or it sounds even better when you consider he had an HD7870XT before that,so essentially he went from that card to a GTX1070 for £250.

 

[AndreiD]

If you're looking for best value the top end isn't going to be it, you always pay a premium as you go up in the performance tiers, this isn't anything new and it doesn't make a GTX1080 Ti a bad purchase either, especially with the progress in the GPU market slowing down.
For example the 780 Ti/290(x) came out close to 4 years ago and they're still good enough to play most games at 60fps on 1080p with reasonably high settings.

But I do agree that buying the midrange every couple of years is a good way to upgrade and get good performance while not spending too much, but you're also not going to get the best performance at any given time.

 

[B1gbeard]

Yes they are and I have proven that with evidence. No one playing at 4K will be using a GTX1080TI in 5 years time.

Even buying a GTX1080TI for 1080p expecting it to last 5 years is silly.

I mean look at the person who bought a GTX580 for use at 1080p for £400 to £500,and expecting to to last 5 to 6 years. Their mate who bought a GTX570 for £250ish,and then selling that on and buying a £300 to £350 R9 290/GTX780 a few years later,would have had consistently better gaming performance over time and spent more or less the same kind of money.

Also the second hand value of graphics cards plummet quicker than almost any other computer component,so upgrading quicker means you retain more value.

A GTX580 after 5 to 6 years would have probably been worth less than a GTX570 after 2 to 3 years I suspect.

Now if that person bought an R9 290 and sold it during the mining craze they probably could have got even a faster card a few years later and got a free upgrade.

Heck,I remember not hanging onto my HD5850 when the first mining craze hit and I essentially got a GTX660 for free which was a nice 40% bump in performance in certain games I was playing.

My mate did the same with his RX480 and got a special offer GTX1070,which meant he went from a RX480 to a GTX1070 for free.

I'm not sure how common I am but for the last few years the GPU is the only part I have upgraded outside of buying a x34 monitor. I basically upgrade every gen because the cost, when you factor in selling your current card, is not completely crazy. I suspect a lot who buy the top of the range might be the same.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

If you're looking for best value the top end isn't going to be it, you always pay a premium as you go up in the performance tiers, this isn't anything new and it doesn't make a GTX1080 Ti a bad purchase either, especially with the progress in the GPU market slowing down.
For example the 780 Ti/290(x) came out close to 4 years ago and they're still good enough to play most games at 60fps on 1080p with reasonably high settings.

But I do agree that buying the midrange every couple of years is a good way to upgrade and get good performance while not spending too much, but you're also not going to get the best performance at any given time.

I'm not sure how common I am but for the last few years the GPU is the only part I have upgraded outside of buying a x34 monitor. I basically upgrade every gen because the cost, when you factor in selling your current card, is not completely crazy. I suspect a lot who buy the top of the range might be the same.

The issue is if you spend decent money on a card or CPU it should be as much for performance NOW as it is for longevity.

The problem is if you buy something like a card or CPU and keep it for years,outside the initial period performance will get worse and worse,ie,like someone getting a GTX580 and keeping it for 5 to 6 years.

Now someone with a GTX570,which could he had for much less would have a bit worse performance(but not massively slower),but 2 to 3 years in,I suspect both would be equally as meh in more taxing games. Hence the person who cut their losses and got themselves a new card for the second half of the 5 to 6 period would simply have significantly superior performance.

The whole issue,is hanging onto graphics cards is not a good idea at all.

Even with CPUs,its one thing buying say a £200 to £300 CPU for gaming,and then thinking spending £500 to £1000 on one will instantly make it "last longer". The problem is you might as well upgrade your platform quicker anyway.

Then there are people arguing over 10% here and there in components performance,unless its really like 20% to 30% difference in RL(not 400FPS vs 300FPS),then again I would argue its not going to account for much over time.

 

[Vimes]

The best 5% of the chips go into the Ryzen Threadripper. All other 95% are not top bin.

Thanks. Like I mentioned I had not kept up with the Ryzen development and thought that you might have more chance of 4Ghz on a 1800x than the 1700.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Thanks. Like I mentioned I had not kept up with the Ryzen development and thought that you might have more chance of 4Ghz on a 1800x than the 1700.

Technically the 1800X is a tad better with overclocking by a tiny amount IIRC,but TBH its not going to make a massive difference over a Ryzen 7 1700 unless you really want 4GHZ. If anything I would say waiting until Zen+ and a more mature 14NM process is going to a better bet if you want an AMD CPU at 4GHZ and above.

 

[Vimes]

Technically the 1800X is a tad better with overclocking by a tiny amount IIRC,but TBH its not going to make a massive difference over a Ryzen 7 1700 unless you really want 4GHZ. If anything I would say waiting until Zen+ and a more mature 14NM process is going to a better bet if you want an AMD CPU at 4GHZ and above.

Thanks
At this stage it is speculative until I'm ready to build up another rig which will be happening soon. I see no reason to throw money into an an Intel setip, very little longevity.
As 4ghz will not be as important as saving the difference in money over the 1700 then that looks a strong favourite. Good tho that memory performance and stability is maturing nicely.

 

[Panos]

Again it's all conspiracy theory about who did what and to who.

Conspiracy theory you say? This was posted 3 hours ago, stating the same thing.

The Non US reviewers who got chips from 3rd party retailers, had worse perf, compare to the US reviewers who got their chips from Intel directly. (Intel policy is to ship CPUs only to USA media outlets)

Linus, Jay etc their "stock" speed CPU, was actually 4.7 auto overclocked on all cores, and they were pitting it against stock speed CPUs. And we see even then, 1.1Ghz difference, could barely hold the Ryzen 7s at bay on synthetics.

And that's Jays comment on the above video

FOR THE RECORD.... after we were called out for testing with default board settings (by the audience by the way, not you) ASUS reached out to me to explain that MCE is OFF by default and Sync all Cores should NOT have been enabled by default, I explained to them that this is indeed FALSE. ASUS themselves aren't even clear on what the default settings were and it was only after clearing CMOS again and showing them what the optimized defaults are did they agree that they need to reel in their BIOS team and get to the bottom of this... I also said in my video that we as reviewers need to be better at this, so although you calling me out in this video is accurate, I had already updated my content showing where the discrepancy was. Please dont be one of those channels who builds their rep on the "Im more righteous than you..." we have enough of those channels already. As for the "Intel hiding something" of course they are... they are widening their stack on purpose... It sucks, but its business and it doesnt take much investigative research to figure that out.

 

[AndreiD]

@Panos How would a retail chip perform worse? The only difference cherry picked chips would make would be overclocking numbers and it's nothing new that vendors send reviewers their best bins.
A lot of regional outlets get their review samples directly from the vendors too, not just US ones.

 

[B1gbeard]

Conspiracy theory you say? This was posted 3 hours ago, stating the same thing.

The Non US reviewers who got chips from 3rd party retailers, had worse perf, compare to the US reviewers who got their chips from Intel directly. (Intel policy is to ship CPUs only to USA media outlets)

Linus, Jay etc their "stock" speed CPU, was actually 4.7 auto overclocked on all cores, and they were pitting it against stock speed CPUs. And we see even then, 1.1Ghz difference, could barely hold the Ryzen 7s at bay on synthetics.

And that's Jays comment on the above video

So a 6 core could barely hold the Ryzen 8 core. Doesn't sound great for the Ryzen tbh.

The 4.7 on all cores was an ASUS issue no? And who won't be running their 8700k at 4.7 at least anyway? Ultimately it's much quicker in games and takes less work to get there. It costs more, fair enough, something has to.

 

[Ste]

Missing the point somewhat I think.

One of these at 5ghz is going to be significantly better in most games than the ryzen 8 core at 4ghz. Can probably get by without needing expensive B die RAM to get it performing too.

 

[jigger]

So a 6 core could barely hold the Ryzen 8 core. Doesn't sound great for the Ryzen tbh.

The 4.7 on all cores was an ASUS issue no? And who won't be running their 8700k at 4.7 at least anyway? Ultimately it's much quicker in games and takes less work to get there. It costs more, fair enough, something has to.

Anyone, everyone, someone who's chip can't do 4.7Ghz.

 

[jigger]

Missing the point somewhat I think.

One of these at 5ghz is going to be significantly better in most games than the ryzen 8 core at 4ghz. Can probably get by without needing expensive B die RAM to get it performing too.

In anything that tops out at 6 threads and It's also going to be significantly more expensive.

 

[Scougar]

If AMD do manage to get their frequencies up, with yields being so high, Intel are gonna have a real problem if AMD keep with their pricing strategy.

 

[4K8KW10]

If AMD do manage to get their frequencies up, with yields being so high, Intel are gonna have a real problem if AMD keep with their pricing strategy.

Some IPC enhancements are also to be expected. February can't come soon enough
Ryzen 1 is just a wonderful foundation for yet the best to come.