• 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.

Who will build a Ryzen PC (computer)

haszek;30496462 said:
Never spent >£300 on a CPU but if AMD is really gonna pull it off (8/16 below £500 comparable to £1000 intel) I'm gonna go for it:)

Not that I need it but who can resist such a value;]
Click to expand...

Who can resist? Gamers, for one :) 8/16 being overkill.

It's true that you're probably getting a lot for your money. But there's more to bargain hunting than just getting good value for money.

The essence of bargain hunting is not paying more than necessary *for the things you need*. If you get a bargain on something you don't need/ won't use (not saying this applies to you, btw, just in the general sense) then it really isn't a bargain. Or it is, but it isn't. You know what I mean :p

Should gamers buy an 8C/16T CPU? Currently I don't think there' much of a case for it.
 
I know what you mean, I'm also against saying more cores = better future, but who knows in this case... If AMD is going to push more cores into mainstream, games might utilise it quicker that far future.
 
Spyhop;30496494 said:
Current gen console developers are already thinking in terms of keeping 8 threads busy aren't they?
Click to expand...

The cores they are working with are clocked a lot lower - 1.6 - ~2GHz. It might be that they need to use all 8 cores to keep the GPU fed.

Whereas if a 4-core PC CPU can already feed the best GFX card available, then you really gain nothing from adding more cores. Unless you want to fold while you play ;)

Devs could use the extra cores to do other things, like to seriously improve AI. But that's very expensive in terms of extra development effort. Hence AI hasn't really moved on for PC games in years.

So it boils down to, once you have enough CPU power for feeding the GPU, why overspec? Again, assuming a gamer's mindset, and no other usages.
 
FoxEye;30496467 said:
Who can resist? Gamers, for one :) 8/16 being overkill.

It's true that you're probably getting a lot for your money. But there's more to bargain hunting than just getting good value for money.

The essence of bargain hunting is not paying more than necessary *for the things you need*. If you get a bargain on something you don't need/ won't use (not saying this applies to you, btw, just in the general sense) then it really isn't a bargain. Or it is, but it isn't. You know what I mean :p

Should gamers buy an 8C/16T CPU? Currently I don't think there' much of a case for it.
Click to expand...

If they sell it (large core/thread counts) at a reasonable price I'll find a way to utilise after, as will many.

My likely off the top of my head use case.
Proxmox or esxi or unraid with CPU cores split between gaming (with GPU passthrough) and NAS/Media Server Duties.

That's without counting that a number of tasks I do (beyond gaming) eat cores for breakfast and the probability that rapid adoption of lower cost cores will drive development in that direction.
 
I hope supply is plentiful but I suspect that even after release it's gonna be summer before they are mainstream available
 
Put me down for:

"No, my current CPU is great"

But really hope Ryzen is good and does well.
 
stewski;30496664 said:
If they sell it (large core/thread counts) at a reasonable price I'll find a way to utilise after, as will many.

My likely off the top of my head use case.
Proxmox or esxi or unraid with CPU cores split between gaming (with GPU passthrough) and NAS/Media Server Duties.

That's without counting that a number of tasks I do (beyond gaming) eat cores for breakfast and the probability that rapid adoption of lower cost cores will drive development in that direction.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you can make use of as many cores as possible but I suspect your in the minority in here as four faster cores will suit most people better for generations to come, whether or not they care to admit it. It's all very well having 8 cores but if they are slower and only four are ever properly utilised then you've got half your chip wasted and the working half inferior to the competition.. No different to having 32gigs ram for gaming.
 
FoxEye;30496651 said:
The cores they are working with are clocked a lot lower - 1.6 - ~2GHz. It might be that they need to use all 8 cores to keep the GPU fed.

Whereas if a 4-core PC CPU can already feed the best GFX card available, then you really gain nothing from adding more cores. Unless you want to fold while you play ;)

Devs could use the extra cores to do other things, like to seriously improve AI. But that's very expensive in terms of extra development effort. Hence AI hasn't really moved on for PC games in years.

So it boils down to, once you have enough CPU power for feeding the GPU, why overspec? Again, assuming a gamer's mindset, and no other usages.
Click to expand...

In the latest Digital Foundry game test suite,of the 7 games tested,two are GPU limited even on an older Core i7,FOUR show a decent improvement in framerates going from 4 to 8 threads,and one game likes MOAR MHZ.

The fact of the matter,is that if the 8C pricing holds true,it means AMD 4C and 4C/8T SKUs will be under £200.

Look at the best sub £200 Intel CPU - the Core i5 7500 which runs at 3.8GHZ and is fully locked. AMD offering a 4C/8T CPU at £200 with close enough core performance,is going to make the Core i5 7500 overpriced.

The same goes with a lot of the sub £200 SKUs. Moreover,games prefer cores to HT,so that places 6C/12T Ryzen CPUs against the Core i5 7600K.

Every Intel SKU under £170 is a Core i3 - literally one unlocked 4C SKU under that is going to be disruptive on its own.
 
I'm running Haswell at the moment, happy with it too. But I'm tempted by Ryzen. Not only for an upgrade, but I'd like to support AMD in its effort to compete with Intel. It's good for all of us if they do well.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH;30496912 said:
Look at the best sub £200 Intel CPU - the Core i5 7500 which runs at 3.8GHZ and is fully locked. AMD offering a 4C/8T CPU at £200 with close enough core performance,is going to make the Core i5 7500 overpriced.
Click to expand...

The 7500 will only be overpriced if the AMD product at the same price delivers more performance, or the same performance from AMD costs less.

The locked/unlocked, #cores, #threads don't automatically make AMD better if the performance isn't there.

Performance means something. Price/perf means something. #Cores and #Threads on their own mean nothing.
 
I've been waiting to see what it's like. So far the rumours, speculation and apparent leaks seem good. I'll wait for reviews before I buy obviously, but willing to spend £1250 on CPU, Cooler, Motherboard and RAM.
 
FoxEye;30497126 said:
The 7500 will only be overpriced if the AMD product at the same price delivers more performance, or the same performance from AMD costs less.

The locked/unlocked, #cores, #threads don't automatically make AMD better if the performance isn't there.

Performance means something. Price/perf means something. #Cores and #Threads on their own mean nothing.
Click to expand...

Sure but,the problem is everything is hinting strongly towards at least Haswell level performance,and maybe BW-E level and I am trying to err on the side of caution at Haswell level. The issue is those SKUs mentioned run under 4GHZ and lack HT. Intel made sure that BCLK "bug" was shut down - I checked if people could overclock the Pentium G4560 for example.The thing is there is really nothing from any leak hinting that AMD has only hit something like SB or IB level IPC.

The problem is that ST thread performance on its own does not do anything - the £100 to £200 range Intel is its weak spot - primarily because upto £175ish you only have dual cores with HT.
 
Brazo;30496901 said:
Sounds like you can make use of as many cores as possible but I suspect your in the minority in here as four faster cores will suit most people better for generations to come, whether or not they care to admit it. It's all very well having 8 cores but if they are slower and only four are ever properly utilised then you've got half your chip wasted and the working half inferior to the competition.. No different to having 32gigs ram for gaming.
Click to expand...

On the first part, I was considering an X99 arrangement before Christmas not sure how minority that is around here.

As for your assertion that the core/thread count from AMD will be outweighed in most instances by similar priced options from intel, at this point that's an assumption. If I was looking at a gaming only rig I'd do exactly what most people are likely to do here, wait for benchmarks specific to my likely applications and assess price v performance regardless of technology used.

TBH that's pretty much what I'm going to do anyway although for my use case I'll probably have to do a fair bit more interpretation...
 
And tonight ordered the AM4 upgrade kit for the Predator :)
Decided to use the Predator 360 until Vega is out, and then everything will go under custom loop.
 
Panos;30497273 said:
And tonight ordered the AM4 upgrade kit for the Predator :)
Decided to use the Predator 360 until Vega is out, and then everything will go under custom loop.
Click to expand...

You are changing from a 4.7GHZ Core i7 6700K?? Any chance you can do a compare between the two if you do change over??
 
I'm very interested, only thing stopping me setting up a system on launch is that there haven't been any decent AM4 boards shown yet, hopefully that will change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom