As compared to an 8-core Broadwell-E that costs twice as much and is Intel's latest generation high-end desktop line, a Ryzen 7 1800X wins some and loses some. It isn't necessarily close on either count, and I'd say it loses more than it wins. But still, being mixed is huge progress for AMD, and the 1800X costs about half of the Intel chip. In some benchmarks, Broadwell-E wins by huge margins purely by virtue of having double the memory bandwidth.
As compared to Kaby Lake, whether Ryzen wins or loses is almost entirely a question of how well the program scales to many CPU threads. If it's single threaded, Kaby Lake wins, and it's often not even close. With many threads that can fully load eight cores, Ryzen pulls away. Games are sometimes in the "not enough threads" category and sometimes in the "a GPU bottleneck means the CPU doesn't matter" category. I haven't seen any where Ryzen beats Kaby Lake by a comfortable margin as you can get when you move away from games.
Ultimately, AMD isn't going out of business over this, as would have happened if Zen cores were another Bulldozer-level fiasco. Ryzen is what it needed to be, and last's years run up of AMD's stock prices is justified. The architecture is more compelling in servers and probably in laptops than it is in desktops, but those parts aren't out yet. Raven Ridge will finally be the fusion we've been waiting for, years after AMD dropped that branding of their APUs.
The choice of Ryzen 7 versus Kaby Lake is pretty similar to the choice of Broadwell-E versus Kaby Lake, though Ryzen has a much smaller price premium than Broadwell-E. Gamers usually chose Kaby Lake over Broadwell-E, and should usually choose it over Ryzen 7 for the same reasons.
The rumored 6-core and especially 4-core parts are more interesting for gaming, however. It's hard to justify a $500 Ryzen 7 1800X for gaming over a $330 Core i7-7700K. But if reducing the core count means the Ryzen part is $200, or even $150, that can look a whole lot more interesting, as a low clocked Core i5 isn't nearly as fast as a high clocked Core i7. Ryzen has a chance at beating the Intel parts in those price ranges outright.
There's also the issue that I expect games to tend to thread better as time passes. We're far into the multi-core era already, of course, but DirectX 12 and Vulkan mean that there's really no excuse for newer games that use them to have a significant single-threaded bottleneck.
Not sure about your methods, but I have a bunch of applications open even when gaming. Ryzen is better in such circumstances than Intel. I was in Microcenter this morning and they had a 1800x Ryzen running a bunch of applications versus a Kabby Lake I7 setup. The Ryzen was outperforming the Intel setup. The cost between the two systems was about the same.
I am already planning a 1800x setup, the Ryzen chip makes the I7 chip seem slow in that kind of an environment.
There's a big difference between having a lot of programs open that are basically idle, versus having a lot of programs open that are actively using CPU cores. If you've got enough other things running to push four CPU cores hard without a game and then want to play a game on top of that, then yes, Ryzen is compelling for that workload. But that's a strange thing to do.
"Ultimately, AMD isn't going out of business over this..."
Well shoot, aren't we a ray of sunshine? Looks like AMD is on the brink of disaster with this mediocre product launch... seems to be a theme among a certain segment. Wonder who they work for.
A year or two ago, people were worried that AMD was literally going to go bankrupt as they had quite a few quarters of losing money. Intel could potentially have been left as the only x86 CPU supplier. My point was that Ryzen is good enough that that clearly isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future barring something really bizarre. AMD will be profitable later this year once Naples and Raven Ridge revenue kicks in, and possibly sooner.
Conclusions: - Kaby Lake (or even Skylake) are still the best processors for gaming. - Broadwell-E has always been overpriced crap.
Nothing new under the sun, but nice to see AMD dent the Intel supremacy by crushing Broadwell-E. Definitely a progress.
If by Kaby Lake or Sky Lake, you mean a Core i7-7700K or -6700K, then yes. But that's out of the budget for many people. If you compare a low clocked Core i5 or Core i3 to the quad core Ryzen chips rumored to arrive in their price ranges, that's likely to look much more favorable to Ryzen. But that's speculative, as those parts aren't out yet.
Here is my biggest issues with AMD. 1). Their drivers for the chips are flacky as hell. They run some games flawlessly, while other games crash or just fail to run on them. 2). AMD chips run extremely hot under load and require way to much power compared to Intel. I suspect these new chips will be no different. 3). Most games don't even make use of all the cores provided by an AMD 8 core chip. So in the end - all those cores mean squat.
1) I think you're confused. Ryzen is a CPU, and programs crashing on a CPU is nearly always a problem of buggy programs, not a problem with the CPU itself. That has nothing to do with AMD versus Intel.
2) That was certainly true of Bulldozer and Piledriver cores. It has been true to a lesser degree of a lot of other AMD CPUs over the course of the last decade. But not all of them, as AMD's "cat" cores were pretty efficient, and Llano and Excavator cores weren't bad on power consumption for their day, either. And if you go back to the K8 versus NetBurst era, Intel was the power hog.
But my point is that this can change with a new architecture design, Zen is exactly that. And it's far from clear that Zen is less energy efficient than Intel CPU cores. Remember that today's reviews are comparing 65 W and 95 W 8-core Ryzen chips to 91 W 4-core and 140 W 8-core chips from Intel. Even being modestly slower in raw performance is entirely consistent with being better in energy efficiency.
So...any reasons to finally upgrade from 3470? Or is this yet again false positive excitement?
...those processors sure didn't progress as much as they could(or even should) have.
Depends on what you are using it for.
If you use a lot of programs that use multithreading, then it might be profitable to upgrade.
For gaming: not really. Not if you have decent hardware, like a good GPU, enough memory and SSD's for example.
Gaming uses clockspeed, not cores. Well, some do , but you can count those few games on 1 hand. If you plan to use it for gaming, then a GPU upgrade (if yours is 'poor') is probably a much better option.
Workstations on the other hand can/will profit from a Ryzen upgrade. So if you want to stream AND play and/or do lots of rendering+encoding, then a Zen *might* be profitable.
The Ryzen 1800x seems like a good workstation cpu, but above average for gaming so far it seems.
I would recommend the Gamers Nexus Youtube channel and the Ryzen benchmark as reference. That guy is 99.99% spot on with unbiased reports and with that info you should be able to see if a Zen upgrade is worth it or not. If not, I would recommend to wait for many more benchmarks and reviews.
Thanks. So, the plan is to buy an SSD, as always? meh some things never change
This is what @Quizzical told me repeatedly, anyhow. I guess I'll take a look into it.
The proper comparison of Ryzen 7 is to Broadwell-E, not plain Broadwell. Compare 8-core chips to other 8-core chips, not quad cores.
What's missing from today's reviews is extensive power consumption measurements, as reviewers had limited time and wanted to get the performance benchmarks up first. If Ryzen 7 is hanging with Broadwell-E on performance while using far less power (as is plausible from the TDP difference), that will bode very well for Naples.
Ryzen's performance deficit today in lightly threaded benchmarks is mostly a matter of not being able to clock as high as some Intel chips. That's a problem in desktops, but much less so in server or laptop markets where you don't want to clock the chip all that high because of what it will do to power consumption.
It didn't quite do as expected. Which is why the stock is 14 right now instead of 16. If it did exactly what was promised then it would have easily hit 16 today or tomorrow.
I can see why the AMD stock is correcting right now. If only it turned water to wine, then I am sure it would have a more positive outlook. Maybe if I add a Vega to it later this year, it will perform miracles.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Quite simply this is not taken as a gamers CPU. Nice looking architecture and a good basis to build off. But it's really not for gamers, at least ones that want to play new games.
I've been keeping my eye on this CPU because I just haven't been too impressed with the performance gains generation over generation with the Intel chips. I'm still running a i5-2500k overclocked because it hasn't been a bottle neck for anything I've been doing on my computer.
I've read a few reviews on this, and it seems it's very comparable to the higher end Intel CPUs for multi-core applications, but the reviews in games, especially if the settings aren't maxed out, are kind of disappointing. Some of this sounds like developers haven't really been trying to optimize for AMD chips though, so it may be a little while before the Ryzen can show its true colors.
I want to do a new PC build in the next year or so, and I'd really like Ryzen to give the Intel chips a run for their money in the gaming world, since I'm sure that's where I spend over 50% of my time on my PC. Even with a little bit lower performance than the 1800X and the 1700X, the performance benchmarks of the lower power 1700 have impressed me, and it's at a really nice price point.
I'm not disappointed. Did it meet the hype? Eh, maybe not all the way, but it comes darn close. It didn't make me leap out of my chair to upgrade my Ivy Bridge and Haswell systems, but it didn't leave me walking away thinking "What a PoS" like Bulldozer did.
If you were working with something that could genuinely benefit from a HEDT CPU - then you should be doing cartwheels right about now, as the price of your computer may have just dropped drastically. Gamers usually don't really benefit from HEDT CPUs though.
It's a worthy contender I think, particularly if your doing stuff "other than gaming". For gaming only, it's so-so. Will have to see what the lower-end SKUs do to see if it makes sense for the general computing public (the Facebookers and Youtubers) - but most of those people are much more price conscious than they are performance conscious anyway, and will buy whatever is on sale at WalMart or Costco and don't even look at what's inside the machine.
Some of this sounds like developers haven't really been trying to optimize for AMD chips though, so it may be a little while before the Ryzen can show its true colors.
Ryzen met my expectations, if not the hype, and is a good chip.
You won't see this optimisation be very effective. Developers don't have the tech, the experience and the man hours to write games in such a way that would make large performance leaps on multicore CPU.
Game codes doesn't naturally give in to creating multiple threads and most gaming setups are GPU bound anyways meaning the man hours put in to creating such game code are wasted for most customers.
Originally posted by nethaniah
Seriously Farmville? Yeah I think it's great. In a World where half our population is dying of hunger the more fortunate half is spending their time harvesting food that doesn't exist.
I really don't understand how this is disappointing for some of you. It's an 8 core CPU. It's not going to clock as high as the 4 core or even 6 core models. That's physics for you. However, I would like to see Zen+ clock higher and bring us back to the AMD of old that we enthusiasts used to love. I have my doubts that Ryzen 5 and 3 will be overclockers too, but that remains to be seen. AMD has created a great chip here, and in workstation loads or content creation, it is the best bang for your buck you can get by magnitude. The 6900k gets defeated in many of those benchmarks at twice the price, and it takes Intel's 10 core at a 300% increase in price to defeat it in every category.
Math should have told you from leaks weeks ago that it wouldn't trounce anything in ST applications (like most games today). It's 7700k all the way for that. After all, I have a 6700k at 4.7 GHz that Ryzen can't touch in games. Kaby Lake demolishes the 6900k and the 1800x alike in those benchmarks. AMD achieved a 52% increase in IPC over Piledriver in a single generation, and some people call it a failure? You should be ashamed of yourselves.
I will admit, however, the memory issues are a touch concerning. I hope the motherboard partners can get those issues ironed out quickly.
Bottom line is this: If you need 8 cores, you would be hard pressed to beat the value that Ryzen brings to the table. It performs solidly in all multi-threaded applications, and trades blows with the 6900k. If all you do is game, then Ryzen R7 isn't any more applicable to you than Broadwell was.
The R7s seem like great workstation chips, they excel in certain areas
and then a bit less in other areas, ie some games. Expecting a chip that
costs half the price of its competitor to outperform everything everywhere seems
like rather a big wish.
Personally I'm looking forward to seeing how the R5 range performs.
AMD achieved a 52% increase in IPC over Piledriver in a single generation, and some people call it a failure? You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Part you are not telling is that the "last generation" was 4 years ago and it still lags severely in single core performance, making the chip very narrow and limited use - who is going to buy that over Intel?
Like I said before, more time is needed but if R5 won't have at least same single core performance as R7, AMD might be in trouble....
FX all over again - nice chip but very limited market.
Part you are not telling is that the "last
generation" was 4 years ago and it still lags severely in single core
performance, making the chip very narrow and limited use - who is going
to buy that over Intel?
Like I said before, more time is needed
but if R5 won't have at least same single core performance as R7, AMD
might be in trouble....
Fair enough. The cat cores came out a long time ago and were awful. It still shouldn't diminish the achievement, though. I think the R5 1600x will be the sweet spot in terms of price for a lot of folks considering AMD. I know it certainly is for me. I'll be building a budget minded rig for my brother in the coming months, and am waiting anxiously to see the 1600x in action. I hope they bin them to be high performers. 2 fewer cores should allow for higher clocks narrowing that ST performance gap, in other words. In any case, it won't catch the 7700k, but at its price point, it'll just need to not be a bottleneck to be successful, imo.
FX all over again - nice chip but very limited market.
Here, I have to disagree. Bulldozer was a disaster from the start. The zen core is a good design, and it appears to have room to grow. Even Piledriver, with its improvements over Bulldozer, was so far and away below what Intel had to offer that it couldn't compete on any level. Ryzen, while not quite Kaby Lake, is still a solid performer. For me personally, at 1440p and a GTX 1070, Ryzen wouldn't bottleneck me in any way. Granted, that may change a bit for some DX11 titles with the upcoming 1080Ti and Vega.
Ok, for all you Intel bigots, I was at Microcenter yesterday and they had two identical systems running, one with a 1800x and the other with an I7-7700k. No overclocking. They had a bunch of current games running and I saw no difference whatsoever in performance between the two.
Personally I recommend I5's to people over I7's, just not worth the price differential for the performance difference. Not a big fan of multithreading.
If you multitask. which I do a lot at work, it looks to me like the Ryzen is a better choice. As for gaming, yes you can still get more power out of the Intel line if you into overclocking, but for most of the systems I build for people, I am definitely going to recommend Ryzen over Intel. Just a better all around CPU.
I have an 3750k gaming rig that is similar to the one in the review and this has been quite informative. Thanks for the link!
Originally posted by nethaniah
Seriously Farmville? Yeah I think it's great. In a World where half our population is dying of hunger the more fortunate half is spending their time harvesting food that doesn't exist.
Ok, for all you Intel bigots, I was at Microcenter yesterday and they had two identical systems running, one with a 1800x and the other with an I7-7700k. No overclocking. They had a bunch of current games running and I saw no difference whatsoever in performance between the two.
Personally I recommend I5's to people over I7's, just not worth the price differential for the performance difference. Not a big fan of multithreading.
If you multitask. which I do a lot at work, it looks to me like the Ryzen is a better choice. As for gaming, yes you can still get more power out of the Intel line if you into overclocking, but for most of the systems I build for people, I am definitely going to recommend Ryzen over Intel. Just a better all around CPU.
They banked too hard on future. We aren't sure how long it will be before a game can actually take advantage of a 16t processor.
If games use the new API more then yes, how a lot game still going for DX11 or DX9 this days due to support of the older OS. I still think future more on Vulkan then on DX12 due to windows 10 only, and Dev keep looking at people still on windows 7 and 8 where Vulkan more support then DX12. Just time will tell and I agree they are taking a risk and banking on it.
I'm not Quizzical, but the answer is yes, you actually can. Often SSDs will come with software to do it, and if they don't, there's plenty of free options out there.
That being said, your best option is to: 1) Shut down, Unplug your current HDD, plug in your new SSD 2) Start up and go into BIOS. Make sure your BIOS is set to AHCI hard drive type 3) Do a clean reinstall of Windows on your SSD (must have AHCI set before you do the installation) 4) Shutdown, Re-attach your HDD, start it back up 5) Copy what you need over from your HDD to your SSD ( your old HDD should show up as D : or something similar at this point) 6) Your done here, Congratultations. You can optionally reformat your HDD here to free up some additional space from the old Windows install
Comments
2) That was certainly true of Bulldozer and Piledriver cores. It has been true to a lesser degree of a lot of other AMD CPUs over the course of the last decade. But not all of them, as AMD's "cat" cores were pretty efficient, and Llano and Excavator cores weren't bad on power consumption for their day, either. And if you go back to the K8 versus NetBurst era, Intel was the power hog.
But my point is that this can change with a new architecture design, Zen is exactly that. And it's far from clear that Zen is less energy efficient than Intel CPU cores. Remember that today's reviews are comparing 65 W and 95 W 8-core Ryzen chips to 91 W 4-core and 140 W 8-core chips from Intel. Even being modestly slower in raw performance is entirely consistent with being better in energy efficiency.
http://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AMD?ltr=1
The proper comparison of Ryzen 7 is to Broadwell-E, not plain Broadwell. Compare 8-core chips to other 8-core chips, not quad cores.
What's missing from today's reviews is extensive power consumption measurements, as reviewers had limited time and wanted to get the performance benchmarks up first. If Ryzen 7 is hanging with Broadwell-E on performance while using far less power (as is plausible from the TDP difference), that will bode very well for Naples.
Ryzen's performance deficit today in lightly threaded benchmarks is mostly a matter of not being able to clock as high as some Intel chips. That's a problem in desktops, but much less so in server or laptop markets where you don't want to clock the chip all that high because of what it will do to power consumption.
I've read a few reviews on this, and it seems it's very comparable to the higher end Intel CPUs for multi-core applications, but the reviews in games, especially if the settings aren't maxed out, are kind of disappointing. Some of this sounds like developers haven't really been trying to optimize for AMD chips though, so it may be a little while before the Ryzen can show its true colors.
I want to do a new PC build in the next year or so, and I'd really like Ryzen to give the Intel chips a run for their money in the gaming world, since I'm sure that's where I spend over 50% of my time on my PC. Even with a little bit lower performance than the 1800X and the 1700X, the performance benchmarks of the lower power 1700 have impressed me, and it's at a really nice price point.
I'm not disappointed. Did it meet the hype? Eh, maybe not all the way, but it comes darn close. It didn't make me leap out of my chair to upgrade my Ivy Bridge and Haswell systems, but it didn't leave me walking away thinking "What a PoS" like Bulldozer did.
If you were working with something that could genuinely benefit from a HEDT CPU - then you should be doing cartwheels right about now, as the price of your computer may have just dropped drastically. Gamers usually don't really benefit from HEDT CPUs though.
It's a worthy contender I think, particularly if your doing stuff "other than gaming". For gaming only, it's so-so. Will have to see what the lower-end SKUs do to see if it makes sense for the general computing public (the Facebookers and Youtubers) - but most of those people are much more price conscious than they are performance conscious anyway, and will buy whatever is on sale at WalMart or Costco and don't even look at what's inside the machine.
You won't see this optimisation be very effective. Developers don't have the tech, the experience and the man hours to write games in such a way that would make large performance leaps on multicore CPU.
Game codes doesn't naturally give in to creating multiple threads and most gaming setups are GPU bound anyways meaning the man hours put in to creating such game code are wasted for most customers.
Math should have told you from leaks weeks ago that it wouldn't trounce anything in ST applications (like most games today). It's 7700k all the way for that. After all, I have a 6700k at 4.7 GHz that Ryzen can't touch in games. Kaby Lake demolishes the 6900k and the 1800x alike in those benchmarks. AMD achieved a 52% increase in IPC over Piledriver in a single generation, and some people call it a failure? You should be ashamed of yourselves.
I will admit, however, the memory issues are a touch concerning. I hope the motherboard partners can get those issues ironed out quickly.
Bottom line is this: If you need 8 cores, you would be hard pressed to beat the value that Ryzen brings to the table. It performs solidly in all multi-threaded applications, and trades blows with the 6900k. If all you do is game, then Ryzen R7 isn't any more applicable to you than Broadwell was.
Personally I'm looking forward to seeing how the R5 range performs.
Like I said before, more time is needed but if R5 won't have at least same single core performance as R7, AMD might be in trouble....
FX all over again - nice chip but very limited market.
Like I said before, more time is needed but if R5 won't have at least same single core performance as R7, AMD might be in trouble....
Here, I have to disagree. Bulldozer was a disaster from the start. The zen core is a good design, and it appears to have room to grow. Even Piledriver, with its improvements over Bulldozer, was so far and away below what Intel had to offer that it couldn't compete on any level. Ryzen, while not quite Kaby Lake, is still a solid performer. For me personally, at 1440p and a GTX 1070, Ryzen wouldn't bottleneck me in any way. Granted, that may change a bit for some DX11 titles with the upcoming 1080Ti and Vega.
Personally I recommend I5's to people over I7's, just not worth the price differential for the performance difference. Not a big fan of multithreading.
If you multitask. which I do a lot at work, it looks to me like the Ryzen is a better choice. As for gaming, yes you can still get more power out of the Intel line if you into overclocking, but for most of the systems I build for people, I am definitely going to recommend Ryzen over Intel. Just a better all around CPU.
That being said, your best option is to:
1) Shut down, Unplug your current HDD, plug in your new SSD
2) Start up and go into BIOS. Make sure your BIOS is set to AHCI hard drive type
3) Do a clean reinstall of Windows on your SSD (must have AHCI set before you do the installation)
4) Shutdown, Re-attach your HDD, start it back up
5) Copy what you need over from your HDD to your SSD ( your old HDD should show up as D : or something similar at this point)
6) Your done here, Congratultations. You can optionally reformat your HDD here to free up some additional space from the old Windows install