AMD Zen processors...Are you interested?

[Life-Binder]

it depends A LOT on Zens OC potential

if Zen 4c/8t can hit ~4.6+ then its ok, if it can do 4.8+ then its very very good, 4.9-5.0+ is amazing, basically almost Kaby Lake for cheaper

4.2-4.3 for quad would be a dud in my book


but for 6c/12t Zen 4.4+ GHz will be a win already


everything else (cores, IPC, price) Zen seems to have nailed

[Evildeffy]

Ummm thats a 12 thread CPU vs a 4 core, of course multithreaded workloads it will stomp it. If you read closer the single thread performance is still quite a bit higher on 7600k.

That is the CPU i am looking at personally, but you need to keep perspective when looking at these leaks lol. Most games i5's and i7's will still be superior because of higher max overclocks, but the awesome thing with zen is you get extra cores for the future in case games start making more use of them.

I really hope microcenter does the combo deals on zen, 1600x and a motherboard for ~300 bucks lol.

Actually that's just the title comparison.
If you read properly they 1:1 compare it to the i7-6850K which gets hammered in the face by Ryzen.

And if you were to read you're comparing a 3,7GHz CPU without XFR enabled so 3,7GHz topped out to a 3,9GHz - 4,2GHz i5 for single threaded performance.

Extrapolation suggests the following, assuming max. turbo speeds:
If 3,7GHz is max speed, it is normalized to 100%
100 / 3700 = 0,027
0,027 * 4200 = 113,51%
Meaning an advantage of 13,51% for single threaded speed in frequency.
If we were to increase the Single Threaded score of 1888 * 1,1351 = 2143,07
Actually meaning it's ahead in IPC by ~8 points, or 0,47% of Kaby Lake because a core i5-7600k scores 2135 points.

This is of course provided the AMD chip can clock that high, which I honestly think it should without issue due to 4GHz stock turbo CPUs higher up.

Regardless however they 6850K which is a higher clocked counterpart gets wrecked by their own (Guru3D's) comparison.
Ryzen so far... is impressive by quite a margin.

The only thing I'm seeing currently is that Kaby Lake gets higher base scores simply because of clock speed.
Now the question is ... can Ryzen keep up with that clock speed?

[Fascinate]

Ya id be happy with a 4.4-4.5ghz 1600x tbh. Not sure ill be building a new rig, but sure is fun thinking about a 6c 12T CPU for 200 bucks (given microcenter carries them, and i dont see why not).

[Vash The Stampede]

We pretty much know what zen is by now, the only questions are how high they overclock and how hot they get. They seem to be fairly close to intels latest in IPC, maybe 5-10% slower and you get a ton more cores for a cheaper price.

Pretty awesome if you ask me, and i am even considering going back to AMD from my 2500k setup.

Zen is pretty much what I expected so far in rumors. It's not flat out faster than Intel's current offering as it's faster in some tests and slower in others. Also like I predicted the Zen CPU's do scale very well with more cores. Something AMD known to do well even on their Bulldozer CPUs. Would I upgrade form a 2500K? Probably not. But I am sitting on a FX 8350 which honestly I don't have performance issues with it, but I may replace it with a Zen and throw my old 8350 into my HTPC Linux machine. Great thing about linux is that I can just swap motherboards and CPUs and it doesn't care. My 8350 machine runs Windows and that's going to be a pain to deal with.

it depends A LOT on Zens OC potential

if Zen 4c/8t can hit ~4.6+ then its ok, if it can do 4.8+ then its very very good, 4.9-5.0+ is amazing, basically almost Kaby Lake for cheaper

4.2-4.3 for quad would be a dud in my book


but for 6c/12t Zen 4.4+ GHz will be a win already


everything else (cores, IPC, price) Zen seems to have nailed

I know enthusiasts will want that OC potential but majority of people don't overclock. And exactly how many Intel CPUs can OC? Unfortunately not a lot, but the new Zen's are all overclockable given you buy the right motherboard chipset. If you're someone who's looking into massive OC with IPC, then Intel is the way to go because Intel has more experience dealing with 14nm than AMD does. We can see with the RX 480's that 14nm is certainly holding back their ability to OC. Though I'm sure through their experience with making Polaris chips that could have helped AMD, but not to the level of Intel.

I expect near Skylake performance with decent overclockability. It probably won't out do Kaby Lake in OC and IPC, but the differences are going to be unimportant because RyZen should have a massive advantage of price and cores+SMT. For example, lets say AMD's 6c/12t can do 4.4Ghz OC while the 7600ik can do 4.8Ghz. They both cost the same but you can potentially get 400Mhz more out of Intel's chip. Is it really worth losing 2 cores + hyperthreading? Probably not.

[Life-Binder]

For example, lets say AMD's 6c/12t can do 4.4Ghz OC while the 7600ik can do 4.8Ghz. They both cost the same but you can potentially get 400Mhz more out of Intel's chip. Is it really worth losing 2 cores + hyperthreading? Probably not.

7600K probably not, but for gaming it may very will be better in such a case to add a bit of $$$ and get the 7700K

a 5.0 4c/8t is quite possibly better than a 4.4 6c/12t in games in both this year and next


thats why I mention I think it would do well for Zen to have 4.7-4.8+ clocking quad to challenge 6700K/7700K directly .. and if not that then ~4.4+ clocking hexacore as a good alternative



for me OC is very important, Im not going to game on 4.0-4.2 chip, period, even if it had 20 threads

[Evildeffy]

If you're someone who's looking into massive OC with IPC, then Intel is the way to go because Intel has more experience dealing with 14nm than AMD does. We can see with the RX 480's that 14nm is certainly holding back their ability to OC. Though I'm sure through their experience with making Polaris chips that could have helped AMD, but not to the level of Intel.

I expect near Skylake performance with decent overclockability. It probably won't out do Kaby Lake in OC and IPC, but the differences are going to be unimportant because RyZen should have a massive advantage of price and cores+SMT. For example, lets say AMD's 6c/12t can do 4.4Ghz OC while the 7600ik can do 4.8Ghz. They both cost the same but you can potentially get 400Mhz more out of Intel's chip. Is it really worth losing 2 cores + hyperthreading? Probably not.

Don't compare 14nm GPU and CPU lithography, they are vastly different.
Gaining experience with Polaris helps you absolutely squat in the CPU realm.

So far all the benchmarks show an equal IPC to Skylake/Kaby Lake so I'm assuming you are meaning "Single Threaded Performance" ... in which case again it depends upon OC.
Having said that .. the X variants and the cooling system could do that for most people automatically depending on how properly it works.
It could be very conservative and make little difference ... however if that little difference is up to 4,2GHz automatically then it'll compete directly with the i7-7700K for the majority of people for considerably who don't manually overclock.

To be truthful it already does since people wanting threads will already gain more out of stock frequencies with Ryzen than Intel even without any form of overclocking.

- - - Updated - - -

7600K probably not, but for gaming it may very will be better in such a case to add a bit of $$$ and get the 7700K

a 5.0 4c/8t is quite possibly better than a 4.4 6c/12t in games in both this year and next

thats why I mention I think it would do well for Zen to have 4.7-4.8+ clocking quad to challenge 6700K/7700K directly .. and if not that then ~4.4+ clocking hexacore as a good alternative

for me OC is very important, Im not going to game on 4.0-4.2 chip, period, even if it had 20 threads

Just as a reminder most Kaby Lake chips don't do 5,0GHz, the average is between 4,8 and 4,9GHz and those frequencies top out with a memory speed of 3600MHz roundabout.

That is true for both 7600K and 7700K since they are the same chips (100%) just HyperThreading disabled.
Meaning dropping the cash for the 7700K is 100% pointless if you are comparing between the 7600K and 7700K for overclocking with the only difference being HyperThreading since their OC is identical.
Any game benefitting from proper multithreading will gain more from 6 cores and 4,4GHz than 4 cores and 4,8GHz so that point in general is moot as well.

I understand you just want to have higher numbers and for games that are poorly threaded and just want IPC and clocks (WoW) having as high as possible is going to be good in the lower %-ages during raids.
But let's look at it realistically here... seeing as Ryzen has IPC down as high as Skylake/Kaby Lake and only the differences between frequencies is fighting here...
How much is that extra 400MHz going to help you in WoW? At highest load it'll be 5 - 10 FPS (AT WORST) on an architecture that should already be in the 60s pre-overclocked... the difference is negligible.

The only thing you're after is numbers and that's perfectly fine .. but it's not a necessity.

[Life-Binder]

Just as a reminder most Kaby Lake chips don't do 5,0GHz,

they do more than 5.0, though thats not avg

but yeah 5.0 you can reasonably aim for with Kaby, or 4.9 at least

Any game benefitting from proper multithreading will gain more from 6 cores and 4,4GHz than 4 cores and 4,8GHz so that point in general is moot as well.

yeah that one games name is BF1 ^^

even in BF1 idk if it can make 2 cores overcome a 400-600 Mhz difference


and seeing as how I dont even own BF1 ^^ .. I want those Mhz for sure for all the other games, both old and new

The only thing you're after is numbers

I want the fastest (or nearly fastest) gaming CPU (after OC), that is all



and we dont even know yet if Zen hexas can reach 100% stable 4.4+ OC under all loads for all cores .. I hope they can

[Easo]

Everybody with at least some sense of logical reasoning should wish that AMD does succeed. Prices will be lower, Intel will be pushed to stop making barely improved and rehashed CPU's, consumer will benefit.
Monopoly is bad, yo.

[Evildeffy]

they do more than 5.0, though thats not avg

but yeah 5.0 you can reasonably aim for with Kaby, or 4.9 at least

The average I've seen so far (not counting extreme Liquid nitrogen/helium) on air/AIO cooling is between 4,8 and 4,9 because 5,0 or higher simply isn't stable.
I wouldn't call that "at least" but you can count 4,9 if you want.

yeah that one games name is BF1 ^^

even in BF1 idk if it can make 2 cores overcome a 400-600 Mhz difference

and seeing as how I dont even own BF1 ^^ .. I want those Mhz for sure for all the other games, both old and new

There are more games than just BF1 actually but it is the one freshest on the memory, DOOM scales exceptionally well or that Skyscraper game a lot of people play and countless others I'm likely forgetting.
The point is that it is indeed rising and only older games are currently still in this stigma really, there's no benefit for developers not to develop multi-core threading because it means their audience will be lower meaning less money gained.

This is also the reason why I believe Vulkan will end up being more successful right now than DX12.

I want the fastest (or nearly fastest) gaming CPU (after OC), that is all

and we dont even know yet if Zen hexas can reach 100% stable 4.4+ OC under all loads for all cores .. I hope they can

As I said .. you're after numbers, which is fine but again realize that the absolute vast majority don't overclock.
Think of it more generally than towards what you want yourself and also realize that later in life you're going to join the "Fuck it, I'm not overclocking it, base speed will do!" crowd.. it's just a matter of time!

As far as overclocking numbers go... I'm not commenting on that just yet as I simply do not know and cannot possibly guess if they can because we know absolutely nothing.

[Denpepe]

Posted this already in a different thread, but this article shows that cores & HT give some decent boosts to certain games so I for one an curious to see what Ryzen willdo for games like these.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1332-...-i5/page2.html

[Deleted]

Posted this already in a different thread, but this article shows that cores & HT give some decent boosts to certain games so I for one an curious to see what Ryzen willdo for games like these.

After seeing the benchmarks here - http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700...hmarks-leaked/ -
I'm not so sure about how well AMDs hyper-threading works in certain applications.

If look at the physics benchmark the 8/16 core 1700X (ES) performs barely better with 726 fps than the 8-core 8350 (629 fps) and is clearly behind the i7-6800k with 4/8 cores (935 fps), while it destroys those in the integer benchmarks.

So either that benchmark is bogus or the RYZEN logical cores cannot do all the stuff the I7 ones can do.

[Vash The Stampede]

Don't compare 14nm GPU and CPU lithography, they are vastly different.
Gaining experience with Polaris helps you absolutely squat in the CPU realm.

If we're talking about yields then yes it does. A wafer defect is going to effect GPUs and CPUs equally.

So far all the benchmarks show an equal IPC to Skylake/Kaby Lake so I'm assuming you are meaning "Single Threaded Performance" ... in which case again it depends upon OC.

There are leaked benchmarks that show it struggles in some benchmarks, though nothing bad. I'm taking the stance that RyZen won't be totally equal to SKylake/Kaby.

Having said that .. the X variants and the cooling system could do that for most people automatically depending on how properly it works.
It could be very conservative and make little difference ... however if that little difference is up to 4,2GHz automatically then it'll compete directly with the i7-7700K for the majority of people for considerably who don't manually overclock.

The interesting thing about the X variants is the auto overclock system which for people like you and mean won't benefit from. Don't know about you but I will manually overclock my CPUs. The X variants are perfect for those who want more out of their system but to afraid to overclock. Which is nice since AMD recognizes that not everyone will be overclocking.

Everybody with at least some sense of logical reasoning should wish that AMD does succeed. Prices will be lower, Intel will be pushed to stop making barely improved and rehashed CPU's, consumer will benefit.
Monopoly is bad, yo.

It'll be interesting to see how Intel responds to RyZen. If Intel doesn't lower prices I can see a few fanboys being pissed. If they do lower prices, people will see why it's important to have competition, and hopefully stop being fanboys. It's a huge uphill battle for Intel, since very few CPUs can overclock and the i5's have no Hyper Threading.

I expect Intel to do some anti consumer actions against AMD, but this is 2017 and anything they do will be in everyone's face in seconds. I also expect Intel to do a rehash with their products to compete better in prices. It's less asshole like than just massively dropping prices of their Kaby Lake chips.

[Deleted]

After seeing the benchmarks here - http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700...hmarks-leaked/ -
I'm not so sure about how well AMDs hyper-threading works in certain applications.

If look at the physics benchmark the 8/16 core 1700X (ES) performs barely better with 726 fps than the 8-core 8350 (629 fps) and is clearly behind the i7-6800k with 4/8 cores (935 fps), while it destroys those in the integer benchmarks.

So either that benchmark is bogus or the RYZEN logical cores cannot do all the stuff the I7 ones can do.

I won't compare CPU Vs GPU, but when you compare AMD GPUs Vs Nvidia GPUs, each vendor has a strength and weakness when it comes to what effects impact performance more, similar thing will be true here for CPUs between AMD and Intel, they won't be equally strong in everything, there will be differences and the architecture will differentiate what task will be better.

[Evildeffy]

If we're talking about yields then yes it does. A wafer defect is going to effect GPUs and CPUs equally.

Wafer defects can happen at any level with any lithography but I meant that the procedure is far more costly for GPUs because it's more complicated than CPUs.
The experience from even wafer defects does not apply at all from GPU to CPU and vice versa as they are very different from each other.
The only thing you can correlate is that the opening wafer defects could be similar but even the maturation rate between the 2 alters drastically.

There are leaked benchmarks that show it struggles in some benchmarks, though nothing bad. I'm taking the stance that RyZen won't be totally equal to SKylake/Kaby.

And in other leaked ones Ryzen decimates Skylake/Kaby Lake .. overall it should be equal but still what you're referring to is likely Single Threaded Performance rather than IPC, 2 different meanings between the 2.

The interesting thing about the X variants is the auto overclock system which for people like you and mean won't benefit from. Don't know about you but I will manually overclock my CPUs. The X variants are perfect for those who want more out of their system but to afraid to overclock. Which is nice since AMD recognizes that not everyone will be overclocking.

Yup, hence my point that if the X variant of the 6C/12T CPU clocks to 4.2GHz or higher on it's own with a beefy cooling it will already challenge the i7-7700K as the highest stock CPU performer in Single Threaded Performance and bitchslap it in Multi Threaded Performance. (See the difference between IPC and STP/MTP now? )

It'll be interesting to see how Intel responds to RyZen. If Intel doesn't lower prices I can see a few fanboys being pissed. If they do lower prices, people will see why it's important to have competition, and hopefully stop being fanboys. It's a huge uphill battle for Intel, since very few CPUs can overclock and the i5's have no Hyper Threading.

I expect Intel to do some anti consumer actions against AMD, but this is 2017 and anything they do will be in everyone's face in seconds. I also expect Intel to do a rehash with their products to compete better in prices. It's less asshole like than just massively dropping prices of their Kaby Lake chips.

However they respond will indeed be interesting and it's something that'll be a painful choice.
The simplest and likely action is to slash prices but deal with negative PR ... or claim that they made some bogus wafer breakthrough allowing them to double the amount of good chips from a wafer allowing them to slash prices in their products.
You, and I, would know that's a load of crap but the average consumer will believe Intel with it's baby blue eyes.

All of this depends heavily on that AMD doesn't somehow screw up monumentally as this is literally their last shot in the CPU market.

[Deleted]

for CPUs between AMD and Intel, they won't be equally strong in everything, there will be differences and the architecture will differentiate what task will be better.

Of course, however in this case the difference seems quite dramatic when a CPU with twice the cores is slower than the one with 4/8. So either the benchmark does not handle RYZEN (HT) correctly or the IPS for those calculations is nowhere near Intel's. This might have a big impact on gaming.

[Deleted]

Don't compare 14nm GPU and CPU lithography, they are vastly different.
Gaining experience with Polaris helps you absolutely squat in the CPU realm.

Could you elaborate on that? I always figured that they would be mostly the same - I mean both cpu and gpu are made of transistors and all the lithography do is construct said transistors in right configuration to make a gpu or cpu depending on design. Sure that is simplified but given they are the same on basic level so what differences are there and how are they not comparable given they are produced using the same process? I am not trying to argue here I do not know if that's true or not but would be interesting to know.

[Evildeffy]

Could you elaborate on that? I always figured that they would be mostly the same - I mean both cpu and gpu are made of transistors and all the lithography do is construct said transistors in right configuration to make a gpu or cpu depending on design. Sure that is simplified but given they are the same on basic level so what differences are there and how are they not comparable given they are produced using the same process? I am not trying to argue here I do not know if that's true or not but would be interesting to know.

The base building blocks are close to the same when you break them up into components.
However the architecture of the CPU is vastly different and a GPU in that term is far more complex and difficult to get in there.

The components used are of course also different because different purposes different items.

Creating something that is far less complex and generally smaller with a significantly lower heat threshold and vastly different components also calculating in the %-age chance of failure between the 2 of them on a wafer level makes the process inherently far more dangerous for GPUs than it is for CPUs.

So what works for CPUs and having experience with that means absolutely squat in the GPU arena because of die complexity and size among other things.

It would be like comparing a basic run of the mill 1.4 HDI Peugeot Diesel engine to a Hydrogen Powered car and you saying "Well they both have engines, I should be able to go into any garage and have it fixed!" ... it just doesn't work that way.

Also last I checked the actual lithography machines used for CPUs and GPUs are different because of said complexity, but truthfully that was a while ago when I still had contacts working with ASML, not sure if that is still the case.

[Sorshen]

Some other 'leaks' in Cinebench R15
i7-6850K - 1191cb
R7-1600X - 1136cb

Pretty good for literally half the cost.

[Deleted]

Cause NDA can go fuck it self, this is just a motherboard by the way guys.

[Life-Binder]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comment...00x_benchmark/

some leaked 1700X benchmarks



also Ive personally decided to pull the trigger on a 6c/12t CPU, but only after seeing Coffee Lake gaming benchmarks and OC clocks .. as soon as thats out I will get either that or the 1600X, depending on the difference in games and price

decided not to get an 8c/16t (dont think its worth for gaming only even with future-proofing in mind .. plus its more heat and thus more noise from cooling and I game without headphones) and also decided not to wait for Icelake/Tigerlake or Zen+ .. a well OCed 6c/12t from this year should last me in games well into the new gen that comes after "Lake" and "Ryzen"