AMD Zen processors...Are you interested?

[Kuntantee]

It's high, and probably based on Intel prices. The FX-8100 was $200 at launch, and the 8350 was also $200. The FX-4100 was $115, compared to the 1400 at $169. This is expected since Intel set such a high bar with prices. Despite AMD's higher price, Intel makes it look like buying a RyZen is like robbery. And this is why we need Intel to be properly competitive, and drop prices. They won't, cause they're Intel, and the Intel fanboys will still claim that Intel is worth paying the extra fortune on.

Until people start buying the smart buy, which is RyZen, then Intel will continue to keep their prices high and so will AMD. Remember this is a company who made the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition for $1k, that was hardly any faster compared to their mainstream processors, but costed a fortune to own. Here we are, back to full circle with the i7-6900K for $1k. Except, the 6900K does have twice the cores and not some silly slight speed bump like the Extreme Edition.

Ryzen 1600 (1700? the weakest one) is same price as i7 7700k around here, perhaps intel is just a bit expensive but then it outperforms RyZen. RyZen is not the smart buy by a reasonable margin...it doesn't seem like it...I am a bit disappointed.

[Artorius]

Ryzen 1600 (1700? the weakest one) is same price as i7 7700k around here, perhaps intel is just a bit expensive but then it outperforms RyZen. RyZen is not the smart buy by a reasonable margin...it doesn't seem like it...I am a bit disappointed.

What?



Unless you're trying to talk strictly about gaming performance, your post doesn't really make any sense.

[Kuntantee]

What?

Wat?

/10 chars

- - - Updated - - -

Unless you're trying to talk strictly about gaming performance, your post doesn't really make any sense.

Yes, I meant gaming. Also, the image you posted... the only AMD product there is 1800X, something I didn't even mention.

[Artorius]

the only AMD product there is 1800X, something I didn't even mention.

The 1800X and the 1700 are basically identical, and you can easily clock the 1700 at 3.9GHz which is only 100MHz off the 1800X.

[Kuntantee]

The 1800X and the 1700 are basically identical, and you can easily clock the 1700 at 3.9GHz which is only 100MHz off the 1800X.

I was unaware of it but that still doesn't change anything. The prices are same, the performances are almost same (in terms of gaming). This doesn't look like AMD formula to be honest.

Why would I go for RyZen 1700 instead of tried-and-tested i7 7700k when it comes to gaming?*

* this is not a question directed to you or anyone, more like a statement.

[Artorius]

I was unaware of it but that still doesn't change anything. The prices are same, the performances are almost same (in terms of gaming). This doesn't look like AMD formula to be honest.

Why would I go for RyZen 1700 instead of tried-and-tested i7 7700k when it comes to gaming?*

* this is not a question directed to you or anyone, more like a statement.

To be honest, it would probably be "better" to go with a 7600K instead of either of the two. Having HT isn't really going to help you that much in games that aren't BF1 or some few other random ones.

And we also don't even know how it'll end up after some of the problems are fixed, and even right now Ryzen is not exactly terrible at gaming either. People are exaggerating a lot about it. Assuming you can make a 3200 RAM kit work well (2666 with increased bclk would be better but let's remain within sane defaults not to break other things) and isn't trying to use one of those 240Hz 1080p monitors then the performance difference between the two is basically meaningless because it doesn't impact you in any way anymore.

At an ideal scenario without anything else running in the background and not going into higher resolution territory, SKL/KBL SKUs are better in most games. When you start throwing in real world interference like shit running while you play your games and people playing on higher resolutions, they're basically the same thing. And I've read plenty of people, reviewers and even some folks here commenting that it actually even feels smoother than their previous Intel systems. Which isn't exactly surprising when you have so many cores to throw background tasks at.

But even then, there's no point in buying the Zen SKUs in the market if the focus is gaming now, maybe some years from now the extra cores might give some relevant direct improvements but right now most games don't really care and there's also no point whatsoever in buying Intel's HEDT line for this use case scenario either, Ryzen isn't special in this aspect. Comparing it to the 7700K in itself is kind of pointless, the comparison should be made against the 6900K.

We'll also have 4/8 and 6/12 Zen SKUs in the market soon enough, which fit much better as "gaming products" and those are also undercutting Intel. What AMD should do now is focus on fixing their platform's problems before those arrive to the market so reviewers test them with a half working environment. Which wasn't exactly true for the first 3 8/16 SKUs.

[Alindra]

The 1800X and the 1700 are basically identical, and you can easily clock the 1700 at 3.9GHz which is only 100MHz off the 1800X.

This is one thing that seems really weird to me. Why would AMD release 3 different SKUs that are "basically the same" with as big of a price delta as there is? Not to mention the 1700 having a lower TPD than the 1700X and 1800X. Earlier @Gray_Matter reposted Ryzen silicon lottery statistics from another forum, and it looked like while a 1700 could usually hit the same speeds, the higher end chips were more likely to hit them. (Due to binning?)

If their performance is so close, why the 3 different variants?

[Artorius]

This is one thing that seems really weird to me. Why would AMD release 3 different SKUs that are "basically the same" with as big of a price delta as there is? Not to mention the 1700 having a lower TPD than the 1700X and 1800X. Earlier @Gray_Matter reposted Ryzen silicon lottery statistics from another forum, and it looked like while a 1700 could usually hit the same speeds, the higher end chips were more likely to hit them. (Due to binning?)

If their performance is so close, why the 3 different variants?

The 1800X can hit 4.1GHz so it is better binned. It can also stay at 4.0GHz on a lower voltage. Circuitry-wise the three are literally the same, the difference is in which part of the wafer it came from and how "good" the silicon itself is.

This happens because when you manufacture a wafer, you have some differences between parts of it that affect overall silicon performance. "Binning" basically means using those better dies after cut as higher tier products since the silicon can take higher frequencies or operate under lower voltages.

The "problem" here is that Ryzen isn't exactly using bleeding-edge full of yields problems technology, Ryzen is kind of late on its own original schedule and as a result it is manufactured on a manufacturing process that is already more than one year old (Samsung's 14LPP, when it could've been manufactured on Samsung's 14LPU or even 10LPE). This means said process is fairly mature and deviation from chip to chip should be very small since the wafers are probably very consistent.

So, since they're so close to each other why didn't AMD just make them all 1800Xs to sell them for 500 USD? Because right now what they really want to do is get a portion of the market back. The die area of Ryzen is very, very small. It's smaller than Polaris and we know how cheap AMD can afford to sell Polaris. Yes they have to pay for its development and the amount of money needed to build an entire new uarch is completely different from designing a new GPU. But the price they pay per wafer is literally the same so their margins are pretty good even at 330 USD which is the price of the cheapest model. The 1700X and the 1800X are there to give them some extra money from those who want the best they can offer, regardless of how big this difference might be (and in this case, it's almost non-existent).

About the other question. The 1700 model has a lower TDP because the base clock is only 3.0GHz. The 1800X is already kind of out of the comfortable frequency zone and that's why the TDP is so much higher from the 1700. And the 1700X is also supposed to be an "enthusiast overclocking product" so they simply advertise it with the same TDP as the 1800X.

If you want the actual Vmin/Fmax curve (the voltage basically dictates how much heat it outputs):



And a non manually clocked Ryzen can also control its voltage on the go to improve efficiency, which is why the 1700 can reach such a low TDP (taking into consideration its clocks are conservative):


That's a ~20W difference right there simply from undervolting itself when possible. Which is disabled when you OC (or even set it to OC mode, at the same clocks).

Hope it helps =)

[Kuntantee]

But even then, there's no point in buying the Zen SKUs in the market if the focus is gaming now, maybe some years from now the extra cores might give some relevant direct improvements but right now most games don't really care and there's also no point whatsoever in buying Intel's HEDT line for this use case scenario either, Ryzen isn't special in this aspect. Comparing it to the 7700K in itself is kind of pointless, the comparison should be made against the 6900K.

I will need extra threads outside of gaming so I will most probably end up buying a Zen for my next system. I am only disappointed about pricing a bit.

[Remilia]

I just want an APU now.

[Deleted]

I just want an APU now.

Ask & you shall receive

(couldn't resist)

[Alindra]

-- lots of text --

Hope it helps =)

Quite, thanks!

[stormgust]

Why would I go for RyZen 1700 instead of tried-and-tested i7 7700k when it comes to gaming?*

Single threaded performance on both is enough right now, the price about the same, cheaper if you go for an R5 1600X. So the decision will come down to how often you plan to upgrade your system and how much you're willing to pay then. Chance is, AMD is going to stick with the AM4 platform longer than intel will with their 1151 platforms, so you may be looking at upgrading CPU+Motherboard vs. just upgrading CPU.

[Fascinate]

The 1700 is 100 bucks more than the 1600, but for that you get 2c 4t and a RGB light, worth

I wouldnt fault anyone for getting the 1600 of course, but given the relatively low cost of a flagship product im cool with a price premium for once.

[Deleted]

Well considering that prices on 7 became highter than most of I7 CPUs in my country(almost 500EU...) and mobos supporting this dude also are in high prices class i think that now is good time to get I7

[nocturnus]

seriously when i you gonna stop the Intel vs. AMD fan boy crap???????

I was wondering the same. It's rather pathetic and has no value, whatsoever.

[Fascinate]

Got my chip to 3.8 all cores 1.248 in bios. Gaming temps are 40-50c.

Im still using balanced profile so clocks/volts come down in idle, but apparently amd recommends high performance meh lol.

[moremana]

I was wondering the same. It's rather pathetic and has no value, whatsoever.

You guys still letting him get under your skin?

Just block him, thats what I did lol

[Vash The Stampede]

not great for gaming or overclocking

Yes but to what degree does this matter? PCGamer did a gaming comparison between RyZen 1700 and the i7-5930K both overclocked. The results were... inconsequential. There are a few games that do better on Intel hardware, but we know that some of those games are getting patched. Editor even noted that Ashes of the Singularity is going to get patched for Ryzen, and Bethesda signed a deal with AMD in optimizing their games, which means we could see a patch for Fallout 4 in the future.

For now, most games have a fps difference that you can count on your hands.

http://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-perfor...e-gtx-1080-ti/

[moremana]

Yes but to what degree does this matter? PCGamer did a gaming comparison between RyZen 1700 and the i7-5930K both overclocked. The results were... inconsequential. There are a few games that do better on Intel hardware, but we know that some of those games are getting patched. Editor even noted that Ashes of the Singularity is going to get patched for Ryzen, and Bethesda signed a deal with AMD in optimizing their games, which means we could see a patch for Fallout 4 in the future.

For now, most games have a fps difference that you can count on your hands.

Quit trying, he is obviously a Intel fan and doesn't have an open mind, he refuses to concede that AMD did a hell of a job keeping up with Intel for a better price.