Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

[mattiasnyc]

That's a very weak attempt to deflect and find ways to criticize AMD, you clearly know about it and expect it but you force the "pics or it didn't happen argument.

Why are you being so hostile???

I'm not criticizing AMD. I'm just saying that for a certain segment of the HEDT market, and it's not a trivial one given likely profit margins, x99 and Intel is still the way to go and probably will be so for the foreseeable future (barring a new platform from AMD... which I guess is speculated to be "x399"). That's isn't criticism of AMD, it's just me saying that this is what I see in my industry and what I see as being valid arguments in favor of that x99 platform. If you don't think it's valid then we can discuss that on its merits, but please spare me the hostility.

Since when is pre-annoucing a product normal or required? BTW does Skyalake X exist?

I don't know if Skylake X exists. The point was simply that rumors are easy to spread, and just because everyone says that everyone says that something is so, doesn't mean it is so. If an x399 platform shows up this year then that's absolutely great. More competition is better. If it doesn't, then I think Intel's x99 and/or another platform (Skylake-X or whatever) will remain not obsolete.

Thunderbolt ... lol, you deserve a medal if you care about it.

Well I'll tell you what buddy: Then next time you watch something on TV just think about what gear produced what you're watching. Because chances are that a ton of that gear was hooked up using TB. Do I care about it? No, not in the least. Will I care about it? If my upcoming work demands devices that demand that interconnect; absolutely.

Upgradability hugely favors AMD as they tend to stick with the same socket for much longer and offer actual upgrades, as opposed to 10% per year.

I think that's true. My point was merely that x99 has been around for a little bit, and that one can get a 28-lane CPU and upgrade that to a 40-lane CPU, whereas on the Ryzen platform the lane-count is what it is. So my comment was limited to that platform.

But wait, i though you only cared about perf, why move the goal post when your argument doesn't stand anymore? Your argument was that money is no object and only perf matters since you are ready to pay 2x for 10% extra perf.

I think you're confusing different arguments here. In my first example I merely pointed out that at the mid-range level there's a potential "problem" when spending money for a Ryzen r7 HEDT setup with the intent of being a professional content creator, for exactly the reasons I stated. Essentially, there will be cases where one has to make compromises at the upper-range of the Ryzen family, and there's really no way to go upwards - yet. With an Intel platform one could pay a smaller premium now but most likely have the upgrade path to a level of performance and interconnection that Ryzen doesn't have right now.

Next year the situation may be completely different. Or even in three months time. Who knows, maybe we'll never see Skylake-X but instead an x399 from AMD. Or maybe vice versa.

My only point was that Intel's HEDT isn't "obsolete" at all, and that there is a reason for that.

I have no idea what else you're reading into what I wrote, but I don't think it is what I think you think it is...

 

[IllogicalGlory]

Reading through this, effectively giving GN a second chance, and all they are talking about is Max FPS, not mins or averages.

This guy is a hack. No more page views for him.

Yeah, it's not like he tests 1% and 0.1% frametimes or anything...

He's not a hack, that much is obvious, he's just a person who isn't stoked out of their mind about Ryzen, and he's explained why. He's looking at Ryzen through the metrics and workloads that he personally finds important and is coming to his own conclusions about that; he's not like a forum poster who is able to write off Ryzen's problems (which do exist, and certainly were much worse at launch when GN hate was at its apex) because of how much of an accomplishment it is for AMD, (and it absolutely is) he's looking at through the lens of an end user that isn't concerned about the implications of a product for a specific company, just as one that's interested in its advantages and disadvantages over other options in the price range for the workloads tested. Personally, that's something I find valuable in a reviewer.

Plus, the Ryzen 5 1600X does not, in those tests, hold a definitive edge in frametimes over the i5-7600K (stock vs stock). It's about equal in 1% and 0.1% lows for BF1, has a very mild advantage in 1% lows for Total War: Warhammer, loses across the board in Watch Dogs 2, but does hold a solid advantage in 0.1% lows in Metro Last Light. In Ashes, it's a fair bit behind. We've only got one game where its advantage is clear (and it loses slightly in 1% lows in that game).

Plus, the review resulted in an editor's choice award for the R5 1600X. Not exactly a negative review.

 

[zinfamous]

Built a 7600 non K box last month as a basic allrounder and I see nothing here worth changing over.

last month. right. why would you?

if you didn't have that box today, would you have made the same decision?

I don't think these chips are going to or were meant to inspire people to dump any new machines that they have, but they are there to give you an option when making a new decision. That's the point. Going forward, it seems pretty ridiculous to consider anything but a Ryzen 7 or 5 for multitasking and, hey--can do gaming incredibly well, too! No-brainer, imo.

Intel needs to respond, somehow.

 

[tamz_msc]

If you have a Haswell/Skylake/Kaby lake i5, there is no reason to dump it and get the 1600/1600X. However i5s are now irrelevant for those who are doing a new build and are going to spend 200$ on a CPU.

Right now the only Intel CPUs worth buying in the sub-350$ segment are the Pentium G4560 and the i7 7700K.

EDIT: unless you're planning on an ITX build.

 

[CatMerc]

Has anyone tested gaming on the new 1.0.0.4 AGESA version?

So far users report massive latency reductions, and I'd imagine games are pretty sensitive to that. Most interested about Tomb Raider and Watch Dogs 2.

 

[escrow4]

last month. right. why would you?

if you didn't have that box today, would you have made the same decision?

I don't think these chips are going to or were meant to inspire people to dump any new machines that they have, but they are there to give you an option when making a new decision. That's the point. Going forward, it seems pretty ridiculous to consider anything but a Ryzen 7 or 5 for multitasking and, hey--can do gaming incredibly well, too! No-brainer, imo.

Intel needs to respond, somehow.

Yes. AM4 is a dog and needs at least another six months of BIOS updates and possibly hardware mobo revisions. Kaby Lake works out of the box. As for multitasking I have yet to bring this i5 to its knees so all those extra cores and cache are meh.

 

[guachi]

If you have a Haswell/Skylake/Kaby lake i5, there is no reason to dump it and get the 1600/1600X. However i5s are now irrelevant for those who are doing a new build and are going to spend 200$ on a CPU.

Right now the only Intel CPUs worth buying in the sub-350$ segment are the Pentium G4560 and the i7 7700K.

EDIT: unless you're planning on an ITX build.

And even the 7700K is really only for someone who pretty much does gaming to the exclusion of most other things on his computer. Or who, when he games, doesn't simultaneously have his PC doing something else. It's clear that with the R7 you don't get much benefit over the R5 1600. So that means you can have 2 cores happily doing something else and not lose a lick of performance in your PC (well, you'd probably lose something). Take a core or two away from your 7700K and it's a sad panda.

Though without integrated graphics I wonder what total system cost for a 1600 would be versus a 7600K. At least AMD, even when its CPUs and GPUs were second rate, still had good integrated graphics compared to Intel. So I think we all assume the APUs will be fantastic (though it would be ironic if they weren't).

I'd be pleasantly shocked if the Ryzen APU can do 1080 gaming respectably.

 

[w3rd]

What is going to happen to usage, when Battlefield (or other games) introduce 32 positional voice channels again.. (or start to use something like TrueAudio..?)


I am curious, as to how valid the 7700's gaming superiority claim is. My Devil's Canyon doesn't like it when too much is running on my machine when playing Battlefield. Won't the venerable 7700 suffer the same fate..? To me, that 1600x looks like a great buy for future proofing and not gimping your gaming rig for the next 4 years.

It is hard not to recommend as new build, based on the Ryzen. I like where AMD is going.

 

[beginner99]

You're missing some important things though, things that didn't make Intel's "HEDT line" go "obsolete" at all. Not even close I would say. I'll give you a very concrete example to illustrate the considerations in that segment:

I work in content creation, working with audio for tv/film etc. I need a powerful computer. It just so happens that the r7 is an excellent value for most of what I do. I'm also considering moving to video editing to get a bit more steady work. However, I then face several considerations:

1. Total lanes + lane configurations: With Intel's x99 platform I could start with a 28-lane CPU which would be more lanes than the Ryzen can give me, and by simply swapping a CPU I can get up to 40 lanes. The drawback with Ryzen is that I get x8/x8 on the x370, and the rest is PCIe 2.0. But even if I get another x16 slot it'll run at x4 from what I can see, and it still often shares resources with x1 slots. All of that goes through an x4 connection to the CPU.

Now, something that speaks in Ryzen's favor is the NVME m2 being tied directly to the CPU instead of going through the x370, but it doesn't seem that people on the x99 platform suffer from that. And so this is a very real concrete issue.

2. Some software is currently coded with Intel in mind, one example being running AVX2 at 256-bit if I understand correctly. And so there's a pretty big penalty there. If you're looking at 4-8k footage, and hours and hours of it, transcoding it becomes a long process where a 10% difference suddenly becomes a lot of time (compared to a 10% difference in gaming between a 80fps / 88fps frame rate, which I couldn't care less about).

So I think we're seeing the exact opposite of what you're suggesting, and I think Intel's pricing reflects that. As far as I can see they still 'own' the top-tier of HEDT.

For such scenarios AMD will soon offer you 12 and 16-core CPUs with 44 PCIe lanes.

All of that goes through an PCIe 3.0 x4 connection to the CPU.

And all of SATA, USB, LAN, Audio and PCIe 2.0 on X99 goes through DMI 2.0 which is a PCIe 2.0 x4 connection, so half as fast as on Ryzen.

 

[mattiasnyc]

For such scenarios AMD will soon offer you 12 and 16-core CPUs with 44 PCIe lanes.

I'll believe it when I see it. I think AMD is in a tricky spot right now if they're readying something like that and not telling people. Some will look at the high end of r7 and considering that as an affordable HEDT system, but I'm betting that a not insignificant amount of them would have considered an affordable 12/16-core HEDT system as well had it existed. So, having then invested in an 1800x with a top-of-the-line board they could very well get pretty annoyed if this just showed up out of the blue.... because as I said, I haven't seen a single thing come out of AMD about this....

And all of SATA, USB, LAN, Audio and PCIe 2.0 on X99 goes through DMI 2.0 which is a PCIe 2.0 x4 connection, so half as fast as on Ryzen.

Right. But if I understand things correctly people running higher end video editing and grading systems run multiple GPUs on PCIe 3.0, not 2.0, so that's why I was pointing out that on Ryzen currently you're getting only x8/x8, and any additional GPU you add will run only x4 and share the bottleneck and even throttle down if x1 is connected, whereas on x99 I believe the lanes pipe straight into the CPU. I don't think that advantage can be denied.

As a case-in-point (my own):

(1 Legacy PCI card - mandatory
1 Legacy PCI card - preferable)

I'll use an adapter for the above two, so;

1 PCIe x1 adapter
1 PCIe x1 Audio DSP card
1 PCIe x4 Professional video card
1 PCIe x16 GPU (monitors)
1 PCIe x16 GPU (processing)

From what I can tell the last two would run x8/x8, and any board that can fit an x4 will actually have an x16 with x4 maximum bandwidth. However, those boards then either specifically state that the x16 will operate at x1 instead of x4 once I populate the x1 slots, or they'll "share the bandwidth" which I'm guessing will amount to the same thing.

So, see my problem here?

 

[beginner99]

1 PCIe x1 adapter
1 PCIe x1 Audio DSP card
1 PCIe x4 Professional video card
1 PCIe x16 GPU (monitors)
1 PCIe x16 GPU (processing)

From what I can tell the last two would run x8/x8, and any board that can fit an x4 will actually have an x16 with x4 maximum bandwidth. However, those boards then either specifically state that the x16 will operate at x1 instead of x4 once I populate the x1 slots, or they'll "share the bandwidth" which I'm guessing will amount to the same thing.

So, see my problem here?

I do. But then you are the 0.001% user which still means Intel HEDT is dead (which was the inital point you replied to).

Besides that show me a benchmark where a GPU running in x8 PCIe 3.0 loses performance. Depending on workload even x4 might be good enough.

 

[coercitiv]

AM4 is a dog and needs at least another six months of BIOS updates and possibly hardware mobo revisions.

What exactly isn't working on AM4 properly, in the sense of out of the box, stock experience?

As for multitasking I have yet to bring this i5 to its knees so all those extra cores and cache are meh.

One year ago I bought a 6600K + Z170 combo for my home media server - the initial purchase intent was 6500 + H170 but I had the opportunity to grab a new Z170 board for the same price as H170, so the 6600K also gained in perceived value. Ever since it was purchased, the system has been working 24/7, rock stable, and has provided enough performance for my needs even at stock speed - so I definitely have some headroom left since I know it can clock up to 4.7Ghz with manageable voltage.

That having been said, if I were in the market for a similar system today, I wouldn't even blink towards the i5 as long as the R5 1600 was available. The sheer throughput difference, which could be sensed in anything from archiving, encoding, system updates, would make the AMD offer a no-brainer as long as we're talking similar prices (so no response from Intel price wise). Oh yes, I've seen my 4Ghz 4c/4t working at 100% while updating system files.

Once you bought your 7600, it makes no sense to upgrade, since you already made your purchase decision in such a way as to have enough performance headroom for it's purpose, but that doesn't diminish the value that R5 1600 brings to the table today.

 

[tamz_msc]

I'll believe it when I see it. I think AMD is in a tricky spot right now if they're readying something like that and not telling people. Some will look at the high end of r7 and considering that as an affordable HEDT system, but I'm betting that a not insignificant amount of them would have considered an affordable 12/16-core HEDT system as well had it existed. So, having then invested in an 1800x with a top-of-the-line board they could very well get pretty annoyed if this just showed up out of the blue.... because as I said, I haven't seen a single thing come out of AMD about this....

If an 1800X is already 500$, I don't see how 12/16 core HEDT(I hate that term, its an artificial market segmentation) competitors being 'affordable'. The mindset of people spending 300$ on an 8-core CPU with 24 PCI-E lanes is different from those who spend 1000$(hypothetically) for a 16-core CPU with 44-PCI-E lanes. I don't think AMD will antagonize anyone by releasing such a platform.

The same cannot be said for Intel because they kept CPUs having more than 4 cores out of reach for the majority of people for no other reason than $$$. Why? Because x58 was a thing at the time.

 

[beginner99]

If an 1800X is already 500$, I don't see how 12/16 core HEDT(I hate that term, its an artificial market segmentation) competitors being 'affordable'.

Intel charges you $1700 for a 10c/20t CPU. If AMD offers a 12c/24t at $999 and 16c/32t at $1399 I call that affordable over Intel.

 

[coercitiv]

Some will look at the high end of r7 and considering that as an affordable HEDT system, but I'm betting that a not insignificant amount of them would have considered an affordable 12/16-core HEDT system as well had it existed.

Who are these people you are talking about? On one side they are looking for affordable 8c/16t systems, on the other side they are looking for "affordable" 16c/32t systems. What systems where they working on prior to the Ryzen launch, and what kind of operations and earnings their systems provide? Because it seems to me that for those who really need them, 16c CPUs would just pay for themselves.

What I really can't understand in your point of view is how you consider R7 to not really be the equivalent of Intel's HEDT due to connectivity issues (debatable but fair enough from a certain perspective), yet you definitely see a conflict between R7 and whatever the X399 platform will bring to the table. And to top that off, you will believe X399 when you see it, but at the same time you see a timing conflict between AM4 and X399: between a platform in such early stages that you don't even fully believe it exists, and a platform that was already launched.

These people in the market for high throughput performance computing must have some seriously conflicting thoughts about their needs and the future.

 

[escrow4]

What exactly isn't working on AM4 properly, in the sense of out of the box, stock experience?


One year ago I bought a 6600K + Z170 combo for my home media server - the initial purchase intent was 6500 + H170 but I had the opportunity to grab a new Z170 board for the same price as H170, so the 6600K also gained in perceived value. Ever since it was purchased, the system has been working 24/7, rock stable, and has provided enough performance for my needs even at stock speed - so I definitely have some headroom left since I know it can clock up to 4.7Ghz with manageable voltage.

That having been said, if I were in the market for a similar system today, I wouldn't even blink towards the i5 as long as the R5 1600 was available. The sheer throughput difference, which could be sensed in anything from archiving, encoding, system updates, would make the AMD offer a no-brainer as long as we're talking similar prices (so no response from Intel price wise). Oh yes, I've seen my 4Ghz 4c/4t working at 100% while updating system files.

Once you bought your 7600, it makes no sense to upgrade, since you already made your purchase decision in such a way as to have enough performance headroom for it's purpose, but that doesn't diminish the value that R5 1600 brings to the table today.

There is no throughput difference for me. I don't encode, archiving is based off disk speed and system updates don't need a CPU speed up. AM4 mobos are half broken out of the box. There have been a squillion threads on it. Memory compatibility is toss a coin, CPU utilization in game/in Windows is cross your fingers, and BIOSs are bleh at best.

 

[tamz_msc]

There is no throughput difference for me. I don't encode, archiving is based off disk speed and system updates don't need a CPU speed up. AM4 mobos are half broken out of the box. There have been a squillion threads on it. Memory compatibility is toss a coin, CPU utilization in game/in Windows is cross your fingers, and BIOSs are bleh at best.

It is a completely new platform and has teething troubles. I understand that having to deal with these issues might be a turn-off, but pretending the entire lineup is bad because of this screams bias(along with a desperate attempt to justify one's purchase when a new platform has obliterated it in its infancy).

 

[tamz_msc]

Intel charges you $1700 for a 10c/20t CPU. If AMD offers a 12c/24t at $999 and 16c/32t at $1399 I call that affordable over Intel.

In relative terms, yes; but I would imagine that those who have already paid 300-500$ for an 8-core CPU wouldn't find the 12/16C parts at those prices a better choice in 'affordability'. That term is thrown out of the window anyway when you are purchasing from this tier of CPUs.

 

[w3rd]

I'll believe it when I see it. I think AMD is in a tricky spot right now if they're readying something like that and not telling people. Some will look at the high end of r7 and considering that as an affordable HEDT system, but I'm betting that a not insignificant amount of them would have considered an affordable 12/16-core HEDT system as well had it existed. So, having then invested in an 1800x with a top-of-the-line board they could very well get pretty annoyed if this just showed up out of the blue.... because as I said, I haven't seen a single thing come out of AMD about this....

Something to read....

and another...

 

[Topweasel]

There is no throughput difference for me. I don't encode, archiving is based off disk speed and system updates don't need a CPU speed up. AM4 mobos are half broken out of the box. There have been a squillion threads on it. Memory compatibility is toss a coin, CPU utilization in game/in Windows is cross your fingers, and BIOSs are bleh at best.

Yeah because x99 was a dream launch and no one had issues.

Actually for the most part the boards are top notch. There was one issue for one board in the first couple days. The only real issue left is upper end memory clocks. That and maybe the bios adjustable feature list needs to be expanded.

 

[legcramp]

There is no throughput difference for me. I don't encode, archiving is based off disk speed and system updates don't need a CPU speed up. AM4 mobos are half broken out of the box. There have been a squillion threads on it. Memory compatibility is toss a coin, CPU utilization in game/in Windows is cross your fingers, and BIOSs are bleh at best.

It's okay, your i5 is still a great cpu.

 

[gorobei]

It's okay, your i5 is still a cromulent cpu.

fixed that for you.

 

[Kallogan]

thanks amd for ending intel's cpu tyranny and lazyness. I was almost bored to death.

 

[3DVagabond]

I'll believe it when I see it. I think AMD is in a tricky spot right now if they're readying something like that and not telling people. Some will look at the high end of r7 and considering that as an affordable HEDT system, but I'm betting that a not insignificant amount of them would have considered an affordable 12/16-core HEDT system as well had it existed. So, having then invested in an 1800x with a top-of-the-line board they could very well get pretty annoyed if this just showed up out of the blue.... because as I said, I haven't seen a single thing come out of AMD about this....



Right. But if I understand things correctly people running higher end video editing and grading systems run multiple GPUs on PCIe 3.0, not 2.0, so that's why I was pointing out that on Ryzen currently you're getting only x8/x8, and any additional GPU you add will run only x4 and share the bottleneck and even throttle down if x1 is connected, whereas on x99 I believe the lanes pipe straight into the CPU. I don't think that advantage can be denied.

As a case-in-point (my own):

(1 Legacy PCI card - mandatory
1 Legacy PCI card - preferable)

I'll use an adapter for the above two, so;

1 PCIe x1 adapter
1 PCIe x1 Audio DSP card
1 PCIe x4 Professional video card
1 PCIe x16 GPU (monitors)
1 PCIe x16 GPU (processing)

From what I can tell the last two would run x8/x8, and any board that can fit an x4 will actually have an x16 with x4 maximum bandwidth. However, those boards then either specifically state that the x16 will operate at x1 instead of x4 once I populate the x1 slots, or they'll "share the bandwidth" which I'm guessing will amount to the same thing.

So, see my problem here?

Part of your problem is that R7 (and R5) is not the high end work station part. The 16c/32t part (and cut down 12c/24t part) is for that. And it'll basically have 2x everything that the R7 does. Surely you've heard about those parts coming?

I wouldn't put too much into AMD not making any public announcements themselves yet. They currently have lot on their plate already with R7/R5, the upcoming APU's, and Vega. We have to consider that AMD has ~1/10th the resources that Intel does. What they are doing, mixing it up with the big boys (nVidia and Intel) in 2 different hardware segments, is no small endeavor. That's not counting consoles, HBM, various API's, etc... that they've been involved with.

 

[Atari2600]

You're missing some important things though, things that didn't make Intel's "HEDT line" go "obsolete" at all. Not even close I would say. I'll give you a very concrete example to illustrate the considerations in that segment:

When you consider the extra hardware (NVMe/PCIeSSD drives etc) that you can afford to use with an R7 vs. a 6900K, then its a non contest.