Ryzen 1600X 6c12t 3.6/4.0 GHz $249 - the gaming CPU arrives 4/11

[cusideabelincoln]

Any chance of unlocking the cores on R5s?

 

[french toast]

Just what is going to happen with >3600mhz memory support? Compared to 2133 reviews we might see 15% improvement.

 

[escrow4]

And on that date Ryzen will still need new BIOS(s), new physical hardware revision(s), and actual support from devs. The first won't be polished until Christmas, the third is a big if. Meanwhile a plain old i5 in a plain old H270 or Z270 will continue working out of the box with maximum performance.

 

[moonbogg]

For gaming, I don't see the value of a 6/12 Ryzen when a kaby i5 would be much faster for similar money. I no longer have any faith or confidence in Ryzen for gaming purposes. Maybe Zen+ will change things. Sadly, I don't find the 6/12 Ryzen chips to be interesting anymore. I thought they were going to absolutely destroy the entire gaming market and just take the whole cake, but when those reviews came out and with the current state of things, I think they will remain the budget option. If they can fix the performance in gaming and get clockspeeds up a little more, then it would change everything.

 

[krumme]

The value of 6c is where its needed
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Battl...eld-1-They-Shall-not-Pass-Benchmarks-1223170/

And thats with slow 2800 4x configuation in ram that gives bad sub timings for zen (and notice the 3000 ryzen runs 2133 ram in 4x and that is very slow). Get some 2933 or 3200 trident and ryzen and core is practically even freq vs freq core vs core in bf1. And thats today.
Obviously the fast 1700 results is for a oc 1700 to 3900.

Ryzen kills core line $vs$ for bf1

 

[krumme]

Besides there is a reason moonbog you bought a 6800 and not a 7700. And the bf1 results is excactly why.

Why the hell do you guys fuel the same mistakes people made back when they bought fast core 2 dual vs quads?
It was insanely bad decisons.

Its even more easy today because its same cost for the extra cores. There is only one drawback; you have to fork out a bit extra for the ram to get it going at 2933 preferably 3200. It should be doable. We know what to do and what ram people should buy.

 

[coercitiv]

For gaming, I don't see the value of a 6/12 Ryzen when a kaby i5 would be much faster for similar money.

Where were these opinions from gamers/enthusiasts like you when we had repeated discussions on the forum on the subject of i5 6600K vs. i7 6700? We had people saying the 4.5+ Ghz 6600K does not make sense vs. the 3.7Ghz 6700 because the extra SMT threads not only compensate, but actually end up pulling ahead of the 20%+ clock deficit. The i5 was repeatedly described as inadequate for modern games due to its 4 thread limitation: frame rate dips and stutter were the main topic when discussing this.

Even with the CCX penalty of Zen in games - if the i5 betters R5 in gaming, then i5 7600K is definitely a better gaming CPU than i7 7700. If 4c/4t i5 offers faster and smoother FPS than 6c/12t R5, then surely we don't need to ever hear how 4c/8t i7 is smoother than 4c/4t i5 with 15-20% clock advantage and faster RAM.

 

[moonbogg]

Where were these opinions from gamers/enthusiasts like you when we had repeated discussions on the forum on the subject of i5 6600K vs. i7 6700? We had people saying the 4.5+ Ghz 6600K does not make sense vs. the 3.7Ghz 6700 because the extra SMT threads not only compensate, but actually end up pulling ahead of the 20%+ clock deficit. The i5 was repeatedly described as inadequate for modern games due to it's 4 thread limitation: frame rate dips and stutter were the main topic when discussing this.

Even with the CCX penalty of Zen in games - if the i5 betters R5 in gaming, then i5 7600K is definitely a better gaming CPU than i7 7700. If 4c/4t i5 offers faster and smoother FPS than 6c/12t R5, then surely we don't need to ever hear how 4c/8t i7 is smoother than 4c/4t i5 with 15-20% clock advantage and faster RAM.

Any addition core/thread benefit of a Ryzen CPU is offset by its significantly worse performance in games, generally speaking. Its not like an i5 vs an i7 where they both have the same IPC and the extra threads allow a benefit. Ryzen's threads will allow a benefit, but its significantly offset by its often terrible relative game performance, not to mention lower clockspeeds. I had an 1800x sitting on my desk and I returned it for these reasons. The cost of the chip didn't play a significant role in my choice. The 1800x could have been $200 and I would have still returned it for a 6800K. I care about game performance and nothing else. Ryzen is not the best choice for that. It is the best choice for a lot of other things though, without having to spend over $1000.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

Just be checking the L3 on the 1500X and the 1400 it should be obvious that one is 2+2, the other 4+0. Given the current CCX issues, that makes the 1400 the much better buy. However, if the CCX issue has been fixed then the 1500X looks the better buy.

Obviously, the 1600X is a no brained vs an i5 at similar pricing; 6c/12t vs 4c/4t.

 

[coercitiv]

Any addition core/thread benefit of a Ryzen CPU is offset by its significantly worse performance in games, generally speaking.

Can you put a number on that "significantly worse performance"?

 

[nathanddrews]

I do this when I make cookies. The best looking ones are placed out front for all to see, but the cookies everyone eats are a mix of underdone, overdone, and broken. They mostly taste the same.

I just realized that a better food analogy would be brownies. When I make brownies, the edges all get that chewy/crispy texture while the brownies closer to the middle are softer. You get to choose your texture, but not your flavor.

 

[LTC8K6]

Where were these opinions from gamers/enthusiasts like you when we had repeated discussions on the forum on the subject of i5 6600K vs. i7 6700? We had people saying the 4.5+ Ghz 6600K does not make sense vs. the 3.7Ghz 6700 because the extra SMT threads not only compensate, but actually end up pulling ahead of the 20%+ clock deficit. The i5 was repeatedly described as inadequate for modern games due to it's 4 thread limitation: frame rate dips and stutter were the main topic when discussing this.

Even with the CCX penalty of Zen in games - if the i5 betters R5 in gaming, then i5 7600K is definitely a better gaming CPU than i7 7700. If 4c/4t i5 offers faster and smoother FPS than 6c/12t R5, then surely we don't need to ever hear how 4c/8t i7 is smoother than 4c/4t i5 with 15-20% clock advantage and faster RAM.

Are we going to now hear that the 4C Ryzen chips are the best gaming chips after all the talk of the 8C chips being necessary for gaming?

Yeah, and where were all these "you need fast ram" people when Skylake came out?

Suddenly we all need fast ram.

 

[krumme]

Are we going to now hear that the 4C Ryzen chips are the best gaming chips after all the talk of the 8C chips being necessary for gaming?

Yeah, and where were all these "you need fast ram" people when Skylake came out?

Suddenly we all need fast ram.

Yep because of ccx speed and latency beeing the only weak point of zen. Core line doesnt have that.
As you get double the cores/threads for your $ even avx2 load is cheaper on zen. Shows how bad an investment in core line is imo when thats the case btw.
Faster ram have always been a benefit. All the test we have shows the benefit is as big for ib as for skl. Skl just happens to be a faster processor so obviously needed more bandwith.
But the need for faster ram in zen is just far more than a bandwith issue.

I wouldnt dream of buying a 4c zen for gaming when you can get a 6c 12t for 249. Its a nobrainer.

But i am sure there will be some youtubers that find their old 4 sticks of ddr2400 that ran at 2133 in ryzen.

 

[CatMerc]

Are we going to now hear that the 4C Ryzen chips are the best gaming chips after all the talk of the 8C chips being necessary for gaming?

Yeah, and where were all these "you need fast ram" people when Skylake came out?

Suddenly we all need fast ram.

For the price? Yeah, they're the best.
If you have more than 200$ to spend, it's wise to get a minimum of 6 cores these days.

 

[raghu78]

I don't get why few people are exaggerating and saying that Ryzen is no good for gaming against Kabylake i7 7700k . computerbase.de has the 1800x matching the 7700k. We know that almost every Ryzen R7 1700 is capable of running at R7 1800x speeds. So we have a R7 1700 which provides similar gaming performance while killing it in any productivity application which utilizes 8C/16T. Frankly R7 1700 is the best CPU in the Ryzen stack.

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/ryzen-windows-7-benchmark-core-parking/

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

I5 has no hyperghreading. Ryzen has 2 more cores and 12 threads vs i5 4 threads

 

[french toast]

I5 has no hyperghreading. Ryzen has 2 more cores and 12 threads vs i5 4 threads

Exactly, in most scenarios that are not ST bound 1600x is just going to murder an i5.

 

[Face2Face]

Ryzen 5 1600 + VMware =

 

[Flapdrol1337]

Overclocked i5 7600k and overclocked ryzen 1600 should cost about the same right? Ryzen should be on average slightly faster in games, and a lot faster in applications.

 

[Crumpet]

Overclocked i5 7600k and overclocked ryzen 1600 should cost about the same right? Ryzen should be on average slightly faster in games, and a lot faster in applications.

Overclockable AMD motherboards however, will be SIGNIFICANTLY less.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

Overclockable AMD motherboards however, will be SIGNIFICANTLY less.

Difference is ~10 eu, not significant.

 

[coercitiv]

Are we going to now hear that the 4C Ryzen chips are the best gaming chips after all the talk of the 8C chips being necessary for gaming?

No, my point is that either we need more than 4c/4t or we don't.

Yeah, and where were all these "you need fast ram" people when Skylake came out?

In the Skylake thread, this has been discussed over and over, with pics, movies, reviews. Where were you?

In case this is news to you, check this video.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Besides there is a reason moonbog you bought a 6800 and not a 7700. And the bf1 results is excactly why.

Why the hell do you guys fuel the same mistakes people made back when they bought fast core 2 dual vs quads?
It was insanely bad decisons.

Its even more easy today because its same cost for the extra cores. There is only one drawback; you have to fork out a bit extra for the ram to get it going at 2933 preferably 3200. It should be doable. We know what to do and what ram people should buy.

Why do you keep fueling the unproven speculation that flies in the face of current benchmarks then? Truth is it is impossible to know what future benchmarks will show. So you certainly have no right to accuse others of giving bad advice.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Future games and game engines being written to use more threads is speculation for any particular game, but it is definitely where the industry is moving. Intel's per-core performance has almost leveled off (+30% over 5 years?) so increasing threads is the only way to do more in the same slice of time.

 

[Crumpet]

Difference is ~10 eu, not significant.

From my regular store:

Cheapest Z270 - £113
Cheapest B350 - £80

I consider that quite considerable.