Your Take on Ryzen? Worth buying or stick to Intel

[cytg111]

I dont like grief. Therefor Ill wait with whatever-hardware till at least revision 1.1 of the motherboard and stepping B of the processor. For version 1.0 and stepping A there is this saying.. what is it.. "let god sort them out" yea thats it.

 

[Dulanic]

I'm getting old, I still have a i7 930. I do a lot of encoding etc... I have a 3 year old video card and don't need bleeding edge.

I think the ryzen 1700x will be a awesome upgrade for a pretty low cost.

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

Ryzen for the win. Remember, AM4 motherboard lasts until 2020 s you can plug in Zen+ and Zen++ a few years down, may be get a second board for htpc Ryzen APU gaming. The next gen Ryzen APU should be able to match current gen console.

 

[bystander36]

Ryzen is definitely a good option, but I'm sticking with my Intel rig, as I don't need to upgrade. I feel the poll could have used a few more options.

 

[cytg111]

Ryzen is definitely a good option, but I'm sticking with my Intel rig, as I don't need to upgrade. I feel the poll could have used a few more options.

If current is good enough.. as always, save the cash .

 

[ArchAngel777]

Bummer. Glad they released a competitive CPU, but it looks like my 4770K @ 4.4 isn't going to be upgraded anytime soon. Bummer. Was hoping for something huge, either via price-cuts, or for AMD to release a monster that was close in IPC (it largely succeeded in this area, with exception of gaming performance) and clocked high (this is where it failed, IMO) Looks like those chips are binned right near their max clocks. Even so, for most things I do, the 1800x would be a downgrade from my current setup.

Hoping for some optimizations from AMD in Zen+ along with Intel releasing a mainstream 8 core which is higher clocked and more power efficient. Basically, it looks like I have another year before something big *could* happen.

 

[LTC8K6]

Ryzen for the win. Remember, AM4 motherboard lasts until 2020 s you can plug in Zen+ and Zen++ a few years down, may be get a second board for htpc Ryzen APU gaming. The next gen Ryzen APU should be able to match current gen console.

New boards will probably have new features that you want/need, though.

 

[ultimatebob]

Ryzen for the win. Remember, AM4 motherboard lasts until 2020 s you can plug in Zen+ and Zen++ a few years down, may be get a second board for htpc Ryzen APU gaming. The next gen Ryzen APU should be able to match current gen console.

You need to update your avatar with a Ryzen logo, dude!

 

[fleshconsumed]

Ryzen for the win. Remember, AM4 motherboard lasts until 2020 s you can plug in Zen+ and Zen++ a few years down, may be get a second board for htpc Ryzen APU gaming. The next gen Ryzen APU should be able to match current gen console.

Did AMD definitively confirm that X370 chipset will support Zen2/Zen3 though? Just because the socket remains the same does not mean that it'll work with the old chipset.

 

[Headfoot]

Bummer. Glad they released a competitive CPU, but it looks like my 4770K @ 4.4 isn't going to be upgraded anytime soon. Bummer. Was hoping for something huge, either via price-cuts, or for AMD to release a monster that was close in IPC (it largely succeeded in this area, with exception of gaming performance) and clocked high (this is where it failed, IMO) Looks like those chips are binned right near their max clocks. Even so, for most things I do, the 1800x would be a downgrade from my current setup.

Hoping for some optimizations from AMD in Zen+ along with Intel releasing a mainstream 8 core which is higher clocked and more power efficient. Basically, it looks like I have another year before something big *could* happen.

They basically released the HEDT version of your chip. If you didnt need threads enough 5820k then it doesnt make sense either.

Looks like memory speed makes a significant difference:

io-tech.fi

Multiple sources confirming ~10% uplift when HT is turned off. Even in the best scaling games, the extra 8 threads from 8 to 16 aren't worth losing that 10% in the other games. If you do fast DDR4 and turn off HT, plus the yet unreleased windows patches, and you likely clean up a LOT of the variability.

ComputerBase is a highly reputable bencher, so this seems close to a best case.

To OP's question:
All things being said, I would wait for the patches and BIOS updates to shake out and see how they affect the end game. But if you have to pull the trigger now, I'd buy a 1700 with the fastest DDR4 that isn't ridiculously priced and turn off HT. You'd get 90% of the 7700k's stock performance in the average game (2-4 threads) and you'd be way out in front of it on well threaded, CPU demanding games (Watch Dogs 2). You'd have a socket with more iterations to come, where 7700k is the second to last chip to come for that socket.

IMO I think the trade off is worth it to get a 1700, unless you upgrade rigs completely every year or so.

 

[inf64]

Now that data is coming in from various sides, we can see Ryzen in its current form is basically a great gaming chip. It is just 10-15% slower than 7700K or 6900K (depending on the review)

It will only get better with time. Higher speed DDR4 will fall in price, we will get a major windows 10 update with (hopefully) windows scheduler update for Ryzen, BIOS/agesa will get updated to better support new chip and performance will certainly get better. Since Ryzen is super competitive in vast majority of content creation workloads, its IPC and SMT implementations are up there with intel, gaming performance will follow(not that it is bad by any means, 10% slower is peanuts for all but competitive gamers).

 

[Headfoot]

Now that data is coming in from various sides, we can see Ryzen in its current form is basically a great gaming chip. It is just 10-15% slower than 7700K or 6900K (depending on the review)

It will only get better with time. Higher speed DDR4 will fall in price, we will get a major windows 10 update with (hopefully) windows scheduler update for Ryzen, BIOS/agesa will get updated to better support new chip and performance will certainly get better. Since Ryzen is super competitive in vast majority of content creation workloads, its IPC and SMT implementations are up there with intel, gaming performance will follow(not that it is bad by any means, 10% slower is peanuts for all but competitive gamers).

Yeah fundamentally, tweaked chip vs tweaked chip, you trade maybe 15% (assuming max OC vs max OC) worst case in gaming for double the cores and dominance in most multithreaded apps. Pretty easy trade off for most folks who use their desktop for lots of stuff, but it still leaves a case for the screaming clock monster 7700k + single 1080 Ti overclock build. Competition.

 

[TeknoBug]

I was a hardcore AMD fan from the mid 90's up until 2012 where I made the switch to Intel. Now I'm too invested into Intel to bother going back to AMD, especially with how Ryzen is looking so far.

 

[ultimatebob]

I was a hardcore AMD fan from the mid 90's up until 2012 where I made the switch to Intel. Now I'm too invested into Intel to bother going back to AMD, especially with how Ryzen is looking so far.

Yeah, every system that I've either built or bought for the past 18 years has been Intel based. If I had a specific use case for that Ryzen processor, though, I would totally build one.

 

[Geegeeoh]

I was a hardcore AMD fan from the mid 90's up until 2012 where I made the switch to Intel. Now I'm too invested into Intel to bother going back to AMD, especially with how Ryzen is looking so far.

Too invested? What does that mean for a "common" user? Or are you a... corporation?

 

[JimKiler]

Ryzen is definitely a good option, but I'm sticking with my Intel rig, as I don't need to upgrade. I feel the poll could have used a few more options.

They basically released the HEDT version of your chip. If you didnt need threads enough 5820k then it doesnt make sense either.

Looks like memory speed makes a significant difference:

io-tech.fi

Multiple sources confirming ~10% uplift when HT is turned off. Even in the best scaling games, the extra 8 threads from 8 to 16 aren't worth losing that 10% in the other games. If you do fast DDR4 and turn off HT, plus the yet unreleased windows patches, and you likely clean up a LOT of the variability.

ComputerBase is a highly reputable bencher, so this seems close to a best case.

To OP's question:
All things being said, I would wait for the patches and BIOS updates to shake out and see how they affect the end game. But if you have to pull the trigger now, I'd buy a 1700 with the fastest DDR4 that isn't ridiculously priced and turn off HT. You'd get 90% of the 7700k's stock performance in the average game (2-4 threads) and you'd be way out in front of it on well threaded, CPU demanding games (Watch Dogs 2). You'd have a socket with more iterations to come, where 7700k is the second to last chip to come for that socket.

IMO I think the trade off is worth it to get a 1700, unless you upgrade rigs completely every year or so.

Did you notice how the Bulldozer in that last table is ahead of the 2500K? I know the 8370 is an upgrade to the 8350 but if you look at the history of these two processors the 2500K was better at the launch of bulldozer and used to justify future performance and now 5 years later AMD's prediction on the design of bulldozer is finally ahead of the 2500K. So that can lead us to believe that the 1080p and low quality game test are not indicitive of future performance.

That is the gist of

and i think he is on to something.

Second, Ryzen is a win because it put a breath of fresh air back into forums like this one. It is not as much fun to only argue about intel CPU's. Now we can have threads like this one, that in of itself is a win!

 

[Bouowmx]

With competent CPU architecture, APUs' unique selling proposition strengthens.

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

Did AMD definitively confirm that X370 chipset will support Zen2/Zen3 though? Just because the socket remains the same does not mean that it'll work with the old chipset.

they will as long as they come out before 2020 beacuse they guranteed all chips before that are for AM4. im not really sure of their road map tho.

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

Did you notice how the Bulldozer in that last table is ahead of the 2500K? I know the 8370 is an upgrade to the 8350 but if you look at the history of these two processors the 2500K was better at the launch of bulldozer and used to justify future performance and now 5 years later AMD's prediction on the design of bulldozer is finally ahead of the 2500K. So that can lead us to believe that the 1080p and low quality game test are not indicitive of future performance.

That is the gist of

and i think he is on to something.

Second, Ryzen is a win because it put a breath of fresh air back into forums like this one. It is not as much fun to only argue about intel CPU's. Now we can have threads like this one, that in of itself is a win!

i7 7700k is close to bottlenecking the gpu in that video too. Amd is definitely more future proofing.

 

[kalmquist]

The benchmarks over at servethehome.com show really good results running benchmarks compiled with the most recent compiler and running on the most recent Linux kernel. This suggests that the superior performance by Intel on some benchmarks is due to stuff not being tuned for Ryzen, rather than to the Intel processors being inherently faster.

https://www.servethehome.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-linux-benchmarks-zen-buy/

Personally, I've got a Haswell system and am not in a rush to upgrade. Since this is a brand new architecture, there may be significant opportunity to tweak it, kind of like we saw going from Bulldozer to Piledriver. The 14nm process is fairly new, so we are likely to see some improvements in frequency as the process matures. So my inclination is to wait for the next iteration of Zen. But, depending on the price, the 6 core Ryzen may prove hard to resist.

 

[Paul98]

I am really excited for Ryzen once the issues are worked out. I will be getting it in a month or two. 8/16 for 320, yes please. I sorely need more cores

 

[JimKiler]

Ryzen is definitely a good option, but I'm sticking with my Intel rig, as I don't need to upgrade. I feel the poll could have used a few more options.

Think of it as a hypothetical, is AMD worthy of purchasing?

 

[LTC8K6]

Think of it as a hypothetical, is AMD worthy of purchasing?

That depends on what you have now, though.

If you just dropped out of the sky and want to buy a PC, then I would say the 1700 is worth purchasing, but not the X chips.

Overall, I don't see how anyone could say it's just plain not worth purchasing, though.

The question seems a bit loaded. Of course it's worth purchasing, unless you already own an equivalent system and don't need/want another system.

 

[JimKiler]

That depends on what you have now, though.

If you just dropped out of the sky and want to buy a PC, then I would say the 1700 is worth purchasing, but not the X chips.

Overall, I don't see how anyone could say it's just plain not worth purchasing, though.

The question seems a bit loaded. Of course it's worth purchasing, unless you already own an equivalent system and don't need/want another system.

Definitely not a loaded question. Now that reviews are out, where do you stand on AMD and that boils down to you would purchase it or not. I could have asked if it was a failure but that is an indirect question of asking if you will buy it. Anyone can say it is a success and never intend to buy it, or vice versa.

 

[nopainnogain]

AMD? Nah... I'll be waiting for quantum computing. And Cryonics.










Now seriously: I'm getting along with my i7-4771 with 32GB of RAM, but I will definitely assemble my next rig with an updated Ryzen (with a newer stepping).