90 replies to this topic

[ninjitsu]

Did anybody preorder a Ryzen chip? I preordered the 1700. I know its risky but I haven't built a new rig since 2014 and I'm bored with it.

[Dr Cara Carcass]

ninjitsu, on 22 February 2017 - 10:28 AM, said:

Did anybody preorder a Ryzen chip? I preordered the 1700. I know its risky but I haven't built a new rig since 2014 and I'm bored with it.

I did preorder teh 1800x. Still stuck with a 6 Year old CPU. It has to be better and the benchmarks published throughout all the media are equal in their findings. Lets hope for the best. Shipping date is the 4th of march. Will post the impact on MWO.

Edited by Cara Carcass, 23 February 2017 - 06:52 AM.

[ninjitsu]

Ryzen is also supposed to allow over clocking cores individually. Should be fun

[Dragoon20005]

the pricing of the Ryzen flagship will shake Intel cores

but i was hoping for a 10 core AMD Ryzen CPU to give a good beating of the 6950X

maybe 699-799 dollars for the 10 cores 20 treads.

[Dr Cara Carcass]

Dragoon20005, on 23 February 2017 - 11:45 PM, said:

the pricing of the Ryzen flagship will shake Intel cores

but i was hoping for a 10 core AMD Ryzen CPU to give a good beating of the 6950X

maybe 699-799 dollars for the 10 cores 20 treads.

Might happen in a year. Nobody keeps AMD from developing new stuff.

[McHoshi]

Cara Carcass, on 24 February 2017 - 02:44 AM, said:

Might happen in a year. Nobody keeps AMD from developing new stuff.

But but Keller has already left AMD again...

[ninjitsu]

McHoshi, on 24 February 2017 - 02:52 AM, said:

But but Keller has already left AMD again...

They've already got the core design. Now they just need to refine it. I don't think they're going to need to completely redesign a chip from scratch for a while. If they do, they've got some real issues.

I'm sure a 10 core isn't out of the question. They need to prove that their chips are worth buying before they release something more expensive.

[M T]

If you really want to upgrade you would have to do it for the IPC/Single threaded performance increase.

MWO will never utilize 8 cores, let alone 4. (3 cores is roughly the absolute max that this game will fully saturate in the most ideal situation anyway)

Unless you want to stream ofcourse, those extra 4 cores will come in handy :x

Edited by M T, 24 February 2017 - 09:36 AM.

[Dragoon20005]

M T, on 24 February 2017 - 09:36 AM, said:

If you really want to upgrade you would have to do it for the IPC/Single threaded performance increase.

MWO will never utilize 8 cores, let alone 4. (3 cores is roughly the absolute max that this game will fully saturate in the most ideal situation anyway)

Unless you want to stream ofcourse, those extra 4 cores will come in handy :x

XWired will like to have a word with you

Cryengine 3 does uses more than 8 cores/treads

it just that PGI coding is pretty sh*tty

the Ryzen streaming demo pits the 1700 vs the i7 7700K for game streams and the 1700 crushes the 7700K

you are talking about extra 4 cores and total of 8 treads helping in streaming.

Edited by Dragoon20005, 26 February 2017 - 07:07 PM.

[M T]

Dragoon20005, on 26 February 2017 - 07:07 PM, said:

XWired will like to have a word with you

Cryengine 3 does uses more than 8 cores/treads

it just that PGI coding is pretty sh*tty

the Ryzen streaming demo pits the 1700 vs the i7 7700K for game streams and the 1700 crushes the 7700K

you are talking about extra 4 cores and total of 8 treads helping in streaming.

CryEngine might utilize 8 cores, but most games have altered engine with additions, tweaks and sometimes huge modifications, and yeah PGI did a horrible job at optimizing their iteration. Probably also the reason upgrading their old Cryengine version is a huge undertaking and rather not fiddle around with it. Still waiting for a horrible DX12 implementation ;-)

Either way, an engine utilizing such an amount of cores has no guarantee of them all being utilized. The main rendering thread simply cannot be 'offloaded' partially to the very next free core that's available to achieve unlimited FPS. In other words most threads are to some extend reliant on all the others to finish their workload first. So you might see a nice spread around all cores....

I've no idea about HT with streaming, but when it comes to MWO it impacts fps roughly a few percentage in CPU saturated situations.

[Hotrob]

The Ryzen architecture won't allow for 10 cores, it's based on two 4-core blocks sharing a block of L3 cache. A 10 core would have to be a 16-core module with 6 cores fused off. However, it was pretty much confirmed last year that they'll have up to 32-core enterprise chips with 8-channel memory (they won't be cheap though).

As for competing against the 6950x, rumor has it that the 1800x beats it, due to Ryzen being able to clock significantly higher than Intel's 10 core.

I'm still waiting for overclocking numbers to come in before I buy. Apparently (again, rumor has it) that 4.2 GHz is capable on any chip with a decent air cooler, but I've got a pretty competent 280 rad. If I can dump 250 watts in the thing and get a 5ghz dual core turbo.... It still wouldn't beat the 7700k for single thread, but that's still a lot of computering per second.

[ninjitsu]

I ordered a Corsair H110i to cool my 1700. The new AMD overclocking application is supposed to give you a ton of control over the CPU while in OS. I'm hoping I can deactivate the last 4 cores and boost the heck out of the first 4, for games that don't scale well with extra threads.

[Dragoon20005]

M T, on 26 February 2017 - 07:41 PM, said:

CryEngine might utilize 8 cores, but most games have altered engine with additions, tweaks and sometimes huge modifications, and yeah PGI did a horrible job at optimizing their iteration. Probably also the reason upgrading their old Cryengine version is a huge undertaking and rather not fiddle around with it. Still waiting for a horrible DX12 implementation ;-)

Either way, an engine utilizing such an amount of cores has no guarantee of them all being utilized. The main rendering thread simply cannot be 'offloaded' partially to the very next free core that's available to achieve unlimited FPS. In other words most threads are to some extend reliant on all the others to finish their workload first. So you might see a nice spread around all cores....

I've no idea about HT with streaming, but when it comes to MWO it impacts fps roughly a few percentage in CPU saturated situations.

the Ryzen demo uses Battlefield 1 as the game test against the i7 6800k and i7 6850K against the Ryzen 1700 and 1700X for games and rendering speeds.

Rendering speed of 10% faster overall vs the Intel counterpart.

The game demo shows the 1700 vs the i7 6800K running BF1 at 4K res and there is a slight performance boost on the AMD side with the extra turbo boost on the cores to 3.65GHz even on the non-X CPU.

Hotrob, on 26 February 2017 - 08:14 PM, said:

The Ryzen architecture won't allow for 10 cores, it's based on two 4-core blocks sharing a block of L3 cache. A 10 core would have to be a 16-core module with 6 cores fused off. However, it was pretty much confirmed last year that they'll have up to 32-core enterprise chips with 8-channel memory (they won't be cheap though).

As for competing against the 6950x, rumor has it that the 1800x beats it, due to Ryzen being able to clock significantly higher than Intel's 10 core.

I'm still waiting for overclocking numbers to come in before I buy. Apparently (again, rumor has it) that 4.2 GHz is capable on any chip with a decent air cooler, but I've got a pretty competent 280 rad. If I can dump 250 watts in the thing and get a 5ghz dual core turbo.... It still wouldn't beat the 7700k for single thread, but that's still a lot of computering per second.

yea given that the TDP is 95 watts stock and not 125 watts or even 220 watts of the FX9590

cooling should be almost an non-issue unless you only are trying to hit 6+GHz speeds which then you need liquid nitrogen cooling

but i highly doubt the 1800X can match the i7 6950X unless you are talking 4.5GHz clockspeeds against the stock 3GHz clock on the 6950X

if they cant release a 10 core chip, i dont mind paying 1K dollars to get a 12/16 core CPU if they are able to produce one with Quad Channel memory support.

ninjitsu, on 26 February 2017 - 08:26 PM, said:

I ordered a Corsair H110i to cool my 1700. The new AMD overclocking application is supposed to give you a ton of control over the CPU while in OS. I'm hoping I can deactivate the last 4 cores and boost the heck out of the first 4, for games that don't scale well with extra threads.

note that AM4 socket has a different mounting solutions as compared to the AM3 socket

if your new cooler is the older batch, you still need to order the new mounting kit from Corsair

i do hear some mobo manufacturer still provides the hold for using AM3+ mountings but its only a few models.




Personally i am not a fan of pre orders esp for expensive hardware. Maybe online games like Steam and Origin. I will based my purchases on the benchmarks and reviews of various sites and youtubers review on the new products.

[M T]

Dragoon20005, on 26 February 2017 - 10:02 PM, said:

the Ryzen demo uses Battlefield 1 as the game test against the i7 6800k and i7 6850K against the Ryzen 1700 and 1700X for games and rendering speeds.

Rendering speed of 10% faster overall vs the Intel counterpart.

The game demo shows the 1700 vs the i7 6800K running BF1 at 4K res and there is a slight performance boost on the AMD side with the extra turbo boost on the cores to 3.65GHz even on the non-X CPU.



yea given that the TDP is 95 watts stock and not 125 watts or even 220 watts of the FX9590

cooling should be almost an non-issue unless you only are trying to hit 6+GHz speeds which then you need liquid nitrogen cooling

but i highly doubt the 1800X can match the i7 6950X unless you are talking 4.5GHz clockspeeds against the stock 3GHz clock on the 6950X

if they cant release a 10 core chip, i dont mind paying 1K dollars to get a 12/16 core CPU if they are able to produce one with Quad Channel memory support.



note that AM4 socket has a different mounting solutions as compared to the AM3 socket

if your new cooler is the older batch, you still need to order the new mounting kit from Corsair

i do hear some mobo manufacturer still provides the hold for using AM3+ mountings but its only a few models.




Personally i am not a fan of pre orders esp for expensive hardware. Maybe online games like Steam and Origin. I will based my purchases on the benchmarks and reviews of various sites and youtubers review on the new products.

For some reason I have the idea you think I'm trying to belittle AMD or something.

My whole point was just, if you want to upgrade your PC solely for MWO, focus on single threaded performance rather than just bluntly buy a Ryzen at first chance. Guess I didn't explain myself properly: MWO doesn't tend to use more than roughly 3 cores combined, accumulative. Or perhaps I shoulve said 50-60% of a quad core? lol

I'm not sure what 4K has to do with anything? The difference in CPU usage running 4K versus i.e. 1024x768 is pretty insignificant in (at least) this game. I know because I run 3840x2160 on my gorgeous 32" screen :-)

If you want to benchmark CPU's (or memory for that matter), you generally don't run 4K + Ultra High settings but run Ultra low with lowest Res to achieve maximum possible FPS without even sweating the GPU.

It seems as if Ryzen will be pretty close to Intels recent CPU's single threaded performance. Having basically double the processing power due to double the cores with less power consumption is pretty sweet. Ofcourse it will depend greatly on how easy they will be overclocked as the Intel counterparts can easily hit 4.7/4.8GHz without a sweat, if Ryzen lacks behind on that part, Intel might still win on raw Gaming performance.

Edited by M T, 26 February 2017 - 10:41 PM.

[Dr Cara Carcass]

M T, on 26 February 2017 - 07:41 PM, said:

CryEngine might utilize 8 cores, but most games have altered engine with additions, tweaks and sometimes huge modifications, and yeah PGI did a horrible job at optimizing their iteration. Probably also the reason upgrading their old Cryengine version is a huge undertaking and rather not fiddle around with it. Still waiting for a horrible DX12 implementation ;-)

Either way, an engine utilizing such an amount of cores has no guarantee of them all being utilized. The main rendering thread simply cannot be 'offloaded' partially to the very next free core that's available to achieve unlimited FPS. In other words most threads are to some extend reliant on all the others to finish their workload first. So you might see a nice spread around all cores....

I've no idea about HT with streaming, but when it comes to MWO it impacts fps roughly a few percentage in CPU saturated situations.

MWO utilizes 6 cores to over 90% on my setup........

[M T]

Cara Carcass, on 27 February 2017 - 02:42 AM, said:

MWO utilizes 6 cores to over 90% on my setup........

Ok, good for you. Guess your fps is always above a 100.

[xWiredx]

Oooooookay.... everybody slow down a bit here and let me catch up.

1) Ryzen's IPC increase is -the- reason to get it. MWO loves to eat CPU cycles, and it is no secret that because of Intel's massive IPC advantage of previous AMD chips is why Intel chips run MWO so much better.

2) MWO does not care about lots of cores. The rest of your system does, but MWO does not. A faster-clocked Intel chip generally performs better than a lower-clocked Intel chip even if the lower-clocked chip has more cores (or has HT on vs off). Once you have 4 or more cores, the diminishing return in MWO is pretty obvious, and that actually has more to do with the extra cores doing other background work rather than working directly on MWO threads. Some magic used to be able to be performed with the user.cfg file to attempt to better-utilize multiple cores, and it had -some- effect, but it was typically more about keeping framerates smooth than increasing them.

3) I have not pre-ordered Ryzen but depending on the actual single-threaded performance, I may grab an 8-core chip this summer. I'd really like to do a rebuild of my 6-core Intel system for studio work only.

[xWiredx]

While you should take an embargoed number with a grain of salt and a number from Passmark with a grain of salt (so, 2 grains of salt here), it looks like the Core i7 6900K performs about 1.5% slower than the Ryzen 7 1800X but with a 2.5% (100MhZ) lower clock speed. This is according to a WCCFTech article that was published several hours ago. If that is a -good- indicator of single-threaded performance and not some anomaly or fake data, it would be very easy to recommend a Ryzen chip based on price vs. performance. We will officially find out by the end of the week, so stay tuned to the Googles.

[Heavenward]

I'm going to wait a few weeks until the dust settles, see some third party reviews and make my decision then.

If I've learnt anything over the years never pre-order anything. Hype can be a cruel mistress.

That said i don't mind other people trailblazing the pre-order tsunami.

I really hope that AMD will bring some good competition and help give Intel a kick up the backside and give us something better than mild incremental updates.

[B0oN]

Benchmarks or GTFO