RYZEN TEST ITS HAPPENING! INTEL IS GONE
DOA
O
A
Oy! amd is shit. Buy intel.
goodbye intel welcome amd to the throne
How is the 8core performance 10x better than single core?
SMT n shiet.
>what is SMT (16 threads)
It's truly over. Kiketel on suicide watch. Can't wait to see 1800x benchmarks.
>boosts to 4.5GHz because of XFR
>mfw
Pretty impressive all around. Lines up perfectly with the performance CanardPC showed in their ES preview.
Set it to 4ghz and give it a good RAM kit.
Why the fuck are people doing all these tests with DDR4 2133?
Makes me think it doesn't scale for shit with better memory. I've seen so many leaks that are all using 2133.
You'd think, being limited to dual channel, it'd need faster memory really badly.
Old CPU/mobo prices gonna drop like a stone after this. I'm hoping to get something good from the firesale.
Here's my 5820k at 4.2Ghz as comparison.
Can't wait to see what the top model brings to the table.
I seriously hope that AMD manages to obliterate the fuck out of Intel with this new lineup, screw them and their Jewish prices.
It's about time we saw some competition in the field again.
Thank you based Keller.
Unlikely, most every board on the market is rated for 2667 or 2933mhz.
What's the point of DDR4 then if we can't have 3200+ MHz memory?
You realize that the rating on the board isn't a maximum of what you can hit by manually overclocking it, right?
What's the point of anything? Just stick with your Core 2 Duo w/ DDR2.
Some of the boards are rated at "3200+"
But I want to see how well it actually scales with better performing memory.
2667 and 2933 DDR4 are already considered overclock even on intel.
Source: ark.intel.com
I understand that, but why do Intel CPUs only "support" 2133 or 2400MHz (haswell only supported 1600MHz)? I heard you get instability when you have 3000+MHz RAM or that it limits cpu overclocking.
2400mhz with quad channel is more bandwidth than the CPU can use.
you got some facts to back that up jack?
154 cb Single core
how good is this compare to intel
Very, considering it's 1/3rd of Intel's price.
Not him, but it doesn't really matter since the theoretical performance gain of high clocked RAM would come at the expense of stability.
Even if RAM are certified to run at a let's say 3200 MHz the memory controller would still have to work out of its specifications to drive them at such speed.
Comparison are to be made with all components at their stock frequency.
AMD products being cheaper and better than Intel's, it's just like the good old days during the Athlon
JEWTEL BTFO
Isn't that score around the 5950X or 6950X which is $1700?
And this is the $389 CPU not the $500 one. So not even 1/4th its price.
They were asking about the single core score, though.
About time for Intel to get some competition, maybe if ryzen delivers the next intel gen cpus will be an actual upgrade
4ghz Skylake i7 6700K scores 182.
Ryzen at 4ghz would be extremely close.
Would single-core performance be about the same for the top end 6 core varients, at the same clockspeeds?
Its not about stability, its about the minimum JEDEC specifications, and what the manufacturer wants to spend time validating. Intel guarantees 2133mhz and 2400mhz DDR4 because they've done extensive internal testing with those, as they are the very low end and minimum JEDEC specifications for the standard.
The memory controller can work just fine with higher frequencies, but intel doesn't guarantee it because they haven't done the internal testing.
why do people care if Intel improves? You people say that dumb shit every thread and every comments section on sites.
If Intel actually gets a real 15% increase in performance and adds more cores instead of the 3% increase in performance per generation, they'd just use that to justify charging twice the money because they have 20% better performance.
I don't give a shit what Intel does. I'll just buy AMD who prices things fairly even when they perform better.
When they were wrecking Intel's shit with the Thunderbird, Athlon 64, and Athlon 64 X2 they still charged very fair prices.
Any idea what the ghz it run on. the xfr make it harder to judge the performance
see you in 3/2
>why do people care if there's actual competition in the market
geez I dont know peter
Yes, it's the same Zen cores.
They're the same but there is different binning and less cores can usually overclock better as they don't spread as much heat to one another.
>mfw I purchased 1600mhz DDR3 because I fell for the 'it makes no difference to game performance' meme.
>mfw I can only overclock it to 2100Mhz
With a light overclock 6950x easily gets over 2000 in this test, while it scores something like 140-150 in the single core, which is the same for most of these Intel +4 core models.
That thing is near 2000$ though
5960x at 4Ghz gets around ~1600 in Cinebench, stock is about 1300
So yes, this is a very good result and basically matches the 5960x/6900k while being 1/2 of the price.
If it does well in real world tests, it makes zero sense to buy any Intel enthusiast level CPUs in the future.
Still makes no difference for games.
It makes zero sense to but any Intel at all then. Cheaper mobos, no socket a year, no goytax for unlocked CPUs, insane price/performance ratio.
Wish I could even have a passing interest in Ryzen, but I must be an Intel fan. Compatibility on AMD is a lot worse than Intel. I have an AMD laptop that refuses to run a lot of older software that Intel-based computers can run fine. I don't think Ryzen would change that, or have I missed something?
The 6950X is 3.0ghz/3.5ghz turbo stock.
But supposedly it does like an 1850 stock. So okay, that is better.
Both being 3.5Ghz is a pretty even test. 1537 on 8 cores vs 1850 on 10 cores for the 6950X is favorable to the Ryzen.
If the Ryzen had 10 cores @ the same 3.5ghz you'd expect a 1930.
I'd like to see the test on good memory, too. Even memory for each one.
Wait, so if I buy RAM clocked to DDR4 3600, what negative effects might I see versus having it at 2400? I always heard it was harmless beyond cost.
It really doesn't make any real difference though.
Maybe 2-3 FPS at most
That meme needs to die, it sure as fuck can make a difference and no, it's not just Fallout 4 that benefits from faster RAM.
Going from 1600Mhz RAM to 3200Mhz in some games would be on par with upgrading from Gtx 1070 to 1080, possibly even a bigger impact.
There's basically no difference between AMD and Intel they share instruction set extensions. I have a hard time believing you.
Only kids and manchildren would want to have 156 FPS instead 136
>black cocks 3
>1.87 ghz increase
this : I've never experienced any issue with an AyyMD with incel based programs
the only time it happened was with Novidya PhysX and an ATI card
The benchmark apparently ran at a boost of 3.9GHz, since the firemark score paired with the cinebench score showed a boost clock of 3.9. So I'd assume that the bench was run at 3.9GHz, which is still pretty impressive for an octocore.
I am telling what I have seen from experience. Have a 4790k, can play Thief: The Dark Project. It also works on an i3 550 (it isn't low end that is the problem). I have a Compaq Presario with an Athalon II. While the other two "just werk", I still have yet to figure out how to get this computer to work fine with a game from 1998. All on Windows 7.
Speed doesn't matter much.
Effectively latency does. Which I think the formula for that is 2000/mhz*CL.
Correct me if I got that wrong. But assuming that's right, you want a result that's less than 9. So DDR4 2400 is still very very fast if the Cas Latency is only 10, CL10 DDR4 is expensive as fuck.
That might be the problem. Intel integrated graphics and Nvidia "just werk", but my laptop uses whatever integrated graphics AMD uses. I guess if I had a Nvidia card it would work fine?
Maybe the stuff he's running was compiled on intel's compiler which is known to gimp programs that run on non-intel cpus.
The negative effect is that to run those DDR4 at 3600 MHz you are actually overclocking the memory controller to hell.
Side effect is that like every other kind of overclock you could get some stability issues.
Its cycle time x CAS timing to determine latency in nanoseconds.
Cycle time is derived from the data rate of the DIMM.
Wait. Why does latency matter more than speed? I thought it was speed first, then latency?
It depends entirely on the workload.
Could be it.
the only thing that picture shows me is that DDR4-2133 is already over twice as good as it needs to be
Because CPUs pretty much never use that absurd amount of bandwidth in DDR4.
It's all down to how quick they can retrieve and store to memory.
k?
Yeah I didn't really think it was running at the base clock anyways, but like you said, it's a good result.
And it's not a bad single core result either.
AMD has basically gotten to a level playing field with Intel here, while selling their products at 50% less price.
It's going to be interesting seeing what Intel's answer is.
Funny thing is, that Intel has essentially fucked themselves over big time by pricing their 10 core flagship near 2000$
Had they kept to the tradition of maxing out their flagships at 1000$, they'd be competitive even in this situation.
But nope, they had to go and slap an extra grand to the price and now they can't compete, due to their exponential price increases after the 5820k/6800k models.
Those are the only reasonably priced high end Intel CPUs on the market and they can't go toe to toe with Ryzen.
That is what I don't get. I thought you could overclock RAM further, but the speed you purchase is the tested stable frequency. How likely are these stability issues to appear?
I get a score of 173 single core and 840 multi core on my 4770K @ 4.2Ghz with my old MSI mobo and DDR3 1600 at 2100Mhz.
Color me unimpressed.
Well there were definitely AMD CPUs available at the time thief was released and I'm sure we would have heard of the game having an incompatibility with AMD CPUs. I'm pretty sure this is a software issue.
Update your directx 9.0c stuff using the web installer.
microsoft.com
@4.2Ghz
So effectively a 144 at 3.5Ghz
So worse.
And you have half the cores.
And it probably uses more wattage to get nearly half the score.
And your 4770k cost more MSRP new.
Why aren't you impressed? Are you just trying to be contrarian hoping someone will buy into your dumb shit, or are you retarded?
If this makes you unimpressed, I can only imagine your reaction to the i7-6900k, i7-6800k, and so on.
...
ICC just doesn't optimize for AMD CPU, it doesn't cause applications to crash or hang on them. Thief is such an old game that even unoptimized builds should run absurdly fast on anything.
Sadly I am not around my AMD laptop at the moment. I do believe I tried installing the web installer, but maybe it warrants a retry. I don't have much of a reason to be loyal to Intel besides the concern of my software potentially breaking with AMD, so it would be nice to allay that concern. I have just seen info in the past saying "if you have an AMD CPU, x will not work". I forget what software has said it, but I do recall seeing messages warning about AMD.
10-20% difference in some. Fallout 4 specifically sees a significant improvement (up to 30-40%).
Not that big a difference considering how old the CPU is even at 3.5Ghz. Also factor in the 840 score doubled if it had 8 cores instead of 4 it would probably be around the same MP score. Maybe a bit less but not by much I would guess. What does Kabylake score BTW?
That's some grey area shit, RAM are guaranteed to run at the rated frequency, but the memory controller is not.
During the testing phase RAM manufacturers use high binned CPUs and most likely pump some insane voltage in the memory controller.
That's how they get them to run stable at such high frequency.
Also make sure thief is fully patched
fileplanet.com
That seems to be the latest patch.
There's also apparently this
youtube.com
I don't know if it's true that thief does not properly run on multiple cores but that is also a possibility.
A batch file containing:
start /affinity 1 thief.exe
would automatically set it to use one core.
There are no AMD motherboards at the moment, any news on what they'll look like?
back to Sup Forums with you
>Next Gen Intel
>i3: 4 cores no Hyperthread
>i5: 4/6 cores + Hyperthread
>i7: 8 cores + Hyperthread
I think Intel always had the technology to push this further, but jewed out every generation.
>if it had 8 cores instead of 4
Let me stop you right there.
If it had 8 cores instead of 4, you'd be looking at a 4-5x higher price.
The biggest thing about Ryzen is that it offers Intel's high end performance for 50% the price.
That's insane and basically puts Intel completely out of the game.
They've had the tech for years now, but they can't price it anywhere near where they need to.
Because if they do, we're looking at an unprecedented sudden price drop and Intel simply doesn't lower their prices.
They need a separate APU line then. Congrats, you just killed Intel's lineup.
Mostly ugly.
Asus makes the only decent looking one.
And even then there is no mother board premium design like what went in to the 2011-3 socket boards.
They have Xeons with 10-15 cores so yeah they were always capable of bringing up the lower end they just never had incentive.
Thief is indeed limited to one core. When I use it on my 4790k, I either use a fan mission loader that basically runs the batch for me as well as reinstalls a old codec known to break. Neither prevents the game from starting, but it freezes as soon as the main game starts. AMD's problem is that I couldn't even get to the main menu.
I did try 1.33, I have three different versions of Thief which I test out to ensure full compatibility. 1.14, 1.33, and Gold. I will retry this with the BAT file and the web installer. I agree that it shouldn't have issues on AMD.
This I don't doubt. I am impressed with the cost to performance ratio. However it's taken AMD what? 10 years to get this far? It only shows how Intel have been fucking lazy during that time and Jewing the fuck out of everyone because they had no reason to change. I welcome the competition. I'm just saying that my 'old' CPU was not too bad just overpriced and having shitty TIM. But it was the best I could afford at the time.
Sup Forums doesn't seem to talk about Thief a lot.
AMD had shitty management before Su. Now Intel and AMD swapped, with Krzanich being an absolute fucking retard.
Probably a better fit on /vr/ anyway.
Sup Forums never talks about good games unless it's by IPL, some kind of RTS or its any Ace Combat.
Coffee Lake is apparently going to be bringing 6core intels as "mainstream". Which I guess means a bit higher clocks and under $400 instead of $400+ for only 3.4Ghz
Afforadble 8core i7s isn't happening, though. Intel is too afraid of people using i7s in servers instead of Xenons.
This will change my friend if AMD gains large momentum with Zen
Do you think their $1000-1500 CPU cost just a BIT less to make. I wouldn't be surprised if the i7-6950x produced for ~$500 or less
Ryzen+Vega when?
my 2500k and r9 290 are getting old
Vega is releasing Q2.
i feel kinda bad for people who bought intel in the last year.
Asus to the rescue with 3200MHz+ support
It's okay, the chose their destiny.
>IIRC the I7 4790 manufacturing price is around 50-80 (Max $100)
Buuut Intel and AMD still needs to research and create a whole new generation which cost a lot usually
VEGA will be introduced on 28th February. It will be around the market around April.
>This I don't doubt. I am impressed with the cost to performance ratio. However it's taken AMD what? 10 years to get this far
3 years.
They spent like 5 years shitting on Jim Keller's legacy trying to make Bulldozer work while waiting for him to lead what is effectively was is Phenom IV.
In another 2-3 years there's going to be another significant performance increase with Zen+.
The reason Ryzen is so cheap is because the entire like 12-17 SKU list of models is ONE chip.
They make ONE chip, lots of them, over and over, so many of them on a waffer. So many waffers.
That allows them to scale.
Whereas for Intel, the 6 core is its own special design. So is the 8. And the 10 is based on a Xenon.
Intel has too many manufacturing processes, and for no reason.
Now if they instead just made the i7-6850k essentially in higher volume, and binned the ones where a core or 2 doesn't work as an i7-8700k, then yeah. Then they could sell both their 6core and high end 4core for cheaper. That's also without an iGPU.
But I think they'd still be reluctant to sell them for nearly as cheap as Ryzen because intel is intel. They'd rather spend billions on marketing and Feminist Frequency donations than to sell things cheap.
Probably 4-6 months from now.
who the fuck uses that many USB slots anyway
waste of shekels
Cant see from the picture its a fake. Sup Forums>>>>>
What the fuck is that 3D printing mount?
>3d printing mount
wat dat
6,8, and 10 core Broadwell-E are all the same die.
6 and 8 core Haswell-E are the same die.