Ryzen seems pretty good for the money, but it seems to flop at overclocking.
Wouldn't an i7 7700k still be the better choice since its able to achieve much higher clock speeds? Single thread performance is still a heavy factor despite all the process we've made to increasing the threads programs can utilize.
Also in this case why buy anything higher than the r7 1700 since they all oc just as high as each other?
Yes a 7700k is a much better choice in like 99% of situations
it's a halo product meant to drive people into paying $300 for the 1700, once they fall off AMD will drop the r5 products and r3 products.
>Also in this case why buy anything higher than the r7 1700 since they all oc just as high as each other?
I believe only X sku have XFR and others need to be overclocked manually. Strange that 1700, 1700x and 1800x were binned the same
all skus have XFR, the X skus get 100mhz while non x gets less
>overclocked manually
Oh no, the horror!
I just might wait for a 6 core r5 then. Hopefully they can break 4.3ghz with less cores...
That r7 1700 is still pretty tempting though since it seems to be between the i7 7700 and 6900 while costing the same as the 7700k here.
>Strange that 1700, 1700x and 1800x were binned the same
>tfw have to listen to you autistic fucks talk about binning for weeks and weeks even though you don't understand what you're talking about
>now it's out and everyone's quiet
I am smug, fuck all of you
> t. Intel shill. Yes goyim, all your problems will be solved if you just buy intel! {rubs hands intensely]
Fuck this board
...he's right though
He's not wrong though, it does have significantly better single thread performance.
It's the fucking truth
7700k is just a way better CPU
How much does Intel actually pay you?
it seems the general public are finally seeing the truth.
zen is DOA
>literally 2017
>single thread performance
>ryzen pre-launch, intel freaks out and cut prices
>ryzen launches, flops with mediocre at best performance for gaymen faggots
>...
>ryzen cut prices
why the fuck are you complaining. beside ryzen was aimed to the 6800k market which will definitely switch due cost difference
faggots
Why else is the 7700k leading in most benchmarks?
AMD marketed it poorly, AGAIN.
The 1700/1800X should've been billed as a 6800k or a 6900K competitor.
The 1500X/1600X as the i7 7700K competitor
The 1400X as a the i5 7600K competitor.
This way people would be a lot happier with results and pricing scheme.
That part is right. Being better at 99% of the situations isn't though. Ryzen does a very good job at productivity and workstation loads.
that's how they marketed it dipshit
and that's why they sent out their 8 core cpus to the market first
>The 1700/1800X should've been billed as a 6800k or a 6900K competitor.
They were, why the fuck are you equating shitposters on Sup Forums to AMD's marketing department?
Every time Ryzen 1800X benchmarks came from AMD they were set against the 6900k and 6950k.
That's what they were trying to do. I don't think they ever tried to compare it to a 4 core chip except in that one event where they demonstrated it streaming a game while the game was playing. They only did that to show it was better at multitasking than a 4 core processor of similar price. These chips were intended for workstation tasks and were almost always compared to Intel's 8 cores. They priced them so they were in the same range as Intel's quad cores to disrupt two markets.
These. I'm trying so hard not to reply to all of these shitposters comparing the performance for games.
I'm probably gonna get an 1800x in a few months for my desktop at home. I'll probably stick to Intel for my next laptop though
True enough but for most consumers it's single thread rating that matters.
Ryzen 1700 would be a amazing budget workstation chip though.
Personally I'm waiting for 6 or 4 cores to see how well they perform.
Are any parts priced against Intel i3?
Educate yourselves your stupid AMD faggots:
The 1800X is HORRIBLE for the money. Waiting for more reviews on the 1700 and 1700X before I pass judgement.
horrible for the money compared to the 1700x. But if you want something faster than the 1700x there is no better alternative before 1k USD + expensive as fuck chipset.
The bad reviews on the i7 7700k is AMD fags talking about Ryzen.
hurrrr... my 8 core 1800x doesn't work for gaming... durrrr......
Wait for the 4 cores.
We don't know until AMD unfucks it's self from this launch.
Which could take up to a week at least.
it's gonna be shit anyway
just wait for Another Massive Disappointment
I was actually expecting the 1700 to be the most popular one in this lineup because it's closest to the mid-range of $200-300 but for some reason everyone jumped over it and went for the 1700x and 1800x. I guess they were close enough that people just said "fuck it"
Hey fags, I have a question. Will Coffee lake work on z270 motherboards or will it need a new socket/chipset? I was thinking about getting a 7700k now and upgrading to an entry level 6 core i7 next year. If it uses a different socket, I'll get a ryzen 1700.
>Wouldn't an i7 7700k still be the better choice since its able to achieve much higher clock speeds? Single thread performance is still a heavy factor despite all the process we've made to increasing the threads programs can utilize.
It would definitely be a better choice for current video games. If you frequently do some sort of heavily multithreaded CPU work then probably not, since it's fairly close for games but much better when it comes to parallel number crunching.
...
considering coffeelake is a rebrand of kaby lake there's no reason it shouldn't.
It starts to piss me off that we can't overclock AMD products at all. Look at the Fury and now this. These chips are already at their limit when they leave the factory. I'm kind of disappointed even though ryzen has it's uses.
Gaymers preferably stay on their sandyvags/haswells until we get 6core consumer Intel chips.
>there's no reason it shouldn't.
I hope so. If I knew for certain that coffee lake will work on z270 (planning on getting the Asus rog strix z270F), I'd get the 7700k right now and upgrade to a 6 core i7 in 2018.
So there's gonna be a 10-20% performance increase when they fix the smt issue.
But they all overclock the same? And perform the same?
What the fuck?
Well the X chips have XFR so they can go slightly above their usual turbo frequencies while the non-X 1700 is limited to the usual turbo ranges. Aside from that they're all the same basic chip design with varying frequencies.
>But they all overclock the same?
There are some indications that the 1800x overclocks 100MHz higher than the 1700, but we don't have a large enough sample size. It's possible that the 1700 and the 1800x are basically the same except the 1700 runs at a lower base clock.
it's not getting fixed because it's performing as it should
it's the way those games work with smt (on an 8 core ryzen chip at least)
issue is motherboard bios, os and memory timings and cores parking themselves constantly, sounds to me that the auto overclock is messing up
also the ryzen chips in the comparisons are usually running at a lower frequency.
>also the ryzen chips in the comparisons are usually running at a lower frequency
*compared to the intel chips
>sitting here with a fucking Phenom
>any Ryzen will be better, benchmarks be damned
>I can get lower end chips for under $150
That's just the way I feel about this whole thing.
Why does this happen for everything AMD launches?
...
A 7700k is $100 more.
$350 7700k
$30 cooler
$150 Z270 motherboard
$530
$330 1700
$0 cooler
$100 B350 motherboard
$430
The price of a 1700 build is equal to that of a 6600K, not 7700k.
>$100 B350 motherboard
yeah a shit motherboard that can't even SLI
>releasing a high end cpu instead when intel is trapping people into kabylake upgrade route with the 60 bucks g4560
why
Intel had very similar problems with their hyperthreading
>SLI or Crossfire
>for any other reason than showing off
You're going to have a bad time.
>SLI
Why?
...
bullshit my 7700k had no problems dumb shill
overclockersclub.com
They're the same.
What does this have to do with hyperthreading???
7700k is the umpteenth iteration of the same architecture. When Intel first introduced that architecture they had serious problems with hyperthreading in games and people had to disable it to get better performance.
Literally the same story.
>BULLSHIT, DUMB SHILL, MY 7TH REVISION HAD NO ISSUES!!!!!!
No shit dumbass. Good job not understanding the problem at a basic level.
>700k is the umpteenth iteration
>MY 7TH REVISION
You don't have to buy every iteration of Intel processors you samefagging piece of shit. I have a 4790K and it's still extremely strong at what I do. I don't have to even consider a 7700K.
maybe amd is fucking garbage at coding how much are you all being paid
>What does this have to do with hyperthreading???
>Disabling Hyper-Threading apparently fixes the problem (based on user reports), but none of the other variables had a measurable impact on the issue.
Yes. So a motherboard that's not for faggots, basically.
God, I haven't seen a SLI/CF computer in forever.
Just give it up. You can make a 1700 PC for the same price as a 6600k one. That's just a fact.
My i7 870 doesn't have hyperthreading problems?
Or was that fixed with software?
Nah, the 7700K is a sub-par choice. The HT on it is overrated.
If you want pure gaming CPU. The 7600K and 7350K are almost as fast for less $$$$.
If you want a CPU with more utillity then Ryzens are better choices.
If you want a CPU for low-power consumption in laptops and other platforms then i3 and Pentiums are better choices.
it's not the hardware vendor's job to rewrite software. Intel didn't patch anything to fix their hyperthreading issues. Software adjusted to it. All it takes is one Windows patch.
...
It got fixed by your OS. Basically the OS has to know that the logical cores aren't real cores and schedule threads accordingly.
Most consumers will never experience a CPU bottleneck, so they shouldn't be part of this discussion.
Most gamers will want a cheaper i5, because they won't experience a CPU bottleneck with it.
Those doing single-threaded CPU intensive activities will want the best i7 they can afford.
Anyone doing intensive multi-threaded work will want the best ryzen they can afford.
I don't understand why there is so much shitposting about this. It's pretty simple
i7 is better than Ryzen is multi-threaded work too
This
Amazing. Again a complete misunderstanding of the core issue.
I still laugh on 7700k owners.
>Those doing single-threaded CPU intensive activities will want the best i7
an i5 is just as fast as an i7 for single threaded workloads
for double the price
that's not a multithreaded workload. You can tell by the Intel 8 core being way slower than the Intel 4 core
it all depends on what you want to do with a CPU
if you are a gaymen, then 2600k is pretty much as far as you need to go at this very moment, if you are into 3D or any other CPU heavy load work then you should go for r7 1700/1800 no doubt about it.
youtube.com
INTEL BTFO
Single Thread performance is still relevant. Be interesting to see how Ryzen fairs when trying to play old school single core games. (Year 98/1999 era). Results will probably be the same as bulldozer = suck ass. timing /jerky play,etc. patches did no good. Setting the game to manual use of a single core did no good. It's the underlying cpu circuits that are the key. that and amd's removal of 3dnow extension from bulldozer and most likley ryzen chips. Unreal Torunament (1999),NOLF (2002),NOLF2 etc I can play w/Phenom II as well as run more modern applications all with no comprising performance or other hacks required to work. It just works, and works well. Stream 1080p from youtube without fail, Encode video, hey can do it to, several dvds a night in fact. photoshop large images, can do that to. plus all the mundune tasks like surf internet,e-mail, and office work.
>reviewers again had old ass unpatched Windows
>Literally different clocks
>Probably different GPU all together
Not even subtle.
that mentally challenged person is admitting to have a GPU bottlenet. He is clueless.
THE FIRST RULE of CPU benchmarking is TO BOTTLENECK THE CPU because THAT IS THE POINT.
>Intel for my laptop
Honestly don't one thing Zen does have over Intel is that it is super fucking power efficient hence the high perf/watt
Ryzen is about as fast as Broadwell-E on single thread, which is about as fast as Kaby Lake
He is admitting to bottleneck the GPU. He is embarassing himself. The first rule of CPU benchmarking is to not bottleneck the GPU because the entire point is to bottlneck the CPUs in order to see how far they can push through their bottleneck.
The 101 of CPU benchmarking is to not bottlneck the GPU. The entire point is to bottleneck the CPUs. He is literally running a motherboard/RAM benchmark there, nothing else.
a gtx 1080 gets bottleneck'd at 1080p while a 7700k gets 100% cpu utilization a few times
lmao?
You need 3 titans, then you're not bottlenecking
Except it loses to the 6900k by quite a bit in some games/programs even though the 6900k is supposedly only a few % ahead in IPC. There's something wrong with Ryzen/motherboards/memory.
Reviews are all over the place, with reviewers using unpatched software, old BIOS, and no microcode updates along with cherrypicking the CPU's they compare
>7700k is sub-par
>suggest cpus that perform worse than 7700
ryzen is a new architecture and aimed for 4k, that's why intels old architecture overperforms at lower resolutions
Why does it matter since even bulldozer has significantly greater single core ipc than any processor from that time?
>one test
>it's single threaded
Kill yourself, you dumb piece of shit.
Ryzen is heavily marketed as gamer CPU.
AMD did that, people jumped onto the hype train.
After all AMD survived thanks to console deals.
Pretty damn true,
shit APUs brought down consoles hard, and AYYMD makes a nice penny off of it
Ryzen is marketed as a 6900K competitor
APUs are pretty good for the price. Can't match my A8 7650k for what it is when it comes to raw value.