Ryzen & Intel Discussion

I highly doubt it's possible, but can we have a discussion thread where the following terms are banned: shill, jew, goyim, btfo, rekt, suicide watch, housefires, jewtel, manchild, cuck, amdrones,etc.

So I'm very ready to buy a cpu. Half my parts for my new build are here. Earlier today I cancelled my 1700x / x370 prime pre-order.

I admittedly am 80% gamer, 15% productivity, 5% shitting around the web. After the NDA lift and all the third party reviews hitting I think it could be said that there's a general consensus that the current release Ryzen chips are not bargains for the enthusiast gamer.

I personally have been an AMD fan since my first 700mhz Athlon in 2000. Currently I'm on my aging FX8320 which despite all the bad wrap bulldozer chips got, it has sufficed for my rig since 2012 and still plays most games fine for me. The only things I've found to be drug down badly by it are Star Citizen(unoptimzed) and Planetside 2 in big fights.

I really want Ryzen to be good not just because I'm an AMD fan but for a competitive market again in CPU's.

I do think the 1700/1800 cpu's are a bit of a flop for the predominantly gamer crowd.

However I think Ryzen's saving grace will be the 6core and especially 4core versions. I don't see them performing much differently in most games than the 8 core cpus. Considering these will likely be $120-260 chips I think they will be great values and worth picking up for the sake of gaming over an Intel chip.

It's not that the 1700/1800 perform bad in games on their own - but next to their similar priced Intel competition they fall short.

So I think the lower priced 4c and 6c chips will save Ryzen for the gaming market.

That said though, I have everything bought now and have my current computer sold next weekend so I think I'm going to make the plunge and pick up at 7700k.

Anyone else have a similar outlook for the future of Ryzen?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=BXVIPo_qbc4
youtube.com/watch?v=V5RP1CPpFVE
jokerproductions.com/products?page=1
pcpartpicker.com/list/XgbRRG
pcpartpicker.com/list/gpHq9W
pcpartpicker.com/list/WkDQgL
hothardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-1700-benchmarks-and-review
anandtech.com/bench/product/1700?vs=1459
wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-review-processor-leak/
extremetech.com/gaming/245204-amds-ryzen-7-1800x-reviewed-zen-amazing-workstation-chip-1080p-gaming-achilles-heel?source=Computing
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

op here, also with that said though - I think Intel will still be the main choice for the absolute top end of the gaming market

Yea well no shit, AMD has nothing that can beat the i7-6950X.

I should have specified high end rather than top end.
I'm thinking the $300-500 crowd which is still a LOT of $ to drop on a CPU just for gaming.
In that range I think Intel will maintain that dominant market and AMD will fall behind. However the 4c and 6c chips might be able to secure them a VERY good portion of the average gaming crowd assuming their price points are where people are expecting.

BIOS updates are coming out nigga, benches are being redone. There was an issue where it'd go into power saving mode and clock down to 1ghz or some absurdly low shit.

Most gamers will still be playing on AMD hardware because of the console situation. There is only a 10-15% difference in single threaded performance at this point, and it's pretty obvious AMD will attempt to leverage this situation into better performance with their MOAR COARZ through connections with developers. With the advent of DX12 and other optimized API's we could possibly see the single thread advantage turn to nothing, simply because developers for consoles will need to play nice with AMD.

>TL;DR
The "just wait" meme.

It wasn't that bad, I mean, it's clearly an improvement over Bulldozer bullshit, but the problem with this one is that it clocks like shit, if it was able to reach over 4.0 GHz base it would be perfect.

What I don't understand is why you would get the amd cpu for potential games that benefit from the amd cpu strategy right now. Those games may appear in a few years, but atm they're not available. I know it's kind of a catch 22, but it's still kind of dumb as a consumer to shop for the 'future proof' computer. Normally that concept gets laughed at in builds threads and stuff.

In my specific use case it doesn't make sense to get the new Ryzen stuff, but I don't think I have that common of a use case.

I can see it's pretty good compared to buildozer stuff. They don't really have it for gaming atm though. I would wait maybe a month or so though and then try to see where everything is once maybe the launch bugs are figured out or something new is discovered. Looks like maybe the lower core stuff might be more generally desirable.

Or, and the more likely scenario I believe, is I get to do shit in the background AND game at acceptable framerates.

because people in build threads are retards who upgrade every other year weather there is an upgrade or not, my computer is going on 8 years, while I doubt that quad cores will be obsolete by then, my 8 core will still be able to get shit done better then the quad core.

as for waiting, I intend to do that because of an rma on my gpu and I wanted to have 1 fully working computer while i'm building ryzen incase something goes tits up and i need to look for a fix. the memory shit will likely bring ryzen to around an i7, hell youtube already shows it as far closer to the 5.0ghz then may reviews do.

By saying those words you've tripped at least 70% of the board's filters amidst this shitstorm. Next time, consider censoring them in a way that would avoid most Regex filters.

Yeah I agree with everything you said

If you want a high-end gaming chip, by far your best choice is the 7700k

PCGamer did a nice average of all the games they tested, the 7700k comes out on top by far especially for its price

This is why you should never preorder this kind of stuff.

But how long will that 10% difference in performance last when AMD has a majority of the gaming industry running their hardware because of consoles? By the time the next gen of consoles launch it might not amount to much. Would it be worth not having to replace your platform next upgrade cycle if games actually do use MOAR COARZ in the near future?

youtube.com/watch?v=BXVIPo_qbc4
gap isn't even that large lol

as long as you update your BIOS it's all fine

It's huge

A $340 intel chip is beating a $500 Ryzen chip

That's all speculation, but I wouldn't count on anything changing.

The major factor you have to take into account is the 7700k is a whopping $160 cheaper than the closest Ryzen and still beats it.

Game devs aren't exactly known for pushing the envelope.

But isn't it also speculation that the 7700k will stay ahead in gaming performance? I mean, I don't think there's much more to be squeezed out of a 5GHz OC'd 7700k...
Meanwhile, a number of games are only using a little over half the AMD chip right now. With AMD's connections to game developers I think it's reasonable to say there will be at minmal, SOME performance increase. 10% isn't unrealistic.

Also, 110 average FPS seems pretty acceptable to me for now.

And that video has a $320 AMD chip at 3.9ghz being at worst 4 frames behind a $340 Intel chip AT 5 FUCKIN GHZ

I told you, BIOS update, the guy making the video did the BIOS update. Performance improved massively. All launch reviews are pretty much null and void until the BIOS patch is installed nigga. This isn't even a thread scheduling fix either, this fixes the core parking and L3 cache issues.

christ how many times do I have to beat this into shills heads

Speculation is assuming anything will change at all

Keep in mind that the consoles have had 8 cores for years, and look at how PC ports are performing right now

Even if you assume a 10% performance increase for Ryzen, that means you are still paying an extra $160 for Ryzen to get the same performance as Intel.

That one guy is an amateur reviewer called Joker who literally sells AMD shirts.

See if you want to see reliable performance charts

incase you fucks don't bother watching the video, in the first one he does these are the results he gets

What in the fuck are you shilling about, a 1700 is $320, a 7700K is $340. The 1700 is unlocked and will overclock.

The 1700 doesn't even get close to the 7700k in performance, see

For gaming, which is one thing out of thousands that a processor can do.

Personally, if you have a large budget, only game, and intend on staying at 1080p, you should get a 7700k.

If you intend to do other tasks like video editing, encoding, hosting a server, streaming while gaming, the 7700k is okay if you're on a budget, but the 1800x or (personally) 1700 with an OC will be overall the better buy.

As far as I'm concerned, buying a socket 2011v3 mobo with the intention of getting anything less than a 6950x is foolish at the moment(unless you absolutely NEED quad channel memory).

Of course, once skylake/kabylake-E come out, ryzen will become far less of a concern for intel.


AMD was actually able to make a compelling product, and It's all thanks to intels attempt to segment the market for maximum profit.

Intel is quite afraid of giving the mainstream more than 4 cores/8 threads, and now that ryzen IPC has proven itself to be "close enough" to intel's, coffee lake will be coming relatively soon (Q4 2017, on 14nm) to counter AMD.

Sure it does once OC'd, see

I'm gonna wait 1-2 months for bios updates and revisions and probably get 1800x for productivity reasons. 16 threadz is really good for compiling large projects and encoding stuff.

Very reasonable thinking. I'm surprised somebody on Sup Forums is capable of it.

I'd agree with everything you said. I don't understand why so many on Sup Forums seem overjoyed by the fact Ryzen is a bit slower than comparable intel chips in games.

We want AMD to be competitive. We want them to be in a price and performance war. At the very least you get a nice discount on the intel chip you were already going to buy.

At this point the 5 series is interesting. If it clocks higher than 7 series it should get a nice performance bump.

8 cores with shared FPU's and a vastly inferior arch. What's speculation right now is whether or not Microsoft's new console is using Zen.

You stupid fucking bastards, how many times do I have to explain it. The default BIOS that shipped with all Ryzen motherboards had a flaw that would put the processor into power saving mode (and thus clock down) at random times. The L3 victim cache was not functioning either.

PC Gamer used the BIOS that shipped with the motherboard. The one with the flaw. These two videos have the patched BIOS:
youtube.com/watch?v=V5RP1CPpFVE
youtube.com/watch?v=BXVIPo_qbc4

jokerproductions.com/products?page=1
I don't see any fuckin AMD shirts here, do you?

It's not just gaming, Ryzen is bad at basically anything that isn't rendering/encoding.

TL;DR
The "just wait" meme is real this time.

Alright Sup Forums. How much am i really losing out on by going with AMDick instead of Shilltel? (Software, relaibility, features, etc)
AMD: pcpartpicker.com/list/XgbRRG
Intel: pcpartpicker.com/list/gpHq9W

Watch his video with Gamers Nexus, Joker is literally selling AMD shirts.

>shared FPUs
No it fucking doesn't. Each core can do two 128 bit floating point SIMD operations, or one 256 bit floating point SIMD operation. Shared FPUs haven't been a thing since Steamroller.

So...same as that fucking 6900k, are you fucking retarded or what ?

First iteration of Zen is literally Nehalem of AMD. So don't worry, the actual arch is stellar, it'll certainly be gud sooner or later.

It's the Ryzen $500 CPU getting beat by the $340 Intel CPU yet again

Yeah, m8. Broadwell-E is complete garbage too.

looks like a pretty good joke desu

also my usage would be gaymen while streaming media (spotify, dramatube, etc.) sometimes even video chat (oovoo, skype can suck my ass)

$340 Intel CPU also beats $1100 Intel CPU so it's even.

Intel beats Intel...I guess the choice is Intel

Both are gud but I'd swap 1060-6 for 480-8 (XFX one).

Or AMD. You can't compare quad to octacores, quads have higher clocks so they are superior in serial workloads.

Currently games aren't optimised for multi-core CPUs. Therefore CPU's with with high single core/thread performance will run games better.

This is actually true as well as:
>lol amd has no drivers
AMD still hasn't optimised their CPU's for gayming.

>$500 AMD = $1050 Intel
Reasonably priced AMD beats overpriced Intel... It looks like the choice is AMD.

Have any of the reviewers tried disabling cores and overclocking the remaining yet?

AMD it is, unless you really need additional PCI-E lanes.

And then back in reality, the $340 Intel beats $500 AMD

The choice is obviously the $340 Intel

My hope is that this "blunder" prepared AMD for the r5/r3 release.

>DDR3 1600
>No CMT
>Farily minimal instruction set
>1.75 Ghz
>Only 4 cores in a module

I mean, I think if even ONE console uses Zen, it would be a game changer compared to last time around. Bit of a difference in 8 shit console cores and Zen there.

No. It's not even close in heavily threaded workloads.

>You can't compare quad to octacores

Except you can and we did, see

So Ryzen killed off the X99 platform.

Only in ST workloads.
It's basically a countdown until everyone compiles their shit optimised for Zen.

pcpartpicker.com/list/WkDQgL
swapped the PSU and monitor, Superflower Leadex Gold is alright but Seasonic's is better and doesn't have the EVGA brand premium.

Yeah it's not even close in 99% of applications either.

The choice is obviously the $340 Intel. Not only are you saving $160, you are also getting better performance.

>gaymen
Yes, you can't compare quad to octacores.
Nice shilling m8.

>99% of applications
>literally (You)

...

>$330 AMD almost as good as $340 Intel, but with double the cores and threads.

The choice is easily the $330 AMD. The multi-threaded true reality.

>m.2 is sata
Nah, the regular ssd is cheaper and will probably be cooler than a gumstick

>you can't compare quad to octacores

I guess we broke the laws of the world

oh my response was thinking you were talking about Ryzen

yeah Jaguar isn't CMT and can't do the 256 bit operation like I mentioned.

The $330 AMD (1700) is quite horrible compared to the $340 Intel (7700k)

See

I disagree. The ability to keep shit open and launch a game and not worry about performance makes ryzen superior. Plus most of the current benchmarks underrepresent ryzens power which has pretty damn good IPC performance.

The 1700 will prove to be the de facto standard choice for enthusiast grade budget gaymen and productivity to boot.

for it to even score this way without optimization is something people should look into. People forget that the A64 vs Netburst started out with Intel with a "lead"

faster

(you).

Except it isn't.

See

No the R7s really aren't great for gamers at all. They're merely good.
Not anywhere as near as the badness of bulldozer though, jesus christ.
It's not bulldozer again, by any means.

It comes closer to Phenom II again

The benchmark you're linking is before the BIOS update.

See

Nehalem also started clunky as all hells. It's just this board is full of newshits.

First of all, if its sata its not even worth it. Secondly where is 2.5" drive on there

moar 4K

full review here:

hothardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-1700-benchmarks-and-review

Seriously, after reading and watching a whole bunch of reviews my main take away is that motherboards BIOS are a fucking mess right now.

ASUS Crosshair board sounds particularly bad at the moment.

2.5 inch drive is SATA mate, the mSATA versions just go direct to the SATA bus without the cable. M.2 is PCI-E.

anandtech.com/bench/product/1700?vs=1459

(retard).

...

Why did not one single reviewer try to shut cores down on Ryzen, and overclock? Then turn off SMT, then overclock the RAM.

Why wasn't the minimum frame rate being higher, resulting in smoother real world game play results even if it was slightly lower average frames made a discussion point?

None of these youtubers did anything with their Ryzen chips except ram benchmarks down our throats on buggy BIOS.

>The $330 AMD (1700) is quite horrible compared to the $340 Intel (7700k)
(In single threaded applications, eg )
In multi threaded ones it's wrecked.

moar storage

random benches on wccucks

wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-review-processor-leak/

for gaming the 7700k will be significantly better than the 1700 based on the current benchmarks

>Sees $330 AMD at 96 fps and $340 Intel at 112 fps.

Both of them go well over 60 fps, which is still the most popular frame rate. However, one of them is more future-resistant than the other one. I wonder which one it is?

Spoiler: It's the $330 AMD. No-brainer. The multi-threaded future is inevitable.

Fuck that site, any one linking it is an idiot.

Apparently you have done no research. The Samsung 850 Evo M.2 2280 is an m.2 that uses sata bandwith. No point. Its more expensive. My life doesnt depend on a file downloading

See shits like you keep trickling into this thread.

>significantly better
No, somewhat better, not significantly better.
The difference is about the same as between kaby lake and two intel generations prior- IE very little.

it's 8 bucks and it's faster, your pick

shill, jew, goyim, btfo, rekt, suicide watch, housefires, jewtel, manchild, cuck, amdrones,etc.

Oy-vey, filtered.

1080p gaming "Achilles heel"

extremetech.com/gaming/245204-amds-ryzen-7-1800x-reviewed-zen-amazing-workstation-chip-1080p-gaming-achilles-heel?source=Computing

That's, that's pretty low.

I went for the 7600k recently after much debate. I'm upgrading from an FX6300. Did I fuck up too badly? I hear a lot of shit talking but also praise for kaby lake and I just want good gaming performance to match with my r9 290. I would have gone ryzen but there waiting to release the full lineup and I fucking hate that.

>Did I fuck up too badly?
Nope not at all, the i5 is a really solid CPU and has great gaming performance.

The difference is literally 5fps in this case... how does this matter when taken alongside the plenty of other things the chip does better?

Godly efficient power consumption brought to you by AMD.

Intel is proud to have the new title of "Space Heater Provider."

No really though. That 8 core's beating the shit out of the 4 core in power efficiency. AMD's probably gonna wreck the shit out of Intel in the server market, where it really counts.

No unless you play BF1 24/7.

Awesome. I was worried I'd gotten super jewed but I was getting sick of waiting and I didn't feel like buying the top of the line since I'm not a content creator in any way. I got 3 day shipping too so hopefully it gets here Monday or so