Ryzen 5 (1 day left)

So Sup Forums, which one will you buy/pre-order?

i think the 1600 is the only one that is worth the money.

Would you save the money and buy 7700k?
>inb4 wait for skylake-x meme

Other urls found in this thread:

computerbase.de/thema/prozessor/rangliste/#diagramm-leistungsaufnahme
youtube.com/watch?v=H3zg-LfxkN4
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Yep, 1600. However some madmen will go 1500x.

1600 and overclock with a $90 mobo is the only sane choice.
Or 1700 and overclock with a $90 mobo.

Skylake-X looks very interesting, excepts.. it's gonna cost around 1k.

It looks less interesting when you know the 12 and 16 core Zen chips are coming out at the same time or maybe even sooner.

OH BOY A NEW SOCKET THANK YOU INTEL YOU TRULY ARE OUR GREATEST ALLY!

>New motherboards
>Again
We've had 1151 how long now? Not even 18 months?

I'm sure most sane people would buy the R5 1600. Why would people buy the 1500x when a mere $30 more gets you 2 more cores and 4 more threads? The R5 1600 really is the best bang for the buck. Too bad the same can't be said for the 4 core, 8 threaded ones.

The 1600 is $130 cheaper than the 7700k and comes with a really good Spire cooler, while the 1400 is only $70 cheaper than the 7600k while only having the potentially mediocre Stealth cooler.

I'm expecting the R3s to be priced around $120 or something. But maybe AMD will notice the G4560 and price the lower end R3s (hoping lowest end is still a true four core) accordingly. Probably not.

this, and the upcoming ddr5.. well have to switch again.

DDR5 isn't going to be commercially available until 2020 nigga.

1400 or 1700, depends on the tests.

If you're primarily buying it for gaming, the 1600x since they'll overclock slightly better than the 1600.

ok serious question, should I wait for skylake-x?
I play one or two games, I just want a pc which lasts long.
I use it for c++

If it's anything like the difference between the 1700 and 1800x, might as well just get the 1600. The differences will be negligible.

R3's are APUs, they only come with 4 cores on the chip total, so R3's are gonna be 2-4 cores.
Hoping for another 3 core bin, they're fun.

>R3's are APUs
Source.

>paying $50 more for 100MHz
If this was a 16 core the 100MHz matters a lot, but not on these low core count chips

The 1600X already has a 4GHz turbo + the extra 100MHz from XFR, you're not getting much more out of it (if at all) from OC'ing

There'd be no profit in 8 core dies at 2 cores, you'd have to have catastrophically bad yields for that or purposely gimp your 4-8 core chips.
But mostly it's because the die is too large for that price point.

And R3's are coming at the same time as the APUs, so it's a given.

I don't know, waiting to see benchmarks, currently on FX 6300.

I could use better processor for Krita. And I guess emulators when developing. Mainly Krita though, definitely need better single core performance there.

If I recall correctly, the R3 processors will be both CPUs and APUs. So, you're half right.

R3's are 4/4.

>on ONE core

Stop looking at numbers and look around you, do you think turbo means anything but single core max frequency?

They're all APUs, the CPUs are just with GPU lasered off.

I don't see the marginal returns of a few 100 MHz being worth the fuss. I'll take more cores for my money.

>And R3's are coming at the same time as the APUs, so it's a given.
Not necessarily.
See FM2+ Athlons, they're not APUs, but priced low, with low core counts. And share a socket with APUs.
I'd like to know if the APUs are going to feature the dual CCX design, or rather be a "true" quadcore design.
Though the latter seems unlikely due to the fact that functional quadcore chips are paired together for the R7 line.

Making a two CCX design for a 4 core APU is pure lunacy, both in performance and die area.
The APUs aren't using the same die as the R7/5.

They're just APUs with the video part sawed off.

>Making a two CCX design for a 4 core APU is pure lunacy
It's going to be hard to say how deep AMD want to go on the dual CCX design.
I'd really like to believe they won't use 2 CCX on the R3 lines, but I'm not too sure.
We'll just have to wait and see.
Considering they dropped R5 details at the R7 launch, I guess we can expect something soon enough on the R3s

waiting for zen2 but prob the non x 6 core

eagerly awaiting consumer chip benches

Zen+ is the Zen Refresh, probably a year or so down the line.
Zen2, probably 2-3 years to go.

It doesn't even look very interesting. The same overpriced configurations once again, with an octa core costing $1000 plus a $250 motherboard. Plus they're going to be the ultimate housefires with Memelake at a 140W TDP.

get something within ur budget and dont wait.

Wait, already?

I thought it was still going to be another month or two until we saw R5.

These chips will go into mobile, going with 2 CCX will just make the die enormous, that's not profitable or sane.

Also purposely making a two core CCX is pointless, when they already have a quad core CCX used everywhere.
2 core chips will be 1 CCX with 2 cores disabled.

Oh, I am waiting for zen+ then. Hopefully motherboards are all sorted and ddr4 has stabilized. Hopefully my house hasn't burnt down yet.

>compiling
R7 1700 it is

you just fall for the waiting meme.

We don't even know what Zen+(2018) is, but AMD said it's a "tock".

And slides have shown it to have some 15% more IPC than Zen, but then again the same slides have said Zen is only 40% faster IPC than the constructor family, ended up some 52%

Would be interesting to see a Retest of those IPC figures now that the BIOS are more stable, and we know about the impact of higher speed DDR4 on Ryzen.
Probably closer to 60% now

I have Core i3 now.
Working with Android Studio and some VMs, cpu is maxed out sometimes. No gaymes.
Deciding between i7 7700 and 1600X.

>Deciding between i7 7700 and 1600X.
They're $100 apart.

Every one of these options is much better in every way than Intel's stuttering housefires.

>I use it for c++
Ryzen since it's infinitely better than Intel.

NEW SOCKET HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH

It's a NEW architecture, so ofc new socket is needed

>New socket

Nah, they can't keep doing this, Intel is pathetic.

>hurrdurr news coket


NO SHIT RETARDS!??!?!?!

no shit goys

Unless this cunt provides a MASSIVE benefit(it's Intel, it won't, they've done this like three times before already) it's just snake oil.

MUH AVX512

Kek, what a monstrosity

Is that an SLI-connector?

It's some XeonPhi nonsense

I'm getting the 1500X because I value energy efficiency, and don't want my processor pulling 300W at idle because it's overclocked.

nice bait.

I am going for an Intel system unless the 1600 surprises me tomorrow in a positive way.

It's not even about the performance being inferior to the Intel.
It's about

1.mainboard availability, selction and quality

It's non-existing

2. Bugs and problems everywhere still, no matter the mainboard

I am not eager to wait much longer for the PC too boot up compared to an Intel system.


I am not a social justice warrior and not a retarded fan of a brand.
Ib4 waitfags claiming one should wait.

Is not bait. Site me proof that I'm wrong.

Prove that you're not a lying piece of shit.

> Hard Mode: (you) can't.

>no reviews out yet

>make bold claims

To get near Intel performance you have to overclock your Ryzen eventually, all-core ofc.

And regarding idle power consumption, Intel CPUs are still the best.

computerbase.de/thema/prozessor/rangliste/#diagramm-leistungsaufnahme

1600x because im still holding out hope that zen2 wont have some shitty ccx design so i can upgrade to a proper 8 core next year but im also not fucking poor enough to go lower right now

Still on pre-order?

AMD is must be that fucked.

I want mobile.

I don't need to upgrade for at least a year. Probably can hold out for 2 or even a bit more. I've not really been playing games for a while now, so my FX8350 has plenty of useful life in it.

I'll make decisions based upon what's available per price toward the end of 2018, and possibly be ready to buy during Thanksgiving/Christmas sales 2019.

Won't even need to get rid of my 8350 then ... just repurpose it. Thing's a fucking beast running at 4.4 GHz with 32 GB RAM. Literally runs 3 operating systems simultaneously. Having a hard time imagining what I'd use a Ryzen's power for, especially if I went with a 1700 or better.

CCX bottleneck is near irrelevant, kill yourself.

if overclocking is as decent as promised then the 1600 will be the best bang for your buck.

>new socket
>$1500 for pricing
>"possibly up to" 10 cores/20 threads (with realistically more like 6core/12 threads)
>140w TDW
>most likely marginal increase to clock speed like the last decade of CPU launches


intel cucks literally on suicide watch

Don't expect major overclocking from Skylake-X as it now has much more private L2 cache.

>8mb l3 cache vs 16

no kill you are self.

welp someone achieved 4.0 ghz stabile on the 1600.

>definitely slower with CCX

>near irrelevant

Not the guy you are quoting but how about you kys?

Retard

Wow, 3% in games and 10% in 2 out of 10.

Who the fuck cares about 5 FPS

got sauce for that?

color me intrigued

>tfw made a rig with a 4790K and a Fury X, 2 years ago
I think I did the right decision on the timing, skipping DDR4 for DDR5, didn't even knew that shit was that close to release, time to research about it.

What's gonna be the big difference between 4 and 5?

Intel 60 missiles 20 hit

AMD "Dude"
are You Intel cucks retarded?, we just want cool new technology to fuck with.

youtube.com/watch?v=H3zg-LfxkN4

That 1500X looks juicy as fuck.,

>Custom water cooling loop
>on an R5

I never get these people, who the hell is gonna buy an R5 and cool it with a custom wc loop?

>1.43 voltage
>67C temps

i was kinda hoping to see how it fared while idle. Doesn't look too bad under load though.

They do it to maximize Overclocking Results, and there are people with watercooled i3/i5 chips.

i wouldn't go all out with custom water loops, but i was looking into watercooling anyway because i live in South Louisiana, so my temps get pretty spicy this time of year from traditional air cooling.

waiting for $70 athlon version.

...

...

>idle power consumption, Intel CPUs are still the best.
>Intel 8 core (i7-6900K) 65W
>AMD 8 core (Ryzen R7 1800x) 45W

>Intel
>best
>pick one

Intelfags are clinically retarded, news at 11

For those concerned about CCX, the only reason 4c R5s exist is to sell leftover silicone. AMD has or is working on a single 4c CCX design for their APUs, which I think would end up performing just a bit better in some instances, but maybe less in others due to less cache (hypothetically). Will be interesting to see if the 4c R3 APUS cut into 1400/1500 sales. Anyway this time next year we will see a Ryzen revision just intime for Cannon Lake :^)

You do know both the 1500x and 1600 are two CCX? Why would you not pay $30 more for 50% more cores? 1600 is best bang for buck.

This.

I'm unsure if its a good idea to be a ryzen early adopter especially because of the mobo issues going on right now.

Only the goodest of goys are going to buy into this searing socket inferno.

>Booting up your system

How often do you turn it off?

>I am not eager to wait much longer for the PC too boot up compared to an Intel system.
First I've heard of this. I searched for ryzen "boot time", couldn't find any results except one guy claiming long boot times on an MSI motherboard. Could be motherboard specific issue requiring a BIOS patch.

>I am not a social justice warrio
the fuck does this have to do with anything?

Daily reminder that most apps are limited by the CPU's single threaded performance, and:

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X -- PassMark score = 1,952 (single thread)

Intel i7-2700K -- PassMark score = 2,010 (single thread)

So AMD has almost caught up to where Intel was in 1Q 2011. Good job, AMD!!

>apps
Well just like you said, apps.
So more cores is better if you want to open more than 4 apps :^)

Still on a ~7 years old i7 930
It's finally time to upgrade both my Mobo and CPU after all this time.

Probably gonna pick a 1600X.

But in thought over how more useful 8 cores would be but the extra stock speed on a 1600x would make up for that.

What the FUCK is this thing? What the FUCK? Ok its huge but WHAT is that thing on the end? A fucking mSATA interface?

>So AMD has almost caught up to where Intel was in 1Q 2011. Good job, AMD!!

2017 Intel has barely progressed from 2011 Intel.

i was planning on getting a 1500x because it fits my budget

>pissmark
>giving a shit about single threaded performance

kys faggot shill

>all the idiots picking the here in Europe overpriced 1600X without a cooler

>claiming it has a better price/perf ratio than Intel when you also need expensive single ranked ram


Go kys
I picked up 16GB 2667Mhz DDR4 Ram for 75€.
Not gonna rebuy.

>when you also need expensive single ranked ram
no you don't
it offers a great performance benefit, but the 1600x is still better price / performance than similarly priced intel cpus