Sticky

AMD Ryzen MegaThread! FAQ and Resources


Welcome to the Official AMD Ryzen MegaThread! This thread will be the main location for all Ryzen discussion and information!

Thread has been updated on 3/5/2017.

This thread serves as the primary discussion thread for all Ryzen information and resources. While discussing, please remember to stay within the guidelines set by Tom's Hardware and above all, DO NOT start a flame war.

AMD Ryzen is the next generation of CPUs coming from AMD. It has been a LONG awaited arrival since the failure of the FX CPUs that launched several years ago. Ryzen plans to fix everything that was wrong with their previous architectures, including single core performance and energy efficiency.

Pricing

Official Pricing for the Ryzen R7 CPUs starts at $329 for the 1700, $399 for the 1700X, and $499 for the 1800X. Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 3 pricing are unknown at this time.

Release Date
Pre-Orders Began on Feb 22. Official launch is March 2nd.

Performance

Performance for Ryzen as of now seems to be hit or miss. Ryzen is performing very well in highly threaded tasks however in gaming it seems to be taking a downfall vs mid range/high end core i5 and i7s.

The good news is that this architecture is new (VERY new), meaning that optimizations and patches should fix these performance issues with gaming. AMD has said it's working with dozens upon dozens of numerous games developers and programmers to get Ryzen optimized for the latest titles Intel is dominating on so far. (Unsuprising due to the fact that for the past 4 years there was no AMD competition, meaning developers didn't need to optimize for AMD.)

Overclocking has also been somewhat of a shock, Ryzen is by far one of the worst overclockers in CPU history. From what reviewers are saying, roughly 90% of all 1800X CPUs can only make it to 4.0ghz or less. Only a very small portion of 1800X chips can even hit 4.1ghz. (Note: This is with SMT on and ALL cores enabled. If you disable SMT and/or disable some cores, you will get higher overclocks.) However, if Intel was able to optimized their finFET 14nm tech to allow higher clock speeds (ie. Skylake vs. Kaby Lake), what's not to say AMD won't be able to do the same thing.

I want to point out that Ryzen is still a VERY good CPU. It seems like a lot of people are hating on Ryzen simply because it can't game well (specifically at 1080P). I will agree with them to some point, because from the AMD demo's prior to Ryzen launching, AMD seemed to be saying their Ryzen chips were great at gaming.

However, these CPU still do deliver in the productivity department. You still get 90% of 6900K performance for only 50% of the price (with 1800X). So if your a guy who needs lots of threads, Ryzen is still the best buy for you.


Memory Support:

Unfortunately, memory support on Ryzen for high speed RAM --and more specifically-- high speed quad channel kits is very poor. Ryzen's memory controllers top out at just shy of 3000mhz with only two sticks, with 4 sticks, the speeds go down to roughly the 2666mhz range. Compare that with Intel Kaby Lake and Broadwell-E which can easily handle 4000mhz RAM without a problem.

As a WARNING for new PC builders, DO NOT get high speed RAM in excess of 2933mhz for Ryzen at this time. Or it is pretty much guaranteed that you will suffer instability.


Architecture

AMD has been able to pull out an amazing 52% IPC improvement over their previous architectures. Allowing Ryzen to compete directly with Skylake/Kaby Lake.

AMD has also introduced a smart system for loading specific instructions called “Neural Net Prediction”. This tech anticipates future decisions and pre-loads the right instructions for the specific job.

Another smart feature AMD is introducing is called “Precision Boost”. It seems very similar to Nvidia’s GPU Boost technology. What it does is improve the core clock on 25mhz increments and also increases power on a similar basis. Basically, it operates like Turbo Boost/Core but has the capability, like GPUs, to dynamically boost in 25mhz increments, compared to CPUs which only have several clock speed steps.

This also ties in with the power delivery called “Extended Frequency Range (XFR)”. If you have a high end air cooler or liquid cooler, AMD Ryzen can smartly accommodate for the extra cooling capability and increase both voltage and core clock even higher than normal. Again, very similar to GPU Boost (specifically rev 3.0).

AMD has also introduced a new hyperthreading technology that isn't like their previous SMT on piledriver. It works very similarly to Intel's hyperthreading. Without getting too nerdy, AMD's new hyperthreading fixes the problems of the older architecture by not sharing as much resources between cores, instead giving them their own "tools" to play with. Allowing single core performance to stay high.

News and Future Updates
So far, AMD has said that their Ryzen 5 CPUs will be coming in the 2H of 2017, and their Ryzen 3 CPUs will be out in Q3 or Q4 of 2017.
Reply to TechyInAZ
2118 answers Last reply
More about amd ryzen megathread faq resources
  1. What's the "real" TDP?
    Reply to illegaloperation
  2. illegaloperation said:
    What's the "real" TDP?


    Unknown. Though rumors are approximating "95W".
    Reply to TechyInAZ
  3. You can update the release date to "Early March," at the very least. It was announced unintentionally during an earnings call in February. I've also seen relatively reputable reports that the launch is set for end of February, with availability as early as March 3 for some SKUs.

    TDP has been reported as 65W and 95W on leaked SKUs, though the reliability of that info isn't exactly 100%.
    Reply to viewtyjoe
  4. It will be nice to be able to recommend something other than a Pentium that has an upgrade path. Here's hoping the pricing is competitive.
    Reply to Eximo
  5. The 40% IPC must be at least. aMD have not qualified or limited the gains.

    Given background knowledge Zens IPC is more around Haswell level slightly more.
    Reply to sarinaide
  6. I've seen some rumored pricing for the R7 8c/16t skus, allegedly (and take this with a grain of salt), we're looking at:

    R7-1700 (65w) - $320.00 (USD)
    R7-1700x (95w) - $380.00 (USD)
    R7-1800x (95w) - $490.00 (USD)

    Granted, this is allegedly the pricing for the R7 SKUs which are going to be released first, if it's accurate, it's going to really kick Intel in the nuts because the 1700x looks to really be able to beat the current i7 Kaby Lake parts when it comes to multi-threaded programs. Remember, for a quad core Intel chip at $340-350, you can double the cores and threads for $40-50 more. While these cores might be a bit slower than the Intel cores, overall, the 8c/16t 1700x should handily smack the quad core i7 around.
    Reply to Rookie_MIB
  7. Rookie_MIB said:
    I've seen some rumored pricing for the R7 8c/16t skus, allegedly (and take this with a grain of salt), we're looking at:

    R7-1700 (65w) - $320.00 (USD)
    R7-1700x (95w) - $380.00 (USD)
    R7-1800x (95w) - $490.00 (USD)

    Granted, this is allegedly the pricing for the R7 SKUs which are going to be released first, if it's accurate, it's going to really kick Intel in the nuts because the 1700x looks to really be able to beat the current i7 Kaby Lake parts when it comes to multi-threaded programs. Remember, for a quad core Intel chip at $340-350, you can double the cores and threads for $40-50 more. While these cores might be a bit slower than the Intel cores, overall, the 8c/16t 1700x should handily smack the quad core i7 around.


    Prices seem too good to be true.

    Either that or these processors are going to underperform expectations massively.
    Reply to illegaloperation
  8. illegaloperation said:

    Prices seem too good to be true.

    Either that or these processors are going to underperform expectations massively.


    The prices seem too good to be true because Intel has had a virtual monopoly on the segment since Sandy Bridge or so. With no serious competition in the high-end, they were free to charge whatever premium they wanted to increase margins on the products. AMD is intending to force Intel into a price war, and at this point I imagine AMD has a lot more experience in that ballgame than Intel, unless Intel decides to go back to the same illegal tactics they used previously to shut out AMD.
    Reply to viewtyjoe
  9. viewtyjoe said:
    AMD is intending to force Intel into a price war, and at this point I imagine AMD has a lot more experience in that ballgame than Intel, unless Intel decides to go back to the same illegal tactics they used previously to shut out AMD.

    What sort of illegal tactics are you referencing? I'm not familiar with that story.
    Reply to _Johnny5
  10. _Johnny5 said:
    viewtyjoe said:
    AMD is intending to force Intel into a price war, and at this point I imagine AMD has a lot more experience in that ballgame than Intel, unless Intel decides to go back to the same illegal tactics they used previously to shut out AMD.

    What sort of illegal tactics are you referencing? I'm not familiar with that story.



    If we go back to the early 2000's AMD had Intel beat on a tech level with the Athlon 64 being faster and more power efficient than Intel's P4. Intel in a bid to prevent AMD becoming an equal / bigger player in the x86 space essentially bribed OEMs to restrict the proportion of machines they shipped with AMD hardware inside (by offering 'subsidies' on Intel gear that basically translated to handing them money for taking Intel chips).

    Intel were successfully prosecuted under anti monopoly laws and were handed the biggest fine ever levied on a company under those rules (around the $1 billion USD mark)- although given the huge revenues Intel make it wasn't much of a problem for them.
    Reply to cdrkf
  11. As i haven't seen anyone else post this, some additional slides on Ryzen including lots of info on it's power management:
    https://videocardz.com/65774/more-details-about-amd-zen-cpu-core-revealed-at-isscc
    Reply to cdrkf
  12. Quote:
    Originally Posted by juanrga View Post
    I don't believe a helmet is needed, most of the stuff is already set in stone and confirmed. Only a pair of open issues remain... Moreover, recall I have a list of who said what in case they pretend to continue hiding their mistakes whereas citing mistakes of others


    What is set in stone?
    Reply to sarinaide
  13. Top SKU was leaked to be 105W TDP for the 8c/16t black edition...it is possible, take it with a grain of salt.

    All others are 65W-95W TDP.
    Reply to 8350rocks
  14. _Johnny5 said:
    viewtyjoe said:
    AMD is intending to force Intel into a price war, and at this point I imagine AMD has a lot more experience in that ballgame than Intel, unless Intel decides to go back to the same illegal tactics they used previously to shut out AMD.

    What sort of illegal tactics are you referencing? I'm not familiar with that story.



    There were actually 2 cases for that.

    The EU courts for the EU OEMs was discussed here when it happened (it was a verdict that was literally 6-7 years coming), and Intel still disputes this verdict, to my knowledge it has still not been paid by chipzilla: https://www.extremetech.com/computing/184323-intel-stuck-with-1-45-billion-fine-in-europe-for-unfair-and-damaging-practices-against-amd

    The U.S. lawsuit was settled out of court with cross licensing and lots of redtape: https://www.cnet.com/news/intel-to-pay-amd-1-25-billion-in-antitrust-settlement/

    Here is a WSJ rundown of the history between the two companies: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/11/12/a-timeline-of-intel-and-amds-legal-battles/ (you may have to subscribe to WSJ, I am unsure as I subscribe...)
    Reply to 8350rocks
  15. Here's Something to think about and even gape, if teh prcing is true:

    the 1700 is rated at 65 watts. That’s right folks, AMD is launching an 8 core, 16 thread CPU with a boost clock of 3.7GHz and a TDP of 65 watts.. That’s less than half the TDP of Intel’s 140W 8 core 16 thread i7 6900K, which features the same 3.7GHz boost clock speed.
    Reply to ScrewySqrl
  16. ScrewySqrl said:
    Here's Something to think about and even gape, if teh prcing is true:

    the 1700 is rated at 65 watts. That’s right folks, AMD is launching an 8 core, 16 thread CPU with a boost clock of 3.7GHz and a TDP of 65 watts.. That’s less than half the TDP of Intel’s 140W 8 core 16 thread i7 6900K, which features the same 3.7GHz boost clock speed.


    I think that's still rumour.
    Reply to Crumpet
  17. Even at 105W it is competitive. 4c/8t Intel is at 91W. 6c/12t and 8c/16t at 140W from Intel.

    I'm more concerned that those figures are before 'Precision Boost' kicks in and they start drawing a lot of current. I'm sure they thought of CPU temps, VRM temps, etc though. Curious how it turns out, but I foresee a lot of people expecting more performance out of mid-range coolers.
    Reply to Eximo
  18. illegaloperation said:
    What's the "real" TDP?


    At least 105W for the top SKU, the 1800X
    Reply to juanrga
  19. Rookie_MIB said:
    I've seen some rumored pricing for the R7 8c/16t skus, allegedly (and take this with a grain of salt), we're looking at:

    R7-1700 (65w) - $320.00 (USD)
    R7-1700x (95w) - $380.00 (USD)
    R7-1800x (95w) - $490.00 (USD)

    Granted, this is allegedly the pricing for the R7 SKUs which are going to be released first, if it's accurate, it's going to really kick Intel in the nuts because the 1700x looks to really be able to beat the current i7 Kaby Lake parts when it comes to multi-threaded programs. Remember, for a quad core Intel chip at $340-350, you can double the cores and threads for $40-50 more. While these cores might be a bit slower than the Intel cores, overall, the 8c/16t 1700x should handily smack the quad core i7 around.


    Agree. The multithreading performance would be close to this



    SKU 1 --> 1800X
    SKU 2 --> 1700X
    SKU 3 --> 1700 ???

    It seems two first are confirmed. Last is dubious because all sites are reporting 1700X to be a 8C. However CPCHardware just claimed that OEMs have not validated any 8C 65W chip.
    Reply to juanrga
  20. Question, does anyone have any concerns about the Platform Security Processor (Arm A5/A8? core embedded?) From what I've heard it seems to have direct access to memory like Intel's ME.
    Also, does anyone one have actual information ON the PSP? I can only find some slight security white-papers and the Liber/coreboot site. :\
    (If you are wondering, I'm rocking along a Q6600/ AMD Phenom II X6 1055, one is dying so I need an actual replacement)
    Reply to Nope 1151
  21. http://www.pcworld.com/article/3167279/computers/amd-sorry-there-will-be-no-official-ryzen-drivers-for-windows-7.html

    Well i guess they tested Ryzen on 7 but they wont officially support Windows 7 i actually thought that would be a decent advantage. If anyone seen Jayztwocents video about trying to get Kaby-lake on W7 it wasn't well easy.
    Reply to jdwii
  22. jdwii said:
    http://www.pcworld.com/article/3167279/computers/amd-sorry-there-will-be-no-official-ryzen-drivers-for-windows-7.html

    Well i guess they tested Ryzen on 7 but they wont officially support Windows 7 i actually thought that would be a decent advantage. If anyone seen Jayztwocents video about trying to get Kaby-lake on W7 it wasn't well easy.


    Quote:
    Even if Windows 7 boots Ryzen, a lack of support means that any bugs will probably not be patched.


    So far as I know it boots.
    Reply to juanrga
  23. jdwii said:
    http://www.pcworld.com/article/3167279/computers/amd-sorry-there-will-be-no-official-ryzen-drivers-for-windows-7.html

    Well i guess they tested Ryzen on 7 but they wont officially support Windows 7 i actually thought that would be a decent advantage. If anyone seen Jayztwocents video about trying to get Kaby-lake on W7 it wasn't well easy.


    Windows 7 is eight years old.

    Resource can be better spend elsewhere (i.e. optimizing the drivers for Windows 10).
    Reply to illegaloperation
  24. illegaloperation said:
    jdwii said:
    http://www.pcworld.com/article/3167279/computers/amd-sorry-there-will-be-no-official-ryzen-drivers-for-windows-7.html

    Well i guess they tested Ryzen on 7 but they wont officially support Windows 7 i actually thought that would be a decent advantage. If anyone seen Jayztwocents video about trying to get Kaby-lake on W7 it wasn't well easy.


    Windows 7 is eight years old.

    Resource can be better spend elsewhere (i.e. optimizing the drivers for Windows 10).


    In Driver land, there isn't a ton that's changed from Vista to Windows 10, especially for CPU drivers. I suspect this is more MSFT politely asking Intel/AMD to stop supporting 7 for its newest CPUs rather then any technical reason.

    *still on Windows 7*
    Reply to gamerk316
  25. Followup on the pricing leak, and it appears to be legit. Retailers get info on pricing before the hardware actually drops, so they can get stuff into their database in advance of availability. One of the online retailers had the stuff properly (improperly?) linked to the AM4 hardware platform. Searching for AM4 in their database pulled up links to the listed processors which listed the pricing and specs and sku names.

    So, I'm glad I'm in the market for a new build soon. 8c/16t CPU for $350? Sure!
    Reply to Rookie_MIB
  26. Rookie_MIB said:
    Followup on the pricing leak, and it appears to be legit. Retailers get info on pricing before the hardware actually drops, so they can get stuff into their database in advance of availability. One of the online retailers had the stuff properly (improperly?) linked to the AM4 hardware platform. Searching for AM4 in their database pulled up links to the listed processors which listed the pricing and specs and sku names.

    So, I'm glad I'm in the market for a new build soon. 8c/16t CPU for $350? Sure!


    As many of us here would say, wait for benchmarks. If you've read the /r/amd thread, it feels as if they expect Ryzen to compete with Kaby lake on IPC alone.

    Also, does anyone think that AMD is deliberately trying to force Intel into a price-war? I'm not to sure that it would work out well for them if Intel pulls an OEM stunt like last time.
    Reply to Nope 1151
  27. Nope 1151 said:


    As many of us here would say, wait for benchmarks. If you've read the /r/amd thread, it feels as if they expect Ryzen to compete with Kaby lake on IPC alone.

    Also, does anyone think that AMD is deliberately trying to force Intel into a price-war? I'm not to sure that it would work out well for them if Intel pulls an OEM stunt like last time.


    Oh I know, I know the IPC will be lower than Kaby Lake, but it will certainly be faster than my Xeon X3470. I'll be waiting for reviews and perhaps for the 6c/12t Ryzen...
    Reply to Rookie_MIB
  28. gamerk316 said:
    illegaloperation said:
    jdwii said:
    http://www.pcworld.com/article/3167279/computers/amd-sorry-there-will-be-no-official-ryzen-drivers-for-windows-7.html

    Well i guess they tested Ryzen on 7 but they wont officially support Windows 7 i actually thought that would be a decent advantage. If anyone seen Jayztwocents video about trying to get Kaby-lake on W7 it wasn't well easy.


    Windows 7 is eight years old.

    Resource can be better spend elsewhere (i.e. optimizing the drivers for Windows 10).


    In Driver land, there isn't a ton that's changed from Vista to Windows 10, especially for CPU drivers. I suspect this is more MSFT politely asking Intel/AMD to stop supporting 7 for its newest CPUs rather then any technical reason.

    *still on Windows 7*


    What Microsoft is saying is that it won't spend any resources in supporting new processors on an eight years old OS.

    If you do run an old OS on new processors, then fine, but if you do run into an issue, you are on your own and Microsoft doesn't want to hear about it.
    Reply to illegaloperation
  29. illegaloperation said:
    jdwii said:
    http://www.pcworld.com/article/3167279/computers/amd-sorry-there-will-be-no-official-ryzen-drivers-for-windows-7.html

    Well i guess they tested Ryzen on 7 but they wont officially support Windows 7 i actually thought that would be a decent advantage. If anyone seen Jayztwocents video about trying to get Kaby-lake on W7 it wasn't well easy.


    Windows 7 is eight years old.

    Resource can be better spend elsewhere (i.e. optimizing the drivers for Windows 10).



    I know what you mean but it just kind of eliminates the difference i actually know people personally who would have gotten Ryzen over kabylake for that reason alone. Now right out of the gate Ryzen+Kaby lake has no native support for 7 and Kaby-lake is confirmed to work on 4K Netflix and 4K blu-ray support.

    Its not a "major" market but its still important.
    Reply to jdwii
  30. ~5% off Broadwell E
    Reply to sarinaide
  31. Rookie_MIB said:
    Followup on the pricing leak, and it appears to be legit. Retailers get info on pricing before the hardware actually drops, so they can get stuff into their database in advance of availability. One of the online retailers had the stuff properly (improperly?) linked to the AM4 hardware platform. Searching for AM4 in their database pulled up links to the listed processors which listed the pricing and specs and sku names.

    So, I'm glad I'm in the market for a new build soon. 8c/16t CPU for $350? Sure!


    I expect sandy/Ivy-haswell performance all around that is why i always thought an 8 core Ryzen part would be available for 380$ or so as that was the price of Intel's 6 core part for a long time. However other rumors state their 4 core will be as low as some Pentiums something i definitely did not think would happen i was thinking more around 150-180$.

    Some areas i expect it to perform like haswell in IPC others as low as sandy overall probably between the two that is based off of Amd ryzen design itself which in some areas has me wondering if ILP will be a slight issue compared to Intel's latest offerings one can even see that with their choice in going with 4ALU+2AGU.

    Low ILP means higher SMT gains basically which is what i expect. All the test for example that Amd showed are highly parallel in nature, they didn't show one single benchmark analyzing single core performance.

    As a side note we should make a Naples thread as well as there is a lot to talk about when it comes to this design for servers in some areas its already coming out with noncompetitive results compared to Intel's latest offerings.
    Reply to jdwii
  32. jdwii said:
    illegaloperation said:
    jdwii said:
    http://www.pcworld.com/article/3167279/computers/amd-sorry-there-will-be-no-official-ryzen-drivers-for-windows-7.html

    Well i guess they tested Ryzen on 7 but they wont officially support Windows 7 i actually thought that would be a decent advantage. If anyone seen Jayztwocents video about trying to get Kaby-lake on W7 it wasn't well easy.


    Windows 7 is eight years old.

    Resource can be better spend elsewhere (i.e. optimizing the drivers for Windows 10).



    I know what you mean but it just kind of eliminates the difference i actually know people personally who would have gotten Ryzen over kabylake for that reason alone. Now right out of the gate Ryzen+Kaby lake has no native support for 7 and Kaby-lake is confirmed to work on 4K Netflix and 4K blu-ray support.

    Its not a "major" market but its still important.


    Who would buy Zen or Kaby Lake and runs Windows 7 on it anyway?

    The majority of users get Windows 10 when buying new PCs.

    The custom PCs crowd buys their copies of Windows 10 along with their PCs.

    Some business users who are running Windows 7 and still "evaluating" Windows 10 can buy Skylake or Kaveri.

    Likewise people who have incompatible software/hardware can buy Skylake or Kaveri.
    Reply to illegaloperation
  33. jdwii said:
    Rookie_MIB said:
    Followup on the pricing leak, and it appears to be legit. Retailers get info on pricing before the hardware actually drops, so they can get stuff into their database in advance of availability. One of the online retailers had the stuff properly (improperly?) linked to the AM4 hardware platform. Searching for AM4 in their database pulled up links to the listed processors which listed the pricing and specs and sku names.

    So, I'm glad I'm in the market for a new build soon. 8c/16t CPU for $350? Sure!


    I expect sandy/Ivy-haswell performance all around that is why i always thought an 8 core Ryzen part would be available for 380$ or so as that was the price of Intel's 6 core part for a long time. However other rumors state their 4 core will be as low as some Pentiums something i definitely did not think would happen i was thinking more around 150-180$.

    Some areas i expect it to perform like haswell in IPC others as low as sandy overall probably between the two that is based off of Amd ryzen design itself which in some areas has me wondering if ILP will be a slight issue compared to Intel's latest offerings one can even see that with their choice in going with 4ALU+2AGU.

    Low ILP means higher SMT gains basically which is what i expect. All the test for example that Amd showed are highly parallel in nature, they didn't show one single benchmark analyzing single core performance.

    As a side note we should make a Naples thread as well as there is a lot to talk about when it comes to this design for servers in some areas its already coming out with noncompetitive results compared to Intel's latest offerings.


    Remember the CB1188 score, that was a first family ES sample that was sold to public in the ROC at 2.8Ghz, at 3.3Ghz it equates to north of 1400 which compared to the same clocked 5960X only scores 1350. The guestimates for a ST performance at 3.3Ghz was somewhere between 140-145 but apparently it is 5% roughly slower than Broadwell E.

    Prices in China on 5960X's plummeted overnight, but it is still far more expensive than Ryzen and in almost all situations a Ryzen 1800 will outrun a 5960X. AMD are hiding IPC to try surprise Intel, but leaks have come out and Intel have confirmed the threat by inference. Again you need a 4.4Ghz Sandy 2600K just to keep up, you need a 4.4Ghz Sandy just to keep up with Broadwell. Single Thread is very strong, AMD are also doing it on a far more limited IMC. If there are differences it is likely IMC related.
    Reply to sarinaide
  34. Does anyone know why AMD is waiting until H2 2017 to release Raven Ridge?

    That basically means no Zen-based laptops until H2 2017.
    Reply to illegaloperation
  35. As said before Sarinaide i hope so i hope they are hiding IPC cause its amazing, believe me when i say it i'll be first to say i was wrong after i look at several comparisons. I'd love to jump back to Amd again. If IPC reaches sandy-ivy at times with matching haswell sometimes(remember IPC isn't the same among every program) i will still call Ryzen a great design as its a brand new architecture and a massive jump from Excavator.

    I'll personally switch if it reaches Haswell or broadwell in IPC. I'd basically be getting twice the computing power since i'd have double the amount of cores.
    Reply to jdwii
  36. jdwii said:
    As said before Sarinaide i hope so i hope they are hiding IPC cause its amazing, believe me when i say it i'll be first to say i was wrong after i look at several comparisons. I'd love to jump back to Amd again. If IPC reaches sandy-ivy at times with matching haswell sometimes(remember IPC isn't the same among every program) i will still call Ryzen a great design as its a brand new architecture and a massive jump from Excavator.

    I'll personally switch if it reaches Haswell or broadwell in IPC. I'd basically be getting twice the computing power since i'd have double the amount of cores.


    you are right IPC isn't the same and CPC's leaked results showed a vast range of IPC dependent applications at a time where the ES samples were still unstable yet the results were as intended to be better than the 5960X. I just rough estimate a 152/1527 CB score at 3.6Ghz as a rough for fun estimation, kind of fits the ~5% to Broadwell E
    Reply to sarinaide
  37. illegaloperation said:
    Does anyone know why AMD is waiting until H2 2017 to release Raven Ridge?

    That basically means no Zen-based laptops until H2 2017.


    Because servers is their main priority. And Raven Ridge needs a different die.
    Reply to juanrga
  38. Placeholder for tracking!

    Also, shouldn't this thread be created after the actual launch?

    Cheers!
    Reply to Yuka
  39. sarinaide said:
    jdwii said:
    As said before Sarinaide i hope so i hope they are hiding IPC cause its amazing, believe me when i say it i'll be first to say i was wrong after i look at several comparisons. I'd love to jump back to Amd again. If IPC reaches sandy-ivy at times with matching haswell sometimes(remember IPC isn't the same among every program) i will still call Ryzen a great design as its a brand new architecture and a massive jump from Excavator.

    I'll personally switch if it reaches Haswell or broadwell in IPC. I'd basically be getting twice the computing power since i'd have double the amount of cores.


    you are right IPC isn't the same and CPC's leaked results showed a vast range of IPC dependent applications at a time where the ES samples were still unstable yet the results were as intended to be better than the 5960X. I just rough estimate a 152/1527 CB score at 3.6Ghz as a rough for fun estimation, kind of fits the ~5% to Broadwell E


    When asked if final chip will keep with Broadwell-E, CPC response was: "yes in MT workloads".

    They specifying MT in their response makes me believe that Broadwell-E will be faster on ST.

    A question: do you have new info about the SMT/uop bug? Is the bug completely fixed?
    Reply to juanrga
  40. juanrga said:
    sarinaide said:
    jdwii said:
    As said before Sarinaide i hope so i hope they are hiding IPC cause its amazing, believe me when i say it i'll be first to say i was wrong after i look at several comparisons. I'd love to jump back to Amd again. If IPC reaches sandy-ivy at times with matching haswell sometimes(remember IPC isn't the same among every program) i will still call Ryzen a great design as its a brand new architecture and a massive jump from Excavator.

    I'll personally switch if it reaches Haswell or broadwell in IPC. I'd basically be getting twice the computing power since i'd have double the amount of cores.


    you are right IPC isn't the same and CPC's leaked results showed a vast range of IPC dependent applications at a time where the ES samples were still unstable yet the results were as intended to be better than the 5960X. I just rough estimate a 152/1527 CB score at 3.6Ghz as a rough for fun estimation, kind of fits the ~5% to Broadwell E


    When asked if final chip will keep with Broadwell-E, CPC response was: "yes in MT workloads".

    They specifying MT in their response makes me believe that Broadwell-E will be faster on ST.

    A question: do you have new info about the SMT/uop bug? Is the bug completely fixed?



    Nothing new yet, only that the motherboards are not near ready outside of Asus and Asrock.

    Still many bugs they are working through with updates but expect to be on time.

    Falls in line with most estimations Ryzen sits in between Haswell and Broadwell on a performance level, in the majority of suites beating the 5960X at similar clocks vs Broadwell ~5% given some play I would say 5-10% which is very feasible. The IMC is quite limited on Ryzen but expect major updates to it by Zen+
    Reply to sarinaide
  41. Quote:

    AMD has also stated that they are still using SMT which is AMD’s version of HyperThreading.

    Intel's SMT implementation is called HyperThreading, while AMD's SMT implementation is called Thread Ripper.
    Reply to CyberDevil
  42. illegaloperation said:
    gamerk316 said:
    illegaloperation said:
    jdwii said:
    http://www.pcworld.com/article/3167279/computers/amd-sorry-there-will-be-no-official-ryzen-drivers-for-windows-7.html

    Well i guess they tested Ryzen on 7 but they wont officially support Windows 7 i actually thought that would be a decent advantage. If anyone seen Jayztwocents video about trying to get Kaby-lake on W7 it wasn't well easy.


    Windows 7 is eight years old.

    Resource can be better spend elsewhere (i.e. optimizing the drivers for Windows 10).


    In Driver land, there isn't a ton that's changed from Vista to Windows 10, especially for CPU drivers. I suspect this is more MSFT politely asking Intel/AMD to stop supporting 7 for its newest CPUs rather then any technical reason.

    *still on Windows 7*


    What Microsoft is saying is that it won't spend any resources in supporting new processors on an eight years old OS.

    If you do run an old OS on new processors, then fine, but if you do run into an issue, you are on your own and Microsoft doesn't want to hear about it.


    But it's not an OS issue; it's a driver issue. And AMD has working Windows 7 drivers, it's just choosing not to release them.
    Reply to gamerk316
  43. Yuka said:
    Placeholder for tracking!

    Also, shouldn't this thread be created after the actual launch?

    Cheers!


    Technically yes. But there isn't really any need to do so.
    Reply to TechyInAZ
  44. Single-core performance will have to be truly dismal for me not to be all over this. My FX-8320 could be a slug in some ways, and my i3-6100 is a slug in others; I am cautiously optimistic that this will blow both of them out of the water.
    Reply to Onus
  45. Onus said:
    Single-core performance will have to be truly dismal for me not to be all over this. My FX-8320 could be a slug in some ways, and my i3-6100 is a slug in others; I am cautiously optimistic that this will blow both of them out of the water.

    Holding the same cautious optimism. Would be nice to upgrade from Sandybridge to an easily overclockable mid tier Ryzen build. I often use Adobe Illustrator and Ableton Live, so those extra cores and threads would definitely be put to use.
    Reply to _Johnny5
  46. Can't wait for release!
    Reply to serfeldon
  47. Onus said:
    Single-core performance will have to be truly dismal for me not to be all over this. My FX-8320 could be a slug in some ways, and my i3-6100 is a slug in others; I am cautiously optimistic that this will blow both of them out of the water.



    There are some people like me, still rocking along a Core2Quad, so I guess maybe these people will upgrade.

    Could someone explain how AMD would win a price war with Intel?
    Reply to Nope 1151
  48. Nope 1151 said:
    Onus said:
    Single-core performance will have to be truly dismal for me not to be all over this. My FX-8320 could be a slug in some ways, and my i3-6100 is a slug in others; I am cautiously optimistic that this will blow both of them out of the water.



    There are some people like me, still rocking along a Core2Quad, so I guess maybe these people will upgrade.

    Could someone explain how AMD would win a price war with Intel?


    Win a price war is different from competing in a price war i highly doubt Intel is going to start selling processors for a way cheaper cost. Ryzen is actually smaller to produce then Intel kaby-lake meaning its cheaper to make a 4 core Ryzen processor then it is to make a 4 core kaby-lake processor. Intel also has to pay for their own fabrication company something Amd once again doesn't have to do. Intel has WAY more expensives then Amd does and they also branch out to more markets then Amd does.

    Sometimes running a smaller company with less responsibility's can be a good thing.
    Reply to jdwii
  • 1 /43
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
      • 1/43
      • 2
      • 3
      • 4
      • 5
      • 6
      • 7
      • 8
      • 9
      • 10
      • 20
      • 30
      • 40
  • Last
Ask a new question Answer

Read More

AMD CPUs