|
The take away seems to be similar to the Ryzen 7...for mutli-threaded work loads they crush the Intel competition at the price point. However, in terms of raw gaming capability they aren't quite there. I think the R5s are far more competitive for the price point (in terms of gaming) than the R7s, but if Intel cuts prices a bit on the i5 it becomes a harder sell. That said a build with a 1500x or 1600 and a 1060/rx480 or even the newer 500 series could potentially age reasonably well by virtue of having 8/12 threads. The Zens really do seem to be an interesting processor and it'll be interesting to see if they can continue to pick up performance through both game optimization and bios updates. I say all this as someone that's only been paying attention for the last 2 months or so and zero background in tech.
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 16:58 |
|
|
It's mostly because if an overclocked R5 is a better proposition for consistent frametime then an overclocked i5 (Which I have) then that makes me happy. But I'd like to know if they're maxing out the mem speed for the Intel systems too. I hope they aren't doing something awful like running the Intels at 1600Mhz / 2133MHz or some poo poo. They really should state that. GRINDCORE MEGGIDO fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
GRINDCORE MEGGIDO posted:Just a heads up about that AMD vs I5 article : One page one they say they use 3200Mhz for the Intel benchmarks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
GRINDCORE MEGGIDO posted:So whats the take from these overclocked with fast ram, vs a 6600k / 7600K at around 4.8Ghz with fast ram? I wouldn't bother overclocking R5's. 1600 is fine stock if money is short and you want to use the included cooler which is reportedly decent for 65W TDP. The 1600X is already maxed out stock if you let it use XFR. That AMD Windows high perf-balanced power profile sounds nifty btw, does it work with Intel CPUs?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
I could have sworn they said in the video they were running at 3600 mhz across the board where they could. That said I re-watched the beginning of their video and he's only talking about the AMD stuff. I would *hope* they ran the Intel stuff as fast as they could because it would be lovely of them not to. Edit: Beaten by the above 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
GRINDCORE MEGGIDO posted:Just a heads up about that AMD vs I5 article : You sound like your really keen to jump onto a conspiracy theory or something dude its right there on the first page: Hardware Used Core Components (Unchanging) NZXT 1200W Hale90v2 For DDR4 platforms: Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB 3200MHz* For Ryzen DDR4: Corsair Vengeance LPX 3000MHz clocked to 2933MHz (See Page 2) Premiere & Blender tests do not exceed 8GB DRAM. Capacity is a non-issue for our testing, so long as it is >16GB For DDR3 platforms: HyperX Savage 32GB 2400MHz Intel 730 480GB SSD Open Air Test Bench Cooler #1 (Air): Be Quiet! Dark Rock 3 Cooler #2 (Cheap liquid): Asetek 570LC w/ Gentle Typhoon fan Cooler #3 (High-end): Kraken X62 EVGA GTX 1080 FTW1
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Scarecow posted:You sound like your really keen to jump onto a conspiracy theory or something dude I assumed they might suck as reviewers. It's a shame they are maxing out Ryzen's memory controller but not the Intel chips. I didn't spot the Intel memory speeds as I just searched page 1 for "intel" 
GRINDCORE MEGGIDO fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 01:18
|
|
GRINDCORE MEGGIDO posted:I assumed they might suck as reviewers. It's a shame they are maxing out Ryzen's memory controller but not the Intel chips. They probably don't have a DDR4-4200 kit lying around to test with, also a motherboard that supports those speeds, also performance in games maxes out at around DDR4-3200/3400 on Intel platforms.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
sauer kraut posted:I wouldn't bother overclocking R5's. You will never get full turbo on all cores otherwise, and over clocking is pretty easy gains on ryzen. This is before you take into account XFR boosts vcore to 1.45 on some chips to hit turbo, whereas you can control the vcore on your side by manually over clocking or undervolting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
It's interesting they have a 1700x in there running 3466MHz memory. That's a decent memory clock.
GRINDCORE MEGGIDO fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
Hi I have a second gen i5 2400 together with a gtx1070 and a 144hz monitor, do I upgrade to a i5 7600k or a 1600x for gaming????
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
If your only use case is gaming, go with the 7600k and overclock it. If you do pretty much anything else alongside gaming, the 1600x is very compelling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
Otakufag posted:Hi I have a second gen i5 2400 together with a gtx1070 and a 144hz monitor, do I upgrade to a i5 7600k or a 1600x for gaming???? If you only upgrade once every 5 years like that sandy bridge CPU seems to indicate, I'd go for the 1600x. I think more cores will have value in the future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:If your only use case is gaming, go with the 7600k and overclock it. If you do pretty much anything else alongside gaming, the 1600x is very compelling. At this point I just don't think the 7600Ks are very compelling given the price. This was really the other shoe that was going to drop. 7700K vs 1800X or 1700 is one thing... 4C4T just cannot keep up with 6C12T at an equivalent price. The minor losses in gaming performance that you're going to get from an R5 are going to be totally outweighed in other poo poo by having triple the number of threads available. Even a lot of games. I still feel the R5/i5 territory is poor value for money that you'd be better off skipping entirely and jumping straight to a $300-350 processor. If you're going to spend $1000+ on a decent gaming rig (or even $700 on a processor/mobo/memory upgrade) then you might as well work another couple hours at your McJob and get the big-boy processor, because the performance fully justifies it. But if you're going to buy an R5/i5 then the R5 is the obvious one to have right now given the pricing. The i5s are dead at the $200 price point, they need to be dropped below $150 and the 7350K needs to be $89 to compete with the R3s. The R7s are much more of a mixed sidegrade - the 5820K keeps most of the benefits of going to a real 6C12T processor and also has substantially better IPC, at R7 1700 pricing. There is still a serious tradeoff in the i7 bracket on whether you go all-out single-thread performance (7700K), or all-out multi-thread performance (1700), or a balance of the two (5820K).
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:At this point I just don't think the 7600Ks are very compelling given the price. This was really the other shoe that was going to drop. 7700K vs 1800X or 1700 is one thing... 4C4T just cannot keep up with 6C12T at an equivalent price. So you're saying to just bite the bullet and get a 7700k? Got it. What mobo should I pair it with to future proof till heat death?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
Yeah, GamersNexus is saying that for gaming, the best choices are either the i7-7700K or the R5 1600X. They noted a trend of sporadic frametime performance in the 4 thread i5's that don't exist on 8+ thread CPUs. Both the i5-7600K and the R5 1600X are basically neck and neck on performance, so they picked the 1600X because 3x the threads leads to more consistent framerates. And this will probably get worse for the 4C/4T i5s in the future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
Otakufag posted:So you're saying to just bite the bullet and get a 7700k? Got it. What mobo should I pair it with to future proof till heat death? There's no such thing, and out of the three the 7700K is by far the least "future proof" since that implies a degree of all-around performance that it lacks in the era of 6- or 8-core processors. But right now if you really want to max out 144 fps or more in everything, and you have the GPU and stuff to back it up (1080 or SLI 1070 or above) then the 7700K is still the single-thread champ for the moment and that's what you need to crank more than 144 fps in many titles. What I'm saying is that you're going to be dropping minimum $500 on this upgrade anyway, likely closer to $700 if you do it right, and the performance difference between the $250 processors and the $350 processors is still huge any way you slice it. If you are going to spend $700 on an upgrade, you should suck it up and spend the extra 15% on the processor that will give you an extra two years of modest performance at the end of its lifespan. It's not that big a difference in percent terms. The R5 is now the obvious choice at the $250 price point given its thread-count, and the R7s and the 5820K offer at least straight-up 33% improvement over even that in many tasks, given their increased core count. They are both no worse than the 6-core R5s in single-threaded performance, and the 5820K is a notch better in single-thread, and the R7s beat the 5820K somewhat in multi-thread performance. The 7700K is still the absolute king at gaming and particularly in situations like high-refresh gaming where single-threaded performance is absolutely critical... but its days are numbered and it's not likely to age well. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
The 7700K is a Montana‐class battleship. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The 7700K is a Montana‐class battleship. Got it. But you can actually buy 7700k processors right now. They'll even fit through the Panama Canal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The 7700K is a Montana‐class battleship. Got it. Heh now you've got me thinking... honestly it's more like the WWI situation where the Dreadnought rendered all the pre-Dreadnoughts obsolete in a year, rather than the drastic tactical shift of the carrier era. At the end of the day, the leap Ryzen made was back to relevance in all-around (single-thread) performance like the Dreadnought - not a total shift in strategy like carriers. Lots of other ships retained relevance in the Dreadnought era, outside the battleship role. Carriers would be more like if Knight's Landing or HSA caught on. Maybe a more relevant example might be the early introduction of steamships or ironclads instead - wind-powered ships retained certain roles for a time, but eventually gave way to steam-powered replacements as the technology matured. Ugly and ungainly at first, but taking on more and more roles as time went on. So let's call the Skylake a magnificent clipper ship, nobly racing over the waves at up to 5 GHz (in good weather), with a Swedish-designed Ryzen belching an ugly and foreboding cloud of steam on the horizon behind it. We all know what the shape of things to come is, here. The era where you can just super-clock a 4C to get good performance is rapidly fading, even with hyperthreads in the mix. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
It surprises a lot of people that commercial sailing ships plied the seas till the 1950s. Pamir sank a fortnight before the launch of Sputnik.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:It surprises a lot of people that commercial sailing ships plied the seas till the 1950s. Surprise me that people will run technology way past obviously-evident technological obsolescence? This is the thread where people post about owning FX processors and stuff, right?  The last FX will be pried from the cold dead socket of an /r/amd member in like 2057. On the note of buying into obviously-obsolescent technology... guess who just bought a new fileserver/gaming pc for the fiance  Gonna toss an 8-core Xeon ES into that for $130, plus a RX 480 or maybe two and call it a day.Doesn't support ECC though so I'm still holding out for those Ryzen mITXs... Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Heh now you've got me thinking... honestly it's more like the WWI situation where the Dreadnought rendered all the pre-Dreadnoughts obsolete in a year, rather than the drastic tactical shift of the carrier era. At the end of the day, the leap Ryzen made was back to relevance in all-around (single-thread) performance like the Dreadnought - not a total shift in strategy like carriers. Lots of other ships retained relevance in the Dreadnought era, outside the battleship role. Carriers would be more like if Knight's Landing or HSA caught on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
Ship inflation never really stopped, modern destroyers are as big as WWII heavy cruisers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:It's funny how the original HMS Dreadnought herself was pre-WWI by about 10 years, and many were obsolete by the start of WWI, with "super dreadnoughts" having replaced them. Dreadnoughts and battleships in general were like American dining and car habits - sizes kept getting larger but the names stayed the same. Battlecruisers were as large or larger than the size of HMS Dreadnought. Battlecruisers of that era were a priori designed to be larger than battleships. You needed the extra size for the extra speed (sounds somewhat counter-productive at first glance, but still true). The problem was that Fisher (which viewed the class as his baby, even more than the dreadnought) did not factor in the fact that Battlecruisers were considered too expensive and powerful to NOT be used as ships of the line in the end. And the battlecruiser was under no circumstances designed to directly deal with a dreadnought/battleship in an endurance fight. Or even another battlecruiser...they really were glass cannons as far as armor protection was concerned (you needed to sacrifice something for that speed after all).
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:Battlecruisers of that era were a priori designed to be larger than battleships. You needed the extra size for the extra speed (sounds somewhat counter-productive at first glance, but still true). Came in to post about how awesome my Ryzen 1700 system is, and how comparable it is to my i7 6700K system (except for the ram, WTF AMD, why can't I run my XMP profile at 3200MHz stable???) Pleasantly surprised with boat history I'm trying to force myself to use the Ryzen system as my main rig for the next couple of weeks. Besides the unstable overclocked ram XMP profile, it's been pretty comparable to my i7 6700k system. The ram issue alone though makes me recommend the i7 7700k. I have no idea how to overclock ram manually and having to look it up is already a knock on the AMD ecosystem. With my Z170 motherboard, it was as easy as turning on the XMP profile. The biggest surprise is how the 1700 handles CPU streaming and gaming. It never misses a beat unlike my 6700k. Plus the temperature is MUCH cooler on the 1700 when CPU encoding through Adobe or OBS. This is with the 1700 overclocked to 3.7 on stock voltage. Rabid Snake fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Rabid Snake posted:I'm trying to force myself to use the Ryzen system as my main gig for the next couple of weeks. Besides the unstable overclocked ram XMP profile, it's been pretty comparable to AMD CPU and Platfrom Discussion: I'm trying to force myself to use the Ryzen I'm still on the fence for my next system. unRAID for example has an issue where it'll regularly crash on Ryzen unless the "global C-States" option is disabled, so the CPU never clocks down and idles at 80W.  If anything it should make Skylake-X/Kabylake-X a bit more affordable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
Any benchmarks up comparing the R5 to an i7 7700k? It looks like the R5 blows the i5 out of the water overall, but I live near a Microcenter so the total cost between an R5 and an i7 setup is like $40. I feel like a lot of reviews avoid comparing AMDs CPUs to the 7700 in both R7 and R5, which seems like a real sweet spot for an 8T CPU in terms of value. Frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
The 7700k is in lots of the reviews that are out there. What is the recommended ram for a Ryzen system at the moment? I'm interested in an ASRock ab350M Pro4 but there are very few options at even 3000hz, and zero at 3200. Given that Ryzen seems to love higher speed ram, that's rather annoying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Get Corsair vengeance LPX, 3000+ C14/C15/C16. The hynix chips should be good for 2933 now on all boards, the samsung b-die should work 3200 without BCLK shenanigans. You're board of choice seems special snowflake there are not many validations here site:valid.x86.fr "ASRock AB350M" Risky Bisquick fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Risky Bisquick posted:You're board of choice seems special snowflake there are not many validations here site:valid.x86.fr "ASRock AB350M" It's the best mATX ASRock have to offer, comparable to the MSI Mortar but with more power phases. Sadly, there doesn't seem to be much choice in the mATX world for Ryzen (and of course zero choice for itx).
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
 Supposedly Biostar is releasing an ITX board imminently
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
Risky Bisquick posted:
Maybe pcchips will release one to challenge them as shittiest am4 board maker
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Risky Bisquick posted:
Gigabyte have one coming out in June, and ASRock have more on the horizon, with news at Computex, but that's still ages away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Lungboy posted:Gigabyte have one coming out in June, and ASRock have more on the horizon, with news at Computex, but that's still ages away. Asrock has disavowed their ITX board. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Lockback posted:Any benchmarks up comparing the R5 to an i7 7700k? PC perspective. TR's review has a 7700k in it, but they're only done with part 1 (videogames) so far.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Asrock has disavowed their ITX board. I had this reply from them: "There will be more AMD boards including smaller form factors, although a timeframe isn't clear right now. Computex should see a few new boards launched, but no guarantees."
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
Lungboy posted:I had this reply from them: "smaller form factor" could also mean uATX. Crossing my fingers of course, but I'm pessimistic when I read corporate speak. I'm surprised you even got a response like that out of a CSR rep.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:"smaller form factor" could also mean uATX. It could, but they said "smaller form factorS", so I'm hopeful. It's still going to be 4+ months away though, minimum.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 16:58 |
|
|
Lungboy posted:I had this reply from them: translated "making boards is hard folks, we don't want to gently caress this up."
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 16:51
|
|
