Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
  • Post
  • Reply
rex rabidorum vires
Mar 26, 2007



My brother upgraded to a FX 8350 from a 5 year old Intel system because....cheap? I think he fell into the core trap with it. That said he likes it and has a R9 390 and can run BF1 well enough that he doesn't care. I'm still on a Phenom II x4 system and really feeling it in terms of gaming. Elite runs, but going to planets can lead to single digit FPS and while I can "run" BF1 I wouldn't exactly call it playable. Really think the R5 is currently the way to go. While memory seems to be a bit of a pain, on a B350 board the most you're going to hit is 3200 anyways so meh. In addition, with the AM4 platform you have a pretty obvious upgrade path even with a B350...which for better or worse I didn't get an AM3+ socket 6 years ago when I built this thing otherwise yeah I'd probably Bulldozer it up.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

rex rabidorum vires
Mar 26, 2007



Paul MaudDib posted:

I have mixed feelings about Ryzen and VR though. I'd actually love if someone dug up some reviews of how it does there. My gut instinct is that the single-threaded punch of the 7700K would win the day but there are really a lot of variables in play here.

Gamers Nexus have one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DJdkDms7Y0

TLDR: i7-7700k out performs the 1700 both stock and OC'ed, however because both headsets are limited to 90Hz the 'experience', as it were, is imperceptibly different.

They did a follow up thing with Scott Wasson (some AMD guy as far as I know, but I've only just started paying attention to tech stuff again) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiZeU9oCXrE. I haven't watched this so I don't know if there's any decent takeaways so ymmv.

rex rabidorum vires fucked around with this message at Apr 15, 2017 around 03:59

rex rabidorum vires
Mar 26, 2007



Haquer posted:

BF1 on my Phenom II X6 sits between 85-90% CPU and some physics poo poo bumps it up to 100% here or there making me go from 45-60fps (rx480 gpu) down to like 15-20

Still waiting for the teething issues to iron out before looking at a new cpu, been eyeballing the 1700x

If I could get the x6 1100T for like $50 I'd probably try it. Squeeze maybe 3.9 or 4.0 OC and it could almost be playable. Personally I'm probably looking at a 1600. There's a Microcenter nearby and the 1600 plus an ASROCK B350 is a touch over $250. The ASROCK is a 9+2 power phase board so moving to a higher TDP chip down the line shouldn't pose too many issues and stress the board too much (if I understand how that works correctly). Although I'm still hemming and hawing if the X370 would be better for that kind of move. Luckily September is when I'm looking at doing my rebuild so I have plenty of time to see how things shake out.

SwissArmyDruid posted:

Former founder and editor-in-chief of The Tech Report. He's the one that helped get AMD and Nvidia to start thinking about their products in terms of frame time as opposed to raw FPS numbers in the first place.

Very cool. I can see why he would be a good person to talk about VR stuff.

rex rabidorum vires
Mar 26, 2007



HalloKitty posted:

5 year old Intel could mean Sandy or possibly Ivy. Unless we're talking dual cores, they would be better than Bulldozer.

It was probably older than that. He never OC'ed it and basically impulse bought the FX because cheap and MORE CORES so whatever. In my quest to try and help someone in the PC Building thread I came across this: http://rymem.vraith.com/ which seems to be a depository of validated ram speed by type and board from users. Not sure if it'll be something super useful, but 'what ram should is use' and 'which ram is works best/fastest' is probably going to be a re-occurring question with Ryzen for a while.

rex rabidorum vires
Mar 26, 2007



NewFatMike posted:

Better AMD news, R7 prices are dropped.

1800X: $469
1700X: $349
1700: $319

https://www.techpowerup.com/233966/...-1700-and-1700x

Microcenter has 1700x bundles with a B350 board sub $350 that's mental

rex rabidorum vires
Mar 26, 2007



My brother has a FX system. I still laugh at him for it. I was literally going to ask what was going on with R3 especially in relation to the price drop...and that answers that question.

rex rabidorum vires
Mar 26, 2007



Wirth1000 posted:

Posting from my new Ryzen 5 1600X + B350 build mothafuckas. This is pretty spiffy.

Were you able to get your ram speeds squared away?

rex rabidorum vires
Mar 26, 2007



Old system died last week. Motherboard gave up on life I think. Took a trip to Microcenter and came home with a 1600, AsRock AB350M Pro4, and EVGA 3200. I picked the 1600 because I needed the fan to get my system up quickly and once my Cryorig bracket shows up it will be replaced. Unfortunately MC didn't have any of the better B350 boards so it was either a cheaper B350 or spend the extra for a X370 that I honestly don't need. The EVGA is Hynix B die (I think) so in theory should be able to run it at a reasonable speed. Plugged everything in when I got home and booted right up only to find none of the USB plugs worked because I didn't update to Win 10. A PS/2 keyboard solved that issue and the driver installation went fine. Updated to Win 10 and everything was functioning as it should.

The ram was a bitch and would not run above 2133 no matter what I did. Granted it isn't on the QVL list so chalk that up to me being dumb and not taking my own/others advice while also being in a rush. So checked ryzmem and found that Corsair LPX seemed to run pretty well and was also on the QVL list. After some toying I was at least able to get it to run at 2993 with loosened timings. Checked stability and it was fine. Moved on to OC'ing the chip and was able to get to 3.6 across all cores with stock voltage. Ended up at 3.8ghz with 1.325v which was stable after a hour of Prime95 running and the temps are well under control. Played with ram one last time and was able to get it to go to 3200 and factory timings. Pretty happy with that.

rex rabidorum vires
Mar 26, 2007



shrike82 posted:

I just set up a Ryzen 7 1700 with a 1080 Ti. I've installed the latest chipset drivers.

Is there any other setup I need to do to optimise my system?

Check the ram speed.

rex rabidorum vires
Mar 26, 2007



SamDabbers posted:

Use P-State overclocking if your BIOS supports it. It's probably in a menu under AMD CBS.

Just checked this on my setup and apparently it set itself up automatically. That's pretty nifty of Asrock.

rex rabidorum vires
Mar 26, 2007



shrike82 posted:

thanks man, i've OCed to 3.7GHZ. Dumb question but how does overclocking here differ from the max turbo core speed of 3.7GHZ that the 1700 advertises? Does that also go up proportionately?

No. Turbo only works on a single core for the most part. The OC you just did basically applies turbo to all cores when they're used and can take advantage of it. Turbo is also disabled when you OC as well.

rex rabidorum vires
Mar 26, 2007



I used it on my Phenom system. Seemed to work well enough.

rex rabidorum vires
Mar 26, 2007



Aren't B350s capped at 3200mhz ram? Or max supported would probably be the better way to phrase it. Officially X370s are supported to 3600.

AsRock AB350m pro 4. Super no frills but with a little work got ram to 3200 and easy 3.8 gig oc on the 1600.

rex rabidorum vires
Mar 26, 2007



underage at the vape shop posted:

Any tips for getting ram to run at it's advertised speed? I bought some corsair 3200mhz, that was on my motherboards QVL running at 3200mhz:


a-xmp doesn't work, and setting it manually to 3200 doesn't work. I set the timings/voltage according to the sticker on the ram (16-18-18-36 at 1.36V) but it doesn't post. It's stable at 2933, but I've got an itch that only 3200 will scratch.

It took an OC of my chip to get that exact ram set to run at 3200. If you loosen the timings will it run at 3200?

rex rabidorum vires
Mar 26, 2007



underage at the vape shop posted:

I don't know enough to be able to figure out what to set them to on my own.

Just make the numbers bigger. So something like 18-20-20-40 instead of 16-18-18-36. Video is good though.

rex rabidorum vires
Mar 26, 2007



The microcenter near me still shows the $50 off on the whole line. I think my base build set me back about $350.

Edit: thats what I get for not refreshing.

rex rabidorum vires
Mar 26, 2007



Risky Bisquick posted:

Which board? Figure that out and search the web cache for cpuz validations. This isn't ideal, but it's a start

[url]https://www.google.ca/?q=+3200+ryzen+site:http://valid.x86.fr/[/url]

I know I keep pimping this site, but it's the best amalgamation of ryzen and ram info I've been able to find. https://rymem.vraith.com/

rex rabidorum vires
Mar 26, 2007



ShinAli posted:

Thanks for all the input, guys!

Here's the top ten confirmed via CPU-Z https://rymem.vraith.com/basic/top10

rex rabidorum vires
Mar 26, 2007



Palladium posted:

Is there a consensus on which is the best budget mATX AM4 mobo?

I don't know if you will ever have a consensus, but its probably one of the Asus, MSI, or Asrock offerings. I personally ended up with the ASrock Pro 4 and it has been pretty good. The first set of ram I purchased for it wouldn't run above 2400, but it wasn't on the QVL and I knew it might not work when I bought it. Ended with some Vengance LPX (also not on the QVL but confirmed online it would likely work). Other then that its functioned as one would hope. If I remember correctly MSI had very good VRAM cooling and power delivery. The ASUS had great power delivery but only above average VRAM cooling. Finally the ASrock had the best VRAM cooling but the power delivery was only above average at best. The only reason I think that to be relevant is because the socket is supposed to be supported for several more years so if they don't move to AM4+ that extra overhead might be able to handle a bigger more powerful chip down the line.

rex rabidorum vires
Mar 26, 2007



A SWEATY FATBEARD posted:

At stock speed, under full load, 60C.

Lol did you give the chip some more voltage?

rex rabidorum vires
Mar 26, 2007



bobfather posted:

Did some overclocking on my new 1600 today.

Seems like I can hit 3.8ghz at 1.325v (more like 1.31 in hwinfo). This is neither a great number, nor a terrible one. I passed 20 minutes of prime95, but I'll likely run it overnight to check for stability. Temps never went above 68C with a H80i v2.

I tried going for 3.9ghz, but the motherboard developed issues posting. Only 1/3 starts could get to Windows, so I figured 3.9 might be pushing it a bit too far. Then again, I think I've read about people who had trouble at 3.9 but at 4.0 could successfully boot. More testing needed.

I was also thinking that I might just aim to do 3.7ghz at some (hopefully much lower) voltage.

3.8@1.325 is also where my OC ended up. I hit 3.5 on stock voltage 3.7 took 1.285 or 1.29. Jumping over 3.6 is where you start having to volt pretty significantly. That said 1.35 is completely safe and 1.4 is where you start to hit the 'chip will degrade over time maybe probably' voltage. I haven't tried pushing beyond 3.8 because....meh is that extra 100 or 200 mhz going to be worth the effort? Granted bragging about 4.0 might be.

rex rabidorum vires
Mar 26, 2007



Not That Into You posted:

Why is the 1600x selling for the same or sometimes even less than the 1600?

Because the 1600 comes with a pretty solid default cooling the solution and the 1600x does not. Also, when over clocked they both likely hit nearly the same OC'ed performance. So either you're fine with the stock performance of the 1600 and don't want to buy an additional cooler to go with it (saving the cooler cost and difference in MSRP), or you know what you're doing and are going to OC in which case the 1600x is an extra ~$30 or 40 msrp that needs an additional $20 to 30 for a cooler all of which leads to an over-supply/minimal demand for the 1600x. TBF the only X chip maybe worth the money, imo, is the 1500x which comes with the same cooler as the 1600 and not the smaller cooler used with the 1400 and R3 parts.

rex rabidorum vires
Mar 26, 2007



How successful Ryzen continues to be will come down to the R5 1600 vs the i7 8400 and the i3 8350k vs the 1400. If the 1600 can stay on par with the 8400 before OC'ing than the 1600 is an easy choice in that price segment. 'Here our 6 core 12 thread cpu that comes with a nice cooler costs as much as this 6 core 6 thread part (no idea on the cooler). Also you can OC our cpu for even more performance at no extra cost!'. Same goes for the 1400....4 core 8 thread with oc'ing vs 4 core non-hyper threaded. poo poo staring at the pricing sheet the 1600 is only $10 more than the top i3 part. Like why even bother? It's no doubt that Intel will rule the roost at the top, but in the mid tiers if the R5s remain ultra competitive on both performance and pricing I would be surprised if they didn't keep selling like hot cakes.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

rex rabidorum vires
Mar 26, 2007



Paul MaudDib posted:

The 8400 pretty much beats the 1600/1600X (especially if you tweak the turbo settings to allow all-core boost) and the OC headroom on first-gen Ryzen parts is pretty laughable.

While not spectacular getting another +600mhz across all cores on the 1600 (to 3.8 with voltage and some head room to spare) isn't so bad (lol at anyone that bought the X). 7% difference at 1080p and then gently caress all for 1440 and 4k (for gaming at least). I like how they allow for tweaking of the 8400 but no OC'ing of anything else. Seems a bit odd. Didn't appear to make that big of a difference. I will say the productivity stuff is very interesting. Single core is still king for the most part I guess.

Cygni posted:

There are $119 Z370 motherboards in stock on Newegg, so pretty comparable to a midrange AM4 board in price. I guess we will see how long AMD waits, but I certainly wouldn't recommend anybody get a R5 until those cuts come.

A basic B350 costs ~$70 to 85, a nice B350 runs ~$100 to 110, and then x370s start at $125. The R5s have already seen one price cut and how much further AMD would want to go, who knows. With all of this said though the mid-range appears to have some incredibly compelling chips available now and that's likely good for everyone.

rex rabidorum vires fucked around with this message at Oct 5, 2017 around 19:18

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply