AMD's Ryzen CPUs (Ryzen/TR/Epyc) & Vega/Polaris/Navi GPUs

Think of what you just saw with the passmark benchmark leak! At Videocardz, they purposely withheld the multiplier on Intel machines to make Ryzen look horrible! They noted the slow timings on the ram and slow ram, then proceeded to compare it to a 4.8OC 5960X. That isn't something that is a small mistake, that is intentional to black ball a chip!

In fact, there is no reason not to play it so close. People are already skeptical of AMD. Them being so tight lipped is exactly what built up suspense. This includes using uncharacteristically hedging language and giving just enough to make you wonder, both in a positive and negative way. But it is enough to keep upping the ante.

Why do you think with the drop off pricing for the flagship, articles popped up all over on how Intel will have to slash prices? They are systematically dropping the info building up to release to eat away at Intel, while the official wait is to clear channel inventory.

In other words, why pull out your cock until you know you've got her in bed. You know what you're packing, you know she'll like it like she likes the other person she is into, but pulling it out at the wrong moment would probably be a turn off.

Not the best analogy and rather crude, but you get the point.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Well, getting them to open it up is hard. There are many non-Intel specific benches. But Intel is a partner and has been on top for years. I think it is inflated, slightly, with each generation, but nonetheless. The benchmark is ancillary to XTU, as many desktops contain their own overclocking utilities. As such, pushing for a spin-off of the benchmark only seems reasonable, or having less reliance placed on it for future competitions. I'm sure something will be done...



Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

New price and speed leaks. https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cp...e_been_leaked_for_amd_s_entire_ryzen_lineup/1

 

I think that X8 3400+ would be a better name and a lot more meaningful - 8 cores 3.4GHz base. I hate these random numbers.

 

What is forgotten on the higher prices is market segmentation and tariffs. You cannot necessarily always get 1-1 pricing in different markets. We'll know more soon.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

AMD RYZEN + AMD VEGA ? O' hear my plea AMD GODS, please release it within this year!

 

Ryzen motherboard prices leaked. http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-am4-asus-motherboard-prices-leaked/

The Asus boards are sounding good to me.

 

@Atma @Mr. Fox @Galm @hmscott @Phoenix @Papusan @Donal@HIDevolution @Tanner@XoticPC @Johnksss@iBUYPOWER @Meaker@Sager

Are we gonna be seeing an AMD RYZEN + VEGA for Clevos this year?

 

I don't think so. Never say never, but unlikely. But Kaby lake-X or any cpu with higher TDP than Intel's normal 91W would be nice

 

Intel just got Shellshocked and announced the Coffeelake lul, 2017 is going to be spectacular year haha...AMD RYZEN Go Go Go & Spank these Idiots Intel and Ngreedia ffs. Give us a mobile RYZEN without BGA too

 

First, can you post the source on coffee lake? Second, why go down when we deserve the real deal. An 1800X 96 watt chip!

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Mobile Ryzen + Mobile Vega, do you think that's possible?

 

So, two new articles looking at new numbers under Passmark and a 3Dmark Firestrike physics score:

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-3dmark-benchmarks-leaked-faster-core-intels-i7-6950x/

http://www.pcgamer.com/new-amd-ryzen-details-and-pricing-leaks/

Talk on architecture:

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Dissecting-AMD-Zen-Architecture-Interview-David-Kanter

 

Why not? Given that there's anyone among OEMs/ODMs that would give them a go that is. It is unlikely that the mobile Ryzen would be PGA though, it's rumored to be on FP5, which is a BGA "socket". If it is true I REALLY hope that they'll be superior (unlocked everything, just like on desktops (well it's likely to vary from board to board, again just like desktop)) to the current abortion that mobile grIntels are.

 

They should put in in Clevo if ever they decided to go mobile.

 

If AMD try the to push out their new chips to the market, I think Intel will just start to dump the prices and push out their low binned BGA crap (Yeah, still soldered junk) at a fast pace out to every single ODM/OEM

 

That interview with David Kanter was wonderful and I am going to join the forum to further deepen my knowledge on microarchitecture. Thanks for the link bro.

EDIT: It's hard to talk about architecture, knowing what I know and not being to add my "two cents" into a discussion when it could lead me into "issues".

 

They will slash prices, which is why z170 boards and 6700k and 7700k chip prices are going down, including 7700k at $310. But, the bga crap chips won't go down until amd releases their APUs and mobile chips (raven ridge)... You don't want to take margin hits until you have to.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Exactly. Milk while you can. You have already earned more than you lose, if you need to dump prices later down the road.

Edit: EU prices listed - AMD Ryzen 7 1800X To Cost 628 EUR
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/eu-prices-listed-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-to-cost-628-eur.html

 

I'm happy GloFo fabs are primarily in the US (no tariffs and less shipping costs)... (see the location of Fab 8 and 9, with 8 being the location for 14nm and 9 testing 7nm; fab 8 will be fitted for 7nm next year! )

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3168...ss-as-other-core-cpus-ease-into-new-tech.html


Sad to see the rumored mobile counterpart is BGA, Even if it's a fully unlocked binned core, I wouldn't touch the BGA, It's like OCD for me. I just can't imagine owning a hardware except smartphones with BGA.

 

This is known info. Cannonlake-S was pushed to 2018 awhile ago. The hype of cannonlake mobile and low power chips ahead of mainstream performance, which is a year and a quarter ahead of the enthusiast E/X series has been a staple for half a decade, although they used to do performance with mobile or a month or so after. It explains my confusion as to people touting cannonlake this year.

As to coffee lake, it is a 6-core, mainstream performance chip using cannonlake architecture and 14nm. The real question is whether the chip requires z170/270, or if it needs z370 like cannonlake, something no one has ventured a guess (Intel bleeding consumers on chipsets)!

The timing of this repackaged rumor timeline seems more to try to get people to hold off and wait for Intel.

In fact, the author even uses skylake-E when the leaked presentation materials have pointed to an X nomenclature (unless those rumors only involve Kaby lake-X and reporters got it wrong).

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Another article worth a look:
http://wccftech.com/amd-calls-check-move-intel/

 

As they stated...
"A monopoly is broken"

 

It also has a good link to the wafer supply agreement amendment article that should be read!

Edit: I just asked VideoCardz why they choose slanted numbers to sandbag AMD. Waiting for a reply...

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Amid the surrounding hype of Ryzen and I have to be open about it, will the average gamer truly care?

Let me clarify what I mean. There are tech lovers that build their own PC's, research each and every component down to the extreme detail. They cautiously weigh the good and bad of their builds. They hold no allegiance to any one component maker. Ryzen will capture many of the people in this group.

On the other hand, you have the "gamers" who insist on having the "best". They buy prebuilt gaming PC's with very little knowledge on the actual components besides the PC containing the "best" Intel processor, GPU, RAM and etc. I don't see AMD making headway into that group. Intel's marketing is too vast and potent. Add in some decent price cuts by Intel and this market segment will continue to ignore AMD.

I see so many people arguing over IPC, RAM timings, OC'ing and more on tech forums/websites all the time but those are the minority. The majority will continue to buy what is marketed as the best and will not do their due diligence to find out why.

 

Time for me to upgrade that 4770k finally

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

First Ryzen shown running LN2 cooling http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-processor-am4-ln2-cooling/

Official launch March 2 http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-processors-am4-official-launch-2-march/

 

So they updated the first article since I saw it earlier today. Really wanting to know more about the OC utility. But it seems the press day is here soon, so if anyone out there is going and doesn't want their chip...

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Pure gamers, as you defined, are a minority, so that isn't an issue. General public though... Still hard to say.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

@Papusan ; @Atma ; @triturbo ; @Rage Set

Author response at Videocardz:
Unlike both sites you mentioned, we never signed NDA with AMD or Intel, so we have zero reason to 'intentionally slant comparison in any direction'. In case you didn't notice those are very early benchmarks, which were only posted because we were asked to. And yes, I would rather use benchmark results from TH rather than Futuremark's leaderboard scores, as those are not very accurate.

My response to author:

I understand no NDA, but using other numbers requires further disclosures for your numbers to be meaningful and not misleading, which is why I suggested a slant.

Passmark-A table with the following information would give the results more credibility: CPU Name, CPU Multiplier, Ram Speed, Ram Timings, OS Version, Motherboard.
As it is, you do not mention ANY information on settings of Passmark CPUs or Ram Timings other than the Ryzen chip. As such, this misleads as to what is being compared. Considering WCCFTech's article and the image from the notes, repeated on a couple threads, it suggests that all Intel chips are overclocked, which without that information makes the information mislead.




3DMark Firestrike-This is another where your choice to use higher physics scores may mislead. With this test, you have variations in Physics scores based on the OS used. Additionally, the version of the benchmark used matters for Physics scores from June or July (August is when people started noticing the lower physics scores) until December of 2016 as unless you used the command line version, the GUI version (most commonly used) actually caused lower physics scores. So, if Ryzen used any of the versions from that time period (not sure if fully resolved yet), then it actually gives a physics score that cannot be properly compared to the others that originated from the benchmarks before that time period, which is what the Tom's hardware article used (May 2016). This was covered at Tech Inferno in an article, also published by HWBot.org and admitted to by 3DMark. You can thank users Papusan and Mr. Fox for their work in showing the versions of the benchmark had this issue. To conclude, presenting a table with the OS used and version of the benchmark would give information to make the test results not misleading.

For example on other factors impacting performance, the G.Skill ram used in the Tom's Hardware article with the majority of the scores was 4 8GB modules of Trident Z 3200, whose timings are 16-18-18-38 if I looked up the proper version used. For the 7700K, Tom's Hardware used G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 16GB (4 x 4GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3600 with timings of 17-18-18-38.

With the above considerations, especially since the ram used for the Ryzen scores was 2400 with 17-17-17-39 2T for timings, the impact on memory and performance is palpable, as you have the majority of chips paired with ram at 800MHz faster with equivalent timings, while the 7700K is paired with ram 1200MHz faster with roughly equivalent timings.

By giving this extra information, readers can better analyze what the numbers presented mean. Otherwise, it is misleading to readers like me, who then complain and spell out what information would have shown a better comparison.

Articles in question:
https://videocardz.com/65825/first-amd-ryzen-7-1700x-benchmarks-are-here
https://videocardz.com/65913/how-fast-is-ryzen

 

Ryzen matters to the group of enthusiasts who are interested in price vs performance for higher performance hardware.

Ryzen may matter to the HPC/Pro market. (I personally doubt it)

Ryzen doesnt matter to enthusiasts who are interested in the top tier product nor the average gamer.

Ryzen will not matter to the mobile market.

Ryzen 8 core made 6850k irrelevant, but on a whole, 6900k/6950x arent that threatened by Ryzen.

Ryzen would be great for people around 350usd range.

Would be nice to fit a ryzen on laptop but I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

 

I agree with a portion of that. I think you are wrong about enthusiasts and benchmarkers interested in the top tier, as what has been seen so far suggests that if you are solely in it for the numbers, unless you have a 6950X, you may try it just as a cheap way for points and to push it in the areas where it excels over the 6900K (so far, looks like there will be some areas where it cans, whereas it will fail in others), depending on how it overclocks.

If you do memory heavy activities, then it is Intel. If you have a 5960K, 6900K, 6950X already, then you aren't changing unless you want to just bench.

I actually recommended a person with a 6-core haswell to just keep his board and pick up a better chip after Ryzen drops and prices depress.

Personally, I'm going to water chill a Ryzen 8-core and post here (expect to see some scores that are equal or better than some intel chips).

Until proven better able to be in a laptop than a replacement panther or in between that and a Pheonix, I agree.

 

The thing is, for most people like me, we are waiting for a 10 core with better IPC and overclocking.

You know what I really want and if AMD do this, I will probably instantly switch off intel?

An unlocked version of their 32 cores server chip with octo channel for around the same price as 6950x. Given their pricing structure on ryzen, this is possible........

 

Ryzen + Vega in a laptop would be awesome and they should start targeting consumers in the mobile platform, and see how sales will start shooting out of the ceiling.

 

I can get on board with that. Personally, not going quad was a mistake. Keeping up with Intel's top without it is damn impressive though! I don't need an Intel 10 core. 6-8 core is what I need. Would I like more power, yes. But at Intel's pricing, I got a fist lubed if they want to use it, but it won't be used on me. I was gonna do an Intel build this summer, but truly, I think this will be fine. For $800, give or take, I'll go from a 6700K to an 1800X. If I get the cheaper water chiller, toss a couple hundred more on. Considering I can get $450-600 for my old CPU and motherboard, I'd say a worth while upgrade. For going to an 8-core Intel, minimum $1200, if not more. For that extra money, I could get the better water chiller I've been eyeing. The gaming seems there, considering firestrike physics. It does well against stock clocked Intel chips on IPC. So, it won me over and Intel can **** themselves for a couple builds.

If they offer the 32 core unlocked, I will be doing a server build, too. Because who doesn't want a house server...



Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Nope, vega is not for laptops at all. Its the actual high performing part and AMD has more to catch up on.

I got a board and a semi decent 5960x plus 16gb ram for 950usd. Used but still cheap about 10 months ago. I say I got a pretty good deal out of that.

 

I get that. I was planning on a skylake-X build. I have 32GB (4x8GB) G.Skill 4133 19-21-21 ram already (grabbed for $400). I could pick up like what you have and that would be enough. At the same time, wait for the benches. Even if close, AMD needs the cash from new sells more than the guy selling his own rig. For actual comparisons that factor in the variables, Ryzen is right in line with Intel's offerings at stock. If it can OC well (it's a 96W doing what Intel takes 140W to do, meaning it may reach a little higher on overclock with proper cooling, but time will tell), then it makes sense. I won't take a significant performance hit for the team, but if they are in the same ballpark, then yes. But so many have tried to present misleading info and I've had to debunk them so often on leaked benchmarks, that it tells me this may be a real fight.

Edit: I'm still waiting for thorough benching before I commit. Not going to adopt on opening day.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Well, I absolutely need quad channel ram so.... yeah. It doesnt really matter who I buy from, I want the best performance, whether its AMD, intel and/or nvidia. The story behind the company doesnt interest me, only the product does.

I think as consumers, we should judge a company on its products foremost.

 

If you have to pay 2-3 times as much for performance within 10%, then I find it a waste to pay that much more. It's not just the story or wanting to support competition. It is a fiduciary decision.

Now, I do point this out, if you NEED quad channel, and certain activities require it or you get a sharp drop in performance, you have to go to Intel. There is no choice. Period. Exclamation point. As I said, I need a six or eight core. I WANT quad channel memory. Now, you better believe I will be looking at utilities and benchmarks that benefit from that to understand which use cases it would be beneficial to me, and factor in what I'd be losing and the amount of time I use those processes.

I just also have a hard time buying into a really old platform, mainly because I'm hopeful on cannonlake, but not really expecting (sorry, but they've promised 15+ the past couple gens and delivered 5-11% depending on task).

Considering AM4 will work through 2019 or 2020, potentially even with 7nm chips, I see more benefit in the flagship MB at around $200 then buying a dead platform with Intel if the scores are roughly the same and it overclocks well. So, for the price, even if the resell market dives on Intel (unless it truly becomes cheaper, at some point it is stupid not to change position), unless ryzen overclocks badly, I'll go with the AMD platform. Also, it has the added benefit of cheap chips to rotate out for benching points, but that is a hobby, not why I need the power.

So, as you can tell, this isn't considering the story so much as price, performance, platform longevity, and whether it fits with my hobby. Intel is much more expensive on almost every point. If it was over 15% difference, I'll have more hesitation and have to sit down with figuring potential resale, length of ownership, depreciation, etc. There is a point where I would say no. But, from what I've seen so far, it is above that point. That might change after press day and good reviews are released, both on chips and the boards.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Thats understandable.

I do like to have quad channel personally so... yeah.

 

This is where I find the latest benchmarks interesting. In the numbers comparing the Firestrike scores, Videocardz choose the Tom's hardware numbers as more representative. All of the Intel 6, 8, and 10 core chips were in quad channel for ram running at 3200mhz with equivalent timings to the Ryzen running with ram at 2400mhz. This setup was better optimized than the ryzen setup. Meanwhile, the scores were pretty close even with that and the chips at stock. Now, Tom's didn't say which OS was used, but this was before the gui handicap appeared. Meanwhile, we also do not know which OS was used by VCZ, nor if they ran a handicapped version of the benchmark. But with this knowledge and how 800 extra MHz on ram performs for physics, with the ram timings being the same with the extra 800mhz, I'd say don't write it off in the basis of quad channel memory yet!

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Depending on the software, quad channel might matters a lot more than anything else.

 

I agree. I did a small essay in a thread around here about where the uneducated buy goes (*cough*grIntel/nGREEDIA*cough*) and then most of the educated was still going in that directions, for reasons that don't need to be pointed out (performance, obviously). While I SERIOUSLY doubt that the uneducated buy would change (OEMs/ODMs have to promote AMD as much (probably even more) as the competition... good luck with that), I have some hope for the educated... after all it is educated. I mean one could still choose competition, given his/her requirements can't be met by AMD's upcoming line-up, but I do hope that a lot of people would find suitable products for their needs. No matter how I look at it, we would be in for a lot of "fun" if Ryzen doesn't sell well enough.

2H2017. Whether or not we'll see someone using them in anything but castrated machines (single RAM slot/channel, crappy cooling and etc), remains to be seen.

Well, the current clevo line-up uses 91W chips, so I see 8c/16t fiting just fine, no? Also the "pure mobile" (in quotes, since non-binned for a while now) parts are ~45W TDP, I can see an unlocked 4c/8t going head-to-head with 6820HK/7820HK, again given someone puts such part into their machines.

It's supposed to scale down as well. Not all the way down, but down to about upper mid-tier or entry high-end, what used to be binned and used for the mobile top-tier. Then again we have all of these "desktop performance in a laptop" machines floating around, so I see 0 (ZERO!!!) excuse for not using the top-end part (given it's not 400W of course). We'll see.

 

so, seen die shot of ryzen


Does this mean 6 core zen cpu's will have 2 dies with 1 core locked in each die or they gonna make 6 core die exclusively for 6 core cpu? Also, if first is the case with locking, wouldn't it make 6 cores better overclockers as it would have same surface area touching heatsink as 8 core cpu but 1 working core less per die to heat it. Maybe it would be possible to unlock these cores?

This kinda gave lots of thoughts.

 

I'm betting that they would be "bad" ex-8c. The bad is in quotes, since we know that, for example, not all x3s were bad and were unlocked to x4. For a while now (since the rumors for the 6c came out) I think that the 6c/12t would be the best bang for the buck, given you can unlock the extra two cores. I'm sure we'll be looking for special batches once again. We'll see how things are going to play-out.

 

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-benchmark-leak/

CPU-Z score on 6-core

 

Another good article about the 1600X:
http://hothardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-6-core-benchmarks-leak

 

Have not been this excited about AMD in quite a while. Probably since the thoroughbred days, or maybe the AMD 64 era, when they owned the (half as hot as the sun) Pentium 4.

 

I may sell my 6600K + Z170 combo in order to buy Ryzen, chips look really promising this time, I hope it'll have some great overclocking capability