-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AMD Ryzen Thread: Affordable Core Act
- Thread starter ·feist·
- Start date
dr_rus
Member
All benchmarks I've seen show memory latency being significantly higher on Ryzen. Hardware.fr comparison shows very clearly that Ryzen is running into issues when it's over half of it's L3 (upd: actually, make that 1/4th - it seems that snooping via the coherency fabric start to affect latencies at >4MBs already):
Also note that memory latency beyond cache coverage is worse than on 6900K as well - and HEDT platform's biggest issue is memory latency meaning that SKL/KBL are considerably better here than what 6900K is showing.
Also good for future APU's and potential future consoles
A 1700 would still be a decent upgrade in games over an i5 4670K right? I really just want a cpu that can keep me at solid 60 fps in 64 player match in BF1,currently my CPU gets maxed and holds me back from that.
Everything outside of games sounds really great and hopefully BIOS updates bring solid improvements.
Everything outside of games sounds really great and hopefully BIOS updates bring solid improvements.
NeOak
Member
Unless you stream, you should look at a 4790k instead if you can get ahold of one for cheap, since you can use your current mobo and Ram.
Otherwise a 7700k for purely gaming tbh.
The Hamburglar
Banned
Don't get the so called so called disappointment. People really thought it was going to beat 7700k in gaming for considerable cheaper price? Lol.
It's offering decent performer for a fair price.
It's offering decent performer for a fair price.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
I really appreciate the BF1 Multiplayer frametimes in the computerbase link. BF4's frametimes are what demonstrate why you want a quad over a dual core for that title, and these charts make a good case for 6+ cores over 4. I'm never purchasing a quad core processor again.
They also make a good case for the DX12 render path being broken in BF1.
Alright I'll look into things for sure not jumping in and buying anything just yet. 7700K looks really nice definitely but I'm not against the idea of better productivity since I want to get into doing more of that soon. Just want to be sure I'll still get a noticeable gaming increase as well.
AstroNut325
Member
I'm jealous! I might have to settle for the 1700X! Like you, mix use is what's making me go to AMD.
Cheers!
Aztechnology
Member
The 7700k is cheaper. But it's a 4 core processor. People need to realize this isn't what you need if you only do gaming. However, it still provides compelling value as a multi-core. So it's up to your use case. For me the extra cores are necessary, which is why I got the 5820k a while back. Going forward, multi-core optimization is only going to increasingly be a focus. With silicon and how incredibly hard it is to do new die shrinks, essentially adding more cores is one of the few ways around the current issue.
prag16
Banned
1800X is $150 more expensive than 7700K.
I don't think anyone really expected it to beat or even match the 7700K in gaming, but probably expected it to be at least a bit better than it is.
Personally the gaming results for the 1800X are around what I expected for the 1700, and so it's a bit disappointing.
AstroNut325
Member
If you do more than gaming, that's probably worth it.
dr_rus
Member
Expensive cache access? Ugh, so this is uArch level issues?
Yes but this was totally predictable considering that 6 and 8 core Zens are made up of two "stitched" 4-core modules and have a split between them L3. As Hardware.fr said, there are several OS level improvements which can be made to minimize the cross-CCX cache lookups which should improve performance considerably.
PCGH did an interesting benchmark between Ryzen with 4 cores disabled as two in each CCX and all four in just one of them:
Note the performance increase in case when all four cores are residing in one CCX with a common 8MB of L3 cache.
Oh right, I forgot about that part.
If that's the case, I wonder if Ryzen+ next year will see them split off the modules with separate L3 caches. There are lots of interposer rumors abound, so perhaps they'll use smaller Ryzen 'cores' without shared L3?
edit: Actually wait, that's a bad idea... splitting off the modules on an interposer would create lots of speedpath and latency issues.
prag16
Banned
Sure, certainly is for a lot of people.
Yeah, though this very much seems to be a result of the production process. It would also explain why Ryzen has such low idle power consumption levels (another boon to bursty mobile usages).
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
I got my 6-core 5820K over 2 years ago now. It made sense then it makes even more sense now.
The 4-cores 8-threads on the 7700K is woefully inadequate in 2017 at its current RRP if you use your PC as a workstation. I would not recommend going for a low core CPU in 2017 at their current prices for gaming either. 4C/8T is the new 2C/4T.
The 4-cores 8-threads on the 7700K is woefully inadequate in 2017 at its current RRP if you use your PC as a workstation. I would not recommend going for a low core CPU in 2017 at their current prices for gaming either. 4C/8T is the new 2C/4T.
prag16
Banned
I can agree there. Waiting it out a bit more before I replace my ancient 2550k. Probably only rebuilding my HTPC this year. The G4560 is looking mighty solid for that purpose.
Mr_Antimatter
Member
Makes me wonder about the midrange cpus versus midrange intel chips. That's where i''m really looking.
Though, the 1080p performance is odd to me. With such a huge portion of the gaming market using that resolution, not having better support seems strange to me.
Though, the 1080p performance is odd to me. With such a huge portion of the gaming market using that resolution, not having better support seems strange to me.
Felix Lighter
Member
1600X may end up being the sweet spot for price/gaming performance with more than 4 cores.
It's more that gaming is only CPU bottlenecked at lower resolutions. GPUs are the bottleneck at higher res.
The market that's running 1080p, likely isn't running 1080's either, so even at 1080p, they might be running to GPU bottlenecks.
Mr. Wonderful
Member
In many cases, updating for a new processor architecture doesn't involve a massive rewrite. It involves taking an update to the compiler, and then reoptimizing and testing. These things are usually built into APIs, compilers, and other low level technologies that developers get "for free" from a platform vendor, at which point it's much more a QA thing.
If the engine is licensed, it may also benefit from an update to the engine.
opticalmace
Member
Dropped by order down to the 1700 and Asus B350 Prime (or whatever it's called), instead of the 1700x and Asus X370. I end up saving quite a lot of money by doing so (including the cost of a cooler), and a local shop has a decent discount. Hopefully I can pick up the parts tomorrow.
I have some DDR4-3000 G.Skill CL16 I'm going to use (from another build) and picked up an EVGA 650W G3 PSU. I have an old AMD 6950 2GB I might try using, but I'm not sure if Linux will play nicely with AMD... Still haven't chosen a case yet. ~_~
I have some DDR4-3000 G.Skill CL16 I'm going to use (from another build) and picked up an EVGA 650W G3 PSU. I have an old AMD 6950 2GB I might try using, but I'm not sure if Linux will play nicely with AMD... Still haven't chosen a case yet. ~_~
cartman414
Member
Hmmm. I've read that Ryzen uses 128-bit SIMDs in contrast to Intel's 256-bit AVX, and that appears to be contribute to the relative bottleneck.
thebigmachine
Member
I went with my brother to pick up his 1700x. He convinced me to pick up a 1700 lol. My intel 760 is so old I had to make the jump sometime.
Sir Abacus
Member
It dual issues to twin 128-bit vector units whenever it encounters an AVX2 instruction.
Mr_Antimatter
Member
So if I'm going AMD with OC, which is the correct one to take? 1700X?
Intel has Skylake R's with the L4 cache.
At this point AMD is an option. That alone should be enough to be considered a success. Factor in cheaper mobos, equal or better multi use, and PRESENTLY adequate gaming performance at 1440p+ (which most people buying a >$300 CPU should be at) and it seems like a reasonable alternative. Personally, is still get Intel for deliding and higher IPC, but that isn't really an average requirement.
cartman414
Member
True. But it still seems to be a little slower.
Not quite the same. He wants another C-series.
It seems like we won't see that till 7nm.
Both have L4 cache which is the key, and according to Anand the Skylake's cache will assist to buffer in more scenarios.
Nostremitus
Member
And you'd be the one moving it considering the claim has always been that it matches or beats Intel's E series chips in gaming, and would likely best the 7700K in productivity and content creation.
Any claims I've seen stating that it'll beat the 7700K were with regard to multithreaded workloads.
You are also ignoring that, much like every Intel architecture launch as well, the performance will increase beyond these initial benchmarks as motherboard BIOS mature. The MSI board saw a 26% increase in gaming performance.
It honestly sounds more like you had your expectations too high and are now mad at those who didn't.
Trying to reframe the conversation just so you can make a weak attempt at shaming people for being happy with something you aren't isn't the way to have meaningful conversation in any capacity.
These are BGA chips (soldered), not LGA chips (socketed).
As with the 5775C, the 6785R has a locked multiplier and only a 65W TDP.
An ideal gaming CPU from Intel would be an unlocked chip with a much higher TDP and the 128MB eDRAM.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
That's basically it. Even though it failed to live up to all of the hype (and frankly considering what people were expecting it never could), but it is a viable processor choice, and depending on what you want to use it for it could be the superior processor choice. That's a major improvement over AMD's position for the last several years, where it was so far behind on the performance curve that it was outclassed by Intel even on a on price/perf basis in some price brackets. It was so bad that even as "value CPUs" you would struggle to have recommended them.
We can all breathe a sigh of relief that it's a contender. At least for now - they need to stay on their toes lest the same thing happen to them again in the future.
potatohead
Member
I want to see how well this CPU does in emulators, probably badass.
1700 is the best OCer from the reviews, and if you're lucky it'll overclock to 1700X level. 1700X can overclock a bit(somewhere around 3.9-4.1 ghz), but not that much.
Velocity:Design:Comfort
Banned
great thread name, sorry if this is a drive by shit post but just wanted to say that. Also maybe Ill buy a Ryzen for my build (but with those microcenter i7 prices now probably not)
I can understand the disappointment. Personally I expected the 7700K to beat the 1800X in games, but not by the 40-50% that we've seen in some benchmarks. And I thought Ryzen would at least catch up in heavily-threaded games... instead the 6800K and 6900K (which the 1800X matches or beats in synthetics) zoom ahead and the 1800X continues to trail behind.
It's still an amazing win for AMD. Zen will be perfect for workstations, servers, laptops, etc - areas where they couldn't dream of competing before - and it's a incredibly solid foundation going forward. But if you care about gaming at all it's not an appealing chip... the advantages in other tasks don't entirely make up for that deficit.
It's still an amazing win for AMD. Zen will be perfect for workstations, servers, laptops, etc - areas where they couldn't dream of competing before - and it's a incredibly solid foundation going forward. But if you care about gaming at all it's not an appealing chip... the advantages in other tasks don't entirely make up for that deficit.
Not for 1440p+ gaming.