Digital Savior
Member
Nice OT. I would've picked one up, but I went with the Switch. My 2600k will live on a bit longer. Really looking forward to upping my core count. Hate frame drops trying to capture video.
Mostly rumor and annoucement that 5 series is coming in Q2. They have a good collection of articles.I assume the 5s will be the bread an butter. Wonder how it will perform.
Anything on those?
"AMD RYZEN(tm) GAMING & CREATIVE EXPERIENCES | UNDER NDA | EMBARGO GUIDELINES REQUIRED"
Some more info about the charts. (If I'm not mistaken)
- 1700X & 6800K: GTX1080
- 1700 & 7700k: GTX1070
- Stock clocks
- DDR4-2400
·feist·;231236091 said:
3.0GHz base clock for the 1700, right?What was the all core frequency of 1700, 3.4 GHz? It's almost 1 GHz advantage for 7700K in that sense, but at 1440p I don't think these results tell us more than that most games are GPU bound.
What'll be interesting to see is if there's actually titles that are more Intel optimized outside the usual difference in frequency or cores. AMD seems to have a talk at GDC about Ryzen optimizations for games, and they announced a partnership with Bethesda for optimizing CPU&GPU performance, so I wonder if there's any significant optimizations for devs to specifically target Ryzen or if there's games right now that have sub par performance for some reason on AMD.
3.0GHz base clock for the 1700, right?
Image in OT states 3.0 base clock.3.1 iirc
Those charts look real good for Ryzen
Likely a DX11 typo in both charts, or "DX12" is being used in place of "Mantle" for some reason.Does BF4 even have the option to play in DX12?
Wut
If accurate (leak is from AMD, and not an independent review) it would show that the frame times of Ryzen are much improved over Bulldozer/Piledriver/Steamroller/Excavator. Even when those CPUs had comparable performance to Intel's FPS results, the frame times were often below competing Intels.Looks pretty promising, though I don't know offhand how GPU limited you are in each of those games/configs/settings. I'm not building mine for gaming, but it's nice to know it'll handle itself quite well.
I wish Thursday were already here for some reviews!
Or it was BF4 Mantle.edit ..never mind
BF4 doesn't have dx12, i'm guessing they tested BF1 as that would make more sense
Considering that the 1700/X seems to be performing worse in games than a 7700K/6800K based on the two charts from AMD above, I would expect fewer cores to perform worse.If that slide is real, it looks quite promising for gaming. I think the real battle against the 7700k will come from the 1600x in a couple of months for overclocking enthusiasts.
Based on what?The 1500/1600 *should* overclock a lot better.
Yes, stutters like crazy for me on my i7 920 tho.Does BF4 even have the option to play in DX12?
Wut
Considering that the 1700/X seems to be performing worse in games than a 7700K/6800K based on the two charts from AMD above, I would expect fewer cores to perform worse.
That said, if things are this close and all these CPUs are at stock speeds, those are quite promising results.
Based on what?
The i3-7350K doesn't seem to overclock any better than the quad-core i7-7700K, and those are dual-core CPUs with smaller dies.
The 6-core Ryzen CPUs are just 8-core Ryzen chips with two cores disabled.
I would expect them to be worse overclockers than an 1800X which is the highest binned chip using that design.
AMD Ryzen 7 Gaming Performance
Take a close look at those charts. This is exactly what you will be seeing in tomorrows reviews. AMD Ryzen 7 is superior in many aspects, especially in synthetic benchmarks like 3DMark. However, it may not be just as good for gaming. Based on the reviews I saw, Ryzen 7 is doing great when Radeon GPU is used, but the gap between Ryzen and Kabylake/Broadwell-E increases when the system is equipped with GeForce graphics card. Its too early draw any conclusions, but be aware that Kabylake is still competitive when gaming is considered.
Yes, that's why it's a very interesting result if all the CPUs are running at stock speeds - though we still don't know the full details of how the CPUs handle boost, and how XFR may affect that.As you said, stock speeds.
The 1700 stock speed is 3.0GHz. The 7700K is 4.2GHz...
It being that close despite lower clocks is really in favor of Ryzen. Intel has a 1.2GHz advantage and still only squeaks by if that slide is accurate.
That really just assumes that heat is going to be the limiting factor.More cores = lower frequencies. That's the reason the i7 quad cores are clocked higher and overclock better than the i7 6 or 8 core variants.
Stock speeds perhaps, but that doesn't mean there is any additional headroom when overclocking - as I said, I would expect them to be worse overclockers if anything, due to them being lower-binned chips.We already know that the 1600x will be clocked higher than the 1700 and 1700X based on AMD's slides at their event.
When you need LN2 to hit 5.2GHz, and their watercooled demo crashed trying to run 4.1GHz on all cores, 4.5GHz on air seems unrealistic.It still looks like the 1800x overclocked to 4.4/4.5ghz is going to be unbeatable. Hopefully this is easily obtainable on air.
Considering that the 1700/X seems to be performing worse in games than a 7700K/6800K based on the two charts from AMD above, I would expect fewer cores to perform worse.
That said, if things are this close and all these CPUs are at stock speeds, those are quite promising results.
Based on what?
The i3-7350K doesn't seem to overclock any better than the quad-core i7-7700K, and those are dual-core CPUs with smaller dies.
The 6-core Ryzen CPUs are just 8-core Ryzen chips with two cores disabled.
I would expect them to be worse overclockers than an 1800X which is the highest binned chip using that design.
Maybe old news, but just saw these. Some leaked gaming benches for the 1700X. https://videocardz.com/66684/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-review-leaks-out
Maybe old news, but just saw these. Some leaked gaming benches for the 1700X. https://videocardz.com/66684/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-review-leaks-out
Yep, apparently that was from an engineering sample too, so that is without turbo clocks.
1700 for $500. Hopefully it won't take much time for the prices to drop
? The 1800x is $500, the 1700 is $329, 1700x is $400.
I live in Brazil. Here 1700 is $500, 1700x is $576 and the 1800x is $866
I live in Brazil. Here 1700 is $500, 1700x is $576 and the 1800x is $866
·feist·;231236091 said:
Not sure about power supply, but 16GB RAM would be best. If you're getting the PC next year, then hopefully RAM prices would have dropped by them.I'm getting a new gaming computer about this time next year and have budgeted 1500 CDN for it, I hope there will be good options then. My current computer is about 6 years old and needs a total redo. What all power supply and such is needed now? How much ram? Can motherboards include Bluetooth for controllers?
I'm getting a new gaming computer about this time next year and have budgeted 1500 CDN for it, I hope there will be good options then. My current computer is about 6 years old and needs a total redo. What all power supply and such is needed now? How much ram? Can motherboards include Bluetooth for controllers?
Motherboards usually do come with bluetooth, but the quality can be iffy, and I'd not recommend to use it for game controller purposes since the input lag might get too big, if it even keeps the signal.
Probably. The embargo's up at 10AM EST/9AM CST/7AM PST/3PM GMT and mobos should be included.Should we expect to see motherboard reviews tomorrow? I know what CPU I want, just not sure which mobo.
Well, I was going to get the 1700X, but my car just broke down and needs a new fuel pump. The PC will have to wait. Thankfully, those benchmarks look promising!
Excellent news. 99th percentile and frametimes really need to be reported more.
Getting really close to pulling the trigger on a 1700x build now.