• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

AMD's big breakthrough

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
DaveB said:
Yes I understand that for college students, especially those CS and Engineering majors you're dealing with, the laptop is still necessary. Personally I hate the small screen, compressed keyboards and stupid touchpads on laptops so only my wife uses the one we have. But she uses it much less these days and does 90% of her previous computer searches, emailing, gaming, etc. on her Samsung S7. That's what I was talking about, post college where phones have pretty much taken over.
Click to expand...
And yet my non-tech savy wife is the opposite. She uses her phone for communication (Facebook, texting, calls, etc) and won't even use it to buy stuff unless it is on Amazon. Paying a bill? Computer. Searching for a hotel? Computer. She uses her laptop quite a bit tbh, and she doesn't like computers in general.
 
Last edited:
chrisjames61 said:
You don't call it a breakthrough? They more than doubled the ipc of the older generation cpu's and offer an astounding price per performance ratio that as of now Intel can't match. They did it on a shoestring budget when even AMD fans had serious doubts about it being possible.
Click to expand...

Double IPC compared to what? AMD only claim they beat their original 40% even if I don't recall the exact number. Are you comparing to something much older, or a more specific area that shows greater gains?

It probably has a name, but I still wouldn't use the word breakthrough. Is it good they mostly caught up technology wise to Intel? Yes. But they started from so far behind, anything less would be considered a total failure. Pricing is more due to market need. If Intel chose to, they could match AMD on a core/clock basis, but they don't need to at all. They know their products still has significant advantages on many fronts. AMD have no choice but to price lower. They wont sell anything of note if they charged Intel-like pricing. You can bet AMD would love to get as much as Intel do.

I like Ryzen. I have one system, and am planning my 2nd. I know its current strengths and weaknesses, and will deploy them accordingly. I'm a "use the right tool for the job" kinda guy.

Purely speculating here, Ryzen is a good foot in the door, but to open it, we're probably looking at Ryzen 2. Maturity should be largely sorted by then. I doubt AMD has the resources to do anything other than relatively minor tweaks, maybe improving the inter-CCX communications would be a good area for them to look at, as well as process optimisations. If they could do a "Kaby Lake" of higher clock for the same power budget, that would really kick things up a gear.
 
Think they reported 52% just before launch ? ATM my only complaint with Ryzen is that it clocks so low, but i always expected this troubleshooting to last quite a few months, same as Skylake and possible most other CPU gen before regardless of brand. To expect something completely new to work 100% out of the box is a bit... naive ? uninformed ? Skylake/Kaby Lake performance for 1/2-1/3 of the price is pretty damned amazing in my book.
 
Look, I'm not going to go out of my way to buy a new ryzen system, as my current system is on par with it , but with multithreaded performance becoming more and more important, in the areas of gaming, someone has to make strides towards that focus. Amd, in my opinion, nailed it. the only component that is behind is the chipset and bios. I seem to remember Intel having some usb 3.0 issues, among others.

It performs well enough to substitute Intel's chips, smile being cheaper. All they would have to do is sell Ryzen ready ram as an advisement to deal with the growing pains.
 
I think it is a great start but I dont plan on buying anything till ryzen2/coffe lake . No way I would buy a new system to have it have less fps then my current one . I do zero photo / vid editing , I find my current 4t chip more than fast enough for every thing I do . Most things I do are more single threaded and ryzen can keep up even with my 4 year old chip (or a 2600k for that matter)

But I would LOVE to play around with a r5 1600 =)
 
||Console|| said:
I think it is a great start but I dont plan on buying anything till ryzen2/coffe lake . No way I would buy a new system to have it have less fps then my current one . I do zero photo / vid editing , I find my current 4t chip more than fast enough for every thing I do . Most things I do are more single threaded and ryzen can keep up even with my 4 year old chip (or a 2600k for that matter)

But I would LOVE to play around with a r5 1600 =)
Click to expand...

that is now. the fact remains that multithreaded performance is becoming increasingly more important for gaming, and the performance of a ryzen chip single threaded is good enough to handle games of the now, and its multithreaded performance is exceptional, and will handle the games to come. the fps loss is very minor, and can be handled by a sufficiently powerful gpu.

I'd much rather have the multithreaded power than not for those who are dipping their feet into an up to date build. Yes, i7 7700k's will also do this job, but at a couple hundred dollars more for the cpu and Mobo.

that said, in your case, a new system build wouldn't yield much gain, so you are making a good call. I'm just saying not to discount ryzen as an alternative to a 6700k if money is on the tighter side, or you want to allocate more budget into the video card department
 
Last edited:
My wife uses a PC pretty regularly. Consists of older tech Opteron 1386 (basically a Phenom II quad) and plan to give her my 4690K set up which really is very fast in my opinion. Fast enough I guess would be the way to properly say it. Most people wouldn't suggest going to a 7 series chip from this one. What am I really going to gain? Get i7 and have a little faster IPC and 8 threads While I plan to put my rig together with an AMD 1700 (non X) and have similar IPC as the 4690K but a lot more threads.

I like lots of threads. It's very nice. Most I've ever had was 8. The IPC is much better with RyZen. Much much better. I mean gaming my frame rates are so close to my i5 it's not even funny.

Why would any of us ever argue that any new system released with Intel or AMD has some kind of early bug or kink to work out with the motherboards and memory compatibility. FX and Kingston didn't really mix. It seemed most people accepted the lower memory speeds (which btw AMD never got as high as Intel) and most just suggest 1866 or lower on older AMD platforms. So we all tweaked for better latency at a lower clock speed and became satisfied.

Stability problems? Never seen these RyZen chips have much trouble at stock. If you've installed you OS without trouble, it's likely pretty stable and enjoyable.

If you overclock, it doesn't matter what platform you are using. There's always a stability hurdle to jump. Nothing new to complain about there....
 
LN2 don't matter 1 bit to your average user/overclocker, show me improvements in air/water :(
 
Good for headlines :) So at least the "normal" operating low headroom isn't holding it back when you go extreme. Wonder how it scales on phase change?
 
chrisjames61 said:
Most home users are people who buy oem computers and would never do a bios update nor have too and probably not even know what it is so I think that point is moot. People who build computers generally know how to update a bios so I also think that renders the point as moot.
Click to expand...

and that's still a very small percentage of consumers...i'd gather it's in the single digits percentage wise...
 
Kenrou said:
Think they reported 52% just before launch ? ATM my only complaint with Ryzen is that it clocks so low, but i always expected this troubleshooting to last quite a few months, same as Skylake and possible most other CPU gen before regardless of brand. To expect something completely new to work 100% out of the box is a bit... naive ? uninformed ? Skylake/Kaby Lake performance for 1/2-1/3 of the price is pretty damned amazing in my book.
Click to expand...
People need to stop talking performance comparisons to Sky Lake/Kaby Lake while using price comparisons to Broadwell-E. It's nonsense so just stop. A gamer or normal home computer user can build a faster i5-7600K setup for less than the Ryzen 5 1600 I just built. So for that usage, Ryzen is not cheaper and is slower. If you go cheaper to the Ryzen 5 1400, then it's a little cheaper but a lot slower. Intel's single-core performance is better and most programs still have a main routine that will try to run on single core while sub-tasks are farmed out to other cores. So having all those extra cores is still as useless as it was when Bulldozer came out. Kaby Lake CPUs overclock way better than Ryzen increasing Intel's advantage. For gamers and for virtually all home users Intel is still a better choice. You don't need 6 or 8 cores to run an Excel spreadsheet, or surf the net, or 99% of the other tasks home computers are used for. Plus the Ryzen ecosystem is still effed up - motherboards are not sorted, RAM runs below speed on most of them, so mainstream users and OEMs will stay away. For me and a small percentage of total users, the extra cores/threads are desired, so I'll continue to play with Ryzen. But if anyone asks me to build them a system, it will be an Intel Kaby Lake.
 
Let me start out by saying building a "bleeding edge" Ryzen build has been the worst experience I've had with computers. I'm never doing that again. Next time I let someone else be the guinea pig. That being said, it seems like things are finally starting to come together now, so people buying at this point won't go through misery us early adopters have.

As far as the processor usage, I think it's pretty competitive. For high end gaming, it's hard to argue with the i7 7700K OC'ed to 4.8+ GHz. I don't see the i5 7600K as looking that great as an alternative. I'd rather go up to the i7 for the larger cache and SMT, or I'd rather have the two extra cores and SMT on the 1600/X, even giving up a little bit of frequency. Once you drop down to the lower, locked i5s, most of the frequency upside of Intel goes away, so I'd take the cheaper R5 alternative with SMT. I can see people making the opposite decision, but I don't think it's hard to make a case for the Ryzen R5 series.

With the average user it really makes no difference what CPU is in their machine anyway. For 95% of people even a Pentium or A-series APU will probably get the job done fine.
 
I don't see the bleeding edge frustration. Biggest frustration I have is with the RAM but I knew that going in. Not really upset, and hope the May update does some wonders, but not holding my breath. When I installed everything, it worked great at default. Can't complain about that. The cooler situation, that was on CM, but the stock cooler was good enough for 3.7ghz on all cores for me. Can't complain about that either. My base clock is 700mhz over normal base clock, and I didn't have to bump voltage. What's wrong with that.

Biggest complaint I have has little to do with Ryzen, but is related.

I bought a 480. The Linux closed source drive for the 480 currently has support up to Linux kernel 4.8....

Ryzen requires 4.9 (with a backported patch) or 4.10 kernel to work optimally. You'd think AMD would prioritize support both sets of their hardware Linux kernel wise, but they aren't for some reason. That's frustrating to me.
 
Average user this, average user that..... All depends on how good the sales person is. End result of most people is the sales pitch.

Higher clock speeds and IPC used to be a good marketing strategy. Not so much any more. So selling AMD product at say 3.5ghz which is a comparable speed in average user eyes, and most don't know what IPC really is, the extra threads starts looking more and more appealing.

As far as issues goes, You only gain X amount of any kind of bandwidth with overclocking the memory. A slight gain in performance, but still measurable. Average User is looking at how much available memory more so than the frequency.

So all I've gotten in this thread is there's problems or issues, but not one person was to be so specific as to exactly what while we can look into the past and see plenty of issues from either maker of cpu. Same can be said about memory and motherboards, power supplies and so on.

Slow or not, I really like AMD keeping traditional overclocking via bus frequency and the new innovative and creative ideas they try and implement. Some ideas are better than others, but they do make some unique processors. And it's not a simple refresh over and over with the die shrinks either.

There's no real reason to Bash on AMD right now. None at all. Some of you guys can ***** about this or that issue, but I'd be willing to bet any dollar the issues you have are no more or less frustrating than any other time you had PC issues in the past and does not depend on platform either.

If you have nothing nice to say, maybe don't say anything at all. This is the "Breakthrough" thread and I enjoyed the idea of the topic. Bashing not needed.
 
DaveB said:
People need to stop talking performance comparisons to Sky Lake/Kaby Lake while using price comparisons to Broadwell-E. It's nonsense so just stop. A gamer or normal home computer user can build a faster i5-7600K setup for less than the Ryzen 5 1600 I just built. So for that usage, Ryzen is not cheaper and is slower. If you go cheaper to the Ryzen 5 1400, then it's a little cheaper but a lot slower. Intel's single-core performance is better and most programs still have a main routine that will try to run on single core while sub-tasks are farmed out to other cores. So having all those extra cores is still as useless as it was when Bulldozer came out. Kaby Lake CPUs overclock way better than Ryzen increasing Intel's advantage. For gamers and for virtually all home users Intel is still a better choice. You don't need 6 or 8 cores to run an Excel spreadsheet, or surf the net, or 99% of the other tasks home computers are used for. Plus the Ryzen ecosystem is still effed up - motherboards are not sorted, RAM runs below speed on most of them, so mainstream users and OEMs will stay away. For me and a small percentage of total users, the extra cores/threads are desired, so I'll continue to play with Ryzen. But if anyone asks me to build them a system, it will be an Intel Kaby Lake.
Click to expand...

I used price comparisons with Skylake/Kaby Lake on Ryzen launch (I know they dropped but it wasn't by a large margin). Why the hell would I do them with Broadwell-E ?

On that point I live in the U.K., a 7700k costs ~£320, a 1600x costs ~£265. On average the i7 will clock to 4.8ghz and the Ryzen will clock to 3.8ghz. Pair them with a 1070/1080, 1080p monitor and the 7700k just became pointless simply because you're gaming at over 60fps on either CPU but the Ryzen will allow for much better multitasking including streaming even at lower clock speed. They are roughly even at 4K. Double the profit if you do video editing. For office work the point is moot because any computer will do and I would still go Ryzen simply because it's cheaper.

Why the hell would I tell anyone to go Intel at this point in time ?

The "Ryzen ecosystem" is more then stable enough as it is for whatever you throw at it, further tweaking is always welcome ofc. Ryzen 2 will be very nice as was stated a few times before in this thread.
 
ShrimpBrime said:
Average user this, average user that..... All depends on how good the sales person is. End result of most people is the sales pitch.

Higher clock speeds and IPC used to be a good marketing strategy. Not so much any more. So selling AMD product at say 3.5ghz which is a comparable speed in average user eyes, and most don't know what IPC really is, the extra threads starts looking more and more appealing.

As far as issues goes, You only gain X amount of any kind of bandwidth with overclocking the memory. A slight gain in performance, but still measurable. Average User is looking at how much available memory more so than the frequency.

So all I've gotten in this thread is there's problems or issues, but not one person was to be so specific as to exactly what while we can look into the past and see plenty of issues from either maker of cpu. Same can be said about memory and motherboards, power supplies and so on.

Slow or not, I really like AMD keeping traditional overclocking via bus frequency and the new innovative and creative ideas they try and implement. Some ideas are better than others, but they do make some unique processors. And it's not a simple refresh over and over with the die shrinks either.

There's no real reason to Bash on AMD right now. None at all. Some of you guys can ***** about this or that issue, but I'd be willing to bet any dollar the issues you have are no more or less frustrating than any other time you had PC issues in the past and does not depend on platform either.

If you have nothing nice to say, maybe don't say anything at all. This is the "Breakthrough" thread and I enjoyed the idea of the topic. Bashing not needed.
Click to expand...

People haven't needed to post specific threads because the are in every other post we have about then when Overclocked .
This is ocfourms after all
Off the top of my head
Low OC headroom (no OC head room on top their CPUs)
Low ram speed hurting Infinity fabric speeds
Boards bricking
Temp offset
65w parts somehow pulling more or same from the wall as 95w parts
Nvidia driver's on ryzen.
Low IPC even vs 5+ year old Intel chips
Bad ram support
Can't change secondary timings
Lower PCI lanes
Botched and delayed mounting for most coolers
Low 1080p fps (most ppl still use 1080p)
No motherboards available
Not a full product stack at launch
Cold bug

That's all I can think of in this early morning fog of someone who doesn't doesn't​ even own the product.
 
||Console|| said:
People haven't needed to post specific threads because the are in every other post we have about then when Overclocked .
This is ocfourms after all
Off the top of my head
Low OC headroom (no OC head room on top their CPUs)
Low ram speed hurting Infinity fabric speeds
Boards bricking
Temp offset
65w parts somehow pulling more or same from the wall as 95w parts
Nvidia driver's on ryzen.
Low IPC even vs 5+ year old Intel chips
Bad ram support
Can't change secondary timings
Lower PCI lanes
Botched and delayed mounting for most coolers
Low 1080p fps (most ppl still use 1080p)
No motherboards available
Not a full product stack at launch
Cold bug

That's all I can think of in this early morning fog of someone who doesn't doesn't​ even own the product.
Click to expand...

Me either still old school PD and x58 anything is an upgrade really after this. Bench wise that is huge though coming from what you know how kinda slow PD is and IPC so yeah that's groundbreaking in itself. but yeah should lower prices exactly still 3-5+ year old Intels that are faster....People are not gonna buy it when they can go out and get any of the decent i7s and pretty good mobo too and with it possible being a little cheaper. That's Probably still what I would do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dudleycpa
AGESA Update (Microcode Update 1.0.0.4)
Replies
0
Views
566
dudleycpa
dudleycpa
UltraTaco
RTX Titan releasing l8r this month $2,500
Replies
7
Views
862
EarthDog
EarthDog
Lochekey
Vostok V1 Thermal Interface Material
Replies
9
Views
1K
Nebulous
Nebulous
D
Current Output vs Temperature, or why you should keep that board cold
Replies
8
Views
4K
wingman99
W
Max0r
New build, all sorts of choices, and questions -- TLDR alert
Replies
1
Views
543
EarthDog
EarthDog
Back