It is here!!

[EarthDog]

You keep talking about "negatives"? If there were so many negatives with Ryzen, even first generation than why did Intel go into full panic mode and up their core counts after a decade of stagnancy? Why do Ryzen cpu's have so much mind share and have sold so briskly?

The Ryzen launch was marred with issues. Memory incompatibility was pretty big out of the gate. After updates and such, things improved. Ryzen 2 kept that momentum going and is a great chip for the money without a doubt.

I dont think Intel panicked, but they did respond. I dont like more cores because half the time they are useless anyway. So it's cool, more cores, but this core war is a bit premature. A quad core with ht/smt is plenty for most users, for gaming etc... and will for the next couple of years. Hopefully with additional availability of inexpensive chips software will catch up sooner than later and make the core war worth it.

As far as boards go, one can also use a $150 board for Intel 9900k as well. It's the CPUs only that cost more.

 

[trickson69]

Trickson, Sir, when does countdown start for that startup? Is it after bios screen disappears?

No Sir.
From the second I press the button! It literally only takes the FX8300 20 seconds from button push to boot up fully into windows ready to GO! It takes up to 2 full mins for both Ryzen systems one is a R7 1700 one a R3 1300X! It is very frustrating to. I have done complete Full CLEAN OS installs to! And it still has not change a thing! It is Amazing to me to tell you the truth.

 

[UltraTaco]

Perhaps more accurate indication of boot time is if you start timer when post is complete and windows starts loading. Different motherboard manufacturers and even different settings will affect boot time dramatically. Maybe those ryzens are just configured differently?

On mine, most of the time is consumed by video card initializing and then post sequence and if I enable marvel storage controller, all those "spin up group" take forever.

Try timing systems after post finishes and actual loading of windows begins.

 

[trickson69]

Perhaps more accurate indication of boot time is if you start timer when post is complete and windows starts loading. Different motherboard manufacturers and even different settings will affect boot time dramatically. Maybe those ryzens are just configured differently?

On mine, most of the time is consumed by video card initializing and then post sequence and if I enable marvel storage controller, all those "spin up group" take forever.

Try timing systems after post finishes and actual loading of windows begins.

it would be like 10 seconds or less with FX8300 and 50 seconds to a full minute for the Ryzen systems.
The FX system has a crossfire setup too the Ryzen systems only have ONE video card. I just do not know I am really racking my brains on this one folks. It is very puzzling to me but really the FX8300 is just absolutely the fastest boot system I have and to be honest it is holding up really well at the stuff I do gaming on is is not a problem at all. over 100FPS on all the games I play at 1080P. So I just do not know why the FX system is a fast monster that so many have trashed! I love the FX8300. Yeah it is not a bench marking machine but it will keep up with the new stuff just fine and will do anything Even video editing fast and easy.

 

[EarthDog]

Does AMD have a fast boot option in the bios somewhere? What part takes so long...the POST or the actual boot? Have only the necessary drivers (chipset, network, audio, GPU installed?

 

[chrisjames61]

The Ryzen launch was marred with issues. Memory incompatibility was pretty big out of the gate. After updates and such, things improved. Ryzen 2 kept that momentum going and is a great chip for the money without a doubt.

I dont think Intel panicked, but they did respond. I dont like more cores because half the time they are useless anyway. So it's cool, more cores, but this core war is a bit premature. A quad core with ht/smt is plenty for most users, for gaming etc... and will for the next couple of years. Hopefully with additional availability of inexpensive chips software will catch up sooner than later and make the core war worth it.

As far as boards go, one can also use a $150 board for Intel 9900k as well. It's the CPUs only that cost more.

The Ryzen launch did have issues but they were ironed out nearly two years ago. I think Intel did show signs of more than just responding but things seem to have stabilized for them somewhat. As far as cores being useless many people do more than game and the extra cores help out tremendously in productivity and multitasking etc....

 

[Johan45]

it would be like 10 seconds or less with FX8300 and 50 seconds to a full minute for the Ryzen systems.
The FX system has a crossfire setup too the Ryzen systems only have ONE video card. I just do not know I am really racking my brains on this one folks. It is very puzzling to me but really the FX8300 is just absolutely the fastest boot system I have and to be honest it is holding up really well at the stuff I do gaming on is is not a problem at all. over 100FPS on all the games I play at 1080P. So I just do not know why the FX system is a fast monster that so many have trashed! I love the FX8300. Yeah it is not a bench marking machine but it will keep up with the new stuff just fine and will do anything Even video editing fast and easy.

To answer the slow boot as some have said it could be many things but Ryzen is a bit slower than some, but there are worse. Not sure why your's is taking so long, but BIOS version and RAM used can play a big part. Mine boots from cold to Login in ~ 35 seconds (R52600/CHVI) I also keep fast boot disabled in BIOS and fast start up disabled in Windows.
As for the FX, I know we've been down that road and I have literally had dozens of chips but FX is only fast speed wise as far as data throughput it's slower than the PhenomII was per thread at the same speed. That doesn't mean it's not a capable system because it is. Just saying if you're going to continue pounding your drum about how fast it is we're going to continue saying it's not. No one is trashing it, it's just a reality check.

 

[EarthDog]

The Ryzen launch did have issues but they were ironed out nearly two years ago. I think Intel did show signs of more than just responding but things seem to have stabilized for them somewhat. As far as cores being useless many people do more than game and the extra cores help out tremendously in productivity and multitasking etc....

They are still more finicky with ram and limited in RAM speeds.. just saying it took a few months from launch and multiple agesa updates to mitigate (not resolve - AMD platform is still more finicky than Intel here). Yes, there is more to things than gaming.. absolutely...but not all of those can utilize all cores and threads. This war is just ahead of it's time IMO. If software can use it, there is no doubt more cores and threads should win out (but doesnt every time).

Intel upped its core count because people are generally clueless. Remember when AMD had the faster chips back in the day? AMD changed their naming conventions so they reflected Intel clockspeeds (A64 x2 3800 for example) to help the people discern. Here the people have no clue that for most users, more than 4c/8t is a waste. So....Intel of course responds because it's easier to do this than convince=educate the masses that it really isnt needed for most people.

Anyway, Ryzen changed the landscape and it was desperately needed. It is a more than viable solution for most people and kicked Intel squarely in the pands for price and performance (especially if one can use them). I could just care less about cores (over 6c/12t) on the mainstream platforms for the next couple of years.

Anyaay....a bit OT. Sorry.

 

[trickson69]

Strange as it may seem the one MB I have that don't have the "Fast Boot" option is the X470 MSI MB the others do have that feature but it is completely disabled in both BIOS and windows.
For one Fast Boot really sucks if you want to get into the BIOS and can't boot into windows LOL found out the hard way on that one.....
As for the slow boot time on the new Ryzen 7 1700 I am fine with it and all just seems strange to me. I figure it has to be the RAM, It is the slowest stuff there is only runs at 1066MHz plus the chips are not a matched set.
In fact I am willing to bet it is the RAM and will be picking up some of the fastest RAM I can for this MB (Just like I did for the FX system) as soon as I can.

See on the FX platform I MAXED everything out, The MB has the fastest rated CPU and RAM in it that it can handle (according to the specks). I is also running crossfire and blue ray. It is maxed out on every level. and I do believe that is why my FX8300 is so FAST! And YES I will continue to say it is fast as I am still getting over 100FPS in GAMES at 1080p! You can mock me and keep saying that the FX8300 is not fast but it really is!

And FYI for all the "Flaws" Ryzen does have, It is still giving Intel's Over Priced Over cored options a hell-of-A run for the MONEY! Way to GO AMD!
It has been a long time since I have seen my AMD system taking Intel out for lunch.

 

[EarthDog]

Its fast compared to things slower than it... not fast compared to cpus that were years and generations older which it was slower against. It worked well enough for your uses is more accurate than calling any bulldozer fast. I mean cold molasses is fast compared to cold tar....but that doesnt suddenly make either of them fast.

When an Intel CPU of the time could run 150 fps with the same hardware... maybe some perspective is put in place on what is fast.

IRS a losing battle trickson... move on!

 

[trickson69]

Its fast compared to things slower than it... not fast compared to cpus that were years and generations older which it was slower against. It worked well enough for your uses is more accurate than calling any bulldozer fast. I mean cold molasses is fast compared to cold tar....but that doesnt suddenly make either of them fast.

When an Intel CPU of the time could run 150 fps with the same hardware... maybe some perspective is put in place on what is fast.

IRS a losing battle trickson... move on!

LOL good one.

Yet still holding that 100+ FPS in games? SO???? Good gaming Rig! No wait FAST gaming rig!

Oh and PS the FX8300 literally was just a spontaneous "Low budget build" Free MB case and PSU so why not? It totally cost like 200 bucks in the end CPU and RAM Oh and 40 bucks for the 2 HD6790 video cards. Just a fun build I knew all about the FX CPU I am not a moron though you think that, Though I am an Idiot. I Thank You sir!

 

[EarthDog]

You do t have to justify your purchase... we get it.

But put some perspective on it is all we are saying. Fast enough may not actually be fast!

 

[trickson69]

You do t have to justify your purchase... we get it.

But put some perspective on it is all we are saying. Fast enough may not actually be fast!

I do have perspective on it, I wouldn't be advocating for some one to build a new computer with an FX CPU.

Ryzen 7 yes!

Just make sure you get the best possible RAM for it. And if you plan to OC get some straight-up KILLER cooling these things are A blast furnace! OMG!

 

[Johan45]

I do have perspective on it, I wouldn't be advocating for some one to build a new computer with an FX CPU.

Ryzen 7 yes!

Just make sure you get the best possible RAM for it. And if you plan to OC get some straight-up KILLER cooling these things are A blast furnace! OMG!

And it's statements like this that make us counter you. Ryzen7 is NOT a blast furnce, doubly so when compared to your FX 8300. Just because a CPU runs hotter doesn't mean it puts out more heat (TDP), these CPUs use a different process and will run fine for years at 85C and they will also run on their stock coolers. TBH most of them could be maxed out OC wise on a $30 Hyper 212, what you said I consider mis-information and needs to be corrected so other readers don't get the wrong idea.

 

[EarthDog]

One of my analogies for heat for clearing things like this up...

Which is hotter? A lighter with a yellow flame or a bonfire with all yellow flames? The answer? The same temp. But clearly a bonfire has more energy behind it than a lighter, even at the same temperature. With CPUs, this is the same concept.

 

[UltraTaco]

I am lost, so is the FX more energy? Or hotter?

 

[trickson69]

I am lost, so is the FX more energy? Or hotter?

LOL right?

I am getting this for the R7 1700 MSI X470 System.
https://www.gskill.com/en/press/view/g-skill-releases-amd-compatible-trident-z-rgb-kits

To be more specific the G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3000.
This should give it a better boost over the current offering of 1066MHz.

 

[Johan45]

I am lost, so is the FX more energy? Or hotter?

The FX is such a hot, power demanding CPU that there were only a handful of motherboards that had the power section capable of properly overclocking it at launch and for a couple of years that didn't change. Some boards were dying as a result and most of them hrottled so much they were unusable. They also required very high end cooling if you intended to OC. The CPU will easily hit 5.0GHz if you can keep it cool, even harder when the max temp for them is 60° C which really restricts your headroom. Most successful attemts were using s 360 rad to keep the thermals under control. So a high-end motherboard and big cooling if you wanted a maximum overclock while pulling 500 W system from the wall.
Ryzen simply doesn'y have that problem. They are much more efficient and don't need nearly the same amout of power to overclock, most because the OC headroom is quite limited for the "X" CPUs it's typically the boost clock with all cores that's you OC headroom. When stress testing a Ryzen you'll be lucky to pull 300 W from the wall. All the extra power the FX takes (200W) turns right into extra heat to get rid of.

 

[The Coolest]

@UltraTaco

It's both.

 

[trents]

I am lost, so is the FX more energy? Or hotter?

Temperature and heat are actually two different quantities. A device can be running at a higher temperature than another device but making less heat. The blue cone part of an oxyacetylene torch flame has a temperature of over 3000 C. But it won't even come close to heating a room like a baseboard heater will that runs at a much lower temperature. Temperature is a measure of the intensity of heat, not the amount of it.