NewMaxx wrote on Mar 4, 2017, 15:38:

Dev wrote on Mar 4, 2017, 09:37:
I'm in a similar boat. BUT, fortunately I found out there's a PCIE bus adapter that you can use m.2 drives with, with zero loss in performance (since there's no controller chip slowing things, just a direct bus interface).
So I'm looking at putting the Samsung 960 pro or evo into my older system.
Note: Only thing you miss out on is BOOTING to the m.2 (since it's mobo support that's needed). However, you can work around that, including by sticking a usb boot sector on a thumbdrive into a USB port that then boots the m.2

All true, just keep in mind there are different kinds of M.2 cards and slot types. For the drives you want to make sure to get NVME over SATA as you don't get the benefits of avoiding a SATA controller otherwise (higher sequential speeds, much higher I/O operations, lower latencies, less CPU overhead, etc). The two you mention are NVME, I'm just pointing that out for other people. Of course, NVME drives are expensive as hell, with Intel's 600p being the cheapest but not very great. Keep in mind M.2 drives have the tendency to overheat and will throttle when they do so - so consider your cooling situation with regard to the PCI-e slot.

Yeah, I know, get the NVME version of m.2 otherwise it's pointless, the whole confusing bit about m.2 only being a physical form factor. Avoiding anything that says SATA m.2
Anyway, that's specifically why I mentioned samsung 960 pro or evo. And although you say they are expensive, they really aren't too bad unless you want top of the line. Samsung 960 evo 512gb is only $250 or so, or 250gb for $130

CJ_Parker wrote on Mar 3, 2017, 16:56:

That's right and let's also consider that multithreaded programming is extremely complex.

...

X370 isn't a very convincing chipset and it's certainly not one to last several years.

I like to describe multi-threading to people as going "wide" vs. "tall" (a la Civilization city strategies). There are benefits to both so it depends on what you're doing but, ultimately, going "wide" is less efficient somewhere along the line. The reason we don't have very few cores without HT at high clock rates is because of the physics - and a lot of people don't understand that. However, we've hit the wall for 4/8, so I do think moving forward 6/12 and 8/16 will be more compelling - but probably not until 10nm.

The chipset is relatively overpriced and underwhelming for what it is; but, hey, you're designing a board that can handle everything from a 4/4 to a 8/16. Certainly I think some of the income will be coming from the motherboard sales. Compare it to a nice X99 with a 6-core...yeah...hell compare it to a decent Z170 (I paid $114.99 for mine after rebate - with dual M.2 slots, ALC1150, etc.). It's just simply satisfactory; no more, no less.

Simon Says wrote on Mar 3, 2017, 16:37:
Well... this explains a lot... Botched rushed release... I'll wait until these issues are fixed then take a look at it again, still, if these are true, its a BIG BLUNDER on AMD's part.

AMD has the intention of fixing many of the problems by the time R5 comes out but I don't expect a fully mature product until the refresh. That being said, the 6/12 chips should be excellent, but IMHO the 4/8 chips will be underwhelming due to the halving of cache because of how they designed this chip (heavier reliance on cache to compensate for lower memory performance). Of course, less die space given to cache has its benefits in TDP and overclocking, but it also means they can be looser with binning, so I don't see it (4/8) as a compelling product. Nevertheless on the whole I see Ryzen as a pretty solid undertaking, not a blunder by any means.

Dev wrote on Mar 4, 2017, 09:37:
I'm in a similar boat. BUT, fortunately I found out there's a PCIE bus adapter that you can use m.2 drives with, with zero loss in performance (since there's no controller chip slowing things, just a direct bus interface).
So I'm looking at putting the Samsung 960 pro or evo into my older system.
Note: Only thing you miss out on is BOOTING to the m.2 (since it's mobo support that's needed). However, you can work around that, including by sticking a usb boot sector on a thumbdrive into a USB port that then boots the m.2

All true, just keep in mind there are different kinds of M.2 cards and slot types. For the drives you want to make sure to get NVME over SATA as you don't get the benefits of avoiding a SATA controller otherwise (higher sequential speeds, much higher I/O operations, lower latencies, less CPU overhead, etc). The two you mention are NVME, I'm just pointing that out for other people. Of course, NVME drives are expensive as hell, with Intel's 600p being the cheapest but not very great. Keep in mind M.2 drives have the tendency to overheat and will throttle when they do so - so consider your cooling situation with regard to the PCI-e slot.

Dev wrote on Mar 4, 2017, 09:49:
Microcenter sells CPUs at a loss figuring they are drawing you in to buy the other parts there, which is why they don't sell them online at that price.
But if you are near one, you are set!

Yes, that's true, I mention that in another one of my posts. Keep in mind you can get the cost down (online) to that with intelligent buying via combo deals, promo codes, and rebates. I picked up my 6700K over Black Friday for $299 (when Microcenter had it for $259, along with $30 off a motherboard combination) with a $129 motherboard; however, there was a $22 combo, a $15 rebate on the motherboard, and $25 off with a VCO promotion. So I ended up paying $367 which still beat the Microcenter combo, AND I didn't have to pay tax.

(P.S. I paid $123 for 32GB of DDR4 then, too, thanks to a 5% mobile coupon and a 16GB RAM kit on sale for $64.99 - again no tax, and MC couldn't match that; voila, <$500 total)

NewMaxx wrote on Mar 2, 2017, 12:52:

Agent-Zero wrote on Mar 2, 2017, 10:55:
the real question for gamers is how the $259 6-core will compare to the $300 i5 model

The 7600K is $199 at Microcenter right now, was $219 at Fry's, and has been relegated to $239 status at Amazon (going down during sales). Not sure where you get the $300 figure.

Microcenter sells CPUs at a loss figuring they are drawing you in to buy the other parts there, which is why they don't sell them online at that price.
But if you are near one, you are set!

ForgedReality wrote on Mar 2, 2017, 12:08:
Mine is older. i7 980x @ 4.6ghz. No issues here or really reasons to upgrade. Doing so would require a whole new build. Really the only thing I'd look forward to in that is an m.2 drive, which are pretty damn sweet.

I'm in a similar boat. BUT, fortunately I found out there's a PCIE bus adapter that you can use m.2 drives with, with zero loss in performance (since there's no controller chip slowing things, just a direct bus interface).
So I'm looking at putting the Samsung 960 pro or evo into my older system.
Note: Only thing you miss out on is BOOTING to the m.2 (since it's mobo support that's needed). However, you can work around that, including by sticking a usb boot sector on a thumbdrive into a USB port that then boots the m.2

This comment was edited on Mar 4, 2017, 09:55.

Simon Says wrote on Mar 3, 2017, 16:37:
"The most obvious culprits are:
Motherboard UEFI/bios. Some reviewers mention a newer bios improve perf by a massive 25%. Computerbase mentioned that as well, and I trust those guys.
RAM usually does not have a major impact in most games. Like 2400 vs 2933, hardly any difference. Though some games like Fallout 4, do scale.
The other culprit that was confirmed by AMD reps & some reviewers, Windows Power management needs to be set on High Performance, not the default Balanced. On Balanced, Windows manages Ryzen's SenseMI and it does a bad job at it. On High Perf, Ryzen manages itself and performance uplift was quoted at 5-15%. Since reviewers don't mention their Power settings with windows, we don't know their setting. The ones that do mention they run on High Perf mode, like Joker & HardwareUnboxed, their results are very good overall.
There's also reports of Windows not knowing how to handle core parking with Ryzen yet, due to the 2x CCX (each 4 core) design, thread jumping from 1 CCX to the other has a heavy performance penalty. Basically, windows should not do that, keep everything within a CCX only. A windows update is needed to fix this."

Well... this explains a lot... Botched rushed release... I'll wait until these issues are fixed then take a look at it again, still, if these are true, its a BIG BLUNDER on AMD's part.

Aida64 has already said that the benchmarked memory and L1 latencies are "correct" after AMD claimed they were not. And Computerbase showed performance problems in Photoshop.. which indicates memory performance problems. (PS does not scale per cores, it scales by memory speed)

Beamer wrote on Mar 3, 2017, 12:42:
Ryzen is arguably more future-proof, as multithreaded programs are becoming more and more common, but it will still be years before that really matters in the majority of games, long enough that I don't see being an early adopter worthwhile.

That's right and let's also consider that multithreaded programming is extremely complex. It requires programmers with the required skill set and also considerable budget (both monetary and time) investments. Publishers will only fund this if it also aids the console versions and if it is absolutely necessary. They won't fund this for a decent PC port. We can't even have customizable controls in many PC games so forget about anything fancy like better multicore support.

Then there is also the chipset limitations of the current gen. X370 isn't a very convincing chipset and it's certainly not one to last several years. PCIe 4.0 is already on the horizon and there is an ever growing demand for PCIe lanes due to ultra fast m.2 SSDs etc.
X370 is already kinda choked in that regard and definitely not "future-proof".

If anyone really needs the multicore capabilities of Ryzen right now, sure go ahead and get one, but it would be sort of foolish to believe that it will last for years or be "future-proof". There'll be much faster GPUs coming up in the next couple of years and you're going to want PCIe 4.0 plus shitloads of lanes to properly accommodate your (hopefully soon 10+) GBit LAN, your fast SSDs, your USB 3.1 etc. etc.

Quote: "The most obvious culprits are:
Motherboard UEFI/bios. Some reviewers mention a newer bios improve perf by a massive 25%. Computerbase mentioned that as well, and I trust those guys.
RAM usually does not have a major impact in most games. Like 2400 vs 2933, hardly any difference. Though some games like Fallout 4, do scale.
The other culprit that was confirmed by AMD reps & some reviewers, Windows Power management needs to be set on High Performance, not the default Balanced. On Balanced, Windows manages Ryzen's SenseMI and it does a bad job at it. On High Perf, Ryzen manages itself and performance uplift was quoted at 5-15%. Since reviewers don't mention their Power settings with windows, we don't know their setting. The ones that do mention they run on High Perf mode, like Joker & HardwareUnboxed, their results are very good overall.
There's also reports of Windows not knowing how to handle core parking with Ryzen yet, due to the 2x CCX (each 4 core) design, thread jumping from 1 CCX to the other has a heavy performance penalty. Basically, windows should not do that, keep everything within a CCX only. A windows update is needed to fix this."

Well... this explains a lot... Botched rushed release... I'll wait until these issues are fixed then take a look at it again, still, if these are true, its a BIG BLUNDER on AMD's part.

El Pit wrote on Mar 3, 2017, 12:20:

Verno wrote on Mar 3, 2017, 08:44:
The gaming performance issues I'm seeing across all reviews are frankly disappointing. It seems like they're still not close enough on IPC. I have an Intel platform already and this isn't enough to make me upgrade, I guess I'll see how optimization comes along over the next few years.

That is how I understood most reviews, too. Ryzen is alright for gaming, but not in the same class with intel cpus. When it comes to content streaming and production, Ryzen is the cpu to buy.

This means that my i5 3570k will have to do for another year. Let us see what 2018 (Zen2 and REALLY new intel cpus) will bring. I am in no hurry.

Yeah, I'm shocked this is controversial here. If you care about gaming and general internet/productivity, then Intel is the way to go. If you spend any time doing content creation or more intense productivity than Office, Ryzen is a good choice.

Ryzen is arguably more future-proof, as multithreaded programs are becoming more and more common, but it will still be years before that really matters in the majority of games, long enough that I don't see being an early adopter worthwhile. But Ryzen isn't a bad choice by any means, and this is the first iteration - it's clearly a good foundation to build a future on.

I built my PC a year ago, and actually really skimped on the processor, but I also run at 1080p so it's been able to take all I can throw at it. I'll probably build a new one in 3 years, 4 max. Wouldn't be surprised if I go back to AMD for the first time since 2001ish (also wouldn't be surprised if I don't.)

Verno wrote on Mar 3, 2017, 08:44:
The gaming performance issues I'm seeing across all reviews are frankly disappointing. It seems like they're still not close enough on IPC. I have an Intel platform already and this isn't enough to make me upgrade, I guess I'll see how optimization comes along over the next few years.

That is how I understood most reviews, too. Ryzen is alright for gaming, but not in the same class with intel cpus. When it comes to content streaming and production, Ryzen is the cpu to buy.

This means that my i5 3570k will have to do for another year. Let us see what 2018 (Zen2 and REALLY new intel cpus) will bring. I am in no hurry.

The gaming performance issues I'm seeing across all reviews are frankly disappointing. It seems like they're still not close enough on IPC. I have an Intel platform already and this isn't enough to make me upgrade, I guess I'll see how optimization comes along over the next few years.

Ozmodan wrote on Mar 3, 2017, 07:23:
Well I was in Microcenter yesterday and they had two systems side by side, both identical except for processors, neither overclocked. One a 1800x the other an I7-770k. Tried both, there was no difference in gameplay at all, in fact the AMD actually seemed a bit faster in spots. If you open a bunch of other apps the Intel systems became slower significantly. I usually have 4 or 5 other apps running even when gaming. So for me the AMD just owns the Intel I7 in this scenario.

I just do not overclock anymore. It is just a good way to ruin your computer. I build a lot of systems for people and have seen more people burn up their system overclocking them even water cooled rigs.

I appreciate your subjective viewpoint. It's surprisingly relevant when you're choosing a component.

As far as overclocking is concerned, you've touched a nerve for me. The vast majority of people (including review sites) don't know how to overclock. I'll give an example of a PC I built two years ago for a friend. 4690K, moderate air cooling ($40 range). I pushed the voltage and speed as far as it would go until it hit my limits - <90C with newest Prime95 (AVX) on Blend and Small, and once it passed 12 hours of those I dropped it a multiplier (100 MHz) and left it there. Ended up being 4.4 GHz at 1.185V - fantastic results, infinitely stable, no potential damage with 10 years of running.

The problem is you have people saying, for example, a 6700K can do 4.8 on good air with such and such voltage (let's say 1.4V), and they tell you NOT to test with AVX Prime because it "kills CPUs and is no longer relevant." These guys drop 1k+ a year on computers and have a new CPU before your head can finish spinning. You follow this line and you end up with a charred failure after 1-2 years because you hit throttling temps when x264 encoding a few months after you got it. I've actually, literally, seen pros say that "just use it in your system until it BSODs" as a stability test. These are the people who are ruining overclocking.

Don't listen to them. They're full of shit. Keep your voltage low, temps low, and pass the hardest test under the sun, then drop another 100 MHz from there to be on the safe side. You'll be fine. P.S., for Ryzen 8/16, that means <4.0 most likely.

HorrorScope wrote on Mar 2, 2017, 14:46:

Ozmodan wrote on Mar 2, 2017, 14:20:
All the naysayers crack me up.

Intel still wins the single threaded battle, but not by any significant margin and single threaded is a rare occasion any more.

I wont argue with the cores, there are places that it will shine. In my case I'm not to concerned, satisfied with the performance I get in those apps, totally game focused here. But what is your rebuttal to techspots benches? It is substantial.

Others mentioning older process like my one i7, there is still a nice leap going to say a 7700k. I know many people down play procs but how do we explain results that show procs can matter? I'm 90% sure I'm waiting still though...

Well I was in Microcenter yesterday and they had two systems side by side, both identical except for processors, neither overclocked. One a 1800x the other an I7-770k. Tried both, there was no difference in gameplay at all, in fact the AMD actually seemed a bit faster in spots. If you open a bunch of other apps the Intel systems became slower significantly. I usually have 4 or 5 other apps running even when gaming. So for me the AMD just owns the Intel I7 in this scenario.

I just do not overclock anymore. It is just a good way to ruin your computer. I build a lot of systems for people and have seen more people burn up their system overclocking them even water cooled rigs.

As much as I enjoy seeing a troll get trolled... this new AMD chip is pretty great by any metric. I've been thinking about a 6900K for a while, and Ryzen solves that dilemma.

Agent-Zero wrote on Mar 3, 2017, 02:39:
still jerking off to your imagination

dude i dont fucking care about your little cheerleader routine.. i dont care which chip is in my machine, or what name is on it

do you know how to read? fucking get this through your tiny little retard brain

You misunderstood. I care for you because each benchmark is such a bitter pill for you to swallow. Reality is hard for you right now. Take care, bud, hard times for you (especially if people read what you wrote about Ryzen in other threads before its release). Keep pulling through, and I feel you are holding back here. Don't - tell us how you really feel. It might help, you know.

Okay, okay, I'll stop right here. Don't want you to die because of a heart attack.

El Pit wrote on Mar 3, 2017, 01:39:

Agent-Zero wrote on Mar 2, 2017, 18:31:
i have no idea what this means

but whatever it means, im sure it wont stop you from jerking off to pictures of intel chips

whatever floats your boat, dude.. go for it

I understand your reaction. A bad day for you. Truth hurts, and you weren't prepared for so much pain. Everything you said/promised in other threads has now been proven to be "alternative facts". Sad, but it's alright, there will be better days.

And there are already better gaming cpus by "some other company", you know?

still jerking off to your imagination

dude i dont fucking care about your little cheerleader routine.. i dont care which chip is in my machine, or what name is on it

do you know how to read? fucking get this through your tiny little retard brain

Agent-Zero wrote on Mar 2, 2017, 18:31:
i have no idea what this means

but whatever it means, im sure it wont stop you from jerking off to pictures of intel chips

whatever floats your boat, dude.. go for it

I understand your reaction. A bad day for you. Truth hurts, and you weren't prepared for so much pain. Everything you said/promised in other threads has now been proven to be "alternative facts". Sad, but it's alright, there will be better days.

And there are already better gaming cpus by "some other company", you know?

Slick wrote on Mar 3, 2017, 01:14:
So the 65w part can draw up to the same limits as the 95w parts? I believe this is around 120w?

It's weird calling it a 65w part, other than it's just underclocked out of the box...

I am interested in power draw, would like to know if the 1700 and the 1700x draw the same power if they're both OC'd to 4ghz, also that 4ghz is indeed achievable with proper cooling on a 1700

Intel and AMD have always determined TDP differently but even then thermal is different than power. Power can definitely spike beyond 120W, in fact the "levels" tend to be ~140W and ~200W since the motherboard's design is also important. All else being equal, yes, a 65W design has similar limits to a 95W design. However there's binning (quality of the silicon) and efficiency (higher voltage allows higher clocks without noise, higher voltage means more heat, more heat reduces efficiency), so you have diminishing returns on top of the SKUs (tiers). There's a ton of reasons to have different SKUs that I won't go into here, but evidence is that the 6/12 chips will have the same cache layout as the 8/16, which means higher TDP per core relative to clock but higher performance relative to that ratio.

An average 1700 will probably be binned lower and require higher voltage (and more power, plus heat) than a 1700X to hit the same speeds, but the diminishing returns on a 8/16 chip means that the 1700X and 1800X don't offer a whole lot more. This is due to the fact that the more cores you have, the more severe a penalty you have for increasing clocks. You can see this exhibited in mobile design (where you have lower raw clock speeds and often a configuration with separate "fast" and "slow" cores). I could go on but, anyway, from an overclocking and value standpoint, the 1700 is the way to go. Unless you're talking the R5 6/12 cores; that's a different story.

This comment was edited on Mar 3, 2017, 01:44.