On ‎12‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 9:03 AM, martin-w said:

At this point, with limited info, I see Ryzen as a competitor to Intel's 6900K as long as it's cheaper. But I don't see it as an alternative for PC gaming enthusiasts, perfectly served by 4 cores, considering Skylake or Kaby lake.

AMD's 1700 or 1700x is almost as fast if not faster in some cases. It's a 4 core chip that runs on 65-95 watts. Plenty of room for higher clocks!

The basic Ryzen arch., is way ahead of old Intel arch. I wouldn't pay $300.00 for a modest increase in performance. If that's the best Intel can do tto bad, they have been raping consumers for too long IMHO.

Best

BaldyB

 

On 12/14/2016 at 9:28 PM, Pete S said:

I was contemplating a new PC build with the I7-6700k as well, but with the release of AMD Ryzen in the first quarter of 2017, I think it would be prudent to wait and see what the new processor will bring to the FS world. Meanwhile my present 1+ year old I7-4790k is still running well and doing the job! 

So even though I am never satisfied with the status quo, I can wait.

There is very little point in moving from the 4790k to a 6700k there is no difference in performance. I'm hoping AMDs new CPUs will force Intel to actually develop a CPU that is worth upgrading to.

I wan't to see how an OC Ryzen 1800X can stack against 7700K OC with an off the shelf water cooler like a Corsair H110  in P3D/X-Plane/DCS etc.

While I'm happy for AMD to step up and provide competition again it's only because Intel got lazy and took their foot off the gas to do minimal development for maximal profit.

Moore's law was killed by capitalism.

 

Intel has begin to drop their prices to counter AMD:

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/56440/intel-rocked-core-over-ryzen-price-drops-begin/index.html

1 hour ago, OmniAtlas said:

Intel has begin to drop their prices to counter AMD:

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/56440/intel-rocked-core-over-ryzen-price-drops-begin/index.html

That's started earlier than a lot of people were perhaps expecting. Really interesting...

Can't wait to see the benchmarks coming through for Ryzen in real tests after the 28th

On ‎12‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 9:03 AM, martin-w said:

Yes but you must consider the context!  Plus 40% compared to what? Compared to the Intel 6 core equivalent, Skylake, Kaby Lake or what? Actually it's none of the aforementioned, the 40% IPC increase is compared to the previous AMD Excavator Core. 

What you say is true except the figure is actually 52%. I am not claiming the Ryzen will beat every Intel chip in single threaded or IPC at this time. I will say I will NOT pay good money for a mediocre increase in performance! That's the statement that started this whole conversation, if memory serves. If you remember I said if it was close, the Ryzen will be the chip to buy/have.

But, remember this. Intels CPU's were upgraded over time. Do you think for a moment the Ryzen will not be, it's its first iteration for gods sakes. It's a newer Arch.,  Intels this or that LAKE is still old generation arch. 

Another reason I dislike Intel! Their best tech is the dollar!

Best BaldyB

 

 

Edited February 26, 20179 yr by BaldyB
http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/patent/intel-and-the-x86-architecture-a-legal-perspective-2

15 hours ago, BaldyB said:

AMD's 1700 or 1700x is almost as fast if not faster in some cases. It's a 4 core chip that runs on 65-95 watts. Plenty of room for higher clocks!

The basic Ryzen arch., is way ahead of old Intel arch. I wouldn't pay $300.00 for a modest increase in performance. If that's the best Intel can do tto bad, they have been raping consumers for too long IMHO.

Best

 

 

Faster multi-core yes. But not as fast as 7700K single core. And at the moment, re the sim and games, it's mostly single core we need. And no, the 1700 and 1700X aren't 4 core, they are 8 core 16 threads. 

Might change in the future yes, but as I say, single is the way to go for most who play games and sim. If you happen to be an individual who needs 8 cores, fair enough, Ryzen sounds like a good bet.

Re XFR that we spoke about earlier. According to Linus Tech Tips it will only boost by an extra 100 MHz above Turbo, even with advanced cooling. Hope it's not true, but sounds like a waste of time.

As for "plenty of overclocking room"... it's 8 cores, it's unlikely therefore to have the thermal headroom for high overclocks lower TDP or not. Don't expect more than 4.5 Ghz from 1800X. Certainly miles away from 7700K's max at 5.2 GHz.

 

Ryzen sounds like a great 8 core competitor Baldy, but I do think you may be getting a bit too carried away. No offence intended.

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

Faster multi-core yes. But not as fast as 7700K single core. And at the moment, re the sim and games, it's mostly single core we need. And no, the 1700 and 1700X aren't 4 core, they are 8 core 16 threads. 

Cores:

AMD Ryzen 7 1700

8/16

16MB

65W

3.0GHz

3.7GHz

N/A

$319

16 minutes ago, BaldyB said:

Cores:

AMD Ryzen 7 1700

8/16

16MB

65W

3.0GHz

3.7GHz

N/A

$319

 

I know... you said 4 cores!

5 hours ago, BaldyB said:

What you say is true except the figure is actually 52%.

 

Again, I know, the post of mine you quoted was an OLD post prior to news conference.

5 hours ago, BaldyB said:

 

But, remember this. Intels CPU's were upgraded over time. Do you think for a moment the Ryzen will not be, it's its first iteration for gods sakes. It's a newer Arch.,  Intels this or that LAKE is still old generation arch. 

 

And yes, we Know, we realise that.

5 hours ago, BaldyB said:

Another reason I dislike Intel! Their best tech is the dollar!

Best BaldyB

 

 

 

Do you think AMD would do the same if they had a monopoly, no realistic competitor, charge a bomb? Of course they would, that's how commerce works. You charge what the market will stand.

Looking at the 1700x it wins in the multi-threaded department, but still below 7700k performance for single thread. 

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-1700-benchmarks-leaked/

 

Would P3D 4.0 be a multi-thread application? 

It would be interesting to see how an overclock 1700 performs. Then you could have the best of both worlds -- great multi-thread performance, and single thread possibly reaching Intels 7700k performance.