AMD Ryzen 1700 Emulation Testing...

[mvsfan]

I dont care for intel at all. I dont like their so called business practices nor do i like their prices. And... theyve basically been trying to kill off AMD for a long time, wich would basically be the worst thing for the pc industry i can think of.

Think intels prices are bad now? wait until their is no more amd.

Ive ran AMD chips for about 20 years now, even during that long period when the other guys stuff was faster.

And i agree with others here whove said Ryzen has a lot of room for improvement.

[Josh128]

My PC history:

1) 1998 Bought a Gateway PII 350MHz, 64MB RAM, 10GB HD, STB Velocity built in graphics (trash for 3D games) 2x (!) CD-writer! Later add a first then a second SLI Voodoo2 card.

2.)2002 Built a AMD Athlon XP 2000 PC, 40GB HD, Geforce 3, 512MB RAM, DVD-writer

3.)2004 Converted my PC to Athlon 64 3000+ (Wanted 64Bit compatibility).

4.)2008 Converted my PC to Core 2 Duo E8400, 2GB RAM, was light years faster than Athlon 64.

5.)2016 Converted to Core i5 2500 after the E8400 went caput, struggled with mobo issues for a year and a half or so. I was given a couple free i5 2500 systems in mini cases, so purchased a used ATX mobo from Ebay.

6.) Converted same old box from 2002 ( ) to new Ryzen R7 1700 system, 8G RAM, AMD R9 285, SSD BluRay writer.

*EDIT - Wow! I just realized my Newegg account still shows all the parts from my very first system build back in 2002! Unlike Ebay they apparently keep all the old records! Pretty cool to see all the parts from back then.

[gray117]

Intel is arrogant over pricing but they've been the only ones with a good roadmap and bug support. Amd have been appalling over their attitude to bugs, and their development has been to hell and back nearly a decade - bulldozer was a disaster - ryzen, despite the promise, and impressive outlook, has still had a shakey start, is still a little questionable on power usage, and the company attitude is not great... Yes, they've had thier bugs, but intel's consistency, and responsiveness has been incredibly valuable and they've been rewarded for it, especially at an enterprise level.

Both have had their shadey misdirections, and disputes, but neither are blameless, and despite some bruised egos it's pretty much kisses at dawn compared to other business sectors...

If amd can retain a decent, consistent, and progressive product line the fight will really be on. The trick will be edging into enterprise level computing and bringing back the benefits developed in supporting that to desktop consumers - aside from the raw price points, which obviously help profitability, it's the continuous development led by that sector that's the real boon to current x86 computing... and also possible competitors to it... but that's probably a theoretical aside

All this being said, for a regular enthusiast desktop, it looks like you're going to be hard pressed not to choose ryzen this year...

[Udderdude]

ryzen ... has still had a shakey start

It's a brand new architecture launch. There are always issues that pop up. It's actually been pretty smooth all things considered. A month later and most of the issues have already been ironed out, patches and updates are arriving to improve performance, etc.

is still a little questionable on power usage

Where are you getting this from? Ryzen is very power efficient. It was actually designed as a server/workstation architecture first and foremost. Their 8 core 16 thread CPU runs at 95 watts.

[gray117]

ryzen ... has still had a shakey start

It's a brand new architecture launch. There are always issues that pop up. It's actually been pretty smooth all things considered. A month later and most of the issues have already been ironed out, patches and updates are arriving to improve performance, etc.

is still a little questionable on power usage

Where are you getting this from? Ryzen is very power efficient. It was actually designed as a server/workstation architecture first and foremost. Their 8 core 16 thread CPU runs at 95 watts.

Sure there's always issues but amd have not been very re-active, apart from effectively saying 'nothing to see here' ... which is really not the kind of accountability developers look for. What with consumer motherboard manufacturers being caught out on ryzen, none of this emboldens confidence publicly on how the company works with partners. And we've heard relatively little on naples other that it seems to currently top out on 2 processor systems (which isn't still isn't shabby if they hit the 32c/64t versions soon, but re-ignitees some stability/scaling fears). ...And I honestly don't know that ryzen has evolved from server architecture... The next few iterations on the maturation of both ryzen and naples will really be the evidence on how (well) that relationship works.

The real question mark bridgeing these two issues that whilst ryzen seems very good on power consumption at these performance desktop levels, we've not seen how it scales either up or down particularly at slightly lower clock levels. At the higher end they really should be getting out in front of release with firm specifications to assuage doubters and aid in forecasting/buy-in... maybe they're waiting to really blow everyone out of the water once it's nailed down. But at the moment no one (*seems*) to know. At the lower end there is speculation that it does not scale well - which might prevent zen range from expanding to lesser product ranges. Maybe important system/manufactures are more in the know, but there's just so little firm info about. Perhaps amd are just steadying their roll. Who knows. Does this effect their ability to support and develop across many product ranges? Who knows. Perhaps they'll narrow their scope (I kind of hope they do).

Don't take any of this to be a real detraction; I think amd are great. They are a fascinating force. It's just from a longevity perspective they've yet to really prove to be as dependable ... and their capacity could be challenged... so whilst the promise is great, that doesn't immediately make them golden vs. intel. But it certainly seems like it's going to be a good fight these next couple of years.

[Josh128]

ryzen ... has still had a shakey start

It's a brand new architecture launch. There are always issues that pop up. It's actually been pretty smooth all things considered. A month later and most of the issues have already been ironed out, patches and updates are arriving to improve performance, etc.

is still a little questionable on power usage

Where are you getting this from? Ryzen is very power efficient. It was actually designed as a server/workstation architecture first and foremost. Their 8 core 16 thread CPU runs at 95 watts.

Sure there's always issues but amd have not been very re-active, apart from effectively saying 'nothing to see here' ... which is really not the kind of accountability developers look for. What with consumer motherboard manufacturers being caught out on ryzen, none of this emboldens confidence publicly on how the company works with partners. And we've heard relatively little on naples other that it seems to currently top out on 2 processor systems (which isn't still isn't shabby if they hit the 32c/64t versions soon, but re-ignitees some stability/scaling fears). ...And I honestly don't know that ryzen has evolved from server architecture... The next few iterations on the maturation of both ryzen and naples will really be the evidence on how (well) that relationship works.

The real question mark bridgeing these two issues that whilst ryzen seems very good on power consumption at these performance desktop levels, we've not seen how it scales either up or down particularly at slightly lower clock levels. At the higher end they really should be getting out in front of release with firm specifications to assuage doubters and aid in forecasting/buy-in... maybe they're waiting to really blow everyone out of the water once it's nailed down. But at the moment no one (*seems*) to know. At the lower end there is speculation that it does not scale well - which might prevent zen range from expanding to lesser product ranges. Maybe important system/manufactures are more in the know, but there's just so little firm info about. Perhaps amd are just steadying their roll. Who knows. Does this effect their ability to support and develop across many product ranges? Who knows. Perhaps they'll narrow their scope (I kind of hope they do).

Don't take any of this to be a real detraction; I think amd are great. They are a fascinating force. It's just from a longevity perspective they've yet to really prove to be as dependable ... and their capacity could be challenged... so whilst the promise is great, that doesn't immediately make them golden vs. intel. But it certainly seems like it's going to be a good fight these next couple of years.

Actually the 1700 is a 8 core 65 watt part, while the 1700X and 1800X are 95 watts. AMD's Head of CPU Division Don Woligrowski have recently made claims that performance/watt gets even more impressive as you go down in power/speed.

4. In a lot of ways the Zen architecture gets more impressive as you provide less power. I can't comment on unannounced laptop parts, but there are great things coming!

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/id- ... age-3.html

Also, I was recently able to try one of the functions that gave me the extra "push" to go with an R7 rather than an R5, video rendering for creating DVDs and Blu Rays (mostly converting home video type stuff). A run with PowerDirector 12 gave an impressive 97% to 99% CPU utilization, putting those 16 threads through their paces! Awesome increase in rendering speed compared to my old i5.

[Josh128]

New CPU-Z version gimps Ryzen performance in comparison to Intel-- developer claims Ryzen was "too efficient" at executing a particular instruction in the benchmark and so decided to change the entire benchmark. LOL could they be any more transparent? This is the kind of stuff that happens when you challenge a company like Intel. Sadly, this is the type of shady, monopolizing behavior you support when you buy strictly Intel. They are well known for strong-arming hardware vendors and software companies in the past.

F%&k Intel.

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/new-cp ... mance.html

[Udderdude]

We reviewed many software and synthetics benchmarks without being able to find a single case where such a performance boost occurs. We're now convinced that this special case is very unlikely to happen in real-world applications.

So basically, because nobody has optimized for Ryzen, it doesn't exist in real software yet .. so let's pretend it doesn't exist. Excellent logic there, guys.

[Josh128]

^^

Pretty much this...

[Udderdude]

Don't really want to turn this into a "General PC hardware" thread but not sure where else to post it (Maybe a PC hardware thread would be a good idea?) Anyway, AMD's 16 core 32 thread HEDT CPUs were seen in the wild.

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-16-12-cor ... us-leaked/

If you know how expensive Intel's HEDT platforms are, you'll definitely see this as a welcome change. I can see them selling their 16 core CPU for $1200 and still undercutting Intel.

Edit: More stuff revealed http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-16-core-t ... 94-socket/

[Josh128]

Just saw the new "Threadripper" post on WCCFTECH right before seeing your post. Strange name for the new chip but good for AMD. It appears Intel is hitting back with their SkylakeX lineup, which boast some impressive clock speeds but less PCI lanes, RAM speed. It would be impressive if AMD takes the overall CPU crown from Intel this year-- Intels 12 core will be a beast, but with 16 cores/32 threads, the "Threadripper" may well make it happen. It should double my score of 1389 shown below, possibly even a bit more as they are showing a 3.1GHz base clock, while my 1700 is 3.0GHz...

Heres some Cinebench R15 scores from my 1700...

[Udderdude]

If it's anything like AMD's $500 1800X vs Intel's $1000 i7-6900K, nobody's even going to bat an eyelash at Intel's platform.

The clockspeed on the 12 core Intel CPU will be higher than the 16 core AMD CPU by 0.1 GHz at the most. No-one is buying HEDT for clockspeed anyway, lol.

[DMoney]

So are the Ryzen chips worth it? Intel just costs too damn much imo.

[Udderdude]

So are the Ryzen chips worth it? Intel just costs too damn much imo.

If you want to go cheaper than Intel's i7 and still get a good product I'd suggest either the 1600 or 1600X. 1500X if you're on a really small budget.

[BONKERS]

So are the Ryzen chips worth it? Intel just costs too damn much imo.

If you want to go cheaper than Intel's i7 and still get a good product I'd suggest either the 1600 or 1600X. 1500X if you're on a really small budget.

The Ryzen 5 chips are worth their money in value per performance alone. The 7 chips are another story.
They are grossly overpriced for gaming when comparably priced Intel CPUs do better with less cores.

[Udderdude]

They just dropped prices on the Ryzen 7 lineup but yeah, generally Ryzen 7 is only worth it if you're gonna use all those cores.

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/2 ... ipper-cpus