Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

AMD Ryzen CPUs (Zen) Show Very Strong Performance

1235710

Comments

  • Viper482Viper482 Member LegendaryPosts: 4,063
    So when will the global warming crowd catch on that it is AMD cpus that are the real culprit destroying the Earth? These new cpus might give the sun some competition.
    Make MMORPG's Great Again!
  • krulerkruler Member UncommonPosts: 589
    Intel versus AMD is soooooo like 1990,s isn't it over yet, my zx81 is still rocking the house and its CPU benchmarks are like, well actually they are a benchmark where it corroded away and stained my bench. 


  • kitaradkitarad Member LegendaryPosts: 7,896
    Viper482 said:
    So when will the global warming crowd catch on that it is AMD cpus that are the real culprit destroying the Earth? These new cpus might give the sun some competition.
    Are they that hot? So the new ones are also hot, I recall their graphic cards were also producing more heat.

  • DakeruDakeru Member EpicPosts: 3,802
    Dakeru said:
    filmoret said:
    Dakeru said:
    Oh come on man.. ban evading? Really?
    You and filmoret should have quit this nonsense long ago.
    Thanks for bringing me into something I'm not involved with.  Now its time for you to stop.
    I laughed so incredibly hard.
    Second best moment on Valentine's Day for me.

    What was the first?  Getting a new hat for your tarutaru?  j/k
    Plane with the girlfriend on board landing in a few hours.
    Harbinger of Fools
  • OzmodanOzmodan Member EpicPosts: 9,726
    I have built a lot of systems for people and have put just as many AMD systems together as Intel.  And I have had far more problems with Intel systems than the AMD ones.   I was over at a friends this weekend who had an older AMD 4 core system and their kids were playing all the current PC games(major GPU upgrade of course) with no issues.

    Personally I never bought into the I7 hoopla and run an overclocked I5 and again I have no issues.  

    Benchmarks do not translate into real world use that much.

    If the AMD cpu's even come close to the Intel cpu's in performance, I will just start building all my systems with AMD's unless otherwise requested.  I have never built any computer using Intel on board GPU either, just a $20 card is a major graphics upgrade.
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 7,591
    edited February 2017
    laserit said:
    Some 3DMark scores have popped up




    • AMD Ryzen: ZD3406BAM88F4_38/34_Y — Eight-Core CPU
    • AMD Ryzen: ZD3301BBM6IF4_37/33_Y — Six-Core CPU
    • AMD Ryzen: ZD3201BBM4KF4_34/32_Y — Quad-Core CPU


    http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-3dmark-benchmarks-leaked-faster-core-intels-i7-6950x/



    Hmm...

    http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/first-amd-ryzen-7-1700x-benchmarks-surface.html

    and

    https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/amd_ryzen_3dmark_physic_score_leaks/1


    "It should be noted that scores for the Intel chips in the above chart are borrowed from a Tom’s Hardware review and are 2000 points higher than the scores found on the official Futuremark database that the Ryzen scores are borrowed from. If we borrow the physics score for each Intel CPU from the same Futuremark list, Ryzen CPUs would outperform each of their Intel counterparts core for core and clock for clock."
    https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/amd_ryzen_3dmark_physic_score_leaks/1



    "AMD Ryzen 3DMARK Physic score leaks

     

    Alleged 3DMARK Physics scores have leaked for AMD's Ryzen CPUs, showcasing performance that is highly competitive with Intel's current offerings. 

    These scores were achieved with AMD engineering samples, and should not be considered as representative of the performance of retail CPUs, though the performance seen here is nonetheless impressive considering the performance of AMD's older FX series CPUs. 

    When compared to Intel's existing Broadwell-e CPU lineup we can see that AMD's Ryzen CPUs come with some highly impressive results, finally giving AMD high enough CPU performance scores that they may finally be able to use their own CPUs for their internal benchmarking. For many years AMD's Radeon Division has had to use Intel CPUs for their internal GPU testing, which has been something that has been hurt the companies pride for several GPU generations.   

    Below are the basic specification of the below tested Ryzen CPU engineering samples. 

    • - AMD Ryzen: ZD3406BAM88F4_38/34_Y — Eight-Core CPU
    • - AMD Ryzen: ZD3301BBM6IF4_37/33_Y — Six-Core CPU
    • - AMD Ryzen: ZD3201BBM4KF4_34/32_Y — Quad-Core CPU"

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 7,591
    And thats just overall score divided by number of cores....not to mention that those Intel results are NOT scores from official Futuremarks database, as already noted.

    http://www.futuremark.com/hardware/cpu

    AND the failure of Intels 4+ core CPUs are their exorbitant prices for CPU AND platform (which is significantly more expencive because those are reporposed server motherboards...cuz...Intel). 1700$ for 6950x? 1100$ for 6900k? yeah no lol

    but when you can ge similar performance for 320$+ normal platform THATS when it gets interesting.

    The regular everyday gaming consumer has zero need for a 4+ core CPU

    For professionals the prices are in peanuts. I used to pay more for a Vermont Microsystems GPU than what a whole system cost's today. Today the equipment is dirt cheap compared to what it used to be.

    As they say in business "Time is Money" and it takes very little time to make up for a pittance.


    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 7,591
    sure, just as they didnt need more than 2 cores just to find out they cant play new games any more because minimum requirement is 4 cores lol

    give me 1 good reason why you should buy a 4c/8t CPU thats MORE expencive than an 8c/16t  CPU (349$ vs 320$)
    Performance in your intended application. All it takes is a little Ctrl-Alt-Del to see how games are still reliant on single core performance.

    Maybe in another 10 years 

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 7,591
    not in the last 2 years, and MINIMUM requirement is 4 cores for well over a year (well closing 2 years actually)

    and you gonna say with straight face that youd recommend 6700/7700k for 349$ instead 6900k for 320-389$ or 6800/6850k for 220-249$?
    Which games?

    I recommend for people to "Research" and when it comes to research...  Google is your friend.

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • krulerkruler Member UncommonPosts: 589
    Ozmodan said:
    I have built a lot of systems for people and have put just as many AMD systems together as Intel.  And I have had far more problems with Intel systems than the AMD ones.   I was over at a friends this weekend who had an older AMD 4 core system and their kids were playing all the current PC games(major GPU upgrade of course) with no issues.

    Personally I never bought into the I7 hoopla and run an overclocked I5 and again I have no issues.  

    Benchmarks do not translate into real world use that much.

    If the AMD cpu's even come close to the Intel cpu's in performance, I will just start building all my systems with AMD's unless otherwise requested.  I have never built any computer using Intel on board GPU either, just a $20 card is a major graphics upgrade.

    Its the motherboards with intel i7,s ive had issues with, looking at the sabretooth x99 builds I did, cold bios upgrades is nice feature, but GGGrrrrrrrrrrrr.(older stock boards needed flashing for later gen i7's and were bloody fussy)


    CPU's themselves I just don't care ill put together either with no real fuss, they both run everything well, the degrees of separation are so MEH, as long as the new AMD cpu's run cooler than the last lot, but seeing as CPU water cooling has got a lot cheaper no big whup.

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,383
    All this over a chip that hasn't even released yet, with just rumored benchmark scores.

  • xyzercrimexyzercrime Member RarePosts: 878
    Ridelynn said:
    All this over a chip that hasn't even released yet, with just rumored unbiased benchmark scores.

    Fixed that for you!



    When you don't want the truth, you will make up your own truth.
  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    Ridelynn said:
    All this over a chip that hasn't even released yet, with just rumored possibly biased benchmark scores.

    Fixed that for you!
    Spotted a typo there myself :p
  • carotidcarotid Member UncommonPosts: 425
    sure, just as they didnt need more than 2 cores just to find out they cant play new games any more because minimum requirement is 4 cores lol

    give me 1 good reason why you should buy a 4c/8t CPU thats MORE expencive than an 8c/16t  CPU (349$ vs 320$)

    because guess what: if 6900k costed 320/389$ vast majority would pick it up instead 349$ 6700k/7700k

    the only reason 6700/7700 were "best CPUs fo gaming" is because Intels 6/8 core CPUs are stupidly overpriced. 6900k for 1100$? yeah no. 6900k for 320$? gimme some rofl

    or you can opt in for 6800k/6850k for 230-260$.
    I would pay more for an Intel. It's only money.
  • cheyanecheyane Member LegendaryPosts: 9,090
    edited February 2017
    carotid said:
    sure, just as they didnt need more than 2 cores just to find out they cant play new games any more because minimum requirement is 4 cores lol

    give me 1 good reason why you should buy a 4c/8t CPU thats MORE expencive than an 8c/16t  CPU (349$ vs 320$)

    because guess what: if 6900k costed 320/389$ vast majority would pick it up instead 349$ 6700k/7700k

    the only reason 6700/7700 were "best CPUs fo gaming" is because Intels 6/8 core CPUs are stupidly overpriced. 6900k for 1100$? yeah no. 6900k for 320$? gimme some rofl

    or you can opt in for 6800k/6850k for 230-260$.
    I would pay more for an Intel. It's only money.
    Don't say that he's like the terminator he'll be back with Malabooga02
    Chamber of Chains
  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,412
    Release confirmed for February 28th/March 1st.
  • xyzercrimexyzercrime Member RarePosts: 878
    Cleffy said:
    Release confirmed for February 28th/March 1st.
    Source?



    When you don't want the truth, you will make up your own truth.
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    So these AMD processors are coming soon? Sweet!  I'm looking forward to the discounts on Intel chips.
    Very possible. Seems to have happened at the budget end of the market with Intel's release of the Kaby Lake Pentium. Priced at around - or below - AMD X4 prices and with a performance boost thanks to the addition of hyper-threading.

    They probably won't do anything until Ryzen is both launched and readily available though. 
  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,412
    edited February 2017
    E-Retailers have begun to prep the store pages for the new Ryzen Processors. A few hit the web database and were thus recoverable. One from Belgium and one from Taiwan. Both had the release date of February 28th and were beginning pre-orders.
    If the Ryzen processors are as good as the Core processors, then they will be priced similarly. AMD has had a lot of lost capital that they need to recover.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,348
    Torval said:
    Cleffy said:
    E-Retailers have begun to prep the store pages for the new Ryzen Processors. A few hit the web database and were thus recoverable. One from Belgium and one from Taiwan. Both had the release date of February 28th and were beginning pre-orders.
    If the Ryzen processors are as good as the Core processors, then they will be priced similarly. AMD has had a lot of lost capital that they need to recover.
    Could Intel afford to squeeze them in a price war? I've been wondering. Although they're having their own issues with the Atom C2000 so that might be a factor in how aggressively they meet this release. It all really depends on how good Zen is.
    Could Intel start a price war if they really wanted to?  Of course they could.  Should they?  Not in a market where they already have most of the market share unless they expect to lose it.

    If AMD could triple their market share by slashing prices so that they only make half as much profit on each unit sold, that's a win for them.  No matter what Intel does to prices, they're not going to triple their market share in a market where they already have 80%+ of units sold--and close to 100% in some markets.

    I don't see Intel cutting prices to compete unless they start seriously hemmorhaging market share.  If it looks like AMD will claim 20% market share if Intel doesn't touch prices, then they won't.  If it looks like AMD will claim 70% market share, then Intel will slash prices to prevent that.

    In the past, I've said that AMD can ramp up production much more than they could in the Athlon 64 days.  And while that's true, it doesn't follow that they can readily get the fab capacity to provide 100% of the market for x86 processors.  It's possible that Intel will look at the situation, see that if AMD produces Zen CPUs as fast as they possibly can, it will only amount to 30% market share, and decide to maintain high margins on the other 70% of the market.  That 30% figure is completely pulled out of a hat, and I have no clue what the real number is--but you'd better believe that AMD and Intel have both studied it a whole lot more than I have.

    Longer term, Global Foundries can ramp up production to whatever AMD desires if AMD is willing to pay for it, but that takes years, and Intel might just for that to happen before slashing prices.  Even if AMD does pay Global Foundries to increase fab capacity more than previously planned, there's no guarantee that AMD will still be as competitive by the time the extra capacity is available in 2020 or 2022 or whatever.

    Where this becomes more interesting is in the high profit margin markets such as servers.  There, AMD could easily produce enough CPUs to completely fill the market for $4000+ x86 CPUs.  If Naples is good enough, Intel might well be forced to slash prices in order to compete.

    Note that Broadwell-E is 140 W for 8 cores, while Ryzen is supposedly going to be 95 W.  That makes a big difference if you're trying to pack as many CPU cores as you can into a single die.  If Naples can fit 32 Zen cores into the same TDP where Intel currently tops out at 24, being almost as fast of cores but not quite could be enough for AMD to claim the crown of the best x86 server CPU.  That's not the case with consumer hardware that doesn't scale to so many cores.

    Recall also that Intel's high end servers are still on Broadwell, not Sky Lake, let alone Kaby Lake.  Naples (the server version of Zen) launches only a quarter after Ryzen, which could help make AMD more competitive in servers.
  • OzmodanOzmodan Member EpicPosts: 9,726
    gervaise1 said:
    So these AMD processors are coming soon? Sweet!  I'm looking forward to the discounts on Intel chips.
    Very possible. Seems to have happened at the budget end of the market with Intel's release of the Kaby Lake Pentium. Priced at around - or below - AMD X4 prices and with a performance boost thanks to the addition of hyper-threading.

    They probably won't do anything until Ryzen is both launched and readily available though. 
    Of what value is hyperthreading to gaming?  Don't know of any games that use it currently.
  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,412
    Having Hyper-threading will always be as fast as not having it. Yet you could see a bump up to 25% when its utilized well.
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 7,591
    edited February 2017
    I've yet to use anything entertainment wise that makes use of Hyper Threading.

    edit: let me rephrase

    I've yet to use anything entertainment wise where Hyper Threading had any effect on performance.

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • botrytisbotrytis Member RarePosts: 3,363
    Cleffy said:
    Having Hyper-threading will always be as fast as not having it. Yet you could see a bump up to 25% when its utilized well.

    That depends on the coding. All one needs to do is look at programs like iTunes, to realize that efficient and decent program have been thrown out the window.


  • filmoretfilmoret Member EpicPosts: 4,906
    Ozmodan said:
    gervaise1 said:
    So these AMD processors are coming soon? Sweet!  I'm looking forward to the discounts on Intel chips.
    Very possible. Seems to have happened at the budget end of the market with Intel's release of the Kaby Lake Pentium. Priced at around - or below - AMD X4 prices and with a performance boost thanks to the addition of hyper-threading.

    They probably won't do anything until Ryzen is both launched and readily available though. 
    Of what value is hyperthreading to gaming?  Don't know of any games that use it currently.
    The resources are more important.  Which is why HT cores usually run slower when it come to games.  They are running on 1/2 resources.    Its rare to see a game take advantage of more then 4 cores.  All HT is doing is making each core run 2 processes at a time instead of 1.  Which splits that core's resources causing it to run slower.
    Are you onto something or just on something?
Sign In or Register to comment.