Yeah - the if the one listed as as the 1600X is actually a 1500X, the 1600X from your slide just drops in on top of them (at $289, maybe?).
That'd make the 8 and 6 core range 1800X (95W), 1700X (95W), 1700 (65W), 1600X (95W), 1500X (95W), 1500 (65W). That'd make a lot of sense, I think...
I am hoping AMD gets to at least Haswell level IPC in gaming on average,because that is going to be a very competitive range there.
So unless the pound gets weaker,a £200ish 4C/8T Ryzen with 4GHZ XFR boost clockspeeds in a mini-ITX motherboard will be a nice upgrade over my Xeon E3 1230 V2 and I know I have an upgrade path to an 8C/16T CPU and probably a greater chance of having long-term motherboard support for my CPU too.
Its kind of why I want to move away from Intel - my original motherboard was a higher end H67 one and when it went kaput,Intel had moved to Haswell and I had to get a lower spec B75 based one as the only two mini-ITX motherboards with a reasonable spec available in the UK by that time were B75 based ones.
I think anyone with a current AMD system will see an enormous jump. Indications are IPC is equal to Skylake in some benchmarks. In fact, in the video posted earlier they stated that they exceeded the 40% IPC goal and got 52%. Can't wait to see how prices settle and Intel's reaction.
Warcraft gamer on #bloodhoof Avid AMD supporter (we need competition!)
System: AMD FX 8320 | 8GB DDR3 | 120GB EVO 840 | Radeon R7 270X
Work: SEO | AdWords | Web Design | Recent Website: MaddForCakes
The CPC leaked of the qualification tested six games with a Fury X. Four of them only scaled to four cores at most and did not really use SMT that well,and the other two tend to need at least 4 decent cores and could use up to 8 threads. The score hinted at close to BW-E level IPC. I am only estimating Haswell level to be more conservative.
Just priced an upgrade.
ASRock X370 K4
1700
32GB ram (2x16gb to leave room for later 64gb upgrade if needed).
Comes in around £700 and will low my current system out of the water.
May be worth doing sooner rather than later while my 3570k has some value before the R5s make it worthless.
iirc my last calculation said 92% of Broadwell E IPC for the main cores, but 97% when SMT kicks in (AMD's SMT implementation appears to be very efficient, at least in the workloads we've got leaked benchmarks for).
That means on current leaked clocks AMD are going to have a narrow overall lead in HEDT, where Intel's chips have lower clockspeeds (and much higher TDPs, incidentally).
In the consumer space it's a bit less clear cut because Intel's chips clock higher (and of course the popular-with-enthusiast K chips have higher clocks than the non-K chips). For instance, AMD's 4C/8T 3.6GHz - 3.9GHz+ R5 1400X will probably get compared to the i7 7700k, which is clocked at 4.2GHz - 4.5GHz. That's going to give it a > 10% clock speed advantage, as well as a ~ 10% IPC advantage, so it's going to come out handsomely on top. However, that's a £330 chip compared to a £200 AMD chip. The ordinary 7700 clocks at 3.6GHz - 4.2GHz, so it'll be a LOT closer between that and the AMD chip, and if you go to Intel's £200 you're looking at an i5 7500, which clocks at 3.4GHz - 3.8GHz, a couple of hundred Mhz behind the AMD chip (and without the option to overclock, incidentally). That probably won't be enough to put AMD ahead in single threaded tasks, but it will make it very close, and obviously having SMT the AMD chip will easily win any multi-threaded tests.
Ultimately though, the end result is likely to be that differences between AMD and Intel CPUs are negligible in all but a small number of outlying edge cases.
The real question for AMD - as ever - is not winning over the enthusiast but getting Ryzen adopted by the big OEMs. The performance looks like it's going to be thereabouts, and the pricing is definitely right, but without significant OEM market penetration it's going to be difficult for AMD to shift massive volumes of processors - after all, the majority of PCs are bought pre-built from big name integrators, not piecemeal for self assembly.
I just searched 'Ryzen' in Amazon, top result is an Intel i7 7700k, followed by An AMD8350. The proper Ryzen chips don't appear until about half way down the page. And this is sorted by relevance, apparently. Think someone has been paying Amazon to skew their search results...
Well, a lot Intel's crazy market segmentation will now come back to bite them.
Most likely Intel are going win at AVX2 loads too but luckily for AMD AVX2 software support has been very slow since Intel nicely kept using AVX to segment the market (because fusing it off is a lot simpler than having considered how to introduce wait states during design).
So that's Intel's market segmentation might work against them. Which is nice.
The new artificial segmented chipset for each CPU has a major inconvenience for the DIY market for years now.
Max frequencies do seem a problem for now, but what we've seen so far would be ideal for servers and big server buyers do actually pay very close attention to benchmarks. If Naples takes off, I wonder if any of the very big data centres would be willing to order a semi-custom part with some specialised fixed-function hardware.
That new hexcore slide Cat found goes on about Q2 so maybe those will be from a re-spin? Don't know what the lead time for the process is, but if some the initial ES's and what they had back in December had an issue the managed to fix for max frequency and they had to re-spin it Q2 for hex and quad makes sense.
Maybe the initial stepping was okay running the octocore at the speeds we see now (which are actually quite good for a 8C/16T chip), but for quad they need more.
Biscuit (23-02-2017)
Nah, Amazon have one the worst search engines where anything which has a comment with the word gets a hit. Almost no filters nor any intelligent search keywords (AFAIK). At one point ebay took away their OR (which you get by using brackets and comma separate list like (1, 2, 3) and so on), but they put it back. Plus they have tons of filters too.
Crazy to think such a poor website like Amazon is one of the world's biggest retailer.
That's the ticket!
IMO that's the perfect balance between gaming, productivity and price.
I'm loving that the totally artificial segregation of consumer and professional Intel has been driving all these years with Z*70 and X*9 is being flattened with AM4. The constant socket changes have also been a real drag.
If previous AMD chipsets are anything to go by, AM4 should stick around for a while.
Think my next upgrade will be a Ryzen system
Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!
I'm going to wait until Vega has settled in, then maybe get a complete AMD system. The highest level Ryzen chip I'll consider is the Ryzen 7 1700. You never know, there maybe bundle deals with a Ryzen chip, a Vega card, a mobo and some ram etc even if it's just a retailer doing it, although I'm thinking AMD will be considering such an offer too.
Last edited by The Hand; 24-02-2017 at 04:56 PM. Reason: typo
Timely article over at ComputerBase:
"6, 8 or 10 core CPUs beat 4 faster cores"
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02/...e-spiele-test/
Nicely done in this review is that you can select only the games you want (click on 'Bearbeiten' and uncheck the ones you don't want).
Most of the games are fairly recent which helps. With the amount of people doing video recording while playing or doing other things in the background the real world benefit of more cores even for games is quite high.
DinoPC just leaked that - its comparing a 65W TDP R7 1700 against a 91W TDP Core i7 7700K.
GTA V tends to not scale well beyond 4 cores or use SMT well:
http://www.techspot.com/articles-inf...nch/CPU_01.png
http://media.gamersnexus.net/images/...u-1080-max.jpg
Interestingly enough the difference in minimums seems similar to the difference in base clockspeeds of each CPU,ie, 3.0GHZ to 3.7GHZ for the AMD CPU and 4.0GHZ to 4.5GHZ with the Intel CPU.
I suspect the AMD CPU is throttling due to TDP,but if that is the case the 95W TDP R7 1800X and 95W TDP R5 and R3 CPUs,might actually do better than we think.
Also,a bit of info from Gibbo over on OcUK about the leak:
I suspect that hints that even the R7 1800X might be somewhat limited by its TDP.I'd ignore test, 1700, base is 3.0GHz, turbo is 3.7GHz, AMD do this so it qualify as 65W part. If you switch it over to manual mode in a good motherboard like Crosshair you just lock it to run at 4GHz all the time, then the performance is vastly better, even beats 1800X.
Edit!!
Apparently in CB R15 the chip scored 153 points at 3.4GHZ,which places it close to BW level ST IPC,but SMT scaling seemed better.
The Hand (24-02-2017)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)