Hello AMD RYZEN! 8 cores 16 threads is here.

ragnarok95

Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
121,545
Reaction score
3,750
That's fine. I think at least the product looks more competitive as compared to their existing Steamroller CPUs. It's being steamrolled by Intel. If they are able to priced this competitively, I feel Intel will be under pressure. It's almost like those Athlon 64 days where Intel is stagnant in terms of performance and just increasing the CPU clock speed to give the false impression of improved performance, i.e. Kabylake.

I want a cheap 3Ghz 8/16. :o
 

Humster

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2000
Messages
21,607
Reaction score
1,693
Ok, but I'll wait till it is on the price list then I'll consider the hype.
 

Gattberserk

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
10,312
Reaction score
669
I hope AMD is finally doing good this time,

Vega is so far showing 1080 or even faster by 10% based on the demo they had for DOOM.


They are really late into the game but its better than nothing.
 

watzup_ken

High Supremacy Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2003
Messages
25,491
Reaction score
1,931
I hope AMD is finally doing good this time,

Vega is so far showing 1080 or even faster by 10% based on the demo they had for DOOM.


They are really late into the game but its better than nothing.

I actually don't feel Vega is that competitive especially when they choose to use Doom on Vulkan to compare with the GTX 1080. The gap between the RX 480 and GTX 1060 is more than 10% in this game if I am not mistaken. With an advertised wider memory bandwidth with HBM2 and leading by 10% so late in the game is quite worrying.
 

Buaya_Hunter

Banned
Joined
Jun 8, 2001
Messages
27,523
Reaction score
0
I actually don't feel Vega is that competitive especially when they choose to use Doom on Vulkan to compare with the GTX 1080. The gap between the RX 480 and GTX 1060 is more than 10% in this game if I am not mistaken. With an advertised wider memory bandwidth with HBM2 and leading by 10% so late in the game is quite worrying.

Vega is like amd introducing their version of 1070 n l080 6 months later. Ppl who want 1070 n 1080 power are now buying their 1070 n 1080 ...
 

royfrosty

High Supremacy Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
27,346
Reaction score
1,139
You sure that's the config you want?

Ryzen is CPU only. No iGPU unlike Intel hardware.

In the first place i think it is a wrong comparisons.

This is comparing intel i7 6800k offering. Which does not even have igpu either.

The real mainstream zen is yet to be announced, and it should come with igpu.
 

wwenze

Great Supremacy Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2002
Messages
73,373
Reaction score
18,273
"To that extent, at the pre-briefing, Ryan was shown two systems running Titan X graphics cards in SLI and Battlefield 1 at 4K settings - one system was running Ryzen, and the other an i7-6900K (the 8-core Broadwell-E chip). Ryan was unable to determine an obvious visual difference between the two frame-rate wise, which was the point of the demo."

Lol.
 

watzup_ken

High Supremacy Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2003
Messages
25,491
Reaction score
1,931
IGPU is good to have but not necessary for an enthusiast chip. But it will be great to see an APU with this CPU and a Polaris GPU.
 

ragnarok95

Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
121,545
Reaction score
3,750
"To that extent, at the pre-briefing, Ryan was shown two systems running Titan X graphics cards in SLI and Battlefield 1 at 4K settings - one system was running Ryzen, and the other an i7-6900K (the 8-core Broadwell-E chip). Ryan was unable to determine an obvious visual difference between the two frame-rate wise, which was the point of the demo."

Lol.
Good. On par with a 6900k. Not bad.
 

LonelyMan

Master Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
2,759
Reaction score
0
Intel 6900K is a Broadwell-E part, with 8 cores and 16 threads. High end stuff I would say. The demo is more towards high end users. For most of us mainstream users, we should be looking at the 4 or even 2 core versions.

Looking good but I will keep my fingers crossed until we see real reviews from end products.
 

wwenze

Great Supremacy Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2002
Messages
73,373
Reaction score
18,273
Any scientific documents to prove it?

And i think this statement is pretty much irrelevant for the CPU...

Still don't get it...? Then let me try unsarcasmized English

"Ryan was unable to determine an obvious visual difference between the two frame-rate wise, which was the point of the demo."

This implies:
1. There may be non-obvious visual difference
2. There may be non-visual difference

For example, 90fps vs 120fps is non-visual

In practice this will not be visible difference. But are the two products on par?

Statements like that is akin to "you can't see difference between iPhone DPI and Samsung DPI, 1080 vs 2160, and 30fps vs whatever"

Now, since no numbers were shown, it could go both ways. But logically, if it was in AMd's favor, what would you think they would have done?
 

86technie

High Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
36,302
Reaction score
3,386
Despite I am the only few surviving AMD users.
I rather wait till the official release and see what experts
say about the new Zen.
These live test I remain a skeptic cuz it is very hard to believe
or tell which is faster.

However I will still waiting for Zen cuz pretty much of my Phenom rigs
is waiting for an upgrade. :D
 

concept_fuel

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,145
Reaction score
102
What's there not to like?
Ryzen @3.4ghz without boost against i7-6900k @3.2 with 3.7ghz boost was head to head with the blender test and won in handbrake.

"The RYZEN CPU was able to finish the task in 35.57 seconds, while the 6900K was able to do it in 36.01 seconds, roughly half a second more or what’s equivalent to 1.3%. For a 95W CPU going up against a 140W chip this is impressive."

"For this demo again, two identically specced machines were used. One with an 8 core 16 thread RYZEN CPU running at 3.4Ghz and one with an Intel Core i7 6900K. Both PCs were tasked with transcoding the RYZEN announcement video. This is an extremely CPU intensive workload and all 8 cores and 16 threads of both chips were pegged at 100% usage the whole time. The 6900K finished the task in 59 seconds, whilst RYZEN did it in 54 seconds. Five seconds faster, or what’s roughly equivalent to 10%."



They use a 6900K because it's just running on 3.2Ghz and the same 8/16 configuration. If it compare to a 6700K, Ryzen might not perform as well since 6700K have higher clock speed.

"The RYZEN and i7 6900K machines passed with flying colors. The gameplay was smooth and the stream had no dropped frames what so ever. The i7 6700K, even at 4.5Ghz, ran the game just fine but struggled to actually stream the gameplay. Nearly every other frame was being dropped. It genuinely looked like a fast-forwarded slide-show."



Still don't get it...? Then let me try unsarcasmized English

"Ryan was unable to determine an obvious visual difference between the two frame-rate wise, which was the point of the demo."

This implies:
1. There may be non-obvious visual difference
2. There may be non-visual difference

For example, 90fps vs 120fps is non-visual

In practice this will not be visible difference. But are the two products on par?

Statements like that is akin to "you can't see difference between iPhone DPI and Samsung DPI, 1080 vs 2160, and 30fps vs whatever"

Now, since no numbers were shown, it could go both ways. But logically, if it was in AMd's favor, what would you think they would have done?


"The demo involved a short real-time playthrough of a Battlefield 1 mission. The same 8 core, 16 thread 3.4Ghz RYZEN chip was put in a head-to-head comparison with Intel’s i7 6900K. A framerate counter at the upper right hand corner of the screen reported the average framerate output of both systems in real-time. RYZEN maintained a small performance lead throughout this demo."
 
Important Forum Advisory Note
This forum is moderated by volunteer moderators who will react only to members' feedback on posts. Moderators are not employees or representatives of HWZ. Forum members and moderators are responsible for their own posts.

Please refer to our Community Guidelines and Standards, Terms of Service and Member T&Cs for more information.
Top