bit-tech.net

AMD unveils Ryzen processors, boasts of Intel-beating performance

AMD unveils Ryzen processors, boasts of Intel-beating performance

AMD's Zen processors are now to be known as Ryzen, and for the first time have been demonstrated beating stock-clocked Intel parts at a considerably reduced TDP.

AMD has officially announced the retail branding for its upcoming Zen architecture processors, and it's clearly hoping to rise like the phoenix: The chips will be known as Ryzen when they launch early next year.

According to figures unveiled by AMD at its New Horizon event last night, Ryzen will put an end to six years of sub-par performance suffered by users of the company's Bulldozer architecture and its follow-up releases. Based on similar paradigms to AMD's far more successful K7 and K8 architectures, thanks to the re-hiring of Jim Keller who left the company once again back in 2015, AMD claims the Zen architecture behind Ryzen will offer a 40 percent increase in instructions per clock (IPC) - an impressive feat if borne out by independent testing.

'The Zen core at the heart of our Ryzen processors is the result of focused execution and thousands of engineering hours designing and delivering a next-level experience for high-end PC and workstation users,' claimed AMD's president and chief executive Lisa Su at the event. 'Ryzen processors with SenseMI technology represent the bold and determined spirit of innovation that drives everything we do at AMD.'

SenseMI, something AMD has been keeping firmly under its hat until last night's unveiling, is the name given to a suite of five technologies: Pure Power, Precision Boost, Extended Frequency Range (XFR), Neural Net Prediction, and Smart Prefetch. Pure Power, the company has explained, takes the form of more than 100 embedded sensors tracking voltage, power draw, and temperature of individual components for finer-grained control of the chip's various operating specifications. Precision Boost, meanwhile, takes those data and uses it to tweak the processor's clock speed in 25MHz increments at up to a 1,000Hz polling rate.

Extended Frequency Range (XFR) is where SenseMI gets interesting for the enthusiast: XFR, AMD claims, amounts to an effective on-by-default overclock which triggers when the chip is sufficiently cooled. While stock heatsinks and fans will be expected to get the Ryzen chips to no more than their default advertised clocks, those adding beefier coolers - including liquid-cooling systems - can expect to see the processor running faster without the need to manually overclock the part.

Neural Net Prediction and Smart Prefetch round off the SenseMI offering, and offer similar performance-boosting claims: Neural Net Prediction uses an on-chip artificially intelligent self-learning neural network to predict the instructions and processor capabilities a particular application will need next based on previous runs; Smart Prefetch does the same for the data required by the application. While prefetch algorithms and cache prediction systems are nothing new to modern processors, AMD is confident it has something special in SenseMI that will help further boost the parts' performance.

The event also showed Ryzen chips in action, using a 3.4GHz eight-core 16-thread top-end part to run through Blender rendering and Handbrake transcoding benchmarks which demonstrated narrow wins against Intel's rival Core i7-6900K - impressive, given that the Ryzen part on test had a 95W thermal design profile (TDP) to the Core i7's 140W TDP. Gaming, too, saw a boost: AMD's chip equalled or improved upon the frame rates of Battlefield 1 played at a 4K resolution against Intel's processor, though to achieve said frame rates AMD was embarrassingly reliant on pairing both processors with a pair of Titan X GPUs from graphics rival Nvidia.

'The desktop market is hungry for change as new and demanding use cases like VR, 3D modelling, and eSports require intense amounts of processing and graphics power,' claimed AMD's general manager for the Computing and Graphics Group Jim Anderson. 'We designed Ryzen processors to excel in these areas and to bring much-needed innovation and competition back to desktop PCs.'

AMD has confirmed a Q1 2017 launch for desktop Ryzen parts, with lower-power notebook Ryzen chips pushed back to the second half of the year. The New Horizon webcast can be replayed from the official website, while AMD's Ryzen microsite has yet to be sent live.

95 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Corky42 14th December 2016, 11:13 Quote
Ryzen sounds like a character from Street Fighter. ;)

Looking forward to when us Jo public get to find out if the hype is borne out with real world testing.
Broadwater06 14th December 2016, 11:36 Quote
Is it a play on word - Ryzen to rising. A hopeful comeback like Phoenix arising from the ashes.
loftie 14th December 2016, 12:00 Quote
Nope! Most people thought it would be because that would make sense, but instead it's pronounced rye-zen, though it sounded more like ricin at times on the stream.
meandmymouth 14th December 2016, 13:42 Quote
Bit of a shame that it's the name that seems to be grabbing peoples attention rather than the performance that was shown. It's in everyone's interest for AMD to do well again and properly compete with Intel.

If performance really has improved that much then my next rig will be AMD-based, even if it's still lagging behind Intel a bit.
Corky42 14th December 2016, 13:56 Quote
Probably because until that performance can be independently verified it's all but meaningless, it's even more meaningless seeing as AMD are still fine tuning SenseMI so we've no idea about boost clocks.
Anfield 14th December 2016, 14:30 Quote
A "broken" cpu trashing a £1000 Intel cpu in handbrake isn't bad, but we have no confirmation still if AMD will be any less greedy than Intel, plus the fact that AMD can't even get a finished cpu for itself paints a very bleak picture regarding launch date.
meandmymouth 14th December 2016, 16:29 Quote
I'd be surprised if they decided to be greedy. I imagine it's better for them to try and sell more for less and get market share. AMD CPU's are considered the budget option and I doubt that will change unless they are actually able to outperform Intel, and do it for a couple CPU generations.

Of course, I could be wrong.
rollo 14th December 2016, 17:25 Quote
AMD won't get market share even if it blows away Intel. These will be high prices cpus. To gain market share you need Dell or Lenovo to buy Millions of units. ( doubt AMD could produce millions of units)

The enthusiast sector alone is not big enough to get AMD it's market share gains. Look at Gpus the mid range 480 is more than good enough. Yet Nvidia still has its market share lead.

This cpu will be a high end tech demo with a price to match is a worrying feeling I have. We are meant to be a month from launch but have very little in finalised details.

Even the benchmark AMD used is fixed matched clocks. Neither cpu can boost we don't even know if it's Intels base clock.

Would rather see a AMD revival in gpu high end than cpus. It's much more realistic too.
Corky42 14th December 2016, 19:33 Quote
Personally i think Zen, and by extension Ryzen, will be a very scalable architecture.

We already know it uses less power for around the same performance as Intel so AMD probably has room to maneuver on power and clock speeds, hopefully that will allow them to sell the same silicon across a wide range of markets.

It's also a newer basic design than what Intel's been using for what seems like an age, the Core series.
sandys 14th December 2016, 20:54 Quote
Having fried my PC I am in the market, I always liked the platform stability of AMD, always seemed to be able to drop in a new chip, lets hope they continue down that path rather than the path of obsolescence with every chip release Intel has, I can barely find parts to test out what has broken on my PC after a spillage.
somidiot 14th December 2016, 20:58 Quote
Finally, something that might get me off my old i5-2400
Pete J 14th December 2016, 21:24 Quote
I'm hoping AMD become competitive again. I'm not anticipating having to replace my CPUs for another 5 years and by that time I'd like to go AMD to save a few hundred £.
rollo 15th December 2016, 12:07 Quote
If you have a modern skylake chip or Haswell chip your not really looking to upgrade either way. Unless something major changes for gaming I am still gpu limited even with a nvidia 1080 ( how crazy is that lol)

Spending whatever this costs will likely give 0 gains. Most people are in similar situations. On sandy or Ivy chips at high ghz and looking at upgrades that will do little.

Well aware not everyone plays games but the software itemisation for more than 4 cores + hyper threading is really poor. Most photo and video apps do nothing with the extra threads.

Intels 10 core chip is basically a waste of space in the home sector, unless you have a business designed program.

For me at least what the 4/8 does is likely more realistic to 90% of people's future needs.
Anfield 15th December 2016, 22:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
If you have a modern skylake chip or Haswell chip your not really looking to upgrade either way.

I wouldn't buy a £1k cpu for the sake of upgrading, but if they released that 6900k beater for lets say £500? I'd be jumping on that bandwagon on launch day, need or not.
Gareth Halfacree 16th December 2016, 08:16 Quote
If the 8C/16T model comes out at £500, I reckon my five-year-old desktop A10-5800K is due an impressive upgrade. Concerned that we might see it closer to £800, though: sure, AMD will be eager to grab market share back from Intel, but it can't afford too big a loss-leader. Then you've got price perception to deal with: if Intel's chip is £1000 but AMD's is £500, that immediately puts you in the frame of mind that there must be something wrong with AMD's chip. Finally, there's the fabrication deal: Intel builds its own chips at a bargain-basement price; AMD has to pay GlobalFoundries to build 'em, or pay TSMC or someone else to build 'em and still pay GlobalFoundries 'cos whoever negotiated the deal with GloFo did a godawful job.
Anfield 16th December 2016, 12:37 Quote
£500 may well be nothing more than wishful thinking on my part, but look at it the other way round, Intel 6C/12T for £360... so it would still be a £140 premium for two more cores.
Vault-Tec 16th December 2016, 13:26 Quote
Intel have been far too precious of their cores for far too long tbh. I really don't know why.

Yesterday I bought an 8c 16t Ivy Bridge EP Xeon that clocks to 2.8ghz and boosts to around 3.4 IIRC. So I have managed to buy about 80% of a stock 5960x or possibly even more than that for £100. That's pretty nuts really !

There are 10 and 12 core variants of these chips too and they were released ages ago so I don't understand why Intel don't release more CPUs with more cores (well I do, greed).

I'm hoping AMD stick a boot up their jacksie and start a core war.
SexyHyde 17th December 2016, 01:55 Quote
I've just gone AMD from Nvidia because I thought they were pricing their cards too high. I'm getting Ryzen, as long as they don't go silly on the price, for my new year setup, just because I've had enough of Intel mugging us off the last few years. Just keeping my fingers crossed everything we have been told about Zen/Ryzen isn't all misleading sales hype.
Paradigm Shifter 17th December 2016, 12:37 Quote
If Ryzen can do in the programs I use what it's demonstrated with Handbrake and Blender, I'll be seriously interested.

It'll depend partially on total platform cost as well. Even the 'good value' HEDT Intel chips come with a much larger price tag because X99 is so expensive. :(
impar 17th December 2016, 12:55 Quote
Greetings!

HardOCP replicated AMD results with the Intel CPU:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/12/15/amds_new_ryzen_cpu_smt_ipc
Vault-Tec 17th December 2016, 13:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Greetings!

HardOCP replicated AMD results with the Intel CPU:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/12/15/amds_new_ryzen_cpu_smt_ipc

That's good to know :)
Anfield 17th December 2016, 14:01 Quote
If you change just one of the settings in blender the results change massively, AMD has not released a detailed list of the exact settings used, so the idea of reproducing the results is laughable until AMD coughs up the detailed settings.

Take a look at the variation in results from changing just one setting...

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/first-summit-ridge-zen-benchmarks.2482739/page-119#post-38630297
Vault-Tec 17th December 2016, 14:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anfield
If you change just one of the settings in blender the results change massively, AMD has not released a detailed list of the exact settings used, so the idea of reproducing the results is laughable until AMD coughs up the detailed settings.

Take a look at the variation in results from changing just one setting...

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/first-summit-ridge-zen-benchmarks.2482739/page-119#post-38630297

They did give up the settings. Read that link.
Anfield 17th December 2016, 15:14 Quote
My bad. Not used to having to go by timestamps to figure out which was before and which was after ftw.
Quote:
AMD did however finally come forward to confirm that it did not share the Blender file with the correct rendering variables.

"AMD_james281 - Set render samples to 150. A new file with the sample level set correctly will be uploaded shortly. Apologies for the confusion.

Blender 2.78a x64 is what we used, binary download from blender.org."

So this morning when we got time, we loaded everything up again with the new file from AMD's New Horizon page which seems to load the correct Blender rendering variables.

:(:(:(
Anfield 25th December 2016, 14:30 Quote
First? Ryzen benches done by someone outside of AMD that have been made public:

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/french-magazing-posts-engineering-sample-amd-ryzen-processor-benchmarks.html
rollo 25th December 2016, 14:38 Quote
I saw this the other day early engineering samples. The gaming results ( the bit I care for these days) where not impressive. AMD will need at least a chip capable of 4ghz to compete with Intel under gaming. ( which is a large part of the enthusiast market)

The latest chip easily does 4.8ghz with no effort even a downvolt looking at reviews. And boosts to 4.5 ghz to begin with.

AMD could win the core race but lose the ghz race.
Vault-Tec 25th December 2016, 14:43 Quote
If they lose the MHZ race it will be the biggest slice of irony in history. Even their 8 core heaters got to 5ghz easily on an AIO.
Harlequin 25th December 2016, 15:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
I saw this the other day early engineering samples. The gaming results ( the bit I care for these days) where not impressive. AMD will need at least a chip capable of 4ghz to compete with Intel under gaming. ( which is a large part of the enthusiast market)

The latest chip easily does 4.8ghz with no effort even a downvolt looking at reviews. And boosts to 4.5 ghz to begin with.

AMD could win the core race but lose the ghz race.

96 degrees under water when overclocked (latest intel chip that is)

edit: also , the clocks are 10% lower than retail, so you want to improve the scores , and turbo isn't working properly
RedFlames 25th December 2016, 15:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlequin
turbo isn't working properly

Wonder if that'll be this gen's 'excuse'... [Ry]Zen's version of 'the CMT Module support isn't quite there yet... but when it is...' that accompanied Bulldozer...

Intel's current excuse seems to be the TIM between the die and heatspreader, if all else fails blame any problems on that.
rollo 25th December 2016, 15:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlequin
96 degrees under water when overclocked (latest intel chip that is)

edit: also , the clocks are 10% lower than retail, so you want to improve the scores , and turbo isn't working properly

At 5.1ghz with a huge voltage. At 4.8 it's clocked below stock volts and under 70c.

Which still seems crazy in truth, my 6700k is 20c idle and the highest recorded temp on prime is around 55c all cores. Not even on anything special corsair all in one job.
Anfield 25th December 2016, 16:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
AMD will need at least a chip capable of 4ghz to compete with Intel under gaming. ( which is a large part of the enthusiast market)

4 cores 4ghz base for no more than £199 seems to be the minimum requirements to have a credible competitor for the 6600k (and its kaby lake equivalent).

For the eight core versions it will matter a bit less since intel heavily cuts back clock speeds on their chips and the full turbo isn't available to all cores and so on, not even to mention that they turn into a furnace when oc'd and cost several organs.
rollo 25th December 2016, 17:17 Quote
The only thing I don't get from AMD fans is why they expect a 6900k beating cpu to be half the price. 4 core 8 threads for £200 seems realistic, with maybe the 6 core 12 core priced around Intels area. To expect there top end chip to be half the cost of Intels seems a bit insane to me.

Same thing happens in gpus everyone expects AMD to massively undercut nvidia just cause, no reason is ever given for this logic. In reality the 480 and 1060 are very similar in price, as were the fury x and 980ti.

Also with the weak pound we will likely see a near 1-1 price conversion then VAT added on top.
Vault-Tec 25th December 2016, 17:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
The only thing I don't get from AMD fans is why they expect a 6900k beating cpu to be half the price. 4 core 8 threads for £200 seems realistic, with maybe the 6 core 12 core priced around Intels area. To expect there top end chip to be half the cost of Intels seems a bit insane to me.

Same thing happens in gpus everyone expects AMD to massively undercut nvidia just cause, no reason is ever given for this logic. In reality the 480 and 1060 are very similar in price, as were the fury x and 980ti.

Also with the weak pound we will likely see a near 1-1 price conversion then VAT added on top.

That is all any one has ever expected from AMD and why, even when it was ATI, they lost money on the 5000 series GPUs. Even though they were a country mile in front of Nvidia's best offering (the GTX 285) and so on they still made hardly any money.

It's Mindshare that Intel and Nvidia have. And AMD will never get that no matter how hard they try. Enthusiasts will always go for an AMD product if they are better or offer the best performance for the money, brainless people who don't read into it will buy Nvidia no matter what the cost. That is why the GTX 260 was more popular than the Radeon 5850.

Lisa Su can say what she likes really. About it not being cheap. They literally need to offer the same performance at half the price if they think it will sell. And because of that the profit margin will shrink to ****.

If they are even within a whiff of Intel pricing people will just go "Ah well" and then buy Intel.

Nvidia and Intel got where they are by talking smack, kicking ass and taking numbers. AMD do that too, apart from the kicking ass part. I think they forgot somewhere that it's only ever a good idea to talk smack if you have the faster product. Maybe then people will listen to you.

When you get so good at bullsh****g that you can make more money from Fermi than AMD made on a much better tech? then you have mastered it.
rollo 25th December 2016, 17:35 Quote
Can AMD truly survive long term like this, as most android manufactures have now realised making basically nothing per phone sold is not a long term route to sustained success. Apple has what 15% market share and dominates profits.

Getting the brand out of the gutter must be a long term goal and look towards a more sustainable future for AMD.

If Samsung released amds cpu and gpu under there name they would sell for more money and more off them is the crazy thing.
Anfield 25th December 2016, 18:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
To expect there top end chip to be half the cost of Intels seems a bit insane to me.

Don't forget just how absurd the price scaling is with Intel,

Sub £400 Broadwell-E Six core

Add two extra cores and the price more than doubles...
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
Can AMD truly survive long term like this, as most android manufactures have now realised making basically nothing per phone sold is not a long term route to sustained success. Apple has what 15% market share and dominates profits.

Nah, they can't and desperately need something they can charge actual money for.

Bit of an apples to oranges situation, Samsung, ZTE and so on only get money from the initial sale of the phone while the profit from the app store gets siphoned off by Google, but Apple gets money for both.
Harlequin 25th December 2016, 18:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFlames
Wonder if that'll be this gen's 'excuse'... [Ry]Zen's version of 'the CMT Module support isn't quite there yet... but when it is...' that accompanied Bulldozer...

Intel's current excuse seems to be the TIM between the die and heatspreader, if all else fails blame any problems on that.

Turbo not working properly on a lower clocked engineering sample....

wait till retail
Vault-Tec 25th December 2016, 19:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
Can AMD truly survive long term like this, as most android manufactures have now realised making basically nothing per phone sold is not a long term route to sustained success. Apple has what 15% market share and dominates profits.

Getting the brand out of the gutter must be a long term goal and look towards a more sustainable future for AMD.

If Samsung released amds cpu and gpu under there name they would sell for more money and more off them is the crazy thing.

They will never win against Nvidia. Ever.

If it weren't for the consoles then they would have gone ages ago. At least with those they can make some money.
Harlequin 15th January 2017, 13:41 Quote
Vault-Tec 15th January 2017, 13:42 Quote
Looks like the high end one. Bet it won't come cheap.
bawjaws 15th January 2017, 14:55 Quote
Indeed. The Z270 XPower Gaming Titanium is £325, so I'd imagine this will be much of a muchness in terms of price.
RedFlames 8th February 2017, 14:13 Quote
Copypasta'd from other thread -

Well according to Guru3d the RyZen R7 [8c/16t] prices are as follows...

1800X [Boots Freq ~4GHz] - €599.99 [~£511]
1700X [~3.8GHz] - €469.99 [~£400]
1700 [~3.7GHz] - €389.95 [~£332]
damien c 8th February 2017, 15:27 Quote
I just saw this on OC3D and posted this:

Well if these prices are accurate then you are looking at around £550 to £650 by the time the retailers have added there chunk on to it for the top of the line cpu.

That doesn't however take in to account if there is anything else to add on such as VAT etc which just bumps up the price even more.

I really was hoping that the top end cpu was going to come in around the same price as a 7700K to really kick, Intel in the ass if they perform as well as claimed.

Going to keep an eye on the prices and performance but looking at it, it looks my plans for my tax rebate this year are still on for the Vive rather than thinking about a cpu swap.
RedFlames 8th February 2017, 15:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c
That doesn't however take in to account if there is anything else to add on such as VAT etc which just bumps up the price even more.

The Prices include VAT @21% [Spanish rate, vs 20% here] according to the article.
damien c 8th February 2017, 15:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFlames
The Prices include VAT @21% [Spanish rate, vs 20% here] according to the article.

True but I am thinking about how the uk government likes to shaft shoppers with tax.
RedFlames 8th February 2017, 15:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c
True but I am thinking about how the uk government likes to shaft shoppers with tax.

If any shaft is going on it'll be retailers trying the early adopter/hype gouge.
Harlequin 8th February 2017, 15:43 Quote
you get bet 2 northern based etailers will ramp prices based upon hype from day 0
bawjaws 8th February 2017, 15:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlequin
you get bet 2 northern based etailers will ramp prices based upon hype from day 0

Yeah, especially if these chips aren't available in huge quantities... I remember these guys taking the pee with 20% price gouges when Skylake (iirc) launched but availability was severely limited for the first month or two.
rollo 8th February 2017, 21:51 Quote
599 euro becomes £599 in a straight swap. Your talking nearly double the price for 300mhz on the cpu? Something does not add up with that.

Either the base clocks are heavily reduced and even via overclocking you wont get 4ghz all cores on the lower end chip. Or your missing out on something critical?

As nobody would pay double for 300mhz
bawjaws 8th February 2017, 21:59 Quote
I'm assuming that the X suffix must denote something significant, but allegedly all Ryzen CPUs will be unlocked so it doesn't seem be the AMD equivalent of Intel's K suffix. But there must be something significant to differentiate the 1700 and 1700X because a 20% price increase for a bump from 3.7Ghz to 3.8GHz looks like the worst deal ever :)
Vault-Tec 8th February 2017, 22:01 Quote
The cheaper one may be multi locked but FSB unlocked. After all, AMD did not specify what exactly was unlocked.

I would imagine the expensive one all but overclocks itself to the limit. Might have more cache, etc.
bawjaws 9th February 2017, 12:50 Quote
So, per that link, the 1700 is 65W and the 1700X is 95W. Wonder what the difference is down to? Could it be that the non-X has a lesser (or no) IGPU? Would be pretty odd if that was the case, but I'm struggling to see where the extra 30W comes from for a 0.1GHz speed bump.

Also wondering what "WOF" and "PIB" stand for. Any takers?
faugusztin 9th February 2017, 12:51 Quote
NONE of the AM4 CPU's launched now has IGP. My guess would be X models are unlocked.

WOF = Without fan (as in cooler?). "PIB" (Wraith Packaged In Bundle) models have the wraith cooler in that picture.
Vault-Tec 9th February 2017, 12:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
NONE of the AM4 CPU's launched now has IGP.

Nope but then none of Intel's X99 CPUs have it either.

If you are "in" for this round then you were contemplating X99 IMO. This is the high end.

Apparently AMD will be releasing APUs come September time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawjaws
So, per that link, the 1700 is 65W and the 1700X is 95W. Wonder what the difference is down to? Could it be that the non-X has a lesser (or no) IGPU? Would be pretty odd if that was the case, but I'm struggling to see where the extra 30W comes from for a 0.1GHz speed bump.

Also wondering what "WOF" and "PIB" stand for. Any takers?

It is probably down to how much they boost out of the box dude. For example I just gave away a Xeon that was rated at 60w max. It pulled around 6w idle and 9w during usual desktop use. I struggled to make it pull 60 even with Prime 95. However, that had set boosts.

Apparently Ryzen detects what board you have and how good your cooler is and then boosts itself to attain the best clocks. However, that may be on X models only.

I would imagine that people who do not like to overclock will go for the models that boost the highest, leaving the enthusiasts to wring the 1700 as hard as they can manually?
faugusztin 9th February 2017, 12:56 Quote
@Vault-Tec: i was reacting to bawjaws :).
Vault-Tec 9th February 2017, 12:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
@Vault-Tec: i was reacting to bawjaws :).

Oh. That will be me and context again :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
NONE of the AM4 CPU's launched now has IGP. My guess would be X models are unlocked.

WOF = Without fan (as in cooler?). "PIB" (Wraith Packaged In Bundle) models have the wraith cooler in that picture.

You could be right there on the cooler part.

As for unlocked? AMD claimed they are all unlocked. However, they did not specify whether they were all multi unlocked. So they could be doing something like they did with the Phenom 2 X6 where the multi was locked on the cheaper 1055T leaving you to rag on the bus.
bawjaws 9th February 2017, 13:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
NONE of the AM4 CPU's launched now has IGP. My guess would be X models are unlocked.

WOF = Without fan (as in cooler?). "PIB" (Wraith Packaged In Bundle) models have the wraith cooler in that picture.

Cool, thanks for both of those pieces of information :)

Still struggling to see how you get a near 50% increase in TDP between the 1700 and 1700X even if the X model is multiplier-unlocked - surely the TDP is based on "stock" (boost) clocks, so it just seems like there must be some reason why there's such a difference in TDP when the clocks are so close.

VT - Might mean that the 1700 is a bit of a lemon in comparison with the 1700X though, if it doesn't boost as easily/frequently (even if the boost frequency of 3.7GHz is only slightly lower than the 1700X's 3.8GHz). As with everything Ryzen, we'll just have to wait and see how these bad boys perform in the wild :)
Vault-Tec 9th February 2017, 13:09 Quote
BJ yeah if my hunch is correct and multi/bus clocking then it could be like the 1055T which could only really do around 3.6ghz on every chip. Unless of course you had a really good one, then you could do 3.7+.

The 1090T though could usually do 4ghz all day long.

Also, if the "X" is anything to go by then it may mean extreme, meaning it could boost to buggery and beyond? It may also mean the multi is fully unlocked..

I still think the 1700 will be the enthusiast chip to have. Max perf for minimum dorrar.

Going back to the hike in TDP. These are 8 core CPUS with HT (kinda sorta) so as soon as they start to rise in clocks the power use will change fast.

Here, just as an example to that.

I just gave away a 60w Ivy 8c 16t Xeon, rated for 60w. It ran full pelt at 2ghz. That was all 8 cores and 16 threads boogieing on down in Prime 95.

My new Xeon which is absolutely identical (same cores, same threads) pulls 130w. It only clocks to 3.2ghz on all 8 cores. Now whilst 1.2ghz was a massive rise in clock speeds for me it is a bit of a piggy when it comes to the TDP.
bawjaws 9th February 2017, 13:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vault-Tec
Also, if the "X" is anything to go by then it may mean extreme, meaning it could boost to buggery and beyond? It may also mean the multi is fully unlocked..

Going back to the hike in TDP. These are 8 core CPUS with HT (kinda sorta) so as soon as they start to rise in clocks the power use will change fast.

The thing that doesn't add up to me is that the 1700 allegedly boosts from 3.3GHz to 3.7GHz and the 1700X from 3.4GHz to 3.8GHz, but the 1700X has a 95W TDP and the 1700 only 65W. It seems like a lot of extra power for not very much more in the way of clock speed - an extra 100MHz (both base clock and boost) for almost 50% greater TDP? I know these things aren't linear but that seems like a disproportionate increase in TDP.

Even if the X has an unlocked multiplier then surely the TDP would be based on the "stock" base and boost multi?
faugusztin 9th February 2017, 13:30 Quote
TDP's are often just brackets. 1700 might have fallen on one side of the 65W divider, while 1700X might have fallen on the other side. 60W => 65W bracket, 70W=95W bracket. Other option might been what Vault-Tec said, that is more aggressive clocks, staying at higher clocks for longer time, before thermal/TDP limitation come in the play.
Anfield 9th February 2017, 13:37 Quote
More price leaks...

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/us-prices-of-amd-ryzen-processors-surface-as-well-starts-at-316-59.html

Also some more details on Zen architecture, mostly in japanese but also some english bits in between:

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/column/kaigai/1043349.html#1_s.png
Vault-Tec 9th February 2017, 13:41 Quote
Yeah I think the expensive ones will overclock quite aggressively. According to something said somewhere at some point (of which I can not remember) it was said that depending on your cooling etc Ryzen would clock itself as high as it could.

I think that is why they did not talk about, nor set in stone, the boost clocks when they ran Blender and Handbrake. I think they were still working on it.
Gareth Halfacree 9th February 2017, 13:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vault-Tec
According to something said somewhere at some point (of which I can not remember) it was said that depending on your cooling etc Ryzen would clock itself as high as it could.
Dude, it's in the article - the one linked to the thread in which you are currently participating. :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Article, by Me

Extended Frequency Range (XFR) is where SenseMI gets interesting for the enthusiast: XFR, AMD claims, amounts to an effective on-by-default overclock which triggers when the chip is sufficiently cooled. While stock heatsinks and fans will be expected to get the Ryzen chips to no more than their default advertised clocks, those adding beefier coolers - including liquid-cooling systems - can expect to see the processor running faster without the need to manually overclock the part.

What's interesting, there, is that it's called XFR and not EFR. What's the letter suffix AMD has chosen for its highest-end enthusiast parts - the ones with the oddly-raised TDP despite only minor boosts to stock clocks? Yup: X.

I'm putting it out there: anyone want to bet against XFR being exclusive to the X chips? Fiver to the charity of the winner's choice.
Anfield 9th February 2017, 13:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
I'm putting it out there: anyone want to bet against XFR being exclusive to the X chips? Fiver to the charity of the winner's choice.

Or the in between option:
On the non X its like with Intels Turbo Booost 3.0 where it doesn't work on all cores while the X version gets it on all.
Vault-Tec 9th February 2017, 13:55 Quote
I agree Gareth, I think the expensive ones will do all of the work for you so you don't have to get your hands dirty. So for enthusiasts the 1700 will probably be the one to have so long as you are not scared by the overclocking part.
Gareth Halfacree 9th February 2017, 14:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anfield
Or the in between option:
On the non X its like with Intels Turbo Booost 3.0 where it doesn't work on all cores while the X version gets it on all.
Could be - boosts performance while running two or four of the eight cores on the non-X, and all eight on the X. That maps quite nicely to a 50 per cent increase in TDP, too.
RedFlames 9th February 2017, 14:09 Quote
Looks like AMD are only [officially] supporting RyZen on Windows 10... linky.

*idly wonders if they'll get the same flak intel did*
Vault-Tec 9th February 2017, 18:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFlames
Looks like AMD are only [officially] supporting RyZen on Windows 10... linky.

*idly wonders if they'll get the same flak intel did*

Silly decision, given that many won't upgrade to Kaby because they don't want to leave 7. However, it was obviously more trouble than it was worth.
rollo 9th February 2017, 21:35 Quote
Good decision by AMD, at this point windows 7 is just legacy support.
bawjaws 10th February 2017, 14:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vault-Tec
BJ yeah if my hunch is correct and multi/bus clocking then it could be like the 1055T which could only really do around 3.6ghz on every chip. Unless of course you had a really good one, then you could do 3.7+.

The 1090T though could usually do 4ghz all day long.

Also, if the "X" is anything to go by then it may mean extreme, meaning it could boost to buggery and beyond? It may also mean the multi is fully unlocked.

Just to follow up on this: AMD had said that all Ryzen chips would be unlocked, but actually, they specifically said "multiplier unlocked", per this slide (which VT originally posted a month ago):
http://i.imgur.com/y5w7Rv9.jpg
Ending Credits 10th February 2017, 14:40 Quote
Quote:
If you have a modern skylake chip or Haswell chip your not really looking to upgrade either way. Unless something major changes for gaming I am still gpu limited even with a nvidia 1080 ( how crazy is that lol)

Yeah, I even went with an i5 for my "budget isn't even a thing" machine, because why pay hundreds of pounds more for MHz you're never going to use.

Also, gareth, I'll take that bet just to make things interesting. PM me when you win it otherwise I'll forget.

Come to think of it, I'd better not win as I have absolutely no idea what charity to choose...
Gareth Halfacree 10th February 2017, 15:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ending Credits
Also, gareth, I'll take that bet just to make things interesting. PM me when you win it otherwise I'll forget.
Huzzah! Nobody ever takes me up on these things!
Vault-Tec 11th February 2017, 14:11 Quote
What is believed to be a 1700X 8c 16t vs 6950x 10c 20t.

http://i.imgur.com/YO8YCpO.png

Edit. 8C 16T Ivy @ 3.4

http://i.imgur.com/W6phsL4.jpg
Vault-Tec 13th February 2017, 14:41 Quote
Vault-Tec 14th February 2017, 11:09 Quote
faugusztin 14th February 2017, 11:32 Quote
Also logic of that "per core" is flawed. Especially in the era when you have different Turbo clocks depending on core load count, new features like that new automatic AMD OC and so on.

When you do a 8-core load and divide the result by 8, you might get a different "per core" score than if you did a 4 or 1 core load.
Vault-Tec 14th February 2017, 11:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
Also logic of that "per core" is flawed. Especially in the era when you have different Turbo clocks depending on core load count, new features like that new automatic AMD OC and so on.

When you do a 8-core load and divide the result by 8, you might get a different "per core" score than if you did a 4 or 1 core load.

I know, hence the pinch of salt.

Edit. Just to say. With all of these benchmarks and leaked info you usually have three scenarios.

1. Total BS.
2. Totally the truth, but usually on a ES or what not.
3. Somewhere in the middle, which turns out to be correct after the launch.

It's the same every single time.
Isitari 15th February 2017, 10:53 Quote
Again more leaked stuff but it does have actual benchmarks but as ever massive pinch of salt:

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

Edit: posted already by vault via another website.

Sent from my SM-N915FY using Tapatalk
Vault-Tec 15th February 2017, 11:05 Quote
Already posted that :)

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/amd_s_ryzen_cpus_reviews_are_rumoured_to_go_live_on_february_28th/1

Reviews going live on the 28th apparently. One day before I get paid /facepalm

:D
Isitari 15th February 2017, 11:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vault-Tec
Already posted that :)

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/amd_s_ryzen_cpus_reviews_are_rumoured_to_go_live_on_february_28th/1

Reviews going live on the 28th apparently. One day before I get paid /facepalm

:D
Ahhhh durp by me XD

Sent from my SM-N915FY using Tapatalk
Anfield 16th February 2017, 13:29 Quote
Another day another tiny bit of Ryzen info...

Some pictures of the Gigagbyte Aorus AX370-Gaming 5 have surfaced:

http://www.kitguru.net/components/motherboard/jon-martindale/gigabyte-shows-off-aorus-am4-motherboard-for-ryzen-cpus/
Vault-Tec 16th February 2017, 14:43 Quote
https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/first_images_of_x370_motherboard_packaging_appear/1

Also what appears to be a genuine bench of a Ryzen CPU has leaked from a partner.

Just look up AdoredTV on YouTube. On phone ATM...
Vault-Tec 17th February 2017, 10:48 Quote
1600x bench leaked.

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-benchmark-leak/

For comparison purposes, we used a Core i5-7600K running in our test rig and loaded the same CPU-z version (v1.78.1 x64). The quad core (non hyper-threaded) chip achieved a score of 2130 in single-threaded and 8206 in multi-threaded.

The Ryzen 5 1600X had a score of 1888 in single-threaded performance bench and 12544 points in multi-threaded performance bench

This is not a conclusive result but the multi-threaded performance is really good for the AMD part. This chip is expected to retail at $259 US which is $17 more than the $242 asking price of the Intel part.

lmfao.
rollo 17th February 2017, 11:04 Quote
So hang on a minute 4 cores no hyper threading is only 4K behind 12 threads. I expected the multi core to be a lot further ahead.
Vault-Tec 17th February 2017, 11:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
So hang on a minute 4 cores no hyper threading is only 4K behind 12 threads. I expected the multi core to be a lot further ahead.


It's 30% faster threading and costs $17 more. And there's a very high chance the I5 is clocked much higher. Remember, the I7 5820k has crap "out of the box" clock speeds. Look at the single core score, that pretty much says it all.

AMD said they would compete with Broadwell E. Not Skylake and not Kabylake.
Anfield 17th February 2017, 11:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
So hang on a minute 4 cores no hyper threading is only 4K behind 12 threads. I expected the multi core to be a lot further ahead.

The 4 core cpu gets roughly two thirds of the score of the 6 core cpu.

Hyperthreading doesn't provide all too much of an advantage (varies depending on software used of course), look how close the 7700k is to the 7600k:

https://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2016/12/05/core-i7-7700k-performance-overclock-preview/1

And for the premium Intel charges with the 7700k over the 7600k just for the privilege of hyperthreading you'll get another two physical cores thrown in on the AMD side.
Vault-Tec 17th February 2017, 11:22 Quote
Just so that Rollo doesn't implode...

The I5s always beat the high end CPUs when it comes to single threaded performance. The 7600k slaughters my 5820k for gaming. Take it to something that threads, though? yeah, bye bye.

I knew AMD were going to be aggressive with pricing but s**t darn, a 5820k for I5 money. That's amazing.
rollo 17th February 2017, 12:06 Quote
I am not really fussed either way, not personally in the market for a cpu. By the time I am zen will likely be in its second or 3rd version.

Just wondering why 8 extra threads does not deliver more than 4K score wise. Poor scaling? Poor coding? Cpuz usually just 100% your cores and threads as it's a good stability test.
Gareth Halfacree 17th February 2017, 12:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
Just wondering why 8 extra threads does not deliver more than 4K score wise. Poor scaling? Poor coding? Cpuz usually just 100% your cores and threads as it's a good stability test.
Hyper-Threading is basically misdirection: you can run double the simultaneous threads only if they're not all doing the same thing (i.e. aren't both trying to access the same shared logic). Think of it like eating a really long sandwich: you and I can eat it at the same time if we start at opposite ends, halving the time it takes to eat a sandwich (and meeting in the middle for a Lady and the Tramp smooch); if you insist on starting at the same end as me, though, we're going to have to alternate bites and it'll take just as long as if I were eating it alone. That's Hyper-Threading.

So, what you've got here is a four-core chip versus a six-core chip. Simple maths: the four-core chip scores 8206 in the multithreading test, which is 2051.5 points per core; the six-core chip scores 12544, which is 2090 per core. In other words, the two chips are largely on-par performance wise, with Hyper-Threading giving a minor boost to the AMD chip.

EDIT:
Here's a little demonstration, courtesy my AMD A10-5800K - which any critic will tell you isn't a real quad-core because it shares some of the logic elements between core pairs. Here I'm running the SysBench CPU benchmark with differing numbers of threads, which is the absolute worst-case scenario for any shared-logic/Hyper-Threading system 'cos all the threads are trying to do exactly the same thing at exactly the same time.

http://forums.bit-tech.net/picture.php?albumid=2669&pictureid=53776

You'll note the biggest improvement in performance comes as a result of going from one thread to two threads, as I've doubled the resources available: it's almost double (1.9695x) the performance. Going from two to three, though, is less impressive because the third thread is starved of resources: now I'm getting 2.8834x the performance, instead of the expected 3x. Going to four ends up being even less of a gain: rather than the 4x boost you might expect, I'm only getting 3.6788x the performance. Naturally, increasing the threads still further does nothing - in fact, going to six threads hurts performance (3.628x the performance of a single thread).
Vault-Tec 17th February 2017, 12:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
I am not really fussed either way, not personally in the market for a cpu. By the time I am zen will likely be in its second or 3rd version.

Just wondering why 8 extra threads does not deliver more than 4K score wise. Poor scaling? Poor coding? Cpuz usually just 100% your cores and threads as it's a good stability test.

Not sure and TBH I CBA revisiting my bios a few times to find out :D

What I may do though is run it on my stock 5820k.

Edit. Stock 5820k 2133mhz ram.

http://i.imgur.com/9oa3YXP.jpg

Overclocked to 4.5ghz

http://i.imgur.com/PvXEOKn.jpg

And...

http://i.imgur.com/fADr7g4.jpg

$17 more than an I5.. $17 more than an I5...
Anfield 17th February 2017, 12:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo

Just wondering why 8 extra threads does not deliver more than 4K score wise. Poor scaling? Poor coding? Cpuz usually just 100% your cores and threads as it's a good stability test.

Scaling with hyper threading is poor.

Just did a quick test on a 6700k at stock clocks:

Without hyperthreading: 8362
With hyperthreading: 9216

(note, that is on an older version of cpu-z, so not necessarily comparable to the 5820k results posted by Vault-Tec).
Vault-Tec 17th February 2017, 12:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anfield
Scaling with hyper threading is poor.

Just did a quick test on a 6700k at stock clocks:

Without hyperthreading: 8362
With hyperthreading: 9216

(note, that is on an older version of cpu-z, so not necessarily comparable to the 5820k results posted by Vault-Tec).

I'm not sure tbh. Your score seems perfectly believable really. Mind you, you could always download 1.74 and see if it changes anything.
Anfield 17th February 2017, 12:40 Quote
Got an irrelevant difference of 9 points with up to date version, so scratch the not necessarily comparable part.
Vault-Tec 17th February 2017, 12:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anfield
Got an irrelevant difference of 9 points with up to date version, so scratch the not necessarily comparable part.

Yeah I kinda figured as much tbh. I couldn't see them radically changing it in a newer version.
Journeyer 20th February 2017, 10:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anfield
Another day another tiny bit of Ryzen info...

Some pictures of the Gigagbyte Aorus AX370-Gaming 5 have surfaced:

http://www.kitguru.net/components/motherboard/jon-martindale/gigabyte-shows-off-aorus-am4-motherboard-for-ryzen-cpus/

Oh that is lovely!
I will need one of those in my desk - it will fit in beautifully. Upgrade time is almost upon me; I can already smell the new hardware.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums