Hey fags

Obviously, the bang for buck will be firmly on AMD's side. AMD also intends to keep the AM4 platform for at least three years, so you will have a CPU upgrade path in the future. Intel changes platforms every other generation and Cannonlake next year will already require new mobos with a new socket.

I don't see how is this even a choice worth pondering.

Ask yourself: Do you want to help stuff the Sarkeesians of this world with your money?

I'm waiting for the following before upgrading:

Vega based GPU.
Next iteration of vr headset (wireless). LG is developing one that seems promising.

which is which

because every game is optimized for intel shills and intel still offers good performance although at a higher cost. hopefully intel will reduce their prices and it'll become more reasonable

whenever those Ryzen-based APUs finally come out in Q4 of this year

if you're going to upgrade to a new botnet cpu, upgrade to ryzen. there's a thread in catalog somewhere about the possibility that ryzen may support coreboot in the future. even the possibility of ryzen being de-botnetted in the future is a strong selling point over intel.

as for performance consider it equal or close (5% - 10%) to equal to i5 7600. gaming performance will probably lag compared to i5 but that's to be expected since most games are built with intel's compiler. better drivers and optimizing to run on ryzen should improve performance.

I'm not sure what q2 is but the i7 is a really solid processor and pretty affordable with the new price cut.

You can't even change the clock settings on some AM4 mobos without a Windows 10 app. Buyer beware.

Whichever you choose, every gayme is gonna be bottlenecked by the GPU rather than CPU at any reasonable settings. If gayming is your only purpose, wait for the Ryzen 3 and invest the $100-$150 you save in a stronger GPU. That's how you'll get better gayming performance.

ryzen 3 seems a bit low for me,i'm gonna get ryzen 5. also i cannot wait until ryzen 3 is out i can barely wait for ryzen 5. and i am probably going to get a gtx 1070 instead of a 1060 with the money saved

So did anyone get Windows 7 to work on Ryzen already?
From what I have heard so far the problem is that Windows 7 needs a USB driver to install itself and recognize USB devices (like Keyboards) and those drivers conveniently have not been integrated in the hardware to make it super annoying to install.

There seem to be some workarounds though and ASUS apparently has USB drivers listed on their support page for at least one of their AM4 boards.

Did anyone with a Ryzen try this out already?
Genuinely interested if it would work despite their claims it would not.

Good for you! Maybe you'll even get an 1080 if by that time Vega forces Nvidia to slash prices on top models. Or just buy the fucking Vega.

You can always install it on a different computer (even a virtual machine), install all the drivers and then transplant the boot drive to the Ryzen machine. Annoying, yes, but not hard to do.

wtf is vega

Yes.
anandtech.com/show/11182/how-to-get-ryzen-working-on-windows-7-x64

The next-gen high-end GPU from AMD, successor to Fury.
hexus.net/tech/news/graphics/102994-amd-radeon-rx-vega-disrupt-gaming-pro-graphics-ai/
ve.ga/
Were you living under a rock for the last year, user?

Thanks user, i just bought it and no one told me shit it wasn't going to support windows 7; but hey, now i know a way to Install and making it work with windows 7.
Thanks.

if vega isnt priced at least 100$ below 1070 while offering the same performance then i wont buy it

It probably will be, knowing AMD's pricing strategy. However I expect performance at least halfway between 1080 and 1080Ti for the fully enabled model.

I mean even I don't want to fall for the AMD meme, but intel-aviv apparently does.

what op sys

Are there any dual-socket Ryzen motherboards out there?

Thanks for your opinions faggot, we really care

The same is unfortunately true of Ryzen, but it's fault of Kikerosoft, not Intel or AMD.
Fortunately nothing is stopping you from installing LInux - and there are workarounds to make older Windows work too.

This is a desktop chip, it doesn't support dual socket. What you want is the server Naples chip that's coming out later this year.

im op,fuck you

I don't care about gaymen. Could someone just tell me if it's performance per dollaridoo is comparative to Intel? So is it the best cheap processor?
Could you graph it for me.
I don't know how to google.

Could you fuck off to >>>/g/

Hey look another CPU advertisement thread
Thanks you for explaining nothing about how great the new deprecated X86 instructions are.
Now please GTFO of this board
This is not 4chan.

I don't know what exactly you want compared, nor what you want to use the processor for so I'm just gonna go with a geekbench 4 test I found on arstechnica.
I'm also going to mosh together all the values, or else this is going to take over an hour and nobody got time for that.

For prices I'm going by Newegg's prices (ceiled, no discount) because America is the world and I hate Amazon's webdesign.

Mind you that these numbers are essentially completely arbitrary, but if a chart makes you happy then why the fuck not.

...

Geekbench is a really crappy and unrepresentative benchmark though. Also:

I made a chart just for you.
Still shitbench but I can't be arsed to scour the internet for 7Zip and Blender benchmarks for 1700 and 7700k.
Especially when 90% of articles are just HOW MANY FPS IN CALL OF DUTY.

That's some dedicated autism, user. Good job. Why'd you nuke the previous version?

cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700-vs-Intel-Core-i5-6600K/3917vs3503

Because my autism realized too late how stupid it was to combine the two highly different single thread and muti thread scores and calculate dollarydoos on that. So instead I calculated it for each score and then used the mean between the two. Felt like a better way to calculate score, I don't know. Maybe I'm just retarded.

Fuck yes, AMD fixed this very annoying bug at last.

Ryzen 5 is apparently set for release on April 11. Less than a month to go!

WHY ?!
HOW LAME DOES COMPUTING HAS TOO FALL TO STOP THIS KIND OF SHIT ?!

It was a longstanding ATI bug dating all the way back to the early 00s apparently.

Thank god AMD fixed it, at last.

Maybe people like you wrote the driver?

They've "fixed" it multiple times, shit keeps coming back.

Why are you attacking him for complaining about a bug?

is there a linux livecd out that is already able to boot on ryzen hardware?

don't fall for that meme.

wrong. You can't really optimize for a specific cpu/gpu nowadays. Nobody knows anything about the hardware, just marketing descriptions intel/amd put out that are basically the cpu equivalent of "here's our amazing new car, it has 4 doors and it's a front engine rear wheel drive.". You wouldn't be able to build an aftermarket bumper with just that information, just like you wouldn't be able to make code that works better on a specific cpu. All you can do is use extensions like SSE and so on. When you see those games where intel performs better than AMD on an unrealistic way, that's because the developer partnered with intel and basically whenever the game detects an AMD cpu it gimps performance. There was a pretty big outcry at some point because basically some games had codepaths with performance-increasing extensions that were compatible with both intel and amd cpus, but they were only used if an intel cpu was detected.
This is specially true with gpus because the gpu part isn't actually shipped in binaries, it's compiled by a compiler that is part of the gpu driver, so you don't even know how your code will end up like. You just have a bunch of opengl or whatever code that you can hopefully make work better in general, instead of tailoring for a specific piece of hardware.

The architecture that AMD claims is 56% better than the previous but now runs a few hundred mhz slower and intel is running a few mhz faster than before, all the while intel has stagnated but not ceased improving IPC-wise. In games with poor multithreading and synthetic single-thread benchmarks the results will always be the same, AMD will perform at about half of the performance and intel will still be a few % higher on multithreaded performance. In fact AMD went full retard and jewed up the prices hoping people would buy their inferior cpu based solely on hype, the 350~$ ryzen 1800x loses to the 350~$ i7-7700k in multithreaded performance while having half of the single core performance. They're right and people will fall for the memes and the hype and get their cpus, but those people will only buy the low end ryzen parts. The people who would buy a 500$ cpu will completely ignore ryzen because they're cpu enthusiasts and know better. Maybe a few retards who would get an alienware will touch it, but everyone will stick to the intel ship after the shilling and hype die off. I really wish AMD would compete, but by the looks of it they either didn't try or they weren't capable of.
Another thing I noticed is that the consensus is "AMD has to be able to compete" but nobody is looking at the reasons why. And the main reason why (at least how I noticed it) is that they want intel to drop their ludicrous pricing. Ryzen is unable to compete unless AMD drops their retarded, uncompetitive pricing (which has been their strategy for a long while so it's still possible) and even then they still won't have the best CPU. So what we're looking at here is AMD releasing yet another cpu that performs worse than intel and costs more, but at least this time around it won't double it's cost by chugging enough power to supply a small town. AMD will only come out on top when they make a CPU that crushes intel, not a cpu that is competitive with intel because then intel will just drop their price a bit and everyone will ignore AMD.

top b8 NOT

low_quality_bait.jpg

oh yes they are fucking retarded.

This could have been a giantic plus for them.

>They price their slightly inferior in terms of gaming performance chips at the same price point as intel
Why buy an inferior product for the same price? Video editing is a small niche but gaming market is giantic

This could have a great PR boost and plus for privacy groups

once again
7800k whatever was over 1000 dollars
7700k over 500
AMDs Ryzen 7series is 500 and under, 5series is EVEN BETTER
and it BARELY loses to it, around 10-15% while being SIGNIFICALLY CHEAPER
its worth the price

Incorrect. It's Micro$oft who refused to support new platforms in legacy Windows versions. AMD likely had no say in that.

They likely have their hands tied by an NSL here.

price drops change things of course,
but its still worth it to acknowledge AMDs success

ark.intel.com/products/97129/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-4_50-GHz
newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117726
Look at the MSRP and newegg prices, intel dropped their 7700k pricing and now they have a cpu that performs better than a comparable ryzen cpu and costs the same.
Like I said, I really wish AMD would be able to compete but they need a cpu that crushes intel, not one that's slightly worse.

If AMD open-sourced their firmwares and dropped PSP I would be AMD-only in a heartbeat and encourage everyone I know to do the same. As it stands though, intel does have the competitive advantage with the price drop.

Will there be a model of Ryzen without PSP?

No.

That's not even the worst of it. Come to Germany where a 1700 (no X!) costs 360 €UROS. Meanwhile the gaming-equivalent i5 7600K costs 250 €UROS. Fucking hell! We can speculate about future revisions producing a great gaming CPU after all but this first batch is overpriced garbage for anyone but professional video editors.

It really is "moar cores" all over again. Ryzen CPUs have more cores but fail to beat Intel in single thread and with the way AMD is marketing them it seems intentional. They seem to have intentionally bet on a magical multicore payoff that never comes - AGAIN. Why?

The only thing that could save this first Ryzen batch would be a drastic price cut. For the 1700 this would mean dropping to the 250 € level, to attack the i5 7600K. But even then why would people upgrade to Ryzen from some older Intel? Why would they try something new if for the same price they can stick with the company they already trust? The last chance in my opinion is a 1600 (X or not) that is nicely overclockable and priced competitively, let's say 240, 230 € (10-20 bucks cheaper than the 7600K). AMD need to be offering similar gaming performance while beating Intel in price slightly. It's the only way.

Let's cut through all the bullshit, shilling, spin, sales-pitches, fake news, fanboism, etc,

1. Go here: cpu.userbenchmark.com/
2. Sort by "Effective speed"
3. Go down the list until reach your price point.
4. Buy that.

...

Are you fucking retarded? That's a non-SMT quad-core. Equivalent to a Ryzen 3.

...

It will be when Ryzen 3 is out, and can keep up with it in everything including gaming. For now that's not certain, just look at the clock speeds on Ryzen 5 and 3. They likely won't match the gaming performance of 7 because AMD seems to select weaker silicon for the fewer core models. Off the top of my head I think it was 3.2 with 3.7 boost or something like that for Ryzen 3, whereas our performance estimates using Ryzen 7 are assuming a 3.5-4 range or similar.

The cheapo 1700 is a 3.0 -> 3.7 part though. You need to splurge for the expensive X parts to get a >3.5 octacore without overclocking.
We already know there's not that much difference between them after OC though.

That sounds like it would use a lot of power, relatively speaking. I'm only interested in CPUs with 15W TDP and below that have good performance-per-watt.

Okay, so 5 and 3 will be even worse. Game performance will be worse than on 1700, making those no longer 7600K competitors, at least at launch in past games.

Very fucking interesting video regarding Ryzen's performance in NVidia Kikeworks(TM) titles.

youtube.com/watch?v=0tfTZjugDeg

The advantage of 5 and will be that you get more cores.

Ryzen 6 core will be priced against Intel quad, Ryzen quad against Intel dual core.

It is a bit like FX, where you give up some single thread for more cores, but not nearly as extreme of a sacrifice of single thread performance.

However, if you look outside of gaming, you see Ryzen is pretty close in single thread to Intel. I think there is some fuckery going on with games, specially looking at shit like this

Things are improving with BIOS and Windows updates. Not only that, these chips love RAM speed increases. I think by the time 5 and 3 come along, the gaming outlook will be a lot different. A part of me thinks AMD knew they would get fucked by software, so they did a staggered release so the architecture could be retested later once the softwares (BIOS, Windows, games) are improved.

It's definitely something worth watching, and I think buying an Intel now would be a very big mistake, because you have potentially double or 50% more cores for the same price.

The gaming performance thing is somewhat overblown though, it's typical Intel kiking, trying to salvage the fact that they are getting their asses kicked. In the K8 days, Intel did the same thing, they would find what they were strongest at and make sure the tech review sites would focus on that, so they could make their products look as good as possible.

Bonus captcha for this post.

Test

uwotm8? Except for the core count, the top Ryzen 5 has the same specs as the top Ryzen 7 (3.6->4.0). There's no reason why Ryzen 3 would be different.

Why? Ryzen 7 1700 is an octacore 65W part that runs well north of 3GHz. Intel only has quad-cores in this frequency and wattage neighbourhood. This shows that in fact, Zen is a much more power efficient core than Kaby Lake. I think a quad-core Zen will easily scale below 15W at reasonable, ~2GHz base clocks with a >3GHz turbo sustainable indefinitely with only two cores running and some spare TDP left for the GPU.

When I say Vega GPU, I mean the GPU core generation. Of course it will have less cores and lower clocks than the behemoth desktop Radeon Vega. More than anything we've seen in a laptop part to this date though.

So yes, you will have 15W quad-core SMT-enabled Zen + Vega + HBM2 APUs waiting for you around next Christmas if you have enough cash for them.

Did some googling. There's plenty of contradictory "information" out there. Overall I'm getting the impression you're right about 5, it will hit 4 GHz, but not 3. 3 seems to be limited to 3.7 boost clock. I don't quite know what "XFR" means. It says 4.1 for Ryzen 5 and 7 and 3.9 for the four core models.

We don't know yet the exact specs for the Ryzen 3. They weren't announced. Ryzen 5 and 7 were.
XFR is auto-overclock when you have a cooler that is more capable than required.

Here's the entire announced to date Ryzen lineup:
anandtech.com/show/11202/

Oh, there's another category below those. I've been talking about 1600X and 1500X because those are the best models with 6 and 4 cores respectively.

It wouldn't make sense for a "3" model to be more powerful than the 1500X so for gaming I don't think those will be relevant.

The Ryzen 3 are expected to be all quad-cores without SMT, just like the top Core i5 models touted as perfect gaming chips for the last few years. The Ryzen 5 all have SMT enabled.
It would definitely make sense to sell a close to 4GHz non-SMT quad-core for less than the SMT-enabled part.

How much cheaper could they realistically go with that? The 1500X is already really cheap and when I look at CPUs I look at longevity. Getting a new CPU usually means replacing mainboard and RAM along with it so I don't think low end CPUs are ever a good deal. It looks like a good deal at the time but after 3 years those things run out of steam and then you have to replace half your computer.

GPU and RAM, the easily replaceable parts are where I save money when I build a new computer (every 5-6 years).

I am baffled how it is not plastered all over the place that Intel sent out a memo to publishers asking them to contact Intel before publishing Ryzen benchmarks vs their own.

Just looked for that picture, must be on my laptop. Have my favourite Intel image instead.

AFAIRC, the two models will aim at $129 and $149 price points.

It's still priced out of many peoples' budgets. Especially outside of the first world. It's also overkill for mainstream gaming today.

You're still thinking in Intel terms, with their never-ending socket changes. AMD expects the AM4 platform to last at least three generations. You'll have plenty of time to upgrade the CPU.
Also, a >3.5GHz quad-core isn't exactly what I'd call low-end. The low end will be served by dual-core Raven Ridge APUs due around next Christmas.

They always say that, even Intel used to say that, didn't they? Look at past AMD sockets. Nuff said. Better than Intel but that's not saying anything.

I'm not. If tech media starts talking about it, they don't get Intel review samples.

What? AM3 and AM3+ were somewhat compatible. AM3+ came out in 2012. AM2 and AM2+ were similar, where the CPU and motherboards were interchangeable, but using AM2 motherboard gimped some features.

Intel mainstream sockets:
2015: LGA 1151
2013: LGA 1150 (H3)
2011: LGA 1151 (H2)
2009: LGA 1156 (H)
2004: LGA 775 (T)
2000: PGA 478 (Socket N)

The less Intel CPUs improve, the more they switch sockets.

AMD mainstream sockets:
2017: AM4
2011: AM3+ (somewhat compatible with AM3)
2009: AM3 (somewhat compatible with AM3+)
2007: AM2+ (somewhat compatible with AM2)
2006: AM2 (somewhat compatible with AM2+)
2004: 939
2003: 754
2000: Socket A

They both seem to change a bit too much. Intel has been averaging 2 years for a new socket on mainstream platforms, but they don't really give decent reasons for the switch.

In fact, you see Intel adding one pin or removing one three times, which breaks compatibility. AMD has done the same, but when they do, they manage to keep the two sockets somewhat compatible.

If you consider that AM3(+) and AM2(+) were somewhat compatible, you're looking at only three mainstream sockets released in 11 years.

The only reason we haven't gotten a new Intel socket in 2017 is because Intel can't make 10nm work and they haven't been able to release anything more than refreshed.

Obviously, I left out the non-mainstream sockets like FM2 and Intel enthusiast platforms, because I'm assuming most people here are buying mid-range rigs and not stupid shit like AM1 or expensive stuff like Intel enthusiast platform.

You skipped 1366 (?) on the Intel side, I'm still running that.

But the Intel comparison is irrelevant. Somewhat compatible. What does that mean? If you bought an AMD CPU in 2011 could you have upgraded your CPU to a CURRENT model in 2014? How about 2015? I'm going to guess the answer to both is no.

P.S. Sorry I should have read your whole post before responding. So AM3 has been out since 2009?? Then how is anything AM2 related even a thing anymore or was any time recently? Also why does AMD name things "2" when there's no "1"?

1366 was the enthusiast platform where you had to have an i7. I am talking mainstream with CPUs under about $350. I left out all the extra platforms, like Intel LGA 1366, LGA 2011v{1,2,3}, FM2, AM1, etc. since they aren't the main platforms people are buying.

Yes, I pulled that info off of wikipedia. I don't know why they start with 2, to make it even more confusing, they made AM1 a few years ago, that was for their Jaguar APUs (like the ones used in the consoles, just smaller).

AMD stuff just has good longevity. I don't know what to say, their stuff ages well. I have a new Ryzen 1700x and I still have a 7970 since it's still a semi-decent card.

AMD went through a phase where they switched sockets a lot, I remember s939 people feeling really pissed off AMD jumped to AM2 so fast. But they really stopped that.

I imagine we'll probably get a revision of Ryzen on AM4, then for the third/fourth version they'll have an AM4+, where the third version will work in AM4 boards but will be missing some features or something. That's just a guess, I could be totally wrong. I don't know what else AMD would need from a platform.

Everything from s939 to AM3+ had around 940 pins. AM2 only got canned for AM3 and DDR3 (maybe that's why AM2 and AM3 have those names, AM2 = DDR2, AM3 = DDR3, AM4 = DDR4?). Even FM socket has 900 something pins.

AM4 has almost 1400 pins. I don't know what all those pins are for, but I'm assuming they're being reserved. I could see them being used if this was a quad or triple channel platform, but it's only dual channel. But my point is AM4 has a lot of pins (Intel mainstream only has 1150 or so), and AMD shouldn't need to change sockets if they run out of pins any time soon. And DDR5 is not even going to have the spec written until 2018, so memory isn't a problem either.

I think if AM4 does not make it 3 years, people should be asking questions. I feel like AMD just added a ton of pins to the socket so they could add more features later without having to change sockets.

The thing that might bother some people is the rumor of x399 platform. Supposedly, there are rumors AMD is going to release an enthusiast or workstation platform with 8 to 16 core CPUs, quad channel, tons of PCIe lanes, etc. That could all be bullshit though.

1700x overclocked makes Gentoo very manageable. It took me around 4 hours to go from nothing to KDE installed. I remember when I got my FX 8350 I left that shit on overnight compiling, lol. I think the new Ryzens are worth it just to be able to run Gentoo without having to dick around with compiling forever, but that's just my humble opinion.

So yesterday I found out that the PS3 emulator will greatly benefit from moar coars (AMD FX and Ryzen series). Might be a reason to prefer Ryzen or generally AMD and their moar coars philosophy in the future.

I tried out the emulator on my gaming pc but I cannot get any game to run. There always comes some error message so I cannot tell anything about it.

those "specific situations" are called fanboyism and it is rampant

getting 1600 tomorrow. First new board+cpu in 7 years

underrated post

I'm still waiting for the HEDT Zen. My 8 cores were fine 5 years ago, 2017 screams for more.

I loved building it. reminds me of the excitement of mid 2000s PC building. 6 unlocked cores for a pretty good price, and turning on XMP on the ram and seeing 3200mhz come up was so sweet. I have no doubt ryzen will become the people's champion for the next couple years. Now they just need to not cock up vega.

Speaking of Vega... The real people's champion will come with the Zen+Vega+HBM APUs due end of this year. Shit's gonna get interesting, especially in the notebook arena.

If I make an arma 3 scenario with a gigantic amount of units will it be the CPU or the GPU that lags first? I only have a 970

This. Raven Ridge APUs are predicted to surpass PS4 in graphics performance.

They're supposed to sport a slightly improved revision of Zen cores, too. I wonder if they manage to loosen the 4GHz wall.