AMD Ryzen, eventually better than Piledriver/Bulldozer/Vishera!

Integrated Electronics CPU performance difference for last 5 generations is close to none between generations, you can not deny that. AMD only did one thing, it pretty much matched the performance of current generation. It brings the much needed competition, but as for now, there is indeed no reason to upgrade, the competition initially makes little difference. Everything will be very expensive after the launch with very limited MoBo availability. Total platform upgrade is always pain in the ass not only financially.

It is especially funny here where you can pre-order CPUs, but there are no boards. In the US there are boards, but not CPUs. So for sure, it's very desireable…my ass :D

Maybe by the end of the year, with new Intel generation AMD will lower the prices, boards will be more available and cheaper, and early adopters of this useless technology which DDR4 is will also at least pay the low prices for the others :D

It seems the best deal is to get something like this:

1700 + Asus Crosshair / Taichi / Professional + OC.

So far the testing done at OCUK show that for proper OC results, a high end mobo is needed (Crosshair or Taichi got better results than others).

Not sure I'll bother this generation, the rig I bought last summer (Skylake in sig) is perfectly fine for my needs. I don't do CPU intensive stuff, maybe apart from the occasional MMO game, some which like fast CPUs. But some later iteration of Ryzen will more than likely end up in a future rig.

Your i5 6600K is already the minimal requirement for Battlefield 1, so you probably need a better one faster then you like. Because AMD had nothing good the last years, Intel also didn't make any progress last generations, they didn't even reach 5% better IPC and 5% higher clock last generations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delter

It seems the best deal is to get something like this:

1700 + Asus Crosshair / Taichi / Professional + OC.

So far the testing done at OCUK show that for proper OC results, a high end mobo is needed (Crosshair or Taichi got better results than others).

---

Don't expect much from overclocking and overclocking will have a big hit on power consumption, that's why the more expensive motherboards will get better oc results, better VRMs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -The_Mask-

Don't expect much from overclocking and overclocking will have a big hit on power consumption, that's why the more expensive motherboards will get better oc results, better VRMs.

---

Well, i expect 1000 MHz overclock from the 1700 with a high end motherboard and proper cooling.

Thats good.

These chips seem to be hard to move past 4.1/4.2, so even the 1800X wont OC much more than that.

You will probalby get 100-300 MHz over stock.

With that in mind, 1700 is clearly the chip to get, with a high end mobo for the consumer who wants to play a bit with OC.

The Ryzen 7 1700 already does 3,7GHz with turbo and should be able to do 3,75GHz with XFR. You may reach 4,1GHz with maybe more then twice the power consumption, not really worth it, considered the extra expensive motherboard and cooler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -The_Mask-

The Ryzen 7 1700 already does 3,7GHz with turbo and should be able to do 3,75GHz with XFR. You may reach 4,1GHz with maybe more then twice the power consumption, not really worth it, considered the extra expensive motherboard and cooler.

---

Yes, since the Turbo is 3.7 GHz, i expect 1000 MHz overclock over stock for pretty much every 1700.

Passing 4.0 GHz may not be worth since the chips seem to hit a wall at this point.

But even for 4.0 GHz you may need a high end mobo. The guys at OCUk couldnt do it with other X370 mobos than Hero and Taichi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Behemot

Exactly. As I expected, the official prices are pretty much 10000 CZK for this CPU. But, DDR4 is also expensive like hell which drives the upgrade much more expensive and frankly, for 97+ % tasks there is no benefit from "faster" memory, as well as from DDR2 to DDR3 and pretty much from DDR to DDR2 anyway. With frequency the latencies rise pretty much the same so the "full" actual average time of a DRAM cycle is almost the same for a decade now. But hey, insane huge numbers, it MUST be faster, no?:rolleyes: If there were no artificial DRAM capacity addressing limits, there would pretty much be no reason to upgrade to DDR999999… at all.

So the result is, yeah, it is still way cheaper than Integrated Electronics. But that's only because they could put almost any prices they wanted on the high-end last couple years. Hopefully the trend will get reversed now. I think it will, the second-hand market will get flooded with older silicon (which is only a bit slower) soon so many ppl will grab that cheap HW over a new one, which should press the prices lower.

Definitelly no benefit in upgrading full rig any time soon, unless you really NEED the performance.

---

Latency may not have decrease as much, but bandwidth ever increases, and it's useful in certain applications.

As for CPUs themselves, I'm starting to think we're close to the performance wall for single thread. Multithreaded can always be increased as long as you don't mind extra power draw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -The_Mask-

Your i5 6600K is already the minimal requirement for Battlefield 1, so you probably need a better one faster then you like. Because AMD had nothing good the last years, Intel also didn't make any progress last generations, they didn't even reach 5% better IPC and 5% higher clock last generations.

---

Oh. Well, I don't play BF1. Last multiplayer FPS that I got into was BF3, but not really for very long. Nowadays I pretty much only play single player stuff (Watchdogs 2 that I got with my 1070 card and works dandy with the 6600k) and as mentioned the occasional MMORPG, like Guild Wars 2. That one doesn't seem to benefit much from more than 4 cores tho. But I do want to support AMD again, since the last time I bought an AMD chip was for my HTPC and it's been a while.