So basically lots of cores, good multithreaded performance, but just average single thread performance. Might be good for prosumer types who render video, but I think most people would probably be better off with mainstream Intel chips. Looks like the chipsets have some strange issues with memory too. I don't know, just looks kinda meh to me. A mediocre i7 competitor would have been a bigger deal a few years ago.
Single core performance is at or above Broadwell-e which is what AMD was shooting for. It looks to have a multicore advantage and price advantage over Broadwell-e which is exactly what prosumers would want. I don't think anyone expected it to beat Kaby Lake on single thread performance. Hardcore 300fps gamers will still need to stick to Kaby Lake. 60fps gamers like myself will still have to decide which is best for them. This guy made a follow-up video to a review he did this morning. He's just running game benchmarks with a R7 1700 @ 3.9GHz and a 7700K @ 5 GHz. Games are running at 1080p on ultra and there is almost no difference between the two.
This is an interesting comparison between DX11 and DX12 on AMD and Nvidia graphics cards. Nvidia still doesn't see much of an advantage in DX12. However, AMD's DX12 drivers seem to eliminate the CPU bottleneck by effectively spreading the load across multiple cores. So someone gaming at 1080p with Ryzen might do a lot better with an AMD video card than a Nvidia card. At least with DX12. I like this guys videos.
After 4 years and 11 months with my Ivy Bridge i5 3750k, I've decided to upgrade to a Ryzen R5 1600. I chose the ASROCK X370 Killer SLi/ac for my Motherboard and some Corsair Vengence White LED 3200Mhz memory. Everything should arrive on Saturday but since we're entertaining on Easter I probably won't be able to work on it until Monday.
i am so glad we finally hit an age where wifi is getting common in standard mobos rather than the top tier mobo's that cost $300. So dumb that it took this long.
Seems like that's the big market for these things: people on older i3 or i5 systems or still on Core 2 Duo era stuff. Anyone with a post Sandy Bridge i7 probably doesn't need Ryzen. That being said, the R5 1600 looks like a compelling value. Also the R7 1700 if you plan to do some overclocking.
It wasn't an easy decision. I had to decide between the i7 7700k, i5 7600k, R5 and R7. After the R5 came out I felt like the R7 wasn't worth the price for what I do on the PC. I decided to rule out the 7600k because for the money it still didn't seem like enough of an upgrade over my current i5. I also think the days of the 4 core 4 thread i5 are coming to an end. It kind of looks like Intel will be moving the i3 to 4 cores and the i5 will get hyperthreading. i7 will probably become a six core. Intel hasn't said that but it's what some people think. So really what it came down to was an R5 or a 7700k. This is also the conclusion some reviews came to with the R5 being the midrange budget choice and the 7700K still being the high-end choice for home use. The R7 is still the prosumer choice while Broadwell-E is still the business and deep pocket choice. I gave some serious thought to the i7 but it still would have been $180 more than my 1600 choice. Incidentally, I spent exactly $12 less on this build than I did on my 2012 build. I was leaning towards the 1600x but reviews were showing the 1600 could match it even using the stock cooler it came with. That means the 1600 could cost $60 less for the same performance. In regards to the gaming benchmarks, they don't really apply to me. The i5 and i7 usually have higher framerates but only with a bottleneck caused by taking the fastest video card available and running it at 1080p. Last time I had a resolution at or below 1080p was with a 100-pound Diamontron monitor. I also never buy the high-end card. I always get the highest mid-range card. The benchmarks I've seen with a 1070 show no difference between any CPU. Even an i3 can usually keep up. What I found more interesting than the average fps benchmarks were the frame time benchmarks. Enough people have been saying that Ryzen feels smoother in games to make it believable. There are two theories. Theory 1 is that Ryzen is a SOC so it has fewer operations that need to route through the onboard chipset. Theory two is that more cores make for a smoother gaming experience. Take a look at this chart which shows the frame time variance. Time over 2ms, 4ms, 8ms, 16ms. 7600k - 42%, 22%, 5%,1% 1600x - 14%, 2%, <1%, <1% 1700 - 6%, 1%, <1%, <1% The 1700 and 1600x have a lot less frame variance compared to the i5. This might account for the "smoothness" people are experiencing. Here is a rather long boring video of a double-blind gaming test between two Ryzens, a Braodwell-E, and the 7700k. The results are just a little surprising.
I'm waiting to see if Intel makes any changes to pricing. But as of right now, it seems the 1600 is the best value on the market. Quite a few games are getting patched to take more advantage of the extra cores, and these six core R5 models are going to age very well. The only things keeping me from starting a new build right away is I want to see how Intel responds, and I want to get a peek at what to expect from the 2nd gen Ryzen chips.
It doesn't hurt to wait. Anyone buying now is still an early adopter. While the CPU is fairly solid there are still many issues with the motherboards being worked out. Ram compatibility was a huge issue that has finally gotten a little better but not 100% fixed. I'm not even positive the ram I bought will work with my board at full speed. Old games probably won't get a patch but new games going forward should do better on multicore. Currently, Nvidia and Ryzen are not playing nice with DX12 on several games. Nvidia is blaming AMD for giving them samples too close to launch. I hope they get that figured out or I'll have to switch to Vega. Here you can see the RX 480 gaining about 70 fps over the GTX 1060. Conspiracy or oversite?
It's looking like Ryzen and the RX480 may not be enough to save AMD. Their stock crashed today. Worst single day drop since 2005. http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-stock-ryzen-cpu-share,34314.html
Well if you consider the stock went from $2 to $15 in 14 months it's not too surprising to see an equally large correction. If AMD fails it won't be right now. They're actually making money again and they still have more stuff coming. The R3 will be released for all the consumer PCs this quarter and the Raven Ridge mobile APU will come near the end of the year. Naples is their new 32/64 core server CPU being released this quarter and has been shown to be 2.5 times faster than Intel's 44 core Xeon. The next version of Ryzen, Pinnacle Ridge, is scheduled to come out in less than a year and then there is Vega. Vega might flop like Fury but from what I've read even Fury turned a small profit. The real threat will come in August. Intel has pushed up their Coffee Lake release about 6 months and it looks like there will be a new 6/12 core CPU priced the same as the current i7. I'm guessing that will be enough to make many people finally upgrade from their old i7s. I'm not sure if the i5 will become the new 4/8 or just a 6 core with no hyperthreading. Either way, it seems like a big enough leap forward that I wouldn't recommend buying anything Intel until it's released.
I actually expected AMD to bounce back into the $13s by now.... They ran up to $15 on the Trump bump like everyone else. But it's definitely oversold at this point. Fuck, Goldman Sachs. No doubt they are buying this up for their clients portfolio at the expense of retail investors and institutional holders.
AMD officially announced their 16 core 32 thread desktop CPU called Threadripper. It should crush Intel's flagship 10 core 6950X CPU. Intel might release a new Skylake-E around the same time so if AMD grabs the performance crown it probably won't be for long. https://www.engadget.com/2017/05/17/amd-s-16-core-threadripper-cpu-is-built-for-ultra-high-end-pcs/
AMDs stock went back to pre-crash levels today. Intel was also downgraded from buy to hold. I guess investors think AMDs server CPUs are more impressive than the consumer ones.
It's looks like AMD is competitive in the laptop market again. Ryzen 5 2500U VS Intel i5 8250u Ryzen is a little slower in single core, a little faster in multi-core, same power usage and battery life, 300% faster in games. https://www.laptopmag.com/articles/...68.1195518289.1513210180-203125465.1508122738 It's still a very entry level gaming laptop but considering you can get one for $650, or $550 on sale, it's kind of impressive. The 2700U hasn't come out yet but it's supposed to be faster than a Nvidia 950m.