Slashdot Mirror
AMD Ryzen 7 Series Processor Reviews Go Live, Zen Looks Strong Vs Intel (hothardware.com)
MojoKid writes: AMD has finally lifted the veil on independent reviews of its new Ryzen series of desktop processors that bring the company's CPU architecture back more on competitive footing versus its rival, Intel's Core series. The initial family of Ryzen processors consists of three 8-core chips, the Ryzen 7 1800X at 3.6GHz with boost to 4.1GHz, the Ryzen 7 1700X at 3.4Ghz with boost to 3.8GHz, and the Ryzen 7 1700 at 3GHz with boost to 3.7GHz. Each has support for 2 threads per core, for a total of 16 threads with 16MB of L3 cache on-board, 512K of L2 and TDPs that range from 65 watts for the Ryzen 7 1700 at the low-end, on up to 95 watts for the 1700X and 1800X. In comparison to AMD's long-standing A-series APUs and FX-series processors, the new architecture is significantly more efficient and performant than any of AMD's previous desktop processor offerings. AMD designed the Zen microarchitecture at the heart of Ryzen with performance, throughput, and efficiency in mind. Initially, AMD had reported a 40% target for IPC (instructions per clock) improvement with Zen but actually realized about a 52% lift in overall performance. In the general compute workloads, rendering, and clock-for-clock comparisons, the Ryzen 7 1800X either outperformed or gives Intel's much more expensive Core i7-6900K a run for its money. The lower clock speeds of the Ryzen 7 1700X and 1700 obviously resulted in performance a notch behind the flagship 1800X, but those processors also performed quite well. Ryzen was especially strong in heavily threaded workloads like 3D rendering and Ray Tracing, but even in less strenuous tests like PCMark, the Ryzen 7 series competed favorably. It's not all good news, though. With some older code, audio encoding, lower-res gaming, and platform level tests, Ryzen trailed Intel -- sometimes by a wide margin. There's obviously still optimization work that needs to be done -- from both AMD and software developers.
Then you start playing games then that strong hits a bit of a road block.
Ryzen isn't quite perfect but it's nice that AMD has burned their white flag of surrender and once again gotten fit to fight against chipzilla.
"or running VMs" which is what I do. But I'm waiting for Naples, because I need enterprise server shi.
verb
I have a feeling feeding a multi GPU rig will show some of its muscles. STH has some nice benchmarks showing it holding its own against a lot of Xeons.
After a while the virtualization code I was working with just stopped being maintained upstream for AMD because the value proposition was just so ludicrously bad vs. Intel and nobody was using them.
Has AMD, perchance, contributed code to KVM or Xen to get a running start or are we going to be waiting until after Intel's next chip rev. before Zen stands a chance again in this arena (at which point, it's already lost its advantage)?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Everytime i see AMD Ryzen i can't help but view and pronounce it like Wu Tang Klan's famous Rza member.
Anyone else with me?
In general, the reviews are negative. We knew Ryzen would be behind in single-threaded performance, and it is. But it's also behind in multi-threaded performance in a lot of benchmarks for some reason. It beats out Intel's offerings in certain workloads (primarily video encoding), but it gets its ass handed to it in games.
On FP-heavy workloads it's toe-to-toe with Intel processors costing twice as much. On integer-heavy workloads Intel still has the better technology but on price/performance it's correctly priced between the i7-7700k and Intel's HEDT offering. On memory-heavy workloads the dual channel is no match for Intel's quad channel but the price/performance is still okay as far as I've seen.
Where it does fall short is single/few-threaded games if you game at low resolution/high frequency but since hardly any gamer would spend $1000 on an 8C Intel processor it's no surprise games don't really take any advantage of the last four cores, even hyper-threading 4C/8T doesn't do much for gaming. But if you move to 1440p the difference is less, at 4K you're GPU limited anyway.
Basically if you'll only be using it for gaming and have a Sandy Bridge or newer just save your money and use it for a 1080 Ti or Vega. I find the reviews are trying really trying to make games CPU bound when they're mostly not, at least the way I prefer to play them. Maybe the FPS addicts with 144Hz monitors see it differently, I prefer higher quality as long as frame rates are reasonably smooth.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
all intel has to do is use the headstart money from the i-series whatever all the names were slash the price on i7, make i5 the new celeron even if selling it virtually no profit http://www.tomshardware.com/re... and bob's amd's uncle
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
Certainly good to see AMD come out with a real positive chip for a change. Still early yet, and Ryzen is more a chip for desktops and gamer's. But it's going to go up against Intel pretty well which has to be good for end users.
"The 1800X is basically useless unless you need a lot of cores for specific workloads. The 1700X looks to be a better all around choice, but even the lower price of this model doesn't justify choosing it over a i7 7700K for gamers."
This may come as a shock, so prepare yourself: Not everyone uses computers solely for gaming!
It's true! They can be used for all manner of interesting things Other Than Gaming.
So by God, you go right ahead with your windows box and your Intel i7 7700k. I'm gonna get me one of these basically useless 1800x doodads and it's gonna be glorious...
Rendering and video encoding is not an end-user application
Watch for "no true Scotsman" fallacies. How exactly do you define "an end-user application"? One focused on viewing works of authorship made by others rather than creating works?
Too bad Ryzen only supports Windows 10 or I might have bought a few.
Too bad Ryzen only supports Windows 10
Source? My sources say GNU/Linux runs on it.
Intel releases the 8-core i7-7900K for $499 which blows all the Ryzen 7 1800X away in every performance metric...
This is not probably too far off, and based on single threaded performance of the i7-7700K which is already 18% faster than the 1800X, an 8-core i7-7900K (if the price was right) would push AMD's best back to being #2...
However, the good news will be Ryzen will be a strong enough competitor to force chipzilla into a pricing war, and that'll make every buyer happier, no matter which horse you back.
"AMD multithread optimized games" is right up there with "Year of Linux desktop".
the cores and on-board caches is the same.. so just a hunch, here's just one actual chip being made and it's being binned according to quality off the line? so going cheap will probably not give you a part that will OC to the levels of the more expensive SKUs? going to wait a bit before taking the plunge to see what earlier adopters can do with that $329 part.
Ryzen make it stiff.
Heat sinks? I make my own thermal paste.
Not all tasks can simply be split out in parallel. I mean you can see that with physical tasks, just like computer tasks: Some things just have to be done in sequence, you can't speed them up by doing them at the same time.
Well with some kinds of games it may well be there's only so much you can spin off to run in parallel and you are still going to have one or two threads that hit the hardest, so they'll be the limiting factor.
Now that said, it looks like this processor is still plenty fast enough for gaming these days. Most new high end games need a good CPU, but are more GPU bound and it looks like the new AMD processor does fine. You do find some outliers but it is things like Ashes of the Singularity which is not only a notoriously power hungry game, but a bit on an anomaly engine-wise so its performance isn't that relevant to other titles.
Same thing I said wh n the 486 came out.
32 bits!!!! 1mb of ram!!!
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
It's a CPU running x86 instruction.
It basically works.
The rest is just drivers for the various parts (for the northbridge that's inside the CPU package, or for the chipset on the motherboard).
And drivers can be provided by the motherboard manufacturer.
So basically there's no reason why a Ryzen won't run on your Windows 8.1 or 7 (once you loaded the appropriate chipset drivers), nor why it won't run on older versions of Ubuntu (kernel 4.4, predates Ryzen, doesn't have any Ryzen specific code, will output a few oopses in code, but otherwise reported to run).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Regardless of gaming, which really is all about the GPU especially with Vulkan games coming down the pipe, ...
Vulkan has even another reason: it supports better multithreading, and Ryzen seems to shine under those circumstances.
(That's also why older, more single-thread-oriented games don't work better)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Rendering and video encoding is not an end-user application
No, indeed. Spending time online on Facebook/Whatsapp/instagram/etc. is the more typically end-user application.
And that has been already solved for quite some time.
Including by CPUs that run into your pocket.
Now please, can we go back to what modern CPUs have to offer ?
Intel clearly retains the crown for single thread and high-end performance. - And single-thread performance is king for games and end-user applications.
Was.
Multithreading is slowly entering other fields.
Games start to make better use of multiple cores.
That was one of the main argument for Vulkan : better multithreading support.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Strange, I just looked at a random x370 motherboard and there were drivers for win7,8,10
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm going to buy from AMD, probably a motherboard with RAM installed, just to help preserve competition in the processor market. No matter what I get, it's going to be a major upgrade from my current system.
Even if you ultimately choose an Intel processor, you're going to get a better deal thanks to AMD. Having some competition is obviously the major motivation for Intel to reduce prices on similar products. It's fun to compare the price/performance metrics, but keeping AMD viable is good for everyone.
I agree. Most games, for serious gamers, that are going to buy the 1800x are GPU bound anyway, not CPU. The 1800x will perform just as well as the Intel high end desktop CPU's at 4k or on multi-monitor setups. This is a clear home run for AMD, considering performance/$ across the board. If you play games at low resolution and that's it, why would you buy a $500 CPU in the first place? The reviews have been overly negative in this light, IMO.
Going through the benchmarks, it appears that AMD has really developed an architecture that was built with the datacenter/server/virtualization/HPC world in mind. It crushes Intel 6900k on some of the intensive Floating Point and computational processes that utilize all the cores efficiently. While on the desktop this may not be as crucial, in the server/hpc/virtualization world this huge. The new 'Naples' server chip, if it performs as well as the Ryzen, will be a major competitor to Intel in the HPC, cloud computing and server arena. The virtualization market alone is huge, which demands large numbers of highly efficient cores, which Ryzen has demonstrated it is capable of delivering. Unless AMD stumbles, the server CPU market is about to get a breath of fresh air later this year, with a much better performance/$ product in all likelihood.
For the single power user, if you install Linux, then use kvm and VGA-Passthrough, the chipset drivers will look like the ones the VM creates and Windows 7 should be fine as long as you don't set "-cpu host".
Further, I would wager that Red Hat could make some interesting ripples if they can have qemu emulate the new processor options without making Win7 unhappy (like using kvm=off to workaround nVidia's driver shenanigans).
Don't smoke weed before posting on Slashdot please.
I have an aging Sandybridge Quad. From the the benchmarks I've ready, the Ryzen will be a slight upgrade for me in gaming.
Obviously, when I edit and compress video, as I often do when starting a youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCALWDnHfbhcpdPco0cXIeOQ/videos?sort=dd&view=0&shelf_id=0
...and raytrace images from Rhino 3D, compress music, it will quite an upgrade.
I am glad AMD is competitive again because I like competition in the marketplace.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
If that's what he meant, then it's a real shame he said something so utterly, completely different.
Dude1: "Too bad I only like the taste of chocolate, and raspberry tastes terrible."
Dude2: "What's wrong with the taste of raspberry?"
Dude3: "He was referring to the fact that he doesn't like his new car." WTF?
actually with the advent of streaming everything, and instant replays of entire gaming sessions
How long will this remain true once video game publishers crack down on infringement of the publisher's exclusive right to perform a video game or audiovisual work publicly?
When my mother can use it without me walking her through changing her monitor resolution
In Xubuntu, it's Start > Settings > Display. But because modern monitors have fixed pixels, you usually want to keep it at the highest supported resolution and change the scaling. That's in Start > Settings > Appearance > Fonts. And in either case, I'd have to do the same amount of "walking her through" under Windows.
NOT forcing some 96dpi default just because some moron webdesigners weren't able to design things that scale
Then what should be the default? A 1080p panel with a (1920^2+1080^2)^.5/96 = 23 inch diagonal visible image size does indeed display 96 dpi. Should a user instead be shown an eye chart when logging in for the first time in order to set the display's virtual density?
think about how few do things like video encoding
Hangouts, Skype, and other video chat applications encode video in real time during a call. Or do you claim that most use only the text and audio features of those applications?
If a window spans two screens that have different DPI values, how should the window system behave?
If a PC is connected to a physically large monitor, such as an HDTV, the user is likely to be sitting significantly farther away than arm's length. If the virtual DPI is then set equal to the physical DPI, body text drawn under the assumption that the display is at least 72 dpi is unlikely to be readable.
they also support the last bristol ridge am4 apus released last year.
...
Hey, dumbass. I don't have a 7700k. I do have Windows (7), and an old i7-2600k.
And if you had read my post, you'd realize that I fucking mentioned other workloads. I call out the 7700k and gaming performance specifically because that's the worst situation for Ryzen. I also point out the best situation for Ryzen.