Official AMD "Ryzen" CPU Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
that board, with the stock cooler having rgb, and the trdent z rgb ram I'm installing will make the prettiest build I've done.

Edit: I also bought a pair of rx 480 8gb that have rgb led's. Can't wait to show it off even if nobody's impressed by it but me.

As for the battery location, I've never seen one that high up either. I wonder if it matters or if its a "wherever it fits" sort of thing.
It's really surprising that they haven't moved on to a lithium battery or something else smaller. I compared an AM2 board with a z270 and it's surprising how clean looking the boards have gotten. Caps are all in one spot, way less visible chips, etc. The battery just looks out of place now.
 
It looks like Intel is responding unofficially. They said they are waiting till independent testing groups test it. But they are rumored to be developing a 10 core chip with a higher clock speed but less cache then 6950X. They are also possibly coming out with 8/16 chip overclockable but with less L2 cache.

This chip will likely hurt sales of their extreme but it looks like the 10 core will replace it. IThey have been struggling with 10nm production but I am sure they are racing now.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_FX_microprocessors
Okay, so one concern I'm sure everyone shares with AMD is binning. Principally, I'm referring to the FX-9xxx launch debacle and FX-8xxx "refreshes". Cliff Notes follows for those unfamiliar.

AMD released their FX-8120 "Bulldozer" CPU back on October 12, 2011. Until yesterday, they hadn't in any truly significant way improved upon that CPU design's for performance. Their later refresh for the "Piledriver" core that introduced the FX-8350 saw no architectural changes whatsoever besides added hardware decoding protocols-- that aren't relevant as a buying point yet-- along with motherboard socket refinements that don't matter. Essentially, all they had achieved was a higher binning (i.e. stock frequency) of that same CPU architecture without increasing the TDP too much (i.e. the power consumption and heat generated): from 95W to 125W. That's because, theoretically speaking, a higher stock frequency with identical architecture and without any increases to power consumption can be considered a victory: an objective, albeit modest improvement.

Later, this apparent complacency reached absurd proportions when they released the FX-9370 and FX-9590. This time, AMD didn't even show the consumers the courtesy of a symbolic reach-around. Not only were these chips not an advancement in architecture, but it isn't even clear if there were a general sophistication in the manufacturing process that allowed for better binning in the update across the board. It appears more likely that they aggressively pre-overclocked lottery winners of the general batches.

For example, if you were in a Jack Daniels distillery this would be the "Single Barrel" of the CPU world; the very best barrels culled from the same batches of Old No. 7 that everyone else drinks. As a tangent, this is why Gentleman Jack's is often more expensive than Single Barrel as it's an entirely different, "upscaled" recipe and distilling process from the main label. The factory TDP soared from the original 95W to 225W. Worst of all, they were trying to sell this processor for $920 MSRP when it debuted (the FX-9370 launched at $379 or something like that).

Take a look. My go-to resource for looking at the actual physical architecture of CPUs, and comparing them, is CPU World. The FX-8120 debuted for $205 in October, 2011; the FX-9590 launched for $920 in May, 2013. Scroll to the "Specifications" section:
CPU World > FX-8120 vs. FX-9590
Effectively identical. The difference is that you could actually squeeze like 1/3 more performance power from the former while AMD charged you $715 for the convenience of overclocking the latter. There is nowhere to go but down.

Generally speaking, this formed a top strategy with the FX chips for budget overclockers. The FX-8100 and FX-8300 were steals compared to more expensive counterparts. This was particularly attractive to hobbyist overclockers who wanted an editing machine on a budget. With that in mind CPU World finally rolled out the new spec pages for the Ryzen processors today. Check out how they stack up against one another and against the top Intel competitors:

AMD Ryzen RX CPUs Compared

AMD Ryzen RX CPUs vs. Intel
 
Last edited:
Those charts will mean something as soon as they can actually test the ryzen processors instead of having "no data" in so many spots.
 
Those charts will mean something as soon as they can actually test the ryzen processors instead of having "no data" in so many spots.
No. That's precisely the opposite of what I reference at CPU World. That's my go-to reference for comparing architecture, not benchmarks. For comparing benchmarks there is simply no longer any peer to UserBenchmark. In fact, in general, UserBenchmark meteorically rose to obviate all other comparison services (R.I.P. CPU Boss) for benchmarks. I'm most excited to finally have a practical, comprehensive reference to RAM performance. That only took...20 years.

That's not what these spec sheets are about. These are about comparing actual hardware: Cores, Hyperthreading, Frequencies, L1/L2/L3 Cache, TDP, instruction sets, and memory controller information. Hardware will tell you general truths allowing for estimations that can't be deceived if you learn how to understand and read these blueprints.

Certainly, we won't know what the per-GHz:Thread IPC gains are for this new Zen architecture until we see real-world tests, but that doesn't obfuscate the truths we can draw from detailed hardware side-by-sides.
 
Last edited:
No. That's precisely the opposite of what I reference at CPU World. That's my go-to reference for comparing architecture, not benchmarks. For comparing benchmarks there is simply no longer any peer to UserBenchmark. In fact, in general, UserBenchmark meteorically rose to obviate all other comparison services (R.I.P. CPU Boss) for benchmarks. I'm most excited to finally have a practical, comprehensive reference to RAM performance. That only took...20 years.

That's not what these spec sheets are about. These are about comparing actual hardware: Cores, Hyperthreading, Frequencies, L1/L2/L3 Cache, TDP, instruction sets, and memory controller information. Hardware will tell you general truths allowing for estimations that can't be deceived if you learn how to understand and read these blueprints.

Certainly, we won't know what the per-GHz IPC gains are for this new Zen architecture until we see real-world tests, but that doesn't obfuscate the truths we can draw from detailed hardware side-by-sides.
Yeah, that was my point.
 
That includes a special aftermarket cooler, too, not just the motherboard.

amd-ryzen-coolers.jpg

amd-ryzen-coolers-table.png


The Max isn't bad but I'd wouldn't use the Spire.
 
amd-ryzen-coolers.jpg

amd-ryzen-coolers-table.png


The Max isn't bad but I'd wouldn't use the Spire.
Ah, so they just gave the stock cooler a fancy name. My bad. Well, they had me duped for 24 hours. Unfortunately for them, I made no purchases in that window.
 
Ah, so they just gave the stock cooler a fancy name. My bad. Well, they had me duped for 24 hours. Unfortunately for them, I made no purchases in that window
It's got RGB now so I'm guessing that's the difference.
 
There's some confusion here. My point was that those charts mean something now.
They mean something, but id like to see them once they can actually test the product or have a full spec list.
 
It's got RGB now so I'm guessing that's the difference.
Yeah, I recall seeing you saying something about that-- I think in your other thread. I think someone was groaning about RGB becoming a factory default. Was skimming, so I didn't realize it was referencing the actual CPU cooler.
 
Yeah, I recall seeing you saying something about that-- I think in your other thread. I think someone was groaning about RGB becoming a factory default. Was skimming, so I didn't realize it was referencing the actual CPU cooler.
That was me groaning about the RGB. I'm not a fan of the disco ball fad.
 
The 1800X is sold out currently at many online shops and many of the ones who had it have added a 100 to 200 dollar premium on them.

 
I ordered the Ryzen 1700 and the Asrock Fatal1ty AB350 Gaming K4 motherboard.

Just gotta wait till the end of the week.

<GinJuice>

Fatal1ty%20AB350%20Gaming%20K4(L1).png

I also bought Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 RAM (8 GB) and got the NZXT S340 case. I already have the power supply from my current comp and the GPU (HD 6670), I will be upgrading to a new GPU in a few months but this is a huge upgrade for me anyway coming from an APU build lol
<6>
 
Last edited:
I ordered the Ryzen 1700 and the Asrock Fatal1ty AB350 Gaming K4 motherboard.

Just gotta wait till the end of the week.

<GinJuice>

Fatal1ty%20AB350%20Gaming%20K4(L1).png

I also bought Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 RAM (8 GB) and got the NZXT S340 case. I already have the power supply from my current comp and the GPU (HD 6670), I will be upgrading to a new GPU in a few months but this is a huge upgrade for me anyway coming from an APU build lol
<6>
Why B350 over an X370? Budget?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top