Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • SFLUFAN

      D1P 2017 Charity Campaign for The Life You Can Save: $1,565 (as of May 15, 2017)   12/12/2016

      I've decided to extend our charity campaign for The Life You Can Save organizations for the entirety of 2017 so feel free to contribute at any time!  Periodically through the year, I'll have game giveaways for those who have donated to the campaign as a "thank you" for supporting this worthy endeavor!
    • Jason

      Update on the single-device/browser login restriction issue some people are having.   04/04/2017

      4/7/2017 update: Now people who've been affected by this are saying that it went away on its own after about a week. So I dunno, if this would really hugely inconvenience you try to not log in on additional devices/browsers until the 4.2 update that's supposed to hopefully resolve this for good.   original announcement: For a long time now, D1P has been limited to three logins at a time; logging in on a fourth device or browser would log you out everywhere else. Unfortunately, multiple people have been reporting that they've started experiencing being limited to ONE login at a time.   The good news is, Invision Power Services (the company that makes our forum software) is aware of the issue and will be addressing it in version 4.2 of the software, which is the next big update. The bad news is, they announced about a month ago (the beginning of March 2017) that the update will be coming out in "mid 2017", so we probably have at least another couple of months to go before this is resolved.   In the meantime, I apologize to those affected for the inconvenience, and would suggest to everyone else to not log in to additional devices until this is resolved if this is something you don't want to have to have to deal with. I'm still not 100% sure on why it's not affecting everyone and why it didn't hit everyone affected at the same time, but the timing of when the reports of this started here mostly lines up with when I've seen reports of other sites having this issue starting, and I suspect that the problem is trickling in because of people happening to hit a fourth login that logs them out everywhere else, and then proceeding to be limited to one login at a time after that.
    • SFLUFAN

      D1Pcast Episode 26: The Retro Show   04/19/2017

      It's time to have that talk with your kids. No not THAT talk, the talk about retro games and how much better things were back in our days! We have @Reputator join us and talk a bit about the Scorpio and some retro PC cards. [email protected] us about console retro gaming and how he just got his Super Mario USA. While @Jason tells us about the day his parents threw out all his retro consoles. A sad day for any gamer. So listen and give us your feed back about your retro gaming experience!    
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Reputator

AMD RYZEN Launch Day Review Round-Up

80 posts in this topic

9 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

I though that they said they were working on increasing compatibility over time with higher clocked memory, including 4 sticks.

 

They just mean that right now there's no official support past 3200MT/s (though they said 3500 tested just fine), but that higher clockspeeds will be enabled eventually. The support is built into the processor, just not unlocked yet.

 

Other limitations seem to be hardwired into the memory controller.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2017 at 3:47 PM, Reputator said:

 

They just mean that right now there's no official support past 3200MT/s (though they said 3500 tested just fine), but that higher clockspeeds will be enabled eventually. The support is built into the processor, just not unlocked yet.

 

Other limitations seem to be hardwired into the memory controller.

The limits are more severe for dual ranked memory, so my 32 gb (2x16gb) Tridentz may never clock very high. I paid 70 bucks less for them than what they sell for now, but I still may end up returning them since I won't know if they will ever clock where I want them to. Ryzen seems to be turning out to be pretty sensitive to memory speed, so I don't want to miss out on the extra performance.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/3/2017 at 1:37 AM, cusideabelincoln said:

The more I look at the reviews the more I am actually impressed with what AMD has done here.

 

Just focusing on Cinebench single threaded benchmarks,  AMD managed to increase single core performance over Bulldozer by 60%, while at the same time reducing power consumption and doubling the cores/threads.  Amazing.

 

Gaming results are all over the place.  Occasionally it bests Intel, but I see more results where it is clearly behind Intel.  At least it's always ahead of Bulldozer.  The one question I had when details of Zen were first coming out was how the L3 cache would affect gaming performance.  AMD's L3 cache behaves differently from Intel's, and on Ryzen processors the L3 is actually not unified across all eight cores like it is on Core i7s.  Two four-core modules are connected with a high speed interconnect (fabric).  While this fabric is really fast (faster than going out to memory), it's not as fast as the communication that can happen within each four core module.  So, as I understand it, let's say Windows moves a process from core 1 to core 5.  Core 5 is in a different module (AMD calls a module a CCX). Core 5 now needs to access data in the L3 cache, but since it was moved to a different CCX it takes longer to access the L3 cache because it has to travel over the high speed fabric.  If that process had just stayed on core 1, or if it had moved to core 2, 3, or 4 of the same CCX, it would have completed faster.  

 

IF this constant moving of operations from CCX to CCX is the cause of some erratic performance, then Windows updates, game patches, and BIOS updates should provide a substantial boost to performance.  Games love to fill up the L2/L3 cache as well more than other apps.  So it does add up that gaming performance is erratic while professional and general purpose applications showcase Ryzen to be on par or better than Broadwell-E.

 

Let's not forgot.  The last two times AMD has launched a new processor, the first iteration failed badly.  Phenom I sucked, and it also had the TLB erratum which SEVERLY hurt performance. Phenom II made everything right. Bulldozer was quickly improved upon by Vishera, because Bulldozer's IPC was complete shit and single core performance was terrible.

 

finally someone that understands what AMD has done with this Chip

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ashes of the Singularity Gets Ryzen Performance Update

Quote

 

The result of 400 developer hours of work, the Nitrous Engine powering Ashes of the Singularity received an update today to version 26118 that integrates updates to threading to better balance the performance across Ryzen 7’s 8 cores and 16 threads. I was able to do some early testing on the new revision, as well as with the previous retail shipping version (25624) to see what kind of improvements the patch brings with it.

Stardock / Oxide CEO Brad Wardell had this to say in a press release:

“I’ve always been vocal about taking advantage of every ounce of performance the PC has to offer. That’s why I’m a strong proponent of DirectX 12 and Vulkan® because of the way these APIs allow us to access multiple CPU cores, and that’s why the AMD Ryzen processor has so much potential,” said Stardock and Oxide CEO Brad Wardell. “As good as AMD Ryzen is right now – and it’s remarkably fast – we’ve already seen that we can tweak games like Ashes of the Singularity to take even more advantage of its impressive core count and processing power. AMD Ryzen brings resources to the table that will change what people will come to expect from a PC gaming experience.”

Our testing setup is in line with our previous CPU performance stories.

 

View Full Size

View Full Size

Quote

These are substantial performance improvements with the new engine code! At both 2400 MHz and 3200 MHz memory speeds, and at both High and Extreme presets in the game (all running in DX12 for what that’s worth), the gaming performance on the GPU-centric is improved. At the High preset (which is the setting that AMD used in its performance data for the press release), we see a 31% jump in performance when running at the higher memory speed and a 22% improvement with the lower speed memory. Even when running at the more GPU-bottlenecked state of the Extreme preset, that performance improvement for the Ryzen processors with the latest Ashes patch is 17-20%!

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Ashes-Singularity-Gets-Ryzen-Performance-Update

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

AMD Ryzen™ Community Update #2

Posted by rhallock Employee in Gaming on Mar 30, 2017 8:02:17 AM

Hi, everyone! About two weeks ago we started the first of many planned “Community Update” blogs about the AMD Ryzen™ ecosystem. In the initial update, we promised all sorts of goodies for our customers. Today we’re back to make good on that promise with some important updates on topics you proposed: performance tuning and BIOS updates.

Unleashing Ryzen in Ashes of the Singularity™

Boosting minimum framerates in DOTA™ 2

 

Let’s talk BIOS updates

 

Finally, we wanted to share with you our most recent work on the AMD Generic Encapsulated Software Architecture for AMD Ryzen™ processors. We call it the AGESA™ for short.

 

As a brief primer, the AGESA is responsible for initializing AMD x86-64 processors during boot time, acting as something of a “nucleus” for the BIOS updates you receive for your motherboard. Motherboard vendors take the baseline capabilities of our AGESA releases and build on that infrastructure to create the files you download and flash.

 

We will soon be distributing AGESA point release 1.0.0.4 to our motherboard partners. We expect BIOSes based on this AGESA to start hitting the public in early April, though specific dates will depend on the schedules and QA practices of your motherboard vendor.

 

BIOSes based on this new code will have four important improvements for you

  1. We have reduced DRAM latency by approximately 6ns. This can result in higher performance for latency-sensitive applications.
  2. We resolved a condition where an unusual FMA3 code sequence could cause a system hang.
  3. We resolved the “overclock sleep bug” where an incorrect CPU frequency could be reported after resuming from S3 sleep.
  4. AMD Ryzen™ Master no longer requires the High-Precision Event Timer (HPET).

 

We will continue to update you on future AGESA releases when they’re complete, and we’re already working hard to bring you a May release that focuses on overclocked DDR4 memory.

 

https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2017/03/30/amd-ryzen-community-update-2

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Reputator said:

That's a very impressive boost!

Indeed. It's much closer to the 6900k now. I hope there are more more optimizations in the works aside from just DOTA 2 and Ashes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryzen 5(1500x and 1600x) reviews from the big sites are trickling out.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Going by our latency-sensitive 99th-percentile-frame-time metric, the Ryzen 5 1600X falls right between Intel's most modern Core i5s for delivered gaming smoothness. AMD needed to nail that spot in order to have a chance at taking back a slice of the mainstream CPU market, and it's stuck the landing perfectly. The Ryzen 5 1600X gives gamers real choice at the $250 price point for the first time in several years.

 

In games like Grand Theft Auto V that care a lot about single-threaded performance, the 1600X doesn't fall that far behind the Core i5-7600K, and titles that can take full advantage of the 1600X's many threads let the Ryzen chip match or even handily beat the Kaby Lake quad-core. Our early tests suggest that the 1600X's generous core and thread count will let it take a hefty lead outside of games, as well. Given those early results, I think AMD may have delivered the best bang-for-the-buck, do-it-all CPU so far this year.

 

The $189 Ryzen 5 1500X could also be an appealing CPU value for gamers, even if its performance isn't quite as eyebrow-raising as that of the 1600X. The hot Ryzen quad-core only trails the Core i5-6600K by about 7% in our 99th-percentile-FPS metric, and it'll sell for 20% less than the unlocked Skylake quad-core did at the height of its popularity. Unlike Intel's unlocked quads (and the Ryzen 5 1600X), the 1500X will also be ready to go out of the box thanks to its included Wraith Spire cooler. Gamers considering this CPU will almost certainly pair it with a more modest graphics card than the GTX 1080 on our test bench, and it should serve as quite the solid foundation for an RX 480- or GTX 1060-powered gaming PC. We'll have to finish running the 1500X through our productivity testing to really get a sense of whether this chip is worthy of consideration alongside the Core i5-7500 in more affordable midrange builds.

 

The biggest challenge for AMD in this market may be the unlocked Core i5 CPUs already in builders' systems. Although we didn't get to overclock every Core i5 on our test bench, pushing our Core i5-2500K to 4.9 GHz often let it deliver gaming performance on par with even the Ryzen 7 1800X (except in Watch Dogs 2 and Crysis 3, where the extra cores and threads of the higher-end Ryzens let them keep a wide lead). Not bad at all for a six-year-old CPU. Assuming their workloads allow for it, folks who haven't overclocked their unlocked Core i5s yet may find it worthwhile to strap on a beefy cooler and get to tweaking instead of shelling out for a whole new rig.

 

We're hard at work finishing up our non-gaming testing on this Ryzen 5 duo, but for now, the Ryzen 5 1600X seems like the Ryzen chip to get if you're a gamer. Its high clock speeds and generous thermal envelope let it deliver gaming performance on par with that of the $500 Ryzen 7 1800X, and its six fast cores and 12 threads should let it offer plenty of performance in non-gaming tasks. If the 1600X delivers on its considerable potential in our productivity testing, it might even topple the Core i5-7600K as our Sweet Spot CPU recommendation in our System Guide. Stay tuned.

 

ryzen5-value.jpg

http://techreport.com/review/31724/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-and-ryzen-5-1500x-cpus-reviewed-part-one/11

 

 

Quote

 

A fantastic alternative to Intel's Core i5-7600K

Priced at $250, the six-core 1600X is an exceptional buy and a fantastic alternative to Intel's Core i5-7600K, which offers only four cores for the same price. Granted, they're exceptionally good cores that can be pushed quite far and may even look to be the better choice right now in most games.

That said, the 1600X offered more consistent performance in Battlefield 1 and of course still pushed well over 120fps. It also made out better in Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation and provided similar performance in Hitman. Even in games such as Mafia III and Deus Ex: Mankind Divided where the 1600X trailed the 7600K, the margins weren't that great.

So, out of the box gaming performance is currently similar between AMD and Intel, but Ryzen holds a clear lead in productivity performance regardless of the application (hundreds will mimic what was seen in 7-Zip and Excel). The 1600X is a beast for content creation at this price point, roughly matching the 7700K for $100 less.

After accounting for the cooler and comparing the price of these processors with an entry-level motherboard that supports overclocking, we find that the 1600X actually ends up costing 8% less, not the 4% more it seems for just the CPU. If you opt for the vanilla 1600 like I suggest, then you're saving over 15% on the core components. That's pretty insane for a 12-thread setup versus a quad-core.

 

 

http://www.techspot.com/review/1379-and-ryzen-5-1600x-1500x/page7.html

 

 

perfrel_cpu.png

perfrel_1920_1080.png

 

Quote

 

Price

  • The AMD Ryzen 5 1600X currently retails for $250.

Pros

  • Convincingly beats the Core i5-7600K "Kaby Lake"
  • Trades blows with costlier i7-7700K in some tests
  • Features SMT/HTT (which competing Intel Core i5 quad-core chips lack)
  • Single-threaded performance improved over previous generation
  • Unlocked multiplier
  • Platform updated to include latest features (PCIe 3.0, USB 3.1, NVMe)

Cons

  • Gaming frame rates lower than competing Intel chips
  • High power draw
  • Memory frequency options and memory compatibility limited
  • Setup complicated (memory, HPET, CCX, SMT, and power profile)
  • Overclocking barely worth it
  • Requires optimized apps of which there are not many
  • Lacks integrated graphics

 

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1600X/20.html

recommended.gif

Article Image

 

PoxHCsWWwhpx2399WfAVVK-650-80.png

 

 

Quote

 

Conclusion: i5 Hangs On with Fading Grasp

There’s no argument that, at the price, Ryzen is the best price competitor for render workloads if rendering on the CPU – though GPU-accelerated rendering does still serve as an equalizer, for people who use compatible workloads (see: Premiere w/ CUDA on i5-7600K, 6900K, & 1800X). If CPU rendering is your thing, Ryzen 5 is well ahead of same-priced i5 CPUs.

For gaming, AMD ties same-priced Intel i5 CPUs in some games – like Watch Dogs 2 before OC – and is 7-15% behind in other games (7-10%, generally). AMD has closed the gap in a significant way here, better than they did with R7 versus i7, and offers an even stronger argument for users who do legitimately plan to do some content creation alongside gaming. With regard to frametimes, AMD’s R5 series is equal in most worst cases, or well ahead in best cases. Although the extra threads help over an i5 CPU, the R7’s extra threads – Watch Dogs notwithstanding – do not generally provide much of an advantage.

If you’re purely gaming and not looking to buy in $300-plus territory, it’s looking like R5 CPUs are close enough to i5s to justify a purchase, if only because the frametimes are either equal or somewhat ahead. Interestingly, buying an R5 1600X ($250) and overclocking it would also more or less invalidate R7 purchases. If you’re not ever going to leverage those threads in encodes or render tasks, there’s not much point in having them. The 1600X would save you money that you could put toward better RAM, which actually makes a huge difference in Ryzen; in fact, as our revisit indicates, using the savings on some really high-end memory would get your 1600X to outperform a 1700 with cheaper RAM in most games.

 

Yes, i5 CPUs still provide a decent experience – but for gaming, it’s starting to look like either you’re buying a 7700K, because it’s significantly ahead of R5 CPUs and it’s pretty well ahead of R7 CPUs, or you’re buying an R5 CPU. We don’t see much argument for R7s in gaming at this point, although there is one in some cases, and we also see a fading argument for i5 CPUs. It's still there, for now, but fading. The current juggernauts are, interestingly, the i7-7700K and the R5 1600X with an overclock. Because the games don’t much care for the R7's extra four threads over the 1600X, performance is mostly equal to the R7 products when running similar clocks. These chips, by the way, really should be overclocked. It’s not hard and the gain is reasonable.

If you’re already settling for an i5 from an i7, it’s not much of a jump to go for an R5 and benefit in better frametimes with thread-thrashing games. The i5 is still good, don’t get us wrong, it’s just not compelling enough. It’s not as strong as the i7 is against R7, as the 7700K is still the definitive best in our gaming tests. Going beyond 8 threads doesn’t do a whole lot for your gaming experience, but as we’ve shown numerous times in i5 reviews, going beyond 4 threads does help in consistent frametimes. It’s not required – you can still have a good experience without 8 threads in most games – but that is the direction we’re moving. 16 threads won’t much matter anytime soon, but 8 will and does already. If you buy an R5, overclock it, and buy good memory, it’ll be competitive with Intel. That said, be wary of spending so much on the platform and memory that you’re put into i7+3200MHz territory, because at that point, you’d be way better off with the i7 for gaming. It’s a fine balance, but getting near an i5’s average FPS isn’t too hard with the right board and RAM.

Price is everything, ultimately. The price of the R5 CPUs, yielding mostly the same performance as the R7 CPUs (clock-for-clock), plants them as a significantly competitive alternative to same-priced Intel chips. These R5 CPUs are significantly more arguable at the price than R7 alternatives for gaming. Spend a few minutes on an overclock. It's worth it. This testing reinforces our belief that the R7 1800X is not a good buy for gaming at the price; it wasn't before R5 (see: 7700K, 1700 with OC), and now it most definitely isn't.

One final reminder: It’s not just cores doing this. People seem to forget that cores between architectures are not necessarily the same. If it were just cores, the FX series would have been defensible – but the architecture was vastly different. We are still limited by the slowest thread in gaming; it is the architecture and design of those cores that matters.

 

 

ed-choice-1600x

 

     

     

     

    0

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Threadripper sounds cheesy. . . .and bad ass simultaneously.

     

    Oh, and the sever chips are called Epyc.

    0

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    5 hours ago, Dre801 said:

    Oh, and the sever chips are called Epyc.

     

    Epyc is a name that throws serious shade at Intel. 

    0

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    6 hours ago, NextGen said:

     

    Epyc is a name that throws serious shade at Intel. 

    Let's be honest here, unlikely. Ryzen was decent but a few years too late, still cannot match an i7 clock for clock. Bulldozer all over again, sure I like the core/thread count but in gaming which is where people worry about the CPU, it's gonna be a ways behind, unless of course games start getting heavily multi-threaded but honestly we're still a few years away, it's all single core power and AMD just cannot match that.

    0

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    7 hours ago, BlueAngel said:

    Let's be honest here, unlikely. Ryzen was decent but a few years too late, still cannot match an i7 clock for clock. Bulldozer all over again, sure I like the core/thread count but in gaming which is where people worry about the CPU, it's gonna be a ways behind, unless of course games start getting heavily multi-threaded but honestly we're still a few years away, it's all single core power and AMD just cannot match that.

    Epyc has nothing to do with gaming.

     

    You should drop the bulldozer comparisons since it doesn't accurately describe the current state of CPUs.

    0

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    I was speaking specifically of the name Epyc. It is essentially mocking Intel's Epic naming for Itanium.

     

    Also, lol at calling any of this bulldozer. 

    0

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    46 minutes ago, NextGen said:

    Also, lol at calling any of this bulldozer. 

     

    @BlueAngel Actually, yeah. Ryzen is NOTHING like the disappointment of Bulldozer or any of its kin. It isn't perfect but it's still a very good CPU series. Not sure how you can think of the two in the same breath.

    0

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.


    Sign In Now
    Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0

    ×