If you actually needed an 8C/16T CPU you wouldn't; Intel's only current 8C/16T offering in their i7 lineup is the ~£1000 i7-6900k.

If I needed a PC a refresh right now, I'd be loving this!

A CPU that's close to Intel's 1700 (if not beyond it with decent memory and the new bios and windows scheduler updates!), but only £286 instead of approx £1000.

Intel owners will be a laughing stock for those who don't buy AMD from this point (more money than sense).

Only took 3 comments...

No that's just a badly coded game

you'll be wanting a Ryzen R5 of some description then. I recommend a 1500X. i5 prices, 6 cores.
also - anyone quoting warhammer total war scores, should check if the benchmark includes the "bretonnia" patch as that was basically the "ryzen fix" patch. Not a night and day difference but it closed the gap a good bit.

Great response dude, much appreciated. Follow-on question : Are AMD architectures built to work more efficiently with AMD/ATI Cards vs Nvidia? Basically if i bought this Ryzen would you be better going for an AMD/ATI Card or stick with Nvidia. For the last 15 or so years ive pretty much been a Nvidia user so would probably want to stay that way unless there was significant performance issues

quite interested by this chip! about 10 years ago i invested in one of the (then new) dual core x2 4400 chips, and that desktop machine soldiered on for a fair few years before i moved to a newer laptop. Currently still running that laptop with a i7-2670QM processor. It is now however 5 years old, and the onboard 540m graphics are starting to show their age. How would i find the jump to an AMD Ryzen system such as this?

Clearly (hopefully!) it will be an improvement, but will it be the same kind of jump i experienced on my previous upgrade path?

Or, maybe he's talking some truth as discovered:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/659fna/double_standards_in_tech_journalism_can_you/

Always love reading a good discussion such as this thread. Looking to upgrade from my 3770k and am leaning toward the 1700 though now it has been released, the 1600 also looks a possible candidate.
Think I need to read a few more reviews! ;-)

I wonder if Nate is an Intel shill? Aside insanity there's no other reasonably explanation for such blind ignorance. :smile:

Reviewers are being a bit too harsh on Ryzen with the gaming benchmarks. It's like a mere 2-6 FPS difference between Ryzen and Inte;s 7600K in performance on games. Ryzen otherwise beats intels offerings in other non gaming benchmarks though like video editing and number crunching stuff.

Right, this is a misconception actually, on a number of levels.

1) Background apps, such as spotify, twitch, and multiple chrome tabs are very light on CPU use. Multitasking doesn't lend itself to multiple cores, turns out when you are not actively using a something, it is very low CPU use. So, you are speculating, and I'm saying you are mostly wrong.

Now, where you have some reasonable accuracy is streaming/rendering video. Although, I would suggest you took a shotgun approach and hit the one thing the Ryzen would be good at. Streaming video (OBS) while playing, might bring Ryzen closer to the I7 7700k. But it might not either, it depends.

2) Ryzen hasn't shown to be better at .1% or 1% frames, so suggesting it's 'smoother' without any evidence to back it up is just 'this purchase was definitely worth it, I can 'feel' how much nicer it is' jumping in front of 'yeah, it's no different, I wasted 500 for the same experience'.

Competition is great, *good, source backed, information is even better*.

Making claims that are '*maybe true, who knows, you look it up*' is a bad way to help people.

Surely Intel has huge margins of profit on it's overpriced CPUs. Why does it not just drop the prices.

@Nate1492 - This is a video that explains to me why Ryzen will benefit many of us.

If you purely game with nothing else in the background then there is no comparison that Intel will win hands down, with somewhere between 10-20% higher average framerate (although there are plenty of people claiming the Ryzen games smoother because of it's increased 0.1% and 1% lows).

However, for people like me (who game with background apps such as Spotify, Twitch, OBS, multiple Chrome tabs), the Ryzen is the sensible choice because of it's superior multitasking. The i7 will always have higher performance with pure gaming, but the frames do start to drop (I'm not making any massive claims of by how much here) once you add other applications into the mix.

If you think Intel is better, great! Go buy Intel! I won't try to dissuade you. But also, if people want to buy Ryzen's for their own reasons (I'm moving from a [email protected] to a Ryzen 1700 because I stream while gaming) then leave them to it.

Remember also, competition is good for all of us, so I welcome AMD coming back into the mix as I'm certain Intel have purposely stifled their own progress in the last 5 years (but that's another story).

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/04/game-patches-boost-performance-on-ryzen-showing-just-what-can-and-cant-be-done/

AoTs 15-31%

Gaming performance is just fine for me.

If you're seriously comparing Ryzen to Bulldozer you're very niave.

What a well thought out and sound reply.

No longer top dog you say? Well, I doubt even Ferrari100 would be that bold.

AMD did well compared to their bulldozer disaster. I'm not touching AMD until they *mature* into the CPU world, you can't have 4 bad CPUs in a row and expect people to jump on board the first non disaster.

Nate, that simply isn't true. I'd love to continue to hand Intel my hard-earned cash (for little improvement) but they are no longer top dog. Intel was only better in one regard (one trick pony FPS king) when Ryzen launched, soon it will have nothing...

Or, you know, in absence of a refuted review, it's not out of date.

This magical idea that AMD will just make everything 30% faster is complete hogwash. Even AOTS didn't gain 30%.

https://www.techpowerup.com/231970/ashes-of-the-singularity-escalation-update-brings-improved-performance-to-ryzen

1800x goes from 35.1 to 40.5 at 1080p. That's 15.3% increase.

But when you take into account across the board improvements, even on the i7 7700k... 38.5 to 39.5, 2.5%... The net gain compared to other CPUs is just 12.8%.

There's a massive difference between 12.8% and 30%. But because AOTS is pure propaganda, they somehow managed to call it '30%'.

There are other reports surely, but I stick to the idea that AOTS is in cohorts with AMD and cannot be a valid benchmark, it's not a game. At least with Tomb Raider and other 'AMD' or 'NVIDIA' sponsored games, they had to ensure their game was not complete rubbish on the other hardware. When you have 15-20 people playing your game, no one will care if you pick a side and run with it.

Heck, the ONLY reason we talk about AOTS is because AMD use it for advertising their hardware.

I would say that AoTS is more a tech demo with some gameplay. They are obviously trying to sell their engine to potential RTS developers. I though they said that they don't have a big enough budget to do a polished RTS.
However, I see few problems for them:
1) the kind of intense RTS games the engine does well in are not popular on consoles
2) it runs better on Radeon yet Nvidia have most of the PC marketshare
So while it may enable way more units and particles than other engines, unless you get some big budget studio to use the engine, it will remain a engine showcase with a bit of gameplay.

That Total War: WH patch is probably way more important for Ryzen.

But while AoTS may not be successful and Oxide may never sell their engine to major studios, there is a reason why a lot of RTS (and even turn-based Civ) are very interested in Vulkan and DX12 (and Mantle before that) as the old ways (DX11 etc) do have issues for those kind of games.

What will be interesting is how the hardware based draw-call feature in Scorpio affects things. Unsure who owns that IP, but of course even if the own it, it would be pointless for AMD to add it to their graphic cards if there is no API for it.

Sadly those gamers nexus charts are quite out of date. With nature of a new architecture and platform all reporting is obsolete within a week right now. We have just had the 1st bug bios update with the latest micro code from amd included.

I've yet to see any review put the 1700's minimum frames into good light, do you have any such?

Also, are you really going to try to claim that Ashes of The Singularity is a game and not just a benchmark for AMD?

http://steamcharts.com/app/228880

In the last 30 days, the average amount of players accross all of steam was 15.7.

Total War: Warhammer - 25,441.

http://steamcharts.com/app/364360

I mean, AOTS is so ridiculous that people even *mention* it as anything but a propaganda tool for AMD.

But I totally agree, minimum frames matter far more than average or max. 1% and .1% lowest frames are also great tests.

Take a peak at the 1% and .1% frames here:

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2867-intel-i7-2600k-2017-benchmark-vs-7700k-1700-more/page-3

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2827-amd-r7-1700-review-amd-competes-with-its-1800x

I mean, the 6700k v the 1700 are there in both, none of them back up your 'min frames' claim, in fact, it's pretty much entirely reversed. The 1700 loses to the 6700k in every game. Even when you OC the Ryzen and leave the 6700k at stock, it doesn't swap positions.

Anyway, I just wish people would stop pretending Ashes of The Singularity is a game, how does something that has less then 20 average users playing it wind up in every website demo?

If you do video editing that doesn't use CUDA for rendering, sure. But If you aren't doing specific tasks *right now* why bother 'upgrading'? We've seen the results, if you don't do rendering/workstation jobs, then the Ryzen is simply an immature CPU that is not great at games but does a great job in synthetics and video editing.

I'd also agree if we weren't talking about 10% difference at 100fps. The fact it can also watch up editing tasks with aplomb makes it a great choice.

Games are predominantly GPU limited in any case.

270 is done.

I have both the i6700K and a Ryzen 1700 - the latter is my preferred choice the former is being sold. I've not had any issues aside RAM speed (2933 on the first BIOSes rather than 3200 - now rectified) and it can overclock to 4ghz as required. The future is with AMD.

Another Ryzen convert here - highly recommended CPU. When the i7770K fanboys need an upgrade this thing will still be eating up the new multi-core games.

Your extra ram could actually be holding your Ryzen system back a little due to ram speed. Ryzen's infinity fabric communicates between CCX complexes (2 groups of 4 cores) and is linked directly to ram frequency. Therefore 2 sticks of ram at higher speed perform greater than 4 at lesser (unless the issue is lack of system memory in which case ofc memory is memory) but for CCX communication tasks (gaming especially) speeding up the infinity fabric makes more of a difference.

Yes especially for overall smoothness, higher minimum frame rates (matters more than avg),playing while streaming and any non gaming cpu task. Games right now don't make full use of Ryzen so it can only get better. I'm happy with how it is but I'll take free improvements thank you. For example 30% improvement since ashes of the singularity was optimised for Ryzen too. Reporting is really 1 sided sadly.

I upgraded my work machine, a 5820k with 16gb of ram to a 1700 with 32 gb just last week. Upgrade was basically free. I'm sure the extra ram takes a lot of the merit but the machine feels snappier.
I haven't gamed with the ryzen yet but after following the launch, countless reviews etc I do believe that those are overall the best general purpose CPUs *for the money* on the market. Heat added.

Yes, a quick google shows that ESXi is causing a PSOD (think I prefer BSOD as a word!), but in the comments here
https://www.servethehome.com/amd-ryzen-with-vmware-esxi-a-pink-screen-of-death/
it seems Workstation on Win10 does work. Linux KVM works, but then VmWare are not known for being quick to support hardware even if the Linux kernel developers got the info ages ago so there is little excuse for VmWare (ironically enough one of the few areas Bulldozer did well in was for cheap vm boxes as while the overall performance wasn't that great having 8 physical integer cores was useful).

has anyone bought one for a ESXi home server build?

I take it you've found the 1700 really good, compared to the 6700k?

Lovely.

Also worth noting, while looking at all these FPS performance charts, min FPS is typically more important than max FPS, and many users are reporting higher min FPS and smoother gameplay from Ryzen CPUs compared to Intel processors that give comparable or better max FPS.

If i was building a new rig now, I would definitely go for a 1700.

If I had this much money I'd be getting an i7

But whatever else you can say about Ryzen (especially about the rushed launch), Zen is no Bulldozer. While the gaming performance is 'only' around Haswell on average (except maybe Fallout4), it's application performance generally matches Broadwell-E which is that ~£1000 i7-6900K. Of course there are few outliners where it is way worse (dual channel memory hurts it a lot compared to Intel HEDT in 7Zip, WinRAR etc), but then again it has other features which Intel disable like ECC (yes, amazingly Intel HEDT doesn't offer ECC yet LGA2011v3 Xeons do).

Bulldozer was always hard to recommend outside of very specific loads (mostly media encoding or for virtualisation on a budget which precluded an Intel i7). Ryzen is not.

Not necessarily.
Its not the first time an AMD with multi cores would have given way to an Intel with less cores

£195.... that's quite the bargain if you're interested in posting a hot deal........

Cheapest I can find is £215

The picture that paints is now invalid. As of the last few days with the Bretonnia patch you can add 10fps to each of those Ryzen FPS scores.

https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/247141-total-war-warhammer-will-also-receive-ryzen-patch

Here's some further optimisation that's happened in the last day or so:

https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2017/04/06/amd-ryzen-community-update-3

Anybody with a Ryzen chip that's not running on High Performance power policy (you should be, until now at least) should down the PPKG file in the article and run the Ryzen Balanced Windows policy.

You need to be picky in some cases, but provided you've applied the BIOS updates almost all manufacturers have deployed since launch the majority of people running 2x8GB are hitting their stock frequency. A lot has happened this month, though I understand why people are completely out of touch with the current situations.

My Hynix (apparently worse compat than Samsung B-Die) runs happily at 3296 on my Crosshair 6 using 103 BCLK @ 3200 freqeuncy.

In April the AGESA updates will be rolled out improving the situation further and in May AMD are rolling out some microcode to further reduce memory latency and optimise the platform further.

People seem to continually forget this is a new socket, new architecture and a new approach which involves turning the heads of 100's of companies, it's not over night, but even in a month (I've had 4 BIOS updates) it has become orders of magnitude easier.

No idea why people are hyped over more cores I thought direct x 12 took away needing a top end multi core cpu ?

Aye, especially given how picky Ryzen is about RAM.

Obviously someone's budget can only stretch to the i5-7600K, and they have to buy right now, then it will give them good gaming performance in most current games.
However, in many games it is already a good bit behind. For instance in this review from pclab.pl, Total War: Warhammer

Taking the stock (both the i5 and i7 should overclock to about the same), the i5 trails the by up to over 25% (60/82 = 0.7317).

Elsewhere in that review, Watch Dogs 2 is similar with the i5 scoring 75% of the i7, with The Witcher3 it's 77%, whereas the best showing of the i5 is BF1 where it scores 93% of the i7's score.

Unfortunately, the review doesn't have average but places which do (for instance Computerbase.de) tend to rate the i5 12% slower than the i7 but of course reviewers generally have no background processes running and in the case of BF1 (like BF4 before it), even people playing on 4C/8T i7's complain about occasional stuttering hence why many Battlefield players bought Intel HEDT or more recently Ryzen.

As for Ryzen 7: well in most games it is behind the Intel Kabylake i7 and (mostly) the i5 too, but it does have plenty of spare cores. Okay, in a lot of games they go unused hence - partially - why TPU got such perf/watt in gaming loads their Ryzen review:

that looks like a lot of the cores aren't anywhere near to 100% loaded unlike with the power consumption tests for applications.
Chances are no matter how good game programmers get at multi-threading in the future, some games may never scale to 8C/16T. However, that doesn't meant those other cores are useless as they can help with general responsiveness (background tasks) or streaming.

LinusTech just did a big streaming review:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jludqTnPpnU
And while Ryzen beating the i7-7700K at streaming while gaming is probably not a surprise, Ryzen's showing against the 8C/16T i7-6900K is. Didn't catch whether all these CPUs are running at stock or not but neither Ryzen nor i7-6900K overclock that much and can't see the Kabylake i7 catching up even if clocked to 5GHz.

Bottom line: there is no perfect gaming CPU. It's all a matter of compromises.
* Ryzen gets you plenty of reasonably quick cores on the cheap,
* An overclocked Kabylake i7 cannot be beaten when IPC is the most important thing,
* Intel HEDT Broadwell-E tends to have higher IPC than Ryzen but Intel charge a lot for their 8C/16T or 10C/20T ones.
* The new upcoming Intel HEDT (Skylake-X, seems they dropped the 'E' suffix), may end up being the best all around gaming CPUs if it clocks 4.5GHZ+ but it won't be cheap.

And that won't happen until intels 6/8/12 core processors are common, by which time they'll be light years ahead of AMD.

Ryzen optimisation code has pushed the Ryzen performance well above the 7600k, but these optimisations needs to be rolled out across all games.


http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ryzen-game-optimization-aots-escalation,news-55229.html

Personally, I would get the Ryzen 1700 over the 7600k because over the next few years I think optimised coding will give better parity between AMD and Intel on single thread performance, and the extra Ryzen cores will give more benefit in the long run.

Not a bad deal, I got a brand new i7-7700k from ebay for £5 more 6 days ago :smiley:

​once developers start coding for loads of cores and threads, then these will be better, until then the i5 would most likely be the better choice for gamers. If someone was planning on keeping their cpu for 5 years I'd probably recommend a ryzen

wow the intel crew are really milking it still.

first it was the 7700k at 5ghz delided then its oh 4 cores are better than 8, then its that and this oh and intel is better . blah blah blah ..

You were going to buy an 1800X... for gaming? Didn't you see the hardware breakdowns a couple of months before launch?

Anyway, while I sort-of-agree with you about the 7600K offering similar performance to an overclocked 1700 for most games, there are also several games that pull ahead on the 1700. Generally, the performance difference isn't big between them. While I rarely make use of any high-performance activities that aren't gaming, if they were both the same price, I'd lean towards the 1700 - not least because I doubt a solely quad-core CPU is going to do well for much longer.

Of course, they're not the same price, and even with the £10-15 saving on the motherboard (Z270s start from under £100, compared to the B350's £80-85 starting point), anyone upgrading is looking at an extra £50+ for a 1700 over the 7600K. If you're doing that anyway, may as well spend the extra £30 for the 7700K, which whoops both of them for gaming, and 4C8T has that longevity the 7600K lacks.

Still, the 7700K is quite a boring processor... it sort of sits on the tops of all the gaming benchmarks by default, rather than by anything exceptional. I've almost been pushed into buying one several times simply by reading the stupid comments by The Four Ryzeneers here :wink: but I'd prefer to have something more interesting.

Personally, I'll be seeing how the six-core Ryzen 5 chips perform, as in theory the 1600X should match the 1800X in most games, while coming in at ~£230. Anyone looking at the 7600K price range should absolutely wait just a couple more weeks (not just for reviews, but to make sure any issues are found). Theory does not always equate to practice, though, so I won't be ordering anything until the proper reviews come in, but it does look a lot more... interesting than the 7600K. :wink:

And if it's another inferior price/performance gaming CPU, I might just try to hold out for another year instead of settling for the safe 7700K. I don't really need to upgrade, anyway... I just want to! :man:

If I needed a PC a refresh right now, I'd be loving this!

A CPU that's close to Intel's 1700 (if not beyond it with decent memory and the new bios and windows scheduler updates!), but only £286 instead of approx £1000.

Intel owners will be a laughing stock for those who don't buy AMD from this point (more money than sense).

@tempt
Déjà vu didn't I read this exact comment from you in a few other threads?

Actually, for those who can remember the times of yore when there used be competition in CPUs, price reductions did used to occur.

​Plenty of current games already perform better with more than 4 cores and that's only likely to get worse. Buying a quad core now doesn't make sense anymore.

Tell me about it! :smile: . Packed & ready to go :wink: .

Edit: fudge me!
Nice one! :laughing:

Ryzen already sunken in price! AMD struggling to shift these duds?

eBay item number: 112342087082:wink:

FVF £1 Promo, PPF: £1.90, shipping: £3.59, net: £43.50 :sunglasses:

Thanks, I did check ebay, but not the completed listings. Looks like on average you should be able to get about £20. I'd rather they just sold a version without the cooler for £20 less, but £266 for a Ryzen seems a great deal when compared to Broadwell-e.

What about if you don't want the cooler? Seems the 1700 is only sold as retail box with the cooler. Anyone know if it can be found cheaper sans cooler?

If you actually needed an 8C/16T CPU you wouldn't; Intel's only current 8C/16T offering in their i7 lineup is the ~£1000 i7-6900k.

it's either brand new RYZEN or second hand Intel...

Only took 3 comments...

Good to see such a good value processor getting even better value!

have some heat, that's a nice price..