AMD's Ryzen is here!


As I said, let’s not board the annual hype train until they actually release it and actual 3rd party benchmarks and reviews appear :slight_smile: Remember what happened last year with their graphics cards? Everyone said “no no, this is not the same as every year”… Look at it now…


Yeah, well. That was actually countered pretty well by NVidia, haha :smiley: but I’m still looking forward for the new GPUs this year :stuck_out_tongue: one always shouldn’t expect too much, but I’ll always hope that someone loosens up the market of CPUs/GPUs/mobile OSs. I hate conformity in the technical sector… And due to that reason I was still happy about what happened. I’m pretty sure that NVidia just waited with the release to bash AMD and not because they needed to develop it further. Competition is good for consumers :slight_smile:

But yeah, of course we shouldn’t say that it’ll definitely be awesome, but to say that it will be considered, if it will be better than Intel, is still reasonable IMO. Not implying that they definitely pull something off, but if it gets better than Intel then it should be considered, if Eve doesn’t have 5000 Intel CPUs lying around waiting to be used :wink: and even if it just means that Intel will release new awesome mobil CPUs that are more competitively priced it would be a good development from the consumer’s perspective, if the AMD chips provoke that.


We agree on this one. As I said above:


You know, I wish this happens every year, because in few years, we’d get AMD CPUs that are twice as fast as today’s Intel. :joy:




I thought we were not on reddit? :smiley:

All jokes aside, Zen is a very interesting prospect & if AMD can deliver on the mobile chips I think it’s definitely worth checking out :slight_smile:


AMD already delivered with their desktop cpu line up, Ryzen 1700x is better than a i7 7700k except in gaming cause still many games rely too hard on single core. But now optimised games for ryzen like arts boosted its performance by over 20%. In Multicore ryzen trashes intel.

There are tons of reviews out from 3rd party for ryzen cpu’s. can’r recommend gamer nexus tho.
The hype train arrived weeks ago and amd delivered. There are a few bugs, as all new platforms have when they get freshly released.


And also more expensive. It better be better.

I believe you mean AOTS. That game is essentially a pet project of AMD for what amounts to benchmarking purposes, to make the RX 480 look much better than it really is. I’ve not seen anyone talk about what the actual game is like. Zen not working well on it was ridiculous, given that little tidbit. A patch like this was obviously going to happen.

Anyway, the 8-core FX also beaten out the i7 back in the day, but there is no denying that it is significantly more difficult to program for multithreading. The vast majority of workloads are still single-threaded, and if you want them to spread across cores, youd need significantly more engineering time, which translates to more cost.

If that’s indication of anything, programs and games will increase in price and/or development time just for catering AMD users.

They didn’t. The hype train promised Skylake or Kaby Lake-level single-threaded performance, or gaming performance, while having additional cores as an advantage. The hype train promised that a similarly-priced Ryzen would beat 7700K in all areas. Turns out, the 1700 was pretty much a disappointment at only 3 GHz.


just that the 1700 isn’t clocked at 3ghz, its clocked at 3.6 and can go up to 4ghz.

Yes i wanted to write AOTS, apparently it got autocorrected.
The actual game is a thing lol
The IPC is something of like 20% behind kaby lake, which isn’t bad, its barely noticeable in gaming except you are playing at 720p or 1080p with a 240hz screen. Well if you have a 240hz screen you wouldn’t be playing on 1080p.

At least Ryzen doesn’t run as hot as its intel counterparts.

If you want to do anything more than just gaming, like streaming and voice chat + music and stuff you’re i7 is gonna lag like sht. cause he has only 4 cores + enjoy 80 C.


This is only true if you do nothing apart from play games on your computer and it’s not even true for recent games.

Literally every major application I use on my daily driver benefits from having more cores.


LOL! Made my day :smile:
Seriously, I’m rolling a 2nd gen Intel Core i3 CPU at 60C or less over here, it has 2 cores and things like streaming and video calls are a piece of cake to it. It easily deals with these child games at 10-20% usage :slight_smile:
Now tell me how your i7 is lagging doing these things :smile: You sure it isn’t a Chinese ripoff? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


its an apple ripoff… streaming isn’t working well maybe also due to limited network speed.
You are probably on a full hd screen while i’m on 1244p which is much more and you probably have a better graphics card than i do.

lol your i3 can’t handle that, prove or it didn’t happen.
Just to make sure, i was talking about all that at the same time, not sure if you understood it the same way.

oft my mac can stream lol but the 30 fps aren’t very enjoyable.
try to play starcraft at ultra settings with your i3 on air.


That was the hype-train promised, but AMD itself talked about a “40% IPC improvement” which they even beat with I think over 50% IPC improvement.
And yes, Intel has a higher IPC & clockrate, however I personally view Ryzen similarly as the first iteration of the new Intel Core series - and if AMD can hold that up, I’m a happy camper.

And I have to agree with @MiukuMac here as workloads are getting more heavily multi-threaded and goddamn it’s been time they are. Is a good single-core still important? Hell yes - there’s a good reason the FX series did not really take off. :slight_smile:


“on air”? It’s an i3, it’s not overclockable :smile: And yeah it can easily cope with tasks like streaming. No problem there. I mean, these are really light tasks… Of course I have a good GPU, but I thought we were comparing the CPU performance and not graphics :smile:


the gpu takes work form the cpu in games. if the gpu is old the cpu has to work more.

wanna see your lol stream with 60 fps while we discuss on Skype about how nice your stream looks.


Is it possible that @TheDestiny is talking about gaming, streaming your game, skyping, etc at the same time, while @pauliunas interpreted it as streaming a video on twitch or something similiar (just watching)?


From my understanding, this is not how it usually works. There are cases that this is true, but it usually isn’t.

CPU load increases when the process bottleneck shifts to the CPU, this happens when you have very high framerates - which is quite the opposite of what you claim there. The reason behind is that the CPU has to process more draw cycles to keep up with the frame rate

Also not quite true. The factual reason is because… well it’s simply a fact:

The theoretical reason is that its hard for even top tier GPUs like the GTX1080 to output 240FPS on reasonably modern games at higher resolutions (as a matter of fact, even 144FPS is difficult). This makes high resolution high refresh rate monitors (e.g. 1440p or higher) a smaller niche within a niche.


They’re most probably not tuned in to the same channel :joy:

@TheDestiny is apparently talking about producing streams, which really would bog down even fast computers, becuase all that encoding and networking stuff.

while @pauliunas apparently is talking about consuming streams, which hardly uses any cpu cycles especially on Skylake/Kaby Lake. (Come on, even my phone can “stream videos”)

Another one:

“on air”? It’s an i3, it’s not overclockable

“on air” as in air cooling, versus “on air” as in broadcasting :joy:

Take time to understand the context :wink:


Pretty much that. Do i speak chinese x)?
But with on air i was referring to the cooling solution.


Well, the stock cooler (like really, the one for $10) keeps it below 60C so don’t really see the point of this comment :smile:
You mentioned Skype calls, so I assumed you meant consuming streams. A Skype call is an extremely light task… Just like streaming a Youtube video. So if we’re talking about actual real workloads here, let’s not talk about things like Skype because they simply don’t matter :wink:

Anyway, back to your point. More cores does not always equal better performance. AMD strategy is to put as many cores as possible into a processor, Intel’s strategy is to put as good cores as possible. For most tasks, 4 cores is more than enough. Especially with hyper threading. And especially when those are really good cores.