Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

[Agent-47]

But if you compare the R5 1600 ($219 with cooler) OC to 4GHz against the Core i5 7500 at 3.5GHz base and 3.8GHz turbo ($205 with Cooler), they will say its unfair because RYZEN is more expensive and its OverClocked and it uses more energy and and and.

To be fair, you would probably need an aftermarket cooler for a 4ghz OC on ryzen.

 

[agouraki]

To be fair, you would probably need an aftermarket cooler for a 4ghz OC on ryzen.

if the 1700 can do 3.8-9 with stock cooler cant see why the 1600 wont go 4ghz,we shall see.

 

[imported_jjj]

AMD has posted a new vid, Lisa Su talking a bit ,then a few demos.

 

[french toast]

If its not 50% faster at half the price it ain't worth it

Im sure reviews will compare the R5 1600 ($219 with cooler) to a 5GHz Core i5 7600K ($239 without a cooler) and then people will roam the net and proclaim Ryzen is a fail for gaming.
But if you compare the R5 1600 ($219 with cooler) OC to 4GHz against the Core i5 7500 at 3.5GHz base and 3.8GHz turbo ($205 with Cooler), they will say its unfair because RYZEN is more expensive and its OverClocked and it uses more energy and and and.

Your right, next AMD will be bundling a rx 580 and a printer with every R3 processor for 99$.
Still would not be recommended.

 

[coercitiv]

Your right, next AMD will be bundling a rx 580 and a printer with every R3 processor for 99$.
Still would not be recommended.

This makes no sense.

 

[AtenRa]

To be fair, you would probably need an aftermarket cooler for a 4ghz OC on ryzen.

Yea perhaps 4GHz all core will be too much for the stock cooler but i hope it will be ok for 3.8 to 3.9GHz at stock voltages.

 

[french toast]

This makes no sense.

In other words AMD does not seem to get a fair shake, people seem to be holding AMD products up to a different set of standards, AMD already offers astonishing value for money, offering more threads and chucking in a free cooler for often cheaper than intel, yet people are going to judge their entire offering on isolated reasons.
My comment was a sarcastic exaggeration to illuminate this point.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

Right now its pretty difficult to see too many valid reasons for not buying a Ryzen CPU. Of course, there are situations where it isn't the absolute best, which will be what some people will require. What it is is a Jack of all Trades, master of some, and the permformance-price king at all but entry level. That being said, once the mobile APUs are out, there's a strong chance that they can corner entry level too. Yes, desktop and mobile are different markets, but realistically there is definitely a price segmentation between the two; Intel still rocks mobile, but not for long...especially the mobile gamer.

 

[Mockingbird]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5zob94/microsoft_is_now_blocking_windows_7_and_windows/

Spoiler: Reddit

When you try to scan or download updates through Windows Update, you receive the following error message:

Unsupported Hardware

Your PC uses a processor that isn’t supported on this version of Windows and you won’t receive updates. Additionally, you may see an error message on the Windows Update window that resembles the following: Windows could not search for new updates An error occurred while checking for new updates for your computer. Error(s) found: Code 80240037 Windows Update encountered an unknown error.

Cause

This error occurs because new processor generations require the latest Windows version for support. For example, Windows 10 is the only Windows version that is supported on the following processor generations:

• Intel seventh (7th)-generation processors
• AMD “Bristol Ridge”
• Qualcomm “8996"

Because of how this support policy is implemented, Windows 8.1 and Windows 7 devices that have a seventh generation or a later generation processor may no longer be able to scan or download updates through Windows Update or Microsoft Update.

Resolution

We recommend that you upgrade Windows 8.1-based and Window 7-based computers to Windows 10 if those computers have a processor that is from any of the following generations:

• Intel seventh (7th)-generation "Intel Core" processor or a later generation
• AMD seventh (7th)-generation (“Bristol Ridge") processor or a later generation
• Qualcomm “8996" processor or a later generation

I understand how Windows 7 would not be updated going forward, but Windows 8? Really?? It has standard support from Microsoft until January 2018.

I don't know about anyone else here, but I love Windows 8.1 with Classic Shell. It has everything I need out of a Windows OS, however when it comes to Windows 10 it just feels wrong in some way to me.

Personally I'm still going to be running Windows 8.1 even when I get my Ryzen rig. Thanks Microsoft for another XP-era!

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Now M$ won't let you update Win7 with ryzen/kabylake. Really? Microsoft... Really? This is getting too far.

I don't see a problem.

You can still install Windows 10 and activate it with Windows 7/8.1 product key.

You don't have to purchase a new copy of Windows.

If you have software that's incompatible with Windows 10, Intel and AMD still sell plenty of processors that are supported by Windows 7/8.1. You can also run those applications on a virtual machine.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Yea perhaps 4GHz all core will be too much for the stock cooler but i hope it will be ok for 3.8 to 3.9GHz at stock voltages.

People are saying they can get 3.8GHz all core with the spire on the 1700.

 

[Dresdenboy]

There is a 8MB L3 R5 1400, that must be single CCX. But Base/Turbo freq is a crime.

Adaption to competition and some differentiation to 6C perhaps.

 

[Malogeek]

People are saying they can get 3.8GHz all core with the spire on the 1700.

You can get there but the temps aren't great. With 34c motherboard temp, at 3.8 on the spire it was hitting 85 in handbrake. That's not good.

 

[french toast]

You can get there but the temps aren't great. With 34c motherboard temp, at 3.8 on the spire it was hitting 85 in handbrake. That's not good.

Was there an issue with temp reading?

 

[Malogeek]

Was there an issue with temp reading?

How would I know? It's a 1700 so there's no offset. With my Arctic Freezer 13 it's hitting 70c at 3.8 in handbrake so it's about right.

This was all at 1.35v on vcore btw.

I'm running tasks like Handbrake at stock clock/vcore now. It's a fantastic workhorse at 65w TDP with 8c/16t and these tasks aren't time critical for me. It's fantastic to be able to throw 4 vcores on a vm, have handbrake working in the background and do everything else without any issues. If I want high OC gaming then I throw on the OC profile and game away.

 

[Zucker2k]

AMD has posted a new vid, Lisa Su talking a bit ,then a few demos.

I actually like this... AMD is working hard to make enthusiasts happy! What's not to like?

 

[KompuKare]

This was all at 1.35v on vcore btw.

So 3.8GHz at 1.225V should be fine on the stock cooler.
As according to Hardware.fr's 1700 review:

That should shave off about 29W.
Of course, while a few sites simulated 4C/8T and 6C/12T parts it's only once fused off that we get an idea of the energy consumption.

 

[Zucker2k]

In other words AMD does not seem to get a fair shake, people seem to be holding AMD products up to a different set of standards, AMD already offers astonishing value for money, offering more threads and chucking in a free cooler for often cheaper than intel, yet people are going to judge their entire offering on isolated reasons.
My comment was a sarcastic exaggeration to illuminate this point.

I think you're right to some extent, but AMD has earned that reputation - as a second tier cpu company - because of the way they've performed the last 10 years. Their products were just not competitive and you had to jump through hoops and join certain secret societies just to learn how to tweak them properly for some performance. Meanwhile, on Intel, everything was just a breeze. Heck, die-hard overclocking fans were complaining how boring the Intel platform had become.
For the first time in a decade, however, I won't mind putting together an AMD system at all. Ryzen is not a specialist cpu, it's a swiss army knife, and a cheap one at that. I like it.

 

[krumme]

How would I know? It's a 1700 so there's no offset. With my Arctic Freezer 13 it's hitting 70c at 3.8 in handbrake so it's about right.

This was all at 1.35v on vcore btw.

I'm running tasks like Handbrake at stock clock/vcore now. It's a fantastic workhorse at 65w TDP with 8c/16t and these tasks aren't time critical for me. It's fantastic to be able to throw 4 vcores on a vm, have handbrake working in the background and do everything else without any issues. If I want high OC gaming then I throw on the OC profile and game away.

Haha. Yeaa its like having 2 different cpu then. I think i will make use of the profiling with your inspiration.

 

[Malogeek]

So 3.8GHz at 1.225V should be fine on the stock cooler.

Thanks. I honestly haven't done much experimentation with voltage and stability yet, merely throwing it at vcore levels similar to others reporting necessary at 3.9/4ghz. I've been waiting on ASUS to one day provide a new BIOS for my board to experiment with overclocking in detail. Still have no idea what RAM I'll end up with as well.

If I can end up at 1.225v at 3.8 with memory running at 3200 then I'll be a very happy Ryzen owner!

 

[french toast]

I think you're right to some extent, but AMD has earned that reputation - as a second tier cpu company - because of the way they've performed the last 10 years. Their products were just not competitive and you had to jump through hoops and join certain secret societies just to learn how to tweak them properly for some performance. Meanwhile, on Intel, everything was just a breeze. Heck, die-hard overclocking fans were complaining how boring the Intel platform had become.
For the first time in a decade, however, I won't mind putting together an AMD system at all. Ryzen is not a specialist cpu, it's a swiss army knife, and a cheap one at that. I like it.

Your right, AMD has to change public perception and the only way to do that is with a succession of great products, back to back.
They have already overcome this with drivers on the gpu side, once derided and now celebrated as nvidias equal - if not better.

 

[imported_jjj]

Your right, AMD has to change public perception and the only way to do that is with a succession of great products, back to back.
They have already overcome this with drivers on the gpu side, once derided and now celebrated as nvidias equal - if not better.

It's not about the perception that AMD needs to be cheap at all.
The quad SKUs are lacking in ST without a good reason.
If they had listed clocks similar to the 8 cores SKUs and such quads at 149$, 169$ and 199$, it would be an easy choice to buy AMD and they would sell twice as well.
As they did it, the quads look weak because of ST and XFR not being properly listed.
Few overclockers would buy the 199$ SKU anyway but such a SKU would change the perception of the entire line.
At this price range, getting close to Intel in ST was achievable and AMD failed to do so.That's all they needed to do, push ST up a bit more.
The 6 cores are great but they messed up the quads.

 

[french toast]

Unfortunately this is by necessity not by design.
They have one die that they must extract the most revenue from, the quantity and yields dictate that lower quality silicon can only reach those speeds, are you seriously suggesting they should chop the best 8 core silicon so they can get high clocked cheaper quads? Where is the business sense in that?

Its fine, 1500x gets 3.9ghz xfr and a higher base than intel, not to mention twice the threads and a free decent cooler, it will be fine .

 

[KompuKare]

Unfortunately this is by necessity not by design.
They have one die that they must extract the most revenue from, the quantity and yields dictate that lower quality silicon can only reach those speeds, are you seriously suggesting they should chop the best 8 core silicon so they can get high clocked cheaper quads? Where is the business sense in that?

While that is true (at least until later when the start making dedicated 4C parts - well, if those don't get ignored in favour of going straight to APUs), there is the halo effect thing.
Intel (and especially Nvidia) rely on that for a major part of their perception, so if AMD could come up with highly binned 4C/8T parts and then mysteriously have them be very limited in quantity they could benefit enormously even if they have to sacrifice some 1800X dies for this hypothetical Ryzen 5 1550X as it would be nearer to the top in benchmarks even if out of stock...

 

[piesquared]

In other words AMD does not seem to get a fair shake, people seem to be holding AMD products up to a different set of standards, AMD already offers astonishing value for money, offering more threads and chucking in a free cooler for often cheaper than intel, yet people are going to judge their entire offering on isolated reasons.
My comment was a sarcastic exaggeration to illuminate this point.

Yep, better:

-perf/watt
-$/perf
-socket compatibility
-board price
-SMT scaling
-stock cooler
-fluidity when gaming
-multithreaded performance

 

[imported_jjj]

Unfortunately this is by necessity not by design.
They have one die that they must extract the most revenue from, the quantity and yields dictate that lower quality silicon can only reach those speeds, are you seriously suggesting they should chop the best 8 core silicon so they can get high clocked cheaper quads? Where is the business sense in that?

Its fine, 1500x gets 3.9ghz xfr and a higher base than intel, not to mention twice the threads and a free decent cooler, it will be fine .

This would make a huge difference in sales. I wasn't joking when i said that sales for quads would be 2x if they would have done this right.
They lose a lot of money and mind share with what they did. They also came bellow expectations, again.
So yeah i am absolutely suggesting that if using the best dies for the top quad was what is needed , they should have done that. At 200$ that's not even a problem at all.
They focused on MT and ignored ST but consumers will not do that.
And it was so easy to get this right.


@ KompuKare
They don't need high clocks, all they needed was to list 4GHz for a SKU and stay 200-300MHz ahead of Intel in ST clocks at the price points bellow the top SKU.