Yes, internally Ryzen is two clusters of 4 cores connected via bridge, and there are inefficiencies when processes jump across clusters. That will probably be resolved via OS patches.
[quote=“stusser, post:79, topic:128606, full:true”]
1700 = 8cores/16threads, 3.0Ghz base, 3.7Ghz boost, $330
…
The “X” stands for AMD’s new XFR technology, which uses additional power and thermal capacity to overclock above the boost clock.[/quote]
Emphasis mine.
Doesn’t this mean that the 1700 won’t go above its boost clock of 3.7ghz, or did I misintepret?
That’s correct. But you can overclock it so it boosts to 4.0Ghz. And Ryzen doesn’t go over 4.0Ghz anyway.
Is there any reason to go 1800X then if the lower end models will overclock to the same (stable) speed in the end?
It doesn’t sound like there is a good push for gaming but other applications it does very well. I think it’s a viable option at a certain price point, especially for those of us who do more than just game on our builds.
That’s the point. If you’re willing to overclock, there is no reason to buy any Ryzen other than the 1700. The 1700X and 1800X are completely unattractive.
Every Ryzen overclocks to between 3.9 and 4.0Ghz, and doesn’t take a ton of cooling to do it. None of them go higher than that-- even 4.1Ghz is very rare.
As for Ryzen vs. Intel, if you primarily care about gaming go Intel. If you do stuff that benefits from >4 cores (compiling code, compressing video, etc) Ryzen is a very attractive choice.
gotcha thanks
This week’s Windows 10 Update makes very strong gains in very select games:
It looks like Ryzen was just what was needed to kick Intel in the pants. Word is that Intel is finally going to introduce an i9.
So just shitloads of cores, to counter the 32 core Ryzen? Intel has them on the server side with Xeons but they are crazy expensive like $3k and up.
Yes, I expect intel to offer core-counts comparable to Ryzen at similar prices but of course higher IPC. If they spend some of their immense warchest and undercut AMD’s prices, they could force a price war that AMD can’t afford to fight.
It won’t matter much unless people build servers with them. Ryzen could be seriously damaging to Intel on the server, where core counts actually matter, and a whole hell of a lot more money is made.
They are launching Ryzen Naples server chips in the second half of the year but it might be next year before they are really available in volume. They definitely seem compelling. Early numbers look compelling but who knows how accurate they are. I have seen some crazy wide TDP quotes.
It would be great to have another feasible player in the space.
I’ve been running a 1700X at stock speeds Ryzen rig as my main PC for a few weeks. Some growing pains during the initial build, (First mobo was DOA, and then I had to exchange memory to get explicitly supported sticks), buit once I got over the hump, it’s been great, and stable. Also, no regrets for gaming if you’re pushing a resolution a PC gamer shouldn’t be ashamed of, 1440p or higher…
Courtesy of the old (March) PC Gamer article…
You idiot! Why would you play GTA5 at 100fps when you could have paid twice as much to play it at 104fps?
I must write this post to express my joy, general sense of merriment, and agreement with the above post, which I found particularly enjoyable. I hope reading this post has embiggened your day in a most cromulent manner. Carry on and good day.
Asus is teasing a Ryzen-powered ROG laptop to be revealed at Computex next week.
Great! They desperately need to compete in the mobile space. Not many people buying desktops these days.
interested to see what they announce, and whether they will be using amd or nVidia for the graphics, etc