Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 217

Thread: Ryzen Pricing looks promising ...

  1. #136
    Basically exactly what I'm running now, and on 21:9 1440p there's nothing it can't run but it does struggle in something like Witcher 3 to keep up 60fps on the absolute highest settings. As such I dunno how future proof it's going to be but hey.

  2. #137
    Originally Posted by Robert Maynard View Post (Source)
    Maybe compare against the 1700 then as it's about the same price: http://www.toptengamer.com/amd-ryzen...7-7700k-1800x/



    I disagree with the contention that "everyone has been saying" - it's good for competition that AMD can offer CPUs that come significantly closer to Intel's performance.
    Glad you brought up the 1700 at the same price point as the 7700k. I just got my Ryzen system built and have it along with a 7700k system clocked to 4.6. I OC'd the 1700 to 3.8 on the stock cooler, and with the latest ASRock bios for my MB, I have my ram running at 2933 with 14 timings. My single thread Cinebench had the 7700k winning by 5%, but in multi thread...Ryzen doubled the 7700k score. As far as actual, real world usage, real world game play on a 34 21:9 4440x1440 with a gtx 1080, gameplay is noticably smoother on Ryzen, and before I get called a fan boy...this is my first AMD system, and I have always sworn by Intel all the way back to the Pentium 100. Before that, I had Cyrix chips.

    My gtx 1080 ti should be here on Thursday, and my son is going to get my old 7700k system with the 1080, and I am keeping the Ryzen and 1080 ti.

  3. #138
    Originally Posted by straha20 View Post (Source)
    Glad you brought up the 1700 at the same price point as the 7700k. I just got my Ryzen system built and have it along with a 7700k system clocked to 4.6. I OC'd the 1700 to 3.8 on the stock cooler, and with the latest ASRock bios for my MB, I have my ram running at 2933 with 14 timings. My single thread Cinebench had the 7700k winning by 5%, but in multi thread...Ryzen doubled the 7700k score. As far as actual, real world usage, real world game play on a 34 21:9 4440x1440 with a gtx 1080, gameplay is noticably smoother on Ryzen, and before I get called a fan boy...this is my first AMD system, and I have always sworn by Intel all the way back to the Pentium 100. Before that, I had Cyrix chips.

    My gtx 1080 ti should be here on Thursday, and my son is going to get my old 7700k system with the 1080, and I am keeping the Ryzen and 1080 ti.
    good luck with that.
    RIG: 6950x/ custom water loop// 2x Titan (XPs) //1tb M.2 drive/Northgate Omnimac Ultra/Corsair 900d case/Flux Capacitor/Time Spy: 17,986Fire Strike Ultra: 14,398 Fire Strike Extreme: 23,780

  4. #139
    Originally Posted by Robert Maynard View Post (Source)
    Indeed - but the 1700X is predicted to retail at $389....
    Don't discount the 1700. Lower 65W TDP and can be pushed further with OC than the 1700X. Get a decent cooler and (once the high end RAM issues are sorted) you'll have a beast.

    Keep us up to date on your PC build. Mine is still several months away.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Originally Posted by Patrick_68000 View Post (Source)
    I am still surprised that major brands like Asus and MSi was not coordinate with AMD before the release of Ryzen
    They did, but they didn't give them a lot of lead time. Everyone is playing catch-up.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Originally Posted by Robert Maynard View Post (Source)
    You make the point perfectly here - those chips are significantly more expensive.
    The motherboards to support those CPU's are much higher as well.
    AMD FX-8370 4.0GHz / 32 GB Ram / Titan X Pascal / ASUS Crosshair V Formula-Z ROG / HTC Vive / Steam VR Rating: 20937
    Independent Trader - Curious Explorer - The least talented smuggler in the Galaxy.
    "Play the game. Don't game the play." - Any grind, is in your mind.
    CMDR Shadragon / CMDR Drain Bamaged / CMDR CuteLilBunny


  5. #140
    When paired with the latest BIOS and high speed RAM, the 1700X beats the 7700 (running a GHz faster) in some benchmarks.

    AMD FX-8370 4.0GHz / 32 GB Ram / Titan X Pascal / ASUS Crosshair V Formula-Z ROG / HTC Vive / Steam VR Rating: 20937
    Independent Trader - Curious Explorer - The least talented smuggler in the Galaxy.
    "Play the game. Don't game the play." - Any grind, is in your mind.
    CMDR Shadragon / CMDR Drain Bamaged / CMDR CuteLilBunny


  6. #141
    Originally Posted by shadragon View Post (Source)
    Don't discount the 1700. Lower 65W TDP and can be pushed further with OC than the 1700X. Get a decent cooler and (once the high end RAM issues are sorted) you'll have a beast.

    Keep us up to date on your PC build. Mine is still several months away.
    Indeed not. The 1700 looks like a very good performance/price CPU.

    PC is mechanically built - lacking RX 480 (as it's in the PC i'm typing this on), a few more fans and the software installed to allow a seamless transition (i.e. so that I can go away on a business trip and not be blamed for "breaking" what is also used as the family PC).

  7. #142
    Digital Foundry said the 1700 is actually a better buy over the two other CPUs. Mainly because the small frame rate differential doesn't justify the extra cost of a better CPU.

    | i5 3350p @3.1 | 8 GB RAM | MSI GTX 660 | Elite: Dangerous on SSD |
    My Flickr
    My Soundcloud
    English is not my native language

  8. #143
    Originally Posted by Insomnia View Post (Source)
    Digital Foundry said the 1700 is actually a better buy over the two other CPUs. Mainly because the small frame rate differential doesn't justify the extra cost of a better CPU.

    https://youtu.be/-RRt5WkVxuk
    A good news for the people with a less important budget

  9. #144
    Originally Posted by Insomnia View Post (Source)
    Digital Foundry said the 1700 is actually a better buy over the two other CPUs. Mainly because the small frame rate differential doesn't justify the extra cost of a better CPU.

    https://youtu.be/-RRt5WkVxuk
    Yup - nearly all of the performance (without overclocking) at about two thirds of the price.

  10. #145
    Originally Posted by shadragon View Post (Source)
    When paired with the latest BIOS and high speed RAM, the 1700X beats the 7700 (running a GHz faster) in some benchmarks.

    https://youtu.be/RZS2XHcQdqA
    wow... AMD's best shot, brand new, 8 core intel killer can best a 4-core gaming cpu that's at the end of its development cycle... and in some benchmarks? and all for the same list price? AMD REALLY hit the mark here.

    They should be devastating intel, or underselling them .

    If I sound combative, it's not against you, I was really hoping AMD would kill this, and like everything they've done in the past since the netburst days, they've completely failed. This will do nothing to upset the market.
    RIG: 6950x/ custom water loop// 2x Titan (XPs) //1tb M.2 drive/Northgate Omnimac Ultra/Corsair 900d case/Flux Capacitor/Time Spy: 17,986Fire Strike Ultra: 14,398 Fire Strike Extreme: 23,780

  11. #146

  12. #147
    To be honest, it's a little unfair criticising the Ryzen 7 chip for not being the best at gaming. The Ryzen 7 isn't really aimed at gamers - it's aimed more at productivity, notably multimedia productivity (ie Video editing and rendering). My guess is that when the Ryzen 5 launches it will be within spitting distance, at least, of the Ryzen 7 for most tasks and may (slight possibility) actually turn out to be better for gaming due to it's different architecture. It will certainly be better value.

    The thing is that games are currently produced to run acceptably on a wide range of hardware (with varying hardware levels). Relying on a massive core count isn't a good idea for games, so they're not written that way. Most games run fine on a dual-core CPU with enough power and run optimally on a quad. Anything beyond that is usually of only fractional benefit. It's likely to stay that way for a while, too. Games need synchronised execution of threads far more than, for example, graphics rendering which is just ploughing through the maths as quickly as it can. Sure, you can write a game that needs an eight-core processor - but you won't get many takers for it from the majority of people running 4-core processors (which is most people). The eight-core/16 Thread nature of the Ryzen 7 isn't really needed for games. The 4-core/8-thread Ryzen 5 should be ample.

    So, yes, it's true that the Ryzen 7 isn't a massive improvement over the equivalently-priced Intel offering for gaming. But my guess is that the Ryzen 5 will be, as it's price-points will be largely up against i3, rather than i5 chips. I doubt it will set the world on fire and put Intel into penury, but I think it will be a good value proposition in many markets and will stimulate healthy competition.

    It's worth remembering that a typical AMD MoBo is cheaper than equivalent Intel one.

    BTW. The LAST thing intel want is out-and-out victory in the CPU market. That would be a monopoly of the sort that caused the DOJ (I think) to put the PC architecture into the Public domain in the 1980s to prevent IBM having an unassailably dominant market position. I doubt very much that Intel want AMD to go away entirely and I imagine they want enough competition to be able to claim to be a participant in a competitive market - rather than a monopolistic producer of the chips that everyone needs for their universally-used computers. They're probably quite willing to cede the low-markup bottom end of the chip market to AMD to retain this. Just my guess, but it makes sense to me.

  13. #148
    Originally Posted by Noddie View Post (Source)



    So, yes, it's true that the Ryzen 7 isn't a massive improvement over the equivalently-priced Intel offering for gaming.
    Which is exactly the problem .. AMD can't just release a chip that is almost as good as Intel, at the same price. To be compelling, the need something -- whether that be performance, price, or efficiency. They can't just a shadow of intel. There's just zero compelling reason to buy AMD, except for being an AMD phan.

    It's worth remembering that a typical AMD MoBo is cheaper than equivalent Intel one.
    I haven't checked, but assuming you're right, that's a good point. Are you talking about ryzen mobos, and comparing comparably speced mobos to intel, or do you have previous generations in mind?

    BTW. The LAST thing intel want is out-and-out victory in the CPU market. That would be a monopoly of the sort that caused the DOJ (I think) to put the PC architecture into the Public domain in the 1980s to prevent IBM having an unassailably dominant market position..
    You may want to fact check this one. PC architecture in the public domain? huh?
    Intel, Microsoft, and IBM have certainly had their antitrust issues. And you may be misremembering this as the years-long fight that Intel already had with intel, that was just resolved around '09, and resulted in a five year cross license (which ironically, has just elapsed)

    Anyway, facts aside, I agree that having AMD around is good for us, and probably good for Intel too. If they could just get their act together and stop disappointing...
    RIG: 6950x/ custom water loop// 2x Titan (XPs) //1tb M.2 drive/Northgate Omnimac Ultra/Corsair 900d case/Flux Capacitor/Time Spy: 17,986Fire Strike Ultra: 14,398 Fire Strike Extreme: 23,780

  14. #149
    Originally Posted by Noddie View Post (Source)
    To be honest, it's a little unfair criticising the Ryzen 7 chip for not being the best at gaming. The Ryzen 7 isn't really aimed at gamers - it's aimed more at productivity, notably multimedia productivity (ie Video editing and rendering).
    Seeing as Ryzen is aimed at streamers, I'd say it was squarely aimed at gamers.

    Note the complete lack of the word on the AMD site itself.

    https://www.amd.com/en/ryzen

    https://community.amd.com/community/...-for-streamers

    Originally Posted by Noddie View Post (Source)
    Relying on a massive core count isn't a good idea for games, so they're not written that way. Most games run fine on a dual-core CPU with enough power and run optimally on a quad. Anything beyond that is usually of only fractional benefit.
    Unfortunately, the games industry disagrees with you.

    https://www.quora.com/Are-multi-core...ture-of-gaming

    As for Ryzen, once the issues get ironed out, especially high speed RAM compatibility, you'll see much better competition and benchmarks.
    AMD FX-8370 4.0GHz / 32 GB Ram / Titan X Pascal / ASUS Crosshair V Formula-Z ROG / HTC Vive / Steam VR Rating: 20937
    Independent Trader - Curious Explorer - The least talented smuggler in the Galaxy.
    "Play the game. Don't game the play." - Any grind, is in your mind.
    CMDR Shadragon / CMDR Drain Bamaged / CMDR CuteLilBunny


  15. #150
    Originally Posted by shadragon View Post (Source)
    As for Ryzen, once the issues get ironed out, especially high speed RAM compatibility, you'll see much better competition and benchmarks.

    Soon^TM, right?
    RIG: 6950x/ custom water loop// 2x Titan (XPs) //1tb M.2 drive/Northgate Omnimac Ultra/Corsair 900d case/Flux Capacitor/Time Spy: 17,986Fire Strike Ultra: 14,398 Fire Strike Extreme: 23,780

Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 ... LastLast