First Ryzen R7 1700X benchmark: https://videocardz.com/65825/first-amd-ryze...hmarks-are-here

Brief info on test setup
CPU: R7 1700X 3.4GHZ (no turbo enabled or detected), 8c/16t
Mobo: MSI A320-based
RAM: DDR4-2400 @ 17-17-17-39


I assume the budget A320 will somehow disable turbo function or does not support XFR mode

This post has been edited by soulfly: Feb 11 2017, 10:18 PM

Since we're talking about AM4 here, and looks like you're looking for APU replacement you might want to wait for Bristol Ridge.
I assume that the retail version will come out once official AM4 boards are released.
The APU itself already released last year but through OEM channels only (PC manufacturers).

Rumored Chinese MSRP for Ryzen
Source: https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainbo..._ryzen_lineup/1



but from this list it looks like the cheapest Ryzen cost around the same as the highest i3 SKU
really hope that at least there will be a sub-MYR500 cpu when it reaches our shore that is.
damn it weak ringgit!

They need a lower price point 4c/4t to counter the lower i3s and Pentiums
unless they're reserving that segment for the AM4 APU, but Raven Ridge is not going to arrive until the 2nd half of 2017.

blame crappy MYR exchange

I think if dual graphics is not needed, B350 boards should be equally as great as long as quality components are used.

AMD is not yet competing in the Pentium/Celeron class probably because it's an entry level segment which is a small market and low profit. They better target enthusiasts who build their own systems, or performance PC system builders.

Nobody really buy ready made PC with low spec these days, which confirmed by huge decrease in PC shipment since the past year or so. Pre-built PC market is taken over by laptops as well as mobile devices.

Besides AMD still has old APUs and FX CPU in their inventory that still needs to move out first. Expect more price cuts when Ryzen starts shipping out.

with lesser core, the 4-cores probably will clock higher than 6 or 8 cores
unless the silicone quality is different that is

I'd probably wont even bother changing the cooler if I am not overclocking. If it's RGB, it must be good! LOL
And if I am not mistaken it's compatible with ASUS Aura. Not sure about other boards.

This post has been edited by soulfly: Feb 26 2017, 02:42 PM

stock coolers are always adequate for the standard spec running cpu, unless the stock fan is noisy and you're looking for something quieter

but for OC you'll definitely need a 3rd party.

Ryzen has lower TDP. So it should be okay for a non-X cpu

I hope no compatibility issue with older PSU like the Haswell thingy. I'm still using my old Seasonic, not fully Haswell certified.

goldfries I hope you could test out the low power state with older PSU if you still have them lying around.

I'm waiting for DDR4 price to stabilize first only then will think. Considering R7 or R5 depending on budget. Not in a rush right now.

beautiful clean and minimalist looking board
should be a nice simple and affordable gaming build i think

p/s: although i still don't like the idea of gaming board must be in red accent.

From the 212 series cooler... only the 212 LED Turbo compatible with AM4. Confirmed by CM.

like something that came out before Haswell perhaps
i have a seasonic s12II

In Malaysia we don't have micro center but we have lowyat lol

This post has been edited by soulfly: Feb 27 2017, 12:28 PM

Some people are still not getting the point - I am referring to both AMD and Intel camps.

7700K is an obvious winner for gaming-only cpu. Before down putting Ryzen, Intel camp also need to realize that 7700K also game better than their more expensive 6900K and 6800K. In multi-threaded applications and synthetic benchmarks, R7 matches well with Intel HEDT system, but still loose at gaming. Why? It's all about the clockspeed.

This is the day of GPU being the main performance defacto of your system and gone are the days when MMX and 3D Now were the in-thing. You need a fast enough cpu to feed data to the gpu back and forth.

In gaming, raw clockspeed still has the most advantage in today's games. Ryzen did not lose to Skylake or Kabylake because of IPC, it's because of clockspeed. The gap in clockspeed is significant that extra cores do not give much advantage to overall performance. We can see the 1080p gaming comparison video by Joker Production (Youtube) where the 1700 while utilizing all-cores, the load is very low which means the games are not taking full advantage of the extra cores (a.k.a lazy cores).

What if Ryzen has the exact same clock speed as Skylake/Kabylake? But of course it's not the current situation here because it is hard for an 8-core Ryzen to match the clock of Kaby even with watercooling. But at 3.9GHz overclock, the performance is near to Intel 5ghz. The problem now is that with its base clock, some reviewers are reporting that Ryzen has issues with boost clock. Hardware Unboxed claimed that their 1800X is somewhat stucked at 3.7GHz on his Asrock Taichi board. And I have yet seeing any reviewer that actually analyzes how the boost behavior is on Ryzen. How many active cores are at specific boost clock?

It was different with the old Bulldozer architecture when its high clockspeed was not an advantage due to the FPU resource sharing. In layman's term you can say the performance of clockspeed advantage is cut into half (not literally).

There was another argument regarding gaming resolution. In real world, those with 4K monitors and capable GPU will game at resolutions higher than just 1080p. At 4K the cpu advantage is diminished. 1080p testing is only relevant ONLY IF you want to measure the cpu performance. 7700K wins, hands down, but is it an ideal real world situation? No. If we're being practical... if you have a 4K capable system you will game at 4k, not 1080p. 1080p testing is only if you're stucked with 1080p monitor and it's capable of outputting very high refresh rate. Otherwise, it just serves another bench and bragging right. At 4K gaming and very high end GPU, even the old FX can perform as well as the newer generation CPUs.

This is just some of my thoughts at the moment, will write again later once I have more ideas.

the Zen architecture is highly modular.
They can slap on as many CCX as they want as long as it fits the PCB

This post has been edited by soulfly: Mar 3 2017, 05:22 PM

I don't mind reviewers being bias, I just can't stand those who pretend they know everything.
System building is really subjective so there's a lot of leeway between good and bad, and what to do and not to do.
But when it comes to hardware and you lack of knowledge about it, it really shows.
There are already documentations provided by AMD, and using internet there are many source of references from previous articles. They should have used that.
The lack of awareness is just irritating.

AMD Ryzen has ECC memory support - http://www.eteknix.com/amd-ryzen-ecc-memory-support/

der8auer set new 1800X world record at 5.8ghz - http://www.eteknix.com/overclocker-der8aue...7-1800x-record/

This post has been edited by soulfly: Mar 3 2017, 08:51 PM

Now that you mentioned about it, one flaw in most (if not all) BF1 testing is that they were tested on offline map. Imagine if online multiplayer with such number of players involved....