AMD Ryzen

[Keyrock]

AMD unveils new details on Ryzen, the new name for Zen

 

• Ryzen to launch Q1 2017 with Naples (the server counterpart) due in Q2 2017
• At least 3.4 GHz base clock on the top of the line Ryzen desktop chip
• 8 cores/16 threads on the high-end chips
• 20 MB L2 + L3 cache
• Boosts in steps of 25 MHz

I'll be interested to see independent 3rd party benchmarks.  So far they've only given a rather favorable Blender benchmark, which is but a single usage scenario out of hundreds, plus I never trust benchmarks performed by the manufacturer themselves.  3.4 GHz base clock is adequate but underwhelming, assuming it boosts to somewhere around 3.7 GHz.  Hopefully there is enough thermal headroom to get it to 4 GHz without crazy cooling solutions, as single-threaded performance is still a big factor in many scenarios these days and clock speed is a big part of that.

[Bartimaeus]

the only thing that matters is IPC, and AMD has been lacking woefully here for years, so until I see the benchmarks...

Edited December 14, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Humanoid]

The claim of 40% improvement in IPC would place it somewhere in the Ivy Bridge to Haswell range apparently (I'm just parroting other sources for this). That's where Intel was 2-4 years ago, so while not exactly super impressive, it's probably near best-case scenario for AMD to be there. Given Intel's glacial progress in recent years that's not as bad as it sounds to the layman.

[Sarex]

The claim of 40% improvement in IPC would place it somewhere in the Ivy Bridge to Haswell range apparently (I'm just parroting other sources for this). That's where Intel was 2-4 years ago, so while not exactly super impressive, it's probably near best-case scenario for AMD to be there. Given Intel's glacial progress in recent years that's not as bad as it sounds to the layman.

 

In that case it really comes down to $.

[Bokishi]

Lol AMD used to be badass

[Keyrock]

The claim of 40% improvement in IPC would place it somewhere in the Ivy Bridge to Haswell range apparently (I'm just parroting other sources for this). That's where Intel was 2-4 years ago, so while not exactly super impressive, it's probably near best-case scenario for AMD to be there. Given Intel's glacial progress in recent years that's not as bad as it sounds to the layman.

Agreed.  If the IPC is around the same as Haswell then, given the right price, Ryzen could be a good bargain.  Skylake IPC isn't all that much higher than Haswell.  I mean, you're still good to go these days if you're running Sandy Bridge, heck, even higher end Nehalem chips still offer acceptable performance.  Given a well multi-threaded application (I know, there are still plenty of applications poorly multi-threaded at best), an octa-core Ryzen at approximately Haswell IPC should beat or at least match a hexa-core Skylake, and completely trounce a Quad-core.

 

This is all speculation, of course, until we get independent 3rd party benchmarks.

Edited December 14, 2016 by Keyrock

[Zoraptor]

If the benchmarks for Kaby Lake are accurate it may well be a good time for an AMD release since there seems to be (very close to) no improvement at all over Skylake. Presumably- hopefully for me since I'll be buying Q1 2017- Intel will cut prices as a sweetener, depending on how Zen turns out

 

Kind of amused with the renaming though, since Ryzen is ~'zero' in Japanese (eg Mitsubishi A6M 'Reisen' == 'Zero' WW2 fighter) and thus doesn't have the best connotations- and it doesn't sound that much like 'rising'. Should have gone for Zenpai, or better given it a trademarked code name in the first place.

[Malcador]

The addition of some sort of machine learning to do scheduling and pre-fetching is pretty neat, even if I suspect it is BS

[teknoman2]

one thing they said about it is that it will have some some sort of automatic overclock. if the temperature, voltage and other factors allow it, it will raise it's speed to beyond factory specs up to it's max stable operational speed

[Keyrock]

Another thing I should mention is that the high-end Ryzen CPUs are going to have a 95W TDP, which is pretty decent for an octa-core and more or less in line with current high-end Intel quad-cores, lower than Intel high-end octa-cores (140W), and massively lower than AMD's own high-end Vishera chips (220W).  Not a huge deal in a desktop, but still a positive sign.  Even if power draw doesn't directly correlate to thermal headroom, the two do sometimes go hand in hand.

[Sarex]

Speaking of thermal headroom: http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/delidded-core-i7-7700k-runs-26-degrees-c-cooler.html

[mkreku]

AMD unveils new details on Ryzen, the new name for Zen

 

• Ryzen to launch Q1 2017 with Naples (the server counterpart) due in Q2 2017
• At least 3.4 GHz base clock on the top of the line Ryzen desktop chip
• 8 cores/16 threads on the high-end chips
• 20 MB L2 + L3 cache
• Boosts in steps of 25 MHz

I'll be interested to see independent 3rd party benchmarks.  So far they've only given a rather favorable Blender benchmark, which is but a single usage scenario out of hundreds, plus I never trust benchmarks performed by the manufacturer themselves.

 

the only thing that matters is IPC, and AMD has been lacking woefully here for years, so until I see the benchmarks...

 

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-zen-cpu-benchmarks-official/

 

Here's 7 more where the base model (the 8 core, 3.4 GHz flat, 95W version) outscores Intel's i7 6900K (8 core, 3.2-3.7 GHz, 140W).

 

Another benchmark: 

 

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-zen-cpu-benchmarks-leak/

 

We'll see. I'm definitely interested.

[Zoraptor]

Looks like the NDA comes off on the 28th, with product release on March 2.

 

Still all based on leaks at this point but Broadwell-E equivalent performance for 2/3 of the price and without a MB costing almost as much as the processor would be... tempting to say the least.

[teknoman2]

leak

Edited February 21, 2017 by teknoman2

[Zoraptor]

FWIW at this point since nothing is official the leaked benchmark for the 1700X puts it just (~10) behind the 6900K on that graph, and at about 1/3 the price.

 

(The 1600X on that chart may not even be the X version, since the leak listed TDP as 65W instead of 95W)

[Keyrock]

The official pricing is out:

1800X 3.6GHz 4.0 boost 95W $499
1700X 3.4/3.8 95W $399
1700 3.0/3.7 65W $329
All 3 are 8 cores/16 threads

I can't wait for independent benchmarks because if these are anywhere near as good as AMD themselves are claiming, it's a big win for AMD and for consumers. AMD is claiming 52% IPC increase over the previous generation, which is STAGGERING.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Keyrock

[Sarex]

The most interesting thing from this whole shebang is going to be Intel's response (provided that the Ryzen chips are competitive performance wise).

[Keyrock]

It would be great to see Intel get a fire lit under their asses and get serious about performance desktop again. They've spent the better part of a decade focusing on trying to get their TDP down to muscle their way into ARM dominated smart phone space, unsuccesfully, for the most part.

[Zoraptor]

1600X 3.0/3.7 65W $329

 

Should be the plain 1700 there rather than the 1600X. Despite what AMD said it looks like a non full range release with the 6 core and 4 core processors being released later than March 2. I suspect the sweet spot for price/ performance/ longevity will be somewhere in the 6/12 range (I'm looking at the 1600X myself) so not having them available as soon is a bit disappointing.

 

(My computer is currently in desktop configuration despite being a tower because the MB is warping and it blue screens if stood up or if the case lid is attached, it's getting to the point where even I have to accept an upgrade is absolutely necessary rather than nice in theory. Hurry up, AMD)

[Bartimaeus]

That's a pretty weird set of circumstances where it blue screens...

[Zoraptor]

That's a pretty weird set of circumstances where it blue screens...

 

The main problem is that it's just plain old and fundamentally needs replacing. It's not always a bsd, that's shorthand for bsds, lockups, spontaneous reboots etc.

 

It has always been finicky about the case, only other times I've had instability problems was when I cross threaded a case screw (!!, yes, that finicky) and when I lost a screw and did the case up without it- until I got a replacement off of an old case. Everyone I asked about it thought it was a weird problem as well, only explanation I ever got was that it might be the MB warping or the case tensioning/ straining it somehow.

[Malcador]

Seems like you should have replaced it a while ago, Intel CPUs weren't -that- bad to you,surely

[Bartimaeus]

That does seem like the really only logical explanation. I had kinda similar problems with my previous video card where it reacted to heat strangely...warping or perhaps micro-cracks in the PCB were causing it to artifact at low heat (i.e. on desktop) but it generally worked perfectly fine when it was actually hot (i.e. playing games).

[Keyrock]

 

 

Should be the plain 1700 there rather than the 1600X. 

You're right.  Edited my post to make it correct.

[Zoraptor]

Seems like you should have replaced it a while ago, Intel CPUs weren't -that- bad to you,surely

 

I've been extremely satisfied with my now ancient Core2Duo, it would play pretty much any game up until recently and has been 100% reliable for ten years. Could not have asked for more and it will get the electronic equivalent of burial with full honours (and repeated F pressing) when replaced.

 

I've been less happy with Intel over that time though, they've mostly coasted on their advantage and a situation with no AMD competition would mean Skylake-> Kabylake type transitions where the improvements are... limited would be further encouraged. To be honest though, their products looked significantly overpriced/ under featured even before the Ryzen leaks, and now they don't (from the leaks at least) look competitive against the AMD offerings in terms of what I want- future proofing, with things like current game performance decidedly secondary. Ideally, I want a CPU that will last for another ten years, and I simply cannot see an Intel chip doing that as well as Ryzen at this point.

 

It's basically the same situation with nVidia, was happy with their cards but not happy with their attitude, and bought AMD (and will again) since they'd support and improve them longer.