Rumor: AMD Ryzen 7 1700X ($389) benchmark performance is on par with than i7 6900K ($1099) - Polidicks

[QUOTE] [B]Multi thread performance (Unknown if it's turboboosted or not, 3.4 Ghz)[/B] [IMG]http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-CPU-CPU-Mark.jpg[/IMG] [B]Single thread performance [/B][B]([/B][B]Unknown if it's turboboosted or not[/B][B], 3.4 Ghz[/B][B])[/B] [IMG]http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-CPU-Single-Threaded.jpg[/IMG] [/QUOTE] Source: [URL="http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-389-8-core-cpu-benchmarks-leaked/"]WCCFTech[/URL]

It's not better, but at the price point its at it's a bargain.

[QUOTE=Megalan;51812310](NO TURBO BOOST, 3.4 Ghz)[/QUOTE] That's a little misleading considering it says this right in the article: [QUOTE]The ID string of the engineering sample, confirms an 8 core, 16 thread Ryzen CPU with a base clock of 3.4GHz and a turbo clock of 3.8GHz. Which are identical to the specs of the Ryzen 7 1700X. Although Passmark’s PerformanceTest 9.0 has notably failed to register the chip’s Turbo clock.[B] It’s not clear whether the engineering sample was running at 3.4GHz without any turbo functionality during testing or if the application simply failed to read the turbo clock.[/B] So keep that in mind as you interpret the benchmark scores.[/QUOTE] Still impressive though. It'll be interesting to see if the 4C/8T chips can maintain similar single core performance at a lower price point.

[QUOTE=Wiggles;51812337]That's a little misleading considering it says this right in the article: [/QUOTE] Added remark about this, thanks.

Saw these benchmarks yesterday, and while they're pretty good (it's not exactly as clear cut as those in the OP, though), I don't see AMD launching something at $389 that they could sell for $600 and still have clearly the better value. Still, I'm hopeful, and I'm satisfied if they hit Haswell like IPC with some nice efficiency.

Apparently these benchmarks were taken on a cheapo motherboard with poor ram and the cpu wasn't clocked as fast as it normally would be (with its turbo) because said motherboard doesn't support that. Regardless, WCCFTech is like the Buzzfeed of the tech news world, so I wouldn't take any of these benchmarks seriously just yet. (That doesn't mean that I'm not hyped.)

I hope to return to the age where AMD is better than Intel but I'm pretty skeptical of these claims. It always seem like they're exaggerated a bit, people where saying the RX480 gpu was going to be on par or better than a 980, and while still a good buy, it wasn't.

[QUOTE=Saxon;51812627]I hope to return to the age where AMD is better than Intel but I'm pretty skeptical of these claims. It always seem like they're exaggerated a bit, people where saying the RX480 gpu was going to be on par or better than a 980, and while still a good buy, it wasn't.[/QUOTE] I would rather have both as opposed, equally viable options.

I don't care who I'm buying my parts from as long as the prices get lower. :v:

This isn't the first time AMD has sprung up a supposed Nvidia/Intel killer. I remain skeptical until official charts come out.

I hope the rumors are true. Intel needs a kick in the ass. The gaming CPU market needs a stimpak. This would be exactly both of those things.[QUOTE=FlandersNed;51812317]It's not better, but at the price point its at it's a bargain.[/QUOTE] The hell you mean it's 'not better'?! You're getting the same level of performance for a mere fraction of the cost. That is ludicrously better. That is 'Why the fuck would anyone who isn't a rabid Intel fanboy buy the Intel chip' levels of better. This is 'I have the same amount of processor performance as you do but my chip cost so much less I was able to buy the rest of my machine for the price you spent on just your processor' levels of better.

Yeah I don't see any source on this to a reputable tech site so take it with the largest pile of salt you can find since it's WCCF. There's are reason they're a banned news source in several tech sites.

[QUOTE=Levelog;51812942]Yeah I don't see any source on this to a reputable tech site so take it with the largest pile of salt you can find since it's WCCF. There's are reason they're a banned news source in several tech sites.[/QUOTE] They're not the ones posting it, they're just reporting on it. [url]https://videocardz.com/65825/first-amd-ryzen-7-1700x-benchmarks-are-here[/url] [editline]12th February 2017[/editline] I would also like to point out that several retailer leaks regarding prices confirm the price tags pretty much. Those are likely not the price tags for consumers, but the price tags for consumers will likely be in the neighborhood.

I'm not 100% convinced we're seeing AMD's second golden age of product superiority yet, but I'm pretty excited for the possibility tbh. I'd buy a new rig in a heartbeat if they're on even remotely close to equal footing as their counterparts for cheaper.

[QUOTE=mastersrp;51812964]They're not the ones posting it, they're just reporting on it. [URL]https://videocardz.com/65825/first-amd-ryzen-7-1700x-benchmarks-are-here[/URL] [editline]12th February 2017[/editline] I would also like to point out that several retailer leaks regarding prices confirm the price tags pretty much. Those are likely not the price tags for consumers, but the price tags for consumers will likely be in the neighborhood.[/QUOTE] Yeah I'm not talking about the price tags, just the performance comparisons. But interesting, videocardz is usually legit so that's good news.

Hell, even if it performed at 50% of the 6900k I'd buy it for $300. That's a steal. [editline]12th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=TestECull;51812711]I hope the rumors are true. Intel needs a kick in the ass. The gaming CPU market needs a stimpak. This would be exactly both of those things. [B]The hell you mean it's 'not better'?! You're getting the same level of performance for a mere fraction of the cost. That is ludicrously better. That is 'Why the fuck would anyone who isn't a rabid Intel fanboy buy the Intel chip' levels of better. This is 'I have the same amount of processor performance as you do but my chip cost so much less I was able to buy the rest of my machine for the price you spent on just your processor' levels of better[/B].[/QUOTE] Just what I was thinking. I was watching my roommate piece together an upgrade for his comp yesterday and thinking, "Why?", when he was putting $1700 on his credit card. Most hardware gets superseded so fast I rarely upgrade until I have to.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51812470]Saw these benchmarks yesterday, and while they're pretty good (it's not exactly as clear cut as those in the OP, though), I don't see AMD launching something at $389 that they could sell for $600 and still have clearly the better value. Still, I'm hopeful, and I'm satisfied if they hit Haswell like IPC with some nice efficiency.[/QUOTE] Or maybe that's what it's really worth and Intel has just kept the prices jacked up because they simply could get away with it

These benchmarks do follow what is to be expected of the top end Ryzen CPUs. Except that the model they're using isn't supposed to be the top of the line. Canard PC, a French PC magazine, got a hold of one of the first engineering samples of the chip and explicitly state that it has near Broadwell IPC. This is coming from a chip created on early silicon that was clocked lower than the consumer version and was spitting out errors constantly. [IMG]https://i.redd.it/tic6i57uob5y.jpg[/IMG] This, combined with these supposed prices, indicates that AMD really has a winner on their hand here. [T]http://i.imgur.com/ADskbDx.png[/T] [QUOTE=RaTcHeT302;51812693]I don't care who I'm buying my parts from as long as the prices get lower. :v:[/QUOTE] Then you're going to buy AMD because Intel have never, not even when they were being dominated by AMD, lowered their prices.

[QUOTE=Aetna;51813353]Just what I was thinking. I was watching my roommate piece together an upgrade for his comp yesterday and thinking, "Why?", when he was putting $1700 on his credit card. Most hardware gets superseded so fast I rarely upgrade until I have to.[/QUOTE] Exactly. I'm still rockin' an AMD Phenom II 720BE, and while it's aging, it's still doing fine. Plays Fallout 4 with glee...though my harddrives can't keep up...it is about due for an upgrade though and I may very well be staying AMD instead of going Intel this cycle if these benchies hold out in the '$79-$129 quad core' price bracket.

I'll believe it when I see post launch benchmarks.

If this is true, even if Intel matches prices I'll be going AMD again. Fuck their anti-competitive business practices.

[QUOTE=Lolkork;51812613]seems a bit too good to be true.[/QUOTE] Sounds like Bulldozer all over again.

[QUOTE=Aetna;51813353]Hell, even if it performed at 50% of the 6900k I'd buy it for $300. That's a steal.[/QUOTE] I think people forget how slow CPU's have progressed. 50% of a 6900k for 300 bucks is a terrible deal.

[QUOTE=Brt5470;51815653]I think people forget how slow CPU's have progressed. 50% of a 6900k for 300 bucks is a terrible deal.[/QUOTE] I mean it's not like the customer can do much, unless we could make our own CPUs. :v:

Just need to get that FP pool going for a hostile takeover of VIA.

[QUOTE=RaTcHeT302;51815727]I mean it's not like the customer can do much, unless we could make our own CPUs. :v:[/QUOTE] No my point is being ok with 50% of a 6900k is not good. That's like an i5 6600k. Which you can already get for less.

[QUOTE=Brt5470;51815653]I think people forget how slow CPU's have progressed. 50% of a 6900k for 300 bucks is a terrible deal.[/QUOTE] I don't really know much about computer hardware, but I can only assume that CPU's haven't advanced very much if my i7 920 from 2008 can still carry me through most games on reasonably high settings. My 2008 graphics card meanwhile wouldn't have stood chance in 2017, assuming that it hadn't died two years ago.

[QUOTE=Bertie;51815783]I don't really know much about computer hardware, but I can only assume that CPU's haven't advanced very much if my i7 920 from 2008 can still carry me through most games on reasonably high settings. My 2008 graphics card meanwhile wouldn't have stood chance in 2017, assuming that it hadn't died two years ago.[/QUOTE] That may speak more about video games. How much have physics, AI and other CPU intensive tasks really advanced since 2008 ? I just finished playing Hitman Absolution from 2012 and the 3D model of Hitman probably has more polygons and textures than entire levels in the original game from 2000, but the AI is basically the same 12 years later, and the original even had ragdoll physics back then.

I bet if we stopped focusing on tessellational blurring and hyper shadow ambient occlusional aliasing, they could make decent AI in a modern video game.

[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;51815840]I bet if we stopped focusing on tessellational blurring and hyper shadow ambient occlusional aliasing, they could make decent AI in a modern video game.[/QUOTE] What. You're mixing up GPU and CPU stuff.