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

[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] I don't know how you're expecting a CPU manufacturer to influence video game developers AI coding?

WCCF is basically an AMD fan site btw.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;51815829]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.[/QUOTE] And it may even be possible that AI and physics has improved but so has its efficiency, meaning that the requirements stayed the same

[QUOTE=Scot;51816196]WCCF is basically an AMD fan site btw.[/QUOTE] I'd say it's more just like a mess if a site. Fudzilla on the other hand... Either way, the benchmarks aren't from WCCFTech, though of course that doesn't necessarily make them any more reliable.

[QUOTE=Scot;51816196]WCCF is basically an AMD fan site btw.[/QUOTE] It's far from being the most reputable but when they effectively copy paste benchmakrs they do a decent enough job of it.

WCCF is a hit and miss with "leaks" though. I still stay cautious. Either way, Intels response is going to be interesting. I wonder what they are gonna do with the next 1-2 generations now. If this is as good as leaks claim I hope AMD can also keep it up, one good gen now will not fully rescue them I feel.

[QUOTE=Mitsuma;51816289]WCCF is a hit and miss with "leaks" though. I still stay cautious. Either way, Intels response is going to be interesting. I wonder what they are gonna do with the next 1-2 generations now. If this is as good as leaks claim I hope AMD can also keep it up, one good gen now will not fully rescue them I feel.[/QUOTE] Intel's first response will be higher-binned Skylake and probably some price reductions. Sadly that might be enough, depending on how hard AMD has to bin - they cant necessarily wring out a 15% frequency increase (though with mastery of the new process, chances are we'll see increases) on top of this launch line up. Maybe we'll see Intel finally adding more cores or hyperthreading to its line-up, but I don't think Intel's immediate roadmap will change that much to be honest - processor design is a big ship to turn around, so even if Intel went into panic mode maybe 4-5 months ago, it'll take time for that to turn into something substantial.

Intel has been slowing down a bit lately when it comes to improvement in performance over the last generation, this is AMD's chance to catch up. Do not let us down AMD! However I wonder how the power efficiency is with these AMD processors, because I think that the ratio of power consumption to performance is something that has improved with Intel's processors lately. I want to see AMD processors in more laptops too.

[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] I think the jump from 920 to Sandy Bridge was pretty decent but ever since then it's been very slow gains. From Skylake to Kaby Lake only the clock speed really changed, the IPC remained static.

[QUOTE=dark_vivec;51816384]I think the jump from 920 to Sandy Bridge was pretty decent but ever since then it's been very slow gains. From Skylake to Kaby Lake only the clock speed really changed, the IPC remained static.[/QUOTE] There was still a huge advancement in CPUs, just not on the performance side. Intel has done amazing job with power efficiency and all that. Kaby Lake also is an amazing overclocker, hitting stable 5Ghz easily.

[QUOTE=daigennki;51816360]Intel has been slowing down a bit lately when it comes to improvement in performance over the last generation, this is AMD's chance to catch up. Do not let us down AMD! However I wonder how the power efficiency is with these AMD processors, because I think that the ratio of power consumption to performance is something that has improved with Intel's processors lately. I want to see AMD processors in more laptops too.[/QUOTE] Efficiency should be much improved - I think it's a bit early to pass judgement, though, because simple TDP values are (or at least, can be) deceptive stats. Wait for reviews, I guess.

[QUOTE=Scot;51816196]WCCF is basically an AMD fan site btw.[/QUOTE] Hardly. They're just the tech equivalent of tabloit tier trash and tend to go hard on fake hype for AMD articles because they know it will get clicks.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51816411]Efficiency should be much improved - I think it's a bit early to pass judgement, though, because simple TDP values are (or at least, can be) deceptive stats. Wait for reviews, I guess.[/QUOTE] While this is true, AMD have long improved their stuff in their mobile chipsets, so there's no reason they wouldn't have done the same with the new desktop lineup.

[QUOTE=mastersrp;51816978]While this is true, AMD have long improved their stuff in their mobile chipsets, so there's no reason they wouldn't have done the same with the new desktop lineup.[/QUOTE] Yeah what I'm saying is that Ryzen is gonna be 14nm and a whole different architecture, so while "they're gonna (or try to, at least *cough* bulldozer *cough*) increase efficiency" is a bit of a tautology, that's pretty all we can say without getting into speculation right now. Speculating a bit though, the 40% increase in IPC looks to be about right, and then you can chug on whatever efficiency gains you expect out of the move from 32nm to 14nm (I don't know, 50% maybe?), so maybe about twice as efficient as Excavator or whatever? It's gonna depend on the task as well. I'm gonna guess it's gonna be maybe 30% (with some leeway) off Kaby lake in efficiency still, but yeah I don't exactly have insider info here.

[url=https://videocardz.com/65913/how-fast-is-ryzen]Some more benchmarks[/url]

[IMG]https://cdn.videocardz.com/1/2017/02/AMD-Ryzen-3DMark-Physics-Score-PER-CORE.png[/IMG][QUOTE=Ogris;51818223][url=https://videocardz.com/65913/how-fast-is-ryzen]Some more benchmarks[/url][/QUOTE] This one is kinda weird, guess the 8-core is basically throttling while the quad and six cores have room to boost beyond the official clock speed? Either way, performance looks pretty good in my book, of course especially in the multi core department.

I'm a little worried that they're pricing out their budget to mid tier customers. They're following the same structure of CPU flavors as FX (3-4 4-cores, 2 6-cores, 3 8-cores) but prices are way up. I was able to get a FX-6350 for $120 and that represented roughly the midpoint of the FX lineup. Now the very cheapest chip is $130 and that's for the worst one, equivalent to the FX-4300. The 6350 equivalent is now $259, double what FX chips were sold for, even at release. Now that I am more familiar with computers than I was when I built my current and first PC I'd be more willing to splurge, but for people on a tight budget it would be very hard to justify a $250 CPU to get middle of the road performance. That's not to say the AMD CPUs aren't more cost effective compared to comparable intel ones, but the prices have gone up.

[QUOTE=_Pai;51818488]I'm a little worried that they're pricing out their budget to mid tier customers. They're following the same structure of CPU flavors as FX (3-4 4-cores, 2 6-cores, 3 8-cores) but prices are way up. I was able to get a FX-6350 for $120 and that represented roughly the midpoint of the FX lineup. Now the very cheapest chip is $130 and that's for the worst one, equivalent to the FX-4300. The 6350 equivalent is now $259, double what FX chips were sold for, even at release. Now that I am more familiar with computers than I was when I built my current and first PC I'd be more willing to splurge, but for people on a tight budget it would be very hard to justify a $250 CPU to get middle of the road performance. That's not to say the AMD CPUs aren't more cost effective compared to comparable intel ones, but the prices have gone up.[/QUOTE] That was only because AMD's best CPUs couldn't even really compete with Intel's i5s. You're probably gonna get equal or better performance with this line-up, even at lower prices. You may be right that the barrier to entry is gonna be higher, because we haven't seen any dual or triple cores yet, and that kinds locks the line up out of the cheapest markets. I read that FX CPUs will stay around for the time being as well for users on a very tight budget, though.

[QUOTE=_Pai;51818488]I'm a little worried that they're pricing out their budget to mid tier customers. They're following the same structure of CPU flavors as FX (3-4 4-cores, 2 6-cores, 3 8-cores) but prices are way up. I was able to get a FX-6350 for $120 and that represented roughly the midpoint of the FX lineup. Now the very cheapest chip is $130 and that's for the worst one, equivalent to the FX-4300. The 6350 equivalent is now $259, double what FX chips were sold for, even at release. Now that I am more familiar with computers than I was when I built my current and first PC I'd be more willing to splurge, but for people on a tight budget it would be very hard to justify a $250 CPU to get middle of the road performance. That's not to say the AMD CPUs aren't more cost effective compared to comparable intel ones, but the prices have gone up.[/QUOTE] A Pentium G4560 or equivalent would give you amazing performance for 70$. Prices haven't gone up relative to performance, FX chips were just dirt cheap because they weren't very good.

[QUOTE=Ogris;51820512]A Pentium G4560 or equivalent would give you amazing performance for 70$. Prices haven't gone up relative to performance, FX chips were just dirt cheap because they weren't very good.[/QUOTE] The FX series have always just provided cheap raw power, with low IPC. I'd like to see that continued, just with higher IPC really. Because the high clock speeds, the high physical core count, and the cheap prices, is what keeps me on RED: