so without memeing, what's the general verdict/consensus

If all you do is rendering or other highly multithreaded stuff, they're great value, especially once all the kinks get ironed out because AMD can't into product launches.
If you don't do any video editing or other highly multithreaded stuff, there's literally no reason to go Ryzen over, say, a 7700K.

The 1700 (non-x) seems to be the only ryzen CPU worth buying. The 1800x only overclocks to 4.1GHz (most reviewers are able to reach only 4GHz). The 1700 reaches 3.9GHz. What a joke.

I'm going to wait a couple of weeks to see if the RAM and SMT issues are fixed, if not I'm getting a 7700k with an Asus rog strix z270f board. I hope I won't get a lemon CPU again. I want at least 4.8GHz (my current 4670k can only run at 4.4GHz stable).

>>59199829
already own a 4790k, looks like the 1800x is about par with it on single threaded workloads, so overall it's a step up with multithreaded workloads. i'm not too worried

bios updates should also help out me thinks. that, and most people benchmarking lately are running ram at completely different speeds, cas latencies, and amounts which i'm sure has an impact

the problem with ryzen is that it's performance is almost random in some cases, there are multi threaded tests in which it sucks and single threaded tests where it wins
gaming performance is the same, in some games it's good in some it's almost a bulldozer

File: file.png (113KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 500x375px

The sweet spot is generally the 4/8 chips. They will remain the sweet spot for at least 10 years. Interactive applications can NEVER become 100% paralleled because they are governed by 1 global loop that must protect its global variables.
AMD fucks up, plain and simple, by not promoting well binned 4/8 chips too.
Intel knows how to shill, they first go for 4/8s, THEN wait and go for "-E"s.

>>59199883
r3 when?

>>59199966
2nd half this year

>>59199966
Second half

>>59199829
Which would you recommend to me who both games AND does 3D rendering shit?

>>59199966
never, AMD will be bankrupt before they get the chance to launch R3
gaymers won't buy R7

>>59199998
Intel, for sure. It's not their chips have suddenly become bad no that Ryzen is out. My advice, try to get a 6700k for the best of both worlds. Kabylake isn't really worth the premium, and its price is more in line with Ryzen. And are you really concerned about rendering as fast as possible, or can you spare a few extra minutes? ('cause for me personally, I just leave my PC on and go for a walk or something, I'm not counting the minutes till it's finished rendering.)

File: It can't be helped - Ako.jpg (64KB, 554x439px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 554x439px

>>59199762
It seems like a great buy if you were going to buy X99 chips from Intel. I don't know why there is so much shitposting from gaming benchmarks since it was known it was going to be around Broadwell E level and it clocks lower than Intel counterparts.
There are apparently some issues with memory, we just have to wait and see.
Overall a nice release, but not the greatest.
I might buy one to replace this 3570k.

How well does it overclock? 4.0GHz can't be on all cores, right?

>>59199858
Wow almost like it's a new arch and has some ironing out to do.

>>59199762
Who fucking knows.

We got Nazi benchmarks which show it getting btfo, we got pop benchmarks showing it rapeing, and everyone else is somewhere in the middle.

Shit is all over the place. Even game benchmarks at the exact same specs show massive differences (bf1)

>>59200097
>How well does it overclock?
That's its biggest problem, it overclocks like shit. Want 5GHz like all those 7700Ks or even those old FX chips? You'll need liquid nitrogen and almost 2 volts.

>>59199999
checked

maybe not gamers, but I could see youtubers getting Ryzen for decent video editing/streaming at 1/2 the price while keeping a good gaming performance as well

File: AMD vs intel vs nvidia.gif (1MB, 690x200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 690x200px

>>59199762
pretty good all around
only 2 cons really:
shit memory performance
shit overclock

amazing at everything else
1700 is literally the best thing you can get. OCs the same as 1700x and 1800x for a lot less price.

>>59200062
Are you kidding me? "Intel, for sure"? Ryzen kicks the 6700K's ass in Multithreaded stuff and keeps up with an i5 for gaming applications, and this will only get better as more games become multithreaded. Getting a 6700K would make no sense right now.

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-02 at 11.05.02 AM.png (111KB, 797x586px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 797x586px

>>59199762
>so without memeing, what's the general verdict/consensus on the ryzen chips?

>>59200145
Shit memory performance is due to motherboard manufacturer BIOS issues

>>59199999
Witnessed
AMD is bankrupt.

>>59200174
probably, but it's still a major thing that's most likely affecting most of the shitty gaming benchmarks you see and will put the CPU in a negative light until a fix appears.

>>59199999
>99999
Nice
Glad I made the thread that enabled this

>>59200155
6700k is cheaper than these high-end Ryzen chips (by quite a bit where I live), has way better single threaded/gaming performance, and the person I was replying do very vague '3D shit'.

>i-it'll get better with time!

hehe, see ya in 10 yrs buddy. 4/8 cores will be the main target for a long time.

>>59200143
>comparing an 8 core's overclocking to a 4 core
absolute retard. even the 6900k has trouble reaching 4.4 ghz

>>59199762
the tl dr version is

the perfomance/watt is clearly on amd side no question about this

the smt is working way better than the ht (althought windows 10 will get an update during the creators update(currently on the fast ring) and linux will have it on 4.10 kernel they are kinda gimped now also the onboard soundcard doesnt work on linux YET there are no drivers for it)
ipc wise they are 5-7% lower tha kaby lake (7 from 770k 5 from the 6900k)

zen is good for anything multitasking and anything multithreaded if you play a game and have a chrome with gazzilion of tabs oepened then you will see a massive upgrade..
if you are going to stream shit them they are great (considering that you normally have to set a dedicated pc for streaming and one for playing..)
it falls behind on pure raw gaming perf but only because some idiots started to compare it with the 7700k while amd clearly stated that the target was 6900k..(same shit with 480 some idiots started comparing it with 1080 overhyping it to infinity)

on games well in nvidia games ryzen is doing from very bad to bad..(kinda makes me wonder if this can be the proof we need to actually see that they are actively gimping amd hardware..)
on the rest its from 5 to 13% behind kinda where 6900k actually is but NOT beating 7700k

problem is 99% of the benches where done with the old bios (not the one released yesterday that fixes the problem ) and very few actually re did the benches to showcase the IMC bug fix(not really a bug but anyway)

it is a great cpu if you need it for multitasking in general

>>59199857
You've seen the benchmarks
It's not on par with a 4790k single core

>>59200320
And ryzen has trouble getting to 4Ghz

>>59200307
$0.05 has been deposited in your account.

>>59200512
>XFR takes 1800X to 4.1 and 1700X to 4.0 guaranteed
>Benchmarks seeing 1700 get to 3.9GHz
You can run Ryzen at 4GHz

>>59200588
I think that's only on two cores.

>>59200512
Even then, Ryzen is half the price. The advantage of having 500mhz more is very little once you start to consider that.

>>59200602
No, it's all eight cores.

>>59199762
Basically Intel shills are running rampage because Ryzen is good.

>>59200512
i think you need to see what lucky noob has to say about that..
http://www.jagatreview.com/2017/03/review-prosesor-amd-ryzen-7-1800x/

Better than bulldozer was when it launched.
Single threaded- it's like 5-10% worse than intels' top, top end single threaded processors.
Multithreaded it completely fucking devastates intel processors. They don't even stand a fucking chance.
Unlike bulldozer where it was so shit that it'd only barely beat intel chips with half the amount of cores.

8/10 pretty good.

It comes right about where I predicted, too- high end Ivy bridge IPC but twice as many cores.

>>59200765
One more thing:
It completely destroys Intel's E class chips. The price gouged pieces of shit in the $600-$1500 range that intel sells for high-power applications, Ryzen demolishes that market completely.

This explains it:
http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2822-amd-ryzen-r7-1800x-review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-8

Ryzen is doing good against everything but for gaming but it is pretty weak to what we expected, i5-tier. Of course I do not know how the 1700x/1700 models are, only 1800x right now with the page I linked.

>>59200765
>Multithreaded it completely fucking devastates intel processors in the same price range
FTFY. If you go a couple hundred bucks higher Intel comes back on top and if you compare Intel high-ends there's no comparison (but why would you be comparing them anyway?).

Standard AMD stuff. It hits a good price/performance range, but not without caveat.

File: tmp_31799-1486130770433-717230788.jpg (34KB, 500x374px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x374px

So since this thread has less shitflinging, did any reviewer test an actual multitasking scenario? That's where I fall into, and I can't tell if the extra cores would be worth it for my needs.

>>59199762
Something weird's going on. I don't particularly want to defend AMD after their crafty GPU bottlenecking shenanigans, but if disabling SMT is improving performance, benchmark scores and game scores are this disconnected and the expected gains in the few properly multi-threaded games available aren't happening, either the architecture is garbage on truly profound levels or something else is at play here.

>>59199762
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5RP1CPpFVE

1700 at 3,9ghz = 7700k at 5ghz

>>59201003
SMT is a problem for the OS to deal with. Even intel's HT wasn't safe during it's earlier runs.

>>59201003
This.

We are seeing ryzen ahead in bf1 in some benchmarks, behind in others, equal in others.

It's confusing.

>>59199762
What for skylakex or kabylakex in a couple months

>>59200981
This, I want to see some streaming benchmarks.
I regularly stream and record games at the same time, while having multiple tabs (50+) open at the same time, and wanted to see how well the R7s are at it.

>>59199762
This is /g/, consensus doesn't exist

>>59200981

>>59200854
No, it demolishes every more expensive processor in multithreaded.

>>59201075
It's almost as if there's statistical variance

>>59199988
>>59199997
Wasn't it Q2?

>>59201529
Q2 is R5.
Q3-4 is R3.

AMD hasn't said anything more specific.

>>59201508
It's goes far beyond test tolerances.

>>59201594
There is the SMT bug which might account for much of it.

File: 1374202002476.jpg (65KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 600x450px

>>59200981

Computer illiterate here. What does 4/8 means?

>>59201797
4 cores 8 threads.

This probably doesn't mean much to you either.

>>59201812
Not much, but I now I can find information about it. Thanks.

>>59199762
I do game "a lot" have a current dayjob but on the side i do renders for that extra bit of cash.
Since the 2600K ive been wanting to get a 6/12 or a 8/16 core cpu, the FX were shit and intel jew the 2011 platform so no luck there.
Now im thinking getting a 1700 because it can play games at high settings and i can render tons of shit so yes, the market segment it was aimed at is happy.

>>59199883
>here is how you can calculate speed of the executable bases on number of threads and their efficiency

How is 4/8 exactly sweet spot?

>>59199762

Seems to suffer from the same issue the i7 suffered in the Sandy Bridge era and what not, where HT did nothing or even reduced performance in games simply because games back then only needed 4 threads.

Also bechmarks at ultra low resolution, while being solid performance indicators, dont really represent end user experience. If you think about it, its no different than a synthetic benchmark.

I'm more interested in R3 and R5 desu, R7 is too much dosh for us plebs

>>59199762
Bit worse than Intel's stuff on gaming, but better on "real" workloads like CAD, video editing, etc. Chances are the Ryzen 3 and 5 will be able to go head and head with Intel's gaming stuff cause less cores = less heat = more overclocking. I'll probably get a 1700

>>59201621
what smt bug lol windows 10 doesnt have a proper way to deal with the smt of the new l3 its not a bug

>>59202235
It's a big maybe. They'd have to OC way better than the 8 core parts since their announced stock speeds are actually lower. I think 1600x/1500 will be the sweet spot.

>>59199840
>overclocks
>4.0GHz

this is standard turbo frequency, hardly manual overclocking

File: dubsman.jpg (36KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 400x300px

>/g/ suddenly obsessed with muh gaymen when the Ryzen workstation CPU rolls out

Tbh, they should have rolled out R5 first.

>>59204856

>suddenly

/g/ is mostly /v/ in disguise