AMD RX-480 and ZEN - AMD's come back move

I actually did get away from that Ryzen 1200, returned everything and picked up an ASRock B350 Pro 4 board, 8 gb of ram, and a shiny R5 1600 which I have overclocked to 3.7ghz, on stock cooling no less. Runs quite well even with an old 7950 which I now need to save up to upgrade:).
 
I went with:

Ryzen 7 1700X still running at stock speeds
MSI X370 SLI Plus motherboard
16GB Corsair Vengance 3200mhz DDR4 memory (2x8GB)
Cyroig H7 cooler (had to wait almost 10 days on the AM4 bracket)
525GB crucial SSD
Corsair Carbide 200R Case
550W EVGA SuperNova G3 Power Supply

Currently reusing my old Radeon 5870 since GPU prices are so nuts.
Also reusing my old DVD RW and Blu Ray RW drives from back when
I built in 2010.
 
Just built a new rig for myself. i7-7800X with 128GB of RAM. I looked at the Ryzen offerings and wasn't very impressed. I didn't like the fact that I can't use SATA ports 5, 6, 7, or 8 if I want to use my m.2 slot for my Samsung 960 Pro 1TB SSD, but I can live with it. The lack of PCI lanes is a real d*ck move by Intel. But I wasn't impressed with the motherboard options with the AM4 socket. I think motherboard manufacturers are still stuck in the mindset that AMD is a lower end product compared to Intel. There aren't very many good boards for Ryzen. I ended up going with the ASUS TUF Mark 1 motherboard. It has a metal plating on the front and back of the board and is VERY heavy. It doesn't flex at all when you pick it up. I remember thinking "WOW" when I took it out of the box. I was just so impressed by how high quality it felt.
 
I've had some good AMD boards. I'm just happy about the fact I have nearly the performance of the upper i7 CPUs and options down the road to drop a new cpu in there.
 
...at the expense of a higher electricity account....

Take a look at some benchmarks taken of CPU's and their various power consumption rates in different tasks.
A look at a Toms Hardware review shows if anything, the R7 1700X is on par, if not better in some spots, than
the 7700K. Please note that the R7 1700X has double the logical / physical cores that the 7700K has.....

When your talking about a difference of a few watts in the most extreme cases.... really makes a big whoop of a
difference when you consider the average cost of a kilowatt is around 10 - 12 cents. A few hundred hours of run
time and you spend an extra 10 - 12 cents.... I mean come on.


As far as the quality of the motherboards, I rather like the one I have (with the exception of the splash screen, don't like it at all and do not like the fact that it basically "hides" the win 10 booting animation save for the swirling dots). I know they are not as refined as the intel boards, but I wouldn't expect them to be. My x58 board was a real dog at times when I built my i7 930 system... but then again it was a new platform for intel as well.....
 
...at the expense of a higher electricity account....

You would be partially correct, but perhaps not.

According to Newegg, the i7 7700k is rated for 91watts.

My 1600 at stock settings is only rated for 65 watts.

That said, the 1600x is rated for 95 watts, I do have my 1600 overclocked, so may it would pull 100-110 watts with the overclock? Guessing. But that's considering if you leave the 7700k at stock, who does that lol. Anyway, if you overclock the i7 it will use more juice too. I did find a nice link though:)

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ryzen-7-1700-cpu-review,review-33854-8.html
 
The old cpu wars are heating up again. Intel has coffee lake with more cores coming, as I said, I think AMD is slating another ryzen version for early next year on 14nm, and some articles said they are also taping out "zen 2" for 7nm and that could be out in late next year or early 2019. Then that they will be planning for zen 3 by 2020. Rumor is ipc for the new ryzen could be 5-15% ipc increase over ryzen. If they can do say 10% and get clock speeds up, they are going to be neck and neck with Intel even with coffee lake I think. It's no wonder Intel is scrambling trying to get literally anything out.

I think AMD are also working on server chips called epyc, if those do well and get in data centers, Intel could be hurting big time.

https://www.amd.com/en/products/epyc
 
When your talking about a difference of a few watts in the most extreme cases.... really makes a big whoop of a
difference when you consider the average cost of a kilowatt is around 10 - 12 cents. A few hundred hours of run
time and you spend an extra 10 - 12 cents.... I mean come on.
Rather than open up this whole debate again, as we've been down this road before, Your 10~12 cents per kilowatt equals our 35~39 cents per kilowatt.
So, yes it does add up over time. As Iv'e said before.
And as most businesses run 24/7 their costs can spiral considerably! Trying to save a few dollars by buying AMD can quickly turn into a poor decision as the savings on hardware disappear on increased power consumption.
This is one of the reasons I will not recommend AMD to my clients, whether residential or business. It's is also one of the reasons that Ryzen simply is not available from my suppliers: no one wants them so they are not stocked.
...and let's not forget the thermal issues.....here we go again! :rolleyes:
Intel could be hurting big time.
Lol
 
You say lol. But look at it for what it is. These ryzen chips when you look at benchmarks, single core, they are the same essentially as haswell. Multicore performance, I think that basically all Intel chips up to i7 are now invalidated.

Ryzen 3 is a true quad against the i3 dual core, which has hyperthreading, but physical cores will scale better.

Ryzen 5 are quads with hyperthreading, all of the i5s are plain quads. So sure, single core, amd loses that by a small margin, but multithreaded performance, those i5s will be eaten for lunch.

When you look at 6 core ryzen 5, or 8 core ryzen 7, those all have hyperthreading. Until you get to the i7 7700 or higher, where can Intel compete here?

Have you sat down and used a ryzen system? Mine does well. If in the next year they can get the ipc performance closer to Intel, and if oems, especially for business class systems begin to look at their CPUs, that is Intel's bread and butter.

Maybe you need a new supplier. The link above someone showed said they are the breast seller in Germany.

What thermal issues are you talking about? My CPU is overclocked on the stock cooler runs just fine. They had thermal issues on previous generations, but Ryzen has solved much of that. Time will tell and they platform needs to mature, but they are making great strides already.

Intel appears to be scrambling to release anything. They know what's happening.

I've used AMD for many systems including gaming builds, for the most part, people are happy with them. The one guy I can think of had issues with front USB ports or something not working, which I was able to get that sorted:).
 
You say lol. But look at it for what it is. These ryzen chips when you look at benchmarks, single core, they are the same essentially as haswell. Multicore performance, I think that basically all Intel chips up to i7 are now invalidated.

Ryzen 3 is a true quad against the i3 dual core, which has hyperthreading, but physical cores will scale better.

Ryzen 5 are quads with hyperthreading, all of the i5s are plain quads. So sure, single core, amd loses that by a small margin, but multithreaded performance, those i5s will be eaten for lunch.

When you look at 6 core ryzen 5, or 8 core ryzen 7, those all have hyperthreading. Until you get to the i7 7700 or higher, where can Intel compete here?

Have you sat down and used a ryzen system? Mine does well. If in the next year they can get the ipc performance closer to Intel, and if oems, especially for business class systems begin to look at their CPUs, that is Intel's bread and butter.

Maybe you need a new supplier. The link above someone showed said they are the breast seller in Germany.

What thermal issues are you talking about? My CPU is overclocked on the stock cooler runs just fine. They had thermal issues on previous generations, but Ryzen has solved much of that. Time will tell and they platform needs to mature, but they are making great strides already.

Intel appears to be scrambling to release anything. They know what's happening.

I've used AMD for many systems including gaming builds, for the most part, people are happy with them. The one guy I can think of had issues with front USB ports or something not working, which I was able to get that sorted:).

Honestly, does CPU speed even matter very much nowadays? So long as you've got a computer with a Passmark score of 7,000 or above you'll notice no real difference except in the most extreme circumstances. AMD might be the best bang for the buck nowadays, but they're still untested in reliability and stability. I'd rather pay a tiny bit more, or sacrifice say 15% performance and stick with Intel until AMD proves that they can have a strong track record. The i7-7800X is a great processor and at $350 it's neck and neck with the Ryzen 7 1800X. Why would I go with a processor without a proven track record, and a sub-par motherboard when I can go with a top of the line board and an Intel processor for about the same price? I'm sure Threadripper will be phenomenal, but honestly with such a MASSIVE CPU, they're kind of cheating. If it's going to become a contest of who can build the biggest CPU, let's just say that I don't want to get in the middle of that particular battle.
 
Intel Core i7-8700K Benchmarks Show a 6 Core CPU Blazing Past AMD’s 8 Core Ryzen 7 1700 and Intel’s 6 Core HEDT Core i7-7800X CPU
Well, the wait is over and we have a fresh set of benchmarks straight from Chinese sources. The latest benchmarks show Intel’s 6 core chip blazing past AMD’s eight core and even Intel’s 6 core HEDT processors.

Core i7-8700K - ~$380
Core i7-8700 - ~$320

These new chips will definitely compete more effectively against AMD’s Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 5 families than the current crop of 7th-generation CPUs do, but which chip comes out on top will depend on your workloads and scenarios. The closest AMD competitor to the Core i7-8700K is the Ryzen 7 1700X, with a $400 price tag, 16 threads vs. 12, and a boost clock of 3.8GHz. If we assume the Core i7-8700K is running at maximum all-core boost, that means AMD will have a 33% advantage in threads while Intel has a 13% advantage in clock. Toss in the fact that Intel’s single-threaded performance is often better than AMD’s, and you have a situation that could tilt either way depending on the workload and how well-threaded it is.
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/254521-rumor-prices-leak-intels-coffee-lake
 
You say lol. But look at it for what it is. These ryzen chips when you look at benchmarks, single core, they are the same essentially as haswell. Multicore performance, I think that basically all Intel chips up to i7 are now invalidated.

Ryzen 3 is a true quad against the i3 dual core, which has hyperthreading, but physical cores will scale better........
You and I know this, but all of this is totally irrelevant to end users who couldn't tell the difference between Chrome and Firefox let alone the different types of processor!
All they care about is their quarterly power bill and how they can reduce it!
And one major factor in all this is the fact that hardly anyone these days buys a desktop computer. My last desktop build (apart from Gaming Rigs, none of which were AMD) was in January this year.
People are buying more laptops or tablet devices or just using their phones.
 
You say lol. But look at it for what it is.
I say "lol" because I am looking at it for what it is.
I am NOT an Intel fanboy, but the fact is that Intel could buy and sell AMD 10 times over.
Statements like "AMD could threaten Intel's dominance" or "Intel could be hurting big time" are just plain silly.
 
As far as it all goes, coffee lake will be good. No question. I think there thing to keep in mind is look at in a generation, and turned from saying they weren't even going to go for the high performance market any longer under the previous ceo, to challenging Intel and being on par. I think it was a 40-50% increase in ipc. Which is nearly unheard of. That said, they need to mature the platform. From what I've seen, they've come a long way since even April/May with the ryzen platform.

Motherboards, it depends what you buy I think. Usually I stick to Gigabyte boards, though I went with ASRock this time, but I've not been disappointed. Even on cheap builds for clients, I think I've only had one failure out of dozens. I'll see how this one does, but so far it appears too be ok. Got small things to sort out of course, but I'll running overclocked on stock cooling, using a Samsung 960 Evo nvme drive that is blazing fast.

Point taken about end users, amd needs to have better marketing for sure, I even say that.

Intel even seems to see the competition though. Yes, I did realize they are a much larger company, but as fast as they are trying to get coffee lake out, it's apparent they are feeling the heat, they know they have to move quickly. A bit of deja vue right before core 2.

Not that and can take out Intel, but it's nice they are providing food competition:)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GTP
I've done the math, and won't bother posting it because as you have stated... it would only start a "debate" that seems to be pretty futile. At nearly 40 cents per KWh, considering the machine runs 24/7 at near max power consumption... you are right. There is a savings to be had from each workstation of about 3$ USD per month per machine. You have to honestly ask yourself, how many clients have machines running 24/7 at max capacity. Just because a computer is left on 24/7, doesn't mean it is consuming in excess of 90W from the CPU 24/7.

At any rate, there just really isn't a point in "debating" about how good or practical these processors are. A GREAT point to make, however, is contained in what phazed posted. Intel has really started doing some magical stuff now that they aren't the only show in town. Do you honestly think you'd have seen ANY of that had Ryzen not shown up? Hell no, you would still be looking at nearly $400 i7700K's and waiting on next years 8700k..... grab your 2-3% IPC gain (if that) and continue to praise the intel gods.

I don't care at all which camp has their chip in my machine. I'm just greatfull that Intel can't sit with their feet propped up and keep counting their coin. Now they have to do something, provide better value to the customer, and price more reasonably. THAT is what makes Ryzen a winner at the very least. And if you pay less that 15C per KWh like I do, it's a very viable option as a daily driver.
 
I'll admit I am an amd fan. Back when I was a kid, my first computer was a used commodore 64 at 5 years old. So you can guess my age now lol. But when I was a teenager, the first PC my family owned was an old 200 mhz amd k6 cpu. 16 or 32mb of ram, can't remember now lol. But we got that new. When the market started moving towards Pentium 2 and k6-2, back when 400 mhz was fast, dad and I were going to build a new computer. I think the price was like 400 for a new Pentium 2 at that speed. We could not afford that, so we ended up looking at best buy of all places, and they had a sale on amd k6-2 CPUs. 100 bucks was what the price was. Dad and I got parts and built our system.

From then on I guess we just had such good luck with amd, and every time I looked at processors, amd was always more reasonable. The last go around the Intel like was tempting.

I'm a bit of a gamer as well. I took about a year or so off but saw all the stuff about ryzen and got interested again. Especially when I started seeing benchmarks.

That said, I did just recommend and set up a refurbished hp business class PC with Windows 10 pro, i5 2400, 8gb of ram, and Samsung Evo 500gb SSD for 329.99. Got it from the local Microcenter. They needed a new PC, but even at cost, I could not have built something as nice with the ssd for that money.

I guess for me, I was always on a budget, and and was always a little more friendly in that regard, and have always performed well, just glad to see more competition. If their road map is true, I think AMD has some more tricks up their sleeve.

Intel sees it or they wouldn't be acting the way they are. But in the end, we benefit as consumers.
 
I think my original system was a 133mhz pentium 1, followed by a 2ghz HP Pavilion 533w.... celeron processor and yes I had that 133mhz pentium 1 for a LONG time! Many reinstalls of windows 98 later... The next machine was my first custom build, an opteron 165 based AMD setup which I ran until 2010. 2GB of memory, 320GB hard drive, Radeon 1800XT graphics and a DFI lanparty motherboard. Then in 2010 I went with a i7 930 build, ASRock X58 Extreme, 6GB of memory and a HD5870.

I never once felt a "like or dislike" for the CPU in my system. I did do a build for my younger brother featuring the i5 2500K and REALLY liked that CPU. Felt like a decent boost up from my i7 930. Was a nice little machine for sure.


Then enter this Ryzen setup. I really do like it, feel it was well worth the money. I spent over 2K on the first setup (monitor, mouse, keyboard and a $120 copy of windows XP included).... spent $1300 ish to build in 2010 and just spent around $790 so far on the rebuild. Another "bottom of the upper class GPU's" will run me about $300 (when they come back down to earth) and that will put me in around $1100.... Although it's only $200 cheaper then the i7 build of nearly 7 years ago I feel it's decently more powerful. Then again, so would a system featuring a 7700K.

I almost wish I could have held out a tiny bit longer for Ryzen "2".... but my old machine was really starting to crap the bed. It was time, beyond time probably.
 
Back
Top