Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ryzen Release Thread
Ryzen 7 2800X coming, will not be part of first wave of releases: https://www.techpowerup.com/242688/amd-r...first-wave
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover.
Reply
First review of Ryzen 7 2700X is out: https://www.techpowerup.com/242710/canar...iew-is-out
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover.
Reply
Russians claim they've got the 2600X, 2700, and 2700X: https://www.techpowerup.com/243150/amd-2...-in-russia
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover.
Reply
Zen 5 confirmed to be in development: https://www.techpowerup.com/243182/amd-w...re-already
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover.
Reply
Ryzen 2 prices announced, pre-orders now available: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-pin...36878.html
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover.
Reply
Z490 chipset on the way: https://www.techpowerup.com/243419/amd-r...pcie-lanes
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover.
Reply
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd...71-14.html
Quote:In gaming, AMD's stock Ryzen 7 2700X delivers a great performance boost that rivals its overclocked predecessor in every one of our tests. Tuning the 2700X provides additional performance, though you probably won't notice the difference. Check out our chart: as you can see, the Ryzen 7 2700X effectively ties Core i7-8700K based on the geometric mean. But it sells at a $30 discount, drops into a less expensive motherboard, and comes with a thermal solution that adds even more value.
...
If you're searching for a more productivity-oriented processor, Ryzen 7 2700X is incredibly attractive. It offers superior performance compared to the Core i7-8700K in many of our threaded tests, and is much more competitive in lightly threaded applications than previous-gen models.
...
In a broader sense, AMD is delivering on its first update to the Ryzen processor series, proving that it can execute on its roadmap. It looks like it's going to be another busy year in the CPU space--and that's more good news for enthusiasts and gamers.

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/26...offee-lake
Quote:These new CPUs will almost inevitably be called Ryzen 2, but that’s not the nomenclature AMD uses. Ryzen 2 is reserved for an architectural refresh expected next year on GlobalFoundries’ 7nm process node. The CPU we’re reviewing today still uses the same fundamental architecture as the Ryzen CPUs we reviewed last year — with a few improvements. First, there’s a small amount of additional IPC gain, thanks to the cache and memory latency improvements detailed below. All slides can be enlarged by clicking on them.
...
The Ryzen 7 2700X is not the show-stopper the Ryzen 7 1800X was. But it’s something every bit as important: A measured, genuine improvement executed on-time. As important as first-generation Ryzen was to AMD, the company needed to do more than just launch an architectural revision. It needed to show it could keep executing its roadmap and deliver a steady cadence of improvement over time.

Fans of Intel’s Core i7-8700K will still have a lot to like after this review, unlike poor Core i7-7700K owners, who cheerfully picked up Intel’s latest 7th Generation CPU in January 2017 only to be run over by Ryzen a few months later. High clocks, six cores, and strong IPC make the 8700K a formidable foe and it still punches above its weight class. But the additional 10 percent performance the Ryzen 7 2700X delivers gives AMD’s latest core room to maneuver. Everywhere the 1800X was outperformed, the 2700X is outperformed by less. Everywhere the 1800X won, the 2700X wins by more.

If you know you need single-threaded performance above everything else, the Core i7-8700K is still the top CPU on the market. But in well-threaded code, especially rendering applications, the Ryzen 7 2700X is superior. The fact that it’s $20 cheaper and ships with a decent stock cooler hurts nothing, either. Intel may already be planning its next counter-stroke, but until those rumors become reality, AMD has our nod for top overall CPU.

https://techreport.com/review/33531/amd-...reviewed/8
Quote:Aspiring AMD builders without the budget or workload for eight cores and 16 threads of second-generation Ryzen goodness need not despair. The $229 Ryzen 5 2600X delivers single-threaded performance that's only a hair's breadth away from the Ryzen 7 2700X, and its impressive multithreaded performance, high-quality stock cooler, and unlocked multipliers make similarly-priced and locked-down Coffee Lake Core i5s look like a hard sell for do-it-all systems. I'm especially interested to see how the Ryzen 5 2600 stacks up against the Core i5-8400 when we get our hands on that part.

All told, the best thing about today's CPU market is that builders can choose just the chip they need at the right price. Those after the very best single-threaded performance, overclocking potential, high-refresh-rate gaming experiences, and all-round digital audio workstation performance can still get it in the Core i7-8700K, and those things still justify the price premium the blue team's best mainstream chip commands. Even with the tarnish of Meltdown and Spectre on its heat spreader, the i7-8700K is still a remarkable chip—just not as much so as it was back in October of last year.

Those whose needs run more toward sheer multi-threaded grunt, on the other hand, can pick up a Ryzen 7 2700X for less money than the i7-8700K, and they'll enjoy its capable (and colorful) stock heatsink, winning parallel throughput, perfectly snappy per-core performance, and polished platform. AMD has stuffed an impressive amount of bang into the Ryzen 7 2700X for the buck, and if the stuff it does well meshes with your workload, you really can't go wrong. The second round of Ryzen looks mighty fine indeed, and I'm happy to call both the Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600X TR Editor's Choice's.

Also check out TPU's reviews:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/...0X/19.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/...0X/21.html
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover.
Reply
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/26...used-to-be
Quote:When Ryzen 7 launched, AMD promised that the performance we saw on launch day would continue to improve over time thanks to future UEFI updates and app optimizations. Companies often make these claims, but the long-term improvement rate historically isn’t very good. It’s not surprising that AMD had ground to make up back in 2017 — after six years in the metaphorical wilderness, and with its desktop share in full retreat, plenty of vendors hadn’t had to think about AMD performance optimizations for years. Even vendors that did invest in Bulldozer or Piledriver-specific performance improvements would’ve found those gains ill-suited to Ryzen’s architecture. But at the same time, there was no initial way to know what kind of improvements to expect over Ryzen’s lifetime.

These performance gains won’t rewrite the book on the Ryzen 7 1800X, but they’re proof that AMD was telling the truth when it told users to expect better performance figures over time. While the gains are application-specific, the Ryzen 7 1800X is faster today than it was in 2017.
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover.
Reply
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/32...der/page-3
Quote:We’re getting to a point where Ryzen’s generational improvements, from a pure FPS and performance perspective, are going to look an awful lot like Intel’s. If you bought Ryzen 1, there’s really no reason to replace it with Ryzen 2. AMD’s improvements are primarily in unseen places to the end user, like the reduced minimum voltage at a given frequency, which we previously highlighted here. These are less flashy than gaining, say, 20% in framerate, so will undoubtedly be largely overlooked by the general userbase. Such improvements are critical, and we think AMD has done well to reduce voltage at a given frequency over first generation.

As for the rest, it’s rather lateral from Ryzen 1. If you already own a 1600X, don’t buy a 2600X to replace it. If you don’t own a current CPU, strongly consider a 2600X. The 2600 and 2600X get all the same accolades as the 1600 and 1600X did. They’re the same price, they perform a bit better, they reduce given-frequency voltage requirements, and they fit in the same boards. Where we’d previously recommend the R5 1600, we now recommend the R5 2600. It’s as simple as that.

The R5 2600(X) is an all-arounder CPU, and if it weren’t for Intel’s 6-core i5s, it’d be the only option. The 6-core i5s still have some viability, but AMD’s R5 line remains our go-to at the price point, in general, with Intel remaining the go-to at the $330 for gaming, or AMD at $330 for production/streaming-type applications (although the 8700K does well to compete there – better than the 8600K does to compete with the R5s).
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover.
Reply
Lower power consumption Ryzen APUs announced: https://www.techpowerup.com/243581/amd-o...cient-apus
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover.
Reply
Several first-gen Ryzen CPUs reach end-of-life: https://www.techpowerup.com/243596/six-f...-reach-eol
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover.
Reply
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3290-...ency-curve
Quote:As stated in our review, the Ryzen 2 processors primarily shine in lower voltage requirements at a given frequency, which is doubly illustrated here, against the 1700. Both CPUs do have somewhat non-linear, pseudo-exponential curves as frequency increases. This also happens with Intel, mind you, but that’s well-documented. The Ryzen CPUs are still relatively new. Without BCLK and other tuning, we hit a wall at 4.2GHz and can’t push voltage high enough to stabilize >4.2GHz (multiplier only). We could with exotic cooling, probably, but temperature begins to dictate boosting functionality -- just like modern GPUs.

The more interesting point is that our 2700X can hold its base frequency of 3.7GHz on all cores at 1.0v, while our 1700 needs at least 1.1625V for the same clock speed.
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)