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
Reply
First review of Ryzen 7 2700X is out: https://www.techpowerup.com/242710/canar...iew-is-out
Reply
Russians claim they've got the 2600X, 2700, and 2700X: https://www.techpowerup.com/243150/amd-2...-in-russia
Reply
Zen 5 confirmed to be in development: https://www.techpowerup.com/243182/amd-w...re-already
Reply
Ryzen 2 prices announced, pre-orders now available: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-pin...36878.html
Reply
Z490 chipset on the way: https://www.techpowerup.com/243419/amd-r...pcie-lanes
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
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.
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).
Reply
Lower power consumption Ryzen APUs announced: https://www.techpowerup.com/243581/amd-o...cient-apus
Reply
Several first-gen Ryzen CPUs reach end-of-life: https://www.techpowerup.com/243596/six-f...-reach-eol
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.
Reply
Lower-end Ryzen 2 models on the way: https://www.techpowerup.com/243757/amd-l...ryzen-skus
Reply
Zen 2 will be coming next year: https://www.techpowerup.com/243818/amd-t...019-launch
Reply
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/...00/20.html
Quote:One area where the Ryzen 7 2700 managed to surprise us is energy efficiency. Its multi-threaded power-draw is over 50 W lower than that of the 2700X (141 W vs 199 W), while offering not that much lower performance. The underlying reason is that 2700X boosts very high, into a region where the processor is faster, but not operating so efficiently anymore. Ryzen 7 2700 on other other hand runs at lower clock and lower voltage in this scenario, resulting in higher efficiency. Our new energy efficiency testing, which doesn't just measure power, but also takes into account how quickly tasks complete due to higher performance, shows the amazing lead of the processor. This makes the Ryzen 7 2700 the most energy-efficient processor we ever tested.
Reply
https://www.techpowerup.com/243877/bluec...s-for-2018
Quote:The information gleaned is a confirmation, of sorts, of AMD's planned launch of their Z490 platform in June; the B450 chipset coming a little bit later, in July (an expected product, in every sense); and AMD's second-gen Threadripper, a known-quantity already, which should accompany a X399 platform refresh.
Reply
http://www.legitreviews.com/ddr4-memory-...orm_205154
Quote:Our quick look at DDR4 memory scaling on the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X 8-core, 16-thread processor on the AMD X470 platform with a G.Skill Sniper X DDR4-3400 memory kit was pretty fun. We were able to push this 3400MHz kit up to 3733MHz with the stock timings of CL16-16-16-36 by just bumping up the DRAM voltage. We were never able to get this high on the Ryzen 1000 series on the AMD X370 chipset, so the Ryzen 2000 series is allowing AMD to get higher DDR4 clock speeds than before. For a hot second it looked like we could get 3800MHz up and running, but we had to throw in the towel for the time being.
Reply
B450 chipset detailed: https://www.techpowerup.com/244415/amd-b...t-detailed
Reply
AMD has canceled the Z490 chipset because they had trouble finding the PLX chips that they needed:


Reply
More Ryzen models: https://www.techpowerup.com/245235/amd-r...-geekbench
Reply
https://www.techpowerup.com/245676/first...0x-surface
Quote:The overall value proposition of this 2300X CPU is somewhat marred, though, by the existence of the 2200G APU - a quad-core solution as well, which also packs in integrated Vega 8 graphics - for $99. And it's unlikely the Ryzen 3 2300X will be priced much lower than the $125 AMD was asking for its 1300X processor, which already looked bad compared to the 2200G. It seems AMD has a missed opportunity in its hands to further differentiate these two product lines by enabling SMT on one of them. If anything, I'd suggest doing so on the APU side of the equation - thus strengthening AMD's performance compared to Intel's i3 CPUs, which all pack integrated graphics, but lack any sort of SMT support.
Reply
https://www.techpowerup.com/245735/techp...ct-is-real
Quote:Despite being newer, fewer respondents use 6th generation "Skylake" and 7th generation "Kaby Lake" processors than older generations, because those on something like 4th generation "Haswell" or even "Ivy Bridge," don't see the value in upgrading. But then something changed in 2017 - AMD became competitive again, and forced an increase in CPU core counts across the segment. AMD's Ryzen processor family, including both its 1st and 2nd generations, are better received in the market than Intel's competing 8th generation "Coffee Lake" and 7th generation "Kaby Lake." The data stands to validate the "Ryzen effect," the idea that the introduction of Ryzen disrupted Intel's near-monopoly, increased core-counts, and brought innovation back to the segment.

More of our readers use AMD Ryzen processors than Intel Core "Coffee Lake" and "Kaby Lake." So in the period following Intel's launch of 7th generation "Kaby Lake" (slightly before the launch of Ryzen), more AMD processors were installed among our readers. This of course doesn't mean that there are more AMD users, since we're not counting pre-Ryzen Intel generations such as "Skylake" and "Haswell." This seems to suggest that the "Ryzen effect" is not a myth.
Reply
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/27...en-3-2300x
Quote:The positioning of AMD’s Raven Ridge APUs makes the value proposition of the Ryzen 5 2500X and Ryzen 3 2300X rather dubious. There are, of course, those who see no value in an integrated GPU because they never intend to use one. But even these buyers are practically acquainted with buying one anyway, since every mainstream Intel desktop CPU ships with an integrated GPU. The only thing you give up by opting for the 2400G as opposed to the 2500X is 4MB of L3 and 100MHz of maximum clock speed — about 2.5 percent of clock, in other words. That L3 cache could be good for a couple more percent, but that’s about it in the tests we’ve seen. Obviously, there can always be specific workloads where the larger L3 is useful, but AMD’s Ryzen CPUs haven’t shown themselves to be particularly L3-limited in desktop benchmarks.

The 2300X has an even tougher position to carve out because the Ryzen 3 2200G is a tough chip to beat at its $100 price point. Budget builders typically fight for every dollar and the combination of a capable 512-core GPU and AMD’s much-improved quad-core performance relative to Carrizo means AMD has a lock on budget gaming with this APU. But that doesn’t just apply to the Core i3-8100, Intel’s competition — it also applies to other AMD solutions. And while the Ryzen 3 2300X does offer an eight percent boost clock improvement, I’d honestly rather have the APU’s onboard GPU at the $100 price point than a touch more clock.

The most practical explanation, of course, is that AMD is simply engaging in a bit of die recovery and selling hardware it otherwise would’ve had to toss in the bin. But assuming this rumor is accurate, nobody who bought into Ryzen’s lower-end chips last year need feel like they’ve been shafted. AMD isn’t making any major product changes this cycle.
Reply
https://www.neowin.net/news/low-power-am...-watts-tdp
Quote:It's worth noting that this is not the first time that the low-power processor surfaced online as a recent listing on the website of motherboard manufacturer ASRock also revealed the Ryzen 7 2700E along with another energy-efficient CPU, the Ryzen 5 2600E. The listing is for the AB350M Pro4 model, which includes support for both CPUs.

The ASRock listing indicates that the Ryzen 7 2700E will have a base clock of 2.8 GHz and a 4MB cache, which coincides with the 3DMark data result. Meanwhile, the Ryzen 5 2600E seems to have a higher clock speed of 3.1GHz based on the ASRock listing.

While AMD has yet to officially confirm the SKU for the Ryzen 7 2700E, the processor will likely be integrated into small form factor PCs and devices, Guru3D noted.
Reply
ASRock adds the Ryzen 7 2700E and Ryzen 5 2600E to its supported CPUs list: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ry...37427.html
Reply
MSI states that its B450 motherboards will support CPUs with more than 8 cores: https://www.techpowerup.com/246100/msi-d...ore-counts
Reply
Ryzen 5 2500X on the way: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/acer-n...37504.html
Reply
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ea...37513.html
Quote:AMD CEO Lisa Su stated at Computex 2018 that the company had sold a total of five million Ryzen processors since they were released, which is a seemingly minor amount compared to the ~150 million PCs sold per year. Nevertheless, AMD's income from Ryzen processors jumped 64% year-over-year, which isn't surprising given that Ryzen processors currently hold four of the top five spots on Amazon's CPU best sellers list. Ryzen processor sales only increased slightly over last quarters' 60% of AMD's CPU sales, but AMD forecasts that number to grow as more customers upgrade from older processors over the coming months.

AMD lumps its sales of CPUs and GPUs together into its Computing and Graphics segment, which jumped a whopping 64% year over year but reflected a loss of 3% compared to the prior quarter. Su attributed the lower revenue to the reduced average selling price of its flagship Ryzen 2000-series desktop CPUs, which debuted at much lower prices than the first-gen Ryzen models, and increased sales of less-expensive Raven Ridge APUs. That has contributed to a lower average selling price (ASP), which impacts revenue. Threadripper 2 will arrive to the market in the coming months, and the higher-priced models should help improve the company's declining ASPs.

https://www.techpowerup.com/246282/no-16...aunch-2019
Quote:AMD in its Q2-2018 investors conference call dropped more hints at when it plans to launch its 3rd generation Ryzen processors, based on its "Zen2" architecture. CEO Lisa Su stated in the Q&A session that rollout of 7 nm Ryzen processors will only follow that of 7 nm EPYC (unlike 1st generation Ryzen preceding 1st generation EPYC). What this effectively means is that the fabled 16-core die with 8 cores per CCX won't make it to the desktop platform any time soon (at least not in the next three quarters, certainly not within 2018).
Reply
Ryzen DRAM Calculator released: https://www.techpowerup.com/246355/ryzen...s-released
Reply
Lenovo reveals more info on Ryzen 5 2500X and Ryzen 3 2300X: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/lenovo...37557.html
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)