AMD Ryzen Quad-Core 2+2 versus 4+0 Core Setups Analyzed

I really hope the next revision of Ryzen will support Quad Channel memory or possibly even eight.

 

Maybe, just maybe AMD Ryzen CPU's were made for 4k gaming? How's the performance on 4k games? I mean i get some people like myself still game at 1080p 144hz but i think Ryzen is made for 4K gaming. This whole 1080p comparisons is funny, how about we drop the resolution to 720p and see if there is cause for concern at this point. During the press conferences were they not showing mostly all 4K gaming demo's?

 

Was thinking the same. Not many have upgraded to Ryzen but the lack of brackets for coolers, low motherboard availability and teething issues are the cause of that, for some part.

I've upgraded from Sandy to a 4 core and I'm not complaining. In fact, I love my new rig. Funny thing is, I see more people upgrading their Sandy+ to modern Intels.

 

True and i did just that a few days ago. I was undecided between sticking with Intel again or try AMD and in the end i bought a 7600K and an ASUS board with a nice rebate.
The reasons for this choice are that my pc is primarily for gaming, Ryzen´s weak spot, and for me Ryzen´s platform is to "raw" for my liking with to many problems, some small, others big like people bricking motherboards trying to update the BIOS...

Don´t know if i made the right choice but now it´s done. But i still wish all the luck to AMD and i hope they kick Intel´s ass once again.

 

I have seen "unofficial" Linux benchmarks that seemed to yield similar results. I too have tried finding some more legit benchmarks, and never found anything.

I wouldn't consider it that black and white. I myself am very likely to get the 4c/8t Ryzen, because I know I won't be needing any more than that for a long while. Most games revolve around what consoles can do. Current-gen consoles may have 8 cores, but they're clocked low and most games only use 6 of the cores; XB1 just recently permitted access to the 7th core. Do a little overclock and you should be able to play just about any game reliably.

"Reliably" is an important word. Of course, a 6c/12t CPU will last you longer and will offer more performance in most realistic gaming scenarios, and, there are a handful of games that can take advantage of it. But, if 60FPS is your motive, an overclocked quad core will work too.

The most important thing to keep in mind is developers target the widest audience possible. Even a 4c/8t i7 isn't cheap. Getting more threads hasn't been widely adopted by consumers. Perhaps Ryzen will help change this trend, but from what I personally have seen, there just isn't currently a reason to have more than 8 threads for games and I don't think this will change for at least 2 or 3 years. Most games on PC still only use 4 threads.

 

There more optimazion that can be done, maybe newly introduced instructions.
If Valve were able to optimize Source2 for Ryzen within 2 weeks after CPU release with results, I think its not that hard to so it. Would love to see how far can Ryzen be optimized with software.

 

I warrantee you that if I went to get a CPU now, it would have been a Taichi mobo with a 1700 and 3200 Geil memory. But I don't really need a CPU yet, I'm actually holding my cash for the GPU upgrade first.

I also can't say that I would ever recommend to anyone getting a new CPU right now, to go with a lesser thread CPU for the same money, given the current IPC differences.

 

4.1Ghz 8-core vs 4.8Ghz 4-core, 8 core will smack it down every day, except in programs that only use 4 threads or lower. AKA gimping the 8 core to make it look worse.

 

It's crazy how much Ryzen performance changed with some updates and a overclock on the RAM

 

I'm not planning on a new computer anytime soon, but Ryzen looks to be exactly what I would be looking for. I do about 70% gaming and 30% video conversion/3D object creation and manipulation. I've always been a 60FPS/Hz+V-sync person so the idea that Ryzen has higher lows with lower highs makes it sound like the perfect choice for a rig with a high end GPU and somebody looking for a 60FPS lock with the highest graphical settings allowable. Can't wait to see the Ryzen refresh with higher clocks and 4000MHz RAM with a Vega GPU.

 

Ya lets compare best case scenario Ryzen to a 7700k that is gimped. You realize that even the 7700k scales well with higher ram speeds and most samples should be able to do at least 5.1ghz. Bench a 7700k with a 4000mhz+ ram and 5.1ghz, and lets see the Ryzen CPU still winning.

 

You look like modern democrat freshly educated by EU parliament. There they think too, that few "superior" people have vote worth millions.

But here, even SL claims that only 28% of 7700K made it to 5.1GHz. (Paired with 2400MHz 15-15-15-35 memory.)

 

Yes, I agree, it is positive news because that's the architecture, and it can't be changed. Although they do need to find why Ryzen is still slightly underperforming in games - it's not the Windows 10 Scheduler, AMD admitted it wasn't that, but I think I remember them saying that games would need to be developed with Ryzen in mind - I think it's down to the software developers to take advantage of Ryzen architecture - this could take some time. Also, the increased introduction of faster RAM kits for Ryzen will help too.

 

I am not sure if there anything to be done on M$ side. If M$ could of done something, I smell conspiracy with Intel postponing M$ from optimizing Windows for Ryzen. Money can talk.

As for Developers, Valve already patched Source 2 Engine (Dota2) for Ryzen.
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Dota-2-Ryzen-Optimizations

So while M$ could improve API for software to better manage Ryzen, Valve already done something. I am not sure if they utilized Ryzen instructions, SMT or done something unrelated to Ryzen.

 

There's nothing gimped about the tests there. What's gimped is taking a program that utilizes at max 4 threads and claiming the i7 7700k is faster because 4 of its cores are faster the 4 of 8 cores of another. Woopdyfickendo.

Btw, GREAT FIRST POST.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

 

you can't beat the internet

More and more i become speachless when i read comments on the internet and tech sites.
We are so divided and "full of hate". I meen, we should be very greatfull that AMD even exists and manages, somehow to give competition to Intel. You only have to look at the financial discrepancy between Intel(even nVidia, but nvidia is not as big as Intel) and AMD and everybody should say "WoW AMD" for the new CPUs.
When i read "poor gaming performance" or "fail CPU" i am very sad about the people who make those claims.
Nobody cares now that the 1800x costs 50% less then the targeted Intel CPU, nobody cares now that even the TDP is lower then the intel counterpart, nobody cares that the 7700k is better in gaming than the 6900k (the target of the 1800x), nobody cares that the i5 7600k has the same gaming performance as the i7 7700k. Everything that matters is that the 1800x isnt beating the 7700k in gaming, thats all that matters and from that conclusion Ryzen is FAIL.
Then i look at the Steam Hardware Surveys for February 2017(i dont know if i can link it ( http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/)) and i see this:
90% of Videocards used for gaming on steam are midrange to budget cards with the GTX 970 being the most used card (5%). GTX Titans dont even show up on the chart (GTX 1080 is 1,4%, GTX 1070 is 3%).
So, the majority of the market (arround 90%) is GPU limited even at 1080p and dont care if they have an i7 because they cant even use it at the full potential they just buy it because "AMD sucks"

 

Amen to that. Beyond the price/performance and the push for mainstream 8c/16t, AMD brought a new architecture and a new node at the same time. This is not to say that AMD is better or worse than Intel in absolute or relative terms, it's just that any company achieving this immensely complex goal at the first try should be praised IMHO.

By hating or praising zen we are just recognizing it as a rival to Intel worth of being praised or hated against the latter. And the thing is that there are valid points on both sides. I think buying a CPU right now is not a wise choice for an enthusiast with Intel's X299, AMD's x399 and the Zen+ revision all within 6 months time, but there are situations that simply force you to buy right now. In that scenario I am not sure what platform I'd go and that is an absolute wint for AMD IMO.

 

Actually i5-7600K is already quite behind i7-7700k in some games. Time of Clean Quad Core CPUs without SMT is over.
Next ones are Quads with SMT.

 

Agree.

 

This reminds me of the Core 2 Quads which was 2 cores per di (2+2) which went up against the Phenom IIs which were just 4 cores on a single di and the Intels did very well for themselves granted the C2Qs didn't have any of this new technology either but still people complained that the C2Qs were not true quad core CPUs. I know there is feature that the new AMD cpus have that cause a slowdown when talking to cores on separate CCXes.

According to those graphs there really isn't that much difference between a CPU that is 2+2 vs a cpu that is 4+0 however I wouldn't have that high of an OC on the 7600k and the 7700k respectively I would have left them at stock including the turbo clock frequencies. Plus I would have added an Intel hex core CPU into the mix since you have a hex core Ryzen in there as well. Yeah I know that the purpose of this graph was to analyze 2+2 Cpus vs 4+0 cpus.