7 - Finally, as part of AMDs ongoing development of the new AM4 platform, AMD will increase support for overclocked memory configurations with higher memory multipliers. We intend to issue updates to motherboard partners in May that will enable them, on whatever products they choose, to support speeds higher than the current DDR4-3200 limit without refclk adjustments.
So stoked right now.
With all the sucking in of info I have been doing like a Ryzen vampire. I am not sure the R5 and R3 chips will be huge overclockers. Having said that I think they will be priced very aggressively making them attractive. Perhaps the extra cache can be shared to the less cores. Im not a CPU engineer. But the closer the instructions in cache can get to the CPU complex the better.
Hope I am wrong. Im still getting a 1700 because threads all day and the future. And the 1700 modestly overclocks into the 1700X - 1800X range. My competitive gaming days are over. Freesync in 35-120FPS and I will never complain again.
APU's and Ryzen
AMD gets Apple macbook AMD will be sitting pretty with and those of us who gamed on Kavari finally have a worthy replacement.
To bad AMD did not release bristol ridge cpu's. Yes it is the final and last Bulldozer but made for AM4 and at least would have given budget gamers something to compete with the new hyper-threaded Pentium's.
As post 666 in this thread I bring appropriate destruction with me.
Guru3D posted a story detailing Ryzen R5 this morning that was then taken down, but it was saved for all to see as an imgur post. I see some budget R5 builds on the horizon (horyzen? am I too late to make that joke?)
I dont really see why that should blow you away?
Its just logical.
Lets compair it to car engines.
You could have a 200HP old skool American V8,
Or you could have a modern 2.0 4 cilinder Turbo,
with more performance, and better fuell efficiency.
What do you think that most average car drivers would rather go for?
Its the same story with cpu´s.
Most average home desktop users and gamers dont really benefit much,
by having gazillion cores and threads.
They are more benefitting from having fewer faster higher clocked cores,
with better per core performance.
Of course there are content creators, who exally do benefit from having as much cores and threads possible, based on the specific software they use.
But thats only a smaller special niché of desktop users.
What really is better highly depends on a persons personal use case scenario.
That's a really terrible analogy, but Ok, Ill just go with it. :D
Mainly because a modern 2.0 Turbo is essentially easily at ~110-160Kw power.
(200Hp is about 150Kw)
The 1600 parts being 95W TDP confirms several suspicions about them being different bin R7's with 2 dead cores.
Core clocks suggest too that it's not a new die, the 1400 and 1500 might be a half die but that's just not enough to really tell anyway.
Well the R5 series might be the most interesting shift of the Ryzen chips.
If AMD manages to get the clock speeds up.
Because thats what Ryzen mainlly needs.
The ipc is there, it just needs more umpf.
The R7 chips are mainlly ment to compete against Haswell-E and Broadwell-E,
for the enthusiast and content creator market.
Yeah I agree on that.
I just have the bad feeling that R5 is nothing more than a half dead/decapitated R7. So higher clocks out of the box probably wont be a thing and if the Vcore/Frequency curve is still anything like R7, it might not be that good at overclocking.
Would be quite funny if people manage to unlock Cores again on the R5 as was once tradition with the weird X3 chips.
Well i hope they are able to somehow fix that.
I mean, like i edited above, the R7 chips are basiclly mainlly ment,
to compete against Intels Haswell-E and Broadwell-E,
in which they do a more then fantastic job at the price point.
But this niché of the market is basiclly geared towards the content creators and such.
And thats a bit where AMD´s marketing department was missing the picture a littlebit.
If you look at intel side of things its the same story.
I mean a 6900K doesnt particullary overclock well either, because of its 8 cores and heat output.
Thats also one of the reasons why those chips arent interesting for gamers.
But rather interesting for content creators mainlly.
The fun comes when the R5's will inevitably be directly compared to Intels i7-7700K and i5-6600K etc. At their current clock rates they cant really compete that well. Intel has a separate die etc for Broadwell E and Haswell E than for Skylake and Kabylake that's specifically customized for its market segment and target audience. According to what we know as yet the R5 isn't. Likely AMD's upcoming APU's might be more in the Intel equivalent market segment.
The part that people keep missing
is that despite the $330 price point, the 1700 isn't supposed to be a 7700K competitor, it is aimed at destroying x99. Which it handily does.
Now lower end chips... that could be interesting.
I own a 1700X so I know. But, AMD screwed up on their marketing side by repeatedly comparing it to a 7700K in their Demo PC's at events and now that's all that everyone is benchmarking and comparing it to/ complaining about it not exceeding.
The other problem is that If AMD doesn't address the Sky/Kaby Lake market more directly, a good chunk of the gaming market with remain with Intel.
I am really hoping that R5 will do just that, but with R5 possibly being just a cutdown R7 they will only manage to get into the budget/mainstream competition area with Intel still being the only enthusiast choice. But then again considering AMD's limited resources, they've already practically performed a miracle and they cant afford to attack intel on intel's terms. A Intel vs AMD Top-Tier showdown would likely end bad for AMD, so they're having to resort to this sort of Grass-Roots guerrilla movement re-entry to the CPU market.
Ziemlich interessanter vergleich. Danke. ;)
Can only read the benchmarks :)
I have just seen this video, because I am subscribed to that dude :D