Ryzen - anyone going to jump ship?

Community Forums/Technical Discourse/Ryzen - anyone going to jump ship?

coffeedotbean(Posted 2017) [#1]
So if AMD are to be believed and real world testing shows; the Ryzen 7 outperforms the intel i7 at half the cost, anyone thinking of jumping ship from HMS intel?


Personally I am waiting on the Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 3 to see how they stack up against the i5 and i3, most assume as AMD are quiet on those that the price\performance wont be as big.

andy_mc(Posted 2017) [#2]
I'm waiting to see what the realworld benchmarks and users say before buying. I have an 8 year old dual core pentium right now that badly needs an upgrade, but I want the new one to last at least five years and run VR too.

dawlane(Posted 2017) [#3]
I think that I will be taking a wait and see approach. AMD in my opinion haven't done anything note worthy since the introduction of their 64 bit CPU's and Intel since the in introduction of the first i-series. But then the CPUs are only as good as the OS and software that supports them.

xlsior(Posted 2017) [#4]
I've gone back and forth between AMD and Intel several times -- no reason not to, whoever is the best in the pricerange I'm willing to pay at the time wins.

John G(Posted 2017) [#5]
My AMD A10 HP box is less than a year old. As I tried to explain to my grandson whose custom i7 PC runs 3 monitors, mine cost half as much and runs half as fast. Practical. I'm not sure RyZen will fit my motherboard...

Why0Why(Posted 2017) [#6]
I have been Intel since the Core 2 days. I have been putting stuff together for a new work system. If the benchmarks look good I may give it a shot.

Derron(Posted 2017) [#7]
Deciding what to buy when I have to buy a new computer. It only happens very rarely.

Last Intel was 486 dx with 33MHz. Then Cyrix (yeah...there was that time with cyrix amd and intel). Then amd k6/2 followed by Duron and Athlon XP finally ending with my current llano apu. Ignoring the pentium in a barebone for my htpc in the very early 2000s.

AMD always offered more for the money and if you are not into AAA-gaming it should provide enough performance.

Prices might change if AMD is able to sell performance instead of "savings*.


Floyd(Posted 2017) [#8]
I had an Athlon 64, a bargain at the time. My current i7 is from mid-2011. There is no immediate need for an upgrade. Maybe next year.

dynaman(Posted 2017) [#9]
I only buy new stuff when the old one no longers runs the games I want to play. Current one is 3+ years old and nowhere near needing replaced yet.

EOF(Posted February) [#10]

xlsior(Posted February) [#11]
This shows that without good competition Intel have been able to coast along, and slightly incrementing their chips while selling them at a monstrous price

Historically, Intel has been 1 or 2 generations ahead of AMD internally -- their public offerings are typically a little faster than AMD (albeit with a higher price tag), but whenever AMD comes out with new release Intel is always ready to leapfrog them again. There's very little incentive for Intel to give you the absolute latest and greatest they are capable of creating, all they have to do is release something that allows them to be the leader or at least significantly competitive.

If nothing else, keeping their state of the art stuff locked up for a while allows them to stay commercially competitive in the future as well just in case a company like AMD blows them away unexpectedly.

That said: It's great that AMD is still relevant and keeps Intel on their toes.

dna(Posted February) [#12]
I'll wait.

Sometimes things crop up later that make any transition regrettable.

AMD never was better and if so now, without any functional repercussions, then it might be the right time to move to that platform.

Still, with so much invested into Intel hardware, it's not going to be a move that I will make for some time until there is a clear lead.

A slight lead is not worth the investment.

xlsior(Posted February) [#13]
AMD never was better and if so now,

AMD has been better than Intel several times before:

- AMD's first dual core processors ran circles around Intel's dual core (The first Intel Core Duo chips were initially based on the Pentium 4s long rendering pipeline, which turned out to be a mistakesince they were really inefficient -- they were rushed to market to counter AMD's dual core chips. The later Core 2 Duo's were based on a re-design of the older Pentium 3 product line, and were faster)

- It's AMD who came up with x64 (as an extension to the old x86 instruction set) which made 64 bit CPU's popular in the market place. INtel's 64-=bit platform (itanium) was dead in the market since it had no backwards compatribility with any existing 32 bit software. AMD 's 64 bit took the market by storm, to the point trhat Intel ended up licensing x64 from AMD to implement in the intel CPU's as well. Without AMD we would have been stuck on 32 bit x86 a lot longer.

A huge reason that Intel is so much larger than AMD is thanks to them abusing their monopoly. When the AMD Athlon chips were technically far superior to the first generation Intel Core Duo chips, Intel leveraged their contracts with the large OEM's -- If Dell, IBM, Compaq, HP and others would even offer a single computer based on an AMD processor, Intel would revoke their volume discounts, pretty much doubling the cost for any intel CPU they would sell. Given the thin margins on PC's, it would price that manufacturer out of the market.
Intel was later taken to court over this and lost, which is why you now can buy Dell and Lenovo with AMD chips -- but this monopoly abuse prevented AMD from getting any significant foothold in the market at a time when they were undeniably the superior choice. While Intel was fighting all of this in court, enough time past that they were able to develop the Core 2 Duo in the mean time which was faster than the Athlons. They only won by essentially abusing their monopoly to lock AMD out of the market at a time when AMD could have eaten their lunch.

On top of the exclusive lock-in arrangements, Intel has also been fighting dirty with their compilers over the years. Many of the programming suites use the intel compilers on the back end, which was shown to be explicitly favoring Intel processors. Not just being optimized for however Intel CPU's work internally, Not just by only supporting extensions offered by Intel CPU's, but by actually ignoring and disabling capabilities on non-Intel CPU's
For example, the compiler would use use SSE3/SSE4 function calls if it saw opportunity for optimization, but ONLY if the CPU identifier was 'GenuineIntel'. Rather than checking if the CPU supports an extension and use it, it would ignore them completely.
The end result of that is that the same program could run a lot faster on Intel processors than those manufactured by AMD and others, even though there is NO reason to do so.

AMD has been fighting an uphill battle for decades, and it is amazing that they are still able to give Intel a run for their money.

(And hey, it's in everyone's best interest for there to be two or more strong contenders. If intel would end up being the only player in town, there would be NO incentive for them to continue to spend billions of dollars on advancing the technology to faster and faster chips and production facilities, they would just keep cranking out the same chips until the cows come home. What are you going to do instead, NOT use a computer?)

BlitzMan(Posted February) [#14]
Always had AMD cheap as chips.:)

Grisu(Posted February) [#15]
With my new gfx card, my PC from 2013 should do it for at least one more year.

I hope AMD can force Intel to make bigger improvements to their CPUs. These 3-5% speed updates every year are not worth buying.

EOF(Posted February) [#16]

Derron(Posted February) [#17]
Its not just the pricing. You should also compare:

- power consumption:
- - whenIdle * timeComputerIsOnandIdle + whenUnderHeavyLoad * timeComputerIsReallyUsed

So it is not a good idea to save 10 bucks on something which then costs you 50 a year more just for "using" it.

Less consumption is always good but I do not know about "idle consumption" which should be the case for most users (office, surfing, ...)


SabataRH(Posted February) [#18]
I feel in love with AMD APU's - I'll continue to standby them whatever they decide to put out next.

Henri(Posted February) [#19]
The TDP value of Ryzen would indicate that it runs cooler, meaning less power consumed, meaning cheaper electric bill (if the values are correct and the comparison is even).


andy_mc(Posted March) [#20]
From what I can see, Ryzen is no cheaper than i7 CPUs for the average person. I'm looking at getting an i7 7700k but the ryzen 1700x is a hundred quid more. I thought they were meant to be cheaper.

xlsior(Posted March) [#21]
I thought they were meant to be cheaper.

They are, if you compare apples to apples. The 1700x is a higher-end chip than the 7700k:

The Rizen 1700x has 8 cores, 16 threads.
The i7 7700K has 4 cores, 8 threads.

Don't forget that the AMD uses less power to give you more performance, so it's cheaper to actually run.

On top of that, Intel just dropped the prices of some of their CPUs significantly in response to the Ryzen release, in some cases by hundreds of dollars. They wouldn't do that if they didn't feel like AMD had something here.

Ian Thompson(Posted March) [#22]
Always had a soft spot for AMDs, there cheap as chips, usually a little underpowered but of the four PCs I have in the house 3 of them are AMDs. Mainly because I find them much more reliable long term, even with mediocre cooling(stock fan and sync) they just don't fail, I've had many in the past but I've had to replace them because they simply got out dated not because they failed. I wish I could say the same for the previous intel chips. The current i7 I have has a tonne of water cooling tech, mainly for my paranoia of it burning out.

Good to see them ride the crest of the wave for a change.

Grisu(Posted March) [#23]

Seems to be great for multi-core apps, but lacking in games.

degac(Posted March) [#24]
Seems to be great for multi-core apps, but lacking in games.

But it seems that are different factors for this:
- mainly Intel ISA x86 compiled (AMD is compatible, but specific things get better in one platform or in the other one)
- BIOS are still in beta
- the CPU is not in production, micro-code could be update for that time
- OS driver (Windows) must be update to handle the new SMT manager of the Zen core.
- games written with mono-core CPU will have always poor performance on multi-core chip

Ryzen 7 derives from the future server CPU 'Naples', so it's sure target to other jobs than games.. for productivity (digital image, sound editing, programming etc) it seems the best performance/price solution.

the real desktop CPU are Ryzen 3 and Ryzen 5: none has real info about them (price, benchmark etc)

zzz(Posted March) [#25]
If someone is considering buying one but is put off by "bad" single thread performance Id check back on it in a few months. There are some big issues with the uarch and scheduling threads currently.

Steve Elliott(Posted March) [#26]
Pricing's good. But to switch for a 4% increase in speed over the i7 6900K? Simply not worth bothering with.

xlsior(Posted March) [#27]
Pricing's good. But to switch for a 4% increase in speed over the i7 6900K? Simply not worth bothering with.

Of course not, I doubt anyone would be upgrading a new high-end PC to one that's a fraction faster -- but if you were in the market for a new PC and were thinking about the i7 6900K, then AMD now has a worthy contender at a fraction of the price.