AMD Ryzen price and release date revealed

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Feb 23, 2017, 2:48 AM UTC

cma wrote: post #118

Retric wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4k at 60fps is 498 million pixels per second, Rift @ 90FPS is 233 million pixels per second. GPU's can deal with making 2 images without meaningful CPU overhead. The real issue is stutter and latency not CPU or GPU GFLOPS.

We're talking about draw calls on the CPU, not pixel fill. Still wrong about Rift vs 4K though. Due to the lens unwarping you have to render to a much larger render target to get native screen res. About 1.7x more pixels than he native res. > GPU's can deal with making 2 images without meaningful CPU overhead. I meant to say that with this "There are some optimizations to reduce the per-eye overhead, but it is still…

Post by kayoone » Thu, Feb 23, 2017, 4:50 AM UTC

RussianCow wrote: post #88

kayoone wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

just be aware that Ryzen is probably operating much closer to it's limit than the Intel counterparts, so overclocking could be limited. If that is not interesting for you anyway, then god speed. Also in terms of gaming performance, Intel will probably remain king, due to single threaded performance and OC potential. Personally, i'd always take 8 cores vs 4 for the same price even if they are 10-20% slower.

In my experience, most modern games aren't CPU-bound anymore; more and more work is being pushed onto the GPU with every generation. My brother has a quad-core AMD CPU (don't remember which) with a powerful GPU, and his CPU is very rarely the bottleneck—there are few games he can't max out at 1080. Also, according to AMD's benchmarks, the Ryzen CPUs are very close to Intel's in single-threaded performance.

Post by fcanesin » Thu, Feb 23, 2017, 5:45 AM UTC

smitherfield wrote: post #124

fcanesin wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the info shows otherwise. This shows ryzen overclocking to 5.1GHz on all cores and beating Cinebench world record. http://mirror.ninja/5vixv8 PS: mirror since it was removed from YouTube.

*With liquid nitrogen cooling. We still don't have a real-world test.

Post by agumonkey » Thu, Feb 23, 2017, 6:49 AM UTC

untoreh wrote: post #126

agumonkey wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3bis now Intel looks like a customer milking company with mild progress posturing as 'best effort'.

I am pretty sure after six iterations of "more of the same" most people realized this by now, we didn't need amd to know this, but surely to change the status quo in the cpu market...

Post by ac29 » Thu, Feb 23, 2017, 7:01 AM UTC

kllrnohj wrote: post #104

masklinn wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, the 6900K is a two years old µarch, and not one which was considered a great release in the first place. The 1700X will not be competing against the 6900K because nobody gives a rat's ass about the 6900K, the 1700X will be competing against the 7700K and its ilk.

Kaby Lake and Skylake are indistinguishable in terms of IPC. Kaby Lake only brought GPU & video decoding improvements to the table, that's it. CPU performance is otherwise identical to Skylake.