- Joined
- Feb 15, 2014
- Messages
- 19,599
- Reaction score
- 11,565
- Location
- South Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
What the hell am I looking at in those pics? I've been building computers for 25 years and I can't see anything familiar. What is that circle thing for instance? The CPU cooler? And why are the memory slots lit up?
Well I finally got my ryzen in and I had to pair it with my 1080ti since I couldn't get the 1080 to work on it
It's running at 3.9ghz on air right now, waiting for my corsair bracket to come it for my liquid cooling
View attachment 67215280
View attachment 67215281
What the hell am I looking at in those pics? I've been building computers for 25 years and I can't see anything familiar. What is that circle thing for instance? The CPU cooler? And why are the memory slots lit up?
the circle thing is the air cooler and the memory had LED lights in it.
Thanks. What is the "wall" thing between the video card and the CPU and why does the MB look so sparsely populated with chips?
Thanks. What is the "wall" thing between the video card and the CPU and why does the MB look so sparsely populated with chips?
Whats really gonna blow your mind, guess where the hard drive is
you went with a m.2 HD?
hopefully after the MS patch coming up
you will see a huge boost in performance. right now all of the issues with ryzen are software
and some firm ware issues. although it looks like MSI is leading the way with the platinum boards
gigbyte and asus are falling way behind.
Yep no heating issues?Yeah and the slot is right behind the video card
Yep no heating issues?
The 3.9ghz ended up not being stable at 1.35v so I went down to 3.8ghz haven't had a chance to play with it much further. The temps seem fine although I get 3 different readings. The motherboard has its own temperature right there on the led panel, Ryzen has an application that seems to be just horrible and I have CPUid to check temps and volts
yeah I have read that 3.8 is about the max, and that right now it isn't stable at 1.5 volts.
plus you need some kind of water cooler. better firm wear will fix that and the memory speed as well.
Well it's running at 3.95 right now 1.45v and a little hotter than I'd like. As soon as corsair stops dragging thier feet and sends out the am4 bracket I'll put the liquid cooler on there and see how it does.
Hoping that the Intel chips will fall in price because of Ryzen. My PC is almost 5 years old now (2500k) and should be replaced soonish and for the first time since hm the 1990s?... I am actually considering AMD. Of course I am also considering a gaming laptop.. so that is how crazy I am these days.
Intel itself tends to give no ****s when it comes to MSRP. Newegg/Microcenter might respond somewhat, but really nothing has happened so far. Pure gaming, the 7700k will still be king. The AMD price equivalent just isn't a usage equivalent, so premium gamers are still going to pay that premium price.
Ryzen has been an abysmal launch, Ryzen 2.0 or whatever will be a bigger deal as far as competing with Intel goes. I suspect around this time next year we'll be hearing about mainstream-priced Intel hexacore processors. (and I've heard rumors of hyperthreading making it to the i5 line)
Fun fact: the 1700X and 1800X intentionally report temperature 20C higher than it really is, so I bet there's a lot of people who are avoiding clocking higher than you have here because they're seeing dangerous temperatures. 1700 is a really good value.
That was bad reporting from a tech blog. They looked at prices at Microcenter and assumed it was a price drop. However, these were Microcenter's prices from before the Ryzen series even launched. Microcenter always sells CPUs below MSRP as a loss-lead.Hmm Intel has already slashed prices and are rumoured to slash even more because of the R5.
There's an extremely short list of compatible memory. The X-series chips are (deliberately) reporting higher temperatures. Motherboard manufacturers had only a few weeks to prepare BIOSes, resulting in serious bugs and some boards outright bricking themselves. Microsoft's task scheduler isn't properly handling the architecture. A little more time was needed to iron that out. They pushed the product out the door about a month sooner than they should have, because they wanted Q1 sales numbers.Heh, funny. I have heard the opposite basically. The only place I have heard such a negative view is from Intel fanboys. AMD fanboys are of course all about AMD, but from the some what middle ground, the reception of Ryzen has been positive. Yes the 1080p gaming benchmarks are not what people expected... for now.
This is a different argument. My point was about Intel not dropping prices. They aren't going to drop prices on their flagship quad-core CPUs because they still have the performance lead. They have better IPC, combined with better clockspeeds. They're happy to have the higher-priced, higher-performing products. They've been doing that for over a decade now.You simply cant beat the power vs price from the new AMD processors. Of course hardcore gamers will go for the best of the best, which technically still is Intel (at least until AMD and motherboard producers improve bios and firmware and such.), however they are a small minority of the overall PC world. For me the hardcore gamers buy "e-penis" machines to brag how great their rigs are and how much they can overclock. The 99.9% of the rest of the planet dont care.
The lower core-count chips are still on the same architecture. They're going to have the same IPC and I've no reason to expect they'll end up clocking much higher, if any. The R5's will still perform worse than the i5s. They'll be a great value, though.The key test will be with the Ryzen 5 chips, which are in direct competition with the i5, which like it or not is the most popular processor class. There are no independent benchmarks yet of course, but once they are out there, then we shall see.
Yes, at no point did I suggest Intel had a better price/performance ratio.Like it or not, Ryzen is not far behind if at all of the equivalent Intel chips... and price wise they are on another planet and I for one welcome AMD back, as being under the Intel price dictation for over a decade is .. not good.
No, AMD released a statement in response to the people confused about temperatures. tCTL is offset +20c from Tj. But only on the X series chips.It's not intentional as far as I can tell just poor sensors. It's also the 1700 btw, I'm running a stress test on my ryzen now to make sure this is a good OC until the corsair bracket comes in (3.7 ghz @ 1.2v) and the mobo temp shows 73C but aida64 and cpuid show 59C
Happy to see AMD back in the game, even if illusionary, some folks will take the bait. Me, not yet, but I am or will be in the market for a new gaming box within a year. I had resigned myself to the fact that it would be Intel again, however, I may just have to rethink that, and given some time to hash things out, AMD might just well come up with a price-per-performance chip that appeals to the average gamer..
Tim-
That was bad reporting from a tech blog. They looked at prices at Microcenter and assumed it was a price drop. However, these were Microcenter's prices from before the Ryzen series even launched. Microcenter always sells CPUs below MSRP as a loss-lead.
Intel hasn't changed MSRP at all. Newegg and Amazon haven't cut prices. This was a mistake on part of a crappy blogger.
There's an extremely short list of compatible memory. The X-series chips are (deliberately) reporting higher temperatures. Motherboard manufacturers had only a few weeks to prepare BIOSes, resulting in serious bugs and some boards outright bricking themselves. Microsoft's task scheduler isn't properly handling the architecture. A little more time was needed to iron that out. They pushed the product out the door about a month sooner than they should have, because they wanted Q1 sales numbers.
It will get better, but their technology is still fundamentally worse than Intel's. But the R7 line isn't a pure gaming line of chips. Like I said, they aren't the same usage as the Intel quad-cores. They're competition for the 6800/6900, which they beat out in value by a longshot when it comes to many-threaded operations. (content creators will love this product, someone trying to get into twitch streaming or running a youtube channel, or other encoding work at home, just got a huge drop in price of entry)
This is a different argument. My point was about Intel not dropping prices. They aren't going to drop prices on their flagship quad-core CPUs because they still have the performance lead. They have better IPC, combined with better clockspeeds. They're happy to have the higher-priced, higher-performing products. They've been doing that for over a decade now.
Bios fixes will not put Ryzen on top of Intel. The chips aren't capable of that.
The i5/i7 line is well-refined at this point, that's how you're seeing people get 5ghz out of the 7600/7700 chips. Ryzen will still need a year or two to improve their process.
They'll be a great value, though.
I agree 100% that I'm really glad to see AMD back in the game. They aren't beating Intel in performance, but they've got that "value option" appeal back. before it was "these chips are cheap but they're so crap I can't recommend them."
Happy to see AMD back in the game, even if illusionary, some folks will take the bait. Me, not yet, but I am or will be in the market for a new gaming box within a year. I had resigned myself to the fact that it would be Intel again, however, I may just have to rethink that, and given some time to hash things out, AMD might just well come up with a price-per-performance chip that appeals to the average gamer..
Tim-
No it is not worse.. the differences are small. Yes AMD R7 does not beat the top end Intel chips, but the difference is minimal. I have seen rendering tests where the difference was under 3 minutes.. but the price is 50% lower for the R7 chip and THAT is key.
We shall see. If I am standing there and thinking about a new system and it is between an R7 at 500 bucks, vs a 1000 dollar Intel system and the R7 is 8-10% worse off than the Intel, well I certainly would choose the R7 alone based on price. Had the performance differences been massive (like the old days), then no, but come on we are talking at the moment about a 50% price difference for slight performance decrease. It is a no brainer.
Except its not, Intel has a $400 6 core/12 thread chip (i7-6800k) thats as good or better than the ryzen 7 chip
You keep doing this.. which Ryzen chip are you comparing it to?
It seems you dont understand that AMD has all but caught up to Intel, and at a lower price point.
Intel will have to react to this, as price is king for 99% of consumers.
The more and more you diss AMD and favour Intel, the more I suspect you are nothing but an Intel fanboy. I could care less.. I go for value for money and here AMD has caught up big time and that is what most reviewers are pointing out.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?