AMD Ryzen CPUs Compared to Intel CPUs

[straycat19]

Times have been tough for enthusiasts and power users in the CPU market for a long time—at least for those who crave impressive performance advancements. (And what enthusiast doesn't?) AMD’s FX CPU architecture (which went under the successive names Bulldozer, Piledriver, and Steamroller) hasn’t been able to match Intel’s Core i7 chips for quite some years now, going back to the initial release of the AMD FX-8150 in 2011.

On the other side of the CPU-silicon fence, Intel’s latest architecture, the 7th Generation Core, or “Kaby Lake” (which is topped at the moment by the Intel Core i7-7700K$329.99 at Amazon we recently tested) saw mostly single-digit performance gains over equivalent 6th Generation chips. Those gains were gleaned from slightly higher clock speeds and…well, not a whole lot else. The company’s enthusiast-class E-Series chips, meanwhile, have pushed performance limits by adding ever more cores and threads, but at ever-more-outrageous prices, as well. The latest E -Series chips are known as "Broadwell-E," and the big dog of that crew is the 10-core, 20-thread Intel Core i7-6950X Extreme Edition$1,627.99 at Amazon. It is a monster chip for serious, highly threaded workloads, but its roughly $1,700 price is enough to put off almost everyone other than well-heeled, CPU-dependent professionals.

AMD admittedly waltzes into this party later than we initially expected. (Its new "Zen" chips were expected to arrive in 2016.) But on its arm is a brand-new CPU architecture and three high-end Ryzen 7 chips, all with eight cores and 16 threads, starting at $329 and topping out at $499 for the Ryzen 7 1800X we’re looking at here. The Ryzen 7 1800X’s stock clock speeds and eight cores match up quite well, on paper, against Intel’s $1,000-plus Core i7-6900K$1,021.97 at Amazon. And that chip is just one step down from the wildly expensive Core i7-6950X Extreme Edition.

Can AMD’s new flagship take down an Intel enthusiast chip that currently sells for more than twicethe price? Is AMD officially back in the big leagues of the consumer CPU business? The short answer to that first question is yes…mostly. The answer to the second question requires a deeper dive into what AMD has planned for the coming months and beyond. We’ll tackle both those questions in fine detail below.

---

Chip Lineup Details: Ryzen 7, Ryzen 5 & Ryzen 3

The AMD Ryzen 7 1800X is the top end of the company's new processor stack, but it's by no means alone. At launch, AMD is rolling out two other Ryzen 7 chips, and all three feature eight cores and 16 threads. Here's a look at all three Ryzen 7 chips, along with pricing and their basic specs, direct from AMD.

Of course, not everyone has the budget (or the need) for a CPU priced at $329 or more. So AMD will be offering six-core and four-core Ryzen 5 chips, as well, although pricing on those hadn't been shared with us when we wrote this. AMD says those chips will be available in the second quarter of 2017, with lower-end Ryzen 3 offerings coming in the second half of the year.

A couple of features on all of these chips set them apart from Intel's competing offerings. For one: AMD says all the Ryzen chips will be unlocked for overclocking. And, at least from the details we have about the Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 5 chips announced so far, all those chips will feature thread-doubling simultaneous multi-threading (SMT). SMT is similar to the Hyper-Threading technology featured in most (but not all) of Intel's mid-to-high-end Core processors. Notably, the unlocked Intel Core i5-7600K lacks Hyper-Threading, leaving it stuck at four processing threads, while AMD's competing Ryzen 5 chips will have eight or 12 available processing threads, depending on the chip.

That will make testing those future chips against Intel's offerings very, very interesting. But of course, we're here to talk about Ryzen 7 for now, and the Ryzen 7 1800X in particular.

AMD is positioning its flagship $499 chip against Intel's Core i7-6900K. That's also an eight-core, 16-thread processor, but it has base (3.2GHz) and Turbo Boost (3.7GHz) frequencies that are both lower than the base (3.6GHz) and boost (4GHz) clock speeds of the Ryzen 7 1800X at stock settings. The Core i7-6900K is also based around the company's "Broadwell-E" enthusiast platform, running on an architecture that's technically two generations behind Intel's latest "Kaby Lake" design in chips like the Core i7-7700K.

The big deal, however, is in the pricing details. When we wrote this in the first week of March 2017, Intel's Core i7-6900K was selling for about $1,050, or more than twice the asking price of the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X that we're looking at here. At a glance, many things are working in AMD's favor with the Ryzen 7 1800X.

Article

[steven36]

i on a AMD PC now they always have give you a faster chip for you're money. But  the catch 22 is they have a short support cycle I have had problems with mine on Linux for almost a year and already AMD is already looking toward the future  again , because they still are not the fastest gaming processor  Intel is.  better luck next year AMD  that you maybe can  prove Intel wrong that you get what you pay for 

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X third-party benchmarks revealed, unable to beat Intel’s i7 7700K or i7 6900K

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-third-party-benchmarks-revealed-unable-to-beat-intels-i7-7700k-or-i7-6900k/

 

[straycat19]

13 hours ago, steven36 said:

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X third-party benchmarks revealed, unable to beat Intel’s i7 7700K or i7 6900K

 

It depends on which review you read and whether you trust the reviewer.

 

Next is Sniper Elite 4, this time with RX 480 cards in CrossFire. The CPUs are AMD's Ryzen 7 1800X against Intel's i7-6900K. AMD's drivers do tend to have more overhead in CrossFire configurations, though dual RX 480s can outperform a single GTX 1080, so these are definitely potent gaming rigs. As before, Ryzen comes out ahead of Intel, in this ad-hoc benchmark.

 

The final gaming benchmarks pits the 'entry level' Ryzen 7 1700 against Intel's i7-7700K Kaby Lake part. Most people will say that i7-7700K is more than sufficient for any gaming scenarios, including streaming, but here AMD is using OBS broadcasting to Twitch, with Dota 2 running in the background. The OBS encoding is set to use the CPU, with the x264 codec and a 3500kbps bitrate—a common setting for popular streamers, according to AMD, as the CPU tends to have higher quality at lower bitrates compared to fixed function encoding like Intel's Quick Sync, Nvidia's NVENC, or AMD's VCE.

The video is a bit shaky (sorry!), but in person it was very obvious that frames were being dropped on the Intel system while the AMD system performed as expected—the laptops in front of each system are showing the resulting Twitch stream, and in the lower-right corner of each you can clearly see some choppiness on the Intel side.

http://www.pcgamer.com/live-benchmarks-amd-ryzen-vs-intel-core/

 

We are always willing to make some concessions in the name of value, so Ryzen doesn't have to beat Intel's offerings across the board. It just needs to be competitive. Where that line exists for you is completely subjective. But for many, Ryzen’s frame rates are too low, even in light of its attractive pricing. And if gaming is the primary purpose for your PC, it's hard to ignore faster and cheaper Kaby Lake-based Core i7s and i5s that serve up better results in many popular games.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-vs-intel-kaby-lake-gaming,4977.html

 

I ordered enough components today to build 2 Ryzen 1800X systems on ROG Crosshair VI Hero motherboards with 64GB of Ram as test systems for my home.

[rudrax]

Intel's pricing has been ridiculous throughout the time, yet people have no choice except for choosing Intel as AMD was lagging far behind even though they are much affordable. Now with the rise of Ryzen, AMD is now back on the game. This interprets that either Intel have to cut down their pricing by 50% or they have to reach exponential performance gain with their chips over AMD if they wanna stick with current pricing criteria. Failing to do one of the above, Intel is done on CPU business. Intel's counter punch will be interesting as hell. Eagerly waiting for that.

[steven36]

4 hours ago, rudrax said:

Intel's pricing has been ridiculous throughout the time, yet people have no choice except for choosing Intel as AMD was lagging far behind even though they are much affordable. Now with the rise of Ryzen, AMD is now back on the game. This interprets that either Intel have to cut down their pricing by 50% or they have to reach exponential performance gain with their chips over AMD if they wanna stick with current pricing criteria. Failing to do one of the above, Intel is done on CPU business. Intel's counter punch will be interesting as hell. Eagerly waiting for that.

I agree  because Ryzen is almost as good as Intel now should drive prices down some Intel is a beast though they have the money they could buy  AMD out if they wanted too.

They say the cheaper  models will most likely do better than AMDs  high end processors 

 

Quote

 

But where the Ryzen 7 was a top-tier line akin to Intel’s Core i7 models aimed at users who demand peak performance at any price, the Ryzen 5 could be a much bigger deal as a cheaper, midrange model that’s taking aim at Intel’s popular Core i5 line.

 

The Ryzen 5 line has four models: the $169 Ryzen 5 1400 (4 cores/8 threads at 3.2GHz/3.5GHz), the $189 Ryzen 5 1500X (4 cores/8 threads at 3.5GHz/3.7GHz), the $219 Ryzen 5 1600 (6 cores/12 threads at 3.2GHz/3.6GHz), and $249 Ryzen 5 1600X (6 cores/12 threads at 3.6GHz/4.0GHz).

 

As noted by AnandTech, that top-tier Ryzen 5 1600X lines up nicely against Intel’s $242 Core i5-7600K, hitting roughly the same price point but offering 6 cores with 12 threads to Intel’s 4 core/4 thread offering, although obviously we’ll have to wait for some actual benchmarking tests to see how that shakes out in the real world.

 

AMD will be selling the Ryzen 5 processors starting April 11th. Additionally, the company is planning a budget Ryzen 3 line to go head-to-head with Intel’s Core i3 series for later in 2017.

 

http://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/3/16/14951992/amd-ryzen-5-series-intel-core-i5-processors-competitor

Intel still beats Ryzen at games, but how much does it matter?

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/03/intel-still-beats-ryzen-at-games-but-how-much-does-it-matter/

The thing is people who  are willing to pay anything  to game dont mind paying extra no way , but people that dont have the money is were AMD makes its sales.

 

What sells me on  Intel is there graphics for Linux  they already have good open source drivers for  it for along time. AMD drooped support on old hardware too sell new ones    . NVIDIA is not that good on Linux ether there known too be problematic . But AMD is starting too  make good drivers for Linux for new hardware so there headed in the right direction but tell they make good open source ones  you cant trust them to not pull them in few years too sell new hardware.   The biggest problem on Linux  is not processors  no how it's  graphics. , If you're not a gamer you can buy a Intel box that's not very expensive that runs better with Linux  than windows . I wish my AMD box was like that but it has always ran better with Windows than Linux because of the  graphics.

 

All these companies are in debt up to there eyeballs  the reason Intel charges  more is all that debt they owe. there expected to be  $18.4 billion in debt by 2022 if things dont improve a lot. . Computers have not sold very good since windows 7 and people building there own PCs were never there bread and butter no how  . People who build and buy Gaming computers is were most of there money comes from now and the problem is there is a whole lot more who dont need a fancy PC like gamers do and they dont buy very often . . Many can get by just using a  smartphone .. If they would  pay us 5% of there debut we could live good the rest of our life. But Intel uses its debt as a advantage they buy  stuff  they will profit from in the future.  

 

A lot of us who dont game fell as they not made any improvement enough too invest in mew hardware or a new PC. And AMD trying to force me off Linux dont make me want too buy there stuff really when I have a Intel box that works good for that  and it's not very old and never been used much.

 

Microsoft didn't  help these vendors out at all ether, by giving  millions of copies of Windows 10 away  witch is still build on Vistas core .  I tested Windows 10 on my old Vista PC i upgraded to Windows 7 and it works with Windows 10  i rolled it back too windows 7 because it has a lot old software on it for compatibly reasons   The thing is all windows  out since after Vista... Windows 7 Windows 8.1 and  Windows 10 is compatible  with old hardware .  Windows 7 PCs sold good not just because of businesses  needed to keep geting updates . Most home users bought   Windows 7  PCs  because  Vista and Windows 7 are not very compatible with old  XP boxes if they could of got away with it  many would  have just  bought are pirated Windows 7 .  I used Windows 7 on a newer XP box for 2 years  it was slow  but at the time I didn't have money to buy any thing else now i have 5 PCs  2 with windows 7 and 2 with Windows 10 and Linux  and  1 with XP  i use offline.it cant be upgraded to a newer OS and run right at all.

 

With Windows  10  many are getting away with old hardware so far and it didn't cost them nothing out of there pocket. They only thing that would  drive PC sales again would be if Microsoft  or Apple made a good OS on a new core.   There is almost as many on smartphones as on windows now and Windows have not really changed for the better  since Vista sp4 Aka Windows 7 Sp1. Hardware demand is at a all time low, unless you make smartphones.    .

[DKT27]

Some time ago, when the benchmarks arrived, everyone saw that while in other software related things, AMD was better than Intel, AMD lost against Intel in gaming performance. Then came some considerations about AMD's per core performance not being as good as Intel's per core performance. Later, people have started talking about AMD still being good for gaming due to the fact that all the gaming consoles come with a lot of cores these days and more and more games are multi-core optimized due to that. Meaning, it is expected that modern, multi-core optimized games will indeed run well on AMD as AMD has more cores compared to Intel, inspite of per core performance issues and such.