TBH, I find overclocking unnecessary now. The basic motherboard BIOS settings to run "performance" are as much as I need. The GPU is the bottleneck, really it has been for years now, so I'm unconcerned about OC'ing.

If this pans out and AMD isn't just competitive in a few select benchmarks but across the board, maybe we'll see some real progress again.

My Skylake is faster than my Sandy Bridge, but not significantly so. I upgraded more for the DDR4 and motherboard features than the CPU speed itself. I saw the biggest change at the bottom, the minimums and other dips when something heavy happens. They're not nearly as low now. Overall performance, though, is at times identical.

Intel has been sitting on its laurels because AMD wasn't forcing them to move forward. Kaby Lake has been a big "so what" release.



The Jedi Master

It's Like Christmas in February here :-)

Agree.

A little information (supposedly test based) on the AMD Ryzen 6core/12thread which competes well with the mid priced 4 core Intel part. Interesting that they are touting the AMD Ryzen 5 1600X as AMDs best gaming chip (based on "bang per buck", no doubt). As an aside, I don't expect too many "thoughtful" folks to spring $500 for the 1800X like I did -- you can get almost the same performance for under (to well under) $100 less than I paid. But, so far, I'm not sorry I paid it

Glad to see AMD compete so well for the power user and enthusiasts, not just the cheapskate market finally, now I hope they do the same on the GPU side.

Even though I recently moved to i7-7700k and GTX 1080, I'm glad to see AMD do well and for us to have more top end options and price competition.

Feb 28th embargo lift can't come soon enough,looking forward to some benchmarks.

Hopefully FX Series CPU Prices Drop like a Rock...

There's little reason for them not to.

However, as long as they're priced lower they may stay close to the present price. GTX 9x0 prices didn't move too much when the 10 series came out because they were priced higher than the 9s ever were already.

Combine that with the spike in demand from people who already had 9's looking to go SLI them now and I see new 970s are only 100 less than what i paid for mine 2 years ago.




The Jedi Master

Core Count Article

One analysis resulting in one opinion. It remains to be seen how the first Ryzens stack up. But, we do not have long to wait

In the longer run of a couple years, as we move to new games on DX12 and beyond, I expect cores to "rule". So, if buying for the long term, one might give core and thread count serious consideration (along with other things). An opinion

Preliminary validation of my selecting ASUS Crosshair VI mainboard for my build. May have missed my foot on that "blind shot" -- maybe even hit the bullseye

Lower Tier Mobos have XFT and Turbo modes disabled.

I'm not holding my breath on DX12 or cores. For how long Win10 has been out the first game I know of where DX12 is universally faster than DX11 or lower has JUST been released--Sniper Elite 4. It may be the first that had the benefit of using it from early in development (not counting that Ashes game I never cared about).
I know Tomb Raider used it but IIRC the reviews indicated for some cards DX11 worked better.



The Jedi Master

More testing released. Now, side by side test results. Basically, Ryzen 1800X is equal to comparable 8core/16thread Intel I7 6900K -- at half the price.

I wish they'd stop these and release useful benchmarks.

I don't know anyone who had a 6900k. However, I know a lot of people who have quad-core w/HT 77/6700s and 76/6600s.

Don't tell me how the new Acura compares to a Lambo Countach. Tell me about the Lexus and BMW.



The Jedi Master

Great analogies Jedi.

As a solid supporter of Intel I do love serious data,but, like Allen and Skate keep pointing out, competition is GOOD!

The single-thread, single core performance per clock of Intel I7 and Ryzen are presumed almost equal -- no surprise if the newest Intel is a few percent more efficient.

Thus, the obvious prognostications are that the Intel I7-7700K Kaby-Lake, which runs at 4.2GHz/4.5GHz, will beat a Ryzen 1800X running at 3.6GHz/4.0GHz in many applications and most games.

The interesting thing will be to see if any current games do better with 8 cores than they do with 4 cores (that run a bit faster). Also, even if one or the other is faster, will it be enough faster to matter? For example, I claim a 10 percent win in average FPS is for bragging rights -- it makes no practical difference in how a game plays (of course, there may be exceptions to any general rule).

We'll see soon

EDIT: Ryzen 4 core models will be released later, per the plan. Then, we'll get 4 core vs 4 core comparisons, I assume. I expect Intel's higher-clocked 4 cores to win. The question is -- by how much?

I expect similarly clocked to finish close. Then, its "bang per buck" time. All Intel has to do to be competitive is -- lower their prices

Competition is good

I'm glad you only post a few times per day Allen....your posts are really "exhausting" to read. There is so much emphasis and effort going into those words.

I like to underline and use " " for words that indicate the "tentativeness" or "opinioness" (is that a word ) of a thought -- because there is a lot of "speculation" about the "future" in this thread.

I also use them to minimize my words by "calling attention" to particular ideas. Don't want people to have to read "too much"

It has occurred to me, that I tend to overdo things "at times"

Regarding competition:

Single core performance is important to all Arma enthusiasts

At this point, more gaming benchmarks are being leaked, rumored.

Some of them are so positive and effusive that I question their link to reality. Thus, no links from me.

We'll find out the facts starting in two days -- Tuesday, February 28

"Look Ma" no highlighting. Oops. Couldn't help myself