Maybe it's a stupid question, but why does it say 16c/16t on screenshots, for some Ryzen processors? I see there are both 8c/16t and 16c/16t entries?

So the only issue with this amazing cpu, which will be fixed no doubt, if I understand correctly, is that if you intend to play at a res of 1080p, you shouldn't use a gtx 1080 or Titan. I would imagine if you are using a 480 or 1060, the Ryzen performance will be just dandy at 1080p. So if you want a killer CPU for an insane price that does not perform as well as four core intel processors at 1080p gaming when using an overkill GPU, in some cases, but blows it away in everything else, then use it with a 480. And if you have a powerful GPU that can push 1440 or 4k, then once again, it is not an issue, because you will not be gaming at 1080p. If you have a 1080p monitor then don't buy a card meant to push 1440 or 4k.

it is really outrageous the way people judge a new cpu with current games . They often fail to see that with such cpus pushed to the mainstream users game developers will be able to design games to work with more cores. There is also another thing , up to now , coding with multiple cpus is a nightmare ;thus, the need for more optimized game engines is required. All in all , the new AMd cpus simply are gamer changer. Despite the fact that I love intel product , this to me means cpus will be a lot cheaper and 2018 will bring interesting changes

I fixed your message so people could better understand what you're trying to say. No need to thank me!

You didn't fix it properly. You forgot to add... only if you play games at 640x480. Or was that on purpose?

Yeah, it makes so much sense to get GTX 1080 and play 1080p. I'll just spend $650 to play on my $100 monitor @1080p. Yeah. Logic, bitch It really doesn't matter what processor you have in that case. I think i5 from 2012 would be just fine

8 Cores @ 5,8 GHz @ 0.8 Volts

it is really outrageous the way people judge a new cpu with current games . They often fail to see that with such cpus pushed to the mainstream users game developers will be able to design games to work with more cores. There is also another thing , up to now , coding with multiple cpus is a nightmare ;thus, the need for more optimized game engines is required. All in all , the new AMd cpus simply are gamer changer. Despite the fact that I love intel product , this to me means cpus will be a lot cheaper and 2018 will bring interesting changes

WHEN games will support more than 8 threads, they will be. Until then, they are just another useless powerful fancy CPU outclassed by a highly clocking, high IPC quad core. I completely agree that games need to make more use of multi threaded computing, IF it makes sense for the game. But with more multi threading in CPUs for reduced overhead (dx12) and way more work for devs to put in to dx12 adaption of their engines and games, currently I see devs more jumping onto the API construction side than to favour multi threading right now. We shall see though. And you guys questioning a 1080 at 1080p have never experienced putting your ig details to the lowest to get 300fps in CS:GO, it's what pros do! :bonk: 😀

8 Cores @ 5,8 GHz @ 0.8 Volts

LN2 overclocking. Strange worlds.

Yeah, it makes so much sense to get GTX 1080 and play 1080p. I'll just spend $650 to play on my $100 monitor @1080p. Yeah. Logic, bitch It really doesn't matter what processor you have in that case. I think i5 from 2012 would be just fine

Yes, conveniently ignore the existence of 1080p 144Hz monitors and the latest 240Hz monitor while propagating the myth that AMD's Ryzen gaming performance is subpar (relative to what Intel is cranking out) ONLY at 1080p as if it's the resolution and not the higher framerate that's accompanying it. Hint, on multi-GPU, faster single GPUs in the future, and games with high framerate, such as CS:GO, the difference would be more pronounced (drastic in the case of CS:GO - go and check out the benchmarks). Now, if you come back and tell me but hey, 300 FPS vs. 450 FPS, both are ridiculously high, then I'm telling you beforehand that you did not get what's going on.

Yes, conveniently ignore the existence of 1080p 144Hz monitors and the latest 240Hz monitor while propagating the myth that AMD's Ryzen gaming performance is subpar (relative to what Intel is cranking out) ONLY at 1080p as if it's the resolution and not the higher framerate that's accompanying it. Hint, on multi-GPU, faster single GPUs in the future, and games with high framerate, such as CS:GO, the difference would be more pronounced (drastic in the case of CS:GO - go and check out the benchmarks). Now, if you come back and tell me but hey, 300 FPS vs. 450 FPS, both are ridiculously high, then I'm telling you beforehand that you did not get what's going on.

I should have said that it doesn't make sense for me. I don't care about 300FPS in CS:GO or 144 fps for that matter. For me, 100FPS is just fine for whatever game I play. What's more, I never said Ryzen game performance is subpar, I believe it's perfectly fine for most users that will play 1080p or 1440p or higher. Also, I believe with time and some patches, Ryzen will catch up with Intel in games, because performance in every other aspect is on par with highest offers from Intel.

Now, if you come back and tell me but hey, 300 FPS vs. 450 FPS, both are ridiculously high, then I'm telling you beforehand that you did not get what's going on.

That however has nothing much to do with GPU's but shows how poor the internal engine is at CS:GO - if you create a game engine that needs to run at 300+ FPS to go smooth, then you should just scrap that engine and try again.. For 99,9% of all games in existence going that high on FPS makes no sense, so it is really a quite poor statement to go by - even though CS:GO is still a popular game. In general most would agree that for games, if your minimum FPS is higher than your monitor refresh rate, you are all covered.

The whole "Ryzen R7 are so bad for gaming" is kind of a moot point. Intel's own 4 core CPUs have been outperforming their 6, 8, 10 core CPUs in games since they started making them. I mean, sure, there's an obvious issue somewhere with Ryzen and gaming, but I'd hold passing final judgement untill we see what the 4 and 6 core parts are going to offer. If a Ryzen 4c8t can be clocked at 4+ ghz without an extreme increase in powerdraw, like it seems the 8 core parts have when clocked. Though please correct me if I'm wrong, but increase in 50watt on HH's testsystem when overclocking 1-200mhz seemed very high, I mean, a 5% overclock resulting in 50% more powerdraw seems a bit high. But I guess it's because of all those cores and SMT... But let's wait and see what the R5 and R3 can offer. If a top-end R3 can perform ~equal to a 7700k then that's just fine and dandy with me. I don't know what could prevent it from doing so, if the IPC is more or less equal and the lower corecount allows a higher clockspeed. These CPUs might just be the new kings of gaming.

Great achievements done by some of the best overclcokers in the world , Jon ( Elmor ) , Roman ( de8rauer ) , Petri ( SF3D ) and Macci. Expect more Records to fall in hwbot this week when every extreme overclocker gets their hands on Ryzen CPUs. Everyone it's excited at hwbot that finally we have a good alternative to be competitive in the overclocking world with a great new architecture from AMD without breaking the bank and paying $1050+ US Dollars for an 8 core cpu Intel counterpart. Great times ahead for the extreme overclocking crowd ! Congratulations to my friends and fellow overclockers for the achievements.

So the only issue with this amazing cpu, which will be fixed no doubt, if I understand correctly, is that if you intend to play at a res of 1080p, you shouldn't use a gtx 1080 or Titan. I would imagine if you are using a 480 or 1060, the Ryzen performance will be just dandy at 1080p. So if you want a killer CPU for an insane price that does not perform as well as four core intel processors at 1080p gaming when using an overkill GPU, in some cases, but blows it away in everything else, then use it with a 480. And if you have a powerful GPU that can push 1440 or 4k, then once again, it is not an issue, because you will not be gaming at 1080p. If you have a 1080p monitor then don't buy a card meant to push 1440 or 4k.

Zen is a great CPU. Period. Is it the best gaming platform? Obviously not, no need to pamper it.

That however has nothing much to do with GPU's but shows how poor the internal engine is at CS:GO - if you create a game engine that needs to run at 300+ FPS to go smooth, then you should just scrap that engine and try again.. For 99,9% of all games in existence going that high on FPS makes no sense, so it is really a quite poor statement to go by - even though CS:GO is still a popular game. In general most would agree that for games, if your minimum FPS is higher than your monitor refresh rate, you are all covered.

There was no talk of the framerate required for CS:GO to perform smoothly. That sentence revolved around the huge difference when high framerates were involved, indicating a bottleneck of sorts (that I hope would be sorted out very soon). As for that game engine you speak badly of, CS:GO is one of the games with the lowest input latency at equivalent framerates to other games. 300FPS is more in line with keeping that latency as low as possible since it can run so easily on any gaming machine. Higher FPS always makes more sense, even if it's much higher than your refresh rate - frametimes go down, variance goes down, input latency goes down, and the game becomes more fluid than simply running at your refresh rate (e.g. 60 / 144 / 165 / 240FPS). High framerates are what Fast Sync leverages. The more frames you're rendering, the less jitter introduced by Fast Sync (there are so many frames the deltas are much smaller). Also, if your minimum framerate is slightly higher than your refresh rate, with VSync off you get jitter (try playing with 61-62FPS at 60Hz for example) and tearing and with Fast Sync you get (somewhat worse) jitter and no tearing. If you're leaving your framerate go over your refresh rate, it better be a lot higher (ideally a multiple of your refresh rate).

Yeah, it makes so much sense to get GTX 1080 and play 1080p.

Insert Yo Dawg Meme Here.

Great achievements done by some of the best overclcokers in the world , Jon ( Elmor ) , Roman ( de8rauer ) , Petri ( SF3D ) and Macci. Expect more Records to fall in hwbot this week when every extreme overclocker gets their hands on Ryzen CPUs. Everyone it's excited at hwbot that finally we have a good alternative to be competitive in the overclocking world with a great new architecture from AMD without breaking the bank and paying $1050+ US Dollars for an 8 core cpu Intel counterpart. Great times ahead for the extreme overclocking crowd ! Congratulations to my friends and fellow overclockers for the achievements.

How are you liking your new chip so far?

Damm Rzen is for real, I cannot wait to pick one up!

I'm really tired of seeing people find a reason to bash the GTX1080, especially when this thread is nothing to do with it.

They say Ryzen bad for gaming... When game developers will start optimize their games not only for intel then it will change...

There was no talk of the framerate required for CS:GO to perform smoothly. That sentence revolved around the huge difference when high framerates were involved, indicating a bottleneck of sorts (that I hope would be sorted out very soon). As for that game engine you speak badly of, CS:GO is one of the games with the lowest input latency at equivalent framerates to other games. 300FPS is more in line with keeping that latency as low as possible since it can run so easily on any gaming machine. Higher FPS always makes more sense, even if it's much higher than your refresh rate - frametimes go down, variance goes down, input latency goes down, and the game becomes more fluid than simply running at your refresh rate (e.g. 60 / 144 / 165 / 240FPS). High framerates are what Fast Sync leverages. The more frames you're rendering, the less jitter introduced by Fast Sync (there are so many frames the deltas are much smaller). Also, if your minimum framerate is slightly higher than your refresh rate, with VSync off you get jitter (try playing with 61-62FPS at 60Hz for example) and tearing and with Fast Sync you get (somewhat worse) jitter and no tearing. If you're leaving your framerate go over your refresh rate, it better be a lot higher (ideally a multiple of your refresh rate).

CSS CS:GO which ever, you will not see a difference in gameplay with your frames synced between 60 to 144hz (for me at least) it hasn't hindered my gameplay or input lag in any way. You can lock it to 60hz 60fps and it will be the same.

I have been following Ryzen this weekend and although no improvement can be expected in some areas (overclock for example) IMHO there is objective evidence that suggest wide improvement room for games and other complex programs and some improvement room for single threaded software and memory latency (and bandwith) through software optimizations in microcode, in bios and in every program itself so they can adapt to the new architecture and take advantage of their strengths. I think the improvements that bios, microcode and windows can bring will happen relatively fast. The ones that rely on changing software itself obviously could take a while. For the sake of everyone I hope that Intel won't be successful this time in preventing the adoption of Ryzen by messing with developers, OEMs or trusted reviewers ... Dreaming is free of course... As a personal thought: We are talking about a new architecture in a new fabrication process with a new platform and socket in an environmet where every major software has been built and improved for Intel's hardware over years... What could go wrong? IMHO Ryzen has been truly competitive from day one, impressive in some areas and good enough in others, but competitive nonetheless. I am astonished by the accomplishments of AMD and, all things considered, also by how smooth the launch has been so far I know I am an enthusiast of technology in general and the PC in particular. However Ryzen is showing me how deep this goes for me. I have had this past weekend for myself, alone, no kids, no wife, no responsabilities. I had plans, but I cancelled them because I simply couldn't stay away of the findings about Ryzen. I have been following several technical forums, reputable overclockers and other sites. Every new discovery about the platform was a thrill and I needed more. The findings about the windows scheduler in Win10, the limits of the overclock due to the fabrication process, the role of bclk in overclocking CPU and RAM, the improvements in RAM speed and timmings with each new bios ... etc.. I am pretty sure I am going with AMD this time. I know I will be getting an imperfect first generation product with very strong points that will serve me well and with some limitations which will also affect me (gaming performance, system and ST software responsiveness, software dependant on AVX2 etc..). However, for me, this is not about getting the absolute best (within my budget) but getting that technology that is giving me this enjoyment I had not experienced in years. At the same time, supporting the underdog is also a way to force more innovation and/or lower prices for everyone. This is not the reason I am going with AMD this time but it is a wellcome side effect of doing so. Note: Part of this post has been copy/pasted from another one I made in other thread related to Ryzen