I'm not Quizzical, but the answer is yes, you actually can. Often SSDs will come with software to do it, and if they don't, there's plenty of free options out there.
That being said, your best option is to: 1) Shut down, Unplug your current HDD, plug in your new SSD 2) Start up and go into BIOS. Make sure your BIOS is set to AHCI hard drive type 3) Do a clean reinstall of Windows on your SSD (must have AHCI set before you do the installation) 4) Shutdown, Re-attach your HDD, start it back up 5) Copy what you need over from your HDD to your SSD ( your old HDD should show up as D : or something similar at this point) 6) Your done here, Congratultations. You can optionally reformat your HDD here to free up some additional space from the old Windows install
You are going to have to reinstall most if not all your applications if you go about it that way rather than cloning, correct?
I'm not Quizzical, but the answer is yes, you actually can. Often SSDs will come with software to do it, and if they don't, there's plenty of free options out there.
That being said, your best option is to: 1) Shut down, Unplug your current HDD, plug in your new SSD 2) Start up and go into BIOS. Make sure your BIOS is set to AHCI hard drive type 3) Do a clean reinstall of Windows on your SSD (must have AHCI set before you do the installation) 4) Shutdown, Re-attach your HDD, start it back up 5) Copy what you need over from your HDD to your SSD ( your old HDD should show up as D : or something similar at this point) 6) Your done here, Congratultations. You can optionally reformat your HDD here to free up some additional space from the old Windows install
You are going to have to reinstall most if not all your applications if you go about it that way rather than cloning, correct?
He can create a system image then restore the image on the ssd. Or he can try what Ridelynn said and get really mad because that doesn't work.
wanderica said: Even Piledriver, with its improvements over Bulldozer, was so far and away below what Intel had to offer that it couldn't compete on any level.
That is simply not true.
For the price, FX offered unmatched multithreaded performance, for consumer desktops, it was very decent alternative to i3 with that bonus cores....precisely spot Ryzen seems taking now, hence FX all over again.
You will need to reinstall all your apps which is really not a bad idea when installing a new game. It gives your new drive a chance to provision application space how it wants, not how an image tells it.
But if you want to have fun with a really robust Microsoft tool, please do try the image backup restore method recommended. Let us all know how that goes for you. I can always use another good IT horror story.
Ridelynn's method is really the cleanest way to reconstruct your system. I do it a little differently, but very close to that.
By letting the OS create its installs you get the advantage of clean configs and drivers.You let the drive write the file system, store apps, and write files where it thinks is best for it. It also means you'll start with a clean APPDATA and PROGRAMDATA directories.
By copying over files to the new drive or other drives you also ensure file permissions are where they need to be.
If you're really worried about losing app settings and such you can copy out your "appdata" and "programdata" folder for the programs and apps you want to preserve. Sometimes these settings are scattered over those folders, the install folder, the user dir folders, etc. So it's best to know what you're doing when trying this.
The only time system image has problems is when the computer is different. I mean really? He wants to clone the drive not start from scratch and system image is the best way to do that. So long as the only thing he is changing is the HDD he will be fine and keep all his programs to boot.
So yes he can install windows on the SDD but he will have to reinstall all his apps and well thats just a big waste of time if he can just image restore it onto the SSD.
Quite simply this is not taken as a gamers CPU. Nice looking architecture and a good basis to build off. But it's really not for gamers, at least ones that want to play new games.
The 8-core part isn't, as it's too expensive. Intel's whatever-E high-end desktop parts aren't for gaming, for the same reasons. The rumored quad core Ryzen parts could be pretty compelling for gaming at the right price.
Math should have told you from leaks weeks ago that it wouldn't trounce anything in ST applications (like most games today). It's 7700k all the way for that. After all, I have a 6700k at 4.7 GHz that Ryzen can't touch in games. Kaby Lake demolishes the 6900k and the 1800x alike in those benchmarks. AMD achieved a 52% increase in IPC over Piledriver in a single generation, and some people call it a failure? You should be ashamed of yourselves.
The 52% IPC increase was as compared to Excavator cores, not Piledriver. If you compare to Piledriver, it's probably more like 60% or 70%. But that's also not just a single generation.
Intel's Conroe basically doubled the IPC of their previous NetBurst parts. That's not just that Conroe was a terrific part for its day; it's also that NetBurst's IPC was horrible, and actually worse than the Pentium 3 that preceded it. It's easier to make big improvements if your previous generation was awful.
Part you are not telling is that the "last
generation" was 4 years ago and it still lags severely in single core
performance, making the chip very narrow and limited use - who is going
to buy that over Intel?
Like I said before, more time is needed
but if R5 won't have at least same single core performance as R7, AMD
might be in trouble....
Fair enough. The cat cores came out a long time ago and were awful. It still shouldn't diminish the achievement, though.
The cat cores were in no way awful. They were intended as a competitor to Atom, and completely demolished it. The cat cores were low power, low price, low performance cores, and filled that niche quite well in their day. Nvidia Ion got discontinued pretty much instantly when Bobcat cores arrived. That they weren't high-power, high-performance cores doesn't mean they were awful, any more than ARM cores are awful.
If it's big enough, you probably can. If you're getting new storage anyway, though, you might want to consider just doing a clean install of the OS if you haven't done one recently to eliminate accumulated cruft.
Currently the Zen 1800X is way more expensive then a 7700k (>200 euros local+webshop, >100 euros comparing with Amazon) in the country I currently stay, the 1700X is 60 euros more expensive so they'll have to step up the pace if I want to play games on a Ryzen too instead of just using it as a calculation pc for my engineering work.
Happy though that I didn't jump on the hype train which was levitating to the point that it was going into low orbit and am currently sitting out and watching what AMD will do to fix the Ryzen "poor" performance -it is still a good cpu but not the Holy Grail of new CPUs that they claimed it would be up to this point- and maybe go for a Ryzen Gen.2 or the Intel 7700k-8000+ CPUs that will be coming.
Gorwe said: Sure, I aim to purchase as large(256GB) or larger(up to 512GB, above is too expensive for me) SSD. So, nothing bad will come out of this? Only wins?
Your system will only benefit from it. And you shouldnt have any problems running a OS which is cloned to a SSD.
But as always: to be sure it is safer to just reinstall clean on that new SSD.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
In situations where turning off SMT increased performance, it's probably fixable that it the performance with SMT on can be increased to what it is with SMT off. That's really just getting Windows to handle the cores appropriately. I wouldn't count on seeing meaningful gains beyond that, however, other than game-specific optimizations that benefit both Intel and AMD.
One other comment on game performance is that, it's often good to step back and ask, are these numbers large? If one CPU can deliver 300 frames per second, and another can "only" get you 200, does the former really offer any advantage over the latter?
If the reason that some games didn't put in the work to scale well to more cores is that they offer plenty good enough performance without it, those games don't really provide an argument for, say, buying a Core i7-7700K over a Ryzen 7 1700 for the same price. Nor for getting either of those CPUs over a $200 CPU that is also plenty good enough, for that matter.
If you believe that game programmers are competent, then it's likely that games will tend to scale well to more cores when they have a ton of CPU work to do and need more cores, and not bother with that optimization effort when it doesn't matter. Or at least the subset of games created by competent programmers will tend to do that. And that's a larger subset than you might think, though it excludes quite a bit of Kickstarter vaporware.
Gorwe said: So, nothing bad will come out of this? Only wins?
Cloning HDD to SSD is generally not recommended. While possible, there needs to be some tweaks done to cloned system - setting up TRIM and turning off defrag just top of my head.
You will need to reinstall all your apps which is really not a bad idea when installing a new game. It gives your new drive a chance to provision application space how it wants, not how an image tells it.
This is getting a bit off topic now, but when in Rome:
I do hard drive change outs all the time like I described above. I can do from new formatted disc to playing games in around 30 minutes, about half that if Windows update doesn't need to download a bunch.
Yes, you do need to reinstall some things. Usually, I need to re-install Office (if it's a computer that has that installed), and just run the updaters for Steam, Origin, Battle.Net, voice chat, whatever.
Games that are installed via Steam/Origin/Battle.Net/etc usually don't need to be reinstalled - once the base content provider is reinstalled, the rest usually just work again once yoi point them to the old application directory on the previous hard drive. This also worked for things like the Everquest downloader - reinstall the patch program, and the game itself then works fine without having to do a full reinstall.
I don't know how things via Windows Store will react, and if you have a lot of third party programs (Quickbooks, Adobe, whatever), yeah that could be a bit or reinstallation. Then I could see cloner software being beneficial. I have used cloner software, usually it takes longer to clone than it does to just install fresh and carry over what you need, but to each there own. To those saying "it won't work", ok, whatever.
The Windows Updates take the absolute longest. Updated video card drivers are usually second longest, as that's usually a couple hundred megabytes. Installing Steam/Origin/Teamspeak/Discord/Vent - about 5 minutes once everything else is up and running, and then all the games I've carried over are ready to go once that's done.
You will need to reinstall all your apps which is really not a bad idea when installing a new game. It gives your new drive a chance to provision application space how it wants, not how an image tells it.
This is getting a bit off topic now, but when in Rome:
I do hard drive change outs all the time like I described above. I can do from new formatted disc to playing games in around 30 minutes, about half that if Windows update doesn't need to download a bunch.
Yes, you do need to reinstall some things. Usually, I need to re-install Office (if it's a computer that has that installed), and just run the updaters for Steam, Origin, Battle.Net, voice chat, whatever.
Games that are installed via Steam/Origin/Battle.Net/etc usually don't need to be reinstalled - once the base content provider is reinstalled, the rest usually just work again once yoi point them to the old application directory on the previous hard drive. This also worked for things like the Everquest downloader - reinstall the patch program, and the game itself then works fine without having to do a full reinstall.
I don't know how things via Windows Store will react, and if you have a lot of third party programs (Quickbooks, Adobe, whatever), yeah that could be a bit or reinstallation. Then I could see cloner software being beneficial. I have used cloner software, usually it takes longer to clone than it does to just install fresh and carry over what you need, but to each there own. To those saying "it won't work", ok, whatever.
The Windows Updates take the absolute longest. Updated video card drivers are usually second longest, as that's usually a couple hundred megabytes. Installing Steam/Origin/Teamspeak/Discord/Vent - about 5 minutes once everything else is up and running, and then all the games I've carried over are ready to go once that's done.
Its not a matter of if it will work. Its a matter of how many hoops you have to jump through once its done. I mean technically you can just copy it all down on a piece of paper and type it into the computer. So doing an image restore will take probably an hour with very little hoop jumping. And your way takes about an hour with a lot of hoop jumping.
Or he can try what Ridelynn said and get really mad because that doesn't work.
Its not a matter of if it will work. Its a matter of how many hoops you have to jump through once its done. I mean technically you can just copy it all down on a piece of paper and type it into the computer. So doing an image restore will take probably an hour with very little hoop jumping. And your way takes about an hour with a lot of hoop jumping.
The rumored 6-core and especially 4-core parts are more interesting for gaming, however. It's hard to justify a $500 Ryzen 7 1800X for gaming over a $330 Core i7-7700K. But if reducing the core count means the Ryzen part is $200, or even $150, that can look a whole lot more interesting, as a low clocked Core i5 isn't nearly as fast as a high clocked Core i7. Ryzen has a chance at beating the Intel parts in those price ranges outright.
You can expect similar performance for both AMD's and Intel's $310-340 price range, with the Ryzen chip shining in multi-threaded applications. The Ryzen also consumes less energy at these performance levels than the i7-7700K, being a 68 Watt CPU compared to the 95 Watts of the i7-7700K. This difference means lower temps, and more OC potential for the 1700.
Comparing the 1800X to i7-7700K is just silly. The 1800X will outperform the i7-7700K in almost every instance, save for the rare single-threaded applications that are becoming increasingly less common.
Oddly enough, most Ryzen reviews are reporting high idle temps - upwards of 45C, as well as pretty warm loaded temps - around 70-85C, with pretty good air coolers.
That doesn't necessarily mean chips are exceeding their TDP, but temperature is one indication of power use. It could be a BIOS issue, or Windows power management just needs to be updated, or any number of other things.
I haven't seen a review that mentions power draw yet. But the temps are high, and I am anxious to see one.
The rumored 6-core and especially 4-core parts are more interesting for gaming, however. It's hard to justify a $500 Ryzen 7 1800X for gaming over a $330 Core i7-7700K. But if reducing the core count means the Ryzen part is $200, or even $150, that can look a whole lot more interesting, as a low clocked Core i5 isn't nearly as fast as a high clocked Core i7. Ryzen has a chance at beating the Intel parts in those price ranges outright.
You can expect similar performance for both AMD's and Intel's $310-340 price range, with the Ryzen chip shining in multi-threaded applications. The Ryzen also consumes less energy at these performance levels than the i7-7700K, being a 68 Watt CPU compared to the 95 Watts of the i7-7700K. This difference means lower temps, and more OC potential for the 1700.
Comparing the 1800X to i7-7700K is just silly. The 1800X will outperform the i7-7700K in almost every instance, save for the rare single-threaded applications that are becoming increasingly less common.
The Ryzen 1800x is comparable to the i7 5960x. Which is good because that is 824$ processor.
The 1700 and 1700x don't have enough samples to get a proper conclusion yet. But it appears they aren't going to hit their mark and will end up losing on these two chips.
The rumored 6-core and especially 4-core parts are more interesting for gaming, however. It's hard to justify a $500 Ryzen 7 1800X for gaming over a $330 Core i7-7700K. But if reducing the core count means the Ryzen part is $200, or even $150, that can look a whole lot more interesting, as a low clocked Core i5 isn't nearly as fast as a high clocked Core i7. Ryzen has a chance at beating the Intel parts in those price ranges outright.
You can expect similar performance for both AMD's and Intel's $310-340 price range, with the Ryzen chip shining in multi-threaded applications. The Ryzen also consumes less energy at these performance levels than the i7-7700K, being a 68 Watt CPU compared to the 95 Watts of the i7-7700K. This difference means lower temps, and more OC potential for the 1700.
Comparing the 1800X to i7-7700K is just silly. The 1800X will outperform the i7-7700K in almost every instance, save for the rare single-threaded applications that are becoming increasingly less common.
The Ryzen 1800x is comparable to the i7 5960x. Which is good because that is 824$ processor.
The 1700 and 1700x don't have enough samples to get a proper conclusion yet. But it appears they aren't going to hit their mark and will end up losing on these two chips.
You might be right but care to elaborate on what marks will the 1700s fail to hit? They look good as a budget version of 1800x. For graphic designers and engineers in poorer countries every dolar they can save is incredibly important and I think the 1700s will be popular workstation chips.
Sure, Europe and US have the freedom to say "Meh, we'll just spend that $60 more and get the 1800x" but there are a lot of people for whom $60 is a lot.
Originally posted by nethaniah
Seriously Farmville? Yeah I think it's great. In a World where half our population is dying of hunger the more fortunate half is spending their time harvesting food that doesn't exist.
The rumored 6-core and especially 4-core parts are more interesting for gaming, however. It's hard to justify a $500 Ryzen 7 1800X for gaming over a $330 Core i7-7700K. But if reducing the core count means the Ryzen part is $200, or even $150, that can look a whole lot more interesting, as a low clocked Core i5 isn't nearly as fast as a high clocked Core i7. Ryzen has a chance at beating the Intel parts in those price ranges outright.
You can expect similar performance for both AMD's and Intel's $310-340 price range, with the Ryzen chip shining in multi-threaded applications. The Ryzen also consumes less energy at these performance levels than the i7-7700K, being a 68 Watt CPU compared to the 95 Watts of the i7-7700K. This difference means lower temps, and more OC potential for the 1700.
Comparing the 1800X to i7-7700K is just silly. The 1800X will outperform the i7-7700K in almost every instance, save for the rare single-threaded applications that are becoming increasingly less common.
The Ryzen 1800x is comparable to the i7 5960x. Which is good because that is 824$ processor.
The 1700 and 1700x don't have enough samples to get a proper conclusion yet. But it appears they aren't going to hit their mark and will end up losing on these two chips.
You might be right but care to elaborate on what marks will the 1700s fail to hit? They look good as a budget version of 1800x. For graphic designers and engineers in poorer countries every dolar they can save is incredibly important and I think the 1700s will be popular workstation chips.
Sure, Europe and US have the freedom to say "Meh, we'll just spend that $60 more and get the 1800x" but there are a lot of people for whom $60 is a lot.
The quoted numbers from the launch video they compared the 1800x with the i7 6900k. This gave them a lot of wiggle room in case their numbers were offf. And they were off by about 15% but that didn't really hurt that much because the place 1800x landed was in the middle of 800$ processors.
The 1700's had projected marks that were very minimum gains over the competetion. When those fell short 15% it placed them in the competitions price range exactly. So the 1700's cost 400$ but so does the intel chip that it currently compares with.
That is what it currently looks like anyways. We really need more samples to get a better evaluation. This is also one of the reasons the stock plumet. Investors are probably panicking but we won't know for sure untill we can get some better numbers from the 1700's.
With Ryzen AMD has demonstrated that it can still "compete" with Intel at the top end.
On some benchmarks it is ahead - on some its about the same, on some its worse - but that is way better than it was. Will developers buy it? The lower price will obviously be a positive factor, the upcoming Cannonlake a negative. Maybe why the price is "aggressive".
For "top end " game rigs the 1700's come up against the same question current i7s are coming up against: "Why do you need such a fast processor?" Which is why we are seeing i5s suggested - and why we have countless comments in threads asking "Why upgrade?"
Nothing - yet - in the mid-range and at the lower end AMD has pressure from "aggressively" priced Pentium processors. Will AMD get "less cpable" Ryzen versions out before Cannonlake launches?
The bigger scene though is this a sideshow? Even if AMD gets back into contention with Intel there is still the non-trivial matter of e.g. Qualcomm and Samsung. Serious competition indeed.
Interestingly enough, it's appearing the base 1700 pretty much overclocks to run the same as the 1800X.
There have been some posts about it on HardOCP - looks like about 4.0-4.1 Ghz is the ceiling for the current 8 core, and chips from all 3 bins are more or less hitting it.
It might be that we are looking at another Nehalem, where upon launch the only difference across the SKUs was the price (if you were willing to overclock a bit).
So saying the 1700 isn't as good a value. 1700 (non-X) does have a fairly lower stock clock speed, and does lack the XFR turbo clocks that the X series does (looks like they just extend the turbo range a bit there). But it's also $170 cheaper, and unlocked. Intel doesn't usually leave their lower bins unlocked, and has taken action in the past to protect that when motherboard manufacturers attempt to circumvent it. AMD has committed to (at least to date, that could change) leaving all Ryzen SKUs unlocked.
With Ryzen AMD has demonstrated that it can still "compete" with Intel at the top end.
On some benchmarks it is ahead - on some its about the same, on some its worse - but that is way better than it was. Will developers buy it? The lower price will obviously be a positive factor, the upcoming Cannonlake a negative. Maybe why the price is "aggressive".
For "top end " game rigs the 1700's come up against the same question current i7s are coming up against: "Why do you need such a fast processor?" Which is why we are seeing i5s suggested - and why we have countless comments in threads asking "Why upgrade?"
Nothing - yet - in the mid-range and at the lower end AMD has pressure from "aggressively" priced Pentium processors. Will AMD get "less cpable" Ryzen versions out before Cannonlake launches?
The bigger scene though is this a sideshow? Even if AMD gets back into contention with Intel there is still the non-trivial matter of e.g. Qualcomm and Samsung. Serious competition indeed.
Actually, I agree with pretty much all of this. Even though I still recommend AMD over Intel on the extreme low end, you can still make a solid case for Intel based on their superior IPC. Maybe Ryzen will shift that around, maybe not, it remains to be seen.
Well said. I won't even LOL you on that one.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Tomb Raider same 7700k vs. 1800x 132fps to 114 (never mind 6850 scoring 140fps)
The fact they are talking Zen2 instead of fixing Zen1 kind of makes me think most of the gaming is NOT going to be fixable.“But Senior Engineer Mike Clark says he knows where the easy gains are for Zen 2, and they're already working through the list” Just seems like excuses like - Run a higher Res - or Code properly.....
https://www.pcper.com/news/Processors/AMD-responds-1080p-gaming-tests-Ryzen "For buyers today that are gaming at 1080p, the situation is likely to remain as we have presented it going forward." So they don't think a fix is coming based on AMD info and as noted as gpus get much faster (along with their memory speeds) expect 1440p to look like today's 1080p benchmarks at least to some extent.
So AMD didn't even get their stuff game optimized in time for their most important CPU launch in history? Fail.
Comments
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3011736/windows/how-to-create-an-image-backup-in-windows-10-and-restore-it-if-need-be.html
For the price, FX offered unmatched multithreaded performance, for consumer desktops, it was very decent alternative to i3 with that bonus cores....precisely spot Ryzen seems taking now, hence FX all over again.
So yes he can install windows on the SDD but he will have to reinstall all his apps and well thats just a big waste of time if he can just image restore it onto the SSD.
Intel's Conroe basically doubled the IPC of their previous NetBurst parts. That's not just that Conroe was a terrific part for its day; it's also that NetBurst's IPC was horrible, and actually worse than the Pentium 3 that preceded it. It's easier to make big improvements if your previous generation was awful.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/03/full-interview-with-amd-ceo-on-fixing-gaming-performance-issues-stock-slide.html
https://www.pcper.com/news/Processors/AMD-responds-1080p-gaming-tests-Ryzen
Remember, many games are optimized for Intel. These games would need to be re-optimized for Ryzen. Just a thought.
Currently the Zen 1800X is way more expensive then a 7700k (>200 euros local+webshop, >100 euros comparing with Amazon) in the country I currently stay, the 1700X is 60 euros more expensive so they'll have to step up the pace if I want to play games on a Ryzen too instead of just using it as a calculation pc for my engineering work.
Happy though that I didn't jump on the hype train which was levitating to the point that it was going into low orbit and am currently sitting out and watching what AMD will do to fix the Ryzen "poor" performance -it is still a good cpu but not the Holy Grail of new CPUs that they claimed it would be up to this point- and maybe go for a Ryzen Gen.2 or the Intel 7700k-8000+ CPUs that will be coming.
Your system will only benefit from it.
And you shouldnt have any problems running a OS which is cloned to a SSD.
But as always: to be sure it is safer to just reinstall clean on that new SSD.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
One other comment on game performance is that, it's often good to step back and ask, are these numbers large? If one CPU can deliver 300 frames per second, and another can "only" get you 200, does the former really offer any advantage over the latter?
If the reason that some games didn't put in the work to scale well to more cores is that they offer plenty good enough performance without it, those games don't really provide an argument for, say, buying a Core i7-7700K over a Ryzen 7 1700 for the same price. Nor for getting either of those CPUs over a $200 CPU that is also plenty good enough, for that matter.
If you believe that game programmers are competent, then it's likely that games will tend to scale well to more cores when they have a ton of CPU work to do and need more cores, and not bother with that optimization effort when it doesn't matter. Or at least the subset of games created by competent programmers will tend to do that. And that's a larger subset than you might think, though it excludes quite a bit of Kickstarter vaporware.
I do hard drive change outs all the time like I described above. I can do from new formatted disc to playing games in around 30 minutes, about half that if Windows update doesn't need to download a bunch.
Yes, you do need to reinstall some things. Usually, I need to re-install Office (if it's a computer that has that installed), and just run the updaters for Steam, Origin, Battle.Net, voice chat, whatever.
Games that are installed via Steam/Origin/Battle.Net/etc usually don't need to be reinstalled - once the base content provider is reinstalled, the rest usually just work again once yoi point them to the old application directory on the previous hard drive. This also worked for things like the Everquest downloader - reinstall the patch program, and the game itself then works fine without having to do a full reinstall.
I don't know how things via Windows Store will react, and if you have a lot of third party programs (Quickbooks, Adobe, whatever), yeah that could be a bit or reinstallation. Then I could see cloner software being beneficial. I have used cloner software, usually it takes longer to clone than it does to just install fresh and carry over what you need, but to each there own. To those saying "it won't work", ok, whatever.
The Windows Updates take the absolute longest. Updated video card drivers are usually second longest, as that's usually a couple hundred megabytes. Installing Steam/Origin/Teamspeak/Discord/Vent - about 5 minutes once everything else is up and running, and then all the games I've carried over are ready to go once that's done.
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700/3647vs3917
http://segmentnext.com/2017/03/01/amd-ryzen-7-1700-benchmarks/
You can expect similar performance for both AMD's and Intel's $310-340 price range, with the Ryzen chip shining in multi-threaded applications. The Ryzen also consumes less energy at these performance levels than the i7-7700K, being a 68 Watt CPU compared to the 95 Watts of the i7-7700K. This difference means lower temps, and more OC potential for the 1700.
Comparing the 1800X to i7-7700K is just silly. The 1800X will outperform the i7-7700K in almost every instance, save for the rare single-threaded applications that are becoming increasingly less common.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu,4951-9.html
That doesn't necessarily mean chips are exceeding their TDP, but temperature is one indication of power use. It could be a BIOS issue, or Windows power management just needs to be updated, or any number of other things.
I haven't seen a review that mentions power draw yet. But the temps are high, and I am anxious to see one.
The 1700 and 1700x don't have enough samples to get a proper conclusion yet. But it appears they aren't going to hit their mark and will end up losing on these two chips.
Sure, Europe and US have the freedom to say "Meh, we'll just spend that $60 more and get the 1800x" but there are a lot of people for whom $60 is a lot.
The 1700's had projected marks that were very minimum gains over the competetion. When those fell short 15% it placed them in the competitions price range exactly. So the 1700's cost 400$ but so does the intel chip that it currently compares with.
That is what it currently looks like anyways. We really need more samples to get a better evaluation. This is also one of the reasons the stock plumet. Investors are probably panicking but we won't know for sure untill we can get some better numbers from the 1700's.
On some benchmarks it is ahead - on some its about the same, on some its worse - but that is way better than it was. Will developers buy it? The lower price will obviously be a positive factor, the upcoming Cannonlake a negative. Maybe why the price is "aggressive".
For "top end " game rigs the 1700's come up against the same question current i7s are coming up against: "Why do you need such a fast processor?" Which is why we are seeing i5s suggested - and why we have countless comments in threads asking "Why upgrade?"
Nothing - yet - in the mid-range and at the lower end AMD has pressure from "aggressively" priced Pentium processors. Will AMD get "less cpable" Ryzen versions out before Cannonlake launches?
The bigger scene though is this a sideshow? Even if AMD gets back into contention with Intel there is still the non-trivial matter of e.g. Qualcomm and Samsung. Serious competition indeed.
There have been some posts about it on HardOCP - looks like about 4.0-4.1 Ghz is the ceiling for the current 8 core, and chips from all 3 bins are more or less hitting it.
It might be that we are looking at another Nehalem, where upon launch the only difference across the SKUs was the price (if you were willing to overclock a bit).
So saying the 1700 isn't as good a value. 1700 (non-X) does have a fairly lower stock clock speed, and does lack the XFR turbo clocks that the X series does (looks like they just extend the turbo range a bit there). But it's also $170 cheaper, and unlocked. Intel doesn't usually leave their lower bins unlocked, and has taken action in the past to protect that when motherboard manufacturers attempt to circumvent it. AMD has committed to (at least to date, that could change) leaving all Ryzen SKUs unlocked.
Well said. I won't even LOL you on that one.
^ This site could only get to 4.1Ghz - "As for temperatures, even with the Hydro H110i at maximum pump and fan speeds the CPU hit 77C. " OUCH
Gamers benchmarks at 1080p
http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-and-1700-processor-review_191753/10
149fps for 7700 in thief vs. 108 for 1800x | GTA5 , 163 to 138 |Deus ex MD 127 to 103 big losses to Intel.
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_1800x_processor_review,17.html
Tomb Raider same 7700k vs. 1800x 132fps to 114 (never mind 6850 scoring 140fps)
The fact they are talking Zen2 instead of fixing Zen1 kind of makes me think most of the gaming is NOT going to be fixable.“But Senior Engineer Mike Clark says he knows where the easy gains are for Zen 2, and they're already working through the list” Just seems like excuses like - Run a higher Res - or Code properly.....
https://www.pcper.com/news/Processors/AMD-responds-1080p-gaming-tests-Ryzen
"For buyers today that are gaming at 1080p, the situation is likely to remain as we have presented it going forward." So they don't think a fix is coming based on AMD info and as noted as gpus get much faster (along with their memory speeds) expect 1440p to look like today's 1080p benchmarks at least to some extent.
So AMD didn't even get their stuff game optimized in time for their most important CPU launch in history? Fail.