I 've manually put 52 trc in memory timings in BIOS. All went well. I am impressed by MSI. The BIOS just works and looks so much better compared to Gigabyte's 970 UD3p. The only thing i can't figure out, is why the USB ports cease to give power (for charging for example), if you shut down the PC. My AM3+ boards keep powering the ports.
At any case, a word of praise for the much slandered FX. Comparing [email protected]
vs 2600 stock, the desktop feeling is really, really close. I notice a slight superiority in snapiness of the Ryzen rig when opening the secondary (mechanical) HDD and browsing quickly through directories. This is probably merit of the better SATA performance. Otherwise, they are really close. I have a gazillion of utilities, only a few seem to launch slightly faster on Ryzen.
I also tried heavily modded Skyrim for very brief time inside Whiterun. There is no fps difference really. The fps that drop abruptly on the stairs of Dragonsreach and in front of the gates, are persisting with Ryzen and are just as bad. It's clearly the game engine that is flawed. The only minuscule difference that i noticed, is that running around the city, i don't get a half second semi-lag at one spot. Maybe it's a matter of more RAM bandwidth. But, in general, FPS wise, the game seems the same. Since most of my games are old, i expect the same, except probably for Shogun II Total War, which is very CPU bound. But i haven't tried it. Anyway, for someone who isn't a gamer or is a Sunday gamer, the "upgrade" to Ryzen won't bring many benefits, unless he plays recent games or severely single core bottlenecked games.
As far as power consumption goes, well, using killawatt, idle power consumption of the Ryzen rig, is the same as the FX (65W). Doing ordinary things like browsing, there is like 10W difference in favour of Ryzen. The real gains come at full load or games. Prime95 and IBT AVX go at 150W, which FX went to 200-220W. Skyrim shoots up to 110-130W, while in FX it was 200-220W.
For the potential power you get, the Ryzen 2600 is a bargain. I spent 400 euro for 3 components. That's not really expensive for the potential the rig has. The only problem is, that despite the much slandered FX, the countless posts that i read that "Ryzen's benefits are HUUUUUUUuuuuuUUUUUge", "i felt the difference everywhere", "It blew my mind", if you don't play the latest and greatest games that hammer the CPU and if you don't do some task to occupy all cores, like i used to do too (video encoding), the potential is there, but the perceived difference is very small. There is nothing i have done so far that "wowed" me with Ryzen vs FX.
The problem is, that i don't run Cinebench just for the sake of wowing myself looking at graphs. The biggest advantage i see, is 1) the lower heat/power consumption, 2) native USB ports work much better.
In poor words, for an average user, who doesn't play all the new games, the FX isn't "garbage" at all. I had in plan to grab an 8 core RYzen 4000 when it goes EOL. Now, unless i have some big need for 2 more cores, i can already see it will be overkill. I will probably grab one, as well as a spare motherboard, but i think i will stay with this platform generation for many, many years, together with my beloved Windows 7. We are past the point where you really need so much CPU power, if you aren't chasing every new game that comes out.
A bow, to the much slandered FX. I will keep a secondary FX rig for sure.
EDIT: And speaking of benchmarks (thank God they exist!), i gained 3434 points in 3DMark2003, arriving at 71386 points! I vaguely remember the time, when i would score lower than 2000 points... So this is really a big increase. Now if only i had the game that would benefit from it.