AMD launches Zen+ 12nm Ryzen and X470 motherboards

[IRobot23]

Pure FUD. Multiple reviews have shown little to no effect on gaming.

Check how reviewers benchmarked on CPU bound, suddenly they didn't use 720p benchmarks as they did with ryzen vs coffee.

Anyway some showed on YT it hits about ~10%
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pNN6pF6AMY&t=285s
Just be careful on GPU load .

 

[Gideon]

You don't understand. Resolution matters a lot for GPU. He has GTX 1080TI (as you can see there was no bottleneck from GPU), I have RX 480. Low resolution makes CPU bound scenarios.

Well yeah, it's a bit low (considering the pretty aggressive ram timings/speed), but IMO still nothing too surprising.
From the very same review site, Pairing a 1080Ti with a 7700K @ 4.8Ghz gets 174 FPS running at 1080p. About the same FPS as a R7 1600 @ 3.2 GHz running at 720p. We can't really deduce much more until he actually runs benchmarks @ 720p.

My 1700X with a 1070 GTX and memory @ 3466CL16 got between 110-120 FPS in the same single player scene (approximately so, from memory, can test it in the evening).

EDIT:
The GamersNexus review of 8700K also has a 1080ti. Now obviously even that is apples and oranges, but the 2700X results don't look half that bad (rather I'd say a significant improvement over 1st gen)

 

[IRobot23]

Well yeah, it's a bit low (considering the pretty aggressive ram timings/speed), but IMO still nothing too surprising.
From the very same review site, Pairing a 1080Ti with a 7700K @ 4.8Ghz gets 174 FPS running at 1080p. About the same FPS as a R7 1600 @ 3.2 GHz running at 720p. We can't really deduce much more until he actually runs benchmarks @ 720p.

My 1700X with a 1070 GTX and memory @ 3466CL16 got between 110-120 FPS in the same single player scene (approximately so, from memory, can test it in the evening).

EDIT:
The GamersNexus review of 8700K also has a 1080ti. Now obviously even that is apples and oranges, but the 2700X results don't look half that bad (rather I'd say a significant improvement over 1st gen)

Without any disrespect to GN. That that benchmark is complete failure. There is no way that i5 7600K at stock will be faster in BF1 than R5 1600X at 4GHz even if both are using 2400MHz DDR4.

Guys that plays BF1 knows that even though BF1 does greatly benefit from SMT/HT dual cores are just too weak.

 

[Gideon]

Without any disrespect to GN. That that benchmark is complete failure. There is no way that i5 7600K at stock will be faster in BF1 than R5 1600X at 4GHz even if both are using 2400MHz DDR4.

Guys that plays BF1 knows that even though BF1 does greatly benefit from SMT/HT dual cores are just too weak.

Hmm, i5 7600 is a quad-core. The i3-7350K is a dual core and it fares worse than any 6+ core Ryzen (@ stock) despite having a 4.2 GHz fixed clock speed. It's a bit odd though that the 1500X is a tiny bit slower

 

[IRobot23]

Hmm, i5 7600 is a quad-core. The i3-7350K is a dual core and it fares worse than any Ryzen (@ stock) despite having a 4.2 GHz fixed clock speed.

R5 1500X stock @ 3200MHz ddr4 does worse. Even i5 7600K doesn't stand a chance in BF1 specially in MP by a long shot.

 

[PhonakV30]

Well yeah, it's a bit low (considering the pretty aggressive ram timings/speed), but IMO still nothing too surprising.
From the very same review site, Pairing a 1080Ti with a 7700K @ 4.8Ghz gets 174 FPS running at 1080p. About the same FPS as a R7 1600 @ 3.2 GHz running at 720p. We can't really deduce much more until he actually runs benchmarks @ 720p.

My 1700X with a 1070 GTX and memory @ 3466CL16 got between 110-120 FPS in the same single player scene (approximately so, from memory, can test it in the evening).

EDIT:
The GamersNexus review of 8700K also has a 1080ti. Now obviously even that is apples and oranges, but the 2700X results don't look half that bad (rather I'd say a significant improvement over 1st gen)

7600K Stock faster than 6700K ?

 

[raghu78]

Without any disrespect to GN. That that benchmark is complete failure. There is no way that i5 7600K at stock will be faster in BF1 than R5 1600X at 4GHz even if both are using 2400MHz DDR4.

Guys that plays BF1 knows that even though BF1 does greatly benefit from SMT/HT dual cores are just too weak.

BF1 singleplayer is completely different from BF1 multiplayer in terms of performance characteristics. BF1 multiplayer makes excellent use of multiple threads and can utilize 16 threads.

BF1 singleplayer
https://www.techspot.com/review/1497-intel-core-i7-8700k/page3.html

BF1 multiplayer
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Battl...eld-1-They-Shall-not-Pass-Benchmarks-1223170/

 

[IRobot23]

BF1 singleplayer is completely different from BF1 multiplayer in terms of performance characteristics. BF1 multiplayer makes excellent use of multiple threads and can utilize 16 threads.

BF1 singleplayer
https://www.techspot.com/review/1497-intel-core-i7-8700k/page3.html

BF1 multiplayer
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Battl...eld-1-They-Shall-not-Pass-Benchmarks-1223170/

No, BF1 scales very well across 6 threads. So for example if R3 1200 at 4Ghz can do 120fps, R5 1600 at 4GHz can do near 160-170fps. And it will use more than 6 thread on MP. You can expect i5 8600K 5GHz to be 50% faster than i3 8350K 5GHz in BF1 MP. While i5 have good latencies and ST performance it may still suffer, because it has only 6 threads. i7 8700K will do job better.

BF4 scaled just on 4 threads. Even then when explosion came and AI 6 threads helped a lot.

I did lot of testing in BF1/BF4 with intel and amd cpus ( bulldozers, phenoms, ryzen, sandy, ivy , haswell, even skylake... I didn't have time to really test coffee).

i7 6900K 2GHz vs i7 2700K 3,7GHz ( so don't tell me that ST performance is SO important at least here, yet many reviewers will talk only about IPC and ST and how ryzen laggs behind)

 

[IRobot23]

7600K Stock faster than 6700K ?

check out how bad does i7 2700K at 4,7Ghz against i3 7350 stock

 

[Justinbaileyman]

Pure FUD. Multiple reviews have shown little to no effect on gaming.

What does trying to bait me into an argument about Intel have anything to do with this thread about AMD??
Please stay on topic..

 

[Topweasel]

Without any disrespect to GN. That that benchmark is complete failure. There is no way that i5 7600K at stock will be faster in BF1 than R5 1600X at 4GHz even if both are using 2400MHz DDR4.

Guys that plays BF1 knows that even though BF1 does greatly benefit from SMT/HT dual cores are just too weak.

This could go back to the issues with Ryzen's launch. Nvidia seems to seriously optimize the drivers for the highest standard desktop i7 when using DX12. Wasn't always that way but mid to late 2016, the DX12 drivers really pumped up 7700k and 7600k numbers while taking a big hit on BW-E systems, similar ones that Ryzen took in comparison to DX11 numbers. Never saw any evidence this was fixed, but if look at 6900k numbers from the 7700k launch and the Ryzen 7 launch on PCgameshardware.de, specially if you swap from DX11 to DX12 in games that sport both you can see it. I can't remember if it was them or computerbase.de that well before the Ryzen launch did thread testing on a 6950 or 6900, and found scaling on BF1 to scale well pretty high, but by the time the Ryzen launch happened you couldn't see that scaling anymore on either of those Intel CPU's. As far as I know, but I didn't really look into their review of the 8700k, this could still be the case.

Edit: Well I got around to looking at the 8700k review. The 1800x looks worse than it did in march of last year . Sadly they didn't have the 6900 or 6950x in the one review where they had a DX12 and DX11 version of the game and that one Tomb Raider was the least reliable last year. But that said core scaling does seem to happen, and DX12 was seeing a boost across the board (something that didn't happen last year). But man was the the 1800x waaaay down on performance.

 

[EXCellR8]

Are these 2000 series chips getting on shelves soon or what?

 

[Mockingbird]

Are these 2000 series chips getting on shelves soon or what?

Are you talking about the lack of announcement so far?

I am wondering about that too.

 

[krumme]

This could go back to the issues with Ryzen's launch. Nvidia seems to seriously optimize the drivers for the highest standard desktop i7 when using DX12. Wasn't always that way but mid to late 2016, the DX12 drivers really pumped up 7700k and 7600k numbers while taking a big hit on BW-E systems, similar ones that Ryzen took in comparison to DX11 numbers. Never saw any evidence this was fixed, but if look at 6900k numbers from the 7700k launch and the Ryzen 7 launch on PCgameshardware.de, specially if you swap from DX11 to DX12 in games that sport both you can see it. I can't remember if it was them or computerbase.de that well before the Ryzen launch did thread testing on a 6950 or 6900, and found scaling on BF1 to scale well pretty high, but by the time the Ryzen launch happened you couldn't see that scaling anymore on either of those Intel CPU's. As far as I know, but I didn't really look into their review of the 8700k, this could still be the case.

Edit: Well I got around to looking at the 8700k review. The 1800x looks worse than it did in march of last year . Sadly they didn't have the 6900 or 6950x in the one review where they had a DX12 and DX11 version of the game and that one Tomb Raider was the least reliable last year. But that said core scaling does seem to happen, and DX12 was seeing a boost across the board (something that didn't happen last year). But man was the the 1800x waaaay down on performance.

Look at the 99% frametime scores for bf1 mp in computerbase review of the 8700k. Its those that defines playability. 1800x is midway between 7700k and 8700k.
Still all those new 6c intel cpu is better albeit the 8400 just barely - its more or less same as the 1800x. Still a good deal better than eg the 1600x or 7700k.
Goes to show the value of core throughput and low latency.
I am pretty sure a bwe 6c or 8c at 4ghz will make a good showing. Just go back to the 1800x reciew and have a look. They did fine in bf1 mp as i recall.

 

[Topweasel]

Look at the 99% frametime scores for bf1 mp in computerbase review of the 8700k. Its those that defines playability. 1800x is midway between 7700k and 8700k.
Still all those new 6c intel cpu is better albeit the 8400 just barely - its more or less same as the 1800x. Still a good deal better than eg the 1600x or 7700k.
Goes to show the value of core throughput and low latency.
I am pretty sure a bwe 6c or 8c at 4ghz will make a good showing. Just go back to the 1800x reciew and have a look. They did fine in bf1 mp as i recall.

I am not saying anything is unplayable and in fact the numbers look pretty decent in comparison to last years numbers. But the results are wierd. Gaps seem to have gotten deeper. In the 1800x review the problem was pretty specific. Nvidia hardware took a decent hit when running DX12 vs DX11 and on DX12 on all 4 of the benchmarks that let you choose between the two, DX12 stopped scaling on anything better than 4c8t. To top it of was the weirdness behind the 7700k and to a lesser extent the 7600k. The 7700k was the only CPU to gain performance on DX12 and it did it across the board, making for one final wierdness. The 6900 and the 1800x did better in BF MP DX11 than the 7700k, in DX12 (the API that is supposed to be more MT friendly), both took a large but nearly the same hit and the 7700 was way better.

 

[ondma]

What does trying to bait me into an argument about Intel have anything to do with this thread about AMD??
Please stay on topic..

Maybe you should follow your own advice.

 

[wahdangun]

It's have to do with Nvidia using software schedulers, and if you using Rx Vega you will see that she scaling will be better for ryzen.

 

[Despoiler]

Supposedly the embargo ends on April 19.

 

[Justinbaileyman]

Supposedly the embargo ends on April 19.

Yeah but isn't that the same as retail release day? I don't understand what's the point then??

 

[Gideon]

Here is another quick preview

The turbo seems to prove the point, that with the new turbo modes the gains from manual overclocking are minimal to nonexistent.

The low-res Counter Strike score is underwhelming, even when considering the unstable BIOS). Nothing too surprising, considering ultra-high FPS gaming is probably the weakest part of Ryzen, but still hoped for a bit more.

• R7 2700X in the video got 330 FPS with what looks to be a GTX 1080, from other videos
• i5 6600K @ 4.2 GHz gets 390 FPS even with a Fury X
• i7 6700K @ 4.6 Ghz gets 435 FPS with a 980 Ti

 

[IRobot23]

Here is another quick preview

The turbo seems to prove the point, that with the new turbo modes the gains from manual overclocking are minimal to nonexistent.

The low-res Counter Strike score is underwhelming, even when considering the unstable BIOS). Nothing too surprising, considering ultra-high FPS gaming is probably the weakest part of Ryzen, but still hoped for a bit more.

• R7 2700X in the video got 330 FPS with what looks to be a GTX 1080, from other videos
• i5 6600K @ 4.2 GHz gets 390 FPS even with a Fury X
• i7 6700K @ 4.6 Ghz gets 435 FPS with a 980 Ti

Well there is scenario that is GPU dependent. So no the best benchmark, but TechEpiphany showed that ryzen does just a bit better clock per clock in that benchmark.

I would like to add something, FPS in CS:GO are overrated. It doesn't matter if you have 300-400 fps with 60Hz monitor you will get more mouse lag and less smoothness.

 

[psolord]

When I see comparisons at 100s of fps, talking about shortcomings of one system or the other, I feel disgusted at the level of ridiculousness things have gone to. Are people really so miserable fml?

 

[Justinbaileyman]

Oh no not 100 fps... what a piece of junk LOL. Yeah I totally agree with you, I guess people aren't happy unless they are complaining about something these days.Besides this is very similar to the last Ryzen launch where as motherboards were released before the bios were fully optimized. And just like last year, in a month or two we will see boosts in performance when there are updates to the bios available for download.
Anyways, only 6 days to go till launch day going to be a very long weekend with all this waiting around for sure

 

[JDG1980]

When I see comparisons at 100s of fps, talking about shortcomings of one system or the other, I feel disgusted at the level of ridiculousness things have gone to. Are people really so miserable fml?

A handful of competitive gamers who play low-GPU-demand titles with 240hz monitors might care about this. However, many PC users are building workstations and don't have gaming as a priority, and even most gamers are going to be limited by their monitor (most are still 60hz) and their graphics card (almost always the bottleneck on recent games).

 

[Kenmitch]

A handful of competitive gamers who play low-GPU-demand titles with 240hz monitors might care about this. However, many PC users are building workstations and don't have gaming as a priority, and even most gamers are going to be limited by their monitor (most are still 60hz) and their graphics card (almost always the bottleneck on recent games).

Those pro gamers don't even buy squat anyways....It's all given to them by sponsors.