-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Lessons Learned: Ryzen Launch
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Considering the circumstances, I think it went alright.
First of all, AMD is tiny compared to Intel. They simply do not have the same resources to coordinate a huge launch of a new architecture. They also couldn't afford to wait any longer. AMD was a sinking ship, and this was their last chance at rescue.
Motherboard makers might have remembered Bulldozer, and not expected Ryzen to be so successful. I remember leaked benchmarks from ES's showing very low clock speeds, so it wasn't until recently that AMD finalized the much higher clock speeds. If you're a motherboard maker, and you receive a Kaby Lake sample at 4.x GHz and a Ryzen sample at 2.3 GHz, which are you going to produce the most motherboards for?
The bricked C6H's and such are entirely the fault of motherboard makers. It seems especially Asus really messed up this launch.
Regarding OS support (Windows in particular), as the story unfolds, it doesn't seem to be as simple as "Windows task scheduler is dumb and treating the cores wrong". It's more complex than that. For example, AMD confirmed that the scheduler is treating SMT cores properly, so much of the performance delta with SMT on probably comes from the static partitioning in Ryzen. So it isn't really about "fixing" Windows. "Optimizing" Windows for a new architecture is a more accurate description.
Then you have the "Linux to the rescue!" faction, but it's hard to draw any conclusions when comparing one OS to another, with completely different kernels, drivers, API's etc.
Also, this is an entirely new chipset, platform and architecture. Intel has only been refining for the past 5+ years, which makes things a lot easier.
Could the launch have gone smoother? Definitely. But I think AMD did a decent job under the circumstances.
First of all, AMD is tiny compared to Intel. They simply do not have the same resources to coordinate a huge launch of a new architecture. They also couldn't afford to wait any longer. AMD was a sinking ship, and this was their last chance at rescue.
Motherboard makers might have remembered Bulldozer, and not expected Ryzen to be so successful. I remember leaked benchmarks from ES's showing very low clock speeds, so it wasn't until recently that AMD finalized the much higher clock speeds. If you're a motherboard maker, and you receive a Kaby Lake sample at 4.x GHz and a Ryzen sample at 2.3 GHz, which are you going to produce the most motherboards for?
The bricked C6H's and such are entirely the fault of motherboard makers. It seems especially Asus really messed up this launch.
Regarding OS support (Windows in particular), as the story unfolds, it doesn't seem to be as simple as "Windows task scheduler is dumb and treating the cores wrong". It's more complex than that. For example, AMD confirmed that the scheduler is treating SMT cores properly, so much of the performance delta with SMT on probably comes from the static partitioning in Ryzen. So it isn't really about "fixing" Windows. "Optimizing" Windows for a new architecture is a more accurate description.
Then you have the "Linux to the rescue!" faction, but it's hard to draw any conclusions when comparing one OS to another, with completely different kernels, drivers, API's etc.
Also, this is an entirely new chipset, platform and architecture. Intel has only been refining for the past 5+ years, which makes things a lot easier.
Could the launch have gone smoother? Definitely. But I think AMD did a decent job under the circumstances.
Last edited:
From the few very limited and short testing and reviews of RyZen running Linux I have read, CPU wise Linux seem to do OK with it, but I'm wondering myself how well the ASMedia chipsets are supported under Linux. Does USB 3.1 function well under Linux? Will ASMedia provide decent Linux support and drivers?
Only time will tell. But I think once the bugs and other issues are ironed out, RyZen will certainly be a thorn in Intel's side like the old Socket A Athlons were.
DrMrLordX
Lifer
The main problem is availability. The OEMs didn't make enough boards. Most of the UEFI/microcode trouble can be patched out later, with RMAs where appropriate. Asus isn't the only company that has had some bricked boards . . . MSI has had a few.
Combined with people expecting Sandy Bridge level IPC and the fact that AMD hadn't launched anything worthwhile on the CPU front in over a decade, I think it's also the case that manufacturers and software guys were caught off-guard by the better-than-expected performance. There probably wasn't much resource allocation towards optimizing for Ryzen. Hundreds if not thousands more engineers and software guys working on that now.
Performance in the majority of use cases is great. The one exception appears to be CPU-bound gaming at 1080p, but given the raw horsepower of the chip I expect the gap to lessen. Gaming at 4K I haven't noticed any deficiencies over my i7-6700K. The few times when lots of action on screen was causing my i7-6700K to choke (e.g. BF1 64 player ops) are gone now. I get better minimums in those scenarios. So overall I tentatively rate gaming on Ryzen a small net positive for me so far.
The ecosystem is definitely in a beta state, but performance is overall very good despite being limited to slower RAM speeds and lack of optimizations.
This chart shows what a great value the lowest tier Ryzen R7 is, and how far AMD has come from the disaster known as Bulldozer
Intel didn't have one shot to be perfect for the first time since 2006 either. Ryzen is a beta failure. Should have been way more polished. You pay full price for new hardware I expect full performance not new revisions and optimisations and patches and updates and the magic Ryzen fairy to wave its tiny wand . . .
DrMrLordX
Lifer
Even the "not full" performance you get today is excellent. Boards are still selling like hotcakes, and R7 1700 prices are creeping upwards. Demand is there. The reviews and naysayers can't tamp it all down.
About the only "bad" thing happening right now are the bricked boards (C6H etc).
About the only "bad" thing happening right now are the bricked boards (C6H etc).
lolfail9001
Golden Member
Is it selling like hotcakes or having no stock to speak of, though?
LTC8K6
Lifer
Is the 1700 overclocked? The header has 65W, but the chart has 95W.Combined with people expecting Sandy Bridge level IPC and the fact that AMD hadn't launched anything worthwhile on the CPU front in over a decade, I think it's also the case that manufacturers and software guys were caught off-guard by the better-than-expected performance. There probably wasn't much resource allocation towards optimizing for Ryzen. Hundreds if not thousands more engineers and software guys working on that now.
Performance in the majority of use cases is great. The one exception appears to be CPU-bound gaming at 1080p, but given the raw horsepower of the chip I expect the gap to lessen. Gaming at 4K I haven't noticed any deficiencies over my i7-6700K. The few times when lots of action on screen was causing my i7-6700K to choke (e.g. BF1 64 player ops) are gone now. I get better minimums in those scenarios. So overall I tentatively rate gaming on Ryzen a small net positive for me so far.
The ecosystem is definitely in a beta state, but performance is overall very good despite being limited to slower RAM speeds and lack of optimizations.
This chart shows what a great value the lowest tier Ryzen R7 is, and how far AMD has come from the disaster known as Bulldozer
DaveSimmons
Elite Member
That chart has "3D gaming" as very close to 7700K, so it's either not accurate or shows the 1700 overclocked to at least 1800X stock.
Also, Crumpet said:
Some people posting I suppose, but many of us are just pointing out flaws not being "haters." I hope you aren't trying to claim that the launch went perfectly, or that a 1700 at stock is better at everything than a 7700K?
TheELF
Diamond Member
Because that's what people do when they use their system daily, workaround issues?
There is not a living soul that will fine tune every program on his/hers system to circumvent stupid architecture.
Actually benchmarks,all of them together, are perfect, they show you how inconsistent the tech is while still showing you how strong it is in the things it's good at.
Overclocking a 1700 is as easy as pressing 2 buttons. You dont have to enter bios. All people that buy into this class for 8c will have the ability. Its nothing like the old days.
I think we will see far more people do it because it comes as part of the software package that people install as default.
A 1700 is really like having 2 cpu at hand.
Aside from that the notion of "stock 1700" is imo nearly as lame as "2500k stock". You buy a k model to oc and all the stupid comparison we have seen during the time to non oc 2500k is just to show a nonexistant difference. And as said a 1700 is as easy to oc as to install a program.
Tup3x
Golden Member
To be honest... They didn't mess up this badly with the software. Not even close.
Agree. Even if the 1800x is often faster than the 6900 i dont think they use the saved time to fiddle with their system to make it even faster or wonder where the 6900 is broken.
DrMrLordX
Lifer
Both. They're running out of stock because they're selling everything they put up for sale. eBay scalpers are running amok. People are buying up the C6H everywhere they can despite the fact that it still bricks itself . . . sometimes.
lolfail9001
Golden Member
But they did not even put much on sale, that's my point.
Software is the unimportant part though, and can be fixed in time. Intel has had mobo and CPU recalls in the past, those are a bigger issue than software and require you to disassemble and reassemble your whole PC, not to mention leaving it down while you wait for replacement parts.
Im just happy there are no hardware bugs this time around, at least not that have been found yet.
DrMrLordX
Lifer
You got numbers to prove that? Look at all the B350 boards selling. It's like a locust swarm, they're devouring everything.
lolfail9001
Golden Member
Check out mindfactory.de
lolfail9001
Golden Member
I compare that to numbers of Kaby Lake, the most worthless release Intel has had in a while and it does not look anywhere near as impressive. Yes, you may note that it was out for 2 weeks, i note that it was way more anticipated than anything from Intel in quite a few years.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
