Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

Page 100 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

AnandThenMan

Diamond Member
Nov 11, 2004
3,872
197
106
So you launch a CPU with:
1.)SMT issues in games which you keep quiet about which reduce gaming performance
2.)Launch the CPU one month before windows drivers
3.)Launch with motherboards which just about have stable BIOSes

A great way to sell your product,AMD. Such an own goal.
New processor, new platform there are going to be issues. If AMD waits until everything is perfect the CPU will never get released sometimes you just have to let a product loose in the wild and deal with glitches going forward. Yes it is disappointing (although expected) but the problems will very likely be short lived.
 

TemjinGold

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2006
3,050
65
91
Wait wait... why is 1700 at 3.9 beating out 7700K at 5 but 1800X at 4.0+ is losing? That doesn't make sense... They did OC the 1800X to be all core OC right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: french toast

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,568
126
Wait wait... why is 1700 at 3.9 beating out 7700K at 5 but 1800X at 4.0+ is losing? That doesn't make sense... They did OC the 1800X to be all core OC right?
I think that may be because the 1700-1700X-1800X are all the same chip? If you get a good 1700, it can beat a mediocre 1800X.
The 1700 is the only chip worth buying, is what it looks like.
Early purchasers of the 1800X may feel a little jilted.
 

TemjinGold

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2006
3,050
65
91
I think that is because the 1700-1700X-1800X are all the same chip. If you get a good 1700, it can beat a mediocre 1800X.
The 1700 is the only chip worth buying, is what it looks like.
Early purchasers of the 1800X may feel a little jilted.
I get that. But if they are all the same chip, why is the one at 3.9 winning big while the one over 4.0 is getting crushed?
 

lolfail9001

Golden Member
Sep 9, 2016
1,056
353
96
I think that is because the 1700-1700X-1800X are all the same chip. If you get a good 1700, it can beat a mediocre 1800X.
He talks about higher clocked 1800X losing while lower clocked 1700 winning.

That stuff all around makes no sense right now, so i will just reiterate another consensus: as much as it pains me, AMD has rushed things out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CatMerc

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,568
126
I get that. But if they are all the same chip, why is the one at 3.9 winning big while the one over 4.0 is getting crushed?
Yeah, but people keep using that 1700 test to say that RyZen is good at gaming.

Well, it tallies with benches being all over the place...
 

obidamnkenobi

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2010
1,158
187
106
Did I miss the bit where the 7700k stopped being an i7? Unless you're hinting at Intel's potential response to having their i3 and i5 line-up made obsolete in one felled swoop...?
ok, sorry: i5 7600K.
Way faster than all the ryzen stuff in opening pdf, Office, web etc. So (unfortunately) the ~$200 intel CPU is still much more useful to me than this $300+ AMD part.
 

unseenmorbidity

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
965
96
He talks about higher clocked 1800X losing while lower clocked 1700 winning.

That stuff all around makes no sense right now, so i will just reiterate another consensus: as much as it pains me, AMD has rushed things out.
Joker supposedly tested with the games on ultra. Some people on reddit are claiming that anyways...

Though he does have a GTX 1080.

Most people don't have a GTX 1080, and the ones that do usually aren't playing at 1080p.

It seems to me that the end result will be the same for 99.99% of users.

Yeah, but people keep using that 1700 test to say that RyZen is good at gaming.

Well, it tallies with benches being all over the place...
Eh.. I don't think that is a good argument, unless you are saying Joker screwed up somewhere. Assuming he didn't screw up, which I don't think he did, it means that he got a lucky configuration, and that his results are showcasing Ryzen's true potential.
 

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
4,947
327
126
It looked like it would provide adequate gaming performance. Which it does. It never looked like it would beat the higher clocked, better st cpus better suited for gaming.

Honestly if we're having conversations like this let's have a similar conversation on how the 7700k is so much better than a 6900k for gaming....

Why don't we all talk about that?
1800X is under performing for gaming relative to its clock and apparent IPC on other tests, it's a 3.6/4GHz CPU,

as mentioned before the performance loss with SMT might be one factor http://www.hardware.fr/articles/956-7/impact-smt-ht.html
immature bios and so on is probably helping,

the 6-8 core Intels generally are good gaming CPUs, specially with OC, they can beat 7700K in some games, I was expecting Ryzen to be more inline with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: inf64

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,568
126
Joker supposedly tested with the games on ultra. Some people on reddit are claiming that anyways...

Though he does have a GTX 1080.

Most people don't have a GTX 1080, and the ones that do usually aren't playing at 1080p.

It seems to me that the end result will be the same for 99.99% of users.


Eh.. I don't think that is a good argument, unless you are saying Joker screwed up somewhere. Assuming he didn't screw up, which I don't think he did, it means that he got a lucky configuration, and that his results are showcasing Ryzen's true potential.
How did Joker get a 1700 at 3.9 to beat an 1800X at 4.0?

That seems to be the problem with Joker.

Has it been addressed? And has anyone else gotten the same results as Joker?

A lucky result is an outlier, not a true indication, imo.
 

lolfail9001

Golden Member
Sep 9, 2016
1,056
353
96
Has it been addressed? And has anyone else gotten the same results as Joker?
Logical assumption: most of stuff he did was hardly reproduced perfectly, so his margins of error are way larger than the rest. Also, he was most likely GPU bottlenecked in the first place, so his tests tell us nothing of CPU performance.
 

strategyfreak

Junior Member
May 30, 2016
17
11
51

You were saying?
As a chemist who uses a lot of chemistry-related HPC software and stays up to date on latest developments in the field, I can personally say that few chemistry software programs are able to use AVX yet, let alone the later versions. Those that can use it aren't able to achieve much of a speed-up intheir calculations - this is from talking to developers of those programs. It will be some time before developers can utilize AVX effectively in most real world applications.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY