Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

[french toast]

Does one buy a GTX 1080 just to run games on medium settings?

seems so, they are playing pacman at 500fps.
Honestly its ridiculous, people are judging ryzen on 1080p gaming, if your buying these processors at these price ranges you will surely be playing high details @1440p, only a niche/small selection of people are going to pair 1000$ cpu/gpu to play 1080p, unless a competitive shooter like counter strike.

If you like 1080p gaming and dont play competitive fps save alot of money and buy an intel pentium for 70$ and either a 1060 3gb or an rx 470.

 

[OrangeKhrush]

I wrote about performance inconsistencies a while ago in another thread, another er... life.
Since then AMD was making rapid progress in making the CPU market, ready and they did come a long way. However they probably would have liked to have a couple of months or even better 6 months to nail it down and iron out all the issues. At the pace they were going, it was going to be perfected or at least not as rough around the edges as it is right now.

A lot of these can and will be fixed via the uCode patches and the retail samples will get better going forward. They won't magically achieve super overclocks but they may have an easier time reaching these same clocks. The boards will also improve by some margin. A year or even 6 months from now Ryzen won't necessarily look the way it does at present. The performance is there, just AMD needed more time it seems to me. Anyway, even with what they've presented, it should be a headache for INTEL.

From source:

 

[IEC]

Which ones?

Here's one from a few pages back:

 

[lolfail9001]

Which ones?

Phoronix and Tech report certainly did, i believe AT had one too, but i may be remembering wrong.

 

[LTC8K6]

Here's one from a few pages back:

We need to see the 1700 though. Presumably it would score the same as 1800X if overclocking both chips.

 

[formulav8]

How did Joker get a 1700 at 3.9 to beat an 1800X at 4.0

Most likely the 1700 is an All core clock @ 3.9ghz. IIRC 4ghz for the 1800x is single core with lower all core.

 

[Head1985]

Look at how different these results are! Bugs are likely having a huge impact on Ryzen's gaming performance.

depends where you test.Computerbase is clearly GPU bottleneck.Pcgameshardware must test in novygrad-best spot for cpu test in game.

 

[zinfamous]

Thank god I woke up early enough to read 6 reviews and cancel my Amazon order. Saved me $1000. My 4.7ghz Sandy Bridge that is 6 years old still destroys Ryzen at games. On top of that all the fails depending on which mobo and ram you have purchased, possible software bugs, needing to disable parts of the chip, WTF? Well I am no Intel fanboi, I have owned most processors made by Amd and Intel over the last 20 years, but I sure as hell thought Ryzen would do better in games, or at least be able to overclock to 4.5ghz and then do better in games. Oh well, my next cpu upgrade still will be a 6 or 8 core cpu by either manufacturer once they are bug free, reasonably priced, AND CAN BEAT A 6 YEAR OLD CPU, LOL. EPIC FAIL. And I am not trolling, if you never play games and only do content creation AND are willing to deal with bugs and early adopter shit, then yeah, go ahead and build a Ryzen system.

It's like all of you are complete noobs when it comes to brand new tech. Lol--none of this is new. These are phenomenal chips with completely predictable growing issues on release. It's as if you guys think Intel has never released buggy hardware.

wow at the lot of you.

 

[tential]

AMD stock drops 5% today. Ryzen is very, very good, but real world performance did not meet original high expectation.

Still the stock is at record levels. Was worth buying at low 13s I guess. Money was tied up in other things though. Spilled milk.

 

[LTC8K6]

Most likely the 1700 is an All core clock @ 3.9ghz. IIRC 4ghz for the 1800x is single core with lower all core.

1800X is 4.1 single core/XFR and AMD was going for 4.1 all core in the demo which lost the feed before we could see the results.

 

[formulav8]

I'm talking about why Jokers results shows the overclocked 1700 over the non-overclocked 1800x.

Unless I am misunderstanding the original questioning...

 

[coercitiv]

I would definitely trust GamersNexus's results more than Joker Productions as GN showed the clear gaming leader was the 7700K in all situations over the 1800X

A secondary thought: Joker used a Gigabyte board, GN used Asus. May not mean that much, but since we're picking the better methodology based on who won... might as well throw it out there.

 

[.vodka]

It's like all of you are complete noobs when it comes to brand new tech. Lol--none of this is new. These are phenomenal chips with completely predictable growing issues on release. It's as if you guys think Intel has never released buggy hardware.

wow at the lot of you.

Spot on.

Repeating myself. This thread moves too fast.


We'll see what reviews say a month or two from now with a couple BIOS/microcode updates to get things right when the 6 core models get reviewed and the 8 core models get a taste of that. Platform as it is right now is as fresh and green as it could be. Lots of reviewers having issues here and there, with wildly differing results. BIOS updates issued almost every day throughout the review week..

It's chaotic.



Raw performance is there, which is good... unlike Bulldozer. It's doing quite quite well with software that's been tailored exclusively for Intel architectures for the past 5 years, as you know, bulldozer piledrived, steamrolled and excavated itself into irrelevancy.

 

[Topweasel]

I'm pretty sure I recently read a lot of posts here about 4 core chips not being enough for gaming anymore, and that 6 and 8 core chips were what we needed.
A lot of yelling at Intel for not bringing 6 core and 8 core chips to the desktop long ago, too.

My current two primary machines (well all but the new Ryzen I am purchasing) are Intel. My main a 3930 and a 4770K on my ITX. No more 4 cores for me in the future. Not always for games. But having the single most fastest ever CPU core is dull/boring and useless. Nothing is starved at all. So why cut the balls off of other tasks just to maintain that edge. 1700 For life (it's life expectancy not mine).

 

[LTC8K6]

I'm talking about why Jokers results shows the overclocked 1700 over the non-overclocked 1800x.

Unless I am misunderstanding the original questioning...

I thought 1800X was 4.0 all core stock? 1700 was 3.7 all core stock?

Thus a stock 1800X should beat an overclocked 1700?

 

[unseenmorbidity]

I thought 1800X was 4.0 all core? 1700 was 3.7 all core?

All core boost is the base clock + XFR if I am not mistaken.

 

[MajinCry]

I could only find one or two graphs that measured minimum framerates. These average/maximum numbers are meaningless.

 

[formulav8]

I thought 1800X was 4.0 all core? 1700 was 3.7 all core?

The overclocked 1700 @ 3.9ghz was apparently an all core overclock. I'm not seeing what the actual all core clock speed of the 1800x was set at.

Anyways, he will have to explain things I guess.

 

[Absolute0]

Power consumption anyone? 1800X drawing as much as 140W BD-E does not seem like 95W TDP is accurate

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Proce...Now-and-Zen/Power-Consumption-and-Conclusions
http://www.techspot.com/review/1345-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x/page6.html

 

[unseenmorbidity]

I could only find one or two graphs that measured minimum framerates. These average/maximum numbers are meaningless.

I found one guy that measured the minimum in BF1, but that's not much better.

https://youtu.be/sciuiEcrnzg?t=1961

 

[Snarf Snarf]

Power consumption anyone? 1800X drawing as much as 140W BD-E does not seem like 95W TDP is accurate

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Proce...Now-and-Zen/Power-Consumption-and-Conclusions
http://www.techspot.com/review/1345-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x/page6.html

Again TDP does not equal power consumption. This was discussed for like 2-3 pages like 20 pages ago. TDP is thermal dissipation required for cooling, not the amount of power a chip will pull.

*edit* Also the two companies refer to TDP differently, Intel uses numbers under synthetic loads and AMD bases their numbers around "normal" use.

 

[LTC8K6]

Power consumption anyone? 1800X drawing as much as 140W BD-E does not seem like 95W TDP is accurate

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Proce...Now-and-Zen/Power-Consumption-and-Conclusions
http://www.techspot.com/review/1345-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x/page6.html

Jeez, I have been reading all morning that power consumption was a lot better than Intel?

 

[formulav8]

seems so, they are playing pacman at 500fps.

haha that cracked me up

 

[Crumpet]

Power consumption seems around Intels or slightly lower until overclocked.

Thermals seem great compared to Kaby Lake...

 

[imported_jjj]

I'm somewhere between angry and amused, been through 25 reviews and nobody can test gaming with a 480 or 1060.
90% of users buy a GPU bellow 250$ and game at up to 1440p but reviewers are so out of touch ...

Anyway, something is off in gaming aside from SMT. Memory latency, the link between the clusters (wonder how disabling 4 cores would go), maybe thread migration from one cluster to another.