• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

Page 105 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

amenx

Platinum Member
Dec 17, 2004
2,740
494
126
If gaming and minimum fps is what matters:
https://youtu.be/sciuiEcrnzg?t=16m27s
People always say that, but its not true. What if minimum fps is only a freak dip of 1 or 2 frames and is less than 0.1% of the benching run and unnoticeable? It would still be a "minimum" fps but would have minimal effect on average fps. Thats why I always say avg fps is far more meaningful than minimums.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

looncraz

Senior member
Sep 12, 2011
718
1,642
136
AMD stock price has dropped 2% since 9 am.
Idiots. You always sell BEFORE the reviews, not after.

If I owned AMD stock, I would have sold yesterday at the latest. The market has already assumed a major AMD performance victory that was simply not likely (AMD, naturally, would show their own product in its best light). Investors are usually ignorant of the evolution of platforms, so you can play them pretty easily.
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
14,943
3,697
136
I'm not a fanboy of either brand and have built pc's around both company's products over the years. However, I will not defend poor performance no matter how badly I might like for the underdog to actually deliver on their promises. Intel consistently delivers better gaming performance and that is what the enthusiast market is all about. Maybe with some additional optimization this platform will deliver all around better performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hotstocks

french toast

Senior member
Feb 22, 2017
978
803
106
I think it depends on what resolution you are playing at, for me personally i Wouldn't spend all that money to play aliased grainy looking games at 120fps, im looking a 1440p 60 fps ultra settings, possibly 4k if i can, having used a ps4 pro i could not go back to 1080p, it looks too soft now.
In that case ill probably get a r7 1700 later on in the year when mobos are sorted.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,569
126
The whole thing is like a circle jerk.

The vast majority of CPU users can't tell the difference between any of the 4 thread and up CPUS in their day to day computer use.

Only a small group has any idea that a CPU A is actually faster than CPU B. :D

And often, you have to run benches to notice it yourself. ;)
 

unseenmorbidity

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
965
96
Why there is huge discrepancy is gaming benchmarks for reviewers today? Is this something related to BIOS update?

AMD_LisaSuCEO of AMD 148 points 48 minutes ago

Ryzen is doing really well in 1440p and 4K gaming when the applications are more graphics bound. And we do exceptionally well in rendering and workstation applications where more cores are really useful. In 1080p, we have tested over 100+ titles in the labs…. And depending on the test conditions, we do better in some games and worse in others. We hear people on wanting to see improved 1080p performance and we fully expect that Ryzen performance in 1080p will only get better as developers get more time with “Zen”. We have over 300+ developers now working with "Zen" and several of the developers for Ashes of Singularity and Total Warhammer are actively optimizing now

But isn't it unfair to compare CPUs if there is GPU bottleneck? Then all CPUs will perform similarly.

AMD_RobertTechnical Marketing 21 points 17 minutes ago


First, I think it's important that readers get a complete picture of a processor. People who have 1440p and 4K displays deserve to read how their potential processor will perform on the monitor they have. Don't you agree? We're also not shying away from the 1080p results. We clearly have some work to do with game developers on some of these titles to invest in the vital optimizations that can so dramatically improve an application's performance on a new microarchitecture. This takes time, but we'll get it done. But what's also clear is that there's a distribution of games that run well, and a distribution of games that run poorly. Call it a "bell curve" if you will. It's unfortunate that the outliers are some notable titles, but many of these game devs (e.g. Oxide, Sega, Bethesda) have already said there's significant improvement that can be gleaned. We have proven the Zen performance and IPC. Many reviewers today proved that, at 1080p in games. There is no architectural reason why the remaining titles should be performing as they are.
 

amenx

Platinum Member
Dec 17, 2004
2,740
494
126
I'm not a fanboy of either brand and have built pc's around both company's products over the years. However, I will not defend poor performance no matter how badly I might like for the underdog to actually deliver on their promises. Intel consistently delivers better gaming performance and that is what the enthusiast market is all about. Maybe with some additional optimization this platform will deliver all around better performance.
But what percent of the CPU buyers will go for Intel or AMD for gaming purposes? I dont know, but I assume its not a majority.
 

lolfail9001

Golden Member
Sep 9, 2016
1,056
353
96
Why there is huge discrepancy is gaming benchmarks for reviewers today? Is this something related to BIOS update?

AMD_LisaSuCEO of AMD 148 points 48 minutes ago

Ryzen is doing really well in 1440p and 4K gaming when the applications are more graphics bound. And we do exceptionally well in rendering and workstation applications where more cores are really useful. In 1080p, we have tested over 100+ titles in the labs…. And depending on the test conditions, we do better in some games and worse in others. We hear people on wanting to see improved 1080p performance and we fully expect that Ryzen performance in 1080p will only get better as developers get more time with “Zen”. We have over 300+ developers now working with "Zen" and several of the developers for Ashes of Singularity and Total Warhammer are actively optimizing now

But isn't it unfair to compare CPUs if there is GPU bottleneck? Then all CPUs will perform similarly.

AMD_RobertTechnical Marketing 21 points 17 minutes ago


First, I think it's important that readers get a complete picture of a processor. People who have 1440p and 4K displays deserve to read how their potential processor will perform on the monitor they have. Don't you agree? We're also not shying away from the 1080p results. We clearly have some work to do with game developers on some of these titles to invest in the vital optimizations that can so dramatically improve an application's performance on a new microarchitecture. This takes time, but we'll get it done. But what's also clear is that there's a distribution of games that run well, and a distribution of games that run poorly. Call it a "bell curve" if you will. It's unfortunate that the outliers are some notable titles, but many of these game devs (e.g. Oxide, Sega, Bethesda) have already said there's significant improvement that can be gleaned. We have proven the Zen performance and IPC. Many reviewers today proved that, at 1080p in games. There is no architectural reason why the remaining titles should be performing as they are.
I do not approve of the way AMD tried to dance around the issue. I understand why, because the issues are uarch based and can only be fixed with an uarch update, but i do not approve nonetheless.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,569
126
I am not seeing it. You might be mixing up the averages and the minimums he posted later.

1800x @ 3.9
111 151 154 102 107 122 75 140 147 137

1700 @3.9
112 154 154 97 107 120 72 138 146 137

That is like margin of error, which is what you would expect.
Just to be clear, that explains the 1700 /1800X scores, but not the idea of beating the 7700K at 5Ghz.
 

FalcUK

Junior Member
Mar 1, 2017
7
39
51
Check my post a page or two up.

Stock 1800X all-core turbo with XFR enabled is 3.7GHz.

A 1700 overclocked to 3.9GHz on all-cores will beat a stock 1800X.

Add in the fact he's running ultra settings up to 1440p and you have your answer.
Hi, actually no, he is running 1080p @ 144hz with V-Sync off, watch his follow up video.
 

airfathaaaaa

Senior member
Feb 12, 2016
692
12
81
I do not approve of the way AMD tried to dance around the issue. I understand why, because the issues are uarch based and can only be fixed with an uarch update, but i do not approve nonetheless.
pretty sure its not a uarch fail when you see a gazzilion of reviews posting things all over the place with different setups....
 

formulav8

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2000
6,998
521
126
Joker has a golden 1700, I guess.
IIRC, he's using a Gigabyte board, most reviews are Asus, with some MSI.

That's probably why the reviews show a range of results. The motherboards are apparently at different bios development stages.
 

lolfail9001

Golden Member
Sep 9, 2016
1,056
353
96
pretty sure its not a uarch fail when you see a gazzilion of reviews posting things all over the place with different setups....
It is an uarch fail when communication between 2 pieces of your L3 is limited to 22GB/s in bandwidth, compared to 170GB+ of L3 bandwidth itself.

It is another uarch fail when your drawcall performance sits at Phenom I levels on per clock basis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OrangeKhrush

PotatoWithEarsOnSide

Senior member
Feb 23, 2017
664
700
106
What causes the bottleneck, though?
Sorry, my post wasn't clear. The CPU becomes the bottleneck; all threads are at 100%, whilst GPU is at ~80%, and fps drops to ~56, 10 lower than the R7 1700 which doesn't experience the same bottleneck.

It fits with a couple of the later videos in the thread; 7700k has higher max fps, lower min fps, whilst the R7 1700 has a higher min fps, lower max fps - R7 1700 appears to be more consistent in it's performance.
 

OrangeKhrush

Senior member
Feb 11, 2017
220
343
96
I do not approve of the way AMD tried to dance around the issue. I understand why, because the issues are uarch based and can only be fixed with an uarch update, but i do not approve nonetheless.
I think they could have handled it a bit better and been honest about that.

I still would like 1440 benches as that is relavent to me, don't care about 1080P results. another complete absence is frame time variance. Only that german site did indepth latency review and the Ryzen is solid at handling latency, so do you want 140FPS but dips of 40-60FPS or 90FPS and dead locked.
 

Vesku

Diamond Member
Aug 25, 2005
3,745
27
86
Where are all the efficiency crusaders? Really solid professional/server (non-AVX) CPU imo. Memory controller and IO have actually seen big improvements after AMD went outside for those design blocks. Will likely have to wait for Zen+ for better OC potential. If Polaris is a bellwether for GF 14nm I would not expect more than +100-200MHz to OC potential from mature production.

A TSMC spin of Zen would be fun to see.
 

airfathaaaaa

Senior member
Feb 12, 2016
692
12
81
It is an uarch fail when communication between 2 pieces of your L3 is limited to 22GB/s in bandwidth, compared to 170GB+ of L3 bandwidth itself.

It is another uarch fail when your drawcall performance sits at Phenom I levels on per clock basis.
i will say it again we saw various setups doing weird things from being on top to being worst than a 4790k or lower THIS IS NOT A UARCH problem this is a bios and OS problem
 

french toast

Senior member
Feb 22, 2017
978
803
106
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?
i think you have got muddled up, 1800x is 3.6 base, 3.7 all coe turbo, 4ghz ST turbo +100mhz XFR (4.1ghz)
R7 1700 is 3ghz base, 3.2 ghz all core turbo, 3.7 ST turbo.
They both seem to overclock to within 100-200mhz of each other, which means that if you bought a 1800x instead of the 1700 you probably feel like slapping your self right now.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,569
126
i think you have got muddled up, 1800x is 3.6 base, 3.7 all coe turbo, 4ghz ST turbo +100mhz XFR (4.1ghz)
R7 1700 is 3ghz base, 3.2 ghz all core turbo, 3.7 ST turbo.
They both seem to overclock to within 100-200mhz of each other, which means that if you bought a 1800x instead of the 1700 you probably feel like slapping your self right now.
Yeah, I have since figured that out. Joker's 1700 and 1800X both managed 3.9 all core overclocks.

Quite a few 1800X pre-orders are probably being cancelled, given the money you save with the 1700.
 
  • Like
Reactions: french toast

OrangeKhrush

Senior member
Feb 11, 2017
220
343
96
i will say it again we saw various setups doing weird things from being on top to being worst than a 4790k or lower THIS IS NOT A UARCH problem this is a bios and OS problem
It is slightly uArch related. AMD had to sacrifice in some areas and most of how a CPU will perform is guesswork, they have some limits that may need the next update to fix if a ucode cannot fix it.

Performance in general is good, gaming would have liked gaming to be somewhere between 5-10% faster but it will still game well.
 

lolfail9001

Golden Member
Sep 9, 2016
1,056
353
96

OrangeKhrush

Senior member
Feb 11, 2017
220
343
96
I forget what the feature is called, but is this that "application learning" thing that zen core is supposed to have at play here?
This is why there is lots of potential and why people mustn't give up on AMD because they don't have a Kabylake gamer.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY