• 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.

Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

Page 106 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
inf64 said:
Interesting what one reviewer noticed when 7700K vs Ryzen in gaming is in question(15:25 in video):
TL;dr : Ryzen has no hiccups while quad core part seems to have some, albeit only occasionally. I like my games smooth without hiccups, thanks.
Click to expand...

This is good stuff.

-Asus boards have issue with SMT
-Turn Windows to high performance to get 5% avg up to 15% peak perf boost.
-AMD said if you aren't getting 162 in ST Cinebench then the processor isn't boosting properly. BIOS issue?
-AMD Ryzen Master OC tool shown
-As mentioned, Ryzen gives a smoother gaming performance compared to Intel. No random hiccups.
 
lolfail9001 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think you put your contact lenses back in ,we have saying for that in britain; should have gone to specsavers!😛
 
Hopefully ASUS will sort out their BIOS soon, most of the average reviewers seemed to have the Crosshair VI hero.. which is also the board I purchased........
 
Despoiler said:
This is good stuff.

-Asus boards have issue with SMT
-Turn Windows to high performance to get 5% avg up to 15% peak perf boost.
-AMD said if you aren't getting 162 in ST Cinebench then the processor isn't boosting properly. BIOS issue?
-AMD Ryzen Master OC tool shown
-As mentioned, Ryzen gives a smoother gaming performance compared to Intel. No random hiccups.
Click to expand...
Smoother compared to 4C Intel chips, not Intel chips overall, right?
 
It is evident by now what (Ry)Zen is: an unbrushed diamond.

AMD will fix the ucode/firmware/driver level, it is a matter of time. With the bar lifted this high they can follow up, as chief architect said, with low hanging fruit to get above what competitor has. Exciting times ahead, no doubt about it. And no more ~400 dollars quad core CPUs, thank you AMD!
 
Last edited:
looncraz said:
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.
Click to expand...

nah, Naples hasn't hit yet. AMD shares has been all about Naples for the long haul. To the MOON! 😀
 
Arachnotronic said:
Ah, this argument again? 😛

Hey, if you want to buy a Ryzen and it makes you happy, by all means do it. But let's not start spreading FUD about competing chips.

My 7700K runs my games flawlessly, no hiccups.
Click to expand...
Anyone who has a new system really has no need to upgrade. There are much better things to spend money on. I'm sure your 7700K will be great for quite a few years.
 
Despoiler said:
This is good stuff.

-Asus boards have issue with SMT
-Turn Windows to high performance to get 5% avg up to 15% peak perf boost.
-AMD said if you aren't getting 162 in ST Cinebench then the processor isn't boosting properly. BIOS issue?
-AMD Ryzen Master OC tool shown
-As mentioned, Ryzen gives a smoother gaming performance compared to Intel. No random hiccups.
Click to expand...

That is firmware issues and from what I heard internally, many said that March release was optimisitic at best given that AMD didn't have a boost feature working until late February, it reported boosts but it was behaving badly. If AMD chose to rather take flak on delay until say May, these issues may have been less pronounced.

Don't get me wrong, I knew it wasn't going to be the best gaming chip out, but I am more bugged by the fact that the bugs in december are still there. 1 month, 3 months, 6 months a year, that is how long it may take to fix everything properly.

Ryzen is successful in that Amd are there again, but the shine was a little tarnished by pushing to early and not making that known.
 
looncraz said:
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.
Click to expand...

In stock it's called sell on news. Even if AMD review depicted stellar performance, there are these rules in the stock market: buy on (positive) rumors, sell on news.
 
Not ridiculous at all. Try running a new very good graphics game with 1080p ULTRA settings like The Witcher 3, my Nvidia 1080 can hit 47 fps at times. I want 60fps minimum, and that is with a cpu that is much faster than Ryzen, a 4.7GHz Intel quad core with super expensive CL 7 2133 ram. Playing at 1080p on a nice 32" HDTV on the couch is something normal people like, and they like to have 60fps or above, which Ryzen sometimes won't be able to deliver and Nvidia 1080 sometimes won't also. And games don't look any better at 4k with low or normal settings than at 1080p with Ultra settings and good anti-aliasing.
 
hotstocks said:
Not ridiculous at all. Try running a new very good graphics game with 1080p ULTRA settings like The Witcher 3, my Nvidia 1080 can hit 47 fps at times. I want 60fps minimum, and that is with a cpu that is much faster than Ryzen, a 4.7GHz Intel quad core with super expensive CL 7 2133 ram. Playing at 1080p on a nice 32" HDTV on the couch is something normal people like, and they like to have 60fps or above, which Ryzen sometimes won't be able to deliver and Nvidia 1080 sometimes won't also. And games don't look any better at 4k with low or normal settings than at 1080p with Ultra settings and good anti-aliasing.
Click to expand...

um.

no.

to just about everything. I think you should at least try only 1440p before continuing to extol the unblemished virtues of 1080 ULTRA.

1080 ULTRA, 32" ...on a couch? You must be 6, 7 feet away? In today's world, that's like sitting across the room from the lovely 12" fishbowl cabinet set.
 
Over all, gaming doesn't seem that bad outside of the four games that seem to make Ryzen look terrible:

Rise of the Tomb Raider
GTA V
Ashes of the Singularity
The Division

It seems to be on the heels of the 5960X in just about everything else.
 
Something looks off on the core utilization on Joker's video. At times Core 1 on the 1700 was hitting 90% while 3 other threads ran almost completely idle. That could be the OS mishandling the threads or maybe the hardware scheduler still has some teething to go through before it gets fully optimized. Either way like everyone here is saying, if you're going for 1080p 144hz then 7700k is your buy, if you need strong multi-threaded performance Ryzen is an amazing buy. My only worry is that these game level optimizations might never come to fruition. AMD doesn't have the clout Intel/Nvidia do with developer relations, and I doubt they have the engineers ready to go to each studio to help them create a Ryzen patch for the AAA titles.
 
When bulldozer launched, people said to wait for OS and game optimizations because performance would improve. It never happened. I hate to say this, but for just about everyone, Ryzen is a bad buy. Gamers and casual users are better off with a regular i7. If you have specific multi core tasks, then ryzen is considered the bargain buy. By the time "optimizations" take any real effect, we will have 8 core icelakes selling for $500-$600.
That said, I am still undecided whether or not to go ahead with the Ryzen build. I'll try to find some watercooling results, but this really doesn't look good at all. In gaming, Ryzen really does seem to be at just above sandybridge IPC levels or sometimes even with a 2600k both at stock. What a punch to the gut. Also, the UPS man just delivered the asus board as I was typing this. I suppose I'll go grab it before a neighborhood kid steals it from the porch.
 
moonbogg said:
When bulldozer launched, people said to wait for OS and game optimizations because performance would improve. It never happened. I hate to say this, but for just about everyone, Ryzen is a bad buy. Gamers and casual users are better off with a regular i7. If you have specific multi core tasks, then ryzen is considered the bargain buy. By the time "optimizations" take any real effect, we will have 8 core icelakes selling for $500-$600.
That said, I am still undecided whether or not to go ahead with the Ryzen build. I'll try to find some watercooling results, but this really doesn't look good at all. In gaming, Ryzen really does seem to be at just above sandybridge IPC levels or sometimes even with a 2600k both at stock. What a punch to the gut. Also, the UPS man just delivered the asus board as I was typing this. I suppose I'll go grab it before a neighborhood kid steals it from the porch.
Click to expand...

Serious question: why didn't you wait for the reviews before buying?
 
Competition is good, but hype is over.

AMD stock down 7% in a day.

Based on the real world benchmarks, my next build probably will be i7 7700k and I'll get free iGPU.
 
No I am about 4 feet away and it looks great, it also looks great when I am at desktop and only 2 feet away. 1080p with Ultra settings looks better than 1440 and normal or high setttings, I've seen both. And 4k is just dog shit slow even on my Nvidia 1080 Ultra, and I am not buying a 1080 to run games at normal settings so I can play at 4K when it doesn't look any better, usually worse and under 60 fps. Sure WHEN there is a gpu that can do over 60 fps at 4K AND games come out with good looking 4K textures, then 4K makes sense over 1080p, until then, nope. And these games with 4K texture packs will be like 500GB downloads, lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top