Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

Page 111 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JDG1980

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2013
1,663
570
136
You should've seen professional forums.

Extasy about the performance, and value.
ServeTheHome has a review of the 1700X that pits it against various Xeons in server and professional workloads. It does quite well overall here.
For people who need a lot of CPU power but don't care that much about AAA gaming, Ryzen will be an excellent value. It's good news for Naples as well - the Zen architecture is strongest in the kind of workloads it is likely to be running.

The truth is that enthusiast sales are likely to be a drop in the bucket compared to upcoming server (Naples) and laptop (Raven Ridge) revenue.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
20,506
9,588
136
There's this "rent a like" thread in off topic section of the forums, anyone partaking gets a free like :mad:
Good for you that you didn't have to post there to get one!

As per Iranian leaks Zen uses same idle power like 7700K.
Impressive.

I want a power-optimized 8-core Ryzen in a laptop.

I currently have a 6700HQ and it's not enough.
Would 2.2 GHz be enough for you? How about 2 GHz?

All I want to know from the reviews is if the cpu is cold with solution.

Intel will really be in trouble then.
Mua ha ha.

Core parking happened. SMT requires OS scheduler to be aware of what cores are not real.
Hmm. Sounds plausible, though for gaming you should be able to just disable SMT . . . and bind certain threads per core if necessary.

On the whole though, I would give Ryzen(on the basis of these first reviews) a 7.5/10
Would you rate it there as a productivity CPU? How would you have rated any of AMD's chips released over the last 6 years as productivity CPUs within context of their launch?

I know nobody who use AVX 512. If you have a task like this, you should better use GPUs.
Let's not forget Xeon Phi and uh. Lake Crest?

This isnt a CPU *for games*. Ryzen is a CPU dream for professional dudes. Rendering, encoding, etc.. its at 6900k level at the half of the price, and with much less power consumption. A great jump for AMD.

About OC, Im sure its a matter of BIOS immaturity. Yeah it will not be an OC champion of course, but Im sure 4.2 all cores estable will be reach as soon as BIOS goes to a good maturity stage
A few UEFI updates, fresh installs of Win10 and such should clear things up.

Overall it looks like a great work machine chip that can do double-duty for games competently.

Wish mine would get here already . . .
 
  • Like
Reactions: richierich1212

unseenmorbidity

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
967
96
I'm hoping that with stepping improvements this CPU will shine but if I said that I wasn't disappointed by its gaming performance against current competitors I'd be dishonest. Tom's Hardware shows how a i7-7700 beats it in gaming for only $350 which is hard to argue with when you're building a gaming machine.
As Russian said, it wins in unrealistic scenarios against a new architecture with numerous bugs. In other words, it wins in a fixed race.

Ryzen is a much better long term platform.
 

alexruiz

Platinum Member
Sep 21, 2001
2,828
543
126
I wonder if we could compile the motherboards used for the reviews posted.
For what we can see ALL the reviews used Asus Crosshair VI hero, Gigabyte Aorus GA-AX370-Gaming 5, or MSI X370 xpower gaming titanium.
Of the 3 board, the reviews performed on the Gigabyte are giving the best results.

No reviews was performed on an AsRock board (X370 Fatal1ty or X370 Taichi) and no review on a Biostar board (Racing X370GT7 or GT5)
AMD bet heavily on Asus as the crosshair was the board most widely provided for the reviews, and the one that at the moment seems to be performing the lowest.
I am curious as to how a Biostar board would have performed. Biostar boards are always less flamboyant, not as many features, but they perform well.
Of the AM3+ 970 chipset board, the TA970 was probably the best performing board (I have built with almost every 970 board) and other than being a basic board, the performance was always great.

Anyone on an AsRock or Biostar board?

I grabbed a Ryzen 1700 and a 1700X, but Microcenter only had Asus boards so that is what I had to take.

Alex
 

unseenmorbidity

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
967
96
Asrock boards seem kind of rare. Newegg is the only one that carried them in the usa as far as I know. Microcenter might have had some, but they are too far away.

I have a taichi ordered, but it is on backorder for 15 days.
 

raghu78

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2012
4,093
1,475
136
AMD has to do a few things within the next few months to improve the appeal of Ryzen.

1. Firmware updates to improve memory support and stability.
2. Windows updates to schedule threads optimally (avoid swapping threads across CCXs)
3. Resolve SMT related performance degradation in games. This might take more time as AMD wants game developers to optimize their current code for AMD's Zen architecture.

For Zen + AMD needs a custom 14nm process which is better than the current 14LPP (something like what GF did with 28SHP) to hit 4+ Ghz frequencies at stock across all cores at safe voltages (1.3v) and overclock beyond 4.5 Ghz
 

unseenmorbidity

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
967
96
AMD has to do a few things within the next few months to improve the appeal of Ryzen.

1. Firmware updates to improve memory support and stability.
2. Windows updates to schedule threads optimally (avoid swapping threads across CCXs)
3. Resolve SMT related performance degradation in games. This might take more time as AMD wants game developers to optimize their current code for AMD's Zen architecture.

For Zen + AMD needs a custom 14nm process which is better than the current 14LPP (something like what GF did with 28SHP) to hit 4+ Ghz frequencies at stock across all cores at safe voltages (1.3v) and overclock beyond 4.5 Ghz
idk about this. They want to get into the server market, and low power consumption is a golden key to get their foot in the door. They don't want to lose that for a few enthusiast gamers.
 

AMDisTheBEST

Senior member
Dec 17, 2015
682
89
61
I'm hoping that with stepping improvements this CPU will shine but if I said that I wasn't disappointed by its gaming performance against current competitors I'd be dishonest. Tom's Hardware shows how a i7-7700 beats it in gaming for only $350 which is hard to argue with when you're building a gaming machine.
it was beaten by i7 7700k AND i5 7600k in games but so is 6900k. If gaming performance is what you want, dont get 8 cores that offers no performance in games but demand a large premium. Ryzen r5 should be better considering it is clocked higher and it should be cheaper than i5 too. I would get that as a gaming chip.
 

unseenmorbidity

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
967
96
Big performance lost due SMT
The question is if this is fixable, and if not, will new titles suffer the same fate?

10% performance loss is pretty big, but so is turning off smt. Particularly on lower core cpus that cannot just power through.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Olikan

CHADBOGA

Platinum Member
Mar 31, 2009
2,135
828
136
Would you rate it there as a productivity CPU? How would you have rated any of AMD's chips released over the last 6 years as productivity CPUs within context of their launch?
As a productivity CPU(so no gaming use whatsoever), I would rate Ryzen as a 9/10.

The 8150 as a productivity CPU upon launch, I would rate as a 6.5/10

The 8350 as a productivity CPU upon launch, I would rate as an 7.5/10

Now mixed up with all the above is not just performance, but pricing and energy efficiency.
 

Blockheadfan

Member
Feb 23, 2017
33
55
61
Am I the only person thinking this is a majorly positive release for AMD? Some of the performance numbers have been very encouraging. Often taking the outright lead over Intel.

Excel, C-Ray, Adobe Premier, Handbrake, Blender, Cinebench, OpenSSL results were all very competitive. I think there are some great signs for Naples.

i7 7700k is still the king for almost all gaming scenarios, which I think was outside the most "hopeful" people was totally expected. I'd be more interested in seeing how the R5 1500/R5 1300 ($229/$175??) paired with a cheap B350 board stacks up vs say an i5 7600K + Z270 or i5 7400 + H270. AMD may be able to get some honest recommendations for mid-range gaming setups there.

Also the idle power consumption is worth a mention. 1800X is comparable with 4 core Kaby Lake idle numbers. I know my workstation spends a decent percentage of time idle.

"One interesting new test with this revision of SYSmark gives us the ability to measure how much power is consumed during the SYSmark test run by attaching a Watts Up! power meter. In this case, because of a lot of the time is spent idle (and Ryzen’s idle power draw is exceptional), it has the lowest total power cost of any of the configurations tested."

There are a few negatives, overclocking is predictably poor, it will be interesting to see if some of the lower clocked R5's hit about the same ceiling especially with the B350 chipset and all the processors supporting overclocking. Also some issues with memory latency and BIOS memory compatibility (again not unprecedented). Not enough to take the gloss off for me though. Considering who AMD are competing against, how much money the had to spend and where they started from performance wise this feels like a product they've delivered on. Not Bulldozer 2.0 by any stretch.
 

USER8000

Golden Member
Jun 23, 2012
1,527
761
136
The problem is if SMT in gaming does not get fixed the Ryzen 5 quad cores with SMT will get beaten by a Core i5 7500 in gaming. It also makes the R5 1600X more vulnerable as for optimal gaming you need to switch off SMT and if Intel drop the price of the Core i7 7700K,it will be 4 faster cores with SMT against 6 slower cores.

Intel must be somewhat relieved AMD managed to so monumentally fuck up SMT in games.

Now they are relying on games developers to fix performance - how is that going to work for all games??

Why do AMD like releasing half finished products to the market??
 

unseenmorbidity

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
967
96
The problem with SMT is obviously fixable, but that alone doesn't close the performance gap.

Most of those are within a few fps of the 6900k. There are still a lot of bugs to be ironed out, so this is solid performance at this stage imo.

No new architecture launches at 100%. Have people forgotten what a cluster bomb intel's new architectures were when they released? Like x99?

Also, Lisa also said they will be working with some devs to fix issues in some titles, like total war. Which probably covers most of the games on that list that are have a delta of ~10fps.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: looncraz

MajinCry

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2015
2,493
570
136
CIV VI is a joke. It's a turn based strategy game ffs.
These are maximum framerates. They're meaningless.

Hell, those Fallout 4 numbers are fantasy. Go to the top of Corvega, and look out over Lexington @ ultra settings. Piledriver would score in the low teens.
 

tential

Diamond Member
May 13, 2008
7,355
642
121
Uh, he's not "failing so hard" in his understanding. He's got a 100Hz monitor and he'll have that 1080 Ti which can push 100fps at his resolution, so having a CPU that can actually keep up is desirable.

If I were him, I'd cancel the Ryzen, buy a 7700k and a z270 board to go with the 1080 Ti and call it a day. Or hold out for Skylake-X.
This is going to hurt people to hear because a lot of people were expecting AMD to bring them a gaming CPU. AMD gave them the exact CPU they said they would
AMD positioned this CPU AGAINST the HEDT platform.

Basically, to me, if a 7700k can serve your needs, this CPU is NOT for you. FULL STOP.

So if to you, a 7700k is a viable option, DO NOT BUY RYZEN 7.

Ryzen 7 is a cheaper 8 core intel processor. If you weren't crying everyday that you needed the 6900k because you really needed 8 cores but it was too expensive, then you didn't need Ryzen 7. You needed the 7700k.

Maybe you can look at the 6 core Ryzen vs the 7700k. I'm unsure why a reviewere hasn't simulated this yet? Looking at the 1700 with 2 cores disabled and OCed. That's what you want to compare to the 7700k/7600k to see if you can save some money with Ryzen 6 core solution but even then I'm hard pressed to recommend plaything other than Intel for gaming.

Ryzen was ALWAYS a dollar per core play. Why can't anyone see this other than a handful of posters?
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
7,104
4,559
136
AMD has to do a few things within the next few months to improve the appeal of Ryzen.

1. Firmware updates to improve memory support and stability.
2. Windows updates to schedule threads optimally (avoid swapping threads across CCXs)
3. Resolve SMT related performance degradation in games. This might take more time as AMD wants game developers to optimize their current code for AMD's Zen architecture.

For Zen + AMD needs a custom 14nm process which is better than the current 14LPP (something like what GF did with 28SHP) to hit 4+ Ghz frequencies at stock across all cores at safe voltages (1.3v) and overclock beyond 4.5 Ghz
I think that's a pretty reasonable list. The first two will probably roll out over the next few months and by the time R3 and R5 CPUs drop. The third is going to take some additional time depending on the game and some older titles may never be updated, but that's less of an issue. I suspect clock speeds will improve as time goes on as well.

Process improvements might take a while as well. Historically, we can probably expect 10%, which would be around 3.9 GHz. I don't know if it matters as much though since Intel is going to be on their 14 nm for a while and so far the indications are that they can't eke out much more of a clock speed increase without increasing the TDP as well. Maybe they'll stop being cheap and do a better job with the TIM applications so it's not required to delid to get the best OC. Zen+ will likely have an easier time to seeing better IPC increases as it's a new architecture and there's more low-hanging fruit to pick whereas Intel has been incrementally improving the same architecture for almost a decade now and are unlikely to see the massive kinds of jumps in performance they got with Nehalem and Sandy Bridge.

I think more than anything else AMD needs to get a server chip onto the market. The margins there are what will allow AMD to invest more in R&D, pay off some of their debts, and generally be in a much healthier shape than they've been in the last 5 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: french toast

Mockingbird

Senior member
Feb 12, 2017
733
741
106
This is going to hurt people to hear because a lot of people were expecting AMD to bring them a gaming CPU. AMD gave them the exact CPU they said they would
AMD positioned this CPU AGAINST the HEDT platform.

Basically, to me, if a 7700k can serve your needs, this CPU is NOT for you. FULL STOP.

So if to you, a 7700k is a viable option, DO NOT BUY RYZEN 7.

Ryzen 7 is a cheaper 8 core intel processor. If you weren't crying everyday that you needed the 6900k because you really needed 8 cores but it was too expensive, then you didn't need Ryzen 7. You needed the 7700k.

Maybe you can look at the 6 core Ryzen vs the 7700k. I'm unsure why a reviewere hasn't simulated this yet? Looking at the 1700 with 2 cores disabled and OCed. That's what you want to compare to the 7700k/7600k to see if you can save some money with Ryzen 6 core solution but even then I'm hard pressed to recommend plaything other than Intel for gaming.

Ryzen was ALWAYS a dollar per core play. Why can't anyone see this other than a handful of posters?
I don't think anyone was expecting the Ryzen 7 1800X to beat the Core i7-7700K in gaming, but with the way AMD keeps comparing the Ryzen 7 1800X to the Core i7-6900K, you would think that the Ryzen 7 1800X would do just as well as the Core i7-6900K in games.
 

jihe

Senior member
Nov 6, 2009
747
97
91
This is pretty bad, it's not right to release products in this state. a lot of people here whine and moan about how terrible and greedy Intel is, but Z270 is not buggy, nor was Z170. Z97 was fine too. Z87/Haswell had some minor issue that I can't recall now, but it didn't affect the perf of the CPU.
.
Z270/Z97 etc are not buggy because they are refinements of previous chips. Remember the H/P67 motherboard recalls? Remember how the C1 stepping Sandybridge Xeons have broken virtualization?
 

i-know-not

Junior Member
Mar 2, 2017
13
14
41
Causes of poor gaming relative to CPU performance of Ryzen:

1. Windows is load-balancing across CCXes.
This means that a thread is being moved around on the CPU - which is normal - so that a single core isn't used more than others. On Ryzen, that needs to happen ONLY within a CCX, otherwise you will incur a massive penalty when that thread no longer finds its data in the caches of the CCX.
We can/should test the difference in gaming perf with 4 cores disabled in 2+2 vs 4+0 configs.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY