Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

Page 126 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
107,580
23,494
146
Computerbase was noting a huge diff in gaming perf due to BIOS.. https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/amd-ryzen-1800x-1700x-1700-test/2/
Through Google Translate
" For the AMD Asus Crosshair VI Hero and MSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium, the manufacturer recommends at least the use of the BIOS versions 5704 and 117, respectively, and in fact there was a significant gain in performance on the two boards with a double-digit figure To 25 percent. With older BIOS, the Ryzen 7 1800X in games was initially at the level of the Intel Core i7-4770K, which in the editorial memories of bulldozer awakened. The change to the mainboard of Asus and the provision of the BIOS 117 by MSI, however, brought an all-clear.
On the other hand, the two boards still do not lie on top of each other. The main board of MSI is on average three percent, but in extreme cases nine percent. Other BIOS updates should also solve this brake."

If anyone can do a proper translation it would be nice.

Let me help, as my German is impeccable:

"moonbogg gonna be chowing down on some cardboard."
 

imported_jjj

Senior member
Feb 14, 2009
660
430
136
Overall the quality of the reviews were awful.
Very few look at memory scaling, efficiency, I/O perf, gaming at realistic resolutions, Win 7 compatibility. They had little time too, to be fair.

Some tested the 6900k with auto overclock forced by the mobo , that's why they get 1600+ in Cinebench.
PcPer claims to test at 3.5GHz for all and gets 151 in CB ST and 1508 in MT for the 6900k. 2 pages later the very competent reviewer gets same result in ST and lower MT with stock clocks.

90% of the reviews are garbage and i have looked at over 50 in all languages. Few do try but nobody had a great review yet.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: KTE

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
6,678
3,725
136
Core was more of a disruption because gaming benchmarking was more straightfoward at that time. You either had a fast core or you didnt and it reflected very clearly on framerates. Now with multithreading is more of a mixed bag and you can have cases of Ryzen beating 7700K and other cases where IPC and clockspeed trumps everything.
In looking back I think I ended up quoting the wrong post. Was trying to do a multiquote, but apparently that's still broken and then in my haste picked the wrong one.

It wasn't meant to be just in terms of gaming comparisons, but also about how much of a leap forward Zen represents for AMD, just like Intel's Core architecture when it first came out and was beating the older P4 chips soundly, even though the clock speeds were that much lower.
 

imported_jjj

Senior member
Feb 14, 2009
660
430
136
Except there are a lot of optimizations to be made, as I am sure you are aware by the article you just posted, and this was done at 720p with an enthusiast gpu.

It does not really prove that point.

It would be like saying you have to have a 7700k for gaming, because in these niche situations the 7600k is behind. What matters is if the cpu will be a bottleneck for you. Niche situations are irrelevant.
The number of cores does matter today and especially going forward. I've said on the previous page that the 6900k is better than the 7700k already and i meant at resolutions fit for the GPU.
I base that claim on data from 20+ Broadwell-E reviews at reasonable res. Granted the differences are relatively small today but they'll increase in favor of the many cores in the future.
 
Last edited:

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
6,678
3,725
136
don't need to as he already promised to post it here. bogg is an unquestionable man of his word around here.
Yeah, he already owned up to a similar (worse) bet he made in the GPU section. Bogg's not got a dishonorable bone in his body, and if he did he'd probably take it out and eat it :p
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
22,804
11,226
136
Computerbase was noting a huge diff in gaming perf due to BIOS.. https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/amd-ryzen-1800x-1700x-1700-test/2/
Through Google Translate
" For the AMD Asus Crosshair VI Hero and MSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium, the manufacturer recommends at least the use of the BIOS versions 5704 and 117, respectively, and in fact there was a significant gain in performance on the two boards with a double-digit figure To 25 percent. With older BIOS, the Ryzen 7 1800X in games was initially at the level of the Intel Core i7-4770K, which in the editorial memories of bulldozer awakened. The change to the mainboard of Asus and the provision of the BIOS 117 by MSI, however, brought an all-clear.
On the other hand, the two boards still do not lie on top of each other. The main board of MSI is on average three percent, but in extreme cases nine percent. Other BIOS updates should also solve this brake."

If anyone can do a proper translation it would be nice.
No translation, but to me it says that the game problems are almost solved NOW with the most recent BIOS for these 2 boards
 

looncraz

Senior member
Sep 12, 2011
718
1,642
136
So then, nobody has actually tried Window 7?
The Stilt has been running Windows 7 almost exclusively. Ryzen performs better in 7 than in 10. The only drawback is that Windows 7 lacks native support for the USB, so you'll need to install from disc or slipstream the USB drivers (you can get them from Asus - not sure about other board makes).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hazy24 and Drazick

Agent-47

Senior member
Jan 17, 2017
290
249
76
Overall the quality of the reviews were awful.
Very few look at memory scaling, efficiency, I/O perf, gaming at realistic resolutions, Win 7 compatibility. They had little time too, to be fair.
.
i think this is not the case. I agree that time was limited, but one could have easily started a comprehensive CPU testing from Feb 1st on older cpus and then comprehensively tested the Ryzen ones in the 1 week that was given by AMD.

Its just that we have not had an architecture released since Phenom or Core which has been as anticipated as ryzen. and some have simply forgotten how to test a CPU properly or discounted ryzen to be not worth the effort.
 

imported_jjj

Senior member
Feb 14, 2009
660
430
136
No translation, but to me it says that the game problems are almost solved NOW with the most recent BIOS for these 2 boards
It means that it got a lot better but we don't know where the "fixed" level is. In their review, Ryzen is still suffering.
 

CatMerc

Golden Member
Jul 16, 2016
1,114
1,148
136
No translation, but to me it says that the game problems are almost solved NOW with the most recent BIOS for these 2 boards
Looks like ASUS' BIOS is still 3% to 9% behind MSI's.

We also don't know if MSI still has performance left on the table.
 

jihe

Senior member
Nov 6, 2009
747
97
91
oh man, AMD down another 3% pre-market this morning. What a glorious buying opportunity this is off the backs of ignorant sockpuppets. :D Naples isn't out for another couple of months, and everything we see from yesterday shows how amazing Naples, AMD's baby, will be. AMD is crushing it and Intel is probably wetting themselves over the reality of the situation. (hence the focus on "OMG gaming is kinda bad! whaaaaa!")

...but hey, the shortsells probably made some money for once this last year. :D
The glorious buying opportunity was a year ago mate.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
19,176
7,930
136
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.
Fair analysis.

So let me get this straight. For my workloads Ryzen matches a 6900K on average at 1/2 the price... and I'm supposed to be disappointed and upset?
No. You aren't.

AMD should have marketed it as the Affordable Core Act.
Cute, but way too political. And likely to be repealed replaced. So . . . .


Did I read somewhere that Samsung modules were best for high memory clocks? Y
Yup. Specifically anything using Samsung B-die.

Or ....... we could all wait 30 days and then revisit it all. That's what I am doing. will not even think about ordering anything until next month.
At this rate I might not get my motherboard until next month anyway. Grr.
 

unseenmorbidity

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
967
96
The number of cores does matter today and especially going forward. I've said on the previous page that the 6900k is better than the 7700k already and i meant at resolutions fit for the GPU.
I base that claim on data from 20+ Broadwell-E reviews at reasonable res. Granted the differences are relatively small today but they'll increase in favor of the many cores in the future.
That is certainly true, but we are barely getting to the point that i3's are obsolete. i5 are budget cpus and i7 are good enough, and 6+ cores are enthusiast. It will still be quite a few years before a six core falls all the way down to budget, and by that time you can simply upgrade to a new 8 core.
 

Agent-47

Senior member
Jan 17, 2017
290
249
76
Yep. What do you recommend as tool?
MSI afterburner does the trick for me with BF1.

Settings>monitor>Log History> OKay. Should say "Logging started" or something similar. Make sure all the right graphs are selected (i.e. fps, gpu usage, cpu usage, mem).

It will create a file that when opened should select the right plots

http://imgur.com/a/JzheD
 
  • Like
Reactions: krumme

guachi

Senior member
Nov 16, 2010
761
415
136
The number of cores does matter today and especially going forward. I've said on the previous page that the 6900k is better than the 7700k already and i meant at resolutions fit for the GPU.
It's interesting looking at various review sites to see how much an effect the games they choose has on the results.

computerbase.de has the 6900K 9% faster overall than the 770K. And the 1800X is only 2% slower than the 7700.

Going forward, the 1800X (and 1700X and 1700) look like much better gaming values than the 7700K, especially if you might use your processor for anything else. It's not really slower than the 7700K (in this test suite) and if you have $100 extra you have probably as future-proofed yourself as you can without breaking the bank.

Intel is now the budget choice for gaming with the 7600K and that cheap Pentium chip of theirs.
 
Mar 11, 2004
21,880
4,088
126
Theory
So AMD is a company different than Intel and nVidia. Both of the other companies have a group that handles graphics (Intel) and SoC (nVidia), but their forte is only one area. AMD however tries to compete against both of these at the same time, right?

So my theory is that these two halves of AMD do talk and they do share. So instead of beating the other companies singularly, they are finding ways to merge their ideas to be better together. That's why the first AMD CPU tests came out using nVidia cards instead of their own. Because some might say, hey, they found a way to produce fake results because their using all their own hardware. And it would be more pronounced if others tested with nVidia and found lesser results (what we see now).

So in the next iteration of their GPUs, will we see really great results of the CPU and GPU working in harmony? I guess I want to believe that to be true.
I'm not sure why you posit that as a theory. That was literally why AMD bought ATi (after failing to get Nvidia).

The technical directors at AMD have been pretty forward thinking (wasn't Lynnfield fairly similar to Phenom, just you know, done well? Athlon 64, putting a GPU and CPU on same die), they've just been lacking on implementation (even the Bulldozer design made sense of upping the core count but trying to minimize how much each core was and falling back on fewer cores when extra complexity was called upon, it just had too many problems in how it was implemented).

The whole market is moving towards processors working together (there's a reason why pretty much all of them are focused on shared memory access and things like that). It's actually unfortunate that AMD was mismanaged so much as they really could have been setting the tone, but instead they've had to wait for Intel and Nvidia to start talking about the same things for the industry to really start to get behind it. Even then it's taking companies like Apple, Microsoft, and the new supercomputers to start to push for it.

I doubt we see any real harmonious benefit anytime soon. It takes a lot of software work (stuff like shared memory space is on the level of 64-bit implementation I'd say, as it fundamentally changes the memory address setup). On the PC side I don't even think that will make a huge difference as there's often so much extra memory that both the GPU and CPU have that they're not as starved. It will help in some cases (where stuff was moving between the GPU memory and the main system memory), and over time will improve. It's on HPC (supercomputers) and possibly APUs that will see the most benefit. It could enable AMD to go with a small amount of faster high bandwidth memory to supplement system memory, so that things that critically need the bandwidth have it. So it'll work like cache or a buffer.

Even if AMD had been competitive with Intel and Nvidia the whole time, they alone wouldn't have the clout to get the industry to change (perhaps could have gotten it started earlier though). But now that the industry seems ready to start making the change, I think we will see benefits to AMD's synergy. But I also hope they actually take advantage of that. Give us big APUs. Even if they only sell those to OEMs they'd offer a very compelling product and I think would help them big time over Intel as Intel just plain wouldn't have a competing product and even having a mid-range CPU and discrete GPU will make the costs go up a lot. They wouldn't even need to eat into their own profits much either, and it would build up their install base.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY