Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

Page 127 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

tential

Diamond Member
May 13, 2008
7,355
642
121
Now that there is finally an affordable processor with more than four cores I hope game studios are pushed to better optimize their games for more cores. We know what well threaded games should look like - BF 1, for example. We just need reviewers to call games out that don't take advantage of it.
So we should be upset that reviewers and games don't test situations favorable to AMD?
Be realistic.
Just because this CPU is affordable doesn't mean gamers will buy it in droves.
It's an 8 core CPU that does worse in gaming than an i7 7700k. This will NOT make a huge factor for gaming.

This really has to do with INTEL and the massive installed base of those with 4 threaded CPUs or less. If you want to look at people, look at all those people who have been CONTINUOUSLY buying the i5. Studios are not going to abandon that installed base just to cater to you few individuals who have highly threaded CPUs.

Good luck with that gamble.

If I'm getting a new gaming CPU right now, it's a 6800k or i7 7700k. It's a no brainer.

Ryzen 5 is the only CPU I see being interesting for gaming and that's more for budget gaming. Otherwise, I see very little reason why you should get Ryzen 7 over Ryzen 5 just like there is little reason you should get a 6900k over an i7 7700k. For GAMING.
 

unseenmorbidity

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
967
96
So we should be upset that reviewers and games don't test situations favorable to AMD?
Be realistic.
Just because this CPU is affordable doesn't mean gamers will buy it in droves.
It's an 8 core CPU that does worse in gaming than an i7 7700k. This will NOT make a huge factor for gaming.

This really has to do with INTEL and the massive installed base of those with 4 threaded CPUs or less. If you want to look at people, look at all those people who have been CONTINUOUSLY buying the i5. Studios are not going to abandon that installed base just to cater to you few individuals who have highly threaded CPUs.

Good luck with that gamble.

If I'm getting a new gaming CPU right now, it's a 6800k or i7 7700k. It's a no brainer.
Ryzen 5 is the only CPU I see being interesting for gaming and that's more for budget gaming. Otherwise, I see very little reason why you should get Ryzen 7 over Ryzen 5 just like there is little reason you should get a 6900k over an i7 7700k. For GAMING.
Except most games are made for consoles, which have 8 threads. If people with i5's get left in the dust, ohh well. That isn't the concern of game developers.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
107,570
23,484
146
So we should be upset that reviewers and games don't test situations favorable to AMD?
Be realistic.
Just because this CPU is affordable doesn't mean gamers will buy it in droves.
It's an 8 core CPU that does worse in gaming than an i7 7700k. This will NOT make a huge factor for gaming.

This really has to do with INTEL and the massive installed base of those with 4 threaded CPUs or less. If you want to look at people, look at all those people who have been CONTINUOUSLY buying the i5. Studios are not going to abandon that installed base just to cater to you few individuals who have highly threaded CPUs.

Good luck with that gamble.

If I'm getting a new gaming CPU right now, it's a 6800k or i7 7700k. It's a no brainer.

Ryzen 5 is the only CPU I see being interesting for gaming and that's more for budget gaming. Otherwise, I see very little reason why you should get Ryzen 7 over Ryzen 5 just like there is little reason you should get a 6900k over an i7 7700k. For GAMING.
Majority of AAA games are designed for consoles and ported over to PC.

...guess what's going on with those console CPUs?

crap. jerk up there beat me to it. :D
 

tential

Diamond Member
May 13, 2008
7,355
642
121
Except most games are made for consoles, which have 8 threads. If people with i5's get left in the dust, ohh well. That isn't the concern of game developers.
Majority of AAA games are designed for consoles and ported over to PC.

...guess what's going on with those console CPUs?

crap. jerk up there beat me to it. :D
You both just made a case for Ryzen 3 for gaming. Maybe Ryzen 5.
You have both agreed with me that Ryzen 7 for pure gaming is not sensible when consoles have 8 threads.

If you want a pure gaming CPU then Ryzen 7 is the wrong choice. You're throwing away cores, power consumption etc. with Ryzen 7. You think Ryzen 7 has good perf/watt? Wait til when you don't have cores that have nothing to do there...
 

guachi

Senior member
Nov 16, 2010
761
415
136
According to computerbase.de test suite the 7700K is a whopping 2% faster than an 1800X.

But your statement that " we should be upset that reviewers and games don't test situations favorable to AMD?" doesn't follow from what I said. We should be upset if game companies don't take advantage of CPU resources available to them. And I hope game reviewers mention if a game can't handle lots of threads. It's not AMD's fault if Intel charges an arm and a leg for their 6+ core processors.
 

imported_jjj

Senior member
Feb 14, 2009
660
430
136
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.
I see 4% slower but they still test at 1080p with a high end GPU and that distorts the picture.
We'll see if AMD can improve their perf and how their hexa and quads do. The 7700k and 7600k do have OC on their side and that does help them for now. If AMD can find some more perf and maybe 200MHz more with future SKUs, it gets more interesting.
 

looncraz

Senior member
Sep 12, 2011
718
1,642
136
From the reports of BIOS updates bringing huge perf gains in games its clear that AMD rushed this launch to meet the Q1 commitment to the market/investors. Its quite embarassing that a company which spends 4+ years in rigorously developing a clean sheet design CPU architecture rushes it at the last step and makes a fool of itself and hurts its own cause in inital benchmarks. Hopefully by the time Ryzen 5 launches the BIOS updates and Windows updates are all in place and the platform is more robust. Oh AMD why won't you ever learn. :)
AMD didn't rush it. AMD provided the updated AGESA to Asus on 2/22 (launch date) and Asus create a new BIOS on 2/23. Asus did not provide that updated BIOS until 2/28 or 2/27, AFAICT, so most reviewers used a broken BIOS.

Asus, previous to that, however, released a BIOS after just one day (the 0702 BIOS was compiled on 2/21 and released on launch).

This is on Asus as much as it is on AMD - if not more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

imported_jjj

Senior member
Feb 14, 2009
660
430
136
If you want a pure gaming CPU then Ryzen 7 is the wrong choice. You're throwing away cores, power consumption etc. with Ryzen 7. You think Ryzen 7 has good perf/watt? Wait til when you don't have cores that have nothing to do there...
With games that scale you do get lower power if you spread the load on more cores as opposed to pushing above the ideal range with quads. Just like in any other app.
 

looncraz

Senior member
Sep 12, 2011
718
1,642
136
Plus even they said the windows updates would take a few weeks.

I realise AMD needs to have sales,but waiting a month would have made more sense and gained them more sales.
Waiting and releasing a slightly more polished product would have been disastrous for AMD - much more so than the public teething issues.

Microsoft needed to be prodded into action - otherwise they will ignore AMD (like they did with Bulldozer - never even patching Windows 7).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

unseenmorbidity

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
967
96
AMD didn't rush it. AMD provided the updated AGESA to Asus on 2/22 (launch date) and Asus create a new BIOS on 2/23. Asus did not provide that updated BIOS until 2/28 or 2/27, AFAICT, so most reviewers used a broken BIOS.

Asus, previous to that, however, released a BIOS after just one day (the 0702 BIOS was compiled on 2/21 and released on launch).

This is on Asus as much as it is on AMD - if not more.
I wonder if there could have been some under the table deals going on?
 

looncraz

Senior member
Sep 12, 2011
718
1,642
136
I wonder if there could have been some under the table deals going on?
Probably not. Asus has a bad habit of sitting on BIOS updates as it is... it's really par for the course with them. After a year you're lucky to get them to pay any attention to a board.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

formulav8

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2000
7,003
522
126
You have both agreed with me that Ryzen 7 for pure gaming is not sensible when consoles have 8 threads.
Consoles are working for balancing 8 cores, not simply threads. It's cores. That's why games will be relying more on the CPU cores, even in your future. Ported games for once will be half way optimized for desktop systems.

You can actually thank the cpu/gpu maker in the PlayStation and Xbox systems and Sony/Microsoft for agreeing.
 

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,862
1,408
136
Probably not. Asus has a bad habit of sitting on BIOS updates as it is... it's really part for the course with them. After a year you're lucky to get them to pay any attention to a board.
The guys using Gigabyte boards seemed to have done much better. I wonder what Gigabyte's bios release schedule looked like. I have yet to see a review using the Asrock Fatality Pro though, and that's the one I'm interested in.
 

looncraz

Senior member
Sep 12, 2011
718
1,642
136
The guys using Gigabyte boards seemed to have done much better. I wonder what Gigabyte's bios release schedule looked like. I have yet to see a review using the Asrock Fatality Pro though, and that's the one I'm interested in.
I've heard nothing but good things about ASRock's performance with Ryzen. If one becomes available before I get my Asus C6H, I'll pick one up. I may just get both so I can compare. Maybe buy another 1700/X. I know I'll be able to sell whichever one I don't keep :p
 

unseenmorbidity

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
967
96
The guys using Gigabyte boards seemed to have done much better. I wonder what Gigabyte's bios release schedule looked like. I have yet to see a review using the Asrock Fatality Pro though, and that's the one I'm interested in.
Hardware unboxed used the taichi.
 

majord

Senior member
Jul 26, 2015
419
474
136
noticed some odd behaviour on the 1700 + MSI board:

* Superpi 1M

- each loop varies a lot in time taken, you can visably see it as it's going through the loops.. resulting in inconsistent final times.
-Setting affinity to one core results in a 56s or so score.. yet the core does appear to be out of idle, (3.2+ghz) when monitoring with HWmonitor.

Fritz Chess:

Is only detecting 8 logical cores.
is only using 1 CCX .. the other is sitting idle.

 

richierich1212

Platinum Member
Jul 5, 2002
2,740
357
126
Yeah I went to Frys today to see if they had any motherboards in stock (preordered a 1700) but they only have the Asus B350 Prime Plus ATX mobo instore. I was seriously debating back and forth for an hour on picking it up. (Then I'd have to pick up an ATX case too, ugh)

Waiting for SFF X370 or X300 sucks. I just want to play with new hardware but the hardware still isn't available. Hulk no likey. Hulk smash.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crono

imported_jjj

Senior member
Feb 14, 2009
660
430
136
Yeah I went to Frys today to see if they had any motherboards in stock (preordered a 1700) but they only have the Asus B350 Prime Plus ATX mobo instore. I was seriously debating back and forth for an hour on picking it up. (Then I'd have to pick up an ATX case too, ugh)

Waiting for SFF X370 or X300 sucks. I just want to play with new hardware but the hardware still isn't available. Hulk no likey. Hulk smash.
In case you have missed it, Biostar has announced a mini-ITX X370 mobo https://www.techpowerup.com/231205/biostar-shows-off-first-mini-itx-socket-am4-motherboard
 
  • Like
Reactions: looncraz and Crono

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,414
1,606
136
Hardware unboxed used the taichi.
Two things One there numbers look great. Not quite Joker great but almost dead on with expectations. Two the specs say Taichi but he references switching from the Asus everyone else is using to a Gigabyte. So leaves the door open that maybe he didn't use a Taichi. At this point just about every site that actually brings up issues or has shitty numbers is running the Asus board.

This is one of the few times where I could work my build into an Asus but decided not to compromise on features. I am backordered on the Taichi and I happy to have to wait for an ASRock.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unseenmorbidity

unseenmorbidity

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
967
96
This is one of the few times where I could work my build into an Asus but decided not to compromise on features. I am backordered on the Taichi and I happy to have to wait for an ASRock.
I did the same. Mine says 1-15 days to ship, and I kind of expect it to be closer to the latter. On the plus side we might not have to deal with as many blue screens!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Topweasel

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,414
1,606
136
I did the same. Mine says 1-15 days to ship, and I kind of expect it to be closer to the latter. On the plus side we might not have to deal with as many blue screens!
Same 1-5 figure I'll get the system together by April. I am fine with that. Honestly it's kind of nice, have it on order but can still change my mine while we see more results. Backup choose is one of the MSI's forgot the one (not the Ti).

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
 

Teizo

Golden Member
Oct 28, 2010
1,271
31
91
If this has been posted, I apologize...the thread is rather long at this point...but check out this review of the R7 1700. Legit Reviews got their to 4ghz stable on all cores...besting even Joker's R7 1700 at 3.9ghz...and temps were held in check pretty well with the Corsair H110i.

So, it really does seem that the R7 1700 really is the chip to get. The 1700X and 1800X are somewhat of a rip off....Maybe that is a tad strong to say, but there is no doubt given the nature of XFR only working on one core at a time and given the heat issues with the 1700X and 1800X...Overclocking the 1700 is the best way to go..Gaming wise it still falls behind in IPC and raw power, but most people who get this card will get a 1080 level GPU and it appears frame times are ok with it so 1440p gaming and up will be fine. Even 1080p gaming is fine all things considered so long as you aren't trying to push 140fps to match your monitor's high refresh rate in fast twitch shooters (if you own one).

http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-overclocking-best-ryzen-processor_192191
 

unseenmorbidity

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
967
96
If this has been posted, I apologize...the thread is rather long at this point...but check out this review of the R7 1700. Legit Reviews got their to 4ghz stable on all cores...besting even Joker's R7 1700 at 3.9ghz...and temps were held in check pretty well with the Corsair H110i.

So, it really does seem that the R7 1700 really is the chip to get. The 1700X and 1800X are somewhat of a rip off....Maybe that is a tad strong to say, but there is no doubt given the nature of XFR only working on one core at a time and given the heat issues with the 1700X and 1800X...Overclocking the 1700 is the best way to go..Gaming wise it still falls behind in IPC and raw power, but most people who get this card will get a 1080 level GPU and it appears frame times are ok with it so 1440p gaming and up will be fine. Even 1080p gaming is fine all things considered so long as you aren't trying to push 140fps to match your monitor's high refresh rate in fast twitch shooters (if you own one).

http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-overclocking-best-ryzen-processor_192191
Joker mentioned the 1700 being cooler than his 1800x too, but I assumed that was just a coincidence. He said that the 1700 required less voltage to hit 3.9 GHz.

Could the 1700s be low TDP binned chips, rather than the others being binned for higher clocks?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY