Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

[looncraz]

i wouldnt go for msi or asus,the least complains i read was with gigabyte aurus from reviewers that got it dunnoa bout asrock and bioware? lol i dont remember that brand.

I would look at how each company usually matures their products. ASRock is the best for long-term maturity, bus Asus is better at getting maturity early.

Gigabyte has been stepping up their game and has come out of the gate early with a superior BIOS.

But here's the deal: ALL OF THEM require time to mature.

After one year, the Asus Crosshair VI Hero will probably be the best board from the launch boards. ASRock will be nipping at its heels and Gigabyte will be only a little better than they are now (why keep investing time into something that isn't showing major issues?).

Of course... it's anybody's guess. I've known Asus to pretty much abandon their own products when a new revision comes out - but they'll also sometimes be cool about it and let you RMA your existing board for the updated revision board.

 

[looncraz]

The problem here is AMD is to blame - they compared the Core i7 6900K and Ryzen 7 1800X together in games several times. If they had not done that,then nobody would have had that much of an expectation,and would be happy it got close enough.

Yes, this is AMD's own fault for claiming superiority or equality in gaming while it is only true in a few cases.

On the hole, though, the 1800X is slightly faster than the 6900k (once you remove outliers).

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1853?vs=1729

 

[agouraki]

Anyone have any idea as to why the 960 evo is performing so terribly with writes on ryzen? I have a Gigabyte Gaming 5 board and i've installed the chipset drivers.
http://imgur.com/a/L23rN

that doesnt look that bad 960 evo has :max
sequential Write Speed

Max 1,900 MB/sec

http://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/minisite/ssd/product/consumer/960evo.html

shit now i saw the second picture. my bad dont know then.

 

[Mechanical Man]

The problem here is AMD is to blame - they compared the Core i7 6900K and Ryzen 7 1800X together in games several times. If they had not done that,then nobody would have had that much of an expectation,and would be happy it got close enough.

There is zero logic what you say. 6900k does not beat 7700k. The hype was not becouse amd it was becouse ppl dont freaking see what they are looking (but meh, that is normal. average person is just too stupid to understand more than one click away..).

 

[imported_jjj]

Anyone have any idea as to why the 960 evo is performing so terribly with writes on ryzen? I have a Gigabyte Gaming 5 board and i've installed the chipset drivers.
http://imgur.com/a/L23rN

Maybe this helps https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/m8pe-extremely-slow-writes.2498584/

 

[looncraz]

Anyone have any idea as to why the 960 evo is performing so terribly with writes on ryzen? I have a Gigabyte Gaming 5 board and i've installed the chipset drivers.
http://imgur.com/a/L23rN

Did you install the Samsung NVMe driver? Those are like my exact results on my system prior to installing Samsung's NVMe drivers.

HERE:

http://www.samsung.com/semiconducto...ds/software/Samsung_NVM_Express_Driver_21.zip

 

[AtenRa]

I never said or implied that.

With the way AMD has been hyping the Ryzen 7 1800X to be the competitor to the Core i7-6900K, I had expected the Ryzen 7 1800X to be able to perform as well (or almost as well) as the Core i7-6900K across the board and that include both lightly threaded games and heavily threaded games.

Obviously, that has not been the case.

Since AMD's explanation is that games haven't optimize for Ryzen yet, I want to see games perform just as well (or almost as well) on the Ryzen 7 1800X as on the Core i7-6900K after the games has been optimized for the former.

In other words: show me something that I can believe in!

R7 1800X ~ 90% of Core i7 6900K gaming performance at 1080p, 98% at 1440p and 100% at 4K and all this at HALF the PRICE. Now you have all the time in the world to believe it

edit: Dont forget at lower power than the Core i7 6900K as well

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/956-21/indices-performance.html

 

[Mockingbird]

It looks like Windows 10 is already handling CCX correctly.

Core 0, Core 1, Core 2, and Core 3 are shown as sharing one L3.

Core 4, Core 5, Core 6, and Core 7 are shown as sharing the other L3.

Here is my Coreinfo output on windows 10 with an 1800x

Logical to Physical Processor Map:
**--------------  Physical Processor 0 (Hyperthreaded)
--**------------  Physical Processor 1 (Hyperthreaded)
----**----------  Physical Processor 2 (Hyperthreaded)
------**--------  Physical Processor 3 (Hyperthreaded)
--------**------  Physical Processor 4 (Hyperthreaded)
----------**----  Physical Processor 5 (Hyperthreaded)
------------**--  Physical Processor 6 (Hyperthreaded)
--------------**  Physical Processor 7 (Hyperthreaded)

Logical Processor to Socket Map:
****************  Socket 0

Logical Processor to NUMA Node Map:
****************  NUMA Node 0

No NUMA nodes.

Logical Processor to Cache Map:
**--------------  Data Cache          0, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
**--------------  Instruction Cache   0, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
**--------------  Unified Cache       0, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
********--------  Unified Cache       1, Level 3,    8 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
--**------------  Data Cache          1, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
--**------------  Instruction Cache   1, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
--**------------  Unified Cache       2, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
----**----------  Data Cache          2, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
----**----------  Instruction Cache   2, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
----**----------  Unified Cache       3, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
------**--------  Data Cache          3, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
------**--------  Instruction Cache   3, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
------**--------  Unified Cache       4, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
--------**------  Data Cache          4, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
--------**------  Instruction Cache   4, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
--------**------  Unified Cache       5, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
--------********  Unified Cache       6, Level 3,    8 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
----------**----  Data Cache          5, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
----------**----  Instruction Cache   5, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
----------**----  Unified Cache       7, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
------------**--  Data Cache          6, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
------------**--  Instruction Cache   6, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
------------**--  Unified Cache       8, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
--------------**  Data Cache          7, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
--------------**  Instruction Cache   7, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
--------------**  Unified Cache       9, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64

Yes, I got mine today as well, and my Coreinfo looks exactly like yours, and it seems to be correct so far (only maybe a NUMA node per CCX could be nice). Seems like they fixed that cache thing with some microcode update?

 

[unseenmorbidity]

R7 1800X ~ 90% of Core i7 6900K gaming performance at 1080p, 98% at 1440p and 100% at 4K and all this at HALF the PRICE. Now you have all the time in the world to believe it

edit: Dont forget at lower power than the Core i7 6900K as well

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/956-21/indices-performance.html

This is likely with an enthusiast gpu too. If you don't have an enthusiast card, the differences will be much smaller.

 

[CentroX]

my vcore seems bugged on asus hero board. I selected manual 1,35 and yet it shows up at auto in windows ranging between 1,3-1,5

 

[DeeJayBump]

...They [AMD] promised a 52% IPC increase. ...

Just to clarify. Actually AMD promised Ryzen would bring 40% better IPC versus Excavator-cores, yet they DELIVERED 52%+ better IPC.

 

[Dresdenboy]

The problem here is AMD is to blame - they compared the Core i7 6900K and Ryzen 7 1800X together in games several times. If they had not done that,then nobody would have had that much of an expectation,and would be happy it got close enough.

They used high resolutions. Interestingly a report of the BF1 demo (NH event) mentioned lower fps than on 6900K.

 

[french toast]

Just to clarify. Actually AMD promised Ryzen would bring 40% better IPC versus Excavator-cores, yet they DELIVERED 52%+ better IPC.

That doesn't matter though, it has nehalem game ipc.

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

That doesn't matter though, it has nehalem game ipc.

no, Ryzen competes very well against stock haswell i7 in gaming and wins against all i5s in most games.

 

[Dresdenboy]

That doesn't matter though, it has nehalem game ipc.

IPC or ST perf? I thought more like PIII/K7. Can you prove your claim?

 

[inf64]

IPC or ST perf? I thought more like PIII/K7. Can you prove your claim?

I think that was sarcasm...

 

[piesquared]

According to the stilts' testing Ryzen fairs better in Win7. MS better not be dragging their feet and release a scheduler that works for AMD's SMT. Maybe AMD put pressure on MS by announcing they would support Win7 a while back. Pretty sure the 2 monopolies want no AMD in Wintel, which is why enthusiasts need to be vocal in calling them out.
I'll give it a week before i question why motherboards also seem to be trickling out, but at least they aren't coming in white boxes.

 

[Puffnstuff]

no, Ryzen competes very well against stock haswell i7 in gaming and wins against all i5s in most games.

ROFL comparing a new 8 core CPU to an old 4 core CPU. That would be like Witchiepoo telling the world that she's got a new 8 engine varoom broom that is the fastest in the land and then one of the competing witches pulls out an old 4 engine broom that beats in almost every speed run. That is the situation we have here. Although Witchiepoo has brought out a new and faster broom compared to her older brooms it still doesn't quite stack up to the brooms that her competitors are using already.

I'm glad that AMD was able to make serious performance gains with this new design but they shouldn't have come out with the comparisons showing that it was on par with Intel's parts which it isn't. The made some real stretchy claims with the fx line of processors that got them into trouble as well. I hope they can raise both clock speed and IPC in short order to put some pressure on Intel and force a price drop across the board. When I think back to the launch of the slot A Athlon no excuses were necessary.

 

[KGRPC]

https://drmola.com/index.php?mid=pc_column&document_srl=141286&cpage=1



let's just all stop for 10 seconds and do the math.

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

ROFL comparing a new 8 core CPU to an old 4 core CPU. That would be like Witchiepoo telling the world that she's got a new 8 engine varoom broom that is the fastest in the land and then one of the competing witches pulls out an old 4 engine broom that beats in almost every speed run. That is the situation we have here. Although Witchiepoo has brought out a new and faster broom compared to her older brooms it still doesn't quite stack up to the brooms that her competitors are using already.

I'm glad that AMD was able to make serious performance gains with this new design but they shouldn't have come out with the comparisons showing that it was on par with Intel's parts which it isn't. The made some real stretchy claims with the fx line of processors that got them into trouble as well. I hope they can raise both clock speed and IPC in short order to put some pressure on Intel and force a price drop across the board. When I think back to the launch of the slot A Athlon no excuses were necessary.

its not far behinnd 7700k too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ovr9RostHk
6900k lost to 4 cores 7700k in many games too, whats your point?

 

[inf64]

In case you guys missed it, I think french toast was joking.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

Was that broom designed to carry passengers, or was it a single seat racer?

 

[Mockingbird]

According to the stilts' testing Ryzen fairs better in Win7. MS better not be dragging their feet and release a scheduler that works for AMD's SMT. Maybe AMD put pressure on MS by announcing they would support Win7 a while back. Pretty sure the 2 monopolies want no AMD in Wintel, which is why enthusiasts need to be vocal in calling them out.
I'll give it a week before i question why motherboards also seem to be trickling out, but at least they aren't coming in white boxes.

He said that he didn't even use the same app to measure the FPS that the results are not comparable.

 

[piesquared]

He said that he didn't even use the same app to measure the FPS that the results are not comparable.

That may or may not affect relative FPS, but why would it affect SMT?

 

[formulav8]

they compared the Core i7 6900K and Ryzen 7 1800X together in games several times

They would have/show systems side by side and had people view/try them to see if they could tell the difference between the two. They ran them at 4k res. I do not recall theming showing actual benchmarking of games to a 6900k.

That's IIRC.