• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

Page 150 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Glo.

Diamond Member
Apr 25, 2015
4,589
3,190
136
65W TDP R7 1700 + Vega Nano and you are set to go for eternity ;)
The thing is it will be overkill for my needs: I have 1080p IPS, Freesync display, with 60 hz. Your proposition would be logical if I would have 144 Hz FreeSync display with the same resolution.

And all I play is Overwatch, Heroes of the Storm and Hearthstone.

But the 27 inch, curved, 144hz, FreeSync, Quantum Dot Samsung display is really, really tempting... :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

Head1985

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2014
1,827
602
136
There are no bugs in IMC and L3. As can be seen above you get ~10% lower fps with Zen vs top of the line intel cores. That is peanuts. The whole platform is rushed which is AMD's bad. They have to work fast and provide OS and firmware updates so the whole platform performs to its fullest potential, that is all. Zen is a killer product.
Its bad design.Ryzen is not 8core cpu ryzen is 2x4cores with shared L3 cache.Slow IMC with high latency wont fix in bios or win10 patch..AMD need fix it with zen2 or whatever they will call it.
https://www.techpowerup.com/231268/amds-ryzen-cache-analyzed-improvements-improveable-ccx-compromises
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,548
2,522
126
To tell you the truth, with current prices im expecting 3.840 x 2.160 to be the next PC Gaming monitor resolution from 2018 onward.
Next gen $300 GPUs from 2018-2019 will be in GTX1080 performance level, so easily acceptable for 3.840 x 2.160 60Hz gaming.
 

R0H1T

Platinum Member
Jan 12, 2013
2,566
142
106
Its bad design.Ryzen is not 8core cpu ryzen is 2x4cores with shared L3 cache.Slow IMC with high latency wont fix in bios or win10 patch..AMD need fix it with zen2 or whatever they will call it.
https://www.techpowerup.com/231268/amds-ryzen-cache-analyzed-improvements-improveable-ccx-compromises
From the (original) author himself ~
C_Wiz
hardware.fr

Again :
- You can't compare L3 values (especially L3 latency), they are wrong (in orange, for a reason)
- FYI, the table that they took from our article of RAM latency is done at 3 GHz with SMT and HT off. Real RAM latency @ stock is around 89.6 with DDR4-2400. That's still much higher than other CPUs with same RAM, but you can't compare a 3 GHz value to other CPUs @ stock.

Hopefully this news will get fixed, please check the original article with Google Translate if you want more details.
That TPU chose not to rescind it tells us more about them & the author than the article itself wrt facts & stuff.
 

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,114
2,056
136

IEC

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
13,923
3,588
136
To tell you the truth, with current prices im expecting 3.840 x 2.160 to be the next PC Gaming monitor resolution from 2018 onward.
Next gen $300 GPUs from 2018-2019 will be in GTX1080 performance level, so easily acceptable for 3.840 x 2.160 60Hz gaming.
My 40" 4K60 display cost $290 USD. I'm not kidding, it was literally less than half the price of my 34" Ultrawide 1440P Freesync.

Reminds me I need to unload that ultrawide on some sucker gamer who thinks ultrawides are awesome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZGR

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,548
2,522
126
The thing is it will be overkill for my needs: I have 1080p IPS, Freesync display, with 60 hz. Your proposition would be logical if I would have 144 Hz FreeSync display with the same resolution.

And all I play is Overwatch, Heroes of the Storm and Hearthstone.

But the 27 inch, curved, 144hz, FreeSync, Quantum Dot Samsung display is really, really tempting... :(
I see, you could wait and see how RR will do but i would go for R3 4C 8T or cheapest R5 6-Core + RX570 just to be safe ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,548
2,522
126
My 40" 4K60 display cost $290 USD. I'm not kidding, it was literally less than half the price of my 34" Ultrawide 1440P Freesync.

Reminds me I need to unload that ultrawide on some sucker gamer who thinks ultrawides are awesome.
Well yes 4K TVs are cheaper than Gaming monitors but i would choose the Ultra Wide for Gaming all the time (if money is not an issue).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick and ZGR

Head1985

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2014
1,827
602
136
From the (original) author himself ~

That TPU chose not to rescind it tells us more about them & the author than the article itself wrt facts & stuff.
Still that dont change anything.Cpu suffers from weak IMC and shared slow L3 cache in games.Thats why ryzen have around sb/ivy IPC in games and is not faster than haswell like in aplications.
 

IEC

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
13,923
3,588
136
Still that dont change anything.Cpu suffers from weak IMC and shared slow L3 cache in games.Thats why ryzen have around sb/ivy IPC in games and is not faster than haswell like in aplications.
Once Windows 10 fixes how it handles threads and makes sure not to switch across CCXs (i.e. treat Ryzen closer to a 2 socket CPU) don't you think those numbers would improve? If that truly is the issue, that is.

You have literally every other application (including some games) showing better performance on the Ryzen, but this subset of poor performances on a brand new clean sheet architecture with no OS or game engine optimizations doesn't strike you as... premature? Given optimizations/platform maturity I expect these issues will go away.
 

R0H1T

Platinum Member
Jan 12, 2013
2,566
142
106
  • Like
Reactions: looncraz

unseenmorbidity

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
965
96
Don't feel bad. I'm still running 4:3 for crying out loud.



Yeah, it'll take time and experimentation to figure that out. Plus a board with a proper clock generator. The Gaming 5 doesn't have one, so . . . that board is out.

I noticed the ASRock Killer is now available at the Egg, but I don't think that has one either?

edit: nope, it does not. Plus weaker 45a chokes than the 60a ones on the Taichi.
Yah, the only ones that have it are

Asrock Taichi, Asrock Professional Fatality, GB G7, and the Asus Crosshair.

The better VRM is why I changed my order to the taichi from the k4 x370. 60 Amp chokes instead of 45 AMP. Well that, and the fact that the mail in rebate, and the fact I needed a wireless card anyways made the prices basically the same.

k4 $140 + $25 wireless card = $165
Taichi = $175 after mail in rebate

EDIT: Newegg jacked the prices up on the Astock boards shortly after the MIR was available.
 
Last edited:

Glo.

Diamond Member
Apr 25, 2015
4,589
3,190
136
Still that dont change anything.Cpu suffers from weak IMC and shared slow L3 cache in games.Thats why ryzen have around sb/ivy IPC in games and is not faster than haswell like in aplications.
I have not read more BS over past few days on any of technical forums. This post lacks basic understanding on the matter.

Educate yourself then write.

If Ryzen is on par with Broadwell in scenarios where software is not interfering with the performance, how the f*** in your mind its possible that where software is interfering its hardware fault?
 

Head1985

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2014
1,827
602
136
Once Windows 10 fixes how it handles threads and makes sure not to switch across CCXs (i.e. treat Ryzen closer to a 2 socket CPU) don't you think those numbers would improve? If that truly is the issue, that is.
It will improve little bit but slow L3 will remain with slow IMC.

Here is test from another forum
fallout4
Default win = 47,5fps.
HT ON + lock one CPU = 49fps.
HT OFF + lock one CPU = 50fps.
 

teejee

Senior member
Jul 4, 2013
345
177
116
Still that dont change anything.Cpu suffers from weak IMC and shared slow L3 cache in games.Thats why ryzen have around sb/ivy IPC in games and is not faster than haswell like in aplications.
The L3 design in Ryzen (2x4 core cluster with one L3 for each cluster) is the same design as used for CPU cores and L2 cache in Playstation 4 (no L3 in PS4). So this is a well known CPU/cache design for gaming hardware.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IEC

IEC

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
13,923
3,588
136
My God AdonreTV nailed it this time

Yup, nailed it. Tech press short-sighted and mostly missed the mark. Ryzen is an outstanding performer and a great value.

AMD as usual took all the wrong marketing lines. Obviously on a clean sheet design and immature platform with zero OS/game engine optimizations you will need time to unlock maximal performance for those corner cases where Ryzen is underperforming. Because from the majority of applications it's pretty clear the raw horsepower is there. Unlike Bulldozer, which was a crap design.
 

Pookums

Member
Mar 6, 2017
32
13
36
Still that dont change anything.Cpu suffers from weak IMC and shared slow L3 cache in games.Thats why ryzen have around sb/ivy IPC in games and is not faster than haswell like in aplications.
I have posted in several threads about possibility of raising UCLK on ryzen(it is listed in OC & ryzen master section of AMDS official website.) However, I have yet to hear a response if its hidden, or not currently present in AMD bios options for mobos.

I believe these 10% deficits after SMT modifications can be reduced to zero in comparison to the 6900k if UCLK can be raised to at least 2.8ghz...if not higher to say 3.2 or 3.3(which is the highest frequency achieveable on normal core before voltage bumps.)

Currently ryzen with 2400mhz memory the IMC is 1200mhz...with 3200mhz memory IMC is 1600...Highest i saw on non LN2 world records was 4.1allcore with 1800mhz uncore....thus they mustve had 3600mhz memory. If this can be decoupled, or at least forced into 2x mode(aka full memory speed rather than half) I honestly believe all of ryzens deficits sub AVX differences(Deficits of which im not sure even exist in benchmarks despite their smaller width) will disappear completely. In fact, due to its faster memory fabric, better smt, lower loss data conversions, and high clocks on base, turbo and with xfr for 1800x, I would expect it to outperform the 6900k by around at least 5% when all bios/windows updates are solved.

However, no one has responded to my comments, so either someone has read my messages and is currently testing, or my messages are being ignored.
 
  • Like
Reactions: french toast

ManyThreads

Member
Mar 6, 2017
99
29
51
If you ONLY use Photoshop CC and you never expect performance/threading to increase, then it seems pretty clear that today the best CPU for your application is the i7-7700K.

However, with a username like ManyThreads I think you should go for the cheapest decent 8C/16T processor, aka the Ryzen R7 1700 @ $329 MSRP. Because... many threads?
Thank you for your reply.

Everything I seem to be waiting on in Photoshop slams all 4c/8t I have currently with my OC'd i7 3770K. This includes HDR creation (which weirdly was rated very poorly for Ryzen which I can't understand), importing & saving large numbers of high resolution files, etc. I also use programs like SABNzbd where unpacking downloads seems to be very multi-threaded and can take a very long time depending on file size. I play games like League of Legends which is not going to be an issue for any new hardware, and I have a Titan X (Maxwell). I see the 1800X beating or matching the 6900K in most if not all tasks, so I was surprised to see it so far behind in Photoshop tasks. I know the point of diminishing return for Photoshop performance seems to be right at the 8 core mark (actually performs slower with 10+ cores according to the same source).

Maybe I should just wait a month or so and wait for the dust to settle with the early Ryzen issues and see if that changes anything. I want to get back on the AMD train, but only if it makes sense for my workflow.
 

piesquared

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2006
1,651
472
136
peasant :p



65W TDP R7 1700 + Vega Nano and you are set to go for eternity ;)
A little OT, but remember when Joe Macri stated that Fiji was on overclocker's dream? I have a theory on that. :D It was a great OCing card, if you consider that the Fury Nano was the target SKU and the FuryX was binned and OCed; not the other way around. I think AMD would have been much better off if they had only released the Nano and marketed Fiji that way and left the OCing headroom for the consumer. I think it would have sold bucket fulls at the price and at that perf, perf/watt and size of the card. That was by far the best Fiji card IMO, i'd still like to get one of those. I really hope they come with a Nano Vega and release them in high volume first even if it doesn't beat every card on the market. I think it will sell very well. I'd buy one for sure.
 

IEC

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
13,923
3,588
136
Thank you for your reply.

Everything I seem to be waiting on in Photoshop slams all 4c/8t I have currently with my OC'd i7 3770K. This includes HDR creation (which weirdly was rated very poorly for Ryzen which I can't understand), importing & saving large numbers of high resolution files, etc. I also use programs like SABNzbd where unpacking downloads seems to be very multi-threaded and can take a very long time depending on file size. I play games like League of Legends which is not going to be an issue for any new hardware, and I have a Titan X (Maxwell). I see the 1800X beating or matching the 6900K in most if not all tasks, so I was surprised to see it so far behind in Photoshop tasks. I know the point of diminishing return for Photoshop performance seems to be right at the 8 core mark (actually performs slower with 10+ cores according to the same source).

Maybe I should just wait a month or so and wait for the dust to settle with the early Ryzen issues and see if that changes anything. I want to get back on the AMD train, but only if it makes sense for my workflow.
I think that's a perfectly reasonable approach to wait and see.

It may be possible that there is enough optimization/performance uplift that even a 1700/X is viable for you in a few months.

Or it may be that the speed demon 7700K is still the better option when you revisit.

For me the choice was pretty clear because 90% of what I do benefits from 8C/16T versus the 10% where Ryzen trades blows with my 6700K.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ManyThreads

ASK THE COMMUNITY