• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

Page 166 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
bystander36 said:
You do see tests done by players, but unfortunately it's rarely done with the major sites. You also see people complain about this all the time on various forums. Their system scores perfectly on everything benchmark, but in Arma, WoW, GTA V they get low FPS in specific areas (and everyone gets those). I also experience this a lot, and used to be a WoW raider. A lot of games seem to have spots which are CPU crushing.

There are a couple reasons we do not see review sites benchmarking these spots; 1) many are in multiplayer scenarios, which are unpredictable and hard to reproduce results, and 2) it would seem most benchmarks setup, are designed to push the GPU, and they simply choose not to create new benchmarks for CPU's.
Click to expand...
I played WoW myself I am not disagreeing they don't exist. But read that review that was just posted. Shows Ryzen 1800X has a consistent edge in minimal framerates over the 7700K. So if you're worried about frame drops.. Ryzen seems to clearly be ahead.
 
cytg111 said:
There it is again.. with the better mins.. in the same game that reports lower mins in another review... these benches are all over the place... I trust nothing at this point 🙂
Click to expand...
The scheduler is killing minimums. It's trying to share information from one CCX to another, and it tanks performance.

e9vdxtsb4bky.jpg
 
If the CPU is bottlenecking, surely lowering the graphics settings isn't going to do jack all other than increase load on CPU...isn't that why we're trying to justify nonsense resolution testing?
If you're playing at the CPU bottleneck then youre doing something wrong. The obvious answer is to play at the GPU bottleneck. You don't buy a CPU for gaming for it to be the thing that is your bottleneck.
 
Ryzen-Far-Cry-Primal-2160p-Ultra-Preset.png

For nobody else there is a red light lit in their mind, apart from me?

With GTX 1080 Ti, there is no difference in how much performance you are able to achieve, regardless of the core clocks of Ryzen CPU.

That's not right...
 
sirmo said:
I played WoW myself I am not disagreeing they don't exist. But read that review that was just posted. Shows Ryzen 1800X has a consistent edge in minimal framerates over the 7700K. So if you're worried about frame drops.. Ryzen seems to clearly be ahead.
Click to expand...
I'm not certain which benchmarks you are looking at, but the ones I just saw, did show mostly higher minimums on the Ryzen, particularly over the i7 7700k. The i7 5820K showed closer results. I'd be interested to see the i7 5820K with an OC, like the Ryzen chip (I have an i7 5820K).

It does go to show that more cores will help in well multithreaded games, which they clearly went out of their way to show. I wonder how that will play out with future games. When I bought the i7 5820K, I did so with the idea that multithreading would become important in the near future (and it was cheaper than the i7 6700K at the time).
 
bystander36 said:
I'm not certain which benchmarks you are looking at, but the ones I just saw, did show mostly higher minimums on the Ryzen, particularly over the i7 7700k. The i7 5820K showed closer results. I'd be interested to see the i7 5820K with an OC, like the Ryzen chip (I have an i7 5820K).

It does go to show that more cores will help in well multithreaded games, which they clearly went out of their way to show. I wonder how that will play out with future games. When I bought the i7 5820K, I did so with the idea that multithreading would become important in the near future (and it was cheaper than the i7 6700K at the time).
Click to expand...
Read the conclusion from that article. If the charts aren't making sense. Ryzen shows 20-50% better low frames than 7700K in the games tested.
 
bystander36 said:
A CPU that bottlenecks at 40 FPS at 480p, also bottlenecks at 40 FPS at 4K.
Click to expand...

Nope. Its more likely to be GPU bottlenecked. If not than we are talking about a 400 vs 380 fps gameplay. Otherwise Gamer Nexus was banging on about 1080 p for nothing and could have just tested the 4k

Make you case with a benchmark from somewhere reputable.

Otherwise We can agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
Glo. said:
Ryzen-Far-Cry-Primal-2160p-Ultra-Preset.png

For nobody else there is a red light lit in their mind, apart from me?

With GTX 1080 Ti, there is no difference in how much performance you are able to achieve, regardless of the core clocks of Ryzen CPU.

That's not right...
Click to expand...
Is XFR messing up the overclocking results? By that I mean XFR is already overclocking the chip as far as it will go, so the manual overclock appears to cause no change?
 
LTC8K6 said:
Is XFR messing up the overclocking results? By that I mean XFR is already overclocking the chip as far as it will go, so the manual overclock appears to cause no change?
Click to expand...
Actually that would make sense. Since XFR can reach 4.1Ghz on two cores, while OC at 4Ghz lowers that a bit since you disable XFR when overclocking.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Is XFR messing up the overclocking results? By that I mean XFR is already overclocking the chip as far as it will go, so the manual overclock appears to cause no change?
Click to expand...

All cores go to 3.7 by default so at the very least it would mean that the game is very ST limited but that's likely not the case as the 6 cores Intel wins.
 
cytg111 said:
There it is again.. with the better mins.. in the same game that reports lower mins in another review... these benches are all over the place... I trust nothing at this point 🙂
Click to expand...

Why do you care about mins? They are almost always 1 frame spikes so rather hard to notice.
That's why 99% is so much better, or maybe 95% for high FPS gaming.
 
Hitman928 said:
This is computerbase's H265 results. Ryzen looks incredibly strong here to me. Are there other results showing different? I'm going back and forth on purchasing an 8 core Ryzen but one of the main motivations is excellent Handbrake performance. If this isn't the case, I'm going to hold off.

11KOoI0.png
Click to expand...
Yeaa. Cant remember where i got it perhaps its wrong - sorry. When i look at x265 a few places now an 1700x is at 5930 perf level.
Like eg here
http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-cpu-review/4/
And for some encoding zen is flat out faster than bwe.
Hmm...
 
PotatoWithEarsOnSide said:
Am I the only one questioning how [H] got those scores for the 1700 @ 4.025GHz given that in the same article it clearly states that they couldn't get in stable beyong 3.96GHz...?
Click to expand...
Huh?
Kyle said:
The two 1700X CPUs I have tested are identical in regards to overclocking performance. Those two CPUs were rock solid at 4.025GHz with 3000MHz and 3200MHz RAM. Both of these were at 1.4v vCore, 1.2v SOC, and 1.4v RAM. In fact, backing down on the RAM clocks did not give us any more headroom when overclocking at all. AMD got its IMC right! I am very sure of that.



The single Ryzen 1700 I have did not fare as well, but it was not far behind. The best I could get out of it and it remain rock solid was 3.966GHz with either 3000 or 3200Mhz memory, at the very same voltages above. It did however do this with water or good air cooling, the same as the 1700X CPUs.
Click to expand...
He is talking about 1700xs, and then mentioned 1700.
Glo. said:
For nobody else there is a red light lit in their mind, apart from me?
Click to expand...
Why, i see that it is another "review" site that needs it's methodology sorted out.
 
sirmo said:
Actually that would make sense. Since XFR can reach 4.1Ghz on two cores, while OC at 4Ghz lowers that a bit since you disable XFR when overclocking.
Click to expand...
Sort of like there is no manual overclocking better than XFR on the 1800X because it's nearly maxed out already with XFR.

You get some manual overclocking with 1700X because it's not quite maxed out with XFR.

You get a nice overclock with the 1700 because it's nowhere near maxed out with XFR and it has a limited form of XFR in the first place.
 
cytg111 said:
There it is again.. with the better mins.. in the same game that reports lower mins in another review... these benches are all over the place... I trust nothing at this point 🙂
Click to expand...
What about the reviewers start gaming for real? This:
"If you’re gaming at 100+ FPS and your frame rate drops below 60FPS for a moment, you’re going to notice; the same is true from 60-40, and so on. The Ryzen 1800X helped maintain the highest minimum frame rates we’ve ever seen, and that means a more consistent, smoother and overall better gameplay experience. When it comes down to it, this higher minimum number is what you want from a gaming chip, not just the bigger average or maximum number.

Our testing may seem strange to some, particularly our choice of CPUs to pit against Ryzen. I chose the 7700K as it’s currently a very popular choice for those building a high-end gaming PC, and it’s an excellent choice too, it’s a powerful chip, features the latest Kaby Lake architecture and works very well. With Ryzen launching, the price of the Intel chip is now £320-340, although it’s not a huge leap up from Skylake, it’s still great for gaming.

The Ryzen 1800X is more expensive at just under £500, but when you see 20-50% improvements in minimum frame rate, and gains regarding average frame rate, that certainly makes sense."

Thats the only damn difference
They game!

Ofcource its a mess to reproduce the results but at least they make sense. Better than some reproducible useless data.
http://www.eteknix.com/nvidia-gtx-1080-ti-cpu-showdown-i7-7700k-vs-ryzen-r7-1800x-vs-i7-5820k/9/
 
Last edited:
sirmo said:
Actually that would make sense. Since XFR can reach 4.1Ghz on two cores, while OC at 4Ghz lowers that a bit since you disable XFR when overclocking.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure that only works when 2 cores are doing stuff.

The much slower 5820k was ahead of the 7700k anyways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top