• 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."

Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

Page 176 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

imported_jjj

Senior member
Feb 14, 2009
660
430
136
These results are all over the place. In other reviews Ryzen sucked in exactly these 2 games while here it shines compared to say a 7700k. However these other reviews all seem to be done with a GTX1080. I think what would be great bench to compare CPU + GPU combo. Maybe the NV driver is causing an issue with Ryzen...
It's the reviewers testing at low res for the GPU used (so for high FPS gaming) and that's where there are problems.
High FPS favors clocks over cores and further penalizes Ryzen because of its high memory latency and 2x4 cores config.
The reviewers are failing in a huge way to test Ryzen for everybody that doesn't target high FPS gaming so the vast majority.
Ryzen in its current state is not fit for high FPS but reviewers aren't capable enough to realize that Ryzen is fine for the other 90% of users.
Ryzen's issues are also somewhat specific to certain titles , a substantial number but less than half. It's easy to see where the gap is huge when testing at low res and where it's mostly just IPC and clocks.

When you buy a GPU , you target 30 FPS or 40 or 60FPS on w/e res your display has.Reviewers are Trumpian and testing with 700$ cards at 1080p as they have completely lost touch with reality.
Get a RX 480 or GTX 1060 with Ryzen and decent DRAM speeds at 1080p or 1440p and you are fine or better than fine (ofc depends on what games you play, some games favor ST some MT).

The CPU load profile is different between high FPS and normal FPS but reviewers don't quit get that so they keep testing in their idiotic way and trumpeting the 7700k as the best for gaming.

The first day reviews also had problems. Many were testing with terrible BIOS, many with low clocks DRAM and pretty much everybody at low res.
Posted y-day some interesting gaming results targeting 60FPS https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/official-amd-ryzen-benchmarks-reviews-prices-and-discussion.2499879/page-174#post-38790078

Some reviewers will stick to their guns and go on to argue that low res will show you how it will perform with "future GPUs" but that argument doesn't stand.
If you think of the future you have to factor in how the GPU and CPU load evolves with future titles, how display res evolves and most importantly how single core vs multicore demand evolves.- ST doesn't scale while games have ample room to better exploit MT.

Ryzen does have a latency problem and it's not ok for high FPS gaming but reviewers just suck at their jobs and decided to only test for that and draw conclusions based on JUST that. That's how they have created this consensus that Ryzen has a gaming problem.

I have posted those results because there very very few tests at a res fit for the GPU used and that's what most folks need.
 

unseenmorbidity

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
965
96
I'm not sure how I feel about these results. 7700k losing to an FX 8350 in ROTTR? Something doesn't seem right here.
 

lolfail9001

Golden Member
Sep 9, 2016
1,056
353
96
Sorry to come back to this, but why did he test with kernel 4.9 when he'd already tested 4.10 and 4.11 a week or so ago? Yes, new GPU, but still doesn't shed any light as to why he'd gimp Ryzen for the 1080ti.
Ryzen changes are backported to 4.9, apparently. Disclaimer: i fell asleep before i could verify that.
 

JimKiler

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2002
3,434
108
106
It's the reviewers testing at low res for the GPU used (so for high FPS gaming) and that's where there are problems.
High FPS favors clocks over cores and further penalizes Ryzen because of its high memory latency and 2x4 cores config.
The reviewers are failing in a huge way to test Ryzen for everybody that doesn't target high FPS gaming so the vast majority.
Ryzen in its current state is not fit for high FPS but reviewers aren't capable enough to realize that Ryzen is fine for the other 90% of users.
Ryzen's issues are also somewhat specific to certain titles , a substantial number but less than half. It's easy to see where the gap is huge when testing at low res and where it's mostly just IPC and clocks.

When you buy a GPU , you target 30 FPS or 40 or 60FPS on w/e res your display has.Reviewers are Trumpian and testing with 700$ cards at 1080p as they have completely lost touch with reality.
Get a RX 480 or GTX 1060 with Ryzen and decent DRAM speeds at 1080p or 1440p and you are fine or better than fine (ofc depends on what games you play, some games favor ST some MT).

The CPU load profile is different between high FPS and normal FPS but reviewers don't quit get that so they keep testing in their idiotic way and trumpeting the 7700k as the best for gaming.

The first day reviews also had problems. Many were testing with terrible BIOS, many with low clocks DRAM and pretty much everybody at low res.
Posted y-day some interesting gaming results targeting 60FPS https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/official-amd-ryzen-benchmarks-reviews-prices-and-discussion.2499879/page-174#post-38790078

Some reviewers will stick to their guns and go on to argue that low res will show you how it will perform with "future GPUs" but that argument doesn't stand.
If you think of the future you have to factor in how the GPU and CPU load evolves with future titles, how display res evolves and most importantly how single core vs multicore demand evolves.- ST doesn't scale while games have ample room to better exploit MT.

Ryzen does have a latency problem and it's not ok for high FPS gaming but reviewers just suck at their jobs and decided to only test for that and draw conclusions based on JUST that. That's how they have created this consensus that Ryzen has a gaming problem.

I have posted those results because there very very few tests at a res fit for the GPU used and that's what most folks need.
As someone who has never paid more than $200 for a GPU I want to know if you buy a high end GPU how often are you going to replace your CPU? In other words if you game at 1440p and 4K would it be realistic to say those people will upgrade their CPU's before the current CPU starts to slow down presuming they did have a Ryzen CPU.
 

pj-

Senior member
May 5, 2015
409
121
116
It's the reviewers testing at low res for the GPU used (so for high FPS gaming) and that's where there are problems.
High FPS favors clocks over cores and further penalizes Ryzen because of its high memory latency and 2x4 cores config.
The reviewers are failing in a huge way to test Ryzen for everybody that doesn't target high FPS gaming so the vast majority.
Ryzen in its current state is not fit for high FPS but reviewers aren't capable enough to realize that Ryzen is fine for the other 90% of users.
Ryzen's issues are also somewhat specific to certain titles , a substantial number but less than half. It's easy to see where the gap is huge when testing at low res and where it's mostly just IPC and clocks.

When you buy a GPU , you target 30 FPS or 40 or 60FPS on w/e res your display has.Reviewers are Trumpian and testing with 700$ cards at 1080p as they have completely lost touch with reality.
Get a RX 480 or GTX 1060 with Ryzen and decent DRAM speeds at 1080p or 1440p and you are fine or better than fine (ofc depends on what games you play, some games favor ST some MT).

The CPU load profile is different between high FPS and normal FPS but reviewers don't quit get that so they keep testing in their idiotic way and trumpeting the 7700k as the best for gaming.

The first day reviews also had problems. Many were testing with terrible BIOS, many with low clocks DRAM and pretty much everybody at low res.
Posted y-day some interesting gaming results targeting 60FPS https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/official-amd-ryzen-benchmarks-reviews-prices-and-discussion.2499879/page-174#post-38790078

Some reviewers will stick to their guns and go on to argue that low res will show you how it will perform with "future GPUs" but that argument doesn't stand.
If you think of the future you have to factor in how the GPU and CPU load evolves with future titles, how display res evolves and most importantly how single core vs multicore demand evolves.- ST doesn't scale while games have ample room to better exploit MT.

Ryzen does have a latency problem and it's not ok for high FPS gaming but reviewers just suck at their jobs and decided to only test for that and draw conclusions based on JUST that. That's how they have created this consensus that Ryzen has a gaming problem.

I have posted those results because there very very few tests at a res fit for the GPU used and that's what most folks need.
CPUs perform similarly in games when you are GPU limited?? You don't say.

"Most folks" don't need a $300+ CPU in the first place. Who in their right mind is going to spend $300+ on a CPU and only $200 on a GPU?

High FPS gaming should be a concern for that level of CPU because it's one of the few things that justifies spending that much, for most folks.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MajinCry

unseenmorbidity

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
965
96
CPUs perform similarly in games when you are GPU limited?? You don't say.

"Most folks" don't need a $300+ CPU in the first place. Who in their right mind is going to spend $300+ on a CPU and only $200 on a GPU?

High FPS gaming should be a concern for that level of CPU because it's one of the few things that justifies spending that much, for most folks.
99.99% of users are gpu limited. The reviews emphasize a difference that doesn't exist for the vast majority of users.

I did. I bought $155 gpu, RX 4gb 480.

CPU's are long term investments.
GPU's last two or three years, depending on how much you spend. You can go longer of course, but you really have to start dropping settings.

You should plan on using multiple gpus through the life on your cpu.

I wanted a 1600x, but I got sick of waiting. Now I am waiting on the board anyway...I might pick up a 580 later this year though.
 
Last edited:

imported_jjj

Senior member
Feb 14, 2009
660
430
136
"Most folks" don't need a $300+ CPU in the first place. Who in their right mind is going to spend $300+ on a CPU and only $200 on a GPU?
The vast majority of 8 cores Ryzen buyers would spend little on a GPU as the PC is not a gaming console and a 200$ GPU is sufficient for 1080p and can be stretched to 1440p with lower settings in the most demanding games.
You seem to think that "people in their right mind" build PCs just for gaming so i am guessing you are part of the smartphone generation that even does video editing on their phones.Not sure who's in their right mind and who isn't but lets not try to decide that one now.
If you build a PC just for gaming, get a quad core Ryzen with HT, OC it and spend more on the GPU as it's the best way to get the best gaming perf for the money. And in a few years upgrade the CPU without spending on a mobo.

The CPU shouldn't even be a factor in gaming (at all) outside super budget gaming boxes. It got this bad because Intel has refused to offer more cores but this has nothing to do with normality. Hopefully AMD goes 12 cores in 2019 and you'll start to understand that.

To be clear, the PC can do more than just gaming. Very few folks build PCs for just gaming and they are usually upper class in the most developed nations but the world is much bigger than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: innociv

hotstocks

Member
Jun 20, 2008
81
26
91
Here's my take on synthetic vs. real world. (Now I won't build a Ryzen rig until mobo and ram works properly with 32gb at 3200, there is still teething). So we know Ryzen has cross CCX latency problems and is more like two quad core chips in dual sockets (although slightly faster connections), so it will be slower in 1080p gaming with a good gpu if there are more than 8 threads being used or less than 8 threads split over CCXs. Can windows be smart enough to figure that out, I don't know. But what I do know is ALL reviewers review games in ideal situations (IE, clean windows install or at least windows without ANY bloatware). So what I would REALLY like to see is how Ryzen compares to Intel in a REAL user situation. My guess is if Ryzen is being micro loaded all the time with your browser, telegram, IRC, chat clients, anti-virus, monitoring apps, and all the mobo, sound, etc, apps as well as the other 1100 threads that are running, THEN is Ryzen faster or still slower than Intel in 1080p gaming? Sure a 7700 can beat Ryzen on a clean system, but I am very curious to see if Ryzen would win on a normal desktop environment with 50 programs running in the background.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rgallant

unseenmorbidity

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
965
96
I play at 1440p on this 480. Usually the only setting that needs reduced is aa. Particularly multisampling, but one could argue you aren't rendering the native resolution with fsaa anyways.
 

sirmo

Golden Member
Oct 10, 2011
1,011
374
136
CPUs perform similarly in games when you are GPU limited?? You don't say.

"Most folks" don't need a $300+ CPU in the first place. Who in their right mind is going to spend $300+ on a CPU and only $200 on a GPU?

High FPS gaming should be a concern for that level of CPU because it's one of the few things that justifies spending that much, for most folks.
There are those who use their computer for work (content creation) and occasionally game. Like myself. I game about 10% of the time, if that much. For me it makes sense to spend 3 times as much on a CPU than a GPU. I think you'd be surprised how many of these folks exist, they just don't spend time on forums debating gaming performance.

To me it makes no sense that someone would spend $700 on a GPU every 2 years, while spending less than $400 on a monitor. Yet I see people all the time buying flagship GPUs paired with i5s and cheap TN panels.
 

dahorns

Senior member
Sep 13, 2013
550
83
91
I'm not sure how I feel about these results. 7700k losing to an FX 8350 in ROTTR? Something doesn't seem right here.
There is pretty clearly something wrong with those numbers, especially given that pretty much every other review with those titles the opposite order, even at the same resolution. E.g.,

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/03/amd-ryzen-review/2/
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3176191/computers/ryzen-review-amd-is-back.html?page=3
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-processor-review,17.html

These results are all over the place. In other reviews Ryzen sucked in exactly these 2 games while here it shines compared to say a 7700k. However these other reviews all seem to be done with a GTX1080. I think what would be great bench to compare CPU + GPU combo. Maybe the NV driver is causing an issue with Ryzen...
Or maybe rather than NV causing an issue, Ryzen and the 480 work well together? Or the 480 is causing issues with Intel cpus? I'd like to see some more testing using the 480 that verifies Vortez's numbers before going too far down this rabbit hole.
 

imported_jjj

Senior member
Feb 14, 2009
660
430
136
As someone who has never paid more than $200 for a GPU I want to know if you buy a high end GPU how often are you going to replace your CPU? In other words if you game at 1440p and 4K would it be realistic to say those people will upgrade their CPU's before the current CPU starts to slow down presuming they did have a Ryzen CPU.
Guess that's a fair point but i don't have an answer, not sure how to get actual data on that.
The 1% that does spend 700$ or more on a GPU is likely not budget limited so your assumption that they are likely to upgrade CPUs seems reasonable.Ofc if they are not budget limited, right now the 6900k is better than Ryzen for gaming as Ryzen is a bit rough around the edges.
The 5-10% that spend 350$ on a GPU, likely do so to game mostly at 1440p but also many will game at 1080p higher FPS. They'll likely upgrade GPUs every 2 years while CPUs are updated less often.
Everybody else likely sticks with the same CPU for quite a while, with GPU upgrades when they need or can afford to.
But there is no realistic way for Ryzen to become slower with time. Single core perf doesn't scale while MT does and with 8 cores it's underutilized. By all indications, Intel will increase the number of cores to 6 with Coffee Lake so the future is more cores no matter what.
 

pj-

Senior member
May 5, 2015
409
121
116
The vast majority of 8 cores Ryzen buyers would spend little on a GPU as the PC is not a gaming console and a 200$ GPU is sufficient for 1080p and can be stretched to 1440p with lower settings in the most demanding games.
You seem to think that "people in their right mind" build PCs just for gaming so i am guessing you are part of the smartphone generation that even does video editing on their phones.Not sure who's in their right mind and who isn't but lets not try to decide that one now.
If you build a PC just for gaming, get a quad core Ryzen with HT, OC it and spend more on the GPU as it's the best way to get the best gaming perf for the money. And in a few years upgrade the CPU without spending on a mobo.

The CPU shouldn't even be a factor in gaming (at all) outside super budget gaming boxes. It got this bad because Intel has refused to offer more cores but this has nothing to do with normality. Hopefully AMD goes 12 cores in 2019 and you'll start to understand that.

To be clear, the PC can do more than just gaming. Very few folks build PCs for just gaming and they are usually upper class in the most developed nations but the world is much bigger than that.
I would argue that most people who buy 7700k/1700 level CPUs do in fact build them primarily for gaming. People who do actually need powerful workstations, and are budget constrained, would probably be better off buying a couple generations old xeon than any high end mainstream cpu.

I don't know if you're trying to make some sort of "check your privilege" point, but you'd have to think I'm a complete moron to not know that poor people exist. Desktop PCs are a small niche and I would bet the vast majority (of the constantly dropping number) being sold today are < $500 complete systems like the one I saw wheeling by me in a cart at Walmart on Saturday. That has nothing to do with pairing a 8 core high end CPU with a mid/low end GPU, which would still be out of reach for the vast majority of humans who are not upper class in developed nations.
 

pj-

Senior member
May 5, 2015
409
121
116
There are those who use their computer for work (content creation) and occasionally game. Like myself. I game about 10% of the time, if that much. For me it makes sense to spend 3 times as much on a CPU than a GPU. I think you'd be surprised how many of these folks exist, they just don't spend time on forums debating gaming performance.
I would actually be surprised. Do you have numbers on the % split of PCs with high end CPUs that are primarily for work vs gaming?

To me it makes no sense that someone would spend $700 on a GPU every 2 years, while spending less than $400 on a monitor. Yet I see people all the time buying flagship GPUs paired with i5s and cheap TN panels.
I agree that also makes no sense
 

sirmo

Golden Member
Oct 10, 2011
1,011
374
136
I would actually be surprised. Do you have numbers on the % split of PCs with high end CPUs that are primarily for work vs gaming?



I agree that also makes no sense
I don't have any hard numbers, it's all mostly anecdotal based on reading r/buildapc and r/linux (noticed a lot of linux users who are upgrading to Ryzen for instance).
 

MajinCry

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2015
2,488
557
136
We're still going on about low res vs high res benchmarks?

If you want to test the CPU, you minimize the GPU related settings, and maximize the CPU related ones. To clarify:

GPU: Reduce screen resolution, shadow resolution, texture resolution, mesh polygon density, reduce distance threshold for LOD

CPU: Max shadow distances, max object distances, max reflections

Then go to the most intensive parts of the game. For example: Skyrim @ Dragonsreach overlooking Whiterun, New Vegas @ The Strip + Freeside Open mod, Fallout 4 @ Top of the steps at Diamond City overlooking the town (for differently bottlenecked area, @ top of Corvega overlooking Lexington), etc.

Finally, you get the minimum framerates after panning the camera around a bunch, to find the most complex scene at whatever camera angle.

Maximum and Average fps are meaningless without minimum fps, and minimum fps is also meaningless if it isn't recorded in the most performance hungry parts of the game.
 

imported_jjj

Senior member
Feb 14, 2009
660
430
136
I would argue that most people who buy 7700k/1700 level CPUs do in fact build them primarily for gaming. People who do actually need powerful workstations, and are budget constrained, would probably be better off buying a couple generations old xeon than any high end mainstream cpu.

I don't know if you're trying to make some sort of "check your privilege" point, but you'd have to think I'm a complete moron to not know that poor people exist. Desktop PCs are a small niche and I would bet the vast majority (of the constantly dropping number) being sold today are < $500 complete systems like the one I saw wheeling by me in a cart at Walmart on Saturday. That has nothing to do with pairing a 8 core high end CPU with a mid/low end GPU, which would still be out of reach for the vast majority of humans who are not upper class in developed nations.
I don't think you are a moron but now i know that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Desktop PCs are maybe 45% of the PC market with a higher percentage in developing nations as the desktop is the one and only PC that household owns.And ofc the only gaming machine as they can't spend on consoles.
The DIY market can be dimensioned by looking at mobo sales and those should be around 50 million units per year with China being huge.
The discrete desktop GPU market is maybe 45 million units and only some 10% of that are above 250$.

As for GPUs, low end means bellow 100$, Mid is 100-250$ but 250$ is a bit of a stretch. High end is above that.
Normal people buy the CPU they need and the GPU they need , those are two different parts serving different purposes If you need 8 cores, you buy 8 cores,if you need 1080p gaming you buy a 200$ GPU.
You fail to understand that the PC can do more than gaming.Very few people build PCs for gaming, building just for gaming is a new trend but it's not what the PC is.
 

DuronBurgerMan

Junior Member
Mar 13, 2017
21
19
41
I am one of those who splits between work and gaming. I am a graphic designer, however, and so I see a benefit from both a fast CPU and a fast GPU, depending on the applications in question. So I can't really skimp on any part of the build. I need a good all-round performer.

Ryzen is great for that purpose, when paired with a good GPU (I'll be going with the 1080 Ti, most likely, supposing they are ever in stock). Before Ryzen, my choices were to buy a fast quad-core like the 7700k, but take a big hit to rendering and encoding performance, to pay Intel well over $1000 for a CPU that could both game and do multi-threaded sh*t, or buy an old dual socket Xeon setup that would suck for gaming because of low clock rates.

Ryzen isn't the best in any one category, but it does pretty good in all of them, and for a fair price.
 

imported_jjj

Senior member
Feb 14, 2009
660
430
136
We're still going on about low res vs high res benchmarks?

If you want to test the CPU, you minimize the GPU related settings, and maximize the CPU related ones. To clarify:

GPU: Reduce screen resolution, shadow resolution, texture resolution, mesh polygon density, reduce distance threshold for LOD

CPU: Max shadow distances, max object distances, max reflections

Then go to the most intensive parts of the game. For example: Skyrim @ Dragonsreach overlooking Whiterun, New Vegas @ The Strip + Freeside Open mod, Fallout 4 @ Top of the steps at Diamond City overlooking the town (for differently bottlenecked area, @ top of Corvega overlooking Lexington), etc.

Finally, you get the minimum framerates after panning the camera around a bunch, to find the most complex scene at whatever camera angle.

Maximum and Average fps are meaningless without minimum fps, and minimum fps is also meaningless if it isn't recorded in the most performance hungry parts of the game.

Isn't that like testing a SSDs seq writes with random writes?
The load profile is different than in normal gaming. Diff core counts and , with Ryzen, mem latency plus 2x4C make high FPS low res gaming testing even less relevant.
Core count aside, at the very least you increase the importance of latency vs computing.The load profile changes and it's not an accurate representation for gaming with that CPU.
 

pj-

Senior member
May 5, 2015
409
121
116
I don't think you are a moron but now i know that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Desktop PCs are maybe 45% of the PC market with a higher percentage in developing nations as the desktop is the one and only PC that household owns.And ofc the only gaming machine as they can't spend on consoles.
The DIY market can be dimensioned by looking at mobo sales and those should be around 50 million units per year with China being huge.
The discrete desktop GPU market is maybe 45 million units and only some 10% of that are above 250$.

As for GPUs, low end means bellow 100$, Mid is 100-250$ but 250$ is a bit of a stretch. High end is above that.
Normal people buy the CPU they need and the GPU they need , those are two different parts serving different purposes If you need 8 cores, you buy 8 cores,if you need 1080p gaming you buy a 200$ GPU.
You fail to understand that the PC can do more than gaming.Very few people build PCs for gaming, building just for gaming is a new trend but it's not what the PC is.
Normal people don't need more CPU than what a cell phone has, even a cheap one.

Unless the developing world has a ton of video editors and graphic designers (why would they be buying new parts anyway instead of used ones which give a much higher perf/$), I don't see how you can say the market for high end consumer CPUs is not mostly driven by gaming.

You say only 10% of GPU sales are above $250. OK, and what % of CPU sales are above $250? I wouldn't be surprised if it was also 10%, or even less.
 

MajinCry

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2015
2,488
557
136
Isn't that like testing a SSDs seq writes with random writes?
The load profile is different than in normal gaming. Diff core counts and , with Ryzen, mem latency plus 2x4C make high FPS low res gaming testing even less relevant.
Core count aside, at the very least you increase the importance of latency vs computing.The load profile changes and it's not an accurate representation for gaming with that CPU.
No idea about testing SSDs, but just playing the least intensive parts of a game will not show how the CPU genuinely performs. Give it a proper workload, with draw calls up the yang and several dozen NPCs in combat, and we'd see the strength of the CPU where it counts.

Case in point, I couldn't care less if Ryzen gets 300fps at the beginning sequence of Fallout 4. I want to know how it handles 20 settlers with a sprawling junkyard city in Sanctuary Hills, because that's where the meat of the game is at.
 

imported_jjj

Senior member
Feb 14, 2009
660
430
136
No idea about testing SSDs, but just playing the least intensive parts of a game will not show how the CPU genuinely performs. Give it a proper workload, with draw calls up the yang and several dozen NPCs in combat, and we'd see the strength of the CPU where it counts.

Case in point, I couldn't care less if Ryzen gets 300fps at the beginning sequence of Fallout 4. I want to know how it handles 20 settlers with a sprawling junkyard city in Sanctuary Hills, because that's where the meat of the game is at.
Where in game to test is a fair point, you do want a worst case scenario.
What i was saying is that with diff cores, number of cores, memory controllers, res scaling is not identical between the tested CPUs so testing at low res is not representative or sufficient.
Data is hard to find as nobody tests properly the 6900k and Ryzen in games but plotting the res scaling SKU vs SKU is what reviewers should do.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY