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

Shivansps

Diamond Member
Sep 11, 2013
3,067
745
136
The 1800x beats 6900k on at least 2 games shown, BF1 and sniper elite 4 (SE looked to be over 10%) the Chinese link that saw both 6800k and 1700x locked at 3.4 saw ryzen matching or leading broadwell even in ST sensitive games.
Sorry but no, 1700X and 6800K are running full turbo in that test, maybe XFR enabled as well. Ryzen indeed is running slower ram, but them again, the 6800K seems to be running only dual channel according to what it says there.

Check cinebench number on that table, is right on with AMD data.


Then again, it may be fake.
 

leoneazzurro

Senior member
Jul 26, 2016
294
341
136
Why don't you click the link so you can find 1080p also? :D
Moreover, this is not even the most taxing scenario in games. CPU becomes really important in multiplayer games, with a great number of participants. Of course it will depend on how well the games will be coded, but I'd expect that more cores will further increase their lead in these environments.
 

Shivansps

Diamond Member
Sep 11, 2013
3,067
745
136
Don't see anything bad here. 1700x wins most benches
While it does, the 6800K has 2 cores less and probably runs at lower frecuency (3.5Ghz ACT). Thats not really a good result, most gaming results are inside the margin of error. I was kinda expecting the 6800K to have no chance here.
 
Last edited:

Riek

Senior member
Dec 16, 2008
409
14
76
Oh, no you've posted some 720p benchmarks and defeated me.

Why didn't you also post the results for 1080p, which some people actually game at?

We both already know the answer, and it's because the higher-core counts only have 5-7% instead of 40%. Care to speculate or guess what the results would look like if they posted benchmarks for 1440 or 4k? [H] had an article a while ago that similarly looked at scaling, more limited in that it only tested with a single game, but also included 1440 results.

As long as the 4-core chips enjoy a comfortable bit of OC headroom over HEDT parts, they'll have their niche in the market and Intel won't have to budge price all that much, maybe drop around $50 to ~$300 or so. It really depends on how good the R3 chips are since there'll be able to OC better given all of the dark silicon to soak up and spread the heat around and what AMD wants to sell them for.

One possibility that hasn't been discussed would be if using Ryzen Master to manually shut off 4-cores that you could get an 8-core Zen to have similar clocks in which case you can configure the processor to give you the best of both worlds and tailor it to best fit the task, but we don't know how easy it will be to do that or if it allows hitting similar OC levels.

However, the fact is that at higher resolutions, additional cores amount to barely any performance gains and that because Intel's x700K can hit higher clock speeds it will overcome that relatively small scaling advantage and give overall better results.

That is a GPU bottleneck. Overclocking a 4c8T cpu in that test won't change that bottleneck at all. What that review tells you is that the models with more cores have a higher cpu limit. So if you pair it with a faster gpu, you will get better fps than with the 4c8t cpu. (in those particular games)

Heck what it tells you is that a 7700K for gaming is pointless as you will run into a gpu limit much sooner and better spend the saved $$ for the gpu.

Imo as long as the 7700K isn't available for less than the R5 1600x/1700 it looks (i say looks as this is all premature) as a bad choice.
 

leoneazzurro

Senior member
Jul 26, 2016
294
341
136
While it does, the 6800K has 2 cores less and probably runs at lower frecuency (3.5Ghz ACT). Thats not really a good result, most gaming results are inside the marging of error. I was kinda expecting the 6800K to have no chance here.
They are running the games with a RX480. Not sure about it, but it's likely they are in a GPU limited situation (due to the difference in FPS being so small) and hence for testing CPU power can be meaningless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: french toast

Riek

Senior member
Dec 16, 2008
409
14
76
While it does, the 6800K has 2 cores less and probably runs at lower frecuency (3.5Ghz ACT). Thats not really a good result, most gaming results are inside the marging of error. I was kinda expecting the 6800K to have no chance here.
completely bottlenecked by gpu, not by cpu. tests are meaningless except to prove that the cpu is not the bottleneck . (where the 8xxx probably would be the bottleneck).
 

french toast

Senior member
Feb 22, 2017
978
803
106
Sorry but no, 1700X and 6800K are running full turbo in that test, maybe XFR enabled as well. Ryzen indeed is running slower ram, but them again, the 6800K seems to be running only dual channel according to what it says there.

Check cinebench number on that table, is right on with AMD data.


Then again, it may be fake.
right, and whats all core turbo for 1700x? 3.5ghz same as 6800k? And with slower memory to boot, yes broadwell has dual channel to use but up to dual channel 3600mhz any more bandwidth gets limited returns, not to mention ryzen is more efficient with that memory, potentially needing only 3200mhz ddr4 to get close to maximum bandwidth thats beneficial without diminishing returns.

Which ever way you look at it ryzen core for core is at LEAST as good as broadwell in gaming scenarios, if you factor that into that chart intel is going to have a problem with a cheaper R7 1700.

Edit rx480 bottleneck, missed that.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,457
641
126
http://bbs.pceva.com.cn/thread-137649-1-1.html



That one, it may be fake but if thats true it seems bad to me. Cinebench results for 1700X are spot on with AMD numbers so both cpu are running at full speed, 1700X probably XFR enabled as well.
6800K ACT is just 3.5Ghz.
Either typos or lots of math errors in that table. Look at Tomb Raider and the first number for Civ 6.
 

Shivansps

Diamond Member
Sep 11, 2013
3,067
745
136
right, and whats all core turbo for 1700x? 3.5ghz same as 6800k? And with slower memory to boot, yes broadwell has dual channel to use but up to dual channel 3600mhz any more bandwidth gets limited returns, not to mention ryzen is more efficient with that memory, potentially needing only 3200mhz ddr4 to get close to maximum bandwidth thats beneficial without diminishing returns.

Which ever way you look at it ryzen core for core is at LEAST as good as broadwell in gaming scenarios, if you factor that into that chart intel is going to have a problem with a cheaper R7 1700.
Well then tell AMD to lift the review embargo instead of making up excuses for them. I have no way to know what 1700X ACT is, even less with XFR coming to play, if it comes to play.
They are both crippled for memory, dont try to pull up that argument because we dont know how well it scales vs Quad Channel, or dual channel, thats all speculation on your part.
 

Atari2600

Golden Member
Nov 22, 2016
1,220
1,360
106
Technically, that is true, but irrelevant in real life. Seriously, nobody that buys a 300 dollar plus 8 core processor is going to game at less that 1080p.
Yep.

Use SD (480) to determine which CPU is the "fastest" running games.

Use HD (1080) or UHD to show its actually irrelevant for gamers..
 
  • Like
Reactions: french toast

french toast

Senior member
Feb 22, 2017
978
803
106
Well then tell AMD to lift the review embargo instead of making up excuses for them. I have no way to know what 1700X ACT is, even less with XFR coming to play, if it comes to play.
They are both crippled for memory, dont try to pull up that argument because we dont know how well it scales vs Quad Channel, or dual channel, thats all speculation on your part.
Making up excuses for them? Lol.
Look dude Its all speculation on these boards before release, if someone Doesn't like where that speculation is leading and gets emotionally involved, then perhaps its best if they just wait for reviews instead of engaging in such speculation in the first place :)
 

malitze

Junior Member
Feb 15, 2017
24
49
51
Technically, that is true, but irrelevant in real life. Seriously, nobody that buys a 300 dollar plus 8 core processor is going to game at less that 1080p.
Very true indeed. But still a meaningful way when investigating cpu scaling / per core scaling nonetheless. Always depends ;)
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
4,881
1,198
136
Why don't you click the link so you can find 1080p also? :D
Why didn't you read the rest of my post. You could easily find I was being facetious because the next line says that the results show only 5-7% gains at 1080p.

Because if you want to focus on the CPU you try to take the GPU out of the equation as good as possible.
Useful in an academic sense, but no one with those CPUs games at 720p so completely pointless in the real world.

Who cares if those conditions exist when no one in the real world is going to run into them.

Also, the [H] article I linked also tested at 1440 and found a truly bizarre result where more cores actually resulted in slightly lower performance despite being an advantage at lower resolutions. They said no one at AMD, NV, or Intel could really explain why either. My guess is drivers or some buggy game code, but even if the results weren't that way, you'd see almost no performance gain at the higher resolutions where most people game.

That is a GPU bottleneck. Overclocking a 4c8T cpu in that test won't change that bottleneck at all.
Yeah, they had to go all the way down to 720p with a Titan X to achieve that. Let me go make a poll in the VC&G section to ask how many Titan owners game at 720p.

Once again, useful in academic sense, but of no practical real world value right now. I suppose 5% gains at 1080p are 5% gains, but you have to understand that the percent price difference for AMDs 8C/16T CPU is going to be almost as bad as Intel's once Ryzen R3 processors are on the market, especially if the price leaks continue to be correct or close enough.
 

blublub

Member
Jul 19, 2016
135
61
101
While it does, the 6800K has 2 cores less and probably runs at lower frecuency (3.5Ghz ACT). Thats not really a good result, most gaming results are inside the margin of error. I was kinda expecting the 6800K to have no chance here.
I don't agree here.
The 1700x is priced at the 6800k and will win in highly MT tasks like CB Because it has 2 more cores.
In tasks where 2 more cores aren't that relevant it's more or less a draw - so fits perfectly
 

leoneazzurro

Senior member
Jul 26, 2016
294
341
136
Dude, you linked a test to 1 (one) game and one that uses DX12 for offloading part of the CPU work. The computerbase test at least showed 16 games and sure, if you go higher in resolution GPU will be the main bottleneck so it's clearly possible to have diminishing returns with the bottleneck shifting. But, as I told you before, in some scenarios other than the bult-in benchmarks (i.e. multiplayer) more cores are expected to run anyway better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: french toast

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,679
2,355
106
http://bbs.pceva.com.cn/thread-137649-1-1.html



That one, it may be fake but if thats true it seems bad to me. Cinebench results for 1700X are spot on with AMD numbers so both cpu are running at full speed, 1700X probably XFR enabled as well.
6800K ACT is just 3.5Ghz.
I don't know where you got that from but it is riddled with typos.


In your table you have Doom@30fps. Just one example.
 

arandomguy

Senior member
Sep 3, 2013
531
147
116
Yep.

Use SD (480) to determine which CPU is the "fastest" running games.

Use HD (1080) or UHD to show its actually irrelevant for gamers..
CPU performance is not irrelevant at 1080p and higher if you test the right games in the right situations. This is a common impression because CPU reviewers seem to test the wrong games or in the wrong situations in terms of settings or locations.
 

agouraki

Member
Feb 18, 2017
26
15
51
http://bbs.pceva.com.cn/thread-137649-1-1.html



That one, it may be fake but if thats true it seems bad to me. Cinebench results for 1700X are spot on with AMD numbers so both cpu are running at full speed, 1700X probably XFR enabled as well.
6800K ACT is just 3.5Ghz.
If we take that bench as true both were manualy clocked at 3.4ghz and i believe those results are great for amd...didnt expect civilization to scale that good to be honest..
 

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,679
2,355
106
CPU performance is not irrelevant at 1080p and higher if you test the right games in the right situations. This is a common impression because CPU reviewers seem to test the wrong games or in the wrong situations in terms of settings or locations.
Yeah. I've never seen the big-name sites test any Source engine game or CPU-intensive locations in RPGs. Most of the time they are quite content with canned built-in benchmarks which are GPU hogs and not representative of the in-game performance at all. An example of this being Deus Ex: Mankind Divided.

YouTubers do a much better job in this regard.
 

Atari2600

Golden Member
Nov 22, 2016
1,220
1,360
106
CPU performance is not irrelevant at 1080p and higher if you test the right games in the right situations.
Could you point me in the direction of suitable reviews please?

Not singling you out, but it'd be nice to have an agreed list of programs (between all on the forum) before the Ryzen reviews come out - just to avoid anyone accusing anyone else of bias etc etc.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS