Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

[french toast]

Competitive players aim for 300+.

And anyone who played at 144 fps won't come back to 60, ask them.

lol, thats an extremely niche market, are you saying amds ultra cheap processors should be judged on that?

Besides since switching to 4k i wont go back

 

[airfathaaaaa]

Ryzen is a stillborn in HPC, its lack of high perf AVX2 and soon big deficit by not having AVX3 makes it a nonstarter here.

i have yet to see the unicorns of the pc industry (avx2/3) to be widely used or even 10% used... fact is no one will jump on that ship

 

[lolfail9001]

In an absolute sense, I think this is more or less true.

Blatantly untrue. I once have tried gaming at 24 fps (was stuck with iGPU for a week). I had to purchase a brand new set of eyes in 2 days.

lol, thats an extremely niche market, are you saying amds ultra cheap processors should be judged on that?

Ultra cheap processors that perform worse than CPUs that cost LESS than these "ultra cheap" processors.

i have yet to see the unicorns of the pc industry (avx2/3) to be widely used or even 10% used... fact is no one will jump on that ship

You were saying?

 

[SPBHM]

This is why ryzen is bad in games and have negative SMT performance
http://translate.google.com/transla...icles/956-22/retour-sous-systeme-memoire.html

very interesting, it's a decent decrease in performance, it doesn't happen with Intel, so hopefully they can fix this on the software (OS) side of things,
in any case, with SMT disabled and very fast ram I can see things getting a lot better for Ryzen in gaming.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/956-7/impact-smt-ht.html

 

[Gideon]

You understand that is dual socket setup Vs single Ryzen 1700X?

Here is the conclusion of that linux review, enjoy :

Yes, Shintai is shilling as always. this is Linux Kernel Compile from phoronix review (the site seems to be down though):

Overall it performed veeeeeery well in the linux bencmarks tested there

 

[Dresdenboy]

I messaged a person who I trust for understanding on issues about the high aida64 latency at 3200Mhz, the throughput is higher than Kabylake a 3400Mhz, but the Latency is double. I am just findign out if it is board and firmware teething.

I contacted AIDA on Twitter. Maybe The Stilts article gives them some helpful insight.

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

I cancelled my preorder, till performance issues gets sorted out, I really wanted to build a Ryzen 8C system, but my main desktop usage is for gaming

According to benchmark, 1800x is around haswell i5 for gaming and on par with 6900k for everything else. For gaming usage, there is no reason to buy either of these chips. i7 7700k outperforms both 6900k and 1800x for $300 bucks in gaming and upcoming ryzen r5 should be able to do the same considering its clocked higher. Whoever buys $1000 CPU for purely gaming usage needs to seek help...

 

[Teizo]

Well done AMD. From the GamersNexus review it appears the 1800X won't overclock very well since it runs hot and 3.7ghz is the XFR for SMT when all cores are active...but it manages to keep up with the 6900K very well regardless. And, the result I was most interested in was with manual overclocking he got all 8 cores to 3.9ghz vs 4.4ghz with the 6900K and managed to keep up just fine as well but at half the price so that is a resounding success for AMD. Intel definitely needs a price drop in the HEDT chips and needs a strong response with Skylake-X and Coffeelake/Cannonlake.

Interesting as well...Joker Productions got his 1700 to overclock to 3.9ghz which I guess was all cores as well...If that is the case, there is not much point in buying anything other than the 1700 since it ran much cooler as well. There appears to be no difference other than guaranteed clock speed. I'd rather take the chances of getting a dud that only clocked to 3.7ghz and save the money since performance would still be fine overall.

Intel is still relevant gaming wise with 7700K as it appears the overall better choice, but the 1700 definitely puts pressure on it. Intel needs to drop the price by $20 to match it imho. Looks like the days of Intel being able to demand such a high market price are over, and that is good.

 

[flopper]

Ryzen isn't a pure gaming cpu.

Funny enough NO Intel cpu is a pure gaming cpu either.
tried it with my Intel cpu, zero fps.
seems I need a gpu to make fps happens.

while 144hz is better for any gamer and desktop user many still buy 60hz screens and run a 1080 and 2core cpu and ask why they dont have more fps.

Krumme showed why Ryzen is superior to intel cpus in actual Multiplayer gaming like BF1.
Many forget benchmarks are singelplayer benchmarks not showing what happens when you play with a lot of other players in BF1
I wait for the 6/12t Ryzen myself.
AMD come back today

 

[french toast]

Blatantly untrue. I once have tried gaming at 24 fps (was stuck with iGPU for a week). I had to purchase a brand new set of eyes in 2 days.

Ultra cheap processors that perform worse than CPUs that cost LESS than these "ultra cheap" processors.

You were saying?

are you trolling? we have all seen a 10 game benchmark showing a r1700 $320 processor matching a 5ghz 7700k??
What the hell do you expect from ryzen?
I can be argued both the r7 1700 and the pentium are the best gaming cpus you can buy depending on your budget.

 

[krumme]

At what resolution and framerate target do you play? This is DX11 I take. Good news if true. My most demanding game is BF1.

PS: If you can get better results as an average user out of your Ryzen than reviewers do, It puts them in a bad light really. Not because of suspicious of shilling, but because of their inability to figure out the kinks in a new platform and a new architecture. This is why I wrote off every reviewer that didn't even notice the SMT yield on gaming. How obtuse can you be?

I play at 1080 on a 4k screen at 60Hz dx11. Dx12 never worked for me. But will try to oc screen to 75. Would like 144 in the future

I am allergic to dips and frame time variance. I think its very much a personal preference. For me 99% goal is idiotic. I mean who would game in a fps with 1% crap? Its insane.
99.99% is imo target.
On some maps in some situations bf1 just tanks. Unfortunately i play those maps and modes. It happens seldom but i just cant take it.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

Last I checked, a forklift truck can't beat a Lada in a drag race, yet it undoubtedly costs so much more.

No point cherry-picking benchmarks to suit your bias as no-one will take you seriously.

What is my bias? I'm biased towards competition in the mid-range CPU space which leads to more performance and/or lower prices for me. Yes that is true. I don't give a shit if I have intel or AMD, i want the most CPU perf for my dollars.

What exactly do you mean by the forklift/lada thing? I want programs to run faster. Same workload, faster is faster. Doesn't matter. Your analogy don't work. I don't care if they have 19 cores if it takes longer to open Lightroom than a quad core does. I looked at the benchmarks (that matter to me. I.e. not video redndering etc) and R7 is slower than i5-7700k. That makes me sad.

 

[Eymar]

I was gonna wait for 1600x because of cost, but 1700 that can get to 4.0 and $329 seems like a really good deal(seriously entry to 8c/16t is $329). I game at 1440p (TitanX Maxwell) so probably won't feel any difference from 6700k to 1700 I hope. It will be really nice to go from 3 PCs to single PC for dev environment (server, client (web, extra android simulator), and dev (IDE, android simulator)).

 

[badb0y]

Not bad, definitely made the HEDT segment competitive. My personal issue is the lack of overclocking headroom because if these could have gotten up to 4.3-4.4 I think they would have been the undisputed champ in the mainstream.

 

[lolfail9001]

are you trolling? we have all seen a 10 game benchmark showing a r1700 $320 processor matching a 5ghz 7700k??

I have not watched Joker's stuff since he has bitten Fottemberg's April's Fools. Got anyone else to back that claim up?

What the hell do you expect from ryzen?

If i am perfectly honest: slightly slower 6900k with half the AVX2 throughput. I did not expect it to clock higher than 6900k at any point. I knew it would not have AVX2 capabilities of 6900k or 5960X.

But the gaming stuff came out of nowhere from the very first engineering sample.

Krumme showed why Ryzen is superior to intel cpus in actual Multiplayer gaming like BF1.

Wait, i missed his post, anyways.

 

[tential]

really? it looked like a greatly improved CPU in terms of cache speed, st performance, and more and more games are getting better threaded, it looked like a good candidate for gaming...

It looked like it would provide adequate gaming performance. Which it does. It never looked like it would beat the higher clocked, better st cpus better suited for gaming.

Honestly if we're having conversations like this let's have a similar conversation on how the 7700k is so much better than a 6900k for gaming....

Why don't we all talk about that?

 

[badb0y]

Besides the clockspeed, is there any other physical difference between 1700, 1700X, and 1800X? I might just grab 1700 to mess around with.

 

[Agent-47]

The same problem is seen here:

How could AMD not spot this??

they did, this is in line with CPC.

I donot understand why this is surprising at all, games are not threaded at all. even games using 6 core depend heavily on a single "parent thread"

 

[LTC8K6]

It looked like it would provide adequate gaming performance. Which it does. It never looked like it would beat the higher clocked, better st cpus better suited for gaming.

Honestly if we're having conversations like this let's have a similar conversation on how the 7700k is so much better than a 6900k for gaming....

Why don't we all talk about that?

Because Intel separates those markets, and AMD does not?

 

[LTC8K6]

Besides the clockspeed, is there any other physical difference between 1700, 1700X, and 1800X? I might just grab 1700 to mess around with.

Yes, the 1700 is the only RyZen chip that makes sense to buy, imo.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

R7 is slower than i5-7700k. That makes me sad.

Did I miss the bit where the 7700k stopped being an i7? Unless you're hinting at Intel's potential response to having their i3 and i5 line-up made obsolete in one felled swoop...?

 

[IEC]

der8auer at it again:
http://hwbot.org/submission/3473875_der8auer_cpu_frequency_ryzen_7_1800x_5802.93_mhz

 

[french toast]

Adored tv is saying L1 bandwidth is half BWE and maybe the gaming issue, might optimization.

 

[hotstocks]

Doom,
No, I will look pretty damn smart IF all the bios, windows, ram, and mobo issues get worked out, THEN I can buy the exact correct mobo and ram so I don't have a gimped experience. I am not saying I won't build a Ryzen system if all those things get fixed and it beat a 6 year old cpu in games. But I am not holding my breath. AMD should have delayed the launch and had all this <redacted>worked out before launch. Hell why don't they just release a retarded gimped Vega today as well that is slower than Nvidia 1070 because its bios, drivers, and silicon are <redacted>beta.

Profanity is not allowed in the technical forums
Markfw
Anandtech Moderator

 

[LTC8K6]

they did, this is in line with CPC.

I donot understand why this is surprising at all, games are not threaded at all. even games using 6 core depend heavily on a single "parent thread"

I'm pretty sure I recently read a lot of posts here about 4 core chips not being enough for gaming anymore, and that 6 and 8 core chips were what we needed.
A lot of yelling at Intel for not bringing 6 core and 8 core chips to the desktop long ago, too.