Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

[tamz_msc]

Maximum OC Ryzen R7 1700 (3.9GHz) versus Maximum OC i7-7700K (5GHz):

1080p ultra:

1080p minimum FPS:

1440p ultra:

1440p minimum FPS:

Unless you are pairing a $60 GPU with your high-end CPU, it looks like Ryzen is perfectly competitive in high-end gaming.

The funny thing is that there are some who'd tell you "these are not correct, because it is GPU bound at these settings, so you should test it at 640x480". Yet when you show them a 6900k curb-stomping a 7700K at 640x480 they'll tell you - "lol those are unrealistic who games at resolutions that were the standard 25 years ago?"

 

[tamz_msc]

I'm not sure how needing double the cores and threads at max overclocks to tie is all that competitive for the architecture, though. If we drop RyZen down to 4C/8T in this scenario, what does it look like?

According to one of the above posters, it's supposed to be the same.

 

[IEC]

Look at that CPU load in BF1:

Max OC Ryzen R7-1700 @ 3.9GHz versus Max OC i7-7700K @ 5.0GHz

 

[antihelten]

Does anyone know if there are any sites out there that have looked at max single core overclocking?, it looks like 4.1 GHz or there about is the max all core overclock, but Ryzen already has great multithreaded performance, so I don't really care about that.

 

[Crono]

It's the new goalshift.

Even so, AMD did wrong getting Ryzen 7 out first and target it at gamers so they dont have to wait for Ryzen 5. I feel 1600X is 100% more suited for gaming than 1700 because of clocks alone, for example. At 260 bucks it will be a bargain and i5 will be soon forgotten.

Agree about Ryzen 5. 7 is perfectly suited for people doing video and audio editing, transcoding, heavy multitasking, and other content creation/heavily threaded tasks, and some gaming on the side. The pure gamers should be waiting for Ryzen 5, and should probably cross shop Intel if prices drop.

 

[SketchMaster]

With such a dichotomy of results between gaming and content creation (or other multi-threaded use) a buyer will really have to think hard about what is most important to him.

Gaming? Don't get Ryzen.
Mult-threaded use? Get Ryzen!

Though I hope we see more gaming results with current games and GPUs that people would typically be using like a 480, 1070, and 1080. Especially the 1080 as, eventhough I think it's a terrible deal no, people will likely keep their CPU for long enough to upgrade to 1080-like speed for a reasonable price.

This is my thought as well. As others have mentioned, there are still some issues to patch/refine; however, if someone needs a beefy CPU for content creation/VMs then Ryzen is a really tempting solution at $499

 

[Glo.]

Funny how the entire focus has shifted to gaming. The AT review would have you believe otherwise.

I generally agree with this, but you have to bare in mind on what forum you are. This is gaming enthusiast community .

 

[LTC8K6]

According to one of the above posters, it's supposed to be the same.

Then we don't need the 8 core chips for gaming at all?

 

[alexruiz]

Even the gaming results are all over the place.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Joker on Ryzen 7 1700(329$ CPU) vs 7700K@ 5 GHz.

Looks like results appear to be all over the place.

Yep. It appears that biggest gripe we can say about this CPU is that it was released a bit to early. AMD released unfinished product.

If you look at scientific scores, transcoding, etc, its out of this world, considering its price. When look at gaming - what the hell?

Look at for example here. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu,4951-10.html
How come this not translates into gaming? This is not marketing gimmick. Its real world performance, on par or faster than Broadwell-E.

Nothing interesting for gamers, tho.

idk, I wouldn't say that. I am primarily a gamer, and I am still considering Zen.

If Joker can get these results, than anyone should be able to. It's just a matter of bugs being worked out.

Matching a 7700k at 1080p with a GTX 1080 is no joke.

 

[tamz_msc]

Look at that CPU load in BF1:

Max OC Ryzen R7-1700 @ 3.9GHz versus Max OC i7-7700K @ 5.0GHz

What channel is this?

 

[PPB]

With such a dichotomy of results between gaming and content creation (or other multi-threaded use) a buyer will really have to think hard about what is most important to him.

Gaming? Don't get Ryzen.
Mult-threaded use? Get Ryzen!

Though I hope we see more gaming results with current games and GPUs that people would typically be using like a 480, 1070, and 1080. Especially the 1080 as, eventhough I think it's a terrible deal no, people will likely keep their CPU for long enough to upgrade to 1080-like speed for a reasonable price.

It depends really. On gaming there is still the GPU to be considered. If you want both content creation and gaming, and you are regardless GPU bottlenecked like 80% of the chaps out there, what would you buy?

 

[Crono]

I generally agree with this, but you have to bare in mind on what forum you are. This is gaming enthusiast community .

I prefer to keep my mind fully clothed, thanks.
(no grammar nazi'ing intended)

 

[IEC]

I'm not sure how needing double the cores and threads at max overclocks to tie is all that competitive for the architecture, though. If we drop RyZen down to 4C/8T in this scenario, what does it look like?

R7 1700 @ 3.9Ghz 1.3V is consuming significantly less power than i7-7700K @ 5.0GHz 1.37V

... with twice the cores/threads.

 

[raghu78]

Zen is a decent start though there are glaring weaknesses like the gaming performance. I think Zen+ has a lot of work cut out to improve the memory latency and gaming performance. Zen has a wide range for IPC based on workload. In some cases it falls below Haswell and in some cases can even beat Skylake. The variability makes it a difficult processor to compare against the competition. But one thing is sure Zen brings extremely competitive performance and disruptive price perf to the mainstream price points for consumers who use workloads that scale well with threads. Content creators will love that. Gamers will still flock to 7700k as it rules supreme. AMD needs to improve their memory latency performance and gaming performance and get the clocks signficantly higher with Zen+ to be a better alternative for gaming. I would love to see Zen+ using GF 14HP but I doubt AMD will use that process. GF neeeds to improve their 14LPP and AMD needs to design their architecture for higher frequencies than 4 Ghz to truly be a force to reckon with in high end gaming.

 

[DarkKnightDude]

What channel is this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5RP1CPpFVE

He has his 1700X beating the 7700K. Crazy.

 

[richierich1212]

The Ryzen 7 is priced right. If it was the monster in all games and applications it would not be priced where it is at now. Intel is on their 7th gen core arch, while AMD is on their first. Like I said, a great result out of the gate.

Now get those bugs ironed out AMD!

 

[LTC8K6]

idk, I wouldn't say that. I am primarily a gamer, and I am still considering Zen.

If Joker can get these results, than anyone should be able to. It's just a matter of bugs being worked out.

Matching a 7700k at 1080p with a GTX 1080 is no joke.

Except that he seems to have the 1700 beating the 1800X in gaming...

 

[unseenmorbidity]

I'm not sure how needing double the cores and threads at max overclocks to tie is all that competitive for the architecture, though. If we drop RyZen down to 4C/8T in this scenario, what does it look like?

You are trolling hard dude...

Nothing you said made any sense.

 

[tamz_msc]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5RP1CPpFVE

He has his 1700X beating the 7700K. Crazy.

Alright its Joker, he's reliable.

 

[DarkKnightDude]

Except that he seems to have the 1700 beating the 1800X in gaming...

Then his 1800X did not win the silicon lottery. BIOS issues?

 

[CHADBOGA]

Ryzen have HT bug in games -10-15% performance drop.
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/956-7/impact-smt-ht.html

Hardware France for whatever reason has been a very AMD friendly review site for a few years now, but nonetheless, I don't see the games situation here as a complete disaster for AMD, as many people who buy 8 core CPU's, usually have done so for reasons other than gaming, and on that front, AMD has delivered in spades.

It will be interesting to see how the 6 core Ryzens do against the 7700K, that is now very much where my focus lay.

On the whole though, I would give Ryzen(on the basis of these first reviews) a 7.5/10

 

[BigDaveX]

Agree about Ryzen 5. 7 is perfectly suited for people doing video and audio editing, transcoding, heavy multitasking, and other content creation/heavily threaded tasks, and some gaming on the side. The pure gamers should be waiting for Ryzen 5, and should probably cross shop Intel if prices drop.

That's my biggest concern about Ryzen - the rumoured clocks for the 4C/8T and 6C/12T chips don't look hugely better than the ones being released today. And if Intel can push up the clocks on Skylake-X and get Coffee Lake chips out at a low enough price, that'd probably end up putting AMD back to where they were pre-Bulldozer.

 

[alexruiz]

Look at that CPU load in BF1:

Max OC Ryzen R7-1700 @ 3.9GHz versus Max OC i7-7700K @ 5.0GHz

What motherboard is he using?

Seem that most of the reviewers are using the Crosshair Hero VI.
Could someone else using a different board be getting different results?

Alex

 

[Crono]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5RP1CPpFVE

He has his 1700X beating the 7700K. Crazy.

That's the non-X.

AMD did a real good job with the "look over here" with the 1700X and 1800X, as I'm assuming a large number of preorders went for those two models. The 1700 should sell well going forward, though, given that the difference in speed, OCed or otherwise, doesn't seem to be as large as it could have been.