Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

So even higher end Ryzen 7 can't beat out i5s? Yet costs more. Too bad, was hoping for some competition. I really wanted to see the "goldilocks" part in the 5-series, but with these results I don't have high hopes. Only way would be to undercut drastically on price I guess. But for something that I'll keep for 5 years I don't have a high priority on saving $50.

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.

 

[french toast]

a decent amount of gaming results in here for the 1800X
http://pclab.pl/art72996-13.html

it doesn't look very good for gaming given the price,
perhaps the 1700 OC can look better, specially with 3GHz ram?
in any case I'm a little disappointed so far, based on the results we've been getting the past month, from the perspective of it being an AMD CPU, successor to what they previously had it looks great obviously,
but the lack of options under $329 for now is the most disappointing thing...

for more typical MT stuff it does genuinely look good most of the time, but for gaming, even the more threaded ones, not quite there...

After this post im not going to bother trying to give perspective or reason to these reviews, why would you play games at 1080p with a processor over 300$? Thats especially true if buying 6900k for 1000$

1440p its no bottlenck.

 

[lolfail9001]

Talking about productivity: http://techreport.com/review/31366/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-ryzen-7-1700x-and-ryzen-7-1700-cpus-reviewed/12

 

[scannall]

If you were looking for a pure gaming cpu, ryzen 7 was not what you are to be looking at. I don't understand in what world people thought it would be an amazing cpu for primarily gaming but there was ZERO indication that this would be the case.

If you're gaming at 4k, then it will last longer than any 4 core. I'm not sure how relevant 1080 benchmarks are overall. If you aren't at 4k now, you will be fairly soon.

 

[lolfail9001]

After this post im not going to bother trying to give perspective or reason to these reviews, why would you play games at 1080p with a processor over 300$? Thats especially true if buying 6900k for 100$

Because 144 fps.

If you're gaming at 4k, then it will last longer than any 4 core. I'm not sure how relevant 1080 benchmarks are overall. If you aren't at 4k now, you will be fairly soon.

When there will be $600 GPU capable of 4k 144hz and monitors won't cost a new kidney, i will.

 

[tential]

This isnt a CPU *for games*. Ryzen is a CPU dream for professional dudes. Rendering, encoding, etc.. its at 6900k level at the half of the price, and with much less power consumption. A great jump for AMD.

About OC, Im sure its a matter of BIOS immaturity. Yeah it will not be an OC champion of course, but Im sure 4.2 all cores estable will be reach as soon as BIOS goes to a good maturity stage

I'm getting so frustrated reading this I may just leave this forum.
People are comparing an i5 to this cpu Rofl....

I can't run my server off an i5. What am I going to do? Dedicate 1 core to each virtualization?

But with Ryzen 7? So what if an i5 is faster?

I can run 4 i5 style processors off a single Ryzen 7 cpu.

That value is completely missed by these people because they were NEVER the target market hence why they aren't even thinking about that.

Ryzen 7 will run my 2 gaming units (6 threads each) my unraid server (2 threads) and my download server (2 threads).

I can't do that for $320 anywhere else but with Ryzen 7. This was just an extremely expensive dream now it's a very cheap reality

 

[french toast]

Because 144 fps.

When there will be $600 GPU capable of 4k 144hz and monitors won't cost a new kidney, i will.

ok fair enough, competitive fps players yes, for everyone else 1440p or 4k.

 

[lolfail9001]

ok fair enough, competitive fps players yes, for everyone else 1440p or 4k.

Competitive players aim for 300+.

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

 

[Justinbaileyman]

Thank god I woke up early enough to read 6 reviews and cancel my Amazon order. Saved me $1000. My 4.7ghz Sandy Bridge that is 6 years old still destroys Ryzen at games. On top of that all the fails depending on which mobo and ram you have purchased, possible software bugs, needing to disable parts of the chip, WTF? Well I am no Intel fanboi, I have owned most processors made by Amd and Intel over the last 20 years, but I sure as hell thought Ryzen would do better in games, or at least be able to overclock to 4.5ghz and then do better in games. Oh well, my next cpu upgrade still will be a 6 or 8 core cpu by either manufacturer once they are bug free, reasonably priced, AND CAN BEAT A 6 YEAR OLD CPU, LOL. EPIC FAIL. And I am not trolling, if you never play games and only do content creation AND are willing to deal with bugs and early adopter shit, then yeah, go ahead and build a Ryzen system.

Stop trolling!! There is no way your Sandy bridge cpu beats any Ryzen CPU period. The lowest Ryzen 1700@4.0Ghz matches and beats a 7700k@5.0Ghz. The AMD Ryzen is clocked 1Ghz lower then the Intel Kabylake.So how is your 4.7Ghz overclocked SandyBridge Beating even a Ryzen 1700?Any ways, I for one am very happy and excited that I preordered when I did.It wont be long before Motherboard companies iron out the bugs and release updated bios to fix these issues.I personally just dont see why everyone is up in arms and trash talking Ryzen when it is only 1-9 Fps slower in very few select games which are not even compiled yet to properly run at full potential on the Ryzens.Besides all the game benchies are shown running anywhere from 60fps to well over 170Fps. so whats there to cry about??AMD fully delivered on there promise and then some.

 

[Doom2pro]

If the gaming benchmarks are all over the place, clearly BIOS/RAM/Microcode/Software issues are the cause of the low performers, typical of a new platform launch. It's pretty obvious at this point that things will get hammered out over the next few weeks to months and those that foolishly canceled their orders will have to wait longer to enjoy Ryzen

I'm not regretting my pre-ordered 1800X, not one bit.

 

[Hitman928]

OP is updated, let me know if you want something specific added.

 

[StinkyPinky]

This is what we wanted though. We wanted this type of argument. Finally we have options. It's been lacking for far too long.

 

[IEC]

OP is updated, let me know if you want something specific added.

You da real MVP.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

ok fair enough, competitive fps players yes, for everyone else 1440p or 4k.

I tend to be looking at the action on my screen whilst I game, not a little number at the top of the screen.

Isn't it said that the eye can't process more than 24Hz anyway?

 

[HannooFX]

You will feel pretty foolish when the RAM/BIOS/Microcode issues are hammered out because it's already known from the reviewer Joker that a 1700 (Non X even) OCed to 3.9 matches or beats a 7700K OCed to 5Ghz in all those games.

The bad gaming benchmarks are clearly due to new platform related issues.

Then we will re order when all those issues are indeed get fixed.

Why deal with all those issues at the beginning? This it far from being foolish

If indeed all those issues get sorted out, I will re order, for now I will hold off.

 

[LTC8K6]

Stop trolling!! There is no way your Sandy bridge cpu beats any Ryzen CPU period. The lowest Ryzen 1700@4.0Ghz matches and beats a 7700k@5.0Ghz. The AMD Ryzen is clocked 1Ghz lower then the Intel Kabylake.So how is your 4.7Ghz overclocked SandyBridge Beating even a Ryzen 1700?Any ways, I for one am very happy and excited that I preordered when I did.It wont be long before Motherboard companies iron out the bugs and release updated bios to fix these issues.I personally just dont see why everyone is up in arms and trash talking Ryzen when it is only 1-9 Fps slower in very few select games which are not even compiled yet to properly run at full potential on the Ryzens.Besides all the game benchies are shown running anywhere from 60fps to well over 170Fps. so whats there to cry about??AMD fully delivered on there promise and then some.

While I agree with your overall point, the gaming benches are all over the place, so I wouldn't necessarily go by that one that looks good.

 

[PPB]

I just played bf1 mp 64 on 3ghz ryzen and its much faster than my prior i5 4.2ghz. Took away all the dips. 100% Clean.

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?

 

[IEC]

I tend to be looking at the action on my screen whilst I game, not a little number at the top of the screen.

Isn't it said that the eye can't process more than 24Hz anyway?

It matters for competitive gaming due to some game engines tying input latency to the FPS. Higher FPS = less perceived input latency.

But considering 0.0001% of the population is pro-level at gaming, big whoop.

 

[krumme]

Anyways, i will tease bjt2 with all due respect, because Zen looks to be clocked beyond it's efficiency curve on 1700x/1800x SKUs. Way beyond

Naa. That not my impression mingling a bit with V and freq max.
And do you want a 8c processor at 48w tdp? Its desktop. Ryzen is plenty efficient.

 

[tential]

Thank god I woke up early enough to read 6 reviews and cancel my Amazon order. Saved me $1000. My 4.7ghz Sandy Bridge that is 6 years old still destroys Ryzen at games. On top of that all the fails depending on which mobo and ram you have purchased, possible software bugs, needing to disable parts of the chip, WTF? Well I am no Intel fanboi, I have owned most processors made by Amd and Intel over the last 20 years, but I sure as hell thought Ryzen would do better in games, or at least be able to overclock to 4.5ghz and then do better in games. Oh well, my next cpu upgrade still will be a 6 or 8 core cpu by either manufacturer once they are bug free, reasonably priced, AND CAN BEAT A 6 YEAR OLD CPU, LOL. EPIC FAIL. And I am not trolling, if you never play games and only do content creation AND are willing to deal with bugs and early adopter shit, then yeah, go ahead and build a Ryzen system.

How many individuals can use your cpu at the same time to play games? Oh only 1 because your cpu doesn't support virtualization?

Wow pathetic that it doesn't do that. Guess your cpu is a failure even though it's an old product aimed at a completely different market.

Off 1 Ryzen cpu I'm able to allow a whole house of pepper to game together. Your course can't do that.

Sad.

_____

See what happens when you shift goalposts....

Ryzen isn't a pure gaming cpu.

If you didn't think the 6800k/6900k were useful products that you had an actual application for over a 7700k, then this cpu was not for you.

 

[AdamK47]

I saw my local Micro Center set up their AMD Ryzen display last night as I was there buying case fans. They had a table for the CPUs and motherboards. They had balloons with the Ryzen CPU colors. Banners and posters were on display in the background. It's nice having a brick and mortar store nearby with the latest and greatest enthusiast tech available day one.

 

[tential]

I tend to be looking at the action on my screen whilst I game, not a little number at the top of the screen.

Isn't it said that the eye can't process more than 24Hz anyway?

Then turn your monitor from 60hz to 24hz

....

Your eye can processor over 60 hz. Just play with the hz settings in your monitor its obvious you want at least 60 but honestly even 60 is bad once you see more. I use 60 but I wish we had 500hz oled so it was something that was a no issue

 

[french toast]

So ryzen makes a stonking choice for laptop cpu

 

[Head1985]

This is why ryzen is bad in games and have negative SMT performance
Ryzen is 2x 4cores cpu
extreme high L3 cache latency and memory latency because its 2x4cores and not 1x8core.And also L3 cache can act like 8MB and not 16MB.
http://translate.google.com/transla...icles/956-22/retour-sous-systeme-memoire.html

 

[IntelUser2000]

Isn't it said that the eye can't process more than 24Hz anyway?

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

But in a relative sense, it can go far higher. People's demands keep going up about resolutions, frames per second, and smoothness, because they notice a relative difference. Remember Apple talking about 300 dpi being "Retina"? They are 300 dpi in average nowadays. And I bet you'd notice if you go back from say, 500 dpi to 300 dpi. Funny thing is, an improvement is perceived far less until you go back to the original.

Really I think it means human senses are far more capable. Most people I assume aren't serious about it though so 24Hz seems fine.

Plus, 24Hz being constant like on a TV screen versus gaming is totally different. The latter fluctuates too much.