• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

Page 104 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
lolfail9001 said:
At ultrawide with "only" 980 Ti SLI? They will probably tie.

Well, 1700 is pretty close to the only chip worth buying for anything.
Click to expand...

I have no idea how difficult it is to program for >4 cores. But developers at least now know there is a mainstream 8 core chip for $330 that can be exploited for great performance. I could see that if Zen were out before BF 1 that the makers of the game might be tempted to do a demo on that and say, "See this great multiplayer performance and it won't break the bank!"

At least AMD has given gamers and others a real reason to look at their use cases (gaming and otherwise) and see if Ryzen will work. It will for me as I have a 4k monitor. Even at 1080, those BF1 numbers are so crazy good I could see someone who was a big fan buy a Ryzen chip just for that, for example.
 
lolfail9001 said:
I mean, coupled L3 did not affect OC on Skylake that much, you could generally only squeeze like 200-300 more with decoupled L3.
Click to expand...

AMD has moved to a 5x faster L3 cache. And.. 200~300Mhz extra on Ryzen is a big deal - that's the difference between 4.0Ghz on all cores and 4.3Ghz on all cores... or the difference of being a horrendous overclocker to being a decent overclocker.
 
Zucker2k said:
Lol! Are you serious? bjt2 has earned a little teasing in my opinion.
Click to expand...
yeaa. Thats okey 🙂. but zen looks like a 2.6 to 4GHz desing to me. It will neither go higher and benefit much from going lower. It isnt way way of the frequency as it was said.
If anything it looks like narrow band to me vs. Intel process.
 
LTC8K6 said:
There's been no explanation of why it's beating the 7700K and the 1800X.

The results seem at odds with everyone else.
Click to expand...

Check my post a page or two up.

Stock 1800X all-core turbo with XFR enabled is 3.7GHz.

A 1700 overclocked to 3.9GHz on all-cores will beat a stock 1800X.

Add in the fact he's running ultra settings up to 1440p and you have your answer.
 
moonbogg said:
So please help me out here. Would an 1800X @ 4Ghz be faster in gaming than a 3930k@4.6? I honestly don't know the answer to that question.
Click to expand...
No.
Sorry. You have to wait and forget it. It doesnt make sense except for efficiency. 3930k@4.6 is fast where and when it matters excactly like Ryzen.
 
LTC8K6 said:
There's been no explanation of why it's beating the 7700K and the 1800X.

The results seem at odds with everyone else.
Click to expand...
He is using a gigabyte board and he is running the games at 1080p ultra.

If you are talking about a stock 1800x, that runs at 3.7 GHz all cores (with XFR). Joker is running 3.9 GHz on all cores.
 
IEC said:
Check my post a page or two up.

Stock 1800X all-core turbo with XFR enabled is 3.7GHz.

A 1700 overclocked to 3.9GHz on all-cores will beat a stock 1800X.
Click to expand...

We don't know if the 1800X was stock. If the explanation was that easy, wouldn't we have heard it by now?
 
LTC8K6 said:
We don't know if the 1800X was stock. If the explanation was that easy, wouldn't we have heard it by now?
Click to expand...
What 1800x review are you talking about in particular?

Here is Joker's 1800x Review,



As joker said in his 1700 review, the numbers are nearly identical. Which makes sense given it's the same CPU at 3.9 GHz.
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
1800X is 4.1 single core/XFR and AMD was going for 4.1 all core in the demo which lost the feed before we could see the results.
Click to expand...
Ive just had a quick look around and it does seem there is an issue with ryzen gaming, for gaming benchmarks gamernexus and digital foundfy are my most trusted sites, it doesn't paint ryzen in a great picture gaming from launch.

However it seems the problem is optimization related, all games are optimized for intels uarch, ryzen is brand new with its own intricacys, lisa su has just confirmed this on reddit, judging by the strong performance in all other benchmarks i happen to believe her.

So for gaming for the time being you want an intel processor, especially for high fps 1080p, 1440p and 4k makes no difference.
It will take a few months to sort out the bios and patch games.
 
As I've said previously, the X models are just factory overclocks for those that really don't want to overclock themselves (which is the majority). Sure you may be able to eek out a bit more with some cooling and software tweaking, but the 1700 is the CPU for people that want more extreme overclocking. THat's my take on it.
 
I just went over joker's two videos. The 1800X and the 1700 were both apparently only able to get to 3.9 all core. Meaning the results could easily flip-flop.
 
french toast said:
Ive just had a quick look around and it does seem there is an issue with ryzen gaming, for gaming benchmarks gamernexus and digital foundfy are my most trusted sites, it doesn't paint ryzen in a great picture gaming from launch.

However it seems the problem is optimization related, all games are optimized for intels uarch, ryzen is brand new with its own intricacys, lisa su has just confirmed this on reddit, judging by the strong performance in all other benchmarks i happen to believe her.

So for gaming for the time being you want an intel processor, especially for high fps 1080p, 1440p and 4k makes no difference.
It will take a few months to sort out the bios and patch games.
Click to expand...
Well, I will just wait and see, rather than taking AMD's word for it that the chips will get better. Besides, Intel will be bringing new stuff soon, possibly very new, and we will be looking at that very hard.
 
unseenmorbidity said:
I am not seeing it. You might be mixing up the averages and the minimums he posted later.

1800x @ 3.9
111 151 154 102 107 122 75 140 147 137

1700 @3.9
112 154 154 97 107 120 72 138 146 137

That is like margin of error, which is what you would expect.
Click to expand...
Too late...I already posted that both chips were at the same overclock. 😀

Which means it's foolish to buy the X chips.
 
Watching that second Joker video. At the very end of the video (7:08 or so) the 7700k becomes a bottleneck; you see a huge drop-off in FPS versus the R7 1700, which itself is at around 70-80% utilisation at that point, and has around 10fps advantage at that point.

For the most part though, the 7700k is 2-3fps higher than the R7 1700, especially above 140fps.
 
PotatoWithEarsOnSide said:
Watching that second Joker video. At the very end of the video (7:08 or so) the 7700k becomes a bottleneck; you see a huge drop-off in FPS versus the R7 1700, which itself is at around 70-80% utilisation at that point, and has around 10fps advantage at that point.

For the most part though, the 7700k is 2-3fps higher than the R7 1700, especially above 140fps.
Click to expand...
What causes the bottleneck, though?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top