Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

Page 191 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

french toast

Senior member
Feb 22, 2017
988
825
136
Oh, i do, you just need to read it. My message is simple: 1080 is clearly not enough for 1080p without frametime analysis, as the 3 outliers tell us.


> Messages: 27

Man, do not waste your message count throwing terms you do not know around.
whilst I wouldn't call you a troll, you have to admit you do multi spam nitpicking negative amd comments.
For sure you do put up some interesting thoughts amongst that and occasionally you do raise good points, but still it does get tedious :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glo.

Snarf Snarf

Senior member
Feb 19, 2015
399
327
136
Oh, i do, you just need to read it. My message is simple: 1080 is clearly not enough for 1080p without frametime analysis, as the 3 outliers tell us.

Nitpicking aside, the general quality of CPU reviews these days really isn't up to snuff. Most sites are only showing a few data points without proper apples to apples or context provided. In reality every data point is valid as long as the context of the test methodology is understood. I won't harp on you about cherry picked benchmarks because that is clearly showing an entire genre of games (RTS) that are typically very CPU bound under performing compared to the 7700k. The makers of Total War and Ashes have already come out and said they're in the process of writing optimizations for Ryzen topology. I imagine game engine optimization will show big yields with regard to how the threads are managed for AI simulations and physics due to the sheer scale of battles in these games.

I would love to see some serious frame time analysis of these games at 1080p with streaming, Discord, music playing, and various chrome tabs open. This is what most people do that game online, every single one of my friends that games uses their PC in this way. Sitting in competitive queue while listening to music, watching you tube, reading articles and voice comm. at the same time is pretty typical behavior. This is the true CPU test that reviewers don't seem to want to deep dive into, because empirically you can't guarantee the same load every time. What would probably be far more useful data would be to have the forum users run frame analysis on their own Ryzen systems for a few days in a row and take the overall average and organize it by GPU so we can see real numbers from the real world.
 

unseenmorbidity

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
967
96
R5 1400 is really good value.
Need a cheap $50 A320 Motherboard to pair it with.
The 1500x seems to be well worth the extra $20. Then again the 1600 is probably worth another $30 too.

Anyways, I don't think I would recommend the 1400. That is especially with a board that cannot oc.

Edit: I think you need x370 for xfr? Either way, the clocks on the 1500x are way better.
Edit2: We don't know about memory support on the cheaper boards either. It might be worth splurging for the $80 b350 boards.
 
Last edited:

lobz

Platinum Member
Feb 10, 2017
2,057
2,856
136
Yes my point was more so is the new pentium for $64.
That is absolute and utter nonsense. If you actually _work_ then you tend to open a few things. Good luck with that if you own a Pentium..... and welcome to the Hotel California a few weeks later
 

lolfail9001

Golden Member
Sep 9, 2016
1,056
353
96
I really like that Techpowerup used Official Ram Speed for SandyBridge Core i5 2500K (1333MHz) , Haswell Core i7 4770K (1600MHz) and Ryzen R7 1800X (2133/2666MHz) but they used out of spec Ram Speed for the Skylake Core i7 6700K (3000MHz) and for the KabyLake Core i7 7700K (3000MHz).
W1zzard said:
What I'd also like to mention is how unfinished the whole motherboard ecosystem feels. AMD sent me a Gigabyte Aorus motherboard with Corsair memory, so I assumed they properly tested that combination for optimum user experience. Not really. Once you setup the system, your memory will run at 2133 MHz, which is extremely low and will severely restrict performance in both applications and games. You want to be running 2666 MHz at least. So, off I went into the BIOS, set 2666 MHz, but nothing happened. The damn motherboard BIOS just didn't apply the memory frequency. At this point, many novices would RMA the memory, motherboard, or CPU, or everything altogether, claiming "it doesn't work." The magic bullet (on my Gigabyte board at least) is that every single memory timing and memory voltage has to be configured to a manual value - not "auto" (this works fine on Intel of course, where you can leave most settings on auto or just select "XMP3000," and boom, you are ready to go). After this change, the Gigabyte Ryzen board would boot at 2666 MHz memory and run fine all day. We got 3000 MHz memory, though, so 2933 MHz was tried, which ended up being unstable no matter what I did. I ended up buying a bunch of memory kits with same-day delivery, and oh wonder, the newly bought Corsair 3000 MHz memory kit works fine (AMD sent me the exact same model, but apparently never tested its 2933 MHz stability). Several 3200 MHz memory kits that work fine on Intel at even higher clocks barely worked at 2666 MHz, and 2933 MHz remained a no-go.

Well, they have their valid excuse.
 

rgallant

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2007
1,361
11
81
Frametimes, of course.

It is not particularly hard for reviewers to created a semi-scripted scenario that would run some fixed software during gameplay test either. Only 1 has bothered from what i know though, and not for Ryzen yet.

the review in post # 4733 at the end showed a game and video software being used to record the game , have a look.
night and day 4c vs 8c imo
 

sushukka

Member
Mar 17, 2017
52
39
61
What about having better performance at is price than the competition whiout going to the bs storm of "but this, but that, but the devs, maybe after an update, tomorrow will be better, etc etc etc"? is that too much to ask?

That what we all want, better perf/price, whiout excuses, or promises that it will work better tomorrow, seriously im asking too much?

You understand that there really are Intel optimizations all around which can significantly affect the performance? That's also one of the strategic goals for Intel as it's way harder to any competitor to show up to undermine their monopoly. What AMD should do, wait forever before any announcements and hope that developers make the optimizations even there are no products on the market? After so many Intel driven years I'm pretty surprised how well AMD is performing with their all new architecture right at the startline. There is a reason why so many software companies are now writing those optimizations --> they are needed and they will affect the performance or there would be no reason to do that.
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
16,015
4,785
136
AMD needs to speed up the bus between the caches and ram for better throughput. This is an issue that early benchmarking exposed and it isn't going away until data can flow faster between L1, L2, L3 and the DDR4 ram. This isn't going away with optimizations, although getting the boards to run higher clocked ram certainly does help.
 

sushukka

Member
Mar 17, 2017
52
39
61
Maybe the CPU load you have as an enthusiast is a lot of MT, but for most users, its not. A fast dual-core is mostly enough for office and web browsing. Heck my work laptop is a hyper-threaded ivy bridge dual core and I did some pretty heavy computing stuff on it and you know what? The limiting thing is our stupid IT department that only offers 32-bit windows and hence only about 3 GB usable RAM. I also run a software package that cost several 10k a year on it and you know what? that POS software is 100% single-threaded even were it easily could be multi-threaded.

point is the difference between average user and enthusiast is getting bigger and bigger. AMD needs volume. They should target the average user.
Just wait. AMD will get there with their Raven Ridge, APUs and whatever is coming. It's just logical step to start with the better profit high-end processors to cover the losses they have done in past years. In low-end segment the power consumption will also be an important factor and with AMD's current architecture this area seems very promising as they already beat Intel with TDPs on high-end sector.
 

alexruiz

Platinum Member
Sep 21, 2001
2,836
556
126
And what am i supposed to look at there? Can't see a proper comparison with x264 used between Ryzen/7700k there.

It is not any different that the examples you give or link.
However, because those match your point of view then you post them.

But to be honest, AdoredTV spent much more time highlighting the little details, so their review was more complete.
What they didn't have was detailed data of the test setup. Not just board, but UEFI firmware version, GPU drivers version and chipset drivers version.

Being that you are a persistent detractor, how about next time you post something you also bring us that data?
Those of us who have already built with Ryzen can pick what is valid and what is not. How about that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: french toast

lolfail9001

Golden Member
Sep 9, 2016
1,056
353
96
It is not any different that the examples you give or link.
No, no, i am sincerely curious, since i am can't tolerate a second of his voice, what is the timestamp for gameplay+encoding framerates? Because skimming through it i could not find it.

Those of us who have already built with Ryzen can pick what is valid and what is not. How about that?
Those of you who already have a Ryzen build may as well do these benchmarks themselves, why would you need to believe any third party? It's people like me who have not yet put it all together who have to rely on third party reviews to draw conclusions on what is up with performance.
 

innociv

Member
Jun 7, 2011
54
20
76
Intel has
7500 3.4/3.8GHz
7400 3.0GHz/3.5GHz

AMD has
1500X 3.5/3.7GHz with 200MHz XFR at 189$
1400 3.2/3.4GHz with 50MHz at 169$
The bigger problem here is with XFR making them look loer clcoked than they are.
In actuality, the 1500X is 3.5/3.9 and the 1400 is 3.2/3.5
This is because the 1400 gets an extra 100mhz from XFR, and the 1500X uniquely gets an extra 200mhz.

They basically lied saying XFR will overclock for you as well as your cooling solution allows.
Since that's not true, all they did is shot themselves in the foot with the frequencies they display being lower than the true "boost" clocks.

They should have just said that the 1800x is 4.1ghz "precision boost", and the 1500X is 3.9ghz. That'd have looked better compared to the 3.4/3.8 7500.

Has anyone seen this?

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_1800X/14.html

Ryzen 7 pulling up less power from the wall at gaming than 7700K?
power_gaming.png


It must be EXTREMELY underutilized.
Well, duh. That's obvious to anyone that actually monitored core usage. Most of the time the Ryzen 7 is 50-65% utilized while the 7700k is 90-99% utilized.

That review was absurdly bias, though.
They underclocked Ryzens to 3.6Ghz instead of letting stock XFR operate?
And they used 2666mhz RAM while they used 3000 for intel?
I guarantee you they used messed up settings (their "test setup" page hardly details anything) to intentionally cripple the Ryzen, as well.
What a joke. It's as bias as the AdoredTV review is (gaming on a 1070 on ultra settings making easy GPU bottlenecks) on the other side's favor, but at least AdoredTV made their methodologies clear.

At least I have list of reviewers to not trust anymore, thanks to all that's gone on the past 2 weeks.
 
Last edited:

iiiankiii

Senior member
Apr 4, 2008
759
47
91
Oh, i do, you just need to read it. My message is simple: 1080 is clearly not enough for 1080p without frametime analysis, as the 3 outliers tell us.


> Messages: 27

Man, do not waste your message count throwing terms you do not know around.

Nice. So unless you have a Kaby Lake 7700K, don't even game at 1080p because "CLEARLY" it's not enough? That means all other CPUs are garbage? That's good to know. I hope you have 7700k or you better dump your piece of crap CPU in the trash. Can't even game at 1080p? The other 99% of the PC gamers out there are using the wrong CPU. It's either 7700k or bust at freakin' 1080p. Weak sauce.
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
5,208
1,580
136
That is absolute and utter nonsense. If you actually _work_ then you tend to open a few things. Good luck with that if you own a Pentium..... and welcome to the Hotel California a few weeks later

Read my previous post. At work I have an old Ivy bridge mobile i5 (hyperthreaded-dual core). Almost certainly slower than the new kabylake pentium and it's crippled by win7 32-bit (only 3 gb usable RAM). Yet I can develop web apps, do some data analytics, data cleaning, machine learning and so forth on it. Yes, it could be better but it works. So yeah, that pentium is more than enough for your average Joe that does web, office and media consumption. The more important part is to have an SSD instead of a hdd.

Of course if you do mass transcoding, lots of gaming, run VMs and so forth Ryzen is superior. But that's a tiny fraction of users. My initial point was that Ryzen isn't for the mass market. The apus will be. Maybe R3 will be an APU with defect iGPU. Would make sense. Ryzen doesn't make much sense in low price segment because it lacks an iGPU. If you compare it to i3/i5 on price you must always add at least $50 for a entry level gpu to a Ryzen build. Ryzen is for sure in the performance-enthusiast section. There lack of iGPU doesn't matter. But for the i3/i5 users it does.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
21,582
10,785
136
Has anyone seen this?

Ryzen 7 pulling up less power from the wall at gaming than 7700K?

What were they using to monitor power usage? I need to hook up my Kill-a-Watt, but HWiNFO64 is getting power usage all kinds of wonky even when the chip is utilizing 16 threads in heavy-duty HPC-style programs (like y-cruncher).

4 GHz 125W? Yeah right. The temps say otherwise!
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
5,208
1,580
136
Just wait. AMD will get there with their Raven Ridge, APUs and whatever is coming. It's just logical step to start with the better profit high-end processors to cover the losses they have done in past years. In low-end segment the power consumption will also be an important factor and with AMD's current architecture this area seems very promising as they already beat Intel with TDPs on high-end sector.

Actually I think we 100% agree. AMD will move volume with APUs not with Ryzen. Ryzen is a niche for midrange gamers to enthusiasts. I suspect R3 will be an APU with deactivated iGPU. Thats why its H2. Going below 4c/8c with Zeppelin die doesn't make much sense.
 

lolfail9001

Golden Member
Sep 9, 2016
1,056
353
96
Nice. So unless you have a Kaby Lake 7700K, don't even game at 1080p because "CLEARLY" it's not enough? That means all other CPUs are garbage? That's good to know. I hope you have 7700k or you better dump your piece of crap CPU in the trash. Can't even game at 1080p? The other 99% of the PC gamers out there are using the wrong CPU. It's either 7700k or bust at freakin' 1080p. Weak sauce.
Way to not understand what i was talking about.

The temps say otherwise!
Making judgement on thermal output based on temps? Come on.
 

imported_jjj

Senior member
Feb 14, 2009
660
430
136
Actually... the top tier might appear on July/August and the mainstream at Q4 2017....

I'll assume you are talking Raven Ridge.
For notebooks to be in retail in July-August, AMD would need to start shipping in (early) Q2 and if that would be the case, they would say so as it would be quite relevant to investors.
And ofc most laptop makers would rather ship by sea and that's an extra delay.
In desktop RR arrives next year so RR is really not gonna do much this year for AMD.

As for AMD vs Intel in laptop, sales depend on convincing corporations to buy AMD and that's tricky. Consumer laptop is hurting and it's a lot about marketing where AMD can't compete so it would be important to create a lot of positive buzz with Summit Ridge to boost their image.So far things aren't going great as reviewers are assassinating Ryzen with low res and slow memory when testing gaming.
The 1600X will have a strong showing vs the 7600k but the quads will look weak at stock.