Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

[KompuKare]

Its simply about quality parts, the big companies like HP and Dell, only mean you get someone to FIX it fast, not that its good equipment.

Perhaps rather unfairly in the computer industry I always associated Capacitor Plague with Dell and not just with their consumer parts but even OptiPlex parts.

Seems someone at Dell made a calculation that a few cent saved by buying cheaper capacitors would be a good idea. One of the problem with very big companies must be that they employ more beancounters who often only know the cost of everything and not its value. HP on the other hand is so keen to win the race to the bottom at their consumer stuff tends to awful - although some business lines do seem to have a good reputation.

Slightly more on-topic: the biggest divorce of price and quality I see are those elite super gaming diamond bling motherboards. Although I haven't see the prices, I'd imagine AMD charge less for X370 than Intel do for Z270, but that hasn't stopped motherboard manufacturers offering £250-£300 boards. Some of that price might be good parts, most of it doesn't seem to be. Can't see a £300 consumer bling board being that well made compared to a £300 Supermicro Dual Xeon LGA2011-3 board and there is just no way those two boards should be the same price.

 

[Rifter]

Perhaps rather unfairly in the computer industry I always associated Capacitor Plague with Dell and not just with their consumer parts but even OptiPlex parts.

Seems someone at Dell made a calculation that a few cent saved by buying cheaper capacitors would be a good idea. One of the problem with very big companies must be that they employ more beancounters who often only know the cost of everything and not its value. HP on the other hand is so keen to win the race to the bottom at their consumer stuff tends to awful - although some business lines do seem to have a good reputation.

Slightly more on-topic: the biggest divorce of price and quality I see are those elite super gaming diamond bling motherboards. Although I haven't see the prices, I'd imagine AMD charge less for X370 than Intel do for Z270, but that hasn't stopped motherboard manufacturers offering £250-£300 boards. Some of that price might be good parts, most of it doesn't seem to be. Can't see a £300 consumer bling board being that well made compared to a £300 Supermicro Dual Xeon LGA2011-3 board and there is just no way those two boards should be the same price.

I agree, and its gotten so out of hand its actually hard to find boards that arnt all blinged out and still have a good feature set. So your options are the blinged out mobo at $200+ which may or may not contain quality components or a striped down budget board lacking in features for under $100 and with questionable quality components.

There really isnt alot of in between, especially at launch of a new platform.

 

[ronss]

i just bought the ryzen 1600x, seems to be in short supply, 2 places i usually buy from did not have them, or ran out the first day...going to pari it with the msi x370 pro carbon...now just trying to figure what type ram to use?

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

i just bought the ryzen 1600x, seems to be in short supply, 2 places i usually buy from did not have them, or ran out the first day...going to pari it with the msi x370 pro carbon...now just trying to figure what type ram to use?

Ram that over clocks to 3200mhz is the best. Good fps gain in games. Ryzen r7 1700 is a more popular option tho. This thing is currently outselling 7700k based on the growing number of reviews on newegg

 

[DrMrLordX]

Yes. AM4 is a dog and needs at least another six months of BIOS updates and possibly hardware mobo revisions.

BS. Buy some Samsung B-die Trident Z and put it in a Taichi or CH6 and guaranteed DDR4-3200 14-14-14-32 (or 28). Flash the latest UEFI, no mus no fuss.

As for multitasking I have yet to bring this i5 to its knees so all those extra cores and cache are meh.

Yeah who needs THAT stuff?

The odd thing is that I have 16 Intel rigs(6 of which are Xeons), one Opteron rig, and 2 Ryzen rigs. You would think that people would listen to someone who owns them ALL.

Gotta catch em all!

 

[Ozzyrulez]

That feeling when the new Agesa and BIOS make your RAM that was happy at 2933 no longer able to boot above 2133. Since I'm waiting on my 1080Ti to come back from EVGA step up and I'm running an ancient GPU during the wait I'm meh about it. However when the GPU gets here I'm thinking I might go back to the older BIOS.

 

[ronss]

Ram that over clocks to 3200mhz is the best. Good fps gain in games. Ryzen r7 1700 is a more popular option tho. This thing is currently outselling 7700k based on the growing number of reviews on newegg

too late...i allready bought the 1600x...i thought this would be the best gaming option?

 

[IEC]

too late...i allready bought the 1600x...i thought this would be the best gaming option?

It matches the 1800X in most games and you have enough headroom with 6c/12t that you won't miss the extra 2c for gaming. I'd say you're fine and you spent considerably less.

P.S. 1600/X is the best value on a $/core basis.

 

[ronss]

It matches the 1800X in most games and you have enough headroom with 6c/12t that you won't miss the extra 2c for gaming. I'd say you're fine and you spent considerably less.

P.S. 1600/X is the best value on a $/core basis.

thanks...sounds like 3200 mhz memory is the way to go.......

 

[Topweasel]

First, I am not sure I understand where you are going with this, but let me add my 2 cents if its relevant.

So I worked for a large corporation, that had OVER 5 square miles of data center floor space(could have been 10, but I know of at least 5). But did they make smart decisions ? in my opinion, no. They had a great warranty, but the products had cheap parts. Without revealing all of the details, they had servers that had the power regulators going out daily. The least dependable systems we had were the newest ones. And the workstations ? Just as bad, and expensive. Right now, I have a 15 year old system with consumer parts, that has been up 24/7/365 for those 15 years with NO failures (socket 775), Its simply about quality parts, the big companies like HP and Dell, only mean you get someone to FIX it fast, not that its good equipment. My personal equipment was what I used everyday, as the hardware provided me was so bad, it went down all the time. Being down in the first place is way worse than getting quick support fixing a downed server.

I am not saying a Dell or HP are better built machines. They aren't and specially in the 2005-2010 era with bad caps and terrible solder with the OEM's being hit with the worst of it with their cost saving endeavors. But on a professional consumer level, you have unified internal support, quick turnover on machine swaps, near zero implementation time, near zero need for parts stock, quick support that doesn't require both the downtime of the employee and the tech. It's so much easier to handle PC's as the repair module than the individual components.

Now lets turn this around surely it would be better for a home professional PC. Nope. Now we are talking about either needing to keep on hand a full system worth of replacement parts if one breaks. Or diagnosing the problem to the best of our ability, outlaying the replacement cost, next day shipping the component, hoping that we can get it actually next day dependent on when we diagnosed the issue and submitted the order. If we were wrong, you have to hope you can return the extra part, possibly eat the extra return fees. Then waiting for the next part to come in (again eating the cost). 3 years in parts in the open market become harder and harder to find (like trying to find a good x79 piece now). You have to start dealing with unwarranted 14 days of coverage used and refurbished parts with sometimes relying on the good faith of the people on Ebay. For parts under warranty you pretty much still have to eat the new parts cost and wait the extra month or so to have an extra part you never planned on storing.

Even in the worst case scenario its easier to deal with constantly dying parts with a suboptimal OEM that takes care of it in a hurry (like 4 hour turn around instead of next day on servers). Than to try to keep a hand built system alive even if the failure rate in comparison is incredibly small.

The only real reason to build system in business critical setting is to get some functionality you can't with a big box.

 

[Markfw]

I am not saying a Dell or HP are better built machines. They aren't and specially in the 2005-2010 era with bad caps and terrible solder with the OEM's being hit with the worst of it with their cost saving endeavors. But on a professional consumer level, you have unified internal support, quick turnover on machine swaps, near zero implementation time, near zero need for parts stock, quick support that doesn't require both the downtime of the employee and the tech. It's so much easier to handle PC's as the repair module than the individual components.

Now lets turn this around surely it would be better for a home professional PC. Nope. Now we are talking about either needing to keep on hand a full system worth of replacement parts if one breaks. Or diagnosing the problem to the best of our ability, outlaying the replacement cost, next day shipping the component, hoping that we can get it actually next day dependent on when we diagnosed the issue and submitted the order. If we were wrong, you have to hope you can return the extra part, possibly eat the extra return fees. Then waiting for the next part to come in (again eating the cost). 3 years in parts in the open market become harder and harder to find (like trying to find a good x79 piece now). You have to start dealing with unwarranted 14 days of coverage used and refurbished parts with sometimes relying on the good faith of the people on Ebay. For parts under warranty you pretty much still have to eat the new parts cost and wait the extra month or so to have an extra part you never planned on storing.

Even in the worst case scenario its easier to deal with constantly dying parts with a suboptimal OEM that takes care of it in a hurry (like 4 hour turn around instead of next day on servers). Than to try to keep a hand built system alive even if the failure rate in comparison is incredibly small.

The only real reason to build system in business critical setting is to get some functionality you can't with a big box.

Well, I spent 14 years with the company. They didn't care if I proved my point, they just had an agenda. And our servers were NOT up in 4 hours, but sometimes DAYS.

As for the consumer level, all it takes is s little research, and you get good parts the first time, and a good system that runs the first time, and for years.

THATS WHAT THIS FORUM IS ALL ABOUT

Here is how stupid they were... In 2004, where the Opteron was beating the pants off of the pentium/Xeon in performance AND power consumption, they said "well, we only buy real CPU's, and that's Intel"

 

[Topweasel]

As for the consumer level, all it takes is s little research, and you get good parts the first time, and a good system that runs the first time, and for years.

But that is the key really isn't it that it works for years. I mean your preaching to the choir here. I have for the most part have not a hard core component failure on my systems since I started building them. That said I still had a PCP@C PSU die on me once and Seagate for consumer drives where damn near bullet proof when they offered the 7200.12 series with no background information till late 2013 that these drives were an issue. I had IBM deskstars for years because they were the best drives available but the same thing happened there the 45GB GXP- 120GB GXP were drives waiting to die. I never had a failure myself (unlike the Seagates) but I wouldn't dream of questioning the Deathstar moniker. Even Nvidia who has always been the go to Pro card with the Quadro series fell victim to the Solder issue around the time of their 6k-8k cards that only was realized 2 years after the first cards were released. It's easy to say that you only use quality components and it be a factual statement failure rate can be incredibly small but you can still find yourself on the poor end of some companies fall off the QC ceiling, or just bad luck that you then become responsible for both it's failure and the turnaround to get the machine back up and running. At least with a rash of issues with an HP or Dell you can always tell upper management that you will be reviewing other possible vendors for the next replacement cycle.

 

[3DVagabond]

I've seen rumors about it. I don't trust rumors. Did you follow the US election?.

Are you being serious?

 

[IllogicalGlory]

Yeah Gamers Nexus seems to be very focused testing, basically a PC is a closed gaming box to him where users do nothing else and build according to that. He also focuses completely on the now will little forethought to the future. It's understandable as he does mention how workloads are changing in gaming but he specifically deals with what's the current situation.

His R5 review must have been very painful for him as you can tell he basically doesn't want to admit that the i5 is dead as a gaming CPU, it was like pulling teeth reading his conclusion and even in the end his label is "i5 hangs on with fading grasp"?? "If CPU rendering is your thing..." ?? Really? You can tell just how biased he is towards Intel and that's bad.

I don't like how much attention he puts on BF1 benchmarks when all he does is run the built-in one, which is completely irrelevant for the game. He should not include the game at all if he doesn't want to bother with multi-player. I can play BF1 and process a h265 video in handbrake running in the background, let's see him do that on his beloved 7700k.

Most of his audience are interested in gaming performance; I know that that's the number one concern in my case, but you are still pretty much wrong about his conclusions. He also does a number of CPU tests, including blender and x.264. His problem is that in most of those applications, GPU acceleration through CUDA is available, making CPU choice pretty much negligible. He's obviously strongly considering how Ryzen would perform in his creation pipeline (most of his non-gaming CPU tests are centered around content creation), and it's clear that he has personally no real need for Ryzen, despite its capabilities.

I'd also like to address your point about changing workloads. It is true that games will start using more cores over time, but I remember before Ryzen's launch seeing this Computerbase article as proof that games are already able to take advantage of Ryzen. As far as I'm concerned, that conclusion still holds. If Ryzen did perform properly in games, we would see the 1800X literally topping Computerbase's benchmark charts, rather than the 6900K being 12% ahead considering its Cinebench, Blender and Handbrake performance coupled with its clock speed advantage. I think this argument that Ryzen is going to improve over time to be a bit weak. We're already in a situation where 6-8 cores should have an advantage over a mainstream i7 in games.

You can say that the i5 is dead as a gaming CPU, but the results of his testing don't bear that out. I agree that the 1600/X have that bracket pretty much cornered, but the i5 still seems to perform pretty much on par.

To your comment about playing BF1 and processing and h.265 video: firstly, have you actually done that, and not as a benchmark or an exercise, but because you actually wanted to play BF1 while encoding a video? Second, how many people do you think that use case applies to?

I can tell you that there are many use cases that I have personal experience with where I would rather have a heavily overclocked i5 over a 1600X. Specifically, I can tell you that emulators love single-thread performance, and Skylake still holds a clear advantage in that use case. Emulators are something that I actually use, too. I love playing Mario Galaxy and Rogue Squadron with Dolphin, having actually finished both of them on PC. Also, I know I would rather have an i5 if I want to play a heavily modded Bethesda game, such as Skyrim or Oblivion, which I have, on Steam alone, 540 combined hours in. These use cases exist too, and are actually relevant to me.

It's all going to come down to what you use the CPU for, and it's clear that what Steve Burke uses his CPUs for aren't where Ryzen makes a huge difference, so naturally he judges it mostly on the workloads that are top priority of the greater part of his viewers (gaming). That's not to say that there are uses where a Ryzen rig is going to shine. I know that if I were a streamer or any kind of video producer that I would pick up a 1700, but not everyone needs what it has to offer.

The bolded is such garbage. In fact, I'd say in it's garbage in almost every case, not just this one. Just a weak rationalization to suppress information or discredit people for whatever reason. I see no evidence that GamersNexus has any bias in their coverage, they just came to a different conclusion than you.

One final question: How does one deal with any situation other than the current one?

 

[unseenmorbidity]

We're already in a situation where 6-8 cores should have an advantage over a mainstream i7 in games.

What? This is patently false... Sure, depending on the game suite, you can show 8 core CPUs ahead of the 7700k today, but that doesn't mean that there aren't a ton of games out there that don't properly utilize 8 cores, because there are. And as time passes, the number of games unable to utilize 8 cores will decrease.

I am not sure if the problem is he is biased, or someone at AMD called him a petulant child, and then he went on a temper tantrum.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

What? This is patently false... Sure, depending on the game suite, you can show 8 core CPUs ahead of the 7700k today, but that doesn't mean that there aren't a ton of games out there that don't properly utilize 8 cores, because there are. And as time passes, the number of games unable to utilize 8 cores will decrease.

I am not sure if the problem is he is biased, or someone at AMD called him a petulant child, and then he went on a temper tantrum.

I just linked you the review showing the 6900K beating the 7700K on average, read: an advantage (by 7% no less), so no, what I said is not patently false. Notably, in the same suite, the 7700K beats the 1800X by 4%. Clearly Ryzen's game performance is not where it should be.

To the bolded: perhaps your imagination is running a little too wild. Talk about childish. The fanboyism on display from you and others in this thread is really getting on my nerves.




Insults are not allowed. Neither is the calling people fanboys.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[Herr Kutz]

Ram that over clocks to 3200mhz is the best. Good fps gain in games. Ryzen r7 1700 is a more popular option tho. This thing is currently outselling 7700k based on the growing number of reviews on newegg

Does not compute. Pun intended.

 

[DrMrLordX]

The only real reason to build system in business critical setting is to get some functionality you can't with a big box.

That's becoming standard practice with firms like Google, Amazon, etc. Anyone that buys through an ODM instead of an OEM.

 

[Topweasel]

That's becoming standard practice with firms like Google, Amazon, etc. Anyone that buys through an ODM instead of an OEM.

ODM's is just another version of OEM purchases. Amazon isn't building the computers they aren't even supporting them. But they don't have to wait for the OEMs to go through their qualifications before they get an important shift in their product for implementation. But it's still a big box purchase just quicker turnaround.

 

[ronss]

I just linked you the review showing the 6900K beating the 7700K on average, read: an advantage (by 7% no less), so no, what I said is not patently false. Notably, in the same suite, the 7700K beats the 1800X by 4%. Clearly Ryzen's game performance is not where it should be.

To the bolded: perhaps your imagination is running a little too wild. Talk about childish. The fanboyism on display from you and others in this thread is really getting on my nerves.

the ryzen 1800x is directed toward the server market.....its probably very formiable there

 

[DrMrLordX]

ODM's is just another version of OEM purchases. Amazon isn't building the computers they aren't even supporting them. But they don't have to wait for the OEMs to go through their qualifications before they get an important shift in their product for implementation. But it's still a big box purchase just quicker turnaround.

Um my understanding was that with at least some ODMs, once they agree on the in-house design submitted by the client, the servers are often shipped unbuilt and built/configured on-site by client staff. I wasn't aware that ODMs supplied any meaningful level of support. Maybe that's just Google?

 

[Topweasel]

Um my understanding was that with at least some ODMs, once they agree on the in-house design submitted by the client, the servers are often shipped unbuilt and built/configured on-site by client staff. I wasn't aware that ODMs supplied any meaningful level of support. Maybe that's just Google?

Not so sure about the unbuilt systems but even for tech firms this kind of work is handed out to external contractors (think smaller EMC like services) that handle a majority of the implementation and support. This way they can just scale their contract to needed levels instead of yet another division of employees that they have to train up and or make redundant when they need to scale down.

That's not to say they don't have massive "IT teams" But it's for the day to day stuff and not building PCs and spending hours repairing bad equipment. They also work on such massive scale that they can just have the company swap the full system work out the issues, then swap it back in during a later failure.

But what they definitely aren't doing is building systems themselves, installing them, pulling them, working on the bad system, and reinstalling it themselves.

Now what I will give you is for data center work these systems will be absent drives so that the company has the chance to decide what configuration the need for size and speed on demand.

 

[CHADBOGA]

As long as its not juan guy in particular...

The biggest issue with Juan is that so many people can not grasp the depth in the insights he regularly provides and he provides these insights in the spirit of love, yet sadly gets much hate for this.

 

[tamz_msc]

The biggest issue with Juan is that so many people can not grasp the depth in the insights he regularly provides and he provides these insights in the spirit of love, yet sadly gets much hate for this.

Like a stern dad who is a strict disciplinarian to his kid but underneath it's all about love? Yeah, it will take some convincing for me to believe that.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

I just linked you the review showing the 6900K beating the 7700K on average, read: an advantage (by 7% no less), so no, what I said is not patently false. Notably, in the same suite, the 7700K beats the 1800X by 4%. Clearly Ryzen's game performance is not where it should be.

To the bolded: perhaps your imagination is running a little too wild. Talk about childish. The fanboyism on display from you and others in this thread is really getting on my nerves.

Your conclusion was false.

One benchmark suite isn't sufficient.

"depending on the game suite, you can show 8 core CPUs ahead of the 7700k today, but that doesn't mean that there aren't a ton of games out there that don't properly utilize 8 cores,"

You can find dozens that shows the 7700k win.

---------------------------------------------------

Did you watch his review and follow up slanderous video? He was clearly emotionally distraught during the filming.