Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

[Phynaz]

If you are "long" AMD, then all these fluctuations don't matter. If you are long you just have to hope the company doesn't get bankrupt or if you happen to have bought it at multi-year peaks hope that it doesn't get bought out at a price lower than the price you bought the share for.

If your investing strategy is based upon hope, you're doing it wrong.

 

[Ajay]

If your investing strategy is based upon hope, you're doing it wrong.

Good point - I must have read that post too fast! I mean, speaking as a human, there always a bit of hope/luck in almost everything we do. But in finance it's about picking stocks who's fundamentals and outlook match your investment strategy and risk tolerance. After being burnt by some high flying tech companies that pulled an Icarus on me, I now stick with stocks with good dividends (and other factors).

 

[tamz_msc]

Don't know if this has been posted:

Summary: Much more optimistic outlook on virtualization support and the IOMMU situation. Enabling transparency with regards to PSP is under consideration.

New info: X300 is the size of your fingernail, has 8 PCI-E 3.0 lanes that can be configured any way the manufacturers want.

 

[Mockingbird]

Apparently, Tom's Hardware don't think that any of the Ryzen processors are great for games; not even the Ryzen 5 1600X.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html

 

[tamz_msc]

Apparently, Tom's Hardware don't think that any of the Ryzen processors are great for games; not even the Ryzen 5 1600X.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html

They used to call this article 'Best GAMING CPUs for the money'. Somewhere down the line, 'gaming' was dropped.

 

[Shamrock]

Apparently, Tom's Hardware don't think that any of the Ryzen processors are great for games; not even the Ryzen 5 1600X.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html

Read the comments, ROFL!

Busted!

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/69hcjs/toms_hardware_runs_best_cpus_article_without_a/

 

[Crumpet]

Apparently, Tom's Hardware don't think that any of the Ryzen processors are great for games; not even the Ryzen 5 1600X.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html

TH used to be THE source for unbiased information and reviews, but now i'm left wondering if they recieve "funding" from a specific company.

 

[T1beriu]

They used to call this article 'Best GAMING CPUs for the money'. Somewhere down the line, 'gaming' was dropped.

About Our Recommendations

• This list is for gamers who want to get the most for their money. If you don’t play games, then the CPUs on this list may not be suitable for your particular needs.

 

[caswow]

so this quote justifies the crappy i3 or the locked i5? come on... only the 7700k is a matter of taste for now but the others are down right shilling

 

[inf64]

It is sad THG has become such a joke. It was one of the best hardware websites 10 years ago.

 

[Crono]

I'll agree with this assessment.

https://twitter.com/JokerReview/status/860648893507416064

 

[tamz_msc]

The title of their monthly feature was specifically called "Best Gaming CPUs for the money". The 'gaming' mysteriously disappeared while the article was still about gaming performance.

 

[Topweasel]

But even that quote. "If you don't game" like any other option on using the computer equals no gaming.

Also while I understand the trepidation of say more cores being used in the future should be a reason to get AMD. Considering the bomb that was BD it left a bad taste in everyone's mouth. But BD if better might have paved the way but it requires an immense amount of optimization just to be competitive.

That's not what is happening now. We are seeing dozens of games locked at 100% at 4c. Several are near that at 4c8t. We are seeing games run better on Ryzen because of the extra cores. DX12 and Vulkan have MT do engrained that it's only going to be more of an issue. On top of all that you have the main development platform in the consoles using 8c x86 CPU's.

It's extremely shortsighted now to recommend a 4c4t CPU even if in general it tends to be the faster solution.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[tamz_msc]

Remember that 720p game testing for CPU performance fracas at launch? Well guess what, PCGH has their CPU performance index up for May, and the FX 8350 is 5% ahead of the i5 2500K, in a test suite that has SC2 and Far Cry Primal.

 

[jpiniero]

If anything the 1600/X is the only Ryzen worth buying for gaming. Anything more expensive and you'd be better off with the 7700K.

Remember that 720p game testing for CPU performance fracas at launch? Well guess what, PCGH has their CPU performance index up for May, and the FX 8350 is 5% ahead of the i5 2500K, in a test suite that has SC2 and Far Cry Primal.

Yeah, games are much better threaded now. The threading can only go so far though.

 

[maddie]

It is sad THG has become such a joke. It was one of the best hardware websites 10 years ago.

This a perfect example of a dedicated owner driven business vs a corporate owned one. Same ones who own Anandtech.

 

[tamz_msc]

Yeah, games are much better threaded now. The threading can only go so far though.

Except that Starcraft 2 and Far Cry Primal aren't the best examples of well-threaded games.

 

[DrMrLordX]

SC2 is still limited to 2 threads, is it not?

 

[Topweasel]

This a perfect example of a dedicated owner driven business vs a corporate owned one. Same ones who own Anandtech.

The plus side of Anandtech is they still have a large portion of their under Anand staff including the guy in charge who was mentored by Anand an whom he handed off the baton to.

But lets not pretend Tom's was ever the top dog in hardware reviews in the past. He was great for the most part. But he got sucked into his biases on several occasions. He would learn his lesson's and eat his crow, something none of the tech tubers are willing to do. But I remember his week long stability comparison between the Athlon x2 and the P4D that he ended up trying to gloss over the Intel stability issues and then "reset" the test half way through for "fairness". How the workload for that tested was originally chosen specifically chosen not to exceed 100% CPU usage for testing but to handicap the Athlon x2 setup. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/dual-core-stress-test,1049.html . Also Tom's actual denial of an issue with PIII 1.13 GHz CPU up till Anand, HardOCP, and I forgot the third party convinced Intel to recall it. I regret seeing Tom go but I stopped reading Tom's for a long while after the Stress test.

 

[Crono]

It looks like the excuse they are making (article comments section) is they haven't finished testing Ryzen 1600 and 1400 yet. Which I guess is a valid reason, but it kind of makes them a dinosaur when everyone and their mother has already published full reviews (many of them in depth). Even a site as glacially slow (sometimes, and usually for good reason, of course) as AnandTech wouldn't make an all-Intel recommendation list this long after the Ryzen launch.

They give other reasons as well, but I think they key problem here is in all the parameters they set. When you go purely by 100% gaming performance, don't take into account future gains from having more cores/threads, and ignore other costs (motherboard, HSF), there's enough reason to defend their position. But for a real-world guide where you are talking to a mix of gamers - many, I assume, would want to keep their CPUs for a few years, and likely occasionally do other things than just game - the Ryzen 1600 at least deserves a spot in the list for the best value going forward.

If it was just a pick of the top-performer gaming CPU I have no issues with them choosing the i7-7700K.

 

[richaron]

Toms Hardware will always have a special place in my heart, it really was instrumental in providing info around the turn of the century. Not to say their info was always perfect or they were the only sites around; there simply wasn't much choice and they did supply solid data over a wide range of hardware. I do get sentimental thinking back to those times and my systems back then, so I owe Tom's a debt of gratitude.

But now that site feels more like how I imagine a parent would feel when a child chooses to enter pornography. Or maybe how a super fan feels when their hero gets too far into drugs and implodes.

It just makes me sad and disappointed.

 

[Topweasel]

If it was just a pick of the top-performer gaming CPU I have no issues with them choosing the i7-7700K.

I don't think anyone has a problem with them recommending a 7700 over a 1700. In fact the 1700 stock is not going to be very competitive game wise, might never be even with increased core usage in games. The gap between stock and the 7700 is a pretty large one.

The 7600k is pretty strong but the 1600x is pretty competitive on anything not DX12 running on Nvidia based cards. In the end let the bias either way consume you. I personally wouldn't want a 4c4t if a 6c12t is as close as it is. But this is a float your boat pick. Though I would comment that it's price may be closer 7600k than the 7700k. But it's performance is competitive with both of them. Which is where I think the perspective is flawed. You have a CPU that while slightly slow then it's price competitor, is also only a little bit additionally slower than the step up from that while having more resources than both. It's a real value selection there.

But when you get under that. A 1600 or 1500x is just an all around better option than a 7500 and the extra $20-$40 of the 1400 while taking it out of the price bracket of the i3, should still win because well it's a horrible decision to recommend a 2c2t CPU for anyone specially at $100+.

The Pentium sits by itself till R3 comes out. But really the only way not put a Ryzen in there somewhere is to actively try not to.

 

[SAAA]

Remember that 720p game testing for CPU performance fracas at launch? Well guess what, PCGH has their CPU performance index up for May, and the FX 8350 is 5% ahead of the i5 2500K, in a test suite that has SC2 and Far Cry Primal.

Problem is that 2500K is being beaten now after 5 years of great performance value, not talking about its huge OC headroom too... none used it at stock. 4.5+GHz 2500K are great even today, even though they are slowly matched by FX and newer I3 at stock.

Dang man what I'm talking about, it's 2017, better look at what's out today: Zen's good... competition back is even better!

 

[tamz_msc]

Problem is that 2500K is being beaten now after 5 years of great performance value, not talking about its huge OC headroom too... none used it at stock. 4.5+GHz 2500K are great even today, even though they are slowly matched by FX and newer I3 at stock.

Dang man what I'm talking about, it's 2017, better look at what's out today: Zen's good... competition back is even better!

The point is that it completely demolishes the myth that somehow the Intel offerings being faster today would translate into them being faster in the future as well with more powerful GPUs - the tests were done using a GTX 980Ti, which is like, three to four times faster than the top GPUs in 2011-2012, when the FX 8350 and i5 2500K were launched. This point was harped on and on like a broken record at the launch of Ryzen.

 

[SPBHM]

The point is that it completely demolishes the myth that somehow the Intel offerings being faster today would translate into them being faster in the future as well with more powerful GPUs - the tests were done using a GTX 980Ti, which is like, three to four times faster than the top GPUs in 2011-2012, when the FX 8350 and i5 2500K were launched. This point was harped on and on like a broken record at the launch of Ryzen.

i5 2500K = January 2011, FX 8350 = October 2012 (newer than Ivy Bridge)

I don't understand the fascination with comparing 3.4GHz Sandy Bridge with 4GHz FX with 2x the amount of threads, specially when limiting the 2500K with slower memory (it can handle 2133 nicely), and when everyone was buying the 2500K to OC by 1GHz (if you didn't OC you would buy the non K CPU and save some money), to observe some narrow "victory"

from what I see the tests showing the FX doing better normally run with slower memory for the 2500K compared to the FX.

a more representative test for 2017 shows the stock 2500k beating even the 8370 for gaming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76-8-4qcpPo