Ryzen-A Fail for Gamers?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Anubis

No Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
78,716
414
126
yea we knew this months ago because games are heavily speed dependent, games aren't multythreaded
NEWS AT 11

its also a non issue for 99.999% of the gamers out there
 

parvadomus

Senior member
Dec 11, 2012
685
14
81
I would always pick a 1700 over the 7700k. 7700k is just weaker in almost everything, and it only pulls ahead in single threaded games, or applications and not by a huge margin. Also expect it to age a lot quicker, and not the processor alone, but the entire platform (I expect Zen2 and Zen3 archs to run over AM4).
To haters: this thing is not as easy to down play as bulldozer :)
 

imported_jjj

Senior member
Feb 14, 2009
660
430
136
If all you care about is gaming then the 7700k is all you need.
LOL
If you care about gaming you are insane to buy an 7700k.
If you care about gaming and only that, you buy a much cheaper CPU and invest more in a GPU.

And if you are on an unlimited budget you buy a 6900k as it is better in gaming than a 7700k.
 

sirmo

Golden Member
Oct 10, 2011
1,011
375
136
All sites just reviewed the gifts they received from AMD but didn't tried to truly investigate anything.

Tom's saw that 1800X consumed only 56W with Metro: LL but didn't found it strange or tried any other game where the performance was lack-lusting. Anywhere else I read people not even show power consumption while gaming.

For real, I can conclude anything.

Also, Hothardware (one the last that deserve praise) at least asked someone:



We know the relations between Oxide/AMD, but let's see how it turns...
This! You can see a lot of discrepancies in testing and wildly differing results from various review outlets. On top of that the gaming performance does not at all match the synthetic or productivity performance and even the same games from reviewer to reviewer. For instance in Joker's test of DX11 BF1 he shows an OCed 1700 beating the Intel 7700K even, but when you look at DX12 BF1 in other tests, Ryzen is seriously behind, like what's going on?



HardwareUnboxed for instance admit their sample is underperforming where it should be compared to other tests, but still notice a less intermittent stutter when playing games with Ryzen compared to 7700K.

We also know of a couple of issues some reviewers ran into and others didn't. Like XFR not working for some, memory XMP not working for some, window's balanced profile not playing nice with Ryzen (AMD apparently submitted a driver for this we should be seeing come down the pike at some point).

At this point I really want to see motherboard side by side reviews and see if some of these issues can be uncovered, and traced down to BIOS issues.

I am really not convinced Ryzen is as slow in some games as some of the reviews show.

At the end of the day.. Ryzen is a big launch. A whole new architecture on a brand new platform, on a brand new process. It's also the first competitive CPU AMD has made in a decade.. so it was always a given there were going to be teething pains with this baby.
 

unseenmorbidity

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
967
96
This! You can see a lot of discrepancies in testing and wildly differing results from various review outlets. On top of that the gaming performance does not at all match the synthetic or productivity performance and even the same games from reviewer to reviewer. For instance in Joker's test of DX11 BF1 he shows an OCed 1700 beating the Intel 7700K even, but when you look at DX12 BF1 in other tests, Ryzen is seriously behind, like what's going on?



HardwareUnboxed for instance admit their sample is underperforming where it should be compared to other tests, but still notice a less intermittent stutter when playing games with Ryzen compared to 7700K.

We also know of a couple of issues some reviewers ran into and others didn't. Like XFR not working for some, memory XMP not working for some, window's balanced profile not playing nice with Ryzen (AMD apparently submitted a driver for this we should be seeing come down the pike at some point).

At this point I really want to see motherboard side by side reviews and see if some of these issues can be uncovered, and traced down to BIOS issues.

I am really not convinced Ryzen is as slow in some games as some of the reviews show.

At the end of the day.. Ryzen is a big launch. A whole new architecture on a brand new platform, on a brand new process. It's also the first competitive CPU AMD has made in a decade.. so it was always a given there were going to be teething pains with this baby.
Bad motherboards and reviewers not following the correct procedures. Even the reviewers are saying their results are worthless.

Unless you believe that bugs are causing the good reviews to somehow gain performance(which makes no sense), then there is no reason to look at reviews with bad results. Bad Results = Bugs hindering performance. The good reviews show the true potential of Ryzen!

What's the source? Anyone can knock up a bar chart.
Hardware Canucks did the overwatch I think, and Joker did the other 4.


Joker had a gigabyte board, which seems to be having a lot less issues at the time the reviews were being done.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXVIPo_qbc4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lay7YuqPscQ&t=629s
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: french toast

french toast

Senior member
Feb 22, 2017
988
824
136
Put it this way, intel better be hoping amd is BS-tting here, as the power consumption numbers show <3.5ghz ryzen is extremely efficient, with RR coming up soon with vega onboard, well lets just say intel needs these bad results to become permanent.
 

ultima_trev

Member
Nov 4, 2015
148
66
66
Outside of cases like Ashes of the Singularity, GTA V, FarCry Primal, Rise of the Tomb Raider and Civ VI... Ryzen did hold up pretty well. If those titles could receive an update via patching to allow better optimization for Ryzen, AMD will be back in the game.
 

unseenmorbidity

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
967
96
Listen to the first couple minutes of this review. The ASUS crosshair was incredibly unstable. He came to the logical conclusion that results were worthless, and used another board.

This is the board most reviewers got too! How much do you want to bet that many of these reviewers didn't bother troubleshooting and just chugged along getting bad results?



BIts And Chips: The benchmarks in all Ryzen reviews shuld be redone. A lot fo new improved BIOS, for all AM4 mainboards, were released just yesterday.

The JayzTwoCents live linked here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1dhYDm7SLw

Jay talks about several interesting things in his video:

  • For one, AMD screwed up their release and rushed everything. Jay called it a "cluster****" release (46:36) and mobo manufactures were scrambling to get their BIOS ready, not to mention the reviews only had several days to test
  • That lead to issues and many reviewers discovered these problems leading to AMD email bast reviewers to type this in the command prompt and redoing all the benchmarks because there might be an 8% performance increase
  • AMD also asked reviewers to enable certain things on the AMD side and disable things on the Intel side which (of course) they refused to do
  • Microsoft gives priority to Intel and NVidia (edit: in terms of bug fixing in Windows 10 - this is from Jerry on barnacules nerdgasm who seemed to have worked at Microsoft before), not AMD so low level OS optimizations might take a while
  • Be prepared for more performance increase as BIOS, OS and game updates comes out!
 
  • Like
Reactions: sirmo

R0H1T

Platinum Member
Jan 12, 2013
2,570
147
106
Put it this way, intel better be hoping amd is BS-tting here, as the power consumption numbers show <3.5ghz ryzen is extremely efficient, with RR coming up soon with vega onboard, well lets just say intel needs these bad results to become permanent.
Well they also need bad PR to stick, it's better to improve word of mouth & dispel some misconceptions & certain misnomers on this forum, like many others.
 

flopper

Senior member
Dec 16, 2005
739
19
76


Best gaming cpu, AMD Ryzen due to price/performance at half the price or better due to cost with cpu, motherboard AMD is the leading gaming platform for anyone understanding true power of gaming.
 

clemsyn

Senior member
Aug 21, 2005
463
92
91
Gamers = Intel. I was hoping AMD ryzen TDP would actually be 95, but in reality it's not. Loads over 150 watts. Wow, talking about hype.
 

sirmo

Golden Member
Oct 10, 2011
1,011
375
136
Gamers = Intel. I was hoping AMD ryzen TDP would actually be 95, but in reality it's not. Loads over 150 watts. Wow, talking about hype.
You can get a lot of efficiency out of Ryzen though. 1800X is aggressively clocked out of the box, it's pretty close to its OC ceiling, which is why it runs away like that in consumption. But with bit more conservative clocks you get some amazing efficiency.
 

R0H1T

Platinum Member
Jan 12, 2013
2,570
147
106
Gamers = Intel. I was hoping AMD ryzen TDP would actually be 95, but in reality it's not. Loads over 150 watts. Wow, talking about hype.
What charts are you looking at? Most reviews test the (total) system power, besides TDP does not equal power consumption even for Intel.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
30,187
755
126
I recall AMD touting that the R7 processors would help in one area with their higher core count: streaming gameplay. Unfortunately, I haven't really seen any reviews touch on this multi-load scenario. (To be fair, I haven't looked at all reviews.) I'd be interested to see if the R7 1700 (or 1700X) performed better while streaming ( using CPU encoding ) than the 7700K.
 

rbk123

Senior member
Aug 22, 2006
735
337
136
So here again we have little difference between the 1800X and the 1700.
Why is this even brought up? Let alone multiple times? The answer is simple - get the 1700. This message board always ferrets out the best price/performance CPU for Intel, and it's no different for AMD.

Why not bring up "here again we have little difference between the I3 and the G4560". Good grief - has the entire gaming community been taking stupid pills? I remember when nerds were supposed to be the smart ones.
 

Dribble

Golden Member
Aug 9, 2005
1,946
481
136
I recall AMD touting that the R7 processors would help in one area with their higher core count: streaming gameplay. Unfortunately, I haven't really seen any reviews touch on this multi-load scenario. (To be fair, I haven't looked at all reviews.) I'd be interested to see if the R7 1700 (or 1700X) performed better while streaming ( using CPU encoding ) than the 7700K.
Gameplay streaming is pretty well all done by the gpu - it doesn't need to use the main cpu. It doesn't even need to use the main gpu cores, it probably has a dedicated chip that can do it perfectly and uses a tiny amount of power. That's the thing - x86 cores are an inefficient way to do most jobs. If you want to mine you're first choice is a dedicated card designed just to farm. If you can't do that then the gpu is still orders of magnitude more powerful then using the main cpu. No one needs lots of x86 cores for most of these tasks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lopri

guachi

Senior member
Nov 16, 2010
761
415
136
He said "little difference" not "no difference". LOL, you basically just said the same thing he did while calling him wrong. While the 1800x vs 1700x is a smaller difference than 1800x to 1700, is still little difference. Ambiguous, maybe, on the word little.
The 1800x (again, using the PC Gamer results) is 4.5% faster than the 1700x in productivity and 1% faster in games. That's little.

The 1800x is 14.6% faster than the 1700 in productivity and 4.4% faster in games.

If 14.6% is "little" then there is "little" difference between the 7700 in games and the 1700 in games (assuming it gets a 5% boost from turning off SMT like the 1800x does) as the 7700 would only be 11.2% faster than the 1700.
 

unseenmorbidity

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
967
96
The 1800x (again, using the PC Gamer results) is 4.5% faster than the 1700x in productivity and 1% faster in games. That's little.

The 1800x is 14.6% faster than the 1700 in productivity and 4.4% faster in games.

If 14.6% is "little" then there is "little" difference between the 7700 in games and the 1700 in games (assuming it gets a 5% boost from turning off SMT like the 1800x does) as the 7700 would only be 11.2% faster than the 1700.
If you run it at stock, but you shouldn't buy a 1700 and run it at stock imo. At least clock it up to 1800x levels of performance.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,574
126
The 1800x (again, using the PC Gamer results) is 4.5% faster than the 1700x in productivity and 1% faster in games. That's little.

The 1800x is 14.6% faster than the 1700 in productivity and 4.4% faster in games.

If 14.6% is "little" then there is "little" difference between the 7700 in games and the 1700 in games (assuming it gets a 5% boost from turning off SMT like the 1800x does) as the 7700 would only be 11.2% faster than the 1700.
Yes, because no one will buy a 1700 and overclock it, where it will be right there with an overclocked 1800X...

These chips are unlocked and meant for overclocking.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY