• 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.

Ryzen-A Fail for Gamers?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
rbk123 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, I agree about the 4560, and I've read that sentiment about it many times here, so not sure what you're on about?

Is there a bottom end i7 that can be made as fast as a top end i7?
 
unseenmorbidity said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not everyone overclocks, even enthusiasts, then as one poster above said there's a good reason not to OC the 1700 like if you're looking at SFF or a low power build that doubles up as a gaming rig.
clemsyn said:
This.

https://hardforum.com/attachments/upload_2017-3-3_10-42-58-png.18370/

Plus no overclocking headroom. Gaming is still owned by Intel no doubt.
Click to expand...
That's (total) system power consumption, not just the CPU ~
aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9JL1IvNjU2NDUxL29yaWdpbmFsLzAxLVdhdHRhZ2UtQmFycy5wbmc=
 
Dribble said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Yes, there are people that use their GPU's dedicated encoding block (e.g. NVENC) to do encoding when streaming (using software like OBS). However, not everyone does, and some serious streamers even use a second PC just for handling the stream, which includes encoding. As you could imagine, using a second PC for encoding inserts a number of issues, but if Ryzen was capable of alleviating the extra stress of CPU-based encoding, those streamers may not need a second PC anymore.
 
Ancalagon44 said:
Seeing all the inconsistency in its gaming performance, I'd wait a month before I evaluated whether it is a fail for gamers or not.

To be honest though, while it may have been marketed as AMD's highest end desktop processor, I don't think gamers are the target market. I think this is a better chip for workstations than it is gaming machines. Gamers would probably be better off buying a 6C or even 4C Ryzen and spending the extra cash on a better motherboard or GPU.
Click to expand...

Yes. I'm leaning toward the 6C, it's affordable and will be flexible.
 
Have there been any independent reviews of Ryzen 7 playing a game 1080p ultra and 4K ultra while also live-streaming with a webcam in OBS? Seems to me that this was one of AMD's preferred demos of how R7's extra cores allowed it to meet or exceed Intel's abilities. Given just how popular live-streaming while playing games is, I think it would be a good showcase.
 
AMDisTheBEST said:
It ain't a fail if it performs around the level of Intel's latest i5 in gaming and easily run circles around the i7 7700k in everything else.
Click to expand...
Well, I certainly hope that an 8C/16T chip runs circles around a 4C/8T chip when things are multi-threaded.
 
Blue Skies said:
Post deleted
Click to expand...
The defenders of the faith will be attacking you soon so have your defenses prepared in advance of the onslaught.😛 I turned one away from the 1800x this morning as I could not of good conscience promote the purchase. I really hope that the green team can further enhance optimizations with their vendors to eek out additional performance but if past practice is any indication we all know how this will turn out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Amd bundles more cores, mutithread better and bundles led cooler on 1700 at the same budget thus it is the best. Okay, end of the debate
 
Doesn't even seem to compete with my 2500k... Another failed upgrade pathway. Guess I'm waiting for the next round of releases. It's been 6 years now.

I don't know why I'm complaining. This chip has been the absolute best value of any tech purchase I have ever made.
 
Ryzen is more impressive than I expected. They've drawn abreast of Intel and are trading blows. Its fantastic.

Does it have a weak point as an architecture / chip? Of course it bloody has one, every architecture does! We all knew that this would be a multithread beast but single thread would be a challenge against highly clocked quad cores.

I'm a 1080p gamer with a RX470 graphics card, and I couldn't care less about the gaming results - I'm probably GPU bound, and if not its likely to be imperceptible.

Sure, there might be the folks with high refresh 1080p monitors who are dissapointed, but youre the margin of a margin case. For everyone else its probably irrelevant.

The entire kerfuffle is a tad ludicrous - people seem to have been expecting AMD to beat Intel across the board, in every performance metric, at less than half the price. I'm not even sure if Athlon 64 achieved that. Talk about hype train.
 
Last edited:
The performance in gaming will be improved by 17% on average with new uefi bios update.
This is the update that joker productions was using that showed a 3.9ghz 1700 equalling a 5ghz 7700k across 10 games.
Any game optimizations will be on top of that.
 
The vast majority of gamers are people on an RX 480 or cheaper card. Ryzen is going to be great for this crowd because they will save money on a CPU and get to invest that money in the more important component, the GPU.

Right now, there's not really a Ryzen CPU that any gamer should buy. (There are zero 8/16 CPUs that any gamer should buy, unless they are spending someone else's money. Seriously, saving that money and throwing it into a graphics card in six months to a year will be a way better use of your gaming dollars.) They should stick with the choice that's been recommended for the typical budget, the i5 7600k, a 4/4 CPU that costs $70 less than the cheapest Ryzen processor. They should take that savings and invest in a better GPU, whether that's an upgrade from an rx 480 to a 1060 or from a 460 to a 480.

In two or three months, when Ryzen 5 is available, these boards will be widely recommending the 4/8 Ryzen 5 ($200) to gamers on a budget, unless Intel considerably drops prices.
 
Was anyone expecting Ryzen to beat 6700K? Much less the 7700K?
I could swear people were expecting it to not even reach sandy bridge just last november.

When the six and quads release players will have a very cheap platform with solid performance (and hopefully some performance increase due to more mature motherboards).
 
Can someone update the OP with new bios revelation please? Just to stop all this misinformation about poor gaming performance.
 
whm1974 said:
If you were doing a mITX build you would.
Click to expand...

Sure, but anyone building itx should expect limitations and extra costs. Its the nature of miniaturization. If they don't, they've never built any of those types of systems or done research.
 
The Sauce said:
Doesn't even seem to compete with my 2500k... Another failed upgrade pathway. Guess I'm waiting for the next round of releases. It's been 6 years now.

I don't know why I'm complaining. This chip has been the absolute best value of any tech purchase I have ever made.
Click to expand...

An 1700 destroys your 2500k, anything above that is gravy. Your idea of how well that 2500k performs is completely wrong.

I went from a 2500k to a 5820k at the same frequency and just the memory controller difference alone make it faster than the 2500k could ever touch, not to mention way more threads and better IPC.
 
I fault the AMD for the bad headlines. Ryzen is a great chip. However the chips should have been sent to reviewers much earlier (instead of days before) with guidance to including game streaming benchmarks and other multitasking scenarios. AMD should have been hounding on their board partners and Microsoft to get their BIOS and drivers ready before launch day. Lastly, AMD should be better educating the gaming community on why a wider CPU is better than a faster one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top