Why so much FUD/BS regarding Ryzen on these boards?

[rgallant]

I'll wait a month or 2 to see the first real world bench marks
why
I have never played a game
on beta bios , beta mother boards , a new cpu ack. without bugs. [I wait about 2-4 months before buying]
AND with a new windows install without all the background crap running. [4 cores vs 8 ]
AND reviews at 1080p what a joke really , the reviews mean nothing to me. so a cpu means nothing at 1440 and 4 k so why is a I7 7700k better?

so I'll wait for the bug fixes and see some user reviews running a older win 10 install while using their old 1440 monitors running all the background crap to see if 4C 7700k vs 8 cores still have that big of a lead , it's not like a 7700k @ 5ghz is going to get any faster.

 

[DaveSimmons]

.

I'll wait a month or 2 to see the first real world bench marks
why
I have never played a game
on beta bios , beta mother boards , a new cpu ack. without bugs. [I wait about 2-4 months before buying]
AND with a new windows install without all the background crap running. [4 cores vs 8 ]
AND reviews at 1080p what a joke really , the reviews mean nothing to me. so a cpu means nothing at 1440 and 4 k so why is a I7 7700k better?

so I'll wait for the bug fixes and see some user reviews running a older win 10 install while using their old 1440 monitors running all the background crap to see if 4C 7700k vs 8 cores still have that big of a lead , it's not like a 7700k @ 5ghz is going to get any faster.

Since you don't game, what do you do that needs either one?

Even the plain 1700 s $330. Someone who just uses a PC for web browsing and normal Microsoft Office use does not need to spend $300+ on a CPU. A $120 i3 or $82 A8 might be all you really need.

Pick the CPU that matches your needs.

 

[Justinbaileyman]

Its not AOL chat speak any longer its now called millennial talk. My daughter talks like that consistently and it drives me up a darn wall with her and her friends babbel.

 

[inf64]

We have now enough data to make some valid comparisons in 1080p gaming.

Let us compare two reviews and their results in games. Both were done in 1080p and both websites used GTX1080. Games were a bit different but as can be seen from results, relative perf. differences are roughly the same.

Hardware.fr:
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/956-21/indices-performance.html

2600K - 100
7700K - 137.9
1800X SMT on- 110.1
1800X SMT off- 120.9

With SMT activated on Ryzen, 7700K is ~25% faster than 1800X. With SMT off, 7700K is 14% faster than 1800X in 1080p. SMT on/off brings 120.9/110.1~=1.098 or ~10% more fps

PClab.pl (this one is great since it has OCed results too!)
http://pclab.pl/art72996-45.html

7700K - 124
7700K @ 5Ghz- 130
1800X stock( SMT on)- 101
1800X @ 4.075Ghz (SMT on)- 109

7700K @ stock is ~23% faster than 1800X at stock (SMT on). This matches really well hardware.fr's results meaning both reviews came to roughly the same performance numbers albeit using different games.

Continuing with pclab, at max OC clocks the 7700K @ 5Ghz is ~19% faster in 1080p gaming than 4.075Ghz 1800X with SMT enabled. With SMT disabled 1800X @ 4.075Ghz should be scoring ~119pts.

It then follows that if we apply the effect of disabling SMT on a 8C 4.075Ghz Ryzen , 5Ghz 7700K would be roughly 130/119~=1.092 or ~10% faster than 4Ghz 1800X, while using GTX1080 and gaming in 1080p resolution.

There you go. That is a definition of "poor gaming performance" by today's (fanboy) standards, 10% difference.

 

[Shlong]

I keep putting together Ryzen 1700 builds and adding them to my shopping cart. I have a setup pretty much in mind but before I pull the trigger, I'm waiting on more motherboard reviews / ram issues to be worked out. The i7 2600K @ 4.4ghz has served me well for around 6 years now but it lags to a halt when editing 4K video sometimes so I need something with 8 cores 16 threads. For gaming, I run at 1440p and am fine with 60fps with high settings so that's not much of an issue for me.

 

[DaveSimmons]

We have now enough data to make some valid comparisons in 1080p gaming. ... .

There you go. That is a definition of "poor gaming performance" by today's (fanboy) standards, 10% difference.

At least some of us are saying "not as good gaming performance, for a $150 higher cost." which is a very different statement.

 

[Glo.]

Guys who claim that Ryzen is poor CPU. Use your brains. How come the CPUs excel in calculations, HPC, and other real world stuff, being on the same level as Intel HEDT, latest CPUs, and are performing slightly worse in gaming?

How come low-level software can show good Ryzen performance, and software, which has level of abstraction is showing the opposite?

Maybe the reason lies within the software? Have you ever thought about this?

But what do I expect? Even on professional boards I see time and time again people equating CUDA performance with Hardware performance, not software performance.

 

[simas]

Questions I ask myself as I look at this
- over the next 3-5 years (amount of time at minimum I want to keep CPU I am about to buy for new build), do I expect programs (including games) to be more multithreaded, or less multithreaded?
-- I think future is more multithreaded, just an opinion based on what I see.
- over same amount of time, do I expect Ryzen/MB performances to decrease, increase or stay the same (as BIOS updates go out , etc.)
-- I think stay the same (bug fixes), may be some slight increases , but definitely not decrease (as they simply roll it back then).

then , the next questions is when should I buy it if I am interested in Ryzen
- do I expect for these CPUs to be sold over MSRP for consistent amount of time, once initial buying rush passes? No, I don't.
- do I expect for Ryzen to continue to improve? what about Intel KL systems? How 'inefficient' are they now (how much room for improvement is left)? Here I think Intel is already excellent highly optimized higher clocked system with smaller number of threads/cores without much left to squeeze (at least until next generation would come out which would then complete with Zen+). While Ryzen is 'buggy' , not as optimized yet, newcomer, with room for optimizations which is good for me as consumer.

build goals
- if gaming I only want to game on higher size (27 inch at minimum) IPS displays as I value better color representation , viewing angles, and immersion much more than refresh rate. I have yet to see good IPS monitors of higher size (that I can afford) that bother with anything 144 Hz . I don't ever want to look at tiny , low resolution , TN thing again and don't care about max refresh rates above 60, I do care about minimum and averages.
- outside of gaming, I know that system will happily use ('eat') any cores I would give it as I transcode video, virtualize few things to play with and test and generally run plenty of processes at once

So where I coming out of it is still Ryzen, 3-6 months from now , most likely 1700 (don't get the point of 1700X or 1800X given how little differentiate them when compared to pricing) , likely on B350 chipset MB (I don't get the point of playing Christmas tree with my computer case, make it small (if possible), make it quiet (required), and put it out of the way, it is a tool ,not a goal).