AMD's Ryzen CPUs (Ryzen/TR/Epyc) & Vega/Polaris/Navi GPUs

Fair enough. I am waiting for pricing info/release date etc on the server versions. It seems they dont have the biggest shortcomings of consumer ryzen.

Ryzen is the absolute KING of performance per watt. It should be great for people who need that.

 

stating that its terrible for the consumer because it doesnt suit your sample case of 1 is a bit disjointed

but if I recall correctly you were stating this before and after ryzen release

 

Because if I want to game, I would buy a 7700k and dial it to 5ghz and call it a day. I dont care about multicores because they dont matter for games.

If I want to render and/or encode/stream or do anything thats floating point heavy that doesnt rely on memory bandwidth or dont need to support large amount of PCIE, Ryzen is great, but thats not the consumer need. Thats server level stuff.

Ryzen is good at things that the average consumer dont care about. Ryzen isnt a gaming CPU at heart. It doesnt clock well at that. It is useful for people who renders/etc etc. Except in its current form, it only appeals to a subset of prosumers.

Ryzen quad core will be better than an i3 for gaming but I dont think its launched yet.

 

RYZEN OVERCLOCKING! 1700, 1700X & 1800X OC'd - Will It Help Gaming?
- not the best OC'ing display, short, rushed, not methodical, waaaay incomplete - sigh...
I'm looking forward to his Ryzen 1700 / 1700X / 1800X OC summary results video after he's had the time to do it to the best of his skills instead of rushed in an "OC as we watch" format.

Spoiler: TIMESTAMPS

► TIMESTAMPS ◄
0:48 - Test Bed Parts
2:58 - Baseline Benchmarks
3:57 - Recommended Ryzen Optimizations
6:24 - 1800X Overclocking
16:10 - 1700 Overclocking
18:13 - 1700X Overclocking
19:47 - Final Benchmarks
20:55 - Closing Thoughts

Stop The Spin: Ryzen is Awesome | The Crit Show 0013
Ryzen commentary 2:00-5:00


Ryzen R7 vs FX-8300 vs i7-7700K - Overwatch - Fallout 4 - Hitman - Benchmark


Ryzen R7 vs FX-8300 vs i7-7700K - Battlefield 1 - Assassin's Creed - Deus Ex - Benchmark

 

Insane AMD Ryzen 1800X Watercooled PC Build - Ultimate Overkill

 

The problem is you keep using terms like "the consumer" which is basically almost everyone making purchasing decisions for their own personal use.

The average consumer will not be concerned with pcie bandwidth as you have noticed anything beyond 2x SLI isnt even supported officially to begin with. The average consumer is not buying triple screens to play games with dual or tri mGPU set ups where bandwidth is a concern.

Show me a game that cant run on Ryzen or runs below 60 on 1080p/1440p 16:9 resolutions, I'd welcome 21:9 resolutions as well.

It honestly looks like were moving goal posts, you crap on Ryzen because it doesnt suit your needs, thats absolutely fine. Extending that to consumers as a general conclusion is going to fall on its face any time you present it.

 

No. For gamers, you want 7700k for high refresh rate pass 60hz. Which by the way, are a significant portion of consumers buying custom PC.

The fact you are doing any productivity works besides basic office puts you into prosumer. Which ryzen is great for, but not the average consumer.

The gamer dont need 8 cores. He/she needs 4 fast cores.

If you want to use a broader definition of consumers, I would argue that without an ULV yet, AMD is missing the significant mobile market.

I dont have any positions on AMD or intel right now. I am very neutral on this. What I am say that for the gamers, Ryzen doesnt offer a better gaming CPU. And gamers are a significant portion of the consumers that buy custom pc.

 

Unfortunately all the reviews I've seen have shown that Ryzen is not performing as well as 7700K for gaming, especially at high framerates in the 1080p scenario, so I agree with tgipier when he says that Ryzen is not as good for gaming. Ryzen is still a good CPU though & good value, I'm more interested to see if the 4 & 6 core Ryzens can overclock higher & therefore make themselves more valuable for high fps gaming - at the moment Ryzen is not the CPU to get if you have a 144Hz monitor and want to hit 144fps.

 

He's mostly correct, though. Gaming is a lot more restricted to 4 cores, hyperthreading or not. I'd say 6-core is the most anyone needs for a pure gaming system. Ryzen 8-cores don't overclock very well, and their IPC is without a doubt lower than intel's current and last gen chips (Skylake/Kaby Lake). For a gamer, an 8-core 16-thread CPU that basically needs watercooling to hold 4GHz where 4GHz is give or take a limit of the system, and with trouble hitting above 2666MHz RAM in many motherboards (decent RAM in DDR4 *begins* at 3000MHz and good RAM begins at 3200MHz; the kits below those speeds are honestly trash) is not a good choice.

In fact, I'd actually go so far as to say that if Skylake-E hits 4.6-4.9GHz when it comes out, a 4.7-4.8GHz entry-level hexacore with 3200MHz 14-14-14-34 quad channel memory is a better decision for both gamers and prosumers than a Ryzen ~3.9GHz octocore with 2666MHz dual channel RAM. Yes, I did see that a video posted above showed it booting with 3000MHz, but as far as I can tell that's an anomaly right now, rather than the rule.

Ryzen has its place. CPU-intensive workloads are going to do pretty great on it. But their 8-core chips aren't good value for gamers. If they clocked higher (using less voltage too...) and used better RAM, then there would be little reason to even look at intel unless you actually needed "the best, hands down", as "ballpark the best at half price" is a very attractive situation. But this doesn't ballpark the best. Broadwell-E is crap at overclocking, and Haswell-E is not that much better... I won't deny this. But Skylake-E should be here between May and June. When it comes out, Ryzen won't be having such a happy time.

 

It does not require water cooling to maintain 4 ghz, as chew* @XS has already shown on the 1700. What makes you think Skylake-E is going to overclock any better than the previous gen "E"chips of Intel? Its just a refresh of them, and is really only the result of 4 generations of manufacturing, which also means they are coming to the end of what they can squeeze out of it. (and your wallet)
Stating that the IPC is below previous gen Intels, is only correct if you look at single threaded applications, to say the same in multi-threaded situations would be a false statement.
As I have said to many others, if you only use your PC for FPS, you should sell it and get an Xbox. Using FPS as a determining factor to buy a chip, is ridiculous,and kind of immature. Also stating that Ryzen is a poor choice for consumers is idiotic. For pure processing power, you cannot beat Ryzen at its price point.

 

I don't agree with your last few points though. Why on earth would PC gamers want to buy an Xbox, there's a reason for having a PC for gaming rather than an Xbox - it's better! Using FPS (first person shooters or frames per second - not sure which one you're referrring to, but both answers are the same) as a reason to buy a chip is a good reason for someone who's only demanding task on a PC is gaming - to use your words it would be idiotic NOT to choose in such a way. From this standpoint Ryzen is unfortunately not as good a gaming CPU as 7700K at the moment.

 

Maybe not the greatest choice of words, but even a pc gamer has to download, extract, load....etc games. For a very few (FPS) frames per second. Stating that Ryzen is a poor choice for consumers is idiotic. I do not understand why people would say something like that.
Comparing the 7700K to Ryzen 7 is the same as comparing it to Intels 8 core offerings. We should probably compare Ryzen 5 to the 7700K for gaming.

 

The problem is this.

Just because Ryzen isnt the best CPU in gaming doesnt make it a bad CPU for gaming.

 

Finally someone gets it right! Does not make it horrible if you are getting 159FPS as opposed to 179FPS.

@ajc9988 from chew* @XS

I look into it. This might explain a couple other weird issues.

 

Yep, I agree, we should compare Ryzen 5 to 7700K, because hopefully it will overclock higher than it's 8 core big brother, and maybe for whatever technical reason it might turn out more efficient for gaming from a performance perspective than the 8 core. As we know, 7700K is a better gaming CPU than Intel's 6 & 8 core processors due to higher overclocking. Ryzen 5 is almost for sure gonna be a value for money win over the 7700K, and it would be good if it can match or come very close to 7700K gaming performance. I am pleased that AMD is back in the game now.

 

As I stated in my post that was deleted, once the AM4 platform matures, there will be more SKU's that will interest everyone. As of right now, Ryzen is not the choice for PC gamers. If you have a 6700K or 7700K, there is no need to "switch" sides if you use your PC primarily for gaming.

Ultimately, AMD is going to sell a lot of chips and the industry needs this. My DT build plans still includes one with a Ryzen chip but I am going to wait a little longer to see how the mobo/ram issues are addressed.

 

Actually, on this I agree with @D2 Ultima , except I do noir accept his range. Two factors play into this. Kaby lake-x uses less voltage, but runs hotter. The only "official" Kaby X is the quad core, but I'm sure they will borrow some things from it for SL-e/X. Meanwhile, both of those overclock better on quad core than HW or BW, on avg getting 200-300 more. You get a little less than half when going to 8 core. So, to say 4.5-4.6 with the improved IPC would be fair, but is at the low end of D2's estimate (this applying to 8-core).

This is not looking at FPS, but simply stating that it will likely be a step up for the HEDT market. How that compares to Ryzen, no one knows because Ryzen has so many issues due to being a new platform and already slays Intel chips clocked 300+ better than them. After optimized and support is extended, that will grow (but likely no more than 200MHz worth, more likely is 100). This is just being realistic. Now, if rumors are true of a 1900X coming, this may be to trade blows with Intel after the process has matured more.

Actually, rumors from January has the platform release pushed to August. This means 5 more months for Ryzen to mature before the platforms hit loggerheads. See my discussion on expected speeds.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Regardless of future speculations, the fact that AMD has created debate/comparison, only shows they are back in the game. In which case, most of us agree, is very good for the consumer.

 

It seems that people forget that when 6700k dropped, the 4790k was actually better until it was software caught up to accommodate it, and KL is just a slight bump over SL.

People just need to chill out and wait for updated reviews to see what these things can do as DD's, OC headroom I would expect to remain the same until later revisions.

I dont think anyone is arguing that 6700k or 7700k owners should be switching sides though...I want AMD to do well but to suggest that would be a waste of time and money.

 

I think Ryzen has its place in high cores count CPUs while maintaining a respectable clock.AMD should step up on the APU speed and get the server platforms out asap.

An "Ryzen" 32 cores octo channel chip(as I said many times) its very interesting if it can maintain 3ghz on all core and the price is right. It doesnt seem like Ryzen runs very hot so here to hoping for a good multicore chip.

On the intel side, I expect good things from KabyLake-x/e whatever. So far the rumor had said SKE is a 10 core part, which really isnt worth it for the 5960x owners to make a jump. Nor does it give any incentive for 6950x owners to jump. So really, lets see the Zen+ schedule and Kabylake E.(For those of us already with 8+ cores)

@ajc9988 @hmscott Is there any rumors on Zen+ schedule? I am asking cause you guys are great at finding that.

 

Gigabyte Aorus X370 Gaming 5 AM4 Motherboard Full Review


AMD Ryzen 1700 Benchmarked with SMT Disabled

 

AMD Ryzen Direct Die Cooling - Improvements?
Follow-up to previous Delidding your Ryzen video

 

King in applications, Prince in games
DDR4-3200 vs. DDR4-2666 vs. DDR4-1866
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03...4/#abschnitt_ddr43200_vs_ddr42666_vs_ddr41866

" DDR4-2400, DDR4-2666 and DDR4-3200 are about the same. DDR4-1866, on the other hand, is clearly not enough, on average the performance in the games decreases by 15 per cent. In the top (Shadow Warrior 2), there is a 23 percent loss of performance."

 

This just shows that you're an AMD fanboy and don't know what you're talking about at this point. You're not making any sound arguements and your statement about "If you only use your PC for FPS you should sell it and get an Xbox" is downright disgusting. Just stop before you dig your own grave.

Well, I'm considering more, because looking at the trend, HWE and BWE are something of an anomaly. It's probably the FIVR that's causing the problems, whereas SB/IB/SKL/KBL are mobo/silicon dependent. I'm expecting mostly 4.7-4.8GHz on Skylake because 5GHz+ was achieve-able on most Skylake mainstream chips. Not on laptops, but on desktops if someone wanted to take the time to tweak it. I think expecting a 4.7GHz baseline should be ok.

Normally the more cores you got the harder it is to OC, but the higher end the chip the closer to the center of the wafer it was cut from. It's why -X chips often overclock best (ask @LunaP ) , except BWE because screw that architecture. I expect Skylake-E given the trends with Nehalem/SB/IB to do rather very well, unlike HWE where 4.4GHz is considered "good" and BWE where "4.2GHz" is considered great.

August huh? Still not too far away from May/June. But yes it's a longer wait for sure.

 

The problem is moving goal posts, as his original argument was for "consumers' and not "gamers". Also that for some reason if you do anything additional to gaming your not a consumer anymore and become a prosumer, thereby negating any multitasking arguments. Its a convenient little argument, state its not good for consumers and any consumers that raise red flags are put into prosumer category so there opinion need not apply.

Stating that I cant be a consumer and multitask is just as disgusting if not more personally. I dont own a console with a keyboard and mouse, its a PC, of which I do what I can with it.

His opinion was also made before the ryzen launch, which is always another red flag.

 

It's not that you need to be a prosumer to do anything else other than gaming... but if you're doing something that abuses a CPU fairly regularly you're likely in that category. Consumers don't generally render 2-3 videos a day or do a crapton of video editing, or run CFD all day, etc. The only time I could find something where a plain old gamer might do that would hurt a CPU heavily enough to warrant more cores/threads over 4 highly clocked ones is livestreaming.

In this situation, a user that would truly benefit from an octocore of decent IPC levels would more than likely be a prosumer or livestreamer (I can't call them prosumers because most of them do it very casually and not even that often). Gamers and average users will either see no difference or will benefit from the higher clocked intel quadcores. I didn't bother explaining any arguement against that person I quoted above because it was pointless to continue the discussion further.

Basic multitasking doesn't need an 8-core. If it did, I would probably never get close to touching a laptop ever for any reason whatsoever.

 

So you never play 2 games at once ? I really needed to have that ability but my 5.0Ghz 2500k couldnt handle BDO plus R6: Siege at the same time. It was amongst the first things I had done with that computer when I had built it. Got rid of it and run 2 laptops now. I dont think playing 2 games is prosumer at all, its just a consumer that wants to play 2 games.

You never modded Mass Effect 2/3? Takes quite a bit of time, ever try playing a game while its installing the textures?

I dont live stream at all

 

I... have forgotten games open and minimized and launched more than one. But if you're intending to run and farm a MMO while playing a FPS, that's not nearly normal, and more to that fact, it's not realistic for most users. That's on you for it being such a unique situation.

I have played things while stuff installs before... never been an issue. It's more pagefile and RAM than CPU when you're doing such a thing.

You're still calling things the majority of people aren't going to do, though.

 

No no, do not misconstrue.

The argument which triggered that other guy is because the original argument was "consumer" and not "gamer". Just because what I do is uncommon by your standards doesnt mean it doesnt fit within the consumer term, which IS what this debate is about. I did not choose the terminology for the debate, I hope you can understand that, its because of the terms used in what it was arguing for is why I entered the discussion. I am not here to state that AMD4LYFE and I would hope you can see that if you look closely at what I am saying. If he didnt think he could account for what consumers do with their computers then he shouldnt have chose the term, the "average gamer" would be far superior but even then you would then have to argue about how many actually overclock their systems. I am still finding threads on OCN of people learning to overlcock their i7 920 or 2500k that they never bothered to overclock until now. Overclocking is a niche.

Its odd you find it uncommon though, I play with a group of 15 people or so and they all MMO and FPS at the same time.

When your decompressing files its not just page file and Ram.

 

Then... why did you quote my second post replying to him saying that he's making no arguements? I understood what he was saying. It just was said terribly, and had way too much intel hate in it, so I disregarded it. It's one thing to have a sound arguement and express hatred for a company; I do that about nVidia ALL the time. It's another thing to make your hatred of a company the basis of your arguement, and cherry-pick statements or situations where it looks like your statements are valid.

As for your uncommonness or not... ya'll probably are a group because you do the same things hehe. Though, I indeed used to leave 9Dragons running with a player shop open and go play CoD. But I wasn't actively "playing" the MMO; I would assume you're doing something like fishing or whatnot and just doing it inbetween rounds. Though I can't imagine R6 would be running very smoothly while doing that...

 

I agree, cool heads tend to prevail. I quoted you because you were in response to him in which his original problem is with another member. I was trying to give context to the root of the problem. Which was setting the terms of the debate with his original statement. I think where Raider lost his cool is where he changed goal posts then redefining terms to better suit his argument, which was where his own argument fell into angry typings lol.

Well in BDO they have settings for AFK modes and even minimize options but it still hits your system. Even Final Fantasty XIV has settings to lower FPS quite a bit (below 30 iirc) when AFK mode sets in. Dev's dont tend to waste time on things they dont need to, it was due to this that I rationalized that these features may be because people are doing other things with their computer whilst leaving the client on (as many MMO encourages you to do).

My original standpoint is this. Ryzen is not the best CPU for gaming, but its FAR from the worst for gaming. His original point was that its just a bad CPU for the consumer as a generality. This is where we differed, an unfortunately unresolved discussion. It seems that because Ryzen doesnt suit his specific niche workload, its bad for the consumer. Which is odd because I cant seem to make the same rationalization

EDIT: leaving for a birthday outing, ill be back to continue discussion (if this is still not locked) tomorrow Peace until then

 

I see. In my case, I think Ryzen 7 is something most people should not aim for. Ryzen 5 is where the gamers should be looking, methinks. 6 cores at the price of i5s is definitely a no-brainer for most people.

 

I think that video will sum up quite a chunk of the argue going on here (The most important part starts at 2:40, but feel free to watch the whole video)

 

Away from pc and limited data can someone objectively summarize the video?

 

The only point he made about the CPUs themselves is that people who buy 8-core CPUs generally don't do it for gaming alone and therefore many people in forums and comment threads that he has seen are misunderstanding the purpose of Ryzen. Beyond that the video mainly expresses the author's disgust with the divisions in the enthusiast community in general and with the accusations leveled at a specific site by certain AMD supporters in particular. The site apparently had gaming benchmarks which were lower than most other reviewers thus causing some people to accuse it of being paid by Intel.

 

An In-Depth Look at Ryzen's Gaming Performance: 16 Games Played at 1080p & 1440p

 

I believe your correct if the offset of less cores means higher frequency. Otherwise there isnt much point in going with sr5 and just continue with sr7

Thank you very much. My sentiments are similar. Though its not unexpected there will always be detractors for anything that includes intel or amd

 

I am drunk so i apologize for typos and what not

 

I inserted a word for you. Looking at early results for Ryzen 7, Ryzen 5 may not be all that special just because of having more cores. It needs to overclock nicely to be something to write home about. Let's wait and see how things actually shake out once chipset drivers and other optimizations have run their course.

Edit: Well, Ryzen loses in Vantage, too: http://www.3dmark.com/compare/3dmv/5592495/3dmv/5592631

Basically tied in Fire Strike using a Titan X GPU: http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/11896630/fs/11900720/fs/11399287

 

Dude i hate to say it but your comparing kabylake to a new architecture that isnt even updated in windows nor supports high frequency ram at the moment.

I understand your point while being drunk but you would have much more meaning benching against a properly supported cpu that windows cant manage correctly and that supports equally as fast ram.

Its like kicking a kid for screwing up sliding into first in the first inning of the game.

Wait for growing pains to pass then hand amd its ass on a platter. I would surprised if people couldnt and im sure there is plenty that are willing.

 

Thanks @TheReciever for taking up the debate while I was away. +rep coming your way.
Yes, I did not say things in the right context as I was getting quite fed up with idiots saying that Ryzen was not a good choice for consumers. The definition of a consumer is not the person that strictly games, as that was my original argument. Calling me a fanboy does not hurt my feelings, as I consider that a good thing. It's been nearly a decade since AMD has been a competitor, and that only benefits me, a "consumer".
I game on my Intel based laptop, but I also image edit, work in excel, and use Adobe products, so stating that Ryzen would not be a good choice for me, the consumer, is freeken moronic.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

Dude, at the end of the day, the Ryzen 7 series is a good start for AMD. I applaud their efforts in making a competitive product and it will sell. However, it is not for everyone. The same applies to Intel's X99 SKU's. I wouldn't recommend the 1800X or the 6900K for the sole purpose of gaming.

Anyway, let it go. The debate/argument is over. Let's focus on the data we have now and hope that AMD delivers another hit with Ryzen 5.

 

If I may interject...
Ryzen seems like a decent CPU for both gaming and productivity.
The 1080p 'issues' are not issues to begin with because the performance difference in games won't be noticed...
Furthermore, at 2k and above, performance advantages for Intel evaporates... and they also start going down the drain when you take into account productivity tasks which benefit from double the core count available on Ryzen 1700 (which is practically the same price as 7700k - mind you , only 1 Microcenter outlet lowered their prices for promotions, in general, Intel didn't seem to reduce the prices of their products).

So, you get productivity performance comparable to 2x more expensive Intel CPU's while also getting more than decent gaming performance levels (differences between which you won't notice at all).

Furthermore... this video also explains the debacle between lower resolutions taxing the CPU more, while higher ones taxing it less (in short... NO, THEY DON'T) :


This coming from a new and 'unoptimized' platform.
I shudder to think (not really) what might happen once software starts using Ryzen properly.
BIOS and Windows updates will probably be released ahead of anything else, so those bits might yield some gains from the get go.

 

I believe the Internet beat this subject into the ground. AMD's Ryzen microarchitecture is not bad by any means and I don't think anyone suggested it as such. It obviously was not ready for launch and I think AMD and many of its partners realize that now. Depending on the market demographic, it can be the hands down best or a "good enough" product. If you were building a new DT rig, I would at least recommend taking Ryzen into consideration based off your needs/wants. That's great news for AMD, it has been a long time since most would recommend a processor of theirs.

Again, it will take some time for AM4 to mature and I do expect some improvements. I do not see the 1700 catching up to the 7700K's performance and nor do I expect it should. I do not expect Ryzen 5 to match the 7700K's performance either. However, I do expect another highly competitive product that will force Intel to innovate and that is key.

I think the main problem was the hype surrounding Ryzen. A lot of people were expecting another Athlon (a total beatdown of Intel in performance and price) and they didn't deliver "yet".

 

Just looking forward to building a Ryzen 4K Linux box before the year ends, Nuff said.......

 

It depends on how it scales with clock speed. The 8-core/16-thread Ryzen is only 95W so if it scales well, AMD can use the power savings from cutting it down to 4-cores to boost the frequencies into being competitive with Kaby Lake in lightly-threaded loads. We'll see.

 

Joker got called out for odd results for the 7700K in this video, here's both the original Joker video and his response to the call out video (below).

"Pinned by Joker Productions
Joker Productions 3 days ago (edited)
Quick note: A commenter pointed out a mistake here on the Tomb Raider test it appears I accidentally used different APIs. In the past I had did a video where I talked about the differences between the two in FPS and it had showed a difference of roughly 2-3fps, in favor of DX11. This applies ONLY to Rise of the Tomb Raider."

Ryzen 1700 vs i7 7700K | 720p Low Setting Benchmarks


Ryzen Will ONLY GET BETTER + My Thoughts on 'Unbiased Benchmarks'


Joker video response:

My Response to Tech City Accusations


And, this is one of the milder Ryzen hissy fights

 

Here's something I have been wanting to see, what the 1700 OC SMT0 does against the 1800x OC SMT0 - I'm was hoping they were the same, so buying a 1700 for much cheaper gives the same performance as the 1800x, and it does, at least in this case their 1700 OC'd just fine to 4.0ghz in games, 3.9ghz in heavy multi-core benchmarks.

AMD R7 1700 Review: Ryzen's Champion
IDK if he ran out of time, or what, but a number of results don't show 1700 OC SMT0 (smt off) even though it includes 1700 OC and 1700 Stock SMT0... there would be an even higher 1700 OC SMT0 score in many of his tests that show an improvement between Stock SMT1 and Stock SMT0.

 

By performance you must be referring to frames per second? Unless someone is gaming under 1080p, (who games under 1080p?) http://www.techspot.com/review/1348-amd-ryzen-gaming-performance/
To me the FPS difference is negligible compared to the overall dominance the 1700 has over the 7700K. These benchmarks are pretty much the same on any number of review sites.