Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

[Puffnstuff]

Just for clarity, are we supposed to be using Space Invaders as the ideal CPU benchmark game?

Don't forget Galaga.

 

[Despoiler]

No, it doesn't bite me two seconds later. Because no where in my post did I make mention or suggest that the results of the benchmark would be an indicator of future gaming. Everyone knows gaming will move to more threads. It's not hard to take the results of a CPU benchmark and us them as only an indicator of how the CPU performs in that particular game and a benchmark for that particular game.

People like to extrapolate data in different ways, and THAT'S where people can make mistakes. It's nothing but obvious that games WILL move to more threads. The whole console gaming industry is on weak (low frequency), but highly multi-threaded CPUs. A large majority of gaming, these days, is console first, PC afterthought. If you extrapolate the data correctly, if you write a review properly, it's not hard to write some verbiage in there to indicate that, even though a particular CPU performs poorly in this particular game or that, odds are, that relatively speaking, it's gaming prowess will increase over the years as game developers start to write their games to take advantage of more threads.

Seriously? Many, many games are already heavily threaded. What do you think Bulldozer's primary intent was? What do you think AMD's ownership of the entire console space has done? What do you think Mantle/DX12/Vulkan are geared for? The future began 5 years ago. We are already fully in it. Ryzen is the bell tolling for the death of 4 core processors.

 

[french toast]

Your also not weighing up something, the very fact we amd now sells multiple affordable 8/16 CPUs means multicore will accelerate, fast.

 

[DrMrLordX]

With the 6800k only being $405 and the 6850k being $580 its hard to justify a Ryzen. Right now my hope is that Intel will drop the price of the 6900k like a rock before I get ready to build my next pc and I will use it as the foundation of that build.

Wait what? Why would anyone buy a 6-core 6800k over an 8-core 1700 when the 1700 costs less? And the motherboard costs? I don't get it.

I can understand some people wanting the 6950x or the 7700k but the 6800k?

 

[hotstocks]

I think the point of the 6800k is you are going to overclock it to 4.2ghz. Personally I am leaning to the 6850K and overclock it to 4.4ghz, which will kill Ryzen in games and be close to it in productivity if you aren't a render monkey.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Wait what? Why would anyone buy a 6-core 6800k over an 8-core 1700 when the 1700 costs less? And the motherboard costs? I don't get it.

I can understand some people wanting the 6950x or the 7700k but the 6800k?

I only pimp performance brother and Ryzen is coming up short against Intel's finest in that regard. X99 motherboards are not that expensive and are comparable to what AM4 units cost plus provide quad channel memory.

 

[krumme]

No, it doesn't bite me two seconds later. Because no where in my post did I make mention or suggest that the results of the benchmark would be an indicator of future gaming. Everyone knows gaming will move to more threads. It's not hard to take the results of a CPU benchmark and us them as only an indicator of how the CPU performs in that particular game and a benchmark for that particular game.

People like to extrapolate data in different ways, and THAT'S where people can make mistakes. It's nothing but obvious that games WILL move to more threads. The whole console gaming industry is on weak (low frequency), but highly multi-threaded CPUs. A large majority of gaming, these days, is console first, PC afterthought. If you extrapolate the data correctly, if you write a review properly, it's not hard to write some verbiage in there to indicate that, even though a particular CPU performs poorly in this particular game or that, odds are, that relatively speaking, it's gaming prowess will increase over the years as game developers start to write their games to take advantage of more threads.

And where excactly do you find those properly done reviews that puts things in context? Its like less than 3%
The video was a response to all those, omg zen sucks in bf1 sp 1080 on titan its only 150fps and 15% less than 7700k, that is all over the net.
For -that- purpose it evolved an extrapolation of prior results.
I dont nessesarily agree about the way it was done but i certainly agree about the conclusion. I take an oc1700 vs a oc 7700k for a 5 year gaming rig any time of the week. 4c in 3 years when consoles is ryzen? no !! it will tank like crazy.
The video was adressing that issue. What cpu to select.

 

[krumme]

I only pimp performance brother and Ryzen is coming up short against Intel's finest in that regard. X99 motherboards are not that expensive and are comparable to what AM4 units cost plus provide quad channel memory.

It seems to me you pimp 200fps in 1080p broe for 40% extra cost vs a 1700 3.9 that is 20% faster in heavy productivity loads and will be as fast in future bf"2".
What excactly should this pc do? And in what rig?

 

[hotstocks]

It's funny how we are all having this conversation when Ryzen doesn't even WORK yet. I mean 99% of Ryzen builds are dead, unstable, incompatible ram, overheating, or just plain gimped. Everyone building Ryzen rig now is a beta tester, plain and simple. Beta testing motherboards, ram, cpu, and windows 10. They should have waited. I am patient enough to wait a week or month if need be to decide if AMD gets their redactedtogether and Ryzen improves in ease of build, stability, and gaming. If it doesn't I will surely go Intel again (6 core most likely). And I was the first to get Athlon II, so I am no fanboi. I just want the fastest hardware that actually works without headaches, and Ryzen surely does not at least for now.




Trolling and profanity no allowed in the tech forums.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[krumme]

99% ?
Zen beats 1100 usd 6900 in cb r15. Lol. Its going to explode. All that performance !

Well at 320 usd on a 80usd mb i take the risk.

 

[zinfamous]

It's funny how we are all having this conversation when Ryzen doesn't even WORK yet. I mean 99% of Ryzen builds are dead, unstable, incompatible ram, overheating, or just plain gimped. Everyone building Ryzen rig now is a beta tester, plain and simple. Beta testing motherboards, ram, cpu, and windows 10. They should have waited. I am patient enough to wait a week or month if need be to decide if AMD gets their shit together and Ryzen improves in ease of build, stability, and gaming. If it doesn't I will surely go Intel again (6 core most likely). And I was the first to get Athlon II, so I am no fanboi. I just want the fastest hardware that actually works without headaches, and Ryzen surely does not at least for now.

um...what? lol, didn't read the rest after that.

 

[Puffnstuff]

It seems to me you pimp 200fps in 1080p broe for 40% extra cost vs a 1700 3.9 that is 20% faster in heavy productivity loads and will be as fast in future bf"2".
What excactly should this pc do? And in what rig?

FWIW I don't run 1080p and never have for that matter nor have I ever promoted using 1080p which I think sucks. My next pc will whatever I deem I want for it to do and I'll use whatever hardware it takes to make that happen.

 

[french toast]

Wait what? Why would anyone buy a 6-core 6800k over an 8-core 1700 when the 1700 costs less? And the motherboard costs? I don't get it.

I can understand some people wanting the 6950x or the 7700k but the 6800k?

Agree long term, but when overclocked 6800k does make a strong case to be better than 7700k and 1700, at least for another year.

 

[krumme]

FWIW I don't run 1080p and never have for that matter nor have I ever promoted using 1080p which I think sucks. My next pc will whatever I deem I want for it to do and I'll use whatever hardware it takes to make that happen.

Ok. That settles it then.

 

[Agent-47]

donot pay attention to the title. clearly a clickbait,
BUT, apparently when you put a OCed ryzen@4Ghz to sleep and wake it up, it gains 200 Mhz in speed and remains stable. lol

I dare intel to pull that off!! > I wonder how many sleep cycle it will need to reach 8 Ghz

 

[looncraz]

I'm perplexed by all the comments about how useless lower resolution gaming benchmarks are.

People care about such benchmarks because it shows what the CPU is capable of in isolation of the GPU. It's a way to test the CPU's performance in a particular type of task (gaming) without other types of hardware (GPU) influencing the result.

Low resolution game benchmarks ARE a CPU benchmark. They are NOT a gaming benchmark. They aren't used to show you gaming performance. They are used to show you the CPU's performance in gaming like tasks, even if not in a realistic gaming environment.

It doesn't matter how unrealistic or bonkers it sounds to the lot of you that hate seeing low resolution gaming benchmarks, there's several of us that are interested in seeing how the CPU performs in isolation of the GPU. Been that way for a long time in the various tech forums... goes back easily two decades.

Since Ryzen is a CPU, and since people are looking to judge its performance...

Guess what? Low resolution gaming benchmarks is one way you test CPU performance. The idea has been around for a long time. Grow up folks.

The problem is that the methodology doesn't hold up across core counts or for gaming evolution.

I was a big fan of that type of testing in the 90s and early 00s, when we only had single cores and strictly single threaded everything in the gaming sphere and that was not set to change.

However, that has already changed. The FX-8350 was a TERRIBLE gaming CPU compared to the i5-2500. Running low resolution tests made that even worse. Hyper-threaded quad cores were a waste of money for gamers.

Now, however, we see that the FX-8350 can keep up better than the i5-2500 in modern games and that the 2600k does better still thanks to Hyper-threading.

The paradigm has shifted - therefore testing methodology must evolve.

But, what's more, is that the paradigm is shifting even more. We are very close to the IPC wall and frequency gains are hard fought. Adding cores is so comparatively easy even Intel is going to six cores on the mainstream platform.

Games will continue to become increasingly well threaded and they will optimize their control threads - they will have no choice as they will be certain of the direction compute hardware will be taking.

And, as a programmer, I can tell you that once you start thinking of doing things in parallel, you pretty much stop thinking of linear solutions - everything is suddenly something that can be broke into small problems that can be executed on different cores at the same time. Games are moving to task-based processing and even the modern C++ standards include utilities to make parallelism simpler.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

As a bare minimum, any PC build should be at least as good as the next generation of consoles. That goes for every aspect of that console build. Clearly, that means 8+ cores. Yes, you can "get away with" less, but only because consoles are price limited. The problem is that that price limitation yields ever greater performance as the years go by.

 

[formulav8]

I mean 99% of Ryzen builds are dead, unstable, incompatible ram, overheating, or just plain gimped.

Outright lie dude.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Ok. That settles it then.

I have to correct myself. I ran 1080p on a tv that I used as a secondary monitor for a while for text display but never for a primary monitor resolution. I currently use 3440x1440 in a 34" curved panel and my 4790k and gtx 780 ti do okay for gaming.

 

[inf64]

It's funny how we are all having this conversation when Ryzen doesn't even WORK yet. I mean 99% of Ryzen builds are dead, unstable, incompatible ram, overheating, or just plain gimped. Everyone building Ryzen rig now is a beta tester, plain and simple. Beta testing motherboards, ram, cpu, and windows 10. They should have waited. I am patient enough to wait a week or month if need be to decide if AMD gets their shit together and Ryzen improves in ease of build, stability, and gaming. If it doesn't I will surely go Intel again (6 core most likely). And I was the first to get Athlon II, so I am no fanboi. I just want the fastest hardware that actually works without headaches, and Ryzen surely does not at least for now.

Not sure if serious or just trolling.

 

[looncraz]

Thanks for your reply - your technical knowledge on these boards is appreciated by many I'm sure.

Any guesses why the 6900K was still faster than the Ryzen? Most other benchmarks show the Ryzen beating the 6900K.

Further what is confusing to me is that Photoshop is not supposed to be mult-threaded, like you say and like I keep reading, however when I open HW monitor all 8 threads of my 3770K are absolutely slammed 95%-100% with many of the things I do. These include a third party HDR creation tool (NIK Software's HDR EFEX Pro 2), and batch processing large amounts of 36MP RAW files. Now, I am not sure if my HDR plug-in and Photoshop's built in HDR processor (which is what Puget Systems benchmarked) work the same. It's great to hear Adobe is working on better multi-threaded support though, I did not know that.

The 6900k is faster in gaming mostly because of its unified L3. Ryzen basically only has 4MB of full-speed L3 usable for any given core from testing. 6900k has some 16MB.

Ryzen's L2, interestingly, is better than the 6900k's by a fair bit. And Ryzen is REALLY good at predicting linear fetches and having the data available (hence why it is fantastic at HandBrake, Blender, Cinebench, and the like... all are optimized for linear cache accesses).

It looks, to me, that Ryzen has a firmware bug that is causing some of this - so this might become diminished with little more than AGESA updates and matching BIOS updates. If it requires a little bit of silicon manipulation, then Zenver 2 is going to have these improvements on top of its other improvements... always nice to have an easy way to gain more performance on future products

Photoshop is definitely multi-threaded. It just maxes around 8-threads. Add more cores and the CPU usage simply goes down. Granted, I haven't actually used Photoshop in ages - I find it to be the worst image editing software available in terms of usability. Same with nearly all Adobe products, actually. Can't stand them.

 

[hotstocks]

Ok, you build a Ryzen system with the best parts. Asus Crosshair Hero VI, a couple sticks of 3200 ddr4 2x16 to get 32 gb dual channel, and then buy a new case and high end AIO water cooler to keep that 95C chip at about 80C for 3.9ghz overclock. Then put all your important data on it. Something will happen, either ram won't work, mobo will brick itself with bios update, cpu will run too hot, windows will see it as two 4 cores instead of one 8 core cpu. You will play with SMT off and on for each game you use, and then every windows patch will probably crash something and you can pray you don't lose important data. Read the 100 reviews of people that KNOW how to build a system over the last two weeks. They ALL had troubles, headaches, and are not 100% stable. These systems are crashing after less than an hour of stress testing. What do you think will happen in 6 hours? Water coolers are not air coolers, they work great at first but hours later when the water reaches max. temp, not so much. Don't get me wrong, I was very excited and ready to build one, but right now there is no way you can say they are stable for daily use and only system. Believe me even if you are lucky to be stable now, something is going to go wrong soon, unless AMD, mobo manufactures, ram manufacturers, and Microsoft all work together to make this platform stable. It is NO WHERE NEAR the stability of an Intel rig right now, not even stable enough to be used for business.




Trolling isn't allowed here.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[HutchinsonJC]

And where excactly do you find those properly done reviews that puts things in context? Its like less than 3%
The video was a response to all those, omg zen sucks in bf1 sp 1080 on titan its only 150fps and 15% less than 7700k, that is all over the net.
For -that- purpose it evolved an extrapolation of prior results.
I dont nessesarily agree about the way it was done but i certainly agree about the conclusion. I take an oc1700 vs a oc 7700k for a 5 year gaming rig any time of the week. 4c in 3 years when consoles is ryzen? no !! it will tank like crazy.
The video was adressing that issue. What cpu to select.

You're explaining the video to me like I didn't watch it or understand its premise. I would have had to of in order to answer the way I did (the guy) you who replied me how it would bite me two seconds later.

It didn't bite me two seconds later, and your post quoting me makes much ado about nothing.

It doesn't change the usefulness of low resolution gaming benchmarks to gauge performance of a CPU. And there were a number of posts in the pages before this one saying how pointless low resolution gaming benchmarks are with reasoning that it doesn't represent actual gaming.

As a general statement directed at no one in particular, if you aren't my targeted audience, why do you reply to attempt to counter me?

It's clear, as I've demonstrated in my last post, that I'm fully understanding of how game developers will be utilizing more and more threads. And I don't think anyone here would put it up for debate that developers would be moving that direction.

 

[Puffnstuff]

The 6900k is faster in gaming mostly because of its unified L3. Ryzen basically only has 4MB of full-speed L3 usable for any given core from testing. 6900k has some 16MB.

What you said right there parallels what Raja said in an interview about the memory management in the Vega gpu. Their design team seems to think that they can make better use of a smaller cache than NVidia and since its based upon the same architecture I'm concerned that it will be hampered in the same manner.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Ok, you build a Ryzen system with the best parts. Asus Crosshair Hero VI, a couple sticks of 3200 ddr4 2x16 to get 32 gb dual channel, and then buy a new case and high end AIO water cooler to keep that 95C chip at about 80C for 3.9ghz overclock. Then put all your important data on it. Something will happen, either ram won't work, mobo will brick itself with bios update, cpu will run too hot, windows will see it as two 4 cores instead of one 8 core cpu. You will play with SMT off and on for each game you use, and then every windows patch will probably crash something and you can pray you don't lose important data. Read the 100 reviews of people that KNOW how to build a system over the last two weeks. They ALL had troubles, headaches, and are not 100% stable. These systems are crashing after less than an hour of stress testing. What do you think will happen in 6 hours? Water coolers are not air coolers, they work great at first but hours later when the water reaches max. temp, not so much. Don't get me wrong, I was very excited and ready to build one, but right now there is no way you can say they are stable for daily use and only system. Believe me even if you are lucky to be stable now, something is going to go wrong soon, unless AMD, mobo manufactures, ram manufacturers, and Microsoft all work together to make this platform stable. It is NO WHERE NEAR the stability of an Intel rig right now, not even stable enough to be used for business.

I wouldn't build on an Asus am4 board and would stick to Gigabyte if I had to do one right now and in particular the Aorus GA-AX370 Gaming K7.