Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

[hotstocks]

So to the layman, what the engineers are saying is that Ryzen is really two 4 core 8 thread cpus duct taped together. Or more like a dual socket mobo with two 4 core/8T cpus in it. Well if that is the case, then I don't think games will get much faster as they still will really only be using one of those cpus effectively, unless specifically coded for Ryzen. But if the "other" 4C cpu is running windows, chrome, firefox, av software, youtube, chats, ect. It is like you have two computers, one for gaming and one for all the other stuff. So while the games will be slower, you won't have to turn everything else off in your system, which is kinda great, except for the fact that your going to need more than 16gb of fast 3200 memory to keep all those apps open, and right now you can't buy a fast 32gb ram kit that works over 2133 no matter what its rating, possibly 2666 but no where near 3000 or 3200. If they fix that, I still see Ryzen as viable. And if it is supposed to be a server or workspace cpu, it better get fixed because those guys are going to want 64 or 128 gb of fast ram, not 32gb like me.

 

[moonbogg]

So to the layman, what the engineers are saying is that Ryzen is really two 4 core 8 thread cpus duct taped together. Or more like a dual socket mobo with two 4 core/8T cpus in it. Well if that is the case, then I don't think games will get much faster as they still will really only be using one of those cpus effectively, unless specifically coded for Ryzen. But if the "other" 4C cpu is running windows, chrome, firefox, av software, youtube, chats, ect. It is like you have two computers, one for gaming and one for all the other stuff. So while the games will be slower, you won't have to turn everything else off in your system, which is kinda great, except for the fact that your going to need more than 16gb of fast 3200 memory to keep all those apps open, and right now you can't buy a fast 32gb ram kit that works over 2133 no matter what its rating, possibly 2666 but no where near 3000 or 3200. If they fix that, I still see Ryzen as viable. And if it is supposed to be a server or workspace cpu, it better get fixed because those guys are going to want 64 or 128 gb of fast ram, not 32gb like me.

If that's really the case then the gaming "problem" sounds like its permanent.

 

[SPBHM]

So to the layman, what the engineers are saying is that Ryzen is really two 4 core 8 thread cpus duct taped together. Or more like a dual socket mobo with two 4 core/8T cpus in it. Well if that is the case, then I don't think games will get much faster as they still will really only be using one of those cpus effectively, unless specifically coded for Ryzen. But if the "other" 4C cpu is running windows, chrome, firefox, av software, youtube, chats, ect. It is like you have two computers, one for gaming and one for all the other stuff. So while the games will be slower, you won't have to turn everything else off in your system, which is kinda great, except for the fact that your going to need more than 16gb of fast 3200 memory to keep all those apps open, and right now you can't buy a fast 32gb ram kit that works over 2133 no matter what its rating, possibly 2666 but no where near 3000 or 3200. If they fix that, I still see Ryzen as viable. And if it is supposed to be a server or workspace cpu, it better get fixed because those guys are going to want 64 or 128 gb of fast ram, not 32gb like me.

so do you also believe core 2 quad was no better than a c2d?

I can't remember which one, but there was a test in which they disable cores to test scaling and 2 + 0 vs 1 + 1 (from each module) was fairly similar, some things faster with each configuration,
I think the interconnect is really fast so it's not a huge deal, it scales well using cores from different modules.

consoles are also like this, 2 quad core modules, and most games there are using 6 cores rather well.

 

[lolfail9001]

I can't remember which one, but there was a test in which they disable cores to test scaling and 2 + 0 vs 1 + 1 (from each module) was fairly similar, some things faster with each configuration,
I think the interconnect is really fast so it's not a huge deal, it scales well using cores from different modules.

On Ryzen 2+2 is worse than 4+0 in almost every CPU limited gaming scenario so far.

consoles are also like this, 2 quad core modules, and most games there are using 6 cores rather well.

You can handtune your code in console case. Not so much in PCs.

 

[piesquared]

Finally mobos will be here Saturday! First thing, play Doom for the first time when i get a free copy with my new RX480. Thinking of Naples, it must be ridiculously cheaper to produce those 195mm dies than the 456mm Broadwell monstrosities.

 

[Trender]

I was hyped for it pre launch and the idea of having similar to broadwell E with 8 cores....

But I just ain't impressed with its gaming performance. On average, it's currently only performing about 85% as well as the 7700k or so, with that figure ranging from coming slightly ahead (say, 5-10%) to going as low as around 40% worse.

Sure, some of this can be chalked up to various problems with SMT, optimization, mobos, RAM, etc., but honestly, it just seems like a MUCH better version of the FX CPUs in practice, where instead of them competing with i5s, they're now competing with i7s. Which is an improvement dont get me wrong, but I just aint impressed by them(on gaming which is what I want it for) and Im torn between i7 7700k and r7 1700 :/

 

[Vesku]

On Ryzen 2+2 is worse than 4+0 in almost every CPU limited gaming scenario so far.

You can handtune your code in console case. Not so much in PCs.

You can hand tune on PC, it's why some devs have announced work on patches to improve performance running on Ryzen CPUs.

 

[bystander36]

no. people do tests on realistic setups for determining current/TODAY performance . low res is to see which CPU will bottleneck first in the future (which is an invalid assumption).

Sorry, but games bottleneck CPU's today in a lot of situations. They just rarely test the areas that do. The low res resolution test is just an easy way around having to hunt down the bottlenecking areas.

 

[looncraz]

On Ryzen 2+2 is worse than 4+0 in almost every CPU limited gaming scenario so far.

You can handtune your code in console case. Not so much in PCs.

Yep. By 10% on average

I think with some patches that will be reduced to nearly the same performance as 4+0.

L3 cache is only ever worth 5% or so in games (from none to 8MB... 5%), so treating RAM as LLC isn't as bad as it might seem - it's what happens when threads move around (compounded losses) and cache-aware algorithms overrunning the L3, thinking they have 16MB at their disposal, when they only have 8.

It would be interesting to see if we can trick games into seeing only 8MB of L3...

 

[looncraz]

I was hyped for it pre launch and the idea of having similar to broadwell E with 8 cores....

But I just ain't impressed with its gaming performance. On average, it's currently only performing about 85% as well as the 7700k or so, with that figure ranging from coming slightly ahead (say, 5-10%) to going as low as around 40% worse.

Sure, some of this can be chalked up to various problems with SMT, optimization, mobos, RAM, etc., but honestly, it just seems like a MUCH better version of the FX CPUs in practice, where instead of them competing with i5s, they're now competing with i7s. Which is an improvement dont get me wrong, but I just aint impressed by them(on gaming which is what I want it for) and Im torn between i7 7700k and r7 1700 :/

It's not like Ryzen is bad at gaming. The 7700k has a ~1Ghz clock speed advantage and Ryzen is still maturing.

I couldn't possibly recommend a 7700k to anyone, though, unless they already have a compatible system or can't handle the teething issues... or simply never upgrade. It's a dead-end platform - and four cores is already closing in on not being enough for gaming. AM4 will have at least one more generation of CPUs, maybe two, which will address this first generation's issues.

I suspect the second generation will win against the 7700k handily in more games than the inverse will be true. Ryzen simply already has more brute performance - it's just struggling to make it come through.

 

[imported_jjj]

Has anyone measured power consumption at the CPU in gaming at appropriate res where the FPS diffs are irrelevant?
That would be one way to measure and compare CPU load since in practice it is rather hard to measure it with software.

 

[HutchinsonJC]

Are you in the market for a new CPU?

I only run 1080p myself. I now have a Fury (not that I needed an upgrade from my RX 480 - I bought it for testing Ryzen... probably will end up keeping it).

Also... have you played with DSR? AMD's alternative (VSR) is really nice. Turn off all AA and run 4K with an uptick in image quality in little loss in performance... Sadly, though, that limits my FreeSync range to just 60hz - and I'd rather have FreeSync than the higher image quality.

I've considered a few times in the last 6 months building a new rig. Truth is, a SB hex core at 4.4+ is still "good enough" for anything I do.

My eye on Ryzen is more out of intrigue than anything as far as any personal side of things are concerned, but also there's a work related interest that I have my eye on it as well. Work place server may next be AMD powered.

I've played with Super Sampling in a few games, as that's basically what DSR is. I agree, it's a nice effect. I have not used DSR specifically, however. Though, I'll probably go and poke around with it now.

 

[guachi]

I understood what he meant. I just bought a $600 GPU to game on a 1920 x 1200 monitor. The overall concept is still there.

According to steam survey, more people own a monitor greater than 1920x1080 (or 1200) than own a 1080 GPU. In fact, it's over twice as many.

Unfortunately, we don't know what kinds of monitors people who own 1080s have, but I'd be willing to bet a very large number of them own a high resolution monitor.

 

[guachi]

I was hyped for it pre launch and the idea of having similar to broadwell E with 8 cores....

But I just ain't impressed with its gaming performance. On average, it's currently only performing about 85% as well as the 7700k or so, with that figure ranging from coming slightly ahead (say, 5-10%) to going as low as around 40% worse.

Which R7 are you referring to? Because the 1700x and 1800x have come in at 90% to 98% as fast as the 7700k in the overall benchmarks at every place I've seen that has tested more than 10 games at 1080.

I'm not certain why you were disappointed in the results. It performed exactly as well as AMD said it would. I don't recall them showing anything other than 4k gaming (which is just so much more enjoyable than low setting 1080 to me) so I'm not sure what you were expecting.

I think 98% as fast as the 7700k in a modern test suite at 1080 for a processor that isn't primarily a gaming processor is commendable for under $500.

 

[piesquared]

You can hand tune on PC, it's why some devs have announced work on patches to improve performance running on Ryzen CPUs.

Ive read that AMD refers to inter CCX communication as die-NUMA. Optimizations should be fairly well known- and implemented quickly. (although i'm satisfied with the gaming results as is)

 

[krumme]

I game at 3440x1440@100hz. With my dual 980ti's the monitor gets maxed out pretty often. Been playing Rise of the Tomb Raider lately and FPS is often 90-100 pegged. I saw the Ryzen CPU's dipping into the 80's with that game and I said forget it. No way. So I went with a 6800K which slams the GPU at 1080p into a 150fps wall. My 3930K gets 125fps in that game's benchmark and the Ryzen, even OC'd only gets 104fps and again the 6800K gets 150 because it maxed out the GPU in that test along with the other Intel CPU's.
I figured why downgrade to a Ryzen from a 3930K? 6/12 is enough threads for now and even for a few years I'm sure. It won't choke like a quad, but I do expect 8/16 to pull ahead at some point and even now in a few games, at certain times, an Intel 8/16 chip will pull ahead of a 6/12. So that time is coming, but not yet. When that point finally arrives, some day, then I'll just upgrade again.

Yeaa makes sense to go 6800 then for 100Hz. You dont know if they patch that game and when. As you can always buy a new in eg 3-4 years time if needed i think you did the right thing. Anyway i think your itch to upgrade comes before that.

 

[krumme]

If that's really the case then the gaming "problem" sounds like its permanent.

Guys read what is written. Loonc explained why it will be fixed for games.
Its the same old core 2 quad is "not a true quad core" crap again.
Stop the 2x ccx drama for games. Its nonsense. It just have to work within a 144fps limit. Not perfect but just not trashing. Hardly nano seconds we talk here. It will be okey.

 

[krumme]

We also see a lot of avx2 drama. My i repeat a 8c zen gives same perf as a 6c 6800 in handbrake for h265 that uses avx2. Zen simply have tons of fpu and smt power to compensate for the lack of avx2. Its a non issue 100%

Where zen is weak, and can not be fixed before zen plus, is the ram latency and to a certain degree the speed.

 

[looncraz]

ASRock Taichi gives access to all of the P-states!

https://youtu.be/VjGWqTFultI?t=957

(how do you make the preview start at the right time?)

P0 = Single/Dual Core Turbo
P1 = All Core Turbo
The rest are throttle/idle states.

UPDATE:

I've verified that you can do this on Asus Crosshair VI Hero as well.

Advanced -> AMD CBS -> Zen Common Options -> Custom Core Pstates

 

[csbin]

 

[CatMerc]

A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

 

[AtenRa]

A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

ehehehe this is nice for VM gaming

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

I can multi-two sugars, no milk, offside, about the meaning of I'm late for work dear.
What was it we were talking about?

 

[rvborgh]

so i wonder when Agner Fog will get his hands on a Ryzen and update his optimization manual with his findings

 

[sirmo]

We also see a lot of avx2 drama. My i repeat a 8c zen gives same perf as a 6c 6800 in handbrake for h265 that uses avx2. Zen simply have tons of fpu and smt power to compensate for the lack of avx2. Its a non issue 100%

Where zen is weak, and can not be fixed before zen plus, is the ram latency and to a certain degree the speed.

Even that is not certain:
3700 12-11-11 memory settings