Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

[Agent-47]

4 Core Ryzen vs 7700k both at 4GHz.

http://www.zolkorn.com/en/amd-ryzen...i7-7700k-mhz-by-mhz-core-by-core-en/view-all/

is this 4+0 CCX or some other combination? could not find it in the text, but i saw a report that linked to a different language site claiming it to be 4+0.

roughly 5-10% slower than KL Clock for clock. not bad, but sadly i donot think others will be kind enough to reduce the core/memory speed during actual benchmark

 

[imported_jjj]

Do remember that 4 cores Ryzen would be bellow 200$ vs lower clock Kaby with no HT and locked. So the 7500 with 3.8GHz turbo and the 7400 bellow it.
On top of that AMD has the upgrade path advantage and that will matter to folks that are not willing/able to spend a lot.

 

[richierich1212]

http://www.eteknix.com/nvidia-gtx-1080-ti-cpu-showdown-i7-7700k-vs-ryzen-r7-1800x-vs-i7-5820k/

Quite good results from Ryzen here.

The minimums look good here.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Asus crosshair hero is in stock at newegg.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...asus_crosshair_vi_hero-_-13-132-963-_-Product

 

[LTC8K6]

Do remember that 4 cores Ryzen would be bellow 200$ vs lower clock Kaby with no HT and locked. So the 7500 with 3.8GHz turbo and the 7400 bellow it.
On top of that AMD has the upgrade path advantage and that will matter to folks that are not willing/able to spend a lot.

Yeah, we have heard nothing regarding the continuation of LGA1151 with Intel, so the upgrade from a 7700K is quite murky.

 

[french toast]

The minimums look good here.

The minimums look good there.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

The minimums look good everywhere.

 

[crashtech]

Asus crosshair hero is in stock at newegg.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...asus_crosshair_vi_hero-_-13-132-963-_-Product

And it's gone again, as of 1:30PM MST!

 

[Head1985]

4 Core Ryzen vs 7700k both at 4GHz.

http://www.zolkorn.com/en/amd-ryzen...i7-7700k-mhz-by-mhz-core-by-core-en/view-all/

Only 2400mhz ram on kabylake=Huge bottleneck.

 

[LTC8K6]

Only 2400mhz ram on kabylake=Huge bottleneck.

Why did Intel specify a stock ram speed that bottlenecks their CPU?

 

[looncraz]

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/03/08/amd_ryzen_1700_cpu_vs_1700x_review/3

Technically not voltage, but leakage and leakage continuity.

An 1800X has lower leakage and higher continuity between the cores than a 1700.

A 1700 should use more power at 1800X speeds than the 1800X does and will be more likely to have a few cores which use more voltage than the others.

This isn't anything new for AMD, they've done this forever on CPU and GPU products.

 

[bystander36]

Nope. Its more likely to be GPU bottlenecked. If not than we are talking about a 400 vs 380 fps gameplay. Otherwise Gamer Nexus was banging on about 1080 p for nothing and could have just tested the 4k

Make you case with a benchmark from somewhere reputable.

Otherwise We can agree to disagree.

Do you game at all? Surely you've played games which give no where near the FPS shown on the reviews. That's what I'm saying. They do not test the CPU bottlenecked areas of games. How am I supposed to show you them from a review site.

Play WoW. Now look at this benchmark: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/62

If you've played WoW, you know that you will get 40 or lower FPS in raids on the same CPU's that get over 100 in that benchmark. You don't see it, because they go to an out of the way place, to make sure there are no people involved, to avoid inconsistent results from other players.

Now take Arma 3: http://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/page5.html

That's one that flat gets low FPS even in single player, but in multiplayer, the FPS are 20 lower than that.

Neverwinter: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/neverwinter-performance-benchmark,3495-9.html

Like most benchmarks, they avoid players, and don't show raids or events with lots of players around, and even then, CPU's bottleneck.

That's the best I can do atm. The problem is that you can't find a reputable review that shows online results, or goes to CPU bound locations of games. They do most their reviews to test GPU's, and stick with the same benchmarks with CPU's. Because they use them mostly for GPU benchmarks, these benchmarks show very high FPS when testing CPU's. Real world gaming is quite different.

Edit: Here is another that shows a clear bottleneck on GTA V. It's clearly done in a different place than those others being shown around here:

 

[Head1985]

Why did Intel specify a stock ram speed that bottlenecks their CPU?

Because its easy improve performance in future.If they add 3600Mhz ram as minimum for skylake it will be 20-30% faster than haswell with 1600Mhz ram.

 

[SketchMaster]

Do you game at all? Surely you've played games which give no where near the FPS shown on the reviews. That's what I'm saying. They do not test the CPU bottlenecked areas of games. How am I supposed to show you them from a review site.

Play WoW. Now look at this benchmark: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/62

If you've played WoW, you know that you will get 40 or lower FPS in raids on the same CPU's that get over 100 in that benchmark. You don't see it, because they go to an out of the way place, to make sure there are no people involved, to avoid inconsistent results from other players.

Now take Arma 3: http://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/page5.html

That's one that flat gets low FPS even in single player, but in multiplayer, the FPS are 20 lower than that.

Neverwinter: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/neverwinter-performance-benchmark,3495-9.html

Like most benchmarks, they avoid players, and don't show raids or events with lots of players around, and even then, CPU's bottleneck.

That's the best I can do atm. The problem is that you can't find a reputable review that shows online results, or goes to CPU bound locations of games. They do most their reviews to test GPU's, and stick with the same benchmarks with CPU's. Because they use them mostly for GPU benchmarks, these benchmarks show very high FPS when testing CPU's. Real world gaming is quite different.

Edit: Here is another that shows a clear bottleneck on GTA V. It's clearly done in a different place than those others being shown around here:

I will say that I was surprised to find that BF1 was starting to peg out my 5820k in some heavy 64 player games. All that distruction, netcode, etc. can really clog up a CPU quick.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Because its easy improve performance in future.If they add 3600Mhz ram as minimum for skylake it will be 20-30% faster than haswell with 1600Mhz ram.

BS...

Ryzen gets far more from faster memory than Skylake.

 

[JoeRambo]

Why did Intel specify a stock ram speed that bottlenecks their CPU?

So they test Intel at recommended speeds, yet they run their Ryzen at OC memory?
4x4GB should be running @ 2133 maximum according to AMD's guideline if it is single rank.

It would be fair not to handicap both CPUs and run Intel at least @3000 and AMD also at what they can run max at the moment.

BS...

Ryzen gets far more from faster memory than Skylake.

Yup, lowering memory latency and increasing mem bw does wonders for Zen, they really need to fix mobos and finally allow latency edit and properly support high speed mem.

 

[looncraz]

I have never discussed the RyZen die.
I have never said anything untrue about the RyZen die. I have never said anything at all about the RyZen die.
All I did was post a pic of the solder pads and ask for a pic without the pads...

You do realize that posting that image and asking for proof of what's under it pretty much made everything think you were claiming there were two dice just like the previous poster did, right?

 

[lolfail9001]

Ryzen gets far more from faster memory than Skylake.

And loses PCI-E capabilities in the process of getting it higher.

 

[Agent-47]

Do you game at all? Surely you've played games which give no where near the FPS shown on the reviews. That's what I'm saying. They do not test the CPU bottlenecked areas of games. How am I supposed to show you them from a review site.

aa. okay you are talking about MP games, did not realize that, apologies. I do not play WoW but i still play BF3/4/1. I was talking in terms of pure draw call performance.

Having said that, to expose CPU bottleneck in MP, it is still a common practice to lower resolution. Normally i play at 1080p, but in competition, i lower my res to 720p. That is to prevent GPU from bottlenecking, because at times, even at 1080p, GPU can come in the middle of it. In a way it is to expose my CPU bottleneck. but that does not mean 720p is a realistic setup.

so no, i still stand by what i said: assuming you have very strong GPU even in multiplayer, while the absolute CPU FPS IS lower, it does not mean that you would use 4K to benchmark a CPU. after all thats what hardcore gamers do while playing multiplayers mode. i thought you would know?

Finally, in multiplayer, at least the ones I play, having more core always helps

some examples i found:
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TL0cveohhIc
not a good one, but it shows 900p still bottlenecked by a weak 1050ti: 100% GPU usage

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUofLGmTUzs
BF4, the GPU usage is 100+% for 1080p/1440p/4K indicating all are GPU bottlenecked. lot of battles.

hence to expose CPU bottlenecks, atleast in BF series you still need to lower your resolution to unrealistic settings.

 

[bystander36]

aa. okay you are talking about MP games, did not realize that, apologies. I do not play WoW but i still play BF3/4/1. I was talking in terms of pure draw call performance.

I only mentioned MP because they are the most obvious. Even single player games get the same treatment with reviews. They test in areas with great CPU performance, so their GPU reviews show the differences best. Unfortunately, when it comes to review CPU's, the FPS are really high compared to other parts of the game.

Having said that, to expose CPU bottleneck in MP, it is still a common practice to lower resolution. Normally i play at 1080p, but in competition, i lower my res to 720p. That is to prevent GPU from bottlenecking, because at times, even at 1080p, GPU can come in the middle of it. In a way it is to expose my CPU bottleneck. but that does not mean 720p is a realistic setup.

While it is not the setup you'd use, that doesn't mean it's useless information. It shows what CPU's perform best in that game, which help you know what CPU will do best in those areas which drop below the FPS you desire. For example, I want 80 FPS minimum when I game. Using a low resolution CPU test will let me know what CPU is faster, which should give me an idea of which CPU will help me in those areas not tested in the same game, which do not normally reach 80 FPS due to a CPU bottleneck.

so no, i still stand by what i said: assuming you have very strong GPU even in multiplayer, while the absolute CPU FPS IS lower, it does not mean that you would use 4K to benchmark a CPU. after all thats what hardcore gamers do while playing multiplayers mode. i thought you would know?

Finally, in multiplayer, at least the ones I play, having more core always helps

some examples i found:
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TL0cveohhIc
not a good one, but it shows 900p still bottlenecked by a weak 1050ti

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUofLGmTUzs
BF4, the GPU usage is 100+% for 1080p/1440p/4K indicating all are GPU bottlenecked.

hence to expose CPU bottlenecks, atleast in BF series you still need to lower your resolution to unrealistic settings.

I'm not entirely sure what point you are making here. If it's that you'll still be GPU bound, despite a CPU bottleneck, then we are clearly different gamers. If I ran into a GPU bottleneck, preventing me from hitting 80 FPS, I'd turn down the settings until I do, or until I'm CPU bottlenecked.

Note: I'm telling you why low resolution benchmarks are relevant, not whether or not more cores are helpful. In that regard, that varies from game to game. Most games still aren't well threaded, but that is hopefully changing (it appears to be).

 

[imported_jjj]

And loses PCI-E capabilities in the process of getting it higher.

Stop the fake news machine, how many times have you made that statement today?
Bclk OC is used for the highest results for now. That doesn't mean that folks can't get to solid speeds and timings without.

 

[lolfail9001]

Stop the fake news machine, how many times have you made that statement today?
Bclk OC is used for the highest results for now. That doesn't mean that folks can't get to solid speeds and timings without.

If facts are fake news now, then i should work at CNN. Why, we know how far you can get it without BCLK, don't we: 3200mhz on very loose subtimings. That makes fabric what, 20% faster compared to number AMD mentioned?

Anyways, i caught a wind of ever more support for my hypothesis from PCPer podcast. They mentioned that 3.5Ghz Ryzen on single thread topped out at pushing ~110k IOPS (with high QD, but i digress) compared to ~200k IOPS Intel does. Similar behavior i noticed on other I/O tests in other reviews, but once again, i wait for looncraz's test.

 

[Head1985]

BS...

Ryzen gets far more from faster memory than Skylake.

Sure
ryzen +5% in witcher3
https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/premiera_i_test_procesora_amd_ryzen_r7_1800x_dobra_zmiana?page=0,43

Skylake +20-30% in witcher3
https://youtu.be/43g3OTK2AbE?t=299

 

[imported_jjj]

If facts are fake news now, then i should work at CNN. Why, we know how far you can get it without BCLK, don't we: 3200mhz on very loose subtimings. That makes infinity fabric what, 20% faster compared to number AMD mentioned?

Anyways, i caught a wind of ever more support for my hypothesis from PCPer podcast. They mentioned that 3.5Ghz Ryzen on single thread topped out at pushing ~110k IOPS (with high QD, but i digress) compared to ~200k IOPS Intel does. Similar behavior i noticed on other I/O tests in other reviews, but once again, i wait for looncraz's test.

Very lose as in CL14 lol.
You've been paying attention to this thread and you know that memory support is getting better literally every day so at this point you are clearly just trolling.
Pcper can't even set their 6900k to 3.5GHz in their clock for clock comparison, they can't handle the bios and they published results with it at 3.7GHz ST and left it that way.
And it's not even close to the first time they show special skills.

Do note that the fabric doesn't have to be just 32b wide in all areas and higher clocks for it goes well beyond just memory perf.

 

[lolfail9001]

Very lose as in CL14 lol.

You do understand that memory has way more than just 4 timings, even if Ryzen right now gives you no control for any beyond main 4? As i have said, you do not have to take my word for it, buildzoid explains nicely why the good memory OCs are done as they are, as well as few other cool bits if you follow his posts.

You've been paying attention to this thread and you know that memory support is getting better literally every day so at this point you are clearly just trolling.

Actually, "memory support is getting better literally every day" is news to me. So far i has seen the screenshot of someone who got IMC to run at over 2Ghz bus clock (so 4113MT for memory), announcement of Dancops guide with 3700MTs ( or something) on B-die. But nothing so far indicates that it will actually work without touching BCLK.

Pcper can't even set their 6900k to 3.5GHz in their clock for clock comparison, they can't handle the bios and they published results with it at 3.7GHz ST and left it that way.

Sure, i would be glad to see evidence of this claim, because i must have missed it. Besides, even if 6900k was running at 4.5Ghz, that would not be enough to explain the disrepancy, but i digress: https://www.pcper.com/image/view/79205?return=node/67214