Unfortunately I don't speak German. From what I understand the default 1800X scores are done with DDR4 2400Mhz, the rest are noted in the brackets (DDR4 2666-3200). OCed score was not included in the charts. Ryzen 5 1600X emulated scores were also achieved with DDR4 2400Mhz.
A bit tongue in cheek video, still very amusing
What makes that video amusing is that Quake fails math.Actually, doesnt that point to some sort of latency "issue"? For arguments sake, lets assume a single core sandy or core2 makes 1000.0 fps ..
Yes, he's just another dude who never even left his flat and refreshes 15 tabs every 3 seconds hoping that somebody, ANYBODY posted something new on the forums that he can tweet.https://twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/status/840559342264963074
He's not saying this out of insider knowledge, he's saying this out of what forum people are saying.
There are no winners here. Only a loser.... guess who?A review that looks at gaming perf with settings targeting 60FPS with a GTX 1080.
1700 @3.8GHz vs what appears to be an overclocked 7700k as they list 5.0/4.8GHz
5 wins for the overclocked 7700k, 3 draws and 2 wins for the 3.8GHz 1700. Can't quite figure out memory clocks but it's with 4x8GB so likely up to 2666MHz while the Intel platform seems to be using 3200 CL16 .Not bad considering and a higher clocks Ryzen with faster DRAM would do better. Snip
The blamegame is idiotic.There are no winners here. Only a loser.... guess who?
All those sh****ing on the motherboard companies for supply issues are just heartless! Things are bad enough as it is. Can you imagine the financial nightmare, with RMAs and massive human effort needed to overcome this premature launch? A million more half-baked AM4 mobos on the market would have meant even more headache for them, collectively. I'm very surprised these products made it out of quality control without detection. Some people somewhere took this decision - to make a guinea pig out of consumers. As to who that is, your guess is as good as mine.
What makes that video amusing is that Quake fails math.
- Just cause you dont agree with the assessment it is still a conclusion by a few reviewers, that it is not up to snuff in gaming. Anyhoo, dont burn books cause you dont agree with the content, that * usually backfires.Can we now close the "Ryzen - a fail for gamers?" thread?
It's nonsense from the very start.
- Just cause you dont agree with the assessment it is still a conclusion by a few reviewers, that it is not up to snuff in gaming. Anyhoo, dont burn books cause you dont agree with the content, that * usually backfires.
626/0.6 > 1000. 626/0.7 < 900. Either Quake is too lazy to report millis, or it does not know math. Since Quake is perfect, it is obviously the former. But i had to make that note.As an adept Quake player an pre-egaming turnament participent I reject the notion that Quake is anything but perfect. That aside, how does it fail math (sry if its obvious to everyone else)?
Are they?First day reviews are outdated, things are different now.
If Ryzen provides same performance in workload X as a CPU that costs less, it is a fail for that particular workload. As a sum, Ryzen is anything but a fail, basically a win. But not everyone needs that sum.I don't consider Ryzen a fail because it's 5-15% behind Kabylake/BDW-E in some games while in others it's on par. I don't think that qualifies to be called a "fail".
It can get parity with 6700k/7700k in perf/price in what exactly? It beats 7700k in perf/price in some (a lot actually) workloads and loses to it in other workloads. Pretending one workload is more useful than the other for everyone is just dishonest.Those that don't "need that sum" really ought to get the 1700 then, as it can get parity with 7700k in perf/price, whilst also offering "that sum".
You can get a fine Z270 board that can push 7700k to 4.8-5Ghz for like $130. That makes 1700+mobo ~$80 cheaper than 7700k+mobo+cooler. Sensible difference that can be put to a good use, yes. But not always.The B350 MOBOs are circa $90, and seem to be OCing as well as the X370 MOBOs. R7 1700 + B350 works out roughly $200 cheaper than a 7700k and Z270.
1. Coffee Lake uses same socket from all we know, so UEFI update it is.In any event, good luck getting an upgrade for that 7700k without a new MOBO in 2-3 years time.
You are calling 1700 investment based on premise of looking to replace it 2-3 years down the line. You are treating it as consumable, so please.If you view stuff as purely consumables then the 7700k has its place, but if you're looking at stuff as investmenst then the 1700 is CLEARLY the best option.
- Just cause you dont agree with the assessment it is still a conclusion by a few reviewers, that it is not up to snuff in gaming. Anyhoo, dont burn books cause you dont agree with the content, that * usually backfires.
Seriously? And wCan we now close the "Ryzen - a fail for gamers?" thread?
It's nonsense from the very start.
interesting times ahead.The blamegame is idiotic.
Its not that simple. And obiously nobody want to hurt consumers neither amd nor mb makers.
If amd had waited things would just had dragged on to far.
This is a chock and a wake up call. Do you think they got the board and directors attention?
64c Naples platform is on anyones mind now. 100% attention and no second class team to implement and sell it.
Except when benchmarked during the Dakar Rally. ;pIt's like reviewing a car with a flat tire. "It doesn't seem to be as fast as the competitor's car..."
Well no **** Sherlock!
We will see the sales in Q2 for both intel and AMD . Also Q3 will be very interesting after AMD launches Ryzen 5 in sub 300$ range (1600X Vs 350+$ intel "mainstream" SKUs, ugly outcome for intel :/).Seriously? And w
interesting times ahead.
Do you know who's been silent in all these though? Intel. Where are the price cuts already? Hehe. I wouldn't want to play a poker game against Intel. I mean, no reaction at all? Damn!
626/0.6 > 1000. 626/0.7 < 900. Either Quake is too lazy to report millis, or it does not know math. Since Quake is perfect, it is obviously the former. But i had to make that note.
The people that bought core 2 quad vs core dual core had nearly 2 years extra gaming on their cpu.1700 is just better all-around CPU than 7700K. It is more future-proof, platform has better upgrade path (7700K based one has none as I know of), performance in games is somewhat lower than 7700K in 1080p but it is still great except in a few select games. Productivity workloads it is no competition really. And as Potato noticed B350 boards OC just the same as higher priced ones, 3.8-3.9Ghz is very much doable for 24/7 and with better memory support coming in next weeks/months, Ryzen 1700 is going to be a CPU to buy for most people. Until Ryzen 5 1600X launches that is
The problem here is that we are comparing core 2 duo and phenom I x4(the 3rd rev, if you will, to avoid the TLB debacle), not core 2 duo and core 2 quad.The people that bought core 2 quad vs core dual core had nearly 2 years extra gaming on their cpu.
Still applies. The phenom I x4 (and I had a TLB bug one) was still a strong CPU. The Phenom II might have been almost on par if not a little better in some scenario's. But the Phenom I including mine, would have lasted longer than C2D in usefulness in the long run just by having those extra cores. In the end it was short on life because as Intel pulled away the upgrade path was clear till BD and compared to Intel platform it ws so much easier and cheaper to pop in a new setup. But as someone who used a Phenom I for gaming at home and 2 different C2D's (one desktop and one laptop) I can say for certain that I wished those machines had Phenom's in them if the option was between those two. I used that non-overclocking, low on clock speed, 4 core CPU happily for almost 5 years till I got my 3930k.The problem here is that we are comparing core 2 duo and phenom I x4(the 3rd rev, if you will, to avoid the TLB debacle), not core 2 duo and core 2 quad.