Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

[Crumpet]

They are amazing values, I'm not talking about workstation users. The 1700 is the CPU to buy if you're a streamer or content creator, the 1600/X is the CPU to buy if you game, the 1700 just doesn't make much sense for that. What's so controversial? They're easily outpacing their price competitors.???

Do you really think a couple of posts on Anandtech are affecting that? I don't own any stock in anything, by the way. I'm a student, I barely have any money.

I'm not even attacking Ryzen, I think that they're pretty freaking great for a lot users, really interesting products. I don't know how my posts got construed as that. I really am not trying to downplay it. Honest.

If my posts don't seem ecstatic, it's because I'm having trouble evaluating CPU performance with Ryzen available now. With Bulldozer, it was easy, there were only a small number of situations where an FX-8320 was worth getting. Now we've got Ryzen providing awesome multi-thread performance, and slightly inferior gaming performance compared to Intel offerings (especially the i5 line, which I never really liked). I'm not overly familiar with what people in production capacities use their CPUs for, so I mostly look at real-world use cases I'm familiar with: gaming, emulation and streaming. Ryzen doesn't really bring anything huge to the former two, I'm sure you'll agree, and I don't stream, but I do know that it scales nicely with cores. It's not really a product that's meant for me. The work I do can be done just fine on a Core 2 Duo machine.

I'd really like to see some people who built a Ryzen system, who do production level stuff and hear how it affected them, compared to i7s or i5s that they were using a year ago. I'm just kind of looking for specific use cases, important to people who post here, who value performance/dollar, where Ryzen greatly outshines the competition.

OK Tibalt, listen up then.

I ditched my i5 6600 system for the following reasons;

When working on large scale photoshop images with 30 or more layers the i5 machine started taking up to 30 seconds to finish simple tasks that are normally instantaneous.

When working on Google Sketchup designing buildings the i5 couldn't handle it, it started getting slower, then chugging and stuttering, and got to the point where my models had to remain in an unfinished state so I could panic save them.

When editing videos in Sony Pinnacle Studio 20, working on a simple 3 minute video consisting of only 3 layers of video blending the i5 was grinding to a halt, stuttering when I was moving the sliders taking a figurative week to finish the export process.

Add on to that my ultrawide monitor and triple screen sim racing gaming, on larger tracks, or tracks with high elevation changes the sudden changes in draw distance were nuking the visible frame rate, the FPS counter stayed handily above 60 at all times, usually over 130, but the visible stuttering, freezes and hangs meant catching slides, hitting braking zones and close wheel to wheel racing were borderline impossible.

Streaming - the i5 just couldn't.. Visible stuttering on both the stream and in game, and in some titles like GTA V meant that the game stopped loading a lot of the textures and I even ended up falling through the floor numerous times.

Aaaand with my 1800x?

I've had a single spike in cpu usage when streaming (at a much higher quality bitrate) when racing, and it lasted about 5 seconds... That's it so far. It murders my i5 in everything.

Yes, my 1800x is vastly more expensive than the i5, but it would seem i'd have the same experience with the 1600x, I was already looking at replacing my 6600 with a 7600k or 7700k purely because I was so damn disappointed in the thing, so that was going to be a £350 upgrade regardless.
But you know what... It might be vastly more expensive, but it's already proven its worth tenfold.

This is why i'm giving away my i5 system to a buddy of mine when I get a new power supply sorted for it, i'm not going to take any money for it because I don't think that cpu is worth paying for. I LOATHED it. Would I recommend an intel i5 4 core 4 thread chip to anyone from my own personal experiences? Hell no.

 

[coercitiv]

When working on large scale photoshop images with 30 or more layers the i5 machine started taking up to 30 seconds to finish simple tasks that are normally instantaneous.

With this example in particuar your problem was not the CPU, but rather amount of RAM and/or settings for Undo + Cache levels in Photoshop. Tasks that are normally "instantaneous" in Photoshop start to take 10-30 seconds only after you hit the scratch disk.

 

[Crumpet]

With this example in particuar your problem was not the CPU, but rather amount of RAM and/or settings for Undo + Cache levels in Photoshop. Tasks that are normally "instantaneous" in Photoshop start to take 10-30 seconds only after you hit the scratch disk.

I'm using the same RAM.....So no idea whats going on there then.

 

[imported_jjj]

A look at core scaling and SMT yield http://www.hardware.fr/focus/121/influence-nombre-coeurs-smt-ryzen.html

In games they tend to avoid DX12 since they know that's not a good idea with Nvidia.
They might be testing with 4x4GB at 2400 MHz and that could have a negative impact on the octa cores.

 

[Crumpet]

That really does show the R5 1600 and 1600X to be the sweet spot for price-performance.

So;

The "it'll do" system for people with a small budget - R5 1400-1500x

Gaming + everyday use computer - R5 1600/1600X

More focused on productivity but very capable in gaming - R7 1700

The "we just want everything" whores - R7 1800/1800X - yes, this is me.

 

[Crono]

The "we just want everything" whores - R7 1800/1800X - yes, this is me.

Maybe you should change your username to strumpet.

 

[Crumpet]

Maybe you should change your username to strumpet.

Well to be fair a strumpet can be a tasty piece of crumpet.... ;P

 

[psychok9]

Yes, 1T. Mine is on my $89 motherboard at 2933. I still have not tried 3200, but the others I saw said they had no problem @ 3200.

Oh, and thats @100% load for 2 days now. (WCG distributed computing)

Is there a way to get the same results with 32GB kit?

 

[Markfw]

Is there a way to get the same results with 32GB kit?

First, it went to 3200 when I upgraded that BIOS a couple of days later. As for a 32 gig kit ? I have not tried, but some say 2667 or 2933 is doable, not sure if I have seen a 3200 post for 32 gig yet, but I might have missed it.

 

[CatMerc]

https://thetechaltar.com/amd-ryzen-agesa-1-0-0-4-testing/

I got some results comparing AGESA 1.0.0.4 with the previous one.

 

[tamz_msc]

https://thetechaltar.com/amd-ryzen-agesa-1-0-0-4-testing/

I got some results comparing AGESA 1.0.0.4 with the previous one.

Did you get the ~6ns lower memory latency that AMD promised with 1.0.0.4?

 

[CatMerc]

Did you get the ~6ns lower memory latency that AMD promised with 1.0.0.4?

Yes.

 

[IEC]

Did you get the ~6ns lower memory latency that AMD promised with 1.0.0.4?

Not quite on the MSI board, but close enough. I suspect MSI loosened Trc timings and maybe some subtimings to improve memory compatibility, walking back a portion of those gains. Or maybe because I'm using a different set of B-die.:

Spoiler

MSI BIOS 2.3:

MSI BIOS 2.4 / AGESA 1.0.0.4:

 

[imported_jjj]

https://thetechaltar.com/amd-ryzen-agesa-1-0-0-4-testing/

I got some results comparing AGESA 1.0.0.4 with the previous one.

Have you tried to investigate Ghost Recon Wildlands , the in game benchmark sees Ryzen 7 as 16 cores. Maybe you can find and edit a settings file to set it straight and tests if perf improves.

 

[imported_jjj]

That really does show the R5 1600 and 1600X to be the sweet spot for price-performance.

So;

The "it'll do" system for people with a small budget - R5 1400-1500x

Gaming + everyday use computer - R5 1600/1600X

More focused on productivity but very capable in gaming - R7 1700

The "we just want everything" whores - R7 1800/1800X - yes, this is me.

Choosing the right one is the toughest part with Ryzen.
More cores is better even if it's just about how long it will remain sufficient and about efficiency.
From a value perspective, if you look at system costs not CPU vs CPU, the differences are small.
Folks that plan to upgrade just the CPU in 1-3 years do have more freedom to chose w/e best fits their current needs and budget.
All in all, people that OC should get the 1700 and users that don't OC can get away with the 1600X.
The quad is ok if the budget really doesn't allow for more or for secondary PCs and so on.

 

[CatMerc]

Have you tried to investigate Ghost Recon Wildlands , the in game benchmark sees Ryzen 7 as 16 cores. Maybe you can find and edit a settings file to set it straight and tests if perf improves.

Had I had the sample my own I would. Sadly it's my colleague who does the testing, and he's incredibly busy right now. Barely even got these tests done.

 

[imported_jjj]

Had I had the sample my own I would. Sadly it's my colleague who does the testing, and he's incredibly busy right now. Barely even got these tests done.

I don't have the game to make sure but there should be a GRW.ini file in the game folder and maybe the core/threads count is there.

 

[DrMrLordX]

See, you should be right on this one, but I do wonder how many professional workstations really use the kind of thread-level parallel workloads that Zen is best at. Can you give specifics?

I'll defer to Crumpet and imported_jjj as well as the many reviewers that have benchmarked various professional-level applications on Ryzen 7 systems. AMD went well out of their way to showcase two "pro" applications on Summit Ridge prior to its release. The value of Ryzen as a productivity CPU is well-established. I haven't seen many reports of AM4's value as a VM platform yet. The software support for Type 1 hypervisors may not yet be mature enough to comment on that, but Type 2 . . .

edit: oh, I must add that Sketchup is (in general) not able to use many additional cores effectively, as is the case with many CAD/CAD-like applications. So I am a bit surprised that Crumpet would report so many problems with an i5-6600k vs Ryzen 7.

6/12 is the right number for gaming though. That was my point.

Probably. Maybe. The 7700k still wins out in some circumstances, especially where support for Summit Ridge in general is weak. As a direct price competitor to the i5-7600k, though, Ryzen 5 is a clear winner.

 

[torlen11cc]

Are the Ryzen 5 AMD CPUs faster or slower in comparison to the i5 Intel processors when regarding gaming?
I saw various benchmarks on the subject, but I have an impression that there is no definitive answer. For example, in this Techpowerup critic article you can see that the i5 7500 shows performances similar to that of the 1600X, but on the other hand in this video you can see that the i5 has an advantage compared to the Ryzen processors.

 

[Crumpet]

I'll defer to Crumpet and imported_jjj as well as the many reviewers that have benchmarked various professional-level applications on Ryzen 7 systems. AMD went well out of their way to showcase two "pro" applications on Summit Ridge prior to its release. The value of Ryzen as a productivity CPU is well-established. I haven't seen many reports of AM4's value as a VM platform yet. The software support for Type 1 hypervisors may not yet be mature enough to comment on that, but Type 2 . . .

edit: oh, I must add that Sketchup is (in general) not able to use many additional cores effectively, as is the case with many CAD/CAD-like applications. So I am a bit surprised that Crumpet would report so many problems with an i5-6600k vs Ryzen 7.



Probably. Maybe. The 7700k still wins out in some circumstances, especially where support for Summit Ridge in general is weak. As a direct price competitor to the i5-7600k, though, Ryzen 5 is a clear winner.

It was probably the rendering add ons I was using with sketchup, i'm not sure. I never really gave much thought to it until now. It was a case of "it runs like crap on my skylake gen i7 laptop, it ran like crap on my skylake i5 computer, but it seems to run fine on Ryzen"
It can't be the gpu, ram or storage components because they got transferred between the desktops.

-edit to clarify- i'm an angry no-patience power user.. if I say something runs like crap that could mean anything from "it crashed on me once without me saving" to "it never bloody works, what a crock of ****"

 

[imported_jjj]

As a direct price competitor to the i5-7600k, though, Ryzen 5 is a clear winner.

Interesting to note that while the Western world focused on 1600X vs 7600K, the sites from China focused on 1600X vs 6800k.
A month ago if one had to chose between the 7600k and the 6800k at same price, there was no contest but now folks are hesitant to state the same thing about the 1600X.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Real world benchmarks for us gpu bound plebs. R5 1600@3.9GHz ~ 7700k @5GHz > 1500x@4GHz ~7600k @5GHz > Locked i5's

 

[Malogeek]

Have you tried to investigate Ghost Recon Wildlands , the in game benchmark sees Ryzen 7 as 16 cores. Maybe you can find and edit a settings file to set it straight and tests if perf improves.

I don't remember from the original findings but does it detect 7700k as 4 core and 6900k as 8 core?

 

[beginner99]

Are the Ryzen 5 AMD CPUs faster or slower in comparison to the i5 Intel processors when regarding gaming?

Depends on the game and what you do besides it (other open applications). The more you multitask, the better Ryzen gets due to more cores.

Then most reviews don't bench multiplayer and battlefield series is known for being multi-threaded and needing a lot of CPU power especially at 64+ players. So BF4 or BFOne 64 player maps, the Ryzen 5 will beat even an OCed 7600k due to 2 more cores and 3 times more threads (4 vs 12). In other games especially single player i5 can have an edge.

 

[imported_jjj]

I don't remember from the original findings but does it detect 7700k as 4 core and 6900k as 8 core?

No idea, the original finding was me noticing 16cores/16 threads in a screenshot on Legit Reviews and not aware of any further investigations on the matter.
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-30#post-38794057