Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

[IEC]

Exact moment of Kyle starting to talk about Ryzen here:
https://youtu.be/ZVKDNeyfpAo?t=5198

He mentions specifically his surprise at how many game engines are able to take advantage of 8+ cores.

I did not hear any specifics about performance or performance in relation to Intel.

 

[formulav8]

Because that crash after CPU hit 100% usage was hilariously telling of their actual purpose in the world.

Stuff happens sometimes. When Intel demoed IBR, it froze and the guy kept on acting like he was playing when it wasn't. Its embarrassing but nothing is perfect.

 

[inf64]

Stuff happens sometimes. When Intel demoed IBR, it froze and the guy kept on acting like he was playing when it wasn't. Its embarrassing but nothing is perfect.

I thought he was pretending to be driving the car while it was all prerecorded? It was long time ago, my memory is a bit fuzzy . In any case it was a major embarrassment... That was forgotten 2 days later. Intel gets away with the most ridiculous stuff.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Wow, Kyle Bennett on stage at an AMD event:
https://youtu.be/ZVKDNeyfpAo?t=4965

AMD's marketing team always seems to amaze at just how incompetent they are.

That event was absolutely awful.

 

[LTC8K6]

Except no one is winning at gaming. They are all going to be tied.

We aren't seeing an overall advance over what we already have, in terms of gaming or ipc.

We seem to be stuck at the levels we've been at for years. AMD has caught up, but the consumer has not gotten an improvement, except for pricing if they are in the $200-$400 cpu market.

The good thing is that hopefully RyZen has triggered a movement in ipc, and we will get a nice ipc improvement in the next generations from AMD and Intel.

 

[formulav8]

I thought he was pretending to be driving the car while it was all prerecorded

You're right, I thought Anand said it froze. https://thetechjournal.com/electron...ed-caught-faking-ivy-bridge-gaming-demo.xhtml

 

[CentroX]

so all the great passmark scores were fake? https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+7+1800X&id=2966

 

[USER8000]

so all the great passmark scores were fake? https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+7+1800X&id=2966

??

Its the same scores as noted here:

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-official-benchmarks-passmark/

 

[Mopetar]

Yes im sure running all CPU's GPU bottlenecked would support your attempt to make CPU all look the same in the benchmarks, which is COMPLETELY IRREVERENT and would accomplish nothing when trying to figure out which CPU has most headroom when removing the GPU bottleneck. Which is clearly what they are trying to accomplish with this review.

I for one would love to know how much more headroom these new 6+ CPU's have in comparison to the 4 cores so i know i will be covered for the next few generations of GPU's without running into a CPU bottleneck and can choose my CPU accordingly, so im happy there are reviews like this out there.

What does it matter if a 6 core CPU has more headroom if you can never use it in practical settings? You're not actually going to game at 720p are you?

You can certainly plan for the future, but games have a long lead time and there are still games that have yet to be released that won't have any DX12 support. In 3 years your 6+ core CPU might be better than a 4-core CPU, but if you upgrade your PC that often, the extra cores buy you very little.

I don't really see why people think this is bad news for AMD though, as if anything its the opposite. Go look at reviews for a 7700k and notice that it effectively gets no or essentially no benefit over a 6900K in a lot of titles. We already know that Ryzen is as good as a 6900k in most situations, so it's unlikely Ryzen will be substantially different than a 7700k.

But if you're the type of person who's going to spend $300 - $500 on an 8-core Ryzen CPU, you're probably going to spend just as much on a GPU if you're interested in gaming. AMD currently doesn't have anything in that bracket, but whatever they eventually release is going to be a 1070 competitor at a minimum and you're not going to game at anything lower than 1080p where the additional cores make a difference.

 

[Rifter]

What does it matter if a 6 core CPU has more headroom if you can never use it in practical settings? You're not actually going to game at 720p are you?

You can certainly plan for the future, but games have a long lead time and there are still games that have yet to be released that won't have any DX12 support. In 3 years your 6+ core CPU might be better than a 4-core CPU, but if you upgrade your PC that often, the extra cores buy you very little.

I don't really see why people think this is bad news for AMD though, as if anything its the opposite. Go look at reviews for a 7700k and notice that it effectively gets no or essentially no benefit over a 6900K in a lot of titles. We already know that Ryzen is as good as a 6900k in most situations, so it's unlikely Ryzen will be substantially different than a 7700k.

But if you're the type of person who's going to spend $300 - $500 on an 8-core Ryzen CPU, you're probably going to spend just as much on a GPU if you're interested in gaming. AMD currently doesn't have anything in that bracket, but whatever they eventually release is going to be a 1070 competitor at a minimum and you're not going to game at anything lower than 1080p where the additional cores make a difference.

I game at 1440p where there will be even less difference, but thats not the point, the point i was trying to make is CPU progression is almost stagnant in comparison with GPU's. And the CPU you select will probably be used with 2-4 different GPU's in its lifetime, GPU's that are getting more and more powerful as time goes on, exponentially so in comparison to CPU's. So you may as well plan for the future not just today when it comes to your CPU and base system. Look at how many first and second gen i7's are still out there today with their second or third GPU's in them and gaming just fine still today.

My current system has seen a 4890, SLI GTX 460's, and now a RX 480, its over 7 years old. Had i cheaped out at the time and got a phenom or dual core, or even a low end i5 i would have been forced into a whole system rebuild already. My next system i expect to start off with the 480 and have a few new GPU's every 2-3 years before the base system is obsolete. Who knows maybe it will even last me till 2025 if i plan it well enough and select enough CPU power, memory and quality components to see it through the coming years. And direct X 12 is going to make having a 6-8 core even more beneficial as time goes on.

When i build a new system its not just for today but for the future 5-10 years.

 

[looncraz]

AMD's marketing team always seems to amaze at just how incompetent they are.

That event was absolutely awful.

No joke. It takes a special kind of marketing failure to make someone not be excited about a feature which brings 50% higher average performance with doubled minimum frame-rates.

The only question is: will games have to add support for it... or is it automatic?

They could have spent the entire hour just talking about HBC and it would have been more interesting.

 

[TemjinGold]

What does it matter if a 6 core CPU has more headroom if you can never use it in practical settings? You're not actually going to game at 720p are you?

You can certainly plan for the future, but games have a long lead time and there are still games that have yet to be released that won't have any DX12 support. In 3 years your 6+ core CPU might be better than a 4-core CPU, but if you upgrade your PC that often, the extra cores buy you very little.

I don't really see why people think this is bad news for AMD though, as if anything its the opposite. Go look at reviews for a 7700k and notice that it effectively gets no or essentially no benefit over a 6900K in a lot of titles. We already know that Ryzen is as good as a 6900k in most situations, so it's unlikely Ryzen will be substantially different than a 7700k.

But if you're the type of person who's going to spend $300 - $500 on an 8-core Ryzen CPU, you're probably going to spend just as much on a GPU if you're interested in gaming. AMD currently doesn't have anything in that bracket, but whatever they eventually release is going to be a 1070 competitor at a minimum and you're not going to game at anything lower than 1080p where the additional cores make a difference.

It matters because my gaming experience today is not hurt with Ryzen but this gives a glimpse of the future: When games push harder (and with VR's rise, this may come sooner than most think), I know today that Ryzen has more gas in the tank whereas the 7700K will be tapped out. If there was a tradeoff where I suffer today in exchange for hope tomorrow, that's a very different scenario. But I do not suffer today and I stand to benefit in the future. That's a win-win. The purpose of a 720p test isn't because people game at 720, it's because that kind of test allows you to see this.

 

[SunburstLP]

I game at 1440p where there will be even less difference, but thats not the point, the point i was trying to make is CPU progression is almost stagnant in comparison with GPU's. And the CPU you select will probably be used with 2-4 different GPU's in its lifetime, GPU's that are getting more and more powerful as time goes on, exponentially so in comparison to CPU's. So you may as well plan for the future not just today when it comes to your CPU and base system. Look at how many first and second gen i7's are still out there today with their second or third GPU's in them and gaming just fine still today.

My current system has seen a 4890, SLI GTX 460's, and now a RX 480, its over 7 years old. Had i cheaped out at the time and got a phenom or dual core, or even a low end i5 i would have been forced into a whole system rebuild already. My next system i expect to start off with the 480 and have a few new GPU's every 2-3 years before the base system is obsolete. Who knows maybe it will even last me till 2025 if i plan it well enough and select enough CPU power, memory and quality components to see it through the coming years. And direct X 12 is going to make having a 6-8 core even more beneficial as time goes on.

When i build a new system its not just for today but for the future 5-10 years.

I'm in the same boat and couldn't have said it better myself. My 920 is still cooking along at 3.8 and it suits for now. But, it's long in the tooth. SKL was the first time I felt like it would be an upgrade, but I already have 4c/8t. I want to advance. I bought into A64 right before the dual core revolution and told myself I wouldn't make that type of purchase again. Buying a 67/7700K felt like that and I don't have the budget these days for current HEDT pricing.

 

[imported_jjj]

They sent 3000MHz kits with the reviewer's kit. Hopefully that's enough for consistent and fair reviews.

Most reviewers test all systems at same DRAM speeds (so they don't have to retest older systems every time) and many will go with 2133 and 2400. AT is at 2400 and that could end up causing bottlenecks so hopefully they at least explore memory scaling.

Folks that pay 300+ on 8 cores with no GPU will likely get decent DRAM too so it's ok if 8 cores Ryzen needs 2666 or 2800 at least - this is an example not a guess.
It's interesting to note that 4 cores and 6 cores will have more memory BW per core and that will result in better scores in some benches, mostly synthetic.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

How come? Did Kyle spill the bans?

He started a thread "Don't be a Pussy, PreOrder AMD Ryzen Today!" on the [ H ]ard|Forums last Wednesday

 

[hotstocks]

Glad I did a pre-order so that I can always cancel Thursday after the real benchmarks and OC numbers come out. Like many here, I've been rocking a 4.7Ghz i7 with 32gb of very low latency ddr3 2133 for years, and it still beats non-overclocked 7700k systems in gaming and is very close to overclocked ones as well. The more I read about Ryzen, and what they are purposely hiding probably means two things. One, Ryzen isn't going to beat 7700k in current single threaded games and it isn't going to overclock to anywhere near 4.7-5Ghz. I do think for future games it will beat a quad core as new engines and conosole ports will be using 8 cores like the shitty Jaguar cores they use now, so games will be coded for multi core. That is the main reason I might sidegrade to Ryzen. But lately even the price isn't seeming that fantastic. Sure the cpu is less than Intel's 8 core, but I would only consider the 1800x (as I want at least 4.2 ghz on all cores, 4.1 ghz on one or two cores is bullshit and they shouldn't be able to advertise it that way) which is still a $500 cpu. Then on top of that you will need a GOOD $100 cooler. But more importantly I think Ryzen is going to be seriously gimped without exceptional memory. So if I want 32GB made of two 16 gb high speed and low latency ddr4 not to gimp the system, you are looking at $350 kits for 3200 yet alone insane prices for 3400, 3600 or 3800 low latency kits, and of course you're going to want a $250 mobo. So add that all up and it is totally NOT worth it for a sidegrade. For that kind of money I want to see a considerable upgrade for gaming, and I do game with a Nvidia 1080 on a 1080p monitor, so at times the CPU can be the bottleneck. I've said this before and I think that the only benefit for gamers with Ryzen will be that they can multitask while gaming. The additional cores will let you have browsers open, video playing, av software, chat apps, and all the other running windows shit not take as much of a toll. Remember benchmarkers are benching on a clean system with bare minimum windows running, and users are not. So I hope Ryzen will overclock to above 4.2ghz on all cores and can hang with a 7700 on current games, if not I won't be building one. If that is the case, might as well wait till the next version silicon comes out and mobos are better, bioses are better, and memory is better and cheaper. In conclusion I am pretty damn sure I will build a Ryzen system in the future, I just don't know if it will be next week based on everything I am seeing. NDA or not, I've been building and reviewing hardware for over 30 years. If Ryzen 1800X really beat Intel in most games, we wouldn't be seeing just two highly multithread optimized games shown. AMD would be showing a lot of games, especially DOOM, lol. Plus people just aren't THAT secretive about NDA stuff, I've been there. I never broke an NDA, but a bunch of my friends sure as hell knew how fast I got a cpu to overclock and whether it was faster than the previous king, and those people leak info anonymously ALL OF THE TIME. For us to not see a million anonymous favorable leaks with less than two days till release, well that tells you something.

 

[imported_jjj]

It matters because my gaming experience today is not hurt with Ryzen but this gives a glimpse of the future: When games push harder (and with VR's rise, this may come sooner than most think), I know today that Ryzen has more gas in the tank whereas the 7700K will be tapped out. If there was a tradeoff where I suffer today in exchange for hope tomorrow, that's a very different scenario. But I do not suffer today and I stand to benefit in the future. That's a win-win. The purpose of a 720p test isn't because people game at 720, it's because that kind of test allows you to see this.

VR is an interesting point as it accelerates the transition to more cores.
At the end of the day, gaming should not be CPU bound at all and we are at the edge of it only because the number of cores has stagnated while ST can't scale much anymore. The only way out is more cores

 

[Magic Hate Ball]

Glad I did a pre-order so that I can always cancel Thursday after the real benchmarks and OC numbers come out. Like many here, I've been rocking a 4.7Ghz i7 with 32gb of very low latency ddr3 2133 for years, and it still beats non-overclocked 7700k systems in gaming and is very close to overclocked ones as well. The more I read about Ryzen, and what they are purposely hiding probably means two things. One, Ryzen isn't going to beat 7700k in current single threaded games and it isn't going to overclock to anywhere near 4.7-5Ghz. I do think for future games it will beat a quad core as new engines and conosole ports will be using 8 cores like the shitty Jaguar cores they use now, so games will be coded for multi core. That is the main reason I might sidegrade to Ryzen. But lately even the price isn't seeming that fantastic. Sure the cpu is less than Intel's 8 core, but I would only consider the 1800x (as I want at least 4.2 ghz on all cores, 4.1 ghz on one or two cores is bullshit and they shouldn't be able to advertise it that way) which is still a $500 cpu. Then on top of that you will need a GOOD $100 cooler. But more importantly I think Ryzen is going to be seriously gimped without exceptional memory. So if I want 32GB made of two 16 gb high speed and low latency ddr4 not to gimp the system, you are looking at $350 kits for 3200 yet alone insane prices for 3400, 3600 or 3800 low latency kits, and of course you're going to want a $250 mobo. So add that all up and it is totally NOT worth it for a sidegrade. For that kind of money I want to see a considerable upgrade for gaming, and I do game with a Nvidia 1080 on a 1080p monitor, so at times the CPU can be the bottleneck. I've said this before and I think that the only benefit for gamers with Ryzen will be that they can multitask while gaming. The additional cores will let you have browsers open, video playing, av software, chat apps, and all the other running windows shit not take as much of a toll. Remember benchmarkers are benching on a clean system with bare minimum windows running, and users are not. So I hope Ryzen will overclock to above 4.2ghz on all cores and can hang with a 7700 on current games, if not I won't be building one. If that is the case, might as well wait till the next version silicon comes out and mobos are better, bioses are better, and memory is better and cheaper. In conclusion I am pretty damn sure I will build a Ryzen system in the future, I just don't know if it will be next week based on everything I am seeing. NDA or not, I've been building and reviewing hardware for over 30 years. If Ryzen 1800X really beat Intel in most games, we wouldn't be seeing just two highly multithread optimized games shown. AMD would be showing a lot of games, especially DOOM, lol. Plus people just aren't THAT secretive about NDA stuff, I've been there. I never broke an NDA, but a bunch of my friends sure as hell knew how fast I got a cpu to overclock and whether it was faster than the previous king, and those people leak info anonymously ALL OF THE TIME. For us to not see a million anonymous favorable leaks with less than two days till release, well that tells you something.

Dude.... paragraphs.....

People buying this first wave of Ryzen chips aren't there for the 5ghz barrier, they're there for 8 cores and 16 threads.

 

[moonbogg]

I don't understand the whole "Ryzen does great in VR" thing. Ryzen is great, but its a CPU. Since when was VR CPU limited? I really don't get it.

 

[Magic Hate Ball]

I don't understand the whole "Ryzen does great in VR" thing. Ryzen is great, but its a CPU. Since when was VR CPU limited? I really don't get it.

I have a feeling that high thread counts can help with frame times, which are absolutely critical for a good VR experience. A lot of Kyle's VR analysis of AMD v Nvidia focused heavily on the frame times if I remember correctly.

He has not published a CPU thread VR article yet... I wonder if that will be a component for the Ryzen review?

 

[hotstocks]

No, they are there for FAST 8 cores and 16 threads. Hell this is not AMD's first 8 core chip, lol, and those were disasters.

 

[imported_jjj]

Glad I did a pre-order so that I can always cancel Thursday after the real benchmarks and OC numbers come out. Like many here, I've been rocking a 4.7Ghz i7 with 32gb of very low latency ddr3 2133 for years, and it still beats non-overclocked 7700k systems in gaming and is very close to overclocked ones as well. The more I read about Ryzen, and what they are purposely hiding probably means two things. One, Ryzen isn't going to beat 7700k in current single threaded games and it isn't going to overclock to anywhere near 4.7-5Ghz. I do think for future games it will beat a quad core as new engines and conosole ports will be using 8 cores like the shitty Jaguar cores they use now, so games will be coded for multi core. That is the main reason I might sidegrade to Ryzen. But lately even the price isn't seeming that fantastic. Sure the cpu is less than Intel's 8 core, but I would only consider the 1800x (as I want at least 4.2 ghz on all cores, 4.1 ghz on one or two cores is bullshit and they shouldn't be able to advertise it that way) which is still a $500 cpu. Then on top of that you will need a GOOD $100 cooler. But more importantly I think Ryzen is going to be seriously gimped without exceptional memory. So if I want 32GB made of two 16 gb high speed and low latency ddr4 not to gimp the system, you are looking at $350 kits for 3200 yet alone insane prices for 3400, 3600 or 3800 low latency kits, and of course you're going to want a $250 mobo. So add that all up and it is totally NOT worth it for a sidegrade. For that kind of money I want to see a considerable upgrade for gaming, and I do game with a Nvidia 1080 on a 1080p monitor, so at times the CPU can be the bottleneck. I've said this before and I think that the only benefit for gamers with Ryzen will be that they can multitask while gaming. The additional cores will let you have browsers open, video playing, av software, chat apps, and all the other running windows shit not take as much of a toll. Remember benchmarkers are benching on a clean system with bare minimum windows running, and users are not. So I hope Ryzen will overclock to above 4.2ghz on all cores and can hang with a 7700 on current games, if not I won't be building one. If that is the case, might as well wait till the next version silicon comes out and mobos are better, bioses are better, and memory is better and cheaper. In conclusion I am pretty damn sure I will build a Ryzen system in the future, I just don't know if it will be next week based on everything I am seeing. NDA or not, I've been building and reviewing hardware for over 30 years. If Ryzen 1800X really beat Intel in most games, we wouldn't be seeing just two highly multithread optimized games shown. AMD would be showing a lot of games, especially DOOM, lol. Plus people just aren't THAT secretive about NDA stuff, I've been there. I never broke an NDA, but a bunch of my friends sure as hell knew how fast I got a cpu to overclock and whether it was faster than the previous king, and those people leak info anonymously ALL OF THE TIME. For us to not see a million anonymous favorable leaks with less than two days till release, well that tells you something.

You claim that you've "been building and reviewing hardware for over 30 years" and you call doubling the number of cores a sidegrade. That's something that folks that got their first PC this decade would say. Not to mention that you seem to only care about gaming and that's something people 2-3 times younger than you say
And you pay 600-700$ for a GTX 1080 and game at 1080p. Anyone saying or doing that is severely unreasonable and loses any credibility .Even just the fact that you own a GTX 1080 , at any res, makes you a very very rare species as you pay an absurd premium for a small gain in perf over the 1070 - if this upsets anyone, i stand by it and i'll add that no mattet how much money you have, you need to learn to manage your finances better.

Your post did remind me of dual card setups as more cores should be helpful there, guess that's another upside. Maybe you can get another GTX 1080 and game in SLI at 1080p.

 

[hotstocks]

Well I am older, have a good job, and usually buy the best hardware every few years as long as the price is reasonable. I think I got my 1080 for less than $600 and I also have few 1070's and a few 390xs. I have them for my kids machines gaming and for crypto. Gaming on a 32" 1080p monitor with a 1080 is NOT overkill. I am not one of those crazies that say they see a huge difference between 60 and 120 fps, 60 looks almost as perfect, but it has to be a MINIMUM of 60. I could care less if Ryzen does 78 fps and intel does 83 fps, but some games even my system drops to 47 fps at times, and THAT is noticeable to me. So I game at 1080p with ULTRA settings, I pay for all the eye candy, and I surely don't want a CPU that can't provide well over 60 fps minimum. Right now cpus are way behind gpus, you basically need a new gpu every 2 years and a new cpu about every 6 years, lol, as my system proves. I have had 3 different gpus, maybe 4 with the same 4.7ghz cpu. And I don't only care about gaming, my point is that GAMING WILL BE A SIDEGRADE to a 6 year old intel system for current games. I believe newer games this year and next will benefit from more cores, as well as the whole windows experience of multitasking will benefit. 8 cores is all well and good, but 8 cores at speeds of a core 6 years ago just isn't progress. Hell my cell phone has 8 cores and so does my Xbox One, and they are both slower than a 6 year old 4 core. I am still thinking of building a Ryzen system even if the gaming is within 5% of intel, it will be a gaming sidegrade, but a multitasking upgrade, so hope that makes you happy and understand my view. I don't cheap out on my hardware and hobby, I would NEVER get a 1700X to save $100 over an 1800X, but I also would never spend $1000 for an Intel CPU either, and I wouldn't spend $1000 for a 16c/32 thread Ryzen that is no faster at games.

 

[Shivansps]

Someone can tell my WHY Asrock is in dumb mode? they made some great AM4 boards, in the AB350s they connected the 2nd PCI-E 16x at the PCI-E 4X 3.0 coming from the CPU reserved for the 1st M2 Slot, as a result you need to choose either put a secondary GPU or a PCI-E M2, this could be great for only 1 thing, a cheap Crossfire board, as the 2nd PCI-E is 4x 3.0 and goes directly to the CPU, BUT they dont not support Crossfire!!!!! on neither of the 3 boards! one of them is a Fatality! :facepalm:

Add insult to injury, they added too many PCI-E 1x slots from the chipset, as a result the secondary M2 slot is Sata only, they could have done 2 pci-e 1x and x2 secondary M2...

What a wasted oportunity!

 

[PPB]

I don't understand the whole "Ryzen does great in VR" thing. Ryzen is great, but its a CPU. Since when was VR CPU limited? I really don't get it.

It means "the CPU is good enough for smooth frametimes and consecuentally high fps, to not cause motion sickness. Considering 90fps is the sweetspot to achieve this kind of experience (and without microsttuter at that). This is good news.