Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

[OrangeKhrush]

Okay, The Stilt has officially salvaged my ITX build, i am actually going for it once ITX boards are out. I think i can settle for performance of stock 5960X for power consumption of my i5-6400.

Welcome to the ITX club.

I was helping with a friend that got a review kit today. OMG BIOS is horrible, eventually had to run one module just to boot, then we had to update 3 bios sets to get to stable, then we had to set performance mode to high. I thought X99 was bad, this is just not good. It will fix itself in time but I was not happy with how behind these boards were.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

What are you looking at that I'm not able to see?

Both GPUs are at 99%, so GPU is bottleneck. However, 7700k had all threads at above 95%, whereas the 1700's 16 threads were nowehere near being maxed out. Removing the GPU bottleneck, by using a better GPU, should result in the 1700 getting better frame rates than the 7700k.

That game is extremely well coded for multi-threading, so no real surprise.

---------------------

I'm of the opinion that none of the people reviewing Ryzen have ever used a computer in a real world situation.
I'm going to post some results for 300*240 later, if such a resolution even exists. Would be as much use as a lot of the game reviews conducted so far.

----------------------

R7 1700 definitely looks the one to buy, though maybe in a few months.

 

[flash-gordon]

I don't believe in SMT bug, everything else is flying in multithreading. Even the power consumption is small on gaming, so the CPU isn't fully loaded.

I believe it's PCI-E related.

 

[Arachnotronic]

This looks really promising in the HPC and server world.

Ryzen is a stillborn in HPC, its lack of high perf AVX2 and soon big deficit by not having AVX3 makes it a nonstarter here.

 

[lolfail9001]

Welcome to the ITX club.

I am already in one, and considering that my 6400 ITX manages to run without mounted cooler (it literally placed atop a layer of MX-4), i am not even concerned about replacing it now with the Stilt's findings.

Will just wait for ITX boards and some manual on what temperature sensor to use because AMD are still full retard on this one.

 

[USER8000]

While I understand the sentiment, always remember:
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Its not the point,they should have simply delayed the launch by one month,and told reviewers about the SMT bug with games.

A French review website said they lost 10% performance in games with SMT switch on. Together with the lack of Windows drivers,they are leaving performance on the table and making their product look worse.

 

[coercitiv]

Or if you Creative Labs you just shrug your shoulders and tell your customers that they can suck it.

This wins the Internet today.

 

[USER8000]

Ryzen is a stillborn in HPC, its lack of high perf AVX2 and soon big deficit by not having AVX3 makes it a nonstarter here.

Not really relevant to HPC sadly since GPUs,etc are what most supercomputers will be using to offload floating point operations,and AMD is launching that mega APU thingy for HPC too.

Its why the Chinese are even using their own CPU designs in some of the fastest supercomputers out there. The problem is AVX is an Intel spec so realistically other companies have little interest in supporting an Intel standard which they can optimise the best for their own chips.

If it was that important Intel would be thrashing Nvidia in HPC - they are not.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

So even higher end Ryzen 7 can't beat out i5s? Yet costs more. Too bad, was hoping for some competition. I really wanted to see the "goldilocks" part in the 5-series, but with these results I don't have high hopes. Only way would be to undercut drastically on price I guess. But for something that I'll keep for 5 years I don't have a high priority on saving $50.

 

[PrivateCeralion]

I know nobody who use AVX 512. If you have a task like this, you should better use GPUs.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Its not the point,they should have simply delayed the launch by one month,and told reviewers about the SMT bug with games.

A French review website said they lost 10% performance in games with SMT switch on. Together with the lack of Windows drivers,they are leaving performance on the table and making their product look worse.

It may not necessarily be a bug. The reason SMT was said hard to do, especially in consumer applications where it can't be slower, is making it not slow in those applications that don't take advantage of the threads. The Pentium 4 had that issue, but they addressed that in Nehalem. Little implementation details only architects know probably makes that bit of difference.

 

[inf64]

https://www.servethehome.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-linux-benchmarks/
2670v1 is a SB 8C/16T 2.6Ghz base, 3.3Ghz turbo.

You understand that is dual socket setup Vs single Ryzen 1700X?

Here is the conclusion of that linux review, enjoy :

Final Words
From a pure performance perspective, the AMD Ryzen is more than just competitive, it is downright awesome. After having hands-on time at the AMD Tech Day, I hit publish on our Ryzen pre-order story then promptly did so for a personal system and a system for our DemoEval lab (ETA on that one late March 2017 as it has some benchmarks it will be running in the meantime.) In fact, I even pre-ordered a complete set of components for STH’s William Harmon since I thought he would love the platform. We are going to have full power numbers once we get them in our standard test beds and into the data center.

 

[antihelten]

Like usage of fast memory access. What a cheat!

Anyways, i will tease bjt2 with all due respect, because Zen looks to be clocked beyond it's efficiency curve on 1700x/1800x SKUs. Way beyond

As far as I can tell Ryzen 7 is generally as efficient as a 6900K if not more so, at least in the kind of HEDT applications that it was designed for.

Yes it falls behind the 7700K in low threaded workloads, but then again Ryzen 7 isn't really designed to compete with this chip, that would arguably be the job of Ryzen 5 or 3.

 

[tamz_msc]

Both GPUs are at 99%, so GPU is bottleneck. However, 7700k had all threads at above 95%, whereas the 1700's 16 threads were nowehere near being maxed out. Removing the GPU bottleneck, by using a better GPU, should result in the 1700 getting better frame rates than the 7700k.

That game is extremely well coded for multi-threading, so no real surprise.

---------------------

I'm of the opinion that none of the people reviewing Ryzen have ever used a computer in a real world situation.
I'm going to post some results for 300*240 later, if such a resolution even exists. Would be as much use as a lot of the game reviews conducted so far.

----------------------

R7 1700 definitely looks the one to buy, though maybe in a few months.

So you were talking about CPU utilization, while I was thinking of fps. My bad.

 

[krumme]

Look at that CPU load in BF1:

Max OC Ryzen R7-1700 @ 3.9GHz versus Max OC i7-7700K @ 5.0GHz

I just played bf1 mp 64 on 3ghz ryzen and its much faster than my prior i5 4.2ghz. Took away all the dips. 100% Clean.

 

[tential]

Well, seems the understanding of what Ryzen was going to be good at was completely missed. The level of discourse on here is almost as low as a general neogaf style gaming forum.

Can't believe how many posters here had pre-ordered this thing for gaming...

Honestly it feels like we're losing understanding of cpus and hardware.
I blame Anand tech not being prompt with review posts and that there are many users on the forum who it turns out don't actually read reviews on this site...

 

[USER8000]

It may not necessarily be a bug. The reason SMT was said hard to do, especially in consumer applications where it can't be slower, is making it not slow in those applications that don't take advantage of the threads. The Pentium 4 had that issue, but they addressed that in Nehalem. Little implementation details only architects know probably makes that bit of difference.

For all efforts and purposes it is a performance reducing bug. That French website with SMT disabled would place the R7 1800X at Core i7 4790K level in games,or 10% slower than a Core i7 6900K. I also think AMD foolishly launched this before proper Windows drivers,it means things like Windows power controls,or even proper scheduling patches for Ryzen won't be there.

AMD is to blame for rushing out another product when mere weeks might have helped.

As the Legitreviews comments said,AMD hopes to have the Ryzen 5 CPUs reviewed with the patches in place - but honestly AMD should have caught it beforehand.

 

[SPBHM]

a decent amount of gaming results in here for the 1800X
http://pclab.pl/art72996-13.html

it doesn't look very good for gaming given the price,
perhaps the 1700 OC can look better, specially with 3GHz ram?
in any case I'm a little disappointed so far, based on the results we've been getting the past month, from the perspective of it being an AMD CPU, successor to what they previously had it looks great obviously,
but the lack of options under $329 for now is the most disappointing thing...

for more typical MT stuff it does genuinely look good most of the time, but for gaming, even the more threaded ones, not quite there...

 

[french toast]

Thank god I woke up early enough to read 6 reviews and cancel my Amazon order. Saved me $1000. My 4.7ghz Sandy Bridge that is 6 years old still destroys Ryzen at games. On top of that all the fails depending on which mobo and ram you have purchased, possible software bugs, needing to disable parts of the chip, WTF? Well I am no Intel fanboi, I have owned most processors made by Amd and Intel over the last 20 years, but I sure as hell thought Ryzen would do better in games, or at least be able to overclock to 4.5ghz and then do better in games. Oh well, my next cpu upgrade still will be a 6 or 8 core cpu by either manufacturer once they are bug free, reasonably priced, AND CAN BEAT A 6 YEAR OLD CPU, LOL. EPIC FAIL. And I am not trolling, if you never play games and only do content creation AND are willing to deal with bugs and early adopter shit, then yeah, go ahead and build a Ryzen system.

did you see the r1700 vs 7700k gaming review? When both overclocked they are virtually matched at both 1080p and 1440p, whist ryzen crushes the i7 in almost every other metric, oh and its cheaper

Context is everything.

 

[MarkPost]

This isnt a CPU *for games*. Ryzen is a CPU dream for professional dudes. Rendering, encoding, etc.. its at 6900k level at the half of the price, and with much less power consumption. A great jump for AMD.

About OC, Im sure its a matter of BIOS immaturity. Yeah it will not be an OC champion of course, but Im sure 4.2 all cores estable will be reach as soon as BIOS goes to a good maturity stage

 

[tential]

If you were looking for a pure gaming cpu, ryzen 7 was not what you are to be looking at. I don't understand in what world people thought it would be an amazing cpu for primarily gaming but there was ZERO indication that this would be the case.

 

[tamz_msc]

Ryzen is a stillborn in HPC, its lack of high perf AVX2 and soon big deficit by not having AVX3 makes it a nonstarter here.

This is a non-issue, except for specific professionals. I can guarantee you that computational physicists don't know how to code for AVX most of the time, let alone grad students. This is my use case scenario, and Ryzen would sail through it due to its strong SIMD performance, even without the use of AVX.

 

[Doom2pro]

Thank god I woke up early enough to read 6 reviews and cancel my Amazon order. Saved me $1000. My 4.7ghz Sandy Bridge that is 6 years old still destroys Ryzen at games. On top of that all the fails depending on which mobo and ram you have purchased, possible software bugs, needing to disable parts of the chip, WTF? Well I am no Intel fanboi, I have owned most processors made by Amd and Intel over the last 20 years, but I sure as hell thought Ryzen would do better in games, or at least be able to overclock to 4.5ghz and then do better in games. Oh well, my next cpu upgrade still will be a 6 or 8 core cpu by either manufacturer once they are bug free, reasonably priced, AND CAN BEAT A 6 YEAR OLD CPU, LOL. EPIC FAIL. And I am not trolling, if you never play games and only do content creation AND are willing to deal with bugs and early adopter shit, then yeah, go ahead and build a Ryzen system.

You will feel pretty foolish when the RAM/BIOS/Microcode issues are hammered out because it's already known from the reviewer Joker that a 1700 (Non X even) OCed to 3.9 matches or beats a 7700K OCed to 5Ghz in all those games.

The bad gaming benchmarks are clearly due to new platform related issues.

 

[SPBHM]

If you were looking for a pure gaming cpu, ryzen 7 was not what you are to be looking at. I don't understand in what world people thought it would be an amazing cpu for primarily gaming but there was ZERO indication that this would be the case.

really? it looked like a greatly improved CPU in terms of cache speed, st performance, and more and more games are getting better threaded, it looked like a good candidate for gaming...

 

[IEC]

If you were looking for a pure gaming cpu, ryzen 7 was not what you are to be looking at. I don't understand in what world people thought it would be an amazing cpu for primarily gaming but there was ZERO indication that this would be the case.

Look about half a page up. krumme has a Ryzen R7 1700 system built already. There are games like Battlefield 1 where Ryzen is superior even to a i7-7700K. And that's with the buggy current state of mobo and BIOS support.