Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

[PhonakV30]

Everything seems to be quite different for RyZen, depending on where you look...

yeah for example here :http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Ryzen-7-1800X-CPU-265804/Tests/Test-Review-1222033/

strong score for multithread app but strange result for game yet other reviewers show another scores.Lol

 

[lolfail9001]

By 50%!? Not a chance...

Novigrad against some wasteland (or whatever there is in TW3).

 

[flopper]

Logical assumption: most of stuff he did was hardly reproduced perfectly, so his margins of error are way larger than the rest. Also, he was most likely GPU bottlenecked in the first place, so his tests tell us nothing of CPU performance.

Just told us what gaming and Ryzen does together.
seems to me cpu performance is just fine then.

 

[beginner99]

LMAO,has anyone noticed these comments from Legitreviews:

http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-and-1700-processor-review_191753/15


So you launch a CPU with:
1.)SMT issues in games which you keep quiet about which reduce gaming performance
2.)Launch the CPU one month before windows drivers
3.)Launch with motherboards which just about have stable BIOSes

A great way to sell your product,AMD. Such an own goal.

Typical AMD launch. What did you expect?

They released the last couple generations of GPUs too early and only weeks later getting 10% more performance but almost no one will re-bench and hence your product is tainted for it's lifetime. One would think they should have learned the lesson, but it's even worse this time. in fact we know as much as we did before the NDA end. No clue if it will be good vs 7700k for gaming.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I

Gaming performance is crap for the same reason the google octane score is crap. This is why I been ranting for months... "where is the google octane score?" Now we see that it is garbage. Gaming performance is going to be garbage. Nothing changes. i5-7600k vastly and dramatically destroys all of these ryzen SKUs. Intel has no reason to change anything.

It was obvious from the benchmarks showed by AMD themselves in obviously best case scenario that gaming was not the strongest feature. Perhaps that will change with maturation of the platform though.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

Logical assumption: most of stuff he did was hardly reproduced perfectly, so his margins of error are way larger than the rest. Also, he was most likely GPU bottlenecked in the first place, so his tests tell us nothing of CPU performance.

Actually, it tells us that in realistic scenarios there is little or no difference between R7 1700 and 7700k in gaming, once OCed. People don't game at the ridiculously low resolutions needed to stop the GPU being the bottleneck. It also showed us that the 7700k was at almost 100% CPU utilisation on all cores, whereas the R7 1700 was nowhere near being fully utilised.
In that game, at realistic resolutions, on ultra settings, they both do the job.

Let us not forget that no-one at all is recommending that someone with a 7700k trade it for the R7 1700; shoot, they'd have only just have bought it. The big question for gamers, IMO, is whether the 7700k is a viable upgrade to their existing system given that the upgrade path beyond that is non-existent without a new MOBO too. AM4 socket will be around in a few years time, with new and improved CPUs to go with it.

There's no point in comparing something on one metric when that metric doesn't take into account future upgrade paths.

 

[coercitiv]

A lucky result is an outlier, not a true indication, imo.

It's not the only outlier.

Take a look at the two results bellow - and for start ignore the Zen numbers: sure they benchmark differently, but it's really strange to see how Core i5 and Core i7 results do not correlate between the two runs (Core i5 is weaker in PCPer than it is in guru3D, Core i7 is stronger in PCPer than guru3D) which indicates the bench of guru3D was both harder and lighter on the CPU at the same time )

Interesting variation in performance:

 

[LTC8K6]

Actually, it tells us that in realistic scenarios there is little or no difference between R7 1700 and 7700k in gaming, once OCed. People don't game at the ridiculously low resolutions needed to stop the GPU being the bottleneck. It also showed us that the 7000k was at almost 100% CPU utilisation on all cores, whereas the R7 1700 was nowhere near being fully utilised.
In that game, at realistic resolutions, on ultra settings, they both do the job.

Let us not forget that no-one at all is recommending that someone with a 7700k trade it for the R7 1700; shoot, they'd have only just have bought it. The big question for gamers, IMO, is whether the 7700k is a viable upgrade to their existing system given that the upgrade path beyond that is non-existent without a new MOBO too. AM4 socket will be around in a few years time, with new and improved CPUs to go with it.

There's no point in comparing something on one metric when that metric doesn't take into account future upgrade paths.

I wouldn't go that far off of one site's benches, though.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Novigrad against some wasteland (or whatever there is in TW3).

Everyone tests TW3 inside the city. And I doubt it would make a 70 FPS (50%) difference either way.

 

[lolfail9001]

Actually, it tells us that in realistic scenarios there is little or no difference between R7 1700 and 7700k in gaming, once OCed.

Yes, you can interpret it this way too, assuming that you only ever stuff at Ultra settings. By the way, 1440p on medium is probably heavier on CPU than 1080p Ultra. But just saying.

Everyone tests TW3 inside the city.

In which case results for **none** of the CPUs make sense.

 

[Atari2600]

No clue if it will be good vs 7700k for gaming.

Yes we do. It'll be good vs. the 7700K for gaming.

Will it be better? Only if the game scales to >4c.

But, for average person on 1080 (or better) screen, its good.

 

[Doom2pro]

der8auer at it again:
http://hwbot.org/submission/3473875_der8auer_cpu_frequency_ryzen_7_1800x_5802.93_mhz

Nice but he derped with the old CPU-Z which shows incorrect voltage.

 

[Teizo]

Besides the clockspeed, is there any other physical difference between 1700, 1700X, and 1800X? I might just grab 1700 to mess around with.

I don't think so. They appear to be the same. It's just with the 1700 you may get a dud that only goes to max 3.7ghz on one core and may do less with SMT. I need to see more reviews to compare, but the 1700 is the 1700X and 1800X slayer. Looks like AMD may have cut their own throats lol.

-edit-

But, if you are an extreme overclocker then you undoubtedly want to get the 1800X...but the choice between the 1700 and 1700X for everyone else....I'm not so sure the extra $70 bucks is warranted. That said...I'd probably get the 1700X anyway just because reasons...

 

[unseenmorbidity]

LMAO,has anyone noticed these comments from Legitreviews:

http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-and-1700-processor-review_191753/15





So you launch a CPU with:
1.)SMT issues in games which you keep quiet about which reduce gaming performance
2.)Launch the CPU one month before windows drivers
3.)Launch with motherboards which just about have stable BIOSes

A great way to sell your product,AMD. Such an own goal.

That is spot on... lol Though I question #3. I don't think they are even remotely stable!

 

[IEC]

Do we have any other forum members with retail Ryzen outside of krumme and The Stilt?

 

[french toast]

How did Joker get a 1700 at 3.9 to beat an 1800X at 4.0?

That seems to be the problem with Joker.

Has it been addressed? And has anyone else gotten the same results as Joker?

A lucky result is an outlier, not a true indication, imo.

totally agree here, we need to see more comparisons.

 

[tential]

LMAO,has anyone noticed these comments from Legitreviews:

http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-and-1700-processor-review_191753/15





So you launch a CPU with:
1.)SMT issues in games which you keep quiet about which reduce gaming performance
2.)Launch the CPU one month before windows drivers
3.)Launch with motherboards which just about have stable BIOSes

A great way to sell your product,AMD. Such an own goal.

But this is still better put together than other amd launches so that says something. From an investor standpoint my confidence in amd as a company has grown.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

Does one buy a GTX 1080 just to run games on medium settings?

 

[lefty2]

Has any site run compiler benchmarks on the Ryzen yet?

 

[LTC8K6]

It's not the only outlier.

Take a look at the two results bellow - and for start ignore the Zen numbers: sure they benchmark differently, but it's really strange to see how Core i5 and Core i7 results do not correlate between the two runs (Core i5 is weaker in PCPer than it is in guru3D, Core i7 is stronger in PCPer than guru3D) which indicates the bench of guru3D was both harder and lighter on the CPU at the same time )

I didn't characterize it as an outlier. I said if it was luck, then it was an outlier, and not representative.

If I buy a 7700k that gets to 5.1 with a BXTS15 cooler, that's lucky for me, but my benches are not representative.

 

[.vodka]

What is up with the benchmarks all over the place? Joker for example has R7 1700 matching up to a 5GHz 7700k in gaming performance but than his 1800X is struggling to match a 7350k in some games. BIOs issues?

New BIOSes every day for the past week happened, each one with a different performance profile tweaking things here and there. Some reviewers redid their tests, some didn't and published what they had. Platform is as fresh and green as it could be. It's unfinished. Raw performance is there, which is good. Meets my expectations so far and then some, and puts AMD back in the game.

It's doing quite quite well with software that's been tailored exclusively for Intel architectures for the past 5 years, as you know, bulldozer piledrived, steamrolled and excavated itself into irrelevancy.


When the six core models launch in Q2, well, you can be pretty sure all reviews will be MUCH more consistent.

LMAO,has anyone noticed these comments from Legitreviews:

http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-and-1700-processor-review_191753/15
So you launch a CPU with:
1.)SMT issues in games which you keep quiet about which reduce gaming performance
2.)Launch the CPU one month before windows drivers
3.)Launch with motherboards which just about have stable BIOSes

A great way to sell your product,AMD. Such an own goal.

I don't think they could've taken more time to do this right, they were actually running out of time... At least it's out of the gate. Limping, but it is.


I'll check out how the R7 1700 does mid year @ 3.8-4GHz with a dozen BIOS and microcode updates putting things right. Maybe even go down to the R5 1600x and then upgrade to Zen 2 when it's available

 

[Teizo]

How did Joker get a 1700 at 3.9 to beat an 1800X at 4.0?

That seems to be the problem with Joker.

Has it been addressed? And has anyone else gotten the same results as Joker?

A lucky result is an outlier, not a true indication, imo.

I would definitely trust GamersNexus's results more than Joker Productions as GN showed the clear gaming leader was the 7700K in all situations over the 1800X (that is not because I own a 7700K...just GN is more well respected in regards to testing methodology). However, GN's 1700 review is due out tomorrow I think so we will no more then as the results may be different (I don't know why they would but who knows).

 

[lolfail9001]

Has any site run compiler benchmarks on the Ryzen yet?

Few did, it performs well in those.

 

[lefty2]

Few did, it performs well in those.

Which ones?

 

[LTC8K6]

Would reviewers notice throttling with RyZen?

Just trying to come up with a reason for score variability...