Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

[Atari2600]

Show me a few games where Ryzen 7 1800X was trailing the Core i7-6900K, but after some updates/optimizations run as well on Ryzen 7 1800X as on the Core i7-6900K.

From this and your previous - can I interpret that you believe the 6900K performs below average to poorly in games?

 

[Trender]

Im so confused right now, I only change CPU each several years and atm im running an Intel Core i5-760 OC, Its mainly for gaming but I don't really know if go for the i7-7700K or R7 1700, and I see the i7s just beating it aside the benchmarks cinebench and stuff, I do want to buy AMD because I don't want to support Intel scummy moves, but Im scared of another FX scenario

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Im so confused right now, I only change CPU each several years and atm im running an Intel Core i5-760 OC, Its mainly for gaming but I don't really know if go for the i7-7700K or R7 1700, I do want to buy AMD because I don't want to support Intel scummy moves, but Im scared of another FX scenario

1700 is a far better long term investment imo.

 

[looncraz]

Im so confused right now, I only change CPU each several years and atm im running an Intel Core i5-760 OC, Its mainly for gaming but I don't really know if go for the i7-7700K or R7 1700, I do want to buy AMD because I don't want to support Intel scummy moves, but Im scared of another FX scenario

Then buy AMD. It will blow your i5-760 out of the water - just like it blows my Sandy Bridge out of the water in most cases - despite its 4.5Ghz overclock.

Here, a more thorough look at the 7700k vs R7 1700.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1851?vs=1826

 

[Trender]

1700 is a far better long term investment imo.

But people said that with the FX-8XXX I guess and its been since 2012 and 8 Cores still get beaten

 

[Trender]

Then buy AMD. It will blow your i5-760 out of the water - just like it blows my Sandy Bridge out of the water in most cases - despite its 4.5Ghz overclock.

You think I'll reach 4 GHz with the stock Wraith cooler(its 95W tdp I think) ? I just really like it lol

EDIT:

Sorry I did a double-post!

 

[Mechanical Man]

New architecture vs old should have the new showing the greatest performance in every way. Granted Ryzen is far better than its predecessors but it still lags Intel in most cases. When 4 Ryzen cores are pitted against an equal amount of Haswell or Skylake cores at the same clocks it loses which should not be the case for a superior performing chip. While I am happy that AMD has made a tremendous improvement to their CPU its still not the jump I was led to believe it was based upon their hype. I'm hoping to see additional improvements to it as time goes on that will increase L1 cache performance, raise throughput and IPC to match or beat Intel.

AMD never gave any indication it could compete with kabylake ipc or clockwise. Its totally on you not looking what AMD had shown. They did show cpu that is on par with Broadwell-e. That they delivered. It was also known, it will lose on AVX based stuff, that was not surprise. They do have that odd thing going on with games, but other ipc tests show it performing 3% (Stilts tests) faster than haswell ipc wise, when avx is removed from picture (again, it was known it will lose on avx). I expect most of the gaming problems go away in few months, there already is some knowledge about possible problems. Having game think its not SMT processor but real 16c processor is one. Then there is this CCX<->CCX penalty and OS scheduler not knowing it.

 

[french toast]

Im so confused right now, I only change CPU each several years and atm im running an Intel Core i5-760 OC, Its mainly for gaming but I don't really know if go for the i7-7700K or R7 1700, I do want to buy AMD because I don't want to support Intel scummy moves, but Im scared of another FX scenario

depends on what your usage is, if you like to play 120fps 1080p gaming and not much else id go 7700k.
However if you do some gaming and lots of productivity or even 4k gaming/streaming id go ryzen 1700.
Its also cheaper in most places.

 

[looncraz]

You think I'll reach 4 GHz with the stock Wraith cooler(its 95W tdp I think) ? I just really like it lol

Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on anything at all above stock. Assume stock and anything else is just gravy.

At stock, the R7 1700 blasts your setup into oblivion.

 

[sirmo]

THANK YOU!

Ryzen 1700 performs like a 2600k @ 4.5Ghz in games... DOOM AND GLOOM!

Oh, wait, that 1700 is only running 3.0~3.7Ghz?!?

Holy sh...

Wait - there are patches coming to make it even better?

...

On a side note: I'm buying a Fury to test with Ryzen - I'm more interested in the driver behavior compared to nVidia driver behavior.. my RX 480 will be another data point, but I need to be able to eclipse its performance for testing - which the Fury can handily do (while using much more power, naturally).

Then I'll have to figure out what to do with one of those cards

Yeah I don't think I've seen a single review of Ryzen paired up with an AMD GPU.. which is pretty odd.

 

[Mockingbird]

From this and your previous - can I interpret that you believe the 6900K performs below average to poorly in games?

I never said or implied that.

With the way AMD has been hyping the Ryzen 7 1800X to be the competitor to the Core i7-6900K, I had expected the Ryzen 7 1800X to be able to perform as well (or almost as well) as the Core i7-6900K across the board and that include both lightly threaded games and heavily threaded games.

Obviously, that has not been the case.

Since AMD's explanation is that games haven't optimize for Ryzen yet, I want to see games perform just as well (or almost as well) on the Ryzen 7 1800X as on the Core i7-6900K after the games has been optimized for the former.

In other words: show me something that I can believe in!

 

[Puffnstuff]

AMD never gave any indication it could compete with kabylake ipc or clockwise.

Where do you see the words kabylake in my post that you quoted? AMD didn't deliver what they were hyping not only to their investors but to their potential buyers and it cost them all the way around. I wanted Ryzen to dominate all Intel offerings but I cannot make up excuses for their obvious shortcomings that must be addressed quickly to maintain product momentum.

 

[Mechanical Man]

Where do you see the words kabylake in my post that you quoted? AMD didn't deliver what they were hyping not only to their investors but to their potential buyers and it cost them all the way around. I wanted Ryzen to dominate all Intel offerings but I cannot make up excuses for their obvious shortcomings that must be addressed quickly to maintain product momentum.

Im saying u did not see what AMD showed. They delivered just what they did show. Its in your own head if u thought otherwise. See, you say it urself:

I wanted Ryzen to dominate all Intel offerings

It something you wanted. not what AMD had shown. They never ever promised anything else than to be competitive again, that is what they delivered. Naturally there is still problems with new platform, that has been the case with intel many many times too. Its nothing new. Actually, they over delivered with 50%+ ipc gain instead of 40% ipc gain.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

But people said that with the FX-8XXX I guess and its been since 2012 and 8 Cores still get beaten

Well, those people were wrong. But I was not one of those people.

Despite what you might see with the clickbait headline and reviews, Ryzen's gaming performance is good right now. And there are plenty of real, not hypothetical, improvements that are just around the corner. It's not like faildozer where we had to hope game developers start to code games differently. The games are already sufficiently multithreaded for ryzen to perform well. Over time multithreading will improve further, but you don't need to rely on that.

 

[Mechanical Man]

Well, those people were wrong, lol. But I was not one of those people.

Despite what you might see with the clickbait headline and reviews, Ryzen's gaming performance is good right now. And there are plenty of real, not hypothetical, improvements that are just around the corner. It's not like faildozer where we had to hope game developers start to code games differently. The games are already sufficiently multithreaded for ryzen to perform well. Over time multithreading will improve further, but you don't need to rely on that.

Yeah, 8 core usability 7 years ago is different story to this day. Now we already have lots of games that do thread well, consoles having 8 core cpus drive some of the games to use more than 4 threads. It is the trend to utilize more and more threads for few years ago, it just takes time, but the train did leave the station in that regard, now its just accelerating.

If FX would have been any good, it could have been the story already, but it was just failure. And to be honest it was 4C/8T cpu to begin with.

 

[agouraki]

But people said that with the FX-8XXX I guess and its been since 2012 and 8 Cores still get beaten

the difference is that FX-8XXX where loosing badly on most benchmarks by 4core/8thread chips back then caus they lacked an fpu unit per 2 cores and their l2/l3 caches where much slower,bad IPC(they had worse IPC than phenom!!!).

now its different ,ryzen seem to have the raw power to go against intel in games but they lack the software optimizations to do it.

also 5years later FX's still going strong for the buck,but ultimetaly they must be the worst cpu to buy at the moment for a new pc for gaming,better wait for R3/R5

 

[Dresdenboy]

- Very nice summary, thanks . So consensus is that Ryzens achilles heel is 1. clocks and power and 2. memory and cache latencies.

I think w/o memory or SMT problems (if these are the true reasons and not for example thread hopping between CCX, Win scheduler, Nvidia driver code optimized for Intel) clocks wouldn't actually be a problem. Power is higher than expected, but is not the reason for missing performance.

Cache latencies measured with AIDA are wrong (off by > 100% for L2/L3) and need to be tested with updated software. This also casts doubt on the mem B/W and lat results, even if it looks similar to a previous gen arch. As long as mem latencies change significantly with CPU multiplier there might still be a problem with calculating actual times from core clocks.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

83xx are actually outperforming i5's in some games now.

 

[imported_jjj]

Im so confused right now, I only change CPU each several years and atm im running an Intel Core i5-760 OC, Its mainly for gaming but I don't really know if go for the i7-7700K or R7 1700, and I see the i7s just beating it aside the benchmarks cinebench and stuff, I do want to buy AMD because I don't want to support Intel scummy moves, but Im scared of another FX scenario

Feels like someone needs to point out that there are also the 7600k and AMD's soon to arrive 4 an 6 cores.
This is not that FX scenario, AMD had poor perf and power.Now they have a decent core and nice power consumption.
Anyway, take your time to better understand the options and for better Ryzen reviews and decide when you are confident that you know what you are doing and the purchase meets your needs.

 

[Trender]

Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on anything at all above stock. Assume stock and anything else is just gravy.

At stock, the R7 1700 blasts your setup into oblivion.

also which mobo would u get between the MSI Tomahawk, ASUS Prime Plus or Gigabyte B350 gaming(althought this one is more expensive, idc about leds). I was going for the ASUS because looks more aged in the mobo market, but looks like they have problems with BIOS and I fear getting underperformed on leaved bios cos they dont update it. tbh I think Ill get the Ryzen looking at future-proof, my i5 lasted me AGES lol

 

[frewster]

Where do you see the words kabylake in my post that you quoted? AMD didn't deliver what they were hyping not only to their investors but to their potential buyers and it cost them all the way around. I wanted Ryzen to dominate all Intel offerings but I cannot make up excuses for their obvious shortcomings that must be addressed quickly to maintain product momentum.

Hold up. Where did AMD ever say they would beat kabylake in single threaded performance? They promised a 52% IPC increase. Guess what? Kabylake is clocked significantly higher than Ryzen. This kind of thinking that a lower clocked part (3.6-4GHz) with similar IPC should perform just as well as kabylake at 4.0-4.5GHz in single threaded applications is lunacy. What next? Clock speed doesn't matter? A 7700K at 3.6GHz should disappoint you in performance compared with a 7700K at 4GHz? This makes zero sense.

 

[USER8000]

Are some of you really thinking have a Core i5 means suddenly your games will be unplayable next year?? This is getting as silly as those people who bleat on how every game needs a Core i7 7700K at 5GHZ due to MOAR single core performance and how suddenly your 4GHZ Haswell Core i5 is junk in all games.

Come on - just look on Steam,most people are running two to four cores under 3.5GHZ and running cards which are a GTX970 or slower at 1920X1080. Ryzen 7 starts at £320,which is not cheap for most gamers out there,and that is why the most of the top 10 graphics cards on Steam are under £300.

Consoles use low power CPUs,so they make up for the lack of single core performance by using more cores. Most gamers are still going to be fine,since the games which are truly poorly optimised use one core excessively and the rest will still give you a good enough experience if made to actually use at least four cores. It is quite possible an eight core Ryzen chip will last longer than a Core i7 7700K,but even a Core i7 7700K is a CPU only owned by a relatively small number of gamers.

Once you get to a decent enough CPU,you tend to GPU limited anyway unless you really have a big budget for graphics cards,and the titles which hog CPU performance tend to be ones based on old engines which would probably love a single core at 10GHZ with double the IPC of Skylake.

 

[agouraki]

also which mobo would u get between the MSI Tomahawk, ASUS Prime Plus or Gigabyte B350 gaming(althought this one is more expensive, idc about leds). I was going for the ASUS because looks more aged in the mobo market, but looks like they have problems with BIOS and I fear getting underperformed on leaved bios cos they dont update it. tbh I think Ill get the Ryzen looking at future-proof, my i5 lasted me AGES lol

i wouldnt go for msi or asus,the least complains i read was with gigabyte aurus from reviewers that got it dunnoa bout asrock and bioware? lol i dont remember that brand.

msi tomahawk https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5xi50a/my_complaints_with_the_msi_b350_tomahawk/
asus https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5xijwk/asus_rog_crosshair_hero_vi_x370_users_need_a/

 

[starheap]

Anyone have any idea as to why the 960 evo is performing so terribly with writes on ryzen? I have a Gigabyte Gaming 5 board and i've installed the chipset drivers.
http://imgur.com/a/L23rN

 

[USER8000]

I never said or implied that.

With the way AMD has been hyping the Ryzen 7 1800X to be the competitor to the Core i7-6900K, I had expected the Ryzen 7 1800X to be able to perform as well (or almost as well) as the Core i7-6900K across the board and that include both lightly threaded games and heavily threaded games.

Obviously, that has not been the case.

Since AMD's explanation is that games haven't optimize for Ryzen yet, I want to see games perform just as well (or almost as well) on the Ryzen 7 1800X as on the Core i7-6900K after the games has been optimized for the former.

In other words: show me something that I can believe in!

The problem here is AMD is to blame - they compared the Core i7 6900K and Ryzen 7 1800X together in games several times. If they had not done that,then nobody would have had that much of an expectation,and would be happy it got close enough.