Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

[Whitestar127]

They have already overcome this with drivers on the gpu side, once derided and now celebrated as nvidias equal - if not better.

Really? Are they also quicker to deliver the drivers when a new game is released? (honest question, no sarcasm)

Last time I was on red GPU was with the Radeon 5970. I remember having to wait for updated drivers. nVidia handled that much better. If AMD has gotten their act together in this department then that's great.
(Ok, a bit off-topic)

 

[Veradun]

They released Mass Effect drivers today, date of early access.

Historically I can't remember any AMD driver cooking a GPU to death, while it happened at least once with nVidia. If I had to choose on drivers quality and support I would always go red.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Historically I can't remember any AMD driver cooking a GPU to death, while it happened at least once with nVidia. If I had to choose on drivers quality and support I would always go red.

If I'm honest I've experienced driver issues from both sides over the years and some were more severe than others. AMD installers have given me more general grief than NVidia's, however, only NVidia has managed to trash an Outlook install during a driver installation. I will go with whatever gives me the most performance for my money and for the past few years I've had to buy green.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

Re Nvidia GPUs and support for Ryzen:

Given that it seems that the Ryzen R7s are performing relatively worse with an Nvidia GPU than an AMD GPU, possibly due to driver support, wouldn't Nvidia be missing a golden opportunity to sell more of their higher end GPUs by not going out of their way to support Ryzen? The hypothesis being; less money spent on CPU equals more money to spend on GPU. Added to that would the likelihood of those Ryzen users going Vega if Nvidia chose to be anal.

I think that Nvidia would be making a strategic error by not supporting Ryzen sufficiently.

The only counter argument that I can think of would be that since Ryzen seems to scale well with faster memory, the CPU savings would be poured into faster DDR4.

Is it realistic for Nvidia to be anal over Ryzen support?

 

[lolfail9001]

In other words AMD does not seem to get a fair shake, people seem to be holding AMD products up to a different set of standards, AMD already offers astonishing value for money, offering more threads and chucking in a free cooler for often cheaper than intel, yet people are going to judge their entire offering on isolated reasons.
My comment was a sarcastic exaggeration to illuminate this point.

Astonishing value for money for whom? I mean, i do some development work so Ryzen fits right in for my purposes.
For someone who only games, is it an astonishing value compared to even Intel stuff at same price? We shall see when reviews hit.

 

[french toast]

Astonishing value for money for whom? I mean, i do some development work so Ryzen fits right in for my purposes.
For someone who only games, is it an astonishing value compared to even Intel stuff at same price? We shall see when reviews hit.

Look intel make exceptional processors, it is nigh om impossible for AMD to beat intels refined, polished and heavily funded flagship cpus in every area, just because it cant do that doesn't make it not great value for money.
Lets not pretend Ryzen is crap at gaming -its clearly not, its been demonstrated as being more than up to the task, with more performance to come either by game technology improving leveraging more threads, or by game engine/scheduler improvements making better use of ryzens new uarch and intricacy.
Yes core for core and clock for clock intel is faster in games, but not everything is games, ryzen excels in productivity and low power scenarios, AMD offers anywhere from 150%-300% of the threads for the same money whilst being within 15% of ST and gaming perf.

That constitutes great value for this jack of all trades cpu, i include gaming in that, do you honestly believe intels vaunted 7700k will be faster than either 1600x/1700 in 12-18months? I dont, bare in mind both of those are cheaper with a cheaper platforms and fully upgrade proof to at least 2019 7nm?

 

[Mopetar]

Astonishing value for money for whom? I mean, i do some development work so Ryzen fits right in for my purposes.
For someone who only games, is it an astonishing value compared to even Intel stuff at same price? We shall see when reviews hit.

Right now, the 7700k is a better value than the 1700, but if you were going to buy the 6/8 core Intel parts AMD offers far better value there. Also, it will be interesting to see how this evolves over time. I suspect that the additional cores on the 1700 will scale more over the next five years than the better IPC on the 7700k does, but that's not guaranteed.

The R5 chips are going to be a better buy than an i5 though. 12 threads as opposed to 4 is going to make a far bigger difference than a fast single core even in most titles today.

 

[french toast]

Really? Are they also quicker to deliver the drivers when a new game is released? (honest question, no sarcasm)

Last time I was on red GPU was with the Radeon 5970. I remember having to wait for updated drivers. nVidia handled that much better. If AMD has gotten their act together in this department then that's great.
(Ok, a bit off-topic)

Yes! Seems they have really caught up and in some cases overtaken nvidia, bare in mind some of this is because games are defacto optimised for gcn through consoles.
They also have an advantage through their future looking gcn uarch which was designed with a future api in mind, they then helped create that future by donating mantle and pushing vulcan/dx12.

But yes aside from that they have got their house in order for sure.

 

[french toast]

This would make a huge difference in sales. I wasn't joking when i said that sales for quads would be 2x if they would have done this right.
They lose a lot of money and mind share with what they did. They also came bellow expectations, again.
So yeah i am absolutely suggesting that if using the best dies for the top quad was what is needed , they should have done that. At 200$ that's not even a problem at all.
They focused on MT and ignored ST but consumers will not do that.
And it was so easy to get this right.


@ KompuKare
They don't need high clocks, all they needed was to list 4GHz for a SKU and stay 200-300MHz ahead of Intel in ST clocks at the price points bellow the top SKU.

Look i get what your saying but i think your going overboard here, 1500x will offer unbeatable value over any intel, maybe pentium beats it, but no i5 or i3.
Of course ST will be bellow intel, but 3.9ghz vs 4.2? Is not horrendous, and twice the threads will more than make up for it, are you suggesting nobody buy 6900k because its less ST than 7700k? Different markets granted but again different rules for amd it seems.

 

[lolfail9001]

Lets not pretend Ryzen is crap at gaming -its clearly not, its been demonstrated as being more than up to the task, with more performance to come either by game technology improving leveraging more threads, or by game engine/scheduler improvements making better use of ryzens new uarch and intricacy.

I don't pretend it is crap at gaming, but Ryzen uncore being iffy still have not gone anywhere, and asking developers to pretend that Ryzen is the only CPU on PC for handtuning is... weird to say the least.

but not everything is games

In that CPU market? It kind of is. Very few people think of productivity without owning enough money for R7 1700 or 7700k purchase.

That constitutes great value for this jack of all trades cpu, i include gaming in that, do you honestly believe intels vaunted 7700k will be faster than either 1600x/1700 in 12-18months? I dont, bare in mind both of those are cheaper with a cheaper platforms and fully upgrade proof to at least 2019 7nm?

Yes, because if AMD are not idiots, the main flaws with Zenver1 will be fixed in Pinnacle Ridge and Zenver1 will be forgotten as was original Phenom.

 

[french toast]

I don't pretend it is crap at gaming, but Ryzen uncore being iffy still have not gone anywhere, and asking developers to pretend that Ryzen is the only CPU on PC for handtuning is... weird to say the least.

In that CPU market? It kind of is. Very few people think of productivity without owning enough money for R7 1700 or 7700k purchase.

Yes, because if AMD are not idiots, the main flaws with Zenver1 will be fixed in Pinnacle Ridge and Zenver1 will be forgotten as was original Phenom.

In due respect i dont get what your trying to say here, your nitpicking.
In the applications that 8 cores are traditionally aimed at ryzels excels in 90%, for less than HALF the price of intel, hence why you bought one.
For gaming ryzen 8 core performs well if a little off the pace from intel, but acceptable, with more potential to get faster than intels trusty core uarch, ryzen clearly scales with memory as infinity fabric scales with it, in properly scheduled games like mafia ryzen does well, as others update they too will improve.

Besides the 250$ 1600x and the 189$ 1500x are aimed at gaming, lets wait to see how they perform then judge gaming value shall we?

 

[lolfail9001]

Besides the 250$ 1600x and the 189$ 1500x are aimed at gaming, lets wait to see how they perform then judge gaming value shall we?

That's kind of what i am saying, blanket statements of victory are a little preemptive.

 

[french toast]

That's kind of what i am saying, blanket statements of victory are a little preemptive.

I agree, different games and apps will run better on ryzen or core, just check your usage scenario and buy accordingly.

Honestly, both AMD and intel will have a range of products that compete on a level footing, excelling in different areas.
Intel has better per core perf, amd simply offers twice the cores.

 

[Rifter]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11202/amd-announces-ryzen-5-april-11th

The 4 core is 2+2... 2 cores per CCX. But 16MB cache on the 1500X. Still.. this is pretty bad news.
The 4 core is going to be worse gaming performance than disabling a CCX on a 1700...

That's really freaking stupid.

Wow seriously? well there goes my plan to get a 4 core as a stopgap. 1700 here i come!

 

[innociv]

A 1700 with 1 CCX disabled as a 4+0 is going to be better in 99%+ of games than any 2+2 or even 3+3.
That really ticks me off. I don't want to spend more than I need to for twice the cores over a 1400 or 1500X just to have to disable cores and restart my computer to get the most out of some games and the performance that the Ryzen 4 cores SHOULD have.
You're talking an average 20% difference between 2+2 and 4+0 in games, when 4+0 is already going to be 10-20% behind the 7700k.

No, I didn't expect a 50% better CPU for half the price, but I'd have hoped for a 4c/8t that's 50-65% the cost of a 7700k and 80-90% the performance. Which is what a 1700 with 1 CCX disabled would have been.

Yes AMD needs to "maximize yields" so what are they doing to CPUs with 3 cores defective on one side, but all 4 cores fine on the other?

They needed to release a 4+0 part in the R5 series to truly compete.
The 1600X and 1500X both don't compete. They'll both be slower in many games than a 6 year old i5-2500 or the 2c/4t i3-7350K because of the CCX issue that virtually no game accounts for.

Hell I'd have been happy to pay $200+ for a 4c/8t that's actually 4 cores on one CCX without that CCX issue. I don't want to wait/hope that the issue is fixed in Windows scheduler and game patches for years old games.
Even at 3.5/3.9ghz and its lower IPC, it still probably would have been faster than the i5-7600k in most games thanks to SMT. But no, we get 2+2s that'll be worse than an Intel 2 core in gaming.

I'd bet thousands of dollars that the average performance for the 1500X is going to be worse than the i3-7350K across any decent average selection of games that reviewers commonly use, if there was any legit betting pool going on. That's how bad this is.
It's not just bad, it's sad. So sad and stupid that AMD didn't prioritize salvaging 4+0 cores and just sold the 2+2 to OEMs or something.

I'm guessing that the number of naturally defective chips where SMT doesn't work on either CCX is so low that those are just being tossed because there aren't enough chips to have a product category and there's no point in artificially gimping functional parts that can be sold at a higher cost, where they're probably guaranteed to sell as Intel hasn't cut prices yet. The R5 chips are going to stack up quite well against the i5 chips given they're capable of three times as many threads.

... or they're being sold as cheaper R3s later this year?

 

[Mopetar]

... or they're being sold as cheaper R3s later this year?

I don't think they come out with a 4C/4T R3 part at any point. As I already said it's pretty unlikely that you end up with SMT being defective on both CCXs and not have something else wrong with it that makes it useless. If you saved them for a long time, you might end up with a few thousand such chips, but it's probably not worth creating a separate product category for them when they would have to be sold at incredibly low costs. By the time you'd have enough to push into the channel, APUs with better characteristics will be available so you'd have to sell these for even less money.

Some chips just end up in the rubbish bin. I suspect that a hypothetical 4C/4T R3 is one of those chips.

 

[french toast]

A 1700 with 1 CCX disabled as a 4+0 is going to be better in 99%+ of games than any 2+2 or even 3+3.
That really ticks me off. I don't want to spend more than I need to for twice the cores over a 1400 or 1500X just to have to disable cores and restart my computer to get the most out of some games and the performance that the Ryzen 4 cores SHOULD have.
You're talking an average 20% difference between 2+2 and 4+0 in games, when 4+0 is already going to be 10-20% behind the 7700k.

No, I didn't expect a 50% better CPU for half the price, but I'd have hoped for a 4c/8t that's 50-65% the cost of a 7700k and 80-90% the performance. Which is what a 1700 with 1 CCX disabled would have been.

Yes AMD needs to "maximize yields" so what are they doing to CPUs with 3 cores defective on one side, but all 4 cores fine on the other?

They needed to release a 4+0 part in the R5 series to truly compete.
The 1600X and 1500X both don't compete. They'll both be slower in many games than a 6 year old i5-2500 or the 2c/4t i3-7350K because of the CCX issue that virtually no game accounts for.

Hell I'd have been happy to pay $200+ for a 4c/8t that's actually 4 cores on one CCX without that CCX issue. I don't want to wait/hope that the issue is fixed in Windows scheduler and game patches for years old games.
Even at 3.5/3.9ghz and its lower IPC, it still probably would have been faster than the i5-7600k in most games thanks to SMT. But no, we get 2+2s that'll be worse than an Intel 2 core in gaming.

I'd bet thousands of dollars that the average performance for the 1500X is going to be worse than the i3-7350K across any decent average selection of games that reviewers commonly use, if there was any legit betting pool going on. That's how bad this is.
It's not just bad, it's sad. So sad and stupid that AMD didn't prioritize salvaging 4+0 cores and just sold the 2+2 to OEMs or something.


... or they're being sold as cheaper R3s later this year?

Bloody hell, well thats it then, AMD is doomed.
In what planet do you think a 6 year old i5 is going to beat a 1500x? Not one ive ever heard of.

 

[Headfoot]

They focused on MT and ignored ST but consumers will not do that.

In what world is a 52% increase in single thread IPC "ignoring ST?"

 

[Malogeek]

If I set my BIOS to 4 cores instead of 8, is that 4+0 or 2+2? Do we know whether these chips can run with a whole CCX disabled? I can understand a completely different chip made with only 1 CCX but these R5's are salvage R7's.

 

[tamz_msc]

If I set my BIOS to 4 cores instead of 8, is that 4+0 or 2+2? Do we know whether these chips can run with a whole CCX disabled? I can understand a completely different chip made with only 1 CCX but these R5's are salvage R7's.

You can choose the configuration in the BIOS. At least some boards allow it.

 

[otinane]

Aren't those results amazing for a desktop CPU?

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Ryzen-7-1800X-OPM

 

[imported_jjj]

In what world is a 52% increase in single thread IPC "ignoring ST?"

You took my quote out of context to find something to be angry about?
I was talking about their quad cores and how those compare to Intel's offering in the same price range.

 

[lolfail9001]

Aren't those results amazing for a desktop CPU?

Considering that 5960X is a 3 year old desktop processor, they are pretty underwhelming.

 

[Malogeek]

You can choose the configuration in the BIOS. At least some boards allow it.

Ah ok, my BIOS just gives me the option of 2, 4 or 6 cores instead of full.

 

[zinfamous]

Considering that 5960X is a 3 year old desktop processor, they are pretty underwhelming.

...at less than half the cost of the 3 year-old processor that AMD was never supposed to compete with up to about 4 months ago.