Ryzen-A Fail for Gamers?

[Glo.]

What serious gamer game on 1080p??

I play at 1440x900, and with next computer will switch to 1920x1080p Freesync.

Guys, use your logic. CPU that does extremely well in scientific and professional worload will be bad in gaming? What is a reason for this? Maybe its the Software, not hardware?

See the difference between software and hardware bottlenecks, please.

 

[JimmiG]

Seeing all the inconsistency in its gaming performance, I'd wait a month before I evaluated whether it is a fail for gamers or not.

To be honest though, while it may have been marketed as AMD's highest end desktop processor, I don't think gamers are the target market. I think this is a better chip for workstations than it is gaming machines. Gamers would probably be better off buying a 6C or even 4C Ryzen and spending the extra cash on a better motherboard or GPU.

It's definitely not a gaming processor primarily, which is why I find the marketing a bit strange. All the motherboards have the word "Gamer" or related words in their product names, and are filled with LEDs and awkwardly shaped heatsinks everywhere (I hear this makes games go faster. Or maybe it just makes 14-year olds want to spend more of their parents' money to get all the blinking lights). Basically they look like the computer equivalent of ricers.

But I suppose gamers are a much larger target audience than content creators, developers and others who would benefit from HEDT. During the Ryzen reveal, Lisa Su started by talking about how great the processor is for gamers, then she kind of mentioned content creators as an afterthought.

 

[nathanddrews]

A more accurate, but still hyperbolic, statement may be:

"Ryzen 7 is a fail for a 1080p and 120fps+ gamers that don't use other multithreaded applications day to day."

To say that Ryzen is a fail for all gamers, as a generation of CPUs, is definitely not accurate. We haven't yet seen Ryzen 5 or Ryzen 3, which will have fewer cores than Ryzen 7, but likely higher clocks or higher OC potential. Remember, this is just the tip (just for a second, just to see how it feels), AMD has not fully penetrated the market yet. The Ryzen 7 is to the 6900K what Ryzen 5 will be to the 7700K. God save the Pentiums.

 

[Xenochus]

A couple posters have raised the 1440p argument saying the 1800X performs better and implies it justifies its place there. Problem is, on all of the existing 1440p bench reviews available (admittedly uncommon currently), the 7700K still visibly outclasses the 1800X while being $200 cheaper. So implying the 1800X isn't a "fail" at 1440p doesn't hold water either.

Granted, barely any review outlets bothered to test at 4K resolutions. Maybe that's the saving grace for gaming with the 1800X?

 

[Puffnstuff]

I love the selective benchmarks from the fanboys. Most objective reviewers are seeing the same results from Ryzen in the gaming department which are consistently lower than what Intel offerings produce. If any joe blow reviewer tossed a Ryzen into a test bed and produced consistent results we'd all be ecstatic for it but that is not the case. There's too much variation between cpu's of the same grade and the motherboards which are not ready for prime time.

I'm glad that AMD was able to make improvements to their products but they still aren't enough against the superior Intel offerings. They should've never compared themselves to the best Intel offerings using gaming performance during the prerelease phase which is what increased interest in them in the first place only to find out that they cannot hold their own in the real world with real people using them. I've never used LNG and never will nor will most regular enthusiasts so get real. AMD really pushed their silicon with this release which is obviously running at its limits to try to close the performance gap up as much as possible. Maybe in a couple of step revisions this will improve but so will Intel's silicon. The question is how long will it be before Intel releases something that will dramatically increase performance and send AMD back to their drawing boards? If AMD released a 16 core version of this chip for gaming that could make good use of all cores then we'd really have something here that could command a premium for its performance.

 

[Mockingbird]

I love the selective benchmarks from the fanboys. Most objective reviewers are seeing the same results from Ryzen in the gaming department which are consistently lower than what Intel offerings produce. If any joe blow reviewer tossed a Ryzen into a test bed and produced consistent results we'd all be ecstatic for it but that is not the case. There's too much variation between cpu's of the same grade and the motherboards which are not ready for prime time.

I'm glad that AMD was able to make improvements to their products but they still aren't enough against the superior Intel offerings. They should've never compared themselves to the best Intel offerings using gaming performance during the prerelease phase which is what increased interest in them in the first place only to find out that they cannot hold their own in the real world with real people using them. I've never used LNG and never will nor will most regular enthusiasts so get real. AMD really pushed their silicon with this release which is obviously running at its limits to try to close the performance gap up as much as possible. Maybe in a couple of step revisions this will improve but so will Intel's silicon. The question is how long will it be before Intel releases something that will dramatically increase performance and send AMD back to their drawing boards? If AMD released a 16 core version of this chip for gaming that could make good use of all cores then we'd really have something here that could command a premium for its performance.

Since when did Intel did that? Sandy Bridge?

Fact of the matter is that Zen can gain a lot more performance from fine-tuning than Kaby Lake because the former is a much more immature platform.

EDIT: After reading your other comments, I see that you are just trolling and has nothing to contribute to this discussion.

 

[badb0y]

If all your doing is gaming the best processor is the i7 7700k. Ryzen is priced the way it is because it slots in between HEDT and the mainstream segment. The i7 7700k beats it at gaming but Ryzen also competes with HEDT when it comes to productivity applications.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Seems a common attitude in all these forums, that things are either seen as black or white. Ryzen certainly is not a "fail" at gaming. It just depends on one's use case. For pure gaming and general use, intel is still the best choice. However, if one needs the extra cores for productivity tasks (or probably for streaming, but we have not seen many tests on that), Ryzen is more than adequate for gaming, without the huge power draw of the FX series.

 

[nathanddrews]

Granted, barely any review outlets bothered to test at 4K resolutions. Maybe that's the saving grace for gaming with the 1800X?

I've seen a few 4K tests and mentions of 4K testing, but the results only show the limitations of the GPU. If you game at 4K, then Ryzen is just as effective as other CPUs.

I expect that in the coming weeks we will see reviews of SLI/CF, 4K gaming, BIOS updates, software patches, etc. By the time R3/R5 hit store shelves, AMD's ecosystem will probably be much better off than it is now.

 

[LTC8K6]

I think one of RyZen's larger problems is that all three chips seem to end up at the roughly the same performance level.

There is not enough incentive to pay for anything over the 1700 for most people.

 

[guachi]

According the PCGamer, the 1800x is 93.8% as fast as the 7700 in games if you disable SMT and 95.1% as fast as the 6900 in CPU productivity tests. The 1700x is 93% as fast as the 7700 in games and 91.1% as fast as the 6900 in CPU tests.

That's pretty great for one chip.The only thing Intel has (that was tested) that is 90% plus of both chips in gaming/CPU are the 6900 and the 5960, both of which are about 2x the price.

The R7 is the best chip out there for someone who does multiple things with their PCs.

 

[Puffnstuff]

EDIT: After reading your other comments, I see that you are just trolling and has nothing to contribute to this discussion.

What part of reality is bothering you about my comments? What do you have against factual content? Ryzen doesn't live up to the hype and the prerelease rhetoric over its performance is blowing up in AMD's face. They presented gaming benchmarks not me and once the reviewers got the products in hand and began testing them the issues were consistently present so I make no apologies for stating the truth. I really wanted this to be a monster out of the box for AMD but it isn't unless you're focus is excel 2016 spreadsheets which it does very well.

 

[LTC8K6]

According the PCGamers, the 1800x is 93.8% as fast as the 7700 in games if you disable SMT and 95.1% as fast as the 6900 in CPU productivity tests. The 1700x is 93% as fast as the 7700 in games and 91.1% as fast in CPU tests.

So here again we have little difference between the 1800X and the 1700.

 

[guachi]

The gaming benchmarks AMD presented for Ryzen were all (or almost all) 4k benchmarks. As far as we can tell, Ryzen performs equivalently at 4k. Compared to the Intel equivalent CPUs over 4 cores, the AMD chips are a steal.

There is no reason whatsoever to buy an Intel chip more expensive than a 7700.

 

[Puffnstuff]

The gaming benchmarks AMD presented for Ryzen were all (or almost all) 4k benchmarks. As far as we can tell, Ryzen performs equivalently at 4k. Compared to the Intel equivalent CPUs over 4 cores, the AMD chips are a steal.

There is no reason whatsoever to buy an Intel chip more expensive than a 7700.

If all you care about is gaming then the 7700k is all you need.

 

[Mockingbird]

What part of reality is bothering you about my comments? What do you have against factual content? Ryzen doesn't live up to the hype and the prerelease rhetoric over its performance is blowing up in AMD's face. They presented gaming benchmarks not me and once the reviewers got the products in hand and began testing them the issues were consistently present so I make no apologies for stating the truth. I really wanted this to be a monster out of the box for AMD but it isn't unless you're focus is excel 2016 spreadsheets which it does very well.

What bothers me about your comment is that it contributes nothing to this discussion.

Example of helpful discussion: Looking at the integer score, I can see why the performance might be affected.

Example of unhelpful discussion: AMD sucks. lolz! Intel FTW!

 

[guachi]

So here again we have little difference between the 1800X and the 1700.

And according to the same charts, there is "little difference" between the 5960 and the 6900. Or the 6850 and 7700. Or the 5930 and 7700. Or the 5930 and 6850.

Though your statement is actually wrong as there is difference between the 1800x and 1700. It's the 1800x and the 1700x that are very similar.

 

[jihe]

So here again we have little difference between the 1800X and the 1700.

1700 is a real bargain, best price/performance cpu right now.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I've seen a few articles and videos now where turning off SMT seems to improve Ryzen's gaming performance a lot.

 

[guachi]

If all you care about is gaming then the 7700k is all you need.

If all you cared about was gaming why would you be looking at a lower clocked >4 core part, anyway? You can say the exact same thing about any 6-, 8-, or 10-core Intel part. Except when you say it about the Intel parts you can add "and I spent hundreds extra, too!"

Ryzen is the cheapest chip you can buy that can do well at both gaming and productivity. Period.

 

[ArchAngel777]

He said "little difference" not "no difference". LOL, you basically just said the same thing he did while calling him wrong. While the 1800x vs 1700x is a smaller difference than 1800x to 1700, is still little difference. Ambiguous, maybe, on the word little.

 

[RichUK]

Thats some mediocre trolling right there, try and inject some wit in future.
#6/10.

Lets give AMD some time shall we before burying them.
If you cant wait buy an intel and sleep well.

It's some light banter to lighten the mood.

Too many people getting emosh

 

[flopper]

x1600+mboard+ram around 450euro.
Intel costs 700+euro here
even the 7700k etc..is more expensive with no difference in games.
play some multiplayer and suddenly you wish you had 6 cores or more.

Intel is crushed and is more expensive for the same performances

 

[TemjinGold]

While there are lots of people who game at 1080, how many of those who game at 1080 use a Titan/1080 GPU and a $300-1000 CPU?

If the majority of 1080 gamers use a 1060 or 480, for example, test the CPU with that and let users know if it's worthwhile to upgrade. I currently have a 480 GPU and an 8350 CPU. I've seen zero reviews that tested on a 480 so I have no idea what difference (if any) I'll see in my games. That would be useful to me.

Not passing judgment on the chip either way. But this seems flawed. While the majority of 1080p gamers won't use more than a 1060 or 480, I also don't expect the majority of those 1080p folks to buy these chips, regardless of their performance because it's out of their price range. So I'm not sure how testing with those GPUs would be considered real world.

 

[Neptunemystic]

A couple posters have raised the 1440p argument saying the 1800X performs better and implies it justifies its place there. Problem is, on all of the existing 1440p bench reviews available (admittedly uncommon currently), the 7700K still visibly outclasses the 1800X while being $200 cheaper. So implying the 1800X isn't a "fail" at 1440p doesn't hold water either.

Granted, barely any review outlets bothered to test at 4K resolutions. Maybe that's the saving grace for gaming with the 1800X?

Why compare it to the 7700k when its suppose to be compared to the 6900k? The 6900k loses to the 7700k in most games too, while being $700 more expensive. So why the double standards?