Ryzen-A Fail for Gamers?

[Wiidesire]

May I recommend some safer ways to benchmark?
...

Thanks for the suggestions, sadly I already sold my i5 3570k, so I can't make another comparison.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Please read what I said. Ryzen is great at all BUT gaming (meaning productivity) LIKE the Intel 8/10 core chips, but cheaper. And at gaming it does just fine.

You also said most 1700s will do 4ghz. He was referring to that statement I believe.

Edit: according to Silicon lottery, 23% of 1700, 33% of 1700x , and 67% of 1800x will reach 4.0 ghz, so apparently the higher priced models are clearly better binned.

 

[inf64]

You also said most 1700s will do 4ghz. He was referring to that statement I believe.

Edit: according to Silicon lottery, 23% of 1700, 33% of 1700x , and 67% of 1800x will reach 4.0 ghz, so apparently the higher priced models are clearly better binned.

I totally forgot about Silicon Lottery, you reminded me to take a look again
They claim 97% of 1700s reach 3.8Ghz OC which is a great value considering they price these parts at 319$. Ryzen at that clock paired with a solid DDR 4 (at least 2666Mhz) is going to be a really nice gaming chip. Productivity is Ryzen's strongest suit so no point saying it will do great in that regard, it is a given. I wonder how much better value, if at all, will 1600X be? It is supposed to cost around 290$ and to have a stock clock of 1800X (3.6-4.0(1)Ghz). I expect that it will have a similar OC ceiling so basically it will go up against ~10% pricier chip that has 33% more cores, all the features and that clocks (roughly) the same.

 

[IEC]

Considering Silicon Lottery is asking $679.99 for a Ryzen 1800X capable of 4.1GHz, I think I did okay with opting for a 1800X @ $499.

This is with immature/beta BIOS and without using any LLC or advanced OC tweaks. I think in a few months I will retry and likely hit closer to 4.2GHz.

 

[beginner99]

Could anyone with a Ryzen and a AMD and NV gpu do a comparison between the 2 cards? For example this review showed Ryzen in a much better light especially in these 2 games compared to Intel. The main difference being to other benchmarks is that a RX 480 was used and not a GTX 1080 like in most other reviews. Mobo is Gigabyte Gaming 5. 3000 mhz RAM but doesn't say if it actually ran at that frequency.

Anyway comparing GPU would be interesting to see if in fact the NV driver cripples Ryzen...That would be very interesting and especially if it will ever be resolved.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Looking at Vorez's testing the OC'd 1700 fares very well against all offerings for the most part until we get to FP measurements where Ryzen seems to fall well back from its Intel counterparts. Even so it is a strong showing from AMD and I hope that they will strengthen the FPU's in later iterations of the chips to bolster FPU performance. Here again I must refer back to when they released the original slot a Athlon as their fpu was the strongest available. Intel has stumbled in recent years in their overall market performance so it will be interesting to see how this all pans out for us consumers.

 

[krumme]

Looking at Vorez's testing the OC'd 1700 fares very well against all offerings for the most part until we get to FP measurements where Ryzen seems to fall well back from its Intel counterparts. Even so it is a strong showing from AMD and I hope that they will strengthen the FPU's in later iterations of the chips to bolster FPU performance. Here again I must refer back to when they released the original slot a Athlon as their fpu was the strongest available. Intel has stumbled in recent years in their overall market performance so it will be interesting to see how this all pans out for us consumers.

I dont know if i am answering to a troll here but since you insisted you have seen zen as two dies with your naked eye i think you are just rambling a bit.
Where Intel is most strong for fpu is in avx2 loads. They are very seldom for consumer applications but eg in handbrake for h265 encoding its used and here a oc 6c 6850 is a fast as a oc 8c 1700. Thats real world best case scenario for Intel. We have a thread in this forum with results. Most of the time for 128bit fpu loads zen is just plain faster 8c vs 8c because it got 2 fpu units that works well in their smt implementation. Go read everywhere. Its all over. Take eg a look at Anandtech review.
The brute fpu perf for ordinary loads is plenty strong. Its strong where its most needed. Pretty darn good design choice to my eyes.

 

[Puffnstuff]

I dont know if i am answering to a troll here but since you insisted you have seen zen as two dies with your naked eye i think you are just rambling a bit.

I was mistaken when I looked at that die that didn't have the solder cleared off it. One thing is for certain: I've build more AMD pc's than Intel but I am not a fanboy of anything but technology and performance and I don't care what company delivers it.

 

[DuronBurgerMan]

I think a lot of folks have this thing kind of backwards. Ryzen isn't the best gaming CPU (that title goes to the 7700k). Ryzen isn't the best workstation CPU either, though it comes very close. That remains the 6900k and 6950k.

What Ryzen is, is a way to split the difference. A way to get workstation performance from a relatively inexpensive CPU, one that can still game effectively. And gaming performance is likely to improve in the near-to-mid term, with some updates to Windows scheduling (specifically to avoid unnecessary cross-CCX communication), along with the slow trend of increased multi-threading anyway.

Intel's products are the specialist CPUs. Ryzen is more of a general-use CPU. It's a very good general purpose chip, too.

 

[krumme]

I was mistaken when I looked at that die that didn't have the solder cleared off it. One thing is for certain: I've build more AMD pc's than Intel but I am not a fanboy of anything but technology and performance and I don't care what company delivers it.

Fairenough.
If you go look at AT rendering test
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170...review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/18
And encoding test
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170...review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/20
Its pretty aparent to my eyes its darn fast in its core for many loads even those that tend to be more single thread oriented and have a memory impact with - we can asume - less branching (unlike games).

The unknown is surely what will happen with software, os adaption not to mention the bios and memory profiling problems. Time will tell but out the gates its just strong.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

I think a lot of folks have this thing kind of backwards. Ryzen isn't the best gaming CPU (that title goes to the 7700k). Ryzen isn't the best workstation CPU either, though it comes very close. That remains the 6900k and 6950k.

What Ryzen is, is a way to split the difference. A way to get workstation performance from a relatively inexpensive CPU, one that can still game effectively. And gaming performance is likely to improve in the near-to-mid term, with some updates to Windows scheduling (specifically to avoid unnecessary cross-CCX communication), along with the slow trend of increased multi-threading anyway.

Intel's products are the specialist CPUs. Ryzen is more of a general-use CPU. It's a very good general purpose chip, too.

The best workstation would probably be an old dual socket Xeon setup.

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

As far as the "best" gaming CPU, there really isn't one atm. It depends on the rest of your components, and what game you play.

If you don't have a $500+ GPU, it probably doesn't matter.
If you do have a $500 GPU, and you don't play at 1080p, then it probably doesn't matter.
But, even at 1080p with an enthusiast GPU it still depends on what games you play.

For instance, computerbase.de shows the 6900k is the best here.

People get obsessed over what is the best in general, instead of considering what is the best for them.

 

[guachi]

Intel's products are the specialist CPUs. Ryzen is more of a general-use CPU. It's a very good general purpose chip, too.

I've been saying the same thing.

Ryzen is the only processor that's 90% of a 7700K (in gaming) and 90% of a 6900K (in other stuff) for less than $1000. And Ryzen is actually less than half that!

That doesn't mean it's the chip for everyone. But it certainly means it's the chip for me.

 

[DuronBurgerMan]

The best workstation would probably be an old dual socket Xeon setup.

If dual sockets are on the table... I'd buy that. For single socket, though, it is as I've stated.

As far as the "best" gaming CPU, there really isn't one atm. It depends on the rest of your components, and what game you play.

If you don't have a $500+ GPU, it probably doesn't matter. If you do have a $500 GPU, and you don't play at 1080p, then it probably doesn't matter.

But, even at 1080p with an enthusiast GPU it still depends on what games you play.

For instance, computerbase.de shows the 6900k is the best here.

Yes, the 6900k wins some. But going through the list of benchmarks, the 7700k wins more, and is much less expensive. So if buying a chip strictly on gaming performance, the 7700k is the better buy, especially if overclocking is on the table. But yeah, it doesn't matter much if you're not going big on the GPU, or if you're going 1440 or 4k. Which is why for my purposes, the Ryzen is the best buy for my new build. I'll be going big on the GPU, and any gaming will be 1440. So more than likely I'll still be at least partly GPU bound in that scenario. Meanwhile, I do a lot of graphics and video editing, so the Ryzen is beastly in that -- for a very good price relative to other alternatives.

 

[Head1985]

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

Why doesn't the 1700 or the 1070 ever consistently utilise above 90% on either? Surely that is the point of benchmarking?
For me, there is performance left on the table that for some reason is incapbale of being utilised in gaming. For example, one of those games saw the 1700 @ 20% utilisation throughout, though only 1 thread was consistently above 50%, let alone 90%.
I just don't get what is going on.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Why doesn't the 1700 or the 1070 ever consistently utilise above 90% on either? Surely that is the point of benchmarking?
For me, there is performance left on the table that for some reason is incapbale of being utilised in gaming. For example, one of those games saw the 1700 @ 20% utilisation throughout, though only 1 thread was consistently above 50%, let alone 90%.
I just don't get what is going on.

That is what all the benchmarks he post show. It's the same story over and over. The 7700k is ahead in FPS, because the GPU is being underutilized on Ryzen, despite the fact there isn't a single CPU core maxed out.

 

[alexruiz]

Are you just trolling for clicks?
Wee need to know the ryzen system details!

A lot of pages ago you stated that "you and friends" had built and tested a Ryzen PC with an Asus prime B350 plus and a ryzen 7 1700.
I replied that I had already done 3 Ryzen builds using that same board and asked very specific questions about board firmware, drivers used and firmware settings.
You never replied, but you keep posting "benchmarks" of Ryzen tests.
For all we know, those are run on older firmware.

Instead of scouting the web for benchmarks that show Ryzen in bad light, how about you analize the numbers and how the numbers were generated?
If you really are looking after the truth, you will include Ryzen motherboard used, motherboard firmware version, firmware settings, drivers used...
If those are not posted, then we will assume Feb 28 or earlier firmware running on storage initially prepped for an intel system. How about that?

 

[Head1985]

Why doesn't the 1700 or the 1070 ever consistently utilise above 90% on either? Surely that is the point of benchmarking?
For me, there is performance left on the table that for some reason is incapbale of being utilised in gaming. For example, one of those games saw the 1700 @ 20% utilisation throughout, though only 1 thread was consistently above 50%, let alone 90%.
I just don't get what is going on.

Because games dont use 16cores omg?

 

[Head1985]

Are you just trolling for clicks?
Wee need to know the ryzen system details!

Not my video you troll.Btw you should try click to expand to show system details next time.
I am really losing patience with this forum with full of AMD fans

Insulting other members is not allowed.
Markfw
Anandtech moderator

 

[Rifter]

I am buying it primarily for gaming, because it will be a better long term investment than a 7700k. I suspect this cpu will last 5 years or more, and then I will upgrade to the last am4 cpu.

This is my plan as well. AM4 should have 2 more zen generations so we can look forward to that.

 

[IEC]

I've been saying the same thing.

Ryzen is the only processor that's 90% of a 7700K (in gaming) and 90% of a 6900K (in other stuff) for less than $1000. And Ryzen is actually less than half that!

That doesn't mean it's the chip for everyone. But it certainly means it's the chip for me.

Ryzen is 100.01% in gaming for me at 4K. I do not notice any appreciable difference in average FPS (thus the 100%), but the few instances where my minimum FPS suffered with my quad core (e.g. Battlefield 1 64-player Operations, 0.01%) are completely gone.

 

[alexruiz]

Not my video you troll.Btw you should try click to expand to show system details next time.
I am really losing patience with this forum with full of AMD fans

System details won't tell me motherboard firmware version used, firmware settings and chipset drivers used.
ANY reviewer trying to do a compelling job WILL include that information always.
At this point in time, those little details are making all the difference for AM4 .
Or have you even stopped to think on why the ryzen reviews show results all over the place? Have you even analyzed the numbers and try to figure out why?
As quick example, not a single reviewer has posted version of chipset drivers used! If you truly have built an AM4 system you should already know that there a quite a few things that the chipset drivers are installing.

That is, however, if the video included system settings.
This last one you posted doesn't include them. All it does is show video settings. No system settings at all in the video, so I'll assume OEM A320 board, dd4-2133 cl18.

 

[DuronBurgerMan]

I am really losing patience with this forum with full of AMD fans

Even if you're buying Intel, be happy that AMD is competitive again. I'm sure Intel will feel some pricing pressure now. But if you're making the accusation of fanboyism, I'm sure that's true for some (in both camps). For me, I've gone both Intel and AMD, when and where appropriate. Current box is an old i7-2600k machine, and kudos to Intel for making that chip so good back then. That box lasted me more than 5 years. But the workstation performance of the Ryzen will make a huge difference in my day-to-day workload, and the equivalent Intel chip costs too much. Advantage: AMD. So the new build will be Ryzen. If that's being an AMD fan, I guess I'm guilty as charged.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

Because games dont use 16cores omg?

No <redacted> Sherlock. 20% utilisation of 16 threads is 3.2 threads @100%; long live the Pentium according to your BS.

The point was that the game is barely even using one fully, yet still wants to shuffle threads all over the place. It is this needless shuffling that is handicapping Ryzen. <redacted> needs to be optimised to make best use of Ryzen.

Profanity is not allowed in the technical forums
Markfw
Anandtech Moderator

 

[Lovec1990]

No shit Sherlock. 20% utilisation of 16 threads is 3.2 threads @100%; long live the Pentium according to your BS.

The point was that the game is barely even using one fully, yet still wants to shuffle threads all over the place. It is this needless shuffling that is handicapping Ryzen. Shit needs to be optimised to make best use of Ryzen.

isnt threat shuffling a windows 10 bug?