Ryzen-A Fail for Gamers?

[hackdrag0n]

It also didn't have wonky overhyped performance.

It also wasn't a brand new architecture that had never been commercialised before. Ryzen was always going to have teething problems once it was out in the wild.

It's unrealistic to expect something like Ryzen to be good on day one. It will get better with time though, just hope interest doesn't peter out before then.

Sent from my MHA-L29 using Tapatalk

 

[PhonakV30]

Failure Because of Insane Hype.other wise tell me Haswell's IPC in game is failure? 4790K can match 7600K and It's not failure but 1700X with even Windows Patch is failure....

too much expecting from Ryzen ==> Fail. to be honest Ryzen performs Well in Game.I don't see any problem.If you think Ryzen should beat 7700K then this needs at least 500 Mhz more than 7700K at default clock ( 4.2Ghz).You knew that AMD won't be able to reach KB's IPC Then Why did you expect ? Who did expect Ryzen at 4.5Ghz to match 7700K 5Ghz ? are you kidding me ?

All I can say this Failure comes directly from Human's Emotion not Ryzen.

 

[escrow4]

It also wasn't a brand new architecture that had never been commercialised before. Ryzen was always going to have teething problems once it was out in the wild.

It's unrealistic to expect something like Ryzen to be good on day one. It will get better with time though, just hope interest doesn't peter out before then.

Sent from my MHA-L29 using Tapatalk

Bulldozer was a flop. Piledriver was little better. You had what 5 years to come up with something and Day 1 it still ain't ready and needs more time in the oven. Fail.

Baiting is not allowed
Markfw
Anandtech Moderator

 

[hackdrag0n]

Bulldozer was a flop. Piledriver was little better. You had what 5 years to come up with something and Day 1 it still ain't ready and needs more time in the oven. Fail.

Yeah because cpu design is not complicated at all

Sent from my MHA-L29 using Tapatalk

 

[hackdrag0n]

Failure Because of Insane Hype.other wise tell me Haswell's IPC in game is failure? 4790K can match 7600K and It's not failure but 1700X with even Windows Patch is failure....

too much expecting from Ryzen ==> Fail. to be honest Ryzen performs Well in Game.I don't see any problem.If you think Ryzen should beat 7700K then this needs at least 500 Mhz more than 7700K at default clock ( 4.2Ghz).You knew that AMD won't be able to reach KB's IPC Then Why did you expect ? Who did expect Ryzen at 4.5Ghz to match 7700K 5Ghz ? are you kidding me ?

All I can say this Failure comes directly from Human's Emotion not Ryzen.

Pretty much this. The processor is fine, and delivers pretty good value. People just seemed to expect it to best Intel every way. Tbh it's probably just as good as Intel, just has to be utilised in a different manner to what some software currently does.

Sent from my MHA-L29 using Tapatalk

 

[railroadmaster]

I think it's unrealistic to expect AMD to best Intel. Even Intel can't exceed their own single threaded performance due to the performance wall of current technology. There isn't some magical technology that will lead large leaps in single threaded performance.
Achieving 90% of Intel's single threaded performance and exceeding Intel in multithreading at a much lower price is no small feet.

 

[beginner99]

http://www.overclockers.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu-review/
Go down to the gaming benchmark tests. See 1800x scores?
There are still more reviews coming up, doing testing on more games. Maybe we can see greater favorable game benchmarks of ryzen.
Oh, this guy uses gigabyte board. Maybe there is some truth to BIOS issue.

Read the text and really look at the images. Those gaming benchmark suck. He has all chips running at 4 Ghz including the 7700k. So the 7700k is underclocked when in reality most 7700k buyers would run it at 4.8 Ghz or 20% higher clocks...Wonder how that chart would look then.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Read the text and really look at the images. Those gaming benchmark suck. He has all chips running at 4 Ghz including the 7700k. So the 7700k is underclocked when in reality most 7700k buyers would run it at 4.8 Ghz or 20% higher clocks...Wonder how that chart would look then.

idk how credible this is,

The Overclocker
Ryzen under the right power profile is way faster than 7700K at gaming.
Power states are the key.
Nope, nope nope, 1700X faster. Issue us updating CPU uCode and not being able to go back, but that's another story

 

[Shmee]

Would like to see more OC comparisons of the 1700 and 1600X with 5930k and 6850k etc in games. Many people forget, some of the HW-E CPUs OC quite well. My 5930k does 4.5 GHz. I would like to compare a 6 or 8 core Ryzen OC vs HW-E OC. Of course, it will be nice to see if the 6 or 4 core CPUs OC better.

 

[hackdrag0n]

I think it's unrealistic to expect AMD to best Intel. Even Intel can't exceed their own single threaded performance due to the performance wall of current technology. There isn't some magical technology that will lead large leaps in single threaded performance.
Achieving 90% of Intel's single threaded performance and exceeding Intel in multithreading at a much lower price is no small feet.

Yeah. More cores means more heat, so we might see Ryzen 3 and 5 clock higher and be more competitive for raw gaming performance.

I agree that there are physical limits which are causing problems now. I think even Intel is struggling to make anything more than small gains in IPC. Aside from discovering a new semi conductor technology to replace silicon the only other way past this barrier is to have more cores, and to find ways to make them work better together. When bulldozer came out AMD hoped multi threaded was the future. They were a few years too early but this time multi threaded really is the future. TBH they are still early but only by a year or two this time.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Yeah. More cores means more heat, so we might see Ryzen 3 and 5 clock higher and be more competitive for raw gaming performance.

I agree that there are physical limits which are causing problems now. I think even Intel is struggling to make anything more than small gains in IPC. Aside from discovering a new semi conductor technology to replace silicon the only other way past this barrier is to have more cores, and to find ways to make them work better together. When bulldozer came out AMD hoped multi threaded was the future. They were a few years too early but this time multi threaded really is the future. TBH they are still early but only by a year or two this time.

Don't count on much higher clocks.

But there is this,


Review shows 1700x ~ 7700k with gtx1080

1080p very high no aa

 

[Dave2150]

"Some reason" may have something to do with the fact that you're getting 2x the cores...

The ryzen 8c/16t cpus may not be the fastest in gaming, but having 8 cores vs 4 is a significant increase for a number of applications, so to argue that it shouldn't cost more simply because it's slower at gaming is a bit misleading. By your argument a 6900k is just as overpriced.

The problem is that the vast majority have no use of 8 cores. Video rendering, editing, VM's? Hardly popular applications compared to games.

By the time this changes, Intel will have their mainstream 6 core Coffeelake CPU's out, which will completely decimate Ryzen's offerings (assuming the 10nm process isn't a step backwards).

Trolling is not allowed
Markfw
Anandtech Moderator

 

[AtenRa]

There is not a single review done with OFFICIAL specs, everyone used out of specs ram clocks.
When you do a review, first use the manufacturer official default specs (2400MHz for Kabylake, 2667MHz for Ryzen and 2133MHz for X99) and then try what ever out of spec ram and CPU clocks you want.

 

[Sweepr]

Failure Because of Insane Hype.other wise tell me Haswell's IPC in game is failure? 4790K can match 7600K and It's not failure but 1700X with even Windows Patch is failure....

Wrong. Try to compare to 8C/16T Haswell-E (2014) and you'll see that it's slower per clock:

Core i7-5960X relative to Ryzen 7 1800X:

- Battlefield 1: 17,1% faster
- Crysis 3: 5% faster
- Dishonored 2: 19.5% faster
- Deus Ex (DX11): 21.8% faster
- Fallout 4: 4.4% faster
- Hitman: 28.8% faster
- Rise of the Tomb Raider: 58.4% faster
- Total War: 3.7% slower
- Watch Dogs 2: 15.5% faster
- The Witcher 3: 46.1% faster

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/premiera_i_test_procesora_amd_ryzen_r7_1800x_dobra_zmiana

Even with HT off or overclocked to 4.075 GHz, a stock 5960X (3.3 GHz for MT) is still faster:

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/956-21/indices-performance.html
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/mbrzostek/amd_zen/r7_1800x/wykresy/srednia_gry.png

Also, Intel HEDT parts have more overclocking headroom.

 

[ultima_trev]

Wrong. Try to compare to 8C/16T Haswell-E (2014) and you'll see that it's slower per clock:



https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/premiera_i_test_procesora_amd_ryzen_r7_1800x_dobra_zmiana

Even with HT off or overclocked to 4.075 GHz, a stock 5960X (3.3 GHz for MT) is still faster:

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/956-21/indices-performance.html
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/mbrzostek/amd_zen/r7_1800x/wykresy/srednia_gry.png

Also, Intel HEDT parts have more overclocking headroom.

You're cherry picking. Reputable sites like TechReport, Hardware Canucks, Computer Base and Guru3D show 1800X within 16% or less of 6950X in overall gaming performance.

 

[majord]

Wrong. Try to compare to 8C/16T Haswell-E (2014) and you'll see that it's slower per clock:



https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/premiera_i_test_procesora_amd_ryzen_r7_1800x_dobra_zmiana

Even with HT off or overclocked to 4.075 GHz, a stock 5960X (3.3 GHz for MT) is still faster:

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/956-21/indices-performance.html
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/mbrzostek/amd_zen/r7_1800x/wykresy/srednia_gry.png

Also, Intel HEDT parts have more overclocking headroom. Ryzen is just not good enough to force Intel to lower HEDT prices - except maybe for the $1700 Xeon rejects.

Hangon. (Referencing Hw.fr's perf summaries here) , So a 6900K is only 8% faster in applications, 11% faster in games (with HT off), but is more than double the price.. and you don't think that's good enough to warrant a price drop?

The 6800K is the only HEDT part that doesn't need to budge much. Even with the issues surrounding gaming perf The top 3 parts are still left woefully overpriced.

 

[The Sauce]

An 1700 destroys your 2500k, anything above that is gravy. Your idea of how well that 2500k performs is completely wrong.

I went from a 2500k to a 5820k at the same frequency and just the memory controller difference alone make it faster than the 2500k could ever touch, not to mention way more threads and better IPC.

Maybe I misread the reviews? I read the HardOCP review and in almost every bench it seemed that the Ryzen proc trailed the 2600k.

 

[HiroThreading]

You're cherry picking. Reputable sites like TechReport, Hardware Canucks, Computer Base and Guru3D show 1800X within 16% or less of 6950X in overall gaming performance.

Not to mention the price differential...

Ryzen pretty much makes the entire Intel HEDT platform massively overpriced.

If you need more than 8 cores or dual GPUs, you may as well skip Intel HEDT and just buy a proper Xeon E5 workstation platform.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mikk]

You're cherry picking. Reputable sites like TechReport, Hardware Canucks, Computer Base and Guru3D show 1800X within 16% or less of 6950X in overall gaming performance.

Wrong. i7-5820k with just 3.3-3.6 Ghz and only 6 cores is faster in gaming at Computerbase. Many tests are GPU bound. Gaming IPC is below Haswell.

 

[french toast]

The problem is that the vast majority have no use of 8 cores. Video rendering, editing, VM's? Hardly popular applications compared to games.

By the time this changes, Intel will have their mainstream 6 core Coffeelake CPU's out, which will completely decimate Ryzen's offerings (assuming the 10nm process isn't a step backwards).

This is where you have your wires crossed, coffeelake is 14nm+,(thats why its called coffeelake and not cannonlake mainstream ) what it does is offer 50% - 2x the threads for probably the same price, who knows about power consumption and clocks, im guessing 6/12 coffeelake will be 4ghz all core, 4.6 ST turbo, kabylake x (4/8 ) will already hit 112w.
If it comes in at 350$ and overclocks to 5ghz, i cant see anything beating it in its price range if no new ryzens come- even 8 cores.

Amd does have some aces up its sleeve though, it has 6/12 1600x and 4/8 1400x out soon, they will likely be priced 199 and 260$, if recent bios improvements hold up, thats going to be tough to beat as they murder anything in its price range and coffeelake is 9-12 months away.
Raven Ridge is out Q3 ish, that brings vega graphics and super efficient ryzen on what is rumored to be 14nm LPU, thats going to be tough to beat for either mobile 10nm cannonlake or mainstream coffeelake (4/8 ).Check stilts review to see how crazy efficient ryzen is <3.5ghz.

Then we have the great unknown, zen+, is that coming in 2018? If it does when? What version of 14nm? What improvements does it bring? Lots of low hanging fruits to fix with ryzen, as well as game optimizations, intel has pushed skylake uarch and 14nm+ to its limits, both are incredibly well optimised, where as zen uarch and globalfoundries have just begun, how would zen+ compare to skylake 6/12 @ 4.5-5ghz?

Likewise for software, intel optimizations in games and apps are already well advanced, other than more avx 256 they cant gain anymore, zen is just getting started here, amd controls gaming due to consoles, we have literally seen ryzen in its worst state, software alone will see ryzen make up performance over intel over 12 months with out any hardware changes at all.
Of course zen 2 might not come next year, (skylake x is out this year, icelake comes Q4 2018 or Q1 2019.) in which case amd will be in trouble at the high end.There is no way amd will compete with 6/12 high clocked coffeelake with ryzen v1.
2019 MIGHT see icelake 10nm vs 7nm zen++ , what a battle that will be.

Interesting stuff indeed.

 

[french toast]

Wrong. i7-5820k with just 3.3-3.6 Ghz and only 6 cores is faster in gaming at Computerbase. Many tests are GPU bound. Gaming IPC is below Haswell.

check a review with a new bios, intel is still ahead but it doesn't look as bad as you think, when windows and games are patched to better utilize ryzens different cache system and smt, gaming will reflect productivity performance , ie broadwell ipc.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Gaming IPC is below Haswell.

Not only that but the disparity in each core only produced a marginal win in applications in my instances because there were twice the cores being used against the intel cpu being used for the comparison. AMD needs to up the IPC to match or beat what Intel currently offers to remain competitive. If Intel increases their IPC then AMD will fall that much farther behind in performance. Since its AMD that is touting superior performance from Ryzen they need to make some changes to actually deliver it.

 

[mikk]

check a review with a new bios, intel is still ahead but it doesn't look as bad as you think, when windows and games are patched to better utilize ryzens different cache system and smt, gaming will reflect productivity performance , ie broadwell ipc.

I did. Ryzen is clearly below Haswell IPC in games. It looks better in applications but it's still very inconsistent in performance and power comsumption can be really high, sometimes 50-100W above i7-7700k with the same TDP.

And Ryzen isn't AVX future proof.

The C library makes heavy use of single-precision AVX these days, which proves to be a terrible thing for the Ryzen 7 1800X.

 

[tential]

Would like to see more OC comparisons of the 1700 and 1600X with 5930k and 6850k etc in games. Many people forget, some of the HW-E CPUs OC quite well. My 5930k does 4.5 GHz. I would like to compare a 6 or 8 core Ryzen OC vs HW-E OC. Of course, it will be nice to see if the 6 or 4 core CPUs OC better.

I think this whole conversation has been completely misleading.
We NEVER compare the 6900k vs the i7 7700k. It's unfair because for most games, they aren't well threaded and the 6900k has threads that just go unusued. Just because the 1700 and the i7 7700k are the same price doesn't mean they should be compared to each other.

The i7 7700k should be compared to the Ryzen 3 and 5 CPUS.

Ryzen 7 is essentially vs the other intel well threaded CPUs. The HEDT platform.
Comparing Ryzen 7 to anything other than intel's HEDT platform is a really disingenuous argument.

Then we even bring up the fact that the 6 and 4 core CPUs could OC better as you state. I believe this as well. So this becomes an even more disingenuous argument.

IMO what we need is for current users of the Ryzen 7 platform to disable 2 cores and share their performance.

Similar to how i7 users can disble HT and show the performance of an i5.

Then we'd know how Ryzen 5 fares against the i7 7700k. That's the true value fight. Ryzen 5 is what gamers should be focused on. Not the HEDT competitor.

Edit:
Also, once SMT and windows scheduling is ironed out, I think we'll see the true performance. If an i5 performs better than an i7 we know SOMETHING Is wrong with hyperthreading. This is similar in that if you disable SMT and turn it into a hard 8 core, it works fine. So SMT must really be screwing with performance. Fix that and scheduling and the Ryzen 3 should get similar performance to the Ryzen 7 with SMT disabled. And that's scary....

 

[french toast]

I did. Ryzen is clearly below Haswell IPC in games. It looks better in applications but it's still very inconsistent in performance and power comsumption can be really high, sometimes 50-100W above i7-7700k with the same TDP.

And Ryzen isn't AVX future proof.

Avx 256 is useless for gaming, intel assured this Wouldn't be used in games as they segmented the market and fused off that feature in some skus, game devs code to the lowest common denominator, avx2 is not available in every processor intel or amd, neither is intel in consoles,amd controls the gaming market including api development, so good luck seeing that anytime soon.
If your are objective you will note the state of bios for ryzen, with huge issues with load balancing and cache usage with ryzens new uarch, games have been optimised for intel meaning games dont use ryzens smt or cache efficiently, as they both different, its a software issue not hardware.
In productivity ryzen is either a bit faster or slower depending on what your looking for, if we take cinebench ryzen has 2% lower ipc, whilsh having better SMT and efficiency, with updates games will also reflect this.

R7 1700 is both cheaper and faster than the 7700k across many benchmarks, when both overclocked using new bios they are practically equal at 1080p, difference being r7 1700 shows more headroom per core where 7700k is nearly maxed out.