Why so much FUD/BS regarding Ryzen on these boards?

[TemjinGold]

I'm not Intel or AMD fanboy. But AMD stock down 15% in 2 days tells me Ryzen beating Intel in every aspect is a hype. And the hype is over.

Zen microstructure probably more suitable for server, not desktop, especially in gaming.

15% down in 2 days is nothing for AMD stock. Have you seen how volatile it was over the past few months? If the action was related to the release, you would easily see 20-30% or more down in a day because this stock went from ~$7 to where it is now purely on the hope that Ryzen is a success.

 

[Leyawiin]

Countless professional reviews have touched on the gaming subject and many/most say that at this time if gaming is your sole use of a CPU you might want to consider something like an i7-7700K for $350 instead. They're not pulling this out of thin air. That said Ryzen does some things quite well, even in gaming. While its generally slower than competing Intel parts it does have good minimum frame rates and that will lead to a smoother gaming experience when the overall FPS is high enough. And of course its stellar in productivity. As for all the "Windows isn't coded for it yet" or "its a driver issue", yes, there's the possibility that performance improvements may be coming down the road. It does remind me of the very same thing that was said about FX in 2010/2011 and we all know how that worked out. Its also disappointing that Ryzen was released in this state. Those optimizations should have been taken care of (for the most part) well before release. Board partners should have also been given enough time for optimize their products. While a much improved product over FX (and a much better release than it was) anyone who expects some magic bullet in drivers or OS to bring gaming up to Intel's level is naive. Yes, fanboys can get obnoxiously trollish at times with their sports team mentality about hardware brand, but that doesn't change the fact Ryzen pretty much is what it is (and its not a turd by any stretch).

 

[Justinbaileyman]

It isn't Naive when remembering FX got a 50% boost in performance after Microsoft did a update for windows and sent out the FX bug FIX Software which also helped.And..... This really isn't a AMD vs. Intel topic it is more like a why isn't my Ryzen X not scoring like what was shown from the Ryzen Reveal with Dr. Lisa Su compared to there Ryzen X.The answer is they had the updated Windows code on hand at that time of the reveal that will get released to the rest of us shortly plain and simple!!

 

[UsandThem]

So what some of you are saying is you can actually play games using a Ryzen CPU? Who knew?

The FUD and hype is not just limited to these forums. I couldn't even stand to click on a link on Slickdeals that involved an Intel CPU or system over the last two months. They all quickly turned into 30 pages of "You're an idiot because you like product X" arguments.

People have argued about it for a year now, and now that it's here, what else is there to do across the various forums until Vega arrives?

 

[Leyawiin]

It isn't Naive when remembering FX got a 50% boost in performance after Microsoft did a update for windows and sent out the FX bug FIX Software which also helped.

It gain almost nothing from the hotfix.

 

[ZippZ]

I think AMD delivered solidly on what they promoted, an 8/16 CPU that can hang with the equivalent 6900 and is able to run multiple programs better than a 7700. Everything else was media and user hype and expectations. The only things I fault AMD for is a rushed and buggy launch and not educating the community better on the advantages of going wider instead of faster.

As with everything else (cars, guns, etc) there are two types of users. The inexperienced users that just go after the flashy and trends. Then the experienced users that can cut through the hype and know what they need.

To me AMD is more forward thinking than Intel and Nvidia by going wider with their CPUs and focusing on DX12 on their videocards. It seems like Intel and Nvidia are holding back the gaming community in this regard.

 

[french toast]

Jesus, half of the reason has been solved already, a bios update that improves fps from 4-26% with averages 17%.
Joker productions was using this bios update, use his reviews to see gaming performance.
Which shows 3.9ghz 1700 matching a 5ghz 7700k across 10 games @ 1080p.

Any game/cache/scheduler optimizations come on top of that in the future.
Nothing wrong with ryzens gaming performance.

 

[Justinbaileyman]

It gain almost nothing from the hotfix.

This FX-8320 Hotfix review article shows there is a 5% boost in performance with the hotfix. 5% is better then no %.Maybe I am delusional here but I remember reading in these forums several years ago how Windows Vista or Windows 7 got updated and BD gained something like a 50% jump in performance vs it self not vs Intel.Think it had to do with schedulers or core parking or something of the such?
Anyways here is the link for the FX Hofix article.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-7-hotfix-bulldozer-performance,3119.html

If anyone finds the Anandtech Hotfix Article please share a link cause I would like to read through it again myself.

 

[Justinbaileyman]

Jesus, half of the reason has been solved already, a bios update that improves fps from 4-26% with averages 17%.
Joker productions was using this bios update, use his reviews to see gaming performance.
Which shows 3.9ghz 1700 matching a 5ghz 7700k across 10 games @ 1080p.

Any game/cache/scheduler optimizations come on top of that in the future.
Nothing wrong with ryzens gaming performance.

See bios update increased performance 17% plus at leased another 5% Windows Fix/Update and we will all be golden.Guys this ins't going to end up another FX BD situation where we have to wait for another CPU to be made. Ryzen CPU's are perfect the way they are we just have to wait for the O/S's and software to catch up.

 

[formulav8]

It isn't Naive when remembering FX got a 50% boost in performance after
Microsoft did a update for windows and sent out the FX bug FIX Software which also helped

While FX did get an improvement, it was more like 5-8%. Definitely under 10% IIRC.

 

[Headfoot]

Right now if gaming is your only CPU-intensive task, then a 7700K is 10%+ faster and $150 cheaper than an 1800X.

That doesn't mean Ryzen is "bad at gaming" it means intel is currently better.

That may well change, and I hope it does since lack of competition has let intel coast for years now giving us only tiny performance jumps with every new release.

"Intel" isn't better. The 7700k is better, in some games, for now. The 6900k is tied. With Ryzen you get the width of the HEDT platform (minus some cache and memory bandwidth) for half the price, and 93+% of the gaming performance, for only a little more.

It's in between Intel's mainstream and HEDT platforms.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

I'll admit to spreading some Ryzen FUD myself, before I started seeing benchmarks from places I trusted. Simply because I didn't think AMD could make a competitive product. I'm a doubter.

But, well, damn.

I'm hoping they goose the clockspeeds on the eventual 4-6 core "low end" models a bit, though.

 

[LTC8K6]

Just tell everyone to do the reviews again in three weeks...call a mulligan...

 

[Teizo]

Because AMD needs to be called out on their BS for spreading FUD over Intel trying to influence reviews when it was AMD themselves who were trying to do it...not Intel.

Ryzen is a good chip, but now that NDA is up the truth is being exposed.

Cue GamersNexus latest video and JayzTwoCents video last night where he exposed AMD telling him to enable certain features for Ryzen and disable certain features for Intel...plus the fact at the AMD launch event they deliberately underclocked Intel chips and ran them in dual channel mode to mask some of Ryzen weak points.

GamersNexus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBf0lwikXyU

Cue the 40:20 mark when Jay spills the beans on AMD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1dhYDm7SLw

Elric dropping the hammer on AMD advocates and their Advocate program for deliberately spreading FUD on reviewers who went in depth and exposed Ryzen's weaknesses where it was worthy to be noted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUk5T3AkJYE&t=404s

OC3DTV showing the temps and consequences of running all the cores of an 1800X at 4ghz - their pre-launch advertised speeds (30 minute mark)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yk-izRf2Ro




Ryzen is a good cpu, but don't get mad for people calling out AMD for their misleading marketing and over hyping their product. Enjoy 'over clocking' your cpus to their advertised speeds because AMD failed to mention XFR only worked for ST scenarios. Plus, hope you have a dedicated air conditioner going into your case to cool it when you do so because it will flow lava when you run all cores to their max advertised speeds. And in regards to game testing...the only way to tell what cpu handles game code the best is to remove the gpu bottleneck. In gaming, the gpu always has and always will matter the most....especially as you increase in resolution. Yes, Ryzen chips will fair fine in gaming with a powerful enough GPU...but once again don't get mad at reviewers and people who know how to properly review stuff to show the differences between IPC between cpus and which cpus are 'better' in that regard.

So, enjoy your Ryzen cpus...they are fine..but don't make them out to be something they are not and quite making AMD out like some knight in shining armor company.

 

[Headfoot]

Agree running the Intel HEDT chips in dual channel mode is dirty. A big selling point of the HEDT platform is the massive bandwidth

 

[TStep]

6 months ago it was advertised/speculated that Zen would perform at Sandy levels or above. Seems that Zen is, as advertised, performing at Sandy levels and above. Not sure what's to be criticized at this point.

I'm still on a 2600k with no economical reason in sight to upgrade to Intel anything given Intel's current pricing structure. Give the coding junkies time to play with 8c/16t AMD cpu at $400, and maybe there will be.

 

[SPBHM]

Just tell everyone to do the reviews again in three weeks...call a mulligan...

that's the positive thing about the 6 core and lower ones only being released later on, people are going to make new reviews with updated bios/OS and so on and it should be a clearer indication

 

[UsandThem]

Just tell everyone to do the reviews again in three weeks...call a mulligan...

Heck, I'm just waiting for Anandtech to finish their review. Although anymore they are always behind other sites publishing reviews, they are more thorough than many of the sites out there. There were too many last second changes, so I'm interested in what @IanCutress reports back on. I'm curious to see if he was "influenced" by AMD to purposely mislead his audience as Teizo mentioned above, although older sites like Tom's Hardware and HardOCP didn't report that anything like that happened to them.

 

[Ajay]

I blame half the problems on AMD. They are rolling out a new architecture and they should have been much more upfront with everyone over the challenges this would create. The problem for AMD is that if they did that, very few ppl would preorder. Aside from that, fanbois will fan (from both sides) it is an ATF tradition.

 

[simas]

thank you all, gives a fair amount of perspective.

also, another point of confusion for me is these all "if Gaming is the only task you intend to do then ..." - how does this make sense?
if gaming is the ONLY thing you want to do on PC, why bother with PC at all? buy a latest generation console (full system would be cheaper than either 8C AMD or 4C Intel CPUs alone , connect it to your 74 inch 4K HDR TV, hook in your 7.x/9.x/11 speaker setup with latest audio certs, and no PC would ever touch that experience. who aims at PC being only the gaming device??

I am planning to build primarily gaming device and know that I would be bottlenecked by GPU long before I get to CPU bottlenecks as I want to play at 1440p and above. I also know that for me it is minimum FPS that matter along with averages, and I care little for anything above say 60 Hz (nothing against those who want twitch games and 144 Hz refresh rate, just not my poison). at the same time that computer will encode (for remote grandparents ) 1080p video captured by camera for my vids, basic DVD creation, run light virtualization.

I also want longevity (6 years out of SB system), which means I want the maximum amount of ram possible support (up to OS limits), why would a quad from Intel be a better choice for this "gamer"? what am I missing in the whole "gaming is better on blue team" argument? some insanity of percentages for frame rates 100+ when I am living in a fantasy world at much lower resolution and not GPU limited? help me understand this. thank you

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Because AMD needs to be called out on their BS for spreading FUD over Intel trying to influence reviews when it was AMD themselves who were trying to do it...not Intel.

Ryzen is a good chip, but now that NDA is up the truth is being exposed.

Cue GamersNexus latest video and JayzTwoCents video last night where he exposed AMD telling him to enable certain features for Ryzen and disable certain features for Intel...plus the fact at the AMD launch event they deliberately underclocked Intel chips and ran them in dual channel mode to mask some of Ryzen weak points.

GamersNexus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBf0lwikXyU

Cue the 40:20 mark when Jay spills the beans on AMD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1dhYDm7SLw

Elric dropping the hammer on AMD advocates and their Advocate program for deliberately spreading FUD on reviewers who went in depth and exposed Ryzen's weaknesses where it was worthy to be noted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUk5T3AkJYE&t=404s

OC3DTV showing the temps and consequences of running all the cores of an 1800X at 4ghz - their pre-launch advertised speeds (30 minute mark)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yk-izRf2Ro




Ryzen is a good cpu, but don't get mad for people calling out AMD for their misleading marketing and over hyping their product. Enjoy 'over clocking' your cpus to their advertised speeds because AMD failed to mention XFR only worked for ST scenarios. Plus, hope you have a dedicated air conditioner going into your case to cool it when you do so because it will flow lava when you run all cores to their max advertised speeds. And in regards to game testing...the only way to tell what cpu handles game code the best is to remove the gpu bottleneck. In gaming, the gpu always has and always will matter the most....especially as you increase in resolution. Yes, Ryzen chips will fair fine in gaming with a powerful enough GPU...but once again don't get mad at reviewers and people who know how to properly review stuff to show the differences between IPC between cpus and which cpus are 'better' in that regard.

So, enjoy your Ryzen cpus...they are fine..but don't make them out to be something they are not and quite making AMD out like some knight in shining armor company.

That's why I keep telling people that corporations aren't your friend. AMD has seemed to get a lot more dishonest over the past few years though.

6 months ago it was advertised/speculated that Zen would perform at Sandy levels or above. Seems that Zen is, as advertised, performing at Sandy levels and above. Not sure what's to be criticized at this point.

I'm still on a 2600k with no economical reason in sight to upgrade to Intel anything given Intel's current pricing structure. Give the coding junkies time to play with 8c/16t AMD cpu at $400, and maybe there will be.

Anti-amd trolls made those speculations. Most credible sources cited roughly Haswell ipc. Lo and behold, they surpass their 40% goal, and we have nearly broadwell level ipc.

Edit: I did see some others try to control the hype train by keeping expectations very low. I am not sure I would call that speculating on performance though.

 

[piesquared]

Countless professional reviews have touched on the gaming subject and many/most say that at this time if gaming is your sole use of a CPU you might want to consider something like an i7-7700K for $350 instead. They're not pulling this out of thin air. That said Ryzen does some things quite well, even in gaming. While its generally slower than competing Intel parts it does have good minimum frame rates and that will lead to a smoother gaming experience when the overall FPS is high enough. And of course its stellar in productivity. As for all the "Windows isn't coded for it yet" or "its a driver issue", yes, there's the possibility that performance improvements may be coming down the road. It does remind me of the very same thing that was said about FX in 2010/2011 and we all know how that worked out. Its also disappointing that Ryzen was released in this state. Those optimizations should have been taken care of (for the most part) well before release. Board partners should have also been given enough time for optimize their products. While a much improved product over FX (and a much better release than it was) anyone who expects some magic bullet in drivers or OS to bring gaming up to Intel's level is naive. Yes, fanboys can get obnoxiously trollish at times with their sports team mentality about hardware brand, but that doesn't change the fact Ryzen pretty much is what it is (and its not a turd by any stretch).

I'd say if gaming is somebody's sole or only purpose for buying a CPU is just gaming, they'd be better off buying a console. These are PCs. They're general purpose machines meant for all kinds of things.

 

[Sven_eng]

Agree running the Intel HEDT chips in dual channel mode is dirty. A big selling point of the HEDT platform is the massive bandwidth

Which doesn't do anything for the desktop apps they benchmarked...

 

[french toast]

Really poor from AMD, they finally get a product thats competitive in every scenario outside overclocking, and they fu*ck up the lauch by not waiting a week and use underhanded tactics, effectively losing some good will, totally crazy when they have a solid product that stands on its own as a great product.

Come on amd sort your sh*t out please, i liked amd precisely for not doing this stuff.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

thank you all, gives a fair amount of perspective.

also, another point of confusion for me is these all "if Gaming is the only task you intend to do then ..." - how does this make sense?
if gaming is the ONLY thing you want to do on PC, why bother with PC at all? buy a latest generation console (full system would be cheaper than either 8C AMD or 4C Intel CPUs alone , connect it to your 74 inch 4K HDR TV, hook in your 7.x/9.x/11 speaker setup with latest audio certs, and no PC would ever touch that experience. who aims at PC being only the gaming device??

I am planning to build primarily gaming device and know that I would be bottlenecked by GPU long before I get to CPU bottlenecks as I want to play at 1440p and above. I also know that for me it is minimum FPS that matter along with averages, and I care little for anything above say 60 Hz (nothing against those who want twitch games and 144 Hz refresh rate, just not my poison). at the same time that computer will encode (for remote grandparents ) 1080p video captured by camera for my vids, basic DVD creation, run light virtualization.

I also want longevity (6 years out of SB system), which means I want the maximum amount of ram possible support (up to OS limits), why would a quad from Intel be a better choice for this "gamer"? what am I missing in the whole "gaming is better on blue team" argument? some insanity of percentages for frame rates 100+ when I am living in a fantasy world at much lower resolution and not GPU limited? help me understand this. thank you

The 7700k is better for the gamer that wants to piss away money, based on bogus 720p benchmarks, so that they can then turn around and upgrade a 6 or 8 core cpu a couple years later.