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

[moonbogg]

I was pretty pissed off at the gaming benchmarks but I've since calmed down. I looked at the actual games I play now, or plan on finishing, and they all run fine at stock clocks. Also, there's this as quoted from https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/03/amd-ryzen-review/

"...4.2GHz seems to be the typical overclock for the 1800X, as offered by retailers like Scan....All 7-series Ryzen chips begin their lives as an 1800X, but only some of them reach the right clock speeds within the 95W TDP. I'm as curious as everyone else to see how good those cheaper chips are, but I wouldn't get your hopes up just yet. The best result so far for the 3.4GHz 1700X (AMD is shipping other chips in the range to reviewers at a later date) is the 3.8GHz system sold by Scan."

If I can get even 100mhz extra from the 1800X, then I feel better about spending the extra money on it over the other Ryzen chips. If I hit 4.2, I'll be quite content. Also, I feel like a forum hero for predicting a common OC of 4.2 for these chips. No one else could have guessed that. No one!

So, at around 4.1-4.2, that should help make up for some of the lost gaming performance, and when I'm not gaming, I'll be running cinebench over and over, marveling at how fast that pretty picture reaches completion. Also, I hate to bring this old thing up again, but we really have seen how even bulldozer has started to pull ahead of even modern i5's in the best games like BF1. Imagine what the hell Ryzen will do as that trend continues? That can't be ignored.

And no, I'm not trying to comfort myself about spending money on Ryzen. I sat here in my chair a few minutes ago and realized that my motherboard isn't coming for a long time. All I have to do is click the "cancel order" button on Amazon. I could simply drive to Microcenter tomorrow and use it as an excuse to get out and enjoy the beautiful Saturday morning and return the 1800X, and while I'm there, I can easily find a 7700K for much less money, in stock, and a great motherboard for it, in stock, and come home with everything I need to build a 7700K rig, by tomorrow morning, and finish my new build with an Intel chip. The 1080ti would go straight in as soon as its available and I'd be done. Will I do it? Nope, because after waiting for over a decade, Its finally AMD time, sucka.

 

[Agent-47]

1. That's just not true all the time. I currently have an i7 5820K @ 4.4Ghz (should be very comparable to Ryzen, maybe higher due to clocks). There are a number of games which drop below 80 FPS. There are some that even drop below 60 FPS. As I mentioned earlier, games like WoW, Neverwinter (Most MMORGP's), Arma, GTA V in some spots, all drop below 60 FPS even with an i7 7700k. There are many more, those are just ones that come off the top of my head.
2. Yes, it should not do worse over time. If DX12/Vulkan finally provide well threaded improved performance, it'll do great.

The point being, Ryzen isn't the best gaming CPU for the money. It's still a good CPU, and after some bugs are sorted out, is worth buying. That doesn't mean it's the best gaming CPU, even when factoring in cost.

that only means that the reviewer did not test the same area in the game as you are referring to. and if i7 7700l cannot keep frames, its safe to assume that neither will ryzen. after all x1800 stock is a good 500 MHz slower. but thats 15 % slower. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out. this is a non-issue as most people speeding on 1080Ti will not game at 1080p in order to expose bottleneck. hich is why they have no right to complain.

you are in special case, with your nausea.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

We've already been through this. Find another review other than that one, which shows those results. Either they had technical difficulties, or they fudged the results. No major review site has come up with similar results to that one.

k

 

[qookap]

pick 7600K($240, overclock) for budget gamer. both game is AMD. I guess some keyboard player never understand 1080p max setting sill less 60fps with any case.
In fact GTA5 can't have 60fps with 480 all the time.

All is amd product and shut up if you not a ture gamer.

Trolling and flamebaiting is not allowed
Markfw
Anandtech Moderator

 

[R0H1T]

pick 7600K($240, overclock) for budget gamer. both game is AMD. I guess some keyboard player never understand 1080p max setting sill less 60fps with any case.
In fact GTA5 can't have 60fps with 480 all the time.

All is amd product and shut up if you not a ture gamer.

English please

 

[iiiankiii]

pick 7600K($240, overclock) for budget gamer. both game is AMD. I guess some keyboard player never understand 1080p max setting sill less 60fps with any case.
In fact GTA5 can't have 60fps with 480 all the time.

All is amd product and shut up if you not a ture gamer.

I don't understand troll-bonics.

 

[bystander36]

k

The first one is showing the same slides as the ones we have already shown as the outlier. The 2nd one shows games with 99% GPU usage the whole time with nearly identical FPS. You aren't showing anything to show Ryzen is faster, or equal.

 

[tamz_msc]

The first one is showing the same slides as the ones we have already shown as the outlier. The 2nd one shows games with 99% GPU usage the whole time with nearly identical FPS. You aren't showing anything to show Ryzen is faster, or equal.

It doesn't matter because it is good enough. Unless you absolutely have to have an FPS counter on the screen all the time. People who play games, just play games - not stare at Fraps or MSI Afterburner.

 

[bystander36]

It doesn't matter because it is good enough. Unless you absolutely have to have an FPS counter on the screen all the time. People who play games, just play games - not stare at Fraps or MSI Afterburner.

So basically it all comes down to this. Ryzen is good enough.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

The first one is showing the same slides as the ones we have already shown as the outlier. The 2nd one shows games with 99% GPU usage the whole time with nearly identical FPS. You aren't showing anything to show Ryzen is faster, or equal.

No, 1700 vs 7700k & 1800x vs 6800k

Same at a minimum reasonable resolution of 1080p and at ultra settings

These 5 benchmarks prove that.


Here are his 720p low #s. But this is worthless information...

 

[bystander36]

1800x vs 6800k

Same at a reasonable resolution of 1080p ultra settings

You guys are a broken record. You assume everyone uses max settings and high resolutions, and play games which will always be GPU bound and don't care if the FPS are lower some of the time. Many people, like myself, do not play at sub 80 FPS if possible. That means reducing a few settings a lot of the time. It means having the fastest CPU you can get within your budget. For gaming purposes, you cannot argue that Ryzen is faster. Only that the compromise is worth it to you, because it allows you to have a red sticker with AMD on it. If you are wanting it for Handbrake and Premier, Ryzen is the way to go, unless you have money to burn. If you do both, then you have a harder choice.

No where have I said Ryzen sucks. It just isn't as fast as a cheaper product for gaming.

 

[tamz_msc]

So basically it all comes down to this. Ryzen is good enough.

Yes, it has always been claimed as such. Maybe you should have tempered your expectations so as to not be disappointed. Nobody is arguing Ryzen is faster in games than a 7700K.

 

[bystander36]

Yes, it has always been claimed as such. Maybe you should have tempered your expectations so as to not be disappointed. Nobody is arguing Ryzen is faster in games than a 7700K.

What makes you think I'm disappointed by Ryzen?

This thread is a complaint about people spreading FUD and I responded to say that most people are painting a rosy picture of it, with only a few pointing out actual draw backs. There is nothing wrong with that. You have to be objective, and apparently, all the AMD fans have attacked, swearing that Ryzen is the fastest at everything, or in some cases, it's good enough.

I'm perfectly happy with Ryzen. I'm hoping it will push the core utilization in games and other apps. I'm also not putting on blinders and saying Ryzen is perfect.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

You guys are a broken record. You assume everyone uses max settings and high resolutions, and play games which will always be GPU bound and don't care if the FPS are lower some of the time. Many people, like myself, do not play at sub 80 FPS if possible. That means reducing a few settings a lot of the time. It means having the fastest CPU you can get within your budget. For gaming purposes, you cannot argue that Ryzen is faster. Only that the compromise is worth it to you, because it allows you to have a red sticker with AMD on it. If you are wanting it for Handbrake and Premier, Ryzen is the way to go, unless you have money to burn. If you do both, then you have a harder choice.

No where have I said Ryzen sucks. It just isn't as fast as a cheaper product for gaming.

If you think 1080p ultra with an oc gtx 1080 isn't a sufficient gpu bottlenecks, then you're wrong.

Most people don't have 1080s, and the few that do generally don't play at less than 1080p ultra.

 

[french toast]

Source pls?

look in the man thread, i cant post links, its a few pages back now, like more than 5.

 

[bystander36]

If you think 1080p ultra with an oc gtx 1080 isn't a sufficient gpu bottlenecks, then you're wrong.

Most people don't have 1080s, and the few that do generally don't play at less than 1080p ultra.

What are you talking about? Seriously. How is this relevant to the conversation? Explain yourself fully.

The only thing I can think you are saying is you saw some benchmarks that didn't show a CPU bottleneck when using a GTX 1080 at 1080p, so you seem to think that means you can't have a CPU bottleneck when gaming. If that is what you are saying, I can assure you, there are plenty of CPU bound games out there. I've listed many already. Not every game is CPU bound, and some are only CPU bound in specific areas, or doing specific things. Some are always CPU bound.

 

[guachi]

We've already been through this. Find another review other than that one, which shows those results. Either they had technical difficulties, or they fudged the results. No major review site has come up with similar results to that one.

Computerbase.de has the 1800X at 98.3% the performance of a 7700K in their test suite of 13 games at 1920x1080 resolution. Testing was at stock with, I believe, a GTX1080.

The 1800X was within +/- 5% of the 7700K in BF1, Dishonored 2, Doom, RotTR, Shadow Warrior 2, and Witcher 3. It handily beat the 7700K in F1 2016 and Watchdogs 2. It lost by 5-15% in Anno 2205, AotS, Deus Ex, Cars, and Total War: Warhammer.

Not sure if that will satisfy as "similar results" for what you're looking for. But it does show the 1800X and all the other 6+ core Intel processors in a good light.

 

[bystander36]

Computerbase.de has the 1800X at 98.3% the performance of a 7700K in their test suite of 13 games at 1920x1080 resolution. Testing was at stock with, I believe, a GTX1080.

The 1800X was within +/- 5% of the 7700K in BF1, Dishonored 2, Doom, RotTR, Shadow Warrior 2, and Witcher 3. It handily beat the 7700K in F1 2016 and Watchdogs 2. It lost by 5-15% in Anno 2205, AotS, Deus Ex, Cars, and Total War: Warhammer.

Not sure if that will satisfy as "similar results" for what you're looking for. But it does show the 1800X and all the other 6+ core Intel processors in a good light.

That does show the route of the arguments here. Games which are not CPU bound, or at least not tested in CPU bound areas, show them very close. The games which are CPU bound, show a notable lead for the i7 7700K. That's pretty much what I've seen all along.

 

[Zoffster1]

look in the man thread, i cant post links, its a few pages back now, like more than 5.

That's what I did before asking, whilst there was mention of updates nowhere did I see specific figures mentioned until you raised them.

 

[french toast]

That's what I did before asking, whilst there was mention of updates nowhere did I see specific figures mentioned until you raised them.

its on there from page 121 near the bottom.
Unseenmorbility posted it. Full google translate link. Average 17% gaming increase, up to 26% in some games.

Then go to bitsandchips twitter feed, he says new bios were seeded on the day of the review and that reviews need to be redone to be accurate.
Thats not taking into account any game optimizations that need to be done as ryzens cache systems and smt is different from intel, games are sensitive to this.

Joker productions gaming reviews are the most accurate so far as he has a newer bios, depending on the resolution amd doesn't look so bad here, of course certain games loik better on intel untill games have been patched.

 

[Zoffster1]

its on there from page 121 near the bottom.
Unseenmorbility posted it. Full google translate link. Average 17% gaming increase, up to 26% in some games.

Then go to bitsandchips twitter feed, he says new bios were seeded on the day of the review and that reviews need to be redone to be accurate.
Thats not taking into account any game optimizations that need to be done as ryzens cache systems and smt is different from intel, games are sensitive to this.

Joker productions gaming reviews are the most accurate so far as he has a newer bios, depending on the resolution amd doesn't look so bad here, of course certain games loik better on intel untill games have been patched.

Thank you!

Sent from my HTC_M10h using Tapatalk

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Simple. Folks are losing the ability to calmly and rationally discuss ANYTHING these days,
be it OS, hardware, politics, favorite sex positions, what have you.

The blatant trolls and astroturfers don't help any either.

 

[lopri]

I'm not seeing what you are on this: http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreview...review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-7
Out of 6 games, the i7 7700k beat the Ryzen CPU in every case. The 0.1% time was also ahead on the i7 7700k in 5 of 6, and the one it wasn't was close.

With 1.0 GHz+ clock speed advantage, I sure hope 7700K is faster than 1700 in games. And I do agree with the gist of your point: If gaming is a predominant factor in your purchase decision, then you should buy a 7700K instead of 1700. I would go further and say 7600K is an even better choice.

Zen is exactly where I thought it would be and I thought many people also expected it to show up with an IPC somewhere around Haswell ~ Broadwell level? A lot of the results around the web seem to validate that prediction, so I am not sure about the fuss. Surely it is expected that it will not beat Skylake/Kabylake CPU running @1.0 GHz higher clock speed in games?

That does not mean Zen did not disappoint. Its weak memory latency (not the bandwidth as many appear to believe) as well as the way NB/L3 works, potentially in conjunction with Infinity Fabric, are a big question mark. XFR appears nothing more than a marketing-driven gloss over a thermal protection mechanism that has been a natural progression of recent SOC designs and manufacturing. Overclocking is also a letdown for many reasons, and personally I am not at all happy about the situation regarding (lack of) bus overclocking.

 

[Justinbaileyman]

I don't understand troll-bonics.

LOL I've never heard that one before, I like your thinking!!

 

[richierich1212]

LOL I've never heard that one before, I like your thinking!!

IKR, I lol'd IRL but almost rofl'd...................

Ok someone please ban me from social media/AOL chat speak.