Discussion AMD Ryzen MegaThread! FAQ and Resources

[thegentlewoman]

So does anyone know what the actual problems Ryzen is running into are? Let's excuse the performance in non-multi-threaded games, but what about say Watch Dogs 2, which the 6900k tops while Ryzen can't beat the 7700k on still? I haven't heard much substantive info from AMD on potential performance caveats. I wish they would at least speak up on it beyond "Trust us, it'll be great. Trust us."

Thank yo jdwii. Sorry.. Understood.

Regarding the post above, yes agreed, but as for the issue of ITX somevbody asked did you delay them. They said, no, we can't do that. They will release ITX whenever these companies want to do it or feel comfy todo it.
So I say this beacause I wanna know: Is there any chance that Devs of games or the same ATi radeon throws in optimizations for new games to make the Ryzen Nvidia\ Ryzen Radeon work better together ?
Something like that? I guess it exists...

We need to hope (depends on how many of us will buy) that companies will INVEST in these tweaks or scripting etc. What does this depends upon too? Is there any factor? does it depend do you agree on external SW\devs etc or still mostly from AMD (to which most of us is "STARING" at right now) ? I think AMD is now facing outward not inward (meaning that) : they are taking care of the commercial part and on zen 2 and 3 .. they wanna see now how the MKT and devs will respond.

 

[thegentlewoman]

@jdwii, I think it's important to differentiate the situation between Ryzen and Bulldozer.

Ryzen has (easily demonstrable) *respectable single thread performance* and *comparable FP throughput* to Intel.

It's gaming performance isn't where many would like it to be- but it's hardly horrendous (unlike a number of titles on an FX). The issue with the FX 8 core part is game developers *had* to make the game very very well threaded (without overloading any specific thread) to just about match Intel. That did in fact happen in a number of titles (you'll note there are a few cases when FX 8370 at stock is faster than Broadwell E as well as Ryzen, these cases are just few and far between), however that was down to some very clever coding to get around the bottleneck.

In the case of Ryzen we have a generally strong cpu- it should cope better with more single thread dependent games, and has a full 8 cores for all resources. Ok- it's behind Intel in some titles at lower resolutions but we aren't talking massive margins. I think for gaming the lower core count parts are going to offer a real performance advantage over Intel for the money, even if at the very top end Intel still has the best gaming CPU. The fact you have a platform that can offer strong (if not the outright best) gaming performance as well as top tier performance in heavy duty tasks is quite compelling- especially when you are only paying mainstream prices for the platform itself.

As for if Ryzen gaming performance can improve through bios tweaks, game updates, general trends in gaming to move towards more cores or if it will 'stay the same'- I think all are true depending on the titles you pick.

If we look at the Vulkan results in Doom (notably missing from a number of reviews but there are a few scores) you'll note Ryzen matches the best Intel parts- so it stands to reason that it is possible to write the software in a way that uses the Ryzen resources to it's full potential. That said older titles aren't going to see such updates- and updates on other games will be heavily dependent on the engine used (so Bethesday stuff with Vulcan support will be good, just like how the engine in the Battlefield games scales well on FX and also now Ryzen). That said, our 'worst case' numbers aren't especially bad this time around.

When it comes to the memory latency, I can envisage that this can be improved at least somewhat with bios tweaks, either through leveraging higher clocked DDR4 kits or improvements to timings. That isn't likely to be universal so will depend on deeper reviewing on a range of platforms / memory kits / setups for people to find the best option. I don't expect a magic '20% Ryzen boost bios' from AMD that will lift all board / cpu combos.

Where the question about how many threads games need comes in- well you cannot ignore the argument that thread count in games increases (slowly) over time. I've been around PC gaming since the 486 days. Single core was enough, you'll never need more than a 1ghz processor, dual core is overkill- quad core is totally unnecessary, all you'll ever need for gaming is an i5... All these have moved aside in the long run. It's is easily demonstrable that an i7 is a better gaming chip than an i5 at the same clocks (depending on the title). Games these days need about 6 threads to function well (which unsurprisingly is how many threads the consoles use for gaming). What we are currently seing is that a high clocked quad core 8 thread is currently better than a lower clocked 8 core 16 thread part in games. I think that situation will start to change over the next few years however this is like the prelonged move from dual core to quad core. It took YEARS before we started to get games that just don't run properly on dual cores (there are many titles now that still work on a high clocked dual core). I think quad core / 8 thread will remain optimal for some time. That said I wouldn't be against going 6 core / 12 thread (that 1600X looks tempting) as I can see that providing some good longevity. Games will move that way- in the mean time it's unlikely Ryzen is actually going to hold you back.

The final point is this: It's worth noting that at higher resolutions where we are typically 'gpu bound', the 1800X is actually providing the *highest* frame rate (abliet by a small margin). That keeps getting overlooked and I think it's important to understand whats going on in that situation- when you increase resolution you don't *just* increase gpu load. There are many games that use *cpu based* effects in conjunction with the GPU- and by pushing such a high resolution you are likely loading the CPU more as well. Yes in most games the draw calls to the gpu are the biggest load (especially in the contrived low resolution tests), but there is more to a game than that. I would like to see a deep dive where they look at exactly what is going on in the high resolution tests where Ryzen is ahead. I'm not sure I'm totally comfortable with the established logic that "if the system pushes 300 fps at 1024 x 768, then with a powerful enough gpu it will push 300 fps at 1080p or even 4k" because that assumes that *no other loading will increase on the cpu with a higher resolution*. I don't think that is the case.

At a higher resolution you'll have higher draw distance, which means more things on screen such as AI, which loads in more audio, more physics objects and so on. I think with Ryzen the low resolution tests are highlighting the memory latency as a bottleneck which pushes Intel ahead- but I don't think you'll ever hit *that specific bottleneck* at substantially higher resolutions. The TL, DR; to all this is I suspect that Ryzen might actually be consistently *as fast* or *faster* than Intel in many games at 4k even with faster gpus- it has good single performance, a huge chunk of resources and so on. It seems to suffer a road block when trying to push very high frame rates at lower resolutions however I'm not convinced that points to an overall lack of performance in the way it did with the FX.

I don't wanna take nothing away from other formidable posts here but I wanna quote this because it is good to read for all and I know many of us and me too don't go from page one reading back all the pages. This is really a great post. Besides the fact that I played 2.86 Larry leisure suite, commando (Sierra), Disney Donald Duck adventures, and so on .. but I mean LARRY! (of course I was not at the time a techy and I am not at all now).
I miss so much the steady little FLOPPY all was running perfectly on those machines. One of the reasons I wanna learn a lil linux is because it reminds me dos.

The rest is gold dropping like Wikileaks realease which I am in since years too.

You made me think and it sounds like the umptheenth repetition but we have to see how DEVS will take this new "opportunities" will they like it, just go meh?, just go we don't care?I think it depends from the market too. Devs do what producing house asks. They wanna sell hard. So if most of gamers will buy 1600 or 1500 AMD .. let's say.. then surely there will be an added reason for devs to do some change.

I ask myself also what will happen with games like Star Citizen that are in the middle of release (yes sure!).. realease time? Do they will have a problem like now to adapt their script and stuff to the new tech?

Will dev again, like in general what is the Architecture of AMD? Somebody understands this, maybe somebody is a dev here? What can you say about this ? I am sure maybe u even wrote about this. and maybe I have missed the post where some o f you expressed her his opinion about this.

 

[jaymc]

Gaming has been fixed people, its a bios update, if you want benchmarks of ryzen watch joker productions video, he used newer bios.

Is this it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04p_ryVM2ow

 

[Redneck5439]

Gaming has been fixed people, its a bios update, if you want benchmarks of ryzen watch joker productions video, he used newer bios.

Is this it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04p_ryVM2ow

I think this was Joker Production's original review

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lay7YuqPscQ

I think it is interesting that the R7 1800X was so close to the i7 6800K in gaming in this review. The reviewer was able to utilize the ram at 3000Mhz, however was only able to obtain a 3.9Ghz overclock. I know that Scan is advertising 4.2Ghz overclock bundles with water block coolers, I wonder how many volts they are pumping to get that overclock. The reviewer also quoted that he used the newest available bios from Gigabyte and a lot of reviewers used the bios that came with the reviewers kit that was outdated. IT would have been interesting if he had a i7 6900K to compare, but the Ryzen 1800X did well even in gaming vs the i7 6800K in this review. In workstation benchmarks the R7 1800X blew the i7 6800K away, again would have been interesting to see the i7 6900K in those benchmarks.

It would be interesting to see how the R7 1800X would

 

[8350rocks]

Spoiler

After one has someone has spent 1000 dollars for a machine (CPU component by Intel) that is (almost) reached by a starting price one of 500 THERE IS LIKE 0,000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that that Human will refrain and say publicly to other people (or at least me that I am honest, but today being honest is equalized by people to be stupid) hey I did this huge purchase at the time now I feel betrayed by intel or things like that.

Nobody will ever be refraining from the money someone has spent on something. We are way to detatched from Nature and bluntness and honesty to say that. So I do expect actually much more intel people coming here and disrupting (or anywere the AMD work... and what they are doing also benefits Intel actually because it boosts the sales of everyone not just of AMD) ... REMEMBER THIS.

By paradox:

consider if AMD was reaching 1000 USD Intel piece and passing it all in all performance: what do you think people would say?
There would still be hundreds of not just fan boys but Stubborn dishonest people that just can't grow up and tell themselves, hey I have been brutalized by a company ...

Still a 500 Dollars CPU is OUT OF the MArket. As in MOST REVIEWS is stated correctly. We are paying 500 CPU that should be launched at way lower prices but why we do this?

I tell you why ? And it's not the fault of Intel this time.
It's because we are in Singularity Era and we are paying the huge risk these companies are paying for investing in long run projects in an era where Finance has (unfortunately) it all and decides who wins who dies just by naming it...

There is a whole need to go back to redesign our communities and systems and AMD is working that way, we need to ask this to Intel too. We are in singularity, if we want this singularity to go well we need to cooperate all together. This is not a game. It is very complex but it has HUGE opportunities.

Agree with cdrfk thesis ... very wise point and actually almost completely fact based if not completely.

ma'am those are quite long posts but it's not me who said the r7 1800x is the fastest 8core in the market. Ask Lisa Su (look up the video). the monogamer/streamer argument is quite invalid. i mean which is the majority? because if AMD's priority are the streamers who occupies a very small niche then there's something wrong with how AMD is being run.

i just hope the r5 6c can OC to 4.5ghz with ease to compensate for the 2 missing cores if i were to buy it if i'd go 1440p.

4.5 (it is said everywhere) No Amd did not lie to no one and won't reach that. Who makes a CPU at 500 / of your currency \ we are 600 euro and believe me with 600 euro is a lot more then 500 dollars btw )- ?
Nobody does. So AMD has the best even if the price is really high (but we are in singularity = means lot of challenges and opportunites for all, without this singularity era AMD would have not been allowed to come back in). This should be clear to all.

Answer:
It simply won't. The logic is buy the best CPU with ryzen (said in a review), buy the best cooler, that is what we know so far FOR SURE. It's not anymore buy the best MOBO and then get the rest best over it not ever in the world either "buy a lower cpu and OC as never seen before to get better then top notch line". No.
There is no other way out. No hope on that. If u are a gamer, make a Steam machine with Amd multicore good for VR, or just do a pc with intel or a Laptop msi or again a Steam machine w intel. I am not a woman just because I have a female implying name... we are alle a "We" ... single gender, we are not gender, we are not phusical stuff, we are soul first of all and experience. gender stuff is obsolete like my 12 years old computer...

The market is a fact, we know gamers are a niche (I mean the top 1080 4k super bla bla bla is just like a small niche, those who are fostering with more then 200 mln (now?) star citizen crowdfunding are little and big rich guys and also non gamers who wanna be stake holding the project but just to let you know it's rich niche the top players.

Amd refers to all the rest of the market... this is clear also from reviews, no real discussion on this.
u r right, posts are too long.

It's not really clear to me what does it need to have a 100 fps in a game or even 150 ... anyway, if you need competition if you earn money it does count, how many do? The e sport compartment is growing wildly but still I can't understand what people look for?

One of the main issue is that the CPU uses up over 155 W when in full use, (1800X review - pcgame dixit) . Said this , Ryzen Technology still will need to be seen in a completely mature environment of software, firmware, games, hardware TAILORED (a huge error to consider this a detail) to the HW we are talking about.
And (gamers "hard core minded") are still "leaving behind" GFX (factor, which is bigger then Intel or Ryzen or the X factor put together, the GFX is everything ...) coming out from both nividia and especially AMD in 2017 and 2018... I really don't understand why we speak about just for the sake of top gamers and not for also those who don't have 1000 $ to spend ... The objective has been reached. There is competition, and no, the gamers Besides "We are the ones who talk too much here in forums and online" we are not the main aim (fortunately) of everything.

I hope there will be a much wider talk here and evaluation on something will not be bounded to how something performs for games (also because we can't actually say nothing so far) games do not use (ALL) those multi threading (NOW), it's "new" technology. (I can even remove the " " ... the quotes, because actually we all know and have seen it is new)

To answer the question there is a point and I wish somebody will care for a second to this question:
Let's go check the performance of games (since they are so "central" )with INTEL, when INTEL came out with their new technology, let's see how games performance relatively to GFX available at the time and today HOW MUCH THESE PERFORMANCE HAVE IMPROVED OR NOT SO IMPROVED (FOR INTEL) - Who will do this will make the Review of the Era... it's a hard work because the GFX card and relativity needs to be put a side for the reader of such data\review to make the most objective assumptions. But this would be a good Predictive and also serious way to judge now HOW AMD RYZEN performs. If we take INTEL now and how it performs now we are just like hitting the wall like donkeys... and yes we are donkeys.

THAT is THE KEY, that will give a Objective benchmarck, instead of using guts or hiding behind maths and data, you need a little of Humanities studies I guess... to ask the good questions: the same reason why all these Data analysts are TOTALLY lost without philosophers and those whos tudies humanities is this one. They can't use well their head understanding how to really use well these data. stop hitting the wall, there are doors and windows, and there are keys and handles to open them...

Use the archives use history otherwise you are just lost and you don't understand ... or actually what you all say has no actual meaning if we are not able to remember.

The Anamnesis process is important.

I mean... just 5 days ago on steam there is a game that came out called "Mordor" (the new episode) in pre purchase. It's the first game I see that says it requires 8 gb but reccomends 16gb of Ram .. so come on, don't exaggerate. Most games don't even use 5gb,.. not even arma... and those that need 16 or more ar hard to come out Look escaping from tarkov or Star citizen .. because work is needed and it's long and we are in singularity era.

Said all this, I think it's really silly to think AMD did not planned and DEEPLY studied all this with a huge strategy. If you don't believe in politics and strategy anymore and just finance and do it know or die, then just stick to Intel, we will all pay for that because we need competition, but if you believe in projects and ethic and saving money I believe AMD has my heart.

"t's not really clear to me what does it need to have a 100 fps in a game or even 150" Simple people who want the best CPU for their video card so it does not bottleneck it by 33%. If your 1080Ti is being used at 60% usage then what the hell was the point of buying a 1080Ti?

I can say straight up that jumping to 120fps is a great experince from 60 and even my 4790K is having a hard time keeping up with some titles. Why on earth would someone buy a expensive GPU and pair it with a CPU that is bottlenecking it and not allowing it to run at 95%+ usage.

More reviews i read about Ryzen the more i think gamernexus put it best I5 gaming performance(I5 no OC) with I7 productivity performance. A non fanboy would easily be able to tell a I5 is the superior choice for gamers and the I7 is an even better choice price/FPS

If one needs the extra cores like bulldozer Amd looks decent for the money if not no

Zen+ needs a better memory controller a better more redefined process node to reach higher frequency's and possibly some minor changes to the core i doubt Intel will have anything major when it comes to improving their performance in the coming years(3+)

According to AIDA64 benchmarks...it is *not* the IMC. The MBs do not support the higher clocked RAM. It is that simple.

As for gaming...do not discount that many people are migrating to 4K displays. I myself intend to do so...and the 1800X is perfectly fine for 4K IPS monitors...there are barely any that have a refresh rate over 60 Hz at the moment anyway...so 80 FPS in 4K is superfluous.

 

[8350rocks]

Gaming has been fixed people, its a bios update, if you want benchmarks of ryzen watch joker productions video, he used newer bios.

Is this it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04p_ryVM2ow

I think this was Joker Production's original review

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lay7YuqPscQ

I think it is interesting that the R7 1800X was so close to the i7 6800K in gaming in this review. The reviewer was able to utilize the ram at 3000Mhz, however was only able to obtain a 3.9Ghz overclock. I know that Scan is advertising 4.2Ghz overclock bundles with water block coolers, I wonder how many volts they are pumping to get that overclock. The reviewer also quoted that he used the newest available bios from Gigabyte and a lot of reviewers used the bios that came with the reviewers kit that was outdated. IT would have been interesting if he had a i7 6900K to compare, but the Ryzen 1800X did well even in gaming vs the i7 6800K in this review. In workstation benchmarks the R7 1800X blew the i7 6800K away, again would have been interesting to see the i7 6900K in those benchmarks.

It would be interesting to see how the R7 1800X would

OC3D got a 4.0 he ran for 30 minutes under linpack OCCT without any errors. He was pushing temps approaching 80 @ 1.4 Vcore with h100i cooling after 30 minutes though.

I think a legitimate custom loop could probably pull off 4.1 on these early samples...but much more than that would be tough.

Also, consider that Joker was running his 1800X under the Noctua air cooler that shipped because he could not get an AM4 brakcet for his deep cool water cooling setup in time for the review. So...I think some samples will hit 4.1 under water...4.2 might be a bit much, but not out of it for being a high side outlier. High numbers of those may be rare though...

 

[8350rocks]

Gaming has been fixed people, its a bios update, if you want benchmarks of ryzen watch joker productions video, he used newer bios.

Is this it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04p_ryVM2ow

That is the right channel, wrong video though...

 

[randomizer]

Have any reviews compared performance on Windows 7/8 with that on Windows 10?

 

[warmon6]

Have any reviews compared performance on Windows 7/8 with that on Windows 10?

I dont think so... but think there were some Hardocp forum users trying it out (although it might have been just discussion).

I'll see if i can find that conversation again.

 

[Redneck5439]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3176053/components-processors/amds-su-says-patches-will-boost-ryzen-gaming-performance-it-will-only-get-better.html

Looks like AMD is already working on patches and bios updates. Its also nice to see that some game developers are actually working with AMD this time around - doubtless because AMD powers the console systems that are their bread and butter.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ryzens-biggest-problem-isnt-coffee-152014655.html

An interesting read, for those who are unfamiliar with Intel's go-to playbook in marketing, and those who like to pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[randomizer]

Thanks. I expected that most reviews would be running on Windows 10 and wouldn't have had time to do multiple OSs. The kerfuffle around Microsoft's redefinition of mainstream support for Windows 8.1 makes me curious whether or not optimisations have been skipped (or at least delayed) for earlier OSs. Given that there are issues even on Windows 10 I don't have high expectations.

 

[Redneck5439]

Have any reviews compared performance on Windows 7/8 with that on Windows 10?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Ryzen is compatible with Windows 7. I think I read where someone said it would "boot" but I don't think its supported. Windows 7 doubtless wouldn't even be able to tell what processor was running. I don't know about Windows 8, but as far as I know Ryzen was built from the ground up to be compatible with Windows 10, not previous Windows.

 

[jaymc]

Gaming has been fixed people, its a bios update, if you want benchmarks of ryzen watch joker productions video, he used newer bios.

Is this it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04p_ryVM2ow

That is the right channel, wrong video though...

So gaming has been fixed, all sorted now or what ?

 

[randomizer]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Ryzen is compatible with Windows 7. I think I read where someone said it would "boot" but I don't think its supported. Windows 7 doubtless wouldn't even be able to tell what processor was running. I don't know about Windows 8, but as far as I know Ryzen was built from the ground up to be compatible with Windows 10, not previous Windows.

I couldn't care less about Windows 7. It is in the extended support phase of the support lifecycle and expecting proper support for new hardware is unreasonable, even if it would be nice to have. Windows 8.1 is still in mainstream support so it is perfectly reasonable to expect Ryzen to work without issue.

 

[Redneck5439]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davealtavilla/2017/03/03/misinformed-rush-to-judgement-casts-amd-ryzen-in-overly-critical-light/#6935e3ca13e2

Sums up things right now pretty well.

 

[Redneck5439]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Ryzen is compatible with Windows 7. I think I read where someone said it would "boot" but I don't think its supported. Windows 7 doubtless wouldn't even be able to tell what processor was running. I don't know about Windows 8, but as far as I know Ryzen was built from the ground up to be compatible with Windows 10, not previous Windows.

I couldn't care less about Windows 7. It is in the extended support phase of the support lifecycle and expecting proper support for new hardware is unreasonable, even if it would be nice to have. Windows 8.1 is still in mainstream support so it is perfectly reasonable to expect Ryzen to work without issue.

Got ya, that makes sense. Haven't heard anything at all about Windows 8.1, but as you stated they are still trying to get the bugs worked out for Windows 10.

 

[Redneck5439]

Gaming has been fixed people, its a bios update, if you want benchmarks of ryzen watch joker productions video, he used newer bios.

Is this it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04p_ryVM2ow

That is the right channel, wrong video though...

So gaming has been fixed, all sorted now or what ?

No, gaming hasn't been "fixed". The newest bios available, which some reviewers didn't use, shows better results, but its not the "fix" needed. Even with the newest bios Ryzen trails Intel in 1080p gaming, but was much closer when compared to the i7 6800K utilizing the latest bios available.

 

[Redneck5439]

http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/amd-ryzen-gaming/

While I don't think its the whole answer, I still think we will see much needed bios updates, hopefully Ryzen's gaming problems are all software related at this point.

 

[-Fran-]

No, AMDs problems now are not software related and FORTUNATELY not architecture related either. They just need a few extra Hertz in their CPUs to hang, without questions, next to the 7700K. The software patches (for BIOS and games), except a few exceptions, are not going to make that big of a difference.

The only hope left I could see, is if the Ryzen 4C versions can OC decently past 4.3Ghz or come clocked higher by default at around 3.8Ghz base. That is a slim hope, but it's there anyway.

Cheers!

 

[Redneck5439]

No, AMDs problems now are not software related and FORTUNATELY not architecture related either. They just need a few extra Hertz in their CPUs to hang, without questions, next to the 7700K. The software patches (for BIOS and games), except a few exceptions, are not going to make that big of a difference.

The only hope left I could see, is if the Ryzen 4C versions can OC decently past 4.3Ghz or come clocked higher by default at around 3.8Ghz base. That is a slim hope, but it's there anyway.

Cheers!

Yea, but it doesn't make any sense that in almost every benchmark Ryzen is trading blows with Intel, but then in game it takes a rather significant FPS hit. It isn't out of the realm of possibility that bios and software optimizations will make significant gains in gaming.

 

[Redneck5439]

http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-overclocking-best-ryzen-processor_192191

Looks like I may have been wrong about the R7 1700, it may be the best processor of the R7 line. Usually the flagship processor (the R7 1800X) gets the very best binning and is therefore the best overclocker, however with Ryzen it appears that the R7 1700 may be the way to go, and at a much better value.

 

[-Fran-]

Yea, but it doesn't make any sense that in almost every benchmark Ryzen is trading blows with Intel, but then in game it takes a rather significant FPS hit. It isn't out of the realm of possibility that bios and software optimizations will make significant gains in gaming.

I will keep my expectations for those fixes very, very low.

Cheers!

 

[dgothi]

Just to be clarify. Does AMD Ryzen's X370 motherboard have bios which it is buggy can affect games and work (Adobe and 3ds max)?

 

[jwcrellin]

Not buggy, but not optimized either.

 

[Redneck5439]

Ryzen literally just released today, it will take time to optimize it. I expect a few bios updates before the R5 releases in a month. Hopefully those bios updates helps 1080p gaming. From various reviews it is apparent that AMD created a true workstation / server beast with the Ryzen R7. The Ryzen R7 also competes well against high end Intel i7 6900K in 1440p and 4K gaming, however slips and has some undefined performance issues in 1080p gaming. It looks like AMD may have been so focused on 1440p and 4K gaming - something its previous FX Piledriver processors couldn't do that they overlooked working the bugs out of 1080p gaming.

For people buying Vega and high end GTX GPUs Ryzen will game near equal to i7 6900K at this point in time. The reason being at 1440p and 4K resolutions Ryzen trades blows with the much more expensive i7 6900K. Anyone buying GTX 1080, 1080Ti, Vega, ect is going to be gaming at 1440p or 4K, or those expensive GPUs don't make any sense.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3175775/computers/ryzen-7-1800x-and-radeon-fury-x-building-the-water-cooled-fire-breathing-apex-of-amd-power.html?page=3

Ryzens only shortcoming at this point in time is 1080p gaming. I find it funny that no one is talking about the workstation prowess of Ryzen and what it means for Naples server processors. The server market is where the real money is and where AMD can truly make a comeback, yet all anyone is talking about is the performance issues with 1080p gaming. The implications of Ryzen trouncing the i7 6900K in so many multi-threaded applications and benchmarks is huge to the server market, yet AMD stock has gone down for two straight days because they had a performance problem in only one metric of one category. The reason is simple- AMD released a true powerhouse of a processor with Ryzen, it is a true workstation and server beast, yet all anyone can dwell on is in 1080p gaming it currently has IPC equal to Haswell which is still a good gaming processor.

I'll say it again, Ryzen just released today, any new piece of technology is going to have bugs to fix and updates incoming. By the time the R5 is set for release I'm sure AMD will have 1080p gaming benchmarks up, maybe not equal to Kaby Lake but better than they are now.

In the meantime while we are all scaring the holy **** out of investors can we all agree that Ryzen is a resounding success as a workstation processor? The gaming market is nothing when compared to the revenue of the server market and AMD stands to make a killing with Naples at its price to performance index. Investors with AMD stand to do very well in the server market regardless if Ryzen ever goes toe to toe with Kaby Lake in 1080p gaming.