"To be honest...he seemed to be quite biased in his review. He would recommend the 6850K and not Ryzen for gaming, but Ryzen performs in the same ballpark in games, but WAY better in everything else?"
According to his own results at the end of the day he said to get a product that cost half as much(for gaming) the I5 which from results i've seen so far is a better CPU for gaming plus easily able to be overclocked to 4.5Ghz with a ok cooler.
Ryzen is struggling to hit 4Ghz in some reviews including paulshardware, Steve's reviews are always like that he has no preference he doesn't sugar coat anything it's simple data and science(As a Nintendo fan i think he made me cry in one video about the switch lol). If anything he was being nice 1800X is indeed performing like a 230$ I5 in gaming on average but out performing a 6900K a decent amount of time in everything else least from my perspective.
I think the problem that people are having with Ryzen by and large is its not a weak architecture, it has very good IPC in short it has strong cores, but its being held back in games by something. In every synthetic benchmark and indeed when tested as a workstation vs the i7 6900K it is a beast, every bit the equal to and sometimes better than the $1000 Intel counterpart. However when benchmarked in 1080p gaming, especially when DX12 is utilized it suffers big performance hits. Its not that the performance isn't there, or it wouldn't be able to do so well vs the i7 6900K in workstation benchmarks, its that for some unknown reason the processor is being hobbled in 1080p gaming. Ryzen isn't disappointing as in much as its frustrating that DX12 1080p gaming should be at the top of the charts and instead its lagging to the gaming levels of Haswell, sometimes Ivy Bridge. Those gaming levels aren't really "bad" or anything, they are just disappointing as the processor is obviously capable of so much more.
Ryzen is a good design specially when compared to Piledriver and so. But it is clearly behind Broadwell and very far from what AMD promised/hyped. On average, Ryzen behaves as Haswell on throughput workloads , despite having a stock clocks advantage
But this stock clock advantage has the counterpart of reduced overclocking capacity, thus Broadwell users that overclock will compensate the stock clocks deficit and the gap with Ryzen will be more close to this
Broadwell is a good 20% ahead of Ryzen. Even more if we consider that Ryxen has difficulties to overclock beyond 4GHz whereas Broadwell has not problems on achieving 4.2--4.3GHz.
Some of us have known, before launch, that Ryzen has a problem with latency sensitive workloads, including games. We talked about that before launch:
AMD asked them to publish 1080, 1440, and 4K reviews together. They did not ask them to *not* do 1080p, they just asked them to show higher resolutions. This was clarified by Lisa Su in the reddit AMA and was characterized as Steve making a gross uncharacterized jab.
Other reviews confirm GN claims. For instance pcgamer claims: "AMD's first suggestion was to test at 1440p or 4K, which is complete bunk. Testing higher resolutions will absolutely put Ryzen's gaming performance closer to on par with Intel, but only in the sense that running higher resolutions shifts the bottleneck to the GPU. Even AMD's FX-series performs relatively close to Intel in many games, provided you're running at 4K. But if you want to know how Ryzen compares to Core i5/i7 when the GPU isn't the bottleneck, you need to test at lower resolutions."
Note that AMD didn't suggest them to test both 1080p and 4K (or 1440p), but to test only at 4K (or 1440p) to hide the problem by generating a GPU bottleneck.
Also, as noted by GN, AMD public demos of gaming on Ryzen were run exclusively at 4K generating a GPU bottleneck and hidding the problem to everyone.
8350rocks :
Additionally..Steve from GN published a review stating that GPUs are better for video encoding. Except that they are not used for professional video encoding...at all.
GN is rigth. Funny enouh it is the own AMD which has been saying us for years that GPUs are better for that kind of workloads. I still recall when AMD announced to everyone that tasks as Handbrake would run faster on a GPU than in a CPU. The reason is that GPUs are more optimized for throughput whereas CPUs are more optimized for latency. This is also the basis for HSA (Heterogenenous System Architecture) which identifies CPUs with LCUs (Latency Compute Units) and GPUs with TCUs (Throughput Compute Units).
8350rocks :
Steve also contradicted himself in his review...he ignored the minimum FPS where Ryzen was running neck and neck with all the Intel parts, but the maximum FPS was lower.
I saw him discussing minimum FPS also and they were lower than in an i5 in several titles.
8350rocks :
Additionally, they tested in DX12 exclusively, used odd blender settings, and other weird methodology. Joker tested in DX11, and his results are reflected by other DX11 tests.
Not true. GN also tested DX11 titles. Joker tests were unprofessional (large marging of error) and irrelevant because he chose odd settings that generated a GPU bottleneck with the GPU at 99% of load.
8350rocks :
This reddit nitpick of GN's review pretty much sums it up: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5xgonu/analysis_of_gamersnexus_r7_1800x_review_an_i5_in/
GN conclusions agree with all other reviews that also found that Ryzen is not good at gaming. There are a fair good consensus among reviewers.
PcGamer: "The AMD Ryzen 7: plenty of power, but underwhelming gaming".
Arsctechnica: "an excellent workstation CPU, but it doesn't game as hard as we hoped".
Extremetech: "Zen is an amazing workstation chip with a 1080p gaming Achilles heel"
And of course TomsHardware: "It’s hard to recommend the Ryzen 7 1800X over Intel's lower-cost quad-core chips for gaming, especially given the Core i7-7700K's impressive performance."
I think the best comment on that reddit thread was made by the user that writes: "aka: Joker got the biased results we wanted out of hundreds of other reviewers and that is why we like him and are throwing GN and others under the bus".
8350rocks :
All of this leads me to a few conclusions regarding the launch:
The BIOS was very buggy, and this was reflected in numerous Asus reviews, Gigabyte seemed to fare much better overall in that regard, especially in regards to memory timings and higher memory clock support.
Problems have been reproduced on non-Asus mobos.
8350rocks :
The CCX cross threading is a major issue, supposedly windows is patching it next month, we will see. Windows 7 posts gaming numbers for Ryzen that are anywhere from 10-16% better according to the Stilt. Performance in other areas sees a significant improvement as well.
The CCX approach with a split LLC is weird. It is AMD fault, not everyone else. In any case, I don't expect large gains from patching Windows. Recall the Bulldozer scheduler, it improved performance by about 2--5%.
Apparently there is problems with the chip repeatedly requesting the same info from the system an copying it into cache over an over again.
Also info being copied from ccx to ccx over an over again, I guess this is the scheduling problem.
I'm not doubting you by the way Juan I'd say your probably spot on when it comes to the latency causing problems in gaming.
she said patches will improve AMD's Ryzen. I don't know how will this improve Ryzen's performance. No idea, If buy Ryzen, that will be gamble.
They said more than 300 games in future will be optimze
here is:
http://www.game-debate.com/news/22425/over-300-plus-developers-are-working-to-optimize-amd-ryzens-performance-on-their-games
There are ways to optimize, the biggest one being SMT. Software doesn't always utilize parts of the CPU to it's full potential, which is what's happening here with Ryzen.
I'm really surprised at how BAD The Ryzen chips overclock, even the 6900k can get past 4.2ghz usually (I know 8 core chips don't usually go past 4.4-4.5ghz, but the 6900k has done it before.)
and a quick snapshot of his quick-n-dirty overclocl tests:
Basically, the overclock to 4GHz cut his GTA bench deficit in half (from -20 to -9 fps vis a vis 7770K) and the 1700 at 3.9 was only 13 fps behind (125 vs 138). and this is before the updates to bios and microcode coming in the next few weeks. this bodes VERY well for the R5 and R3 chips coming in April.
It looks to me like the anti-hype is just as badly overblown as hype. We never expected kabylake performance
And why even even 100 fps bad??
looking at the temps, the 3.9 looks likely very stable on the 1700, while teh 4.0 looks UNSTABLE on the 1700x,. The 1700 might actually be the best overclocker in the R7 line. I've seen several people getting good overclocks with it, and it runs remarkably cool
AMD asked them to publish 1080, 1440, and 4K reviews together. They did not ask them to *not* do 1080p, they just asked them to show higher resolutions. This was clarified by Lisa Su in the reddit AMA and was characterized as Steve making a gross uncharacterized jab.
Other reviews confirm GN claims. For instance pcgamer claims: "AMD's first suggestion was to test at 1440p or 4K, which is complete bunk. Testing higher resolutions will absolutely put Ryzen's gaming performance closer to on par with Intel, but only in the sense that running higher resolutions shifts the bottleneck to the GPU. Even AMD's FX-series performs relatively close to Intel in many games, provided you're running at 4K. But if you want to know how Ryzen compares to Core i5/i7 when the GPU isn't the bottleneck, you need to test at lower resolutions."
Note that AMD didn't suggest them to test both 1080p and 4K (or 1440p), but to test only at 4K (or 1440p) to hide the problem by generating a GPU bottleneck.
Also, as noted by GN, AMD public demos of gaming on Ryzen were run exclusively at 4K generating a GPU bottleneck and hidding the problem to everyone.
8350rocks :
Additionally..Steve from GN published a review stating that GPUs are better for video encoding. Except that they are not used for professional video encoding...at all.
GN is rigth. Funny enouh it is the own AMD which has been saying us for years that GPUs are better for that kind of workloads. I still recall when AMD announced to everyone that tasks as Handbrake would run faster on a GPU than in a CPU. The reason is that GPUs are more optimized for throughput whereas CPUs are more optimized for latency. This is also the basis for HSA (Heterogenenous System Architecture) which identifies CPUs with LCUs (Latency Compute Units) and GPUs with TCUs (Throughput Compute Units).
8350rocks :
Steve also contradicted himself in his review...he ignored the minimum FPS where Ryzen was running neck and neck with all the Intel parts, but the maximum FPS was lower.
I saw him discussing minimum FPS also and they were lower than in an i5 in several titles.
8350rocks :
Additionally, they tested in DX12 exclusively, used odd blender settings, and other weird methodology. Joker tested in DX11, and his results are reflected by other DX11 tests.
Not true. GN also tested DX11 titles. Joker tests were unprofessional (large marging of error) and irrelevant because he chose odd settings that generated a GPU bottleneck with the GPU at 99% of load.
8350rocks :
This reddit nitpick of GN's review pretty much sums it up: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5xgonu/analysis_of_gamersnexus_r7_1800x_review_an_i5_in/
GN conclusions agree with all other reviews that also found that Ryzen is not good at gaming. There are a fair good consensus among reviewers.
PcGamer: "The AMD Ryzen 7: plenty of power, but underwhelming gaming".
Arsctechnica: "an excellent workstation CPU, but it doesn't game as hard as we hoped".
Extremetech: "Zen is an amazing workstation chip with a 1080p gaming Achilles heel"
And of course TomsHardware: "It’s hard to recommend the Ryzen 7 1800X over Intel's lower-cost quad-core chips for gaming, especially given the Core i7-7700K's impressive performance."
I think the best comment on that reddit thread was made by the user that writes: "aka: Joker got the biased results we wanted out of hundreds of other reviewers and that is why we like him and are throwing GN and others under the bus".
8350rocks :
All of this leads me to a few conclusions regarding the launch:
The BIOS was very buggy, and this was reflected in numerous Asus reviews, Gigabyte seemed to fare much better overall in that regard, especially in regards to memory timings and higher memory clock support.
Problems have been reproduced on non-Asus mobos.
8350rocks :
The CCX cross threading is a major issue, supposedly windows is patching it next month, we will see. Windows 7 posts gaming numbers for Ryzen that are anywhere from 10-16% better according to the Stilt. Performance in other areas sees a significant improvement as well.
The CCX approach with a split LLC is weird. It is AMD fault, not everyone else. In any case, I don't expect large gains from patching Windows. Recall the Bulldozer scheduler, it improved performance by about 2--5%.
Let me start by saying, that I consider myself an AMD fanboy. It's hard for me to see their chips in a bad way, and to see Intel as the overall better, even during the Piledriver era. But I try very, very hard to be objective about stuff.
That said, I disagree with reviewers who say Ryzen is bad at games. Not a single game went below 60 FPS, anywhere Intel went above 100 so did Ryzen, frame times were very low, no hicups, etc. What should be said is:
Ryzen is worse than Intel quads in games, but still good.
Also, about comparing the 1800X with the 7700k, we must also compare the 7700k with the 6900k, because the entire proposition of the CPUs is different. Nobody compares a low-clock 8-core CPU with a high-clock 4-core CPU from Intel, and nobody recommends the 6900k over the 7700k, so why all the fuss about the 1800X being worse than the best CPU for gaming?
Also to compare 1800X against the 6900k in a fair light, we must wait for software to catch up a bit, and bugs be resolved, because the first is full of them, and the later had all of them solved a long time ago.
But that's ok, we can compare both based on price/performance, and then yes, the 7700k is a better option than Ryzen. I wouldn't recommend people who don't want to upgrade in two years to get it, though. I doubt Intel will release a six core on LGA 1151, so games that can use loads of threads will slowly but surely run worse on the 7700k, and better on the Ryzen.
For those reasons I don't think reviewers are right in saying the 1800X is a bad gaming CPU, especially at $400. It performs worse than the 7700k, but it's definitely not bad.
That could very well be true like i said something doesn't look right i mean even if it was the IMC i doubt it would be hurting it that badly i was thinking maybe the IMC is holding back all 8 cores doing work? But you would think the synthetic benchmarks would also show that.
See it's NOT the product that gets me a little bit upset its the way Amd is presenting it to us and the way they are claiming that a patch will solve everything(same thing with bulldozer) and them telling reviewers to benchmark 1440P and 4K and then try and blow off 1080P performance when in reality once GPUs get even more strong Ryzen results in 1440P will look like 1080P numbers today.
That is why you benchmark in lower resolutions it helps one try and see what performance will look like in the future. Its been something reviewers have done since 1995 and it seems to work very well IMO.
For example if they tested the i7 920 and Phenom II x4 955 at some 2K at resolution(in 2009) it would make it seem like those products were equal when in reality the 920 is MUCH stronger and if one tried to game on either today using modern titles one would easily know that but if they bought the 955 cause it looked even to the 920 at 2K back in 2009 they would struggle more on that processor today then a 920.
It would be like Amd comparing their new VEGA to a Titan then locking the hz down to 30 and using a 1080P monitor and claiming they are equal or something lol i hope i didn't get them a idea
There's a lot of hearsay about what 'AMD' are trying to pull or otherwise... I haven't seen or heard anything concrete to suggest they are trying to do anything beyond showcase the part in it's best light. All reviewers have shown 1080p results- if they are trying to fool customers they've not gone about it very well.
I still maintain however that *if* Ryzen 7 is as far behind in gaming overall as the 1080p results suggest, why does it win in the same games at 4k vs Intel? If the graphics card is being pushed to it's max in both cases how does the R7 report a small but repeatable advantage in some games- I think there's more to it.
Also if we are talking Phenom II vs a 920- the competing part is the Phenom II X6. I know from first hand experience that the X6 1055t is still very much capable of playing pretty much anything out there. I'm not convinced the 920 would in fact be ahead with a modern gpu in modern titles....
I was simply talking about the products that were out in 2009 and gave a example to why we benchmark CPUs using lower resolutions to measure gaming performance in the future and even more so to limit GPU bound situations also according to Gamer nexus Amd did down play 1080P results in a comment by saying they want it tested in resolutions gamers are actually using,
If gamernexus and Jayztwocents isn't trust worthy then i guess one should watch Paulshardware latest video where Amd told him to test certain games as some games don't work well with Ryzen. Of course as a professional reviewer he did not listen as one should never listen to Intel, Amd, or Nvidia when it comes to what they should test their processor in or at the very least still show the bad results.
I'm sure i can find more reviews if people want to play that game. Simple matter is any weak CPU will look better in 4K vs 1080P as the game is becoming GPU bound, and again i'm not saying Ryzen is weak still hangs with I5's in most games but as i told my friend who waited its between Piledriver and kabylake and Ryzen kind of reminds me more of Phenom which isn't bad i expect budget gamers to love their cheaper 4 core option.
Perhaps we should wait and see but until these fixes actually happen i won't recommend ryzen in any gaming rig at least not their 8 core. Something does seem off in gaming results Ryzen should be doing better according to synthetic benchmarks even in single core Ryzen is basically within broadwell.
I saw that video.
AMD asked for reviewers to include at least a few of the games that are *optimized* for Ryzen, in addition to their regular testing suite.
Now, you might gripe about them trying to get some optimized reviews; however, I would venture to say that most reviewers would at least want to include a few of those because they do happen to be wildly popular titles. If you are reviewing a CPU and do not include BF1 and Witcher 3 in your review, I would think you would be doing that solely out of spite.
I think if AMD had decided to market 8 core Ryzens as a server/workstation/renderfarm chip with competitive high res gaming and incredible value, it might have gone over better. Like when a car company hypes up their trucks' towing capacity but also promises decent fuel economy. Nobody buys it exclusively for the mpg, they want the towing capacity. The mileage is great to have but it isn't the deciding factor.
They did focus on Blender and Cinebench (ie towing) but we also got a steady stream of AotS leaks and Doom demos (mileage.) And then the hype train on XFR seems to have gone completely overboard, with people talking 5+ GHz. Opening pre-orders in advance of the NDA expiring also opened them up to a lot of criticism.
AMD asked them to publish 1080, 1440, and 4K reviews together. They did not ask them to *not* do 1080p, they just asked them to show higher resolutions. This was clarified by Lisa Su in the reddit AMA and was characterized as Steve making a gross uncharacterized jab.
Other reviews confirm GN claims. For instance pcgamer claims: "AMD's first suggestion was to test at 1440p or 4K, which is complete bunk. Testing higher resolutions will absolutely put Ryzen's gaming performance closer to on par with Intel, but only in the sense that running higher resolutions shifts the bottleneck to the GPU. Even AMD's FX-series performs relatively close to Intel in many games, provided you're running at 4K. But if you want to know how Ryzen compares to Core i5/i7 when the GPU isn't the bottleneck, you need to test at lower resolutions."
Note that AMD didn't suggest them to test both 1080p and 4K (or 1440p), but to test only at 4K (or 1440p) to hide the problem by generating a GPU bottleneck.
Also, as noted by GN, AMD public demos of gaming on Ryzen were run exclusively at 4K generating a GPU bottleneck and hidding the problem to everyone.
8350rocks :
Additionally..Steve from GN published a review stating that GPUs are better for video encoding. Except that they are not used for professional video encoding...at all.
GN is rigth. Funny enouh it is the own AMD which has been saying us for years that GPUs are better for that kind of workloads. I still recall when AMD announced to everyone that tasks as Handbrake would run faster on a GPU than in a CPU. The reason is that GPUs are more optimized for throughput whereas CPUs are more optimized for latency. This is also the basis for HSA (Heterogenenous System Architecture) which identifies CPUs with LCUs (Latency Compute Units) and GPUs with TCUs (Throughput Compute Units).
8350rocks :
Steve also contradicted himself in his review...he ignored the minimum FPS where Ryzen was running neck and neck with all the Intel parts, but the maximum FPS was lower.
I saw him discussing minimum FPS also and they were lower than in an i5 in several titles.
8350rocks :
Additionally, they tested in DX12 exclusively, used odd blender settings, and other weird methodology. Joker tested in DX11, and his results are reflected by other DX11 tests.
Not true. GN also tested DX11 titles. Joker tests were unprofessional (large marging of error) and irrelevant because he chose odd settings that generated a GPU bottleneck with the GPU at 99% of load.
8350rocks :
This reddit nitpick of GN's review pretty much sums it up: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5xgonu/analysis_of_gamersnexus_r7_1800x_review_an_i5_in/
GN conclusions agree with all other reviews that also found that Ryzen is not good at gaming. There are a fair good consensus among reviewers.
PcGamer: "The AMD Ryzen 7: plenty of power, but underwhelming gaming".
Arsctechnica: "an excellent workstation CPU, but it doesn't game as hard as we hoped".
Extremetech: "Zen is an amazing workstation chip with a 1080p gaming Achilles heel"
And of course TomsHardware: "It’s hard to recommend the Ryzen 7 1800X over Intel's lower-cost quad-core chips for gaming, especially given the Core i7-7700K's impressive performance."
I think the best comment on that reddit thread was made by the user that writes: "aka: Joker got the biased results we wanted out of hundreds of other reviewers and that is why we like him and are throwing GN and others under the bus".
8350rocks :
All of this leads me to a few conclusions regarding the launch:
The BIOS was very buggy, and this was reflected in numerous Asus reviews, Gigabyte seemed to fare much better overall in that regard, especially in regards to memory timings and higher memory clock support.
Problems have been reproduced on non-Asus mobos.
8350rocks :
The CCX cross threading is a major issue, supposedly windows is patching it next month, we will see. Windows 7 posts gaming numbers for Ryzen that are anywhere from 10-16% better according to the Stilt. Performance in other areas sees a significant improvement as well.
The CCX approach with a split LLC is weird. It is AMD fault, not everyone else. In any case, I don't expect large gains from patching Windows. Recall the Bulldozer scheduler, it improved performance by about 2--5%.
Let me start by saying, that I consider myself an AMD fanboy. It's hard for me to see their chips in a bad way, and to see Intel as the overall better, even during the Piledriver era. But I try very, very hard to be objective about stuff.
That said, I disagree with reviewers who say Ryzen is bad at games. Not a single game went below 60 FPS, anywhere Intel went above 100 so did Ryzen, frame times were very low, no hicups, etc. What should be said is:
Ryzen is worse than Intel quads in games, but still good.
Also, about comparing the 1800X with the 7700k, we must also compare the 7700k with the 6900k, because the entire proposition of the CPUs is different. Nobody compares a low-clock 8-core CPU with a high-clock 4-core CPU from Intel, and nobody recommends the 6900k over the 7700k, so why all the fuss about the 1800X being worse than the best CPU for gaming?
Also to compare 1800X against the 6900k in a fair light, we must wait for software to catch up a bit, and bugs be resolved, because the first is full of them, and the later had all of them solved a long time ago.
But that's ok, we can compare both based on price/performance, and then yes, the 7700k is a better option than Ryzen. I wouldn't recommend people who don't want to upgrade in two years to get it, though. I doubt Intel will release a six core on LGA 1151, so games that can use loads of threads will slowly but surely run worse on the 7700k, and better on the Ryzen.
For those reasons I don't think reviewers are right in saying the 1800X is a bad gaming CPU, especially at $400. It performs worse than the 7700k, but it's definitely not bad.
We need to keep a couple of things in mind in regards to gaming and reviewing the currently released Ryzen processors. Number one first and foremost Ryzen just released, and they have bios issues, driver issues and optimization issues to work out in regards to gaming. Its not hard to look at gaming in the last 10 years and come to the logical conclusion that games were optimizing their software to Intel hardware as that was really the only player in the game. This is evident when a couple games which were actually optimized for the old FX Piledriver performed better on those processors even though they were not strong enthusiast gamers.
We also have to take into account that the Ryzen R7 line that released IS NOT RYZEN'S GAMING LINE OF PROCESSORS. As experts none of us would recommend a i7 6900K or 6950X over the i7 7700K if the person is interested in gaming first and foremost. First of all both of those processors are way overpriced, and second the i7 7700K smokes both of them in pure gaming benchmarks due to ever so slightly better IPC and much higher clock speeds. Yet we are all comparing the R7 processors directly to the i7 7700K and calling it a bad gamer because it loses to it, by that logic we then have to declare the i7 6700K and 6750X to be bad gamers because they get smoked by the i7 7700K in most benchmarks. While It may be in the same price range as the i7 7700K, the R7 processors were intended to compete against the i7 6900K, not the i7 7700K. In that regard, and especially when both processors are utilized as workstations (which with 8 cores and 16 threads is their main function- if you want a gaming processor the 7700K is much better), the R7 series competes very well against Intel. In workstation related applications the R7 series takes it directly to the i7 6900K which is more than twice its cost.
As you pointed out, the R7 series even at this point isn't a bad gamer and will only get better as drivers, bios and game optimizations are made. AMD's true gaming line will release with the R5 series processors. Those are what should be compared to the i7 7700K as they will feature less cores and should be able to obtain higher overclocks than the R7 series sporting in some cases twice the number of cores. By the time they release hopefully the driver and bios issues are resolved and we have some games optimized for the new architecture so we can truly see the gaming potential of the Ryzen line.
Final though- as I have stated before gaming isn't everything. The R7 series was never intended to be the gaming processors of Ryzen, they are the workstation processors of Ryzen. In that role they truly shine and are a huge success. While we are all muddled down with the gaming performance of a WORKSTATION PROCESSOR we are also largely ignoring the implications the R7 series sets for Naples server processors. The server market is where the money is, where AMD has to make up the most ground, and is where AMD is currently poised to take a huge bite out of Intel.
AMD's true gaming line will release with the R5 series processors. Those are what should be compared to the i7 7700K as they will feature less cores and should be able to obtain higher overclocks than the R7 series sporting in some cases twice the number of cores.
On that note: am I the only one who doubts it? I mean, can the R5, with fewer cores, really go beyond 4.2?
AMD's true gaming line will release with the R5 series processors. Those are what should be compared to the i7 7700K as they will feature less cores and should be able to obtain higher overclocks than the R7 series sporting in some cases twice the number of cores.
On that note: am I the only one who doubts it? I mean, can the R5, with fewer cores, really go beyond 4.2?
In theory, with less cores you have less issues with heat, and *should* get a higher OC on average. But it already sounds like VCore needs to go way up beyond 4GHz, so I don't think you'll get more then an extra 100MHz or so out of it.
I'll note again: If the expectation was ~Haswell IPC, then Ryzen hit the mark. But hype got out of control; I'm sure you all saw the threads on this and other forums how AMD caught up with Kaby Lake IPC and how Intel was doomed, and then the actual release, which met expectations, became a disappointment.
I'll note again: If the expectation was ~Haswell IPC, then Ryzen hit the mark. But hype got out of control; I'm sure you all saw the threads on this and other forums how AMD caught up with Kaby Lake IPC and how Intel was doomed, and then the actual release, which met expectations, became a disappointment.
I'll note again: If the expectation was ~Haswell IPC, then Ryzen hit the mark. But hype got out of control; I'm sure you all saw the threads on this and other forums how AMD caught up with Kaby Lake IPC and how Intel was doomed, and then the actual release, which met expectations, became a disappointment.
That is where we come in, my dear gamerk.
The only cure for ignorance is knowledge, right?
Cheers!
This is exactly what I've been trying to get a few of the more disappointed people to see- Ryzen has landed exactly where we thought it would (in the best case scenario as well) in gaming. It's the workstation apps that are in fact hitting *above* the expected level that is the surprise... It's just rather frustrating to see that get turned around into a bad thing all of a sudden? I do think some of the gaming focused reviewers are being overly harsh to be totally honest. I also think that once a few 'cheap' Ryzen parts crop up, they will conclude the polar opposite of what they've said about the R7 It's a shame AMD couldn't have had a quad core 'gaming' part for launch really.
I'll note again: If the expectation was ~Haswell IPC, then Ryzen hit the mark. But hype got out of control; I'm sure you all saw the threads on this and other forums how AMD caught up with Kaby Lake IPC and how Intel was doomed, and then the actual release, which met expectations, became a disappointment.
That is where we come in, my dear gamerk.
The only cure for ignorance is knowledge, right?
Cheers!
This is exactly what I've been trying to get a few of the more disappointed people to see- Ryzen has landed exactly where we thought it would (in the best case scenario as well) in gaming. It's the workstation apps that are in fact hitting *above* the expected level that is the surprise... It's just rather frustrating to see that get turned around into a bad thing all of a sudden? I do think some of the gaming focused reviewers are being overly harsh to be totally honest. I also think that once a few 'cheap' Ryzen parts crop up, they will conclude the polar opposite of what they've said about the R7 It's a shame AMD couldn't have had a quad core 'gaming' part for launch really.
I tend to agree with everything you just said. We were all hoping beyond hope that Ryzen could perform at near Haswell levels. Ryzen has actually done more than that and come out with an architecture that is very impressive. It is currently gaming at the level of Haswell and is actually giving Broadwell a real challenge for supremacy as a workstation computer. I'm going to go a step further though because I want to know why it is being judged so incredibly harshly. None of its impressive aspects are being talked about such as power management better than Intel, workstation performance the equal of or better than Intel and all that in first generation going up against an iCore architecture in its 8th generation and incredibly refined. I find it interesting how with the last generation processors we had there was tons of talk and insults about the Piledriver's use of power and heat buildup. Interesting in that now that Ryzen is using less power and operating at lower temperatures than its Intel counterpart (the i7 6900K) that no one brings up TDP and heat anymore. No one talks about Cinebench scores anymore since Ryzen is now beating its counterpart there, no in fact all we talk about is 1080p D12 gaming- the only place where Ryzen is stumbling and in fact the only place where Intel is still (for the moment) comfortably in the lead. Why is Ryzen being judged so harshly, why is the only thing we focus on where it comes up short vs Intel and everything else is just ignored? I fully expect that 1080p DX12 scores will significantly come up for Ryzen as bios and Windows driver updates become available as well as games optimizing their code for Ryzen. If that happens and Ryzen is a stout gamer then what will we focus on next? Will the focus shift to Intel is able to overclock higher and is therefore superior and nothing else matters, only overclocking?
Does anybody know why exactly Ryzen overclocks way worse than Intel? I know that getting 8 cores to overclock at a high frequency is much harder, but the headroom is so small that it's almost hard to believe.
I'm also wondering about this because AMD is using the same 14nm FinFET right?
AMD asked them to publish 1080, 1440, and 4K reviews together. They did not ask them to *not* do 1080p, they just asked them to show higher resolutions. This was clarified by Lisa Su in the reddit AMA and was characterized as Steve making a gross uncharacterized jab.
Other reviews confirm GN claims. For instance pcgamer claims: "AMD's first suggestion was to test at 1440p or 4K, which is complete bunk. Testing higher resolutions will absolutely put Ryzen's gaming performance closer to on par with Intel, but only in the sense that running higher resolutions shifts the bottleneck to the GPU. Even AMD's FX-series performs relatively close to Intel in many games, provided you're running at 4K. But if you want to know how Ryzen compares to Core i5/i7 when the GPU isn't the bottleneck, you need to test at lower resolutions."
Note that AMD didn't suggest them to test both 1080p and 4K (or 1440p), but to test only at 4K (or 1440p) to hide the problem by generating a GPU bottleneck.
Also, as noted by GN, AMD public demos of gaming on Ryzen were run exclusively at 4K generating a GPU bottleneck and hidding the problem to everyone.
8350rocks :
Additionally..Steve from GN published a review stating that GPUs are better for video encoding. Except that they are not used for professional video encoding...at all.
GN is rigth. Funny enouh it is the own AMD which has been saying us for years that GPUs are better for that kind of workloads. I still recall when AMD announced to everyone that tasks as Handbrake would run faster on a GPU than in a CPU. The reason is that GPUs are more optimized for throughput whereas CPUs are more optimized for latency. This is also the basis for HSA (Heterogenenous System Architecture) which identifies CPUs with LCUs (Latency Compute Units) and GPUs with TCUs (Throughput Compute Units).
8350rocks :
Steve also contradicted himself in his review...he ignored the minimum FPS where Ryzen was running neck and neck with all the Intel parts, but the maximum FPS was lower.
I saw him discussing minimum FPS also and they were lower than in an i5 in several titles.
8350rocks :
Additionally, they tested in DX12 exclusively, used odd blender settings, and other weird methodology. Joker tested in DX11, and his results are reflected by other DX11 tests.
Not true. GN also tested DX11 titles. Joker tests were unprofessional (large marging of error) and irrelevant because he chose odd settings that generated a GPU bottleneck with the GPU at 99% of load.
8350rocks :
This reddit nitpick of GN's review pretty much sums it up: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5xgonu/analysis_of_gamersnexus_r7_1800x_review_an_i5_in/
GN conclusions agree with all other reviews that also found that Ryzen is not good at gaming. There are a fair good consensus among reviewers.
PcGamer: "The AMD Ryzen 7: plenty of power, but underwhelming gaming".
Arsctechnica: "an excellent workstation CPU, but it doesn't game as hard as we hoped".
Extremetech: "Zen is an amazing workstation chip with a 1080p gaming Achilles heel"
And of course TomsHardware: "It’s hard to recommend the Ryzen 7 1800X over Intel's lower-cost quad-core chips for gaming, especially given the Core i7-7700K's impressive performance."
I think the best comment on that reddit thread was made by the user that writes: "aka: Joker got the biased results we wanted out of hundreds of other reviewers and that is why we like him and are throwing GN and others under the bus".
8350rocks :
All of this leads me to a few conclusions regarding the launch:
The BIOS was very buggy, and this was reflected in numerous Asus reviews, Gigabyte seemed to fare much better overall in that regard, especially in regards to memory timings and higher memory clock support.
Problems have been reproduced on non-Asus mobos.
8350rocks :
The CCX cross threading is a major issue, supposedly windows is patching it next month, we will see. Windows 7 posts gaming numbers for Ryzen that are anywhere from 10-16% better according to the Stilt. Performance in other areas sees a significant improvement as well.
The CCX approach with a split LLC is weird. It is AMD fault, not everyone else. In any case, I don't expect large gains from patching Windows. Recall the Bulldozer scheduler, it improved performance by about 2--5%.
Agree 100% nicely said. I actually expected Fans to react this way but i never ever expected Amd to do this stuff i really didn't i thought that type of stuff was in the past(Bulldozer days).
Eitherway if you can watch Jayz latest video he did show that Ryzen is not being reported right in heaven benchmark and heaven benchmark was only using 1 core. If games are doing something like that it could be a reason why. I mean Ryzen does really well in everything but gaming that is why i find the results to be odd.
" No one talks about Cinebench scores anymore since Ryzen is now beating its counterpart there" I do Ryzen is great for everything but gaming where its mediocre.
"IS NOT RYZEN'S GAMING LINE OF PROCESSORS"
Then what will be the 4 and 6 core parts will look worse and i doubt they will be clocked higher then 300Mhz over the 1800X. 6 core part will be aimed at I5 prices where the I5 can be OC to 4.5Ghz easily, the 4 core part will look better being aimed at the I3 and i do think budget gamers will love that part.
AMD asked them to publish 1080, 1440, and 4K reviews together. They did not ask them to *not* do 1080p, they just asked them to show higher resolutions. This was clarified by Lisa Su in the reddit AMA and was characterized as Steve making a gross uncharacterized jab.
Other reviews confirm GN claims. For instance pcgamer claims: "AMD's first suggestion was to test at 1440p or 4K, which is complete bunk. Testing higher resolutions will absolutely put Ryzen's gaming performance closer to on par with Intel, but only in the sense that running higher resolutions shifts the bottleneck to the GPU. Even AMD's FX-series performs relatively close to Intel in many games, provided you're running at 4K. But if you want to know how Ryzen compares to Core i5/i7 when the GPU isn't the bottleneck, you need to test at lower resolutions."
Note that AMD didn't suggest them to test both 1080p and 4K (or 1440p), but to test only at 4K (or 1440p) to hide the problem by generating a GPU bottleneck.
Also, as noted by GN, AMD public demos of gaming on Ryzen were run exclusively at 4K generating a GPU bottleneck and hidding the problem to everyone.
8350rocks :
Additionally..Steve from GN published a review stating that GPUs are better for video encoding. Except that they are not used for professional video encoding...at all.
GN is rigth. Funny enouh it is the own AMD which has been saying us for years that GPUs are better for that kind of workloads. I still recall when AMD announced to everyone that tasks as Handbrake would run faster on a GPU than in a CPU. The reason is that GPUs are more optimized for throughput whereas CPUs are more optimized for latency. This is also the basis for HSA (Heterogenenous System Architecture) which identifies CPUs with LCUs (Latency Compute Units) and GPUs with TCUs (Throughput Compute Units).
8350rocks :
Steve also contradicted himself in his review...he ignored the minimum FPS where Ryzen was running neck and neck with all the Intel parts, but the maximum FPS was lower.
I saw him discussing minimum FPS also and they were lower than in an i5 in several titles.
8350rocks :
Additionally, they tested in DX12 exclusively, used odd blender settings, and other weird methodology. Joker tested in DX11, and his results are reflected by other DX11 tests.
Not true. GN also tested DX11 titles. Joker tests were unprofessional (large marging of error) and irrelevant because he chose odd settings that generated a GPU bottleneck with the GPU at 99% of load.
8350rocks :
This reddit nitpick of GN's review pretty much sums it up: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5xgonu/analysis_of_gamersnexus_r7_1800x_review_an_i5_in/
GN conclusions agree with all other reviews that also found that Ryzen is not good at gaming. There are a fair good consensus among reviewers.
PcGamer: "The AMD Ryzen 7: plenty of power, but underwhelming gaming".
Arsctechnica: "an excellent workstation CPU, but it doesn't game as hard as we hoped".
Extremetech: "Zen is an amazing workstation chip with a 1080p gaming Achilles heel"
And of course TomsHardware: "It’s hard to recommend the Ryzen 7 1800X over Intel's lower-cost quad-core chips for gaming, especially given the Core i7-7700K's impressive performance."
I think the best comment on that reddit thread was made by the user that writes: "aka: Joker got the biased results we wanted out of hundreds of other reviewers and that is why we like him and are throwing GN and others under the bus".
8350rocks :
All of this leads me to a few conclusions regarding the launch:
The BIOS was very buggy, and this was reflected in numerous Asus reviews, Gigabyte seemed to fare much better overall in that regard, especially in regards to memory timings and higher memory clock support.
Problems have been reproduced on non-Asus mobos.
8350rocks :
The CCX cross threading is a major issue, supposedly windows is patching it next month, we will see. Windows 7 posts gaming numbers for Ryzen that are anywhere from 10-16% better according to the Stilt. Performance in other areas sees a significant improvement as well.
The CCX approach with a split LLC is weird. It is AMD fault, not everyone else. In any case, I don't expect large gains from patching Windows. Recall the Bulldozer scheduler, it improved performance by about 2--5%.
Let me start by saying, that I consider myself an AMD fanboy. It's hard for me to see their chips in a bad way, and to see Intel as the overall better, even during the Piledriver era. But I try very, very hard to be objective about stuff.
That said, I disagree with reviewers who say Ryzen is bad at games. Not a single game went below 60 FPS, anywhere Intel went above 100 so did Ryzen, frame times were very low, no hicups, etc. What should be said is:
Ryzen is worse than Intel quads in games, but still good.
Also, about comparing the 1800X with the 7700k, we must also compare the 7700k with the 6900k, because the entire proposition of the CPUs is different. Nobody compares a low-clock 8-core CPU with a high-clock 4-core CPU from Intel, and nobody recommends the 6900k over the 7700k, so why all the fuss about the 1800X being worse than the best CPU for gaming?
Also to compare 1800X against the 6900k in a fair light, we must wait for software to catch up a bit, and bugs be resolved, because the first is full of them, and the later had all of them solved a long time ago.
But that's ok, we can compare both based on price/performance, and then yes, the 7700k is a better option than Ryzen. I wouldn't recommend people who don't want to upgrade in two years to get it, though. I doubt Intel will release a six core on LGA 1151, so games that can use loads of threads will slowly but surely run worse on the 7700k, and better on the Ryzen.
For those reasons I don't think reviewers are right in saying the 1800X is a bad gaming CPU, especially at $400. It performs worse than the 7700k, but it's definitely not bad.
8350rocks :
jdwii :
cdrkf :
jdwii :
Redneck5439
That could very well be true like i said something doesn't look right i mean even if it was the IMC i doubt it would be hurting it that badly i was thinking maybe the IMC is holding back all 8 cores doing work? But you would think the synthetic benchmarks would also show that.
See it's NOT the product that gets me a little bit upset its the way Amd is presenting it to us and the way they are claiming that a patch will solve everything(same thing with bulldozer) and them telling reviewers to benchmark 1440P and 4K and then try and blow off 1080P performance when in reality once GPUs get even more strong Ryzen results in 1440P will look like 1080P numbers today.
That is why you benchmark in lower resolutions it helps one try and see what performance will look like in the future. Its been something reviewers have done since 1995 and it seems to work very well IMO.
For example if they tested the i7 920 and Phenom II x4 955 at some 2K at resolution(in 2009) it would make it seem like those products were equal when in reality the 920 is MUCH stronger and if one tried to game on either today using modern titles one would easily know that but if they bought the 955 cause it looked even to the 920 at 2K back in 2009 they would struggle more on that processor today then a 920.
It would be like Amd comparing their new VEGA to a Titan then locking the hz down to 30 and using a 1080P monitor and claiming they are equal or something lol i hope i didn't get them a idea
There's a lot of hearsay about what 'AMD' are trying to pull or otherwise... I haven't seen or heard anything concrete to suggest they are trying to do anything beyond showcase the part in it's best light. All reviewers have shown 1080p results- if they are trying to fool customers they've not gone about it very well.
I still maintain however that *if* Ryzen 7 is as far behind in gaming overall as the 1080p results suggest, why does it win in the same games at 4k vs Intel? If the graphics card is being pushed to it's max in both cases how does the R7 report a small but repeatable advantage in some games- I think there's more to it.
Also if we are talking Phenom II vs a 920- the competing part is the Phenom II X6. I know from first hand experience that the X6 1055t is still very much capable of playing pretty much anything out there. I'm not convinced the 920 would in fact be ahead with a modern gpu in modern titles....
I was simply talking about the products that were out in 2009 and gave a example to why we benchmark CPUs using lower resolutions to measure gaming performance in the future and even more so to limit GPU bound situations also according to Gamer nexus Amd did down play 1080P results in a comment by saying they want it tested in resolutions gamers are actually using,
If gamernexus and Jayztwocents isn't trust worthy then i guess one should watch Paulshardware latest video where Amd told him to test certain games as some games don't work well with Ryzen. Of course as a professional reviewer he did not listen as one should never listen to Intel, Amd, or Nvidia when it comes to what they should test their processor in or at the very least still show the bad results.
I'm sure i can find more reviews if people want to play that game. Simple matter is any weak CPU will look better in 4K vs 1080P as the game is becoming GPU bound, and again i'm not saying Ryzen is weak still hangs with I5's in most games but as i told my friend who waited its between Piledriver and kabylake and Ryzen kind of reminds me more of Phenom which isn't bad i expect budget gamers to love their cheaper 4 core option.
Perhaps we should wait and see but until these fixes actually happen i won't recommend ryzen in any gaming rig at least not their 8 core. Something does seem off in gaming results Ryzen should be doing better according to synthetic benchmarks even in single core Ryzen is basically within broadwell.
I saw that video.
AMD asked for reviewers to include at least a few of the games that are *optimized* for Ryzen, in addition to their regular testing suite.
Now, you might gripe about them trying to get some optimized reviews; however, I would venture to say that most reviewers would at least want to include a few of those because they do happen to be wildly popular titles. If you are reviewing a CPU and do not include BF1 and Witcher 3 in your review, I would think you would be doing that solely out of spite.
The video, in case anyone is curious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKGJshXgOwU
I will say most reviews did include those games to and Ryzen did do well in BF1 if i remember and a few others.
Something is wrong in AotS that benchmark is terrible been saying it since i saw it the first time.
AMD asked them to publish 1080, 1440, and 4K reviews together. They did not ask them to *not* do 1080p, they just asked them to show higher resolutions. This was clarified by Lisa Su in the reddit AMA and was characterized as Steve making a gross uncharacterized jab.
Other reviews confirm GN claims. For instance pcgamer claims: "AMD's first suggestion was to test at 1440p or 4K, which is complete bunk. Testing higher resolutions will absolutely put Ryzen's gaming performance closer to on par with Intel, but only in the sense that running higher resolutions shifts the bottleneck to the GPU. Even AMD's FX-series performs relatively close to Intel in many games, provided you're running at 4K. But if you want to know how Ryzen compares to Core i5/i7 when the GPU isn't the bottleneck, you need to test at lower resolutions."
Note that AMD didn't suggest them to test both 1080p and 4K (or 1440p), but to test only at 4K (or 1440p) to hide the problem by generating a GPU bottleneck.
Also, as noted by GN, AMD public demos of gaming on Ryzen were run exclusively at 4K generating a GPU bottleneck and hidding the problem to everyone.
8350rocks :
Additionally..Steve from GN published a review stating that GPUs are better for video encoding. Except that they are not used for professional video encoding...at all.
GN is rigth. Funny enouh it is the own AMD which has been saying us for years that GPUs are better for that kind of workloads. I still recall when AMD announced to everyone that tasks as Handbrake would run faster on a GPU than in a CPU. The reason is that GPUs are more optimized for throughput whereas CPUs are more optimized for latency. This is also the basis for HSA (Heterogenenous System Architecture) which identifies CPUs with LCUs (Latency Compute Units) and GPUs with TCUs (Throughput Compute Units).
8350rocks :
Steve also contradicted himself in his review...he ignored the minimum FPS where Ryzen was running neck and neck with all the Intel parts, but the maximum FPS was lower.
I saw him discussing minimum FPS also and they were lower than in an i5 in several titles.
8350rocks :
Additionally, they tested in DX12 exclusively, used odd blender settings, and other weird methodology. Joker tested in DX11, and his results are reflected by other DX11 tests.
Not true. GN also tested DX11 titles. Joker tests were unprofessional (large marging of error) and irrelevant because he chose odd settings that generated a GPU bottleneck with the GPU at 99% of load.
8350rocks :
This reddit nitpick of GN's review pretty much sums it up: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5xgonu/analysis_of_gamersnexus_r7_1800x_review_an_i5_in/
GN conclusions agree with all other reviews that also found that Ryzen is not good at gaming. There are a fair good consensus among reviewers.
PcGamer: "The AMD Ryzen 7: plenty of power, but underwhelming gaming".
Arsctechnica: "an excellent workstation CPU, but it doesn't game as hard as we hoped".
Extremetech: "Zen is an amazing workstation chip with a 1080p gaming Achilles heel"
And of course TomsHardware: "It’s hard to recommend the Ryzen 7 1800X over Intel's lower-cost quad-core chips for gaming, especially given the Core i7-7700K's impressive performance."
I think the best comment on that reddit thread was made by the user that writes: "aka: Joker got the biased results we wanted out of hundreds of other reviewers and that is why we like him and are throwing GN and others under the bus".
8350rocks :
All of this leads me to a few conclusions regarding the launch:
The BIOS was very buggy, and this was reflected in numerous Asus reviews, Gigabyte seemed to fare much better overall in that regard, especially in regards to memory timings and higher memory clock support.
Problems have been reproduced on non-Asus mobos.
8350rocks :
The CCX cross threading is a major issue, supposedly windows is patching it next month, we will see. Windows 7 posts gaming numbers for Ryzen that are anywhere from 10-16% better according to the Stilt. Performance in other areas sees a significant improvement as well.
The CCX approach with a split LLC is weird. It is AMD fault, not everyone else. In any case, I don't expect large gains from patching Windows. Recall the Bulldozer scheduler, it improved performance by about 2--5%.
Let me start by saying, that I consider myself an AMD fanboy. It's hard for me to see their chips in a bad way, and to see Intel as the overall better, even during the Piledriver era. But I try very, very hard to be objective about stuff.
That said, I disagree with reviewers who say Ryzen is bad at games. Not a single game went below 60 FPS, anywhere Intel went above 100 so did Ryzen, frame times were very low, no hicups, etc. What should be said is:
Ryzen is worse than Intel quads in games, but still good.
Also, about comparing the 1800X with the 7700k, we must also compare the 7700k with the 6900k, because the entire proposition of the CPUs is different. Nobody compares a low-clock 8-core CPU with a high-clock 4-core CPU from Intel, and nobody recommends the 6900k over the 7700k, so why all the fuss about the 1800X being worse than the best CPU for gaming?
Also to compare 1800X against the 6900k in a fair light, we must wait for software to catch up a bit, and bugs be resolved, because the first is full of them, and the later had all of them solved a long time ago.
But that's ok, we can compare both based on price/performance, and then yes, the 7700k is a better option than Ryzen. I wouldn't recommend people who don't want to upgrade in two years to get it, though. I doubt Intel will release a six core on LGA 1151, so games that can use loads of threads will slowly but surely run worse on the 7700k, and better on the Ryzen.
For those reasons I don't think reviewers are right in saying the 1800X is a bad gaming CPU, especially at $400. It performs worse than the 7700k, but it's definitely not bad.
Ryzen is not terrible at gaming its just terrible for its price at gaming just like the 7700K is now terrible for its price for productivity.
Also reviews did compare the 6900K with the 1800X in modern titles where the 6900K beats the 7700K(at 5Ghz) such as watch dogs 2 the 1800X loses to the 7700K that game already uses 8 cores. I keep saying this over and over ha ha. Actually in a lot of modern titles games are using 8 cores and the 6900K is starting to beat a 7700K. But in those same titles the 1800X is only coming in at I5 performance. What happens when the 6 and 4 core parts come out?
Ryzen is not terrible at gaming its just terrible for its price at gaming just like the 7700K is now terrible for its price for productivity.
Also reviews did compare the 6900K with the 1800X in modern titles where the 6900K beats the 7700K(at 5Ghz) such as watch dogs 2 the 1800X loses to the 7700K that game already uses 8 cores. I keep saying this over and over ha ha. Actually in a lot of modern titles games are using 8 cores and the 6900K is starting to beat a 7700K. But in those same titles the 1800X is only coming in at I5 performance. What happens when the 6 and 4 core parts come out?
Fortunately for Ryzen, I've already seen 4.2ghz+ overclocks from people just disabling SMT on their R7 CPUs. If R5s are only hexa core, they should have enough headroom to at least hit 4.3ghz. (Plus add the optimizations coming to Ryzen, and we could see Ryzen beating 7600Ks in gaming hands down.)
AMD's true gaming line will release with the R5 series processors. Those are what should be compared to the i7 7700K as they will feature less cores and should be able to obtain higher overclocks than the R7 series sporting in some cases twice the number of cores.
On that note: am I the only one who doubts it? I mean, can the R5, with fewer cores, really go beyond 4.2?
In theory, with less cores you have less issues with heat, and *should* get a higher OC on average. But it already sounds like VCore needs to go way up beyond 4GHz, so I don't think you'll get more then an extra 100MHz or so out of it.
I'll note again: If the expectation was ~Haswell IPC, then Ryzen hit the mark. But hype got out of control; I'm sure you all saw the threads on this and other forums how AMD caught up with Kaby Lake IPC and how Intel was doomed, and then the actual release, which met expectations, became a disappointment.
This is true. We all expected haswell IPC.
Anyone who expected this chip to beat a 7700K in clockspeed sensitive gaming applications was doomed to be setup for failure.
I am simply happy for the following at this point:
Less bugs than X99 launch (probably less than X299 launch as well...we shall see).
Impressive frame times coming from the reviews. Lots of consistency, basically no stutter.
Productivity = WOW!!
Platform is solid, needs some BIOS updates, etc. The meat and potatoes are there though.
I am completely happy with how this turned out. I am a bit upset at mostly one reviewer, specifically, for misinformation...but beyond that...the hype train derailed.
We all got what we were expecting....and I am good. I am buying up parts for an 1800X build, and I am basically going to wrap it up when Vega launches in 30-90 days. I will probably pick a MB at that point as well so that the BIOS updates have had some time to come through and we can see which ones run high frequency RAM profiles best.
Does anybody know why exactly Ryzen overclocks way worse than Intel? I know that getting 8 cores to overclock at a high frequency is much harder, but the headroom is so small that it's almost hard to believe.
I'm also wondering about this because AMD is using the same 14nm FinFET right?
Brand new process node, mostly. With maturity, we will probably see this get a bit better.
Interestingly, the 1700 seems to be able to hit same clocks as the 1700X in OC'ing, and I am wondering if that was not the last chip they produced. Some of the 1700 benches show much lower thermals and vcore than the 1700X and 1800X took to hit 3.9-4.0 GHz. I think, in this case, a few months delay to purchase the CPU and MB will pan out in favor of a bit of additional performance.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram