a lot of the gaming multi thread stuff can be explain with the windows scheduler. as I understand it cores zero through 3 are treated as phycal cores, than 4 through 7 treated as logical on a i7. the issue with ryzen is in ot only alternated between real and physcal, but needs to swap to a difrent cache for the second 8 threads. the only fix is ms doing a update to it, and that could take several months.
AMD really should have just waited an extra month to facilitate a cleaner launch. Get in touch with Microsoft to implement the fixes for it in advanced, and also get in touch with the MOBO manufacturers as well to finish up the BIOS issues.
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.
From various comments you just made, are you telling me that if someone came to you and said all I do is video game, its all I'm interested in and I want to build the best video gaming system possible then you would hose them and building a system around the i7 6900K??? You wouldn't be in business for very long doing that to customers and then quote a couple outlier games where the i7 6900K beast the i7 7700K. Lets be honest, if someone asked you for gaming system you would recommend the i7 7700K over the i7 6900K for gaming as most of the time it has better gaming performance - and that isn't even taking into account the insane price Intel puts on its i7 6900K. Right now 8 core 16 thread processors are not the gaming line of processors, they are the workstation class of processors.
The gaming processors are the 4 core 8 thread and maybe even 6 core 12 thread processors. The gaming processors for Ryzen will be the R5 4 and 6 core processors, and they should boast better overclocking potential than their massive R7 brothers. As many others have stated as well Ryzen's gaming issue(s) aren't Bulldozer's issue. Bulldozer's low gaming performance was easy to understand from the get go, all one had to do was run any benchmark like Cinebench, look at the very low single core performance and bingo that is why it doesn't game in the enthusiast market. Ryzen is totally different, from all the benchmarks we have, with the powerhouse it is it should be gaming much, much better. Something is currently hobbling it, but it is far from the hardware issues Bulldozer had. Ryzen has very good IPC and very good single core execution, once the issue is found that is crippling its 1080p gaming potential it should hit the same gaming benchmarks as Skylake based on its very impressive workstation performance.
R5 Ryzen processors will bring AMD back into enthusiast gaming, but they won't dominate there, where they have a chance of dominating is with their R7 and Naples line in workstation and server application.
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.)
I fully expect the 6 core Ryzen processors to hit 4.3Ghz and the 4 core R5s to hit at least 4.5Ghz. The R7s don't overclock well at this point in time, but 8 core 16 thread beasts usually don't have a lot of overhead. Most R7s are hitting at least 4Ghz, and on average the i7 6900K hits 4.3Ghz, I would say 4Ghz for a freshly released Ryzen isn't that bad. In fact I remember a lot of guys posting here now saying things like Zen will never hit 40% IPC gains over Excavator, Zen will never have competitive performance to Haswell, Zen will be lower core count, never getting to 8 cores and 16 threads and will have much lower clock speeds never exceeding 3Ghz. Funny Ryzen has proven all those predictions WRONG. Getting their 8 core 16 thread processors to overclock to 4Ghz it isn't outlandish that their 6 core processors should hit at least 4.3 and their 4 core processors to hit 4.5Ghz.
AMD really should have just waited an extra month to facilitate a cleaner launch. Get in touch with Microsoft to implement the fixes for it in advanced, and also get in touch with the MOBO manufacturers as well to finish up the BIOS issues.
I do agree with you , and I really believe that is why AMD only released its R7 line and held back releasing its R5 line. I think AMD was hoping that the R7s would be judged not as "gamers" but as "workstation" processors. Most people buying a 8 core 16 thread processor only game as a side-note. Most people who buy an 8 core 16 thread processor are doing heavy rendering, video editing, ect. and in those respects the R7s truly shine. I think AMD was expecting more people to judge them on those qualities than gaming on an 8 core 16 thread beast. AMD's gaming processors - the R5s were held back probably in hopes of having those very fixes you mentioned addressed by the time they launch.
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.)
I fully expect the 6 core Ryzen processors to hit 4.3Ghz and the 4 core R5s to hit at least 4.5Ghz. The R7s don't overclock well at this point in time, but 8 core 16 thread beasts usually don't have a lot of overhead. Most R7s are hitting at least 4Ghz, and on average the i7 6900K hits 4.3Ghz, I would say 4Ghz for a freshly released Ryzen isn't that bad. In fact I remember a lot of guys posting here now saying things like Zen will never hit 40% IPC gains over Excavator, Zen will never have competitive performance to Haswell, Zen will be lower core count, never getting to 8 cores and 16 threads and will have much lower clock speeds never exceeding 3Ghz. Funny Ryzen has proven all those predictions WRONG. Getting their 8 core 16 thread processors to overclock to 4Ghz it isn't outlandish that their 6 core processors should hit at least 4.3 and their 4 core processors won't hit 4.5Ghz.
air cooled or watter cooled? I am on a i5 6600k at 4.3 air cooled. if the r5s cant do that, I am not so sure.
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.)
I fully expect the 6 core Ryzen processors to hit 4.3Ghz and the 4 core R5s to hit at least 4.5Ghz. The R7s don't overclock well at this point in time, but 8 core 16 thread beasts usually don't have a lot of overhead. Most R7s are hitting at least 4Ghz, and on average the i7 6900K hits 4.3Ghz, I would say 4Ghz for a freshly released Ryzen isn't that bad. In fact I remember a lot of guys posting here now saying things like Zen will never hit 40% IPC gains over Excavator, Zen will never have competitive performance to Haswell, Zen will be lower core count, never getting to 8 cores and 16 threads and will have much lower clock speeds never exceeding 3Ghz. Funny Ryzen has proven all those predictions WRONG. Getting their 8 core 16 thread processors to overclock to 4Ghz it isn't outlandish that their 6 core processors should hit at least 4.3 and their 4 core processors won't hit 4.5Ghz.
air cooled or watter cooled? I am on a i5 6600k at 4.3 air cooled. if the r5s cant do that, I am not so sure.
Not all air coolers are equal, so that is a loaded question. I would expect that my ND-15S air cooler in a push pull configuration could allow the R5s that overclocking headroom.
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.
I'm in total agreement. Ryzen has hit the performance level in games that I was really hoping for, and far surpassed anything I could have dreamed of in workstation loads. I am very happy with Ryzen even in its current state, and I fully expect Ryzen to get better and better with Windows driver updates, bios updates and game optimizations.
I do a lot of rendering and video editing, and am overjoyed with Ryzen's workstation performance. I already have my R7 1800X, and will probably pick up a R7 1700 as well. I've heard that they are overclocking the best at this point in time and I will probably see which one gets the highest overclock then set the other one aside for a customer build later. I don't think I will be finishing my build for about a month either, as I don't know which motherboard to go with and would like more of a variety of RAM available before buying. Like you said by waiting a month it will be more apparent which motherboard is the best- I usually always go with Asus, but it looks like Gigabyte may have a performance lead this time around.
Verbal confirmation with Forbes that r5 6 core flagship to bump speeds up to 3.6/4.0 a la 1800x?
Question being did AMD plan this earlier - leaking lower core speeds to keep Intel off guard, or is this in direct response to reviewers?
As stated, with two fewer cores to contend with the R5 6 core flagship should have the overhead to overclock to around 4.3Ghz, hopefully more. At this point its almost a certainty that there will be incoming bios updates from AMD. While those bios updates will hopefully help to address whatever is hobbling the processor in gaming the updates may also have a significant effect on the general overclocking ability of Ryzen.
Verbal confirmation with Forbes that r5 6 core flagship to bump speeds up to 3.6/4.0 a la 1800x?
Question being did AMD plan this earlier - leaking lower core speeds to keep Intel off guard, or is this in direct response to reviewers?
As stated, with two fewer cores to contend with the R5 6 core flagship should have the overhead to overclock to around 4.3Ghz, hopefully more. At this point its almost a certainty that there will be incoming bios updates from AMD. While those bios updates will hopefully help to address whatever is hobbling the processor in gaming the updates may also have a significant effect on the general overclocking ability of Ryzen.
if the 1600x can be oced to 4.4 on air cooling like my i5, that would be a good upgrade even with its lower ipc, but if it cant that is a issur.
You gotta remember that this is AMD's first attempt at newer cpu nano fab stuff. They're on a super steep learning curve. They just made a product that's 30% faster than bulldozer. I mean, darn it, that's huge.
The people who defend AMD, are missing something...
If the gaming performance being low is due to a software issue, like BIOS, optimization, windows etc. it can be fixed. But if the problem is with the hardware it can not be fixed easily via software. You need to write core specific program which is a huge effort for the gaming companies.
So what is the situation right now. AMD has done a good job with Ryzen. However there are still some issues like Phenom. They fixed some in Phenom II (by the way I had a 955k back and now I have FX8320 as I feel it is best to support AMD, as Intel for me is the big evil company).
What I will be doing is to wait a little bir to see how the software companies react to Ryzen. In the next few months we will be seeing some progress in that field. I also would like to see the BIOS and driver updates. and recheck the benchs. Although I do not think gaming performance will improve much, however right now it doesn't seem awfully low. In fact if the R5 and R3 have the same gaming performace with half the price of Intel counterparts, still it can be recommended.
The people who defend AMD, are missing something...
If the gaming performance being low is due to a software issue, like BIOS, optimization, windows etc. it can be fixed. But if the problem is with the hardware it can not be fixed easily via software. You need to write core specific program which is a huge effort for the gaming companies.
So what is the situation right now. AMD has done a good job with Ryzen. However there are still some issues like Phenom. They fixed some in Phenom II (by the way I had a 955k back and now I have FX8320 as I feel it is best to support AMD, as Intel for me is the big evil company).
What I will be doing is to wait a little bir to see how the software companies react to Ryzen. In the next few months we will be seeing some progress in that field. I also would like to see the BIOS and driver updates. and recheck the benchs. Although I do not think gaming performance will improve much, however right now it doesn't seem awfully low. In fact if the R5 and R3 have the same gaming performace with half the price of Intel counterparts, still it can be recommended.
the issue seems to be with windows scheduler not handling thread allocation in a optimal way for ryzen. also the split memory cache is just weird, and is making the issue worse. both can be fixed by ms. if the r5 and r3 can be oced to atleast 4.4 on air cooling, I would say its the best way to go. on the flip side, there a rumors is going to release a 6 core replacemenrt for the 7700 and bush that down to replace the current i5s. if they do that, this gets very interesting very fast.
so which is which when it comes to ryzen's gaming performance then? some blame windows/ms, some blame dx, some blame AMD, some even blame intel.
the way i see it:
1. if this is a core utilization issue with windows, is it not possible to disable not ONLY SMT but the 4 extra cores? i5s are beating i7s in gaming perf. if this is more of an OS issue, let the os reference lesser cores by disabling them. the simulated r5 should beat the r7 ala i5vsi7. if the argument holds true.
2. pardon me, but DirectX for all i know, ever since i started building machines and playing videogames on a PC, is a HAL (hardware abstraction layer), i may have failed to see the changelogs from dx7(when i started) up to dx12. did it change? is DX no longer HAL?
3. the "OPTIMIZATION" issue has been on going since Dozer came out. pundits were saying "give it time, we'll see devs taking advantage of 8 cores". circa 2017 and devs are still not optimizing for 8 cores?
4. the saving grace is the upwards 1440p performance. we could argue that it's less CPU bound but CPU perf does matter (to an extent) as lesser CPUs are showing abysmal performance like the FX8350s in the gaming benchmarks. seeing the r7 being an EQUAL to any i7 at 1440p makes me really want to believe AMD's stand.
maybe everybody still with a 1080p monitor (like me) should just VSR/DSR to 1440p. that way we're not losing any performance due to some optimization issue.
so which is which when it comes to ryzen's gaming performance then? some blame windows/ms, some blame dx, some blame AMD, some even blame intel.
the way i see it:
1. if this is a core utilization issue with windows, is it not possible to disable not ONLY SMT but the 4 extra cores? i5s are beating i7s in gaming perf. if this is more of an OS issue, let the os reference lesser cores by disabling them. the simulated r5 should beat the r7 ala i5vsi7. if the argument holds true.
2. pardon me, but DirectX for all i know, ever since i started building machines and playing videogames on a PC, is a HAL (hardware abstraction layer), i may have failed to see the changelogs from dx7(when i started) up to dx12. did it change? is DX no longer HAL?
3. the "OPTIMIZATION" issue has been on going since Dozer came out. pundits were saying "give it time, we'll see devs taking advantage of 8 cores". circa 2017 and devs are still not optimizing for 8 cores?
4. the saving grace is the upwards 1440p performance. we could argue that it's less CPU bound but CPU perf does matter (to an extent) as lesser CPUs are showing abysmal performance like the FX8350s in the gaming benchmarks. seeing the r7 being an EQUAL to any i7 at 1440p makes me really want to believe AMD's stand.
maybe everybody still with a 1080p monitor (like me) should just VSR/DSR to 1440p. that way we're not losing any performance due to some optimization issue.
r7s will almost never beat the 7700k, which is true of the 6900k btw. the lower clock speed having 8 cores couses means unless the game is very well multithreaded, the fewer cores, but higher clock speed i7 will win.
as to the other issue of optimization via the os, that is on amd for rushing ryzan out the door, and ms will fix in the coming months.
the r5 and r3 cpus will be better for gamming becouse of the higher oc room, assuming amd isnt already pushing them to the limit.
so which is which when it comes to ryzen's gaming performance then? some blame windows/ms, some blame dx, some blame AMD, some even blame intel.
the way i see it:
1. if this is a core utilization issue with windows, is it not possible to disable not ONLY SMT but the 4 extra cores? i5s are beating i7s in gaming perf. if this is more of an OS issue, let the os reference lesser cores by disabling them. the simulated r5 should beat the r7 ala i5vsi7. if the argument holds true.
2. pardon me, but DirectX for all i know, ever since i started building machines and playing videogames on a PC, is a HAL (hardware abstraction layer), i may have failed to see the changelogs from dx7(when i started) up to dx12. did it change? is DX no longer HAL?
3. the "OPTIMIZATION" issue has been on going since Dozer came out. pundits were saying "give it time, we'll see devs taking advantage of 8 cores". circa 2017 and devs are still not optimizing for 8 cores?
4. the saving grace is the upwards 1440p performance. we could argue that it's less CPU bound but CPU perf does matter (to an extent) as lesser CPUs are showing abysmal performance like the FX8350s in the gaming benchmarks. seeing the r7 being an EQUAL to any i7 at 1440p makes me really want to believe AMD's stand.
maybe everybody still with a 1080p monitor (like me) should just VSR/DSR to 1440p. that way we're not losing any performance due to some optimization issue.
The gaming benches are all over the place though, I see no common results, its obvious there are some flaws to be fixed with certain set ups with some combos and settings seemingly working better than others. Looks really rushed this launch re mobos and ram compatibility but I think ryzen have a good future, after reading the stilts analysis I look forward to mobile ryzen, I think gf14nm will shine in the 2-3ghz range.
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.
From various comments you just made, are you telling me that if someone came to you and said all I do is video game, its all I'm interested in and I want to build the best video gaming system possible then you would hose them and building a system around the i7 6900K??? You wouldn't be in business for very long doing that to customers and then quote a couple outlier games where the i7 6900K beast the i7 7700K. Lets be honest, if someone asked you for gaming system you would recommend the i7 7700K over the i7 6900K for gaming as most of the time it has better gaming performance - and that isn't even taking into account the insane price Intel puts on its i7 6900K. Right now 8 core 16 thread processors are not the gaming line of processors, they are the workstation class of processors.
The gaming processors are the 4 core 8 thread and maybe even 6 core 12 thread processors. The gaming processors for Ryzen will be the R5 4 and 6 core processors, and they should boast better overclocking potential than their massive R7 brothers. As many others have stated as well Ryzen's gaming issue(s) aren't Bulldozer's issue. Bulldozer's low gaming performance was easy to understand from the get go, all one had to do was run any benchmark like Cinebench, look at the very low single core performance and bingo that is why it doesn't game in the enthusiast market. Ryzen is totally different, from all the benchmarks we have, with the powerhouse it is it should be gaming much, much better. Something is currently hobbling it, but it is far from the hardware issues Bulldozer had. Ryzen has very good IPC and very good single core execution, once the issue is found that is crippling its 1080p gaming potential it should hit the same gaming benchmarks as Skylake based on its very impressive workstation performance.
R5 Ryzen processors will bring AMD back into enthusiast gaming, but they won't dominate there, where they have a chance of dominating is with their R7 and Naples line in workstation and server application.
No i'd have them get a 7700K and according to IPC test's and frequency scaling on Ryzen OC i'd still recommend the 7700K as the best gaming processor 300mhz more on ryzen won't change that.
R5 will not bring Amd back in Enthusiast gaming it will make them a option again for people who do more then gaming. R3 will be Amd's major win CPU.
"r7s will almost never beat the 7700k, which is true of the 6900k btw. the lower clock speed having 8 cores couses means unless the game is very well multithreaded, the fewer cores, but higher clock speed i7 will win. "
I'm telling people the 4 and 6 core parts will look worse(as a lot of modern games can make use of 8 core) and i highly doubt we will see that big of a clock speed advantage on these parts.
Also the 6900K has less IPC and less of a clock speed compared to the 7700K while meeting or beating it. Guess i'm gonna copy this so i don't have to keep typing this over and over again.
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?
Intel's node is higher performance then the one used by Global Foundries. GloFo's 14nm LPP process is more optimized for mobile, and some of us had predicted that Vcore would start to become an issue much past 4GHz. So far, it looks like that is in fact the case.
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.
Reviewers are not saying that Ryzen is bad at gaming. They are saying (i) that there are better chips for gaming, and (ii) that RyZen doesn't game as AMD pretended.
Reviews have compared Ryzen with everything, old i5s, newest 7700k, 6900k, FX-8350,... Reviews have found it is worse than 6900k for gaming. From PcGamer:
I expected Ryzen to be right in the mix, matching Broadwell-E. But while that happens in a few games, in others it comes up well short, sometimes by 20 % or more.
Framerates are relevant for current games. Yes today Ryzen can do 60FPS on a given game and Intel do 80FPS and many people will not notice the difference. But what if tomorrow a more demanding title gets 70FPS on Intel and only 50FPS on AMD? There is a reason why reviewers have performance "CPU tests" at 1080p. Not only reviewers benchmarked Ryzen performance today, buy estimated how it will perform in near future with new games and more powerful GPUs.
About software to catch up a bit and bugs be resolved, I want to be totally respectful but I consider those arguments are a copy of arguments given on Bulldozer launch. Many years after a high-clocked quad-core continues being the kind of games despite consoles have had 8-cores for many years now. And all of us know that the scheduler patch for windows increased performance by 2--5%
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram