Discussion AMD Ryzen MegaThread! FAQ and Resources

[juanrga]

Basically...there literally is no reason to recommend an i5 over R5 anything. I could see an edge case argument for a 7700K under a very specific set of conditions, but even then...if you do much productivity at all, the R7 1700 is just outright better overall.

Others disagree

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-review,review-33858-11.html
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244/the-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-vs-core-i5-review-twelve-threads-vs-four/17

i5 7600K preferred for gaming and lightly-threaded workloads and R5 1600X for well-threaded workloads that can scale up to 12 or more threads

Basically this is a repeat of what reviews found with i7 vs R7, as reported in the buyer guides.

 

[-Fran-]

Itanium was a failure for a lot of reasons and AMD isn't really one. You can blame Intel for using a closed VLIW uArch instead of cleaning up X86 for AMD getting in bed with MS to push X86-64. But no, they thought using HP as the block bully in the OEM server market and their dominant position would put them in a good place. I'm not condemning the engies that created Itanium nor it's design, but most of the problems were outside of the technical boundaries.

No. One of the problems of x86 is its inherent serial nature, which is the true reason why we hit a IPC wall. This serial limitation is not solved by "cleaning up x86" and that is why HP and Intel developed a different arch, which was precisely named EPIC from Explicitly Parallel...

Anyone interested in experimental architectures can check the development of the Mill CPU. This is an evolution of the VLIW concept and current prototypes can perform up to 20 or 30 instructions per cycle.

ROFLMAO.

You do realize there is no such thing as "real parallelism" in computing, right? You will always have to handle a stream of instructions in a serial manner and then feed it to a central unit that can dispatch them accordingly.

Plus, super-scalar uArchs can go as wide as they want. You can make X86 CPUs as wide as you want without changing the ISA one single bit.

You're barking at the wrong tree there or have some real misunderstandings on how ISAs translate to uArchs.

Cheers!

 

[juanrga]

Itanium was a failure for a lot of reasons and AMD isn't really one. You can blame Intel for using a closed VLIW uArch instead of cleaning up X86 for AMD getting in bed with MS to push X86-64. But no, they thought using HP as the block bully in the OEM server market and their dominant position would put them in a good place. I'm not condemning the engies that created Itanium nor it's design, but most of the problems were outside of the technical boundaries.

No. One of the problems of x86 is its inherent serial nature, which is the true reason why we hit a IPC wall. This serial limitation is not solved by "cleaning up x86" and that is why HP and Intel developed a different arch, which was precisely named EPIC from Explicitly Parallel...

Anyone interested in experimental architectures can check the development of the Mill CPU. This is an evolution of the VLIW concept and current prototypes can perform up to 20 or 30 instructions per cycle.

ROFLMAO.

You do realize there is no such thing as "real parallelism" in computing, right? You will always have to handle a stream of instructions in a serial manner and then feed it to a central unit that can dispatch them accordingly.

Not true, but this is off-topic and I will stop here.

 

[goldstone77]

Geekbench 4 CPU Search 3,731 results found

Uploaded
Apr 16, 2017
Model
System manufacturer System Product Name AMD Ryzen 7 1700 4004 MHz (8 cores)
Platform Windows 64-bit
Single-Core Score 6103
Multi-Core Score 33591
http://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/search?dir=desc&q=ryzen&sort=multicore_score
http://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/2558757

Interesting Scores and not bad for a $319 CPU!

 

[Rookie_MIB]

Geekbench 4 CPU Search 3,731 results found

Uploaded
Apr 16, 2017
Model
System manufacturer System Product Name AMD Ryzen 7 1700 4004 MHz (8 cores)
Platform Windows 64-bit
Single-Core Score 6103
Multi-Core Score 33591
http://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/search?dir=desc&q=ryzen&sort=multicore_score
http://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/2558757

Interesting Scores and not bad for a $319 CPU!

He's about 5000 pts above my best, but mine is running about 300mhz slower (3.7ghz) and the RAM is topped out at 2667mhz.

 

[jdwii]

Geekbench 4 CPU Search 3,731 results found

Uploaded
Apr 16, 2017
Model
System manufacturer System Product Name AMD Ryzen 7 1700 4004 MHz (8 cores)
Platform Windows 64-bit
Single-Core Score 6103
Multi-Core Score 33591
http://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/search?dir=desc&q=ryzen&sort=multicore_score
http://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/2558757

Interesting Scores and not bad for a $319 CPU!

My processor at stock gets 5034 for the single core and 16348 for the multi-core with 1866mhz ram. Impressed actually with Ryzen scores.

 

[8350rocks]

Basically...there literally is no reason to recommend an i5 over R5 anything. I could see an edge case argument for a 7700K under a very specific set of conditions, but even then...if you do much productivity at all, the R7 1700 is just outright better overall.

Others disagree

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-review,review-33858-11.html
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244/the-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-vs-core-i5-review-twelve-threads-vs-four/17

i5 7600K preferred for gaming and lightly-threaded workloads and R5 1600X for well-threaded workloads that can scale up to 12 or more threads

Basically this is a repeat of what reviews found with i7 vs R7, as reported in the buyer guides.

Not true, but this is off topic and I will stop here.

 

[goldstone77]

"Considering what Intel charges for its Core i5-7600K, we'd certainly like Ryzen 5 1600X a lot more for gaming if it debuted at a lower price. Much of the Ryzen tapestry is woven using value as its thread. But it's hard to keep that story together when Ryzen 5 1600X sells for $249 and Core i5-7600K goes for $240. With that said, professionals on a budget are far more likely to jump on a potent six-core chip like the 1600X when it's able to beat the $450 Core i7-6800K."
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-review,review-33858-11.html?_ga=1.104598272.1447811569.1490454177
last paragraph
also the 1600 comes with a cooler capable of the overclock unlike the 1600x, which does not come with a cooler.
Problem solved overclock the Ryzen 5 1600 to 4GHz@$219 price point!

 

[goldstone77]

Found a couple good articles on compatible RAM for Ryzen! 2 and 4 Dimm configurations.
http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryzen-single-rank-versus-dual-rank-ddr4-memory-performance_192960/5
http://www.legitreviews.com/ddr4-memory-scaling-amd-am4-platform-best-memory-kit-amd-ryzen-cpus_192259/6
Update 03-14-2017: AMD said that they have internally observed good results from 2933, 3200, and 3500 MT/s rates with 16GB kits based on Samsung “B-die” memory chips. Potential kits include:
Geil EVO X – GEX416GB3200C16DC [16-16-16-36 @ 1.35v]
G.Skill Trident Z RGB Series- F4-3200C16D-16GTZR [16-18-18-36 @ 1.35v] ($189.99 shipped)
Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 VERSION 5.39 [16-18-18-36 @ 1.35v] ($129.99 shipped)
Also,
Many YouTube Bench Testers use ASRock X370 Taichi AM4 Motherboard to get the higher CPU and Memory clocks.
G.SKILL Flare X Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3200 also seems to be the memory of choice.
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232530

 

[goldstone77]

Ryzen 5 review vs. Core i5: Ryzen 5 1600X wins for best mainstream power CPU
We test the best for $250, pitting the new Ryzen 5 1600X against Intel's vaunted Core i5-7600K.
"The problem is, people don’t want complicated answers. They want simple answers and they want you to pick for them. In that case, Ryzen 5 is the way to go. It burns Core i5 to the ground in multi-threaded applications performance and doesn’t give up much in single-threaded performance."
"It’s pretty hard to pass up the incredible performance the Ryzen 5 1600X offers, especially as we move into a world where more cores and more threads are expected to matter. For that new world, the Ryzen 5 1600X is easily the winner and just a hell of a deal for the overall performance you get."
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3186811/computers/ryzen-5-review-vs-core-i5-ryzen-5-1600x-wins-for-best-mainstream-power-cpu.html?page=4

 

[jdwii]

Ryzen 5 review vs. Core i5: Ryzen 5 1600X wins for best mainstream power CPU
We test the best for $250, pitting the new Ryzen 5 1600X against Intel's vaunted Core i5-7600K.
"The problem is, people don’t want complicated answers. They want simple answers and they want you to pick for them. In that case, Ryzen 5 is the way to go. It burns Core i5 to the ground in multi-threaded applications performance and doesn’t give up much in single-threaded performance."
"It’s pretty hard to pass up the incredible performance the Ryzen 5 1600X offers, especially as we move into a world where more cores and more threads are expected to matter. For that new world, the Ryzen 5 1600X is easily the winner and just a hell of a deal for the overall performance you get."
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3186811/computers/ryzen-5-review-vs-core-i5-ryzen-5-1600x-wins-for-best-mainstream-power-cpu.html?page=4

Rise of the Tomb Raider really has issues with ryzen i even seen piledriver beat it, The game needs a patch its obviously not using ryzen correctly

 

[goldstone77]

Ryzen 5 review vs. Core i5: Ryzen 5 1600X wins for best mainstream power CPU
We test the best for $250, pitting the new Ryzen 5 1600X against Intel's vaunted Core i5-7600K.
"The problem is, people don’t want complicated answers. They want simple answers and they want you to pick for them. In that case, Ryzen 5 is the way to go. It burns Core i5 to the ground in multi-threaded applications performance and doesn’t give up much in single-threaded performance."
"It’s pretty hard to pass up the incredible performance the Ryzen 5 1600X offers, especially as we move into a world where more cores and more threads are expected to matter. For that new world, the Ryzen 5 1600X is easily the winner and just a hell of a deal for the overall performance you get."
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3186811/computers/ryzen-5-review-vs-core-i5-ryzen-5-1600x-wins-for-best-mainstream-power-cpu.html?page=4

Rise of the Tomb Raider really has issues with ryzen i even seen piledriver beat it, The game needs a patch its obviously not using ryzen correctly

Yeah, I did just watch a video Linus Tech Tips still showing much lower scores than Intel for that title, but depending on your video card and resolution still playable. 4:53 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbK0n5FjvhI
Mind Blank shows some mid range video card results for a 1060 and 480 mixed with Ryzen and Intel. The gaming gap isn't that much when you consider the vast amount of people gaming at 60Hz. Most people opting for the 6 cores and future proof as games take advantage of directx12 and Vulkan as well as the huge muiltithreading performance gains at the 1600@3.9-4.0GHz for $219 price point that comes with a stock cooler capable of the overclock. 1700@3.9GHz for $319 lands the same amazing performance at that price point with a stock cooler capable of the overclock. My personal opinon Ryzen hands down. At these price points the game play for some old titles might be touch and go, but I wouldn't advise anyone to buy a new computer to play old games. I would attempt to future proof it if possible. With mid grade video cards at 1080p Ryzen is more than capable to playing games at 60Hz, which most people will game at, and still have way better performance than intel offers at those price points.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY_NXmEUvjA

 

[juanrga]

Ryzen 5 review vs. Core i5: Ryzen 5 1600X wins for best mainstream power CPU
We test the best for $250, pitting the new Ryzen 5 1600X against Intel's vaunted Core i5-7600K.
"The problem is, people don’t want complicated answers. They want simple answers and they want you to pick for them. In that case, Ryzen 5 is the way to go. It burns Core i5 to the ground in multi-threaded applications performance and doesn’t give up much in single-threaded performance."
"It’s pretty hard to pass up the incredible performance the Ryzen 5 1600X offers, especially as we move into a world where more cores and more threads are expected to matter. For that new world, the Ryzen 5 1600X is easily the winner and just a hell of a deal for the overall performance you get."
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3186811/computers/ryzen-5-review-vs-core-i5-ryzen-5-1600x-wins-for-best-mainstream-power-cpu.html?page=4

I agree the R5 is the chip for code that scale up well to lot of threads, like encoding and rendering. But PCWorld is recommending the R5 using the same flawed arguments that have been used during last decade. The R5 will be a completely outdated chip before average code scales up to 12T.

I recall when people used this kind of arguments with Bulldozer: Get eight cores because soon a SB i5 will be outdated with future software "expected to" use more threads "now" that we have cheap eight cores and developers can start to use "moar cores". It didn't work.

Latter the argument was changed; soon FX-8350 will be better for gaming than i5 because the new consoles use eight Jaguar cores and developers can start to use moar cores. I remember the Eurogamer article about this, with interviews to game developers predicting how the 8350 would probably be a better choice for future gaming. It didn't work.

Then the argument changed again with Mantle, and then repeated with DX12/Vulcan. Soon eight cores (8T) will be the preferred options for gamers because of the new threading model, they said us. I remember all the expectation and promises, then Mantle was killed, and the first tests of DX12 games didn't match the hype generated.

Much more recently, AdoredTV published videos about how the FX-8350 finally did beat the SB i5 on games

AdoredTV used that to hype RyZen launch, It will be a "beast on games" the guy promised us, but he used wrong data and computerbase review of RyZen did show a different picture with R7s losing to modern i5s and even i3s on games, whereas the Sandy Bridge i5 continues scoring above the 8350 today

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/amd-ryzen-1800x-1700x-1700-test/3/#diagramm-gesamtrating-spiele-full-hd

Click on "+29 Einträge" button to see the full chart with FX-8350 and i5-2500k included.

Yes, the gap has reduced from about 17% ahead in 2012 to about 10% in 2017, because games are a bit better threaded now, but that is all.

History is repeating again with PCWorld promising now that R5 will be better than i5 in future because software is "expected to" use more threads. Expected by whom? By the same people that did make the same unfounded promises in the past? My advice is to make a purchase on base to current performance. Yes, it is good to maintain an eye on future performance for the purchase not getting outdated before one can upgrade to something new, but making purchases in base to unfounded promises about future performance is not something that I would recommend.

UPDATE:

I have checked the full PCWorld review and it is even worse than I believed! The conclusions are based in unfounded claims that the reviewer does about the microarchitecture and about games.

This is one of the relevant flawed parts:

Although there are still some outstanding questions, it’s clear to me that there isn’t some flaw with Ryzen that makes it slow (which everyone feared). The most logical conclusion is to blame the games themselves.

I say this because If Ashes of the Singularity developer Oxide can bump performance by 20 percent or more after a couple weeks’ worth of tweaking, and in fact says it’s not fair to even compare Intel with AMD with the previous code, it stands to reason other games could do the same. Optimization may not erase the difference completely, but it should make any remaining difference insignificant.

Ryzen may still have problems with older games if only because game developers are unlikely to update code for a 2014 title. However, I’d bet few of you are having problems running a three-year-old game with your rig today. A modern GPU and modern CPU can run any older title without issues. The more important question is whether developers will support Ryzen going forward for games that come out in 2020—not 2014.

Conclusion

After testing Ryzen 5, and especially after seeing how its performance changed with optimized games, Ryzen gaming performance is clearly not as big of a deal as it seemed when Ryzen 7 first launched. When it comes to deciding the matter at hand—which is the best $250 CPU—the complicated answer is: Match the workloads above with what you do and choose based on your needs, not what someone tells you is right.

The problem is, people don’t want complicated answers. They want simple answers and they want you to pick for them. In that case, Ryzen 5 is the way to go. It burns Core i5 to the ground in multi-threaded applications performance and doesn’t give up much in single-threaded performance.

On the thorny gaming question, Core i5 still has an advantage for now. We expect newer games will support Ryzen, making the performance difference mostly moot down the road.

LOL. No! The problem is not on games! We cannot blame the games!

RyZen is a microarchitecture optimized for a subset of server workloads. RyZen has been optimized for throughput instead latency. Before launch, CanardPC and me predicted RyZen was going to shine in GPU-workloads but suffer in games precisely because of this reason

https://twitter.com/juanrga/status/836503836260990976?p=p

And reviews just confirmed what we said. Precisely this latency problem is the reason why AMD just released a new AGESA/BIOS that promised to reduce latencies by about 6ns

https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2017/03/30/amd-ryzen-community-update-2

This latency issue is also the reason why RyZen performance improves more than Intel when overclocking the RAM. Overclocking the RAM reduces the access latency to main memory.

The problem is not on the games. The PCWorld reviewer is wrong. He cites AoTS as a game that improved a lot of after developers patched it for RyZen. What he doesn't tell is that AoTS was performing spectaculary wrong on RyZen before the patch. The game was broken. If Broadwel is about 20% ahead RyZen clock-for-clock on general gaming, the gap was a huge 60% on AoTs

The path has improved 20% the performance of RyZen because the game was broken before the patch. Pretending that all games will get this kind of benefit from patching is wrong and recommending the R5 in the hope that it will game significantly better in future is wrong.

 

[randomizer]

I think it is reasonable to assume that software will use more threads in the future. After all, it is progressing in that direction. The problem is that people are making overly optimistic predictions about how quickly it will happen, and making purchasing decisions and recommendations based on those predictions. You could purchase a reasonably affordable CPU capable of eight threads in 2008. A current CPU capable of only four threads purchased today will wipe the floor with it. Those extra threads were wasted over the last decade unless you ran software that was already highly parallelised at the time.

 

[XBloodyR]

@juanrga

You seem to forget that the Ryzen has a way better price then i5 and i7 and are just slightly behind for now, have been much more behind recetly but it already improved by alot in such a short amount of time!!

For me its pretty simple, do i get a i5 7600k for 320€ including cooler and the premium for mainboards or do i get a Ryzen 5 1600 for 238€ with a cooler that is sufficient for overclocks and cheaper mainboards while the i5 is only a few fps better in some titles and the ryzen better in almost all other tasks additionaly i support competition on the market this one is totally a nobrainer even just looking at current performance.

 

[juanrga]

I think it is reasonable to assume that software will use more threads in the future. After all, it is progressing in that direction. The problem is that people are making overly optimistic predictions about how quickly it will happen, and making purchasing decisions and recommendations based on those predictions. You could purchase a reasonably affordable CPU capable of eight threads in 2008. A current CPU capable of only four threads purchased today will wipe the floor with it. Those extra threads were wasted over the last decade unless you ran software that was already highly parallelised at the time.

Exactly. The gaming gap between the i5 2500k and the FX 8350 has reduced a bit in last five years, but not dramatically, as some expected/predicted. We can expect a similar trend in future, maybe another 5% gap reduction in next five years?

@juanrga

You seem to forget that the Ryzen has a way better price then i5 and i7 and are just slightly behind for now, have been much more behind recetly but it already improved by alot in such a short amount of time!!

For me its pretty simple, do i get a i5 7600k for 320€ including cooler and the premium for mainboards or do i get a Ryzen 5 1600 for 238€ with a cooler that is sufficient for overclocks and cheaper mainboards while the i5 is only a few fps better in some titles and the ryzen better in almost all other tasks additionaly i support competition on the market this one is totally a nobrainer even just looking at current performance.

Pricing is being considered both by me and the Buy guides

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9793/best-cpus
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html
http://www.techradar.com/news/computing-components/processors/best-cpu-the-8-top-processors-today-1046063
http://www.pcgamer.com/the-best-pc-gaming-cpus-processors/

The rule of thumb is Intel for gaming, RyZen for compute.

 

[salgado18]

The thing is, if you think about it, because AMD wasn't competitive since the Phenom era, we've had dual and quad core CPUs as the entire gaming market since the Core 2 Duo/Quad and Phenom X2/X3/X4. Why would developers make their games use 8+ cores, when nobody had the resources? Sure, the i7 has SMT, but it's not really 8 cores, and the i3 is powerful, but it still handles 4 threads, right?

Now, people who would buy a 4-core CPU can buy an 8-core one for the same price. The bottom of the market will have 4-core CPUs in no time. Some games require an i5 or FX-8320 as minimum already.

I'm not saying Ryzen will magicaly be superior in gaming next month, but some people (even in this thread) are still using Phenoms and Sandy Bridges. Why recommend them to buy an i5 or i7, when they won't last as long as a capable 6 or 8 core Ryzen, which even can receive the next generation without replacing motherboard?

My advise to people is: will you upgrade again in the next 2 or 3 years, and only game? Get the Intel. Otherwise, get the Ryzen.

 

[goldstone77]

I think it is reasonable to assume that software will use more threads in the future. After all, it is progressing in that direction. The problem is that people are making overly optimistic predictions about how quickly it will happen, and making purchasing decisions and recommendations based on those predictions. You could purchase a reasonably affordable CPU capable of eight threads in 2008. A current CPU capable of only four threads purchased today will wipe the floor with it. Those extra threads were wasted over the last decade unless you ran software that was already highly parallelised at the time.

Exactly. The gaming gap between the i5 2500k and the FX 8350 has reduced a bit in last five years, but not dramatically, as some expected/predicted. We can expect a similar trend in future, maybe another 5% gap reduction in next five years?

@juanrga

You seem to forget that the Ryzen has a way better price then i5 and i7 and are just slightly behind for now, have been much more behind recetly but it already improved by alot in such a short amount of time!!

For me its pretty simple, do i get a i5 7600k for 320€ including cooler and the premium for mainboards or do i get a Ryzen 5 1600 for 238€ with a cooler that is sufficient for overclocks and cheaper mainboards while the i5 is only a few fps better in some titles and the ryzen better in almost all other tasks additionaly i support competition on the market this one is totally a nobrainer even just looking at current performance.

Pricing is being considered both by me and the Buy guides

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9793/best-cpus
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html
http://www.techradar.com/news/computing-components/processors/best-cpu-the-8-top-processors-today-1046063
http://www.pcgamer.com/the-best-pc-gaming-cpus-processors/

The rule of thumb is Intel for gaming, RyZen for compute.

Juanrga, look at the forums since 2003 till now, and how threaded games have become. The 5 year old argument while I agree with you AMD including it's video cards were always pushing ahead of it's time with a strategy in a direction where technology is heading. They did miss the mark, but we are talking about technology. It's 5 years later and multi-threaded games like AOS are here, and you can read forums and people with with quad core i5's are not happy! Directx 12 and Vulkan are here and games are being made with them that's just a fact it's no longer speculation. Also, below is a link you posted saying people would not recommend Ryzen for gaming, but they actually would at a better price point, and the 1600@$219 comes with a cooler capable of overclocking to 4.0GHz, which is a much better deal than the 1600x or 7600k. It's plays games just a few frames shy of the 7600k, which is not a big deal. But absolutely shreds the 7600k in productivity. It's a no brainer to pick an 1600 or 1700! If you want to game at 144HZ, buy a 1080Ti and you are gtg with Ryzen to game and have a beast on production side of things! I did post links of average user experience with mid grade video cards 480 and 1080. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY_NXmEUvjA

"Considering what Intel charges for its Core i5-7600K, we'd certainly like Ryzen 5 1600X a lot more for gaming if it debuted at a lower price. Much of the Ryzen tapestry is woven using value as its thread. But it's hard to keep that story together when Ryzen 5 1600X sells for $249 and Core i5-7600K goes for $240. With that said, professionals on a budget are far more likely to jump on a potent six-core chip like the 1600X when it's able to beat the $450 Core i7-6800K."
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-review,review-33858-11.html?_ga=1.101401729.1447811569.1490454177

Juanrga while I think you are being pretty accurate on the technical side of your arguments I don't think you are being practical. Many reviewers are saying exactly what I'm saying. I'm gaming with a i5 2500k@4.5GHz with a RX480, and I can play most games at 1080p with Ultra setting just fine. 150-200 FPS in doom! Ryzen has a superior IPC and architecture to this 7 year old Sandy bridge CPU. The Ryzen line up doubles, triples, and almost quadruples this 2500k's performance in threaded tasks. The new i5 and i7 are not much different. Single threaded performance has reached diminishing returns in game play. 1080p games are totally playable at 60HZ with Ryzen. Beyond 1080p games are GPU bound and play within 1 or 2 FPS of Intel. The gaming argument to recommend Intel isn't practical for 99% of the population.

 

[goldstone77]

Another bench mark video and recommendation for the 1600 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4_4Tpa_cIQ

 

[salgado18]

If you want to game at 144HZ, buy a 1080Ti and you are gtg with Ryzen to game and have a beast on production side of things!

Let me just correct this, Ryzen is not quite up to 144 fps in games. It averages 125 where Intel is at 135+, so it takes a few settings down to reach 144, which is not quite 144 Hz-capable. I would still call that a tie, though.

 

[goldstone77]

If you want to game at 144HZ, buy a 1080Ti and you are gtg with Ryzen to game and have a beast on production side of things!

Let me just correct this, Ryzen is not quite up to 144 fps in games. It averages 125 where Intel is at 135+, so it takes a few settings down to reach 144, which is not quite 144 Hz-capable. I would still call that a tie, though.

Salgado18 also, consider how much better GPU's will be in a year, 2, 3, or 4. mid grade video cards will push the limits of FPS. Also, consider how long will 1080p be a standard used to measure? How much longer will 1080p monitors last? Consumer electronics will always keep pushing forward to keep sales up!

 

[jdwii]

Spoiler

Ryzen 5 review vs. Core i5: Ryzen 5 1600X wins for best mainstream power CPU
We test the best for $250, pitting the new Ryzen 5 1600X against Intel's vaunted Core i5-7600K.
"The problem is, people don’t want complicated answers. They want simple answers and they want you to pick for them. In that case, Ryzen 5 is the way to go. It burns Core i5 to the ground in multi-threaded applications performance and doesn’t give up much in single-threaded performance."
"It’s pretty hard to pass up the incredible performance the Ryzen 5 1600X offers, especially as we move into a world where more cores and more threads are expected to matter. For that new world, the Ryzen 5 1600X is easily the winner and just a hell of a deal for the overall performance you get."
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3186811/computers/ryzen-5-review-vs-core-i5-ryzen-5-1600x-wins-for-best-mainstream-power-cpu.html?page=4

I agree the R5 is the chip for code that scale up well to lot of threads, like encoding and rendering. But PCWorld is recommending the R5 using the same flawed arguments that have been used during last decade. The R5 will be a completely outdated chip before average code scales up to 12T.

I recall when people used this kind of arguments with Bulldozer: Get eight cores because soon a SB i5 will be outdated with future software "expected to" use more threads "now" that we have cheap eight cores and developers can start to use "moar cores". It didn't work.

Latter the argument was changed; soon FX-8350 will be better for gaming than i5 because the new consoles use eight Jaguar cores and developers can start to use moar cores. I remember the Eurogamer article about this, with interviews to game developers predicting how the 8350 would probably be a better choice for future gaming. It didn't work.

Then the argument changed again with Mantle, and then repeated with DX12/Vulcan. Soon eight cores (8T) will be the preferred options for gamers because of the new threading model, they said us. I remember all the expectation and promises, then Mantle was killed, and the first tests of DX12 games didn't match the hype generated.

Much more recently, AdoredTV published videos about how the FX-8350 finally did beat the SB i5 on games

AdoredTV used that to hype RyZen launch, It will be a "beast on games" the guy promised us, but he used wrong data and computerbase review of RyZen did show a different picture with R7s losing to modern i5s and even i3s on games, whereas the Sandy Bridge i5 continues scoring above the 8350 today

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/amd-ryzen-1800x-1700x-1700-test/3/#diagramm-gesamtrating-spiele-full-hd

Click on "+29 Einträge" button to see the full chart with FX-8350 and i5-2500k included.

Yes, the gap has reduced from about 17% ahead in 2012 to about 10% in 2017, because games are a bit better threaded now, but that is all.

History is repeating again with PCWorld promising now that R5 will be better than i5 in future because software is "expected to" use more threads. Expected by whom? By the same people that did make the same unfounded promises in the past? My advice is to make a purchase on base to current performance. Yes, it is good to maintain an eye on future performance for the purchase not getting outdated before one can upgrade to something new, but making purchases in base to unfounded promises about future performance is not something that I would recommend.

UPDATE:

I have checked the full PCWorld review and it is even worse than I believed! The conclusions are based in unfounded claims that the reviewer does about the microarchitecture and about games.

This is one of the relevant flawed parts:

Although there are still some outstanding questions, it’s clear to me that there isn’t some flaw with Ryzen that makes it slow (which everyone feared). The most logical conclusion is to blame the games themselves.

I say this because If Ashes of the Singularity developer Oxide can bump performance by 20 percent or more after a couple weeks’ worth of tweaking, and in fact says it’s not fair to even compare Intel with AMD with the previous code, it stands to reason other games could do the same. Optimization may not erase the difference completely, but it should make any remaining difference insignificant.

Ryzen may still have problems with older games if only because game developers are unlikely to update code for a 2014 title. However, I’d bet few of you are having problems running a three-year-old game with your rig today. A modern GPU and modern CPU can run any older title without issues. The more important question is whether developers will support Ryzen going forward for games that come out in 2020—not 2014.

Conclusion

After testing Ryzen 5, and especially after seeing how its performance changed with optimized games, Ryzen gaming performance is clearly not as big of a deal as it seemed when Ryzen 7 first launched. When it comes to deciding the matter at hand—which is the best $250 CPU—the complicated answer is: Match the workloads above with what you do and choose based on your needs, not what someone tells you is right.

The problem is, people don’t want complicated answers. They want simple answers and they want you to pick for them. In that case, Ryzen 5 is the way to go. It burns Core i5 to the ground in multi-threaded applications performance and doesn’t give up much in single-threaded performance.

On the thorny gaming question, Core i5 still has an advantage for now. We expect newer games will support Ryzen, making the performance difference mostly moot down the road.

LOL. No! The problem is not on games! We cannot blame the games!

RyZen is a microarchitecture optimized for a subset of server workloads. RyZen has been optimized for throughput instead latency. Before launch, CanardPC and me predicted RyZen was going to shine in GPU-workloads but suffer in games precisely because of this reason

https://twitter.com/juanrga/status/836503836260990976?p=p

And reviews just confirmed what we said. Precisely this latency problem is the reason why AMD just released a new AGESA/BIOS that promised to reduce latencies by about 6ns

https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2017/03/30/amd-ryzen-community-update-2

This latency issue is also the reason why RyZen performance improves more than Intel when overclocking the RAM. Overclocking the RAM reduces the access latency to main memory.

The problem is not on the games. The PCWorld reviewer is wrong. He cites AoTS as a game that improved a lot of after developers patched it for RyZen. What he doesn't tell is that AoTS was performing spectaculary wrong on RyZen before the patch. The game was broken. If Broadwel is about 20% ahead RyZen clock-for-clock on general gaming, the gap was a huge 60% on AoTs

The path has improved 20% the performance of RyZen because the game was broken before the patch. Pretending that all games will get this kind of benefit from patching is wrong and recommending the R5 in the hope that it will game significantly better in future is wrong.

I was arguing this same point on a youtube comment with someone saying the same moar cores in future games. I think what's even more of an issue with that type of thinking is we are seeing core scaling to 8 cores now and ryzen is still competing with I5's with these games.

Frostbite 3 engine has been using 6-8 cores since BF4 i even think BF3 used 6 cores, same can be said for the Cryengine 3 and recent Unreal4. We do still have a lot of crappy optimized games that even can't keep my GPU at 90+ usage like GTA5-Fallout 4 and a few more. i'd argue that in these crappy optimized games having more (performance per cycle + frequency) will help more then having more cores.

I remember since bulldozer people claimed the 8150 would beat a 2500K in the future that's the 8150 not the 8350! Ryzen single core is MUCH more capable then what Bulldozer was which was even beyond Phenom in many ways. Plus Amd is much closer to Intel now then they were during bulldozer in single core performance.

It is kind of frustrating hearing the same thing over and over again in the tech community what drives me more insane is people who claim you wouldn't notice the extra frame rate so why not get the weaker slower part for the same amount of money? Like think if someone tried selling you something and told you that ha ha.

 

[jdwii]

@juanrga

You seem to forget that the Ryzen has a way better price then i5 and i7 and are just slightly behind for now, have been much more behind recetly but it already improved by alot in such a short amount of time!!

For me its pretty simple, do i get a i5 7600k for 320€ including cooler and the premium for mainboards or do i get a Ryzen 5 1600 for 238€ with a cooler that is sufficient for overclocks and cheaper mainboards while the i5 is only a few fps better in some titles and the ryzen better in almost all other tasks additionaly i support competition on the market this one is totally a nobrainer even just looking at current performance.

While i will argue probably the opposite from Juan on this i do think the R5 is a better value processor compared to a I5 i will say the 1600 sure you can OC it with the default cooler but to what 3.8Ghz? 30$ cooler and the I5 will easily get you t0 4.6Ghz if not a little more. Plus you wouldn't have to worry about buying high speed memory, though at this point all ram is expensive.

 

[jdwii]

If you want to game at 144HZ, buy a 1080Ti and you are gtg with Ryzen to game and have a beast on production side of things!

Let me just correct this, Ryzen is not quite up to 144 fps in games. It averages 125 where Intel is at 135+, so it takes a few settings down to reach 144, which is not quite 144 Hz-capable. I would still call that a tie, though.

Salgado18 also, consider how much better GPU's will be in a year, 2, 3, or 4. mid grade video cards will push the limits of FPS. Also, consider how long will 1080p be a standard used to measure? How much longer will 1080p monitors last? Consumer electronics will always keep pushing forward to keep sales up!

Once more powerful cards come out 1440P performance numbers will look the same as 1080P today that is if games don't start optimizing for Ryzen more. I say the word optimizing over supporting more cores as we already have games supporting 8 cores and Ryzen is competing with I5's in those titles.

Bitwit is using Intel over Ryzen for his new cousins build since its a pure gaming build
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gD3l9f7V1nw

 

[goldstone77]

If you want to game at 144HZ, buy a 1080Ti and you are gtg with Ryzen to game and have a beast on production side of things!

Let me just correct this, Ryzen is not quite up to 144 fps in games. It averages 125 where Intel is at 135+, so it takes a few settings down to reach 144, which is not quite 144 Hz-capable. I would still call that a tie, though.

Salgado18 also, consider how much better GPU's will be in a year, 2, 3, or 4. mid grade video cards will push the limits of FPS. Also, consider how long will 1080p be a standard used to measure? How much longer will 1080p monitors last? Consumer electronics will always keep pushing forward to keep sales up!

Once more powerful cards come out 1440P performance numbers will look the same as 1080P today that is if games don't start optimizing for Ryzen more. I say the word optimizing over supporting more cores as we already have games supporting 8 cores and Ryzen is competing with I5's in those titles.

Bitwit is using Intel over Ryzen for his new cousins build since its a pure gaming build
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gD3l9f7V1nw

In, his commentary he does say"Thanks for watching guys! Check out the alternate Ryzen parts list in the description. I think I'm leaning towards that build more than the one I put together in this video but lmk what you think. Love ya'll "
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/cd7c7h

Yeah, I seen that. And I'm actually writing a comment telling him to go with a 1600!