NeOak
Member
It definitely is a solid option for people who want to stream on Twitch with software encoding. Reason for the 1700.
I guess get 1700, OC up to 4Ghz = profit.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AMD Ryzen Thread: Affordable Core Act
- Thread starter ·feist·
- Start date
It definitely is a solid option for people who want to stream on Twitch with software encoding. Reason for the 1700.
I guess get 1700, OC up to 4Ghz = profit.
Ok, I finished reading the Computerbase review.
Seems like a good CPU for most workloads, though not necesarily gaming or gaming-related.
Overall gaming benchmark results in CPU-limited scenario:
Another one which is a rather interesting workload (IMHO):
Seems like a good CPU for most workloads, though not necesarily gaming or gaming-related.
Overall gaming benchmark results in CPU-limited scenario:
Of course, the frametime percentile charts in the actual review are much more interesting, so go have a look at that.
Another one which is a rather interesting workload (IMHO):
1440p Gaming Results
This would be the minimum I would play at. I'll do 4k if it runs well enough (30fps lock), otherwise I do 1440p on my 4k screen. I'm more curious about he Ryzen 5s though, when it comes to gaming.
Hitman
DirectX 12
Ultra Quality settings
MSAA
16x AF
Internal benchmark
Tomb Raider
DX12
Very high Quality mode
FXAA/HBAO+ enabled
16x AF enabled
Pure Hair Normal (on)
Tessellation On
Far Cry Primal
The Division
This would be the minimum I would play at. I'll do 4k if it runs well enough (30fps lock), otherwise I do 1440p on my 4k screen. I'm more curious about he Ryzen 5s though, when it comes to gaming.
Hitman
DirectX 12
Ultra Quality settings
MSAA
16x AF
Internal benchmark
Tomb Raider
DX12
Very high Quality mode
FXAA/HBAO+ enabled
16x AF enabled
Pure Hair Normal (on)
Tessellation On
Far Cry Primal
The Division
NeOak
Member
Sounds like a good option for people who have Sandy and Ivy Bridges.
Sir Abacus
Member
Wow that is disappointing.
I really didn't want this extreme value multi-core monster vs anemic single threaded tradeoff. But here we are. Difficult decisions to make and I might just wait until X299.
I don't get this, skylake would still be a better option for gaming since they're cheaper than the 1700x? Am I missing something here?
Now this is interesting -- Computerbase investigated whether the common speculation of memory bandwidth holding Ryzen back is correct:
They speculate, based on the individual benchmark result spread, that the worse performance in some particular workloads is instead caused by less effective on-chip communication (e.g. cache coherency) than what Intel has. This would explain why it scales really well in embarrassingly parallel problems, but worse in those which require lots of low-latency synchronization.
They couldn't confirm it at all (as long as you use at least 2666 MHz).
They speculate, based on the individual benchmark result spread, that the worse performance in some particular workloads is instead caused by less effective on-chip communication (e.g. cache coherency) than what Intel has. This would explain why it scales really well in embarrassingly parallel problems, but worse in those which require lots of low-latency synchronization.
Booker.DeWitt
Member
can somebody translate for me? Is Ryzen a disappointment for games? AMD screwed up again?
But isn't this what we hoped, that Ryzen will at least be similar to Haswell in power?
Edit: Case-in-point:
This is still a massive jump from those piece of shit FX bulldozer processors.
My i5-6600K @ 4.7 will hold me over for a while but at least AMD is somewhat competitive now.
We're seeing some pretty weird results right now. I'm thinking there is going to be a good many BIOS patches in the near future.
Nostremitus
Member
So, the 1700X will be great in my wife's graphic design PC.
It'll also be a pretty decent upgrade to my 2500K without having to give money to Intel.
Good stuff.
It'll also be a pretty decent upgrade to my 2500K without having to give money to Intel.
Good stuff.
Wouldn't go that far. They're not outperforming 7700k's in gaming by any means, though.
Booker.DeWitt
Member
Risk Breaker
Member
Games that don't use more than 4 threads will benefit more from the higher frequencies. Not really surprised.
They are 8-core and 16-thread CPUs after all, at comparatively much lower prices.
In my case, 4-4.1 GHz is enough. I have a 4 GHz 3570 right now and I get good enough framerates with that.
Looks like great cpu for work/multitask and rendering, and not bad gaming performance. Good for me!
Unless intel drops their 8c/16t cpu price to Ryzen level, I'm pretty sure I'll end up with either the 1700x or the 1800x
Yep!
For people that just want to play at +100 FPS in every game (for some reason?) can wait for Ryzen 5 with higher frequencies and even lower prices.
Pop-O-Matic
Banned
So what I'm getting from this is that AMD is dead, PC gaming is dead and Intel's gonna charge highway robbery prices for 4 core processors that offer no real improvement from Sandy Bridge from now until the end of time.
It's not a disappointment, but it is also not the second coming of Jesus.
In particular, buying the 8-core Ryzens for gaming might not be a good value for the money compared to e.g. a 7700k.
Deathknell
Member
Disappointing gaming results..
7700K it is then.
7700K it is then.
Turin Turambar
Member
I'm too lazy to search around benchmarks while I compare prices of different cpu models.
Is there any article out there with a nifty 'average performance per dollar' chart ??
Is there any article out there with a nifty 'average performance per dollar' chart ??
Even in games that scale well a 7700k seems to beat the 1800x. GOW4 for example on the previous page.
Duxxy3
Member
The chip they are reviewing right now wouldn't be your typical gaming chip. Wait for the $200-$300 chips to be reviewed and released.
It seems like a terrific general use chip. But if you're specifically buying a CPU for gaming, my hunch is that intel is still best for you.
dr_rus
Member
No. AMD significantly improved on their previous CPUs and is basically able to match Intel now with the exception of their highest end chips (i7s basically).
I like how people say it doesn't matter what the results are in the 1080P benchmarks, because they will play 1440p or 4k.
But these are exactly the benchmarks you should be looking at, as they show you how the performance will be if you in a couple of years upgrade the graphics card without upgrading the rest of the system.
But in the end Ryzen is a workstation chip at a VERY reasonable price... is it the best chip for gaming, no it is not. but sure you can game on it.
But for a pure gaming machine a 7700K is a better option.
But these are exactly the benchmarks you should be looking at, as they show you how the performance will be if you in a couple of years upgrade the graphics card without upgrading the rest of the system.
But in the end Ryzen is a workstation chip at a VERY reasonable price... is it the best chip for gaming, no it is not. but sure you can game on it.
But for a pure gaming machine a 7700K is a better option.
We don't know yet, but perhaps the 1600x will actually perform better in games. That said, even with better default clocks, I still don't see it overclocking all that well.
Dictator93
Member
Computerbase review is by far the best out there. God damn.
I mean realistically we are waiting for the 4 and 6 core Ryzen's for gaming specifically since they should be able to get higher clocks.
Corpsepyre
Banned
Arstechnica pros and cons:
The good
Eight cores and 16 threads at half the price of Intel
Excellent performance in workstation applications
AM4 is a modern, full-featured platform
While only a small performance boost, XFR is zero-effort and works well
The bad
Gaming performance is weak compared to Intel, particularly in modern titles
Specialised AVX applications will perform better under Intel
The ugly
A higher-clocked quad-core chip like the Intel i7-7700K or 7600K is still the best choice of processor for most
The good
Eight cores and 16 threads at half the price of Intel
Excellent performance in workstation applications
AM4 is a modern, full-featured platform
While only a small performance boost, XFR is zero-effort and works well
The bad
Gaming performance is weak compared to Intel, particularly in modern titles
Specialised AVX applications will perform better under Intel
The ugly
A higher-clocked quad-core chip like the Intel i7-7700K or 7600K is still the best choice of processor for most
Risk Breaker
Member
Yes, at 4.8 GHz. You're not proving my point wrong
If you really need it to run over 133 average FPS then you'll absolutely need higher frequencies. Wait for Ryzen 5 or stick to Intel quads.
hardly
It performs great in production applications
It laggs in gaming
AMD is going to make a bunch of monies on Ryzen
The 5775C is actually a bit of a monster. Scott Wasson (now working for AMD) of the Tech Report talked a lot about how it beat almost everything out there in gaming smoothness (lack of stutter) thanks to the big cache. That cache is mainly for the i-GPU, but the CPU can use it as well and slow RAM is often a gaming bottleneck. Such a shame it can't be overclocked much.
http://techreport.com/review/28751/intel-core-i7-6700k-skylake-processor-reviewed/6
(Note that this averages over both application and gaming results. If you care about gaming primarily, you should nudge all Ryzens down)
Na, just that AMD has solid footing for improvement.
It's a good cpu for sure and if I wasn't still dragging around a nahlehem i7 I would be pumped for zen+, but my cpu is a dinosaur and I needed to upgrade it. I'm not really disappointed with ryzen as much as I am dejected at buying another Intel cpu lol >.>
shark sandwich
tenuously links anime, pedophile and incels
In most games, the $499 1800x is slower than Intel's i7 6700k, which launched in August 2015 for $339.
I'd say the 6 cores will probably be the better value for gaming. They'll probably even perform better in games than the 8 cores while also performing better in other things than intel.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Huh? Unless Intel radically change course, my next desktop upgrades will be all Ryzen - I'm in the embarrassingly parallel camp.
Glad AMD is back and have a serious alternative to Intel depending what you need. Hopefully BIOS updates can improve some of the smaller stuff.
It's my go-to website regarding hardware reviews, they are the best.
It's my go-to website regarding hardware reviews, they are the best.
Ricerocket
Member
It's a solid CPU. Might lag behind a bit in games but it will handle many other things on the PC really well makes up for it imo.
DerZuhälter
Member
Did anyone test Ryzen with AMD/ATi GPUs?
dr_rus
Member
You're forgetting to take the twice more CPU cores aspect of Ryzen into consideration here. The fact that 7700K is somewhat faster right now in modern games even when running GPU limited doesn't mean that this will still be the case tomorrow on faster GPUs as future games may take a much better advantage of Ryzen's 8 cores and Ryzen will get ahead.
Durante posted the WD2 result already:
This is a sign of things to come.
Yes, at 4.8 GHz. You're not proving my point wrong
If you really need it to run over 133 average FPS then you'll absolutely need higher frequencies. Wait for Ryzen 5 or stick to Intel quads.
There's also a non OC version vs OC'd 1800x. Only 400mhz difference but a massive performance gap. Or even the stock 7600k vs the OC'd 1800x. And it's a game that scales well on cores&threads as you can see.
Saw this coming a while ago. Pure Gaming is still Intels domain. 7700k is just too good and focused for that aspect at this time.
For everything else, this is an amazing feat for AMD. I'm still on board for my personal gaming machine at 1440p+ and 3D workstation. If you do more than game or even do things while you game, then you will have some considerations to make.
Early platform will have it's kinks to iron out, but I feel Ryzen and AM4 are off to a good start as things will only improve quite a bit from here.
For everything else, this is an amazing feat for AMD. I'm still on board for my personal gaming machine at 1440p+ and 3D workstation. If you do more than game or even do things while you game, then you will have some considerations to make.
Early platform will have it's kinks to iron out, but I feel Ryzen and AM4 are off to a good start as things will only improve quite a bit from here.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170...review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/18
^^^ This is all I expected from this uarch.
^^^ This is all I expected from this uarch.