-
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
What A Time To Be Alive
Member
Vinter
Member
The gaming numbers are a bit dissapointing even though I didn't expect them to be as good as Intels numbers. It is great to see that AMD can shake up the market again though, and I am interested in seeing what they have in store with their 5 series etc. Ryzen seem great so far. At least with non-gaming use.
General Lee
Member
Yeah, the gaming results are a bit disappointing, as well as the max OC. Looks like 1700 is the one to get for essentially same performance once you do manual OC to ~4 GHz. Superb value for 8 cores!
This makes my choice of platform really difficult unfortunately, and almost makes me want to wait yet again for Skylake-X and Kaby-X next fall and hope Intel drops prices. Shit.
This makes my choice of platform really difficult unfortunately, and almost makes me want to wait yet again for Skylake-X and Kaby-X next fall and hope Intel drops prices. Shit.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
And it will continue doing so while games stay on the 2-4 worker threads bandwagon.
shark sandwich
tenuously links anime, pedophile and incels
For gaming? You can get a 7700k for the same price (cheaper if you are fortunate enough to live near Microcenter), which performs significantly better in most games.
ShadowKingpin
Member
Even though I was on some hype, this has only made me feel even more comfortable with nabbing the 1700 over the 1700X and 1800X for livestreaming and video work. Saves me $70.
LordOfChaos
Member
It's definitely HEDT first and foremost for the current launch, gaming an afterthought. Hopefully the 6 and 4 core models are just as competitive with Intel for midrange gaming.
Even being around Haswell IPC, they'd be competing now with dual core Pentiums and i3s and would possibly have appeal there, and force down prices.
Cant wait for it to proceed to the more logical "By the time that happens Intel would have already answered to AMD's new chips"
It is really not worth buying right now unless its a must. Wait for Intel to answer it.
Insane Metal
Gold Member
This is kind of amazing tbh, take a look at the price...
What if they do though, Intel will have no problem cutting the prices on their CPUs since they sell so much.
AMD right now doesn't need a top gaming CPU, they need a versatile architecture that you can put on almost all devices (laptops, tablets, phones, workstation, gaming, etc) and I think Zen has a lot of potential in the coming years, but don't expect to compete head to head with Intel on gaming, maybe in 5 years.
Thats my point Intel will cut prices and when it comes time for their new CPU launch will just blow AMD back a couple of steps.
This really isnt all that Amazing until we see what Intel does.
Also power consumption on them is absolute trash
I think on average they will all overclock similarly, it's just that the 1800X is very close to its limits out of the box. Overclockersclub getting more out of their 1700 was probably due to the chip lottery.
ComputerBase Got their 1700X and 1800X to 4.1Ghz in gaming while their 1700 topped out at 3.9Ghz.
DeadManWalking
Member
Still cant believe linus tested games in 4k. lmao.
Best choice out of the Ryzen chips. If you're buying a CPU purely for gaming it becomes more difficult, as an i7 performs better today, but future games may favour more cores.
Pcper is shows more favourable results in terms of idle although not the same workload -
dr_rus
Member
This is kind of amazing tbh, take a look at the price...
Such results should actually be very interesting to Intel as they show that Intel hardly reached peak possible multithreading utilization in their CPUs and there's still work to be done there. We'll see if they've already done it in Skylake-X though.
This is wrong(unless your talking exclusively AMD)
You'll be waiting at least 2 years for that. By the time that happens intel will have something to fill in the Ryzen niche
Beerman462
Member
This is kind of amazing tbh, take a look at the price...
What's even more amazing is the difference between Ryzen and Kavari.
I was just thinking about the shitty desktops we had at work with AMD dual cores and how Ryzen will raise that baseline. Also my daughter's $200 laptop. It plays Minecraft decent I guess.
Isn't most of the gaming performance due to Intel's IPC advantage? That was expected by most reasonable observers for a long time...
I'm thinking more affordable 2 in 1s, if they can get Ryzen's efficiency up -- along with their planned Ryzen APU.
I'm thinking more affordable 2 in 1s, if they can get Ryzen's efficiency up -- along with their planned Ryzen APU.
Maintenance
Member
AMD Circle of life. At least it wasn't another Bulldozer.
Yes (and this was by far the most likely scenario all along). Really, ultimately this is why intel introduced OC locking and "k" models -- not doing so renders product differentiation by clocks moot for enthusiasts, which are one of the most important groups you want to sell your differentiated high-end CPUs to.
MeisterLeder
Banned
I wonder how the R5 series will do
Any suggestions on benchmarks to run?
And the higher clocks sustained by Intel's 4c chips.
Ryzen seems pretty efficient already. Ryzen has really low idle power consumption and per core load power efficiency seems really good.
I think too many people were hyping up the project and got their expectations up too high... kind of like Polaris.
That too. A part of me wonders if Ryzen will see an 'extreme' release with higher clocks down the road.
You can get the same L4 cache in Skylake R processors
Nostremitus
Member
Rumor was that there were drastic performance differences between Mobo's and BIOS revisions. Kinks still being worked out.
Right, I actually find the advantage of Intel's HEDT chips in some games' frametimes and some applications more interesting. I'd like to see a low-level core communication microbenchmark.
Again, the poster I was replying to was talking about which of the Ryzen chips was the best choice. Hence my reply.
There are already games which favour >4 cores (Watch Dogs 2 being an example). What happens in the future is a gamble, though. Lots of games could start to favour high core counts in the next year, or it could be a slow trickle for much longer than that. Nobody can be certain one way or the other, hence why I said it's a difficult choice.
Besides, Intel already has something to fill the Ryzen niche, it's their HEDT line.
Edit:
Yeah, although that's more useful in a situation where you already have almost 100% of the market and want to use price discrimination to squeeze the remaining profits out of each demographic. AMD seem to be focussing on grabbing as much market share as possible with Ryzen, so allowing the cheaper processors to be overclocked makes sense in that regard.
What A Time To Be Alive
Member
Thats kinda what im thinking as well. Imma wait a couple days before I may final opinion.
It is a bit puzzling to me tho. In most other benches the 1800X is right up there with the 6900K, but in gaming it just falls flat. The ComputerBase tests seem to show that it isn't memory constrained either.
Had both Ryzen and Broadwell-E fallen behind Kaby Lake I would understand it better.
Is there any weakness with Zen that explains this? There are some other benches where it does poorly as well.
Looking at this result leads me to think on how much performance Ryzen may gain yet with compilers being properly optimized for the architecture. Right now some programs just don't like the new architecture it seems.
Yeah, in no way should a Ryzen CPU be anywhere near the FX-8370. Unless Rotter is heavy on the AVX, which seems unlikely.
Just some standard benchmarks with a big comparison database where you can compare to someone with a similar system.
a fast one would be http://www.userbenchmark.com/
otherwise something like 3dmark etc.. etc..
Yeah, it's really weird compared to most gaming benchmarks. As a summary:
All in all Ryzen seems to deliver for anyone who had reasonable expectations, maybe slightly more. It was never going to beat SL/KL on a core per core basis or reach its clockspeeds, but they did reach HW/BW-E levels of IPC and =<4GHz which would've been considered insane back when Zen was first announced.
I do wonder what's up with gaming benchmarks though. Perhaps all these last minute BIOS updates are one of the reasons.
As I said earlier in the thread, Computerbase speculate that it might have less efficient on-chip communication than Intel's HEDT CPUs.
That's a weird outlier.
Nostremitus
Member
Also, differences in CPU performance in gaming benvhmarks between test rigs running AMD and Nvidia GPUs. Better scores when using AMD GPUs.
NeOak
Member
I meant as in you won't get less gaming performance. The 7700k is king for games right now, but if you want to do more than gaming at one time, say, streaming, or keeping an MMO in the background for w/e reason, or another app, Ryzen is a viable alternative at those prices.
The 7700k may choke the moment you try 1080p x264 at the same time.
Teletraan1
Banned
In Canada for gaming I don't see the point of the pricing for the performance. I can get a 7700k for $210 cheaper than a 1800x and $80 cheaper than a 1700x. Looks like I am going to be sticking with Intel and most likely Nvidia for my next build in a couple months.
Ahhh, I see. I skimmed the article (don't speak German), but that seems to me* like it could explain SMT reducing performance.
*Not a programmer/engineer
Tacklemacain
Member
I have read that before. Would be weird if true. Are there Benchmarks comparing zen with Amd and nvidia gpus?
Could this be to do with how the Summit Ridge die is divided up into two clusters of four cores? There's a semi-shared L3 in each cluster, but I haven't seen any info on how coherency and communication is handled between each cluster, so it may be that inter-process communication between threads on different clusters are what's causing these issues.
(Assuming Intel aren't doing anything similar, as I recall their HEDT chips all operating on a simple ring bus)
So, as expected. Between Haswell-E and Broawdwell-E but at much better price. What disappoint me a bit is the OC potential. Looks like my 5930k @4.5ghz is competitive on all but the most parallel of computations. But that is normal with new silicon, or it has nothing to do?
I would still recommend waiting for the 6 cores and 4 cores Ryzen, though. AMD is competitive again.
I would still recommend waiting for the 6 cores and 4 cores Ryzen, though. AMD is competitive again.
cleveridea
Member
Wow, as someone who only cares about gaming performance in my PC I am amazed how well the 4790K holds up even to this day.
I thought I might need a ryzen with the 1080 Ti but can just upgrade my 4790K PC with it since I am targeting 1440/60 short term then 4K HDR GSync later so CPU wont be a bottleneck
I thought I might need a ryzen with the 1080 Ti but can just upgrade my 4790K PC with it since I am targeting 1440/60 short term then 4K HDR GSync later so CPU wont be a bottleneck
TC McQueen
Member
Yeah, it seems like there might be a lot of weird BIOS/software issues going on. I saw one review (can't remember which one, all the thumbnails are fucking nearly identical) that stated that you needed to get Windows out of the balanced power profile and into the high performance one for it to get the proper amount of juice to work right.
