AMD Ryzen reviewers say: - Either experiencing weird results or not recommened for gaming

[Brainless906]

3 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

Here is a few more games for you, since you shouldn't base your opinion on one game........   ...

 

EXCUSE ME SIR, WE CAME IN HERE TO TRASH TALK AMD AND JUSTIFY OUR INTEL PURCHASES PLEASE GET THIS INFORMATION OUT OF HERE. I HATE IT, IT BURNS!!!!!

bunch of boosted ass animals.

[Thony]

Im gonna wait for the ram issue fix and 6/12 and 4/8 chips (please have 4Ghz base clock !)  to judge. 

 

 

[zMeul]

Just now, goodtofufriday said:

As a CPU that positioned to be in between a 6900k and a 7700k, then no its not. if its purpose was to beat a 7700k then sure. But it is, and was alwyas, meant to be a cpu that had 8c/16th and was a competitive in betweener. 

in gaming?!

the 7700K is cheaper and performs better

[Misanthrope]

18 minutes ago, ArcThanatos said:

some yes, but seriously why is this a big deal... people are acting like its bad.

Re-read the OP: it's not Broadwell level is performing way worst than that on these cases. 

[MakeAMDGreatAgain]

No wonder why Intel never slashed their i5 prices.. lol (your microcenter IN-STORE only bs doesn't count :P)

[Brainless906]

10 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

6900k is beating the 1800X in gaming benchmarks

reviews show gaming performance of the 1800X on par with a 4690k/6600k

I have seen almost no reviews that come to that conclusion. Most reviews have it only slightly behind the 7700k in gaming applications

In fact @goodtofufriday just posted a bunch of benchmarks with the 1800x only ~3-7 frames behind the 7700k in the listed games.

[goodtofufriday]

3 minutes ago, MakeAMDGreatAgain said:

LOL

 

Holy shit

e: 7700k Is around what, 320 off jet.com? 1800X is 499$... Lol!

If the 1800x was meant to be a direct competitor to the 7700k then sure.

 

But its not. Its supposed to be in between that and the 6900k. Which it is.

 

You were seriously expecting a 8c/16th cpu to out perform a 4c/8th cpu in single core perf? Not even intel themselves does that.

 

3 minutes ago, Jack_of_all_Trades said:

I'd rather we compare the 7700k with the 1700 , as they are priced the same, the difference in here in the UK between the 7700k and the 1800x is about 50% on top of the 7700k , so if you're a gamer you'd obviously take the intel, don't know how it will go when they fix the memory issues , but sadly its the first impressions you know :\ , maybe they should've delayed it till they had a fix.

Even with the 1700, its a 8c/16th cpu. IPC was never expected to be the same. If you ONLy care about pure gaming then yeah th 7700k was always the clear choice from the beginning.

[MoonSpot]

28 minutes ago, kladzen said:

updated the OP to be more clean.. 

 

Liar!

 

[goodtofufriday]

2 minutes ago, zMeul said:

in gaming?!

the 7700K is cheaper and performs better

If you want pure gaming then the 7700k was always teh clear choice.

 

but the R7 series of chips has never been positioned as a PURE gaming chip. So your point is moot, as that is not what was looking to be accomplished. 

[zMeul]

2 minutes ago, Jack_of_all_Trades said:

So what if we're not talking gaming ?

let's talk soup, yeah .. I'd go with soup

[MakeAMDGreatAgain]

4 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

If the 1800x was meant to be a direct competitor to the 7700k then sure.

 

But its not. Its supposed to be in between that and the 6900k. Which it is.

But as a gamer, I'm not going to buy the 1800x just so I can circle jerk about it being 500$ less than a 6900k and perform the same.

 

I want to buy the 1800x so it can do marginally well in GAMING and performance. Which is what it was advertised as, was it not? Except it's not. The 200$ i5 7600k performs better than it in gaming.

 

Now, they want to wait for Q2 to release the R5 chips? Is AMD batshit insane? Anyone who sees these benchmarks will get the i5 now instead of waiting. They fucked up bigly. They should have released the R5 chips as well. As I would have bought those for sure even if they performed a few FPS worse than the i5 7600k (it would also be 100$ cheaper). -- That would have been worth it for the budget gamer and win me over

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, goodtofufriday said:

If you want pure gaming then the 7700k was always teh clear choice.

 

but the R7 series of chips has never been positioned as a PURE gaming chip. So your point is moot, as that is not what was looking to be accomplished. 

but we are talking gaming and that point is not moot, it's very on point

[Ramaddil]

The one thing people are missing, AMD never said that Ryzen would beat intel in Gaming...... If you expected that you obviously don't get it.  I will game, it might not get more FPS then Intel, but there is diminishing returns at some point.  Secondly the argument being made here that Ryzen sucks because it cant beat a 4c/8t in gaming is ridiculous.  put a 6900K vs a 7700K.. The 7700k wins, not everyone buys CPU's only for gaming.  This CPU I believe is designed with the idea that It can game, but could also be used for workstation/production/encoding tasks.  I am still ordering mine, I have been needing a 8c/16th CPU for awhile for what I do, but I am not paying 1050 dollars for a CPU.

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, MakeAMDGreatAgain said:

Now, they want to wait for Q2 to release the R5 chips? Is AMD batshit insane? Anyone who sees these benchmarks will get the i5 now instead of waiting. They fucked up bigly. They should have released the R5 chips as well. As I would have bought those for sure even if they performed a few FPS worse than the i5 7600k (it would also be 100$ cheaper). 

mind you the R5 chips will have significantly lower perf than R7

[goodtofufriday]

2 minutes ago, MakeAMDGreatAgain said:

But as a gamer, I'm not going to buy the 1800x just so I can circle jerk about it being 500$ less than a 6900k and perform the same.

 

I want to buy the 1800x so it can do marginally well in GAMING and performance. Which is what it was advertised was, was it not? Except it's not. The 200$ i5 7600k performs better than it in gaming.

 

Now, they want to wait for Q2 to release the R5 chips? Is AMD batshit insane? Anyone who sees these benchmarks will get the i5 now instead of waiting. They fucked up bigly. They should have released the R5 chips as well. As I would have bought those for sure even if they performed a few FPS worse than the i5 7600k (it would also be 100$ cheaper). 

@zMeul

You cant complain about a product not doing something it was never intended to do...

And it does do marginally well against the 7700k as the benches I posted showed. 

 

Thats like complaning that your ford mustang cant out race a lambo. Both are fast, but one is meant to be Really Fast.

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, Jack_of_all_Trades said:

Then go to a cooking forum or maybe you believe cpu's are only for gaming. That would be interesting.

no, I don't believe that

but this topic was all it's about; I think you are the one in the wrong section

[Brainless906]

4 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

If the 1800x was meant to be a direct competitor to the 7700k then sure.

 

But its not. Its supposed to be in between that and the 6900k. Which it is.

 

You were seriously expecting a 8c/16th cpu to out perform a 4c/8th cpu in single core perf? Not even intel themselves does that.

 

Even with the 1700, its a 8c/16th cpu. IPC was never expected to be the same. If you ONLy care about pure gaming then yeah th 7700k was always the clear choice from the beginning.

I seriously cannot understand why people cannot understand this. 

Even major reviewers are directly comparing the 1800x and the 7700k and disparaging it for loosing while not mentioning that the 6900k also looses to the 7700k...

Really dragging out the blue bias of the forum, when you cant even look objectively at where a CPU is positioned.

If you were thiking of buying a 6900k, rejoice, you have a better option by far now.

[MakeAMDGreatAgain]

2 minutes ago, zMeul said:

mind you the R5 chips will have significantly lower perf than R7

Well. /r/AMD told me the R5 chips will over clock higher because less "cores". Is that true?

 

Then that begs the question. Even if it is true, I'm going to CONTINUE TO F*CKING WAIT until Q2 just to get the same FPS as the 7600k, but spend xx $ left? No, most people are completely sick of waiting. I think AMD screwed up bigly here tbh. The R5 chips should have been released in Q1.

[skatblast]

19 minutes ago, ArcThanatos said:

my fx4300 for yr was good enough for gaming, i3's and i5's are good enough for gaming.

R7 is not only good enough for gaming, it can do workloads as well. it isn't all about gaming,

if the game runs smooth, and frame rates are not dropping like flies and making it unplayable, really, does it matter. plus most game's arent made for 8 cores, 4-6 is a sweet spot with a higher clock speed. thats games in a nut shell.

 

thinking people are just trying to find a reason complain.

also my entire CPU (fx-4300) at stock scores 150CB score... you wanna know what Ryzen gets on cinebench single core... 150CB (+/-).

they have come a long way from FX.
also over clocked i got my fx4300 into the top 1.5% of cpumark recorded fx4300s...so honestly idgaf if its not perfect, as long as it can OC a bit, run workloads, play games and have bang for buck than im happy, which really is the whole god damn point people are missing

That's because this is a enthusiast forum, most people don't consider a 4300 a viable processor. we are not looking for "good enough"

[Ramaddil]

This video says what Ryzen 7 is about..... Meant for those that are more than just a Gamer.

[JDMFTW]

Im torn 

I cancelled my pre order for the 1700x a few days ago. 

First CPU pre order ive ever seen and the fact amd had a embargo all the way till release day? wtf really?

While ryzen seems to do well in streaming (Which i do for sim racing) i just dont see the extra cost. plus with memory issues and XFR only working in single threaded work loads? wat like really I run a custom loop to see 3.9ghz on 1 thread for what mspaint?

Starting to look like ill be headed to a 7700k to retire this old 8350 

[Brainless906]

1 minute ago, Ramaddil said:

This video says what Ryzen 7 is about..... Meant for those that are more than just a Gamer.

STOP IT, IT DOESNT BEAT THE SHIT OUT THE 7700K SO IT PURE UTTER SHIT, STOP BRINGING SENSE INTO THIS CONVERSATION!

/s

[Ramaddil]

LOL ^^^

[Humbug]

Linux guys are extremely happy with Ryzen performance. Although gaming benchmarks are yet to come and that seems to be the sore point.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ryzen-1800x-linux&num=4

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ryzen-1800x-linux&num=5

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ryzen-1800x-linux&num=6

This was run on linux kernel 4.10 which includes the CPU scheduler optimizations for Zen architecture and the new form of SMT. I assume Windows 10 received similar patches to optimize for ryzen.

 

 

[TheRandomness]

1 hour ago, Kloaked said:

Stop making excuses for them. They literally talked about how much better than they were than Intel's 6800k and 6900k. I guarantee you based on how this looks, the 6-core and 4-core chips are going to suck.

 

It's going to be Bulldozer all over again it looks like.

Lower cores, higher clocks, same IPC (it's the same arch, why would the IPC be different (assuming same clocks)?). Why are people thinking the lower core count chips will be worse?