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

[Mihle]

11 minutes ago, ArcThanatos said:

the results i saw were as far as im concerned, very acceptable, non of the games were terrible on it, none of the programs ran terrible on it, it slotted into a sorta funny area, but thats not a bad thing, its not bad at gaming and its not bad at heavy workloads. its really a classy jack of all. and its cost effective

In PCPers own words:

"This processor is.... I would call it good enough for gaming"

[ArcThanatos]

3 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

"This is normal" "We expected this" fans right now:

some yes, but seriously why is this a big deal... people are acting like its bad.
its performing where it should, around haswell. nothing wrong with how its performing, for what you apy for its good, and compare it to a 8350 ... look how far AMD has come.

did some people believe it would crush the market, sure, its still performing very well

[Guest]

Gamers Nexus is the only review you need to watch if you actually give a damn about scientific testing. 

 

Most of the other youtubers are a joke in terms of scientific benchmarking. 

[MorganO]

Oh deary me

[MorganO]

Would it still be worth upgrading to the 1800x  from an i7-3930k or would it be better i get a 6850k?

[Guest Darth Revan]

So basically AMD has Ryzen, but not enough.

[Brainless906]

*is shown multiple benchmarks where the i7-7700k beats the ever living shit out of the 6900k, while the 1800x beats the 6900k or competes with it at half the cost*

OMG 1800x SUCKS CANT EVEN BEET 7700K OMG AMD FAILTRAIN OMG OMG OMG AMD = DED *Autistic screeching*


I dont even know what to say anymore. Boosted. Animals.

[grayperview]

For me the results are close enough to Intel performance in games to justify picking a Ryzen over an I7 right now, sure Intel leads in most games, but the Ryzen performance is more than good enough for most people.

 

Also the Ryzen performance is real work workloads is very very impressive for the money they want for this new platform.

[That Norwegian Guy]

I think the L1 cache is being skipped, however impossible that sounds. There was one benchmark that showed Ryzen being beaten in WinZip/ 7zip, which should clearly be impossible, and was one of the tests AMD showed on the showfloor as being a strong point of Ryzen. (Cache problems would also have a negative impact on geometry rendering, physics and AI in games)

 

That aside, I convinced myself to expect Ivy Bridge IPC 4 months ago and have stayed away from the hype, so I'm not disappointed and putting in my order as soon as the 1600X is out, and there's an X370 micro ATX motherboard with proper multi-GPU support.

[goodtofufriday]

4 minutes ago, Jack_of_all_Trades said:

The only problem is AMD advertised gaming , where its mediocre at best right now, but it seems for actual working it beats the shit out of intel offering the same performance for half the price.

 

"Mediocre"

 

Okay.

[ArcThanatos]

Just now, Mihle said:

In PCPers own words:

"This processor is.... I would call it good enough for gaming"

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

[Memories4K]

4 minutes ago, Brainless906 said:

*is shown multiple benchmarks where the i7-7700k beats the ever living shit out of the 6900k, while the 1800x beats the 6900k or competes with it at half the cost*

OMG 1800x SUCKS CANT EVEN BEET 7700K OMG AMD FAILTRAIN OMG OMG OMG AMD = DED *Autistic screeching*


I dont even know what to say anymore. Boosted. Animals.

6900k is beating the 1800X in gaming benchmarks

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

[Brainless906]

2 minutes ago, super_skank said:

For me the results are close enough to Intel performance in games to justify picking a Rysen over an I7 right now, sure Intel leads in most games, but the Rysen performance is more than good enough for most people.

 

Also the Rysen performance is real work workloads is very very impressive for the money they want for this new platform.

If all you do is game wait for the 4 and 6 core parts that will very likely be much higher clock speeds and match or beat the 7700k at a better price.

I'm just so confused as to why everyone is comparing this 8 core cpu to intels 4 core. Intels 4 core beats even intels 8 core goddamn it.

[DuckDodgers]

Rather strong negative performance scaling with SMT enabled for Ryzen: http://www.hardware.fr/articles/956-7/impact-smt-ht.html

 

[3DOSH]

AMD put out whole new eco system and still has many bugs like the ones we are seeing with SMT and RAM speeds.
Many of the reviewers are using older bioses and did not update to the new ones.

Intel has had its arch out for 5 years and had time to optimize each line of code to its CPUs, while AMD is only now going into the race.
Developers have not had the chance to optimize for RYZEN. 

I'm more interested when the whole lineup launches and we have some bugs ironed out .

Some points to consider.

[Memories4K]

1 minute 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

The FX-4300 was garbage and definitely not good enough for gaming, after i switched to my 4690k my performance and satisfaction went through the roof.

[MakeAMDGreatAgain]

I'm requesting a moderator to change my name because I'll be buying the i5.. After looking at this: 

 

 

As all I do is game. What an absolute let down honestly. i5 200$ less and still performs better in gaming. I'm not waiting for Q2. I'm absolutely SICK of waiting.

[DarkBlade2117]

23 minutes ago, zMeul said:

AMD said Zen is on 4y product cycle .. that's a long time to wait

and Intel won't just sit with their hands under their collective asses in the meantime - X299 platform is due later this year

Zen+ is 2019.

[Techicolors]

Just now, MakeAMDGreatAgain said:

I'm requesting a moderator to change my name because I'll be buying the i5.. After looking at this: 

 

As all I do is game. What an absolute let down honestly. 

i guess the 1700X and 1600X aren't a thing... 

[goodtofufriday]

Just now, MakeAMDGreatAgain said:

I'm requesting a moderator to change my name because I'll be buying the i5.. After looking at this: 

 

 

As all I do is game. What an absolute let down honestly. 

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

 

[zMeul]

5 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

"Mediocre"

 

Okay.

considering the 1800X is more expensive than 7700K, yes .. I'd say mediocre

[ArcThanatos]

Just now, Memories4K said:

The FX-4300 was garbage and definitely not good enough for gaming, after i switched to my 4690k my performance and satisfaction went through the roof.

hey its ran everything pretty much fine for me since i brought it on release. i wouldn't say its garbage... garbage is a pentium 478\d\4 (any of those), my little FX has held its own against my mates with i5's and i been able to learn overclocking with it. it has been a very good little but yes underpowered CPU, but it was always good enough to run all my games, But with ARK survival evolved it can get a bit framey (thou thats also just arks garbage optimization and heavily CPU bounding nature) 

a R7 1700 should yield endless satisfaction for me thou

[MakeAMDGreatAgain]

3 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

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

 

LOL

 

Holy shit

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

[goodtofufriday]

2 minutes ago, zMeul said:

considering the 1800X is more expensive than 7700K, yes .. I'd say mediocre

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. 

[juri-han]

Wow total bummer I was all set to do a ryzen build only question was 1080ti or wait for vega now I'll just have to wait and see if it's issue they can correct or intels response like kabylake-x or skylake-z /sigh