Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
CircleTech

My concerns with Ryzen...

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

That's a great price, you won't be disappointed! :D 

Don't think I will be, and no question marks on performance on a stable platform.

 

Think I was more fed up with Amazon's lack of updating on its status seeing as I ordered on the 22nd. If they had told me it was OTW or even that they ran out of stock, I would have waited. If it was on my doorstep by tomorrow I would have been squeezing all the performance I could get out of it and probably been happy. Just got jerked around too much, the hype train hit a speedbump, and although I do other things, I mostly want a near top notch gaming PC sooo....I feel dirty, but yet happy now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryzen R7 has never ment to beat 7700k in gaming. But it was ment to beat 6800k and 6900k in performance compared to price, and it does.


“Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious. And however difficult life may seem, there is always something you can do and succeed at. 
It matters that you don't just give up.”

-Stephen Hawking

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mihle said:

Ryzen R7 has never ment to beat 7700k in gaming. But it was ment to beat 6800k and 6900k in perforce compared to price, and it does.

I understood that, was still underwhelmed with the results vs. 6800k and 6900k chips. Multithreaded great...otherwise kinda meh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Biggerboot said:

I think Ryzen is in a better position than FX was.  If they can get the RAM issues settled they'll be in even better shape.

 

I think some people went in with too high of expectations.  I don't see Ryzen being an outright replacement of the mainstream i7s.  It may give the lower end i5s a run for their money though.  Basically they'll try to fill in the gaps sort of left by intel.  FX couldn't make that claim.

tbh, they give the high end 6900k and 6800k a run for their money as well.  People were just expecting a miracle and disappointed when it couldn't crush both the 6900k and the 7700k both at what each is good for ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Solve your own audio issues  |  First Steps with RPi 3  |  Humidity & Condensation  |  Sleep & Hibernation  |  Overclocking RAM  |  Making Backups  |  Displays  |  4K / 8K / 16K / etc.  |  Do I need 80+ Platinum?

If you can read this you're using the wrong theme.  You can change it at the bottom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

tbh, they give the high end 6900k and 6800k a run for their money as well.  People were just expecting a miracle and disappointed when it couldn't crush both the 6900k and the 7700k both at what each is good for ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

^^ you i like you...

 

That is exactly what is happening here. After watching/reading from most tech tubers and reading pages like gamers nexus there are a lot of things that are at this stage immature with the platform.. Some are getting multiple bios updates just in the week alone, which are impacting on results.

 

My belief in summary is;

Don't believe temps as at this stage it is somewhat of a guessing game with programs such as aida64,etc (Level1techs, gamersnexus)

Expect to receive multiple bios revisions in the coming days/weeks (Level1techs, gamersnexus)

Don't expect great overclocking at this time until the platform steadies ^^^ somewhat related to this

Don't try and push your memory too high 2933Mhz seems to be the highest stable through multiple sources (Level1techs, gamersnexus)

Multiple vendors and game devs are currently working on optimizing games to Ryzen (PCper podcast)

Don't believe charts supplied by any manufacturing camp as they are all trying to market why their product is best, of course they will spin it in their favour, everyone does it (Jayztwocents tech talk)

Power draw can increase over tdp if the power and cooling ability is there (Level1`techs)

Use performance mode over balance PC profile (PCper, someone else i cant think of right now)

 

That's all i can think of in a couple of minutes, feel free to add more.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryzen looks very good when it comes to utilisation of all cores.

So the problem is mostly when it comes to older games right now.

And even that could be fixed a bit with new drivers, new BIOS and performance optimisations in general for Ryzen.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Ryzen seems to have single core performance similar to i7 6900k/6800/6850/6950X.


Intel i5 8600k 5.0GHz | EVGA Z370 Micro ATX | Dark Rock 3 | ADATA XPG Z1 3000MHz 32GB | RM650x | GTX 1080 Ti EVGA SC2 | Thermaltake Core V21

Samsung EVO 960 M.2 250GB | Samsung EVO 850 250GB | HyperX Fury 480GB | 3x Be Quiet! Silent Wings 140mm fans

WD My Cloud 4TB

Link to post
Share on other sites

i unfortunately have to agree here, maybe the details say otherwise, but it FEELS like FX.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not seeing it. I guess if you intentionally word things really vaguely "it loses in gaming, and the AMD fanboys are saying it's not for gaming it's for rendering and stuff! Same story!" then it does sound similar to the FX launch, but if you compare the two situations with any amount of detail it's nowhere near similar.

 

The FX didn't just lose in gaming, it was completely crushed. I benched the 8350 against my i5-2500K and the i5 is anywhere from 1.5x to double the speed of the FX in single-core games. In multi-threaded games (using all 8 cores to 100%), the FX managed to catch up to the quad-core (no HTT) i5. Ryzen is basically close to par with Haswell/Skylake without multi-threading advantage, and it pulls way ahead when all 8 cores are used. That's a big difference in the situation.

 

The FX never came close to touching socket 2011. It lost to the mainstream badly in non-8-core situations, and barely managed to catch up to the mainstream with all 8 cores utilized. Now, it starts off in that position without 8 cores, and pulls ahead when all 8 cores are utilized. This seems to be quite an improvement from where I'm standing, especially considering the prices. When the 4-core and 6-core parts launch, They may lose slightly to the 7700K in gaming still, but for probably 1/2 to 2/3 the price I think it will be quite compelling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

I'm not seeing it. I guess if you intentionally word things really vaguely "it loses in gaming, and the AMD fanboys are saying it's not for gaming it's for rendering and stuff! Same story!" then it does sound similar to the FX launch, but if you compare the two situations with any amount of detail it's nowhere near similar.

 

The FX didn't just lose in gaming, it was completely crushed. I benched the 8350 against my i5-2500K and the i5 is anywhere from 1.5x to double the speed of the FX in single-core games. In multi-threaded games (using all 8 cores to 100%), the FX managed to catch up to the quad-core (no HTT) i5. Ryzen is basically close to par with Haswell/Skylake without multi-threading advantage, and it pulls way ahead when all 8 cores are used. That's a big difference in the situation.

 

The FX never came close to touching socket 2011. It lost to the mainstream badly in non-8-core situations, and barely managed to catch up to the mainstream with all 8 cores utilized. Now, it starts off in that position without 8 cores, and pulls ahead when all 8 cores are utilized. This seems to be quite an improvement from where I'm standing, especially considering the prices. When the 4-core and 6-core parts launch, They may lose slightly to the 7700K in gaming still, but for probably 1/2 to 2/3 the price I think it will be quite compelling.

Simply put, FX was disaters on all fronts. It wasn't good for anything.

 

Now Ryzen came, and it's great in multithreading performance, but does lack in single core performance.

It will be great for all new games, and for those with good optimisation, but older games that depend on single core performance .... well those will still prefer i7 7700k 5,0GHz single core performance. At least for now.

 

It seems to me that Ryzen is aming for for the future, rather than old games.

 

FX had 0 positive things. Ryzen does have 2: cheap (well compared to Intel alternatives) + great raw performance.

The only negative thing is single core performance. And even that one isn't that bad. It's like what? 10-20% slower than Intel's 8 core CPUs?

 

And if nothing else, at least it will preassure Intel to do something new. Either stop with that 5% boost per year and do something great, or lower prices.


Intel i5 8600k 5.0GHz | EVGA Z370 Micro ATX | Dark Rock 3 | ADATA XPG Z1 3000MHz 32GB | RM650x | GTX 1080 Ti EVGA SC2 | Thermaltake Core V21

Samsung EVO 960 M.2 250GB | Samsung EVO 850 250GB | HyperX Fury 480GB | 3x Be Quiet! Silent Wings 140mm fans

WD My Cloud 4TB

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Tauwer said:

i`m still waiting for their 4core 8 thread because if that has good benchmarks i`m sold

It probbably won't compete with Intel i7 6700k/7700k, but more likely with i5. But that's nothing weird, since price will be lower.

And by the time R5 and R3 lineup comes out, Ryzen will be much more supported and optimised, so it will be even better then.


Intel i5 8600k 5.0GHz | EVGA Z370 Micro ATX | Dark Rock 3 | ADATA XPG Z1 3000MHz 32GB | RM650x | GTX 1080 Ti EVGA SC2 | Thermaltake Core V21

Samsung EVO 960 M.2 250GB | Samsung EVO 850 250GB | HyperX Fury 480GB | 3x Be Quiet! Silent Wings 140mm fans

WD My Cloud 4TB

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't look quite as great as I hoped. I feel sad for people who are waiting for the "BIOS and driver updates" to increase the performance in games (spoiler alert: that's not how it works).

 

Even the ceo of AMD Lisa SU admitted that Ryzen is not performing as great as competition in all games and we need to wait for developers to do software optimization if we want to see better performance. You can be pretty sure we won't see much of that for any older titles. It should be pretty obvious that if the ipc is not greater than that of Intel's latest offerings, while clockspeed is also behind, there is no way it could be better for most games.

 

From the initial results it looks like Ryzen overclocking on all cores is limited to around 4.0 GHz, which is not going to help. I don't think the 6 and 4 core variants will clock much higher, because Tomshardware for example used 1.425 V for that overclock, while AMD recommends 1.35 V max. But it might be too early to tell.

 

It's still great value for content creators sure and the prices should be much lower across the line up. Looks like it still can't really beat Intel in performance though (was someone realistically expecting that), but it should be "good enough".


CPU: Intel i7 3970X @ 4.7 GHz  (custom loop)   RAM: Kingston 1866 MHz 32GB DDR3   GPU(s): 2x Gigabyte R9 290OC (custom loop)   Motherboard: Asus P9X79   

Case: Fractal Design R3    Cooling loop:  360 mm + 480 mm + 1080 mm,  tripple 5D Vario pump   Storage: 500 GB + 240 GB + 120 GB SSD,  Seagate 4 TB HDD

PSU: Corsair AX860i   Display(s): Asus PB278Q,  Asus VE247H   Input: QPad 5K,  Logitech G710+    Sound: uDAC3 + Philips Fidelio x2

HWBot: http://hwbot.org/user/tame/

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

@CUDA_Cores Let's be real, the real reason you don't like RyZen is it's too new to find in a scrapyard yet :D 

BUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRN!


 

Since I am to lazy to put something interesting here, I will put everything, but slightly abbreviated. Here is everything:

 

42

 

also, some questions to make you wonder about life:

 

What is I and who is me? Who is you? Which armrest in the movie theatre is yours?

 

also,

 

Welcome to the internet, I will be your guide. Or something.

 

 

My build:

CPU: Intel Core i5-7400 3.0GHz Quad-Core Processor,

 Motherboard: ASRock B250M Pro4 Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard, 

Memory: Corsair 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR4-2133 Memory,

Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive, 

Video Card: MSI Radeon RX 480 4GB ARMOR OC Video Card, 

Case: Corsair 100R ATX Mid Tower Case , 

Power Supply: Corsair CXM 450W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply, 

Operating System: Microsoft Windows 10 Home Full, 

Wireless Network Adapter: TP-Link TL-WN725N USB 2.0 802.11b/g/n Wi-Fi Adapter, Case Fan: Corsair Air Series White 2 pack 52.2 CFM  120mm Fan

 

ou do not ask why, you ask why not -me

 

Remeber kinds, the only differ between screwing around and scince is writing it down. -Adam Savage.

 

Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not even sure of the former. - Albert Einstein.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand people in this forum. AMD promised essentially Haswell-Broadwell IPC with DDR4. First leaks and press events came out and the results were: Haswell-Broadwell IPC with DDR4 (more Broadwell-E-like in AMD presentations, so Haswell-Broadwell after discounting). We all said "great, all we need for competition is reasonably close CPUs at reasonable prices". No one was stupid enough to believe Haswell would all of the sudden beat KabyLake for unknown reasons. It was just that DDR4 Haswell would be a viable alternative at the right price, so it was no longer "which (intel) cpu should you buy". 

 

Then Ryzen came out and what do we get? Haswell-Broadwell IPC with DDR4. The first chips are 8-core, intermediate clocks CPUs, so they have the same strengths /weaknesses and workstation bias as intel E cpus. And how do people react? "OMG the 7700k is better for gaming, this is Bulldozer all over again!" 

 

The truth is, we got exactly what we were told to expect like a year ago already. There have been no surprises along the way (perhaps a couple results pointing to weaknesses in the IMC). Everything we are seeing is in line with that. Only people irrationally hyping themselves in the last few weeks can explain the irrational disappointment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So After reading all the remarks it seems that very few people want to give credit where credit it due.  AMD did do a good job of releasing a decent product for a good value. They are not Intel, they do not have close to the R&D budget that Intel has.  They are trying to get back on their feet.  That being said most people just wants to find something to hate on AMD about.  This has become it has to be good at Gaming to be a Good CPU talk.  NOT EVERYONE PLAYS GAMES........ not everyone that does multi threaded workloads can afford Intel over-bloated prices.  When a new X99 platform CPU is released it is matched against its previous iteration.  Most people in essence are trying to compare a 6800/6900K to a 7700K.  They are not the same.  The 6800K and 6900K can game, it is not the best performance  but it still can.  It shines in multi threaded work loads just like Ryzen 7 does.  I am continuing with my purchase, and I encourage others that have use for a a 8c/16t to do so as well. I do accept that Ryzen is not as good as Intel, but it gets close enough for the money.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care about rendering.

 

I will never upsize from mITX. 

 

AMD marketing was unethical.

 

AMD launched prematurely. 

 

Thus, I am disappointed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh... you talk about FX being a great OC'er and Zen being a bad OC'er. 

 

Do you realize that they architectures are completely different? This processor was about to perform better than the 6900K (which is not FANTASTIC at overclocking) for workstation type scenarios. The 6900K only gets to about 4-4.2Ghz. Similar to Ryzen!! 

 

The 7700K has ALWAYS been optimized towards gamers. The X platform is NEVER intended for gaming! Example, they sometimes are outperformed by the 7700K or perform the same. The 7700K can overclock to 5Ghz most of the time. But isn't it amazing the Ryzen still at least creeps up?

 

Optimizations will come out and improve Ryzen.

 

Does everyone forget about the mess that was introduced with X99 because it was completely new from X79?


*Insert Name* R̶y̶z̶e̶n̶ Intel Build!  https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/748542-insert-name-r̶y̶z̶e̶n̶-intel-build/

Case: NZXT S340 Elite Matte White Motherboard: Gigabyte AORUS Z270X Gaming 5 CPU: Intel Core i7 7700K GPU: ASUS STRIX OC GTX 1080 RAM: Corsair Ballistix Sport LT 2400mhz Cooler: Enermax ETS-T40F-BK PSU: Corsair CX750M SSD: PNY CS1311 120GB HDD: Seagate Momentum 2.5" 7200RPM 500GB

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone knew that Ryzen won't have same IPC as i7 7700k.

I was hoping on same IPC as Haswell and Devil's Canyon. It's not there but still kinda close.

 

Anyone who isn't happy with what AMD has to offer now, should check cinebench scores from previous AMD CPUs, and compare those scores to what they have to offer now.


Intel i5 8600k 5.0GHz | EVGA Z370 Micro ATX | Dark Rock 3 | ADATA XPG Z1 3000MHz 32GB | RM650x | GTX 1080 Ti EVGA SC2 | Thermaltake Core V21

Samsung EVO 960 M.2 250GB | Samsung EVO 850 250GB | HyperX Fury 480GB | 3x Be Quiet! Silent Wings 140mm fans

WD My Cloud 4TB

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, yoshiii said:

I don't understand why everyone keeps thinking it was aimed at mainly gaming.

 

it was advertised as something to compete with the 6900k for work loads

 

that's the message I got from the beginning.

It was aimed at desktop enthusiast PC use, and enthusiast PC users tend to include a lot of people who care about games. AMD themselves would never say they intended this launch as being exclusively for productivity workloads, and indeed they showed gaming benchmarks among their marketing as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Efilnikufesin said:

Yeah...hopeful AMD fan here...preordered on Amazon...no updates since the 22nd....told I would have to wait on my 1700...meh benchmarks in gaming....cancelled unshipped and underinformed preorder.....went to Microcenter...6700k skylake...$259...first Intel chip since Pentium 90


Well... you're impulsive, I'll give you that. 1700 benchmarks are all out yet, I still would've waited... It should still perform well, but if you're just gaming I understand, we have seen that for gaming it doesn't fare better than intel quads. (expected tho).

 

 Although I wouldn't have pre-ordered in the first place.


Personal Rig:

CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-6500 @ 3.2 GHz    Mb: Gigabyte Z170X-Gaming 3    RAM: 2x4GB DDR4 GSKILL RIPJAWS 4    GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960    Case: Aerocool PSG V2X Advance    Storage: INTEL SSDSCKJW120H6 M.2 120GB    PSU: EVGA 500W 80+ Bronce    Display(s): Samsung LS19B150

Cooling: Aerocool Shark White    Operating System(s): Windows 10 / Arch Linux / OpenSUSE

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, CUDA_Cores said:

The truth is if AMD had pulled this launch on the Server side of things, that may have gotten away with it. Server workloads scale with cores, while Gaming does not. They could've made a 32 core CPU For the enterprise for half the price and they would've eaten it up. But here we are sitting with an 8-core CPU that use desktop users can't usually utilize.

They are said to be launching a 32 core 64 threads for servers http://www.pcworld.com/article/3158919/servers/amd-talks-tough-as-it-drums-up-support-for-32-core-zen-server-chip.html

Code-name: Napels.


Personal Rig:

CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-6500 @ 3.2 GHz    Mb: Gigabyte Z170X-Gaming 3    RAM: 2x4GB DDR4 GSKILL RIPJAWS 4    GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960    Case: Aerocool PSG V2X Advance    Storage: INTEL SSDSCKJW120H6 M.2 120GB    PSU: EVGA 500W 80+ Bronce    Display(s): Samsung LS19B150

Cooling: Aerocool Shark White    Operating System(s): Windows 10 / Arch Linux / OpenSUSE

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Simon771 said:

Ryzen looks very good when it comes to utilisation of all cores.

So the problem is mostly when it comes to older games right now.

And even that could be fixed a bit with new drivers, new BIOS and performance optimisations in general for Ryzen.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Ryzen seems to have single core performance similar to i7 6900k/6800/6850/6950X.

Yes it does, but people were hoping for one reason or another to get closer to a 7700k I think.  Not to match it, and certainly not to beat it, but at least to be closer than it was.  Was this reasonable?  I don't know... probably not.

 

Problem is, it's not just "older games", it's almost all games - every game I've seen tested so far in fact.  The fact is most do not gain significantly from more than 4 cores, or if they do, not enough that gaining more cores is worth giving up clock speed to do it.  What seems odd to me is the major consoles have been 8 core for several years now, so you'd think game devs would be used to developing for 8 core CPUs, and yet, they don't seem to on PC.  The other thing that strikes me as odd is this fact, coupled with the fact there's really no downside to splitting up the workload more.  Design a game to use 4 cores, and run it on a 4 core and an 8 core and they'll perform the same.  Design it to run on 8 cores, and of course the 8 core CPU will pull away, but the 4 core should more or less keep up with how it was doing when the game only used 4... To use an appropriate quote, "Just do it!"


Solve your own audio issues  |  First Steps with RPi 3  |  Humidity & Condensation  |  Sleep & Hibernation  |  Overclocking RAM  |  Making Backups  |  Displays  |  4K / 8K / 16K / etc.  |  Do I need 80+ Platinum?

If you can read this you're using the wrong theme.  You can change it at the bottom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Yes it does, but people were hoping for one reason or another to get closer to a 7700k I think.  Not to match it, and certainly not to beat it, but at least to be closer than it was.  Was this reasonable?  I don't know... probably not.

 

Problem is, it's not just "older games", it's almost all games - every game I've seen tested so far in fact.  The fact is most do not gain significantly from more than 4 cores, or if they do, not enough that gaining more cores is worth giving up clock speed to do it.  What seems odd to me is the major consoles have been 8 core for several years now, so you'd think game devs would be used to developing for 8 core CPUs, and yet, they don't seem to on PC.  The other thing that strikes me as odd is this fact, coupled with the fact there's really no downside to splitting up the workload more.  Design a game to use 4 cores, and run it on a 4 core and an 8 core and they'll perform the same.  Design it to run on 8 cores, and of course the 8 core CPU will pull away, but the 4 core should more or less keep up with how it was doing when the game only used 4... To use an appropriate quote, "Just do it!"

The thing for me is that the Xbox one and PS4 Pro both have an 8 core AMD CPU,and i think as more and more games come out they will start using more threads.

They may have been out for a few year,but i think game makers are still learning on making for 8 cores,and some games like starting to use more than 4 cores.

Plus looking ahead the new Fallout 4 Hi-Res Texture Pack wants you to have at least 6 cores it wants a 5820k.

 

I want to a 1800x vs 7700k in about 3 years with only brand new games,and i bet the ryzen will be better then.

 

If you are going to only be gaming,and you are going to do a full upgrade again in a year or 2 then yes the 7700k is a a much better buy.

But if you want a CPU to last 3-5 years before upgrading i think the Ryzen CPU's will be a much better buy.


| I7 2600@4.2Ghz | Corsair A70 w/H100 fans | 16GB DDR3 1333Mhz | MSI Z77A G45 Gaming | Corsair TX650 | XFX R9 380 | 2x 120GB Samsung 840 SSD in RAID 0 | 2x Seagate 500GB in RAID 0 | 750GB Seagate | 500GB WDHDD + 500GB WD USB HDD | Sound Blaster Recon | Antec Sonta Case | HP LP2480zx @1920x1200 | Acer H243H @1920x1080 | BenQ EW2440

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×