7700k/ 7600k vs Ryzen

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, Emberstone said:

It's not the OC or the RAM because, at stock with the RAM at 2400 MHz (the supported speed for dual-rank memory on Ryzen), the performance is still less than what I have now and benchmark scores show where they should be: 1230 multi and 160 single in Cinebench. Prime95 doesn't crash after several hours, but I'll admit I haven't run Memtest86.

 

It's probably more to do with the games I play, which right now are mainly Heroes of the Storm and Guild Wars 2. I'll give some examples.

 

Heroes saw some benefit going to Ryzen, but it wasn't enough to justify a brand new platform. Guild Wars 2 sees heavier dips during world events on Ryzen than my 980X did, and I've had to crank settings down in order to not sit at 15 fps during Tequatl or Auric Basin, but has a higher average out in the world. Destiny 2 (while not relevant in a gaming sense because it's Destiny 2, the point still stands) actually performs flat-out better on the 980X once I overclock it to 4.0 GHz. World of Warcraft's framerate is higher on average with Ryzen, but I see a lot more dips below 60 fps in raids than I used to which makes the experience pretty jarring and inconsistent like Guild Wars 2's is.

 

The only games I can think of that absolutely run justifiably better on my Ryzen setup are Doom 2016 and Overwatch, which both have exceptional multithreading support. MindBlankTech showed that Ryzen would actually outperform a 7700K in Overwatch at higher memory frequencies. On Ultra the lowest average I've gotten is like ~180 in Overwatch and I usually average around 200 in ordinary games, so the performance there is fantastic.

 

I'm just disappointed that the experience I've had with Overwatch and Doom isn't indicative of the whole picture that's been painted for me.

Well again i'm sorry you are seeing that type of performance i really am. Did you make sure you have 1200% coverage on memtest HCI? Before Agesa 1.0.0.4a i saw stutters even on the game Tropical 4 but once i updated my bios and now i'm running at 3200mhz of my memory i see and feel great performance. 

 

 

[Emberstone]

2 hours ago, jdwii said:

Well again i'm sorry you are seeing that type of performance i really am. Did you make sure you have 1200% coverage on memtest HCI? Before Agesa 1.0.0.4a i saw stutters even on the game Tropical 4 but once i updated my bios and now i'm running at 3200mhz of my memory i see and feel great performance. 

 

 

I haven't run Memtest, but I am on the latest BIOS. After AGESA 1.0.0.6 I was able to get 3066 MHz stable, but on the latest BIOS (ver. 3401 for my board) I have to back down to 2933 or OBS might randomly crash, and Doom in the SnapMap editor was randomly crashing as well until I backed down.

 

Unfortunately, this latest BIOS changed the microcode I was on from AGESA 1.0.0.6 to 1.0.7.1, which means it won't let me downgrade to an older BIOS, so I'm stuck with it.

[mrchow19910319]

On 12/23/2017 at 12:34 PM, xg32 said:

I really wanted to go ryzen but it just can't game at 120-144hz consistently, reason being ryzen's low single-threaded performance, it's actually weaker than sandy bridge, a 6 year old cpu. Every benchmark I've seen on ryzen screams 60fps gaming for now and the future, which leads to budget builds only (for gaming)

got a ryzen 1200 had to agree with you.... sure i didnt overclock it but it is still super lackluster when it comes to CPU intensive games like SC2. FPS goes from 150+ early game to 20+ late game (4v4 map, lowest detail 1440p) and my GTX1060's fan is not even spinning which means the GPU isn't loaded that much yet. 

[epsilon84]

2 minutes ago, mrchow19910319 said:

got a ryzen 1200 had to agree with you.... sure i didnt overclock it but it is still super lackluster when it comes to CPU intensive games like SC2. FPS goes from 150+ early game to 20+ late game (4v4 map, lowest detail 1440p) and my GTX1060's fan is not even spinning which means the GPU isn't loaded that much yet. 

Well SC2 is all about single thread performance, so a stock R3 1200 with its relatively low clockspeeds and IPC wouldn't be the best at running this game. Overclocking should help somewhat.

[mrchow19910319]

2 minutes ago, epsilon84 said:

Well SC2 is all about single thread performance, so a stock R3 1200 with its relatively low clockspeeds and IPC wouldn't be the best at running this game. Overclocking should help somewhat.

yeah, other people suggested the same thing.

 planning to get a 8700 in the next few months.

[Jumper118]

1 hour ago, mrchow19910319 said:

got a ryzen 1200 had to agree with you.... sure i didnt overclock it but it is still super lackluster when it comes to CPU intensive games like SC2. FPS goes from 150+ early game to 20+ late game (4v4 map, lowest detail 1440p) and my GTX1060's fan is not even spinning which means the GPU isn't loaded that much yet. 

lol. 

 

yeah i want to go drag racing, but i left winter tyres on my dragster cos i lazy af. dragster are really slow so ill just buy a dodge demon. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Emberstone said:

I haven't run Memtest, but I am on the latest BIOS. After AGESA 1.0.0.6 I was able to get 3066 MHz stable, but on the latest BIOS (ver. 3401 for my board) I have to back down to 2933 or OBS might randomly crash, and Doom in the SnapMap editor was randomly crashing as well until I backed down.

 

Unfortunately, this latest BIOS changed the microcode I was on from AGESA 1.0.0.6 to 1.0.7.1, which means it won't let me downgrade to an older BIOS, so I'm stuck with it.

If you haven't ran HCI memtest to around 1200% coverage you have a big chance of being unstable, i ran my memory at 2933mhz on my older MSI Tomahawk and like all my games stuttered i didn't care what it was then i found out in less then 20min HCI had a error i don't even think it hit 300% coverage i got my memory stable on that POS board at 2933mhz AGESA 1.0.0.6 and my games were smoothed again. Also note i own a 1440P 144hz monitor my 1080 is the bottleneck in most cases but i will admit the 1700 does bottleneck my GPU at times but i do always see 90+ fps but i turn down some GPU settings and i never really use anything higher then 2X MSAA if at all.  

[xg32]

5 minutes ago, jdwii said:

If you haven't ran HCI memtest to around 1200% coverage you have a big chance of being unstable, i ran my memory at 2933mhz on my older MSI Tomahawk and like all my games stuttered i didn't care what it was then i found out in less then 20min HCI had a error i don't even think it hit 300% coverage i got my memory stable on that POS board at 2933mhz AGESA 1.0.0.6 and my games were smoothed again. Also note i own a 1440P 144hz monitor my 1080 is the bottleneck in most cases but i will admit the 1700 does bottleneck my GPU at times but i do always see 90+ fps but i turn down some GPU settings and i never really use anything higher then 2X MSAA if at all.  

u mean the b350 tomahawk? and u swapped to a new board already? what happened?

[Guest]

6 hours ago, mrchow19910319 said:

yeah, other people suggested the same thing.

 planning to get a 8700 in the next few months.

In this case you learned something that took me forever to learn buying budget parts in this PC industry simply doesn't work in the long run. You would have been much happier with a 1600 and it really does come down to what games you play star craft 2 really is all about single core performance same as WOW and many other games like CSGO, though i would think if a user on at least a sandy-bridge CPU was fine they should be fine with Ryzen too. 

 

If you want a quick suggestion of a 100% safe OC on Ryzen 1200 on the stock cooler simply set it to 3.7Ghz 1.25V that should be stable and you will see a nice jump. 

 

Coffee-lake is gonna eat Amd alive that's for sure and i don't see Pinnacle Ridge helping much but at least we have competition and its even being rumored Intel will move to 8 cores on their mainstream boards i mean NO WAY would they be moving that fast if it wasn't for the Zen architecture. 

 

1 hour ago, xg32 said:

u mean the b350 tomahawk? and u swapped to a new board already? what happened?

I was able to get my DDR4 memory to 3200mhz at stock voltage on the memory(with my asrock taichi ) on my Tomahawk the max i was able to get was 3066mhz at 1.4V on my memory and 1.15V on the SOC. Plus the board sucked in many other areas as well such as crazy high VRM temps. 

 

  

[Emberstone]

1 hour ago, jdwii said:

If you haven't ran HCI memtest to around 1200% coverage you have a big chance of being unstable, i ran my memory at 2933mhz on my older MSI Tomahawk and like all my games stuttered i didn't care what it was then i found out in less then 20min HCI had a error i don't even think it hit 300% coverage i got my memory stable on that POS board at 2933mhz AGESA 1.0.0.6 and my games were smoothed again. Also note i own a 1440P 144hz monitor my 1080 is the bottleneck in most cases but i will admit the 1700 does bottleneck my GPU at times but i do always see 90+ fps but i turn down some GPU settings and i never really use anything higher then 2X MSAA if at all.  

Do you mean this program? http://hcidesign.com/memtest/

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Emberstone said:

Do you mean this program? http://hcidesign.com/memtest/

Yeah that's it i recommend following the steps listed here down below 

 

http://www.overclock.net/t/1628751/official-amd-ryzen-ddr4-24-7-memory-stability-thread

 

Great forum to be on and i won't take credit for their work helped get my system stable and changed my mind of what stable really means i mean i noticed first hand that a stable system means a fast and smooth one as well. 

[Stefan Payne]

11 hours ago, Emberstone said:

I don’t understand why you think I wanted AMD to fail after I built a ~$1100 system using their platform. That makes zero sense.

No, it makes perfect sense.

Its the same shit in every area.

There are some people (like you), who try 'the other side' but are never ever really happy with it because they are looking for trouble with them.

And that seems the case for you.

Why else wouldn't you RMA the RAM?!

 

11 hours ago, Emberstone said:

You reference the X99 problems and whatnot regarding RAM. The big difference here is those got fixed.

No, they ain't...

You still have to look at the manual to look at what slots you have to use for the system to boot at all.

 

 

11 hours ago, Emberstone said:

We’re finding out now that Ryzen’s memory controller just sucks and probably can’t be fixed for higher frequencies, and heavily depends on silicon lottery.

That's false information you are spreading right now.

 

No, it depends on the Board, how good the designer was and how many layers the board has. There are some more expensive boards that allow higher memory clocks than other, cheaper ones.

 

And also you need Memory that runs well with Ryzen - wich you didn't get because you didn't do your research well enough for Ryzen.

 

That's the only thing you can really do wrong -> choosing the wrong memory. And you did that.

 

 

11 hours ago, Emberstone said:

Why would I bother disabling a CCX/SMT just to play old games better? That’s a huge hassle and I’d rather just play at lower frame rates than reboot when I want to do anything else.

Because Ryzen is new and does somethings different.

And the old games are not made to run well on Ryzen, they don't even know about it.

If you have two threads, one on one CCX and the other on the other one, do you believe the Performance will be good?
No it won't...

And that is one of the Problems Ryzen has...

You can try to pin the Threads of the games to certain cores, that might work as well...

11 hours ago, Emberstone said:

Is it wrong to expect my new, expensive hardware to just “work?”

Your statement shows, that you never ever had a PC before the Windows 95 area and know about what you have to do to make a game to run.

If you want it to just work, why haven't you gotten an XBox?? Or a Playstation 4??

There you can expect 0 Problems with the Hardware because there is no variance - OK; some (old) games might crash on PS4 PRO with Boost Mode, so that might be too much hassle for you.

 

11 hours ago, Emberstone said:

I bought my memory when Ryzen launched. No one really knew how Ryzen liked its memory yet.

You bought a new Plattform and didn't expect any bugs with it?
Do I have to say more??

If you want it to just work, why not wait a Month or two??

 

11 hours ago, Emberstone said:

Forgive me for not knowing like everyone else at that point. I chose to tough it out with BIOS updates because I didn’t want to buy another kit and make it worse. Even the RAM on my QVL only showed 2133 MHz except for a handful of kits that were very, very expensive at the time. So I chose a 3200 kit I could actually afford and chanced it. Sue me.

And now you know that the QVL was there for a reason.

You also could have looked up other QVL Lists of other manufacturers, to possibly get a Kit that you yould afford.

Besides that, the official specifications for Ryzen is 2666MHz -> http://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-7-1700x

 

But that's not the point. The point is that 3200MHz is very tricky on the engineering level, to get the timing right and that is also the reason why some chips run like shit on ryzen and some run really really well on ryzen.

 

And I don't understand why you don't just replace the memory to something that is know good for Ryzen. Why you instead want to replace the Motherboard and CPU, instead of just the Memory.

 

It is entirely possible that the memory is the Problem you have and messes up your system, so why not replace it??

 

11 hours ago, Emberstone said:

Do you think I actually wanted and expected to spend more money on a CPU/mobo this year? 

why not just try new memory with Samsung B-Die??

 

Here a List of possible RAM Kits:

And here something in German:

https://www.hardwareluxx.de/community/f13/die-ultimative-hardwareluxx-samsung-8gb-b-die-liste-alle-hersteller-21-12-17-a-1161530.html

 

10 hours ago, jdwii said:

Something is clearly wrong with your setup

Thank you, that's also my impression.

 

10 hours ago, jdwii said:

Ryzen will offer better gaming performance compared to a 980X and more importantly Ryzen will offer more performance in games made after 2016. If something is feeling like crap most likely ram is unstable(meaning it would fail a HCI test) or the CPU OC is unstable(fail Prime 95 test). 

That's also what I am suspecting and mentioned why he didn't at least RMA his RAM or tried a different module...

That's what Warranty is kinda for...

But now its kinda late...

 

10 hours ago, jdwii said:

Complete and utter BS statement is "Bulldozer all over again" do you understand how terrible bulldozer really was???

Bulldozer was worse then the Phenom II in IPC in most cases. At this point i want to test your build personally and the software you use. 

...and here we are at the point of one can do no wrong, others can do no right...

 

Yeah, Ryzen is a very good CPU, especially if you keep in mind how little money/resources AMD had to develop it!

 

And the sad thing, if you compare Bulldozer with other CPUs of the time with games from today, Bulldozer performs really well and beats most of it.

If you compare it to other CPUs that were priced similarly (wich means i3-3k and i5-3k Series), Bulldozer comes out on top many times....

 

But at the time - around 5 Years ago -, really well multithreaded software was rare...

[Emberstone]

2 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

No, they ain't...

You still have to look at the manual to look at what slots you have to use for the system to boot at all.

You have to check slots for most motherboards and it isn't a technical problem. At the very least, you need to check slots to ensure you're correctly enabling dual or quad channel.

 

2 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

No, it depends on the Board, how good the designer was and how many layers the board has. There are some more expensive boards that allow higher memory clocks than other, cheaper ones.

The board plays a factor, but you can have two similar Ryzen CPUs that both hit the same overclocks on the same board, for example, but are stable at different memory frequencies. Hardware Unboxed experienced this in a video several months back.

 

2 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

If you want it to just work, why not wait a Month or two??

It's been 7 months and it still doesn't "just work."

 

2 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

Your statement shows, that you never ever had a PC before the Windows 95 area and know about what you have to do to make a game to run.

This might be a relevant statement if we were still in the 80s or 90s. And yes, I have.

 

2 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

And now you know that the QVL was there for a reason.

You also could have looked up other QVL Lists of other manufacturers, to possibly get a Kit that you yould afford.

I already knew the QVL was important, hence why I checked it before buying my RAM. Also, you already conceded that the motherboard plays a huge factor in what RAM is stable in your system (and it is), so why would I look up the QVL for a different board? That makes no sense.

 

2 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

It is entirely possible that the memory is the Problem you have and messes up your system, so why not replace it??

These symptoms still show at 2133 MHz, and the performance is right in line with where it should be in benchmarks both synthetic and gaming. I'll run a Memtest after Christmas, but I highly doubt it's a stability problem.

 

2 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

No, it makes perfect sense.

Its the same shit in every area.

There are some people (like you), who try 'the other side' but are never ever really happy with it because they are looking for trouble with them.

This may be true for people who have infinite cash to throw around on hardware so they can see how much they like it, but I don't have that luxury. I fully expected to love my new system after seeing how well the CPU performed in benchmarks for the price, and I actually did when I was primarily playing Heroes of the Storm during my uni semester when I didn't have time for anything else as it got around ~30 fps more than my old system. I was just happy to see higher fps at the time, but now that I've seen the bigger picture, I'm disappointed.

 

Here's a clear example of an optimization problem. Destiny 2 (I know it's Destiny 2, but just listen). Compare the i5-8400 and R5-1600X, they have the same number of cores and the same boost clock (4.0 GHz) on a single core. You'd expect them to perform very similarly considering those facts and similar IPC, maybe favoring the 1600X since it has six more threads, but take a look at Gamers Nexus' testing of the game between Intel and Ryzen CPUs. Even the i3-8100 beats an overclocked R7-1700 by a fair margin, and it gets much wider once you jump up from the i3.

 

You don't even need a 1080 Ti to feel the CPU bottlenecking they showed in that game; I've got a 1070. My GPU usage is almost never 100% in that game, and during public events or the raid I often dip below 60 fps with around 50-60% GPU usage.

 

Anyway, it's clear we don't agree on anything. You think I'm crazy, and I don't find your arguments sensible. So I'm just going to stop here. We aren't going to convince each other due to our own unique experiences.

[mrchow19910319]

4 hours ago, jdwii said:

In this case you learned something that took me forever to learn buying budget parts in this PC industry simply doesn't work in the long run. You would have been much happier with a 1600 and it really does come down to what games you play star craft 2 really is all about single core performance same as WOW and many other games like CSGO, though i would think if a user on at least a sandy-bridge CPU was fine they should be fine with Ryzen too. 

 

If you want a quick suggestion of a 100% safe OC on Ryzen 1200 on the stock cooler simply set it to 3.7Ghz 1.25V that should be stable and you will see a nice jump. 

 

Coffee-lake is gonna eat Amd alive that's for sure and i don't see Pinnacle Ridge helping much but at least we have competition and its even being rumored Intel will move to 8 cores on their mainstream boards i mean NO WAY would they be moving that fast if it wasn't for the Zen architecture. 

it all comes down to 2 things, the mindset you have when you 1st purchase the parts, and money. 

I built this pc had the idea that I only gonna game on it occasionally... only later realised that I spent way too much time on gaming and this is not gonna be a "90% sit on the table" build. also plus the lackluster performance it gives me. another thing is money. i could have saved more money and get a better build. but i was impatient. so i end up paying more in the long run. 

[Stefan Payne]

@Emberstone

 

Dude, your memory is either kaktus or incompatible with Ryzen.

Stop blaming the CPU for the RAM.

And that two different silicones have different properties, well d'uh...

That we know since at least 25 Years ago, when people started overclocking.

 

Instead of fixing your System, you are flaming here and saying AMD is shit, while admitting that the Memory you have is shit or broken.

 

[Emberstone]

2 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

while admitting that the Memory you have is shit or broken.

I haven't admitted that at all. Saying my memory isn't hitting full speeds != saying it's broken.

 

Anyway, Merry Christmas.

[Stefan Payne]

6 minutes ago, Emberstone said:

I haven't admitted that at all. Saying my memory isn't hitting full speeds != saying it's broken.

You did.

You said its the same with 2133MHz, wich indicates that something is horribly Wrong with your system. The most probable thing is the memory but also the Motherboard can be broken.

So you are talking about a defective Ryzen system, that that isn't great. 

So why the hell aren't you working on fixing your system? Why do you flame instead?! 

Doesn't make sense, now does it?!

 

As for the CPU, you can probably RMA it easily, since it is an early one... 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, mrchow19910319 said:

it all comes down to 2 things, the mindset you have when you 1st purchase the parts, and money. 

I built this pc had the idea that I only gonna game on it occasionally... only later realised that I spent way too much time on gaming and this is not gonna be a "90% sit on the table" build. also plus the lackluster performance it gives me. another thing is money. i could have saved more money and get a better build. but i was impatient. so i end up paying more in the long run. 

Been their as well haha, i still remember my first build took me forever to save up for it was well worth it but it was just budget parts where i lived building my own PC at a young age wasn't very common now i'm happy to say it is. 

 

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

@Emberstone

 

Dude, your memory is either kaktus or incompatible with Ryzen.

Stop blaming the CPU for the RAM.

And that two different silicones have different properties, well d'uh...

That we know since at least 25 Years ago, when people started overclocking.

 

Instead of fixing your System, you are flaming here and saying AMD is shit, while admitting that the Memory you have is shit or broken.

 

I may be all over the place but Amd should have worked much closer with board manufactures and Ryzen's memory controller just doesn't work well with hynix memory and samsung e-die isn't much better. The flareX memory for example is actually much faster memory running at 3200 for Ryzen 

 

Out of anything from Amd with Pinnacle Ridge i hope improving the memory controller is the number one thing they work on so it can support more memory and at higher speeds Amd heavily needs to work on this. Ram prices alone are making people crazy to begin with i just checked flarex prices 250$!!!! Just nuts if it wasn't for Coffee-lake and Ryzen this year would have sucked 100% for PC builders. 

[Stefan Payne]

17 hours ago, jdwii said:

I may be all over the place but Amd should have worked much closer with board manufactures and Ryzen's memory controller just doesn't work well with hynix memory and samsung e-die isn't much better. The flareX memory for example is actually much faster memory running at 3200 for Ryzen 

And here we are again with the "AMD can do no right" topic...

If they did a slow Memory controller that was rather compatible but didn't reach high clockrates, everyone would complain.

If they did a fast memory controller that was not so compatible but did high clockrates (and performance), everyone would complain.

 

With Intel, even if their Memory Controller is total garbage, they can get away with it because everyone will make their stuff for them.

 

AMD does NOT have that kind of power...

And thats what everybody is missing. They flame/bash AMD for everything, without thinking one second about the (market) situation!!!

 

 

And how can they have any power, when nobody buys them anyway?!

This thread is a prime example, that the CPU Market doesn't work because everyone is recommending Intel anyway, because Intel. And you have to go for Monopoly and don't care if you have to pay 500€ for a CPU...

And don't even think about the almost 10 Years 4 Core/8 Threads CPUs that were introduced in 2008. 

Yeah, progress. With the same core count for almost 10 Years...

You know that it took around 3-4 Years from 1 Core to 4 Cores. And then almost 10 Years from 4 to now 6 Cores for Intel...

 

 

17 hours ago, jdwii said:

Out of anything from Amd with Pinnacle Ridge i hope improving the memory controller is the number one thing they work on so it can support more memory and at higher speeds Amd heavily needs to work on this. Ram prices alone are making people crazy to begin with i just checked flarex prices 250$!!!! Just nuts if it wasn't for Coffee-lake and Ryzen this year would have sucked 100% for PC builders. 

The Ryzen Memory Controller seem to work fine, the Problem is that nobody did make Memory that's not for Intel!!

When Pinnacle Ridge is around, the situation is way better and some companys will make AMD Memory and not just somethings that only works on Intel.

[epsilon84]

Gosh, stop being an apologist for AMD, its seriously nauseating. Their memory controller sucks in terms of compatability with higher speed RAM kits, that is the reality, stop making excuses for them. You're also going way off topic with all the rhetoric about 'AMD = good, Intel = bad, support the little guy' sob story. Whoever has the better tech at the time for my purposes gets my money. I really don't care that Intel is 10x the size of AMD or whatever. Its my money and I will buy whatever gives me the best perforamance, regardless of brand. Obviously you have a preference towards AMD, and thats OK, but there is no need to shout your opinion out like its the only one that matters.

 

Seriously, AMD doesnt need you to do the marketing for them, if they have a good product naturally it will sell, its no coincidence that their highest rate of desktop marketshare since the A64 also conincides with the launch of Ryzen, their first competitive product in many years.

 

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

And here we are again with the "AMD can do no right" topic...

If they did a slow Memory controller that was rather compatible but didn't reach high clockrates, everyone would complain.

If they did a fast memory controller that was not so compatible but did high clockrates (and performance), everyone would complain.

 

With Intel, even if their Memory Controller is total garbage, they can get away with it because everyone will make their stuff for them.

 

AMD does NOT have that kind of power...

And thats what everybody is missing. They flame/bash AMD for everything, without thinking one second about the (market) situation!!!

 

 

And how can they have any power, when nobody buys them anyway?!

This thread is a prime example, that the CPU Market doesn't work because everyone is recommending Intel anyway, because Intel. And you have to go for Monopoly and don't care if you have to pay 500€ for a CPU...

And don't even think about the almost 10 Years 4 Core/8 Threads CPUs that were introduced in 2008. 

Yeah, progress. With the same core count for almost 10 Years...

You know that it took around 3-4 Years from 1 Core to 4 Cores. And then almost 10 Years from 4 to now 6 Cores for Intel...

 

 

The Ryzen Memory Controller seem to work fine, the Problem is that nobody did make Memory that's not for Intel!!

When Pinnacle Ridge is around, the situation is way better and some companys will make AMD Memory and not just somethings that only works on Intel.

Please would you like me to make a long rant on how terrible bulldozer was and how even keeping the Phenom II and improving that would have been better? 

 

Or how Intel can somehow manage both high IPC and high frequency's. Ryzen's memory controller is better but sorry it sucks with some brands of memory it just does.

[Stefan Payne]

9 hours ago, jdwii said:

Please would you like me to make a long rant on how terrible bulldozer was and how even keeping the Phenom II and improving that would have been better? 

No, because it depends on the software you are using, if BUlldozer is as bad as people make it out to be or not.

If you have a well multitrheaded software, Bulldozer is pretty strong.

For example:
http://gamegpu.com/rpg/роллевые/total-war-warhammer-directx-12-test-gpu

Very close to an i5-4670...

 

http://gamegpu.com/rpg/rollevye/dragons-dogma-dark-arisen-test-gpu.html

Also above the i5-4670 (but below i7-2600)

 

And here Proof that IPC of Ryzen is _NOT_ as bad as some people here mentioned and on par with Haswel, while Gaming:
http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/ghost-recon-wildlands-2017-test-gpu

And here also some instances where the Ryzen 5 and sometimes 3 smokes the i5-7400, when combined with an 1080:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/11658/the-amd-ryzen-3-1300x-ryzen-3-1200-cpu-review/13

(scroll down, 1080 performance)

 

 

 

Quote

Or how Intel can somehow manage both high IPC and high frequency's.

Intel has 100 times the R&D Budget AMD has!!

Yeah, with almost infinite resources, you might be able to do that, probably. well, d'uh...

 

Why can't you understand that?!
And ignore the point of the resources of both companys?!

 

Here some figures:
https://www.electronicsweekly.com/blogs/mannerisms/markets/intel-spends-everyone-rd-2017-02/

 

12Billion Dollar, just for R&D.

AMD isn't even on that list!

 

Here something for AMD:
https://ycharts.com/companies/AMD/r_and_d_expense

 

So what were you saying again about what can Intel do with at least 10 times the R&D budget??

 

Quote

Ryzen's memory controller is better but sorry it sucks with some brands of memory it just does.

Yes, because you wouldn't know if Intels Memory Controller is total horse shit because every memory manufacturer will make the memory so that it runs well on Intel...

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

No, because it depends on the software you are using, if BUlldozer is as bad as people make it out to be or not.

If you have a well multitrheaded software, Bulldozer is pretty strong.

For example:
http://gamegpu.com/rpg/роллевые/total-war-warhammer-directx-12-test-gpu

 

Very close to an i5-4670...

 

Intel has 100 times the R&D Budget AMD has!!

Yeah, with almost infinite resources, you might be able to do that, probably. well, d'uh...

 

Why can't you understand that?!
And ignore the point of the resources of both companys?!

 

Here some figures:
https://www.electronicsweekly.com/blogs/mannerisms/markets/intel-spends-everyone-rd-2017-02/

 

12Billion Dollar, just for R&D.

AMD isn't even on that list!

 

Here something for AMD:
https://ycharts.com/companies/AMD/r_and_d_expense

 

So what were you saying again about what can Intel do with at least 10 times the R&D budget??

 

Yes, because you wouldn't know if Intels Memory Controller is total horse shit because every memory manufacturer will make the memory so that it runs well on Intel...

2500K aged better then the 8350 hardware unbox did a video on it and lets not forget a CPU should be measured by its performance during the time the owner uses it not just the last few years. 

 

8350 could barely take on an I3 in gaming at release and ended up losing to a 60$ Pentium later in its lifetime in most cases. BD was and always will be recognized for what it is complete and utter trash.

 

 

Thinking logically it was also way more massive in size making Amd price these far lower then they wanted to it hurt their APU series dearly due to performance per watt and they failed to win the server market in anyway losing market share. In no way can BD be seen as a success it is interesting from a technical standpoint but that's it. 

 

Intel has done a lot of crap and they got away with it due to Amd not competing so happy that is over with now Intel is even rushing to get an 8 core out on the mainstream no way would they do this without Ryzen. 

 

I don't care about budgets i don't care about other things you mentioned they are true but many people hinted and predicted low IPC from bulldozer based off the design. Explain to me what happens when you share the fetch and decode while sharing even L1 cache(with L2 being shared too) while sharing a FP unit while taking away 1AGU and 1ALU per core? Instead we had Amd's marketing head tell us IPC would go up in forums. Bulldozer wasn't even a surprise to many who took even a basic CPU architecture class at a cheap community college this is why budget is not an excuse. 

 

Phenom III X8 would have beaten the living crap out of bulldozer 

[Stefan Payne]

Why don't you say anything about my Ryzen Links?!

Like this one:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/11658/the-amd-ryzen-3-1300x-ryzen-3-1200-cpu-review/14

 

 

Quote

2500K aged better then the 8350

Well, if you happen to get a P67 B2, not so much...

https://www.anandtech.com/show/4142/intel-discovers-bug-in-6series-chipset-begins-recall

 

Quote

8350 could barely take on an I3 in gaming at release and ended up losing to a 60$ Pentium later in its lifetime in most cases. BD was and always will be recognized for what it is complete and utter trash.

 

FX isn't the Topic and the links in the previous posting prove that the FX can have good performance, if you optimizie a bit for it.

And in those instances, the FX can compete well with much more expensive CPUs.

 

Well, if the Intel Compiler isn't use of course...

 

Quote

Intel has done a lot of crap and they got away with it due to Amd not competing so happy

No, because of the users ignoring the shit they do and downplay the shit Intel has done or the Problems I have.

 

Do you hear anybody complaining about the Intel ME Exploit??

It was this thing:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/12/06/intel_management_engine_pwned_by_buffer_overflow/

And now think what would have happened, if that happened to somebody else...

And that's pretty much a desaster what happened here...

 

And still nobody talks about it, everyone seems to have forgotten about it...

Who knows, who could gotten some private pictures or videos through this hole...

 

Quote

I don't care about budgets i don't care about other things you mentioned

Right, and that's why Intel can not solder the lid of a 2000€ CPU - because people don't care...

Even if there are good alternatives on the market, people don't buy them - like you can see in this thread...

 

Quote

they are true but many people hinted and predicted low IPC from bulldozer based off the design and Amd's spokesmen said otherwise even some going as far as saying it would be higher.

It was higher, it just needed heavy optimization and a problem that's good for the architecture.
What he said wasn't totally wrong...

 

Quote

I would like you to explain how Intel's memory controller is "shit" when they can in most cases hit the advertised speeds and do so with FAR less latency? 

Read, what I wrote!
I said that because every memory manufacturer makes their chips to be usable with Intel Chips, you wouldn't notice if the Intel Memory Controller is shit!

Because everybody rectifies the mistakes Intel makes.

AMD does not have that power and it seems that there were some Chips on the market that only work well with Intel chips...

 

And it seems that some X99 systems have Problems with Samsung B-Die Chips, as I'm told by a friend who has a Gigabyte X99 Board and some Problems with it... 

 

Quote

Phenom III X8 would have beaten the living crap out of bulldozer and 

...didn't have AVX wich was the Problem...

And also no SMT wich is also a Problem...

Now AMD has AVX and SMT and people still flame AMD because they choose to not go full AVX512 but for more energy efficiency.

And that's why nobody talks about Energy Efficiency no more because AMD is better! (when comparing against the higher end i5 and i7, Intel probably has its own die for the i3)...

You only see that in Forums when AMD is not better in this Regard...

[Guest]

Right and they could have improved the K10 architecture added support for those things and include SMT instead of CMT which lowers IPC to improve "throughput" 

 

IPC went down in many areas compared to the Phenom the only thing that saved the FX From losing 100% to the K10 is like you say newer instruction sets which again could have been included in the K10. 

 

Even Lisa Su puts down bulldozer. Also tomshardware broke the truth you can read the original review they were told to "hold the line" when it comes to IPC when making bulldozer.

 

Now i'm not saying when a game focuses all their attention to Bulldozer that it can't hang remember Piledriver improved IPC by 7% or so. 

 

Have nothing really negative to say about Ryzen extremely happy its out its a common sense architecture i own it