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

[XenosTech]

2 minutes ago, FratStar said:

Do you really expect people to have a proper objective outlook on this? In another thread people were talking about how AMD could have possibly send "golden samples" Since they were chips used in the press builds even though they were taking from the retail pool.

 

Ryzen is pretty much exactly where it should have been performance with with multi threading and even in the single threaded productivity performance it's right where it should be. There are a few benchmarks (non gaming) where it gets its ass handed to it, but for the most part it keeps up with intel's top offerings, Sans-6950X. There are improvements that can be made a features that can come down the pipeline as Zen as whole matures.

 

 

This being LTT forums I only expect less than 1% of people to actually give AMD credit where it is due. Seems everybody here forgot how much of headache x99 was when it came out.

[tlink]

10 minutes ago, Darth Revan said:

There's nothing AMD can do about an architecture that doesn't deliver.

Apart from of course making a new one that actually does deliver.

It's in the hands of software developers to optimize their programs to work better on Zen.

Which no one will do.

The only thing that will be ironed out, will be the memory issue since that's more on the motherboard manufactures than AMD. And when it's fixed it won't magically give Zen a huge boost in performance.

you don't know how wrong you are about this. a cpu has drivers too. they are kernel drivers. this is why kaby lake doesn't work well on older windows systems. just as how driver updates can improve gpu performance, kernel driver updates can improve cpu performance.

[FratStar]

9 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

This being LTT forums I only expect less than 1% of people to actually give AMD credit where it is due. Seems everybody here forgot how much of headache x99 was when it came out.

I agree people seem to forget the issues x99 had upon release too.

 

It's crazy and people don't understand that devs actually do optimize for specific cpu architectures software has to catch up to the hardware especially with the way games are programmed it's so fundamentally different that the workstation based work loads.

I've literally seen in game engines: 

IF(AMD_CPU){  //this is for amd cpus

Do This

}

ELSE {

insert different code to produce same result here //this is for intel cpus

}

 

But the hardest part is that AMD will need to acquire vendor support from MIcrosoft and they are in bed with Intel and Nvidia getting Microsoft to dedicate resources to make kernel level changes won't be easy to do, and the amount of testing it'll take before rolling that out will be at least 6 months down the line honestly.

[XenosTech]

1 minute ago, FratStar said:

It's crazy and people don't understand that devs actually do optimize for specific cpu architectures software has to catch up to the hardware especially with the way games are programmed it's so fundamentally different that the workstation based work loads.

I've literally seen in game engines: 

IF(AMD_CPU){  //this is for amd cpus

Do This

}

ELSE {

insert different code to produce same result here //this is for intel cpus

}

 

But the hardest part is that AMD will need to acquire vendor support from MIcrosoft and they are in bed with Intel and Nvidia getting Microsoft to dedicate resources to make kernel level changes won't be easy to do, and the amount of testing it'll take before rolling that out will be at least 6 months down the line honestly.

According to zMuel microsoft doesn't do such optimizations since their compilers are agnostic when it comes to cpu preference 

[Guest Darth Revan]

16 minutes ago, tlink said:

you don't know how wrong you are about this. a cpu has drivers too. they are kernel drivers. this is why kaby lake doesn't work well on older windows systems. just as how driver updates can improve gpu performance, kernel driver updates can improve cpu performance.

Kaby Lake has no problem working on older operating systems. People just don't know how to properly install the operating system and/or don't know the issues that older OS have with new hardware.

For example Win7 if installed on a new platform from a flash drive can't install because it doesn't have the usb drivers necessary to continue. And there tricks to fix this issue.

Win8 for example has a known issue with not wanting to install properly on certain SSDs when using a new platform.

And there are other known issues that people blame on the processor not working properly without knowing what's really the problem.  

[FratStar]

9 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

According to zMuel microsoft doesn't do such optimizations since their compilers are agnostic when it comes to cpu preference 

Barnacules would like to have a word with him in that case. You know the ex-SDET from Microsoft lol. Unfortunately I don't know any devs at MS only consultants and architects.

 

That also doesn't make sense because that would mean Kaby Lake would officially support Windows 7. While it will run if there are any kind or errors that are cause you know by the interaction of the OS and CPU it's not going to get fixed since only Microsoft can fix those types of issues with the help either AMD, Intel, NV or whomever. Do people just think AMD goes and says hey change this back end piece of windows and it'll work. What if it that change causes blue screens on intel. That argument literally makes no sense.

[XenosTech]

3 minutes ago, FratStar said:

Barnacules would like to have a word with him in that case. You know the ex-SDET from Microsoft lol. Unfortunately I don't know any devs at MS only consultants and architects.

 

That also doesn't make sense because that would mean Kaby Lake would officially support Windows 7. While it will run if there are any kind or errors that are cause you know by the interaction of the OS and CPU it's not going to get fixed since only Microsoft can fix those types of issues with either AMD, Intel, NV or whomever..

I mean what do we know, we aren't programmers of any sort.

[FratStar]

Just now, XenosTech said:

I mean what do we know, we aren't programmers of any sort.

True, I've gone as far as game engines, not OS development. I'd have to reach out to a SME from Microsoft if I really wanted to find out which I may very well try to do.

[XenosTech]

3 minutes ago, FratStar said:

True, I've gone as far as game engines, not OS development. I'd have to reach out to a SME from Microsoft if I really wanted to find out which I may very well try to do.

I shoved programming in a corner after a tutor pissed me off one day at college and I haven't peeped at it since.

[Mira Yurizaki]

24 minutes ago, FratStar said:

Barnacules would like to have a word with him in that case. You know the ex-SDET from Microsoft lol. Unfortunately I don't know any devs at MS only consultants and architects.

 

That also doesn't make sense because that would mean Kaby Lake would officially support Windows 7. While it will run if there are any kind or errors that are cause you know by the interaction of the OS and CPU it's not going to get fixed since only Microsoft can fix those types of issues with the help either AMD, Intel, NV or whomever. Do people just think AMD goes and says hey change this back end piece of windows and it'll work. What if it that change causes blue screens on intel. That argument literally makes no sense.

The part that newer hardware is not supported on Windows 7 is more of a system wide thing, not a processor only thing. Windows 7 lacks native support for features present in a lot of newer hardware platforms (for instance, USB 3.0 and NVME support). Integrating features requires poking at the kernel, which may irk some people who rely on Windows 7 because you shouldn't change the foundations of your software to support the latest and greatest thing that you may not care about. And as the world moves on from an older OS, hardware manufacturers aren't going to pool in as much resources, if any, to support their newer hardware on older OSes.

 

And it would be prudent to optimize your OS for the CPU in question for the best performance. This is the whole point of the Gentoo Linux distribution. You can easily change your code paths by poking at the CPUID of the processor. So while some core foundations of the kernel are processor agnostic as a starting point, other areas may not be (and should not be if you can do it)

[tlink]

2 minutes ago, Darth Revan said:

Kaby Lake has no problem working on older operating systems. People just don't know how to properly install the operating system and/or don't know the issues that older OS have with new hardware.

For example Win7 if installed on a new platform from a flash drive can't install because it doesn't have the usb drivers necessary to continue. And there tricks to fix this issue.

Win8 for example has a known issues with not wanting to install properly on certain SSDs when using a new platform.

And there are other known issues that people blame on the processor not working properly without knowing what's really the problem.  

that doesn't invalidate my point.

[Mira Yurizaki]

Oh yeah, I recall talking about this issue of code paths and stuff (shameless self plug):

 

[FratStar]

59 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

The part that newer hardware is not supported on Windows 7 is more of a system wide thing, not a processor only thing. Windows 7 lacks native support for features present in a lot of newer hardware platforms (for instance, USB 3.0 support). Integrating features requires poking at the kernel, which may irk some people who rely on Windows 7 because you shouldn't change the foundations of your software to support the latest and greatest thing that you may not care about. And as the world moves on from an older OS, hardware manufacturers aren't going to pool in as much resources, if any, to support their newer hardware on older OSes.

 

And it would be prudent to optimize your OS for the CPU in question for the best performance. This is the whole point of the Gentoo Linux distribution. You can easily change your code paths by poking at the CPUID of the processor. So while some core foundations of the kernel are processor agnostic as a starting point, other areas may not be (and should not be if you can do it)

^This, thanks for adding to my point. Like I've been saying AMDs biggest battle will be to show Microsoft the value of making those OS optimizations for their CPUs

[Mr Bacon]

14 hours ago, mvitkun said:

possibly from here

That very well could be correct. Thanks for finding that

[RagnarokDel]

Saying it's bad for gaming is retarded. Even if the 7700k is slightly better, it's still more then capable of gaming. Those tldr are completely wrong.

[79wjd]

7 minutes ago, RagnarokDel said:

Saying it's bad for gaming is retarded. Even if the 7700k is slightly better, it's still more then capable of gaming. Those tldr are completely wrong.

It's still not a smart purchasing decision for gaming. Why spend more (or even the same price) for worse gaming performance? Sure, you could argue that the 15-20% single-threaded (not directly gaming) performance hit is worth the potential benefits of having twice as many cores, but that's also betting on a future which may or may not happen. 

 

At the end of TODAY, in 2017, an 1800x is a bad choice for gaming. 

[dan357]

For that prize i am considering buying ryzen

 

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, dan357 said:

For that prize i am considering buying ryzen

 

 

A 7700k has better price/performance in gaming. 

[michaelocarroll007]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

A 7700k has better price/performance in gaming. 

You know Computers arent only for gaming some people use them for more then 1 Thing. Overall AMD is a Solid option for anyone who isnt building a Gaming only computer. It will perform close to Intel in gaming at reasonable settings only problem with pairing a titan and 144hz monitor will you really see the difference at very high frame rates. but then the trade back is in other CPU related tasked you use the computer for AMD Crushes Intels similarly priced parts.

 

Its a use case Decision.

[79wjd]

Just now, michaelocarroll007 said:

You know Computers arent only for gaming some people use them for more then 1 Thing. Overall AMD is a Solid option for anyone who isnt building a Gaming only computer. It will perform close to Intel in gaming at reasonable settings only problem with pairing a titan and 144hz monitor will you really see the difference at very high frame rates. but then the trade back is in other CPU related tasked you use the computer for AMD Crushes Intels similarly priced parts.

 

Its a use case Decision.

You know the entire point of this thread is basically Ryzen's gaming performance....right? 

[Guest Darth Revan]

4 minutes ago, michaelocarroll007 said:

You know Computers arent only for gaming some people use them for more then 1 Thing. Overall AMD is a Solid option for anyone who isnt building a Gaming only computer. It will perform close to Intel in gaming at reasonable settings only problem with pairing a titan and 144hz monitor will you really see the difference at very high frame rates. but then the trade back is in other CPU related tasked you use the computer for AMD Crushes Intels similarly priced parts.

 

Its a use case Decision.

No, overall Intel is the solid option for anyone. Period.

[Misanthrope]

8 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

You know the entire point of this thread is basically Ryzen's gaming performance....right? 

That doesn't apologizes for AMD and makes too much sense for this thread. 

[79wjd]

9 minutes ago, Darth Revan said:

No, overall Intel is the solid option for anyone. Period.

No, Ryzen is a great option compared to X99 where the extra cores are beneficial. It's certainly not the best in all cases (if you need quad channel memory or >24 PCIE lanes for example). But $330 for 90% of the performance of a 6900k is pretty good (1700 @ 4ghz vs. 6900k @ 4.4ghz). 

[michaelocarroll007]

17 minutes ago, Darth Revan said:

No, overall Intel is the solid option for anyone. Period.

Jesus That's 100% fanboy right there what are you 5 or have the intelligence of one. Favorite color must be blue or something.

 

 

They both have strengths and weaknesses in areas when comparing. One is not always the correct choice for everybody.

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

On 3/2/2017 at 1:39 PM, Mr Bacon said:

Getting tired of the people coming in here and saying it's SO obvious that an 8c wouldn't beat a 4c in gaming. It's a new architecture, no one could be sure of what the performance would be like until today. It's possible it could've been better, maybe not probable, but still possible.

They showed it against the 6900k in tests.  They showed it being roughly equal or slightly ahead in obviously (as long as you have some common sense) biased benchmarks.  How could you possibly have expected a CPU that's supposed to match the 6900k in single-threaded things to match 7700k -- a CPU that performs better than a 6900k in single-threaded tasks?