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

[TechGod]

1 hour ago, zMeul said:

having browser open

for what? are you gaming or browsing? and why would you have a major memory hog opened?

 

voice chat

for what? I usually don't play MP games that mandate voice chat - if you can't type, fuck off

 

listening to music

if I go for atmosphere, I don't play random music and let the game guide me

playing musing isn't even a CPU load concern

 

watching videos on the side

again .. you're gaming or watching videos?

I have my browser open whle gaming. Same goes for music. Hell I even have VS running pretty much all day cause I can't be bothered turning it off and on again.

 

And Holy Shit, just cause you don't play games with voice chat you speak for everyone? No. You're a moron for thinking typing can ever be as fast as talking. Furthermore, talking still lets you make callouts while playing the game but if you type, you're a sitting duck. 

 

 

I don't know why I expected any less from an AMD hater like you. 

[zMeul]

2 minutes ago, TechGod said:

I have my browser open whle gaming. Same goes for music. Hell I even have VS running pretty much all day cause I can't be bothered turning it off and on again.

good for you

he asked for one person who doesn't do all that, I don't - and I explained why

[TechGod]

Just now, zMeul said:

good for you

he asked for one person who doesn't do all that, I don't - and I explained why

Have a look at my edit. It dispells further of your usual bullshit.

[zMeul]

3 minutes ago, TechGod said:

Have a look at my edit. It dispells further of your usual bullshit.

here's some more of, as you call it .. "bullshit"

he literally asked for one person who doesn't do all that stuff, guess what? I don't

 

just in case my previous post wasn't clear enough

 

---

 

you "love" AMD? good for you

[Dabombinable]

29 minutes ago, TechGod said:

I have my browser open whle gaming. Same goes for music. Hell I even have VS running pretty much all day cause I can't be bothered turning it off and on again.

 

And Holy Shit, just cause you don't play games with voice chat you speak for everyone? No. You're a moron for thinking typing can ever be as fast as talking. Furthermore, talking still lets you make callouts while playing the game but if you type, you're a sitting duck. 

 

 

I don't know why I expected any less from an AMD hater like you. 

That being said-a stock 4790K for example handles gaming+web browsing (for me, a few tabs+Youtube on a 1366x768 screen) and recording software open on a third screen (1024x768). Along with Antivirus (some people for what ever reason don't use it-I use Avast free), HW monitor, GPUz and task manager open but minimised.

[TechGod]

8 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

That being said-a stock 4790K for example handles gaming+web browsing (for me, a few tabs+Youtube on a 1366x768 screen) and recording software open on a third screen (1024x768). Along with Antivirus (some people for what ever reason don't use it-I use Avast free), HW monitor, GPUz and task manager open but minimised.

Yeah it's fine. I have a an Intel i5 6500 and it's quite a capable chip. 

[AlTech]

6 minutes ago, TechGod said:

Yeah it's fine. I have a an Intel i5 6500 and it's quite a capable chip. 

Oh please. Don't pretend like you've never wanted or needed more performance.

 

As someone who owns a core i5, I would love to buy Ryzen as an upgrade so that I can finally have good CPU performance.

[Dabombinable]

6 minutes ago, TechGod said:

Yeah it's fine. I have a an Intel i5 6500 and it's quite a capable chip. 

Far more capable than my old i5 4440 (trying to play FO4 on it-down town Boston when it was raining made it choke hard. My GTX 970 dropped to around 60% usage because of it.)

[TechGod]

9 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Oh please. Don't pretend like you've never wanted or needed more performance.

 

As someone who owns a core i5, I would love to buy Ryzen as an upgrade so that I can finally have good CPU performance.

Lol where did I say that I wouldn't want Ryzen? I definitely want it. All I said is that the CPU I have atm is also quite capable.

 

I'd pick up the 1700 in a heartbeat if I could.

[Guest Darth Revan]

2 hours ago, RagnarokDel said:

Even if you believed the hype, you didnt get hurt. AMD claimed slightly worst IPC then Broadwell-E. Some retards leaked bullshit, that's different.

 

PS: There's a massive flaw in everyone's reviews tho. They dont represent real world gaming. Name me 1 gamer that plays without a browser with at least 3-4 tabs open, that doesnt have a voice or chat app running, that isnt listening to music or watching videos on the side. That doesnt have a few useful apps like ShareX or any periphericals software or any combination of this. and a game is relatively demanding, your 7700k/7600k is going to get bottlenecked and lose pretty hard. 

Massive flaw? You do realize that people when they want to play a game, they will play a game.

Not watch a movie, play music, watch a youtube video, watch a twitch stream, talk on skype, talk on discord, respond to e-mails, make a thread on forums and pleasuring themselves at the same time while playing a game.

The flaw is in your thinking.

2 hours ago, zMeul said:

having browser open

for what? are you gaming or browsing? and why would you have a major memory hog opened?

 

voice chat

for what? I usually don't play MP games that mandate voice chat - if you can't type, fuck off

 

listening to music

if I go for atmosphere, I don't play random music and let the game guide me

playing musing isn't even a CPU load concern

 

watching videos on the side

again .. you're gaming or watching videos?

Exactly.

 

[AlTech]

1 minute ago, Darth Revan said:

Massive flaw? You do realize that people when they want to play a game, they will play a game.

Not watch a movie, play music, watch a youtube video, watch a twitch stream, talk on skype, talk on discord, respond to e-mails, make a thread on forums and pleasuring themselves at the same time while playing a game.

The flaw is in your thinking.

Exactly.

 

When I play a game, I usually (when not benchmarking) have like 10 other things open when playing.

 

usually have VS, Discord, File Explorer, GitHub Desktop, Edge and other stuff open.

 

I have the RAM to do so . It's just that Intel is asinine about having 4 cores be mainstream when 4 cores should really be in core i3 products.,

[ArcThanatos]

17 minutes ago, Darth Revan said:

Massive flaw? You do realize that people when they want to play a game, they will play a game.

Not watch a movie, play music, watch a youtube video, watch a twitch stream, talk on skype, talk on discord, respond to e-mails, make a thread on forums and pleasuring themselves at the same time while playing a game.

The flaw is in your thinking.

Exactly.

 

actually people who play survival games tend to be multi tasking, when playing ark (which is a cpu whore) im watching netflix, listenign to music, sitting on here with 50 tabs open. or recording game.

when playing other games by myself ill have music playing or again recording game.

i always have a browser open, TS skype or discord open (sometimes all 3) have monitoring software running as well (3 of them).

one of my mates plays LOL and has Ark running at the same time (taming) and netflix running with pretty much same shit i run....

so he does have a point, there are gamers that DO have a use for test such as these, maybe the numbers are smaller and you dont fall into this group but test showing that a CPU can handle multi tasking while gaming is defiantly handy, an will stress the CPU more

[Valentyn]

2 hours ago, Darth Revan said:

Massive flaw? You do realize that people when they want to play a game, they will play a game.

Not watch a movie, play music, watch a youtube video, watch a twitch stream, talk on skype, talk on discord, respond to e-mails, make a thread on forums and pleasuring themselves at the same time while playing a game.

The flaw is in your thinking.

Exactly.

 

I haven't just played the game on its own since around late 2005 when the Athlon X2 hit. Even though I tried my darndest to multi task on CPUs before that. 

 

I primarily play multilayer games, and must have another display with browsers, software and more to monitor things. 

 

Then there's voice chat, the odd bit of streaming, highres high bit (440MBs) recording, and a often small project rendering as well. 

Only for large well over two hour long projects do I just leave the system to chug along, a bit . Even then though all my chrome tabs and monitoring is ways open, and I'll often still work in Photosshop and more as well.

 

Multi core was a productivity and hobby life saver for me, and after a year or two I always need more. Currently looking to get an 8c/16t cpu minimum, been on six cores for far too long. 

 

Also happens more of the games I play, even offline these days like extra cores as well. 

 

I might not play with music on a lot, but slow days as the projects are working away Ill gladly pop on Netflix, and some less intensive games,  and other sites, specially things related to the stock market that are always open from pre market to close, even if the system is pegged 100% on all cores. It'll happily do it's job. 

My older 4c/8t could never manage, it barely did when it was new, less so the CPUs before that as my productivity increased. 

 

I'm a firm believer in buying for your wants and needs at all times. For me the 7700K makes no sense, but I can see it doing for many people that only want the best gaming performance currently, especially if like yourselves when you game nothing but that game itself is running. 

 

 

[flipped_bit]

I think people are making a mountain out of a mole hill here.  This is a new architecture, and there will inevitably be teething problems.  As for the IPC deficit, no one should be surprised by this.  No one should have expected Ryzen to have the same FPS as Intel in games that benefit from high IPC.  I'm actually encouraged by how close Ryzen is at this point, and there are reasons to believe this gap will close further as software/firmware improves.

 

The bottom line is that Ryzen blows Intel out of the water in terms of price/performance, and for many if not most consumers the Ryzen chips will be seen as "good enough" for gaming.  Let's face it, most people buying an 8c/16t CPU probably aren't gaming on a 1080p monitor, and at 1440p or 4K the difference between Ryzen and Kaby Lake will be minimal in most games (online multiplayers like Planetside 2 excepted).  We'll see how the 6c/12t and 4c/8t parts compare when they're released in Q2.

 

If I wasn't already satisfied with my 4c/8t chip, I'd definitely be looking closely at the R7 1700 right now.

[79wjd]

9 minutes ago, flipped_bit said:

The bottom line is that Ryzen blows Intel out of the water in terms of price/performance, and for many if not most consumers the Ryzen chips will be seen as "good enough" for gaming.  Let's face it, most people buying an 8c/16t CPU probably aren't gaming on a 1080p monitor, and at 1440p or 4K the difference between Ryzen and Kaby Lake will be minimal in most games (online multiplayers like Planetside 2 excepted).  We'll see how the 6c/12t and 4c/8t parts compare when they're released in Q2.

The bottom line is why should you buy a $330 R7 1700 when you can get a better performing $330 7700k? So for gamers it really doesn't make sense -- things are different for people who do things in addition to gaming.

 

And while you're right, that the 1080p benchmarks don't really matter, they are still indicative of what 4k performance will look like in the future. CPU benchmarks are done at low resolutions because it makes the CPU the limiting factor -- which a 1700 will eventually be as GPUs get more powerful.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

Now I am going to speak of this on a purely marketing standpoint, but...

 

How the bloody hell could AMD be THIS unprepared for launch?? For starters, the AM4 motherboards were not designed yesterday; they had more than enough time to work on the BIOS updates and backlog them for future release. I had seen no end of excuses (especially from certain people here) of the comical idea that waiting for performance is somehow a better idea that being "tapped out" or working to their fullest on day one. That excuse was a moot point when comparing the Radeon 200 and 300 GPUs to the GTX 900s, and it is equally invalid here; there is NO justification. Then we have the fact that nobody has a clue of what or who the CPU is for. For a very long time after the "Zen" name reveal, there was quite a bit of subliminal advertising that what we now know is Ryzen will "destroy" Intel in gaming specifically. People took that bait, and have further increased the hype to the point of reality never being able to match the expectations people have created for themselves. The comparisons to the big gun Intel CPUs (such as the 6900X) even within the scope of the R7 was only done fairly recently, and is a tell-tale sign of a dirty cop-out.

 

Do not mistake me; the Ryzen CPUs shown so far are great as work-server/gaming hybrid systems, but it is clear that the advertising branch has leaned absolutely nothing in the past 11 years. Continue to promote a product beyond its actual capabilities, continue to shift blame when things go askew, and continue to superficially demonize the competition. Let's just see how long this bait-and-switch strategy, or the company as a whole, survives.

[Guest Darth Revan]

I had no idea AMD had so many fanboys. So many people are angry at reviews and the people who point out that AMD didn't Ryzen with Ryzen.

So many are defending AMD, when there's nothing to defend.

I'm sorry if this isn't what you want to hear, but the simple fact of the matter is this. AMD promised and showed before the launch that this new architecture is going to be absolutely fantastic. That it's going to be the savior of humanity.

Everything they've showed that it beats the 6900K (keep in mind AMD themselves compared their processor to it, therefore AMD claiming that it's better) in cinebench and streaming and encoding and even in gaming if I remember correctly. They showed Sniper 4, but can't remember what Intel processor they compared it to. Everything pointing out that it's really going to be good.

 

But when world got their hands on this so called savior, they saw that it wasn't their savior. It wasn't what AMD promised and showed. It was discovered that in order to get the results that AMD showed, you need to cripple the Intel platform. Check Jay's video for more info.

 

Yes it does deliver good results in cinebench, but who cares about that it's just a benchmarking software that spits out numbers with no value.

Yes it does deliver in streaming, but who cares since their demo that they showed was showing the wrong results, plus if you have an Intel processor just active quicksync and problem solved.

Yes it does deliver in encoding, but who cares when you can get a decent cpu and a decent gpu and unload all the work on the gpu.

Yes it does deliver in games, but who cares because it only delivers in 4K when the GPU is the bottleneck there since it can't push so many frames.

 

AMD's fanboys continue to make excuses that this cpu wasn't meant for gaming, it's a workstation processor, it's 500$ (ignoring the fact that Intel only asks for 1000$ because they can, not because it's worth 1000$), more cores is better because the flying spaghetti monster will enslave all developers and make them optimize their software for more cores, bios updates will come and memory problems will be fixed, it's too early to see the full potential of Ryzen wait 10 years from now. That's when it's going to be great again. Oh wait for the R5 and R3 ones those will be better for gaming. And all the crap that people are saying about it.

 

The simple truth is that AMD delivered an ok product that doesn't compete with Intel in the programs and games that people are currently using or playing if it's a game. And when it does, it makes no sense to use it because there are better options from Intel available, cheaper options.

AMD didn't deliver what they promised or showed.

 

It's time to admit that AMD hasn't Ryzen.

 

[79wjd]

22 minutes ago, Darth Revan said:

-anti ryzen wall-

 

That's not quite accurate. Ryzen is a great alternative to X99. Yes, Ryzen is a inferior (10% slower based on overclocking headroom, although bios's/a maturing process could change that, but let's assume a 10% deficit for now), no quad channel memory, and only 24 PCIE lanes. But it still offers 90% of the 6900k's performance for a third of the price (I haven't seen any compelling advantage to the 1800x over a 1700....yet anyway), and not everyone needs more than 24 PCIE lanes nor does everyone benefit from quad channel memory. Ryzen is no question inferior to X99, but it doesn't really matter (at least not for everyone) considering how close it is and how much cheaper it is.

 

For gaming, a 7700k is definitely better. For workstation use, it will depend on the specific individual's use case and whether or not they're willing to pay significantly more for the better platform (and if those benefits even matter to their workload).

[Mr Bacon]

On 3/3/2017 at 2:27 PM, N3v3r3nding_N3wb said:

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?

Because I didn't know a 6900K was worse than a 7700K at single-threaded tasks until recently. Not everyone has the ability to follow every single piece of tech. X99 platform never was of interest to me so I never followed it.

[Paragon_X]

http://www.eteknix.com/memory-speed-large-impact-ryzen-performance/

Also after some research I found that Ryzen benefits from single ranked memory  (not to be confused with dual/quad channel) computer base did an article on it, and ofcourse its speed.

 

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

17 hours ago, Mr Bacon said:

Because I didn't know a 6900K was worse than a 7700K at single-threaded tasks until recently. Not everyone has the ability to follow every single piece of tech. X99 platform never was of interest to me so I never followed it.

I don't pay particular attention to Broadwell-E, either, but a CPU based on an older architecture (therefore lower IPC), and with lower clocks will obviously perform worse than the newest architecture at high clocks.  It seems pretty common-sense to me, but I guess not everyone can be as good as me (<-- That was a joke, just so you know).

Edited March 5, 2017 by N3v3r3nding_N3wb
I misplaced my period.

[79wjd]

2 hours ago, N3v3r3nding_N3wb said:

I don't pay particular attention to Broadwell-E, either, but a CPU based on an older architecture (therefore lower IPC), and with lower clocks will obviously perform worse than the newest architecture at high clocks.  It seems pretty common-sense to me, but I guess not everyone can be as good as me. (<-- That was a joke, just so you know.)

 

[aaronlawrence561]

nothing against amd i just watercooled my rx 480 8gb xfx i wouldnt buy processor tho i heard they run hot my gpu never gets over 40 max load and stress test go amd

[Eaglerino]

Man this whole "these chips aren't for gaming they're for workloads" sounds a lot like the excuses for the Nvidia Titan GPUs. All that tells me is don't buy one, it's not worth it

[Taf the Ghost]

29 minutes ago, Eaglerino said:

Man this whole "these chips aren't for gaming they're for workloads" sounds a lot like the excuses for the Nvidia Titan GPUs. All that tells me is don't buy one, it's not worth it

Except that the R7s are beasts at compile & render tasks.  These things, especially the normal 1700, is going to be really popular in a lot of smaller companies that need either render or compile boxes.  I'm really curious about LTT playing with it for their editing systems over the next year.

 

Also, the whole "It didn't beat the 7700k in gaming, so it's trash!" seems like the fanboy response from the Blue team more than anything.  Especially when you point out that most games don't even need over a i5 7600k, not an i7 7700k, to max out at anything but 1080p settings.  The ~110USD you save (NewEgg USA pricing) by going with the i5 is much better spent on going up a Graphics Card tier.  Going from a 1060 to a 1070 is worth far more than going up to the i7.

 

The one issue, though, since we have enough data now, is some something is "off" with the R7 numbers in gaming.  It's maybe 10% slower than it should be.  That's because the Min FPS never seems to drop in line with the way Intel chips do.  Which either points to ways in which Intel chips "peak" in games or it points to AMD some how having a different scaling within game engines for reasons we don't know yet.  (Aside from the clear Memory issues that seem to be plaguing testing.)