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

[Guest Kloaked]

2 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

Lower cores, higher clocks, same IPC (it's the same arch, why would the IPC be different (assuming same clocks)?). Why are people thinking the lower core count chips will be worse?

Because that's how it was with Bulldozer. I will admit I was wrong if they actually perform

[Brainless906]

2 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

Lower cores, higher clocks, same IPC (it's the same arch, why would the IPC be different (assuming same clocks)?). Why are people thinking the lower core count chips will be worse?

Something something something Intel bias, something something, stop trying to think so hard about it and please just spew nonsensical hate with us

[goodtofufriday]

2 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

Lower cores, higher clocks, same IPC (it's the same arch, why would the IPC be different (assuming same clocks)?). Why are people thinking the lower core count chips will be worse?

Its like everyone forgot how processors work. 

 

Or they never knew and have really ill imformed opinions. 

[mynameisjuan]

This and every other clone Ryzen gaming/performance thread in this section is just a shit show at this point.

 

Benchmarks are benchmarks, this arguing is pointless.

[jaggysnake57]

ok so Tl;DR its a disappointment then for gamers?

[TheRandomness]

Just now, Kloaked said:

Because that's how it was with Bulldozer. I will admit I was wrong if they actually perform

But Bull(shit)dozer used CMT and some awful 'module' design. This uses actual, separate cores. I'm going to stick with the lower core count chips will overclock well and perform better in gaming than R7 chips.

Just now, jaggysnake57 said:

ok so Tl;DR its a disappointment then for gamers?

At the moment. That or maybe just, why would you buy an 8 core for gaming only? You'd either buy a 7700k or stream with it.

[Brainless906]

2 minutes ago, jaggysnake57 said:

ok so Tl;DR its a disappointment then for gamers?

In the same way a 6900k is a disappointment  for gamers, then yes.

EDIT: I.E. If your buying a 6900k or an 1800x purely for gaming you're being silly and a higher clocked 6/4 core will be miles better by default, at least in the current generation of games.

[goodtofufriday]

2 minutes ago, jaggysnake57 said:

ok so Tl;DR its a disappointment then for gamers?

 

No its not. If you wanted absolute best fps then R7 ryzen shouldnt have been on your rader to begin with. 

[zMeul]

6 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

Lower cores, higher clocks, same IPC (it's the same arch, why would the IPC be different (assuming same clocks)?). Why are people thinking the lower core count chips will be worse?

because they'll be coming at lower clocks, lower core/thread count, smaller cache!?!?

[TheRandomness]

Just now, zMeul said:

because they'll be coming at lower clocks, lower core/thread count, smaller cache!?!?

But then they (should) overclock better because less cores/less power consumption/less heat produced.

[Brainless906]

Just now, zMeul said:

because they'll be coming at lower clocks, lower core/thread count, smaller cache!?!?

In what bizarre world does lower core count mean lower clocks? Are you literally insane?

[zMeul]

Just now, Brainless906 said:

In what bizarre world does lower core count mean lower clocks? Are you literally insane?

what the fuck!?

 

is the 1700X lower clocked than 1800X? yes

is the 1700 lower clocked than 1700X? yes

 

wtf are you on about?!

[Brainless906]

6 hours ago, zMeul said:

what the fuck!?

 

is the 1700X lower clocked than 1800X? yes

is the 1700 lower clocked than 1700X? yes

 

wtf are you on about?!

Those are all 8 core parts Frendo.

EDIT: may have been a bit harshe but seriously...wtf are you on about?

Edited March 2, 2017 by tobben
Removed unnecessary comment

[goodtofufriday]

Just now, zMeul said:

what the fuck!?

 

is the 1700X lower clocked than 1800X? yes

is the 1700 lower clocked than 1700X? yes

 

wtf are you on about?!

How did you forget about the lower core count. Thats literally the point of the argument there and you ignored it. 

[Tech_Dreamer]

Not stirring up anything , But  You guys do Remember the intels call to the reviewers "contact us before the review"

[zMeul]

Just now, goodtofufriday said:

How did you forget about the lower core count. Thats literally the point of the argument there and you ignored it. 

what does the core count have to do with anything!?

[HalGameGuru]

Pure gaming performance being lower than a 7700k is disappointing but not shocking. And not an issue for many. I personally want one to be able to stream with software x264 to twitch while gaming comfortably and multitask/edit for youtube. If I decide to build a gaming only machine or want to build something more for general purpose use I will wait to see the R5 and R3 setups. But the R7's, especially the 1700(X) are intriguing for the price to performance, especially when you have to try to squeeze the best possible stream quality out of 3500Kbps 

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Oh der8auer has a 1800X at 5.8Ghz

 

ln2 of course.

[goodtofufriday]

2 minutes ago, zMeul said:

what does the core count have to do with anything!?

[zMeul]

Just now, goodtofufriday said:

you should also use the wall because I don't have a clue what you're hinting at

[jaggysnake57]

8 minutes ago, Brainless906 said:

In the same way a 6900k is a disappointment  for gamers, then yes.

EDIT: I.E. If your buying a 6900k or an 1800x purely for gaming you're being silly and a higher clocked 6/4 core will be miles better by default, at least in the current generation of games.

in future when some one asks a questtion try doing something like below instead of fanboying all of the page

6 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

 

No its not. If you wanted absolute best fps then R7 ryzen shouldnt have been on your rader to begin with. 

1 thanks for the table vey nice

2 so a little disappointing if you believed the AMD hype train but still better value vs intel?

[goodtofufriday]

Just now, zMeul said:

you should also use the wall because I don't have a clue what you're hinting at

If you dont know why core count makes a difference, and I highly doubt you don't, then making any more discussion is pointless as thats a defining basis of the topic.

[VagabondWraith]

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2822-amd-ryzen-r7-1800x-review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-7

 

Quote:

When we approached AMD with these results pre-publication, the company defended its product by suggesting that intentionally creating a GPU bottleneck (read: no longer benchmarking the CPU’s performance) would serve as a great equalizer. AMD asked that we consider 4K benchmarks to more heavily load the GPU, thus reducing workload on the CPU and leveling the playing field. While we fundamentally disagree with this approach to testing, we decided to entertain a mid-step: 1440p, just out of respect for additional numbers driven by potentially realistic use cases. Of course, in some regard, benchmarking CPUs at 4K would be analogous to benchmarking GPUs at 720p: The conclusion would be that every GPU is “the same,” since they’d all choke on the CPU. Same idea here, just the inverse.

[zMeul]

Just now, goodtofufriday said:

If you dont know why core count makes a difference, and I highly doubt you don't, then making any more discussion is pointless as thats a defining basis of the topic.

mate, what the hell are you talking about?!

[Humbug]

3 minutes ago, Tech_Dreamer said:

Not stirring up anything , But  You guys do Remember the intels call to the reviewers "contact us before the review"

If all Intel was doing was reminding them about the merits of Intel's architecture etc or explaining their stance in response to ryzen then this should not be a problem.