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

[MEC-777]

2 hours ago, RKRiley said:

Why did people expect an 8 core/16 thread to be as good as a 7700k for gaming in the first place?

 

It's not the number of cores/threads, it's the architecture and IPC. Just because the core/thread count is higher doesn't mean it will perform worse in gaming. It's because the single-threaded IPC per core is still somewhat weak. 

[Humbug]

Just now, MEC-777 said:

It's not the number of cores/threads, it's the architecture and IPC. Just because the core/thread count is higher doesn't mean it will perform worse in gaming. It's because the single-threaded IPC per core is still somewhat weak. 

Think it's more complicated than that.
Single threaded performance seems to be strong in particular workloads. But not in gaming.

[Memories4K]

36 minutes ago, Brainless906 said:

I have seen almost no reviews that come to that conclusion. Most reviews have it only slightly behind the 7700k in gaming applications

In fact @goodtofufriday just posted a bunch of benchmarks with the 1800x only ~3-7 frames behind the 7700k in the listed games.

You're right, my bad.
I was relaying the GamerNexus scores for AotS, BF1, and Total War: Warhammer

[goodtofufriday]

3 minutes ago, jaggysnake57 said:

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

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?

It shouldnt be disappointing since the hype positioned to perform between the 7700k and the 6900k, and thats exactly what it does. Its being marketed as a cpu that can do ultra or sometimes 4k settings and also stream at the time time. 

[jaggysnake57]

Just now, goodtofufriday said:

It shouldnt be disappointing since the hype positioned to perform between the 7700k and the 6900k, and thats exactly what it does. Its being marketed as a cpu that can do ultra or sometimes 4k settings and also stream at the time time. 

i thought it was been pitched at a 7700k beater?

[Brainless906]

Just now, Memories4K said:

You're right, my bad.
I was relaying the GamerNexus scores for AotS, BF1, and Total War: Warhammer

It has its ups and downs but isnt nearly as far behind the 7700k as lots of people are saying. I honestly appreciate your calm reply

I can agree that in a gaming standpoint though the 7700k is a better value, my arguement is more that its not really trying to compete with the 7700k and even though its not its not as far behind as some folks are making it out to be, while also competing with the 6900k like its ment to.

[goodtofufriday]

Just now, jaggysnake57 said:

i thought it was been pitched at a 7700k beater?

Never once was. At least not by AMD. But it does beat it when gaming AND streaming. 

[Brainless906]

1 minute ago, jaggysnake57 said:

i thought it was been pitched at a 7700k beater?

It was almost always compared to intels 8/10 core offerings. I dont want to say it was never compared to the 7700k oficially because i dont 100 percent know that but im fairly certain, at least officially by amd, it was never supposed to be the 7700k killer. 

[Memories4K]

7 minutes ago, VagabondWraith said:

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.

This is what grinded my gears about Steve's review

[kaiju_wars]

I'm not surprised.  I got the performance as I expected.

As NCIX Tech Tips said, less cores/threads at a much higher clock speed should (in theory) have better single core performance.

We know the Ryzen 7 line is great for workstations, productivity, rendering, etc.

I'm going to wait to see what R5 and R3 bring.

 

I forgot to add, LTT, Tech City, Paul's Hardware, and NCIX Tech Tips all still recommend the Ryzen series.  Tech City even mentioned to wait for Ryzen 5 and 3 if all you want to do is pure gaming.

[DocSwag]

If you ask me it's probably a lot of optimization that's needed for gaming at least, considering that in CPU performance tests the Ryzen CPUs come very close and sometimes beat the 6900k. Also, could you please fix your title? The typos are REALLY bugging me.

[Memories4K]

2 minutes ago, Brainless906 said:

It has its ups and downs but isnt nearly as far behind the 7700k as lots of people are saying. I honestly appreciate your calm reply

I can agree that in a gaming standpoint though the 7700k is a better value, my arguement is more that its not really trying to compete with the 7700k and even though its not its not as far behind as some folks are making it out to be, while also competing with the 6900k like its ment to.

I think the 1800X (actually even better the 1700, check out Joker's video) competes well with the 6900k.
But even in gaming it's quite a margin behind the 6900k.
For productivity work, i'm all there with you; Much better value, even for gaming than the 6900k.
Not so much for the 7700k, but i never believed it would overtake the 7700k.
But i have to ask why it is that the 1800X is so much worse than the competing 8-core on these tasks and what it spells for AMD's R3/R5 line-up.

[Memories4K]

2 minutes ago, Jack_of_all_Trades said:

 

 

It seems they kind of released it prematurely to me. Drivers are not ready. Memory issues. R5 not ready. Would love to see their reasoning for this.

The whole SMT off/on performance gain is expected, as Intel has had trouble before.
But yeah there seems to be some kind of driver/memory/BIOS issues, reviews seem to be a bit unstable even within the reason that the 1800X isn't going to be the best at gaming; the data shown within that realm is still confusing

[Brainless906]

3 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

I think the 1800X (actually even better the 1700, check out Joker's video) competes well with the 6900k.
But even in gaming it's quite a margin behind the 6900k.
For productivity work, i'm all there with you; Much better value, even for gaming than the 6900k.
Not so much for the 7700k, but i never believed it would overtake the 7700k.
But i have to ask why it is that the 1800X is so much worse than the competing 8-core on these tasks and what it spells for AMD's R3/R5 line-up.

I think that has a lot to do with the SMT issue, and will hopefully be ironed out with firmware and driver updates. Intels had issues in the past with hyperthreading causing weirdness as well, they've just had years to iron it out.

[Guest Darth Revan]

i5 here I come.

[Drak3]

15 minutes ago, MEC-777 said:

It's not the number of cores/threads, it's the architecture and IPC. Just because the core/thread count is higher doesn't mean it will perform worse in gaming. It's because the single-threaded IPC per core is still somewhat weak. 

It's the end single core performance, clock speed and IPC combined. Something that Ryzen 7 (and X99 CPUs) will always struggle with matching due to power and thermal limitations.

 

More cores take more power, and release more heat, to reach higher clocks. The amount of power it takes to hit higher clocks rises exponentially, and so does heat. That limits how high AMD and Intel can set stock clocks, and boost clocks, as they have to work within the confines of lower end coolers to counteract consumer stupidity. It also limits overclocking potential on air and water, as coolers for either cannot carry heat away fast enough to achieve higher OCs.

 

Let's assume my 5930K is absolutely average, on water, I'd likely see an OC of 4.4GHz on water. With an average 4790K, same architecture, that number would be 4.8GHz.

Change the coolers to Cascade cooling, and I could get to 5GHz on my 5930K, but on the other hand, the 4790K can hit 5.45GHz.

Simply due to the fact that the 5930K outputs more heat, and that trend is one that won't change.

[XenosTech]

Good god this thread is depressing... On one had we have zMuel and the band of people who're just bashing an 8 core cpu for not beating a 4 core in gaming and saying it's trash... Then again I really don't expect any better on LTT forums, here's just as bad as  /r/AMD when it comes to using common sense

[Brainless906]

1 minute ago, XenosTech said:

Good god this thread is depressing... On one had we have zMuel and the band of people who're just basing an 8 core cpu for not beating a 4 core in gaming and saying it's trash... Then again I really don't expect any better on LTT forums, here's just as bad as  /r/AMD when it comes to using common sense

Would you like to hear a story about how the 1800x doenst beat the 7700k in 1080p gaming benchmarks and because of it is a complete failure and amd is literally dead? Its a good one

[XenosTech]

Just now, Brainless906 said:

Would you like to hear a story about how the 1800x doenst beat the 7700k in 1080p gaming benchmarks and because of it is a complete failure and amd is literally dead? Its a good one

Yes sir, I have some tea ready too !

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Brainless906 said:

Would you like to hear a story about how the 1800x doenst beat the 7700k in 1080p gaming benchmarks and because of it is a complete failure and amd is literally dead? Its a good one

No thanks, not into alternate history unless aliens are involved, and there is a lack of pants.

[Brainless906]

14 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

Yes sir, I have some tea ready too !

One time, in a land far far away, God-Queen Dr. Su built us a wonderful and magical 8 core 16 threaded monster priced at an extremely affordable $499.99. But just then 90 percent of hardware reviewers and intel trolls had at least 3 and a half strokes, and presumably big ones at that. They shared slide after slide of 1080p gaming benchmarks with the 7700k ahead slightly (usually 3-8 frames, though in random extreme cases up to 23 percent) of the wonderful (and manly, also hansom) 1800x, all the while ranting and raving about how extremely disappointing this was was and how AMD was literally the worst thing ever. They of course completely ignored the fact that on these same slides the $1,050 dollar 6900k on the same slides was also being absolutely smashed by the 7700k in these 1080p gaming benchmarks, for those facts were evil and would besmirtch the strong blue name of Intel! 

And thus is the saga of the 1800x

P.S. Im bad at writings.

EDIT: I also forgot to mention all the chapters of AMD always comparing it to the intel 8/10 core offerings (which against it did extremely well considering its price) and sloting it in nicely in between the 7700k and the 6900k and litterally marketing it as a CPU that can do both. You know, i forgot the same way intel nerds always conveniently forget and instead constantly compare it to a 7700k

 

13 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

No thanks, not into alternate history unless aliens are involved, and there is a lack of pants.

Also there was an alien without pants, you cant say there wasnt, you werent there. 

[Guest Darth Revan]

Ok so apart from handbreak which no one uses and cinebench which means nothing, AMD is a failure once again.

[Brainless906]

1 minute ago, Darth Revan said:

Ok so apart from handbreak which no one uses and cinebench which means nothing, AMD is a failure once again.

ah, in the same way the 6900k is a failure then yes? 
but you know, at half the cost, and double the price to performance.

[Drak3]

Just now, Brainless906 said:

Also there was an alien without pants, you cant say there wasnt, you werent there. 

I think we've learned from Independence Day, the Alien franchise, and Rick & Morty, that aliens prefer not wear pants anyways. Much like the domesticated Markiplier.

[Mr Bacon]

Hindsight is 20/20. The way AMD was marketing Ryzen made me believe it'd be a solid contender in the gaming sector. Maybe it's my fault for not paying close enough attention. For the record, AMD did compare the 1800X to a 7700K and it showed a massive performance advantage over the 7700K, but looking back they didn't compare gaming benchmarks and instead did cinebench scores. Which obviously isn't a fair comparison.

 

Pissed at myself for falling for the hype. My patience has worn thin too. I don't think I can hold out till "sometime" in Q2 for R5/3s. Could be in April or maybe June. Who knows, just more waiting and time to be fed more info and have to learn more things for potentially no reason.