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

[Sparviero]

Day One of any product release checklist:

Dr Pepper - ✓

Popcorn - ✓

Da Lolz - ✓✓✓✓

 

 

[UnbendingNose]

So all these reviewers seem to be having gaming issues. How come Joker didn't? I'm assuming he bought his instead of using a press edition part. Maybe that's it, maybe it's the motherboards. I don't know, but his overclocked 1700 kept up with a 7700k at 5ghz. So something is wrong here.

 

 

 

[Mr Bacon]

2 minutes ago, UnbendingNose said:

So all these reviewers seem to be having gaming issues. How come Joker didn't? I'm assuming he bought his instead of using a press edition part. Maybe that's it, maybe it's the motherboards. I don't know, but his overclocked 1700 kept up with a 7700k at 5ghz. So something is wrong here.

 

Wrong graph? The graph you linked compares a R7 1700 to a 1800X

[Brainless906]

3 minutes ago, Mr Bacon said:

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.

They very very very clearly marketed it as a cpu that "could do both" and it was marketed to fit directly in between the 7700k and the 6900k 

They literally have this video, on the official AMD youtube, which if you watch is literally them explaining where the cpu is positioned. If you thought it was a 7700k killer, thats on you friend. 

 

 

[MEC-777]

29 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

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.

I wonder if the 4c/8t and 6c/12t parts will be able to achieve higher clocks and keep up with the 7700k in gaming better than the R7's... 

[Drak3]

12 minutes ago, MEC-777 said:

I wonder if the 4c/8t and 6c/12t parts will be able to achieve higher clocks and keep up with the 7700k in gaming better than the R7's... 

I doubt it would in end single core performance, but I wouldn't be surprised if we see the same rough clock speeds (within 50 MHz) on air and water as a non delidded 7700K. At that point, they'd be comparable , but the 4c/8t chip should be significantly cheaper.

[Brainless906]

7 minutes ago, MEC-777 said:

I wonder if the 4c/8t and 6c/12t parts will be able to achieve higher clocks and keep up with the 7700k in gaming better than the R7's... 

A reasonable assumption would be yes?
A reasonable person would make no assumptions? 

#betterpreorderthemnowtheyaredefeintlygonnadestroythe7700k
#dontwaitforbenchmarksorfacts

I'm calling it here the 6c/12t will be slightly faster in games then the 7700k and cost slightly more
the 4c/8t will perform about equal costing slightly less.

 

EDIT: actually that makes no sesne as a product line, ignore me. I'm still not eating a sock.
EDIT 2: wait it kinda makes sense, the 4c/8t will be slightly faster than the 6600k and the 6/12 will be slightly faster than the 7700k, and priced as such.

I'd say i'll eat a sock if thats not the case, but i wont. I'm not eating a damn sock

#remindmewhentheycomeout

[Guest Darth Revan]

The only thing AMD did right today was prove that Intel is overcharging for their 6900k.

[Mr Bacon]

9 minutes ago, Brainless906 said:

They very very very clearly marketed it as a cpu that "could do both" and it was marketed to fit directly in between the 7700k and the 6900k 

They literally have this video, on the official AMD youtube, which if you watch is literally them explaining where the cpu is positioned. If you thought it was a 7700k killer, thats on you friend. 

 

 

Ah sorry I missed a video with less than 2,000 views... Come on. You can't blame me. The majority of the marketing was seen through press events like the Ryzen announcement event or CES. At those events there was emphasis on some gaming aspects and comparisons to the 7700K. It's not unreasonable at all that people are upset/confused. AMD never explicitly addressed at these events that the R7's wouldn't perform well in gaming. Although to be fair as others have stated BIOS updates and software optimization may help/fix that, but again that's more time when Intel's platform is proven and ready to go right now.

[SteveGrabowski0]

3 hours ago, kladzen said:

Source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/3176191/computers/ryzen-review-amd-is-back.html

This PC World review is complete garbage on gaming, since he is testing things at medium. You don't do cpu tests at medium settings since those limit very cpu bound settings like draw distance, shadow complexity, physics, and so on. You have to do cpu tests at ultra with an overkill gpu at a low resolution to get a good idea how it stacks up for gaming.

[Brainless906]

4 minutes ago, Mr Bacon said:

 

Ah sorry I missed a video with less than 2,000 views... Come on. You can't blame me. The majority of the marketing was seen through press events like the Ryzen announcement event or CES. At those events there was emphasis on some gaming aspects and comparisons to the 7700K. It's not unreasonable at all that people are upset/confused. AMD never explicitly addressed at these events that the R7's wouldn't perform well in gaming. Although to be fair as others have stated BIOS updates and software optimization may help/fix that, but again that's more time when Intel's platform is proven and ready to go right now.

I'll give you that maybe the press hasn't been extremely clear about it, but once again at all the events the R7 was never compared to a 7700k in gaming benchmarks. It has always been alongside an intel 6800k or a 6900k. Its always been aimed at that inbetween market and they even made a separate booth at the AMD event linus covered to say "hey, this is the new streaming cpu, its like a 6800k or a 6900k, but much more affordable"

EDIT: In fact the press are making it worst, even massive hardware reviewers are repeatedly shaming it for not beating a 7700k in 1080p gaming benchmarks, as if it was marketed to do so....

[MakeAMDGreatAgain]

 Everyone is going to be purchasing the i5's now after seeing those gaming benchmarks. However, if they released the R5 chips now, and if those were included in the benchmarks. They'd prob be 5-15 fps difference which would be fine if it was 100$ cheaper... It would be worth it for every budget gamer... Man I have a feeling they really should have released the R5 chips along with the R7...

[Brainless906]

2 minutes ago, MakeAMDGreatAgain said:

 Everyone is going to be purchasing the i5's now after seeing those gaming benchmarks. However, if they released the R5 chips now, and if those were included in the benchmarks. They'd prob be 5-15 fps difference which would be fine if I were to pay 100$ less. It would be worth it for every budget gamer... Man I have a feeling they really should have released the R5 chips along with the R7...

I cannot currently find a US vendor that has stock of the R7 series because as soon as theirs more they are sold instantly. I really dont think what your saying is the case. 

EDIT: if you were in the market for something like an i5 or even an i7 stricktly for gaming, this wasnt the CPU for you anyways. 

[JDMFTW]

21 minutes ago, UnbendingNose said:

So all these reviewers seem to be having gaming issues. How come Joker didn't? I'm assuming he bought his instead of using a press edition part. Maybe that's it, maybe it's the motherboards. I don't know, but his overclocked 1700 kept up with a 7700k at 5ghz. So something is wrong here.

 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3176100/computers/amd-ryzen-7-1700-vs-a-5-year-old-gaming-pc-or-why-you-should-never-preorder.html

[MakeAMDGreatAgain]

2 minutes ago, Brainless906 said:

I cannot currently find a US vendor that has stock of the R7 series because as soon as theirs more they are sold instantly. I really dont think what your saying is the case. 

Well I mean it's good for workstation load no doubt about it and there is a market there. But the R7's were advertised to be gaming and workstation viable.  Which after seeing gamer's nexus` benchmarks.. I don't want to pay 200$ more for the 1800x, when the 7600k beats it STOCK in gaming.

[UnbendingNose]

20 minutes ago, Mr Bacon said:

Wrong graph? The graph you linked compares a R7 1700 to a 1800X

edited.

[Brainless906]

4 minutes ago, MakeAMDGreatAgain said:

Well I mean it's good for workstation load no doubt about it and there is a market there. But the R7's were advertised to be gaming and workstation viable.  Which after seeing gamer's nexus` benchmarks.. I don't want to pay 200$ more for the R7, when the 7600k beats it STOCK in gaming.

In many benchmarks, including those by your beloved gamer's nexus the 1800x is only a few fps (usually 3-7) behind the 7700k...... Meanwhile its absolutely destroying the 7700k in workstation like tasks. Its a CPU that can do both and claiming its slower than a 7600 is unfounded as far as i can tell. 

In some very fringe cases the 1800x was up to 23 percent slower but I only saw that in one game across every benchmark i've seen so I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

[Mr Bacon]

6 minutes ago, Brainless906 said:

I'll give you that maybe the press hasn't been extremely clear about it, but once again at all the events the R7 was never compared to a 7700k in gaming benchmarks. It has always been alongside an intel 6800k or a 6900k. Its always been aimed at that inbetween market and they even made a separate booth at the AMD event linus covered to say "hey, this is the new streaming cpu, its like a 6800k or a 6900k, but much more affordable"

EDIT: In fact the press are making it worst, even massive hardware reviewers are repeatedly shaming it for not beating a 7700k in 1080p gaming benchmarks, as if it was marketed to do so....

 

Yea, I definitely don't disagree with you now. My point was that hindsight is 20/20. I realize now what the R7 is intended to be, but between the media and the hype and the lack of real effort from AMD to dispel any of this is the main source of frustration to me. They released a video that you showed me, but seeing as it reached less than 2k people, it obviously didn't do much good.

[Brainless906]

Just now, Mr Bacon said:

 

Yea, I definitely don't disagree with you now. My point was that hindsight is 20/20. I realize now what the R7 is intended to be, but between the media and the hype and the lack of real effort from AMD to dispel any of this is the main source of frustration to me. They released a video that you showed me, but seeing as it reached less than 2k people, it obviously didn't do much good.

I can see your frustration, I dont personally have kind of frustration as i've been following this launch quite excitedly and i was always prepared for the i7 7700k to beat it in 1080p gaming but i can see how if one didn't follow as closely you could be disappointing. My point was more that if you looked the information was there, but instead lots of people get caught in in hype trains

[MakeAMDGreatAgain]

13 minutes ago, Brainless906 said:

I cannot currently find a US vendor that has stock of the R7 series because as soon as theirs more they are sold instantly. I really dont think what your saying is the case. 

EDIT: if you were in the market for something like an i5 or even an i7 stricktly for gaming, this wasnt the CPU for you anyways. 

But RyZen was advertised to be a gaming+workstation monster. Yeah, okay.

 

I'm fine with the R7 bro. I'd buy it if I only did workstation stuff. But the 7600k is 200$ LESS than the R7 and performs better than it for gaming. I'm not spending 200$ more as a gamer just to brag that I got the same type of performance for half the cost of a 6900k.

 

That's why I'm saying they should have released the R5 chips too. It would have been a steal right now. I'd buy one, but now I'll prob end up buying the i5 or i7 (Which will be 200$ less) than the 1800ex and perform better in gaming and most likely forget about the R5.

 

Or.. some people might just continue to wait for the R5.. "wait for RyZen!", right? No, I'm sick of f*cking waiting, lol.

[VagabondWraith]

 

 

Quote:

Official AMD excuse list:

-Games and apps aren't optimized yet
-It's clearly a driver issue
-Wait for BIOS updates
-I like to play games with 300 browser tabs and Photoshop open
-Just wait for DX12
-Most games are GPU limited anyway
-Things will clearly work better on the motherboard I ordered instead of the one in the review
-People haven't figured out how to overclocking these yet
-What really matters is [pick any game that wasn't included in the review]
-These are great for "office work"
-Intel has been ripping people off for years, so I'm buying a slower CPU to support AMD
-I encode Blu Rays 14 hours a day, delete those, then encode them again
-The CPU will last longer in the future when programs support more threads

 

[NumLock21]

The amount of people who are disappointed with Ryzen gaming performance is ridiculous. So what if it gets you less FPS than Intel. Are you having some e-penis competition where you get to earn real money, based on the FPS you get from a CPU? NO! Your just sitting at home, in front of your screen, with that smug look on your face, that your e-penis is 1FPS faster than your competitor.

For those who want a Ryzen CPU, go for it. Do not let others change your buying decision. It's still a good cpu and it can still play games.

 

 

[Vode]

Man this thread is full of cringe. People expecting a 8-core CPU to beat a higher clocked 4-core CPU. 

 

Let me introduce you to Captain Obvious.

 

As far as I'm concerned what we got with Ryzen is pretty much expected. Very competitive with Intel's x99.

 

This is really good. Very good Power Consumption on an inferior node, especially at idle. Price is really good. Productivity looks very nice (It's not just about video editing, there is audio too you know...). Gaming while streaming/encoding looks nice.

 

I'm not exactly selling my 5960x and 4790k to do a sidegrade to Ryzen but this is still awesome for consumers to finally see some pretty damn good competition.

[Brainless906]

1 minute ago, Vode said:

Man this thread is full of cringe. People expecting a 8-core CPU to beat a higher clocked 4-core CPU. 

 

Let me introduce you to Captain Obvious.

 

As far as I'm concerned what we got with Ryzen is pretty much expected. Very competitive with Intel's x99.

 

This is really good. Very good Power Consumption on an inferior node, especially at idle. Price is really good. Productivity looks very nice (It's not just about video editing, there is audio too you know...). Gaming while streaming/encoding looks nice.

 

I'm not exactly selling my 5960x and 4790k to do a sidegrade to Ryzen but this is still awesome for consumers for finally see some pretty damn good competition.

Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to replace all of this that you've typed up with some misplaced hatred please. If you could also ignore facts and compare it to nonsensical hardware to prove your misinformed points that would also be great (though not required)

[Mr Bacon]

3 minutes ago, Brainless906 said:

I can see your frustration, I dont personally have kind of frustration as i've been following this launch quite excitedly and i was always prepared for the i7 7700k to beat it in 1080p gaming but i can see how if one didn't follow as closely you could be disappointing. My point was more that if you looked the information was there, but instead lots of people get caught in in hype trains

*sigh* yea, I guess. I really tried to follow it. Watching Linus's videos, reading articles, reading rumors, watching videos from other channels. I wish I knew exactly where I got the the idea that the R7s were going to be competitive with i7s came from.