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

[Brainless906]

1 minute ago, Mr Bacon said:

*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.

I think a lot of it is assumed information, which AMD could fight against but with media the way it is its not a great idea to say negative things about a product, even if that  product was never meant to fill that slot. They could straight out come and say that hey....this CPU is slower in some 1080p games then a 7700k but its totally not supposed to fit that role. Even if thats true no sane marketing team would ever do that, instead they focus on it beating a 6800k or a 6900k in games and promote the positives of the position its supposed to be in. If somebody assumes its better than a 7700k in 1080p gaming and AMD went out of thier way to straighten that claim up it would be taken as very bad marketing. 

[xAcid9]

21 minutes ago, MakeAMDGreatAgain said:

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.

You do know the R7-1700 cost ~$325 and perform similar to the 1700x and 1800x when overclock?
 

Spoiler

Look at that 61fps delta between average and min FPS on 7600k compare to 1700x with below 10fps. The i5 is "faster".

[MakeAMDGreatAgain]

1 minute ago, xAcid9 said:

You do know the R7-1700 cost ~$325 and perform similar to the 1700x and 1800x when overclock?
 

  Reveal hidden contents

Look at that 61fps delta between average and min FPS on 7600k compare to 1700x with below 10fps. The i5 is "faster".

So what's the point of spending 500$ for the 1800x then?

[Dackzy]

why all the hate?

Ofc a 8c that has worse IPC and lower clocked going to loose in games to a 4c with better IPC and higher clocks. I hope we all expected that.

The R7 CPUs offer great value for the people who actually can use all the cores, but the platform is rather meh.

 

I personally don't do enough work that can use 8 cores to the max, to justify buying a 8c CPU, so I am going to wait for x299 and see what it brings to the table.

[xAcid9]

2 minutes ago, MakeAMDGreatAgain said:

So what's the point of spending 500$ for the 1800x then?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

[Mr Bacon]

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.

[Guest Darth Revan]

1 minute ago, Dackzy said:

why all the hate?

Ofc a 8c that has worse IPC and lower clocked going to loose in games to a 4c with better IPC and higher clocks. I hope we all expected that.

The R7 CPUs offer great value for the people who actually can use all the cores, but the platform is rather meh.

 

I personally don't do enough work that can use 8 cores to the max, to justify buying a 8c CPU, so I am going to wait for x299 and see what it brings to the table.

Because apart from dedicated benchmark software, Ryzen is not doing well at all, especially in games. And in reality no one cares about benchmarking software because it doesn't show any meaningful, because those numbers mean nothing in the real world.

 

It doesn't matter if it scores 1 billion points above Intel, if the Intel processor beats it in real world applications.

The only thing that it actually did right, was to show the world that Intel is asking way too much for the 6900K.

 

All AMD did was catch up just a little bit to Intel, and nothing more.

[laminutederire]

20 hours ago, goodtofufriday said:

-snip-

Think about hard-core gamers who need more than 300 fps in cs go. Unacceptable. 

[Brainless906]

1 minute ago, Darth Revan said:

Because apart from dedicated benchmark software, Ryzen is not doing well at all, especially in games. And in reality no one cares about benchmarking software because it doesn't show any meaningful, because those numbers mean nothing in the real world.

 

It doesn't matter if it scores 1 billion points above Intel, if the Intel processor beats it in real world applications.

The only thing that it actually did right, was to show the world that Intel is asking way too much for the 6900K.

 

All AMD did was catch up just a little bit to Intel, and nothing more.

6900k performance at litterally half the cost and double the cost to performance ratio is catching up a little? ah. ok. whatever  you say friend.

[Guest Darth Revan]

Just now, Brainless906 said:

6900k performance at litterally half the cost and double the cost to performance ratio is catching up a little? ah. ok. whatever  you say friend.

Did you miss the part where I said that Intel is asking too much for that processor? Yes, yes you did.

[Brainless906]

2 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

-snip-

I will never stop upliking the shit out of this. I have no idea how this is so hard to understand for ppl.

[Vode]

7 minutes ago, 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.

A new architecture with lower clockspeed (bc of more cores) which gets tested on games that run on code compiled for CPUs that were on the market for years, also the same code which can't possibly have been compiled for Ryen because it simple didn't exist when those games where made.

 

Seems pretty obvious to me.

[Brainless906]

1 minute ago, Darth Revan said:

Did you miss the part where I said that Intel is asking too much for that processor? Yes, yes you did.

I'm still pretty confused as to how you're so upset about the whole thing then. It may be "catching up" but its going to shake the actual shit out of the industry and you want us not to be excited about that?

Also i totally missed that. Rip me.

[captain cactus]

And then this review shows an 1800X @ 4GHz beating a 7700K in BF1... 

 

Performance seems all over the place.

[Dackzy]

13 minutes ago, Darth Revan said:

Because apart from dedicated benchmark software, Ryzen is not doing well at all, especially in games. And in reality no one cares about benchmarking software because it doesn't show any meaningful, because those numbers mean nothing in the real world.

 

It doesn't matter if it scores 1 billion points above Intel, if the Intel processor beats it in real world applications.

The only thing that it actually did right, was to show the world that Intel is asking way too much for the 6900K.

 

All AMD did was catch up just a little bit to Intel, and nothing more.

 

 

did you even read what I wrote? "The R7 CPUs offer great value for the people who actually can use all the cores ", this is programs like blender, I never ever talked about benchmarks.

 

It was never a pure gaming CPU and AMD never said it would be, AMD said that it would be for pro work and gaming, can you game fairly well on it? Yeah, not on i7 7700k level, but that is what you should expect from a 8c running at lower clocks and with worse IPC, can you do pro work on it such as renders? YES, very well. It offers an insanely good value if you actually need 8 cores.

 

AMD did more than just show that Intel is asking too much, they made an insanely big jump in IPC.

[Mr Bacon]

2 minutes ago, Vode said:

A new architecture with lower clockspeed (bc of more cores) which gets tested on games that run on code compiled for CPUs that were on the market for years, also the same code which can't possibly have been compiled for Ryen because it simple didn't exist when those games where made.

 

Seems pretty obvious to me.

Yes, because clock speed means everything...

 

As far as the coding optimization. I assume you're referring to games haven't been optimized to take advantage of 8 cores?

[VerticalDiscussions]

And the fact that you cant get the fastest speeds out of your RAM when apparently that is needed, is certainly a knee breaker. I dont know how many people are buying the 1800X and expecting it to replace an I5-7600K or an I7-7700K for gaming purposes, but this certainly kills the hype train and makes you wonder if Ryzen 5 will even be a challenge against the I5-7600K and I3-7350K....

[stealth80]

This is bad for AMD, gonna be some pissed "pre-orders"

[ashypanda]

i'm so glad ryzen isn't a steaming pile of bull crap, and it's about time intel got shaken up.

[Scionyde]

17 hours ago, Brainless906 said:

-snip-

Maybe I'm missing something, but the GN table you went on to post shows a range of FPS differences between 7 and 55, not "3 to 7"?

[79wjd]

I don't have the time/energy/or cares to dig through reviews/videos....but:

 

How well does Zen overclock?

 

And were the tests where the 7700k won at stock speeds or....? Because obviously an 8c/16t cpu at 3.4ghz is going to be worse than a 4c/8t 4.2ghz cpu in gaming (for very obvious reasons) -- and anyone who expected a stock 1800x to match a much higher clocked 7700k in gaming was fucking dreaming.

[Dackzy]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

How well does Zen overclock?

 

about 4.1GHz

[VagabondWraith]

1 minute ago, Dackzy said:

about 4.1GHz

So like a Fury.

[goodtofufriday]

3 minutes ago, Scionyde said:

Maybe I'm missing something, but the GN table you went on to post shows a range of FPS differences between 7 and 55, not "3 to 7"?

You'd have to go to their site and view all the benches. But I think he meant to say 6900k?

 

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

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, Dackzy said:

about 4.1GHz

Was there any info regarding the 1700 vs. 1800x?