i watched Ryzen reviews all morning...and, i'm disapointed with it!

[i_build_nanosuits]

So i spent the entire morning listening to Ryzen reviews from many different outlets (PCper, OC3d, Bitwit, Paul's hardware, Linus, hardware unboxed etc. name it i watched it)

it has very good multi-thread performance scalling...but it does not overclock past 4.0ghz on all cores for the most part (only 2 of the 12 or 15 review outlets i watched had sample that could do 4.1ghz...most of them do 3.9ghz and 4.0ghz with 4.1ghz on a single-core through XFR) and they run quite hot...OC3D used a H110 GT and when running OCCT the CPU reached 82c with both fans and pump on performance...and the review outlets got cinbenebench R15 single-threaded score of 150 to 160 points...at 4.1ghz...which puts it between ivy-bridge and haswell when it comes to single-thread performance...which is...mehh..it's a whole lot better than the previous piece of trash AMD had for the past 6-7 years for sure...but it's still ain't that great...in games the CPU fall behind the 7700K stock from anywhere from 10 to 25%...depending on the game...10% is in stupid threaded games like BF1 and watchdogs 2...and if you overclock the 7700K to 5.0ghz and throw a more single-threaded cpu intensive game then yeah the gap is quite noticeable and you'd start chocking higher-end graphics solutions...so for high-refresh gamers like me, zen for now is still a no go for AMD

 

Also, the CPU can't run fast memory...but this should be fixed with motherboard BIOS update and stuff.

 

So, it's great when compared to previous AMD CPU's...it's great for multi-tasking and workstation stuff...when compared to intel stuff in that arena ryzen is cheaper and just as good...but for a gamer...gaming PC...nahhh intel still better...faster.

 

So, i was thinking about a ryzen upgrade, i ain't anymore...it can barely match my 4770K in gaming...and in many cases it will not even be as fast...so i'm not interested.

 

Your thoughts? (if you havn't watched at least 3 full ryzen reviews and are still floating on the hype cloud please refrain from posting and go watch various reviews first)

 

Thanks, please keep it civil.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

Your thoughts?

1. AMD

2. Overhype marketing tactic

3. Profit

 

When you sell a product only show trailers and keep it away from the consumers. They will be more urged to learn its secrets and be more hyped about it.

AMD knew it wasn't good against fast CPUs that's why they match against slow cpus.

If we knew it sucked no one would buy it.

[Mohenjo]

same tbh 

[Aytex]

Its sure better than bulldozer but yeah. people over hyped it and preordered it without benchmarks (gaming)

lol 

[Guest]

At the moment I would say that Ryzen would make a great workstation cpu i.e if you were planning on an i7 6800K system then the Ryzen cpu's will match up very well. I think we will need to wait for the lower end Ryzen cpu's as hopefully they will have higher clock speeds and be a better match for the i7 7700K in gaming.

[Moress]

From the ones I watched they fall right between the 6900k and 7700k in peformance. Above the 7700k in multithreading and below the 6900k and on par with the 6900k and below the 7700k on single threaded. I can say that this is exactly where I expected them to fall, and they hit the niche they were aiming for.

As for the ram, Im not going to comment for at least a month, if ita not fixed by then its a flaw, but until then its growing pains.

[Mira Yurizaki]

AMD is banking on multi-threaded performance. A cursory glance at gaming benchmarks on Intel's other processors that have more than four cores will tell you that more cores for gaming doesn't really do much.

 

It's great if you have workloads that can take advantage of multi-threading, but that's about it. So for the business and server sector, Ryzen looks good (though AMD has to come out with a version that supports ECC memory, otherwise server groups won't touch it). For everyone else? Not so much.

[Ryujin2003]

Is it possible to deactivate 4 cores for a higher OC?

[Guest]

Just now, M.Yurizaki said:

It's great if you have workloads that can take advantage of multi-threading, but that's about it. So for the business and server sector, Ryzen looks good (though AMD has to come out with a version that supports ECC memory, otherwise server groups won't touch it). For everyone else? Not so much.

I agree. I am thinking of getting one as I do Game Development, programming and modelling so sometimes my i5 4 core isn't cutting it.

I need a cpu that can handle doing lots of different processes at once.

[Moress]

1 minute ago, M.Yurizaki said:

AMD is banking on multi-threaded performance. A cursory glance at gaming benchmarks on Intel's other processors that have more than four cores will tell you that more cores for gaming doesn't really do much.

 

It's great if you have workloads that can take advantage of multi-threading, but that's about it. So for the business and server sector, Ryzen looks good (though AMD has to come out with a version that supports ECC memory, otherwise server groups won't touch it). For everyone else? Not so much.

Exactly. This is meant to compete with X99, not Z270

[Electronics Wizardy]

1 minute ago, Ryujin2003 said:

Is it possible to deactivate 4 cores for a higher OC?

yes, but i don't think your getting much higher of a oc unles your very thermally limited(ex stock cooler).

 

It seems like ryzen is limited by the arch, not power or cooling, thus disabling cores wont help.

[Enderman]

It's more significant for content creators and people who multitask a lot.

For pure gaming the 7700k is better.

We knew this even before benchmarks were released, why are you so surprised.

[Moress]

Just now, fpo said:

I agree. I am thinking of getting one as I do Game Development, programming and modelling so sometimes my i5 4 core isn't cutting it.

I need a cpu that can handle doing lots of different processes at once.

Going off this, I often run servers for my friends, and my 4590 sucks at that. I would love to get my hands on a 1700, as would a few of my friends who stream. The R7 has a good niche, people just dont seem to get thats its not meant for mainstream gaming

[typographie]

Personally this is the kind of "win" I expected from Ryzen. I never believed AMD was going to launch a product that flat-out beat Intel in every area, that's not how this works when AMD is at such an R&D deficit.

 

Even though the performance is hit-and-miss, the value proposition is pretty spectacular for some very specific workloads. If you're thinking about buying Broadwell-E for the kind of work Broadwell-E is really best at, you could reasonably look at an R7 1800X instead.

 

3 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

Is it possible to deactivate 4 cores for a higher OC?

I've read you can disable cores in pairs, but I haven't seen overclocking results for anything less than all eight cores enabled. Theoretically it should help somewhat, but who knows how the architecture actually behaves.

 

I will say that if you're going to disable half the cores, it seems likely one of the R5 products will make a lot more sense.

[i_build_nanosuits]

7 minutes ago, Moress said:

From the ones I watched they fall right between the 6900k and 7700k in peformance. Above the 7700k in multithreading and below the 6900k and on par with the 6900k and below the 7700k on single threaded. I can say that this is exactly where I expected them to fall, and they hit the niche they were aiming for.

As for the ram, Im not going to comment for at least a month, if ita not fixed by then its a flaw, but until then its growing pains.

150 points in cinebench R15 single-threaded...you match that with a stock i5-3570K and you will flatout destroy it with a 4.0ghz 4790K...

[Mira Yurizaki]

I mean, for the most part, this puts AMD back on the map. AMD has a shot at being relevant again. That's really all that matters.

[XenosTech]

Meanwhile people are ignoring the fact intels 6 and 8 core cpu's lose to the 7700k in gaming also but that's none of my business

[SpencerBoughtAnXbox]

AMD is for the budget gamer who wants the higher performance but doesnt want to spend the money intel will snatch from your wallet faster than a steam sale. When considering the price for the performance it is a good value. Shure it didnt live up to all of the hype it got but it still isnt a bad thing. It seems more aimed at worksations and the low-high end if that makes sense. They arent the best but they arent pushovers either. As for the heat thing cmon....this is AMD you can use it as a heater.

[Hunter06]

ur not alone. i am mainly disapointed in gaming performace. all i do with my pc is browsing, microsoft office and game. heavy multithreaded price/performance looks good but i dont need that type of performance. some people who do heavy multythreaded works & will sure love the release but not very exiting for pure gamers.

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 minute ago, M.Yurizaki said:

I mean, for the most part, this puts AMD back on the map. AMD has a shot at being relevant again. That's really all that matters.

yeah that's true and it's great i don't ''hate'' on ryzen i was just expecting a bit more when it comes to single-threaded performance and overclocking headroom which would have made it more competitive from a gaming standpoint.

[maartendc]

I agree with you.

 

However, some reviews say it might get better with R5 and R3 processors, which have higher clockspeeds, less cores. Those might be more interesting for gaming, at the price.

 

It might also just be evidence of the fact that games just dont use multiple cores that well yet. When games actually start using 6 and 8 cores efficiently, that is when the likes of Ryzen 7 will really beat Intel. Single core performance still favors Intel due to higher clock speeds.

[MakeAMDGreatAgain]

AMD: Workstation 

Intel: Gaming

 

However... Workstation computer is highly subjective.. depends on the program..if you need raw multiple cores, or single threaded performance, etc, etc, etc  

 

I think AMD hit a cord with the budget workstation people, however for gaming the damn i5 7600k performs better and is 200$ less than the 1800x 

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 minute ago, maartendc said:

I agree with you.

 

However, some reviews say it might get better with R5 and R3 processors, which have higher clockspeeds, less cores. Those might be more interesting for gaming, at the price.

 

It might also just be evidence of the fact that games just dont use multiple cores that well yet. When games actually start using 6 and 8 cores efficiently, that is when the likes of Ryzen 7 will really beat Intel. Single core performance still favors Intel due to higher clock speeds.

well aren't the leaked specs for R5 and R3 so far suggesting that they will have even lower clockspeeds?!

 

Also, like i said BF1 and watchdogs 2 the reviewers said the games were hitting all 16 threads evenly and still the intel CPU's were all performing better even the sock 6 and 8 cores...

[kreechrr]

20 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

So i spent the entire morning listening to Ryzen reviews from many different outlets (PCper, OC3d, Bitwit, Paul's hardware, Linus, hardware unboxed etc. name it i watched it)

it has very good multi-thread performance scalling...but it does not overclock past 4.0ghz on all cores for the most part (only 2 of the 12 or 15 review outlets i watched had sample that could do 4.1ghz...most of them do 3.9ghz and 4.0ghz with 4.1ghz on a single-core through XFR) and they run quite hot...OC3D used a H110 GT and when running OCCT the CPU reached 82c with both fans and pump on performance...and the review outlets got cinbenebench R15 single-threaded score of 150 to 160 points...at 4.1ghz...which puts it between ivy-bridge and haswell when it comes to single-thread performance...which is...mehh..it's a whole lot better than the previous piece of trash AMD had for the past 6-7 years for sure...but it's still ain't that great...in games the CPU fall behind the 7700K stock from anywhere from 10 to 25%...depending on the game...10% is in stupid threaded games like BF1 and watchdogs 2...and if you overclock the 7700K to 5.0ghz and throw a more single-threaded cpu intensive game then yeah the gap is quite noticeable and you'd start chocking higher-end graphics solutions...so for high-refresh gamers like me, zen for now is still a no go for AMD

 

Also, the CPU can't run fast memory...but this should be fixed with motherboard BIOS update and stuff.

 

So, it's great when compared to previous AMD CPU's...it's great for multi-tasking and workstation stuff...when compared to intel stuff in that arena ryzen is cheaper and just as good...but for a gamer...gaming PC...nahhh intel still better...faster.

 

So, i was thinking about a ryzen upgrade, i ain't anymore...it can barely match my 4770K in gaming...and in many cases it will not even be as fast...so i'm not interested.

 

Your thoughts? (if you havn't watched at least 3 full ryzen reviews and are still floating on the hype cloud please refrain from posting and go watch various reviews first)

 

Thanks, please keep it civil.

 

it still is useful for knocking intel's pricing scheme off it's high horse.. But personally I cancelled my 1800x preorder since I have a 6900k and it (thankfully) didn't ship today. No need to spend 500 on a processor on a new platform that's guaranteed to need bios updates regularly for early adopter issues...

[BuckGup]

I saw this coming a year away. Idiots preordering