a look at (ry)Zen's IPC - from Excavator to KabyLake

[Wolther]

5 minutes ago, KOMTechAndGaming said:

and thats it? does this .2ghz equate to any tangible benefit?

Not really. imo no one should buy it, atleast at that price 

[MorganO]

Just now, Wolther said:

Not really. imo no one should buy it, atleast at that price 

ok thanks  

 

and 2400mhz ram should be fine?

[Master Disaster]

OK Serious question...

 

Do you think AMD knew Zen was this bad at gaming before they launched?

 

I mean they must of, right? I'm sure it was Linus who said they're being smart and picking their battles and during the build up they showed one demo of the 1700X vs I don't remember which Intel playing BF4 so did they deliberately try to obfuscate this information from us before the release?

[Bouzoo]

6 minutes ago, zMeul said:

as I'm aware, only clock speeds

Pretty much only that and price, naturally. 

 

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_1700x_review,2.html

 

Quote

 

AMD Ryzen 7 1700X - 399 USD

The next AMD Ryzen in line would be the R7 1700X, this dawg once again gets 8 cores and 16 threads but this time the turbo and base clock sit 200 MHz lower compared to the 1800X. But that means a turbo frequency of 3.80 GHz. Yes, this is pretty much the same processor, just with a lower base at 3.4 GHz and turbo frequency and yes, a lower price as you just shaved off 100 bucks. This is the processor being tested in this article.

 

 

Quote

We're following the performance metric on gaming closely though. Hopefully AMD can address that and the minute they will, we'll revisit all the gaming benchmarks. 90% of the content in this article and conclusion is similar to the 1800X as hey, the 1700X is pretty much the same thing yet clocked slightly lower.

 

[Wolther]

2 minutes ago, KOMTechAndGaming said:

ok thanks  

 

and 2400mhz ram should be fine?

Yeah that's fine, although I'm assuming (could be wrong) you're talking about the ram in your sig, in which case am4 requires ddr4 memory 

 

2 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

OK Serious question...

 

Do you think AMD knew Zen was this bad at gaming before they launched?

 

I mean they must of, right? I'm sure it was Linus who said they're being smart and picking their battles and during the build up they showed one demo of the 1700X vs I don't remember which Intel playing BF4 so did they deliberately try to obfuscate this information from us before the release?

They obviously know the ins and outs of their cpu. They freaking developed it. We don't know what their 4 core cpus will look like so I guess that's something to keep an eye on. The frequency will be higher (since less cores = less heat) 

[MorganO]

Just now, Wolther said:

Yeah that's fine, although I'm assuming (could be wrong) you're talking about the ram in your sig, in which case am4 requires ddr4 memory 

 

 

i know id need to get new ram

[Mr.Meerkat]

7 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Back in them days the Athlon K6/2 destroyed the Pentium.

Athlon K8...the first X86-64 CPU...

Back in those days, AMD was sitting in a better position where ATI was still a separate company...

[rattacko123]

Seems to be performing pretty well (around about Haswell, as expected), except in a few cases where it performs horribly. Supposedly there may be an optimization issue, and some people have suggested that thread scheduling needs some work (Maybe this is what AMD meant by Zen being optimized for windows 10 and not 7? They may release some thread scheduling optimization that improves Zen performance on windows 10, which means windows 7 will be left in the dust.), considering the CPU has 2 core complexes which adds significant latency between say, one core on 1 CCX communicating with the other core complex. I am interested to see the Zen server CPUs because they have many CCXs and the latency should be ridiculous, I wonder how AMD got around that.
We will wait and see, probably around the time when AMD releases R5 if Zen is actually good or not. Zen is supposed to have some Vega optimizations (infinity fabric) as well so maybe there is a use case for Zen+Radeon in the future.

[smokefest]

16 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Back in them days the Athlon K6/2 destroyed the Pentium.

Yep, for those who are not old enough.....

 

AMD Athlon was the shit back in the days, would have laughed at you if you went with intel !!!  

 

AMD Athlon with a 3dFX voodoo was awesome

[zMeul]

11 minutes ago, smokefest said:

AMD Athlon was the shit back in the days, would have laughed at you if you went with intel !!!  

I went with a Tualatin Celly .. awesome shit back then

kept strong even after Intel released P4 

[GDRRiley]

58 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

I was spot on  This is EXACTLY how I thought Ryzen would stack up

it was just stated that the ryzen mobo used has isssue and that it isn't the full story nor will it be for weeks. 

[GDRRiley]

29 minutes ago, KOMTechAndGaming said:

i know id need to get new ram

you can have any speed DDR4 but ryzen will not like faster ram. 

[Master Disaster]

6 minutes ago, zMeul said:

I went with a Tualatin Celly .. awesome shit back then

kept strong even after Intel released P4 

I remember my friends parents bought a 500Mhz Via C3 based PC and it was awful, my mums aging Pentium 75 was quicker than it. Shortly after my parents got an 800Mhz Athlon and every PC after was AMD based until I bought an Q6600 with my own money.

[tlink]

all these numbers are nice and dandy but this is relative in IPC to an older architecture. this is is pretty hard to translate into real world results and problems. i agree that it looks bad, but i really really don't want to pull conclusions to soon and kill something before it can blossom.

[zMeul]

19 minutes ago, tlink said:

all these numbers are nice and dandy but this is relative in IPC to an older architecture. this is is pretty hard to translate into real world results and problems. i agree that it looks bad, but i really really don't want to pull conclusions to soon and kill something before it can blossom.

there is nowhere to blossom

with CPUs, what you see is what you get

 

it's not like you release a new graphics driver and get couple of % perf gains in some titles

yes, AMD is capable of releasing micro-code updates to fix some of the shit, but don't expect to magically close the gap

 

AMD needs to get their asses in gear right now for Zen2, if they aren't already on it

[ace_cheaply]

6 minutes ago, zMeul said:

AMD needs to get their asses in gear right now for Zen2, if they aren't already on it

Now I know you're just a hater.  Everyone knows it's Zen+.  Way more positive.  ;-) 

 

Spoiler

_{/L   (the L is for levity, since sarcasm is overrated. )}

 

[zMeul]

Just now, ace_cheaply said:

-

I had to google it 

[MorganO]

41 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

you can have any speed DDR4 but ryzen will not like faster ram. 

but ddr4-2400mhz should be fine right?

[Liltrekkie]

Ah look, another thread trying to make AMD look bad. 

 

Oh wait it's from zMeul. Typical.

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, Liltrekkie said:

Ah look, another thread trying to make AMD look bad. 

AMD has done that all on their own. 

 

A complete mess of a launch, lackluster gaming performance, seemingly limited overclocking capabilities, telling reviewers to gimp the competition, blaming performance issues on lack of optimization....

[Liltrekkie]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

AMD has done that all on their own. 

 

A complete mess of a launch, lackluster gaming performance, seemingly limited overclocking capabilities, telling reviewers to gimp the competition...

 

No, AMD hasn't done that. Everyone is making a mountain out of a mole hill. 

 

Intel limits bclk overclocking, no one bats an eye. AMD potentially limits overclocking and all of a sudden its a massive problem. 

 

Lack luster gaming performance? It's known that games like higher clock speeds. Plus they are working for dev's to increase Ryzen's performance with games. It's a new CPU, you can't expect every game to hit hundreds of FPS at launch. See GPU drivers for that. 

 

Telling reviewers to gimp the competition, oh wait.. That was intel. 

 

AMD's launch was fine, minus the mobo board issues, which isn't AMD's fault. They don't make the boards.

[79wjd]

11 minutes ago, Liltrekkie said:

 

No, AMD hasn't done that. Everyone is making a mountain out of a mole hill. 

 

Intel limits bclk overclocking, no one bats an eye. AMD potentially limits overclocking and all of a sudden its a massive problem. 

 

Lack luster gaming performance? It's known that games like higher clock speeds. Plus they are working for dev's to increase Ryzen's performance with games. It's a new CPU, you can't expect every game to hit hundreds of FPS at launch. See GPU drivers for that. 

 

Telling reviewers to gimp the competition, oh wait.. That was intel. 

 

AMD's launch was fine, minus the mobo board issues, which isn't AMD's fault. They don't make the boards.

AMD has done every single one of those things. There is no denying any of it. 

 

AMD didn't limit overclocking, they've pushed the factory clockspeeds to, what appears to be, the limit of the chips. So while an 1700 might have similar IPC to a 6900k, it clocks 10% lower and thus can't compete (of course, it still offers a much better price-to-performance when compared to Intel's HEDT platform, and that's great, but at the end of the day, it's not as good as AMD marketed it as). Intel blocking bclk overclocking is a dick move, but that doesn't make AMD any better for selling their chips at their max clockspeeds so that they can't possibly compete. 

 

It also gets outperformed by Intel's HEDT platform due to launch issues and lower overclocks -- in either event, they have been comparing it to a 6900k and saying you will get 6900k performance, meanwhile, a 6900k is faster. 

 

But no, Intel never told reviewers to disable features....unless you would like to provide some sources to back up that claim of yours. AMD told reviewers to disable MEC, to run in dual channel mode, and to do benchmarks so that there is a GPU bottleneck (i.e. 1440p/4k and not 1080p). AMD also specifically tailored their released leaks to make AMD look better (every company does this, but let's not pretend like AMD is a saint in this launch) -- zooming in more in the BF1 run (in order to reduce draw calls), running the Blender tests at settings far lower than anyone would realistically do, and looking at the skybox when reloading and showing more of the sky throughout the demo. 

 

The launch was rushed. It was 100% their fault. Mobo manufacturers only had three weeks to prepare bioses and upon launch they were sending a constant stream of tweaks to reviewers because everything was so immature. 

[zMeul]

20 minutes ago, Liltrekkie said:

Lack luster gaming performance? It's known that games like higher clock speeds.

time to eat crow:

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-Review-Now-and-Zen/Clock-Clock-Ryzen-Broadwell-E-Kaby-Lake

 

plus, this is an AMD optimized title 

[Liltrekkie]

9 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

AMD has done every single one of those things. There is no denying any of it. 

 

AMD didn't limit overclocking, they've pushed the factory clockspeeds to, what appears to be, the limit of the chips. So while an 1700 might have similar IPC to a 6900k, it clocks 10% lower and thus can't compete (of course, it still offers a much better price-to-performance when compared to Intel's HEDT platform, and that's great, but at the end of the day, it's not as good as AMD marketed it as). Intel blocking bclk overclocking is a dick move, but that doesn't make AMD any better for selling their chips at their max clockspeeds so that they can't possibly compete. 

 

It also gets outperformed by Intel's HEDT platform due to launch issues and lower overclocks -- in either event, they have been comparing it to a 6900k and saying you will get 6900k performance, meanwhile, a 6900k is faster. 

 

But no, Intel never told reviewers to disable features....unless you would like to provide some sources to back up that claim of yours. AMD told reviewers to disable MEC, to run in dual channel mode, and to do benchmarks so that there is a GPU bottleneck (i.e. 1440p/4k and not 1080p). AMD also specifically tailored their released leaks to make AMD look better (every company does this, but let's not pretend like AMD is a saint in this launch) -- zooming in more in the BF1 run (in order to reduce draw calls), running the Blender tests at settings far lower than anyone would realistically do, and looking at the skybox when reloading and showing more of the sky throughout the demo. 

 

The launch was rushed. It was 100% their fault. Mobo manufacturers only had three weeks to prepare bioses and upon launch they were sending a constant stream of tweaks to reviewers because everything was so immature. 

"What appears to be the limit of the chip" Well I'm so sorry to those people who got the short end of the silicon lottery. It was known that the 1700x and 1800x are binned higher than the 1700. 

 

So.. AMD told reviewers to run memory in duel channel mode? Oh god the horror. What a crime my god AMD needs to burn for that! And the horror for wanting to use other benchmarks to show that a game wouldn't be CPU bottlenecked. Oh god how dare AMD do this!!

 

I'm so glad you have all this inside information about AMD giving mobo makers 3 weeks for a BIOS, even though MOBO leaks have been happening for the better part of 2 months. 

 

AMD didn't have a perfect launch? No one does. But lets burn them to the ground because they are AMD. 

 

Intel: skylake bendgate. skylake supply issues. skylake bug causes application freeze during complex workloads, haswell has USB 3 issues (fixed though) haswell overheating issues. poor TIM. 

 

Both sides have had issues. 

[Liltrekkie]

Just now, zMeul said:

-snip-

Yeah because a new CPU is expected to perform like a god when games aren't optimized for it. I wonder how many GPU issues have popped up on both sides because of driver issues? Oh wait there are so many times that's happened to Nvidia and AMD it's not funny. 

 

"Time to eat the Crow"