AMD Ryzen driver package

[bimmerman]

6 minutes ago, 2Buck said:

Windows 7 support. YUS. I heard so many times that Ryzen would not have it, but I kept my hopes up like a moron anyway, and I was actually rewarded!

 

I'm gonna wait for a while longer to see what happens with some BIOS updates and whatnot, but I'm so close to buying a 1700. I mean, 300ish$ for 8 cores, 16 threads, decent gaming performance, amazing productivity performance AND Windows 7 support? Well...

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

Same here. Win7 support + affordable powerful 8c/16t is awesome.

 

The gaming benchmarks are irrelevant to me, since any chip I can buy today would be better than my i7-950 for that purpose. Realistically, the 950 is only now starting to show its age noticeably enough to where I've started reading processor reviews (I grew up in the age of 30fps as 'good'). I play games maybe once a week, but do actual computer things much more often, so....this chip is a godsend for me. Should last me another 6 years like the 950 did.

[JoeCoke]

1 minute ago, bimmerman said:

Same here. Win7 support + affordable powerful 8c/16t is awesome.

 

The gaming benchmarks are irrelevant to me, since any chip I can buy today would be better than my i7-950 for that purpose. Realistically, the 950 is only now starting to show its age noticeably enough to where I've started reading processor reviews. I play games maybe once a week, but do actual computer things much more often, so....this chip is a godsend for me. Should last me another 6 years like the 950 did.

Same boat I'm in, any current gen CPU would run circles around my poor old (shitty) 8320, so gaming performance just doesn't matter as much to me, it's all better than what I have right now. I hosts some game servers, run a VM or two, edit video and even stream every once in awhile, so all those threads will be amazing for me, I do way more than just gaming.

[Doobeedoo]

Interesting. Now more tests to be done.

[MageTank]

2 hours ago, MakeAMDGreatAgain said:

Yeah, I'm really trolling.

 

 

Glad to know an i3 performs better than a 329$ 8 core CPU in CPU intensive games.

 

But please, let's blame "mahh win10 drivers" 

I mean, if you turn off SMT, you get drastically better minimum frames. Granted, one shouldn't have to disable one of the CPU's main selling points to get a better experience.

[RagnarokDel]

2 hours ago, MakeAMDGreatAgain said:

Yeah, I'm really trolling.

 

 

Glad to know an i3 performs better than a 329$ 8 core CPU in CPU intensive games.

 

But please, let's blame "mahh win10 drivers" 

how the fuck is a 1% low framerate lower by 15.4 FPS better?

[PlayStation 2]

4 minutes ago, RagnarokDel said:

how the fuck is a 1% low framerate lower by 15.4 FPS better?

Because he's an idiot.

Not only is the R7 1700 clocked lower, this test would imply one of two things: Total Warhammer is super dopey or the R7 1700 can whip the i3's ass in single core performance. I'm going to guess the former, though. Like how is the 6900K reaching the 7600K? Or why is the 5.1GHz OC'd i7 showing very minimal gains in average framerate (I will acknowledge that it has better minimum framerates though)?

 

Something odd with that test. May be better to test the CPUs with a Source engine game, to be honest.

[TechGod]

2 hours ago, DocSwag said:

Clearly?

 

It's not clear. There's no real evidence to suggest that's true. While I do agree with you and that the scheduler along with optimizations are the most likely reason, you should be a little careful about that word since it's not "clear," just a guess. 

True, but I genuinely believe (mostly:P) everyone here understands that while this is all guesswork, the correlation cannot be ignored and understand what I meant by saying "clear"

[MakeAMDGreatAgain]

5 hours ago, TechGod said:

ONE GAME and clearly the scheduler IS to blame. Jesus. You're insane. Onto my ignore list you go. 

Lol ofcourse it's just one game, but you're missing the point.

 

Look at all of the other benchmarks. The i5 7600k is far better for gaming and you can get it for around 200$, compared to the 329$ (1700). I thought AMD was budget orientated though? For workstation builds, probably. But if you are strictly gaming, the i5 will be much better and cheaper. Intel is actually a budget version and outperforms the Ryzen in gaming, that's how bad it is.

 

AMD should have released the R5 chips along side the R7. But why not? Because AMD is greedy, taking advantage of vulnerable people like myself, and others who don't want to "wait". Too bad, I'm not going down the rabbit hole with them.

 

The R5 chips will perform probably even better than the R7 in gaming as they POTENTIALLY might even achieve higher clock speeds. One reason why AMD probably didn't want to release those now, as reviewers "will just be like WTF, the R5 performs just as good for gaming, no reason to buy the R7 for gaming!" which would lower their sales.

 

Good thing objective reviewers like Gamers Nexus and others don't tuck their tails in the whole "mahh win10 patches!" bologna people are spewing to make themselves feel better. 

[MakeAMDGreatAgain]

3 hours ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Because he's an idiot.

Not only is the R7 1700 clocked lower, this test would imply one of two things: Total Warhammer is super dopey or the R7 1700 can whip the i3's ass in single core performance. I'm going to guess the former, though. Like how is the 6900K reaching the 7600K? Or why is the 5.1GHz OC'd i7 showing very minimal gains in average framerate (I will acknowledge that it has better minimum framerates though)?

 

Something odd with that test. May be better to test the CPUs with a Source engine game, to be honest.

Yeah, so if you don't agree with someone you have to call them inflammatory names. You're also wrong, the i5 7600k still out performs the Ryzen in gaming (and is 130$ cheaper..). That s/s was just showing how the i3 was ahead IN 1 game, which I thought was funny. But please, continue to flame people, that really increases your credibility.

[Vode]

6 hours ago, Urishima said:

So will this fix the borked IMMOU grouping?

 No, as far as I know.

 

You need UEFI updated for that.

[LAwLz]

8 hours ago, Citadelen said:

The Windows 10 patches are nothing to laugh at, you could easily be looking at a minimum of a 10% improvment in gaming performance just from patching the scheduler. How people expected something as radically different to what AMD has been producing for the last five years to not have teething problems is quite frankly deranged. Give it three to six months to smooth out. Need I remind you of X99s launch fiascos?

Source on "minimum of a 10% improvement"?

Again, the Bulldozer patch that people expected to magically fix all the performance issues ended up only providing a 1-2% performance increase (according to AMD themselves) in best case scenarios.

That patch did the same thing as people want this Windows 10 patch to do (change so that the scheduler don't put multiple threads on the same core).

 

People need to stop setting their expectations so ridiculously high all the time.

You have no idea how this scheduler patch (which I have not heard anything about from AMD nor Microsoft) will affect performance. That 10% number was just grabbed out of thin air.

[leadeater]

11 hours ago, Coaxialgamer said:

Nice but does it actually affect the BENCHMARKS 

Not likely since the fixes for the issues at hand will need to come in the form of updates to Windows not chipset drivers, this might help but not much.

[matrix07012]

The 6900k performs worse in games than the i7700k in games, but nobody is saying that it's a bad CPU.

[Taf the Ghost]

8 hours ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Because he's an idiot.

Not only is the R7 1700 clocked lower, this test would imply one of two things: Total Warhammer is super dopey or the R7 1700 can whip the i3's ass in single core performance. I'm going to guess the former, though. Like how is the 6900K reaching the 7600K? Or why is the 5.1GHz OC'd i7 showing very minimal gains in average framerate (I will acknowledge that it has better minimum framerates though)?

 

Something odd with that test. May be better to test the CPUs with a Source engine game, to be honest.

The launch of Ryzen brought on a slew of retesting of games, which really helped show one thing conclusively: every game engine is freaking weird.

 

The reality is that there isn't such as thing as a strict CPU or GPU bottleneck.  Every CPU & GPU has multiple different bottlenecks that can develop at various timings, frequencies, states and interactions.  This is why the first round of 1800X testing really needed the reviewers to step back and go "the numbers don't make sense on the same scale as Intel chips; we simply don't have the information right now".  But we don't live in an age or culture that generally goes that way right now.

[Tenelia]

54 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

The launch of Ryzen brought on a slew of retesting of games, which really helped show one thing conclusively: every game engine is freaking weird.

 

The reality is that there isn't such as thing as a strict CPU or GPU bottleneck.  Every CPU & GPU has multiple different bottlenecks that can develop at various timings, frequencies, states and interactions.  This is why the first round of 1800X testing really needed the reviewers to step back and go "the numbers don't make sense on the same scale as Intel chips; we simply don't have the information right now".  But we don't live in an age or culture that generally goes that way right now.

1

Amen. Whatever happened to research methodology? Do only the sciences force us to undergo that in school?

[Lays]

11 hours ago, Jack_of_all_Trades said:

Haven't you heard , Total Warhammer is the be-all-end-all of all benchmarks. And that 6900k for 1000 dollars is performing worse than the 7700k , all the people who bought a 6900k must be feeling like complete idiots that a chip for 3 times less is offering more fps.

I know you were being sarcastic, but the 7700k does win in a very big amount of games compared to the 6900k, it's laughable how many games still only use a few threads.

[Castdeath97]

12 hours ago, MakeAMDGreatAgain said:

Yeah, I'm really trolling.

 

 

Glad to know an i3 performs better than a 329$ 8 core CPU in CPU intensive games.

 

But please, let's blame "mahh win10 drivers" 

Yet overall its performance is near a i5 7600K once you consider more than one game. Also look at the minimums...the i3 is clearly worse.

[Ryujin2003]

WTF is going on here??? Ever since Zen came out, all the fanboy crap had gotten worse. Many of these threads have gone from informative discussions to God damned armature hour.

[Urishima]

26 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

WTF is going on here??? Ever since Zen came out, all the fanboy crap had gotten worse. Many of these threads have gone from informative discussions to God damned armature hour.

You think this is bad? r/AMD is a proper trash-fire right now. A whole mountain of trash, on fire.

[Guest Kloaked]

12 hours ago, MageTank said:

I mean, if you turn off SMT, you get drastically better minimum frames. Granted, one shouldn't have to disable one of the CPU's main selling points to get a better experience.

And lets not ignore that the 1700 gets better minimum frame rates than every Intel CPU it goes against.

[Citadelen]

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

-snip-

One needs only look at the performance improvement you can get from disabling SMT or running Windows 7. 

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

25 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

And lets not ignore that the 1700 gets better minimum frame rates than every Intel CPU it goes against.

 

Wow. Minimums have never been an AMD thing. Till now.

 

kek 

[79wjd]

4 hours ago, matrix07012 said:

The 6900k performs worse in games than the i7700k in games, but nobody is saying that it's a bad CPU.

It helps that a 6900k was never marketed as a gaming chip. Also, no one with an ounce of intelligence is saying Ryzen is a bad cpu -- just that there are better choices for gaming and that there are currently issues that people shouldn't just "expect" to be fixed yielding a massive performance increase.

[ZackBarletto]

17 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Are you telling me they are releasing the Windows 7 drivers that supposedly weren't going to exist?

I think they meant AMD Tech support. I would imagine that the drivers and software would still be made windows 7 compatible, but their support team may not specialize in troubleshooting on 7 anymore... Just a guess.... The only thing is that they may not be able to help after, uninstall drivers, clean viruses, clean junk, restart, install drivers again.

 

Whereas with windows 10 they may know more specifically what the issues might be and are actually fixing them. They also might focus majority of their patches with windows 10 issues and bugs and only work out major 7 bugs like bsod or something.

[MageTank]

10 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

It helps that a 6900k was never marketed as a gaming chip. Also, no one with an ounce of intelligence is saying Ryzen is a bad cpu -- just that there are better choices for gaming and that there are currently issues that people shouldn't just "expect" to be fixed yielding a massive performance increase.

People are also forgetting that, unless you are trying to drive a massive refresh rate, or are playing an antiquated MMO, CPU performance in gaming isn't that big of a deal these days. Chances are, if you have Haswell or higher IPC, you are having a great experience.

 

Ryzen isn't bad. The 1700x and 1800x make no sense to me, given how they all OC exactly the same with the exact same underlying features, they still offer great overall value when you factor in their price:performance. Does that mean Ryzen will be for everyone? Not at all. Gaming-only consumers are still going to want an i5 or i7 for those blistering fast cores to drive high refresh rates. Consumers that do more than just gaming, might like the additional lifting power that Ryzen offers for relatively the same price as a consumer i7, and won't mind sacrificing 10-20% of their framerate for upwards of 50% more lifting power in specific applications. 

 

It's IMC still sucks, and it has a serious issue with SMT at the moment, but all in all, it's not a bad CPU for the cost. Anyone pretending it's better than a 7700k at gaming is simply delusional though. Blame AMD's marketing on that one.