Ryzen 5 benchies leaked!

[ApolloFury]

That CPU usage though. You can stream and play games smoothly with this.

[Teddy07]

@NumLock21 "benchies". What a sick word

 

[Bananasplit_00]

hmm interesting seeing as this is probably the chip im getting for the Toaster Project. nice to see it stacks up

[MyName13]

33 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

This guy's testing methodology is crap. Instead of lowering settings he should have dropped to 720p and kept shit at ultra.

Why test at 720p and not on 144p?720p peasants...

[Doobeedoo]

Got mine today, is so gr8, everytyme i'm done with with computer 4a day i put it back in a boxx to keep it safe.

[NumLock21]

2 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

Got mine today, is so gr8, everytyme i'm done with with computer 4a day i put it back in a boxx to keep it safe.

Why not just buy 2 of them. Have one in your PC and the other in the box.

[Speaker1264]

8 hours ago, lilbman said:

I noticed Ryzen wasn't being utilized as much as the Intel processors.  I assume that's because of optimization?

NVidia drives being shit and not properly utilizing Ryzen.  People have found that Ryzen utilization is much better with AMD video cards resulting in Ryzen being much closer or better than Intel CPU's if benched with an AMD card.  And also the AMD cards also perform much closer to higher end NVidia cards when pairing an AMD card with a Ryzen CPU.  Here's a long drawn out video, but if you make it through the whole thing you will have a better understanding.

 

 

[4960X]

59 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

Why not just buy 2 of them. Have one in your PC and the other in the box.

lmao ded

[Phate.exe]

So wait.  The stock 3.2GHz 1400 is doing better than the i5 and is only at 61% utilization.  Neat.  But the Overclocked 1400 at 3.8GHz is somehow at 76% utilization, and is getting lower framerates than both the i5 and the stock 1400?

 

Something is very much not right there.

[Starelementpoke]

4 minutes ago, Phate.exe said:

So wait.  The stock 3.2GHz 1400 is doing better than the i5 and is only at 61% utilization.  Neat.  But the Overclocked 1400 at 3.8GHz is somehow at 76% utilization, and is getting lower framerates than both the i5 and the stock 1400?

 

Something is very much not right there.

We've been had people.

[Phate.exe]

12 minutes ago, Starelementpoke said:

We've been had people.

Yeah either these benches aren't what they say they are, or the OC'd 1400 is having some other significant problems.

[Notree]

7 minutes ago, Phate.exe said:

Yeah either these benches aren't what they say they are, or the OC'd 1400 is having some other significant problems.

Are you kidding? You took one frame  out of video where each benchmark has variables and compared them. Look at the video and you can see  the OC always ahead.  Grabbing one frame means nothing ,avg and minimum fps would be a far better indicator.

[sgloux3470]

I'm pretty eager to get my hands on my R5 1600, but fully expecting my gains to be trivial considering my resolution. 

 

1 minute ago, Notree said:

Are you kidding? You took one frame  out of video where each benchmark has variables and compared them. Look at the video and you can see  the OC always ahead.  Grabbing one frame means nothing ,avg and minimum fps would be a far better indicator.

Especially when the frames aren't identical.  All it takes is a slightly different screen composition to massively change the framerate/CPU utilization.

 

Which is why benchmarks either need to be longer (5-10 minutes) and averaged out or they need to have entirely fixed variables. (Fixed camera, fixed inputs etc) which is very few benchmarks.  Most sites use 1-2 minute benchmarks where any sort of minor differences are more impactful on the data.

 

[TorqueS]

2 hours ago, Phate.exe said:

So wait.  The stock 3.2GHz 1400 is doing better than the i5 and is only at 61% utilization.  Neat.  But the Overclocked 1400 at 3.8GHz is somehow at 76% utilization, and is getting lower framerates than both the i5 and the stock 1400?

 

Something is very much not right there.

-Insert photo of stock 1400 achieveing higher FPS than i5 7400 and OCd 1400-

While definitely odd, it might have been momentary stutter. I have noticed quite a few of these moments during those "benchmarks"  for the OCd 1400. I believe his OC is not as stable as he would have us think.

[Phate.exe]

52 minutes ago, TorqueS said:

While definitely odd, it might have been momentary stutter. I have noticed quite a few of these moments during those "benchmarks"  for the OCd 1400. I believe his OC is not as stable as he would have us think.

Yeah, while my screengrab was definitely of one of the worst parts, it wasn't the only one, as there are many other portions of the bench that show identical or within 1-2fps of the stock chip with a 600mhz advantage (the other one that comes to mind in the BF1 benches are the early on-tank sections around 2:45.

 

I get that it's a somewhat variable benchmark, especially with particle effects like smoke and dirt flying around from explosions.

 

Then again BF1 does tend to do some weird shit in Ryzen benchmarks, and it could always just be a shit OC.  I've done them before, and gotten results that would drop lower than the stock clockspeeds.

[Guest Darth Revan]

I was reading some of the comments on those two videos, and I have to ask.

Why are the AMD fanboys so aggressive?

[Tellos]

@Darth Revan Simple they are positively desperate to have the days of the Athlon back. Where they whipped every Intel CPU. They fear if AMD isint beating intel CPus by 40% it means they wasted their lives. They don't realize jsut being as competitive as Ryzen is that it's already a good thing. It's the need for their choices to prove them "RIGHT" as opposed to just paying off.

[Guest Darth Revan]

@Tellos I understand that they want the good old days to come back, but lashing out to some who pointed out the obvious, is childish and stupid,

One guy said that it seems AMD is doing ok in gaming but still behind Intel, and the reply he got was "Go to hell you Intel fanboy"

[Tellos]

@Darth Revan welcome to rabid fanboy-ism, your side MUST win it's to them a zero sum game. If their not winning by huge numbers always 1005 of the time they feel they wasted everything for their entire lives. Why those types of fanatical followers are idiots. They cannot see the great things Ryzen does if somebody dares point out facts that do not support what they WANT to happen.

[Phate.exe]

46 minutes ago, Tellos said:

@Darth Revan welcome to rabid fanboy-ism, your side MUST win it's to them a zero sum game. If their not winning by huge numbers always 1005 of the time they feel they wasted everything for their entire lives. Why those types of fanatical followers are idiots. They cannot see the great things Ryzen does if somebody dares point out facts that do not support what they WANT to happen.

I consider myself as much of an AMD fanboy because I've happened to build my computers at times when it happened to work out very well for me.  My first PC build (outside of dropping a PCI GPU into a P3 optiplex) was the original Athlon64, so I came up in "the good old days".  Phenom II's were good enough to completely skip FX.  I want AMD to be a viable option again as much as anyone.

 

And as far as I can tell, they are.  I never expected AMD to leapfrog skylake in raw core performance, because we're pretty much beyond that ever happening again.  Just give me an up to date platform (DDR4, NVME, etc), capable single-core performance, modern energy efficiency, and a bunch of threads for less money than an i7 costs.

 

Outside of gaming, for normal computing tasks, CPU's basically became fast enough for it to not matter sometime in 2010.

[Speaker1264]

On 4/1/2017 at 8:23 PM, Phate.exe said:

So wait.  The stock 3.2GHz 1400 is doing better than the i5 and is only at 61% utilization.  Neat.  But the Overclocked 1400 at 3.8GHz is somehow at 76% utilization, and is getting lower framerates than both the i5 and the stock 1400?

 

Something is very much not right there.

Bro, you're looking at one single frame out of the whole video, in which different things are happening on each screen.  Different things to render = different utilization and FPS. I personally don't like tests such as these because the proper way would be to log everything and take an average over several runs, and give 1% and 0.1% lows as well, ideally.  But still, these tests are showing good results for the R5, and I doubt he is somehow doing fake benchmarks and putting them out just to be misleading or whatever.

[Guest Darth Revan]

The same guy did rendering tests and other benchmarks:

 

Very very interesting.