• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

AMD Ryzen Thread: Affordable Core Act

~Cross~

Member
Loving their honest approach.

Their 1440p review comment is absolute marketing bullshit. The gamernexus review calls them out on it (because that was one of the "guidelines" AMD was recommending yesterday)

Also their own video game benchmarks were purposely dishonest. Constantly looking at skyboxes to artificially rise their values vs the Intel versions.
 
Now you're just being obtuse on purpose. People are obviously talking about gaming.

No the guy mentioned comparisons with the 6950X people were making prior to launch. Those were never comparisons about gaming perfomance, but how it trades blows with that $1600 CPU in CPU benchmarks. That, it clearly does.

Don't fancy overclocking a £1,650 Core i7-6950X due to its extreme cost? If that's the case, you'll get better performance from a 4.1GHz Ryzen 7 1800X chip for certain x265 encoding workloads and will be almost level with the 10-core part for rendering, as suggested by Cinebench

SiSoft Sandra places raw processing power of the 4.1GHz 1800X on par with a stock-clocked 6950X... at less than a third of the price. Cryptographic performance for Ryzen 7 is also strong thanks to the 1800X's ability to throw a large number of fast threads at the task. The 4.4GHz 5960X is actually beaten by overclocked Ryzen 7 1800X despite the AMD chip's 300MHz clock speed deficit.

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu-review/5/

The Ryzen's are very impressive chips however some want to try and paint the picture otherwise. That you need a Titan X and have to set the resolution to 1080p to expose noticeable differences in gaming performance is not a deal breaker for the vast majority.

These are $499, $399 and $329 CPUs we're talking about. Lastly, anyone forward-looking in the PC space will tell you that buying 4-core 8-thread CPU right now is not the best idea. More sensible would be 6-cores at least.
 
OC performance is not what I was hoping for, with that being said, it's still a remarkable achievement for AMD at this point. A little down the line after things get more settled I'll likely Switch out my 5820k for one of these.
 

Joohanh

Member
varied gaming performance or not, an amd processor that can beat intel's high-end offerings? jesus.

fuck it, i'm in.
 

Paragon

Member
I think these two charts from The Tech Report review are a good summary of things:

value-productivityxpss1.png


value-gaming4nsda.png


It seems like an excellent CPU for non-gaming applications - especially once there are motherboards out which support ECC memory.
Not having to buy a Xeon for that is going to be an even bigger saving.
 

Momentary

Banned
Just read Gamer's Nexus review and was not impressed by what was shown. AMD was definitely inflating numbers. They gave it a hard pass for gaming and I'd have to agree since Intels mid range CPUS are handily beating it.

I was really hoping they'd be able to light a fire under Intel's ass.
 

Thraktor

Member
This will make the four core Ryzen models interesting, assuming they don't use two clusters (and disable four cores) for those as well.

The really interesting thing is that (if inter-cluster communication is an issue) there will actually be two classes of applications that would perform better or worse depending on how they partition the quad-core chips. Embarrassingly parallel tasks with little dependence on communication between threads (such as rendering) should run better in a 2+2 scenario, as each core would have twice the L3 cache to work with. Anything which does require a lot of communication between threads would likely work better in a single 4 core cluster, though. It'll be interesting to see which way they go.


Thanks for posting this, TechReport always do good frame time analysis, so I'd recommend everyone interested in Ryzen's gaming performance to read this.

One thing it does highlight, though, is just how big of a jump Ryzen is over AMD's CPUs over the past few years. Just as one example, look at how well Ryzen maintains 60fps in GTA V compared to their Bulldozer-based cores:

gtav-16.png


There's more like this in the review. AMD haven't quite caught up with Intel on gaming performance, but the fact that they're actually close is a huge leap for them, and a lot more than many people were expecting.
 
OC performance is not what I was hoping for, with that being said, it's still a remarkable achievement for AMD at this point. A little down the line after things get more settled I'll likely Switch out my 5820k for one of these.

Yes, seems very reasonable to expect that after some time and optimizations (god sounds like their graphics cards!) and memory issues to be resolved, things will look even better.

Only slight disappointment is OC, but again, they need time to optimise.
 

Steel

Banned
Do I keep my AMD Stock gaf?

Up to you. I'm keeping but my cost basis is $2.43, so I have breathing room. This is a certainly a good enough CPU to compete with intel's profitable high end in non-gaming circumstances at a much lower price and does reasonably in gaming.
 

Pagusas

Elden Member
I think these two charts from The Tech Report review are a good summary of things:

value-productivityxpss1.png


value-gaming4nsda.png


It seems like an excellent CPU for non-gaming applications - especially once there are motherboards out which support ECC memory.
Not having to buy a Xeon for that is going to be an even bigger saving.

Great to see AMD back, but these charts confirm what we all basically knew: if you have an intel i7 from the last 3 years, you are still good and set and won't see much of any benefit going over to Zen. Hold your money and wait for intel's response, we can bet its going to be a 8-16 Kaby/skylake power house. Hopefully AMD keeps applying the pressure and by this time next year we have ultra powerful 16 thread processors at great prices.

Hell even if you HAD to buy today, I'm not sure I'd take a x1700 over a 7700k, given you can get a 7700k as low as $259.
 

Durante

Member
Tech Report has good charts, sadly a very small selection of CPUs compared to some other sites (like Computerbase).
 

dr_rus

Member
Durante was hoping for this I believe =)

47oc.png

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/956-12/compilation-visual-studio-mingw-w64-gcc.html



From the AMA:



Hmmm

Are they seriously suggesting to look at Cinebench R15 (again) to predict where games will end up on Zen? This is all sorts of misleading as gaming workloads are completely different.

Zen is doing great is pure number crunching benchmarks where there are lots of completely unrelated threads. It all falls apart once these threads start to be connected and intertwined with synchronization points - which is coincidentally what gaming multicore code usually is. There is definitely some performance to get out of Zen in games by specific code optimizations (either on a high level or by implementing better compilation targets for Zen architecture) but suggesting that it may even approach what Zen is showing in Cinebench is just bullshit.
 

Weevilone

Member
I would also encourage everyone to read the Tech Report review.

For each game bench, you select the framerate (20, 30, 60, 120) to see a graph of how much time each CPU spends above the necessary threshold to sustain what you desire. It's great. I could see that I'd be satisfied with an 1800X for 60 FPS, since I'd be buying it for mixed use.

I have an 1800X waiting at Microcenter, and I was planning to give my 7700k to the kids for their PC... not sure I will pull that trigger.
 
Up to you. I'm keeping but my cost basis is $2.43, so I have breathing room. This is a certainly a good enough CPU to compete with intel's profitable high end in non-gaming circumstances at a much lower price and does reasonably in gaming.

I was thinking about buying when there were rumors of samsung buying intel around a year ago. The stock was at like $2 a share then...

I bought in around $13. Was hoping it would make it up the $30 or so... But the stock took a dive today.

I'll hold it for a few months and see how it goes.
 

Irobot82

Member
Any reviews yet on performance of gaming and streaming at the same time? AMD showed their chips performing well but I was hoping to see some real data.
 

dr_rus

Member
Hardware.fr have a pretty interesting conclusion on their memory testing page - one which I've arrived too after reading through ~10 reviews (Google translated so can be a bit rough):

Whose fault is it ?

If you have followed us so far, we can begin to see the causes of the slowdowns that we notice in some benchmarks. If we summarize what we have seen so far:

- Ryzen memory latency is higher
- The bandwidth between the CCXs is particularly reduced
- Cache access between CCX is expensive

If one adds the tendency of Windows to move the threads permanently, one can begin to understand a little better certain behaviors. Indeed, strolling threads from one CCX to another is excessively expensive on Ryzen whose bandwidth between the CCXs is reduced.

One can easily imagine two cases that will cause slowdowns:

- Threads that, when roaming, pay a high price in latency to access the data of their caches
- Threads that, whether balladed or not, saturate the entire cache

In the case of 7-Zip or WinRAR, we will look at the second option, in practice these software programs use a particularly large compression dictionary to which they constantly refer. We assume that in this case the limited memory bandwidth between the CCXs is a limiting factor.

For games, we assume that we are closer to the first case, or a mix of the two.

Is the problem insoluble? Probably not, several solutions are possible, such as an adaptation of the scheduler of Windows to limit the movements of the threads out of the CCX, a little in the image of what was done to Bulldozer with the modules. One can imagine that AMD is working with Microsoft to implement a system of this type, even if the manufacturer could not confirm it.

Another change that could prove beneficial for games is the arrival of the "Game Mode" of Windows 10, one of the peculiarities of which is precisely there, to move the threads less. Other techniques of mitigation are possible and AMD should present several of them during a session at the GDC, we will talk about it again.

What portion of the gap will be caught by these patches, patches, and modifications? It is impossible to say and we must remain very careful about what the various developers will do or not. The reduced bandwidth between CCX and high latency will remain things that they will not evolve, at least not before a future revision of Zen.
 

Arulan

Member
Impressive work by AMD, but it was over-hyped to some extent. Nonetheless, I'm glad Intel has competition again.

I doubt I'll have a reason to upgrade my 6900K for a long time, perhaps even more so than the 920 before it.
 

prag16

Banned
No the guy mentioned comparisons with the 6950X people were making prior to launch. Those were never comparisons about gaming perfomance, but how it trades blows with that $1600 CPU in CPU benchmarks. That, it clearly does.

You have a short memory if you don't recall people in those threads celebrating and expecting the 7700K to get crushed by these for gaming. (There were a lot of skeptics too to be fair.)

Sure they're nice chips overall, without a doubt. But for gaming they're lacking, and that's what we're talking about here.
 

catmincer

Member
So question I remember with Windows 7 or 8 when bulldozer came out that performance sucked particularly badly. That was then patched within windows and performance increased. Any chance this could be done with Zen?

Fake edit: hmm that patch when googling helped by 2-3% but better than nothing.
 

Pagusas

Elden Member
Impressive work by AMD, but it was over-hyped to some extent. Nonetheless, I'm glad Intel has competition again.

I doubt I'll have a reason to upgrade my 6900K for a long time, perhaps even more so than the 920 before it.

I'd say the best thing about this is forcing intel to lower prices and move to 8/16 chips. I dont really feel they were over-hyped, no one said they'd blow intel out of the water, just that they'd compete at a good price. Other than game performance we are seeing that.
 
Impressive work by AMD, but it was over-hyped to some extent. Nonetheless, I'm glad Intel has competition again.

I doubt I'll have a reason to upgrade my 6900K for a long time, perhaps even more so than the 920 before it.

It was and stocks are suffering for it. I had my limit set at 14.50 tripped earlier. Currently at $13.90. I would buy more stock again, but given the trade cost and the fact I only invested a 1000 initially. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Gotta have money to make money. (Well I made money, just not a ton.
 
I was thinking about buying when there were rumors of samsung buying intel around a year ago. The stock was at like $2 a share then...

I bought in around $13. Was hoping it would make it up the $30 or so... But the stock took a dive today.

I'll hold it for a few months and see how it goes.

The stock had all the looks of a dog when I got it last week. Shitty earnings, obscene debt-to-equity, low inventory turnover (oversupplied with little demand), atrocious profit margin, market value is grossly lopsided compared to its book numbers. Funds from their operations have improved dramatically but we all saw this 5 years ago, too. Worst of all, the competition is sound and not going anywhere.

And now this shit.

I'll give it some time since it hasn't dipped below it's 1-month low.
 

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Its disappointing to me that some feel the need to label AMD a failure if their products don't provide better performance at half the price.

Regardless of the cost of it doesn't beat Intels best it's a failure.
 

Zalusithix

Member
GPU bottlenecks happen when you select graphics settings beyond what your GPU can handle.
Unless you are gaming with an unlocked framerate, your GPU should never be hitting 100% load.
While this is true for most framerate capped games, it's untrue for (some) VR gaming. Valve's renderer can dynamically scale resolution and MSAA levels to make full use of the GPU while maintaining a fixed framerate.

As for the actual Ryzen performance, it's in line with what I was expecting, though the OC capabilities are lower than what I had hoped for. Still, it's the most sensible option for 6+ cores right now, so I'm still favoring it for my rebuild this year. Gaming is just one part of what I do, and I don't do that in a vacuum. There's always other things running in the background sucking up RAM and CPU cycles. As games become increasingly multithreaded, having more cores dedicated to the background tasks is helpful.
 
Any reviews yet on performance of gaming and streaming at the same time? AMD showed their chips performing well but I was hoping to see some real data.

The Arstechnica review mentions a test they did using Dota 2 while streaming. They said the Ryzen based CPU lost less performance than the i7 did, 3 FPS loss to up to 18 FPS loss for the i7, but the i7 was still faster overall.
 

DjRalford

Member
Its disappointing to me that some feel the need to label AMD a failure if their products don't provide better performance at half the price.

Regardless of the cost of it doesn't beat Intels best it's a failure.

I think if it can get within 10% of the i7 its going up against each chip is a winner, 10% performance loss for a 50% price reduction is impressive price / perf
 

Moonstone

Member
The 1700 looks very decent. Highest overclocking potential and should easily run at 3,6ghz+.
6800k is more expensive and Broadwell-E mainboards also. Won't beat 7700k - but still a pretty decent CPU for gaming.
 
I don't understand... How does this make any sense? These games scale past 4 threads and love them!

Source - PCGH


This too, they even disabled SMT and it performed... The same?


Is something wrong? Hmm, frame-times would be very interesting to see.

Gaming performance is... Intriguing, rendering performance is superb as expected, overclocking potential isn't very encouraging, although I do wonder if we'll see higher clocks when the CPUs and platforms mature?


Hmm, interesting. Thanks for posting.
 

V_Arnold

Member
I think if it can get within 10% of the i7 its going up against each chip is a winner, 10% performance loss for a 50% price reduction is impressive price / perf

*DISAPPOINTED* (Insert Hercules gif)
(Actually, I am impressed by these stats now. Eyeing you, 1700, just be cheap in my country plz :p)
 
Its disappointing to me that some feel the need to label AMD a failure if their products don't provide better performance at half the price.

Regardless of the cost of it doesn't beat Intels best it's a failure.

Agreed, the value is pretty great. The reason people are interpreting it harshly here is because gaming performance/OC didn't live up to the hype. When you're making a $300+ CPU decision you can probably afford to wait a little bit though. See what AMD does with optimizations and see what Intel does as a response. Either way you probably win.
 
Its disappointing to me that some feel the need to label AMD a failure if their products don't provide better performance at half the price.

Regardless of the cost of it doesn't beat Intels best it's a failure.

Is anyone saying it's a failure all around? I don't think so. But in gaming it is losing to less expensive intel chips. That's not even remotely close to "better performance for half the cost" it's "worse performance for more cost."

Again this is for gaming, which is what I think most people here are focused on. It doesn't seem very controversial to me.
 

prag16

Banned
Its disappointing to me that some feel the need to label AMD a failure if their products don't provide better performance at half the price.

Regardless of the cost of it doesn't beat Intels best it's a failure.

I don't see anybody here doing that. Outside of gaming, these obviously without a shadow of a doubt have very strong credentials.

But as stated the $500 1800X is getting whupped by the $350 7700K for gaming workloads (especially at 1080p). I'll double check my math, but that doesn't seem to match up with your price/performance assertion.
 
I don't see anybody here doing that. Outside of gaming, these obviously without a shadow of a doubt have very strong credentials.

But as stated the $500 1800X is getting whupped by the $350 7700K for gaming workloads (especially at 1080p). I'll double check my math, but that doesn't seem to match up with your price/performance assertion.
The $350 7700K also whoops $1000 chips for gaming workloads... You're trying to compare apples to oranges.
 

Wanted to quote this for visibility, but yeah, this definitely shows that something is wrong specifically with gaming.

Ryzen performance decreases by about 35% going from DX11 to DX12, in BF1. Intel CPUs, by comparison, either perform the same, gain a little bit, or lose 10% at most.

It's also the only CPU that decreases in performance with DX12 Rise of the Tomb Raider.
 

prag16

Banned
The $350 7700K also whoops $1000 chips for gaming workloads... You're trying to compare apples to oranges.

And that's what I call moving the goalposts. I read through previous Ryzen threads. I know where a lot of people had their expectations set.
 

Livanh

Member
Dont know if this was posted already, german site golem.de said after a bios update on msi boards gaming performance increased by up to 26%, averaging in a 17% increase across tested games.

Verglichen mit dem ursprünglichen Bios steigert das neue UEFI die Bildrate in unserem Spiele-Parcours zwischen plus 4 und plus 26 Prozent, im Mittel gar um plus 17 Prozent! Angesichts dieses gewaltigen Leistungszuwachses mussten wir Gewissheit haben, dass unsere Werte korrekt sind, und haben mit den Asus-Boards nachgemessen. Damit erreichen wir einen Hauch mehr Geschwindigkeit in Games als mit der aktualisierten MSI-Platine.

Compared to the original bios, the new UEFI increases the image rate in our game course between plus 4 and plus 26 percent, on the average even plus 17 percent! In view of this tremendous increase in performance, we had to be certain that our values ​​are correct, and have measured with the Asus boards. This gives us a touch more speed in games than with the updated MSI board.
 
Wanted to quote this for visibility, but yeah, this definitely shows that something is wrong specifically with gaming.

Ryzen performance decreases by about 35% going from DX11 to DX12, in BF1. Intel CPUs, by comparison, either perform the same, gain a little bit, or lose 10% at most.

It's also the only CPU that decreases in performance with DX12 Rise of the Tomb Raider.

I believe it was linked earlier in this thread that Ryzen is apparently pretty poor at handling draw calls? Since the primary benefit of moving from DX11 to DX12 is to increase the amount of draw calls a CPU can handle, maybe Ryzen is getting bottlenecked by too many draw calls?

It's still too early to tell if that's a software issue or hardware issue though.
 

Steel

Banned
Dont know if this was posted already, german site golem.de said after a bios update on msi boards gaming performance increased by up to 26%, averaging in a 17% increase across tested games.

I wonder how fucked the bios is on all the boards if 26% increases happen after a update.
 

kotodama

Member
Dont know if this was posted already, german site golem.de said after a bios update on msi boards gaming performance increased by up to 26%, averaging in a 17% increase across tested games.

Yeah seems there are performance differences between Asus and Gigabyte boards as well. Definitely we need a couple more BIOS updates all around and then rebench.
 

Zojirushi

Member
Dont know if this was posted already, german site golem.de said after a bios update on msi boards gaming performance increased by up to 26%, averaging in a 17% increase across tested games.

Why would AMD risk rushing to launch and have shit like this happen?
 

Xenus

Member
I believe it was linked earlier in this thread that Ryzen is apparently pretty poor at handling draw calls? Since the primary benefit of moving from DX11 to DX12 is to increase the amount of draw calls a CPU can handle, maybe Ryzen is getting bottlenecked by too many draw calls?

It's still too early to tell if that's a software issue or hardware issue though.

Going by the fact it doesn't even effect older AMD CPU's and DX12 has been around for a while before they released the processor. I feel like it's a software bug. Hardware issue in an API that is getting more use going forward would be a major f up.
 
Up to you. I'm keeping but my cost basis is $2.43, so I have breathing room. This is a certainly a good enough CPU to compete with intel's profitable high end in non-gaming circumstances at a much lower price and does reasonably in gaming.

I bought at $3.64 right before the PS4/XB1 came out, I've been in the red for a long time.

I can hold forever !
 

Thraktor

Member
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/

According to this thread, this isn't the case. The other two are more liable to be correct.

Thanks for posting the link, particularly as it includes this graph:


The performance sweet spot for 8 core Ryzen seems to be around 30W, and hitting a Cinebench R15 score of 850 (around what Intel's top of the line 45W TDP laptop CPUs hit) at that TDP is very impressive. Particularly so when you consider that the TDP sweet spot for the 4C/8T Ryzen mobile chips will be around 15W, which positions them perfectly to compete with Intel's most popular mobile processors (which I believe are their 15W U series). Intel doesn't offer a single 4C/8T CPU in that thermal bracket, so there's a good opportunity for AMD to do well there.
 
Top Bottom