The amount of disappointment is directly proportional to how excited you get by rumors.
This is a very good step up for AMD. They're competitive again.
-
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
- Thread starter ·feist·
- Start date
This is a very good step up for AMD. They're competitive again.
Yeah, I think WD2 has pretty good predictive power.You're forgetting to take the twice more CPU cores aspect of Ryzen into consideration here. The fact that 7700K is somewhat faster right now in modern games even when running GPU limited doesn't mean that this will still be the case tomorrow on faster GPUs as future games may take a much better advantage of Ryzen's 8 cores and Ryzen will get ahead.
Durante posted the WD2 result already:
This is a sign of things to come.
That said, a 6800k might be a better deal at the gaming enthusiast level, both for current and future games, if you take OC potential into account.
I agree. People would be much less disappointed if they just stopped listening to the wccftechs and semiaccurates of the world.
Risk Breaker
Member
That's because differences in frequency are more noticeable at lower frequencies afaik.
In any case, this discussion is like looking at this image:
and saying that a 6900k or 6950x is a worse CPU than a 7700k, or that a 5820k is bad for gaming.
They are different CPUs for different purposes. The fact is that, for a low pricepoint, you can have an 8-core CPU at 4 GHz with decent temperatures and power consumption, which will give you massive advantages in some workloads, while being slightly slower at gaming, but still have very decent and reasonable performance.
LordOfChaos
Member
Yup yup. Even if Ryzen isn't all someone expected, it's still going to be a great thing. Bulldozer was just an ill thought out architecture where a modest i3 could roll 8 of its 'cores' 90% of the time. Ryzen, even if a step behind Intel, will still bring them to being more competitive than they have in a decade and a half.
With this evolutionary convergence, I expect AMD and Intel both to enter/stay in the slow gains phase (until we're past silicon), so they'll stay competitive and Intel isn't going to magically pull 50% more IPC any time soon.
With this evolutionary convergence, I expect AMD and Intel both to enter/stay in the slow gains phase (until we're past silicon), so they'll stay competitive and Intel isn't going to magically pull 50% more IPC any time soon.
For gaming it still seems like the 7700k is the better choice coming from either of those. In the UK the 1700 is roughly the same price as the 7700k. I suppose Ryzen 5 might fare better assuming the clocks are higher but they're not releasing until sometime in Q2.
I'd assume that Ryzen 7 would eventually outperform Kabylake in games in the long run but is that really going to happen in a quick enough period of time where you won't already be thinking about upgrading? For anything other than pure gaming, Ryzen 7 is a no brainer though and it's good to see them finally back after the mess that Bulldozer was.
I've been itching to move away from my 2500k for a while now and pushing 120hz on it is starting to show its age.
Even if Ryzen 5 performs about the same performance-wise, it'd still be over a hundred dollars cheaper than what it competes with.
dr_rus
Member
Well, if we're talking about overclocking then 1700 OC will likely be a better option than 6800K OC. It's 25% cheaper and have two more CPU cores, it's also seems to be the better overclocker out of the whole Ryzen 7 family.
Not sure if AMD priced there right if this is how it performs... Like if the 1800X was $100-150 cheaper it would be flying off the shelves.. Especially for gamers.
$500 is too much for me if it performs like this on games, I wonder how the 1700 fares..
Looks like I will be holding onto this 5820K for years to come.. Sadface..
$500 is too much for me if it performs like this on games, I wonder how the 1700 fares..
Looks like I will be holding onto this 5820K for years to come.. Sadface..
Cow Mengde
Banned
Yup. This is exactly what I was hoping for, and AMD delivered on that front.
Beerman462
Member
The 6 and 4 cores should OC better right? Seems temp is the issue so fewer cores should mean lower temps. Might not beat Intel, but might close the gap.
Good idea. I want to see this as well.
Good idea. I want to see this as well.
It really is the same fucking cycle over and over again.
An average consumer shouldn't be getting these chips unless they are editing videos on a smaller budget. Outside of that, there absolutely no reason to get any of these AMD chips other than purposely getting worse performance for the sake of giving money to someone other than intel.
These chips aren't competitive for gamers.
What could explain the difference in results between gamersnexus and computerbase. Location of testing?
Gamersnexus shows a very different picture with a stock 7700k without HT beating an overclocked 1800x. I don't really understand how there could be such a massive difference in the same game.
They weren't targeting these at gaming(8 cores). These are competing with intels $1000 processors. The 1600x will probably perform better for gaming purposes and it'll be $260.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
I don't see myself buying an 1800X but this does make AMD competitive again.
To me what I see as being the biggest plus is that it opens the door to optimization beyond four cores, which is something that is badly needed.
To me what I see as being the biggest plus is that it opens the door to optimization beyond four cores, which is something that is badly needed.
ethomaz
Banned
Well it was not what the hype of few weeks made us expect.
But it is a solid launch and the best part? The price are really competitive... of course it is not a Intel killer like K8 (Intel still ahead in IPC terms) but it did close a enormous gap in multi-core performance... game performance is a bit sad but well nothing can be perfect in everything.
Great job AMD.
But it is a solid launch and the best part? The price are really competitive... of course it is not a Intel killer like K8 (Intel still ahead in IPC terms) but it did close a enormous gap in multi-core performance... game performance is a bit sad but well nothing can be perfect in everything.
Great job AMD.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
My guess would be we'll really need proper cooling solutions to see 1800x shine, as the stock clock delta of 200MHz is indeed nothing major.
Plenty of parallel workloads that SMT improves, normally in the 10-15% range.
Insane Metal
Member
So... great for apps, average for games.
Too bad for us
Too bad for us
Possibly. Unless you want to build within the next few weeks, waiting for Ryzen 5 seems like a smart decision.
No one should be disappointed in how Ryzen is performing, people correctly assumed how it was going to turn out months ago. If you need a workstation with more cores/threads then AMD are blowing Intel out of the water when it comes to price performance but for the moment they're still behind on single thread performance which for now is what will affect game performance.
If you're a streamer or your PC is multi-purpose then AMD just handed you a CPU that outperforms a $1000 CPU on most tasks for half the price.
LordOfChaos
Member
http://techreport.com/news/31528/valiant-delidder-finds-solder-under-ryzen-heatspreader
Soldered, not thermal compound. Shouldn't have gap problems like some Intel IHSs, which could see a 5-15C drop when repasted.
Soldered, not thermal compound. Shouldn't have gap problems like some Intel IHSs, which could see a 5-15C drop when repasted.
What could explain the difference in results between gamersnexus and computerbase. Location of testing?
Gamersnexus shows a very different picture with a stock 7700k without HT beating an overclocked 1800x. I don't really understand how there could be such a massive difference in the same game.
Could be different motherboard BIOS or different memory settings.
It's a new platform as well as a new CPU so some of these issues could have nothing to do with the CPU and be entirely down to motherboard firmware.
ethomaz
Banned
It was clear no CPU can live the hype people created in the previous threads based in the "leaks".
AMD did a great job.
What A Time To Be Alive
Member
Benchmarks are legit all over the place.
Just watched Joker's review of the R7 1700 matching up to a 5GHz 7700k in gaming performance but an 1800X is struggling to match a 7350k in some games.
Something is going on :S
Just watched Joker's review of the R7 1700 matching up to a 5GHz 7700k in gaming performance but an 1800X is struggling to match a 7350k in some games.
Something is going on :S
LordOfChaos
Member
DeadManWalking
Member
I only trust gaming nexus for reviews they do a great job. That sniper elite demo. lmao AMD.
very disappointing.
very disappointing.
6600k master race.
In theory, yes. Less cores to overclock means less heat/power, and less of a chance at getting a bad core holding you back.
In terms of the 8 cored chips, I expect the average OC to be higher than these reviews, as it's all a lottery, new bios vers, more mature chips. With good cooling, 4.2 avg with 4.3/4.4 doable on a good chip at some point I'd say. Roughly the same speeds as the 6900k.
Let's hope you are correct. I hope their lower core count chips overclock well..
Sir Abacus
Member
That's indeed impressive but the problem is that in most games, Kaby Lake suitably keeps up for 2/3 the price again.
I was in the camp knowing it wouldnt be a great gaming chip for the price.
And watch all the hype start again with their next wave.
Seems like these are really pushed to their limit in terms of what they can do in production.
Nostremitus
Member
What motherboard and BIOS revision was Joker using?
shark sandwich
tenuously links anime, pedophile and incels
Nope, we've already proceeded to the "[Intel/Nvidia] may be better now, but later on down the line once games make better use of [Vulkan/Mantle/DX12/more cores] then it's gonna be a different story!" stage.
I'm looking forward to the "Gentoo Linux compiled for this architecture runs amazingly fast" stage.
AstroNut325
Member
Insane Metal
Member
Damn
The performance per dollar of the 1700 (and per Watt) is pretty incredible for workstation tasks like rendering. I set up a small distributed rendering system for an architectural company a year or two ago, and the cost per node (for equivalent performance) was probably about double what you'd pay now for a 1700 build with a cheap B350 mobo.
What could explain the difference in results between gamersnexus and computerbase. Location of testing?
Gamersnexus shows a very different picture with a stock 7700k without HT beating an overclocked 1800x. I don't really understand how there could be such a massive difference in the same game.
look like there is something strange with computerbase.de results for the 7700K, lookin at their benchmarks vs other sites the Ryzen scores almost identical to other sites, but their 7700K seems a bit off. (but just guessing here)
Hello everyone,
I am relatively new to PC gaming (and Gaf) and I was wondering if the discrepancies between the regular pc benchmarks, which show an incredible performance for the 1800x for the price, and the gaming benchmarks, which are a little baffling considering the single and multicore benchmarks, could be related to some form of optimization? Quad Cores have been the norm for gaming PCs, considering intel has dominated the market, could future newer games invest and take advantage of the additional cores and therefore give much better results? Maybe the 1800x is a better future proof chip for a new PC? I am just looking for insight, and any will be appreciated. Oh and it is great to be part of the forum and being able to ask this kind of questions.
Great day to you all.
I am relatively new to PC gaming (and Gaf) and I was wondering if the discrepancies between the regular pc benchmarks, which show an incredible performance for the 1800x for the price, and the gaming benchmarks, which are a little baffling considering the single and multicore benchmarks, could be related to some form of optimization? Quad Cores have been the norm for gaming PCs, considering intel has dominated the market, could future newer games invest and take advantage of the additional cores and therefore give much better results? Maybe the 1800x is a better future proof chip for a new PC? I am just looking for insight, and any will be appreciated. Oh and it is great to be part of the forum and being able to ask this kind of questions.
Great day to you all.
Right, but we knew that already. Kaby Lake was always going to be better for the majority of games - it has a >10% clockspeed advantage and Ryzen's extra cores (which you're paying for) don't matter if they're not used.
ethomaz
Banned
When I saw the 5.2Ghz @ LN2 screen with 2.0 vcore I know the consumption will be big.
Beerman462
Member
Yeah, this could be a big win in enterprise. Like if I was buying a bunch of systems that needed good multithreading I'm buying RYZEN and saving a lot of dough.
I wish I had been wrong about this, but I saw it coming a mile away.
Definitely not a CPU to buy for gaming - and I don't think that anyone should expect the hex-cores to perform any better.
Seems like great value for certain types of workload that benefits from all 8 cores and is suited to their architecture though.
The only thing increasing resolution does is compress the differences between CPUs because you're now running a GPU-bound test instead of a CPU-bound test.
That's why all CPU testing should be done at 1080p or lower. I would use 720p to ensure that the GPU never hits 100% load.
Unfortunately that's the only desktop CPU Intel have released with it. Generally the high-end iGPUs with eDRAM are mobile-only chips.
People were very disappointed when Intel did not release a desktop Skylake CPU with eDRAM.
It would be very interesting to see how things would perform if Intel were to actually put that eDRAM on a high-end CPU, since the 5775C really punches above its weight in certain games/applications.
I don't care about the iGPU at all, but would pay for that cache.
Don't expect the 6-cores to be any better, as those are just 8-cores with two cores disabled; i.e. failed 8-core CPUs.
It should boost up higher if only 4 threads are being worked hard.
I had been waiting for these reviews before deciding between a 7700K or a 1700/X build, but now I'm thinking that waiting for that 6-core Coffee Lake CPU in 2H17 is going to be worthwhile.
Then again you could keep waiting for faster hardware forever. I really should have upgraded my 2500K to a 6700K in August 2015.
Definitely not a CPU to buy for gaming - and I don't think that anyone should expect the hex-cores to perform any better.
Seems like great value for certain types of workload that benefits from all 8 cores and is suited to their architecture though.
Well lower resolutions are where the CPU matters most in gaming, since you're less likely to introduce a GPU bottleneck.
The only thing increasing resolution does is compress the differences between CPUs because you're now running a GPU-bound test instead of a CPU-bound test.
That's why all CPU testing should be done at 1080p or lower. I would use 720p to ensure that the GPU never hits 100% load.
If I recall correctly, those CPUs do particularly well in certain games/applications due to the 128MB of eDRAM on-board for the iGPU, which the CPU can use as a large L4 cache.
Unfortunately that's the only desktop CPU Intel have released with it. Generally the high-end iGPUs with eDRAM are mobile-only chips.
People were very disappointed when Intel did not release a desktop Skylake CPU with eDRAM.
It would be very interesting to see how things would perform if Intel were to actually put that eDRAM on a high-end CPU, since the 5775C really punches above its weight in certain games/applications.
I don't care about the iGPU at all, but would pay for that cache.
When AMD announced that XFR would only push the frequency up by 100MHz, and their demo at the press event of a water-cooled chip crashed when trying to run all cores at 4.1GHz, any hope for them being good overclockers went out the window.
Don't expect the 6-cores to be any better, as those are just 8-cores with two cores disabled; i.e. failed 8-core CPUs.
I was under the impression that Ryzen dynamically adjusts clockspeed based on the workload though.
It should boost up higher if only 4 threads are being worked hard.
Indeed.
I had been waiting for these reviews before deciding between a 7700K or a 1700/X build, but now I'm thinking that waiting for that 6-core Coffee Lake CPU in 2H17 is going to be worthwhile.
Then again you could keep waiting for faster hardware forever. I really should have upgraded my 2500K to a 6700K in August 2015.
If you're willing to overclock the 1700 is the best choice for any scenario (and even if you're not it's likely to be the best value for money).