im still running <--- this ok, i went from ancient 920 to the x5650 but the difference was massive in smoothness from OS to gaming just going from 4core to 6 at the same clocks. I ran my 920 @ 4Ghz and even the xeon at 4Ghz was much much smoother. I would never use a 4 core agaon, gaming or otherwise. I read some rumor that AMD are going to release a 1900x in a few months which is a better binned 1800x Its crap that they dont overclock much, but 3 years of having a tornado in my man cave with my current CPU and cooler at max i'll enjoy the quiet
To those who keep mentioning AMD stock price as if that shows Ryzen has been a massive failure. Well, the stock price is still up 550% compared to this time last year. So that means Ryzen has lived up to most of the hype it generated.
Of all time for Hilbert to be sick, he gets sick on the ryzen release date... It's an Intel conspiracy I tell you! They must have sent an agent to infect him with the flu. :evil2:
The facepalm in the image intentional or just coincidence? that is alot cores doing almost nothing though
Windows 10 Creators update is a major update coming out for Windows shorty. Remember the look of it doesn't mean anything, since 99.999 percent of Windows is what you don't see. Current version of Windows 10 has zero optimisations for Zen, but full optimisation for Skylake (and by extension, Kaby Lake). Creators update will supposedly have optimisations in place for Ryzen. Another consideration is the drivers. Reviewers paired it with a GTX 1080 because it is currently the fastest GPU and is less likely to 'bottleneck' results, however it in itself is providing a comparative bottleneck for Ryzen. Like Windows, the current NVidia drivers have zero optimisations for Zen, and whether they fully optimise it is also questionable since their main competitor is a different department of the same company that makes Ryzen (AMD of course). The latest AMD display drivers have at least some optimisations in place for Zen in terms of coding, at least one would think, and user reviews hints towards this as the gaming results shows a different disparity between Ryzen and RX 480 than an i7-7700K and RX 480. There could be future optimisations for the AMD drivers later, and in particular I'm sure Vega and Ryzen will be tuned to work harmoniously.
That just sounds like a lot of excuses. Windows is not ready for Ryzen, Nvidia gpus are not ready for Ryzen, then we had motherboards not ready for Ryzen reviews etc. Quite what I would describe as a messy launch. I'm still going to hold out a few weeks to see how all of this resolves. I really want to try a Ryzen but I want to see some consistency from it. Atm I don't know what to believe, poorly managed launch from AMD.
Not really. By the time most people actually can get Ryzen and build it, the Creators update will likely be in release so you can make use of any processor scheduling and other optimisations. In terms of NVidia, you probably wouldn't expect them to be optimised because they can't optimise for a final product until it is ready... also the product is from a different department of their main competitor, so they may never optimise it to its full potential. This would be on NVidia, not AMD. Intel would be in the same position if they had a brand new architecture, using a new memory type etc. Kaby Lake is already optimised by extension from Skylake, and if you go back through the CPU's the optimisations largely follow through right back from Sandy Bridge. For Ryzen, they're starting off from where Sandy Bridge was in a comparative sense. For DDR4 memory, Intel already had experience with that from Haswell-EX LGA2011 processors through to now, for AMD they're starting off from where Haswell-EX was (and they had quad-channel memory to cover up any deficiencies). It's why I'm suggesting Insider Preview 15048 with RX 480 on the latest 17.2.1 driver, with Ryzen compared to i7-7700K, everything else the same, since I believe it will show different results. It will also be more indicative of what most people should expect in a couple of months. Keeping in mind of course further improvements with updated bios and microcode, and driver optimisations with Vega etc expected later.
So when Athlon 64 was released and it steamrolled Intel, how come there was none of these issues with Nvidia, Windows etc? Same goes for core 2 duo, there was great performance from day one, nobody was making excuses about this and that. Those CPUs were good from get go. Everything above is excuses. It's all a bit frustrating because I was hoping for a better CPU for gaming. And I can kinda see a lot of potential in Ryzen so I'll wait to see how things develop.
Huh? Were you actually around for Athlon launches? That had plenty of issues and needed patches, software side as well.
I remember having to take a new video card back because it was incompatible with the specific chipset for my first Althlon 64 pc... that was fun -_-
You do understand that by todays standards, the Athlon 64 is a basic processor That's like asking why there's so many bugs in games today when there weren't many if Pong Either way, with every new "environment", (aka complete overhall, not just these tiny bumps that Intel has done the past few years) there have always been bugs to be ironed out.
True, but the 32-bit execution side of Athlon 64 wasn't excessively different to that of the previous Athlon processors. Running 64-bit on Athlon 64 was faster than running 64-bit on the later 64-bit Pentium 4's because the Pentium 4 wasn't design around 64-bit, it was merely an addon to the existing architecture. It therefore ran 64-bit as slow if not slower than 32-bit, which hugely hurt the uptake of 64-bit. So the Athlon 64 was largely the same in terms of optimisation when running 32-bit apps, and 64-bit you couldn't directly compare since by its nature, the 64-bit apps were alreday at least partially optimised for the platform. The Core 2 Duo was a huge leap from Pentium 4, however it too benefitted from an architecture that had already been around. The Core 2 was largely based on the Pentium M, which in turn was based on the P6 architecture that had been around since 1995. So the Core 2 benefitted in terms of optimisation from technology that had been around for 10 years when it was launched. A good example of this woudl be doing a comparative run on Kaby Lake of a program optimised using an old version of the Intel Compiler Library versus the same program wtihout the optimisation. The optimised version will still run faster on Kaby Lake. Ryzen on the other hand is completely new, and can't make use of older optimisations. Additinally, any program optimised with ICL (particularly older versions) actually run slower than the non ICL counterpart.
Awesome review HH as always. I will not lie, I like the little grammar mistakes in your articles, it lets me know that a human is putting his time into a passion. Have you tested these processors with an AMD gpu? I am curious to see if it makes a difference across all the tests. Most likely it will be the same story on the gaming benchmarks, but you love benchmarking right? Cheers everyone.
That's quite true though. I don't know how much you've dabbed with open source, where all this is... open in the air, but yeah... The Windows scheduler and driver are obviously not ready, and more importantly, compilers aren't yet ready, for most games at least. I actually find it interesting that even in games where Ryzen loses (GTA V), in videos it's obviously smoother than Intel.
This. People who had Athlon/Opteron 64's remember them fondly but they had big problems at launch. The only chip that was remotely competitive was the FX-51. That chip launched a legend but there were bugs galore to begin with. Ryzen has been far more successful - Broadwell-E IPC, who would have dreamed that? Not me that's for sure.
Often the case is that the market behaves the opposite of what the man in the street expects. Short term investors enjoy a product run up in stocks of all kinds, then sell and take profits--called "profit taking." The only "decision" investors like this make is when to sell to maximize their profits--it's certainly not a comment on the Ryzen release at all... Don't look to short-term investors to tell you much about products or companies--they are all in it for the quick buck. "Serious investors" jump in for the long term. AMD's P&L for the rest of the year will decide the value of the stock this year.
