Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Mar 2, 2017.
Waiting for dumps disassembling analysis for SMT..
Not impressed by the game benchmarks.
Will be interesting to see if Vega is the same big hype.
I just want to understand why performance are very different ( different testing method ? )
Awesome review HH. 6700k/7700k gamers wont be rushing for a Ryzen, unless they can use other areas it excels in. Performance in line with other reviews, so nothing odd in G3D review.
Sweclockers Fallout 4:
Not sure if worth $ difference 1800x is over 1700x in overall results too, not just gaming.
It's not bad no, but looking at all the various reviews, I don't think ram improvements would answer the whole story.
We'll find out anyway, I'd like to think Zen+ will be my next upgrade
Doesn't look like a bandwidth issue, but a latency issue judging from a wide array of reviews...
Bandwidth is anywhere between 30-45GB/s depending on the MHz and timings...
Latency tho' never goes lower than 80ns... and as high as 100ns+
Gaming results could be suffering because of that, or just the weaker IPC/unoptimized code...
Yes great review and amd is back in the game, those games benchmarks are an oddity though considering the cores are capable of better performance in games as mentioned in the review, perhaps that's fixable via microcde updates or even scheduling updates for Windows.
all in all though I'm more than happy with performance of the 1800x and I certainly find it humorous with some of the comments I've seen on other sites in relation to the gaming benchmarks saying how amd has failed again etc etc.
If I had the cash I'd be swapping my 6700k for the 1800x without hesitation, gaming performance more than good enough and I also do a fair amount of hevc encoding
Makes sense tbh. I think it could mean Zen+ will fair a hell of a lot better?
So for gamers, 1800x isn't a "buy" but could very well path the way to a Zen+ upgrade
How does the new AMD CPU expose the SMT/HT cap-bit?
Did someone measure the CPU time of the drivers on gaming benchmarks?
Yeah, for 4x the cost... https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i7-695...F8&qid=1488472804&sr=8-1&keywords=intel+6950x
But as HH showed in his memory bandwidth issue, there seemed to be nearly a 40% performance (I didn't do the math, just an estimation) increase just by bumping the memory roughly 1000MHz. That's enormous. I have no doubt that latency is part of the issue, but bandwidth seems to be a greater issue. After all, that is 16 threads. I'm not confident that more memory channels would help, but a higher frequency would.
Also, IPC is very good.
For people still unconvinced by the gaming benchmarks.
Starts at 12:05
SMT On and Off In gaming a difference of 2fps average.
Looking over gaming results from various benchmarks even replacing a 6600K/7600K would be a rather blunt investment at current state, if the main workload of the rig is gaming ofc.
But then again, seeing the minimum fps in some of the games with SMT disabled in the video above...
I definitely wouldn't buy anything based on how it may or may not perform in the future, don't have that much money to just gamble away, rather wait a bit until AMD, Microsoft etc. gets the missing link sorted out.
As for the rest, I would like to see how Ryzen (and other CPU's for that sake) handles Sony Vegas, Cakewalk SONAR, Steinberg CUBASE etc.
More like real programs instead of the usual synthetic benchmarks.
power consumption power efficiency
Please perform a power consumption comparison as well to include in your part 2. this was standard practice in bulldozer/piledriver reviews. its only fair to continue the practice. I haven't see a fair power consumption comparison in any of the reviews yet. I wonder whether Intel is influencing these reviewers.
Cancelled my pre-order for now (which was pushed back anyway). Not because of Guru3D, of course but the very mixed results across all outlets.
The bottom line however seems to be this:
1. Ryzen falls behind rather largely if the GPU bottleneck gets remove (<Full HD)
2. Ryzen is overall fantastic value all around with longevity for the average user
3. The 1700 is likely the R7 to pick up (OC to 1700X/1800X levels)
4. If 1. holds true Ryzen will turn in a 'soon to be had' bottleneck. (I'd still give it at least 2 GPU generations) - But then again things may get flipped on its head entirely as the 7700K may pushes the current boundaries anyway.
I'll sit out another month or two (and the 1600X release) and then decide whether my Ivy gets to enjoy its pension or not. Until then hopefully most drivers, patches and otherwise chipset/BIOS updates should've happened.
Thanks for the fantastic review; looking forward to the others.
Yeah, its looking like we got a major hype-train derailment.
Yeah, Ryzen is showing poorly here, I've noticed this on other sites too. It's such a pity because otherwise it would be a no brainer for everybody. Maybe there's a couple of fixes that can help with this. Be it updated bios to support faster rams, the SMT on performance drop, waiting game
I´ve been reading reviews from other sites to get a clearer picture of Ryzen and now i think i can make some conclusions:
- it really excels in MT benches making it a great cpu for those you can make use of all the cores.
- power consumption is on par with Intel´s 8 cores cpus
- 1800X is the worst cpu of the 3 being released, it barely overclocks and the 1700 can be overclocked to reach the same performance despite being much cheaper. The 1700X is marginally better. So the best of them seems to be the 1700 by far.
I get the feeling that all the guys who pulled the trigger and bought the 1800X/1700X are going to be disappointed...
- rushed reviews, AMD marketing team made a huge mess of Ryzen´s release, with reviewers complaining about lots of small problems like rushed BIOS and several revisions of the same, Windows updates that are affecting gaming results, boards that run don´t as well as they should and so on... Some sites like Anandtech are even splitting their reviews in parts so they can cover all the stuff...
How can some guys **** up this much...
- it "sucks" at gaming! This last part really pains me to write, but Ryzen´s weak point is gaming, posting disappointing results in every review! Not to mention the extra cores do nothing in games!...
Some say it´s because of SMT, AMD says it´s because of a future Windows update...
So, it´s still a great cpu but only for specific tasks. In my case the thing that matters the most is gaming and after all the reviews i read, it seems i can skip Ryzen and buy a 7600K.
Hilbert, can i ask you an huge favor??? A special article only about gaming with Ryzen as the star, of course! I would love to see it, alonside other Intel´s cpus. running several games at several resolutions, showcasing the effects of higher speeds and higher core counts in gaming.
I know this alot to ask because of the time required but i would love it!
it is as it use DDR4, and is more modern architecture...
-CPU are always weaker at start on some point because it is new... for Ryzen it is memory as for an exemple. but i guess it will be corrected in a few.
-Some program need an update to perform better (oh no no i don't point BF1 ) or a driver (remember the AMD's CPU driver on AMD64 with XP64).
bref si j'étais toi j'attendrais un peu que ca se tasse et pas essuyer les platres, mais c'est un tres bon CPU pour AMD
Moreover it seems to me the sample of games used in all those benchmarks are largely in favor of Ryzen as far as multi threaded performances are concerned...
What about Fallout4, Dota2, CSGO, Arma3, DayZ, Ark, Rust ect.. You know all those not so well optimized games that totally dominate the market in term of hours played...