First official benchmark

I don't get all the doom and gloom, it's doing a lot better than I expected it to. Surprisingly so!
 
am I crazy... but who games at 1650 rez? I game at 4k... and the CPU's I saw tested all show the same scores?

but reading this thread... ryzen will gimp your games?
 
If you are at 4K the gaming performance is essentially at parity with the Intel CPUs in particular the 6 and 8 core models.

In workstation tasks and most other things beyond games it seems to do very well.

While the 1080p gaming results are not good in some cases. From a practical standpoint I have to ask myself what that matters.

There are possibilities for improvements since everything is on new gen1 hardware and also early BIOS revisions. There are no guarantees.
 
Dullard said:
I don't get all the doom and gloom, it's doing a lot better than I expected it to. Surprisingly so!
Click to expand...
well you have a lot of intel fanbois at heart... who were waiting to dump on RYZEN...and what benchmarks are bad? like I said who games at 1650?
 
Shintai said:
There was a reason why AMD didn't want the AOTS leak to stay.
r_600x450.png
Click to expand...

TaintedSquirrel said:
Because it's a properly threaded game and the API doesn't favor one CPU brand over another.
Weird to compare GPU and CPU markets. Also I don't know who called it "irrelevant".
Click to expand...

tomshardware.com review said:
“Oxide games is incredibly excited with what we are seeing from the Ryzen CPU. Using our Nitrous game engine, we are working to scale our existing and future game title performance to take full advantage of Ryzen and its eight-core, 16-thread architecture, and the results thus far are impressive. These optimizations are not yet available for Ryzen benchmarking. However, expect updates soon to enhance the performance of games like Ashes of the Singularity on Ryzen CPUs, as well as our future game releases.” - Brad Wardell, CEO Stardock and Oxide
Click to expand...

*shrugs*
 
Riptide_NVN said:
If you are at 4K the gaming performance is essentially at parity with the Intel CPUs in particular the 6 and 8 core models.

In workstation tasks and most other things beyond games it seems to do very well.

While the 1080p gaming results are not good in some cases. From a practical standpoint I have to ask myself what that matters.

There are possibilities for improvements since everything is on new gen1 hardware and also early BIOS revisions. There are no guarantees.
Click to expand...
a voice of reason speaks
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Because it's a properly threaded game and the API doesn't favor one CPU brand over another.
Weird to compare GPU and CPU markets. Also I don't know who called it "irrelvant".
Click to expand...
I'm speaking more generally, when the AMD fans were all pointing to how great the AMD GPU's performed in AotS, and the NVIDIA defenders were crying that it was a benchmark only, no one played it, so it shouldn't be used to determine performance. Now I'm seeing people using it to highlight how "bad" Ryzen is at gaming. Thing is, the performance gap between Ryzen and 7700K is much worse on this benchmark than any other gaming benchmarks, so I'm not sure if it really is that relevant to the whole discussion.

One thing I am finding more interesting is how many of the benchmarks are showing the 7700K vastly outperforming the 6900K. So you spend $1000 on a CPU to get worse gaming scores than a $399 CPU? Something isn't adding up to how these products are being positioned, or maybe there is something not quite right with the testing procedures.

And now the real review is up! http://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/03/02/amd_ryzen_1700x_cpu_review
 
Riptide_NVN said:
What is taking [H] so long to get theirs up?
Click to expand...

[H] CPU review will change nothing in this landscape as Kyle tend to do very few gaming benchmarks which it's what most of us are interested here, and the few games he test are far from realworld.. so everything what are you watching outside [H] is what Ryzen is, just a "decent" CPU for the price, same was said with bulldozer and the gaming bottlenecks at 1080P, Ryzen out of the gate is already bottle-necking 2560x1440 that's not a good sign of future proof.
 
jardows said:
One thing I am finding more interesting is how many of the benchmarks are showing the 7700K vastly outperforming the 6900K. So you spend $1000 on a CPU to get worse gaming scores than a $399 CPU? Something isn't adding up to how these products are being positioned, or maybe there is something not quite right with the testing procedures.
Click to expand...

This has been a fact since... hmm. ever?. specially with the launch of the high clocked haswell 4790K.
 
As I suspected, if you're a gamer, the Intel 7700k is what you want. Even at stock speeds, the 7700K is 10 to 20 frames ahead in most games. Never mind a 7700K running at 5ghz.

Not to take anything away from AMD's Ryzen.

The best gaming you can possibly have is a 7700K @ 4.9ghz or 5.0Ghz along with a new GTX 1080ti.

Before anyone quotes me and wants to say Ryzen matches the 7700K in gaming ... it clearly DOES NOT. So save it.

I have my 7700K at 4.999ghz with memory at 3265. FSB is 102.150
 
Serious question. What is the point of the 1800X? Heck even the 1700X? You pay $100-200 more for a better clockspeed? Dafuq.
 
jardows said:
I'm speaking more generally, when the AMD fans were all pointing to how great the AMD GPU's performed in AotS, and the NVIDIA defenders were crying that it was a benchmark only, no one played it, so it shouldn't be used to determine performance. Now I'm seeing people using it to highlight how "bad" Ryzen is at gaming. Thing is, the performance gap between Ryzen and 7700K is much worse on this benchmark than any other gaming benchmarks, so I'm not sure if it really is that relevant to the whole discussion.

One thing I am finding more interesting is how many of the benchmarks are showing the 7700K vastly outperforming the 6900K. So you spend $1000 on a CPU to get worse gaming scores than a $399 CPU? Something isn't adding up to how these products are being positioned, or maybe there is something not quite right with the testing procedures.

And now the real review is up! http://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/03/02/amd_ryzen_1700x_cpu_review
Click to expand...

It's because AMD themselves were the ones telling reviewers to use AOTS to show off their DX12 path. And now NVIDIA cards are faster at it AND Intel CPUs are faster at it. The reason people dismissed it was because at the time there was no other game that showed such stark differences in performance.

The 6900k isn't really marketed as a gaming CPU; it's marketed towards content creators while the 7700k is for the mainstream. Ryzen looks like a great deal for content creators and honestly it does well enough at gaming but most of us here are interested in pure gaming performance.
 
-Strelok- said:
Serious question. What is the point of the 1800X? Heck even the 1700X? You pay $100-200 more for a better clockspeed? Dafuq.
Click to expand...
I saw one site get 4.1 GHz on their 1700, the highest OC.
The X chips are absolutely not worth the money.
 
Not sure what reviews a bunch of people are reading, looks great same perf for less cost in multi core applications and games at 1440 with very similar perf. PCper thinks that there's a bug and was also spotted elsewhere disabling SMT improved performance quite a lot for some benchmarks.
I don't know anyone that just uses their PC for games only, but then again I do play sports and enjoy consoles as well, perhaps different crowd.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
I saw one site get 4.1 GHz on their 1700, the highest OC.
The X chips are absolutely not worth the money.
Click to expand...

Ya thank god I didn't preorder, I was gonna get the 1700X, but now I'm heading to Microcenter and getting the 1700 instead, save me $70. But a 1GHz OC is very impressive on 8 cores.

And I use my system for photo processing, as well as gaming, so this is an overall great performing processor. At the price you can't beat it.
 
I legitimately was thinking doom and gloom going through the comment section. I guess I tend to look at things differently like how does it compare to last gen (if some of you remember, Phenom II x6 was still a better CPU than the initial Bulldozer releases). 10-20 frame difference in a new architecture against a tweaked one doesn't concern me at all, as long as they are legitimately heading in the right direction, but only time will tell. I still might buy a 1700 but I'm looking forward to the next releases.
 
SixFootDuo said:
As I suspected, if you're a gamer, the Intel 7700k is what you want. Even at stock speeds, the 7700K is 10 to 20 frames ahead in most games. Never mind a 7700K running at 5ghz.

Not to take anything away from AMD's Ryzen.

The best gaming you can possibly have is a 7700K @ 4.9ghz or 5.0Ghz along with a new GTX 1080ti.

Before anyone quotes me and wants to say Ryzen matches the 7700K in gaming ... it clearly DOES NOT. So save it.

I have my 7700K at 4.999ghz with memory at 3265. FSB is 102.150
Click to expand...

Not one review tested a 1080ti, and so you honestly game @ 1080?
Guru has for 1800x vs 7700 @ 1440
Hitman dx12
1 fps difference
Tomb raider 1 fps
FC primal 0

Looks pretty similar...
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
shad0w4life said:
Not one review tested a 1080ti, and so you honestly game @ 1080?
Guru has for 1800x vs 7700 @ 1440
Hitman dx12
1 fps difference
Tomb raider 1 fps
FC primal 0

Looks pretty similar...
Click to expand...

Because they're likely GPU bound at that point; that doesn't speak anything of CPU performance...

Lower resolutions remove GPU limits and lets the CPUs show their true potential.

EDIT: That's why the [H]ardOCP review has games at 640x480 - absolutely no GPU bottleneck anymore and shows pure CPU performance in games.
 
shad0w4life said:
Not sure what reviews a bunch of people are reading, looks great same perf for less cost in multi core applications and games at 1440 with very similar perf. PCper thinks that there's a bug and was also spotted elsewhere disabling SMT improved performance quite a lot for some benchmarks.
I don't know anyone that just uses their PC for games only, but then again I do play sports and enjoy consoles as well, perhaps different crowd.
Click to expand...

wasn't AMD SMT supposed to be way superior to intel's HT?? (even if they are just the same)...
 
Hardocp had the best gaming benchmark by setting resolution so low and eliminating GPU bottleneck completely and we can see that Ryzen is not doing well. So what will happen as video cards get better and better, you will see a bigger and bigger gap between Ryzen and Intel cpus in 2k and 4k gaming. Don't forget that Skylake X is around corner with a new lga 2066 socket.
 
I'm so damn disappointed that 4.1ghz is like the max. The 1800x is literally maxed out. No point in water cooling to get more speed. I was literally hoping for 4.4 to 4.5ghz to match 5960x or 6900k max overclock. I'm not buying a chip that can't. This would be a huge down grade in gaming compared to my 4790k @ 4.8ghz. I might not notice much at 1440p but still. It would be a side grade and have more cores for everyday use I guess.
 
Shintai said:
Performance was also going to be much better. Haswell IPC and what not ;)
Click to expand...

DX12/Vulkan is going to save bulldozer, now we hear DX12/Vulkan is going to save Ryzen in the Future, what nice of AMD always thinking in the Future. ;)
 
Furious_Styles said:
If they did them all at 4k what you would see is GPU limitations not CPU.
Click to expand...
exlink said:
Because they're likely GPU bound at that point; that doesn't speak anything of CPU performance...

Lower resolutions remove GPU limits and lets the CPUs show their true potential.

EDIT: That's why the [H]ardOCP review has games at 640x480 - absolutely no GPU bottleneck anymore and shows pure CPU performance in games.
Click to expand...

If you don't game at 640x480, then what does it matter if IPC superior there? If you don't game at 1080p, why does it matter if IPC superior there? If 1440 and 4k is roughly equal between the two, and Ryzen has superior capabilities if you do anything other than gaming, then why would Ryzen not be a good choice?
 
SilverSliver said:
If you don't game at 640x480, then what does it matter if IPC superior there? If you don't game at 1080p, why does it matter if IPC superior there? If 1440 and 4k is roughly equal between the two, and Ryzen has superior capabilities if you do anything other than gaming, then why would Ryzen not be a good choice?
Click to expand...

Everyone doesn't get what they think is the most relevant to them sadly. If it was up to me [H] would do 1440p 16:9 @ 120/144hz. Best settings for that game to maintain smooth/high FPS. And I'd usually put the boot to motion blur and sometimes DoF. And I never said Ryzen is a bad choice I don't believe. I think Ryzen (thus far) is not worth it if you primarily game. If you do lots of other stuff it does have good value. Maybe the full line up will also give us something I'll be out there on the fence waiting :)
 
Furious_Styles said:
Everyone doesn't get what they think is the most relevant to them sadly. If it was up to me [H] would do 1440p 16:9 @ 120/144hz. Best settings for that game to maintain smooth/high FPS. And I'd usually put the boot to motion blur and sometimes DoF. And I never said Ryzen is a bad choice I don't believe. I think Ryzen (thus far) is not worth it if you primarily game. If you do lots of other stuff it does have good value. Maybe the full line up will also give us something I'll be out there on the fence waiting :)
Click to expand...

I really doubt the rest of the line will be IPC competitive, or overclock well, considering what we are seeing right now.
 
SilverSliver said:
If you don't game at 640x480, then what does it matter if IPC superior there? If you don't game at 1080p, why does it matter if IPC superior there? If 1440 and 4k is roughly equal between the two, and Ryzen has superior capabilities if you do anything other than gaming, then why would Ryzen not be a good choice?
Click to expand...

That's my only issue with only showing 640x480 results. They're interesting, but not entirely useful since no one in 2017 is ever going to play a game at that resolution. IMHO - 1080p results are still CPU limited and there are many people playing games on 1080P 144hz monitors. You also raise a good point about the fact that Ryzen becomes a better value proposition if it can adequately feed a GPU at 1440P/4K and do tasks outside of gaming faster.
 
SimianRob said:
That's my only issue with only showing 640x480 results. They're interesting, but not entirely useful since no one in 2017 is ever going to play a game at that resolution. IMHO - 1080p results are still CPU limited and there are many people playing games on 1080P 144hz monitors. You also raise a good point about the fact that Ryzen becomes a better value proposition if it can adequately feed a GPU at 1440P/4K and do tasks outside of gaming faster.
Click to expand...

You can go test Ryzen in one of the most CPU intensive scenes in FO4 for example with dual 1080TI/Titans and you still get 30-40FPS in 4K while a 6700K/7700K gets 60+. Minimum FPS is another matter.

Using lowres is an easy way to eliminate other factors without too much work.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Because it's a properly threaded game and the API doesn't favor one CPU brand over another.
Weird to compare GPU and CPU markets. Also I don't know who called it "irrelevant".
Click to expand...


“Oxide games is incredibly excited with what we are seeing from the Ryzen CPU. Using our Nitrous game engine, we are working to scale our existing and future game title performance to take full advantage of Ryzen and its 8-core, 16-thread architecture, and the results thus far are impressive. These optimizations are not yet available for Ryzen benchmarking. However, expect updates soon to enhance the performance of games like Ashes of the Singularity on Ryzen CPUs, as well as our future game releases.” - Brad Wardell, CEO Stardock and Oxide


Creative Assembly made a similar post as well about oddities noticed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top