Broadwell-E vs Ryzen in games (PurePC)

[eclap]

Its a big achievement when the buyer is vendor locked due to loyalty.

So... AMD match Ivy (5 years old). And that's good because some people only buy Intel? I think it's clear why they buy Intel.

 

[Dan_D]

I still think your a little to easy on Intel and their issues, having to recall motherboards is a major fail to me and while this AM4 launch has been less then stellar, I just dont see it as too surprising as they just dont have the funds and staff to make it as smooth as most Intel launches. If Ryzen sells well and they can hire back staff then perhaps that will change and will get better launches, dont get me wrong I would enjoy a smoother launch as well. As for issues you guys have had, I am sure I have read about them on other forums and initial bioses were a mess for most motherboards and caused havoc. As for drivers I have not seen anything on that end being complained about so I am not sure what issue you have had there. I also dont disagree they should have held the launch back to fix these issues, but you push out a delay and some people on the fence will just go and buy something else instead.

Issues with Intel's chipsets and motherboard related products were never as bad as the headlines made them sound. Their worst issue was the Pentium FDIV bug which was handled pretty well. Intel's actually recalled products for issues that "might" happen or would happen under circumstances rarely experienced. I dealt with hundreds of machines using affected chipsets (i820, Z68 etc.) that didn't have any noticeable problems. AMD not having the people to do a smooth launch is pure bullshit. AMD just needed to take a couple of extra weeks to shore up their AGESA code and most of these problems wouldn't have been a factor.

 

[Simplyfun]

Issues with Intel's chipsets and motherboard related products were never as bad as the headlines made them sound. Their worst issue was the Pentium FDIV bug which was handled pretty well. Intel's actually recalled products for issues that "might" happen or would happen under circumstances rarely experienced. I dealt with hundreds of machines using affected chipsets (i820, Z68 etc.) that didn't have any noticeable problems. AMD not having the people to do a smooth launch is pure bullshit. AMD just needed to take a couple of extra weeks to shore up their AGESA code and most of these problems wouldn't have been a factor.

I agree with what you say regarding AMD's launch while still being cognizant of the fact they don't have people and that's that. I disagree with how you smoothed over Intel's clusters fucks. former IBM field manager - Intel had money to smooth over their screw ups and they spent it liberally and often.

 

[Gideon]

Issues with Intel's chipsets and motherboard related products were never as bad as the headlines made them sound. Their worst issue was the Pentium FDIV bug which was handled pretty well. Intel's actually recalled products for issues that "might" happen or would happen under circumstances rarely experienced. I dealt with hundreds of machines using affected chipsets (i820, Z68 etc.) that didn't have any noticeable problems. AMD not having the people to do a smooth launch is pure bullshit. AMD just needed to take a couple of extra weeks to shore up their AGESA code and most of these problems wouldn't have been a factor.

Ok a company that has billions less in resources and has laid off tons of engineers over the years, suddenly has all it needs to have a launch just like Intel (see it sounds insane). You keep thinking they had people available to fix the AGESA code yet it's taking them months with a team dedicated to it, They would have had to delay the launch far longer then you will ever get a CEO to ever agree to. Better hope your servers arent running that Atom chip that likes to brick things, having a entire network go down for a company does not sound good to me, but I am sure that never happens.... To me your expectations of what a company can do with much fewer resources to be severely flawed. Simple fact those teams have to do more with less and at some point you have to pick and choose what is important. To me the biggest failure of the launch was the piss poor motherboard availability at launch which was partly AMD's fault and the motherboard manufactures. Next Zen launch will likely be very smooth as should just need a bios upgrade for motherboards and AMD just has to deliver the chips rather then getting a whole platform running smooth.

 

[Shintai]

Issues with Intel's chipsets and motherboard related products were never as bad as the headlines made them sound. Their worst issue was the Pentium FDIV bug which was handled pretty well. Intel's actually recalled products for issues that "might" happen or would happen under circumstances rarely experienced. I dealt with hundreds of machines using affected chipsets (i820, Z68 etc.) that didn't have any noticeable problems. AMD not having the people to do a smooth launch is pure bullshit. AMD just needed to take a couple of extra weeks to shore up their AGESA code and most of these problems wouldn't have been a factor.

It was clear the CEO had demanded a GDC release at any cost. Not even the board manufactors was ready. But waiting puts it too close to SKL-X I guess.

 

[Dan_D]

I agree with what you say regarding AMD's launch while still being cognizant of the fact they don't have people and that's that. I disagree with how you smoothed over Intel's clusters fucks. former IBM field manager - Intel had money to smooth over their screw ups and they spent it liberally and often.

AMD definitely doesn't have Intel's resources. I agree with that and I've said as much many times. I still say they could have made the launch a lot smoother than they did. AMD obviously weighed its options and made the choice they did because they felt it was the right one. I disagree, but that's just my opinion.

Ok a company that has billions less in resources and has laid off tons of engineers over the years, suddenly has all it needs to have a launch just like Intel (see it sounds insane). You keep thinking they had people available to fix the AGESA code yet it's taking them months with a team dedicated to it, They would have had to delay the launch far longer then you will ever get a CEO to ever agree to. Better hope your servers arent running that Atom chip that likes to brick things, having a entire network go down for a company does not sound good to me, but I am sure that never happens.... To me your expectations of what a company can do with much fewer resources to be severely flawed. Simple fact those teams have to do more with less and at some point you have to pick and choose what is important. To me the biggest failure of the launch was the piss poor motherboard availability at launch which was partly AMD's fault and the motherboard manufactures. Next Zen launch will likely be very smooth as should just need a bios upgrade for motherboards and AMD just has to deliver the chips rather then getting a whole platform running smooth.

First off, I have never said that AMD had the resources to ensure a launch as smooth as Intel's launches. I said, and stand by the statement that AMD could have made different choices which could have resulted in a smoother launch than this. The AGESA code, and getting that out earlier is all that it would have taken to get many of these issues ironed out. Sure, I think the AMD platform will always be behind Intel's in some ways with regard to the issues they have at launch so long as the financial gap between the two companies remains as it is today.

You do bring up a good point about Intel's resources. When Intel screw's the pooch it whips out its wallet and gets to smoothing shit over. Intel takes its lumps and gets on with things. Intel's recalls of the Pentium 60/66, FDIV bug, chipset SATA issues, i820 SDRAM recall, and a whole bunch of other shit were costly mistakes. That said, I used, worked on and dealt with large system deployments using some of those systems and I'm telling you that down in the trenches, most of those problems weren't readily if ever apparent. It's not the same as damn near every single AM4 motherboard being gimped on RAM speeds. Other issues that I've experienced are more brand specific, but those issues are likely caused by the motherboard manufacturers not having the time to properly QVL their shit prior to release. That AGESA code fuck up is also what delayed the shipment of so many motherboards to market. When the bulk of products ship via the ocean, you can't release final AGESA code to the motherboard manufacturers three weeks before launch and expect for motherboards to be on shelves in time for the launch of a CPU that needs those motherboards.

It's unlikely that the delays that led to the late release of the AGESA code was any one thing or that the delay was necessarily due to something that happened late in the process. It may not have been fully correctible with a delay of a couple of weeks. More than likely, shit was mishandled near the start of AGESA code development and that trickled down. I still think AMD would have or should have benefited from a couple weeks to a month of delays but they chose to proceed anyway. This puts a lot of the pressure on the motherboard manufacturers rather than them and that's probably what it was going for.

It was clear the CEO had demanded a GDC release at any cost. Not even the board manufactors was ready. But waiting puts it too close to SKL-X I guess.

That's just it. The motherboard manufacturers weren't ready because AMD didn't have its shit together. I knew this months ago from talking with those motherboard manufacturers about AM4. Ordinarily, ASUS has its shit together well before launch. GIGABYTE and MSI are usually a bit closer to the wire, but aren't far behind. No one seems to have shit fully straightened out. The one thing they have in common is working with AMD and its not hard to figure out that AMD pressured these motherboard manufacturers into rushing products to market.

I stand by my statement that AMD could have handled this shit much better than they did. Intel's screw ups are actually larger / bigger in most cases but Intel also handles its fuckups in a more timely manner. In the end, the consumer feels less impacted by Intel's fuckups than by AMD's. That's been my experience anyway. And yeah, that comes down to cash flow. I never said it didn't. That doesn't mean that AMD gets a pass for not making better decisions.

 

[s002wjh]

either way its clear ryzen 5 1600 has tremendous in game and more so in productivity.

 

[Gideon]

It's not the same as damn near every single AM4 motherboard being gimped on RAM speeds.

Last I checked no manufacture guarantees overclocked ram to work and no business cares due to the fact they only run at JDEC spec. I just dont see that as a failure, sucks for enthusiasts no doubt but hardly a serious failure. I do agree releasing the AGESA code so late to motherboard manufactures caused the issues to be even worse. Plus dont forget Intel needed some time as well to get higher ram speeds to work as well. I just disagree that a overclocking feature not working is a major failure on AMD's part. I mean on mine I have double rank dimms and mine is running at 2666 not the 3200 they are rated for, hopefully they will get the speeds up but I can live with 2666 speeds as well.

 

[DuronBurgerMan]

So... AMD match Ivy (5 years old). And that's good because some people only buy Intel? I think it's clear why they buy Intel.

If you're poor, or just a serious cheapass like me, you buy AMD or fleabay some old Intel parts. In that context, Ryzen can be a decent alternative. God only knows where a fleabayed Haswell or Ivy Bridge as been, or what kind of hell it's been put through. So you can buy a Ryzen instead and save yourself the "joy" of craiglisting and fleabaying parts, and get more or less the same performance. This is especially interesting if you could use 6 or 8 cores, or if you're comparing a dual core Intel to a quad core Ryzen. AMD will give you more cores for the money, even if each core is kind of sh*tty.

But that being said, in any kind of like-to-like comparison, Intel will dominate. Not even by a little bit, either. It will be an outright slaughter. 4c Ryzen vs 4c Intel? Intel dominates. 6c vs 6c? Intel dominates. Same with 8 cores. And AMD doesn't even have a 10c answer yet.

And in exchange for not dealing with the hassles of fleabay and craigslist, you get to deal with BIOS teething problems. So your mileage may vary. If you're cheap, broke, or just poor... you're going to sacrifice something. AMD at least gives you a choice as to which poison pill you want to take with that new build.

 

[Dan_D]

Last I checked no manufacture guarantees overclocked ram to work and no business cares due to the fact they only run at JDEC spec. I just dont see that as a failure, sucks for enthusiasts no doubt but hardly a serious failure. I do agree releasing the AGESA code so late to motherboard manufactures caused the issues to be even worse. Plus dont forget Intel needed some time as well to get higher ram speeds to work as well. I just disagree that a overclocking feature not working is a major failure on AMD's part. I mean on mine I have double rank dimms and mine is running at 2666 not the 3200 they are rated for, hopefully they will get the speeds up but I can live with 2666 speeds as well.

I've been critical as hell of Intel's Z170, Z270 and X99 motherboards and their poor XMP compatibility. X99 has gotten particular ire from me for its low clock speed capability. I'm well aware of this. However, the "not guaranteed above JEDEC spec" is a weak excuse under the best circumstances. I've at least been able to do DDR4 2666MHz on every Intel chipset board I can think of with up to 4x DIMMs. With regard to AMD, supposedly nothing beyond DDR4 2400MHz is supported. I've never gotten a reliable result on AM4 above DDR4 2400MHz with more than four different memory kits. X99 hasn't improved its memory clocking capability too much since its introduction. Broadwell-E is only slightly better than Haswell-E in this regard. I am less hopeful AMD will get that resolved without a hardware revision.

 

[s002wjh]

But that being said, in any kind of like-to-like comparison, Intel will dominate. Not even by a little bit, either. It will be an outright slaughter. 4c Ryzen vs 4c Intel? Intel dominates. 6c vs 6c? Intel dominates. Same with 8 cores. And AMD doesn't even have a 10c answer yet.

And in exchange for not dealing with the hassles of fleabay and craigslist, you get to deal with BIOS teething problems. So your mileage may vary. If you're cheap, broke, or just poor... you're going to sacrifice something. AMD at least gives you a choice as to which poison pill you want to take with that new build.

not sure where u get the idea of "complete dominated" not according to all the benchmark I saw, there are advantage to intel, sure, but no overwhelming especially when compare to price/performance ratio

 

[DuronBurgerMan]

not sure where u get the idea of "complete dominated" not according to all the benchmark I saw, there are advantage to intel, sure, but no overwhelming especially when compare to price/performance ratio

Price/Performance is good. But on an absolute performance level, Ryzen was dominated. It comes down to the fact that AMD has only a fraction of the resources Intel has. They don't have the cash, the personnel, the industry presence to defeat Intel. I think back in the late 90s and early 2000s, Intel slipped up a few times, and AMD had some seriously talented people, and the gap almost closed. That was a perfect storm for AMD, but even that was not enough.

AMD is not likely to ever see the performance crown again. But what they can do, and what to some degree they have done with Ryzen, is to play to Intel's weaknesses. Intel wanted to maintain the exclusivity of CPUs with 6 or more cores, this way they could charge a lot more money for them. Ryzen came and offered an inexpensive alternative. Not as fast, not as good, but far cheaper. AMD can also offer quads for the price of Intel duals, and again, find a buyer for those. Ryzen is well positioned for a low-power mobile CPU, as well, perhaps allowing 6 and 8 core parts on laptops. Again, this is market Intel could serve, but has, for whatever reason, decided not to serve.

AMD can plug the holes in Intel's lineup, and offer a good range of inexpensive budget CPUs for the mainstream, and the occasional cheap-ass enthusiast. They have the resources for that, though I do wish they would manage them a little better, as Ryzen's launch left a lot to be desired.

 

[Gideon]

Price/Performance is good. But on an absolute performance level, Ryzen was dominated. It comes down to the fact that AMD has only a fraction of the resources Intel has. They don't have the cash, the personnel, the industry presence to defeat Intel. I think back in the late 90s and early 2000s, Intel slipped up a few times, and AMD had some seriously talented people, and the gap almost closed. That was a perfect storm for AMD, but even that was not enough.

AMD is not likely to ever see the performance crown again. But what they can do, and what to some degree they have done with Ryzen, is to play to Intel's weaknesses. Intel wanted to maintain the exclusivity of CPUs with 6 or more cores, this way they could charge a lot more money for them. Ryzen came and offered an inexpensive alternative. Not as fast, not as good, but far cheaper. AMD can also offer quads for the price of Intel duals, and again, find a buyer for those. Ryzen is well positioned for a low-power mobile CPU, as well, perhaps allowing 6 and 8 core parts on laptops. Again, this is market Intel could serve, but has, for whatever reason, decided not to serve.

AMD can plug the holes in Intel's lineup, and offer a good range of inexpensive budget CPUs for the mainstream, and the occasional cheap-ass enthusiast. They have the resources for that, though I do wish they would manage them a little better, as Ryzen's launch left a lot to be desired.

Ok this is getting a bit old, Ryzen did not get dominated by Intel, does Intel still hold the crown sure. But most of us were expecting Ryzen to loose at everything and it actually ended up winning quite a few benchmarks, if it could overclock a bit more then Intel would have been in some trouble. So if you were expecting the second coming of the Athlon, well you over hyped yourself and that is no ones fault but your own. If you hate your Ryzen purchase there is a member looking to trade his 7700k for your 1700. It really never matter if AMD ever holds the performance crown again, long as they are close they will make plenty of cash, the reality is the performance gains we used to get every generation are gone as we come closer to the wall of what silicon can do.

 

[DuronBurgerMan]

Ok this is getting a bit old, Ryzen did not get dominated by Intel, does Intel still hold the crown sure. But most of us were expecting Ryzen to loose at everything and it actually ended up winning quite a few benchmarks, if it could overclock a bit more then Intel would have been in some trouble. So if you were expecting the second coming of the Athlon, well you over hyped yourself and that is no ones fault but your own. If you hate your Ryzen purchase there is a member looking to trade his 7700k for your 1700. It really never matter if AMD ever holds the performance crown again, long as they are close they will make plenty of cash, the reality is the performance gains we used to get every generation are gone as we come closer to the wall of what silicon can do.

I don't hate it, and if I were to trade up, it would be to a 6900k (or a Skylake-X, when they come out), not a 7700k, which has too few cores for my graphics work. I'd been working on a quad (2600k) for far too long. Never going back to anything less than 8 cores. Kyle said it himself more than once since Ryzen came out. The future isn't in quads anymore. Better to have 6 or 8 cores, if you can swing it. Ryzen sure makes that more affordable for the average Joe.

We probably are coming up on the end of silicon, though. So the future is either going to be more cores and threads, or maybe some other material, or something else entirely. 7nm is probably the end. In the near-to-mid term, however, my money (and AMD's, apparently) is on cores and increasing thread awareness. But we'll eventually run out of steam on that, too.