First official benchmark

L

Luka

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2016
Messages
130
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_ryzen_7_1800x_1700x_1700/

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu,4951-6.html
' It’s hard to recommend the Ryzen 7 1800X over Intel's lower-cost quad-core chips for gaming, especially given the Core i7-7700K's impressive performance. '


I sort of went to gaming section right away before i looked everything else.

Overall good performance but still slower than Intel counterpart. Reviewers didn't put more games through and i am sure because looks bad for AMD. Bad overclocking just as i said it would be and Intel platform was running stock and we all know that those Intel babies will overclock at least 4.2Ghz not to mention Kaby Lake.

In my opinion Ryzen hype can settle down now. If you have Intel platform stick with it, if you are shopping for a brand new system Ryzen could be a good option and the only reason is price...performance wise meh

Check Toms Hardware review...Intel is killing it. In Ashes Singularity Intel is just killing it.

Ryzen didn't win a single gaming benchmark. I hate that people called me troll and names when i was saying that Ryzen performs at i5 level as far as gaming goes.
 
Last edited:
I don't think there is any surprise these don't overclock like Intels. Intel has been essentially tweaking the same process and processor for a couple of years now.
 
Gaming benchmarks are absolutely atrocious, the 6900K sweeps the floor with the 1800X and even the i5's are beating it in MULTI-THREADED GAMES.
Also the OC tops at 4 GHz, 4.1 GHz if you're lucky.

I may not even wait for the 1600X and just go ahead with my 7700K build. Still need to check out more reviews.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Gaming benchmarks are absolutely atrocious, the 6900K sweeps the floor with the 1800X and even the i5's are beating it in MULTI-THREADED GAMES.
Also the OC tops at 4 GHz, 4.1 GHz if you're lucky.

I may not even wait for the 1600X and just go ahead with my 7700K build. Still need to check out more reviews.
Click to expand...
Yep, i bit the bullet on a 7700k build last month, even in the impending wake of Ryzen. Didn't want to buy into the AMD hype again and I am glad I don't have to feel bad i went that route.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Gaming benchmarks are absolutely atrocious, the 6900K sweeps the floor with the 1800X and even the i5's are beating it in MULTI-THREADED GAMES.
Also the OC tops at 4 GHz, 4.1 GHz if you're lucky.

I may not even wait for the 1600X and just go ahead with my 7700K build. Still need to check out more reviews.
Click to expand...

What really pissed me about AMD BS. is the amount of shit they did with Intel platform in their testing by literally crippling their system and hand picking few benches. I am no Intel fan boy in fact i can't stand that company for their high price but i also do not tolerate bullshit AMD pulled, fooling people into pre ordering
 
Most of the benchmarks I skimmed through show similar thing:

CPU non-gaming related tasks, Ryzen completely kicks Intel's ass.

Gaming wise, not so much...
 
Really expected better results especially in games we've seen use 6+ cores. Very surprising.
 
I know much of the peeps here are all into gaming which I am too, but as a person who works a lot at home and games maybe 30% of the time (overwatch and a bunch of steam backlog) I'm getting more and more excited about upgrading.
 
Wshmaster0 said:
I know much of the peeps here are all into gaming which I am too, but as a person who works a lot at home and games maybe 30% of the time (overwatch and a bunch of steam backlog) I'm getting more and more excited about upgrading.
Click to expand...
No arguments from me, Ryzen seems like a beast for everything that demands CPU and isn't gaming.
 
Hmm...I feel better about my recent $400 i7 6850K purchase.

Ryzen still looks like a great competitor and multi-threaded application use looks great for the money. But those gaming benchmarks are rougher than I expected...
 
As someone who would buy this anyways to play with it because technology, and someone who does not usually subscribe to tinfoil hat crap, I find this line being word for word in nearly every review I've looked at disconcerting:

However there are a few edge cases where AMD is lacking behind 10-20% still, even to Broadwell.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
SighTurtle said:
Shame about gaming performance.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure we can make that conclusion yet. So far, from the reviews posted, we've only seen results from:
Hitman, AotS, Battlefield 4, The Division, Civ 6, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Project CARS, and Metro (Last Light).

Seems to be a very small sampling of games, and interestingly, so many of the sites are using the same games.

How about including some more of the games people are actively playing, such as Battlefield 1, COD, Fallout4, Overwatch, modded Skyrim, Witcher 3, DOOM etc.

I'll wait for more results before coming to any conclusion of Ryzen for gaming. Having high hopes for the [H] review to give us a better picture.
 
Do you guys factor in price when you say "x processor is better" or just the benchmarks? Just asking as dollars probably mean more to me when it comes to which to buy than any of these other numbers.
 
jardows said:
I'm not so sure we can make that conclusion yet. So far, from the reviews posted, we've only seen results from:
Hitman, AotS, Battlefield 4, The Division, Civ 6, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Project CARS, and Metro (Last Light).

Seems to be a very small sampling of games, and interestingly, so many of the sites are using the same games.

How about including some more of the games people are actively playing, such as Battlefield 1, COD, Fallout4, Overwatch, modded Skyrim, Witcher 3, DOOM etc.

I'll wait for more results before coming to any conclusion of Ryzen for gaming. Having high hopes for the [H] review to give us a better picture.
Click to expand...
GamersNexus has Watch Dogs 2 up, another good multi-core game.

EDIT: There's an FO4 and Witcher 3 somewhere.
 
Welp, looks like 7700K or 8700K it is. Looks like AMD went for the fringe users who are interested in encoding and gaming on the same machine. Gaming looks mediocre, at which point I would just build one of the cheap Xeon machines with 20-24 cores for any encoding.
 
I'd like to see a bench where a guy (or gal) opens the following programs:

Maya (or Modo), ZBrush, Substance Painter, Marmoset (or Unreal 4 Engine), Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Premiere (and or After Effects), Chrome with maybe 15 tabs open, Firefox maybe 20 windows open, then starts up a game of Overwatch and in between games, switch out to watch a video or two and/or queue up an encode on Premiere/AE and bake a texture in Substance, at the same time, while compressing a zip file and sending a few FTP files up to a server.

If that all goes while I'm getting 60FPS on OW... for under 800 to upgrade.. sign me up.
 
Well the overclockersclub.com testing, was only using the Gigabyte board, which we know already has less VRM power. They didn't even test the Asus CH6, which reportedly has the best VRM for overclocking.

I'm thinking the Asus, MSI, and Asrock board could easily clock the 1700X to 4.2 to 4.3

What surprised me was how close all three chips tested, very close to each other almost in every test. And the 1700 results were surprising.

In any case, I'm still going to Microcenter today at 10am. Getting the 1700X & CH6 combo.
 
I'm VERY excited for Naples now. I'm still chugging along on V2 Xeons cause they're cheap. Comparing a 1800x to a 7700k isn't really fair or right. Naples is going to offer a nice balance of cores, clock speed and price on the workstation/server platform. I don't need the 1800x because I'm still using a 4790k which is plenty fast but if i were building a workstation and need cores I would go for the 1800x and splurge on SSDs and graphics cards.
 
jardows said:
I'm not so sure we can make that conclusion yet. So far, from the reviews posted, we've only seen results from:
Hitman, AotS, Battlefield 4, The Division, Civ 6, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Project CARS, and Metro (Last Light).

Seems to be a very small sampling of games, and interestingly, so many of the sites are using the same games.

How about including some more of the games people are actively playing, such as Battlefield 1, COD, Fallout4, Overwatch, modded Skyrim, Witcher 3, DOOM etc.

I'll wait for more results before coming to any conclusion of Ryzen for gaming. Having high hopes for the [H] review to give us a better picture.
Click to expand...

Some chinese site did bench on Doom and it is losing horribly in Doom game.
 
I would like to see how things run compiled with plain SSE2 and 64bit. No AVX/AVX2, etc stuff. For our HTPC software that runs on multiple platforms this matters. I don't care about supporting only the last generation or so of intel processors as none of our customers have any of those...
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
GamersNexus has Watch Dogs 2 up, another good multi-core game.

EDIT: There's an FO4 and Witcher 3 somewhere.
Click to expand...
Thanks for mentioning that site. Much more gaming benchmarks. They add:
Watch Dogs 2, Battlefield 1, GTA V, Total Warhammer, and 1440 benches.

Unfortunately, at 1080p, adding those 4 games doesn't change the picture.

Here's the bright side, looking at their 1440p results, Ryzen is negligibly behind. This leads to my (so far) conclusion from the benches:

Ryzen - great value for productivity, with acceptable high-end gaming performance.
 
There was a reason why AMD didn't want the AOTS leak to stay.
r_600x450.png
 
In summary...
Floating point = yay!
Integer = boo!
 
  • Like
Reactions: rehab
like this
TaintedSquirrel said:
SweClockers has FO4, Witcher 3.

http://www.sweclockers.com/test/23426-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-och-7-1700x/19#content
http://www.sweclockers.com/test/23426-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-och-7-1700x/20#content

Among others.
Click to expand...

Let's keep these coming! The more information the better!

Shintai and TaintedSquirrel - wasn't AotS considered "irrelevant" when it was showing AMD GPU's smoking NVIDIA GPU's? Why is it now so relevant when it shows AMD CPU lagging far behind Intel CPU's?
 
jardows said:
Let's keep these coming! The more information the better!

Shintai and TaintedSquirrel - wasn't AotS considered "irrelevant" when it was showing AMD GPU's smoking NVIDIA GPU's? Why is it now so relevant when it shows AMD CPU lagging far behind Intel CPU's?
Click to expand...
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".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top