AMD Ryzen 7 Review Roundup

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
If you’re done reading Kyle’s take on the 1700X and am interested in what other folks have to say so far about Ryzen, you may check out the review roundup compiled by VideoCardz. I see that there is some degree of whining about gaming performance—does that affect any of you prospective buyers at all?
 
I need to be able to hit 5 GHz under a thermoelectric cooler before I'm happy
 
". I see that there is some degree of whining about gaming performance", heh
 
Yar, majority of my time with my PC is gaming, so it is important to me. Another big concern is that lack of headroom with overclocking. Still nice to see AMD back within striking distance of Intel, though.
 
SeymourGore said:
Yar, majority of my time with my PC is gaming, so it is important to me. Another big concern is that lack of headroom with overclocking. Still nice to see AMD back within striking distance of Intel, though.
Click to expand...
Is this the case? Seems like the max-frequency for the 8-cores is in line with what Intel's 8-core processors can accomplish.
 
make that a maybe instead of a may in the first paragraph... it made me double-look, and ruined the flow.

thx

he Blender demo, which has been touted by AMD for months, fares extremely well will Ryzen crushing the 7700K and 2600K processors. Obviosly the Ryzen has double the cores and threads of these processors, so the results are somewhat expected. Ryzen did however hang tough with the faster-clocked 6900K as well though. This trend continues throughout the content creation numbers. What did surprise us was that the Ryzen actually bested the 6900K when it came to encoding video using HandBrake. Single threaded results are however not impressive

yeah, I know, a stickler, but I AM reading it... LOL I should likely go look at the benchmark pages =) but what I really wanted to know was whether I should buy this hardware, and benchmarks look pretty, but I rely on your opinions more than those.
 
Last edited:
Largely, the same people griping about the lack of a reason to upgrade their 2600k @ 4.5 to a Skylake/Kabylake are the same ones complaining here. A Skylake/Kaby is measurably better for gaming, a Ryzen is measurably better for content creation, but neither is the whole package.

It's a substantial upgrade to pretty much any existing AM3 system and removes the largest part of AMDs performance problem, work per cycle. Now that the throughput is roughly equal, Intel maintains the advantage through regular and consistently higher clock speeds. Instead of being 10 years behind Intel, AMD is now only 5 years behind. Good thing for them that Intel hasn't done anything revolutionary in the last 5 years. :p
 
Im a little bummed. I want to go back to AMD. But for a gamer......doesnt look like I would see any benefit over my 4690k.

Keep going though, AMD. Looks like youve really made some serious progress.
 
AMD fucked up by not releasing quad cores alongside. or at least something to compete with the i5 7600 price.
most people are budget conscious, and don't need 8 cores, and considering the Intel price drops lately, i7K's are looking more enticing.

under $300 for 7700k.
 
It falls right where I was thinking it would, big step up from what they had before, but still doesn't get to Intel level on most things. Which I think is fine considering this was the first big push, however many, if not most people here will be gaming, or gaming will be the biggest most noticeable performance area they care about. People doing work, or work station/server/video/photo work that don't need/want max gaming performance would probably be better served with one of the new AMD chips, if you want top in everything, sadly you are still looking at Intel.

With that said, the Ryzen refresh I hold hope for, being totally new on the block right now, as they move froward I am very curious and even excited to see what they can get out of the platform. Really hope that OC headroom opens up as they move forward as well, while it wont be in my next upgrade, I am excited to see what comes of this.
 
I was really hoping AMD would come through for gaming. Looks like I might be picking up a 7700k.

Is anyone still optimistic about 4/6 core ryzen performance for gaming?
 
Last edited:
Looks great compared to where AMD has been for a long time but, meh. Well maybe not meh, so great multi-threaded performance for the price but not quite enough raw IPC. I don't see thing changing most gamers' product preferences. But for workstation purposes, there might be a good deal of interest in that market for the price.
 
Megalith said:
I see that there is some degree of whining about gaming performance—does that affect any of you prospective buyers at all?
Click to expand...

I use my PC just for gaming and Media needs (movies, etc), everything else I do is on a Macbook Pro 17. I see no current reason to sell off my FX-6300 / GTX 970 combo anytime soon. Using a GTX 1070 I've run the latest greatest games on my 55" Samsung UHD TV and switched back and forth between UHD and HD 1080p and 1080p looks excellent. Sure, UDH is sharper if you're sitting with your face 6" from the screen but I hopefully won't need to play games from that point of view anytime now or in the future. I get 4.6GHz on the 6300 @ 51C max using a Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 mobo and 8GB 1600 DDR3 (soon to be upgraded too 16GB for Mass Effect Andromeda) and a GTX 970 proved to be more than sufficient so I sold the 1070 while the pricing for used 1070's is still rather good. For my situation it would be a much better upgrade to buy a GTX 1080 or 1080 Ti than upgrade to AM4 tech at this time, at least that's my take regarding the Ryzen release. Just as I didn't need Intel CPU's to have excellent gaming experiences I won't need Ryzen either (at least at this time and into the near future) and keyword here is 'need'. But I will wait until next year for the used stuff to post online and then pounce on it {8^D
 
It seems like there's something either wrong with the thread scheduling, or the turbo clocking. Its performance is too good elsewhere to have a 10-20% decrease in gaming comparatively. I really hope they get it straightened out. Competition is good, and this processor should be doing better with its raw numbers.
 
I don't care about 1080p since I run 2560x1600. Frankly, I'm surprised at anyone who would spend $329 on a CPU to game at 1080p in the first place. And to be honest, "complaining" in reviews that Ryzen "only" managed 200FPS when Intel parts got 300+FPS at super-low settings... Really? They even call it "silly territory".

If gaming is all you do and you have no need for broadly-threaded workloads, and you want absolutely insane frames (200FPS+) then Ryzen isn't for you.

But considering where AMD's last set of CPUs sat ("only for people with professional-level application multi-threading who don't care about single-thread") this brings to mind AMD64 vs. Itanium. The first had some sacrifices but still fit into decent CPUs. The latter was disastrous for 32-bit code. That AMD is in the same ballpark while being half the cost at the top end--maybe developers can start taking more than 4 cores seriously since Intel has kept such setups out of the hands of most consumers due to monpolistic pricing.
 
It's certainly not a flop. But it's not a complete home run either. Just nice competition for different workloads.
 
Honestly, I like where this is going. I used to build AMD for my budget gaming rigs all the time, but my last one (Haswell era) I switched to Intel. Ryzens got me tempted to switch back to AMD for my next build if they keep moving up (I prolly wont build a new system til 2019)
 
I do a bunch of x265 video transcoding jobs on my machines, including two that run largely unattended and have no need for gaming muscle. One of them is running a Devil's Canyon i7 and is still kicking ass, but the other is an older i7-3770k, Ryzen looks like the perfect replacement for it, especially the 1700X. Pretty sure I'm willing to give up a little bit of MHz to save 20% off the cpu price. One thing I'd really like to see is how much of an effect memory bandwidth has on these chips, whether DDR4-3000 is worth looking at over DDR4-2400.
 
I'm not sure what to do now. I have a 3770K that is going to go to the wife since her 2600K is dying. I really want to support AMD, because we need get intel competitive on price and innovative on performance again but since my primary use for my PC is gaming and websurfing it seems like a 7700K is the best fit right now. I don't do any content creation at all.
 
Cobra said:
I'm not sure what to do now. I have a 3770K that is going to go to the wife since her 2600K is dying. I really want to support AMD, because we need get intel competitive on price and innovative on performance again but since my primary use for my PC is gaming and websurfing it seems like a 7700K is the best fit right now. I don't do any content creation at all.
Click to expand...

Just curious, how is Intel not "competitive on price"? $299 7700K beats a $500 Ryzen for the workloads most of us are interested in, excepting maybe video transcoding.
 
Sovereign said:
I don't care about 1080p since I run 2560x1600. Frankly, I'm surprised at anyone who would spend $329 on a CPU to game at 1080p in the first place. And to be honest, "complaining" in reviews that Ryzen "only" managed 200FPS when Intel parts got 300+FPS at super-low settings... Really? They even call it "silly territory".

If gaming is all you do and you have no need for broadly-threaded workloads, and you want absolutely insane frames (200FPS+) then Ryzen isn't for you.

But considering where AMD's last set of CPUs sat ("only for people with professional-level application multi-threading who don't care about single-thread") this brings to mind AMD64 vs. Itanium. The first had some sacrifices but still fit into decent CPUs. The latter was disastrous for 32-bit code. That AMD is in the same ballpark while being half the cost at the top end--maybe developers can start taking more than 4 cores seriously since Intel has kept such setups out of the hands of most consumers due to monpolistic pricing.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point of why 1080p and below are such a concern to gamers. The only reason you are not seeing differences at 1600p and above if because you are GPU LIMITED in these situations, so weather you have a i7 6950 or a lower end i5 it will be almost the exact same FPS. But in 1080p and below you are CPU limited so it exposes the limitations of the CPU not the GPU. What this means is as graphic cards become more powerful and require more CPU power to feed them Ryzen will not be able to keep up to Intel, and by the looks of it a very wide margin.

But i do have hope some of this will be fixed with future firmware/software update as it does seem odd compared to the other benchmarks.

What irks me about Ryzen is the limited PCIe lanes and the slow dual channel memory. I think this was a big mistake.
 
I think a bunc[H] of guys over in team 33 would be interested in: how does it fold ?
Can we get some runs with Folding@home, core A7 and get the time-per-frame for a number of projects ?

That would be very much appreciated.
 
Sovereign said:
I don't care about 1080p since I run 2560x1600. Frankly, I'm surprised at anyone who would spend $329 on a CPU to game at 1080p in the first place. And to be honest, "complaining" in reviews that Ryzen "only" managed 200FPS when Intel parts got 300+FPS at super-low settings... Really? They even call it "silly territory".
Click to expand...
I agree, though in real world performance you can run into games where it means the difference between a clean vsync at 60fps or dipping below to the 50s.
 
Maybe AMD will be able to fix the gaming performance with BIOS and software updates as the platform matures. I wonder if this is an issue with all Cards (Radeon and Nvidia) ? I have only read reviews that have used Nvidia cards so far. Has anybody seen any benchmark with a Radeon card ?
 
DPI said:
Just curious, how is Intel not "competitive on price"? $299 7700K beats a $500 Ryzen for the workloads most of us are interested in, excepting maybe video transcoding.
Click to expand...

Well for one thing it wasn't $299 until Ryzen started heavy leaking, and it still isn't in the majority of places people buy them (Newegg, Amazon...).
 
One thing still pulling me toward ryzen is the platform. We know Ryzens successor will still be AM4. Intel changes chipsets every release no matter what shut up consumer.

BUT, if I were building a gaming PC today I'd probably do a 7600k. Relatively cheap and more than good enough to last me a year or two while I see how the market settles.
 
As I predicted. Ryzen with muti-threaded task, like handbrake, is an unbeatable value next to intel's best offerings.

Gaming not so much. But very rarely does a CPU hold back gaming at hi-res. It's usually the GPU.
 
Cobra said:
Well for one thing it wasn't $299 until Ryzen started heavy leaking, and it still isn't in the majority of places people buy them (Newegg, Amazon...).
Click to expand...

Those are normal MC prices, has nothing to do with AMD.

Cali3350 said:
One thing still pulling me toward ryzen is the platform. We know Ryzens successor will still be AM4. Intel changes chipsets every release no matter what shut up consumer.

BUT, if I were building a gaming PC today I'd probably do a 7600k. Relatively cheap and more than good enough to last me a year or two while I see how the market settles.
Click to expand...

So advancing chipsets is a bad thing now? They change chipset yes, however they don't change socket, the 7xxx is still supported all the way down to the H110 chipset, which came out in 2015 btw.

The logic of buying a cheaper, but slower CPU for the better chances of being able to spend more money to upgrade to something a little faster never made sense to me. Big time when those gains have almost never amounted to anything and were never faster than the last gen Intel to start with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DPI
like this
Chebsy said:
Maybe AMD will be able to fix the gaming performance with BIOS and software updates as the platform matures. I wonder if this is an issue with all Cards (Radeon and Nvidia) ? I have only read reviews that have used Nvidia cards so far. Has anybody seen any benchmark with a Radeon card ?
Click to expand...

Few games really take advantage of more than 2 to 4 cores. Since Ryzen's weakness is in single core performance, it's doubtful a bios update or micro-code update will fix a thing. You need raw MHz here.

But I wouldn't worry too much. With this much horsepower, it's rare that a game will be held back that much with a decent GPU at hi-res.
 
Anyone else getting this when they try to read the review?

Code: 
Error 504 Ray ID: 3397b415d4af55a6 • 2017-03-02 22:13:28 UTC
Gateway time-out
 
BlueFireIce said:
Those are normal MC prices, has nothing to do with AMD.



So advancing chipsets is a bad thing now? They change chipset yes, however they don't change socket, the 7xxx is still supported all the way down to the H110 chipset, which came out in 2015 btw.

The logic of buying a cheaper, but slower CPU for the better chances of being able to spend more money to upgrade to something a little faster never made sense to me. Big time when those gains have almost never amounted to anything and were never faster than the last gen Intel to start with.
Click to expand...
I honestly didnt realize a 2015 board could still drop-in a 7700k. That admittedly makes that argument make much less sense.
 
So the message of the day appears to be this: "RYZEN..sucks a lot less than previous AMD chips! LETS CELEBRATE!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: AK0tA
like this
Sovereign said:
I don't care about 1080p since I run 2560x1600. Frankly, I'm surprised at anyone who would spend $329 on a CPU to game at 1080p in the first place.
Click to expand...

I game at 1080p...and I like to do it at max setting while pushing 144 Hz to its envelope. That makes my system more GPU-conscious than CPU-conscious, but I'm not going to spend money on a Ryzen for a sidegrade (at best) compared to my current 3770K.

Hope that AMD makes enough profit to bring us a Ryzen refresh/successor, because I'm going to stick it out until tax return time next year for my full overhaul...
 
Last edited:
DejaWiz said:
I game at 1080p...and I like to do it at max setting while pushing 144 Hz to its envelope. That makes my system more GPU-conscious than GPU-conscious, but I'm not going to spend money on a Ryzen for a sidegrade (at best) compared to my current 3770K.

Hope that AMD makes enough profit to bring us a Ryzen refresh/successor, because I'm going to stick it out until tax return time next year for my full overhaul...
Click to expand...


Honestly , this seems to be the mantra.

I fully expect the same from Vega , so CPU and GPU will be , we don't suck as much as we used to , chest bump for being 2nd place again.
 
HeadRusch said:
So the message of the day appears to be this: "RYZEN..sucks a lot less than previous AMD chips! LETS CELEBRATE!"
Click to expand...

Dahkoht said:
Honestly, this seems to be the mantra. I fully expect the same from Vega , so CPU and GPU will be , we don't suck as much as we used to , chest bump for being 2nd place again.
Click to expand...

Trouble is, if everyone gives AMD a pat on the head and an "awww, well you tried" before heading out to MC to buy a shiny 7700k, who's going to actually buy Ryzen?

There aren't enough Intel/Nvidia hating AMD fanboys or Ryzen sympathy buyers to keep the company propped up.
 
DPI said:
Trouble is, if everyone gives AMD a pat on the head and an "awww, well you tried" on their way to MC to buy a 7700k, who's going to actually buy Ryzen? There aren't enough Intel and Nvidia hating AMD fanboys to prop up the company.
Click to expand...


Oh I 100% agree with you , my gaming rig is a 7700k at 5ghz , but I preordered a 1700 to replace my i5 secondary rig just to see what the thing can do and go from 4 threads to more for more RDP , VM , etc sessions all around. Just to play with really and as hoping that it was everything previews made it out to be as I remember the prices of Intel right before Athlon slapped them around.

Now with the shipping delay I'm questioning whether to just so a 7700k for my secondary machine at 5ghz on 8 threads for slighly less then the Ryzen I was going with.

I'd much prefer AMD to be competitive , but can't put on blinders and agree with the head in the sand fanboys in the AMD forum.

This was in no way a win for AMD. There was genuine excitement before today.

Having to make excuses on launch day is not a "win".


And on the business front ? You're behind the 8-ball having to explain why AMD over Intel to begin with , if it's not better in every way it's a non starter for most business to even think of not going Intel workstations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DPI
like this
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top