.

Status
Not open for further replies.
ZeroBarrier said:
I don't think people are bashing Ryzen for the sake of bashing it. I and others have said before it is competitive in performance/dollar in certain scenarios, that's not up for debate. What I and others are saying is that people shouldn't be defeding the weaknesses of Ryzen and mmaking excuses for AMD just because they want to see the company succeed. No one should be doing that for any company, period.

I'm curious though, all this time people have been drawing attention to Ryzen and the fact that it's stellar in rendering when not GPU accelerated; so how does it perform when it is GPU accelerated? Is it better, on page par or worse than Intel in that regard? Because if it's on par or worse, then what's the point of getting a Ryzen chip at all unless you're not upgrading/sidegrading but building your first workstation.


So far we know that if gaming is the goal, don't get Ryzen; if rending without GPU, then get Ryzen; but what if rendering with GPU acceleration like I'm sure most professionals already do, what then?
Click to expand...


Only ignorant teenagers only use their computer for gaming. Their roid rage drives the need for combat games. Once they move beyond that theyrealize a computer can doa whole lot more. There are very few games if one IGNORED synthetic benches where actual performance on Ryzen would be a noticeable disappointment. This is childisn breast beating on the part of the fanboy lynch mob led by Shintai. As others with calmer heads have said Ryzen has met its stated goals in performance. It is a close competitor of Intels best chips and has credible gaming performance that will only get better with tweaks and optimizations. It will succeed and also propel AMD to capture significant server market share in the next few years. Only good things lie ahead in the next few years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zuul
like this
CSI_PC said:
The problem for now is the behaviour of CCX, and one of my concerns is the voltage requirements for Rysen as it is just too high (fingers crossed this is a platform/HW maturity issue otherwise this will hurt).
To put into perspective, a 10core 6950X can run all cores at 4GHz stressed with just 1.2V and use the Noctua D15, and this behaviour is consistent across the board for Broadwell-E (unless one is unlucky).
For similar all core clocks Ryzen needs anywhere from 1.3V to 1.43V depending upon the stress application used.

That is my biggest concern going forward with Ryzen, and fingers crossed it be maturity issues rather than inherent to the design as I feel Intel take the piss with their pricing for HEDT and deliberately keeping EDRAM away from desktop apart from the 65W Broadwell (would be great seeing it on Skylake/Kabylake).
Cheers
Click to expand...

Regardless why does it matter if it uses similar or less power?
 
os2wiz said:
Only ignorant teenagers only use their computer for gaming. Their roid rage drives the need for combat games. Once they move beyond that theyrealize a computer can doa whole lot more. There are very few games if one IGNORED synthetic benches where actual performance on Ryzen would be a noticeable disappointment. This is childisn breast beating on the part of the fanboy lynch mob led by Shintai. As others with calmer heads have said Ryzen has met its stated goals in performance. It is a close competitor of Intels best chips and has credible gaming performance that will only get better with tweaks and optimizations. It will succeed and also propel AMD to capture significant server market share in the next few years. Only good things lie ahead in the next few years.
Click to expand...

Just because someone else uses a PC differently than you doesn't mean they are "ignorant teenagers", in fact you sound worse than an ignorant teenager bby just spouting that shit like if it's a fact.

I suggest you keep stereotypes and the like to yourself, because you're making yourself look like even a bigger fool now.
 
I think you should focus on the greatness of the 1700x and 1800x. Performance wise the 2600k is not in the same perfomance workstation class of the 1700x or the 1800x. I enjoy over clocking and I think the over clocking satisfaction may be greater on the 1700.

AMD delivered a power house in terms of workstation performance beyond just gaming. AMD Ryzen has redefined performance and value for mainstream PC users.
 
SonDa5 said:
I think you should focus on the greatness of the 1700x and 1800x. Performance wise the 2600k is not in the same perfomance workstation class of the 1700x or the 1800x. I enjoy over clocking and I think the over clocking satisfaction may be greater on the 1700.

AMD delivered a power house in terms of workstation performance beyond just gaming. AMD Ryzen has redefined performance and value for mainstream PC users.
Click to expand...

You must have missed the fact that the 2600K the OP has is running at 5.1GHz and was released 6 years ago, SIX YEARS AGO.

In comparison to Kyle's benchmark numbers where the 2600K was only clocked at 4.5GHz and keeping up with the 1800X in single threaded tests, at 5.1GHz it likely hands the Ryzen chips their asses in sigle threaded tasks; a 6 year old chip...

I think the OP is fine with his chip, no Ryzen will beat it in single threaded applications or gaming. And considering it is a 4C/8T chip, it's not trying to masquerade as a workstation CPU.
 
ZeroBarrier said:
You must have missed the fact that the 2600K the OP has is running at 5.1GHz and was released 6 years ago, SIX YEARS AGO.

In comparison to Kyle's benchmark numbers where the 2600K was only clocked at 4.5GHz and keeping up with the 1800X in single threaded tests, at 5.1GHz it likely hands the Ryzen chips their asses in sigle threaded tasks; a 6 year old chip...

I think the OP is fine with his chip, no Ryzen will beat it in single threaded applications or gaming. And considering it is a 4C/8T chip, it's not trying to masquerade as a workstation CPU.
Click to expand...
What the fuck are you smoking. What af 2600k does doesn't mean shit. Ryzen matches latest Intel chips in single threaded benches? What are you trying to get at? You say shit that is only half of the truth. But you forgot to mention that Ryzen matched latest Intel chips clock for clock in every benchmark other than games, and jokers video shows it keeping toe to toe at 1080p running at 3.9ghz. What is your point? 2600k highly overclocked in that case also keeps up with every Intel latest chip. So does that prove latest Intel chips are shit?

Common now. Get back to reality and off your hate horse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zuul
like this
Exactly. A 5.1 GHz Sandy makes any same core # Intel chip a worthless upgrade too.
 
Frankly the only shit thing about Ryzen for me is the fact that AMD did not do shit about drawcall performance since Phenom I. Come on now, it can't be that hard, can it?
 
If you think Ryzen is a terrible overclocker compared to previous generations, then you obviously don't remember the first run of Athlon 64 and Phenom. You were lucky to get 200-400mhz more out of them without exotic cooling.

That being said, no one gave a shit that Athlon 64 first run was a terrible overclocker since it was head and shoulders above Intel at the time. Phenom was a different story, as that was the start of AMD falling behind again.

The situation has changed a bit since then, and AMD desperately needed the OC headroom on these chips to really seal the deal with enthusiasts. I have a feeling that we will see 4.5-5ghz Ryzen chips in the next couple years after a few respins to fix issues and the foundaries start to get better.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
You were lucky to get 200-400mhz more out of them without exotic cooling.
Click to expand...
You need to be lucky to get even 0Mhz out of 1800X compared to it's single core turbo. While having way higher clocks than either Phenom I or Athlon64.
 
lolfail9001 said:
You need to be lucky to get even 0Mhz out of 1800X compared to it's single core turbo. While having way higher clocks than either Phenom I or Athlon64.
Click to expand...
You get 400mhz of Turbo up from it's stock speed of 3.6ghz. That's 400mhz of overclock right there. Granted it's "turbo" but AMD themselves have refered to it as automatic overclocking.

I'm sure people will split hairs over that and rightfully so, especially since it's built in by AMD and covered under warranty. Nevertheless, the core still has 400-500mhz of headroom at its stock speed. ;)
 
Is there a way to OC 4 cores and downclock the other 4 cores on 1800x?

Example, run 4 cores at 4.6ghz turbo and downclock the other 4 cores to 3.4ghz turbo.

That would help crappy console ports a lot.
 
Lastan010 said:
Is there a way to OC 4 cores and downclock the other 4 cores on 1800x?
Click to expand...
No, if you engage OC mode, you OC all cores at once... Because you disable power management, like if you were BCLK OCing Skylakes.
CaptNumbNutz said:
You get 400mhz of Turbo up from it's stock speed of 3.6ghz. That's 400mhz of overclock right there. Granted it's "turbo" but AMD themselves have refered to it as automatic overclocking.
Click to expand...
That's like claiming 2696v4 is a great overclocker because it's turbo clock is 1.5Ghz higher than base.
 
ZeroBarrier said:
You must have missed the fact that the 2600K the OP has is running at 5.1GHz and was released 6 years ago, SIX YEARS AGO.

In comparison to Kyle's benchmark numbers where the 2600K was only clocked at 4.5GHz and keeping up with the 1800X in single threaded tests, at 5.1GHz it likely hands the Ryzen chips their asses in sigle threaded tasks; a 6 year old chip...

I think the OP is fine with his chip, no Ryzen will beat it in single threaded applications or gaming. And considering it is a 4C/8T chip, it's not trying to masquerade as a workstation CPU.
Click to expand...
According to guru3d benchmark, the 1800x beat out the latest 8 core i7 in single and multi threaded benchmark with both cpus running at 4.3ghz.

How do you explain that? With low res games that heavily rely on Intel cpus? Get a clue.
 
lolfail9001 said:
1800X running at 4.3Ghz? You wat mate?
Click to expand...

Not a sinlge one of the chips can hit anything higher than 4.1GHz without crashing, and now he says that there's one hitting 4.3GHz? At what vcore? 2.0?

The imagination of AMD fanboys are a terrible thing, and their rose colored glasses make it even worse.
 
lolfail9001 said:
1.6V should be enough, actually.

Good luck cooling it without subzero and making it last for longer than 2 hours, but it is feasible
Click to expand...

Now we know why AMD did the LN2 overclock before release. It was the only way to get this chip passed the numbers on the tin, lol! :ROFLMAO:
 
Krenum said:
Only one I've seen at 1440P. Seems pretty competitive at 1440p if this review is true.

Click to expand...


You do realize that you won't see the issue at anything over 1080p and all low settings to remove the GPU bottleneck, right? So at anything like 1440p you'll be masking the issue with a GPU bottleneck.
 
ShuttleLuv said:
I was going to get Ryzen but have decided not to. I was pumped about it for months, don't even try that crap on me like I'm against it. I want AMD to succeed. I know all about the SMT issue but it's really silly you shouldn't have to be disabling things and tweaking cores after spending $400-500 on a cpu that promised somewhat more. It's unnacceptable at the pricing currently. If they drop to $200-250, that's another story.
Click to expand...

Dude it's brand fucking new!!!! It's literally a few days old to the public. Teething issues just like the 1st revision of sandy bridge boards, guess what, I waited for B3 revision to avoid sata issues and other crap that Intel launched to the public in a far, far worse state than Ryzen. But the outrage was nothing like when AMD beats a $1k Intel CPU, how funny. Guess what, it didn't put me off it completely and I bought later on. Are you actually [H] or just here to concern troll?

If you went by some reviews of Ryzen, they make it sound like you'd practically be better running a 333MHz cyrix gold top for gaming and that Ryzen sucks worse than bulldozer.
Did you decide to dump nvidia after they failed with w10 drivers too? Isn't there still an outstanding windowed SLI issue or some crap? Jesus the concern trolling around Ryzen is ridiculous.

Give them time to WORK WITH PEOPLE ON THE INTEL COMPILER BASED GAMES AND FIX IT. Just like you all gave Intel and Nvidia time to fix much larger issues with past products.


Edit: Oh yeah and my 2600k *quad core* only did 4.4 or so without crazy volts. Meanwhile people are whining about an 8 core CPU with similar IPC getting to 4.1GHz? that's like two OC 2600ks!! It would eat video editing workloads for breakfast. Intel doesn't clock 8cores much higher either but that's fine eh. 69xx loosing to a cheap quad core from Intel in games, nope that's fine too. But how dare AMD compete. How fucking dare them.
 
Last edited:
ZeroBarrier said:
You do realize that you won't see the issue at anything over 1080p and all low settings to remove the GPU bottleneck, right? So at anything like 1440p you'll be masking the issue with a GPU bottleneck.
Click to expand...
Masking what issue? That it will perform 150%+ in many applications and perform the same at 1440p as an OC 7700K in games. Future games that naturally use more cores, more threads, compiled for the cpu better, better bios's firmware etc. will smoke the 7700k on any resolution in the future (good possibility). Why would anyone that does even a little bit of those applications that can use an 8 core 16 threaded cpu at 1440p or above consider the 7700K even better? Especially for a 3-5 year period, the 7700K will probably age badly and compared to the I7 2600K it will be a joke.

Anyways a normal person I would say buying an 8 core processor and a 1080Ti would most likely upgrade his/her monitor to at least 1440p, 3440x1440p or 4K and could give a rats ass about what 1080p does. Of course there will be a few with 1080p and Windows XP forever folks around. Most likely with the next Xbox using a version of RyZen (custom) etc. games will play very good on 8 cores. You nor I know for sure how future games will play on RyZen compared let say Skylake X, we just make logical or illogical guesses.
 
I am not getting it !?

Who is gonna buy a new Ryzen and then game on 1080p ???

The used logic doesn't apply to real world buyer's behaviour here imho.


I would maybe buy an 1700x instead of this 7700k if I had to rebuy ! Screw those 5 fps, 145 fps vs 150 fps... I couldnt care less if the rest is better, more efficient...and cheaper as well ( to a Haswell-E ).
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
ShuttleLuv said:
They should really price these extremely low. That would be a great way to recap market and would negate the lack of overclocking. 1700x and 1800x should be $200 and $250 respectively imo.
Click to expand...

That's being silly actually. There is a world beyond gaming and there are many scenariors where this chip competes with an i7-6900K.
 
I think the 1700x and 1800x are a bad value outside the workstation. Very happy with my over clocked 1700, have not yet done long stability tests but completes benchmarks at 3.8ghz 1.275v stock heatsink so far.
 
For people who have AM2+ AMD this is awesome upgrade, and if you have Intel CPU meh stick with until we see what 2066 socket brings as well as 8th gen CPU for LGA1151
 
BitMaster said:
I am not getting it !?

Who is gonna buy a new Ryzen and then game on 1080p ???

The used logic doesn't apply to real world buyer's behaviour here imho.


I would maybe buy an 1700x instead of this 7700k if I had to rebuy ! Screw those 5 fps, 145 fps vs 150 fps... I couldnt care less if the rest is better, more efficient...and cheaper as well ( to a Haswell-E ).
Click to expand...


I think more people have 1080 screens than 1440 or 4k I may be mistaken though....
 
Bullet500 said:
That's being silly actually. There is a world beyond gaming and there are many scenariors where this chip competes with an i7-6900K.
Click to expand...


But it's been promoted mainly as a gaming chip until lately with cinebench. Console guys do it all the time...they undercut and lose dollars to sell more.
 
BitMaster said:
I am not getting it !?

Who is gonna buy a new Ryzen and then game on 1080p ???

The used logic doesn't apply to real world buyer's behaviour here imho.
Click to expand...

It not that people will or will not be buying ryzen for 1080p gaming, it to see how the cpu overall performs when the gpu is not the limiting factor. Lowering the resolution and/or settings shift the limitation from the gpu to the cpu.


Lets say for 1 extreme end, hypothetical 8k montior and using a single GTX 1080 with max settings in a game that uses 4 cores/threads max. That GTX 1080 will perform poorly as it was never made to run demanding games at that resolution.

It will have same low FPS (lets say 20 FPS) with virtually any cpu. My A10-7850k apu theoretically would match someone using a Core i7 6950X cpu in that situation.

And we all know that i7 monster cpu is far more powerful (overall and on per core) than my little old apu at just about everything. So the question would become whats the point of testing different cpu's if the gpu cant power that resolution? Thats why High Res gaming cpu test are typically not looked at every much as your not benching the GPU, your benching the CPU.


Now the main reason why it's important to see cpu bottleneck is not for the now (as you mention, it's not what a typical user paying that price would be playing at) but for future games that "should" be more demanding. Games on current gpu's might perform the same at the same resolution with different cpu's currently but what about 2 years? 3 years? ect. Your more likely to upgrade to a more powerful gpu than cpu in that time frame and the cpu of today possibly wont be able to keep up with it in the future.


Of course the performance Delta between CPU A and CPU B on game X,Y, Z is a personal opinion if it worth paying for that theoretically faster cpu for X, Y, Z game and assuming future games haven't gone beyond 4 core. Which games will go beyond 4 cores but its a matter of when... Which i dont think will be any time soon... (IMO, by the time games do use 6 and more cores, It'll be many years from now. By then current cpu offering wont be desired for gaming.)


But.... you dont have to take my word for all this high res/low res cpu testing. History already has a good example of this. Sandybridge vs 1st gen bulldozer on a GTX 580 at 1080p (virtually today's 4k). Both were release in the same relative time-frame and on a GTX 580, they both performed similar @1080p in most games that i saw.

Now look at today... that old sandybridge with newer gpu's and higher resolutions still performs really well (its has aged like fine wine) while that 1st gen Bulldozer, not nearly as much...


Now my IMO, the performance delta between Ryzen and intel offering for gaming isn't big enough for me to change my mind if I wanted to get ryzen now. Although the bottleneck is there and if games dont take better usage of the cpu cores in the near future and you got a better gpu later on, you may have to upgrade your cpu sooner than you think.
 
Last edited:
n00b Here, first time poster, long time reader.

I guess I am not getting this "bad value" complaint. From what I can tell these are doing exactly what AMD wanted, for the most part, and that is take on Intels 6-8-10 core parts at a cut throat price. You have chips here that out of the package go head to head with their most expensive dies. Sure single threaded gaming benchmarks need work but they are still competitive. Is it worth it to upgrade my 4771 to this, no. But that doesnt mean the Ryzen is a bad CPU or a bad value. AMD still has to release the 5 and 3 series and they said they are working on the SMT issue and will hopefully be finished by the time those are released. I have a feeling the only regrets most people will have in the future is that they didnt wait until revision 2.
 
remember the Thoroughbred cores batch 1 was a TERRIBLE overclocking part, AMD very quickly added an extra layer of metal to them to allow A LOT more headroom. very few 1st gen chips are extremely good overclocking parts and you guys are comparing a intel cpu that can hit 5.1ghz that is what a SEVENTH revision chip to a FIRST revision chip?
 
Zedicus said:
remember the Thoroughbred cores batch 1 was a TERRIBLE overclocking part, AMD very quickly added an extra layer of metal to them to allow A LOT more headroom. very few 1st gen chips are extremely good overclocking parts and you guys are comparing a intel cpu that can hit 5.1ghz that is what a SEVENTH revision chip to a FIRST revision chip?
Click to expand...

I do remember that and I hope AMD can get these up better....but most say this is the end of the road for Ryzen clocks.
 
Zedicus said:
remember the Thoroughbred cores batch 1 was a TERRIBLE overclocking part, AMD very quickly added an extra layer of metal to them to allow A LOT more headroom. very few 1st gen chips are extremely good overclocking parts and you guys are comparing a intel cpu that can hit 5.1ghz that is what a SEVENTH revision chip to a FIRST revision chip?
Click to expand...
This is at least a 4th revision of Zeppelin die and even then it is overclocked out of box on X SKUs.
 
BitMaster said:
I am not getting it !?

Who is gonna buy a new Ryzen and then game on 1080p ???

The used logic doesn't apply to real world buyer's behaviour here imho.


I would maybe buy an 1700x instead of this 7700k if I had to rebuy ! Screw those 5 fps, 145 fps vs 150 fps... I couldnt care less if the rest is better, more efficient...and cheaper as well ( to a Haswell-E ).
Click to expand...
I am buying Ryzen and will be gaming at 1080p. What I don't get is your point.

I spent ~$850 on a 1700X, a damn nice MSI X370 Titanium with plenty of features, and 2x8GB of G.Skill 3200MHz DDR4 with the Samsung IC (which apparently will also be featured on the upcoming AMD-targeted Flare 4 modules).

Now, your question will undoubtedly be: why would you do that?

Simple: I don't plan to upgrade again anytime soon. I plan to let this system tide me over for the next 4-8 years, like my previous one. I'll upgrade graphics (R9 390 right now), maybe RAM, but otherwise I foresee the rest staying the same. If there are significant enough stepping changes made in a year or more and funds permit, I might upgrade. If Zen+ is a substantial leap and I'm feeling like supporting AMD again, I might upgrade. I didn't jump on the Bulldozer bandwagon though, so I didn't need to upgrade a couple times when new models came out that would general offer more performance. At the end of the day though, I suspect after upgraded BIOSes, OS updates, game patches, etc, that the 1700X will end up where it was envisioned to be.

I consider myself to be a real-world buyer, because I don't need a high res screen at ludicrous refresh rates. Do I want one? Of course, I'm a tech nut. However, I lead with my wallet first. I game on my TV 46" Samsung D6050 LED (edge lit), which is 1080p and from 2011! Since it's my TV as well, my next screen upgrade will as such, be something that satisfies both worlds: my TV watching and my PC gaming. Sure it'll likely be 4K, but I don't see myself upgrading my TV for at least another year and a half. I don't have the internet connection capable of streaming 1080p content, much less 4K, nevermind that I have a monthly bandwidth limit that won't allow for streaming. I'm hoping that the rumor of possible Adaptive-Sync (what FreeSync is called under VESA standards) being added to some sets will become a reality, as I'd much rather have that and HDR, over 4K. However, I'm not sure if you can say, get a 1080p Samsung with Quantum Dot (be it 2016's or 2017's 'QLED'), and I suspect for TVs that 4K is now the standard and has replaced 1080, so we won't be seeing high end models in the latter anymore.
 
Keep in mind that Ryzen is an 8-core CPU. Broadwell-E 8-core chips do not overclock nearly as well as Quad-Core Kaby Lake, Sandy Bridge etc.

As for earlier AMD chips, apart from a few outliners like lower clocked Durons, I don't think they've overclocked particularly well. Intel chips were generally much better overclockers (Celeron 300A and of course Sandy Bridge, Kaby Lake, some Core 2 Duo/Quad CPUs). I've always felt AMD pushed their chips harder @ stock to remain competitive.
 
JimmiG said:
Keep in mind that Ryzen is an 8-core CPU. Broadwell-E 8-core chips do not overclock nearly as well as Quad-Core Kaby Lake, Sandy Bridge etc.

As for earlier AMD chips, apart from a few outliners like lower clocked Durons, I don't think they've overclocked particularly well. Intel chips were generally much better overclockers (Celeron 300A and of course Sandy Bridge, Kaby Lake, some Core 2 Duo/Quad CPUs). I've always felt AMD pushed their chips harder @ stock to remain competitive.
Click to expand...

HAHA 2400+? Opteron 146 / 148? My 148 did 3150 on air (actually had a air world record for bench runs under 3dmark etc then).
 
Last edited:
300A did 450, 464, and sometime 504 depending on being Costa Rica / Malay / Phillipines (it mattered back then). I had a Cloverleaf. =)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top