AMD Ryzen 5 1600 & 1400 CPU Review @ [H]

Are you talking about Juanrga?

Congratulations your predictions were wrong nothing really new the only person that actually believes them is yourself.

Your sandy nonsense is laughable, why do you need a 4.5-4.8ghz sandy to match a 3.6ghz Ryzen core in cinebench? If IPC was equal.

Can't wait for more cherry picking

LOL

4.5 / 3.6 =1.25

4.8 / 3.6 =1.33

Therefore you are claiming that RyZen has 25--33% more IPC than Sandy in CineBench. As even raghu noted, Skylake IPC is about 22% higher than Sandy

In the anandtech bench the 6700k which uses the same Skylake core and is pretty much the same chip is 22% faster than 2600k Sandy at 3 Ghz.

Which implies you really pretend that RyZen has higher IPC than Kabylake in Cinebench. Of course, reality is different with RyZen IPC being 8% below Broadwell in Cinebench

clock-cb15-1.png
 
LOL

4.5 / 3.6 =1.25

4.8 / 3.6 =1.33

Therefore you are claiming that RyZen has 25--33% more IPC than Sandy in CineBench. As even raghu noted, Skylake IPC is about 22% higher than Sandy



Which implies you really pretend that RyZen has higher IPC than Kabylake in Cinebench. Of course, reality is different with RyZen IPC being 8% below Broadwell in Cinebench

clock-cb15-1.png



Just stop it both of you. You and OrangeKhrush just keep going in circles.. Apparently you never heard of optimizations because you keep regurgitating launch benchmarks.
 
Just stop it both of you. You and OrangeKhrush just keep going in circles.. Apparently you never heard of optimizations because you keep regurgitating launch benchmarks.
Nothing will stop juanrga from posting the non stop nonsense he has been spamming all the internet forums with.
He will ignore any benchmark which does not suit his narrative. We are already seeing high speed DDR4 3200 allow Ryzen to reduce the gap vs 7700k in games. But he will still post launch day benchmarks with DDR4 2133 or DDR4 2400.
 
At contrary, the new data just proves my point... again.

Here is no 4C/4T RyZen still; therefore we have to compare the R5 1400 with the i7 2600k. That is, we have to compare 4C/8T vs 4C/8T and be careful about SMT effects

The chips score 134.7 vs 131.9, respectively, on the compute graph. Correcting for clocks I obtain 151.5 vs 131.9, which means

RyZen IPC+SMT = 1.15 Sandy Bridge

this is Haswell territory, which implies the ancient prediction "IPC+SMT ~ Haswell" was accurate.

Now, one has to consider that RyZen has about 10% better SMT yields than Sandy because the Zen muarch is more distributed. Eliminating the extra yields gives

RyZen IPC = 1.04 Sandy Bridge

which implies the prediction "IPC ~ Sandy" was accurate.

And all this considering only the compute graph, where Ryzen performs better due to the microarchitecture being more optimized for throughuot than for latency. If we consider also the game graph where the R5 1400 is ~10% behind the i7 2600k and if we take an overall average of both compute and gaming the above numbers will be reduced a bit. Conclusion: RyZen performs just as predicted :D and it is very far from all those that fueled the hype during years.

Don't argue with juanrga, you will just embarrass yourself. He has meticulously researched this, provided the citations to back it up, and it really is beyond dispute. He changed my mind on this issue in a big way. AMD failed to meet the hype train. AMD failed to even convincingly beat Haswell, and barely beat out Sandy Bridge. AMD can only compete on price, at this point, and by taking advantage of the fact that Intel didn't feel like selling 6 and 8 core mainstream parts on their latest uarch. In other words, Intel is letting AMD compete a little, probably because they don't feel like dealing with anti-trust bullsh*t, or maybe because they legitimately don't care about the market segments they are letting AMD have.

This release isn't as bad as Bulldozer, but that's like saying something isn't as bad as a steaming pile of crap. It wasn't exactly a high bar to exceed.

AMD caught up to 2011. Or maybe, more charitably, 2013. That's it. Maybe next year they'll make it to 2017.
 
Just stop it both of you. You and OrangeKhrush just keep going in circles.. Apparently you never heard of optimizations because you keep regurgitating launch benchmarks.

Aparently you missed my post #123 where I provided data from review of 1600X, 1600, 1500X, 1400 performed the past day 11. It includes benches of last AGESA and how it changes nothing

getgraphimg.php


Using the most recent data available for the R5 1400, I have demonstrated that the IPC of RyZen is much more close to Sandy than Kaby. It is the same conclusion that sites reviews got at launch when reviewed the R7 1800X. It is the same conclusion, because the Zen microarchitecture is what it is. There was no the magic 'fix' that some expected.

Nothing will stop juanrga from posting the non stop nonsense he has been spamming all the internet forums with.
He will ignore any benchmark which does not suit his narrative. We are already seeing high speed DDR4 3200 allow Ryzen to reduce the gap vs 7700k in games. But he will still post launch day benchmarks with DDR4 2133 or DDR4 2400.

I only post links to reviews, and you attack me or attack the reviewers with unfair accusations of "trolling" and "intel fanboys" because you don't like the information. You were just banned from SA for that same reason.

I have provided a broad spectrum of data with chips running on different operative systems, both a stock clocks and OC, with old AGESA and with new, with patched games and without patchs, with SMT enabled and disabled. with four dimms and with two dimms, with general X86 software and with AVX-code, at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K resolutions, with 2+2 and with simulated 4+0 core configurations...
 
Last edited:
Using the most recent data available I have demonstrated the IPC of RyZen is much more close to Sandy than Kaby. It is the same conclusion that reviews got at launch. It is the same conclusion because the Zen microarchitecture is what it is. There is no magic fix coming.

If anything, the Agesa 1004a update caused me problems. It killed my RAM overclock. Have to run at 2400 now. So AMD is moving in the wrong direction with optimizations and fixes.
 
juanrga, can you compare R5 1500X vs i7 2600K instead of R5 1400 vs i7 2600K?

The 1400 has half the cache of the other Ryzen chips and the clock speed of the 1500x is much closer to the 2600K than the 1400.
  • 1500X: 3.5 with 3.7Ghz turbo
  • 1400: 3.2 with 3.4Ghz turbo
  • 2600K: 3.4 with 3.8Ghz turbo
 
LOL

4.5 / 3.6 =1.25

4.8 / 3.6 =1.33

Therefore you are claiming that RyZen has 25--33% more IPC than Sandy in CineBench. As even raghu noted, Skylake IPC is about 22% higher than Sandy



Which implies you really pretend that RyZen has higher IPC than Kabylake in Cinebench. Of course, reality is different with RyZen IPC being 8% below Broadwell in Cinebench

clock-cb15-1.png


No, it is about 10-12% faster than Sandybridge and about 6-8% slower than broadwell, again I don't really know why you make up information.
 
juanrga, can you compare R5 1500X vs i7 2600K instead of R5 1400 vs i7 2600K?

The 1400 has half the cache of the other Ryzen chips and the clock speed of the 1500x is much closer to the 2600K than the 1400.
  • 1500X: 3.5 with 3.7Ghz turbo
  • 1400: 3.2 with 3.4Ghz turbo
  • 2600K: 3.4 with 3.8Ghz turbo

All ryzen cores are the same, there is no real differance other than the clockspeed they are at.
 
tl;dr Ryzen's R5 1400 is worthless, the 1600 is a solid win for productivity in multithreaded environments, and neither is worth their price for gaming. Disappointing if you're strictly a gamer. Still thinking about getting a 1600 or 1700 for editing and rendering though.
 
Aparently you missed my post #123 where I provided data from review of 1600X, 1600, 1500X, 1400 performed the past day 11. It includes benches of last AGESA and how it changes nothing

getgraphimg.php


Using the most recent data available for the R5 1400, I have demonstrated that the IPC of RyZen is much more close to Sandy than Kaby. It is the same conclusion that sites reviews got at launch when reviewed the R7 1800X. It is the same conclusion, because the Zen microarchitecture is what it is. There was no the magic 'fix' that some expected.



I only post links to reviews, and you attack me or attack the reviewers with unfair accusations of "trolling" and "intel fanboys" because you don't like the information. You were just banned from SA for that same reason.

I have provided a broad spectrum of data with chips running on different operative systems, both a stock clocks and OC, with old AGESA and with new, with patched games and without patchs, with SMT enabled and disabled. with four dimms and with two dimms, with general X86 software and with AVX-code, at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K resolutions, with 2+2 and with simulated 4+0 core configurations...



Nice graph from an unknown source. That the best you have? Honestly, I don't give a shit what you post. Have fun bud :)
 
Nice graph from an unknown source. That the best you have? Honestly, I don't give a shit what you post. Have fun bud :)
You know honestly if most would look at the broad number of reviews and take away a general position of the product, there would be far less arguing.

Based on all I saw Ryzen seems to be around Haswell up to Broadwell for IPC/performance. Yes there are the few games that showed paltry numbers ie: FC4, but on the whole it seemed to hold its own well within premium performance, say 90% of Intels best. This arguing and placement of Sandybridge IPC is cherrypicking those worst case scenarios and precluding anything that showed better. And just gotta love those Gaming inclusive graphs over some number of benches that some keep using when the games used could easily skew the results.
 
juanrga, can you compare R5 1500X vs i7 2600K instead of R5 1400 vs i7 2600K?

The 1400 has half the cache of the other Ryzen chips and the clock speed of the 1500x is much closer to the 2600K than the 1400.
  • 1500X: 3.5 with 3.7Ghz turbo
  • 1400: 3.2 with 3.4Ghz turbo
  • 2600K: 3.4 with 3.8Ghz turbo

The larger cache will affect the pair of benches that are very sensitive to it, but overall the change will be small.

The 1400 has all-core turbo of 3.2GHz and a max single-core turbo of 3.45GHz (50MHz XFR mode).

The 1500X has all-core turbo of 3.6GHz and a max single-core turbo of 3.9GHz (200MHz XFR mode).

Take the compute graph. The average score for the 1400 is 134.7. Correcting for clocks we can estimate the next score for the 1500X

134.7 * 36/32 = 151.5

And the 1500X measured score was 155.5. The difference between the estimation and the measurement is a mere 2.6%. It could be the effect of the extra cache or it could be a measurement artifact (margin of error). In any case the conclusion doesn't change significantly. RyZen IPC is more close to Sandy than to Kabylake. But this is something we expected since the instant we knew the details of the muarch, because Zen is a 6-wide, 2AGU, 16FLOP/core muarch, and this is closer to Sandy (6-wide, 2AGU, 16FLOP/core) than Haswell (8-wide, 3AGU, 32FLOP/core).

Alternatively you can also compare the performance of R5 1500X with the i7 3770k. Both have very similar clocks 3.5GHz base 3.9GHz single-core max, and both score similarly 155.5 vs 144 on compute and 118.7 vs 125.1 on games. The Ivy Bridge chip has slightly higher IPC and Zen has higher SMT yield. The whole combined gap between both is 1.4%.
 
Last edited:
No, it is about 10-12% faster than Sandybridge and about 6-8% slower than broadwell, again I don't really know why you make up information.

You change the claim once again. In each round you say something different. Now you pretend the IPC gap is 10--12%. But adding 10--12% extra to a 3.6GHz baseline gives 3.96--4.03 GHz, whereas your former claim was

Your sandy nonsense is laughable, why do you need a 4.5-4.8ghz sandy to match a 3.6ghz Ryzen core in cinebench? If IPC was equal.

Funny how your initial requirement of 4.8GHz Sandy is reduced to 4GHz Sandy in only a pair of posts. Continue reducing upto getting a more accurate IPC. Hint: R5 1500X vs i7 3770k.
 
You change the claim once again. In each round you say something different. Now you pretend the IPC gap is 10--12%. But adding 10--12% extra to a 3.6GHz baseline gives 3.96--4.03 GHz, whereas your former claim was



Funny how your initial requirement of 4.8GHz Sandy is reduced to 4GHz Sandy in only a pair of posts. Continue reducing upto getting a more accurate IPC. Hint: R5 1500X vs i7 3770k.

To be fair, I think OrangeKhrush was saying 10-12% in general. In Cinebench, the difference is greater.

Still don't agree, mind you. Ryzen is a Sandy in gaming, so 10-12% better IPC than Sandy doesn't work unless we're talking only workstation applications, in which case he may right.

When games are added to the average, of course, it doesn't look good for Ryzen.
 
You change the claim once again. In each round you say something different. Now you pretend the IPC gap is 10--12%. But adding 10--12% extra to a 3.6GHz baseline gives 3.96--4.03 GHz, whereas your former claim was



Funny how your initial requirement of 4.8GHz Sandy is reduced to 4GHz Sandy in only a pair of posts. Continue reducing upto getting a more accurate IPC. Hint: R5 1500X vs i7 3770k.

If the 2600K gets 135 at 3.8 then 4.5 equates to 1.58 thus between 4.5-4.6Ghz to equal a 1800X 4Ghz, thus not really far off.
 
Nice graph from an unknown source. That the best you have? Honestly, I don't give a shit what you post. Have fun bud :)

It is from HFR review of the 1600X, 1600, and 1400 models. It is funny how you play the shifting the goalposts game. Your initial pretension was I was using old launch reviews without 'optimizations'. When I refute your point with a graph from a recent review made the past day 11 and using the latest optimizations available, then you argue over the source. And before I could reply you, you already give up...


Based on all I saw Ryzen seems to be around Haswell up to Broadwell for IPC/performance. Yes there are the few games that showed paltry numbers ie: FC4, but on the whole it seemed to hold its own well within premium performance, say 90% of Intels best. This arguing and placement of Sandybridge IPC is cherrypicking those worst case scenarios and precluding anything that showed better. And just gotta love those Gaming inclusive graphs over some number of benches that some keep using when the games used could easily skew the results.

Haswell/Broadwell IPC is wishful thinking. It is not supported by microarchitecture details neither by review benches. All mainstream reviews find that RyZen IPC is a good 8--10% behind Intel last muarchs on workloads as CineBench and worse than that when we consider games and other latency sensitive workloads.

The arguments and the computations given above used the overall performance ranking obtained from dozens of benches, and those dozens of benches put RyZen IPC between 10% (compute) and a 20% (games) behind Broadwell, let us say 15%. That is why a 4C/8T RyZen performs as a similarly clocked Sandy/Ivy 4C/8T chip. Other reviews draw a worse scenario for RyZen. Take computerbase.de; their overall ranking is that 6900k is ~10% ahead of 1800X. Correcting for clocks we obtain a ~25% gap in the IPC.

Hyping Ryzen before launch and pretending that RyZen was the "new K8", that IPC was at KBL-level or that RyZen could hit 5GHz on air could fool some people, but now, after launch, and with data at hand we know the IPC is more close to Sandy than Skylake, and we know that the 5GHz on air was pure fantasy.
 
To be fair, I think OrangeKhrush was saying 10-12% in general. In Cinebench, the difference is greater.

He did mean CB. And just after your post he is again giving CB scores to try to support his original claim that one needs a 4.8GHz Sandy to match a 3.6GHz RyZen, despite his IPC nonsense has been disproved.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, I think OrangeKhrush was saying 10-12% in general. In Cinebench, the difference is greater.

Still don't agree, mind you. Ryzen is a Sandy in gaming, so 10-12% better IPC than Sandy doesn't work unless we're talking only workstation applications, in which case he may right.

When games are added to the average, of course, it doesn't look good for Ryzen.


amd-r5-bf1-benchmark.png


I don't believe that one bit, I believe on old coded games Ryzen has a deficit but in a game that AMD showed Ryzen in and hence Dice would have had access to a Ryzen CPU in making the game the balance is redressed. A stock 1500X is 2% slower than a 4.7Ghz 2600K same thread count and the 2600K already has a clock advantage at stock. A OC'd 1500X soundly beats a 2600K with 700mhz advantage. Ryzen is not IPC limited by its architecture, it is limited by its node not supporting higher clockspeeds, that said and as per Jayztwocents Ryzen is recommended as an all rounder.

I still think that ryzen games somewhere between a Ivy and Haswell in real terms, a 1600 and 1500X basically do what my 4790 does when we did an side to side testing.

From inside it looks like Pinnacle ridge will be what Ivy was to sandy, bumped clocks and efficiency but nothing at the heart different. The third itteration of Zen Cores is likely to be the Haswell type jump for Zen.
 
From inside it looks like Pinnacle ridge will be what Ivy was to sandy, bumped clocks and efficiency but nothing at the heart different.

Ivy did bring minor microarchitecture updates that increased the IPC a pair of percent points

5.png


Pinnacle Ridge just use the same Zen cores than Summit Ridge. There is no IPC increase. Pinnacle Ridge is more a Richland-like update: same muarch and higher clocks from a more mature node.
 
Ivy did bring minor microarchitecture updates that increased the IPC a pair of percent points

Pinnacle Ridge just use the same Zen cores than Summit Ridge. There is no IPC increase. Pinnacle Ridge is more a Richland-like update: same muarch and higher clocks from a more mature node.

AMD says otherwise:
http://wccftech.com/amd-pinnacle-ridge-cpu-zen-2-core/

They claim IPC bump in addition to clock rate bump. Of course... AMD is not known for honesty, so they could be bulsh*tting, and you've been right about everything else so far. Where'd you get your information from, if I may ask?
 
Ryzen's big problem isn't IPC, per se, or clock rate, per se... It's a combination of both.

If Ryzen hit Kaby Lake IPC, but couldn't clock as high (i.e. same clocks as now), that would have been OK, because they'd give you more cores for the dollar.

If, on the other hand, Ryzen had SB-to-Haswell IPC, like now, but clocked as high as Kaby Lake, that would have been OK too, because of the extra cores.

The problem is AMD semi-failed on both points, meaning all the value is now contained in the extra cores. Even that might have been okay, if games, and some basic tasks like LAME (mp3 encoding) could take advantage of 16 threads. But mostly, they don't. So unless you're doing rendering/encoding/super-heavy multitasking, Ryzen doesn't give you anything you couldn't already get in the Intel stack.

But OTOH, AMD did get semi-close in both areas. We're now seeing Ryzen OCs hitting 4.2-4.3 (there's a thread in the AMD section somewhere about this), and the IPC is... if not great, than at least Sandy-like in its worst light (and somewhat better in its best), so not horrible.

So while it's hard to call it a great success, it's difficult to call it a complete failure, either.

I mean, if Intel came out with a mainstream model 8 core Haswell at around 3.6/4.0, with AMD's pricing, that could plug in to a cheap Z270 board... would people buy that? Because that's more or less what happened here.
 
It is from HFR review of the 1600X, 1600, and 1400 models. It is funny how you play the shifting the goalposts game. Your initial pretension was I was using old launch reviews without 'optimizations'. When I refute your point with a graph from a recent review made the past day 11 and using the latest optimizations available, then you argue over the source. And before I could reply you, you already give up...




Haswell/Broadwell IPC is wishful thinking. It is not supported by microarchitecture details neither by review benches. All mainstream reviews find that RyZen IPC is a good 8--10% behind Intel last muarchs on workloads as CineBench and worse than that when we consider games and other latency sensitive workloads.

The arguments and the computations given above used the overall performance ranking obtained from dozens of benches, and those dozens of benches put RyZen IPC between 10% (compute) and a 20% (games) behind Broadwell, let us say 15%. That is why a 4C/8T RyZen performs as a similarly clocked Sandy/Ivy 4C/8T chip. Other reviews draw a worse scenario for RyZen. Take computerbase.de; their overall ranking is that 6900k is ~10% ahead of 1800X. Correcting for clocks we obtain a ~25% gap in the IPC.

Hyping Ryzen before launch and pretending that RyZen was the "new K8", that IPC was at KBL-level or that RyZen could hit 5GHz on air could fool some people, but now, after launch, and with data at hand we know the IPC is more close to Sandy than Skylake, and we know that the 5GHz on air was pure fantasy.
Sorry but the only fantasy spouting anywhere is that drivel you post over and over and over and over....

You post the same 3 benches without context and without links most of the time. Here let me show you how it is done.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1500X/19.html

upload_2017-4-15_10-57-24.png


upload_2017-4-15_10-57-43.png

No huge discrepancy here ^

upload_2017-4-15_10-57-58.png

Even less here ^

upload_2017-4-15_10-58-15.png

And virtually none here ^

All from the latest R5 reviews. Again you keep arguing the little things that matter quite little in real world events. IPC measurements mean little outside the end result. Hence why I stated Haswell up to Broadwell, after looking at all the results from other reviews.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-review,5014.html

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244/the-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-vs-core-i5-review-twelve-threads-vs-four

These also give the same relative results.

Hell you can knit pick all day but your enfeebled battle does little to change the facts and the real world performance outcome. Add in price and the whole view is great skewed in favor of the AMD Ryzen line up.
 
Well, this is a big change from the i7 vs Ryzen 7 review. The Ryzen 5 chips look like they're at least competitive across the board and even the cheapest one is a little ahead in most of the processing-intensive benchmarks. Looks like a good buy for most performance-oriented buyers, at least ones that care about price/performance.


And... couldn't resist.

Hell you can knit pick all day but your enfeebled battle does little to change the facts and the real world performance outcome. Add in price and the whole view is great skewed in favor of the AMD Ryzen line up.

nitpick not knit pick ;).

That's an example of nitpicking.
 
Sorry but the only fantasy spouting anywhere is that drivel you post over and over and over and over....

You post the same 3 benches without context and without links most of the time. Here let me show you how it is done.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1500X/19.html

View attachment 22015

View attachment 22016
No huge discrepancy here ^

View attachment 22017
Even less here ^

View attachment 22018
And virtually none here ^

All from the latest R5 reviews. Again you keep arguing the little things that matter quite little in real world events. IPC measurements mean little outside the end result. Hence why I stated Haswell up to Broadwell, after looking at all the results from other reviews.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-review,5014.html

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244/the-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-vs-core-i5-review-twelve-threads-vs-four

These also give the same relative results.

Hell you can knit pick all day but your enfeebled battle does little to change the facts and the real world performance outcome. Add in price and the whole view is great skewed in favor of the AMD Ryzen line up.

There's something odd I keep seeing in all the benchmarks, where Ryzen actually wins against the 7700k in super-high res benchmarks. Not just a margin of error thing, because it's pretty consistent from review to review. It's never by much, a couple of percent at the most, but it's there... and I've never seen a satisfactory explanation for it, given that Ryzen gets its ass kicked in the lower res benchmarks, and the higher res should be GPU limited.

You even see it in the charts you posted. Ryzen consistently moves up the ladder as resolution increases.

Anybody have any idea why?
 
There's something odd I keep seeing in all the benchmarks, where Ryzen actually wins against the 7700k in super-high res benchmarks. Not just a margin of error thing, because it's pretty consistent from review to review. It's never by much, a couple of percent at the most, but it's there... and I've never seen a satisfactory explanation for it, given that Ryzen gets its ass kicked in the lower res benchmarks, and the higher res should be GPU limited.

You even see it in the charts you posted. Ryzen consistently moves up the ladder as resolution increases.

Anybody have any idea why?

I don't know the rationale behind it, but, as I prefer to run 4k on high/medium settings, I'm not worried with a 1600 for games, I might lose out on shooters when I drop down to 1440p but, I rarely play FPS these days.
 
Ryzen's big problem isn't IPC, per se, or clock rate, per se... It's a combination of both.

If Ryzen hit Kaby Lake IPC, but couldn't clock as high (i.e. same clocks as now), that would have been OK, because they'd give you more cores for the dollar.

If, on the other hand, Ryzen had SB-to-Haswell IPC, like now, but clocked as high as Kaby Lake, that would have been OK too, because of the extra cores.

The problem is AMD semi-failed on both points, meaning all the value is now contained in the extra cores. Even that might have been okay, if games, and some basic tasks like LAME (mp3 encoding) could take advantage of 16 threads. But mostly, they don't. So unless you're doing rendering/encoding/super-heavy multitasking, Ryzen doesn't give you anything you couldn't already get in the Intel stack.

But OTOH, AMD did get semi-close in both areas. We're now seeing Ryzen OCs hitting 4.2-4.3 (there's a thread in the AMD section somewhere about this), and the IPC is... if not great, than at least Sandy-like in its worst light (and somewhat better in its best), so not horrible.

So while it's hard to call it a great success, it's difficult to call it a complete failure, either.

I mean, if Intel came out with a mainstream model 8 core Haswell at around 3.6/4.0, with AMD's pricing, that could plug in to a cheap Z270 board... would people buy that? Because that's more or less what happened here.


It is not generic issues, it is 3 games that exhibit bad performance but in games that AMD used in its showcases show tremendous performance, Add Jays youtube video of live streaming wildlands on an 1800X with Maxwell Titan SLI and the performance was not anything untoward. Jay given his hands on experience holds more weight. I don't understand your issue with the RAM not hitting 3200 as most I know including one person from WCCFtech has hit 3400mhz easily and a near 2000 mark score in Cinebench with his 1800X.

Personally i think the gaming concerns are trivial, it games well enough to be good at 1080P and once you are in the realms of 1440P and 4K gaming is where it is supposed to be, on the GPU. If you spend less money on a 1600 and spend most of your money on a 1070 or 1080 then you are going to get more gains than what any 7700K will give you.
 
It is not generic issues, it is 3 games that exhibit bad performance but in games that AMD used in its showcases show tremendous performance, Add Jays youtube video of live streaming wildlands on an 1800X with Maxwell Titan SLI and the performance was not anything untoward. Jay given his hands on experience holds more weight. I don't understand your issue with the RAM not hitting 3200 as most I know including one person from WCCFtech has hit 3400mhz easily and a near 2000 mark score in Cinebench with his 1800X.

Personally i think the gaming concerns are trivial, it games well enough to be good at 1080P and once you are in the realms of 1440P and 4K gaming is where it is supposed to be, on the GPU. If you spend less money on a 1600 and spend most of your money on a 1070 or 1080 then you are going to get more gains than what any 7700K will give you.

I changed my approach, I may hold onto my 1070 and not upgrade to a 1080TI. I realize the new 1600 I ordered is a side step in a way, and in others its a huge leap, on a lot of other forums, people aren't holding on as hard as they are here to trivial points. Ryzen is not the next big thing, it sure is a new an interesting thing that will lead to change, and something I want to tinker with.
 
It is not generic issues, it is 3 games that exhibit bad performance but in games that AMD used in its showcases show tremendous performance, Add Jays youtube video of live streaming wildlands on an 1800X with Maxwell Titan SLI and the performance was not anything untoward. Jay given his hands on experience holds more weight. I don't understand your issue with the RAM not hitting 3200 as most I know including one person from WCCFtech has hit 3400mhz easily and a near 2000 mark score in Cinebench with his 1800X.

My RAM issue is all the more exasperating because it was hitting 2933. Since the XMP/DOCP setting was 3000, I considered this "good enough." But then the Agesa update came in revision 604 and took away the RAM OC. Down to 2400. Weighing whether or not it's worth the risk to go back to 515 to get my OC back.

Personally i think the gaming concerns are trivial, it games well enough to be good at 1080P and once you are in the realms of 1440P and 4K gaming is where it is supposed to be, on the GPU. If you spend less money on a 1600 and spend most of your money on a 1070 or 1080 then you are going to get more gains than what any 7700K will give you.

I was buying a 1080 Ti either way. Wanted the fastest single card GPU. Yeah, today that's the Titan Xp, but when I bought the parts, it was the 1080 Ti, and it's certainly not worth the "upgrade" to a Titan Xp anyway. So I'm in the realm where CPU speed does make a difference. But, OTOH, I don't game enough for it to be as big of a deal as it is with some. It gets used more for graphics and dev work, and in most of that, it crushes the 7700k by sheer weight of cores.
 
Sorry but the only fantasy spouting anywhere is that drivel you post over and over and over and over....

You post the same 3 benches without context and without links most of the time. Here let me show you how it is done.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1500X/19.html

View attachment 22015

View attachment 22016
No huge discrepancy here ^

View attachment 22017
Even less here ^

View attachment 22018
And virtually none here ^

All from the latest R5 reviews. Again you keep arguing the little things that matter quite little in real world events. IPC measurements mean little outside the end result. Hence why I stated Haswell up to Broadwell, after looking at all the results from other reviews.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-review,5014.html

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244/the-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-vs-core-i5-review-twelve-threads-vs-four

These also give the same relative results.

Hell you can knit pick all day but your enfeebled battle does little to change the facts and the real world performance outcome. Add in price and the whole view is great skewed in favor of the AMD Ryzen line up.

Your Techpowerup review places the i5 7500 at 97.4% of the R5 1500X on compute and 102.5% on 1080p gaming, whereas the Hardware.fr review I used (graphs given before) got 88.7% and 104.3% gap. The whole averages are 99.95% and 96.5%; thus, both reviews are giving a similar performance for the R5 1500X, the whole discrepancy is a mere 3%. Unlike your review, the one I did bring shows performance for Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge i7s. Everything what I did was to take the performance numbers for Sandy/ivy i7 chips with similar clocks to R5 1400/1500X and show that the RyZen IPC is closer to Sandy than to Kabylake.

The techpowerup graphs for 1400p and 4K just show that the higher the resolution, the more bottlenecked is the GPU and the performance gap between CPUs is hidden. Pretending to argue that RyZen IPC is at Kabylake level because there is a small or "virtually none" gap under GPU bottleneck settings is so weird as pretending that RyZen has the same IPC than Piledriver because there is no FPS gap at 4K very high quality game testing

http://www.techspot.com/images2/news/bigimage/2017/03/2017-03-06-image-16.jpg

Tomshardware doesn't gives averages and doesn't even discuss IPC, but Anandtech does:

AMD still lags in IPC to Intel, so a 4.0 GHz AMD chip can somewhat compete in single threaded tests when the Intel CPU is around 3.5-3.6 GHz, and the single thread web tests/Cinebench results show that.

4/3.5 = 1.142 ==> 14%

4/3.6 = 1.111 ==> 11%

(1.111 + 1.142 ) / 2 = 1.1265 ==> 13%

Therefore the average IPC gap between Kabylake/Skylake and RyZen is about 13% on compute, which agrees with the 10% behind Broadwell that I said in #122 and with the 13% behind Skylake that I said in #99:

131 / 116 ==> 13% gap Skylake over RyZen

116 / 108 ==> 7% gap RyZen over Sandy.

Far from disproving, your links confirm what I am saying. :D
 
Last edited:
Your Techpowerup review places the i5 7500 at 97.4% of the R5 1500X on compute and 102.5% on 1080p gaming, whereas the Hardware.fr review I used (graphs given before) got 88.7% and 104.3% gap. The whole averages are 99.95% and 96.5%; thus, both reviews are giving a similar performance for the R5 1500X, the whole discrepancy is a mere 3%. Unlike your review, the one I did bring shows performance for Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge i7s. Everything what I did was to take the performance numbers for Sandy/ivy i7 chips with similar clocks to R5 1400/1500X and show that the RyZen IPC is closer to Sandy than to Kabylake.

The techpowerup graphs for 1400p and 4K just show that the higher the resolution, the more bottlenecked is the GPU and the performance gap between CPUs is hidden. Pretending to argue that RyZen IPC is at Kabylake level because there is a small or "virtually none" gap under GPU bottleneck settings is so weird as pretending that RyZen has the same IPC than Piledriver because there is no FPS gap at 4K very high quality game testing

http://www.techspot.com/images2/news/bigimage/2017/03/2017-03-06-image-16.jpg

Tomshardware doesn't gives averages and doesn't even discuss IPC, but Anandtech does:



4/3.5 = 1.142 ==> 14%

4/3.6 = 1.111 ==> 11%

(1.111 + 1.142 ) / 2 = 1.1265 ==> 13%

Therefore the average IPC gap between Kabylake/Skylake and RyZen is about 13% on compute, which agrees with the 10% behind Broadwell that I said in #122 and with the 13% behind Skylake that I said in #99:



Far from disproving, your links confirm what I am saying. :D
Do you understand REAL WORLD? Or is it that it fully trashes your points handily?

At higher resolutions AMD has the better minimums, and based on those graphs AMD heads the list over even the 7700k. Does it matter? Yes because they are real world results. And playing with the number you deem the right ones proves little to nothing other than you're reaching to demean a great release product that allows a much larger portion of the consumer base to have more than 4 cores.
 
Do you understand REAL WORLD? Or is it that it fully trashes your points handily?

At higher resolutions AMD has the better minimums, and based on those graphs AMD heads the list over even the 7700k. Does it matter? Yes because they are real world results. And playing with the number you deem the right ones proves little to nothing other than you're reaching to demean a great release product that allows a much larger portion of the consumer base to have more than 4 cores.

Yes, I do understand that. I also understand that minimums without frame analysis is irrelevant. I also understand some people play games at 1080p; not everyone plays games at 4K. I also understand what measuring REAL CPU performance means and one cannot measure the REAL performance of a CPU on a GPU bottleneck situation. Reviewers also understand how to measure REAL CPU performance and that is the reason why they perform tests at 1080p (ARS, HFR, Techspot, GN,...) and even 720p (Computerbase). There is even a nice article explaining those matters

http://www.techspot.com/news/68407-...ottlenecking-cpu-gaming-benchmarks-using.html
 
Yes, I do understand that. I also understand that minimums without frame analysis is irrelevant. I also understand some people play games at 1080p; not everyone plays games at 4K. I also understand what measuring REAL CPU performance means and one cannot measure the REAL performance of a CPU on a GPU bottleneck situation. Reviewers also understand how to measure REAL CPU performance and that is the reason why they perform tests at 1080p (ARS, HFR, Techspot, GN,...) and even 720p (Computerbase). There is even a nice article explaining those matters

http://www.techspot.com/news/68407-...ottlenecking-cpu-gaming-benchmarks-using.html
And yet none of that really matters does it? And by the way yes most have 1080p monitors but with DSR/VSR that number isn't as large. And not the least of which most games at 1080p with decent settings are still GPU limited far before CPU limited. You can keep clinging to these low rez/low settings tests but again REAL world does not reflect that outcome.
 
Back
Top