.

[os2wiz]

AMD Ryzen is not of the same quality AMD as past cpu's imo. Anyone who remembers AMD at it's best, knows AMD is synonymous with overrclocking, period. Even the AMD K6 original overclocked somewhat and THAT sob got so hot you could literally fry and cook poached eggs on it. Classic cpu's like the Thunderbird, K62, Athlon FX,Duron, 2400+, Opteron, this cpu the ryzen is not in that league. It's a step up, no doubt, and I appreciate it's performance alternative. If you bought one, by all means enjoy it. It's a great cpu and it will do you well! It's just not the enthusiest gaming / overclocking cpu they promised and that bothers me. AMD has been able to get away with falsifications and fabrications lately way too much. It's misleading. There is no reason leaks of it's limited overclocking couldn't have gotten out much sooner. In my opinion it was strategically held back for that very reason - to mislead slightly. Gaming benchmarks are lower also. Overclocking headroom would've possibly made up for the certain issues with the chip. I have a sandy 2600k sitting here from SIX years ago that does over 5 ghz (5.1 ghz) 4c / 8t on a 32nm process with a integrated gpu to boot. I can't help but feel let down by Ryzen. I was really rooting for this cpu to be an extreme alternative to intel. It is but only on the stock front.

Again I mean this as no offense to anyone, just very let down as a huge fan of AMD as an alternative overclocker.

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.

Did you turn smt off on your Ryzen build, or is it perhaps that you have no Ryzen build and are just parroting what others have said. List the games you own that are not running well on Ryzen if you have it. What is your motherboard model and how many sticks of ram are you using? Answer these questions and perhaps I can help you. Turning of smt in apps using 4 cores or less helps performance considerably. Having no more than 16GB memory and only in 2 dimm slots also helps a lot. There are some flaws in Ryzen, but it is still competitive in gaming if you run it in the parameters I just mentioned. In some gaming apps where it falls behind Intel, you will notice when measuring the lowest frames experienced in the game are the Intel processor, but Intel also has the highest and the highest average. But if you want to judge gaming experience in such a game the lowest frames will cause the tearing and glitches on the screen. AMD's average and lowest frame rates will be more than just adequate in such games . So the actual experience will oft times be a little better than Intel in such games because of not having as low frames at certain points in the game. Nobody mentions this from the other side but it is a real phenomena. I do expect the optimizations and some bios improvements to reduce the negative performance in some games over the next couple of months. It may be a disappointment but not a disaster. I wish you had bought Ryzen before being influenced by the lynch mob here. Shintai is nobody anyone should pay attention to. He is a hater and feeds of discord. There are those who see flaws in Ryzen like myself and like Razor1 , but they do it without malice and will concede points that they were not aware of . That is good to have such debate, because it is based on seeking truth. Shinta would NOT know truth if it hit him in the face. He is the type who could be driven to become a Kluxer. Because he prejudges everything and does not explore all angles.

 

[os2wiz]

I'm surprised that pre-release leaks and rumors were so positive...why did AMD mislead the public to this degree when they knew that once real benchmarks and performance were reviewed that it would come back to bite them...were they that desperate for all those pre-orders?...now I don't trust all the positive Vega rumors either

Only one I've seen at 1440P. Seems pretty competitive at 1440p if this review is true.

There were no lies it does extremely well in most programs and some games. In other single thread or low core games it does less well. Turn off smt in those games and it is performs acceptably. Like I told another soul here if you don't put 32 GB of ram in Ryzen , but stick to 16GB on 2 sticks your memory performance increases quite a bit. These 2 steps bring Ryzen close to Intel in those games where it was definitely lagging. In well designed games where all cores and threads can be used it is head to head and even better than Intel. The situation will get better with a couple of bios updates and game optimizations. For the first time in years AMD is developing closer relations with game developers and many more games will be optimized through Vulcan to take advantage of the strengths of the Ryzen processor. This not Bulldozer all over again as Shintai the hater wants you to believe. I did not plunk down $499 for an 1800X and $255 for Asus ROG Crosshair VI Hero board without doing my due diligence. I do not feel I have wasted my money and mama did not raise a fool.

 

[ShuttleLuv]

All Intel 8 cores max out st 4.3 ghz. Unless you have a golden sample. Tomshardware is pretty spot on when it comes to stable overclock. I hit the exact stability numbers as them on my 6850k. I think you will probably see zen max out at 4.2-4.4 ghz max in the newer revisions down the road with overclocking . We won't see much more than that until you 7nm.

4.2 - 4.4 well 4.3 is in between there. Even 4.3 on Zen would be fine.....something to strive for....

 

[ShuttleLuv]

Did you turn smt off on your Ryzen build, or is it perhaps that you have no Ryzen build and are just parroting what others have said. List the games you own that are not running well on Ryzen if you have it. What is your motherboard model and how many sticks of ram are you using? Answer these questions and perhaps I can help you. Turning of smt in apps using 4 cores or less helps performance considerably. Having no more than 16GB memory and only in 2 dimm slots also helps a lot. There are some flaws in Ryzen, but it is still competitive in gaming if you run it in the parameters I just mentioned. In some gaming apps where it falls behind Intel, you will notice when measuring the lowest frames experienced in the game are the Intel processor, but Intel also has the highest and the highest average. But if you want to judge gaming experience in such a game the lowest frames will cause the tearing and glitches on the screen. AMD's average and lowest frame rates will be more than just adequate in such games . So the actual experience will oft times be a little better than Intel in such games because of not having as low frames at certain points in the game. Nobody mentions this from the other side but it isa a real phenomena. I do expect the optimizations and some bios improvements to reduce the negative performance in some games over the next couple of months. It may be a disappointment but not a disaster. I wish you had bought Ryzen before joining the lynch mob here.

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.

 

[Krenum]

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.

Agreed. For people who own a 6700K like me or similar, its not worth the upgrade at all, although I wanted it to be & that's what's so frustrating. I suppose for people who had an AMD CPU like the 8350 it would be though.

 

[ShuttleLuv]

I don't understand why they always think we're against AMD. I've used both all my life and while I currently have Intel, I want AMD to succeed because it makes things competitive and heated again (the best cpu's / overclockers / price performance) came out during this timeframe last decade, and it lowers pricing. Not to mention, it gives us more choice. The best days of computing were when we had lots of choices imo.

 

[Gman1979]

People complaining about the overclocking ability of Ryzen keep coming across as spoiled malcontents. The low overclocking speeds we are seeing are almost entirely a result of the 14nm LP manufacturing node from Samsung. It was never meant for extreme clock speeds and they did a decent job of massaging the process enough to reach 4Ghz with it. If you look at the power usage at the process's ideal frequencies of 3.5 Ghz and below, it beats even Intel in power efficiency.

AMD went with the best process technology they had available to them and it served them well. They have a solid product that can actually make headway in the server and enterprise markets where AMD can make higher margins and hopefully regain enough market share to get on solid financial footing again. This is essential to any hopes of properly funding CPU and GPU development that will end up benefiting us as consumers.

So far, I've gotten to play with a 2x 1700, 1x 1700x, and a 1800x while putting some systems together for friends/family. Each one of them seemed to top out around 4.1 Ghz. the 1700 and 1800x both could do some tasks at 4.2 but I didn't have the time to do extensive stability testing or tweaking. From these limited samples, it really felt like there was almost a hard wall at those frequencies due to the LP 14nm process used, not the CPU design itself. This gives me hope that the speed envelope can be extended with further process improvements as the CPU design doesn't seem to be what is holding it back. Temps were not a problem even with air cooling, and the 2x 1700 CPUs are actually on the same cooling loop while in separate cases and cooler than a polar bear's toenails even at 4.1 Ghz.

I've been content with my 6600k since I bought it, and had given a little consideration to upgrading to a x99 system. After actually playing with Ryzen, if I upgrade it will be to a Ryzen based system. I'm not out chasing 144Hz gaming 1080p gaming FPS, but at no point did Ryzen feel like it was holding me back in the short time I tried gaming with it. The God's honest truth is 2nd place is still impressive in this instance. What really seals the deal for me though is I can get (unofficial) ECC memory support on a consumer motherboard with these CPUs. I plan on waiting to see how the server platform shapes up for Ryzen before buying, but it is nice to know I can get ECC support without being forced to buy into the server platform.

There is simply an immense amount of computing power available with the Ryzen 8 core CPUs, and that's just on the face of it without considering the price. I really hope they get the little quirks sorted out quickly. I think Ryzen still has a bit of gas in the tank once we get the memory speeds and scheduling issues fixed.

 

[os2wiz]

I don't understand why they always think we're against AMD. I've used both all my life and while I currently have Intel, I want AMD to succeed because it makes things competitive and heated again (the best cpu's / overclockers / price performance) came out during this timeframe last decade, and it lowers pricing. Not to mention, it gives us more choice. The best days of computing were when we had lots of choices imo.

I do not think you are an AMD hater, but I think you are unduly influenced by their remarks and slanted posts here. I spent some time reviewing posts about gaming results. And somebody pointed out to me that in many games where AMD was 10 to 15% behind in fps, it did NOT have the lowest FPS experieced at some points in the game. So that is the cruxt of my argument. The lowest frames are more important than the highest or average frames. Lowest frames cause screen taring and glitches in the optics.AMD average and highest frames are still good enough NOT to destroy gaming experience in many of the games it did nt do well in. On the other hand Intel with some of the lowest frames in certain games could providea screen taing experience more so than AMD. This of course is not consistent across all games but I think it is worth taking note of.

 

[Dreamerbydesign]

I just can't believe the lack of headroom in overclocking. In this day and age they had to know they were forgetting about the enthusiest.

When you have to push something to the extreme end with almost no headroom for overclocking just to make it semi competitive with Intel, you aren't left with many choices as a company. But this is the age of the Internet. As soon as a product is released to the public, it's gloves off. People WILL expose the truth and cut through the marketing bs.

I won't lie I wanted AMD to be competitive once again, in a major way. But I also learned years ago with AMD to keep my horses tied. They have been misleading the public for years imo

 

[ShuttleLuv]

People complaining about the overclocking ability of Ryzen keep coming across as spoiled malcontents. The low overclocking speeds we are seeing are almost entirely a result of the 14nm LP manufacturing node from Samsung. It was never meant for extreme clock speeds and they did a decent job of massaging the process enough to reach 4Ghz with it. If you look at the power usage at the process's ideal frequencies of 3.5 Ghz and below, it beats even Intel in power efficiency.

AMD went with the best process technology they had available to them and it served them well. They have a solid product that can actually make headway in the server and enterprise markets where AMD can make higher margins and hopefully regain enough market share to get on solid financial footing again. This is essential to any hopes of properly funding CPU and GPU development that will end up benefiting us as consumers.

So far, I've gotten to play with a 2x 1700, 1x 1700x, and a 1800x while putting some systems together for friends/family. Each one of them seemed to top out around 4.1 Ghz. the 1700 and 1800x both could do some tasks at 4.2 but I didn't have the time to do extensive stability testing or tweaking. From these limited samples, it really felt like there was almost a hard wall at those frequencies due to the LP 14nm process used, not the CPU design itself. This gives me hope that the speed envelope can be extended with further process improvements as the CPU design doesn't seem to be what is holding it back. Temps were not a problem even with air cooling, and the 2x 1700 CPUs are actually on the same cooling loop while in separate cases and cooler than a polar bear's toenails even at 4.1 Ghz.

I've been content with my 6600k since I bought it, and had given a little consideration to upgrading to a x99 system. After actually playing with Ryzen, if I upgrade it will be to a Ryzen based system. I'm not out chasing 144Hz gaming 1080p gaming FPS, but at no point did Ryzen feel like it was holding me back in the short time I tried gaming with it. The God's honest truth is 2nd place is still impressive in this instance. What really seals the deal for me though is I can get (unofficial) ECC memory support on a consumer motherboard with these CPUs. I plan on waiting to see how the server platform shapes up for Ryzen before buying, but it is nice to know I can get ECC support without being forced to buy into the server platform.

There is simply an immense amount of computing power available with the Ryzen 8 core CPUs, and that's just on the face of it without considering the price. I really hope they get the little quirks sorted out quickly. I think Ryzen still has a bit of gas in the tank once we get the memory speeds and scheduling issues fixed.

And major price cuts

 

[NKD]

When you have to push something to the extreme end with almost no headroom for overclocking just to make it semi competitive with Intel, you aren't left with many choices as a company. But this is the age of the Internet. As soon as a product is released to the public, it's gloves off. People WILL expose the truth and cut through the marketing bs.

I won't lie I wanted AMD to be competitive once again, in a major way. But I also learned years ago with AMD to keep my horses tied. They have been misleading the public for years imo

So you are saying this CPU is not competitive. Respect your opinion but it's far from wrong. Intel 8 core hips on 14nm don't overclock to the moon either. 4.3 or so these cap out like at 4.1. How the hell is that so bad?

We went from don't expect anything higher than 3.2 or 3.5 to 4-4.1.

I mean I keep it honest and realistic. If your expectations was beyond that then you clearly expected way too much. And you knew well ahead of time we didn't expect it to match Intel in clocks.

 

[ShuttleLuv]

We have two world records with LN2 so something more than air is needed. There is a wall on air with the particular volts.

 

[Gman1979]

And major price cuts

AMD doesn't need major price cuts to compete this time. It has a solid product. The only real losers here will be the Intel stockholders, as the margins shrink from having to revise their pricing.

 

[NKD]

And major price cuts

Why would they cut prices on this if it matches Intel clock for clock in content creation and everything else and falls little behind in 1080p gaming. You are expecting way too much. They already have it priced at 499 and matches Intel 1000+ dollar chips.

Wishful thinking you want price cuts. They are still selling out everywhere. Those who see value in the chips will purchase them and there is shit load of those people.

I know personally a lot of people waiting to go this route running server environments and editing. Chips is no slouch.

 

[Master_shake_]

Why would they cut prices on this if it matches Intel clock for clock in content creation and everything else and falls little behind in 1080p gaming. You are expecting way too much. They already have it priced at 499 and matches Intel 1000+ dollar chips.

Wishful thinking you want price cuts. They are still selling out everywhere. Those who see value in the chips will purchase them and there is shit load of those people.

because it's not as fast at 1080p!!!!!

that's why.

when you have to concoct a scenario to show a cpu is slower you've gone over the deep end.

i guess 300 vs 250 fps is a major win (made up numbers).

 

[ShuttleLuv]

From my pov, if they dropped massive I'd pick one up. As it is now, no. Maybe I'm the only one.

 

[ShuttleLuv]

Theres talk on http://wccftech.com/ryzen-7-1800x-overclocked-58ghz-ln2/ thread that maybe it's Win10, Win7 purportedly offering 17% faster

 

[NKD]

because it's not as fast at 1080p!!!!!

that's why.

when you have to concoct a scenario to show a cpu is slower you've gone over the deep end.

i guess 300 vs 250 fps is a major win (made up numbers).

Or 95 vr 105. 125 vs 135 lol.

 

[Master_shake_]

Or 95 vr 105. 125 vs 135 lol.

LOGIC!

we all win as long as in some made up bs AMD loses.

did anyone even bother to mention ryzen is as fast as intels HEDT offerings? well other than in 1080p; cause is you are running 1080p with anything over a quad core in 2017 there is no hope for you.

 

[Meeho]

Truly a quality thread. Those idiots at AMD should have released all the Ryzen models at half the GHz and then the special ones could overclock them by 100% and that would be double mega awesome!!! What a true god of overclocking it would be, a great success and a massive win for AMD because we all now a CPUs worth is measured by OC potential in percentage! Screw the actual performance, efficiency or price.

If only they were smart enough, but alas.

 

[Lastan010]

Ryzen is already overclocked out of the box, these things were meant to run 3ghz or less.

If consoles didn't control how games are developed we wouldn't have this problem where PC cpu's with more than 4 cores are useless, and same with PC GPU's where most of its power Is lost due to weak console code that is meant to run on tablet hardware.

I been saying for so long that NVidia, AMD and Intel need to start creating their own gaming division strictly for games just on PC, only then we would have our peace.

 

[ShuttleLuv]

I think they have too MANY variants and not enough headroom. Look at 1800x....it's more and offers nothing over the 1700x. 1800x should be $300, 1700x $250, 1700 $200 and below imo.

 

[ShuttleLuv]

Overclocked out of the box? There goes my enthusiest enthusiasm.

 

[Gman1979]

Ryzen is already overclocked out of the box, these things were meant to run 3ghz or less.

If consoles didn't control how games are developed we wouldn't have this problem where PC cpu's with more than 4 cores are useless, and same with PC GPU's where most of its power Is lost due to weak console code that is meant to run on tablet hardware.

I been saying for so long that NVidia, AMD and Intel need to start creating their own gaming division strictly for games just on PC, only then we would have our peace.

You're aware the Xbox One and PS4 have eight core CPUs? If anything, they help make a strong case for better use of multiple core CPUs. What is lagging is the will and/or ability to invest in programming to make use of the available cores. Most software companies would rather ship a functional product to market faster rather than make an additional investment of time and resources into multithreading optimizations when they aren't required for the software to function. I've personally seen several instances in work situations where programmers were actively discouraged from refactoring software to make use of more cores. Sometimes it was a time consideration, and several others were the result of management treating "multithreading" as some sort of Pandora's box due to outdated bad experiences with it.

The situation gets a little better once there is some direct competition between two pieces of software though. If you have a direct competitor, you're more likely to get the green light to invest heavily in multithreading optimizations that can boost your performance. Games compete against each other mostly based on gameplay and graphics. There's no direct game to game performance pressure to apply directly to the programmers or their management.

 

[luisito]

I think they have too MANY variants and not enough headroom. Look at 1800x....it's more and offers nothing over the 1700x. 1800x should be $300, 1700x $250, 1700 $200 and below imo.

Well, it depends on what do you want and what do you need... 1700x and 1800x are high leakage silicon for "pro" overclockers... if you just want to do some mild OC with air or an AIO setup, better buy the 1700.

AMD makes very great products (more than people realize), but they need a little bit of TLC from the owner...

 

[CSI_PC]

Wheres the outrage?! Muh $1800 CPU doesn't game as well as a $300 one!!!!!!

Oh wait.. you didn't expect a 10c/20t processor to do as well as a 5ghz 4 core in gaming?

Then why the fuck did you expect an 8/16 to do it?

AMD was going after Boradwell-E with Ryzen.. they succeeded.

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

 

[Meeho]

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.

Why is that an issue? You can't compare them as they are on different processes.

 

[Dreamerbydesign]

So you are saying this CPU is not competitive. Respect your opinion but it's far from wrong. Intel 8 core hips on 14nm don't overclock to the moon either. 4.3 or so these cap out like at 4.1. How the hell is that so bad?

We went from don't expect anything higher than 3.2 or 3.5 to 4-4.1.

I mean I keep it honest and realistic. If your expectations was beyond that then you clearly expected way too much. And you knew well ahead of time we didn't expect it to match Intel in clocks.

I meant things were cherry picked and some people feel AMD purposely did not mention many things they knew ahead of time for sure. But then again they are a company out to make money so I get it.

If the prices were slashed in half, I'd have been a day one Ryzen builder. For the scenarios they excel at, they are an awesome value. But for your average consumer, and your average gamer, these chips are not as valuable from a performance stand point for specific gaming or general tasks that do not utilize the extra cores.

Kind of like why Bulldozer turned out to not be as big of a deal. Sure it had more cores (and "units") but in the end most applications were not designed to take advantage of them. And I still believe that is the case even today.

 

[CSI_PC]

Why is that an issue? You can't compare them as they are on different processes.

You can to a certain extent as there are certain performance envelope parameters that apply to silican/node/fabs as long as it is comparable (yeah some leeway) size at 14nm.
The limitation in terms of OCing is the voltage-clock-frequency performance envelope for Ryzen, in fact it is a limitation even without overclocking for the 1800X.
Broadwell-E hits its wall of 1.35 to 1.45V around 4.3GHz/4.4GHz all cores, and yep with those voltages you cannot use a Noctua D15 on Broadwell-E (reminds you of Ryzen eh trying that all cores at 4GHz).
Cheers

 

[Dreamerbydesign]

Did you turn smt off on your Ryzen build, or is it perhaps that you have no Ryzen build and are just parroting what others have said. List the games you own that are not running well on Ryzen if you have it. What is your motherboard model and how many sticks of ram are you using? Answer these questions and perhaps I can help you. Turning of smt in apps using 4 cores or less helps performance considerably. Having no more than 16GB memory and only in 2 dimm slots also helps a lot. There are some flaws in Ryzen, but it is still competitive in gaming if you run it in the parameters I just mentioned.

Just going to be honest... I do not want to have to adjust games to certain parameters to enjoy them. Nor will most gamers. Do you know why consoles are so wildly popular? Because they just work.

No one should drop $500 on just a CPU and need to watch their parameters and settings for games. No thanks. This is not 1990 where I needed to adjust my dipswitches and check IRQ request settings. I want something to just work. This was especially bothersome in regards to 1080P gaming. Granted I game at 4k or 1440P, but most people do not.

Maybe round 2 AMD. I just hope people force AMD to consider the blunders and not make excuses this time. Vote with your wallet people.

 

[NKD]

I meant things were cherry picked and some people feel AMD purposely did not mention many things they knew ahead of time for sure. But then again they are a company out to make money so I get it.

If the prices were slashed in half, I'd have been a day one Ryzen builder. For the scenarios they excel at, they are an awesome value. But for your average consumer, and your average gamer, these chips are not as valuable from a performance stand point for specific gaming or general tasks that do not utilize the extra cores.

Kind of like why Bulldozer turned out to not be as big of a deal. Sure it had more cores (and "units") but in the end most applications were not designed to take advantage of them. And I still believe that is the case even today.

Bulldozer had shit ipc. Zen is not that case. You are putting it in a way that games are unplayable with zen. When that is hardly the case. Average gamer won't be too concerned with 90 vs a 100 or 75 vs 80, or 130 vs 120. You know what I mean? And that's not even the case with games across the board. Bulldozer was shit in single thread performance.

Zen only doesn't perform in multi threaded environment it matches Intel Intel in single thread workload. Some games are clearly not in it's favor but I didn't see any scenario where it affected game play itself.

 

[Simplyfun]

You're aware the Xbox One and PS4 have eight core CPUs? If anything, they help make a strong case for better use of multiple core CPUs.

Comparing eight super weak cores that can be devastated by a bulldozer!!! of all things compared to the hardware we work on with PC's today is a non sequitur . I agree though that this console first gaming strategy kind of defeats much of the purpose of the latest and greatest PC hardware.

 

[quasar56]

I find it hard to believe that people are bashing Ryzen as it is a very competitive offering from AMD that allows them to be in the running again.
A new arch needs times for the software to catch up and a few bugs to be quashed and why should AMD cut prices when it does compete very well against the higher priced Intel offering. It comes up short against against the I7-7700 but that chip enjoys a 1ghz clock advantage when overclocked. All in all it's nice to see competition at the top like the old days! http://www.linleygroup.com/mpr/article.php?id=11666

 

[SixFootDuo]

You really have to be careful with expectations in life.

I knew ahead of time it would most likely NOT be a good overclocker.

The reasons are simple and logical. Here we have AMD coming way late into the game and they are wanting to compete with intel. What do you do? You bin your CPU's for speed as close are you can without losing stability. They also left 100mhz on their for overclockers it seems.

They also used solder and not past.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're not a gamer then the 1700 is probably your best bet.

However, if you're a gamer, a $259 dollar 7700K Kaby Lake is the best bang for the buck PERIOD. Microcenter has a 30 dollar instant discount on their $289 dollar 7700K Kaby Lake CPU if you buy a motherboard. That's a real discount because Microcenter beats Amazon and Newegg and everyone else on PC Parts. They also price match.

Sorry, nothing beats a 5ghz Kaby Lake at gaming ... period.

For now, the Ryzen is strictly a productivity oriented CPU. Grab a copy of handbrake and knock yourself out ...................

 

[Formula.350]

I share Meeho's sentiments: this thread is stupid and just pointless :\ You are whining about something that isn't even there to whine about in the first place. Since when did we, as enthusiasts, ever consider the "Boost" clocks to be the frequency of a processor? Hmm?
1700 = 3GHz
1700X = 3.4GHz
1800X = 3.6GHz
Period.
Boost speeds are conditional. Do not expect your processor to be able to run at that all the time, in every situation. If that's what they could do then AMD would've fucking sold it with that as the base speed. It really is that simple.

As such, if you get a 4GHz overclock out of a 1700, that means you have overclocked it by ONE THOUSAND MEGAHERTZ. That's a 33% overclock!

What does an i7 7700K get up to? Is the average still 4.9GHz? Know what, screw it, lets go ahead an even call it 5.1GHz.
What's the 7700K's base close. Not Turbo, BASE. It's 4.2GHz.
How much of an increase is that? NINE HUNDRED MEGAHERTZ. That's only 28%!!

And you know what? Even that isn't worthy of complaining about, really.

We are not in the 90s anymore where processors ramped up speed almost literally every month and a half. We now have the abilities to find out what an entire wafer can run for the lowest speed, and that's just what things are binned at. As it turns out, maybe AMD and GF just have things dialed in well enough where the speeds average rather high, and so they're given that increased boost range since they can on average run at those speeds almost all the time. Which on that note, the 7700K's boost? only 300MHz higher. Ryzen's all get 400MHz more.

So yea, AMD doesn't need to cut prices, because as it was said, if that was the case why are they pretty much entirely sold out everywhere? No one seemed to have though that they'd have done this well, and case in point is the fact that motherboards were produced in such limited numbers that stock on most of the $150+ boards are over a week out! Even then it's only to satisfy the pre-orders!

 

[ZeroBarrier]

I find it hard to believe that people are bashing Ryzen as it is a very competitive offering from AMD that allows them to be in the running again.
A new arch needs times for the software to catch up and a few bugs to be quashed and why should AMD cut prices when it does compete very well against the higher priced Intel offering. It comes up short against against the I7-7700 but that chip enjoys a 1ghz clock advantage when overclocked. All in all it's nice to see competition at the top like the old days! http://www.linleygroup.com/mpr/article.php?id=11666

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?

 

[Reality]

I'm surprised that pre-release leaks and rumors were so positive...why did AMD mislead the public to this degree when they knew that once real benchmarks and performance were reviewed that it would come back to bite them...were they that desperate for all those pre-orders?...now I don't trust all the positive Vega rumors either

People need to forget wccftech.com exists, that'd be the first step. lol

 

[KazeoHin]

Im going to parrot Linus Sebastian on this and say that we all knew it would fall behind the 7700K in games. I never expected it to beat out that chip. In MOST games it is within 10%, which is the difference between 54FPS and 60FPS. NOT A HUGE DIFFERENCE. While in real proffessional workloads it passes even the more expensive 6 cores and matches tge intel 8 core.

This chip is performing exactly like we expected, so why the gruff?

 

[Peppercorn]

No buts about it. Ryzen IS a great CPU.

 

[os2wiz]

People need to forget wccftech.com exists, that'd be the first step. lol

Absolutely right. AMD did not create most of the hype. That was wccftech. Some of their posted results were too good to be true and that helped fuel expectations. The chip is damned good and within a few months the vast majority of popular games will have optimizations that will add to the compelling reasons to move to a high performance 8 core chip for a damned attractive price.