AMD Ryzen 1700X CPU Review @ [H]

Haters are out in full force. Developers optimizing games for Intel cpus for years when amd had no competitive processor. Now when amd does they will have developers developing games in Ryzen systems. It's not easy coming back and succeeding 100% every where. Not every person games on this planet. It does just fine at higher resolution. AOTS already came out and said there are optimizations to be done for Ryzen. Give it aa break. You all are gonna get nothing from this fud. Yea it doesn't beat Intel in games but Intel compilers have been used for years with their dominance.

It's a decent competitor. One thing at a time. Lol. For those of you calling it another bulldozer have clearly lost your fuckin minds, lol.
 
Haters are out in full force. Developers optimizing games for Intel cpus for years when amd had no competitive processor. Now when amd does they will have developers developing games in Ryzen systems. It's not easy coming back and succeeding 100% every where. Not every person games on this planet. It does just fine at higher resolution. AOTS already came out and said there are optimizations to be done for Ryzen. Give it aa break. You all are gonna get nothing from this fud.

It's a decent competitor. One thing at a time. Lol. For those of you calling it another bulldozer have clearly lost your fuckin minds, lol.
It seems overly hopeful to assume this all due to poor developer optimization and that many developers are going to recompile all that code to take advantage of Ryzens architecture. I hope in AMD case that is really all it is and that devs are genuinely interested in doing that, but you can't call everyone a hater because they are disappointed in poor gaming performance especially considering gaming is the only thing driving the PC desktop marketplace anymore.
 
Not sure why all the hate for the R7 CPU's because of gaming benches. It's the wrong CPU for the job anyway (for the moment).

Looks to me like the party hasn't started yet. It starts with the Ryzen 5 1400X. Half the cores will probably = 2/3 the heat (taking into account mem controller and fabric).

So Ryzen has slightly lower IPC than intel but a R5 1400X will have far more thermal headroom than Ryzen R7's and be ridiculously cheap compared to a 7700K.

The only potential fly in the ointment is a low max overclock speed. If RX480 is any indication there will be a solid 14nm process voltage/heat wall. I hope its above 4.5Ghz on R5's but that's probably wishful thinking.

For real gaming benchmarks I want to see 7700K vs 1400X both oc'ed with amd & nvidia cards. I especially want to see if an all AMD Vega/Ryzen Rig has any improvement in DX12 performance (I suspect there will be).
 
Last edited:
Almost nobody was a fan of Broadwell-E overclock potential. It had the nice property that you could lock it to 4Ghz and push voltage down to something like 1-1.1V, but if you wanted performance, BDW-E sucked compared to HSW-E. Because of OC limit. Good thing Skylake-X looks to lift that one, according to recent rumors.

Not an easy solve? It looks borderline impossible to me, any communication between 2 CCXs is bound to be a performance bottleneck. And well, if your CCXs can't communicate, that L3 cache is as good as none. I mean, it already is but whatever.


there are always tricks that they can employ I don't know enough to say its going to be near impossible, that's all.
 
Haters are out in full force. Developers optimizing games for Intel cpus for years when amd had no competitive processor. Now when amd does they will have developers developing games in Ryzen systems. It's not easy coming back and succeeding 100% every where. Not every person games on this planet. It does just fine at higher resolution. AOTS already came out and said there are optimizations to be done for Ryzen. Give it aa break. You all are gonna get nothing from this fud. Yea it doesn't beat Intel in games but Intel compilers have been used for years with their dominance.

It's a decent competitor. One thing at a time. Lol. For those of you calling it another bulldozer have clearly lost your fuckin minds, lol.

Bulldozer wasn't that bad for those who liked to roll their own OS - I was able to build a dirt cheap 2P/16c VM host running Xen on Gentoo and the updated GCC optimizations made it work. Ryzen will be a great for us OSS types on a budget once this CCX thing is analyzed.
 
I think it is a bit of both, ucode may help iron out things like the IMC latencies and allow it to run at higher DRAM frequencies, it could make more efficient use of cache etc but yeah if one is hoping for 30% gains, it will not happen 10% is possible.

Agreed. Between UEFI updates that allow for running at higher RAM frequencies, potential microcode updates and a possible patch for the Windows scheduler, I could see the performance gap in gaming close somewhat. I don't know if I'd say 10% is realistic either but 5% or 8% might be doable. I'm just speculating like all of you. The only reason why I doubt 10% or anymore than that is because I've been in this business a long time and I've seen so much hardware come and go. Graphics cards are really the only thing that improves that dramatically over time. Sound cards get worse as companies get lazy with drivers and CPU's more or less stay the same. I've been hearing people hold out hope for more mature BIOS files to fix things or chipset drivers and the reality is that improvements through updates, patches, microcode updates and BIOS updates are very small at best. Added up they aren't necessarily nothing.
 
AMD released a very good set of CPUs that just can't compete with Kaby Lake where Kaby Lake is strongest. It would seem to be the easy choice over Broadwell-E imho. If your use of a CPU scales with 6+ cores then Ryzen for $300-$500 is what I'll recommend. Arguing that the CPU is fine for high resolution gaming is just a bullshit excuse. Every new GPU release makes that argument less and less valid. I hope AMD moves a ton of units though. Maybe we can get a Skylake-X 8 core for $500. I put my money into a 7700k this morning based on what I've seen on gaming performance. I also hope AMD gets some Ryzen 3 and 5 series into some Dell Optiplex micro form factors. Then I can buy them by the pallet.
 
I would assume developers would rush to this CPU. Isn't a variant of it going to end up in some next gen console?
 
So, the Ryzen is not a bad CPU for gaming, just not performing at the level of the high end Intel offerings... ATM...
 
  • Like
Reactions: isp
like this
Should have gotten a Gold Award based on price alone, but that's just my opinion.

Anyway, I wonder how the 1700X and 7700K would compare at the exact same core speed and with 4-cores disabled on the 1700X.
 
Any low res Ryzen benches run on Radeon?

Maybe NVidia uses an Intel compiler for their drivers :p
 
there are always tricks that they can employ I don't know enough to say its going to be near impossible, that's all.
Fair enough, i may be jumping a ship a little, but that still looks like a ridiculous oversight on AMD's part, especially since their server stuff is intended to use 8 of these CCXs.
Ah, the usual band of self proclaimed hardware gurus driving traffic to this forum. Razor1, the only latency caused here is by you pulling shit out of your ass. Shintai, take your pills in the morning ...lol
Ryzen is a success no matter how much screaming you will do, children.
Talking about screaming and children, here is a fine toddler!
 
Ryzen is a success no matter how much screaming you will do, children.


Hey I'm commenting on what was stated on a french review site, so if you can't talk about that, don't post crap lol.

and just for you watch this cause ya need it



doesn't pertain to GPU's but for you and your mind set lol, sure does.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure how long you've been gaming, but I go back to 1980.

Though I remember the the 3dfx Glide API. Back then the target was a sustained 24fps- the same frame rate as a movie. We used to game in the dark since 24fps looks pretty bad in a lighted room.

So it's all relative. My rig does a sustained 60fps with anything I play. So I'm good.

Agree, everything is pretty relative. I don't go quite as far back as you. I started playing PC games on my parents monochrome Toshiba laptops in 1989 or so, and got my first PC of my own (a 286) in 1991.

I too remember being amazed by the lower framerates of the day in the early 3D era, but back then we were playing almost entirely single player games, and when we did play multiplayer, everyone else had just as bad framerates, so no one had an advantage.

These days, having experienced faster framerates 24 feels unbearable, 30 is the absolute minimum I'll play at in a single player game, and even then I find it bothersome due to the mouse lag.

60fps is the minimum I'll play a multiplayer game at. I don't want my framerate to drop below 60 for even a second, so I shoot for minimum framerates of 60fps.

My take is, 24fps I can clearly see stutter. I can see it in the movies too, but for some bizarre reason it doesnt bother me as much, it actually gives it a bit of a cinematic feel missing from 30 and 60fps recordings.

By 30fps - to me - things generally LOOK pretty good, but as soon as I grab the mouse, there is an evident lag that drives me nuts. This lag gradually goes away as framerates increase, and by the time I hit 60fps I no longer really detect it.

There is some argument to be made that continuing up to 90fps continues the improved feel even more, but it is subtle, and I haven't done it since my last CRT died in 2005, so I don't have a very good memory of how it feels, but I do recall vsyncing the original Counter-Strike at 100hz/100fps at 1600x1200 on my 22" Iiyama Visionmaster Pro 510 felt a little better than 60fps, but it wasn't enough of a difference that I missed it a ton when I moved to my first flat panel, a 1920x1200 Dell 2405fpw in 2005.

Above 90fps I feel like the improvements are mostly caused by placebo. Things for people to argue about in benchmarks and charts, but not really practically relevant in game.

It reminds me of the old Q3A benchmarks when people where like "ha ha your CPU sucks because it only gets 315 fps in Q3A, but mine gets 350fps, clearly superior". Utter nonsense.
 
Last edited:
So is the best value is to buy a $329 1700 and overclock it to 4.0Ghz? If we want an AMD gaming rig that is.
Well there might be more value out of their 4/6 core offerings for gaming later down the road at a more attractive price for most people that 200-250 range ie 1400x/1600x, although their boost clocks aren't an ounce higher so not sure if OC will make and break them for gaming.

Either way it's hard to dethrone the performance you get out of 6600k/7600k oced for games. Unless you wanted to do something else like stream while playing games, few actually do.
 
All the sudden we all became 1080p gamers. Lol. Whatever fits your boat. You all game at 1080p al of sudden with 8 core chip? Lol.

I can't believe how people change gears just cuz.
Yep. It wasn't that long ago that everyone became 4k gamers (the same ones mind you) when Fury didn't have HDMI 2.0. Now everyone has regressed to 1080. Go Figure. (y)
 
Not sure why all the hate for the R7 CPU's because of gaming benches.

Looks to me like the party hasn't started yet. It starts with the Ryzen 5 1400X. Half the cores will probably = 2/3 the heat (taking into account mem controller and fabric).

So Ryzen has slightly lower IPC than intel but a R5 1400X will have far more thermal headroom than an R7's and be ridiculously cheap compared to a 7700K.

The only potential fly in the ointment is a solid wall on Ryzen clock-speed. If RX480 is any indication there will be a solid 14nm process voltage/heat wall. I hope the 14nm process wall is above 4.5Ghz on R5's but that's probably wishful thinking.

For real gaming benchmarks I want to see 7700K vs 1400X both oc'ed with amd & nvidia cards. I especially want to see if an all AMD Vega/Ryzen Rig has any improvement in DX12 performance (I suspect there will be).

if this thread is to be believed there is a fairly solid wall at 4GHz (the voltage and power scaling is terrible past 3.5GHz, and dropping from 4 to 3.3 nets you a 50% reduction in power consumption for a 17.5% reduction in clocks)
It's not AMD's fault, GloFo/Samsung 14nm LPP was built for cell phone SoC's, where you want a bunch of cores at low-ish frequencies and very low power.

Ryzen is just not a die built for high clocks and class-leading single-threaded performance, it's built to scale down (for APU's, where every extra watt on the CPU is a watt the GPU doesn't get to use) and out (for servers, where you want dozens of cores and power consumption is paramount). In this sense the voltage scaling looks very promising - Ryzen gets 850 CB points at 35W on 8 cores, which puts it in stock 6700K territory with a laptop power budget, and 60W at 3.3GHz, which opens up the potential for a 16C (or heck, 32C - why should IBM be the only one who sells 200W+ parts) SKU with excellent multithreaded performance and adequate single-core performance.
 
Debated about ordering a 1700x and the Asus CH6 for my main rig, but now glad I didn't since I game at 1080p. I may go with a 7700k or may just stay on my 2600k and splurge on a new upgraded GTX1080 and call it a day until the next generation of Intel/AMD chips are released.

However, once the itx mobs are released, I will be ordering a 1700 and an itx mobo to upgrade my Plex server from the current i7 4790. This should be a definite Plex server upgrade, but I need an itx mobo for that upgrade.
 
AMD released a very good set of CPUs that just can't compete with Kaby Lake where Kaby Lake is strongest. It would seem to be the easy choice over Broadwell-E imho. If your use of a CPU scales with 6+ cores then Ryzen for $300-$500 is what I'll recommend. Arguing that the CPU is fine for high resolution gaming is just a bullshit excuse. Every new GPU release makes that argument less and less valid. I hope AMD moves a ton of units though. Maybe we can get a Skylake-X 8 core for $500. I put my money into a 7700k this morning based on what I've seen on gaming performance. I also hope AMD gets some Ryzen 3 and 5 cores into some Dell Optiplex micro form factors. Then I can buy them by the pallet.

It's funny that people think Intel's pricing and behavior has that much to do with AMD. It really doesn't. While they do effect the giant somewhat, AMD's lack of market share, lack of manufacturing capacity, advertising and R&D budgets, and general lack of performance have kept AMD in it's shadow for decades. Intel surely will reposition some CPU's or processor prices to a small degree to make them more attractive options in certain spots. Intel might also pretty much leave AMD alone for now or allow them to dominate a particular price point. Intel needs AMD to survive in some capacity because it needs a competitor to avoid anti-trust litigation. It's not necessarily any different than Microsoft handing Apple 150 million dollars back in the day to keep them afloat. It saved Microsoft's Office for the Mac and allowed them to point to a "competitor" in the desktop PC market.

In any case, I don't see prices adjusting all that much. As I said I think Intel may shift one or two top SKU's down or replace them with early refreshes to extend it's performance lead in the areas that Ryzen does well. This would include replacing the 7700K and the 6900K. We could very well see a 7750K or 7800K and on the HEDT side a 6950K or something like that which have higher turbo frequencies to do just that. Intel has done this before with CPU's like the 2700K.
 
Adding one more to the bottom of the excuses list...

Official AMD excuse list:
  • Games and apps aren't optimized yet
  • It's clearly a driver issue
  • Wait for BIOS updates
  • I like to play games with 300 browser tabs and Photoshop open
  • Just wait for DX12
  • Most games are GPU limited anyway
  • Things will clearly work better on the motherboard I ordered instead of the one in the review
  • People haven't figured out how to overclock these yet
  • What really matters is [pick any game that wasn't included in the review]
  • These are great for "office work"
  • Intel has been ripping people off for years, so I'm buying a slower CPU to support AMD
  • I encode Blu Rays 14 hours a day, delete those, then encode them again
  • The CPU will last longer in the future when programs support more threads
  • It was compiled with an Intel compiler
 
All I have to say is that every new processor AMD releases has a Z in it...
Bulldozzzer, zzzen, Ryzzzen. Never a gold award always zzz.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
Agreed. Between UEFI updates that allow for running at higher RAM frequencies, potential microcode updates and a possible patch for the Windows scheduler, I could see the performance gap in gaming close somewhat. I don't know if I'd say 10% is realistic either but 5% or 8% might be doable. I'm just speculating like all of you. The only reason why I doubt 10% or anymore than that is because I've been in this business a long time and I've seen so much hardware come and go. Graphics cards are really the only thing that improves that dramatically over time. Sound cards get worse as companies get lazy with drivers and CPU's more or less stay the same. I've been hearing people hold out hope for more mature BIOS files to fix things or chipset drivers and the reality is that improvements through updates, patches, microcode updates and BIOS updates are very small at best. Added up they aren't necessarily nothing.

The information inside is that the vendors are working hard in fixing the RAM aspect issue, ASUS internally got 3800Mhz, then AMD retracted that update and the systems would not go beyond 3Ghz OC, since AMD is more reliant on Memory it made sense to drive this. Anyways no use crying over it, it is fixable and hopefully it solves the latency issues. Schedulars that is the likely big fix per se. Again maybe to ambitious in the layout yielding penalties that become an issue.

At least we have AMD in teh higher end again, that was important, I didn't expect as much as they delivered. I am interested in seeing where they push it to, for now I am happy with my setup and will rather asses where AMD is at say Q3
 
If I read that french translation correctly, the issue is communication between the clusters, so if we were to get a single cluster 4 core cpu, that would effectively remove the latency issue?
 
Try with the same memory for both. Here you go.
AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-Review_CPU-Benchmarks.png

And... that shows that the AMD RAM controller has higher throughput when compared to Intel at the same Mhz/base timings in Sandra.

So my statement stands.

But, something is definitely going on with the latency. I am guessing it has something to do with sub-timings. Some could either be running way too loose, or too tight.. or even just not set properly to be in sync with the other settings.

I have done very extensive testing on my systems in the past in regards to sub-timings and a single setting out of whack can cause all sorts of issues.
 
If I read that french translation correctly, the issue is communication between the clusters, so if we were to get a single cluster 4 core cpu, that would effectively remove the latency issue?


not just that either the amount of cache in each cluster as well, I think, trying to read it myself.
 
So, the Ryzen is not a bad CPU for gaming, just not performing at the level of the high end Intel offerings... ATM...

I haven't seen enough high resolution gaming benchmarks to say with certainty, but that's my sense of the situation. As for AMD not performing at Intel's level "ATM", I'm going to say it's not just "ATM". AMD can't fix this without refreshing / modifying the CPU's architecture. There is a potential gap that can be closed a little but only just a little. That gap which exists now is basically here to stay.
 
Yep. It wasn't that long ago that everyone became 4k gamers (the same ones mind you) when Fury didn't have HDMI 2.0. Now everyone has regressed to 1080. Go Figure. (y)


Well, to be fair, a CPU you buy today will likely be with you for some time. Higher resolutions are usually GPU limited today, but that won't be the case forever.

Personally I think Ryzen does OK in games. I wouldn't have a problem gaming on it, but I can clearly see where some would have some discomfort with it due to the uncertainty of how things are going to change as time goes on.
 
Your point. It matches or beat Intel in encoding and everything else. Other than low res gaming. Yes I did think before I posted that. You just missed all the reviews.
Encoding != every single work load out there. 3 1080p monitors are more useful than 1 1440P or 4K monitor to me personally. If 90% of users are "low res gaming", then who is the one with the problem? I guess the 90% because this is AMD and we make excuses whenever we can.

The point is you can take advantage of multiple cores without encoding or gaming at 1440P/4K.
 
The information inside is that the vendors are working hard in fixing the RAM aspect issue, ASUS internally got 3800Mhz, then AMD retracted that update and the systems would not go beyond 3Ghz OC, since AMD is more reliant on Memory it made sense to drive this. Anyways no use crying over it, it is fixable and hopefully it solves the latency issues. Schedulars that is the likely big fix per se. Again maybe to ambitious in the layout yielding penalties that become an issue.

At least we have AMD in teh higher end again, that was important, I didn't expect as much as they delivered. I am interested in seeing where they push it to, for now I am happy with my setup and will rather asses where AMD is at say Q3

Yes, I am aware of this. I've seem some information from the motherboard manufacturer's on the subject. I still don't know if a patch to the Windows scheduler would be the huge fix everyone is now hoping it would be. I seriously doubt it.
 
I haven't seen enough high resolution gaming benchmarks to say with certainty, but that's my sense of the situation. As for AMD not performing at Intel's level "ATM", I'm going to say it's not just "ATM". AMD can't fix this without refreshing / modifying the CPU's architecture. There is a potential gap that can be closed a little but only just a little. That gap which exists now is basically here to stay.

I'm not convinced the architecture is fundamentally flawed. The IPC is respectable. Not quite up there with Intel's, but respectable. Lets also not forget that this is a brand spanking new architecture on a brand spanking new 14nm process for GloFo. With some minor stepping improvements and continuous process improvements, I think we'll see the clock speed headroom increase over time.

I don't think AMD will catch up with Intel. They don't have the same resources Intel does, but I feel it is not inconceivable that process improvements, stepping improvements, more optimized software, etc. combined will over time shrink the difference to where it is irrelevant.

I mean, unless you are obsessed with ultra-high framerates on ultra-high refresh rate screens it's even mostly irrelevant today. Won't take a huge amount of improvement to shrink that gap further.
 
I'm not convinced the architecture is fundamentally flawed. The IPC is respectable. Not quite up there with Intel's, but respectable. Lets also not forget that this is a brand spanking new architecture on a brand spanking new 14nm process for GloFo. With some minor stepping improvements and continuous process improvements, I think we'll see the clock speed headroom increase over time.

I don't think AMD will catch up with Intel. They don't have the same resources Intel does, but I feel it is not inconceivable that process improvements, stepping improvements, more optimized software, etc. combined will over time shrink the difference to where it is irrelevant.

I mean, unless you are obsessed with ultra-high framerates on ultra-high refresh rate screens it's even mostly irrelevant today. Won't take a huge amount of improvement to shrink that gap further.

Again I think people need to temper their expectations. We won't see a stepping improvement that will close the gap between Ryzen and Kaby Lake. That just isn't going to happen. I don't think the gap will shrink enough to ever be called "irrelevant."
 
Adding one more to the bottom of the excuses list...

BIOS updates generally help a decent amount on whatever platform you are running if that platform was just released.

It has been that way for quite a long time.

Not sure how that is an AMD excuse.

As far as the FX series, the Windows 7 scheduler update improved performance up to about 15%.

And, to be fair, the Intel compiler thing is pretty legit.. or at least it was back in the day.

The older Intel compilers compiled code that would take on purpose super slow paths if an Intel CPU was not detected.
 
Yes, I am aware of this. I've seem some information from the motherboard manufacturer's on the subject. I still don't know if a patch to the Windows scheduler would be the huge fix everyone is now hoping it would be. I seriously doubt it.
Asus posted a new Bios for the x370 prime yesterday - stated reason was improved memory compatibility, so the vendors are already on it
 
This is not routine for a new architecture.

I remember those days as well. You have to consider the underlying reasons why things were that way back in the day. Often times the days where processor patches were beneficial were before DirectX and API's that prevented hardware level access by software. CPU's back then also supported different instruction sets and had particularly strong weaknesses in some cases with some of them. In this case I don't think anything can be done unless there is a specific issue that needs to be addressed in the Windows scheduler. There are a lot of reasons why you don't see processor specific patching in games anymore. It's the nature of Windows, the known quantities of the game engines and cross licensing agreements on instruction set compatibility between Intel and AMD all go hand in hand to prevent this sort of thing. Believe it or not, we've seen significant enough changes in architecture on the Intel side to cause problems were "processor patches" still needed in games. Despite the fact that it wasn't a huge performance improvement over Haswell or Devil's Canyon, Skylake was a new architecture (according to Intel) with different design goals in mind than earlier CPU's. Nehalem and Sandy Bridge were vastly different from Core 2 and yet we saw no game patches for processor compatibility at that time.

The Athlon in the 1990's was a different beast because of how the architectures were in those days. In the 1990's the AMD processors were generally reversed engineered Intel CPU's and due to certain changes didn't work properly with some software. This was a non-issue by the time later Athlons rolled around.

I understand that as architecture continues to move and grow, things can end up vastly different, but on the processor itself for intel, can you really tell me that they've reinvented the way AMD did with first the Athlon, and then Ryzen? I've always seen Intel's processor line as one that continually evolves, so while you have newer architectures, it is essentially a progression, which is why large jumps are harder to find along the intel line when they had no one to compete with - its been a steady trend instead, but we're at the point where they are up against a dead end as the scalability of their architecture is reaching its limit even with newer technology and updated instructions implemented into the chip. It is also why there is a degree of compatibility among the chips, IMHO.

Ryzen is something brand new, as Athlon was back then. Hence why I think there are bound to be some kinks to work out, especially if the architecture in the AMD isn't content to ape intel, but takes a different path (infinity fabric, for instance). So I really don't see anything that I said as something unreasonable. I do find it unreasonable to expect a new processor with some new ways of doing things to be as catered to software-wise as an intel even though it isn't an intel.

It's not some horrible revelation either. Of course software has been optimized for Intel processors because that's what most people use. To think software isn't is what I could consider silly. The key here is to see if once the processor is more supported once the alleged software changes occur. And keep in mind, on the software side of things, this isn't me saying this - that came direct from Lisa Su in the Reddit AMA.
 
I understand that as architecture continues to move and grow, things can end up vastly different, but on the processor itself for intel, can you really tell me that they've reinvented the way AMD did with first the Athlon, and then Ryzen?

Yes! Intel has had several milestone CPUs that were completely different than anything before them. i386, Pentium, Pentium Pro, Netburst, Core, Core 2, Nehalem, Sandy Bridge, Skylake. Everything in between is largely an evolution of what came before it and not every CPU architecture is necessarily all that much faster than its predecessor. However, each new architecture allowed for a lot of growth. Even though Netburst was shit compared to the Athlon's of the day in many areas it still came a long way from Willamette to Prescott.


I've always seen Intel's processor line as one that continually evolves, so while you have newer architectures, it is essentially a progression, which is why large jumps are harder to find along the intel line when they had no one to compete with - its been a steady trend instead, but we're at the point where they are up against a dead end as the scalability of their architecture is reaching its limit even with newer technology and updated instructions implemented into the chip. It is also why there is a degree of compatibility among the chips, IMHO.

They are all progression in the sense that each CPU takes the lessons learned in the past and incorporates those lessons into the design or excludes what didn't work well before.

Ryzen is something brand new, as Athlon was back then. Hence why I think there are bound to be some kinks to work out, especially if the architecture in the AMD isn't content to ape intel, but takes a different path (infinity fabric, for instance). So I really don't see anything that I said as something unreasonable. I do find it unreasonable to expect a new processor with some new ways of doing things to be as catered to software-wise as an intel even though it isn't an intel.

Again these aren't the K5 or K6 days where AMD CPUs needed specific support to work properly.

It's not some horrible revelation either. Of course software has been optimized for Intel processors because that's what most people use. To think software isn't is what I could consider silly. The key here is to see if once the processor is more supported once the alleged software changes occur. And keep in mind, on the software side of things, this isn't me saying this - that came direct from Lisa Su in the Reddit AMA.

Lisa is doing damage control. There may be some optimization that can help but I wouldn't expect massive gains without physical hardware revisions.
 
I can see AMD focussing on IMC heavy updates for the update uarch, so i imagine i that

- branch prediction
- cache latency and bandwidth
- memory latency and bandwidth

I think that is where AMD needs to look at. It will derive most of where performance gains are.

Anyways, it was promising with a roadmap, i can easily recommend a Ryzen for diverse loads as general performance is really good
 
I'm waiting until the summer to upgrade so things get ironed out. You Intel plebs can continue to buy overpriced Intel CPUs. :)


I'm willing to bet Windows 10 is having a scheduling problem and that's why were seeing gaming scores all over the map.
 
Back
Top