AMD Ryzen Oxide Game Engine Optimized Code Tested @ [H]

Ryzen tops out around 4.1GHz, the 5960X can achieve 4.5GHz relatively easily.
 
The 9590 was an affordable 8 core.
Click to expand...

However 8 cores at about 1/2 the performance per core (compared to Intel) and more than twice the power usage did not make it a good processor for most on the desktop.
 
Dayaks said:
Let's see how much the high end AMD CPUs cost that actually competes with the 5960x. If they release a monster system (that you can OC) that thrashes Intel I have no problem switching.

The 9590 was an affordable 8 core. :cool:
Click to expand...
Yes, you must be joking.. I had one. Comparted to Ryzen'
s efficiency and capability. that chip is puke.
 
Dayaks said:
Let's see how much the high end AMD CPUs cost that actually competes with the 5960x.
Click to expand...
Ryzen already competes with Intel's 8-core extremes. Maybe not beating it across the board, but definitely competitive.
 
Dan_D said:
Ryzen tops out around 4.1GHz, the 5960X can achieve 4.5GHz relatively easily.
Click to expand...

The 1700 spire can do 4ghz at 1.375-80v at $300 it represents a $1000 builder value part. You can build it off a cheap B350 board like a Prime A or gamer pro with a decent kit of RAM for 450 dollars giving you a chance at going bigger on the Graphics which ultimately is by far bigger gains eg: 1050ti to RX470 the Radeon pumps 40% more performance.

The 5960X clocks well but only with a 3rd party cooling and a waterloop is 200+ depending on quality, since a 5960X has no stock cooler makes it quintessentially a 1300+ dollar setup which Ryzen still competes with in many things
 
OrangeKhrush said:
The 1700 spire can do 4ghz at 1.375-80v at $300 it represents a $1000 builder value part. You can build it off a cheap B350 board like a Prime A or gamer pro with a decent kit of RAM for 450 dollars giving you a chance at going bigger on the Graphics which ultimately is by far bigger gains eg: 1050ti to RX470 the Radeon pumps 40% more performance.

The 5960X clocks well but only with a 3rd party cooling and a waterloop is 200+ depending on quality, since a 5960X has no stock cooler makes it quintessentially a 1300+ dollar setup which Ryzen still competes with in many things
Click to expand...

It's really just some productivity apps Ryzen does ok in. Ryzen still lacks the ram, PCIe and a few other features that the 5960x supports way better. Good luck getting any decent amount of ram (as generally required for productivity) working at a fast speed with Ryzen. It's a niche of a niche.

Here's an OC vs OC review where Ryzen gets demonlished in games. http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu-review/10/

Now a higher core count that supports more memory could be a very intriguing part. It could crush Intel's non-Xeon parts in productivity. But the current CPUs are kind of in an awkward position against the 7700k.
 
Last edited:
Dayaks said:
It's really just some productivity apps Ryzen does ok in. Ryzen still lacks the ram, PCIe and a few other features that the 5960x supports way better. Good luck getting any decent amount of ram (as generally required for productivity) working at a fast speed with Ryzen. It's a niche of a niche.

Here's an OC vs OC review where Ryzen gets demonlished in games. http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu-review/10/

Now a higher core count that supports more memory could be a very intriguing part. It could crush Intel's non-Xeon parts in productivity. But the current CPUs are kind of in an awkward position against the 7700k.
Click to expand...


1) new BIOS arriving that will fix nearly all of Ryzen's memory issues, from my source in Asus their Crosshair boards can just click and go on 3200Mhz, dual rank and multi DIMMS is also fixed now.

2) X370 is not the highest end platform, X390 is and that will support higher levels of RAM, we also or at least I was told is that the top end goes to nearly double the 1800X's synthetic scores, for a workstation is that not enough?

3) A 1700 at $300 is still good good value, if you are talking about a 6900K then why even talk about a Ryzen at that price point you will be spending 2K on barebones.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
1) new BIOS arriving that will fix nearly all of Ryzen's memory issues, from my source in Asus their Crosshair boards can just click and go on 3200Mhz, dual rank and multi DIMMS is also fixed now.

2) X370 is not the highest end platform, X390 is and that will support higher levels of RAM, we also or at least I was told is that the top end goes to nearly double the 1800X's synthetic scores, for a workstation is that not enough?

3) A 1700 at $300 is still good good value, if you are talking about a 6900K then why even talk about a Ryzen at that price point you will be spending 2K on barebones.
Click to expand...

Well I said a 7700k...

IF AMD comes out with X390 at or below 5960X prices that could be a big market disruptor. That would be exciting to see.
 
Dayaks said:
It's really just some productivity apps Ryzen does ok in. Ryzen still lacks the ram, PCIe and a few other features that the 5960x supports way better. Good luck getting any decent amount of ram (as generally required for productivity) working at a fast speed with Ryzen. It's a niche of a niche.

Here's an OC vs OC review where Ryzen gets demonlished in games. http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu-review/10/

Now a higher core count that supports more memory could be a very intriguing part. It could crush Intel's non-Xeon parts in productivity. But the current CPUs are kind of in an awkward position against the 7700k.
Click to expand...
this has already been covered over and over. if you want the fastest gaming system and all you do is game, get a 7700k. if you need a system for productivity/work station stuff and game then ryzen is very very good and a better value than a 6900k based system. ryzen will give you a good gaming experience, great productivity and as stated the platform is still improving.
 
fbf937b9f6d9da01d83db14d90e06eb9b9e90d1f786262c8a581f7ac8035cc24.png


Intel pcmasterrace can never go wrong
 
CSI_PC said:
Yeah shaking my head they did that kind of test, bit meaningless without additional CPUs data point also at 2400.
Cheers
Click to expand...

Why aren't they using Ryzen certified dimms like G. Skill Flare X which run without problem at ddr 3200 cas 14-14-14 or even at 3466mhz??? That is not a fair playing field.
 
ZeroBarrier said:
Because DDR4 PC4 25600 is the same regardlss if it's "Ryzen certified" or not. There's no special sauce in those dimms that make them work any differently than any other DDR4 module that can easily run those clocks. "Ryzen certified" is marketing speak for " come and get it idiots; have your money ready".
Click to expand...
Not quite. There are a HUGE number of Ryzen owners that will readily verify that getting Certified RAM does in fact get the OC setting for the RAM, whereas ones not on the QVL are hit and miss, heavily on the miss.
 
JustReason said:
Not quite. There are a HUGE number of Ryzen owners that will readily verify that getting Certified RAM does in fact get the OC setting for the RAM, whereas ones not on the QVL are hit and miss, heavily on the miss.
Click to expand...

That has nothind to do with the RAM modules and only has to do with partners not given enough time before release to get motherboards ready and have everything supported off the bat. He didn't ask why they weren't benchmarked at the same ram speed, he's eluding to using specific "Ryzen certified" RAM which insinuates that those tests are invalid somehow.

Now, I can agree with testing with equal ram speeds when able to; but how ironic is it when AMD fans were posting a biased review with Ryzen running RAM faster than the Intel used in the test and claiming it to be valid and just another data point in favor of Ryzen?
 
ZeroBarrier said:
That has nothind to do with the RAM modules and only has to do with partners not given enough time before release to get motherboards ready and have everything supported off the bat. He didn't ask why they weren't benchmarked at the same ram speed, he's eluding to using specific "Ryzen certified" RAM which insinuates that those tests are invalid somehow.

Now, I can agree with testing with equal ram speeds when able to; but how ironic is it when AMD fans were posting a biased review with Ryzen running RAM faster than the Intel used in the test and claiming it to be valid and just another data point in favor of Ryzen?
Click to expand...
you're only pointing fingers here. His statement goes to a possible why they were running 2400 rather than 3200, being they used, or possibly used, non QVL RAM. As far as other tests and validity, unless you are attributing that to a specific poster, then a blanket statement such as that has no merit in this particular matter nor does it speak to the QVL Ram discussion.
 
Chimpee said:
Thanks you. Just curious Watching the video, even R7 1800X dip into the 9.7 fps around 4:00 mark, just curious OrangeKhrush, what is the point you are trying to make?
Click to expand...

Alpha games are neutral on hardware, normally fixes are released weekly, would be cool to see more alpha games
 
ZeroBarrier said:
Assuming Vega is enthusiast level. Let's hope they don't pull a "but if you crossfire 2 480X together you get 1080 performance in some games" again.

For quite a few years now AMD has only shown me I can't trust them as far as I can throw them. So I'm not going to hold my breath for Vega and I'm fully expecting it to be 15% better than a 480X at best. At least this way if they disappoint again my dissapointment will be tempered at a lower standard.
Click to expand...

You must be nuts. Vega will be faster than the Titan-X. It is over 30% faster than the 1080. So continue with your ridiculous rantings. It is not very becoming.
 
os2wiz said:
You must be nuts. Vega will be faster than the Titan-X. It is over 30% faster than the 1080. So continue with your ridiculous rantings. It is not very becoming.
Click to expand...

If I am nuts, then you must be delusional. Following AMDs track record, Vega will probably be 30% more powerful than the 1080 in 2 years when the 1080 has become mid to low tier.
 
I have used AMD and Nvidia recently both in context of their usage, I enjoyed the experience on both. Why does everything have to be this vs that.

just over a year ago I was playing professional league Battlefield 4 with a i5 2400 and GTX670 and was happy, the more people get the more ungrateful and unappreciative they are. Make your hardware work for you.
 
I decided it was time to create an account and post.

There is a minor issue with your article Kyle! As someone that plays and enjoys Ashes, I thought you should know that most Ashes of the Singularity players are playing Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation, the stand alone expansion. http://steamcharts.com/app/507490

You made it seem as if Ashes was completely dead. While it is hardly a popular game, it is more popular than the original game stats would have anyone believe.

Escalation has more units, buildings, maps, etc. and is an overall better multiplayer experience.
 
ZeroBarrier said:
If I am nuts, then you must be delusional. Following AMDs track record, Vega will probably be 30% more powerful than the 1080 in 2 years when the 1080 has become mid to low tier.
Click to expand...


Vega will be released in May. So we have about 5 to 6 weeks and the truth will be known.
 
Massdriver said:
I decided it was time to create an account and post.

There is a minor issue with your article Kyle! As someone that plays and enjoys Ashes, I thought you should know that most Ashes of the Singularity players are playing Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation, the stand alone expansion. http://steamcharts.com/app/507490

You made it seem as if Ashes was completely dead. While it is hardly a popular game, it is more popular than the original game stats would have anyone believe.

Escalation has more units, buildings, maps, etc. and is an overall better multiplayer experience.
Click to expand...

I think Kyle summed it up, irrespective of your stance on Ashes, it is a game and hence a metric to use, it doesn't matter on popularity
 
Massdriver said:
I decided it was time to create an account and post.

There is a minor issue with your article Kyle! As someone that plays and enjoys Ashes, I thought you should know that most Ashes of the Singularity players are playing Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation, the stand alone expansion. http://steamcharts.com/app/507490

You made it seem as if Ashes was completely dead. While it is hardly a popular game, it is more popular than the original game stats would have anyone believe.

Escalation has more units, buildings, maps, etc. and is an overall better multiplayer experience.
Click to expand...

Am I reading that chart right on my phone... That about 100 players are playing that expansion at any given time?

With an all time peak of 413...
 
Dayaks said:
Am I reading that chart right on my phone... That about 100 players are playing that expansion at any given time?

With an all time peak of 413...
Click to expand...

Yikes, even more people still played Supreme Commander Forged Alliance than Ashes.
 
Chimpee said:
Yikes, even more people still played Supreme Commander Forged Alliance than Ashes.
Click to expand...

Yeah I loved Total Annihilation so I spent $40 on Ashes. Was completely disappointed. Felt like a tech demo with a tutorial and they forgot to make the actual game.

The weird part is AMD fans were touting it but at the time there was all sorts of graphical corruption on the AMD side with DX12 on. It's like they never actually played it and just jerked off to the charts. I had a Titan X Maxwell and a Fury X at the time so I got to dabble a bit...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top