D
Deleted whining member 223597
Guest
In summary...
Floating point = yay!
Integer = boo!
Wasn't that part of the problem with Bulldozer too?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In summary...
Floating point = yay!
Integer = boo!
well you have a lot of intel fanbois at heart... who were waiting to dump on RYZEN...and what benchmarks are bad? like I said who games at 1650?I don't get all the doom and gloom, it's doing a lot better than I expected it to. Surprisingly so!
am I crazy... but who games at 1650 rez? I game at 4k... and the CPU's I saw tested all show the same scores?
but reading this thread... ryzen will gimp your games?
There was a reason why AMD didn't want the AOTS leak to stay.
Because it's a properly threaded game and the API doesn't favor one CPU brand over another.
Weird to compare GPU and CPU markets. Also I don't know who called it "irrelevant".
tomshardware.com review said:“Oxide games is incredibly excited with what we are seeing from the Ryzen CPU. Using our Nitrous game engine, we are working to scale our existing and future game title performance to take full advantage of Ryzen and its eight-core, 16-thread architecture, and the results thus far are impressive. These optimizations are not yet available for Ryzen benchmarking. However, expect updates soon to enhance the performance of games like Ashes of the Singularity on Ryzen CPUs, as well as our future game releases.” - Brad Wardell, CEO Stardock and Oxide
a voice of reason speaksIf you are at 4K the gaming performance is essentially at parity with the Intel CPUs in particular the 6 and 8 core models.
In workstation tasks and most other things beyond games it seems to do very well.
While the 1080p gaming results are not good in some cases. From a practical standpoint I have to ask myself what that matters.
There are possibilities for improvements since everything is on new gen1 hardware and also early BIOS revisions. There are no guarantees.
*shrugs*
I'm speaking more generally, when the AMD fans were all pointing to how great the AMD GPU's performed in AotS, and the NVIDIA defenders were crying that it was a benchmark only, no one played it, so it shouldn't be used to determine performance. Now I'm seeing people using it to highlight how "bad" Ryzen is at gaming. Thing is, the performance gap between Ryzen and 7700K is much worse on this benchmark than any other gaming benchmarks, so I'm not sure if it really is that relevant to the whole discussion.Because it's a properly threaded game and the API doesn't favor one CPU brand over another.
Weird to compare GPU and CPU markets. Also I don't know who called it "irrelvant".
What is taking [H] so long to get theirs up?
that I know... but read the comments " ryzen terrible in gaming " huh?If they did them all at 4k what you would see is GPU limitations not CPU.
One thing I am finding more interesting is how many of the benchmarks are showing the 7700K vastly outperforming the 6900K. So you spend $1000 on a CPU to get worse gaming scores than a $399 CPU? Something isn't adding up to how these products are being positioned, or maybe there is something not quite right with the testing procedures.
that I know... but read the comments " ryzen terrible in gaming " huh?
I'm speaking more generally, when the AMD fans were all pointing to how great the AMD GPU's performed in AotS, and the NVIDIA defenders were crying that it was a benchmark only, no one played it, so it shouldn't be used to determine performance. Now I'm seeing people using it to highlight how "bad" Ryzen is at gaming. Thing is, the performance gap between Ryzen and 7700K is much worse on this benchmark than any other gaming benchmarks, so I'm not sure if it really is that relevant to the whole discussion.
One thing I am finding more interesting is how many of the benchmarks are showing the 7700K vastly outperforming the 6900K. So you spend $1000 on a CPU to get worse gaming scores than a $399 CPU? Something isn't adding up to how these products are being positioned, or maybe there is something not quite right with the testing procedures.
And now the real review is up! http://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/03/02/amd_ryzen_1700x_cpu_review
I saw one site get 4.1 GHz on their 1700, the highest OC.Serious question. What is the point of the 1800X? Heck even the 1700X? You pay $100-200 more for a better clockspeed? Dafuq.
I saw one site get 4.1 GHz on their 1700, the highest OC.
The X chips are absolutely not worth the money.
More games, around a dozen.
https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/premiera_i_test_procesora_amd_ryzen_r7_1800x_dobra_zmiana
As I suspected, if you're a gamer, the Intel 7700k is what you want. Even at stock speeds, the 7700K is 10 to 20 frames ahead in most games. Never mind a 7700K running at 5ghz.
Not to take anything away from AMD's Ryzen.
The best gaming you can possibly have is a 7700K @ 4.9ghz or 5.0Ghz along with a new GTX 1080ti.
Before anyone quotes me and wants to say Ryzen matches the 7700K in gaming ... it clearly DOES NOT. So save it.
I have my 7700K at 4.999ghz with memory at 3265. FSB is 102.150
Not one review tested a 1080ti, and so you honestly game @ 1080?
Guru has for 1800x vs 7700 @ 1440
Hitman dx12
1 fps difference
Tomb raider 1 fps
FC primal 0
Looks pretty similar...
Not sure what reviews a bunch of people are reading, looks great same perf for less cost in multi core applications and games at 1440 with very similar perf. PCper thinks that there's a bug and was also spotted elsewhere disabling SMT improved performance quite a lot for some benchmarks.
I don't know anyone that just uses their PC for games only, but then again I do play sports and enjoy consoles as well, perhaps different crowd.
wasn't AMD SMT supposed to be way superior to intel's HT?? (even if they are just the same)...
Performance was also going to be much better. Haswell IPC and what not
DX12/Vulkan is going to save bulldozer, now we hear DX12/Vulkan is going to save Ryzen in the Future, what nice of AMD always thinking in the Future.
If they did them all at 4k what you would see is GPU limitations not CPU.
Because they're likely GPU bound at that point; that doesn't speak anything of CPU performance...
Lower resolutions remove GPU limits and lets the CPUs show their true potential.
EDIT: That's why the [H]ardOCP review has games at 640x480 - absolutely no GPU bottleneck anymore and shows pure CPU performance in games.
If you don't game at 640x480, then what does it matter if IPC superior there? If you don't game at 1080p, why does it matter if IPC superior there? If 1440 and 4k is roughly equal between the two, and Ryzen has superior capabilities if you do anything other than gaming, then why would Ryzen not be a good choice?
Everyone doesn't get what they think is the most relevant to them sadly. If it was up to me [H] would do 1440p 16:9 @ 120/144hz. Best settings for that game to maintain smooth/high FPS. And I'd usually put the boot to motion blur and sometimes DoF. And I never said Ryzen is a bad choice I don't believe. I think Ryzen (thus far) is not worth it if you primarily game. If you do lots of other stuff it does have good value. Maybe the full line up will also give us something I'll be out there on the fence waiting
If you don't game at 640x480, then what does it matter if IPC superior there? If you don't game at 1080p, why does it matter if IPC superior there? If 1440 and 4k is roughly equal between the two, and Ryzen has superior capabilities if you do anything other than gaming, then why would Ryzen not be a good choice?
That's my only issue with only showing 640x480 results. They're interesting, but not entirely useful since no one in 2017 is ever going to play a game at that resolution. IMHO - 1080p results are still CPU limited and there are many people playing games on 1080P 144hz monitors. You also raise a good point about the fact that Ryzen becomes a better value proposition if it can adequately feed a GPU at 1440P/4K and do tasks outside of gaming faster.
Cofee just shot out of my nose, thanks!What is taking [H] so long to get theirs up?
Because it's a properly threaded game and the API doesn't favor one CPU brand over another.
Weird to compare GPU and CPU markets. Also I don't know who called it "irrelevant".