First official benchmark

Oddly enough, this is what I was hoping for. I need to upgrade my workstation, and it does a mix of 40-50% office work, 20-30% video work/image work, and about 10% gaming (with some random web browsing and shit thrown in). Was either going to go used Xeon, or Ryzen, and this'll do fine for less than the Xeon would :) Especially when I'm running a couple of VMs. I just did the gaming machine on Intel, and it's perfectly fine.

Now, I just hope for ECC support - when is Naples coming?
 
Sweet I was just about to pickup a 1700x but will go with the $340 intel for my 4K rendering rig. Thanks man!

You should be more worried about the GPU than the CPU in a rendering rig. CPU rendering is functional however ineffecient compared to leveraging GPU power.
 
Sweet I was just about to pickup a 1700x but will go with the $340 intel for my 4K rendering rig. Thanks man!

i am pretty sure i am going to swap my microcenter order from a 1700 to a 6700k. I cant resist microcenter $259 for 6700k, when gaming is my focus at the moment.
 
You should be more worried about the GPU than the CPU in a rendering rig. CPU rendering is functional however ineffecient compared to leveraging GPU power.

For HD/4k video editing and rendering (with vegas, premier, etc) CPU is the main factor. They have done test with mediocre gpu's vs the very best and the results are pretty much the same. It also seems once you go above 8 cores on the CPU the returns are diminished.

The only exception right now is Davinci Resolve which mainly uses gpu power instead of mostly cpu which I think is pretty cool. Hopefully others will follow.

Anyways for me the 1700 or 1700x (will wait to see which is the one to go with) seems like the perfect cpu, for others that only use their rig to game at 1080, intel is definitely the way to go.

There are a lot of people who do photo and video editing and I think these will sell very good to that crowd. < I think that is the first time I used that word on the internet. :)
 
Yep, I render photos alot, and I game alot too. Its a balanced processor people. And the 1700 for $329 with an outstanding 1Ghz overclock. To me that is great, I'm happy with my purchase.
 
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_ryzen_7_1800x_1700x_1700/

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu,4951-6.html
' It’s hard to recommend the Ryzen 7 1800X over Intel's lower-cost quad-core chips for gaming, especially given the Core i7-7700K's impressive performance. '


I sort of went to gaming section right away before i looked everything else.

Overall good performance but still slower than Intel counterpart. Reviewers didn't put more games through and i am sure because looks bad for AMD. Bad overclocking just as i said it would be and Intel platform was running stock and we all know that those Intel babies will overclock at least 4.2Ghz not to mention Kaby Lake.

In my opinion Ryzen hype can settle down now. If you have Intel platform stick with it, if you are shopping for a brand new system Ryzen could be a good option and the only reason is price...performance wise meh

Check Toms Hardware review...Intel is killing it. In Ashes Singularity Intel is just killing it.

Ryzen didn't win a single gaming benchmark. I hate that people called me troll and names when i was saying that Ryzen performs at i5 level as far as gaming goes.

At least it is better than i3 performance levels?
 
Not sure what's going on with Joker but he basically says the R7 1700 has obsoleted the 7700K. Not exaggerating.

Y5NofQy.png


Video
 
No I don't think so, he was a pretty big Nvidia/Intel fanboy for a while. He did get on the Ryzen hype train for views a few months ago, though.

Here are his fps results.
Keep in mind this is a R7 1700 @ 3.9 vs 7700K @ 5.

2FPCRUh.png
 
Broadwell-E well ahead in CPU limited games, and that lead would extend if they compared max OC vs max OC:

PCGamesHardware
- Anno 2205
Ryzen R7 1800X (8C/16T 3.6-4.0 GHz): 31.4 FPS
Core i7-6900K (8C/16T 3.2-3.7 GHz): 35.8 FPS (14% faster)

- AC: Syndicate
Ryzen R7 1800X (8C/16T 3.6-4.0 GHz): 109.9 FPS
Core i7-6900K (8C/16T 3.2-3.7 GHz): 135.9 FPS (23.6% faster)

- Crysis 3
Ryzen R7 1800X (8C/16T 3.6-4.0 GHz): 148.9 FPS
Core i7-6900K (8C/16T 3.2-3.7 GHz): 176.9 FPS (18.6% faster)

- Dragon Age Inquisition
Ryzen R7 1800X (8C/16T 3.6-4.0 GHz): 112.3 FPS
Core i7-6900K (8C/16T 3.2-3.7 GHz): 135.6 FPS (20.7% faster)

- F1 2015
Ryzen R7 1800X (8C/16T 3.6-4.0 GHz): 91.1 FPS
Core i7-6900K (8C/16T 3.2-3.7 GHz): 126.3 FPS (38.6% faster)

- Far Cry 4
Ryzen R7 1800X (8C/16T 3.6-4.0 GHz): 76.8 FPS
Core i7-6900K (8C/16T 3.2-3.7 GHz): 89.3 FPS (16.2% faster)

- Starcraft 2
Ryzen R7 1800X (8C/16T 3.6-4.0 GHz): 31.1 FPS
Core i7-6900K (8C/16T 3.2-3.7 GHz): 38.2 FPS (22.8% faster)

- The Witcher 3
Ryzen R7 1800X (8C/16T 3.6-4.0 GHz): 80.2 FPS
Core i7-6900K (8C/16T 3.2-3.7 GHz): 134.7 (68% faster)

www.pcgameshardware.de/Ryzen-7-1800X-CPU-265804/Tests/Test-Review-1222033
 
It was pretty idiotic of anyone to expect a OCed Ryzen 8 core to beat an OCed skylake i5 in gaming, so idiots are disappointed.
Can't even comprehend that there were actually people who believed that it "should" beat an i5 in gaming?

It's a lower clocked, lower IPC CPU than the Skylake - everyone already knew that before the release, why would anyone expect it to do better at games? Like even a single reason for it to do better?
 
Don't blame people. Blame the media and people in forums that did spread hype and misinformation. I hope people did learn the lesson.
 
Don't blame people. Blame the media and people in forums that did spread hype and misinformation. I hope people did learn the lesson.

I blame AMD for much of it. During their show a month or so ago they were comparing it to the 7700k for gaming. One portion was something like "Here is Ryzen running DOTA2 at 1080p while streaming the game and outperforming the 7700k". AMDs marketing is like that though; they make statements that sound good without hard data, leave test info undisclosed, and sometimes gimp the other companies products to make theirs look better. And then the AMD fans board the hype train and when the product ends up being adequate but nothing special it brings out the "The new GPU/CPU is crap" crowd.
 
Not sure what's going on with Joker but he basically says the R7 1700 has obsoleted the 7700K. Not exaggerating.

Y5NofQy.png


Video

His results are better than most in gaming. It seems as though his Gigabyte board had a more refined BIOS update. Some reviewers had Asus boards with lots of issues (no surprise to me there). Interesting nonetheless.
 
I blame AMD for much of it. During their show a month or so ago they were comparing it to the 7700k for gaming. One portion was something like "Here is Ryzen running DOTA2 at 1080p while streaming the game and outperforming the 7700k". AMDs marketing is like that though; they make statements that sound good without hard data, leave test info undisclosed, and sometimes gimp the other companies products to make theirs look better. And then the AMD fans board the hype train and when the product ends up being adequate but nothing special it brings out the "The new GPU/CPU is crap" crowd.

They showed a streaming demo between two similarly priced CPUs - 7700k cant really keep up with a 8 core decent IPC chip there, that is just obvious. Also they showed a 1800x vs 6900k demo of BF1 & Sniper Elite - and those were literally cherry picked frame rate counters next to each other (not even benchmarks).
AMD did nothing to hype the gaming performance of this CPU, absolutely nothing at all. I'm sure they hyped the Bulldozer much harder than this
 
They showed a streaming demo between two similarly priced CPUs - 7700k cant really keep up with a 8 core decent IPC chip there, that is just obvious. Also they showed a 1800x vs 6900k demo of BF1 & Sniper Elite - and those were literally cherry picked frame rate counters next to each other (not even benchmarks).
AMD did nothing to hype the gaming performance of this CPU, absolutely nothing at all. I'm sure they hyped the Bulldozer much harder than this

I've run DOTA2 while streaming 1080p/60 and not dropped frames on an i5 with a GTX670. The thing is they try to show their competitors in the worst light so they don't test with NVENC with an NV card or Intel's quicksync (or whatever it's called) with an Intel CPU. Sure, most companies do this but AMD just says it as fact without telling you what they enabled/disabled or telling you that they set the game to low CPU priority to make an issue appear.
 
I've run DOTA2 while streaming 1080p/60 and not dropped frames on an i5 with a GTX670. The thing is they try to show their competitors in the worst light so they don't test with NVENC with an NV card or Intel's quicksync (or whatever it's called) with an Intel CPU. Sure, most companies do this but AMD just says it as fact without telling you what they enabled/disabled or telling you that they set the game to low CPU priority to make an issue appear.

I dont know if that's true, but I don't know in depth about GPU - streaming vs CPU based streaming.
 
His results are better than most in gaming. It seems as though his Gigabyte board had a more refined BIOS update. Some reviewers had Asus boards with lots of issues (no surprise to me there). Interesting nonetheless.

Really? Joker? The guy that cannot reproduce his own results due to large margin errors in his methodology? The guy that got the 1700 beating the 1800X? The guy that tested RyZen at 1080p but with odd settings that generated a GPU bottleneck with the GPU at 99% of load? The guy that has replied in tweeter to the criticism pretending that 99% of GPU load is not a bottleneck? LOL
 
Don't blame people. Blame the media and people in forums that did spread hype and misinformation. I hope people did learn the lesson.

We know they dont. 10 years+ with the same lies and hype.
 
Back
Top