• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Leaked AMD Ryzen Benchmarks?

http://3c.3dmgame.com/show-52-5363-1-all.html

Doom isn't GPU limited it seems.

upload_2017-3-2_14-32-39.png
 
As I said before Ryzen is no faster than 6900k and slower than Kaby Lake. If you want CPU just for gaming Kaby Lake is way to go.
 
Ieldra said:
unknown.png
unknown.png
.eJwNxkEOhCAMAMC_8ACKZFuLvyFI0KiUQM0ezP59ndM85u6nWcym2sYCsO4jSV_tUOmxZFtEyplj24dNckFUjWm7ctUBEyN9Zo_oPJMP6BDeMAbn5okwMDMR3PWo8q221WJ-fwobIvo.VvBcC4VdiHAjDT4UIA1sMN1AlO8
Click to expand...

Yes. Intel is killing it especially in single core score which tells us that IPC with Intel CPU is still better. Kaby Lake smokes everything due higher frequency. Also happens that overclocking with Ryzen just sucks but also proves what i was saying...get 1700 because it will reach same speed as 1800x for $200 less.
 
Results are going to be all over the place with reviews after reading the following by Steve at gamersnexus:
http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreview...review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-3
During testing, GamersNexus discovered that Windows would occasionally engage core parking or other power saving features that could impact framerate in some games, specifically with Ryzen. This was not always detectable, but some games reacted more than others (our biggest observable difference was ~4-5%). As such, all tests were conducted in performance mode. We further discovered that SMT toggling improves performance in nearly all gaming use cases, and so tested with SMT both enabled and disabled. When asked about this, AMD supplied that it is likely on the ISV optimization side.

We’ve been using the newest (and correct) version of AMD’s chipset drivers since we began testing, and we’ve been on ASUS’ version 5704 (latest) BIOS for the Crosshair Hero VI. ASUS was good to provide us this update immediately when we reached out, though AMD officially distributed an older EFI version to reviewers; this older version is detrimental performance in some ways, as it was not the production-ready EFI. In speaking with other editors, MSI boards went through similar EFI updates that drastically changed performance, in some cases. A few toggles are broken in various EFIs we've looked at here, which can potentially skew results if the tester does not validate that the toggles work as advertised (performance modes, for instance, can toggle threads in some extreme cases). It is relatively easy to avoid unintentional corruption of test data so long as the tester rigorously validates thread count, clock-rate, and voltages prior to each major test sequence.

Fortunately, we had already retrieved the correct EFI from ASUS directly, and so did not have to test multiple EFI versions – though we did have to retest the platform and CPU multiple times for other validation. EFI version matters a lot in these very early days of Ryzen. This is an entirely new architecture – not some updated on a long-known design, like KBL was – and vendors were not prepared. Early EFI distributions were based on older uCode. Results will vary between test environments in greater ways than usual.

This part applies to all motherboards, CPUs, and platforms: For testing, we disable any performance bias options made available through EFI. ASUS often offers Cinebench or 3DMark performance bias configurations (boosting performance in specific applications). We disable these for fairness across platforms. All stock CPU options are left enabled for benchmarking, like Boost on Intel and AMD.
Click to expand...

But I think he sums it up pretty well its position, would expect it to match the 6900K more frequently and with a bit of edge with clocks.
Looks like I was right about it being too incredible for SMT to be that much stronger than Broadwell-E.
Cheers
 
OK so guru3d, 15% slower in games than Kaby lake, a few % faster in rendering and synthetics. over 4.0 ghz overclock water needed.
 
razor1 said:
OK so guru3d, 15% slower in games than Kaby lake, a few % faster in rendering and synthetics. over 4.0 ghz overclock water needed.
Click to expand...
over 4ghz needs water eh ? didn't someone call you a moron for making this claim a week or so ago ? :p

clock-cb15-1.png
 
Ieldra said:
over 4ghz needs water eh ? didn't someone call you a moron for making this claim a week or so ago ? :p

clock-cb15-1.png
Click to expand...


Moron, idiot, fool, yeah tell me about it lol, That magic eight ball just didn't do him any good.

That is what happens when ya shake balls! You get nuts.
 
Last edited:
Luka said:
Yes. Intel is killing it especially in single core score which tells us that IPC with Intel CPU is still better. Kaby Lake smokes everything due higher frequency. Also happens that overclocking with Ryzen just sucks but also proves what i was saying...get 1700 because it will reach same speed as 1800x for $200 less.
Click to expand...

I'd wait a week before you make any assumptions like that - very few people have the chips yet and bios are still immature, so we don't know what the upper limits are.
 
os2wiz said:
No information in this post as far as xystem configurations. Without that it is pure propaganda.
Click to expand...


Dude 3 reviews so far, almost all games are at sandy bridge 4 core level performance......

Make that 4.
 
razor1 said:
hmm even gamers nexus still gaming looks like at sandy bridge levels.
Click to expand...
I think they have a pretty fair review up, someways similar to Broadwell-E but others weaker but maybe comes down to optimisation.
I do think I was right to be a bit wary about the enthusiasm for the SMT, but thought clocks would had carried the 1800X more when compared to 6900k in normal operation.
I need to read Steve's review carefully to see what happened with clocks as shows 3.9GHz overclocks.
Cheers
 
Nothing surprising so far. In applications that don't benefit from 8+ threads IPC driven by clockspeed is winning. For anything else the Zen 1700 is a monster value, and the 1800X isn't bad, either, if someone wants to pay a premium for a bit more performance.
 
Looks like BIOS/firmware updates are going to be needed, and possibly some OS related stuff.
Tom's Hardware shows how disabling SMT improves some games for AMD while doing same for Intel the fps drops some, just one of the quirks identified.
So some game results are being skewed, but as they rightly say this is a product for sale now so should be considered.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu,4951-6.html
As mentioned, we encountered lower-than-expected results in many of our game benchmarks. Concerned that the explanation could be related to Windows' handling of P-states, we ran tests on Ryzen under the High Performance and Balanced power profiles as a diagnostic measure. The former is denoted with an HP in our charts. Intel's chips are tested using Windows' Balanced profile, representing the way most of us configure our desktops.

The Zen architecture is AMD's first with simultaneous multi-threading, so we also tested the Ryzen 7 1800X with SMT disabled to flesh out any performance deltas attributable to this feature. Indeed, we observed higher performance with SMT turned off in some titles.

Finally, we normalized the clock rates of our test samples to compare per-clock performance. Game engines and DX11 do not always scale linearly, so our 3.8 GHz numbers merely serve as a reference.

In light of the unexpected results we do present, we have to warn you that some of our data could be attributable to factors like motherboard firmware or early microcode. Then again, these are products AMD and its partners are selling, so that's a risk early adopters assume. In the meantime, we continue running tests and asking questions. Expect a follow-up soon.
Click to expand...

I think only the best review sites are really viable, as they are the most likely to identify these quirks that need to be resolved and indicates unusual performance behaviour.
Makes me wonder also how much weight can also be put behind the current power demand in these situations, but definitely looks like they are basing TDP on tool such as Blender, unfortunately for AMD from their marketing perspective Luxrender puts it in line with Broadwell-E and some can rightly feel to be critical of this.
Cheers
 
Now we know why the price is the way it is. Metrics dictate price, and AMD knows they can't sell to individual buyers because their chips are good all around and not any specific thing. Intel has to drop prices on 6 cores and up on coming products to keep that in line or else AMD will gain marketshare in the high end market, albiet not much there but that will be halo products and we will see a trickle down effect.
 
sover said:
Nothing surprising so far. In applications that don't benefit from 8+ threads IPC driven by clockspeed is winning. For anything else the Zen 1700 is a monster value, and the 1800X isn't bad, either, if someone wants to pay a premium for a bit more performance.
Click to expand...


You are saying

r_600x450.png


This is an engine that scales past 4 cores and is very well multithreaded.......

Problems are showing up.
 
Guru3D shows that the CPU really limited by mem speed. So the higher the better. Also, that it suffers most with games at 1080p, higher res it's in line with some of the fastest Intel CPU's. Seems like when the mem is a bit more stable it'll be even better. overall though - looks pretty exciting to me.
 
razor1 said:
Now we know why the price is the way it is. Metrics dictate price, and AMD knows they can't sell to individual buyers because their chips are good all around and not any specific thing. Intel has to drop prices on 6 cores and up on coming products to keep that in line or else AMD will gain marketshare in the high end market, albiet not much there but that will be halo products and we will see a trickle down effect.
Click to expand...
You did not note that the FX8370 outperformed Ryzen 1800X? A chip that Ryzen has 52% better IPC. Come on this definitely not a cpu issue it is some other constraint: either bios or a testing orocedure with unequal configurations.(
 
Cant' keep giving the excuse its another rushed launch by AMD, shit they have been using that excuse for years now on both the CPU and GPU front, time will make it better, no, they should do it now.
 
os2wiz said:
You did not note that the FX8370 outperformed Ryzen 1800X? A chip that Ryzen has 52% better IPC. Come on this definitely not a cpu issue it is some other constraint: either bios or a testing orocedure with unequal configurations.(
Click to expand...


There are multiple reviews showing the same thing, yeah you can remove an outlier here and there, but still that doesn't change the facts.
 
Seems OC is limited to 4.1Ghz on a good chip. 4.2 if really lucky. But most may be 4Ghz.
 
I think Tom's Hardware sums it up:
It's a bummer the Ryzen launch was so clearly rushed. We expected AMD to have a better explanation for its gaming performance, but all of the feedback we received from the company came very last-minute. It's hard to imagine these shortcomings weren't discovered previously and diagnosed more thoroughly. We're happy to put in the time and effort, though. Expect more information as it becomes available.
Click to expand...

Does now feel rushed with what we learnt about motherboards/RAM at overclockersuk, and now the headaches with various good reviews that shows another few months testing/validating with a broad range of HW and applications was needed, along with revisions needed to those and OS/drivers.
Cheers
 
razor1 said:
You are saying

r_600x450.png


This is an engine that scales past 4 cores and is very well multithreaded.......

Problems are showing up.
Click to expand...

Sure, and those problems don't look like architecture to me. Possibly bad drivers, bios, or even code path problems. For a brand new architecture going up against a mature architecture from a much better financed rival the Zen is a significant achievement.

I don't need one in my gaming machine as it's already a haswell i5 that I think does well enough for now, but when I rebuild my home video server this year a Zen CPU will be going into it.
 
razor1 said:
You are saying

r_600x450.png


This is an engine that scales past 4 cores and is very well multithreaded.......

Problems are showing up.
Click to expand...
Yeah but best to put it into context.

Tom's Hardware said:
As mentioned, we encountered lower-than-expected results in many of our game benchmarks. Concerned that the explanation could be related to Windows' handling of P-states, we ran tests on Ryzen under the High Performance and Balanced power profiles as a diagnostic measure. The former is denoted with an HP in our charts. Intel's chips are tested using Windows' Balanced profile, representing the way most of us configure our desktops.

The Zen architecture is AMD's first with simultaneous multi-threading, so we also tested the Ryzen 7 1800X with SMT disabled to flesh out any performance deltas attributable to this feature. Indeed, we observed higher performance with SMT turned off in some titles.

Finally, we normalized the clock rates of our test samples to compare per-clock performance. Game engines and DX11 do not always scale linearly, so our 3.8 GHz numbers merely serve as a reference.

In light of the unexpected results we do present, we have to warn you that some of our data could be attributable to factors like motherboard firmware or early microcode. Then again, these are products AMD and its partners are selling, so that's a risk early adopters assume. In the meantime, we continue running tests and asking questions. Expect a follow-up soon
.....
We come away from today's coverage with a number of questions that couldn't be answered in time for the launch. For instance, we discovered Ryzen's tendency to perform better in games with SMT disabled. Could this be a scheduling issue that might be fixed later? AMD did respond to our concerns, reminding us that Ryzen's implementation is unique, meaning most game engines don't use if efficiently yet. Importantly, the company told us that it doesn’t believe the SMT hiccup occurs at the operating system level, so a software fix could fix performance issues in many titles. At least one game developer (Oxide) stepped forward to back those claims. However, you run the risk that other devs don't spend time updating existing titles.
.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your highlighting problems exist, but showing more than the chart is better.
Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top