AMD Ryzen CPUs

Exactly the same thing happened when Sandy Bridge was released. At the time, reviewers said there was no reason to get an i7 (2600K) vs an i5 (2500K) if your main use was gaming. Professional applications were quickly optimized for it but it took about 3 years for games to start using it. For all those years, there was basically no difference between the i7 and the i5.

As time passed, the 4 additional logical threads got more and more relevant. 6 years later, the gap between the i7 and i5 of that generation gets wider with each major game that is released. The end result is that if you look at recent AAA games that make use of the latest technology (Vulkan/DX12), the 2600K is still very relevant, won't bottleneck even a Titan X (providing you game at a high enough resolution), and will most likely still be relevant for at least one or two more years, whereas the 2500K is getting obsolete (and gets outpaced by even AMD CPUs that it beat in benchmarks 5 years ago, just because they have 8 cores).

It's as if reviewers (who are supposed to be experienced enthusiasts) do not remember lessons of the past and only take the present into account. In addition, if what AMD promises is true, developers will optimize for Ryzen and performance will only get better over time. As an SLI user who can't wait to get rid of SLI forever, I have learned to be cautious of promises of amazing software optimization though so I would not bet on that until I see developers actually deliver on that promise (including on past games), which would imply a bright future for Ryzen, for competition and for consumers

 

Defend my purchase?

No, just people saying "it's bad for e.c.t" and "this review said..." when i have actually got one and if there's a benchmark someone is unsure about i can give them the honest answer without having to look if my "review" is getting lots of views on youtube.

I could have easily bought a 7700k, but for the price/performance in real world situations Ryzen was a easy choice.

 

Good to have a guy like you with all these corrupt reviewers that spreading false numbers. Do the testing that they have done and tell us how your results compare. Thanks

 

"Numbers" don't always tell the truth...and as for all these reviews being corrupt? No, but a few do have their own agendas to sell.

All i'm doing is letting people who wan't to know how Ryzen preforms have a unbiased opinion from myself.

 

Guys just relax and give it a break. I think it's clear which CPUs preform better in single core vs multicore. As informed consumers we make choices based on value per performance (assuming limited resources and unbiased company opinion). If you value video editing or only single core utilization gaming you'll get different opinion. Both sides are no angels... Look at the 6700k vs 7700k performance when clocked at the same frequency... They are the same... Intel hasn't made any progress there.

Shouldn't we make this thread on hire it applies to the AC engine and what peripheral you are using? If you use a CV1 or HTC vive I think it makes a difference since 10% (assuming there's a CPU difference) here or there can mean a difference between smooth and choppy framerate. If you are on a monitor over 100 Hz at 1080p I don't think you should care. We'll just have to wait for someone to upgrade to a Ryzen and use CV1/HTC to compare how it does using the same video card.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

@anything-but is a streamer i believe so he did the right choice to pick a 1700, no doubt about it. A 7700k can most likely also stream and get good performance in games but I dont find a reason to pick 7700k over a 1700 if thats what you using your pc for for example. I know little about streaming though but more cores should help alot with this.

 

@GamerMuscle anyway you can please share your CPU usage during a streaming session while using the CV1 or HTC VIVE? [I believe you use a i6700] Maybe you can do a video on it, and if you can get a Ryzen chip compare the two w/ the 1070 GTX?

 

Have anyone seen this? After going into sleep mode his ryzen that is clocked to 4GHz is stable at 4.2GHz. He couldnt get it to this with manual overclock. Its not a bug in the program that shows the speed, because he actually get better performance out of it. This is weird.


edit: Seems to be some kind of bug and he actually is on 4GHz still. Oh well.

 

I can do this with my DK2 later on today.

 

Since most reviews dont bench sims could you give us a rough estimate of the differences between your past cpu and the AMD one wrt AC,rF2,Raceroom etc?

thanks in advance

 

Does raceroom ect have a benchmark?

But as a small note, going just by eye and feel, i'd say all games that i've played seem smoother than my old FX 8350 @ 4.3ghz....now, if it's a combination of more threads / new cpu architecture or both i don't know but gaming is certainly more pleasurable.

 

Going with the 1700 and gonna clock it at 3.5 to 3.8 GHz. I'll pay in EUR, so ~30€ less doesn't justify going Intel for me.

What's is best for Ryzen then?
High frequency low timings is known, MB specs are known. Question is, 2800MHz and CL14 or 3000MHz and CL15 for instance? Should have compareble throughput between the two anyways.

 

low latency over higher frequency is usually better. So, in your case go for 2800 cl14. I've also heard people running 3200 mhz without issues. Need more research tho... so i can't guarantee.

 

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/127126464

Snippet from tonight...24 car AI race @ Brands while streaming to Twitch.

Cpu was @ 3.85ghz,ram @ 2667mhz,game details were 1440p resolution all maxed ( no pp tho).. 2 webcams, twitch 3200kbps @ slow encoding setting in OBS using x264.
Cpu usage went no higher than 50% at any time.

 

Haven't received my cpu, but as CV1 user I'm looking forward to testing the R7 1700 I purchased. CPU arrives this week but still no ETA on motherboard shipment. Stupid Amazon.

Will test against my 6600k @4.55ghz and R9 390. Waiting for Vega too, but if that isn't any good I will go with a GTX1080.

 

from what ive read most gamers are waiting for the 1600x...

 

It's not hearsay if I get review data straight from the reviewers themselves, which I do (by watching the reviews). Furthermore, the reviewers themselves also "bloody got one", and already gave me some "actual facts" (as in actual data). At least the ones that showed their entire setup and game settings did. I'm talking about the data themselves, not the reviewers' interpretation of those data.

That said, those reviews are the now-situation. It'll be interesting to see what the in a couple of months-situation and/or end of year-situation will be. Not to mention what the R5 will bring.

 

Anyone wondering about performance should watch Joker's RAW 720p and 1080p videos.
for the time being CPUs are not even performing properly yet for multiple factors such as,
Ryzen has a completely new arch, it was not seen before. (Jim Keller involved)
Windows doesn't know what to do with Ryzen (search it up)
Motherboards have performance issues and getting bios updates.

and there were some other findings but mostly related to either windows or game engine not knowing what to do with Ryzen.
AFAIK for an example windows thinks there are 16 real cores and total of 136mb cache and also ryzen 8core is like 2 quad cores together and each have 8mb of L3 cache.
When a core in first pack tries to reach L3 of the second pack of cores, it has to communicate through a BUS and speed of that bus is apperantly about speed of 1600mhz DDR3 memory. (4 core parts will not have this, i7 quad core equilivents).

There is a problem if data is bigger than 8MB it'll be split into other cache (afaik) but this isn't that big. The other thing comes back to windows not knowing how to handle ryzen again,
windows put compiled code into cache for re-use and then doesnt care if a core from other pack tries to use it, that way data has to travel through the bus. (afaik again)

Ryzen is a completely new thing and it is a beast already with all these problems. Even 10% of difference would make it even crazier to imagine.
after all 500$ for 6900K performance and slişhlty more. (CPUs with more cores will not overclock as high same goes for intel but trust me no one wants a 4 core anymore from now on (4 real cores))

 

As yami said, actually, Windows scheduler doesn't know how to utilize properly these new cpus and needs to be optimized for ryzen. I've heard microsoft is working on a update that will bring 10-15% performance increase. Idk about eta tho. Also micro code update from amd and bios updates, will bring more improvements. I think these cpus will become popular in a short time making also game developers forced to optimize games also for amd hardware. Even if ryzen has been highly criticized, because of ignorance mostly, these cpus will be a great success and i think amd will earn a great share on the market.

 

I sure hope you are right. That R1700 is looking like it could be a solid winner down the line.