• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

*** AMD "Zen" thread (inc AM4/APU discussion) ***

Panos said:
Possibly the only honest review, showing the systems running side by side on a GTX1080
Especially impressed given that the 7700K runs at 5Ghz and the 1700 at 3.9. And while the 7700K is trying hard, the 1700 keeps up with 2/3 of the CPU snoring going nothing. On some benchmarks half the cores are at 0%!!!!!

However did anyone realised that the games were smoother on the 1700 compared to the 7700K? And it looks isn't only me who realised that, there is a whole discussion under the video about this.
Click to expand...


It does run smoother on the Ryzen just analysed it about three times now and you can see it..strange ..the hardware unbox guy said the same ...seems intel cpu's are rubbish its taken Ryzen to show this :D
 
Locky said:
That could be the game changer in gaming. Ryzen may not have the raw high FPS but looks like it has the smoother experience..
Click to expand...

Not only that, but it looks that the 1700 performance is pretty consistent and bounces less.
Also the XFR wasn't made clear enough by AMD that is working on only 1 core/thread. Not across the cpu.
Many websites report that the 1800X was running at 4Ghz where actually was running at bellow 3.9Ghz (3.6) all the time!

Look here, how a 1800X overclocked at 3.9Ghz manually, consistently beats it's own self without manual overclock.

http://www.toptengamer.com/amd-ryzen-1800x-review/
 
harney said:
It does run smoother on the Ryzen just analysed it about three times now and you can see it..strange ..the hardware unbox guy said the same ...seems intel cpu's are rubbish its taken Ryzen to show this :D
Click to expand...

We tested it extensively internally. Our 8 core Ryzen CPUs should offer a better gaming experience overall, even though @ 1080P our averages may be lower in some games. In CPU intensive games like GTA V this is apparent, I'm glad to see multiple reviewers have picked up on it by noticing a stutter on your 4 core 8 thread CPUs.
 
I pre-order the 1700X with the Crosshair but just received an email from the vendor saying they having stock issues with the Crosshair Hero. Was supposed to arrive tomorrow. I pre-order the 1st day of the Ryzen pre-orders (~22nd or 23rd) but looks like still wasn't enough time. Really p**ed off. :mad:

I was also told there'd be a stock cooler with the CPU, that gave me peace of mind towards a 1st day Ryzen use at least (NZXT gave me march 15th for a Kraken X62 AM4 bracket :( ... corsair, not sure about a H105 bracket arrival date), even if I couldn't OC the CPU I could at least use it and benchmark it, now apparently "no stock cooler". I mean, WTF. Looks like I'll still have to wait a few days to try the CPU.

What compel me to write the post is... the vendor is giving me a change to make changes to my order... and i really the MSI Titanium board. That was always my first pick AM4 motherboard but then same people start mentioning that MSI has had hardware/compatibly issues with AMD in the past and I changed my mind to the Asus Crosshair.

I personally never had an MSI board. I've got 3 Asrock boards (Taichi and Extreme 4 x99s and a B150 Hyper pro 4) at the moment and I've had Asus boards in the past but never MSI. Has anyone ever here have had major problems with the MSI/AMD system ??

I don't know what problems people where referring to but that put a seed in my head and the fact of trying to buy the best gear possible for the Ryzen CPU and not wanting to have problems I went with the Asus as I said but I would change it if I had some more reviews/feedback. I like the Crosshair board too and OC has tested OCed the Ryzen on it but If I had more information or experience with the Titanium board I could make the decision, but everything Ryzen ... it's all so new and there's very limited info out there. Come to think of it, now with all this delays looks like I'll have some time see more more reviews etc in the next few days. :(

What do you guys think ??
Would u swap a Asus Crosshair Hero board for the MSI Titanium ??

PS - Just for the record, I had to pre-order from CCL. I first tried to pre-order fro OC but unfortunately I run into some problems with the 3D authentication so I had to pre order from CCL. I wonder if OC have stock issues too, If not I'll probably buy the board from here tomorrow (If they have in stock, which right now is still a pre-order item but tomorrow being the release day... one can dream).
 
Is there any benchmarks which have a nice frametime graph in a range of games for Ryzen? Bit like what Digital foundry does.

I noticed on some of the game benchmarks in that Joker comparison video that Ryzen often had a slightly lower frame time even if it had worse FPS. Hardly a scientific test, but I paused it every 1-3 seconds to check. Would love to see a graph though.
 
Panos said:
Not only that, but it looks that the 1700 performance is pretty consistent and bounces less.
Also the XFR wasn't made clear enough by AMD that is working on only 1 core/thread. Not across the cpu.
Many websites report that the 1800X was running at 4Ghz where actually was running at bellow 3.9Ghz (3.6) all the time!

Look here, how a 1800X overclocked at 3.9Ghz manually, consistently beats it's own self without manual overclock.

http://www.toptengamer.com/amd-ryzen-1800x-review/
Click to expand...

Its strange how people can't get this stable with manual overclocking and have to settle for lower than the advertised boost clock speed....
 

1800x looks a fantastic buy for intense production applications but not so great in gaming?

Look forward to the 1700/x to see how that performs in comparison tomorrow.
 
Locky said:
Its strange how people can't get this stable with manual overclocking and have to settle for lower than the advertised boost clock speed....
Click to expand...

It should be possible to get an all core overclock of 4Ghz without too much effort, not sure where you heard this Locky. I'll be sharing my experience which will hopefully help others once i get my sample.
 
Smoogels said:
Is there any benchmarks which have a nice frametime graph in a range of games for Ryzen? Bit like what Digital foundry does.

I noticed on some of the game benchmarks in that Joker comparison video that Ryzen often had a slightly lower frame time even if it had worse FPS. Hardly a scientific test, but I paused it every 1-3 seconds to check. Would love to see a graph though.
Click to expand...

Computerbase.de results have frametimes, read it in Chrome so you can auto translate
 
Smoogels said:
Is there any benchmarks which have a nice frametime graph in a range of games for Ryzen? Bit like what Digital foundry does.

I noticed on some of the game benchmarks in that Joker comparison video that Ryzen often had a slightly lower frame time even if it had worse FPS. Hardly a scientific test, but I paused it every 1-3 seconds to check. Would love to see a graph though.
Click to expand...

That is who we are waiting on is Digi foundry ...for the frame times AMD could have an even bigger win here
 
AMDMatt said:
We tested it extensively internally. Our 8 core Ryzen CPUs should offer a better gaming experience overall, even though @ 1080P our averages may be lower in some games. In CPU intensive games like GTA V this is apparent, I'm glad to see multiple reviewers have picked up on it by noticing a stutter on your 4 core 8 thread CPUs.
Click to expand...

I don't have any stutters on my i7 7700k and GTX1080 in GTAV at all. But then I didn't get any on an i7 3770k. Not sure how it can be smoother when frame latency is exceptionally good and my frames never ever drop below 60. That's running GTAV at 1080p maxed/ultra with full AA. For me their simply is no stutter. So for me making statements of stutters that aren't there loses credibility.
 
This might all explain why the 4C/8T R5 CPUs are launching last - if the SMT has problems it won't be pretty for them in games against the lower end KL Core i5 CPUs as it will be 4C vs 4C.

But I do think the R5 1600X might be the star of the show - R7 1800X clockspeeds and 6C. Even with SMT off,in games it will be 6C vs 4C with no SMT,so should be able to hold its own,since it has 50% more threads.

R7 1800X is essentially 8 cores with no SMT(for gaming) against 4C/8T on a Core i7 7700K.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
R7 1800X is essentially 8 cores with no SMT(for gaming) against 4C/8T on a Core i7 7700K.
Click to expand...

Don't write such things, especially when clearly are out there reviews showing that 8/16 works fine in many games.
TW Warhammer has clearly an issue, because it dumps all the process to the last thread found, but not the rest.

1800X looks like it has boost clock issues, because manually overclocked at 3.9 performs better than left to it's own boost clock!
Hence also the 1700 OCed at 3.9 performs better than the 1800X, keeping up with the more expensive 7700K at overclock 5Ghz!!!!!!!!
 
So do I understand this right, although fps may be better on say the 7700k compared to Ryzen, smoothness is actually better on the Ryzen chip?

How are we quantifying smoothness? And what do we technically mean?
 
Panos said:
Don't write such things, especially when clearly are out there reviews showing that 8/16 works fine in many games.
TW Warhammer has clearly an issue, because it dumps all the process to the last thread found, but not the rest.

1800X looks like it has boost clock issues, because manually overclocked at 3.9 performs better than left to it's own boost clock!
Hence also the 1700 OCed at 3.9 performs better than the 1800X, keeping up with the more expensive 7700K at overclock 5Ghz!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Initially I thought so too,but the reality is very different:

http://i.imgur.com/UFaWvLe.jpg

UFaWvLe.jpg


If you disable SMT many games get better performance.

Hexus saw the same:

Total War: Warhammer is the one title that causes us some pause for thought. It's known to be driven by solid CPU performance, so seeing the Ryzen 7 1800X a fair bit behind a quartet of Intel chips, to the tune of 10fps, is not encouraging. Understanding that the AMD and Intel architectures are more similar than ever before, we're not sure how much of this gap can be bridged by forthcoming game optimisations.

However, and somewhat interesting to note, switching off the chip's SMT capability increased the average frame rate from 79fps to 85.8fps, suggesting that code is not running efficiently when there's SMT involved. Hopefully this problem will be fixed by a game-patch update.

Going back to SMT, switching it off also increases the Hitman score, from 91.4fps to 95.6fps, suggesting, once again, that having it active is definitely hindering performance. In fact, running Ryzen in non-SMT mode offers more performance in every scenario, and this is something that AMD needs to be concerned about.
Click to expand...

A few other sites too - don't take this is as a negative.

If in certain games with SMT enabled Ryzen is doing well,then it might do EVEN better with it switched off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom