• 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) ***

I've not read anything to suggest they clock differently. Only that the 1700 seems to clock cooler.

Sure, 3.9 would bug my OCD. But I'd be willing to lose 100 MHz, and keep £80 personally.
 
Lokken86 said:
Maybe turning it off would help the Intel cpu's aswell but they didn't say. Needs testing.
Click to expand...

It use to, when Nehalem and Sandy Bridge launched they had similar issues, until they were later fixed.
It's where the whole "i5's are better for gaming" came from. They were cheaper, and didn't have the Hyper Threading issues that could lower performance.
 
loxocemus said:
when amd deliver software optimizations where would i get them? i assume their not the same thing as bios updates?
Click to expand...

The main one will come directly through Windows as they need to update their hardware Scheduler for Ryzen.
The rest is the AMD chipset drivers on their, and motherboard manufacturer sites.

All other optimisations will be with games developers they're working with, they already announced a partnership with Bethesda to get their popular and future games all using Ryzen well.
 
N19h7m4r3 said:
It use to, when Nehalem and Sandy Bridge launched they had similar issues, until they were later fixed.
It's where the whole "i5's are better for gaming" came from. They were cheaper, and didn't have the Hyper Threading issues that could lower performance.
Click to expand...
I don't remember HyperThreading on Nehalem causing performance issues. A lot of people turned off HyperThreading simply to reduce temperatures by 15 degrees or something when, at the time, not many games benefited from it. These days Core i7s routinely outperform Core i5s in gaming.
 
N19h7m4r3 said:
Going by reviews with the best results, it seems Gigabytes Gaming 5 and 7 are the cream of the crop at the moment.
Click to expand...
Yes, AMD admitted Asus boards had big issues at launch, and we know from other reviewers that anyone who got an MSI board and didn't update to the latest BIOS also had performance issues. I'd wager any reviewer that has comparably better performance got a Gigabyte board.
 
Doomers keep saying that a 7700K gets extra FPS in gaming VS the Ryzen chips, but the 7700K gets extra FPS VS Intel's own 6/8/10 core chips too? They forget that bit xD

Oh yeah let's not focus on AMD destroying Intel's high end everywhere else at cheaper prices and lower TDP, let's focus on those few FPS in gaming..

We all love gaming at 250 FPS on a 720P display right? :D

Got my 1700, GTX 1080 Ti soon, now I just need my 250FPS, 720P Display :D
 
Boomstick777 said:
Doomers keep saying that a 7700K gets extra FPS in gaming VS the Ryzen chips, but the 7700K gets extra FPS VS Intel's own 6/8/10 core chips too? They forget that bit xD

Oh yeah let's not focus on AMD destroying Intel's high end everywhere else at cheaper prices and lower TDP, let's focus on those few FPS in gaming..

We all love gaming at 250 FPS on a 720P display right? :D

Got my 1700, GTX 1080 Ti soon, now I just need my 250FPS, 720P Display :D
Click to expand...

I find it hilarious people are crying that the 1700 only gets 128fps in gta5 but the 7700k gets 135fps!!!

You start to mention minimum FPS and they change the subject.

A few weeks ago no one cared about high fps, it was all about frame times, average FPS and minimum FPS!

Now suddenly these don't matter, only max FPS.

Ironically RyZen is behind in max FPS but ahead in minimums, and in some instances it's ridiculously ahead, see that For Honor benchmark for how crazily ahead it is
 
Bought my Zen bits but haven't fitted them yet as I'm not sure what to do. Do you think it's a worthwhile move from a 2700k to the R7 1700 I have sat here?

I do a few things with my PC but mainly used for gaming (BF1, Overwatch, GTA, some DayZ)

I play at 1440p. Would the minimums be better?
 
AMDMatt said:
If you look at most reviews, even ones where the Ryzen chip is underperforming for whatever reason, the minimum and average fps are usually close to each other. It should provide a very consistent gaming experience and it's nice to see that coming to light. Things will only get better from here as Microcode, Bios updates and Windows updates arrive.
Click to expand...

To further illustrate my point.

sd1gl3y.png
 
DragonQ said:
I don't remember HyperThreading on Nehalem causing performance issues. A lot of people turned off HyperThreading simply to reduce temperatures by 15 degrees or something when, at the time, not many games benefited from it. These days Core i7s routinely outperform Core i5s in gaming.
Click to expand...

Yes these days, and yet the world is still filled with the meme that an i5 is better. I found it very funny that now that Ryzen is out people are currently recommending the 7700K over the 7600 or even 7500/7400, and the i7 certainly won't out perform them if they're all clocked the same in many current and older games.

There are still the odd game that doesn't like HT. WoW for instance can have some nasty lag spikes with HT on.
Battlefield Bad Company 2, BF 3 also had lots of jitter, and lag spikes with HT on vs Off.
Even now simply searing online for Hyperthreading FPS drops/Stutter brings up games from all genres that can still have issues these day; although it's rare compared to 2009 and prior.

The Pentium HT was pretty bad as well, and it was their real first consumer attempt, just like this is AMD's first attempt.

Intel has been working on Hyper Threading for over 15 years now, and it took Microsoft,and Developers to get performance right.; and I certainly don't expect it to take that long for AMD's implementation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom