• 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) ***

Frozennova said:
Actually it does show the Scheduler is to blame, disabling 4 cores means you don't have windows trying to shuffle data between two CCXs which is why perf suffers during low threaded workloads
Click to expand...

I concur.

Ayahuasca said:
But things like smoothness can be measured with frame times. I'm not for a second saying Ryzen isn't smooth but why not just do some frame time tests as that's directly correlated to how smooth games will feel? You've got to give people actual evidence not just anecdotal. I mean you could ask the majority of people on this forum if their setup felt smooth and they'd probably say yes but if put some of those people with lesser rigs in front of a better one, their mind would soon change on how much smoother it could be.
Click to expand...

Indeed, though what annoys me is that reviews show max/average but not the lowest frames. This isn't just Ryzen reviews, but many GPU reviews as well don't include low FPS.
 
Cyber-Mav said:
Placebo effect along with fanboyism is what makes people believe 8 cores is better for gaming when the hard evidence and numbers from benchmarks say otherwise.
Click to expand...

What? There is a clear difference even with Intels 8 core system that show much better smoothness and low fps numbers (not as pronounced as Ryzen mind from all the testing showing this) and thus all AMD have done is bring what Intels 8 core chips already do for gaming but now don't need £1700 for a CPU, Mobo and RAM but closer to £700 for the same performance.

People are really getting hung up on the high FPS when the difference is from 170 to 200fps for certain games between the 7700K & 1700.

Bring it down to sensible levels where we actually game and where we are generally gaming at 60fps (yes in the real world the majority are on 60Hz monitors/TV's) and then the percentage is within 5% or so and that is whats important. The CPU as long as it holds close to the 7700k is doing really well considering the 1Ghz difference.

Not only that but we are all talking about 5Ghz like the world and their dog are running that but I would bet my life on it that if you look at the number of systems that are running 4.2Ghz with boost on is far far greater than those who have clocked it to 5.0Ghz. We just have a skewed reference point on forums because the average Joe whos brought the CPU read the figures on the box and go oh thats the fastest so I will get that and just use the machine. It is why AMD still produced the 1700X & 1800X because if we all overclocked on every CPU sold then they would have just brought out the 1700 and be done with it.

So actually comparing stock to stock is also a handy thing to do which seems to be getting ignored.

It also cost wise is approx the same between the i7 7700K and the 1700 although as shown on the forum here if you do overclock the 1700 then you can do it with much cheaper boards such as the B350 Tomahawk & B350 Gaming. There are 9 AMD boards under the £100 mark for the Ryzen series and the Intel boards start at £110. I am not up to date with the Intel boards but would assume all the Z boards are good for the 5Ghz if you know what you are doing so yeah not massive savings I know but it is something to be noted.

I would say for the most part though the board manufactures really seem to be taking the Michael slightly as if you compare the gaming 5 Aorus or the K5 for the Intel machines and then the AMD ones then the AMD boards are £40-£50 more whilst having less connectivity/features! Which when it comes to the fact they are also SoC from AMD is a little frustrating to see and shows either the low current yields of stock or they know that they can push the price as we are now used to Intel board pricing.

If the mobos had even released at Intel price levels it would show even better value. For now the mid level boards that are out are all overpriced in my opinion and although I said I would hold off till Zen+ if the boards had come out at better value I think I would have purchased a system tbh.
 
Ayahuasca said:
But things like smoothness can be measured with frame times. I'm not for a second saying Ryzen isn't smooth but why not just do some frame time tests as that's directly correlated to how smooth games will feel? You've got to give people actual evidence not just anecdotal. I mean you could ask the majority of people on this forum if their setup felt smooth and they'd probably say yes but if put some of those people with lesser rigs in front of a better one, their mind would soon change on how much smoother it could be.
Click to expand...

There are some test out there if you do a good that show the difference in smoothness of Ryzen to the i7 7700K. What should be noted is that the i7 6900K is also much smoother so clearly shows multi core/threads are beneficial in a very obvious way. The problem was always before that of course the i7 series to show this was £1k for the CPU alone and thus never got highlighted during testing (well bar a few sites that people seem to not remember/look at).
 
shankly1985 said:
Jaytwocents pointing at the smoothness of Ryzen... Am getting a feeling Ryzen has been hit with harsh feedback that it dont truly deserve. Seems coming from people that one forget the past and two dont have a clue what they talking about.

Click to expand...

Nice video.

So, to summarise, Ryzen offers 90% of the gaming performance (but arguably better mins/smoothness) of a 7700k but 2x the professional performance (encoding, live streaming, image editing etc) for the same price?

Or the same gaming performance as a 6900k and the same professional performance but at 1/3 the cost?

I'm sold - roll on June.
 
amigafan2003 said:
Nice video.

So, to summarise, Ryzen offers 90% of the gaming performance (but arguably better mins/smoothness) of a 7700k but 2x the professional performance (encoding, live streaming, image editing etc) for the same price?

Or the same gaming performance as a 6900k and the same professional performance but at 1/3 the cost?

I'm sold - roll on June.
Click to expand...

You also need to remember that this is ryzen in its worst state. Things are only going to get better from here.
 
pacegod said:
Testing a CPU like a Ryzen 1800x at 1080p with 2xTitans X gpu's is laughable.
Click to expand...

Yeah what? That makes no sense. People buying these CPU's. If you are just saying about the 2 titans at 1080p then that is different.

What it does is actually show some people who play at 144Mhz could achieve 144fps or those that use it as a rendering/workhouse system as day to day but then use it for gaming on occasions too so it is still relevant (even if minority) but it therefore shows what Ryzen does compared to i5/7 range from Intel.

It also takes away that magic GPU bound situation some keep going on about although I think the AdoredTV video proved that is crock. But some may look at it and see what they want to see there.
 
To give an idea I would be looking at going AMD for CPU & GPU (when new GPU's drop) and pairing that up with something like the ViewSonic XG2703-GS (well whatever would be equivalent in a year) which is a 2560x1440p at 165Mhz and a nice sweetspot I feel. I would want to run max settings for graphics and so that is likely to require two GPU's.
 
End of the day, RyZen is a massive win for AMD and everyone posting in this forum. The professional markets are going to eat these chips up, the platform will settle down in a month or so, with bios and Windows updates and gaming performance will increase. People will stop paying Intel's pricing and their chips will fall by literally hundreds of pounds and we may even get ourselves a price war until the market resettles itself.

Anyone recommending Intel's 6-10 core CPUs to people over an AMD R7 system should be sectioned. Even the 7700k for gaming isn't really justifiable unless you intend to swap out your components every year or two or you have enough money to make mistakes. 4 core CPUs are no longer justifiable to the majority at the pricing they hold unless they are priced far, far below the 1700.
 
Omega said:
Managed to get a stable 4Ghz OC but at 1.52 volts with 2666mhz ram running. Think I'll leave it at that for now :)
Click to expand...

That is all fine. It is a shame it ramps up volts wise at the 3.9Ghz mark. If you drop to 3.9Ghz can you get the RAM to 3000Mhz as that according to 8-pack and that is like having an extra 200-300Mhz on the CPU so the balance.
 
TheMorningStar said:
End of the day, RyZen is a massive win for AMD and everyone posting in this forum. The professional markets are going to eat these chips up, the platform will settle down in a month or so, with bios and Windows updates and gaming performance will increase. People will stop paying Intel's pricing and their chips will fall by literally hundreds of pounds and we may even get ourselves a price war until the market resettles itself.

Anyone recommending Intel's 6-10 core CPUs to people over an AMD R7 system should be sectioned. Even the 7700k for gaming isn't really justifiable unless you intend to swap out your components every year or two or you have enough money to make mistakes. 4 core CPUs are no longer justifiable to the majority at the pricing they hold unless they are priced far, far below the 1700.
Click to expand...

Yea good for AMD as Ryzen is a success and a winner and the customer that now can buy a better cpu for a better deal with AMD Ryzen. Kudos to all the zenengineers
I still have people telling me single player benchmarks is a key to performance when multiplayer is the game I play
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom