Not had the chance to read their review I'm still at work but have they used same settings ram etc?
-
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) ***
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
Not had the chance to read their review I'm still at work but have they used same settings ram etc?
The guy is wrong in some places:
"with 2 x 8 GiByte DDR4-2400 RAM (14-13-13-33 2T, Dual-Ranked ) And a Geforce GTX 980 Ti (1,380 / 3,900 MHz). Please note that Ryzen CPUs are greatly benefited from Dual-Ranked Memory (vs. Single-Ranked). "
Single Ranked performs better than Dual Rank. He's also using 2400mhz RAM where 3200mhz would have a significant difference to the performance.
In the comments his explanation is "No, Dual. The channel interleaving helps. Is easy to remember, because dual is more than single.
There is also no mention anywhere of the specs of the other system, only "For comparison, we used a Core i7-7700K."
It would seem to be a very amateur benchmark.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 1,175
- Location
- South Shields, UK
Awful unprofessional benchmark, and being grasped at like the proverbial last straw by the Intel shills.
2400Mhz RAM on Ryzen, pathetic.
2400Mhz RAM on Ryzen, pathetic.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,043
- Location
- London
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,043
- Location
- London
This one will already have been posted no doubt, but people seem to like DF and in their tests Ryzen looks competitive.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,336
- Location
- Planet Earth
The guy is wrong in some places:
"with 2 x 8 GiByte DDR4-2400 RAM (14-13-13-33 2T, Dual-Ranked ) And a Geforce GTX 980 Ti (1,380 / 3,900 MHz). Please note that Ryzen CPUs are greatly benefited from Dual-Ranked Memory (vs. Single-Ranked). "
Single Ranked performs better than Dual Rank. He's also using 2400mhz RAM where 3200mhz would have a significant difference to the performance.
In the comments his explanation is "No, Dual. The channel interleaving helps. Is easy to remember, because dual is more than single."
There is also no mention anywhere of the specs of the other system, only "For comparison, we used a Core i7-7700K."
It would seem to be a very amateur benchmark.
You have also obviously missed that the Intel setup also used the SAME 2400MHZ dual ranked RAM,too so is Intel also now gimped - its stated on the graphs,they used the following:
Guess,what KL also benefits MORE from high speed RAM,so its comparatively MORE gimped.
They are not even using a Z270 board - but an older Z170. So its not even an optimised motherboard.
KL can run its IMC at a higher clockspeed anyway. PCGH have done AMD a favour here.
But thats the thing if anyone thinks they hate AMD,then LMAO.
I find it hilarious that some here were using PCGH as a gold standard when their benchmarks have made Nvidia or Intel look worse and they were fine.
Some of you have very short memories - PCGH actually were one of the first sites to push testing of "Welcome to the Jungle" in Crysis 3 which was very multi-threaded,and they painted the FX8350 in a good light. Sites like The Tech Report literally tested tunnels which made a Core i3 look competitive.
Lots of people were using this diagram they published too:
Remember that one - its been shown in many threads too regarding Ryzen.
I should know that since I started the flipping Ryzen review thread.
Many people used their tests to show that AMD CPUs could be competitive in modern games,but now the moment they show something might be not so right,the same lot jump on the same review sites.
Lets look at their R7 1700 review:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Ryzen...chmark-Performance-Zen-Release-Specs-1223124/
Umm?? Seems they are quite positive about Ryzen.
If the RAM was a problem,how come the internal benchmark numbers which they posted using the SAME RAM showed it doing better than an actual game scene??
Its seems suddenly many of you are trying to call out review sites when its been done before over the last 10 to 15 years,ie,optimising for benchmarks,etc or have some of you forgotten all the 3DMark "optimisations" all those years ago??
What about all the internal benchmarks for games which are not representative of what you get in game?
I bet if this was Intel or Nvidia,there would be a huge outcry if it happened.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,336
- Location
- Planet Earth
The Intel and AMD platforms used the same 2400mhz ddr4 set and the Core i7 7700k was run on an older z170 based motherboard and not a z270 one. Most sites will use the internal benchmark for aots and not do custom runs since it is a pain to do custom runs. PCGH are one of the few to do AOTS custom runs - if you translate their article they mentioned that everytime AOTS was patched they had to repeat the custom runs. They even tried multiple runs of the internal benchmark.
The problem it's just showing how pointless internal game benchmarks are - most of us would not trust an internal graphic benchmarks especially when games like Deus Ex:MD and Metro:LL have benchmarks which are worse than in reality than playing the game itself. ROTTR is another one - I tested the benchmark and it shows hardly any DX12 improvements on either an AMD or Nvidia card. In reality it actually did show an improvement if you actually tried a run through. Most review sites just used the internal benchmark.
Apparently this does not apply to CPUs still.
People are trying to egg on PCGH but they pretty much helped the fx8350 out and I hardly think they are anti-AMD.
In fact some seem to like using computerbase.de and I have seen accusations in the past they were anti-AMD,but not currently.
You have also obviously missed that the Intel setup also used the SAME 2400MHZ dual ranked RAM,too so is Intel also now gimped - its stated on the graphs,they used the following:
Guess,what KL also benefits MORE from high speed RAM,so its comparatively MORE gimped.
They are not even using a Z270 board - but an older Z170. So its not even an optimised motherboard.
KL can run its IMC at a higher clockspeed anyway. PCGH have done AMD a favour here.
But thats the thing if anyone thinks they hate AMD,then LMAO.
I find it hilarious that some here were using PCGH as a gold standard when their benchmarks have made Nvidia or Intel look worse and they were fine.
Some of you have very short memories - PCGH actually were one of the first sites to push testing of "Welcome to the Jungle" in Crysis 3 which was very multi-threaded,and they painted the FX8350 in a good light. Sites like The Tech Report literally tested tunnels which made a Core i3 look competitive.
Lots of people were using this diagram they published too:
Remember that one - its been shown in many threads too regarding Ryzen.
I should know that since I started the flipping Ryzen review thread.
Many people used their tests to show that AMD CPUs could be competitive in modern games,but now the moment they show something might be not so right,the same lot jump on the same review sites.
Lets look at their R7 1700 review:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Ryzen...chmark-Performance-Zen-Release-Specs-1223124/
Umm?? Seems they are quite positive about Ryzen.
If the RAM was a problem,how come the internal benchmark numbers which they posted using the SAME RAM showed it doing better than an actual game scene??
Its seems suddenly many of you are trying to call out review sites when its been done before over the last 10 to 15 years,ie,optimising for benchmarks,etc or have some of you forgotten all the 3DMark "optimisations" all those years ago??
What about all the internal benchmarks for games which are not representative of what you get in game?
I bet if this was Intel or Nvidia,there would be a huge outcry if it happened.
Reviews like this to me look schizophrenic. on the one hand the are saying "its not such a bad chip and the performance is nearly there with the 7700K" while their slides say the 7700K is 40% faster, completely contradictory.
PCGH should and i think do know better, they know slow RAM greatly reduces Ryzens full potential, they are running it with very slow RAM where usually they run the RAM much faster, why the sudden change? why when it was just reviewing Intel CPU was the RAM always at least 3Ghz but now that Ryzen is in the picture wich thrives from fast RAM those CPU are now being reviewed with 2.4Ghz RAM?
There is a strange trend since Ryzen to say mildly positive things while actually engendering your testing methodology to show it in the worst possible light, no one who pays £500 for an 8 core CPU would then run their memory at a setting that strangles that CPU, stick your fingers under your Adams Apple and push, then go for a run like that, is that normal?
I think these reviewers are under pressure to do these reviews the way Intel dictate but then say something positive as a way to balance it out again, just as long as its not to upsetting to Intel.
Ryzen CPU's benefit from 3Ghz RAM, Intel CPU it doesn't make any difference, reviewers who use slow RAM against the usual grain you have to ask how legitimate they are.
I'm sorry, if i had a Ryzen CPU knowing what everyone now does i wouldn't be running it with 2.4Ghz RAM.
Its a BS review
Well in fairness that's better than or equal to what the vast majority of users are currently able to run.
It's a catch 22 situation, if they give best possible result people will complain they are not what the average user currently will experience, if they give normal results people will complain they gimped the test rig, lose lose.
For the same reason people were recommending/buying the Pentium IV/D when they were choking on the Athlon XP/64's balls: Brand power.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,336
- Location
- Planet Earth
Nope it isn't since you have quoted their results before when they showed AMD in a positive light and all the people saying it is BS now are basically trying to bury stuff. You know very well that the other sites are using canned results from internal benchmarks which a number of you have yourselves have said in CPU and GPU threads are not a good indication of gameplay,and moreover you are yet another one who has not read it but are reacting. The level of flip-flopping is hilarious - so I expect next time when you and your mates try and use PCGH repeatedly to show AMD in a positive light I will call you out on it - it shows you had silly some of you are getting when you are basically trying to call out any website which does not show Ryzen 100% in a positive light which is basically what happens in the GPU section.
AMD themselves would not have sent out 100s of dev kits and admitted as much that gaming performance is not a good.
Moreover clinging to RAM speed is BS(using your words),because:
1.)BOTH test systems used the same RAM and they are using a less optimised older generation chipset for the Core i7
2.)Intel IMC overclocks more and can handle higher speed RAM better
3.)Running at 2400MHZ puts Intel in a worse light NOT AMD
Plus moreover all your deflecting does not change the fact,that for some reason even with 2400MHZ RAM,the internal benchmark seems FAR better than actual game play.
Moreover burying anything negative about Ryzen and going la!la!la!la! means diddly squat -
even the biggest AMD fan should want this highlighted since it means AMD can give feedback to its sponsored dev that they need to do a better job.
Trying to call out PCGH as a Intel shill is stupid when most of you were extensively using the FX8350 Crysis3 results on this forum to show how an FX8350 might do in future games. They are hardly an Intel shill site - using absurd logic are you telling me they were a AMD shill site too.
Last edited:
Do you mean in gaming in general or just for this game? I've only ever seen one video comparing Kaby Lake 1080p gaming using 2400 MHz vs 3200 MHz RAM and it showed no difference whatsoever. We all know that Ryzen on the other hand does benefit, sometimes significantly, from faster RAM, mainly due to the Infinity Fabric frequency benefit.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 12,827
So what he saying here, Ryzen is crap now, dont buy it buy Intel?
Confused at the what the point is.
Confused at the what the point is.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,336
- Location
- Planet Earth
Look at many of the SKL/KL reviews - the IMC overclocks and faster RAM can add a decent amount of performance overall in games.
This is becoming some weird alternate reality - have you noticed any time something remotely negative or weird is shown about Ryzen its either the forum member is a shill or the site has been paid off by Intel. These are the very SAME sites some here have quoted ad verbatim when they showed AMD in a good light and I have certainly used them before too.
What?? I am not saying anything - are some of you PC enthusiasts or console people?? Its seems to be either you are 100% XBox or 100% PS4?? Because it is almost like the mentality some of you are having here.
So basically you are just running accusing people of people being pro-A or pro-B which is hilarious. So a person who has been called an AMD employee or an AMD fanboi on this forum,is now being called an Intel one.
So there is no middle ground or discussion - really?? So using your absurd logic why do any of you bother even reading a review if you already know the outcome in your heart?? Better not to go to forums for purchase validation,because good forbid someone might think differently. Just go and buy.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 12,827
Jesus you dont half get angry and rant, and I still dont have any idea what your point is.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,336
- Location
- Planet Earth
Your the one is getting angry and ranting and try to pretend to not understand anything.. See how its another case of you and your mates trying to bury results and make this into an Intel vs AMD thing.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 12,827
I've been tempted to put you on ignore for a while, your waffling walls of angry text arguing about situations that dont exist very rarely contain any useful information and just serve to clog up threads
I think the imaturity of your above post demonstrates your absolute desperation to argue with people on the internet so I will now put you on ignore.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 5,849
Cat i think the problem is your making mountains out of molehills and conjuring up issues that are not there...
The facts are as follows
1) Intel does not scale as well as AMD does with faster Ram
2) AMD Ryzen scales incredibly well with ram, to the point its a necessity to use the fastest ram possible
3) AMD are still working on providing the best ram support, in the meantime your mileage may vary in ram compatibility
4) Anyone can cherry pick reviews to show any point they are trying to make, we all know it, you know this to be true
5) Why cant we all just get along!
The facts are as follows
1) Intel does not scale as well as AMD does with faster Ram
2) AMD Ryzen scales incredibly well with ram, to the point its a necessity to use the fastest ram possible
3) AMD are still working on providing the best ram support, in the meantime your mileage may vary in ram compatibility
4) Anyone can cherry pick reviews to show any point they are trying to make, we all know it, you know this to be true
5) Why cant we all just get along!
Like I said, the only one I've seen showed no difference at all in any game tested. Do you have an example or two?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,336
- Location
- Planet Earth