• 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.

First full review of AMD Ryzen 5 1600 is here

Curlyriff said:
You what? There aren't any major problems. They are things being actively sorted. Nothing to do with a tin foil hat, stop trolling.
Click to expand...
I'm just basing my comments on the reviews. It's not like this one is a lone voice. By all means look the other way.
 
Brazo said:
I'm just basing my comments on the reviews. It's not like this one is a lone voice. By all means look the other way.
Click to expand...

There is no looking the other way but are you just reading the day one release reviews and missed all the ones showing the updates and improvements where things are much different?

I am sorry but you just sound like a troll.
 
All I see is people getting real pissy about it. Should the guy have waiting till he was able to get 3200? Yeah, probably. It is still providing very good performance regardless of the memory being at 2400Mhz.

Please remember that some reviewers don't always have the funds to get the equipment they need for full testing, or the time. A lot are more hobbyist's at this and doing the best they can. Obviously, there is the element of 'FIRST!!!111' in here as well to have your review up.

I just hate the fallout and toxic crap that then gets thrown around in other threads because of things like this though.
 
Looking really strong at x264 encoding, have a friend who'll love seeing that from a 'budget' cpu :)

Feels like the choice of games wasn't particularly CPU-hungry though... FPS games aren't exactly playing into the strengths of a 6c/12t unit.
 
All of The scores they are getting are low. They have clearly rushed this out before nda to be first. I hope amd don't bother sending them review samples in future
 
Scougar said:
All I see is people getting real pissy about it. Should the guy have waiting till he was able to get 3200? Yeah, probably. It is still providing very good performance regardless of the memory being at 2400Mhz.

Please remember that some reviewers don't always have the funds to get the equipment they need for full testing, or the time. A lot are more hobbyist's at this and doing the best they can. Obviously, there is the element of 'FIRST!!!111' in here as well to have your review up.

I just hate the fallout and toxic crap that then gets thrown around in other threads because of things like this though.
Click to expand...

I haven't got so much an issue that they have done the review in 2400Mhz but that particular board and RAM has been working pretty spot on to get 3200Mhz out the box and there isn't one note even just as a footer stating that faster RAM will be tested later as stability improves. There are holes in the info, it's not particularly well put together.

The review just does come across as look we are first so it is what it is which is a little frustrating is all and then people bash Ryzen for being awful and not even looking at the info in full. Yeah I probably sounded much more grumpy in replies this morning, however the point still stands.
 
Curlyriff said:
I haven't got so much an issue that they have done the review in 2400Mhz but that particular board and RAM has been working pretty spot on to get 3200Mhz out the box and there isn't one note even just as a footer stating that faster RAM will be tested later as stability improves. There are holes in the info, it's not particularly well put together.

The review just does come across as look we are first so it is what it is which is a little frustrating is all and then people bash Ryzen for being awful and not even looking at the info in full. Yeah I probably sounded much more grumpy in replies this morning, however the point still stands.
Click to expand...

I am certainly not disagreeing. It only came out later in the comments that he couldn't seem to get the RAM working faster etc. MSI board, with known working RAM.... I would certainly have held off my review if that was me.

Let's be honest... in gaming it is basically gonna be very close to a 1700/1700x/1800x.
 
Scougar said:
I am certainly not disagreeing. It only came out later in the comments that he couldn't seem to get the RAM working faster etc. MSI board, with known working RAM.... I would certainly have held off my review if that was me.

Let's be honest... in gaming it is basically gonna be very close to a 1700/1700x/1800x.
Click to expand...

Yeah tbh I would expect almost zero difference. Games are still for general not using more cores efficiently as we know.

I think the big thing really is waiting for an i5 comparison just to see what difference there is the i7 is relevant in that if we ahd the same performance for less money no one would question it but it does need the i5 chip to compare what you are getting like for like money wise also I feel.

That would have helped a lot. Then to firm up why there are RAM issues in this review with a known combination that works out the box.
 
Maybe if AMD hadn't launched in such a horrible state that they couldn't get memory running much past stock on multiple different boards then we wouldn't have reviewers having issues?
 
Seems odd they couldn't get RAM working faster with this. Already seen it done in other benchmarks with 1700X/1800X. Based off that, RAM running 3200 will clearly make a difference.

Looks like 1600/1600X is going to be an excellent value proposition for anyone who games and needs a bit more grunt for other multi-core apps, but can't justify 1700/1700X cost.
 
Broken Hope said:
Maybe if AMD hadn't launched in such a horrible state that they couldn't get memory running much past stock on multiple different boards then we wouldn't have reviewers having issues?
Click to expand...
Whilst i agree this memory issue is AMD's fault. This review is poor. Anyone that has been following ryzen knows by now that Samsung b die memory is needed for decent speeds. If i and other normal users can get these speeds then why can't "reviewers"?
 
gavinh87 said:
Whilst i agree this memory issue is AMD's fault. This review is poor. Anyone that has been following ryzen knows by now that Samsung b die memory is needed for decent speeds. If i and other normal users can get these speeds then why can't "reviewers"?
Click to expand...


Well, your use of the word "reviewers" in inverted commas suggests you know the answer to that already lol! ;)
 
Broken Hope said:
Maybe if AMD hadn't launched in such a horrible state that they couldn't get memory running much past stock on multiple different boards then we wouldn't have reviewers having issues?
Click to expand...
We're now a month past launch and understand enough about the situation to know exactly which kits will run at 3200MHz and which ones won't. You are pretty much guaranteed 3200MHz using a range of G.Skill Trident Z kits with specific latencies, bar a few specific outlier boards still having trouble with their BIOSes (I believe the MSI XPower currently struggles even with an ideal kit, despite their B350 boards booting them fine). I don't think there's any excuse when you're trying to present yourself as an objective reviewer not to solve a known issue with an easy fix before conducting your testing, especially when you're looking to earn money based on your content. It's like conducting testing on a 1080 Ti with an old Core 2 Quad setup and claiming you saw little improvement over the GTX 760 you were using before. And sure, maybe you're too hard up to afford to buy new components to conduct your review, but in that case maybe... don't do it? If you know going in that your results don't even have a chance at reflecting optimal performance, why bother? Other than the obvious answer of exposure and sweet, sweet ad revenue of course.

I'm sure some will disagree and say people shouldn't have to buy new memory for Ryzen and blah blah blah, but then if that's going to be the standard, surely we have to make sure test rigs across the board are more "realistic" then? Every graphics card review is done with a heavily-overclocked 7700K or HEDT i7 and the performance numbers based on that, because it shows the card in its best light. Equally, every CPU test is done with an overclocked 1080 or 1080 Ti, again showing how good your performance could be with a top of the line setup. Yet many people won't have an overclocked 7700K and a 1080 Ti in the same system, and as a result will never come close to those ideal numbers. So is it fair to only ever present the best case scenario? Personally, I'd love to see a wider range of testing, but I'm sure the argument against it would be that it's too much work. So we're back to the original case where everyone agrees that you need to present a piece of hardware in its best light where it's not being dragged down by another component, making reviews that don't, such as this one, ultimately worthless.
 
Aretak said:
I'm sure some will disagree and say people shouldn't have to buy new memory for Ryzen and blah blah blah, but then if that's going to be the standard, surely we have to make sure test rigs across the board are more "realistic" then? Every graphics card review is done with a heavily-overclocked 7700K or HEDT i7 and the performance numbers based on that, because it shows the card in its best light. Equally, every CPU test is done with an overclocked 1080 or 1080 Ti, again showing how good your performance could be with a top of the line setup. Yet many people won't have an overclocked 7700K and a 1080 Ti in the same system, and as a result will never come close to those ideal numbers. So is it fair to only ever present the best case scenario? Personally, I'd love to see a wider range of testing, but I'm sure the argument against it would be that it's too much work. So we're back to the original case where everyone agrees that you need to present a piece of hardware in its best light where it's not being dragged down by another component, making reviews that don't, such as this one, ultimately worthless.
Click to expand...

And that is the thing.... if you step down to a 1070 GTX, then differences between a Ryzen and high clocked 7700k basically dissappear to within a few percent. I'll try and find the article again that had this information in it when they went back and tested with different cards, it 'may' have been PCPer.

Damnit.. can anyone remember the review that was recent, where they tests 1080, 1070,1060 with Ryzen and 7700k, 7600k etc?
 
Aretak said:
We're now a month past launch and understand enough about the situation to know exactly which kits will run at 3200MHz and which ones won't. You are pretty much guaranteed 3200MHz using a range of G.Skill Trident Z kits with specific latencies, bar a few specific outlier boards still having trouble with their BIOSes (I believe the MSI XPower currently struggles even with an ideal kit, despite their B350 boards booting them fine).
Click to expand...

Not all reviewers will be located in the UK or the US though - it could be quite possible they are stuck with what they can buy in their own countries. You tend to forget as a market we have an immense amount of choice here like in the US.

Edit!!

Even AMD supplied Corsair Vengence RAM with their R7 1800X review kits:

https://videocardz.com/66321/amd-ryzen-review-kit

Second Edit!!

Having said that the review in the OP uses:
  • G.Skill TridentZ DDR4 3600 MHz @ 2400 MHz
    • MSI X370 XPower Gaming Titanium
I think I am more intrigued why the Core i7 had memory run out of spec and there was no Core i5 7600K for the game testing. Memory should have been locked at 2400MHZ too.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom