• 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.

Official OcUK Ryzen review thread

Heartening news all around :)

Whether I will buy one is still up for debate, tbh. A lot of what I do/play responds better to single threaded performance... but we'll see whether AMD put out any interesting new BIOSes that somehow optimise ST performance :)
 
Terrorfirmer said:
I understand from a productivity POV they're good but from a gaming POV it's a disaster as far as I'm concerned and massively disappointing. The flagship 1800X, a 500 euro 8c/16t CPU, trading blows with the Ivy Bridge 2700K OC'd for christ sake in a lot of reviews and loosing to Kaby Lake i5.

I'm talking about games performance only, just to make that clear.

Was 100% on a Ryzen R5/1080Ti new build....now it will 100% be Intel again.

So disappointed as a gamer.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you're surprised, until about a week ago there was never any expectation AMD would be an IPC monster. Then everyone jumped aboard they hype train and it got silly.
 
Not too sure what to do

Game at 1440p
Have a 1070
and I am currently using a 2500k @4.2Ghz

Have on order a 1800x thats getting held back by my motherboard not being in stock so I have time to make a choice.
 
I'd hardly call this a disaster!

Anyone wondered why the main focus of Ryzen constantly was Cinebench, handbrake etc? I said this the other day, when a lot of these early benchmarks were appearing it was "X" ryzen cpu tagged with a 480. Now they are getting paired with a 1080 its showing the difference. To be honest, unless you're one of these 144hz gaming beasts you wont really notice any difference. Great CPU for the money!!!
 
SniperDude said:
Not too sure what to do

Game at 1440p
Have a 1070
and I am currently using a 2500k @4.2Ghz

Have on order a 1800x thats getting held back by my motherboard not being in stock so I have time to make a choice.
Click to expand...

Personally I'd drop the pre-order and wait. Looks like the 1800X offers very little over the 1700 as they all seem to max around 4ghz-4.1ghz.

Give it a few weeks for some more overclocking results to come out and then maybe jump on a 1700 and mobo.
 
Whilst in some games these are still some way behind intel, as an all rounder chip im pleasantly surprised. I'd certainly consider one for non gaming applications.
 
Terrorfirmer said:
How do you figure that when the reviews are showing a clear inferiority to Kaby Lake i5 in most CPU dependent titles?
Click to expand...

Apart from SLi/ Xfire being slowly hung out to dry, it totally depends on the experience your going for. As I said, if youre a 144hz master race guy then you MIGHT see a bit of a gap, guessing around 10fps?

But then if that's the case, you pay your money for the best you can get bearing in mind the cost of the 1800x. It's like saying this Lamborghini isn't any good for towing a caravan.

Ryzen IS great, Ryzen is good in gaming but if you're pushing monstrous frames then obviously not as suitable as a silly fast quad core.

However, I do think quad cores are long overdue to be phased out. You can see evidence of it already. Try gaming on a CPU that doesn't have enough cores....
 
A few notes - SMT has performance regressions in games which AMD obviously did not tell reviewers.

UFaWvLe.jpg


Di0J2tf.png


It seems the CPUs won't have windows drivers for a month and AMD knew this.

Apparently,you also need to test the CPUs with the windows performance power plan enabled too.
 
A worthy upgrade for those on Sandy Bridge .. I'll be all AMD for my next PC. Competition is important. Keeps the industry honest.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
A few notes - SMT has performance regressions in games which AMD obviously did not tell reviewers.
Click to expand...

That's fascinating... if this translates into a general gaming boost in a couple of months when drivers and BIOSes can be updated, then the value of money on these is looking really high!

...still going to be interested in whether the 4-6 core parts have better OCing headroom due to thermals ^^;
 
eddiew said:
That's fascinating... if this translates into a general gaming boost in a couple of months when drivers and BIOSes can be updated, then the value of money on these is looking really high!

...still going to be interested in whether the 4-6 core parts have better OCing headroom due to thermals ^^;
Click to expand...

Its why I think AMD just made things look worse by rushing out the launch. I am kind of a sad panda because of this - so many will just read the first benchmarks.
 
So after reading through a couple of reviews so far it seems these R7 chips don't really offer someone like me who pretty much only games on his PC much interest.

I was looking for a significant upgrade to an overclocked i5 3570k. Before the release of Zen the only upgrade path was an i7 7700k, but its £350 price soon put an end to that.

Seeing as these new Zen chips start at £320 + and only seem to be matching or performing worse than a 7600k/7700k at stock for roughly the same price, then I see no point for me. I don't really care about cinebench or handbrake scores at all.

I will wait and see what AMD's R5 series is like. Their 4c/8t is rumoured to be about £200 and their 6c/12t around £250, if these offer an upgrade (albeit not as much as a 7700k) then at least these will be significantly cheaper than the i7 7700k.

All I'm personally after is a CPU that's a significant upgrade to my overclocked i5 3570k for around £200-£250
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom