• 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

With a few bugs to be smoothed out firmware/software wise, it looks pretty impressive to me. Especially considering the price. Game performance isn't amazing at lower resolutions, but it should improve over time. I'm sorely tempted by Ryzen.
 
Any benchmarks here for 1700 overclocked at around 4ghz compared with 7700k 7500k? Not sure stock clocks really matter for most of us.
 
  1. rIcK said:
    Any benchmarks here for 1700 overclocked at around 4ghz compared with 7700k 7500k? Not sure stock clocks really matter for most of us.
    Click to expand...
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu,review-33811-12.html
  1. Surprisingly, even the 4C/8T Core i7-7700K outpaced AMD's Ryzen 7 1800X by a significant margin (and that was after trying to provide the 1800X with the most favorable settings possible).

It’s hard to recommend the Ryzen 7 1800X over Intel's lower-cost quad-core chips for gaming, especially given the Core i7-7700K's impressive performance.
 
Last edited:
Im not going to bother reading any of those reviews or the majority of posts in this thread i am going to just say the following....

1) Many of those reviews were done on non fresh installs of Win, infact some where straight hardware swaps.
2) Many reviews were not done on updated bios
3) Many reviews were not done with High Performance mode, HEPT disabled or SMT disabled
4) Many reviews were done on the Asus Motherboard, which it now seems is exceptionally flakey
5) Ryzen has Bios fixes and Windows patches to come to fix issues, including Thread priority, SMT Scaling, Memory stability
6) There are numerous Ryzen videos if you bother to look that show it competing with 7700k in real world scenarios, this is what matters, not artificially gimped scenarios that are never going to happen for the majority of users.
7) All of Intels CPU releases were flawless

I lied about one of those above points.

My point is, i would forget the majority of those reviews, a lot of them are not worth even considering, not big into conspiracy theories and all that, but i do not feel many of the reviews were done fairly. AMD had asked many reviewers to change settings like disabling SMT, HEPT and enabling High Performance mode, which is a net gain of around 8% Performance on average and many reviewers ignored this.
 
Well after 8 hours read all reviews and comments so I was shocked and really very disappointed with Ryzen peformance.

1800X have same performance as my 3770K in games. :o

So I will give AMD until end of April to see if they will fix to improve poor games performance with BIOS updates and maybe Ryzen Windows drivers from Creators Update due in April.

If both will fail to improve Ryzen's games peformance just the same thing been happened to Bulldozer and Windows 8 drivers then I will get 7700K, I dont care if you say 8 cores is future because games will be full optimised for 8 cores. AMD said the same excuses back in 2011 with Bulldozer and 6 years on there was still no games full optimised 8 cores yet.
 
SiDeards73 said:
Im not going to bother reading any of those reviews or the majority of posts in this thread i am going to just say the following....

1) Many of those reviews were done on non fresh installs of Win, infact some where straight hardware swaps.
2) Many reviews were not done on updated bios
3) Many reviews were not done with High Performance mode, HEPT disabled or SMT disabled
4) Many reviews were done on the Asus Motherboard, which it now seems is exceptionally flakey
5) Ryzen has Bios fixes and Windows patches to come to fix issues, including Thread priority, SMT Scaling, Memory stability
6) There are numerous Ryzen videos if you bother to look that show it competing with 7700k in real world scenarios, this is what matters, not artificially gimped scenarios that are never going to happen for the majority of users.
7) All of Intels CPU releases were flawless

I lied about one of those above points.

My point is, i would forget the majority of those reviews, a lot of them are not worth even considering, not big into conspiracy theories and all that, but i do not feel many of the reviews were done fairly. AMD had asked many reviewers to change settings like disabling SMT, HEPT and enabling High Performance mode, which is a net gain of around 8% Performance on average and many reviewers ignored this.
Click to expand...


Have to say why come here and post that without even bothering to read any of the reviews :(
Without reading them its impossible to prove what you stated and just come off looking biased
 
SiDeards73 said:
Im not going to bother reading any of those reviews or the majority of posts in this thread i am going to just say the following....

1) Many of those reviews were done on non fresh installs of Win, infact some where straight hardware swaps.
2) Many reviews were not done on updated bios
3) Many reviews were not done with High Performance mode, HEPT disabled or SMT disabled
4) Many reviews were done on the Asus Motherboard, which it now seems is exceptionally flakey
5) Ryzen has Bios fixes and Windows patches to come to fix issues, including Thread priority, SMT Scaling, Memory stability
6) There are numerous Ryzen videos if you bother to look that show it competing with 7700k in real world scenarios, this is what matters, not artificially gimped scenarios that are never going to happen for the majority of users.
7) All of Intels CPU releases were flawless

I lied about one of those above points.

My point is, i would forget the majority of those reviews, a lot of them are not worth even considering, not big into conspiracy theories and all that, but i do not feel many of the reviews were done fairly. AMD had asked many reviewers to change settings like disabling SMT, HEPT and enabling High Performance mode, which is a net gain of around 8% Performance on average and many reviewers ignored this.
Click to expand...

Does this count?

Surprisingly, even the 4C/8T Core i7-7700K outpaced AMD's Ryzen 7 1800X by a significant margin (and that was after trying to provide the 1800X with the most favorable settings possible).
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu,review-33811-6.html
 
I wonder if the OS support/driver issues are as bad as they were with Bulldozer. In that case they pretty much sealed AMD's fate despite performance improving quite a bit after the initial reviews.
 
triss said:
Have to say why come here and post that without even bothering to read any of the reviews :(
Without reading them its impossible to prove what you stated and just come off looking biased
Click to expand...

Because it was blatantly obvious from the noise on many forums that many of the reviews were lazily done and not really real world scenarios... i watched quite a few youtube video reviews last night, and where the chips were setup to counter the issues, they performed very well.

If tech journalists are going to be lazy and not bother giving everyone the full picture, the full story, and conducting the reviews in a proper manner, why should i bother with them? Yeah im biased, im not afraid to admit it either. I am still buying a Ryzen 1700 to replace my 4700k, as i game at 1440p 144hz, its been shown that the 1700 is the perfect chip for this that will only get better. The 7700k is a great here and now chip but lacks any real futureproofing.
 
Some of the reviews seem terrible (some of the writers seem clueless) :(

Also some have now been massively edited due to comments showing the reviewers up
eg: the arstechnica review has been edited so much that the title has changed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom