|
I really do not get all the hate on Bulldozer. I've been running an 8320 @4.5 Ghz for two years now, and I've only ever run into a CPU bottleneck that rendered a game marginally unpleasant literally once, in GTA V. Even on my relatively weak GPU, an R9 270X 4GB, I'm getting minimums of 65-90 FPS on every other game I play, barring the super-demanding ones like Cities: Skylines. When I OC to 5Ghz it also renders my videos at roughly the same speed as an i7 6700. I've just never run into any of the common complaints people have on Bulldozer 
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:10 |
|
|
BurritoJustice posted:That might well be true, but I am completely puzzled why it's sitting just above the 8350 results. It is worse in single threaded, multithreaded, and memory performance so I can't imagine how it would be equivalent. It's because the memory controller is all hosed up and Fallout 4 and Novigrad are exquisitely, singularly memory bound. 100% agreeing that it is a poo poo upgrade for practical gaming (i.e. "the poo poo that's bottlenecking me right now"). Or at least, it certainly will be until the next tranche of reviews come out in a week or two as the next BIOSs get released, then who knows. This release is a shitshow, I am pissed that AMD rushed this so bad that there is only one (lovely, half-baked) chipset and no mITX boards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
CFox posted:For me cases like that are absolutely what I want to see. Fallout 4 runs fine on my old 2500k except in downtown Boston. If I was wanting an upgrade it'd be to make the worst performing part of the game do better than to increase my already high fps in other areas. Bethesda games in massive towns is basically the only situation where my aging 3570K/1600MHz RAM setup gives me unacceptable performance. It becomes a stuttery mess that takes you out of the game and I'd almost upgrade just to fix that, hence the aforementioned bias.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Phoronix posted:The Ryzen 7 1800X was the fastest configuration tested when it came to building the Linux kernel from source. Holy poo poo. 80 seconds to compile Linux? I remember that being a 60 minute job back in the day and there's probably 10x as much code now. And it even beats my i3-6100 in gaming!  vv Well obviously vv Anarchist Mae fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Measly Twerp posted:Holy poo poo. 80 seconds to compile Linux? I remember that being a 60 minute job back in the day The amount of stuff compiled can vary wildly depending on configuration.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:well for me the k6-2 400, the thunderbird 700, the athlon XP 1800+, the athlon 64 3200+, the athlon 64 X2 3800+, and the phenom II x4 were all good touch, but the bulldozer was bad-touch, officer
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
RyuHimora posted:I really do not get all the hate on Bulldozer. I've been running an 8320 @4.5 Ghz for two years now, and I've only ever run into a CPU bottleneck that rendered a game marginally unpleasant literally once, in GTA V. Even on my relatively weak GPU, an R9 270X 4GB, I'm getting minimums of 65-90 FPS on every other game I play, barring the super-demanding ones like Cities: Skylines. When I OC to 5Ghz it also renders my videos at roughly the same speed as an i7 6700. I've just never run into any of the common complaints people have on Bulldozer you're not noticing it but you have tons of bottlenecking going on in terms of low-end FPS (not average, not minimum). your processor is rekt by a 2C2T Haswell that is like 3 generations old now. Even in a game that is thread-friendly like Crysis 3. Bulldozer's IPC is trash and that wrecks everything it does. Again, like I posted before - Bulldozer's IPC is worse than Phenom, which is literally 10 years old.  Yes, it's true, AMD was literally peddling 10-year-old bullshit up until today.  but true.Here's what your processor looks like in terms of average framerates:  And here's what it looks like in terms of frame times, at the struggle-bus end of things:   http://techreport.com/review/26735/overclocking-intel-pentium-g3258-anniversary-edition-processor/3 In other words - your FX processor is struggle-bussing 3x as much as a 2C2T Intel processor and 20x as much as a 4C8T Intel processor. It gets some better with OC, but not enough to make up for its poo poo IPC. And again, Crysis is pretty much a best-case for FX. Bulldozer was (and always has been) stupid garbage for idiots. Sorry bud. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:It's because the memory controller is all hosed up and Fallout 4 and Novigrad are exquisitely, singularly memory bound. Maybe you should take a breather.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
RyuHimora posted:I really do not get all the hate on Bulldozer. I've been running an 8320 @4.5 Ghz for two years now, and I've only ever run into a CPU bottleneck that rendered a game marginally unpleasant literally once, in GTA V. Even on my relatively weak GPU, an R9 270X 4GB, I'm getting minimums of 65-90 FPS on every other game I play, barring the super-demanding ones like Cities: Skylines. When I OC to 5Ghz it also renders my videos at roughly the same speed as an i7 6700. I've just never run into any of the common complaints people have on Bulldozer
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Bareback Werewolf posted:Maybe you should take a breather.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
AMD blames 1080p performance issues on obama errr intel "CPU benchmarking deficits to the competition in certain games at 1080p resolution can be attributed to the development and optimization of the game uniquely to Intel platforms – until now. Even without optimizations in place, Ryzen delivers high, smooth frame rates on all “CPU-bound” games, as well as overall smooth frame rates and great experiences in GPU-bound gaming and VR. With developers taking advantage of Ryzen architecture and the extra cores and threads, we expect benchmarks to only get better, and enable Ryzen excel at next generation gaming experiences as well." https://www.pcper.com/news/Processors/AMD-responds-1080p-gaming-tests-Ryzen
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
All these Ryzen benchmarks are making me feel pretty okay about my i7 4790k. Also, I want to see what happens to Ryzens temps/powerlust when you turn off SMT.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Pretty much what I expected. AMD is back. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
1800X looks like a dud. What about the 1700? Having trouble finding benchmarks for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
I was hoping for at least consistent Broadwell-level performance across the board. I have a i7-4770K now and so any switch to Ryzen would have been solely for a slight-if-any boost but instead to throw a few dollars AMD's way. Guess that won't be happening.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
White Rock posted:1800X looks like a dud. What about the 1700? Having trouble finding benchmarks for it. 1700 or 1700X? In either case, I'm hoping that the extra threads will be useful for multiboxing spreadsheets in space.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Alereon posted:To any reasonably person this is just an awful experience.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
kirtar posted:1700 or 1700X? In either case, I'm hoping that the extra threads will be useful for multiboxing spreadsheets in space. 1700 sans X. I found a single video with had VERY favorable benchmarks compared to the 7700k. Still not beating it, but it paints a really good picture for the lower core ones coming later. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5RP1CPpFVE Also i have no idea if your serious but this one has an actual excel benchmark in which Ryzen smashes the competition. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW1pzcdZxKc
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
RyuHimora posted:from my perspective the hate against Bulldozer is completely overblown no, it's literally that you have no good perspective for comparison Again, a 2C2T Intel processor smokes your build at 1/3 the price, sorry but it's true, I posted the measurements earlier yeah, 2C4T is better and 4C4T is better still - but IPC rules everything around me, clockrates and lots of cores only matter if you have decent IPC, nobody games on a Pentium 4 even though it hits crazy clocks that Bulldozer can only dream of. You wasted $150 instead of spending $50 more and getting a 4690K or similar, or spending $100 less and getting a G3258. False economy is a thing - i.e. you cheaped out too hard. Sorry for your loss. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
quote:http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-and-1700-processor-review_191753 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
RyuHimora posted:I also paid 1/2 as much for my CPU and 2/3 as much for my motherboard. As someone who could not afford that extra $250 when building this system (nor since), I have nothing but good things to say about my 8320. I am obviously an outlier here, but from my perspective the hate against Bulldozer is completely overblown. I admit that I am not getting a top shelf experience, but I didn't pay for that. Even overclocking was very turn-key, making all but one game playable and an acceptable compromise for the ones that aren't perfect. You're making it out as though I am suffering every day with this setup, and that isn't remotely the case. Counterpoint: I bought a 2500K for $200 5 or 6 years ago. Looks like a year later, the 8320 launched around $160, so you sure saved that $40 over 6 years in exchange for a considerably slower CPU experience.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
I was looking for an excuse to get rid of this 2500k but I'm still not feeling it  Maybe the entry level Skylake-X will do it...
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
repiv posted:I was looking for an excuse to get rid of this 2500k but I'm still not feeling it Enough of my friends are hopping on the Ryzen train that I'm gonna upgrade from my 2500K / P67 to a 4790K on the cheap. Woo!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Its..its like AMD did a tick-tock-tock in a single pass compared to their old lovely architecture, and the new platform has baby problems. Who would have thought of that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
It's honestly what I expected, but not what I hoped for. It's a chip that's great for creators or anyone who uses their computer for more than one thing, but on the other hand it's not a great CPU for the Facebook-and-L33T-G4MEZZZZZZZZZZZ
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
White Rock posted:1700 sans X. I found a single video with had VERY favorable benchmarks compared to the 7700k. Still not beating it, but it paints a really good picture for the lower core ones coming later. Spreadsheets in space = EVE Online.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:It's honestly what I expected, but not what I hoped for. It's a chip that's great for creators or anyone who uses their computer for more than one thing, but on the other hand it's not a great CPU for the Facebook-and-L33T-G4MEZZZZZZZZZZZ Which is a shame btw because AMD marketed this partly as a gaming disruptor, instead of perf/$ multithread champion against HEDT.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
the reviews posted seem generally positive, but the this thread's reaction is lukewarm at absolute best but mostly "ehhhh", and the comments section of review websites have mental olympics performances by AMD fans. So my question is: Are any of these 3 processors an instant pick when it comes to building a price:performance oriented gaming machine?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
buglord posted:Are any of these 3 processors an instant pick when it comes to building a price:performance oriented gaming machine? No. There is no reason at this point in time to choose a low frequency 8c/16t processor for gaming.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:13
|
|
Maxwell Adams posted:All these Ryzen benchmarks are making me feel pretty okay about my i7 4790k. Pmuch this.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:You wasted $150 instead of spending $50 more and getting a 4690K or similar, or spending $100 less and getting a G3258. Sorry for your loss. Twerk from Home posted:Counterpoint: I bought a 2500K for $200 5 or 6 years ago. Looks like a year later, the 8320 launched around $160, so you sure saved that $40 over 6 years in exchange for a considerably slower CPU experience.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
buglord posted:Are any of these 3 processors an instant pick when it comes to building a price:performance oriented gaming machine? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
buglord posted:the reviews posted seem generally positive, but the this thread's reaction is lukewarm at absolute best but mostly "ehhhh", and the comments section of review websites have mental olympics performances by AMD fans. So my question is: Absolutely not on the 1800X and 1700X since those would have to outperform the 7700K in gaming to be better price/performance. Most of the reviews have rightfully concluded that Ryzen 7 is not a good value for gaming alone, and I highly doubt that updated drivers/BIOS will change that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
White Rock posted:1700 sans X. I found a single video with had VERY favorable benchmarks compared to the 7700k. Still not beating it, but it paints a really good picture for the lower core ones coming later.  Hmm...  Uhhh... Why are his results so different?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Measly Twerp posted:
This one is an outlier. Here is the reviewer. quote:I really can't tell you that for any degree of certainty. I do run the majority of my benchmarks in game rather than using any built in benchmarks like GTA 5. The only exception is Rainbow Six Siege which is rather difficult to recreate the same scene repeatedly. Also may come down to settings. For simplicity I just hit the ultra preset and left it at that. No other changes were made to the settings in these runs. The assumption here by many is that there is simply a GPU bottleneck due to his settings. Also, he is running windows at performance mode. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:This one is an outlier. Yeah definitely. I'm trying to figure out if there's was something weird on the test setup that would cause this, but I'm drawing a blank. Both were using 16 GB DDR-4@3000MHz (no specification on latency) and a GTX 1080. Presumably at that resolution it shouldn't be GPU bottlenecked, but honestly the results make me think that they somehow made it so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
I realize how narrowly focused this use case is, but from what I can tell? This is going to go great into the two-headed machine for siblings to use simultaneously without killing eachother over "my turn" like some kind of savages.  I'll be ordering one for my stepbrothers, I think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Ryzen looks good for hobby level 3D rendering 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Also, be sure to check out this guy. He is top notch. https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:10 |
|
|
Themage posted:Ryzen looks good for hobby level 3D rendering Isn't small-medium scale 3D rendering dominated by GPU renderers like Octane and Cycles now?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:28
|
|