|
Wow, I completely missed the fact that the tech demos showing equal or better performance for gaming with Ryzen vs. intel were 4K and gpu bottlenecked. So tricky!repiv posted:I was looking for an excuse to get rid of this 2500k but I'm still not feeling it Same(ish). 2700k NEVER DIE!! Over 5 years old and still holding its own to the latest and greatest. Sophy Wackles fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Mar 2, 2017 |
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:53 |
|
|
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/amd-ryzen-1800x-1700x-1700-test/3/#abschnitt_gesamtergebnis Very in depth right here e: 1700 hits 3.9 stable Risky Bisquick fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
RyuHimora posted:Except I already stated I bought my setup 2 years ago, and you're leaving out that the used motherboard I would have needed for a 2500K would have been expensive at best an unreliable at worst. Z77 boards would have been available en mass thanks to Ivy Bridge, and the 2500K is compatible with the Z77 chipset, so you wouldn't have had to buy a used motherboard for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
kirtar posted: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. Dante80 posted:No. There is no reason at this point in time to choose a low frequency 8c/16t processor for gaming. I have an i5-6500, and if its anything like the i7 930 I had before it, it'll probably last for like 7 years. (And even then, the 930->6500 upgrade felt premature given the modest performance increase I noticed). I was just hoping to have an AMD processor in my lifetime but no compelling reason so far.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Risky Bisquick posted:https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/amd-ryzen-1800x-1700x-1700-test/ Yeah sure is a lot of words
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
So in what should be a surprise to absolutely nobody, Zen is a good architecture that is not yet something that makes sense for high end gaming. With later steppings and/or Zen+ this will probably change somewhat. The fabulous GloFo deal strikes again!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
repiv posted:Isn't small-medium scale 3D rendering dominated by GPU renderers like Octane and Cycles now? If he's talking about path tracing renderers like Arnold or Renderman, then those are all about server-style CPU girth after you put in the 64 GB of ram.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
ArgumentatumE.C.T. posted:If he's talking about path tracing renderers like Arnold or Renderman, then those are all about server-style CPU girth after you put in the 64 GB of ram. I thought there were some decent GPU-based raytracers now that GPUs have 8+ GB of VRAM onboard?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:I thought there were some decent GPU-based raytracers now that GPUs have 8+ GB of VRAM onboard? Yep, Cycles is way faster on a GTX 1080 8GB than a 6850K with 64GB of memory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Can somebody explain to me why they're doing a staggered release of the 8 core, 6 core, and 4 core parts? How many people do they think need a high end 8 core / 16 thread processor?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:So in what should be a surprise to absolutely nobody, Zen is a good architecture that is not yet something that makes sense for high end gaming. With later steppings and/or Zen+ this will probably change somewhat. The fabulous GloFo deal strikes again! yup, that's what I've been saying, along with anyone sane but the good news is AMD is already respinning the silicon and like I said I bet they get those clocks up p. good, Zen at 5 GHz is a winner
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Bareback Werewolf posted:Can somebody explain to me why they're doing a staggered release of the 8 core, 6 core, and 4 core parts? How many people do they think need a high end 8 core / 16 thread processor? Probably to get a presence within large companies/data-centers ASAP, versus selling consumer-grade CPUs first (a much smaller market).
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Bareback Werewolf posted:Can somebody explain to me why they're doing a staggered release of the 8 core, 6 core, and 4 core parts? How many people do they think need a high end 8 core / 16 thread processor? Because AMD makes bad decisions
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Bareback Werewolf posted:Can somebody explain to me why they're doing a staggered release of the 8 core, 6 core, and 4 core parts? How many people do they think need a high end 8 core / 16 thread processor? step 1: their fans have been waiting forever, they don't want to wait 6 more months for the 4-core version (which also reportedly sucked hence why they killed it in the cradle) step 2: that means they have a lot of money saved up step 2.5: wait do you think we could also have sold them on a $500-700 GPU upgrade while they were rebuilding their systems? step 2.28: well poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:no, it's literally that you have no good perspective for comparison Ignorance is Bliss, let it go.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Oh, and just another silver lining reminder: Ryzen is ultimately a win for consumers because it made Intel have to adjust its otherwise monopolistic pricing. For those of you already with capable systems, this is not much consolation, but for people in dire need of upgrades, the consumer comes out a winner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:I thought there were some decent GPU-based raytracers now that GPUs have 8+ GB of VRAM onboard? That's ray tracing. I said path tracing, like they use in the movin' pictures these days. E: He probably was not talking about path tracing. I've just been on that snipe hunt of what helped what before and felt the need to chime in. Learn from my wasted time. Learrrn. ArgumentatumE.C.T. fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
I'm still hoping the R5 1600X turns out to be a winner. That's the one I have my eyes on potentially.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:I'm still hoping the R5 1600X turns out to be a winner. That's the one I have my eyes on potentially. Same here, just sucks having to wait while my laptop dies a slow death.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:I'm still hoping the R5 1600X turns out to be a winner. That's the one I have my eyes on potentially.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:Oh, and just another silver lining reminder: Ryzen is ultimately a win for consumers because it made Intel have to adjust its otherwise monopolistic pricing. the 5820k has never had lovely pricing (including right now, go buy it at Microcenter right now for $320 and you get Ryzen 8-core performance that you know the limits of) and I'm not seeing any evidence Ryzen can actually knock it out of the game. Overall I'm seeing Ryzen right where I figured, which is winning a little at multithreaded (6 core vs 8 core) but getting rekt in gaming/single threaded by the 5820k. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
buglord posted:Is it too early to say their mid and low end offerings in the future are going to underperform just as badly? It's hard to tell at this point. AMD is definitely going to put some work into fixing the memory problems people are having at this point, which could help out those benchmarks a bit. There could be improvement all over the place. I remember when Bulldozer launched, and Windows had issues understanding 'core parking', whatever that was, but it got fixed eventually. AMD has shown that they can put in the work and get those improvements, they've done it with their Radeon drivers lately. I just don't think Ryzen will be able to touch the 7700k at any point, though, the gap is too big. Or you can just solve the problem on your end by running your games at GPU-bound settings, that works too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Bareback Werewolf posted:Can somebody explain to me why they're doing a staggered release of the 8 core, 6 core, and 4 core parts? How many people do they think need a high end 8 core / 16 thread processor? My guess is they're hoping that in a few revisions the clocks will be higher, and coupled with optimizations those 4 and 6 core parts will do better in games against Intel
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
buglord posted:Man thats a huge shame. At the very least, I was expecting some competition (or at least a compelling alternative) at this front. But unless you wanna throw AMD some sympathy dollars, this looks pretty sad. Is it too early to say their mid and low end offerings in the future are going to underperform just as badly? Or is that going to be solely based on their asking price? You asked perf/$. Assuming (which means its not certain) that the baby problems are solved and that the lower core parts have a little more OC headroom, a 6c/12t or 4c/8t AMD Ryzen sample at the disclosed prices could become pretty competitive for gaming as far as perf/$ is concerned. Especially against 4c/4t intel offerings. The underperforming we are seeing here in gaming for the 8c/16t parts has to be put into the proper perspective. 1. To get meaningful differences in CPU performance you bench at resolutions that remove GPU throttling from the equation. Some of those benches are not close to real world scenarios. Others are, but the results are meaningless (since performance is so high for both platforms that you are not going to see a measurable difference in non benchmark scenarios). 2. There are (broadly speaking) two types of real-life gaming scenarios. 1080p high refresh rate where you want your average FPS to match your very high (120Hz+) monitor output, and 1440p/4K gaming where you want a steady 60FPS experience. The first scenario might take into account the CPU, if you are failing to reach the FPS that corresponds to the refresh rate of your gaming monitor. The second scenario is GPU bound, where CPUs tend to not matter much. 3. Right now, The AM4 platform and Ryzen chips are reporting a number of problems/bugs, due to the platform being just out of the box. Some of them affect gaming benching performance heavily. For example, we have reports of improper SMT performance, turbo boost jumping from one core to the next on the fly, memory latency problems, etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
How long is it going to be before the 4 core models that are better suited to modest gaming machines are out? Even assuming they manage to sort themselves out to a competent offering by then, I'm not sure how much I'd be willing to wait when Intel already has a good offering out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:How long is it going to be before the 4 core models that are better suited to modest gaming machines are out? Even assuming they manage to sort themselves out to a competent offering by then, I'm not sure how much I'd be willing to wait when Intel already has a good offering out. 3-6 months. If they're sensible the 4/6 core models will be the re-spins that have a much shorter list of errata, have higher memory clocks, and hopefully clock +1 GHz higher which is where Ryzen needs to be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:How long is it going to be before the 4 core models that are better suited to modest gaming machines are out? Even assuming they manage to sort themselves out to a competent offering by then, I'm not sure how much I'd be willing to wait when Intel already has a good offering out. My guess is around the end of summer, with 6 cores coming at the start of it. If you need a new (modest) rig now, and are only concerned with gaming, go i5. If you can, get the unlocked one (used would give you an even better perf/$).
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:3-6 months. I'm building a new computer in the short term, but I'm not sure it's worth it to wait that long for something that's maybe going to be competitive with an i5 7600k for maybe less money. And yeah, my current rig is like 6-7 years old and it's time for a total rebuild. Dante80 posted:My guess is around the end of summer, with 6 cores coming at the start of it. Yeah, even assuming AMD gets everything in order by then I just don't think I want to wait that long to save $80 or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
quote:As we presented at Ryzen Tech Day, we are supporting 300+ developer kits with game development studios to optimize current and future game releases for the all-new Ryzen CPU. We are on track for 1000+ developer systems in 2017. For example, Bethesda at GDC yesterday announced its strategic relationship with AMD to optimize for Ryzen CPUs, primarily through Vulkan low-level API optimizations, for a new generation of games, DLC and VR experiences. quote:“Oxide games is incredibly excited with what we are seeing from the Ryzen CPU. Using our Nitrous game engine, we are working to scale our existing and future game title performance to take full advantage of Ryzen and its 8-core, 16-thread architecture, and the results thus far are impressive. These optimizations are not yet available for Ryzen benchmarking. However, expect updates soon to enhance the performance of games like Ashes of the Singularity on Ryzen CPUs, as well as our future game releases.” - Brad Wardell, CEO Stardock and Oxide quote:"Creative Assembly is committed to reviewing and optimizing its games on the all-new Ryzen CPU. While current third-party testing doesn’t reflect this yet, our joint optimization program with AMD means that we are looking at options to deliver performance optimization updates in the future to provide better performance on Ryzen CPUs moving forward. " – Creative Assembly, Developers of the Multi-award Winning Total War Series AMD responds to 1080p gaming tests on Ryzen | PC Perspective
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:No. There is no reason at this point in time to choose a low frequency 8c/16t processor for gaming. I agree with this. But if someone didn't game and wanted to have hobby time editing/exporting dozens of photos in Lightroom and edit/exporting videos in Premier, then would I be correct in thinking that 1700x or 1800x are pretty good options?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
tijag posted:I agree with this. Yes. If you are building a new rig, AMD killed the current HEDT platform for productivity perf/$. Well...to be more precise, Intel killed it too, since the socket is dying soon anyway (SL-X). Get the regular 1700. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted: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! Right now that's probably the most solid option. Or hoping for Haswell-E or 7700K price drops. Voyager I posted:I'm building a new computer in the short term, but I'm not sure it's worth it to wait that long for something that's maybe going to be competitive with an i5 7600k for maybe less money. Literally the best computer advice anyone will ever give you is to never buy until the day before you need it - because everything is always going to be 30% better in 6 months. The 5820K is a Zen that you can buy right now and also get good gaming performance out of. The 7700K/7600K are the clear winners for maxxx single-thread performance. But if you are inclined to buy Zen (don't) and you have any self-control at all (lol we were talking about you spending $800 on a system upgrade right?) then wait another 6 months until the version 2.0 of zen. For the love of god I guarantee this chip has a list of errata a mile long, not to mention its lovely memory clocks. (and bear in mind that Hitman is a game that scales well with threads... so that's as good as it gets) tijag posted:I agree with this. yup definitely those are the core use-cases for Zen as it exists, buy 1700
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Seems like ECC is in.  Some other pretty good questions answered too. https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5x4hxu/we_are_amd_creators_of_athlon_radeon_and_other/
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Gamers nexus has a good coverage in areas that generally concern the gaming scene: games and streaming. They also compare to older CPUs such as 4790k and that one cpu no one should buy, FX8numbers. Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7UBHjtCXhU Text: http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2822-amd-ryzen-r7-1800x-review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The 5820K is a Zen that you can buy right now and also get good gaming performance out of. Who has these benchmarks? I was really hoping that I'd be able to snag a cheaper 4 core Zen now and upgrade to Zen+ whenever that happens. But it looks like my best bet is a 1700. I do a decent mix of gaming and running databases/applications in virtual machines, so cores and threads matter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:(and bear in mind that Hitman is a game that scales well with threads... so that's as good as it gets) Ashes scales near-linearly with threads and they still get dunked on by the 7700k. I'm not buying these excuses   
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Measly Twerp posted:Who has these benchmarks? these are totally separate tasks and my best advice is to sever, but the 5820K is going to be your best mix of gaming and also more than 4 cores. but look at these  Obviously that's a super single threaded and potentially memory-speed-sensitive benchmark but it's fair as we know the facts on the ground right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
some actually useful responses over in the AMA, i.e. one related to lacking SMT performance:Lisa Su posted:Thanks for the question. In general, we've seen great performance from SMT in applications and benchmarks but there are some games that are using code optimized for our competitor... we are confident that we can work through these issues with the game developers who are actively engaging with our engineering teams. some are less useful Lisa Su posted:Ryzen is doing really well in 1440p and 4K gaming when the applications are more graphics bound. And we do exceptionally well in rendering and workstation applications where more cores are really useful. In 1080p, we have tested over 100+ titles in the labs…. And depending on the test conditions, we do better in some games and worse in others. We hear people on wanting to see improved 1080p performance and we fully expect that Ryzen performance in 1080p will only get better as developers get more time with “Zen”. We have over 300+ developers now working with "Zen" and several of the developers for Ashes of Singularity and Total Warhammer are actively optimizing now. well yeah my 6 year old CPU is also doing well when the applications are more graphics bound.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
repiv posted:Ashes scales near-linearly with threads and they still get dunked on by the 7700k. I'm not buying these excuses counterpoint: who actually plays AOTS? and not that many people even play Doom for that matter, it's OK but it's no TF2
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:53 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:counterpoint: who actually plays AOTS? and not that many people even play Doom for that matter, it's OK but it's no TF2 Nobody plays Ashes, but it demonstrates that the problem isn't just "games aren't using enough threads" as AMD is claiming. The game eats as many cores as you throw at it yet that doesn't turn into actual performance with Ryzen. There must be something else at play, perhaps the cores are starved for memory bandwidth. repiv fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:41
|
|