Nextgen CPUs

Ryzen 7 launch is today. While waiting for reviews (should be up this morning), AMD already posted the page for their new OC app for Ryzen.

And some reviews.

TopTenGamer (1700 at 3.9Ghz vs 7700k at 5Ghz)
arstechnica (1800x)
gamersNexus (1800x)
PCper (1800x)
guru3d (1800x)
pcgameshardware.de (german, 1800x)
computerbase.de (german, 1800x)
Tomshardware (1800x)

Some of these reviews are strange, like GamersNexus OCing a 1800x to 3,9Ghz when the boost on it is 4.0Ghz??? Also, TopTenGamer most have done something better then everyone else…like really better…

Generally the performance in (tested) games is underwhelming. However, it's R7, which just like i7, is not a gaming CPU. I didn't plan to buy R7 ever nor would suggest it for home use anyway.

Also seems that only TopTenGamer and gamersnexus did a smart test. They've included Watch Dogs 2 as that Ubisoft's (again) unoptimized piece of s can't reach 60 FPS as minimum. Important thing to say here is that TTG overclocked both AMD and intel's CPU, still both failed to make 60 FPS minimum with the pathetic code from Ubisoft.
Other testers used only light_pressure_on_CPU games which is a shame.

Originally Posted by joxer
Generally the performance in (tested) games is underwhelming. However, it's R7, which just like i7, is not a gaming CPU. I didn't plan to buy R7 ever nor would suggest it for home use anyway.

Except for TopTenGamer which has a 1700 (none-X) OCed at 3.9Ghz (that's 200Mhz over its boost) keep up with a 7700k OCed at 5.0Ghz in pretty much every games tested when the 1800x (booast at 4.0Ghz) is behind in everything in the other reviews…which makes no sense at all.

People on reddit are starting to think that immature BIOS or motherboards are the culprit. One reviewer said his review will come in a few days last night because there was another BIOS revision yesterday.

If the game is not cpu intensive; then games will only show flaws in the complete system (access to memory, pcie bus, …); not cpu performance. bios can improve things but some of it might be fundamental to the chip/chipset. Also non-parallel software will benefit from raw clock cycle performance (5ghz vs 4ghz assuming same number of instructions per cycle). Anyway i like pcper review; it isn't the fastest chip but it is fast enough and a lot cheaper. BIOS could improve the performance via bus management as well as micro-code for instruction sequence but it depends if the bios is an issue…

It's likely a win for my needs. Gaming at higher res is going to be GPU bound anyway, and the 8 core performance will be very nice for other jobs.

It's not about software architectures. Look at this comparison between two The Witcher 3 benchmarks from two german reviews. Over 50% in performance difference between these two review for the 1800x on the same game and same motherboard (Asus Crosshair Hero IV). Note the computerbase.de 1080p has the 1800x at 1% from the 7700k.

It makes no sense.

If it is down to something buggy, it's a bit of a PR disaster. I think "not so great for gaming" will stick in the public consciousness.

ASUS released a notice a few days ago that they had a memory controller issue that they won't fix until next month (BIOS update). Considering reviewers who had the Aorus Gaming 5 got better results, Gigabyte either fixed that issue or never had it.

Interesting fact, going by the AMA on reddit, early motherboards had BIOSes that disabled cores if you turned off features. If the reviewers didn't do their BIOS updates that would explain the crap results in some of these reviews too.

This might also explain why motherboards haven't been shipped yet (except a few cases).

Saying that the R7 are targeting the workstation market, not gaming, and the reviews shows it's at the top for that.

True, but they have made quite a point of Ryzen being a great gamer's CPU, and they knew all eyes would be upon the release. I think a good showing on that front would have been very helpful. It's really not that bad, but it's not quite the story I would have liked to have seen at launch.

Just hold on Couchpotato's grain of salt while analyzing these tests on R7. It's 6core R5 that's most exciting upcoming CPU but we won't see that one for at least a month.

Can Ryzen raise AMD from the gutter?

Originally Posted by Ripper
True, but they have made quite a point of Ryzen being a great gamer's CPU, and they knew all eyes would be upon the release. I think a good showing on that front would have been very helpful. It's really not that bad, but it's not quite the story I would have liked to have seen at launch.

There was pretty good game performance in TopTenGamer, Computerbase.de and a few others review actually. In TopTenGamer, review a oced 1700 at 3.9Ghz is on par with a 7700k oced at 5Ghz. Computerbase.de shows a 1800x (boost at 4.0Ghz) having similar results although not in all games. And neither are gaming CPUs.

Sometimes, I get the impression that AMD needs to release something that perform twice as fast as Intel latest CPU to be considered a winner…

A local magazine here admitted they can't publish results because the whole thing "misbehaves". To get declarated turbo tact, RAM had to be switched from 1st/3rd to 2nd/4th port for unknown reasons.
AMD suggests disabling SMT (virtually duplicated cores) in BIOS while testing games for whatever reason, but also suggests disabling HPET, which is a necessary for Ryzen Master Overclocking Utility! Somehow it seems these things currently cause games to underperform. Or should I say, the whole setup has it's initial bugs which will most probably get ironed out soon. Hopefully, before hexacore R5 appears on shelves.

I've also breezed through more sites for another thing of interest. No dice.
Seems we'll have to wait for some enthusiast to try installing windows7 on Ryzen based PC.

Well, as I said, from my point of view Ryzen looks like a good option. Compared to Intel's 8 core offerings, it's a killer deal. In terms of sheer processing power, it nearly is double bang for your buck. I'm just thinking in terms of the PR battle, it doent help to have some of the major tech sites describing it as an underwhelming gaming CPU. That's particularly unfortunate if it is just down to buggy implementation

The gaming performance seems to unclear as of now. Too small a sample size. What use are tests of a new CPU architecture on just 2 or 3 games?

Application performance is already clear. AMD beats their direct Intel counterparts slightly on performance and clearly on price. 3% slower than a CPU twice as expensive is also a win in this context.

Definetly beats on price, check the fresh R7 1700x test on guru3d:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages…-review,1.html

I have to admit that I like the Ryzen 7 1700X quite a lot. It is 100 USD cheaper and offers the close to 1800X performance. It surely will reach the same tweaking levels also.

At 399 USD this CPU is over half the price of what Intel is charging, and AMD doesn’t have expensive chipsets either so the motherboards will be very affordable as well. What if you are already own a 6 or 8 core Intel processor setup? Honestly, there’s little to no reason for you to upgrade considering the performance overall remains at the same level, and that is the brutal honest truth. This also applies for users with a fast quad-core processor like the recent 6700K or 7700K.

I won't be upgrading soon as I'm happy with my current setup, but if I had to buy build a new PC, it'd contain 1700X.

Originally Posted by joxer
Seems we'll have to wait for some enthusiast to try installing windows7 on Ryzen based PC.

Cinebench R15 8 cores world record was beaten by a 1800x running on Windows 7.

Originally Posted by azarhal
Cinebench R15 8 cores world record was beaten by a 1800x running on Windows 7.

Hopefully everyone understands why I even asked.
Install windows 7, upgrade on win 10 for free (yes you still can!).

Oh. And how do you upgrade to windows 10 for free ?