CPU Ryzen benchmark

Dom to be fair, you'd have to be blind, dumb or blue through and through (or any combination of the three) not to see that - It's a game changer for sure

 

From what I've seen so far, that seems to be a fair assessment.

For professional workstation/HPC/cloud use they look fantastic. For home users, not so much.

It'll be interesting to see how the Ryzen quads perform, but if the 8c/16t versions are outperformed by 4c/4t parts then I don't think they'll break any moulds.

 

Reviews seem to be a bit of a mixed bag. Hopefully a bit of this is standard early adopter teething troubles. I didn't really think that R7 would be for me in any event, as I don't need 8 cores and 16 threads. I'm much more interested in the R5 lineup, but if they have similar IPC as the R7s then that'll leave AMD competing on price rather than raw performance. Not that that would be a terrible thing per se, of course...

Ultimately, more choice for the consumer and greater competition means better outcomes for all of us. It's been a long while since that was the case, so well done AMD for shaking things up, even if it's not the world-beater that many hoped for.

 

http://www.kitguru.net/components/c...ryzen-doesnt-seem-to-keep-up-in-1080p-gaming/

I heard about the whole Bethesda thing the other day. It's been ages since AMD courted any devs, so fair play for that. Really liking the positive vibe they have going on

 

It's not so dissimilar but on a lesser scale (in that it's effect isn't so pronounced) with AMD and Nvidia GPU's - arguably because AMD haven't had a CPU architecture that couldn't come close to Intel before now.

Well before today that is

 

It does seem all over the place, it is quite hard to make sense of it really, it does seem to be quite good in games when you look at min frame rates but can't match the high peak frame rates of an i7, some titles like ashes it is woeful, on the productivity and media side it is really strong, it does make you wonder if it just needs more time to mature, like something is holding it back beyond raw clockspeed, seems there is untapped potential, or is that just wishful thinking.

For me I'll probably jump in after a few months unless a really good Intel deal on the HEDT platform pops up, the 3570K I've been running as a temp measure is a little disappointing after my 3770k despite the general consensus that cores aren't needed for gaming at 4k, I'll get the Ti first and take it from there.

 

That just seems like here is our excuse for poor scores.

 

The thing is, we've heard "wait for drivers to mature" or "wait for devs to catch up" or "wait for compatibility problems to be ironed out" in the past, and in some cases... we're still waiting New platform means new problems, and this is AMD's first major platform launch for a long time. Hell, Intel have had their worries on that score previously. But it is a bit of a question mark against Ryzen for the time being.

 

Wishful thinking, mainboard stock problems everywhere, according to expected dates on scan it will probably be at least a week from now until a variety of owner impressions are available.

 

ECC is working on retail Ryzen - its down to mobo makers to support it

 

I feel like I'm walking on egg-shells a bit here so I'll ask this as tactfully as I can but it's something that's genuinely puzzling me.

From what I've seen so far of Ryzen's CPUZ benchmarks, it has fantastic multi-thread and single thread performance. I mean, really good. Why doesn't it whoop everything in games?

 

Ah, fair dues.

"...there are some games that are using code optimized for our competitor..."

Are there any benchmarks from the games that aren't?

 

Intel's dominance over the past few years has meant no new releases are AMD optimised I would guess.

Not only that, I would guess as design differs significantly from previous generations and games previous optimised for AMD chips will no longer be so.

 

I get that, but it does really well in the non-gaming benchmarks. Aren't they optimized in the same way?

 

Yes they are, As I said earlier it sounds alot like here is our list of excuses.

Ashes was built for AMD after all to show off with vs nvidia cards. In that game the FX8370 on big clocks actually beats ryzen. Battlefield 1 was another game, Where they where showing higher fps on there chip than the 7700k in preview vids.

DX11 AMD scores pretty well, DX12 its not good at all. This is the total opposite of what I expected from todays reviews.

Gamersnexus has the gaming side of things very well covered. AMD asked for 4k resolution testing, Gamer nexus settled at 1440p on BF1 and Watch dogs 2, The 2 most demanding games currently available. Both games are gpu capped even on a Titan at 1440p.

If the Future is DX12 as Harle and Vault have said in the last 6months or so then AMD has alot of work to do to get the performance figures there.

Its a great chip for workstation users the benches show that ( I aint one of them anymore), Not entirely what AMD advertised though.

Personally think the 4 / 6 core chips will be much better for my purpose and look forward to there release.

 

That's surprised me too, I really expected great DX12 results compared to DX11 and it's the opposite.

 

4 threads (and generally 4 cores) has generally been the 'default' for the last few generations (since Sandy Bridge). If years of i3s, i5s and i7s, and of equivalent multi-core chips from AMD, have not made 4-thread the default already, I can't see Ryzen masking this any different.
Threading a game engine simply isn;t that easy. It;s no good adding an extra 4 threads if those threads don't actually do anything substantial.