AMD released a few days ago its new Ryzen CPUs and as we’ve already reported, they were a bit underwhelming in gaming. And while AMD claimed that its Ryzen CPUs will see benefits via future optimizations, AMD’s CEO Lisa Su claimed that AMD will not be able to win every head-to-head battle with Intel.
As Lisa told Anandtech:
“I think PC gaming is doing quite well, which is one of the hot markets. We are addressing as a gamers as a very important segment, but they are one of many important segments of users for us. We think Ryzen is a great gaming CPU, and you’ll test that for yourself – we’re not going to win every head-to-head, but if you think about gaming do you want theoretical performance or do you want the CPU to be good enough to showcase your GPU? I think what Ryzen allows is those folks to do something more than just gaming. So your gaming CPU might only uses four cores, but if you are doing video editing or streaming it will do a lot more. So I think what we’re trying to address is maybe the forward thinking users, not just the today gamer.”
It’s pretty obvious from these statements that AMD is not focusing on improving the single-threaded performance of its AMD Ryzen CPUs.
What’s also interesting here is that AMD’s CEO did not state anything about future BIOS versions of AMD’s Ryzen CPUs improving performance in existing games. And to be honest, we don’t expect any miracles or huge improvements. Since most games still rely on single-thread performance, we don’t expect AMD’s Ryzen CPUs to compete with Intel’s CPUs in current titles, unless the developers overhaul their engines in order to scale on more than three or four CPU cores.
A couple of days ago, AMD claimed that it’s working with developers in order to further optimize their engines for its Ryzen CPUs. Our guess is that these engines will scale on more than four CPU cores, something that will benefit AMD’s Ryzen CPUs compared to Intel’s high performant quad-cores.
However, it’s worth noting that such a thing will also – and perhaps significantly – improve overall performance on Intel’s 6-core and 8-core CPUs.
So yeah, it will be interesting to see how current games will perform on Intel’s CPUs once – and if – they receive their “Ryzen” patches, and how new game engines will scale on 6-core and 8-core CPUs!
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
Lisa Su said that AMD won’t win in every segment?
Death threats in 3..2..1..
reddit . com/r/pcgaming/comments/5xkv4t/gamersnexus_receiving_death_threats_over_ryzen/
ohboy.gif
Those are all valid points. I think people forget that the Zen core is an entirely new design and that game developers especially have only been designing and optimizing for Intel the past several years. Give them some time to work with the platform and you will find that in many cases Zen can match and even beat Intel in gaming.
I got an 6800k for gaming because I upgrade CPU every 5-8 years……
I wish I waited for the 1800X
YOU waited 5 years but you couldn’t wait another month? WTF dude. The Ryzen socket is going to last beyond 2020 so you will be able to drop in a 7nm Zen 2 in 2 years for cheap. I’d sell it and have fun building a 1700 or 1600x system.
That’s…Amazingly dumb. No offense BIT but wow. What were you thinking. You gave up the ability to truly multitask and get high end gaming at the same time…For what? It runs a game better? Not when it’s encoding video and streaming it doesn’t. RyZen wins in those scenarios hands down.
I built a zoo system about a year and a half ago. I spent…Alot. I’m buying the second gen of RyZen because I want that capability.
While that’s all valid points and i will surely upgrade to Ryzen soon (this year).. Not everyone cares about multitasking when they play a game. I sure dont. My 5 year old GPU multitasks everything i do like a pro, i can barely see a reason to get anything more powerful for that reason. More FPS= better for me. Again, thats just me and a ton of people i know. Some people want to play games with good fps, not make videos about them.
P.s. Not everyone care about streaming either. Trust me, i aint the only one out there. People that like streaming can go ahead and do it, but don’t assume everyone is crazy about it cuz its a popular thing.
Yea im one of the people who wants to play games only when they have a good frame rate but guess what? I’d also like to be able to do more and I just used those as an example of a demanding task.
I game on a 65 inch 4k 60hz OLED. I like quality and believe me I rode the 144hz rodeo but I stopped being…Insane. Intel can offer that and I have no doubt AMD will be offering the same and more in gen 2. They need to make some capital and RyZen is doing that for them today so that I can benefit tomorrow. No more secondary laptop because gaming is just a part of what I actually do with my hardware.
Speaking of the Oled, for how long do you have it? Did you get any burns in it? My OLED device already has 3 spots. Kind of annoying..
And yea, im also on the 144 hz gaming wagon. Sadly GTX1070 cant hit that mark very well at 1440p.. so i wonder if i should sell it and get a 80 ;p BF4 runs at 100-110 frames usually ;p
I’ve had it for a few weeks. Gotta love Superbowl sales. It was a legitimate $1000 off its normal price so I decided to buy it cause $3000 is better than $4000 lol.
How old was your OLED? They are known to sometimes have flaws when panel size gets bigger than around 22 inches and it’s only just recently that they fixed the issue…Mostly
I knew going in there was a chance that the tv might only last a year if i got unlucky but… Hehe if it comes to have issues then it’s the perfect excuse to convince the wife we need an AMOLED tv lol.
You’re talking like Intel CPUs cannot multi task at all, what do you mean by “truly multitask” ? Don’t get me wrong I am all willing to have some competition back in CPUs and GPUs but the mere appearance of Ryzen doesn’t mean death of Intel’s multitasking capabilities, sure you can point at some numbers using benchmarks but remember those are benchmarks where CPUs and GPUs are pushed to their limits, in normal day computing we users don’t multi task to that extent where we see that much difference.
For example I have 5820K from more than a year now and I don’t feel any issues with multitasking. I use Photoshop, run multiple copies of Blender, browse internet and sometimes have a game minimized with tons of programs running in background, I never faced any slow downs, Ryzen will also provide similar experience so there is no “true multitasking” that Ryzen is going to provide. What matters now is gaming performance where Ryzen is falling behind, I am sure it will get better with time as more optimizations will kick in but Intel is far from dead if you’re trying prove that, the most that can happen is a price war and that’s a win for customers but AMD still have much to do not to mention Intel have enough R&D money in their pockets that they can come up with something brand new anytime.
I hope what AMD claimed about working with 300+ developers is true this time because they also made similar claims for Mantle but never showed us more than 7 – 8 developers working with them.
Intel CPUs multitask great believe me I know. I have the same CPU you have with all 6 cores running at 4.8ghz so believe me I know.
I mean multi tasking in gaming. Go ahead and try to run some CPU intensive task and at the same time play a modern game maxed out and your frame rate will tank.
Intel CPUs are actually amazing at general multi tasking…But the are awful at gaming while multi tasking anything that would require even 25% of just 2 cores.
WTF are you talking about? 6800K is 6C/12T CPU, and unlike Ryzen it can overclock to 4.5Ghz and up to 5Ghz.
It has quad channel memory and X99 motherboards come with best features all around.
AND these motherboards support Intel server CPUs, like 24 cores which sold on ebay for less than 1K USD (if you want to build a home server or One PC 4 gamers kind of thing)
Ty for the lesson, would you like to see my dxdiag file? I ask because you seem to like x99 and my primary would make you cry.
Messing around aside I think you are missing my point here. I’ll break my entire post down to a single word for you. Ready?
COST
I got it 8 months ago in Summer 😀
I had an i7 920 @ 3500 24GB RAM when it first came out 😀
Ignore what the dude below has to say. He’s one of those trolls around here who never buy anything cause their always waiting for revision 2 or whatever’s coming next.
Your 6800k can play current games at max performance while streaming without all the issues Ryzen has. Plus you can overclock your 6800k if you need more power.
Ignore the guys who never build a new rig cause their always waiting.
Fine, but still they showed cherry picked tests and in favorable environment, like testing games on titan X instead of creating a gpu bottleneck so that we could see the real performance of the chip under stress, compared with other CPUs.
Anyway i think we should give it a little bit of time, some months at least, to really see what’s capable of, and probably ryzen 5 will be more suggested for gaming
What people are arguing is that if you lower the resolution to 640×480 and turn off the details then the best Intel 4 core CPU can give you 300fps compared to 250fps from ryzen and thus ryzen is inadequate. However, if you intend to play with high details and 1080p or 4k resolution both Intel and AMD run just fine and about the same frame rate, with the added difference that ryzen can also run laps around 7700k and encode the game play for live streaming, and 7700k can not. It seems quite clear to me which is the superior CPU today, and the advantages will likely only grow as game developers start utilizing more cores.
No, not at all Ryzen isn’t that good in 1080p either, the differences with intel are tightening as we up the resolution, 2k, 4k, but still ryzen are slower
All of the reviews you are basing your opinion on are worth absolutely ZERO due to new bad bios, ram freq and crappy Windows 10 scheduler issues. Just benching Ryzen with Win 7 alone improves avg FPS 15%+ in gaming benchmarks.
Well i hope you’re right, but hope won’t be enough i guess…
Ok, but what you call “not so good” e.g. 1700x is still 90 or 100fps compared to 110 or 120fps of 7700k. So, all the current games are perfectly playable, in fact they are perfectly playable when you increase the resolution to 4k, even if they never get any new patches. Now, in terms of the future, it seems clear to me that this is all the performance 7700k will ever have while ryzen has half of the cores unutilized. It seems a pretty big leap of faith to assume that 7700k will ever perform noticeably better, and it is easy to envision the future games which start using cores more efficiently and ryzen leapfrogs the 7700k by 50-80%.
the only downside of say 1700x is if you assume that 7700k will maintain 20% edge forever, AND that there will be a game in this spread that is playable with i7 and too slow with ryzen. I think the likelihood for this is incredibly small.
It seems a even bigger leap of faith to think the extra cores on the 1800x, 1700x and 1700 will ever get used. Common sense tells us dev’s will support the most popular cpu’s and we all know on PC’s that’s Intel’s i3, i5 and i7. Until Intel drops a eight core i5 or i7, four cores will remain the norm.
Well, if you look at cpu utilization in the benchmarks, 7700k seems to have all 8 threads around 95%, while ryzen tends to have its 16 threads between 30-65%. This tells me that optimization for multiple threads is quite possible, and there is a lot of room for ryzen to improve. But, what you say is indeed a big risk for amd. I know I am excited to build a new rig with ryzen (waiting for kids to “earn” it first ;). But most people do not build their own rigs. It is quite possible for amd to have better chip for every price point except 7700k, and that the general public never buys any amd because of inertia, or because simplified message from the reviews is that intel is still the best for gaming. I still think there will be enough enthusiasts including among game developers that they will want to make sure the games run well on 6 and 8 cores.
But, again, it is completely possible for AMD to fail in the market even if it has a better product. Ati has difficulties selling graphics cards because nvidia has the fastest ones, so even when people buy mid range they overwhelmingly choose nvidia cards over comparable ati because the fastest cards are nvidia.
not at all
What are you talking about…They could’ve tested any game at lower resolutions (like 1080p instead of 4k) with a more mainstream card, instead of doing what they did…
Love to see some examples where companies showed off their worst performance when attempting to showcase a product that was going to bring them back from bankruptcy.
I’m not saying that AMD had to show the worst case scenario, buy neither the best, actually it’s better to surprise than to disappoint even if a bit.
I’m waiting on ryzen 5 anyway, i’m still pretty sure i’ll be getting a ryzen for my new pc, which i’ll build in a few months with vega hopefully.
I think I don’t get this: ‘… cherry picked tests and in favorable environment, like testing games on titan X instead of creating a gpu bottleneck so that we could see the real performance of the chip under stress’.
As far as I know you don’t create a GPU bottleneck to see the performance of a CPU; you have to eliminate the GPU bottleneck. That’s why in demanding titles on max settings and resolutions higher than 1080p, where the GPU becomes the limiting factor both AMD and Intel processors yields almost the same numbers.
Bottom line: you won’t get limited by CPU with Ryzen, unless you play in 1024*768@min details and like to see the FPS counter rise to the hundreds. On 1080p and higher, max details both Ryzen and Intel are good for gaming. That’s a more realist scenario. Ryzen gets some extra points in future proofing, multitasking and lower TDP though.
Ryzen isn’t that good in 1080p.Feel sorry for you
You forgot to upvote yourself kid. Quick, before anyone notices.
Would you like me to provide you with links from Guru3d Ryzen review, where gaming in latest titles, with a GTX 1080 and max details at 1080p is really that good?
To force a CPU working at its maximum, you need to limitate the workload on the graphics side, by either setting max settings and like 4k resolution on a mid range gpu, or you just lower the settings at lowest using a low resolution too. That’s where you’ll see the CPU doing extra work going at 100? and not moving from there, while the gpu use is relatively low, and that’s where you’ll see the CPU trying its best possible. On the other side what AMD did, was to use the fastest card on the market at 4K in most of the games so that the workload was mostly of graphical nature and was huge, allowing the CPU sitting comfy at a normal use, not under real stress. That’s how leaked and rumored benchmarks looked so much better on gaming than real ones, and AMD basically exploited this thing, otherwise the performance difference there is from actual indie benchmarks and AMD’s and leaked ones, goes unexplained
Stop trolling
I agree. AMD is to blame for the over hype in gaming. Months back when they show their Ryzen CPU running Battlefront in 4K, right along side the 6900K and keeping pace. It’s crap like that that creates hype and lets people down in the long run. Well of course that Ryzen CPU is going to easily run 4K! Let’s see some 720P, or 1080P benchmarks instead.
If you create a GPU bottleneck (by benching at 4k) all your going to show is the 1800x performs no better than a i5 7600k or 8370.
depends on the card really.
R9 Fury Nano 4GB:
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/99d97813759f76056a0413b854da66648ced66d721183193ea2c8b8ab20af9c1.png
I think you’re proving my point. It’s brand new tech and even more so with the way that AMD has implemented SMT which is much different than HyperThreading.
So you are saying we should wait until a patch or fix, Before anyone buys Ryzen?
No, it’s clearly capable on it’s own. I’m just saying that it will take time to hit 3000 fps on 640×480 on low settings like Intel.
Nice way to use a Straw Man Argument
huh?
The answer is yes. The same thing happened when Bulldozer was launched. Microsoft never updated the scheduler to take advantage of Bulldozer like fanboys and AMD said they would. They also said dev’s would update their games and engines to take advantage of Bulldozer’s extra cores and they didn’t. Sounds familiar doesn’t it?
Never trust what AMD or their fanboy’s say is coming. Wait to see if the problems with Windows get fixed or if games ever get updated before you spend your money on a buggy unsupported platform.
They need to fix dat shyte quick. Even doe, i don’t believe it’s THAT fixable.
Riot.
RAM speeds alone have a huge impact on game performance:
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/660a22e3ea9bfbf80324cf8c4f2f044c8b736a9e8d91e77c4b8dca01d3f1d772.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0625f6881d83984751daebcfec7922163c67dde3415cf234f9791246a9217ce8.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8412fe95fbdcfa4455a457b3ea1fdac6ac282994b77e8f5aca16bcd0880c6b1d.png
Yea ok ?
You just said, “Even doe, i don’t believe it’s THAT fixable.”
Clearly, faster memory, besides developers actually getting a chance to optimize for Zen cores, will enable AMD to increase performance and achieve some level of parity.
Well my comment was based on the assumptino that any tests between intel and amd’s counterpart are on the ‘somewhat” same specs. If they didn’t do that they’re dumb.
Is it ZEN? The Dual channel kills it, now look at same test on Intel X99, it wouldn’t matter at all with quad channel all of these would of been almost identical.
Quad channel ram has almost zero real world applications.
Look at the benchmarks you posted, see how FPS increases with RAM speed?
With Quad Channel you dont need fast RAM, Quad Channel DDR4-2400 will be faster than your 4000Mhz example and cheaper.
I seen similar benchmarks in quad channel, 2666 is sweet spot, you dont get any increase after that and the 2 speeds below are not that far below compared to your example, the difference is 2-3 fps instead 5-10 fps.
Also otehr aplications enjoy fast RAM, RAM drives, video compression, zip compression, people that work with graphics and video etc.
To make this short: Quad Channel doesn’t need fast RAM speeds to achieve better results, it saves you money and gives you speed of tomorrow today (sound like advertisement, but what I meant is that 4Ghz DDR4 is new, but people with QC had even better performance long before 4Ghz DDR4 was available)
That point is entirely irrelevant as it doing quad channel memory drastically increases the price of motherboards. AMD is trying to win the price to performance war and doing quad channel would have yielded only negative consequences.
Is it possible to disable SMT? It should be disabled for much better performance.
I have 5820K 6/12 @4.5Ghz and I disabled HT because I get lower FPS with it on.
6 pure core is enough and 8 pure cores is also enough, no need for HT/SMT, this is good for 2 core system, 2 core with 4T actually GAIN fps, but not 6/12 and 8/16
It is possible, some reviewers were doing that, but only because the Windows scheduler doesn’t know how to handle AMD’s SMT yet.
Do you understand english?
”What’s also interesting here is that AMD’s CEO did not state anything
about future BIOS versions of AMD’s Ryzen CPUs improving performance in
existing games”
Irrelevant. Existing games were not developed with the Zen architecture in mind and, considering it’s not based on any existing architecture, what he says is true. Once new games start being optimized with Ryzen in mind, even if they don’t take advantage of more than four cores, it’s not a stretch to think they can close the gap with Intel in gaming.
Yeah, that’s one of the biggest issues at the moment is Windows own scheduler. From what I understand it’s treating the SMT cores as physical cores which don’t have access to the cache system the way the physical cores do so it’s skewing results on benchmarks and lowering performance.
That’s only part of it. Many optimizations should be also made by game developers. Apparently AMD delivered 1000 dev kits so hopefully that part will be a non-issue in the future.
Performance has already been increased through BIOS updates as per every YouTube reviewer. Some of the earlier BIOS’s were not boosting properly, SMT was being disabled, RAM speeds were not working properly, etc.
Performance will come when developers have more access and time to update their engines to work with the Zen core and with the way that AMD has implemented SMT which is different than Hyper Threading by Intel.
Back to RAM speeds for a moment. We know several websites have already shown(Digital Foundry for one) that higher RAM speeds increase performance in games. Most reviewers were stuck at 3000mhz. Once the BIOS situation is smoothed out and RAM speeds can be increased you will see AMD achieve parity.
“now if the Skylake-Kabylake X drops with 2066 Ryzen is finished..no Quadchannel is super bad.”
I don’t understand what you’re saying here.
Why talk about gaming when presenting ryzen, why say “We’re on gamer’s side” or similar stuff, if every, EVERY game performs worse on ryzen?
Because gaming is ok with Ryzen; you’re not likely to be CPU bottlenecked unless you play on 1366*768, min details and like to see 200+ FPS on the counter.
Also, Ryzen 5 and 3, the 6 cores and 4 cores CPUs are likely to be even better for gaming, as they’ll probably have higher clocks due to less cores and complexity. And they’ll cost a loooot less than Intel’s CPUs on that segment.
Stop lying Ryzen isn’t good in 1080p.Feel sorry for you
You so desperate,why dont you listen to your guru AMD’s CEO Lisa Su.AMD is not focusing on improving the single-threaded performance of its AMD Ryzen CPUs.
Not gonna waste any more time arguing with a kid who upvotes himself. Keep patting yourself on the back, and be happy.
1080p performance are also not that good, and that’s the resolution that most people use. But i agree we still have to see ryzen 5 and improving a bit the whole platform hoping that game devs will remember about AMD and develope as good as they do for intel, for them
Please, take some time and see the Guru3d Ryzen review, they use a GTX 1080 and some very popular titles, at max details. Gaming performance for Ryzen is ok, of course it falls short before Intel’s top i7s, but it’s nowhere near bad.
I could provide you with links, but I don’t know if the mods here would allow it.
Hey man, i never said it was bad, i just said it wasn’t that good! I think they would allow it, but i’m pretty sure i saw those already.
But none of those games was optimized for Ryzen and, yes, they’d probably never be. But that doesn’t mean newer games will keep the same performance gap.
This might be a case, that’s why we should wait and see.
Yep. Exactly my point.
To heck with it. I’m just going to do a Ryzen/Vega build for work and a 7700k/1080Ti for VR.
The nausea thing is old news. A 970 is the entry-level card for VR and you can get smooth 90 frames from that.
I’m not a fanboy for either side. I just want the best performance for whatever it is I’m doing.
I don’t know why you keep referring to Nvidia cards somehow causing nausea in VR applications. It’s literally a non-issue. You’re beating up a strawman.
Fanboyism is blinding you. I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to go ahead and block you. I appreciate reasoned, logical discussion, but anyone who wraps themselves in a brand like an unpaid spokesperson isn’t someone I want to be involved in any discourse with. Have a good day.
“It’s pretty obvious from these statements that AMD is not focusing on improving the single-threaded performance of its AMD Ryzen CPUs.” Guys stick to reporting on gaming news, and let the big boys do the thinking.
Typical of AMD, futureproofing for a “future” that most likely will never come.
Well no shyte.Now that it is obvious.
“So your gaming CPU might only uses four cores”
is this a slip that ryzen is only four cores? sounds shady as usual like amd always does…. not to mention how to paid for favorable press/reviews
I think you didn’t understand. Read again. Also, you upvoted yourself, so, I guess it figures.
Perhaps you also didn’t know that Intel is a bit shady, they had to pay a record 1.4 billion fine for unfair sales tactics. And prior to Ryzen launch Intel’s PR department was sending an email to all kinds of reviewers giving guidelines on how to bench Ryzen, in an attempt to manipulate AMD’s CPU launch. Intel’s PR email included these line: ‘call us before you write’. They were calling back all kinds of favors.
Desperate AMD fanboy detected
Ryzen isn’t that good in 1080p.Feel sorry for you
Oh, you also upvoted yourself. You like patting yourself on the back too kid?
I can provide links to the facts I stated. Would you like them? Or are you such a fanboy in denial?
Again, 1080p performance is quite good, I can also give you links from Guru3d, a very reputable site. Please, provide me with links proving otherwise.
“However, it’s worth noting that such a thing will also – and perhaps significantly – improve overall performance on Intel’s 6-core and 8-core CPUs.
So yeah, it will be interesting to see how current games will perform on Intel’s CPUs once – and if – they receive their “Ryzen” patches, and how new game engines will scale on 6-core and 8-core CPUs!”
And THAT opinion is all I really care about with regards to Ryzen and Vega. Once again… the ball is in the developers court..
Just a thought, but isn’t BIOS and all that on the manufacturer’s (Asus, Gigabyte, MSI, etc.) hands? It’s up to them to fix them. I think it’s also worth mentioning that there are games where Ryzen didn’t lose by such a great margin. I think that all this thing about them being beaten by an i5 is a bit overblown because, actually, an i5 has not very much of a difference with the i7 6900k in the first place. Also, I’m not sure but if I recall correctly, there were some issues when the first Core i series launched so those are things to be expected with brand new architectures (something a lot of people say in their reviews).
nope its upto amd but indirectly they have to gather info from reviewer and the motherboard manufacturer and write new micro code and instruction depending on the mobo or cpu support list and lastly to use this new code or firmware update, microsoft also need to update its os i.e kernal and microcode and instruction for the ryzen architecture, so we can wait for 2 month or less for improvement.
Hopefully it’s sooner. These CPUs have a lot of potential for gaming although they are beast for production.
yeah man it does, and when we compare these new cpu to fx cpu these cpu have a huge performance uplift and have better power draw as well but for me i will wait for ryzen r5 series
Yeah, me too. I do some production work as well (CPU based 3D rendering) and 8 threads are not enough… but 12 threads with higher clock speeds is quite a bump in performance without the premium.
I think it’s an ingenious plan. A CPU you know will be good for gaming but they can also capture video or stream or even encode a video while you are gaming. That’s awesome and for the price they are doing it…It’s downright amazing.
Intel may win some cases but they won’t win when it comes to doing what I said above. True multitasking while gaming on the high end. Intel doesn’t offer that without compromise or additional capturing equipment.
AMD can offer that right now…I might actually have to ditch my 5840k which is way more than enough for gaming Especially since I have each code running at 4.8ghz paired with a GTX 1080.
If gen 2 of RyZen continues this trend then I will be there day…41, that way I don’t have to scramble to find what I want before it’s sold out. I wait, that means I can cut out a redbull as a coffee everyday for 41 days and I have a little extra fun money to build with.
“we’re not going to win every head-to-head” As if they’re winning any..
They kind of are though. I mean, Ryzen 7 does beat Broadwell-E in more benchmarks than not, with gaming as one of the few exceptions. It should only improve with time.
Well then let’s root for them! I’m not a fan boy, if anyone does it better out there I’m buying it.
“…but if you are doing video editing or streaming it will do a lot more”
So if you’re not doing those things and are instead primarily interested in gaming on your PC then she’s inadvertently confirming that Intel remains the superior choice.
“…not just the today gamer”
So she’s seeking to market their product to some sort of mythical ‘tomorrow gamer’.
In fairness, it’s her job to promote their product so it’s not as though we’re ever likely to hear AMD admit that Intel remains the best option for PC gamers so they have no other realistic option than to adopt PR spin.
Ryzen 7 is clearly a great product that, with 1800X especially, is wonderfully priced but for most gamers Intel’s 7700K or even 6700K remains the go-to option for the vast majority of games. Both of those Intel CPUs are priced more cheaply than the R7 1700X which makes AMD’s proposition to gamers even less enticing than it already is.
Ryzen 5 should close the gaming gap by quite a bit with higher clock speeds. By how much is anyone’s guess.
Good point. It’ll be really interesting to see how well Ryzen 5 performs as a CPU for gaming along with how well it overclocks relative to Ryzen 7.
So you’re claiming that,
– the 1700 is a better CPU than 1700X and 1800X
– the 1700 is a viable alternative to 6700K/7700K for gaming despite the fact that even when overclocked it’s still slower than Intel’s products running a stock clocks
Let’s see some gaming benchmarks of an OC 1700 running at circa 3.9GHz compared to an OC 7700K running at circa 4.9GHz (binned chips are overclocking to a stable 5.1GHz).
Your point about thermals is however entirely valid. For those wishing to build a small form factor PC who also don’t care for the highest performance gaming then the 1700/1700X could be worth considering. That said, modern cooling solutions keep Skylake/Kaby Lake chips sufficiently cooled so it’s somewhat of a moot point. Ryzen could be useful in gaming laptops within such a context but, saying that, gaming laptops featuring desktop 6700K/7700K already exist and work perfectly well as long as one doesn’t seek to heavily overclock the CPU.
Perhaps Ryzen 7 makes most sense for gamers looking to save a few pennies on their electricity bill.
That’s quite the combination of attempted damage limitation on behalf of AMD including that of seeking to downplay the clear and significant advantages of the competition.
Your final point smacks of ‘coulda shoulda woulda’. However, let’s see how this plays out over the next few months. We’ll soon see whether the wishful thinking of AMD fanboys comes to fruition or whether their increasingly desperate sounding hopes result in the very minor improvements that the likes of Gamers Nexus are already suggesting will be the case.
Sure, if the majority of games all start being coded as heavily multi-threaded applications then that could be great for owners of Haswell-E, Broadwell-E and Ryzen 7. I don’t doubt that such a scenario will one exist but we’re likely some years away from that happening.
Superior in ALL resolutions, especially so the resolution used by the overwhelming vast majority of PC gamers according to Steam survey data.
Carry on downplaying Intel’s clear advantage by trying to demean the display hardware common to the majority of gamers as being a “peasant resolution” as though that actually means anything sensible.
You love the fact that PC gamers often choose to overclock their components because, unlike console gamers, we have the option to do so. Yes, you’ve actually made some sense with that point. What a shame then that Ryzen R7 1700, according to you, overclocks to only 3.9Ghz which isn’t even as fast as 6700K/7700K when running at stock clocks. Meanwhile, an overclocked 7700K can reach up to circa 5.1Ghz and has higher IPC which obviously stomps AMD’s offering in to the ground.
But, hey, you believe that Intel’s chips are “rubbish” so your heavily biased opinion must somehow outweigh the facts.
You hope. Buying a processor and motherboard based on promises the company has made before that never came to be is dumb. Give it some time before spending your money on a untrustworthy vendors promises.
“It’s pretty obvious from these statements that AMD is not focusing on
improving the single-threaded performance of its AMD Ryzen CPUs.”
Yeah, they’re not improving single threaded performance because the architecture is already done, du-uh. And they just happened to improve it by 52% and currently sit behind Kaby Lake by 6.8%, and most benchmarks have showed that to be true, but I bet for DSOG that’s still not good enough.
Are you also going to blame Intel for keeping the IPC of their architectures static after the CPUs launch? I mean, surely we can expect Kaby to have 10% more performance by the end of the year, right?
You can’t patch IPC gains.
?????????
but still, some fanboy accusing the reviewer got paid by intel because it’s not win in every test even though the AMD CEO said something like this
Just wait for the consumer grade chips to drop before dissing the gaming performance. Fewer cores should mean higher clocks. How much higher is the question. If the Ryzen 3 and 5 chips get within 10% gaming performance of their intended Intel counterparts while costing substantially less, I think skeptics will be singing a different tune. Ryzen 7 beat Broadwell-E in more often than not in non-gaming benchmarks and did so at half the price. AMD has at least shown enough to give me confidence that they’ll do good with the lower end chips. If not, then I guess I can say goodbye to a dirt cheap i5 to i7 upgrade.
I see people finding reasons and protection amd from the actual situation. It i had bought a car that was advertized as 120km/hr and couldn’t go faster than 110.
Riot
Same goes for cpus and gpus. Plus i condemn these cherry picked bulltests. I mean,
CMON
Why would you do that to your fanbase ? Now they’re in defesensive mode in every forum i see lol.
personally i couldn’t give a crap about AMD and their defeatist attitude
for me they soley exist to make sure the market price stays competative
and they’ve succeeded at that.
competition is the prime source of a healthy economy and growth.
?????????
So, an upgrade to the 1800X from an Intel i7 960 @ 3.2Ghz Bloomfield (first gen) would be a worthy one?
Ryzen 7 beta v.1 just rushed out of the labs. It was that or AMD bankrupt. End of story.
AMD will use that time to fix any huge errors or bugs of the first version and seed the proper ground for R5 and Zen 2.
Like John says, if AMD got boosted the same will apply for Intel’s 8Cs. Don’t expect any groundbreaking breakthroughs.
If any, those will happen with R5/ Zen 2 when AMD got their money and investors back.
Of course they will fix RAM and SMT bugs in the meantime but that’s all.
Its unrealistic to expect higher IPCs and “patches” only for AMD for all games.
Consider us as BETA testers for a new platform. And after a couple of years maybe we can spent the same money for Beta v2.
“Our guess is that these engines will scale on more than four CPU cores, something that will benefit AMD’s Ryzen CPUs compared to Intel’s high performant quad-cores.”
Unbelivable that this was the best guess from you guys…
Feels like the CPU arch is completely irrelevant. LOL!
AMD deserves all this backlash because it’s them who advertised Ryzens as gaming processors.
Also, most people don’t stream, make movies or render complex 3D scenes, but rather play games. So it’s a bigger group to be upset.
Its time for AMD fanboys to admit that they been lied to: Ryzen is 100% Server CPU and Benchmarks show.
Its not a Bad CPU, im not saying it, but its not Gaming CPU.
AMD wants to get a big pie of server market, and this CPU is perfect for that.
Mainstream is just afterthought, they rebranded their server CPU and offered us.
The good thing is that 2K and 4K gamers wont feel a diffrence, even GTX1080 and future 1080Ti wont be CPU limited in such resolutions and benchmarks show that the Ryzen looses in FHD, the higher you go the less it loses and at some resolution it equalisez.
I was thinking of maybe getting 8 core ryzen to replace my 6-core 5820K @4.5, but I rather wait for Intel to lower prices, I better get 8 core Haswell or maybe Broadwell for my X99.
Ryzen cant overclock as high as Haswell, im getting 4.5Ghz easily without fine tuning.
My X99 has 10 SATA ports and 9 of them used, when I checked AMD top end mobos they all come with 6 SATA ports, only few had 8 and none 10.
Maybe Ryzenv2 will be my AMD 8 core, maybe Ryzen2 will have 10 core version.
HEY GUYS WE HAVE SOME VERY IMPORTANT NEWS AS A GAME SHOP STARTED PREORDERS FOR PC VERSION OF INJUSTICE 2 https://www.bol.com/nl/p/injustice-2-windows/9200000072537685/
WE ALL REMEBER THAT MORTAL KOMBAT 9 PC VERSIONWAS AVALIABLE FOR PREODER IN SOME SHOPSMONTHS BEFORE OFFICAIL ANNOUCMENT FROM WB.
ALSO THE NEW MIDDLE EARTH GAME WAS ALSO LEAKED DUE TO PREORDER ON ASHOP WAY BEFORE OFFCIAL ANNOUCMENT. SPREAD THE WORD PEOPLE!!
I don’t understand german, but if you refer to those pictures where 4 cores, 6 cores, 2 cores and 8 cores were tested, it’s nothing to take seriously, every test with disable cores, is different from what we’ll see with ryzen 5. Anyway i’m just waiting, if it turns out to be worst than R7, i’ll just get either a 1700 or a 1700X, or a 6/12 or superior from Intel.
How is it different? Click speed could be different but the leaked list of upcoming r5 and r3 processors don’t show any clocked higher than the 1800x. Armchair chip designers keep saying the r5 should be clocked higher because it has fewer cores but their know proof of that.
Wishful thinking and prayers won’t make Ryzen clock any higher.
There’s no proof of that yes, but you can’t replicate 6/12 or 4/8 on a 8/16 by just disabling cores or smt, it’s different from the real thing, even cause i’m pretty sure that on a 8/16 if you disable cores or smt the cache will stay that, 16MB L3 spread across 8 cores, on a real 6/12 that will be spread across 6 cores, it’s like 0.2MB each core, not much but still if it possibly has even a slightly higher clock, those 2 combines should be able to guarantee a maybe better performance than 8/16 only in gaming tho, rest will be worse ofc. But well these are assumptions, we just need to wait.
Ryzen 5 is literally a Ryzen 7 with failed/deactivated cores. Just like PHenom X3 was a failed X4.
I know this but you can’t guess r5 performance by just emulating its core/threads count with an r7, it’s a different thing.
I know what that is dork, I was asking what I strawmaned.
When you said 640X480 resoution the issue happens in 1080P the most common resolution, Face it if Intel tried the same crap people would be hating on them.
High frame rate gaming is becoming more common i’d even say more want a 144hz 1440P or even 1080P panel over a 4K 60hz one i know i’ll be keeping my 1440P 144hz monitor and my 4790K can’t even keep my 1080 at 95+% usage at all times.
Sorry if I was unclear. I was making a joke about reviews when they try to show which processor is better by running games at settings that no one uses and declaring a winner, ie running fps tests at 640×480.