It's a good theory, but at the same time, AMD would also want to take a bite out of the Intel CPU market share, particularly in mobile where they are incredibly weak.
AMD ryzen
- Thread starter keynes
- Start date
It's a good theory, but at the same time, AMD would also want to take a bite out of the Intel CPU market share, particularly in mobile where they are incredibly weak.
Oussebon
Multiverse Poster
It's been going round for a while, this this post by Kyle Bennett in December getting a fair bit of attention: https://hardforum.com/threads/from-...in-futility-h.1900681/page-61#post-1042685022 though that was far from the first time the idea came up.
It fits reasonably well into the theory that Radeon might end up splitting away from AMD, which he talked about in his editorial in May 2016 https://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/05/27/from_ati_to_amd_back_journey_in_futility
I don't follow HARDOCP in detail or have any particularly interest in Kyle Bennett, but this stuff does get picked up and discussed fairly widely.
It fits reasonably well into the theory that Radeon might end up splitting away from AMD, which he talked about in his editorial in May 2016 https://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/05/27/from_ati_to_amd_back_journey_in_futility
I don't follow HARDOCP in detail or have any particularly interest in Kyle Bennett, but this stuff does get picked up and discussed fairly widely.
Oussebon
Multiverse Poster
Ryzen beating the 7700k in a number of gaming situations: https://youtu.be/RZS2XHcQdqA?t=398
With faster RAM and an apparent Windows update being attributed as the cause.
Summary image (doing the rounds in disqus comments sections):
It's worth bearing in mind that this person's 7700k benches seem a bit off compared to a number of others in some cases. The 7700k doesn't get those low minimums even on higher settings here: http://techreport.com/review/31366/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-ryzen-7-1700x-and-ryzen-7-1700-cpus-reviewed/7 and likewise with GTA V here http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreview...review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-7
He also had a stock 7700k losing out to a stock R7 1700x in GTA-V in his initial Ryzen review. Pretty sure nobody else found that. :S
The methodology may not be very robust, for instance the reason he didn't text the 7700k with 3600MHz RAM as well was basically "it doesn't make much difference in my experience". Some of the GPU reviews he's done appear to show different things happening on the screen with different ones being benched and I'm not sure he's provided the raw footage for the benches in either the original or updated Ryzen reviews.
Still, it's his 3rd most viewed video in the last 6 years so I guess there's something to be said for clickbait.
With faster RAM and an apparent Windows update being attributed as the cause.
Summary image (doing the rounds in disqus comments sections):
It's worth bearing in mind that this person's 7700k benches seem a bit off compared to a number of others in some cases. The 7700k doesn't get those low minimums even on higher settings here: http://techreport.com/review/31366/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-ryzen-7-1700x-and-ryzen-7-1700-cpus-reviewed/7 and likewise with GTA V here http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreview...review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-7
He also had a stock 7700k losing out to a stock R7 1700x in GTA-V in his initial Ryzen review. Pretty sure nobody else found that. :S
The methodology may not be very robust, for instance the reason he didn't text the 7700k with 3600MHz RAM as well was basically "it doesn't make much difference in my experience". Some of the GPU reviews he's done appear to show different things happening on the screen with different ones being benched and I'm not sure he's provided the raw footage for the benches in either the original or updated Ryzen reviews.
Still, it's his 3rd most viewed video in the last 6 years so I guess there's something to be said for clickbait.
Last edited:
I think he's right in saying that high clocked RAM doesn't have a huge effect on Intel, but certainly seems to with AMD, a lot of the internal clocks are based on memory speed on Ryzen.
LTT's latest video showed decent improvements when overclocking but I'm hoping there are currently some issues that can be fixed to be able to push them further. His video was also without the latest BIOS updates which offer higher clocked memory support. JayzTwoCents apparently had some good results with that.
Oussebon
Multiverse Poster
I'm not sure he's right about Intel tbh. https://www.pcspecialist.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?53124-AMD-ryzen&p=386629&viewfull=1#post386629 See the techspot link. Going from 3000MHz to 3600MHz seems to add about as much as going from 2400MHz to 3000MHz.
When I saw the Polish benchmarks and the gains Ryzen was getting in gaming from 2133MHz to 3000MHz RAM I was quite excited thinking it was more than Intel and had already typed that out in this thread. Then I thought to check and saw actually it wasn't.
Obviously one can just look at the Ryzen + 3200MHz and Kaby Lake + 3200MHz for the same RAM speeds compared, and his starkest metrics are the 7700k's apparently low minimums contracting, well, just about everyone else where the RAM speed makes relatively little difference. But frankly if Intel didn't get gains off it surely that would just make the article emphasise the point even more.
And that doesn't change his Intel numbers being anomalous at best.
His video is important because it's a signal to watch out for what happens with even faster RAM and Ryzen, and to check for the improvements after the Windows updates. But the i7 7700k suddenly getting much lower minimums than other people have reported, at lower settings too, and Ryzen magically being transformed overnight into a champion gaming CPU with no major tech website having reported the same as an AMD fan's youtube channel means I'll have to hold off making any revised conclusions tbh.
Jayz uses an Asus Crosshair and seemed to particularly emphasise the role of BIOS updates for that specific mobo in helping with the OC gains - though that may have been just as a caveat to viewers since he didn't have others to test.
When I saw the Polish benchmarks and the gains Ryzen was getting in gaming from 2133MHz to 3000MHz RAM I was quite excited thinking it was more than Intel and had already typed that out in this thread. Then I thought to check and saw actually it wasn't.
Obviously one can just look at the Ryzen + 3200MHz and Kaby Lake + 3200MHz for the same RAM speeds compared, and his starkest metrics are the 7700k's apparently low minimums contracting, well, just about everyone else where the RAM speed makes relatively little difference. But frankly if Intel didn't get gains off it surely that would just make the article emphasise the point even more.
And that doesn't change his Intel numbers being anomalous at best.
His video is important because it's a signal to watch out for what happens with even faster RAM and Ryzen, and to check for the improvements after the Windows updates. But the i7 7700k suddenly getting much lower minimums than other people have reported, at lower settings too, and Ryzen magically being transformed overnight into a champion gaming CPU with no major tech website having reported the same as an AMD fan's youtube channel means I'll have to hold off making any revised conclusions tbh.
Jayz uses an Asus Crosshair and seemed to particularly emphasise the role of BIOS updates for that specific mobo in helping with the OC gains - though that may have been just as a caveat to viewers since he didn't have others to test.
Last edited:
orangecarrot
Member
Helpful link, thanks for sharing man.
Oussebon
Multiverse Poster
Ashes of the Singularity to the rescue: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-game-optimization-aots-escalation,34021.html
Optimisations to the game give Ryzen a substantial performance boost, and finally put it over the 7700k.
PCPer show even larger uplifts: https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Ashes-Singularity-Gets-Ryzen-Performance-Update and also say:
Anyone expecting similar gains across the board in gaming would need to manage their expectations, at least for a few years, given that Ashes is one of the few games to really be able to show off multi-core CPU performance. But, it's certainly good news all round, especially for anyone who games a pre-ordered a Ryzen.
Optimisations to the game give Ryzen a substantial performance boost, and finally put it over the 7700k.
PCPer show even larger uplifts: https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Ashes-Singularity-Gets-Ryzen-Performance-Update and also say:
Anyone expecting similar gains across the board in gaming would need to manage their expectations, at least for a few years, given that Ashes is one of the few games to really be able to show off multi-core CPU performance. But, it's certainly good news all round, especially for anyone who games a pre-ordered a Ryzen.
AMD have just released a blog update which includes their own Ashes benchmarks which show better improvements than 3rd parties (to be expected) but also includes a benchmark of the latest version of Dota 2 which offers some improvements on minimum framerates.
Apparently they'll be doing these blog updates regularly, and have a BIOS update planned for the near future to improve RAM overclocking.
Apparently they'll be doing these blog updates regularly, and have a BIOS update planned for the near future to improve RAM overclocking.
Oussebon
Multiverse Poster
PCS have a Ryzen build on review at Bit Tech: https://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/pcs/2017/03/20/pc-specialist-magma-zen-review/4
There's a cinebench multithreaded test where the R7 1700 beats out an 6850k @ 4.4ghz at cinebench. Not a gigantic lead, but noteworthy nevertheless given the beast frequency lead the Intel chip had there. The Ryzen ofc being much cheaper too. Not a whopping surprise, but as there was a build advice topic on here recently where Ryzen was being weighed against other options including an OCed 6850k for rendering I thought that was interesting and possibly relevant to the specific kinds of questions that can come up here.
The 6850k they used will almost certainly have had faster RAM paired with it too, compared to the (Ryzen) review spec's 2133MHz DRR4, which has an impact on Cinebench R15 scores.
Also, I always wondered what the Frostflow 100 cooler is. Turns out it's an "ID Cooling SE-214X".
I think I saw someone else considering a Ryzen build for VR recently. In bit-tech the Ryzen plus GTX 1070 build vastly underperformed an OCed i5 plus GTX 1070 build (the Venom one) in the Orange Room bench:
And HardOCP found Ryzen to not perform as well as Intel CPUs tested - in some cases including the i7 2600k - in real world VR gaming: https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/03/02/amd_ryzen_1700x_cpu_review/5
Although Ryzen came out very well in the Orange and Blue room benches on Vortez and OC3d, and in the steam benchmark on Gamespot
https://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_1700_review,15.html
https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_ryzen_7_1700_cpu_review/13
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu-review/1100-6448346/
There's a cinebench multithreaded test where the R7 1700 beats out an 6850k @ 4.4ghz at cinebench. Not a gigantic lead, but noteworthy nevertheless given the beast frequency lead the Intel chip had there. The Ryzen ofc being much cheaper too. Not a whopping surprise, but as there was a build advice topic on here recently where Ryzen was being weighed against other options including an OCed 6850k for rendering I thought that was interesting and possibly relevant to the specific kinds of questions that can come up here.
The 6850k they used will almost certainly have had faster RAM paired with it too, compared to the (Ryzen) review spec's 2133MHz DRR4, which has an impact on Cinebench R15 scores.
Also, I always wondered what the Frostflow 100 cooler is. Turns out it's an "ID Cooling SE-214X".
I think I saw someone else considering a Ryzen build for VR recently. In bit-tech the Ryzen plus GTX 1070 build vastly underperformed an OCed i5 plus GTX 1070 build (the Venom one) in the Orange Room bench:
And HardOCP found Ryzen to not perform as well as Intel CPUs tested - in some cases including the i7 2600k - in real world VR gaming: https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/03/02/amd_ryzen_1700x_cpu_review/5
Although Ryzen came out very well in the Orange and Blue room benches on Vortez and OC3d, and in the steam benchmark on Gamespot
https://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_1700_review,15.html
https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_ryzen_7_1700_cpu_review/13
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu-review/1100-6448346/
Last edited:
Oussebon
Multiverse Poster
Ryzen R5 review day. List of reviews here: https://videocardz.com/68282/amd-ryzen-5-review-roundup
In terms of gaming it seems to perform very competitively against the i5s, quite frequently having better FPS lows. The i5 7600k seems to have a more sizable lead when overclocked, but given the premium for overclocking them it's probably better to just get an i7 if you're spending that much on a system, short of very specific gaming situations like 'single threaded' MMOs. For
There are some bizarre reviews out there though. I've seen two where the quad core R5 1500x outperforms the 7700k in Deus Ex Mankind divided (TPU and Hexus - the TPU one also has the i5 7500 outperforming the 7700k..). I wonder if there might also be some recycled benchmarks prior to various Windows and/or game updates going around.
And then reviews like Tom's Hardware include the r7 1700 but not the 7700k. There's some merit to that as if you're buying Ryzen for gaming there doesn't seem to be much point to the R7 1700 over the 1600x but equally if you have the money to buy a 1700 you should probably be looking at an i7 anyway.
Rather than trying to find a decent graph to post that isn't flatly contradicted by the next website along I'll just quote Gamers Nexus:
In terms of rendering etc, well..
In terms of gaming it seems to perform very competitively against the i5s, quite frequently having better FPS lows. The i5 7600k seems to have a more sizable lead when overclocked, but given the premium for overclocking them it's probably better to just get an i7 if you're spending that much on a system, short of very specific gaming situations like 'single threaded' MMOs. For
There are some bizarre reviews out there though. I've seen two where the quad core R5 1500x outperforms the 7700k in Deus Ex Mankind divided (TPU and Hexus - the TPU one also has the i5 7500 outperforming the 7700k..). I wonder if there might also be some recycled benchmarks prior to various Windows and/or game updates going around.
And then reviews like Tom's Hardware include the r7 1700 but not the 7700k. There's some merit to that as if you're buying Ryzen for gaming there doesn't seem to be much point to the R7 1700 over the 1600x but equally if you have the money to buy a 1700 you should probably be looking at an i7 anyway.
Rather than trying to find a decent graph to post that isn't flatly contradicted by the next website along I'll just quote Gamers Nexus:
In terms of rendering etc, well..
Last edited:
I must admit, I've seen quite a few conflicting results. Linus' results were what seemed a little low for the CPU I'm looking at (1600X) but Hexus put it performing ahead of even the 7700k in Deus Ex.
Nice to see that the 1600X performs better than the 7700k in anything not gaming. Meaning if you do anything outside of gaming, Ryzen is certainly the way to go.
Nice to see that the 1600X performs better than the 7700k in anything not gaming. Meaning if you do anything outside of gaming, Ryzen is certainly the way to go.
Oussebon
Multiverse Poster
Err, overstating it just a bit there maybe?
Anything multithreaded outside of gaming might be a bit more accurate. Tom's Hardware haven't done their usual photoshop bench, but unless it magically clocks higher and gets an IPC just for that gain it shouldn't outperform the 7600k / 7700k just as other multicore CPUs be they Intel or AMD haven't in the past. Likewise AutoCAD uses that are single threaded, Sketchup, Solidworks (simulation and modelling, obviously not rendering) and whatever else. Plenty of these uses are common requests on the forums.Of course, one of the main usage pairings on the forum seem to be "gaming and video editing" (not to mention streaming gameplay) where the R5 is a super clear winner against the 7600k, and becomes a debate about usage balance against the 7700k (which is itself an impressive feat).
Specific to this forum and community, though, the R5 does have a couple of issues.
1) RAM - it's good that PCS are being thorough with their testing before providing a more options there, but it would really enhance the Ryzen offer to have that available asap.
2) Price - for gaming and non-gaming single threaded uses anyway.
R5 1400 vs i5 7500:
R5 1600x vs i7 7700k - if you go with high end motherboards:
If one is going for the best mobo possible because it seems to help a bit with Ryzen performance, or it's a premium build and one wants higher quality components, and all the bells and whistles, then it gets a bit awkward - an i7 build with fast RAM matches an R5 + Crosshair build. And the cheapest R5 is still a good whack more expensive than an i5.
The Crosshair is very expensive though. And perhaps the B350 isn't nearly as cheap as the H110M-R?
If you want a cheap lol, this benchmark: https://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_5_1400_1600_review,17.html shows the R5 1400 outperforming every Intel CPU on the planet in gaming.
And this one pits an R4 1400 vs an i5 7600k at 5GHz, which is obviously a fair comparison: https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/04/11/amd_ryzen_5_1600_1400_cpu_review/4
This one seems to favour Intel more than I would expect, and the R5 1400 barely outperforms the FX 6300: https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/tes...5_1400_konkurent_intel_core_i5_7400?page=0,19 which doesn't sound right.
For some slightly saner-looking R5 1400 numbers:
https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_ryzen_5_1400_1500x_and_1600x_cpu_review/15
The point is that complete junk numbers aside, the R5 1400 doesn't quite deliver a knockout blow to the locked i5s, where the generally cheaper motherboards doesn't give it the same performance vs price lead as it has when going against the 7600k and the i7s.
Last edited:
I don't think the Crosshair offers much over any other X370 board in terms of performance. Plus the Strix is not the best or most expensive Intel motherboard out there. The Maximus is the equivalent of the Crosshair.
As for PCS pricing, not too sure there, there is a £75+ difference between the 1600X and the 7700K which I think in terms of bang for buck, is pretty good when you look at the numbers. When you look at the numbers that look semi reasonable. Ryzen has a lower FPS, but all of the CPUs from the 1400/i5 (non OC) up to the 7700k/1800X have very similar numbers.
Haven't seen many benchmarks above 1080p like we did when the R7s released. Only one I've found is KitGuru but even then, the number of benchmarks are a little limited with few CPUs to compare against http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-6c12t-cpu-review/11/
As for PCS pricing, not too sure there, there is a £75+ difference between the 1600X and the 7700K which I think in terms of bang for buck, is pretty good when you look at the numbers. When you look at the numbers that look semi reasonable. Ryzen has a lower FPS, but all of the CPUs from the 1400/i5 (non OC) up to the 7700k/1800X have very similar numbers.
Haven't seen many benchmarks above 1080p like we did when the R7s released. Only one I've found is KitGuru but even then, the number of benchmarks are a little limited with few CPUs to compare against http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-6c12t-cpu-review/11/
Oussebon
Multiverse Poster
That's a fair point, I thought the crosshairs had more to differentiate it but in terms of features but really - barring LN2 support which puts it on par with the Hero afaics - it just seems to be USB 3.1 type C and some connectors most people buying a built PC won't use.
I had simply got the impression it was worth having since that's what the reviewers and youtubers seem to be using, and it seemed to be getting BIOS updates pushed out the fastest. But in a few months when the other boards have caught up that may be less of an issue. We already saw in this thread how, at launch, mobo did matter with the Crosshairs giving measurably better performance.
Edit: Bit tech have one too actually, but that gives very similar numbers around the Corvega area. Which, yeah, is... not representative of people's general experience in that area. or the game in general tbf. I want their computer if they're getting over 70fps minimum in FO4.
Granted if you pair the CPUs with an RX 480 and only look at averages it will be fairly samey.
I had simply got the impression it was worth having since that's what the reviewers and youtubers seem to be using, and it seemed to be getting BIOS updates pushed out the fastest. But in a few months when the other boards have caught up that may be less of an issue. We already saw in this thread how, at launch, mobo did matter with the Crosshairs giving measurably better performance.
AMD were pushing benches above 1440p to even out the difference a bit between the 7700k and R7 lineup by making more of a GPU bottleneck. That's less of an issue here (which reflects well on R5). Plus while you can certainly game on an i5/R5 at 1440p I think the overall budget area is probably still more focused at 1080p.
I'm not entirely sure I can agree on that. Certainly not across the board. Things like FO4 getting much higher minimum FPS on an i7. That game does stutter like crazy. The only mainstream review site I saw with FO4 benches was TPU, but I stopped reading after they benched an i5 7500 higher than a 7700k in Deus Ex MD :/
Edit: Bit tech have one too actually, but that gives very similar numbers around the Corvega area. Which, yeah, is... not representative of people's general experience in that area. or the game in general tbf. I want their computer if they're getting over 70fps minimum in FO4.
Granted if you pair the CPUs with an RX 480 and only look at averages it will be fairly samey.
Last edited:
Most of the YouTubers have them because that's what AMD gave them alongside the R7 chips. They've given reviewers the cheaper B350 boards to go with the R5s, but most I've seen have benched on the Crosshair boards.
I think something like the Prime X370 will be the sweet spot in the end. Same as the Z270 Pro board essentially.
I'd disagree on these being targeted at 1080p, at least not the 6 cores. We're getting to the point where 1440p/4k is becoming pretty mainstream and you can get the monitors for 1440p quite cheap and a card to run it cheap as well (RX 480). My 390 works great for 1440p, and even my R9 280 does a decent job as well. Only issue there being the lack of FreeSync support, so some of the effect of the 144Hz Freesync is lost.
I think something like the Prime X370 will be the sweet spot in the end. Same as the Z270 Pro board essentially.
I'd disagree on these being targeted at 1080p, at least not the 6 cores. We're getting to the point where 1440p/4k is becoming pretty mainstream and you can get the monitors for 1440p quite cheap and a card to run it cheap as well (RX 480). My 390 works great for 1440p, and even my R9 280 does a decent job as well. Only issue there being the lack of FreeSync support, so some of the effect of the 144Hz Freesync is lost.
Oussebon
Multiverse Poster
Ah, I see. Personally I really don't like the Z270-P. No USB 3.1, no SLI, and ALC887 for the onboard audio. Unlike the Z270H which has all that covered in each regard for £20 more. Not that SLI is crucial but it's a pretty big feature list for £20. Even the Z170-P had USB type C (granted not many people care, but it still feels like a step back despite a price hike).
The X370's offering seems much more impressive for the price.
The X370's offering seems much more impressive for the price.
Hmmm, that's certainly odd to not offer any of that. I hadn't fully looked through the Z270-P specs, was mostly going off what I knew about the Z170-P. Very odd to be removing SLI, Type C etc. As this is a motherboard I hope to have for quite a while, type C ports are a must for me. Hope to be able to get a couple of CPU upgrades out of it. One annoying thing about my PC now is that my USB 3 ports are filled as I only have 3 total. And with Type C probably going to be more widely adopted in the long run by more devices (Micro USB 3 anyone?). It will be important to have some on board.
Oussebon
Multiverse Poster
The Z170-P didn't have SLI. The USB type C was USB 3.0 / 5gbps. I wonder if you're thinking of the Z170 Pro Gaming? Which did indeed seem to be the sweet spot - until PCS stopped selling it with 3000MHz RAM at which point the Gigabyte Gaming 3 (?I think) seemed to become the default recommendation since it had basically the same features and PCS sold it with faster RAM.
The Z270E seems to be occupying that spot now in PCS builds - especially where people are going with wifi cards since its onboard wifi helps claw back enough of the extra cost such that it doesn't work out much more than a Z270H. But on its own it's super expensive. It's like if you want USB 3.1 Type C you need a £200 Z270E motherboard or the Crosshair for Ryzen (that's about the only hurdle the Prime X370 falls on).
And all you're really getting over a Z170 mobo that was £50-80 cheaper is the 2nd M.2 slot and the wifi/bluetooth. Perhaps it's harder to compare the prices what with the state of the £ - but a quick google and you can still get Z170 Pro Gaming for ~£140, and I'm sure it used to be around £120, so we're still a good way off £190/£200 for something like the Z270E.
Oh, and Optane.
I like the Z270E, it's nice, OCs well, has all the trimmings, it's just too expensive.
The Z270E seems to be occupying that spot now in PCS builds - especially where people are going with wifi cards since its onboard wifi helps claw back enough of the extra cost such that it doesn't work out much more than a Z270H. But on its own it's super expensive. It's like if you want USB 3.1 Type C you need a £200 Z270E motherboard or the Crosshair for Ryzen (that's about the only hurdle the Prime X370 falls on).
And all you're really getting over a Z170 mobo that was £50-80 cheaper is the 2nd M.2 slot and the wifi/bluetooth. Perhaps it's harder to compare the prices what with the state of the £ - but a quick google and you can still get Z170 Pro Gaming for ~£140, and I'm sure it used to be around £120, so we're still a good way off £190/£200 for something like the Z270E.
Oh, and Optane.
I like the Z270E, it's nice, OCs well, has all the trimmings, it's just too expensive.
That sounds like an R5 now, and an R7 in a few years when they've beefed up further. R5 vs i7s aside, the R5 should be a big upgrade off the FX series and I imagine you stand a better chance of getting upgrades in the same socket with Ryzen, though to my great surprise I hear Cannon Lake may also use 1151. https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel-cannonlake-10nm
Last edited: