Ryzen embargo lifted, disappointing? - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Ryzen embargo lifted, disappointing?

£0.00 @
Ryzen benchmarks are out. AMD lied about gaming benchmarks, surprise surprise. The most interesting chip for enthusiasts the 1800x is pointless for gaming and will heat your house on CPU inten… Read More
catbeans Avatar
1m, 4w agoPosted 1 month, 4 weeks ago
Ryzen benchmarks are out.

AMD lied about gaming benchmarks, surprise surprise.

The most interesting chip for enthusiasts the 1800x is pointless for gaming and will heat your house on CPU intensive tasks meaning you'll need a very good cooler for you work bench.

The other processors look 'meh'.

AMD fanboys have already defaulted back to "wait for the next release, it'll be good honest" and "muh drivers".

So it all comes down to the price war.

Flippant humour aside, thoughts?
catbeans Avatar
1m, 4w agoPosted 1 month, 4 weeks ago
Options

All Comments

(42) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
2 Likes #1
Links to this?

If true then I am not surprised as intel seem to be the king on all fronts at the minute.
1 Like #2
The linus tech tips video I just watched seemed to suggest it was good value. Yes some single threaded games aren't as great as on intel. But others such as the latest tomb raider run quicker. Assetto Corsa is multi threaded and CPU heavy so I'd imaging that would benefit too.

I'm on an intel chip at the moment but I'm finding Ryzen interesting.
[mod]#3
More info from TTL - Here
2 Likes #4
Pound-for-pound I'll be very surprised if intel beat AMD on these.
1 Like #5
sparx1981
The linus tech tips video I just watched seemed to suggest it was good value. Yes some single threaded games aren't as great as on intel. But others such as the latest tomb raider run quicker. Assetto Corsa is multi threaded and CPU heavy so I'd imaging that would benefit too.
I'm on an intel chip at the moment but I'm finding Ryzen interesting.

Linus seems to be the only review i have seen that comes to that conclusion about gaming, funny how he comments on other youtubers being in peoples pockets but his own results and conclusions rarely match up with most reviewers.




Westwoodo
Links to this?
If true then I am not surprised as intel seem to be the king on all fronts at the minute.

http://wccftech.com/ryzen-gaming-benchmarks-roundup/

https://youtu.be/j7UBHjtCXhU

https://youtu.be/caDxAJMAu0w

https://youtu.be/1cznxigESBo
#6
Thanks for the links, I'm rocking a 2600k from nearly 6 years ago and I can't see a reason to upgrade. Progress is being made but it doesn't seem to be overly drastic.

Unless I am mistaken (tell me if I am) the 1800x is £160 more for negligible differences? But is this because Ryzen is new and the prices need to settle?


Edited By: Westwoodo on Mar 02, 2017 16:28: Needed it.
1 Like #7
Hmm, I wouldn't still rule these out. They're priced well and give you mainly the same performance. I still think that AMD have done well with these chips unlike Bulldozer or Piledriver so hats off to them - and that's coming from a i5 4670k/i7 6700k user.

It wreaks of Intel fanboyism in here (_;)
#8
I think we need to wait for Ryzen 5, that's the chip gamers will be getting and it needs to at least match the 7600k, 7700k in gaming benchmarks. if it doesn't I don't think this will be that big of a success unless they price it like the old FX CPUs

Edited By: jayd95 on Mar 02, 2017 16:52: .
2 Likes #9
AMD fanboys have already defaulted back to "wait for the next release, it'll be good honest" and "muh drivers".
So what you're saying is you're an Intel supporter that doesn't understand the complexities of an architecture that with revision, firmware adjustment and window optimisation should see a marked improvement in performance, stability and gradual adoption. Already for specific programs and applications which require and support multi-threading will benefit hugely from the (Ry)Zen architecture (and Intel's Xeon as a matter), although with an affordable price tag, the migration to hexa-core and octocore processors should be inevitable. It is this competition that will encourage the industry to adopt and evolve, programming and optimising software to fully utilise and exploit the hardware. Sadly it takes time, and early adopters of technology have to accept the pitfalls and subsequent weaknesses and issues, that once eradicated those consumer and businesses will see the results and benefits.
1 Like #10
Just finished reading this review from Hexus (this), I see the Ryzen has put up a good fight with the overpriced Intel chips.

If you read the comments about the gaming result from the same review, it even mentioned turning off the SMT improves the game frame rate, which shows some more optimisation can be done as time goes by.

I'm committed to build both my server and gaming machine to use Ryzen next (unless there are huge flaws coming out over the next 2 months). AMD has finally put out a great chip and without crippling a typical builder (like me) with their prices.
#11
As a gamer... Dissatisfied

If I was using it for anything other than gaming then it would be perfect.

I'll be waiting for the Ryzen 5 chip (1600x) just to see.

Otherwise delided 7700k it is.

* Also AMD IHS are so much better than Intel's.
The fact that I have to delided to overclock an overclockable chip is rediculous.
#12
Westwoodo
Thanks for the links, I'm rocking a 2600k from nearly 6 years ago and I can't see a reason to upgrade. Progress is being made but it doesn't seem to be overly drastic.
Unless I am mistaken (tell me if I am) the 1800x is £160 more for negligible differences? But is this because Ryzen is new and the prices need to settle?

For you I would look to see how much it would cost to swap your 2600k for a 3770k
#13
THIS IS WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT! BELIEVE ME NOW??!!!

sorry for the caps lol wasnt shouting though but i been arguing with a lot of people supposedly "amd fanboys" on this site for months regarding how AMD will never and INTEL will always be supreme, i already have my new Kby lake i5 7500 stored away for a new build later on this year and DIDNT WAIT like the others on the new "RyZen" etc, im waiting on nintendo switch to get delivered and straight after that a new motherboard with new psu etc will be crossed off my list aswell...ryzen is just ALL HYPE like WATCHDOGS
#14
nemesiz
AMD fanboys have already defaulted back to "wait for the next release, it'll be good honest" and "muh drivers".
So what you're saying is you're an Intel supporter that doesn't understand the complexities of an architecture that with revision, firmware adjustment and window optimisation should see a marked improvement in performance, stability and gradual adoption. Already for specific programs and applications which require and support multi-threading will benefit hugely from the (Ry)Zen architecture (and Intel's Xeon as a matter), although with an affordable price tag, the migration to hexa-core and octocore processors should be inevitable. It is this competition that will encourage the industry to adopt and evolve, programming and optimising software to fully utilise and exploit the hardware. Sadly it takes time, and early adopters of technology have to accept the pitfalls and subsequent weaknesses and issues, that once eradicated those consumer and businesses will see the results and benefits.

i guess you missed "Flippant humour aside, thoughts?" bit. I am not a "fan" of either processor.

Edited By: catbeans on Mar 02, 2017 18:14
1 Like #15
The arstechnica review seems to confirm what most people predicted:
Ryzen is an excellent workstation CPU, but gamers should look elsewhere.
1 Like #16
What? Nearly all reviews come to the conclusion that unless you're running 1080p at >144fps, the chip is fantastic for gaming. I haven't seen anywhere say otherwise?

Here's a sample from Kitguru:

"So if you game at 60 FPS (4K monitors don’t go above 60 FPS yet) or don’t have a card anywhere near as powerful as the Titan X Pascal, Ryzen 7 gaming performance is likely to be sufficient for your needs. However, if you enjoy high refresh rate gaming and like seeing consistent numbers above 140 FPS, there are better options than Ryzen 7 from Intel’s Broadwell-E and Skylake/Kaby Lake product stack."

I think Ryzen is fantastic, it really shows that Lisa has her head in the game and is bringing AMD back to glory. I hope they really sock it to Nvidia with their GPUs too, but that's only because I detest Intel and Nvidia with a passion.
3 Likes #17
delboyd
Ryzen 7 gaming performance is likely to be sufficient for your needs

"gaming performance is likely to be sufficient for your needs" is review code for "gaming perfomance is actually worse than the competition, but we don't want AMD to stop sending us stuff to review".
#18
keepitonthelow
Westwoodo
Thanks for the links, I'm rocking a 2600k from nearly 6 years ago and I can't see a reason to upgrade. Progress is being made but it doesn't seem to be overly drastic.
Unless I am mistaken (tell me if I am) the 1800x is £160 more for negligible differences? But is this because Ryzen is new and the prices need to settle?
For you I would look to see how much it would cost to swap your 2600k for a 3770k
£160, my 2600k is running at 4.4ghz and doesn't struggle with anything I throw at it.
#19
definitely disappointed by the gaming performance considering how it beats other Intel chips in productivity, I wonder if there are some issues with software etc causing it?.
if not it's a bit disappointing because for a lot of people the drop in average and minimum FPS can make a big difference, I upgraded from a fx8350 to a 7600k and even though the average FPS is similar I've noticed a big difference in the minimum FPS in all my games
#20
Westwoodo
Thanks for the links, I'm rocking a 2600k from nearly 6 years ago and I can't see a reason to upgrade. Progress is being made but it doesn't seem to be overly drastic.
Unless I am mistaken (tell me if I am) the 1800x is £160 more for negligible differences? But is this because Ryzen is new and the prices need to settle?
Same here awesome CPU.
#21
Well it's pretty much what I was expecting. IPC is where it was expected. Also clock speed (overclocking) is a little lower than hoped. So if anybody was expecting it to beat an overclocked 7700k in games they were a little deluded. All the pre info from AMD suggested this.

On the plus side the gaming performance is plenty fast enough for most and as you increase the resolution things get better. Are most people looking at a highend CPUs and GTX1080 upwards really gaming at 1080p!?

At the end of the day if you basically only want to game then overclocking a 7700k within an inch of it's life will give you the best results. However if you want to game very adequately and utilise it's productivity then going with Ryzen makes most sense.

The whole point is before you chose Intel as AMD has nothing compelling to offer. This is no longer the case.
#22
Aradria
delboyd
Ryzen 7 gaming performance is likely to be sufficient for your needs
"gaming performance is likely to be sufficient for your needs" is review code for "gaming perfomance is actually worse than the competition, but we don't want AMD to stop sending us stuff to review".

Or, it means that gaming performance will likely be sufficient for one's needs. I for one play at 1440p 60fps, there'd be no point in getting something extortionately expensive when I can't take advantage of it.

Like I said, unless you're aiming at 1080p 144fps+, this CPU is a diamond in terms of value. I can't see any way of arguing against that without resorting to MUHH BIASED REVIEWS BECAUSE FREE STUFF.
#23
We are at a level again like P4's when there really was no competition and as such not much reason for intel to do much other than increase clock rates a bit..

Hopefully Rizen will kickstart Intel into bringing some of its R&D out and showing us the real next gen of processors.
#24
I think there must be driver issues or something as the CPU looks good in all benchmarks but when it comes to games it just doesn't seem to preform
#25
BettySwollocks098
I think there must be driver issues or something as the CPU looks good in all benchmarks but when it comes to games it just doesn't seem to preform

I think that maybe the case. As mentioned in my previous post, the Hexus review states that it seemed weird that by turning off the SMT increases the frame rates, so it could be software/driver issues at play. Hopefully, these 'issues' will be levelled out over the coming months and AMD users will see the gain as the drivers improve.
#26
EDEN188
BettySwollocks098
I think there must be driver issues or something as the CPU looks good in all benchmarks but when it comes to games it just doesn't seem to preform
I think that maybe the case. As mentioned in my previous post, the Hexus review states that it seemed weird that by turning off the SMT increases the frame rates, so it could be software/driver issues at play. Hopefully, these 'issues' will be levelled out over the coming months and AMD users will see the gain as the drivers improve.

The same is the case with Intel and turning off the Intel equivalent to SMT, the increases aren't massive either way.
#27
BettySwollocks098
I think there must be driver issues or something as the CPU looks good in all benchmarks but when it comes to games it just doesn't seem to preform
It's not drivers, games just don't use all the CPU cores in the way that benchmark tools do. DX12 makes improvements but fundamentally games use a more sequential logic and are much harder to split up to loads of threads efficiently.

And like a few of those reviews point out, Ryzen does well in floating point operations which looks good on synthetic benchmarks but that doesn't matter so much for games because the graphics card handles that.
#28
it was with it having similar single core to 6800k and 6900k but still preforming worse in games which shouldn't be the case should it? please correct me if I'm wrong here
#29
BettySwollocks098
it was with it having similar single core to 6800k and 6900k but still preforming worse in games which shouldn't be the case should it? please correct me if I'm wrong here

Depends they are different architectures so it's hard to say a definitive reason why they are different yet certainly wouldn't bank on driver's right now.

I don't think single core they did as well as the i7s or atleast not at the price point.
#30
Westwoodo
Thanks for the links, I'm rocking a 2600k from nearly 6 years ago and I can't see a reason to upgrade. Progress is being made but it doesn't seem to be overly drastic.
Unless I am mistaken (tell me if I am) the 1800x is £160 more for negligible differences? But is this because Ryzen is new and the prices need to settle?

Still running my 2500k overclocked to 4.5ghz, still very capable chip. Waiting for Cannonlake before thinking about upgrading. Have a 1060gtx and only have a 1080p monitor.
1 Like #31
I'd say from what I've seen, Ryzen had definitely brought AMD back into the game. Even if they don't quite top intel on performance, the price will give them fierce competition.
I was a diehard AMD fan for years upto a Phenom II 1100t (their last decent processor imo) then jumped the bridge to a 6700k. If AMD keep it up I'll happily jump back to save money on future upgrades.
#32
118luke
I'd say from what I've seen, Ryzen had definitely brought AMD back into the game. Even if they don't quite top intel on performance, the price will give them fierce competition.
I was a diehard AMD fan for years upto a Phenom II 1100t (their last decent processor imo) then jumped the bridge to a 6700k. If AMD keep it up I'll happily jump back to save money on future upgrades.


That was the 1090t, not sure why people paid for the 1100t as it was a lot more expensive. Similar between the 1700x and 1800x, diminished returns.
#33
delboyd
the chip is fantastic for gaming. I haven't seen anywhere say otherwise

Like I said, unless you're aiming at 1080p 144fps+, this CPU is a diamond in terms of value. I can't see any way of arguing against that without resorting to MUHH BIASED REVIEWS BECAUSE FREE STUFF.

I could quote the review you referenced:

Gaming performance is a disappointing aspect of the Ryzen 7 CPU

X)X)X)X)



Edited By: Aradria on Mar 03, 2017 09:02
#34
Aradria
delboyd
the chip is fantastic for gaming. I haven't seen anywhere say otherwise
Like I said, unless you're aiming at 1080p 144fps+, this CPU is a diamond in terms of value. I can't see any way of arguing against that without resorting to MUHH BIASED REVIEWS BECAUSE FREE STUFF.
I could quote the review you referenced:
Gaming performance is a disappointing aspect of the Ryzen 7 CPU
X)X)X)X)

Disappointing in comparison to every other aspect, which are all fantastic. I guess you play 1080p 144hz+?
#35
Well my old 3570K still runs everything I need. When comparing to the latest and greatest consumer CPU's I really can't justify the upgrade price for the little extra performance.
4 Likes #36
I think people are missing the elephant in the room. The AMD CPU's are MUCH cheaper than their equivalent Intel counterparts and yet offer very competitive performance. They perform similarly, it's not as if the Ryzen chips are achieving half the FPS, they're pretty nip and tuck with Intel and yet people here are falling over themselves to criticise AMD for anything they can. By all means, if you want to pay double the price for similar performance go ahead, but the sensible among us would rather not.
#37
in in two minds to upgrade or not ?
I'm currently using an old hex core xeon x5650 & 12 GB ram, its fine for what I'm using it for like playing bf4 and running a few dj'ing tools e.t.c.
but I'm still itching for a new build :)
#38
chris75319
I think people are missing the elephant in the room. The AMD CPU's are MUCH cheaper than their equivalent Intel counterparts and yet offer very competitive performance. They perform similarly, it's not as if the Ryzen chips are achieving half the FPS, they're pretty nip and tuck with Intel and yet people here are falling over themselves to criticise AMD for anything they can. By all means, if you want to pay double the price for similar performance go ahead, but the sensible among us would rather not.

Totally agree with you there.

I haven't been building a new PC for as long as 5 years, my server is running an i7-860 which I'm planning to replace with the R7 1700. It's a no brainer to get this over Intel as it's so much cheaper than Intel equivalent.

I don't doubt the quality of Intel CPUs, they are certainly ahead of the game, but since monopolised the cpu market, they haven't really been pushing their technology with recent releases, just merely upping the clock speed and still charge an arm and a leg for it.

Everyone has their opinions and needs for their PC, but for me, building a completely new PC (server first, then game machine next), I could save myself £100s to build both machine and do what I need.
#39
chris75319
I think people are missing the elephant in the room. The AMD CPU's are MUCH cheaper than their equivalent Intel counterparts and yet offer very competitive performance. They perform similarly, it's not as if the Ryzen chips are achieving half the FPS, they're pretty nip and tuck with Intel and yet people here are falling over themselves to criticise AMD for anything they can. By all means, if you want to pay double the price for similar performance go ahead, but the sensible among us would rather not.

You can be critical of points and still be enthusiastic and interested over all. One point is though the Intel i7s are much cheaper, better for gaming and you aren't losing that much time in production tasks, or you are running production on your GPU anyway. So for most people that little jump in price for an 1800x isn't worth it over the next CPU down.
#40
Ok, so what we are saying is PCs are only useful for Games and an Intel based machine must be bought!!

In my case, being different from normal, I use Lightroom to edit pictures and find my OC 2500K is getting a little laggy, with the 2GB GTX660.
So I'd probably need to consider an 1800x with a 6GB GTX1060(for CUDA) to get the most out of my requirements.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!