Read more.Quote:
The benchmarks are out, so what do you make of AMD's latest and greatest?
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
The benchmarks are out, so what do you make of AMD's latest and greatest?
In non-gaming yep. Some of the Linux benchmarks are amazing.
For gaming nope,with the severe SMT issues compared especially to Kaby Lake. Its probably less of an issue on the 8C model since you can disable SMT. The lower core models we will need to wait and see.
But with AMD launching the CPU before proper windows scheduler updates,with buggy motherboards,etc,I hope review sites re-bench a few months from now since it will do better.
I would say more than so.
Completely, from scratch new architecture. Beats current class leader in some tests, is competitive in the rest. And makes sound financial senses. I think if anyone is switching from a processor a couple generations old, AMD should have turned their head's for at least 5 minutes! What more could AMD, it's investors and the people in the market for these products want? AMD IS COMPETITIVE AGAIN!
The important point, and it may be premature, but I'm now excited about Zen 2 and the following refinements, and AMD doesn't need to point them out to me. It is happy with it's product (with some exceptions/teething issues which will get worked out in time for the lower end products, hopefully) and will now let us, the consumers, be excited by ourselves for the next generation. This is ,IMHO, huge as we can all see that AMD really pushes the PR hype on it's products which often set's itself up for a massive fall.
Congrats AMD, my next CPU purchase will 95% be from you. (Maybe the next iteration though. Also, ITX boards, anyone?)
When Ryzen fires on all cylinders it can decimate the competition.
http://i.imgur.com/hfEO69X.png
It seems to have a bit of a two faced character currently,but Zen 2 or even the first version after a few months might be more rounded methinks.
I was just hoping for it to be competitive with the 6700K multithreaded, but it wipes the floor with it, and most others too, in the areas I'd use it at. Gaming performance is obviously the weak point, but even that is very good.
The only disappointment for me is the relatively high idle power draw.
I'll get one at some point as an upgrade to my 4790K - either once this platform has matured in a couple of months or the next revision if I have the patience.
I think it's exceeded expectations in many areas.
Sure, gaming is not a great showing, but the 7700K is a gaming-targeted CPU and AMD has only released the HEDT CPUs. And AMD's HEDT CPUs are killing Intel's HEDT CPUs in pretty much everything, at a lot lower price.
However I don't think AMD is going to get much further with the 1500X or 1600X in terms of gaming, apart from being very competitive on price. Regardless, in the end the HEDT people will want to play games on HEDT GPUs and HEDT resolutions, and as soon as the resolution goes up, the difference goes down. If you're a 1080p 1080Ti gamer, get a 7700K!
The SMT issues which AMD did not communicate well to reviewers about meant many tested with it on.
With it switched off,Ryzen seems far better!!
http://i.imgur.com/f0NARje.jpg
Since only few games scale well to 8 threads,the 6C models even with SMT off will be competent.
Yea pretty much as I expected it, 6900k performance for half the price
To be honest, I don't even understand the benchmarks. They're all over the place. I realise that's down to differences in single-core, multi-core and threaded operations, but still - I don't know what it means to me and my needs. I think we're at a point where if you're spending a decent chunk of money, you can't easily go wrong. It's like Schroedinger's CPU; I just bought a 7700k which is both better and worse than the best Ryzens, and I can't know unless I put them side by side. It's unlikely that my software's going to run out of resources and make me wish I'd bought the other chip.
It's surpassed them, they nailed it with the multi-threaded performance. A little disappointed with the gaming performance and single threaded performance in general could be a bit better, and I hope that microcode updates and lesser core chips will be able to fix that. If not, I've no problem waiting for Ryzen 2.
The AMD Ryzen performed better than I expected. I'm quite happy about that. As I'm not a gamer, gaming performance matters not, but I was disappointed in that area and sincerely hope time, tweaking, BIOS updates etc. will improve that area.
I was also a little disappointed with less-than-great overclocking. A forgiving comment about how Intel's I7 6800K and I7 6950X are less-than great at overclocking, too. That sounds like they are desperately grasping at straws. I was able to achieve OCs of 4.3 - 4.5 on both CPUs I mentioned. Granted, both chips seem to be "golden". I think time, etc. will help with overclocking as it will for gaming. At least I hope so.
Bottom line for me is I really want AMD's Ryzen's to be very successful. Smash hits. Awesome. You get the idea. At one time I was an AMD fan. The main reason I desperately want AMD's newest CPUs to succeed is competition. All of us pay some sort of "premium" to Intel simply because they are the only serious game in town. OK, fine. It irks me that they, understandably act like it in pricing and not busting their butts to make a CPU truly worth upgrading to. AMD has, IMO, done just that and I'd love to see them rewarded in the marketplace.
for me if multithreading is as good as the benchmarks suggest then in the area that counts for me they have hit expectations... equal but cheaper than intel on the 8/16 core chips.
The single threaded side of things could still do with a little work but it could be down to drivers and amd focused code not being as well optimised as intels code in the software that's been tested. Intel customised code is likely pretty stable due to there being very little change to the architecture for the last 3-4 generations where amd is pretty new and might need some code changes to get full performance.
Only time will tell on this one though but considering the way software is starting to use more cores more readily then from a value perspective(assuming the 4/8 follow same sorts of performance) amd should be considered as a good alternative to intel again imo.
Sometimes the savings on the cpu can be put towards something else that would give you more gain than a small increase in performance, a perfect example is the 1700x/1800x where the price gap between that and the intel 8/16 core equivalent is enough to get you 1080 or even a 1080ti gpu....
More than exceeded them. I can't wait to see how the 6 core chips stack up.
Little disappointed with gaming performance, but overall I'm very impressed with AMD on this one. They have developed a competitive and compelling chip after years of struggling. Hopefully they will manage to iron out some of the kinks that are holding it back in gaming workloads via BIOS and software, but as soon as they do I reckon I will be jumping on board.
Refreshing to see AMD back at the game. I'm still on their (IMO) last competitive CPUs, the Phenom II (switching to a second-hand i5 4670, though), and it served me very well. Things are getting good for consumers right now.