Read more.Quote:
Here are the benchmarks you've been waiting for.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Here are the benchmarks you've been waiting for.
For professional users who need all those cores and threads for rendering and such like these look like bargains.
..for everyone else, especially gamers, quite disappointing from an overclocking and single core performance perspective.
Maybe after a couple of hardware iterations and refinements, allowing for higher overclocks I'd consider going with Ryzen...but not yet.
Now I just have to hope enough people buy them to force Intel into dropping the price of the 7700K a bit more.
But as a forward looking pc build I'd guess it would be a great chip
It looks like Intel still have the lead when it comes to gaming, though it's likely more to do with game optimisation etc more than anything at the this point. What would be interesting is to see what the numbers look like in a few months time, with new bios revisions and new game patches.
Great review as always. Would like to have seen a bigger focus on temps and a comparison chart between it and Intel CPUs to give a better understanding of how hot they run.
Not bad at all, cant see a reason now unless you need 10 cores to go with Intels HEDT.
Only dissapointment for me is in the overclocking but its a new process node so not surprising I guess.
AMD are back :)
It's good to see some competition in the processor market, however for those looking to build mainly for gaming purposes, Intel's offerings are hard to beat (at least until the Zen 5 series is out?).
If you need bleeding edge yea, 8 cores for future proofing might appeal to people more though
Seems to point towards Intel still being king of the hill for gaming. Surely the market for gamers is far greater than that for Streamers, Video Editors, Photo Editors, etc.?
I must be missing something but I've never needed more slower cores that I'd rarely use, and nothing seems to have changed here.
Another rushed AMD launch - if you check the reviews thread even in the same games performance from one website to another can be different. They have rushed the CPUs out,with motherboard BIOSes being in a ropey state,obvious optimisation issues,SMT issues in games,etc.
AMD has still not broken away from its "lets rush this out now" and "things will improve in a few months once the software catches up" sort of thing. This is why Intel and Nvidia do so well - AMD has this illness of not launching products which are polished and it really drags them down as a company.
The problem is first impressions count and this a mixed bag. I really worry for Vega now.
One thing I was left asking myself after reading the review was did it live up to the hype and honestly I think it missed in a few areas.
- At least 10 Watts higher at idle than any of the Intel chips tested
- The PiFast result for single thread was down on what I was hoping for
- Warhammer showed better fps with SMT off (as we saw with AMD's CMT, getting anyone to support a particular uarch is not always easy so we can't just assume there will be a game patch to fix it)
- Memory latency was horrible (hopefully something that new BIOS versions can fix and I fully understand its early doors on that)
Obviously the performance for price is the BIG winner here (for most situations).
Hexus, any chance of a kinda bang-4-buck table with the Intel chips? :P
For me personally, I can make use of all the cores, zen is a no brainer over intel unless I'm specifically needing a build that can take 128GB of ram (it's possible but likely pretty rare for me).
However I think I'll wait a while before grabbing one as there seems a few optimisations that need to take place for it to really shine, might even need to wait until the next revision is released etc, as to be honest I'm not really struggling with what I have at the moment.
That seems worthy of an article in its own right.Quote:
However, and somewhat interesting to note, switching off the chip's SMT capability increased the average frame rate from 79fps to 85.8fps, suggesting that code is not running efficiently when there's SMT involved.
If true, I can imagine gamers turning the CMT off until there is a scheduler patch for Windows. You still get as many threads as an i7, making life easy for Windows might make things faster.
This. +1Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanoe
From Hardware.fr:Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
http://i.imgur.com/UFaWvLe.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/UFaWvLe.jpg
How could AMD not spot this in internal testing??
Maybe they did and there is nothing they can do? Might be a Windows thing that needs patching / optimising for there chips?