AMD Ryzen 1700X CPU Review @ [H]

ManofGod said:
Only in your mind, for what I can see. I have read nothing so far that would lead me to believe that anyone thinks that.
Click to expand...

There has been plenty of people blaming reviewers for "only using games that make Intel look good" and not enough ARMA's or BF1's.

I'm perfectly fine with the games tested so far, I just don't think people should spend too much concentrating on that one metric. If its a big deal wait, if you can't wait well then the 7700k is still available.
 
Ieldra said:
I'm gonna say this because it's worth saying once per new release, IPC is instructions per clock, this is a *fixed* upper limit determined by the number of execution ports in each core (and capabilities like dual issue etc)

When you guys talk about IPC you're talking about effective single thread performance, which takes into account the static IPC + efficiency running the code (control logic, cache and memory subsystem performance etc)

As for the potential scheduling fix, it seems to me that if this were the issue you'd have inconsistent frametimes in the gaming benchmarks, and not generally low performance as we have seen, unless the windows scheduler is making a special effort to always dispatch threads in such a way to hit the interconnect bus hard, all the time.

Didn't Lisa Su blame game developers in her AMD?

So just to recap...

The boards are broken, that's why performance is low

Windows scheduler is broken, that's why performance is low

Windows power management is broken, that's why performance is low

All the games are broken, that's why performance is low

Have I missed one? Which is it?
Click to expand...

Ah, I see the good old AMD hate train is running full steam ahead. I would be surprised if it where anything other than that around here at [H]. :rolleyes: First release of a product that is not even running at full ram speeds, possible issues on the bios implementations, lower than 7700k clock speeds, possible bugs and did I say it is a first release product? Strange though, I have a 1700X on a Asus Prime X370 Pro, not yet overclocked and ram running at 2133 speeds. (4 x 8GB so the bios fix still needs to be released to run it at full xmp speeds with 4 sticks at once.)

Even then, my system is faster, considerably so, than the 4.5GHz FX 8300 with 2 x 8GB DDR3 1866 ram that I was running before. Thank you for confirming my faith in the [H], it would not be the same around here otherwise. :D
 
Screenshot_2017-03-03-13-41-44-622_com.android.chrome.png
I found an ad for hardocp at the end of the review page.
 
It's bad how much the CPU market has stagnated with performance. I have two x79/3930k rigs overclocked to 4.6Ghz+ that still yield exceptional performance that can be purchased for around $350 total used (cpu/mb/ram). I can live with only two usb 3.0 ports or just buy a hub.

AMD will live and die by how Ryzen for the datacenter does, which given it's performance with these desktop metrics, will come down to power usage as it has the necessary performance. It seems hopeful that it will be adopted in the datacenter as that's where the real money is made anyway. Not with people running 1080p games. Here is to hoping Ryzen and beyond can allow AMD to recapture corporate market share.
 
Last edited:
86 5.0L said:
Round 2!
Click to expand...

Ahhhh, the [H] fanboy wars, would not be the same around here without them. :D Cool thing is, despite your rather uninspired comment, I have an 1700X running, without overclock, and it is running very, very fast. :)
 
It's bad how much the CPU market has stagnated with performance.
Click to expand...

Silicon has hit a wall since 32nm. Frequency can no longer be increased and all the low hanging fruit for increasing IPC has been already addressed. Some would add that AMD has been AWOL for a decade. Also the market has shifted away from desktops to low powered mobile devices. Many of which don't need a x86 based processor..
 
Trimlock said:
There has been plenty of people blaming reviewers for "only using games that make Intel look good" and not enough ARMA's or BF1's.

I'm perfectly fine with the games tested so far, I just don't think people should spend too much concentrating on that one metric. If its a big deal wait, if you can't wait well then the 7700k is still available.
Click to expand...

You could be right after all, I have not bothered reading through all 21 pages of stuff in this thread, no point though, for me.
 
drescherjm said:
Silicon has hit a wall since 32nm. Frequency can no longer be increased and all the low hanging fruit for increasing IPC has been already addressed. Some would add that AMD has been AWOL for a decade. Also the market has shifted away from desktops to low powered mobile devices. Many of which don't need a x86 based processor..
Click to expand...

True but GPUs are current and future as VR will rely on that rather than CPU architecture. Business applications haven't really required faster CPUs in the past 5 years as you can stick tons of VMs on a single multicore server and not be CPU bound. I understand desktop Ryzen got released but I don't understand the importance of 480p/1080p gaming benchmarks to show raw CPU performance in games when anyone gaming at these resolutions should probably just buy a console. I know if i was gaming at these resolutions I would just stick to a console.
 
Trimlock said:
There has been plenty of people blaming reviewers for "only using games that make Intel look good" and not enough ARMA's or BF1's.

I'm perfectly fine with the games tested so far, I just don't think people should spend too much concentrating on that one metric. If its a big deal wait, if you can't wait well then the 7700k is still available.
Click to expand...

Has anybody seen any ARMA benchies?
 
Joker Productions review tends to show the kind of ecosystem where Ryzen is better optimized, so it is not a complete disappointment but more a first evolution step. having played around on a 1700X it didn't seem all that bad, and compared to a FX and Thuban it was responsive and tendend to stick in good gaming terriotory without being great. I do feel where AMD made a massive improvement is frame rate latency, to me I will take 60FPS but as a price 1 or below ms latency over say 140FPS but 15-20ms latency.

I still stick with my feeling on this. It will teeth in over time, it is a good CPU and will get you the performance you need. Is it great probably not quite that level but I would say it has potential to get there, right now it is a very good product. If you are into heavy core stacking loads then its a boss in that area, if you game and do stuff in the background it is fantastic, doing my music on it was incredibly fast. Gaming I feel it is Intel E platform stock clocks level gaming though the advantage Intel have on their 14nm HP transistors is so great because right now AMD cannot go high clocks. Clock for clock they can but the issue is nobody will run a 7700K at 3.6Ghz and nobody can run a 1700X at 4.5Ghz so essentially Ryzen is tough to place.

For me the only Ryzen SKU's that make sense for generic users are the 1500X, 1600X and 1700 that is where most of the value segment is.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
For me the only Ryzen SKU's that make sense for generic users are the 1500X, 1600X and 1700 that is where most of the value segment is.
Click to expand...

I think is where AMD screwed up. Those SKUs are going to be solid for most users, but AMD billed this an the end all be all of CPUs for enthusiasts and it just isn't. Been rocking my phenom ii at 4.0 for a long time here and was really wanting to be my upgrade. I only game so it's looking very much like 7700k here.
 
Randall Stephens said:
I think is where AMD screwed up. Those SKUs are going to be solid for most users, but AMD billed this an the end all be all of CPUs for enthusiasts and it just isn't. Been rocking my phenom ii at 4.0 for a long time here and was really wanting to be my upgrade. I only game so it's looking very much like 7700k here.
Click to expand...

That is probably the better way to go if you are just gaming.

On the Enthusiast thing, and I can't believe I am saying this but I agree with JayzNonsense, it was never outrighted as a gamer rig, it was more a rounded workhorse that you could strike a balance between gaming or workloads without sacrificing like X99 vs 1151/1150, the way AMD marketed this is it is a bit of both in one and the performance is incredible in pure synthetics showing that there is genuine performance. Right now I think AMD has left soem latent performance in the setup and hopefully it gets ironed out a little over time. If you go 7700K you probably going to be happy, if you go 1700 I think you will be happy though it is more preferance here.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
Right now I think AMD has left soem latent performance in the setup and hopefully it gets ironed out a little over time.
Click to expand...

I view Ryzen as AMD's first TOCK in a long time. ZEN+ should be a pretty big TICK and should help clean up a lot of the low hanging fruit and some middle fruit as well. I do think AMD messed up by not bringing forward the laptop market first. These things should be very formidable chips as APUs in notebooks as their idle power consumption looks to be very promising in desktop form. AMD needs both market share and margins to remain viable long term. Low cost notebooks do wonders for market share but not margins, but if you want people to optimize for your architecture, you have to have enough CPUs out there to make it worth their effort. My .02
 
razor1 said:
well the returns are diminishing after 4 cores for most games yeah the 6900 can beat the 7700k in many games but relative to the core counts it should be spanking any 4 core chip lol.

So the excuse of games not using all 8 cores is BS.
Click to expand...
And this is what I think has some people sort of scratching their heads. Not sure I've seen an explanation for it. Because if an 8c 6900 can beat a 7700K in x or y game. Then why wouldn't the 1800X also be right up there with it. Consider that most of the heavily multithreaded workstation style apps have shown it to do very well against the 6900K. Therefore why would a game that also takes advantage of multitheading to a high degree fall on it's face with the 1800X?

It is like it has some sort of achilles heal in that particular application for reasons that don't seem real clear. And then the speculation comes in..
 
Riptide_NVN said:
And this is what I think has some people sort of scratching their heads. Not sure I've seen an explanation for it. Because if an 8c 6900 can beat a 7700K in x or y game. Then why wouldn't the 1800X also be right up there with it. Consider that most of the heavily multithreaded workstation style apps have shown it to do very well against the 6900K. Therefore why would a game that also takes advantage of multitheading to a high degree fall on it's face with the 1800X?

It is like it has some sort of achilles heal in that particular application for reasons that don't seem real clear. And then the speculation comes in..
Click to expand...


Games are a bit different, 3d renderers and proffessional software don't have to worry about the GPU when doing CPU rendering or other tasks the apps are doing. The GPU will tell the CPU what is priority for it and set a certain logistical preference of what it needs from the CPU, this is what is causing Rzyen some of its problems, the problems that are going to be hard to fix. The other problem is the lower IPC, speaking theoretically here because its going to change based on the game, lets say a critical path is need to render out a scene, the GPU again will tell the CPU what it needs and when (not just for the game but for the OS and all that other stuff in the background), the CPU is trying to do things that would be best for it but when the GPU says it needs something at a certain time, its going to possible stop what its doing and do the important part first and then proceed in doing the other tasks. If a CCX that is doing certain work needs to be flushed out to do the priority task. Well that flush out time, you end loosing processing power, with the latency issue with L3 cache, memory anomalies, see how all this can compound into a lower than sandy bridge performance?
 
Presbytier said:
And as GPU bottlenecks disappear it won't be so hot at higher resolutions either.
Click to expand...

Main point is it's not in every game. It seems like it underperforms in little older games. You can't guarantee that neither can I. Only time will.
 
NKD said:
Main point is it's not in every game. It seems like it underperforms in little older games. You can't guarantee that neither can I. Only time will.
Click to expand...
I can go by paterns and I'd say I'm likely to be right on this. Now as far as future revisions of this chip that I do not know.
 
Do we know where the Ryzen chips (1700, 1700x, 1800x) are being manufactured? I believe it was supposed to be GloFo and Samsung, but it looks like most, if not all, the current retail chips are GloFo.

Do we think Samsung chips will clock higher?
 
CAD4466HK said:
YAAB

View attachment 18411
Click to expand...

Wow, does ARMA really run that slowly even on Intel hardware?

I don't speak the language, but I sure recognize Finnish when I see it.

"uurempi tulos parempi" apparently means "Higher Scores better"

"keskimääräinen ruudunpäivitysnopeus" means "The average Framerate"

That seems pretty awful. How can people even play this game at all, if that's the best you get with current hardware?
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Wow, does ARMA really run that slowly even on Intel hardware?

I don't speak the language, but I sure recognize Finnish when I see it.

"uurempi tulos parempi" apparently means "Higher Scores better"

"keskimääräinen ruudunpäivitysnopeus" means "The average Framerate"

That seems pretty awful. How can people even play this game at all, if that's the best you get with current hardware?
Click to expand...
ARMA is a resource hog. Very huge environments at a real high detail with physics and realistic weapon reactions.
 
Arms is also pretty unique in it's genre, but its engine is generally considered by most gamers to be unoptimized trash. But it's gameplay is one of a kind so people cope and accept it.
 
SighTurtle said:
Arms is also pretty unique in it's genre, but its engine is generally considered by most gamers to be unoptimized trash. But it's gameplay is one of a kind so people cope and accept it.
Click to expand...

I generally like more realistic games, so I tried getting into Arma II, and I just couldn't do it. I felt like they took realism to the point where it was over-complicated and no longer fun. I found Red Orchestra (or Red Orchestra 2 in classic mode, or at least Realism mode) to be a much better balance between realism and fun, at least for me.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Wow, does ARMA really run that slowly even on Intel hardware?

I don't speak the language, but I sure recognize Finnish when I see it.

"uurempi tulos parempi" apparently means "Higher Scores better"

"keskimääräinen ruudunpäivitysnopeus" means "The average Framerate"

That seems pretty awful. How can people even play this game at all, if that's the best you get with current hardware?
Click to expand...


If you turn off grass it actually does okay on my Phenom2 975 and 6950 2Gb, though I mostly play escape mode tanoa with the server handling the AI.
 
someone please review sli or crossfire with ryzen @1440p @2160p for the love of god. waiting for the first review that actually shows a: multi-gpu works on x370 as it should b: cpu scaling at higher resolutions. who cares about real world 1080p gameplay on a PC? People that game @ 1080p shouldn't be buying new computers anyway and if so it should have ps4 or xbox written on it.

i consider it failing the general public not having a review such as this available when you can buy these products now. what gives???????

sorry we are only going to review games @ 1080p with single video cards setup. informing real enthusiasts would be nice. running benchmarks @ 480p-1080p and making us assume/guess higher resolution gaming might fall behind intel makes no sense to me.

ryzen+multi gpu 1070/1080 gtx @ 4k lets do it. that is the only setup I would buy how does it perform?! if there is an issue with sli and crossfire on these boards INFORM the public. it seems like one of us will have to buy ryzen retail and run our own benchmarks to get actual enthusiast performance numbers.

i could honestly give 2 craps about 1080p if sli or crossfire performance @1440p @2160p aren't cpu limited. i am surely not playing a game at 480p. reading reviews here for a long time the focus has always been on ACTUAL GAMEPLAY performance...not gaming benchmarks that more or less translate to theoretical cpu bound limitations at higher resolutions.

every review that is stating ryzen has limited gaming capability when they are benching at 1080p or lower is in my opinion doing the enthusiast community a disservice. get a real setup and benchmark it.

lots of reviews are missing the big picture. ryzen seems to be by performance a very good workstation chip that no reviewer has yet shown enthusiast gaming benchmarks with? anyone see a sli or crossfire review yet? waiting...
 
Last edited:
mikemodano9c said:
someone please review sli or crossfire with ryzen @1440p @2160p for the love of god. waiting for the first review that actually shows a: multi-gpu works on x370 as it should b: cpu scaling at higher resolutions. who cares about real world 1080p gameplay on a PC? People that game @ 1080p shouldn't be buying new computers anyway and if so it should have ps4 or xbox written on it.
Click to expand...

LOL, little harsh? I game at 1920x1200, but only because I am waiting for the next gen monitors to come out. Everything I've seen on the market is almost there, but misses a few things. I'm just waiting until the better monitors hit the market, or prices drop slightly over the summer.

Ryzen will be my platform to ascend.
 
Romeomium said:
So if SMT off does not impact the gaming benchmarks tested here, it must be specific to certain games only. That means we should probably not expect a noticeable improvement until Zen+.

Oh well, Ryzen is still enough of a workhorse for my needs!
Click to expand...

Yep, for the specific titles tested here though, if we exclude the AoTS benchmark (because I don't trust that benchmark at all) the slowest test resulted in 171fps, and most were in the 300's, so it may not be terribly relevant at all. The CPU is going to be fast enough to not bottleneck your GPU at any resolution you are likely to play at, if you sync to your screen.

It would probably be a more interesting test on games that are more CPU dependent.
 
Not sure if this has been posted as this thread is quite long, but AMD themselves think they should be, give or take, 20% off of Kaby Lake 7700 at 1080p
 
lolfail9001 said:
If we are honest, then GPU bottleneck is basically removed from resolutions modern to 7800 days on high end GPUs.
Click to expand...

Only under very specific circumstances. Even so, anytime you add more CPU performance or more GPU performance you get MORE performance. Arguments about GPU limitations right now are merely speculative. With VR and 4K monitors becoming more common I don't see GPU limitations being eliminated anytime soon. That is to say I don't think it makes much difference if you use Ryzen or Intel in a gaming build today or over the next couple of years. If you keep your systems for even longer than you are in a different position in which case trying to predict the future is more necessary but it's always a crap shoot to some extent.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
It would probably be a more interesting test on games that are more CPU dependent.
Click to expand...

I'm sure we will have a more complete picture in a couple weeks time. The big change in FPS i noticed from the posted (outside reviewed) graphs wasn't in average FPS, but in minimum FPS. 30+FPS increase with SMT off will make for a dramatically smoother gameplay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top