Bunch of synthetic garbage. I've seen actual game benchmarks between "slow" RAM and at least 3600 MHz RAM and Ryzen pretty much entirely closed the gap with 7700k apart from few games like Fallout 4 which run "bad" on almost anything anyway.

If TweakTown is involved its sketchy.

Posted this in the wrong thread, I'll just copy it here as well...

It's hilarious how everyone is bashing Vega for limited launch supplies. Should I remind everyone how unobtainable GTX 1080 was on launch? Or has everyone already forgotten about that one?

RejZoRPosted this in the wrong thread, I'll just copy it here as well...

It's hilarious how everyone is bashing Vega for limited launch supplies. Should I remind everyone how unobtainable GTX 1080 was on launch? Or has everyone already forgotten about that one?

ofcourse they have, only AMD haters are posting here.

Have those folks bashing Ryzen gaming not been paying attention? In many cases the minimums with Ryzen are much better than the competition.

Most people are running 60Hz monitors so the mins are much more important if the average is around or better than 60, that means the real world gameplay on ryzen is often smoother.

It's also curious that everyone compares against a 5(+) GHz OCed 7700k which not everyone will a) have and b) be able to reach, then there is the cooling of the 7700k to consider.

Stock to stock likely tells a different story and of course having all that extra raw performance (see productivity scores) means more headroom for the future.

People these days are terrible for throwing around words like "bad", "sucks" etc. for marginal differences and don't get me started on people talking about raw fps differences instead of percentages and averages versus spikes. ;)

Maybe metrics for 1% and .1% maximums would be useful, as it's not always easy to see that in graphs.

RejZoRPosted this in the wrong thread, I'll just copy it here as well...

It's hilarious how everyone is bashing Vega for limited launch supplies. Should I remind everyone how unobtainable GTX 1080 was on launch? Or has everyone already forgotten about that one?

I think it depends on price/perf target of the card.
If it is in 1080Ti area, then having only 16k cards isn't that bad, as market is much smaller than one would think, compare this:

www.mindfactory.de/Hardware/Grafikkarten+(VGA)/GeForce+GTX+fuer+Gaming/GTX+1080+Ti.html

to this (not really cheap card):

www.mindfactory.de/Hardware/Grafikkarten+(VGA)/GeForce+GTX+fuer+Gaming/GTX+1080.html

it's like 40 to 1.

nemesis.ieHave those folks bashing Ryzen gaming not been paying attention? In many cases the minimums with Ryzen are much better than the competition.

Most people are running 60Hz monitors so the mins are much more important if the average is around or better than 60, that means the real world gameplay on ryzen is often smoother.

It's also curious that everyone compares against a 5(+) GHz OCed 7700k which not everyone will a) have and b) be able to reach, then there is the cooling of the 7700k to consider.

Stock to stock likely tells a different story and of course having all that extra raw performance (see productivity scores) means more headroom for the future.

People these days are terrible for throwing around words like "bad", "sucks" etc. for marginal differences and don't get me started on people talking about raw fps differences instead of percentages and averages versus spikes. ;)

Maybe metrics for 1% and .1% maximums would be useful, as it's not always easy to see that in graphs.

Not to mention Ryzen is a new architecture. It takes time till games and other stuff get optimized. :) 7700k is almost at its limit in some games. It's a matter of time till it becomes a bottleneck.

i wish the cards come out already, so the speculation in the comments is cut.

nemesis.ieHave those folks bashing Ryzen gaming not been paying attention? In many cases the minimums with Ryzen are much better than the competition.

Most people are running 60Hz monitors so the mins are much more important if the average is around or better than 60, that means the real world gameplay on ryzen is often smoother.

It's also curious that everyone compares against a 5(+) GHz OCed 7700k which not everyone will a) have and b) be able to reach, then there is the cooling of the 7700k to consider.

Stock to stock likely tells a different story and of course having all that extra raw performance (see productivity scores) means more headroom for the future.

People these days are terrible for throwing around words like "bad", "sucks" etc. for marginal differences and don't get me started on people talking about raw fps differences instead of percentages and averages versus spikes. ;)

Maybe metrics for 1% and .1% maximums would be useful, as it's not always easy to see that in graphs.

The differences are not marginal for gamers (like me) that already use 240hz monitors and want 200 to 240 constant fps on their multiplayer games. We may be a minority, but we do exist, and Intel is simply way better for that right now. And anyone can get 4,7/4,8ghz with a 30 bucks cooler. No need for super hot and expensive (cooling) 5ghz. And 4000mhz DD4 also works flawless on Z270. Trust me, at 4,8ghz + 4000mhz DDR4 you get more than 30% improvement in framerates compared to Ryzen in many games. If you don´t care about a big amount of FPS, that´s ok. Ryzen is a good chip anyway, but please don´t say the differences "are marginal" compared to 7700k on gaming. They aren´t.

We, competitive gamers, don´t look at number of cores or threads. We look at our fps in the upper corner of the screen. If a 1 core CPU delivers the fps we want, that´s what we use. Anything else is irrelevant to us.

So, a whole industry should cater to 1% of users. That makes sense... I'm on 144Hz (when majority are still on 60Hz) so there's that.

I didn´t say industry should cater to us. I said Intel is a better option for us. If AMD increase their maximum clocks, we buy AMD, simple. If they don´t, that´s ok, we won´t influence their success as we are a minority.

I just can´t accept when someone say the differences in gaming between Ryzen and 7700k are marginal. Because they aren´t. E-sports is growing tho, so let´s see how much more time we gonna be a minority..

Oh no, not the refresh rate maturbation placebo again...

huguberharti wish the cards come out already, so the speculation in the comments is cut.

There will at least be 10 more threads like this before the card comes out, I'm afraid.

Damn!! Was just planning to order 20.000 of these on the first day... Bummer:banghead::banghead:

Manu_PTThe differences are not marginal for gamers (like me) that already use 240hz monitors and want 200 to 240 constant fps on their multiplayer games. We may be a minority, but we do exist, and Intel is simply way better for that right now. And anyone can get 4,7/4,8ghz with a 30 bucks cooler. No need for super hot and expensive (cooling) 5ghz. And 4000mhz DD4 also works flawless on Z270. Trust me, at 4,8ghz + 4000mhz DDR4 you get more than 30% improvement in framerates compared to Ryzen in many games. If you don´t care about a big amount of FPS, that´s ok. Ryzen is a good chip anyway, but please don´t say the differences "are marginal" compared to 7700k on gaming. They aren´t.

We, competitive gamers, don´t look at number of cores or threads. We look at our fps in the upper corner of the screen. If a 1 core CPU delivers the fps we want, that´s what we use. Anything else is irrelevant to us.

You should look a bit into the future. newer games are scaling better on Ryzen than Intel. Don't tell me GTAV is a good indicator. This game is actually old. 7700k has already reached it's limits. With cards going out like 1080 Ti , Titan maybe Vega will join this squad 7700k will be a bottleneck. Unless you push it to 6Ghz then you are golden.

ratirtYou should look a bit into the future. newer games are scaling better on Ryzen than Intel. Don't tell me GTAV is a good indicator. This game is actually old. 7700k has already reached it's limits. With cards going out like 1080 Ti , Titan maybe Vega will join this squad 7700k will be a bottleneck. Unless you push it to 6Ghz then you are golden.

Are them? Because Quake Champions Beta runs better on a 7700k at 4.8ghz than on a 1700 at 3,9ghz. Steady 250fps. Same with Overwatch, CS GO (350 fps in this one), Battlegrounds (130fps on 7700k) and H1Z1.

That talk about "games scaling better on Ryzen with time" is similar to the talk we heard when FX8xxx Bulldozer launched. BS is what I call. Threads are important, but so are IPC/Clocks and is way easier to code for it than to code for multi thread utilization in a 3d environment/engine.

OctopussOh no, not the refresh rate maturbation placebo again...

Usually the guys that spam multiplayer games side chat with: "reported; banned in 2 days; nice wallhack; nice aimbot; report him; stupid hacker; etc" are the ones like you, that think we suffer from placebo about high refresh rates and 5ms differences in input lag. Go figure. Cya on the battle, with my placebo kit PMW3366 perfect mouse sensor, my 0,7ms oscilocope measured monitor input lag, my 4ms 240hz @ 240 fps frame time and my Gaming NIC. Good luck.

(perhaps you are the typical Witcher 3/Skyrim Ultra GFX Ultra Resolution Eye Candy gamer, so don´t talk about something you don´t know)

"Human eye can´t see past 30fps" - 1995

Manu_PTAre them? Because Quake Champions Beta runs better on a 7700k at 4.8ghz than on a 1700 at 3,9ghz. Steady 250fps. Same with Overwatch, CS GO (350 fps in this one), Battlegrounds (130fps on 7700k) and H1Z1.

That talk about "games scaling better on Ryzen with time" is similar to the talk we heard when FX8xxx Bulldozer launched. BS is what I call. Threads are important, but so are IPC/Clocks and is way easier to code for it than to code for multi thread utilization in a 3d environment/engine.

Aha you are right. One more question do you know maybe :) when those games were developed and which CPU was an indicator? I'm sure you already know that. Well if I'm wrong you can make fun and curse your ass off but for now just lets see what's going to happen with new games that are about to come out :) I can bet that at the end of this year 7700 might become a bottleneck.
Honestly, I don't care about bulldozer cause that's in the past :) Open your eyes there's a lot of new things around :) and more are to come.

EDIT:
You can watch this there's some games and difference between 7700k and 1700 with 1080 Ti GPU

You guys are crazy.

ratirtAha you are right. One more question do you know maybe :) when those games were developed and which CPU was an indicator? I'm sure you already know that. Well if I'm wrong you can make fun and curse your ass off but for now just lets see what's going to happen with new games that are about to come out :) I can bet that at the end of this year 7700 might become a bottleneck.
Honestly, I don't care about bulldozer cause that's in the past :) Open your eyes there's a lot of new things around :) and more are to come.

When a 7700k at 4,8ghz is a bottlebeck, you are already switching from your 3,9ghz Ryzen to another CPU, aswell. I don´t buy hardware to play games in 3 years. I buy it to play games now.

Manu_PTWhen a 7700k at 4,8ghz is a bottlebeck, you are already switching from your 3,9ghz Ryzen to another CPU, aswell. I don´t buy hardware to play games in 3 years. I buy it to play games now.

Great. That's your call to switch CPU every year or I don't know what's the frequency of the change for you. Honestly don't care. What I do care about is when I spend my money on a CPU i'd rather be sure it will live up for all the challenges that I will submit it for at least for 3 years. Well that's just me.

G33k2Fr34kAMD should sell their graphics division to Intel and their CPU division to Nvidia so that we can have some competition in both the CPU and GPU markets.

:roll::roll::roll::laugh:
Laugh at the stupidity of that
Why would Nvidia Buy the CPU division of AMD
Apart from the TOTAL WASTE OF MONEY because
AMD CPU Division has its Value in its X86 License and cross licensing its x64 patents to Intel
If AMD gets Sold its Cross licencing Agreement with Intel ENDs no more X86 Licence
END OF YOUR JOKE

RejZoRBunch of synthetic garbage. I've seen actual game benchmarks between "slow" RAM and at least 3600 MHz RAM and Ryzen pretty much entirely closed the gap with 7700k apart from few games like Fallout 4 which run "bad" on almost anything anyway.

The problem with that argument is that Ryzen motherboards still needs single-rank memory with Samsung B-die to come anywhere close to that frequency. Good luck getting that info out to the masses.

I have a 1700 with some G-Skill memory and none of the motherboards I have tried can run memory over 3200Mhz (and only one did actually do 3200Mhz...).

The famous League of Legends streamer Schyax had a Ryzen 1800x system (because is perfect for streamers) and had massive problems with ram and unstability, from random restarts to low fps in games while streaming; until she sent it back and got a more expensive Intel system again.

Manu_PTUsually the guys that spam multiplayer games side chat with: "reported; banned in 2 days; nice wallhack; nice aimbot; report him; stupid hacker; etc" are the ones like you, that think we suffer from placebo about high refresh rates and 5ms differences in input lag. Go figure. Cya on the battle, with my placebo kit PMW3366 perfect mouse sensor, my 0,7ms oscilocope measured monitor input lag, my 4ms 240hz @ 240 fps frame time and my Gaming NIC. Good luck.

Do you have a girlfriend or a job?

What the hell is going on in this thread...