Ryzen benchmarking and overclocking results

[RejZoR]

X79 and X99 are only obsolete if they don't do what you need them to. Don't let Intel or AMD tell you your shit is obsolete. Don't fall for marketing.

It's why I got X99 despite being basically at the end of its life. Same for 5820k. And I even got a golden egg with decent overclock at stupendously low voltage. If Intel will go price crazy with X299, I'll go with AMD for sure. In fact I'm almost certain my next CPU will be AMD. Even if they are slightly worse, they are a viable option now. With Bulldozer, even though I wanted AMD, I just couldn't bring myself buying a sub par CPU. But Ryzen is none of that and if they continue optimizing it well in the future, they'll be doing just fine. I also hope AM4 will live as long as AM3+ has.

 

[Kanan]

Great build and pictures, the Ram OC is pretty impressive too.

 

[erek]

except z270 and x299 are intel chipsets, so its Intel that is telling you it's obsolete with their 15% increased performance and $1000 pricetags.

Granted, AMD will definitely try to tell you that too, so your point still stands

$1723 MSRP for the 6950X, I was glad I went with the Xeon E5 2699 V3 in comparison... it's crazy how much they're charging for that 10-core over the 8-core

 

[cdawall]

Great build and pictures, the Ram OC is pretty impressive too.

I need to post screen shots I think I have 3600 stable now.

 

[GhostRyder]

wait... Doesn't intel chips display the exact same behavior? In some titles HT hinders performance??

Off and on, its been a bigger issue in the past but it seems to be less of an issue as of late. Its been mostly ironed out but still gets missed from time to time. AMD's is so new that its the same issue that has yet to be resolved. I am more concerned with the gaming performance and software picking the correct paths for AMD's chips as that is what is holding them back currently.

I need to post screen shots I think I have 3600 stable now.

Sweet! I am anxious to see it!

 

[RejZoR]

I think everything around the AMD Ryzen issues has been overblown dramatically.

https://rejzor.wordpress.com/2017/03/06/amd-ryzen-post-release-thoughts-and-explanations/

Give it a bit of time. The thing was launched just few days ago. Expecting it to be problem free is impossible. Even Intel doesn't achieve that and their R&D is massive compared to AMD.

 

[phanbuey]

does the bus speed affect latency of cache at all?

 

[remixedcat]

Nice review... and that case is pretty awesome!

hey if anyone wants me to do VM testing you could either buy my savant remote or help me get a ryzen and mobo and ram for it I'd love to test my enterprise schtuff on ryzennnn

 

[v12dock]

Ran GTA5 benchmarks All cores, 2+2 and 4+0 got some interesting results

ALL CORES
Frames Per Second (Higher is better) Min, Max, Avg
Pass 0, 45.970432, 163.938004, 128.145523
Pass 1, 119.287354, 217.714020, 171.838318
Pass 2, 4.416420, 217.432983, 165.460861
Pass 3, 34.690639, 220.990250, 163.177444
Pass 4, 5.903241, 282.794739, 160.556732

2+2
Frames Per Second (Higher is better) Min, Max, Avg
Pass 0, 38.985962, 140.932526, 109.690742
Pass 1, 101.366936, 185.058746, 148.739960
Pass 2, 93.142738, 270.337982, 146.436722
Pass 3, 83.021751, 216.397858, 156.194061
Pass 4, 58.845306, 277.290649, 143.464874


4+0
Frames Per Second (Higher is better) Min, Max, Avg
Pass 0, 44.442108, 141.503571, 108.908012
Pass 1, 75.166573, 243.929611, 149.105789
Pass 2, 96.578712, 197.682999, 151.453903
Pass 3, 82.772179, 223.718079, 155.372513
Pass 4, 5.186824, 273.237274, 144.562714

Huge difference in min frames

 

[The Lighthouse]

Eurogamer's Digital Foundry is the top regarding the game performance... I hope they do the review too.

 

[Kanan]

I need to post screen shots I think I have 3600 stable now.

Great, does it make any (big) difference going higher in ram frequencies like with Skylake/Kaby?

A prominent game where disabling SMT helps is Farcry 4 (+25fps afair) , didn't see a big effect on others in reviews so far.

 

[EarthDog]

I think everything around the AMD Ryzen issues has been overblown dramatically.

https://rejzor.wordpress.com/2017/03/06/amd-ryzen-post-release-thoughts-and-explanations/

Give it a bit of time. The thing was launched just few days ago. Expecting it to be problem free is impossible. Even Intel doesn't achieve that and their R&D is massive compared to AMD.

I don't think anyone expected problem free... but this is crazy..

Boards dieing randomly with borked bios (crosshair), mkst immature set of boards/BIOS ive seen since x99 release (and it wasnt this bad), piss poor OS support resulting in poor gaming performance. Literally zero overclocking past xfr speeds with all cores.

AMD has price and performance over 8t...which few can use...that's it as far as I am concerned.

 

[RejZoR]

You're again exaggerating. Dramatically. Why are you blaming AMD for something out of their control (motherboards and OS)? Sure, some blame falls on them, but you can't exclusively blame just them, that would be just ridiculous. Zero overclocking an octa core. Have you seen 6900k overclocks? Sure, they overclock higher. But is that feasible for day to day usage? With thermal output and high voltages, most certainly not.

Not to mention everyone was more laid back because frankly, no one expected AMD to actually deliver such good CPU. Why wasting resources on something that would be a fail, right? But it turned out to be pretty damn good.

And again, blaming underutilization of cores on AMD, instead on game studios, not making scalable games because they are so used to work with 4 cores thanks to Intel's long domination...

 

[EarthDog]

Im not exaggerating in the least.

1. Why haven't they worked more closely with MS and AIBs to alleviate some of these issues with scheduling and board problems?
2. I have seen the 6900K overclocks. They aren't great overclockers either. However, compared with 1800X, the 6900K starts off 400 MHz behind, its single core boost ends at 3.7 GHz, and it will overclock ALL cores to at least 4Ghz on water.. typically 4.1-4.3. 1800X on the other hand, is unable to get past its own boost, period. It also starts 400 MHz faster and ends up slower. 4.1-4.3 GHz is sustainable on water with a 6900K. Again, it can at least clock past its own boost... Ryzen, not so much.
3. It is good, right now, for those that can use more than 8t. 8t has been around long enough that game devs should be able to use them. This isn't Intel's fault.
4. AMD is partially to blame. They had working silicon months ago. Why it wasn't moved to MS for testing to utilize its cores in a more timely manner, I don't know. My guess is that it was a rush to production. They realized that in order to really compete with Intel, they had to raise the clocks up to, pretty much, their limit leaving literally zero overclocking headroom past boost on all cores.

In time, its going to be worth a purchase... but right now, unless you use all its cores/threads (read more than 8) or just can't/don't want to afford the Intel system (which ironically is cheaper with a 7700K), there are better, more stable, and higher overclocking options out there.

EDIT: Think about cost too... 1700X is what, $390? 7700K is $350 ( both at amazon - cheaper at newegg...). Boards cost about the same, memory cost is the same (maybe cheaper as AMD can't support high speeds - not that it matters). Gaming performance lags behind (for now), IPC lags behind (and will on this arch). Overclocking is nearly non-existent on 1800x. Multithreaded performance is off the charts better. Intel is a more stable platform at this time.

This is the source of my opinion. So again, unless one needs more than 8t, is this really a deal? Is it really worth it...now?

 

[RejZoR]

Some people seem to have problems understanding what IPC means. Ryzen doesn't "lag" behind 7700k, you're just not measuring IPC at same clock speed. The point of IPC is that if you take two processors running at exact same clock, then you can measure IPC. If one is faster than another at same clock, that means the better one has higher IPC. If one is at 4GHz and another at 4.5GHz, you're comparing oranges to broccoli...

And I'd take Ryzen over 7700k anytime. I was skeptical at first, but after few days of thinking and re-evaluating everything, the single threaded difference due to lower clock and lack of optimizations is irrelevant compared to massive boost you get from twice as many extra cores. What this means is you're not gimped as much as you'll very soon benefit from it. Or you already can benefit if you're a gamer and you also need a crunching workstation in the same box.

 

[EarthDog]

Some people do have problems understanding what IPC means.. I'm not one of them however. Our review tested at the same clockspeeds and found IPC to be several percent behind (as did others)... but, thanks for the explanation on how it works.

If I needed more than 8t, Ryzen would be the answer regardless of its mutiple teething issues and complete lack of overclocking on the flagship part. But I, and frankly most people, don't. So why, at this time, would I go with a system that costs more/the same (if you drop to 1700) and performs worse under 8t? Hold out for OS optimizations? Gaming to 'get on board' (w/e that means... again 8t+ has been out for several years...) and use more threads? Its like the Fury all over again... AMD looking almost TOO FAR into the future leaving it standing at the starting line today.

Again, a viable chip, any way its sliced, but there are some glaring shortcomings and teething issues which would put this on a 'wait and see' list for me (at best... 7700K seems like just as good of a choice ) if I wasn't using more than 8t on my PC. Considering 7700K rig costs less than or as much as but doesn't have these issues. Consumers are faced with a heck of a choice.

 

[fullinfusion]

Im not exaggerating in the least.

1. Why haven't they worked more closely with MS and AIBs to alleviate some of these issues with scheduling and board problems?
2. I have seen the 6900K overclocks. They aren't great overclockers either. However, compared with 1800X, the 6900K starts off 400 MHz behind, its single core boost ends at 3.7 GHz, and it will overclock ALL cores to at least 4Ghz on water.. typically 4.1-4.3. 1800X on the other hand, is unable to get past its own boost, period. It also starts 400 MHz faster and ends up slower. 4.1-4.3 GHz is sustainable on water with a 6900K. Again, it can at least clock past its own boost... Ryzen, not so much.
3. It is good, right now, for those that can use more than 8t. 8t has been around long enough that game devs should be able to use them. This isn't Intel's fault.
4. AMD is partially to blame. They had working silicon months ago. Why it wasn't moved to MS for testing to utilize its cores in a more timely manner, I don't know. My guess is that it was a rush to production. They realized that in order to really compete with Intel, they had to raise the clocks up to, pretty much, their limit leaving literally zero overclocking headroom past boost on all cores.

In time, its going to be worth a purchase... but right now, unless you use all its cores/threads (read more than 8) or just can't/don't want to afford the Intel system (which ironically is cheaper with a 7700K), there are better, more stable, and higher overclocking options out there.

EDIT: Think about cost too... 1700X is what, $390? 7700K is $350 ( both at amazon - cheaper at newegg...). Boards cost about the same, memory cost is the same (maybe cheaper as AMD can't support high speeds - not that it matters). Gaming performance lags behind (for now), IPC lags behind (and will on this arch). Overclocking is nearly non-existent on 1800x. Multithreaded performance is off the charts better. Intel is a more stable platform at this time.

This is the source of my opinion. So again, unless one needs more than 8t, is this really a deal? Is it really worth it...now?

Well said and why I jumped off this bus a few days ago. We did expect issues but all they keep saying is time, we need time.. I'm sure glad when I bought my brand new car it didn't blow up because they needed time.. I'm outa here, these ryzen systems are just to much.. Wake me when they've sorted out all the bugs.

 

[cdawall]

Great, does it make any (big) difference going higher in ram frequencies like with Skylake/Kaby?

A prominent game where disabling SMT helps is Farcry 4 (+25fps afair) , didn't see a big effect on others in reviews so far.

Haven't tested it to be honest.

You're again exaggerating. Dramatically. Why are you blaming AMD for something out of their control (motherboards and OS)? Sure, some blame falls on them, but you can't exclusively blame just them, that would be just ridiculous. Zero overclocking an octa core. Have you seen 6900k overclocks? Sure, they overclock higher. But is that feasible for day to day usage? With thermal output and high voltages, most certainly not.

Not to mention everyone was more laid back because frankly, no one expected AMD to actually deliver such good CPU. Why wasting resources on something that would be a fail, right? But it turned out to be pretty damn good.

And again, blaming underutilization of cores on AMD, instead on game studios, not making scalable games because they are so used to work with 4 cores thanks to Intel's long domination...

Intel basically writes the bios for their stuff all the manufacturers do is add a skin, AMD? well they basically tell everyone figure it out. That is why Intel doesn't have issues and amd does.

As someone who has actually had these products (unlike you). They are an unfinished product. This shouldn't be on the market yet. No one is exaggerating when they say they aren't a smart buy for most of the market right now.

 

[RejZoR]

Of course Intel has no problems, they are repackaging same thing over and over. But when they go out of the usual path, there ARE problems.

For example, the triple channel X58 board fried my OCZ RAM because it was feeding it too high voltage out of the box (default RAM speed was 1066MHz back then, mine was 1600MHz and even with XMP, board assumed it needs to really crank up voltage to accomodate 1600MHz somehow). Of course I realized that when it was too late and it already damaged RAM IC. System was working, but had constant bizarre issues. Until I narrowed it down to RAM. Then I bought a set of triple Corsair Dominator, even on QVL list. Wouldn't even boot. Had to use MEMOK button to make it post. after that, it worked fine after I forced the correct voltage for RAM, just to be sure.

Fast forward and I'm now on quad channel X99 board. Got 4x 8GB 2400MHz RAM (for quad channel, obviously) and no matter what voltage I use, system won't post or be stable at anything above 2400MHz. Who should I blame? RAM vendor, Intel, someone else? I just can't overclock RAM no matter what. Not even up to 2600MHz with loose timings.

Want to also know a fun thing about the CPU? Sure, it clocks high as whole to 4.5GHz at stupendously low voltage of 1.125V. But I can't get it stable at anything beyond that even if I feed it 1.3V. It just refuses to be stable even though temperatures never even hit 80°C under full stress test. It just makes no sense, goes up to that clock with less voltage than CPU has at stock and just stops dead at certain clock. But Intel is totes problem free, everything always works as expected and all that yo!

 

[EarthDog]

That isn't Intel, that was the board maker/bios that caused that issue with your ram. And you are talking X58.. When did that come out? Like 2010???????

Well, considering I am sitting here at 4x8GB DDR4 3200 CL 15...... I would look at the board/bios/ram, and not Intel ( a poor IMC is not Intel's fault... nature of the silicon... same with AMD).

I've seen bigger voltage walls...



I don't understand what you are getting at here, though... Your first issue was not with Intel but the board maker/bios, your second is likely the same, or you just have a sub-par IMC... that happens too! Last, why is this a platform "problem" with your CPU not being able to hit more than 4.5GHz?


Rej, I would love to have a discussion with you, but its hard to hit a constantly moving and sometimes unrelated targets while seemingly glossing over the points made...

 

[cdawall]

Of course Intel has no problems, they are repackaging same thing over and over. But when they go out of the usual path, there ARE problems.

For example, the triple channel X58 board fried my OCZ RAM because it was feeding it too high voltage out of the box (default RAM speed was 1066MHz back then, mine was 1600MHz and even with XMP, board assumed it needs to really crank up voltage to accomodate 1600MHz somehow). Of course I realized that when it was too late and it already damaged RAM IC. System was working, but had constant bizarre issues. Until I narrowed it down to RAM. Then I bought a set of triple Corsair Dominator, even on QVL list. Wouldn't even boot. Had to use MEMOK button to make it post. after that, it worked fine after I forced the correct voltage for RAM, just to be sure.

Fast forward and I'm now on quad channel X99 board. Got 4x 8GB 2400MHz RAM (for quad channel, obviously) and no matter what voltage I use, system won't post or be stable at anything above 2400MHz. Who should I blame? RAM vendor, Intel, someone else? I just can't overclock RAM no matter what. Not even up to 2600MHz with loose timings.

Want to also know a fun thing about the CPU? Sure, it clocks high as whole to 4.5GHz at stupendously low voltage of 1.125V. But I can't get it stable at anything beyond that even if I feed it 1.3V. It just refuses to be stable even though temperatures never even hit 80°C under full stress test. It just makes no sense, goes up to that clock with less voltage than CPU has at stock and just stops dead at certain clock. But Intel is totes problem free, everything always works as expected and all that yo!

Intel had an issue 10 years ago with a motherboard feeding too much voltage? Sounds real pertinent to now.

I have had zero issues overclocking to over 3200 depending on which sticks I have slapped into my x99 build.

You have overclocked your 5820k from 3.3ghz to 4.5 that's 1.1ghz. What on earth are you complaining about? That sounds like terrible overclocking...way worse than the -25mhz my 1800x got above xfr.

 

[RejZoR]

Just because it happened 10 years ago (it wasn't even 10, but ok), that makes it irrelevant? I wonder if you're hold yourself up to same standards when we'll be looking back at Ryzen 10 years in the future...

Also, as far as OC goes, nevermind 2 more cores and 4 more threads on Ryzen, right? And the fact that Ryzen is designed on LPP which basically means from ground up it won't overclock well. Totally not relevant right?

 

[EarthDog]

Sorry, X58 came out in 11/2008. Our fault... ~8+ years ago.

Anyway, you should read my posts again bud... here you are, back on the multiple threads thing when THE VERY FIRST THING I POSTED mentioned if you need more than 8t as a disclaimer......

AMD has price and performance over 8t...

In time, its going to be worth a purchase... but right now, unless you use all its cores/threads (read more than 8)

So again, unless one needs more than 8t, is this really a deal? Is it really worth it...now?

If I needed more than 8t, Ryzen would be the answer regardless of its mutiple teething issues and complete lack of overclocking on the flagship part.

Again, a viable chip, any way its sliced, but there are some glaring shortcomings and teething issues which would put this on a 'wait and see' list for me (at best... 7700K seems like just as good of a choice ) if I wasn't using more than 8t on my PC. Considering 7700K rig costs less than or as much as but doesn't have these issues. Consumers are faced with a heck of a choice.

 

[cdawall]

I apologize 9 years ago. Nehalem hit the market in 2008 and again the issue you saw was a specific board issue not a platform wide problem like we are seeing with ryzen. There are applications ryzen is phenomenal at, there are others it is not. It is too early to tell how the design will pan out since the current support is so bad it isn't even funny.

As for overclocking stop making excuses, stop changing the subject. 8c/16t overclock fine with Haswell-e

 

[TheLostSwede]

Yet everyone is blaming AMD for the problem with the AM4 motherboards now, no-one's blaming the board makers. It's all AMD's fault, because they made a shitty platform that can't do X, Y and Z, but apparently in the case above, just because it's old and Intel, it's the board makers fault and has nothing to do with Intel. Nice double standards...

Most of you on this forum haven't been around long enough to see the kind of shit that happened back in the days with PCs. I remember buying more RAM for my onboard S3 Virge whatever and for whatever reason, it never worked, even though it was the right kind of memory and it was fitted properly into the memory slots. RAM upgrades used to be a crap shot and you had motherboards that were jumpered properly, but you still ended up with the wrong processor speed (hello AMD 486 DX2-80 that was running at a 100MHz and scared the crap out of me as I thought something was broken). Let's not even talk about Cyrix and how well their stuff worked, or some of the fun issues VIA had, like not being able to deliver 500mA to the USB ports on many of their chipsets...

Nothing has changed much, except everything has gotten a whole heap harder as everything is running at speeds up to 1000x times faster than back then. So yes, issues happen and hopefully most of these things can be addressed via UEFI updates, as long as the board makers care. The latter is a big concern though, as even on recent Intel boards, they seem to be slipping. I have had so many issues with my current board that you have no idea. RAM, RAM again, XMP not working, NVMe drive not showing up in the NVMe menu in the UEFI, the board not working with Windows 10 sleep mode (lost the boot record twice on my SSD) etc. Am I blaming Intel for that? No, it's Gigabyte's fault for making a POS UEFI and this is my last Gigabyte board until they prove that they can make a UEFI that's not targeted towards tweens that wants a UEFI that looks like it's from some Taiwanese MMORPG. I'm getting sick and tired of all the "gaming" BS, give me a stable motherboard that works, regardless of chipset.