AMD Ryzen Discussion Thread.

[RejZoR]

It's the same case of Windows Vista syndrome. When there were so many BSOD's with Vista, people blamed Microsoft for it. But when you looked at the actual memory dumps and Event Viewer logs, majority of them were NVDIA drivers taking a dump on the system... But people naturally blamed Microsoft even though it was NVIDIA who wasn't making good drivers...

Performance not up to the level in games
Fast forward to AMD Ryzen release. So far, only person I've seen realistic about this situation was JayZTwoCents. The fact that AMD didn't have a viable CPU for what, 5 years means developers focused CPU optimization on Intel only pretty much, resulting in less than optimal performance on AMD, even though in terms of IPC and overall performance, they should perform almost the same.

Memory issues
Instead of placing 100% of blame on AMD, how about taking it with the motherboard vendors? It's them who make BIOS updates and add RAM profiles. Sure AMD needs to give them a hand as well, but people need to understand that this is a brand new, never to be seen before architecture with all new memory controller. Expecting zero issues on such historical launch would just be foolish.

Overclocking capability
People, for the love of god, this is 8 cores, 16 threads CPU. Stop taking 7700k (freaking quad core) as an example of overclocking capability and applying it to twice as many cores. If you look at Intel's 6900k, you also hit a huge overclocking wall at around 4GHz where you need quite high voltages and having to deal with massive amounts of heat. Yes, Intel has slight edge, but getting 6900k up to 4.2GHz is already a great achievement. AMD Ryzen isn't far off really...

Power consumption
But R7 1800X is not consuming only 95W! Yeah, well, neither does Core i7 6700k then for example...

Oh and lets don't forget the fact we're comparing 4c/8t CPU to a 8c/16t CPU at roughly similar clocks. And they have basically the same power consumption under load. Even under Handbrake and AIDA64 which really go all out on the cores unlike games where it might be core restricted.

Chart courtesy of @R0H1T

 

[silkstone]

Even after all of the reviews I still want a Ryzen.

Why? because I actually use my computer to do computery stuff. All sorts of things. If I wanted a computer to just play games, I would go with a console or a highly clocked 4T CPU and put all my money into a GPU.

I do also play games, but that is not the be-all-end-all measure of performance for the majority of users. And, even if performance is not as good, I doubt it would be noticeable on a mid-range GPU.

 

[R0H1T]

Even after all of the reviews I still want a Ryzen.

Why? because I actually use my computer to do computery stuff. All sorts of things. If I wanted a computer to just play games, I would go with a console or a highly clocked 4T CPU and put all my money into a GPU.

I do also play games, but that is not the be-all-end-all measure of performance for the majority of users. And, even if performance is not as good, I doubt it would be noticeable on a mid-range GPU.

This is what most users feel tbh, unless you have a (separate) gaming rig or a rig dedicated (only) to gaming then R7 is a no brainer. This doesn't mean that the R5 or R3 won't be good buys, but that the octa core is simply outstanding VFM.

 

[RejZoR]

I personally think the R5 1400X will be a "normies" winner. It's basically a replacement for FX8350. Without the bad IPC drawbacks. But yeah, I agree, despite drawbacks R7 1800X is an awesome CPU.

 

[Hood]

It has been out for 4 days, why is it not a more mature platform than the 115x dynasty (released 2009) yet???

Zen was started 5 years ago. So, 1800+ days to develop, 4 days for some nimrod to cry "Bulldozed again!" That's hilarious...

 

[silkstone]

I personally think the R5 1400X will be a "normies" winner. It's basically a replacement for FX8350. Without the bad IPC drawbacks. But yeah, I agree, despite drawbacks R7 1800X is an awesome CPU.

A lower end Ryzen would also work as an amazing Plex server for the fraction of the cost of an equivalent Intel system.

People who are disappointed with it lack imagination.

 

[RejZoR]

Or even the R3 Ryzens, I mean, they are proper quad cores compared to crappy dual core Core i3's that really just need to die already.

 

[Vya Domus]

Money talks , it's cheap and competitive so people will buy it , this will happen even more when R5 and R3 arrive. I feel like most complains come from die hard Intel fanboys or people with unrealistic expectation because of general lack of knowledge. Perhaps Ryzen wont make it's way in every PC , but it is no where near a failure.

Also , when did quad channel memory and up became such a must have feature ? Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't we already seen enough comparisons long ago showing close to 0 improvement over dual channel or even single channel ?

In addition to this many seem to believe AMD is also manufacturing the motherboards...

 

[RejZoR]

Well, Bulldozer was sort of a failure and yet many people bought it anyway. Ryzen is actually good, so expectations can be higher by default.

 

[Kei]

It's the same case of Windows Vista syndrome. When there were so many BSOD's with Vista, people blamed Microsoft for it. But when you looked at the actual memory dumps and Event Viewer logs, majority of them were NVDIA drivers taking a dump on the system... But people naturally blamed Microsoft even though it was NVIDIA who wasn't making good drivers...

Performance not up to the level in games
Fast forward to AMD Ryzen release. So far, only person I've seen realistic about this situation was JayZTwoCents. The fact that AMD didn't have a viable CPU for what, 5 years means developers focused CPU optimization on Intel only pretty much, resulting in less than optimal performance on AMD, even though in terms of IPC and overall performance, they should perform almost the same.

Memory issues
Instead of placing 100% of blame on AMD, how about taking it with the motherboard vendors? It's them who make BIOS updates and add RAM profiles. Sure AMD needs to give them a hand as well, but people need to understand that this is a brand new, never to be seen before architecture with all new memory controller. Expecting zero issues on such historical launch would just be foolish.

Overclocking capability
People, for the love of god, this is 8 cores, 16 threads CPU. Stop taking 7700k (freaking quad core) as an example of overclocking capability and applying it to twice as many cores. If you look at Intel's 6900k, you also hit a huge overclocking wall at around 4GHz where you need quite high voltages and having to deal with massive amounts of heat. Yes, Intel has slight edge, but getting 6900k up to 4.2GHz is already a great achievement. AMD Ryzen isn't far off really...

Power consumption
But R7 1800X is not consuming only 95W! Yeah, well, neither does Core i7 6700k then for example...

Oh and lets don't forget the fact we're comparing 4c/8t CPU to a 8c/16t CPU at roughly similar clocks. And they have basically the same power consumption under load. Even under Handbrake and AIDA64 which really go all out on the cores unlike games where it might be core restricted.

I'm offended by the overwhelming amount of totally logical thought in this post, please stop it and resort to sheeping uninformed internet comments. Thank you

 

[Aenra]

Sorry, but...
You can all see my specs on your own. And i'm still here to say that i don't see Ryzen as a disappointment, not in the slightest; on the contrary, looking forward to its maturing and my eventually building an AMD-centric rig again

I cannot hate a smaller team, working with smaller budgets, on "loaned" calibration lines, in a market targetted and controlled by a direct competitor. Just... cannot. Especially when the results speak for themselves.

 

[Komshija]

AMD made a big improvement with Ryzen. It's a completely new design and AMD yet has to fine-tune their CPU's, which might happen late this year or the next year.
Either way, it's a very bad idea to buy ANY new product immediately after its release because of high initial costs and unknown real-world performance.

 

[Vario]

I think the next Zen, zen+ with 7nm shrink, ipc improvements, and further refinements to the motherboards will be the version to buy.

 

[OneCool]

You guys ( and gals) remember when the Athlon 64 was released and all we had was VIA chipset motherboards!! OMG!! It was like pulling a tooth just to get my rig to post. Buggy as hell.
Then Nvidia released the nForce 2 chipset and whoa it was like a whole new animal that Intel couldn't do anything with. Turned it into a beast.
In short they will figure out the issues and all the butt hurt people that jumped on the bandwagon will shut up and enjoy.

 

[TheGuruStud]

You guys ( and gals) remember when the Athlon 64 was released and all we had was VIA chipset motherboards!! OMG!! It was like pulling a tooth just to get my rig to post. Buggy as hell.
Then Nvidia released the nForce 2 chipset and whoa it was like a whole new animal that Intel couldn't do anything with. Turned it into a beast.
In short they will figure out the issues and all the butt hurt people that jumped on the bandwagon will shut up and enjoy.

I never had a single problem out of my Asus A8V Deluxe. That PC was used hard for years and still worked until I finally tossed it 2 yrs ago (it hurt a little lol). I/O performance wasn't as good as the others, but it was rock solid from day one.

I kind of feel sorry for people that never have experienced the leap that was the athlon 64.

 

[hat]

It's astounding how many early adopters get their knickers in a twist because the extremely complex techy stuff they bought, which just came out less than one week ago, doesn't work perfectly. If you want to be an early adopter, that's fine, but don't go around screaming "X sucks!!" when it's a brand new product that has had zero time for refinement. I've been around long enough to realize that brand new stuff tends to not work perfectly right away. Though I do want a Ryzen system, I would be holding my cash (if I had any) for a while, until the platform matured a bit.

 

[cadaveca]

It's astounding how many early adopters get their knickers in a twist because the extremely complex techy stuff they bought, which just came out less than one week ago, doesn't work perfectly. If you want to be an early adopter, that's fine, but don't go around screaming "X sucks!!" when it's a brand new product that has had zero time for refinement. I've been around long enough to realize that brand new stuff tends to not work perfectly right away. Though I do want a Ryzen system, I would be holding my cash (if I had any) for a while, until the platform matured a bit.

I hate to break this to you, but I have had nearly every modern Intel platform over the past 5-6 years many months before launch, and they all worked nearly perfectly then, never mind at launch. There were some BIOS teething issues only, and nothing quite as big as perfectly fine memory modules not working at all, even @ quite low 2133 MHz....

You could then say that perhaps Intel gave board makers more time, or more support than AMD has, and that has led to these "early adopter" problems. That said, there is no comparison between this AMD launch, and ANY Intel launch that I have been a part of. The closest thing would be the P67 recall, which actually wasn't that big of a deal, but it WAS a recall.


Now, that I have said that, I will say, I did run into issues with Ryzen, but once I had a proper memory kit, and the right board, things all work great and there are just some performance issues left over. Some of these cannot be fixed, contrary to many posts suggesting otherwise. Yet because I was able to get such an experience by merely choosing the right parts, this tells me that AMD has failed HARD because whoever sent out review samples to those that have already done reviews did not take the time to make sure that reviewers got the proper hardware for reviews, and as such, AMD failed hard on that aspect of the launch, and as such, you can only fault AMD for anyone's misconceptions about Ryzen at this time and point.

 

[ZoneDymo]

This could easily be OP's own stupid brainless review....
Should this clickbait nonsense not be removed, seeing as the title has nothing to do with the content?

 

[eidairaman1]

Well, Bulldozer was sort of a failure and yet many people bought it anyway. Ryzen is actually good, so expectations can be higher by default.

I skipped BD and went to PD

 

[Hood]

This could easily be OP's own stupid brainless review....
Should this clickbait nonsense not be removed, seeing as the title has nothing to do with the content?

As the OP, I assure you I didn't write the Newegg review, don't own a Ryzen CPU, and probably never will. Also, I would never write a review like that, or give up so easily while building a new system. Calling my post "clickbait" doesn't change the fact that most people who frequent TPU are interested in how the whole Ryzen platform pans out, for many different reasons. I already stated my reasons for making the original post. What is your reason for being offended by it? All of us are now better informed about the situation, thanks to people on this site who built Ryzen systems and shared their experiences. The post's title has everything to do with the content, sorry if that wasn't to your liking - were you hoping for a Zen miracle to replace your aging Sandy Bridge rig? I thought Hal B's review was hilarious, on several levels, sorry you didn't see the humor.

 

[qubit]

I hate to break this to you, but I have had nearly every modern Intel platform over the past 5-6 years many months before launch, and they all worked nearly perfectly then, never mind at launch. There were some BIOS teething issues only, and nothing quite as big as perfectly fine memory modules not working at all, even @ quite low 2133 MHz....

You could then say that perhaps Intel gave board makers more time, or more support than AMD has, and that has led to these "early adopter" problems. That said, there is no comparison between this AMD launch, and ANY Intel launch that I have been a part of. The closest thing would be the P67 recall, which actually wasn't that big of a deal, but it WAS a recall.


Now, that I have said that, I will say, I did run into issues with Ryzen, but once I had a proper memory kit, and the right board, things all work great and there are just some performance issues left over. Some of these cannot be fixed, contrary to many posts suggesting otherwise. Yet because I was able to get such an experience by merely choosing the right parts, this tells me that AMD has failed HARD because whoever sent out review samples to those that have already done reviews did not take the time to make sure that reviewers got the proper hardware for reviews, and as such, AMD failed hard on that aspect of the launch, and as such, you can only fault AMD for anyone's misconceptions about Ryzen at this time and point.

Agreed, especially the bold bit. This is looking like a botched launch of an interesting, but slightly underperforming product, especially in gaming. I'm skeptical of the claims that optimisation will fix the performance issues and I wouldn't be surprised if bugs persist for months. We'll see.

No wonder Intel products cost more and Intel weren't too worried about Ryzen. Clearly the quality control at Intel is so much better and that's worth paying a premium for. I just want the bloody thing that I spent hundreds, or even thousands of pounds on, to perform well and work properly. That's not too much to demand, even at launch time.

Some people might defend AMD and claim it's the mobo makers who didn't design their BIOSes and boards properly and that it's not a buggy CPU, but I don't buy that. The whole design and launch process is managed by the CPU manufacturer, so it's their responsibility to ensure that the supporting products all work properly.

It already looks like there's a problem with the L3 implentation that's causing the performance problems and that's unacceptable for a premium product intended to compete with Intel in my opinion. If I spend a pricey $500 on a CPU and hundreds more on mobo, RAM and cooling, the thing better work properly from the start.

As the OP, I assure you I didn't write the Newegg review, don't own a Ryzen CPU, and probably never will. Also, I would never write a review like that, or give up so easily while building a new system. Calling my post "clickbait" doesn't change the fact that most people who frequent TPU are interested in how the whole Ryzen platform pans out, for many different reasons. I already stated my reasons for making the original post. What is your reason for being offended by it? All of us are now better informed about the situation, thanks to people on this site who built Ryzen systems and shared their experiences. The post's title has everything to do with the content, sorry if that wasn't to your liking - were you hoping for a Zen miracle to replace your aging Sandy Bridge rig? I thought Hal B's review was hilarious, on several levels, sorry you didn't see the humor.

Agreed. I'm glad you posted this thread.

If I'd bought Ryzen to replace my aging, but silky smooth working and still well performing 2700K I'd be pissed now, I can tell you, lol.

 

[cadaveca]

It already looks like there's a problem with the L3 implentation that's causing the performance problems and that's unacceptable for a premium product intended to compete with Intel in my opinion. If I spend a pricey $500 on a CPU and hundreds more on mobo, RAM and cooling, the thing better work properly from the start.

I think you're looking at it wrong, and do not agree with your summary here. What some people are relaying as a problem isn't necessarily actually so.

 

[qubit]

I think you're looking at it wrong, and do not agree with your summary here. What some people are relaying as a problem isn't necessarily actually so.

I'm not sure why but ok.

 

[OneCool]

If you " buy" it or not the big picture is still the same. I mean really Intel's R&D department alone is probably bigger than all of AMD.

AMD rushed it to market to keep people on board. Marketing?? Is it a new concept? Hell no. Should they have used that marketing money towards more R&D with their AIB partners....At this point YES it looks like it.

AMD has done some really great things in the computing world whether you like them or not!! They have a lot first in the CPU world....You know why because their not afraid to go out on a limb and try something new!!!.It's why people that like them ....Mostly love them. They stick Thier neck out and go for it instead of just putting along...Or " tick,tocking"

 

[R-T-B]

It has been out for 4 days, why is it not a more mature platform than the 115x dynasty (released 2009) yet???

While this is spot on, it doesn't solve the issue either.

Personally, I wouldn't recommend Ryzen to a professional "time is money" type now because of the tweaking required, and well, time is money. But give it a few bios updates on the boards and time to mature, and I very well might.