AMD Ryzen Discussion Thread.

[trparky]

AMD is in a very precarious position, they aren't on solid footing financially speaking. They've been bleeding money for quite awhile. When they come out with Vega it better be a solid slam dunk, it better be able to not only beat nVidia but be able to knock them out cold. If not, financially speaking this company is dead.

Ryzen seems like a good platform until you look at the base clocks, they just aren't good enough. And as for overclocking, unless you hit the silicon lottery it's not guaranteed.

If you're a gamer in any way, casual or hard-core, you really have no other choice. Go Intel.

 

[Rehmanpa]

AMD is in a very precarious position, they aren't on solid footing financially speaking. They've been bleeding money for quite awhile. When they come out with Vega it better be a solid slam dunk, it better be able to not only beat nVidia but be able to knock them out cold. If not, financially speaking this company is dead.

Ryzen seems like a good platform until you look at the base clocks, they just aren't good enough. And as for overclocking, unless you hit the silicon lottery it's not guaranteed.

If you're a gamer in any way, casual or hard-core, you really have no other choice. Go Intel.

I disagree. Ryzen is just fine in gaming. The whole "but the 7700k is still better in gaming" is only applicable in some situations, and st the price especially when people like doing things such as streaming or hosting a server and playing a game at the same rime, ryzen is hands down better than intel, especially with price which is ultimately what matters most.

 

[Mr.Scott]

AMD is in a very precarious position, they aren't on solid footing financially speaking. They've been bleeding money for quite awhile. When they come out with Vega it better be a solid slam dunk, it better be able to not only beat nVidia but be able to knock them out cold. If not, financially speaking this company is dead.

Ryzen seems like a good platform until you look at the base clocks, they just aren't good enough. And as for overclocking, unless you hit the silicon lottery it's not guaranteed.

If you're a gamer in any way, casual or hard-core, you really have no other choice. Go Intel.

Gaming is not the end all beat all. It's a very small percentage of sales. VERY small. So is the enthusiast market (overclocking). OEM's (prebuilt's), workstations, and server's are where the money is. That is the target audience.
Vega will not put the squeeze on Nvidia either. Nv already has a counter product cooking.

AMD isn't going anywhere. They were in worse shape financially years ago.
You're a gamer and you like Intel?, go ahead and buy what you like. It won't change anything.

 

[Vya Domus]

If you're a gamer in any way, casual or hard-core, you really have no other choice. Go Intel.

I think you've blown your cover . It's pretty obvious what you're doing on here. There are definitely products from both Intel and AMD that smash each other in certain segments and scenarios including gaming , your claim is just ridiculous.

You have been presented many viable augments but in the end you always ignore everything and proceed with your now plain obvious fanboysm. I have nothing against that but you're wasting yours and our time.

This is supposed to be a discussion but from what I see there really isn't anything you want to discuss.

 

[purecain]

if you think those extra frames mean anything in the real world your wrong. if your benchmarking and going after the highest fps then intel looks great but even with v-sync on intel chips do not have the same frame time consistency that the NEW amd chips give.

when I overclcocked my 1800x i lowered the voltage to see where the limits were for 1.3v. the system booted and even played games yet the gameplay had lost its smooth feeling. it felt like i was gaming on my old intel rig. i increased the volts and the system started to play games smoothly again. theres a definite effect. i much prefer playing games on my ryzen system than i did on any intel rig ive owned or built and that's saying something.

i havnt used a 10core intel chip yet though so id need feedback to see if the frame time behavior is the same as on their 4core cpu's.

 

[trparky]

But everyone is saying go Intel. Benchmarks say it. YouTube people say it. Review sites say it.

There's so much negativity regarding Ryzen that at some point one has to wonder if it's true. It's just like with Trump, with all the bad news some of it has got to be true.

 

[Mr.Scott]

Gaming benchmarks say it. Anything that has gaming attached to it says it. That's all.
.
Ryzen crushes Intel in multi threaded applications, in any benchmark. That includes their non target upper market as well (6950x)

It does very well in the tasks it was marketed for.

 

[Rehmanpa]

But everyone is saying go Intel. Benchmarks say it. YouTube people say it. Review sites say it.

There's so much negativity regarding Ryzen that at some point one has to wonder if it's true. It's just like with Trump, with all the bad news some of it has got to be true.

Don't bring politics into a computer tech forum. Just because there are intel fanboys hating on something doesn't make it true. Gaming is worse yes. I mean you have to remember that an i7 7700k at 5ghz is still 5ghz vs 3.9ghz for a ryzen processor. The IPC is quite similar between them, but In reality how many people would overclock their i7 7700k to 5ghz? My 4790k is running at 4.4ghz and it's just fine so why mess with it? Same with the ryzen processor, it's just fine. And there are plenty of games where they're neck and neck, and then others where the intel 7700k is ahead, but the ryzen is still more than playa me on. I know I'm going to be selling my 4790k to get either threadripper or ryzen depending on pricing.

 

[Dethroy]

But everyone is saying go Intel. Benchmarks say it. YouTube people say it. Review sites say it.

There's so much negativity regarding Ryzen that at some point one has to wonder if it's true. It's just like with Trump, with all the bad news some of it has got to be true.

I wouldn't care so much about what others have to say, and rather form my very own opinion with the help of facts, math and a sound mind. Then I'd simply check which option is most likely to align with my needs.

 

[Mr.Scott]

I wouldn't care so much about what others have to say, and rather form my very own opinion with the help of facts, math and a sound mind. Then I'd simply check which option is most likely to align with my needs.

Exactly.
If you're a hard core gamer that needs every single FPS you can get, you might want to stick with Intel. Everything has it's niche.

 

[Rehmanpa]

Exactly.
If you're a hard core gamer that needs every single FPS you can get, you might want to stick with Intel. Everything has it's niche.

Iirc, the higher the res the less the cpu holds back fps right? So an i7 might get say 20%more fps at 1080p but like 12% at 1440p and maybe 5% at 4k? Or am I not remembering things correctly?

 

[purecain]

gaming isn't worse, i get a couple of fps less maximum and its completely smooth. intel chips do not offer this. the same gpu on an intel system wouldn't give me this feeling of smoothness with any speed. i wouldn't go back to an intel rig after this. not until it comes to light why amd's experience in games with frame times is so much better and intel copies it. the amd chips are scoring upto 20fps faster than with initial bios as it can now use faster ram speeding up data fabric times.... with even more improvements promised.

 

[Mr.Scott]

Something like that.

The percentages are pretty much in the single digits pending the game though.

 

[Rehmanpa]

gaming isn't worse, i get a couple of fps less maximum and its completely smooth. intel chips do not offer this. the same gpu on an intel system wouldn't give me this feeling of smoothness with any speed. i wouldn't go back to an intel rig after this. not until it comes to light why amd's experience in games with frame times is so much better and intel copies it.

Most of the gains an i7 7700k has over the ryzen is being clocked an entire ghz higher. But what % of 7700k owners oc it that high?

 

[Mr.Scott]

Less than a percent.

 

[Rehmanpa]

Something like that.

The percentages are pretty much in the single digits pending the game though.

And at that point, unless you're a hating fanboy, why not get the ryzen? More cores will benefit you because in reality nobody (at least that I know, myself included) only ever games with 1 program open, I'm always doing things in the background.

 

[Mr.Scott]

And at that point, unless you're a hating fanboy, why not get the ryzen? More cores will benefit you because in reality nobody (at least that I know, myself included) only ever games with 1 program open, I'm always doing things in the background.

I do not disagree.
It is that much better a buy.
The difference is not as bad as everybody makes it out to be.

 

[trparky]

What?! I thought the benchmarks that we've all been seeing were based upon a stock clocked i7!

I don't care if you can get x plus whatever the hell frames per second on an i7 after you overclocked it so damn much you're threatening to have it go Mount St. Helens on you.

 

[Rehmanpa]

What?! I thought the benchmarks that we've all been seeing were based upon a stock clocked i7!

I don't care if you can get x plus whatever the hell frames per second on an i7 after you overclocked it so damn much you're threatening to have it go Mount St. Helens on you.

Lol depends on the benchmarks. Most of what I've seen were oc.

 

[trparky]

I've been seeing some numbers that show a 20 frame per second deficit. That's a huge amount! And now you're telling me that that's only because they overclocked the shit out of the Core i7 7700k? No! I don't want to see that! I want to see stock-against-stock! I don't give a rat's ass if you can push a 7700k to 5 GHz! Of course a chip running at 5 GHz is going to thoroughly kick the ass of a chip running a 4 GHz! Even a complete n00b would know that! That's a 20% increase in clock speed man!

I want to see stock-for-stock benchmark numbers, that's the only way we can see if Intel really is faster than AMD. We have seen time and time again that clock speed really doesn't matter, it's how efficient the chip is at that clock speed.

So all the videos I have seen and watched, all of the articles I have been reading for the last two and a half weeks are all worth a pile of shit. Great, I have been basing my decision on those articles and videos because they have all been written by people who I assumed I could trust to give me the right data to base a decision on.

 

[Rehmanpa]

I've been seeing some numbers that show a 20 frame per second deficit. That's a huge amount! And now you're telling me that that's only because they overclocked the shit out of the Core i7 7700k? No! I don't want to see that! I want to see stock-against-stock! I don't give a rat's ass if you can push a 7700k to 5 GHz! Of course a chip running at 5 GHz is going to thoroughly kick the ass of a chip running a 4 GHz! Even a complete n00b would know that! That's a 20% increase in clock speed man!

I want to see stock-for-stock benchmark numbers, that's the only way we can see if Intel really is faster than AMD. We have seen time and time again that clock speed really doesn't matter, it's how efficient the chip is at that clock speed.

So all the videos I have seen and watched, all of the articles I have been reading for the last two and a half weeks are all worth a pile of shit. Great, I have been basing my decision on those articles and videos because they have all been written by people who I assumed I could trust to give me the right data to base a decision on.

It really depends on the benchmark. Some of them are stock but some aren't. The turbo boost vs non x ryzen would mean that there is no effective turbo boost on it. The ipc, effectively meaning how fast the processor is at a certain ghz is VERY close. A 4ghz 1700 would almost be as fast as a 4ghz 7700k. However in reality the 7700k does have higher clock speeds but make a more heat than the 1700, as the 1700 only uses like 60 watts (idr what the 7700k is, my 4790k is 88-94watts). Truth is the fps differences that are most noticeable might be 170 vs 150. At that point, what does it matter? There are a lot of games where they're close together, neck and neck, and the games where they're not it's generally so high in terms of fps it doesn't realistically matter. Not to mention at higher resolutions the difference decreases. I play at 1440p so my ryzen will be less slow than the 7700k versus it at 1080p.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

I disagree. Ryzen is just fine in gaming. The whole "but the 7700k is still better in gaming" is only applicable in some situations, and st the price especially when people like doing things such as streaming or hosting a server and playing a game at the same rime, ryzen is hands down better than intel, especially with price which is ultimately what matters most.

I've been seeing some numbers that show a 20 frame per second deficit. That's a huge amount! And now you're telling me that that's only because they overclocked the shit out of the Core i7 7700k? No! I don't want to see that! I want to see stock-against-stock! I don't give a rat's ass if you can push a 7700k to 5 GHz! Of course a chip running at 5 GHz is going to thoroughly kick the ass of a chip running a 4 GHz! Even a complete n00b would know that! That's a 20% increase in clock speed man!

I want to see stock-for-stock benchmark numbers, that's the only way we can see if Intel really is faster than AMD. We have seen time and time again that clock speed really doesn't matter, it's how efficient the chip is at that clock speed.

So all the videos I have seen and watched, all of the articles I have been reading for the last two and a half weeks are all worth a pile of shit. Great, I have been basing my decision on those articles and videos because they have all been written by people who I assumed I could trust to give me the right data to base a decision on.

Let me explain it this way, the only big % 7700k beats down AMD Ryzen in gaming is where you take a high end GPU and game at 1080p or lower... and then both are in the 100's FPS and the difference is negligible, now if you have a £300-£500 processor and £700 GPU, what are the chances you are going to be running a shitty 1080p monitor with that setup? you will be running 1440p/2k/4k and the 700mhz slower Ryzen is neck and neck with the 7700k, it's one scenario that isn't likely to be a common occurrence, but hey that's all some people have to go by and keep bringing up. Do I give a shit at over 100fps if I'm getting 100fps or 115fps? no.... but if I am getting 100fps and able to stream/record at the same time without affecting gaming performance as opposed to having an extra 15fps but the gameplay isn't as smooth, guess which I'm going to go with.

Shit.... Intel didn't get this kind of shit when they first released the Core I processors that where a big leap performance wise compared to C2Q and AMD have done an amazing job at improving IPC compared to their last architecture and are getting berated for it. A 4.5ghz Ryzen will destroy an 7700k in everything, gaming included whilst giving you 2x the cores at the same price, granted they aren't there yet with the core speed but neither were the first i7's coming clocked at between 2.66ghz and 2.9ghz when previous C2Q's had already been clocked past 3ghz but the clock speed didn't mean shit cause the IPC was much higher as is the case with Ryzen

I remember first hand when 600mhz slower AMD processors where beating the crap out of Pentium 4's because AMD's architecture and IPC was so much more refined, guess a lot of younger people will always only have known AMD as an underdog who can't compete with Intel and are still in denial at how a crappy little company like AMD could even compete with Intel....

 

[trparky]

How would a Ryzen 1600 clocked at 3.2 GHz (stock clock) perform against a Kaby Lake chip that was under-clocked to 3.2 GHz? Or even a plain 7700 chip because it's not clocked as high. I'd like to see those numbers. That kind of test would really show the differences in the base architectures.

 

[Mr.Scott]

No it wouldn't because people would bitch about the Intel being underclocked.

 

[Rehmanpa]

Let me explain it this way, the only big % 7700k beats down AMD Ryzen in gaming is where you take a high end GPU and game at 1080p or lower... and then both are in the 100's FPS and the difference is negligible, now if you have a £300-£500 processor and £700 GPU, what are the chances you are going to be running a shitty 1080p monitor with that setup? you will be running 1440p/2k/4k and the 700mhz slower Ryzen is neck and neck with the 7700k, it's one scenario that isn't likely to be a common occurrence, but hey that's all some people have to go by and keep bringing up. Do I give a shit at over 100fps if I'm getting 100fps or 115fps? no.... but if I am getting 100fps and able to stream/record at the same time without affecting gaming performance as opposed to having an extra 15fps but the gameplay isn't as smooth, guess which I'm going to go with.

Shit.... Intel didn't get this kind of shit when they first released the Core I processors that where a big leap performance wise compared to C2Q and AMD have done an amazing job at improving IPC compared to their last architecture and are getting berated for it. A 4.5ghz Ryzen will destroy an 7700k in everything, gaming included whilst giving you 2x the cores at the same price, granted they aren't there yet with the core speed but neither were the first i7's coming clocked at between 2.66ghz and 2.9ghz when previous C2Q's had already been clocked past 3ghz but the clock speed didn't mean shit cause the IPC was much higher as is the case with Ryzen

I remember first hand when 600mhz slower AMD processors where beating the crap out of Pentium 4's because AMD's architecture and IPC was so much more refined, guess a lot of younger people will always only have known AMD as an underdog who can't compete with Intel and are still in denial at how a crappy little company like AMD could even compete with Intel....

AMD ryzen really shines at streaming. On the played upon computer both games are running fine. The stream however, the 6700k even at 4.5ghz is not as clear s the ryzen processors stream. Here is the video:

Also, please check out this video, it's a video that shows direct comparisons of the benchmarks being ran side by side (7700k vs 1700). I think the resolution is either 1080p or 1440p.

As you can see from this video, there is very little noticeable difference, and they're trading blows back and forth. Each one is perfectly playable, personally I think the ryzen one looks a little more fluid but maybe that's just me.