It's official. Eight-core Ryzen 7 chips will start at just $329.

[Gray_Matter]

Well video encoding is a specific task, where your GPU matters, not so much the CPU. It was to be powerful, but a 8c/16t monster is overkill. I'd say 7700K+GTX 1080 tops any Ryzen config for these tasks: you're going to be slightly slower with encoding (sub 10%) and severely ahead in gaming (20-40% at all resolutions).

What? Video encoding a GPU task? Take a look at the Handbrake encoding benchmarks with Ryzen. That's one of the areas where it does well. Regardless. Back to my question which you didn't answer. If you want to play games and also want to do X, where X requires multiple cores, are you telling me that you would buy 2 PC's? One for gaming and another for the workstation?

- - - Updated - - -

Zen architecture is optimized for multithreaded workloads, it should suck at gaming and it does.

You keep saying this. Please give me five situations where Zen will give you a sub-par gaming experience. If it "sucks" at gaming then it wouldn't handle gaming or would be useless at it. I am not saying that it's better for gaming than a 7700K. But that doesn't make it crap either.

[Life-Binder]

you a sub-par gaming experience.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews...chmarks/page-7

for a 144hz monitor I would call this rather subpar

anyway, Zen isnt in a vacuum .. games can be played on it, but compared to Intel offerings (even ones cheaper than a 6700K/7700k) its looking slow in gaming, which .. makes it a bad purchase for a gaming oriented machine

I am not saying that it's better for gaming than a 7700K.

it never had a chance of being better than 7700K in games

but its ~15-20%+ slower

[Gray_Matter]

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews...chmarks/page-7

for a 144hz monitor I would call this rather subpar

anyway, Zen isnt in a vacuum .. games can be played on it, but compared to Intel offerings (even ones cheaper than a 6700K/7700k) its looking slow in gaming, which .. makes it a bad purchase for a gaming oriented machine

One game is really bad and that's bad for the 7700K too. 33fps vs 42fps. The rest, we are talking about things like 130fps vs 151fps. Come on. It's not slow. It's pretty good. It's not the best, for sure, but to try and say that it's subpar is absurd. Sub par is below the par and it's not below the par. At most, 7700K's make up 4.21% of the PC's out there.

[Deleted]

One game is really bad and that's bad for the 7700K too. 33fps vs 42fps. The rest, we are talking about things like 130fps vs 151fps. Come on. It's not slow. It's pretty good. It's not the best, for sure, but to try and say that it's subpar is absurd. Sub par is below the par and it's not below the par. At most, 7700K's make up 4.21% of the PC's out there.

While it might not be sub par compared to the average gaming system out there, it definitely is sub par for current gaming CPUs especially considering its price point.

[Gray_Matter]

While it might not be sub par compared to the average gaming system out there, it definitely is sub par for current gaming CPUs especially considering its price point.

Ignore the price point for the moment. A person getting Ryzen is getting it for the extra cores, not because they think it's a better bargain than a 7700K. If I look at the linked benchmarks on this page, it's behind about 4 processors for gaming (6900K, 7700K, 6700K and 4790K) and by about 15% on average. If you want the best of the best of the best for gaming, sure, it's not a contender but please don't tell me that it's going to give you a sub-par gaming experience because it gives you 135FPS instead of 142. If this processor was released a year and a half ago then people would be saying that it's performance was amazing for gaming. It's good at gaming, just not excellent and good is not sub-par.

[Gaidax]

And who the fuck cares about what AMD is going to do???

It's simple - Ryzen is shit for gaming, end of story. You can spew your conspiracy crap all you like, but bottom line when I buy a good GPU (which happens to be Nvidia now, simply because Polaris is dogshit for all but budget choice) and a frikkin 300 bucks+ CPU - I want no compromise performance.

I don't care if evil Intel and Nvidia collaborate to bring down our goodie two shoes rebel AMD, what I care about is that when I shell out cash - I get the juice for what I want - gaming.

All these fair stories how it will get better or just you wait and see how everyone will develop for Zen - this all I heard 5 years ago already with Faildozer. Hard cold fact is that with Intel and Nvidia market share, devs will always first and foremost will develop for these platforms and not for a frikkin' 4% of the market that use more than 4 core CPUs from some hipster supplier.

So yes, very very sad, but bottom line I7-7700K and a good Nvidia GPU will simply be superior now and most likely for a good while as well, seeing I don't believe for shit in this PR damage control by AMD where it claims software will fix it.


I hope AMD will fix this shit with Zen+, because now they again got CPU which is awesome on paper and crumbles in real life.

[Deleted]

Ignore the price point for the moment.

Why should I - it's the main selling point over Intel's $1000 beast, and it's certainly an important metric, when considering performance.

A person getting Ryzen is getting it for the extra cores, not because they think it's a better bargain than a 7700K.

True but that only proves the point of not getting AMDs for gaming.

please don't tell me that it's going to give you a sub-par gaming experience because it gives you 135FPS instead of 142. If this processor was released a year and a half ago then people would be saying that it's performance was amazing for gaming. It's good at gaming, just not excellent and good is not sub-par.

Well if it was just those 7 out of 142 frames in general I'd agree but that is not the case.
In the watchdogs 2 benchmark the low FPS drops below 60 and the 7700k is 30% ahead for average frames per second, something I would consider sub par - especially considering the price segment (you get half of the performance per buck in watchdogs 2)

[Gray_Matter]

It's simple - Ryzen is shit for gaming, end of story.

Wow, I really want that shit then because it's way better than all but one of the machines I have at the house.

- - - Updated - - -

Why should I - it's the main selling point over Intel's $1000 beast, and it's certainly an important metric, when considering performance.

Because the argument being bandied around here is that it's shit/sucks for gaming which is not true and has nothing to do with price. That's a statement purely on performance.

True but that only proves the point of not getting AMDs for gaming.

What if you want something for gaming and also other stuff?

Well if it was just those 7 out of 142 frames in general I'd agree but that is not the case.
In the watchdogs 2 benchmark the low FPS drops below 60 and the 7700k is 30% ahead for average frames per second, something I would consider sub par - especially considering the price segment (you get half of the performance per buck in watchdogs 2)

There will be some games that it battles with. It happens with GPU's all of the time. Games get tweaks, as do drivers/bios/firmware/etc. On other games it's much closer. It watchdogs 2 is make or break for you then that would also be a factor.

My argument is just that it's a good gaming processor, not an excellent one but some people seem to be hell bent on putting it down.

[Gaidax]

Because the argument being bandied around here is that it's shit/sucks for gaming which is not true and has nothing to do with price. That's a statement purely on performance.

See, here is the thing... when I am about to pay 350 bucks for a kickass CPU for gaming and I have a choice between getting 100% or anywhere between 75 to 95%, you know for sure what I will buy.

All the reviews are unilateral - 1800X is already inferior to 7700K in gaming and 1700 is even worse off, because you need to overclock it to even get to 1800X level to begin with and when 1700 costs same as 7700K, then it's like lol?

Not even saying that if you are overclocking 1700 to get to stock level of 7700K, then lulz, you can do the same to 7700K and dust 1700.


No amount of denial or BS is going to change this fact and bloody face it - people on MMO-C are not bloody looking for CPU to fuel their creative minds and shit - people want to bloody play games first and foremost here and get the best they can for their buck, aside for some hipsters that have some "speshul needs" for bloody 16 threads.

[Deleted]

What if you want something for gaming and also other stuff?

Then you have to decide if you want to
- spend 340 get the best gaming performance but sub par workstation performance
- spend 500 get great workstation performance but sub par gaming performance
- spend 1100 and get the (almost) best of both worlds.

My argument is just that it's a good gaming processor, not an excellent one but some people seem to be hell bent on putting it down.

While it may not be atrocious at gaming, it is definitely worse than Intel's lineup - a lot worse if you consider the price. If you are looking to build a gaming only rig, anything the R7 can do, Intel can do better, which makes AMD a sub par (bad) decision for this task.

Can you play all modern games on the AMD system? Sure, but you could do better for less if you choose Intel.

Can AMD fix it? Maybe, but I doubt it and wouldn't want to bet money on it. Plus there's still the overclocking issue working in Intel's favor.

[mrgreenthump]

See, here is the thing... when I am about to pay 350 bucks for a kickass CPU for gaming and I have a choice between getting 100% or anywhere between 75 to 95%, you know for sure what I will buy.

That's good and all, but Ryzen 7 has never been marketed as a pure gaming cpu. It is all about productivitity and content creation, which it really is a really good performer in. Granted still need support and optimization for quite a few things, but as with almost any other new architecture, those are coming.

Is it as good as 7700K in gaming, nope. Nobody expected that, does it perform well enough for you to work and play with the computer, definately yes.

Ofc there are still bugs around and the launch is less than stellar, Windows still needs to update their build for example.. For us to see what it's really like on Windows, because on Linux, it's pretty freaking good so far.

[Gaidax]

Is it as good as 7700K in gaming, nope. Nobody expected that...

lol

The amount of hype going on everywhere touting Ryzen as some sort of second coming of CPU Jesus certainly made people expect just that. I think that part of disappointment is just that - it really under-delivered expectations people had.

Does it perform well enough for you to work and play with the computer, definately yes.

You see, I7-7700K performs stellar in gaming and damn good in everything else any reasonable gamer needs, while costing less, which is the whole point. True professional content creators that actually rely on CPU's software acceleration as opposed to GPU acceleration are rare.

Which leaves just a small bunch of people who may actually benefit from this CPU, for vast majority of people here however? It's worthless, simply because you pay more and get effectively less, I'm not even talking about the hilarity of the situation where people want to buy 1700 and then try to OC it to ultimately get subpar results compared to cheaper stock I7-7700K in what they actually want - gaming.

I am pretty sure all the hype will have some blokes duped into buying Ryzen, but seeing all these reviews I can safely say that these CPUs won't get traction. Hopefully R5/R3s will be more competitive price/real performance wise.

- - - Updated - - -

That said, I have better expectations of R5s really. They will certainly be cheaper that 7700K and if losing 2/4 won't lower gaming performance, then those can be a good choice indeed. Biggest problem of 1700+ lineup is the price, which makes them bad value for gamers seeing performance.

But if AMD pull out 1600s at around 200ish USD and with similar real gaming performance to 1700 lineup, then it will be a whole other deal entirely and maybe these 1-2 months extra will help them to fix some shit to sweeten the deal.

[Deleted]

Gaidax while there is some merit to what you're saying and I agree on few points with you. I must say you really ought to dial down on some statements you make. Saying 1700+ are "shit for gaming" is just not true, what is true them being inferior to intel's offering in both price and performance - that does not make them shit. They do perform well, just not well enough for what one would expect for the price. Also you can't say that these cpus are "worthless" for vast majority of people here - that would imply that they can not be used for task said majority would want to use it for. What is true is, agian, them being not as good value or evan bad value for gamers.

Unfortunately clocks on r3 and r5 seem to be lower than r7 which in turn will mean worse gaming performance still, hopefully they OC better. Also shame about the ram speeds, would not be much surprised if that that significantly affected the overall performance.

[moremana]

I think the major problem here, judging from comments I have read over the last few days that arent Intel fanboism, and I feel the same way is everyone feels like AMD let the gaming community down again.

When you release a new product it needs to be better than what is on the current market, and Ryzen isnt, yes its close in some areas, but a Quad Core 7600k wins over it. People like me who wanted to try something new besides Intel, are left with WTF. Not to mention, wanting Intel to drop their over inflated prices and now they have no reason to except on the X99 platform chips.

I had my new build all planned out, waited for the benchmarks, and was left shaking my head. I sat at my pc all day yesterday watching and reading review after review, only to be glad I didnt preorder.

The R5s are going to be R7s that have a fgew cores not functioning, thats what these companies do and I have no reason to believe AMD isnt, with that said, the R5 will have the same performance as the R7s, so the only people that will have a reason to switch to AMD will be those on a FX chip or older Intel dual cores.

And this all makes sense, this is why the NDA was set on the same day as launch because AMD knew that if reviews got out before launch no one would buy. GN told everyone not to preorder and I listened, very glad I did.

Is Ryzen good, hell ya, its better than FX, but for people already on the X99 platform or running any quad core intel cpu from the last 5-6 years there is no reason.

Intel will get a little better with their cpus, Im sure they are all in meetings as we speak and they have a AMD cpu to go by, the R7, the R5s wont be better as its the same chip. And when R5s come out, Intel will have a better cpu whether it be 6 cores or not, refresh or whatever, no one REALLY knows. So nothing will change.

Budget people will build AMD R5s and enthusiasts will continue to buy Intel.

[Thunderball]

What? Video encoding a GPU task? Take a look at the Handbrake encoding benchmarks with Ryzen. That's one of the areas where it does well. Regardless. Back to my question which you didn't answer. If you want to play games and also want to do X, where X requires multiple cores, are you telling me that you would buy 2 PC's? One for gaming and another for the workstation?

Yes, using CUDA cores gives up to 300% performance. On the your question: it depends on how important the task X is for you. If it's just something you do on the side and the main purpose is gaming you pick 7700K or X99. If your main purpose is workstation tasks (like some of those synthetic tests that dont support GPU acceleration) and you dont play any serious games you pick Ryzen. If you want both you pick 7700K if you dont have the budget or X99 if you have the budget. So in the end you dont pick Ryzen (Ryzen 7, we dont know about others yet) for a gaming PC, because it's poor value.

You keep saying this. Please give me five situations where Zen will give you a sub-par gaming experience. If it "sucks" at gaming then it wouldn't handle gaming or would be useless at it. I am not saying that it's better for gaming than a 7700K. But that doesn't make it crap either.

It's more expensive and has less performance. How is it not crap?

- - - Updated - - -

That's good and all, but Ryzen 7 has never been marketed as a pure gaming cpu. It is all about productivitity and content creation, which it really is a really good performer in. Granted still need support and optimization for quite a few things, but as with almost any other new architecture, those are coming.

Is it as good as 7700K in gaming, nope. Nobody expected that, does it perform well enough for you to work and play with the computer, definately yes.

Ofc there are still bugs around and the launch is less than stellar, Windows still needs to update their build for example.. For us to see what it's really like on Windows, because on Linux, it's pretty freaking good so far.

And noone is saying that it's not true. Ryzen is great for beginner content creators who are not satisfied with mainstream i7s but cant afford X99. But they suck at gaming, please stop denying that.

[Life-Binder]

has anyone found a single review where they disable 2 cores, leaving a 6c/12t and try to OC that .. ?

[moremana]

has anyone found a single review where they disable 2 cores, leaving a 6c/12t and try to OC that .. ?

I looked this morning but couldn't find anything.

[Afrospinach]

But they suck at gaming, please stop denying that.

No they do not, you will probably not see much of a slump in performance when looking at the lesser ryzen CPUs with fewer cores, which are going to be a bit of a steal for the $$$. The ryzen 3 130$ part should still be hanging out with the i5s for what, barely more than half the price? Not where they alluded they would be? Maybe, but far from sucking.

[lockedout]

https://i.imgur.com/hefy7lE.gifv

This is funny check it out.

[Deleted]

No they do not, you will probably not see much of a slump in performance when looking at the lesser ryzen CPUs with fewer cores, which are going to be a bit of a steal for the $$$. The ryzen 3 130$ part should still be hanging out with the i5s for what, barely more than half the price? Not where they alluded they would be? Maybe, but far from sucking.

So very much this, and it is also good to remember that a 4 core chip will clock higher then a 8 core one. Having double the cores on a chip doesnt help with heat, and heat is the one thing that really matters when talking OC.