AMD Zen processors...Are you interested?

[Artorius]

Thanks for the info @lloewe, so it seems the "high performance" profile is still beneficial in most cases. So I suppose it just wasn't for The Stilt because he was under Windows 7 instead of 10. Like said more than 10 times in the thread, it's just a launch full of problems that will be ironed out after time.

Some other useful results:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...rn-of-the-Jedi
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...en-cores&num=2

[moremana]

this



rofl


you dont need an octacore for that

your right you dont, but no one really knows what others are going to do int the future and some people keep their PCs for 5+ years.

[Thunderball]

1 - The frequency isn't the most important thing here, the timings are. The way they configured their RAM probably locked it to a very loose timing which isn't something you can change manually currently. I already explained what's currently wrong with the controller, you can go back and read the thread again, since you didn't. Even better, go watch Buildzoid's video, he explains it better than me.
2 - And the latest BIOS update for their mobo was still bad. Unfortunate that we had BIOS problems on launch, but what can we do about it? Nothing other than using the mobos that were working half decently.
3 - It isn't, Joker benchmarked more than a single scenario and he wasn't in a single one of them GPU bottlenecking it by running in UHD. Joker also showed that when you put ridiculous settings Kaby Lake will obviously be better due to obvious reasons, it has a ~7% edge in IPC and clocks 800MHz higher. It's also better than Broadwell-E so again what's the surprise?

Ryzen is trading blows with Intel's HEDT line, it wins in some cases against Broadwell-E, loses in others. However both lose to Kaby Lake in single threaded scenarios which is something that is simply obvious and I don't know why you'd expect it to be otherwise. It is also doing this at half the TDP, less than half the cost compared to the 6900K and also gives you a safer upgrade path since AMD stick to their sockets for much longer than Intel. The entire X99 platform is pointless unless you need to go with the 6950X, paying 5x more for 30~35% better performance.

1) Current AM4 chipsets dont allow subtiming control (as you said), making it that much harder to get low timings. XMP is also not working properly on most boards (since it's an Intel technology), so why blame the reviewers when it's AMD's fault. I'm not denying some things are not working properly, I'm just saying that most of those are hardware, not software related. AMD made a concience choice with their design that is biting them in the ass.
2) Again, most of the problems (memory controller for sure) cannot be remedied with software updates.
3) You didnt watch the GamerNexus video. 720p settings are not ridiculous, they are showing CPU performance, without any effect of the GPU. They are not realistic - yeah, that's for sure, but it's supposed to be a CPU benchmark, not Ryzen + 1080 vs Broadwell-E/Kaby Lake + 1080 in games. AMD SPECIFICALLY advertised Ryzen to be on par with Broadwell-E in games (look at their 22 Feb presentation, they had a gimped Broadwell-E system against Ryzen side-by-side) so yeah, it's apparently a suprise for AMD.

[Life-Binder]

your right you dont, but no one really knows what others are going to do int the future and some people keep their PCs for 5+ years.

which is why for gaming you now go with a hexacore

not an octacore

[Thunderball]

If you like reasonably priced Intel processors then you better hope not because no AMD in the wings will result in very high priced Intel processors. Competition is a good thing.

I like, but there is no reasonably priced processors released that can compare with Intel mainstream line, so there is currently no point for Intel to lower prices for those.

[Artorius]

1) Current AM4 chipsets dont allow subtiming control (as you said), making it that much harder to get low timings. XMP is also not working properly on most boards (since it's an Intel technology), so why blame the reviewers when it's AMD's fault. I'm not denying some things are not working properly, I'm just saying that most of those are hardware, not software related. AMD made a concience choice with their design that is biting them in the ass.
2) Again, most of the problems (memory controller for sure) cannot be remedied with software updates.
3) You didnt watch the GamerNexus video. 720p settings are not ridiculous, they are showing CPU performance, without any effect of the GPU. They are not realistic - yeah, that's for sure, but it's supposed to be a CPU benchmark, not Ryzen + 1080 vs Broadwell-E/Kaby Lake + 1080 in games. AMD SPECIFICALLY advertised Ryzen to be on par with Broadwell-E in games (look at their 22 Feb presentation, they had a gimped Broadwell-E system against Ryzen side-by-side) so yeah, it's apparently a suprise for AMD.

1) You can set it as a lower frequency that also has a tight timing and then increase BCLK on mobos with a base clock generator.
2) They can.
3) They're showing CPU performance on a bugged platform with a broken setup, an OS that doesn't know how to schedule for it yet, without the right profile and on games that majoritarily aren't optimised for this amount of threads yet. Also on a uarch that has a ~8% IPC deficit and clocks 800MHz lower. So again, what was even your point? AMD never showcased Zen in 720p low setting gaming against Kaby Lake, they said it was on par with Broadwell-E on UHD and it is.

Such horrible performance...

[moremana]

which is why for gaming you now go with a hexacore

not an octacore

I agree but unfortunately if you want to go amd thats all thats available at this moment and they really arent that bad at gaming.

[Artorius]

Not sure if AMD can do this in any reasonable amount of time and they most likely won't but I wonder what would the clock difference be if Zen was manufactured on 16FF+ or perhaps even 10LPE instead of 14LPP. The incredibly low power process makes it very ridiculous when it comes to perf/watt in its comfortable frequency range, but they need to clock higher in their 4 core SKUs to compete. If they could and it did give a measurable increase (let's say, 300MHz more) then it would already be very nice.

[Vash The Stampede]

If I want to game, I'm choosing Intel, there is no valid argument otherwise when a stock I5 6600 outperforms the flagship 1800x in ANY game.

Stock i5 6600 also can't overclock. Also there's a lot of reports of fudged numbers. BIOS updates that can increase performance by 25%. Disabling SMT can increase performance. I even hear Intel is pushing reviewers to favor Intel. AMD is working with the few games with drastic performance difference to tweak their code and patch it for RyZen.

I really don't see any reason for anyone to buy Intel over RyZen at this point for gaming. It's unfortunate that RyZen had a very bad first impression with performance, but that's why I haven't taken initial benchmarks very seriously.



Also it's not like Intel hasn't had their rough starts with new CPUs. Kabylake seems to have started this thing where people delid their CPUs because of cheap manufacturing. AMD though uses solder, which means no deliding needed.

[moremana]

The only thing we can be relatively certain on is that Chrome will continue to be memory intensive but maintain performance when many tabs are open (compared to any other browser, this is where Chrome wins out). It 'disables' most background operations, besides those running under certain API's (such as notifications) in pages that aren't in the foreground and has done for years. Chrome won't benefit from more cores unfortunately.

When I mentioned chrome that was a toss in, obviously chrome isnt going to bog your system down on its own and I didnt post that chrome by itself would. To say it only uses memory is not true at all.

http://www.zerodollartips.com/fix-go...igh-cpu-usage/

And as there are ways to curb it, not everyone knows these things.

[pansertjald]

Stock i5 6600 also can't overclock. Also there's a lot of reports of fudged numbers. BIOS updates that can increase performance by 25%. Disabling SMT can increase performance. I even hear Intel is pushing reviewers to favor Intel. AMD is working with the few games with drastic performance difference to tweak their code and patch it for RyZen.

I really don't see any reason for anyone to buy Intel over RyZen at this point for gaming. It's unfortunate that RyZen had a very bad first impression with performance, but that's why I haven't taken initial benchmarks very seriously.



Also it's not like Intel hasn't had their rough starts with new CPUs. Kabylake seems to have started this thing where people delid their CPUs because of cheap manufacturing. AMD though uses solder, which means no deliding needed.

This has been going on for years. it's has just become more mainstream now, because of the tools you can buy for it now.

And i really don't believe that a BIOS update will give a 25% boost. 10% maybe and that will still not make them pull ahead of games. As long as Ryzen OC's so bad and the i5 and i7 clocks so good, there is no point AT ALL in going Ryzen for gaming

[Artorius]

And i really don't believe that a BIOS update will give a 25% boost.

It already did. The first major BIOS update literally increased its performance by 25%. Duke is not talking about the past here.

[Thunderball]

Horrible performance...

Clear GPU bottleneck right there in all games, except DIRT (which is the least demanding out there).

[pansertjald]

It already did. The first major BIOS update literally increased its performance by 25%. Duke is not talking about the past here.

I would like to see a link then. All i have seen is the same numbers all over. I haven't seen any numbers yet, where they do better in games

[moremana]

I dont know the validity of this, Ryzen isnt top dog but the minimums look good. It is not against Sky/Kaby Lake though so take it all with a grain of salt.

WoW Benchmark 1700X

[Artorius]

I would like to see a link then. All i have seen is the same numbers all over. I haven't seen any numbers yet, where they do better in games

You can learn basically anything about it here. Don't really the beginning of it only, he performed more benchmarks in the other pages as people asked him to.
I have to do some stuff now but you can find all kinds of links in the last 10 pages or so of this.
Most of the questions were answered here as well. Also problems we've been talking about confirmed by AMD themselves.
You can find more information on Computerbase, Sweclockers and in Xtremesystems.

Again for the third time or fourth, the clock difference alone (even ignoring the IPC difference) in Kaby Lake is enough to make it better in draw call bound scenarios such as low settings 720p even if all the problems were fixed. But this doesn't make Ryzen terrible at gaming. The VGAs aren't going to get 4x more powerful anytime soon to make Ryzen realistically "bad" in meaningful resolutions, chances are that it'll get fixed much, much sooner than this. And newer engines will also try to utilise its cores more efficiently, its performance will only go higher as time passes simply because the entire platform is a bugfest right now. And since there are a lot of things to be fixed in various isolated areas, don't expect them to be all fixed in less than 2 months.

[moremana]

Wednesday cant come fast enough.

[pansertjald]

You can learn basically anything about it here. Don't really the beginning of it only, he performed more benchmarks in the other pages as people asked him to.
I have to do some stuff now but you can find all kinds of links in the last 10 pages or so of this.
Most of the questions were answered here as well. Also problems we've been talking about confirmed by AMD themselves.
You can find more information on Computerbase, Sweclockers and in Xtremesystems.

Again for the third time or fourth, the clock difference alone (even ignoring the IPC difference) in Kaby Lake is enough to make it better in draw call bound scenarios such as low settings 720p even if all the problems were fixed. But this doesn't make Ryzen terrible at gaming. The VGAs aren't going to get 4x more powerful anytime soon to make Ryzen realistically "bad" in meaningful resolutions, chances are that it'll get fixed much, much sooner than this. And newer engines will also try to utilise its cores more efficiently, its performance will only go higher as time passes simply because the entire platform is a bugfest right now. And since there are a lot of things to be fixed in various isolated areas, don't expect them to be all fixed in less than 2 months.

I still don't see a 25% boost in games. Don't get me wrong. Teh ryzen is a reallt good CPU, just not for gaming. For multithreaded apps it is an amazing CPU.

And i did read the post from AMD where they address the problems in games and that they have 300 game developers working on updates for the Ryzen. But i still don't think it will give a 25% boost in games. Maybe the R5 and R3 will do better in games. But for now Intel is still gaming kings

[Artorius]

I still don't see a 25% boost in games. Don't get me wrong. Teh ryzen is a reallt good CPU, just not for gaming. For multithreaded apps it is an amazing CPU.

And i did read the post from AMD where they address the problems in games and that they have 300 game developers working on updates for the Ryzen. But i still don't think it will give a 25% boost in games. Maybe the R5 and R3 will do better in games. But for now Intel is still gaming kings

No no no, he meant 25% performance increase overall. Not 25% performance increase in games =D If you thought there were a BIOS update to increase performance in games only, there's not.

If you want to see some difference between extremely bugged setups and fairly bugged setups though, here:



Just changing the scheduling makes this difference. And there are some benchmarks in this thread with slightly better RAM configurations matching it in most realistic scenarios.

Also relevant.

- - - Updated - - -

A warning:

Big warning if you guys didn't know: Some boards are getting bricked during the bios update process. Jayz2cents bricked his Crosshair VI Hero doing a BIOS update. Makes me glad mine won't ship for a while.
California Tustin microcenter has two of those expensive, top shelf MSI boards in stock (probably already gone). $300 is too much for me to spend on a board for this build. Value is diminished due to poor OC headroom, otherwise I'd have less of an issue with it. Feeling conflicted about spending $500 on the 1800X, but I have a feeling that once the temp monitoring bugs are worked out and people start settling in with their builds, I think we'll see more 1800X's hitting 4.0-4.1 than 1700's or even 1700X's. I am considering going back to microcenter and buying protection on the 1800X since these things require 1.4v or higher to hit 4.0ghz. Makes me concerned about the life of the chip. $500 is a lot to spend on a chip that might die early due to voltage.
I'll wait for the Crosshair board to ship and watch other people's experiences until then. In short, I am feeling some remorse for spending high end CPU money on an 1800X, yet at the same time conflicted enough to not exchange it for a 1700. First world problems of the first degree I suppose.

Video of the Jayz2cents guy saying his mobo died. He also has some interesting stuff afterwards in his video regarding SMT usage in games.

Thread on Reddit from users who had their mobos dying from the BIOS update.
The mobo in question that is dying on users is the Asus Crosshair VI Hero.

[Fascinate]

Even if disabling SMT helps in a few games i wouldnt bother with it lol. TBH i will probably get my PC built, set my ram timings and fan curves and just use the ryzen master tool to overclock.