AMD Zen processors...Are you interested?

[Life-Binder]

disabling SMT defeats the purpose of buying Ryzen

[Artorius]

SMT problem is only a problem in Windows 10, it'll be fixed guys, relax. The current implementation from AMD is already better than Intel's HT in its first iteration:



AMD's SMT gives Zen a ~29% performance increase, Intel's SMT (HT) gives them ~25%. That's pretty amazing.

You can check the tests individually in his thread.

Engines also have Intel specific way of scheduling things with SMT which is very understandable taking into consideration Intel was the only vendor with SMT in the market until not so long ago.

[Vash The Stampede]

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

There's still the reports of games needing tweaks to detect the CPU properly. But most games are only slower by maybe 1-5 fps? Anything beyond that is probably the game engine not detecting the CPU extensions properly. Also overclocking is not a big deal when MOST of Intel's CPU's don't overclock. Though since we're talking about the 1700 chip, then we're comparing directly to the 7700k, which can overclock. But the 7700k isn't a gaming CPU either, it's more for productivity. SMT or hyperthreading is really not useful for like 99% of games. But 8 cores vs 4 cores is a big difference for productivity. The fact it can game is just a bonus really.

I already said very few people will buy the 8 core versions of Ryzen for gaming due to cost. It's not like we go around telling people to buy i7's for gaming. If you're going to buy a 8 core RyZen chip, it's because you do a bit of productivity and gaming, not just gaming. The real gaming chips to look for are the 4 and 6 core versions. Those are the serious business. But you would be stupid to buy a 7700K over a 1700, or any Intel chip that costs more than a 7700K. The slight benefit you get from gaming doesn't outweigh the performance in productivity.

If you're only interested in gaming then buying a 7600k would be better and save you a bit of money. But we still haven't seen AMD's 4 or 6 cores yet, and that's where the real game changer is for gamers. The end of i3's and the end of stupid i5's without hyperthreading.

disabling SMT defeats the purpose of buying Ryzen

My point of disabling SMT was that AMD was clearly not ready to launch RyZen. We know Intel has had similar problems in the past with Hyperthreading, where disabling it would get better performance in games. That problem was fixed with better support on Windows end. With ram issues, BIOS updates, and software not being totally ready for RyZen, it's pretty clear AMD would have benefited to delay RyZen launch for a little bit.

[pansertjald]

There's still the reports of games needing tweaks to detect the CPU properly. But most games are only slower by maybe 1-5 fps? Anything beyond that is probably the game engine not detecting the CPU extensions properly. Also overclocking is not a big deal when MOST of Intel's CPU's don't overclock. Though since we're talking about the 1700 chip, then we're comparing directly to the 7700k, which can overclock. But the 7700k isn't a gaming CPU either, it's more for productivity. SMT or hyperthreading is really not useful for like 99% of games. But 8 cores vs 4 cores is a big difference for productivity. The fact it can game is just a bonus really.

I already said very few people will buy the 8 core versions of Ryzen for gaming due to cost. It's not like we go around telling people to buy i7's for gaming. If you're going to buy a 8 core RyZen chip, it's because you do a bit of productivity and gaming, not just gaming. The real gaming chips to look for are the 4 and 6 core versions. Those are the serious business. But you would be stupid to buy a 7700K over a 1700, or any Intel chip that costs more than a 7700K. The slight benefit you get from gaming doesn't outweigh the performance in productivity.

If you're only interested in gaming then buying a 7600k would be better and save you a bit of money. But we still haven't seen AMD's 4 or 6 cores yet, and that's where the real game changer is for gamers. The end of i3's and the end of stupid i5's without hyperthreading.

My point of disabling SMT was that AMD was clearly not ready to launch RyZen. We know Intel has had similar problems in the past with Hyperthreading, where disabling it would get better performance in games. That problem was fixed with better support on Windows end. With ram issues, BIOS updates, and software not being totally ready for RyZen, it's pretty clear AMD would have benefited to delay RyZen launch for a little bit.

But the problem is that ALOT of people both on this forum and on other forums are buying the x1700 for gaming and that is why im saying that, that is bad.
If you really need a cpu for gaming then you still go the Intel way and if you do a little rendering besides gaming, then i would say go Intel i7

If you do ALOT of multithreading then you go the Ryzen way without a doubt

[BicycleMafioso]

What astounds me is how many people are just sneering and saying "tssk, not good enough, AMD sucks bad".
Look at how quickly they went from the trainwreck that is Bulldozer, their first new architecture since K7 in, what, 1999?, to suddenly be completely caught up, and you think this is not good enough?
Wait until AMD continues to re-iterate on this design, like they did with k7.
The amount of ground AMD caught up is amazing.

8 core 16 thread CPU's perfectly capable for gaming and overclocking on sub 100 dollar mother boards?

Don't that sound like the FX series from AMD?

FX processors were bloody amazing.
Bulldozer FX were crap. Ryzen, however, is not that. We get it, you are a super fan boy. It is clear that Nexus Gaming wanted Ryzen to fail and portrayed them in the worst light possible.
Also, Bulldozer FX were more like 4 core, 8 thread in actual intent. The difference is if you ask the PR people (8 core) or engineers (4 core, 8 threads with 8 physical cores)

you dont need an octacore for that

I'm running a 4770K overclocked to XYZ and I have 12 GiB RAM. I cannot have Chrome open when I play Wow, both memory and thread-wise. Let alone another game. I prefer not to have to close tasks.

A Korean guy found a very creative way of picturing his benchmarks results, condensates multiple graphs in a single image which makes it easier to see if you're lazy to go over the graphs individually:

https://s18.postimg.org/rbkmul2ah/ryzen.png

That's a rather telling image, but I honestly thought Intel was ahead with compression? But I might be confusing codec related compression and 7zip-esque compression.

which is why for gaming you now go with a hexacore

not an octacore

But the Ryzen 1800x outperforms the least expensive intel hexacore in every task except gaming while costing less (at least in my country). And in said gaming, it's not really behind.

[moremana]

I think we are going to have skeptics on AMD and rightly so due to the FX line. But I have been watching things over the last few days and once you get to some reviews that aren't skeptical or Intel biased, Ryzen looks good and it can only get better.

I was the same way at first because of FX, but AMD has really broken some ground. And I truly believe it will get better once games get some optimizations done (I really hope Blizz does with wow but I wont hold my breath)

[BicycleMafioso]

My point of disabling SMT was that AMD was clearly not ready to launch RyZen. We know Intel has had similar problems in the past with Hyperthreading, where disabling it would get better performance in games. That problem was fixed with better support on Windows end. With ram issues, BIOS updates, and software not being totally ready for RyZen, it's pretty clear AMD would have benefited to delay RyZen launch for a little bit.

This is bullshit.
SMT is not an issue and has been shown in games to not really have an impact. (this is on win10 even)

The problem is not Ryzen, or "how ready" AMD were to release it. The problem is that game developers have not had to work with either Ryzen, AMD's implementation of SMT versus Intel's implementation of SMT or let alone the fact that AMD has been so out of the game for so long that game developers simply haven't bothered make attempts at optimisations for AMD.
The same is also true for Windows 10 and Microsoft.

[Lathais]

This is bullshit.
SMT is not an issue and has been shown in games to not really have an impact. (this is on win10 even)

The problem is not Ryzen, or "how ready" AMD were to release it. The problem is that game developers have not had to work with either Ryzen, AMD's implementation of SMT versus Intel's implementation of SMT or let alone the fact that AMD has been so out of the game for so long that game developers simply haven't bothered make attempts at optimisations for AMD.
The same is also true for Windows 10 and Microsoft.

Yeah, AMD was ready, just no one else was. That's still AMDs problem and fault though. They could have waited a month or so after the embargo lifted and given all the motherboard manufacturers a little time to test out their BIOS' and Microsoft time to work out how Windows handles stuff and software devs a chance to work with it and do some game optimization. So sure, you can argue all day long that it has nothing to do with how ready AMD was, it's still their problem.

[moremana]

Yeah, i t looks like MB manufacturers just didnt have enough time to get the boards ready.

I watch Gamers Nexus and I know they caught a lot of flak, however they do have a video with AMD involved that explains a lot of it.

Its long, but informative if your interested.

Differences in Reviews: Gamers Nexus with AMD

[BicycleMafioso]

Yeah, AMD was ready, just no one else was. That's still AMDs problem and fault though. They could have waited a month or so after the embargo lifted and given all the motherboard manufacturers a little time to test out their BIOS' and Microsoft time to work out how Windows handles stuff and software devs a chance to work with it and do some game optimization. So sure, you can argue all day long that it has nothing to do with how ready AMD was, it's still their problem.

So you are suggesting we should wait until April 2nd, since that is a month after the embargo lifted, and this is their fault and problem?
I have no idea what to make of that.

[Lathais]

So you are suggesting we should wait until April 2nd, since that is a month after the embargo lifted, and this is their fault and problem?
I have no idea what to make of that.

How is it not their problem? They released the chip and it runs like crap because the motherboard manufacturer's, Microsoft and software devs were not ready yet. Because of that, many of the early benchmarks are going to stick in people's heads and people will continue to be anti-AMD. I am not sure who else's problem that is, it doesn't really hurt anyone but AMD. Also, they are the only one's who really could have prevented it by delaying their release until all of them had things in working order. If they are the only one's that could have prevented it, that makes it their fault.

Also, yeah, if I was considering buying one of these, or an i7-7700k or something similar, I would totally wait another month or so for all the dust to settle and all these issues to get sorted out before making any sort of decision. I think most of the people that already bought one are some sort of crazy, unless they were already planning on buying something X99.

[BicycleMafioso]

How is it not their problem? They released the chip and it runs like crap because the motherboard manufacturer's, Microsoft and software devs were not ready yet. Because of that, many of the early benchmarks are going to stick in people's heads and people will continue to be anti-AMD. I am not sure who else's problem that is, it doesn't really hurt anyone but AMD. Also, they are the only one's who really could have prevented it by delaying their release until all of them had things in working order. If they are the only one's that could have prevented it, that makes it their fault.

I have no idea what you were trying to say.
How is it AMD's problem that it's not April 2nd yet? You said they should have waited a month until the embargo lifted to let motherboard manufacturers time to catch up. Embargo was lifted March 2nd.
So how is that AMD's fault?

Do all the things you mentioned need to happen? Yes.
Will they happen faster post-release than pre-release? Yes.

[Life-Binder]

And in said gaming, it's not really behind.

yeah it is

I'm running a 4770K overclocked to XYZ and I have 12 GiB RAM. I cannot have Chrome open when I play Wow, both memory and thread-wise. Let alone another game. I prefer not to have to close tasks.

dont believe you tbh, sorry (especially since WoW uses like 4 threads or less, so your chrome is eating up more than 4 ? lol)

I have a 3770K @ 4.5 /w 16GB, I always have Firefox open and I have no trouble in any game ever .. in lighter games like ~WoW/HotS/OW I can have some tabs open, a few streams running @ 1080p source (html5) and its still completely fine (I know since my Predator monitor always shows fps and Ive compared it with and without streams running)

the only MP game where I would prefer not to have streams running in background is probably BF1 .. but just having firefox open is totally fine


maybe its just chrome thats so shit

[Lathais]

I have no idea what you were trying to say.
How is it AMD's problem that it's not April 2nd yet? You said they should have waited a month until the embargo lifted to let motherboard manufacturers time to catch up. Embargo was lifted March 2nd.
So how is that AMD's fault?

Do all the things you mentioned need to happen? Yes.
Will they happen faster post-release than pre-release? Yes.

Yeah, they'll happen faster post-release, but seriously, they only had the microcode finished 3 weeks before release. There was barely enough time to get the final product in to the hands of the people that needed it in order for them to get these things ready, much less really test it at all. many reviewers were even saying that they did not have enough time to review these things properly, how do you think developers felt? Yes, that is entirely on AMDs shoulders. They are the ones that left these guys NO TIME to get this stuff done.

Since you are apparantly not understanding what I am saying, since the embargo was lifting March 2nd, they should not have released the damn thing for sale until at least a month later. That would have given the motherboard manufacturer's, Microsoft and software devs at least SOME time to get things ready.

[BicycleMafioso]

yeah it is



dont believe you tbh, sorry (especially since WoW uses like 4 threads or less, so your chrome is eating up more than 4 ? lol)

I have a 3770K @ 4.5 /w 16GB, I always have Firefox open and I have no trouble in any game ever .. in lighter games like ~WoW/HotS/OW I can have some tabs open, a few streams running @ 1080p source (html5) and its still completely fine (I know since my Predator monitor always shows fps and Ive compared it with and without streams running)

the only MP game where I would prefer not to have streams running in background is probably BF1 .. but just having firefox open is totally fine


maybe its just chrome thats so shit

You saying that doesn't make it so.
You don't believe my specs or the performance I'm getting/not getting?
Chrome is eating up my RAM enough that Windows tells me it wants to shut down WoW all the time, since I'm constantly >10GiB used. This is even with me dumping the amount of tabs down to 8~ish from like 40-60+ that I have if I don't run a game (because I'm a slob and not good at cleaning up after myself :P)
and yea, one of those is nearly always Youtube, Netflix (browser version because lazy, I know that both the IE/Edge/App versions are all better performing for Netflix or CMore (swedish sports, think they use Silverlight).
And I can tell by the in-game FPS-counter that I use in Wow and the MSI Afterburner one I use in other games that it is suffering and in WoW stuttering. Even without the streams.

Yeah, they'll happen faster post-release, but seriously, they only had the microcode finished 3 weeks before release. There was barely enough time to get the final product in to the hands of the people that needed it in order for them to get these things ready, much less really test it at all. many reviewers were even saying that they did not have enough time to review these things properly, how do you think developers felt? Yes, that is entirely on AMDs shoulders. They are the ones that left these guys NO TIME to get this stuff done.

AMD and Intel doesn't work the same way behind the curtains, and ASUS et al need to re-learn this fact. That said, they all had the final release date far in advance. Could AMD improve in these departments? Sure.
Does AMD have the same financial resources to brute-force or give leeway to things like Intel can? Of course not.

They are not working in the same ball-park. Is AMD behind? Yes. I still have no idea what your initial statement meant though.
Are AMD putting up a good fight? Yes.
Are people obsessing over near-negligble details? Clearly.
Should I stop answering my own questions? Immediately.

[Lathais]

AMD and Intel doesn't work the same way behind the curtains, and ASUS et al need to re-learn this fact. That said, they all had the final release date far in advance. Could AMD improve in these departments? Sure.
Does AMD have the same financial resources to brute-force or give leeway to things like Intel can? Of course not.

They are not working in the same ball-park. Is AMD behind? Yes. I still have no idea what your initial statement meant though.
Are AMD putting up a good fight? Yes.
Are people obsessing over near-negligble details? Clearly.
Should I stop answering my own questions? Immediately.

Oh yeah, I'm right there with you. The problem is that your general consumer, and apparently your average review site, does not understand this. Also, while sure, they had the release date ahead of time, they did not have to working product in their hands to test with until at least 3 weeks before launch. That's insane. AMD could easily have pushed back the release just a little bit and given these people more time with their product and it would have alleviated a ton of these so-called issues, that won't be issues once things get sorted out. However, how these things run after the issues get sorted out is not what is going to be remembered by your average consumer. It's the average consumer that needs their perception changed and this was a bad way to try to start changing those perceptions. No one to blame there but AMD and no one else will get hurt by it.

[mrgreenthump]

Haven't seen this yet, from all the pages of talking, but the disabling SMT performance increase is due to Windows scheduling bug, which at times uses the wrong cache stack, which leads to heavy performance loss. This is ofc only a problem on Windows atm, because Microsoft for some reason is waiting for a new build to push the Ryzen drivers through.

Now will it make Ryzen the ultimate gaming CPU.. Ofc not. It will still depend on your situation. If you have 240Hz monitor, you want the best single core performance CPU, and that is not Ryzen. But for general gaming, overall it seems like a pretty good CPU, at least more future proof than 4 core 4 thread.

[BicycleMafioso]

If Ryzen had been launched 2.5 months earlier, no one would consider its gaming performance bad.
It isn't bad. It just so happens that Kaby Lake is slightly better. The keyword is slightly.

[Vash The Stampede]

So you are suggesting we should wait until April 2nd, since that is a month after the embargo lifted, and this is their fault and problem?
I have no idea what to make of that.

It's up to AMD to try and help developers as quickly as possible, tune for RyZen. If it means delaying until April 2nd, so be it. Cause right now the internet is eating the first impressions and lots of misinformation is all over the place. And those websites aren't going to update their benchmarks or do new ones just cause AMD did a tweak here and a tweak there.

But the problem is that ALOT of people both on this forum and on other forums are buying the x1700 for gaming and that is why im saying that, that is bad.
If you really need a cpu for gaming then you still go the Intel way and if you do a little rendering besides gaming, then i would say go Intel i7

If you do ALOT of multithreading then you go the Ryzen way without a doubt

For the cost of an i7, you could get a 1700, and you should. If you do a little rending, then yes go RyZen. At this point nobody should be looking at i7's. They're dead, until Intel lowers cost. The i5's have a stay of execution, until AMD releases RyZen 5 & 3.

As usual try to ignore this guy's hair

I cannot, it's so fluffy.

[BicycleMafioso]

The embargo can't lift a month after the embargo lifts though. This is silly. What is it you guys are saying?