Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Amd almost had me lol.

hatefulpeacehatefulpeace Member UncommonPosts: 621
edited March 2017 in General Gaming
With all that hype, and those blender things, I was almost believing that ryzen was as good as intel...

This is their top end one. 1800x
15518

Single Thread Rating: 1960

This is Intels low end haswell  6800k

14506

Single Thread Rating: 2176

The ryzen is 500 bucks. the 6800k is 400. 

This is the i7 7700k

12312

Single Thread Rating: 2599

Lol that is 300 bucks, so once again AMD loses bad at everything. There is 0 reason to buy a amd once again. Intel beats it at price, and at performance. 

that is their top end 6950x

19970

Single Thread Rating: 2128

So all that garbage about ryzen being with intel, is that garbage. The ryzen isnt much better than a 8350 overclock to 5 ghz. 

10297

Single Thread Rating: 1731

that is a 9390 or a 8350 oced to 5ghz
Yeah the ryzen is faster because it has hyper threading, but on the single core it isnt their 40 percent they were boosting about. So yeah, if you could over clock a ryzen to 5 ghz, it would be close to a low end 6800k in single core. but a 6800k at 4.5 would still beat it. 

So in gaming the intel beats it, in multi tasking, if your the rare person who needs that kind of horsepower for multi tasking, the cheaper 6800 would come close, but would also be better for gaming, and the 6950x just wipes the floor with it. 
«134

Comments

  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 43,682
    Incoming gear head fight. ;)

    "True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde 

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • hatefulpeacehatefulpeace Member UncommonPosts: 621
    edited March 2017
    Kyleran said:
    Incoming gear head fight. ;)
    haha there is nothing to fight about. I trust passmark, so unless some one has some info that says passmark lies, than what is there to aruge about, those numbers dont lie. I am not a fan boy of either, I take which works best. AMd just really is slacking, there is no reason to buy amd, unless you can get a really good deal. I currently have a 8350 cause it was a good deal for a built computer, and I had a set limit of 600 bucks. But as far as some one who had the cash to build a 1800x ryzen computer, there is no reason at all to buy it. 

    If you are a gamer, saving 200 and buying the i7 7700k would get you better fps in games. Which i personally only care about games, so yep if you want it to multitask stuff or just process something that can use all cores, the ryzen gets better, but not 100 dollars better the 6800k is the better deal. And the 6800k would be better for gaming than a 1800x. So yeah I cant see a point in going amd. 

    Then add in the fact that ryzen only has 28 pci lanes, vrs the compareable in price i7 6850k which has 40, and again, if you were going for 3 gpus, and some pci e ssds, again the i7 would be the better choice. 
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 23,375
    Boo! And there we were hoping for a geek fight? No AMD fanbois out there? :)
  • filmoretfilmoret Member EpicPosts: 4,906
    Yea its well known the single thread rating is very bad.  The chips have 16 threads which is why they are competitive.  But once intel launches 16t chips well then its back to zero again for AMD.
    Are you onto something or just on something?
  • hatefulpeacehatefulpeace Member UncommonPosts: 621
    edited March 2017
    filmoret said:
    Yea its well known the single thread rating is very bad.  The chips have 16 threads which is why they are competitive.  But once intel launches 16t chips well then its back to zero again for AMD.
    Well it wasent to me lol. I honestly believed the hype before ryzen was released. I am actually kinda disappointed, I was gonna buy a ryzen when i upgrade again, but now no way would I do that. I only disappointed though, cause i had a 6800k, and got to crazy with the over clock and blew it up hahaha. So my hope was it would be fine cause ryzen would come out and ryzen would be better, but nope not even close. If i were to upgrade to a 6800k kind of computer again, I would go with a 6800k over a ryzen, and use the saved money to buy a 1080ti. 

    I dont see how you are saying they are competitive. What situation can you think of that would make some one buy a amd 1800x over a 6850k. I honestly can't think of one, minus misinformed people or fan boyisum. The 6850k which is the same price has more pci lanes. The 6800k has almost the same performance, and a higher single clock, and can be overclocked easy to 4.3, and if your brave 4.5 but i warn ya that might blow it up haha. Hyper threads, are useless if you ask me maybe if you are running a server, but there are better intel choices for that to. 

    Intel got the low end, the high end, the middle end, the server end, the gaming end, I cant conceive a reason to buy a amd 
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,342
    edited March 2017
    The issue with per core performance is within Widows scheduling, wait for fix before passing judgements.
  • hatefulpeacehatefulpeace Member UncommonPosts: 621
    So lets see. all 8gbs ram amazon. Windows 10 home. 
    here is a 480 and 8350 build. 
    Subtotal (10 items): $770.40

    Here is a amd ryzen 1800x and a 480 build

    Subtotal (10 items): $1,157.40

    Here is a i7 6800k build. 

    Subtotal (10 items): $1,162.40

    Ahhh there it is, I see now since the x99 motherboards start at 200. If in a rare case, you wanted multi tasking the ryzen would be a better choice. 

    Here is a i7 7700k build. With a 1070 instead of a 480. 
    Subtotal (10 items): $1,137.40

    Here is a i5 7600k build. With a 1080 

    Subtotal (10 items): $1,217.40


    So alright for a specfic build, not for gaming and the person never ever wanted to use it for gaming. Ryzen has it, which I dont know who wants that kind of thing but maybe some where. 

    Clearly the best deal for gaming/multitasking hybrid is the i7 with a 1070, and the best deal for pure gaming is the i5 with a 1080.


  • krulerkruler Member UncommonPosts: 589
    Gdemami said:
    The issue with per core performance is within Widows scheduling, wait for fix before passing judgements.

    Tick Tock Tick Tock, pre-release and launch perceptions are everything, if you couldn't see there was an issue with windows with your product before launch, and are now after launch waiting for a "Fix".

    On top of that you were pinning not a small amount of hope into the product turning your fortunes around then I believe AMD is as per its history is cursed to repeat its mistakes time and time again till it exists in name only.
    This may take a few more years, but they just keep failing to light the world on fire, heck they are lucky to strike the damned match in the first instance. 

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,342
    kruler said:
    This may take a few more years, but they just keep failing to light the world on fire, heck they are lucky to strike the damned match in the first instance. 
    Do they? You seem to be quite "on fire"....
  • Thomas2006Thomas2006 Member RarePosts: 1,152
    Gdemami said:
    The issue with per core performance is within Widows scheduling, wait for fix before passing judgements.
    That is 100% wrong. PCper did a entire video on this proving with different tests that it is not the Windows Scheduling causing problems.




  • Thomas2006Thomas2006 Member RarePosts: 1,152
    Gdemami said:
    That is just a discusion by some people. Its not an official windows post or anything. Also the video I linked above proves that, that post is entirely WRONG.
  • filmoretfilmoret Member EpicPosts: 4,906
    edited March 2017
    Just going by your own numbers its the fact that AMD has 16threads that makes it remotely competitive.  The overall power of the 1800x is 1960x16  meanwhile the overrall rating of the 6800k is 2176x12.   So its a little faster but only because it has 16 threads and only when the software can take advantage of it.
    Are you onto something or just on something?
  • GladDogGladDog Member RarePosts: 1,097
    edited March 2017
    I read an extensive (OMGWTFBBQ too damn long!) review of the Ryzen at Tom's Hardware, and what they said is that It is a good chip that is extremely competitive with Intel at the workstation market, which is the largest market for desktops, by far.  The 16 thread Ryzen runs rings around the 8 or 10 thread Broadwell in many tests related to programming and rendering.  So Ryzen is a win for AMD business-wise.  However, the game tests were not as strong as the business ones.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu,4951.html http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-am4-ryzen-chipsets,33806.html

    The performance in games suffers for two reasons;

    1 - lack of games optimized for more than 4 threads.
    2 - The Ryzen was rushed to market too soon.  The CPU itself has a lot of potential, but it is suffering from lack of polish.  The CPU will probably get a firmware update or two over the next year or so (scary!) that should make it very competitive with Intel's current offerings by the end of the year.

    The game performance isn't bad by any stretch of the imagination; it is just lower than Intel's performance.   When AMD releases the 6/12, 4/8 and 4/4 parts, which will have the time invested in optimization to make these parts more gamer-competitive with what Intel is offering, and at a much lower price, we can make a better judgment. 

    *** EDIT ***

    Linked the wrong article.  The correct link is in this post now.
    Post edited by GladDog on


    The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!


  • kitaradkitarad Member LegendaryPosts: 8,013
    I feel this is not good news as gaming is where my interest lies and this means Intel will continue to gouge us  on prices. Any time AMD does not live up to the hype we the consumer suffers.

  • hatefulpeacehatefulpeace Member UncommonPosts: 621
    GladDog said:
    I read an extensive (OMGWTFBBQ too damn long!) review of the Ryzen at Tom's Hardware, and what they said is that It is a good chip that is extremely competitive with Intel at the workstation market, which is the largest market for desktops, by far.  The 16 thread Ryzen runs rings around the 8 or 10 thread Broadwell in many tests related to programming and rendering.  So Ryzen is a win for AMD business-wise.  However, the game tests were not as strong as the business ones.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-am4-ryzen-chipsets,33806.html

    The performance in games suffers for two reasons;

    1 - lack of games optimized for more than 4 threads.
    2 - The Ryzen was rushed to market too soon.  The CPU itself has a lot of potential, but it is suffering from lack of polish.  The CPU will probably get a firmware update or two over the next year or so (scary!) that should make it very competitive with Intel's current offerings by the end of the year.

    The game performance isn't bad by any stretch of the imagination; it is just lower than Intel's performance.   When AMD releases the 6/12, 4/8 and 4/4 parts, which will have the time invested in optimization to make these parts more gamer-competitive with what Intel is offering, and at a much lower price, we can make a better judgment. 
     In one case ryzen is slightly faster than a 6 core 6 thread intel cpu lol. Not the 8 thread 8 core which gets almost 20k on the passmark, where their fastest gets 15000, and has 8 more threads lol. Your saying in a year the amd ryzen will be as fast as intels now. Well in a year intel will have a new cpu, and that ends that. So once again amd failed. Ryzens would be worth it if they were priced at like 250 bucks. 500 is way to high. The hype train is strong though, and a lot of suckers bought one, so i guess they priced it better if your goal is to be greedy. 

    It is no different than I phone selling their obselete garbage phones for 4x the amount of a android phone. The i phone 7 isnt even as good as a lg g3, which sells for 150 bucks. You get that hype train a going, and you can sell garbage for gold. More proof would be no mans sky, which has got to be the worst game in existence, there is no game on steam that equal it in bad feed back. Yet No man sky has some of the highest feed back numbers. So again some one used the power of hype to sell garbage at non garbage prices.

    In reality though, there is no reason any average person would want a ryzen, and the people who would want a workstation cpu, would buy a xeon, or i7 6950x. So yeah the only people buying a ryzen got hyped up on the train, bought garbage, and so they dont feel bad will defend it forever. 

    I wish i had a i5 7600k and a 1080, so i could go into games, and laugh at the ryzen fps. 
  • WeeatcanibalsWeeatcanibals Member CommonPosts: 1
    Then get an AM4 mobo (like msi titanium) and a 1700 ryzen soc, close the one ccx of the chip (that is, close half of the cores and threads of ryzen) and you can have equal gaming performance to a 7700k. Take a look at the benchmarks in WWCFTECH's site, which compare a ryzen working with four cores/eight threads, to a 7700k. For multitasking multithreaded jobs, activate both ccxs and all cores and threads of ryzen to equal the intel 6900k. Ryzen beats them both. Both in gaming and in multithreading performance. It is prooved now that when both complexes of ryzen are activated,  gaming performance fells, because of the low speed of communication bus between two complexes, something you can see also in the 6900k cpu,  which also cannot beat the 4c/8t 7700k, despite its 8c/16t. Ryzen can easily compete 7700k though, because you can easily turn the one complex off, thus turning it to a 4c/8t gaming soc. So if you want to waste your money to the monopoly of intel, and prove youself sortsighted, then do so. I myself am determined to wait for AM4 platform to mature, and built my pc on Amd's socs, which are faster, better, cheapper. Of course Intels right now, with their 140 tdp vs 90 of Amds,  and their 1100 bucks vs 330 of an eight core Ryzen, look veeeeery inteligent choice to idiots, only because they are going to boil eggs on them, and use them for their house's central heating.... And as for the double prise they donate to poor Intel, who cares about it? They are pleased only to feel written on their empty heads: INTEL INSIDE. 
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,371
    How do you regard a Core i7-6800K that costs over $400 as "low end"?

    Ryzen 7 is competitive with Broadwell-E, not Kaby Lake.  If you only care about gaming, there's little reason to look at either Ryzen 7 or Broadwell-E, as more cores clocked lower doesn't help you in programs that don't scale well to more cores.

    And why are you basing everything on a single synthetic benchmark?  Even if you want to go the synthetic route, at least look at a bunch of synthetic benchmarks that will tend to give different results from each other.  Ryzen 7 beats Broadwell-E at quite a few things, though to be fair, it also loses as quite a few.
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,342
    edited March 2017
    Thomas2006 said:
    That is just a discusion by some people. Its not an official windows post or anything. Also the video I linked above proves that, that post is entirely WRONG.
    The video/article is some huge leap assumptions and in neither way implies Windows scheduler fix cannot help the problem, especially when fiddling with affinity and HT does provide performance gains.

    And yeah, bad link posted when on phone..

    http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-performance-negatively-affected-windows-10-scheduler-bug/

    Regardless, it is pretty much everywhere...

    Post edited by Gdemami on
  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,412
    Ryzen is actually very competitive at single threaded performance. Clock for clock it is equivalent to its Intel counterpart. In a year the platform issues should be worked out making the platform more compelling. Naturally now is not the time to buy Ryzen for most consumers. It needs patches from Microsoft and a series of bios updates from board partners. In Linux it doesn't have nearly as many problems with scheduling.
    Around the launch of the APUs would be a good time to buy into the platform. Very powerful integrated gpus, large memory bandwidth, and most of the platform issues worked out.
  • SoulticeSoultice Member UncommonPosts: 112
    Ryzen is not a gaming CPU currently and that is ok with me.  If you buy a Haswell or Broadwell for gaming you are wasting serious money as these are workstation processors and neither of these intel processers will beat their 4-core siblings in gaming.  Comparing the Ryzen 7 to intel's workstation processers is where you should be looking.  The Ryzen beats the 1000 intel processer in many benchmarks and for a third of the price.  Almost all the reviewers would pick the Ryzen over the intel if they were using their systems for workstations and occasional gaming.  Re-read some of their comments.

    If all you do is game stick with the intel until they work out the problems with the Ryzen.  Ryzen 4-core and 6-core processers will be coming later this year and then compare.  Cannonlake is coming from intel this year and oh they will be 6 core.  AMD screwed up by not working with venders except for three weeks.  I am sure that once they get all of this worked out like memory, windows and input and output problems the AMD offering will become even better.  The key to me is we need competition as intel is basically gouging the consumer with mediocre updates on their processer lines. 


    I have only had one AMD CPU and that was the Athlon64 FX as it was indeed a great processer and it laid the smack down on all of the intel processers at the time as it was a 64bit processor for a lot less then intels offerings.  AMD has produced a winner in my opinion for the audience it is intended for workstations and occasional gaming, and who knows in 3 or 4 months when all the kinks are worked out the processer may well kick some ass in gaming.

  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,412
    AMD has been working with vendors for months. Otherwise you would not have seen any AMD boards at CES and no working demo units. The problem is most of the vendors did not treat the platform as a priority. Now they have extreme shortages and the only one that is seizing the opportunity is Biostar.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,371
    Cleffy said:
    AMD has been working with vendors for months. Otherwise you would not have seen any AMD boards at CES and no working demo units. The problem is most of the vendors did not treat the platform as a priority. Now they have extreme shortages and the only one that is seizing the opportunity is Biostar.
    I certainly agree that AMD worked with vendors.  I saw one article claiming that AMD had told motherboard vendors that Ryzen would launch in Q2, then pulled in the launch while giving the motherboard vendors very little notice.  I'm somewhat skeptical of that claim, but if it's true, it would explain why motherboard vendors weren't ready.  It's just as plausible that they merely prioritized Kaby Lake over Ryzen, expecting it to be a larger market.

    It's also possible that AMD will wait to launch the cut down versions of Ryzen until the platform and scheduling problems are fixed, in hopes of more favorable reviews.  For the workstation market where you need a ton of cores, $330 for an 8-core CPU will tend to make 4-core and 6-core not so interesting.  But the cut down versions could be very interesting for gaming, so game benchmarks matter there a lot more than for the 8-core version.
  • filmoretfilmoret Member EpicPosts: 4,906
    edited March 2017
    Quizzical said:
    Cleffy said:
    AMD has been working with vendors for months. Otherwise you would not have seen any AMD boards at CES and no working demo units. The problem is most of the vendors did not treat the platform as a priority. Now they have extreme shortages and the only one that is seizing the opportunity is Biostar.
    I certainly agree that AMD worked with vendors.  I saw one article claiming that AMD had told motherboard vendors that Ryzen would launch in Q2, then pulled in the launch while giving the motherboard vendors very little notice.  I'm somewhat skeptical of that claim, but if it's true, it would explain why motherboard vendors weren't ready.  It's just as plausible that they merely prioritized Kaby Lake over Ryzen, expecting it to be a larger market.

    It's also possible that AMD will wait to launch the cut down versions of Ryzen until the platform and scheduling problems are fixed, in hopes of more favorable reviews.  For the workstation market where you need a ton of cores, $330 for an 8-core CPU will tend to make 4-core and 6-core not so interesting.  But the cut down versions could be very interesting for gaming, so game benchmarks matter there a lot more than for the 8-core version.
    Considering the cpu's sold out twice on Amazon and Newegg.   I'd say they are just selling very well.  And you can purchase motherboards all day long without waiting.
    Are you onto something or just on something?
  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,412
    Find a link to an available X370 board not by biostar. They are all in back-order or out of stock. The CPUs are in stock, but not the motherboards. It's not the situation you want as a company since you need both to make a computer. The shortage and other motherboard issues are obviously hampering sales.
Sign In or Register to comment.