So, everyone is bashing Ryzen for gaming performance while encoding

/v/ermin supremacy

you realise this is basically /r/gaming right

File: 1488489796180.png (109KB, 722x554px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 722x554px

>>59208505
The issue is, it sucks at everything else.

File: ryzen-power-chart.jpg (177KB, 885x1132px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 885x1132px

interesting

>>59208505
gamer kiddies don't give a shit about that.

I'll remember the "sucks at gaming" next time someone asks why ARM isn't taking over

>>59208592
>oh noes only on par with a 6900K! sucks!

>>59208601
Beautiful perf/watt.

>>59208592
That 6900k lost to the Ryzen that lost to the 7700k tho.

>>59208601
>at the wall
Such a terrible way to measure, and those graphs are awful.
The chart is fine by itself.

>>59208650
r7 1700 tdp is 75w lower than 6900x, it draws 78w less at the wall.

pretty damn close

>>59208592
I have seen this image posted like 20 times already.
Somehow I think the $1000 6900k escaped this guy's focus and somehow he's surprised a single threaded test favors clockspeed.

I'm stumped.

>>59208601
>>59208650
Still I liked how legitreviews added a 9590 in the mix, it gives perspective. As for compiling and rendering concerned 6900k is history.

>>59208592
You're probably running an Intel chip lower spec than the ones that the Ryzen is beating, and still fucking bashing it..

>>59208678
When a CPU that costs $160 less is beating a top of the line Ryzen, it looks really bad.

File: pepered.jpg (30KB, 597x519px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 597x519px

Muh games!!!

>>59208505
Stupid fuck, gamers are 99% of the market

I will admit I am a big Intel fan. That being said, Ryzen is good for the market. It's nice to see something is competing with Intel, and hopefully it'll light a fire under the ass of Intel. Maybe they will actually put some work into their next generation and get decent gains instead of the measly 5% per generation.

>>59208601
Do they give charts where you can see idle power with disabled cores?

Being able to automatically disable cores under light loads and only have them enable under stress would be awesome.

>>59208671
The crux of the issue is that 9 times out of 10 when someone measures at the wall they're using a tiny and inaccurate Killawatt device. The way electronic devices pull power isn't a constant, there are always fluctuations happening, spikes and dips in draw. A Killawatt isn't accurate enough to perceive these, and its readings can be thrown off one way or the other.

Something can be pulling 100w on average, but a little measuring wort may read it as 80w. Check it again and it may read 105w, maybe 130w, maybe 70w.

1700 seems like a perfect workstation chip. I want to talk to my work about replacing my old westmere with that.

>>59208601
Wow just look at the i3 7350 compared to the 1700. Only 7 more watts for the 1700 under the "Thief" column. That is freaking nuts!

>>59208522
The funny thing is given that most enterprise applications need those top tier chips, AMD just took a huge shit on Intel.

Also given ECC support, they're doubly fucked.

People are forgetting this costs like HALF of everything its being compared to.

>>59208715
But it's also beating a top of the line $1000 Intel

What a paradox

>>59208746
Ryzen is bad at workstation.. look..

https://i.4cdn.org/g/1488501402211.png

>games are all using 8+ cores now, ryzen will be best for games!
>f-f-fuck off /v/ we don't like games here, we do serious work like encoding animes!
Oh how the tune changes in the space of a day.
Just fucking admit you're disappointed drones, nobody is buying your futile defense arguments.

>>59208626
>m-muh switch

File: 1476646598420.png (652KB, 821x767px) Image search: [Google]

652KB, 821x767px

>>59208720
it's not like amd did a fuckload of gaming benchmarks trying to prove that ryzen should be the go-to cpu for gaming

it's not like they literally showed off sniper elite 4 on the ryzen unveil with lisa saying it's the best for gaming

it's not like she also said that oem's will have "at least one ryzen gaming prebuilt" on offer

i mean, it's not like they mentioned game at all right? why is everyone talking about ryzen gaming performance when amd didn't say anything at all about gaming!!!

>>59208780
That's great Sir Manchild.
Now get out with your shitty and inefficient Netburst, go heat up some homeless people.

>>59208771
But anon, I don't use photoshop. If I'm waiting for something it's a massively parallel set of tests.

>>59208794
That's be manslaughter.

>>59208759
The point is the 7700k is a way better processor for most people.

>>59208789
But anon, it's Marginally better than that $1000+ CPU literally nobody here uses or would consider buying for a gaming build! Intel BTFO right?

>>59208789
>amd won't going to shill its own product
You don't say.

>>59208810
Top of the line Intel chip gets beaten by AMD product with half the cost and half the power consumption, you guys are literally already choking on maggots in the dirt at this point.

>>59208810
it's the best processor for programs which don't utilize more than 4 threads. any program that makes use of more cores and it falls behind quickly.

you can tell that Zen was designed for servers and nothing else, really.

>>59208835
Wrong

see
>>59208592 for professional software where Top Ryzen loses badly

>>59208789
>muh false dichotomy

>>59208821
>false advertising is ok when amd does it

>>59208835
Which is like rendering and video encoding only

Everything else, like 99% of programs, are going to run way better on a 7700k

>>59208852
are you fucking retarded?

>>59208852
Go away you cancerbag.

https://i.4cdn.org/g/1488500694011.jpg https://i.4cdn.org/g/1488500416616s.jpg https://i.4cdn.org/g/1488499945953.png https://i.4cdn.org/g/1488499457241.png

Demolished a high clocked 4 core, withing spitting distance of a $1700 10 core.
You're literally in the ICU already.

>>59208888
Accidentally uploaded a thumb.
https://i.4cdn.org/g/1488500416616.jpg

>>59208505
Yeah no doubt is it really that much better for those specific aspects considering the cost over the 7700k?

For some yes. For many no.

>>59208867
Who said they were lying, they just painted themself at the very best light humanly possible. They tested in 4k where your gaymen is GPU bound. Their tests are not false and repeatable if you use the exact settings they give. Lying at events like this is a death sentence at earning calls.

>>59208852
>badly
under 3 milliseconds?

File: shit.png (29KB, 650x350px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 650x350px

>>59208868
>rypoo
>video encoding
Ayyyyy lmao

>>59208601
What gpu was this pair with?

Any benchmarks on gentoo installation?

>>59208908
they literally misled consumers, they could literally and figuratively be sued for that.

>>59208907
I'll just remind you that there are actually Intel SKUs out there containing more than 4 cores than chips containing less than 4 cores.

Now please answer who has the bigger market.

>>59208956
>this is what our chip running these games at these settings looks like!
>BAW MISLEADING!
hold old are you, 12?

File: RYZEN7-1800X-48.jpg (93KB, 614x400px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 614x400px

>>59208938
I can nitpick presets too you dumb smelly nigger, don't try to play smart.

File: 2017-03-02.png (132KB, 1125x1408px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1125x1408px

very important g becnhmark

>>59208956
Nothing is being misled test conditions are exactly given at the end of video streams of events. They have an army of engineers at testing labs working for tasks like these, do you really think they are stupid? One customer sued AMD in past on the basis of bulldozer not being a real 8 core, case was dropped.

>>59208956
you can sue anybody for anything. doesn't mean you have a case, shit for brains.

>>59208938
Uses less power while doing it so that's a clear win for AMD.

>>59208543
>>59208938
why does the 7700k jump around so much?

File: kek.png (93KB, 677x335px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 677x335px

>>59209022
>loses badly
>clear win for AMD

>>59208888
This might be good for vm gaming with linux. Has anyone test passthrough with zen?

>>59209047
>gaming
Ryzen is shit with gaming..

>>59209044
>5% performance for twice the power
I see another Fermi/Netburst defender, hope you got that house insurance ready.

>>59208991
To bad this board already turn into /g/ayming

>>59208797
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ryzen-1800x-linux&num=4
phoronix got ya senpai

File: it'sdead.jpg (11KB, 274x70px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 274x70px

it's a new cpu
new bios or whatever versions have been released which increased the performance
no one has written optimized code for it yet
gaming consoles use ayymd apus
faildozer performance was absolute trash on launch

>>59209384
>faildozer was absolute trash on launch

and then every consecutive day after launch.

>>59208505
The gaming benchmarks aren't even that bad if you're playing at resolutions above 1080p.

If you want to eke out every single last frame, then yes, keep going with Intel. Especially the higher clocked 7700K.

But if you use your desktop for more than just literally gaming, it seems to actually be a great chip.

I'm a bit torn right now between waiting a couple months for the UEFI/firmware to stabilize and getting an 1800X, getting a 6850K (though the MOBOs for x99 seem to be universally shit, which is depressing) or waiting another 6-8 months to see if Skylake-E makes an appearance.

>>59208505
People dont realize how viable a position this puts AMD in for cluster, server and HPC design wins.

All that needs to be done now is fixing the clusterfuck that is the RTG, a vomit aftermath of a decade of muddled management and underfunded software development.
Raja is going to have his hands full for at least a couple years, we should not envy him at all.

>>59208601
>30-60w below the equivalent Intel part in all cases
>5-10% less game performance on average than a part clocked 500-700Mhz higher
>significantly lower idle than the equivalent competition
>barely higher power draw than the 7700k

The Naples platform is going to be bread and butter in the supercomputer market

I wonder why I barely saw any lowres game tests for CPUs in the last 5 years but now they're everywhere.
Also why is nobody mentioning the power efficiency of Zen? I've barely seen anyone talk about it.

>>59208938
>less than 1 frame with lower clock and way slower ram

>>59209632
Intel trained them well.

Too bad for them not mentioning power will get there nowhere with OEMs since they test that stuff themselves, lower power = cheaper platform.

I can't wait for Naples and the mobile chips.

>>59209632
Intel contacted reviewers, probably saying to then to test games in that condition to make their way higher clocked CPUs look better. Because it is alreadly proven, IPC is the same while chugging less energy.

>>59209632
>I wonder why I barely saw any lowres game tests for CPUs in the last 5 years but now they're everywhere.

low res? you mean 1080p? 1080p is the standard of testing.

>Also why is nobody mentioning the power efficiency of Zen?

http://www.techspot.com/review/1345-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x/page6.html

>Cons: Not really cons, but the few areas where Ryzen fell short of Intel were gaming performance and power consumption. Not great overclockers.

>>59209676
>mobile chips.
Will we finally get some laptop chips with iGPUs that aren't potato in both 3D driver support and performance?

>>59209645
The slower memory is 100% AMD's fault. Their memory controller has shown to be nowhere near as good as Intel's is at the moment. If they fix some of that with the rumored microcode update - great. But right now, you can't blame reviewers for using slower memory, as AMD's platform literally doesn't support memory that's overclocked as high as what the X99 and Z270 platforms can accomplish.

>>59209715
there is this Daesh tests with 720p and 900p test showing intel huge lead while in 1080p was basicaly 1 frame behind and people saying it was gpu bottleneck, in a 2009 game.

>>59209715

Shit tier phones have that now. "Hardcore gamers" have moved on to WQHD and 4K.

>>59209715
>Out of the box, the 1700X consumes a similar amount of power as the 5960X

Then he talks about overclocked power.

>>59209745
Thats what I dont get it, AMD tweeted a 1700 with 3400Mhz RAM overclocked on the Crosshair VI. Now everyone is struggling with this, running at 2133Mhz. Some reviewers are postponing their tests due to a EFI update that said would make huge diference in the tests so wait to see more retests next week.

>>59209033
AFAIK it's skylake clocked higher.

>>59209767
steam is a good representative of ball park metrics of the general pc gaming population and nearly 50% of steam gamers have a 1080p primary display. like 45% of that remaining 50% use lower resolutions, not higher.

>>59209033
5.0 Ghz

File: Power_01.png (72KB, 1302x2013px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1302x2013px

>>59209715
Is this supposed to be bad or something? the 1800X are just clocked too high over their sweet spot.

>>59209805
You could probably get those speeds on a single DIMM in a single slot, or just two DIMMS.

There was one review site (Hardware Canucks? Guru3d? I forget which) that got 3,000Mhz clock rate on the memory, but it was with only two DIMMs. If they tried 4, they wouldn't even get close.

>>59209821
Steam is also for poorfags, if I'm buying a 4k monitor, which are cheap now, I expect to see benchmarks at 4k.

File: Phoronix1.png (194KB, 2397x1550px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 2397x1550px

>>59209372

Show AES benchmarks!

Thinking something like a low power Zen based PC Engines APU board would be great for ipsec and vpn.

>>59209832
amd themselves said it would consume less power at stock than a 6800k/6900k yet this proves otherwise. other benchmarks i've read also say that power was higher than expected.

File: Phoronix2.png (187KB, 2395x1555px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 2395x1555px

>>59209855

>>59209858
Weirdly enough, the Ryzen blows Intel out of the water at single-threaded encryption benchmarks, but at multi-threaded, Intel stomps all over Ryzen.

File: RYZEN7-1800X-33.jpg (101KB, 614x387px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 614x387px

>>59209858
>Show AES benchmarks!
AES is pure murder, even against a 10 core Intel.

This will be real popular with cert and ssl servers.

File: phoronix3.png (198KB, 2393x1518px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 2393x1518px

>>59209872

THE BENCHMARKS HAVEN'T EVEN BEEN OPTIMIZED FOR THE ZEN ARCHITECTURE YET, RETARDS

>>59209891
>THE BENCHMARKS HAVEN'T EVEN BEEN OPTIMIZED FOR THE ZEN ARCHITECTURE YET, RETARDS
top kek
bulldozer 2.0

>>59209884
>linear scaling
>100% integer ALU utilization
>barely touching the AGUs

Datacenter/storage chip, to the bone.

>>59209849
are you stupid or what? the discussion here is about resolution. ryzen blows at 1080p as is evident with literally every 1080p review. nobody cares if you're one of the 0.05% of gamers who wants to play at 4k.

>>59209868
The 1800X draws 30 to 40w less than Broadwell-E when all are under super heavy load.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu,4951-11.html

The 1800X at most will draw 110w.
Tom's measures power draw in real time using two oscilloscopes and four probes. Its as accurate as you can get. TheStilt's power draw figures show the same thing.

>>59209918
is about lower resolution*

>>59209918
I don't speak poorfag, my apologies.
I don't buy a $500 CPU and $700 GPU with a $1000 monitor to play at 1080p, your lowest common denominator stats are worthless to me.

>>59209942
is this the new narrative? weren't amd fans just saying amd is the best because it's cheaper and accommodates for people with smaller budget (in america anyway)? this has been the amd narrative for gpu and cpu all along yet now if you say ryzen is bad at the most popular resolution in the world it's considered poorfag speak?

you people can't even keep your story straight.

>>59208543
das it mane

>>59209889
>>59209872
Linus did a video a while ago showing how mainstream aplications didnt take advantage of multicore CPUs, even those who is said to take it, many times there were no significant advantage on the most expensive build over the one that cost a third of it. All of them being Intel platforms. Software companies still relies on high clockspeed because intel sell their high core count as if they were 12 carat diamonds while the majority of people hangs with 4 core CPU because they are way more afordable. They will fit their applications over the most popular builds instead of spending money making its apps make use of technology that only a few have access.

>>59209942
>I don't buy a $500 CPU and $700 GPU with a $1000 monitor to play at 1080p
.........k, but you also shouldn't be buying a shittier product for more money, regardless of what your budget is. The 7700k outperforms, period. The fact that there's a GPU bottleneck at 4k is meaningless here and doesn't change the fact that the ryzen is a shittier, slower processor.

>>59209994
What the hell are you talking about? I'm getting a G-sync monitor and a 1080ti.

If I'm playing at 4k then unless the OCd 7700k is somehow faster than the OCd 1700 I'm buying it. It's a windows machine without a net connection its literally only use is in gaming.

>>59210022
>outperforms
>clocked 1.1ghz higher
>1 fps ahead

>>59210050
One 1080ti?
Why not two, goy?

>>59210015
There were a couple instances there where the author indicated that a compiler error might be at fault. Apparently not all of Ryzen's features are supported in the linux kernel yet either, so performance will further improve.
Over all linux performance looks amazing, and the situation will only get better.

>>59210065
>>>outperforms
>>clocked 1.1ghz higher
>>1 fps ahead
check this thread, autistic retard:
>>59205758

>>59210084
Because SLI is microstutter junk with spotty support like currently all other multiGPU solutions.

>>59210050
again with the narrative change. you claimed 1080p benches are "shit tier" and that steam is "for poorfags" because they play at 1080p mostly. nobody gives a shit about your contrarian viewpoint. it doesn't take away from rhe solid and undeniable fact that ryzen is absolute crock shit for gaming at its price.

fuckin gaymers

>>59209444
>The gaming benchmarks aren't even that bad if you're playing at resolutions above 1080p.
yes they are. You are looking fake benchmarks where they don't a proper GPU for the settings they are using. Plenty of 1440 and even 4k benches show 7700k leading.

>>59210114
>The R7 line up is strictly for gaymes

I really hate this meme. Seriously if you want to shit on ryzen in games so much wait to see what the R5 and R3 bring.

>>59210114
But does it perform worse at 4k? I said I have a 4k monitor, not a 1080p.
How does it perform with my monitor?
Faster? Slower? Speak up man.

File: Average SMT uplift.png (36KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 960x540px

Even with Ryzen's SMT showing performance regression in gaming workloads, over all the average uplift is significantly higher than on intel's architecture.
If they manage to workout the kinks it'll be quite something.

>>59210138

>>59208789

the discussion at hand is gaming.

>>59210133
Preferably I want them tested with a TitanXP at 4k, but has anybody done this yet?

>>59210140
i haven't looked at 4k benchmarks because they're almost irrelevant when testing for cpu performance. you could probably get away with a shitty 6300 at 4k resolution due to the gpu bottlenecks you'll encounter.

>>59210191
As I thought, but I still want to see it tested, mostly for the minimum frames.

>>59210180
I don't think so. But there should be a lot of new content by sites and channels in the next few days further testing everything.

File: 1458200962866.jpg (27KB, 349x459px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 349x459px

>>59209884

dat AES performance tho

must be the absence of iGPU

>>59210317
No, it's just fully utilized ALUs, I think Zen has one more ALU per integer unit than Intel in exchange for an AGU

>>59210317
Ryzen has two AES accelerators. It was covered in the HotChips presentation, but I guess most people missed it. The AES units are actually a pretty vital part of the memory arrangement.

>>59210330
You're wrong about intel's core width, and how AES is handled.

>>59210387
I stand corrected, missed the AES accelerators.
Still, without those accelerators AES performance is determined by ALUs, right?

>>59208618
how often do you actually encode something on your PC and how much actual time savings (if for whatever reason you cant multitask) ?

I can't imagine there is that many people outside of enterprise environments where encoding speed is relevant for a PC purchase.

>>59210477
Yeah, because encoding is the only use for 8 cores, not graphic design, video and music editing, decryption/encryption, com/decompression, virtual machines, rendering and hosting? Heck, even regular software decoding benefits nicely.

>>59210423
I'm pretty sure AES instructions would be crunched by the FPU.

>>59208505
I don't think anybody doubted Ryzen encoding and compute ability after that first cinebench test they did.
What nobody knew about was gaming.
Ryzen is still a great cpu, and likely to get better once they fix their shit up, if your primary focus isn't gaming.
If it is gaming you're just better of going with a 7700k which is currently being sold for the same price or less than of a 1700

>>59210499
Can you be more specific ? I have done a lot of graphic design and music editing and never had to wait for anything.

>>59210477
>implying enterprise environments don't spend money on new CPU's
>implying vidya NEETs are a significant portion of the revenue of a multi-billion dollar industry

The bread and butter of AMD and Intel is HEDT/server chips.

File: 1487198947339.jpg (60KB, 761x563px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 761x563px

>>59210317
They designed it to perform AES operations on the RAM.
Encrypt your running memory now.

>>59210673
SME and SEV encryption. Its pretty neat.

>>59208938
>intel has hardware acceleration for this encoding
holy fuck ryzen is fast

so ryzen is great competition and is "decent" at gayming if I feel like being 12


what is this microcode people talk about?

and that isn't something that you can update.. they would have to be on the newer chips?

>>59208505
but can it run warcraft III?