It's not gone. Just the AMD GPU becomes the bottleneck. It's the same like testing in 1440p with Nvidia.

That's actually wrong.

I'm convinced the Ryzen R7 is the best performance per dollar you can get right now. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but even if it doesn't win to a 7700k, it's a beast of a workstation for less than half of what Intel is asking for similar. And the press all used Nvidia to bench Ryzen :bang:

The 1700 is a beast of a workstation but there are a lot of guys that don´t need a workstation, i´m one of those, so that invalidates the 1700 for many. Regarding the press using Nvidia to bench Ryzen, they have to test the cpus with the best gpu possible to show posssible cpu bottlenecks! Not to mention they have to use the same gpu everytime possible so reviews can be comparable. The press can´t be blamed for AMD failure to deliver high end gpus in a timely fashion...

It's not gone. Just the AMD GPU becomes the bottleneck. It's the same like testing in 1440p with Nvidia.

^how to find out people talk w/o to inform them self. IF you would have taken a look @ that video , you would have seen the rx480 is never above 80% becouse it runing in 720p on medium details , so the CPU is used to its maxed potential , in the same scenario using a nvidia card gtx1060 in dx12 Ryzen perfomance take a big dive , while switching to dx11 is back to normal , in fact it shows how the Ryzen 1400 beats the i5 7400 in rise of the tomb raider. Its not just that , same thing hapends with the division , if you run dx12 on a nvidia card when you have a Ryzen CPU you take a fps hit by quite a big number.

I'm convinced the Ryzen R7 is the best performance per dollar you can get right now. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but even if it doesn't win to a 7700k, it's a beast of a workstation for less than half of what Intel is asking for similar.

It's not less than half. The Ryzen is going to be $170 supposedly, have to wait and see the actual street price. You can get the i5 that beat it in most tests for $180. That's not anywhere near double.

Hmm not what I was expecting out of a 4C/8t CPU but then maybe then there is the poor optimization of the Ryzen CPUs that are slowly being worked out. Possibly IPC of the i5 7400 was higher than the Ryzen 5 1400 and there is also the possibility of a bottleneck somewhere. I agree that we should wait for more official results from Hilbert.

If the R5 are like the R7, the CPU should improve with faster RAM

@Margalus he meant R7, not R5 (500 vs intel 1000$) @H83 any new rig will benefit of R5/7. intel had 10y to get everything optimized (os/games etc). they will be stuck with gains of what, 1-2% (unless new chip released), when i can buy ryzen for less and see gains in the next few weeks/month that will most likely even be enough to take the 7700. i rather buy something not (really) polished delivering 80% right now, and a good chance of getting more down the road. at least im not wasting 300$ more getting same cores/board with intel.

@Margalus he meant R7, not R5 (500 vs intel 1000$) @H83 any new rig will benefit of R5/7. intel had 10y to get everything optimized (os/games etc). they will be stuck with gains of what, 1-2% (unless new chip released), when i can buy ryzen for less and see gains in the next few weeks/month that will most likely even be enough to take the 7700. i rather buy something not (really) polished delivering 80% right now, and a good chance of getting more down the road. at least im not wasting 300$ more getting same cores/board with intel.

This is a big reason I am still on my 3930k. Felt it was a complete waste to go X99 as a gamer and was not gonna back to 4 cores with newer intel platforms. Hell I still get dual channel DDR4 bandwitch with my setup.

I kinda sorta understand that Dota 2 does not generally get benched, but this guy didn't even bench Ashes, which are the two games for sure patched for Ryzen currently...........

And even then this "Ryzen 4C/8T" was pretty equal with locked i5. And in few games quite ahead. BF1, Hitman, AC3, Some places in Witcher 3, RotR... there i5 run 100% utilization and was holding GPU back to certain degree. And in RotR even utilization of this "Ryzen 4C/8T" was close to 100%. I think that 4C/8T Ryzen will be OK with up to RX-470 GPU. RX-480 and higher GPUs will need 6C/12T not to face heavy CPU limitation within 2 years. Funny thing is that if someone tested BF1 multiplayer, then there Ryzen would own... I saw quite a few videos with 8C/16T Ryzen paired with Weaker GPUs than Fury X and their overall smoothness is much better than my i5 @4.5GHz. (And I have one SSD for OS and another SSD for BF1 + vRAM utilization does not reach 3GB, usually around 2GB.)

Ryzen 5 1600 look and 4,0 GHz OC test: http://blog.livedoor.jp/wisteriear/archives/1065190469.html

Ryzen 5 1600 look and 4,0 GHz OC test: http://blog.livedoor.jp/wisteriear/archives/1065190469.html

Their power consumption on 6C/12T @ 4GHz is way too close to 8C/16T @3.9GHz (Both at 1.35V). It is possible that Ryzen 7 is limiting itself under heavy load internally. Performance at 4GHz it is pretty close to stock Ryzen 1700 and i7-5960X (Both 8C/12T).

The 1700 is a beast of a workstation but there are a lot of guys that don´t need a workstation, i´m one of those, so that invalidates the 1700 for many. Regarding the press using Nvidia to bench Ryzen, they have to test the cpus with the best gpu possible to show posssible cpu bottlenecks! Not to mention they have to use the same gpu everytime possible so reviews can be comparable. The press can´t be blamed for AMD failure to deliver high end gpus in a timely fashion...

You're right on your first point, but how about continuity? In 2 years time games will probably need those 8 cores and a 7700k has just 4, what would you do then? Being at a similar price point, I think missing a couple of frames today is worth it if you're gaining a workstation that can play games in 5 years time. So Fury is a low end GPU in your opinion? Or a RX480? You can test with a 1060 and not have bottlenecks why couldn't they use a RX480? The problem is that the press isn't impartial, they use the best raw performing components and forget about important stuff like drivers and optimization. You and allot of people bash AMD for not delivering VEGA on time, but all of you use Nvidia cards. Have you thought for a second they have to make sacrifices because they don't have the same budget as Nvidia? Like the Polaris refresh right now, they are still launching Ryzen and will launch VEGA soon, they probably can't afford to hire more people to work faster. Even so, they're trying their best to be competitive.

It's not less than half. The Ryzen is going to be $170 supposedly, have to wait and see the actual street price. You can get the i5 that beat it in most tests for $180. That's not anywhere near double.

I was comparing R7 1800X to the I7 6900k, Ryzen costs less than half and is close to it's performance with less TDP. R5 is still to come but if the benches are to be believed then yes it's a close call.

@H83 any new rig will benefit of R5/7. intel had 10y to get everything optimized (os/games etc). they will be stuck with gains of what, 1-2% (unless new chip released), when i can buy ryzen for less and see gains in the next few weeks/month that will most likely even be enough to take the 7700. i rather buy something not (really) polished delivering 80% right now, and a good chance of getting more down the road. at least im not wasting 300$ more getting same cores/board with intel.

My opinion exactly, why give money to Intel who has been milking costumers since Sandy Bridge? I don't want another 4 core CPU. My best friend has a FX8320 and same GPU as me, he can game at the same FPS as me and has power to spare on his CPU. I'm not trying to say AMD is best and Intel sucks, but marketing and how the reviews are made is a big influence on people decisions and that can tip the economical balance.

Their power consumption on 6C/12T @ 4GHz is way too close to 8C/16T @3.9GHz (Both at 1.35V). It is possible that Ryzen 7 is limiting itself under heavy load internally. Performance at 4GHz it is pretty close to stock Ryzen 1700 and i7-5960X (Both 8C/12T).

Not necessarily. There's 33W difference in maximum power consumption. 16W difference in average usage (well, it doesn't say that it was average but I assume so). 1600 is likely high leakage chip unlike 1800X (and it was run at 3,9 GHz) so I'm not surprised at all.

@H83 any new rig will benefit of R5/7. intel had 10y to get everything optimized (os/games etc). they will be stuck with gains of what, 1-2% (unless new chip released), when i can buy ryzen for less and see gains in the next few weeks/month that will most likely even be enough to take the 7700. i rather buy something not (really) polished delivering 80% right now, and a good chance of getting more down the road. at least im not wasting 300$ more getting same cores/board with intel.

That´s true but the question is how much is going to be the benefit in the future??? Regarding the polishing aspect of the platform, i´m on the other side of the fence. I prefer something that just works out of the box with minimal tweaking that waiting for the platform to mature, even if that can bring more performance. Different ways of thinking about this matter, nothing more.

You're right on your first point, but how about continuity? In 2 years time games will probably need those 8 cores and a 7700k has just 4, what would you do then? Being at a similar price point, I think missing a couple of frames today is worth it if you're gaining a workstation that can play games in 5 years time. So Fury is a low end GPU in your opinion? Or a RX480? You can test with a 1060 and not have bottlenecks why couldn't they use a RX480? The problem is that the press isn't impartial, they use the best raw performing components and forget about important stuff like drivers and optimization. You and allot of people bash AMD for not delivering VEGA on time, but all of you use Nvidia cards. Have you thought for a second they have to make sacrifices because they don't have the same budget as Nvidia? Like the Polaris refresh right now, they are still launching Ryzen and will launch VEGA soon, they probably can't afford to hire more people to work faster. Even so, they're trying their best to be competitive.

@Silva guessing the future when it comes to hardware is a "dangerous" game. I have no doubt that in the future the 1700 is going to improve because games are probably going to use more cores but what if Ryzen2 is so much better than makes the current Ryzens look weak??? Or what if Intel new cpus are so amazing they make Ryzen useless??? The if game can be played both ways... Regarding the usage of Nvidia cards instead of AMD ones by the press, they use the better one available at the time, that´s it, nothing special about this. They have been doing this for years! As for my preference for Nvidia, they just happen to have better cards for my particular needs at the time i´m buying a gpu. Not my fault they have problems releasing their gear at the same time at Nvidia because i have no problem in using or buying AMD gpus. For example, i´m currently using an ATI 4850 because i´ve sold my GTX970 a month ago so i´m looking for a new gpu. I don´t mind buying the incoming Vega if they are good but i can´t wait 2 or 3 months for it....

Silva- well pretty much what you said bro (double) but lets not forget intel can charge whatever the hell they want people are still going to pay for it. I had a feeling ryzen was going to be playing catch-up in the gaming department against kaby-lake thats ok in my book but if you look at some games even a 4790k is Faster or gets more fps then ryzen wtf is up with that? Another certin game showed fx 8 core being faster then ryzen- come on Amd.

did someone benchmark linux+vulkan intel/amd on nvidia/amd ?

7700k is faster than Ryzen. Period...

Silva- well pretty much what you said bro (double) but lets not forget intel can charge whatever the hell they want people are still going to pay for it. I had a feeling ryzen was going to be playing catch-up in the gaming department against kaby-lake thats ok in my book but if you look at some games even a 4790k is Faster or gets more fps then ryzen wtf is up with that? Another certin game showed fx 8 core being faster then ryzen- come on Amd.

I know what you mean. I can't wait for more official results of the r5 1400 because I am curious to see how well those perform against current and past i7 4c/8t and how well it stacks up against the i5s. With these unofficial results of r5 1400 I was 50'50. I was surprised at the results then I wasn't because of the optimization issues that Ryzen cpus are currently having. With proper optimization I expect that Ryzen 4c/8t would out perform the I5s depending on the IPC and the game.

@Silva guessing the future when it comes to hardware is a "dangerous" game. I have no doubt that in the future the 1700 is going to improve because games are probably going to use more cores but what if Ryzen2 is so much better than makes the current Ryzens look weak??? Or what if Intel new cpus are so amazing they make Ryzen useless??? The if game can be played both ways... Regarding the usage of Nvidia cards instead of AMD ones by the press, they use the better one available at the time, that´s it, nothing special about this. They have been doing this for years! As for my preference for Nvidia, they just happen to have better cards for my particular needs at the time i´m buying a gpu. Not my fault they have problems releasing their gear at the same time at Nvidia because i have no problem in using or buying AMD gpus. For example, i´m currently using an ATI 4850 because i´ve sold my GTX970 a month ago so i´m looking for a new gpu. I don´t mind buying the incoming Vega if they are good but i can´t wait 2 or 3 months for it....

I know guessing the future is not a good measurement for anything. That said, I use computers since Pentium 3 at 450mhz and lived through the "Ghz war time". When I upgraded my Pentium 4 3.0Ghz to a E8400 (2 cores), it was brutal! Soon though, I found out with Battlefield Bad Company 2, 2 cores were not enough to have decent performance. I had to move up again to 4 cores (my current system that is almost 6 years old!). What do you think it's the next step forward with DX12 and Vulcan API lifting the limitations of DX11? 6 and 8 cores. Intel has been brainwashing people and milking them. If I had to guess, Ryzen 2 will be what Ivy Bridge was for Intel: a refinement process. Plus, if AMD needed all these years to design a new CPU (more than 4?), unless Intel has some rabbit to pull off the hat no one knows off, they'll need 2 to 4 years to come up with something revolutionary. I don't think they have anything to pull ahead just now. As a journalist I'd just throw an AMD card in the mix to test, now everyone is asking reviewers to compare AMD stuff too... I understand your point of view, I'd look for the best deal I could and I'm sure you sold your 970 for a good price or you would have held more time with it.

Silva- well pretty much what you said bro (double) but lets not forget intel can charge whatever the hell they want people are still going to pay for it. I had a feeling ryzen was going to be playing catch-up in the gaming department against kaby-lake thats ok in my book but if you look at some games even a 4790k is Faster or gets more fps then ryzen wtf is up with that? Another certin game showed fx 8 core being faster then ryzen- come on Amd.

Unfortunately so. I base my purchases on price/performance ratios and not on witch company has the ultimate best performer. Because I'm poor, you know? So I try buying hardware to keep it as long as I can. My i5 2500k was faster than FX8xxx at launch. Today, the balance tipped to the FX on most of workloads. Ya, 6 year old tech...but benchmarks show Ryzen has the horse power, the transmission isn't doing a good job at getting it all on the tarmac. AMD is working hard on the software side, I'm sure it will take months instead of years to get there.

did someone benchmark linux+vulkan intel/amd on nvidia/amd ?

Linux, I wish more support would be available. The future with W10 is grim, I don't want to upgrade from my W7 (I tried W10 and it sucks).

7700k is faster than Ryzen. Period...

R7 1700: CPUz 16616 | CB15 1415 | HB 42 | Vantage 47721 I7 7700: CPUz 9537 | CB15 960 | HB 36 | Vantage 35251 Just because it loses a bit in gaming due to lack of optimization and fast ram speeds not being possible (yet), it totally sucks destroying I7 7700K. PS: Ryzen R7 1700 (8 cores and 16 threads) => 365€ I7 7700k (4 cores and 8 threads) => 355€ I know what I would buy, you still want the I7? Go for it :banana:

you can sugar coat Ryzen all you want but in real world gaming it is slower than 7700k... and yes!....I would take the i7 any day...

7700K being 25% cheaper than 1700, I took 7700K. And it will be 95% for gaming. I hope I made the right decision.