Has anybody the new Ryzen CPU?
Is it worth? Problems?
Maybe my next CPU… 
Cheaper Intel CPUs are getting better FPS in games. Issues with memory speed. Not boosting correctly. Using far too much power as usual from AMD. On a positive note, the multi-threaded productivity performance like video rendering is solid.
Overall, I would wait until they can fix the memory speed issues, and boost problems, which should be possible with updates. I wouldn’t bother unless you are heavily into productivity.
Even for 3d rendering (blender) they changed settings to make amd look good (they used less samples per pixel). I’m sad of their dishonesty 
2 Likes
^This^
Personally id go for any intel cpu either 4th gen or higher for gaming and AMD ryzen for rendering only,
as at the moment all the benchmarks from trusted youtubers (Jayztwocents, Paulshardware, BitWit) unfortunately all point out its not very good for gaming for the price, considering certain i5s can beat it at a lower cost and with better FPS
seems like a no go for gaming.
it always took AMD time to deliver well working stuff. I think they will get there, but it will take time. Currently I’d focus on Kaby Baby.
1 Like
For gaming i7 7700k or i5 7600k. For rendering Ryzen.
2600K enough.
But bear in mind that all the games right now are optimized for the intel chips, so it’s unfair to blame everything squarely on AMD being shit.
Assigning blame is opinion, and irrelevant. That said, AMD knew how games worked before they started on Ryzen. Game devs had no idea how Ryzen worked. If you were to assign blame, the choice is obvious where. Like I said though, irrelevant.
The main issue with gaming versus productivity though is when rendering for example, every single step is known ahead of time, and it can be evenly distributed between all cores for maximum efficiency. The order in which these steps is performed is unimportant.
In games, you don’t know exactly what’s going to happen, and you need everything to respond immediately on a constantly changing basis. That makes it a lot more difficult to spread the load over multiple cores, because you simply don’t know exactly what needs to be done.
AMD chips tend not overclock well, and that’s unlikely to change. Issues with boost and memory speeds should be fixed at some point, and maybe even some point, many years down the track, utilizing multiple cores will be done with more efficiency in gaming.
Right now though, if you’re buying AMD in the hope of it improving gaming, you’re doing it wrong. Cheaper Intel chips give better performance. If you’re buying AMD “for the future” then that’s also wrong, because in the future, these chips will be cheaper, and better chips from both AMD and Intel will be available.
The only use for these chips is a budget workstation build, and even then, the money you save on the chip, you lose in power bills, and lost productivity. Even the 1800x falls behind in real world tests compared to Intel’s, much more expensive, chips.
1 Like
Has nobody build up a new system with Ryzen? That´s my question.
I know that the AMD prozessor is about 15% slower in games than the fastest Intel. But that´s nothing.
My actual system has a 4 core Intel (2500k). It is over 6 years old and it makes absolut no sense to build a new system with only 4 cores. Nearly nobody upgrades a CPU in his system later. The grafic card maybe, but not the CPU. Why should anybody spent more money on a GPU (last for 3years) than on a CPU (last for 5-6 years)?
The quest is 6core or 8core? Maybe a AMD1600X or a AMD 1700X or a Intel 6800k…
The next quest is the chipset for the mainboards. Last time I run into trouble with INTEL and his P67 chipset. I was early adaptor, but this time I will wait 3 months if something is really fishy with the new chipset from AMD. 3 months should be enougth to find the greatest bugs. That´s time enought for a better Bios and better memory (DDR4) support. Hopefully! 
Plan B would be a 6core Intel… at a better price! At the moment has AMD the much better offer.
I don’t think many people here are using Ryzen, but on the overlocker’s forum, there’s a thread dedicated to it. Ryzen is an upgrade for Sandy. Even the 2600k. The best value is the 1700, not the X. If you can get one that overclocks to 4GHz+ manually, then its performance is identical to the 1800X.
Wise choice. Ryzen has several issues, specifically memory speeds and boosts on the X models. Some RAM simply won’t boot with Ryzen. Give them a chance to sort that out before you jump in.
I wouldn’t recommend anyone buy just yet until they work it out properly. Then look at real world benchmarks, prices, and make an informed decision from there.
1 Like
But where you assign the blame IS relevant, as unfair blame could and would affect AMD’s revenue.
Aside from that, on that point, the only other thing I would like to say to this is that, as someone who is not a software engineer[so I don’t know how difficult it is to design games around a particular CPU architecture and vice versa], it’s simply more logical that, it is easier to design games around a CPU rather than designing a CPU that would fit most games. Since games themselves are very different in terms of CPU/GPU centric among other benchmarks, however, with a CPU, once it has a particular architecture, future generations wouldn’t be too different.
If you believe otherwise, do enlighten me[not being sarcastic, I do enjoy discussion on these topics].
On the actual topic, if you compare the benchmarks between a few i7s and Ryzen, it would seem, on paper at least, the Ryzen is quite good indeed. So I’m curious as to your interpretation of the benchmark below. Because to me, it’s not a bad deal really.
More to the point, it is possible to design a CPU to run current software. It is not possible to design software that runs optimally on a CPU that does not exist at the time of coding.
Two problems with the benchmark, one it’s synthetic, not a real world test. Two, the Intel chip is not overclocked. A better comparison would have been with the 7700k, which is the top of the range consumer chip, while still cheaper than the 1700X on Newegg.
As for Ryzen currently, it will be fixed. Some RAM simply won’t boot with the machine. This is a major problem. When it does boot, it will often only do so when the RAM is underclocked. Boost speeds on the X models are incredibly inconsistent, not very high, and often only one or two cores will boost. Overclocking on all chips is low. Many unable to get a stable OC at anything over 3.9GHz.
For comparison, all Kaby chips seem to OC to over 5GHz. Even the i3 models are able to achieve higher FPS than the 1800X OC.
There is certainly a lot of room for improvement, and fixes. I expect AMD to solve the RAM and boost problems, but I would be very surprised if they can get the chips to OC better. AMD generally do not leave much headroom from stock.
AMD are working with some major game studios. So expect some improvement there. Like I said though, the issue is single core performance, which is where Ryzen is lacking, that games need the most.
1 Like
I really don’t know much about this topic so this is most likely my last reply until I dump some hours of research into design a CPU around games vs designing games around CPU. That said, my original quote [quote=“NoHonor, post:9, topic:31812, full:true”]
But bear in mind that all the games right now are optimized for the intel chips, so it’s unfair to blame everything squarely on AMD being shit.
[/quote]
So blaming a CPU being bad for gaming when devs hadn’t had the time to optimize their games around it is pretty unfair. Whereas Intel chips had dominance in the CPU market for how long now? Devs had years and years to optimize their games around the Intel chips.
One question here, how many people actually OC? Like, on average, does the majority of gamers, when they buy a GPU, put alot of emphasis on OC? I mean as someone who owns a 970, I never OC’d, nor did I ever cared to, I ran all of the games I played fine on medium-high/high/ultra[sometimes]. So how big a factor is OC to the average gamer? Because to me it isn’t a big deal as there are drawbacks too, and I rather not deal with them. So I imagine others may have the same reservations as well, but overall I don’t know, when your average gamer boot up a game, do they generally straight up OC their GPU just to achieve a better performance.
But with regards to your 1700X vs 7700K, I can see what you mean, the 7700K is better, and if you want a 8 core CPU, just wait sometime till the game devs actually develop games that use all 8 cores, otherwise you are just paying for nothing.
Very interesting/thoughtful reply from you, thanks.
Most people don’t, even if they buy the more expensive overclock variants. I put that down to laziness or inexperience for the most part.
I think a lot of people plug it in and forget about it. They would only OC if the performance was below an acceptable level. In the current Nvidia lineup OC is less important because GPU boost 3 pushes the OC well above the base and boost clocks of every card. It was more important in previous generations where some cards were specifically selected in some ranges for their OC ability.
The X series of Ryzen is similar to GPU boost 3. Sort of auto OC. The main problem is that right now it isn’t working properly. The 1700 is the better buy though giving identical performance to the 1800X… As long as it can be manually OC’d, and that’s down to the individual chip, the silicon lottery.
In my case, I had standard settings for general browsing and video watching, and a stable OC setting when I wanted to get the most out of the GPU. Of course once even the OC was giving me less performance than I wanted, I bought a new GPU.
The real problem with Ryzen 7 is that their single core performance isn’t as good as Intel’s cheaper CPUs. If the 5 series is more competitively priced, or better yet, actually focuses on higher single core performance, at the expense of multicore, and at a cheaper price than Intel, then they might have a decent gaming CPU.
It’s all rumor right now, and I wouldn’t recommend preordering until I see some actual real world performance.
CRYENGINE
[quote] In most cases, Intel is simply faster, by varying degrees at all resolutions. However, Crysis 3 here shows that the 7700K dominates in simpler scenes while Ryzen is stronger at the lower-end. This results in Intel winning at 1080p, but Ryzen taking point at 1440p, where the GPU ceiling cuts off the 7700K’s advantage in less complex scenarios. Thus far, Crysis 3 is the only title we’ve seen that exhibits this.
[/quote]
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-review
1 Like
Does not OC the 7700k. Does OC the 1800X. Finds one notoriously unoptimized game that is faster on an OC 1800X for a few seconds. Seems legit.
2 Likes
[quote=“Blacksmith, post:1, topic:31812”]
Has anybody the new Ryzen CPU?[/quote]
Yes, Ryzen 1800X.
The only problem you will encounter with most mainboards are RAM speed issues. My 32GB 3200 RAM is currently running at 2666 speed. A 2x16GB double sided RAM config like mine is currently not the best choice for max RAM speed. But they will sort out the problems, like they did with new intel cpu’s. If you don’t need to upgrade your PC right now or if you don’t have fun tinker around with your hardware just wait till the other cpu’s are released.
This is btw my first amd cpu ever, bought it because it boosts my performance(time to render) in Blender by the factor of 2 to 3 compared to my old i7 3770k and there is the hope for competition in the cpu market so that intel is forced to lower their ludicrous prices.
1 Like
Hello @unwissend,
what motherboard/cooler do you use?
Yes, maybe the 1600X (6-core) will be the “best” offer(half prize,75% working stuff performance, 95% game performance compared to 1800X).
It´s amazing how close AMD is now compared to Intel.
I hope there will be also a good offer for grafic cards(from AMD). Looking forward to Vega chip. Best situation for the consumer/gamer since years.