Why is Ryzen so bad at 1440p?

Why is Ryzen so bad at 1440p?

Other urls found in this thread:

anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/18
anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/20
phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd-ryzen1700-oc&num=1
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Why didn't your mother swallow you instead?

AMD IS TRULY FOREVER BTFO AND ON SUICIDE WATCH, HOW WILL THEY EVER RECOVER?

Who the fuck cares, go back to Sup Forums, we don't care about games, I thought you would get that since GNU plus Linux has no games.

Why do you keep posting benchmarks where a 7700k and 6700k beats a 6900k as if they mean anything?

It's good evidence that cores mean very little

Games are way more popular than Linux shit

I don't know if you're aware of this but some people use their computers for more things than playing video games on

Like media creation?

That's why you and your manchildren friends have a autism containment board. Fuck off

That's for the discussion of games, not CPUs

...

>A single benchmarks that's just labeled "media creation"
Mhm

anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/18

anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/20

How about office productivity?

Yeah, how about it? What is my boss going to tell me if I'm only 1475 unlabeled datapoints productive instead of 1875?

Your benchmarks ARE games. Better saying, a pissing contest.

aren't you bored by now? it's been 6 days
if you think spamming same unmarked lines that tell absolutely nothing over and over again adds to your validity - it doesn't
and apparently you can't dig up new material that supports your line

Cant we stop these threads until we get the NUMA patch?
>Windows is fucking up
end of story for now

He's doing it for (You)s and (You) retards keep giving it to him.

>AMD spent years developing Ryzen and just happened to forget that it doesn't work with Windows

Really makes you think.

Actually the support has been there for years.
Windows is detecting it as the wrong architecture type and throwing threads all over the place.

If only AMD had years to test this

Test what?
Does windows have NUMA support? Yes.
Its microsoft who has to make its shit work properly.
Linux has no problem managing it properly

Test what? How incompetent Microsoft are? I know you were still in your diapers when Sandy Bridge was released but that release had the same problems with hyperthreading.

either way, the 4c/8t ryzen wont have this issue because its a single block and not 2

AMD is making a CPU for Windows, right? You'd think they would actually make it work with Windows before release...

Yeah because hardware dosent need OS support...
IT JUST WERKS

How the fuck is this even a benchmark? What is it measuring, how many spreadsheets you can make?

>half price
>much lower tdp

What's wrong with this?

>looks at place in a ranking, not the actual results being within a few fps.

>1800x have the same IPC as i5 6600k
>Same IPC as i7-5960x which costs over 1 grand
>Almost same performance as 6900k in IPC which costs over 1 grand
>499$
>Overclock 1700 instead
>329$
Yeah super bad. AMD processor isn't only decent at games but at professional workload as well compared to any quad core Intel processor.

The 4 core Ryzen could be interesting depending on how high it clocks. I hope it shits all over Intel.

There is this game distribution platform called Steam which runs just fine on GNU/Linux and this application allows you to download and play a huge amount of games.

You can apt-get or dnf install that and bham, you magically get access to a huge amount of cool games. These games are not free as on freedom software but many of them are free as in free beer.

You should look into it.

No.

but it does mean something, it means they get more FPS.

Yes. My nephews all want to live-stream or at minimum record everything so they can post it. It's like you can't be young and play a game unless others can and do watch anymore. I personally don't get it, why would I watch someone else play some game? I don't know why, but I do know that these days all those "FPS" benchmarks mean nothing. Benchmarks while live-streaming and/or recording should probably become the norm. Again, I don't know why, it beats me, and I personally don't game much.. but I know this is the case.

AMD already said you shouldn't be looking for higher GHz on lower core count chips

why the fuck is the 6900k so much more expensive than the 7700k when the performance gains between the two are negligible at best

The 7700k is $160 cheaper than the Ryzen. It's also faster and uses less power. It's a complete blowout.

It's too bad Ryzen sucks at streaming too

>but it does mean something, it means they get more FPS.

Holy shit, how am I supposed to be able to live with the fact that I get 3 (three) fewer FPS with the 1800X compared to the 6900k that costs twice as much??????

This same shill benchmark has been spammed so many fucking times now.

because Ryzen 7 is dual quad-core CPU. Fucking Kek

Because maybe it's not a CPU made for video games you retard?

I do realise that but they do seem pretty evenly matched in tasks like on-the-fly video encoding with x264

6900/R7 is exactly twice as fast at that as 7700K, I wouldn't call that even

>> anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/18

These results appear to show that Ryzen 7 absolutely positively crushes Intel on a whole lot of things that uses multi-core and most floating-point math.

This is what we already know: Ryzen 7 doesn't deliver on IPC, it's weak.It also doesn't do integer math very well. It does have a lot of them cores and this kind of makes up for it in some workloads.

>How about office productivity?
Nobody cares, not even a little. I don't know why they even bother to benchmark it anymore. Computers have been fast enough to open a spreadsheet for 10+ years. I don't care if it takes me 0.018 or 0.019 seconds to open something.

>Cant we stop these threads until we get the NUMA patch?
No. You can benchmark with some NUMA patch when such a patch becomes available. The benchmarks correctly show the current state of affairs.

>AMD is making a CPU for Windows, right?
No. They are fully aware that all we need is the right major crisis and the nations will have to accept the GNU World Order. The further now that the Bilderberg Group and CFR will fabricate an event later this year.

>Ryzen 7 doesn't deliver on IPC
clock for clock, it beats Intel's processors

It's sysmark. You know the benchmark AMD, Nvidia, and a bunch of other companies pulled out of because it so.heavily favored Intel that it no longer was a legit metric of comparison?

>AMD already said you shouldn't be looking for higher GHz on lower core count chips

When did they say this? And.. why?

It's apparently possible to push the Ryzen 7 1700 from it's 3.0GHz stock speed to 4.0GHz.

phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd-ryzen1700-oc&num=1

It should be possible to make a 6core/12thread Ryzen 5 part running at 4GHz? I'm not sure why they wouldn't do this.

And then in real life it gets destroyed

i still don't understand why people think that pitting it up against 4c/8t processors is worth anything
why not wait for Ryzen 5, the one that's actually supposed to compete with them?

AMD has to compete on the current market, they don't get to choose what they compete against.

DOA

>faster clockspeed 4c/8t R5 parts are coming soon and will more closely line up against skylake and kaby lake 4c/8t parts
>hurrrrrrr durrrrrrrrrrrr they don't get to choose what they compete against

I don't even own a single AMD product and I want retardfucks like you to get hit by cars.

To be fair, it usually beats the i3 by a healthy margin. This indicates to me that the r3/r5 will be a good value if they price it sensibly. The R7 is more for prosumer types who do more in general with their PC. I'd say it's something of a test bed or maybe even just the leftovers from AMD's Opteron line.

Because it happens and pretending it doesn't would be lying.

They're not clocked higher

>Why is the 5960X soo bad at 1440?
FTFY

gets destroyed

7700k is literally 5% ahead of a cpu that currently has

1) smt problems
2)core parking problems
3)l3 problems
4) bios problems
all related to ms mostly

and STILL is only 5% behind on a chart made by a site tha was saying 2 days before 1070 launched that 980 was the deal

my bench is literally x100 times more reliable than this shit site and the funny part is that fucking intell paid shill doesnt realise that the more he shows that the more people actually can see through its shit

really? then why you never bring on the discussion the broadwell series? amd clearly stated that they are going after 6900k 6800 and 6700 and yet here we are talking about an irrelevant cpu that has nothing to do with it

funny you dont mention that 1800x costs 500 bucks less from its actual competitor the 6900

funny you dont mention that am4 boards costs at least 100 bucks less than x99 ones

noooo lets talk about 7700k because of reasons

Has anyone tried disabling 4 cores on ryzen and seeing how it overclocks in that state?
I'd be interested in seeing how it performs in general too.

R: 49 / I: 8

cant even tell anymore why he is trying

Yeah, the 1600x will be 3.6-4.0 and the 1500x(4c/8t) will be 3.5-3.7

It looks like we shouldn't be getting anything with a base clock higher then 4.0

>cores means nothing

yeah meanwhile when reality kicks in and bitch slap you you get to see the real picture

Top kek

Another massive AMD failure incoming. I can't wait for all the fanboy tears to happen all over again.

A courteous reminder that on this test and many others the R7's are likely at 60% usage. Once again, these "16 games" are optimized for 4c/8t. Once games are optimized for 8c/16t, then the R7's as well as the 6900K (as it is under both the 6700k and 7700k in this recorded benchmark) will shine.

Anyone else hyped for the lowest tier 4/8 CPU? It's probably going to be $175 for 75% the performance of the 7700K

>they're all shills!
>the benchmarks are all fake!

Will AMDtards ever wake up to reality? I seriously doubt it at this point.

the fact that you just shitpost instead of telling us why inteldrones doesnt want to compare 6900k with 1800k pretty much seals the deal

get back to your Sup Forums cave and let the grown ups to talk about stuff they actually know

6900k is a ridiculously expensive niche CPU.

If you even start off by saying Ryzen is like the 6900k, it's already failed.

>gets destroyed
At stock clocks. Ex.
>closest to 1800X is ~103% of the performance
>at 106% of the clock speed

And exhibit two:
>7700k has 106% of the performance
>at 116% of the clock speed

Not just the fact that this benchmark is stock clocks, it is optimised for 4c/8t (as seen by the fact that the 6900K scores lower than the 7700K despite having twice the cores and the same IPC). If all threads are being used on both the Ryzen processors and the Workstation Intel i7's, this bench would tell a very very different tale.

No?

It goes toe-to-toe in benchmarks that use all cores, and just single cores. It performs well, almost matching it in both IPC and multithreaded performance, for anywhere from 33-50% of the price (depending on if you want to take the time to overclock the 1700)

It's a niche that AMD just stole from Intel.

It's also competitively priced with the flagship i7. And offers nearly the same single core performance. Across 8 cores with 16 threads.

I really hope the R5 and R3 will be popular, which I don't doubt they'll be judging by how cheap they are unless there's some massive fuckup from AMD, because I don't know what Intel are doing with their i3 line at this point, especially now when they released the Pentium G4560. I mean, who are the i3's for?

It's absolutely pointless to spend more than whatever the G4560 cost on a dual core CPU on a desktop computer, a quad core is the bare minimum at this point if you're going to use your PC for anything more than just light gaming and web browsing.

Congrats AMD, you now have a niche that nobody cared about.

I just wish AMD would put out a stupidly cheap 1c/2t processor with XFR and a relatively high clock, to compete with things like the Atom for the browserbox market.

>intels 8c/16t cpus somehow run the game better while streaming.
What?

>And then in real life it gets destroyed

I strongly disagree. That graph shows that pretty much any modern CPU is just fine for gaming when it's paired with a GTK 1080. Two older CPUs are the ones that stand out in that graph, A10-7890K at 64.4 and FX-8370 at 85. There is a pretty big difference between 65fps and 100fps. That graph does show the A10-7890K getting destroyed. The difference between 106 and 109 or 112 fps is so small it's barely measurable. It's tiny. I don't care, not even a little.

To me the big take-away from that graph is the difference between the i5-6400 and the Ryzen 7's in price and performance. There's barely any in real-world performance. The difference in price is huge.

>why not wait for Ryzen 5
Everyone's already waited ages for the new Ryzen chips. Ryzen's been hyped for more than a year already and they didn't deliver, they gave us 3 high-priced CPUs. If you're like me and you want to upgrade and you're thinking $100-200 is fair to spend on a CPU that's "good enough" then AMD delivered nothing.

>such problems
>it's great because problems
no, it's not great. These problems show that it's not worth paying $500-$600 for it.

>>such problems
>>it's great because problems
>no, it's not great. These problems show that it's not worth paying $500-$600 for it.
It's not worth paying $500-600 for it now, but when the problems are fixed and all 16 threads are being used then it will be worth it.

>CPU
>level of ability
>resolution

yes amd failed

amd clearly stated that their 8c/16t r7s is going against broadwell series cpus

BUT the shill on Sup Forums thinks it knows better

because if a 8c/16t cant beat a 7700k AT GAYMING is literally a failure..

meanwhile he constantly is posting the same old pc gamer pictures that shows a difference of only 5% with 7700k and 3% with 6900k and he still doesnt realise that...

i think intel should RMA you and hire a better shill with more technical knowledge than you cause you are just creating the exact opposite of what your lord wants..

you would have a point there

BUT

nehalems and first gen skylakes are calling they want your stupidity back

oh wait shills dont talk about them also

The reason why would be because the 1600x is a reject that couldn't make the cut as an 8c processor. Subsequently the 1500x is further more rejected as it couldn't function as a 6 core processor within specifications. Every Ryzen cpu starts off as an 1800x off the assembly line, they then use the shit loads of sensors they put in it for binning them down to their respective skus.

It probably starts as a 1700 tbqh, and XFR is added on if it's destined to be an X.

>oh wait shills dont talk about them also

I'm not a shill, see pic related.

I'm still using a AMD A8-7600 - fanless. With a Radeon 7850 GPU.

I've been thinking of upgrading for a while and seriously considered going Ryzen. AMD did not deliver. Everyone who disagrees with you isn't a shill just because you are.

They did deliver

>They did deliver
Not to me, they didn't. I checked my mailbox yesterday and there was no Ryzen CPU or any CPU what so ever in there. I realize I didn't order one because I'm not willing to buy one but I would accept one for free.

But no, AMD surely did not deliver.

Omg, the Ryzen is performing almost on par with intel chips that cost more than twice as much! Take that, AMDrones! Hahaha! AMD on suicide watch! lol!

This is AMD's biggest failure.

Their market was budget gaming and they completely lost it with Ryzen.

Because it's a gaming benchmark, and people are looking at the perf/$. Even if it's technically meant to be a direct competitor to the 6900k, the price point puts it in direct competition with the 6700 /7700k/5820k/6820k.

There is the argument of motherboard prices, which overall begins to rebalance pricing more. It's not terrible, and once aibs figure out their bioses, and Microsoft patches Windows for proper support, we might see a completely different story entirely.

You're a special kind of retarded, aren't you?

>the price point puts it in direct competition with the 6700/7700k/5820k/6820k
this is a stupid reasoning

>Their market was budget gaming and they completely lost it with Ryzen.

This is do true.

>They did deliver
What new AMD budget CPU did they release? I see no budget AMD CPU. I don't care if some $500 CPU beats some $1000 CPU, not even a little. The only options in the $100-200 range are Intel.

>gaming
>I don't care if some $500 CPU beats some $1000 CPU, not even a little
I can see that you're a special kind of stupid.

R5 and R3 are coming. Don't you worry.

so wait

let me get this straight

amd publicly said that they are going against broadwell cpus for half the price
everyone actually did that

BUT

on Sup Forums
somehow what amd publicly said doesnt matter at all because when amd bench a 1800x with a 6900k and stomps it hard suddenly it makes it be irrelevant and thus the only way intel can battle this is to measure 1800x with 7700k that is good only in one thing

and since march 2

CINEBENCH is DOA
SYSMARK (intel fav bench) is DOA
broadwell suddenly isnt the top of the line but 7700k is
talking about the prices of x99s mobos is a no no
posting irrelevant benchmarks is the norm
inventing benchmarks like the price per fps shit suddenly became popular
talksing about tdp and power draw in general became an even bigger NO NO
pointing out the problems of intel is a big no no BUT never pointing out the problems of amd is a YES YES

this

no doubt ryzen are really good cpu's and are btfo'ing intel for value in the upper range market, but they've missed the entire mid range of affordable good cpu's for broke fags like me

I'm in need of a new pc and only want to play CSGO, am I gonna get a Ryzen for £300 and get 250fps, or an i3 6100 for £100 and get 150fps?

>but they've missed the entire mid range of affordable good cpu's for broke fags like me
Wow, so the R5 and R3 are never gonna come out, huh?

...unless the R3 perform core per core on the level of the intels, which I 99% doubt.

this is the norm when you launch a cpu since the 80s...

they wont release the small ones first without fixing the problems first...

>80s

I was born in 1999 lol

>being this new
lurk more, faggot.

APUs still a thing, current lose on efficiency
zen based will crush intel at low clock

You could look at it that way as well. Either way, all Ryzen cpus start off as 8c/16t and work their way down from there. Forgot to mention Here that unless the lower core count skus end up being able to achieve significantly higher overclocks, they wont perform any better (or likely worse) than the 8c skus. However, that 200$ or less 4c/8t is tantalizing even if it only performs the same in current games / unthreaded workloads. Moreso if they manage to slam out higher clocks with overclocking.

For the user who asked about if anyone has tried overclocking an 1800x with deactivated cores, the only person I've seen make mention of plans for it is the guy from redgamingtech.