AMD Ryzen 7 1700 Linux Benchmarks: Great Multi-Core Performance For $329

[dungeon]

There is darkness in the dungeon, you can not see that it is game dependent. With Battlefield 4 Ryzen is as fast as kabylake:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...pu,4951-6.html

I told - general conclusion of reviewers there

They all said something like that... as i see even that tomshardware in conclusion said something like this:

To that end, when we weigh the 1800X’s strong showing in workstation and HPC workloads against its issues with games, we can't help but believe that AMD designed this specific configuration with a datacenter-driven mindset and didn’t optimize it thoroughly for desktops. Much like Intel and Broadwell-E, in fact.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...u,4951-12.html

[mlau]

where I test how well it does as a paperweight. Because that's what it'll be until I can get my hands on an AM4 motherboard.

I'm in the same boat. Ordered an 1800X plus 64gb ram, but can't find a good board. All available ones are large ATX and imho overpriced, aimed at the ricer crowd, but no dealer
can tell me when a uATX with optical-audio out and maybe an intel lan chip will be available

[WOLF308]

The 1700 at 4Ghz http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryze...ocessor_192191

[dungeon]

The 1700 at 4Ghz http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryze...ocessor_192191

Keyword liquid cooler, as that OC will use a lot of power 80-90W more

At idle the stock AMD Ryzen 7 1700 CPU used 42.6W at idle and 124W in Handbrake. When we overclocked the CPU up to 4.0 GHz at 1.3875V we noticed that the idle went up to 51.1W and 214W in handbrake, so overclocking up to 4.0 GHz will drastically increase this processors power consumption. Using 72.5% more power in Handbrake was honestly more than we expected, but the temperatures weren’t bad and that is barely more than the Intel Core i7-6900K in that test.

[mmstick]

You might want to test Ryzen processors with a Gigabyte motherboard instead of MSI. It's been noted on /r/amd that the common trend between the Ryzen reviewers that give glowing results in gaming where Ryzen is on par with Intel are using Gigabyte boards, whereas the reviews displaying AMD hardware underperforming greatly are using ASUS / MSI boards.

[Adarion]

Well this is interesting:
[...]
I wondered if the neural net predictors in Ryzen could learn or had fixed weights - one of our technical marketing guys seemed to confirm further down the conversation that they do learn as they go.
As if benchmarking wasn't hard enough already

This is scary. The question is, can this be put to good benefit? And will it forget once I run something different?


On the article: Michael

"also lacking XFR support"

I thought all of them had XFR, the 1700 just has a lower range for it iirc.

single threaded ... .. gaming ... i7 7700

Core i7 7700 is at 4.4 GHz (iirc), so of course it will be faster in a single threaded test (and thus also faster than its own intel brethren which are sold for >2000 USD!).
How can anyone on the net complain about something that is a matter of logic? It seems people are looking desperately for something to talk Ryzen bad.
The stupid i7 7700 is faster than intel's most expensive offer in single-threaded workloads. A-duuuuh! Of course it is. 4.4 GHz vs. 3.0, 3.5 GHz, whatever. More cores don't really improve anything when the program is using only one core. You can shift a little operating system calculations that are running in the background to the next core and thus fully have one core for your application but that's about it.

The verdict of all those tests on the net for me is that SW (esp. games) are not yet taking advantage of big multicore systems. It seems a lot of software is still tested and optimized for quadcores at max. (even some of those "multithreaded benchmarks" Michael has shown in the test).
It is not that surprising since octacores (or higher) and not so widespread (remember the usual prices for them). But for a good couple of scenarios like compiling and programs that do live up to "the more cores the merrier!", 8-cores at this price are magnificent. Moreover some people actually tested something like 640x480 gaming on (1-day-old-nothing-yet-optimized-for-it)-Ryen vs. i7. WTF. Yes, you don't want the GPU to be the bottleneck. But seriously... and then some complained they would get only like 500 instead of 512 fps with Ryzen. Seriously?

It is okay to point out a few things that run really odd. Because these points are very likely suffering from a SW optimization problem rather than a HW issue. So devs can look for these bottlenecks and fix them.


As soon as I've saved up the money I'll probably go with a Ryzen 7 1700, it's an unbeatable price for a modern octacore and I do have programs that love 8cores (Gentoo, darktable,...) - AND it is still fast enough for any gaming for me AND gaming will improve on high-multicore systems in the future.

[aaahaaap]

Michael Which bios version did you use for these tests?
And what's the reason for the low memory speeds? Are you having trouble running it at 2666 or higher?

Also agree with mmstick, it seems like the Gigabyte aorus board seems to be doing the best on the windows side of things, might be interesting to do a comparison.

[lem79]

Michael Which bios version did you use for these tests?
And what's the reason for the low memory speeds? Are you having trouble running it at 2666 or higher?

Also agree with mmstick, it seems like the Gigabyte aorus board seems to be doing the best on the windows side of things, might be interesting to do a comparison.

If there can be significant variation between the boards (I haven't actually looked around at the data), then one could be confident that BIOS updates could fix the performance deficits?

[dungeon]

You can not no tune windows, with Debian testing Xfce you can:tweak the kernel and compile from sources..

Of course, opensource allows you to do that - but it does not need to be neither Debian neither Testing nor Xfce That is only maybe what you like.

Toms hardware of is wintel religious site like all others, of course they said that.

BS They *all* say that, because it is true Ryzen is slower than Kaby in singlethread but faster on multithread... but games value single IPC so that is about it, all expected All considering, Ryzen is really perfect price positioned as it is really worth that much, no less no more

Only Michael's gaming results here (ignoring weird VK RadV slowmo) looks minus 10% slower on average than expected to me, that is all

[dungeon]

Bioses, microcodes, new kernels... it is new CPU new platform you know, give it a couple months and things should align where they should be

Just even then do not expect it will beat 7700K on gaming, as high single IPC is high single IPC more clock there more gaming perf or better to say more space for CPU bound situation

Until some 8 core optimized game appear, than you can expect nose down - the opposite, now 7700K got slowmo