AdoredTV - Low resolution benchmarks are worthless

I 100% agree that it's smart for them to do this and that it's going to make it a smoother launch overall, but that doesn't mean I'm not an impatient bastard. :D

I hope they delay it a bit more, so I can save some extra money for a 6 core, cause currently I'm still not able to afford it... The boards are showing up slightly more expensive than expected, the ram is pricy... And I don't want to get an A320 board with 6core and 4gigs ram now and upgrade later...

I suppose thats one of the reasons why AMD releases them later.
I think that AMD is trying to fine tune those chips for gamers.
And that would exally make total sense, because they will most likelly gonne cost less then $300,-,
which would be a sweetspot for gamers, with compatitive pricings to i5´s.

2 Likes

See that's where I disagree. They demo'd Ryzen 7 with a Titan X(P), playing games, and put it in conjunction with an early Vega sample to play games. Your right that it was also marketed as a productivity cpu, which it is really good at.

Yeah I hope the pure gamers look at the fps number put out by 7700k systems and compare it to 1800x systems, and then look at those 1% and 0.1% lows so they can see that 7700k systems have less fps dipping and more stable fps in general. Aka, more "smooth" gameplay...

I will also add this as too more of why AMD would push Ryzen 7 out in what is seemingly a rushed fashion. Big Skylake is coming in Q2, and that will be a performance jump over the current Broadwell-E competition that AMD has spent so much time comparing against. Skylake Makes the basically non-distinguishable difference between Ryzen and Broadwell now actually measurable and favoring Intel, so it was important to get Ryzen out before Intel had pushed out X299 and cpus that could better match against Ryzen. We'll probably see lowered pricing on X299 compared to X99 in terms of core count per dollar.

If Wendell is correct and there is an issue with the scheduler in Windows, then the quad cores, that should be only one block, should have noticeable bump in performance in games, compared to the 8 cores and even 6 cores...
If not - then we should just wait for Microsoft to put out their updates...

Well there have been issues with the scheduler in windows7 and Bulldozer aswell back in the day.
So that doesnt suprise me.
Maybe they will come with certain amd patches again.

There have been a multucore optimizer software for am2 back in the day as well...
But I believe MS already stated they are working on, as they said, optimizations for more exotic architectures...

Also funny that windows defaults to a balanced profile on AMD while it defaults to performance on Intel.

Its almost like the launch was rushed and some things that should have been ready to patch in at launch weren't ready.

Now we would basiclly need AAA games on Linux to do some compairisson testings.
But yeah unfortunatlly it will take a while before Linux will even be ready to test games on.

AMD gave board manufacturers and OS developers very little time. "Rushed" may not be the right word, but they definitely didn't give them the time they needed.

Only if they fix the Windows OS scheduling and SMT utilization because their current 8 core flagship is being compared to an i5 atm. So if it doesn't perform well at the Flagship level, it won't perform well at their lower to mid tier SKUs. At their current optimizations level, AMD's 6/4 core Zen would exacerbate their not so well receive gaming performance currently.

If my memory serves me right that was just CPU parking issues with the FX8350 and nothing as serious as Ryzen's scheduling and hyperthread management.

Actually the 4 core being only one complex should have slightly better to astonishingly better performance if the scheduler is the reason for the performance drops.
There will be basically no other complex to load data into... So no matter what, the data will be in the correct L3 cache pool...

1 Like

Yep. The 6 core could go either way though. I'd imagine we'd see the same problem, but on a smaller scale, depending on how they split the cores between complex. (I'm imagining 4 and 2)

I'd say it is just R7s with one or two faulty cores.

Nope... The design itself asks for mirror complexes. I mean there is some internal design decisions, that require two similar complexes to work properly...
I believe Zen 2 can have 12 and 9 cores for that same reason...

1 Like

It would also be a real test of how high AMD's Ryzen OC can reach given only fewer cores. If the scheduling and hyperthreading are fixed, that's what I'm gonna be going for. A 6c/12T, or 4c/8T would be a killer for AMD.

Good to know, so the 6 core will probably be just as bad as the 8 core.

Possibly. The problem is not so much power limitations when Ryzen on OC, it's more of silicon limits. I doubt we're going to see much more than 4.4GHz on R5 or R3 without some serious improvements. But theoretically, a R3 at 4.4GHz could probably trade blows with an i5 (6600k) at 4.6GHz.

People barely get 5GHz on liquid nitrogen...
The architecture is not made for high clocks.

Except they got 5.8GHz on LN2, so "barely" is a bit of an understatement.

Also, did you read the entire sentence?