Official AMD Ryzen Reviews

AMD responds to 1080p gaming tests on Ryzen

“Oxide games is incredibly excited with what we are seeing from the Ryzen CPU. Using our Nitrous game engine, we are working to scale our existing and future game title performance to take full advantage of Ryzen and its 8-core, 16-thread architecture, and the results thus far are impressive. These optimizations are not yet available for Ryzen benchmarking. However, expect updates soon to enhance the performance of games like Ashes of the Singularity on Ryzen CPUs, as well as our future game releases.” - Brad Wardell, CEO Stardock and Oxide

"Creative Assembly is committed to reviewing and optimizing its games on the all-new Ryzen CPU. While current third-party testing doesn’t reflect this yet, our joint optimization program with AMD means that we are looking at options to deliver performance optimization updates in the future to provide better performance on Ryzen CPUs moving forward. " – Creative Assembly, Developers of the Multi-award Winning Total War Series

AMD confirms that Ryzen supports ECC memory

AMD supporting ECC memory on their desktop Ryzen platforms will make them the CPU maker of choice when home users create their own workstations, FreeNAS file servers and other system types that can benefit from ECC memory.

Right now support for ECC memory is heavily restricted on Intel platforms, making ECC memory support a nice boost for AMD's Ryzen CPU architecture and the easy choice for those that want to create a home ZFS server or NAS.

Overclocked benchmarks look much better:

[video=youtube;V5RP1CPpFVE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5RP1CPpFVE[/video]
 
Overclocked benchmarks look much better:

<snip video>
]

Ah feck not a joker benchmark, guy is an idiot and cant take him seriously unless confirmed by more credible sources.

EDIT:
[video=youtube;VWarC_Nygew]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWarC_Nygew[/video]
 
Last edited:
German website, translated to English.

https://www.golem.de/news/ryzen-7-1800x-im-test-amd-ist-endlich-zurueck-1703-125996-4.html

The MSI board was delivered with BIOS version 113, until last Friday a new one appeared. Version 117, which is still up-to-date, improved speed and stability. If we were still able to count on sporadic Bluescreens with the older UEFI, the board is currently stable. Much more important, however, is the drastically higher performance in games and the real pack with 7-Zip. The release notes include, among other things, a fixed problem with the storage act and its timing as well as the voltage.

Compared to the original bios, the new UEFI increases the image rate in our game course between plus 4 and plus 26 percent, on the average even plus 17 percent! In view of this tremendous increase in performance, we had to be certain that our values ​​are correct, and have measured with the Asus boards. This gives us a touch more speed in games than with the updated MSI board.
 
All the reviewers seem disappointed in the 1080P gaming performance of the 8 core Ryzen, neglecting the glaringly obvious i.e.

The Intel i7-7700K beats the i7-6900K & i7-6950K in 1080p gaming as well, due to higher clock speeds which are achievable due to the fact that the i7-7700K has less cores, and less heat dissipation than the 8/12 core variants.

The Ryzen 1800X knocks the socks off Intel's 8/12 core parts (or at least closely matches), and should only be compared against Intel's 8 core parts. Half the price, at least equal performance, and Ryzen is a clear winner.

Ryzen 8 core is a heavy duty processor, that performs reasonably well in gaming, that is all you need to take away from this.

If you want a processor for gaming only, you should probably wait for Ryzen 4 core parts, which will clock higher due to having less cores. If you want a heavy duty processor, with capable gaming abilities, Ryzen 7 is a no-brainer.

Failing to support AMD, when Intel have clearly been abusing their position as market leader with unreasonable pricing for years, is like biting your nose off to spite your face. AMD have stepped up to the plate, despite having infinitely less resources than Intel, and we should support them as much as possible to ensure that they have a chance to bring an end to Intel's monopoly.
 
All the reviewers seem disappointed in the 1080P gaming performance of the 8 core Ryzen, neglecting the glaringly obvious i.e.

The Intel i7-7700K beats the i7-6900K & i7-6950K in 1080p gaming as well, due to higher clock speeds which are achievable due to the fact that the i7-7700K has less cores, and less heat dissipation than the 8/12 core variants.

The Ryzen 1800X knocks the socks off Intel's 8/12 core parts (or at least closely matches), and should only be compared against Intel's 8 core parts. Half the price, at least equal performance, and Ryzen is a clear winner.

Ryzen 8 core is a heavy duty processor, that performs reasonably well in gaming, that is all you need to take away from this.

If you want a processor for gaming only, you should probably wait for Ryzen 4 core parts, which will clock higher due to having less cores. If you want a heavy duty processor, with capable gaming abilities, Ryzen 7 is a no-brainer.

Failing to support AMD, when Intel have clearly been abusing their position as market leader with unreasonable pricing for years, is like biting your nose off to spite your face. AMD have stepped up to the plate, despite having infinitely less resources than Intel, and we should support them as much as possible to ensure that they have a chance to bring an end to Intel's monopoly.

How do you come to that conclusion? Yes, Intel has monopolised the market, but these ‘production’ CPUs are a niche, until now that the gap is closed by AMD. It is only an assumption made by the buyers, and I can question these very ethics in the industries where these assumers earn their bread and butter. It is that, an open market.

By making that statement, you also conclude that CPUs like the 7700 and 7700K are unreasonably priced. Those AMD Black Editions was unreasonably priced when compared to the competition. We are still to see where Ryzen 3 and 5 will be positioned in the market.

I support choice, and I have been waiting an VERY long time. But hey, let’s blame Intel.

I guess you are an enthusiast component buyer?

For interest, Steam stats:

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/

The gaming market is dominated by 4 cpus (Windows) @ 48.14% so I don't see gamers pulling out the cash on Broadwell-E.
 
How do you come to that conclusion? Yes, Intel has monopolised the market, but these ‘production’ CPUs are a niche, until now that the gap is closed by AMD. It is only an assumption made by the buyers, and I can question these very ethics in the industries where these assumers earn their bread and butter. It is that, an open market.

By making that statement, you also conclude that CPUs like the 7700 and 7700K are unreasonably priced. Those AMD Black Editions was unreasonably priced when compared to the competition. We are still to see where Ryzen 3 and 5 will be positioned in the market.

I support choice, and I have been waiting an VERY long time. But hey, let’s blame Intel.

I guess you are an enthusiast component buyer?

For interest, Steam stats:

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/

The gaming market is dominated by 4 cpus (Windows) @ 48.14% so I don't see gamers pulling out the cash on Broadwell-E.

We can blame Intel, their dirty tricks were exposed and they got fined by the EU for it, for example, thus they made AMD less profitable, so AMD had less money to develop their next product.
 
We can blame Intel, their dirty tricks were exposed and they got fined by the EU for it, for example, thus they made AMD less profitable, so AMD had less money to develop their next product.

An incident that took place between 2002 and 2007 when Intel dominated the x86 processor market by 70% by implementing a rebates and rewards model to reduce consumer’s choice. A case which is continuing today in Intel’s appeal. Intel has since 2009 been ordered to stop using ‘illegal’ rebates, they have stopped, but are challenging the instruction. Intel has also won the right to have the case re-examined in late 2016 due the General Court being unable to establish whether the rebates and rewards model has indeed harmed the competition.

Nothing is concrete or proven since 2009. Dirty tricks, what dirty tricks? Innocent until proven guilty. However, AMD did take Intel to court in 2005, it was a case stating the very same reason as the EU Commission, a case which Intel settled where AMD was rewarded with $10 million US and in using Intel patents at no royalty in their own x86 processor. Note, Intel exhausted their allowable expenditure and that is how they reached a settlement in 2009.

AMD also has a rebate program... Feck, every supplier I know has a vendor relationship where rebates and rewards are actively promoted in the sales channel. Buy this, rather than that... the whole points system is silly where you are encouraged to promote one deal above the other. It is not only Intel, other companies do it as well, and it is also prevalent here in sunny SA.
 
An incident that took place between 2002 and 2007 when Intel dominated the x86 processor market by 70% by implementing a rebates and rewards model to reduce consumer’s choice. A case which is continuing today in Intel’s appeal. Intel has since 2009 been ordered to stop using ‘illegal’ rebates, they have stopped, but are challenging the instruction. Intel has also won the right to have the case re-examined in late 2016 due the General Court being unable to establish whether the rebates and rewards model has indeed harmed the competition.

Nothing is concrete or proven since 2009. Dirty tricks, what dirty tricks? Innocent until proven guilty. However, AMD did take Intel to court in 2005, it was a case stating the very same reason as the EU Commission, a case which Intel settled where AMD was rewarded with $10 million US and in using Intel patents at no royalty in their own x86 processor. Note, Intel exhausted their allowable expenditure and that is how they reached a settlement in 2009.

AMD also has a rebate program... Feck, every supplier I know has a vendor relationship where rebates and rewards are actively promoted in the sales channel. Buy this, rather than that... the whole points system is silly where you are encouraged to promote one deal above the other. It is not only Intel, other companies do it as well, and it is also prevalent here in sunny SA.

You seem like an intel fanboy?!

I am all for amd and intel..competition is healthy! I loved the amd athlon's ,then intel had core to due and quad and boom i was a intel buyer..Since ryzen i am so hyped cause for long amd struggled to get back in the game!finnnaaallyy they came in hard with ryzen and even before release intel lowered their prices and giving people better performance per dollar..i mean that's what i want to see!both going head to head again and giving more to the consumer.
 
You seem like an intel fanboy?!

I am all for amd and intel..competition is healthy! I loved the amd athlon's ,then intel had core to due and quad and boom i was a intel buyer..Since ryzen i am so hyped cause for long amd struggled to get back in the game!finnnaaallyy they came in hard with ryzen and even before release intel lowered their prices and giving people better performance per dollar..i mean that's what i want to see!both going head to head again and giving more to the consumer.

Say the guy that said,

I feel intel is paying reviewers to make it look bad for amd

Fanboism much?

I have already said in post #10 what I wanted to say. What I have done is hinting that people are reaching conclusions without anything to back up their statement. There are vendors which abuses the market, as do some which champion the consumer, it is PR and marketing, and some are resulting in lawsuits where Intel is yet to be proven that they have done so illegally. People are very gullible, and the media not only encourages this, but is contributing to this make-believe.

Yes, AMD has undercut their competitor, the R7 is coming in much lower than the alternative Broadwell-E. How many Broadwell-E, enthusiast, users are there in the market as opposed to the high-end market? Because well, most people are acting like they are enthusiast users in this debate. What AMD have done is to open the market up to more consumers where AMD still have room to improve their product. Previously, Intel was unchallenged in this segment with which they created a niche market.

Obviously, Intel will respond in some way or the other. Btw, Intel didn't price cut anything, it is Microcenter’s own pricing scheme. The online media painted you a picture, and you are still staring at it.

I am waiting on R3 and R5.
 
^, Fulcrum - is this reasonable business behaviour to you?

The EU’s eight-year investigation found that Intel impeded competition by giving rebates to computer makers from 2002 until 2005 on the condition that they buy at least 95 percent of chips for PCs from Intel.

The EU regulator said Intel imposed “restrictive conditions” for the remaining 5 percent, supplied by Advanced Micro Devices Inc., which struggled to overcome Intel’s hold on the market for processors that run PCs.

Acer Inc., Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard, Lenovo Group Ltd. and NEC Corp., were among computer firms coaxed to use Intel chips, the commission said in 2009. The EU ordered Intel to stop using illegal rebates to thwart competitors, an instruction that Intel complained was unclear.

A rebate per unit bought is one thing...rebates on condition that the OEM only use your product is anti-competitive. The key part to add into this is that AMD had the superior chip in this pre-Core period - Intel's behaviour directly harmed consumers and AMD by inducing OEM's to use the more costly chip. Left to their own devices, OEM's would be using the AMD parts as the Athlon XP would have made more financial sense while offering a superior end-user product.
 
^, Fulcrum - is this reasonable business behaviour to you?



A rebate per unit bought is one thing...rebates on condition that the OEM only use your product is anti-competitive. The key part to add into this is that AMD had the superior chip in this pre-Core period - Intel's behaviour directly harmed consumers and AMD by inducing OEM's to use the more costly chip. Left to their own devices, OEM's would be using the AMD parts as the Athlon XP would have made more financial sense while offering a superior end-user product.

No, it is not reasonable by any means. It is what was established by the EU Commission's investigation where Intel denied the claim, stating that they never made such requirements. Intel is challenging the EU’s claim on targeting exclusivity rebates, a right they have won to have the circumstances re-examined by the lower EU court. More will be known in time.
 
And so it begins...

Hehe, just making sure the facts are out there. Fulcrum was underplaying Intel's behaviour in post #49.

For the record, I used AMD exclusively from the early 2000's to 2007 and switched to Intel around then (Q6600 and then 2500K CPU purchased). I buy the best thing I can get for the money I'm willing to spend but I will call out inaccuracies on either side when people aren't being completely factual.
 
Last edited:
Hehe, just making sure the facts are out there. Fulcrum was underplaying Intel's behaviour in post #49.

For the record, I used AMD exclusively from the early 2000's to 2011 and switched to Intel around then (just the 2500K CPU purchase though). I buy the best thing I can get for the money I'm willing to spend but I will call out inaccuracies on either side when people aren't being completely factual.

That behaviour is still to be established,

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-intel-antitrust-court-idUSKCN12K0QN

The opinion from Advocate General Nils Wahl at the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) amounted to a rare setback for the European Commission, underlining the tough battle ahead as it takes on Apple (AAPL.O), Qualcomm (QCOM.O), Google (GOOGL.O) and Amazon (AMZN.O) in various competition cases.

"Intel's appeal against the imposition of a 1.06 billion euro fine for abuse of its dominant position should be upheld. The case should be referred back to the General Court for a fresh review," Wahl said in a non-binding recommendation.

He said the General Court failed to establish that the rebates and payments offered by Intel were anti-competitive and that certain deals between the firm and Lenovo harmed European consumers. These were key elements of the Commission's 2009 decision.

...

Wahl's opinion is a good sign for companies looking for guidance on what kind of rebates should be considered harmful, said Ian Giles, a partner at London-based Norton Rose Fulbright.

"The extent to which the advocate general disagrees with the Commission is significant. The advocate general's opinion says - on the Intel facts - the Commission got it wrong," he said.

"Assuming the court follows this opinion, this is a good outcome from the perspective of competition policy, and may lead to the Commission revising its approach in ongoing cases."

I don't know what I was underplaying, the Advocate General's opinion has turned into an order. But hey, Advocate General Nils Wahl is probably an Intel Fanboi. Facts...
 
I don't know what I was underplaying, the Advocate General's opinion has turned into an order. But hey, Advocate General Nils Wahl is probably an Intel Fanboi. Facts...

We'll see, I guess. As you already agreed it was unreasonable behaviour in post #51 and the quotes from the internal OEM emails (I included a quote about Dell's internal correspondence below) is conclusive to me that the exclusivity requirements were in place. I believe the honorable Advocate General is wrong - as Korea and Japan and the lower EU courts had correctly concluded when they found Intel guilty of anti-competitive behaviour.

http://archive.fortune.com/2009/11/13/technology/intel_settlement_emails.fortune/index.htm

Dell's then-chief operating officer (and later CEO) Kevin Rollins, after meeting with Intel negotiators to discuss that prospect, reported back internally that Intel was ready to do "whatever it takes" to keep Dell from purchasing from AMD. "Initial word is that our MOAP" -- the acronym stands for "Mother of All Programs," a term used to refer to Intel's massive quarterly rebate payments to Dell -- "should increase from the $70M this qtr to $100 mm."

More formally, the MOAP was known as the Meet Competition Program (MCP), but precisely how it was calculated and what it was for were things that weren't spelled out in any contract. A 2003 Dell internal document describes the MCP as a "'monogamy tax' for Intel," and explains: "There is not a formal contract per se that documents all the terms and conditions of the MCP program for a quarter. Rather, the MCP terms and conditions are agreed upon via email and telephone communications, and are finalized in a spreadsheet." One hundred million dollars per quarter, and no formal contract. Hmm.

Whatever these payments were for, they skyrocketed in size as Dell became increasingly tempted to stray from the Intel fold. The pressure to stray intensified after April 2003, when AMD introduced its Opteron chip for servers, which many customers saw as clearly superior to Intel's then offerings (as well as cheaper). Worse still, due to certain misplaced bets and calculations relating to its product "roadmap," Intel was not going to be able to offer a truly competitive server chip for a period of two to three years.

Dell considered switching to AMD, but its executives feared the "double whammy" of seeing a huge chunk of its rebates not only vanish, but shifted to a competing computer maker. By mid-2004, Intel was paying Dell about $300 million per quarter in rebates -- or more than one-third of its quarterly net income.

But Dell continued to lose share, revenue, and reputation by not shipping the Opteron. On November 4, 2005, then CEO Otellini reported back to colleagues on a call he had received from Michael Dell, Dell's then chairman: "[Michael Dell] opened by saying 'I am tired of losing business'... 'Dell is no longer seen as a thought leader.'" Later that month, Michael Dell emailed his own people writing, "We are losing the hearts, minds and wallets of our best customers."

But Otellini countered Michael Dell's complaints by, according to Otellini's email, reminding him, "We are transferring over $1 billion per year to Dell for [MCP] efforts. This was judged by your team to be more than sufficient to compensate for the competitive issues." When advised in February 2006 that Dell's then CEO Rollins had decided to stay with Intel chips, Otellini emailed a colleague calling Rollins "The best friend money can buy."
 
We'll see, I guess. As you already agreed it was unreasonable behaviour in post #51 and the quotes from the internal OEM emails (I included a quote about Dell's internal correspondence below) is conclusive to me that the exclusivity requirements were in place. I believe the honorable Advocate General is wrong - as Korea and Japan and the lower EU courts had correctly concluded when they found Intel guilty of anti-competitive behaviour.

http://archive.fortune.com/2009/11/13/technology/intel_settlement_emails.fortune/index.htm

Yep, I agree that the act is unreasonable, a act Intel denied, as you said,

A rebate per unit bought is one thing...rebates on condition that the OEM only use your product is anti-competitive.

Uhm,

Dell's then-chief operating officer (and later CEO) Kevin Rollins, after meeting with Intel negotiators to discuss that prospect, reported back internally that Intel was ready to do "whatever it takes" to keep Dell from purchasing from AMD. "Initial word is that our MOAP" -- the acronym stands for "Mother of All Programs," a term used to refer to Intel's massive quarterly rebate payments to Dell -- "should increase from the $70M this qtr to $100 mm."

...

Dell considered switching to AMD, but its executives feared the "double whammy" of seeing a huge chunk of its rebates not only vanish, but shifted to a competing computer maker. By mid-2004, Intel was paying Dell about $300 million per quarter in rebates -- or more than one-third of its quarterly net income.

yeah, rebate is one thing, greed is another.
 
Adored's view on Ryzen,

[video=youtube;ylvdSnEbL50]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylvdSnEbL50[/video]
 
Im blown away by the overclocking performance numbers guys are posting on other forums, especially the 1700 which people seem to be getting consistently to 3.8 and 3.9 GHz all 8 cores.

I cant wait for the 4 and 6 core variants to be available - that's where the gaming CPUs will be at.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X