AMD Ryzen Review: Ryzen 7 1800X & 1700X Put to the Test

[OcelotRex]

My stats are not missing point, it just proves that looking for discrete cards only is very misleading. Remember that those market share statistics are about quantity, not quality. Most machines shipped has only Intel integrated graphics. Most graphics cards Nvidia supplies are ultra cheap cards for OEM machines, worse than most AMD APU's.

According to Steam survey, large majority of people use AMD CPU or Intel CPU with no integrated graphics so Steam statistics are somehow tweaked. Probably they only list "main" graphic adapter.

They're not misleading - this is a discussion about gaming, not every PC on the market including those millions sitting in office parks. hence the Steam survey metrics are much more applicable since it includes Intel integrated graphics users, AMD, APU users, and Discrete GPUs of people using gaming software.

As to what Nvidia supplies that goes against what research shows:

Follow the link through and you'll see that the "mainstream" segment is the under $100 segment you speak of. 2 years ago it outsold the other segments while now the "performance" section is equal or larger. Again this is present in the Steam Survey data where of the top 50% of the market (Direct 12 GPUs which account for roughly 3/4 of the users) consists of 5% Intel CPUs, 8.5% AMD APUs/Discrete Cards, 8.4% Nvidia sub $100 cards, and 78.1% Nvidia Discrete Cards. If you read the Anandtech article this shouldn't come as a surprise as the revenue/profit for the performance segment outweighs the mainstream segment for both AMD and Nvidia (including volume sold).

My point was that majority of discrete graphic card sales are OEM crap for non gaming. AMD's discrete card share will rapidly drop when APU's get better.

I set slider to $50 as majority of Nvidia's desktop sales are cheaper than $50 cares. Basically AMD's $100 APU is better for games than majority of Nvidia's sold GPU's. Again we are talking about quantity.

Again this is not the case when you look at applicable data. IF Vega is competitive to high-end pascal then AMD's share will increase, not decrease.

It's simple logic - every PC needs a graphics solution. Not every PC plays games. Looking at the whole PC market and making generalizations is a specious argument.

Pentium G4560 was just recently released, before that all Pentium's were dual core. Many modern games require 4 threads, so previous Pentium's couldn't even launch many games. Perhaps that's the reason why Intel launched 4 thread Pentium. So compare APU to dual core Pentium or i3, and comparison is much more fair (as Q3/2016).

I think you've forgotten about a pentium that was great at gaming released in Q2 2014: The G3258. Techspot reviewed this very CPU and there was no mention of having trouble launching "many games." There may have been a point in 2016 when this is the case but now the G4560 fills that nicely. AMD supporters like yourself are fond of the "wait for" arguments so waiting a few months for the HT Pentium must not have been too bad for those with G3258's.

 

[OcelotRex]

While I agree with what you say, I couldnt help myself from mentioning that 3570k users (or even 2500k users in this case) find little reason to upgrade to the most recent intel cpus too, when gaming is the concern. Some would argue that ryzen 7 holds extreme value for anything other than gaming as well, but I'll not discuss it cause the subject is gaming here. Also it's better to keep in mind that we have not yet seen how ryzen 5 performs.

That's an excellent point for people upgrading. I think the PCGamer article I linked addresses that as well.

As for waiting for Ryzen 5 I totally agree as well; if you waited this long to upgrade from a "K" ivy bridge CPU there's no rush build a new PC. After the claims AMD made about gaming and the performance reported I am optimistic.

 

[HardReset]

They're not misleading - this is a discussion about gaming, not every PC on the market including those millions sitting in office parks. hence the Steam survey metrics are much more applicable since it includes Intel integrated graphics users, AMD, APU users, and Discrete GPUs of people using gaming software.

As to what Nvidia supplies that goes against what research shows:

Follow the link through and you'll see that the "mainstream" segment is the under $100 segment you speak of. 2 years ago it outsold the other segments while now the "performance" section is equal or larger. Again this is present in the Steam Survey data where of the top 50% of the market (Direct 12 GPUs which account for roughly 3/4 of the users) consists of 5% Intel CPUs, 8.5% AMD APUs/Discrete Cards, 8.4% Nvidia sub $100 cards, and 78.1% Nvidia Discrete Cards. If you read the Anandtech article this shouldn't come as a surprise as the revenue/profit for the performance segment outweighs the mainstream segment for both AMD and Nvidia (including volume sold).

Not everyone takes part on Steam survey, including me. Are there any amounts on Steam survey or just percentages? Also according to Steam survey, most people do not have Intel integrated graphics on their machines, that's strange.

That basically tells that AMD integrated APU solutions are eating mainstream cake badly. Still mainstream sales are very big considering we very rarely see any new additions to that category.

Again this is not the case when you look at applicable data. IF Vega is competitive to high-end pascal then AMD's share will increase, not decrease.

It's simple logic - every PC needs a graphics solution. Not every PC plays games. Looking at the whole PC market and making generalizations is a specious argument.

If Vega is success, AMD's total market share and discrete graphic share will increase. But if AMD APU's are succesful, then AMD's total share will increase but discrete share will decrease.

That's why I looked for whole market. As APU's are not counted as discrete cards, no matter if they are better than mainstream cards.

I think you've forgotten about a pentium that was great at gaming released in Q2 2014: The G3258. Techspot reviewed this very CPU and there was no mention of having trouble launching "many games." There may have been a point in 2016 when this is the case but now the G4560 fills that nicely. AMD supporters like yourself are fond of the "wait for" arguments so waiting a few months for the HT Pentium must not have been too bad for those with G3258's.

At that time no, but for example Far Cry 4 launched November 2014, it required CPU with at least 4 threads. With G3258 it refused to even start. Also Dragon age Inquisition, launched same time, required CPU with at least 4 threads. So G3258 was "good gaming CPU" for couple of months

So there was point already in 2014.

 

[dirtyferret]

Sony and MS had lots of choices they are huge companies that you are too incompetent to realize. Your blind fan boy desire to back up a failure of a CPU make you too ignorant to make any factual posts. Just because you purchased an FX CPU doesn't make AMD the world's greatest company. You have delusional theories on how business works. Go post your AMD fan boy posts somewhere else. You are wrong, always have been wrong and have hijacked a thread that is now completely off topic - as usual for you.

 

[HardReset]

Sony and MS had lots of choices they are huge companies that you are too incompetent to realize. Your blind fan boy desire to back up a failure of a CPU make you too ignorant to make any factual posts. Just because you purchased an FX CPU doesn't make AMD the world's greatest company. You have delusional theories on how business works. Go post your AMD fan boy posts somewhere else. You are wrong, always have been wrong and have hijacked a thread that is now completely off topic - as usual for you.

When facts end, you begin ranting.

So tell me what real alternatives Sony/MS had for X1 and PS4 if leaving AMD out. Real alternative = solution with similar speed, cost and thermals. Tell that or shut up.

 

[alabama man]

Damn so they still suck at gaming. Was really hoping for a reason to upgrade but seems it was all hype again. I guess they are good for work but if you need computer for work you can purchase it for your company or deduct it in taxes so it doesn't really matter how much the hardware costs at that point. If I build a mid-range PC for friend this will be an option.

 

[dirtyferret]

When facts end, you begin ranting.

So tell me what real alternatives Sony/MS had for X1 and PS4 if leaving AMD out. Real alternative = solution with similar speed, cost and thermals. Tell that or shut up.

You mean besides custom built IBM CPUs like the Xbox had previously or chips from Nvidia and Intel cause none of those companies make PC hardware... keep posting fan boy responses but you lost.

 

[dirtyferret]

Did Intel have high performing and cost effective GPU solution at that time? No.

Last time Microsoft used Nvidia, it ended this way http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1176649

Also Nvidia did not have solution with similar performance, cost and thermals (no CPU and GPU on same package). Also Nvidia wants to produce chips themself, not allowing manufacturing outsource. These things mean Nvidia is not an option.

Only options left are AMD and Intel. Because Intel does not have graphic solution available, getting CPU from Intel is getting nowhere as GPU is also needed. And only solution for that is AMD.

Here I proved that AMD was only choice that you are just stupid Intel fanboy. **** off.

How can I be an Intel fan boy if I own a PC with and AMD CPU and GPU...If you want to see a blind fan boy I suggest finding a mirror...

 

[HardReset]

How can I be an Intel fan boy if I own a PC with and AMD CPU and GPU...If you want to see a blind fan boy I suggest finding a mirror...

You made that clear on above posts. Even Intel fanboys sometimes make intelligent purchases.

 

[dirtyferret]

I own multiple hardware since I make my purchase based on value for my dollar rather then some absurd theory that I should justify my purchase with blind faith and constant posting of hyperbole - how's that search for a mirror going?

 

[HardReset]

I own multiple hardware since I make my purchase based on value for my dollar rather then some absurd theory that I should justify my purchase with blind faith and constant posting of hyperbole - how's that search for a mirror going?

How about telling those alternatives, other than AMD, for Microsoft and Sony?

 

[OcelotRex]

Not everyone takes part on Steam survey, including me. Are there any amounts on Steam survey or just percentages? Also according to Steam survey, most people do not have Intel integrated graphics on their machines, that's strange.

That basically tells that AMD integrated APU solutions are eating mainstream cake badly. Still mainstream sales are very big considering we very rarely see any new additions to that category.

You're not familiar with sampling and surveying? 100% of people do not need to be included to get a precise, valid understanding of the market. The survey pops up randomly; that's sampling.

Again you've not understood the Survey - it does not say that most do not have Intel graphics. If you look at the processor market share graph from steam I posted earlier you can see a near 4:1 Intel advantage over AMD. Nearly every Intel CPU has on-board graphics in the last 5-7 years. Anyone with discrete cards though won't be using them; that's why the GPU chart (which includes Intel and AMD APUs) is more applicable.

As to AMD APUs - They're in the survey. Look for AMD R7 Graphics for the A10-7890k under Direct 12. The February result was 1.48%. All R7 solutions are lumped in there though. I am not sure that's "eating mainstream cake" though.

If Vega is success, AMD's total market share and discrete graphic share will increase. But if AMD APU's are succesful, then AMD's total share will increase but discrete share will decrease.

That's why I looked for whole market. As APU's are not counted as discrete cards, no matter if they are better than mainstream cards.

In the steam survey there's no distinction - the GPU you're using is listed.

At that time no, but for example Far Cry 4 launched November 2014, it required CPU with at least 4 threads. With G3258 it refused to even start. Also Dragon age Inquisition, launched same time, required CPU with at least 4 threads. So G3258 was "good gaming CPU" for couple of months

So there was point already in 2014.

Here's a suggestion: when someone links an article from the site you post on you should likely read it. That makes this curious graph very awkward for you. It shows Techspot reviewing the G3258 playing DA:I. I knew Steve was magic but not that magical!

 

[ScubaRhys]

Hardreset. Why are you such an intense fanboy? Your comments are hilarious to read. I genuinely think you have a bit of an issue with this though, you really do seem to love AMD as a company, I wonder what your girlfriend must think!

Oh and you never answered the question about FX. For years you were saying FX would become relevant and that's why it's better than Intel. When did this happen exactly? Care to admit you were wrong yet?

 

[HardReset]

You're not familiar with sampling and surveying? 100% of people do not need to be included to get a precise, valid understanding of the market. The survey pops up randomly; that's sampling.

Again you've not understood the Survey - it does not say that most do not have Intel graphics. If you look at the processor market share graph from steam I posted earlier you can see a near 4:1 Intel advantage over AMD. Nearly every Intel CPU has on-board graphics in the last 5-7 years. Anyone with discrete cards though won't be using them; that's why the GPU chart (which includes Intel and AMD APUs) is more applicable.

As to AMD APUs - They're in the survey. Look for AMD R7 Graphics for the A10-7890k under Direct 12. The February result was 1.48%. All R7 solutions are lumped in there though. I am not sure that's "eating mainstream cake" though.
In the steam survey there's no distinction - the GPU you're using is listed.

John Peddie claims they have statistics about all GPU's shipped. Steam hardware survey coverage is unknown.

Exactly, Intel GPU's should dominate GPU charts also, but that's not the case. Why? Because main graphic adapter is something else? Anyway that makes statistics less reliable.

My point about APU's was that they are not discrete solutions and so count only on total market share. Steam survey is another thing. Another thing is that Steam survey says AMD is way behind Nvidia, also discrete graphic card share tells same but when looking at total market share, AMD is not far behind Nvidia. So Steam survey is bit misleading here.

Here's a suggestion: when someone links an article from the site you post on you should likely read it. That makes this curious graph very awkward for you. It shows Techspot reviewing the G3258 playing DA:I. I knew Steve was magic but not that magical!

Nice try but then again, actually not:

https://www.techspot.com/review/921-dragon-age-inquisition-benchmarks/

We didn't test Dragon Age: Inquisition with any dual-core processors because the game wouldn't run. When using either an AMD or Intel dual-core CPU the game locks up at either the loading screen or the main menu if it gets that far. Both cores see 100% load while the system hangs.

 

[dirtyferret]

How about telling those alternatives, other than AMD, for Microsoft and Sony?

They have smart people working in both companies, I'm sure they are making the best business decision for their respective employer and are aware of their possible choices.

 

[HardReset]

They have smart people working in both companies, I'm sure they are making the best business decision for their respective employer and are aware of their possible choices.

Then name those alternatives.

 

[dirtyferret]

Then name those alternatives.

I...Just...Did... Several...Posts... Above...

 

[HardReset]

I...Just...Did... Several...Posts... Above...

Really? Where?

 

[dirtyferret]

Really? Where?

Your lack of tech knowledge is your own fault, I will not reiterate my facts.

 

[Sarcasm]

How many i5's cost $400? If you go back to the gaming benchmarks the $400 1700X didn't "greatly exceed" the $242 i5-7600k. In fact the $500 1800X didn't greatly exceed the $329 i7-7700k. The argument for the i5's has always been a value argument; none of the Ryzen chips in this review offer good value for their prices (the 1700 was not reviewed).

Take PCWorld's comparison of the $300 1700 against the 5 year old i5-3570k:

So the $300 Ryzen CPU struggles to compete with a 5 year old i5 in gaming at 1080p. That's bad for AMD.

Valid point about the i5 in value for Gaming. And overall I actually agree that for gaming only, you're still better off with an Intel chip overall if you want to push as many frames as you can afford with the GPU side, i5 or i7.

Still going to wait how this all pans out though, whether or not AMD's claims of optimizations and bug fixes will help in the long term. And I'm interested in the 4 core Ryzen cpu's how that will actually perform.

(Also note man this escalated quickly lol, some folks need to calm down with the personal insults)

 

[Carmaine]

lol you are delusional.

What people seem to be forgetting is this a first gen product comparing to 7th gen intel 7700k.

This processor has alot of potential and will get better.

Fair argument.

And I hope you're right that it will get better. It's now a race to WHO will get better. Whichever company continues to improve their chips will dominate the new market which forces price drops and innovation from both companies. The consumer wins!

If you were expecting a 8 core processor to be faster than a quad in most games that don't use that many threads I have a beach front property to sell you in Alaska. 7700k also beats all of intel's 8 core chips!

What's funny is a lot of people here and on other forums I've visited, is that they try to make an argument saying something along the lines of "These chips aren't made for just games you know?"

Yea, no $hIt....LOL......The chip sucks at games, yet much like your last sentence insult towards me, it's filled with posts from members referencing how the chip does in games. No mention of SMP F@H, Cinema 4D, 3DS Max, Unity, Adobe Elements.....or any other program that we use in our day to day that can be improved using Ryzen. LOL

So as I said earlier in this topic. AMD needs to fire their marketing team then, since all they've done is hype up gamers, only to disappoint them.

years to study intel's designs?

Do you know how big intel is and how much money they make compared to AMD?

We are all lucky AMD is still around.

Pretty much what I expect from "gamers" damn children and your tunnel vision and limited views.

lol.....umm yea they had years...you'd be a fool not to study your competition. Especially when AMD has had their backs against the wall for so long. And of course Intel is a much bigger company than AMD. But if you think AMD spent just $1 for resources and R&D with Ryzen, then you're a fool.

 

[HardReset]

Your lack of tech knowledge is your own fault, I will not reiterate my facts.

You didn't provide any facts

 

[dirtyferret]

You didn't provide any facts

Go reread my previous posts fan boy, I'm not turning this into one of your crap flinging flame wars. I also notified the mods about your trolling but keep hijacking the thread.

 

[OcelotRex]

John Peddie claims they have statistics about all GPU's shipped. Steam hardware survey coverage is unknown.

Exactly, Intel GPU's should dominate GPU charts also, but that's not the case. Why? Because main graphic adapter is something else? Anyway that makes statistics less reliable.

My point about APU's was that they are not discrete solutions and so count only on total market share. Steam survey is another thing. Another thing is that Steam survey says AMD is way behind Nvidia, also discrete graphic card share tells same but when looking at total market share, AMD is not far behind Nvidia. So Steam survey is bit misleading here.

You've said two logical, correct things that I've presented facts for (I highlighted them red). It's your conclusion that's incorrect. The Steam Survey is not misleading - it's the closest thing we have for the actual use case of people using their GPUs for gaming. Of course that's apparent that AMD APUs make up such a small number of gaming machines when you see Intel with 80% and AMD with 20% in the survey.

To further bolster my argument integrated Intel graphics and AMD APUs are used typically for E-Sports games; Valve/Steam hosts plenty of them:

http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

1.5 million players are playing DOTA 2 and CS:GO right now.

Nice try but then again, actually not:

https://www.techspot.com/review/921-dragon-age-inquisition-benchmarks/

So you've posted an article 6 days after DA:I was launched. I posted a graph from this article posted on this site in June of 2015:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1017-best-budget-gaming-cpu/page5.html

In PC gaming, time changes things. Games are updated after launch. That's why Techspot said this about DA:I perfromance on the G3258:

For a lot of the games, such as Tomb Raider, Sleeping Dogs, Battlefield Hardline, Watch_Dogs, Hitman: Absolution and Dragon Age: Inquisition, performance was so close it really didn't matter, so you could happily go either way. Sadly though, the Athlon just doesn't deliver the same consistency as the Pentium G3258, being much slower at times.

You can deny the article exists but I've linked it above and you've seen the chart from it.

 

[Lionvibez]

Fair argument.

And I hope you're right that it will get better. It's now a race to WHO will get better. Whichever company continues to improve their chips will dominate the new market which forces price drops and innovation from both companies. The consumer wins!




What's funny is a lot of people here and on other forums I've visited, is that they try to make an argument saying something along the lines of "These chips aren't made for just games you know?"

Yea, no $hIt....LOL......The chip sucks at games, yet much like your last sentence insult towards me, it's filled with posts from members referencing how the chip does in games. No mention of SMP F@H, Cinema 4D, 3DS Max, Unity, Adobe Elements.....or any other program that we use in our day to day that can be improved using Ryzen. LOL

So as I said earlier in this topic. AMD needs to fire their marketing team then, since all they've done is hype up gamers, only to disappoint them.



lol.....umm yea they had years...you'd be a fool not to study your competition. Especially when AMD has had their backs against the wall for so long. And of course Intel is a much bigger company than AMD. But if you think AMD spent just $1 for resources and R&D with Ryzen, then you're a fool.

Ryzen is fine for playing games.

Yes the FPS isn't as high as you get on a 7700k but people are acting like you are getting 5 fps in every game with is not true.

It doesn't matter how much you study the competition when they have an R&D budget that is 10x yours.

Most of the crying are from children and gamers and they are a small part of the market. I know enough people building ryzen rigs right now it will do fine. It just need to get a few more bios updates for those boards and some patching in windows its a brand new architecture.