2 minutes ago, joemiller said:

I would not rely on one internet review by someone who "who knows" how he set-up his system to make these tests.

Would be nice to see a good set-up (MB, CPU, Memory, and GC).. And of course one done with P3D. I was also wondering does the Intel 7700K needs to delid to make it achieve better performance ?  Wonder if these AMD can be delid, too. I will wait for more reviews and,  a couple of Un-Biased reviews by a P3D user.

Peace

The problem was the end users expected something that would trash intel left and right , though they did manage to trash it in a way. That led to users saying it's a stupid chip.  I find the chip to be an on par with intel. There are so many things that can get the chip to not perform like the game coding etc.... and this is a new architecture and I  expect it to be a little on the downside.

But its no piledriver or bulldozer that is for sure.

My new rig is surely going to be a Ryzen and i don't care much about overclocking , those fsx days are gone.

56 minutes ago, joemiller said:

I would not rely on one internet review by someone who "who knows" how he set-up his system to make these tests.

Here are some more:

http://www.pcgamer.com/the-amd-ryzen-7-review/7/

https://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2017/03/amd-ryzen-review/ (go about half way down the review then scroll left/right to see the performance in different games).

Most sites I've looked at are testing gaming peformance using a high end video card (1080 or similar) running at 1080 resolution to prevent any possible GPU bottleneck and to show the raw performance of the CPU. As one site said, the gaming performance at higher screen resolutions gets closer to Intel units but that tends to be because you're then starting to see more of the limiting effect of the graphics card which explains, apparently, why the FPS are then so similar.

The consensus seems to be that Ryzen is great for multicore apps but, currently, not the best for gaming. As one reviewer put it, it's more of a work-in-progress than a top mainstream gaming processor.

"For PC gamers, the message is decidedly mixed. Yes, there are a few games where Ryzen performs quite well, but without the SMT tweaks there isn't a single title where Ryzen 1800X can beat the i7-7700K."

That is against the 7700k, at 1.5x the cost.  Anyone looking at one of these for a FSX/P3D rig for now wants their head testing. Who knows what p3d 4 / 64bit may bring, but we don't even know that's happening

Just now, Charlatan said:

...Who knows what p3d 4 / 64bit may bring, but we don't even know that's happening

Why I've just plumped for the 7700k. Sure I could try to 2nd guess whether LM will improve multi core use in v4 but even if they do, is it going to mean a 5.0GHz 7700k is suddenly no good? Not for a couple of years yet. I for one hope that AMD and Intel now innovate and improve their products so my next upgrade is a meaningful one with real choice. Ryzen is a great start for sure but I'm not betting on it in case LM decide 8 cores is better than 4. 

Lots of hyperbolic statements...  

Ryzen is a far cry from Bulldozer.  The per thread IPC is drastically increased while doubling thread count.  That's very impressive.  They didn't manage to match Intel in single threaded performance, but if you were expecting that then you weren't paying attention.  Multi-thread performance on the other hand is outstanding.  The problem is that most games and simulators aren't well-threaded enough to take advantage of this.  The performance in well-threaded applications (rendering, video editing, scientific simulations) actually puts AMD slightly ahead of Intel with the same core count.  

I've been saying all along, Ryzen won't be faster than Kaby Lake for FSX/P3D today, but it could be in another software revision or two.  

Over 10,000 visits to this topic and 17 pages of "I know Intel is better than AMD:" and "I know AMD is better than Intel;" however not one (not even 1), single un-biased  FSX or P3D experience with one of these AMD CPU's.  I read about Intel is "a hair ahead of AMD CPUs, so you SHOULD get Intel. 

Therefore, if the benchmarks all have one-thing-in-common... that these AMD CPUs are better than the Intel's on most areas and Intel in others; then I can comfortably say that upon overclocking one of these AMD  CPU's, the difference we will see (remember we all have different set-ups and play at different P3D and FSX settings) when compared to Intel's 7700K, will be around 1-2 fps. I do not see significant difference of 10, 12, 15, or even 20 fps between both Intel and AMD's. Even today with a high-end Intel processor going from 4.6Ghz to 5.0Ghz shows very little to no difference in performance increase. (I have built and OC  4 computers in the past 10 years).  Most will try to OC to the highest number possible only to feel better that their CPU got all the way to 5.0. ..But, ask them if they see any gains?  Nope- No gains!  In fact, they will go through all the trouble of delidding their CPU to get to 5.0HGhz only to find out , there is  almost no gains in fps between 4.5 to 5.0Ghz. 

Having said this, I will gladly support AMD, and go AMD.

If no one will do an un-biased P3D review with an AMD 1700 or 1800 CPU, I think this thread can be closed. 

Good luck, everyone.. Choose what you want without losing sleep nor hammering your neighbor ! Be safe.

 

I think the 1700x is a good value that should be future proof if games take more advantage of multicore vs cpu clocks !

I game in 4k and the 4k benchmarks have AMD neck and neck with Intell. Even at 1080p the difference is marginal at those higher frame rates. Even with my old FX processor and a 780GTX I can play most games at high/ultra settings.  

 

 

4 hours ago, joemiller said:

Over 10,000 visits to this topic and 17 pages of "I know Intel is better than AMD:" and "I know AMD is better than Intel;" however not one (not even 1), single un-biased  FSX or P3D experience with one of these AMD CPU's.  I read about Intel is "a hair ahead of AMD CPUs, so you SHOULD get Intel. 

Therefore, if the benchmarks all have one-thing-in-common... that these AMD CPUs are better than the Intel's on most areas and Intel in others; then I can comfortably say that upon overclocking one of these AMD  CPU's, the difference we will see (remember we all have different set-ups and play at different P3D and FSX settings) when compared to Intel's 7700K, will be around 1-2 fps. I do not see significant difference of 10, 12, 15, or even 20 fps between both Intel and AMD's. Even today with a high-end Intel processor going from 4.6Ghz to 5.0Ghz shows very little to no difference in performance increase. (I have built and OC  4 computers in the past 10 years).  Most will try to OC to the highest number possible only to feel better that their CPU got all the way to 5.0. ..But, ask them if they see any gains?  Nope- No gains!  In fact, they will go through all the trouble of delidding their CPU to get to 5.0HGhz only to find out , there is  almost no gains in fps between 4.5 to 5.0Ghz. 

Having said this, I will gladly support AMD, and go AMD.

If no one will do an un-biased P3D review with an AMD 1700 or 1800 CPU, I think this thread can be closed. 

Good luck, everyone.. Choose what you want without losing sleep nor hammering your neighbor ! Be safe.

I will be going for Ryzen but the 1600X or the lower ones. Though it won't be for P3d but for Xplane / DCS.

10 hours ago, strider1 said:

 

I think the 1700x is a good value that should be future proof if games take more advantage of multicore vs cpu clocks !

I game in 4k and the 4k benchmarks have AMD neck and neck with Intell. Even at 1080p the difference is marginal at those higher frame rates. Even with my old FX processor and a 780GTX I can play most games at high/ultra settings.  

 

 

 

 

An interesting video, but what about the details. Were they using the same graphics card on both? Would we see different results when not cherry picking games?

12 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

 

An interesting video, but what about the details. Were they using the same graphics card on both? Would we see different results when not cherry picking games?

 More info here  https://youtu.be/BXVIPo_qbc4 I think these are the typical games they have been benchmarking.

Quote

Here's some good news. Ryzen 17% faster in Win7 than Win10 in draw calls, according to Stilt:

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-5#

Way to technical for my understanding but sounds like there some optimization to be had in win 10.

Jayz2cents had issues with the BIOS. Unstable, and his board failed to boot. Also overclocking was rubbish, 300 MHz max. Looks like NOW might not be the time to buy Ryzen if you were thinking to, best to wait till the BIOS has had a few updates before purchase.

 

 

2 hours ago, martin-w said:

Jayz2cents had issues with the BIOS. Unstable, and his board failed to boot. Also overclocking was rubbish, 300 MHz max. Looks like NOW might not be the time to buy Ryzen if you were thinking to, best to wait till the BIOS has had a few updates before purchase.

Saw this also and came to the same conclusion - early adopter issues with new tech which he was impressed with but couldn't recommend right now. I bet it'll all get sorted in the next 3-6 months and I would be very excited for Zen 2 and 3 in the next couple of years. I think it's fantastic to have AMD back and really hope they're still relevant when it's time for my next upgrade!

Yes I agree James. Intel's Kaby Lake was quite trouble free  but yes not unusual fort such issues with new platforms. Not really AMD's fault, this stuff happens. A few months, yes, my opinion too.

Even more reports now of dodgy Ryzen BIOS, relating to RAM frequency. In addition some are reporting runaway temp issues. Again boards fault. BIOS looks poo at the moment.