4K is going to be mostly GPU bottlenecked, not CPU. Lower res gaming better illustrates a CPU's strength. Also keep in mind far more people game at 1080P, if not less. 1440P and 4K are a niche at best.
Could be a fluctuation in ambient temperature or the case of a cold boot GPU versus warmed up GPU. My GTX 1080 (MSI Gaming X) will boost to 1974 out of the box after a cold boot but after running a while it will stabilize at 1898. Then again, I set my temperature target to 90 C and I rarely...
3D Mark Fire Strike, especially the "Combined Score" aspect seems to have been a point of contention with Ryzen. Well, by using Window's Power Saver profile versus High Performance my score increased quite a bit:
http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/12894899/fs/12297524
So I ask, does this f*** up...
A month has passed since I've "downgraded" my i5 6600K at 4.4 GHz for the R7 1800X at 3.9 GHz.
In the most single threaded games I play (SWTOR, WOW and SC2) there was pretty much zero perceptible difference. Outside raids/large scale battles FPS would run 120-200 easily and only in raids/high...
I thought I'd share the improvement to my Passmark single thread score which I found interesting...
3.92GHz w/ F2 BIOS, DDR4-2400 and HPET on:
http://imgur.com/a/yq2Eo
3.7GHz /w F4 BIOS (AGESA 1.0.0.4a), DDR4-2666 and HPET off:
http://imgur.com/a/66WI5
Edit: IEC beat me to it.
Performance tanks on the 6900K as well. It's because AotS forces higher core CPUs to display added details that would be absent from quad core CPUs.
So apparently there is a technical issue where AotS performance tanks on 6 and 8 core CPUs (both Intel and AMD) as it displays added detail for higher core counts (article updated to reflect these findings):
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Ryzen-7-1 ... 24503/#idx
I'll certainly look in to it. I've noticed that with 8 cores I almost consistently score lower at 4.02 and 4.05 in the combined test in Fire Strike than at 4.0. From what I see so far, RAM speed would help a bit going by the score Alexruiz posted a few pages ago.
I also though I might share...
Huh, then shouldn't disabling 4 cores be even better? However when I tried that it made the combined score a bit worse than the 8 core config. I just achieved my personal best Fire Strike score overall, with a 3+3 config no less:
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/12139687
Even when I run all 8 cores...
For some reason 3DMark Fire Strike combined test scores better when I have two cores disabled in Ryzen Master.
My two best 8 core runs:
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/12114242
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/12082722
2 cores disabled:
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/12136472
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/12136467...
I wonder how much draw call performance Ryzen would gain if used with faster RAM. It seems Ryzen gains >8% gaming performance from going to DDR4-2400 to DDR4-3200:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5zqlpa/simulated_1600x_benchmarks_for_8_games_by_ht4unet/
Any one use UserBenchMark?
I'm in the top 3% of Ryzen 1800X builds in UserBenchMark:
http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/3219849
103% for CPU score. For what it's worth, the average of all i7 5960X baselines is 91% and 6900K 100% even. Now only if Ryzen could overclock as good as Haswell...
My opinion so far on Ryzen 1800X versus i5 6600K... I came from an i5 6600K on a GA Z170 HD3 board which I ran 24/7 at 4.2 GHz with RAM at 2666/timings 15 15 15 30. Suicide runs in 3DMark were done at 4.5 GHz and RAM at 2800 (timings identical). RAM at 3000 proved unstable.
I run my 1800X on a...
My Ryzen build has been completed.
1800X OCed to 4.0 GHz on all cores at 1.35 volts
Corsair H60i water cooler
GIGABYTE GA AB350 Gaming
ADATA DDR4 2400 with timings lowered to 14 14 14 14 30 from the default of 17 17 17 17 39
MSI Gaming X GTX 1080 at 2012 / 5500
WD Blue SSD 240GB + Toshiba...
For the most part, it takes a Titan X Pascal or GTX 1080 Ti to really be bottlenecked by Ryzen at 1080P, any one with a GTX 1080 or GTX 1070 and does streaming/encoding would be very well off with Ryzen.
Add 5% to most reviews and that would put it on par with the 5960X, which certainly isn't...
computerbase.de revisits Ryzen gaming performance using Windows 10 with various power profiles and HPET On/Off versus Windows 7. Apparently with the High Performance profile enabled in Power Settings it bridges the gap with the 7700K:
http://imgur.com/a/TRaUM
Source...
Wrong.
You clearly didn't read my post or the article: https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/amd-ryzen-1800x-1700x-1700-test/4/
Over 80% of the 6950X in gaming performance over all, even at 720P. Please stop spreading misinformation.
You're cherry picking. Reputable sites like TechReport, Hardware Canucks, Computer Base and Guru3D show 1800X within 16% or less of 6950X in overall gaming performance.
Outside of cases like Ashes of the Singularity, GTA V, FarCry Primal, Rise of the Tomb Raider and Civ VI... Ryzen did hold up pretty well. If those titles could receive an update via patching to allow better optimization for Ryzen, AMD will be back in the game.
Over all, gaming doesn't seem that bad outside of the four games that seem to make Ryzen look terrible:
Rise of the Tomb Raider
GTA V
Ashes of the Singularity
The Division
It seems to be on the heels of the 5960X in just about everything else.
Those gaming scores were actually quite good. You also have to look at the 99% percentile results as well.
The only thing that seemed off was the vanilla 1700 in GTA5.
I don't know why people are complaining about $700 for 1080 Ti versus $500 for Fermi 580. Ten years ago we had 7900 GTX 512 for $600, 8800 GTX for $650 and 8800 Ultra for $820. Adjusting for inflation, $700 for a top end GPU in 2017 is more than fair.
I ultimately decided to preorder the GIGABYTE AB350 Gaming vs AX370 Gaming as I plan to OC manually (assuming all core turbo can't sustain 3.7+ GHz) and have no plans to go multi-GPU.
That said, 3/2 can't get here soon enough!
Someone posted benches on userbenchmark with the 1700X (albeit it claims turbo was disabled). Interestingly, the floating point and integer scores favor Intel (15-20ish %). Here's some comparisons to Ivy Bridge E and Haswell E:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/In ... 2580vs3915...
Asides from XFR allowing for an extra 100MHz over the peak turbo speed, was there any mention about turbo steppings, e.g. all core turbo, all core turbo+XFR. Thermals and power delivery willing, I'm hoping XFR will allow at least a 3.7 GHz all core boost on the 1700X.
Something seems aloof.
AnandTech's own test of the i7 6900K achieved 1547 multi thread (but only 153 single thread, versus 162 in AMD's slides).
Still seems promising. I wonder how aggressively XFR was working for 1800X here.
So it took AMD 2 years to gain 40-50% IPC over Excavator... Then it took Intel 4 years to get 10% IPC over Haswell with much, MUCH more resources at its disposal.
Troll, be gone with ye!
Ryzen doesn't need to beat Intel, however we have people insisting that it will even if the leaks have shown IPC on par with Haswell.
I personally did not expect Ryzen to achieve Haswell IPC, was expecting something closer to Sandy or Ivy. But yes, the results so far I find most impressive and...
We can't assume Ryzen's turbo was disabled in those Passmark baselines because of gossip on /r/Amd or WCCFTech. Even if it was, we're still talking an average baseline of ~15300 overall (~2040 single thread) for Ryzen versus ~17600 (~2150 single thread) for i7 6900K. That 400 MHz boost (with...
I think there are problems on both sides. On the AMD side, you have some people who are convinced Zen will beat Kaby Lake in single threaded performance AND outperform the i7 6900K in multi-threaded performance, all the while costing under 300. Between the leaks from Canard PC and elsewhere...
From what I see, as long as you don't push the CPU beyond its stock clocks you don't have to worry about it hitting 80+ C. My 6600K at 4.4 GHz (which is the all core turbo for the 7700K) will peak to ~75 C if I'm running FMA/AVX heavy loads so it seems to me Kaby Lake temperatures aren't too...
Between Canard PC, Passmark CPU Mark and 3DMark Firestrike Physics leaks it seems safe to say the $400 R7 1700X will offer 90% of the i7 6900K's performance overall. Zen seems to be very competent in Compression, Encryption, Integer Math, Floating Point while single thread is just a few...
The R7 1800X will likely give 90% of the i7 6900K's performance over all, albeit being 50% of the price.
Sounds like a win to me. Kaby Lake will be better if single threaded performance is all one care's about but as apps become more and more multi-threaded, power users not willing to shell...
Lifting NDA two days before launch? Hopefully that's a sign of confidence that performance is in the neighborhood with Broadwell-E/Haswell-E and this won't be another Bulldozer, like the leaks thus far have illustrated.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.