Does Ryzen offer a smoother gaming experience?

[piesquared]

There are comments from various gamers around the web claiming that they notice smoother stutter free gaming with Ryzen. This was a hot topic from a while back when frame pacing and stuttering was criteria for buying an NV card over an AMD card (as well as perf/watt, but that's a separate topic). If true I suspect that many gamers will want to upgrade to a more fluid experience with Ryzen as well.
Is this because of the additional 4/8 cores/threads? The reviews show many games maxing out CPU utilization on quad cores, I am assuming that octal cores allow reduced pressure on the individual cores?

 

[guachi]

I think it depends on where you are coming from.

The most likely upgrader is probably coming from a 2500k, 2600k, or 8350. All those chips still give good average FPS. But, like one reviewer reviewing a 7700k, 1700, and 8350, "the 8350 is good until it isn't". Inevitably, in most games, there will be they one spot where the older CPU chokes.

So the answer is... It's probably smoother. Though whether it's IPC or cores probably depends. BF1 seems to be core hungry, for example.

 

[piesquared]

I think it depends on where you are coming from.

The most likely upgrader is probably coming from a 2500k, 2600k, or 8350. All those chips still give good average FPS. But, like one reviewer reviewing a 7700k, 1700, and 8350, "the 8350 is good until it isn't". Inevitably, in most games, there will be they one spot where the older CPU chokes.

So the answer is... It's probably smoother. Though whether it's IPC or cores probably depends. BF1 seems to be core hungry, for example.

This is my take as well. I think the additional cores will certainly shine as a smoother experience in existing multithreaded games and as game engines are release with improved multithreaded capability. It makes sense that the additional cores are going to help as reviews show in some cases that the 7770k is near maxed out on all threads

 

[Mockingbird]

I wouldn't be surprise if it's a placebo effect.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Smoother than my old i5-2500 at stock speed? Sure.

Smoother than an i7-7700K? Doubtful right now, given sites like ArsTechnica showing at least slightly higher minimum framerates over the 1800X. Long term? Quite possibly.

 

[CentroX]

I wouldn't be surprise if it's a placebo effect.

Microstuttering in CS:GO was gone with Ryzen for me.

 

[piesquared]

Microstuttering in CS:GO was gone with Ryzen for me.

What settings are you playing at?

 

[CentroX]

What settings are you playing at?

1440p. max settings.

I had microstuttering with my 4820K. At same settings ryzen feels smoother.

 

[SPBHM]

I had in the past a situation where I would get smoother gameplay by downclocking my CPU from 3.6 to 2GHz, because the frame times were super stable at 2GHz, and at 3.6GHz it was jumping around like crazy, I suppose you can get a situation like this on super fast CPU, but it must be rare (and you can fix it with a max fps lock),

other than that Ryzen is smoother on heavy games compare to slower CPUs like the FX and a 2500K, no doubt.

compared to faster Intel CPUs (including 7700K on most games), I don't think so.

 

[bystander36]

It makes sense to be that way compared to older Intel CPU's. Compared to the i7 7700K, it could even be game dependent.

 

[Sweepr]

A lower clocked Haswell-E part from 2014 is still ahead, so I don't think so.

And the frame times vs Intel's 4C/8T...

Spoiler

 

[bystander36]

Of course average and minimum FPS doesn't always show the whole story. We need FCAT type data. I saw a review that showed that 1/6 of their games tested, had more consistent frame rates (better 0.1% and 1% frame rates). Of course that meant Intel i7 7700K won out in 5/6 of their games. It does show that it can vary some.

 

[.vodka]

graphs

That's actually pretty good for Ryzen, considering there's lots of tweaking to be done by motherboard vendors and AMD at the BIOS/microcode level, and from Microsoft too as to optimize Windows 10 for this new CPU and platform.


I see you're back to posting Ryzen news, what happened those two-three months you neglected your own Ryzen thread that got locked once the positive leaks started around December 20th? Are you going to answer that anytime soon? Because it's not the first time you've been asked this very same question.

 

[krumme]

Everyone on this forum should see this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylvdSnEbL50<br /><br /><br />Ryzen-The tech presses loses the plot

 

[krumme]

Smoother than my old i5-2500 at stock speed? Sure.

Smoother than an i7-7700K? Doubtful right now, given sites like ArsTechnica showing at least slightly higher minimum framerates over the 1800X. Long term? Quite possibly.

Long term is now.
My 4.2 ib i5 could often go under 30fps in bf1 64 st scar operations sector 4-5 when extreme destruction was going on. Same amiens sector 3 to 6. Eg 20 man making the train explode.

The 1700 at 3.8 keeps it 100% without a dip.
Granted its an extreme situation.
But far less extreme than gaming at 720p at 200fps in some inferior game engine. Its just meaningless numbers. Dice set the future.
I can tell my counter in bf1 perfectly agree with the subjective experience btw.

1700 is the cpu for now AND the future. 8c is the new enthusiast class.

 

[piesquared]

1440p. max settings.

I had microstuttering with my 4820K. At same settings ryzen feels smoother.

Interesting. You're not the only one to notice smoother gaming on Ryzen. Perhaps there is something to it then. I'm eagerly chomping at the bit to get mine up and running!

 

[IEC]

Long term is now.
My 4.2 ib i5 could often go under 30fps in bf1 64 st scar operations sector 4-5 when extreme destruction was going on. Same amiens sector 3 to 6. Eg 20 man making the train explode.

The 1700 at 3.8 keeps it 100% without a dip.
Granted its an extreme situation.
But far less extreme than gaming at 720p at 200fps in some inferior game engine. Its just meaningless numbers. Dice set the future.
I can tell my counter in bf1 perfectly agree with the subjective experience btw.

1700 is the cpu for now AND the future. 8c is the new enthusiast class.

I play BF1 as well and even my i7-6700K chokes in BF1 64 player operations with explosions etc. Amiens and Scar are two of the worst offenders.

Hopefully my Asus C6H arriving tomorrow doesn't brick itself because BF1 will be one of my first gaming tests for my Ryzen 1800X.

 

[krumme]

I play BF1 as well and even my i7-6700K chokes in BF1 64 player operations with explosions etc. Amiens and Scar are two of the worst offenders.

Hopefully my Asus C6H arriving tomorrow doesn't brick itself because BF1 will be one of my first gaming tests for my Ryzen 1800X.

You are hopefully in for a treat. I have tried to wreck the cpu and managed to take a stock 1700 to 58 fps. Lol. Bf1 under extreme situations is an insane load. Good i went 8c. Man that game is damn fun. Best ever. Play to win, and go for the tanks, thats the recipy for fun!
Good there is lots of good medics.
If you cpu doesnt help you return it to amd and complain publicly here ! Lol.

 

[guachi]

A few points:

1. If they took the straight average of the 16 games they did it wrong.

2. 1080 Testing? Why?

3. All the FPS from the 1700X on up are in the "doesn't matter" category. Pick the cheapest processor at that point. It's like audio wankery on frequency response that your ear can't actually hear.

4. If it's the site I think it is, their 1440 tests show the 1800X at 91% of the 7700K in their test suite. With the scores normalized like they're supposed to be.

5. A more modern testing suite from a different site showed the 1800X at 98% of the 7700K.

6. History has shown that more cores/threads helps over time. Chips with 6+ cores will only look better and better in comparison.

Conclusion: If you want high-end gaming and you've already about maxed out your video card, there is no Intel CPU over $300 worth buying for the future.

 

[bystander36]

2. 1080 Testing? Why?

Why are people acting like testing at low resolution, for CPU comparisons, is wrong? They do this so it's easy to find out what CPU is faster, without going to the trouble of finding the spots in every game which are CPU bound. Most games which you see shown with these high FPS, have other spots, not benchmarked which perform quite a lot lower. The problem for reviewers, is finding those locations, and setting up a benchmark for them is tough, so they just use a lower resolution to force a CPU bound situation with far less work involved.

 

[Teizo]

I wouldn't be surprise if it's a placebo effect.

I would not be surprised at all by this as well. My 7700K is butter smooth...especially with 'threaded optimization' on and 'fast sync' on in the Nvidia control panel.

 

[bystander36]

I would not be surprised at all by this as well. My 7700K is butter smooth...especially with 'threaded optimization' on and 'fast sync' on in the Nvidia control panel.

While I agree, I do have to question your ability to be objective here, when you think Fast Sync makes things smooth. Nvidia themselves have made it clear that fast sync makes games choppier and my experience with it matches theirs. Fast Sync is good for low latency, not smoothness. At high enough FPS, fast sync isn't as bad, which is the main purpose for this type of sync (think CSGO).

 

[Glo.]

Typical for Sweeper, he used diagrams that show AMD product in worst case scenario.

How come then PCLab have shown this:

Why in new game we see that big difference in minimums, versus other, competing products? What actually defines minimum framerate with CPU? Because that is evidently effect of the CPU, not GPU. I have asked this previously 3 times on this forum, and nobody was able to give answer.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Your image is a broken link.

1080p is used so that the GPU is not bottlenecked. If you use 4K then the CPU stops mattering because the GPU can't render frames fast enough to push it to its limits. In the olden days CPU framerate testing used even lower resolutions like 640x480.

What using 1080p tells you is that the 7700K can push more frames to the GPU in current games, with current game engines. (And current Windows support for Ryzen, current motherboard BIOSes.)

To put it another way, say for game X, using a 1080ti:
1800X = 70 fps minimum at 4K, 90 fps at 1080p
7700K = 70 fps minimum at 4K, 100 fps at 1080p

Then if you buy a 1180ti next year, the numbers might look like this:
1800X = 90 fps at 4K
7700K = 100 fps at 4K

It's just one way of looking at future performance with newer graphics cards.

In the future, more highly threaded games and game engines might shift the load to the point where a 1700 at stock beats a 7700K because of the 4 extra cores. And updates to Windows, video drivers, motherboard BIOSes might change things too. Or maybe not, we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Markfw]

Everyone on this forum should see this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylvdSnEbL50<br /><br /><br />Ryzen-The tech presses loses the plot

WOW, I agree good video