Good find. Looks like the game became GPU bound at around 60fps. Shame he used max settings; to test the CPU, draw distances should be maxed, with resolutions (shadow, texture, screen) at minimum.
I found one guy that measured the minimum in BF1, but that's not much better.
https://youtu.be/sciuiEcrnzg?t=1961
I looked at the benchmarks (that matter to me. I.e. not video redndering etc) and R7 is slower than i5-7700k. That makes me sad.
Because I started to bench withj my Ryzen just yesterday, I made very few benchmarks. But I think my Cinebench test will be interesting.
Running CB15 six times (Without PC reset), Ryzen R7 1800X increase the score everytime, meanwhile Skylake i7-6700K results are almost flat.
http://www.bitsandchips.it/9-hardwar...di-amd?start=2
Neural Net Prediction at work?
System power consumption, not just the CPU & look at that idle (power) consumption at PcperPower consumption anyone? 1800X drawing as much as 140W BD-E does not seem like 95W TDP is accurate
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Proce...Now-and-Zen/Power-Consumption-and-Conclusions
http://www.techspot.com/review/1345-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x/page6.html
I found one guy that measured the minimum in BF1, but that's not much better.
https://youtu.be/sciuiEcrnzg?t=1961
In an absolute sense, I think this is more or less true.
But in a relative sense, it can go far higher. People's demands keep going up about resolutions, frames per second, and smoothness, because they notice a relative difference. Remember Apple talking about 300 dpi being "Retina"? They are 300 dpi in average nowadays. And I bet you'd notice if you go back from say, 500 dpi to 300 dpi. Funny thing is, an improvement is perceived far less until you go back to the original.
Really I think it means human senses are far more capable. Most people I assume aren't serious about it though so 24Hz seems fine.
Plus, 24Hz being constant like on a TV screen versus gaming is totally different. The latter fluctuates too much.
Power consumption anyone? 1800X drawing as much as 140W BD-E does not seem like 95W TDP is accurate
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-Review-Now-and-Zen/Power-Consumption-and-Conclusions
Lol! Are you serious? bjt2 has earned a little teasing in my opinion.Naa. That not my impression mingling a bit with V and freq max.
And do you want a 8c processor at 48w tdp? Its desktop. Ryzen is plenty efficient.
I don't see your point. Even a i5-2500 (from 2011!) gets 50-60 fps or more. Thant's more than enough. They've been promising to take advantage of more cores for years, yet virtually every day-to-day program max out just a single one! With any CPU from the last 5 years it makes an insignificant difference in games, compared to the GPU.I wouldnt come near a 4C 8T CPU for 2017 and later games.
A few examples of whats to come in 2017 and onward.
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/amd-ryzen-1800x-1700x-1700-test/4/#diagramm-doom-vulkan-fps
On the Ryzen 7 1800X, for example, Precision Boost increases the 3.6 GHz base frequency to 3.7 GHz across all cores, and can push two cores up to 4 GHz. This is important: whereas Intel's Turbo Boost technology varies clock rate based on the number of active cores, Precision Boost draws that distinction between two active cores and anything in excess of two cores, at which point maximum frequency drops to the all-cores number. What you end up with is a nice speed-up in lightly-threaded tasks, but less benefit than Turbo Boost as soon as a third core spins up.
Hot? not reallyWell, it appears that these chips may have "potential", or maybe they just don't. I won't lie. I am considering scrapping this build and just spending more on Skylake-X. These chips are hot, need too much voltage and OC like crap. BIOS updates won't fix any of that. I'm trying to see the light at the end of the tunnel here, but all I feel is disappointment to be quite honest.
I don't see your point. Even a i5-2500 (from 2011!) gets 50-60 fps or more. Thant's more than enough. They've been promising to take advantage of more cores for years, yet virtually every day-to-day program max out just a single one! With any CPU from the last 5 years it makes an insignificant difference in games, compared to the GPU.
Oh, and let's see what I play: SC2, civ 4 and xcom. Think I'm good.
edit: I do have Doom. But that looks perfectly fine so no needs there.
Did you bother to see FrameTimes of that 4C 8T KabyLake vs Ryzen ??
Older games like SC2 need IPC and highest Clocks, newer games will need more than 4C 8T very soon.
Well, it appears that these chips may have "potential", or maybe they just don't. I won't lie. I am considering scrapping this build and just spending more on Skylake-X. These chips are hot, need too much voltage and OC like crap. BIOS updates won't fix any of that. I'm trying to see the light at the end of the tunnel here, but all I feel is disappointment to be quite honest.
At ultrawide with "only" 980 Ti SLI? They will probably tie.So please help me out here. Would an 1800X @ 4Ghz be faster in gaming than a 3930k@4.6? I honestly don't know the answer to that question.
Well, 1700 is pretty close to the only chip worth buying for anything.It'd be a holy trinity for a chip - fantastic gaming, best multi-core productivity, <$500. Ryzen 1700 would be the only chip worth buying for anything.
Yes, barring the odd/early SMT penalty.So please help me out here. Would an 1800X @ 4Ghz be faster in gaming than a 3930k@4.6? I honestly don't know the answer to that question.
Lol....You are grasping at straws with this, and so is he. Given the reviewer I am not overly surprised.TL;dr : Ryzen has no hiccups while quad core part seems to have some, albeit only occasionally. I like my games smooth without hiccups, thanks.