Ryzen-A Fail for Gamers?

[unseenmorbidity]

They look the same to me. I generally feel we as gamers tend to needlessly obsess about test numbers when in reality they usually don't matter much. Ryzen isn't a failure but its definitely not exciting for someone who only cares about gaming performance. I can see value in having more cores in the long run but I also see risk in AMDs motherboard and CPU failure rates, so I guess its a toss up.

That is true. All these benchmarks are done at 1080p, likely without multisampling, and with insane GPUs. This is an extreme outlier that shows a worst case scenario for CPU bottlenecking. It makes sense as a test, but I feel people take it to heart too much. The vast vast majority of gamers, even enthusiast gamers, will almost always be GPU bound. In these situations, the difference will be minimal.

It's almost silly to point at a worst case scenario that applies to almost no one, and believe/claim it applies to everyone. Yet, that is what people are doing.

 

[Yakk]

These guys reduced the Ryzen to just 4 cores to better test it against a 7700K, a bit backwards, but interesting results... and more importantly 4 core Ryzen should be first cheap!

http://www.zolkorn.com/en/amd-ryzen...i7-7700k-mhz-by-mhz-core-by-core-en/view-all/

 

[LTC8K6]

These guys reduced the Ryzen to just 4 cores to better test it against a 7700K, a bit backwards, but interesting results... and more importantly 4 core Ryzen should be first cheap!

http://www.zolkorn.com/en/amd-ryzen...i7-7700k-mhz-by-mhz-core-by-core-en/view-all/

Would the 4C/8T Ryzen have the same amount of cache as the 1800X with cores turned off?

EDIT: Okay I misunderstood what they were saying in the benches.

 

[dahorns]

These guys reduced the Ryzen to just 4 cores to better test it against a 7700K, a bit backwards, but interesting results... and more importantly 4 core Ryzen should be first cheap!

http://www.zolkorn.com/en/amd-ryzen...i7-7700k-mhz-by-mhz-core-by-core-en/view-all/

It isn't really a test against the 7700k. It is a test against the SL/KL, core for core, thread for thread, and clock for clock. The result: an 7.9% advantage on average to SL/KL.

Of course, Ryzen and SL/KL are never really competing on those terms. Ryzen will generally have more cores and threads against a comparable priced SL/KL. And SL/KL will be clocked higher.

 

[Head1985]

Arma3

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

ARMA 3 footage clearly shows an optimisation issue; the R7 1700 has Core 1 nearing max utilisation, at times, whilst the other cores/threads are barely getting double figures.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

ARMA 3 footage clearly shows an optimisation issue; the R7 1700 has Core 1 nearing max utilisation, at times, whilst the other cores/threads are barely getting double figures.

I kind of agree but again the game appeared to run pretty well
What I mean is if you did not know which column was ryzen you'd be guessing which one it was.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

TBH, the 6700k footage does look smoother.

It's bizarre though. None of the CPUs look like they're anywhere near full utilisation.

 

[TheELF]

If games cannot use 16 threads evenly, then it is an issue with the game not the CPU. When your CPU barely breaks 25% usage in Fallout 4, then it does not mean that it is a bottleneck in Fallout 4 - it means that Fallout 4 is crap at utilizing multiple cores, at least when it comes to the Ryzen cores.

ARMA 3 footage clearly shows an optimisation issue; the R7 1700 has Core 1 nearing max utilisation, at times, whilst the other cores/threads are barely getting double figures.

Thing is that zen is supposed to have almost the same ipc as broadwell at least, so zen should be getting much better FPS even on those single threaded games like arma,but they don't because amd knowingly fooled people with the term ipc,the cores are as slow as ever.

Trolling is not allowed
Totally not true by ANY review
Markfw
Ababdtech Moderator

 

[Udgnim]

Ok. Currently, have a i7 3770k with Fury card and play BF1 at 1440p at 100hz at low/med settings. I'm planning to get a 1080Ti so I can play at Ultra settings at 120hz and been told that I may be cpu limited by the i7 3770k. I was thinking of getting a 1700X but benchmarks and discussion go both ways. 1700X or 7700k?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CzG6XD9q34

R7 1700 vs i5 3570K in Battlefield 1 Multiplayer

 

[krumme]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CzG6XD9q34

R7 1700 vs i5 3570K in Battlefield 1 Multiplayer

Good video.
I would just note that
1. playing conquest 64 on st scar is typically a far lighter load than operations 64.
2. Secondly 1% min is imo way to much. You cant play bf1 and your framerate sucks 1% of the time.
Find your own limit. I think its very personal.
10 sec of 1 hr is for me the limit. So more like 0.1% is imo the right number to use.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

Thing is that zen is supposed to have almost the same ipc as broadwell at least, so zen should be getting much better FPS even on those single threaded games like arma,but they don't because amd knowingly fooled people with the term ipc,the cores are as slow as ever.

Not "as slow as ever".
http://pclab.pl/art72996-27.html

clearly beating the ridiculous 5 GHz FX-9590

Unfortunately still slower than intel.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Thing is that zen is supposed to have almost the same ipc as broadwell at least, so zen should be getting much better FPS even on those single threaded games like arma,but they don't because amd knowingly fooled people with the term ipc,the cores are as slow as ever.

What a terrible unoriginal troll comment... At least try to bait the hook in a less obvious way, so we can have an interesting discussion.

 

[TheELF]

What a terrible unoriginal troll comment...

If nothing ever changes comments will always be the same.
You said it yourself:
"it means that Fallout 4 is crap at utilizing multiple cores, at least when it comes to the Ryzen cores"
That's what everybody is saying about the FX line for the past 4-5 years,just wait until... well ryzen is out and we will keep hearing that for the next 4-5 years.
If you have fast cores you don't have to wait (for miracles) and you are able to play whatever game you want to.
50+ % ipc improvement... in benchmarks only...

 

[SPBHM]

Arma3

whats going on with the difference in memory usage?

 

[unseenmorbidity]

If nothing ever changes comments will always be the same.
You said it yourself:
"it means that Fallout 4 is crap at utilizing multiple cores, at least when it comes to the Ryzen cores"
That's what everybody is saying about the FX line for the past 4-5 years,just wait until... well ryzen is out and we will keep hearing that for the next 4-5 years.
If you have fast cores you don't have to wait (for miracles) and you are able to play whatever game you want to.
50+ % ipc improvement... in benchmarks only...

There is no such thing as gaming IPC. If it can perform in benchmarks, then it can do it in games too. It will just take time for optimizations to happen. There has never been a brand new architecture come out and work flawlessly on day one. It's impossible.

After the kinks are worked out, Ryzen should perform roughly on par to the 5960x-6900k in gaming. Which is all anyone should ever expect.

I presume you know all of this already though...

 

[crashtech]

My money is on letting all the beta testers help work the bugs out of Ryzen. The prediction is that once firmware and software are better optimized in time for the 4 and 6 core variants to arrive, Ryzen will be anything but a failure. Personally I am anticipating one of the lower core count varieties to be the new price/performance king.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I don't consider the 8c16t parts a failure for gaming if you buy into the idea that game engines and games will eventually take advantage of more than a fast 4c8t CPU like the 7700K. That's not a given though. People pointing to the consoles aren't thinking through that they are slow 1.6 GHz cores with poor IPC. Anything written for them will not tax 4 x 4.2 GHz intel cores.

Even without future games, the 8c16t parts aren't bad, they are just overpriced for a gaming CPU compared to the 7700K. They only become a good value if you have other heavy non-gaming uses like rendering, encoding, editing.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

I don't consider the 8c16t parts a failure for gaming if you buy into the idea that game engines and games will eventually take advantage of more than a fast 4c8t CPU like the 7700K. That's not a given though. People pointing to the consoles aren't thinking through that they are slow 1.6 GHz cores with poor IPC. Anything written for them will not tax 4 x 4.2 GHz intel cores.

Even without future games, the 8c16t parts aren't bad, they are just overpriced for a gaming CPU compared to the 7700K. They only become a good value if you have other heavy non-gaming uses like rendering, encoding, editing.

I think you have it backwards. The fact that they are slow is precisely why the game developers have to make the games more multithreaded. It is the only way they can actually produce better games. If those consoles had 7700k's in them, then you would be hard pressed to get the developers to care about multithreading at all.

 

[frozentundra123456]

If games cannot use 16 threads evenly, then it is an issue with the game not the CPU. When your CPU barely breaks 25% usage in Fallout 4, then it does not mean that it is a bottleneck in Fallout 4 - it means that Fallout 4 is crap at utilizing multiple cores, at least when it comes to the Ryzen cores.

The even distribution across threads on the Intel chips means that those games are better at recognizing multiple Intel cores than they are at recognizing multiple Ryzen cores. Also, the Windows scheduling issue is playing a part here. That does not mean that the Ryzen cores are at fault.

Doesn't really matter does it? The performance "is what it is", no matter what is causing it. I am not saying Ryzen is another Bulldozer, but seems like the very same excuses are resurfacing. If you can't win a benchmark, just blame the software.

 

[moonbogg]

The whole console development crossing over to PC hasn't seemed to happen. Any game that runs well on those crappy console CPU's should be getting 500fps on any PC from the last 5 years, but they don't. Some of them struggle to get 60fps even on the highest clocked skylakes. The ports come over sloppy and unoptimized. There are likely economic reason for that and unless those economic reasons change, I don't see anything else changing. IPC is critical and will continue to be for years to come. I see games slowly benefiting a little from extra cores, but I really do expect it to take 5 years before we start seeing any tangible benefits to something like 8/16 for gaming where a quad won't be able to cut it.
5 years isn't that long. That's only like 2 battlefield games from now.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I think you have it backwards. The fact that they are slow is precisely why the game developers have to make the games more multithreaded. It is the only way they can actually produce better games. If those consoles had 7700k's in them, then you would be hard pressed to get the developers to care about multithreading at all.

Except that 4 x 4.2 GHz intel cores can run 8 threads better than 8 x 1.6 GHz console cores with poor IPC.

Coding is done using processes and threads not cores. If I design my code to spawn 4 threads to handle enemy AI the important part is for them to come up with the next set of actions by the time I need them. If I need the work finished in 10 ms, it doesn't matter whether they are running on 4 slow cores each taking 10 ms, or 2 fast cores taking 4 ms per thread, finishing in 8 ms. I doubt you can find any workload where the console CPUs run faster than a 7700K.

It's possible that newer versions of Unity, Unreal, etc. will be able to make better use of 8 fast Ryzen cores than 4 faster 7700K cores, but that will be because of PC-specific changes not the consoles.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Except that 4 x 4.2 GHz intel cores can run 8 threads better than 8 x 1.6 GHz console cores with poor IPC.

Coding is done using processes and threads not cores. If I design my code to spawn 4 threads to handle enemy AI the important part is for them to come up with the next set of actions by the time I need them. If I need the work finished in 10 ms, it doesn't matter whether they are running on 4 slow cores each taking 10 ms, or 2 fast cores taking 4 ms per thread, finishing in 8 ms. I doubt you can find any workload where the console CPUs run faster than a 7700K.

It's possible that newer versions of Unity, Unreal, etc. will be able to make better use of 8 fast Ryzen cores than 4 faster 7700K cores, but that will be because of PC-specific changes not the consoles.

The problem with that is that games are made specifically for those crappy AMD cpus in the consoles. The games aren't optimized as well for PCs as they are on those consoles, so you cannot use a 1:1 comparison. Our PCs compensate by powering through with brute compute force.

A 7700k is a powerhouse in it's own right. It will be a great gaming CPU for years to come.

 

[tamz_msc]

Doesn't really matter does it? The performance "is what it is", no matter what is causing it. I am not saying Ryzen is another Bulldozer, but seems like the very same excuses are resurfacing. If you can't win a benchmark, just blame the software.

Eh, when the 6900K and Ryzen 7 are neck-and-neck in software are that actually capable of extracting the maximum possible multi-threaded performance, then no neutral person would care if one comes out slightly in front of the other. And I'm not even talking about how one is a three times better value than the other.

You now have a 300$ true 8-core CPU. If a game developer still doesn't choose to make their games multi-threaded, it's they who are making excuses.

 

[TheELF]

Coding is done using processes and threads not cores. If I design my code to spawn 4 threads to handle enemy AI the important part is for them to come up with the next set of actions by the time I need them. If I need the work finished in 10 ms, it doesn't matter whether they are running on 4 slow cores each taking 10 ms, or 2 fast cores taking 4 ms per thread, finishing in 8 ms.

Problem is that games have a main loop,the i7 will run this loop multiple times faster and thous will need the AI data multiple times faster.
That's the problem with console ports,either you are running the main loop too slow for the rest of the cores to get a good workout so you end up with an underutilized cpu (ryzen/intel hedt) or you are running the main loop too fast for the rest of the cores to be able to keep up so you end up getting hitches because the games have zero synchronization checks.
That's also why so many games come locked at 30fps it's their way of "synchronizing".