Ryzen-A Fail for Gamers?

[thepaleobiker]

pretty much everyone does. 1080p + high refresh rate is pretty much the go to now

last steam survey
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

I do 1080p gaming with a 144 Hz Freesync Monitor. I'm using a Pentium G4560 (KL 2C/4T @ 3.5 Ghz) with an RX480 4GB, and I get 120 FPS on TitanFall 1, 200+FPS on Cs:Go. I'll test Arkham Knight & Bioshock Infinite, and Dragon Age Inq. tonight if I can....

For someone like me, going to a Ryzen R5 (1600X or 1500X) would make huge sense... but equally valid is the 1080p gaming future proofing RIGHT NOW, if I used an i5 or i7. Given all the talk about SMT/HT of games in the future, my eye is set on the Intel i7 7700 (non K).

If Ryzen 5 + new ITX Mobo is < $325/350 , then I'll jump to AMD. But as an average 1080p gamer, the Ryzen 7 is too expensive for me/others like me (I presume)

Regards,
Vishnu

 

[SPBHM]

Doesn't even seem to compete with my 2500k... Another failed upgrade pathway. Guess I'm waiting for the next round of releases. It's been 6 years now.

I don't know why I'm complaining. This chip has been the absolute best value of any tech purchase I have ever made.

according to this test the 1800X stock is 110% of the performance of a 2600K for gaming, so it's clearly faster than a 2500K
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/956-21/indices-performance.html

but yours is overclocked so it can perhaps beat the 2600K in some games, but not all of them I think, but since you are comparing stock vs OC you can also consider the 1800X results with SMT off which makes it 120% of the 2600K, add to that potential OC (like locking all cores around 4GHz), and I think Ryzen is better than an OCed 2500K for gaming almost always.

the 1800X with SMT off is not far from the 4790K (well, overall), which IMO is still a great gaming CPU.

 

[philosofool]

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03...test/4/#diagramm-total-war-warhammer-dx11-fps

Performance seems quite good under dx11, but bad with dx12.

Those numbers are weird. I play TW:W on my eight year old i5 750 with an RX 480 and I get 57 fps, DX 12, Ultra. They were getting like 17 with a 2500k. I don't get those numbers.

 

[kawi6rr]

This thread is absolutely hilarious! I think the village lost its idiot. Just because the new AMD chips didn’t beat Intels best at gaming means their lousy gaming chips? I’m still gaming on an FX 8350 with a R9-290 and have no problem gaming.


Just get over the hate and move on.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Just because the new AMD chips didn’t beat Intels best at gaming means their lousy gaming chips?

Well that's what AMD managers wanted you to believe in the prerelease rhetoric so why is it that you believe that expectations should be below that? People being disappointed by below expected performance is commensurate with the circumstance.

 

[Newbian]

This thread is absolutely hilarious! I think the village lost its idiot. Just because the new AMD chips didn’t beat Intels best at gaming means their lousy gaming chips? I’m still gaming on an FX 8350 with a R9-290 and have no problem gaming.


Just get over the hate and move on.

The problem is we don't know the types of games you play on with the settings and resolution you use.

Anyone can play minesweeper but that does not mean you are a gamer really.

Gaming is a big thing here and usually something that can max out newer hardware faster so if you want to disagree about that then posting in a gaming post is not the way to go.

In either case they are so close to one another right now for gaming for near the same pricepoint for the 1700 / 7700k comparison it's not all that bad and would look more at the r 5 series for comparisons not to mention the prices.

 

[R0H1T]

The problem is we don't know the types of games you play on with the settings and resolution you use.

Anyone can play minesweeper but that does not mean you are a gamer really.

Gaming is a big thing here and usually something that can max out newer hardware faster so if you want to disagree about that then posting in a gaming post is not the way to go.

In either case they are so close to one another right now for gaming for near the same pricepoint for the 1700 / 7700k comparison it's not all that bad.

In that case just save a bunch on R7 1700 & invest in the latest Titan, I doubt you can max out any game with a mid range GPU.

 

[Newbian]

In that case just save a bunch on R7 1700 & invest in the latest Titan, I doubt you can max out any game with a mid range GPU.

The problem is you don't save a ton of money with a r7 1700 over a 7700k, it's a $10 dollar difference, and the titan is not mid-range.

When the r5 series hits is what we should look at more for gaming, especially from their price point, but people had issues where amd said the r7 series is a gaming cpu but failed to top the 7700k.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

What serious gamer game on 1080p??

I'm still on 1200p you insensitive clod, albeit 3x of them

 

[Puffnstuff]

The problem is you don't save a ton of money with a r7 1700 over a 7700k, it's a $10 dollar difference, and the titan is not mid-range.

When the r5 series hits is what we should look at more for gaming, especially from their price point, but people had issues where amd said the r7 series is a gaming cpu but failed to top the 7700k.

I agree and if the 8 core can't handle the job what makes people think that a cpu with less cores can do the job?

 

[R0H1T]

The problem is you don't save a ton of money with a r7 1700 over a 7700k, it's a $10 dollar difference, and the titan is not mid-range.

When the r5 series hits is what we should look at more for gaming, especially from their price point, but people had issues where amd said the r7 series is a gaming cpu but failed to top the 7700k.

The problem is there's no CPU that can be best at everything, from gaming to productivity. Even if you get a golden 1700 which clocks to 4.5GHz on water, there will always be a 7700k at 5GHz which can beat it in fringe cases, this is faster we sort out the SMT & OS/game scheduler issues.

Then again there are only a handful of people who "only" game on their PC, the vast majority do a multitude of tasks, even if not productivity related. So in like 99% of cases the eight core is better IMO, just look at the GCN cards which age better, I doubt people hate saving their own hard earned money.

 

[guachi]

Checked computerbase.de and it seems their test suite of 13 games uses more games that benefit from lots of cores.

The overall ranking of the processors tested from their 1920x1080 scores (giving a 2500K an overall score of 100):
189.7 6900K
186.9 6950X
185.1 6850K
172.8 7700K
169.3 1800X
148.5 7600X
139.5 4770K
120.4 FX-9590
116.8 2600K
112.9 FX-8370
100.0 2500K

In this test suite, the 7700K and the 1800X were almost equal with the 1800X only about 2% slower overall. The $590 6950K does quite well, but I think the $500 1800X beats it handily in CPU tests.

The 1700X, while not tested by computerbase.de, should perform only a few percent worse than the 1800X for $100 cheaper. Therefore, I think the 7700K is not a good buy using these games as an example. We'll likely only see more games take advantage of >4 cores and thus give us more games where AMD outright beats the 7700K.

However, the 7600K at $240 is a great value as you get the same FPS/$ of the two FX chips but much higher FPS/$ than any of the more expensive chips.

Conclusion: Using this gaming test suite, AMD has the best gaming CPU on the market in the 1800X (and 1700X) at stock speeds. Anything else is either too expensive (6900K, 6950X, 6850K) or not so much faster that I'd risk getting a four core processor (1700K). Unless value is important, and then the 7600K is a good choice.

 

[tential]

Checked computerbase.de and it seems their test suite of 13 games uses more games that benefit from lots of cores.

The overall ranking of the processors tested from their 1920x1080 scores (giving a 2500K an overall score of 100):
189.7 6900K
186.9 6950X
185.1 6850K
172.8 7700K
169.3 1800X
148.5 7600X
139.5 4770K
120.4 FX-9590
116.8 2600K
112.9 FX-8370
100.0 2500K

In this test suite, the 7700K and the 1800X were almost equal with the 1800X only about 2% slower overall. The $590 6950K does quite well, but I think the $500 1800X beats it handily in CPU tests.

The 1700X, while not tested by computerbase.de, should perform only a few percent worse than the 1800X for $100 cheaper. Therefore, I think the 7700K is not a good buy using these games as an example. We'll likely only see more games take advantage of >4 cores and thus give us more games where AMD outright beats the 7700K.

However, the 7600K at $240 is a great value as you get the same FPS/$ of the two FX chips but much higher FPS/$ than any of the more expensive chips.

Conclusion: Using this gaming test suite, AMD has the best gaming CPU on the market in the 1800X (and 1700X) at stock speeds. Anything else is either too expensive (6900K, 6950X, 6850K) or not so much faster that I'd risk getting a four core processor (1700K). Unless value is important, and then the 7600K is a good choice.

Doubling the 7700k core count adds 10% performance... in the 6900k.
Why would you therefore compare the Ryzen 7 to the 7700k? It has extra cores that CLEARLY won't be utilized during gaming as much. You want to compare this to Ryzen 3 and 5. Not Ryzen 7 where most of the cores aren't even used during gaming.

It's a horrible battle for the Ryzen 7 CPU because it wasn't meant for that. I bet you Ryzen 5 is within 10% of Ryzen 7 in gaming....
That will change everything.

Edit: Your theory craft of games using more than 4 cores so that the i7 7700k would be a worse buy is extremely laughable. You think devs will shun the WHOLE market that owns intel mainstream processors today?
Just wow... stop grasping at straws for Ryzen 7 vs the i7 7700k and just realize it was NEVER the battle AMD wanted for that CPU.

As Always:
If the i7 7700k can fit your needs. Ryzen 7 is NOT for you.

 

[qookap]

AMD used 4K trick gamer and pick some special for other situation.

I guess some crazy fans forgot the DX12 should be lower the processor loading. if you testing CPU in game, you need low resolution to make a correct heirarchy. 1080p is totally no problem here.
and...I'm one of 1080/Titan X with 1080p/1440p. 4K will help you be a top player?

for gaming it just a Core i5(old one between 3570K-6600K). there is no reason spend 500 dollers for gaming CPU. many bugs on AM4 just wait few months for that
I can't have a good VP9 decoding on RX 480...Crimson block ACE with old GCN... I'm no surprise the PPT technology, fully disappoint.

fix bugs..strange TDP(same power consumption compare intel 8c16t)...clock wall...DRAM incompatible...SMT reduece performance...
I feel like beta or alpha samples.

In fact, a real gamer should be choose Core i, you can't always play AMD games. there is lot of good game used DX9-11 and AVX256bit emulator.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3176...-or-why-you-should-never-preorder.html?page=2
http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreview...iew-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks?showall=1
http://www.purepc.pl/procesory/premiera_i_test_procesora_amd_ryzen_r7_1800x_dobra_zmiana?page=0,15
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-how-amds-ryzen-will-disrupt-the-cpu-market

 

[scannall]

AMD used 4K trick gamer and pick some special for other situation.

I guess some crazy fans forgot the DX12 should be lower the processor loading. if you testing CPU in game, you need low resolution to make a correct heirarchy. 1080p is totally no problem here.
and...I'm one of 1080/Titan X with 1080p/1440p. 4K will help you be a top player?

for gaming it just a Core i5(old one between 3570K-6600K). there is no reason spend 500 dollers for gaming CPU. many bugs on AM4 just wait few months for that
I can't have a good VP9 decoding on RX 480...Crimson block ACE with old GCN... I'm no surprise the PPT technology, fully disappoint.

fix bugs..strange TDP(same power consumption compare intel 8c16t)...clock wall...DRAM incompatible...SMT reduece performance...
I feel like beta or alpha samples.

In fact, a real gamer should be choose Core i, you can't always play AMD games. there is lot of good game used DX9-11 and AVX256bit emulator.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3176...-or-why-you-should-never-preorder.html?page=2
http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreview...iew-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks?showall=1
http://www.purepc.pl/procesory/premiera_i_test_procesora_amd_ryzen_r7_1800x_dobra_zmiana?page=0,15
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-how-amds-ryzen-will-disrupt-the-cpu-market

Ummm, if you game at 4k, why should you care about 1080? Especially if your computer does actual work that needs cores and threads.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Doubling the 7700k core count adds 10% performance... in the 6900k.
Why would you therefore compare the Ryzen 7 to the 7700k? It has extra cores that CLEARLY won't be utilized during gaming as much. You want to compare this to Ryzen 3 and 5. Not Ryzen 7 where most of the cores aren't even used during gaming.

It's a horrible battle for the Ryzen 7 CPU because it wasn't meant for that. I bet you Ryzen 5 is within 10% of Ryzen 7 in gaming....
That will change everything.

Edit: Your theory craft of games using more than 4 cores so that the i7 7700k would be a worse buy is extremely laughable. You think devs will shun the WHOLE market that owns intel mainstream processors today?
Just wow... stop grasping at straws for Ryzen 7 vs the i7 7700k and just realize it was NEVER the battle AMD wanted for that CPU.

As Always:
If the i7 7700k can fit your needs. Ryzen 7 is NOT for you.

The gaming market is consoles... PCs always had to adapt. Intel is already on the move to get rid of one of their redundant 2c/4t CPUs and make the 4 Core i5 the new budget gaming CPU.

The 7700k could fit my needs, but I would never buy one over the R7. The R7 is a by far better investment for current and future gaming.

The only way I would buy a 7700k over a R7 is if I was interested in becoming a pro CSGO player, which I am not.

I am not sure how you can seriously suggest the 7700k is better for gaming when we have benchmarks showing the performance is identical at realistic settings, and we know that games will become more multithreaded as time passes. The current consoles have 8 threads, and the new consoles will have 8 real cores.

 

[qookap]

Ummm, if you game at 4k, why should you care about 1080? Especially if your computer does actual work that needs cores and threads.

Keyboard player won't buy any product. I play many things beyond your imagination.
so..you use 4K smart phone? 20inch?30inch? you play resolution?

about 4K..where is my 4K VP9 decoder? never active VP9 with MPC-HC or BE.


700 usd bought
plan 1: 7700K+GTX 1070=$340+$379
plan 2: 1700X(need overclock)+GTX 1060 6GB/RX 480 8GB=$399+$249/$239
plan 3: 7600K+GTX 1070=$224+$379

Performace: 1>3>2
Cost/Performace: 3>>1>2
Overclock: 5G>4G, 1>3>>2

4 high IPC core better than 8 core for gaming in 2017(many 2020?). you can't always looking future because failure now.

 

[scannall]

Keyboard player won't buy any product. I play many things beyond your imagination.
so..you use 4K smart phone? 20inch?30inch? you play resolution?

about 4K..where is my 4K VP9 decoder? never active VP9 with MPC-HC or BE.

Still not seeing anyplace to care at...

 

[qookap]

4K is wrong method to test CPU gaming performace. this is common sence...
only new bench bottleneck on system. you can;t tell everyone Titan XP will be last graphics king.
Volta coming soon

 

[hackdrag0n]

The low core utilisation has led me to believe that it's probably just badly optimised at the moment.

Sent from my MHA-L29 using Tapatalk

 

[railroadmaster]

It's not as good at gaming as Intel solutions, but it's not a gigantic difference. Xeons aren't as good at games as Core processors in games but it still plays them with good performance. Ryzens are similar in this regard. Good for gaming, but not as good.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Keyboard player won't buy any product. I play many things beyond your imagination.
so..you use 4K smart phone? 20inch?30inch? you play resolution?

about 4K..where is my 4K VP9 decoder? never active VP9 with MPC-HC or BE.


700 usd bought
plan 1: 7700K+GTX 1070=$340+$379
plan 2: 1700X(need overclock)+GTX 1060 6GB/RX 480 8GB=$399+$249/$239
plan 3: 7600K+GTX 1070=$224+$379

Performace: 1>3>2
Cost/Performace: 3>>1>2
Overclock: 5G>4G, 1>3>>2

4 high IPC core better than 8 core for gaming in 2017(many 2020?). you can't always looking future because failure now.

What a joke.... Why is plan 2 using a 1700x instead of a 1700? You are also completely ignoring the fact that the R5 is coming out in april! 4c/4t are the new pentium budget CPUs.

At least try a little harder...


Apparently I need to post this again...

Yup, it's a total fail! It cannot compete with the 7700k at all! Nope...

And it especially cannot do high fps gaming,

There is an inconsequential difference between a 7700k and 1700 at 1080p ultra with an OC'd GTX 1080. There would be virtually no difference with a 1070.

 

[HiroThreading]

Oh yeah, it's definitely a fail.


Seriously, how can anyone call this CPU a failure? It's one of the most interesting architectures in recent CPU history -- it's performance is competitive to some of Intel's best, and so is its power consumption. It's only weakness is probably an underallocation of memory bandwidth, but even then it's hardly a show stopper.

Very interested to see what the AMD engineers can do with Zen+ and the server SKUs.

 

[Mopetar]

The problem is there's no CPU that can be best at everything, from gaming to productivity. Even if you get a golden 1700 which clocks to 4.5GHz on water, there will always be a 7700k at 5GHz which can beat it in fringe cases, this is faster we sort out the SMT & OS/game scheduler issues.

Anyone who's running water cooling is probably gaming at 1440p or even 4K where you're going to be GPU bound and it doesn't matter whether you use a Ryzen 1700, a 7700k, or even a 2700k as they'll all be good enough. Sure, developers might start utilizing more cores and the 1700 ages better, but that's going to take time.

If someone's in the market right now and looking for the best choice, I'd probably suggest waiting another few moths to snag an R5. By the the motherboard issues should be sorted out and some patches will remove the biggest hiccups and an R6 should give you more cores for future games that can take better advantage of them while still giving solid performance in modern titles while coming in at a very reasonable price.

 

[tential]

Was anyone expecting Ryzen to beat 6700K? Much less the 7700K?
I could swear people were expecting it to not even reach sandy bridge just last november.

When the six and quads release players will have a very cheap platform with solid performance (and hopefully some performance increase due to more mature motherboards).

Oh how goalposts change....