Ryzen-A Fail for Gamers?

[unseenmorbidity]

You should absolutely look at the benchmarks of games you enjoy to make your decision.

 

[USER8000]

I feel like giving Intel any more money,is like stealing from the needy to give to the rich!

I honestly think I might wait and see how things progress once we get some more optimisations for Ryzen,or wait for the next one.

 

[scannall]

Just reading through this thread, the whole 'Gaming' use has a pretty wide spread. There are the gamers at very low graphics settings and resolution going for the highest FPS possible. Whether their monitors can handle it or not. Other gamers want to see all the graphics and goodness, plus smooth game play. Further, quite a few gamers also use their computer for tasks that do thread nicely. Yet another variable is how often do they replace their computer. And when you do upgrade, do you have to buy a new motherboard as well? If you're gaming on a 7 year old i5, then it's likely that you want your next build to last that long as well. So, is your current platform going to last 7 years? Is your CPU going to continue to keep up with a GPU 7 years from now?

Have a look at the trends on gaming threads. Where they are going is more than 4. In 7 years? I'd guess (Or bet if you prefer) 4 cores will be like a 2 core Celeron now.

So yeah, Ryzen is good for gaming. Professional twitch gamers, probably not. But the average person, gaming for fun it's more than plenty.

 

[USER8000]

If you are streaming an eight core Ryzen would actually be quite a strong CPU.

 

[Raduque]

What serious gamer game on 1080p??

So if somebody games at 1080p, they're not a "serious gamer"?

 

[alexruiz]

r7 1700 4ghz, 2933Mhz CL18-17-17-38 2T, ASUS PRIME B350-PLUS win7
see yourself
http://pctforum.tyden.cz/viewtopic.php?p=9245791#p9245791

I have 6700k 4.5Ghz, 3000mhz ram cl14-15-15-35 1t

Motherboard firmware version?
Video card?
Drivers versions?
Windows update up to?
A lot of fine details are missing.

I have already used that board, and I know that even with the latest firmware it still has trouble with the RAM.
I just made 2 identical builds, same RAM, same CPU, same board.
One of the builds could run DDR4-3000 at 2933, the other build could not go higher that 2667.
I wanted to avoid Asus, but these customers builds were requested in short notice, and the prime b350 plus is the highest board I was able to get locally.

Despite the reservation of using that board, the builds turned out beautiful, extremely fast.

 

[Kallogan]

it feels like hyperthreading is overkill for a 8 cores cpu.

i would disable that for gaming. I bet overclocking/power consumption would be better. Thus gaming performance.

Wish they'd release a cheaper 8 cores (8C/8T) ala i5.

6 cores feels meh, kind of half baked.

 

[Head1985]

 

[french toast]

Untill software optimizations and firmware updates intel has a clear lead in gaming, especially in 1080p and below.
But there is no uarch/hardware specific reason why ryzen should not perform equal to broadwell, core to core and clock to clock.
From a very high level they very similar, but go down a level and its clear there are some big differences, Ryzens L3 cache is exclusive whilst intels is inclusive, as there seems to be a penalty for moving across CCXs and needs game engine software up dates to be able to pin threads to cores, Windows also needs a patch as it is putting ryzen in balanced mode, this is increasing cpu to gpu communication from 3ms to 30ms.
There is alot of variables ATM, i would think we could make a definitive conclusion on ryzens gaming performance vs broadwell at around SK X launch. I expect it will reflect the productivity benchmarks. Gaming = ryzen ~ broadwell

The higher ipc skylake uarch will still perform higher in games core to core and clocks equal, but ryzen either offers twice the threads or half the price of intels skylake uarch, depending on the game amd how MT sensitive it is will decide which cpu is better.
A word of caution though, 7700k is already nearing 100% loads across 8 threads, that is not going to go down.

 

[Mockingbird]

An In-Depth Look at Ryzen's Gaming Performance: 16 Games Played at 1080p & 1440p

http://www.techspot.com/review/1348-amd-ryzen-gaming-performance/

 

[Lovec1990]

An In-Depth Look at Ryzen's Gaming Performance: 16 Games Played at 1080p & 1440p

http://www.techspot.com/review/1348-amd-ryzen-gaming-performance/

why no 1700 ?

 

[Jaydip]

Damn I was really interested in 1800X to pair with my 1080Ti but looks like I will have to wait for the platform to mature or grab a 7700K/6850K and call it a day.

 

[Puffnstuff]

When I watched the AMD presentation with Lisa and she had a coworker demoing the 1800x playing a prerelease version of Star Wars at 4k I noticed that it didn't have much action going on. Most benchmarks will demonstrate how the cpu/gup are handling an enormous amount of data to showcase its capability. Their demo was Spartan at best with hardly any activity on screen to push the processor and gpu.

I've also noticed how inconsistent some of the test reviewers results have been depending on what motherboard combination they used which is normal. However, there's too much inconsistency in memory support and too much consistency in how each platform is having issues getting the cpu's to their alleged boost clocks. If you tell me that the cpu has a boost clock of 4ghz and a xfr of 100mhz beyond that then I expect for the system to readily reach those goals. Too many testers are having to seriously work for a stable boost clock within the range but not at the 4ghz that AMD claims. This silicon was rushed out the door and I hope that they're able to refine it quickly and improve it to restore confidence. I'm primarily interested in reviewers who are running their cpu's at stock speeds as we all know that Intel's units OC better. Geez I miss the days of the slot A Athlon and golden fingers.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Very interesting results. Perhaps this will improve with optimizations.

 

[HiroThreading]

I just find it hilarious that the whole "PC master race" cult surrounding PC gaming was all about 4K with maxed AA, AF, and other graphical fidelities; but suddenly after Ryzen's launch, a lot of the "PC master race" suddenly care about 720p/1080p and CPU bottlenecks. What a joke.

The fact of the matter is that there is now an alternative to most of Intel's HEDT options. With the money you save by going with a 1700X/1800X instead of a 6800K/6900K (and X99 platform), it should be much easier to fit a GTX 1070/1080 or even a 1080 Ti within a build's budget.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

I just find it hilarious that the whole "PC master race" cult surrounding PC gaming was all about 4K with maxed AA, AF, and other graphical fidelities; but suddenly after Ryzen's launch, a lot of the "PC master race" suddenly care about 720p/1080p and CPU bottlenecks. What a joke.

The fact of the matter is that there is now an alternative to most of Intel's HEDT options. With the money you save by going with a 1700X/1800X instead of a 6800K/6900K (and X99 platform), it should be much easier to fit a GTX 1070/1080 or even a 1080 Ti within a build's budget.

You clearly just don't understand...

You see we NEED to test 720p low with an enthusiast card, because it proves "something". We cannot describe what that something is, but it is there, and so we need to test for it.

Very interesting results. Perhaps this will improve with optimizations.

Bleh... These people are just pumping out garbage content to pump it out. Why would you even bother to keep benchmarking game after game when you know your system is unstable?

I could understand if there was a new patch or something, but this is ridiculous.

I am unsubscribing from all these ignorant persona techtubers, aside from OC3D, and LTT (Funny).

 

[TemjinGold]

I just find it hilarious that the whole "PC master race" cult surrounding PC gaming was all about 4K with maxed AA, AF, and other graphical fidelities; but suddenly after Ryzen's launch, a lot of the "PC master race" suddenly care about 720p/1080p and CPU bottlenecks. What a joke.

The fact of the matter is that there is now an alternative to most of Intel's HEDT options. With the money you save by going with a 1700X/1800X instead of a 6800K/6900K (and X99 platform), it should be much easier to fit a GTX 1070/1080 or even a 1080 Ti within a build's budget.

It's a joke if you are buying a cpu just to play today's games. If you are buying however to play games over the next few years, this is a good way to predict how each cpu will do when games get more demanding and GPUs get stronger. The weaker cpus in this test will falter first when that happens.

Note, I am saying this as someone who bought an 1800x, not as someone going 7700k.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

It's a joke if you are buying a cpu just to play today's games. If you are buying however to play games over the next few years, this is a good way to predict how each cpu will do when games get more demanding and GPUs get stronger. The weaker cpus in this test will falter first when that happens.

Note, I am saying this as someone who bought an 1800x, not as someone going 7700k.

No, it's not.. The 8 core CPU is obviously more futureproof.... The 7700k winning a drawcall benchmark is as irrelevant to gaming as Ryzen winning cinebench.

 

[TemjinGold]

No, it's not.. The 8 core CPU is obviously more futureproof.... The 7700k winning a drawcall benchmark is as irrelevant to gaming as Ryzen winning cinebench.

Read what I wrote more carefully.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

I wish more sites tested with games that were problematic for bulldozer/piledriver, like total war, mechwarrior online, arma 3 and flight simulator x.

These games run extremely poorly on amd's previous cpu's, but I think they'd run ok on ryzen.

 

[Dribble]

No, it's not.. The 8 core CPU is obviously more futureproof.... The 7700k winning a drawcall benchmark is as irrelevant to gaming as Ryzen winning cinebench.

People have been saying that for a long time now - since we could first buy 6+ core cpu's. Eventually it will be true, but that hasn't happened yet. While you can split some things into more and more threads, some stuff just doesn't thread well and is much more efficient done in 1 thread then attempting to split it. It's those bottle neck threads that the cpu with the highest single thread performance will always win at.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

People have been saying that for a long time now - since we could first buy 6+ core cpu's. Eventually it will be true, but that hasn't happened yet. While you can split some things into more and more threads, some stuff just doesn't thread well and is much more efficient done in 1 thread then attempting to split it. It's those bottle neck threads that the cpu with the highest single thread performance will always win at.

Some people did say that in the past, but it was not me.

I am telling you now. Now, is different than 7 years ago. Games are already multithreaded well enough that the 6900k~7700k. And the 6900k even wins some games.

Heck, the old ridiculously outdated 8350 is actually better now than when it launched! It's actually beating skylake i5s in some titles!

BF1 multiplayer can even bring a 7700k to it's knees.

Now, what will happen in the future.

Games are made for consoles. Consoles have 8 threads. Game developers need to extract as much horsepower as they can from the consoles, which means they will have to make more multithreaded games. They will need to do that for the life cycle of these consoles, which is what another 2 years? That is a long time on such a weak platform.

Why do you think intel is offering a 6 core to the mainstream?! You can say AMD is loopy, and makes bad decisions. MOARR CORES!!! But what about intel?

The i3 becomes obsolete, the i5 becomes the budget CPU, and the i7 4c/8t becomes the good enough midrange CPU, and the 6+ core CPUs are the new gaming enthusiast CPUs.

Then what happens? The new consoles come out with an 8 REAL cores!

So, yes, I am 99.99% sure that a 1700 is more futureproof than a 7700k.

 

[thehoj]

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.

I'm in the same boat... It's absolutely insane to me that my 6 year old i5 2500K is still competitive with modern CPU's in many things. That does not seem right.
Totally agree on the "absolute best value of any tech purchase" comment. I guess I shouldn't really be complaining here.

The ONLY reason I'm considering upgrading to something is because I'd love to get a fast nvme drive... But that just doesn't seem like enough of a reason at the moment.

I totally understand that the 2500K IS significantly slower than modern CPUs in almost everything.. I guess I use the term competitive in the sense that it is still a fully viable option with modern software / gaming. Imagine if 6 year old GPUs were still competitive or even just usable compared to modern GPUs?.. (I believe 6 years ago we were in the nvidia 400 - 500 series era...)

 

[leoneazzurro]

It's a joke if you are buying a cpu just to play today's games. If you are buying however to play games over the next few years, this is a good way to predict how each cpu will do when games get more demanding and GPUs get stronger. The weaker cpus in this test will falter first when that happens.

Note, I am saying this as someone who bought an 1800x, not as someone going 7700k.

In reality, this is not true. In early reviews, 2500K trounced a Vishera FX-8370 ll the day on, today the opposite is true. So, while today we can have an indication of how the CPU performs with present titles, we cannot say how it will perform in the future. If the trend is exemplified by something Mafia III or For Honor in the latest techspot piece, for example, then Ryzen could be a real winner.
Of course it will depend heavily on the developer's work, too but even sorting off the whole scheduling issue (SMT off actually increasing the FPS in many titles) will give Ryzen a much better impression than in the initial reviews. For example, I took the Techspot review. I took only the best results from Ryzen, regardless of SMT on/OFF, and averaged them in proportion to the 7700K. It comes out that, for example, a 1800X at 1080P has a 15% fps disadvantage with respect to the 7700K ,but at the same time the 6900K has also a 10% disadvantate, too, so there is only around 6% between them, only by solving the SMT issue. At 1440P the difference is even less, with the 1800X being within 8% of the 7700K and practically on par (1%) of the 6900K. And this should be taken as a baseline, because in the cases where the SMT on performs worse, with a correct scheduling the FPS should increase even more once the SMT works properly. So, all in all, I'd blame a lot the immaturity of the platform, but I didn't see the same situation as the Bulldozer fiasco.

 

[GaiaHunter]

One thing is for sure.
One is not going to have games that work well on 8+ cores until you have a decent user base with 8+ cores.

About the 1080p.
If you go to the video card forums and ask about a card for 1080p most people will point you into the direction of a GTX 1060 or RX 480.