• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) - *** NO COMPETITOR HINTING ***

Associate
Joined
19 Nov 2010
Posts
2,028
I must be one of the minority then.

I boot my PC up

I load a game up

I play said game

I close said game

I may then open up chrome and browse the web etc

I close chrome

I shut down my pc

Rinse/repeat as and when I get time

I don't encode, I don't decode, I don't stream, I don't listen to music while playing a game, I want to listen to the game sounds, not music whilst playing.

I play a multiplayer game that runs on an older version of the cry engine and is cpu limited. It’s also a game where there are sometimes lengthy periods in between matches. In addition it requires coordinated team play to win, trying to Rambo it against higher tier teams will get you killed and earn the scorn of your team mates. So for these reasons I’ll have Discord running and on my second screen I’ll often have a few chrome tabs open with a video playing and perhaps something interesting to read in-between matches. And that’s all it takes to be close to overwhelming my 4770k. So even if I don’t see a significant increase in game performance I’m hoping that these new Ryzen chips will help eliminate the multitasking bottlenecks I’m experiencing. It’s nothing fancy, just a basic gaming PC, but even that is starting to require some serious computing power to maintain smoothness. Streaming at the quality I’d like to do it at is out of reach for me at the moment.
 

ljt

ljt

Soldato
Joined
28 Dec 2002
Posts
4,540
Location
West Midlands, UK
I'd... be shocked if there wasn't a pretty decent number of folks had at least:

Some form of keyboard/mouse/headphone/RGB software running
Some form of Voip running
A browser window or 2 open a good percentage of the time
A few other random miscellaneous bits like windows defender/some other AV + Malware bytes/some other anti-malware

Saying the average user shuts ALL this down to play games with the purest performance focus on the game is like saying the average user has at least a 1070. It's simply not the truth (but while you could then go "ahhh but I'm talking about enthusiast users who'd care about all this"... ok... but they still won't shut all this stuff down to play games. I can speak for.... 10 folks I regularly play with. Not one of us is like "oh, hold on a sec, I forgot to make my system a pure, dedicated FPS pipeline" before jumping on even the likes of "pro shooter" fps stuff.)

It's massively false to paint it like that. Especially when it just so happens to be in favour of your favourite processor brands direction/your purchasing preferences.

If you can't see the bias yourselves, it's fine. Everyone else can.

Not sure if that was aimed at me but I wasn't implying I "streamlined" my PC just for gaming. Far from it.

Yes I have anti virus software installed. I don't have rgb stuff installed or keyboard/mouse control though.

I don't have browser loaded up while gaming as I use a single screen. If I'm that desperate to look something up I use my mobile next to me. If on the rare occasions I need to voice chat I'll use steam as it is normally already open because of the game.

Out of all my friends only 2 even have a PC capable of gaming and neither of them have loads of programs open either.

Streaming/encoding etc is niche. If you do either of those you're certainly not in the average casual user group like myself
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,662
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
When I play a game I've often got a silly amount of stuff open. Normally just leave outlook, chrome instances, visual studio, sql management studio. Basically anything I've been working on in the last week stays open. I close nothing. Normally I just fire up mumble or discord or whatever and jump into a game. My machine also hosts a load of random test stuff like iis sites, a sharepoint instance and also a sugar instance so it has quite high overheads.

Don't ever notice any of it in game tbh. There probably is some difference but so long as I can play most things 4k/60+ and things like cs at like a million fps 4k then I'm not really that bothered.

As above not a standard use case, in fact me and @amigafan2003 have similar rigs I believe.

Yeah, i don't think it does make a difference, as long as you have plenty of spare CPU threads and System RAM, windows is pretty good at seperating tasks on threads in a way that its not slowing down other tasks, so long as the threads are there.
 
Associate
Joined
19 Feb 2018
Posts
152
I must be one of the minority then.

I boot my PC up

I load a game up

I play said game

I close said game

I may then open up chrome and browse the web etc

I close chrome

I shut down my pc

Rinse/repeat as and when I get time

I don't encode, I don't decode, I don't stream, I don't listen to music while playing a game, I want to listen to the game sounds, not music whilst playing.

+1
 
Associate
Joined
19 Feb 2018
Posts
152
I'd... be shocked if there wasn't a pretty decent number of folks had at least:

Some form of keyboard/mouse/headphone/RGB software running
Some form of Voip running
A browser window or 2 open a good percentage of the time
A few other random miscellaneous bits like windows defender/some other AV + Malware bytes/some other anti-malware
.

ar don't. But I was brought up on DOS so I've had it sort of ingrained into me. Gaming on Windows used to be awful back in the day.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,662
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
I think to the people who ask what do you need so many CPU threads for? I would say why not, a high performance 12 thread CPU can be had for little over £100 now and with it you can use your PC in such a way that you gon't have to go around shutting stuff down before playing games.

Is that not a more convenient way of using your PC?
 
Soldato
Joined
26 Sep 2010
Posts
7,157
Location
Stoke-on-Trent
If lots of threads was stupidly expensive then I'd also question "why do I need so many", but as @humbug says when you can get 12 threads for little money then surely it becomes a moot point? It's not like you're having to balance price vs performance. Plus, now that Intel have finally relented and starting to up their core counts, Microsoft and other software developers will now have an incentive to start utilising more cores and threads; it might be OK to argue 4c/8t is fine for now, but in short order we could see that such a configuration is insufficient, especially in games.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,662
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
I know it's WCCFTech, but there's some interesting reading to be had near the bottom. Apparently the creator of the Ryzen DRAM calculator has offered some insight on things that might be coming with Ryzen 3000.

https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-3000-valhalla-cpus-x370-x470-motherboard-bios-support/

Also, the creator of the Ryzen DRAM calculator has listed down some new features that might be coming in the Ryzen 3000 processors with one confirming that the Ryzen 3000 series processors would indeed ship with CCD (Compute Core Design, a new name for CCX), support a maximum of 32 threads which confirms 16 core parts, following is the full list of features which were found:

they should just hire him, i'm sure his skill and knowledge would be useful to them.
 
Soldato
Joined
26 Sep 2010
Posts
7,157
Location
Stoke-on-Trent
I wonder if renaming CCX to CCD is indicative of it being an 8 cores thing now? Renaming "Core Complex" to "Compute Core Design" purely for a laugh seems redundant.

Sorry, I'm grasping all of the straws, I have none spare :p
 
Don
Joined
7 Aug 2003
Posts
44,308
Location
Aberdeenshire
Is there an easy way of doing this? IE without taking a RAM stick out, halving your system RAM would surely have an impact in its self?
Would just need to use a game that didn’t make use of 50+% of the total RAM.

I remember way back when that single/dual was only worth <5% but that was years ago. This seems to be the trade off of using 2x CCD to give you 16 cores, each channel is connected to one specific CCD.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,662
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
Would just need to use a game that didn’t make use of 50+% of the total RAM.

I remember way back when that single/dual was only worth <5% but that was years ago. This seems to be the trade off of using 2x CCD to give you 16 cores, each channel is connected to one specific CCD.

Ok, i'll do it when i have time and let you know when its done.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Posts
12,621
If lots of threads was stupidly expensive then I'd also question "why do I need so many", but as @humbug says when you can get 12 threads for little money then surely it becomes a moot point? It's not like you're having to balance price vs performance. Plus, now that Intel have finally relented and starting to up their core counts, Microsoft and other software developers will now have an incentive to start utilising more cores and threads; it might be OK to argue 4c/8t is fine for now, but in short order we could see that such a configuration is insufficient, especially in games.

Well in the case of intel the core counts have a big cost premium, their 8 core chips are way more expensive than their 4 core and even their 6 cores when they were first launched.

With AMD obviously if a 12 core costs the same as a 8 core and there is no obvious downside then by all means buy it.

But I feel the need to correct this again, because it keeps been brought up that software threads on a cpu does both these things

(a) provides noticable more responsiveness, performance on a typical windows desktop.
(b) allows you to have more background apps open

For a average desktop user its only really the core count that has an affect and software thread count can mostly be ignored so a 6/6 almost the same as a 12/6, there is exceptions of course e.g. people who encode media. Or maybe spend large amounts of times compressing/decompressing files. For background apps, if you load something like steam in the background it doesnt sit there hogging a core/thread preventing other programs from using it, it doesnt work like that.

The downsides of higher cores is likely to be.

Higher price - how much higher who knows
Higher temperatures
Higher power consumption
Higher spec VRM required and as such possibly more expensive motherboard needed.
More context switches (lower cpu efficiency).

e.g. when I got my 2600X a 2700X was an extra £110, for 2 more cores I felt wasnt worth it, a standard 2700 was an extra £40 for those 2 cores but at lower clocks. That one I did think about. But ultimately I was already pushing the budget I had set so it was the 2600X. SMT isnt an issue on AMD as its given as standard so you just get it regardless of chip you buy at least, unlike intel who have managed to add it as a tax on their cpu's for a software feature.
 
Back
Top Bottom