• 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.

Intel coffee lake prices

Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,639
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
As someone who had a 4770k and traded for a RyZen 1700 and pretty much exclusively only plays WoW I can tell you there is almost zero FPS difference for me. Infact the 1700 is slightly faster in wow, I play ESO occasionally as well and that's the same.

The only other game I play a lot is Grim Dawn, and guess what? It's the same as above.

This is on a 1070 with a Freesync screen so I'm not getting the benefit of adaptive sync so it's a lot easier to tell where FPS dips are.

I'm not buying it that RyZen sucks for MMOs as it's simply not true

Your response to that ^^^^

Strange, my 1700 was about 20% behind my 4770 non k in raids. I've searched for benchmarks in wow but cannot find any.
However I did find one for bdo and a 6700k is considerably faster. I think it's LoL of dota2 that ryzen struggles with also.

What? really?

As soon as you see someone say how good they feel about their upgrade you're in there telling them how bad yours is.

I do wonder how you can always have a far worse experience with your Ryzen than everyone else.

If you have such a bad experience with yours i can understand why you are so down on it and constantly making that point, but don't you ever wonder how its only you with that experience of it? I do.
Everyone who has bothered to comment on their feelings of upgrading to Ryzen is overwhelmingly positive, with you being 'not only the only outlier' but are incredibly negative about it. why?

BTW, you still haven't answered my last question, if you can't answer it then you have to concede nothing Intel have is good enough for my needs, and i'm not that unusual.

It was crap, slower round Simply Sausages than my BMW 530i
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
29 Jan 2015
Posts
4,904
Location
West Midlands
Your response to that ^^^^



What? really?

As soon as you see someone say how good they feel about their upgrade you're in there telling them how bad yours is.

I do wonder how you can always have a far worse experience with your Ryzen than everyone else.

If you have such a bad experience with yours i can understand why you are so down on it and constantly making that point, but don't you ever wonder how its only you with that experience of it? I do.
Everyone who has bothered to comment on their feelings of upgrading to Ryzen is overwhelmingly positive, with you being 'not only the only outlier' but are incredibly negative about it. why?

BTW, you still haven't answered my last question, if you can't answer it then you have to concede nothing Intel have is good enough for my needs, and i'm not that unusual.

It was crap, slower round Simply Sausages than my BMW 530i

Not at all. I just find it strange, (hence my use of the word strange in my reply) that people are having different results to myself, my friends and reviewers. Believe me I'm not the only one underwhelmed by ryzen, go over to OCN or reddit or even take a look right in this forum and see peoples findings.

WoW

https://blog.notebooksbilliger.de/test-amd-ryzen-1700x-ist-amd-zurueck/


Heres BDO

I'm not making this up, I post up true finding yet people see this as hating :/

Think of a 1700 as a much cheaper alternative to a 6900K. Not a 7700K.

being a gamer and a content creator very soon to be in the market for a new CPU with a budget of £450 to £470, what do you i suggest i do?

I suggest you save more money :



Unless you can get 16gb of bdie for £100 or so.......
I wouldn't bother with a 1600 if you are a content creator tbh.

Why must you be so aggressive with your replies to someone that doesn't go with the narrative?
There is no arguing from me here, yet you try to get personal with me.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,639
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
As CAT explained WoW is an outlier but your Black Desert Video does not prove your argument, its a gain a low threaded ancient game and the results are all over the place, it looks like a very inconsistent game given that it appears sometimes apparently faster CPU's are slower.... still more often than not it seems to average out like this

The game is Black Desert, released in 2013.

The core clock speeds will be added to this, because its so inconsistent i have taken a screen shot of a part where random NPC's appear on screen the least random

He has overclocked all the CPU's

Ryzen 1700 4.0Ghz: 82 FPS
Core i5 3570K 4.5Ghz: 72 FPS
Core i7 6700K 4.7Ghz: 115 FPS

The 3570K despite being 12.5% higher clocked is 15% slower than the Ryzen 1700, that's an in game IPC difference of 27% to the Ryzen 1700.

The 6700K is 40% faster than the Ryzen 1700 with a 17.5% higher clock, so it has a 22.5% higher In game IPC.

So, in this extremely inconsistent benchmark of a very old low threaded game the 3570K has a huge IPC deficit to the Ryzen chip, its an old architecture, with that said its more than the opposite of the narrative you are trying to push.

The 6700K does appear to validate your point, however it is just validating it for World of Warcraft, when you make these points you use blanket terminology, as if to say whats true for World of Warcraft is true for Ryzen gaming in general, its only when pushed on that you use WoW to backup those points, which is why i push you to explain yourself when you do this.

The fact is WoW is an example of Ryzen Gaming performance, its thie example of the most extreme example, which is why you like to use it, the truth is there is little difference between Intel's modern CPU's and Ryzen overall.
Anyone can hunt for the most extreme example and then use that to try and drive home an agenda, to justify doing this to members of this forum.

As someone who had a 4770k and traded for a RyZen 1700 and pretty much exclusively only plays WoW I can tell you there is almost zero FPS difference for me. Infact the 1700 is slightly faster in wow, I play ESO occasionally as well and that's the same.

The only other game I play a lot is Grim Dawn, and guess what? It's the same as above.

This is on a 1070 with a Freesync screen so I'm not getting the benefit of adaptive sync so it's a lot easier to tell where FPS dips are.

I'm not buying it that RyZen sucks for MMOs as it's simply not true

Your response to that ^^^^
What? really?

As soon as you see someone say how good they feel about their upgrade you're in there telling them how bad yours is.

I do wonder how you can always have a far worse experience with your Ryzen than everyone else.

If you have such a bad experience with yours i can understand why you are so down on it and constantly making that point, but don't you ever wonder how its only you with that experience of it? I do.
Everyone who has bothered to comment on their feelings of upgrading to Ryzen is overwhelmingly positive, with you being 'not only the only outlier' but are incredibly negative about it. why?

BTW, you still haven't answered my last question, if you can't answer it then you have to concede nothing Intel have is good enough for my needs, and i'm not that unusual.

It was crap, slower round Simply Sausages than my BMW 530i

It really stinks and boarder lines a blatant trolling of people on this forum.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,639
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
WoW has millions of players, hardly extreme and its with a 970.
Imagine what it would be like with a 1070.
I stand with my point, ryzen doesn't perform well with MMO's.

Yes, but i and clearly Sid don't so why not just leave us be? No reason to come back at him or me like that.

PS: I'm not sure about millions, they may have millions of members but then so does Star Citizen, only a few 10's of thousands actually play.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Feb 2011
Posts
5,849
I think you will find WoW us actually Multithreaded but extremely limited and poorly, have a dig around you will find out the specifics.

Rumors of a low level api overhaul but I can't see it happening.

Anyhow at 1440p wow runs fine on my 1700 and 1070, slightly better than it did on my 4770k.

Ontop of this I can have discord, 12+ chrome tabs, Curse client, YouTube etc all open and it has zero impact on my gaming.

On the 4770k I had to keep chrome closed or suffer stuttering when playing.

The other quality of life impact that I notice is alt tabbing between chrome, discord and wow is instant, it's stupidly fluid. My 4770k used to take a good few seconds when alt tabbing. It's good because I can flip YouTube while on a flight path to quickly watch strats and stuff, and tab back fast enough if I needed to.

If your like me, I have messages on discord, and in chrome via Facebook messenger, being able to flip between stuff fast to check them is a god send, my 4770k that wasn't an option as it simply took too long to respond between alt tags to bother doing.

Simple little things like that add up to make every day stuff more enjoyable on RyZen than it was on my 4770k.

My brother upgraded from a 2500k to a 1700 and couldn't believe how fluid it was, I was skeptical myself but yep he was 100% on the money.

Keep your 4c Intel CPUs I'm never going back to a lower core count
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
24,841
Location
Planet Earth
FO4 is also multithreaded but only uses upto six threads,with one to two at significantly higher usage than the others and 4 at a much lower level,but it does not run well on Ryzen at all,ie,its about the same level as my IB Core i7 which struggles in large settlements,certain parts of the map and with certain classes of mods.

You are talking sometimes as much as 30% to 40% extra performance in certain scenarios(comparing the top end Ryzen and top end CFL or KL)when it comes to minimums and even the lowly clocked Core i5 8400 WITH SLOW RAM is still faster.

It clearly is a lack of optimisation especially if you look at the Ryzen non-gaming results but I suspect Bethesda CBA,and neither can AMD who is partnered with them. Even AdoredTV noticed it when he ran the game,and doubted it would ever be patched. I still live in hope maybe Ryzen+ or the single CCX APU might do somewhat better,ie,its a glitch with Ryzen like DiRT3 on the original BD CPUs(PD was massively faster with the game for some reason) but I having a feeling on Ryzen 2 will have enough brute force to past the lack of optimisations or a modern Intel CPU(even with the security patches reducing performance by even 10%) will be my only realistic choices.

The other game which I have serious limitations in is PS2,but I have seen a lack of comparative benchmarking between AMD and Nvidia with that game,and IIRC its not that well threaded too.

I have a feeling if I do want to get an AMD CPU,I will have to just wait for Ryzen 2 at this rate unless Ryzen+ or the Ryzen APU perform better than I expected. I just hope my current rig lasts that long otherwise I will be getting an Intel replacement it seems.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
29 Jan 2015
Posts
4,904
Location
West Midlands
FO4 is also multithreaded but only uses upto six threads ,with one to two at significantly higher usage than the others and 4 at a very lower level,but it does not run well on Ryzen at all,ie,its about the same level as my IB Core i7 which struggles in large settlements,certain parts of the map and with certain classes of mods. You are talking sometimes as much as 40% to 50% extra performance in certain scenarios(comparing the top end Ryzen and top end CFL)when it comes to minimums and even the lowly clocked Core i5 8400 is still faster. It clearly is a lack of optimisation especially if you look at the Ryzen non-gaming results but I suspect Bethesda CBA,and neither can AMD who is partnered with them. Even AdoredTV noticed it when he ran the game,and doubted it would ever be patched. I still live in hope maybe Ryzen+ or the single CCX APU might do somewhat better,ie,its a glitch with Ryzen like DiRT3 on the original BD CPUs(PD was massively faster with the game for some reason) but I having a feeling on Ryzen 2 will have enough brute force to past the lack of optimisations or a modern Intel CPU(even with the security patches) will be my only realistic choices. The other game which I have serious limitations in is PS2,but I have seen a lack of comparative benchmarking between AMD and Nvidia with that game,and IIRC its not that well threaded too.

I have a feeling if I do want to get an AMD CPU,I will have to just wait for Ryzen 2 at this rate unless Ryzen+ or the Ryzen APU perform better than I expected. I just hope my current rig lasts that long otherwise I will be getting an Intel replacement it seems.

Which was my exact point, but on here its seen as hating AMD.
Some, well quite a few games don't like ryzen. It has nothing to do with clockspeed or IPC it just doesn't play nice.
MMO's fall under that category, aswell as a few popular open world games like GTAV.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,639
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
Which was my exact point, but on here its seen as hating AMD.
Some, well quite a few games don't like ryzen. It has nothing to do with clockspeed or IPC it just doesn't play nice.
MMO's fall under that category, aswell as a few popular open world games like GTAV.

Here you go again trying to turn something in to a huge issue, its not, GTA-V from your favorite reviewer... 10% between the 1800X and the 7700K, you just don't stop with this crap, ever.

ryzen-r7-1800x-gtav.png





FO4 is also multithreaded but only uses upto six threads,with one to two at significantly higher usage than the others and 4 at a much lower level,but it does not run well on Ryzen at all,ie,its about the same level as my IB Core i7 which struggles in large settlements,certain parts of the map and with certain classes of mods. You are talking sometimes as much as 40% extra performance in certain scenarios(comparing the top end Ryzen and top end CFL or KL)when it comes to minimums and even the lowly clocked Core i5 8400 WITH SLOW RAM is still faster.

It clearly is a lack of optimisation especially if you look at the Ryzen non-gaming results but I suspect Bethesda CBA,and neither can AMD who is partnered with them. Even AdoredTV noticed it when he ran the game,and doubted it would ever be patched. I still live in hope maybe Ryzen+ or the single CCX APU might do somewhat better,ie,its a glitch with Ryzen like DiRT3 on the original BD CPUs(PD was massively faster with the game for some reason) but I having a feeling on Ryzen 2 will have enough brute force to past the lack of optimisations or a modern Intel CPU(even with the security patches reducing performance by even 10%) will be my only realistic choices.

The other game which I have serious limitations in is PS2,but I have seen a lack of comparative benchmarking between AMD and Nvidia with that game,and IIRC its not that well threaded too.

I have a feeling if I do want to get an AMD CPU,I will have to just wait for Ryzen 2 at this rate unless Ryzen+ or the Ryzen APU perform better than I expected. I just hope my current rig lasts that long otherwise I will be getting an Intel replacement it seems.

Lucky for the rest of us its extremely rare to need to play games built in 15 year old game engines.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Jan 2015
Posts
4,904
Location
West Midlands
Why must you get so aggressive? This is the reason we get banned from threads because you scream so loud that the parents have to come in.
Why can we not have a proper conversation without you trying to turn this into a personal war?

If you'd had bother to follow gamersnexus you'd know that those benchmarks were produced with a 1080.
That ryzen will be bottlenecking nvidias next mid range GPU's, well technically it is already as seen above the 4790K at stock can best it. Looking at the total war results it actually loses out to a stock 4690K

The gamersnexus review of where that graph originated actually states
"AMD Ryzen R7 1800X Review: An i5 in Gaming, i7 in Production"

Take a look at PUBG, clockspeed doesn't make a difference to it. Some game engines just do not like ryzen.
PUBG, WoW are both massive games with a huge number of players, hardly insignificant. And as our friend Jim has pointed out, developers are unlikely to do anything about it.





 
Soldato
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
24,841
Location
Planet Earth
Lucky for the rest of us its extremely rare to need to play games built in 15 year old game engines.

Its still in the top 20 list of Steam games being played - even more than W3 which still is selling lots of copies. The Nexus has 20000+ mods for the game and nearly 350 million mod downloads for the game alone. The same goes for Skyrim and Skyrim:Special Edition. I know loads of people who still play these games and most of them are not enthusiasts on forums and why should they when they are hardly nice looking games. The same goes with WoW which has nearly 10 million players and so many other MMOs. Just because these are not reviewed all the time by hardware websites or hardware enthusiasts don't care about them does not mean millions upon millions of people own these games and still play them. I mean Skyrim alone has made Bethesda billions of dollars,etc. AMD might want to invest in some of these shiny games,but look at how soon after launch the number of players tales off,as to be expected with many FPS type games.

I even asked about FO4 from that AMD CPU guy in the Q and A section,so unless people make a big noise it seems AMD or Bethesda won't care,but then that's the thing for those kind of openworld games and MMOs,people have traditionally defaulted to buying Intel,and if AMD wants to stick its head in the sand and not push its own partners then that will stay the same and they will lose sales they should be stealing from Intel.

Its getting close to a year since Ryzen has launched and do I see any patches coming out for FO4 from AMD gaming partner,Bethesda?? Nope. So either AMD is not aware of the performance issue or does not care,because I can tell you from history,Bethesda does not give a flying **** at all.

Its no point pushing hardware if the optimisation does not happen,and almost all the popular MMOs don't seem to thread ideally outside perhaps one or two of the Cryengine based ones. It was the same with WoW for years,when AMD CBA optimising their graphics drivers properly and Nvidia cards tended to be significantly quickly,ie,a GTX970 faster than a Fury X or RX480 - apparently they managed to realise that more recently and performance has improved it seems. Guess what - a lot of WoW players I knew just defaulted to Intel and Nvidia for that game.Most of these games tend to be more likely to be plastered by Intel and Nvidia ads,etc so AMD really needs to try and push themselves in them if just for PR.

These are the kind of games AMD has tended to be traditionally weaker with - they really should be trying to push the devs of those games to actively optimise for Ryzen. Like I said some of the performance drops are not indicative of what I believe the hardware is truly capable of,and they can't expect devs to just optimise for Ryzen unless they really push for it.

Its simply cheaper for these devs to not bother even if AMD gives them Ryzen systems,and this is why the PC platform is so held back in many ways. Even look at Skylake X FFS. It needs hardware companies to push and push as very few games companies seem to be truly using the power of the PC platform nowadays - Crytek was one of them but sadly they are a shadow of their former selves! :(
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,639
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
Its still in the top 20 list of Steam games being played - even more than W3 which still is selling lots of copies. The Nexus has 20000+ mods for the game and nearly 350 million mod downloads for the game alone. The same goes for Skyrim and Skyrim:Special Edition. I know loads of people who still play these games and most of them are not enthusiasts on forums and why should they when it hardly is that nice looking a game. The same goes with WoW which has nearly 10 million players and so many other MMOs. Just because these are not reviewed all the time by hardware websites or hardware enthusiasts don't care about them does not mean millions upon millions of people own these games and still play them. I mean Skyrim alone has made Bethesda billions of dollars,etc. AMD might want to invest in some of these shiny games,but look at how soon after launch the number of players tales off,as to be expected with many FPS type games.

I even asked about FO4 from that AMD CPU guy in the Q and A section,so unless people make a big noise it seems AMD or Bethesda won't care,but then that's the thing for those kind of openworld games and MMOs,people have traditionally defaulted to buying Intel,and if AMD wants to stick its head in the sand and not push its own partners then that will stay the same and they will lose sales they should be stealing from Intel.

Its getting close to a year since Ryzen has launched and do I see any patches coming out for FO4 from AMD gaming partner,Bethesda?? Nope. So either AMD is not aware of the performance issue or does not care,because I can tell you from history,Bethesda does not give a flying **** at all.

Its no point pushing hardware if the optimisation does not happen,and almost all the popular MMOs don't seem to thread ideally outside perhaps one or two of the Cryengine based ones. It was the same with WoW for years,when AMD CBA optimising their graphics drivers properly and Nvidia cards tended to be significantly quickly,ie,a GTX970 faster than a Fury X or RX480 - apparently they managed to realise that more recently and performance has improved it seems. Guess what - a lot of WoW players I knew just defaulted to Intel and Nvidia for that game.Most of these games tend to be more likely to be plastered by Intel and Nvidia ads,etc so AMD really needs to try and push themselves in them if just for PR.

These are the kind of games AMD has tended to be traditionally weaker with - they really should be trying to push the devs of those games to actively optimise for Ryzen. Like I said some of the performance drops are not indicative of what I believe the hardware is truly capable of,and they can't expect devs to just optimise for Ryzen unless they really push for it.

Its simply cheaper for these devs to not bother,and this is why the PC platform is so held back in many ways. It needs hardware companies to push and push as very few games companies seem to be truly using the power of the PC platform nowadays - Crytek was one of them but sadly they are a shadow of their former selves! :(

The problem is these ancient engines are so fundamentally different to modern CPU's it costs a small fortune both in monetary terms and time to get them to behave.

You said it yourself that these people don't invest in their engine technology because they know you the user will pickup the cost of trying to better performance.

If you're asking me i don't care about not getting 100 FPS in WoW because i don't play it and i would rather AMD also use their resources to look forward, not backwards trying to fix a 15 year old game engine to run on an architecture it was never designed for.

I want AMD to cater for the 80%, not that cited Steam 20%.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Jan 2015
Posts
4,904
Location
West Midlands
The problem is these ancient engines are so fundamentally different to modern CPU's it costs a small fortune both in monetary terms and time to get them to behave.

You said it yourself that these people don't invest in their engine technology because they know you the user will pickup the cost of trying to better performance.

If you're asking me i don't care about not getting 100 FPS in WoW because i don't play it and i would rather AMD also use their resources to look forward, not backwards trying to fix a 15 year old game engine to run on an architecture it was never designed for.

I want AMD to cater for the 80%, not that cited Steam 20%.

I'm pretty sure PUBG comes into the 80% not that 20%.
What are you thoughts on these results?


1440p btw. In some scenes the difference is 30%. Yes I know unrealistic settings but this is what can happen when a CPU hungry game comes along.
It doesn't fill me with confidence in the whole ryzen future proof ideology.

Similar to what CAT said, AMD can improve their arc all they like but can still end up behind due to engines etc.
What happened to these thousands of dev kits they sent out?
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,639
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
The problem is these ancient engines are so fundamentally different to modern CPU's it costs a small fortune both in monetary terms and time to get them to behave.

You said it yourself that these people don't invest in their engine technology because they know you the user will pickup the cost of trying to better performance.

If you're asking me i don't care about not getting 100 FPS in WoW because i don't play it and i would rather AMD also use their resources to look forward, not backwards trying to fix a 15 year old game engine to run on an architecture it was never designed for.

I want AMD to cater for the 80%, not that cited Steam 20%.

One other thing, giving games like this so much CPU performance attention is one reason why Intel never bothered to give us more than 4 core mainstream CPU's.
They even said it themselves "you don't need them" and by an army of disciples games like this were used to prove Intel's arguments, which i have always found astonishing, how the community its self would argue Intel's case for not providing better mainstream processors along side them. its incredible.

Look above we are still vigorously at it, its like a religion, like a moth to a candle he just can't help himself.

Inturn game developers don't bother, why should they?

We deserve what we get, don't you agree?
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
29 Jan 2015
Posts
4,904
Location
West Midlands
One other thing, giving games like this so much CPU performance attention is one reason why Intel never bothered to give us more than 4 core mainstream CPU's.
They even said it themselves "you don't need them" and by an army of disciples games like this were used to prove Intel's arguments, which i have always found astonishing, how the community its self would argue Intel's case for not providing better mainstream processors along side them. its incredible.

Look above we are still vigorously at it, its like a religion, like a moth to a candle he just can't help himself.

Inturn game developers don't bother, why should they?

We deserve what we get, don't you agree?

Again, back to insults. Like a child that cannot get attention any other way.
Welcome to the ignore list.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
24,841
Location
Planet Earth
The problem is these ancient engines are so fundamentally different to modern CPU's it costs a small fortune both in monetary terms and time to get them to behave.

You said it yourself that these people don't invest in their engine technology because they know you the user will pickup the cost of trying to better performance.

If you're asking me i don't care about not getting 100 FPS in WoW because i don't play it and i would rather AMD also use their resources to look forward, not backwards trying to fix a 15 year old game engine to run on an architecture it was never designed for.

I want AMD to cater for the 80%, not that cited Steam 20%.

The issue with them trying to think of the future,is that it will take time for such tech to start getting integrated into games so the benefit won't be seem immediately,so they also need to think of the present too. AMD needs to use it resources to worry less about future technology and try to gain more current sales,and many MMOs,etc are not listed on Steam so that is millions of players.

Its a depressing fact but so many MMOs and openworld games are based on older engines,and it is why its rare to see many scale properly with more cores or even incorporate DX12/Vulkan and it also means when newer versions of these games are developed they will still have the fundamental issues and these are games which are played by millions and millions of players. In fact some of those shiny games which people talk about on tech forums don't sell as many copies and are not making hundreds of millions or billions of USD for the games companies,and the player numbers drop off very rapidly. The issue is that things like Vulkan/DX12 benefit people with older CPUs more anyway,so they are hardly going to drive sales of newer CPUs. Every game DX12/Vulkan game I have played as ran well on my IB Core i7 like AOTS,and you will find many people will usually buy a new CPU for games which tend to thread poorly and only in one or two games you see the opposite happen,ie,BF1 but DICE like Crytek are forward looking but that is sadly not very common.

Both Intel and Nvidia actively target these kind of games,even with promos,since they get a lot of sales from them,and Bethesda is an AMD gaming partner,who is meant to be optimising its games for AMD CPUs and GPUs. If this was some Intel/Nvidia partner I might cut them some more slack. FO4 only came out 16 months before Ryzen was launched and its the last game Bethesda actually made(as opposed to published),yet where is all these optimisations Bethesda is meant to do for AMD CPUs and GPUs?? Apparently not happening it seems with its own games so AMD has gotten a raw deal from them methinks,and Wolfenstein II and Prey 2 which are Bethesda published games which did puhs some AMD optimisations are not even in the top 50 on Steam anymore which is expected as they are FPS games and will soon fall down the list within a few months. Open world,online games,etc tend to have staying power over time,and by extension more people will buy them.

Most of the people buying these games won't be enthusiasts,they will be gamers,and once they get locked into Intel/Nvidia it will be hard to get them out of buying anything else,and AMD not pushing its own gaming partner to optimise for its CPUs is unlikely to change that.

This is basically AMD leaving performance on the table. Its been the better part of a year FFS!!

This means AMD ends up having to brute force it - unless Ryzen+ has some core tweaks which improves performance,or the single CCX Ryzen APU plays nicer with these games,it will probably take something like Ryzen 2 to just use sheer IPC and clockspeed to do the job.

I don't want to get another Intel CPU,as the longevity of AM4 is a big deal for me and I am bored of staying on Intel due to their segmentation,but my current CPU is starting to become more and more of a limitation in certain games,so it looks like I will be probably be waiting until next year at this rate for Ryzen 2. Maybe by then I might get bored of certain games,so won't care as much! ;) :p
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom