5Ghz Amd & Intel (speculation topic)

[gavinh87]

But... what relevance is 720p?
"With a rig no-one would ever consider putting this hardware towards using, THESE ARE THE SUPER IMPORTANT RESULTS"...

You can artificially create whatever arena you want if you MUST have certain stuff "win". I think top end CPU's with a decent graphics card at 1080p is already stretching it a bit (300+ fps at 1080p is serious business... somewhere... I guess).
Ya know..?

At a point you're throwing a... probably £1200 rig at it, 1440p+ seems completely reasonable, with a look at what you'd get if you ever bothered with low end (1080p) graphics.

The point being it tests cpu performance in games. Nobody is expecting people to game at 720p but rather give an insight on how it will perform with faster more powerful future gpus.
I thought this was common knowledge.

 

[jigger]

But... what relevance is 720p?
"With a rig no-one would ever consider putting this hardware towards using, THESE ARE THE SUPER IMPORTANT RESULTS"...

You can artificially create whatever arena you want if you MUST have certain stuff "win". I think top end CPU's with a decent graphics card at 1080p is already stretching it a bit (300+ fps at 1080p is serious business... somewhere... I guess).
Ya know..?

Yeah you certainly have a lot of image quality to gain and horsepower to spare for powering it.

I think sites that set minum standards and opimt results above and below certain figures would be a much better practice. I can't member the last uber resolution test or even 5K tests.

 

[Mercutio]

The point being it tests cpu performance in games. Nobody is expecting people to game at 720p but rather give an insight on how it will perform with faster more powerful future gpus.
I thought this was common knowledge.

We all know the relevance.
Turn down the graphics = CPU bottleneck. Turn up the graphics = GPU bottleneck. It's not rocket science.
It's still not really proving much. In future we'll probably be using more cores so the Ryzen chips will be... probably almost better overall.
In future Vega will probably be better than a 1080ti. It's all a bit pedantic though. Modern system, modern games, see what wins. No?

 

[Mercutio]

Yeah you certainly have a lot of image quality to gain and horsepower to spare for powering it.

I think sites that set minum standards and opimt results above and below certain figures would be a much better practice. I can't member the last uber resolution test or even 5K tests.

Well, if you're talking image quality, there's a GPU sub-forum for that (AMD generally DOES have better IQ as it happens but... I'm not here to debate that - blind test some friends on screenshots).

When AMD have a better current setup: "Yeah but what about the future/past".
When AMD have a worse current setup: "It doesn't matter what was/will be better, it's what we use now, Lol".

Folks kinda need to decide which is relevant. Goalpost moving and all that.

 

[jigger]

It's more a test of the API the games engine and driver than anything.

 

[humbug]

I'm in two minds about low resolution Game Benchmarking, i understand the arguments and reasoning behind it but i think those arguments are based on an assumption that is not necessarily true, that as time goes on the ratio between CPU performance and GPU performance simply widens.

That is a nonsense, Take the FX-8350, in the early days of that it was very much beaten by core i3 21## series CPU's, with modern games its the other way round, the FX-8350 often beats even the 2500K, sometimes even the 2600K, so what all reviewers reviewing this CPU at 720P and 480P at the time said would happen when explaining their reasoning for it didn't, the opposite actually happened.

Why did this happen? because While nVidia and AMD's GPU's became faster and faster.... they also became better and better at utilising the available resources and performance of the CPU's, the FX-8350 was always a more powerful CPU than the 2500K, its simply that at the time both AMD and nVidia and API's like DX11 just didn't make use of that performance.

So i think to assume, again that everything will remain the same other than just GPU's getting faster is short sighted.

Ryzen is a brand new architecture, they are only now starting to optimise games for it and whatever extensions it has, they have been optimising for Intel for a decade, it was recently pointed out to me "how can Civ-6 be that much faster on Ryzen than Intel where everything else its the other way round"
The developers who made Civ are probably the first to work with AMD to optimise the game for Ryzen.

 

[Scougar]

If/when we see a 5Ghz part from AMD e.g. 6 core / 12 threads would performance be within the margin of error when comparing the two if using same ram etc... (apples vs apples)

Acceptance that cache size will differ...

Doesn't the future look promising for us all if that's the case !? (For those who can wait to upgrade that Is!)

The only way to answer questions like this really is to:

A) See how performance currently scales at say 3, 3.5, 4 ghz
B) Look at the limitations of the chips as the clocks get faster. Does either chip have a threshold that is reached around a certain level that would stop it performing as well at that level?

If you don't take B into account, then you may as well look at A in isolation and just look at say 4Ghz performance.

To me, this topic clearly screams, "When will AMD be releasing faster chips and do people think they can?"

 

[Mercutio]

It's more a test of the API the games engine and driver than anything.

What is? 720p, 1080/1440p or 5k?
Intel is already sat on a tiny patch of ground that a decent chunk of folk (not saying you... just... folks) seem determined to sit on and claim as absolute victory.

"Well, until AMD are better in old, current and new games at every possible resolution with all the hardware caveats imaginable covered, Intel are better" is... a pretty sad argument (for those wishing to make it), no?
That's kinda fingers in ears, "lalalalala I can't hear you, so X wins" arguing.

 

[jigger]

Well, if you're talking image quality, there's a GPU sub-forum for that (AMD generally DOES have better IQ as it happens but... I'm not here to debate that - blind test some friends on screenshots).

When AMD have a better current setup: "Yeah but what about the future/past".
When AMD have a worse current setup: "It doesn't matter what was/will be better, it's what we use now, Lol".

Folks kinda need to decide which is relevant. Goalpost moving and all that.

I meant I'd rather see the numbers for what is possible rather than a pointless low resolution test. You could say the system that can power the most pixels with the most balanced load offers longeverty. But in gaming it more a test for the games and graphics system.

 

[gavinh87]

I'm in two minds about low resolution Game Benchmarking, i understand the arguments and reasoning behind it but i think those arguments are based on an assumption that is not necessarily true, that as time goes on the ratio between CPU performance and GPU performance simply widens.

That is a nonsense, Take the FX-8350, in the early days of that it was very much beaten by core i3 21## series CPU's, with modern games its the other way round, the FX-8350 often beats even the 2500K, sometimes even the 2600K, so what all reviewers reviewing this CPU at 720P and 480P at the time said would happen when explaining their reasoning for it didn't, the opposite actually happened.

Why did this happen? because While nVidia and AMD's GPU's became faster and faster.... they also became better and better at utilising the available resources and performance of the CPU's, the FX-8350 was always a more powerful CPU than the 2500K, its simply that at the time both AMD and nVidia and API's like DX11 just didn't make use of that performance.

So i think to assume, again that everything will remain the same other than just GPU's getting faster is short sighted.

Ryzen is a brand new architecture, they are only now starting to optimise games for it and whatever extensions it has, they have been optimising for Intel for a decade, it was recently pointed out to me "how can Civ-6 be that much faster on Ryzen than Intel where everything else its the other way round"
The developers who made Civ are probably the first to work with AMD to optimise the game for Ryzen.

Then why is ashes of the singularity faster on the cpus it wasn't optimised for? There was a hefty update for ryzen and it did increase performance by a decent amount, ultimately though it still wasn't as fast as the intel cpus.

 

[jigger]

What is? 720p, 1080/1440p or 5k?
Intel is already sat on a tiny patch of ground that a decent chunk of folk (not saying you... just... folks) seem determined to sit on and claim as absolute victory.

"Well, until AMD are better in old, current and new games at every possible resolution with all the hardware caveats imaginable covered, Intel are better" is... a pretty sad argument (for those wishing to make it), no?
That's kinda fingers in ears, "lalalalala I can't hear you, so X wins" arguing.

A low resolution graphics test.

 

[Mercutio]

A low resolution graphics test.

Well... ok... we're going to talk about testing it's longevity but we can't talk about relative prices?
You see what I mean?
It's fair enough but... if there's extra stuff it has to "win" in to be considered better... why not everything it could be assessed on? If the argument is going to be pinned on one particular footnote, why not several? We have to ignore certain stuff but totally can't ignore other, equally "edge case" metrics?

 

[humbug]

Then why is ashes of the singularity faster on the cpus it wasn't optimised for? There was a hefty update for ryzen and it did increase performance by a decent amount, ultimately though it still wasn't as fast as the intel cpus.

Its an old game, mostly its not possible to make such fundamental changes to what has already been compiled, tweak around the edges yes, and that's what they did.

 

[gavinh87]

Its an old game, mostly its not possible to make such fundamental changes to what has already been compiled, tweak around the edges yes, and that's what they did.

Is there a list of upcoming games that will be "optimised" for ryzen? Or built from the ground up for ryzen?

 

[humbug]

Is there a list of upcoming games that will be "optimised" for ryzen? Or built from the ground up for ryzen?

It simply a new CPU architecture that did not exist until now, its optimisation will come now that it does exist.

 

[Mercutio]

Is there a list of upcoming games that will be "optimised" for ryzen? Or built from the ground up for ryzen?

I don't quite get where you're going with that. We have current games, that weren't optimised showing that it can do quite well. I don't see how things can get worse for Ryzen than when games were made when it didn't exist that it's able to do perfectly well in?

Not attacking or refocusing, just... don't get where you're going with it.

 

[gavinh87]

I don't quite get where you're going with that. We have current games, that weren't optimised showing that it can do quite well. I don't see how things can get worse for Ryzen than when games were made when it didn't exist that it's able to do perfectly well in?

Not attacking or refocusing, just... don't get where you're going with it.

Neither do I. I'm hearing there are starting to make games optimised for AMD as they have been optimised for intel for a decade yet they use industry standard instructions.

The only optimizations I can see that need doing is reducing cross talk between ccx modules. Outside of that it's going to rely on few power.

 

[jigger]

Well... ok... we're going to talk about testing it's longevity but we can't talk about relative prices?
You see what I mean?
It's fair enough but... if there's extra stuff it has to "win" in to be considered better... why not everything it could be assessed on? If the argument is going to be pinned on one particular footnote, why not several? We have to ignore certain stuff but totally can't ignore other, equally "edge case" metrics?

Well that's what I'm saying. If we're using a game to measure performance then how that's measured is topical. I personally never use low resolution game benchmarks to buy a chip and we have a lot of data that says the even 10 year old+ CPU's can still perform surprisingly well. Im saying we might as look at how even the CPU performance is. The comment about uber high resolution gaming was a side note to that in that I'd rather a review show what's possible than run a test that's boardline irrelevant.

 

[AndreiD]

Current games still benefit from strong single threaded performance, the 8700K doing so well in gaming is a perfect example of that since most games can't perfectly segment their workloads and split them to however many threads the CPU has. There's always going to be 1-2 threads that are going to be loaded a lot more than the others and those will be the main bottlenecks performance wise.
Ryzen is a perfect example of that happening even in very well multithreaded games like AotS, it's the reason why the 8700K does quite a lot better.

And Ryzen optimizations seem to mainly deal with its NUMA/Infinity Fabric issues, at most you seem to get performance to where it should be, around Haswell level. Note that the games that received "Ryzen patches" all had it performing well bellow par previously. As for some kind of dark magic fairy dust optimizations that will make Ryzen perform better than it currently does in its ideal scenarios, google a Zen core diagram and put it side by side an Intel Core one, AMD took lots of design cues from Intel with Zen, current architectural weaknesses are mainly related to AMD's CCX design.
Future Zen iterations might be an improvement though.

 

[jigger]

So some games egines, OS level API's graphics cards and drivers can't leverage all the performance CPU's have to offer. In that case chips Like 7740X and the i3K makes sense as they offer the highest performance per core.

Essentially if you use those games to measure a chips performance all you're measuring is how limited the other systems are at extracting performance. Then it's just a question of understanding the system configuration and buying based on the games you play. Oh and price.