AMD "Ryzen is Smoother" Misconception Benchmark & Explanation (Ryzen vs. Intel for Gaming)

[pc-guy]

Steve had a point with his video and topic, but he missed the mark with the exact point and comparisons being made. If he had focused more on the older comparative CPUs like the 4c/4th 3000-7000 Intel series chips, rather than the 8th ones and more modern CPUs, and on a less 'clean' benchmarking setup with suboptimal windows configurations and background tasks; he'd have been more on the point of WHY people had stated at the time Ryzen is smoother.

I think it’s deliberate on his part either to promote intel (cos he s sponsored by them) or to get his channel more viewings or both.

His case reviews are the only ones you can’t take too much issues with (that said air conditioned room, lots of space around the case isn’t the typical situation. Most ppl will have them on a desk with clutter around it or under a desk or against a wall. So that will have air flow issues by itself)

everything else, massively biased and unfair testings. Not much apple to apple testing or comparison. Just random stuff to further an agenda.

 

[Grim5]

But Ryzen is smoother

CPU test from newest Total War game

 

[queamin]

https://youtu.be/NqCGHHOZYcA

I like these guys. Proper fair CPU comparison. Price vs price, power vs power. Core vs core.

intel - amd gaming performance matches but amd is well ahead on anything productivity. Same package (CPU + mobo), amd you can save significant amount of money to have a much better GPU to give you better performance in game or spend it on other parts like cooling or faster SSDs or simply save it.

https://youtu.be/6x8SAAk_J4c

this another amazing video where things are completely equalised.

I like them too, Steve just bores me, but I like that he puts times in so you can jump to the part you want to watch.

 

[MartinPrince]

But Ryzen is smoother

CPU test from newest Total War game

No it is not. Posting up a chart of one CPU bound game and coming to that conclusion is just inane.

 

[humbug]

No it is not. Posting up a chart of one CPU bound game and coming to that conclusion is just inane.

This is clearly an outlier so yes you're right in that regard but complaining about it being a "CPU bound game" is a bit silly, if what you're measuring is CPU performance in games then what you want is to be bound by the CPU, and in this case the Ryzen CPU's are much faster than the Intel ones, no getting away from that.

What's more as games mature more into the Ryzen architecture and core counts i think you're going to see this more and more, so take notice. Intel don't have it all their way anymore.
Like the 7700K before it that 9900K has a much shorter high performance life than equivalent Ryzen CPU's.

 

[rchads89]

damn this thread got further than i thought it would have...

 

[humbug]

damn this thread got further than i thought it would have...

Look at how its gone tho, As Steve Burke himself found out the Intel brand is down a few pegs, Hardware Unboxed admitted no one was interested in his Intel 10K CPU or Z490 reviews.
Innovation and getting actual upgrades generation to generation is back after a decade of absence and Intel are frustrated by it, that tells you all you need to know.

 

[LtMatt]

Look at how its gone tho, As Steve Burke himself found out the Intel brand is down a few pegs, Hardware Unboxed admitted no one was interested in his Intel 10K CPU or Z490 reviews.
Innovation and getting actual upgrades generation to generation is back after a decade of absence and Intel are frustrated by it, that tells you all you need to know.

Agreed, this was very telling. Hardware unboxed ditches their Intel CPU main game testing rig for a 3950X.

 

[humbug]

It is telling... yes.

OriginPC sent JatZ2Cents a special edition Flight Sim PC, powered by a 3950X, beautiful with full Flight Sim print on the glass panel... just a year ago that just wouldn't have happened.

 

[MartinPrince]

What's more as games mature more into the Ryzen architecture and core counts i think you're going to see this more and more, so take notice. Intel don't have it all their way anymore.
Like the 7700K before it that 9900K has a much shorter high performance life than equivalent Ryzen CPU's.

On this we agree, once games start taking advantage of those extra cores then we should see a gradual sea change and it won't be just a few games. Once AMD deal with the latency gap (hopefully in 4000) then things should be a little more clear cut.

 

[Rroff]

On this we agree, once games start taking advantage of those extra cores then we should see a gradual sea change and it won't be just a few games. Once AMD deal with the latency gap (hopefully in 4000) then things should be a little more clear cut.

People mix up smoothness, latency and responsiveness quite a bit - you can have something that feels smooth but isn't very responsive by enforcing uniform latency. Or you can go all out on ultra low latency but potentially have an at times stuttery experience.

I believe last time I looked at it a hand tuned X79 platform with certain Xeons (not all model CPUs will give the same results due to the way the cores communicate) actually win out against both the latest Intels and Ryzen in many cases due to a mixture of possibility of getting very low whole system latency (best effort button to pixel), frame latency/consistency and still hanging in there performance wise with a good overclock.

 

[Deleted User 456458]

This is clearly an outlier so yes you're right in that regard but complaining about it being a "CPU bound game" is a bit silly, if what you're measuring is CPU performance in games then what you want is to be bound by the CPU, and in this case the Ryzen CPU's are much faster than the Intel ones, no getting away from that.

What's more as games mature more into the Ryzen architecture and core counts i think you're going to see this more and more, so take notice. Intel don't have it all their way anymore.
Like the 7700K before it that 9900K has a much shorter high performance life than equivalent Ryzen CPU's.

The AMD equivalent to a 9900k when it was launched was a 2700x. This was later replaced with a 3700x/3800x. Neither will outlive a 9900k.

There seems to be a some memory gaps here from people on what amd cpus you could actually buy when the 9900k launched.

 

[ik9000]

The AMD equivalent to a 9900k when it was launched was a 2700x. This was later replaced with a 3700x/3800x. Neither will outlive a 9900k.

There seems to be a some memory gaps here from people on what amd cpus you could actually buy when the 9900k launched.

but yet that same 450/470 AM4 socket for the 2700x means people can upgrade their CPU - twice (3000 and, if they keep their word 4000 series), and by so doing move up to a much higher core count without having to splash out on a new mobo too. In terms of longevity and value for money that seems like a much better option to me. What's the upgrade route looking like for swapping out that 9900k?

 

[MartinPrince]

This is clearly an outlier so yes you're right in that regard but complaining about it being a "CPU bound game" is a bit silly, if what you're measuring is CPU performance in games then what you want is to be bound by the CPU, and in this case the Ryzen CPU's are much faster than the Intel ones, no getting away from that.

I state correctly that it is a CPU bound game, I did not however state that there is a problem in using a CPU bound game, you are inferring that, which is not at all what I said. If you want to show CPU difference then it's obviously best to use a CPU bound game.

There is however a problem with someone stating the opposite to conclusion of the video in the first post based solely on 1 game. Now if Grim5 has said "But Ryzen is smoother in this game", then that's perfectly fine.

As clearly demonstrated with empirical data, that across the board, across a slew of current games Ryzen is definitely not 'smoother'. As I have both systems I have tested this for myself and can confirm his finding that when it comes to 'smoothness', generally Intel is smoother, though the differences are really not anything to write home about.

So before we go off topic and start bringing up stuff like power efficiency etc etc just remember this:

...we shouldn't make things up about AMD CPU's when they're already good enough without telling fairy tales...

 

[humbug]

I state correctly that it is a CPU bound game, I did not however state that there is a problem in using a CPU bound game, you are inferring that, which is not at all what I said. If you want to show CPU difference then it's obviously best to use a CPU bound game.

There is however a problem with someone stating the opposite to conclusion of the video in the first post based solely on 1 game. Now if Grim5 has said "But Ryzen is smoother in this game", then that's perfectly fine.

As clearly demonstrated with empirical data, that across the board, across a slew of current games Ryzen is definitely not 'smoother'. As I have both systems I have tested this for myself and can confirm his finding that when it comes to 'smoothness', generally Intel is smoother, though the differences are really not anything to write home about.

So before we go off topic and start bringing up stuff like power efficiency etc etc just remember this:

There are also a lot of people who say they have had a "smoother experience moving from Intel to Ryzen" this is one reason why this fact or myth perpetuates. There could be any number of reasons why one system may feel smoother than another, this is why using anecdotal evidencing to prove a point is never a good idea, a lot of it could even be plecebo, you're expecting to see something and then you do even tho its not actually there.

Intecore latency wouldn't explain smoothness or the lack of it, Intecore latency in Ryzen is the time it takes electrons to move less than 1cm from one CCX to another at the speed of light, that has 0 bearing on frame pacing, what that is is when clock cycles are even faster than that and the latency of having to communicate with a core a few mm further away can take longer than the clock cycle and bottleneck it. The cycle stalls.

Personally i don't think there is any difference in smoothness between a modern Intel CPU and Ryzen 3000.

 

[Deleted User 456458]

but yet that same 450/470 AM4 socket for the 2700x means people can upgrade their CPU - twice (3000 and, if they keep their word 4000 series), and by so doing move up to a much higher core count without having to splash out on a new mobo too. In terms of longevity and value for money that seems like a much better option to me. What's the upgrade route looking like for swapping out that 9900k?

None for a 9900k but I knew that going in having done research before buying.

I could have gone the amd upgradable route but I wanted performance then, not in the future. Had I gone through the amd route, I’d still be waiting for that performance to catch up for my primary use case which is sim racing in VR. Core counts do nothing for me there.

As usual, build for your own use case not some arbitrary metric.

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

None for a 9900k but I knew that going in having done research before buying.

I could have gone the amd upgradable route but I wanted performance then, not in the future. Had I gone through the amd route, I’d still be waiting for that performance to catch up for my primary use case which is sim racing in VR. Core counts do nothing for me there.

As usual, build for your own use case not some arbitrary metric.

Hard to disagree there, it took AMD a while to catch up to Intel performance in games, shame they couldn't get closer sooner.

 

[Journey]

As usual, build for your own use case not some arbitrary metric.

This 100%.

Last month I spent almost an entire week upgrading 6 systems that had been sold to a business as "what they needed" to get the most from their use-case, and trusted the supplier with whom they have a two decade relationship. Only to be sold low end X299's with 9900x CPU's and slow 2400MHz non-ECC RAM, what they needed was actually much high core count parts, and faster ECC RAM, so now they have three machines with Threadripper 3970X CPU's and 128GB ECC 3200MHZ RAM, and three with 3960X and 64GB 3200MHz ECC RAM, and all have x2 2TB PCI-E 4.0 NVMe SSD's, and I now have a new client that is super happy.

Every user has different requirements, and 'faster in gaming' is only relative to the rest of the brief not just the one word 'gaming' which seems to be a catch all when it 100% is not.

 

[humbug]

Bulldozer was AMD's huge mistake in their otherwise good history, Ontop of buying ATI Bulldozer almost bankrupted them.....

 

[KungFuSpaghetti]

Anyone want to summarise what the monotonously verbose tech jeebus is on about? I can't sit through 30 minutes of waffle for what a slide will basically tell me...

I'm guessing it's Intel are still faster in games, which isn't in dispute? How many people are using a 2080ti at 1080p to take advantage of these frame rates your monitor can't display?