• 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 ***

Jacky60 said:
The very same thought is starting to concern me, I've had a 5960X forever and was set for the 3800X/3900 but it looks like a 9700K easily compete with these possibly more expensive AMD offerings in games. I want to believe but unless AMD rule Arma 3 I'm going to stick with Intel. I didn't expect to be typing this now but I already have a very capable 8 core and I'm doubtful of what Ryzen 3000 can offer me.
Click to expand...


Then you never really would consider AMD, that game is single threaded and primary wants more Ghz, and came out well before Zen was even halfway done in development. It has no idea about the CPU topology, and runs around 20-30% slower at similar clocks on AMD compared to Intel.

 
DylRicho said:
I'm guessing you guys missed the AMD slide during the Pinnacle Ridge release in April 2018?

Yes, it works with X370 boards as well, however my point was rather to point out the need for an X-series chipset, rather than specifically the X470. It just so happens that the X470 chipset came to my head due to the 2000 series shipping alongside it.
Click to expand...
Pinnacle Ridge is used in both TR2 and Ryzen so while technically that slide is correct it only officially applies to TR2 (source 1, 2).
DylRicho said:
Precision Boost 2 and XFR2 work together to identify more capable cooling, to allow the processor to achieve that maximum all-core frequency that AMD advertises. Together, they are akin to Turbo Boost 2.0, while Precision Boost Overdrive is akin to Turbo Boost Max 3.0.
Click to expand...
No, you're conflating PB with PBO.
XFR2 monitors Ryzen's temperature, power, and clock speed limitations in relation to each other and will allow the CPU to boost frequencies if there is headroom to do so. Precision Boost 2 is the algorithm that uses data from XFR2 to scale the clocks across all cores
Click to expand...
PBO raises those temperature, power, and clock speed limitations.
 
N19h7m4r3 said:
Then you never really would consider AMD, that game is single threaded and primary wants more Ghz, and came out well before Zen was even halfway done in development. It has no idea about the CPU topology, and runs around 20-30% slower at similar clocks on AMD compared to Intel.

Click to expand...
I will and am considering AMD. ARMA 3 is about as tough a single threaded test as there is. I don't understand why AMD's CPU topology is an issue.
Arma 3 is a really popular game, came out six years ago (enough time to build a CPU that can get good performance out of it) and exemplifies the difference between turgid console ports and PC gaming.

All I expect is parity rather than a late to the party approximation but 10-15% slower. Racing sims, Flight sims, Arma 3 are the types of game that demand the most out of CPUs and if AMD
can't cut it then I'm not interested. I'm GPU limited in everything else at 4K.
I think there's been a patch since that video but a difference of 35fps to 55fps at 4K in Arma 3 means more to me than a CS:GO jump from 250 to 290 fps at 1080.
To me it suggests there's a fundamental flaw in the architecture of AMD CPUs.

If the newest Ryzen 3000 CPUs still run 10-25% slower than Intel CPUs in Arma 3 or racing sims (against an Intel CPU architecture that hasn't progressed substantially in six years) or even 10% then it begs the question wtf have AMD been doing all this time?
 
Last edited:
Jacky60 said:
I will and am considering AMD. ARMA 3 is about as tough a single threaded test as there is. I don't understand why AMD's CPU topology is an issue, Arma 3 is a really popular game and exemplifies the difference between turgid console ports and PC gaming. All I expect is parity
rather than a late to the party approximation. Racing sims, Flight sims, Arma 3 are the typesd of games that demand the most out of CPUs and if AMD
can't cut it then I'm not interested as I'm GPU limited in everything else at 4K.
Click to expand...

The game was designed, and built before Zen samples existed. As such there was no testing, or optimisation done for it. Even now, Ryzen has seen significant performance improvements compared to even Skylake in modern games since its launch.

Arma and games using its engine have not.

At best Zen2 might match similar clocked Intel processors when it launches in that game, but considering it's an extreme outlier in Ryzen performance; I doubt they'll match or beat intel in it.

You'll also still be able to get Intel processors that can clock far higher, and you don't need as many cores in that game, so Ryzen seems less worth consideration.
Guess we'll see on 7/7, but I doubt it'll make any real differences in Arma 3 outside of the clock speed bump the 3000 series has over 1000/2000.
 
Murphy said:
Pinnacle Ridge is used in both TR2 and Ryzen so while technically that slide is correct it only officially applies to TR2 (source 1, 2).
Click to expand...

They use the same dies, however Pinnacle Ridge is the codename for the AM4 Zen+ processors. Threadripper is known as Colfax.

That article you linked was written before it was 'unlocked' for AM4 processors via an AGESA update. Whether or not it has been removed again, I don't currently know the answer to that, but it looks that way.


Murphy said:
No, you're conflating PB with PBO.

PBO raises those temperature, power, and clock speed limitations.
Click to expand...

That is actually the article I wanted to grab for my response, so thank you for that. XFR is the technology that analyzes the system, and Precision Boost reacts to those findings. They work together.

PBO is one step further than that by identifying the limitations of the VRM configuration for the board in use. It raises those limits imposed by standard Precision Boost, but it still has its own limits.

Also, I would like to go back and clarify something;

Precision Boost 2 and XFR2 work together to identify more capable cooling, to allow the processor to achieve that maximum all-core frequency that AMD advertises. Together, they are akin to Turbo Boost 2.0, while Precision Boost Overdrive is akin to Turbo Boost Max 3.0.
Click to expand...

- Precision Boost 1.0 is akin to Turbo Boost 2.0.
- XFR1 is akin to Turbo Boost Max 3.0.
- There is no equivalent from Intel for Precision Boost 2.0 and XFR2.
 
DylRicho said:
They use the same dies, however Pinnacle Ridge is the codename for the AM4 Zen+ processors. Threadripper is known as Colfax.

That article you linked was written before it was 'unlocked' for AM4 processors via an AGESA update. Whether or not it has been removed again, I don't currently know the answer to that, but it looks that way.




That is actually the article I wanted to grab for my response, so thank you for that. XFR is the technology that analyzes the system, and Precision Boost reacts to those findings. They work together.

PBO is one step further than that by identifying the limitations of the VRM configuration for the board in use. It raises those limits imposed by standard Precision Boost, but it still has its own limits.

Also, I would like to go back and clarify something;



- Precision Boost 1.0 is akin to Turbo Boost 2.0.
- XFR1 is akin to Turbo Boost Max 3.0.
- There is no equivalent from Intel for Precision Boost 2.0 and XFR2.
Click to expand...
They've got a new name for MCE.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-cpu-auto-overclock-performance-maximizer,6179-2.html Intel Performance Maximizer. Like PBO it will be a one-click auto-overclock.
 
Jacky60 said:
I will and am considering AMD. ARMA 3 is about as tough a single threaded test as there is. I don't understand why AMD's CPU topology is an issue.
Arma 3 is a really popular game, came out six years ago (enough time to build a CPU that can get good performance out of it) and exemplifies the difference between turgid console ports and PC gaming.

All I expect is parity rather than a late to the party approximation but 10-15% slower. Racing sims, Flight sims, Arma 3 are the types of game that demand the most out of CPUs and if AMD
can't cut it then I'm not interested. I'm GPU limited in everything else at 4K.
I think there's been a patch since that video but a difference of 35fps to 55fps at 4K in Arma 3 means more to me than a CS:GO jump from 250 to 290 fps at 1080.
To me it suggests there's a fundamental flaw in the architecture of AMD CPUs.

If the newest Ryzen 3000 CPUs still run 10-25% slower than Intel CPUs in Arma 3 or racing sims (against an Intel CPU architecture that hasn't progressed substantially in six years) or even 10% then it begs the question wtf have AMD been doing all this time?
Click to expand...

If Arma 3 is the ONLY game that AMD is weak at, then surely that suggests there's a "fundamental flaw" in Arma 3
 
mcast said:
Geekbench single core scores....
8600K 5694
3800X 5406
3600X 5390

Not exactly mind blowing, although I'll probably still buy a 3700X.
Click to expand...

I'm calling BS on the 3800x and 3600x scores. Just downloaded and run this on my own 2700x and got the following result.
Is anyone seriously suggesting that a 3600x is only going to beat my 2700x by 54 points ? .............................................................far too much unsubstantiated crap on here :mad:

uoihj.jpg
 
Curious I sort of know what you mean but I-racing (seen a few posts here) seems similarly 'flawed' or with a similar deficit. I sincerely hope the catch up by Ryzen 3000 in CS:GO will be replicated with Arma 3 but from the benchmarks I'm not that confident.
 
Last edited:
Jacky60 said:
I will and am considering AMD. ARMA 3 is about as tough a single threaded test as there is. I don't understand why AMD's CPU topology is an issue.
Arma 3 is a really popular game, came out six years ago (enough time to build a CPU that can get good performance out of it) and exemplifies the difference between turgid console ports and PC gaming.

All I expect is parity rather than a late to the party approximation but 10-15% slower. Racing sims, Flight sims, Arma 3 are the types of game that demand the most out of CPUs and if AMD
can't cut it then I'm not interested. I'm GPU limited in everything else at 4K.
I think there's been a patch since that video but a difference of 35fps to 55fps at 4K in Arma 3 means more to me than a CS:GO jump from 250 to 290 fps at 1080.
To me it suggests there's a fundamental flaw in the architecture of AMD CPUs.

If the newest Ryzen 3000 CPUs still run 10-25% slower than Intel CPUs in Arma 3 or racing sims (against an Intel CPU architecture that hasn't progressed substantially in six years) or even 10% then it begs the question wtf have AMD been doing all this time?
Click to expand...

I don't see how it would be possible for Ryzen CPUs not have improved their performance in Arma, I expect we're looking at either parity or 5-7% either way. The huge IPC gains and improved cache are going close that gap significantly.

That said, the biggest bottleneck in Arma has always been the server you're playing on. Depends what you're doing of course, but the game is terribly optimised and without regular restarts most servers slow to a crawl.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom