AMD Zen 3 (5000 Series), rumored 17% IPC gain.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Yet,in the DIY PC market,AMD is now outselling Intel in key markets. Most enthusiasts on forums,seem to not understand,most gamers are on RX5600XT/RTX2060/GTX1080 performance and under. Most people are running 60HZ monitors,ie,60FPS is important,and some might run 120/144HZ monitors.

At least looking at almost all the PC gamers,I know who build their own PCs,most have gone with Ryzen,even some who might have a faster GPU like a GTX1080TI. Any of them who have a higher resolution than a 1080p monitor will be GPU limited. Also the whole argument with the RTX3070 means nothing,as games will use the greater RT and rasterised performance on PC to push better image quality,especially with new consoles being released. Just enable Hairworks or any of the RTX options on a modern Nvidia GPU and you are moving well into GPU bound territory.

Most gamers upgrade their GPU,when it's gone kaput,or they cannot ramp up settings,or get enough FPS,beause a newer title requires more performance.

The only titles I notice a CPU limitation in at qHD is modded Fallout 4 which is an old game on an old engine,which has no optimisations for Intel HEDT and AMD Ryzen CPUs,and Planetside 2 which seems to be a combination of server and CPU limitations in large battles with a few 100 people at one point.

Most WoW players I know don't have high end CPUs and GPUs. Only on enthusiast forums do people think the average WoW player has an OTT rig. It has a very cartoony style,and it's very popular so it's made to run OK on lower end rigs. Basically this is the same with all of their games. This is why 10s of millions of people play Blizzard games. Enthusiasts "need" to ramp up settings,and use addons,etc which make the games more performance hogs. I remember,with WoW there was an addon with affected CPU performance quite a bit,and people on here were talking about it - one of my my mates who played WoW,said the community was aware of it,so plenty of people just used a lighter one,which did the same job!

You only have to see how GPU limited most gamers are - many of us had IB/SB based rigs for years,even though Haswell and Skylake were faster. Many people still use IB/SB/Haswell based rigs even now!

 

[Boot_Loop]

Gaming performance is highly dependant on the game being played, resolution and of course GPU used. One example - World of Warcraft. Even at 4K resolution, Intel has a solid lead over Ryzen, as the engine is so dependant on 1-3 thread performance. The DX12 update for the game helped to make it use more threads, but Intel is still clearly ahead of Ryzen in this title. That's just one title, but there are many other games that also depend on 1-4 core performance.

Regarding the GPU side of things, we have to remember that many people tend to keep their CPU/motherboard for many generations of GPU. The 2080TI is about to be replaced by the next generation, where a 3070 (or AMD equivalent mid-high end GPU) will likely match it's performance. Now imagine 2 years beyond this, we'l have another generation of cards much faster than the 2080ti available.

Making games use 8+ cores (16+ threads) is a incredibly hard and expensive thing to do, though I agree over the next 10 years of the PS5 lifespan we'll gradually see this transition. For now though, 1-4 core performance is very important to many gamers. This is reflected by Intel's massively higher market share in gaming, though AMD are starting to chip away at it.

See you've just entirely missed my point. You cite World of Warcraft...what? This game will run at hundreds of frames per second on an ancient 4790K. Bringing it as evidence of one high end 8-core CPU's value over another is stupid, I'm sorry. It's not a meaningful plus point for anything, as you can run this game on a toaster, and at 4K you're limited by your graphics card not CPU. Who benefits from 170fps instead of 160fps in WoW?!? Who just plays this one game on their new PC? Come on have a word.

And your point about new cards exposing the CPU even more doesn't play out either (I've seen this argument countless times). This year, the next gen consoles are releasing, meaning graphics for nearly all games are being dialled up as the consoles will be baseline. That means the CPU being the bottleneck is removed from the equation. Your kind of arguments are very, very frustrating.

 

[Dave2150]

See you've just entirely missed my point. You cite World of Warcraft...what? This game will run at hundreds of frames per second on an ancient 4790K. Bringing it as evidence of one high end 8-core CPU's value over another is stupid, I'm sorry. It's not a meaningful plus point for anything, as you can run this game on a toaster, and at 4K you're limited by your graphics card not CPU. Who benefits from 170fps instead of 160fps in WoW?!? Who just plays this one game on their new PC? Come on have a word.

And your point about new cards exposing the CPU even more doesn't play out either (I've seen this argument countless times). This year, the next gen consoles are releasing, meaning graphics for nearly all games are being dialled up as the consoles will be baseline. That means the CPU being the bottleneck is removed from the equation. Your kind of arguments are very, very frustrating.

I'll not respond to you further, as it's clear you are clueless on the subject and just make things up. You obviously haven't played the game in question, or you'd know that minimum FPS when raiding, or in large open world PVP (40+ players) is heavily dependant on the CPU. You can't get hundreds of FPS when you're CPU limited. This is a problem with the game engine, but one which mandates the strongest possible CPU gaming performance to achieve the best result.

Here's some benchmarks at 3440x1440 (hint, this is less than 4k, just saying as you seem lost in the subject) to backup my claims, something you can't fathom:

https://rk.edu.pl/en/benchmarking-and-analyzing-world-warcraft-performance/#3

You'l want to scroll down to the CPU benchmarks, just a tip.

 

[Journey]

Who benefits from 170fps instead of 160fps in WoW?!? Who just plays this one game on their new PC? Come on have a word.

Built a PC for a friend who has been playing since it was launched, he only plays WoW and Champ manager. Acer X34P, GTX 1070 Ti, with an i7 4770. Swapping to the R5 3600X saw a great frame rate increase in large raid groups, and battlegrounds. He was happy to have spent the money, all his other gaming is PS4, just don't ask me why he does this.

 

[Boot_Loop]

I'll not respond to you further, as it's clear you are clueless on the subject and just make things up. You obviously haven't played the game in question, or you'd know that minimum FPS when raiding, or in large open world PVP (40+ players) is heavily dependant on the CPU. You can't get hundreds of FPS when you're CPU limited. This is a problem with the game engine, but one which mandates the strongest possible CPU gaming performance to achieve the best result.

Here's some benchmarks at 3440x1440 (hint, this is less than 4k, just saying as you seem lost in the subject) to backup my claims, something you can't fathom:

https://rk.edu.pl/en/benchmarking-and-analyzing-world-warcraft-performance/#3

You'l want to scroll down to the CPU benchmarks, just a tip.

No I don't play the game. You enjoy it mate at 250fps with your 10900K

 

[Gerard]

Just surprised people still play warcraft, 16 or so years old isn't it?

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I'll not respond to you further, as it's clear you are clueless on the subject and just make things up. You obviously haven't played the game in question, or you'd know that minimum FPS when raiding, or in large open world PVP (40+ players) is heavily dependant on the CPU. You can't get hundreds of FPS when you're CPU limited. This is a problem with the game engine, but one which mandates the strongest possible CPU gaming performance to achieve the best result.

Here's some benchmarks at 3440x1440 (hint, this is less than 4k, just saying as you seem lost in the subject) to backup my claims, something you can't fathom:

https://rk.edu.pl/en/benchmarking-and-analyzing-world-warcraft-performance/#3

You'l want to scroll down to the CPU benchmarks, just a tip.

You did bother to look at the benchmarks,right?? Firstly WoW is a third person game,so massive framerates won't be as important as an FPS shooter,as the weapons and spells are AOE. An RX470/GTX1050TI in those benchmarks is capable of 60FPS,with some dips here and there. Then looking at the CPU results,a Ryzen 3 2200GE seems to be able to get 60FPS with some dips here,and there. However,you are talking about an £80 CPU.Then if you are willing to drop settings,even the Ryzen 3 2200G using its IGP can run it at between 30~60FPS. The Threadripper CPUs are not an ideal choice to use for gaming,as they had various issues due to the MCM layout.

At mode 4 1080p the integrated Vega 8 is enough to play the game rather fluently. Likely some extra manual settings optimization would be advised to optimize it even further. Xibala cave does hit hard. Also buying a cheap dedicated graphics card later on can improve game performance although Karazan mass pull or Dalaran did not improve by much.

But the problem,is the Ryzen 3 2200G was a sub £100 CPU,so it's not a choice for someone who wanted maximum FPS anyway,ie, the Ryzen 5 1600AF/2600 tended to be closer in price in the last year,and faster.

There are significantly faster CPUs such as the Ryzen 3 3100/3300X and the Ryzen 5 3600 for £100~£160(plus the Intel equivalents).You can get an RX580 or GTX1650 Super which is faster than an RX470/GTX1050TI for around £150 now.

Spoiler

That channel tested the Zen2 CPUs and compared them with CFL in WoW - also in RAIDs. The Zen2 CPUs are competitive. The Ryzen 3 3300X when tweaked with decent RAM timings has fantastic performance in WoW.

 

[~>Dg<~]

people will argue about fps till the end of days. its this simple at the moment. current amd cpus are the same in games as a intel 8700 non k. so anything above is better in games. this is why so many are excited about these AMD cpus coming because it means that they should be infront with More cores. double win or at worst level with more cores. so you cant really lose.

 

[Journey]

Just surprised people still play warcraft, 16 or so years old isn't it?

Blizzard still make a killing from it, and will do so for a good few years yet. Someday they a dev will bring out another game with just as much staying power, where people are happy to spend a per month fee to play, rather than a pay to win like most other games in the genre.

 

[pc-guy]

30 fire mages in 40man raid spamming fireballs and pyroblast and proccing trinkets and cool downs and killing bosses under a minute is a sight to behold

YouTube 30 mage raids
https://youtu.be/SVXfA7cKqHQ

There were some serious lag in the fights...

 

[Steampunk]

Blizzard still make a killing from it, and will do so for a good few years yet. Someday they a dev will bring out another game with just as much staying power, where people are happy to spend a per month fee to play, rather than a pay to win like most other games in the genre.

TBF, WoW is an outlier in the respect of being able to use it as an example of a very popular game that doesn't benefit from more cores because it dates quite far back and the engine is old.

Blizzard might pull a PoE and update the game engine to Vulkan, and then all those AMD cores are going to pull WoW into the twenty-first century.

 

[Journey]

TBF, WoW is an outlier in the respect of being able to use it as an example of a very popular game that doesn't benefit from more cores because it dates quite far back and the engine is old.

Blizzard might pull a PoE and update the game engine to Vulkan, and then all those AMD cores are going to pull WoW into the twenty-first century.

Well they did update it not long ago, adding much better multi-core support, which is why the R5 3600X from the i7-4770 made such a big improvement to the system. Take into account all the background tasks that the system is doing and the extra cores and IPC really helped.

 

[Curlyriff]

Just surprised people still play warcraft, 16 or so years old isn't it?

Basically what my house mate and his 9 or 10 other mates play all the time compared to anything else. Don't think it will ever go away tbh now.

 

[Gerard]

Accurate

 

[Steampunk]

Accurate

But you notice how all the Ryzen CPUs are on top, and the Intel ones are on the floor or being knocked down?

 

[Gerard]

But you notice how all the Ryzen CPUs are on top, and the Intel ones are on the floor or being knocked down?

 

[humbug]

I'll not respond to you further, as it's clear you are clueless on the subject and just make things up. You obviously haven't played the game in question, or you'd know that minimum FPS when raiding, or in large open world PVP (40+ players) is heavily dependant on the CPU. You can't get hundreds of FPS when you're CPU limited. This is a problem with the game engine, but one which mandates the strongest possible CPU gaming performance to achieve the best result.

Here's some benchmarks at 3440x1440 (hint, this is less than 4k, just saying as you seem lost in the subject) to backup my claims, something you can't fathom:

https://rk.edu.pl/en/benchmarking-and-analyzing-world-warcraft-performance/#3

You'l want to scroll down to the CPU benchmarks, just a tip.

TBH i don't get it, why are all the CPU used in these test crap? You're talking about frame dips but that's not what these slides show, the best CPU there is a first gen Threadripper which was never a "Gaming CPU" back in its day and yet it seems to do just fine.....

 

[humbug]

You did bother to look at the benchmarks,right?? Firstly WoW is a third person game,so massive framerates won't be as important as an FPS shooter,as the weapons and spells are AOE. An RX470/GTX1050TI in those benchmarks is capable of 60FPS,with some dips here and there. Then looking at the CPU results,a Ryzen 3 2200GE seems to be able to get 60FPS with some dips here,and there. However,you are talking about an £80 CPU.Then if you are willing to drop settings,even the Ryzen 3 2200G using its IGP can run it at between 30~60FPS. The Threadripper CPUs are not an ideal choice to use for gaming,as they had various issues due to the MCM layout.





But the problem,is the Ryzen 3 2200G was a sub £100 CPU,so it's not a choice for someone who wanted maximum FPS anyway,ie, the Ryzen 5 1600AF/2600 tended to be closer in price in the last year,and faster.

There are significantly faster CPUs such as the Ryzen 3 3100/3300X and the Ryzen 5 3600 for £100~£160(plus the Intel equivalents).You can get an RX580 or GTX1650 Super which is faster than an RX470/GTX1050TI for around £150 now.

Spoiler

That channel tested the Zen2 CPUs and compared them with CFL in WoW - also in RAIDs. The Zen2 CPUs are competitive. The Ryzen 3 3300X when tweaked with decent RAM timings has fantastic performance in WoW.

Hmm..... i really should read replies before doing that myself......

For one the guy in the video said, quite clearly that he spent many hours with the Zen 2 CPU's and found the performance to be very good with no frame drops....

With that out of the way lets look at this slide.

At 5 and 5.2Ghz the avrages are a little higher on the 9900K than they are on the...... And lol at this.... "3300X"..... but wait, the 1% and 0.1% lows are worse.

So should we now take it as given that a Ryzen 3300X.....lol...... is better for WoW than an overclocked 9900K? @Dave2150 ?

Accurate

Completely...

 

[Joxeon]

I remember running WoW on a dual core i3 550 and gts450 and it didn't seem to have any problems back then.

 

[Journey]

I remember running WoW on a dual core i3 550 and gts450 and it didn't seem to have any problems back then.

They've constantly added better graphics, textures, and effects with almost every expansion, if you try to max out the graphics these days you need a pretty decent PC to play it with 60+ FPS all of the time.