-
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" thread (inc AM4/APU discussion) ***
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
No but then I don't get the less than should be gaming performance remark? I think it is about right for where it is right now. We have seen improvements as the issue with higher memory band width help by helping the bottleneck that the infinity fabric appears to be creating so that will get resolved over time.
But what are you expecting in terms of gaming when most of it is down to the fact game engines are to this day are still utilising greater GHz/MHz than core count to gain performance?
It is what it is. It will improve as the architecture matures, the developers cross over to using more cores/threads (which should happened based on the dev kits AMD are providing) and as above the memory. There is still discussion about how Windows can handle the scheduling of cores better but that needs everyone involved, AMD, Microsoft and developers to discuss how this works and implement changes.
Right...
No one expected it to out perform a 7700K where no more than 4 cores matter, but its often loosing out to a 6900K and even a 6850K, that shouldn't happen.
Right...
No one expected it to out perform a 7700K where no more than 4 cores matter, but its often loosing out to a 6900K and even a 6850K, that shouldn't happen.
Why shouldn't it? They are clocked higher generally and so for the same core count etc they are still going to loose out. Further to that it has been noted a number of times that W10 and games have been optimised to use a few specifics in what Intel do with their CPU architecture.
Further to that we still have the Infinity fabric issue, in that I explained above. Now Intel don't have that issue as it still one chip with all cores and so the memory speed doesn't matter as much (although they are higher also compared to Ryzen currently). And thus there is that to take into account.
I mean the benchmarks I have seen have had the 6900K at 4.4GHz compared to the 1800X at 3.9GHz and certain game engines (looking at Ubisoft here) really seem to be much better on Intel architecture so whatever is going on under the hood Ryzen architecture does not do well with Watchdogs 2 for instance.
I'm not ignoring the issues with Infinity fabric, the IPC is in all other cases the same or better, i'm saying it shouldn't be happening if the Infinity fabric issue didn't exist.
PS: the 1800X is clocked higher than the 6900K
PS: the 1800X is clocked higher than the 6900K
I know at stock the 1800X is clocked higher but the reviews for gaming I have seen in anything the 6900K has been clocked at 4.4GHz and the 1800X is at 3.9 or 4.0GHz.
And no it shouldn't be happening if the Infinity Fabric issue didn't exist but at the moment and certainly when the 1800X was tested with 2133MHz memory that was the issue of why it seems such a problem.
If you check out some videos etc though then the 1800X has beaten the 6900K. For instance
BF1 Ryzen / Intel
138 / 136 fps
Crysis 3
62 / 58 fps
GTA V
141 / 136 fps
Witcher 3
59 / 58 fps
That I believe is stock to stock though although Ryzen was using 2133MHz speed for memory and the 6900K was on 3600MHz from what I can tell. So yeah it really depends.
At present, that is pure conjecture. We do NOT know if it is really the source of the performance issues in some applications/games. We should not be spreading this around as truth until it is proven.
We have seen videos etc showing that the different memory improves performance though. And further to that we know directly from AMD that the Infinity Fabric relies on the speed from what the memory is set to at a 2:1 ratio so you increase memory speed by 20% you get a 10% gain in infinity fabric. This has so far shown to correlate to improved FPS.
We can only go on to provide from that evidence that the case is that Ryzen improves with better memory speeds be it from the Infinity fabric or the Memory. It is in every Ryzen thread and on multiple forums with the same info.
Now with that I would say that it indicates and correlates to what we know. I can only go from what I have watched and read accordingly. It could be something else but we are here to a point to discuss and speculate accordingly. I am happy with what I have discussed and who with though to believe the cause of some of the issue is with the way the Infinity Fabric scales with memory speed.
Was hoping the 1600 would sneak under £210, still good.
Digital Foundry disabled 2 cores on the 1800X to 'simulate' a Ryzen 5 in games and found no difference what so ever. And 6/12 still gives you plenty of room for productivity.
For those waiting to game you're (probably) going to get the same level of performance on the Ryzen 5 at a great price point. This is what's going to make AMD money.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
Definitely, Although I'll still be going with a 6 or 8 core when I next upgrade, I'm just hanging back for Ryzen to mature at the moment.
Based on the fact that the lesser core models have the same stock clocks as the 8 core models i'm presuming they don't have more overclocking headroom which is a shame.
I think a lot of people were expecting that to be the case as it tends to be with Intel.
It is very difficult to test this theory though unless we can cut the link to the other CCX's L3 cache and resources. I'm not saying it isn't this, but just don't want to assume. Look at what happened with the 'windows scheduler' theory, and that was quickly shot down.
EDIT: It would be interesting to see if the Memory could be pushed to say 3600 at lower CPU clock speeds and see what the performance increase was like in certain tasks.
DF testing the 1800X at stock and 4.0GHz vs a stock 6900K and a stock 7700K, all with fast memory
Seem like decent enough prices.
$=£ same as with R7. No surprise.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2014
- Posts
- 5,109
Yeah, happy enough with those. If the 1600 can keep up with the 7 series in gaming, and be clockable to similar levels, it's what I'll go for I reckon. Hopefully by the time I buy in 8 weeks or so, most of the mobo issues will have been ironed out.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,294
- Location
- Dormanstown.
I wouldn't be so sure, pushing the Brexit button will remove uncertainty and that's the no1 thing markets hate. If anything it might increase slightly.
Either way, it won't make a massive difference though.
Not entirely true, the R7 1700 is around for less than £300, and the 1700X for only £330, it was only initial demand keeping them high.