• 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) ***

opethdisciple said:
The new recommended minimums for a gamer are thus:

8 cores are the new 4, 16Gb of ram is the new 8Gb and 8Gb of vram is the new 4Gb
Click to expand...

People were going on about 8 cores beating out 4 cores before the launch then went strangely quiet after release. I'm not sure how anyone could still be saying the same thing weeks later after release. They'll be the new 4s in years to come, by which point, r7s will be old tech.
 
opethdisciple said:
I agree with him. Which is why I went and bought a Ryzen 7 cpu. I noticed that the recommended cpu specs for recent AAA games where advising i7's and AMD 8 core parts (FX)... which are quite apart in performance but I deduced from this that what their saying is 8 cores is the most important part.

This is also why I recently said that 1070 is actually now a 1080/1200p card.

Don't question me on this until you've watched the video.
Click to expand...

That was actually a very good video. Great example of critical thinking from AdoredTV.
 
i am using Samsung single rank
G.SKILL F4-3200C14D-16GTZ Trident Z Series

i am using official v120 for the tomahawk mem @3200 14 14 14 34 1t 1.35v
All good
next step 4 sticks
 
AMDMatt said:
And that has zero use, because no one pairs a high end GPU with a high end CPU to game at 1024x768 or 1280x720P.
Click to expand...

When you run in such an artificial way you're not really testing gaming, you're trying to make a game act like a CPU benchmark. But it's not, which makes it entirely unreliable for that kind of thing. You need to test games at realistic settings, or we may as well argue to test at 1x1 (yes, 1 pixel by 1 pixel).
 
AMDMatt said:
And that has zero use, because no one pairs a high end GPU with a high end CPU to game at 1024x768 or 1280x720P.
Click to expand...
But that wasn't the point. The point was to "try" to put the CPU in a couple limited situation to see which "may" last longer. Clearly from AdoredTVs analysis, the test didn't match reality. However, the intent is there regardless of if it was a worthwhile test.
 
Scougar said:
All they are trying to do is see how much grunt the CPU has when you take the GPU out of the picture as much as possible. That was the assumption anyway. Clearly, AMD's chips have bucked the trend.

What this shows me is again.... AMD is always pushing tech too early. Although... they certainly do give themselves longevity by increasing performance over time.
Click to expand...

I was ready to write a big message but going stick to your snobbery of the "AMD is always pushing tech too early". Which is hypocritical.
What you wrote applies the same to the 6800K/6850K/6900K/6950K/5960X etc. Because their performance at your 720p "ultimate CPU grunt testing benchmark" going to be worse compared to Ryzen due to weaker IPC. And those CPUs are far more expensive.

Or the "anti AMD bias" only matters for you?

(FYI I have a 6800K before you call me an AMD evangelist)
 
teppic said:
When you run in such an artificial way you're not really testing gaming, you're trying to make a game act like a CPU benchmark. But it's not, which makes it entirely unreliable for that kind of thing. You need to test games at realistic settings, or we may as well argue to test at 1x1 (yes, 1 pixel by 1 pixel).
Click to expand...

Dead pixel on a 1 x 1 display is a killer.
 
Panos said:
I was ready to write a big message but going stick to your snobbery of the "AMD is always pushing tech too early". Which is hypocritical.
What you wrote applies the same to the 6800K/6850K/6900K/6950K/5960X etc. Because their performance at your 720p "ultimate CPU grunt testing benchmark" going to be worse compared to Ryzen due to weaker IPC. And those CPUs are far more expensive.

Or the "anti AMD bias" only matters for you?

(FYI I have a 6800K before you call me an AMD evangelist)
Click to expand...

I am so confused by your comments.Why is it hypocritical?
 
Last edited:
Random Guy Esq. said:
Dead pixel on a 1 x 1 display is a killer.
Click to expand...
muahahaha :D
-----------------

Seriously guys, at 2560x1440 I am gaming, realised that the quad cores are the bottleneck and need more Ghz to run.
The 6700K had to be overclocked to 4.7Ghz to play World of Tanks (single thread game) at 2560x1440 and still there, the GPU wasn't running at 100% all the time.
Trying to watch a video on youtube on the second monitor was a no go, and had to keep it minimised.
Reason, is only 4 cores and are getting cramped with services to run.

Both with the 1700X (which I owned briefly :( ), and the 6800K I see no need to overclock, but have done that to 4Ghz for 24/7.
The overall performance of the system if far better, can play WoT, the card is working at 100% generating more fps, and on the second monitor I can watch eg Lisa Stanfield videos at high resolution without taking the perf.

When Easter goes through, going to grab another Ryzen, but contemplating waiting the 16c one also ;)
 
Panos said:
Pointed that your comment about AMD applies to Intel Enthusiast lineup also. But you ignore the point by getting confused.
Click to expand...
Don't be pedantic. I asked you to clarify for God sake.

Whatever Panos, believe me to be a snob as I sit here next to my AMD system that I started gaming on the igpu when I moved to the states and then had to work my way up to a better graphics card. This "snob" is looking to get a Ryzen R5 because I can't justify the cost of an R7 just at the moment. You know, snobs always like to downgrade to show off.

As for future tech too early.... Honestly, what was wrong with that comment? It is truth about AMD. Notice how I even said it gave their platforms longevity.
 
Panos said:
muahahaha :D
-----------------

Seriously guys, at 2560x1440 I am gaming, realised that the quad cores are the bottleneck and need more Ghz to run.
The 6700K had to be overclocked to 4.7Ghz to play World of Tanks (single thread game) at 2560x1440 and still there, the GPU wasn't running at 100% all the time.
Trying to watch a video on youtube on the second monitor was a no go, and had to keep it minimised.
Reason, is only 4 cores and are getting cramped with services to run.

Both with the 1700X (which I owned briefly :( ), and the 6800K I see no need to overclock, but have done that to 4Ghz for 24/7.
The overall performance of the system if far better, can play WoT, the card is working at 100% generating more fps, and on the second monitor I can watch eg Lisa Stanfield videos at high resolution without taking the perf.

When Easter goes through, going to grab another Ryzen, but contemplating waiting the 16c one also ;)
Click to expand...

Where did Lisa stanfield come from :p
 

51:00 we have them all on about the Ryzen smoothness we have Joker ,Wendell Linux master and the great car salesman ...
 
Quite a boost from just a game update.
Ashes of the Singularity Gets Ryzen Performance Update | PC Perspective
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Ashes-Singularity-Gets-Ryzen-Performance-Update

C8IeYIXUAAIH-t8.jpg:large
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom