• 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.

Mainstream and CPUs

shankly1985

shankly1985

shankly1985

Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2011
Posts
20,676
Location
The KOP
I just wanted to post a new thread for this and why Ryzen in gaming might not "Yet" Be performing in all titles what we expected.

Intel has 8 core CPUs that cost 1k these are not Mainstream chips, and yet this most of the time also underperforms against the 4 core i7 7700K in gaming!
Now the AMD Ryzen 7 8 core is also under performing in some game titles and the reason I believe is more than 4 cores is not yet a mainstream ecosystem.

Am sure a lot of us here remember this very same debate Dual Core for gaming is a waste of Money, quad core is a waste of money for gaming. Because at the time games wasn't using these chips effectively either.

Here is my take on the Ryzen lunch an excellent new release that is yet to show its full potential.. One thing that boggles my mind is just how much different results they is from one reviewer to another.
They is also reports of games that are CPU bottlenecked showing better frame latency on Ryzen than Intel even when the frame rate avg is less.
 
Simply put Ryzen is in a much better position to use all the cores than Bulldozer was back when it released, With that in mind Ryzens single core performance being lower than Intels latest mainstream offerings is no surprise,
and more importantly it's not far behind so now in at a time when more cores are being used more it's in a strong position.
Regarding the IPC did anyone seriously believe it would be hitting Skylake/kabylake levels?
I didn't.
I hoped it would match Haswell and then having the extra 4 cores and 8 threads be a lot friendlier when doing something else alongside gaming. It seems to have met that hope.
There's a couple of bugs/issues that need solving but I'm sure there's nothing they won't manage to fix in the coming months.
 
There's just no excuses for the faults and bugs in the launch. They should have just waited 3 months with a polished full family of r3/5/7 cpu's.
The good thing out of all of this is they now have competitive cpu cores which in an apu format,will really hurt intel in the biggest money earning market, the problem though is amd have shot themselves in the foot by providing igp ip for intel.
 
Davedree said:
There's just no excuses for the faults and bugs in the launch. They should have just waited 3 months with a polished full family of r3/5/7 cpu's.
The good thing out of all of this is they now have competitive cpu cores which in an apu format,will really hurt intel in the biggest money earning market, the problem though is amd have shot themselves in the foot by providing igp ip for intel.
Click to expand...

I am not really sure why they keep doing this to themselves. Every single time they have a launch, they find a way to screw it up. Like anyone would have cared if there were 3 months late with this. How many years have people waited for this? Boggles the mind really.
 
Whilst I agree that >4 cores is not mainstream I don't think what you have said explains it completely, because Ryzen currently doesn't seem to be able to match cheaper Intel cpus in gaming, never mind the more expensive ones. An overclocked 1700 would be a lot more appealing if it could consistently beat an overclocked 7600K but that doesn't seem to be the case right now.
 
Griffildur said:
I am not really sure why they keep doing this to themselves. Every single time they have a launch, they find a way to screw it up. Like anyone would have cared if there were 3 months late with this. How many years have people waited for this? Boggles the mind really.
Click to expand...
I know, it's frustrating but would we expect anything else lol. With a positive outlook what Amd have to offer is genuinely brilliant for a first attempt at both architecture and node. It's all fixable and over time they'll be reviewed, hopefully offering stronger performance.
For revision 2 they need to gain 4-500MHZ at the same power consumption,
 
HangTime said:
Whilst I agree that >4 cores is not mainstream I don't think what you have said explains it completely, because Ryzen currently doesn't seem to be able to match cheaper Intel cpus in gaming, never mind the more expensive ones. An overclocked 1700 would be a lot more appealing if it could consistently beat an overclocked 7600K but that doesn't seem to be the case right now.
Click to expand...

You read me wrong mate, 4 cores is the mainstream for PC gaming, we have countless core i5 and i7 on the market..
Game devs have recently started to make i7 the recommended chip..

What I saying is even intels high end 8 core CPU gets beaten by there own 4 core CPU i7 7770k and the reason is game engines and devs are not yet taking advantage of the bigger CPU core count why would they.
Until now we have 8 core CPU's that are at a price range that hopefully Devs start to build games upon only then will we start to see true performance Ryzen can bring in gaming.

It's the dual core era all over again.
 
one thing i read on ryzen is its designed so it can have a smaller chipset (duno if thats the right word)
meaning itx and smaller boards, like almost nuc sized? im not sure but that would be amazing
 
shankly1985 said:
You read me wrong mate, 4 cores is the mainstream for PC gaming, we have countless core i5 and i7 on the market..
Game devs have recently started to make i7 the recommended chip..

What I saying is even intels high end 8 core CPU gets beaten by there own 4 core CPU i7 7770k and the reason is game engines and devs are not yet taking advantage of the bigger CPU core count why would they.
Until now we have 8 core CPU's that are at a price range that hopefully Devs start to build games upon only then will we start to see true performance Ryzen can bring in gaming.

It's the dual core era all over again.
Click to expand...
+1
While 6 and 8 core cpu's were such a small market for game devs there was never going to be a major push to make sure games used all the cores. Hopefully now that will indeed change
 
HangTime said:
Whilst I agree that >4 cores is not mainstream I don't think what you have said explains it completely, because Ryzen currently doesn't seem to be able to match cheaper Intel cpus in gaming, never mind the more expensive ones. An overclocked 1700 would be a lot more appealing if it could consistently beat an overclocked 7600K but that doesn't seem to be the case right now.
Click to expand...

Quite often a 7600k beats a 7700k.
 
AMD have stated themselves that they didn't expect these to be great gaming chips so I'm not sure what all the fuss is about bar disappointment following the hype.
 
The reason 7700K beats Intel's enthusiast line is mainly because it's clocked 800Mhz-1Ghz higher and is a couple of generations newer. It's hard to say at this point why Ryzen with its higher clocks is struggling so much.

It's true though that quad core is basically all you need for gaming, most games today are console ports and the consoles use a processor that's about powerful as a PC dual core, so even if the games are highly threaded a quad core can manage the workload fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom