OcUK Ryzen 2000 series review thread

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Ryzen 5 2600X and Ryzen 7 2700X

https://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/116834-amd-ryzen-7-2700x-ryzen-5-2600x/
https://techreport.com/review/33531/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-and-ryzen-5-2600x-cpus-reviewed
https://www.sweclockers.com/test/25500-amd-ryzen-7-2700x-och-ryzen-5-2600x-pinnacle-ridge/1#content
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Ryzen-7-2700X-and-Ryzen-5-2600X-Review-Zen-Matures
https://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-2nd-generation-ryzen-processors-and-x470-chipset-review
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Ryzen...2600X-Review-Benchmark-Release-Preis-1254720/
https://www.hardware.fr/articles/974-1/amd-ryzen-2700x-2600x-memes-plus-petit.html
https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8602/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-5-2600x-review/index.html
https://www.techspot.com/review/1613-amd-ryzen-2700x-2600x/
https://www.bit-tech.net/reviews/tech/cpus/amd-2nd-gen-ryzen-7-2700x-and-ryzen-5-2600x-review/8/
https://overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_ryzen_5_2600x_and_ryzen_7_2700x_review/1
https://techreport.com/review/33568/gaming-and-streaming-with-amd-second-gen-ryzen-cpus

Ryzen 5 2600,2600X and Ryzen 7 2700,2700X

https://www.anandtech.com/show/12625/amd-second-generation-ryzen-7-2700x-2700-ryzen-5-2600x-2600
https://www.computerbase.de/2018-04/amd-ryzen-2000-test/

Ryzen 5 2600,2600X and Ryzen 7 2700,2700X PUBG,Fortnite and WoW tests

https://www.computerbase.de/2018-04...pubg-overwatch/2/#diagramm-fortnite-1920-1080

Ryzen 7 2700X

https://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_2700x_review,1.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700X/
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2018/04/19/amd_2nd_gen_ryzen_2_2700x_zen_cpu_review
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review,1.html
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review,5571.html

Ryzen 2700 and 2700X

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwrevie...x-review-game-streaming-cpu-benchmarks-memory

Ryzen 5 2600 and Ryzen 7 2700

https://overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_ryzen_5_2600_and_ryzen_7_2700_review

Ryzen 7 2600X

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_2600X/

Ryzen 7 2700X Linux

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ryzen-2600x-2700x&num=1

RAM Scaling

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwrevie...-review-game-streaming-cpu-benchmarks-memoryz

Video reviews

Linus Tech Tips

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=petB-pNCudc

Paul's Hardware

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9opZLroo4Yc

Tech YES City

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0rdnxxREm8

OC3D TV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVTWOPp9yTE

Gamers Nexus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A2yatfyLoo

HardwareCanucks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKN20V5xXV0

der8auer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogYess5WelY

Hardware Unboxed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOOohlyJem0

OzTalksHW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuiDBCPZngc

Testing Games

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr2B0RJd7Nc&

Science Studio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ernWiKkwe1M

KitGuruTech

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G__okVTLb2E

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The TechReport also have applied all the fixes:

https://techreport.com/review/33531/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-and-ryzen-5-2600x-cpus-reviewed

However,they have not finished the game tests yet it seems.

Those patches would reduce gaming performance by no more than few%, maybe 2-3 not 30%. Sad that this will be last time I've visited anandtech and they used to be pretty good. Truly pathetic.

Actually it depends on the games - for instance DigitalFoundry saw some games dip as much as 10% and they tended to be openworld games,which tended to stream data at a constant rate off their drive.

I run a modded FO4 playthrough on an IB CPU,and the patches make performance more choppier(less when switched off) as the game tends to stream data off the SSD.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Yeah, just productivity tests. but looking excellent on that front as well.

Look at the audio benchmarks - a big improvement there!

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I'm liking the poor hopefulls who really believe amd improved performance by 20% over zen1 Haha


Sensible comment on anadtech failure review:

"Tropicocity:

My main gripe with people saying "other reviewers didn't use the meltdown/spectre" patches and stuff...

1. Those patches have already been tested and they do NOT affect gaming much at all, we're talking lower than 1% !

2. Even if you take out the entire meltdown/spectre thing, look at ryzen 1800x vs 2700x. a 3% IPC increase and some memory latency improvements do NOT account for 20% increased performance in gaming, not at a 200mhz clock change.

3. Even if Ryzen 2 series DID somehow gain 20% on Ryzen 1...why do other websites not show this? They all show at most 10%. Completely remove intel from the situation and you still have glaringly large performance jumps from Ryzen 1 to 2, this is what sticks out the most here."

Dude seriously,they do depending on the game - look at the DF video. Some games showed no decrease but some did.

In games like W3 and ROTTR,peformance of CPUs like the Core i5 8400 dropped by nearly 5% to 10% after the last set of patches:

https://i.imgur.com/UwffANG.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/Hh5Rp1L.jpg

DF does their own custom run-throughs. In other games the patches made ZERO difference.

Here is one of the worst games for Ryzen,ie,Fallout 4:

https://cdn.sweclockers.com/artikel/diagram/14687?key=09ecc77da6d620128ae74cbb1b51940b
https://cdn.sweclockers.com/artikel/diagram/12689?key=3d59d063582dc8af5546a26671e89ceb

Yes,you read that right - a Ryzen 7 1800X was equal to a Core i7 3770K in the game.

Minimums are up around 14% to 16% depending on the SKU.

Plus,games are sensitive to not only IPC,but things like latency and clockspeed where Ryzen 2000 has improved.

Remember,some websites are also testing at stock RAM settings,ie,2666MHZ for Intel and 2933MHZ for AMD which AT has done. Both are the officially max supported memory clockspeeds.

Once you overclock the Core i7 8700K,with some fast RAM it probably will push ahead again.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Well the only RL impact I have seen on any games is open world ones or modded ones,where they really push SSD access,and I noticed it with my modded FO4 playthrough,which has hastened my need to upgrade now. Intel still is better in the game,but my main concern is if I/O is hit,I might have issues. So not sure what to do.

However,for a number of other games I didn't notice any impact TBH.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Its my dilemma with FO4 - it runs better on Intel,but meltdown/spectre has manifested itself in more stutter especially with mods. So the question is do I go for Intel but potential have more I/O issues,or go with AMD and have less issues on that front,but worse CPU scaling which has other effects. Not sure if I should wait another year for Ryzen 3 or the CFL successor which hopefully should be fixed hardware.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

so I am not the only one to notice stutters with meltdown.

Sadly nope!

Like I said I am stuck now. I could just play other games which seem fine,but ATM FO4 is my main game,so its all rather annoying as is the stupid memory pricing.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It seems not only Anandtech and The TechReport ran the patches,but Toms Hardware also has,but not fully:
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review,5571-7.html

Spectre And Meltdown

Our test rigs now include Meltdown And Spectre Variant 1 mitigations. Spectre Variant 2 requires both motherboard firmware/microcode and operating system patches. We have installed the operating system patches for Variant 2.

Today's performance measurements do not include Intel's motherboard firmware mitigations for Spectre Variant 2 though, as we've been waiting for AMD patches to level the playing field. Last week, AMD announced that it’s making the mitigations available to motherboard vendors and OEMs, which the company says should take time to appear in the wild. We checked MSI's website for firmware updates applicable to our X370 platforms when AMD made its announcement, but no new BIOSes were available (and still aren't).

Unfortunately, we were only made aware that Variant 2 mitigations are present in our X470 board's firmware just before launch, precluding us from re-testing the Intel platforms with patches applied. We're working on this now, and plan to post updated results in future reviews.

The lack of Spectre Variant 2 patches in our Intel results likely give the Core CPUs a slight advantage over AMD's patched platforms. But the performance difference should be minimal with modern processors.

The TH review also places the latest Ryzen CPUs relatively close to the Intel ones.

AMD X470 motherboards seem to be shipping with the full Spectre patches unlike the Intel ones.

Also,looking at the tweets regarding AT,its quite possible some reviews have not enabled Precision Boost 2 properly due to the way its presented in the BIOS options:

https://twitter.com/IanCutress/status/987026323544649729

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Looking at the cache latency improvements,they seem significant:

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review,5571-3.html

If you check some of the clock for clock improvements in games,it seems more than the 3% AMD touted,and the rest is probably down to the cache latency improvements I suspect.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

you can do what I did and just uninstall the patch, there is no known meltdown malware in the wild and several other ways to mitigate risk.

Apparently the InSpectre tool can disable it in Windows.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

If you're going off popularity, sites should bench pubg, fortnite, cs, dota2/lol, overwatch then maybe a few more titles of various genre such as TW3, PC2 etc. It's not really an issue though with so many review available.

Yeah,a lot of them have been covered in the reviews in the OP. Just seen this one,which did some Apples to Apples testing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr2B0RJd7Nc

Not seen any PUBG or Fornite testing yet though.

it can but my testing on my laptop didnt show a performance gain.

The 8 sec lag I had loading task manager stayed when I disabled meltdown mitigation (but kept patch installed. It then vanished when I uninstalled the patch.

However I havent tested if just disabling improves my desktop FF15 stutters.

This whole Spectre/Meltdown saga has been all rather an annoying affair.

Do you have a link for that please? Did a quick google but not conclusive. Thanks

https://www.grc.com/inspectre.htm

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The OP has been updated with some more video reviews.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I really love the lower CPU utilisation on Ryzen during this vid, shows just how much more headroom it has for longevity

Well I am more interested by the FO4 results,ie,the run they make around Swan's Pond which is in one of the more built up areas of the map. The Sweclockers test is in Diamond City which is more a hub area,but this is more in a dense part of the map. The same channel tested the Ryzen 7 1800X and it was definitely much slower. OTH,even with the Core i7 8700K at 4.4GHZ and the Ryzen 7 2700X at 4.2GHZ,the AMD CPU is quite close. Since the game does not use more than six threads,the Ryzen 5 2600/2600X should be close. I am going to wait and see when the channel compares the Ryzen 5 2600/2600X with the Core i5 8400,and when some more reviews with the game appears to see if the performance improvements hold true(or not).

Science studio guy on YT had both.

Thanks for that - I will add it to the OP.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Fascinated to know whose screwup is being highlighted with anandtechs gaming results.

Has no bearing on the product but a disagreement on testing and therefore results will encourage people to be more vigilant when we find out why.

I think I figured it out:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/12625/amd-second-generation-ryzen-7-2700x-2700-ryzen-5-2600x-2600
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1185...-lake-review-8700k-and-8400-initial-numbers/5

AT didn't use high end cooling on the Intel parts,but this rack mount CPU cooler probably to simulate a stock cooler instead of high end cooling:

http://www.silverstonetek.com/product.php?area=en&pid=652

It was also used in their Core i7 8700K review.They used the stock AMD coolers for the Ryzen 2000 series.

A number of reviews which tested the Ryzen 2000 series like computerbase.de also did use the AMD stock cooler,but used massive Noctua coolers for the Intel chips.

I just watched this vid. I consider it flawed tho.

How many people go out and buy an 8700k and then run it at 4.4ghz? After you considered the answer to that question how reasonable do you think that testing methodology was? This is ignoring the choice of games which are all very pro core heavy games to boot.

Wouldnt it be great if there was a rule where every reviewer had to test 10 games, but no reviewer was allowed to test the same game as another so if e.g. 10 reviewers 100 different games get tested instead of 10 reviewers testing the same 6-7 games 10 times each. With only a few variances.

I think the clock speed is going to cause differing opinions.

Some will say its fair to test in spec performance.
Others like me will say you dont buy a K series chip to run it in spec and it should be run in a common configuration, perhaps at a clock speed that the poor binned chips run at say 4.8ghz.

Its running its native Turbo AFAIK and he does proper time-runs. So it boosts to 4.4GHZ,out of the box.

For me what is more significant is they tested the Ryzen 7 1800X and it fell behind the Core i7 8700K. However,with the Ryzen 7 2700X its very close around Swan's Pond which is in one of the more denser parts of the map,and its not a smallish hub area like Diamond City.

You can see the GTX1080 is being held back on both CPUs,which sounds about right as you move into the city.

OFC,I am going to wait for more Fallout 4 testing,but I really want to see the Core i5 8400 against the Ryzen 5 2600/2600X in the game,as I doubt the Ryzen 7 2700X is realistically going to add much to it.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

All the games in that list will load up 8 cores. A 8 core loading game = thread heavy.

There is not a single JRPG, not a single indie game.

Wait,wut?? ARMA III has a crap ancient engine which shows very poor thread scaling but is very popular. FarCry5 shows crap scaling over 4 threads due to its use of the Dunia engine,and is very popular too and loves clockspeed. Look on Steam. Both top 20 games.

Creation uses one primary thread,followed by one which is less used,and then shows crappy scaling to a further 4 threads,because Bethesda somehow forced the engine to do so,which is an improvement over Skyrim. Its based on the Gamebryo engine used in Morrowind in 2002.

Saw how your Core i5 8600K and a Core i7 7700K matched the Core i7 8700K?? That tells you how well threaded it is.

Its the same engine used in Skyrim FFS. Also Steam top 20 game - plus this is a game with 24000 mods,and one of the biggest modding communities in the gaming world with nearly 400 million downloads of mods. Only Skyrim is more.

Anyone who plays the game,can literally see that if you look at CPU usage when the engine gets strained especially in settlements,and especially with mods. One thread moves closer to 100%,then next one gets closer to 80% and the few others show much lower usage.

Lots of so called reviews,test the game in stupid areas,not the intense ones,so get totally unrealistic results. Most FO4 testing by sites is BS level. Lets walk in the countryside - yeah what a pointless test.

This is measured by NPC concentrations - the higher the NPC concentrations,the crapper the performance gets.

Move into the city= more NPCs=worse performance.

Not as bad as settlements,which if you build up are even worse,as it starts to affect the whole cell.

Then add on top,all the logic you can build in settlements,then mods on top. Aghhh.

It on top of that loves high speed RAM and loves SSDs.



Over a 1000 hours of Fallout 4 and Skyrim,I don't need any review to tell me how crap the engine is. Its a money sink.

My modded FO4 game at qHD is more taxing than ARK:Survival Evolved.

If that game used 8 threads well,I wouldn't be sitting here wanting a CPU upgrade. That game and PS2 are the only games I see a realworld bottleneck,which has been exacerbated by the security patches.

If the Fallout 4 results are confirmed by other reviews on YT,etc over the next month or so then it makes Ryzen 2 an option for me instead of just Intel. I was moaning at Fallout 4 performance on Ryzen 1 since it launched.

Every single other one,I have no issue running including massively popular games like Overwatch,HOTS,DOTA2,D3,TF2,etc.

I know its running in stock turbo, but thats not a way to test a chip sold for the purpose of running overclocked past that and that is a "key" selling point of that chip.

Its like racing in a ferrari with 2 cylinders off to make it easier for the opponent.

Are you talking about the testing games review or the AT one?? I was talking about the testing games one,not the AT one when I replied.

The Core i7 8700K was running at 4.4GHZ and the Ryzen 7 2700 at 4.2GHZ IIRC,with 3200MHZ RAM in both cases.

Now,moving onto the AT review.

Regarding the cooling,I think reviews should test a cheaper cooler and an expensive one,on all CPUs.

Plenty of people will probably buy a K series CPU for its high Turbo speeds,not for overclocking since they CBA(like most of my mates and me included),since its not worth the effort for a few 100MHZ(delidding,and stability testing,etc).

So they might just plonk a £25 to £30 cooler on it like a Hyper 212,and testing that and a more expensive one to see the difference is useful.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Is this true?

I've never seen them in any other benchmarks so close.

I posted it earlier on here,since I was looking for Fallout 4 results on Youtube and I have them in my subs list(and forgot about them). The Ryzen 7 2700X is at 4.2GHZ and,the Core i7 8700K is configured to run at its peak all cores Turbo,ie, 4.4GHZ it seems.

Basically they are both configured at slightly above their all core Turbo boost speeds.

Also,remember the syncing is not perfect - in Arma III,Intel is ahead as expected by over 10FPS to 15FPS IIRC(and is the biggest percentage win for Intel as expected),and in the racing game,Intel is above 300FPS all the time and AMD dips under 300FPS for brief periods. Intel is a few FPS ahead in GTA V and Assassins Creed:Origin which threads well they are close,in FC5,Intel is ahead by upto 10FPS,in Hitman there are brief spells when Intel is 5 to 10FPS ahead,in BF1 Intel is briefly over 10 FPS faster in some areas and so on. If you look at their Core i7 8700K and Ryzen 7 1800X comparisons the Core i7 8700K has a much bigger margin of victory overall. Remember the benchmarks are not scripted ones but run throughs which you and I could also do - most of the review sites don't bother showing what they are testing.

Anyway,as with any of these reviews,use it as one of many data points to get a rough impression of things. Its why I have put as many reviews into the OP as I can!!

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

One thing i did notice was that after the BIOS microcode security update, the single thread result didnt change, but the multithread result dropped by up to 25 points.

I'm no review expert, but i think all patches need to be installed before any reviews take place, and all these 8700K at over 5.0Ghz clocks are just annoying to me.. most people wont even overclock.

What I would like is the stock benchmarks to be run with a cheaper cooler and the more typical higher end one too,on both platforms.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

All the games in that list will load up 8 cores. A 8 core loading game = thread heavy. GTA5, project cars, FC5 and BF1 have actually been tested on 24 core parts and loaded up all 24 cores.

There is not a single JRPG, not a single indie game.

You cannot use logical cores to determine how well something is threaded. Sadly a lot of people have been conned by HTT, thinking games will use it, most games will not.

DF has made comparisons:

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-intel-kaby-lake-core-i7-7700k-review

Some games where the Core i7 and Core i5 are at the same clockspeeds,and the Core i7 is slightly ahead might be down to the cache,but in the other situations where its a much larger difference it isn't.

I doubt its always down to cache only as IIRC,in the past its been shown to not always really have as much of an impact in all games:

https://wccftech.com/intel-amd-l3-cache-gaming-benchmarks/

Look at the difference between 6MB and 8MB L3 cache. If you look at the thread utilisation of the games where the Core i7 is pushing ahead a great deal,ie,you see all 8 threads being used.

Another example is the Haswell based 2C/2T Pentium G3258 against the equivalent 2C/4T Haswell Core i3 CPUs running at lower clockspeed:

https://pclab.pl/art57691-3.html

The Core i3 4100 series had the same amount of L3 cache.Look at how a 4.7GHZ G3258 does against a 3.5GHZ Core i3 4150.

Remember,review systems are most likely clean OS installs,not like a normal gaming rig,which probably has a whole lot of other stuff like AV,etc running too.

The reason why those games are gaining with HT is probably more down to those games being probably developed partly with consoles in mind too,and those have 8 weak cores,so its probably more a balancing issue.

So HT does seem to help out in some games - sure actual cores will be more useful than HT in those games,where it does help,but I do think a CPU with 6 to 12 reasonably fast threads is what I would be targeting in a new system build if you want the CPU to last for the next few years,especially if you are getting a reasonably fast graphics card.

Sure,a 2C/4T or 4C/4T CPUs still have their place,but really for more budget systems IMHO. Considering 6C/6T and 6C/12T CPUs are now going as low as £140 to £150,its not really even the case you are saving much money going for a 4C/4T CPU now.

The main issue why less people bought Core i7 CPUs was because the Intel HT tax was ridiculous,and they even blocked the cheapo Xeon E3 CPUs on consumer motherboards from Skylake onwards where you could get a locked 4C/8T CPU for as little as £170ish.

However,thats the thing the 4C/4T Xeon E3 CPUs also had 8MB cache like their 4C/8T counterparts. I used a few.

So e.g.

if Game A seems to hit a performance bottleneck so say a 6600k matches a 7700k so 4c/4t matching 4c/8t people have assumed its limited by 4 threads right?
Then suddenly you pop in a 6 core chip and its faster, whats going on? The answer is there is now 2 extra real cores so there is more actual threads to utilise. Which is why we see performance jumps from 6600k/7600k to 8600k/8700k..

Its been claimed as another example arma3 and fc5 are capped to 4 threads, this assumption is probably because people are running 4c/8t chips, but both games can utilise way more than 4 cores.

You need "real" not "logical" cores.

Now in some data we see chips like a 7700k outperform a 7600k or a 8700k outperform a 8600k, what is happening here then?

Sadly these graphs often dont show the clock speeds, but i7's have higher stock clocks than i5's they also also have a larger cache. It may be even if the chips are overclocked that the tester managed to get a higher overclock on their i7 vs i5, or it could simply be that logical threads are helping, logical threads can help in some games but if it does its only a small amount.

Of all the games I have analysed, I have never seen a game that only utilises max 4 threads, usually its 1 thread for everything, or 1 thread for rendering and a 2nd thread for everything else, or a really high thread limit. I have tested games on 20 core chips.

Wut?? Gamebryo engine is developed in the 1990s,and Creation is a branch of it - its never been well threaded,and it shows your lack of knowledge of Bethesda game,saying its well threaded.

I actually have played 1000+ hours of Fallout 4,Skyrim,etc on multiple types of processors,have loads of friends who played it on loads of CPUs,and anyone who has played it would now how badly it scales with threads. Its primarily limited by one to two threads,and always has,and more over yes ARMA III does not scale well with more cores.

These are all based on old engines.

Here,lets look at ARMA III:

https://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/mbrzostek/2017/cfl_s/wykresy/nv_arma3.png
https://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/radek/2014/pentium_g3258/charts/arma3_1920n.png
https://www.hardware.fr/getgraphimg.php?id=223&n=14
https://i.embed.ly/1/image?url=https://i.imgur.com/MSi4Imj.jpg?fb&key=522baf40bd3911e08d854040d3dc5c07

None of that supports what you are saying. None of the 6C and 8C HEDT CPUs show any scaling.

Look at FO4:

https://i.imgur.com/6KXlHIV.png
https://cdn.sweclockers.com/artikel/diagram/14241?key=349d9720f637f7bc86523c9db8088f78
https://cdn.sweclockers.com/artikel/diagram/13584?key=f5badbfb7e350a00a625439c44b8eab8

Diamond City is an NPC rich area. It scales to 8 cores - no it doesn't.

Look at the HEDT CPUs.

Go and play the game and start building settlements,and going into NPC rich areas,and look how it works.

Its primarily limited by two cores,and has more limited scaling upto 4 more threads.

Most of the FO4 game testing is not intensive,and any one who actually has played the game,would know settlements,etc where there are large NPC concentrations,etc are what bogs down performance.

This can be easily tested by using the console to spawn in more and more NPCs,and then you see what your CPU usage profile is like.

Don't go onto any forum where people play the game,mod,etc and start trying to say it scales to 8 cores - that includes modders who know the engine much better than most people.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

cat the fifth engines can be modified and updated, and also a game doesnt necessarily just use the engine alone in its raw format without any additional coding on top.

Skyrim hasnt been tested on any of these sites for ryzen 2.
Fallout 4 likewise

The problem as I said repeatedly a lot of testing is BS in the game,it needs to be tested in settlements and areas of the city with large NPC concentrations. The testing games one,was better than average,but there are more taxing areas like near court 35,etc,but is still better than some of the meh testing I have seen elsewhere. I would say that Ryzen 5 2600X,with HT disabled and similar clockspeeds to the Ryzen 7 2700X will probably show a similar result.

It seems most of the people testing FO4 are clueless about the game,and its bottlenecks. Only HardOCP tested the game in settlements.

I have had a few years to explore performance myself,and in mates rigs,and read as much as I can as possible as I could. I know where it bogs down,when its unmodded,modded,etc as its easy to do experiments using the console. Bethesda Game Studios(not Bethesda the publisher)has a history of not bothering updating games post launch in any meaningful way when it comes to hardware.

The only time I can remember in recent history was with the original Skyrim in 2011. It used X87 based instructions(in 2011),which meant worse performance than the SSE type which Intel/AMD said people should use and had meh CPU performance. The community had to step in and sort it out themselves,and eventually like a year or so later,I think out of shear embarrassment fixed it.

The games are fun,but the community really is what saves the day for them.

I don't want people to think an 8C CPU is useful for it,since it really does not scale. Like I said it really only scales to six threads,and needs two strongish threads,and decent memory bandwidth(its one of the few games which seems to scale well with silly speed RAM).

Those two threads can be whacked the most especially with large amount of NPC spawns,etc,such they become the limiting factor,and if you mod it,things can get worse.

Starfield apparently will use the last hurrah of the engine and if that scales well and evenly across 8 cores I will do a victory dance and probably hug anyone in the vicinity!

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Yeah if my system packed up I think I'd get an R5 2600X and some nice fast RAM and see what I can get out it with no overclocking. 8 cores would be great but in all honesty it might be better to wait until Zen 2 for that considering I don't use my PC for much intensive stuff these days.

Even the Ryzen 5 2600 might be enough. The Computerbase.de review puts the Ryzen 5 2600X as only 2% slower in games!