-
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.
OcUK Ryzen APU review thread
- Thread starter CAT-THE-FIFTH
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 8,261
- Location
- Cornwall
thanks for letting us know...Words fail me
thanks for letting us know...
He's got a point.
The best ever IGP is on a budget/mainstream chip (which has been brute forced into becoming quad cores) and can do 1080p on low graphics while using 65W.
No one else is making an effort to push out a competent all-round chip and it's still at a budget/mainstream price.
So if you say you expected more... it sounds as if you're from another planet.
AMD will provide a Boot Kit Solution if your motherboard needs a BIOS update for 2nd Generation Ryzen processors
https://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/Pages/2Gen-Ryzen-AM4-System-Bootup.aspx
https://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/Pages/2Gen-Ryzen-AM4-System-Bootup.aspx
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 8,261
- Location
- Cornwall
I'm not saying it's bad, I was just hoping it might be able to game at 1080p.
In the graphics card sub-forum the hype around Vega was huge (interestingly in these threads they also say that nobody cares about power usage), so I was hoping we might see 1080p gaming. It's also why I asked about how much difference DDR4 would make over HBM2 as HBM2 was also hyped quite a lot. Even decent DDR4 is going to be worse than GDDR5/GDR5X isn't it?
Is 65W a limiting factor? Could they have made a 95W chip to give it extra grunt (even if this meant including the Wraith Spire cooler instead)?
Does the 4MB of L3 cache make much of a difference? If i recall, the main difference (other than default clockspeed) between the 1400 and 1500X was that the 1400 had 8MB of L3 cache while the 1500X had 16MB. I believe there were some concerns then about the impact of the lack of cache? Or am I confusing cache levels?
For now I think I'll stick with my Ryzen 5 1400 and GTX 980 combo for my LAN gaming PC. it'd be nice if one day soon-ish I could just use an APU for that.
Oh hang on Googlay....
Overwatch: 1080P 60 to 80 FPS
https://youtu.be/7gSrGlax2JM?t=8m30s
-------
Fortnite: 1080P 60 to 90 FPS.
https://youtu.be/T9WiseBU9sI?t=6m29s
------
Call of Duty WWII: 1080P 50 to 80 FPS
https://youtu.be/Rp8o48LVZyo?t=8m27s
-------
Battlefield 1: 1080P 40 to 60 FPS
https://youtu.be/K0cxIRp8Q0g?t=7m25s
-------
Quake Champions: 1080P 70 to 90 FPS
https://youtu.be/lhbKfBgOKlA?t=3m1s
-------
PUPG: 1080P 35 to 50 FPS
https://youtu.be/_NuZG5_sdsU?t=6m39s
-------
Assassin’s Creed Origins: 1080P 25 FPS
https://youtu.be/omR9FGTSpLI?t=7m25s
-------
7 games and 5 of them 60Hz+ @ 1080P, only one unplayable.
All E-Sports type games run 1080P 60Hz easily, they also do on the £90 2200G, they really do performance like GT 1030 discrete GPU's or better, those are £65 GPUs on their own.
Last edited:
E-Sports games are often undemanding but yes, there are definitely a number of games that will play comfortably on these chips at 1080p.
Just to be clear, are all of those benchmarks at 1:1 scaling? I know the fact that lots of games now feature their own weird resolution scaling muddies the waters somewhat. I'm not even sure why they bother, unless it's to prevent the OS from having to change resolutions when alt-tabbing or something?
Just to be clear, are all of those benchmarks at 1:1 scaling? I know the fact that lots of games now feature their own weird resolution scaling muddies the waters somewhat. I'm not even sure why they bother, unless it's to prevent the OS from having to change resolutions when alt-tabbing or something?
Yes, i'm aware of this
click on the links, they include graphics settings with resolution scaling.Edit: Other than Overwhatch, he spent a lot of time mincing so i didn't include it, go back to 6m 5sec to see the graphics settings.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 8,261
- Location
- Cornwall
I was looking at the benchmarks in these reviews:
They seem to tell a different story.
From those links Toms hardware:
Civilization VI: Meduim Setting 1080P (52 FPS)
Dota 2: Meduim Setting 1080P (63 FPS)
Far Cry Primal: Low Settings 1080P (36 FPS)
Grand Theft Auto V: Settings Low 1080P (75 FPS)
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt: Settings Low 1080P (30 FPS)
So 1 in 5 there not playable at 1080
-------------------
Techpower up: All 1080P Low
DeusX: 30 FPS
Dishonored: 30 FPS
F1: 69 FPS
HellBlade: 33 FPS
Hitman: 30 FPS
Prey: 48 FPS
Rainbow 6: 75 FPS
Ryse of the Tomb Raider: 38 FPS
Sniper 4: 34 FPS
The Witcher 3: 28 FPS
More mixed bag there, 6 in 10 not playable at 1080P.
------------------
Guru 3D all 1080P Medium Settings
Dota 2: 59 FPS
GTA-V: 76 FPS
F1: 47 FPS
Deus EX: 22 FPS
Middle earth: 26 FPS
Ryse of the Tomb Raider: 29 FPS
3 out of 6 but using higher settings.
----------------
Civilization VI: Meduim Setting 1080P (52 FPS)
Dota 2: Meduim Setting 1080P (63 FPS)
Far Cry Primal: Low Settings 1080P (36 FPS)
Grand Theft Auto V: Settings Low 1080P (75 FPS)
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt: Settings Low 1080P (30 FPS)
So 1 in 5 there not playable at 1080
-------------------
Techpower up: All 1080P Low
DeusX: 30 FPS
Dishonored: 30 FPS
F1: 69 FPS
HellBlade: 33 FPS
Hitman: 30 FPS
Prey: 48 FPS
Rainbow 6: 75 FPS
Ryse of the Tomb Raider: 38 FPS
Sniper 4: 34 FPS
The Witcher 3: 28 FPS
More mixed bag there, 6 in 10 not playable at 1080P.
------------------
Guru 3D all 1080P Medium Settings
Dota 2: 59 FPS
GTA-V: 76 FPS
F1: 47 FPS
Deus EX: 22 FPS
Middle earth: 26 FPS
Ryse of the Tomb Raider: 29 FPS
3 out of 6 but using higher settings.
----------------
I'm not going to list them all, that's a good slice and using low settings most games are playbale at 1080P, some even much over 60Hz.
I don't see what the problem is, take for example E-Sports games, very popular and as far as i can tell the performance is all those game at 1080P is actually very good, even some AAA titles like BF1, COD WWII, GTA-V... are very playable at 1080P.
They cost much less than an equivalent CPU + GPU, you put HBM on them yes you will increase their performance but also double the price, HBM in case you haven't noticed is not cheap, the whole point of these things is very affordable E-Sports Boxes, for that they are perfect, the best thing since sliced bread.
They are just right as they are because more than they are will make them much more expensive.
Last edited:
They do tell a different story. But they do not disagree where they cross on the same story.
Humbug said they're doing fine on esports games at 1080p. We go through the reviews and find the esports games which are obviously not all the games reviewed.
TomsHardware
DotA2: medium 1080p: 63.4fps
TechPowerUp
Rainbow Six Siege: low 1080p: 74.9fps
Guru3D
DotA2: medium 1080p: 59fps
ExtremeTech
Doesn't review any esport games
PcGamesN
Doesn't review any esports games
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 8,261
- Location
- Cornwall
Why did we suddenly limit this to e-sports games?
I didn't mention e-sports, I just said "game".
And generally for e-sports don't you want 120 or 144fps or higher?
As for the numbers Humbug listed.
For Tom's hardware I'd say 2 out of 5 are not playable.
For Techpower up I'd say 7 out of 10.
but we can have different opinions, that's fine.
The chip seems decent, but I was hoping for a little more.
To be fair I was hoping for more from CoffeeLake, Ryzen and Vega too.
I didn't mention e-sports, I just said "game".
And generally for e-sports don't you want 120 or 144fps or higher?
As for the numbers Humbug listed.
For Tom's hardware I'd say 2 out of 5 are not playable.
For Techpower up I'd say 7 out of 10.
but we can have different opinions, that's fine.
The chip seems decent, but I was hoping for a little more.
To be fair I was hoping for more from CoffeeLake, Ryzen and Vega too.
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,341
- Location
- Planet Earth
I am a bit peeved with that - its quite obvious to AMD there are plenty of motherboards which don't work with it since,so I don't simply understand why they didn't ship the kit to retailers,so you could buy one for a nominal fee if you needed it.
They only mentioned it after launch when people had issues,and the problem is looking at the compatibility list won't tell you whether a board at a retailer works or not.
I honestly feel AMD needs to do something about this - its the second consumer launch where there are motherboard problems and despite the AGESA update being available in November and most likely ES RR CPUs for months before that due to RR mobile,their own partners CBA.
It reflects bad on AMD.
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,341
- Location
- Planet Earth
Probably a kibbled BR CPU. I honestly can't believe AMD made such a great APU,and now compatability is a mindfield. There really seems to be a big issue between them and their board partners. RR came out in October for laptops,so including the ramping up of production,ES should have been there for the better part of six months.
I naively thought that most boards should boot fine,at least enough to get a BIOS update but there is no guarentee of that.
Asus did some updates in December,but the rest of them seemed to have released updates only recently:
https://www.kitguru.net/components/...-raven-ridge-apu-support-to-am4-motherboards/
ATM,I am trying to make a list to see what boards should work out of the box,even for basic BIOS updating. If people have to order a £45 BR CPU,or wait an unknown amount of time,its really not a good thing.
Potential old BIOS issues is what put me off being a early adopter. I don't have any other AM4 CPUs or access to any. Probably best to wait a couple of months while they get the bugs out. At least AMD have jumped on it within a couple of days.
I'm guessing BR is whatever the previous AM4 APU was, based on the old pre-Ryzen designs?
I'm guessing BR is whatever the previous AM4 APU was, based on the old pre-Ryzen designs?
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,341
- Location
- Planet Earth
Yeah,but it worrys me as people wait longer,it means Intel will eventually launch more budget CFL CPUs,the lower end boards and Nvidia might even try and respond in some way.
This is a great APU,especially in the Ryzen 3 2200G,so just seems a bit annoying TBH.
Edit!!
I am trying to scout what boards work out of the box,so hopefully over the next week I can find some.
Gigabyte AB350M Gaming 3 with the F10 BIOS seems to work.
Perhaps an obvious statement, but I would bet a call to Overclockers would confirm very quickly which of their boards are APU ready. I am in New Zealand so use a retailer here - and they had three boards that they knew would work. It was 10 bucks more than going with the Prime, which would have been my preference - but it did mean i got a board that I knew would work.