did you tested your vega with the stock clocks but with the aio on?
-
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.
*** Official Ryzen Owners Thread ***
- Thread starter Frozennova
- Start date
did you tested your vega with the stock clocks but with the aio on?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
Sorry but I've forgotten what it was I posted there now.
no worries
It's still 285 on the Forest company website.
And taking huge marketshare away from Intel going by the sales charts. I wonder how many units OCUK has sold. The 2600 might be even more popular.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2006
- Posts
- 1,932
- Location
- West Mids
Morning guys, I have a Ryzen 1600 @ 3.7 - It won't go higher, I'm fine with that.
My problem is I seem to be CPU bottle-necked in my game of choice, BF1
I recently upgraded to a 144hz display, previously 60hz so CPU was never breaking a sweat.
Usage will be about 70-80% overall but I notice 1 thread sits at 100%.
The issue is, even on minecraft graphics mode, on an empty server I can't seem to break 90~fps
Am I just at this chips limit? I don't care for graphics on multiplayer games, low is my setting of choice, so never expected 144hz to be an issue.
I was looking at the 8 core ryzens, but the clock speed is the sameish, and I don't think the load will balance any better on 8 vs 6? and improve fps, least this is what google graphs are showing me.
So what are my AM4 options? is there one that can handle the 64 player maps of BF1 @ 144hz?
My problem is I seem to be CPU bottle-necked in my game of choice, BF1
I recently upgraded to a 144hz display, previously 60hz so CPU was never breaking a sweat.
Usage will be about 70-80% overall but I notice 1 thread sits at 100%.
The issue is, even on minecraft graphics mode, on an empty server I can't seem to break 90~fps
Am I just at this chips limit? I don't care for graphics on multiplayer games, low is my setting of choice, so never expected 144hz to be an issue.
I was looking at the 8 core ryzens, but the clock speed is the sameish, and I don't think the load will balance any better on 8 vs 6? and improve fps, least this is what google graphs are showing me.
So what are my AM4 options? is there one that can handle the 64 player maps of BF1 @ 144hz?
The 2700x is the best AM4 gaming cpu.
But that won't be hitting 144hz in bf1.
It's not what many in this thread will want to hear but 144hz your going to want Intel .
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2006
- Posts
- 1,932
- Location
- West Mids
Is that likely to hold true over the next 6-12 months?
Is anything due for the AM4 socket that would be an improvement over the 2700x?
Rumours are that a 2800x is coming. Unlikely to bring any clockspeed gains but will have 10 cores.
Hang on a minute, your on a gen1 Ryzen, gen2 Ryzen with PBO etc can hit 4.3+ GHz where as your gen1 your lucky to get over 3.9..
Bit saying this automatically means you will get 144fps but it does mean your FPS will be better.
Check out benchmarks for 2600x or 2700x with your GPU and the game you play.
Don't just listen to people like Gavin, check his post history he is massively anti amd and hugely Intel biased.
Do some research, make a decision. It's your cash, do a little work before spending it needlessly
Bit saying this automatically means you will get 144fps but it does mean your FPS will be better.
Check out benchmarks for 2600x or 2700x with your GPU and the game you play.
Don't just listen to people like Gavin, check his post history he is massively anti amd and hugely Intel biased.
Do some research, make a decision. It's your cash, do a little work before spending it needlessly
Yes do check benchmarks and you'll see that I'm right. Ryzen wont be doing 144hz in bf1. No matter how you dress it up. No matter how Intel biased you say I am that is the truth. Especially at 1080p which I think he is running at.
Best thing is i prob have more AMD hardware than most but meh, what do I know eh?
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3009-amd-r7-1700-vs-i7-7700k-144hz-gaming
Check the bf1 results here. A good 40fps behind a 7700k. A 2700x won't provide that big of a boost.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 5,849
What GPU are you using? as you will struggle on some GPU's to get 144hz even with settings on low. Id say your CPU is not very well clocked, what cooler are you using? Intel is only better than AMD @1080p if you are using a really high grade card like a 1080ti as that needs a lot of CPU IPC to push it to the max, also is your screen g-sync or freesync? as once you hit over 100fps if your using an adaptive sync you may not notice too much difference as it will be incredibly smooth anyhow. Some people are sensitive to fps even with adaptive sync though, i am not overly sensitive to it, i can happily play at 100fps on my 1440p 144hz screen as it is stupidly smooth if im using adaptive sync.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2006
- Posts
- 1,932
- Location
- West Mids
Apologies for the miss information.
It's actually a 120hz screen (always have 144hz in my head)
3440x1440 running a 980ti (yup she is old but she is not getting pushed in the slightest on low settings, even at that res.
Indeed also G-Sync.
I was warned I would be chasing frames if I move off a 60hz screen.
It's just that the difference from 60 to 90 is phenomenal, so 90 to 120 must be pretty nice too.
So I was curious if a simple CPU swap would bump me up, as a GPU swap is going to be much more expensive and as I say, I kinda prefer low details, high frame rate.
So 980ti should be good.
I just could'nt get, why I don't hit frame cap on a empty server, bottle neck somewhere. Whilst 1 thread seems maxed always rest of them have spare usage.
It's actually a 120hz screen (always have 144hz in my head)
3440x1440 running a 980ti (yup she is old but she is not getting pushed in the slightest on low settings, even at that res.
Indeed also G-Sync.
I was warned I would be chasing frames if I move off a 60hz screen.
It's just that the difference from 60 to 90 is phenomenal, so 90 to 120 must be pretty nice too.
So I was curious if a simple CPU swap would bump me up, as a GPU swap is going to be much more expensive and as I say, I kinda prefer low details, high frame rate.
So 980ti should be good.
I just could'nt get, why I don't hit frame cap on a empty server, bottle neck somewhere. Whilst 1 thread seems maxed always rest of them have spare usage.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 895
The first gen ryzen have issues oc'ing, esp the non X. And ram speed is critical. 3200 CL14 would be ideal. BF1 shown at around 3.04 mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVnCCMI--Bo
1080Ti, though.
Ryzen 3, based on the Zen 2 core on 7nm, is due next year. The last two Ryzen launches were Q1 but I'd say H1 is a better estimate considering AMD are prioritising EPYC on 7nm. I would expect it to get much closer to Intel in terms of clock speed and probably match or exceed their IPC in a lot of situations. Gaming has always been Ryzen's biggest weakness but Ryzen 3 should hugely level the playing field. Whether you want to wait that long, it's up to you; playing at high refresh rate and low settings is pretty much Intel's raison d'etre right now.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
CPU is arguably fine, suspect the 980Ti just doesn't have the grunt at that resolution.
2600 may give a bit of an uplift but not sure its worth it. Save up, upgrade to Ryzen 3rd gen when released and a new GPU.
2600 may give a bit of an uplift but not sure its worth it. Save up, upgrade to Ryzen 3rd gen when released and a new GPU.
Well that's easy to tell: check if the GPU is running maxed out using software like MSI Afterburner.CPU is arguably fine, suspect the 980Ti just doesn't have the grunt at that resolution.
2600 may give a bit of an uplift but not sure its worth it. Save up, upgrade to Ryzen 3rd gen when released and a new GPU.
Yup just tried low settings on mine at 1440p and struggle to get less than 150fps in a 64player game @3.9 it is using over 50% of cpu so 8ish thread equiv.
Even at 4k on low settings it's 120 odd fps with 3.9 and 1080Ti so don't think cpu is much of a bottleneck here.
Try using resolution scaling in advanced options lower the percentage say 10% a time and see how you fare.
Even at 4k on low settings it's 120 odd fps with 3.9 and 1080Ti so don't think cpu is much of a bottleneck here.
Try using resolution scaling in advanced options lower the percentage say 10% a time and see how you fare.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2006
- Posts
- 1,932
- Location
- West Mids
Thanks for the info and input guys.
Mystery is solved.
BF1 was running in full-screen but windowed border-less mode. (as it was on my old monitor with no problems but 60hz is easy sauce I guess, or GSync does'nt like windowed mode?)
Changing to full screen released the beast. (silly obvious over sight)
Anyway, as you can see, 120fps hit, easily.
Can even knock the details up abit, till the 980ti hits it's cap.
Mystery is solved.
BF1 was running in full-screen but windowed border-less mode. (as it was on my old monitor with no problems but 60hz is easy sauce I guess, or GSync does'nt like windowed mode?)
Changing to full screen released the beast. (silly obvious over sight)
Anyway, as you can see, 120fps hit, easily.
Can even knock the details up abit, till the 980ti hits it's cap.