• 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.

Ryzen and Gaming results.

geordiejc

geordiejc

geordiejc

Associate
Joined
1 Nov 2013
Posts
854
Hello,

I've been looking over some Ryzen benchamarks for gaming and i don't understand whats going on tbh.

a lot of reviewers conclude that an 8c/16t is ~20% slower than its counterparts @ intel and more comparable to an i5 - can anyone explain why please as i'm genuinely interested is it a teething issue or have AMD over-sold it?
 
I think its a mixture of both, once the bios's mature, the process matures, and things in general settle down things will improve.

In reality the performance is great, i don't know what people were expecting, initially it was haswell levels of performance that over the last few weeks became a Kaby/x99 slaying beast.

Bottom line is that Intel don't make anything at this price point that can compare and that's an amazing achievement.
 
in synthetic benchmarks it seems to perform incredibly well (1800x) there does seem to be a few teething issues in genuine games which i believe AMD have addressed and will be ironed out with driver/bios updates. considering these issues, the fact its beating a £1000 intel CPU is just incredible
 
I was expecting it to perform the same as intels 6900k, but it performs the same as a haswell/Skylake i5 in gaming. which begs the question how the Ryzen 5 will perorm against the i5.

It's productivity performance is fantastic considering the cost of the Ryzen 7 CPU's but there has to be something wrong .... idk what ...
 
geordiejc said:
I was expecting it to perform the same as intels 6900k, but it performs the same as a haswell/Skylake i5 in gaming. which begs the question how the Ryzen 5 will perorm against the i5.

It's productivity performance is fantastic considering the cost of the Ryzen 7 CPU's but there has to be something wrong .... idk what ...
Click to expand...

Might be because every game in the last few years has been developed purely with Intel CPUs, which is clear from system requirements saying "AMD equivilant".
 
its a multitasking type chip id have one for doing editing and stuff but intel for gaming.the gaming results wont change much regardless.what many arent thinking about is intel also have a newer x299 platform coming so they will be even further in front soon.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
its a multitasking type chip id have one for doing editing and stuff but intel for gaming.the gaming results wont change much regardless.what many arent thinking about is intel also have a newer x299 platform coming so they will be even further in front soon.
Click to expand...

This is where it all gets interesting. I'd expect some tweaks and various updates to ryzen by this point so it will no doubt gain some ground. If the x299 platform is priced competitively with the pound strengthening, I can't see many choosing ryzen unless it's for multitasking and/or the 1600x clocks very highly.
 
TW Warhammer benchmarks are going to be off until AMD comes with a solution to the SMT scalling.

Reason is, it is the only game engine that dumps everything on the last thread of your system.
Funny enough, you can get more perf on that game even on an i7 6700K if you cut off the application from using the last thread, and use the "core" which going to be the last one.
(from windows task).
 
Jono8 said:
All reports today expect the pound to drop even further so I don't think any strengthening is on the horizon anytime soon. :(
Click to expand...

I'll have to hope they're the same reporters that predicted remain to win then. I doubt it will be cheap anyway. Decent boards hopefully around £250, but more likely £300 ish.
 
Most of the gaming results I have seen are with 2666MHz RAM for Ryzen which show lower FPS then Intel's 7700k. Saw one with Intel and Ryzen both on 3000MHz with a 1700 at 3.9GHz and the 7700k at 5GHz and the results were dead even. Lets hope board manufactures and AMD can improve on memory support and for me Ryzen will be much more attractive.
 
Well given disabling SMT improves performance, you'd have to assume it's thread priority issue.
The cinebench single core FPU performance is there, better FPU = better gaming performance.
 
I think it's a number of factors such as drivers/bios need updating and the fact it runs lower memory speeds than an intel can.

I think it will improve a bit but at present even the best Ryzen can't beat an i3 in the Doom Vulcan so it's some way behind in gaming.
 
Brazo said:
I think it's a number of factors such as drivers/bios need updating and the fact it runs lower memory speeds than an intel can.

I think it will improve a bit but at present even the best Ryzen can't beat an i3 in the Doom Vulcan so it's some way behind in gaming.
Click to expand...
Luckily I am not in a rush as have a busy 6 months so in 6 months time I am hoping everything will settle and will help me answer 7700k or Ryzen as my upgrade path.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom