Ryzen and Gaming results.

[Legend]

as to some saying but it plays everything okay or acceptable ....no ! some games are upto 20-30 fps better.thats a huge graphics card jump for eg at any resolution.

if i said to you. you want to play battlefield 1 at 150 fps or 200 you would pick the 200.even if its ten fps more if you a gamer you are going to go with the higher figure.which is intel.

I'm not seeing any evidence of that at higher resolutions, 3440x1440 and 4K, accompanied by the likes of a GTX 1080, far from it in fact. The bigger swings are at 720P (which is just stupid, who plays at that?) and 1080P. Come a certain point, bottleneck will be the GPU, not CPU, making it a more level playing field than you suggest. And that doesn't even take in to account the inevitable improvements we will see in the coming months with BIOS updates, game engine optimisation improvements etc.

 

[DragonQ]

This behaviour with SMT and HPET is just repeating and proving what everyone said ages ago. The six core used to and prolly still does shine better with HT off as would an 8 core 8 true cores with SMT off. And Nice to see Lisa @amd say HPET sucks if you buy something these days you need to make sure you get access to this option imo and only Gigabyte was offering it for a while on the latest intel chipsets and even then only through custom bios. And when i saw you could do bith on Ryzen my ears pricked i thought hmm upgrade time but alas no.

There is nothing here for me on a 4770k @ 4300 Core/Uncore and 2400mhz DDR3 1T. I am about10% faster than a stock 4790k and that is still not really being destroyed. And i got this in 2013 i think? Damm how long until i double my performance here i doubt even the next Ryzen/8800k will be that. Normally i want 70%-100% from an upgrade where my base must be taken apart. Heck this might just see out 2018?

Technically you would (at least) double performance in anything utilising all 16 threads.

Think how I feel, still using a 2009 rig with no performance issues (GPU aside). Ryzen would be a step up in every single department for me (+50% cores, at least +50% IPC, same clock speed, lower power usage) but I still feel like I don't need to upgrade yet, particularly with the gaming issues that currently exist. I really want to support AMD but how much I'll be willing to spend on an AM4 rig depends how much they charge for Vega 11.

 

[Drollic]

Its a silly argument - why should I bother getting a 8C Ryzen for gaming when I have an IB Core i7,I might as well get a faster card,right??

But only days ago, you were insulting people for saying Kabylake i7s would be better for gaming. Some stuff about core count and thread count

 

[~>Dg<~]

I'm not seeing any evidence of that at higher resolutions, 3440x1440 and 4K, accompanied by the likes of a GTX 1080, far from it in fact. The bigger swings are at 720P (which is just stupid, who plays at that?) and 1080P. Come a certain point, bottleneck will be the GPU, not CPU, making it a more level playing field than you suggest. And that doesn't even take in to account the inevitable improvements we will see in the coming months with BIOS updates, game engine optimisation improvements etc.

there wont be many changes for years now. why ? consoles are out there platform is already catered for. dont expect things to suddenly swing around.its not happening.dont buy on hopes and dreams.

 

[SiDeards73]

Look at it this way also, if 7700k gives you 200fps but with sever dips on occasion, the Ryzen chip gives you 150fps but mimimums are so much higher, your running a Freesync screen with a range of 35-144hz, which is the logical choice of chips?

In the above example say the 7700k is 200fps tops, 20fps lows and averages 150fps, and the Ryzen is 150fps tops, 80fps lows and 120fps averages.. which are you going to take if you have a Freesync screen and a Freesync gpu? obviously the Ryzen, to be fair though even if you dont have Freesync or Gysnc that Ryzen experience is a whole lot smoother overall as well.

 

[Legend]

there wont be many changes for years now. why ? consoles are out there platform is already catered for. dont expect things to suddenly swing around.its not happening.dont buy on hopes and dreams.

What do you mean by 'changes'? There are already games that support more than 4 cores. Of course, we're not suddenly going to see every new release perform better with 8, but over time more will do better, that just stands to reason. The fact Intel are going 6C for their next mainstream CPU release (Coffee Lake) suggests that much. It certainly won't happen overnight but change, as always, is inevitable.

As for changes in performance as a result of BIOS and game engine optimisation, of course there will be. Motherboards are still raw, they need updates, and on the game sides of things, devs have gotten so used to Intel, it's become the only way... given time, things will improve, even if slightly.

But that doesn't alter the main point here, and that's the resolution/GPU issue... if you're at a high res with a top end GPU pushing graphics to the limit in the latest games, your GPU will be the bottleneck, not the CPU. Under those circumstances, Ryzen makes perfect sense, especially if your PC use extends to programmes that actually do take big advantage of those extra cores.

 

[Drollic]

Look at it this way also, if 7700k gives you 200fps but with sever dips on occasion, the Ryzen chip gives you 150fps but mimimums are so much higher, your running a Freesync screen with a range of 35-144hz, which is the logical choice of chips?

In the above example say the 7700k is 200fps tops, 20fps lows and averages 150fps, and the Ryzen is 150fps tops, 80fps lows and 120fps averages.. which are you going to take if you have a Freesync screen and a Freesync gpu? obviously the Ryzen, to be fair though even if you dont have Freesync or Gysnc that Ryzen experience is a whole lot smoother overall as well.

That's a wildly exaggerated example and to my knowledge, there is no such mainstream game that would see highs, lows and averages like that.

 

[SiDeards73]

That's a wildly exaggerated example and to my knowledge, there is no such mainstream game that would see highs, lows and averages like that.

your probably correct, it was just to illustrate a point, but there is that benchmark from the "For Honor" game where the 1800x is getting like 3fps less average fps than its getting max fps.. im fairly sure there are other benchmarks out there too showing Ryzen has incredible minimums, if your on a G-Sync screen this is a non issue really as the range covers the entire panels hz i believe? if your on Freesync however this is extremely important, You have a range you need to sit between, say 35-144hz like my panel, any fps over 144hz for me is effectively a waste as i need to limit my fps to stay within that range, however minimums are extremely important, if i have a chip that has the potential to occasionally drop me below 35fps in some games, and the option of a chip that pretty much will never happen on, which chip am i going to choose?

 

[Mei]

i think its pretty clear now why benchmarks were not shown and it was very cloak and dagger.only things that were shown were to give positive light.if it would have been smashing games over intel you would have seen that before release. they played it well though.imagine if they would have shown before hand gaming benchmarks.people would have ripped them to pieces and that 5 percent drop in shares would have been 20 or 30 percent .

the chips are great value but as i said before people mainly look for the best for their money.gaming wise thats intel.

as to some saying but it plays everything okay or acceptable ....no ! some games are upto 20-30 fps better.thats a huge graphics card jump for eg at any resolution.

if i said to you. you want to play battlefield 1 at 150 fps or 200 you would pick the 200.even if its ten fps more if you a gamer you are going to go with the higher figure.which is intel.


things i would take the amd chips for gaming wise is if i recorded a lot daily or streamed.that makes sense.anyone who does that a lot will know the extra cores help.

what happens when you a gamer that wants to try some streaming & the 4core isnt enough, like me you end up having another pc just to stream it
which isnt the worst solution but its expensive if u dont just have another pc and takes up a lot more space

 

[Rofflay]

Technically you would (at least) double performance in anything utilising all 16 threads.

Think how I feel, still using a 2009 rig with no performance issues (GPU aside). Ryzen would be a step up in every single department for me (+50% cores, at least +50% IPC, same clock speed, lower power usage) but I still feel like I don't need to upgrade yet, particularly with the gaming issues that currently exist. I really want to support AMD but how much I'll be willing to spend on an AM4 rig depends how much they charge for Vega 11.

Yea but not with older games bound to less cores i would still be waiting for a big IPC jump there as only that and frequency matters most and always has in the biggest percentage of games. You are close though 50% + 50% is ok but nothing remarkable you can easily go these kinds of % gains and see nothing. My 980 > 1080 was 66% and in WoW i see practically no gains because i am cpu bound. One damm game like that can really annoy you into upgrading but like you i will just lurk and wait. AMD have to dethrone them at least once and then Intel might actually give out the 6-8 real core cpus!

 

[Safetytrousers]

Ryzen has incredible minimums, if your on a G-Sync screen this is a non issue

It is still an issue with G-Sync on. Big frame rate changes do still have a visual affect, and if you spike below 50fps you will certainly notice it.
Early reports do indicate smoother play with Ryzen, and I would certainly take that for lower max fps peaks.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I find it quite hilarious that even though a 3770k smashes all games just fine even with high end GPU (remember - intel hasn't really improved performance that much over the last 4gens) and ryzen is supposedly better than a 3770k, suddenly, everyone says how bad ryzen is in gaming because its few fps slower than a 7700k in some cases.

With or without the issues, it looks like a great CPU and you can't argue that it is a very competitive product. Intel wouldn't be dropping prices like mad on all ranges if it wasn't.

People need to stop all these side-swipes just because it is mentioned and you must be smoking something if you think I am anti-AMD. You don't seem to understand in certain games,an IB Core i7 is CPU limited and newer Core i7s smash their back doors in. So AMD matching an IB Core i7 or being a tad worse in certain games I play is a downer for me,and I think you need to understand that people do play a mixture of different kinds of games. Not every recentish game is multi-threaded despite my whole annoyance at devs about it and their penny pinching on using old engines made for a different era.

So currently I am hoping those windows patches and BIOS updates to eek out another 10% to 15% performance in those games,so it gives me an excuse to upgrade to Ryzen this year.

 

[~>Dg<~]

what happens when you a gamer that wants to try some streaming & the 4core isnt enough, like me you end up having another pc just to stream it
which isnt the worst solution but its expensive if u dont just have another pc and takes up a lot more space

did you read the actual quote ?

" things i would take the amd chips for gaming wise is if i recorded a lot daily or streamed.that makes sense.anyone who does that a lot will know the extra cores help. "

so if you do stream a lot or record daily those extra cores really help when recording and gaming at the same time.thats why i went x99 at the time.

 

[Rroff]

what happens when you a gamer that wants to try some streaming & the 4core isnt enough, like me you end up having another pc just to stream it
which isnt the worst solution but its expensive if u dont just have another pc and takes up a lot more space

For casual streamers it could be useful - for those who take it more seriously a second PC and capture card, etc. would still be a better option especially if you are doing additional stuff alongside it (overlays, compositing additional video, etc.).

 

[Mei]

did you read the actual quote ?

" things i would take the amd chips for gaming wise is if i recorded a lot daily or streamed.that makes sense.anyone who does that a lot will know the extra cores help. "

so if you do stream a lot or record daily those extra cores really help when recording and gaming at the same time.thats why i went x99 at the time.

how u know if you going to stream a lot until you try it?
x99 is much more expensive and maybe not even as good

 

[Devrij]

So currently I am hoping those windows patches and BIOS updates to eek out another 10% to 15% performance in those games,so it gives me an excuse to upgrade to Ryzen this year.

This is where I'm at right now. Mostly I use my pc for gaming, but I do also do a bit of video and phot editing and would like to have loads of delicious cores to help with that, while maintaining good gaming performance (potentially in the future benefiting from the extra cores in games too).

I just wonder how long it'll take to get SMT fixed in w10. I suspect BIOS issues will be mostly ironed out in a month or so, but what timescale would we expect MS to fix thread management for Ryzen?

 

[Brazo]

Look at it this way also, if 7700k gives you 200fps but with sever dips on occasion, the Ryzen chip gives you 150fps but mimimums are so much higher, your running a Freesync screen with a range of 35-144hz, which is the logical choice of chips?

In the above example say the 7700k is 200fps tops, 20fps lows and averages 150fps, and the Ryzen is 150fps tops, 80fps lows and 120fps averages.. which are you going to take if you have a Freesync screen and a Freesync gpu? obviously the Ryzen, to be fair though even if you dont have Freesync or Gysnc that Ryzen experience is a whole lot smoother overall as well.

It is getting a bit silly with such perverse, extreme and irrelevant examples just to claw back some credibility for Ryzen (gaming)

 

[~>Dg<~]

how u know if you going to stream a lot until you try it?
x99 is much more expensive and maybe not even as good

what are you talking about ?

i said that more cores is beneficial when streaming recording and gaming at same time.i know i do it every day for the last ten years !

i have streamed with i5s/i7/x99. x99 is better the cores help.

x99 is more expensive maybe not as good its the same or faster in the games.the point was more cores for streaming recording is beneficial over a normal i5/i7 set up.thats why they shown you the dota stream on a normal i7 vs the ryzen chip.

if you only doing it now and then and gaming is your main thing a i7 7700k is what i would choose currently.if you stream / record daily it would be at the moment a ryzen chip.if you not sure and stream/record daily and want the best and not sure wait for x299.

 

[vapor matt]

Ryzen is new tech, yes there will be updates on the OS front to improve ryzen in gaming, I don't expect the M/boards to stay as they are either, now we have revision 1 boards, in 6 months or less you will see revision 1.2 and later even rev 1.3. as the board developers get to grips with getting the most out of ryzen CPU's. things will improve as they always do over time. I would not buy into ryzen yet myself, until its established and M/B manufacture's get a 100% stable platform with mature bios's to get the best from Ryzen. For gamers trying to get the most out of there GFX card no matter which brand or model, every FPS counts and in that respect Ryzen needs to mature. its no dout a great step up for AMD in the CPU market, best to let it mature before jumping in and finding rev 1 boards at top money will no longer get the best out of ryzen in 6 months time. as always the hype train gets the better of some, best wait and see I say.

 

[~>Dg<~]

well the thing is obviously the next revisions will perform better but by the time they are out so will x299.so intel will have the gaming market on lockdown and the top end totally locked down.