Ryzen and Gaming results.

vapor matt · 5 Mar 2017 at 15:04

~>Dg<~ said:
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.

But X299 will also have early boards rev 1 also, its always the same, its a waiting game to see which board gets it right and which ones change revision. I agree intel will strike back with X299 combined with a 7900k should make a great platform. but Ryzen is now and hopefully it will mature quickly enough that people will buy into it and stick with AMD for future upgrades also. after all each brand has its fan's.

haszek · 5 Mar 2017 at 15:07

Plus x299 is gonna be like 2-3 times more expensive so like guys in other thread mentioned only for wanting the best

not actually competition to zen

five8five · 5 Mar 2017 at 15:10

haszek said:
Plus x299 is gonna be like 2-3 times more expensive so like guys in other thread mentioned only for wanting the best not actually competition to zen

Maybe it's a case of you get what you pay for

Doug2507 · 5 Mar 2017 at 15:11

On and on and on it goes. Just how many amd vs intel threads do we need? Go buy a chip to suit your needs, use it, be happy. Zzzzz......

DragonQ · 5 Mar 2017 at 15:13

I hope everyone's following the Anandtech thread. Tests show increased FPS in games when using 4 cores on a single CCX compared to 4 cores split across 2 CCXs (some games more than others), at 720p.

hornetstinger · 5 Mar 2017 at 15:13

Doug2507 said:
On and on and on it goes. Just how many amd vs intel threads do we need? Go buy a chip to suit your needs, use it, be happy. Zzzzz......

Buy this motherboard and you can use AMD or Intel CPU's!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_7

five8five · 5 Mar 2017 at 15:15

I'm not convinced being an early Ryzen adopter is the best thing to do because it's not just one issue, it's multiple issues which could take many months to resolve.

This could have a major impact on the resale value of Ryzen first gen kit.

Martini1991 · 5 Mar 2017 at 15:19

five8five said:
I'm not convinced being an early Ryzen adopter is the best thing to do because it's not just one issue, it's multiple issues which could take many months to resolve.

This could have a major impact on the resale value of Ryzen first gen kit.

While I agree, the price it's currently selling at should mitigate that somewhat.

Mei · 5 Mar 2017 at 15:20

~>Dg<~ said:
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.

hehe wow 10years
where do u stream can i come check it out sometime?^^;

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 5 Mar 2017 at 15:50

DragonQ said:
I hope everyone's following the Anandtech thread. Tests show increased FPS in games when using 4 cores on a single CCX compared to 4 cores split across 2 CCXs (some games more than others), at 720p.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Ryzen-7-1800X-CPU-265804/Tests/Test-Review-1222033/

Yep,and it seems the 4C versions which appear to use only one CCX might be fine.

Phew!!

Doogles · 5 Mar 2017 at 18:57

haszek said:
Plus x299 is gonna be like 2-3 times more expensive so like guys in other thread mentioned only for wanting the best not actually competition to zen

Dunno have you seen the £250 price tag on the Asus Crossfire? Think I could get a X299 board for that, if Intel actually drop the pricing of the chips (Low chance) then they could rival Ryzen easily.

five8five said:
I'm not convinced being an early Ryzen adopter is the best thing to do because it's not just one issue, it's multiple issues which could take many months to resolve.

This could have a major impact on the resale value of Ryzen first gen kit.

The reason I haven't brought one, I'd like to get 1700 with 3200mhz RAM but with most boards being unreliable with no stock I can't be bothered, hopefully Zen+ will have this all sorted and I can buy with confidences with gaming performance also fixed, Ryzen looks great but needs time to become truly viable. For my usage depending on how things look when 6c/12t come about that might be the better hit if it overclocks higher while costing even less.

haszek · 5 Mar 2017 at 19:14

Doogles said:
Dunno have you seen the £250 price tag on the Asus Crossfire? Think I could get a X299 board for that, if Intel actually drop the pricing of the chips (Low chance) then they could rival Ryzen easily.

I meant cpus which are not gonna be in the same range (like 8core for £320). Going for extreme the other way round people can buy motherboard for ryzen for £90, what would be the cheapest for x299 do you think?

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying it's bad Intel can do whatever, not saying it's bad just not in the range of zen to compete.

Intel is still faster with their current x99 but will anybody actually spend so much for their 8core?

AthlonXP1800 · 6 Mar 2017 at 08:40

Hardware Unboxed tested Ryzen gaming peformance on 16 games Tom Clancy's The Division DX12, Hitman DX11, Civilization VI DX12, Overwatch Bot Match, Mirror's Edge Catalyst, Mafia III, Gears of Wars 4 DX12, Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, Battlefield 1, F1 2016 Heavy Rain, Total War: Warhammer DX12, GTA V, Watch Dogs 2, ARMA 3, Far Cry Primal HD Texture Pack and For Honor with both SMT ON and OFF.

Ryzen won only 1 benchmark with Mafia III at 1440p with 1800X at top with SMT on.

Little differents with SMT on and off. Disappointed!

I am skeptical whether Ryzen peformance will see massive different when Microsoft patched CPU scheduler. Last time Microsoft patched CPU scheduler in Windows 8 to improved Bulldozer gaming performance but unfortunately it saw no difference in games performance with patch and I went to bought 3770K. I think same thing possible will happen to Ryzen again and I am now leaning toward to purchase 7700K by end of April if AMD failed to delivered.

Techen · 6 Mar 2017 at 09:03

AthlonXP1800 said:
Hardware Unboxed tested Ryzen gaming peformance on 16 games Tom Clancy's The Division DX12, Hitman DX11, Civilization VI DX12, Overwatch Bot Match, Mirror's Edge Catalyst, Mafia III, Gears of Wars 4 DX12, Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, Battlefield 1, F1 2016 Heavy Rain, Total War: Warhammer DX12, GTA V, Watch Dogs 2, ARMA 3, Far Cry Primal HD Texture Pack and For Honor with both SMT ON and OFF.

Ryzen won only 1 benchmark with Mafia III at 1440p with 1800X at top with SMT on.

Little differents with SMT on and off. Disappointed!

I am skeptical whether Ryzen peformance will see massive different when Microsoft patched CPU scheduler. Last time Microsoft patched CPU scheduler in Windows 8 to improved Bulldozer gaming performance but unfortunately it saw no difference in games performance with patch and I went to bought 3770K. I think same thing possible will happen to Ryzen again and I am now leaning toward to purchase 7700K by end of April if AMD failed to delivered.

The ryzen did really well in these benchmarks. You really gonna sell up and move to the 7700k for in most cases 10 fps. Besides why did you buy the ryzen if your heart is purely set on gaming. Nothing supports it (yet)

Help me understand?

orbitalwalsh · 6 Mar 2017 at 09:06

haszek said:
Plus x299 is gonna be like 2-3 times more expensive so like guys in other thread mentioned only for wanting the best not actually competition to zen

yeah, expect around £1k mark . Unfortunately I have no idea where that 1k gets you in the range line up, but im hoping with Ryzen at least 1k is the top end and no longer the £1500 price tag.

Competition from AMD doing what it should

DragonQ · 6 Mar 2017 at 09:14

AthlonXP1800 said:
Hardware Unboxed tested Ryzen gaming peformance on 16 games Tom Clancy's The Division DX12, Hitman DX11, Civilization VI DX12, Overwatch Bot Match, Mirror's Edge Catalyst, Mafia III, Gears of Wars 4 DX12, Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, Battlefield 1, F1 2016 Heavy Rain, Total War: Warhammer DX12, GTA V, Watch Dogs 2, ARMA 3, Far Cry Primal HD Texture Pack and For Honor with both SMT ON and OFF.

Ryzen won only 1 benchmark with Mafia III at 1440p with 1800X at top with SMT on.

Little differents with SMT on and off. Disappointed!

I am skeptical whether Ryzen peformance will see massive different when Microsoft patched CPU scheduler. Last time Microsoft patched CPU scheduler in Windows 8 to improved Bulldozer gaming performance but unfortunately it saw no difference in games performance with patch and I went to bought 3770K. I think same thing possible will happen to Ryzen again and I am now leaning toward to purchase 7700K by end of April if AMD failed to delivered.

Have to agree that it's generally disappointing compared to all the hype but to say Ryzen only "won" one benchmark is disingenuous IMO - it sounds like you're literally just looking at the order in the graphs and nothing else. Also, they're using 2x GTX 1080...nobody is gaming at 1080p with that setup so the 1080p results are rather pointless. Looking at the 1440p results...

Ryzen slight win: Mafia 3
Draw: The Division, Battlefield 1, For Honor, Overwatch
Kaby Lake slight win: Civilization 6, Mirror's Edge Catalyst, Gears of War, Deus Ex: Mankind Divided [DX12], F1 2016, Far Cry Primal
Kaby Lake comfortable win: Hitman [DX11], Total War: Warhammer, GTA V, Watchdogs 2, ARMA 3

"Slight" wins here mean <=10 fps difference. Obviously this is subjective based on whether you care more about overall frame rate or minimums. It's interesting to note that some games benefit hugely from disabling SMT, whereas in others it makes no difference. If you play any of the games where Kaby Lake wins comfortably you probably want to avoid Ryzen for now. Otherwise, when you're going to be able to buy a 6c/12t Ryzen or even 4c/8t Ryzen for much less than Intel's equivalent, it will probably still offer bang for buck if you're willing to sacrifice those 10 FPS.

Also note that they are using a Titan X according to their spec sheet (even though the video shows a dual GPU setup). If you're not using a Titan X, the differences won't be as stark as shown in this test, which is deliberately trying to introduce a CPU bottleneck.

awaybreaktoday · 6 Mar 2017 at 09:58

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5xpnla/game_stuttering_is_basically_nonexistent_since/

Quote:

Just thought I would share this. I used to get terrible stuttering in BF1, with occasional stuttering in Overwatch and other games. This is now completely nonexistent since switching to the Ryzen.

I was just playing a game of BF1 conquest (the map with the crashed zeppelin, I forget the name...). Rock solid 100 fps. I couldn't believe how consistent it was. I'm running at mid settings and 1440p. This was simply not the case when playing on the 4790K. I thought I was just in desperate need of a GPU upgrade. Maybe not.

My system:

Ryzen 1800x OC to 4ghz
32GB of 3200C14 TridentZ (dual kit, runs at 2666 atm unfortunately)
Asus Crosshair VI Hero
Radeon R9 290 (waiting to see how Vega turns out)
Benq Zowie XL2730

I've done a handful of non-scientific benchmarks that show it's getting slightly lower FPS at 1080p, but haven't really compiled anything exhaustive yet. Bear in mind we're talking useless stats like 365fps vs 400fps in CS:GO. However, the game performance is noticeably SMOOTHER compared to my 4790k, which was overclocked to 4.4ghz. I was running 16gb of C9 memory with it.

One thing I'm curious to see would be benchmarks that show the # of 'slow frames' for the respective CPUs. That would be interesting to see. I will see if I can figure something out...

DragonQ · 6 Mar 2017 at 10:26

One would assume that more cores would improve smoothness if games use more than 4 threads but I wonder if Ryzen's on-the-fly 25 MHz clock speed adjustments are another cause of this phenomenon? Maybe it's better than Intel's Speed Shift implementation. Or maybe it's all placebo and it isn't smoother at all.

Nutella33 · 6 Mar 2017 at 10:34

I know its a bit of a running joke how well DOOM runs on AMD stuff but I've been really impressed with just how slick it is under vulkan. Loads across all 16 threads and doesn't dip under 100fps.

bfar · 6 Mar 2017 at 11:06

Nutella33 said:
I know its a bit of a running joke how well DOOM runs on AMD stuff but I've been really impressed with just how slick it is under vulkan. Loads across all 16 threads and doesn't dip under 100fps.

Not really. It uses cutting edge APIs and techniques, so you could say it is a blue print for future development.