Ryzen and Gaming results.

[Curlyriff]

Best would be not to buy those games where they're a coding disaster. Let the studio lose money on games that gamers refuse to be conned into buying, and requiring a £5000 gaming PC.

It couldn't even run at lowest detail setting, lowest resolution without being a slideshow. Yet other open world games could run in ultra, everything maxed 1920x1200 out at 60fps.

But it doesn't need a £5k PC it needs a £900 PC and lets be honest Ubisoft & Rockstar are not going to get boycott because the frame pacing is off on the Intel 4C chips though is it. Again real world vs idealistic are very far apart.

And that doesn't mean at all with regards to whether the game was complex or not because it didn't run well at all. That is a completely different problem to the smaller part of frame pacing and the minor stuttering we were discussing. You have gone off on a tangent to the actual point being made and just saying games run bad and so should be avoided.

The principle is that the games run well on the i7 7700K it is just there is noticeable frame pacing issues on some that was not before noted because what was being compared was worse. No one did a detailed comparison of an i7 6900K because it costs 3x what the i7 7700K cost and thus was not likely to be a competitor but when you use that CPU it also shows that the more cores/threads work well to remove/reduce the stutter and frame pacing issues.

I am not sure again why people generally are being dismissive of Ryzen where it shows improvements because they don't like that their Intel CPU suddenly has more noticeable flaws that we all were fine with for 4 years and now suddenly all the games are gash and we should just not play them then on anything till resolved. The thing is the way that multi core/threads work mean that the pacing is likely to be better as the way the chips and the engines take advantage of that. It is not the same as saying that the game is broken. The solution to the frame pacing issue is for the developers to use all the cores/threads to improve it and Ryzen & the i7 6850K & i7 6900K show this.

The coding in basic form is already doing the part to fix it, it just needs improving and working upon as time goes on to improve it further.

 

[awaybreaktoday]

Dam 5Ghz 7700K gamers make up to 95% of the player base on steam.....

 

[~>Dg<~]

most people still dont get that the average steam player is probably playing some free game on steam on a old core duo or q6600.we are enthusiasts.a minority in gaming.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I am not sure again why people generally are being dismissive of Ryzen where it shows improvements because they don't like that their Intel CPU suddenly has more noticeable flaws that we all were fine with for 4 years and now suddenly all the games are gash and we should just not play them then on anything till resolved. The thing is the way that multi core/threads work mean that the pacing is likely to be better as the way the chips and the engines take advantage of that. It is not the same as saying that the game is broken. The solution to the frame pacing issue is for the developers to use all the cores/threads to improve it and Ryzen & the i7 6850K & i7 6900K show this.

The coding in basic form is already doing the part to fix it, it just needs improving and working upon as time goes on to improve it further.

I find it also a joke when suddenly some of you also jump on anyone who tries to mention that many games don't thread well,and Ryzen does not do anywhere as well in games based on older engines millions of people do play and the performance is more like an older generation Intel CPU. Once you start actually analysing the reviews,you start to see a clear distinction in gaming performance especially when you start looking at how well threaded the games are,and many here might want to put their head in the sand,but seriously all of a sudden IB/SB level for those games is now fine,even if it was barely acceptable for years??

You know what ****** me off the most with the excuse making - it might even be that it simply needs AMD to engage with the studios more to improve performance,but the excuse makers will make sure that never happens,since AMD is only going to care for newer titles that use MOAR cores going forward,so I am not sure we will ever see them bother.

Its shocking how some of you are just being drawn into the hype - when Intel was selling the Core i7 5820K for as low as £250,etc I never saw people bleating to this level on how great value that was,and that was years ago.

Edit!!

Yet,if games were all using MOAR cores now,where were all the recommendations for the FX8300 series here even last year??

In games which uses MOAR cores,the FX8300 series could even challenge a modern Core i5.

Don't believe me - look at Watch Dogs 2.

 

[SupraWez]

Dam 5Ghz 7700K gamers make up to 95% of the player base on steam.....

Nice stats.

 

[Curlyriff]

I find it also a joke when suddenly some of you also jump on anyone who tries to mention that many games don't thread well,and Ryzen does not do anywhere as well in games based on older engines millions of people do play and the performance is more like an older generation Intel CPU. Once you start actually analysing the reviews,you start to see a clear distinction in gaming performance especially when you start looking at how well threaded the games are,and many here might want to put their head in the sand,but seriously all of a sudden IB/SB level for those games is now fine,even if it was barely acceptable for years??

Its shocking how some of you are just being drawn into the hype - when Intel was selling the Core i7 5820K for as low as £250,etc I never saw people bleating on how great value that was,and that was years ago.

I think you are missing a few things. For what is being showing Ryzen is perfectly able to run current games that don't thread well at the 60fps point and above. It struggles in the same areas as Intel does but it is something that will happen, things progress and change and thus some things will be left behind. The older gen Intel CPU delta is only a few % different as well. They are all on par. It also is much closer to the older games in delta as well at around 5% off the i7 7700K which is to be expected. I don't see the problem there. It is above the older gen i5/i7's still and will have a longer future.

The i7 5820K that is a 3.3Ghz £380 CPU that honestly wouldn't be a bad bet but the Architecture from Intel is different to that of AMD and the delta for the lower fps and even the average are still below that of what Ryzen is providing. It was also not working any better than the i5. Games used less cores/threads back then when it first dropped and now that is different. If you picked up an i7 5820K now I would expect it to be on the same level as Ryzen in the current games but then it has 2 less cores and costs more so when you compare that to the 1700 it becomes irrelevant.

You are cherry picking information about certain things like core count when games were only using a single thread more so than is the case now. I would say that I have not jumped on anyone about it but I would dismiss it because I do not see anything to suggest that older games have any issue attaining 60fps or greater which is the general requirement most people play at (1080p 60fps).

The level that the CPU gave was never an issue and it is why we are seeing people holding onto the older i5 2500K and similar because they were fine and the level for those games was also good. In fact you take the i7 920 and put that with a newer GPU and you will still see gaming to reasonable at 1080p 60FPS. Sorry CAT but personally I think you are either well off the mark or not understanding the difference we are discussing.

 

[~>Dg<~]

The i7 5820K that is a 3.3Ghz £380 CPU that honestly wouldn't be a bad bet but the Architecture from Intel is different to that of AMD and the delta for the lower fps and even the average are still below that of what Ryzen is providing. It was also not working any better than the i5. Games used less cores/threads back then when it first dropped and now that is different. If you picked up an i7 5820K now I would expect it to be on the same level as Ryzen in the current games but then it has 2 less cores and costs more so when you compare that to the 1700 it becomes irrelevant..

the real funny thing is the 5820k is faster than a 1700/1700x in games.

the price now though is stupid for those that brought them at the great prices we had ryzen performance for 2 years and still faster apart from the 1800x.even then in most games ocd it still beats that.

 

[Ayahuasca]

I wuv my 4.7ghz 5820k I got for £250

 

[DragonQ]

No because I am a moron who has no clue about CPU bottlenecks - using your rubbish line of reasoning if SB/IB level performance is fine,why even bother with a £300+ CPU - I am sure a G4560 or Core i5 7400 is more than fast enough.

To be fair, the G4560 doesn't bottleneck mid-range GPUs in a lot of games. I imagine an i5-2500K wouldn't either, but I'm sure for better smoothness and consistent frame times you'd need a better CPU.

 

[hornetstinger]

I thought only game that is well coded for multi core is ashes of the singularity.

 

[Curlyriff]

Stop with all these moving goalposts rubbish and pulling random bloody numbers for SB/IB,etc - don't go and try to teach me about what bloody numbers. I know the numbers very well - I don't get overexcited and just jump on upgrades.

You are talking about a million FPS - are you OK?? Do you honestly think if those games were producing high enough FPS,I would even care about upgrading?? These games do not push over 60FPS and you are so desperate to justify buying a R7 you don't seem to understand it has weakness.

Do you realise - you are the one shifting goalposts,or do you ever bother testing things?? I actually play some of these older games,and SKL demolishes IB in them - you don't believe me look at the reviews for them,or better still play a late game save on a IB and a SKL CPU.

What you don't understand is that you twisting and trying to insinuate things doesn't help you - what you don't understand is I am no lover of Intel,and people know that from my posting history.

But at the same level if AMD is not performing as it should be,then I am not going to try and bury it.

But what I find funny is that reviews do back up what I am saying for certain games,and people on forums have tested the R7 in one or two games,I am interested in,and unlike YOU,they have been objective enough to say where it performs and where it does not.

Those people have been honest and I am thankful for them being honest UNLIKE YOU.

Edit!!

Plus you are so desperate to prove anything negative about Ryzen being uninformed,and that SB/IB level performance is fine.

So if that is the case nobody who has a SB/IB Core i7 should bother upgrading then?

I am being honest in my opinion and the reviews I read. I am happy to say the games I have played and the ones I can see reviewed offer plenty of performance. I am not suggesting that Ryzen isn't below that of what Intel have on offer but what I suggested was that the performance level and delta is not terrible which is what you have stated.

Sorry I moved no goal posts. I pointed out at what level of gaming I am discussing at what resolution and FPS I am talking about and you drop in 4K/UHD and suddenly shift things. I had no goal post to move. I gave delta points on what I calculated from the reviews and am happy with the price/performance. I am just going to leave you to this because you have your opinion and I have mine based on what I have used and read. I am not desperate for anything.

And honestly I would suggest that yes if you are playing current games then there is indeed no reason to upgrade the CPU right now and the GPU would be a much better investment. That is fine, no problem with that. In fact if you have the old FX8350 and playing current games that generally also does pretty well and pulls ahead of the i5-2500K now. it's delta is 15% of the 7700K and for the most people at 1080p and 60fps that is fine.

You can't make completely blanket statements though as different resolutions/fps requirements of course require different CPU solutions. At 4K and 1440p 144Mhz + I would say the 7700K is still the option because you want to get as close to the 144fps as you can. If you are gaming at any level below then the 1700 is the way to go for current games. If you are thinking you want longevity out the CPU for the next 3 years or so then the 1700 is also the way to go as newer games have shown that it is better for the Ryzen series.

I would say the i7 5820K is actually a pretty good option on that front but then as said you can get two extra cores at less money with Ryzen now anywasys. DG mentions that the i7 5820K out performs the 1700. I haven't seen that myself but fair enough, I think some of that is down to the Windows scheduler needing to be updated though as we all know that is causing issues as is the low memory speeds. That again is something different though and should be resolved in a month in which case we can see then how it all stacks up.

Also just out of interest. An older game Bioshock Infinity at 4k results between the i7 5820k and the 1700X

5820K
Max = 91
Average = 22.99

1700X
Max = 96.11
Average = 33.75

So I would say that is pretty reasonable for an older game in comparison with the current issues that Ryzen has. It appears the delta is about 3% lower for Ryzen which could easily be sorted with the Windows scheduler or even just playing on W7 at the moment which seems to give around 10% increase pretty much across the board for Ryzen at this time.

 

[~>Dg<~]

what you probably have seen is stock but most good ocing chips will do 4.4ghz -4.6ghz.then see the results.remember stock speeds are 3.3.so a massive jump.

one of the main videos did bench one stock lol against ocd ryzens but didnt oc the 5820k lol.

 

[Curlyriff]

I thought only game that is well coded for multi core is ashes of the singularity.

BF1 in multiplayer is king of multithread at this time. it places the i7 6900K at top and then the i7 6850K and then the Ryzen series. I would say that shows the direction certainly Dice games will go and why it very well makes sense that the something with more cores is needed for future. Add into Windows game mode where it is possible it will be scheduling games only into 'X' cores/threads and windows and background tasks in 'Y' cores/threads could help even further for 6+ core chips be it Intel or AMD you buy.

 

[Curlyriff]

what you probably have seen is stock but most good ocing chips will do 4.4ghz -4.6ghz.then see the results.remember stock speeds are 3.3.so a massive jump.

That may well be the case in fairness. With that I would assume the gap does open up but we put the 1700 at 4Ghz and the Intel at 4.6Ghz and wait for Windows scheduler to be sorted for Ryzen and then it will compare the closest like to like chip that Intel provide on the market for a similar price then. If we take that and the i7 7700K as the two delta points then that is where the 1700 really has be hitting similar FPS of the medium average of the two chips then?

I am willing to say the scheduler should resolve the 1700 to being above the 5820K and thus close the delta on the 7700K even on games that are not using more than 4 cores because Ryzen has issues with it still trying to utilise all cores as 16 cores even where games only use 2-4 cores. This seems to be an issue with Windows trying to move things about when it should be locked to certain cores.

Bearing that in good multi thread games the I7 6850K + are better but are also way out of the price bracket a gamer would buy at generally.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

figures

Look,I am CPU limited at qHD,I drop the res down and still get similar performance and frame-drops. It can go down to 20FPS to 30FPS,due to the CPU load(!). To put in context some less intensive testing on a forum saw a R7 1700 at 4GHZ get about 47.5FPS,a Core i7 2600K at 4.5GHZ,54FPS,a Core i7 6700K at 4.5GHZ and 3000MHZ RAM,around 80FPS. The chap who owned the R7 1700 tried Win7(it does not have the SMT issue),tried locking the CPU to one CCX,to stop the issue with threads being spawned across both CCX units,and it went upto 50FPS.It ties in what I saw in one or two reviews.

The only hope I have is that the BIOSes are hampering performance,so I will see what happens during the next few months especially as I need a mini-ITX motherboard,but knowing the dev,I suspect they are less likely to care about slightly older games,and concentrate on new ones,so yes Ryzen will do better in their newer releases.

Its a poorly optimised game and so are any on related engines,but ultimately the performance is where it is and it is still reasonably popular now,and what I will play for a while longer.

If Ryzen can't at least improve on what I have either I should get a SKL/KL CPU now,or just stick with what I have,since TBH I would rather AMD have my money than Intel,but I have a feeling Ryzen 2 will be what I will get TBH. OTH,I might have stopped playing it by then anyway.

 

[~>Dg<~]

some weird multiquote lol ignore.

 

[~>Dg<~]

That may well be the case in fairness. With that I would assume the gap does open up but we put the 1700 at 4Ghz and the Intel at 4.6Ghz and wait for Windows scheduler to be sorted for Ryzen and then it will compare the closest like to like chip that Intel provide on the market for a similar price then. If we take that and the i7 7700K as the two delta points then that is where the 1700 really has be hitting similar FPS of the medium average of the two chips then?

I am willing to say the scheduler should resolve the 1700 to being above the 5820K and thus close the delta on the 7700K even on games that are not using more than 4 cores because Ryzen has issues with it still trying to utilise all cores as 16 cores even where games only use 2-4 cores. This seems to be an issue with Windows trying to move things about when it should be locked to certain cores.

Bearing that in good multi thread games the I7 6850K + are better but are also way out of the price bracket a gamer would buy at generally.

if you look at the actual decent benchies across gaming a 1700 chip needs to oc to 4.3 to match.that wont be happening realistically.if you look to the next revisions they will probably oc by another 200mhz. which is the avg acorss intel and amd chips on each revision to real people.not mythical cherry binned chips.so 4.0 ghz will probably be the avg oc for most on the next revisions.

so the only reason to really upgrade to ryzen stuff is if you on a outdated platform that doesnt already perform well in gaming or you want a great multiplatform machine for gaming and recording at the same time or streaming.thats where ryzen is worth it over older platforms like sandybridge and so on.

gaming wise mp 64 man battlefield is the best showing of multcore gaming.we currently have.in that game is proper benchmarks x99 i7s are the best.for minimums and avgs.

so if buying now for only gaming id buy a i7 7700k.for streaming recording while gaming now id get a ryzen based on price performance and the extra cores help when recording at same time. you wont get the stuttering lower minimums because of the extra cores.over the i7 7700k.if you on a x99 platform you are already as fast or quicker so no need.

sandybridge/ivy it just comes down to how much you game and if you are a recorder or streamer.then id probably upgrade to ryzen.if you only a gamer then ryzen offers you nothing.

 

[Curlyriff]

Look,I am CPU limited at qHD,I drop the res down and still get similar performance and frame-drops. It can go down to 20FPS to 30FPS,due to the CPU load(!). To put in context some less intensive testing on a forum saw a R7 1700 at 4GHZ get about 47.5FPS,a Core i7 2600K at 4.5GHZ,54FPS,a Core i7 6700K at 4.5GHZ and 3000MHZ RAM,around 80FPS. The chap who owned the R7 1700 tried Win7(it does not have the SMT issue),tried locking the CPU to one CCX,to stop the issue with threads being spawned across both CCX units,and it went upto 50FPS.It ties in what I saw in one or two reviews.

The only hope I have is that the BIOSes are hampering performance,so I will see what happens during the next few months especially as I need a mini-ITX motherboard,but knowing the dev,I suspect they are less likely to care about slightly older games,and concentrate on new ones,so yes Ryzen will do better in their newer releases.

Its a poorly optimised game and so are any on related engines,but ultimately the performance is where it is and it is still reasonably popular now,and what I will play for a while longer.

If Ryzen can't at least improve on what I have either I should get a SKL/KL CPU now,or just stick with what I have,since TBH I would rather AMD have my money than Intel,but I have a feeling Ryzen 2 will be what I will get TBH. OTH,I might have stopped playing it by then anyway.

Okie Dokie.

I was going from this

http://www.toptengamer.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-vs-intel-i7-7700k-1800x/

This to me is where I am seeing the performance at 1080p and 1440p for the Ryzen chips that is all. To me the delta's are very good and in true gaming context. Maybe I am reading the wrong thing?

 

[Curlyriff]

if you look at the actual decent benchies across gaming a 1700 chip needs to oc to 4.3 to match.that wont be happening realistically.if you look to the next revisions they will probably oc by another 200mhz. which is the avg acorss intel and amd chips on each revision to real people.not mythical cherry binned chips.so 4.0 ghz will probably be the avg oc for most on the next revisions.

so the only reason to really upgrade to ryzen stuff is if you on a outdated platform that doesnt already perform well in gaming or you want a great multiplatform machine for gaming and recording at the same time or streaming.thats where ryzen is worth it over older platforms like sandybridge and so on.

gaming wise mp 64 man battlefield is the best showing of multcore gaming.we currently have.in that game is proper benchmarks x99 i7s are the best.for minimums and avgs.

so if buying now for only gaming id buy a i7 7700k.for streaming recording while gaming now id get a ryzen based on price performance and the extra cores help when recording at same time. you wont get the stuttering lower minimums because of the extra cores.over the i7 7700k.if you on a x99 platform you are already as fast or quicker so no need.

sandybridge/ivy it just comes down to how much you game and if you are a recorder or streamer.then id probably upgrade to ryzen.if you only a gamer then ryzen offers you nothing.

Yep that seems reasonable views. I do think there is more like 10% to be gained just via the Bios and then a further 5% when higher memory clocks are supported (yep I am having a go at being optimistic). But then are we not suggesting anyone who upgrades to the i7 7700K now would only being doing so if they are also currently on something like an i7 2500K or earlier and anything newer there is no need too? Just in perspective at 1440p the difference between the i7 2500K and the i7 6700k for instance is only 8% delta and so no one should really be upgrading their CPU at moment unless as I said it's older than that.

In which case the 1700 comes back into play because you are coming form an outdated platform?

 

[~>Dg<~]

well in games like bf1 in big multiplayer games the i2500k struggles.so with how dice are and their engine it will only continue.so from that perspective on their games the cores make sense to upgrade.whether that is the same across every gaming platform is guess work a gamble.