Associate
- Joined
- 31 Mar 2016
- Posts
- 1,412
- Location
- Moonbase Alpha
The best results for gaming I've seen all seem to be using the 1700 at 3.9/4.0 GHz.
Last edited:
-
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.
- Thread starter geordiejc
- Start date
Unfortunately you're going to have to wait until Microsoft issue a patch to the Windows scheduler to deal with Ryzen's SMT. The fact that turning SMT off produces +10% FPS in a lot of games is evidence of this. Hopefully it'll be sorted in time for the R3 and R5 Ryzens. There are other factors like optimisations that will take a while to filter through but aside from the SMT fix you're probably not gonna see a significant improvement until Zen+.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 20,915
- Location
- Officially least sunny location -Ronskistats
+1 sensible answer. I guess haters gotta hate even though after years of whining complaining nothing to compete from AMD, when they do release something its still - you guessed it - slating AMD...
My takeaway was that unexpectedly lots of reviews focus on 1080p gaming.
If that's your bag for a top tier CPU fair enough.
I'm looking at
Virtualisation
workstation
1440p games
Media nas server
In that order. So far I'm pleased the games reviews are keeping launch a little low key, I'll likely take a 1700 for the above and watch how AMDs smt matures. Ryzen mark 2 may prove more interesting all round...
If that's your bag for a top tier CPU fair enough.
I'm looking at
Virtualisation
workstation
1440p games
Media nas server
In that order. So far I'm pleased the games reviews are keeping launch a little low key, I'll likely take a 1700 for the above and watch how AMDs smt matures. Ryzen mark 2 may prove more interesting all round...
Yup. I'm looking at it for video editing and gaming at 60Hz.
So 1700x for me and I'm very happy.
Also, you know, if we don't give AMD any money for what is extremely impressive, they might fail and that's bad for everyone in the end.
Ideal use to be fair!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,480
- Location
- Planet Earth
The reasons:
1.)Kaby Lake is higher IPC(we expected that)
2.)Kaby Lake has higher clockspeeds(we expected that)
What we didn't expect:
1.)SMT actually can drop performance over 10% in games
2.)The CPU launched with no Windows drivers - AMD is on record saying the Windows drivers will be out in a month
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 3,719
its all early days but in reality AMD could have waited a while longer to get some better gaming benchmarks perhaps.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,480
- Location
- Planet Earth
its not like many can use them yet with the lack of motherboards
Its why I don't understand why AMD was in such a hurry - they might as well launched it when the windows patches dropped and it would have given them a month to try and get the motherboard support a bit better.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
I think they've taken the view of "it's currently good enough, no point waiting" and I agree with them.
I certainly know where they are coming from as I've reluctantly taken the same approach with my dissertation!
Because sometimes if you don't launch things earlier then the other side takes that as an invitation to just delay doing their part by that long. It's very typical in most industries (I can tell you this 100% happens in my industry - construction; and for all trades, not just one or two. Have yet to be on a project where this wasn't the case). You make higher demands so that you can then negotiate to a lower (but the one you are aiming for) target. If you just start off with what you actually need, you're gonna get less. Call it, quirks of human nature. Sucks that that's the case? Yeah, but it is what it is.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
Yes, so would I. I'm wondering if 8 core Ryzen will actually get you a smoother gaming experience. Just Max & Averages may be lower. These little stutters during gaming drive me nuts.
"One thing I did notice is that all the games I have looked at so far -- which is considerably more than the four shown here -- were smooth on the Ryzen processors. GTA 5 for example plays really well on the Core i7-7700K, but every now and then a small stutter can be noticed, while the 1800X runs as smooth as silk, sans stuttering from what I observed.
I found a similar situation when testing Battlefield 1. Performance was smooth with the Ryzen processors while every now and then the quad-core 7700K had a small hiccup. These were rare but it was something I didn't notice when using the 1800X and 1700X."
http://www.techspot.com/review/1345-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x/page7.html
and that hiccup could be caused by anything, windows10 has a lot of background processes, which makes it almost impossible to do battery tests for example
BUT besides all that, these tests have no apps running in the background and i dont know anyone who uses their pc that way
i think if a real test was done with usual apps running ryzen would win, not by a little bit, but huge win
i know my next cpu needs to be more than 4cores >.<
Unfortunately though it isn't the whole story - despite increased use of threading in game engines most ultimately are still heavily bound for performance to 1 or 2 main threads.
However even that isn't the whole story as sometimes even with the same on paper framerate different configurations of numbers of real and virtual cores can have an impact on smoothness due to things like frametime variation and overheads for other background processes, etc.
There is the possibility that the R5 will be able to clock higher. Most of the disparity so far seems to be in titles where frequency is still a major factor in overall performance.
I would say teething issue, simply on the logic that in some games/reviews it's beating the 7700K and in some it's getting beat by i5's. Now teething issues and bugs can explain underperforming but teething issues and bugs cannot explain overperforming so I would expect the reviews will increase once the bugs are ironed out.
I think that it's been so long since we have actually had a new platform released (tick tocking and changing the socket to extort customers doesn't really count) that some people have forgotten the teething issues that usually arise.