Ryzen and Gaming results.

[Curlyriff]

no one is ever cpu limited when playing games? rly now?

Yes really, If you are CPU limited in games then you are not utilising your GPU efficiently. The GPU will be the bottleneck as that is what you change your settings till you are utilising 100% of the GPU. By the time you have done that the CPU will not be the bottleneck.

Sorry but where are you showing me a CPU bottleneck in a real world situation of actually gaming?

 

[Mei]

lol can we just agree to disagree curly this is too much effort

 

[DrBombcrater]

Yes really, If you are CPU limited in games then you are not utilising your GPU efficiently. The GPU will be the bottleneck as that is what you change your settings till you are utilising 100% of the GPU. By the time you have done that the CPU will not be the bottleneck.

Any game that makes heavy use of AI will be CPU bottlenecked, regardless of graphics settings. Strategy game fans are all to familiar with the chug-o-vision that affects many titles when you're fighting against AI opponents with lots of units in play.

 

[bfar]

BIOS, optimisation, clock speed, motherboard issues - lots of factors at play here.

Even with those in play, we're still looking at broadly haswell level gaming performance. The 8 core chips are great value for money for content creators. The 4-6 core chips should be phenomenal value for gamers.

 

[Stretlow]

Arrrrggggghhhh

* Thursday 3pm - Cancelled 1700 and Mobo order
* Thursday 8pm - Ordered 7700k and Mobo
* Friday AM - Cancelled 7700k and Mobo

My Dad is having my old kit next weekend. Looks like i'll be without for a while until I make my bloody mind up

 

[Glanza]

Arrrrggggghhhh

* Thursday 3pm - Cancelled 1700 and Mobo order
* Thursday 8pm - Ordered 7700k and Mobo
* Friday AM - Cancelled 7700k and Mobo

My Dad is having my old kit next weekend. Looks like i'll be without for a while until I make my bloody mind up

1700 + mobo seems to be the way to go and save you some money.

 

[Curlyriff]

lol can we just agree to disagree curly this is too much effort

Yep no problem for your 720p though check out the other thread and BF1 if that suites you.

 

[Curlyriff]

Any game that makes heavy use of AI will be CPU bottlenecked, regardless of graphics settings. Strategy game fans are all to familiar with the chug-o-vision that affects many titles when you're fighting against AI opponents with lots of units in play.

Like what exactly? I am playing a number of strategy games and they are ones I have played for years and not really had a massive issue with CPU bottleneck but then maybe I am one those who puts all the settings up and will lower unit count for instance rather than max out units and have it at lower settings.

I know CA & total war has issues but that just needs fixing for their engine etc more than it being Ryzen. Planet Coaster makes all CPU's struggle and that really uses all the cores/threads regardless and no matter the MHz doesn't do well in FPS although is meant to be CPU bound.

In regards to others, not had any issue though as said. I don't play massive online multiplayers mind such as PS2 however I believe that may be CPU bound? But then it is badly optimised and runs like poo anyways from what I gather so again even with a 10 core I7 or 4 core I7 it still is bad FPS wise form the CPU.

Again what will be obvious if someones tests PS2 though where it is a more heavy related CPU load in the game the 7700K wont be pulling ahead because there are still bottlenecks that the GPU's cause.

 

[Curlyriff]

Arrrrggggghhhh

* Thursday 3pm - Cancelled 1700 and Mobo order
* Thursday 8pm - Ordered 7700k and Mobo
* Friday AM - Cancelled 7700k and Mobo

My Dad is having my old kit next weekend. Looks like i'll be without for a while until I make my bloody mind up

Honestly would have kept the 1700 + Mobo order but for now I would say it depends on how long you can go without, if you want now I would bite bullet for 1700 as you wont notice any gaming performance lost this min, you will have the latest AM4 socket for future CPU upgrades as needed and things where multicore/threads do work it will be better than the 7700K as per the BF1 Multiplayer results.

 

[Stretlow]

1700 + mobo seems to be the way to go and save you some money.

not really

Hero CH6 @ £230 + 1700 @ £320 = £550
Hero IX @ £233 + 7700 @ £305 = £538

not too bothered about shelling out a bit as I want this one to last..

Pre order has gone now anyway, i'll see how the reviews pan out this week and decide after that... I'm such an indecisive div.

 

[Stretlow]

Honestly would have kept the 1700 + Mobo order but for now I would say it depends on how long you can go without, if you want now I would bite bullet for 1700 as you wont notice any gaming performance lost this min, you will have the latest AM4 socket for future CPU upgrades as needed and things where multicore/threads do work it will be better than the 7700K as per the BF1 Multiplayer results.

I am leaning back this way... obviously the 1700 is a big step up from where i am now but I still want to make sure i'm making the right choice... appreciate the input though

 

[HangTime]

We'll see what happens over time with potential bios/driver/software optimisations but right now it is hard to make a case for Ryzen 7 as a gaming CPU. When overclocked a 7600K seemingly performs as well if not better apart from perhaps a few fringe cases. Over time if and when we see better threading in games this picture could change, but history suggests to me that by the time the extra cores outweigh the benefit of higher clockspeed / performance per clock across a broad range of games, technology will have moved on anyway.

For me Ryzen 5 will be the most interesting i.e. if they can get 6c/12t with good overclockability at a sensible price then it gives a potential alternative to Intel. The irony is that for many years now AMD has been viewed as a budget option but you look at the lower half of the market and 7600K / 7350K / G4560 are seemingly wiping the floor with them as you work your way down the price brackets. Right now if you are spending under £300 AMD offers nothing worth having really.

edit: Obviously you have to factor mobo cost into the equation too but looking at how much AM4 boards go for it's not like there are massive savings to be had there either.

 

[DarkHorizon472]

Yes really, If you are CPU limited in games then you are not utilising your GPU efficiently. The GPU will be the bottleneck as that is what you change your settings till you are utilising 100% of the GPU. By the time you have done that the CPU will not be the bottleneck.

Sorry but where are you showing me a CPU bottleneck in a real world situation of actually gaming?

Try my pc on BF1

 

[Curlyriff]

I am leaning back this way... obviously the 1700 is a big step up from where i am now but I still want to make sure i'm making the right choice... appreciate the imput though

No problem. There is certainly a difference between the theoretical and the true used power of both the 1700 & 7700K.

There is some weight that games which do not take advantage of more cores/threads will have less ability to run super high frames once those current games are no longer GPU bottlenecked (that currently are even at 1080p with a GTX 1080 or similar (pretty rare tbh from what I know of)).

But we have seen what BF1 can do which likes the cores and works really well with the 1700 which is getting better FPS than the 7700K. Now it seems developers and studios are getting pretty committed to AMD again and supporting multicore/thread.

I would say the compiler may be the issue for the next year mind as a lot use Intel's in some way or another at moment as they have been CPU of choice for so long. Further to that stuff generally has been optimised to how Intel make things work.

I would say that there is room for the 1700 to improve as bugs are ironed out. Intel already have done this for the last 8 years on their platform so when Ryzen+ turns up it will be even more impressive. Some are mentioning X299 series bringing the fight back to AMD however they are again on the same Architecture so only so much can be done.

The only big point that is missing for me is the number of PCIE lanes that AMD have on their chipset & CPU. I would really have liked to have seen more from them as M.2 and U.2 are certainly gaining traction fast and so we could easily build a system with those lanes filled very quickly.

 

[Curlyriff]

Try my pc on BF1

BF1 uses all the cores/threads though and the 1700 has already shown to give a performance boost over that of the 7700K though so the raw power that the 720p outline isn't an issue in that particular game anyways. In fact Intels 10 core is best for BF1 but of course that is a huge outlay.

 

[Stretlow]

No problem. There is certainly a difference between the theoretical and the true used power of both the 1700 & 7700K.

There is some weight that games which do not take advantage of more cores/threads will have less ability to run super high frames once those current games are no longer GPU bottlenecked (that currently are even at 1080p with a GTX 1080 or similar (pretty rare tbh from what I know of)).

But we have seen what BF1 can do which likes the cores and works really well with the 1700 which is getting better FPS than the 7700K. Now it seems developers and studios are getting pretty committed to AMD again and supporting multicore/thread.

I would say the compiler may be the issue for the next year mind as a lot use Intel's in some way or another at moment as they have been CPU of choice for so long. Further to that stuff generally has been optimised to how Intel make things work.

I would say that there is room for the 1700 to improve as bugs are ironed out. Intel already have done this for the last 8 years on their platform so when Ryzen+ turns up it will be even more impressive. Some are mentioning X299 series bringing the fight back to AMD however they are again on the same Architecture so only so much can be done.

The only big point that is missing for me is the number of PCIE lanes that AMD have on their chipset & CPU. I would really have liked to have seen more from them as M.2 and U.2 are certainly gaining traction fast and so we could easily build a system with those lanes filled very quickly.

I've got GTA V (again), Resident Evil, F1, Watchdogs 2 and Fallout on the go at he moment.

Its the open world games where I struggle, when I say struggle it doesnt drop below 50fps but will go up to 90+ with most settings on ultra.

 

[haszek]

I agree with Curlyriff
If you have geforce 1080 you will play on ultra and you don't care what 720p shows or 1080p on low details to you as it doesn't matter. That's not "gaming benchmarks". Gaming testing should show what difference you will see in gaming, if it shows that there is no difference , than there's no difference to average player.

But all the reviewers try to show what difference there is when you have 150fps or 170fps and create this image that gamers will have worse gaming experience.

Do you think there is more players with 480 or 1080? Just show comparisons between the two, if there is no difference on specific test than there is no difference, but this is how you gonna play it (you won't play on low details with 1080 ever so tests like this for "gamers" are useless.

If you wanna test CPU, single thread etc don't call it gaming benchmark as it will not show how you play games.

 

[whiterabbit]

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.

Haven't seen these benchmarks you refer to...

 

[Electronic Dave]

I noticed that Ryzen motherboards use dual channel DDR4 and not quad channel DDR4. Apparently you should only populate 2x DIMMS when using higher clocked memory modules.

This reminds me in a way of past AMD motherboard chipset limitations. I recall my Socket 939 motherboard wouldn't run 4x DDR 400 (set at 333MHz) and then again with 4x DDR2 1066 (set at 800Mhz) on my current Phenom II computer.

Would the difference in memory bandwidth affect gaming performance? Any benefits of quad channel (as with Intel) over dual channel?

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The SMT issue is more a problem as the 4C/8T and 6C/12T models will have more of an issue especially if Intel drops the Core i7 7700K and Core i7 7600K by a few quid.