Ryzen and Gaming results.

DragonQ · 3 Mar 2017 at 20:39

Buckster said:
worth watching the Gamers Nexus video just posted - entitled "Explaining Ryzen Review Differences (Again)" - goes into gaming performance as well as other things

Interesting video but I disagree with what his main argument is. He's saying that pushing the bottleneck to the GPU would mean you're not really testing the CPU fully. True but that isn't really relevant. He also says that if you were to test a GTX 1060 and GTX 1080 at 720p where the bottleneck is in the CPU, you'd get similar results and conclude that the cards are the same speed. Well yes...that's the point. At 720p there is no point in buying a GTX 1080 over a GTX 1060. Likewise, if you're in a situation where the CPU isn't a bottleneck then there's no point buying a more expensive Intel CPU over Ryzen.

The fact that you want your CPU to last longer than your GPU is a fair point so you don't want bottlenecks down the line. However, games aren't going to prefer fewer cores in the future, are they?

Mei · 3 Mar 2017 at 20:48

Buckster said:
worth watching the Gamers Nexus video just posted - entitled "Explaining Ryzen Review Differences (Again)" - goes into gaming performance as well as other things

yeh its interesting
the run it at high res thing just sounds really bad
if AMD wanted the cpu to be seen in good light they should have asked some tests been done when streaming or multitasking
people looking at a 8core would be looking at them to do that!
instead of "make it look less bad" it would highlight what its great at!
....bit of a shame

RSR · 3 Mar 2017 at 20:57

Seems good enough to me.

Mei · 3 Mar 2017 at 21:03

RSR said:
Seems good enough to me.

it does, but do that and open some crap in the background, thats how i game & i think how most of my friends game, its normal!, we not freaks!

RSR · 3 Mar 2017 at 21:07

Mei said:
it does, but do that and open some crap in the background, thats how i game & i think how most of my friends game, its normal!, we not freaks!

I don't understand all this 720P etc... gaming unless is being done professionally. If I am spending all that money I want to run at the monitors native res with all the bells and whistles.

Mei · 3 Mar 2017 at 21:15

RSR said:
I don't understand all this 720P etc... gaming unless is being done professionally. If I am spending all that money I want to run at the monitors native res with all the bells and whistles.

well 720p is a little extreme but 1080p with a lot of lame stuff turned off is very common, to cap the fps and know you have some overhead & at least 5 things running in the background >.<
things in the background use both gpu and cpu so you dont want either running at 100% if you want it smooth

RSR · 3 Mar 2017 at 21:18

Mei said:
well 720p is a little extreme but 1080p with a lot of lame stuff turned off is very common, to cap the fps and know you have some overhead & at least 5 things running in the background >.<
things in the background use both gpu and cpu so you dont want either running at 100% if you want it smooth

I'll have to try that on mine to see how much the results differ.

cosmogenesis · 3 Mar 2017 at 21:31

resolution makes a big difference to your wallet and requirements obviously. So 160 fps or 180 fps hardly matters except for an academic exercise in trying to prove a point

Mei · 3 Mar 2017 at 21:33

RSR said:
I'll have to try that on mine to see how much the results differ.

6850k? yeh i think that would be interesting
i guess it comes down to how well windows handles them cores and maybe even memory speed might come into it more i have no idea
unless i limit fps hard i know my 4790k cant handle it
at least on some games..

RSR · 3 Mar 2017 at 21:56

Mei said:
6850k? yeh i think that would be interesting

Yup, I am running a 6850K at the mo. Ill do some testing tomorrow.

jaybee · 3 Mar 2017 at 23:05

Rossi~ said:
What we know:

SMT not being used effectively by games.

Windows moving threads between cores. Resulting in a cache miss and a huge latency penalty.

Memory tables and support lacking on motherboards

Motherboards BIOS very immature. Updates will flood in over the first month I'm sure.

Reviewers given random motherboards and different BIOS, skewing results across the board.

To solve these, it's looking like BIOS updates, Windows updates and drivers, game patching, devs taking Ryzen into consideration.

Hopefully we'll see this over the next month and see improvements.

Yeah there is also the one where you need to have Windows set to full power mode otherwise it doesn't turbo boost properly or something like that.

llamadal · 4 Mar 2017 at 00:45

Legend said:
Question that seems unclear to me as is exactly how much improvement might be seen over the coming months with Ryzen in games? Are we talking marginal, or to the point where the argument for it over the 7700K becomes far stronger? I see a lot of comments all over saying AMD rushed the release and the less than stellar gaming performance is more down to the motherboards not quite being ready, i.e BIOS, RAM etc. True, or mere wishful thinking and excuses?

I think it has potential, but comments seem to suggest like it's everyone elses fault but AMD. They chose to release now - if partners were not ready, be that hardware or software, then the blame squarely lies with them for lack of proper prep.

I hope the issues get ironed out quickly, i'm building one of these for a mate soon, but I can't help but feel we have seen this all before.

Legend · 4 Mar 2017 at 01:50

It's thrown a bit of a spanner in the works for me... not that I necessarily need an 8C CPU, although it would be handy for some of the apps I use, but primarily I use my PC for gaming. Is it remotely realistic to think the 1600X could topple the 7700K in games??

I do like the future proofing aspect of extra cores, and it's clear some games will be able to use them already.

Scougar · 4 Mar 2017 at 04:18

mickyflinn said:
The AMD Ryzen 7: plenty of power, but underwhelming gaming performance

http://www.pcgamer.com/the-amd-ryzen-7-review/5/

Interesting graph. I thought my A10-7850K at 4.3 would have been much worse than that.

Excited to see the bench marks, and looking forward to potentially getting one

(prob a basic 1700).

Martini1991 · 4 Mar 2017 at 08:07

If developers need to make ryzen specific patches then it won't happen on large scale, and almost certainly you won't see older games getting patched.

SiDeards73 · 4 Mar 2017 at 08:59

Martini1991 said:
If developers need to make ryzen specific patches then it won't happen on large scale, and almost certainly you won't see older games getting patched.

A couple of devs have said they are working on it, such as Oxide and Rebellion, but thats just AOTS and Sniper Elite games, so not exactly groundshattering, however the big one is Bethesda, AMD signed a deal to optomise their catalogue for AMD hardware.

DarkHorizon472 · 4 Mar 2017 at 09:06

This review has different results

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5x3ddh/ryzen_1700_vs_i7_7700k_review/

Be interesting to see why.

More from them on youtube including a discussion with gamersnexus who had different results and various issues.

Techen · 4 Mar 2017 at 09:16

Legend said:
It's thrown a bit of a spanner in the works for me... not that I necessarily need an 8C CPU, although it would be handy for some of the apps I use, but primarily I use my PC for gaming. Is it remotely realistic to think the 1600X could topple the 7700K in games??

I do like the future proofing aspect of extra cores, and it's clear some games will be able to use them already.

Does it need to be faster? Its going to be almost half the price of intel. So even if it sat next too 7700k it would sell really well.

JAMIE_CORTEZ · 4 Mar 2017 at 09:22

I remember a bulldozer release similar to this, it was everyone else's fault for not supporting it. And nothing ever changed there.

Still hoping in the 6 core Ryzen delivering the best of both worlds.

Martini1991 · 4 Mar 2017 at 09:43

JAMIE_CORTEZ said:
I remember a bulldozer release similar to this, it was everyone else's fault for not supporting it. And nothing ever changed there.

Still hoping in the 6 core Ryzen delivering the best of both worlds.

Again, I agree there's similarities (Making them myself) but Ryzen factually does have the core for core performance that Bulldozer didn't have.
If there's multiple factors that need addressing before Ryzen can reach its potential, then I don't think it'll reach its potential though however.

I can't see it changing for the 6 cores unless the problems are 100% ironed out. But if games need specific updates, then I'm sceptical.