Ryzen and Gaming results.

gpuerrilla · 4 Mar 2017 at 10:57

Martini1991 said:
Again, I agree there's similarities (Making them myself) but Ryzen factually does have the core for core performance that Bulldozer didn't have.

Strange one if you have banged on about AMD lacking the ability to challenge on the IPC front for the past few years, and now they are in a relatively good position (considering the falling short aspect with the FX) you either like the choice - almost as good as intels offerings for gaming, yet productivity win with all the cores if you compile/develop/render etc or you just continue and stay with what you have.

I would say I am at least 6 months away from an 'upgrade' and by the looks of it will be in a good position to see what the ££ will get me end of summer. This will have well and truly settled down by then and intel will have countered in some way shape or form so that is ultimately win/win for the consumers.

AMD to challenge intel they said... well lets not focus on negatives and welcome the fact that with the pound weakening and tech prices going up - it has come at the right time to give us choice and competition when it comes to the wallet!

Mtom · 4 Mar 2017 at 10:58

Found a good link in one of the reviews.
When intel launched the i7 series they had the same problems: https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/why-nehalem-for-games-is-not-better-than-yorkfield.44382/

All should realize that ironing out the bugs is almost normal with a completely new architekture. Just remember Skylake launch bug, Nvidias GTX780 release when there wasn't a goid driver for 2 months, i linked the i7 launch above. It is expected to be some bugs at the start.
Benchmarks showed Ryzen has the single core performance exactly what AMD said it will be, on par with Broadwell, the multi core performance is on par as well. So theres enough grunt in the CPU to be on par with the 6900k in games, but somehow its not utilized in games. Clearly a software/firmware/bios bug, which needs to be ironed out, but as i said its almost normal with a new release.
So I expect it to be in a few % of the 6900/7700 in games in a 1-2 months latest.
Luckily thats when the smalker Ryzens arrive so it will be benched again.

Martini1991 · 4 Mar 2017 at 11:03

Mtom said:
Found a good link in one of the reviews.
When intel launched the i7 series they had the same problems: https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/why-nehalem-for-games-is-not-better-than-yorkfield.44382/

All should realize that ironing out the bugs is almost normal with a completely new architekture. Just remember Skylake launch bug, Nvidias GTX780 release when there wasn't a goid driver for 2 months, i linked the i7 launch above. It is expected to be some bugs at the start.
Benchmarks showed Ryzen has the single core performance exactly what AMD said it will be, on par with Broadwell, the multi core performance is on par as well. So theres enough grunt in the CPU to be on par with the 6900k in games, but somehow its not utilized in games. Clearly a software/firmware/bios bug, which needs to be ironed out, but as i said its almost normal with a new release.
So I expect it to be in a few % of the 6900/7700 in games in a 1-2 months latest.
Luckily thats when the smalker Ryzens arrive so it will be benched again.

The problem is that we are years on from that.

Ryzen's good, and I think when the problems are ironed out it'll be excellent, but AMD frankly can't afford to keep having launches ridden with problems.

Martini1991 · 4 Mar 2017 at 11:04

Th0nt said:
Strange one if you have banged on about AMD lacking the ability to challenge on the IPC front for the past few years, and now they are in a relatively good position (considering the falling short aspect with the FX) you either like the choice - almost as good as intels offerings for gaming, yet productivity win with all the cores if you compile/develop/render etc or you just continue and stay with what you have.

I would say I am at least 6 months away from an 'upgrade' and by the looks of it will be in a good position to see what the ££ will get me end of summer. This will have well and truly settled down by then and intel will have countered in some way shape or form so that is ultimately win/win for the consumers.

AMD to challenge intel they said... well lets not focus on negatives and welcome the fact that with the pound weakening and tech prices going up - it has come at the right time to give us choice and competition when it comes to the wallet!

I have no idea what you're saying.

I have high praise for Ryzen, but I can see the shortfalls (Although I'd just disable SMT for the time being or wait till the next iteration)

When Bulldozer launched, the excuses used now, are the excuses used then.
Ryzen however actually should be better though, it has the core for core performance relative to Intel that Bulldozer didn't have. Cinebench single core results for Ryzen are solid. It's looking like thread priority is reducing its gaming performance.

mickyflinn · 4 Mar 2017 at 11:10

I will be looking forward to the Ryzen cpu that competes with I5 performance in games as a value minded gamer.

I have looked at several reviews into the gaming benchmarks and some are favorable and some not so for ryzen, just strange how they get so diffrent results.

Martini1991 · 4 Mar 2017 at 11:11

mickyflinn said:
I will be looking forward to the Ryzen cpu that competes with I5 performance in games as a value minded gamer.

I have looked at several reviews into the gaming benchmarks and some are favorable and some not so for ryzen, just strange how they get so diffrent results.

The results are all over because of a multitude of factors.
Once they're sorted, pretty much any Ryzen should be a viable platform change from your Ivy.

Aretak · 4 Mar 2017 at 11:23

These For Honor results look rather good...

http://pclab.pl/art73043-4.html

Obviously largely GPU bottlenecked, but a huge boost in minimum framerate over anything else on the list.

Rroff · 4 Mar 2017 at 11:40

Aretak said:
These For Honor results look rather good...

http://pclab.pl/art73043-4.html

Obviously largely GPU bottlenecked, but a huge boost in minimum framerate over anything else on the list.

Problem is without more data its impossible to say how much impact that min has - it could be a single drop at the start of the map and has no impact on gameplay or it could be they are dropping a lot in gameplay and more noticeable.

hornetstinger · 4 Mar 2017 at 11:51

I'd probably wait a generation of CPU/Motherboard until bugs and possible issues are fixed. With that slow memory problem what if it's a hardware problem with CPU and/or moterboard that can't be fixed in BIOS/driver update? (or doing so is just a work around)

Not that I need a new system, but if I were buying now I'd wait a while.

Mtom · 4 Mar 2017 at 12:19

The big fifference is Bulldozer

Martini1991 said:
The problem is that we are years on from that.

Ryzen's good, and I think when the problems are ironed out it'll be excellent, but AMD frankly can't afford to keep having launches ridden with problems.

Thats why i brought to closer examples, the SKylake bug, and the 780 driver

motiv · 4 Mar 2017 at 12:26

I'm still on a 2500K. I mainly game on it so I don't think an upgrade is viable yet. I will say that AMD have created a decent CPU and if you need cores, its a real monster.

KingDazza · 4 Mar 2017 at 20:25

Curlyriff said:
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.

Please explain:

Thanks.

Panos · 4 Mar 2017 at 20:43

Gents don't beat the bush. Wait for MS to patch the damn windows kernel with the new SMT topology Ryzen is using.
It will be easier than waiting from all developers to patch their games.

However future games they will come optimised for the Ryzen, especially since is similar to the 8core consoles topology (minus the hyperthreading).

teppic · 4 Mar 2017 at 20:49

I expect the 4/6c versions will clock a bit higher and so will make up some of the difference in games.

Rroff · 4 Mar 2017 at 20:50

Panos said:
However future games they will come optimised for the Ryzen, especially since is similar to the 8core consoles topology (minus the hyperthreading).

Bit idealistic - I see this kind of view banded about a lot over the years especially with regards to AMD stuff - but it never happens.

Games generally aren't optimised for CPUs (there might be some compiler optimisation) but most of the performance is used up in stuff that isn't particularly possible to optimise for a specific CPU as such at the level the programmers are working at except some occasional inline asm and there are just too many differences - especially in terms of memory management - for any similarities between 8 core consoles and PC to count for much.

Curlyriff · 4 Mar 2017 at 21:03

KingDazza said:
Please explain:

Thanks.

That's not BF1 multiplayer, it's their benchmark, just google bf1 multiplayer ryzen and you will see the 7700k loosing out to the 1800X.

The i7 6900K beats the 1800X but that's to be expected.

RSR · 4 Mar 2017 at 21:24

I'd be interesting to see those results once all the UEFI bugs and windows updates have been applied.

Brazo · 4 Mar 2017 at 21:34

Curlyriff said:
That's not BF1 multiplayer, it's their benchmark, just google bf1 multiplayer ryzen and you will see the 7700k loosing out to the 1800X.

The i7 6900K beats the 1800X but that's to be expected.

Can you post a credible source?

I know there's been disappointment over the Ryzen gaming results but I'm starting to think it's turning into denial with some posters on here. When professional reviewers are saying and I quote

"We absolutely do not recommend the 1800X for gaming-focused users or builds, given i5-level performance at two times the price."

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreview...review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-8

DarkHorizon472 · 4 Mar 2017 at 21:56

Brazo said:
Can you post a credible source?

I know there's been disappointment over the Ryzen gaming results but I'm starting to think it's turning into denial with some posters on here. When professional reviewers are saying and I quote

"We absolutely do not recommend the 1800X for gaming-focused users or builds, given i5-level performance at two times the price."

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreview...review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-8

Look up jokers review on youtube and also his discussion about results with gamingnexus for 1080p, 1440p gaming.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 4 Mar 2017 at 23:43

Martini1991 said:
The problem is that we are years on from that.

Ryzen's good, and I think when the problems are ironed out it'll be excellent, but AMD frankly can't afford to keep having launches ridden with problems.

Agreed and I have tried explaining it to people elsewhere and I have a feeling they think I have suddenly gone anti-AMD.

AMD really needed to have waited a few more weeks,for at least some windows patches to get released and for motherboards to have more stable BIOSes.

But also the fact is this is the first time in a very long time AMD has £300 to £500 CPUs and they are competing against higher end Intel CPUs which have less issues in terms of optimisations.

Lots of people will buy them but many will look at the reviews,and just get an Intel CPU for gaming still.

AMD didn't launch Ryzen in its best shape and we are hearing how so many review sites and reviewers are saying now how rushed it was.

Three weeks for functional BIOSes before launch - no wonder there have been issues.