Ryzen and Gaming results.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Not Sure if anybody is following the Stilt thread over at anandtech ....Its very interesting

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/

Good to know M$ are Fully supporting there latest os

seems where better of running are ryzens in Win 7 ...gotta love Win 7...

I quote

"I did some 3D testing and even thou there is not nearly enough data to confirm it, I'd say the SMT regression is infact a Windows 10 related issue.
In 3D testing I did recently on Windows 10, the title which illustrated the biggest SMT regression was Total War: Warhammer.

All of these were recorded at 3.5GHz, 2133MHz MEMCLK with R9 Nano:

Windows 10 - 1080 Ultra DX11:

8C/16T - 49.39fps (Min), 72.36fps (Avg)
8C/8T - 57.16fps (Min), 72.46fps (Avg)

Windows 7 - 1080 Ultra DX11:

8C/16T - 62.33fps (Min), 78.18fps (Avg)
8C/8T - 62.00fps (Min), 73.22fps (Avg)

At the moment this is just pure speculation as there were variables, which could not be isolated.
Windows 10 figures were recorded using PresentMon (OCAT), however with Windows 7 it was necessary to use Fraps."

 

[james.miller]

Good to know M$ are Fully supporting there latest os

seems where better of running are ryzens in Win 7 ...gotta love Win 7...

I'm not normally one to complain about literacy but FFS

 

[ubersonic]

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.

It's almost like this is the first new architecture launch since 2011 (Bulldozer) and people have forgotten that new architectures always have issues with old/existing software not being optimized (MMX, SSE, 3DNOW!, etc) at launch or something /shock.

 

[Rroff]

It's almost like this is the first new architecture launch since 2011 (Bulldozer) and people have forgotten that new architectures always have issues with old/existing software not being optimized (MMX, SSE, 3DNOW!, etc) at launch or something /shock.

In the past stuff has usually ran well with existing stuff even if getting the most of extended capabilities took some time.

 

[ubersonic]

In the past stuff has usually ran well with existing stuff even if getting the most of extended capabilities took some time.

Ryzen CPUs do run well on existing stuff, don't forget that when Intel launches a new CPU its extended capabilities are usually utilized immediatly as they are supported already because they have been releasing evolved Pentium III's ever since Netburst imploded.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The only problem is they are getting launched into a whole flock of relatively mature Intel CPUs. So the issues with SMT,immature BIOSes and lack of game optimisations is not helping AMD. This is why if they had at least waited 30 days until the first windows patches and given time for the BIOSes to mature a bit,I suspect things would have looked better on the gaming side.

 

[AlamoX]

gaming on Ryzen isn't a concern for +90% of cases in real world application for gaming, it significantly raises minimums and average enough to hit 60/120fps at 1080p even with high end graphics, at mid/low end graphics it isn't at all as for 1440p and 4k.
for ppl gaming on low setting at 720p with a high end graphics i can understand their concern not hiting the 200+ max fps, but they will still be happy with on par minimums for smooth gaming experience, and the hope of this issue being resolved soon.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

gaming on Ryzen isn't a concern for +90% of cases in real world application for gaming, it significantly raises minimums and average enough to hit 60/120fps at 1080p even with high end graphics, at mid/low end graphics it isn't at all as for 1440p and 4k.
for ppl gaming on low setting at 720p with a high end graphics i can understand their concern not hiting the 200+ max fps, but they will still be happy with on par minimums for smooth gaming experience, and the hope of this issue being resolved soon.

But its a £300+ CPU,so don't you think its more likely the people who buy one will have higher end cards??

If you don't want absolute performance why not just get a £240 Core i5 or wait one month and get a £260 R5 1600X??

Its a silly argument - why should I bother getting a 8C Ryzen for gaming when I have an IB Core i7,I might as well get a faster card,right??

My Xeon E3 1230 V2 cost me well under £200,and other mates got the Haswell ones for under £200 before Intel made sure they stopped people using them in normal motherboards.

I mean you could even argue a £65 G4560 and a £165 RX480 4GB is more than enough for most people at 1080P.

Edit!!

The whole issue,even though I think MOAR MHZ for Intel is overblown,looking at the reviews we do see issues regressing performance down to even IB or SB levels at times.

My point is we really should just ignore them until said issues get fixed,otherwise we could start applying the logic to slower Intel chips too.

 

[Random Guy Esq.]

I'm not normally one to complain about literacy but FFS

 

[PhoenixUK]

I find it quite hilarious that even though a 3770k smashes all games just fine even with high end GPU (remember - intel hasn't really improved performance that much over the last 4gens) and ryzen is supposedly better than a 3770k, suddenly, everyone says how bad ryzen is in gaming because its few fps slower than a 7700k in some cases.

With or without the issues, it looks like a great CPU and you can't argue that it is a very competitive product. Intel wouldn't be dropping prices like mad on all ranges if it wasn't.

 

[Begbie]

I'm tempted with a 1700, my 8320 is starting to show it's age now.

Though I'm also tempted to see the prices on the 1600X, I'm not a massive gamer but I feel like the 8320 is holding things back now.

 

[Zethor]

Not looking good for AMD, their stocks plunged with the first reviews. This is their first brand new release in how many years? They were supposed to do some damage yet Ryzen seems to struggle against older, equivalent Intel chips in gaming.

 

[PhoenixUK]

Ryzen seems to struggle against older, equivalent Intel chips in gaming.

Yes, also, the new Intel chips seems to struggle to beat older Intel chips - the gaming performence increase from ivy to kaby is almost non existent...

hooray for 5yrs of Intel development.

 

[Jono8]

Not looking good for AMD, their stocks plunged with the first reviews. This is their first brand new release in how many years? They were supposed to do some damage yet Ryzen seems to struggle against older, equivalent Intel chips in gaming.

It is unfortunate. I think by next year when they will presumably release the 2nd gen Ryzen stuff they could be on to a real winner. They may be able to refine the process, up the IPC a bit, up the clocks some more, work out the kinks with the thread scheduler etc.
Also by that time motherboard manufacturers will have been able to iron things out as well.

The power and IPC improvements are clearly there as the synthetic/productivity benches show.

 

[Mtom]

Well luckily Ryzen will be reviewed again soon when the R5 and R3 releases.
They need to fix these software bugs bt then.

 

[Roughneck]

maybe apple should make a new mac pro and put the top end ryzen chip in it. that would be awesome.

 

[Rofflay]

This behaviour with SMT and HPET is just repeating and proving what everyone said ages ago. The six core used to and prolly still does shine better with HT off as would an 8 core 8 true cores with SMT off. And Nice to see Lisa @amd say HPET sucks if you buy something these days you need to make sure you get access to this option imo and only Gigabyte was offering it for a while on the latest intel chipsets and even then only through custom bios. And when i saw you could do bith on Ryzen my ears pricked i thought hmm upgrade time but alas no.

There is nothing here for me on a 4770k @ 4300 Core/Uncore and 2400mhz DDR3 1T. I am about10% faster than a stock 4790k and that is still not really being destroyed. And i got this in 2013 i think? Damm how long until i double my performance here i doubt even the next Ryzen/8800k will be that. Normally i want 70%-100% from an upgrade where my base must be taken apart. Heck this might just see out 2018?

 

[Rroff]

The six core used to and prolly still does shine better with HT off

That is looking at it in a very narrow perspective though - sure having HT on can slightly reduce the max performance in some scenarios but overall you get a much better experience. Also many of the issues relevant to HT can be negated by some tweaking of core parking.

And i got this in 2013 i think?

Same for my 4820K - I don't feel things have really moved on like they should since the high end 45nm core 2 quads - I still have an old setup with a highly clocked Q9550 and it holds up way better than most people would allow for (albeit that is partly due to some fancy OCZ Blade RAM and crazy FSB speeds that allows for).

 

[Brazo]

I find it quite hilarious that even though a 3770k smashes all games just fine even with high end GPU (remember - intel hasn't really improved performance that much over the last 4gens) and ryzen is supposedly better than a 3770k, suddenly, everyone says how bad ryzen is in gaming because its few fps slower than a 7700k in some cases.

With or without the issues, it looks like a great CPU and you can't argue that it is a very competitive product. Intel wouldn't be dropping prices like mad on all ranges if it wasn't.

I think as standalone chips they are very good but hype and speculation got the better of AMD and they didn't help it by cherrry picking benchmarks in their tech demos.

And I don't think all this settings tweaking helps, no one wants to spend ages setting up a cpu to work effectively on an per app basis.

I know you don't have to do this but it's being bandied around like some sort of band aid.

 

[~>Dg<~]

i think its pretty clear now why benchmarks were not shown and it was very cloak and dagger.only things that were shown were to give positive light.if it would have been smashing games over intel you would have seen that before release. they played it well though.imagine if they would have shown before hand gaming benchmarks.people would have ripped them to pieces and that 5 percent drop in shares would have been 20 or 30 percent .

the chips are great value but as i said before people mainly look for the best for their money.gaming wise thats intel.

as to some saying but it plays everything okay or acceptable ....no ! some games are upto 20-30 fps better.thats a huge graphics card jump for eg at any resolution.

if i said to you. you want to play battlefield 1 at 150 fps or 200 you would pick the 200.even if its ten fps more if you a gamer you are going to go with the higher figure.which is intel.


things i would take the amd chips for gaming wise is if i recorded a lot daily or streamed.that makes sense.anyone who does that a lot will know the extra cores help.