Why are Ryzen gaming benchmarks mainly done at 4K?

[david cassar]

8 minutes ago, WhiteSkyMage said:

Benchmarking at 1080p is totally meaningless, that is why. For me, 4K CPU and GPU benchmarking makes more sense, shows you real gaming performance, and on top of that, WHO IS THAT STUPID DUMB Gamer who would buy a Ryzen 8 core and will play games at 1080p? Benchmarks at 1080p do not show high end gaming performance we want to see, I don't care if you have the 240Hz monitor, if you suck at CSGO, you are still dead meat.

 

Do NOT, i repeat, Do NoooooooooT Trust 1080p benchmarks on CPUs!!! Absolutely MEANINGLESS to bench at 1080p or lower. They only do that to put down the company, and ALL of those benchmarks can not be more WRONG! 

Judging by 4K benchmarks, Ryzen is = to Intel's high end and beats i7 7700k across the board. If you buy a 7700K, wait an year and you will be throwing it away, you would be disappointed from intel! DO NOT BUY Kaby Lake, buy Ryzen, and if you are an intel fanboy or trust 1080p benchmarks, well im sorry for you but you are stupid!

At 4k even a core 2 quad would be almost equal to a 7700k with a lot of gpus lmao. The amount of people playing at 4k are very low. The most popular resolution right now is 1080p. Also not to mention that with 1080p benchmarks you don't need to see 4k benchmarks since you will have a rough idea of how much performance you can get out of the cpu. With 4k benchmarks you have no idea how much fps the cpu is capable of since you would be bottlenecked by the gpu.

[RagnarokDel]

On 02/03/2017 at 1:57 PM, done12many2 said:

 

Here's a couple more examples of what AMD did to skew perception of gaming performance.  Keep in mind, all companies do this to some degree.  AMD just happens to be the best at it.

 

 

I didnt get the hate for gamersnexus before but now I get it. He sounds completely bias'd. If both benchmarks are done while  shooting at the target, it's fucking silly to say that they're purposedly having more of the skybox in.

[david cassar]

2 minutes ago, RagnarokDel said:

I didnt get the hate for gamersnexus before but now I get it. He sounds completely bias'd. If both benchmarks are done while  shooting at the target, it's fucking silly to say that they're purposedly having more of the skybox in.

To be fair looking at the benchmarks they are looking more at the skybox on the amd testbench. Whether or not this was on purpose or not we may never know.

[rusina]

2 hours ago, Gerr said:

Testing at 1080p is far from useless.  It shows the true gaming ability of the CPU's!  This is because as you increase the resolution, the GPU is working harder and harder and more often becomes the bottleneck.  4K benchmarks often show that even an i3 can preform just as good as an i7 or 1800x, so does that mean it's as good of a gaming CPU as those others?

 

The opposite is true when you benchmark GPU's.  You don't want to benchmark at 1080p with a low end CPU because the CPU becomes the bottleneck.  But by many of the arguments is see here, at 1080p with a dual core Pentium CPU, a 1050 preforms as well as a 1080, so that must mean a 1050 is as good of a gaming GPU as a 1080, doesn't it?!?

 

The whole point of testing a CPU or GPU is minimize the chance of other parts of the system being the bottleneck to show what the device you are testing is really able to do.  Yes, that means testing in a way a person might not normally use, but that's why testers often add in benchmarks at other configurations/resolutions so you can see real world performance too.

I though that the whole point of CPU and GPU testing were to show people what to expect in real life. In real life it tends to be  GPU that bottlenecks things. If you can get the same performance with i3 as with i7 that tells you that you don't need i7 for 4K gaming. KitGuru had 4K tests (whole three of them..) and yeah... Ryzen is on par with Intel highend offerings at 4K (they used Titan X (pascal) as a GPU)

[rusina]

8 minutes ago, david cassar said:

At 4k even a core 2 quad would be almost equal to a 7700k with a lot of gpus lmao. The amount of people playing at 4k are very low. The most popular resolution right now is 1080p. Also not to mention that with 1080p benchmarks you don't need to see 4k benchmarks since you will have a rough idea of how much performance you can get out of the cpu. With 4k benchmarks you have no idea how much fps the cpu is capable of since you would be bottlenecked by the gpu.

Well I wonder how many of those that are considering buying $500 processor are considering playing at only 1080p? Nonetheless..if you play at 4K you don't have to care about your CPU as long as it has 4 cores (7350K can also keep up if you overclock it). It's just annoying how tests sites mention game performance as major issue when it's not really a factor in 1440p or 4K

[WhiteSkyMage]

19 minutes ago, david cassar said:

At 4k even a core 2 quad would be almost equal to a 7700k with a lot of gpus lmao. The amount of people playing at 4k are very low. The most popular resolution right now is 1080p. Also not to mention that with 1080p benchmarks you don't need to see 4k benchmarks since you will have a rough idea of how much performance you can get out of the cpu. With 4k benchmarks you have no idea how much fps the cpu is capable of since you would be bottlenecked by the gpu.

Watch this.

 

[done12many2]

34 minutes ago, RagnarokDel said:

I didnt get the hate for gamersnexus before but now I get it. He sounds completely bias'd. If both benchmarks are done while  shooting at the target, it's fucking silly to say that they're purposedly having more of the skybox in.

 

At this point it really doesn't matter.  AMD clarified the whole single-threaded 1080p thing themselves stating that at stock clock speeds, the 7% IPC difference and 12% clockspeed difference between Ryzen and Kaby Lake (7700k) will results in a roughly 19% advantage to the 7700k in 1080p and single threaded applications.  This is further stretched in the 7700k's favor if both are overclocked as the 7700k happens to OC a lot more on ambient.  

 

As I originally stated, all companies put their best foot forward and AMD shifting focus from 1080p to 1440p and higher is a smart move.  This shifts the focus away from the need for fast cores as GPUs become the bottleneck at higher resolutions.  

 

  

[CostcoSamples]

7700k might be a few % faster at 1080p, but Ryzen is an all-around better CPU.  It's not like Ryzen sucks at gaming, it's just a little slower at very high frame rates.  Ryzen is actually better at eliminating stuttering and frame drops.  In other words, if you are part of the niche market who games at 1080p 240hz, then Ryzen is not for you.  

 

I plan to upgrade to Ryzen later in the year.  Hopefully by then the BIOS and other issues will have been sorted out.

[done12many2]

3 minutes ago, CostcoSamples said:

7700k might be a few % faster at 1080p, but Ryzen is an all-around better CPU.  It's not like Ryzen sucks at gaming, it's just a little slower at very high frame rates.  Ryzen is actually better at eliminating stuttering and frame drops.  In other words, if you are part of the niche market who games at 1080p 240hz, then Ryzen is not for you.  

 

I plan to upgrade to Ryzen later in the year.  Hopefully by then the BIOS and other issues will have been sorted out.

 

Agreed, Ryzen is a better all around CPU, but you have played down the single-threaded performance difference a bit much.  19% is far from "a few %" That would be the same thing as saying the 7700k is a few percent slower in optimized multi-threaded application, which would be a gross misrepresentation of the the truth.

[CostcoSamples]

37 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

Agreed, Ryzen is a better all around CPU, but you have played down the single-threaded performance difference a bit much.  19% is far from "a few %" That would be the same thing as saying the 7700k is a few percent slower in optimized multi-threaded application, which would be a gross misrepresentation of the the truth.

But it's not 19% across the board, is it?  And anyway the clock speed of 1700 vs 7700k is pretty huge difference.  Nobody should have been surprised that the 7700k beats everything.  We already knew it is better at gaming than any x99 CPU Intel makes.  

[done12many2]

9 minutes ago, CostcoSamples said:

But it's not 19% across the board, is it?  And anyway the clock speed of 1700 vs 7700k is pretty huge difference.  Nobody should have been surprised that the 7700k beats everything.  We already knew it is better at gaming than any x99 CPU Intel makes.  

 

Yes it's 19% across the board.  Play the video right above your first post in this tread.  7% IPC + 12% clock = 19% difference in single threaded performance per AMD.

 

Agreed, for gaming as a whole, the 7700k is better than x99 and Ryzen.

[Simon771]

Some people are mad because a lot of reviews were about 1080p, and saying how bad Ryzen performs there.

So others started doing 1440p and 4K tests, now people are complaining again.

 

Right now it seems like Ryzen is not that good for 1080p. It can still handle it very good, but if you want 300fps +, then you are better of with i7 7700k in most cases.

But whoever spend that amount of money on new CPU, is probbably not 1080p gamer.

And when it comes to 1440p and 4K gaming, Ryzen is just as good as any other Intel CPU. Again, I'm saying that for most scenarios, so keep that in mind.

[CostcoSamples]

1 hour ago, done12many2 said:

 

Yes it's 19% across the board.  Play the video right above your first post in this tread.  7% IPC + 12% clock = 19% difference in single threaded performance per AMD.

 

Agreed, for gaming as a whole, the 7700k is better than x99 and Ryzen.

 

58 minutes ago, Simon771 said:

Some people are mad because a lot of reviews were about 1080p, and saying how bad Ryzen performs there.

So others started doing 1440p and 4K tests, now people are complaining again.

 

Right now it seems like Ryzen is not that good for 1080p. It can still handle it very good, but if you want 300fps +, then you are better of with i7 7700k in most cases.

But whoever spend that amount of money on new CPU, is probbably not 1080p gamer.

And when it comes to 1440p and 4K gaming, Ryzen is just as good as any other Intel CPU. Again, I'm saying that for most scenarios, so keep that in mind.

And it's not even that Ryzen is "not that good" at gaming.  It's actually great for gaming.  How many of us have recommended the x99 platform for the gamer who also works?  Ryzen is essentially an AMD version of Intel's x99 platform.

 

19% is a significant lead, but I would challenge anyone to try spot the difference without an FPS meter running.  Ryzen has proven excellent at avoiding frame dips/ stuttering.  Can you tell the difference between 100 FPS and 119 FPS? while playing a game?

[RagnarokDel]

3 hours ago, done12many2 said:

 

Yes it's 19% across the board.  Play the video right above your first post in this tread.  7% IPC + 12% clock = 19% difference in single threaded performance per AMD.

 

I dont know if you know math but that's not how it works. 1.07*1.12=1.1984 but that's irrelevant because clock speed doesnt increase performance linearly.

[done12many2]

32 minutes ago, RagnarokDel said:

I dont know if you know math but that's not how it works. 1.07*1.12=1.1984 but that's irrelevant because clock speed doesnt increase performance linearly.

 

Is it me or does everyone in this particular thread think they're smarter than everyone else?

 

For starters, your issue would be with AMD, not me as I was quoting their numbers and math (notice he says plus).  Hey, nice try though!

 

Oh and he mentioned that those numbers were when it scaled linearly, so it does happen unlike what you just said.  It just doesn't happen all the time.

 

When trying to look cool, make sure you know what you're talking about.