Ryzen Awesome True Look

[Jahramika]

 

[Valentyn]

Alreeeet Geeez! It's ya boi,AMD Hyper Masta!

[suicidalfranco]

cause we didn't already have enough Ryzen thread extensively talking about it's performance on game, that are 10+ pages long and rising. Oh and let's not forget how this doesn't even meet tech news and reviews posting requirements.

[ZestyJalapeno]

Everyone's aware that the "discrepancies" (more like anomalies) in gaming is because of teething issues and because they're comparing it to proper gaming IPC-packed quadcores from Intel which are purely faster per clock. All I know is that there is a CPU out there that offers everyone an 8c/16t CPU with 85-90% of Intel's IPC for the same core/thread count and at half the price. And that is indeed awesome.

[Vode]

TLDR

 

Let the Windows thread sheduler be fixed (Linux had a pach day one...)

 

720p benches are worthless as an indicator of future performance

 

 

 

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, Vode said:

720p benches are worthless as an indicator of future performance

Actually it's the opposite, we aren't measuring gpu performance here - the more frames per second the gpu can churn out the more the cpu is under stress. You're always going to see the highest cpu performance differences at low resolutions.

[That Norwegian Guy]

38 minutes ago, Dogeystyle said:

because they're comparing it to proper gaming IPC-packed quadcores from Intel which are purely faster per clock.

Simply put, no.

 

 

This is what it looks like on Linux, with a proper Ryzen patch live.

Wait for Windows to fix its shit before talking about IPC.

The E3-1275 V5 Xeon is even running the exact same clock speed as the 1700X.

[alexcheetah]

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Actually it's the opposite, we aren't measuring gpu performance here - the more frames per second the gpu can churn out the more the cpu is under stress. You're always going to see the highest cpu performance differences at low resolutions.

Did you watch the video? These low res benchmarks are meaningless for cpu performance over time.

[ZestyJalapeno]

4 minutes ago, That Norwegian Guy said:

Simply put, no.

 

That's why I said anomalies, I'm well aware of Ryzen synthetic dominance which for some reason don't translate to 1080p game results. 

[Vode]

23 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Actually it's the opposite, we aren't measuring gpu performance here - the more frames per second the gpu can churn out the more the cpu is under stress. You're always going to see the highest cpu performance differences at low resolutions.

You're missing the point. Subjective proof that 720p performance is indicative of future gaming performance? It sounds fine in theory but doesn't take into account the actual circumstances.

 

What you're measuring is the performance right now for an unoptimized completely new archetecture tested on an OS with a broken sheduler and games not being optimized for AMD's SMT (which seems objectively superiour in productivity and synthetics) and higher core count.

 

You can say all that doesn't affect the results now and you're right but the whole premise the low resolution benches are built upon is future performance so it's not a well infomed argument to be honest.

 

These low resolution results will be worthless in a couple weeks/months...

 

I don't have a problem with 1080p benchmarks but the way alot of the techpress presents these results are misleading for people who don't have the proper insight.

[Guest]

This post (as of now) doesn't follow the community guidlines, please read the rules before posting.

AdoredTVs videos are always interesting to watch, since he always has something to back up his claim. It seems like my prediction was right, Ryzen will (probaly) beat the 7700K in most games, if optimised correctly.

[Misanthrope]

What a bunch of fucking nonsense "Ryzen is great for gaming, sure it looses to gaming centric CPUs like the 7770k but it's main competition are workstation CPUs and it wins against those!....henceforth, gaming!" Can't even finish watching.

[Notional]

Gotta hand it to @Adored he made sense. Only issue is his inclusion of jokers benches, as somethings completely off with his Intel system (claims 5Ghz OC on the 7700k, yet has similar results as other people's 7700k@4ghz, no proper methodology shown, settings, etc.). Other than that, I agree. AMD has been the frontrunner in how game development is headed for a while now. With consoles primarily, but also Mantle > Vulkan, and now proper affordable 6-8 core CPU's.

 

Remember when everyone wanted people to buy the shitty Intel Pentium 20 anniversary edition, or whatever? Yeah that 2 core crap CPU that could OC a lot. Well you can't run any games that require 4 cores/threads today, so it's utter useless for anything modern. I'm starting to feel the same about 7700k and similar for 1070 cards and above.

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, Notional said:

Gotta hand it to @Adored he made sense. Only issue is his inclusion of jokers benches, as somethings completely off with his Intel system (claims 5Ghz OC on the 7700k, yet has similar results as other people's 7700k@4ghz, no proper methodology shown, settings, etc.). Other than that, I agree. AMD has been the frontrunner in how game development is headed for a while now. With consoles primarily, but also Mantle > Vulkan, and now proper affordable 6-8 core CPU's.

 

Remember when everyone wanted people to buy the shitty Intel Pentium 20 anniversary edition, or whatever? Yeah that 2 core crap CPU that could OC a lot. Well you can't run any games that require 4 cores/threads today, so it's utter useless for anything modern. I'm starting to feel the same about 7700k and similar for 1070 cards and above.

Joker just made a video about that, but it's mostly about his stupid fucking drama with whatshisface the guy he broke up with or whatever so I don't really recommend it.

[RagnarokDel]

1 hour ago, Jahramika said:

 

your link started partially in

[79wjd]

16 minutes ago, Vode said:

You're missing the point. Subjective proof that 720p performance is indicative of future gaming performance? It sounds fine in theory but doesn't take into account the actual circumstances.

 

What you're measuring is the performance right now for an unoptimized completely new archetecture tested on an OS with a broken sheduler and games not being optimized for AMD's SMT (which seems objectively superiour in productivity and synthetics) and higher core count.

 

You can say all that doesn't affect the results now and you're right but the whole premise the low resolution benches are built upon is future performance so it's not a well infomed argument to be honest.

 

These low resolution results will be worthless in a couple weeks/months...

 

I don't have a problem with 1080p benchmarks but the way alot of the techpress presents these results are misleading for people who don't have the proper insight.

Future bug fixes and optimizations and what not aren't going to magically change the way CPUs work. Lower resolutions will ALWAYS make the CPU the limiting factor right now -- even at 4k, the cpu will eventually become the limiting factor as GPUs get more powerful. So low resolutions benchmarks are a perfect estimation on future performance. Of course, the possibility that games truly begin to leverage more weaker cores over fewer stronger cores is a possibility, but for right now, that's a complete guess and so you should be assuming single threaded performance remains king.

 

(Several of the reviews also disabled SMT)

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, Dogeystyle said:

Everyone's aware that the "discrepancies" (more like anomalies) in gaming is because of teething issues and because they're comparing it to proper gaming IPC-packed quadcores from Intel which are purely faster per clock. All I know is that there is a CPU out there that offers everyone an 8c/16t CPU with 85-90% of Intel's IPC for the same core/thread count and at half the price. And that is indeed awesome.

Scroll back and most people assured us that those "teething" issues where just that like 6 fucking years ago with Piledriver. Then it was "wait for optimization!" and "In the near future games will benefit more from many cores!" and so on and so on.

 

 

[Sauron]

20 minutes ago, alexcheetah said:

Did you watch the video? These low res benchmarks are meaningless for cpu performance over time.

These benchmarks are supposed to show the difference in performance between these cpus. Those differences are much clearer at low resolutions. Yes, you aren't going to run games at those settings - but that's not the point. It's a comparison that shows how intel has cpus that outperform the 500$ ryzen for 250$ (in games). He did explain this in the video as well. Since we have all kinds of benchmarks including ones at 1440p and uhd, all the information you may want is out there for you - nobody is trying to make ryzen appear slower than it is or trying to convince you it's a bad cpu. You can see the facts, make your own decision.

 

Nobody ever said you CAN'T play games on a ryzen cpu, but rather that buying it specifically for games doesn't make any sense - just like it makes no sense to buy an x99 cpu for that.

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

These benchmarks are supposed to show the difference in performance between these cpus. Those differences are much clearer at low resolutions. Yes, you aren't going to run games at those settings - but that's not the point. It's a comparison that shows how intel has cpus that outperform the 500$ ryzen for 250$ (in games). He did explain this in the video as well. Since we have all kinds of benchmarks including ones at 1440p and uhd, all the information you may want is out there for you - nobody is trying to make ryzen appear slower than it is or trying to convince you it's a bad cpu. You can see the facts, make your own decision.

 

Nobody ever said you CAN'T play games on a ryzen cpu, but rather that buying it specifically for games doesn't make any sense - just like it makes no sense to buy an x99 cpu for that.

Actually I'd argue that people that only release 1440p+ benchmarks for the "gaming" performance test are greatly misrepresenting the chip, trying to at the very least be too considerate of AMD instructions to avoid 1080p and below.

[TheRandomness]

-Thread moved to CPUs, Motherboards, and Memory due to not following posting guidelines from the Tech News and Reviews section.

[Vode]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

Feature bug fixes and what not aren't going to magically change the way CPUs work. Lower resolutions will ALWAYS make the CPU the limiting factor right now -- even at 4k, the cpu will eventually become the limiting factor as GPUs get more powerful.

Actually yes. How can an incorrect implementation of the WIndows sheduler NOT affect performance? How can gamecode which takes advantage of all cores not affect performance?

 

My argument isn't about the benches and what they tell us right now but that the whole premise why these benches exist is misguided.

 

Please stop telling me that low resolution will create a CPU bound scenario, we know that and it's obvious as fuck.

[Sauron]

18 minutes ago, Vode said:

What you're measuring is the performance right now for an unoptimized completely new archetecture tested on an OS with a broken sheduler and games not being optimized for AMD's SMT (which seems objectively superiour in productivity and synthetics) and higher core count.

Let's make something clear - it's not the press' job to make wild predictions on what may or may not happen in the future. Windows has bugs, so what? The vast majority still uses windows on their pcs and right now the results are exactly as presented. Games are not optimized, so what? This was the same excuse that we kept hearing over and over when bulldozer launched - yes, they are not optimized, but chances are this is how it will be for a while and furthermore, people want to play games NOW. I wouldn't recommend a cpu based on possible future performance in games that may or may not be optimized better.

 

Problems are expected on new product launches, but this doesn't mean we have to make up excuses for these problems - we can understand why they are there and hope they are fixed soon, not pretend they don't matter.

[Prysin]

20 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

What a bunch of fucking nonsense "Ryzen is great for gaming, sure it looses to gaming centric CPUs like the 7770k but it's main competition are workstation CPUs and it wins against those!....henceforth, gaming!" Can't even finish watching.

his logic is solid based on the argument he presents. If you find fault in the video, state the actual fault and not the one you WANT to find.

[Vode]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

people want to play games NOW.

So they want to play games @low settings 720p with a Titan X and >$320 CPU?

[Prysin]

20 minutes ago, Notional said:

Gotta hand it to @Adored he made sense. Only issue is his inclusion of jokers benches, as somethings completely off with his Intel system (claims 5Ghz OC on the 7700k, yet has similar results as other people's 7700k@4ghz, no proper methodology shown, settings, etc.). Other than that, I agree. AMD has been the frontrunner in how game development is headed for a while now. With consoles primarily, but also Mantle > Vulkan, and now proper affordable 6-8 core CPU's.

 

Remember when everyone wanted people to buy the shitty Intel Pentium 20 anniversary edition, or whatever? Yeah that 2 core crap CPU that could OC a lot. Well you can't run any games that require 4 cores/threads today, so it's utter useless for anything modern. I'm starting to feel the same about 7700k and similar for 1070 cards and above.

Sure you can run those games on that abysmal piece of shit. you just got to download a cracked DLL to bypass the 4core/thread issue.