Ryzen Awesome True Look

[Misanthrope]

Just now, Prysin said:

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.

I already said that after the first, aneurysm inducing contradiction I lost patience.

[Prysin]

Just now, Vode said:

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

 

 

no, they want to play games at 480p with a Titan XP and a 330$ INTEL CPU.
#Brandmatters

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, Vode said:

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.

So you're making the assumption that games will leverage more weaker cores over fewer stronger ones. That's a pretty big assumption. At this point it's just as likely that single core performance remains more important. And tests were done with SMT disabled and in w7, where there isn't the scheduler issue that's present in w10.

 

Except they're not misguided in any way. They show the relative gaming performance of ryzen vs Intel, in which case a 7700k wins.

 

Clearly not. 

[Sauron]

Just now, Vode said:

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

They want to play games at whatever resolution and can do so on a 350$ intel cpu better than they could on a 500$ ryzen, which is worse across the board in games - even if at higher resolutions the difference is much smaller. I'm not sure which part of what I said seemed to indicate something like that to you but you may want to read what I wrote again and pay more attention.

[alexcheetah]

2 minutes ago, Prysin said:

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.

still won't make up for the fact that GTA 5 is a stuttering mess even though it posts 30fps.

[Prysin]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

I already said that after the first, aneurysm inducing contradiction I lost patience.

Except you did not quote him word for word. But rather what you heard, or perhaps what you wanted to hear? Aka your counter argument is based upon a flawed premise, thus, not an argument.

Sure, you can join me in hating on Ryzen, but get it right!! Hate it for the right reasons, not perceived issues.

[Vode]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

They want to play games at whatever resolution and can do so on a 350$ intel cpu better than they could on a 500$ ryzen, which is worse across the board in games - even if at higher resolutions the difference is much smaller. I'm not sure which part of what I said seemed to indicate something like that to you but you may want to read what I wrote again and pay more attention.

You bring up something that I haven't even touched upon. My point is about these low resolution benches are not indicative of future performance. Please read my previous posts again before you insult my reading comprehension.

 

I keep saying Apples are not Oranges and you keep telling me 1 +1 = 2

[Misanthrope]

Just now, Prysin said:

Except you did not quote him word for word. But rather what you heard, or perhaps what you wanted to hear? Aka your counter argument is based upon a flawed premise, thus, not an argument.

Sure, you can join me in hating on Ryzen, but get it right!! Hate it for the right reasons, not perceived issues.

I didn't quote him I paraphrased him. Also the fact that he admits the intel gaming chips are better and he still says Ryzen is good for gaming cause it's better than intel's non-gaming chips is not a false premise, is one he brings up within the first few minutes and it's one I am definitively not misrepresenting, even if I'm not a court fucking clerk typing out everything he said verbatim.

[JoeCoke]

33 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.

Lmao, you didn't even get close to the point of the video, that wasn't the point at all.

 

smh

[Sauron]

26 minutes ago, Notional said:

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.

First of all not that many games require 4 threads to run, and the ones that do do it in the most bullshit way possible - the game checks how many threads you have and if you have enough to meet its completely arbitraty requirement then you are allowed to play. The athlon x4 line is good for the price, but don't delude yourself into thinking they are somehow far superior to the pentium k - where there is a real difference it's quite small.

 

Going by the same argument that has been used multiple times in this thread by people defending ryzen, "the games are not optimized", and in this case they are not optimized ON PURPOSE. Those devs specifically went out of their way to prevent their game from working on non-ht dual cores.

18 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

And of course we will have hypocrites suggesting people buy based on absolute performance, measures that do not apply to consumers, when they themselves admit no one is going to be running their games at super low resolutions. Assuming everyone is able to afford GPU setups expensive enough to put the bottleneck back on the CPU, so absolute CPU performance is the prime measure. Delusional...

Have you considered the fact that right now you can only buy a ryzen cpu that costs 500$? Going by your own argument, why on earth would the general consumer spend MORE to get it even though it clearly does not benefit your performance significantly? [when it comes to games of course]

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

I didn't quote him I paraphrased him. Also the fact that he admits the intel gaming chips are better and he still says Ryzen is good for gaming cause it's better than intel's non-gaming chips is not a false premise, is one he brings up within the first few minutes and it's one I am definitively not misrepresenting, even if I'm not a court fucking clerk typing out everything he said verbatim.

So you are emotionally engaged, where the video host/creator, adored is it?, quotes ANOTHER reivewers words?? then blame it on the videos host/creator?
Now that is zMeul level of hating man. Don't drop that low.

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, Vode said:

You bring up something that I haven't even touched upon. My point is about these low resolution benches are not indicative of future performance.

Nothing can be indicative of future performance, we're not fucking fortune tellers. What we can reasonably assume is that now that we've seen the promises of DX12 come and go we can safely assume IPC after 4 cores 8 threads will continue to be a more important factor since it takes a long time for new engines to be developed, optimized and released specially with the complexity of a very multithreaded game (again, we've seen this on DX12)

 

So while it's not indicative any IPC test is certainly a good pointer today in early 2017 which is when Ryzen decided to launch. 

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, 2Buck said:

Lmao, you didn't even get close to the point of the video, that wasn't the point at all.

That's what I said from the beginning: I didn't feel like getting to the point of the video since it started out with such stupidity.

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, Prysin said:

So you are emotionally engaged, where the video host/creator, adored is it?, quotes ANOTHER reivewers words?? then blame it on the videos host/creator?
Now that is zMeul level of hating man. Don't drop that low.

Who was he quoting? I didn't thought it was a quote from someone his accent is too thick for me (Remember I am ESL as well)

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

Nothing can be indicative of future performance, we're not fucking fortune tellers. What we can reasonably assume is that now that we've seen the promises of DX12 come and go we can safely assume IPC after 4 cores 8 threads will continue to be a more important factor since it takes a long time for new engines to be developed, optimized and released specially with the complexity of a very multithreaded game (again, we've seen this on DX12)

 

So while it's not indicative any IPC test is certainly a good pointer today in early 2017 which is when Ryzen decided to launch. 

We havent seen shit with DX12. 4/5ths of the DX12 titles are DX11 with shit bolted on. Only 2-3 games out of 15 or so is actually native DX12. And most of those again is not optimized for more then 8 cores/threads, simply because the effort to optimize further, based on market install base of such CPUs, are simply not possible to defend economically.

 

DX12 and Vulcan based games are in their infancy. It is at least 2-3 years before we see ACTUAL, pure DX12 games, without this DX11-extended edition bullshit.

 

Remember, the consoles basically run DX11.3 (Xbox). Since Xbox and W10 HAS to be compatible (or atleast the biggest cunt in the room, aka Microshit, is forcing it upon devs), then you can imagine what those devs will do in order to appease the microshit and its own investors. They will port it as DX11.3 and call it DX12. Because it is quick, easy and CHEAP.

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, Vode said:

You bring up something that I haven't even touched upon. My point is about these low resolution benches are not indicative of future performance. Please read my previous posts again before you insult my reading comprehension.

Oh I read your posts, and your main point seems to be based on the idea that windows bugs will get fixed and games will be optimized. Once again, this is nothing but speculation. If nothing changes, which is an assumption that MUST be made when running benchmarks, then those low res benchmarks will become more and more relevant at resolutions people actually run their games at.

 

Sure, it's not a guarantee of anything, but as @Misanthrope pointed out by your reasoning we might as well stop running benchmarks alltogether because they are not absolutely reliable and indicative of how things will be in the future.

 

As much as I'm optimistic about ryzen in the next few years, you have to consider that EVERY TIME that this sort of argument (it will get better in the future!!!) has come up it has been proven wrong by the market, without exception as far as I remember. This happened with the pentium 4, it happened with bulldozer, and it MIGHT be happening now, even though ryzen's shortcomings are not nearly as bad.

[Taf the Ghost]

I'm glad someone went and looked back at old data, as a bit of thought makes it clear that there's a lot of assumptions to be made that 1080p gaming "maxes out the CPU". Sure, it'll max out some part of it, but there's an assumption that scaling is perfectly linear, which is isn't.  It's not even linear from 720p to 1080p, as the video nicely points out.

 

Doesn't change the current recommendation to buy a i5-7600k and get a better graphics card is still the more cost-conscious choice for the time being, for a pure Gaming-only setup.

 

Ryzen has the Linux community really happy.  That thing is a beast for what they do, and it points to massive Red Flag for Intel's server business.  (We're allowed to talk about more than gaming here, right?)

[Prysin]

3 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Who was he quoting? I didn't thought it was a quote from someone his accent is too thick for me (Remember I am ESL as well)

I too are not english native speaker?

I think the info you are referring to is him quoting a Techpowerup editorial review at the start of the video. Unless you are referring to his opinion some 6 minutes in when he is done talking about AMD FX.... which is a relatively well documented and unbiased display of information (for once).

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, Prysin said:

We havent seen shit with DX12. 4/5ths of the DX12 titles are DX11 with shit bolted on. Only 2-3 games out of 15 or so is actually native DX12. And most of those again is not optimized for more then 8 cores/threads, simply because the effort to optimize further, based on market install base of such CPUs, are simply not possible to defend economically.

 

DX12 and Vulcan based games are in their infancy. It is at least 2-3 years before we see ACTUAL, pure DX12 games, without this DX11-extended edition bullshit.

 

Remember, the consoles basically run DX11.3 (Xbox). Since Xbox and W10 HAS to be compatible (or atleast the biggest cunt in the room, aka Microshit, is forcing it upon devs), then you can imagine what those devs will do in order to appease the microshit and its own investors. They will port it as DX11.3 and call it DX12. Because it is quick, easy and CHEAP.

I agree but that was kind of my point: we haven't seen true potential for DX12 and Vulkan since it's just not easy to code for it. Whenever or not it's 2 to 3 years like you suggest or longer than that it remains to be seen at this point henceforth making purchase suggestions based on future performance kind of unreasonable. We can only hope that you're right but nobody knows if DX12 or Vulkan will eventually deliver on their promises of greater CPU utilization and optimization.

[alexcheetah]

16 minutes ago, Sauron said:

First of all not that many games require 4 threads to run, and the ones that do do it in the most bullshit way possible - the game checks how many threads you have and if you have enough to meet its completely arbitraty requirement then you are allowed to play. The athlon x4 line is good for the price, but don't delude yourself into thinking they are somehow far superior to the pentium k - where there is a real difference it's quite small.

 

Going by the same argument that has been used multiple times in this thread by people defending ryzen, "the games are not optimized", and in this case they are not optimized ON PURPOSE. Those devs specifically went out of their way to prevent their game from working on non-ht dual cores.

Have you considered the fact that right now you can only buy a ryzen cpu that costs 500$? Going by your own argument, why on earth would the general consumer spend MORE to get it even though it clearly does not benefit your performance significantly? [when it comes to games of course]

https://www.youtube.com/watchttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NhvVo_4Bcgh?v=6NhvVo_4Bcg

This is your idea of a small difference?

[Prysin]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

I agree but that was kind of my point: we haven't seen true potential for DX12 and Vulkan since it's just not easy to code for it. Whenever or not it's 2 to 3 years like you suggest or longer than that it remains to be seen at this point henceforth making purchase suggestions based on future performance kind of unreasonable. We can only hope that you're right but nobody knows if DX12 or Vulkan will eventually deliver on their promises of greater CPU utilization and optimization.

uhm... I cannot speak too much for DX12, but Vulkan is NOT that hard to optimize of VERY many threads. Iv'e invested in the official vulcan coding book and looked heavily into learning to code for Vulcan (if only for lulz). And from what i can see so far, while being unable to APPLY the code in an appropriate or representable way, i can tell you it is not rocket science.

 

Any dev worth a damn shit could pick up the official vulcan text book from Amazon for 45$ and he would know within a few hours how to do it.

[Misanthrope]

4 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

You don't need $500 to get 8c16t

Consider a reasonable setup, an i7-7700K + 1080, versus a R7 1700 + 1080...

Would such a consumer be playing at 480p or 1440p?

Would the bottleneck be on the GPU or CPU?

Would a consumer fresh install Windows every time he plays a game? Or have crap in the background leeching resources?

 

Wait do most people even have a 1080?

Actually I must call this a false dichotomy.

 

A person that is considering this 2 systems could be considering very different use cases:

 

1) Person running 7700k + 1080 is probably a gamer

2) Person considering 1700 + 1080 is probably a budget workstation user.

 

For person 1 there is no reason to consider the option 2). For person 2 he is weighing his option vs the 6800k and above not the consumer chips. Just because he puts a "gaming" card in there doesn't means he wants it for gaming (or only for gaming) since it's still a great, cheap way to get CUDA support at a fraction of the cost of going for a higher end workstation build with a 6950k and a Quadro card.

 

So can someone game at budget 2) Surely. But that someone that's just gaming at that budget would be much better off going for a 7700k + 1080ti rig instead.

[Sauron]

3 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

You don't need $500 to get 8c16t

Consider a reasonable setup, an i7-7700K + 1080, versus a R7 1700 + 1080...

Would such a consumer be playing at 480p or 1440p?

Would the bottleneck be on the GPU or CPU?

Would a consumer fresh install Windows every time he plays a game? Or have crap in the background leeching resources?

 

Wait do most people even have a 1080?

Fair enough, I didn't know the 1700 was for sale yet. Either way for games specifically the i7 is still a better offer - and while most people do not have a 1080, those who don't probably don't have an i7 either (or shouldn't, because they'd be better off buying an i5 and using the money they spared on a faster gpu).

[Sauron]

3 minutes ago, alexcheetah said:

https://www.youtube.com/watchttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NhvVo_4Bcgh?v=6NhvVo_4Bcg

This is your idea of a small difference?

404.

[alexcheetah]

Just now, Sauron said:

404.