Why does Ryzen gaming performance matter?

[ArcThanatos]

12 minutes ago, smokefest said:

anything above 30 is playable ? go get a goddamn ryzen and leave us alone, or buy an xbox1 or ps4 if you like to play @ 30 fps.

 

Point is the pc gaming community likes to have the BEST performance in GAMES when they buy a CPU. So why the hell would I buy a Ryzen If I game only... No point at all. I don't care about WORKstation tasks, rendering, etc... 

 

Lets say I play in 1440p 144hz. Yes I want to buy a 7700 for the few FPS it gives more than a ryzen, because these FPS will help maintain a smooth gameplay with high quality settings.

 

Theres no point for gamers to buy a ryzen. Saying " it is not optimized yet, in the futur it will be better " makes no sense. Why the hell would I buy something in hope it performs better in the future ?????  

 

AMD fan boys... ayayayayaye....

 

Guys.. It's pretty simple...

 

Workstation : Ryzen

Gaming : 7700K

 

Workstation and gaming and don't care about maximum performance in games : Ryzen

 

Want to have less good gaming CPU for now but you are a believer and really trust in the AMD GODS that in the futur ryzen will be better than a 7700K or any other new gaming CPU that intel will deliver : Get a Ryzen and cross your fingers because you will need lot of luck and stars to be aligned during a solar eclipse to have that happens

naaaw your so cute, because gamers are the only people who count.

you do realize that games have been completely playable at 30 FPS since the dawn of gaming. we want bigger better faster, yes, i like higher FPS, but im not going to say "OMG its 30FPS i cant play this", i went out of my way to unlock the FPS cap on mass effect 3 on pc recently. but even if it was capped to 30FPS i wouldn't really care, i care more about a game being fun over FPS count. now a game stops being fun under 30FPS as the jittering and framey nature butchers it. high FPS is nice, but again unless you have the monitor to output it all, it doesn't matter. you are only thinking of you, heres some info.. you not the only type of user out there

now i like how you call me a fanboy when you are acting like one yourself.
i stated that as a ALL ROUNDER (< NOTE the operative words here.. ill help you.. ALL *this is the first one* ROUNDER *second word*) its better then ther 7700k
i never said the 7700k was bad, i have already done builds for people and they wanted the best gaming CPUs, even when AMD's ryzen was right around the corner and i myself was excited to see it, i told them if they want to game on the best CPU use the 6700K (at the time it was, now its the 7700k)
i know that the kabylake and skylake gear is brilliant, but if you want to dabble in both worlds ryzen is better.
i am building my own Ryzen rig. one day i would like to do a intel build, but not yet, also before you call me a fan boy again, i grew up on intel, from SX, DX, MMX, p1, p2, p3 Slot1, 478, 775 (i have a intel Xeon dell server in my room atm, needs new ram). one of my favourite CPU's of all time is still my old P3 370 pentium 766Mhz on a Asus mobo with my Gefore 2 64Mb, that thing ran from 2003- 2008 under my watch (brother had it till 2013).

now i know this might come as a shock to you, but 30FPS is playable.. 60 is playable, 90 is playable... 132242343 to the power of 50 is playable. BUT if your monitor cant handle it or the game is absolute shit, the FPS doesn't count for nothing. i like 60 FPS but if i like a game and it only runs at 30fps, im still going to play it.

as for the future stuff... X99 remember how that went.

and before you come back to just rag on AMD then maybe I.T isn't for you as you can't put bias asside. if you are opinionated and can't see worth in this product then you know less about computers then you think.

 

[79wjd]

1 hour ago, Aw_Ginger_Snapz said:

Your talking a $10 difference versus $100+ (in some cases). Plus, back to your point about retail, AMD was still able to compete in the low end of the market with their "inferior products". Would you choose any of the current i3 skus, or a FX 8350 for just as much or in some cases less money?

 

Also, Intel could have backed off the consumer market and invested more in the data center market, which is where most of their revenue comes from. This could have benefited them. Especially with the recent computational trends regarding cloud computing, cloud storage, iot devices, artificial intelligence, and the list goes on. Going this route would have still been beneficial to consumers.

 

 

I would just like to point out that you inflated the price to $400. Also, the graph of retailers you showed from PC Part picker showed most of the retailers at $350 with an exception of one. To be clear, when I am talking about MSRP, I am not referring the MSRP at launch. I am talking about the MSRP of the 7700k today. Which quite frankly, still isn't worth it.

The total difference is irrelevant, the percentage is still large, and the same claim with $100 and $200 would be equally valid. It depends when you asked that question. For the first four years of Bulldozer, I would have taken an i3 anyday (although, you could have also gotten a much better i5-system for the same price). Now, I wouldn't want a dual core.

 

So....you're saying it would have been better for the consumer for Intel to say "fuck the consumer", enjoy 0 improvement over the next five years while we charge you the same amount.  

 

I inflated nothing. You're the one who started at $399, not me. 

On 3/8/2017 at 10:12 AM, Aw_Ginger_Snapz said:

The MSRP that Intel decided for the 7700k still remains at $399 USD.

[smokefest]

38 minutes ago, Aw_Ginger_Snapz said:

Yea they would optimize their software for more threads, because now there is a larger user base of people with 8+ threads. Now that more and more people have access to better performance, developers are going to utilize it and implement ways to use it in their products. Its a basic progression in technology... If this wasn't the case then we would be playing crysis on a Atari 2600. (AKA the Xbox One). Also I like how you ignored my point about the optimization process that GPUs with new archetectures go through.

Yeah and by the time that happens, new CPU's will come and we will not even bother about ryzen 1700 1700x 1800x

 

*** Buy the best for the present time. 

[atavax]

its really simple. Over the last like 10 years, CPU progression has meant increasing threads and increasing single core performance. Ryzen is important in that its bringing 16 threads with 8 very decent cores at a very affordable $330. The debate is whether the 8 cores are good enough, and the answer is different for different people. But I would argue that if the improvement with number of threads isn't good enough to get you to upgrade to the 1700 over a past i7, the improvement in individual core performance isn't good enough to justify you upgrading to a newer i7. If you have an i7 i think it is just a waiting game of how long until Intel or AMD makes an 8 core 16 threaded cpu with individual cores good enough for you to justify upgrading to it. The 1700 isn't quite there for me, but its close, If i wasn't a fan of old school shooters where 200+ frames per second is kind of expected, it would probably be enough. i think in the next 1-3 years Intel or AMD will get me to upgrade to a 16 threaded cpu.

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 hour ago, Aw_Ginger_Snapz said:

Would you choose any of the current i3 skus, or a FX 8350 for just as much or in some cases less money?

I would choose a current i3 for these reasons:

• It would have up-to-date features that are native to the chip set. I got burned one time using an SSD on a "6Gbps" SATA connector, when in reality it was only 3Gbps because it was a 3rd party controller that was going through a slower bus before hitting the system.
• Upgrade paths are much better.
• I would have to invest in a better cooling and possibly power deliver system, since the i3 is 51W TDP while the FX-8350 is 125W TDP.

45 minutes ago, Aw_Ginger_Snapz said:

Yea they would optimize their software for more threads, because now there is a larger user base of people with 8+ threads. Now that more and more people have access to better performance, developers are going to utilize it and implement ways to use it in their products. Its a basic progression in technology... If this wasn't the case then we would be playing crysis on a Atari 2600. (AKA the Xbox One). Also I like how you ignored my point about the optimization process that GPUs with new archetectures go through.

Not really. Multithreading doesn't immediately lead to better performance nor does it make everything sunshine and roses. The author of Paint.NET specifically avoided using multithreading extensively because the effort to implement it (and not break anything horrifically) was enormous. It was until he hit a wall with performance did he finally implement mulithreading.

 

And for a lot of programs that people use, they're I/O bound. Multithreading is only useful for CPU bound applications and operations.

[Aw_Ginger_Snapz]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

So....you're saying it would have been better for the consumer for Intel to say "fuck the consumer", enjoy 0 improvement over the next five years while we charge you the same amount. 

Maybe you aren't aware of what other markets that Intel is involved in. But they all trickle down and have a massive impact on the consumer market. Like I mentioned before, Cloud computing, is a more lucrative marketplace for Intel than the consumer market. We could have low spec machines that could do things that, as of now, only a high end workstation could do. This would be accomplished by connecting a low-spec device to a large cloud infrastructure that did all of the processing for the less powerful device. (sorta like Nvidia game stream and the steam link but on a much larger scale) Intel almost went in this direction a few years ago because they were not making much from the consumer marketplace as they did from the data center market. Therefore, they would have shifted most of their focus in that direction. However, they never went through with it because the infrastructure at the time wasn't ready for such technology. Fast forwarding to today, we do not have the same limitations in the infrastructure anymore.

 

What I'm saying is that Intel has certainly thought about abandoning the consumer market before. Odds are, with the direction that cloud computing is going, yes Intel may very well say "fuck the consumer". AMD will probably say the same thing as well because they'll have to be the underdog somewhere. There is a huge emphasis on the mobile market nowadays.

 

If you don't believe that the data center is more valuable for Intel than the consumer market, then how do you think companies like IBM, Oracle, and sun microsystems are still around making large profits. These are all hardware companies that compete in the datacenter.

Just now, M.Yurizaki said:

And for a lot of programs that people use, they're I/O bound. Multithreading is only useful for CPU bound applications and operations.

Since multi-threading is apparently irreverent for a lot of programs people use, then I guess its a better idea to get single core CPUs with better i/o. Hey, here's an idea! Lets just turn off all but one core on our CPUs and try running games and other programs and see how that goes! Oh wait....

 

Ever noticed the performance gap between a 7600k and a 7700k in games and other applications? That is because the 7700k has more threads (and other things). The 7600k is the same thing as the 7700k but with a few features turned off, such as hyper-threading.

Just now, smokefest said:

Yeah and by the time that happens, new CPU's will come and we will not even bother about ryzen 1700 1700x 1800x

 

*** Buy the best for the present time. 

The chip has been out for a week. Once again, your claim is nothing but speculation. AMD has already said that they are working with developers to optimize their titles for Ryzen. If it was as easy as having a fully optimized CPU at launch, then Intel would have killed AMD a long time ago. Remember Intel with their first hyper-threaded CPU, the Pentium 4 HT back in 2002? That didn't go very smoothly until developers finally figured out how to utilize it. Look at Hyper-threading now! Hyper threading was the start of something big. Just as Ryzen is the start of something big.

 

This is a pretty risky thing to say around here, considering all of you PC master race folk live here. Another sign that Ryzen will see better software optimization is from the next gen potatoes we call consoles that just so happen to use Ryzen. This means that game developers will have to embrace the technologies that Ryzen brings to the table. This will give developers the ability to scale performance from the lower end Ryzen chips used in the consoles to the higher end ones used in PCs. Before you say "wow Ryzen sucks cause its getting put in a console" First, the current gen consoles are based off of a worse CPU than bulldozer, which is why they suck. So the next gen potatoes will be less underwhelming than they were this generation.

 

I've been using Intel for everything including work and games since the Pentium 4, which I then upgraded to Sandy Bridge for obvious reasons. Then to skylake, which I wasnt very satisfied with because it did not live up to what I expected it to be. I then sold my skylake rig, and now I am on Ryzen. I can easily say Ryzen exceeded my expectations. It didn't hurt to try something new. It certainly felt better to support AMD than Intel after all of their recent shady business practices.

 

I respect all of your opinions, just try to have a more open mind.

[smokefest]

23 minutes ago, Aw_Ginger_Snapz said:

Maybe you aren't aware of what other markets that Intel is involved in. But they all trickle down and have a massive impact on the consumer market. Like I mentioned before, Cloud computing, is a more lucrative marketplace for Intel than the consumer market. We could have low spec machines that could do things that, as of now, only a high end workstation could do. This would be accomplished by connecting a low-spec device to a large cloud infrastructure that did all of the processing for the less powerful device. (sorta like Nvidia game stream and the steam link but on a much larger scale) Intel almost went in this direction a few years ago because they were not making much from the consumer marketplace as they did from the data center market. Therefore, they would have shifted most of their focus in that direction. However, they never went through with it because the infrastructure at the time wasn't ready for such technology. Fast forwarding to today, we do not have the same limitations in the infrastructure anymore.

 

What I'm saying is that Intel has certainly thought about abandoning the consumer market before. Odds are, with the direction that cloud computing is going, yes Intel may very well say "fuck the consumer". AMD will probably say the same thing as well because they'll have to be the underdog somewhere. There is a huge emphasis on the mobile market nowadays.

 

If you don't believe that the data center is more valuable for Intel than the consumer market, then how do you think companies like IBM, Oracle, and sun microsystems are still around making large profits. These are all hardware companies that compete in the datacenter.

Since multi-threading is apparently irreverent for a lot of programs people use, then I guess its a better idea to get single core CPUs with better i/o. Hey, here's an idea! Lets just turn off all but one core on our CPUs and try running games and other programs and see how that goes! Oh wait....

 

Ever noticed the performance gap between a 7600k and a 7700k in games and other applications? That is because the 7700k has more threads (and other things). The 7600k is the same thing as the 7700k but with a few features turned off, such as hyper-threading.

The chip has been out for a week. Once again, your claim is nothing but speculation. AMD has already said that they are working with developers to optimize their titles for Ryzen. If it was as easy as having a fully optimized CPU at launch, then Intel would have killed AMD a long time ago. Remember Intel with their first hyper-threaded CPU, the Pentium 4 HT back in 2002? That didn't go very smoothly until developers finally figured out how to utilize it. Look at Hyper-threading now! Hyper threading was the start of something big. Just as Ryzen is the start of something big.

 

This is a pretty risky thing to say around here, considering all of you PC master race folk live here. Another sign that Ryzen will see better software optimization is from the next gen potatoes we call consoles that just so happen to use Ryzen. This means that game developers will have to embrace the technologies that Ryzen brings to the table. This will give developers the ability to scale performance from the lower end Ryzen chips used in the consoles to the higher end ones used in PCs. Before you say "wow Ryzen sucks cause its getting put in a console" First, the current gen consoles are based off of a worse CPU than bulldozer, which is why they suck. So the next gen potatoes will be less underwhelming than they were this generation.

 

I've been using Intel for everything including work and games since the Pentium 4, which I then upgraded to Sandy Bridge for obvious reasons. Then to skylake, which I wasnt very satisfied with because it did not live up to what I expected it to be. I then sold my skylake rig, and now I am on Ryzen. I can easily say Ryzen exceeded my expectations. It didn't hurt to try something new. It certainly felt better to support AMD than Intel after all of their recent shady business practices.

 

I respect all of your opinions, just try to have a more open mind.

again here, ur talkin about 2002 bout intel, never had any more issues at launch cpus since then.

 

Amd promises everytime they will optimize their shit, but never have we seen such improvements with their card or cpu ?

 

This is just lies after lies after lies since 10 years we seen that from AMD.

 

Can't hate me for that, its just facts...

 

Also, time it will take to "optimize" , new cpu will be released etc... you won't even remember the ryzen thing...

 

I wish amd was great again, but it just an "improved FX chips" to me. Lets hope they achieve what they say, for once...

[Mira Yurizaki]

21 minutes ago, Aw_Ginger_Snapz said:

-Snip-

Well if you want to believe multithreaded programming is something that is super easy since all you have to do is call

result_code = pthread_create( &threads[index], NULL, perform_work, &thread_args[index] );

Then okay.

 

The point of my post was that multithreaded programming isn't something that should be taken lightly. And yet everyone who isn't a seasoned software developer seems to think it's something one can trivially do. You don't just throw on multiple threads just because you can. Similarly why DX12 and Vulkan aren't really taking off for everything. The benefits are hard to realize for the amount of effort it takes to make a game that performs as good as the game if the development team went down the DX11 path instead.

[smokefest]

Yep. People don't understand we are "stuck" for a while with 4 cores ~ threads and that software developper are lazy asses ( no offense i am too ) and dont want to work much more just for amd.

[smokefest]

2 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Well if you want to believe multithreaded programming is something that is super easy since all you have to do is call

result_code = pthread_create( &threads[index], NULL, perform_work, &thread_args[index] );

Then okay.

 

The point of my post was that multithreaded programming isn't something that should be taken lightly. And yet everyone who isn't a seasoned software developer seems to think it's something one can trivially do. You don't just throw on multiple threads just because you can. Similarly why DX12 and Vulkan aren't really taking off for everything. The benefits are hard to realize for the amount of effort it takes to make a game that performs as good as the game if the development team went down the DX11 path instead.

I thought it was as simple as :

 

If

more than 1 core,

then

enable all cores

 

if else

 

use 1 core

 

end if

 

( joke  )

[Mira Yurizaki]

8 minutes ago, smokefest said:

I thought it was as simple as :

 

If

more than 1 core,

then

enable all cores

 

if else

 

use 1 core

 

end if

 

( joke  )

Oh crap, I've been doing it wrong this entire time!

[Aw_Ginger_Snapz]

Just now, smokefest said:

I wish amd was great again, but it just an "improved FX chips" to me. Lets hope they achieve what they say, for once...

At least you kept an open mind this time. Lol.

[smokefest]

40 minutes ago, Aw_Ginger_Snapz said:

At least you kept an open mind this time. Lol.

I always have open mind  

 

I was hoping AMD would beat intel in gaming, just like my first computer back in 2000s when Athlons were wayy better than pentiums...  

 

 

[smokefest]

5 hours ago, ArcThanatos said:

naaaw your so cute, because gamers are the only people who count.

you do realize that games have been completely playable at 30 FPS since the dawn of gaming. we want bigger better faster, yes, i like higher FPS, but im not going to say "OMG its 30FPS i cant play this", i went out of my way to unlock the FPS cap on mass effect 3 on pc recently. but even if it was capped to 30FPS i wouldn't really care, i care more about a game being fun over FPS count. now a game stops being fun under 30FPS as the jittering and framey nature butchers it. high FPS is nice, but again unless you have the monitor to output it all, it doesn't matter. you are only thinking of you, heres some info.. you not the only type of user out there

now i like how you call me a fanboy when you are acting like one yourself.
i stated that as a ALL ROUNDER (< NOTE the operative words here.. ill help you.. ALL *this is the first one* ROUNDER *second word*) its better then ther 7700k
i never said the 7700k was bad, i have already done builds for people and they wanted the best gaming CPUs, even when AMD's ryzen was right around the corner and i myself was excited to see it, i told them if they want to game on the best CPU use the 6700K (at the time it was, now its the 7700k)
i know that the kabylake and skylake gear is brilliant, but if you want to dabble in both worlds ryzen is better.
i am building my own Ryzen rig. one day i would like to do a intel build, but not yet, also before you call me a fan boy again, i grew up on intel, from SX, DX, MMX, p1, p2, p3 Slot1, 478, 775 (i have a intel Xeon dell server in my room atm, needs new ram). one of my favourite CPU's of all time is still my old P3 370 pentium 766Mhz on a Asus mobo with my Gefore 2 64Mb, that thing ran from 2003- 2008 under my watch (brother had it till 2013).

now i know this might come as a shock to you, but 30FPS is playable.. 60 is playable, 90 is playable... 132242343 to the power of 50 is playable. BUT if your monitor cant handle it or the game is absolute shit, the FPS doesn't count for nothing. i like 60 FPS but if i like a game and it only runs at 30fps, im still going to play it.

as for the future stuff... X99 remember how that went.

and before you come back to just rag on AMD then maybe I.T isn't for you as you can't put bias asside. if you are opinionated and can't see worth in this product then you know less about computers then you think.

 

If you play at 30 fps and says its fine, you're a shame in the pc world  

 

No offense tho, but you remember me of my friends saying " baaah a console is better than a pc " or absurd phrase like that

 

Any gamer knows that the 60 fps is NEEDED and ESSENTIAL, I wouldn't play a 30 fps game because it SUCKS and is barely playable.

 

I understand some people can't make the difference, doesn't mean you;re right.

 

 

I'm quite sure 95% of this forum can notice the difference between 30 and 60 fps on a 60 hz monitor, and I'm pretty sure that 95% of this forum would play on 60 fps and would actually CARE about that performance.

 

Why ? Because we don't like lag maybe ?

 

See below difference :

app5Zep_460sv.mp4

[App4that]

1 minute ago, smokefest said:

If you play at 30 fps and says its fine, you're a shame in the pc world  

 

No offense tho, but you remember me of my friends saying " baaah a console is better than a pc " or absurd phrase like that

 

Any gamer knows that the 60 fps is NEEDED and ESSENTIAL, I wouldn't play a 30 fps game because it SUCKS and is barely playable.

 

I understand some people can't make the difference, doesn't mean you;re right.

 

 

I'm quite sure 95% of this forum can notice the difference between 30 and 60 fps on a 60 hz monitor, and I'm pretty sure that 95% of this forum would play on 60 fps and would actually CARE about that performance.

 

Why ? Because we don't like lag maybe ?

 

See below difference :

app5Zep_460sv.mp4

This is completely missing the reason those fps matter. You do not buy a CPU that's barely enough. A CPU should last you 2-4 graphics cards. So those numbers at 1080p today, tell you what the numbers will be like in 2 years with cards like Volta. 

 

Well, unless Mass Effect Andromida and it running at 30fps at 1080 with a damn 1060 at high settings becomes a trend... But then we're all crewed. 

[smokefest]

12 minutes ago, App4that said:

This is completely missing the reason those fps matter. You do not buy a CPU that's barely enough. A CPU should last you 2-4 graphics cards. So those numbers at 1080p today, tell you what the numbers will be like in 2 years with cards like Volta. 

 

Well, unless Mass Effect Andromida and it running at 30fps at 1080 with a damn 1060 at high settings becomes a trend... But then we're all crewed. 

Star citizen ?  

[ArcThanatos]

1 minute ago, smokefest said:

If you play at 30 fps and says its fine, you're a shame in the pc world  

 

No offense tho, but you remember me of my friends saying " baaah a console is better than a pc " or absurd phrase like that

 

Any gamer knows that the 60 fps is NEEDED and ESSENTIAL, I wouldn't play a 30 fps game because it SUCKS and is barely playable.

 

I understand some people can't make the difference, doesn't mean you;re right.

 

 

I'm quite sure 95% of this forum can notice the difference between 30 and 60 fps on a 60 hz monitor, and I'm pretty sure that 95% of this forum would play on 60 fps and would actually CARE about that performance.

 

Why ? Because we don't like lag maybe ?

 

See below difference :

app5Zep_460sv.mp4

no offense the precursor to when you want to offend someone.

the correct saying is "you remind me" not remember.
also its not a need nor essential, its a want. you clearly do not know the difference between needs and wants.
need is something that is essential to life. eating breathing drinking sleeping are the prime needs, wants are things like, a more powerful computer, new phone, a car with a bigger engine, job that pays more.

to have a minimal smooth gameplay you need 30fps, below that it starts becoming overly noticeable, higher is better, but only if you have the hardware to display it, its not its kinda pointless.
personally id rather have 4k @ 40fps then 60 at 1080p.  but more so, id rather play mass effect at 30 fps then something like GTA v at 120fps. this is a personally opinion.

 

and the only person here who is a shame to the PC world here is you, with your elitist attitude.
you believe just because someone doesn't have nor use your specs you are some how superior to them.

having 30Fps isn't laggy, what makes it seem laggy is called the "frame time" or your internet.
and btw if you actually read what i had said before you started acting like a gallah, was that most people wouldn't know the difference between the R7 and 7700 in a game, seeing both operate well above the 30Fps mark.
btw consoles have a place, but they are in no way better then PC's when it come to hardware. but if you are one of those people who like to call people scum or disgrace for not having the latest n greatest or not building intel, then the only disgrace is you.

 

the point of building a PC is to create a machine you want. if a Ryzen does what they want then good. they can still game on it pretty comfortably, its not terrible FPS by any means.

 

[smokefest]

3 minutes ago, ArcThanatos said:

no offense the precursor to when you want to offend someone.

the correct saying is "you remind me" not remember.
also its not a need nor essential, its a want. you clearly do not know the difference between needs and wants.
need is something that is essential to life. eating breathing drinking sleeping are the prime needs, wants are things like, a more powerful computer, new phone, a car with a bigger engine, job that pays more.

to have a minimal smooth gameplay you need 30fps, below that it starts becoming overly noticeable, higher is better, but only if you have the hardware to display it, its not its kinda pointless.
personally id rather have 4k @ 40fps then 60 at 1080p.  but more so, id rather play mass effect at 30 fps then something like GTA v at 120fps. this is a personally opinion.

 

and the only person here who is a shame to the PC world here is you, with your elitist attitude.
you believe just because someone doesn't have nor use your specs you are some how superior to them.

having 30Fps isn't laggy, what makes it seem laggy is called the "frame time" or your internet.
and btw if you actually read what i had said before you started acting like a gallah, was that most people wouldn't know the difference between the R7 and 7700 in a game, seeing both operate well above the 30Fps mark.
btw consoles have a place, but they are in no way better then PC's when it come to hardware. but if you are one of those people who like to call people scum or disgrace for not having the latest n greatest or not building intel, then the only disgrace is you.

 

the point of building a PC is to create a machine you want. if a Ryzen does what they want then good. they can still game on it pretty comfortably, its not terrible FPS by any means.

 

false. 

 

30 fps is not a smooth gameplay and its not an opinion. smooth gameplay is fps equal or higher than your refresh rate monitor.

 

60 hz monitor = 60 fps

 

30 fps ur missing half the frames. 

 

not an opinoin, its facts.

 

Like... seriously.... get a console... you will enjoy the 30 fps there

 

Anyway, you should get 60+ fps with a ryzen also,

 

Dunno why you argue about the 30 fps thing, who likes to game with 30 fps ? nobody !!! But console people that doesn't know they are missing half the frames. And yeah, one day, they get to 60 fps with a decent PC and they realise 30 fps i sshitty gameplay... but you didn't get there yet  

 

Anyway.. Ryzen is best at workstation work

Intel is best at gaming.

 

End of story.

 

Go ask some CS GO or any fps or even any game pro whatever the game is , go ask him to play in 30 fps just to see their reaction. Don't be surprised to be laughed at btw.  

[App4that]

15 minutes ago, smokefest said:

Star citizen ?  

At least is looks good.

[He_162]

I should mention that Ryzen isn't even operating properly yet on computers, so any performance benchmarks done thus far are not indicative of it's performance, yet.

 

http://windowsreport.com/amd-ryzen-performance/

 

Windows has an error that is causing the OS to think that Ryzen is a 16 core processor, it thinks each thread is a core, that has it's own individual cache, and as such, it is not properly handing the threads the optimal amount of information, or spreading the information in such a way that it will be dealt with the best, to put it simply, and in kind of a error-ful way, but it gets the point across.

 

Ryzen is not operating properly, and it's not efficiently using it's threads in win10, but still manages to keep ahead of intel processors in multithreaded applications that doesn't include gaming, Cinebench, for example.

 

So we can expect a significant performance boost once that is fixed, and we will be seeing much better performance gains when it is. This also means that it may surpass intel in gaming performance yet, even before games start optimizing themselves for 8 core processors.

[He_162]

2 hours ago, smokefest said:

Anyway.. Ryzen is best at workstation work

Intel is best at gaming.

 

End of story.

 

Go ask some CS GO or any fps or even any game pro whatever the game is , go ask him to play in 30 fps just to see their reaction. Don't be surprised to be laughed at btw.  

False.

 

Ryzen isn't even being used to it's full potential, see the post above.

 

Intel is barely leading in games with their 8 core, or 10 core processors, and at most 25 - 30% in select few titles, and matched, or beaten by Ryzen in others at this time.

 

We can expect Ryzen to perform better than the i7-7700K soon, but not better than future Cannonlake and Coffee Lake processors that have less cores, but higher IPC.

 

Therefore, at this time, Intel is better for gaming, but after Ryzen's glitch is fixed, and games have updates optimizing the use of 8 cores, since more of their playerbase will have 8 core CPU's now, we will see Ryzen pull ahead.

[Aw_Ginger_Snapz]

Just now, smokefest said:

I always have open mind  

 

I was hoping AMD would beat intel in gaming, just like my first computer back in 2000s when Athlons were wayy better than pentiums...  

 

 

Man, the 2000s were a really exciting decade to observe and experience technology.

• "High" clock speed processors at a blistering 1Ghz!
• Hyper-threading
• Windows XP
• Higher storage capacities
• Better graphics
• "Cheap" hardware
• Dual core processors
•  Quad core processors
• Project CUDA
• Faster storage
• Gigabit internet
• Widespread availability of the internet
• Balanced competition on both sides of the CPU & GPU market
• The list goes on!

 

Those were the days!

[SteveGrabowski0]

3 hours ago, App4that said:

Well, unless Mass Effect Andromida and it running at 30fps at 1080 with a damn 1060 at high settings becomes a trend... But then we're all crewed. 

The fuck? That's horrible. What, does it run at 10 fps on PS4?

[Citadelen]

On 2017-3-7 at 5:33 AM, Godlygamer23 said:

One issue with having a CPU that's less powerful than another, and one that's less useful at lower resolutions(in this case 1080p) means that it will bottleneck higher end video cards made in the future at resolutions that will effectively become the same as 1080p. I don't want to hear the argument that the chips are not "designed for gaming" as the 1800X is clocked at 3.6GHz base, and 4GHz turbo. Ryzen simply lacks the IPC to compete with Intel's architectures in video games, and while it's great in a lot of benches, it also loses a lot in video games, and this isn't even limited to 1080p. The performance is lesser at 1440p as well.

 

I've heard people say that if it doesn't dip below 60FPS, what's the problem? The problem is I, and a few others, game at 1080p144, and therefore need a CPU that can sufficiently feed the GPU at all times, which doesn't exist, but we can narrow that bottleneck as much as possible. 

I know this post is quite old now, but it has to be said...

The Ryzen sample in the middle one is a 1700X, thus was at a 600 (possibly 700) MHz disadvantage to Kaby Lake. I'm not trying to say Ryzen has matched Intel in IPC, but it's dammed close, AMD themselves says 7% less. So the problem comes down to optimisation, not the CPU itself being inherently weak.