AMD Ryzen - Games in 1080p can improve more than 35% !

[juri-han]

41 minutes ago, MageTank said:

You came to this conclusion after seeing a positive result in just one title, using tweaks that should be considered industry standard (aside from the HPET part)?

 

I don't know of a single friend or family member that uses the same exact OS after swapping platforms. They are also very aware of memory's impact on gaming performance (Mostly because I never shut up about it. If you people think I am bad about harping on this on the forums, meet me in real life, lol) and overclocking tends to show a positive improvement, even if it's not always a linear scale. 

 

I would wait for more titles to benefit from these changes before calling it concrete. 

no i came to this conclusion weeks ago, that  some things could be done on the software side to help improve performance and this is found a day after people were saying because of the CCX issue hardware you wont see any improvements till zen+ lol

 

i just hope this is the first in a long line to come 

[MageTank]

Just now, juri-han said:

no i came to this conclusion weeks ago, some things could be done on the software side to help improve performance and this i found a day later after people were saying because to CCX issue hardware you wont see any improvement to CCX

 

and think is just the first in a long line to come 

Weeks ago? It's only been out for 12 days. Even now, we are just now seeing results like this (implying extensive testing hasn't been finished). For you to come to a conclusion that early, means either your expectations are silly, or your methodology is flawed. 

 

I have not seen anything that points to the CCX issue being easily remedied by software. Nothing in this thread suggests otherwise. What we have, is a bulk percentage gain in performance from a clean OS install, followed by various minor tweaks and overclocking to get a little more out of your hardware. The very same tweaks we apply to every new CPU ever. Again, the HPET tweak isn't something I would have taken the time to change, but the rest is very common. Even in the vast majority of reviews, we expected the reviewers to use clean installs, and most of them had overclocked memory/CPU's. This result from AMD has honestly changed nothing in my eyes.

 

If you can point to any solid evidence that the CCX issue will be fixed by some sort of software tweak (be it in the form of a microcode update, or from Microsoft on the Windows side of things), I'd be more inclined to believe you. However, I stick to my original statement, that more results are required before jumping to the conclusion that this is a "fix" to make Ryzen a better gaming CPU.

[i_build_nanosuits]

17 hours ago, kladzen said:

Okay.. back at it again with some ryzen news... yet again i was looking into ryzen overclocking videos.. when i came across this from amd's own site!

no need to read further...

[zMeul]

50 minutes ago, xAcid9 said:

Got mine disabled since 2015, still waiting for something to blow up.

I wonder what do you think you gain from having HPET disabled?!

or do you like inflated benchmark numbers and audio/video desync ?!?!

[juri-han]

25 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Weeks ago? It's only been out for 12 days. Even now, we are just now seeing results like this (implying extensive testing hasn't been finished). For you to come to a conclusion that early, means either your expectations are silly, or your methodology is flawed. 

 

I have not seen anything that points to the CCX issue being easily remedied by software. Nothing in this thread suggests otherwise. What we have, is a bulk percentage gain in performance from a clean OS install, followed by various minor tweaks and overclocking to get a little more out of your hardware. The very same tweaks we apply to every new CPU ever. Again, the HPET tweak isn't something I would have taken the time to change, but the rest is very common. Even in the vast majority of reviews, we expected the reviewers to use clean installs, and most of them had overclocked memory/CPU's. This result from AMD has honestly changed nothing in my eyes.

 

If you can point to any solid evidence that the CCX issue will be fixed by some sort of software tweak (be it in the form of a microcode update, or from Microsoft on the Windows side of things), I'd be more inclined to believe you. However, I stick to my original statement, that more results are required before jumping to the conclusion that this is a "fix" to make Ryzen a better gaming CPU.

its felt like weeks sorry days  and no fixing the CCX issue isnt going to be quick or easy, when did i ever this was a fix? its why said intel better watch its back, where some people on this forum have said ryzen is just a bad design and maybe declared it bad for gaming a little to soon, hopefully there are much more to come

[xAcid9]

4 minutes ago, zMeul said:

I wonder what do you think you gain from having HPET disabled?!

or do you like inflated benchmark numbers and audio/video desync ?!?!

Never had those problem, and i was just testing HPET that time and didn't enable it back because of laziness, i see no difference between having it on vs off.

[MageTank]

2 minutes ago, zMeul said:

I wonder what do you think you gain from having HPET disabled?!

or do you like inflated benchmark numbers and audio/video desync ?!?!

Who are you to question why people disable things on their PC's? I'll have you know, I keep User Account Control off because I am a rebel. I am the only user that gets to control my accounts. TAKE THAT, WINDOWS!

[zMeul]

Just now, xAcid9 said:

Never had that problem, and i was just testing HPET that time and didn't enable it back because of laziness, i see no difference between having it on vs off.

if you "don't see" differences doesn't mean that they're not there

the very existence of HPET is around multimedia

[xAcid9]

Just now, zMeul said:

if you "don't see" differences doesn't mean that they're not there

the very existence of HPET is around multimedia

You mean i can't tell if any audio/video desync? Cute.

[zMeul]

5 minutes ago, xAcid9 said:

You mean i can't tell if any audio/video desync? Cute.

that's not what I said, but hey .. deny HPET actually does anything

 

and how have you tested you actually disabled it? because disabling it in BIOS doesn't mean it's not actually force enabled by Windows 

[Brehohn]

More bs being shouted by AMD. I fell into the hype and thank god my local Micro Center let me exchange back. I want this to succeed still. But don't give us a game that hardly anyone plays. F1 2016 is a damn good looking game no doubt. But 100fps is perfectly fine. They achieve 30 more. Good. We will barely tell the difference. Anyone that plays racing games usually plays iRacing and or DIRT. Why can't we just see improvements already on BF1, Wildlands, Six Siege, CS:GO, Skyrim, etc.? Why are they giving us a game that I rarely see anyone talking about (let alone benchmarking) just to be led to think, "WOW! THEY ARE MAKING IMPROVEMENTS! I WILL NEVER PLAY THIS GAME BUT WOW!"

 

Yeah sorry AMD. Get AnAndTech to do this benchmarking of multiple games once a real update comes out for us.

[xAcid9]

20 minutes ago, zMeul said:

that's not what I said, but hey .. deny HPET actually does anything

 

and how have you tested you actually disabled it? because disabling it in BIOS doesn't mean it's not actually force enabled by Windows 

Of course, you think i'm that ditzy?  

 

 

 

Anyway, +35% in F1 2016 is meh. If +35% in GTA:V then that is impressive.

[MageTank]

5 minutes ago, Colonel_Gerdauf said:

I'd say that the average black hole has the density of about 0.74813 Patricks. What is your estimate?

My estimate is: if we keep harping too long on this, we might actually get in trouble. Besides, I feel kind of bad joking about someone behind their backs. 

 

57 minutes ago, herman mcpootis said:

i'm just wondering what AMD did to zmeul after looking at the AMD threads; it's like they killed his family or something with the reactions he's been giving.

If memory serves me correctly, he did rant about them doing something (misleading him, failed hardware, etc) and he said that he would never forgive them for that. I can't remember the thread, but I know for a fact "never forgive" was among the words he used. Say what you want about @zMeul, but he is a man of his word, lol. 

 

EDIT:

3 minutes ago, stconquest said:

Man, you guys must have really had it out in the final days. 

 

Not really. I know everyone finds this hard to believe, but I honestly liked the guy. I found him to be smart (maybe too smart for his own good) and quite funny (even if he himself didn't see the humor in his own words). His only real flaw was being unable to see when he was wrong, and to learn from those moments. Again, I don't want to drag on about this, because it's not relevant to the thread, so I'll end it at that. 

[leadeater]

I've cleaned up some of the latest comments in the thread, please keep it on topic. Also be mindful of the following Community Standards:

 

Quote

No harassment, discrimination or abuse of any kind.

• This includes insults, fanboy, or troll accusations

Moderation & Bans

• Do not openly discuss the moderation of any content or user. If you have an issue, please contact a staff member.
• Do not backseat moderate – if there’s an issue, please use the report function.
• Please be aware staff cannot see private messages unless they are reported.
• If you have an issue with a moderator at any time, please contact an Administrator via PM @Slick  @Whaler_99  @Windspeed36

[Ryujin2003]

11 hours ago, zMeul said:

that was not I was refering to, but please . be free to ramble

 All you did was show one part of a picture, and asked someone of they even read the article. If that wasn't what you ere referring to,  please elaborate otherwise,  you're comments are pointless.

[Hayabusa1989]

From what i have gathered from playing F1 2015 and F1 2016 is that the game somehow does some kinda weird thing with looking up the CPU. I have found out that one of the cracked versions of one of these games required you to run a .exe to pick what CPU you had otherwise the crack wouldn't work. So maybe it just designates Zen as something stupid hence the poor performance ? 

[zMeul]

13 minutes ago, Hayabusa1989 said:

From what i have gathered from playing F1 2015 and F1 2016 is that the game somehow does some kinda weird thing with looking up the CPU. I have found out that one of the cracked versions of one of these games required you to run a .exe to pick what CPU you had otherwise the crack wouldn't work. So maybe it just designates Zen as something stupid hence the poor performance ? 

That was a special exe that uses AVX set

[AresKrieger]

Um amd can you just fix your damn memory issues rather than worrying about damage control, its not helping as your non power related fix seems BS, as for the power issue I don't let windows control my cpu voltage it is offset in the bios thus it is irrelevant to me personally as my settings already negate that

[MageTank]

14 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

Um amd can you just fix your damn memory issues rather than worrying about damage control, its not helping as your non power related fix seems BS, as for the power issue I don't let windows control my cpu voltage it is offset in the bios thus it is irrelevant to me personally as my settings already negate that

Amen. Bothers me that 2DPC is broken, and multi-rank DIMMS are forced to run at even slower speeds. It completely negates the point of having rank interleaving if you are limited to 1866mhz (recommended) in 2DPC DR mode. That's slower than JEDEC 2133, lol. 

[XenosTech]

40 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Amen. Bothers me that 2DPC is broken, and multi-rank DIMMS are forced to run at even slower speeds. It completely negates the point of having rank interleaving if you are limited to 1866mhz (recommended) in 2DPC DR mode. That's slower than JEDEC 2133, lol. 

https://www.futuremark.com/hardware/cpu

 

Have you seen this yet ? 1800x is not too far behind the 6950x

[MageTank]

9 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

https://www.futuremark.com/hardware/cpu

 

Have you seen this yet ? 1800x is not too far behind the 6950x

I am not quite sure I understand your point. This isn't really indicative of it's gaming performance, and it's certainly not within the context of the IMC talk that you quoted. 

[XenosTech]

Just now, MageTank said:

I am not quite sure I understand your point. This isn't really indicative of it's gaming performance, and it's certainly not within the context of the IMC talk that you quoted. 

I just quoted the last thing you posted quick (had to run off to the bathroom) But I certainly was not expecting the 1700x and 1800x to be ahead of the 6900k by that much

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, XenosTech said:

I just quoted the last thing you posted quick (had to run off to the bathroom) But I certainly was not expecting the 1700x and 1800x to be ahead of the 6900k by that much

I still don't understand that page though. The 4690k is beating the 7700k and is nearly matching the 6900k in Physics. I wouldn't take that seriously if I were you. 

[XenosTech]

3 minutes ago, MageTank said:

I still don't understand that page though. The 4690k is beating the 7700k and is nearly matching the 6900k in Physics. I wouldn't take that seriously if I were you. 

I didn't even see that i5 there, probably should have full screened the window

[MageTank]

26 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

I didn't even see that i5 there, probably should have full screened the window

I want to point out that the average physics score of the 1700x is ranging from 18k-21k depending on clock speeds (and likely various hardware configurations). The average physics score of the 6950x however, ranges drastically from 21k(3.4ghz)-29k(4.6ghz) depending on clock speeds. It's not exactly fair to compare the overclocked 1700X to the stock 6950X and pretend that their relative performance is identical. Especially once you factor in the Intel chips having more overclocking headroom in general. Hwbot lists the average overclock of the 6950x to be "4.2ghz". At 4.2ghz, the Firestrike scores I am seeing, show the 6950x pulling 24k on physics. 

 

Either way, Futuremark's "best CPU list" scores are highly inaccurate for what they can really do. They are not to be used by any means to actually gauge the real performance of a CPU, and certainly shouldn't be seen as the be all, end all when comparing two CPU's.