Ryzen's Infinity Fabric Clock Speed is Linked to Memory Clock Speed... Might Explain Why Memory OCs Make a Noticeable Impact in Performance on Ryzen?

[MageTank]

25 minutes ago, Valentyn said:

 

Minimum show a different story in favour of Intel? Really now? Those were 0.1 and 1% minimums, and Ryzen was beating the 7700K in most of the tests in the video. Hardly in favour of Intel. 

Outside of Day 1 reviews, Ryzen's minimums have been praised, despite Kabylake being clocked 0.9-1Ghz Higher.

 

There's only a few outliers like Far Cry Primal were Ryzen falls down hard.
 

 

The Frametimes on Ryzen here are fantastic, even in FarCry where it has much worse performance; compared to the 7700K, but still matching the 6900K mostly.

 

In Crysis 3 especially the 7700K has horrible frametimes compared to Ryzen. Again, not all minimums somehow in favour of Intel like you stated

 

 

So you're saying a budget oriented gamer, which is the vast majority will prefer paying $350 for the 7700K, to get at most 10% increase in averages.

Compared to a R5 1400/1500X that's 4C/8T for $170-190, that comes with a cooler that'll allow it to reach 4Ghz?

Where that difference is can be absorbed by RAM costs.

 

I guess we'll see, but I firmly believe my claims are far better based on what we've seen compared to many here dismissing Ryzen as another Bulldozer, and failure.

 

Linking the DF video, but only showing a screenshot from the game it does best in? Look at the frametimes in nearly every other title in that video, and tell me again that it's minimums are great.

 

Also, you are twisting my words. I said average framerates are the most worthless metric to go by. If you want the best experience, go by minimum FPS. If your minimum FPS never dips below 60, then chances are, your average will be much higher as a result. People will buy the 7700k over AMD's 4c/8t offering if it's minimums are poor, still suffers from the CCX cross-talk issues, and is still limited to very specific kits of ram for compatibility. Let's not forget, you need a very high end board to even attempt 3600mhz (C6H or Taichi) so your "budget gamer" logic gets thrown out of the window immediately, whereas I can run 3600 C16 on an $80 Asrock Pro4 board with a cheapo i5 6600T with no issues whatsoever. Dual rank too, so I get the boons of rank interleaving, something that will be sorely missed on Ryzen if attempting to drive high frequency ram.

 

 

[Valentyn]

2 hours ago, MageTank said:

Linking the DF video, but only showing a screenshot from the game it does best in? Look at the frametimes in nearly every other title in that video, and tell me again that it's minimums are great.

 

Also, you are twisting my words. I said average framerates are the most worthless metric to go by. If you want the best experience, go by minimum FPS. If your minimum FPS never dips below 60, then chances are, your average will be much higher as a result. People will buy the 7700k over AMD's 4c/8t offering if it's minimums are poor, still suffers from the CCX cross-talk issues, and is still limited to very specific kits of ram for compatibility. Let's not forget, you need a very high end board to even attempt 3600mhz (C6H or Taichi) so your "budget gamer" logic gets thrown out of the window immediately, whereas I can run 3600 C16 on an $80 Asrock Pro4 board with a cheapo i5 6600T with no issues whatsoever. Dual rank too, so I get the boons of rank interleaving, something that will be sorely missed on Ryzen if attempting to drive high frequency ram.

 

 

 

How are the minimums not great? They're fantastic, and the only time Ryzen suffers is at stock speeds and low speed RAM.

I know you claim averages are worthless. The video previously linked with Ryzen with 3600Mhz RAM, had it beating the 7700K in the majority of tests for minimums at 0.1% and 1%. 

 

So many reviewers, including Jayztwocents have gone on about how well the minimums are, and how smooth the overall experience is.

Even computerbase included Frametimes in their Day 1 reviews that showed how well Ryzen did compared to the 7700K, and that's always in reviews with folks running the 7700K at 5Ghz. 

Really fantastic given ryzen at its best is usually 1Ghz behind

 

 

EDIT: Speaking on minimums, has anyone managed to look into @LinusTech GTA 5 4K results where Ryzen was pulling double the minimums FPS compared to the 7700K with a GTX 1080Ti?

 

 

That is still baffling me, considering 4K is supposed to be almost entirely GPU bottlenecked.
 

 

 

Also the AMD motherboards are very cheap, and many B350 motherboards will handily allow the Ryzen CPUs, and ram to clock to comparable speeds seen from DF and others which is 3000Mhz.

 

I completely agree that sadly the RAM is limited to specific kits if you're after a plug and play for best speeds. Sadly that's down to the vast majority being tested and rated for Intel's XMP. Hopefully that's addressed sooner, as so far I think only G.Skill have announced AMD kits.

 

Although unlike you 99.9999% of users never fiddle that much with RAM, and they just try some XMP/AMP profiles and see what works. The Dual Rank issue is nasty though. ( I hope the IMC in their apparent upcoming X390/399 processors are a bit better, although I doubt it there, enterprise/workstation just wants stability.)

 

I guess we'll see when R5's are properly out and tested; but for a gamer on a budget Ryzen R5 looks like a slam dunk on price to performance in my eyes.
 

Just like right now Ryzen R7, especially the 1700 is a slam dunk compared to the X99 lineup for an all round gaming and workstation; if you don't require lots of PCIe lanes, or quad channel memory. The performance for price is fantastic.

[theWhisperer]

Can someone look into this more? It seems this guy is getting really really good results...

[DocSwag]

1 hour ago, theWhisperer said:

Can someone look into this more? It seems this guy is getting really really good results...

That video has literally been the discussion in this thread for the last page or so  

[Taf the Ghost]

Getting the CCX latency down (less than the bandwidth, I'm pretty sure) has been the value of the faster RAM. The inter-CCX comms shouldn't be saturating the Infinity Fabric, but it clearly is causing some issue.  In a lot of games, it seems critically important threads get stuck going between CCX and that seems to produce the high-scale limitation on Ryzen.  Which actually might be the cause of some of the more random results we see from certain testers.

 

Though I think the most fascinating thing to come out in the last few days is all of the simulated Ryzen 5 testing.  Turns out a lot of games just don't even touch the extra cores.  This creates a situation that, with overclocking taken into account, your performance gain for going up in Chip Quality doesn't net you much on Ryzen, where it does on Intel.  Even if the Price skyrockets rapidly on Intel platforms.  It's going to make good Ryzen 7 6c12t systems as probably the sweet spot in Price to Performance.  The difference between that and a 7600k or 7700k is going to be minimal, and the savings on the AMD platform should allow to go from say a 1060/RX480 to a 1070 GPU.  That's fairly sizeable.

[Phate.exe]

14 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Even if the Price skyrockets rapidly on Intel platforms.  It's going to make good Ryzen 7 6c12t systems as probably the sweet spot in Price to Performance.  The difference between that and a 7600k or 7700k is going to be minimal, and the savings on the AMD platform should allow to go from say a 1060/RX480 to a 1070 GPU.  That's fairly sizeable.

 

This is pretty much how I'm planning out my new build.  R5 1600x, whatever second-tier X370 motherboard can get 3200+ ram the easiest, and somewhere around 1070 graphics performance (I'm waiting to see what the RX 500's and RX Vega have to offer).

 

What I don't spend on the CPU will end up going into the GPU and monitor.

 

I'd really like for some more Ryzen friendly DDR4 to show up that doesn't look stupid.  A new Corsair LPX ryzen sku would be perfect actually.

[Taf the Ghost]

10 hours ago, Phate.exe said:

 

This is pretty much how I'm planning out my new build.  R5 1600x, whatever second-tier X370 motherboard can get 3200+ ram the easiest, and somewhere around 1070 graphics performance (I'm waiting to see what the RX 500's and RX Vega have to offer).

 

What I don't spend on the CPU will end up going into the GPU and monitor.

 

I'd really like for some more Ryzen friendly DDR4 to show up that doesn't look stupid.  A new Corsair LPX ryzen sku would be perfect actually.

One thing we've run into with the Ryzen launch is that the Ryzen 7 1800X is the best of the Workstation chips, but it doesn't scale quite as high in gaming.  Some of that gap has closed with BIOS updates and people figuring out how to get better, stable performance out of the platform, so the 1800X sits between the 6900k & 7700k in gaming, that nice mid-point.  However, as we go down the Ryzen product stack, we find out that most games barely use the the space beyond 4c8t.  The simulated tests from Hardware Unboxed were quite interesting, as a result.

 

The real sweet spot for a gaming rig definitely does look like the 1600X.  Same price as the i5 7600k, for the chip, but cheaper Mobo and comes with a pretty dang solid cooler. (Something that's very nice to see for the first time in ages.)  Some well-chosen parts should allow for the same system cost but with a 1070 over a 1060.  Obviously one can tweak around a lot to drop & raise prices, but that target is extremely good for the future & budget optimizer.

 

The other little detail when it comes to having more cores & threads is that Gaming benchmarks are normally "best case".  Reality isn't best case and those extra cores make life better.  Especially if Windows is being a pill about something running in the background.

[Phate.exe]

10 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

<snip>

 

Yup.  I do a mix of gaming, solid modeling, and very light video editing (just editing 1080p60 gopro clips mainly).  I also don't care enough to go through and kill any tasks or services running in the background.

 

If it's only a $60-ish price difference between a 4c/8t and a 6c/12t, and the power consumption and clockspeeds are largely the same, I'm just gonna get some more threads.  Windows 10 wants to be a dick and run some updates in the background?  Totally fine, it can have a couple threads, I wasn't using them anyways.  In gaming the simulated 1600X offers near-identical performance to the 8 core's at i5 pricing.

 

 

 

With overclocking I've gotten my current rig to the point where I'm quite happy with the performance overall for 1080p60 gaming, so I can certainly wait a bit to actually build something new, and I'd like to see what else is coming down the pipe.  Maybe the cut down R7's will have some surprises compared to the simulated ones.

 

Also still longing for my dream of a binned/revised/downclocked/undervolted RX 470 in an APU with a single CCX for DIY game consoles.

[Taf the Ghost]

8 minutes ago, Phate.exe said:

 

Yup.  I do a mix of gaming, solid modeling, and very light video editing (just editing 1080p60 gopro clips mainly).  I also don't care enough to go through and kill any tasks or services running in the background.

 

If it's only a $60-ish price difference between a 4c/8t and a 6c/12t, and the power consumption and clockspeeds are largely the same, I'm just gonna get some more threads.  Windows 10 wants to be a dick and run some updates in the background?  Totally fine, it can have a couple threads, I wasn't using them anyways.  In gaming the simulated 1600X offers near-identical performance to the 8 core's at i5 pricing.

 

 

 

With overclocking I've gotten my current rig to the point where I'm quite happy with the performance overall for 1080p60 gaming, so I can certainly wait a bit to actually build something new, and I'd like to see what else is coming down the pipe.  Maybe the cut down R7's will have some surprises compared to the simulated ones.

 

Also still longing for my dream of a binned/revised/downclocked/undervolted RX 470 in an APU with a single CCX for DIY game consoles.

Your last point is I think why we aren't seeing those APUs until next year.  Especially with the way Zen cores downscale in clocks, thermals and power draw (roughly below 3.2 Ghz), those APUs are going to be little beasts.  But at that price range, it's going to be a while before AMD can make all that much money off of them.

[zMeul]

check this out:

 

[Elerek]

Just now, zMeul said:

check this out:

 

That was talked about by Jayz2cents already. It's a known bug and a restart will fix it.

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, Elerek said:

That was talked about by Jayz2cents already. It's a known bug and a restart will fix it.

"bug" !??! that's hella of a "bug"

 

if RTS is out of sync you will get hell lot of issues

[Elerek]

Just now, zMeul said:

"bug" !??! that's hella of a "bug"

Window's internal timer gets thrown off under custom timings/overclock on ryzen till a reboot. I assume it'll be patched pretty quickly.

[MyName13]

On 3/18/2017 at 11:16 PM, MageTank said:

That is actually a very smart question. It would confirm whether or not the IF is tied to raw bandwidth, or just the clock speed itself. I'll pass this question along to some friends with Ryzen CPU's. Thanks for the suggestion.

Any news?