RyZen performance

[DocSwag]

1 minute ago, Noirgheos said:

We said that about the Hexacores in 2012. I won't hold my breath. If it happens, so be it.

True, 1440p is definitely debatable between Ryzen and a 7700k honestly, though I'd say 4k Ryzen is the better option. I still remain optimistic, since dx12 and Vulkan are kinda targeted towards more cores, though at the same time you have a good point, it might not actually be that great.

[nothereanymore]

Just now, DocSwag said:

True, 1440p is definitely debatable between Ryzen and a 7700k honestly, though I'd say 4k Ryzen is the better option. I still remain optimistic, since dx12 and Vulkan are kinda targeted towards more cores, though at the same time you have a good point, it might not actually be that great.

Even now, in games that use more than 4 cores (Witcher 3?, Watch Dogs, etc.) Ryzen loses to the lower IPC Broadwell-E. They just aren't as good for gaming. Doesn't stop them from still being good choices.

 

Heck, I'm going to be recommending Ryzen 5s to my friends simply because of the price/perf. B350 boards are quite cheap as well. I'm sure they won't mind sacrificing around 10FPS if they're already above 60 for great productivity at a great price.

[LukaH]

ryzen who cares about 200fps when 100fps is just fine 

[nothereanymore]

1 minute ago, LukaH said:

ryzen who cares about 200fps when 100fps is just fine 

People that own 100Hz+ monitors?

[DocSwag]

Just now, Noirgheos said:

Even now, in games that use more than 4 cores (Witcher 3?, Watch Dogs, etc.) Ryzen loses to the lower IPC Broadwell-E. They just aren't as good for gaming. Doesn't stop them from still being good choices.

 

Heck, I'm going to be recommending Ryzen 5s to my friends simply because of the price/perf. B350 boards are quite cheap as well. I'm sure they won't mind sacrificing around 10FPS if they're already above 60 for great productivity at a great price.

My guess is that it's infinity fabric related, considering I've had people tell me that BF1 when using a 2+2 CCX confit performs 10-20% worse than 4+0. Seems like the multi threaded games are suffering from this. Honestly not sure how that's gonna work out. It's possible game optimizations could help but I remain a bit skeptical on that end, though considering how great it is for streaming, video editing, or multi tasking in general (e.g. doing something in the background while playing games) I still recommend it for anything above 1440p and 1440p is still debatable. Still curious to see how the infinity fabric will work out though.

[DocSwag]

2 minutes ago, LukaH said:

ryzen who cares about 200fps when 100fps is just fine 

It's not 200 fps, but rather 100 fps vs 120 in some games.

[LukaH]

19 minutes ago, Noirgheos said:

People that own 100Hz+ monitors?

dont think the OP stated he is looking into that. my response stays.

17 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

It's not 200 fps, but rather 100 fps vs 120 in some games.

i am aware was just making the point that 100 is as fluid as 200fps

[nothereanymore]

Just now, LukaH said:

dont think the OP state he is looking into that. my response stays.

No, OP isn't, but your point does not stand for people who own high refresh rate monitors. Intel still reigns.

 

1 minute ago, DocSwag said:

My guess is that it's infinity fabric related, considering I've had people tell me that BF1 when using a 2+2 CCX confit performs 10-20% worse than 4+0. Seems like the multi threaded games are suffering from this. Honestly not sure how that's gonna work out. It's possible game optimizations could help but I remain a bit skeptical on that end, though considering how great it is for streaming, video editing, or multi tasking in general (e.g. doing something in the background while playing games) I still recommend it for anything above 1440p and 1440p is still debatable. Still curious to see how the infinity fabric will work out though.

These may be ironed out, but the average user is still afraid to enter the BIOS. Doing all this just to get better performance is not optimal, and AFAIK, dynamically disabling CCX portions is not possible in Windows.

[DocSwag]

Just now, Noirgheos said:

No, OP isn't, but your point does not stand for people who own high refresh rate monitors. Intel still reigns.

 

These may be ironed out, but the average user is still afraid to enter the BIOS. Doing all this just to get better performance is not optimal, and AFAIK, dynamically disabling CCX portions is not possible in Windows.

Nah ik, I was just citing evidence that the infinity fabric is bottlenecking in some games  

[DocSwag]

2 minutes ago, LukaH said:

i am aware was just making the point that 100 is as fluid as 200fps

For some people it isn't (no, not me, I'm fine with 100 fps) 

[LukaH]

1 minute ago, Noirgheos said:

No, OP isn't, but your point does not stand for people who own high refresh rate monitors. Intel still reigns.

 

These may be ironed out, but the average user is still afraid to enter the BIOS. Doing all this just to get better performance is not optimal, and AFAIK, dynamically disabling CCX portions is not possible in Windows.

im not starting an intel vs amd here i am just recommending the amd part based on my opinion related to this topic.

[nothereanymore]

Just now, DocSwag said:

Nah ik, I was just citing evidence that the infinity fabric is bottlenecking in some games  

Heck, if one day my Assembly becomes advanced enough to aid, I will. I desperately wanted Ryzen to trash the 7700K and Broadwell-E. Would've made the next four years of my life a heck of a lot easier, sticking to solely one platform. 

[RadiatingLight]

Ryzen is fine for gaming.

if you look at minimum framerates, they're just as good as intel's

 

7700K is ONLY better if you play at 1080p and have a 120hz+ monitor.

so for 95% of people, Ryzen is king.

 

both CPUs achieve way over 60FPS in every game, so it's not a problem a normal user will face.

[He_162]

I would get Ryzen simply because the AM4 motherboards are going to be used in the next generation of Zen, Zen+.

That means, in order to upgrade your CPU, you will only need to change out the CPU with the next generation of Ryzen in like 4 years, making it much cheaper to upgrade than an intel system in the future, and Ryzen performs very well on it's own already, so it is definitely worth it.

[He_162]

Just now, RadiatingLight said:

Ryzen is fine for gaming.

if you look at minimum framerates, they're just as good as intel's

 

7700K is ONLY better if you play at 1080p and have a 120hz+ monitor.

so for 95% of people, Ryzen is king.

 

both CPUs achieve way over 60FPS in every game, so it's not a problem a normal user will face.

Both CPU's provide the exact same frame rate in most games, (average) with ryzen getting higher minimums if you use a GTX 1060.

[nothereanymore]

Just now, He_162 said:

Both CPU's provide the exact same frame rate in most games, (average) with ryzen getting higher minimums if you use a GTX 1060.

Any 8 core will provide higher minimums. I've seen people claiming that Ryzen is smoother than the 7700K, or Intel as a whole. A lot of people don't realize that lower minimums are just a result of the extra cores and threads.

[DocSwag]

31 minutes ago, Noirgheos said:

Heck, if one day my Assembly becomes advanced enough to aid, I will. I desperately wanted Ryzen to trash the 7700K and Broadwell-E. Would've made the next four years of my life a heck of a lot easier, sticking to solely one platform. 

Yup, though it wasn't gone happen . These days it's pretty hard to increase ipc a lot even with a pretty substantial increase in number of transistors. If we want a big single threaded performance jump we're probably gonna need to switch from silicon to something else, maybe germanium or carbon nanotubes.

[Evanair]

So... Are we so sure the 7700k is better?  

[nothereanymore]

17 minutes ago, Evanair said:

So... Are we so sure the 7700k is better?  

This is one video, and as we all know, Ruyzen benchmarks tend to be wildly inconsistent.

 

DigitalFoundry shows Ryzen with 3200MHz and the 7700K with 3000MHz RAM... guess what wins? You got it, the 7700K! So, perhaps Ryzen scales better... This is the only video confirming that.

[Evanair]

5 minutes ago, Noirgheos said:

This is one video, and as we all know, Ruyzen benchmarks tend to be wildly inconsistent.

 

DigitalFoundry shows Ryzen with 3200MHz and the 7700K with 3000MHz RAM... guess what wins? You got it, the 7700K!

Thank you for proving my point.  With 3600mhz ram, the 1700x pulls even to (in some cases above) the 7700k. And this is within a month of release, how long until Ryzen is supporting 4ghz ram or higher?.  How long did the x99 platform take to get stable and acceptable?

[nothereanymore]

3 minutes ago, Evanair said:

Thank you for proving my point.  With 3600mhz ram, the 1700x pulls even to (in some cases above) the 7700k. And this is within a month of release, how long until Ryzen is supporting 4ghz ram or higher?.  How long did the x99 platform take to get stable and acceptable?

>How long did the x99 platform take to get stable and acceptable?

 

X99 was the first "consumer" platform to ever use DDR4, don't forget that.

 

> With 3600mhz ram, the 1700x pulls even to (in some cases above) the 7700k.

 

According to this one guy. I'd wait for the likes of DigitalFoundry, Guru3D, etc.  to do their own tests.

 

[He_162]

1 hour ago, Noirgheos said:

Any 8 core will provide higher minimums. I've seen people claiming that Ryzen is smoother than the 7700K, or Intel as a whole. A lot of people don't realize that lower minimums are just a result of the extra cores and threads.

Yet they also get higher minimums than intel's 10 cores, 8 cores, 6 cores, and 4 cores.

Therefore, it simply gets higher minimum framerates, let me know if you need some graphs showing how much, because it isn't MUCH faster, but it's a lot less pricey, and it has future upgradeability.

[nothereanymore]

31 minutes ago, He_162 said:

Yet they also get higher minimums than intel's 10 cores, 8 cores, 6 cores, and 4 cores.

Therefore, it simply gets higher minimum framerates, let me know if you need some graphs showing how much, because it isn't MUCH faster, but it's a lot less pricey, and it has future upgradeability.

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/amd-ryzen-1800x-1700x-1700-test/4/#diagramm-battlefield-1-dx11-multiplayer-frametimes-ryzen-7-1800x-gegen-core-i7-6900k

 

This review would like to disagree. Does in depth frametime analysis and such. Broadwell-E has better minimums in most titles.

[He_162]

1 hour ago, Noirgheos said:

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/amd-ryzen-1800x-1700x-1700-test/4/#diagramm-battlefield-1-dx11-multiplayer-frametimes-ryzen-7-1800x-gegen-core-i7-6900k

 

This review would like to disagree. Does in depth frametime analysis and such. Broadwell-E has better minimums in most titles.

In that review, he goes through disabling SMT and other functions, and at the time they were using an old outdated bios, find a more recent updated bios report please.

Here are the specs at stock speeds.

That is so similarly close, I'd be willing to bet that an overclock on those Ryzen's will make them pull ahead of the 6950x due to low clock speeds, as well as the 6900k, which isn't shown.

As for people using 4th gen intel i7's, the i7-4770, i7-4790 for example, you can expect to see twice the performance they saw previously in games, and for a cheaper cost overall than the intel side of things.

Either way, Ryzen is far more respectable simply because it does so similarly, despite being 1/3 the price (1700) and does the same job, I should mention that the only people who are going to be using Ryzen are those who are editing, and those who need an 8 core for cheap, so this whole issue should not be over gaming performance, let's agree intel is around 1% faster in the minimums with their 8 cores, but that Ryzen is the only respectable one here, intel needs to stop grabbing for money.

 

As for the i7-7700K, it getting those minimum frames up in the future is going to be hard with half the cores. Ryzen offers an upgrade path, the i7 doesn't, and that means that in order for the i7-7700k to remain competitive, it has to have a price drop, or it will fall behind. Ryzen will be upgradeable to "Zen+" and "Zen 3" whatever those turn out to be named, and I suspect intel will be hard at work releasing new CPU's to combat them, but as of right now, Ryzen is far ahead of intel, maybe not in performance, but in respectability, and in how much their processors cost.

[nothereanymore]

1 hour ago, He_162 said:

In that review, he goes through disabling SMT and other functions, and at the time they were using an old outdated bios, find a more recent updated bios report please.

Here are the specs at stock speeds.

That is so similarly close, I'd be willing to bet that an overclock on those Ryzen's will make them pull ahead of the 6950x due to low clock speeds, as well as the 6900k, which isn't shown.

As for people using 4th gen intel i7's, the i7-4770, i7-4790 for example, you can expect to see twice the performance they saw previously in games, and for a cheaper cost overall than the intel side of things.

Either way, Ryzen is far more respectable simply because it does so similarly, despite being 1/3 the price (1700) and does the same job, I should mention that the only people who are going to be using Ryzen are those who are editing, and those who need an 8 core for cheap, so this whole issue should not be over gaming performance, let's agree intel is around 1% faster in the minimums with their 8 cores, but that Ryzen is the only respectable one here, intel needs to stop grabbing for money.

 

As for the i7-7700K, it getting those minimum frames up in the future is going to be hard with half the cores. Ryzen offers an upgrade path, the i7 doesn't, and that means that in order for the i7-7700k to remain competitive, it has to have a price drop, or it will fall behind. Ryzen will be upgradeable to "Zen+" and "Zen 3" whatever those turn out to be named, and I suspect intel will be hard at work releasing new CPU's to combat them, but as of right now, Ryzen is far ahead of intel, maybe not in performance, but in respectability, and in how much their processors cost.

I never argued that Ryzen would not last longer, albeit with lower averages and the same or a little better minimums. No question about it, it'll last longer than any quad core. Thing is, you outright saying that they have lower minimums than Intel is just plain wrong. Sky/Kaby and Broadwell-E often have better minimums.

 

Also, 1800X OCs have little to no improvement, as showcased by more than just computerbase.de

 

Ryzen is just simply not as good for gaming at the moment. As games begin to use more cores (if ever), then, and only then, will we see it pull ahead. Why is that so difficult to accept? Its still a great choice due to its price, especially the 1700.