RyZen performance

[He_162]

1 hour ago, Noirgheos said:

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.

Yes I was wrong, I should have mentioned that they have lower minimums in a lot of games, albeit not all, I have no clue what percentage of games.

 

However, I have seen a 1800x at 4.2ghz occasionally, which means some people won the silicon lottery, so that shouldn't determine everyones performance, and I realize that 4ghz is pretty much the standard for that processor.

 

The most popular Ryzen I think should be the R7 1700, since it is cheap, easy to overclock, overclocks almost as well as the 1800x, and performs exactly the same clock for clock, if you can get it that high.

 

I would like to see games update and add support for Ryzen, they can design the games to not send so much data between the core complexes, that would increase the multicore performance by quite a bit in games, and that would allow Ryzen to pull ahead of intel in gaming, albeit not as good as a i7-7700K, it would still perform better in at least battlefield, which it already does well in.

[nothereanymore]

1 minute ago, He_162 said:

Yes I was wrong, I should have mentioned that they have lower minimums in a lot of games, albeit not all, I have no clue what percentage of games.

 

However, I have seen a 1800x at 4.2ghz occasionally, which means some people won the silicon lottery, so that shouldn't determine everyones performance, and I realize that 4ghz is pretty much the standard for that processor.

 

The most popular Ryzen I think should be the R7 1700, since it is cheap, easy to overclock, overclocks almost as well as the 1800x, and performs exactly the same clock for clock, if you can get it that high.

 

I would like to see games update and add support for Ryzen, they can design the games to not send so much data between the core complexes, that would increase the multicore performance by quite a bit in games, and that would allow Ryzen to pull ahead of intel in gaming, albeit not as good as a i7-7700K, it would still perform better in at least battlefield, which it already does well in.

>I would like to see games update and add support for Ryzen, they can design the games to not send so much data between the core complexes

 

They'll design it around whatever the Scorpio uses. If they don't have the same CCX thing going, then gg to Ryzen for gaming.

[He_162]

1 hour ago, Noirgheos said:

>I would like to see games update and add support for Ryzen, they can design the games to not send so much data between the core complexes

 

They'll design it around whatever the Scorpio uses. If they don't have the same CCX thing going, then gg to Ryzen for gaming.

AMD is already working with bethesda, and not in person with ubisoft, but ubisoft is planning on working towards developing their games better, to utilize cores better, and to increase performance on the PC.

So I think it isn't just a blank statement that game companies are going to work with AMD to support Ryzen as best they can to satisfy their playerbase.

[nothereanymore]

Just now, He_162 said:

AMD is already working with bethesda, and not in person with ubisoft, but ubisoft is planning on working towards developing their games better, to utilize cores better, and to increase performance on the PC.

So I think it isn't just a blank statement that game companies are going to work with AMD to support Ryzen as best they can to satisfy their playerbase.

They won't sacrifice the majority of PC users. Bethesda currently don't have any multithreaded games, and that's how I think they'll "improve". It'll be beneficial to both AMD and Intel.

 

I've lost all faith in Ubisoft lately. Especially after Wildlands...

[CatXice]

1800x is for people who need 8 cores but have a brain  if your buyin a £1000 cpu you need to give yr head a wobble 

[DrMikeNZ]

2 hours ago, CatXice said:

1800x is for people who need 8 cores but have a brain  if your buyin a £1000 cpu you need to give yr head a wobble 

The 1800X is terrible value, you get pretty much the same performance for significant less with the 1700.

I get 40-55% faster x265 encode times from my i7 6900K than my Ryzen 1700. A 6900K system might cost ~70% more to build than an R7 1700 system, but depending on your budget and what you are doing it can be the logical choice.

[EPPHO]

On 3/26/2017 at 5:10 PM, DocSwag said:

I was just saying at 1080p it's a better option, but at 1440p or higher they're basically the same  

Depends. Overall not a better option for 5-10% performance boost.