Ryzen 2700X OCed to 4.3Ghz (1.4v) across all cores, performance numbers included.

[cj09beira]

1 minute ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Is that AMD's fault or Intel's?

its no ones fault, the game was made when there was no ryzen cpus, so they optimized for intel, sometimes those optimizations can hurt other architectures simple as that

[Coaxialgamer]

5 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Is that AMD's fault or Intel's?

Neither. Its arguably valve's fault, and even then I'm having a hard time blaming them given its a 6 year old game running on a 15 year old engine.

It's just that using it as an accurate and representative benchmark  is hardly realistic, just like i can't claim my 290x is faster than a 1080 because it turns out faster in 3dmark's api overhead test. 

[Cookybiscuit]

5 minutes ago, hobobobo said:

Using 720p benchmark is a bit (a fair bit) disengenious. Post the same 9game avarage for 1080p and 1440p and then it would be fair

You're upset that a CPU benchmark is set up to show the differences between CPUs? How does that make any sense? It's like complaining a GPU benchmark is being performed at 4K. By your logic a 1080Ti and GTX 580 both hitting the 300FPS cap at 720p in BF3 means they are both equally fast.

4 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

aaaaand its only 15% behind the 8700K even at 720p? idk where you are getting 30% from here, not even the 1500x is 30% behind the 8700K

So it's a lot slower in poorly optimised games and a bit slower in well optimised games, why buy Ryzen then?

4 minutes ago, jde3 said:

Ok.. wait a minute. @Cookybiscuit You have a 110Hz monitor but your sure there is a difference between 100fps and 200fps? How do you know without double blind  testing and ... let me expand on this a little.. as we are biologic there is a limit to what our senses can detect, our sense of smell and our hearing isn't so great compared to other animals, our eye sight is somewhat better but there will come a time like there did with audio where there just isn't any improvement yet to be made. (unless your a dog with audio or an alien with video), How do you know without double blind testing, that you aren't already there?

 

I'm trying to understand why it would even matter if Intel was better for games. (that I assume it is though for reasons that may not have anything to do with the processor design itself) That wouldn't make Ryzen less good. It is what it is and people like it.. it's design is what I really like that is what gets me excited. Things that affect the computing industry are important and Ryzen has had a good effect, on both AMD and Intel.

I already explained that I've done double blind testing and can tell the difference immediately. Higher FPS does not stop improving visuals once you hit your monitor's refresh rate, it just starts to make for diminishing returns. It really isn't that outlandish a claim, go and try it yourself.

3 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

its no ones fault, the game was made when there was no ryzen cpus, so they optimized for intel, sometimes those optimizations can hurt other architectures simple as that

The excuses don't really improve the experience for the end user though, do they?

 

[cj09beira]

2 minutes ago, jde3 said:

Ok.. wait a minute. @Cookybiscuit You have a 110Hz monitor but your sure there is a difference between 100fps and 200fps? How do you know without double blind  testing and ... let me expand on this a little.. as we are biologic there is a limit to what our senses can detect, our sense of smell and our hearing isn't so great compared to other animals, our eye sight is somewhat better but there will come a time like there did with audio where there just isn't any improvement yet to be made. (unless your a dog with audio or an alien with video), How do you know without double blind testing, that you aren't already there?

 

I'm trying to understand why it would even matter if Intel was better for games. (that I assume it is though for reasons that may not have anything to do with the processor design itself) That wouldn't make Ryzen less good. It is what it is and people like it.. it's design is what I really like that is what gets me excited. Things that affect the computing industry are important and Ryzen has had a good effect, on both AMD and Intel.

he is correct, you can definitely feel the difference, i think its because when you have 200fps the image the monitor is displaying at 100hz is more recent than at 100fps so its like you are reducing latency, thought that only works so far, i bet it would be really hard to tell the difference between 200 and 400 for example

[GoldenLag]

20 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Go in a server by yourself and try capping to 100FPS, move the mouse around, then 200FPS, then move the mouse around. My display isn't even 144Hz and I can see the difference straight away. If you want to test this blind you could bind the FPS cap toggle command to a key and use an autoclicker to press the key a random number of times so you don't know if it landed on 100FPS or 200FPS. My monitor is only 110Hz but it's still easy to see the difference.

the tearing issues at 10 fps off is minimal. even at 100 fps the frames are off sync with the monitor. doubling the fps decreases the slight offsett that it has. are you shure its running at 200 fps and not 220. because at 220 its showing 2 frames per refresh. something display syncronization takes advantage off. if the max refreshrate of the display cant match the max output of the pc. it can then configure to show render 2 frames per refresh.  personally id rather okay at 144hz 144 fps than 144 hz 170 fps. 

20 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

So Ryzen is better because it gets a lower framerate and lets you use Freesync/GSync more of the time? 

 

I've never been able to see any difference watching 24FPS movies at different refresh rates, but that could just be me.

 

Getting sidetracked talking about CSGO, the point is Ryzen is still a disaster for games.

That entirely depends on what you call a dissaster. If 20% less performance in 1080p at 200-300fps is considered a dissaster, then shure. Though a lot consider Ryzen to be a success in terms of gains on intel and in workloads such as games and so fourth. 

 

Ryzen is good because it brings better performance per dollar and great budget cpu`s with a promise of a upgradepath. 

 

variable refreshrate is great for both sides. the fps is rarely consistant and the tearing that would have occured in a 20 fps drop in a section is negated. i dont remember where, but i think it was ryzen that had better 0,1% and 1% figures compared to intel. (those figures may have been AMD vs Nvidia, honestly i dont remember the details.) 

 

the point is that a lot of games arent that cpu demanding these days (talking modern titles). the Cpu is rarely the bottleneck. The increase in resolution in displays shrinks this difference even more. Industry is showing signs of moving away from single thread. What do you consider to be a better upgrade these days, a GPU or a CPU?

[jde3]

1 minute ago, Cookybiscuit said:

I already explained that I've done double blind testing and can tell the difference immediately. Higher FPS does not stop improving visuals once you hit your monitor's refresh rate, it just starts to make for diminishing returns. It really isn't that outlandish a claim, go and try it yourself.

 

 

I wouldn't know how and I have a 60Hz monitor. I don't know if I could run anything at 200fps and.. I really have no desire to do so.

[hobobobo]

5 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

You're upset that a CPU benchmark is set up to show the differences between CPUs? How does that make any sense? It's like complaining a GPU benchmark is being performed at 4K. By your logic a 1080Ti and GTX 580 both hitting the 300FPS cap at 720p in BF3 means they are both equally fast.

Im upset since its unrepresentative. 720 benachmark highlights latency difference mainly, where ryzen is behind 20-30%. Show me someone gaming on 720p monitor with a 8700k and a vega64 and ill know how an oblivious idiot looks like

[Cookybiscuit]

1 minute ago, jde3 said:

 I really have no desire to do so.

"Ryzen is better if I ignore the ways Intel wins"

1 minute ago, hobobobo said:

Im upset since its unrepresentative. 720 benachmark highlights latency difference mainly, where ryzen is behind 20-30%. Show me someone gaming on 720p monitor with a vega64 and ill know how an oblivious idiot looks like

How else do you propose CPUs should be benchmarked then?

[GoldenLag]

3 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

So it's a lot slower in poorly optimised games and a bit slower in well optimised games, why buy Ryzen then?

price to performance, Cheap mobo, unlocked chips, promise of a 4 year supported cpu on the same mobo, good stock cooler on those that include it. Idk, seems like rather good reasons for buying Ryzen, but for the moment intel still reigns the crown in top of the line, unlimited budget system. no question there at all

[jde3]

1 minute ago, Cookybiscuit said:

"Ryzen is better if I ignore the ways Intel wins"

How else do you propose CPUs should be benchmarked then?

When did I say better?

 

It's got a novel design, it's good for stuff.. its darn good for my use case. But better? What is that metric? Best ever? no.. what are we doing? x86 isn't even the best architecture.

[Bananasplit_00]

Just now, Cookybiscuit said:

Wrong.

how do you just say "Wrong." to maths?... 

 

135/161 gives you ~0.83, which means the 1800x is 83% of the performance of the 8700K(yah i messed up, not 15% its more like 17%)

 

117/161 gives you ~0.72 which means the 1500x is 72% of the performance of the 8700K, thats not 30% either

 

those are for the avrages but the percentages are about the same for the 1% lows so im not sure how you can just say "Wrong."

[GoldenLag]

Just now, Cookybiscuit said:

"Ryzen is better if I ignore the ways Intel wins"

How else do you propose CPUs should be benchmarked then?

Ryzen has some edges. But in CPU benchmarks, the lowest rez possible is best for reduzing the gpu bottleneck

[hobobobo]

2 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

"Ryzen is better if I ignore the ways Intel wins"

How else do you propose CPUs should be benchmarked then?

As it is done by most sites, 1080p, 1440p and 4k (mostly redundant, but some games are coded in a way where cpu makes a difference). Matching hardware/best case hardware also appreciated, since intel doesnt really care for RAM speed while it makes a pretty big difference for ryzen. Tom's hardware are pretty good on that front, they test with oc, without ht, with matching clocks etc

[Cookybiscuit]

Just now, hobobobo said:

As it is done by most sites, 1080p, 1440p and 4k (mostly redundant, but some games are coded in a way where cpu makes a difference). Matching hardware/best case hard ware also appreciated, since intel doesnt really care for RAM speed while it makes a pretty big difference for ryzen. Tom's hardware are pretty good on that front, they test with oc, without ht, with matching clocks etc

Only dumb publications test CPUs at 1440p or above. The only time such a test would be valid is if you were comparing two complete systems and trying to figure out which made more sense from a price to performance perspective.

3 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

price to performance

Intel still wins, AMD can't even deliver the price to performance it's known for, what a disaster.

 

[cj09beira]

1 minute ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Only dumb publications test CPUs at 1440p or above. The only time such a test would be valid is if you were comparing two complete systems and trying to figure out which made more sense from a price to performance perspective.

Intel still wins, AMD can't even deliver the price to performance it's known for, what a disaster.

 

except that ryzen cpus aren't being sold at anywhere near those prices 

[hobobobo]

Just now, Cookybiscuit said:

Only dumb publications test CPUs at 1440p or above. The only time such a test would be valid is if you were comparing two complete systems and trying to figure out which made more sense from a price to performance perspective.

Intel still wins, AMD can't even deliver the price to performance it's known for, what a disaster.

 

The point of testing is to provide reference to future buyers. Calling it dumb would be the same as calling people with >=1440p monitors dumb. If you want absolutes - why even test in games, go for synthetics, they represent absolute capabilities of hardware way better.

 

And that "intel still wins" does seems strange when literally the top cpu there is 1500x

[Bananasplit_00]

2 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Only dumb publications test CPUs at 1440p or above. The only time such a test would be valid is if you were comparing two complete systems and trying to figure out which made more sense from a price to performance perspective.

ok, so if i have a 1440p monitor and want to know how a CPU will stack up agaist another in some game i want to play i dont matter?.. wut...

3 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Intel still wins, AMD can't even deliver the price to performance it's known for, what a disaster.

exept the 1500X still winns at price/performance?

[Master Disaster]

2 minutes ago, hobobobo said:

The point of testing is to provide reference to future buyers. Calling it dumb would be the same as calling people with >=1440p monitors dumb. If you want absolutes - why even test in games, go for synthetics, they represent absolute capabilities of hardware way better.

 

And that "intel still wins" does seems strange when literally the top cpu there is 1500x

Exactly this, benchmarks should be done in real world scenarios to represent real world results. Saying Intel is better at 720p is totally dumb as no one actually games at 720p.

[Arika]

regardless of the whole debate going on at the moment. Those numbers are pretty disappointing.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Cookybiscuit said:

People have been saying "effective multi-core utilization in games is just around the corner" since Bulldozer came out and it still hasn't happened, CPUs with fewer, stronger cores still win handily. Buying components in the hope that they'll be better in the future doesn't seem like too bright an idea, a 2500K is still a perfectly good CPU in 2018, a 8150 belongs in the bin. 

 

That said, it isn't all about gaming of course.

Thing is it isn't around the corner, it's in current game engines right now and has been for a while. Also if you look outside of the shooter games this is even more so, take GalCiv 3 as an example, that can use as many cores as you have and utilizes them properly. Has nothing to do with hopes or Bulldozer, that was crap then and is crap now and will be crap forever and as such I've never owned an AMD CPU since FX 939 era. As for now, I'm a potential TR2 owner yet I still see no reason to upgrade from my 4930k.

 

Game development isn't exactly at the pinnacle of symmetrical multiprocessing or parallel compute or really anything of that kind either and not all workloads as they are currently implemented can be scaled across cores in such a way to not have a larger dependency on 1 or 2 of them. That is being worked on and has to come from multiple fronts like graphics APIs, hardware and driver schedulers along with the glue that holds it all together, the game engine. That's a lot of dependent areas that need to get things sort out but soon as that gets done the change will be rapid, like when applications went from single core optimized to dual core, that took a long time to unless we're all forgetting.

[GoldenLag]

14 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

except that ryzen cpus aren't being sold at anywhere near those prices 

This was updated this april. Shows the AMD Athlon to be the best bang for the buck. Followed by a few celerons and pentiums and then Ryzen. Dont forget Mobo cost aswell. B350 mobos should be going quite cheap right around the launch of Ryzen 2xxx

[Cookybiscuit]

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Thing is it isn't around the corner, it's in current game engines right now and has been for a while. Also if you look outside of the shooter games this is even more so, take GalCiv 3 as an example, that can use as many cores as you have and utilizes them properly. Has nothing to do with hopes or Bulldozer, that was crap then and is crap now and will be crap forever and as such I've never owned an AMD CPU since FX 939 era. As for now, I'm a potential TR2 owner yet I still see no reason to upgrade from my 4930k.

 

Game development isn't exactly at the pinnacle of symmetrical multiprocessing or parallel compute or really anything of that kind either and not all workloads as they are currently implemented can be scaled across cores in such a way to not have a larger dependency on 1 or 2 of them. That is being worked on and has to come from multiple fronts like graphics APIs, hardware and driver schedulers along with the glue that holds it all together, the game engine. That's a lot of dependent areas that need to get things sort out but soon as that gets done the change will be rapid, like when applications went from single core optimized to dual core, that took a long time to unless we're all forgetting.

If multi-threading in games was that good Ryzen would easily outperform Intel, but it doesn't yet. There's still a ways to go before moar cores>fast cores.

2 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

This was updated this april. Shows the AMD Athlon to be the best bang for the buck. Followed by a few celerons and pentiums and then Ryzen. Dont forget Mobo cost aswell. B350 mobos should be going quite cheap right around the launch of Ryzen 2xxx

[PIC]

PissMark isn't an indicator of anything, it's a useless test.

[jde3]

So.. we have established that AMD sucks and Intel is too expensive. All seems right with the world here.

 

note: This is a joke. The shills here are making my morning, specially the guy who posted the chart directly countering his point.

[GoldenLag]

9 minutes ago, Sierra Fox said:

regardless of the whole debate going on at the moment. Those numbers are pretty disappointing.

They are okay for minor arcitectural changes. They still havent fixed the clock issue which seems to be linked to the arcitecture and not so much the node. We got exactly what was expected from the 14-12 nm shrink.

[Bananasplit_00]

32 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

So it's a lot slower in poorly optimised games and a bit slower in well optimised games, why buy Ryzen then?

oh wow missed this cheeky edit, nice way to get out of screwing up... anyway i was just saying that i didnt remember Ryzen being 30% behind, used your provided benchmark and calculated out you are claiming almost doubble what the actiual numbers are  To answer your question here, because its cheaper. the 1600 + mobo is cheaper than the I5 7400 + mobo was or about the same, so it was generally recomended and the 1700 is great value if you do something that can use the cores and game ontop of that, otherwise the Intel options can be better.