Close
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Showing results 11 to 20 of 35
  1. #11

    Default

    One of the reviews I read said that they didn't do particularly well with multi-threaded games either. Performance was very hit or miss on various games. Maybe that will change as software developers add support for the Ryzen. If I were in the market for a new CPU, I'd hold off for a few weeks to see if gaming performance gets ironed out.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...pu,4951-6.html
    Note the comments on Ashes of the Singularity, which they say scales well with additional cores and frequency. However, the Ryzen didn't do as well as they would have expected.
    Last edited by Bollwerk : 03-02-2017 at 07:38 PM

  2. #12
    Member Ughmahedhurtz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North of The Wall, South of The Line
    Posts
    7169

    Default

    Am I reading that Tom's Hardware review wrong? Looks like for some games the $550 1800X is firmly behind the $340 i7-7700k at default clock speeds, and that gets worse when you OC the i7. Then on more-multithreaded games, it's up to rough parity, but then so is the i7-7700k, which makes a distinction there rather moot I would think.

    Apparently they didn't design this chip to appeal to me personally, so I'm interested in what use case they targeted this CPU at.
    Now playing: WoW (Garona)

  3. #13
    Multiboxologist MiRai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Winter Is Coming
    Posts
    6815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bollwerk View Post
    One of the reviews I read said that they didn't do particularly well with multi-threaded games either. Performance was very hit or miss on various games. Maybe that will change as software developers add support for the Ryzen. If I were in the market for a new CPU, I'd hold off for a few weeks to see if gaming performance gets ironed out.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...pu,4951-6.html
    Note the comments on Ashes of the Singularity, which they say scales well with additional cores and frequency. However, the Ryzen didn't do as well as they would have expected.
    In that Tom's Hardware review, Ryzen is within 10% of the 7700K (when both are clocked at 3.8GHz) in every game except for AoS, which is pretty acceptable seeing as their prior CPU wasn't so great anymore. However, the CEO of AoS personally responded to that saying:

    “Oxide games is incredibly excited with what we are seeing from the Ryzen CPU. Using our Nitrous game engine, we are working to scale our existing and future game title performance to take full advantage of Ryzen and its eight-core, 16-thread architecture, and the results thus far are impressive. These optimizations are not yet available for Ryzen benchmarking. However, expect updates soon to enhance the performance of games like Ashes of the Singularity on Ryzen CPUs, as well as our future game releases.” - Brad Wardell, CEO Stardock and Oxide

    If you look at BF4 right below it, which is known for how awesome it is at utilizing multi-threading, Ryzen is right there next to Kaby Lake. Here are some other statements that TH makes about some of the game performance benchmarks:


    • "The Ryzen 7 1800X provides the same performance as Intel's Core i7-6900K, pushing the EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE into graphics-bound territory."
    • "The gap narrows even more between Ryzen and Intel's processors as we shift to 2560x1440."
    • "The Ryzen 7 1800X averages 91+ FPS during the benchmark, and only lags the Core i7-7700K by 2.8 FPS."
    • "In all four configurations, the Intel processors are separated by a scant 0.2 FPS during the graphics-intensive workload. The Ryzen 7 1800X offers nearly the same performance as the leading CPUs."


    Now, I didn't dig into the setup for the Tom's review*, so I don't really know why they forced the 1800X to sit at 3.8GHz when it boosts up to 4.0GHz out of the box, and I don't see any benchmarks from them where they tried to overclock it, even though they mention water cooling in their initial test setup.
    * I just skimmed a lot of stuff looking for quick answers, but didn't find any (Hey, I'm busy right now!)

    I dunno... I think AMD did a pretty good job after all these years of being way behind.

    The Guru3D review shows the same, where Ryzen is within about 10% compared to Intel, and half of the time it's dead even at higher resolutions. Hell, if you do other things on your computer other than gaming, like rendering video, then Ryzen is tied with, or better than, 8/10-core $1000+ Intel CPUs. Granted, Guru3D did have their Ryzen CPU under an AIO water cooler, I believe.

    Now, on the other hand, the Intel 7700K is still very sexy, and it's better at single-threaded performance, which plenty of things we do on a daily basis still benefit greatly from. Intel is arguably more popular these days and also has better features on their chipsets, which probably equates to motherboard manufacturers trying fancier things on the Intel motherboards that they offer, but they had better f'ing have those things seeing as Intel's R&D budget has got to be orders of magnitude larger than AMD's, when it comes to the CPU sector.

    Personally, when I look at CPUs I estimate their performance based upon how much I think I can overclock them. Realistically, I try for 800-1,000Mhz of additional clockspeed over their base clock, which is usually about a 20-30% gain (and I've been successful with this over the past several years). Unfortunately, I don't have any experience with 4-core mainstream setups, and the 7700K already starts at 4.2GHz and boosts up to 4.5GHz, so I wouldn't think that I could overclock the 7700K all that much.

    Guru3D did some overclocking on Ryzen, but they did have it under water which most people don't want to mess with (even factory sealed setups). So, if you're stuck on air and don't do anything except play games, then the Intel 7700K is probably the better choice. However, if you're gaming, streaming, recording, encoding, et cetera... then the $500 1800X doesn't look too shabby when compared to other 8/10-core CPUs like the 5960X, 6900K, or 6950X, all of which are much more expensive*, but I'm also not a fan of jumping on brand new CPUs/chipsets when they release (neither CPU or GPU). :)
    * Again, the Intel X99 chipset may be a lot better than AMD's current offering. I haven't directly compared the two, but it still costs a lot more to go with Intel right now.
    Do not send me a PM if what you want to talk about isn't absolutely private.
    Ask your questions on the forum where others can also benefit from the information.

    Author of the almost unknown and heavily neglected blog: Multiboxology

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MiRai View Post
    In that Tom's Hardware review, Ryzen is within 10% of the 7700K (when both are clocked at 3.8GHz) in every game except for AoS, which is pretty acceptable seeing as their prior CPU wasn't so great anymore. However, the CEO of AoS personally responded to that saying:

    “Oxide games is incredibly excited with what we are seeing from the Ryzen CPU. Using our Nitrous game engine, we are working to scale our existing and future game title performance to take full advantage of Ryzen and its eight-core, 16-thread architecture, and the results thus far are impressive. These optimizations are not yet available for Ryzen benchmarking. However, expect updates soon to enhance the performance of games like Ashes of the Singularity on Ryzen CPUs, as well as our future game releases.” - Brad Wardell, CEO Stardock and Oxide

    If you look at BF4 right below it, which is known for how awesome it is at utilizing multi-threading, Ryzen is right there next to Kaby Lake. Here are some other statements that TH makes about some of the game performance benchmarks:


    • "The Ryzen 7 1800X provides the same performance as Intel's Core i7-6900K, pushing the EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE into graphics-bound territory."
    • "The gap narrows even more between Ryzen and Intel's processors as we shift to 2560x1440."
    • "The Ryzen 7 1800X averages 91+ FPS during the benchmark, and only lags the Core i7-7700K by 2.8 FPS."
    • "In all four configurations, the Intel processors are separated by a scant 0.2 FPS during the graphics-intensive workload. The Ryzen 7 1800X offers nearly the same performance as the leading CPUs."


    Now, I didn't dig into the setup for the Tom's review*, so I don't really know why they forced the 1800X to sit at 3.8GHz when it boosts up to 4.0GHz out of the box, and I don't see any benchmarks from them where they tried to overclock it, even though they mention water cooling in their initial test setup.
    * I just skimmed a lot of stuff looking for quick answers, but didn't find any (Hey, I'm busy right now!)

    I dunno... I think AMD did a pretty good job after all these years of being way behind.

    The Guru3D review shows the same, where Ryzen is within about 10% compared to Intel, and half of the time it's dead even at higher resolutions. Hell, if you do other things on your computer other than gaming, like rendering video, then Ryzen is tied with, or better than, 8/10-core $1000+ Intel CPUs. Granted, Guru3D did have their Ryzen CPU under an AIO water cooler, I believe.

    Now, on the other hand, the Intel 7700K is still very sexy, and it's better at single-threaded performance, which plenty of things we do on a daily basis still benefit greatly from. Intel is arguably more popular these days and also has better features on their chipsets, which probably equates to motherboard manufacturers trying fancier things on the Intel motherboards that they offer, but they had better f'ing have those things seeing as Intel's R&D budget has got to be orders of magnitude larger than AMD's, when it comes to the CPU sector.

    Personally, when I look at CPUs I estimate their performance based upon how much I think I can overclock them. Realistically, I try for 800-1,000Mhz of additional clockspeed over their base clock, which is usually about a 20-30% gain (and I've been successful with this over the past several years). Unfortunately, I don't have any experience with 4-core mainstream setups, and the 7700K already starts at 4.2GHz and boosts up to 4.5GHz, so I wouldn't think that I could overclock the 7700K all that much.

    Guru3D did some overclocking on Ryzen, but they did have it under water which most people don't want to mess with (even factory sealed setups). So, if you're stuck on air and don't do anything except play games, then the Intel 7700K is probably the better choice. However, if you're gaming, streaming, recording, encoding, et cetera... then the $500 1800X doesn't look too shabby when compared to other 8/10-core CPUs like the 5960X, 6900K, or 6950X, all of which are much more expensive*, but I'm also not a fan of jumping on brand new CPUs/chipsets when they release (neither CPU or GPU).
    * Again, the Intel X99 chipset may be a lot better than AMD's current offering. I haven't directly compared the two, but it still costs a lot more to go with Intel right now.
    As for the tomshardware 3.8vs3.8 test im personally not at all interested in clock vs clock tests, only max OC vs max OC. Now from many other tests i've looked at the 1700x and 1800x are maxing out at about 4ghz while a 7700k can max out around 5ghz with the same cooling (at least 240 AIO's). When looking at what matters to those who overclock, its really no contest where IPC is concerned.

    I've seen some tests showing that their IPC in synthetic benches (not multithreaded) is decent but for some reason that isnt translating to the same IPC in games. We'll have to see if that can get ironed out.

    Now with all that said to me and others here if the IPC is good enough for single threaded games but we can get much better performance for multiboxing at this price point this might still be a good choice.

    I also play emulators and will wait to see how it does there as well.

    From tests i've seen (if overclocking, and even then it hardly matters) I also see little reason to bother with the 1800x over the 1700x. Heck even the 1700 isnt much further behind (pauls hardware hit 3.9 on the 1700 and 4.0 on the 1700x and 1800x). Then it gets more interesting.

    Im currently running a 4790k at 4.7-4.8ghz under water so i see no real reason to upgrade. If i wanted to do 10 boxing though the 1700 and 1700x might be enticing.

    Honestly I'm not that enthused for ryzen's results and the overclocking is unfortunately downright pathetic (seriously? their boost clocks are essentially as high as you can go) but whatever i decide to do i'll definitely be waiting a few months at least to see if these problems can get ironed out and if any other problems crop up. As well as how the platform (motherboard) in general behaves and what it can offer (price compared to intel mainstream boards to get a board with decent VRMs such as the crosshair VI is also pretty pricey).
    Last edited by Thorsbrew : 03-05-2017 at 02:48 AM

  5. #15

    Default

    ATEOTD I'm not sure anyone with a current Intel or one of the previous gen E CPUs would see the need to move to a Ryzen, however, IMO, it is about time that AMD became competitive again. Last time I remember this was with a 2.1Ghz Athlon, about 15 years or so ago (Opterons were quite reasonable at the time too).

    We will hopefully see price reductions from Intel, and with some maturity on the AMD side (or even just a revision of microcode, code, or compilers), on par performance in both single threaded and multi threaded that give us choice on a much better level than there has been for the last decade.

  6. #16

    Default

    Ok so I tried to see how many clients I could do tonight.

    I've been using this new build for about a day now. It's a

    Ryzen 1800x
    B350 Tomahawk by MSI (Amazon somehow was out of stock of any of the X370 boards, even though I preordered first day. So I had to go to Microcenter and they had this one, so no SLI for me).
    1070 GTX
    32G of 2400.

    5 Clients brings the CPU to max maybe 18% during dungeons with decent size fights.

    Tonight I tested 17 clients and pushed the stock speed (3.6) to 97% usage. Org dropped me down to a steady 13 FPS on graphic setting 1. I think maybe if I had some water cooling in the system and tried to overclock, some people were reporting speeds of 3.9 to 4.0, maybe the'd give me some boost. But when I wasn't in ORG I floated from 50-70% depending on movement and other players. This is the first computer I've ever built 100% by myself. So I wasn't too confident to mess around with the water-cooling. Maybe in a future build.

    Overall it think for 10 boxing it'll certainly give you more than enough power and then maybe even enough to bump it up to 15.

    I'd be curious to see results from a 1700x.

  7. #17

  8. #18
    Multiboxologist MiRai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Winter Is Coming
    Posts
    6815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moffen666 View Post
    Here is some intresting thoughts.....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylvdSnEbL50
    I opened that video thinking it was going to be someone else crapping all over AMD's Ryzen about the questionable performance in games, but I was pleasantly surprised and found it interesting.

    Ryzen is definitely a beast and I applaud AMD for making this comeback, but it's going to need some software updates to fully support it, since, like he said in the video, Intel has been the top performer for the last several years because "Bulldozer was crap," and what that equates to is that most things have been optimized for Intel's architecture.

    On the surface of any standard, single-game benchmarks we usually only see FPS numbers, and that's it. Some review sites might mention it, but I don't know of any that consistently give the overall load being produced on a CPU across its threads when benchmarking games. However, in the video, he points out that in another review it was shown that the R1700 and 7700K can achieve the same framerate (in BF1), but when looking at the load being put on the threads, the 7700K is maxed out, while the R1700 still has breathing room. This is obviously just one single example, but I find it to be a very interesting example since BF1 handles multi-threading very nicely.

    I don't have a horse in the race, so to speak, since I'm locked into an Intel platform at the moment, but it's no secret that multiboxers benefit from more cores/threads* when available (assuming you aren't GPU bottlenecked), and for anyone looking to upgrade in the near future who has the need for heavily multi-threaded workloads (playing multiple game clients, recording, streaming, etc.), then Ryzen looks to be the answer at this time.
    * AMD's older 8-core chips were not really 8 standalone cores.
    Do not send me a PM if what you want to talk about isn't absolutely private.
    Ask your questions on the forum where others can also benefit from the information.

    Author of the almost unknown and heavily neglected blog: Multiboxology

  9. #19

    Default

    I'm definitely happy that AMD is trying to get competitive with Intel again. I wish them success. Intel and Nvidia need to be kept on their toes. =)

  10. #20

    Default

    Don't get me wrong I'm certainly happy for some competition and I will accept a reasonable reduction in single threaded gaming in exchange for better multi threaded performance (such as multiboxing)...but reasonable means 10%. I'm seeing some benches showing close'ish performance as posted above but then i see other tests showing it quite significantly behind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcbdN7vdCuQ Take this test and check total warhammer and watchdogs 2 around the 15-16 minute mark. In watchdogs 2 which even handles multithreading a bit better shows the 7700k OC 30% ahead of the 1800x OC and the 6900k even better at 37% ahead (and heres what really has me questioning the value further in that the 6900K is leading the 7700k despite the lower clock showing multithreading is helping, but it ISNT helping ryzen, this probably has something to do with immaturity and support for ryzen so i'll still be waiting to see if that gap closes as it matures, but its tests like these that do give me pause).

    Furthermore its inconsistencies like these (multithreading benefiting intels 6900k and not ryzen) from time to time that just give me a feeling of incomplete overall quality (which also has me watching out for motherboard quirks in the future)

    Its the same idea on the GPU front. I've used single AMD gpus and crossfire amd, ive used single nvidia and SLI nvidia and i've had more inconsistencies and quirks that just give me a feeling of lower quality and incomplete not fully realized quality/performance/etc on amd that make me stick to nvidia.

    But again (i always have to leave a caveat to avoid a flame war lol) the competition is obviously good and i will be holding out to wait and see if they earn my dollar as they mature.
    Last edited by Thorsbrew : 03-07-2017 at 06:30 AM

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •