Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

Page 128 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Teizo

Golden Member
Oct 28, 2010
1,271
0
91
Joker mentioned the 1700 being cooler than his 1800x too, but I assumed that was just a coincidence. He said that the 1700 required less voltage to hit 3.9 GHz.

Could the 1700s be low TDP binned chips, rather than the others being binned for higher clocks?
Not sure, but it appears his overclocking results were not just a matter of hitting the silicon lottery. Most reviewers reviewed the 1700X or 1800X first so in a few days we should know more on how well the 1700 over clocks, but things appear promising.

That is both good and bad news for AMD. Good that they will no doubt have a hit with the R7 1700..but at the same time enthusiasts who are their target market for this chip will end up buying it over the 1700X and 1800X and AMD may miss out on $$.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
4,555
169
126
Joker mentioned the 1700 being cooler than his 1800x too, but I assumed that was just a coincidence. He said that the 1700 required less voltage to hit 3.9 GHz.

Could the 1700s be low TDP binned chips, rather than the others being binned for higher clocks?
It is pretty much 90% of the clock speed but has 30% less heat output (not power usage, TDP isn't equal to power usage in this case). My guess is these are binned for their low leakage. If the current board or process is limited to roughly 4GHz and the these low leakage chips binned chips hit the same rough limit. It almost makes the 1700 the best chip. And the 1700x and 1800x exist merely an excuse to sell the chips that don't make the grade.
 

Absolute0

Senior member
Nov 9, 2005
714
0
81
Except most games are made for consoles, which have 8 threads. If people with i5's get left in the dust, ohh well. That isn't the concern of game developers.
Is that a joke? Game developers don't care if their customers can't run their product? Developers need SALES and the overwhelming majority of the user base is on 4C or less.

Look @ latest Steam Hardware Survey; 98.32% of steam users are on 4C or less.

Games have to be accessible at enjoyable quality levels to this vast majority in order to sell big. It will take a while before the i5 will be obsolete for gaming, especially since at high settings we are GPU bound anyways.

If you need your platform to last more than just a couple years but like 4+ years then I can see your sentiment that an i5 now is not a good solution.
 

Agent-47

Senior member
Jan 17, 2017
290
0
76
Code:
Logical Processor to Cache Map:
*---------------  Data Cache          0, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
*---------------  Instruction Cache   0, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
*---------------  Unified Cache       0, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
*---------------  Unified Cache       1, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
-*--------------  Data Cache          1, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-*--------------  Instruction Cache   1, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
-*--------------  Unified Cache       2, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-*--------------  Unified Cache       3, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
--*-------------  Data Cache          2, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
--*-------------  Instruction Cache   2, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
--*-------------  Unified Cache       4, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
--*-------------  Unified Cache       5, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
---*------------  Data Cache          3, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
---*------------  Instruction Cache   3, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
---*------------  Unified Cache       6, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
---*------------  Unified Cache       7, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
----*-----------  Data Cache          4, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
----*-----------  Instruction Cache   4, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
----*-----------  Unified Cache       8, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
----*-----------  Unified Cache       9, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
-----*----------  Data Cache          5, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-----*----------  Instruction Cache   5, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
-----*----------  Unified Cache      10, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-----*----------  Unified Cache      11, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
------*---------  Data Cache          6, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
------*---------  Instruction Cache   6, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
------*---------  Unified Cache      12, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
------*---------  Unified Cache      13, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
-------*--------  Data Cache          7, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-------*--------  Instruction Cache   7, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
-------*--------  Unified Cache      14, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-------*--------  Unified Cache      15, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
--------*-------  Data Cache          8, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
--------*-------  Instruction Cache   8, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
--------*-------  Unified Cache      16, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
--------*-------  Unified Cache      17, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
---------*------  Data Cache          9, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
---------*------  Instruction Cache   9, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
---------*------  Unified Cache      18, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
---------*------  Unified Cache      19, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
----------*-----  Data Cache         10, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
----------*-----  Instruction Cache  10, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
----------*-----  Unified Cache      20, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
----------*-----  Unified Cache      21, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
-----------*----  Data Cache         11, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-----------*----  Instruction Cache  11, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
-----------*----  Unified Cache      22, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-----------*----  Unified Cache      23, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
------------*---  Data Cache         12, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
------------*---  Instruction Cache  12, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
------------*---  Unified Cache      24, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
------------*---  Unified Cache      25, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
-------------*--  Data Cache         13, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-------------*--  Instruction Cache  13, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
-------------*--  Unified Cache      26, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-------------*--  Unified Cache      27, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
--------------*-  Data Cache         14, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
--------------*-  Instruction Cache  14, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
--------------*-  Unified Cache      28, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
--------------*-  Unified Cache      29, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
---------------*  Data Cache         15, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
---------------*  Instruction Cache  15, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
---------------*  Unified Cache      30, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
---------------*  Unified Cache      31, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64

each zen thread is being registered as an individual core with its own L2 and L3 cache. i.e. totaling 136 MB cache!!. this is using Windows Sysinternals. This explains the SMT troubles in the event that a thread bounced to a HT thinking its the real deal.

this is my FX 6300 for comparision
Code:
Logical Processor to Cache Map:
*-----  Data Cache          0, Level 1,   16 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
*-*---  Instruction Cache   0, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   2, LineSize  64
*-*---  Unified Cache       0, Level 2,    2 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
******  Unified Cache       1, Level 3,    8 MB, Assoc  64, LineSize  64
-*----  Data Cache          1, Level 1,   16 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
-*-*--  Instruction Cache   1, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   2, LineSize  64
-*-*--  Unified Cache       2, Level 2,    2 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
--*---  Data Cache          2, Level 1,   16 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
---*--  Data Cache          3, Level 1,   16 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
----*-  Data Cache          4, Level 1,   16 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
----**  Instruction Cache   2, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   2, LineSize  64
----**  Unified Cache       3, Level 2,    2 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
-----*  Data Cache          5, Level 1,   16 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
 
Last edited:

Agent-47

Senior member
Jan 17, 2017
290
0
76
Is that a joke? Game developers don't care if their customers can't run their product? Developers need SALES and the overwhelming majority of the user base is on 4C or less.
you are missing the point, consoles are FAR more widespread than PC gaming. they will want to make the perfect console game before they port it to windows. and since consoles are limited by weakly 8c cores, they will be more threaded with time to avoid a bottleneck in console. if a game does not run well enough in console, they will lose even bigger sales compared to the loss of 4c i5s users. sorry to burst your 2 gaming rig bubbles with 4c.

infact that is why you see most games becoming more and more threaded, because the consoles are also threaded.
 
Last edited:
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
0
96
Is that a joke? Game developers don't care if their customers can't run their product? Developers need SALES and the overwhelming majority of the user base is on 4C or less.

Look @ latest Steam Hardware Survey; 98.32% of steam users are on 4C or less.

Games have to be accessible at enjoyable quality levels to this vast majority in order to sell big. It will take a while before the i5 will be obsolete for gaming, especially since at high settings we are GPU bound anyways.

If you need your platform to last more than just a couple years but like 4+ years then I can see your sentiment that an i5 now is not a good solution.
Games are developed for consoles, and then ported to PC.

Current Consoles have 8 threads, and the next generation of consoles will have 8 cores. We are already seeing games become more and more multithreaded over the past few years, and that trend will absolutely continue, as the developers are forced to squeeze out more and more performance from the weak hardware on these consoles.

PC gaming is an afterthought of the market.

Bethesda isn't going to care that you have to turn down shadows on your i5.
 

looncraz

Senior member
Sep 12, 2011
715
0
136
I donot see how though. CPU and GPU talk to each other using specific standard protocols. for AMD CPU and GPU to have a "special bond" they would need a new set of protocols and both drivers and game codes will have to be optimized for those new ports too.
If you think of the APU and the dual GPU card you can see that AMD can get better results - but not with Ryzen talking to Vega over PCI-e (unless they used a compressed protocol over PCI-e - which is possible, though PCI-e bandwidth isn't a limiting factor for graphics performance as it stands, so I don't know why they would do that (except for Crossfire...)).

With an APU the current limiting factor is memory bandwidth. With the data fabric running at memory speeds... that hasn't changed.

For dual GPU, however, things may have changed dramatically. Data fabric should allow placing two GPUs on the same package/interposer and communication at full memory speed and bandwidth. That's an order of magnitude more bandwidth and less latency than current solutions (which are basically just PCI-e). You could then have both GPU die working on the same frame without any software support outside of the driver. A special controller would be needed to take over scheduling, but that should be the easy part - just a chip that interfaces with the software and hides the many small GPU die behind it.
 

looncraz

Senior member
Sep 12, 2011
715
0
136
http://cdn.overclock.net/a/a3/a3bc7675_Capture1.PNG

Joker posted 720P benchmark and any idea Why does Ryzen have 5300Mb memory but 7700K => 1736mb ?
Very strange - the Ryzen actually has 5,699MB VRAM in use and the 7700k has only 1736MB.

This is possibly just because the game doesn't recognize the CPU architecture and decided to preload more onto the video card when it believed bandwidth was poor. Either way, it shouldn't make any harmful impact on the game.
 
Dec 17, 2015
143
0
36
Code:
Logical Processor to Cache Map:
*---------------  Data Cache          0, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
*---------------  Instruction Cache   0, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
*---------------  Unified Cache       0, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
*---------------  Unified Cache       1, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
-*--------------  Data Cache          1, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-*--------------  Instruction Cache   1, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
-*--------------  Unified Cache       2, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-*--------------  Unified Cache       3, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
--*-------------  Data Cache          2, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
--*-------------  Instruction Cache   2, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
--*-------------  Unified Cache       4, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
--*-------------  Unified Cache       5, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
---*------------  Data Cache          3, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
---*------------  Instruction Cache   3, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
---*------------  Unified Cache       6, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
---*------------  Unified Cache       7, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
----*-----------  Data Cache          4, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
----*-----------  Instruction Cache   4, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
----*-----------  Unified Cache       8, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
----*-----------  Unified Cache       9, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
-----*----------  Data Cache          5, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-----*----------  Instruction Cache   5, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
-----*----------  Unified Cache      10, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-----*----------  Unified Cache      11, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
------*---------  Data Cache          6, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
------*---------  Instruction Cache   6, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
------*---------  Unified Cache      12, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
------*---------  Unified Cache      13, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
-------*--------  Data Cache          7, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-------*--------  Instruction Cache   7, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
-------*--------  Unified Cache      14, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-------*--------  Unified Cache      15, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
--------*-------  Data Cache          8, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
--------*-------  Instruction Cache   8, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
--------*-------  Unified Cache      16, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
--------*-------  Unified Cache      17, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
---------*------  Data Cache          9, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
---------*------  Instruction Cache   9, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
---------*------  Unified Cache      18, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
---------*------  Unified Cache      19, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
----------*-----  Data Cache         10, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
----------*-----  Instruction Cache  10, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
----------*-----  Unified Cache      20, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
----------*-----  Unified Cache      21, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
-----------*----  Data Cache         11, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-----------*----  Instruction Cache  11, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
-----------*----  Unified Cache      22, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-----------*----  Unified Cache      23, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
------------*---  Data Cache         12, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
------------*---  Instruction Cache  12, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
------------*---  Unified Cache      24, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
------------*---  Unified Cache      25, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
-------------*--  Data Cache         13, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-------------*--  Instruction Cache  13, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
-------------*--  Unified Cache      26, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
-------------*--  Unified Cache      27, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
--------------*-  Data Cache         14, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
--------------*-  Instruction Cache  14, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
--------------*-  Unified Cache      28, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
--------------*-  Unified Cache      29, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
---------------*  Data Cache         15, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
---------------*  Instruction Cache  15, Level 1,   64 KB, Assoc   4, LineSize  64
---------------*  Unified Cache      30, Level 2,  512 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
---------------*  Unified Cache      31, Level 3,   16 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64

each zen thread is being registered as an individual core with its own L2 and L3 cache. i.e. totaling 136 MB cache!!. this is using Windows Sysinternals. This explains the SMT troubles in the event that a thread bounced to a HT thinking its the real deal.
I dumped my own 6700 HQ for comparison

Logical Processor to Cache Map:
**------ Data Cache 0, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
**------ Instruction Cache 0, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
**------ Unified Cache 0, Level 2, 256 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64
******** Unified Cache 1, Level 3, 6 MB, Assoc 12, LineSize 64
--**---- Data Cache 1, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
--**---- Instruction Cache 1, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
--**---- Unified Cache 2, Level 2, 256 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64
----**-- Data Cache 2, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
----**-- Instruction Cache 2, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
----**-- Unified Cache 3, Level 2, 256 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64
------** Data Cache 3, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
------** Instruction Cache 3, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
------** Unified Cache 4, Level 2, 256 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64

Well, the coreinfo on ryzen really is broken right now. (Btw, where is his post on Ryzen dump?)
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
4,274
214
126
If this has been posted, I apologize...the thread is rather long at this point...but check out this review of the R7 1700. Legit Reviews got their to 4ghz stable on all cores...besting even Joker's R7 1700 at 3.9ghz...and temps were held in check pretty well with the Corsair H110i.
It's seeming more like the 1700 should have been the more costly chip because it can get similar results at less power. If these were designed for notebooks that would definitely be the case. Hell, if you binned carefully and dropped the voltage and clocks a little bit more, you probably could put the 1700 into one of those notebooks that are designed to be desktop replacements.
 

Agent-47

Senior member
Jan 17, 2017
290
0
76
I dumped my own 6700 HQ for comparison

Logical Processor to Cache Map:
**------ Data Cache 0, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
**------ Instruction Cache 0, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
**------ Unified Cache 0, Level 2, 256 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64
******** Unified Cache 1, Level 3, 6 MB, Assoc 12, LineSize 64
--**---- Data Cache 1, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
--**---- Instruction Cache 1, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
--**---- Unified Cache 2, Level 2, 256 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64
----**-- Data Cache 2, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
----**-- Instruction Cache 2, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
----**-- Unified Cache 3, Level 2, 256 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64
------** Data Cache 3, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
------** Instruction Cache 3, Level 1, 32 KB, Assoc 8, LineSize 64
------** Unified Cache 4, Level 2, 256 KB, Assoc 4, LineSize 64

Well, the coreinfo on ryzen really is broken right now. (Btw, where is his post on Ryzen dump?)
yes that looks more in line.

thing is, from what i know, coreinfo just reads some register and printf the results. it seems like a windows issue, so why is the problem only limited to games. hmmm

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/#post-38770528
 

Absolute0

Senior member
Nov 9, 2005
714
0
81
you are missing the point, consoles are FAR more widespread than PC gaming. they will want to make the perfect console game before they port it to windows. and since consoles are limited by weakly 8c cores, they will be more threaded with time to avoid a bottleneck in console. if a game does not run well enough in console, they will lose even bigger sales compared to the loss of 4c i5s users. sorry to burst your 2 gaming rig bubbles with 4c.

infact that is why you see most games becoming more and more threaded, because the consoles are also threaded.
I see your point, but it's forward-looking with an undefined timeline. Obviously right now it is not valid, since XB1/PS4 has been out since 2013, and games (even AAA ported titles) are still weakly threaded, as we observed with the gaming benchmarks.

That games will become more threaded to the point where 4C in insufficient is an inevitability; whether this happens sooner or later is the question.

I think my i5/980TI will game a while longer, and I lose nothing by not blowing my money on superfluous cores today.
 

looncraz

Senior member
Sep 12, 2011
715
0
136
I see your point, but it's forward-looking with an undefined timeline. Obviously right now it is not valid, since XB1/PS4 has been out since 2013, and games (even AAA ported titles) are still weakly threaded, as we observed with the gaming benchmarks.

That games will become more threaded to the point where 4C in insufficient is an inevitability; whether this happens sooner or later is the question.

I think my i5/980TI will game a while longer, and I lose nothing by not blowing my money on superfluous cores today.

I wouldn't say "weakly threaded." We saw a 3.6~4.0GHz 8-core with a 10% IPC deficit hanging close to a 4.2~4.5GHz 4-core in quite a few games precisely because of those extra cores.

The difference would be larger if SMT didn't exist.
 

Zucker2k

Senior member
Feb 15, 2006
688
31
136
Something doesn't add up....... let's see:






So the i7 7700K and the GTX 1080 are only needing 33w (combined) to produce 50% more frames than the R7 1700 and GTX 1080 combo? Those power consumption figures can't be right. The result is even more suspicious if you look at power consumption figures for the other tests in relation to the gaming tests.
 

Agent-47

Senior member
Jan 17, 2017
290
0
76
I see your point, but it's forward-looking with an undefined timeline. Obviously right now it is not valid, since XB1/PS4 has been out since 2013, and games (even AAA ported titles) are still weakly threaded, as we observed with the gaming benchmarks.

That games will become more threaded to the point where 4C in insufficient is an inevitability; whether this happens sooner or later is the question.

I think my i5/980TI will game a while longer, and I lose nothing by not blowing my money on superfluous cores today.
I believe it was you who stated "If you need your platform to last more than just a couple years but like 4+ years then I can see your sentiment that an i5 now is not a good solution.".

thats the thing. Most CPUs will last 5-6 years if they were bought right. they can see up to 3-4 GPUs. you probably got your 2500k 4-5 years ago. games were still hardly using 2 cores back then and just like you are saying now, most people argued you only need an i3. so when you got the i5 it was okay. it did its job

but not today. today if you buy an i5 you will have a hard time in a 128 player server in BF1. I fundamentally disagree with you on the timeline. It may seem okay in 2017, but not in 2018. and like you said, one buys a CPU as a long term investment.

today a x6 is like an i5 when games were 2c when you got your rig 2. today a x8 is like an i7 when compared to those days.
 

Absolute0

Senior member
Nov 9, 2005
714
0
81
I wouldn't say "weakly threaded." We saw a 3.6~4.0GHz 8-core with a 10% IPC deficit hanging close to a 4.2~4.5GHz 4-core in quite a few games precisely because of those extra cores.

The difference would be larger if SMT didn't exist.
Hmm semantics to me. I was an early adopted of A64 dual core when it came out. We just knew that in a few years, everything would be multihreaded and push our little dual cores to the max. Then when quads came out, we just knew that soon, by 2010 we thought, everything would be fluidly multithreaded. Then bulldozer came out, and why wouldn't everyone start programming for 8 threads? But here we are in 2017. The games are weakly threaded by my standards lol. The argument that "soon, everything will be heavily multithreaded!" is a decade-old argument.

I believe it was you who stated "If you need your platform to last more than just a couple years but like 4+ years then I can see your sentiment that an i5 now is not a good solution.".

thats the thing. Most CPUs will last 5-6 years if they were bought it right. they can see upto 3-4 GPUs. you probably got your 2500k 4-5 years ago. games were still hardly using 2 cores back then and just like you are saying now, most people argued you only need an i3. so when you got the i5 it was okay. it did its job

but not today. today if you buy a i5 you will have a hard time in a 128 player server in BF1. I fundamentally disagree with you on the timelin. It may seem okay in 2017, but not in 2018. and like you said, one buys a CPU as a long term investment.

today a x6 is like an i5 when games were 2c when you got your rig 2. today a x8 is like a i7 when compared to those days.
If you think I recommended buying an i5, I didn't. I questioned that an i5 would soon be obsolete for games. I think I'll be gaming fine next year. I'll take care of my gaming needs and I'll let you take care of yours, lol... I don't try to let my enjoyment of PC games be dictated by the personal hardware preferences of others.
 
Last edited:

Agent-47

Senior member
Jan 17, 2017
290
0
76
Something doesn't add up....... let's see:

So the i7 7700K and the GTX 1080 are only needing 33w (combined) to produce 50% more frames than the R7 1700 and GTX 1080 combo? Those power consumption figures can't be right. The result is even more suspicious if you look at power consumption figures for the other tests in relation to the gaming tests.
I am afraid those are system-wide wattage with a GPU and we cannot tell how much of it is GPU and how much of it is CPU. :)

Hmm semantics to me. I was an early adopted of A64 dual core when it came out. We just knew that in a few years, everything would be multihreaded and push our little dual cores to the max. Then when quads came out, we just knew that soon, by 2010 we thought, everything would be fluidly multithreaded. Then bulldozer came out, and why wouldn't everyone start programming for 8 threads? But here we are in 2017. The games are weakly threaded by my standards lol. The argument that "soon, everything will be heavily multithreaded!" is a decade-old argument.
1. we did not have an 8c console back in A64 days so it did not work out by 2010. we do now.
2. weakly threaded my ass: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsDjx-tW_WQ&t=150s
 

looncraz

Senior member
Sep 12, 2011
715
0
136
Hmm semantics to me. I was an early adopted of A64 dual core when it came out. We just knew that in a few years, everything would be multihreaded and push our little dual cores to the max. Then when quads came out, we just knew that soon, by 2010 we thought, everything would be fluidly multithreaded. Then bulldozer came out, and why wouldn't everyone start programming for 8 threads? But here we are in 2017. The games are weakly threaded by my standards lol. The argument that "soon, everything will be heavily multithreaded!" is a decade-old argument.
Maybe you don't understand - the games are already heavily threaded.

Networking, audio, AI, graphics, and more are routinely operating in their own threads in modern games. The bottleneck is different for every game engine. It might be AI, the graphics queue, or any of a number of other issues.

Many of the applications you are using right now have dozens of threads and will scale just fine to use the full power of Ryzen. But you might not notice because there is one thread somewhere that is not as optimized as it could be.

With nothing but Firefox and Thunderbird open my system is using 1271 threads and 3.7GB of RAM. More cores to spread around interrupts and other events makes things smoother in the very least and that will only continue to increase as time goes on.

Of course, if ALL you do is game, there's not much of a reason to need more than fast 8 threads - ever - games just don't do enough distinct types of computation to spread across many more cores than that.

AI is dependent on other AI results, so you can't usually do much threading for it. Graphics is largely limited by the API - including DX12 - to being a largely serial operation. Reading from an SSD/disk is faster in predictable, linear, patterns. And so on... Networking is latency sensitive so it is best handled by one or two system threads (per client) and one or two game threads.

However, you still have a thousand threads working in the background. If you want the smoothest experience it is better to have a few extra cores floating around handling those tasks than to not. It might not give you higher FPS, but as time goes and more happens in the background you won't experience the same dips in performance you would otherwise experience with fewer cores.

And that is something we have seen. More and more, those slow FX-8530 8-core CPUs are showing that they can do decently (not well) in games that make an i5 Sandy Bridge stumble. The consoles use eight cores for that very reason - AMD could have just as easily placed in a couple Excavator modules at low clocks and provided the performance desired - but the consoles want to do more things at once. So the console OSes steal a couple cores for themselves for streaming and other background processing.

Those games are then ported to Windows and they run well on a quad core. Why? Brute performance and rapid context switching. However, an i7 is already ~30% faster than an i5 in many/most new games - that's full-on SMT scaling. Six cores are already better than four - even with SMT. It's just eight cores that becomes overkill... for now.
 
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
0
96
But here we are in 2017. The games are weakly threaded by my standards lol. The argument that "soon, everything will be heavily multithreaded!" is a decade-old argument.
Yah, that is the same argument climate change deniers use.

"Hey, look it's snowing... LOL Climate change!" All the while the temperature keeps rising.

Like climate change, it just takes time to see that change. You cannot make assumptions based on one year to the next. It's happening, but it is a slow process. Look at games from 10 years ago, and ones produced today, and tell me that multithreading isn't happening.

Intel is even making a mainstream 6 core, because they too know it is happening.

BF1 is a great example of what is coming in the future.

Maybe you don't understand - the games are already heavily threaded.

Networking, audio, AI, graphics, and more are routinely operating in their own threads in modern games. The bottleneck is different for every game engine. It might be AI, the graphics queue, or any of a number of other issues.

Many of the applications you are using right now have dozens of threads and will scale just fine to use the full power of Ryzen. But you might not notice because there is one thread somewhere that is not as optimized as it could be.

With nothing but Firefox and Thunderbird open my system is using 1271 threads and 3.7GB of RAM. More cores to spread around interrupts and other events makes things smoother in the very least and that will only continue to increase as time goes on.

Of course, if ALL you do is game, there's not much of a reason to need more than fast 8 threads - ever - games just don't do enough distinct types of computation to spread across many more cores than that.

AI is dependent on other AI results, so you can't usually do much threading for it. Graphics is largely limited by the API - including DX12 - to being a largely serial operation. Reading from an SSD/disk is faster in predictable, linear, patterns. And so on... Networking is latency sensitive so it is best handled by one or two system threads (per client) and one or two game threads.

However, you still have a thousand threads working in the background. If you want the smoothest experience it is better to have a few extra cores floating around handling those tasks than to not. It might not give you higher FPS, but as time goes and more happens in the background you won't experience the same dips in performance you would otherwise experience with fewer cores.

And that is something we have seen. More and more, those slow FX-8530 8-core CPUs are showing that they can do decently (not well) in games that make an i5 Sandy Bridge stumble. The consoles use eight cores for that very reason - AMD could have just as easily placed in a couple Excavator modules at low clocks and provided the performance desired - but the consoles want to do more things at once. So the console OSes steal a couple cores for themselves for streaming and other background processing.

Those games are then ported to Windows and they run well on a quad core. Why? Brute performance and rapid context switching. However, an i7 is already ~30% faster than an i5 in many/most new games - that's full-on SMT scaling. Six cores are already better than four - even with SMT. It's just eight cores that becomes overkill... for now.
Another Good point. All these benchmarks are done with clean system installs, or at least they are supposed to be. But that too is not realistic.

Most of us likely have a bunch of stuff running in the background.
 
Last edited:

Absolute0

Senior member
Nov 9, 2005
714
0
81
I'm seeing the 8C16T Ryzen 1800X on par with 4C4T i5 in games. For 6600K/7600K vs 1800X we are talking similar clocks but 4x the threads for the Ryzen. How multithreaded are teh games? I point to the gaming benchmarks and let you decide.

Will an i5 be obsolete for gaming purposes in 2018? Again, I point to the gaming benchmarks that compare w/ i5 and let you decide.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreview...review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-7
http://www.pcgamer.com/the-amd-ryzen-7-review/5/

It's my opinion that I'll game with perfectly enjoyable settings, even in 2018, on my lil lowly 4T i5's. And I'm perfectly happy if people disagree with me. I'm not stopping anyone from buying CPUs. I love CPUs too and I understanding wanting the "BEST" performance. Most users tho, most gamers, will probably still survive in 2018 on i5's. Not all users are die-hard enthusiasts that get pissed and drop $$$ if they get an FPS spike or have to dial a quality setting down. That's the .1% here at AT. We are an odd bunch lol but I love it here ;).
 

AMDisTheBEST

Senior member
Dec 17, 2015
682
0
56
I'm seeing the 8C16T Ryzen 1800X on par with 4C4T i5 in games. For 6600K/7600K vs 1800X we are talking similar clocks but 4x the threads for the Ryzen. How multithreaded are teh games? I point to the gaming benchmarks and let you decide.

Will an i5 be obsolete for gaming purposes in 2018? Again, I point to the gaming benchmarks that compare w/ i5 and let you decide.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreview...review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-7
http://www.pcgamer.com/the-amd-ryzen-7-review/5/

It's my opinion that I'll game with perfectly enjoyable settings, even in 2018, on my lil lowly 4T i5's. And I'm perfectly happy if people disagree with me. I'm not stopping anyone from buying CPUs. I love CPUs too and I understanding wanting the "BEST" performance. Most users tho, most gamers, will probably still survive in 2018 on i5's. Not all users are die-hard enthusiasts that get pissed and drop $$$ if they get an FPS spike or have to dial a quality setting down. That's the .1% here at AT. We are an odd bunch lol but I love it here ;).
Compare to i5, all the games in that link show either 1800x outperforming every i5 or lose to the kabylake i5 in just 1-3 fps average but 15-25 higher minimum fps. I award the winning CPU to 1800x since most gamers would rather have higher minimum fps than to see 1-3 extra average fps.
 

R0H1T

Platinum Member
Jan 12, 2013
2,556
6
106
Something doesn't add up....... let's see:

So the i7 7700K and the GTX 1080 are only needing 33w (combined) to produce 50% more frames than the R7 1700 and GTX 1080 combo? Those power consumption figures can't be right. The result is even more suspicious if you look at power consumption figures for the other tests in relation to the gaming tests.
As has been pointed out previously, the figures include system power & as such we can't say what amount of power the GPU was guzzling in each case. This apart from the fact that the 1700 is rated at 65W TDP vs 91W for the 7700k, the KL clocks higher & has 4 less cores, I doubt there's anything wrong in the numbers we see.
 

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,305
19
126
Interested to see how the wife reacts to AMD basically being back in the saddle. When we first started dating, she was a hardcore AMD fangirl. But Bulldozer broke her heart.

Wonder if she'll opt to go back to AMD instead of taking my handy me downs. I might post pone my CPU upgrade schedule if she wants a Ryzen build. Really wish they'd do more MMO-game related tests. The MMO-Market is huge and just about ever site continues to ignore them.

WTB better threading optimization for MMOs. Where these type of processors can definitely shine.
 

Agent-47

Senior member
Jan 17, 2017
290
0
76
It's my opinion that I'll game with perfectly enjoyable settings, even in 2018, on my lil lowly 4T i5's. And I'm perfectly happy if people disagree with me. I'm not stopping anyone from buying CPUs. I love CPUs too and I understanding wanting the "BEST" performance. Most users tho, most gamers, will probably still survive in 2018 on i5's. Not all users are die-hard enthusiasts that get pissed and drop $$$ if they get an FPS spike or have to dial a quality setting down. That's the .1% here at AT. We are an odd bunch lol but I love it here ;).
I thought you "don't try to let [your] enjoyment of PC games be dictated by the personal hardware preferences of others".

thing is, as discussed in this very page, windows thinks each thread in ryzen is an individual core with dedicated cache system if 136MB. This means that the games will have to be rebenched.

regarding 4c4t, again, "i point to the gaming benchmarks that compare w/" i7 "and let you decide"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsDjx-tW_WQ&t=150s
 


ASK THE COMMUNITY