Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

[krumme]

Probably something to do with the fact that most games are GPU limited at high resolution and the fact that game benchmarks are usually appended to GPU reviews. Also it is next to impossible to have a decent multiplayer benchmark. But still I see some games giving out CPU benchmarks/fps as well, i.e. now many fps it can draw without GPU bottlenecks.

regarding SP vs MP, chances of a CPU bottleneck is exponentially higher in MP games, this i can tell you from experience, and i think you will agree.


yes, for your nausea, i remember. And I agree. But in the end SP will pull that as minimum fps fps without CPU bottleneck, unless a FX/i3 cpu is involved.

I know you are not using this as a measure of how long the CPU will last, as core counts becomes a bigger concern in that case, even in games from 2016.


How can you be GPU bottlenecked despite a CPU bottleneck? It's either this or that. if both are bottlenecks than that system is in perfect balance. Personally I would prefer a GPU bottleneck

What I tried to say is that BF1/4/3 MP do not run into CPU bottleneck which forces the fps to dip below 80 fps (60fps for BF1) at 1080p/2k/4k (so obviously not at lower res either). those videos had both GPUs pushing 100%. Neither of those system in the two video were CPU bottlenecked, as both CPUs were doing 50-70% on any given core.

Yes we are different gamers obviously. Personally, I have a 1080p@60Hz TV that I game on. So I could not care less as long as i get 60 fps minimum. I even keep Vsync on when I am playing SP. 60 fps an FX-6 core can pull on BF4/3 at full HD/max details. On other games, which i only play on single player, I have always been able to increase performance by lowering details. Granted I donot own a Titan XP.

However, BF1 shows dips to 40 fps at max details 1080p. This is due to a CPU bottleneck in my case (100% CPU Usage with 60% GPU usage on RX470 during intense battles on 64p servers). So Ii am awaiting R5 6c CPUs.

<this is my story and i am not saying that FX is good (which it definitely is not) or 470 is good enough for 1080p, or anything of that sort>

Stop playing bf1 at ultra!
Its way to high load for 470 at 1080. Go high or med even for 60 min fps. I dont care what crappy reviews says.

Then try
Mp
Operations
Kaiserdlact 64
Play assault go for the tanks
At sector 4 to 5 map st scar you can sometimes experience dips. Same map amiens sector 3 to 6.

 

[imported_jjj]

Don't worry, I'm doing solid 3Ghz numbers starting tomorrow - and I have data aplenty on 3Ghz for Phenom II, Sandy Bridge, and Excavator. And other sources for 3Ghz benchmarks are available as well.

Looking forward to Win 7 gaming w/ and w/o SMT .

 

[krumme]

I think we are having a slight disconnect here. And I think it revolves around this line: "But in the end SP will pull that as minimum fps fps without CPU bottleneck, unless a FX/i3 cpu is involved."

From my experience, that simply is not true. Just because reviewer don't show case the CPU bottlenecks in games, does not mean they do not exist, because they do. I run into them all the time, despite having an i7 5820K @ 4.4Ghz. I see many other people complain about their i7 6700K's also running into them, though they usually have a hard time believing that is why their FPS drop below 60 no matter what settings they use.

I didn't say that you can be GPU bottlenecked and CPU bottlenecked at the same time. What I said is, if you are GPU bottlenecked, and you need more FPS, you lower your settings until you hit those FPS. Showing GPU bound videos just shows the areas that are not CPU bottlenecked. That does not change that there are many games, and areas of many games which are.

Thank you! Thank you!

Its so damn important this message gets out.

I agree. I think some people dont trust their senses and cant quite grip their i7 tanks in bf1.
I have been through that process myself. Netcode server background processes whatnot. Overclocked the ram to see if it helped. Man.
Until i just realized the reason my ib i5 at 4.2 dipped under 30fps was simply a lack of computing power.
One of my 144 gamer kids literally stood laughing at me playing saying my machine sucked big time.
What a blow. It was just difficult to accept because all the reviews showed different.

Insinuating a 8c cpu is a fail for gamers or even something approaching it is so damn sad. It delivers excactly where its most needed. At 320 usd its a damn miracle in my world.

There is so much wrong benchmarking going on and to little gaming.

 

[imported_jjj]

Found a GTX 1080 TI review with Ryzen 1800X vs 6700k at 4.7GHz http://pclab.pl/art73194-27.html
1080p and 4k and it's notable how the order reverses at 4k in some titles.
This s why reviewers need to test at reasonable res first. And it is NOT about 1080p, it's about high FPS vs normal Most people do game at 1080p but they do it with a 480 and less.
Yes 90% of monitors on Steam are 1080p but 90% of GPUs are 480 or a lot less.
There is a high FPS niche and they should get results too ofc.
Ofc Ryzen does have some issues and the point would be stronger when comparing the 6900k to a quad.

 

[imported_jjj]

Don't worry, I'm doing solid 3Ghz numbers starting tomorrow - and I have data aplenty on 3Ghz for Phenom II, Sandy Bridge, and Excavator. And other sources for 3Ghz benchmarks are available as well.

Found a review from the Czech Republic that used Process Lasso but only 1 data point and likely a best case scenario Would be interesting if you add such a test too
"http://www.svethardware.cz/recenze-ryzen-1700x-a-1800x-v-testech-amd-povstalo/44045-5
Through Google Translate
"Just in the process list and choose the right one to choose that will pay him the possibility of using only physical cores. In the case of Stamp the osmijádrových are always the first one, so the numbers 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14. As seen in the screenshot, it really works and was also immediately see the difference on the frame rate, which in the Doom scene immediately rose from 100 to 130 FPS.
That's what I tried and then with the Core i7-7700K, the FPS in the same scene Doom after disabling HT cores fell by 142 to 125 FPS, making it clear that it is indeed a problem of incorrect use of logical cores Stamp the processor."

 

[cytg111]

Thank you! Thank you!

Its so damn important this message gets out.

I agree. I think some people dont trust their senses and cant quite grip their i7 tanks in bf1.
I have been through that process myself. Netcode server background processes whatnot. Overclocked the ram to see if it helped. Man.
Until i just realized the reason my ib i5 at 4.2 dipped under 30fps was simply a lack of computing power.
One of my 144 gamer kids literally stood laughing at me playing saying my machine sucked big time.
What a blow. It was just difficult to accept because all the reviews showed different.

Insinuating a 8c cpu is a fail for gamers or even something approaching it is so damn sad. It delivers excactly where its most needed. At 320 usd its a damn miracle in my world.

There is so much wrong benchmarking going on and to little gaming.

Lag in a multiplayer setting with loads of players in the same general area may well be down to netcode but NOT a CPU bottleneck. There is synchronization hurdels, that if you insist on doing them "right" just wont benefit from any number of THz'es you throw at it, you will be bound be everyones collective nework latency.. a somewhat abstract amdahls setting.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

Looncraz, I just wanted to point out that you posted an MSI Afterburner image of your GPU usage when discussing the setup as CPU bottlenecked.

 

[Head1985]

As usual, you are cherry picking outliers, and making sweeping generalizations based on them. Even the host says it is an outlier....

https://youtu.be/LjFu-onLA68?t=4m21s

A cpu pushed to it's limits does benefit a lot more from faster memory than it otherwise would, but that isn't a common situation in gaming.

Of course that would apply to a ryzen 4 core at it's limits too.

Nope..
http://www.techspot.com/article/1171-ddr4-4000-mhz-performance/page3.html

 

[itsmydamnation]

Lag in a multiplayer setting with loads of players in the same general area may well be down to netcode but NOT a CPU bottleneck. There is synchronization hurdels, that if you insist on doing them "right" just wont benefit from any number of THz'es you throw at it, you will be bound be everyones collective nework latency.. a somewhat abstract amdahls setting.

NO, just No. User latency has always been abstracted away in BF ( since like BF2). How they handle poor latency it what largely determines hit reg detection and is always a contentious issue as there is no "right" answer but rather a Radar chart of choices/ trade offs.

 

[krumme]

Lag in a multiplayer setting with loads of players in the same general area may well be down to netcode but NOT a CPU bottleneck. There is synchronization hurdels, that if you insist on doing them "right" just wont benefit from any number of THz'es you throw at it, you will be bound be everyones collective nework latency.. a somewhat abstract amdahls setting.

But thats not the case. Its fps problems not lag. Perfoverlay.drawfps 1 confirming results.
Not NetworkPerfOverlay.DrawGraph 1 for ping

Bf1 is not a spacerocket for netcode but i dont feel it disturbing. Its imo fixed vs prior gen of bf.

 

[i-know-not]

Looncraz, I just wanted to point out that you posted an MSI Afterburner image of your GPU usage when discussing the setup as CPU bottlenecked.

What he's trying to show is that when the CPU is bottlenecked there are "stalactites" in the GPU usage graph, where it is waiting on the CPU. If the CPU is not bottlenecking the GPU should be stuck at 100% load all the time.

 

[Atari2600]

Nope..
http://www.techspot.com/article/1171-ddr4-4000-mhz-performance/page3.html

Very interesting link - thanks!

 

[CatMerc]

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2832-just-research-ryzen-clock-perf-v-balanced-efi-version-fps

Some interesting research from GamersNexus.

 

[lolfail9001]

Yeah there is limited access to timings now and that only means that there is room for better once they open up the timings.
Very high memory OC is done with Bclk because the BIOS setting are lacking for now, that's all and you know it. Nothing to do with 24/7 though.
The 3700MHz result is an extreme OC at CL12 with 1.9V, it's more about timings than clocks but you have your point to make so are ignoring that.
The evidence for PCper's failings in setting the stated clocks for the 6900k is in their benchmarks, the results show it and it's a matter of competence and trusting any numbers they ever post.

There is limited access to timings now and now sign of it ever being unlocked in this generation, as far as any of us know.
Next, i know what it is, it does not help your point in any way, since it means that the only 2 signs of memory support getting better i have seen so far are benchmarking runs.
Finally, PCPer... http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1729 has 2 R15 ST results, both higher than 151. With AT we know that it does not use that TBM3 thing, so these are certainly 3.7Ghz runs. And they are both higher than 151. What now, i ask you, was it running 3.6Ghz?
But whatever, have it, it was running 3.7Ghz instead. Does it affect my point in anyway, since mediocre ability to push IOPS on NVMe devices is corroborated by a different reviews too?

 

[cytg111]

NO, just No. User latency has always been abstracted away in BF ( since like BF2). How they handle poor latency it what largely determines hit reg detection and is always a contentious issue as there is no "right" answer but rather a Radar chart of choices/ trade offs.

But thats not the case. Its fps problems not lag. Perfoverlay.drawfps 1 confirming results.
Not NetworkPerfOverlay.DrawGraph 1 for ping

Bf1 is not a spacerocket for netcode but i dont feel it disturbing. Its imo fixed vs prior gen of bf.

Sorry, should have frased that differently, challenges of posting on a phone. I am still not convinced that "netcode" can boggle a net clients CPU though. Other factors must be at play. I would like to read a technical writedown that illustrates one of these scenarios as "CPU" limited though.

 

[cytg111]

There is limited access to timings now and now sign of it ever being unlocked in this generation, as far as any of us know.
Next, i know what it is, it does not help your point in any way, since it means that the only 2 signs of memory support getting better i have seen so far are benchmarking runs.
Finally, PCPer... http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1729 has 2 R15 ST results, both higher than 151. With AT we know that it does not use that TBM3 thing, so these are certainly 3.7Ghz runs. And they are both higher than 151. What now, i ask you, was it running 3.6Ghz?
But whatever, have it, it was running 3.7Ghz instead. Does it affect my point in anyway, since mediocre ability to push IOPS on NVMe devices is corroborated by a different reviews too?

Where is these reviews that demonstrates inferior PCIe performance, iops and whatnot? We dont want to do a trump-twitter here, lets document it .

 

[unseenmorbidity]

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2832-just-research-ryzen-clock-perf-v-balanced-efi-version-fps

Some interesting research from GamersNexus.

Interesting. The total war warhammer results are particularly all over the place, and the other two are about the same. Though the results for AoTS are so low, any difference is obviously going to be small. It's like being 1 degree of cutting a 2x4 as opposed to 1 degree off ripping a sheet of plywood.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Win 7 vs Win 10 CSGO



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAXS8rYwGzg&lc

 

[tamz_msc]

^So Windows 7 does not load the HT cores at all - only one shows 3% utilization. I'm assuming that the number at the bottom is FPS, if so, then it's a 20% increase in instantaneous FPS in this scene. That's pretty big.

 

[Zstream]

I'm trying to convince my other half that I need a 1700 I'm a bit different than most, as I use two screens, one with Outlook, couple VM's running, and maybe an RDP session or two. While my other screen is browsing the web or playing a game.

 

[Malogeek]

I'm trying to convince my other half that I need a 1700 I'm a bit different than most, as I use two screens, one with Outlook, couple VM's running, and maybe an RDP session or two. While my other screen is browsing the web or playing a game.

Sounds like a bunch of multitasking that a Ryzen would eat for breakfast at a great price

 

[krumme]

(Regarding csgo win 7 vs win 10)
Yeaa that pretty crazy stuff.
Then imagine a scheduler that actually works optimal on zen. Let hope we get that and not only the simple fix.

 

[lolfail9001]

Where is these reviews that demonstrates inferior PCIe performance, iops and whatnot? We dont want to do a trump-twitter here, lets document it .

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/8073/amd-ryzen-ssd-storage-performance-preview/index3.html

Look at low block size write results.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Our CPU frequency is 25MHz a level, i.e.: when you key in 4000 the frequency is 4000; 4010 or 4020 and enter, frequency will auto adjust to 4025. Key in 4026 will be 4050 and so on. The question on memory to 3600MHz, is because ASUS ROG Crosshair VI Hero ($255.00) and Gigabyte K7 featured CLKGEN on board, MSI also have upcoming model featured this as well, I’ll keep you posted.

Obviously, there are different options to enable overclocking; multi and voltage adjustment, also reference clock. One of the ways the MB guys can differentiate their product lines is the inclusion of ref clock adjustment. With X370, B350, and X300 all offering overclocking the ODMs want to differentiate their product lines. Now that the MB guys see how beneficial and desirable ref clock adjustment is, I expect all the motherboard makers to release models to stay competitive. As AMD establishes presence in the high performance and enthusiast market, more and more partners will take advantage of the market opportunities and deliver even better options for builders and overclockers.

Read more at http://www.legitreviews.com/one-motherboard-maker-explains-why-amd-am4-boards-are-missing_192470#zpBkTUmFyxUOCSWu.99

 

[guachi]

That legitreviews article is a little sad. Basically, it's been so long since AMD had a new socket and CPU someone actually wants to buy they didn't know what to do.

On the other hand, it's an improvement. From AMD screws up a roll out of a mediocre product to AMD screws up a roll out of a great product.

Baby steps, AMD!