• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Ryzen-A Fail for Gamers?

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Competition is best for us consumers, it seems many on this forum are more then happy buying over priced Intel chips.
 
USER8000 said:
Don't get me wrong Ryzen is a fantastic CPU - but if you look at reviews,it does have weaknesses relative to some Intel CPUs,and AMD has not denied it one bit. They even said they sent out kits to improve performance and they were honest enough to say they could not give a time frame. AMD said that. So I really don't understand why these people are getting so worked up since it does not do as well as the competition in certain cases - surely if you are the biggest AMD fan in the world you would want to highlight it so AMD will try and work on improving performance.

It was like with my last card - it was a Nvidia one and it had issues,which I was candid about elsewhere and people started thinking I was some AMD fanboi since I just honestly spoke my mind.

You can't win - one day you are insinuated to be an AMD fanboi,an Intel one,etc.

I posted the Legit reviews comment about the patches which gave the 30 day time-frame for the first tranche of Windows updates with the R5 1600X reviews.

Its even funnier since they probably think anybody who has any negative to say about Ryzen is probably the famous lot who retreated for a while from here,ie,the same lot I actually tried to counter at times when they went into overdrive even in the blasted Ryzen thread. But what they don't understand is that they will drive everybody away who does not toe their line 100% which means when the Blue team release their new CPUs,the other lot will jump back here and ram it down their throat too,and there will be nobody in-between left.
Click to expand...
Did you really expect a brand new revolutionary architecture to come out and work flawlessly on day one?
 
Having played Bethesday games since Daggerfall, I have to agree that they are not very good at coding engines nor do they do enough testing and quality control.
However, these two screenshots from GameGPU.com's review of Fallout 4 and Skyrim:SE show some hope for their threading:
nGuBvNt.png

Well, assuming that GameGPU chose some reasonable busy locations for their benches. Their Skyrim:SE review also has this CPU load chart for the original vanilla Skyrim and that didn't scale much past two threads so it does look like they are getting better. Those 89% and 91% cores are still not too great though.
EDIT: actually FO4 looks better after all since it distributes the threads better. However, since the worry with FO4 is its performance when certain things are happening, and this GsmeGPU bench doesn't show any maxed out CPU they obviously didn't bench the right part of the game. In other words those two graphs don't really tell the whole story.
 
Last edited:
WOW these threads take me back to the X58 and the i7 920 C0 release ,

bugged mb's that were very expense at the time
endless debates on which x58 mother boards worked and were stable, oc or not
end less bios updates
blazing fast oc to 3.6
massive power supplies
heat issues

then came the i7 920 D0 which I had for ever
easy overclock to 4.2 on water
endless debates on which x58 mother boards worked and were stable
endless bios updates
massive power supplies
heat issues

so cry me a river if days after the zen/mb's release, that there are issues with gaming at low res. [that very few peeps with high end systems will play at]
 
Puffnstuff said:
I was never deluded in any way and Intel's price on the 6950X remains a solid $1.6k at newegg because of the nonthreatening nature of it.
Click to expand...

Wow, So I can build an entire Ryzen system for the cost of just the CPU. Glad I waited before building an X-99 system. Maybe I should go with the RX-480 GPU while I'm waiting for Vega instead of grabbing a 1080Ti?
 
The whole argument about low res testing being irrelevant is a bad one. It translates over directly to high refresh gaming.
 
WhoBeDaPlaya said:
R7-1700 now on eBay for $279.99 🙂
Click to expand...
where?

moonbogg said:
The whole argument about low res testing being irrelevant is a bad one. It translates over directly to high refresh gaming.
Click to expand...

no, it's pointless.... Why would you benchmark 720p to extrapolate 1080p performance when you could just test 1080p?!

Overwatch @ 270 fps

unseenmorbidity said:
Yup, it's a total fail! It cannot compete with the 7700k at all! Nope...

1080p%20Ultra_zpsueesdjcw.png


1080p%20Mins_zpsrvmktmsq.png


1440p%20Ultra_zpsl3ibcept.png


1440p%20Mins_zpszljy1oqy.png



And it especially cannot do high fps gaming,

Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
unseenmorbidity said:
no, it's pointless.... Why would you benchmark 720p to extrapolate 1080p performance when you could just test 1080p?!
Click to expand...

That's not why historically people benchmark at low resolutions. If you think this is the case you are fundamentally misunderstanding the nature and purpose of these tests. And if the benchmarker makes these claims they are simply jumping to conclusions whilst following in the testing methodology of greater mortals.

The low res' tests are analogous to "synthetic" benchmarks. You can argue until the cows come home about how much "real world" value they have, but to pretend they have no value at all is stupid.
 
richaron said:
That's not why historically people benchmark at low resolutions. If you think this is the case you are fundamentally misunderstanding the nature and purpose of these tests. And if the benchmarker makes these claims they are simply jumping to conclusions whilst following in the testing methodology of greater mortals.

The low res' tests are analogous to "synthetic" benchmarks. You can argue until the cows come home about how much "real world" value they have, but to pretend they have no value at all is stupid.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that... I refuted another person's argument.

Yah, they incorrectly assumed it correlated to performance in future games.

Explain the value...
 
unseenmorbidity said:
yah, they ignorantly and incorrectly assumed it correlated to performance in future games.

Explain the value...
Click to expand...

Did they assume that though? This sounds like a strawman argument to me. But if some testers did make this claim they're jumping to conclusions.

As you should well know; low resolution benchmarks are an attempt to remove the GPU from the equation as much as possible, thus making it ~more~ a CPU vs CPU test. I never said it was particularly relevant. Just like synthetic memory bandwidth tests may not be particularly relevant to real world applications.

All I said was that to completely discount these tests because you, or someone else, doesn't understand the scope of the information provided is stupid.
 
moonbogg said:
The whole argument about low res testing being irrelevant is a bad one. It translates over directly to high refresh gaming.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe that high refresh gaming is CPU limited and not GPU limited ??? If you want 144fps at 1080p you will be more GPU limited than CPU limited in the majority of the games.
 
Testing at 720p is just an easy way to not have a gpu bottleneck.

If you pick a cpu purely for gaming the 7700K is faster, even if you're usually gpu limited, the 7700K will finish the cpu part of calculating a frame more quickly, giving you slightly lower latency.

That said I think ryzen is not a "fail" for gamers, comparing overclock/overclock intel is only 30% faster in games like arma 3, where before ryzen intel was almost twice as fast.
oc_nv_arma3.png
 
Nice videos. 😉

Sorry, what was the purpose of them?
I do see the R7 using all 16 threads, but I also see the the game being bottlenecked by GPU for long sections of the footage.
 
Glo. said:
You just have shown complete incompetence with this question. You do not understand the context?

The number there is the average from all of threads used in the game. Which means. Each, of the 16 Threads are loaded in between 20 and 40%
Click to expand...
Head1985 said:
Crysis3 can use all 16cores on ryzen.
Click to expand...
Afterburner does not show you how much each core is being used, it shows you how often each core is being used.

Single thread running on a dual will show up as ~50% on both cores while in reality it is 100% on one and 0% on the second one.
Windows shuffles running threads around all available cores to prevent the first cores from wear and also to prevent hot spots on the chips.
You need tools like process explorer/hacker to actually see what the threads are doing in real time.
6uO0lZM.jpg
 
TheElf, just to clarify, if the sum of 0 and 1 is greater than 100, so average is above 50, and the same applies for each core and corresponding thread...?

I'm only asking because that is clearly the case in the above video. PS, I know the answer. 😉
 
PotatoWithEarsOnSide said:
TheElf, just to clarify, if the sum of 0 and 1 is greater than 100, so average is above 50, and the same applies for each core and corresponding thread...?

I'm only asking because that is clearly the case in the above video. PS, I know the answer. 😉
Click to expand...
What do you mean with "sum of 0 and 1 is greater than 100" this is not possible,maximum for a dual core is 50% on each core wich would be 100% total.

In the picture I posted there is more then just the game running,windows and whatever else consumes an other ~10% cpu power so it shows about 60% for each core I thought it was simple enough for people to understand this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top