• 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 16 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I know that he had processes running in the background, hence why the sum of two consecutive threads was above 100, but not by much.
The use of all 16 threads wasn't because of the game, rather the background processes.
 
AtenRa said:
After this, who ever says Ryzen Gaming performance is a fail is Trolling.


R7 1800X 4C 8T @ 4GHz vs Core i7 7700K 4C 8T @ 4GHz

http://www.zolkorn.com/reviews/amd-...re-i7-7700k-mhz-by-mhz-core-by-core/view-all/

With GTX 1080

rise-of-the-tomb-raider.png


division.png


farcry-primal-1.png


gta-v.png


battlefield-1.png
Click to expand...

Err... I'm as pro AMD as anyone but you proved your point by underclocking the 7700k and maxing out the OC on the 1800x? What does that prove again?
 
Glo. said:
Then you do not understand the context. Nobody here are resisting the numbers.

People are trying to understand what is the REASON for this. Some say its because it has Sandy Bridge IPC. It is rubbish. This is the thing that I resist. Spreading FUD, and misinformation over forums. The IPC is on Haswell/Broadwell level. For example here: Kraken is single threaded benchmark.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-review,10.html
90% of professional workloads are showing this. What happens in gaming then? How come more complicated and more demanding workload for CPU is showing that Ryzen is on par with latest Intel offerings, and in Gaming - behind it?

Let me put things into perspective for you.
Ryzen is not able to push high framerates in low level settings, and medium sized resolution, while maintaining around 20-30% load on the CPU.
Ryzen is not able to push high framerates in high level settings, and medium sized resolution, while maintaining around 30-40% of load on the CPU.


Nothing red is starting to light for you, in your mind, by looking at this?
Click to expand...

A lot of red lights have lit up in mind as much as everyone else's, otherwise I wouldn't be here.

I never said that Ryzen sucks and never mentioned Sandy Bridge IPC. I too, am trying to understand.

I am not a programmer, but I do believe that gaming is the worst workload a cpu can run. It is a real time affair, with millions of lines of code executed per second and we do have the user input per millisecond, changing the world around him.

I mean just by turning the mouse, you force the system calculating a myriad new things, call a myriad different memory locations and stream heaps of data. There is no other workload that does this. 7zip, Winrar and even Blender and Cinebench are like exercising a specific muscle in the gym, while gaming is like using your whole body to climb a tree.

In Ryzen, it seems that the co-operation of those muscles falter a little. Probably because the tree is new and Ryzen does not know how to climb it. The muscles are there however. Noone is disputing that.
 
TemjinGold said:
Err... I'm as pro AMD as anyone but you proved your point by underclocking the 7700k and maxing out the OC on the 1800x? What does that prove again?
Click to expand...

It proves that games need to become more multi-threaded and AMD needs to work on Zens clocks for future processors.

Heck we may even see R5s or R3s clocking higher. You never now.

Also, the premise that we will be getting very decent and cheap 4c/8t cpus, that will actually be running almost like 4Ghz Kabylakes, should be celebrated by all.
 
Last edited:
TemjinGold said:
Err... I'm as pro AMD as anyone but you proved your point by underclocking the 7700k and maxing out the OC on the 1800x? What does that prove again?
Click to expand...

The test is made with Ryzen blocked to 4 cores/8 threads (probably only one CCX activated) and I think the purpose is to evaluate the relative performances of a future 4C/8T CPU and the inherent architecture IPC relative to Kaby Lake. In those tests, at the same clock, Ryzen is not behaving so bad (I'm not speaking about game tests only) compared to KL. Of course the 7700K has higher clock and the games benchmarks are probably also GPU limited in some cases, but overall it is not bad. Main point is, once and if the issues with the thread juggling between the CCXes will be solved, then Ryzen will be more appealling than it appears now. And also the lower core count parts could give some competition, too.
 
Intersting results of the 4C/8T Ryzen CPU made from 8C/16T 😀. Makes me think of what will be APU capable of.
 
richaron said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wait, so just you said I was stupid if I didn't know the real world value, and when called out, you now say it is not "particularly relevant".

720p is a meaningless drawcall benchmark that doesn't tell you anything about REAL gaming. It's no different than using cinebench to predict gaming performance. Actually, cinebench is probably far more accurate nowadays..

Now, we are back to stupid again? Wouldn't that make you stupid, since you cannot name one fringe case in which it's relevant?

Flapdrol1337 said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's why the 6900k wins in new games, right?

If this was true we would all be using 6 GHz single core cpus.
 
Last edited:
TemjinGold said:
Err... I'm as pro AMD as anyone but you proved your point by underclocking the 7700k and maxing out the OC on the 1800x? What does that prove again?
Click to expand...

Clock to clock comparison maybe ?? Not to mention the R3 4C 8T Ryzen will be half the price of that Core i7 7700K.
 
psolord said:
It proves that games need to become more multi-threaded and AMD needs to work on Zens clocks for future processors.

Heck we may even see R5s or R3s clocking higher. You never now.

Also, the premise that we will be getting very decent and cheap 4c/8t cpus, that will actually be running almost like 4Ghz Kabylakes, should be celebrated by all.
Click to expand...

I dont believe many have realized the performance of the 4C 8T 4GHz Ryzen in that review and what perf/$ R3 and R5 will bring in the desktop the coming months.
 
Glo. said:
Intersting results of the 4C/8T Ryzen CPU made from 8C/16T 😀. Makes me think of what will be APU capable of.
Click to expand...

if they remove the l3 like on previous APUs it's not going to look like that;

but I think it's a good indication for the quad core R5s (still those get less l3, right?), they are going to be priced around locked I5s I think, but can OC and have SMT, it can be quite competitive.
the 7700K is better and can OC more, but it's also a lot more expensive.
 
unseenmorbidity said:
Wait, so just you said I was stupid if I didn't know the real world value, and when called out, you now say it is not "particularly relevant".

720p is a meaningless drawcall benchmark that doesn't tell you anything about REAL gaming. It's no different than using cinebench to predict gaming performance. Actually, cinebench is probably far more accurate nowadays..

Now, we are back to stupid again? Wouldn't that make you stupid, since you cannot name one fringe case in which it's relevant?
Click to expand...

Nope I said it was stupid to completely discount low resolution benchmarks. You've obviously confused these results in the past so I decided to correct you.

I didn't state any case where these benchmarks were relevant or irrelevant; again I said it was stupid to discount these values as meaningless. Just because you, or other people, don't understand the scope of this information doesn't mean it's useless.
 
TheELF said:
This isn't showing gaming performance though,it's showing rendering performance through a game engine,not the same thing at all.
Click to expand...
and what on your mind is showing "gaming perfomarce" ? cause in earth-1 before barry screws the timeline rendering via an engine IS gaming perfomance
 
richaron said:
Nope I said it was stupid to completely discount low resolution benchmarks. You've obviously confused these results in the past so I decided to correct you.

I didn't state any case where these benchmarks were relevant or irrelevant; again I said it was stupid to discount these values as meaningless. Just because you, or other people, don't understand the scope of this information doesn't mean it's useless.
Click to expand...

Because you freaking cannot state a case... You don't have one. It doesn't exist! You are trying to move the goal post so far out it isn't even on the field anymore. We are talking about gaming and the relevance of 720p gaming benchmarks as it pertains to gaming.

And that's not even getting into the fact of how it is misrepresented. It's a benchmark of the limitations of the game engine and drawcalls.

The reviewers are not benchmarking old games at low res, so they can add a game engine drawcall benchmark test to their game review. Developers already have that information, and it's worthless to the general public.

It's become a tradition at this point, and no one bothers to question if it ever made sense.

I am done.... You people can continue to believe in Santa if you want to. I mean, you could be right. Maybe his factory is just invisible?!
 
Last edited:
unseenmorbidity said:
Because you freaking cannot state a case... You don't have one. It doesn't exist!

And that's not even getting into the fact of how it is misrepresented. It's a benchmark of the limitations of the game engine and drawcalls.

It's become a tradition at this point, and no one bothers to question if it still, or ever for that matter, makes sense.

I am done.... You people can continue to believe in Santa if you want to. I mean, you could be right. Maybe his factory is just invisible?!
Click to expand...

You've obviously never heard the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" idea.

I will post it again and again. It's stupid to say that low resolution benchmarks have no value. I will not comment on how much value they may have, nor in which situations.

I will simply say the value of these measurements is non-zero, as anyone with a scientific mind will appreciate. I will keep on saying this no many how many times you keep trying to distort the subject.
 
richaron said:
You've obviously never heard the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" idea.

I will post it again and again. It's stupid to say that low resolution benchmarks have no value. I will not comment on how much value they may have, nor in which situations.

I will simply say the value of these measurements is non-zero, as anyone with a scientific mind will appreciate. I will keep on saying this no many how many times you keep trying to distort the subject.
Click to expand...
So, I was right. You moved the goal post, and the crux of your argument is "Santa's shop is invisible!".

Yes, I am aware of that phrase, as I hear it often from religious philosophers. Which is why I find it odd that the next line you use includes "scientific mind".

A person with a scientific mind wouldn't make arguments for the existence of something with absolutely no evidence. I have repeatedly asked for evidence, and your rebuttal is "have faith". Very scientific. Well, I don't have faith. I don't have faith in your assumption that there is an unknown reason for these benchmarks. Just as I don't have faith that Santa's shop is invisible, fairies exist, there is a tea pot floating around Pluto, and an infinite number of other unfounded claims and assumptions.
 
Last edited:
airfathaaaaa said:
and what on your mind is showing "gaming perfomarce" ? cause in earth-1 before barry screws the timeline rendering via an engine IS gaming perfomance
Click to expand...
It is only part of the gaming performance,the game responding to your actions is just as important and is not being shown by just rendering.
 
unseenmorbidity said:
So, I was right. You moved the goal post, and the crux of your argument is "Santa's shop is invisible!".

Yes, I am aware of that phrase, as I hear it often from religious philosophers. Which is why I find it ofd that the next line you use includes "scientific mind".

A person with a scientific mind wouldn't make arguments for the existence of something with absolutely no evidence. I have repeatedly asked for evidence, and your rebuttal is "have faith". Very scientific.
Click to expand...
You know why low res tests are interesting?
Because benchmarkers don't bother to search for the spots that have the highest cpu demands, seeing the difference in low res tests shows you which cpu has less chances of dropping to low fps when hitting such a spot even if you are playing at higher resolutions.
 
The thread has obviously devolved into a my (insert brand name) is better than your (insert brand name) bash fest filled with confirmation bias. Until testing is objective the subjective skew will continue to permeate the data rendering it useless. Looks like the scientific double blind testing method might be required here to remove any biases. I just want to see pure unbiased results that just present the truth rather than a pile of excuses one way or the other for the results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top