Ryzen-A Fail for Gamers?

[Glo.]

From when games uses 16cores?

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%. Nothing red does not light up in your mind with this perspective, and in the context of results?

If this does not light anything, check this out:

13th minute mark.

 

[Head1985]

Sadly,when I started talking about those Fallout 4 results on another forum,which he mentioned (and seem to correlate to some other data I saw),people attacked me and reported my posts to shut me up,since I was apparently a troll since Sandy Bridge was good enough for all games. Its getting very toxic TBH,so best to not talk about any games or situations were Ryzen might do worse than Intel in, and that is from some one who on record has said they don't want to give Intel any more money,ie,they want to support AMD. It makes me wonder whether the Tech of Tomorrow guy was correct!

Yeah i dont get it why so many ppl defending ryzen here.Its decent CPU, but intel is just faster in games.
Ryzen have around sandy/ivy IPC so its good for casual gaming, but dont defend it at all cost.

I am still waiting for digital foundry review... what it takes him so long.

 

[Glo.]

Yeah i dont get it why so many ppl defending ryzen here.Its decent CPU, but intel is just faster in games.
Ryzen have around sandy/ivy IPC so its good for casual gaming, but dont defend it at all cost.

I am still waiting for digital foundry review... what it takes him so long.

In case you missed it. NOBODY is defending Ryzen. They are trying to understand what is happening. You just jumped to conclusion straight away.

In scientific research you would be fired for this approach in 2 minutes.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Yeah i dont get it why so many ppl defending ryzen here.Its decent CPU, but intel is just faster in games.
Ryzen have around sandy/ivy IPC so its good for casual gaming, but dont defend it at all cost.

I am still waiting for digital foundry review... what it takes him so long.

OC3D and Jayztwocents basically already put out the best gaming review.

Here are a few benchmarks, but they are mostly meaningless, because Ryzen is clearly buggy atm. As any new architecture would be at this point.

Why obsess over numbers that you know are going to be wrong?! It's nonsense...

 

[Head1985]

Yeah nobody defending ryzen here best joke ever.I showed some cpu bottleneck in witcher3 and 10ppl came here saying its not true bla bla bla look at here at this review and look at there ryzen is best.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Yeah nobody defending ryzen here best joke ever.I showed some cpu bottleneck in witcher3 and 10ppl came here saying its not true bla bla bla look at here at this review and look at there ryzen is best.

You are here to troll... You haven't refuted anything I have said.

 

[USER8000]

Yeah i dont get it why so many ppl defending ryzen here.Its decent CPU, but intel is just faster in games.
Ryzen have around sandy/ivy IPC so its good for casual gaming, but dont defend it at all cost.

I am still waiting for digital foundry review why it takes him so long.

Its quite strong in certain newer titles which scale well to more cores,and I am confident with hardware and software updates it will gain performance. But honestly,there is no discussion to be had it seems - AMD even handed out 300 kits to games companies since even they said Ryzen needs to do better in games. That is from the horses mouth,but people seem to conveniently forget this.

They seem to think any little criticism of Ryzen means you are some raging Intel-Nvidia fanboi who hates AMD,etc. Its like the console wars - either you have to be XBox or Playstation.

 

[Glo.]

Yeah nobody defending ryzen here best joke ever.I showed some cpu bottleneck in witcher3 and 10ppl came here saying its not true bla bla bla look at here at this review and look at there ryzen is best.

CPU bottleneck would be if the CPU would be loaded 100%. I have brought the same benchmark as you did, but better. Why? Because it is done in Witcher 3 on LOW SETTINGS in 1080p.

Here take a look yourself:

Click the link, go to youtube, and compare notes.

Even on low settings in 1080p, the game appears to be GPU bound at times. Ryzen CPU is almost Idling, at 30-40%.

 

[psolord]

We both know how CPU/GPU bottleneck works(i think we are only one on this forum btw) i have just tried show some cpu limit to this people here, but they are just lost case.They know pretty much zero about how this thing works.
I am not saying ryzen is super bad, but intel is just better in gaming.Also witcher uses more than 8 cores so i was expecting just like crysis3 that ryzen will be faster than 7700k but its not.Its slower in both.

btw i hope you will buy ryzen so we can make some tests just like we did it with 2500k vs 6700k

I wouldn't go that far. I just do a lot of benchmarks with everything I got.

There are many guys here that are a lot more knowledgeable than I am.

What you see in this forum and many others, is that it seems AMD had many more dormant fans than met the eye. Once Rysen news broke out, everyone expected great things from every computing load under the sun.

Even though it trounces the 7700k in many workloads, it still manages to stay behind in some games. People don't like that, up to the point that even if you show it to them, they just won't accept it.

I wish I could afford both a Rysen and a 7700k and benchmark the suit bejesus out of them. Unfrotunately I don't. And here I am in the spot that the Rysen is far more interesting as a new tech, but the 7700k is a lot safer, at least for the immediate future.

To add insult to injury, I can get good z270 mobos at much better prices than the x370 ones and the 7700k is also cheaper where I live as well.

For now I am going to play the waiting game, but posts like the Witcher 3 you posted, are not helping me man, lol.

 

[psolord]

CPU bottleneck would be if the CPU would be loaded 100%. I have brought the same benchmark as you did, but better. Why? Because it is done in Witcher 3 on LOW SETTINGS in 1080p.

Here take a look yourself:

Click the link, go to youtube, and compare notes.

Even on low settings in 1080p, the game appears to be GPU bound at times. Ryzen CPU is almost Idling, at 30-40%.

Low settings are not good for cpu testing. Never were. Many games reduce draw distance with low settings, which makes the life of the cpu a lot easier. Also low settings makes the running code less complex. Less draw calls, less instructions, etc, depending on the nature of the game. Overall not good for cpu testing.

It's not the end of the world, but you need Ultra settings at normal res, for proper cpu testing. 720P ultra is not too bad of an idea either, but 720p is not realistic any more, so starting at 1080p is great.

 

[Glo.]

Low settings are not good for cpu testing. Never were. Many games reduce draw distance with low settings, which makes the life of the cpu a lot easier. Also low settings makes the running less complex. Also not good for cpu testing.

It's not the end of the world, but you need Ultra settings at normal res, for proper cpu testing. 720P ultra is not too bad of an idea either.

Hold on a second. I thought all of the fuss was about the CPU being unable to pull as much FPS as possible? Moving the goalposts?

Yes it makes everything easier for the GPU, for it to make higher framerates(absolute), based on the performance of the CPU. How can you move the goals that easily? Its beyond me, what is happening lately in the technical forums about Ryzen.

I think most people did not thought out everything what is happening about this CPU, in the context of gaming.

In other words. Use both situations, low and high details, on medium resolution to draw conclusions about what is happening, with the CPU.

Maybe then you will finally guys understand it.

 

[Head1985]

I wouldn't go that far. I just do a lot of benchmarks with everything I got.

There are many guys here that are a lot more knowledgeable than I am.

What you see in this forum and many others, is that it seems AMD had many more dormant fans than met the eye. Once Rysen news broke out, everyone expected great things from every computing load under the sun.

Even though it trounces the 7700k in many workloads, it still manages to stay behind in some games. People don't like that, up to the point that even if you show it to them, they just won't accept it.

I wish I could afford both a Rysen and a 7700k and benchmark the suit bejesus out of them. Unfrotunately I don't. And here I am in the spot that the Rysen is far more interesting as a new tech, but the 7700k is a lot safer, at least for the immediate future.

To add insult to injury, I can get good z270 mobos at much better prices than the x370 ones and the 7700k is also cheaper where I live as well.

For now I am going to play the waiting game, but posts like the Witcher 3 you posted, are not helping me man, lol.

Here 7700k cost same as r7 1700, but x370 Mb cost like 2x more than z270.

Btw i dont think anyone here test more than you.I am pretty sure we both know whats happening if we look at CPU/GPU usage in games.i have watching your yutube videos pretty much from beginning in core2/5850 time
I also test some games back when i upraded from phenom2 x4 920 to 2500k with crossfire 5850 and recently i made some review when i was upgrading from 2500k to 6700k.
Maybe are here ppl like us, but they dont post here.What i see here is ppl who dont know.

My old test btw
http://pctforum.tyden.cz/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=167863
http://pctforum.tyden.cz/viewtopic.php?f=92&t=230541

 

[psolord]

Hold on a second. I thought all of the fuss was about the CPU being unable to pull as much FPS as possible? Moving the goalposts?

Yes it makes everything easier for the GPU, for it to make higher framerates(absolute), based on the performance of the CPU. How can you move the goals that easily? Its beyond me, what is happening lately in the technical forums about Ryzen.

I think most people did not thought out everything what is happening about this CPU, in the context of gaming.

In other words. Use both situations, low and high details, on medium resolution to draw conclusions about what is happening, with the CPU.

Maybe then you will finally guys understand it.

You need high fps yes, but at proper settings that people actually play at. Using low settings does not help anyone, because they produce results that will not be used in real life gaming.

I never supported low settings over ultra settings, in order to shift the goalpost now.

It goes without saying for me, that you don't make the running code lighter when benhcmarking. Unless there's some SSAA option that goes along with the ultra setting, which is pretty much useless. You need to keep the end beauty.

 

[Glo.]

You need high fps yes, but at proper settings that people actually play at. Using low settings does not help anyone, because they produce results that will not be used in real life gaming.

I never supported low settings over ultra settings, in order to shift the goalpost now.

It goes without saying for me, that you don't make the running code lighter when benhcmarking. Unless there's some SSAA option that goes along with the ultra setting, which is pretty much useless. You need to keep the end beauty.

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?

 

[unseenmorbidity]

You need high fps yes, but at proper settings that people actually play at. Using low settings does not help anyone, because they produce results that will not be used in real life gaming.

I never supported low settings over ultra settings, in order to shift the goalpost now.

It goes without saying for me, that you don't make the running code lighter when benhcmarking. Unless there's some SSAA option that goes along with the ultra setting, which is pretty much useless. You need to keep the end beauty.

1080p ultra without mulitsampling or no AA at all?

 

[USER8000]

snip

Look dude,serious step back a bit? Zen is a different design to what Intel has. Its launching into a market where even AMD has said companies have more experience with Intel - AMD sent 100s of kits out for this very reason. If Oxide who is very AMD focused still has not got Zen optimisations in AoTS,then what about loads of other games?? Some may never get optimisations or just run badly since they are designed to take advantage of the Intel way of doing things.

Fallout 4 is one of them - it shows massive improvements going to Skylake. World of Tanks will probably run better on Intel for the immediate future.

Titles like BF1 and AoTS once patches come out probably will run better on AMD than Intel.

You need to accept certain games and certain game engines might show an Intel bias anyway like some will show an AMD bias,otherwise you are going to blow a head gasket once Skylake E and Coffee Lake is released.

 

[Head1985]

1080p ultra without mulitsampling or no AA at all?

YES 1080p max details no AA or hairworks for not be GPU bottleneck.Fastest GPU available(better if OC to max)
This will show cpu performance.Also CPU demanding area is needed for testing.Like grass level in crysis3 or novigrad in witcher3

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Look dude,serious step back a bit? Zen is a different design to what Intel has. Its launching into a market where even AMD has said companies have more experience with Intel - AMD sent 100s of kits out for this very reason. If Oxide who is very AMD focused still has not got Zen optimisations on AoTS,then what about loads of other games?? Some may never get optimisations or just run badly since they are designed to take advantage of the Intel way of doing things.

Fallout 4 is one of them - it shows massive improvements going to Skylake. World of Tanks will probably run better on Intel for the immediate future.

Titles like BF1 and AoTS once patches come out probably will run better on AMD than Intel.

You need to accept certain games and certain game engines might show an Intel bias anyway like some will show an AMD bias,otherwise you are going to blow a head gasket once Skylake E and Coffee Lake is released.

So, if it isn't updated or improved at all, (not likely) and we are to believe the worst benchmarks, then some old games will be stuck with i5 performance?! And i5 performance in old games is really really bad! That is news to me...

Fallout 4 looks like a game from 2008 and runs badly period... Bethesda couldn't code a functioning 8 bit game if their life depended on it, never mind a tripleA title.

Are you seriously trying to argue that one absolutely horribly coded game by incompetent developers proves something? What does it prove? If you are obsessed with FO4, then buy a 7700k!? Okay... sure. You should always look at the games you want to play, and make decisions based on that. If you want to play really old titles, which fallout4 basically is, despite being released recently, then absolutely get an intel.

 

[guachi]

I look at that Witcher 3 graphic someone posted and I think, "the lowly 8370 has min FPS of 72. Literally everything on that chart is good enough."

Get a *sync monitor (And you should; they're awesome.) and you'll likely never notice much of a difference at all. In fact, you'd get a better gaming experience spending the money on that then you would upgrading your junky 8370/2500k to either a R7 or 7700K.

 

[AtenRa]

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?

1. IPC is not constant, it is application depended. That means IPC can be at Skylake levels in one Application and at IvyBridge levels in one Game.
2. People jumping to conclusions about Gaming performance too soon, im certain that Gaming performance will get higher within a few months when both Game patches, new Motherboard Bios and Windows patches will be implemented. Also new games will be optimized from the beginning for Ryzen and i will also like to see the combination of Ryzen + Vega in new DX-12 games.

Anyway as of today, it is a huge step for AMD and a great victory for the consumers because we have two choices in the $300-350 segment unlike the past. We have two CPUs that directly compete for the first time in all metrics (Price, Performance, Perf/Watt etc etc). There is no one CPU to rule them all, one has higher Gaming Perf, the other has exceptional MT perf etc etc. We should be happy we have two choices and the best is yet to come with more perf/$ from the R5 and R3 Ryzen CPUs the following months.

 

[USER8000]

So, if it isn't updated or improved at all, (not likely) and we are to believe the worst benchmarks, then some old games will be stuck with i5 performance?! And i5 performance in old games is really really bad! That is news to me...

Fallout 4 looks like a game from 2008 and runs badly period... Bethesda couldn't code a functioning 8 bit game if their life depended on it, never mind a tripleA title.

Are you seriously trying to argue that one absolutely horribly coded game by incompetent developers proves something? What does it prove? If you are obsessed with FO4, then buy a 7700k!? Okay... sure. You should always look at the games you want to play, and make decisions based on that. If you want to play really old titles, which fallout4 basically is, despite being released recently, then absolutely get an intel.

Dude,seriously some games are like that,games like World of Tanks are even worse. Millions of people play these kinds of titles,games like Warcraft,etc. Games like Skyrim - look at the mods community for some of these games?? Its massive. Games like Planetside 2.

They are all lightly threaded - they all hog one or two cores massively. If you have a problem with that - then go onto the forums of these games and then ask people why they have decided to run games which don't use even two to four cores properly.

You have this strange obsession to keep saying only new games are relevant - how many of those new games are single player FPSes,which don't last that long?? BF1 might be an exception but DICE is an exception when it comes to these kind of online games going back to BF2.

All you are doing is jumping on people who don't push your narrative that Ryzen has any weaknesses in gaming,when AMD has contradicted what you have said and gone to games companies and given them kit.

Even your irrational hate for Bethesda has been contradicted by AMD trying to work with them to get Vulkan into their games - AMD knows how popular their games are.

Only you don't seem to understand this.

AMD even has said they need to get better optimisation for Ryzen since many games are coded for Intel CPUs - if you have an issue with that then write to AMD and ask why they mentioned this??

Because in the end on the games forums where those people run the games mentioned,they will start comparing hardware and if Intel does still look better,they will just still buy it,quietly.

 

[Glo.]

Are you seriously trying to argue that one absolutely horribly coded game by incompetent developers proves something? What does it prove? If you are obsessed with FO4, then buy a 7700k!? Okay... sure. You should always look at the games you want to play, and make decisions based on that. If you want to play really old titles, which fallout4 basically is, despite being released recently, then absolutely get an intel.

The developers are not incompetent. Before the release they never had a chance to get their hands on the CPUs. Most of the games were coded way before the hype has built up around the Zen architecture. It baffles me that people can jump both sides to conclusions, without understanding the great picture they are looking at.

AMD gave few first kits of Ryzen CPUs to optimize the hardware, after the launch.

Its funny on forums these days. Its much easier to jump to conclusions, rather than try to step back and understand what is happening.

Look dude,serious step back a bit? Zen is a different design to what Intel has. Its launching into a market where even AMD has said companies have more experience with Intel - AMD sent 100s of kits out for this very reason. If Oxide who is very AMD focused still has not got Zen optimisations in AoTS,then what about loads of other games?? Some may never get optimisations or just run badly since they are designed to take advantage of the Intel way of doing things.

Fallout 4 is one of them - it shows massive improvements going to Skylake. World of Tanks will probably run better on Intel for the immediate future.

Titles like BF1 and AoTS once patches come out probably will run better on AMD than Intel.

You need to accept certain games and certain game engines might show an Intel bias anyway like some will show an AMD bias,otherwise you are going to blow a head gasket once Skylake E and Coffee Lake is released.

Why do you think I don't know that? That is the exact point I am making in my posts. People jumping to conclusions about the uArch WAY too soon.

The fans are also jumping to conclusions way too soon(incompetent developers? what?).

 

[Glo.]

Let me put to you guys, what I am implying in my posts. I apologize for post under post, but IMO its too imortant.

Lets take one of the outliers:

Ryzen CPU just 5% faster than FX 8370 in Witcher 3, 1080p. And on par with FX 9590. How come?

Well the developers did not had their hands on the Ryzen CPU, so they were not able to optimize the engine to utilize uArchitecture of Ryzen. What this means? In this particular case - Ryzen CPU is executing tasks just like FX 8370 should. How come the difference in performance between them? Sheer horsepower of the Ryzen CPU cores.

Time will improve the performance of the CPU. It may take awhile however, and performance in some games may never be fixed.

Does this mean the CPU is bad at gaming? By huge margin - no.

 

[AtenRa]

 

[USER8000]

The developers are not incompetent. Before the release they never had a chance to get their hands on the CPUs. Most of the games were coded way before the hype has built up around the Zen architecture. It baffles me that people can jump both sides to conclusions, without understanding the great picture they are looking at.

AMD gave few first kits of Ryzen CPUs to optimize the hardware, after the launch.

Its funny on forums these days. Its much easier to jump to conclusions, rather than try to step back and understand what is happening.

Why do you think I don't know that? That is the exact point I am making in my posts. People jumping to conclusions about the uArch WAY too soon.

The fans are also jumping to conclusions way too soon(incompetent developers? what?).

Teaches me to not read from the beginning of the thread LOL,but I agree with your points in the last two posts you made. I just hope games companies can get these out before the end of the year,as when the Ryzen APU launches it will be in a better place and so will the next Rzyen CPU.