the gaming performance is odd. Wonder why no1 tested battlefield 1? Its the one amd claimed to have better fps than intel.
I have definitely seen tests with BF1 around...do not remember from whom though.
Joker iirc.
I honestly am disappointed it wasnt within 5-10% of kaby lake in terms of gaming performance but im not surprised given the CPUs' use cases. The real deciding factor here for me is this:
My build of today should be useful at least for 4 years. And it should get better in the next 1-2 years if im going to consider Ryzen. Will games be optimized for dx12/vulcan in the next year? If so, i will get Ryzen and stick with the lower fps for now.
If we can't expect dx12/vulcan utilization for over year maybe 2, then ill go kaby lake. Upgrading for ryzen architecture later is okay especially with time to accrue more funds.
Until that's answered, the saga continues.
Here is one. At 7.24:
For gaming, it'll be worth waiting for the 'lower-end' CPU's. Hopefully the lower end will have fewer cores of course, but higher stock speeds and more overclocking capabilities.
People are expecting the 1800x to devour everything, which it doesn't and may be a tad unfair, even if AMD's marketing was a little hyping in this direction. In production-level work, the 1800x is going head to head with the 6900k for half the price.
The 6900k and 6950k are also weaker than the i5's and the 7700k in gaming.
And there all K CPU's so what do they overclock too....And Ryzen all SKU's unlocked. What do they overclock too ?
I dont expect to be the silicon lottery winner but what to expect if you put a decent cooler / all in one cooler on a Ryzen CPU.
Mirror's Edge: Catalyst did very well for Ryzen, of course another Frostbite engine game.
Looks like we're seeing a similar story to the FX series: it can do comparably to Intel with gaming with proper optimization on the engine level.
BF1 is advertised as being very efficient in multithreading because of frostbite. It would be interesting to see other frostbite games.
Looks like Ryzen overclocking is dodgy: none of the reviews I saw went higher than 4.1 Ghz or so.
Tech City is attributing this to how new AM4 is, saying it needs to mature first for better OC'ing results.
but holy hell, going from stock to 4-4.1 ghz makes a MASSIVE improvement
the perfromance increase is 10-15% just from the 400 mhz bump.
4.1 from stock is a pretty good margin. Plus everything i saw was with air-cooling.
Let me delve a bit deeper.
Linus and Tech City said that the RAM overclocking is a little off, they're not getting as high on RAM speed as expected.
Also, AMD is saying to not go above 1.35 volts, which is stopping people from going higher than what I mentioned.
Hypothetically this could all be fixed with firmware? Idk.
it may be the case of amd overclocking utility... ppl need to hard lock it at certain Hz then run benchmarks... i remember similar bug with amd gpu's.
part here at 5m 20s seemed like 'it'
now this
this has all the info
granted is 1 hour long but still lol
What's odd with the gaming performance? Looking at frame times when you're not GPU limited, RyZen loses every time to the 7700K. Pretty much as expected, we knew it hadn't the same single thread perf. GamersNexus did spell it out in their review, buying the RyZen 1800X for gaming is not the thing. The 7700K is faster and also cheaper than the top RyZen model. Overclocking helps a little, but still can't really catch the stock 7700K. Disabling SMT actually helps almost as much as overclocking. RyZen is much better for productivity. It can't match Intel in gaming.
Testing at GPU limited scenarios isn't interesting. BF1 at 1440p Ultra still gives Intel the lead, but ofc it is less than at 1080p.
GN:
When we approached AMD with these results pre-publication, the company defended its product by suggesting that intentionally creating a GPU bottleneck (read: no longer benchmarking the CPU’s performance) would serve as a great equalizer. AMD asked that we consider 4K benchmarks to more heavily load the GPU, thus reducing workload on the CPU and leveling the playing field. While we fundamentally disagree with this approach to testing, we decided to entertain a mid-step: 1440p, just out of respect for additional numbers driven by potentially realistic use cases. Of course, in some regard, benchmarking CPUs at 4K would be analogous to benchmarking GPUs at 720p: The conclusion would be that every GPU is “the same,” since they’d all choke on the CPU. Same idea here, just the inverse.
And ofc AMD fudged the gaming presentations they did. GN goes a bit into this in the conclusion. You can't trust marketing.
The GN article is well worth the read:
RyZen is very nice for productivity. Look at those compile times for example:
Look how close the higher clocked RyZen is to the super expensive Intel 10-core. Me like :-D
Yeah Gamers Nexus did a very interesting review.
It doesnt really look that good in gaming yet.
But of course its a new platform and still has to mature a bit.
To me it seems like the clockspeeds of Ryzen is the main concern here,
wenn it comes to gaming.
I would like to see a compairisson from a 1700X vs a 6800K which are the same price.
But an overclocked 6800K at 4.2GHz can hold itself up with Skylake verwell.
So i guess that i have to agree with Steve, that the 1800X isnt the best buy for gaming.
But thats kinda to be expected.
If you gonne look gaming from a diffrent perspective, gaming + streaming, then the 1700X will probablly more interesting to look at.
Because the multitude of threads will help with frame droppings.
However for pure gaming atm the 7700K is still the best buy.
I think that might change as soon as the Ryzen 1600X comes out.
I suppose that those chips will be able to clock higher.