Friday, March 3rd 2017

AMD Responds to Ryzen's Lower Than Expected 1080p Performance

Mar 3rd, 2017 03:48 Discuss (126 Comments)

The folks at PC Perspective have shared a statement from AMD in response to their question as to why AMD's Ryzen processors show lower than expected performance at 1080p resolution (despite posting good high-resolution, high-detail frame rates). Essentially, AMD is reinforcing the need for developers to optimize their games' performance to AMD's CPUs (claiming that these have only been properly tuned to Intel's architecture). AMD also puts weight behind the fact they have sent about 300 developer kits already, so that content creators can get accustomed to AMD's Ryzen, and expect this number to increase to about a thousand developers in the 2017 time-frame. AMD is expecting gaming performance to only increase from its launch-day level. Read AMD's statement after the break.

AMD's John Taylor had this to say:

"As we presented at Ryzen Tech Day, we are supporting 300+ developer kits with game development studios to optimize current and future game releases for the all-new Ryzen CPU. We are on track for 1000+ developer systems in 2017. For example, Bethesda at GDC yesterday announced its strategic relationship with AMD to optimize for Ryzen CPUs, primarily through Vulkan low-level API optimizations, for a new generation of games, DLC and VR experiences.

Oxide Games also provided a public statement today on the significant performance uplift observed when optimizing for the 8-core, 16-thread Ryzen 7 CPU design - optimizations not yet reflected in Ashes of the Singularity benchmarking. Creative Assembly, developers of the Total War series, made a similar statement today related to upcoming Ryzen optimizations.

CPU benchmarking deficits to the competition in certain games at 1080p resolution can be attributed to the development and optimization of the game uniquely to Intel platforms - until now. Even without optimizations in place, Ryzen delivers high, smooth frame rates on all "CPU-bound" games, as well as overall smooth frame rates and great experiences in GPU-bound gaming and VR. With developers taking advantage of Ryzen architecture and the extra cores and threads, we expect benchmarks to only get better, and enable Ryzen excel at next generation gaming experiences as well.

Game performance will be optimized for Ryzen and continue to improve from at-launch frame rate scores."

Two game developers also chimed in.

Oxide Games, creators of the Nitrous game engine that powers Ashes of the Singularity:

"Oxide games is incredibly excited with what we are seeing from the Ryzen CPU. Using our Nitrous game engine, we are working to scale our existing and future game title performance to take full advantage of Ryzen and its 8-core, 16-thread architecture, and the results thus far are impressive. These optimizations are not yet available for Ryzen benchmarking. However, expect updates soon to enhance the performance of games like Ashes of the Singularity on Ryzen CPUs, as well as our future game releases." - Brad Wardell, CEO Stardock and Oxide

And Creative Assembly, the creators of the Total War Series and, more recently, Halo Wars 2:

"Creative Assembly is committed to reviewing and optimizing its games on the all-new Ryzen CPU. While current third-party testing doesn't reflect this yet, our joint optimization program with AMD means that we are looking at options to deliver performance optimization updates in the future to provide better performance on Ryzen CPUs moving forward. "

Source: PC Perspective

Add your own comment

126 Comments on AMD Responds to Ryzen's Lower Than Expected 1080p Performance

#51

CAPSLOCKSTUCK

Spaced Out Lunar Tick

so they should have called it Simultaneous HyperThreading after all

SHT.....:)

#52

DRDNA

Still all in all this is SHITTY NEWS!:twitch:

#53

TheoneandonlyMrK

I haven't gamed at peasent settings (1080p)for years;):D, so not really for my needs ,and at 4k ryzen equals Intel's chops.

#54

Solidstate89

theoneandonlymrkI haven't gamed at peasent settings (1080p)for years;):D, so not really for my needs ,and at 4k ryzen equals Intel's chops.

Yes, but just keep in mind that's because you hit a GPU wall, not a CPU one. At 1080p you can witness CPU bottleneck, at 1440p and beyond, you're witnessing a GPU bottleneck. Which is why even my 4770K can get similar if not same frames as a 7700K or even a 6900.

#55

TheoneandonlyMrK

Solidstate89Yes, but just keep in mind that's because you hit a GPU wall, not a CPU one. At 1080p you can witness CPU bottleneck, at 1440p and beyond, you're witnessing a GPU bottleneck. Which is why even my 4770K can get similar if not same frames as a 7700K or even a 6900.

I know I agreed with a similar statement made by newtechi in another thread and I do here but as he said you made it fully synthetic and not representative of in use gaming.
More reviewers should have shown 1440p and 4k results as these I believe are indicative of what these will game at, and Amd isn't apologizing for Ryzens higher res performance because its not needed.
I'm seeing where those Intel calls were made imho tbh.

#56

bug

theoneandonlymrkI haven't gamed at peasent settings (1080p)for years;):D, so not really for my needs ,and at 4k ryzen equals Intel's chops.

theoneandonlymrkI know I agreed with a similar statement made by newtechi in another thread and I do here but as he said you made it fully synthetic and not representative of in use gaming.
More reviewers should have shown 1440p and 4k results as these I believe are indicative of what these will game at, and Amd isn't apologizing for Ryzens higher res performance because its not needed.
I'm seeing where those Intel calls were made imho tbh.

Can you read what the "Primary Display Resolution" line says? store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

#57

TheoneandonlyMrK

bugCan you read what the "Primary Display Resolution" line says? store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

it's exactly what it is, the majority.

Now read again what I said , these will game at.
Is the majority represented by enthusiasts, no.

Who will buy Ryzen?? That's right Enthusiasts
In fact look to Intel for those stats ,they to this day saturate the market with lovely dual cores joy.

#58

Grings

bugCan you read what the "Primary Display Resolution" line says? store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

and the next most popular on there is 1366x768

Steam has a hell of a lot of casual users, most likely with a laptop or dell desktop, can you read what the vram line says?, should we all ditch our ram and get 1gb cards?

#59

WaroDaBeast

bugHave you ever developed/delivered a piece of multithreaded code? It's hard to write, hard to test properly and even harder to maintain. The number of threads hardly matters.

I don't think so. He still has nightmares whenever he hears "CLI."

#60

ADHDGAMING

Im not spending 400+ dollars on a CPU just to pair it with a 1080p monitor and if i did im most likely going to upscale using BOTH AMD and Nvidia Upscaling tool.

#61

ADHDGAMING

theoneandonlymrkI know I agreed with a similar statement made by newtechi in another thread and I do here but as he said you made it fully synthetic and not representative of in use gaming.
More reviewers should have shown 1440p and 4k results as these I believe are indicative of what these will game at, and Amd isn't apologizing for Ryzens higher res performance because its not needed.
I'm seeing where those Intel calls were made imho tbh.

Ryzens reviews will make it extremely easy to find Shills .. If all they show you is 1080p scores they are shills .. its that simple really .. you wnat 1080p you can stick to an 8350/70 .. its stupid to pair this CPU with a 1080p monitor .. its over kill and you are not seeing any benefit in spending that kinda money to push that low rez.

#62

rruff

ADHDGAMINGIm not spending 400+ dollars on a CPU just to pair it with a 1080p monitor

So true. But how does this look for the 4 and 6 core chips that will be more mainstream? If the gaming hit remains they may be a tough sell. I think the gaming will improve though. This isn't Bulldozer.

#63

TheoneandonlyMrK

rruffSo true. But how does this look for the 4 and 6 core chips that will be more mainstream? If the gaming hit remains they may be a tough sell. I think the gaming will improve though. This isn't Bulldozer.

could be ,they will be priced aggressive though.

#64

Camm

rruffSo true. But how does this look for the 4 and 6 core chips that will be more mainstream? If the gaming hit remains they may be a tough sell. I think the gaming will improve though. This isn't Bulldozer.

The Core Complex fabric bandwidth hit won't be a problem on a quad. Don't know what the CCX looks like on a 6. Still have the memory erata problem though.

#65

noname00

theoneandonlymrkI know I agreed with a similar statement made by newtechi in another thread and I do here but as he said you made it fully synthetic and not representative of in use gaming.
More reviewers should have shown 1440p and 4k results as these I believe are indicative of what these will game at, and Amd isn't apologizing for Ryzens higher res performance because its not needed.
I'm seeing where those Intel calls were made imho tbh.

The thing is you are comparing CPUs, not real world systems. If you are using your PC mostly for gaming, why would you buy a R7 1800x when a 7600k would give you the same framerate on a 4K display with a Titan XP? If you have a GTX 1070 and game on 4K, you could even buy an i3 or an FX-8300 and overclock the s**t out of it.
It's just stupid to say "for gaming I will buy a $500 AMD CPU and not a $350 7700k or a $250 7600k because in 4K I have the same framerate, even if at lower resolution the Intel are faster and cheaper". You can buy whatever you want, but don't try to justify your purchase with invalid reasons.

Maybe AMD will patch the AM4 platform, as I read in many places it's buggy, and gaming performance will get better. Until then, 1151 is the winner for gaming.

You are the same as my friend who just bought a R7 1800X (replacing his FX-8300 @4.5 GHz) - he only bought it because it's a new AMD CPU and he hates Intel. That is the only real reason people are buying Ryzen over Kaby Lake for gaming.

#66

Camm

noname00The thing is you are comparing CPUs, not real world systems. If you are using your PC mostly for gaming, why would you buy a R7 1800x when a 7600k would give you the same framerate on a 4K display with a Titan XP? If you have a GTX 1070 and game on 4K, you could even buy an i3 or an FX-8300 and overclock the s**t out of it.
It's just stupid to say "for gaming I will buy a $500 AMD CPU and not a $350 7700k or a $250 7600k because in 4K I have the same framerate, even if at lower resolution the Intel are faster and cheaper". You can buy whatever you want, but don't try to justify your purchase with invalid reasons.

Maybe AMD will patch the AM4 platform, as I read in many places it's buggy, and gaming performance will get better. Until then, 1151 is the winner for gaming.

You are the same as my friend who just bought a R7 1800X (replacing his FX-8300 @4.5 GHz) - he only bought it because it's a new AMD CPU and he hates Intel. That is the only real reason people are buying Ryzen over Kaby Lake for gaming.

The thing with Ryzen however is it gives you options where as the 7700k doesn't. Want to stream and play a game at the same time (without having to get your GPU to do it and lose frames that way?) No problem. Want to render that video? It'll be twice as quick.

I don't think anyone's arguing that the 7700k is right now the better gaming CPU, but Ryzens performance is acceptable enough in gaming that the benefit it has everywhere else is worth it.

#67

qubit

Overclocked quantum bit

I seem to remember AMD crying about "optimisation" with the Bulldozer fiasco, where in the end it wasn't, it was just poor design. It might be different this time round since Ryzen doesn't use that siamesed disaster, but I remain sceptical until I see these optimisations make up the difference in IPC like they claim. I reckon it will take Ryzen version 2 to fix this and I do have some confidence that AMD will achieve this.

In the meantime, if you want the best framerates in games, stick to a 7700K, an overclocked one in particular. If nothing else, all those older games you love to play will never be optimized for Ryzen.

#68

m0nt3

Solidstate89To be honest, they said the exact same thing about Bulldozer and that never really came to fruition.

Except in this case, some game devs, like oxide have come out and made a statement in this regard as well. Bethesda and Sega are working with it as well. This may have more to do with Vulkan / DX12, but we shall see. Game performance is still very acceptable, especially comapred to FX series. While that is not justification for its current performance, but really, who plays 1080P at low settings. Or like the HardOCP review, 640x480. I do understand trying to show CPU performance in games, but with the future moving towards Vulkan/DX12 and multi threading these trends are likely to change. It not like games are unplayable, as can be with the FX series due to low minimums. Maybe I am just getting old and not caring as much about high numbers as I am just have smooth gameplay, I dont watch FPS numbers when im fragging demons in Doom :)...unless it causes me to die .

#69

Fluffmeister

m0nt3Except in this case, some game devs, like oxide have come out and made a statement in this regard as well.

Well Oxide have been in bed with AMD for years now, they were the original Mantle pimps after all.

#70

m0nt3

FluffmeisterWell Oxide have been in bed with AMD for years now, they were the original Mantle pimps after all.

it is also a game where Ryzen really struggled. Their adoption of mantle or working with AMD does not invalidate their claim that CPU optimizations can help Ryzen. I am sure they work with nvidia and intel as well. After all they have the majority in both markets.

#71

Fluffmeister

m0nt3it is also a game where Ryzen really struggled. Their adoption of mantle or working with AMD does not invalidate their claim that CPU optimizations can help Ryzen. I am sure they work with nvidia and intel as well. After all they have the majority in both markets.

Of course, and I for one certainly appreciate the irony. I just hoped like many others it was more of a generic issue that can be addressed via various platform updates either through the OS or BIOS updates and the like.

If it means they have to work closer with every dev out there now on, then it's gonna take time to gain traction. Strategic partnerships with Bethesda is one thing, but I'm not sure I have the patience for the long game.

I got a free copy of Ashes thinking about it, must remember to try that... "game".

#72

m0nt3

FluffmeisterOf course, and I for one certainly appreciate the irony. I just hoped like many others it was more of a generic issue that can be addressed via various platform updates either through the OS or BIOS updates and the like.

If it means they have to work closer with every dev out there now on, then it's gonna take time to gain traction. Strategic partnerships with Bethesda is one thing, but I'm not sure I have the patience for the long game.

AMD Has to play the long term game. It is a completely new uArch with a different implimention of SMT than Intel uses, so it will take work at the game development level. To me, it also make the most sense, because there is pretty good parity in single thread and multi threaded in other applications. With the exception of outlier that prefer a different uArch, which there have always been.

#73

Xzibit

FluffmeisterIf it means they have to work closer with every dev out there now on, then it's gonna take time to gain traction. Strategic partnerships with Bethesda is one thing, but I'm not sure I have the patience for the long game.

Your processor says other wise. :toast: if your still on spinners I know your BS'n. :laugh:

I still have a working i950 somewhere :p

#74

Fluffmeister

m0nt3AMD Has to play the long term game. It is a completely new uArch with a different implimention of SMT than Intel uses, so it will take work at the game development level. To me, it also make the most sense, because there is pretty good parity in single thread and multi threaded in other applications. With the exception of outlier that prefer a different uArch, which there have always been.

I agree, it's the first time they have become relevant in years, precisely why I'm seriously considering a 1700, but then the 7700K is frankly better for me needs as it stands.

XzibitYour processor says other wise. :toast: if your still on spinners I know your BS. :laugh:

I still have a working i950 somewhere :p

Exactly, I've waited this long. I'd hate to think I've made the wrong decision buying a CPU that is ultimately worse for gaming in the long term.

Sorry.

#75

noname00

m0nt3... Game performance is still very acceptable, especially comapred to FX series. ...

You did not just compare a brand spanking new CPU with a 6 year old CPU and basically said "at least it beats that" ... I refuse to accept it.
I know Intel Core is also an old architecture, but at least it's still faster in gaming, and they just need to pack more cores to match or exceed the multithread performance of Ryzen and lower the prices.

The biggest problem AMD has is that gamers won't buy 8 core CPUs as it won't provide better performance and are more expensive, and game developers won't invest too much into new engines because not enough users have 6/8/10 core CPUs, and moving to 2k and 4k the GPU is anyway the limiting factor.

Add your own comment

AMD Responds to Ryzen's Lower Than Expected 1080p Performance

126 Comments on AMD Responds to Ryzen's Lower Than Expected 1080p Performance

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts

AMD Responds to Ryzen's Lower Than Expected 1080p Performance

Related News

126 Comments on AMD Responds to Ryzen's Lower Than Expected 1080p Performance

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts