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

[noname00]

... 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.

 

[Xzibit]

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.


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.

I really don't understand the leap tho.

Your a smart dude, I like to think. Why even look at 1700 vs 7700k if the primary reason is gaming. That mindset I don't understand.

The IPC difference is 6-8% give or take at clock. Thats going to continue down the line 7, 5, 3. I personally don't think they have room to have higher clocks. Its GLOFD. That's why they are priced they way they are, bang for the buck.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

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.

I haven't bought one ,I'm realistic about my use and the use of this and I didn't say you're precious Intel wasn't best for games,so stick the rest of you're opinion where it belongs.
You don't know me or my usage so back up.
And check the badges for an example.

I've been having the same i5 argument a while and it doesn't change,play old dx11 era games go i5, see mostly new era games, don't get an i3.

You seen gtaV running on crossfire 480s on many i3 or i5 pcs, I expect my present PC would beat them both clocked at 5ghz running 4k as I am, ultra settings .

So there ya go my use cases this eve on one page and my use cases state only i7 or ryzen is a step up, I'm not going to put cash in a clowns pocket though ,no.

 

[geon2k2]

agreed, but at the same time, the same minority who has 1080s is the same crowd who buys 300+€ cpu-s.

Interesting fact: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/
6 cpus
1.39%
7 cpus
0.00%
8 cpus
0.24%

It looks like ~1.63% of the users on steam have cpus with more than 6 cores, which would normally be called enthusiast, however I'm afraid that includes all the 6 and 8 core FX-es and also some older parts like the 6 core phenoms. It looks like the enthusiast market at least for gaming is very close to 0. Maybe 0.5%.

 

[m0nt3]

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.


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.

In regards to the 7700K, I see it this way. Ryzen does offer acceptable game performance, that will likely get better. You also get a platform that will be upgradeable into the future. AMD stated the AM4 platform will be supported through 2020. You do get other inherent advantages to 8 cores and 16 threads, streaming, encoding, and rendering for example. It is priced very well. As stated previously, things are moving to more threaded workloads and will have greater advantages a few years now, that the 7700K will likely fall behind in. So it is kind of like in the moment vs in the future.

 

[geon2k2]

I really don't understand the leap tho.

Your a smart dude, I like to think. Why even look at 1700 vs 7700k if the primary reason is gaming. That mindset I don't understand.

The IPC difference is 6-8% give or take at clock. Thats going to continue down the line 7, 5, 3. I personally don't think they have room to have higher clocks. Its GLOFD. That's why they are priced they way they are, bang for the buck.

The thing is the 1700 is already cheaper than 7700K. What if the R5 with 4 cores 8 threads at higher clock speed, than R7 will cost half compared to an i7 7700k?
Will it be worth to pay double for maybe 10% better gaming performance?
Hopefully by then they'll also resolve the glitches the platform has.

 

[Fluffmeister]

Your a smart dude, I like to think.

Aha! Had you fooled all along!

I really don't understand the leap tho. Why even look at 1700 vs 7700k if the primary reason is gaming. That mindset I don't understand.

The IPC difference is 6-8% give or take at clock. Thats going to continue down the line 7, 5, 3. I personally don't think they have room to have higher clocks. Its GLOFD. That's why they are priced they way they are, bang for the buck.

Honestly I'm just looking at it based on what I do, I mentioned in another thread many moons ago I like the idea of more cores because frankly that is how things are going, and if I intend to get another great innings out of a CPU like my beloved i7 920, an 8c 16t chip is right up my alley. The 7700K is the same price as the 1700 and more often than not wins *right now*.

I've been so tempted to pull the trigger on both options, but I'm gonna wait for the dust to settle and revisit the options in a couple of months.... patience is a virtue after all.

 

[m0nt3]

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.

You do realize that Zen has been in devolopment for over 5 years right?

For a company as small as AMD, yes I am comparing it to their previous architecture and it is significantly better. It is a huge generalational leap and better than they were telling us it was going to be. Gaming performance, at settings people will actually play at is negilible, unlike the FX line which suffers from terrible minimum frame rates and high frame latency. If you want to base a purchasing decision off of game performance at setting you will not be playing at, be my guest, to each their own. AMD's biggest problem is not gamers buying 8 core CPU's, the rest of the Ryzen lineup has yet to be released. Also, things need to be put into perspective, AMD does not have the R&D budget intel has, but yet look at what they have accomplished. Is it really fair to say that Ryzen just sucks at gaming because it doesn't match a quad core CPU clocked at 4.2GHz base that has its architecture based as far back as nehalem, when they first introduced the Itegrated mem controller? This is the first revision of a from scratch design that is already much better off than they were with bulldozer. If it is not for you, great, that doesn't mean it is not for anyone.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

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.

also pure ass, Almost every dev is developing for 8 core cpus Now.

For my ten pence worth on the actual issue,I think the change to a write back cache is affecting the max frame throughput of the core in some game engines optimised to use write through caches.

 

[Foobario]

Only problem is that nobody will optimize current games for AMD.

Apart that tiny fact that making game from dual core to quad, hexa or octa friendly isnt "just like that". In many cases (FPS mostly) its near impossible. If we dont mind that even if it was possible you dont have that much to occupy those extra cores with. Sure you can probably have FPS that uses six cores. Only problem will be that one core will go to 100% load and rest up to whole freaking 5%.

Low-lvl approach (Vulkan, Mantle however is that called now) wont help, power aint there. By that I mean single-core computing power. And if its not there, you wont get more.

But IMHO these CPUs are great for that price and do we all really need top CPUs for gaming? Not rly.. Lately I could actually use 6 cores, so Im glad they made them.

Ryzen today is "pretty good CPU for pretty good price". If you want the best, sure buy Intel. But thing is, very few do need the best. There is Ferrari, Bugatti, Koenigsegg.. and majority of ppl drives something from Ford, VW or some asian stuff.

Oxide and another is already working on optimizations. AMD has a team doing the same as we speak.

AMD's slightly inferior single core capabilities are not the problem. Compilers that can direct the workload to a single core or multiple cores, for that matter, that are not working in an efficient manner is the problem.

Oxide is actually working on getting the workload to distribute to multiple cores as Ashes of Singularity performed like crap on Ryzen in spite of AMD's apparent multi core superiority, or equivalency, depending on which camp you fall into.

This is similar to games being optimized for Nvidia hardware resulting in AMD having to create post release drivers to overcome the advantage Nvidia had. Game developers have been optimizing for Intel CPUs for a long time since, quite frankly, there was no reason to put much effort into optimizing for AMD's FX line after AMD quit updating it after year one.

Between AMD's efforts and developer efforts the delta between Intel and AMD will narrow. However, as we see in the GPU realm, there will be developers "persuaded" to not make an effort to optimize for AMD and the burden will be on AMD to find workarounds to close the performance gap.

However, as AMD's market share grows it will take more persuasion to coerce developers to ignore AMD optimizations in the future.

Gaming was never gonna be the catalyst for AMD to grow market share in the 8 core market. It's the content creators that are going to drive that and some of them are gamers. As their numbers grow, they will become a big enough market for the developer holdouts to accept AMD CPUs as a viable market to optimize for.

 

[m0nt3]

also pure ass, Almost every dev is developing for 8 core cpus Now.

For my ten pence worth on the actual issue,I think the change to a write back cache is affecting the max frame throughput of the core in some game engines optimised to use write through caches.

Agreed, any developer, developing on consoles, is developing for 8 cores. The low level API from consoles will be experience gained for low level API's on PC. Low level API's are greatly going to help ports. Especially the linux ports of games that we will start to see very soon utilizing vulkan.

 

[Prima.Vera]

They develop for 8 Cores, OK. But does this includes the H.T.? Meaning anything more than a 4 Core CPU with H.T. is useless?

 

[m0nt3]

They develop for 8 Cores, OK. But does this includes the H.T.? Meaning anything more than a 4 Core CPU with H.T. is useless?

Of course not.

 

[eidairaman1]

I haven't bought one ,I'm realistic about my use and the use of this and I didn't say you're precious Intel wasn't best for games,so stick the rest of you're opinion where it belongs.
You don't know me or my usage so back up.
And check the badges for an example.

I've been having the same i5 argument a while and it doesn't change,play old dx11 era games go i5, see mostly new era games, don't get an i3.

You seen gtaV running on crossfire 480s on many i3 or i5 pcs, I expect my present PC would beat them both clocked at 5ghz running 4k as I am, ultra settings .

So there ya go my use cases this eve on one page and my use cases state only i7 or ryzen is a step up, I'm not going to put cash in a clowns pocket though ,no.

Interesting enough for you and I mrk is we can only move up to 2011-3 or 1331 to have a true upgrade, 1151 is a sidegrade for us lol.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

They develop for 8 Cores, OK. But does this includes the H.T.? Meaning anything more than a 4 Core CPU with H.T. is useless?

i've had this quad stroke 8 core for years since I bought it for 159 quid and honestly its been the core that could for me ,that day and since many have said a quad is enough, it isn't, there aren't any games I'm not on the useable list of yet but next gen Vr and games need better everything....

 

[Melvis]

I wouldnt be surprised if it is a BIOS issue, the 8120 of my mates was terrible in games until the BIOS was updated and it totally transformed the CPU.

Time will fix this issue and the performance of these new Zen CPU's will only get faster over time.

 

[HisDivineOrder]

If you have to have games be optimized for your less prevalent alternative, then that is NOT a good thing.

 

[Xzibit]

In regards to the 7700K, I see it this way. Ryzen does offer acceptable game performance, that will likely get better. You also get a platform that will be upgradeable into the future. AMD stated the AM4 platform will be supported through 2020. You do get other inherent advantages to 8 cores and 16 threads, streaming, encoding, and rendering for example. It is priced very well. As stated previously, things are moving to more threaded workloads and will have greater advantages a few years now, that the 7700K will likely fall behind in. So it is kind of like in the moment vs in the future.

I agree on the platform no doubt. What i was implying and i guess i wasn't clear is there still the 5 (1600X and 1500X) will provide the same performance as the 7s on games that aren't utilizing the added cores at a much lower cost.

The thing is the 1700 is already cheaper than 7700K. What if the R5 with 4 cores 8 threads at higher clock speed, than R7 will cost half compared to an i7 7700k?
Will it be worth to pay double for maybe 10% better gaming performance?
Hopefully by then they'll also resolve the glitches the platform has.

The 5s aren't going to be higher clocked. That's already been established.

I myself eye'n a 1600X or non-X if there is one.

Honestly I'm just looking at it based on what I do, I mentioned in another thread many moons ago I like the idea of more cores because frankly that is how things are going, and if I intend to get another great innings out of a CPU like my beloved i7 920, an 8c 16t chip is right up my alley. The 7700K is the same price as the 1700 and more often than not wins *right now*.

I've been so tempted to pull the trigger on both options, but I'm gonna wait for the dust to settle and revisit the options in a couple of months.... patience is a virtue after all.

I didn't see those posts. I'm in the same situation but I don't see much benefit to going full 8c at the moment for my use. My position is i'll see how this plays out (things get ironed out) the next couple of months.

 

[yoyo2004]

Who wants a cpu that gets handicapped by one game?, definitely not me!

I am just gonna leave this here,

all credit to this reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5xcc0r/jokers_bench_showing_7700k_cpu_bottleneck/

 

[TheGuruStud]

If you have to have games be optimized for your less prevalent alternative, then that is NOT a good thing.

You certainly can't design a CPU to do well in gaming only (you could, but how would that pay off).

Who wants a cpu that gets handicapped by one game?, definitely not me!

I am just gonna leave this here,


all credit to this reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5xcc0r/jokers_bench_showing_7700k_cpu_bottleneck/

Look like a lot of time wasted where Ryzen is doing nothing based on that pic, which is nice (to a degree lol).

BTW, don't anger the 7700K fanboys. How dare you insinuate that it can cause fps drops or stuttering?!

 

[Gundem]

Good for AMD! If enough people buy Ryzen, they'll have have a bigger budget to work on improving the Ryzen 8/x2 series.
And development should move towards utilizing more cores?

Quad core is so old hat now, AMD are on the right road.

Also, this will hopefully force Intel to pull up their socks... improvement between 6700k and 7700k(for example) was quite sad and far from worth the price/cost.

 

[SUNmoon2020]

AMD Ryzen 8% behind Kapy-Lake in IPC and 12%behind Kapy-Lake in clock speed.

That's mean 20% Delta behind Kapy-Lake in single core performance.

*These information from AMD not from my pocket*

Coffee-Lake should as usual bring 5% in IPC 10% in IGPU 15% in total , that's mean Ryzen will be 25~30% Delta behind Coffee-Lake single core performance and that's huge deal in games.

Coffee-Lake also will bring 6C/12T and
24~30 PCI-E3.0 lanes to mainstream, plus the IGPU will support 4K HD10, Dolby Vision [H.265 ,Vp9 4K 12bit Encode and Decode].

AMD did great job with Ryzen but they have a lot of work to do with Zen2.

First they have to close the IPC gab between Zen and Coffee-Lake (10% higher IPC will be really good news).

Second they have to close the gap between Zen and Coffee-Lake in clock speed (10% will be amazing)
[That's will but Zen2 just 8~10% Delta behind Coffee-Lake in single core performance] .

Third they have to add the missing features from Zen architecture like AVX256, 28~40 PCI-E 3.0 lanes.

Fourth they have to fix memory bandwidth issue from what AMD said it's look like they will not add Quad channel memory anytime soon, but they can increase the bandwidth buy supporting higher RAM speed out of the box 3200 MHz with two Dimm slots and 2699 MHz with Four Dimm slots that's will bring huge improvements to the performance plus support RAM OC up to 4000 MHz.

AMD have to do that next year to close the gap because in 2019 Intel will release Ice-Lake with new architecture using 10nm, we will see at least 10% higher IPC than Coffee-Lake, that's will but Ryzen 40% Delta behind Ice-Lake in single core performance, just in two years With support for DDR5 and DDR4, PCI-Express 4.0, and many other features, not to mention Optan X will be available for consumers.

In 2019 AMD should release Zen3 on 7nm FinFET not on 14nm FinFET and add all the features from Ice-Lake and keep the 5~8% Delta behind Intel in single core performance.

AMD also have two years to work with games developer to support Ryzen 8C/16SMT, 6C/12SMT maybe also 12C/24SMT to make sure First generation Ryzen will not be end up 40% behind Intel Ice-Lake in games, that's possible specialy if Xbox Scorpio will end up using Ryzen CPU that's will help AMD a lot in optimization issues.

[if AMD will not bring down the 40% Delta gab in performance between Ryzen and Ice-Lake, most of the people will jump in Intel train and will never go back to AMD train even if they will offer Quantum computer for free for each person bought Ryzen in 2017-2018].

We know also Tiger-Lake in 2021 will be the last Intel (Cor I7,I5,I3) architecture after that they will move to new architecture from the ground, AMD have a lot of work to do to keep up with Intel.

AMD APU's before end of the year should give us big example about how AMD will fix the RAM bandwidth issues, if they will use HBM2 to feed the CPU and GPU they should do that with Zen 2 as L4 cash to avoid all the problems from RAM speed, timing and channels.

If they will use DDR4 Dual channel memory to feed the APU, like what they did with old APU's and DDR3 single channel and dual channel it will be epic fail to AMD in performance. Buy the way AMD APU's still better than Intel IGPU but both suffered from RAM bandwidth limitations, Intel still has the problem.

Coming months will give us some answers about next Zen architecture. [Just hope it's good not bad].

 

[geon2k2]

The 5s aren't going to be higher clocked. That's already been established.

I myself eye'n a 1600X or non-X if there is one.

You're right.
Previously published prices suggest ~260$ for top line 6 core part, ~200 for the 4 core 8 thread and ~150$ for the 4 core 4 thread.
I'm not sure what to make of it for now, I think, non GPU bound, gaming price/performance ratio vs intel will still be good, probably with 60% of the price you will buy 75% of performance, with few exceptions for games properly optimized for MT.

Nevertheless for pure best gaming performance intel will still be the best choice.
Let's see what the real pricing will be and how the things will unfold.

Anyway, in general without discussing specifically about Ryzen, when benchmarking games on various CPUs, I think review sites should consider using lesser GPUs for better consumer information.
With 1080 GTX , probably 7700 will be on top, with 1060 GTX probably all of them will be clumped together and maybe even the lowest i5, the 7400 or the lowest Ryzen, will provide adequate performance.

 

[bug]

Interesting fact: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/
6 cpus
1.39%
7 cpus
0.00%
8 cpus
0.24%

It looks like ~1.63% of the users on steam have cpus with more than 6 cores, which would normally be called enthusiast, however I'm afraid that includes all the 6 and 8 core FX-es and also some older parts like the 6 core phenoms. It looks like the enthusiast market at least for gaming is very close to 0. Maybe 0.5%.

I'm pretty sure there are more 8 cores out there. Just not for gaming, games today don't need that many cores. And in the age of pictures and videos taken with a smartphone, there's not much photo or video editing going on at home either. So Steam is not where you'll find those CPUs

 

[geon2k2]

I'm pretty sure there are more 8 cores out there. Just not for gaming, games today don't need that many cores. And in the age of pictures and videos taken with a smartphone, there's not much photo or video editing going on at home either. So Steam is not where you'll find those CPUs

There are for sure but in general these parts are not used for gaming so this whole 1080p lower gaming performance might not be an issue at all. At least not now. We will discuss once more on this when r5/r3 will come.