More Ryzen Gaming Performance Patches: ~28% Gain in ROTR on Medium/High Presets

[Readlight]

8 fps on rx460 4gb Not worth to buy game!

 

[sutyi]

I have a small confession on that part.

I don't play this game. I hardly play any games anymore, actually. I do however, monitor the AMD blog and was first notified of this particular set of claims via a post they made last Friday (the source to this article, one may note). I posted it today because on Monday W1zzard was testing some site stuff and asked us not to post during my shift, and on Friday I was too tired to keep posting.

So, there's your explanation I suppose. I guess the better question is why the AMD blog is getting around to it so late.

Don't get me wrong, I did not want to berate TPU for posting this later.

I just don't get why did it take so long for AMD and the general techpress to get a wind of this.

 

[R0H1T]

Don't get me wrong, I did not want to berate TPU for posting this later.

I just don't get why did it take so long for AMD and the general techpress to get a wind of this.

Some say they're late they're always late, que in the next Vega launch date

 

[B-Real]

AMD is still a couple car lengths behind:

Can you please link the source for this?

 

[okidna]

Can you please link the source for this?

Here you go : http://www.gamestar.de/artikel/ryze...t-mehr-leistung-unter-directx-12,3314847.html

 

[trparky]

At 150+ fps, who really gives a damn?

There's probably few people who will skin you alive for saying that

A good friend of mine would definitely be skinning him alive. He's all about FPS this, FPS that. Anything less than what his high end monitor can handle he scoffs at and says "It's shit".

 

[RejZoR]

At 4K, cores is all it matters. And system with Titan Xp in SLi or upcoming RX Vega in CrossX. If you're a 4K wannabe, using anything less than that just makes you a wanker. That's the reality. Same ifr you have a crappy 7700K. It's a freaking quad core. We had those like what, 7-8 years ago?

 

[efikkan]

And it's still beaten by a quad core from Intel…
AMD needs to make a better prefetcher for their CPU, until they do, Ryzen is just too slow for high-end gaming.

 

[Captain_Tom]

AMD is still a couple car lengths behind:

You do notice the massive gain the 1500X got though right? Thus this isn't just down to utilizing more cores, quite clearly they patched something that helps all Ryzen CPU's. Now a cpu half as expensive as the 7700K is only 25% weaker, and only in 1 resolution.


There are not "car lengths of performance" between the 1800X and 7700K either - it's only ~18% in a game that has always been plagued with performance issues...Cough....Gamesworks...Cough. Let's see what happens when the next Tomb Raider comes out and was built from the ground up to work well with Zen.

 

[FR@NK]

You do notice the massive gain the 1500X got though right?

Its not a massive gain, more like they just fixed whatever was causing this game to run so badly on zen architecture.

There are not "car lengths of performance" between the 1800X and 7700K either - it's only ~18%

18% is alot when really the GPU should be what is limiting the frame rates...not the CPU.

 

[Rehmanpa]

Intel fanboys gonna hate. They fail to mention the majority of games where ryzen is neck and neck with the 7700k and often times ahead of the other intel processors. The point where they are grind is the point for 90% or more of gamers wouldn't notice. Maybe at 1080p 144hz there will be a big difference. 1440p 144hz not that much. 4k is nominal at best.

 

[ratirt]

Intel fanboys gonna hate. They fail to mention the majority of games where ryzen is neck and neck with the 7700k and often times ahead of the other intel processors. The point where they are grind is the point for 90% or more of gamers wouldn't notice. Maybe at 1080p 144hz there will be a big difference. 1440p 144hz not that much. 4k is nominal at best.

Arguing here makes no sense. As I can recall there's always to sides of one coin. People will hate no matter what and people will cherish no matter what. All you can do is sit and watch. As of my opinion AMD product is way better than Intel's. Situation says for itself. AMD as a minor company (as some people say) force Intel giant(as some people say) to change drastically their CPU lineup and forces progress with AMD's ryzen which (as some people say) sucks. Get over yourself guys really.

 

[sutyi]

Intel fanboys gonna hate. They fail to mention the majority of games where ryzen is neck and neck with the 7700k and often times ahead of the other intel processors. The point where they are grind is the point for 90% or more of gamers wouldn't notice. Maybe at 1080p 144hz there will be a big difference. 1440p 144hz not that much. 4k is nominal at best.

Well... currently looking at it from a strictly pure gaming point of view, your best best option is a 4C/4T or 4C/8T part clocked skyhigh, as most games don't really scale over 4 cores much. Not for the moment at least.
Anything with a decent DX12 or Vulkan render that scales properly over multiple cores however is another a story. So for gaming the i5-7600K and the i7-7700K are perfectly viable choices.

I usually use a rig between 3-to-5 years. So for my budget it was a nobrainer to choose an R5 1600 over an i5-7600 (non-K) at the same price point. Got +50% more cores and +200% more threads for the same money, it is a much better "workhorse" and hopefully 1-2 years down the line as gaming engines mature towards using more cores, probably a better choice for gaming as well in the long(er) run. Granted I gave up 10% IPC per core for that, but I simply set my 1600 to a 36x multi with a +0.054V bump on th vcore, so it is happily running at 3.6GHz on all cores at near stock voltages.