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

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

So ryzen has also gots its own band of meme trolls ,how very original, yawn ,out.

@Batou1986 ,you get what you pay for ,Intel or amd,if you buy a low end cheap motherboard you get low end performance and will end up a moaner.

I overclocked my friends 6320 on you're board two nights ago because he finally got a evo 212 like I told him.
Nightmare, his throttled all the time at stock settings,I was forced into bclk clocking it by the crapness of his board, I've had his chip easily do 4.5 in my rig but not in his, 4.3 max.
Point being you're reference and perception have been affected by your purchase choices and you should have chosen better imho.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

so they should have called it Simultaneous HyperThreading after all

SHT.....

 

[DRDNA]

Still all in all this is SHITTY NEWS!

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

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

 

[Solidstate89]

I haven't gamed at peasent settings (1080p)for years, 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.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

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.

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.

 

[bug]

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

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.

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

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Can you read what the "Primary Display Resolution" line says? http://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.

 

[Grings]

Can you read what the "Primary Display Resolution" line says? http://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?

 

[WaroDaBeast]

Have 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."

 

[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.

 

[ADHDGAMING]

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.

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.

 

[rruff]

Im 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.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

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.

could be ,they will be priced aggressive though.

 

[Camm]

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.

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.

 

[noname00]

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.

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.

 

[Camm]

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.

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.

 

[qubit]

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.

 

[m0nt3]

To 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 .

 

[Fluffmeister]

Except 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.

 

[m0nt3]

Well 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.

 

[Fluffmeister]

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.

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".

 

[m0nt3]

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.

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.

 

[Xzibit]

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.

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

I still have a working i950 somewhere

 

[Fluffmeister]

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.

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.

Your processor says other wise. if your still on spinners I know your BS.

I still have a working i950 somewhere

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.