Why does Ryzen 7 1800X performs so poorly in games?

M

_mockingbird

Gawd
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
992
Why does Ryzen 7 1800X performs so poorly in games?

I was expecting it to be able to keep up with the Intel Core i7-6900K.
 
_mockingbird said:
Why does Ryzen 7 1800X performs so poorly in games?

I was expecting it to be able to keep up with the Intel Core i7-6900K.
Click to expand...

Impossible to say for those of us that aren't CPU engineers. Likely something in the architecture is just weak at doing what games apparently do. There's some potential for their to be a few kinks to be ironed out with how windows is handling their SMT, but I don't expect there to be any major improvements.

I do find it odd that it competes so well with the 6900k at everything else, but then lags so far behind it in games, but I digress. It's still a good value depending on your usage. Feels like a shame though, if the gaming results had matched all the other results, it would have been the most exciting chip we'd seen in a long, long time.
 
We'll probably get a definitive answer shortly as the hardcore architectural enthusiasts dig into this.

I mean, it's fairly glaring and I know AMD has already focused on it as low hanging fruit for their next gen.

It would be nice to have a clear and definitive answer though.
 
Dont game at 720P Linus tech was 2 fps ahead of 7700 @ 4k which was only 4% but hey it's something. Total war and aots devs both commented their games weren't Ryzen optimized if I remember the remarks.

Joker productions on YT 1700 @ 3.9Ghz vs 7700@5Ghz also showed completely different results doing 1080p and 1440.

Lots of digging to be done but its sounding like there's a few bugs to be worked out.

I'm very curious about 4k gaming test fps as well now after seeing the above.
 
It could be something simple, but its not a gaming chip.. I am a little disappointed in the game performance aswell.. Its not really that far behind in some cases.. it depends on your set up.. From the reviews I have seen so far, it performs better at 2k and higher resolutions.. well closes the gaps anyway..
 
The Smart Prefetcher? I'd like to see some multi-threaded benchmarks where the workload is more random.
 
shad0w4life said:
Dont game at 720P Linus tech was 2 fps ahead of 7700 @ 4k which was only 4% but hey it's something. Total war and aots devs both commented their games weren't Ryzen optimized if I remember the remarks.

Joker productions on YT 1700 @ 3.9Ghz vs 7700@5Ghz also showed completely different results doing 1080p and 1440.

Lots of digging to be done but its sounding like there's a few bugs to be worked out.

I'm very curious about 4k gaming test fps as well now after seeing the above.
Click to expand...
I would've liked to seen different resolutions instead of GPU bottlenecked resolutions. I mean how many people are gaming @ 4K? Majority are still at 1080P and the next step being 1440P.
 
RAM latency.. maybe CPU scheduling.

IF it really does have something to do with the scheduling between the units, then I want to see benches run with the affinity set to the 4 cores / 8 threads on one unit.
 
Tomshardware's review had SMT turned off and it performed something like 15% better.
 
gigatexal said:
Tomshardware's review had SMT turned off and it performed something like 15% better.
Click to expand...

Yep SMT definitely seems to be one of the culprits:

UFaWvLe.jpg

MunKn62CRwenz9EWvEcm9X-650-80.png
 
Formula.350 said:
I feel that there might be some credibility here given that some reviews are showing that in some games you'll have better performance with SMT turned Off. Which to me feels like those games may indeed only be utilizing up to 8 cores, and the ones with better threading or less heavy of workload are why some of the games aren't showing large gains when SMT is disabled.
Click to expand...

I saw that too! Let's see what happens in the coming weeks...
 
I wonder if those were with OS in high performance and HEPT turned off like Tom's mentioned.

PCGamer does not seem to mention the RAM they used but presumably the kit AMD sent. They also mention they heard the Gigabyte board was better for gaming performance for some reason (more recent UEFI release seems likely to me)
 
_mockingbird said:
The problem with SMT is obviously fixable, but that alone doesn't close the performance gap.

pD5sCKGDXGcqFsEhrRsGAX-650-80.png
TxRpuzVYcdQHhdt7k7czBX-650-80.png
c3kNiHYwZ9wep4bZhtHiGc-650-80.png
PjdHKqY9aVxy6oBFdsNMKc-650-80.png
Pt84ZYKaX8BJyTBLVpATKc-650-80.png
uSwdMEtQL7isTib5KrNBgg-650-80.png
C8cKFQa5bY7ZBYKmCLmwig-650-80.png
fj4qXf8pTU2kXan5mtx4jg-650-80.png
QYbL6UMJg6R82qsySn76jg-650-80.png
qr79kcwHLmiykgiM6ZWTen-650-80.png
qr79kcwHLmiykgiM6ZWTen-650-80.png
QdZEarpfjQJTNDZi7sJMhn-650-80.png
HDwbg7DQG6YsfFZcsQWVhn-650-80.png
hv6vjHSA2prkWWHmcHdHpn-650-80.png
Click to expand...

That is a solid post. So its not across the board in every game. I mean I see 120 vs 134. I mean yea in that case its slower but does it really make a difference at the frame rates you are getting. At that point it just becomes solely a numbers game and has nothing to do with experience. That does show though SMT has issues like it was with intel hyperthreading. I used to disable it when playing games few years back, but that is all worked out now. May be it will just take a little optimizing.
 
AMD is keen on blaming their competitor, probably poor wording. What it boils down to is games don't have a way to detect AMD's SMT and aren't using resources correctly much like what happened earlier with Intel and HT hurting their performance.

AMD is going to have to get with devs quickly because I have zero intention to go through the trouble to turn off SMT just to play games only to have to turn it on again when I'm done.
 
I still remember the day when duo-core cpus came out and it performed worse than single-core chips. And then suddenly all new games recommended 2 cores and never gone back since.

Zen is a completely new architecture. Give some time for devs to optimise before judging. This may very well be the future of mainstream gaming cpu.
 
Trimlock said:
AMD is keen on blaming their competitor, probably poor wording.
Click to expand...
If you're referring to that post from AMD_LisaSu, I dunno. I definitely didn't get that vibe? I took "utilizing code optimized for our competitor" as exactly that. Though, while this is me nit-picking, I could be more onboard with that sentiment had it said "utilizing code optimizations from our competitor".

However, I am aware of the Intel Compiler """issues""", but at the same time one can't ignore that they are a real thing that causes performance changes, and... well... wasn't it Intel who coded said compiler? (sincere question at the end, as I'm not sure if that's the case)
 
Formula.350 said:
If you're referring to that post from AMD_LisaSu, I dunno. I definitely didn't get that vibe? I took "utilizing code optimized for our competitor" as exactly that. Though, while this is me nit-picking, I could be more onboard with that sentiment had it said "utilizing code optimizations from our competitor".

However, I am aware of the Intel Compiler """issues""", but at the same time one can't ignore that they are a real thing that causes performance changes, and... well... wasn't it Intel who coded said compiler? (sincere question at the end, as I'm not sure if that's the case)
Click to expand...
Hmmm maybe, but I think instead of talking about how their competitor has fixed their problem they should probably talk about their timeline to implement their fix.
 
Trimlock said:
Hmmm maybe, but I think instead of talking about how their competitor has fixed their problem they should probably talk about their timeline to implement their fix.
Click to expand...
You know that mostly lies on the developers though.. *shrugs*
 
jahsoul said:
You know that mostly lies on the developers though.. *shrugs*
Click to expand...
No, developers aren't magicians. You are responsible for your product being supported.

Intel got with developers until they produced a solution in house, AMD needs to hit the ground running, not blaming.
 
tybert7 said:
All I know is, the gamernexus guy




And this guy





Are probably going to end up in a cage match based on their diametrically opposed takes. Disappointment and disgust vs pure optimism.
Click to expand...

Was watching a video of one guy talking about the CPU, he both loved it and hated and also ... didn't have it hahah. I wish I was at my computer, this release has the most emotion tied to it..
 
tybert7 said:
Click to expand...


Holy shit get this guy a robe and a crystal ball, clearly he thinks he can see the future. His whole premise is "Well I see these numbers, and they are bad, but also I know what's going to happen next year. I swear". Also he never shuts up about "It has more cores" and he even says "AMD needs sales more than Intel does, support the underdog".
 
Also i said AMD went cheap with memory and PCIe controller and overall chipset which is just pile of garbage. AMD was cutting the cost in order to sell top end CPU for $499. By doing that AMD really fucked it up with gaming performance. There is a reason why 8 core Intel CPU costs $900...quad memory channel, good PCIe controller and so on.
 
Seen things like this before. It's either AMD design isn't quite as good (we are splitting hairs over a few percent in a some games here), or there is a patch/compiler/driver/bios/whatever fix needed.
I remember when the compiler wars were going on towards the end of AMDs' CPU reign (yes a five year CPU reign over Intel which people like to forget about), you'd see some pretty big disparities between each camp.
 
Luka said:
Also i said AMD went cheap with memory and PCIe controller and overall chipset which is just pile of garbage. AMD was cutting the cost in order to sell top end CPU for $499. By doing that AMD really fucked it up with gaming performance. There is a reason why 8 core Intel CPU costs $900...quad memory channel, good PCIe controller and so on.
Click to expand...

Well yea, there's a reason it's prices like that but even then AMD couldn't have competed with the x99 platform at all so they targeted the z270 and I think they did a good job!

Once board makers get more time I hope to see better options, the Asus Pro looks like the best for the price right now.
 
Luka said:
Maybe because it is not that good....
Click to expand...

How's the shilling pay today? I mean seriously, add to the conversation or something. ffs. Running around sniping your bitchfest into every thread is about as useful as an Intel dGPU.

People are thinking based on other factors it should make a slightly better show in games... apparently just turning off SMT achieves that sometimes and it's led other people in the know to start doing some investigation.
 
Simplyfun said:
People are thinking based on other factors it should make a slightly better show in games... apparently just turning off SMT achieves that sometimes and it's led other people in the know to start doing some investigation.
Click to expand...

Yup and not the first time even some people running Intel for gaming turn SMT off...

Either way I'm happy with it. Not any slower than my old 2600k at worst case and faster at anything threaded/WS which I also do quite heavily in some workflows.
 
Simplyfun said:
How's the shilling pay today? I mean seriously, add to the conversation or something. ffs. Running around sniping your bitchfest into every thread is about as useful as an Intel dGPU.

People are thinking based on other factors it should make a slightly better show in games... apparently just turning off SMT achieves that sometimes and it's led other people in the know to start doing some investigation.
Click to expand...


The SMT issue begs some questions.

I've heard that when intel first implemented hyperthreading they also had some teething issues where hyperthreading actually offered less performance than that feature disabled in some games. With time the issues were sorted out and it no longer caused performance decreases. But what about performance increases? Is hyperthreading a clear performance boost in most games? How many?


The reason I am asking is because it seems clear that SMT is either causing minor performance issues, or larger ones where the framerates for a game get a decent jump with it disabled. But IF hyperthreading can actually offer a boost if the software and hardware and os (or whatever) is tuned correctly, then might AMD be leaving performance on the table by not having effective SMT for games? Such that the performance hierarchy would look something like:

ryzen in games = working smt > disabled smt > broken smt

????
 
Trimlock said:
No, developers aren't magicians. You are responsible for your product being supported.

Intel got with developers until they produced a solution in house, AMD needs to hit the ground running, not blaming.
Click to expand...

And so does not the cpu manufacturer. They need to work together in order to achieve optimisation. Especially when you are not monopolising the market like Intel does. Just wait and see and give them a chance. Premature judgement helps no one since it is mostly bullshit.
 
_mockingbird said:
Why does Ryzen 7 1800X performs so poorly in games?

I was expecting it to be able to keep up with the Intel Core i7-6900K.
Click to expand...
6900K at what frequency? Stock? Surely the 1800X looks quite nice.
In fact at stock the Ryzen line pumps it quite well. It OC's minimally so that is a factor for [H]OCP, but for everyone else, pure win if you need cores.
2017, I need some CORES!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top