Broadwell-E vs Ryzen in games (PurePC)

KazeoHin said:
So, many people think Razor1 is anti-AMD, but having seen her/his posts on this forum for a while now, I don't agree. Razor is more focussed on facts regardless of who benefits from the situation. The main issue is that AMD has a very poor relationship with "the facts", and thus Razor seems anti-AMD.

Shintai on the other hand...
Click to expand...

Thx KazeoHin

The way I look at, Intel had three major advantages over AMD, IPC, Node (manufacturing), and Hyper threading.

AMD took hyper threading away from Intel with their better SMT performance. Now they need to take one of the other two advantages away. Node is not going to happen, its not in their hands, IPC is, so Zen + their focus should be there, which goes hand in hand with the CCX latency problems. If they can do that, they will over take Intel. Intel on the other hand now know what AMD is up to, so its going to be more difficult for AMD to take one of the other two away.

Strategy point of view, Intel needs to start focusing on innovation again, and not rely on purely minor updates and node advantages. Their hyper threading vs SMT disadvantage, that is a big disadvantage, because how CPU units communicate with each other, is something they need to redesign their chips for. Intel will not be able to do this till the chip after Coffee Lake IMHO, so 3 years down the road. IPC from the looks of it Intel seems to have eeked out most of its architectural performance in this area so a redesign is necessary to make any leaps forward there. Again that will put it 3 years down the road. So if Intel maintains what they have now, they will be ok, but AMD will gain ground if Intel doesn't make any changes through now and Zen +
 
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244/the-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-vs-core-i5-review-twelve-threads-vs-four

Anandtech's review is interesting. Obviously, Ryzen wins big in rendering/encoding/etc... We knew that would happen because 6c/12t vs 4c/4t isn't even fair, really. But it actually scores wins in a couple of the game tests too. Overall, i5s are still better for gaming, but the gap between Kaby Lake i5s and a Ryzen 5 6 core is much narrower than Kaby Lake i7s and the Ryzen 7 part in games. Ryzen 6 core parts look to be an interesting mid-range alternative. I think AMD is more competitive at this price point, than with the Ryzen 7 line.
 
KazeoHin said:
So, many people think Razor1 is anti-AMD, but having seen her/his posts on this forum for a while now, I don't agree. Razor is more focussed on facts regardless of who benefits from the situation. The main issue is that AMD has a very poor relationship with "the facts", and thus Razor seems anti-AMD.

Shintai on the other hand...
Click to expand...

Agreed. Razor1 hasn't been anti-AMD at all. Pretty fair, actually. AMD has a reputation for bullsh*tting with things like Bulldozer. I guess they kind of had to. I mean, what else do you do if all you have to sell is a steaming pile of sh*t? With Ryzen, they hyped up again, but then they *mostly* delivered. The narrative that it was a great gaming CPU was overstated (though it's hardly a bad gaming CPU, either). But otherwise AMD was on target. Their trouble with Ryzen was mostly around sh*tty launch preparations. But they can be forgiven for this, just this once - it's been a long time since they launched anything decent in the CPU market.

Razor1 acknowledges Ryzen's strengths and points out the weaknesses, and where AMD over-hyped a little. All to the good, IMHO. And I say that as a Ryzen owner myself.
 
razor1 said:
Again that will put it 3 years down the road. So if Intel maintains what they have now, they will be ok, but AMD will gain ground if Intel doesn't make any changes through now and Zen +
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of what you said, but ONLY if your focus is on performance gains on the CPU from a per core perspective.

I don't think AMD can compete with Intel there and I do not think they should pick that particular battle as a focus. They've moved very far back to "good enough" territory. I like the per core performance of Zen, I like the energy footprint, I like their SMT implementation, I like the modular nature of adding items to the "fabric" and producing products with which they can fill various niches while using a minimum of design resources.

I think AMD needs to focus on what will make them money and it's not overwhelming Intel with single core performance. The use of their graphics IP and the eventual release of Zen/Vega combo chips on a mature process for both mobile and server platforms - that's the score IMO. It's not enough to be just like Intel, they need to be different in a way that makes it easy to say "AMD is a wise choice here because blah blah blah " . I mean right now we discuss Ryzen and it's place in the pc ecosystem and it's pretty much a toss up where when gaming is thrown in more people are still going to choose Intel. The guys that are mixing their days with productivity are having some hard choices to make but for AMD to succeed it needs to be obvious they are the best product in productivity and they're still not even a choice in areas where you can't squeeze your work into 64 Gigs of RAM.

Using myself as an example I need a large RAM memory footprint and around 16-20 threads. So far the leaks have indicated I won't get the RAM support from AMD with anything less than Naples because the leaks on their prosumer class indicate 128 Gigs and it's going to be some time before there are good motherboard choices for pro users on the Naples platform. So really while I would like some updated platform choices I'm apparently going to be using my old Xeons for a long time yet and even when Naples does hit there's no guarantee they will be a better choice than their Xeon counterparts until we see a full suite of server benchmarks. Now if AMD were to give me a 16/32 chip AND dump in let's say 24-36 CU's for less than the cost of a competing Xeon plus a Firepro/Quadro , suddenly I have a no brainer decision to make. In that circumstance I might just have to be that guy who says "AMD is a wise choice here".

While I applaud Ryzen and I like the nature of what they built, there is a long way to go before AMD can at least have product choices in the more profitable areas. I think they need to focus their limited resources on market spots where they can be an obviously better choice over their competition as opposed to being just another choice.
 
Simplyfun said:
While I applaud Ryzen and I like the nature of what they built, there is a long way to go before AMD can at least have product choices in the more profitable areas. I think they need to focus their limited resources on market spots where they can be an obviously better choice over their competition as opposed to being just another choice.
Click to expand...

That's part of launching a new architecture. It doesn't hit every spot on day one. We have Ryzen 7 for prosumers/budget workstations, and mixed-use heavy multitasking computing. For gaming it was kind of "meh", but for gaming + work, it's good. AMD made a compelling argument here. Ryzen 5 6 core is shaping up to be a decent all-around mid-range CPU. It's not the best at anything, but it does well at a lot of things compared to the i5 line. Ryzen 5 4 core is kind of "meh". I don't see a compelling reason to prefer that. Better to spend an extra few bucks on the 6 core.

Naples is coming, and may help hit that sweet spot you're looking for. And rumor has it a 12c/24t and 16c/32t workstation part is in the works. If so, we'd probably see it launch around the same time as the server oriented product.

And maybe the low end Ryzen 3 lineup (supposedly 4c/4t) will compete favorably against dual-core Intel parts.

AMD is competing with Intel on all fronts with this architecture. But at the same time, they are focusing on being *different* than Intel in these market segments. The straight gamer still goes Intel, but the mixed-use users and prosumers have good arguments for preferring AMD. These arguments may carryover into some wins in the business market as well.

I remember when AMD went down this road with Bulldozer... more cores for the money... but failed to deliver competitive single thread performance. If you're going to offer more cores, that can be compelling, but only if the extra cores are still fast enough from a single-threaded perspective. The don't have to be the fastest in single threads... only competitive. In the ballpark. In other words, Ryzen is what Bulldozer should have been.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
But at the same time, they are focusing on being *different* than Intel in these market segments.
Click to expand...

I understand what you had to say regarding rolling out a new platform and I know that.

But this point above... so far they aren't different at all, the products fill the same roles, compete directly against Intels stack, they are just cheaper on a per core count basis.

I mean if you compare an 1800x directly to a 6900K , what exactly is the difference in their usable feature sets once an OS loads? Nothing much. They're cheaper by far, but that's it. Just for a point of debate, if the prices were identical, which chip would you choose? I ask knowing full well you bought a Ryzen for the productivity gains.
 
Simplyfun said:
I understand what you had to say regarding rolling out a new platform and I know that.

But this point above... so far they aren't different at all, the products fill the same roles, compete directly against Intels stack, they are just cheaper on a per core count basis.

I mean if you compare an 1800x directly to a 6900K , what exactly is difference in their usable feature sets once an OS loads? Nothing much. They're cheaper by far, but that's it. Just for a point of debate, if the prices were identical, which chip would you choose? I ask knowing full well you bought a Ryzen for the productivity gains.
Click to expand...

1800x isn't a proper competitor to the 6900k. The 6900k is, hands down, a better CPU. AMD keeps saying that the 1800x is competing against the 6900k, because it makes the value seem so much better. But the real space Ryzen 7 occupies is *BETWEEN* the 7700k and the 6900k. Nominally, Intel fills this space with the 6800k and 6850k. But the 7700k starts to approach slower 6 core Broadwells in performance. It's hard to make an argument for a 6800k over a 7700k, even for a budget workstation user.

Enter Ryzen 7. Similar price point as a 7700k (at least in 1700 and 1700x flavors), but different focus. More multitasking/multithreaded focus. Less singlethreaded focus. I didn't want to buy a 6900k. Too expensive, the value was just not there. I didn't want to buy a 7700k either. I was missing out on cores. Neither did I want a 6800k, which was kind of a dud anyway. Ryzen was the perfect "in-between" buy. If Intel offered a Kaby Lake 6 core at similar clock speeds as Ryzen... THAT is what Ryzen would have really been competing with (I also probably would have bought one).

Supposedly Intel intends to release a 6 core Coffee Lake mainstream CPU (as opposed to the Skylake-X which will probably be overpriced like Broadwell-E was), according to the roadmaps.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
Supposedly Intel intends to release a 6 core Coffee Lake mainstream CPU (as opposed to the Skylake-X which will probably be overpriced like Broadwell-E was), according to the roadmaps.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response.

As to this point above, this is exactly what I'm talking about, if you get a 6 core Intel mainstream part within a reasonable price range to AMD's offering, that means there's no differences for AMD to leverage except price. Now if the Ryzen series featured anything fundamentally different from their Intel counterparts, it might make that choice hard. But they don't have that different feature set to rely on. When I talk about differentiating yourself from the competition it might be anything at all that's useful... maybe more PCIe lanes, better RAM support , better power stats... whatever. At the moment, it's just more of the same imo.
 
I am quite intrigued by this part, it will help my music mixing a bit more than my 4790
 
Simplyfun said:
Thanks for the response.

As to this point above, this is exactly what I'm talking about, if you get a 6 core Intel mainstream part within a reasonable price range to AMD's offering, that means there's no differences for AMD to leverage except price. Now if the Ryzen series featured anything fundamentally different from their Intel counterparts, it might make that choice hard. But they don't have that different feature set to rely on. When I talk about differentiating yourself from the competition it might be anything at all that's useful... maybe more PCIe lanes, better RAM support , better power stats... whatever. At the moment, it's just more of the same imo.
Click to expand...

Well, since Intel doesn't have a 6 core mainstream part yet, AMD is different today. And that made the difference for my purchase. Next year, if Intel releases a 6 core mainstream CPU? Well, AMD will have to think of something else before then. But for now, they nabbed a nice niche for themselves.
 
-Sweeper_ said:
2011 4C/8T 2600K still ahead in games. Once Intel gets their mainstream 6C/12T out (CFL pushed to Q) they will fix the app performance gap and maintain or perhaps even extend the gaming lead.
Click to expand...

Cool story, except you need a 4.6+ sandy to keep up add the lack of features ewww.

Lol at your coffeelake expectations
 
OrangeKhrush said:
Cool story, except you need a 4.6+ sandy to keep up add the lack of features ewww.

Lol at your coffeelake expectations
Click to expand...

As far as games are concerned Ryzen 5 1400 (4C/8T) is getting spanked by a freaking 2600K from 2011 in the games tested by PurePC. Intel is providing 50% more cores to mainstream with CFL. AMD will never manage to have such a significant advantage in apps again like they have now vs Intel quads. Pinnacle Ridge uses the same 8 Zen cores according to the latest roadmap. In games 14nm++ (higher clocks) Coffee and Skylake-X with the new cache architecture will put the Intel in an even better position.
 
-Sweeper_ said:
As far as games are concerned Ryzen 5 1400 (4C/8T) is getting spanked by a freaking 2600K from 2011 in the games tested by PurePC. Intel is providing 50% more cores to mainstream with CFL. AMD will never manage to have such a significant advantage in apps again like they have now vs Intel quads. Pinnacle Ridge uses the same 8 Zen cores according to the latest roadmap. In games 14nm++ (higher clocks) Coffee and Skylake-X with the new cache architecture will put the Intel in an even better position.
Click to expand...

Naivity
 
-Sweeper_ said:
As far as games are concerned Ryzen 5 1400 (4C/8T) is getting spanked by a freaking 2600K from 2011 in the games tested by PurePC. Intel is providing 50% more cores to mainstream with CFL. AMD will never manage to have such a significant advantage in apps again like they have now vs Intel quads. Pinnacle Ridge uses the same 8 Zen cores according to the latest roadmap. In games 14nm++ (higher clocks) Coffee and Skylake-X with the new cache architecture will put the Intel in an even better position.
Click to expand...

The Ryzen 1400 is not an enthusiast CPU IMHO. Half the cache and less clocks than the 1500X. If you want a 4 core Ryzen, get the 1500X, not the 1400. But folks would be better advised to get the 1600 anyway. The 2600k winning against a budget version CPU by a nose hair is hardly news. After all, Intel's own Kaby Lake i5 7400 & 7500 loses to the 2600k in a lot of those benches too. That doesn't mean Kaby Lake sucks, it means you're buying the cheap flavor. Note the other Ryzens far ahead of the 2600k, something I can attest to personally also, as I upgraded to a 1700X from a 2600k ;).

Though to be fair, I've said before that if a 6 core Kaby Lake was around, I probably would have went down that road instead.
 
Last edited:
Shintai said:
What is naive, to keep rejecting the truth? Intel IPC is very far ahead of AMD and just how it is.

Price says it all, AMD isn't giving CPUs away cheaper than they have to.

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/tes...5_1400_konkurent_intel_core_i5_7400?page=0,19
https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/tes...5_1400_konkurent_intel_core_i5_7400?page=0,16
Click to expand...
In most of there benches the FPS was inside 5FPS, that is margin of error as steve burkes review shows, depending on the rest of the setup, a 1600X with 3400 beats a 1700X with 2800 at a lower price point.

Since BF1 multiplayer is all i care about and how our own independent review showed a pentium and i3 in intensive situations microstutter repeatedly, the entry i5's are better but deliver entry level performance for BF.

The 1600 is the outright value king and the sales will show it. Basically cuts out the i3 and i5 with more versitility and smooth gameplay
 
I still think its funny people think that Intel is going to offer a great deal on their coming 6 core. I expect them to price it around 700 for it as they think their name is worth the premium even if the performance is not and at that price it wont be mainstream.
 
Gideon said:
I still think its funny people think that Intel is going to offer a great deal on their coming 6 core. I expect them to price it around 700 for it as they think their name is worth the premium even if the performance is not and at that price it wont be mainstream.
Click to expand...

You can buy a 6800K for $415 right now. Yet you expect Intel to almost double their prices for 6C, funny one. The CFL equivalent of 7700K and likely most of the i7 lineup will get 6C treatment in the next round, so it should lower to $300 or even less.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
The Ryzen 1400 is not an enthusiast CPU IMHO. Half the cache and less clocks than the 1500X. If you want a 4 core Ryzen, get the 1500X, not the 1400. But folks would be better advised to get the 1600 anyway. The 2600k winning against a budget version CPU by a nose hair is hardly news. After all, Intel's own Kaby Lake i5 7400 & 7500 loses to the 2600k in a lot of those benches too. That doesn't mean Kaby Lake sucks, it means you're buying the cheap flavor. Note the other Ryzens far ahead of the 2600k, something I can attest to personally also, as I upgraded to a 1700X from a 2600k ;).

Though to be fair, I've said before that if a 6 core Kaby Lake was around, I probably would have went down that road instead.
Click to expand...

You're missing his point entirely. With me being in the situation that I've got a 2600k predominantly game and have a serious itch for a real CPU upgrade, the whole Rysen lineup offers me nothing new as far as performance goes from what i've already had from 2011. With that said neither are Intel at the moment, and that is a bad thing. Looking forward to new CPU releases.
 
AlexisRO said:
You're missing his point entirely. With me being in the situation that I've got a 2600k predominantly game and have a serious itch for a real CPU upgrade, the whole Rysen lineup offers me nothing new as far as performance goes from what i've already had from 2011. With that said neither are Intel at the moment, and that is a bad thing. Looking forward to new CPU releases.
Click to expand...
Thats a lie, it gives you your 4.5+ ghz performance at lower clocks and less power. In a 1600 is 130USD less than your 2600K and flatout wrecks it in productivity even at 4.7 you are scoring the same cinebench score as a 3.8ghz Ryzen part.

Read techpowerup and gamersnexus review and you see just how close AMD is for comfort. In most of the games TPU used the FPS is 2-3 out on average that is negligable. The three outliers are Tombraider, hitman and Fallout which clearly need ryzen game updates.

Gamersnexus metro LL bench is another redherring, the 2500k and 2600K are miles apart and scale well on OC, the 7700k at stock to 5.1ghz nets 2FPS showing a very old non scaleable game code.

Battlefield will resemble a proper indication of real cpu performance. Frostbite is the alpha engine,. It scales graphics and cpus well

Coming off a 2600 to 4790 i noticed plenty difference and off course new platform gives you new features sandy doesn't support.
 
I don't really care about all the dick swinging, but having had several overclocked Haswell-E systems, 4.8ghz 6700k and 5.0ghz 6600k just prior to Ryzen releasing, I wanted to try it just because I like trying new hardware.

That being said, I've noticed some extremely weird behavior in certain games (fallout 4 is my current go-to and it does some whacked out shit on this CPU). Sometimes, for no apparent reason, my FPS will drop to the single digits and stay there until I reboot the machine. I'm going to venture a guess and say that reviewers testing Ryzen haven't sat down and played 40-50 hours of one game like I have. I'm hoping this gets resolved with the numerous BIOS updates, but other than this strange issue it manages to hold the game at 95-100fps all the time just like every other rig I've had (I have it limited to 100 to prevent game breaking physics bugs).

Is it better or worse? I don't know, for my uses the differences are transparent and I get to test new and exciting hardware. What I can say for certain is Ryzen is so far ahead of the FX chips that they might as well not be in the same galaxy. Single thread heavy games like world of tanks I can run with maxed frames for my monitor (165) with zero issue, while my old FX8350 at 4.8ghz could barely struggle out 60-65 or so, maybe 80 on maps with no clutter.
 
-Sweeper_ said:
You can buy a 6800K for $415 right now. Yet you expect Intel to almost double their prices for 6C, funny one. The CFL equivalent of 7700K and likely most of the i7 lineup will get 6C treatment in the next round, so it should lower to $300 or even less.
Click to expand...

Ye, its pretty obvious that CFL-S will just replace current i7.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
Thats a lie, it gives you your 4.5+ ghz performance at lower clocks and less power. In a 1600 is 130USD less than your 2600K [Yeah when i've bouth the 2600K i sure had this option ;) ]and flatout wrecks it in productivity even at 4.7 you are scoring the same cinebench score as a 3.8ghz Ryzen part. [how's this cinebench game?]

Read techpowerup and gamersnexus review and you see just how close AMD is for comfort. In most of the games TPU used the FPS is 2-3 out on average that is negligable. The three outliers are Tombraider, hitman and Fallout which clearly need ryzen game updates.

Gamersnexus metro LL bench is another redherring, the 2500k and 2600K are miles apart and scale well on OC, the 7700k at stock to 5.1ghz nets 2FPS showing a very old non scaleable game code.

Battlefield will resemble a proper indication of real cpu performance. Frostbite is the alpha engine,. It scales graphics and cpus well

Coming off a 2600 to 4790 i noticed plenty difference and off course new platform gives you new features sandy doesn't support.
Click to expand...

Reading is fundamental. As i said, as a current owner if i'm only seeking gaming performance why would i change my current platform to a Rysen one? As, for me, from most reviews it's a sidegrade at best. If anything I would go with a 7700k/6800k.

For new owners the new AMD CPU's are a great alternative depending on their needs, just not for me.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
In most of there benches the FPS was inside 5FPS, that is margin of error as steve burkes review shows, depending on the rest of the setup, a 1600X with 3400 beats a 1700X with 2800 at a lower price point.

Since BF1 multiplayer is all i care about and how our own independent review showed a pentium and i3 in intensive situations microstutter repeatedly, the entry i5's are better but deliver entry level performance for BF.

The 1600 is the outright value king and the sales will show it. Basically cuts out the i3 and i5 with more versitility and smooth gameplay
Click to expand...

So when will we see these sales? Ryzen sales so far haven't been great have it? And did you really just compare a 219$ CPU with Pentiums and i3?

If you care about gaming, then i7 is your choice, one way or the other.
 
AlexisRO said:
Reading is fundamental. As i said, as a current owner if i'm only seeking gaming performance why would i change my current platform to a Rysen one? As, for me, from most reviews it's a sidegrade at best. If anything I would go with a 7700k/6800k.

For new owners the new AMD CPU's are a great alternative depending on their needs, just not for me.
Click to expand...

7700 seems right, X99 is just as side grade.
 
Shintai said:
So when will we see these sales? Ryzen sales so far haven't been great have it? And did you really just compare a 219$ CPU with Pentiums and i3?

If you care about gaming, then i7 is your choice, one way or the other.
Click to expand...

what makes you think Ryzen hasn't been selling? outside board supply but that is not AMD's problem and you can buy Ryzen CPU's without a board so yeah I am pretty sure they hve sold a lot but with Ryzen 5 the sales will escalate as it is in the i5 price range.

it is totally fair to compare a 180USD i3 to a 200USD 1500X as you are getting far more from one product than you are from the other. FOr 40 more $'s you get a 1600 which is the unanimous value for money all round chip.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
what makes you think Ryzen hasn't been selling? outside board supply but that is not AMD's problem and you can buy Ryzen CPU's without a board so yeah I am pretty sure they hve sold a lot but with Ryzen 5 the sales will escalate as it is in the i5 price range.

it is totally fair to compare a 180USD i3 to a 200USD 1500X as you are getting far more from one product than you are from the other. FOr 40 more $'s you get a 1600 which is the unanimous value for money all round chip.
Click to expand...

An i5 can be had for 182$. An i3 can be had for 117$ and a Pentium(With HT) starts at 82$. So how about you start to compare to the price point? Or is it where the performance goes wrong for good?

Look at one of AMDs 9 partners with preorders and everything. That's all the sale since release.
upload_2017-4-12_11-6-47.png
 
Shintai said:
An i5 can be had for 182$. An i3 can be had for 117$ and a Pentium(With HT) starts at 82$. So how about you start to compare to the price point? Or is it where the performance goes wrong for good?

Look at one of AMDs 9 partners with preorders and everything. That's all the sale since release.
View attachment 21652
Click to expand...

yeah but for the fact that a new i3 7350K costs 180USD and a 1500X costs 180USD so yeah, then a 7500 is what 240USD?
 
OrangeKhrush said:
yeah but for the fact that a new i3 7350K costs 180USD and a 1500X costs 180USD so yeah, then a 7500 is what 240USD?
Click to expand...

And you choose to ignore the cheaper i5 again or i3 for that matter. But at least you stopped comparing with Pentiums :)

And since you dont want to comment on the sales. That's 4140 Ryzen CPUs from a top 9 AMD retailer since release.
 
Shintai said:
And you choose to ignore the cheaper i5 again or i3 for that matter. But at least you stopped comparing with Pentiums :)

And since you dont want to comment on the sales. That's 4140 Ryzen CPUs from a top 9 AMD retailer since release.
Click to expand...

i5 6400 is worse off for clockspeed and falls off the map, the 7400 is an option if you enjoy low clockspeed and locked performance where even RAM is locked at 2133 on anything not titled a Z board....good deal. So the 7400/7500 do well in some games, mircro stutter in thread heavy games and get obliterated by every Ryzen 5 in workload dependent operations.

i5 has become that fat chick you avoid, the only real compelling part is the 7700K off the current generation. And from what I was told about LGA2066 its somewhat not what was expected.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
i5 6400 is worse off for clockspeed and falls off the map, the 7400 is an option if you enjoy low clockspeed and locked performance where even RAM is locked at 2133 on anything not titled a Z board....good deal. So the 7400/7500 do well in some games, mircro stutter in thread heavy games and get obliterated by every Ryzen 5 in workload dependent operations.

i5 has become that fat chick you avoid, the only real compelling part is the 7700K off the current generation. And from what I was told about LGA2066 its somewhat not what was expected.
Click to expand...

Now you mention microstutter again. But where?
Doom_OpenGL_694.png

DXMD_694.png

Grand_Theft_Auto_V_8.png

The_Division_DX11_8.png


Oh wait, you mean that Ryzen stutters?
 
Last edited:
Shintai said:
Now you mention microstutter again. But where?
Doom_OpenGL_694.png

DXMD_694.png

Grand_Theft_Auto_V_8.png

The_Division_DX11_8.png


Oh wait, you mean that Ryzen stutters?
Click to expand...

The splits in the 8.3ms - 16ms range are all very good, 22ms is the rate of the human eye detecting so yeah its very good thanks.

We need more MP tests, multiplayer turns i5's into entry level, when your pc has to load up the entire server and thread saturation is more extreme that is where you find out that the i3 or i5 you bought is okay. i7's get away with it due to the added threads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top