New Ryzen Benchmarks?

Guy A: What is the best CPU for gaming?

Guy B: You DON'T want play games, do you? Get RyZen because it is the best choice for workstation tasks.

If sales of RyZen were so good as some try to make us believe, forums wouldn't be filled by people trying to convince others about how RyZen is a better choice for their REAL needs: compressing and encoding all day.

Now seriously. RyZen is not a wise choice for the needs of the OP. The OP would wait to SKL-X launch and probably CFL launch, check gaming reviews for 6C/8C models and then take a decision about if upgrade or not from his current system.
 
juanrga said:
Guy A: What is the best CPU for gaming?
Guy B: You DON'T want play games, do you? Get RyZen because it is the best choice for workstation tasks.
If sales of RyZen were so good as some try to make us believe, forums wouldn't be filled by people trying to convince others about how RyZen is a better choice for their REAL needs: compressing and encoding all day.
Now seriously. RyZen is not a wise choice for the needs of the OP. The OP would wait to SKL-X launch and probably CFL launch, check gaming reviews for 6C/8C models and then take a decision about if upgrade or not from his current system.
Click to expand...

Why do you say this , the person in the 1st post said this:

Nirad9er said:
Could someone please post the latest Ryzen gaming benchmarks? When I google it, everything seems to be old stuff.
Now that there has been lots of bios updates and improved memory speed, how is Ryzen looking for gaming?
I'm looking to upgrade to something within the next month or so and wanted to know what I should consider as I primarily game. I'd also like a more modern chipset and features.
Looks like a lot of people are irritated with Intel and their strategy with Skylake X, basically over charging and screwing the consumer with features and lack of PCI-E lanes. I'd consider x299 but only if it's worth the price over x370.
Click to expand...

This is what was said not what you are typing above.

Juanrga stop making stuff up. All of us can read all of us know who you are ...
 
Last edited:
Nirad9er said:
Could someone please post the latest Ryzen gaming benchmarks? When I google it, everything seems to be old stuff.

Now that there has been lots of bios updates and improved memory speed, how is Ryzen looking for gaming?

I'm looking to upgrade to something within the next month or so and wanted to know what I should consider as I primarily game. I'd also like a more modern chipset and features.

Looks like a lot of people are irritated with Intel and their strategy with Skylake X, basically over charging and screwing the consumer with features and lack of PCI-E lanes. I'd consider x299 but only if it's worth the price over x370.
Click to expand...

I can tell you from my experience the agesa update was very minor, maybe 3% I was one of the lucky ones that could run my memory at rated speed and latency out of the gate though. I use CS:source 720p as a benchmark. i went from 334fps to 350fps. the big boost in benchmark speeds ive seen came from software patches for the specific game.
 
Shintai said:
What more demanding task would the vast amount of people do then?
Click to expand...

There is GOBS of software out there that the "quote unquote" "Average user" purchases for all sorts of things i.e. Video editing, photowork, scientific stuff, etc.. They literally know NOTHING about computers past the point of going to work and doing what they need to do to maintain their job and deliver a product. Their IT folks are the ones that are going to look at these CPUs and make decisions on the best dollar to performance for the company and to enhance employee productivity as much as possible. There are tons of IT people on these forums that will tell you ... the VAST amount of computing users actually use a shit load more CPU than you want to believe there Mr. HyperIntel Saddle Rider.
 
tangoseal said:
There is GOBS of software out there that the "quote unquote" "Average user" purchases for all sorts of things i.e. Video editing, photowork, scientific stuff, etc.. They literally know NOTHING about computers past the point of going to work and doing what they need to do to maintain their job and deliver a product. Their IT folks are the ones that are going to look at these CPUs and make decisions on the best dollar to performance for the company and to enhance employee productivity as much as possible. There are tons of IT people on these forums that will tell you ... the VAST amount of computing users actually use a shit load more CPU than you want to believe there Mr. HyperIntel Saddle Rider.
Click to expand...

And they care about TCO as well. So yes, its always fun when someone champion the 0.1% crowd as the regular user when having little to no idea what the daily workload is for the masses.

If you really have these needs and its of value to you, well you end up with something else than Ryzen ;)
 
Shintai said:
And they care about TCO as well. So yes, its always fun when someone champion the 0.1% crowd as the regular user when having little to no idea what the daily workload is for the masses.

If you really have these needs and its of value to you, well you end up with something else than Ryzen ;)
Click to expand...
BS and more BS. Given the avg user/buyer, they will look at two equally priced CPUs and then wager the differences. If one of them has adequately more cores then it will likely win out. And in the case of gaming being rather equal in real World usage as evidenced by https://hardforum.com/threads/the-definitive-amd-ryzen-7-real-world-gaming-guide-h.1935665/ (which I noticed not one of you link as proof for any of your arguments, maybe because it is in direct contradiction to the point you wish to convey) the decision will come down to other aspects of the platform. And just in case you think the extra cores will not influence a buyers decision, then remember Nvidia and the 970 4Gb fiasco: 3.5 against 4GB would have definitely influenced sales in a negative way therefore we now have the situation we have. And gauging the response across the internet it is true that the situation we now have is Equal options for choice, not the greatly slanted choices of before. Add in the HEDT platform and the choices are more heavily skewed in AMDs favor having their full line with access to all features of the chipset.

But lets move from your beloved 7700k and look at the R5 1600. I am purchasing this for my wife to replace her 7870k tomorrow. In its price range there is no competition and even against the 7700k, it produces equal real world results at a far less cost. Given the price and higher core count AMD has a price to performance winner. And every penny saved on one component allows for better performing parts on another. Given most consumers have economical purchasing limits they tend to alter purchases to fit within a certain envelope and if the CPU purchase allows a greater GPU purchase then...
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
Why is it that every time I go into one of these threads, I see the same people, saying the same thing, posting the same graphs? My dudes, this shit has been done to death.

Now, as to the OP's question, maybe I can help. I'll be applying the Agesa 1006 update this evening, and will run few benchmarks after I get it configured properly. Note that Toms Hardware's Skylake-X review contains a few interesting tidbits about Ryzen:

"Most recently, Ryzen faced some puzzling performance issues at launch. More than three months later, a steady stream of firmware, chipset, and software updates has rectified a lot of the issues we initially identified. Even in this story, revisiting Ryzen 7 1800X leaves us with a very positive impression, particularly compared to Intel's $1000+ alternatives. Ryzen didn't magically become the fastest CPU out there, but it's impossible to ignore at its price point."

Inline with the benchmarks, several times Toms expresses that Ryzen has matured considerably since launch, posting much higher scores than initial launch.

So Ryzen has improved as BIOS updates, Agesa 1006, and some quick optimizations have hit the market. Intel, meanwhile, is having similar teething problems with Skylake-X right now. It appears new, highly parallel CPUs are not the easiest thing to launch. Anyway, Skylake-X has better IPC and clock speeds, so per core it will be both faster and more expensive. If gaming on a Haswell or newer, I wouldn't even bother upgrading. Substantial gaming performance increases are not in the cards from CPU alone. Now, if productivity is in the mix... different story altogether. I'd probably buy a 7820X if I were still looking. Nice price/performance sweet spot. Ryzen remains a good option for folks who want multi core on a budget. Threadripper may deliver an upset if priced right, though. So maybe it's worth it to wait and see.
 
Nightfire said:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1490-ryzen-vs-core-i7-vega-64-geforce-1080/page8.html

New Ryzen 5 gaming review. It does well at 1080p and great at 1440p.
Click to expand...


yeah i'm loving my R5 1600. was playing MWO last night while doing a x265 encode at the exact same time with no effect on my frame rate. i still think this whole 1080p performance bs is getting old though, if you're going to spend 600+ dollars on a 1080/ti or vega why the hell would you cheap out and buy a 150 dollar 60hz 1080p monitor?
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
yeah i'm loving my R5 1600. was playing MWO last night while doing a x265 encode at the exact same time with no effect on my frame rate. i still think this whole 1080p performance bs is getting old though, if you're going to spend 600+ dollars on a 1080/ti or vega why the hell would you cheap out and buy a 150 dollar 60hz 1080p monitor?
Click to expand...

It has been explained a hundred of times and in different threads why reviews are testing at 1080p or even 720p.
 
juanrga said:
It has been explained a hundred of times and in different threads why reviews are testing at 1080p or even 720p.
Click to expand...

And Bulldozer/Piledriver bucked that trend instead of becoming slower it became faster in gaming over time. Where there was no optimization for multiple cores now that there is better usage of cores games become faster.
Perceived notion that the cpu is the driving force behind game performance should also become a thing of the past with Vulkan/DX12 as is shown on platforms as Playstation/Xbox where a teeny tiny jaguar core is "pushing" gaming to 4K , even tho that is not the case for the PC platform it does show how you how much performance there really is to gain.

The trend going forward is more cores rather then less cores, gaming industry is finally moving forward (even if the pace is not that frantic).
 
Pieter3dnow said:
And Bulldozer/Piledriver bucked that trend instead of becoming slower it became faster in gaming over time. Where there was no optimization for multiple cores now that there is better usage of cores games become faster.
Perceived notion that the cpu is the driving force behind game performance should also become a thing of the past with Vulkan/DX12 as is shown on platforms as Playstation/Xbox where a teeny tiny jaguar core is "pushing" gaming to 4K , even tho that is not the case for the PC platform it does show how you how much performance there really is to gain.

The trend going forward is more cores rather then less cores, gaming industry is finally moving forward (even if the pace is not that frantic).
Click to expand...

It is always the same song:

* When Bulldozer did appear... "Soon all games will scale to eight cores and AMD will be the gaming king".
* When Piledriver did appear... "Soon all games will scale to eight cores and AMD will be the gaming king".
* When PS4 and Xbox1... "Soon all games will scale to eight cores and AMD will be the gaming king".
* When Mantle did appear... "Soon all games will scale to eight cores and AMD will be the gaming king".
* When DX12/Vulkan did appear... "Soon all games will scale to eight cores and AMD will be the gaming king".
* And so on.

I will not negate that, in general, games are more threaded today than ten years ago, but the fact is that a higher clocked quad-core continues being the gaming king CPU. Despite the unending promises about engines, developers and APIs, an older Sandy Bridge i5 continues being a better gaming CPU than octo cores Bulldozer/Piledriver

getgraphimg.php


Even AMD uses 7700k in gaming demos

tr8u3gjs6eez.jpg
 


This has the computerbase numbers and explains it well what is exactly going on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top