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

Spirit_Retro said:
Don't worry about it. I'm a systems engineer and they won't take my word on anything either.
Click to expand...


I thought you were an IT director with, what was that, oh tied down by a fiduciary contract that makes you the trustee of where you work, but in your words that ment a non disclosure agreement.

Ok now you are a systems engineer. role change?
 
razor1 said:
I thought you were an IT director with, what was that, oh tied down by a fiduciary contract that makes you the trustee of where you work, but in your words that ment a non disclosure agreement.

Ok now you are a systems engineer. role change?
Click to expand...

I've done both. I started in the industry in 1984- when I transcribed sheet music into machine code for the first music development package ever on the computer.

No- you cannot have my resume.
 
Spirit_Retro said:
I've done both. I started in the industry in 1984- when I transcribed sheet music into machine code for the first music development package ever on the computer.

No- you cannot have my resume.
Click to expand...


you are working for a company that has hundreds of engineers and thousands of employees, and with your contract you can't talk about anything to other potential employers? Those were the questions I asked you. Generalities would have been fine too. See where it become a bit ludicrous?

Now you are saying with that many employees you are doing two roles? Or one role different times?

I expect that to be done in a 30 man shop, not multi million $ with that many employees.
 
razor1 said:
you are working for a company that has hundreds of engineers and thousands of employees, and with your contract you can't talk about anything to other potential employers? Those were the questions I asked you. Generalities would have been fine too. See where it become a bit ludicrous?

Now you are saying with that many employees you are doing two roles?

I expect that to be done in a 30 man shop, not multi million $ with that many employees.
Click to expand...

It's only ludicrous if you assume I care about how big my e-peen is in your eyes.

People are smart- they can go lookup whether I'm trolling or offering an honest opinion.
 
Spirit_Retro said:
A little googling will find you multiple articles related to this, both from gaming sources, and the research community in the form of published research.

It's your job to educate yourself... not my job to educate you.
Click to expand...


yeah medical terms what ya stated isn't true, the eye can see up to 120 hz or so, the rest of it, its how fast a person's nervous system is and how fast the brain can process the info, and it can be as high as the eye if not faster but majority of people can't do it. And training has be done from an early age to maximize capabilities.

Now talking about variation between different amounts of hz yeah that is true with what you stated. So if you have a variation of 10 hz or 16 hz, a person won't be able to discern the differences.
 
razor1 said:
err you don't know that Intel uses a mesh for communication too? Rzyen is set up similar to Intel's current chips man.

That problem should not exist, it should not being using infinity fabric to communicate with L3 cache.

Intel designed their chips the same was/is as Rzyen its core or pairs of cores for them, have their own L1 and shared L2 and shared L3 cache, not between the CCX's. The only time infinity fabric should be used in this case is when it needs to communicate with off chip resources.

With AMD's increased L2 cache sizes current programs should have no problem at all fully utilizing Intel optimized programs when cache is concerned, granted with the scheduler issues, we won't know till that is solved.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is you don't understand. Intel meshes the CPU by hand and spends much more time to design the L3 onto the CPU. Using their old style of treating the L3 as a very separate part kind of like how L2 started with the Pentium 2. So what Intel does is take a two CPU module, attaches how many of them they required. Then they block in and connect the L3 cache. Intel basically designs by hand the communication for the CPU's per die and manually add the L3 as needed and its pooled. AMD doesn't do that. They didn't want to do that. They don't have the resources to do that. So they are treating L3 like L2, each core gets it's own L1 and L2 and every module gets it's own L3. The mesh is backed into the modules and uses the same system as Vega. So basically when they call up GoFlo or Samsung or whomever is producing these for them they can basically drag and drop both the CCX and CU's they want onto the die diagram and have it taped out. Intel developed its 2c units for some flexibility, but they do a lot more work than AMD will have to per die.

The downside into this was creating a universal interconnect that would scale up to GPU performance. Or maybe better said the other way around they took a tech that they developed to work well on GPU's first (where an interconnect between CU's would make a bigger difference) and scaled it down to the CPU. So the end affect is increased latency during cache refreshes between modules, and slightly slower than optimal cross communication between CCX cores.

All of this is besides the issue. This is how it runs. Those are the downsides to their implementation. Hell even if my way of explaining it is wrong (I think I am generally on point). It doesn't erase the fact that what we see is outcome of a design choice right or wrong. None of which is a sueable offense. Don't like the Ryzen design fine. Rather not have a higher latency to L3. Fine. But a persons desire for better or disappointment in those results doesn't make it "broken". AMD didn't deprive people of promised features or lie about their design. This CPU is going to work in every scenario in which was sold to work (even if some of the results are non-optimal). So where are the grounds for a Lawsuit? Just "Intel found a way to get it to work better"? Lol.
 
Spirit_Retro said:
It's only ludicrous if you assume I care about how big my e-peen is in your eyes.

People are smart- they can go lookup whether I'm trolling or offering an honest opinion.
Click to expand...


The questions I posed and nothing to do with e-peen, unless that is how you felt maybe in reality you were thinking about your own private parts lol.
 
lolfail9001 said:
And it's not my job to find sources to your claims either.
Click to expand...

I think people can look it up themselves. They can judge for themselves. If you want to ignore information that is out there that's your problem... not mine.

And note: There's a bunch of people who just did a google dive- who now think you, in fact, are stirring the pot needlessly, and without good information.

I didn't have to tell them that. They will find out on their own.
 
razor1 said:
The questions I posed and nothing to do with e-peen, unless that is how you felt maybe in reality you were thinking about your own private parts lol.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed.... I want to get a room with you and let you make me a real man.

Take me.. I'm yours.
 
Spirit_Retro said:
I think people can look it up themselves. They can judge for themselves. If you want to ignore information that is out there that's your problem... not mine.
Click to expand...
For someone who claims to have been in industry for well over 30 years, it is curious how you do not realize why providing sources to claims is desirable.

Well, let me explain with a simple counter example: https://us.hardware.info/reviews/4592/vast-majority-of-gamers-prefers-120-hz-monitors

Yes, it does not use V-Sync, but that's the first result my google fu landed to me.
 
Topweasel said:
So what you are saying is you don't understand. Intel meshes the CPU by hand and spends much more time to design the L3 onto the CPU. Using their old style of treating the L3 as a very separate part kind of like how L2 started with the Pentium 2. So what Intel does is take a two CPU module, attaches how many of them they required. Then they block in and connect the L3 cache. Intel basically designs by hand the communication for the CPU's per die and manually add the L3 as needed and its pooled. AMD doesn't do that. They didn't want to do that. They don't have the resources to do that. So they are treating L3 like L2, each core gets it's own L1 and L2 and every module gets it's own L3. The mesh is backed into the modules and uses the same system as Vega. So basically when they call up GoFlo or Samsung or whomever is producing these for them they can basically drag and drop both the CCX and CU's they want onto the die diagram and have it taped out. Intel developed its 2c units for some flexibility, but they do a lot more work than AMD will have to per die.

The downside into this was creating a universal interconnect that would scale up to GPU performance. Or maybe better said the other way around they took a tech that they developed to work well on GPU's first (where an interconnect between CU's would make a bigger difference) and scaled it down to the CPU. So the end affect is increased latency during cache refreshes between modules, and slightly slower than optimal cross communication between CCX cores.

All of this is besides the issue. This is how it runs. Those are the downsides to their implementation. Hell even if my way of explaining it is wrong (I think I am generally on point). It doesn't erase the fact that what we see is outcome of a design choice right or wrong. None of which is a sueable offense. Don't like the Ryzen design fine. Rather not have a higher latency to L3. Fine. But a persons desire for better or disappointment in those results doesn't make it "broken". AMD didn't deprive people of promised features or lie about their design. This CPU is going to work in every scenario in which was sold to work (even if some of the results are non-optimal). So where are the grounds for a Lawsuit? Just "Intel found a way to get it to work better"? Lol.
Click to expand...


Lets agree to disagree on the first part, since there are too many variables that are unknowns.....

Second and third para, yeah , I don't fully think that is the case. AMD would have know the issues of the L3 cache using fabric as a transport medium well before, and would have told reviewers or at least warned them something is up before had, and that would have mitigated the fall out. And would have gotten at least one developer fixing things for Ryzen (hello Oxide) to show it is workable.

From a business and marketing point of view they would have tried to minimize the back lash.

I think they thought people would think its just early motherboards.

Lawsuit grounds,

No one was told there was a problem

End result without programmer intervention game performance suffers

It doesn't' matter how much, it just does, people were expecting boardwell level gaming, by what AMD showed, even in BF1 that doesn't happen. So misdirection, not telling there were problems, then having preorders before the actual problem was revealed,

All go to AMD knew they had problems and didn't disclose or let anyone find out before the one million chips and motherboards were sold in pre order.
 
razor1 said:
Lets agree to disagree on the first part, since there are too many variables that are unknowns.....

Second and third para, yeah , I don't fully think that is the case. AMD would have know the issues of the L3 cache using fabric as a transport medium well before, and would have told reviewers or at least warned them something is up before had, and that would have mitigated the fall out. And would have gotten at least one developer fixing things for Ryzen (hello Oxide) to show it is workable.

From a business and marketing point of view they would have tried to minimize the back lash.

I think they thought people would think its just early motherboards.

Lawsuit grounds,

No one was told there was a problem

End result without programmer intervention game performance suffers

It doesn't' matter how much, it just does, people were expecting boardwell level gaming, by what AMD showed, even in BF1 that doesn't happen. So misdirection, not telling there were problems, then having preorders before the actual problem was revealed,

All go to AMD knew they had problems and didn't disclose or let anyone find out before the one million chips and motherboards were sold in pre order.
Click to expand...

Miss direction isn't illegal. AMD showed several different software platforms including a game. Told us everything about those (including the configuration of the Intel setup). Sure assumptions were made and some wrongly. But again you said problem. Like it's broken. That more than any other statement you have made that I have read lately (just in case you've said things even sillier) is profoundly wrong. Not having the latency of Intel does not make a problem. Having less performance than Intel in a category that happens to in this case affect game play does not make something broken. It makes it a hindrance. Their arch makes it a slight liability in games. That doesn't make is class lawsuit actionable. The most you have is them showing basically one benchmark at highish res and telling everyone the configuration is enough for people to be able to sue? Sorry. Can't and won't happen. Because they didn't lie. They maintained core performance as a comparison to BD and demonstrated wins in configurations they choose but that they also lined up. It would be like GM and their awards commecials making it seem like any of their cars are the best, then someone finds out the Malibu sucks compared to the Fusion. Those are TV where marketing rules are a billion times more conservative than a stream of an AMD hosted convention.

So basically.
1. Not Broken
2. Does Play games.
3. Games played in configurations other than were presented are not covered in terms of "false advertising"
4. The differences outside one or two edge cases is still pretty similar. So this whole fiasco is being a bit of a bore
5. It's not broken
6. If there is a lawsuit, it should probably be on platform availability considering CPU shipments compared to mobo availability. But that would be silly as well.
7. It's not broken. There isn't a problem. Any problem in this sense (and not talking platform as awhole. There are problems.) is just un-met expectations and legally it's allowed.
 
Topweasel said:
Miss direction isn't illegal. AMD showed several different software platforms including a game. Told us everything about those (including the configuration of the Intel setup). Sure assumptions were made and some wrongly. But again you said problem. Like it's broken. That more than any other statement you have made that I have read lately (just in case you've said things even sillier) is profoundly wrong. Not having the latency of Intel does not make a problem. Having less performance than Intel in a category that happens to in this case affect game play does not make something broken. It makes it a hindrance. Their arch makes it a slight liability in games. That doesn't make is class lawsuit actionable. The most you have is them showing basically one benchmark at highish res and telling everyone the configuration is enough for people to be able to sue? Sorry. Can't and won't happen. Because they didn't lie. They maintained core performance as a comparison to BD and demonstrated wins in configurations they choose but that they also lined up. It would be like GM and their awards commecials making it seem like any of their cars are the best, then someone finds out the Malibu sucks compared to the Fusion. Those are TV where marketing rules are a billion times more conservative than a stream of an AMD hosted convention.

So basically.
1. Not Broken
2. Does Play games.
3. Games played in configurations other than were presented are not covered in terms of "false advertising"
4. The differences outside one or two edge cases is still pretty similar. So this whole fiasco is being a bit of a bore
5. It's not broken
6. If there is a lawsuit, it should probably be on platform availability considering CPU shipments compared to mobo availability. But that would be silly as well.
7. It's not broken. There isn't a problem. Any problem in this sense (and not talking platform as awhole. There are problems.) is just un-met expectations and legally it's allowed.
Click to expand...

It is borken, I highly doubt AMD would over look such a problem if using infinity fabric as the main communicator between the die.

If that was mentioned lets say around when they started showing off Zen's architecture, I can tell you right now, I would have raised a red flag and asked what is the interconnect speed cause that is the limiting factor and easy to see it will be.

Are you saying AMD's engineer's are so inept, that is Keller for you by the way, wouldn't see that coming?

What you are saying AMD is so incompetent at making chips, that a plain view of just the bandwidth numbers of their infinity fabric they didn't know that problem was going to come up lol.

IS that your thought process?

So you want people to buy processors from a company that is so pathetic?

A common person on this forum knows how bottlenecks work, (even the people that complain about the 1080p benchmarks know, they just don't want to admit it because their god, AMD would get hurt). Yet AMD in their fumbling way wouldn't have seen it coming. Great they should make blenders and toasters not CPU's then. OK?

In your mind AMD doesn't have engineers working for them they have kids with sketch pads right?
 
razor1 said:
Lets agree to disagree on the first part, since there are too many variables that are unknowns.....

Second and third para, yeah , I don't fully think that is the case. AMD would have know the issues of the L3 cache using fabric as a transport medium well before, and would have told reviewers or at least warned them something is up before had, and that would have mitigated the fall out. And would have gotten at least one developer fixing things for Ryzen (hello Oxide) to show it is workable.

From a business and marketing point of view they would have tried to minimize the back lash.

I think they thought people would think its just early motherboards.

Lawsuit grounds,

No one was told there was a problem

End result without programmer intervention game performance suffers

It doesn't' matter how much, it just does, people were expecting boardwell level gaming, by what AMD showed, even in BF1 that doesn't happen. So misdirection, not telling there were problems, then having preorders before the actual problem was revealed,

All go to AMD knew they had problems and didn't disclose or let anyone find out before the one million chips and motherboards were sold in pre order.
Click to expand...

That's not how lawsuits work. Chip is not broken, doesn't crash. Amd didn't sell a damaged product knowing it was damaged, which it's not. Amd showed results side by side on 4K. They didn't deceive about that. Intent is very hard to prove, trust me. AMD could go to court and replicate the same results they did in demos at 4K. They didn't talk about 1080p so that conversation doesn't exist.

People suing them is a little extreme lol. Not happening even if it does. It's not going anywhere. Because amd didn't lie about any results they showed. That is all they can replicate in court within margin of error.

Plus you can't sue them for having shittier design then Intel in some scenarios.
 
Last edited:
razor1 said:
What you are saying AMD is so incompetent at making chips, that a plain view of just the bandwidth numbers of their infinity fabric they didn't know that problem was going to come up lol.
Click to expand...
If we are honest, i think they knew the problem could/would come up but it really did not matter [for them] with what they tried to do with Zen. I mean, hell, the only situations

Anyways, i think his point is that nobody would be able to sue AMD for anything in regards to CCX interconnect because it.. does not actually violate any law to have shitty interconnect. That would be like suing Intel for the sort of RAM they supported on Skulltrail.
 
NKD said:
That's not how lawsuits work. Chip is not broken, doesn't crash. Amd didn't sell a damaged product knowing it was damaged, which it's not. Amd showed results side by side on 4K. They didn't deceive about that. Intent is very hard to prove, trust me. AMD could go to court and replicate the same results they did in demos at 4K. They didn't talk about 1080p so that conversation doesn't exist.

People suing them is a little extreme lol. Not happening even if it does. It's not going anywhere. Because amd didn't lie about any results they showed. That is all they can replicate in court within margin of error.
Click to expand...


This is exactly how BD law suit started, and the entail suit is a fishing suit, they are looking for ways to find problems, the phases of a civil case.

There is no need for burden of proof in a civil case.

Once the case has started off

There is a discovery and fact finding phase where everyone involved shares information. At this point AMD will have to fully disclose what is going on.

Guys if you watch too much TV, this is not a criminal case, it doesn't work on proof up front, it works completely differently.

Granted the outcome is up in the air, but it still can be done.
 
lolfail9001 said:
If we are honest, i think they knew the problem could/would come up but it really did not matter [for them] with what they tried to do with Zen. I mean, hell, the only situations

Anyways, i think his point is that nobody would be able to sue AMD for anything in regards to CCX interconnect because it.. does not actually violate any law to have shitty interconnect. That would be like suing Intel for the sort of RAM they supported on Skulltrail.
Click to expand...


They can do it, but will it get anywhere is another matter. That we don't know because we don't know what AMD knows about when they knew about it and when the pre orders were done, was it specifically done to so people didn't know about the issue.

Its just like the 970 man, did it have 4 gb, yeah it did, well ok, do we know where the actual problem came form, it wasn't the memory amount of slower partition of memory, it was the ROP amounts. They couldn't get around that, so they settled. Still waiting on my 30 bucks from that lol.
 
razor1 said:
They can do it, but will it get anywhere is another matter. That we don't know because we don't know what AMD knows about when they knew about it and when the pre orders were done, was it specifically done to so people didn't know about the issue.
Click to expand...

By that means you can sue Kyle. Who made a post don't be a pussy go order a Ryzen? Reason no one will sue them is because it's not a piece of shit bulldozer was. It literally doubles up performance at times over amd's previous chips.

You can't sue a chip for being slower or for having preorders. People should have waited for reviews, buyers remorse doesn't mean lawsuits. I see a lot of people happy with their systems and making posts about it.

It's not as bad as it is in this thread, lol.
 
NKD said:
By that means you can sue Kyle. Who made a post don't be a pussy go order a Ryzen? Reason no one will sue them is because it's not a piece of shit bulldozer was. It literally doubles up performance at times over amd's previous chips.

You can't sue a chip for being slower or for having preorders. That's non sense.
Click to expand...

If Kyle is an AMD representative, yes he can be.

Dude BD got sued,

970 gtx got sued.

Don't tell me when their is a problem with the chip people can't sue.

This is a sue crazy world man. Everyone is looking for a free buck, sad but true lol

Its like a murder case even if a person is found not guilty of committing a murder the family of the murdered person can sue in a wrong full death case and still win.

Civil cases do not have anything to do with burden of proof.
 
NKD said:
You can't sue a chip for being slower or for having preorders. People should have waited for reviews, buyers remorse doesn't mean lawsuits. I see a lot of people happy with their systems and making posts about it.
Click to expand...
If i know anything about USA, it's that there anything can mean lawsuits. The only question is whether it will get anywhere. I think not. The closest AMD could have come to having to settle would be XFR advertising, but even that is questionable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NKD
like this
razor1 said:
If Kyle is an AMD representative, yes he can be.
Click to expand...

Are we really talking about amd getting sued for a chip that actually finally fuckin competes with Intel more times than not, excluding gaming- 15-20% slower there. Little extreme isn't it.
 
NKD said:
Are we really talking about amd getting sued for a chip that actually finally fuckin competes with Intel more times than not, excluding gaming- 15-20% slower there. Little extreme isn't it.
Click to expand...


If its not functioning as it should they can. That is the bottom line.
 
razor1 said:
If its not functioning as it should they can. That is the bottom line.
Click to expand...
Of course anyone can sue anyone lol. But I don't think buyers are too unhappy about Ryzen as they were with bulldozer. I see people posting about their rigs all over the place lol. People might be just happy having a chip other than Intel that is not a shitfest like bulldozer. Lol
 
NKD said:
Of course anyone can sue anyone lol. But I don't think buyers are too unhappy about Ryzen as they were with bulldozer. I see people posting about their rigs all over the place lol. People might be just happy having a chip other than Intel that is not a shitfest like bulldozer. Lol
Click to expand...


doesn't matter, people who bought BD, didn't know what they were buying? Sure hell they did lol.

Everyone that bought a 970 was happy, the card performed exactly as stated it would right? But end results, law suit.
 
Riptide_NVN said:
https://us.hardware.info/reviews/4592/vast-majority-of-gamers-prefers-120-hz-monitors

There is your test. And 80+ percent could tell the difference. So unless he comes up with something else that I couldn't find (and I put effort in) then I'd conclude. He's wrong.

That said I've been on 60hz for years and it's never been something I cared to upgrade. 4K is worth it to me by far over a much smaller expensive 120+ hz display.
Click to expand...


interesting, from the article

88 percent also correctly identified which refresh rate their monitor had, there's no doubt about it
Click to expand...
 
My Ryzen 1700X at 3.9/2666MHZ DDR4 absolutely destroys my 4770K @ 4.5/1866MHZ DDR3 at Fallout 4.

Load times and stuttering are now gone. I upgraded from a 830 SSD to a 960 Evo for OS, but still using a spinning 2TB Black for games storage. Still running 290 Crossfire.
 
Ryzen scales really well with memory speeds I believe. Only knock on amd I have is it seems that while the CPU Side was fine. When you combine it with platform launch was pretty bad. They had memory side of things to sort out. I think they even gave reviewers lower speed memory in the kits. It seems higher speed memory increases the bandwidth on the fabric and you see better results. I think not having that part sorted out and being rushed was bad on amd. They should have had done a better job on memory support and speeds. Looks like higher speeds are hit and miss but now we are seeing speeds working up to 3200mhz.
 
Reality said:
Placebo.


I miss my QX2710. board burned out. had it running at 120hz for over a year. now I'm down to a 60hz panel and it's brutal.
Click to expand...


That is not placebo, if 88% of people can tell the difference between 60 hz and 120 hz, You said yourself, you can tell the difference. You had a 120 and now at 60 its brutal. Something is different and you are able to pick it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top