• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Leaked AMD Ryzen Benchmarks?

lolfail9001 said:
Ryzen sucked in AotS since the very first engineering sample, so that's just making up BS to cover the problem.
Click to expand...

HAHAHA that is like saying .... Ferarri sucks at laying asphalt. We know that they are not that bad on the track though.....

You have nothing of value in that observation. Ashes of the singularity has to be one of the absolutely worst strategy games ever possibly conceived period. Where in the living F**K are these beautiful graphics and CPU intensive physics happening? Back on the drawing board. Frankly oh.... about every other strategy game looks and plays better to the power of ^10.
 
tangoseal said:
You have nothing of value in that observation.
Click to expand...
Why, i have: it's performance in AotS mirrors it's performance in other purely CPU bottlenecked gaming scenarios.
tangoseal said:
Ashes of the singularity has to be one of the absolutely worst strategy games ever possibly conceived period. Where in the living F**K are these beautiful graphics and CPU intensive physics happening? Back on the drawing board. Frankly oh.... about every other strategy game looks and plays better to the power of ^10.
Click to expand...
It is a decent gaming synthetic (not benchmark, oh god forbid game), little else.
 
lolfail9001 said:
Why, i have: it's performance in AotS mirrors it's performance in other purely CPU bottlenecked gaming scenarios.

It is a decent gaming synthetic (not benchmark, oh god forbid game), little else.
Click to expand...

Well my comments weren't meant to be rude but I feel that a benchmark of perofrmance should be something that translates to the real world and there is NO value in AOTcrapularity.

I am not defending AMD, I am attacking one of the biggest waste of money chunks of crapware ever developed.

I have a 1700X and let me tell it absolutely crushes my 3930K in every meteric possible and before the Ryzen the 3930K was so fast for me it almost compelled me not to upgrade. I seen no benefit in getting a 6900 or 6950. None. Intel gave me no incentive.,

Then comes along Zen at $399 and it outperforms 6900K in almost every measurable meteric games included for the most part.

I am not wrapped around the axle like some of you who think that 5 fps @ 200 existing FPS is bust for gaming. THat is so laughable.
 
tangoseal said:
I have a 1700X and let me tell it absolutely crushes my 3930K in every meteric possible
Click to expand...
It would be pretty bad if it lost to what, 5 year old CPU with 2 less cores? Like, not even Bulldozer failed that bad.
tangoseal said:
I am not wrapped around the axle like some of you who think that 5 fps @ 200 existing FPS is bust for gaming. THat is so laughable.
Click to expand...
Neither i am, but i do think that:
4g7J8Kb.png

this is pretty damn bad considering it works at 4.1Ghz in this scenario.
 
lolfail9001 said:
It would be pretty bad if it lost to what, 5 year old CPU with 2 less cores? Like, not even Bulldozer failed that bad.

Neither i am, but i do think that:
4g7J8Kb.png

this is pretty damn bad considering it works at 4.1Ghz in this scenario.
Click to expand...
Yea sure plenty of people game on 8 core processor at 720p
 
Starcraft is a horrible coded game, it's wastes so much processing power it's not funny. On the flip side you really dont need high frame rate to play it. Unless your saying the 5960X is also a giant piece of crap at gaming?
 
Gideon said:
Starcraft is a horrible coded game, it's wastes so much processing power it's not funny. On the flip side you really dont need high frame rate to play it. Unless your saying the 5960X is also a giant piece of crap at gaming?
Click to expand...
or your'e a Korean who can make 200plus mouse clicks a minute.
 
Gideon said:
Starcraft is a horrible coded game, it's wastes so much processing power it's not funny. On the flip side you really dont need high frame rate to play it. Unless your saying the 5960X is also a giant piece of crap at gaming?
Click to expand...
It wastes no processing power on the only 2 cores it uses. On the flip side i am saying that 5960X has another 30-40% performance you can extract above it's stock performance. Ryzen here works at pretty much limit of what it can do in this particular case (since SC2 uses only 2 cores, 1800X runs at 4.1Ghz). So, disrepancy is there and in 2 core loads Win10 scheduler actually keeps cores on same CCX, so you can't even blame scheduler for performance.
 
lolfail9001 said:
It would be pretty bad if it lost to what, 5 year old CPU with 2 less cores? Like, not even Bulldozer failed that bad.

Neither i am, but i do think that:
4g7J8Kb.png

this is pretty damn bad considering it works at 4.1Ghz in this scenario.
Click to expand...


Bro are you serious? Who in the hell plays at 720P? This is 2017 not 2003. LMAO you have made a completely moot point. Who in the hell can afford a $500.00 processor a $300 board and not be able to afford to get more than a 720P LCD?

I am absolutely sick and tired of hearing this played out argument that this chip can't game? I am getting in excess of 100FPS with everything MAXED out at max res on my Acer X34 which is near 4K on my played out 980ti in almost every single game I play. TitanFall2 is smoking at way more than 100FPS maxed out. Who in the F cares about 720p lol.... so what if this chip can't game at an obsolete resolution? NO ONE CARES - get with the times Intel fan girls.... we play at hi res now.

Listen son... go and get an Intel $1000 chip and live and let live. My 5 year old 3930K can run with the big boys because INtel sucks so bad they haven't updated shit since Sandy Bridge... so sad.

I am not an AMD Fanboy but I am admittedly a Zen fanboy now. Done.
 
lolfail9001 said:
It wastes no processing power on the only 2 cores it uses. On the flip side i am saying that 5960X has another 30-40% performance you can extract above it's stock performance. Ryzen here works at pretty much limit of what it can do in this particular case (since SC2 uses only 2 cores, 1800X runs at 4.1Ghz). So, disrepancy is there and in 2 core loads Win10 scheduler actually keeps cores on same CCX, so you can't even blame scheduler for performance.
Click to expand...

Well you go ahead and keep convincing yourself, the rest of us will rely on other factors and reality....
 
tangoseal said:
Bro are you serious? Who in the hell plays at 720P? This is 2017 not 2003. LMAO you have made a completely moot point. Who in the hell can afford a $500.00 processor a $300 board and not be able to afford to get more than a 720P LCD?

I am absolutely sick and tired of hearing this played out argument that this chip can't game? I am getting in excess of 100FPS with everything MAXED out at max res on my Acer X34 which is near 4K on my played out 980ti in almost every single game I play. TitanFall2 is smoking at way more than 100FPS maxed out. Who in the F cares about 720p lol.... so what if this chip can't game at an obsolete resolution? NO ONE CARES - get with the times Intel fan girls.... we play at hi res now.

Listen son... go and get an Intel $1000 chip and live and let live. My 5 year old 3930K can run with the big boys because INtel sucks so bad they haven't updated shit since Sandy Bridge... so sad.

I am not an AMD Fanboy but I am admittedly a Zen fanboy now. Done.
Click to expand...
I second this !
 
Gideon said:
Well you go ahead and keep convincing yourself, the rest of us will rely on other factors and reality....
Click to expand...


LOL dude reminds me of those people that purchase a console for only ONE game and then says it sucks on everything else. In this case its like the badass Zen is crap because it sucks on like one or two games out of the HUNDREDS on the market, and old ones at that, at resolutions that NO ONE on Earth with a modern rig plays at.
 
Yeah, i left Zen hype train for a good reason....

tangoseal said:
Bro are you serious? Who in the hell plays at 720P? This is 2017 not 2003. LMAO you have made a completely moot point. Who in the hell can afford a $500.00 processor a $300 board and not be able to afford to get more than a 720P LCD?
Click to expand...
Bro are you serious? The sole fact you fail to even pay attention to 30 fps in any fucking resolution at 4.1Ghz drives my entire point home.

Rest ain't worth addressing because it is a ramble of someone trying to justify purchase of 1700X.
 
lolfail9001 said:
It would be pretty bad if it lost to what, 5 year old CPU with 2 less cores? Like, not even Bulldozer failed that bad.

Neither i am, but i do think that:
4g7J8Kb.png

this is pretty damn bad considering it works at 4.1Ghz in this scenario.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't bet on the 4.1Ghz part. Apparently the other cores HAVE to be parked to get to 4.1Ghz and there aren't many if any games that will allow that. Don't have StarCraft but if it is anything like Warcraft as far as CPU usage it will use 3 cores just greatly using one. Cant remember what the next lower speed was just that full core boost was 3.7Ghz.

At any rate I wish more people would pay attention to another chip in these benchmarks...

LOOK AT THAT 9590, and then say this chip is disappointing.

That wasn't directed at you just noticing it in your benchmark.
 
Veritas187 said:
Yea sure plenty of people game on 8 core processor at 720p
Click to expand...

tangoseal said:
Bro are you serious? Who in the hell plays at 720P? This is 2017 not 2003. LMAO you have made a completely moot point. Who in the hell can afford a $500.00 processor a $300 board and not be able to afford to get more than a 720P LCD?
Click to expand...

both of you would check next article about why reviewers testing gaming at low resolutions and why it matters

http://www.techspot.com/news/68407-...ottlenecking-cpu-gaming-benchmarks-using.html
 
Last edited:
JustReason said:
I wouldn't bet on the 4.1Ghz part. Apparently the other cores HAVE to be parked to get to 4.1Ghz and there aren't many if any games that will allow that. Don't have StarCraft but if it is anything like Warcraft as far as CPU usage it will use 3 cores just greatly using one. Cant remember what the next lower speed was just that full core boost was 3.7Ghz.
Click to expand...
SC2 only uses 2 threads, but fine, we can claim it has another 10% to go up from that result.
JustReason said:
That wasn't directed at you just noticing it in your benchmark.
Click to expand...
Not sure i get it, either.
 
lolfail9001 said:
SC2 only uses 2 threads, but fine, we can claim it has another 10% to go up from that result.

Not sure i get it, either.
Click to expand...
Actually looking at that graph it looked off anyway. Did they have any higher resolution graphs? I mean if that is the limit at a CPU limit then can anyone even play that turd at 1440 with any degree of reason? I looked for any other graphs but had no luck.
 
JustReason said:
Actually looking at that graph it looked off anyway. Did they have any higher resolution graphs? I mean if that is the limit at a CPU limit then can anyone even play that turd at 1440 with any degree of reason? I looked for any other graphs but had no luck.
Click to expand...
No, they only did 720p tests. And their SC2 scenario is really fucking stressing. But you underestimate just how heavy it is on CPU. A different scenario, different hardware (4790 non k+295x2), but almost no fps drop from higher resolution https://www.nextpowerup.com/article...-void-performance-analysis/4k-fps_685_685.jpg https://www.nextpowerup.com/article...id-performance-analysis/1080p-fps_685_686.jpg .
 
tangoseal said:
Bro are you serious? Who in the hell plays at 720P? This is 2017 not 2003. LMAO you have made a completely moot point. Who in the hell can afford a $500.00 processor a $300 board and not be able to afford to get more than a 720P LCD?

I am absolutely sick and tired of hearing this played out argument that this chip can't game? I am getting in excess of 100FPS with everything MAXED out at max res on my Acer X34 which is near 4K on my played out 980ti in almost every single game I play. TitanFall2 is smoking at way more than 100FPS maxed out. Who in the F cares about 720p lol.... so what if this chip can't game at an obsolete resolution? NO ONE CARES - get with the times Intel fan girls.... we play at hi res now.

Listen son... go and get an Intel $1000 chip and live and let live. My 5 year old 3930K can run with the big boys because INtel sucks so bad they haven't updated shit since Sandy Bridge... so sad.

I am not an AMD Fanboy but I am admittedly a Zen fanboy now. Done.
Click to expand...


if you don't understand why you test CPU performance at low resolutions, why are even on this forum? You have been here for 5 years, and you don't know why its tested that way?

I'm laughing at you because people who support CPU tests that should be GPU limited, are well quite frankly, WTF?

305908d1359615600-madejski-miracle-wtf-shit_640_417_s_c1_center_top_0_0.jpg


It makes no damn sense, the results are going to be equalized, there is no reason to test lol.
 
razor1 said:
if you don't understand why you test CPU performance at low resolutions, why are even on this forum? You have been here for 5 years, and you don't know why its tested that way?

I'm laughing at you because people who support CPU tests that should be GPU limited, are well quite frankly, WTF?

305908d1359615600-madejski-miracle-wtf-shit_640_417_s_c1_center_top_0_0.jpg


It makes no damn sense, the results are going to be equalized, there is no reason to test lol.
Click to expand...
I think it is simply a misunderstanding. I am sure they get the 720p tests but are getting frustrated at the issuing of the data as thought this is what you are going to see on any given game. But then you see the 4K (I know GPU limited but ..) and the results don't hold true to the tests. Also I guess some make it sound as if the results from the 720p tests are indicative of everyday use and of course 720p is only indicative of crappy laptops.

Bear in mind that he is speaking from experience and his thus far does not reflect what we saw in the reviews, well a few did show high resolution but most of these naysayers are only touting the 720p tests as relevant and all others are just fanboy lies.

It has been discussed for the last few years that 1080p tests should be the norm just because the 720p thus far has no real world relevance. The general public will turn graphics up to a point that it is still playable, so that CPU limit will likely never be reached. This is why those benches are then so controversial, they don't really correlate to real world. Of course same could be and has been said for synthetics. I mean they are good for ideas of limitations but rarely speak to real world performance within reason of course ( a 50% CPU will not likely run 100% of another CPU in real world, all we can take from it is that it wont likely ever be as fast as the 100% but hopefully not as slow as 50%).

Now I know some do 1080p tests but hey turn all GPU selections off or down, again not likely indicative of real world and thusly not useful to the majority. Now the 720p tests do give that limit which say the CPU meets your current 60Hz needs but maybe you will want to upgrade to 120Hz in the near future. But again those tests don't speak to real world, just a limited set of facts for real world and what I just referenced is about it. However using real world setting goes a hell of a lot further to the common joe and I think that is what is causing all this friction. You see these charts with the 7700k and the 1700/1800X and it looks night and day. Then you see gameplay graphs and youtube vids and it isn't looking like the previous benches. Hell every site I read said something was off about the gaming benches but did state that this CPU could game very well and was quite the upgrade over previous AMD chips.

It is a frustrating issue to say the least but you have to understand both sides and arguments. I get his and I get yours. What we need is some of these sites to reference both within context of they are meant to mean.
 
JustReason said:
I think it is simply a misunderstanding. I am sure they get the 720p tests but are getting frustrated at the issuing of the data as thought this is what you are going to see on any given game. But then you see the 4K (I know GPU limited but ..) and the results don't hold true to the tests. Also I guess some make it sound as if the results from the 720p tests are indicative of everyday use and of course 720p is only indicative of crappy laptops.

Bear in mind that he is speaking from experience and his thus far does not reflect what we saw in the reviews, well a few did show high resolution but most of these naysayers are only touting the 720p tests as relevant and all others are just fanboy lies.

It has been discussed for the last few years that 1080p tests should be the norm just because the 720p thus far has no real world relevance. The general public will turn graphics up to a point that it is still playable, so that CPU limit will likely never be reached. This is why those benches are then so controversial, they don't really correlate to real world. Of course same could be and has been said for synthetics. I mean they are good for ideas of limitations but rarely speak to real world performance within reason of course ( a 50% CPU will not likely run 100% of another CPU in real world, all we can take from it is that it wont likely ever be as fast as the 100% but hopefully not as slow as 50%).

Now I know some do 1080p tests but hey turn all GPU selections off or down, again not likely indicative of real world and thusly not useful to the majority. Now the 720p tests do give that limit which say the CPU meets your current 60Hz needs but maybe you will want to upgrade to 120Hz in the near future. But again those tests don't speak to real world, just a limited set of facts for real world and what I just referenced is about it. However using real world setting goes a hell of a lot further to the common joe and I think that is what is causing all this friction. You see these charts with the 7700k and the 1700/1800X and it looks night and day. Then you see gameplay graphs and youtube vids and it isn't looking like the previous benches. Hell every site I read said something was off about the gaming benches but did state that this CPU could game very well and was quite the upgrade over previous AMD chips.

It is a frustrating issue to say the least but you have to understand both sides and arguments. I get his and I get yours. What we need is some of these sites to reference both within context of they are meant to mean.
Click to expand...


Look with a frame there are many bottleneck shifts, the best possible way to reduce any error is to go to the lowest resolutions possible, I agree 1080 is a good testing for CPU's, but if a reviewer goes lower its not a big deal cause if its CPU limited 100%, which is something we can't really test for within a frame, the deltas won't change from 1080 but if they do, then its not fully CPU bottlenecked.

Reviewers need to remove any chance of errors period when doing these types of tests (testing specific hardware pieces).

Its like a guy with a 1080 monitor wanting only 1080 benchmarks for a the gtx 1080ti. Damn Fury X might actually tie the 1080ti in some games!

Does that make the Fury X relevant to the the 1080ti in performance?

Or comparing a gtx 1080 to a 1080ti?

surly the gtx 1080 will equalize in some games to the 1080ti @ 1080p.

They are in different leagues though.
 
juanrga said:
both of you would check next article about why reviewers testing gaming at low resolutions and why it matters

http://www.techspot.com/news/68407-...ottlenecking-cpu-gaming-benchmarks-using.html
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter to the millions that have high resolution monitors. I also think you are barking into the wind here. Evidently consumers are satisfied with the gaming performance of Ryzen before optimizations. Performance will go up further and because the efficiency and multithreading capability of the processor are excellent, along with the price, so that people are eager to buy into Ryzen as seen by the overwhelming demand for it.
 
Last edited:
Peppercorn said:
It doesn't matter to the millions that have high resolution monitors.
Click to expand...

If you had read the TechSpot article you had discovered that testing games at low resolution has nothing to do with the resolution that people uses to play those games.
 
juanrga said:
If you had read the TechSpot article you had discovered that testing games at low resolution has nothing to do with the resolution that people uses to play those games.
Click to expand...


This guy doesn't read anything, he is a flake. He just assumes what is in his head is what it should be, without understanding whats in his head.
 
juanrga said:
If you had read the TechSpot article you had discovered that testing games at low resolution has nothing to do with the resolution that people uses to play those games.
Click to expand...

Then it makes no sense to test them there. I would like to know what kind of gas mileage my truck gets if i drive 100km in reverse.... not that it has anything to do with the actual mileage.
 
Peppercorn said:
Then it makes no sense to test them there. I would like to know what kind of gas mileage my truck gets if i drive 100km in reverse.... not that it has anything to do with the actual mileage.
Click to expand...


Again you didn't read the article lol
 
Peppercorn said:
:) you have clearly been agitated these last few weeks. Something wrong? ;)
Click to expand...


Oh you haven't seen me agitated lol, others can attest to that, I think, Justreason you want to chime in on how I post when I'm agitated, or Pieter3dnow lol.

You haven't been here long enough to know when I'm agitated lol.

Btw if you want to make this about me, good luck, cause remember the way I baited you before ;)

Again, the article goes through why testing should be done a certain way, and High resolution tests are good but not necessary.

That just sums up the entire article nice and neat.

Yes butt hurt Ryzen fans, telling veteran reviewers how to rewrite CPU tests by using GPU limited scenarios lol.

Good grief. Get over your butt hurt its not like someone did anything physical with ya! or maybe you guys did it to yourself because it more pleasurable then looking at your beloved Ryzen loose out to a 4 core 8 thread chip in gaming?
 
razor1 said:
Oh you haven't seen me agitated lol, others can attest to that, I think, Justreason you want to chime in on how I post when I'm agitated, or Pieter3dnow lol.

You haven't been here long enough to know when I'm agitated lol.

Btw if you want to make this about me, good luck, cause remember the way I baited you before ;)

Again, the article goes through why testing should be done a certain way, and High resolution tests are good but not necessary.

That just sums up the entire article nice and neat.

Yes butt hurt Ryzen fans, telling veteran reviewers how to rewrite CPU tests by using GPU limited scenarios lol.

Good grief. Get over your butt hurt its not like someone did anything physical with ya! or maybe you guys did it to yourself because it more pleasurable then looking at your beloved Ryzen loose out to a 4 core 8 thread chip in gaming?
Click to expand...


Yeah yeah, i've heard this all before from you: "just wait til i get really really really mad!". lol grow up son.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top