Terrible gaming experience with Ryzen 1700

Your memory is maxed out... obviously that's going to cause major slow down when you start running games off of your page file.... 16gb is really the way to go these days, if not more for future proofing.
 
tangoseal said:
Well at this point ditch the AMD chip. Just get an 8700k and board and dont look back.

This thread reminds me of the days when I was young and dumb and I am still dumb to this day Haha. But I would buy a console just to play one single game. What a waste of money. And I wasn't saying you or the thread was dumb.
Click to expand...
I wish there was a way for me to test this game....cause i really dont see my setup struggling to play it...but you never know and AMD driver teams dont put priority on fixing issues with games that low on the radar. I didnt even know this game existed lol
 
tangoseal said:
Well at this point ditch the AMD chip. Just get an 8700k and board and dont look back.

This thread reminds me of the days when I was young and dumb and I am still dumb to this day Haha. But I would buy a console just to play one single game. What a waste of money. And I wasn't saying you or the thread was dumb.
Click to expand...
I actually built that rig as an experiment. Luckily, I can afford to buy what I want. This was a fun shot, but in the end, what can I do with it? Maybe once Planetside 2 moves to DX11 (Soon), it will make a huge difference?
 
Xa3phod said:
I actually built that rig as an experiment. Luckily, I can afford to buy what I want. This was a fun shot, but in the end, what can I do with it? Maybe once Planetside 2 moves to DX11 (Soon), it will make a huge difference?
Click to expand...

Could make quite a difference. I remember when WoW had an engine upgrade to a newer DirectX, the performance improvement was night and day
 
elite.mafia said:
Your memory is maxed out... obviously that's going to cause major slow down when you start running games off of your page file.... 16gb is really the way to go these days, if not more for future proofing.
Click to expand...
Second this, especially if you have certain applications like chrome running in the background
 
Xa3phod said:
Ryzen 1700 3.9Ghz w/ R9-Fury X (8GB Dual channel DDR4 3200)
Cinebench
OpenGL: 110.98FPS
Multi-core: 1741
Single-Core: 162

Xeon X5690 4.5Ghz w/ R9-FuryX (24GB Triple channel 1600mhz ram)
Cinebench
OpenGL: 110.84FPS
Multi-core: 1022
Single-Core: 136

I7-6700K 4.7Ghz w/ R9-FuryX (16GB Dual channel DDR4 3000)
Cinebench
OpenGL: 178.20
Multi-core: 1021
Single-Core: 201

That's not trolling, that is benchmarking. That's a CPU from 2011 almost matching a new Ryzen 7 in Single core. My old 2500K at 4.5Ghz got 155 on Cinebench single core. My I3-8100 which is not overclocked scored 154 single core cinebench.

If you can score better than that on a 1700, please post your Cinebench single core score.

This was originally a post for help with my 1700. From reading the replies, I decided to sell.
Click to expand...

So you argue that the old xeon IPC is almost the same as your 1700, then benchmark with the xeon clocked 600Mhz higher. You do know the C in IPC means CYCLE/CLOCK right?

This is so obviously a troll post how did you guys feed the troll for 5 pages??????
 
Rifter0876 said:
So you argue that the old xeon IPC is almost the same as your 1700, then benchmark with the xeon clocked 600Mhz higher. You do know the C in IPC means CYCLE/CLOCK right?

This is so obviously a troll post how did you guys feed the troll for 5 pages??????
Click to expand...
Careful, your rage is showing. That's what they feed on, ya know. I'll honestly try to help someone, and if it appears they're trolling I'll just stop. No point arguing, that's a waste of time.
 
Rifter0876 said:
So you argue that the old xeon IPC is almost the same as your 1700, then benchmark with the xeon clocked 600Mhz higher. You do know the C in IPC means CYCLE/CLOCK right?

This is so obviously a troll post how did you guys feed the troll for 5 pages??????
Click to expand...
IPC is not dependent on clock speed, it is the measure of what you get per single clock cycle.
 
Nobu said:
Careful, your rage is showing. That's what they feed on, ya know. I'll honestly try to help someone, and if it appears they're trolling I'll just stop. No point arguing, that's a waste of time.
Click to expand...

Im all about helping people to but when someone says they have been building computers for a decade yet doesn't even know what IPC means while at the same time saying they can notice the IPC difference something doesnt add up.

That and he is aware his ram is being used 100% but yet doesnt seem to think thats an issue. Obvious troll is obvious.
 
Nenu said:
He didnt mention IPC in the post you quoted.
Click to expand...

Yes he did, he quoted this post:

mwarps said:
Proof it's a troll. Westmere has extremely deficient IPC as compared to Ryzen, at a much larger power footprint. The Ryzen eats Westmere for breakfast in everything. You have a bad component in your system and are unwilling or unable to determine which it is.
Click to expand...

then replied with what i quoted above for the comparison of IPC.
 
Rifter0876 said:
Yes he did, he quoted this post:



then replied with what i quoted above for the comparison of IPC.
Click to expand...
I think this thread has gone off track.
He was not comparing IPC, that was the wish of the person he answered, not his.
He gave his experience which was clearly not dependent on IPC alone.
Enough clarity was given to be sure of what he meant.
 
I am not a troll. I was having an issue with my Ryzen and was looking for assistance. I made a comparison between the ryzen and xeon because the xeon, which is from 2011 performs closer to the Ryzen in single core performance than the ryzen does with my 6700k.

The ryzen is more powerful than the Xeon while using much less power. But, the 6700k is much stronger than the ryzen. Of course the ryzen does better in programs which can use all the threads. The ryzen trounces the 6700k in cinabench multi thread, but loses very strongly in single core. I dont stream and don't do enough rendering to make inferior gaming performance worth it.
I don't see how someone who owns the processor can be a troll. Self depreciation troll then?
Neither the ryzen or the xeon works well enough in gaming. For me. It's fact I with it weren't because i spent a lot of hours trying to get it to work
 
I use 4790k for work and productivity (photo editing) and Ryzen 1700x for gaming. Between the numerous launchers out there (good god there are way too many) and the various "gaming" software for keybaord, mouse and other things, my system tray is filled with icons and CPU cycle eating crap. Ryzen's 16 threads guarantee smooth gameplay on my living room TV, which is vsynced to 60fps. So in my case higher minimum and smoothnes is more important than higher fps, and Ryzen works great as a gaming/media machine.
 
Ok...I did benchmarking and it turns out that the 6700K's superiority is very slim. Dunno why it seemed to be so much worse. But numbers don't lie.
I ran the 6700K overclocked to 4.5Ghz (Anything higher is not completely stable) and the Ryzen 7 1700 was overclocked to 3.9Ghz.

Valley Ultra x8
Score Avg FPS Max FPS Min FPS
6700K @ 4.5 1926 46 85 28.7
R7 1700 @ 3.9 1914 45.7 84.6 25
Heaven
Score Avg FPS Max FPS Min FPS
6700K @ 4.5 1545 61.3 105.4 33.3
R7 1700 @ 3.9 1534 60.9 104.7 33.7
Timespy
Score GPU Score CPU Score
6700K @ 4.5 6035 6128 5561
R7 1700 @ 3.9 6357 6072 8664+
Metro Last Light
Avg FPS Max FPS Min FPS
6700K @ 4.5 99.88 194.25 29.4
R7 1700 @ 3.9 97.95 165.34 14.27
Superposition Shader-Extreme Texture-Medium Depth/Motion on GPU C GPU C
Score Avg FPS Max FPS Min FPS Min Max
6700K @ 4.5 2173 16.26 18.81 13.29 39C 71C
R7 1700 @ 3.9 2157 16.13 18.6 13.17 58C 73C
Firestrike
Score GPU Score Physics score Combined
6700K @ 4.5 17854 22438 13942 7803
R7 1700 @ 3.9 15968 19596 20382 5886
Userbenchmark
Gaming Desktop Workstation
6700K @ 4.5 110 110 83
R7 1700 @ 3.9 98 86 84
 
Xa3phod said:
Ok...I did benchmarking and it turns out that the 6700K's superiority is very slim. Dunno why it seemed to be so much worse. But numbers don't lie.
I ran the 6700K overclocked to 4.5Ghz (Anything higher is not completely stable) and the Ryzen 7 1700 was overclocked to 3.9Ghz.

Valley Ultra x8
Score Avg FPS Max FPS Min FPS
6700K @ 4.5 1926 46 85 28.7
R7 1700 @ 3.9 1914 45.7 84.6 25
Heaven
Score Avg FPS Max FPS Min FPS
6700K @ 4.5 1545 61.3 105.4 33.3
R7 1700 @ 3.9 1534 60.9 104.7 33.7
Timespy
Score GPU Score CPU Score
6700K @ 4.5 6035 6128 5561
R7 1700 @ 3.9 6357 6072 8664+
Metro Last Light
Avg FPS Max FPS Min FPS
6700K @ 4.5 99.88 194.25 29.4
R7 1700 @ 3.9 97.95 165.34 14.27
Superposition Shader-Extreme Texture-Medium Depth/Motion on GPU C GPU C
Score Avg FPS Max FPS Min FPS Min Max
6700K @ 4.5 2173 16.26 18.81 13.29 39C 71C
R7 1700 @ 3.9 2157 16.13 18.6 13.17 58C 73C
Firestrike
Score GPU Score Physics score Combined
6700K @ 4.5 17854 22438 13942 7803
R7 1700 @ 3.9 15968 19596 20382 5886
Userbenchmark
Gaming Desktop Workstation
6700K @ 4.5 110 110 83
R7 1700 @ 3.9 98 86 84
Click to expand...

Oh yeah...Those are TERRIBLE scores. Definitely worthy of 5 pages of whining and not listening to a single thing people in the thread told you.

/sarcasm
 
Xa3phod said:
Ok...I did benchmarking and it turns out that the 6700K's superiority is very slim. Dunno why it seemed to be so much worse. But numbers don't lie.
I ran the 6700K overclocked to 4.5Ghz (Anything higher is not completely stable) and the Ryzen 7 1700 was overclocked to 3.9Ghz.

Valley Ultra x8
Score Avg FPS Max FPS Min FPS
6700K @ 4.5 1926 46 85 28.7
R7 1700 @ 3.9 1914 45.7 84.6 25
Heaven
Score Avg FPS Max FPS Min FPS
6700K @ 4.5 1545 61.3 105.4 33.3
R7 1700 @ 3.9 1534 60.9 104.7 33.7
Timespy
Score GPU Score CPU Score
6700K @ 4.5 6035 6128 5561
R7 1700 @ 3.9 6357 6072 8664+
Metro Last Light
Avg FPS Max FPS Min FPS
6700K @ 4.5 99.88 194.25 29.4
R7 1700 @ 3.9 97.95 165.34 14.27
Superposition Shader-Extreme Texture-Medium Depth/Motion on GPU C GPU C
Score Avg FPS Max FPS Min FPS Min Max
6700K @ 4.5 2173 16.26 18.81 13.29 39C 71C
R7 1700 @ 3.9 2157 16.13 18.6 13.17 58C 73C
Firestrike
Score GPU Score Physics score Combined
6700K @ 4.5 17854 22438 13942 7803
R7 1700 @ 3.9 15968 19596 20382 5886
Userbenchmark
Gaming Desktop Workstation
6700K @ 4.5 110 110 83
R7 1700 @ 3.9 98 86 84
Click to expand...


All of those scores are close enough to not be detectably different in the real world.

It shouldn't be surprising that a much higher clocked Skylake that has an IPC advantage to begin with would score better in most benchmarks that don't take advantage of many cores, but the expectation is that the differences will be practically undetectable in games because 99% of users are GPU limited anyway, and that's what your numbers show. The differences in your benchmarks are so small that I doubt anyone would pass a blind test and pick out the right one.
 
Last edited:
Zarathustra[H] said:
All of those scores are close enough to not be delectably different in the real world.

It shouldn't be surprising that a much higher clocked Skylake that has an IPC advantage to begin with would score better in most benchmarks that don't take advantage of many cores, but the expectation is that the differences will be practically undetectable in games because 99% of users are GPU limited anyway, and that's what your numbers show. The differences in your benchmarks are so small that I doubt anyone would pass a blind test and pick out the right one.
Click to expand...
The metro min fps are pretty horrendous on the 1700, though also bad on the i7. I'd definitely adjust settings for that one.
 
Nobu said:
The metro min fps are pretty horrendous on the 1700, though also bad on the i7. I'd definitely adjust settings for that one.
Click to expand...

I don’t put much weight into “min” unless it’s 0.1% min or 1%. Some benchmarks take the absolute min which can just be a loading thing to start.

This thread is hilarious...
 
Nobu said:
The metro min fps are pretty horrendous on the 1700, though also bad on the i7. I'd definitely adjust settings for that one.
Click to expand...


Ah, Yes. The poor tab offsets threw me on that one and I missed it.

I don't know what the hell is going on for the min framerates to be that bad. Metro is pretty tough on the GPU, but generally not on the CPU. I've never seen framerates that low in it. Maybe it is just catching an irrelevant dip during scene transition or something?
 
Dayaks said:
I don’t put much weight into “min” unless it’s 0.1% min or 1%. Some benchmarks take the absolute min which can just be a loading thing to start.

This thread is hilarious...
Click to expand...

Yeah, min framerates are very important (I'd argue the MOST important metric), but you need to be careful that you are not including initial loading framerates, or scene transitions or something else irrelevant like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top