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

OrangeKhrush said:
Yeah i can imagine, I don't agree with it either and i hope AMD gives rebates
Click to expand...

Not sure why. Last time I brought a cpu, i7-920 lol it was the D0 stepping. But there were plenty of the previous C1 stepping knocking about, through e-tailers, system builders etc. I don't remember there being a hue n cry over that.
 
Presbytier said:
Seems a bit odd to market the 1800x as a x99 killer to then release a more expensive x99 type variant.
Click to expand...

not odd at all. They left the entire price point above 500 left wide open. Think about it? Napes is 8 channel beast, so you can sure as hell bet that they can have a 4 channel part for desktop usage.
 
NKD said:
not odd at all. They left the entire price point above 500 left wide open. Think about it? Napes is 8 channel beast, so you can sure as hell bet that they can have a 4 channel part for desktop usage.
Click to expand...
Odd for AMD as they have never competed at that price point in recent history.
 
Presbytier said:
Odd for AMD as they have never competed at that price point in recent history.
Click to expand...

no reason not to compete if you can sell 16core chip same price as intels 10 core for $1000. Intel doesn't seem to be making any changes to pricing. Usually best way to avoid competition is to ignore it, that is what they are doing. Big companies tend to do that until they started feeling the heat. I think AMD wants that as well so they can have a bite at that market as well.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
What am told that new revisions of Ryzen mainstream parts do not exhibit the same issues with gaming as first version Chips, probably why AMD didn't really contest microsofts schedular as the issue was more the chip. The problem is if you have already bought you are locked in to that performance as no firmware is able to change the performance to the later revisions.

Also X399 is confirmed as a new platform for AMD, I am told it is a LGA platform with up to quad channel support, the top end SKU is a 16 Core / 32 Thread processor for ~1000USD but has 3 confirmed lesser SKU's which AMD will term its HEDT platform to rival Intels X99 and X299 platform. Chiphell leaked the information and after some talks with people in places it was approved but the specs on chiphell were incorrect, mostly the 8 channel quoted is actually 8 DIMM slots for quad channel.
Click to expand...


I would be interested in hearing more on this post that I linked from you on the Stilt's thread at anantech.

https://hardforum.com/threads/why-d...orly-in-games.1926274/page-28#post-1042880092
The replies I got were ; "All of that is interesting, unverifiable, and completely irrelevant."
You were asked for sources and all you can say is "Inside Asus"?
Are we to take this as gospel?
I for one have heard a lot of crazy shit in that thread, but yours takes the cake.
 
NKD said:
no reason not to compete if you can sell 16core chip same price as intels 10 core for $1000. Intel doesn't seem to be making any changes to pricing. Usually best way to avoid competition is to ignore it, that is what they are doing. Big companies tend to do that until they started feeling the heat. I think AMD wants that as well so they can have a bite at that market as well.
Click to expand...
My thinking is what reason would a consumer want or need a 16 core chip? I can't see too many prosumer workloads that would even benefit from a 16 core chip. Heck look at the benchmarks of the 6950K not exactly that great in comparison to 6900k. I am not saying it won't sell or they should not bring it to the market, just questioning its need.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
What am told that new revisions of Ryzen mainstream parts do not exhibit the same issues with gaming as first version Chips, probably why AMD didn't really contest microsofts schedular as the issue was more the chip. The problem is if you have already bought you are locked in to that performance as no firmware is able to change the performance to the later revisions.
Click to expand...

Why would we believe this? All the other claims about gaming performance being fixed soon turned out to be false: BIOS 'bug' fix, SMT 'bug' fix, scheduler 'bug' fix,...

OrangeKhrush said:
Also X399 is confirmed as a new platform for AMD, I am told it is a LGA platform with up to quad channel support, the top end SKU is a 16 Core / 32 Thread processor for ~1000USD but has 3 confirmed lesser SKU's which AMD will term its HEDT platform to rival Intels X99 and X299 platform. Chiphell leaked the information and after some talks with people in places it was approved but the specs on chiphell were incorrect, mostly the 8 channel quoted is actually 8 DIMM slots for quad channel.
Click to expand...

I find very interesting that new sites are reporting on this rumor as a completely new platform sitting in-between Summit and Naples:

his new platform will feature a flagship CPU with 16 cores and 32 threads and sports support for quad-channel DDR4 memory, with the platform sitting in-between AMD's Ryzen/AMD CPU platform and their upcoming Naples Server platform.
Click to expand...

I guess those journalists have been living under a rock the last two years and never heard about the Snowy Owl CPU. The original specs (2015) for this platform were a single socket with a TDP of 150W for CPUs in two configurations 8C/16T and 16C/32T. It is a MCM2 package, aka two ZP dies glued together, and has quad channel (something I predicted time ago) because it is two channels per die. Now that the existence of 6C ZP dies is confirmed, we could expect a 12C/24T configuration as well.
 
Last edited:
Presbytier said:
My thinking is what reason would a consumer want or need a 16 core chip? I can't see too many prosumer workloads that would even benefit from a 16 core chip. Heck look at the benchmarks of the 6950K not exactly that great in comparison to 6900k. I am not saying it won't sell or they should not bring it to the market, just questioning its need.
Click to expand...

I'm actually very, very interested in this chip. I need support for min 192 Gigs of RAM and prefer 256 or 384 Gigs. I can't justify migrating to a better Intel from my Xeons, but this would like just dot all the "I's. Especially given AMD's socket longevity.
 
Presbytier said:
Seems a bit odd to market the 1800x as a x99 killer to then release a more expensive x99 type variant.
Click to expand...

This 'new' platform has been known to exist since 2015 at least. But it did target microservers and workstations and was known as SP4. My guess is that the under-perform of the AM4 platform, which is slower than many expected, and the increasing pressure in the server space (announcements from Microsoft, Qualcomm, Cavium, Macon, and the like) suggests that AMD could be changing the plans and rebranding SP4 as an enthusiast desktop platform.

In fact we have seen both slides and demos of Naples but absolutely nothing still about SP4 since 2015... which gives some weight to the belief this was canceled and is being rebranded as enthusiast desktop X399.
 
Last edited:
Simplyfun said:
I'm actually very, very interested in this chip. I need support for min 192 Gigs of RAM and prefer 256 or 384 Gigs. I can't justify migrating to a better Intel from my Xeons, but this would like just dot all the "I's. Especially given AMD's socket longevity.
Click to expand...
I mean, if it is literally 2 Zeppelins, then you will be limited to 128 gigs of RAM still.
 
juanrga said:
This 'new' platform has been known to exist since 2015 at least. But it did target microservers and workstations and was known as SP4. My guess is that the under-perform of the AM4 platform, which is slower than many expected, and the increasing pressure in the server space (announcements from Microsoft, Qualcomm, Cavium, Macon, and the like) suggests that AMD could be changing the plans and rebranding SP4 as an enthusiast desktop platform.

In fact we have seen both slides and demos of Naples but absolutely nothing still about SP4 since 2015... which gives some weight to the belief this was canceled and is being rebranded as enthusiast desktop X399.
Click to expand...
I imagine the cross communication on the CCX from two separate dies should be absolutely fantastic.
 
lolfail9001 said:
I mean, if it is literally 2 Zeppelins, then you will be limited to 128 gigs of RAM still.
Click to expand...

We don't know yet, and if that's the case I'll not change anyhow. I really need the ram support, many energy efficient cores suite me though, I'm not looking for 3Ghz.
 
Simplyfun said:
We don't know yet, and if that's the case I'll not change anyhow. I really need the ram support, many energy efficient cores suite me though, I'm not looking for 3Ghz.
Click to expand...
We kind of know that there is no evidence of 3DPC support being even in picture, and quad channel at 2DPC is limited to 128 gigs without usage of 32gig sticks, that are a different price tier entirely. Sure if you are willing to shell out for those, then it will be fine for up to 1 terabyte i believe.
 
lolfail9001 said:
We kind of know that there is no evidence of 3DPC support being even in picture, and quad channel at 2DPC is limited to 128 gigs without usage of 32gig sticks, that are a different price tier entirely. Sure if you are willing to shell out for those, then it will be fine for up to 1 terabyte i believe.
Click to expand...

I just don't know, I'll sit pretty if there's no compelling reason to upgrade. In the scenario you mentioned a 16/32 Naples single socket would be cheaper. I'm just happy to have someone shake some of these tiers up no matter what I have to buy.
 
Presbytier said:
I imagine the cross communication on the CCX from two separate dies should be absolutely fantastic.
Click to expand...

The original design for this MCM2 CPU did target throughput workloads (rendering, encoding, and traditional microserver apps) and the inter-die latency was irrelevant, but for latency sensitive workloads split between both dies... let me quote a source

On the other hand, it provokes delicate problems of communication between the dies (to ensure the coherence of the caches), which can lead to a degradation of performance.
Click to expand...
 
juanrga said:
The original design for this MCM2 CPU did target throughput workloads (rendering, encoding, and traditional microserver apps) and the inter-die latency was irrelevant, but for latency sensitive workloads split between both dies... let me quote a source
Click to expand...
Quote needs a link.
 
juanrga said:
Not everything is in a link.
Click to expand...
Then it isn't a quote, it is just some words you typed in a box, therefore having no relevance or credence on the subject with which you hoped to use it as proof or a subject point. You didn't even state who said it or in what context or time frame it was given.
 
It may have been conceived off snowyowl but has been adapted to HEDT, pretty much how intel conceived X socket off recycling server chips. The concept is not new.

From the board development side, it is confirmed and confirmed as a rival to X299 sky/kaby X. I find it exciting, desktop has been in drone mode, shake ups are always good.

As to gaming, i trust AMD were fully aware of revision 1 chips fabric communication latency between CCX's. I can say that AMD is bringing back the BIOS with sub timings and sub dividers for better memory tweaking. Perhaps new revisions run data fabric at 2-3:1 ratio, or uncore from the IMC I don't know and it is not as easy to get anything. I do however believe AMD's lack of concern seems to mirror this, that they knew to begin and they knew how to fix it
 
JustReason said:
Then it isn't a quote, it is just some words you typed in a box, therefore having no relevance or credence on the subject with which you hoped to use it as proof or a subject point. You didn't even state who said it or in what context or time frame it was given.
Click to expand...

It is a quote, but it is not available like a link. I could demonstrate to mods it is a quote, if it was really needed. I couldn't care less about your beliefs.

Moreover, anyone with basic understanding of tech knows that the die-die latency will hurt performance. Companies as IBM, Intel, Sun/Oracle, MACOM, Cavium,... aren't crazy when design huge server dies. They do because know that performance is better.
 
Last edited:
OrangeKhrush said:
It may have been conceived off snowyowl but has been adapted to HEDT, pretty much how intel conceived X socket off recycling server chips. The concept is not new.

From the board development side, it is confirmed and confirmed as a rival to X299 sky/kaby X. I find it exciting, desktop has been in drone mode, shake ups are always good.

As to gaming, i trust AMD were fully aware of revision 1 chips fabric communication latency between CCX's. I can say that AMD is bringing back the BIOS with sub timings and sub dividers for better memory tweaking. Perhaps new revisions run data fabric at 2-3:1 ratio, or uncore from the IMC I don't know and it is not as easy to get anything. I do however believe AMD's lack of concern seems to mirror this, that they knew to begin and they knew how to fix it
Click to expand...

Therefore it is confirmed that this 'new' platform is just the old server platform rebranded for enthusiast desktop because it has miserable failed in the server market even before launch? Interesting...

Reviews have shown RyZen gaming performance is not related to CCX-CCX latency, because the average performance gap between 4+0 or 2+2 is less than 5%. Thus a supposed "fix" that increases IF clocks will improve gaming performance by 2% or so, whereas it would break all thermal/power consumption profiles.

The sad part is that some people will believe in this forthcoming gaming fix, just as believed in the other promised dozen of forthcoming fixes...
 
juanrga said:
Therefore it is confirmed that this 'new' platform is just the old server platform rebranded for enthusiast desktop because it has miserable failed in the server market even before launch? Interesting...

Reviews have shown RyZen gaming performance is not related to CCX-CCX latency, because the average performance gap between 4+0 or 2+2 is less than 5%. Thus a supposed "fix" that increases IF clocks will improve gaming performance by 2% or so, whereas it would break all thermal/power consumption profiles.

The sad part is that some people will believe in this forthcoming gaming fix, just as believed in the other promised dozen of forthcoming fixes...
Click to expand...

Damn dude, you are still going on and on? Do you ever sleep? LOL You keep trying to prove that Ryzen is a flop when this site you are posting on completely disagrees with that assessment. Oh well, enjoy yourself, I know I am with my two new Ryzen computer builds. :D

Oh, and I have not noticed any poor gaming performance with my 1700 and 1700X and have noticed greatly increased performance in everything else, across the board. :)
 
juanrga said:
Therefore it is confirmed that this 'new' platform is just the old server platform rebranded for enthusiast desktop because it has miserable failed in the server market even before launch? Interesting...

Reviews have shown RyZen gaming performance is not related to CCX-CCX latency, because the average performance gap between 4+0 or 2+2 is less than 5%. Thus a supposed "fix" that increases IF clocks will improve gaming performance by 2% or so, whereas it would break all thermal/power consumption profiles.

The sad part is that some people will believe in this forthcoming gaming fix, just as believed in the other promised dozen of forthcoming fixes...
Click to expand...

Yeah that is totally it, another one of lifes mysteries solved
 
OrangeKhrush said:
We are lucky to have a genious in our presents
Click to expand...

Our presents? Are they gift wrapped? ;) I think it is cool that AMD now has something competitive that even non AMD fans are willing to buy. I loved my FX setups but, now someone else is enjoying them and I am a Ryzen fan now. :)
 
Richard at Eurogamer/Digital Foundry did a nice review of the 1800X, just went live today.
At around 12mins he compares Intel and Ryzen both going from 2133MHz clocks to 3000/3200MHz clocks, and the results show game sensitivity rather than data fabric relationship with DDR4 boosting performance.



Anyway nice review and went through quite a few hoops to test various scenarios.
Cheers
 
Last edited:
juanrga said:
https://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2017/03/amd-ryzen-gaming-performance-analysis/

A very good resume of the hype and the facts. It destroys most of incorrect claims have been repeated in forums and even some tech sites. I agree with most, except with a pair of claims like some final guesses about the future of gaming. They look to me like a repetition of what was promised five years back.
Click to expand...
heres my guess, heres a link, heres someone elses tweet, heres a quote that I wont provide a link to. that is all you ever do. do you have any hands on experience or info about anything you talk about?
 
One potential upcoming Microsoft update that may help.
When is the MIcrosoft Gaming Mode expected to launch?
It is meant to change how threads are handled with relation to the cores and target the games threads to cores and keep them there while separating other system/general threads to other cores - to help designers porting from consoles to PC.

Yeah we all forgot about this it seems as in theory would be the ideal solution to help :)
I guess before it launches it now has to be QA against Ryzen so might delay it a bit more, was also bugged back in January.
Cheers
 
CSI_PC said:
One potential upcoming Microsoft update that may help.
When is the MIcrosoft Gaming Mode expected to launch?
It is meant to change how threads are handled with relation to the cores and target the games threads to cores and keep them there while separating other system/general threads to other cores - to help designers porting from consoles to PC.

Yeah we all forgot about this it seems as in theory would be the ideal solution to help :)
I guess before it launches it now has to be QA against Ryzen so might delay it a bit more, was also bugged back in January.
Cheers
Click to expand...
its already active in the insider previews and seems to work fine. some games its helps, some it doesn't seem to do anything.
 
pendragon1 said:
its already active in the insider previews and seems to work fine. some games its helps, some it doesn't seem to do anything.
Click to expand...
Yeah but it is bugged on the Insider preview, Microsoft has mentioned it needs further work.

Has anyone with Insider Preview tested it with Ryzen even with it bugged?
Not seen any articles on the subject beyond some basic preview and with Intel where benefits in this context is limited unlike Ryzen that really needs thread management, but then tech sites may be holding off with Ryzen until Microsoft gives it the all clear from bugs and officially launches it.

Anyway this really needs to be considered with Ryzen as it is the ideal solution if it works as Microsoft intends.
Cheers
 
Last edited:
might need to just create a thread asking about that. it'll probe get lost in here. my experience was with my fx system(that died) and the pos backup system I'm on now.
 
DooKey said:
Looks to me like they got a little bit more performance. Of course it's nothing to brag about.
Click to expand...

A whole 2% on average (about 3% in the best case game) doesn't deserve the time spend on benchmarking the 14 games.

cybereality said:
Not in gaming performance, but the updates have improved other things, like boot times, RAM compatibility, and overall stability.
Click to expand...

Remember the title of this thread; it is about gaming.
 
juanrga said:
A whole 2% on average (about 3% in the best case game) doesn't deserve the time spend on benchmarking the 14 games.



Remember the title of this thread; it is about gaming.
Click to expand...
Actually some bios releases have substantially increased fps in at least open GL supported games. beta bios 1.52 for MSI raISED CINEBENCH 15.038 open GL scores by 16 frames per second from 114.5 fps to 130.8 fps on a Sapphire Radeon Nitro gpu,a card with technology over 2 years old. I consider that noteworthy whether or not it gets the Juanrga seal of approval.
 
Last edited:
juanrga said:
A whole 2% on average (about 3% in the best case game) doesn't deserve the time spend on benchmarking the 14 games.



Remember the title of this thread; it is about gaming.
Click to expand...

But I am sure others are glad he made that comment otherwise we would all think the update didn't fix ANYTHING at all. Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top