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

[razor1]

Ya you don't understand slang,.

 

[ecmaster76]

If Ryzen is consistently faster than Intel in "GPU bound" benchmarks then that is a very relevant result. I would like to see more tests done for higher resolutions. If it somehow, which some benches suggest, itallows GPUs to run more efficiently that is something that would influence a lot of purchases.

On the other hand if it is slower than Intel in "GPU bound" benchmarks that equally counts against it and would dissuade purchases. But we wont know until more testing is done. Preferably real world testing and not canned benches.

I agree that the low rez results are surprisingly slow in some cases and point toward issues but its not the whole story either.

Looking forward to less rushed follow up reviews

 

[razor1]

If Ryzen is consistently faster than Intel in "GPU bound" benchmarks then that is a very relevant result. I would like to see more tests done for higher resolutions. If it somehow, which some benches suggest, itallows GPUs to run more efficiently that is something that would influence a lot of purchases.

On the other hand if it is slower than Intel in "GPU bound" benchmarks that equally counts against it and would dissuade purchases. But we wont know until more testing is done. Preferably real world testing and not canned benches.

I agree that the low rez results are surprisingly slow in some cases and point toward issues but its not the whole story either.

Looking forward to less rushed follow up reviews

4k benchmarks right?

http://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-1700-benchmarks-and-review?page=8

what useful information can we glimmer form these

So a 6900k which usually looses out to a 7700k beats out all Ryzens marginally or ties. Is it not the same thing as if we looked at a cpu limited res?

 

[Presbytier]

If Ryzen is consistently faster than Intel in "GPU bound" benchmarks then that is a very relevant result. I would like to see more tests done for higher resolutions. If it somehow, which some benches suggest, itallows GPUs to run more efficiently that is something that would influence a lot of purchases.

On the other hand if it is slower than Intel in "GPU bound" benchmarks that equally counts against it and would dissuade purchases. But we wont know until more testing is done. Preferably real world testing and not canned benches.

I agree that the low rez results are surprisingly slow in some cases and point toward issues but its not the whole story either.

Looking forward to less rushed follow up reviews

If you want real world go buy one lol. Everybodies real world could be vastly different. THere is a general consensus amongst reviewrs if gaming is your primary concern go intel for now.

 

[Master_shake_]

4k benchmarks right?

http://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-1700-benchmarks-and-review?page=8

what useful information can we glimmer form these

So a 6900k which usually looses out to a 7700k beats out all Ryzens. Is it not the same thing as if we looked at a cpu limited res?

that saving 600 dollars V a 6900k and getting similar performance at 4k and get all the extra compute power is a better deal than spilling out for a 7700k with less compute power and more fps or a 6900k with more compute power and slightly more FPS.

so get the best of both worlds or one or the other.

because all computers are for gaming or production NOT BOTH.

 

[Presbytier]

that saving 600 dollars V a 6900k and getting similar performance at 4k and get all the extra compute power is a better deal than spilling out for a 7700k with less compute power and more fps or a 6900k with more compute power and slightly more FPS.

so get the best of both worlds or one or the other.

because all computers are for gaming or production NOT BOTH.

Again i think everyone recognizes you have to buy based on needs. If compute is a primary need those should be the benchmarks you are looking at if it is gaming then look at gaming benchmarks if you need both look at both and figure oput where you want to sacrafice, pretty easy

 

[razor1]

that saving 600 dollars V a 6900k and getting similar performance at 4k and get all the extra compute power is a better deal than spilling out for a 7700k with less compute power and more fps or a 6900k with more compute power and slightly more FPS.

so get the best of both worlds or one or the other.

because all computers are for gaming or production NOT BOTH.

What CPU do you have?

I have a left over 3770k, I'll trade it for your new Ryzen, since it won't make a difference at 4k for ya. Ok fair deal?

Not everyone is doing production work at home, so how about those people?

Not everyone is a gamer, how about those people?

 

[ecmaster76]

If you want real world go buy one lol. Everybodies real world could be vastly different. THere is a general consensus amongst reviewrs if gaming is your primary concern go intel for now.

I did but I don't have a Titan or a 4K screen (yet)
I'll settle for [H]'s real world testing.

 

[Master_shake_]

What CPU do you have?

I have a left over 3790k, I'll trade it for your new Ryzen, since it won't make a difference at 4k for ya. Ok fair deal?

you have a cpu that doesn't exist?

that's pretty cool. and rare. worth much more than my 4790k.

 

[razor1]

you have a cpu that doesn't exist?

that's pretty cool. and rare. worth much more than my 4790k.

Typo 3770k fixed now.

Come on lets trade, I'm excited now, I can trade up for quadruple the horsepower. Lets do it, its a great deal.


So no Ryzen, you didn't get it yet?

if you are getting let me know, we will trade right?

 

[Presbytier]

I did but I don't have a Titan or a 4K screen (yet)
I'll settle for [H]'s real world testing.

Who's real world testing? Everyone is going to have different real world needs that is why there are multiple reviews.

 

[Master_shake_]

Typo 3770k fixed now.

Come on lets trade, I'm excited now, I can trade up for quadruple the horsepower. Lets do it, its a great deal.

did you miss when i said this?

that saving 600 dollars V a 6900k and getting similar performance at 4k and get all the extra compute power is a better deal than spilling out for a 7700k with less compute power and more fps or a 6900k with more compute power and slightly more FPS.

so by buying a ryzen cpu you get both not just one or the other

also

the amd looks smoother with lower peaks.

 

[razor1]

did you miss when i said this?



so by buying a ryzen cpu you get both not just one or the other

also

the amd looks smoother with lower peaks.

You can get both but if a person doesn't need both its NOT WORTH THE MONEY, or if people already have Ivy bridge processors, the extra cores aren't going to do them any good unless they need it from productivity work in 3d, video, photo or audio editing or things like that, which if they are doing that for work, where money is involved they probably already have a better system than a 4 core one, and they don't need to worry about any quirks with a new platform.

The average person upgrades their systems 4.5 years, 4.5 years ago is when Sandy bridge/ Ivy Bridge released.

So what AMD has is a bunch of AMD diehards that stuck with their old systems that are no likely to upgrade.

These are not machines for pro people that use their machines for money, not yet, not till they are tested and proven that the quirks won't screw around their work.

yes Ryzen is smoother in Hitman, but then Ryzen is down all the time in AOTS 4k right? In all settings actually.

Does your 4k tell you what you need to know, Ryzen is still slower than Intel counter parts. Now with the 1080p and the 4k side by side, we can see the difference is huge.

So for a gamer that is looking for a top end CPU, Ryzen, and looking for it for the next 4 years, that is 2 to 3 gens of graphics cards. Guess what they will also know that if they get top end graphics cards, Ryzen is going to be a problem for them its going to stop them from getting more then they can if they went for Intel. It might cost them more in the short term but over that period of time, its something they don't need to worry about.

 

[ecmaster76]

Who's real world testing? Everyone is going to have different real world needs that is why there are multiple reviews.

Like I said I'll settle for [H]. All we have now are some canned benches `cause Kyle was out of town. I will continue to read other reviews too.

 

[Master_shake_]

You can get both but if a person doesn't need both its NOT WORTH THE MONEY, or if people already have Ivy bridge processors, the extra cores aren't going to do them any good unless they need it from productivity work in 3d, video, photo or audio editing or things like that, which if they are doing that for work, where money is involved they probably already have a better system than a 4 core one, and they don't need to worry about any quirks with a new platform

in this day of everyone and their mother streaming online or posting on youtube or whatever, then a quad core isn't going to be enough for much longer. intel knows this and that is why coffeelake(?) is going to be 6 cores.

and to move to the HEDT range you need to spend a minimum of 430 dollars plus whatever crazy price 2011-3 boards are.

and 2011-3 is a dead end right now. there is no refresh or future cpu's supported same with 1151.

AM4 has a future like every single AMD platform as of late.

quirks? you mean like every single platform ever made? they all have weird little issues.

 

[razor1]

https://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu-review/11/

here are some more for ya.

Everyone should sell off their CPU's off higher than a FX 8370 if they are 4k gaming they don't need them.

 

[razor1]

in this day of everyone and their mother streaming online or posting on youtube or whatever, then a quad core isn't going to be enough for much longer. intel knows this and that is why coffeelake(?) is going to be 6 cores.

and to move to the HEDT range you need to spend a minimum of 430 dollars plus whatever crazy price 2011-3 boards are.

and 2011-3 is a dead end right now. there is no refresh or future cpu's supported same with 1151.

AM4 has a future like every single AMD platform as of late.

quirks? you mean like every single platform ever made? they all have weird little issues.

Lets say I needed to get a project file done in Maya or Max and my computer goes on the fritz, you think NBC the company I work for cares? They will tell me first thing, why the fuck am I'm doing on my home comp, ok np, get your ass into the office and finish it up. You think if i don't do any work and then come into the office the next day when there is a deadline and give the excuse that my computer broke down will work?

Yeah everyone and their mom are creating youtube videos, you think so?

No they are not, nothing that would need such a computer like 8 cores. They are doing small things, which can be done on their current 4 core systems, they leave their computer on and let it go anyways. Is it a big deal they save what a few minutes when they do things like that? Oh lets spend 1.5k or 1k to save a few minutes. I'm in entertainment so we do follow these types of things cause it really affects us when things change like this, personally I know one person that does it regularly, but that is her side business outside of work.

Coffee lake 6 core was in the work since sometime like 2 years ago, this has nothing to do with youtube or streaming videos. How many people do you know that stream to youtube personally? How about upload? What are they streaming or uploading how big are they?

 

[Master_shake_]

https://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu-review/11/

here are some more for ya.

Everyone should sell off their CPU's off higher than a FX 8370 if they are 4k gaming they don't need them.

cool so with the investment of 500ish dollars i can get 1700 dollars of performance like a 6950x at 4k and more compute power of a 7700k too.

thanks for those graphs.

also the AM4 platform has a future!

 

[razor1]

cool so with the investment of 500ish dollars i can get 1700 dollars of performance like a 6950x at 4k and more compute power of a 7700k too.

thanks for those graphs.

also the AM4 platform has a future!

well you sit here and complain about 4k reviews, but you didn't look for them?

So you are uniformed that they are out there, yet you sit here and complain that no one did them?

What does that make you?

 

[Master_shake_]

well you sit here and complain about 4k reviews, but you didn't look for them?

i did actually.

i found 1440p though.

did you see this part?

You are unlikely to notice any difference in performance between Ryzen 7 1800X and competing Intel processors when playing The Witcher 3 at 4K. The Titan X Pascal is hammering along at 99% load and Ryzen 7 1800X does not do anything to limit that.

There are also plenty of CPU cycles spare with the 1800X, allowing you to conduct other tasks in the background without significant slow down to the game.

so i could run a plex server game server encode video on the fly and game and record at the same time

what a piece of GARBAGE!

 

[razor1]

i did actually.

i found 1440p though.

look google, its your friend, type in 4k, ryzen review, I can probably get 2 or 3 more.

 

[Master_shake_]

look google, its your friend, type in 4k, ryzen review, I can probably get 2 or 3 more.

please if you could.

 

[razor1]

gotta go have dinner not hard to do, there were 5 or 6 of them that pulled up.

 

[evilpaul]

We need a grown up!?!?

 

[sirmonkey1985]

in this day of everyone and their mother streaming online or posting on youtube or whatever, then a quad core isn't going to be enough for much longer. intel knows this and that is why coffeelake(?) is going to be 6 cores.

and to move to the HEDT range you need to spend a minimum of 430 dollars plus whatever crazy price 2011-3 boards are.

and 2011-3 is a dead end right now. there is no refresh or future cpu's supported same with 1151.

AM4 has a future like every single AMD platform as of late.

quirks? you mean like every single platform ever made? they all have weird little issues.

it's more along the lines of intel has hit the barrier on per core performance with their architecture which is noticable with the poor gains from sandybridge to kabylake 5 generations of processors over 7 years and they've gained about 20% in performance. so how do you make a cpu that 1. has better performance than the previous gen and 2. can be marketed as an upgrade to those that use them? add more cores.. that's coffeelake in a nutshell, it doesn't have anything to do with streaming or youtube.

 

[Presbytier]

it's more along the lines of intel has hit the barrier on per core performance with their architecture which is noticable with the poor gains from sandybridge to kabylake 5 generations of processors over 7 years and they've gained about 20% in performance. so how do you make a cpu that 1. has better performance than the previous gen and 2. can be marketed as an upgrade to those that use them? add more cores.. that's coffeelake in a nutshell, it doesn't have anything to do with streaming or youtube.

What I am curious is will it have the same single threaded performance as Kaby and relatively similar clock speeds that would be a beast of a chip.

 

[Snowdog]

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

I was expecting it to be able to keep up with the Intel Core i7-6900K.

How about because it doesn't perform poorly in games. It scores a bit lower on some benchmarks, but it is questionable whether that has any impact on ACTUAL Gaming.

There may be a very small number of games where there is an actual impact.

Though unfortunately, it does have a notable impact on one of the most popular games on [H]Forum: Bragging about your benchmarks.

If that's your favorite game, I can see how you wouldn't be able to handle the shrinkage of your e-peen.

 

[Presbytier]

How about because it doesn't perform poorly in games. It scores a bit lower on some benchmarks, but it is questionable whether that has any impact on ACTUAL Gaming.

There may be a very small number of games where there is an actual impact.

Though unfortunately, it does have a notable impact on one of the most popular games on [H]Forum: Bragging about your benchmarks.

If that's your favorite game, I can see how you wouldn't be able to handle the shrinkage of your e-peen.

Kind of, but there is a user set that these CPU are not great for high refresh rate gaming. That has become pretty important for a decent subset of gamers. Now we shouldn't necessarily make out that Ryzen is a disaster, but they made it sound like Ryzen would be a powerhouse gaming CPU and it definitely suffers from some weird issues.

 

[NKD]

You can get both but if a person doesn't need both its NOT WORTH THE MONEY, or if people already have Ivy bridge processors, the extra cores aren't going to do them any good unless they need it from productivity work in 3d, video, photo or audio editing or things like that, which if they are doing that for work, where money is involved they probably already have a better system than a 4 core one, and they don't need to worry about any quirks with a new platform.

The average person upgrades their systems 4.5 years, 4.5 years ago is when Sandy bridge/ Ivy Bridge released.

So what AMD has is a bunch of AMD diehards that stuck with their old systems that are no likely to upgrade.

These are not machines for pro people that use their machines for money, not yet, not till they are tested and proven that the quirks won't screw around their work.

yes Ryzen is smoother in Hitman, but then Ryzen is down all the time in AOTS 4k right? In all settings actually.

Does your 4k tell you what you need to know, Ryzen is still slower than Intel counter parts. Now with the 1080p and the 4k side by side, we can see the difference is huge.

So for a gamer that is looking for a top end CPU, Ryzen, and looking for it for the next 4 years, that is 2 to 3 gens of graphics cards. Guess what they will also know that if they get top end graphics cards, Ryzen is going to be a problem for them its going to stop them from getting more then they can if they went for Intel. It might cost them more in the short term but over that period of time, its something they don't need to worry about.

You are trying way too damn hard. Ryzen is not as bad as your long essays try to prove it to be? You telling me game quality stays the same nex 3 to 4 years and they are less demanding? Seriously tired of this thing about ryzen is going to be slower in the long run. People know the future? Why doesn't gtx 1080 give you 60+ fps in every game at 4k now? Becuase games are more demanding. That will stay that way lol.

Ryzen is still slower than intel counterparts at 4k? By what half a frame? Jeez, you all need to get a life about this back and forth.

Plus looks like AMD has a smoother overall frame time in those games you posted.

 

[polonyc2]

why does it perform poorly in games?...it's just AMD being AMD

Intel's next line is really called Coffee Lake?!...strange name...almost sounds like coffee cake

 

[razor1]

You are trying way too damn hard. Ryzen is not as bad as your long essays try to prove it to be? You telling me game quality stays the same nex 3 to 4 years and they are less demanding? Seriously tired of this thing about ryzen is going to be slower in the long run. People know the future? Why doesn't gtx 1080 give you 60+ fps in every game at 4k now? Becuase games are more demanding. That will stay that way lol.

Ryzen is still slower than intel counterparts at 4k? By what half a frame? Jeez, you all need to get a life about this back and forth.

And your short shortsightedness of how games are developed based on the target market of those games are getting tiresome too. This isn't the first time or the second time or the third time you can't put economics and business with the possibility of what will happen. Do I have to spell it out for you AGAIN? Ok here you go.

Games take longer to create, it takes 4 to 5 years to make a game, when the hardware is available to the masses. So now if AMD's more core CPU's start becoming the norm, the developers will start creating software to take advantage of that.

What you think developers will just start making games only to take care of more than 4 cores because Ryzen has what 5 % of the market? 10% or 15% or 18%? What about the rest of the market the 80%?

 

[N4CR]

I have a feeling that there's a flaw in Zen microarchitecture and that's why it performs so poorly in games.

It's not a fatal one unlike the one in Bulldozer.

AMD knows what it is, but it won't be corrected until Zen+, or possibly as early as Raven Ridge.

In fact, the reason that quad-core Ryzen won't be release until H2 2017 is probably because it will be based on Raven Ridge.

Until then, AMD will make BS excuses such as: games haven't been optimized for Ryzen yet.

If you're right then we wouldn't see it beating the intel 6969 whatever the fuck it is in SMT loads and non gaming loads.
It's a compiler issue. The damn CEO herself wouldn't say so hours after it's discovered if they were not sure.

 

[NKD]

why does it perform poorly in games?...it's just AMD being AMD

Got anything nice to add to conversation or you got to 12k posts just trolling? lol

 

[razor1]

If you're right then we wouldn't see it beating the intel 6969 whatever the fuck it is in SMT loads and non gaming loads.
It's a compiler issue. The damn CEO herself wouldn't say so hours after it's discovered if they were not sure.

Hollock stated Steve from Gamer's Nexus, the IPC and clock frequency disparity from Kaby Lake so the 6-7% IPC difference and the 12% clock speed, if everything is working fine those two %'s together is the difference you should see in games with the x1800x vs the 7700k.

So 20% ish difference? Max with everything working well......

 

[N4CR]

I personally don't put any weight into "it needs to be optimized" or "will get better with time" crap. I base my decisions on reality - here and now. Right now I'd go with Intel.

Good to see AMD is within a stone's throw though.

So when Nvidia didn't have W10 drivers working, you'd go for AMD? I'm sure you would. Not.

 

[N4CR]

Hollock stated Steve from Gamer's Nexus, the IPC and clock frequency disparity from Kaby Lake so the 6-7% IPC difference and the 12% clock speed, if everything is working fine those two %'s together is the difference you should see in games with the x1800x vs the 7700k.

So 20% ish difference? Max with everything working well......

All fair points but that 20% difference is nowhere near as close under SMT or it'd be beaten by the 69xx every time in non gaming loads. I'm holding off until the dust settles.

 

[razor1]

All fair points but that 20% difference is nowhere near as close under SMT or it'd be beaten by the 69xx every time in non gaming loads. I'm holding off until the dust settles.

Good point, i haven't gone through the raw numbers but yep I think you are right.

 

[NKD]

And your short shortsightedness of how games are developed based on the target market of those games are getting tiresome too. This isn't the first time or the second time or the third time you can't put economics and business with the possibility of what will happen. Do I have to spell it out for you AGAIN? Ok here you go.

Games take longer to create, it takes 4 to 5 years to make a game, when the hardware is available to the masses. So now if AMD's more core CPU's start becoming the norm, the developers will start creating software to take advantage of that.

What you think developers will just start making games only to take care of more than 4 cores because Ryzen has what 5 % of the market? 10% or 15% or 18%? What about the rest of the market the 80%?

Ryzen performs fine with the cores it has. 6900k at 3.2 is keeping up with 7700k running at 4.2. Why is that? Because intel has been been top dog for so long. It is absolutely true games are primarily optimized for intel, hence the reason I have intel. Its not rocket science that intel has a strong grip on the gaming market. That is exactly what I am saying, Intel has been the norm for go to gaming rig for a while. Looks like games are taking advantage of intel CPUs when you look at some of the benches. If it was only 4 cores being used 6900k wouldn't be able to give the same framerates as 7700k I believe. So yes AMD has to get as many ryzen systems out there and in to developers hands and actually be involved.

I doubt anyone even took a free bulldozer system or anything. They probably put it aside and kicked it or used it to rest their legs on it.

 

[razor1]

If anyone has a problem with what I'm saying watch this video

 

[razor1]

Ryzen performs fine with the cores it has. 6900k at 3.2 is keeping up with 7700k running at 4.2. Why is that? Because intel has been been top dog for so long. It is absolutely true games are primarily optimized for intel, hence the reason I have intel. Its not rocket science that intel has a strong grip on the gaming market. That is exactly what I am saying, Intel has been the norm for go to gaming rig for a while. Looks like games are taking advantage of intel CPUs when you look at some of the benches. If it was only 4 cores being used 6900k wouldn't be able to give the same framerates as 7700k I believe. So yes AMD has to get as many ryzen systems out there and in to developers hands and actually be involved.

I doubt anyone even took a free bulldozer system or anything. They probably put it aside and kicked it or used it to rest their legs on it.

And that isn't going to change any time soon man, you can't expect it to automatically happen in a few weeks or a month to fix the software side of things.

Develoeprs aren't going to care if they have the systems, they need to see it as an investment for them to spend time and money to get that other 18% of AMD system buyers. So if the cost of doing the optimizations isn't worth that 18% of the market, or how ever much it is, then its not worth doing.