wait I get it intel is not going around paying people. But at the end he is saying amd is paying people? WTF? But he is trying to be fair? LOL cool dude but that was a stupid thing to say at the end without any proof. Then he wonders why people are calling him a a hater. He is not but he shouldn't be saying shit like that without any proof to back it up.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Why does Ryzen 7 1800X performs so poorly in games?
- Thread starter _mockingbird
- Start date
wait I get it intel is not going around paying people. But at the end he is saying amd is paying people? WTF? But he is trying to be fair? LOL cool dude but that was a stupid thing to say at the end without any proof. Then he wonders why people are calling him a a hater. He is not but he shouldn't be saying shit like that without any proof to back it up.
AMD's advocate program is just like nV's back in the day with TWIMTBP stuff don't remember the exact name that was used...... they give free hardware to their members that go out and promote AMD pro content. He is not BS'ing I think it was started in 2012 or sometime then. Pretty much I think its Team Red.
https://community.amd.com/community/red-team/blog/2015/07
But Its a normal practice for everyone to promote their product. I am sure intel and nvidia have programs that give you free stuff.
Yes and no, if there are forum members and such, they really should say they are who they are cause guerrilla marketing can be illegal. It needs to be in the open for it not to be illegal. At least that is my understanding of it. Its like soliciting.
And no nV had it long ago and it was found out and they stopped. Intel never had to my knowledge done anything of the sort. But that wasn't the point of the video I was getting at, its the AMD supporters mentality, like the 4k reviews, like the wait and see a few months, like the this review isn't good lets take another which shows AMD in a better light, like the Gamers Nexus, shady tactics in their review. Come on, really, Gamers Nexus could have came down so hard on AMD with Fiji and Polaris, and they didn't, really.
There is no reason for an end user to make excuses for AMD, AMD can do it on there own, they do all their marketing for themselves right? Why are end users giving more marketing to AMD? To any company for that matter? Ok someone wants to talk about the product they just bought, great for them, but don't sit around and make excuses for AMD for a product you just bought and find problems with it. Tell AMD to get off its ass and fix those problems so the product you just bought can be used properly.
So lets say a person comes here and say I have this problem AMD will fix it in a month or two, and it doesn't happen, and another person buys it thinking the information is good it will be fixed. Well now hell we got two peas in a pod right?
Last edited:
I aint making no excuses for amd. I am saying it doens't perform bad across the board in every game. Yea some games it does so only reason I am saying it could be growing pain of a new system. But people are dooming this chip for gaming when its shit load better than their last gen and does more than enough in 1080p gaming, I mean 90 vs 100, 115 vs 125, 80 vs 90 in some games. It doesn't change game play experience really. But people are here dooming this chip.
Is it fair to tell someone to grab a 1000 dollar chip when your eyes wont tell a difference in gaming but it will save you a big chunk when you wanna do everything else.
I was mainly talking about future cpu upgrades. The 1700 is fine for most games aside from some edge cases with 1080p and higher refresh rate monitors. One of the anti ryzen arguments gamernexus pushed heavily was that while ryzen performance at lower resolutions and 1080p might still be fine today, and higher resolutions are more gpu bounded, in the future as gpus get more powerful it might make more of a difference to have a faster cpu in games as the pendulum of bottlenecks swings to the cpu eventually.
My point was that even if that did happen in 2-3 years at higher resolutions, the AM4 or AM4+ (assuming there will be some revision of boards after pci express 4.0 hits) will still be able to house future zen cpu iterations. You do not need to buy a whole new system as often with the AMD launch. Intel might stabilize now that they are sticking with similar process nodes for longer, but you have often had to swap out entire motherboards for a new cpu socket with the next generation of intel cpus. We know AM4 will work with the current ryzen cpus along with the inevitable iterations in 2018/2019/2020. We have been told that AMD is targeting more aggressive improvements from year to year than a mere ~5% like intel has been delivering.
Nothing concrete though, so I get why plenty of intel people will buy the certainty they see before their eyes today.
I never stated its doomed, I just stated its not good for AMD be second fiddle, in the situation they are in, it doesn't help them at all. And the responses from Intel will nullify any potential gains. I have also stated, AMD's marketing screwed up again, which they could have easily avoided. They were the ones that put up a GPU limited scenario of an Intel 6800k against Ryzen and showed it off on stage. Which was a dumb move, at the time of showing that I noticed it was GPU bottlenecked I said there is smoke there, they aren't showing us everything. And now we see it right? They showed Multicore rendering to show off IPC, I stated that isn't IPC, now we see that too. Lets look beyond what AMD is showing us, or feeding people in this case and try to figure out what they don't want us to see.
Expectations != Reality, and when Reality hit expectations were subdued to disappointment.
Now AMD is in repair mode, giving out excuses to the negative press and people are eating it up again, so if these are the excuses what is the reality of the situation?
They could have showed you 1080p games they do well in, so you then thing would have been they didn't show every game? Isn't that true, there are games I can post links to that it does just fine at 1080p then what? They showed off their systems in high end environment, whats the point of showing it in 1080p when you are already getting 90-100 fps.
Who shows off a game at 1080p running titan x? Common that's just stupid.
They have a CPU that competes. People asked they answered, they stay quiet oh they are hiding something. There is no end to it. There is nothing they need to repair.
Master_shake_
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 17,794
why isn't anyone talking about the Joker review from youtube?
the 5ghz 7700k and the 3.9 ghz 1700 are basically identical at 1080p.
the 5ghz 7700k and the 3.9 ghz 1700 are basically identical at 1080p.
ZeroBarrier
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2011
- Messages
- 1,011
Is he running those games at ultra settings pushing the bottleneck onto the GPU? Because is so, that's not what people are discussing here. That's the same scumbag tactic AMD wants reviewers to do.
Unity, Unreal, Frostbite engines will be updated as well as many other popular games engines to support new hardware. The developers using those engines if they go with latest before launch due to better VR support, more hardware support, less bugs, more features, better cpu support . . . Will automatically support RyZen or any other cpu better like Kaby Lake. Each developer is not isolated into a ivory tower in other words. I do not see 4-5 years before major support for new cpu designs.
In cases it could be matter of months for some titles, while they get more improvement as the new architecture is better understood and optimized for. There are a lot of Early access games for example "The Thrill Of The Fight" where the developer is very active on Steam, talking about Unity updates which he automatically puts in the next release etc.
The game developer gives feedback to the game engine developer while the game developer gets feedback from the user in a way more dynamic and more open environment. Even the bigger develope teams are using pre-release titles or trying it to see if useful - I think the consensus is it is great feedback and not sure how it affects the sells good or bad. I guess if the game sucks it will have a rather weak opening day due to being an early access game and it would be known.
Is there any reason AMD recommended relatively low speed ddr4?
There seems to be a decent performance boost with higher speed ram
http://www.eteknix.com/memory-speed-large-impact-ryzen-performance/
Is there any ddr4 ram running at higher than 3200 MHz on these AM4 platforms to see results? Is this a limitation of the AM4 chipset or ryzen or just motherboard compatibility at launch?
There seems to be a decent performance boost with higher speed ram
http://www.eteknix.com/memory-speed-large-impact-ryzen-performance/
Is there any ddr4 ram running at higher than 3200 MHz on these AM4 platforms to see results? Is this a limitation of the AM4 chipset or ryzen or just motherboard compatibility at launch?
cageymaru
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 22,089
Optimizations needed?
Master_shake_
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 17,794
do you believe an overclocked 1080 can be bottle-necked at 1080?
cybereality
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,789
Wow! Somehow I watched Joker's other videos and I missed that one.
It shows Ryzen *extremely* competitive, even with a 1GHz disadvantage on the overclock.
This is the video Intel fans don't want you to see, lol!
It shows Ryzen *extremely* competitive, even with a 1GHz disadvantage on the overclock.
This is the video Intel fans don't want you to see, lol!
Wtf? You think gamers turn down all settings at 1080p? Most reviews had shit at ultra. Why the fuck would you play a low settings with with a 1080 at that point what the hell is the difference if you are at 200fps or 300? If you wanna crank down everything to low?
Again you come out as someone who has nothing to contribute but troll. Why don't you see kyles review? That is truly CPU limited with 200 to 300 frames lol.
They gave no indication at all that it would be chasing the fringe of HFR gamers. It was clear all along that that IPC and Clockspeed were behind Skylake/Kabylake.
So HFR/Epeen gamers, were never going have anything with Ryzen.
If that was the case then why was AMD winning with the better threaded games, The Division and BF1? Then again why would you reduce the settings at all - I sure as hell hope with a 1080 at 1080p it would be tested maxed out settings, even with a 1060. Who in the hell would really play game with crappy settings, fps way beyond monitor refresh rate tearing saying yeah, "I am beating that RyZen cpu!", beat their chest and feel all good about their choices
. That is so utterly stupid it is for me shear entertainment.The results are hinting at for future games, that will naturally be more threaded, as developers get better and more fully use the CPUs - RyZen 8 core cpus will be better over Intel's 4 core ones, because it has way more processing power which will be used more and more in games. Anyone wanting a longer lasting game machine need to take into account that likely possibility.
At 1440p and a 1080, it is clear RyZen is not even remotely limiting yet the 7700K would definitely be limiting on other applications. The better buy for most looks like the Rysen one.
I also think 1080Ti performance needs to be tested at 1440p for a real test of gaming performance as well as at 4K. 1080p for 8 core, top line GPUs testing is just BS, at least for me and is a waste of time to test for and a worthless read.
Some folks say "well if it performs better at 1080p now and future GPUs with way more power comes out later it will be limiting" - That maybe true if everything else stays exactly stagnant - more cores/threads are not used in games, no advancement or updates to any game engine or code, no OS, Bios, Firmware improvements. All of those are very much likely to be improved upon unless we are in WW III or something. It is an inaccurate conclusion and basically a guess at best, which I think is most likely wrong.
Last edited:
Presbytier
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2016
- Messages
- 1,058
They tend to test GPU at 4k because that is a GPU stress test. I will say this we are a long way from more than 4 cores being standard for games. Right now the best buy if you need max gaming performance is the i7 7700k hands down.If that was the case then why was AMD winning with the better threaded games, The Division and BF1? Then again why would you reduce the settings at all - I sure as hell hope with a 1080 at 1080p it would be tested maxed out settings, even with a 1060. Who in the hell would really play game with crappy settings, fps way beyond monitor refresh rate tearing saying yeah, "I am beating that RyZen cpu!", beat their chest and feel all good about their choices
The results are hinting at for future games, that will naturally be more threaded, as developers get better and more fully use the CPUs - RyZen 8 core cpus will be better over Intel's 4 core ones, because it has way more processing power which will be used more and more in games. Anyone wanting a longer lasting game machine need to take into account that likely possibility.
At 1440p and a 1080, it is clear RyZen is not even remotely limiting yet the 7700K would definitely be limiting on other applications. The better buy for most looks like the Rysen one.
I also think 1080Ti performance needs to be tested at 1440p for a real test of gaming performance as well as at 4K. 1080p for 8 core, top line GPUs testing is just BS, at least for me and is a waste of time to test for and a worthless read.
Some folks say "well if it performs better at 1080p now and future GPUs with way more power comes out later it will be limiting" - That maybe true if everything else stays exactly stagnant - more cores/threads are not used in games, no advancement or updates to any game engine or code, no OS, Bios, Firmware improvements. All of those are very much likely to be improved upon unless we are in WW III or something. It is an inaccurate conclusion and basically a guess at best, which I think is most likely wrong.
Master_shake_
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 17,794
you're wrong but it's not your fault.
you were lead to believe, like so many that hyperthreading means something in gaming.... it doesn't
so save the 100 dollars and get a 7600k..
BF1 and core loading paints a different picture
Well buster, Asus has a new bios for the ROG Crosshair VI Hero board. It is highly recommended for improvement of stability and memory issues. Bios 5803. See the hotlink on ASus ROG community forums under ROG components motherboards Crosshair VI. www.rog.asus.com
I just saw Jokers video. I am really thinking could this thing is about difference in motherboards? Some boards having better bios and better core utilization?
He pretty much had decent performance across the board compared to 5ghz 7700k with Ryzen running at 3.9.
Reviewer at PcGamer also said in review that he was told by another reviewer or something that gigabyte board was getting better performance.
He pretty much had decent performance across the board compared to 5ghz 7700k with Ryzen running at 3.9.
Reviewer at PcGamer also said in review that he was told by another reviewer or something that gigabyte board was getting better performance.
In 2 years time 4K monitors will be mainstream. You are a vision of a fading past, sort of like Strom Thurmond trying to fillibuster against civil rights in 1964. Its a losing battle you are fighting a rear guard action. 720 P is a joke to be fighting over when everyone has a 1080P monitor and all video cards support 1080P now. Pick real battles over real issues not BS. By the way the only reason zRyzen did not excell in Shes of Singularity is they updated the game recently and the old otimizations no longer worked. I own the game. Brad Wardell is an old os/2 programmer and he loves adding multithreading and multicore support into his games. I a weeks time Ashes of Singularity will show Ryzen kicking ass on the 6900k like it did at AMD demos a month ago. That is only the tip of the iceberg. Change is coming in gaming and those of you who can't see past your noses will be left behind.
Presbytier
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2016
- Messages
- 1,058
In the handful of games that scale well it makes a big difference. Check out games like Witcher 3. I would agree though that for most people the i5 is probably a better buy.
Presbytier
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2016
- Messages
- 1,058
I think you are going into luneyville with that allegory. I never argued for 720p so don't know where that came from and 4k won't be mainstream till mid level cards can do 4k at 60fps on high settings. We are seeing more of a shift to 1440 and I will go 1440 once you can get high refresh rates more reliably.
That'll be awesome for the 200 or so people who play the game on average. Just wish it would apply to games that more people play.
There's a substantial improvement in a lot of recent games between a 7700K and 7600K:
Because programmers and the newer developer members are getting better at threading and using more cores. That should tell folks something where before the I5 was faster than the I7s in games now that is not the case. Tomorrow games and even some now shows that even 4 cores even if HT can be more limiting. I would not recommend an I5 for a new gaming rig unless mid to low end. I7s are very good and I think 8 core processors or even 6 core ones will be much more future proof.
My only conclusion is it is a pretty big fucking improvment over my FX 9590 rigPositive Spin Alert:
Really? Most of that graph is true lol. It's little slower in games so what. 128 vs 138 frames at 1080p doesn't mean it destroys game play.Positive Spin Alert:
Like what. Zen sucks? Only you think that cuz you hate amd. One could show you most benches you would ignore it. Then you will say wait but it gets 100 frames and Intel gets 110. Which is true but it kicks ass every where else and makes Intel $1000 dollar chip look like shit.
But wait for you its bulldozer again. Keep living with your alternate facts.
ZeroBarrier
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2011
- Messages
- 1,011
If you are asking if the GPU can be the bottle neck at 1080p instead of the CPU. Depends on the GPU used, game settings used; but yes, it is absolutely possible to make the GPU be the bottleneck at 1080p.
It still hasn't sunk in hasn't it? The difference between CPU bottleneck and GPU bottleneck... Read Kyle's review again, about 20 more times until it sinks in.
If that was the case then why was AMD winning with the better threaded games, The Division and BF1? Then again why would you reduce the settings at all - I sure as hell hope with a 1080 at 1080p it would be tested maxed out settings, even with a 1060. Who in the hell would really play game with crappy settings, fps way beyond monitor refresh rate tearing saying yeah, "I am beating that RyZen cpu!", beat their chest and feel all good about their choices
The results are hinting at for future games, that will naturally be more threaded, as developers get better and more fully use the CPUs - RyZen 8 core cpus will be better over Intel's 4 core ones, because it has way more processing power which will be used more and more in games. Anyone wanting a longer lasting game machine need to take into account that likely possibility.
At 1440p and a 1080, it is clear RyZen is not even remotely limiting yet the 7700K would definitely be limiting on other applications. The better buy for most looks like the Rysen one.
I also think 1080Ti performance needs to be tested at 1440p for a real test of gaming performance as well as at 4K. 1080p for 8 core, top line GPUs testing is just BS, at least for me and is a waste of time to test for and a worthless read.
Some folks say "well if it performs better at 1080p now and future GPUs with way more power comes out later it will be limiting" - That maybe true if everything else stays exactly stagnant - more cores/threads are not used in games, no advancement or updates to any game engine or code, no OS, Bios, Firmware improvements. All of those are very much likely to be improved upon unless we are in WW III or something. It is an inaccurate conclusion and basically a guess at best, which I think is most likely wrong.
Did you just seriously ask why an 8C/16T chip beats a 4C/8T chip at a game that is more heavily threaded than the majority of other games? You seriously can't comprehend why that is?!?!?
Nope. Games of the future will most likely be more core/thread orientated => RyZen 8 core cpu's maybe more future proof or will perform better over time. Good Beer.
ZeroBarrier
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2011
- Messages
- 1,011
We've been hearing that same rhetoric since 2011. We're still waiting.
+1
I honestly dont understand those folks who expect it to work 100% accurate out of the box at day ONE.
Everybody with some funded PC experience knew that new Bios's will need to be issued to fix childhood problems and that some hardware will cause trouble and many findings will emerge, good and bad ones.
HT..and Intel..oh boy..that was a BIG FU%%inG MESS back then with BF1942 and HT being introduced. Whenever the CPU went to HT the game server had hiccups. It's not that AMD created that problem and is the only obe who ever had it. It's been here 10 years ago ( or was it 15 already LOL ).
Wait, let them work on UEFI and drivers and by summer we will have a totally different landscape, that is my belief.
I honestly dont understand those folks who expect it to work 100% accurate out of the box at day ONE.
Everybody with some funded PC experience knew that new Bios's will need to be issued to fix childhood problems and that some hardware will cause trouble and many findings will emerge, good and bad ones.
HT..and Intel..oh boy..that was a BIG FU%%inG MESS back then with BF1942 and HT being introduced. Whenever the CPU went to HT the game server had hiccups. It's not that AMD created that problem and is the only obe who ever had it. It's been here 10 years ago ( or was it 15 already LOL ).
Wait, let them work on UEFI and drivers and by summer we will have a totally different landscape, that is my belief.
Speculation on your part. 8-core x86 systems have been a mainstream widely adopted dev target for more than four years now and we're still not in a situation where games run better with a larger amount of slower cores.
We've been here before too. Are you better off with a 3.0 GHz Athlon 62 X2 or 2.0 GHz quad-core Phenom? Or how about a Core 2 Duo 3.2 GHz (overclocked to whatever those overclocked to, I didn't have an Intel chip until Haswell and didn't keep up) versus a slower Core 2 Quad (that I don't think in general overclocked as well)? The Phenom was kind of a bad chip, so it's not a great example, but I'm pretty sure people had a good experience overclocking the dual-core Core 2s and gaming on them in their prime even though the quads ended up having more longevity.
Anyway, for gaming I'm eager to see how the 4 and 6 core variants stack up. Between the lower price points and potentially higher overclock speeds it could be interesting. Is there an option in the Zen motherboards to disable half the cores and leave SMT on? that's not something a person buying a $500 eight-core chip would do, but I'd be interested to see the results.