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

[razor1]

Welcome to Razor1 and Shintai. The Anti AMD guys who try to close threads. I brought this up numerous times to people. Do not play into their game. They do this purpose.

If it isn't Nvidia/Intel it sucks to them. No matter how much you prove them wrong.

Reality is, you and other in this thread can't respond to the reality of the situation, AMD is behind and will stay behind for the foreseeable future, and this is why they didn't give out forecasts for future Q reports, they were unsure about the uptake of Ryzen. And now we see why.

Things don't happen in a black box and when there is uncertainty in those Q reports, that isn't smoke that is FIRE, cause there is something there that stops them from understanding the possible future even when they have know what their current place in the marketplace is and where they wish to be.

Back on point. I think that maybe a windows update would fix some of the issues, but it honestly looks like it might be more hardware based issue than software.

Maybe a Bios update will help fix stuff as well? I am shocked to see Ryzen do so poorly in games. So AMD still has some work to do.

Looks like I will be hanging on to this Xeon a bit longer.

Nope only part of the problems, like the memory speeds

The latency of the CCX and data being partitioned based on that or not being done right now and causing this issue, no, its that easy of fix as you suggest.

 

[legcramp]

Reality is, you and other in this thread can't respond to the reality of the situation, AMD is behind and will stay behind for the foreseeable future, and this is why they didn't give out forecasts for future Q reports, they were unsure about the uptake of Ryzen. And now we see why.

Things don't happen in a black box and when there is uncertainty in those Q reports, that isn't smoke that is FIRE, cause there is something there that stops them from understanding the possible future even when they have know what their current place in the marketplace is and where they wish to be.



Nope only part of the problems, like the memory speeds

The latency of the CCX and data being partitioned based on that or not being done right now and causing this issue, no, its that easy of fix as you suggest.

Cool story bro tell us more.

 

[razor1]

Cool story bro tell us more.

That's not a story, have you ever seen any Q call when they don't forecast next quarter's financials (any company)? Even if its vague with a large swing everyone does. Actually I can only think of one in recent times which was about 6 months after Google went public, they were all over the map and at that point their stock price got hit hard, the next Q call they were all buttoned up.

 

[legcramp]

Gaming performance looks good at 1080p in the tech power up review with a couple quirks which can be patched up.

Can't say I am disappointed much if anymore seeing those results along with the great processing power for everything else.

Overclocking on the other hand for the X skus..

 

[razor1]

Haven't see techpowerup's? can't seem to find it either. Have a link?

Also this is there on their site,

https://www.techpowerup.com/231268/...yzed-improvements-improveable-ccx-compromises

The problem is revealed through an increasing work size. In the case of the 6900K, which has a 32 KB L1 cache, performance is greatest until that workload size. Higher-sized workloads that don't fit on the L1 cache then "spill" towards the 6900K's 256 KB L2 cache; workloads higher than 256 KB and lower than 16 MB are then submitted to the 6900 K's 20 MB L3 cache, with any workloads larger than 16 MB then forcing the processor to access the main system memory, with increasing latency in access times until it reaches the RAM's ~70 ns access times.

However, on AMD's Ryzen 1800X, latency times are a wholly different beast. Everything is fine in the L1 and L2 caches (32 KB and 512 KB, respectively). However, when moving towards the 1800X's 16 MB L3 cache, the behavior is completely different. Up to 4 MB cache utilization, we see an expected increase in latency; however, latency goes through the roof way before the chip's 16 MB of L3 cache is completely filled. This clearly derives from AMD's Ryzen modularity, with each CCX complex (made up of 4 cores and 8 MB L3 cache, besides all the other duplicated logic) being able to access only 8 MB of L3 cache at any point in time.

AMD's Zen architecture is surely an interesting beast, and these kinds of results really go to show the amount of work, of give-and-take design that AMD had to go through in order to achieve a cost-effective, scalable, and at the same time performant architecture through its CCX modules. However, this kind of behavior may even go so far as to give us some answers with regards to Ryzen's lower than expected gaming performance, since games are well-known to be sensitive to a processor's cache performance profile.

AMD's L3 cache latency is 2.5 times that of Intel and its worse than BD's as well. Only option is to get around this problem in current games, is either rework entire engines/games to make sure inter CCX communication is minimized or eliminated or completely shut off one of the CCX's when going into exclusive mode.

Now this is why I've been saying its not going to be an easy fix.

 

[Gideon]

Haven't see techpowerup's? can't seem to find it either. Have a link?

Also this is there on their site,

https://www.techpowerup.com/231268/...yzed-improvements-improveable-ccx-compromises





AMD's L3 cache latency is 2.5 times that of Intel and its worse than BD's as well. Only option is to get around this problem in current games, is either rework entire engines/games to make sure inter CCX communication is minimized or eliminated or completely shut off one of the CCX's when going into exclusive mode.

Now this is why I've been saying its not going to be an easy fix.

Or you can just shove faster ram into it. Seems to help quite a bit at 1080p http://www.legitreviews.com/ddr4-me...latform-best-memory-kit-amd-ryzen-cpus_192259

 

[Curl]

Reality is, you and other in this thread can't respond to the reality of the situation, AMD is behind and will stay behind for the foreseeable future, and this is why they didn't give out forecasts for future Q reports, they were unsure about the uptake of Ryzen. And now we see why.

Things don't happen in a black box and when there is uncertainty in those Q reports, that isn't smoke that is FIRE, cause there is something there that stops them from understanding the possible future even when they have know what their current place in the marketplace is and where they wish to be.



Nope only part of the problems, like the memory speeds

The latency of the CCX and data being partitioned based on that or not being done right now and causing this issue, no, its that easy of fix as you suggest.

Can't take it anymore, welcome to my ignore list...

 

[razor1]

Or you can just shove faster ram into it. Seems to help quite a bit at 1080p http://www.legitreviews.com/ddr4-me...latform-best-memory-kit-amd-ryzen-cpus_192259

That won't remove this problem. The L3 cache latency tests are done without going to the Ram, accessing Ram through the L3, the latency will get even more and that is what we already have been seeing with the slower ram reviews. That specific problem will only solve a part of it.

Think of it like this,

We have a series of dams, each dam gets bigger as you go down the river, so as you release flood gates, you only get a certain amount of water till you hit the last dam and it has not flood gates.

 

[Presbytier]

Or you can just shove faster ram into it. Seems to help quite a bit at 1080p http://www.legitreviews.com/ddr4-me...latform-best-memory-kit-amd-ryzen-cpus_192259

Faster RAM helps but it also helps Intel chips as well, so the performance disparity still exists.

 

[Gideon]

Well Deus Ex game says otherwise. It got a nice bump in performance. How do you explain that? Personally I think your just guessing, seems like the chip just needs some more bandwidth and likely a tweak or two in the scheduler and it will be doing pretty darn good from what i have seen with higher speed memory in.

 

[Gideon]

Faster RAM helps but it also helps Intel chips as well, so the performance disparity still exists.

Well yeah it's IPC is not the same, your not going to fix that, point is it responds well to increased bandwidth. So Intel has no advantage there.

 

[razor1]

Well Deus Ex game says otherwise. It got a nice bump in performance. How do you explain that? Personally I think your just guessing, seems like the chip just needs some more bandwidth and likely a tweak or two in the scheduler and it will be doing pretty darn good from what i have seen with higher speed memory in.

There are many reviews that used 3200 ram, I linked 4 or 5 (think 3 of them in languages other than English but graphs are easy enough to read) of them this weekend, when someone asked, the performance difference is still there. Albeit a little bit less but still looking at 15% or more in most instances.

Interesting enough though it looks like AMD's cache layout is better than Intel, and this problem was something they didn't foresee when designing the CCX unit. Just an oversight or something they weren't predicting, that they will surely fix with Zen +, don't know if they will do anything before that.......

 

[Gideon]

Seemed about 10% from what I have seen. pretty close to what I think the IPC deficit is. Luckily AMD is damn good at mulithreaded tasks and gets a boost in those programs. Simple fact is it will be behind in single threaded tasks most times and ahead when it can flex it's muscle or very near the 6900k. i fail to see the point of saying the chip is flawed, when clearly it's not.

 

[razor1]

Seemed about 10% from what I have seen. pretty close to what I think the IPC deficit is. Luckily AMD is damn good at mulithreaded tasks and gets a boost in those programs. Simple fact is it will be behind in single threaded tasks most times and ahead when it can flex it's muscle or very near the 6900k. i fail to see the point of saying the chip is flawed, when clearly it's not.

For specific people its not a good buy, high end PC gamers not a good buy right now, the price is right and it did look like it would take high end gaming market away from Intel, but this problem just won't cut it for them. Its just like graphics cards, doesn't matter if they are close, most high end PC gamers (enthusiasts) buy the best one available as long as all other metrics for that specific task are equal.

AMD can't sell on it will do better in the future, just doesn't work too many times they have said that and haven't delivered.

Do most enthusiasts stream?

Do most enthusiasts do video editing, or 3d or workstation applications?

What is the marketsize of PC gamers vs the later?

We are talking about different pc's for different markets, and Ryzen doesn't fit in the biggist one they were going for.

 

[Soularax]

Reality is, you and other in this thread can't respond to the reality of the situation, AMD is behind and will stay behind for the foreseeable future, and this is why they didn't give out forecasts for future Q reports, they were unsure about the uptake of Ryzen. And now we see why.

Things don't happen in a black box and when there is uncertainty in those Q reports, that isn't smoke that is FIRE, cause there is something there that stops them from understanding the possible future even when they have know what their current place in the marketplace is and where they wish to be.

You sir just gone full retard.

Come to think of it. If you say AMD is going to stay behind because it's AMD, isn't that some kind of racist? Or brandist? Or manufacturist?

 

[OrangeKhrush]

Tests latency on aida64, aida64 chief honcho admits aida is broken for Ryzen, takes broken results as fact

 

[Spirit_Retro]

You sir just gone full retard.

You never do that.... ever.

 

[NKD]

Reality is, you and other in this thread can't respond to the reality of the situation, AMD is behind and will stay behind for the foreseeable future, and this is why they didn't give out forecasts for future Q reports, they were unsure about the uptake of Ryzen. And now we see why.

Things don't happen in a black box and when there is uncertainty in those Q reports, that isn't smoke that is FIRE, cause there is something there that stops them from understanding the possible future even when they have know what their current place in the marketplace is and where they wish to be.



Nope only part of the problems, like the memory speeds

The latency of the CCX and data being partitioned based on that or not being done right now and causing this issue, no, its that easy of fix as you suggest.

There is no conspiracy here. LoL. Its a new chip, you think it is that easy to dominate a field that is owned by intel for years? Common now. Ryzen is not a failure, it will do just fine. I read your input on people buying stuff based on their needs. Are all these people with workstations, servers, non gaming situations will see no value in ryzen? It does admirably well in clock for clock in those workloads staying with in very good power usage. Its not a failure in gaming, its just not as fast, agreed. Those people have choices. Long term looks like Ryzen is going to be just fine and will put them in a better position then before. I can pretty much bet on that.

AMDs whole thing has been about gaining marketshare. Whatever they can, they have talked about penetrating server market for a while now, hence they focused on CPU side of things and IPC. May be gaming is lagging behind a little but not the entire market is high end gaming. As far as highend gaming it does fine at 4k. Unless now high end gaming is 1080p now. Hehe


Problem right now is AMD lockdown a lot of memory side of things. Seems like memory limitation held back the reviewer. Faster memory will speed up the bandwidth between ccx it seems and that helps alot at lower resolution gaming.

 

[noko]

For specific people its not a good buy, high end PC gamers not a good buy right now, the price is right and it did look like it would take high end gaming market away from Intel, but this problem just won't cut it for them. Its just like graphics cards, doesn't matter if they are close, most high end PC gamers (enthusiasts) buy the best one available as long as all other metrics for that specific task are equal.

AMD can't sell on it will do better in the future, just doesn't work too many times they have said that and haven't delivered.

Do most enthusiasts stream?

Do most enthusiasts do video editing, or 3d or workstation applications?

What is the marketsize of PC gamers vs the later?

We are talking about different pc's for different markets, and Ryzen doesn't fit in the biggist one they were going for.

There are way more free lance artists, photographers, animators, modellers etc. then in the corporate world sunny. I think you office is shaped like a big ass or something (just joking )
https://benrmatthews.com/freelance-statistics/

Anyways the savings, hell, I could build two 1700 systems using B370 motherboards and fill them up with ram, case, video cards cheaper than one 6950k. The output of two 1700 would cream that 6950k, I could satisfy more customers. Stop thinking inside the asshole, get out of the stench and smell some roses man.

There is a huge need (thanks to Intel) for powerful but cheap many core processors. Who do you think were buying all of those FX processors for the last several years? Not gamers.

 

[Jiv_au]

Also this is there on their site,

https://www.techpowerup.com/231268/...yzed-improvements-improveable-ccx-compromises

That reminds me of this conversation on AMD's Ask Me Anything on reddit.

1st) Is the core communication between complexes handled via a interconnect between the L3 caches or does it use some other method that is more core-to-core direct?

A1: The infinity fabric handles core to core communication across complexes. When a core requests data that is not inside the CCX L3 a strobe to both the adjoining L3 and main memory is made, and the data returned either via the infinty fabric internal connection or memory controller, based on the location.

So this graph is indicative of the latency of the L3 access across the infinity fabric, which occurs between the 8MB~16MB L3 cache is being utilised. The performance of this infinity fabric appears to be no different from RAM access (16MB and over)

And, I could be wrong, but the TechPowerUp article seems to imply that the Ryzen 7 is effectively just two 4 core processors.

 

[tangoseal]

HUh wtf is this nonsense thread?

I am getting mind blowing performance in all games I play at near 4k on my x34P Ultrawide monitor. And I have a stupid old dilapidated GTX980ti ...

LOL @ this rediculous non sense thread as a whole.

 

[Soularax]

HUh wtf is this nonsense thread?

I am getting mind blowing performance in all games I play at near 4k on my x34P Ultrawide monitor. And I have a stupid old dilapidated GTX980ti ...

LOL @ this rediculous non sense thread as a whole.

This board is actually quite educational, provided you do read what people say and spend 5 mins research for what the heck they are talking about.

Sure, there are a few of nonsensical folks in here but that hardly makes this thread nonsensical as a whole.

 

[OrangeKhrush]

H

HUh wtf is this nonsense thread?

I am getting mind blowing performance in all games I play at near 4k on my x34P Ultrawide monitor. And I have a stupid old dilapidated GTX980ti ...

LOL @ this rediculous non sense thread as a whole.

How dare you say it games well, this is not the lore

 

[pendragon1]

this is on his 1800x build


basically the 7700k's gaming advantage is far less than the 1800x's advantage in everything else.

 

[Soularax]

this is on his 1800x build

Summary: Not as good as 7700k but no, it doesn't.
Better than 7700k if you do production stuff. Also helps with stutter if you tend to hoard all them bloatwares.

 

[NKD]

Man I got in an intel system. People are so back and forth with this shit. I keep saying this shit, gameplay experience trumps every fuckin frame you can get. Jay's video does it the best. Does it give you a good overall experience in games while being also well rounded everything else? Yes it does. Move one. Stop telling people to buy what you want them to buy, let them buy what they feel is best for them.

Its a good chip, its competitive and its exactly what we needed and you know whats the craziest part? We expected this thing to be 10-20% clock for clock then intel's latest. It surpassed that but not in gaming. How is that a disappointment. Good for everyone we finally have something. If Ryzen does well and keeps doing well, and sells well. It will give us all lower prices. Good for all of us.

 

[tangoseal]

This board is actually quite educational, provided you do read what people say and spend 5 mins research for what the heck they are talking about.

Sure, there are a few of nonsensical folks in here but that hardly makes this thread nonsensical as a whole.

I have read at least 10 threads exactly in replicate of this one....

All these people refuse to buy AMD because 1) Its not Intel, 2) It has 5 fps less at 195 FPS compared to the 7700K that has 200 fps (oh whooptie F'ing do). And 3) Because apparently the only damn thing a processor is good for to ANYONE on ANY FORUM ANYWHERE, and I am not exaggerating in the least, is apparently gaming and nothing else.

Let me break it down like this for you:

I as well as about 76%( an arbitrary number that is probably accurate) of [H] people use their processor for just about everything else but gaming. Second to that, we game.

We didn't buy this or any processor for gaming. We bought these high end multicore chips for production work. I for one do tons of DJI Mavic and Autel X star drone post production work with mine. And the damn Zen 1700X absolutely is blazing fast. Find one person that will argue it's not. You wont, at least not legitimately. Secondly my wife has been working tons of Photoshop on this beast and she said she has never seen filters run so fast in her life.

Lastly, I do game, and I actually do play with my Oculus Rift and Touch on my old worn out completely obsolete 980ti (ok that was sarcasm). I get in excess of 100FPS in most titles I play on Ultra save for only the highest end titles. This chip can do everything and it can do it very well.

Oh let me go and put my tail between my legs and cower in a corner now because god forbid its not a damn 7700K that gives me a whopping 5 FPS more but runs way slower in production compared to the beastmode 16 thread AMD that is faster in almost all production meterics than the overpriced bloated and quite honestly rip off 6900K.

There - something tells me I will get at least 1 like for this post.

And I am not a fanboy. I literally sold my beloved, and I do mean beloved, 3930K and Ramp IV.. Yes I sold it. And I am not looking back. The Zen feels infinitely more powerful overall now that I have been running it for a few days now.

 

[Presbytier]

this is on his 1800x build


basically the 7700k's gaming advantage is far less than the 1800x's advantage in everything else.

We are still looking at a difference in nearly $200 between the 1800X and i7 7700K. That being said I am more interested in seeing how the R5 1600x turns out. If they get the motherboard and Windows scheduler stuff figured out and, and this is kind of the big if, they can get the clocks as high or maybe higher then the 1800x you are looking at a real winning chip, especially at a price point of around $250 USD.

 

[OrangeKhrush]

I am happy with my intel for now, its a great system, but doesn't mean that the Ryzen isn't attractive, it is actually very good from our experience

 

[OrangeKhrush]

The idea that one day in future a specific product will be good when XYZ happens which is outside the control of said company is ridiculous.
1. MS and Sony may or may not use AMD in their future consoles. That's something only those two companies would know. That said, AMD has absolutely zero control over this, especially since these consoles may never come to be and if they are, are far into the future. Are said Ryzen buyers expected to wait until then?

2. It makes no difference how many developer kits AMD sends out, they will almost always be fewer than the ones out there and even if that's not the case. Does anybody think INTEL is incapable of supplying and distributing as many if not significantly more dev kits than AMD including committing engineers to such projects?

3. You develop for the games and applications people have now and project into the future within reason. The farther forward you go, the less clarity you have, therefor pinning your hopes on the future performance isn't a wise idea as you have no idea when that future is.

4. Assuming you have a situation where, optimizing for AMD in any one title has a detrimental effect on Intel systems? Exactly what happens in that situation? Which is the company most likely to assist via man power, is it AMD or INTEL?

5. This video has some valid arguments and points and yes things will get better for Ryzen, however that doesn't change the fact that it is what it is right now. Be that is board vendors, AMD, developers etc. Bottom line is that the performance is objectively lower for most people in said games. Old or otherwise, that is not for AMD to dictate.

6. To say that INTEL can't afford anything AMD can is ridiculous. Intel sells 6 core and 8 core CPUs at the price they do because they are the only ones on the market or rather they were. So they could literally charge anything. Manufacturing CPUs is cheaper for INTEL than it is for AMD. AMD doesn't have fabs anymore and as a result have to live and die by the whims of GloFo.

7. Hedging bets on Vulkan and DX12 is absurd, because once again those are not in the exclusive control of AMD. The benefits of those API's is not exclusive to AMD products. Those boosts could very well boost performance for all parties, in which case there is a possibility for AMD to still find itself behind in one of the two disciplines.

Finally, this kind of rhetoric is what diminishes AMD's achievements. AMD is not some great company out to do good for the gamers and the PC industry. That is a property we impose and project unto AMD for a wide number of reasons. For the same reason it's easy to project the exact opposite sentiment towards INTEL and NVIDIA. This is not to say those two don't objectively deserve harsh criticism and scorn, but even then it has to be looked at rationally and based on facts.

AMD's failures with Ryzen were numerous and there are plenty of oversights on the company's part that could have been avoided. It is their execution and launch of what is otherwise a great CPU that has caused a lot of this unnecessary back and fourth. You cannot seed gaming media almost exclusively, then wonder why they are so focused on gaming performance. You have nobody else to blame. Perhaps delay the launch a few months then. Iron out some issues, help board vendors get their boards up and running etc. Talk to Oxide games about the CPU performance or rather program issues and offer to help with developing a patch. They were very capable of working with this developer to show Async compute superiority on their GCN GPUs, but couldn't get these dev kits to them before launch? :/

Ryzen is good, it isn't perfect but it is an incredible step forward for AMD and that is what we should be celebrating. To do that we don't need to argue ourselves into untenable positions.
That said I still like Ryzen and I'll continue to use it going forward. Pricing aside, it's just a good modern day high performance CPU.

 

[tangoseal]

Good god seriously ... Intel girls... and totally misinformed AMD wont buy'rs

ARS Technica is going to report that 1800x doesn't game as well

are you F'ing kidding me (seriously)
6 whopping FPS difference ....

Heres another Are you F'ing kidding me benchmark ...
Oh my ... 9 FPS

Holy cow are you kidding me...
I have heard time and time again that this chip can't game on 1080P ??? WTF??

WOW LOOK AT THAT FPS GAP - I am def not buying 1800X - go 7700K LMAO

But whoa hold on ... the I7-7700K is apparently much much faster in 1080p than the awful junk AMD chip....

Look at that Kaby Lake SCREAM ! Pure power ---!

Oh my ... for real though .. Ashes of the crapularity (Does anyone actually play this retarded self screwing junk title anyways? Why in the hell has it become the defacto gaming benchmark? It looks like shit, plays like shit, and is the worst coded piece of shit in history next to ... well ....

Apparently this is the only game on EARTH that has a significant advantage over AMD's junk bin garbage pail kid chip... oh a game hardly worth the box it came in to be honest.

I would keep going but ... im so tired of this "Can AMD Ryzen game bullshit". Yup grown man langauge intended. That is called burned out on the nonesense. I am not going to cross post 50 other reviews and their images. They all sing the same song anyways.

GO INTEL 7700K because your SO UBER with your 5-10FPS advantage already in the hundreds of humanly imperceptible frame rates.

Woot for Intel

 

[NKD]

Good god seriously ... Intel girls... and totally misinformed AMD wont buy'rs

ARS Technica is going to report that 1800x doesn't game as well

are you F'ing kidding me (seriously)
6 whopping FPS difference ....

Heres another Are you F'ing kidding me benchmark ...
Oh my ... 9 FPS

Holy cow are you kidding me...
I have heard time and time again that this chip can't game on 1080P ??? WTF??

WOW LOOK AT THAT FPS GAP - I am def not buying 1800X - go 7700K LMAO

But whoa hold on ... the I7-7700K is apparently much much faster in 1080p than the awful junk AMD chip....

Look at that Kaby Lake SCREAM ! Pure power ---!

Oh my ... for real though .. Ashes of the crapularity (Does anyone actually play this retarded self screwing junk title anyways? Why in the hell has it become the defacto gaming benchmark? It looks like shit, plays like shit, and is the worst coded piece of shit in history next to ... well ....

Apparently this is the only game on EARTH that has a significant advantage over AMD's junk bin garbage pail kid chip... oh a game hardly worth the box it came in to be honest.

I would keep going but ... im so tired of this "Can AMD Ryzen game bullshit". Yup grown man langauge intended. That is called burned out on the nonesense. I am not going to cross post 50 other reviews and their images. They all sing the same song anyways.

GO INTEL 7700K because your SO UBER with your 5-10FPS advantage already in the hundreds of humanly imperceptible frame rates.

Woot for Intel

lol don't beat yourself up.

 

[Gideon]

Hah you should have been on here during the Athlon days. Someone is always going to come in and say see, AMD chip does something worse and Intel rules. if I was looking for a 8 core or better I wouldnt even consider the Intel side anymore, but if I was looking for a 4 core then yeah the 7700K makes sense for the money. Intel cant stay at the price for that tiny bit of a difference in performance, hell it's 8 core is actually losing in some benchmarks to Ryzen. I just dont see the average guy not taking a look at the 8 core tho when it's price almost the same as a 4 core tho and that is what Intel should fear. 8 cylinder or 4 cylinder and almost everytime people will pick more cylinders and complain about the fuel useage but tell you how much they love the power it has.

 

[Ocellaris]

Good god seriously ... Intel girls... and totally misinformed AMD wont buy'rs

ARS Technica is going to report that 1800x doesn't game as well

are you F'ing kidding me (seriously)
6 whopping FPS difference ....

Heres another Are you F'ing kidding me benchmark ...
Oh my ... 9 FPS

Holy cow are you kidding me...
I have heard time and time again that this chip can't game on 1080P ??? WTF??

WOW LOOK AT THAT FPS GAP - I am def not buying 1800X - go 7700K LMAO

But whoa hold on ... the I7-7700K is apparently much much faster in 1080p than the awful junk AMD chip....

Look at that Kaby Lake SCREAM ! Pure power ---!

Oh my ... for real though .. Ashes of the crapularity (Does anyone actually play this retarded self screwing junk title anyways? Why in the hell has it become the defacto gaming benchmark? It looks like shit, plays like shit, and is the worst coded piece of shit in history next to ... well ....

Apparently this is the only game on EARTH that has a significant advantage over AMD's junk bin garbage pail kid chip... oh a game hardly worth the box it came in to be honest.

I would keep going but ... im so tired of this "Can AMD Ryzen game bullshit". Yup grown man langauge intended. That is called burned out on the nonesense. I am not going to cross post 50 other reviews and their images. They all sing the same song anyways.

GO INTEL 7700K because your SO UBER with your 5-10FPS advantage already in the hundreds of humanly imperceptible frame rates.

Woot for Intel

$500 CPU vs a $340 CPU, and the more expensive option is slower in games. You pay more and get less for gaming performance. This is why people care.

 

[NKD]

$500 CPU vs a $340 CPU, and the more expensive option is slower in games. You pay more and get less for gaming performance. This is why people care.

a chip is not only used in games. Jesus christ. I could swing it and say 1800x $500 chip matching up with intel high end chip. You take out the 7700k from the graph its only competing against intel 8 core. Now is it worth it? Common, we already admit if you just game get a 7700k, we said that against 6900k as well. But now you have an option, get good game play experience and get a great multithreaded chip that matches intel every where else and destroys the 7700k. Why don't people get the simple concept, lol.

 

[Presbytier]

a chip is not only used in games. Jesus christ. I could swing it and say 1800x $500 chip matching up with intel high end chip. You take out the 7700k from the graph its only competing against intel 8 core. Now is it worth it? Common, we already admit if you just game get a 7700k, we said that against 6900k as well. But now you have an option, get good game play experience and get a great multithreaded chip that matches intel every where else and destroys the 7700k. Why don't people get the simple concept, lol.

I think we need a reset in this conversation everyone has gone to extremes. Right now the biggest issues to be talking about is the memory latency and the poor RAM OC on MOBO. Those two things are going to effect gaming the most and even effect productivity. I want to see how AMD addresses these if they even can with the memory latency.

 

[SighTurtle]

tldr by /u/Dendari92:

TL;DW: Putting Windows to sleep increases Ryzen clocks by 200MHz on all the P-States for some reasons. So his 4GHz overclock becomes a 4.2GHz overclock and it's reflected in the Cinebench scores. This increase in clock speed is visible in the Task Manager and HWMonitor windows, but CPU-Z doesn't seem to detect it.

Also apparently he can't even POST if he tries to set the CPU to 4.2GHz in the BIOS, meanwhile it seems to work fine after this "sleep bug". He has a Ryzen 7 1700X, motherboard AX370-Gaming-5 with BIOS version F3. You can find other info in the video description, the video is mainly him showing it's real while doing some benchmarks.

EDIT: He did a UserBenchmark run, this is the link: http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/3024898

 

[noko]

Are we just saying, be wise what you pick for what you need or want to do?

For such a new platform, complete new cpu design - I actually found it to be more on the amazing side in how well it did go. Not saying there were no issues. Intel from Haswell to Skylake had issues and that was nothing compared to what AMD had to do coming from Bulldozer to Ryzen in all the obstacles that had to be overcome. On launch day it was laying waste at times Intel's best 8 core processor from the bulldozer era. Very Good stuff and great job AMD on that!

As for games it does great, most arguments dealing with gaming performance is at the ludicy stage. Even with two Titans at 1080p with a 144hz monitor you will be exceeding its capacity to render the number of frames the cpu/gpu is dishing out - then you get "Why does Ryzen do so poorly in games?" The real answer is it doesn't, some games it beats the 7700k god forbid. For virtually 90%+ of all gamers (60hz is the the refresh rate). In no shape or form would Ryzen be limiting there.

Some of the folks here should take over these companies since they know so much and know by just picking their nose (no one particular here) on their worn out computer chair can just blurt out the cure, the ultimate fix that should happen - utter utopia if they were in charge. hmm wonder why that has not happen?

 

[Soularax]

$500 CPU vs a $340 CPU, and the more expensive option is slower in games. You pay more and get less for gaming performance. This is why people care.

Buy 1700 and OC to 4.0GHz. BOOM! You now have 1800X.
Now, it's 330$ VS 340$.

 

[NKD]

tldr by /u/Dendari92:

wth. How did he getting faster stable overclock then anyone else. lol. I think windows might just be reading it wrong. hahah