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

Presbytier said:
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.
Click to expand...
Probably time to just close the thread - the question has been answered as much as it could at this point.
 
NKD said:
wth. How did he getting faster stable overclock then anyone else. lol. I think windows might just be reading it wrong. hahah
Click to expand...

Not exactly stable. Only after putting it to sleep does it do that, and if he restarts it, it resets to 4.0Ghz.
 
SighTurtle said:
Not exactly stable. Only after putting it to sleep does it do that, and if he restarts it, it resets to 4.0Ghz.
Click to expand...
That is definitely a real odd ball one. I am trying to think of reasons it might do this and the only idea is maybe Win10 does something odd with its power settings after waking from sleep.
 
Can't help escape the feeling that some of the more irrational debate stems from people on both "sides" unconsciously justifying their purchase, where their money has ended up... or at least more impassioned because of it... especially when I think there are concessions to be made on both rather than just defending.

I also think this has been compounded, instead of it being a case of "look what AMD has achieved" it becoming "why is it performing so poorly in games" is due to the lead up, the hype. The claims and marketing material were always going to be the focus of reviewers as, consciously or not, the press where always going to jump on anything that didn't line up there. For me thing has been:
  1. Expectations. Not sure AMD managed them. Press events with AMD and Intel systems side by side running games effectively implying like for like without any caveats.
  2. Price per dollar. Kudos to AMD here making more cores/threads more mainstream, and they definitely should be highlighting that as they are. Unfortunately double edged sword when the same metric is applied to current gaming.
  3. That its an outlier. In pretty much every other test that reviewers have thrown at it, it keeps the pace or exceeds it as claimed. It stands out, so its getting more attention - people are going to want to know why before they buy in.
Perhaps its just been so long since we've had such a new platform launch so I have a case of rose tinted glasses, but does feel as though a little more testing or extra time before products went out to reviewers and to launch wouldn't have been a bad idea given some of the motherboard and memory quirks, and the potential impact of 11th hour BIOS update seemingly could have had on reviews. That being said, I like where AMD seems to be heading and seems to be steering the market... and will be happy if my next upgrade does turn out to be AMD, but only given time for the platform to mature and to see if the third party support being talked about does turn out to be there. Worry a little, better threaded games having been talked about for a long time now, what the possible popularity of lower core count Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 3 CPUs could have on that, and what lead times we can realistically expect for development changes given things like this.

Will admit the AMD phone call and correspondence with Gamers Nexus did sour me a bit... I don't get why these tech companies (both, all) can't just be as frank with their marketing, to their customers, as they are with reviewers.
 
I'm pretty sure >=$500 CPUs weren't the sweet spot for gaming in February or like a whole lot of YEARS before February? I think I follow PC gaming closely enough I'd have noticed that the Sky Lake and Kaby Lake K series weren't suitable for gaming in the $200 and $350 price range?

If you were building a gaming rig last month the 7700K was your best choice (outside of hardcore Ashes/Civ players...who surely exist?), unless, possibly the price difference between a 7700K and 7600K was enough you could go from a 1060 -> 1070 and you have a 1080p60 monitor. Or you want to game and stream with software encoding. It doesn't otherwise look like Ryzen 7s are changing that, unfortunately. Hopefully the 4C/8T Ryzen chips at Core i5 prices give those a beating and Intel has to start doing more than Sky Lake -> Kaby Lake in the 8000 series.
 
Ocellaris said:
$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.
Click to expand...

must be sad then the owners of out the box 6900/6950 and 5960, in fact any of the X socket parts out the box being a lot slower than the el cheapos, or that being said the 7700K is still globally priced at $350 and from inside word on Intel, they have no intention to drop pricing. that was microcenter clearing stocks
 
Unless I'm remembering wrong, which is entirely possible, the last time the most expensive CPU was the best gaming one was the Core i7-990X? Like five years ago?
 
OrangeKhrush said:
must be sad then the owners of out the box 6900/6950 and 5960, in fact any of the X socket parts out the box being a lot slower than the el cheapos, or that being said the 7700K is still globally priced at $350 and from inside word on Intel, they have no intention to drop pricing. that was microcenter clearing stocks
Click to expand...

I don't think 5960, 6900 and 6950 owners are too sad. Intel didn't advertise those chips as gaming chips, so I would imagine their expectations would have alined with the product they were getting.

They certainly didn't do this:

 
ZeroBarrier said:
I don't think 5960, 6900 and 6950 owners are too sad. Intel didn't advertise those chips as gaming chips, so I would imagine their expectations would have alined with the product they were getting.

They certainly didn't do this:

Click to expand...

It actually does game well, it can run SLI'd Titan X Pascals and push very high frame rates, it can run single card setups and push frame rates. From experience we have had it is a very solid gaming system and I key solid not the best, but it doesn't have to be.

There are minor gremlins to get ironed out the system still but the performance is still laying inside the hood. Also we have started a 20 CPU bench run on in game testing of all CPU's running 3Ghz locked with states disabled and turbo off, we reckon we will remove the clock speed effect at lower resolution. so far the results are interesting.
 
ZeroBarrier said:
I don't think 5960, 6900 and 6950 owners are too sad. Intel didn't advertise those chips as gaming chips, so I would imagine their expectations would have alined with the product they were getting.

They certainly didn't do this:

Click to expand...
Obviously you need to go look at the 6900k on Newegg or any other site... it lists best gaming experience or something along those lines. It was posted in one of these threads you have been squatting in so I know you have seen it.
 
Presbytier said:
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.
Click to expand...

The R5 uses worse silicon and cannot clock so high as the R7 1800X. With half the number of cores/threads and lower clocks one would expect the R5 to game worse than the 1800X.

It is not causal that AMD did launch the R7 models first to generate a halo effect and try to hide the clock problems with quad-core chips. In fact this possibility was mentioned before launch:

However, such a situation is not sustainable in the medium term. The "Wow Effect" that AMD is trying to create with its most muscular Ryzen chip will only hide disappointing performances of the rest of the range (if the frequencies do not evolve until the launch). The end of the NDA and the release of the first official tests in the press will give a foretaste of the situation: if AMD just sampler the journalists only with its chip 8C / 16T at 3.6 / 4.0 GHz, forgetting the 4C variations, There will be a wolf.
Click to expand...

https://www.cpchardware.com/intel-prepare-la-riposte-a-ryzen/
 
juanrga said:
The R5 uses worse silicon and cannot clock so high as the R7 1800X. With half the number of cores/threads and lower clocks one would expect the R5 to game worse than the 1800X.

It is not causal that AMD did launch the R7 models first to generate a halo effect and try to hide the clock problems with quad-core chips. In fact this possibility was mentioned before launch:



https://www.cpchardware.com/intel-prepare-la-riposte-a-ryzen/
Click to expand...
So can we quote you on this later? Man you really are the conspiracy theorist we were warned about. Even assuming equal silicon 4 cores generally will clock better than 8 assuming the clock limit was heat based. Seems far too many so far are concerned with voltage and no proof it is an issue. With the FX it wasn't only temps had to be a concern. Granted that is 32nm against 14nm and not likely an equal parallel.
 
noko said:
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 :p)
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.
Click to expand...


We hire a lot of freelancers too and tell ya what freelancing in any of the major cities have gone up 10 fold in the past 10 years, and they get paid very well, 50 bucks an hour for starting off, experienced go up to 120 bucks an hour, that is for art directors, photographers, and 3d artists. They end up getting paid more than a salaried person because the overhead of the salary isn't just the salary its the benefits as well.

Damn unions just push up the salaries in my industry.

You know those stand ins in movies, they get paid 500 bucks a day lol. Good job for just standing around right?
 
Jiv_au said:
That reminds me of this conversation on AMD's Ask Me Anything on reddit.



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)
3dd4fc4284d0.jpg


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


Its acting like a 2 4 core processors, which I don't know if that was the plan, I think it was something that came up too late for AMD to fix.
 
JustReason said:
So can we quote you on this later? Man you really are the conspiracy theorist we were warned about. Even assuming equal silicon 4 cores generally will clock better than 8 assuming the clock limit was heat based. Seems far too many so far are concerned with voltage and no proof it is an issue. With the FX it wasn't only temps had to be a concern. Granted that is 32nm against 14nm and not likely an equal parallel.
Click to expand...

Oh you missed his big three predictions:

Sandybridge IPC per Cinebench - mega fail
No hex core SKU's - mega fail
Clocks will not get to 3Ghz - mega fail.
 
JustReason said:
So can we quote you on this later? Man you really are the conspiracy theorist we were warned about. Even assuming equal silicon 4 cores generally will clock better than 8 assuming the clock limit was heat based. Seems far too many so far are concerned with voltage and no proof it is an issue. With the FX it wasn't only temps had to be a concern. Granted that is 32nm against 14nm and not likely an equal parallel.
Click to expand...

Warned by whom? Those posters were permabanned from another forum by posting repetitive lies about me? Those posters sharing their fantasies and BS about Ryzen during years and ignoring all the facts, the laws of physics, or even commonsense?

Quad-core Ryzen have lower clocks than octo-core Ryzen. You cannot deny this fact because AMD has made public the specs for the quad-core R5. Some of us said this was going to happen months before launch.


The usual deniers-of-facts pretended that the clock problem didn't exist or that it was only a spurious problem with some defective engineering sample. We didn't talk about engineering samples but about qualification samples and retails chips, but they continued in denial mode.

As we demonstrated then, the quad-core use worse silicon and that is the reason why it has a clock deficit despite having more heat room compared to the big brothers: 16.2 vs 11.9 watt per core.

Once stock clocks have been confirmed by AMD, the only possibility for improving gaming is that quad-core overclock better than the big brothers. But worse stock clocks with 37% better heat room just points in the opposite direction.
 
juanrga said:
Warned by whom? Those posters were permabanned from another forum by posting repetitive lies about me? Those posters sharing their fantasies and BS about Ryzen during years and ignoring all the facts, the laws of physics, or even commonsense?

Quad-core Ryzen have lower clocks than octo-core Ryzen. You cannot deny this fact because AMD has made public the specs for the quad-core R5. Some of us said this was going to happen months before launch.


The usual deniers-of-facts pretended that the clock problem didn't exist or that it was only a spurious problem with some defective engineering sample. We didn't talk about engineering samples but about qualification samples and retails chips, but they continued in denial mode.

As we demonstrated then, the quad-core use worse silicon and that is the reason why it has a clock deficit despite having more heat room compared to the big brothers: 16.2 vs 11.9 watt per core.

Once stock clocks have been confirmed by AMD, the only possibility for improving gaming is that quad-core overclock better than the big brothers. But worse stock clocks with 37% better heat room just points in the opposite direction.
Click to expand...

Can you even confirm that it was a final silicon test? or much like the earlier low clocked octo cores was in early testing sample form? The fact that Doc TB can only speculate is because that is all he got.
 
razor1 said:
Clock for Clock it should end up around there cause of the better SMT performance. Its a down clocked 7700k. Just under Skylake.
Click to expand...

it is why our low resolution low detail, low clockspeed test is so telling, dropping clocks puts all the stress on FPU, clockspeed is like 4K testing games, the results are going to favor higher clocks but you can mitigate that by reducing clocks to a fair battleground and results show something else.

Ryzen is like a 6900K lite and very compelling at it.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
1600X is a 6/12 SKU, that is definitively incorrect then.
Click to expand...

"Right" in the above list means that the prediction of "No hex core SKU's" was a mega fail.

That is, I am saying exactly the contrary of what you pretend, which is not anything new...
 
OrangeKhrush said:
it is why our low resolution low detail, low clockspeed test is so telling, dropping clocks puts all the stress on FPU, clockspeed is like 4K testing games, the results are going to favor higher clocks but you can mitigate that by reducing clocks to a fair battleground and results show something else.

Ryzen is like a 6900K lite and very compelling at it.
Click to expand...

It is up to a certain point, its platform is not though, so that leaves out the professional market entirely.

Ryzen as a whole (platform included) is a good all round, jake of all trades master of none.

Then you have factor in Coffee Lake and Skylake so by end of this year, Coffee Lake will bring 6 core chips down to main stream segment for Intel, with higher clocks and possible IPC gains (laughing a little at Intel on IPC gains lol) and Skylake for 8 core and up, if those things can clock like skylake in mainstream. There are no AMD responses, Intel doesn't need to drop prices, nothing happens its the same old as always.

If these teething problems and CCX problems weren't there, AMD would be sitting pretty till CF lake and Skylake and it would have put pricing pressure on Intel, now that isn't going to happen as much.

Is this what AMD expected a 6 month to 8 month window? That isn't enough to do anything.
 
Last edited:
OrangeKhrush said:
Can you even confirm that it was a final silicon test? or much like the earlier low clocked octo cores was in early testing sample form? The fact that Doc TB can only speculate is because that is all he got.
Click to expand...

Really? Are you asking me again the same stuff I answered a dozen of times before launch?

But Ryzen already launched. Just take a 1800X gaming review. Reduce clocks and disable half the cores/threads and you have good estimation of gaming for the R5 1500X.
 
razor1 said:
We hire a lot of freelancers too and tell ya what freelancing in any of the major cities have gone up 10 fold in the past 10 years, and they get paid very well, 50 bucks an hour for starting off, experienced go up to 120 bucks an hour, that is for art directors, photographers, and 3d artists. They end up getting paid more than a salaried person because the overhead of the salary isn't just the salary its the benefits as well.

Damn unions just push up the salaries in my industry.

You know those stand ins in movies, they get paid 500 bucks a day lol. Good job for just standing around right?
Click to expand...
Yep, one clevite with FreeLance, unless your significant other has benefits as in health insurance, dental, eye etc. those large $ start to disappear. That is why many freelance artist have regular jobs, I did some freelance work for Caligari and Microsoft except Microsoft never paid me (small project which the group doing it got shut down). Plus unless your really good, do things beyond others you may not have very consistent jobs in a time span but if you doing it for fun, extra money and have a job anyways that can work out.

I see RyZen selling well with the Freelance artist due to cost and performance. I just don't see AMD, Intel and others really tapping into one of the largest available markets out there.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
R7 1800X turned into a 1500X

rise-of-the-tomb-raider.png


division.png


battlefield-1.png


gta-v.png
Click to expand...

So they are overclocking Ryzen and then underclocking the 7700K to make those charts. Stock settings a 7700K will boost to 4.4 on all cores when gaming.

Granted I think the 4C and 6C Ryzen CPUs will compared better to Intel chips at a given price point.
 
noko said:
Yep, one clevite with FreeLance, unless your significant other has benefits as in health insurance, dental, eye etc. those large $ start to disappear. That is why many freelance artist have regular jobs, I did some freelance work for Caligari and Microsoft except Microsoft never paid me (small project which the group doing it got shut down). Plus unless your really good, do things beyond others you may not have very consistent jobs in a time span but if you doing it for fun, extra money and have a job anyways that can work out.

I see RyZen selling well with the Freelance artist due to cost and performance. I just don't see AMD, Intel and others really tapping into one of the largest available markets out there.
Click to expand...


Well now here in the US with Obama care, health insurance is ok for Freelancers now, well depending some not so well, its a screw up lol. Dental is a big thing but that too not too expensive unless you go to exclusive care instead of group care.
Main things are the 401k and retirement plans, personal life insurance and what not.

My tip to freelancers, always be on the look out, every day put your resume out there, cause deadlines are usually set in stone so they know they schedules. Just let potential employees know your on a project already and tell them when you will be free.

I stil feel Ryzen isn't the best choice for freelancers, freelancers here, we bring them into the offices, we don't let them work at home unless its an absolute must, cause of IP reasons.
 
JustReason said:
So can we quote you on this later? Man you really are the conspiracy theorist we were warned about. Even assuming equal silicon 4 cores generally will clock better than 8 assuming the clock limit was heat based. Seems far too many so far are concerned with voltage and no proof it is an issue. With the FX it wasn't only temps had to be a concern. Granted that is 32nm against 14nm and not likely an equal parallel.
Click to expand...

You can try but it is useless
 
Ocellaris said:
So they are overclocking Ryzen and then underclocking the 7700K to make those charts. Stock settings a 7700K will boost to 4.4 on all cores when gaming.

Granted I think the 4C and 6C Ryzen CPUs will compared better to Intel chips at a given price point.
Click to expand...


We test at 3ghz, is that unfair? Clock speed is the same
 
This is all for nothing. I'll still pick a RYZEN 1700 over the 7700k and all I have to do is plug in the 7700k vs new motherboard and perhaps memory for the RYZEN. This guy explains how everyone is getting it wrong. Sure it's been posted before. I'll remove if I see it already posted or if someone tells me so. And why aren't you or anyone else calling the i7 6800 a horrible performer?

 
ZeroBarrier said:
I don't think 5960, 6900 and 6950 owners are too sad. Intel didn't advertise those chips as gaming chips, so I would imagine their expectations would have alined with the product they were getting.

They certainly didn't do this:

Click to expand...
So they didn't buy a new processor architecture and platform before independent reviews then?
 
Spoonie_G said:
This is all for nothing. I'll still pick a RYZEN 1700 over the 7700k and all I have to do is plug in the 7700k vs new motherboard and perhaps memory for the RYZEN. This guy explains how everyone is getting it wrong. Sure it's been posted before. I'll remove if I see it already posted or if someone tells me so. And why aren't you or anyone else calling the i7 6800 a horrible performer?

Click to expand...


its been posted, Adorned gets way too much attention for his inadequacies, its been posted in multi threads.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
We test at 3ghz, is that unfair? Clock speed is the same
Click to expand...

"Unfair" to what end? Are you trying to prove that Intel has better IPC and Ryzen has better performance across some desktop apps? Because that ship already sailed.
 
Ocellaris said:
"Unfair" to what end? Are you trying to prove that Intel has better IPC and Ryzen has better performance across some desktop apps? Because that ship already sailed.
Click to expand...

My point was that running at 4GHZ both cpus are running equal clocks. In our Testing we go down to 3GHZ
 
razor1 said:
Its acting like a 2 4 core processors, which I don't know if that was the plan, I think it was something that came up too late for AMD to fix.
Click to expand...

I can't help but laugh at this. I remember back when AMD used to call Intel out for not having a "native quad core processor" design while Phenom was getting its ass kicked by those same Core 2 Quads.
 
juanrga said:
"Right" in the above list means that the prediction of "No hex core SKU's" was a mega fail.

That is, I am saying exactly the contrary of what you pretend, which is not anything new...
Click to expand...

You expressly used the words, no 6 core SKU and made it a prediction you took to twitter. Now there is a 6 core SKU it falls in lime with your three strikes and that is 3 and away
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top