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

legcramp said:
Ryzen is a pretty damn good all-around chip, yes even at gaming. Yes, 7700K is a better gaming cpu and also fantastic chip all-around also that does get out-classed by a competitively priced chip with double the cores when doing stuff that takes advantage of it.
Click to expand...
You know what is the amazing part? So-called trolls claim exactly that. Who is the troll then?
 
Here is a idea, buy what you want to buy and dont care about what others think. Most reviewers have said it games just fine, it's not the best but does well at around 10% less in max fps. If that 10% bothers you then you can not buy Ryzen, if you dont care then go for it as it's great at many tasks. Otherwise your just wasting cpu cycles displaying the same garbage over and over.
 
razor1 said:
Look you want to game get Intel, you want a so so workstation without the cost, get AMD, if you want a full fledged workstation, get Intel, if you want to stream while gaming and its a hobby get AMD, if you want to stream and do professional broadcasting, get Intel and a broadcast card and another system for recording, See the difference?

AMD didn't make their platform for a full workstation build, cause well they would have had to increase prices, something they didn't want to do.

And this is not how AMD wanted to play this out, they wanted to get the enthusiast market and gamers using their chips (and the added bonus of having workstation features so encompassed everyone), but can't do it at least not yet, and with their CCX issues, where most of the performance problems are stemming from, will not be able to convince the majority of gamers to choose their CPU's for "future proofing" cause that won't change in the future either.

And stop being so damn sensitive about hardware, this is the first time I have ever heard reviewers getting death threats, stupid people, can't control their emotions, its damn product not your child.

If these Fan Boys feel that way, they should give 75% of what they make to AMD...... stupid idiots.

PS that is not geared towards you (rant).......
Click to expand...

If Naples is anything, amd primarily made zen to have be better at workstation/server environment. They showed all their demos at 4K. I understand the this thing about 1080p. But who demos at 1080p and calls them enthusiast gaming system? I mean we can go back and forth on it all day. No one company is going to demo titan x pascal at 1080p.

Oh look we are running at 1080p and getting 160fps but the other chip is getting 180fps. It just sounds stupid. I know if I am getting a titan xp. I am sure as hell not running at 1080p. And I don't expect any company to show 1080p as enthusiast system.
 
NKD said:
If Naples is anything, amd primarily made zen to have be better at workstation/server environment. They showed all their demos at 4K. I understand the this thing about 1080p. But who demos at 1080p and calls them enthusiast gaming system? I mean we can go back and forth on it all day. No one company is going to demo titan x pascal at 1080p.

Oh look we are running at 1080p and getting 160fps but the other chip is getting 180fps. It just sounds stupid. I know if I am getting a titan xp. I am sure as hell not running at 1080p. And I don't expect any company to show 1080p as enthusiast system.
Click to expand...


I don't care about the resolution if its GPU limited, its GPU limited, you will not know what the CPU puts out PERIOD.

Might as well have AMD rub gamer's faces with workstation loads and tell us its gaming performance is the same as Intel's CPU's by showing us GPU limited scenarios, end results the same thing, when you have a GPU limited scenario you don't know shit about how the CPU is doing. This is what they did and now they are getting the results from what they sowed.

And there is no fuckin excuse for threatening reviewers for their tests.

This is not a political thing, but its the same crap that happened with Trump won, these people should get a life, AMD lost again, nothing is going to change that! Doesn't matter who they threaten, whom ever they beat up, whom ever they wish to point and shoot, stupid people do stupid things and should be punished for doing those things.

Death threats are against the law, those people should be strung up in jail and then let the courts decide their future.
 
Last edited:
My min frame time in Stardew Valley flawless. Its 2D and thus is the perfect CPU limited gaming benchmark. Ryzen wins

close thread please
 
I just don't get it, why the hell are people angry and pissing with each other? Its a good chip, not the best at everything but considering the price / perf vs different workloads and it looks pretty good (1700 is a steal imo if you need more than 4 cores). Where the f*** does all this hate come from?

I'm gonna build 1700 platform at some point as I do need the extra power from time to time and I don't see a point in going with X99 platform now that we have a ~300$ 8 core cpu which clocks as much as the best of the lineup.
 
LOL you know it's time to shut down a thread when Trump enters a conversation about processors...
 
NKD said:
Oh look we are running at 1080p and getting 160fps but the other chip is getting 180fps. It just sounds stupid. I know if I am getting a titan xp. I am sure as hell not running at 1080p. And I don't expect any company to show 1080p as enthusiast system.
Click to expand...
It is more like: "oh look we are running at 1080p and getting 160 fps like that other chip that costs $200-$300 less". To pull the "FX" defense: if you can pay $200-$300 less for the chip that brings same experience in your games, will you go with the more expensive option? That, by the way, is why AMD's defense of "let them see how it runs on higher resolutions" works even worse.
Wshmaster0 said:
LOL you know it's time to shut down a thread when Trump enters a conversation about processors...
Click to expand...
Oh, come on, political comparisons at this point are unavoidable, since the psychological background is exact same.
 
I'm not sure where people are getting their idea that the 1800X is a "so so" workstation CPU. The comparable Intel, currently, for a single socket Xeon is the E5-2667 or E5-2689A. Both are north of $2000 each, and the 1800X is going to handle encoding and graphical tasks better.
 
ZeroBarrier said:
Please stop apologizing for a company you do not own or work for; you look like a tool when you do. AMD could have worked more closely with board manufacturers and developers before release. But they instead rushed their release or decided to screw everyone else and then play the blame game by blaming every single other component; board bios, developers, operating system and funniest of all the even blame their "competitor".

Get fucking real, they have no one but themselves to blame. AMD seems to have an uncanny ability to fuck up their releases in one major way or another. Teething issues aside, we all expected them from brand spanking new and unproven hardware; but lets cut the bullshit out and not make excuses for a company in it for profits and not for our benefit or for feels.
Click to expand...
Perfectly stated.

I voted with my wallet. I should never have to make "just wait until... (insert some plausible possible fix)" when I shell out $400+ for a cpu. No thanks.

I paid less than that for my 7700k and it worked perfectly fine out of the box.

AMD could Easily have reached out and worked closer with studios and hell even m$, but they did not. People who make excuses for them are the perfect consumers.

I vote with my wallet. I buy what works right from the start, with proven performance that doesn't need magic pixie dust to work and perform properly. I'll gladly pay the luxury tax to have proper working bug free hardware.
 
Riccochet said:
I'm not sure where people are getting their idea that the 1800X is a "so so" workstation CPU. The comparable Intel, currently, for a single socket Xeon is the E5-2667 or E5-2689A. Both are north of $2000 each, and the 1800X is going to handle encoding and graphical tasks better.
Click to expand...


Because of the platform. The limited PCI-e lanes, is a big minus in a workstation. If you need more than one m2 drive and other pci-e devices which many workstations need or advantageous to have AMD's desktop platform is limiting.

I'm sure when the professional platforms are released that will not be the case but the consumer is going to pay more for those.
 
razor1 said:
Because of the platform. The limited PCI-e lanes, is a big minus in a workstation. If you need more than one m2 drive and other pci-e devices which many workstations need or advantageous to have AMD's desktop platform is limiting.

I'm sure when the professional platforms are released that will not be the case but the consumer is going to pay more for those.
Click to expand...

That's going to be low volume market for workstations requiring those needs. The majority are running single socket Xeon's with a single Quado or FirePro with a couple high volume SSD's. A shop could literally buy 3-4 1800X systems and get another free for the same cost of 4-5 comparable Xeon systems. I don't see it as a limiting factor for the majority, only for the top top echelon of workstation users.
 
Riccochet said:
The majority are running single socket Xeon's with a single Quado or FirePro with a couple high volume SSD's.
Click to expand...
And for that "majority" limited to CADs and the like, Ryzen loses to Skylake/Kabylake i7s/Xeons in straight performance. So does HEDT, while we're at it.
 
Riccochet said:
That's going to be low volume market for workstations requiring those needs. The majority are running single socket Xeon's with a single Quado or FirePro with a couple high volume SSD's. A shop could literally buy 3-4 1800X systems and get another free for the same cost of 4-5 comparable Xeon systems. I don't see it as a limiting factor for the majority, only for the top top echelon of workstation users.
Click to expand...


Hmm in most cad related tasks Ryzen is still behind, rendering is different though, just straight out cad nada, Ryzen is not a good choice.

Ah already got a reply to that lol.
 
lolfail9001 said:
And for that "majority" limited to CADs and the like, Ryzen loses to Skylake/Kabylake i7s/Xeons in straight performance. So does HEDT, while we're at it.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see proof that a quad core Kaby Lake Xeon, which is all that's currently available, is faster than a 8 core Ryzen at workstation tasks.
 
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...X-1800X-Performance-908/#GeneralModelingTasks

There are some tasks Ryzen is better no denying that but vast majority of modelling tasks, Intel is way ahead.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...zen-7-1700X-1800X-Performance-907/#Conclusion

Now Adobe Suite

Same thing

Intel is just better for now over all.

Light room

Same thing

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...zen-7-1700X-1800X-Performance-910/#Conclusion

One one pro app these guys tests Ryzen seems to be better well better than a 4 core Intel is Premiere Pro

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...2017-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-1800X-Performance-909/
 
Last edited:
Let me know what the results are for ray tracing and 3D BIM which are highly multi-threaded.
 
Sorry, I wasn't calling anyone here those names :) if it came across like that I apolgize, I'm just saying people that give death threats to a reviewer are those kinds of people :)
 
legcramp said:
More like:

1) 1800X is a gaming CPU because it plays the majority of games perfectly and it hold its own on games or even beat the 7700K depending on the games.

2) Reviews has shown Ryzen is the best workstation cpu at its price-point and obliterates anything in that price-point and also doubles as a pretty damn good gaming CPU. If you're a gamer primarily, the 7700K is obviously the better CPU at the moment but if you do other stuff that takes advantage of the extra cores and also game, Ryzen is obviously the better choice.

3) Techpowerup tested a crap-ton of games.... Ryzen vs 6900K and it performed (13-14%?) worse at 1080p on average and a whopping 4% at 1440p at gaming on average. And yes obviously if you're a high-refresh rate gamer then you're going 7700K at the moment.

4) Certain people..... like Intel fanboys or just certain 6600K-7700K owners gets their panties in a bunch because they are trying to justify their purchases or just can't imagine there is any sort of competition in that price-range. Trolls be putting anything Ryzen related down and talking smack all day long because they either have no life or can't sleep at night because their Intel CPU is not the best at everything at their price-point.

Ryzen is a pretty damn good all-around chip, yes even at gaming. Yes, 7700K is a better gaming cpu and also fantastic chip all-around also that does get out-classed by a competitively priced chip with double the cores when doing stuff that takes advantage of it.


I also noticed some of the main trolls have been doing less trolling but are replaced by other new trolls that aren't as worthy at trolling as they were though.. try harder guys it's more entertaining that way but meh..
Click to expand...

1) Reviews have confirmed that 1800X doesn't play games like AMD promised, that the gaming demos by AMD used several tricks to inflate numbers, and recommend other CPUs for gaming before the 1800X.

2) You don't have to say me how good is RyZen on rendering/encoding workloads. Just in post #755 I wrote "Anandtech has just updated their review and they recommend the 1800X as a workstation CPU". In case it is forgotten this thread is about gaming.

3) I believe you mean TechSpot and it gets a similar conclusion to other reviews, including Hardware.fr, which found 1800X to be about 20% behind a 6900k clock-for-clock. Yes, increasing resolution reduces the gap between processors. At 1440p a cheaper i5 play games like the more expensive 1800X, and an cheaper i3 is not too far from a 1700X. We know why the gapo is reduced at higher resolutions and more demanding GPU settings. TechSpot wrote an nice article about all that. I gave the link before.

4) I only reported facts. There are serious reviews that agree on their conclusions and then a pair of useless youtubers and non-mainstream reviews that disagree with everyone else. The point is that those that disagree are made by jokers that pretend that 99% load on a GPU is not a bottleneck or that pretend that their 1800X @4.1GHz was playing games worse than their 1800X at stock clocks. How can anyone take those 'reviews' seriously?
 
razor1 said:
Because of the platform. The limited PCI-e lanes, is a big minus in a workstation. If you need more than one m2 drive and other pci-e devices which many workstations need or advantageous to have AMD's desktop platform is limiting.

I'm sure when the professional platforms are released that will not be the case but the consumer is going to pay more for those.
Click to expand...
This, I think if it had at least 30-40 PCI-E lanes it would make Ryzen make more sense. Not sure how much more that would push up the price though and price is the big selling point here.
 
juanrga said:
1) Reviews have confirmed that 1800X doesn't play games like AMD promised, that the gaming demos by AMD used several tricks to inflate numbers, and recommend other CPUs for gaming before the 1800X.

2) You don't have to say me how good is RyZen on rendering/encoding workloads. Just in post #755 I wrote "Anandtech has just updated their review and they recommend the 1800X as a workstation CPU". In case it is forgotten this thread is about gaming.

3) I believe you mean TechSpot and it gets a similar conclusion to other reviews, including Hardware.fr, which found 1800X to be about 20% behind a 6900k clock-for-clock. Yes, increasing resolution reduces the gap between processors. At 1440p a cheaper i5 play games like the more expensive 1800X, and an cheaper i3 is not too far from a 1700X. We know why the gapo is reduced at higher resolutions and more demanding GPU settings. TechSpot wrote an nice article about all that. I gave the link before.

4) I only reported facts. There are serious reviews that agree on their conclusions and then a pair of useless youtubers and non-mainstream reviews that disagree with everyone else. The point is that those that disagree are made by jokers that pretend that 99% load on a GPU is not a bottleneck or that pretend that their 1800X @4.1GHz was playing games worse than their 1800X at stock clocks. How can anyone take those 'reviews' seriously?
Click to expand...

What did AMD promise exactly? I am just basing what I said off reviews like techspot. They said Ryzen is 12% behind 6900k at 1080p.

Hardware.fr, I looked at after you mentioned said it is 18% below 6900k and 12% after they disabled core parking.

"The situation in games with a default Windows installation shows an average performance deficit of 18% compared to the 6900K. Once the Core Parking that disables Ryzen is deactivated, the gap is reduced and the deficit is "only" 12.6%. In any case, the level remains very acceptable, and far above what AMD proposed so far."

Anandtech unless I am missing the section, doesn't even have numbers up for gaming yet because they rather review cellphones.

And anyone with a brain knew that one review about how the 7700k @ 5ghz tied the Ryzen at around 4ghz is retarded.
 
legcramp said:
See I didn't even have to name any names.
Click to expand...
Neither did I, and if it came across as accusing you of being one, i apologize for being ambiguous.

Anyways, back on topic, PCPer folks pointed out that Ryzen also for some reason pushes like half the IOPS of Broadwell/Skylake on single thread. I am willing to bet that it ties into reasons Ryzen does relatively poorly in games quite nicely.
 
razor1 said:
Yeah rendering that is the only part its faster in, I would not use a something purely CPU based for that

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu,4951-9.html

all other tasks are much better on Intel systems.
Click to expand...

Personally, I'm doing a Ryzen system for my wife. She works in BIM which is highly multi-threaded. People in her line of work "were" using 8 core Xeon's with high end Quadro's. Saving about $1500 on a system for similar or better performance just makes sense. I don't think any of them are using m.2 drives.

We'll see. I have a 1800X and MSI Titanium on the way. Actually, just waiting on the motherboard. Damn backorder.
 
Riccochet said:
Personally, I'm doing a Ryzen system for my wife. She works in BIM which is highly multi-threaded. People in her line of work "were" using 8 core Xeon's with high end Quadro's. Saving about $1500 on a system for similar or better performance just makes sense. I don't think any of them are using m.2 drives.

We'll see. I have a 1800X and MSI Titanium on the way. Actually, just waiting on the motherboard. Damn backorder.
Click to expand...


BIM might, I'm not familiar with its performance, hope it works out for her!
 
I also do not know why people are so mad. I have a 1700 and i am extremely happy with the chip. Just wish the bios and motherboard selection was better at launch. The way i see it, i could of had a boring quad core chip now better at gaming, or a new eight core chip thats exciting to play with. 3-5 years from now I bet the amd chip ages better then a quad core chip. If i am wrong so what, i still have something vastly better then the dual nehalem L5530 2.4ghz i was using.
 
lolfail9001 said:
Neither did I, and if it came across as accusing you of being one, i apologize for being ambiguous.

Anyways, back on topic, PCPer folks pointed out that Ryzen also for some reason pushes like half the IOPS of Broadwell/Skylake on single thread. I am willing to bet that it ties into reasons Ryzen does relatively poorly in games quite nicely.
Click to expand...

Oh no worries, no one else accuses me of being a troll =)


+1 I agree if they push out a patch to fix that issue, that small 12% gap would be even smaller which makes Ryzen an ever better value.
 
legcramp said:
Oh no worries, no one else accuses me of being a troll =)


+1 I agree if they push out a patch to fix that issue, that small 12% gap would be even smaller which makes Ryzen an ever better value.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but AMD does not seem to be very forthright as to what is causing performance disparities and would rather lay blame on everyone else. The fact is a lot of these issues should have been ironed out before release.
 
Presbytier said:
Possibly, but AMD does not seem to be very forthright as to what is causing performance disparities and would rather lay blame on everyone else. The fact is a lot of these issues should have been ironed out before release.
Click to expand...


Definitely, if there were not any of these issues at launch I might be running a 1700 system right now. Will wait for Zen+ or Intel's refresh at that time.
 
legcramp said:
Oh no worries, no one else accuses me of being a troll =)


+1 I agree if they push out a patch to fix that issue, that small 12% gap would be even smaller which makes Ryzen an ever better value.
Click to expand...


Look the SMT issue is similar to Intel's HT issue, I'm sure that will be fixed, the CCX issue, well that is something quite different.
 
Presbytier said:
Possibly, but AMD does not seem to be very forthright as to what is causing performance disparities and would rather lay blame on everyone else. The fact is a lot of these issues should have been ironed out before release.
Click to expand...

You talk as if Intel has never had issues with some of their new architectures. You are living in a fantasy world. The scheduler issue will be worked . If only AMD had the clout of Intel, they would have Microsoft kissing their feet.
 
os2wiz said:
You talk as if Intel has never had issues with some of their new architectures. You are living in a fantasy world. The scheduler issue will be worked . If only AMD had the clout of Intel, they would have Microsoft kissing their feet.
Click to expand...


They have had issues, nothing to this degree though. We saw their HT issues, SATA issues, but things like memory, CCX, not really not like this.

PS no one has clout against MS lol, just ask Intel and Itanium, MS crushed Intel because they decided Itanium wasn't good for them and rightfully so.
 
os2wiz said:
You talk as if Intel has never had issues with some of their new architectures. You are living in a fantasy world. The scheduler issue will be worked . If only AMD had the clout of Intel, they would have Microsoft kissing their feet.
Click to expand...
Well I am not talking about intel at all here to be honest. This is a conversation about AMD and if Intel launched a product with the same level of god awful MOBO support and all the other issues I would complain about that as well. No one expects a perfect launch of a new product many of these issues could have and should have been ironed out already, or at least the consumers made aware of the issues before the purchase. AMD is the one who decided to set up pre-orders on a product they knew had issues and decided to not disclose said issues with paying customers.
 
Presbytier said:
Well I am not talking about intel at all here to be honest. This is a conversation about AMD and if Intel launched a product with the same level of god awful MOBO support and all the other issues I would complain about that as well. No one expects a perfect launch of a new product many of these issues could have and should have been ironed out already, or at least the consumers made aware of the issues before the purchase. AMD is the one who decided to set up pre-orders on a product they knew had issues and decided to not disclose said issues with paying customers.
Click to expand...


Now we know why they wanted people to pre order before reviews were out, that was a shitty thing to do. They want people to buy systems that have issues? That is f'ed up.
 
razor1 said:
Now we know why they wanted people to pre order before reviews were out, that was a shitty thing to do. They want people to buy systems that have issues? That is f'ed up.
Click to expand...
I do really like Ryzen, but I think I can agree with this.
 
cybereality said:
I do really like Ryzen, but I think I can agree with this.
Click to expand...


Well it shows up AMD is a corporation, all they want is our money, to get that money though, they are willing to do just about anything lol.

At least not too many people preordered, hopefully, these aren't 1 dollar tick tacs.....
 
Presbytier said:
Well I am not talking about intel at all here to be honest. This is a conversation about AMD and if Intel launched a product with the same level of god awful MOBO support and all the other issues I would complain about that as well. No one expects a perfect launch of a new product many of these issues could have and should have been ironed out already, or at least the consumers made aware of the issues before the purchase. AMD is the one who decided to set up pre-orders on a product they knew had issues and decided to not disclose said issues with paying customers.
Click to expand...
How about you directly reference owners of the boards and their performance issues... Oh wait they don't seem to be having any. You make it sound as if they don't work at all.

Why don't you go to your local PC store and buy a 7700K and spend the next few years talking about how great it is in the Intel forum section. Because so far with your lack of ownership of a 1700/1700x/1800x, you lack any real knowledge that you can impart here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top