I can't remember and I'm to lazy to go looking through hundreds of benchmarks but roughly how far was/is Ryzen behind Intel's offerings in single threaded loads, IIRC Ryzen out performs most Intel CPU's in similar price brackets for multithreaded workloads but is it more than 10'ish percent slower in single threaded stuff?
Why would I ever consider spending a load of money for the same performance?Originally Posted by scaryjim
"In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."
You wouldn'tWhy would I ever consider spending a load of money for the same performance?I said that a 1500X or 1600X would probably be a noticable bump in performance.
I mentioned the 1200 because the cheapest AM4 processor being equivalent to what you currently have gives a good indication that the platform is worth investing in.
I am noticing minimums are worse on my FO4 for sure - a couple of FPS,but when they are already at 28~30FPS before the fix in taxing areas its noticable when you have more dips below that after the fix. Interestingly enough this is in settlements too where my SSD is the most noticeable(when my Sandisk SSD went kaput,I tried using an HDD and it was not playable).I'm not investing effort in tracking leaks of the performance of upcoming parts when Meltdown and Spectre are still somewhat up in the air so I'm not even sure of the performance of the 5 year old CPU I already own
You really don't get much out of process updates these days, the main advantage is more transistors allowing you to fit more functionality on so porting an existing design to 12nm won't get much. OFC AMD aren't that far behind Intel in lots of benchmarks so even another 5% will close a lot of gaps. Hopefully for them it will improve profitability as well.
Still, it is usual for a new line of CPUs to be released with bugs and problems and the second version to be rather sweet. Phenom was a dog of a product, Phenom II was pretty good. Bulldozer missed the mark, Piledriver was way better. That depends on how buggy the original Ryzen was, and how much low hanging fruit they know they can improve, but hopefully Ryzen+ will be interesting.
Leaks are fun, but it isn't over until the fat Ryzen+ Threadripper sings
The only issue,is even now Ryzen seems no better than IB in the game(or even worse),and Intel is far ahead,and much more than the IPC difference would suggest and its not certainly not tiny. Something is deffinitely not right here - maybe its the dual CCX design,AMD SMT,the cache arrangement,etc. If it were an upgrade over what I had(even a small one) I probably would have got a Ryzen 5 1600 by now.
Regarding Bulldozer - some games like DiRT3 didn't work well on it,but Piledriver did with a large performance boost IIRC,so it could be that Ryzen+ or Ryzen 2 fixes it. The thing is in terms of platform longevity,etc AMD seems much more superior for my purposes than Intel,and they seem to have locked down security better too.
IIRC,when it comes to gaming it seems closer to Haswell level,but for non-gaming its more like Broadwell level.
The issue is not IPC,or even clockspeeds,but certainly in a number of games,Ryzen gaming averages seems to be brought down by noticeably poor performance in certain games.
That implies it is down to IOPS, and given that even Windows these days can cache reads rather well I have to wonder if the thing is performing small *writes* to disk. Small file operations is also one of the hurt points for Meltdown. If that is the case, Ryzen with an NVMe SSD might end up as the optimum platform. If you can try playing with Resource Manager open on a second monitor you might be able to get some idea of what the I/O pattern is.
So it's not so much a performance deficit in single threaded workloads but optimisation in some games? The reason i asked was i was trying to work out, if the rumored 10'ish percent performance gain from Ryzen+ is correct, how much that would close the gap in single threaded workloads.
Yep,that is what FO4 does differently from Skyrim,it reads smaller amounts of data more often than Skyrim which reads larger chunks less often. OFC,I am referring to my modded playthrough with my larger settlements,althought the game is generally known to prefer running off an SSD even in its normal form.
Regarding Ryzen and NVMe,even with the Meltdown performance reductions,Intel still will have a massive performance improvement over Ryzen.
With 3GHZ RAM in a settlement.
With 2667MHZ RAM in Diamond City.
Boston Commons with 3600MHZ RAM.
https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test...zeni?page=0,14
Another part of the Boston Commons with 2133MHZ RAM.
When it comes to minimums in more taxing areas of the game,it seems that something like a stock Core i7 8700K is easily 40% faster than even a 4GHZ Ryzen 7.
It also extends to the Core i5 8400 which seems to be significantly faster overall.
Ryzen 7 seems to be roughly around the speed of a Core i7 3770K in the game,ie,around the speed of my Xeon E3 1230 V2.
Also,as I have a mini-ITX system,I would need a mini-ITX system with a NVMe M2 slot.
Yep,because you only need to compare the average IPC in non-gaming situations to that of gaming situations. Also look at the Core i5 8400 against the Ryzen 5 1600X for example. In some games the difference is much larger than expected.
Edit!!
Look at the HW-E and BW-E 6C/12T CPUs and the Ryzen 5 1600/1600X. The performance profile is very close to those CPUs,which shows Ryzen is more between Haswell and Broadwell level performance in non-gaming applications.
Now look at the HW-E and BW-E CPUs,and the Ryzen 5 1600/1600X is slight below them.
These all have similar ballpark clockspeeds,and 6C/12T so are a fair comparison.
They are only running 2400MHZ RAM BTW. The first is from the Hardware.fr Ryzen 5 launch review and the last from their Coffee Lake review.
Remember this is with slower RAM,and with a mixture of older and newer applications.
The Ryzen gaming averages don't look too bad until you look at some of them in more detail - look at Watch Dogs 2 for example. The Core i5 8400 is 32% faster than a Ryzen 5 1600X or in GTA V where it is 20% faster.
This is what drags down performance averages in games for Ryzen,some games seem to just perform way more poorly than IPC would suggest.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 21-01-2018 at 01:28 PM.
adidan (21-01-2018)
The thing that's confusing me is rumors point towards a 200Mhz and 10'ish percent improvement in performance, that 10'ish percentage increase obviously comes in part from the 200Mhz increase, however a 200Mhz increase doesn't effect IPC so how much closer does a 10'ish percent increase in performance (not IPC) bring Ryzen+ to Intel's single threaded performance.
Sorry for doing what seems to be a bad job of explaining things.
Apparently there might be a slight IPC increase - hopefully this is manifested more in the "poorly performing" games than the better performing ones. Piledriver for example did noticeably better in DiRT3 than Bulldozer for example.The thing that's confusing me is rumors point towards a 200Mhz and 10'ish percent improvement in performance, that 10'ish percentage increase obviously comes in part from the 200Mhz increase, however a 200Mhz increase doesn't effect IPC so how much closer does a 10'ish percent increase in performance (not IPC) bring Ryzen+ to Intel's single threaded performance.
Sorry for doing what seems to be a bad job of explaining things.
Edit!!
10% extra performance would place Ryzen+ within spitting distance of SKL-X in terms of non-gaming performance at similar core counts,and it would probably on average be easily ahead of a Core i7 8700K.
If you are running games based on newer engines,that should place Ryzen+ quite close to CFL IMHO,but with games based on unoptimised engines,Intel will still have a decent lead,even if we assume a 5% to 10% drop due to the security patches.
Corky34 (21-01-2018)
How long until the next bethesda RPG comes out, with an updated engine that finds some new aspect of the system to bottleneck on?
How many of those benchmarks were taken post-meltdown fix? The only one you've linked to the full review on was posted last year
Like this?
https://www.scan.co.uk/products/giga...board-mini-itx
M-ITX, nvme m.2, and £20 cheaper than the cheapest 8th-gen intel M-ITX board too...
Different rumours - people were spitballing a 10% boost for ryzen+, and an engineering sample has been seen in a benchmark database (spotted by Cat in post #853) that looks like a 1600 with a 200 MHz clockspeed boostThe thing that's confusing me is rumors point towards a 200Mhz and 10'ish percent improvement in performance, that 10'ish percentage increase obviously comes in part from the 200Mhz increase, however a 200Mhz increase doesn't effect IPC so how much closer does a 10'ish percent increase in performance (not IPC) bring Ryzen+ to Intel's single threaded performance.
Sorry for doing what seems to be a bad job of explaining things.
I posted benchmarks in the Intel Meltdown thread and at worse you are probably seeing around 10% maybe 15% or around that level drop in performance.
Which means AMD still is crap in FO4,since its upto 40% to 50% slower and no better than my IB Core i7 which has had a few FPS knocked off the minimums after the fix.
This is compounded by the price of RAM - I have 16GB of 2400MHZ DDR4 which I got for £56,and if you are running slowish RAM,the Core i5 8400 is like 40% faster. Even if that dropped 15% it would 34% faster,and even if AMD gained 10% it still would be signficantly faster.
This is an optimisation problem and I asked, on that AMD Q and A section on OcUK,one of their CPU chaps about FO4 specifically and I get the impression AMD CBA to prod Bethesda to do anything about this unless a big song and dance was made about it,and then they started talked about FO4 VR,which not a single website will bother testing CPU performance on,and even if it was better I doubt unless AMD pushes Bethesda that the normal game will get any improvements.
The problem is that for these kind of games,people will just end up buying Intel anyway after looking at the performance figures,so how many Ryzen owners will really play the game is another question. These are the sort of games which will be played for far longer than some of the games AMD seems to be more worried about which drop off in players very quickly after launch.
Considering FO4 was released 16 months previously to the Ryzen launch,it was not that old a game in the first place,so it makes me wonder how many more will be like that,and this is from a company which AMD proudly was saying it was in partnership with before the Ryzen launch.
I know AMD likes looking at the future but they seriously need to try and improve things in games they are traditionally rubbish at - MMOs,many open world RPGs,etc. Sure these are dependent on single core performance and Intel has that advantage but when a lowish clockspeed Core i5 8400 is thrashing your top CPU in certain games,which still a decent amount of people are playing and have active communities online it seems rather a self defeating move to just ignore it and hope it goes away.FO4 has over 20000 mods,and nearly 350 million downloads for said mods and that is just from the Nexus.
FO4 is still in the top 20 of most played games on Steam,even ahead of the W3,which means both are still selling a reasonable amount:
http://comicbook.com/gaming/2018/01/...oney-on-steam/
The same goes with GTAV which has had some issues with Ryzen.
Another prime example was WoW. For a very long time Nvidia cards were thrashing AMD ones in the game to silly levels,and this is a game with millions and millions of players.
These games might not be the latest and greatest or even bothered about by reviewers now,but I honestly think AMD does not realise many people are not playing the latest and greatest games. It makes me wonder how many gaming sales they must be loosing on this,since it reinforces that Intel is the way forward for this.
Plus if people buy Intel by extension it is more likely they will buy a Nvidia graphics card too.
I want to buy AMD,as everything outside performance is better with them,but the issue is if my most CPU limited games are a side-grade then I might as well stick with what I have now.
I have been waiting nearly a year to see if FO4 would get some Ryzen patches and it looks like AdoredTV was right,when he benchmarked it,that it is unlikely to ever get it. Then there is Planetside 2 which is more of the same,which I can get down to 25FPS~30FPS minimums. Will Ryzen be much better than IB?? I don't know since its another old engine.
All my performance limited games are those based on older engines,not newer ones. Ryzen actual IPC should indicate improvements over what I have but the reality is,not necessarily.
This is why Intel is the safe choice for me,even with its performance drops after the patches,and unless Ryzen+ or the Ryzen APU has a noticeable jump in performance in older engines,it means only Ryzen 2 might give that jump,since it if IPC and clockspeeds increase a decent amount it can brute force any lack of optimisations.
However,AMD might just add more cores instead.
TBH,I am unlikely to be buying an NVMe SSD anytime soon,when I already have two SSDs and need to RMA my third SSD,ie,theSandisk 480GB one at some point - I will only get an M2 one once prices drop,as it will help with regards to space,ie,it can be on the motherboard and there will be one less cable to worry about.
They need at least a 10% improvement since Intel is going to release the Core i5 8500,etc which have higher clockspeeds.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 21-01-2018 at 03:13 PM.
CB review of the Ryzen 5 2500U in the Acer Swift 3:
https://www.computerbase.de/2018-01/...t-raven-ridge/
scaryjim (22-01-2018)
FFS,AMD:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B6FlUA9PKI
Look at what happens when you force the latest drivers to run on a Vega laptop. Apparently it won't normally install unless you manually install it and do it for a Vega discrete card.
Wonder why forcing the drivers is necessary?
- Qualification of the drivers (so should eventually come)?
- Or a power usage issue (but then surely it should be fine when plugged in)?
- Some kind of secret surprise for the Ryzen APUs on desktop launch?
Dunno,but that wasn't a small increase in performance!!
The cb.de review mentions that the adrenaline driver doesn't currently support Raven Ridge, and I swear I've seen another review somewhere talk about force-installing the adrenaline driver because it doesn't officially support RR. I'm sure there'll be some official explanation from AMD about OEM certification and stuff. Wonder what driver version the firestrike tests in the 2400G release notes were done under? 3000 points under the old driver? Could we see 10%+ increases just from a driver update....?!
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
