Read more.Quote:
A few tweaks to a Ryzen 7 1800X system garnered a 35.53 per cent gaming gain.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
A few tweaks to a Ryzen 7 1800X system garnered a 35.53 per cent gaming gain.
It's quite simple, these Ryzen's are superb value for productivity related tasks and are 'good enough' for gaming.
If you use your PC like this:
75/25 productivity/gaming = Ryzen
75/25 gaming/productivity = Intel
Until Ryzen CPU's can get to at least 4.5Ghz on air I don't see any change to that choice.
Or until game developers get better usage of multiple cores...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagpuss
lol.. maybe I'm reading this a bit wrong but....to get the best performance out of the new ryzen cpu I need to overclock it and use it as an 8 thread not a 16 thread cpu....
Yeah maybe it's me but this marketing guy isn't exactly helping AMD's cause here when there's all these reports about being faster with SMT disabled.... I know it's a code level tweak to limit threads being used but isn't this just confirming what people are seeing in benchmarks and showing that there's something a little 'off' with the drivers/cpu when it comes to smt.
Now don't get me wrong I still think ryzen is great value, especially for 3D rendering etc like I do but this sort of post really doesn't help them much when it comes to gaming lol.
You're reading it wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by LSG501
1) Of course you get better performance out of an overclocked system. So of course overclocking gives you the best performance. However, in this instance it only made up ~ 2% of the difference. It's not a significant contributor to the performance boost.
2) The game incorrectly reads Ryzen as a 16 Core/16 Thread CPU (which is something I mooted was happening here) rather than an 8 core/16 thread CPU. To be fair the good Robert Hallock doesn't explicitly state whether he changed the file to force the game to treat Ryzen as 8C/8T or 8C/16T, but his implication is that he only changed the count of physical cores.
The big wins were from doing a fresh OS & game install, and using high-clocked RAM - both things that enthusiasts can very easily control.
I'm curious about the fresh OS install. Is he saying he was able to reuse an OS install from a non-Ryzen chip before somehow?
Win 10 is surprisingly compliant when it comes to moving a system disk from one computer to another. When my wife's laptop died I ended up being able to simply stick her old HDD in a temporary replacement while waiting for the new one, and it seemed more than happy...Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
Yes I have also found windows 10 to be great when swapping around hardware, even installing a new mobo and cpu didn't mean re-installing windows, it just did a bit of auto configuring the first time it booted up and that was that (although I did make sure I installed chipset drivers etc. afterwards just to be safe)
Yeah we've been waiting for that since quad-core became mainstream 10 years ago...Quote:
Originally Posted by GinoLatinoOr until game developers get better usage of multiple cores...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagpuss
I just went from Phenom II to a 1700X without re-installing. Win10 came up with something like 'installing hardware' for a few moments then booted normally. I do wonder if it's worth reinstalling at some point but was trying to avoid the hassle! Well, that and I was waiting to play Wildlands...Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
TBF many modern games make very good use of 4+ cores, just look at how the i5 drops behind the i7 in some games, and that's just with less threads but equal core count. The dual-core but 4 thread i3 falls even further. Throwing cores at games that weren't designed to scale across more obviously won't make much of a difference (outside of giving background tasks more freedom to run without interfering with game performance at least), but there's a good reason people aren't just sticking to i3s in higher end gaming rigs - they're almost functionally identical to an i7 aside from core count.Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
Most gamers are still on 2C/4T and 4C/4T and its not surprising since you need to spend £300+ to even get an Intel 4C/8T CPU,so most gamers still have stuck with a Core i5.
What is more important for the market is lower cost 4C/8T CPUs,which means devs can at least target 8T reasonably fast threads. This is why for me the R5 1400 at $169 is more important that any of the Ryzen R7 CPUs which are £300+ since getting more normal gamers onto 4C/4T and 4C/8T is important to push things forward.
We have had consoles with more than 4T since the XBox 360 days,but the massive cost increase of even getting 4C/8T CPUs over a 4C/4T CPU has pushed many people away.
Yeah exactly - the games will target what's widely used in the market. While >4 threads has been limited to more expensive systems, with little incentive for gamers to buy more, the market share hasn't grown all that quickly. I also agree that the R5 CPUs are probably more of a big deal in the gaming space, at least in the near term, for that very reason.
CAT-THE-FIFTH, 300+ is presumably for a new Intel 4C/8T; that's why I sourced used parts: a 3930K cost 82, ASUS R4E was 113, so a 6C/12T + good mbd for less than the cost of a new 4C. For my editing rig, a 4960X and ASUS P9X79-E WS was just over 400 total. Luck of the draw of course, but no way was I going to buy Intel's overpriced newer mainstream CPUs, so the compromise made sense.
Most of the games I play are CPU bottlenecked even on a 6-core Xeon (hence why I'm still waiting for an 8-core Skylake-E) but for the most part everytime I mention this people claim I'm an oddball and "most" games aren't like that. Which I'm inclined to agree, given tech sites are still claiming overclocking an i3-K gives potentially much more gaming perf per £/$ than buying an i7.Quote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
I was careful to not say 'most' as that is largely dependent on what you actually play, and your perspective of gaming performance may be substantially different to that represented by the majority of benchmarking sites if you play games which are mostly lightly-threaded.
I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at though - in one post you seem to be implying games are not making good use of multiple cores, and in the next you're claiming to be CPU-bound, giving 6 cores as the reason and looking for 8 cores as an upgrade. Based on what you said earlier, you would likely be better served by a lower core count but higher-clocked and newer uArch processor like Kaby Lake - it's not often that the low-clocked Xeons (or socket 2011 i7's for that matter) will outperform their desktop counterparts in gaming workloads, despite the perception of higher performance due to the server branding.
Perhaps if you gave some examples of these games which are both not taking advantage of multiple cores, and would benefit from an 8 core Skylake over a 4 core Kaby Lake? Or why you believe you're CPU-bound for that matter?