Ashes of the Singularity gets AMD Ryzen performance update

[HEXUS]

Tests show an impressive 31 per cent framerate uplift at 1440p, 27 per cent at 1080p.

Read more.

[shaithis]

So, another 12 months and most new titles should perform properly on Ryzen.

This still only puts it on par with a 7700k and well behind the 6900k (at least in AotS, would be nice to see what happens as more patches are released for other games).

Lets hope Ryzen2 doesn't require different optimisations.........

[Raven74]

Well ryzen2 will be based on ryzen technology so any optimisation for ryzen will apply for ryzen2 so in a year or so i think everything will run properly on ryzen that means when ryzen2 will appear it will be evrything prepared for it.

[Sunderas]

Now that is the performance I was waiting for. Let's see further optimizations roll out.

[LSG501]

So, another 12 months and most new titles should perform properly on Ryzen.

This still only puts it on par with a 7700k and well behind the 6900k (at least in AotS, would be nice to see what happens as more patches are released for other games).

To be fair you've got to look at this a little more subjectively.... most people will pick the 7700k for gaming due to bang per buck in games but what if you don't just use your pc for gaming....

Most people who do content creation (video/3d) would likely pick more cores over sheer clock speed so from intel that means say the 6900k and we all know that ryzen is comparable to that in tests which use all it's threads.

So for the home user you now have a choice of a pc (1700/1700x seems sweet spot imo on amd)which is more than 'good enough' for gaming while also having enough grunt to do heavier work at comparable or better performance than intel 6900k all for the cost of intels 7700k.

While we need more companies to update their games it's nice to have another option than needing to pay over £1000 (ignoring the extra expense of the motherboards) if you want to use your pc for more than just gaming (like me)

[SlickR]

So, another 12 months and most new titles should perform properly on Ryzen.

This still only puts it on par with a 7700k and well behind the 6900k (at least in AotS, would be nice to see what happens as more patches are released for other games).

Lets hope Ryzen2 doesn't require different optimisations.........

That is utter bullrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish and you know it. At worst Ryzen processors perform about 10fps in select few games worse, at best they are actually equal.

The 6900k is also slower than the 7700k in some games, because not all games utilize more than 4 cores, but that is changing and Ryzen will be AMD's processor for at least the next 5 years. So yeah, every single up and coming game will be faster on Ryzen.

That is not to mention that we are getting 8 cores for the same price as Intel's 4 cores, in content creation, office work, data storage, computational work, etc... Ryzen is faster.

And again for as little as $330 you are getting 8 cores and 16 threads, which Intel's processor still costs $1100 to get. Cheaper ones are the intel 6 core which still costs around $600 and yet is significantly slower than Ryzen, including games.

In AOTS this puts Ryzen processors way AHEAD of Intel actually.

[Ozaron]

Now that is the performance I was waiting for. Let's see further optimizations roll out.

Yeah, it's nice to see they patched it properly and got more than a 5% uplift. If only we could get 5 more of these kinds of patches, with Oxide sharing optimisation tips to other studios... Imagine how different Ryzen 5 initial reviews could be compared to 1800X.

[Biscuit]

Yeah, it's nice to see they patched it properly and got more than a 5% uplift. If only we could get 5 more of these kinds of patches, with Oxide sharing optimisation tips to other studios... Imagine how different Ryzen 5 initial reviews could be compared to 1800X.

I suspect all the studios have been working from the advice passed to them directly from AMD, along with their Ryzen Dev kit.

[scaryjim]

... every single up and coming game will be faster on Ryzen. ...

I want either your crystal ball or some of what you're smoking, please....

Ryzen is behind Kaby Lake in both IPC and peak boost clock. Not all games will thread well, because not all tasks parallelise well. So there were still exist games where single threaded performance is more important than multithreaded performance, and current indications are that Intel will still win in single threaded tests for the foreseeable future.

It's also daft to think Intel will stand still. Intel currently don't sell standard consumer CPUs with more than four cores because they've not seen a need to. That doesn't mean they can't sell them. With AMD producing a competitive product with up to 8 cores in the same consumer space (although it's worth remembering that the cheapest Ryzen 7 is the same price as the most expensive s1151 CPU), Intel will have to consider their market segmentation and decide whether they can continue to look competitive with quad core processors in that market.

If Intel bring out a high clocked 6C/12T processor at current consumer i7 pricing, it's going to look pretty good compared to the R7 1700. AMD have made a big leap forward with Ryzen, but they're still technologically behind in most areas*. Let's not get carried away, hey?

*one area AMD seem to have done very well on is their SMT implementation - it seems to be significantly more efficient than Intel's...

[anselhelm]

This still only puts it on par with a 7700k...

You mean the 7700K that's the fastest gaming CPU ever made?!

Seriously, you need to look at the facts again and draw a different conclusion.

AMD has just launched a brand new CPU architecture with brand new motherboards. That it works so relatively well out of the dock when AMD has so many fewer engineers and such a smaller R&D budget compared with Intel is insane!

Sure, there have been launch hiccups, but it's being handled quicker than with the Intel X99 launch, which took nearly a year (from what I've read) to become fully stable, and that was frickin' Intel with its massive testing budget!

Did you honestly expect AMD to outright best Intel in every single task for half the price at launch?!

My apologies for phrasing my reply this way, but unless I've really misunderstood you, you're being entirely unreasonable and out-of-sync with reality here. AMD Ryzen is a chip with amazing potential and has massively caught up with Intel, but it was never going to suddenly beat Intel at everything, not even with Zen+/Zen2.

[GinoLatino]

This still only puts it on par with a 7700k and well behind the 6900k (at least in AotS, would be nice to see what happens as more patches are released for other games).

I won't call 3 fps difference "well behind"...
https://www.pcper.com/files/imagecac...29/ashes-1.png

Especially for a cpu that cost half the money...

[shaithis]

I won't call 3 fps difference "well behind"...
https://www.pcper.com/files/imagecac...29/ashes-1.png

Especially for a cpu that cost half the money...

According to Toms crazy preset, the 6900K is over 20% faster. That's a BIG difference. Yes, the Ryzens are good value and I completely acknowledge that but they are also a BRAND NEW chip, designed by probably the best CPU designer ever and it still trailing Intel. Not everyone goes for the best bang-for-buck across the board.

You mean the 7700K that's the fastest gaming CPU ever made?!

Seriously, you need to look at the facts again and draw a different conclusion.

.

maybe you need to....we are talking about AotS here, the only game we know of with the ryzen optimisations in....

[kalniel]

You mean the 7700K that's the fastest gaming CPU ever made?!

Seriously, you need to look at the facts again and draw a different conclusion.

AMD has just launched a brand new CPU architecture with brand new motherboards. That it works so relatively well out of the dock when AMD has so many fewer engineers and such a smaller R&D budget compared with Intel is insane!

Sure, there have been launch hiccups, but it's being handled quicker than with the Intel X99 launch, which took nearly a year (from what I've read) to become fully stable, and that was frickin' Intel with its massive testing budget!

Did you honestly expect AMD to outright best Intel in every single task for half the price at launch?!

My apologies for phrasing my reply this way, but unless I've really misunderstood you, you're being entirely unreasonable and out-of-sync with reality here. AMD Ryzen is a chip with amazing potential and has massively caught up with Intel, but it was never going to suddenly beat Intel at everything, not even with Zen+/Zen2.

I think there is some merit to what he said - yes, the 7700K is the fastest gaming CPU.. yet it somehow works out cheaper than a 1700X or 1800X. That AMD is a smaller team, and on a smaller R&D budget, should mean a cheaper CPU, not a more expensive one.

As rightly pointed out, gaming is far from the only story with these chips, but on that particular point things have to be put in perspective.

[Xlucine]

I think there is some merit to what he said - yes, the 7700K is the fastest gaming CPU.. yet it somehow works out cheaper than a 1700X or 1800X. That AMD is a smaller team, and on a smaller R&D budget, should mean a cheaper CPU, not a more expensive one.

As rightly pointed out, gaming is far from the only story with these chips, but on that particular point things have to be put in perspective.

1700X is cheaper than a 7700K. Going with the cheapest MATX boards from scan right now:

1700X (£360) + ASrock AB350M (£75) = £435

7700K (£335) + Asrock Z270M Pro4 (£115) = £450

That's with the cheapest chipset that supports overclocking, no point in the 7700K without it

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

1700X is cheaper than a 7700K. Going with the cheapest MATX boards from scan right now:

1700X (£360) + ASrock AB350M (£75) = £435

7700K (£335) + Asrock Z270M Pro4 (£115) = £450

That's with the cheapest chipset that supports overclocking, no point in the 7700K without it

Sadly if I had £300 to £400 to waste on a CPU,it probably would be a Core i7 7700K,especially as I have a mini-ITX rig too. Yes,I know more games will thread better and the R7 series will probably look better in the next few years,but sadly many of the games I play actually seem to need decent single threaded performance,and Ryzen is not quite there for me yet in its current state.

Edit!!

Actually it is the R5 CPUs which look better,since most of the Intel Core i5 range is locked and can't really use higher speed RAM,which actually hobbles them more.

[kalniel]

1700X is cheaper than a 7700K. Going with the cheapest MATX boards from scan right now:

1700X (£360) + ASrock AB350M (£75) = £435

7700K (£335) + Asrock Z270M Pro4 (£115) = £450

That's with the cheapest chipset that supports overclocking, no point in the 7700K without it

So according to your figures the 1700X is a more expensive CPU.