Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  
SergeantMatt

AMD RyZen: Gaming Performance

Recommended Posts

tl;dr, does not appear to be great for gaming.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2822-amd-ryzen-r7-1800x-review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks

Removing GPU bottlenecking by running at low resolutions, the 1800X gets beaten by the 7700K in most games, which is half the price.

For gaming, it’s a hard pass. We absolutely do not recommend the 1800X for gaming-focused users or builds, given i5-level performance at two times the price. An R7 1700 might make more sense, and we’ll soon be testing that.

AMD defends its position by indicating the ISVs need to begin supporting their product, and has provided us statements from StarDock and Bethesda relating to this. To these statements, we’d remind folks that games take a long time to develop. Buying a CPU now in the hopes that games will better leverage 16T CPUs in a few years is a risky move – particularly with Bethesda’s track record for game optimization.

Regardless, we’ll provide the quotes that AMD passed along:

“Oxide games is incredibly excited with what we are seeing from the Ryzen CPU. Using our Nitrous game engine, we are working to scale our existing and future game title performance to take full advantage of Ryzen and its 8-core, 16-thread architecture, and the results thus far are impressive. These optimizations are not yet available for Ryzen benchmarking. However, expect updates soon to enhance the performance of games like Ashes of the Singularity on Ryzen CPUs, as well as our future game releases.” - Brad Wardell, CEO Stardock and Oxide

Note that the above was in response to poor performance of the 1800X in Ashes of the Singularity.

And:

"Creative Assembly is committed to reviewing and optimizing its games on the all-new Ryzen CPU. While current third-party testing doesn’t reflect this yet, our joint optimization program with AMD means that we are looking at options to deliver performance optimization updates in the future to provide better performance on Ryzen CPUs moving forward. " – Creative Assembly, Developers of the Multi-award Winning Total War Series

This, we believe, was a response to the Total War: Warhammer performance that we observed, given Creative Assembly’s previous partnerships with AMD to promote the FX-6350 CPUs.

AMD’s best wasn’t enough for gaming workloads. If production is your thing, check the relevant benchmark page for more information. The price:performance in that category is the one saving grace for the R7 1800X.

The R7 1700 may prove a better value for gaming; we’ll have those benchmarks shortly. For now, though, the 1800X is a disappointment, and is not a processor we recommend for gamers when considering the price-point. If you were to buy it, disable SMT for gaming. It’s mostly detrimental, likely due to resource contention among threads in gaming environments. Even mixed workload users should consider when and where software acceleration is better than GPU acceleration, if ever for their needs, before purchasing the 1800X. Do the research on your applications. For what we do with media production, it makes no sense to render software-accelerated; that doesn’t mean it never makes sense.

But yes: The 1800X is an impressive competitor to the 6900K in production, and it’s significantly cheaper. We’d recommend the 1800X over the 6900K for folks who genuinely use software acceleration. It’s just not good for gaming, and GPUs kill both AMD and Intel CPUs in accelerated rendering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/03/2017 at 9:25 PM, SergeantMatt said:

the 1800X gets beaten by the 7700K in most games, which is half the price.

No it isn't - 7700k fetches around $350, which is way more than half the $500 price tag on the 1800X.

Given the huge improvements with SMT off, this isn't something that needs years to get optimised for - within months windows scheduler updates will make this a non-issue. It was a mistake of AMD to release this before scheduling could make best use of the system, but that can't be fixed now. It does perform within a few percent of i5's from a few years ago, but so do modern i7's - CPU's just don't matter that much for gaming, at all. On sensible resolutions (i.e. not running a 1080 at 1080p) this will be a non-issue, which is a big improvement over the previous AMD CPU's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends what autodesk stuff. It looks like autoCAD is very heavily single-threaded (https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/autocad/troubleshooting/caas/sfdcarticles/sfdcarticles/Multithreading-or-multiprocessor-capabilities.html), so the extra cores won't add much - you'll be best off with the cheapest fastest processor you can find (also see here http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu,4951-9.html). If you're using simulation packages then they might benefit from more cores, but it depends on which simulation you're running.

 

For gaming AMD or intel are pretty much inseparable, with AMD costing less - either would be good, although especially with modern games anything below a quad core will start to get very dated fast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×