AMD Zen Discussion Thread

god's toy

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

My latest build is a 4K machine and I had to rule out Ryzen because it performs closer to an i3 in Fallout 4 and some other games, FO4 in particular was an instant no-no as it's a game I plan putting another 1 or 200 hundred hours into.

Now I know in Fallout 4 it's due to whatever way the game is coded as the FX series were perfectly horrible in that game, despite the game actually liking cores - but it just is what it is and I think there's a lot of teething Ryzen needs to go through before I'd consider it over an i7.

I'm a huge fallout fan and still play FO3 and FO4 on this pc. (16GB Ram+ 1060 gpu)
Went from an i5 to a Ryzen 1600x and I'm seeing a bigger jump in FPS than I was expecting tbh. (not 4k mind you but 1440P) Better still, on the I5 the cores were at 90% load each with the fans running full beans at 75C but on the 1600X they all sit at 25% load with temps of 45C. Better still is minimum FPS (as FO has horribly outdated code ) are hell of a lot better with the game almost never dipping below 60FPS now (unless in the built up city)

wotzgoingon

Adored's latest video, speculation of the two systems in Hungary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyyOP3ZI6qc

ED E

Boooobi....Sorry, Vega!

Anyone claiming Jims AMD biased can calm down now, he rightfully slated them here.

BloodBath

Ryzen 3 reviews are in. RIP i3 and lower end i5.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-3-1200-and-1300x-review,1.html

K.O.Kiki

Equal with a stock 6600K??

Inviere

But 4/4's are nearing dead duck status anyway, so while the value is certainly better than Intels offering, are AMD a little late to that particular party?

BloodBath

A lot of their gaming benchmarks seem to be GPU limited but it is a 1080. The point they made was somebody buying a Ryzen 3 will not be buying even a 1080 to go with it never mind a 1080ti.

The R3 at 4Ghz is slightly faster than a stock 6600k though.

Inviere wrote: »

But 4/4's are nearing dead duck status anyway, so while the value is certainly better than Intels offering, are AMD a little late to that particular party?

Yet people are still buying 7700k's and pairing them with $900 gpu's. Quad core ain't dead yet especially not at this price in the lower end 1080p/60Hz segment. It's not like they are just offering quads either. This is their lowest end SKU. You can get up to 32 cores / 64 threads if you want.

TerrorFirmer

That is very good value. It really sits between 7th gen i3 and i5 in most games which is a very sweet spot for a budget build.

I wouldn't say it outright kills the i3 and i5 though - both have an integrated GPU which Ryzen does not which make them better for non-gaming builds, but for gaming it is certainly excellent value.

Quad core is most definitely not dead, it will take time before the mainstream demands 6 and 8 cores simply because the overwhelming majority of gamers would still be using dual or quad core CPUs.

BloodBath

At 4ghz it's pretty much on par with an i5 7500 at around 60% of the price.

Mickeroo

How much are we expecting the Ryzen 3s to go for?

BloodBath

The 1200 can be got for as low as €115 from mindfactory.

TerrorFirmer

It is in some (most, even) games but in some of the really CPU punishing titles the gap widens, and there are some cases too where the i3 is actually faster.

Not saying it's not spectacular value, and overall I would certainly recommend a Ryzen CPU over an i3 or i5 at this point but I always believe a processor is only as good as it's weakest points, so to say it is on par with an i5-7500 is really not true as the consistency is not there.

It's most definitely an i3 killer for a gaming build but I would be slower to call it an i5 killer for that reason (though I do believe Ryzen 1500/1600 are generally i5 killers).

BloodBath

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

It is in some (most, even) games but in some of the really CPU punishing titles the gap widens, and there are some cases too where the i3 is actually faster.

Not saying it's not spectacular value, and overall I would certainly recommend a Ryzen CPU over an i3 or i5 at this point but I always believe a processor is only as good as it's weakest points, so to say it is on par with an i5-7500 is really not true as the consistency is not there.

It's most definitely an i3 killer for a gaming build but I would be slower to call it an i5 killer for that reason (though I do believe Ryzen 1500/1600 are generally i5 killers).

Well the R5 is the i5 killer really but the R3 is a good option if the budget is tight and they want a better gpu for the money.

Now imagine that RX 570 and 580's cost what they should, €200-250. You could build a great 1080p system for around €500-600 new.

K.O.Kiki

Meanwhile, Wraith Max LED is being sold seperately
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-wraith-max-cooler,35098.html

Inviere

BloodBath wrote: »

Yet people are still buying 7700k's and pairing them with $900 gpu's.

Well the 7700K is a 4/8, I specifically referred to 4/4's.

Quad core ain't dead yet especially not at this price in the lower end 1080p/60Hz segment.

Not dead yet, but if I were putting a build together there's no way I'd go 4/4 now, even considering a budget build. That said, AM4 offers a rock solid upgrade path for the next few years, so while team red would look like the way to go for a lot of builds, I don't think I'd bother with a Ryzen 3. The 1600X version 2 could be my next build though.

It's not like they are just offering quads either. This is their lowest end SKU. You can get up to 32 cores / 64 threads if you want.

Again though, I was specifically referring to building a 4/4 system, everything else from Ryzen is a no brainier at the mo. I'd say the same for current i5's too, though they're an even bigger negative as they've no upgrade path.

BloodBath

A 4/4 will not negatively effect a 1080p/60Hz system in the slightest. Hyper threading has a negligible effect in the majority of games anyway.

Cuddlesworth

BloodBath wrote: »

A 4/4 will not negatively effect a 1080p/60Hz system in the slightest. Hyper threading has a negligible effect in the majority of games anyway.

I wouldn't say that's exactly correct. It doesn't hurt to be reminded that a test system with a fresh install of Windows running much only the game on it, is not exactly comparable to a home system running 200 processes in the background. Those extra threads can make a decent difference between the two. There are lots of factors that reviewers can't account for or don't bother.

BloodBath

Sure but will they bring you below 60fps if the g-card can handle it? I seriously doubt it. Even in the likes of 64 man battlefield.

TerrorFirmer

BloodBath wrote: »

Sure but will they bring you below 60fps if the g-card can handle it? I seriously doubt it. Even in the likes of 64 man battlefield.

They will. BF1 is a total CPU killer, it's perfectly playable on a modern i5 but it does still dip regularly on Skylake i5's (except K's that are overclocked).

It's the first mainstream game I've seen that actually makes 2nd and 3rd gen i5's look their age (regular drops into the 30/40's fps wise).

Skylake i5 is also broadly superior to Ryzen 3 and often Ryzen 5, so I think you would very much notice in a game like BF1 online.

BloodBath

I can't find any benchmarks backing up what you claim. I also played BF1 quite a bit on an i5 3570k at 4.4Ghz which should be pretty comparable to that Ryzen at 4Ghz and never experienced these dips on 64 man.

It practically never dropped below 60 fps at 2560x1440 on a 970 with some reduced settings. Dice games are generally well optimised. Do you think they would let their game through if it regularly dipped down to the 30's on good quad cores? Something over 90% of the gaming market have or less.

Here's a skylake i5 6500 (Also pretty comparable to a 4/4 ryzen at 4Ghz) + gtx 1060 running BF1 64 man Ultra 1080p. Averages around 90-100fps, never gets any of the dips you speak of. I have seen it dip on lower clocked older i5's like the 2500 alright. Obviously there are a million and 1 variables when testing this so 1 example isn't everything but I haven't experienced it playing the game either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9uPwSmptLc

I'd imagine some game settings are having an effect on this. Higher field of view does increase cpu load as more objects are visible on screen and the cpu is responsible for moving these objects. All 3d object positioning and wire-framing is handled by the CPU. The guys FOV in the above vid is only 75.

Lukker-

I'm on an i5 4670k @4.5Ghz and I played a good bit at the start, I was getting 100% on all cores for lots of the game. Would dip to 40 from 80-90 fairly frequently in busy parts of the game with a mix of high/ultra.

Honestly it was a game that made me want to get a 4c/8t or a 6c/12t CPU.

BloodBath

I'm convinced a lot of these problems are settings based. I was getting poor performance in BF1 initially because I had the resolution scale set too high. The majority of people just pick a preset and roll with it. Some fine tuning in most games will get you the frames you want.

Yes it's a massively cpu heavy game but you still should not be dipping into the 30-40's with a good quad.

Lukker-

BloodBath wrote: »

I'm convinced a lot of these problems are settings based. I was getting poor performance in BF1 initially because I had the resolution scale set too high. The majority of people just pick a preset and roll with it. Some fine tuning in most games will get you the frames you want.

Yes it's a massively cpu heavy game but you still should not be dipping into the 30-40's with a good quad.

Definitely wasn't res scale. I'd be someone who pays close attention to settings, and will generally tune the settings to maintain 60 fps +, higher in some games. I actually had some things down to medium etc. I played a game recently and there was noticeably less strain on the CPU but I only really played one map, so it's something they possibly optimized.

BloodBath

Did you have dual channel memory? 2-4 sticks of matching ram? It's supposed to make a significant difference in BF1.

Inviere

BloodBath wrote: »

Did you have dual channel memory? 2-4 sticks of matching ram? It's supposed to make a significant difference in BF1.

I feel that we're just beginning now to see games that will expose 4/4's in certain conditions. In a years time, a Kaby Lake i5 or Ryzen 3 might have been better off being a Ryzen 5. At least though a cpu upgrade will be drag & drop for AM4 users, those on a Kaby Lake build will have a much pricier upgrade to consider.

K.O.Kiki

<€600 budget build with upgradeability


Just need to OC that Ryzen 3-1200

dazberry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoVK6rJR5VE

link

That der8auer bloke has delidded a ThreadRipper CPU, and it turns out it is an Epyx CPU complete with 4 dies - but in the case of TR 2 of the dies are disabled, leaving two functioning 8 core packages.

D.

TerrorFirmer

It practically never dropped below 60 fps at 2560x1440 on a 970 with some reduced settings. Dice games are generally well optimised. Do you think they would let their game through if it regularly dipped down to the 30's on good quad cores? Something over 90% of the gaming market have or less.

This is the exact scenario that did happen. The Battlelog forums were crammed full of people specifically with insane CPU usage issues when the game was first released and for a very long time afterwards.

What Lukker described is exactly how the game performed for a huge number of people using anything other than an i7/Xeon. Some maps are (were?) definitely worse than others.

I wasn't disputing that the average framerate would not be 60, but that the 1% low would be in the 30-50 range depending on CPU model/clockspeed.

But also as Lukker said they may have optimised it greatly more recently, I haven't played the game much at all in the past few months.

Even on the BF and gaming forums here on boards it was full of people with performance issues on PC - 100% cpu usage and frequent drops.

It was also a game interesting enough that I thought the FX series might go out on a final show on strength due to the core count, but nope....performance on these is actually horrible in BF1.

Remember when the game first came out the minimum requirement was an 6600K - total nonsense of course but I think they overstated it because they knew the game was a horrible and unoptimised pig when first released (and for a long time after).

I found it very difficult to play on a 2nd gen i5 - the first game I think ever that happened to me. The average framerate in some maps was 45-50fps.

Xenoronin

dazberry wrote: »

That der8auer bloke has delidded a ThreadRipper CPU, and it turns out it is an Epyx CPU complete with 4 dies - but in the case of TR 2 of the dies are disabled, leaving two functioning 8 core packages.

D.

Had to take it down after a request of AMD, even though he had permission to put the video up. Looks like someone in marketing got skittish after the "reveal".

beno619

Xenoronin wrote: »

Had to take it down after a request of AMD, even though he had permission to put the video up. Looks like someone in marketing got skittish after the "reveal".

Its common knowledge that they are salvaged or disabled Zen dies.