AMD Gives Pointers On How to Improve Ryzen 1080p game performance

Yes GPU rendering is faster.

But if you can use it depends entirely on the Rendering Suite. Not all programs support GPU / CUDA based rendering fully.

Also with GPU rendering your VRAM restricts your maximum scene size.

With CPU rendering your RAM does.

So certain scenes you can only render properly with CPU and a lot of RAM because they they would exceed VRAM.

 

Ryzen still loses to 7700K @ 1440p gaming

 

Interesting extract/snippet.

So you dont trust Hilberts review, I assume?

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_1800x_processor_review,20.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_1800x_processor_review,16.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_1800x_processor_review,17.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_1800x_processor_review,18.html


And these are even with both CCX running...

 

LOL

Spoiler

 

Oh for pointing out truths no effort is too much.

But smearing a brands name over and over again? Is that worth it?

 

Arguing with vase is kinda pointless guys.

 

People who hate on amd know nothing appearently. AMD created mantle, which pushed Microsoft to develop DX12, Vulkan is also borrowing a lot from mantle. They are now bringing 8 cores to the mainstream for $300 and people are complaining? its AMD pushing technology for gamers forward, some people are too childish to realize this but I give it up to AMD so much for the effort. I Love computers and i love tech, weather its from intel, amd or nvidia, just know if it wasnt for AMD, who knows if DX12 would be around, microsoft at one point did say dx11 was the last one, remember that? Thank you AMD, and you can see how well AMD gpus do in dx12, that is not a coincidence because dx12 borrows a LOT from mantle.

 

The idea behind that is to check how much of an affect games optimisations built around for the intel architecture had clock for clock. 1-5% = spanked? really? Last i heard Sky lake and Kaby lake 1-5% was meh who cares you won't notice it.

The only exception where Kaby lake pulled away was in Far cry Primal everything else was 1-2fps and theres over 100fps. Of course the 7700k will pull out faster if overclocked to 4.9Ghz (average) which is 18% clock speed advantage assuming the increases are linear and that there are no bottlenecks and if overclocking increase with the GPU but even at that the GTX 1080 will be bottleneck at some point so a $500-600 graphics card still not good enough as a base line @ a a low rez of 1080p???? The only time you would pick a 7700k and overclock it is when paired with a 144-200Hz monitor and SLI. Lets be honest SLI owners and 144+Hz are what 1% market share it's a niche in a niche market. Content consumers/developers is a significantly bigger market than the market you are referring to.

The idea is a balanced all round good product where you can plays games and do content creation etc while not forking out a fortune 2-3x more for a similar product to do the same job.

 

Nobody has answered my completely valid question. People who give $300+ for a CPU (like I intend to do by the end of the year), would any of you actually recommend getting a quad?

I'm not baiting or anything, but for general use and gaming, what would you recommend? I am interested for myself. I currently have the system you see on my sig. An actual update for me would be something with 8 cores and 32GB of 3200 DDR4. There is no budget for Intel's offering on that, yet I don't believe I can hold a quad for five years again.

What would you do? eclap you're in similar position to me, what would you consider?

EDIT: I just saw you went for the 7700k, so that's an answer. Do you believe that you can hold it as long as the 2500k?

 

Both reviews are accurate to a certain degree.

What's Ironic Is that Ryzen lost to a 7700K In Battle Field 1 (The Game AMD Boasted Ryzen's Performance In) even at 1440p.

As for having both CCX running at the same time, Isn't that how AMD designed, and Intended the chip to be?

 

...Did you really just mention ARMA? ARMA? Really?

Lol

I don't know what to say to this, because anyone who mentions ARMA as their "proof" is ridiculous. I'll just quote what i said last time i guess.

 

Tough to say if you are only going to have it a year then sure why not the 7700k if you are thinking of holding on to a CPU/mobo for a while probably the Ryzen, there are a couple of games out there BF1 and Doom which scales very well in multi cores of 8+ threads, but these are only two games thus far but FB1 does tax a 7700k to 95% across all cores and threads so thats about as quick as it going to get. In 1 years time no doubt Intel will have a main stream 6-8 core processor but you can bet a new mobo inorder to use it. I personally think we are close to the turning point of like it was 1 core vs 2 cores and 2 cores vs 4 cores.

 

Supposedly, and i say that very specifically because i have not seen it yet, but the latest Battlefield 1 DLC with patch fixes the issues with AMDs processors.

 

It really depends. If my 2600k were to die right now I would have a bit of a tough decision ahead of me. For the same money I could get a 1700x, a 6800k or a guaranteed 5.0Ghz 7700k. What would you do. Yes the 1700x is 8c/16t but you are really only gonna see 3.9Ghz average clock. The 6800k is 6c/12t but offers a relatively guaranteed 4.4Ghz and a slightly higher IPC than the 1700x so those are about even though some people are seeing 4.6-4.7 on 6800k's that is better in 90% of cases than a 4.1Ghz R7. Now the 5.0Ghz 7700k is going to be the best gaming CPU out of the bunch and that is fact (for now) but falls behind the other options in multithreaded tasks.

Hopefully I don't have to make this decision. lol

I am leaning towards the 6800k but could easily swing to Ryzen in later batches start clocking higher (say 4.3-4.4).

 

I game. That's all my PC does. So coming from a 4 thread CPU, a 5ghz 7700k is perfect for me. When games start demanding more threads, I'll upgrade. I would not ever buy a sub par hardware for my use with a potential for it to come to it's own 2 years from now. I'll buy what's best now and upgrade when needed.

 

Zen would be a nobrainer if it was that balanced as you say.
The results I am seeing are making it less clear-cut choice, and more one about making compromises.
Add to that AMD GPU and another few fps lost in DX11 due to not having top-notch CPU, and Zen is becoming even less balanced choice.

IMHO many are forgetting priorities and are assigning wrong statistical weights to productivity/gaming.
But since the current CPU situation is about making compromises...
I would prefer waiting few minutes more for encoding job to finish, than fretting whether my GPU is getting well fed by 400 euro CPU.
It's still a tough choice...

 

I would concur, although the prices of the CPU's are similar the motherboard for the 2011 platform are pretty damn high so comes down to budget and what you do with your system but yeah the 6800k is the mean between enough core count to decent enough clock speeds.