AMD CEO: Better Gaming performance Ryzen CPUs with patches

Well, I game in 1440p and see no reason why NOT to get a RYZEN, since performance is similar to Intel in 1440p.

It's funny how people always try to dictate what others should do. If you want to game in 1080p then game in 1080p. But can I please be allowed to game in 1440p ?

 

I already made my decision. Ordered an 1800x today since I do a lot of video encoding (x264 and x265). When gaming I play in 1440p.

 

I know The Stilt is using his with W7

Here is a quote showing his gains with W7 although he is primarily talking about SMT on/off.

 

Windows 10 has reported to have an issue with the scheduler which can be fixed, it doesn't mean Windows 7 is better. It's quite likely that Windows 10 will perform better once the issue is resolved, especially under Creators Update, and you take pro-Windows 7 bias out of the equation.

 

Steam survey also shows Intel IGPs as most used graphics devices. So majority of steam users dont have hardware capable of playing anything above 1080p.

Therefore Ryzen is not the sort of CPU that majority of steam users can afford to begin with. So not sure why AMD would use Steam survey as an indicator to help their cause.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

 

You probably are right, let me rephrase it: Which engines see seriously crippling in performance if they go with less than 9 threads to service them?

I don't really see 12 threads running at 20% as great utilization of hardware. For instance, check out HH's vids of core utilization in Ryzen 1800K's (actually 1700K's) review: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_1800x_processor_review,22.html

In those vids they show the following:
BF1 - 3-4 threads at <85%, 3-4 thr. at 35-60%, 8 thr. <20%
Deus Ex: 14 threads <50%, 2thr. <50-75%
Division: as it looks all threads run at <50%, if one goes above 50% another thread drops to below 50%
RotR: 1 Thread >80%, 15 thr. <30%
Far Cry Primal: 4 threads >80%, 12 thr. <40%


While I do know that those were "benchmark" scenes and no multiplayer parts (particularly BF1 as a CPU intense game), I never had the impression you couldn't play such games on quad core CPUs.

As Hilbert wrote in his reviews and we know, there's the hen and egg problem here, but there still is no sign of heavily threaded / multicored CPUs becoming mandatory anytime soon. Mantle, dx12, and Vulkan usually bring reduced overhead, thus reducing CPU requirements... and if more cores would be a win in gaming, we'd still be grabbing AMD's FX CPUs wherever we could, for years now.

So I might have misinterpreted things, but please let me know where my faulty logic lies in that regard.

 

I am extremely sensitive to stutter. In fact I will get properly-paced, stutter-free 30fps, over even a tiny bit jerky 60fps every day.

I can't imagine a case where a CPU with double the cores isn't better against stutter, just by the very fact that whenever an i7 gains from having that SMT thread, a proper 8 core actually provides a full CPU core for it.

 

I would make sense though. I mean aren't the most popular games on steam CS and DoTA? And i know most people that play them aren't running at 1440p with monster rigs.

I mean most people i know that play CS play at low settings with low res even if they have a good comp.

 

Do you play multiplayer? Because online, there's stutters that no hardware can control.

 

Ah yes, I can remember not too long ago when SMT / HT on i7s was indeed crippling performance a little bit, minor hickups and slightly lower min fps when running with SMT enabled, that makes sense. Although I'm not sure if this was an actual hardware problem or an issue with windows and schedulers.

 

I don't think there is an issue with the same cpus anymore. Considering amds design is also 4+4 which might make it more prevalent in some cases.

 

Honestly, I never bothered with turning off SMT, I never noticed any hickups in games that I couldn't trace back to something else being wrong (SLI anyone?). But I guess if PRMinisterGR noticed those "lags", it's his thing to now wait for the corresponding patch windows / games need for his Ryzen to work.

Which oddly enough would annoy me personally, but if people want to put up with it it's their choice. I just wasn't sure what he meant. Still I personally don't see much use in having a hexacore opposed to a 4C/8T CPU, so I have a hard time grasping people's troubles and why they are jumping onto 8C/16T CPUs like their life would depend on it, besides them being cheaper now.

 

I think it won't be a thing for gaming in a while. But for programming hexacore will beat that 4/8 for sure. Among similar things I do.