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

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Mar 15, 2017.

  1. ruthan

    ruthan Master Guru

    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    64
    GPU:
    G970/3.5G MSI
    What is that, AMD Wishlist for best possible testing scenario? Im missing part about disable half of Intel cores..

    They are pathetic, its like asynch shader performance boost.
     
  2. eclap

    eclap Banned

    Messages:
    31,497
    Likes Received:
    3
    GPU:
    Palit GR 1080 2000/11000
    Bs..
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2017
  3. airbud7

    airbud7 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,835
    Likes Received:
    4,742
    GPU:
    pny gtx 1060 xlr8

    Thats only more proof that its slower than intel...

    When you put the load on the processor and game gets slower then?
     
  4. HeavyHemi

    HeavyHemi Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,963
    Likes Received:
    963
    GPU:
    GTX1080Ti
    I was just pointing this out to someone elsewhere.
    6800k $400, X99 $200 for a decent board. ~$50 more than a Ryzen or intel and you have a system that is a more capable than either Ryzen or intel 170/270 offerings. There's a wide gamut of options out there to fit just about any usage scenario at various price points.
     

  5. While not every other industry has the circumstances surrounding the environment here - the consumer being technically adept to the product (the Ryzen). I believe AMD's response is unrefined and stating the obvious. They're likely having PR release something in the meanwhile whilst working on something more substantial. (or not) Either way this goes back to the whole issue with Ryzen being rushed to RC - if that isn't obvious - I cannot argue that point, because it should be self-explanatory.

    Despite any short comings Ryzen's been a commercial success for AMD thus far. I feel the best thing they could do for themselves at this point is not write any cheques they cannot cash & stick to what can actually be done in firmware/OS updates on the current gen Ryzen, if any at all. If not - better to just announce it at somepoint and be done with it until Gen 2 arrives. From a PR/marketing/sales standpoint - they probably don't want to do that too soon however as they're still trying to sell Gen 1 Ryzen's (if that is the case; being further finite Hotfixing is no go)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2017
  6. eclap

    eclap Banned

    Messages:
    31,497
    Likes Received:
    3
    GPU:
    Palit GR 1080 2000/11000
    Yeah and I almost pulled the trigger on the 6800k x99 setup. But I know I'd miss the 5ghz 7700k IPC in games so I went with that. Something like a 6800k (7800k/8800k) will be my next upgrade about 2 years from now though. Makes perfect sense.
     
  7. Shadows

    Shadows Member

    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gefore 210 1 gb
    I am thinking of getting a 7600k and I only game at 1080p with an rx 480. I was wondering if any of the R5 will perform better than the 7600k or should I go with the 7600k and upgrade to zen when games actually use more than 4 cores.
     
  8. eclap

    eclap Banned

    Messages:
    31,497
    Likes Received:
    3
    GPU:
    Palit GR 1080 2000/11000
    Hmm, no such issues here.
     
  9. mcfart

    mcfart Master Guru

    Messages:
    303
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    HD 5970
    Zen is a good architecture. It obviously shows muscle on non-game workloads (which implies a latency problem as Hilbert alluded to).

    Wait for Zen v2 where they fix latency problems with games. It's unfair to compare Zen to Sandy Bridge since AMD are near bankrupcy at this point. If Zen doesn't move units in the business sector, AMD's done making processors. AMD banked on the sector that will likely make profits.
     
  10. Corrupt^

    Corrupt^ Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,971
    Likes Received:
    302
    GPU:
    Geforce RTX 3090 FE
    Well it'll depend on the software.

    I agree for games or software that isn't highly multi-threaded, you're better of with a 7700K.

    But when running games or software that actually support more then 4 cores, I would go for the AMD hands down in this scenario.

    IMO the failure or success of the new ZEN architecture lies more with the software and game devs now if anything else. If they decide to go more multi-threaded, then it'll be a win, if not, it'll fall flat down the road.
     

  11. Darkest

    Darkest Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    10,121
    Likes Received:
    100
    GPU:
    HD7950
    If I was buying right now the 6800K/X99 option is the one I'd take. I've advised such to a few people to be honest, although people have different requirements to an extent.

    I feel that while the IPC of a highly clocked 7700/7600 is impressive, for other uses combined with gaming the X99 platform wins out in almost every respect. I'm also of a mind that the IPC offered by a 4.0-4.5ghz 6800K is going to be ample until games start becoming more multithreaded, while the 6800K is behind in most current (less threaded) titles compared to the 7700K it's still pushing way more frames than you really need in the majority of titles.

    A lot of people on this board keep their equipment for pretty long periods of time, myself included. There's a lot of us still using Sandy/Ivy chips without much of an issue when it comes to playing games. I'm of the opinion that in the long run more cores will be important, although I'm guessing that's 2-3 years down the line as opposed to IPC monster quads many are buying now.

    For general use when buying a higher end chip, I think the 6800K is currently the best option for many. I find Ryzen to be problematic as a platform, it's suffering the growing pains of new tech. It has a lot of potential, it simply isn't there just yet. I also think it'll (the 6800k) outpace the likes of the 7700 in a couple of years, and will enjoy similar longevity to the x58 platform when it comes to gaming - let alone other tasks.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2017
  12. Fender178

    Fender178 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,178
    Likes Received:
    206
    GPU:
    GTX 1070 | GTX 1060
    To me the current Ryzen CPUs are good for those users who want to video editing and rendering for YouTube and live streaming and stuff like that.
    Or want to have more cores for the future.

    With me I would go AMD believe me but there are a few games that I play that run terrible on AMD hardware due to poor optimization for AMD hardware.

    Also some of these pointers that AMD is giving out is basic common sense.

    Also the memory configurations are pretty messed up if you ask me. If you want to maximize your memory to whatever the motherboard supports you are pretty limited because with certain speeds you are only allowed 2 sticks for dual channel RAM instead of using 4 thats what I am seeing from that chart that Hilbert posted in the article. If I am reading something wrong than someone who owns a Ryzen CPU or has more knowledge than me please correct me.
     
  13. mbk1969

    mbk1969 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    10,039
    Likes Received:
    7,036
    GPU:
    GF RTX 2070 Super
    I checked on ~20 rigs with Win8, Win10 and everywhere core parking was off by default.
    And there is no need to use 3rd party tools. Power plan has many settings for core parking, but two of them:
    - Processor performance core parking min cores
    - Processor performance core parking max cores
    are responsible for On/Off - when they are equal parking is Off, when "min cores" is less then "max cores" then parking is On. To change them you first need to unhide them. Execute commands in elevated command prompt:

    powercfg -attributes SUB_PROCESSOR 0cc5b647-c1df-4637-891a-dec35c318583 -ATTRIB_HIDE

    powercfg -attributes SUB_PROCESSOR ea062031-0e34-4ff1-9b6d-eb1059334028 -ATTRIB_HIDE

    And then go to advanced power plan settings window - there in the tree under the root node "Processor power management" you will see these two settings. Adjusting the "Processor performance core parking min cores" to the same value as the "Processor performance core parking max cores" (i.e. 100%) should turn off core parking.

    I will quote MS document on this:
    http://www.mediafire.com/file/7ni5368t51sdht3/ProcPowerMgmtWin7.zip
    or search for ProcPowerMgmtWin7
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2017
  14. HeavyHemi

    HeavyHemi Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,963
    Likes Received:
    963
    GPU:
    GTX1080Ti
    I went with the 6850K mostly for the longevity. I've got one 1080 Ti coming and probably grab another one in a few months, probably a Hybrid. I just could not see putting them in PCIe slots at lower than x16. The reduced ports and USB options of the desktop boards. I just updated from X58 so...I tend to go with the top end chipset of the mature product cycle. I should be good until X399.
     
  15. WoenK

    WoenK Active Member

    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    R9 380/4GB
    Got myself a 1700 and a Gigabyte AB350 (was the only one with decent Audio), 2x 8GB 2666 Ripjaw and a 960EVO.
    Paid around 850 EUR.
    Just taking the CPU and MB (around 480 EUR), I could not imagine building something equal with Intel.
    Would not call myself a AMD fanboy, rather choose AMD for best bang for the buck.
    Always depends what one is doing, I do game a bit and find my 380 more than sufficient for Fallout4 with high detailed textures and all on ultra.
    Never counted the FPS, runs smooth at stock settings.
    Not into overclocking, not planning any SLI or Crossfire and I know I can use my MB and RAM for at least another 4-5 years (one of the reasons I do not use Intel anymore).
    I knew what was into by buying a completely new platform with new processor, was the smoothest since my first 1GHz AMD (those Phenom and Core2Duo were less pleasant). Not searched for quirks and none showed up.
    Even though I did not bother with a fresh install from my prevoius config and running Win01 Insider.
    System runs stable and faster than that 4 core Phenom I had before (which had some stuttering in Fallout4 and countless other games and was not really fast in transcoding).
    I am just a normal user, one that needs no therapist (which everyone really should need if he thinks that he notices the difference in anyhing above 50 FPS...just because of..science?!) that simply gets the cheapest thing available too do the job with least hassle.


    In short...build and buy what you want and can afford and nee it for. If your ego really needs those 10FPS more even though you can not even perceive them...and you have no issues in spending....buy it...
    If not, do the calculations of what you need and are willing to pay for it for the next 5 years and decide. There is no "black and white", it all depends on usage of the sytem.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2017

  16. The Commenter

    The Commenter Member

    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    Sapphire Fury Tri X x2
    The performance looks smooth enough for me at 1080p paired with a cheap 480.
    Nothing beats this price per dollar at the moment.
    8 games benchmarked youtube.com/watch?v=DKG6aRabg14[/url]
     
  17. Dazz

    Dazz Master Guru

    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    97
    GPU:
    ASUS STRIX RTX 2080
    Got a better tip than this,

    Download "process Lasso" run that in the background, start your game, minimise the game and go into process Lasso - go to active processes - right click on the game running - go to CPU affinity (limit CPU use) next go to always - select CPU affinity - de-select all cores on the right hand column (8 total - 8-15) go back into your game. Now enjoy i7 gaming performance. (will need process Lasso running in the background however)

    Since you no longer have cross CCX module talk your performance will now increase massively, since latency has been reduced by 3X! Performance will vary but for me in armoured warfare i gone from max 110fps to 160fps.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbryPYcnscA (Ryzen 1800x - Windows scheduling threads across CCX units) this was what inspired me to try this and it works!
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2017
  18. fry178

    fry178 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,620
    Likes Received:
    239
    GPU:
    2080S WaterForceWB
    @Fender178
    and what use would 2 more be on a dual channel system?
    you can already have 32gb ram with just 2 sticks, how many "normal" users would need more?
     
  19. Robbo9999

    Robbo9999 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,509
    Likes Received:
    271
    GPU:
    GTX1070 @2050Mhz
    Thanks for the reply. Since posting yesterday I've found out that AMD has said that the Windows 10 scheduler is not to blame, they said it in a blog.
    https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2017/03/13/amd-ryzen-community-update?sf62107357=1
     
  20. Stormyandcold

    Stormyandcold Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,506
    Likes Received:
    275
    GPU:
    MSI GTX1070 GamingX

Share This Page