Ryzen Game Perf Increases With New Rise of the Tomb Raider patch

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Jun 6, 2017.

  1. Undying

    Undying Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    14,873
    Likes Received:
    3,980
    GPU:
    Aorus RX580 XTR 8GB
    What scaling you talking about? 7600k is also beating all of the Ryzen CPU's in this game. Does that mean we should all be getting i5's?
     
  2. Loophole35

    Loophole35 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,788
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC
    No as core count rises on Intel performance does as well. The game is optimized for Intel this much is obvious. But it's not just Ghz in this title as if it were 7700k would be king yet the highest clocked 6 core HWe is top and actually about 6% faster mind you than 7700k.

    This is one title I will be watching very closely when TR hits.

    On the i5 thing I would be willing to bet it's a stuttering mess in some places as it just doesn't have the core count (sorry thread) needed. Really wish Hilbert would add in 1%.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2017
  3. PrMinisterGR

    PrMinisterGR Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,523
    Likes Received:
    523
    GPU:
    Inno3D RTX 3090
    I agree that we need 1% and 0.1% numbers. I also agree that Tomb Raider seems to be an outlier, and it seems to me that it's heavily optimized for Intel on the compiler level. That's not bad, most of us have Intel CPUs after all, but it would be good to be able to see some competition.

    This is more or less the game (along with Nvidia's DX12 driver running it) that gave birth to the meme that Ryzen is "bad" for gaming.
     
  4. AlmondMan

    AlmondMan Master Guru

    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    127
    GPU:
    5700 XT Red Devil
    Running Tomb Raider with DX12 and RX 4/500s does some rather crazy things for performance in it...
     

  5. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,637
    Likes Received:
    2,119
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    Results like this (and other patched games, like DOTA2) sure are making the future of (Ry)Zen promising.
     
  6. jortego128

    jortego128 Member Guru

    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    15
    GPU:
    AMD RX 580 4GB
    Hilbert- something is wrong with the numbers on your graph in the frontpage article-- your original 1800x review shows 117 fps, while the new patch for the 1800x shows the same amount.

    Did you also go back and update the graphs on the original 1800x article?
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2017
  7. Primey0

    Primey0 Member Guru

    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    17
    GPU:
    -
    Rumour has it the patch was aimed at improved the multicore threading for the game and wasn't just aimed at improving Ryzen. I'd love to see benchmarks for Intel with this patch
     
  8. cvearl

    cvearl Member

    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    ASUS Strix RX 580
    I don't own an GTX 1080 or a delided 5.0 GHz 7700k so I cannot compare at that level but I know that between my 4.6 GHz i7 2600k and my 1600X @ stock, the 1600X is faster all day long using the GTX 1060 or the RX 580 in every single game I test. ROTTR, Ghost Recon Wildlands, Farcry Primal and Dirt Rally included. It does not wipe the floor but is slightly faster. I am definitely GPU limited here but for the standard build type at 1080P Ultra settings, the 1600X has been stellar. New BIOS's will come out again in a few weeks allowing RAM to run at advertised speeds. So those who invested in 3200 MHz sticks will get a little bump again. It just keeps getting better. :)
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2017
  9. The Average

    The Average Member

    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    RX470/4GB
    I got a Ryzen 1700 recently and I can tell you it feels much better than my i7 4790. I don't mind that I don't have all the fps a 7700 can bring, cause I can play all the games I have at 1440p at max resolution with enough frames to enjoy the game. Who cares if I don't have 100 frames in some titles? My monitor is still 60Hz.
    But there are things that I can do now that I wasn't able with the i7 before. Like Streaming my games. i7 just couldn't handle it. With Ryzen I can also run other things in the background too, like Tidal. Overall Ryzen after the newest bios is a better experience and more futureproof for me. Just me $0.02
     
  10. fry178

    fry178 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    246
    GPU:
    2080S WaterForceWB
    @Loophole35
    intel is better for what?
    so far i havent seen one person that buys a 1700/1800 and plays games at 1080p, so bottleneck will still be on the gpu side.

    besides that, with consoles going for 8 cores as well, future games will start to support more cores rather than 2 or 4, so why would i buy an intel to have a little bit better fps right now, instead of buying the cheaper amd and get better overall/future performance..
     

  11. jetbruceli

    jetbruceli Member

    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    RTX 2070 Super
  12. Loophole35

    Loophole35 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,788
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC
    Intel is still 15% faster than AMD in this title. That's with a 1080 not a ti. The fear is that whatever is causing this poor performance on 1080 may creep into 1440 as GPU's get faster.

    I'm being objective here I'm not claiming one brand is better than the other.
     
  13. Agent-A01

    Agent-A01 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    919
    GPU:
    1080Ti H20
    Yes if we had a GTX 4080 Ti with 48GB HBM5 (5x faster than 1080ti) the performance difference would look like what Intel looks like vs AMD at 720p.

    People say the same old story, it doesn't matter above 1080P..
    Yes it will.. When we get faster GPUs.(assuming we still get games with crappy multi-core scaling.)
     
  14. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,637
    Likes Received:
    2,119
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    Actually, unless you have a monitor that goes above 60Hz, the numbers don't matter at any resolution. What's most important is if you get the frame rate your display can handle, and, if the minimum frame rates are better.
     
  15. jortego128

    jortego128 Member Guru

    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    15
    GPU:
    AMD RX 580 4GB
    Well, theoretically, as GPUs get faster your fps will increase at higher resolutions on both CPUs till it reaches the point where the CPU is the limitation.

    In any case, theres no need to worry about it-- its never going to exceed the ~10% difference you have now, because that's essentially the difference in single core IPC between Ryzen and Kaby Lake.

    On the contrary, by the time you have a GTX4080 or whatever, games most definitely will take advantage of more cores and will also be designed with specific optimizations for Ryzen as well as Intel. Your 8 core Ryzen that's 10% behind your quad core 7700k today may well be 20% ahead of it in games releasing 3 years from now.
     

  16. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,141
    Likes Received:
    1,266
    GPU:
    -
    The 1080p bottleneck has been there for how many years? 10+? and you expect it to go away in 3? Not very likely at all, and even then, who cares when it'll be 200fps vs 220fps?

    And you also expect game developers to completely ignore multi-core PCs in 3+ years? Not logical.

    In 3+ years, even if the bottleneck rises to 1440p, the games themselves will have become more multi-core aware as well as have had years to understand ryzen, so the whole worry that the performance difference will continue throughout the years is completely illogical. And again, even if it were to, the difference would not matter with the performance you are getting, and you'd still have a better OS performance and other programs performance....
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2017
  17. Picolete

    Picolete Master Guru

    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    99
    GPU:
    R9 290 Sapphire Tri-x
    Is great that this game stills gets patched, i would like to see a comparation with minimum framerates, the %0.1 or CPU(core) utilization; just to see if the cores are really being at full work or the performace can be optimized even more
    Sorry for the broken english
     
  18. Agent-A01

    Agent-A01 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    919
    GPU:
    1080Ti H20
    What?

    Yes.

    We've had quad cores since 2006~ and there are still many games that can't even use quad cores optimally.

    Lazy devs exist.

    See above.
     
  19. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,141
    Likes Received:
    1,266
    GPU:
    -
    You seem to not remember the past or what is currently going on around you too well. So not really worth having a discussion about the future if you can't see what is going on now.
     
  20. -Tj-

    -Tj- Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    17,125
    Likes Received:
    1,902
    GPU:
    Zotac GTX980Ti OC
    Funny COD WAW mp can use all 8 threads and that is 2006? game, then there is X3TC benchmark - 1st part (Trade) single threaded and even today's 5GHz KabbyLake can't do min 60fps,.
    My old Q9450 @3.6ghz did 21-23fps, now 4770k @ 4.7ghz min 41-43fps

    Or FF to dx11 avp2010 another single threaded game, dx12 Forza APex was also single threaded.
    Its not bad if it doesn't bottleneck the scene like by X3TC, when that becomes a problem then they need to stop rushing crap..
     

Share This Page