AMD Ryzen Gaming Performance In-Depth: 16 Games Played at 1080p & 1440p

[Burty117]

It's a shame to see the 7700k recommended for high Hz gaming as Broadwell DT (5775C and e3 1285v4) absolutely destroy it.

What? I couldn't find anywhere that even sells the Xeon and that i7 is not only just as expensive as the 7700k, it's a slower, lower power Broadwell part. I couldn't find a single review that showed it beating a 4790k in gaming?

 

[HardReset]

My problem is not even the gaming performance, because that could be improved with patches.
I Have mainly 3 Problems with the Ryzen(and im an AMD fun):

1. Why Dual Channel RAM.... At the moment as I saw even if the mainboards can partially OC the RAMs even to 3600 MHz, but just on 2 slots, if I use 4 slots, the speed would drastically fall. I hope thats possible to change with a bios update

2. Overclocking and XFR - was so much wrote about the XFR..and even if I push a Predator 240 or Predator 360 I can get +100 Mhz from XFR.. that very very disapointing, the same about overclocking...the 6900 is able to overclock to 4,4Ghz and by the Ryzen 1800X is by 4,1 the end.....by the XFR range...

3. 20 PCI Lanes. Why to make X370 chipset for SLI setups with 20 PCI lanes. SLI setup is mostly made with high end GPUs which need x16 for the best performance. 20 Lanes are definetly not enough for a good modern processor. there should be at least 40. 2x 16 for the SLI setups and 2x 4 for two M2 or U2 slots.

1. Cost. Quad channel adds around $75-$100 to motherboard cost and offer very little for that money.

3. Cost. 20 PCI Express lanes is enough for most users. X370 is still miles better than Intel's Z270, as single x4 NVME drive is not eating any bandwidth between CPU and chipset. With Z270, single x4 NVME drive is enough to use all bandwidth between CPU and chipset.

 

[Puiu]

A good list of games. I'll be waiting for some summer updated benchmarks to see how much AMD will manage to improve the Ryzen performance over time. By then we should have proper bios updates to support faster RAM and some windows updates(hopefully). Games should also get some updates too if they are indeed working with developers to provide support for Ryzen.

 

[Puiu]

A good list of games. I'll be waiting for some summer updated benchmarks to see how much AMD will manage to improve the Ryzen performance over time. By then we should have proper bios updates to support faster RAM and some windows updates(hopefully). Games should also get some updates too if they are indeed working with developers to provide support for Ryzen.

 

[FreeBetaTester]

At $500 for R7 1800x, AMD = Another Marketing Deception. Who is willing to be the gullible marks to be conned? They need to price their stuff according to the these benches. The R7 1800x at best can be price equal to the i7-7700k, and go down from there. As consumers we do NOT have the drink their Koolaid about how they are competing against the 6900K or what not. We should demand the best value for our dollar.

 

[HardReset]

At $500 for R7 1800x, AMD = Another Marketing Deception. Who is willing to be the gullible marks to be conned? They need to price their stuff according to the these benches. The R7 1800x at best can be price equal to the i7-7700k, and go down from there. As consumers we do NOT have the drink their Koolaid about how they are competing against the 6900K or what not. We should demand the best value for our dollar.

Using that logic, i7-6900K should be priced lower than i7-7700K. Good luck explaining why.

 

[Kibaruk]

Again, it's good that AMD starts battling it out with Intel, it's only good for us as consumers. The only problem is that they over-hype their products, I can't recall at a 100% but I'm pretty sure that their benchmarks showed it destroying Intel or being over par at least while being cheaper.

 

[codgerface]

On the first page it looks like the Division results at 1440p were inadvertently repeated twice. No biggie.

Great work, Steve! In-depth indeed.

 

[Boshum]

Some will look at the graphs and tell they are disappointed, but one must consider the price. For 30-90% less money you get the same performance as Intel. People that want the very best in gaming will still spend $800-1000 on Intel, while people that want best bang for the buck should take Ryzen no questions asked.

That is true about the 6900k but not the 7700K or 6700K.
The 7700K leads most of these charts (most likely due to the 4.5GHz Turbo Clock Speed) and cost $350. The i5 7600K beats every Ryzen chip out there (gaming) and costs $230.

Hmmm....looking at the 16 game averages.....the very worst matchup for Ryzen against the i5 is the 1700x (smt off) with a 72fps minimum against the i5-7600k at 76fps minimum.

I am not so sure I would be so confident that gaming on the i5 would be a more pleasurable experience considering the margins. Especially knowing I have a lot of extra reserve threads on the Ryzen. I suspect the Ryzen might provide a smoother experience overall.

 

[Avenger001]

If 3200 MHz memory is used, we should see another ~6% of performance, decreasing the gap even further. Of course, we have to test also what faster memory does on Intel, whether it increases performance significantly or not.

I would be impressed if the memory frequency scaled that well in games. That said you could be right, it might if the CPU is memory starved.

I hear new memory modules for optimized for ryzen (G.SKILL Launchs Flare X) are being released. It would be interesting to see tests with these

 

[Zach82]

Hi Steve:

I was wondering why was your Ryzen Rig on 16 Gig of memory vs 32 Gig for the rest of the test computers? I am curious on that logic since it seems that would skew the results.

Other than than question, great article.

 

[D3M1G0D]

All things considered, and without taking away any merit from AMD for a comeback, I find it hard to justify the purchase of any R7 vs the Core i7 7700K. The reality is that all but one are more expensive than the 7700K, and the one that isn't is just that much slower than the 7700K.

R5 on the other hand will bring good things and completely undermine the R7 line-up when it comes to games. Hexacore performance will match Octacore, with SMT off, and it will all come down to clocks. The top tier R5 will have similar performance and will be cheaper than the 7700K.

Also, why has no one created a BOM for a new rig? I think that's AMD's best argument: the fact that the platform (CPU+ Mobo) will be cheaper than an Intel rig by anything from $30~$150 (depending on the mobo and CPU).

I can only find (good) reason to buy an R7 for creative/heavily multi-threaded work on the cheap.

Some will look at the graphs and tell they are disappointed, but one must consider the price. For 30-90% less money you get the same performance as Intel. People that want the very best in gaming will still spend $800-1000 on Intel, while people that want best bang for the buck should take Ryzen no questions asked.

That is true about the 6900k but not the 7700K or 6700K.
The 7700K leads most of these charts (most likely due to the 4.5GHz Turbo Clock Speed) and cost $350. The i5 7600K beats every Ryzen chip out there (gaming) and costs $230.

Some will look at the graphs and tell they are disappointed, but one must consider the price. For 30-90% less money you get the same performance as Intel. People that want the very best in gaming will still spend $800-1000 on Intel, while people that want best bang for the buck should take Ryzen no questions asked.

That is true about the 6900k but not the 7700K or 6700K.
The 7700K leads most of these charts (most likely due to the 4.5GHz Turbo Clock Speed) and cost $350. The i5 7600K beats every Ryzen chip out there (gaming) and costs $230.

The Ryzen 7 crushes the 7700K in heavily multithreaded tasks though. For anyone doing heavy content creation or serious data crunching, the Ryzen 7 would be the better deal (especially since Intel's 16 thread 6900K is more than twice as expensive).

I'm a gamer who also does distributed computing so the Ryzen 7 is very appealing for me. I've been using a 4790K as my daily driver but have long desired more cores/threads to improve my computing performance. I'm hoping to build a second Ryzen system for that purpose, and if it works out well I might convert my Haswell to Ryzen 7 as well.

I think the mainstream Ryzen 5 (6 cores) and budget Ryzen 3 (4 cores) will be more suitable for gaming. Using a 16 thread CPU for gaming seems like an enormous waste of processing power (I doubt many people buy a 6900K for gaming either).

 

[Rintano]

Can pls someone confirm if any of the mainbords can use 4x 16GB 3200Mhz RAMs?

 

[codgerface]

Hi Steve:

I was wondering why was your Ryzen Rig on 16 Gig of memory vs 32 Gig for the rest of the test computers? I am curious on that logic since it seems that would skew the results.

Other than than question, great article.

Hi. Not to speak for him, but I believe most review sites were sent reviewer kits from AMD with 16 GB of RAM. I'm guessing he used what was supplied. Regardless, the difference in RAM amount (especially anything over 16 GB) would have no impact on the framerate. Thanks.

 

[meric]

I read something interesting in reddit today, there are some tests show R7s having miles better frame timings than a 7600k (sometimes ridiculously better like up to 800% better) and the user says he'll add tests vs the 7700k too. Anyone can say if this is true?

 

[CaptainTom]

Jeez AMD is so close to being able to make a clean sweep. The only true advantage Intel has right now is gaming above 72Hz at 1440p or lower.


Really hoping AMD launches a 95w Quad-core @ 4.5 GHz+. If they did that for under $275, they would steal the gaming market.

 

[CaptainTom]

So Intel's last advantage is gaming above 72Hz at resolutions below 1440p.

AMD just needs to launch a quad core @ 4.5 GHz + and they will steal the entire gaming market.

 

[CaptainTom]

I read something interesting in reddit today, there are some tests show R7s having miles better frame timings than a 7600k (sometimes ridiculously better like up to 800% better) and the user says he'll add tests vs the 7700k too. Anyone can say if this is true?

I haven't seen any quantitative proof yet, but I have heard this numerous times. Even on launch day several reviewers said that Ryzen "Felt smoother". If true, AMD better market this like crazy to counter the narrative Intel is telling.

 

[meric]

I haven't seen any quantitative proof yet, but I have heard this numerous times. Even on launch day several reviewers said that Ryzen "Felt smoother". If true, AMD better market this like crazy to counter the narrative Intel is telling.

Yeah you may want to check reddit, here's one of the many opinions about the subject

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5xuq6g/ryzen_is_almost_ironic_people_freaked_that_a/

 

[dirtyferret]

Hi Steve:

I was wondering why was your Ryzen Rig on 16 Gig of memory vs 32 Gig for the rest of the test computers? I am curious on that logic since it seems that would skew the results.

Other than than question, great article.

Steve and techspot have proved several times already with their gaming memory article there would be no difference.

 

[theBest11778]

Hi Steve:

I was wondering why was your Ryzen Rig on 16 Gig of memory vs 32 Gig for the rest of the test computers? I am curious on that logic since it seems that would skew the results.

Other than than question, great article.

Steve and techspot have proved several times already with their gaming memory article there would be no difference.

You mean like this one https://www.techspot.com/article/1171-ddr4-4000-mhz-performance/ that shows up to 25% improvements?

 

[theBest11778]

I read something interesting in reddit today, there are some tests show R7s having miles better frame timings than a 7600k (sometimes ridiculously better like up to 800% better) and the user says he'll add tests vs the 7700k too. Anyone can say if this is true?

This has been an issue for a long time. Avg and Min FPS charts don't show the real performance. The i5's were such a jittery mess that I dropped a 4690K for a 2600K as the gameplay experience is vastly superior on the older i7 over the i5. With games using up all 8 threads now, it'd make sense higher core/thread count is necessary to smooth out background tasks while 8 threads are dedicated for gaming. Makes the Ryzen R5 1600X 6c/12t CPU the one to watch if gaming is your only concern.

 

[codgerface]

On the first page it looks like the Division results at 1440p were inadvertently repeated twice. No biggie.

Great work, Steve! In-depth indeed.

Looks like it has been fixed. Thanks!

 

[theBest11778]

At $500 for R7 1800x, AMD = Another Marketing Deception. Who is willing to be the gullible marks to be conned? They need to price their stuff according to the these benches. The R7 1800x at best can be price equal to the i7-7700k, and go down from there. As consumers we do NOT have the drink their Koolaid about how they are competing against the 6900K or what not. We should demand the best value for our dollar.

The 7700K beats the crap out of Intel's $1700 6950X. Clearly you have no idea CPUs are primarily used for other tasks that AREN'T gaming, and are priced off THOSE benchmarks. In productivity AMD is basically equal to Intel's offerings at 1/2 the price. IT professionals/Businesses probably can't wait to get their hands on these things considering the major cost savings. AMD will make 100x the money off that segment rather than the gaming department. Regardless the 6-8 Core AMD or Intel CPUs are still better long term solutions vs any quad core. Unless you like upgrading your entire system every year or two.

 

[dirtyferret]

You mean like this one https://www.techspot.com/article/1171-ddr4-4000-mhz-performance/ that shows up to 25% improvements?

No future mensa candidate because what you linked is a techspot report showing faster memory displaying an improvement in FPS which is both not what the OP described in his post or what is even up for debate as most people agree to that claim. What I am talking about is this article stating that while 16 GB of RAM is desirable it's not needed compared to 8GB and shows little improvement. Therefore, a system set up just for game testing would not show any difference between 16 GB and 32 GB.

Those building a new system or simply looking to upgrade their memory capacity, the answer is simple: 8GB should be the minimum standard, while 16GB is desirable but not needed. For general usage and gaming there is no advantage to be had by using 16GB or more RAM, though admittedly system memory has hit new lows in 2016 which makes it very accessible even in budget builds.


In gaming scenarios we were surprised to see 4GB will help you extract most out of your system (actual gameplay frame rates versus say, loading levels) but 8GB remains ideal. Those of you focused solely on gaming who don't have the extra cash to splurge on 16GB of memory, fear not, you aren't missing out on any hidden performance. For folks who insist that certain game mods will use over 8GB of RAM, that's fine, go for it, but as far as we're able to determine there aren't any popular games that require over 8GB without mods.

https://www.techspot.com/article/1043-8gb-vs-16gb-ram/page4.html