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

[merikafyeah]

It's a shame to see the 7700k recommended for high Hz gaming as Broadwell DT (5775C and e3 1285v4) absolutely destroy it. That said, concluding the R7 1700 is a great buy definitely hits the mark. Now if only AM4 motherboards were decent - especially in the SFF realm...

How does a 2 years old e3 1285 v4 destroy a 7700k in gaming? Link me please.

AMDomination already posted two benchmark links (scroll up) showing the E3 1285L v4 (server variant of i7 5775C) beating the 6700K in most gaming metrics (but "destroying" is an exaggeration) and as far as gaming is concerned the 6700K and the 7700K are basically the same, as shown here:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7-7700K_vs_6700K_Game_Performance/26.html

But here's the kicker, you have to remember that the E3 1285L v4 (and the i7 5775C) are 65W CPUs whereas the 6700K/7700K are 91W CPUs, which means you get better performance while using 30% less power! So I guess in terms of efficiency the Xeon E3 1285L v4 does indeed "destroy" the 7700K.

 

[Burty117]

I couldn't find a single review that showed it beating a 4790k in gaming?
Yes, at 20% lower clocks it outperforms the fail-lakes by 5%+ in CPU bottlenecked gaming situations while using less power - saying it's "slower and lower powered" is quite a misnomer given it OC's over 4GHz with ease. BTW, it's merely a well binned and higher clocked i7-5775c. Don't take my word for it:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9532/...on-e3-v4-review-95w-65w-35w-1285-1285l-1265/7
http://techreport.com/review/28751/intel-core-i7-6700k-skylake-processor-reviewed/6

Great so a CPU you can't buy (and when you could was double the price of an i5) and across most benchmarks you linked, it was anywhere from 0.1fps to 0.7fps quicker?

OR

You could save yourself $200, VERY mildly overclock the i5 (and with that savings buy some quicker RAM) and get better fps? Hell you could buy the i7, save your yourself $100~ and still beat it with a mild overclock.

Edit: BTW by no means am I saying the Xeon isn't impressive, the fact it uses such little power is pretty impressive, but doesn't warrant the price hike for most consumers who are gaming.

 

[Synister1988]

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.

Why are people even comparing the Ryzen 7 chips, to i5s? They are a completely different class of CPU. Wait for the R5's to come and make all those 7700K buyers a little sad at the hole in their wallet!

We should compare it vs the 8/16 chips from Intel. It's like, the R7 is a truck, and the 7700K is a sports car. They are made for different workloads.

 

[NightAntilli]

You know what I also find interesting...? Why did no one test with AMD GPUs? Everyone is always complaining about AMD having high CPU overhead on these cards, particularly GCN 1.0 and GCN 1.1, even GCN 1.2. If you really want to create a CPU bottleneck, why not test with a 390X, or a Fury (X) card?

 

[Brian Wood]

So from the data gathered here, before optimizations have come out from AMD, developers, and manufacturers, we can see here that Ryzen is plenty competitive AND as long as it never dips below 60fps, people won't notice the difference regardless? ISN'T THAT INTERESTING?

Yeah. I'm loving my R7 1700.

 

[Amet Monegro]

I ordered my PC build from Amazon, I had the 7700k sitting in the closet while having the 1700x on preorder. Well last day March 1st I decided to cancel the order and just open up the 7700k just because I came from 2600k and I knew I couldn't make a mistake. Intel makes quality products and definitely am their earned costumer. Although being excited for AMD and definitely wanted the best of the best but AMD unfortunately is not for gaming.

1080ti preorderd as well!

Umm... with a 1080Ti you will play @4K and on 4K RyZen has same performance for gamming than Intel chips, you did´nt saw enought reviews? Intel is better @1080p and maybe 2K but 4K almost the same

good luck

 

[Amet Monegro]

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.

is increible that RyZen has better memory bandwidth than Core i7 in dual channel mode @same memory clocks, is really a great memory controlller

 

[christiangeli]

Can we have ryzen benchmark with normal video card please, titan x is not mainstream video card in case if you dont know ...

 

[HardReset]

Just not quite good enough. In some games even the 1800X loses by a pretty enormous amount to the faster Intel quad processors. This is also in 1440p where the game leans heavier on the GPU. In Watch Dogs 2 7700K is 50 percent faster. In Far Cry Primal and Warhammer the 7700K is more than 35 percent faster minimum frame rate. In Arma 3 and GTA5 it's 25 percent.

These are not small games and the results are pretty brutal when you actually read the figures like this.

...

There is no evidence that reason for Ryzen's poor gaming performance is hardware based. Already identified software based problems: BIOS problems, that has effect on memory speeds etc. Windows scheduler problems, not recognizing Ryzen correctly. Game problems, like if vendor ID is not GenuineIntel, then do not use certain optimizations that will benefit also Ryzen etc.

There is much more to be found. So there is very little wrong with Ryzen. Major problems are software based. This happens with every new architecture. When Intel last time released brand new CPU architecture, Pentium 4 was in great trouble vs Pentium 3.

I can full accept your arguments, but than they should say, we made a medicore processor for the price. And not tell everywhere we made a competitive processor for the i7-6900k......because that simply not true. Yes in 1 point they made...The raw arythmetic performance is same or even higher, but if the other things are worst(memory bandwith, less PCI-lanes, even in SSD Overall performance is much weaker) than I cant tell is the same performance for less money.

Memory bandwidth with dual channel DDR4 is more than enough. Only real reason Intel puts quad channel into LGA20xx socket is to make clear difference between LGA11xx and LGA20xx.

If Ryzen has enough PCI Express lanes, then what's the problem? We can also argue that i7-6950K has only 2GB/s bandwidth between chipset and CPU while Ryzen has 4GB/s...

So yes, we can say Ryzen offers same performance for less money in most cases. On some extreme scenarios not but generally yes.

 

[Vulcanproject]

There is no evidence that reason for Ryzen's poor gaming performance is hardware based. Already identified software based problems: BIOS problems, that has effect on memory speeds etc. Windows scheduler problems, not recognizing Ryzen correctly. Game problems, like if vendor ID is not GenuineIntel, then do not use certain optimizations that will benefit also Ryzen etc.

There is much more to be found. So there is very little wrong with Ryzen. Major problems are software based. This happens with every new architecture. When Intel last time released brand new CPU architecture, Pentium 4 was in great trouble vs Pentium 3.



Memory bandwidth with dual channel DDR4 is more than enough. Only real reason Intel puts quad channel into LGA20xx socket is to make clear difference between LGA11xx and LGA20xx.

If Ryzen has enough PCI Express lanes, then what's the problem? We can also argue that i7-6950K has only 2GB/s bandwidth between chipset and CPU while Ryzen has 4GB/s...

So yes, we can say Ryzen offers same performance for less money in most cases. On some extreme scenarios not but generally yes.

Of course there is evidence there are hardware problems. They are right in front of you and you are refusing to acknowledge them. AMD and the board manufacturers obviously need to mature the platform, but if you think that Ryzen is going to make enormous gains of the sort that I pointed out here then you will likely be disappointed.

In most cases in these gaming tests, Ryzen looks very weak. Until third parties can produce tests that say otherwise the consumer will be left waiting. Or just going out and buying Kaby Lake like they still should if they want mainstream chips for their gaming machine.

 

[HardReset]

Of course there is evidence there are hardware problems. They are right in front of you and you are refusing to acknowledge them. AMD and the board manufacturers obviously need to mature the platform, but if you think that Ryzen is going to make enormous gains of the sort that I pointed out here then you will likely be disappointed.

In most cases in these gaming tests, Ryzen looks very weak. Until third parties can produce tests that say otherwise the consumer will be left waiting. Or just going out and buying Kaby Lake like they still should if they want mainstream chips for their gaming machine.

And evidence about hardware problems are where? UEFI BIOS is software, Windows is software, games are software.

As Ryzen works poorly with poorly written software (games), reason for poor performance is clearly on software side, not hardware side. I'll give an example:

Here we have "clear proof" about hardware problem on Ryzen's AES units

https://nl.hardware.info/reviews/72...eer-concurrentie-voor-intel-benchmarks-aida64

But then

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...4-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-performance-review-7.html

Same test. So in this case software error makes 2388% difference

 

[Vulcanproject]

And evidence about hardware problems are where? UEFI BIOS is software, Windows is software, games are software.

As Ryzen works poorly with poorly written software (games), reason for poor performance is clearly on software side, not hardware side. I'll give an example:

Same test. So in this case software error makes 2388% difference

I'm failing to see the relevance of an artificial testing and benchmarking tool compared to the gaming results shown here. GAMING results. Real world, actual tests. This is evidence of nothing except that specific tool needs updating. Nothing to stop people wanting to play games on their PC from buying Kaby Lake.

Don't think that means all the games here and in the past are getting rewritten for Ryzen or that everything in the future will be perfectly compiled for it either. Show mainstream consumers tests that actually matter and they care about.

You probably need to wait about 6 months, but don't get your hopes up. Try again later.

 

[lostinlodos]

Am I the only person who finds putting an 8 series fx CPU in the mix as apples vs potatoes?
I'm so beyond happy with my 9590 that I've yet to see anything from intel or amd that would make me upgrade my board, CPU, etc.
I've seen quite a few modern reviews using the 8series fx vs the 9 and if we're going to look at a realistic comparison let's throw the flagship in the mix eh? Please.
The price at the time for the jump to the 9590 didn't make sense but for those of us who looked at longevity few if any are doubting our purchase now.

 

[HardReset]

I'm failing to see the relevance of an artificial testing and benchmarking tool compared to the gaming results shown here. GAMING results. Real world, actual tests. This is evidence of nothing except that specific tool needs updating. Nothing to stop people wanting to play games on their PC from buying Kaby Lake.

And how exactly games are different vs those benchmarking tools? I already showed that faulty benchmark tool can make 2388% difference so could it be possible that faulty OS/game takes 20% off Ryzen's performance? As I said, problem is not hardware, software is.

Don't think that means all the games here and in the past are getting rewritten for Ryzen or that everything in the future will be perfectly compiled for it either. Show mainstream consumers tests that actually matter and they care about.

You probably need to wait about 6 months, but don't get your hopes up. Try again later.

I expect at least Windows 10 scheduler will be fixed for Ryzen, and that should give around 10% better performance alone. Also it's certain that future games will have better optimizations for Ryzen.

 

[Jay Gow]

My current setup asus corsair VI, ryzen 1800x, 1080ti, samsung 960 evo 500gb m2 drive, 2tb mechanical drive (for storage), 32gb ddr4 2600.

I have not done any benchmarking yet, however while gaming in 4k and live streaming it does feel alot better than my 7700k w/ the same supporting hardware. I get flawless gaming expierence and my streams have no dropped frames.

Like I said I have no data to back this up, but the expierence in game while streaming does feel alot better.

If im not streaming I would say it is about the same.

 

[Ricochester]

So what I'm getting from this is that you'd still want an i5 6600k for gaming. Which is only like 200 bucks.

 

[Jay Gow]

I should also note that both processors I had/have at stock clocks. I have not bothered overclocking either one of them. And I might be upgrading the DDR4 ram to a faster clock speed maybe 3200.

I am not sure how much of an improvement 3200 over 2600 will have though.

 

[Jay Gow]

So what I'm getting from this is that you'd still want an i5 6600k for gaming. Which is only like 200 bucks.

If all you do is game and dont do anything at all that benifits from more than 4 cores and multithreading sure.

In my case gaming @4k, streaming my games live w/ a webcam and voice overlay that would never happen on a 6600k, and barely was achievable w/ my 7700k (I should note while in 4k and streaming it was not very smooth and I would get dropped frames on the stream, if I bumped down to 1080p whil gaming and streaming it was near as bad)

When all I am doing is playing my games though I really dont notice any difference at all betweek the 7700k and 1800x in 4k. Maybe the 7700k gets better FPS benchmarks. But lets be real not enough for anyone to see with the naked eye any difference.

I would guess most consumers are not in my situation though, just like most consumers don't only use their machines for gaming.

 

[Lionvibez]

I'm still impressed with Ryzen. They're very competitive in both price, and at 1440p, they close the gaming performance gap. Now I just have to decide if I'll do the 1700X or 1800X.

Its an easy choice the 1800X doesn't provide any extra overclocking headroom or anything at all over the 1700x for the price difference.

 

[Lionvibez]

I should also note that both processors I had/have at stock clocks. I have not bothered overclocking either one of them. And I might be upgrading the DDR4 ram to a faster clock speed maybe 3200.

I am not sure how much of an improvement 3200 over 2600 will have though.

http://www.legitreviews.com/ddr4-me...latform-best-memory-kit-amd-ryzen-cpus_192259

 

[meric]

What I don't understand is, why are the real life gaming performance so different than the synthetic benches like (let's say) 3d Mark. In 3d mark amd parts perform quite competitively but in actual gaming they fall short? Yes I know there's the user input factor in actual gaming but shouldn't this affect both amd and intel the same way?

 

[HardReset]

What I don't understand is, why are the real life gaming performance so different than the synthetic benches like (let's say) 3d Mark. In 3d mark amd parts perform quite competitively but in actual gaming they fall short? Yes I know there's the user input factor in actual gaming but shouldn't this affect both amd and intel the same way?

3DMark uses all cores/threads available, games do not. So in games Ryzen is much more vulnerable to problems with Windows scheduler etc.

 

[meric]

3DMark uses all cores/threads available, games do not. So in games Ryzen is much more vulnerable to problems with Windows scheduler etc.

Does Windows scheduler work okay only in 3d mark?

 

[HardReset]

Does Windows scheduler work okay only in 3d mark?

It works quite well with Ryzen on almost all software that can use 16 threads (and so workload is well balanced, each thread is somewhat equal). Games are problematic because they use less than 16 threads and workload is badly balanced, meaning there is usually one thread that is much heavier than other threads.

 

[Targonis]

Civilization 6....a turn based strategy game. There are TWO benchmarks that come with the game, the standard graphics benchmark, but also the CPU based test that looks at turn length. Honestly, does ANYONE care what the framerate is, as long as it isn't something sub 20fps? The real key, does it take one minute, or five minutes per turn when playing?