As a follow up to our day one review of Ryzen 3, this ultimate gaming benchmark guide has it against Ryzen 5 and Intel's competing processors using the GTX 1060, 1070 and 1080 in nine different PC games.
Ryzen 3: The Ultimate Gaming Benchmark Guide
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
I wish you tested an AMD GPU. They sometimes provide different performance characteristics even when GPU bottlenecked due to different drivers.
Anyway, looks like with lower end cards even the cheapest CPU's are enough. Personally when reading such reviews these days I just want to make sure that my G4560 is good enough, and looks like it is.
Anyway, looks like with lower end cards even the cheapest CPU's are enough. Personally when reading such reviews these days I just want to make sure that my G4560 is good enough, and looks like it is.
Power consumption is in the day one review, price vs. performance will depend on the GPU. This is more about giving you a clear idea of which CPU/GPU combos offer the best value and you can really see that by looking at any of the games tested.
As always you deliver with real-world tests! Im very much looking forward to the overclocking results and the comparision to 3-4 generations old Ivy / Sandy bridge CPUs so that those like me who are hanging on the older K CPUs can know if its time to finally upgrade.
Peter Farkas
Posts: 654 +530
Do we really need to put 3200Mhz RAM into a Ryzen 3 rig? RAM is already bloody expensive, not to mention the high-speed ones...
I am reading stuff in the youtube coments that memory speed shouldn't be an issue anymore, etc... Is that true?
Would one be good with 2400/2666Mhz RAM for Ryzen 3?
I am reading stuff in the youtube coments that memory speed shouldn't be an issue anymore, etc... Is that true?
Would one be good with 2400/2666Mhz RAM for Ryzen 3?
Cycloid Torus
Posts: 4,892 +1,711
SO, in effect we are GPU bound until we reach the level of the GTX 1070. The stage is set for Vega.
All this competition is WONDERFUL. Keep it up, folks!
All this competition is WONDERFUL. Keep it up, folks!
msroadkill612
Posts: 112 +43
Yep, its all a question of balance.
If we are spending ~3x + on our gpu than our cpu, then the process starts with the gpu.
then buy a relatively cheaper cpu that can comfortably max it out. To be niggardly is a false economy.
The newby impression I get from the tests is that threads/cores do matter to modern gaming, judging from the 2 cores performance e.g. It bears noting, that these tests are clean installs, not bloat infested real world systems. To not spend $100usd more for 6 core when springing for a ~1070 gpu, seems unbalanced.
Why would you chance the most expensive component being throttled, for want of an inexpensive cpu premium?
Any prospective 1070 buyers out there will be seriously considering the $400usd vega 56, and if decided on, a sibling amd cpu seems a no brainer.
If we are spending ~3x + on our gpu than our cpu, then the process starts with the gpu.
then buy a relatively cheaper cpu that can comfortably max it out. To be niggardly is a false economy.
The newby impression I get from the tests is that threads/cores do matter to modern gaming, judging from the 2 cores performance e.g. It bears noting, that these tests are clean installs, not bloat infested real world systems. To not spend $100usd more for 6 core when springing for a ~1070 gpu, seems unbalanced.
Why would you chance the most expensive component being throttled, for want of an inexpensive cpu premium?
Any prospective 1070 buyers out there will be seriously considering the $400usd vega 56, and if decided on, a sibling amd cpu seems a no brainer.
msroadkill612
Posts: 112 +43
The vega HBCC chip offers some pretty radical new methods of extending dram memory/cache using the systems nvme, and even nvme on the vega gpu card fabric, as manifested in amds 2TB ssg vega gpu.
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,221 +3,075
AMD Ryzen R3:
Faster than Pentium.
Good to know.
Faster than Pentium.
Good to know.
OcelotRex
Posts: 558 +302
But Vega is woefully late to the party. You could have owned a 1070 for over a year to save roughly $50 on the MSRP.
Unless Vega 56 is 50% more powerful than a 1070 at $399 that's 12 months you're not getting back. I don't call that competition.
erickmendes
Posts: 1,136 +629
I got an i5 6400 and a GTX 1060 6GB... Seems like my next update will only make sense If I change both to something better.
Evernessince
Posts: 5,469 +6,158
These tests are designed to show the maximum performance you should expect from these CPUs. RAM speed will have somewhat of an impact on your system's performance but it isn't anything drastic.
Roy Mepham
Posts: 24 +38
You're only taking into account what you see today. If you partnered a GTX1080 with something like i7 7700k you would be seeing at least 110 fps on Far Cry Primal at those settings.
Cycloid Torus
Posts: 4,892 +1,711
Sure, but I think the point is more that the R9 is not in the same league and (hopefully) the Vega is. If benchmarks come in appreciably stronger, then it is competitive - even though far behind time-wise.
I do hope you are enjoying your 1070.
OcelotRex
Posts: 558 +302
I returned it and bought the 1060. Then 1070 wasn't a good enough value at 1080p. I would have gotten the RX 480 but they were way overpriced ($250-290, thanks miners) and I ended up with the $300 GTX 760 MSI Gaming X for $219.99.
I still waited months to get that deal, putting off great titles since I couldn't play them on my aging GPU from 2013 unless I reduced resolution, settings, or targeting 30 fps. By the time Vega comes along I'm close enough to the launch of the new Nvidia GPUs it won't make sense to upgrade when it's likely that they will have something that performs as well as Vega 56 for around $250 in less time than it took for AMD to produce a competitive new card to the 1070.
Faster ram is only slightly more expensive than base speed ram - though all of it is bloody expensive.
The infinity fabric in ryzen gen 1 is directly tied to RAM clock. Faster speed will offer some amount of faster performance.
you do get diminishing returns though. I have 2133 ram, if I ever get ryzen ill probably overclock it to 26XX and you get most of that performance gain in that leap. You dont need 3200 ram with ryzen 3, you just might get a ~1-3 fps boost in average situations.
Vulcanproject
Posts: 1,698 +3,210
Ryzen changed the market this year but Intel can change it back again to dominance by doing ONE thing. Enable overclocking on more of their chips.
Of course their incentive to do this is low at this point since they have managed to lock up processors for 6 years and charge premiums for the K models. Maybe competition will open them up again. One can hope. I just think wistfully back to the likes of the Pentium E2140
Of course their incentive to do this is low at this point since they have managed to lock up processors for 6 years and charge premiums for the K models. Maybe competition will open them up again. One can hope. I just think wistfully back to the likes of the Pentium E2140
Peter Farkas
Posts: 654 +530
Thanks for the feedback folks.
Now one can only hope that RAM prices fall back where they were a year ago. In my country prices went up roughly 80%. almost doubled... this is not right.
I recently upgraded from 8GB to 16GB DDR3-1600 in my current gaming rig and I made the purchase on the second-hand/used market. new RAM kits simply don't worth it.
Here you have to pay around 165USD for a 16GB DDR4 dual channel kit. disgusting....
Now one can only hope that RAM prices fall back where they were a year ago. In my country prices went up roughly 80%. almost doubled... this is not right.
I recently upgraded from 8GB to 16GB DDR3-1600 in my current gaming rig and I made the purchase on the second-hand/used market. new RAM kits simply don't worth it.
Here you have to pay around 165USD for a 16GB DDR4 dual channel kit. disgusting....
GreenNova343
Posts: 454 +336
You do realize that's a steal compared to comparable DDR3 speeds, right?
https://pcpartpicker.com/products/memory/#s=303000,303200&Z=16384002,16384004: $455-$562 USD for a 16GB DDR3-3000 kit (with only 2 options listed)
https://pcpartpicker.com/products/memory/#Z=16384002,16384004&s=302800: $280 USD for a 16GB DDR3-2800 kit (with only one option listed).
https://pcpartpicker.com/products/memory/#Z=16384002&s=302400&sort=price: cheapest is about $105 USD, but the top option runs $294.
The only reason DDR4 RAM seems more expensive is because it's marketed at higher speeds than DDR3 -- the slowest DDR4 RAM, for example, is DDR4-2133, but the slowest DDR3 RAM is DDR3-1066. If you look at the prices for DDR3-2133 vs. DDR4-2133, they're pretty much identical (htthttps://pcpartpicker.com/products/memory/#sort=price&Z=16384002&s=302133,402133).
bexwhitt
Posts: 662 +397
OcelotRex
Posts: 558 +302
If the binning for the Intel chips met their tolerances they'd be unlocked. They make more off stable products than by supposedly bilking customers for unlocked K cpus.
Peter Farkas
Posts: 654 +530
Yep, you are totally right. However, I only wanted to point out that RAM is freaking expensive. even 165USD is way too much imo and it was the cheapest ddr4 above 2666Mhz (it was 2800).
When I check the price history, I see it was almost half of the current price a bit more than a year ago.
The prices you have listed, around 400-500USD are insane. Even worse than my country, I get that.
GreenNova343
Posts: 454 +336
Yeah, the high-speed DDR3 prices are insane. But I think it's because you get diminishing returns. Can't remember which site it was on (could have been here, could have been on Tom's Hardware), but a year or so ago they benchmarked Intel & AMD systems (the latter being the older FX chips) to see whether DDR3 RAM speeds had any effect on performance. I think they saw definite gains going up to 1333 & 1600 MHz -- meaning that the gains matched up with the speed increases -- but after 1600MHz you saw fewer & fewer gains for the faster RAM speeds (I.e. even though DDR3-1800 is ~15% faster than DDR3-1600, they maybe had only a 5% increase in performance).
I think DDR4 shows major improvements for Ryzen CPUs with faster speeds, but doesn't provide as much of a boost for Intel builds. Still, we are talking about getting 16GB RAM kits (which is double what my current rig has), so we're going to be paying more. And maybe that's part of the issue. When I built my PC a few years back, 8GB was a good choice because it was somewhere between "mainstream" & "high-end" for a gaming PC, but on the "high-end" for a general-use PC, & my PC splits its time 90% general/10% gaming. But even that was a lot more than my prior machine (which ran Windows 98 &, at the end of its life, was finally rocking 2GB of RAM). The 16GB kits run about twice the cost of an 8GB kit, which makes sense given that you're getting twice as much RAM. We're just used to not "needing" as much RAM.
I think DDR4 shows major improvements for Ryzen CPUs with faster speeds, but doesn't provide as much of a boost for Intel builds. Still, we are talking about getting 16GB RAM kits (which is double what my current rig has), so we're going to be paying more. And maybe that's part of the issue. When I built my PC a few years back, 8GB was a good choice because it was somewhere between "mainstream" & "high-end" for a gaming PC, but on the "high-end" for a general-use PC, & my PC splits its time 90% general/10% gaming. But even that was a lot more than my prior machine (which ran Windows 98 &, at the end of its life, was finally rocking 2GB of RAM). The 16GB kits run about twice the cost of an 8GB kit, which makes sense given that you're getting twice as much RAM. We're just used to not "needing" as much RAM.
Similar threads
- Locked
