Wait so how is Ryzen bad at games?

Wait so how is Ryzen bad at games?

Why would you not get this over a 7700k?

I don't understand

Other urls found in this thread:

phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ryzen-1800x-linux&num=5
youtube.com/watch?v=BXVIPo_qbc4&t=0s
twitter.com/AnonBabble

CAN I GET SOME ARMA 3 BENCHMARKS THAT ARENT THAT ONE POLISH WEBSITE.

Intel shills

why is the 7700 at 5ghz

>MADtards literally don't know what GPU limited is
No wonder they keep buying AMD

>oh wow the second fastest GPU on the market is bottlenecking muh 5 year old performance cores

Right.
I should just get a 970

ryzen shills in full damage control mode right now

yep hahaha so funny

1. Both of those are overclocked

2. The Intel still wins

Then back in reality, this is what happens.

Ryzen is a truly horrible gaming CPU, I would never in a million years buy it for gaming.

>BTFO by an i3

>the second fastest GPU on the market is bottlenecking
Yes it is retard. These are video games. Video games use like 10x more GPU than CPU.

Once again we see that only tech illiterates buy AMD

Obviously pairing the CPU with a pascal titan x and benchmarking skyrim at 620x480 resolution is the true test of CPU performance, very representational of real world use.

>1080p
>GTX 1080
>le GPU bottleneck guys

i'm more interested to see charts normalized by cost
there are probably people who are very familiar with the prices of all those cpus already, but i'm not

Shh, they don't want to admit that a CPU doesn't matter much at higher resolutions so they have to shill for 2006 netbook-tier resolution

Bethesda games are basically Intel's Doom 2016

Yeah all these kids playing on 640x480 using the lowest settings are really going to be upset their new rig cannot get faster than 300fps, when their monitor is running at 60fps.

You fucking intel shill retards.

>Fallout 4
You're basically telling us that Intel's optimiser is awesome which we already know. Ryzen is still faster and cheaper.

removing the GPU benchmark allows us to isolate CPU perf. it's not a bad benchmark.

you might be thinking "well I game at 1440P and Ryzen performs just as well there because my GPU bottlenecks" and you'd have a point, but as the years go by you'll find that the discrepancy creeps its way into your personal use cases as well.

right now, Ryzen is weak at running games. many signs point towards things improving in the future so don't cave in to the shills yet.

see

>Fallout 4
>Legitimate benchmarking tool

2010 engine, may as well use Guild Wars 2 for a fucking benchmarking tool at this rate.

>lets not test one of the best selling games of all time because nobody wants to know how this new cpu performs in this insanely popular game they play

Intel are just shitting bricks that it rapes their entire sub-$1k lineup in the ass at multithreaded workloads and is about 85% of their single threaded performance at a price that exposes in full light the fact they've been jewing everyone for years.

So instead of change or improve they do what jews always do which is go for dirty underhanded tactics and throw money at shills, bully and threaten reviewers to retain their monopoly and prevent them from being outed as the filthy fucking shitstains they are. Just like politics.

>not noticing that there is something wrong with the game when there is

kys AMDtard

who the fuck cares? it's up to the consumer to analyse the benchmarks himself. the reviewer has done nothing wrong showing the performance in these popular games. if there's a problem then at least we can easily see it in the benches rather than the reviewer just dropping it because of these problems.

i remember when amd shills were saying gta 5 should not be benchmarked because it runs like 15% worse on amd gpu compared to their nvidia competitor. even the 970 was schooling the 480. it's stupidity trying to stop benches. the same goes for people saying dx12 shouldn't be benched because of nvidia too.

He's right tho. Intel has a record on using anti competitive tactics.

I've never really liked how most reviewers do one or the other in terms of an approach. It's useful to run the settings as low as possible to outline CPU performance, however it doesn't represent real world gaming scenerios. Reviewers should attempt to offer both a synthetic game benchmarks as well as real world where they target certain frame rates based on the monitor used. If I game on a 1440p 60hz monitor I won't notice much of a difference between a 7700k and a 1700. But if I also do video editing I'll see a bigger difference between the two. But say I game on that new 1080p 240hz monitor and don't do video editing the 7700k will make a fuck ton more sense.

Benchmarks should help outline different real world uses as well as synthetics. What might impact one person in one way may not for another. And most reviews don't really seem to hit this concept home, ever.

what bugs me the most about many of these reviews is how they lump the ryzen cpus and only have 1-2 intel cpus in there.


Sometimes the benchmark will have the 7700k and have the 1700 missing, meanwhile the 1800x is there
or the 1700 is in the benchmark but not the 7700k but instead the 6950X shows up instead

these reviews are so all over the place.

>who the fuck cares?
many people, every time someone posts fallout 4 benchmarks to tell people that something BTFO something there are
>guaranteed replies
Its a bad example and bad comparison of every product. Its ok if you make the benchmark and note after it that its a shitty game for benchmark but if you want to play it you are as good with an $170 i3 as with an $370 i7 so you dont need to waste cash for this one game.

But basing the verdict on this benchmark when comparing CPUs or GPUs overall is totally stupid unless someone is going to make an OS designated specifically to just play fallout 4.

who is basing the verdict on this benchmark though? don't tell me you're stupid enough to take trolls seriously. that benchmarker probably did a whole load of tests and didn't base his conclusion on solely the fallout 4 tests.

remember the RE7 tests on nvidia gpu? that was also known to be a bad comparison due to outliers which were only fixed after the tests. i didn't see anyone on Sup Forums saying that those were bad examples though. i bet you were one too.

Money is being invested in a campaign to publicly voice certain opinions repeatedly in a short span of time.

Educate your brain your stupid AMD faggots:

>gaming benchmarks
I can´t wait to replace my shitty Westmere compile farm serves with a brand new ryzen based opteron server.

You don't understand, the benchmarker could've just compare i3 i7 and ryzen and call it a day because he could approximate the spectrum of the cpus with passmark score table and a single excel graph. He basically wasted hours of time to make this and he couldve just say "yeah fo4 will run at 119~140 fps on new intels and at 107~118 fps on the new ryzens and it would give you as much information.

And doing such benchmarks is just a waste of time and bad practice, and giving trolls a reason to spam Sup Forums for months with this stupid shit.

You this one?

pclab.pl/art72996.html

Nothing wrong with their tests.

There is also this one.

io-tech.fi/artikkelit/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-summit-ridge/

Gamers... Fuck. You ruin everything.

It's a fake benchmark, it's trying to imply it's as good as an 7700k OC to 5GHZ in gaming which it is not according to every single post NDA benchmarks out there...

What's wrong with testing games people actually do play... Most of the benchmarks focus on games nobody give a shit about. Then you have some rare sources actually showing the 1800x shitting the bed on freaking CSGO, Arma3, Fallout/Skyrim and Unreal Engine games.

While we have 8 anti-ryzen shitposts. Good job.

trolls >>>>>> shills

This is why you wait for reputable sites like anandtech who haven't even released their gaming review because they didn't have enough time yet.

Don't watch YouTube babby reviewers, they're pretty useless.

>Nothing, but also it doesn´t should be count as the definitive answer, because the obvious optimizations of the engines and shit.
I want to see some ryzen benchmarks at compiling.

I feel like the Ryzen 3 and 5 series will be the gamer CPUs as they'll be cheaper and not more core wanking. I don't know why you would even need an 8 core processor if all you do is game. I'd put that money into a GPU instead.

they're obviously intel shills

posts and images reek of desperation

phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ryzen-1800x-linux&num=5

it takes one to know one.

That´s beautiful!

havent posted on Sup Forums in a month and I don't post in these shitty fighting threads at all, sorry

it takes one to know one.

It doesn't fucking matter, if you're getting 1800x or 1700x you get more value per dollar than anything intel

Gaymers are not the world

.

>Gaymers are not the world

yeah because consumer cpu sku's really sell by the thousands because people want to compile the linux kernel 20 secs faster.

Does the janitor own AMD stock ?

When AMD was rising, threads were made all the time about the stock

Now AMD stock took a tumbling and threads are being pruned.

Also, they use the same 10 games over and over, maybe if they specifically chose games based on behavior, i.e. this one thrashes the cache, this one is bandwidth hungry, etc etc, then OK, but it just seems to be what popular. At one point I saw tpu testing no man's sky as a bench... why? It's silly.

zen+ when?

How does the R7 1700 compare with the i5-7600K in PCXS2, Dolphin, Citra and Cemu?

>Also, they use the same 10 games over and over,

Jesus fuck, like doing a BF1 or hitman benchmark is now bad.

Millions of people play those games, so yes it is perfectly reasonable for reviewers to basically have the same rotation of games between them.

And millions more don't.

Ryzen is a better deal if you're not the type to have an autistic fit over FPS. It's actually a far better choice in my case, having Windows 7 inside a VM with a gpu passthrough.

I'd kind of like to see the i7 locked at the same speed as the Ryzen, purely out of curiosity.

Won't that be the fairest test?

This, Intel is literally paying people to downplay Ryzen. Having no competition is obscenely profitable.

The fairest test would be both with the same cooler and OCed as far as they can without crashing.

Stock is the fairest test, because only a minute minority overclock.

Ryzen are actually very good at gaming. It is about Broadwell and Haswell-tier. It looks like it probably memory bandwidth limit due its inferior memory controller. AMD can address this in a future design. The L2 and L3 cache is superior to Kabe Lake.

The real-world difference between Ryzen and Kabe Lake is trivial at best. You couldn't tell a side-by side difference.

Ryzen has far better utillity which matters for people who more then silly gayming.

>bad ffmpeg results

how..? what fucking filters did they use a bunch of single threaded ones like combing?

More like a silly 2-10% difference in frame-time difference. You couldn't bloody time a difference in a double-blind test.

Intel fanboys/shills are fucking retarded. They aren't even playing into Intel's platform actual advantges. Protip: It isn't gaming.

Can't 7700k go to 6.7GHz?

>1700 @ 3.9GHz
fuck that shit I'm not planning on buying a new one every 2 years

As opposed to a 1.45v 7700k that will last you 10 years?

Yer shit is blowing up with these large overclocks whether you like it or not.

Your motherboard will probably die first, this is what usually happens to 2500K users.

It's Intel's damage control at work

youtube.com/watch?v=BXVIPo_qbc4&t=0s
is this fake as well?

Everything that makes Intel look bad is fake.

Or a GNU/AlternativeFact as I have begun calling it

>GPU: 99%

seems legit pajeet, everyone knows you need a GPU bottleneck to 'fairly' compare two different CPUs.

Because no all people want´s to pay jewish prices for a processor without iGPU when they don´t need it.

I'd fairly compare two different CPUs in some heavy CPU software like Blender and POVray instead of a 640x480 game.

I wonder if people have ever tried to code something in low level OpenGL or Direct3D. Those subsystems do most of the parallelism on the GPU level, don't work well with multithreading on the CPU level/they often work even faster if a single thread is feeding them instructions, and in many cases you can make it much worse by multithreading them. In many game genres it's simply bad design to not go largely single threaded when all you do is feed extremely simple stuff to an extremely paralleled GPU pipeline.
People should shake their heads when others suggest that games can become a lot more multithreaded on the CPU level since in most cases the most you can subthread is something like a sound engine that won't be more than 2% of your load.
PS. Some benchmark reviewers are so clueless that they bottleneck their GPUs and then pretend that they do a CPU test. The entire point is to test the CPU bottlenecks when you test CPUs. If you don't, you practically do motherboard testing..

It's barely worse while being a fucking octacore meaning you're never ever gonna drop frames ever. fucking shilltell fags

>t. hillary cuck

At least you'll be able to find an AM4 or AM4+ board :^)

Sure you could but you're going to have to buy another CPU too and get worse performance than before :^)

If you spent more than 1 minute watching the video you'd hear that the reason for this is because at 1080p a top-end card like the 1080 is not being fully utilized...

fuck amd shills and intel shills. intel ones are the worst though. so glad i just stay behind a gen always with literally no difference

Vulkan and DX12 changed that.

...

>only marginally better at this than the 7700k
>gets stomped in games by the 7700k
this is embarrassing desu

They promised it will be possible to steam DOTA2 but it's impossible even play DOTA2 without FPS drops