Results seem okay. It seems he really does just have a better running Ryzen, which seems down to him getting a Gigabyte board while some MSI, ASRock, and Asus boards seem to have problems? Others reviewers were getting only like 117fps in Rise of the Tomb Raider on Ryzen, for example, while his CPU capped average is like 138fps (which is around what the 7700k gets in 1080p). It seems, in general, his performance and computerbase.de and some others that got a Gigabyte board is just 10% better than most of these others benchmarks and that 1080p performance really is similar with current GPUs in the majority of games and that Ryzen actually does have better consistency and lower frame delay on average.
Personally, I think he should have done an SMT disabled and HT disabled test. HT is working properly in software and gets Intel 20-50% benefits in some games. SMT is currently dropping Ryzen performance 8-12% varying by game.
Still does pretty shit in GTA5 and Tomb Raider, but the frame consistancy is better in GTA5.
Hopefully Prey launches with Ryzen optimizations and Windows gets its update so we can see better benchmarks soon.
>watchdogs 2 utilizing all 8 cores / 16 threads >still slower than 7700k
Tyler Wright
All benchmarks are shit until the mainboards get better and stable BIOS and Microsoft updates the scheduler of Windows.
Jaxson Evans
That is probably due to SMT reducing performance due to software bugs. There's confirmed bugs where SMT is making the two threads fight for resources inefficiently in gaming even though it works great in Cinebench and so on.
Ideally he should have done a test with both SMT and HT disabled.
Liam Nelson
this, I remember the p67 fiasco with sandy/ivy
t. p67 owner
Carter Young
>making the two threads fight for resources inefficiently Inherent to AMDs SMT or is this a per application thing?
Wyatt Campbell
USE A FUCKING HISTOGRAM YOU RETARD
Hunter Phillips
This. There's alot more involved here than just the processor. Everything in these test rigs is brand new for fucks sake.
Juan Young
Its a game engine thing, even intel chips see significant performance regressions in some titles. Though as a bonus intel also has a buggy as fuck single core turbo.
It comes down to the fact that SMT only provides a 30% uplift in throughput. If you have two critical software threads you should be running them on two separate physical cores. Putting them both on one core will hurt your overall performance.
Jaxon Harris
It seems confirmed that it's that many game engines have their own scheduling code specifically for HT that is not working correctly for SMT.
It appears to be a problem with the games never accounting for a different type of simultaneous multi threading ever being in use besides HT, while SMT and HT work differently.
While if you look in Cinebench R15, SMT gets like 9.5x the performance with 8 cores over 1 core when the 6900k gets like 8.75x the performance in multithreading. So SMT seems to actually work better than HT, but the game engines are fucking it up thinking it's HT when it's not.
>even intel chips see significant performance regressions in some titles. Intel sees a 50% performance increase in Watch Dogs 2 with HT enabled. Many other games see at least 20%. The performance regression from HT initially I think was a Windows scheduler bug seeing it as an entirely different core when it's not. Now days it's incredibly rare or non existent to have HT-on regress performance.
Since this benchmark here is with HT on and SMT on, I have a feeling that with both off the performance delta would be very close. And once SMT gets working right, you'd see the delta remain similar just with Ryzen performing better.
Joseph Sanders
you literally cannot fully multithread most individual tasks. modern game engines already have pipelined architectures which add concurrency at the cost of more latency. certain tasks like video rendering are different because you can process different pixels in parallel (and this is what GPUs take advantage of to get their performance advantage in certain tasks like video rendering).
>In most cases, performance is a constant point of concern, and a parallel pipelined architecture is adopted to allow multiple processors to work in parallel instead of sequentially. Large command buffers on GPUs can buffer an entire frame of drawing commands, which allows them to overlap the work on the CPU, which generally gives a significant frame rate boost at the expense of added latency. web.archive.org/web/20140719053303/http://www.altdev.co/2013/02/22/latency-mitigation-strategies/
Carson Hill
HyperThreading and SMT are the same thing, guy. HyperThreading is just intel's marketing name for their SMT implementation. Take a good hard look at that chart.
Josiah Torres
I remember a bunch of Intel chips had the same problems with HT and would run better with it off. Did that ever get fixed or was the performance different just to minor to care?
Jaxson Gonzalez
Lmao. They do not work exactly the same.
Holy fuck you can't read. All you can do is regurgitate.
James Miller
It was fixed. The other guy is an idiot citing old as fuck tests.
Xavier Cox
user, they are the same thing. Simultaneous MultiThreading is the theoretical concept, HyperThreading is intel's marketing name for their specific implementation in their architecture. You're trying to argue that wheels and tires on a care are separate things.
Don't post about a topic you're completely clueless on.
Lucas Evans
>he should have done an SMT disabled Isn't it disabled already? If not these actually are some pretty impressive results.
Carson Ross
Nope. He shows the cores/threads in BF1 and it has 16 threads being utilized.
Kevin Hall
Gamers Nexus ? Into the trash it goes.
Camden Williams
>Windows scheduler bug seeing it as an entirely different core when it's not Maybe it's the same problem with Ryzen? I remember seeing a Linux commit that fixed an issue like that with Ryzen CPUs.
Robert Cruz
>for their specific implementation So it's different then.
Samuel Fisher
Oh I should've checked the video first. Seems like ryzen is actually pretty good for gaming after all despite all the hysteria from the intel brigade. And it will only get better with time.
Luis Flores
How are you this fucking stupid? Every implementation of SMT is different. They're all still SMT. You very clearly thought that SMT and HT were different features both present on an intel processor, which is laughable.
Stay in Sup Forums, kid.
Gabriel Campbell
he's referring to the different implementations by intel and amd
Samuel Evans
>Intel has more frames in gaming
Everyone knew this already dumb AMDshill
Jonathan Gray
No, he isn't. >Since this benchmark here is with HT on and SMT on Referring to the bench I uploaded here: The little Sup Forums retard is just using terms he doesn't understand.
Kayden Flores
>Every implementation of SMT is different Said it himself and still doesn't get it. wew. What a kid.
AMD seemed to say that it's a bug in the game engines themselves not recognizing any SMT method other than HT, and not Windows. Optimizing for AMD SMT itself will be more work, but they could a least patch to make sure their optimizations for HT are only targeting Intel and to otherwise use cores only.
Developers have to test whether they should use HT or not with an Intel tool, VTune. It isn't exactly intuitive or easy. They just have to run their program and tool, and see if spawning the thread on a logical thread makes performance better. If not, they need to set it to only spawn on a physical thread.
Doing such optimizations just with VTune was not a problem when only Intel's implementation of SMT, Hyperthreading, was in use for consumer CPUs. So the problem is the game engine thinks some things will be improved using SMT when they won't purely based on tests with Intel machines.
Though there could be some bugs in Windows as well that are also contributing. It seems weird that it's ALWAYS worse in games when they are both 2-way SMT that work a bit similarly, but in workstation applications SMT is giving big benefits.
Ian Carter
You're pathetically desperately shifting goal posts after you got called out for talking out of your ass. Give it up.
Bentley Green
I hope you can read that graph correctly and that you're just trolling.
It was a pretty good one, if so. Expected it coming.
I'm using the abbreviation "HT" to differentiate between AMD's implementation because AMD simply calls their SMT SMT. This is what most people do. AMD has no special name for theirs. You can call it "AMD SMT" if you want to get specific but there has been no need. The other guy is just being an idiot.
Carter Sanchez
>And not a single thing he said was refuted by you
Jackson Diaz
You can't save face after embarrassing yourself this hard.
Ryan Gonzalez
>he's posting things I don't understand quick something something about shifting goal posts whatever that means when there were never any goal posts to start with and say that all this stuff I don't understand is just him talking out of his ass!!!! xd
Hunter Evans
>if I repeat myself I win
Ethan Martin
intel SMT is almost always referred to as HT especially when talking about gaming. if he had just said that SMT was on it wouldn't be clear that it was enabled for intel as well
Logan Parker
There is nothing to refute. See: This Sup Forumstard tried to use terms he know nothing about, now hes trying to do damage control. The little retard tried to claim the bench I posted showed both SMT and HT, as if they were both distinct features, and both present on the single intel CPU being tested there.
Even more damage control.
Try again. The bench in question is testing one CPU, an i7 6950X. You can't explain away what he said. He very clearly was clearly the i7 6950X had both SMT and HT, as if they were separate features. He flat out doesn't know what they are.
Jacob Watson
I'm sure Sup Forums kiddies are too young to remember, but this is the same story as it was with AMD Athlon when it came out first time. Comments were like that: good performance, but since it was derived from server chip (Opteron) is good for scientific calculations but not for games. Intel is better overclocker and gaming chip. Once Athlon matured it showed its power and Intel didn’t recover till Core.
Ryan Howard
>5GHz processor with similar IPC but 4 less cores has fairly better performance in games than a 8C/16T processor clocked 1.1GHz lower
Intel shills are fucking retarded for going ape shit over something everyone else was already expecting.
Julian Nelson
I don't think I've ever gotten to witness someone getting completely BTFO as hard as you're getting BTFO right now.
I'd recommend you not just never visit Sup Forums again, but no other site that lets you write anything to other other. What do you even do on sites when you can't hide your stupidity behind anonymity? There's no way you're going to be able to keep yourself from being made a complete fool of elsewhere unless you just give up on ever posting anywhere ever again.
Isaiah Harris
...
Gabriel Brooks
>make an absolute fool out of yourself by using terms you're absolutely unfamiliar with >instantly get hostile when corrected >back track >move goal posts >desperately google terms to try and save face >post a completely different chart from the one in question, which is totally irrelevant >and at the end of it all you still quote the wrong post
Its like watching pottery in motion. You insisted that an i7 6950X had *both* SMT and HT. It is abundantly clear, you cannot deny it. Plain as day: "Since this benchmark here is with HT on and SMT on" The chart I posted was looking at intel's single core turbo and hyper threading on the i7 6950X. Its only looking at that single Broadwell-E chip. It is not an AMD vs intel chart, so your backtracking defense holds no water. I simply corrected you, and you instantly started shitposting like the little Sup Forums cretin you are.
This entire exchange has been you trying to save face for being a loud mouthed gaymer retard who got called out for talking out of your ass, and your autistic ego couldn't handle it. Good job. Really productive.
Jaxon Myers
>actually bothering to respond instead of hiding forever >more being unable to refute anything >more doubling down on retarded claims >doesn't understand that "HT on and SMT on" clearly means "HT on for Intel while AMD's SMT is also on" while if someone just said "with SMT on" they might only mean AMD's SMT on since Intel's is almost always referred to as HT except in the case with Xeon Phi that uses a different implementation.
wew
Thomas Morales
...
Jeremiah Ortiz
Again, that pathetic childish defense holds no water. The chart is question does not feature any Ryzen chip. It is for the i7 6950X alone. You stated "Since this benchmark here is with HT on and SMT on" because you legitimately thought they were totally distinct features on intel's chip. You didn't understand what the terms were, and you started shitposting when you were called out for it. You're still just shitposting now. You haven't argued anything that warrants refuting, you've just been trying to save face after you embarrassed yourself.
You can take a Sup Forumsirgin out of Sup Forums, but you can't take the Sup Forums out of the Sup Forumsirgin.
Josiah Evans
"Since this benchmark here is with HT on and SMT on" was clearly referring to having SMT and HT on, you imbecile, not the 6950X one that is HT on/off with turbo on/off.
How the fuck could "Since this benchmark here is with HT on and SMT on" refer to when it has 4 different bars and clearly has "off" when that line was only referring to a benchmark that had both on and was talking about the performance delta if they were both off?
Holy shit you're being BTFO so hard. Just end your life.
Colton Sanchez
...
Samuel Hall
>I don't think I've ever gotten to witness someone getting completely BTFO as hard as you're getting BTFO right now.
>I'd recommend you not just never visit Sup Forums again, but no other site that lets you write anything to other other. >What do you even do on sites when you can't hide your stupidity behind anonymity? >There's no way you're going to be able to keep yourself from being made a complete fool of elsewhere unless you just give up on ever posting anywhere ever again.
He was warned but he posts more dumb shit anyway. The absolute mad man.
Gabriel Hernandez
I presented a simple fact, and posted a chart along with it to demonstrate the point. Even intel's chips can see significant performance regressions with SMT, Broadwell-E in particular has some major performance regressions with its buggy single core turbo as well. That is what the Sup Forums cretin responded to.
A dumb little Sup Forumsirgin using terms he doesn't understand got butthurt for being corrected. Stop trying to defend him. All he does is shitpost, and defending him puts you right on the same level.
Dylan King
>stock 1800X only 10fps behind the twice as expensive 6900k despite having performance issues related to the mobo and OS/game optimization Looks pretty good to me.
Oliver Lee
The bigger thing in this graph is to see how HT improves performance in that game, but SMT drastically tanks it.
Compare the 7600k, even OC to 4.7ghz, and it has 50.7 0.1% low FPS. While the 7700k stock, which is basically a 7600k with HT, gets 111 0.1% low FPS and almost 15% higher average FPS on much lower clocks.
Most games now days benefit from HT by about 20-50%. Yet those same games are making Ryzen with SMT enabled perform 8-12% less than turning it off.
HT had the same exact problems in the past like: So imagine when SMT gets fixed. All these benchmarks are just going to be void.
Josiah Martinez
> The bigger thing in this graph is to see how HT improves performance in that game, but SMT drastically tanks it. Will, probable, be much better in future, when software/uefi will get better.
very autistic semantic argument itt but as far as Ryzen UEFI performance gains go, don't expect much of a difference after the big feature bullet points like SMT are fixed without optimisation work from game developers themselves. Joker's Gigabyte motherboard might be nearly the best case scenario for a while yet. And frankly I don't ever see people like Firaxis ever bothering to fix Civ VI.
Wyatt Collins
Cant you just disable extra cores/threads in Ryzen to make it faster?
Dominic Clark
>buy i7-7700k >microstutter like fuck
WTF senpai
Evan Robinson
>disable cores >make it faster AMDrones, ladies and gentlemen.
Carter Hill
Probably. Since one of the problems is the windows scheduler moving threads from one CCX to another.
If you can disable an entire CCX, that should actually improve performance in the games it does very bad in.
Jayden Wilson
Yes but it still trails the 7700k from what I've seen in most gayms. There's more to the story, whether its bugs in the bios and microcode or whether there's systematic inherent biases in the software tested. No one's bothered to validate with HT-0 Broadwell-E chips as far as I know.
Caleb Adams
...
Kevin Cooper
The point about the CCX's is interesting, I just don't know how much I buy it. Does this just happen in games? Why or why not?
Justin Richardson
Have you ever coded with HT in mind you stupid fuck?
Anthony Lewis
Things like Cinebench and stuff have more consistently loaded threads that Window's scheduler won't keep trying to move around.
It happens in games because their threads have way more inconsistent performance so keep getting moved to try to balance the load across threads.
Applications can also decide how their threads are scheduled and deleted manually. This can be done in games in ways that's very suboptimal for AMD.
But even then.. I'm not sure how much of cache is really being utilized in games and how much losing that shared cached and having to hit RAM again is really affecting performance. But it's definitely got to be SOMETHING. The biggest issue is definitely SMT making performance worse while HT often makes it better. That's why I really wish we could get these same tests by the guy that shows them disabled.
He clearly hasn't. Don't worry, he was BTFO enough.
Dominic Price
>Personally, I think he should have done an SMT disabled and HT disabled test. HT is working properly in software and gets Intel 20-50% benefits in some games. SMT is currently dropping Ryzen performance 8-12% varying by game. He's actually going to do it.
Caleb Wood
>spend $750 on 1800x+mobo because muh cores >disable half the cores because muh performance >now you have less performance than 7700k in all regards
Dylan Torres
>I'm not sure how much of cache is really being utilized in games and how much losing that shared cached and having to hit RAM again is really affecting performance. it's huge
Nathan Price
Well completely DISABLING the cache would be much more than a 10% difference in performance. But this isn't disabling. It's forcing it to uncommit and re-fetch by swapping threads around when they're swapped around.
So it's definitely something. But I can't say how much exactly.
Should be much better than the 7600k still when SMT is working, though.
The 7700k heavily, heavily outperforms the 7600k in many games despite them being virtually identical except that the 7700k has HT and the 7600k does not. I'd be happy with performance just halfway between the 7600k and 7700k in those games.
Kayden Walker
you want as few problems with the cache as possible. most current game engine architectures have data access patterns as one of the top priorities.
>each zen thread is being registered as an individual core with its own L2 and L3 cache. i.e. totaling 136 MB cache!!. this is using Windows Sysinternals. This explains the SMT troubles in the event that a thread bounced to a HT thinking its the real deal.
Windows thinking it has 136MB of L2 and L3 to share across 16 threads and not 20MB is bound to be an issue. It will also help when Windows understands the CCX layout and power states too.
Carson Flores
>It's not AMD's fault they have launched another shit chip, itttt's Microsoft, and asus and and MSIm and games makers.
Landon Martin
The ladyboy on gamers nexus even came out and admitted to fucking up his test...
Then has the balls to say something along the lines of "I stand behind it because this is how they sent it" "the 5 things I did wrong only caused a 5% difference in performance each, it's fine!"
Hunter Howard
Yeah someone else posted that. That seems to definitely be the biggest culprit besides just general bad settings, too slow of memory, and basics like that.
Yeah, what an asshole. The guy has been rubbing me the wrong way with how stubborn and sure of himself is when there were clear issues with their write-up. It's obvious his test methodology was flawed but "we wrote 10,000+ words and spent 1000 hours total!!!"
At first I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, because it's easy to just be ignorant to a small detail, overlook something, and get caught up on what you believe to be true when it's not. Shit happens. But then you have it coming out that it's very obvious something was wrong that he should have noted in their review, and that they were pretty obviously making their review bias on top of that (doing 1440p with SMT enabled only when their other tests showed it was obviously bugged, for example) and not pointing out some clear positives.
Charles Diaz
it's really only a concern right now for consoles, which have super weak CPUs. shitty pc exclusives built on decades old object oriented shitcode (i.e arma) don't use data oriented design at all.
Wyatt Mitchell
I hope this is just reporting wrong
Coreinfo output.
If it's right, it's showed the cache isn't shared at all. Or rather, Windows doesn't see it as shared.
Anthony Lewis
doesn't matter if it's reported incorrectly or not. the OS has no control over what data gets put into cpu caches.
Zachary Bennett
It matters because the OS doesn't know to prefer to move threads around to a logical thread that shares the same unified cache if possible if it doesn't see it.
Elijah Cox
...
Jonathan Butler
They are fairly cherry picked, but that guy's configuration was definitely outperforming most others.
It's the same guy that benchmarked in this video at 720p that did those to show there was mostly not a GPU bottleneck except in Sniper Elite 4 and Overwatch, pretty much. And sometimes in Tomb Raider, but sometimes not.
Xavier Campbell
What did they mean by this
Cameron Ortiz
...
Christopher Allen
5% difference with bugged SMT disabled while the Intel chips benefit from working HT.
Nothing to see here.
Aaron Evans
why is the 6950K performing worse than the 7700K, it costs like 4x as much
Evan Watson
>bugged SMT You mean shitty implementation of SMT.
We saw the exact same thing with first generation HT cpu's of Intel. It took them a couple of generations to get it straight (and games to optimise for it), AMD isn't fixing this one with a patch
Ian Cox
Lower clock speeds and IPC.
It's not a gaming cpu
Gavin Rogers
How are they cherry picked at all? There's 10 games being benchmarked there
Austin Perry
Didn't the 1700x beat the 6950K on a lot of non-gaming benchmarks?
Daniel White
Not sure how that is relevant, we are discussing gaming performance here
Joseph Reyes
>shitty implementation of SMT
No, it's just that games are only accounting for Intel's HT since AMD's SMT never existed when they launched their games.
Christian Morris
Which is exactly what I said, and that's a problem, because that is not fixable with a patch
Ryder Richardson
HELP I'M AUTISTIC AND I POOPED MY PANTS
Asher Ortiz
ITT user completely forgets that windows doesn't have any zen specific patches right now. user also forgets how windows effectively didn't support bulldozer upon release either. user ALSO forgets windows has been patching in support for Intel's new (at the time) chips as each generation is released.
The upcoming creators edition hopefully has some zen specific tweaks that will improve performance . Right now most reviwers don't run their test system in high performance mode which had a negative impact on inter core zen performance.
Jaxson Moore
Is that what the R5 series will be geared more towards? Fewer cores and higher clock speeds?
Sebastian Edwards
Fewer cores yes, higher clock speeds, probably, but I'm not expecting Kabylake clockspeeds.
the rx 1800x does 4.1 ghz on watercooling, so the 6c/12 might do 4.2-3 ghz on air, the quad cores might do 4.5 ghz, but I still think it's unlikely
Luke Long
Huh? What you mean by "SMT implementation" is confusing, then. It makes it sound like you think AMD's SMT hardware is inferior, when it's actually superior.
It's just that games aren't using it properly like they are HT.
No, the clock speeds likely won't be higher. It might do 4.0 or 4.1 on more cores than 2 with XFR, but they aren't going to go to 4.2 or higher on a core, I'm almost completely certain. The chip is far worse perf/watt past 3.9 and its sweet spot is at 3.3 and below for an average binning.
Most of the performance problems seem to be from Windows scheduler moving threads from one core cluster to another, making them lose their L3 cache and have to uncommit, fetch from memory, and recache. And from SMT being enabled when it currently gives a performance penalty of 8-12% in almost every game. These are fairly simple to patch issues so we should see better benchmarks before R5 launches.
Isaiah Adams
>when it's actually superior. How is it superior?
Carter Rivera
8 threads for half the price of a 7700k.
The 7700k is the cheapest 8 thread CPU that Intel jews offer. The 7400, 7500, etc, are the exact same CPU that they arbitrarily disable hyperthreading on just to try to justify the 7700k costing 50% more than a 7600k.
Nicholas Morales
in case anyone thinks he's trolling, it's actually true t. oldfag
Nathaniel Kelly
It's not superior for gaming though, in fact it's clearly inferior. And we are talking about gaming performance here.
It's like you're saying a pro tennis player is better at playing soccer than a pro soccer player because the tennis player is better at tennis
