Do you need any more than 4 cores with the majority of games these days doing well with 4? Look at the Ryzen, absolutely raping Intel's best at 1440p.
Will future games go all the way to 8, or should I just get a Ryzen 1600X and leave the rest of the $ for future builds?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
youtube.com
twitter.com
Well the consoles have eight cores, eight Weak cores so they NEED to optimize for scale ability
IMO your over thinking it. 4 core offerings will be fine for the next couple years. Even if more cores could be used. Onless your a turbo autist and MUST feel like you bought the smartest choice right now. In which case you'll be chasing that dream forever. Just buy what you can afford right now and be happy
I don't understand your attitude, What just ignore the low level mental illness that causes someone to obsess about computer components?
OF course he is over thinking it, thats the point.
Mafia clearly uses the extra cores, but most games don't; in 98% of games the 7700k wrecks the 6900k
Its the future of gaming! we really mean it this time
>2010
>Do you need any more than 2 cores with the majority of games
Broadwell is apparently a weak core now?
I was talking about the ps4 and xbone
I just see anons always arguing about this stuff here user. So i thought id just go the chill road.
>absolutely raping
>1 fps
You need 1 core to play games
>weak
Oh it is YOU again...
Here, I removed the GPU bottleneck for you.
No need to thank me.
There is literally no reason to get any Ryzen 8 core over the 7700k at current pricing
Correct.
You could even buy a $200 6600 and get better performance than the $500 1800x
How good are these games in the first place, Mafia 3 sucks and "Mankind Divided" the name alone...
Damn I thought my 6600k was about to be obselete
Agreed. Any game where AMD's $500 CPU performs worse than a $200 intel CPU is bad.
Wait for bannerlord
This is how all the other benchmarks have looked. Very disapointing
I'm probably gonna go with a 1600 myself, when they get released
Gaming and twitch streaming at the same time.
See I always wondered about that. 8x Jaguar cores are weak as shit. Devs had to have some sort of optimization for better 8-core scaling. So why don't console ports actually use more than 4 cores?
Who did this review?
Im going to say get the 1700 or 1600x or lower if you like, the reason is am4 socket is going to be used and supported for a long period of time, from server, workstation, lap top and whatever else im missing this socket will give you more options in the future.
Intel will drop the 1151 (1150? 1155?, krabylake socket) because it will never have 6/12 cpus, and its 2011 socket have slower, more expensive, power hungry and off chip controllers. So probably were going tol see a new socket within the next 2 years.
Shit ton of cores werent common until this point, intel kept them behind a pay wall, thats why nobody care enough to optimize their HT (hyperthreading) compilers, software etc etc.
But now with SMT and a couple of pushes to developers and fagots to optimize for it its going to be a fun ride...
Keep in mind everything is unpatched, theres heaps of issues that need to be fixed, I wouldn't trust any benchmarks until they retest everything in a couple of months.
It's an entirely new architecture, so there's going to be a few issues at first.
Where did your life go so wrong?
Joker, he has a youtube channel. He got a gigabyte motherboard with an updated bios, so he got much better frame rates than some other reviewers.
This is why I'd wait till everything is patched before trusting any of the current benchmarks.
Nah. Even though they advertised that a lot, it's actually still worse.
Agreed. People cried about Bulldozer but they patched that and it's aged like wine.
LOL its called lga 2066 fucking jews....
>joker
You mean the guy that intentionally gimped his Intel benchmark to make Ryzen look better? He's literally an AMD shill. See: youtu.be
Doesnt matter that the quality intel outputs is shit right?
>brain and joker are friends
>do podcast together
>funally decide to meet since brian lives in aus
>brain hates joker
>they stop being friends and end the podcast
>no brian is roasting joker
Lol
...then what's the fucking point of Ryzen? Beating the shittily overpriced 6900k at extremely specific scenarios? Fuck this, all that hype and they can't even beat Intel's meme 1% improvement series.
Settings must be wrong.
Doesn't make any sense 7700K being better at encoding than 6900K, neither 6950X. They're probably limiting threads.
Workstations might benefit from Ryzen, but only if they were already in the 1k intel market.
This clearly shows that 7700k has problems with this function. while all the 4+ cores don't.
He did the benchmarks at 1080P, hardly 'gimping'
>ryzen drops
>good enough cpu for manchildren crying about muh fps muh 1%
>murders, rapes and pillages in everything else in intelville.
>intels goes full bentium 4 and is rushing the X299 with even MORE EXPENSIVE cpus...
Enjoy your dead socket.
Watch the video.
this
Ryzen will only ever be a bottleneck if you're trying for 144hz.
has anyone done emulator benchmarks?
yes, it's fucking awful.
Ryzen is a godsend for us smart people who play 2 games at once
Anandtech said it's above a 2700K right now but it was doing funky things so the graph wasn't included with the review. I'd wait for the bugs to be ironed out by the time Ryzen 5 launches.
chinese gold farmers?
Yeah that's about where Anandtech said it be. It's probably CCX cache fuckery.
I'm thinking of switching from a 7700k to a 1800x on one of my rigs, I hate that i'm sacrificing lots of performance in other workloads in favor for more FPS and gaming optimization. I hate how my newer 7700k was being out performed by my 5 year old xeon processor in simple video encoding. I'm hoping to sacrifice some gaming performance in favor good for 5k encoding, editing, rendering, programming. while not being such a dog in games like some of Intels higher priced offerings. If the 1800x doesn't give me that all-round performance across the board..then there still isn't a CPU on the market for me.
1800x beat by a 2 core... all these years, and they still cant do it.
>When intel beats ryzen by 20-30 frames AMD shills downplay it as "marginally better"
>When ryzen beats intel by 1 fps in one game, amd shills pretend it's "absolutely raping"
>these days
no
but don't fall for the retards saying 4 cores will be the way till 2030
>tfw 7500U
>FPS/$, Faggotron 9000
>goal post moving
NOOO SIR PLZ DELET
Except that is precisely what the "raping" comment was referring to, Shlomo.
So basically if you turn off the fps counter you won't be able to tell the difference between a 1700 and a 7700k.
you know its much more complicated than MUH COARS
that doesn't even make sense
We just got a hang in there a little longer...
We'll enter the acceptance phase soon enough. These SNAP card holding AMD buyers will eventually no longer be able to lie to themselves about their "great deal", their CPU that will "age like fine wine". Soon they will accept that next year's tax returns will be spent better.
this picture is so fucking sad
the person who made it genuinely thought fx processors were good
>a $350 cpu beats a $1000 cpu
>intel fanboys think this is fine
>b-but it's not a gaming cpu!
hmm
They were if you did exactly what the processors were built to do and only did that. Highly threaded raw integer throughput with minimal branching.
Not a good processor but damn if you wanted to compile something rapidly it was the best on the market outside Xeons.
>have i7-4790 and a GTX 1070
>always feel like I'm not playing games to their full potential
What am I doing wrong
You are buying into the marketing that tells you that you need to buy new hardware. Don't want to be left behind goy, right?
>beats it
>in one game that no one plays
...
You're not using 2400mhz ram.
that funny because ots architecture wqs extremely inefficient
>why do you need more than 2 cores when the majority of games these days are doing well with 2?
>Why do you need more than one core when the majority of games these days don't use more than 1?
I've heard this shit before.
I've been hearing about games using more core since 2011.
Lol and here i thought i'd need to get rid of my i5 4690 ever
hahahahah fuck sake CPU's have hit a goddamn hard limit lately.
That's what you think but even my [email protected] fails behind a [email protected], let alone a [email protected]
>I better buy this 8 core now because soon everything will run better on more cores
Where have I heard this before?
Maybe not an 8 core, but a 6 core R5 series is looking real good desu
you can go ahead and feel like you need a 6 or 8 core gaming monster from any company a few years down the road, enjoy that overpriced quad core to its fullest champ.
>single threaded AVX2 workload
>mafia III
>So why don't console ports actually use more than 4 cores?
But they do. People saying they don't are just morons repeating shit memes.
BF1, Watchdogs 2, WR Wildlands, and pretty much every game that's come out the past year all utilize 8 cores fine.
The problem is that Ryzen specifically runs worse than the 6900k in most games despite doing better than it in many other benchmarks.
A lot of this is just because of Windows' scheduler and games relying on it instead of doing their own scheduling like Mafia III probably does.
>A lot of this is just because of Windows' scheduler
Where can I read about this? I just keep hearing hearsay about it.
Linux kernel already addressed it:
"That problem stems most likely from the fact that the CU threads share resources within one CU and when we schedule to a thread of a different compute unit, this incurs latency due to migrating the working set to a different CU through the caches.
When the thread siblings mask mirrors that aspect of the CUs and threads, the scheduler pays attention to it and tries to schedule within one CU first. Which takes care of the latency, of course."
Microsoft just needs to implement the same thing in Windows. Once all BIOS issues are sorted out Ryzen will be pretty competent across the board. Also DRAM latency doesn't appear to be nearly as high as a lot of programs are reporting it, and specific tests are showing the same. If you actually test the system RAM you can poll it in 30ns, making for 60ns full cycle latency. Its not intel levels of good, they're in the neighborhood of 40ns, but 60ns is pretty good considering AMD's memory controller is producing superior bandwidth, and shows good scaling at high speeds.
Pretty much every single review site is going to have to post new reviews a month from now. It'll be a whole different story from the initial launch reviews.
6950x, a >1600€ cpu beat by a 4790k
you can run it on 2 core pentiums for $50 and be happy with it.
just build dedicated 200 emulating machine if you really want to emulate
> Mafia clearly uses the extra cores
>16 threads ryzen have 3 fps more than i3
8 thread, SMT is off
Game is clearly GPU bottlenecked but the CPU ain't a bottleneck for 60 FPS anyways so who cares.
I am constantly amazed at how bad Ryzen really is
The Dolphin emulation bench doesn't actually reflect how games perform in the emulator. Its more worthless than the CPU-Z cache loop bench.
At least the good folks in the PCSX2 community figured out a decent benchmark by actually using a segment of a game that was particularly intensive.
>Mafia clearly uses the extra cores
nah, it just intercepts thread management from windows making latency problem disappear
very little number of games do that => inconsistent ryzen results(also RTC bug)
all windows need is treat ryzen like NUMA(elementary fix, potentially it can get even better if it gets optimized specially for ryzen arch not just basic NUMA treatment),
and it will jump up there to 6900k, will see if MS fixed it on 14th
also it explains why ryzen has terrible dx12 results in bf1 but great results in dx11
hardware is rock solid
at least no motherboards burned chips like first x99 boards did to E intels, heh
I have no idea how devastated i would be if my brand new 100 dollar chip burned to hell
oh then there were xeons(holy grail of validation) that had to be removed from market due to hardware bugs
>3fps more in a game
>more power left over for multitasking
>twice as good as everything else
>almost the same price
>8 cores use around the same amount of electricity as 4
So there's basically no draw back, you're saying?
Thanks!
It doesn't need to treat it entirely like NUMA.
Ideally it should treat it like NUMA but with a faster than usual interconnect, so threads can still move if they really need to but it should generally avoid it.
Ryzen costs twice as much as Intel and performs worse
It's also even worse at streaming (multi-tasking), it's fucking horrible
>then what's the fucking point of Ryzen?
There is no point, Ryzen is a disaster
>literally one more frame
ITS RAPING IT GUYS I SWAER
>referencing biased, manipulative "benchmark"
AMDtards think every benchmark is fake, it's hilarious.
They all show the same thing, Ryzen failing in 99% of scenarios.