AMD "RYZEN"

[Humpty 751]

Yeah give the mobo manufacturers some time , hope it get's fixed when the 6 cores are launched.

[TechguyMaxC 516]

On 3/3/2017 at 9:39 PM, joemiller said:

Over 10,000 visits to this topic and 17 pages of "I know Intel is better than AMD:" and "I know AMD is better than Intel;" however not one (not even 1), single un-biased  FSX or P3D experience with one of these AMD CPU's.  I read about Intel is "a hair ahead of AMD CPUs, so you SHOULD get Intel. 

Therefore, if the benchmarks all have one-thing-in-common... that these AMD CPUs are better than the Intel's on most areas and Intel in others; then I can comfortably say that upon overclocking one of these AMD  CPU's, the difference we will see (remember we all have different set-ups and play at different P3D and FSX settings) when compared to Intel's 7700K, will be around 1-2 fps. I do not see significant difference of 10, 12, 15, or even 20 fps between both Intel and AMD's. Even today with a high-end Intel processor going from 4.6Ghz to 5.0Ghz shows very little to no difference in performance increase. (I have built and OC  4 computers in the past 10 years).  Most will try to OC to the highest number possible only to feel better that their CPU got all the way to 5.0. ..But, ask them if they see any gains?  Nope- No gains!  In fact, they will go through all the trouble of delidding their CPU to get to 5.0HGhz only to find out , there is  almost no gains in fps between 4.5 to 5.0Ghz. 

Having said this, I will gladly support AMD, and go AMD.

If no one will do an un-biased P3D review with an AMD 1700 or 1800 CPU, I think this thread can be closed. 

Good luck, everyone.. Choose what you want without losing sleep nor hammering your neighbor ! Be safe.

Blame the users for not buying the product without knowing the performance, rather than the media outlets for not testing with your workload of choice?  That's beyond the pale.

 

If you don't like it, why don't you either:

1) write to several media outlets and request FSX/P3d test

2) go buy Ryzen and test it youself!

 

[TechguyMaxC 516]

On 3/3/2017 at 10:08 PM, strider1 said:

 

I think the 1700x is a good value that should be future proof if games take more advantage of multicore vs cpu clocks !

I game in 4k and the 4k benchmarks have AMD neck and neck with Intell. Even at 1080p the difference is marginal at those higher frame rates. Even with my old FX processor and a 780GTX I can play most games at high/ultra settings.  

 

 

These results have been proven to be fake/incorrect:

 

[TuFun 426]

^ Thank you!

[strider1 575]

On 3/6/2017 at 6:44 AM, TechguyMaxC said:

These results have been proven to be fake/incorrect:

 

There is no prove of anything! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li00SePkRp8&sns=em

[TuFun 426]

^ Wow.... battle on!  I thought the ###### stuff was crazy enough!

[Patriot3810 182]

here is a good chart and a good reason not to buy ryzen, it's a steam chart showing how many games actually use 4,6, or 8 cores for games

 

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/

[JamesIceland 14]

2 hours ago, Patriot3810 said:

here is a good chart and a good reason not to buy ryzen, it's a steam chart showing how many games actually use 4,6, or 8 cores for games

 

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/

Really interesting link and I'll be curious to see if these percentages change in the next 1-2 years as developers maybe optimise for Ryzen more? One YouTuber I watch was saying that developers are having to learn to code for more cores now with the XBox One and PS4 using more cores, and therefore more games will make use of them. This chart does seem to contradict that though, at least for today. 

[strider1 575]

 Smoke and mirrors....

[RichieFly 712]

Very interesting vid, strider1

[stans 702]

8 hours ago, Patriot3810 said:

here is a good chart and a good reason not to buy ryzen, it's a steam chart showing how many games actually use 4,6, or 8 cores for games

 

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/

Yep, quad core CPU's still look to be all that most gamers need.

[JamesIceland 14]

9 minutes ago, stans said:

Yep, quad core CPU's still look to be all that most gamers need.

The video above suggests this may change quickly over the next year - will be following this with interest to see if there is a shift. I'm beginning to think the AMD release is probably a significant moment for CPU development and hope that it signals a new phase of innovation by manufacturers.

[vortex681 806]

6 hours ago, JamesHongKong said:

The video above suggests this may change quickly over the next year - will be following this with interest to see if there is a shift.

I'm not convinced (at least for the foreseeable future). Steam is the biggest online gaming community with 125 million active users. If you look at the latest Steam hardware survey (http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey) you'll see that over 90% of gamers on Steam use either 2 or 4 core CPUs. Only 0.24% use 8 core CPUs. I would imagine that it would need a massive move to CPUs with more than 4 cores to get the developers to invest time optimizing games specifically for them.

There has been some debate about whether or not reviewers should be testing Ryzen at 1920x1080 resolution. One reason given is that, with a powerful graphics card, the limiting factor should then the CPU. Another reason is that, in line with the Steam survey, in the real world 1920x1080 is still the most popular single-monitor resolution amongst gamers - less than 5% used higher resolutions. Hard-core gamers want the absolute maximum performance from their systems and the higher resolutions just don't give this - the flight sim community seems to be unusual in this respect.

As far as Ryzen, in particular, is concerned, I don't think that anyone is saying that it's a bad gaming CPU, just that it's currently not the best. Out of the many independant reviews I've looked at, very few seem to think that It's as good as (even less, better than) the current Intel quad core processors when gaming at 1920x1080 resolution. At higher resolutions the GPU seems to have more of a levelling effect on performance and, as a consequence, if you do use higher resolutions you probably won't see a significant difference between the Intel and AMD offerings.

As an interesting aside, and off-topic, only 0.46% of users in the Steam survey in February 2017 had VR headsets (with the Vive being the most popular).

[JamesIceland 14]

9 hours ago, vortex681 said:

As an interesting aside, and off-topic, only 0.46% of users in the Steam survey in February 2017 had VR headsets (with the Vive being the most popular).

That is interesting - if you extrapolate that across the 125 million Steam users it equates to roughly 575,000 VR users. That seems pretty good for an adoption of new technology in it's first gen status. I'm actually going to open a thread on VR as it's got me thinking.

You are also right that it will require a big shift to see the percentages move towards 4+ cores being the norm. It'll be interesting to see if something like the Ryzen 7 (or Ryzen 5) goes some way to making that happen. I'll look at that survey next year and in 2019. 

[TechguyMaxC 516]

20 hours ago, strider1 said:

Smoke and mirrors....

 

On 3/7/2017 at 1:13 PM, strider1 said:

There is no prove of anything! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li00SePkRp8&sns=em

 

http://www.techspot.com/review/1348-amd-ryzen-gaming-performance/

You can choose to believe the guy that everyone says is full of it if you want, but reality doesn't agree with you, and there's the proof.  16 games tested @ 1080p & 1440p, 7700k beats Ryzen in 14 out of 16 games.  Often times the difference in minimum FPS is significant, on the order of 50%.  

 

Look, I want AMD to compete well with Intel and Nvidia as much as anyone.  The first CPU upgrade I ever bought was an AMD chip.  I've purchased my fair share of Athlons and Radeons over the years as well.  Today, Ryzen is simply not as fast as Core i7 when it comes to CPU-limited resolutions like 1080p.  There's just no getting around this fact.  What that means for flight simmers is that an i7 is the better choice today.  I've said several times now that things could change in the future, and I truly hope they do because progress is good for everyone.