AMD Ryzen and XR

Post by **Tamina** » Fri, 3. Mar 17, 15:12

Since AMDs new processor series is performing on the same league as Intel:
Has anyone got one of those new AMD processors or is planning to do so?
Would be really interesting to see how XR performs with one of these in comparison to an Intel processor.
Since Egosoft games are a little bit "special" performance-wise on the CPU part.

Also in regard to any new upcoming games from Egosoft.

---
As most of you probably know, AMD has released the flagships of its completly new processor series Ryzen, yesterday.
The benchmarks are truly amazing, beating Intels 1000 $ i7 for half the price and less power. However, gaming benchmarks tend to be in general in favour of intels cheaper processors.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd ... 51-12.html

Morkonan · Post by **Morkonan** » Fri, 3. Mar 17, 18:45

Tamina wrote:....--As most of you probably know, AMD has released the flagships of its completly new processor series Ryzen, yesterday.
The benchmarks are truly amazing, beating Intels 1000 $ i7 for half the price and less power. However, gaming benchmarks tend to be in general in favour of intels cheaper processors.

I don't have one, am not planning on buying an AMD chip. (I need Intel.) However, Lisa Su, the CEO of AMD, was on CNBC this morning and gave a good interview. In response to questions regarding lagging AMD performance for legacy gaming, I think she indicated that AMD is working closely with developers in regards to improving that. (She referred to "1080p" in the same breath as "old games" though, and I don't know what to make of that..

)

Moving forward, I think future development would certain maximize the potential of AMD's new chip. However, I would not expect to see any significant developments regarding performance issues in older games. Developers are not usually known for patching/updating games that are not "broken" by new tech developments. (Usually, if that happens, it's a GPU issue and driver manufacturers bear the bulk of that load.)

Post by **Geek** » Fri, 3. Mar 17, 20:59

Tamina wrote: The benchmarks are truly amazing, beating Intels 1000 $ i7 for half the price and less power. However, gaming benchmarks tend to be in general in favour of intels cheaper processors.

This is the important part really. AMD has mad a lot of noise about their new CPU performance, but it only do so in a few apps which are very heavily threaded, where the the 8 cores / 16 threads shine (as expected). For the vast majority of software and about every game, it is the opposite.

mrbadger · Post by **mrbadger** » Fri, 3. Mar 17, 21:15

AMD lost my confidence years back, after nearly a decade of theirs being the only processors I'd buy.

It'll take a lot to make me get another one. Certainly years of track record, definatelly not some interviews and an ad campaign.

matthewfarmery · Post by **matthewfarmery** » Fri, 3. Mar 17, 21:36

Then again, a lot of new games are GPU heavy, So really, I think I will stick with intel and nvidia for the foreseeable future.

AMD lost the ball a long time ago in my book, And I was an ADD fan, back when AMD really was a rival to intel, and AMD processors were all the range and were equal better then intel for a lot less money.

But AMD has lost it, some of their chips have failed to impress over the years. the Bulldozer one springs to mind.

The other issue is with the instruction sets, SSE 4.X, AMD falls behind in that, and for quite a few games, the latest version is needed, and AMD CPUs lag behind and the game will crash. Sometimes its can be fixed.

I think AMD have lost focus, they clearly had their eyes on the mobile market, and give a two finger salute to the desktop market in recent years. for that reason, I don't see why I should give AMD my trust again.

And again, its more then the CPU that matters, its only part of the story.

So anyway, I think I will pass.

edit

found this article.

http://www.pcgamer.com/the-amd-ryzen-7-review/

seems to be a mixed bag for gaming, performance with a geforce 1080, is slower in some cases, faster in others. Also seems the early MBs need some tweaking, and possibly a bios update. all in all, intel are still ahead by a fair margin. Looks like the new AMD chip doesn't cut the mustard.

on the other hand, video editing, and other CPU demanding apps, will certainly be good for the chip, but for gaming, not a good choice at all.

pjknibbs · Post by **pjknibbs** » Sat, 4. Mar 17, 07:30

I think we need to wait for the lower core count chips that are due out later this year. The only current Ryzen chips available are 8 cores (16 with AMD's hyperthreading equivalent), which is overkill for games, and while it's very cheap for an 8 core chip--around half the price of the equivalent Intel unit--it's still nowhere near the price/performance of, say, a Pentium G4560 for gaming. The other advantage of a lower core count is that the CPU will use less power and thus might be able to be clocked faster.

At the moment I'm definitely "Watch this space!".

matthewfarmery · Post by **matthewfarmery** » Sat, 4. Mar 17, 14:44

But then again, many games don't use hyperthreading, and can hurt performance as well. sp having less cores might be a good thing, but when it comes to hyperthreading, or AMD version, it seems in the past, intel has always been on top. While AMD cut corners.

Also to take into account, is the design of the CPU, even if AMD does release a 4 core version, it depends on the placement of the L1 to L3 cache. how far away they are and so on. Bulldozer was suppose to have been a good CPU, but failed in a lot of ways due to bad design, and AMD cutting corners. So it going to be interesting if AMD learns anything from that?

so even if having less cores and less power, means that the clock speed can be increased, that not going to matter much if the design of the chip is flawed to begin with.

I would agree with "watch this space" but so far the AMD chips haven't been good for gaming, so unless the 4 core versions are designed better, not sure if reducing the cores will make a huge difference either?

EasyAccess · Post by **EasyAccess** » Sat, 4. Mar 17, 15:45

Well if you look at the benchmarks then you can clearly see that even Intels 8 and 10 core 1000 $ processor gets beaten by its own cheaper 4 core processors when it comes to gaming.

Chances are the four/six core versions are better in gaming then the 8 core version.
AMD's 8 core is already better then Intel's 8 and 10 core version in tasks they are truly meant for; for half the price and way lower TDP!
Maybe developers have also adjusted their games to run better on widely spread Intel processors, fuelling hope that AMD processors are going to show their real power more and more in the upcoming months.

On paper Ryzen can very much compete with Intel and the flagship has proven just that in praxis for (again) half the price!

Rush To Judgment Casts AMD Ryzen In Critical Light

User comment wrote:I am probably dating myself by this comment, but le it be. 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.

mrbadger · Post by **mrbadger** » Sat, 4. Mar 17, 16:54

16 core hyperthreading is impressive on paper.

In the current real world I doubt is has much relevance for gamers. From what I've read of the benchmarks it doesn't really seem to have helped much either.

I'm only just now giving researchers 16 virtual xeon core machines, more usually 4 physical Xeons (hyperthreaded to 8 )

By the time it does matter for gamers I should imagine Intel will be there with a superior offering. I have an i7, and I'm quite happy with it.

I'm not so sure I like the no GPU thing either. Would I really want my Geforce 1080 spinning up every time I just want to send an email or use emacs? I rather doubt that. No, I want a small, low power GPU to handle my normal PC usage, and then for it to hand over to the big iron when it's time to do the grunt work. the Ryzen doesn't allow for that, or not that I can see.

Obviously I'm biased, I already said I wouldn't trust AMD enough to buy one yet, but I think cutting out the GPU was a bad move.

pjknibbs · Post by **pjknibbs** » Sat, 4. Mar 17, 17:21

mrbadger wrote: I'm not so sure I like the no GPU thing either. Would I really want my Geforce 1080 spinning up every time I just want to send an email or use emacs?

Um, it won't? Any halfway decent graphics card will throttle back its clocks when running in 2D mode and will be using so little power it probably won't even need to spin its fan. Also, if your monitor is plugged into your GeForce 1080 then that's what your graphics will be being generated by, even if your CPU has on-chip VGA? You'd only be using the on-chip VGA if you had your monitor plugged in to the output on the motherboard.

mrbadger · Post by **mrbadger** » Sat, 4. Mar 17, 18:31

My Alienware Laptop doesn't, it switches between its 2d graphics processor and its games one as the situation requires.

EasyAccess · Post by **EasyAccess** » Sat, 4. Mar 17, 18:54

I agree on the lack of GPU part but for different reasons.
If your GPU brakes or doesn't boot, you have a hard time figuring whats wrong without a screen.
After that however pretty useless, just a constant bothering that some GPU heavy programs prefer the iGPU over your dedicated GPU over and over again.

Xenon's don't have a GPU either while still prefered by gamers and AMDs new APUs are delivered later this year.

*Edit:
Nonetheless it is nice that AMD is hitting the floor again and to see a real competiton again.

mrbadger · Post by **mrbadger** » Sat, 4. Mar 17, 21:05

there's nothing stopping anyone from simply buying their own 2d card and adding it, so it may be the no GPU argument I made isn't as important as I supposed.

My latest PC is the first without a separate sound card for instance, even though my plug in sound card probably wasn't as capable as the on board one.

Not that I cared. Heathen that I am I turned off the soundtracks in games and mostly used it to listen to audiobooks radio and movies anyway

Sorkvild · Post by **Sorkvild** » Sun, 5. Mar 17, 01:45

At this moment AMD have presented the line of performance series Ryzen processors. Many testers agree that top-shelf Ryzens do very well in handling professional tasks like graphics processing and video rendering. When in comes to games - go for Intel processors, really.
I've been waiting for those tests delaying my new gaming build but now I know that I should go for something solid and proven - which is new Kaby Lake series i5 7600k. Will last for years with that OC potential.

GtaV tests
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/mbrzos ... v_gtav.png

Tracker001 · Post by **Tracker001** » Tue, 7. Mar 17, 09:16

Does Ryzen 7 REALLY suck for gamers?

Jazz2Cents . A builder / Tester I trust . Your Millage may vary .

As Jay states , Keeping in mind ,Mother board builders have just recently got the information thay need . ( Ok little Johnny what did you bring home this time ? )

~15 min long > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-mMBbWHrwM

mrbadger · Post by **mrbadger** » Tue, 7. Mar 17, 11:08

Haven't watched the video, but honestly? probably not.

If I'm being entirely honest, most gamers don't need an i7 either, an i5 will do just fine, with a decent graphics card.

I don't just game, in fact gaming isn't something I do a lot of, and when I do it's not usually newer games, or processor bound ones, so for me the choice matters, but for most people the 'cutting edge' of the processor world is far beyond their real needs.

Adverts don't make that clear, because that's not what adverts are for.

matthewfarmery · Post by **matthewfarmery** » Tue, 7. Mar 17, 12:44

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/28 ... benchmarks

this site reviews the top end Ryzen R7 1800X, and the reviews show its not that great, the other point to note, this site mentions GTA 5, but that game is capped at 187

Note that the game engine limits framerate to a hard ~187 (187.5, it seems), and so any CPUs performing in excess of this during spikes will not count the framerate with the greatest accuracy

So not really a good game to rely on if benchmarking, I guess the guy from the other video doesn't / didn't realise this?

But not sure which CPU he was testing?

but anyway, some interesting results when it comes to benchmarks. Still, proably better waiting for the 4 core CPUs, and see how they fair.

Post by **linolafett** » Tue, 7. Mar 17, 12:58

As a guy who does heavy rendering all the time, some good competition in the market is very much apprectiated. More cores and more threads are a delights when rendering on the cpu.

Post by **Tamina** » Wed, 8. Mar 17, 17:25

linolafett wrote:As a guy who does heavy rendering all the time, some good competition in the market is very much apprectiated. More cores and more threads are a delights when rendering on the cpu.

Did you already sacrifice a pizza slice to Bernd for a Ryzen processor?

Seriously I want to know how XR runs on Ryzen.
And does that mean that Egosoft now has to optimize it's future games for those new processors? = more work.

mrbadger · Post by **mrbadger** » Wed, 8. Mar 17, 19:04

heavy rendering isn't the same as running games, which, while they do render, do it in a different way (sort of, it's complicated).

XR would be mainly GPU bound.

egosoft.com

egosoft.com

AMD Ryzen and XR

AMD Ryzen and XR

Re: AMD Ryzen and XR

Re: AMD Ryzen and XR