Discussion AMD Ryzen MegaThread! FAQ and Resources

Page 66 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

8350rocks

Distinguished


Stutter is a problem that is not due to latency (cas level) or bandwidth (MT/s), it is due to the CPU not providing the data quick enough due to overall workload. RAM latency has virtually nothing to do with that at all, which is why most CPUs see single digit performance gains even making massive leaps in RAM frequency or cas level.

There are some games on very dated engines that are extremely single core sensitive that see higher gains, like FO4 for example, or Arma3, but beyond those outliers...going from DDR4-2400 to DDR4-3600 (50% increase in MT/s) only yields something like 6-8% performance gain on Intel systems, even if you keep the cas level the same (total RAM latency).
 

8350rocks

Distinguished
Interesting this:

mngkUiu.png
 

goldstone77

Distinguished
Aug 22, 2012
2,245
14
19,965


That pretty much confirms the consensuses that Intel is only marginally better at gaming if you want to count FPS numbers. Practically, speaking there is no reason to get an Intel over Ryzen CPU's that offer the same, or more smooth gaming experience while offering much more multi-threading. Intel really does not compete with Ryzen 1400, 1500, 1600, and 1700 at those price points. Match Intel and Ryzen with 480 or 1060, and the FPS is difference isn't worth noting. increase that to 1080Ti and the difference is laughable when all processors are over 130 FPS! Same gaming experience, or smoother on Ryzen, and way better multi-threading. The data is there it's not that hard to figure out pictures of graphs with numbers attached. First hand accounts of Ryzen users sum up the same thing.
 

jdwii

Splendid


Wow thanks for showing that i knew some of it but not all i'm gonna try and get my memory at 3200mhz ha ha

So far 3.6Ghz stable with stock cooler at 1.225V. 20% free improvement in clock speed and i'm still not finished. 1577 Cinebench R15

https://s27.postimg.org/kd6qlfgmb/AAA.png

11.5
https://s4.postimg.org/otgeb278t/11.5.png

Both test done at 2933Mhz and a 3.6Ghz OC at 1.225V using Amd's latest chipset driver and under power options set to Amd Ryzen balance
 

truegenius

Distinguished
BANNED
smoothness test and fps test are different tests and can't be done simultaneously.
cpu A can generate 100 fps and B can 60
but if if monitor is 60hz then naturally 60fps cpu will feel smoother.
great game to do this testing is counter strike source/condition zero with vsync on ( fixed refresh rate display ) and with off and frame rate unlocked

so if testing smoothness then it should be tested with vsync on with fixed refresh rate display and for different refresh rate too ( 60, 75, 120 etc )
 
There are some terms, again, that get tossed around and are not fully understood it seems.

Stutter is basically when the Video Card (for whatever reason) stops a some-what constant frame delivery to the Monitor (in mathematical terms, you can talk about "continuity" and smooth curves in the function given by the frame times). This manifests itself in interruption of motion. It is *very* noticeable from the viewers perspective, but FPS can't tell you this; again, this is why they now add frame times to the graphs and get analyzed separately.

Tearing is when you have un-even delivery between target/effective refresh rate and frames. That is to say, when the image on the screen is half way done, the Monitor receives another image to replace it. This what VSync, Freesync and GSync attack from different angles. You can only measure this looking at a screen or from an external adapter to the monitor/video card that looks at the signal itself. The rule of thumb is: if your monitor is expecting/configured for X Hz of refresh and your GPU delivers X+/-delta FPS (where delta>1 usually), then you will see tearing. Faster refresh rates hide this because they clean up the screen faster, but it's still there.

You can have the two happening together and each one separately, but they are different things and completely measurable on their own.

Toms Hardware and Tech Report did very good articles explaining what they are and how they manifest.

I'll stop here, but this is information and terms we should all agree on.

Cheers!
 

juanrga

Distinguished
BANNED
Mar 19, 2013
5,278
0
17,790




I am not discussing CAS latency, but frame latency. If a CPU (with a given GPU) does 100 frames per second, then it takes 0.01 seconds to draw each frame on average. The frame total latency T is the sum of a compute contribution plus a memory contribution. If the game is compute-bound, then T ~ T_comp. If the game is memory bound, then T ~ T_mem.

This T_mem is given by the time to access the data plus the time required to move the needed data to the CPU,

T_mem = T_access + T_transp

increasing memory clocks reduces both latencies, because the increased bandwidth reduces T_transp, and because CAS latencies are relative, not absolute, and increasing clocks reduces T_access through the formula given by goldstone77.

Stuttering is the reflection of some instantaneous higher-than-average bottleneck that increases the frame latency above the average.

The game tested by jdwii is memory bound and the more probable cause for stuttering is some instantaneous higher-than-average bottleneck when accessing memory. Increasing memory clocks reduces the bottleneck, which affects both average latencies and the possibility of stuttering. That is also why minimum framerates got much higher increase than average framerates when going from 1333MHz to 2400MHz.

Things go to other side on compute-bound games. In those games stuttering is generated because at some instant there are not enough compute resources and one or more frames take more time to render (higher-than-average frame latency). Stuttering in this case is solved by increasing the compute resources, e.g. moar cores or OC the CPU.
 

juanrga

Distinguished
BANNED
Mar 19, 2013
5,278
0
17,790


Hum! The i5-4690K with less resources and lower clocks got higher 0.1% than the i7-4790k. Their i5-4690K got higher 0.1% than the i5-6600K. That graph is clearly invalid.

Also we don't know if the i7-5930K has better 0.1% because it has more cores or because it has a better memory subsystem.
 

goldstone77

Distinguished
Aug 22, 2012
2,245
14
19,965


Juanrga GamersNexus.net does an amazing job with Benchmarks, and they really know their stuff on the technical side! Calling it an invalid graph, because you think one CPU should perform better than another is a little ridiculous. Anyone watching benchmarks for a good number of years knows that things don't always happen as you expect them too. If you read the commentary section for the YouTube video he discusses it.
barondorado
"4690k outperforming the 6600k lel"
Gamers Nexus
"Happened to the 6700K vs 4790K in some games also. Seems to be a latency hangup."
Tony DoMonte
"anandtech covers it in the skylake review as to why. i dont remember the specifics but you can check it out."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WjEWrDyPmk&feature=youtu.be
 

goldstone77

Distinguished
Aug 22, 2012
2,245
14
19,965
1080_All.png


@juanrga This is a 16 game average? Which 16 games? And is it fair to compare Ryzen in games that were probably not optimized for Ryzen at this point to be used as some kind of conclusive evidence of Ryzens ability to perform in gaming? Juanrga clearly this graph is not making apples to apples comparison. Everyone has seen terrible gaming performance with the release of new processors, and this graph more or less takes advantage of this. Testing games optimized for Ryzen and Intel with Ryzen having higher clocked memory as opposed to lower clocked memory makes huge difference in some games with Ryzen. Some games utilize more threads. While the graph may be technically accurate it's more of a cheap shot at the new Ryzen architecture than a real gauge of true Ryzen performance. Let's see how games evolve over this next year and compare those numbers back to this graph.
 

salgado18

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2007
969
427
19,370
The only issue I see with juan's benchmarks is that they are from the first reviews of Ryzen, which lack the most recent patches and bios applied. Ryzen is still not as good as Intel in gaming, but the real difference should be measured again today, otherwise we will keep arguing over old numbers.
 

goldstone77

Distinguished
Aug 22, 2012
2,245
14
19,965


salgado18 saying the Ryzen is still not as good as Intel in gaming is like saying 2 guyz running the olympics 100 meter dash, and the second place guy wasn't a good runner while the race was close. Now like I said before if you are counting FPS numbers Intel is ahead of the competition. But Ryzen is prefectly capable of playing games and you will not know the difference between the 2. People have mentioned the Ryzen does feel more smooth than Intel. Comments about switching between programs while gaming feel seamless as well. A more correct statement would be Intel's more expensive processors tend to have higher FPS scores, but they account for no perceivable difference while gaming compared to Ryzen. Use a 480 or 1060 and these FPS differences are very small. Use a 1080Ti and the FPS is so high the differences while measurable become meaningless in terms of game play.
 

8350rocks

Distinguished


You do realize RAM latency and bandwidth have nothing to do with frame latency, or VRAM bandwidth, right?

I hope you also realize that most of the data needed for the game is loaded into cache, and only when there is a branch prediction miss will the CPU actually go to system memory.

Therefore, as I stated above, RAM frequency/cas level has virtually nothing to do with game performance at any significant level beyond heavily unoptimized games such as FO4 or Arma3.
 

8350rocks

Distinguished


We are talking IPC in that chart, not clockspeed gaps stemming from process differences. A 20% gap in clockspeed generating a 20% gap in performance means IPC is basically the same.

Happy to educate you about the graph :)
 

8350rocks

Distinguished
Interesting this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/68fwnj/i5_4690k_to_ryzen_1700_amazing/

Absolutely stunning how much more performance I'm getting. My 1700 is at 40%, running BF1 at Ultra and GPU at 99%. I was using my i5 4690k @ 4.5GHz and I could barely get 60 to 70% on my GTX 1080. Solid 120FPS+ stable unlike the i5 where it could barely get to 100 and would always drop under 40-50. I'm blown away!
 

salgado18

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2007
969
427
19,370


Ryzen is not as good as Intel in gaming, which doesn't mean it's bad, or even that I won't recommend it (I do, to everyone, everytime). I'm on your side here ;)



Just checked, the Hi-Fi models don't support Ryzen 5, and the PRO models only support Ryzen 7 (no APU). I think it's a bit early to talk about Raven Ridge, when manufacturers still have a lot of work to get Ryzen support at 100%.
 

goldstone77

Distinguished
Aug 22, 2012
2,245
14
19,965


salgado18 when I hear people use that term gaming when comparing Intel as being better than Ryzen, and I feel it's an inaccurate statement. Using words like good and bad refer to a determination of quality. Gaming definition: the action or practice of playing video games. Not the action or practice of bench testing games. The actual difference in gaming is not perceivable other than the before mentioned qualities people have expressed about Ryzen. Which I think is why it bothers me when someone refers to Intel as being better at gaming when in actuality it doesn't provide a better gaming experience. Higher priced Intel processors perform better in benchmarks, but gaming is basically the same except for titles that are not optimized for Ryzen. Those benchmarks are being used to leverage some kind of perceived dominance by Intel in gaming, because of higher frame rates. This terminology has been used by several testers and sites. These statements are very misleading to someone who doesn't understand the correlation of FPS testing, monitor refresh rates, and actual game play. And caused a wide backlash at those respected testers.
 

goldstone77

Distinguished
Aug 22, 2012
2,245
14
19,965
Intel Core i7-7700k versus AMD Ryzen 1700X 14 Game CPU Showdown
http://www.legitreviews.com/intel-core-i7-7700k-versus-amd-ryzen-1700x-14-game-cpu-showdown_192508
DirectX 11 Gaming – 5 Titles
Ryzen-vs-Intel-Charts-Assassins-Creed-IV-v3.jpg

Ryzen-vs-Intel-Charts-Batman-Arkham-Knight-v3.jpg

Ryzen-vs-Intel-Charts-Battlefield-4-v3.jpg

Ryzen-vs-Intel-Charts-Crysis-3-v3.jpg

Ryzen-vs-Intel-Charts-Dirt-Rally-v3.jpg

DirectX 11 Gaming – 4 More Titles
Ryzen-vs-Intel-Charts-FarCry-4-v3.jpg

Ryzen-vs-Intel-Charts-GTA-V-v3.jpg

Ryzen-vs-Intel-Charts-The-Crew-v3.jpg

Ryzen-vs-Intel-Charts-Thief-v3.jpg

DirectX 12 Gaming – 4 Titles
Ryzen-vs-Intel-Charts-Deus-Ex-v3.jpg

Ryzen-vs-Intel-Charts-Hitman-v3.jpg

Ryzen-vs-Intel-Charts-Sniper-Elite-4-V3.jpg

Ryzen-vs-Intel-Charts-Total-War-v3.jpg

Vulkan and OpenGL Gaming – 1 Title
Ryzen-vs-Intel-Charts-Doom-OpenGL-v3.jpg

Ryzen-vs-Intel-Charts-Doom-Vulkan-v3.jpg

3DMark Fire Strike Extreme
Ryzen-vs-Intel-Charts-3DMark-FireStrike-Extreme.jpg

Final Thoughts and Conclusions
"In this article, we focused entirely on gaming using the new AMD Balanced power plan. Of the 14 games we tested, many of the tests the AMD Ryzen 1700X was able to hold it’s own against the Intel Core i7-7700K. There were times where the AMD Ryzen fell behind the Intel i7 by as much as 10%. However, the inverse is also true, sometimes the AMD Ryzen 1700X took the lead over the Intel i7."
"Legit Bottom Line: If gaming is the main reason you are looking at building a new system, the AMD Ryzen 7 1700X stands up to the Intel i7-7700K in nearly every game we tested. This shows that either processor will work great in a gaming system. The AMD Ryzen 7 1700X though, has the added bonus of the extra cores/threads allowing you to do more multitasking while gaming, especially when it comes to doing things that can take advantage of the extra cores and threads."
Here we go new bench marks!
 

randomizer

Champion
Moderator
They certainly played with the quality knobs for each title. Talk about inconsistency. At least it tells me that my 970 is going to play AC: Black Flag just as badly with a new CPU as it does with my current one. :lol: