90 replies to this topic

[Dragoon20005]

PCPartPicker has a few parts for Ryzen namely the CPU and mobo. And also currently not much AM4 socket support for CPU coolers except AIO liquid coolers

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD RYZEN 7 1800X 3.6GHz 8-Core Processor ($499.99 @ B&H)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master MasterLiquid Pro 280 64.2 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($99.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: ASRock X370 KILLER SLI/ac ATX AM4 Motherboard ($142.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws 4 Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3000 Memory ($96.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung 960 Evo 250GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($129.99 @ B&H)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($49.33 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 8GB Hybrid Gaming Video Card ($669.99 @ B&H)
Case: Corsair 750D ATX Full Tower Case ($149.49 @ B&H)
Power Supply: EVGA SuperNOVA G2 1300W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($182.03 @ B&H)
Total: $2020.78
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-02-28 04:28 EST-0500



and comparing the the i7 6900K modest setup

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i7-6900K 3.2GHz 8-Core Processor ($1027.65 @ B&H)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master MasterLiquid Pro 280 64.2 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($99.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: MSI X99A SLI KRAIT EDITION ATX LGA2011-3 Motherboard ($219.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws 4 series 16GB (4 x 4GB) DDR4-3200 Memory ($99.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung 960 Evo 250GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($129.99 @ B&H)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($49.33 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 8GB Hybrid Gaming Video Card ($669.99 @ B&H)
Case: Corsair 750D ATX Full Tower Case ($149.49 @ B&H)
Power Supply: EVGA SuperNOVA G2 1300W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($182.03 @ B&H)
Total: $2628.45
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-02-28 04:34 EST-0500

there is a whooping 600+ bucks in savings if you pick the Ryzen which is also a full fledged 8 core 16 treads CPU

the main bulk of the saving is of course the CPU and mobo costs.

if the AMD is hype up to be a very decent CPU for half the price of the Intel 8 core counter part
when official benchmarks are released on 2nd March after NDA is lifted. I will gladly give AMD my money

of course the GTX1080 is just a placeholder for the upcoming 1080Ti or the AMD Vega GPU

[Dr Cara Carcass]

M T, on 27 February 2017 - 07:35 AM, said:

Ok, good for you. Guess your fps is always above a 100.

No its always below 30 because teh cpu is a old phenom that cant get enough datas to the graphics card.

1v1 map wiht nothing on it my cpu idles at 20% and my gpu is at 98% with 130 fps - when in a 12v12 game my cpu is at opver 90% and my graphics card is at roughly 25%

xWiredx, on 27 February 2017 - 08:54 AM, said:

Oooooookay.... everybody slow down a bit here and let me catch up.

1) Ryzen's IPC increase is -the- reason to get it. MWO loves to eat CPU cycles, and it is no secret that because of Intel's massive IPC advantage of previous AMD chips is why Intel chips run MWO so much better.

2) MWO does not care about lots of cores. The rest of your system does, but MWO does not. A faster-clocked Intel chip generally performs better than a lower-clocked Intel chip even if the lower-clocked chip has more cores (or has HT on vs off). Once you have 4 or more cores, the diminishing return in MWO is pretty obvious, and that actually has more to do with the extra cores doing other background work rather than working directly on MWO threads. Some magic used to be able to be performed with the user.cfg file to attempt to better-utilize multiple cores, and it had -some- effect, but it was typically more about keeping framerates smooth than increasing them.

3) I have not pre-ordered Ryzen but depending on the actual single-threaded performance, I may grab an 8-core chip this summer. I'd really like to do a rebuild of my 6-core Intel system for studio work only.

Number 2 is simply wrong. It cares about cores. Compare 6 and 8 core cpus with the same clock speed - 8 cores get you more.

[M T]

xWiredx, on 27 February 2017 - 09:56 AM, said:

While you should take an embargoed number with a grain of salt and a number from Passmark with a grain of salt (so, 2 grains of salt here), it looks like the Core i7 6900K performs about 1.5% slower than the Ryzen 7 1800X but with a 2.5% (100MhZ) lower clock speed. This is according to a WCCFTech article that was published several hours ago. If that is a -good- indicator of single-threaded performance and not some anomaly or fake data, it would be very easy to recommend a Ryzen chip based on price vs. performance. We will officially find out by the end of the week, so stay tuned to the Googles.

Ofcourse Price vs Performance it very much looks like Ryzen is the huge winner here. No big math needed to realise that ;-)

[M T]

Cara Carcass, on 28 February 2017 - 02:50 AM, said:

No its always below 30 because teh cpu is a old phenom that cant get enough datas to the graphics card.

1v1 map wiht nothing on it my cpu idles at 20% and my gpu is at 98% with 130 fps - when in a 12v12 game my cpu is at opver 90% and my graphics card is at roughly 25%




Number 2 is simply wrong. It cares about cores. Compare 6 and 8 core cpus with the same clock speed - 8 cores get you more.

Sucks... bout your low FPS anyway. I'm lucky to retain a minimal fps of 59± with my ol 3770k. Since the latest Intels at least have 20+% more IPC the next upgrade for me will be pretty major imho

Anyway, xWiredX pretty much confirms what I've stated earlier. Its simple multithreading basics:

1 Main rendering thread + Bazzilion of subthreads doing filestreaming (loading, decompressing assets on the fly from .pak files), Particle system, Physics, Netcode is presumably not bound to fps (last time a dev responded to me) so that seems to be separated as well, Sound might (probably is) on a separate thread.

But then again; Once the main (rendering) thread is saturated on a single core, all the others will stall as well as Physics and crap needs to stay synced. You cant have physics going while the rendering of the game stops or stalls.

The fact that people see task manager cpu usage spread around all cores is because the Windows scheduler keeps bouncing a thread from one to another core. Also extra virtual cores give a false sense of usage, as both graphs would show 100% saturation in a full load situation, yet it is still only 'one' core.

Sorry, I just cannot explain this any further. The fact is, whether you like it or not, Intel won, so far because of higher IPC / Single threaded performance. HT is irrelevant here, more than 4 cores is pretty much irrelevant here. Any FPS boost beyond this core count is highly likely due to offloading your last few % of background apps doing some stuff.

Anyway, i wish everyone good luck with their next purchase :-)

Edited by M T, 28 February 2017 - 03:10 AM.

[xWiredx]

Cara Carcass, on 28 February 2017 - 02:50 AM, said:

No its always below 30 because teh cpu is a old phenom that cant get enough datas to the graphics card.

1v1 map wiht nothing on it my cpu idles at 20% and my gpu is at 98% with 130 fps - when in a 12v12 game my cpu is at opver 90% and my graphics card is at roughly 25%




Number 2 is simply wrong. It cares about cores. Compare 6 and 8 core cpus with the same clock speed - 8 cores get you more.

No, you are wrong. MWO does not reach into multiple cores like you think. It does a fair bit of core hopping based on the OS if you don't try to wrangle it down manually with user.cfg changes (if that even works still, haven't tested it in like a year now), but it does not scale across cores like it should at all. What you're seeing is the CPU taking care of a lot of other background things all the time. I also have a 6-core CPU, but one that has vastly greater IPC than yours, and I do not see the same behavior. Before my 6-core, I had a 4-core with HT and experienced the same thing - MWO doesn't care about the cores. The extra cores take care of all of the extra background stuff related and unrelated to the game, which is why the 6-core chips still offer a gain. The gain is not even 10%, though, closer to 2-4%, despite having 33% more cores and playing a CPU-bound game. You know what offered a near-linear performance gain? Gains in IPC and clock-speed.

[xWiredx]

M T, on 28 February 2017 - 02:59 AM, said:

Sucks... bout your low FPS anyway. I'm lucky to retain a minimal fps of 59± with my ol 3770k. Since the latest Intels at least have 20+% more IPC the next upgrade for me will be pretty major imho

Anyway, xWiredX pretty much confirms what I've stated earlier. Its simple multithreading basics:

1 Main rendering thread + Bazzilion of subthreads doing filestreaming (loading, decompressing assets on the fly from .pak files), Particle system, Physics, Netcode is presumably not bound to fps (last time a dev responded to me) so that seems to be separated as well, Sound might (probably is) on a separate thread.

But then again; Once the main (rendering) thread is saturated on a single core, all the others will stall as well as Physics and crap needs to stay synced. You cant have physics going while the rendering of the game stops or stalls.

The fact that people see task manager cpu usage spread around all cores is because the Windows scheduler keeps bouncing a thread from one to another core. Also extra virtual cores give a false sense of usage, as both graphs would show 100% saturation in a full load situation, yet it is still only 'one' core.

Sorry, I just cannot explain this any further. The fact is, whether you like it or not, Intel won, so far because of higher IPC / Single threaded performance. HT is irrelevant here, more than 4 cores is pretty much irrelevant here. Any FPS boost beyond this core count is highly likely due to offloading your last few % of background apps doing some stuff.

Anyway, i wish everyone good luck with their next purchase :-)

This is essentially correct.

The actual problem with MWO from what I can tell is 2-fold: 1) despite the option to use multiple cores for certain things in cryengine like the built-in physics, MWO seems to be set to use a single core (likely an artifact of wanting people to be able to play on extreme potatoes) -and- 2) the ludicrous amount of draw calls, which was only made worse by adding 12 v 12 over 8 v 8, makes the main thread kill the CPU.

As you reduce your particles, shadows, and environment settings, there are less calls and thus less to saturate the main thread which means the single core that is processing it can better handle things. That's why on AMD boxes that is the first thing you try: AMD cores (pre-Ryzen) are very weak and they are paired with a weak memory controller, so CPU-based operations take longer. I imagine at this point Thuban-based systems are probably going crazy just trying to keep the network stack processing and GPU feeding going.

[ninjitsu]

The level of nerd in this thread is awesome. <3 you guys.

[McHoshi]

Some 1800x compared to a 7700K benchmarks.

[Ace Selin]

Looks like ill be ordering one for a new build im going to do.

Havent done an upgrade since this i7 870 PC was built. Back to AMD this time looks like.

[xWiredx]

Honestly, the more I see, the more I would lean toward the 7700K for MWO. The 7700K is clearly more powerful when it comes to single-threaded performance and is cheaper ($30 cheaper than the Ryzen 7 1700, $200 cheaper than the 1800X). If you're setting a budget of $300 for the CPU with $50 or so for a margin, it's clearly the best chip you can get at stock speeds. The bonus here is that the 7700K's stock boost speed is pretty much exactly where the line falls for running MWO at 'very high".

The only thing people should be waiting for now is to see how well Ryzen actually overclocks, how consistently people achieve those speeds, and with what cooling. Those who do not intend on overclocking should go the 7700K route by default at that price range.

[Dr Cara Carcass]

xWiredx, on 01 March 2017 - 06:45 AM, said:

Honestly, the more I see, the more I would lean toward the 7700K for MWO. The 7700K is clearly more powerful when it comes to single-threaded performance and is cheaper ($30 cheaper than the Ryzen 7 1700, $200 cheaper than the 1800X). If you're setting a budget of $300 for the CPU with $50 or so for a margin, it's clearly the best chip you can get at stock speeds. The bonus here is that the 7700K's stock boost speed is pretty much exactly where the line falls for running MWO at 'very high".

The only thing people should be waiting for now is to see how well Ryzen actually overclocks, how consistently people achieve those speeds, and with what cooling. Those who do not intend on overclocking should go the 7700K route by default at that price range.

Ohh common a FX8530 and a decent 2-3 years old graphics card can run mwo at max. settings with 50-70 FPS. You dont need a 7700K for that. Matter of fact even on my 6 years old amd 6 core graphics settings do practically not impact my fps. What limits the fps is the amount of missiles in the air and the mechs alive. Haveing 48 mechs alive per team in CW slows my system down to 15 fps. At the end when only 10 mechs per side ar alive i have 35-45. You are acting as if MWO is unsolveable unless you have a 2017 super cpu and gpu. Yes the 7700k is a good choise, but its not the bottom line where mwo becomes playable with max settings.

[xWiredx]

Cara Carcass, on 01 March 2017 - 09:07 AM, said:

Ohh common a FX8530 and a decent 2-3 years old graphics card can run mwo at max. settings with 50-70 FPS. You dont need a 7700K for that. Matter of fact even on my 6 years old amd 6 core graphics settings do practically not impact my fps. What limits the fps is the amount of missiles in the air and the mechs alive. Haveing 48 mechs alive per team in CW slows my system down to 15 fps. At the end when only 10 mechs per side ar alive i have 35-45. You are acting as if MWO is unsolveable unless you have a 2017 super cpu and gpu. Yes the 7700k is a good choise, but its not the bottom line where mwo becomes playable with max settings.

For a smooth 60fps without any major dips running 'very high' settings at 1080p, I am exactly correct in my statement. Everybody that has been hanging out in the hardware subforum for the past 2 years knows this. Dips into the high 40s happen on Haswell-based chips at 4.5GhZ.

Sure, you can run the game on far lesser hardware, but that isn't the point here. The point here, discussing Ryzen, is what kind of theoretical performance will people see and how does it compare. MWO doesn't anywhere near require ludicrous GPU power, a GTX 770 is enough, but the CPU-bound settings absolutely crush chips at 'very high'.

Any statement you make to the contrary has been made by others before and has already been debunked with mounds of data. We've had massive rounds of testing done on Sandy Bridge, Haswell, and Piledriver chips by MWO players (including myself). We already know how things work.

[ninjitsu]

Where is a 7700k cheaper than a 1700? Everywhere I look, it's slightly more.

[MovinTarget]

Hope to finally build a system sometime in the fall... hopefully the dust will have settled by then...

[Dragoon20005]

ninjitsu, on 01 March 2017 - 05:29 PM, said:

Where is a 7700k cheaper than a 1700? Everywhere I look, it's slightly more.

i think its only Microcenter in the US

the prices of the Intel CPUs still the same where i live

[Dragoon20005]

MovinTarget, on 01 March 2017 - 05:58 PM, said:

Hope to finally build a system sometime in the fall... hopefully the dust will have settled by then...

NDA for the official benchmarks from LinusTechTips, Bitwit, JaysTwoCent and Paul's hardware should be coming in a few hours

so we can get insight on the performance difference between Intel i7 7700k, i7 6800K i7 6850K and i7 6900K vs the Ryzen 1800X

[xWiredx]

Dragoon20005, on 01 March 2017 - 06:01 PM, said:

i think its only Microcenter in the US

the prices of the Intel CPUs still the same where i live

It might take a couple of weeks for it to filter down, but right now Micro Center already has the $299 price (and has had for days, a couple of days before EVERY tech site started reporting it, even). Even at the $349 you can commonly get it at or $339 on Amazon, within a $50 margin there is not a better CPU for MWO at stock clocks. Until we know how well Ryzen does with overclocking for sure, it's a gamble unless you do something that requires lots of cores. I don't think anybody will be particularly disappointed in their purchase, though.

[Dragoon20005]

xWiredx, on 01 March 2017 - 06:30 PM, said:

It might take a couple of weeks for it to filter down, but right now Micro Center already has the $299 price (and has had for days, a couple of days before EVERY tech site started reporting it, even). Even at the $349 you can commonly get it at or $339 on Amazon, within a $50 margin there is not a better CPU for MWO at stock clocks. Until we know how well Ryzen does with overclocking for sure, it's a gamble unless you do something that requires lots of cores. I don't think anybody will be particularly disappointed in their purchase, though.

Asia prices for Intel CPUs and nVidia GPU can be stupid expensive

take for example the i7 7700K, i have to pay close to 550 bucks just on the CPU alone and GTX1080 are hovering at 1100 bucks for one piece.

and to think some PC components are made in China and Taiwan yet we pay more for them



you can imagine my frustrations as why i still cant afford a new PC even with a stable job

[Dr Cara Carcass]

xWiredx, on 01 March 2017 - 12:47 PM, said:

For a smooth 60fps without any major dips running 'very high' settings at 1080p, I am exactly correct in my statement. Everybody that has been hanging out in the hardware subforum for the past 2 years knows this. Dips into the high 40s happen on Haswell-based chips at 4.5GhZ.

Sure, you can run the game on far lesser hardware, but that isn't the point here. The point here, discussing Ryzen, is what kind of theoretical performance will people see and how does it compare. MWO doesn't anywhere near require ludicrous GPU power, a GTX 770 is enough, but the CPU-bound settings absolutely crush chips at 'very high'.

Any statement you make to the contrary has been made by others before and has already been debunked with mounds of data. We've had massive rounds of testing done on Sandy Bridge, Haswell, and Piledriver chips by MWO players (including myself). We already know how things work.

You are strange. Look at what OP wrote. This is not a thread for theoretical performance. Thats just in your head.

And yes high 40 like 48 or 49 FPS is ******* super fluent. And thats what we get with a FX 8530 with everything set to very high. I know it coz i can see it at my friends setup. Dont try to tell me otherwise when i know it better because i can see it. Its the same ******** as your statement that mwo doenst benefit from more cores, when i can see a big jump in fps when my collegue updated his old thurban to a FX8530 running at the same ******* fequenzy with 8 cores maxed to about 90% out with no backround programms running. Sure 1 core might still be the bottleneck and at very high fequenzys for singel cores this might be less of an impact, but a 20 fps jump is a 20 fps jump.

[xWiredx]

Cara Carcass, on 02 March 2017 - 03:14 AM, said:

You are strange. Look at what OP wrote. This is not a thread for theoretical performance. Thats just in your head.

And yes high 40 like 48 or 49 FPS is ******* super fluent. And thats what we get with a FX 8530 with everything set to very high. I know it coz i can see it at my friends setup. Dont try to tell me otherwise when i know it better because i can see it. Its the same ******** as your statement that mwo doenst benefit from more cores, when i can see a big jump in fps when my collegue updated his old thurban to a FX8530 running at the same ******* fequenzy with 8 cores maxed to about 90% out with no backround programms running. Sure 1 core might still be the bottleneck and at very high fequenzys for singel cores this might be less of an impact, but a 20 fps jump is a 20 fps jump.

To be fair, yeah, ninjitsu only wanted to know who's grabbing one and details on overclocking. My mind immediately goes to 'why are we overclocking' though so performance is a thing that comes out.

In either case, no, 48fps is not fluid. It's not the worst thing ever, but it definitely, without a doubt, is not fluid. Again, I can already tell you there are thread upon thread from other fanboys testing their 8350s at 5GhZ showing dips all the way to 0fps (yes, zero) with MWO on very high at 1080p. We already have the evidence. It's documented. It's still floating around here in the forum.

We've already shown how bad AMD chips pre-Ryzen perform in this game, and we've already shown how MWO scales with cores (it doesn't beyond 4 at all). The only reason you see a difference with more from an AMD chip is because the chip is so weak that more cores means more background processing is able to be done in order to not interfere with the game thread processing. Haswell-E people, for instance, do not see the same behavior because their chips' IPC isn't an abomination unto mankind like Bulldozer and Piledriver.

When people defend those high-power, low-performance chips harder than AMD does, you know there's a break in their logic. Even AMD is like "our bad, sorry bro, those things suck but we're gonna make it better with Zen". Do yourself a favor and run FRAPS while playing MWO on that 8350 box, then look at the CSV files. You'll notice that it isn't anywhere near fluid and you'll notice FPS dips down to 0 even when your average is somewhere between 30 and 60. It's a choppy mess in MWO. For other games its not nearly as bad, but for MWO it's pretty awful.