Jump to content

Wired Asked For It, So Here It Is. Ryzen 1700 Fps In Mwo


105 replies to this topic

#21 Bill Lumbar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Death Star
  • 2,073 posts

Posted 30 September 2017 - 04:39 AM

View PostEd Steele, on 29 September 2017 - 05:09 PM, said:

It is all about the IPC though.


Ryzen cpu's hang with Intel on IPC and yes, it is a little less in some games, honestly, I really don't care. I blew a larger than normal wad on my new build. I could of gone Intel again and not look back....but, Amd brought a chip that can hang with Intel in IPC, and blows it away in multi thread performance. They earned my cash this time around, and not buying a Ryzen IMO, would be a huge mistake and not reward the underdog for putting out a chip that does more or almost the same in single threaded performance. The choice was clear for me.... screw Intel this time around.

As long as AMD designs CPU's that push the limits and compete with Intel, I am buying their products. Intel has nothing to offer at this point IMO over Ryzen CPU's, unless you just want that extra and fastest single core performance and a few FPS in some games. I mean seriously guys, When Amd puts out CPU's that destroy Intel's CPU's in multi threaded performance at half the cost or less, its time to buy a Ryzen, Right?

And yeah, I m onto something with the AsRock mother board I picked. I waited for the dust to settle(a few weeks, maybe 6) and kept an eye on the major mother board makers sites, researched reviews, and made sure the board I went with didn't have any problems, and made sure the one I went with was supported well with bios updates if it did have any issues. I went with the X370 vs the 350 boards because I plan on upgrading when AMD puts out the next gen Ryzen's. I see nothing but good coming ahead with Amd, and I can use the 1700 for my media build and just pick up another AsRock Professional board for it when they do release the new Gen of Ryzens. Win win here guys. Posted Image

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 30 September 2017 - 04:51 AM.


#22 gaIaxor

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 24 posts

Posted 30 September 2017 - 04:43 AM

View PostEd Steele, on 28 September 2017 - 11:28 PM, said:

The Ryzen CPUs are also more power hungry than the newer Intel CPUs and overclocking them would just make that worse.


The new Intel CPUs are more power hungry than Ryzen.
http://www.tomshardw...iew,5014-9.html
http://www.tomshardw...e-x,5127-8.html

Also Intel CPUs run much hotter because Intel prefers cheap heat insulating paste instead of indium solder like AMD. Even thier new HEDT CPUs like the 2000$ 18-core have only cheap heat insulating paste and throttle with air cooling. Broodwell-E is the last HEDT Intel CPU that is soldered.
http://www.tomshardw...ssues,5117.html

View PostEd Steele, on 30 September 2017 - 01:08 AM, said:

Yes Intel has the most market share and everyone loves the underdog (AMD), but this is your money and you should buy what actually works best and not something that promises great performance in the future, because Intel will just come up with something better and AMD will always play catch up.


AMD offers the best price-performance ratio and with the release of the TR 1950X AMD outperformed the fastest Intel CPU at that time. The just released i9-7980XE is a little bit faster but it costs twice as much and gets very hot because of its cheap heat insulating paste.

View PostEd Steele, on 30 September 2017 - 01:08 AM, said:

The same goes for Nvidia Vs ATi (AMD), Nvidia always ends up with the better video card and best driver support.


You must be joking. Nvidia released some of the worst hardware and drivers killing millions of video cards of thier customers. Nvidia even brazenly duped its customers and the tech press with false advertisement (GTX970 scam). Monopolies are bad for customers.

Edited by gaIaxor, 30 September 2017 - 04:46 AM.


#23 NARC BAIT

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 518 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 30 September 2017 - 04:58 AM

View PostEd Steele, on 30 September 2017 - 01:08 AM, said:

because Intel will just come up with something better and AMD will always play catch up.
hmmm those of us old enough with long enough memories will remember more than a few times that AMD was in front .... here comes another melted PIII .... the first generation core 2 duo earned the nickname 'crash to desktop' .... in my years, I've generally seen more longevity from AMD products, a few weeks ago I had someone speak to me who I built a system for that was playing up, yeah, that was 11+ years ago, its time to upgrade bro .... I had gotten the impression lately that the 8th gen icore is basically the 7th at its full potential, instead of really being new, they just de-gimped it, but will probably still skip the things like the solder on the heatspreader, while charging everyone a premium ... kinda sounds like apple, "hey, its a new year, we made you an all new, slightly better than last years model, please line up with open wallets, because we made the thing you just brought, obsolete, fractionally" .... if you've already got a 6th / 7th gen I-blah, I'd hold out until the 9th, at least ...

#24 Bill Lumbar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Death Star
  • 2,073 posts

Posted 30 September 2017 - 05:54 AM

View PostNARC BAIT, on 30 September 2017 - 04:58 AM, said:

hmmm those of us old enough with long enough memories will remember more than a few times that AMD was in front .... here comes another melted PIII .... the first generation core 2 duo earned the nickname 'crash to desktop' .... in my years, I've generally seen more longevity from AMD products, a few weeks ago I had someone speak to me who I built a system for that was playing up, yeah, that was 11+ years ago, its time to upgrade bro .... I had gotten the impression lately that the 8th gen icore is basically the 7th at its full potential, instead of really being new, they just de-gimped it, but will probably still skip the things like the solder on the heatspreader, while charging everyone a premium ... kinda sounds like apple, "hey, its a new year, we made you an all new, slightly better than last years model, please line up with open wallets, because we made the thing you just brought, obsolete, fractionally" .... if you've already got a 6th / 7th gen I-blah, I'd hold out until the 9th, at least ...

Funny, just like Apple, from what I heard there wasn't as big of a line at the store this time around to open up their wallets for a "New" product. Posted Image

#25 NocturnalBeast

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 3,685 posts
  • LocationDusting off my Mechs.

Posted 30 September 2017 - 05:25 PM

View PostgaIaxor, on 30 September 2017 - 04:43 AM, said:

You must be joking. Nvidia released some of the worst hardware and drivers killing millions of video cards of thier customers. Nvidia even brazenly duped its customers and the tech press with false advertisement (GTX970 scam). Monopolies are bad for customers.


Well, my current computer is a few generations behind (680 GTX) and I have not had any problems with the drivers and neither have any of my friends who have newer NVIDIA cards.

View PostNARC BAIT, on 30 September 2017 - 04:58 AM, said:

hmmm those of us old enough with long enough memories


The First computer I built myself had an AMD 133Mhz CPU and that was pretty much around the time when AMD first started selling consumer-level CPUs. It was a decent CPU considering what I paid for it, but Intel had just come out with their MMX CPUs and people I knew who had those could run stuff that I was not able to.

Plus the only time that I remember AMD processors out performing Intel was when the Athlons first came out and Intel pretty much had reached the point where they could not make the Pentium 4 any faster because they ran too damned hot. I agree that Pentium 4s were pretty bad and Intel did not take the lead again until they switched to multicore x86 processors with the Pentiums.

Edited by Ed Steele, 30 September 2017 - 05:30 PM.


#26 Bill Lumbar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Death Star
  • 2,073 posts

Posted 01 October 2017 - 07:56 AM

I started out this morning over clocking the 1070, I have it up to +175 on the core, and +196 on the memory. I increased the power limit to max, and temp limit to max too. I went to Nvidia control panel, changed settings to max performance vs. opt. I also increased core voltage to max....but when I did, anything past the above settings/ OC became unstable. My temps are not going above 40C on either the Ryzen or the 1070..... temps are not an issue.

I tried to install Valley benchmark for a secondary benchmark, but it will not load, says there is an error and the software can't be found when I go to run it. Its there....its just not there? lol.

I got the 1070 stable at the above settings, and ran the firestrike test at the above OC settings, best score I can get with no over clock on the Ryzen 1700, kept it at stock while pushing the 1070 is 15,023. Any OC settings above the +175 on the core, and +196 on the memory for my 1070, and I start getting lower scores, and it doesn't complete the testing sometimes. 14,225 is what I got with +190 on the core, and +250 on the Memory. After I found the max/sweet spot I guess on the card, I went into bios and bumped the Ryzen up to 3.9ghz at 1.31 volts. Ran Firestrike again, and I hit 16,231 for the score.

When I ran Firestrike with the old install, and just letting Windows 10 install the drivers over the Amd drivers, Intel drivers for my old I74790K build, and had the Ryzen over clocked to 4ghz, and the 1070 about the same overclock, I hit 15,719 i think? I also didn't have the M.2 drive back then installed. I am gonna play with it some more, try to over clock the Ryzen a little more, maybe 4.1ghz.... but I think I am at the limits with the 1070..... anyone have any ideas on this? Can I push my 1070 more and keep it stable? I am at a loss here, haven't messed with a Nvidia card since the 8800 GTX. lol.

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 01 October 2017 - 07:56 AM.


#27 gaIaxor

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 24 posts

Posted 01 October 2017 - 09:04 AM

View PostEd Steele, on 30 September 2017 - 05:25 PM, said:

Well, my current computer is a few generations behind (680 GTX) and I have not had any problems with the drivers and neither have any of my friends who have newer NVIDIA cards.


So you don't have an AMD card for comparison:
"There is no doubt that the HD 7970 with its 3GB of vRAM, is a generally faster GPU for todays games than the 2GB vRAM-equipped GTX 680 although they are still competing in the same class."
http://www.babeltech...13-revisited/3/
pcgameshardware: 35 Radeon- und Geforce-GPUs

So you can only write for example that Nvidia is good enough for you, but don't spread false information like: "Nvidia always ends up with the better video card and best driver support".

Todays Nvidia drivers don't destroy GPUs anymore, but they are spyware.

View PostEd Steele, on 30 September 2017 - 05:25 PM, said:

The First computer I built myself had an AMD 133Mhz CPU and that was pretty much around the time when AMD first started selling consumer-level CPUs. It was a decent CPU considering what I paid for it, but Intel had just come out with their MMX CPUs and people I knew who had those could run stuff that I was not able to.


That was the purpose of MMX.

"Intel therefore turned to other tactics to minimize AMD’s gains in x86 market share. Intel’s most targeted approach to address its performance disadvantage was to provide software developers with a compiler that would optimize their code to perform better on Intel microprocessors. In itself, the Intel compiler was a fair way for Intel to increase its products’ computational performance: Intel was simply lending its resources to help developers squeeze more performance out of their programs. But Intel made the compiler compatible with AMD processors as well, thereby encouraging widespread adoption of its compiler and effectively planting a Trojan horse in the software industry. A common method to optimize code for a microprocessor is to exploit the microprocessor’s performance-enhancing features and special instructions, called “extensions.” Since the 1995 settlement, Intel had introduced several extensions to the x86 instruction set to expand its multimedia capabilities, of which many were also supported by AMD. Naturally, if the Intel compiler was compatible with AMD microprocessors, one would expect it to take advantage of the multimedia extensions in any microprocessor that supported them, be it Intel or AMD. However, Intel designed the compiler to first check the vendor ID found in a computer’s microprocessor, and only enabled the extensions if it was an Intel chip. Since many software vendors would compile their programs just once with the Intel compiler, their applications performed better on Intel chips, but only because the multimedia features were artificially disabled for AMD chips. But AMD’s performance lead was often too great to be overcome by compiler optimizations, and so Intel also turned to leveraging its immense bargaining power against computer manufacturers to maintain its leadership position."
http://jolt.law.harv...gal-perspective

View PostEd Steele, on 30 September 2017 - 05:25 PM, said:

Plus the only time that I remember AMD processors out performing Intel was when the Athlons first came out and Intel pretty much had reached the point where they could not make the Pentium 4 any faster because they ran too damned hot. I agree that Pentium 4s were pretty bad and Intel did not take the lead again until they switched to multicore x86 processors with the Pentiums.


At that time Intel was bribing and blackmailing OEM like Dell into not selling any AMD CPUs to cause billions of damage against AMD and to become a monopoly which is harmful for all customers.

"Note that Intel isn’t just threatening to withhold payment — it’s telling Dell it’ll take the MCP money the company would’ve gotten, and give it to Dell’s competitors.
...
In its original antitrust filing, AMD noted that it tried to give HP a million free processors at one point, only to be told that HP was so dependent on Intel rebates, it couldn’t afford to take them.
...
Note that beginning in 2005, when AMD launched dual-core Athlon 64 processors and was seriously hammering Prescott, Intel’s payments sharply increased."
https://www.extremet...ces-against-amd

#28 Bill Lumbar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Death Star
  • 2,073 posts

Posted 01 October 2017 - 09:56 AM

I have an XFX 7970 DD 3gb card stillPosted Image

#29 xWiredx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,805 posts

Posted 01 October 2017 - 10:53 AM

All fanboyism aside, those are the kinds of numbers people would really like to see and I'm glad AMD finally caught up. The new Ryzen chips are an excellent value for the money and it looks like we can safely recommend them for any MWO build.

Having said that...

They only seem to get to 4.0GhZ reliably, which seems like it still gimps them from reaching the extreme high-end, and anybody with a larger budget will probably want to go with a new Coffee Lake i7 when they come out. Early leaks show the 8700K besting the 1800X in most scenarios, even multi-thread ones by a little bit. I mean, they're leaks and they could be unreliable, but they're also kind of consistent across different sources so there is at least some tiny chance they're true.

For me, the fact that Ryzen finally has put AMD in the space of Haswell and Skylake chips is both good and bad. The good is that I sold my AMD stock at something like a 400% gain. The bad is that I was hoping overclocking beyond 4GhZ was going to be as easy as it is with Intel chips so I could get the actual horsepower I wanted, which clearly didn't happen. The early fiascos with the RAM speeds are also a little irking.

Basically, I view Ryzen just like I view my X99 platform - mostly awesome, but some of the issues and limitations seem rather silly, as if corners needed to be cut somewhere or sacrifices had to be made in order to come out with a product that wouldn't set the company back. They're B students instead of A students.

The cool thing about Ryzen, though, is that it is at least strong enough that it can feed the GPU at higher resolutions without extreme bottlenecking like their last batch of FX chips did, so it's a major step in the right direction. It does make me wonder about 2019, though, where AMD is saying Zen 2 will come in since Intel also seems to be looking strongly at that year for bigger advancements.

Plus, you know, at least Ryzen isn't the disappointment that Vega is.

#30 NocturnalBeast

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 3,685 posts
  • LocationDusting off my Mechs.

Posted 01 October 2017 - 11:51 AM

I did not think that I would have to preface my statements by acknowledging that they are purely my "opinions", but I guess that I should. From this point forward (in this discussion) let it be known that any statement I make that is not backed up by actual numbers is purely an "opinion". FYI, though, I have a nice ASRock Z270 Extreme mobo on the way to seat my shiny new I7-7700K in, should be a great combo.

#31 MovinTarget

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Field Marshal
  • Field Marshal
  • 3,831 posts
  • LocationGreen Acres

Posted 01 October 2017 - 01:10 PM

Opinions? I thought everything posted in forums was instantly considered fact... ;)

#32 NocturnalBeast

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 3,685 posts
  • LocationDusting off my Mechs.

Posted 01 October 2017 - 01:11 PM

View PostMovinTarget, on 01 October 2017 - 01:10 PM, said:

Opinions? I thought everything posted in forums was instantly considered fact... ;)


Some of the comments I read make me think that That is true.


#33 MovinTarget

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Field Marshal
  • Field Marshal
  • 3,831 posts
  • LocationGreen Acres

Posted 01 October 2017 - 02:33 PM

After all the things i have read (admittedly much of it was right when ryzen came out), is the tl;dr still:

This is the enthusiasts' build that likes to tweak settings or has it matured to being out-of-the-box serviceable for most games if you are looking at non-4K, medium to high settings (ultra is bonus)?

#34 Bill Lumbar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Death Star
  • 2,073 posts

Posted 01 October 2017 - 04:16 PM

@Wired,

I considered vega.......but went Nvidia instead. Is it that bad? I haven't even worried about it lol

The 4ghz mark does seem to be the limit with the Ryzen chips..... makes me think this is a bios issue, maybe not? Idk, but I am extremely happy with the build I have, no regrets. Not sure where the fan boy claims are coming into this, or why. This isn't about fan boys, opinions, this is just about what this rig can do, and numbers its putting out.

I wouldn't build another Intel Rig at this time, but that is my choice. Doesn't mean anything, just my preference atm. I am glad AMD stepped up and gave the market, PC builders a viable option, it is a nice change after the FX CPU's for sure.

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 01 October 2017 - 04:32 PM.


#35 xWiredx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,805 posts

Posted 01 October 2017 - 04:30 PM

View PostBill Lumbar, on 01 October 2017 - 04:16 PM, said:

@Wired,

I considered vega.......but went Nvidia instead. Is it that bad? I haven't even worried about it lol

At this point, the only -real- option is Nvidia. I mean, why spend the same amount of money for a product that is a year late, only "just barely as fast" and uses more energy? Vega is the Radeon version of Bulldozer with the exception that it is at least as fast as the competition. I will probably be getting a 1080Ti myself.

#36 Bill Lumbar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Death Star
  • 2,073 posts

Posted 01 October 2017 - 04:37 PM

View PostxWiredx, on 01 October 2017 - 04:30 PM, said:

At this point, the only -real- option is Nvidia. I mean, why spend the same amount of money for a product that is a year late, only "just barely as fast" and uses more energy? Vega is the Radeon version of Bulldozer with the exception that it is at least as fast as the competition. I will probably be getting a 1080Ti myself.

Agreed, What about the new 1070 Ti? I hear it is right around the corner? I had hopes for a Vega card in my system, but everything was up in the air, pricing, performance. I just said to hell with it, and went with the Seahawk 1070 EK version, pretty sure just like going with a Ryzen I made the right choice. If I have any regrets, I wish I would of waited for Threadrippers. lol

#37 NocturnalBeast

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 3,685 posts
  • LocationDusting off my Mechs.

Posted 01 October 2017 - 05:58 PM

View PostBill Lumbar, on 01 October 2017 - 04:37 PM, said:

Agreed, What about the new 1070 Ti? I hear it is right around the corner? I had hopes for a Vega card in my system, but everything was up in the air, pricing, performance. I just said to hell with it, and went with the Seahawk 1070 EK version, pretty sure just like going with a Ryzen I made the right choice. If I have any regrets, I wish I would of waited for Threadrippers. lol


The 1070 Ti will be the best "budget" video card. I was lucky enough to be able to get a good price on a 1080 Ti and it looks like a monster.

#38 NARC BAIT

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 518 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 01 October 2017 - 08:08 PM

you people need to stop buying NVidia 10 series cards, NVidia looked at Vega, and decided it wasn't threatening enough to release the next gen, Volta, and that they could/should just milk us all for a few more years ... buying the 1070ti basically says to NVidia 'yeah its ok for you to screw us around' .... without a proper competition in any field, companies stop innovating and start pure profit taking ....

the 4ghz limit is where it stops being 'easy' for the chips ... I'd dare say that any ryzen can make it past 4.4ghz, assuming that your willing to go to the level of exotic cooling, but we know that most people are not going to be messing with liquid nitrogen etc ... my 1600X is quite happy for me to set multipliers up to 44x, and from there you start bclk'ing upwards, well ... in theory ... I'm actually using a downwards bclk at the moment with the 42x ratio ... letting me set the 3600mhz memory strap, and dropping the CPU out of the 'questionable stability' range to 4093 MHz, I know its going to sound dumb, but that extra 7 MHz requires an extra voltage boost to be happy and consistent .... and its not worth the extra bit of voltage for that 7mhz more ....

on the 3dmark site, I decided to compare my last 3dmark run with a 7600K ... and the result was ... mixed ... I guess .... I scored 13,000 points, the 7600K with the same GPU scored 12,500 ... I lost in the graphics benchmarks, but destroyed it in the physics ones, I think it was 63% faster for physics .... and I still cant get the RAM I have to run at the rated speeds .... pretty sure what I have is Samsung e-die, which essentially has higher latencies than the b-die's ....

in the last few days its become obvious to me that the CPU map that MWO uses isn't the most efficient for Ryzen, and that's hardly surprising really, when you consider which chips were available to the cryengine devs around 2011/2012 ... and my biggest limiting factor at the moment, is my earlyish 4K monitor, which seriously does not like going over 60hz in 4K ...

I put up some fresh graphs, but decided not to flood this thread with them

Edited by NARC BAIT, 01 October 2017 - 08:37 PM.


#39 Bill Lumbar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Death Star
  • 2,073 posts

Posted 02 October 2017 - 12:55 AM

Hey Narc, What do you mean "you people" Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

Flood away man.... I am fine with it. lol. I will post more numbers when I get the chance. I really wanted to go Vega at some point.... I will look more into it. Just haven't had time. I am gonna try to push my Ryzen at some point, I haven't had time for that either. I am working on my Altima Ser right now, complete engine rebuild and have to get ready for the winter heating season.....fire wood man, splitting fire wood. lol.

View PostEd Steele, on 01 October 2017 - 05:58 PM, said:

The 1070 Ti will be the best "budget" video card. I was lucky enough to be able to get a good price on a 1080 Ti and it looks like a monster.

The 1080 Ti is a monster, lol. I just hate dropping 700+ on a GPU.... it hurts man!

#40 NARC BAIT

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 518 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 02 October 2017 - 05:23 AM

are ye not people ? :P .... generally I mean people rewarding companies for behaving badly ... like NVidia having the gall to announce that we don't get their best stuff, because vega did badly once it got into the real world .... for people to continue to buy the flagship product .... well, we know the bad places that complacency leave us .... during the years I had my FX, I looked at intel builds a few times, did them for other people, but other than the improvements from DDR4, I never really saw enough of an improvement to upgrade, until the M2 slots became more of ta thing ... from that point there was enough of a technological 'step' .... if the volume of sales for 1080/ti went setiously down over the next six months, they'd decide to release the next generation, even further nuking the vega ... but if they see no reason to innovate and improve, that's bad for all of us, long term ... lets not slow down technological progression, for profiteering ...

a 1080 is a beast ... and the majority of them are underutilized by people who don't care ... seems wasteful to me, especially to play this game, at any resolution below 4K, or using it for VR ... those are the limits it was designed for .... kinda like owning a Lamborghini but spending 90% of the time you drive on roads with really crappy speed limits ...





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users