We need AMD Ryzen Benchmarks! Share your toughts!

[Mahatma Gandhi 29]

@ Brisse

 

You mentioned that you've got DualRank 2667MHz RAMs working in a 4 Modules configuration. There's a German computer magazine that that tested SingleRank vs. DualRank on a Ryzen build and it turns out that DualRank is actually substantially faster than SingleRank at same clock speeds.

 

Maybe Google can help you translating it.

 

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Ryzen-5-1600X-CPU-265842/Tests/R5-1500X-Review-Mainstream-1225280/3/#a2

 

Maybe your Modules are what is the sweetspot of Ryzen afterall ;-) 

[Dwarden 1124]

it's highly recommended to pair Ryzen R5 and R7 CPus with fastest possible memory (both latency and frequency)

the benefits of fastest RAM are way higher than with Intel CPUs

 

also Ryzen loves overclock , the faster the CPU then in compare with Intel the cache operations are way faster

 

of course in both cases you limited by Chipset and bios/firmware ... 

[Mahatma Gandhi 29]

1 hour ago, dwarden said:

also Ryzen loves overclock , the faster the CPU then in compare with Intel the cache operations are way faster

 

Own experience or what the net says?

[Mahatma Gandhi 29]

@Brisse

 

I can confirm your results. The Creators Update gave another ~9% in ArmA3 on my Ryzen build.

 

[djotacon 190]

Great results @Mahatma Gandhi

 

I make my own test with my KOTH settings
D.View 1000

PHYSX low

Textures high

No AA

HBAO low

AMD FX8320 OC 4GHZ - 1666mhz ram

Windows 7

http://i.imgur.com/e5s9xOq.jpg

29 fps. vs ryzen 55 fps...

[Dwarden 1124]

On 4/14/2017 at 0:53 AM, Mahatma Gandhi said:

 

Own experience or what the net says?

 experience of people i know who have it (some i know in person)

[Heimer Dinger 0]

 

 

I asked Bohemia about Ryzen Support 2 days ago. Got answer yesterday already. 

[djotacon 190]

RYZEN 1800X - the flagship of the AMD - cannot right make a good OC because is a 8c/16h cpu and at 4ghz is a fucking toaster.

 

53 minutes ago, Heimer Dinger said:

 

 

I asked Bohemia about Ryzen Support 2 days ago. Got answer yesterday already. 

 

Sad very sad see the actual Arma 3 devs making excuses but for JETS DLC I need to render at minimum distance of 3km to see the entire surrounds and targets, I'm not gonna pay for jets if I cant see the targets while flying.

[Tankbuster 1733]

7 minutes ago, djotacon said:

RYZEN 1800X - the flagship of the AMD - cannot right make a good OC because is a 8c/16h cpu and at 4ghz is a fucking toaster.

 

 

Sad very sad see the actual Arma 3 devs making excuses but for JETS DLC I need to render at minimum distance of 3km to see the entire surrounds and targets, I'm not gonna pay for jets if I cant see the targets while flying.

 

I think you're being a little unfair blaming that on the game.

[djotacon 190]

I think you're being a little unfair blaming that on the game.

 

That's not blaming is a "nude" reality to me, right now I fly in a 1km ballon and I shoot completely blind, to me thats not flying.

[Heimer Dinger 0]

6 hours ago, djotacon said:

RYZEN 1800X - the flagship of the AMD - cannot right make a good OC because is a 8c/16h cpu and at 4ghz is a fucking toaster.

 

 

Sad very sad see the actual Arma 3 devs making excuses but for JETS DLC I need to render at minimum distance of 3km to see the entire surrounds and targets, I'm not gonna pay for jets if I cant see the targets while flying.

 

Since AMD stated that they help Devs improving Performance you just might be a bit patient regarding Ryzen Performance in A3. 

[oldbear 390]

@ djotacon : many different aspects of the "nude" reality.

 

From the very start, I mean Operation Flashpoint [now ARMA : Cold War Assault] in 2001, this game was an infantry simulation game and even if flying assets were present in it's genes it has never pretend to be a kind of flying simulator. The flying model for airplanes is still over simplified and not a match for a military flying simulator game such as DCS. 

You can have fun in a plane, but you will need to play Arma* on the ground (or nearby in a chopper).

 

Arma 3 devs are not making excuses, they are just stating a fact.

The situation is a bit like it was some time ago with Haswell-E & LGA 2011-v3 vs Haswell & LGA 1150.

Source : http://www.hardware.fr/articles/924-1/intel-haswell-e-lga-2011-v3-ddr4-core-i7-5960x-5930k-5820k.html

 

AMD Ryzen platform needs still a lot of improvements as all new architecture.

It seems better built than the previous Buldozer one so there is hope.

We will have to wait for some more months or perhaps Zen2 next year.

 

 

 

[djotacon 190]

37 minutes ago, oldbear said:

@ djotacon : many different aspects of the "nude" reality.

 

 

I'm not gonna repeat myself entering in a new idiotic "flamebait" about a programmer can do or not can do or arguing about benmarks from 2014, we are now in the year 2017 and there's no bigger fps improvents over AMD platform right now.

[oldbear 390]

No flame-baiting here, it's a well know fact you can get from every seasoned Arma* players, this game is CPU dependent.

It means that it needs a very efficient fast processor in order to shine.

From it's origins as a single core, single thread game a long time ago it still depends hugely on performances on a limited number of threads.

Even if it has gone the multi-threading way some time ago, the single core ADN is still present.

 

From the start, let's remember the New Horizon Event, AMD demonstrates Ryzen performance showing a  Ryzen 8-core against an 8-core Intel Core i7-6900K.

Results were astonishing and a great new for PC user, competition was back !

But comparisons were never made with high end Intel CPUs for a reason.

 

source : http://www.hardware.fr/articles/956-22/indices-performance.html

 

We will see, as it seems to be the trend, with Ryzen platform upgrades and enhancements, if the R5 cluster can compete with the i5 gang.

An interesting and in fact thrilling prospect

 

At the moment a R7 RyZen just out of the box seems not to be the right tool to play Arma3 at the highest level.

Nothing Arma3 Devs can patch so far, just enjoy the incredible job they have done to make the game working as it is !

[djotacon 190]

40 minutes ago, oldbear said:

No flame-baiting here, it's a well know fact you can get from every seasoned Arma* players, this game is CPU dependent.

 

 

Sadly you are only here to cause problems to the community and starting the obvious tactic to get answers showing old bench and speaking with yourself, now you are blocked and you can speak with the walls.

 

Go with the wind - in spanish: "que corra el aire"...-

 

[Dwarden 1124]

in the R5 vs i5 battle , if it's about new computer then 9 of 10 has no reason to buy Intel anymore ...

 

R5 especially the 6/12 and 4/8 models are performance per buck beyond i5 4/4

the R5 with 4/4 is considerably cheaper too while the performance for single-thread isn't spectacular it's still fine considering the price

 

AMD did quite ok , sure it's not crushing Intel by far but it's enough to offer more future oriented product on lower price

 

R3 will be very interesting offering for media,video and inexpensive tasks

 

i wish the AMD Thread Ripper CPUs (10/20, 12/24, 14/28, 16/32) appear sooner too (Intel moved theirs HEDT line release ahead)

[djotacon 190]

24 minutes ago, dwarden said:

i wish the AMD Thread Ripper CPUs (10/20, 12/24, 14/28, 16/32) appear sooner too (Intel moved theirs HEDT line release ahead)

 

I think you must take a seat and a sandwich because rigth now a 10/20 threads only runs at low CPU speed 3.00 GHz (turbo 3.50) and with more CPU cpu speed you need a 1000W powersource and water cooler to avoid reach 70-80 celsius degrees.

 

For the next AMD generation I think we see better cpu clocks in AMD and 6/12 solutions of INTEL to an "affordable" prize.

[Tankbuster 1733]

1 hour ago, dwarden said:

in the R5 vs i5 battle , if it's about new computer then 9 of 10 has no reason to buy Intel anymore ...

 

R5 especially the 6/12 and 4/8 models are performance per buck beyond i5 4/4

the R5 with 4/4 is considerably cheaper too while the performance for single-thread isn't spectacular it's still fine considering the price

 

AMD did quite ok , sure it's not crushing Intel by far but it's enough to offer more future oriented product on lower price

 

R3 will be very interesting offering for media,video and inexpensive tasks

 

i wish the AMD Thread Ripper CPUs (10/20, 12/24, 14/28, 16/32) appear sooner too (Intel moved theirs HEDT line release ahead)

 

I never thought I'd have cause to say this, but Dwarden is the voice of reason here. :)

If you're an early adopter (and dare I say, an AMD fan), who wants a CPU with a lot of cores that is on a level with an old i5, then the Ryzen is for you. If you're into Arma, and I'm pretty sure most people reading this are, then Ryzen is not a sensible buy.

[Mahatma Gandhi 29]

Just now, Tankbuster said:

If you're into Arma, and I'm pretty sure most people reading this are, then Ryzen is not a sensible buy.

 

How come? I do have a Ryzen and I am having better Framerates and Frametimes in ARMA3 than ever before. What is your current rig?

[Tankbuster 1733]

53 minutes ago, Mahatma Gandhi said:

 

How come? I do have a Ryzen and I am having better Framerates and Frametimes in ARMA3 than ever before. What is your current rig?

 

 

'Than ever before'? I've got a q6600 in the drawer here. I'm sure if I were to go from that to any Ryzen, I'd see 'better framerates than ever before'.

 

I'm not entirely sure why my rig is relevant, but it's an i7 4790 @ 4.6 with 16GB of half decent RAM (I'm not at home and can't remember it's exact designation) and a really sexy Intel PIC-E SSD 750 series. The GPU is a GTX 970, but that's going soon as it doesn't drive my big monitor very well.

[djotacon 190]

2 hours ago, Tankbuster said:

who wants a CPU with a lot of cores that is on a level with an old i5, then the Ryzen is for you. If you're into Arma, and I'm pretty sure most people reading this are, then Ryzen is not a sensible buy.

 

The "entire earth" right now, the ryzen fly from the stores and in a month the framerate in yaab test have more than 20 fps - from 35 to 55 - with no RYZEN special code inside

[Mahatma Gandhi 29]

1 hour ago, Tankbuster said:

I'm not entirely sure why my rig is relevant, but it's an i7 4790 @ 4.6 with 16GB of half decent RAM (I'm not at home and can't remember it's exact designation) and a really sexy Intel PIC-E SSD 750 series.

 

it is relevant because your overclocked rig, as it is, is most likely slower than a Ryzen 1600x build out of the box in ArmA3 and outside Gaming anyway! If Ryzen is not a good buy, an i5 is even worse.

 

So why do you think this is not a sensible buy?

[Dwarden 1124]

3 hours ago, djotacon said:

 

I think you must take a seat and a sandwich because rigth now a 10/20 threads only runs at low CPU speed 3.00 GHz (turbo 3.50) and with more CPU cpu speed you need a 1000W powersource and water cooler to avoid reach 70-80 celsius degrees.

 

For the next AMD generation I think we see better cpu clocks in AMD and 6/12 solutions of INTEL to an "affordable" prize.

 

you maybe talking about Intel CPU, the AMD TR line isn't as power hungry as you think ...

[djotacon 190]

48 minutes ago, dwarden said:

 

you maybe talking about Intel CPU, the AMD TR line isn't as power hungry as you think ...

 

Yes, of course, RYZEN uses a very reasonable TDP.

[domokun 515]

On 16/04/2017 at 10:17 PM, Mahatma Gandhi said:

 

it is relevant because your overclocked rig, as it is, is most likely slower than a Ryzen 1600x build out of the box in ArmA3 and outside Gaming anyway! If Ryzen is not a good buy, an i5 is even worse.

 

So why do you think this is not a sensible buy?

If you compare performance of Intel CPU with AMD Ryzen of comparable price then Intel will deliver better performance in gaming, especially in Arma 3:

@ $250 = i5-7600K vs 1600X

@ $350 = i7-7700K vs 1700X

This is simply due to Intel's faster clock speeds and higher IPC.

However if you compare performance beyond gaming, where multi-threaded applications are more common, then AMD Ryzen is better value.