Gaming? More like consumer market, Ryzen 7 is definitely not suited for gamers, advertising it as such was IMO mistake. Nevertheless Naples can be big innovation in server segment.
Also what with ECC? Ryzen can support it or not?
Also what with ECC? Ryzen can support it or not?
The underperformance in gaming was tracked down to software issues according to AMD. Namely:
- bugs in the Windows process scheduler (scheduling 2 threads on same core, and moving threads across CPU complexes which loses all L3 cache data since each CCX has its own cache)
- buggy BIOS accidentally disabling Boost or the High Performance mode (feature that lets the processor adjust voltage and clock every 1 ms instead of every 40 ms.)
- games containing Intel-optimized code
More info: http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-launch-aftermath-gaming-perfor...
Furthermore hardcore gamers usually play at 1440p or higher in which case there is no difference in perf between Intel or AMD, as demonstrated by the many benchmarks (because the GPU is always the bottleneck at such high resolutions.)
Hardcore is that guy who plays Call of Duty 24x7 on his Xbox 360 and mediocre 720p television. You can't deny the determination or enthusiasm. Hardware's irrelevant.
Blaming windows is just a desperate excuse from AMD to justify its lack of performances. Don't be tricked by that.
It's possible -and rather common- that there are motherboard issues on the first generation of MB, which again, is not a a valid excuse but a bad thing that desperately needs fixing from AMD and a sign that it's still in testing phase.
This is nothing new or outstanding at all.
BTW they advertised it as good for gaming + streaming (h264 CPU encoding at the same time on the same machine). And "content creation", which pretty much always means video editing.
IIRC Ryzen supports unbuffered ECC if the mainboard supports it.
The source engine isn't exactly the pinnacle of engine development.
It doesn't really know what to with more than 2ish cores, so you probably get more FPS by using a dual core instead of a quad core, which tend to go farther in terms of overclocking.
Try running on a cheap i3 from a few years ago and you'll understand your pain quickly.
My opinion: if Microsoft is able to pivot the Scorpio over to the Ryzen (or indeed, any CPU with more than 4C/8T) it will drastically alter the lowest common denominator in terms of what game developerss target - i.e. we'll see games moving towards more modern threading architectures (e.g. futures/jobs as-per Star Citizen, which more thoroughly exploit CPU resources).
Furthermore, there is hearsay evidence that supports AMDs claims. Ashes of the Singularity currently runs better on Intel but the developers claim:
[2]> Oxide games is incredibly excited with what we are seeing from the Ryzen CPU. Using our Nitrous game engine, we are working to scale our existing and future game title performance to take full advantage of Ryzen and its 8-core, 16-thread architecture, and the results thus far are impressive.
In addition to that, if you look at the CPU usage/saturation alongside the benchmarks (13:08 in [1]) it's strikingly obvious that the CPU is not the bottleneck - Intel is upwards of 90% on all cores while the Ryzen hovers around ~60%. I'm holding my credit card close until the aforementioned optimizations and rumored bios patches land, but I'm willing to give AMD a little benefit of the doubt - what we're seeing largely matches what they are saying.
[1]: https://youtu.be/ylvdSnEbL50 [2]: http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-launch-aftermath-gaming-perfor...
Hell in 30 million households there are 8 jaguar x86 core gaming machines active now with an IPC that is probably (I assume) atrocious.
I build my i7 4770 4 years ago and the sad part is that it will probably still take a lot of time for it to become a bottleneck in 90% of the games.
That said, completely tangential to what you're saying. Ryzen may (at worst) perform like an i5 in gaming but it has more than 8 threads. I do everything with my machine and going with a R7 1700 overclocked.