Ryzen 1600/1700 performance on WoW

[Ashildr]

Hello all

I'm going to build a new Rig to play not only all modern games but also WoW.

I'm searching some feedback on Ryzen at 1440p+(3440x1440p or 4k) resolution with an high end card (i think Vega or 1080ti).
I'm expecially interested on Mythic raid performance /dalaran and i dunno, other important zones

Someone with that combo (1440p or more + Ryzen + 1080ti) here?
Thanks

[Tiberria]

I have a 1700x + 1080 ti and a 1440p/144 Hz monitor. I typically run with everything maxed except View Distance and environmental detail notched down to 8, Shadows at High, Liquid at Good at 4x SSAA.

In general zones, I get 90-120 FPS with these settings. In Dalaran, it drops to 50-60 fps. Suramar has a huge problem with optimization or something, because it will dip to 30-40 FPS in several areas in that zone. Mythic raids and world boss combat can still drop to 25-30 fps seemingly regardless of hardware setup. CPU utilization tends to sit at 10-15%, with 90%+ utilization from WoW on one of the threads and maybe 30% on another.

The game is still horribly optimized for multithreading and modern hardware. I kind of doubt that there would be any wow performance difference in anything from the 1050 up.

[Ashildr]

I have a 1700x + 1080 ti and a 1440p/144 Hz monitor. I typically run with everything maxed except View Distance and environmental detail notched down to 8, Shadows at High, Liquid at Good at 4x SSAA.

In general zones, I get 90-120 FPS with these settings. In Dalaran, it drops to 50-60 fps. Suramar has a huge problem with optimization or something, because it will dip to 30-40 FPS in several areas in that zone. Mythic raids and world boss combat can still drop to 25-30 fps seemingly regardless of hardware setup. CPU utilization tends to sit at 10-15%, with 90%+ utilization from WoW on one of the threads and maybe 30% on another.

The game is still horribly optimized for multithreading and modern hardware. I kind of doubt that there would be any wow performance difference in anything from the 1050 up.

WTF, shitty engine..

And if you lower the setting(how much?) 60 fps are possible?

[truulte]

Why not get an intel CPU and get better performance in all games.

[Ashildr]

Why not get an intel CPU and get better performance in all games.

I'm waiting tests with 7800x and the upcoming coffelake esacore in August/September too

New build in 2017 with a quadcore is ridiculous imho ^^

[mrgreenthump]

Why not get an intel CPU and get better performance in all games.

No real point to pay $1000+ for x299 platform just to get minor fps upgrade.

[truulte]

No real point to pay $1000+ for x299 platform just to get minor fps upgrade.

Why do you have to go x299, isn't it for gaming?

[Araya]

I have a 1700 and can confirm with his similar findings. Dalaran, Suramar, and a few other places just take a giant shit on your system for no apparent reason (fountain in NH and Bot room too!). Instance raids with the exception of Demonic Inquisition are all solid 60+ fps.

Threadripper and the x299 platforms are overkill and no real point in getting them if your just gaming, its rare enough for a Dev to support more then 4 cores nevermind 16. Plus the x299 is going to have a stupid price tag for no reason. Also heard some reports its running EXTREMELY hot, though of course not exactly confirmed on that yet.

Any of the Ryzen chips right now will give you your most bang for your buck, especially the R1600 and R1700.

[Triggered Fridgekin]

New build in 2017 with a quadcore is ridiculous imho ^^

For gaming that ultimately depends on what you're pairing it with. Chances are that a larger portion of buyers who invest in a quad core processor (especially now) likely aren't packing 144hz monitors and GTX 1070s to be able to tell the difference between either, say, a 1500x or a 6800k with exception to poorly optimized or early access titles which peg one or two cores which is kind of a contradiction to how quad cores are now dated especially if they have HT/SMT.

Unfortunately, it seems that poorly optimized janky engines are the new trend given how popular porting and early access has become.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do you have to go x299, isn't it for gaming?

X299 will become the standard for KL-X and CL. Yup.

[mrgreenthump]

Why do you have to go x299, isn't it for gaming?

Because you said Intel is better in all games, which is only achievable by going to x299.

[truulte]

Because you said Intel is better in all games, which is only achievable by going to x299.

Coffee Lake will be on the Z370 platform, x299 is pointless for gaming.

[Tiberria]

The issue is - if you want to upgrade now, the 7700k is pretty much a dead upgrade path.
(1) It's going to be the last of the quad core i7 top end gaming chips. With even mainstream gaming level CPUs moving to 6-8 cores, and all consoles already on an 8 core setup, it's very likely that more aggressive multi threading support will be coming, which will cause the quad core to be a bottleneck within the lifespan of the CPU.
(2) The socket/chipset is dead - no further upgrade path without replacing the motherboard, etc. AM4 should be used for AMD's mainstream CPUs for the next 3-4 years, meaning a CPU upgrade 2 years down the road is likely totally feasible.
(3) The performance benefit from the 7700k vs Ryzen 1700 becomes pretty much marginal at 1440p and 4k resolution. No one is going to buy a 1080 Ti to game at 1080p, making the 1080p performance delta pretty irrelevant.

In short, the current performance - at 1440k+ is virtually identical, the Ryzen 8 core setup is likely to be far more future proof and start performing better relative to the 7700k over time, and the AM4 socket has an ongoing available upgrade path. If you want to buy a CPU right now, and want the absolute #1 gaming CPU for the next 12 months or so, sure get the 7700k, I still don't think it's a great option over the medium to long term though. You can wait for Coffee Lake if you want to/are able to wait until somewhere around Thanksgiving. Intel is claiming a ~30% IPC increase over Kaby Lake while independent rumors are claiming closer to ~15%, so it's going to be anywhere from a full generational change to a marginal upgrade in the realm of Haswell > Skylake, depending on who you believe. If you want to buy before then, and plan on keeping the setup for more than 12-18 months, I think Ryzen is the most logical path.

[Tiberria]

Ryzen is garbage and the ONLY reason you'd buy it is if you have serious money issues. Bad IPC, terrible OC ability, and shitty compatibility...

I mean, I had the choice to go with a 7700k build for ~100 less but went with a 1700x build for the reasons I outlined above. I think a new top end gaming level CPU still only being quad core in 2017 is more of a problem than the Ryzen IPC deficit, and you run the risk of the core count becoming a huge bottleneck.

[mojo6912]

There are very few games that actually benefit from the additional cores and that isn't likely to change any time soon.

There are also very few games that get a noticeable performance gain from a current i5 or i7 over a ryzen chip, especially at his resolution. WoW is one of those games though.

[mojo6912]

Which is why having that as a priority makes the i5/i7 the better choice. Oh, and the intels perform better in nearly all situations thay don't benefit from more cores. It's called IPC and they still dominate. Add in higher potential clock speeds and buying a Ryzen is silly unless you actually benefit from the additional cores. Very few people do...

Having what as a priority? You mean WoW? Even if WoW was a priority but you still do other intensive things on the PC (like "play all modern games") I would not recommend an i5. I would only recommend the i5 if WoW was the ONLY intensive thing you wanted to on your PC.

DirectX12 is here now and in 2 or 3 years, if you have the i5 you may very well run into many games that make you think "Crap, time to upgrade my rig again. Good thing I only spent $240 on my CPU." While if you bought the R5 1600 you might think "Crap, these games are not running so smooth any more. Time to get a new GPU. Good thing I got this $215 CPU that I don't have to upgrade though. But hey, if I wanted to I could get this new AM4 chip that just came out last month. It has 40 cores and 120 threads. Too bad my motherboard can't support the new ddr5 ram though. And I don't have the new connector they just invented for wireless VR. Crap, never mind, Ill just buy a new rig anyway."

[Bryntrollian]

Unfortunately, it seems that poorly optimized janky engines are the new trend given how popular porting and early access has become.

Aren't the new consoles using 8 core chips ?

[Barnabas]

Hello all

I'm going to build a new Rig to play not only all modern games but also WoW.

I'm searching some feedback on Ryzen at 1440p+(3440x1440p or 4k) resolution with an high end card (i think Vega or 1080ti).
I'm expecially interested on Mythic raid performance /dalaran and i dunno, other important zones

Someone with that combo (1440p or more + Ryzen + 1080ti) here?
Thanks

Raiding is smooth at 4k. 20-25 person raids are fine. You might have occasional drop to 40 fps. 40 person or more you will tank to 30 fps range. No platform I've seen yet can deal with that at 60 fps or more in an outdoor environment so who cares? Dalaran is solid 90 fps with drops to 60 range. I just have a 1700 oc to 4ghz and a 1070. I can live stream at 1080p60fps also with little performance loss. The intel fanboys will come in this thread and tell you different but they are lying when they say gaming is bad on ryzen platform.

[Lathais]

Ryzen is garbage and the ONLY reason you'd buy it is if you have serious money issues. Bad IPC, terrible OC ability, and shitty compatibility...

It's like some people are stuck a week out from launch and live in a world where the vast majority of people actually OC their PCs.

[mrgreenthump]

Aren't the new consoles using 8 core chips ?

Yes, and AAA games released in the past year or so, are mostly working better on 12+ threads than <=8. But let's not talk about that, because bashing AMD seems to be the popular thing here.

There are still problems with indie games though, then again they are the result of Unity not supporting low level APIs till very very recently. And almost nobody has released a game, that started with said build.

[Arbiter]

Because you said Intel is better in all games, which is only achievable by going to x299.

A 7700K already beats any Ryzen chip in games so I'm not really sure where you're getting at. Ryzen is a great chip for the cost with great multithreaded performance, but most of it is wasted in games and the IPC of the 7700K makes it the best gaming CPU on the market as of this moment and it's overclocking potential pushes is even further.

And as for your comments about games working on 12+ threads....yea they're not. Maybe a couple recent games have, but even if they were it's irrelevant when those games are always GPU limited unless you're playing at low resolutions and low settings.

It's not AMD bashing to state facts. Sure some people here are ignorantly bashing a CPU, but it's really just about how the games use hardware and how important IPC is for gaming. Ryzen is MUCH better than Piledriver and Bulldozer was, but it's still not beating Intel in games and I can't see that changing as long as the IPC remains lower. Which is fine, as it still delivers enough performance for almost any game (if not every game), but it's pointless to buy one over Intel if you're only really playing games like WoW.