Why no love for the Ryzen line in build of the month?

[Jakexe]

what if

what if they're the ones being smug dicks while being wrong?

my 120 fps agrees with me

And here's the part where someone asks for proof and you're never seen again. So....proof?

[T1berius]

how about this

how about all of these people claiming that a multicore cpu and a 1080 can't get above 60fps be the ones with the proof?

I have limited bandwith im not going to waste it uploading a video for plebs

i uploaded pictures, gave links to how it works, wasn't good enough

how about people posting smuggly that im wrong have some evidence to back it up?

[Sorshen]

how about this

how about all of these people claiming that a multicore cpu and a 1080 can't get above 60fps be the ones with the proof?

I have limited bandwith im not going to waste it uploading a video for plebs

i uploaded pictures, gave links to how it works, wasn't good enough

how about people posting smuggly that im wrong have some evidence to back it up?

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/World-...marks-1204205/

Are you done being a jackass?



From the article:

World of Warcraft 7.0.3 presents an interesting scaling behavior with the provided processor cores and -threads. The core statement for the start: The engine is saturated from four physical cores, neither the change to six cores nor simultaneous multi-threading (SMT alias hyperthreading) lead to an increase in the average image rate - but a shift in the course of the 20 seconds test duration. With four cores + SMT (yellow line), such as a Core i7-4770K or i7-6700K offers, the highest frame rates are generated up to second 7. As of second 8, this configuration is deep - an important finding, because at this point, the test scene is much more challenging, as here various characters are embedded. Comparing the gray-blue line (4 cores without SMT), it is noticeable that this configuration goes deeper, but breaks down significantly less than with active SMT. The average result is also here at ~ 65 Fps, with minimum values ​​by 56 Fps. 6 cores, whether with or without SMT, do not slow down the game, but do not help the frame rate.

It is only problematic for Intel processors with two cores without SMT, such as the Pentium G3258. The image rate in our test scene dropped to 3.3 at 40 - and this is not a "real" Pentium, but a slightly more powerful simulation because we only deactivate cores in our Haswell-E. SMT leads to a sensible increase in performance (purple line) with a two-handed, the average frame rate climbs by a good 20 percent - but the min fps are not always higher. This problem can only be circumvented by using a real four-core system.

An overclocked i5 is the best performance/cost CPU you can get for WoW.

[moremana]

how about this

how about all of these people claiming that a multicore cpu and a 1080 can't get above 60fps be the ones with the proof?

I have limited bandwith im not going to waste it uploading a video for plebs

i uploaded pictures, gave links to how it works, wasn't good enough

how about people posting smuggly that im wrong have some evidence to back it up?

You just don't quit do you.

I bet when you were a kid and your mom caught you stealing cookies you denied even though she had you on camera!

You do make me laugh, so carry on.

[Tiberria]

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/World-...marks-1204205/

Are you done being a jackass?



From the article:




An overclocked i5 is the best performance/cost CPU you can get for WoW.

That might be true if you shut down every thing else in the background when you're running WoW and just run the game itself. Most people are going to have multiple Chrome/FF tabs open, and tab back and forth, and run Discord, plus probably Spotify or something for music, etc, etc, and that is going to chew into the available processor cycles. If the engine is saturated with 4 cores like the article concludes, in a real life situation, you are going to get better performance from more cores. This is going to be the case even more so if you are doing any type of streaming/video recording while playing.

[mrgreenthump]

That might be true if you shut down every thing else in the background when you're running WoW and just run the game itself. Most people are going to have multiple Chrome/FF tabs open, and tab back and forth, and run Discord, plus probably Spotify or something for music, etc, etc, and that is going to chew into the available processor cycles. If the engine is saturated with 4 cores like the article concludes, in a real life situation, you are going to get better performance from more cores. This is going to be the case even more so if you are doing any type of streaming/video recording while playing.

It all depends on the priority WoW is running at compared to the background progresses.

[pansertjald]

intel fanboys might be the dumbest and most gullible and unwilling to accept reality people on the planet


got my ryzen 7 and 1080 ti, enjoying my 120 fps ultra settings in 30 man raids like i thought i would


ive used amd every since I started building computers, and they've always been cheaper with a better price point per performance



if you're really so fucking dumb as to buy a high end intel processor because "wow runs on one thread" or "wow runs on one core" without realizing that a cpu from 7 years ago can optimally run wow with max settings with the right gpu, no matter if it's amd or intel, then I don't know what to do for you

are you by any chance related to Jaylock?

[T1berius]

That might be true if you shut down every thing else in the background when you're running WoW and just run the game itself. Most people are going to have multiple Chrome/FF tabs open, and tab back and forth, and run Discord, plus probably Spotify or something for music, etc, etc, and that is going to chew into the available processor cycles. If the engine is saturated with 4 cores like the article concludes, in a real life situation, you are going to get better performance from more cores. This is going to be the case even more so if you are doing any type of streaming/video recording while playing.

good post, but it's not quite good enough. they tested it by shutting off cores on an i7-5820k. so sure, with an i7-5820k, you get optimal performance from 4 cores for whatever reason, but this tells me nothing about say, a 12 core, an 8 core, an amd ryzen 1700, ect


I'd like to use whatever benchmark tool they used and post my results, but I don't speak .de so I can't quite figure it out

[Sorshen]

good post, but it's not quite good enough. they tested it by shutting off cores on an i7-5820k. so sure, with an i7-5820k, you get optimal performance from 4 cores for whatever reason, but this tells me nothing about say, a 12 core, an 8 core, an amd ryzen 1700, ect


I'd like to use whatever benchmark tool they used and post my results, but I don't speak .de so I can't quite figure it out

Nothing is good enough for you. How do you think i5s and i3s are created? How do you think R5s and R3s are created? lmao, it's the same chip only lower binned, cores/SMT sections are cut. The other 3 cores are barely doing anything, they can take the Chrome load and w/e you have in background even w/o setting affinities/priority.

[Laqweeta]

You just don't quit do you.

I bet when you were a kid and your mom caught you stealing cookies you denied even though she had you on camera!

You do make me laugh, so carry on.

My mom caught me stealing cookies too, but at least I had an Intel CPU.

[Tiberria]

It all depends on the priority WoW is running at compared to the background progresses.

But, most people are probably not manually messing around with thread priority settings for WoW vs background programs. The nature of the game also gives people the tendency to play in Windowed or Windowed Full Screen and frequently tab out to do other things, play videos on other monitors, etc., even during raids.

- - - Updated - - -

good post, but it's not quite good enough. they tested it by shutting off cores on an i7-5820k. so sure, with an i7-5820k, you get optimal performance from 4 cores for whatever reason, but this tells me nothing about say, a 12 core, an 8 core, an amd ryzen 1700, ect


I'd like to use whatever benchmark tool they used and post my results, but I don't speak .de so I can't quite figure it out

But, sites that run hardware benchmarks are typically running them on totally clean Windows installations with minimal/no additional programs installed so as not to affect the results. It makes sense for them to do this in terms of the fidelity of comparing hardware to other hardware, but it doesn't represent how most people actually use their PCs/play the game. And, something like additional cores for WoW performance is not something that you can really see the value of without running testing with multiple background applications running.

I suspect that most people are bottlenecked if they only have 4 cores/4 threads. 4 core/8 thread processors are probably the sweet spot, with value for the 6c/12t and 8c/16t CPUs with heavy background application use, streaming/recording, etc.

[Gaidax]

Hardly you make it sound as if having browser open with gazillion pages is some sort of CPU strain. It's not and neither is having YouTube or shit like that running in background.

"Heavy background applications" aren't that heavy for modern hardware.

Here I'm at work now, I have open excel spreadsheet, postman, 3 chrome windows with 14 tabs total one of which is messager, VScode, Bitdefender in background with Skype and Task Manager running.

CPU utilization? 2%... And this is a bloody 2/4 laptop 6600U @2.6GHz, it's not even a real quad-core here. And the kicker is that CPU even dynamically underclocks now simply because it's so unused.

I opened FHD 60FPS YouTube video now, utilization 25%. Laptop has no dGPU and runs 3 screens total with dock. CPU clock jumped to 2.4GHz.

In short any decent desktop quad-core I5 can run pretty much everything you want and game at the same time with little issue, no need to make up shit really. These mundane things like chrome and shit take almost nothing CPU wise. You are the one who is going to hit multithreading limit for such tasks before CPU does.

[Deleted]

Hardly you make it sound as if having browser open with gazillion pages is some sort of CPU strain. It's not and neither is having YouTube or shit like that running in background.

"Heavy background applications" aren't that heavy for modern hardware.

Here I'm at work now, I have open excel spreadsheet, postman, 3 chrome windows with 14 tabs total one of which is messager, VScode, Bitdefender in background with Skype and Task Manager running.

CPU utilization? 2%... And this is a bloody 2/4 laptop 6600U @2.6GHz, it's not even a real quad-core here. And the kicker is that CPU even dynamically underclocks now simply because it's so unused.

I opened FHD 60FPS YouTube video now, utilization 25%. Laptop has no dGPU and runs 3 screens total with dock. CPU clock jumped to 2.4GHz.

In short any decent desktop quad-core I5 can run pretty much everything you want and game at the same time with little issue, no need to make up shit really. These mundane things like chrome and shit take almost nothing CPU wise. You are the one who is going to hit multithreading limit for such tasks before CPU does.

Just for fun, run this at 8K on chrome

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChOhcHD8fBA

[Remilia]

Just for fun, run this at 8K on chrome

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChOhcHD8fBA

Lol my internet can't keep up.

CPU rendering utilization goes up to 50-60% with a 5820k, stock clock.

[Gaidax]

Just for fun, run this at 8K on chrome

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChOhcHD8fBA

Clearly represents a realistic background workload when gaming.

70% with 4770 non-K @3.7

[Deleted]

Lol my internet can't keep up.

CPU rendering utilization goes up to 50-60% with a 5820k, stock clock.

Lol something's odd I can play it on my phone?

My phone doesn't have an 8k display of course...

[Remilia]

Lol something's odd I can play it on my phone?

My phone doesn't have an 8k display of course...

CPU rendering.

[mojo6912]

Just for fun, run this at 8K on chrome

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChOhcHD8fBA

50% on ryzen r7. crazy video =P

[Deleted]

Clearly represents a realistic background workload when gaming.

70% with 4770 non-K @3.7

Just to quote you;

'In short any decent desktop quad-core I5 can run pretty much everything you want and game at the same time with little issue, no need to make up shit really'

Fun fact, the video I posted isn't even making shit up.

[Zenfoldor]

Just to be clear, until AMD cpus start to beat Intel CPUs in an applies to applies, core to core IPC test ON LAUNCH, then they should never be recommended for gaming unless the pricepoint for the AMD is significantly under the price point for the Intel.

Even then it should never be recommended to save money on such an important part, but I digress.

Any company can pile a bunch of inferior cores on a big enough piece of silicone. Any company can just stack up a bunch of processors and make a high end "workstation" PC for processing shit that 99% of people don't really care about and the 1% of people who it does affect don't really give a shit anyway, because they would rather have 10% longer coffee break.

At a technological level of judgement, number of cores doesn't matter(number of cores is what you pay for when you pick an sku), what matters is how many calculations per second each of those cores can accomplish.

Intel clearly has the superior technology. They just have bad business practices. They do this on purpose, because they know AMD it taping gamecubes together. If AMD does put out a competitive product, Intel will improve their business practices. If they don't, they won't. You still get what you pay for, and protesting by gimping your rig is not my recommendation to any new builder.

All this "hype" over AMD taping slightly less shit gimp-cores together is what gets in my craw. Honestly, recommending these things to people, imho, should be computer malpractice. Are they superior? No. Then by definition they are inferior. I don't even see the cost savings. What 100 bucks? Minuscule portion of the budget for most important part.

If you want to argue that indeed the Ryzen is NOT inferior and is indeed superior to the Intel line of processors, go ahead, but for gaming at least the benchmarks don't flesh that argument out.