Ryzen and WoW

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Ryzen is not terrible single core or if you don't OC it. It just isn't as solid as the Intel in both fields. But far far far far from horrible. The FX chips I can put as a horrible chip design. But Ryzen? No. Its advantages is in bang for buck, good performance, and more cores (although not many take advantage) from a gaming perspective. But that doesn't mean you are getting absolute shit for that bang. Its MORE than good enough for WoW and just about any other game. Some its even better. The gap isn't really that huge. Truth be told this debate between the two is pretty silly at this degree.

[Gray_Matter]

Any Ryzen (except Ryzen Threadripper) is terrible if you dont OC it.

The OC'd 1600X is no more than 5% faster than the stock 1600X according to GN. It's also between 10% and 20% less than the OC'd 7700K according to them. I don't get how that's terrible.

Any Ryzen (except Ryzen Threadripper) is terrible if you dont OC it. Also, 40% more for 20% more performance is pretty good, if we're sticking solely to the value ratings noone should buy anything other than G4560 and GTX 1050 Ti, which sounds pretty stupid.

Not at all. That extra money could be the difference between a 1070 and a 1080 or a 1080 and 1080ti. Obviously different people have different budgets so they should get what's best for their budget. If that budget is only the CPU then that's one thing but it could include other parts of the PC that would benefit more from the difference between the 2 CPU's.

That $150 odd difference between a 1600X and a 7700K could easily give a person enough cash to get a 1080 instead of a 1070, etc.

Obviously if one has an unlimited budget then it's a different story but most people don't.

[Thunderball]

The OC'd 1600X is no more than 5% faster than the stock 1600X according to GN. It's also between 10% and 20% less than the OC'd 7700K according to them. I don't get how that's terrible.

Stock 1600X is slower than a 7600K in gaming while being more expensive, how is it not terrible?

Not at all. That extra money could be the difference between a 1070 and a 1080 or a 1080 and 1080ti. Obviously different people have different budgets so they should get what's best for their budget. If that budget is only the CPU then that's one thing but it could include other parts of the PC that would benefit more from the difference between the 2 CPU's.

That $150 odd difference between a 1600X and a 7700K could easily give a person enough cash to get a 1080 instead of a 1070, etc.

Obviously if one has an unlimited budget then it's a different story but most people don't.

Sure, a valid point, although difference between 1070 and 1080 is $50 at most, difference between 1080 and 1080ti is there. However, if you're going for a 1080ti you're probably going for a higher resolution rather than 1080p, where the CPU is largely irrelevant and 7700K buy wont make any sense.

[mrgreenthump]

Stock 1600X is slower than a 7600K in gaming while being more expensive, how is it not terrible?

Then you look at motherboard costs, and suddenly the 7600K turns out to be more expensive. Also people buying 6+ cores aren't thinking about gaming only performance.. Or at least shouldn't be.

[Evildeffy]

Then you look at motherboard costs, and suddenly the 7600K turns out to be more expensive. Also people buying 6+ cores aren't thinking about gaming only performance.. Or at least shouldn't be.

Actually the 1600X is faster in any more recent game (~2015 barring GTA) than the 7600K without issue.
If you really look at the numbers you'll see that older games, like WoW and GTA 5 which is just a mess, create a huge gap where other games are running just fine.

Hell even in Rise of the Tomb Raider the 1600X is faster than the 7600K.
But I doubt I'll be believed regardless so here's a recent example: Click me!

A statement from anyone objective that says the Ryzen 5 1600X is slower and therefore terrible is an utterly stupid statement.

"Oh I only play WoW" - OK I can understand that, still doesn't really lose out to the Intel 7600K at stock speeds.
"Oh I only play Game X, Y and Z which are former AAA-games etc." Yeah and will you not play current and future AAA games? No, Intel 7600K does not win those vs. Ryzen 5 1600X no matter how much you'd like it to be winning.
"Oh I only play small indie games on STEAM" - Really? REALLY? You're going to be crapping out more FPS than any monitor on the planet can show you, who gives a flying f*ck if you get 600 instead of 660 FPS?

I've heard all of the above mentioned arguments before, the last one is especially it's own kind of retarded.
If the above was replaced with 7700K then I'd agree but it's not and the 7600K's loss of HT is actually noticable.

[Kagthul]

Then you look at motherboard costs, and suddenly the 7600K turns out to be more expensive. Also people buying 6+ cores aren't thinking about gaming only performance.. Or at least shouldn't be.

PCPartPicker part list: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/qb9fVY
Price breakdown by merchant: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/qb9fVY/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel - Core i5-7600K 3.8GHz Quad-Core Processor ($221.89 @ OutletPC)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master - Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($28.89 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: MSI - Z270-A PRO ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($99.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $350.77
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-09-02 08:09 EDT-0400

PCPartPicker part list: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/sR6ppb
Price breakdown by merchant: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/sR6ppb/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 5 1600X 3.6GHz 6-Core Processor ($226.28 @ OutletPC)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master - Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($28.89 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: MSI - B350M MORTAR Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard ($86.89 @ OutletPC)
Total: $342.06
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-09-02 08:10 EDT-0400

Prices seem fairly comparable to me. Yes, you could get another ~10$ cheaper on the Ryzen build with a cheaper B350 board, but even then we're not talking night and day, and those cheaper boards are, well.... cheaper. The Mortar is a good solid board, and more comparable to the Z270A PRO.

Not really saying you should buy one over the other, merely that the prices arent far apart at all.

[mrgreenthump]

Prices seem fairly comparable to me. Yes, you could get another ~10$ cheaper on the Ryzen build with a cheaper B350 board, but even then we're not talking night and day, and those cheaper boards are, well.... cheaper. The Mortar is a good solid board, and more comparable to the Z270A PRO.

Not really saying you should buy one over the other, merely that the prices arent far apart at all.

I know it's really close.. But it always just annoys me, when price comparisons are done without taking into account the whole price of the ecosystem. Be it computers or anything else.

[Gray_Matter]

Stock 1600X is slower than a 7600K in gaming while being more expensive, how is it not terrible?

The 1600X is much more future proof. If more cores weren't relevant then Intel wouldn't be releasing Coffee Lake. There is value for that extra money. You also need to remember that's an overclocked 7600K. The cooling costs more as does the motherboard and goes to my original story that most users don't OC. In addition, when you start looking at the newer games then the stock 1600X even beats the OC'd 7600K in some games.

Terrible is not 10% slower. Terrible means really bad. You can say that other processors offer better value for money and that might be relevant but to say that they are terrible is just false. You can't say that a 7600K is good for gaming and then, in the next breath say that the 1600X is terrible when it's 20% slower, at most, in some old games.

There is a reason why most places now have all of the middle CPU recommendations as Ryzen processors with just baby Pentium and very top end going to Intel. That doesn't mean that the 7600K is terrible either. It just offers less value for money in the long run. Intel will certainly come to the party going forward.

I just don't get all of these people saying that this Ryzen or that one is terrible. They faster than my daughters CPU's and they can play games without any issues. That's not terrible. That's good. It may not be the fastest but that doesn't make it terrible.

Here is a recent chart of Mindfactory CPU sales over the last few months that will give you an idea how things are changing. At the top, the 7700K is still doing really well. The squeeze has happened on the i5 side. It's not that they aren't good processors, it's just that they don't cater for the future enough.

https://i.imgur.com/DJ86sGc.png

Most of the CPU's on that chart are very good for gaming. A few are excellent. None of them are terrible. There are a couple that aren't great but still usable.

- - - Updated - - -

Not really saying you should buy one over the other, merely that the prices arent far apart at all.

Let me start by saying that, in most cases, Intel CPU's are going to win out in WOW in terms of FPS. That said, if you play any other games as well it becomes a bit more complex.

If your budget is $350 then what you have above is a fair comparison but in terms of modern games the 7600K will start losing out. The issue becomes more complex when people include a GFX card. You might be able to get a 7700K and a 1080 vs a 1600X and a 1080ti as a simple comparison. Which is going to be better? Unfortunately, most places benchmark only the CPU's or only the GFX cards. They don't benchmark on a budget.

[potis]

How many people OC? I don't and have 5 PC's at the house. The number of people who OC is a very small percentage of people. You just have to half mutter the "voids warranty" and people will run a mile.

That, and cost is an issue too. If I am paying 40% more for a 20% performance increase then it's not worthwhile.

But it doesnt work that way.

Sure, pre-Hawell periods maybe but now people understand.

You simply explain "Your budget fits the best for what you want, want it?"

And they simply go for it, there is no reason to OC anything, when 4790k/6700k/7700K and as it seems the whole 8 series, is already clocked very high for the average consumer.

As long as the magic word "budget" is in their brain.

With the 8 series and their default clockings, Ryzen is dead for WoW, not because they are bad, they are excellent and i will still recommend them if their pricing remains low, and will go lower as AMD always does for multi-purpose gaming builds.

3.8 on 8400? 4.3 on 8700k with 4.7 rumored turbo mode on core 1? Which means 4.0Ghz on 8600K and 8500 proobably with turbo at 4.2-4.4?

How exactly can the 'You need to OC to 4Ghz" Ryzen will counter that?

Since, after the usual bullshit about extra future proof cores (okay ) its gonna have 6-cores too all over the place.

How does the 3.2Ghz, 3.6Ghz counter the 3.8Ghz with the same price and better IPC? Cause i doublt 8400 is gonna be more expensive than those, 8600K mybe 20$ more expensive.

[Courierrawr]

Sadly, many are. They claim those extra cores will boost their shit in five years.

LOL! I bet you were one of the idiots in 2012 saying not to buy a 2500k because 2 cores is all you need for games, no games ever gonna use 4 cores guys!!! We all saw how that turned out.

Here are some facts for you.

1. Games that get a performance boost from six cores exist today.

2. Game support for six cores is only going to improve from here on out.

3. Six cores are going to become the standard this year. Thank fuck Intel finally manned up.

[beast6228]

Ryzen and WoW is a great combination, but remember, no matter which cpu you have, if you want to play WoW at it's full potential, You MUST have a monitor that supports Freesync or G-sync. I currently have a 7700k and a 1080, but I also have two Freesync monitors, which means no adaptive sync for me and crappy dips in performance. (Playing at 1440p / 144Hz flawlessly is not possible) With that said, my previous video card was an R9 Fury and the performance with the Freesync monitors and the 7700k was near perfect, smooth as silk. So, while CPU power is important in WoW, Adaptive sync is more important. Sure, V-sync is a small bandaid, but then comes the little annoyances such as input lag and that can drive anyone nuts, especially for someone like me that likes my games to run perfect and if you have ever played at 1440p / 144Hz (or higher) and then going back to 1080Hz / 60Hz or around those frequencies makes you want to tear your eyes out.

[Courierrawr]

Roflmao. I bet you are one of those people who has never coded multithreaded applications before.

And that's relevant how? Open your eyes, multithreaded optimization in games has been improving year after year. Hell it's not even limited to games, multithreading in applications is becoming more common too.

[Gray_Matter]

Roflmao. I bet you are one of those people who has never coded multithreaded applications before.

I am a developer who regularly does multi-threaded development. What does that have to do with the price of eggs? Does that mean that I am the only one who is allowed to comment on it? It's one of the hardest types of development that you can do but these days developers are insulated from a lot of that pain.

My previous statement was incorrect. The 1600X is about 10% - 20% slower than a OC'd 7700K, on average. It's pretty close to the 7600K when you average across multiple games.

Let me ask you this. If a 1600X beats a 7600K in Ashes, despite the IPC advantage, doesn't that mean that it's making use of more cores? On the other hand, with games like WOW and Metro: Last Light, the 7600K is ahead. In the post that I quoted you are attacking the man, and not the ball. There are games (e.g. Ashes) that make use of more than 4 cores that are out at the moment. If you look at the trend, more and more games will make use of more than 4 cores in the future. Those are undeniable facts.

[mrgreenthump]

Roflmao. I bet you are one of those people who has never coded multithreaded applications before.

And you are acting like it's magic. Yes, it's not as easy as putting a gameobject into unity and giving it some parameters and commands, but do you think multithreading is the only hard part in game development?

There are high level abstractions nowdays, like thread pool, that we tend to use rather than actually creating a thread on the CPU. In games though it may still be a bit better to create an actual separately running thread in some situations.

[Courierrawr]

It actually has barely crawled along. The majority of games don't come near using 4 threads efficiently, let alone 12+.

The majority of games?

Yeah, if we go by that shitty metric it is crawling along, because that includes all the 2D indie games and Unity asset flips that flood the market every year.

But if we talk about the games that actually matter, the ones bought and played by millions every year, then multithread utilization has improved dramatically over these last five years and it is only going to improve further.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I'm just under no illusions that it, by far, has the most overhead of anything you do in developing a game(from the coding side) which is why it's not a priority for the majority of studios. The ROI is simply too low.

It's not 1998! Modern games are incredibly complex, the ROI on multithreading is huge. In fact on consoles it's mandatory to make your game as multithreaded as possible because the Xbone and PS4 have 8 (6 available to devs) shitty cores, good luck trying get any modern AAA game to run purely single threaded in that scenario.

[Kuntantee]

And you are acting like it's magic. Yes, it's not as easy as putting a gameobject into unity and giving it some parameters and commands, but do you think multithreading is the only hard part in game development?

There are high level abstractions nowdays, like thread pool, that we tend to use rather than actually creating a thread on the CPU. In games though it may still be a bit better to create an actual separately running thread in some situations.

Creating sophisticated multi-threaded applications is one of the hardest things in software engineering. Creating threads/pooling threads/tasks is not the actual difficulty, it's the synchronization and other potential non-secure code that can cause troubles. There is a trade-off between aggressively parallelizing your code, and increasing security risks while maintaining an increased throughput.

Everyone can launch a thread and run a non-dependent tasks in parallel, but that's not a kind of case which occurs on real life. I am pretty sure that is not the case in gaming industry as well. I am not a game developer, but if multi-threading is not that common in the industry, it's either because

1 - it's hard to develop
2 - the nature of the task is not suitable for multi-threading (aka you do not gain increased efficiency by using more threads)

[Gray_Matter]

No, I'm just under no illusions that it, by far, has the most overhead of anything you do in developing a game(from the coding side) which is why it's not a priority for the majority of studios. The ROI is simply too low.

The overhead required to properly multithread a game is still incredibly high. The return you get for that time invested is incredibly low. Hence, the lack of focus on multithreading in games(beyond the basics of what's needed).

Until recently there was definitely a lack of focus. That's because it was easy to just let Intel or AMD make some strides in IPC and you would get the benefit without lifting a finger. That's been changing for a while now because the improvements are much more marginal. The way to eek more processing now is to expand outwards. Some games are already doing it. Please don't get me wrong. Games like WOW are almost certainly not going to use more cores than they are using now. You will see it from newer games. They already get the benefit now. According to the latest Steam survey, almost 60% of CPU's have at least 4 CPU's. That's a big market.

We can even ignore the games themselves. People don't just play a game on their PC and do nothing else. I have a tough time trying to convince my daughter that it's not a good idea to play one game, have a background moving playing and also have 2 other games paused. In a way I agree with her. She shouldn't have to adapt. I'm getting her a 1600 because it's good value for money and I know it will last for a good few years.

I just don't see the point in buying a CPU with less than 6 cores if you want to hold onto that CPU for more than 2 years. It doesn't matter if it's an Intel or AMD CPU. Just cover your bases. If you are going to replace your machine in the next 2 years then there is a good argument for getting something like a 7700K. Top notch performance and enough cores for most things. Provided you aren't doing streaming or something like that.

- - - Updated - - -

Creating sophisticated multi-threaded applications is one of the hardest things in software engineering. Creating threads/pooling threads/tasks is not the actual difficulty, it's the synchronization and other potential non-secure code that can cause troubles. There is a trade-off between aggressively parallelizing your code, and increasing security risks while maintaining an increased throughput.

Everyone can launch a thread and run a non-dependent tasks in parallel, but that's not a kind of case which occurs on real life. I am pretty sure that is not the case in gaming industry as well. I am not a game developer, but if multi-threading is not that common in the industry, it's either because

1 - it's hard to develop
2 - the nature of the task is not suitable for multi-threading (aka you do not gain increased efficiency by using more threads)

Yes. This is partially correct. In the early days using threads meant something like printing in the background. Those sorts of tasks now are common place and there are lots of libraries to automate those. You don't need to parallelize everything. You have to pick your battles. You can go the route of Ashes and stick everything in threads or you can pick small pieces of code that are taking a long time and use thread pools. Most of these calculations are already working on vectors. The primary rule of threading is that you can't write to something in one thread and read or write to the same thing in a different thread. That creates a race condition. What you can do is take a single vector and do a series of calculations on it with different threads working on different portions of the vector. That will give you a linear speed improvement. 8 cores will be an 800% performance improvement. It's certainly not easy but there are easy wins like that.

[Wildpantz]

A ryzen 1700 is not enthusiast hardware that middle of the pack. Wow care about cpu speed more then anything i get higher fps on ny stream pc i7 4790k at 4.9ghz with 1 1080 then i get on my 5960x at 4.5 with sli 1080 ti

[Deleted]

Yeah I think the value for the Ryzen 1700 certainly helps. I got the i7 3770k back in the day due to the extra threads. Makes sense I went Ryzen this time as i get a small single threaded upgrade and massive multi threaded upgrade.

Its a good cpu. Cool and efficient to run at 1800x levels with a single tower cooler. Great multi tasker. Streaming, media serving, steambox, browsing, email, background apps etc. doesnt matter. They all run together. Helps benchmarks were good. I believe the results are better now this summer vs launch. Not to mention benchmarks use clean windows images.

Its like a slightly faster full free second i7 built in, literally. Nice upgrade for me.

[Kuntantee]

Yes. This is partially correct. In the early days using threads meant something like printing in the background. Those sorts of tasks now are common place and there are lots of libraries to automate those. You don't need to parallelize everything. You have to pick your battles. You can go the route of Ashes and stick everything in threads or you can pick small pieces of code that are taking a long time and use thread pools. Most of these calculations are already working on vectors. The primary rule of threading is that you can't write to something in one thread and read or write to the same thing in a different thread. That creates a race condition. What you can do is take a single vector and do a series of calculations on it with different threads working on different portions of the vector. That will give you a linear speed improvement. 8 cores will be an 800% performance improvement. It's certainly not easy but there are easy wins like that.

I wonder which part is incorrect. And as I said, in cases of non-dependent tasks, multi-threading is easy, the problems rise when you are dealing with highly intermingled execution paths.