Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday April 11 2017, @08:43AM   Printer-friendly
from the gooder-faster-cheaper dept.

Some Soylentils were disappointed by the gaming performance of AMD's Ryzen CPUs when they were launched last month. By now, updates have eliminated some of the advantage that Intel CPUs had, but the potential gains differ depending on the game:

The first big Ryzen patch was for Ashes of the Singularity. Ryzen's performance in Ashes was arguably one of the more surprising findings in the initial benchmarking. The game has been widely used as a kind of showcase for the advantages of DirectX 12 and the multithreaded scaling that it shows. We spoke to the game's developers, and they told us that its engine splits up the work it has to do between multiple cores automatically.

In general, the Ryzen 1800X performed at about the same level as Intel's Broadwell-E 6900K. Both parts are 8-core, 16-thread chips, and while Broadwell-E has a modest instructions-per-cycle advantage in most workloads, Ryzen's higher clock speed is enough to make up for that deficit. But in Ashes of the Singularity under DirectX 12, the 6900K had average frame rates about 25 percent better than the AMD chip.

In late March, Oxide/Stardock released a Ryzen performance update for Ashes, and it has gone a long way toward closing that gap. PC Perspective tested the update, and depending on graphics settings and memory clock speeds, Ryzen's average frame rate went up by between 17 and 31 percent. The 1800X still trails the 6900K, but now the gap is about 9 percent, or even less with overclocked memory (but we'll talk more about memory later on).


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 11 2017, @10:01AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 11 2017, @10:01AM (#492205)

    Anything without ECC *IS NOT* a workstation chip. It may be classed as 'workstation class performance', but it is not sufficient for a workstation chip. The usualy standard would be dual socket is workstation, quad and above with single system image is server grade. Neither class has qualified without at least parity, before ECC became popular, and during that period, pretty much everything had parity anyways.

    Going off that categorization, the 500 dollar AMD chip is actually a *BETTER* purchase, since it actually supports ECC *AND* overclocking, which on the Intel side is an impossible combination, outside of engineering samples or very unique limited production run chips like the G3258, which AFAIK was the only one off chip to ever contain both features in a single SKU since they moved the memory controller onto the die.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +5  
       Informative=5, Total=5
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 11 2017, @05:40PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 11 2017, @05:40PM (#492376)

    Unless you're prophesizing the imminent arrival of enthusiast-grade (i.e. overclockable) ECC memory, you don't appear to have thought this entirely through.