We need AMD Ryzen Benchmarks! Share your toughts!

[Heimer Dinger 0]

With Skylake-X and Broadwell-X also coming fast with more than 4 Cores I would really like to see a Statement from BIS how future HW Support and Utilisation will look.

[Housesparrow 8]

This is what it looks like in task manager after having played Arma 3 Sa-Matra's Wasteland:

 

(Btw I am using a 250GB Samsung 960 evo M.2 SSD on the mobo, I have no other storage devices installed atm)

 

 

[VidKo 0]

Hey guys!

 

Currently having a temporary cpu (Intel i5-6440, 4x 3.20GHz) paired with 8GB DDR3 memory and a Radeon R9 290 4GB graphics. I'm thinking of upgrading and the ryzen cpus are really tempting. I use my rig for work as well. The only games I currently play are Dayz Mod for Arma 2, Arma 3 and Witcher 3. From your experience, does Arma 3 run good enough on Ryzen 1500X or should I go for 1600X?

[funyun 12]

23 hours ago, VidKo said:

Hey guys!

 

Currently having a temporary cpu (Intel i5-6440, 4x 3.20GHz) paired with 8GB DDR3 memory and a Radeon R9 290 4GB graphics. I'm thinking of upgrading and the ryzen cpus are really tempting. I use my rig for work as well. The only games I currently play are Dayz Mod for Arma 2, Arma 3 and Witcher 3. From your experience, does Arma 3 run good enough on Ryzen 1500X or should I go for 1600X?

 

As the post above yours indicates, ARMA uses 1 core/thread only.  So the CPU with the fastest single core performance is what you want, which is pretty much nothing from AMD.

 

So much wasted potential, the bones of this game are archaic.

[maquez 141]

there is a reason why only ~20% of steam users do use AMD CPU's: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/processormfg/

AMD is a good CPU for home office, but badest choice you can do for gaming.

 

have a look at different game forums, I suspect 80% of the people that do claim about performance problems there are probably AMD users.

 

On 15.5.2017 at 7:48 PM, VidKo said:

Hey guys!

 

Currently having a temporary cpu (Intel i5-6440, 4x 3.20GHz) paired with 8GB DDR3 memory and a Radeon R9 290 4GB graphics. I'm thinking of upgrading and the ryzen cpus are really tempting. I use my rig for work as well. The only games I currently play are Dayz Mod for Arma 2, Arma 3 and Witcher 3. From your experience, does Arma 3 run good enough on Ryzen 1500X or should I go for 1600X?

 you better stick with that Intel CPU

 

btw, there are barely any games that do use more than one core of a CPU

 

Intels advantage over AMD is his very good single core performance and that Intel can handle two threads per core at the same time.

[Mahatma Gandhi 29]

1 hour ago, maquez said:

.... and that Intel can handle two threads per core at the same time.

 

And thats something AMDs Ryzen cannot?

[maquez 141]

35 minutes ago, Mahatma Gandhi said:

 

And thats something AMDs Ryzen cannot?

 

I do not know really well all the features of the Ryzen,

fact is that AMD lacked this feature for years...

[Mahatma Gandhi 29]

1 minute ago, maquez said:

 

I do not know really well all the features of the Ryzen,

fact is that AMD lacked this feature for years...

Maybe you wanna update you knowledge before you post such hard statements, things changed substantially since the realease of the Ryzen μArch. Not only regarding threading but also regarding single thread performance.

[maquez 141]

second fact is they do beat skylarke CPU's in no way as predicted when Ryzen got announced... (/irony off)

 

no need for that, never in my life I will buy anymore any AMD CPU

did this mistake once few years ago that's enough

[Mahatma Gandhi 29]

21 minutes ago, maquez said:

no need for that, never in my life I will buy anymore any AMD CPU

 

Fair enough, but your experiences from several years back do not match nowadays situation and as long as you don't know better, there is no justification for telling people incorrect things as a fact.

 

I took a screenshot of the latest version of the CPU-Z Bench (1.79) just for YOU, so you can compare to your system by simply downloading CPU-Z.

 

 

Best,

 

Mahatma

 

P.S.: A Skylake 6700k has 455 in the single thread bench and 2363 in the multi thread bench.

[maquez 141]

35 minutes ago, Mahatma Gandhi said:

 

Fair enough, but your experiences from several years back do not match nowadays situation and as long as you don't know better, there is no justification for telling people incorrect things as a fact.

 

I took a screenshot of the latest version of the CPU-Z Bench (1.79) just for YOU, so you can compare to your system by simply downloading CPU-Z.

 

 

Best,

 

Mahatma

 

P.S.: A Skylake 6700k has 455 in the single thread bench and 2363 in the multi thread bench.

 

bullshit ... sorry

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1gWUNu0kwK1bjNYVGI2R0xlZnc

 

I get,

Single Thread: 2110

Multi Thread: 9450

[Mahatma Gandhi 29]

Just now, maquez said:

 

bullshit ... sorry

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1gWUNu0kwK1bjNYVGI2R0xlZnc

 

You have to compare identical Versions of CPU-Z

 

You used 1.78 I can use that too but you would be very disappointed with your result!

 

Et voila:

 

[maquez 141]

still bullshit... getting same results with 1.79

 

version of software won't change the fact that Ryzen is a fail

[Mahatma Gandhi 29]

Just now, maquez said:

still bullshit... getting same results with 1.79

 

version of software won't change the fact that Ryzen is a fail

 

That's not true and you know it. Why are you coming up with this maquez? I benched it on 1.78 too (see above) and your result looks pretty poor in comparison.

[maquez 141]

okay buddy ... stay happy with your ryzen and keep your pink glasses on

 

I have no problem with my CPU and can run multiplayer with average 60 fps with all settings on ultra

 

you still don't get that.... there are barely any games that do take advantages from multicore performance

and sadly but true AMD still sucks concerning it's singlecore performance

 

btw, I see here many YAAB benchmarkes and have my laugh about how bad they perform compared to my results

 

over and out now

[Mahatma Gandhi 29]

37 minutes ago, maquez said:

I have no problem with my CPU and can run multiplayer with average 60 fps with all settings on ultra

 

Of course you don't have any problems as your 6700k is a pretty powerful CPU. The only thing I am telling you is, that you should not tell people wrong things just because you don't like AMD or do not know better. Nobody forces you to buy their products if you don't like them... 

 

Ryzen is not slower than Skylake/Kabylake clock by clock in single threaded Applications and is significantly faster in the vast majority of multithreaded applications. Its a convenient buy on a brand new plattform. Other than personal preferences, there is no good argument against it.

 

EDIT: 

37 minutes ago, maquez said:

and sadly but true AMD still sucks concerning it's singlecore performance

 

I have no words.... We just benched and yours was slower.

 

Well than... live long and prosper!

[draakon 11]

14 hours ago, maquez said:

you still don't get that.... there are barely any games that do take advantages from multicore performance

 

I don't know what rock you have been living under, but at least on the Triple A front there is a large selection of games that are multi-threaded.

[VidKo 0]

All I wanted to know if Arma 3 will run good enough on Ryzen 1500X or should I go for 1600X/1600?. I'll use 16GB of 3200 DDR4 and a R9 290 4Gb graphics.

 

I do know in fact that Arma runs better on Intel but that's not the point here.

[heavygunner 179]

Take the 1500x for Arma, the others won't give you more FPS.

[domokun 515]

1 hour ago, heavygunner said:

Take the 1500x for Arma, the others won't give you more FPS.

That's not strictly true (1600X will deliver 5-10% more performance)

To be fair though, PC Lab were testing with a GTX 1080 and IO Tech with a 1080 Ti.

So given the $70 (+37%) difference in price, I'd agree with opting for the 1500x.

But I'd also add that it's worth try getting fast RAM (DDR4-2800 seems to be the sweet spot right now).

Finally, ensure that you grab an SSD with enough space of Windows and Arma (240 GB min).

[djotacon 190]

Sadly posting something good about RYZEN is a calling out to all the  trolls to spreading nonsense or trying derailing threads with more emphasis.

 

Domokun can you post a recent arma 3 with the new bios and ram?, because this YAAB test was posted:

 

"2/3/2017 at 9:10 PM, Greenfist said: "

 

I think right now the results will be diferent.

 

 

[Niktus Acid 0]

This matter is fairly easy actually, from my point of view.
If you only want to play games, and specially Arma... right now, buy an i7 7700k
If besides playing games, you do lots of other things... then buy a Ryzen

 

I always push the FPS limits with my custom missions in Arma with my good old FX8350 / GTX970 and I can't handle much more than 120 AI and not more than 5 or 6 vehicles/tanks/choppers at the same time in a constant war scenario. That is my absolute limit of a good warfare without caching units. (the day that Arma engine can support multiple threads will be glorious)

Before Ryzen appeared this year I was considering switch to Intel on my next rig, but now I'm seriously consider a Ryzen rig as the more I read, the more I realize that they are a hell of CPUs specially for the money.
I'm also having great expectations for Radeon Vega price/performance ratio.
I'm not a fanboy... but I really hope AMD to succeed this year with its new technologies as that's the only way everybody can benefit from price drops / technology improvements.

[djotacon 190]

11 hours ago, Niktus Acid said:

This matter is fairly easy actually, from my point of view.
If you only want to play games, and specially Arma... right now, buy an i7 7700k

 

 

Again and again the same posting trying to derail the thread.

 

This post is related to the ryzen performance and if someone has another interesting point of view - or and endless debate  - please open another thread.

[Heimer Dinger 0]

On 17.5.2017 at 10:34 PM, maquez said:

 

I do not know really well all the features of the Ryzen,

fact is that AMD lacked this feature for years...

 

If you don't know the features you better stop saying Ryzen is a bad CPU. It's defently not.

The main Probelm with performance in Arma 3 is the old and crappy Engine itself. Also you won't have any CPU issue aboth 1080p resolution due GFX is taking over most Tasks.

 

It's the missing Engine compatibilty. BIS Dev keep quiet about this and push DLC's for a old Game to grab some cash for a Arma 4 with Multicore Support. Already forgot... this game was 32bit only not a long time ago..

You wont get hight FPS in Arma 3 no matter what Rig you buy specially in KotH or other bigger Simulations. It's a pretty much outdated game regarding new Technologies.

 

If you want to let your Ryzen shine, you wait for optimized Titels like S:C or BF1.. Those already support Multicore Ryzen Technology very well.

[Housesparrow 8]

Btw, I run 2x8 GB G.skill Flare-X (3200) ram, at these settings, which is also stable for me (using newer 1401 bios):

 

At present time, I am not sure if running my ram like this at 3333 Mhz is performing better in Arma 3, than some improved 3200MHz settings I also have been using (also stable).

 

 

Update: Apparently, I have a cold boot issue with running 3333MHz with 1401 bios.