Jump to content
clawhammer

We need AMD Ryzen Benchmarks! Share your toughts!

Recommended Posts

I built my ryzen system and it seems something gone wrong?

What I need to improve to get at least 44 frames? I think RAM timings are the case, maybe I should try 2933 CL15?

 

full specs:

Ryzen 2600 non-oc (boosts up to 3.9GHz anyway, my mobo (ASRock B450 Pro4) probably won't overclock it beyond 4GHz)

RX580 8GB Nitro+

16GB 2x8GB CMK16GX4M2D3000C16W (16-20-20-38 timings, hynix chips)

Arma is on Crucial MX500 M.2 SATA 250GB SSD along with Windows

 

No mods were launched, pressed "s" for standard settings.

 

4gbDcuEEytU.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maxz85 said:

I built my ryzen system and it seems something gone wrong?

16GB 2x8GB CMK16GX4M2D3000C16W (16-20-20-38 timings, hynix chips)

 

You simply bought the wrong RAMs. You are lightyears away from what I have with 3600MHz CL15-14-15-14-26-40 + short subtimings.

 

This is how ArmA3 scales with RAM on a 2700x Ryzen:

 

arma-png0xj2n.png

 

Best option if you want to get max performance is to sell them and get 3200MHz CL14 FlareX and optimize timings.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mahatma Gandhi said:

 

You simply bought the wrong RAMs. You are lightyears away from what I have with 3600MHz CL15-14-15-14-26-40 + short subtimings.

 

This is how ArmA3 scales with RAM on a 2700x Ryzen:

 

arma-png0xj2n.png

 

Best option if you want better performance is to sell them and get 3200MHz CL14 FlareX and optimize timings.

 

 

 

 

Damn, too expensive for my blood, those kits cost around 300$ in my country.

 

0LYt8O41Peg.jpg

 

Getting timings down (15-18-18-36) got me 38.3, I guess I will tinker with my RAM more and try to get something like stable 40fps, 45fps (I hope) if possible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which preset are you guys using ? With ULTRA i get 32FPS and with low iam around 43FPS

 

Iam using Ryzen 2700x + RTX 2080.

This is the ram that i use: 2x -> F4-3200C16D-16GVKB (16-18-18-38) @2800mhz

 

Its horror that the i7 4790k i bought 2014 gets the same fps...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Still testing the Ryzen 3 2200G as one "Minimum Recommended" nominate,

 

k91g0nfh.jpg

 

You can get the full story here : Playing Arma3 on an AMD R3 2200G APU ...

Using my own parameters settings in game along the Old Bear method ™, I had played RX 550 in "High/Very High", RX 460 in "Very High" and RX 570 in "Ultra" always in 1080p.

Nevertheless, while playing Visibility > Overall  is set to  2200m as given by autodetect  due to this CPU limitations.

"Standard settings" in YAAB  are only limiting some parameters [View distance 1600m, ObjectsVD 1300m, shadows 100m, terrain details Standard] for the sake of comparison in allowing small rig to undergo the bench.

 

Edited by oldbear
English is not my maternal language, but you had already get it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2019 at 7:32 PM, clawhammer said:

Which preset are you guys using ? With ULTRA i get 32FPS and with low iam around 43FPS

 

Iam using Ryzen 2700x + RTX 2080.

This is the ram that i use: 2x -> F4-3200C16D-16GVKB (16-18-18-38) @2800mhz

 

Clawhammer,

 

the RAM is your only problem! I get 58FPS in YAAB with standard preset on a 2600x + RX470 + @3600MHz RAM.

 

Either get your RAM frequency up or toss the RAM and get some good one. Slow mem like yours is your worst enemy in the yaab benchmark.

 

I use the 3200MHz CL14 G.Skill FlareX 2x8gb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

First YAAB runs with R5 3600X / RX 570 bench rig :

 

8oYTeywl.jpg

 

Test setup : Asus TUF B450M Pro Gaming/AMD R5 3600x + Wraith Prism rev A/AMD RX 570 4GB/16 (2x8) Corsair Vengeance LP 3200Mhz/ Samsung 970 EVO NMVe 500GB.

 

In game, performance and feeling are pretty close to what I experienced with my #1 gaming rig Asus Prime Z270-A/ Intel i7 7700K/GTX 1060 6GB/16 (2x8) GSKill Trident Z 3200Mhz/ Samsung 970 EVO NMVe 500GB.

 

Edited by oldbear
English is not my maternal language, but you had already get it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@oldbearwhat are the timings on that memory ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dwarden 16-18-18-36

R5 2600X 16 GB 3600 MHz 15-15-14-28-160-1T + RX 470 = 58.3 FPS 1080p standard

vs.

R5 3600X 16 GB 3200 MHz 16-18-18-36-xxx-1T + RX 570 = 52.8 FPS 1080p standard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not bad at all i must say , even with that latency

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I will add some screens about the latest YAAB run in full "Standard" settings figures

 

HCCWtCQl.jpg

 

and "en même temps" the tools point of view

 

DDJCCEal.jpg

 

Nearly all is out of the box default parameters, the only change is having enabled RAM profile in order to get the 3200 MHz frequency.

I am not a big fan of overclocking, that why I had choose to get a R5 3600X over a R5 3600 to be clocked.

I know from what I had previously read here on  AMD Blog  and there that AMD: Ryzen 3000-Series CPUs Lack Manual Overclocking Headroom and I must admit that I prefer to create missions and play than to extract the latest FPS from a reluctant CPU 😎

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Updated your rig specs in YAAB results list.

Not included ultra results, because you're in GPU limit with RX 570, which wouldn't reflect correctly possible FPS with this CPU and RAM at this graphics preset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Groove_C

I dont clearly understand why you skip out RX 570 for "Ultra" settings for information sake.

You can play and enjoy Arma3 in Ultra Quality in 1080p using a RX 570 (and probably a GTX 1650Ti) without bottleneck if you use an efficient and powerful processor.

Of course, the performance will be better with a more powerful graphics card, in this case to accompany the R5 3600X, a RX 5700 would be a good choice.
From my point of view, this is not a competition, but collecting information to allow players or future players to know what to expect.
Not everyone can afford to buy or upgrade a configuration at once. A lot of players buy used PCs or sales.

 

Back to bench marking 😐

As you asked ... CapFrameX Frametimes [deleted]

and CapFrameX FPS ...[deleted]

 

 

Edited by oldbear
Mistaken screens deleted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@oldbear

You need to press F12 in CapFrameX when in YAAB it says "BENCHMARKING STARTED" and need to press F12 again when in YAAB it says "BENCHMARKING FINISHED".

The easiest way is to set in CapFrameX "Capture time in seconds: 139". And it will finish capturing frames itself after this time i nseconds. No need to press F12 again. Only first time when YAAB says "BENCHMARKING STARTED".
uu1nk1z.jpgarma3_x642019-07-31227rkic.jpg

 

I will then add 1080p ultra result, but you have to understand that there's still a lot of people, that can think, that FPS is lower mostly because of AMD CPU and not because of the RAM and GPU limit for given resolution, which is not the case anymore with Zen 2 (like it was with FX/Athlon/Phenom).

Otherwise, the statement, that overall FPS is lower because of complete system (CPU+RAM+GPU) would be correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I did the timing on an external device and I did not understand why I had to stop at 139s in the middle of the bench. 😏

Poor understanding of the instructions from me, my mistake!

However, I do not quite understand how to reject the lowest results can convince anyone that AMD processors are now in the race

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@oldbear look at my right screenshot. There you can see that YAAB takes always exactly 139 seconds from start to finish.

With less FPS, it processes less frames, but it always takes exactly 139 seconds from start to finish.

You must start to count 139 seconds exactly from the moment YAAB says "BENCHMARING STARTED". Not from when you seen the proposition on the screen to press "S".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry to say that I am unable to understand how this frametimes graph can tell something to J.Doe, it does not tell me anything special, it just look as an inverted version of the FPS one ...

FPS graph is identical to YAAB usual current graph and do prefer the black background.

Probably because I am a dumb old animal 😓

Nevertheless done it again following the recipe. I hope I get it right this time :

a - frametimes

 

o1rraQ5h.jpg

 

b - fps

bg9YwKhh.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@oldbear Frametimes graph tells you, how stable/constant the delivery of frames is, one after the other.

In your case it takes from like 10 ms to sometimes more than 30 ms, which can feel/look stuttery when the difference in ms is very high, despite good or very good FPS.

For example if you have 10 ms between 2 frames, then 35 ms between 2 frames and 20 ms beween 2 frames, it feels/looks stuttery.

On the other hand, if between 2 frames you have 10 ms, 15 ms and 13 ms, it looks/feels much smoother (not faster, because it's not FPS).

You can also have much higher time between 2 frames, like 23 ms, 30 ms and 27 ms, but it will still feel/look much smoother than 10 ms, 35 ms and 20 ms.

So imagine a straight line and the graph should trying to stay as close as possible to it, to look as flat as possible.

The flatter - the smoother game experience, whatever the FPS, as long as FPS is more than just playable.

 

Like here.
On the left image you see less FPS, but the graph is more stable/constant/calm, resulting in better game experience, despite lower FPS.

On the right image you see jumps to more FPS, but the graph is less stable/constant/calm, resulting in worse game experience, despite higher FPS.

uurdjc3.jpg uuuuijf3.jpg

 

You need to look how much time it takes to deliver each frame (lower=better), how big is the difference and how often the difference is big or very big.

What is good is: less ms for each frame delivery, less ms difference between each delivery and this difference as rare as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@oldbear  Would be nice to see screenshots in full screen window mode.

unnnh1knb.jpg

 

Because it's very difficult to analyze small important peaks/details on screenshots with reduced window mode.

unnkzkl4.jpg

 

May be if you find the original image resolution to be to big in resolution to display here - select the full screen window image link from imgur and press on the black eye in the post editor to put it under a spoiler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×