AMD Ryzen (Summit Ridge) Benchmarks Thread (use new thread)

[zinfamous]

Has AMD updated the exact release date of RyZen? Is there a computer show etc where it is likely to be "officially" released?

THere was a leak a week or two ago about their presentation at some upcoming CDG? GDC? something something event (Feb ~27-March 3, I think), where the brochure listing for AMD event mentions "With the recent release of our new Ryzen CPUs." ....paraphrasing, but it has been posted in pretty much all of the threads here and, I think, on the AT front page? Basically, most in the industry believe that the release is scheduled for as early as, maybe, the week prior to this event, but no later than March 3.

 

[Crumpet]

2 minutes of googling reveals that CPU usage is lower in Battlefield 1 due to a bug being present at the 1440p resolution which maxes out the GPU usage and leaves the bottlenecked and massively underperforming.

Has AMD updated the exact release date of RyZen? Is there a computer show etc where it is likely to be "officially" released?

Nothing exact, though we are expecting something at the end of February due to there being an event being held that staes/stated "the recently released Ryzen cpu's"

edit - Zinfamous sniped me.

 

[DeletedMember377562]

Yes, by pushing as low of frame times as we can on reasonable image quality. How bad of us to pursue smoothest gameplay possible, isn't it.

That's completely untrue. Playing a GTX 1080 or OCed Titan XP in 1080p isn't reasonable. It's an unrealistic representation of a real-life scenario. Playing in 1440p with those GPUs, however, is. That's what the majority of GTX 1080 users play at.

So by testing those GPUs in 1080p, you are in fact producing a false picture of how it is in reali life. You might as well test RX 480 and GTX 1060 640x400 to "make it as CPU bound as possible". You and others should learn the whole meaning of tests like these, and what they are supposed to do and what they are supposed to represent.

You don't play BF1 with your GTX 1080 in 1440p (which, naturally, is what you'd do) and go "oh damn!! I'm so glad I have a 6700K, because I know I would have been limited had I been playing in 1080p!". Because that's really what it boils down to in the end, as hardly anyone uses such a powerful card on such a low resolution.

Yes, by pushing as low of frame times as we can on reasonable image quality. How bad of us to pursue smoothest gameplay possible, isn't it.
Wrong, you just force more load on GPU over CPU, forcing GPU limitations, nothing else.

I know this is difficult for you to understand, but this is what's called "real life". You know, when someone has a GTX 1080, he doesn't usually player lower than 1440p. There are of course those few cases. Just as there probably are those few cases of a GTX 1060 user playing at 720p.

Yes, by pushing as low of frame times as we can on reasonable image quality. How bad of us to pursue smoothest gameplay possible, isn't it.

Did anyone test BF1 on 1440p with SLId Titan XPs? Ask them.

No one I know has. But everyone on YouTube with SLI 1080s and a 6700K in BF1 have tested in 4K. Do you want to know why? Because that's the reason for them to use such powerful cards (that already achieve 120 FPS with a single card in BF1 at 1440p) in the first place. 4K resolution is the most realistic scenario in those cases.

 

[Crumpet]

I know several people with GTX1080's and a single 24" 1080p monitor...

 

[DeletedMember377562]

I know several people with GTX1080's and a single 24" 1080p monitor...

I also know several people who still game in 720p, despite GPUs that are more powerful for them to need to. It's pretty obvious I'm referring to what the overwhelming majority of people are using.

If I say a human has two arms, that doesn't mean I haven't taken the ones that are born with one or three arms, into the equation. It just means I'm referring to humans in general.

I could bet you there are more GTX 1080 users playing at 4K than those playing at 1080p. And using 4K as an example would have made my argument even stronger (as CPU usage at that point with a single GTX 1080/Titan XP is around 40%), but I chose not to include it. Neither is it any relevant to include the 1080p cases. The whole idea of those benchmark tests online is after all to reflect normal day usage, or at least to help the viewers/readers what hardware to buy for their game. So unless Digitalfoundry wants us to use a GTX 1080 and a Titan XP at 1080p, their test is meaningless.

 

[Crumpet]

I could bet you there are more GTX 1080 users playing at 4K than those playing at 1080p. And using 4K as an example would have made my argument even stronger (as CPU usage at that point with a single GTX 1080/Titan XP is around 40%), but I chose not to include it.

I find that VERY hard to believe.

I will give it to you, you may be correct. But most people prefer higher fps to higher resolution

 

[zinfamous]

I also know several people who still game in 720p, despite GPUs that are more powerful for them to need to. It's pretty obvious I'm referring to what the overwhelming majority of people are using.

If I say a human has two arms, that doesn't mean I haven't taken the ones that are born with one or three arms, into the equation. It just means I'm referring to humans in general.

I could bet you there are more GTX 1080 users playing at 4K than those playing at 1080p. And using 4K as an example would have made my argument even stronger (as CPU usage at that point with a single GTX 1080/Titan XP is around 40%), but I chose not to include it. Neither is it any relevant to include the 1080p cases. The whole idea of those benchmark tests online is after all to reflect normal day usage, or at least to help the viewers/readers what hardware to buy for their game. So unless Digitalfoundry wants us to use a GTX 1080 and a Titan XP at 1080p, their test is meaningless.

Actually, I would be surprised if you were. The "overwhelming majority of people" are certainly not hardware enthusiasts and they barely realize what they have in their boxes. Plenty of them certainly go with overpriced, overpowered devices for their needs and generally want something that takes a few minutes to connect all the holes, power on, and be done with it. I think it's more than reasonable that the actual "overwhelming majority of people" [that have a 1070 or 1080 in their system] will, by and large and by the end of this year, be running with crappy 1080p or less displays and happily do so until something breaks, triggering the next inadequate/overpriced upgrade.

More than any other part of the system, the general user--even enthusiasts--cheap out on the display. It still happens to this day. it's easier for someone to look at a handful of classes of cards, more often default to "that green company is better" and just go with the expensive one because they assume more expensive = more better..whether or not they need it.

This person is now out of money or simply burned out from making further decisions, so looking at hundreds and hundreds of display options with nebulous functions, they get something cheap that "sounds right" and is least problematic. This isn't controversial, it's just behavior.

Added to that, the tech for 4K right now is just not all that special and, as cheap as it already seems to be, savvy planners are probably thinking that 4K has an incredibly short lifespan. Just look at the way TVs are more or less "skipping" 4K tech--there's barely any content available, we are still "waiting" for good HDR to make 4K worth the upgrade, and we are already seeing 8K trickling out. ...and the hardware isn't even here to really push 4K60p. Yes, I think anyone that goes with 4K and has the hardware to push a good 4K display today will be fine with that for years, but it seems like 1440p is the better value proposition for GPU/Display cost and performance during this same several year's time period where we are in 4K limbo.

 

[DeletedMember377562]

I find that VERY hard to believe.

I will give it to you, you may be correct. But most people prefer higher fps to higher resolution

I know they do. But once you already have an OCed 1080, you're already reaching what, 120-130 FPS on a GTX 1080 at 1440p in BF1? And mind you, that's one of the most demanding first person shooters out there, the kind of games where you do really want to achieve high FPS on. And that's assuming they have all settings cranked on ultra.

So it's not like you are missing out on low frame rates in 1440p with a GTX 1080.

Actually, I would be surprised if you were. The "overwhelming majority of people" are certainly not hardware enthusiasts and they barely realize what they have in their boxes. Plenty of them certainly go with overpriced, overpowered devices for their needs and generally want something that takes a few minutes to connect all the holes, power on, and be done with it. I think it's more than reasonable that the actual "overwhelming majority of people" [that have a 1070 or 1080 in their system] will, by and large and by the end of this year, be running with crappy 1080p or less displays and happily do so until something breaks, triggering the next inadequate/overpriced upgrade.

You are saying that's it's reasonable to assume that the overwhelming majority of GTX 1080 users are on 1080p displays? That's a bold statement. The people I know with that card all play at 1440p. Even with GTX 1070, most use 1440p (though a GTX 1070 was never part of this discussion). It actually makes zero sense to purchase a 1080 for 1080p to begin with. Yes, I got your statement of people buying overprowered stuff. And though I agree about this when it comes to CPU (mainly because of how misrepresented the meaning of them are, as proven by users in this discussions and in general reviewers). But people are not baboons either. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read benchmarks online. Nor do these people clik "buy" on such expensive cards without knowing what they're buying. Reviews for GPUs etc. are not niche. They're popular across the whole gaming segment. At least enough for someone to not cash out $500 more than he has to for what his needs are.

Your arguments are also contradicting each other. In one area you say these people are willing to pay way more than what they need for their stuff. On the other hand, they'll continue to use a 1080p display "until it breaks" (when do monitors ever "break", really?)

But of course, if you truly believe the overwhelming majority of GTX 1080 users are using 1080p displays, I'd be happy to put up a poll on this forum to see how many GTX 1080 users have 1080 displays and how many have 1440p (or 4K) displays.

 

[Crumpet]

A tech enthusiast website is hardly a good consensus of the average gamer. Anyone coming here is far more likely to be informed.

I'm the only person I know with a 1440 monitor.

Everyone else is using high latency widescreen tv's @60hz or 24" 60hz 1080p monitors with their £2000 off the shelf pc's from places like PCWorld and other Prebuilt suppliers.

All they see is the little fps counter, and when that starts getting low they just chuck more money at a new system.

 

[zinfamous]

I know they do. But once you already have an OCed 1080, you're already reaching what, 120-130 FPS on a GTX 1080 at 1440p in BF1? And mind you, that's one of the most demanding first person shooters out there, the kind of games where you do really want to achieve high FPS on. And that's assuming they have all settings cranked on ultra.

So it's not like you are missing out on low frame rates in 1440p with a GTX 1080.



You are saying that's it's reasonable to assume that the overwhelming majority of GTX 1080 users are on 1080p displays? That's a bold statement. The people I know with that card all play at 1440p. Even with GTX 1070, most use 1440p (though a GTX 1070 was never part of this discussion). It actually makes zero sense to purchase a 1080 for 1080p to begin with. Yes, I got your statement of people buying overprowered stuff. And though I agree about this when it comes to CPU (mainly because of how misrepresented the meaning of them are, as proven by users in this discussions and in general reviewers). But people are not baboons either. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read benchmarks online. Nor do these people clik "buy" on such expensive cards without knowing what they're buying. Reviews for GPUs etc. are not niche. They're popular across the whole gaming segment. At least enough for someone to not cash out $500 more than he has to for what his needs are.

Your arguments are also contradicting each other. In one area you say these people are willing to pay way more than what they need for their stuff. On the other hand, they'll continue to use a 1080p display "until it breaks" (when do monitors ever "break", really?)

But of course, if you truly believe the overwhelming majority of GTX 1080 users are using 1080p displays, I'd be happy to put up a poll on this forum to see how many GTX 1080 users have 1080 displays and how many have 1440p (or 4K) displays.

I had expanded my comment, especially about monitors. My statement is no more bold than your claim that you know what "the majority of consumers" prefer based on your handful of friends. I also stated that by the end of the year, meaning, when more and more OEM with 1070 or 1080 class cards will be available. You know--the actual majority of consumers come into the picture. Enthusiasts that post on these forums are, at best, 1% of the market.

You say you want to bet what kind of resolution 1080 owners are running. I say you make this statement without any way to gather legitimate data on this subject. Further, it's simply a fact of reality that the vast majority of consumers run on cheap displays. As you say, they don't break that often--so there you go. Of course people will be holding onto their older displays, upgrading other hardware that is well overpowered for the user's actual needs in most cases.

 

[DeletedMember377562]

A tech enthusiast website is hardly a good consensus of the average gamer. Anyone coming here is far more likely to be informed.

I'm the only person I know with a 1440 monitor.

Everyone else is using high latency widescreen tv's @60hz or 24" 60hz 1080p monitors with their £2000 off the shelf pc's from places like PCWorld and other Prebuilt suppliers.

All they see is the little fps counter, and when that starts getting low they just chuck more money at a new system.

Of course, but hardly any of those people have 1080s either. A GTX 1080 is after all an enthusiast level GPU as well.


But I find it strange how you guys really believe that an average gamer does not have the understanding of GPUs and general FPS. Like they are some sort of retard. Even a 6 year old can understand this relation. I know lots of normal gamers. They buy displays with refresh rates in accordance to the hardware they have. Their general ignorance is usually in CPUs (which, let's be honest, is very much the case in these forums too), RAM, etc. Reading GPU benchmarks/reviews and understanding the meaning of FPS, resolution etc., is completely normal for a desktop user.

I had expanded my comment, especially about monitors. My statement is no more bold than your claim that you know what "the majority of consumers" prefer based on your handful of friends. I also stated that by the end of the year, meaning, when more and more OEM with 1070 or 1080 class cards will be available. You know--the actual majority of consumers come into the picture. Enthusiasts that post on these forums are, at best, 1% of the market.

You say you want to bet what kind of resolution 1080 owners are running. I say you make this statement without any way to gather legitimate data on this subject. Further, it's simply a fact of reality that the vast majority of consumers run on cheap displays. As you say, they don't break that often--so there you go. Of course people will be holding onto their older displays, upgrading other hardware that is well overpowered for the user's actual needs in most cases.

Again you are painting the brush of "majority of users" with that of 1080 users, making thos conversation more confusing. I was referring to GTX 1080 users, and only GTX 1080 users. As we all know, those users make up, what, 1% of the GPU market? It's a very expensive card, and enthusiast card, and it's purchased by enthusiast. It's these users we are talking about. Not the average users with cheap monitors and appropriately cheap GPUs. Those are not the people the discussion is all about.

My statement about the GTX 1080 is not about "a handful of friends". It's based on the people I know with those kind of cards in both real life and in many different forums (of which average users are also part of), not to mention YouTube. In other words, virtually every single known case of a GTX 1080 users. And it also makes sense when you think about how powerful the GTX 1080 is; it makes little sense, however, to use it along with a 1080p display. I'm not saying there aren't cases of it. But making an argument about overwhelming majority og GTX 1080 users using 1080p can hardly be taken seriously, imo.

 

[zinfamous]

And holy crap--this is way OT. Why are we getting into display resolution and nVIdia GPU discussions in the SR thread?

FFS, man.

 

[zinfamous]

Of course, but hardly any of those people have 1080s either. A GTX 1080 is after all an enthusiast level GPU as well.


But I find it strange how you guys really believe that an average gamer does not have the understanding of GPUs and general FPS. Like they are some sort of retard. Even a 6 year old can understand this relation. I know lots of normal gamers. They buy displays with refresh rates in accordance to the hardware they have. Their general ignorance is usually in CPUs (which, let's be honest, is very much the case in these forums too), RAM, etc. Reading GPU benchmarks/reviews and understanding the meaning of FPS, resolution etc., is completely normal for a desktop user.

really? You make a ton of bold statements like this. Where are these elite 6 year-old PC enthusiast gamers that you are holding court wrg to FPS and display resolution and hardware output?

Also, no--average people and average gamers really do not put all that much thought into these things. If you believe that, then you are truly living in this 1% enthusiast bubble. Any polling of these forums is going to be thoroughly skewed and unrepresentative of the consumer market. If you believe otherwise, then I suspect you might need to spend some more time out and among people that don't live and breath this kind of hardware talk.

 

[Crumpet]

Zinfamous on the ball...

I have 2 kinds of friend. One friend literally this week spent £2150 on a new Kaby Lake 7700k OC with GTX1080 pc, which is now connected to his 10 year old 22" monitor.
Another 2 friends this week have upgraded TO an Msi 5770 Hawk and an XFX HD 7850 1GB.

None of them particularly care about the who's what's where's and why's.. They just want to know "will it game?". Obviously, Friend 1 has an awful lot more disposable income and just wants a few years of futureproofing, Friends 2 and 3 just want to be able to play Overwatch at 30fps.

Me? I've been saving my pennies to drop some serious cash on an 8c Ryzen cpu and a Vega 10 gpu, so that I can run games at high FPS rates on either freesync triple 144hz monitors or a 1440p ultrawide... I've done all my research into the current available options and spent months staring at youtube videos and forums gathering all the information I can about Kaby Lake and Ryzen to get the most out of my purchase.

I am the 1%. I am not an average user. I give my old hardware away to the average users.

 

[DeletedMember377562]

really? You make a ton of bold statements like this. Where are these elite 6 year-old PC enthusiast gamers that you are holding court wrg to FPS and display resolution and hardware output?

I'm making bold statements? Coming from the guy claiming that GTX 1080 users are using 1080p displays.

If you believe that, then you are truly living in this 1% enthusiast bubble. .

GTX 1080 literally is this "1% bubble". It's an enthusiast GPU.

Any polling of these forums is going to be thoroughly skewed and unrepresentative of the consumer market. If you believe otherwise, then I suspect you might need to spend some more time out and among people that don't live and breath this kind of hardware talk.

Ok, fine. Let's look at some proper surveys. Let's look at Steam, a client that has hundreds of millions of users from all respective segments.

According to Steam Survey, GTX 1080 owners make up 0.99% of the users:

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

According to Steam, 1440p is used by 1.84% of users: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

So that means more people have 1440p monitors than people owning GTX 1080s. Which I assume amount to people using GTX 1070s and probably a few 980 Tis as well.

So if we are to go by any relatable surveys out there, you are wrong. GTX 1080 users are in general using 1440p displays.

Also, no--average people and average gamers really do not put all that much thought into these things.

You make it sound like there's an effort to be had to look at benchmarks. Give me a break.

 

[Crumpet]

Well i'm a GTX970 user and i'm at 1440p..

My girlfriend has an R9 390 and she's at 1440p.. (she's even using an AMD cpu, the horror! Oh..wait.. no nvm, it games at 1440p just fine)

 

[dfk7677]

Primary monitor resolution - Steam hardware survey

 

[DeletedMember377562]

Well i'm a GTX970 user and i'm at 1440p..

My girlfriend has an R9 390 and she's at 1440p.. (she's even using an AMD cpu, the horror! Oh..wait.. no nvm, it games at 1440p just fine)

Your anecdotes are proving what? Nothing. Sadly, Steam Survey does not include 4K resolution. But we're still talking about at least twice the amount of non-GTX 1080 users using 1440p displays. These 0.8% of users could be user whatever if its, without removing the fact that the rest would be GTX 1080 users.

 

[R0H1T]

Primary monitor resolution - Steam hardware survey

1080p is still by far the most common resolution used by gamers, in fact I'd argue more people are (still) moving to Full HD resolutions than the ones fleeing to 4K. Heck even by the end of 2018 full HD will be the most dominant resolution in the world.

 

[dfk7677]

1080p is still by far the most common resolution used by gamers, in fact I'd argue more people are (still) moving to Full HD resolutions than the ones fleeing to 4K. Heck even by the end of 2018 full HD will be the most dominant resolution in the world.

That is why every discussion about CPU-GPU game performance in over 1080p resolutions is only to impress and not for real world use.

 

[DeletedMember377562]

1080p is still by far the most common resolution used by gamers, in fact I'd argue more people are (still) moving to Full HD resolutions than the ones fleeing to 4K. Heck even by the end of 2018 full HD will be the most dominant resolution in the world.

Oh my <redacted>... I never said 1080p wasn't the common resolution. The discussion has never been about this! GTX 1080 is less the "common" GPU than the actual 1440p resolution itself (as I just showed by the Steam Survey). It's about what kind of resolution GTX 1080 users run in.

Now, the overwhelminh majority of GTX 1080 users on YouTube, on Forums and in general people I know use either 1440p or 4K displays. Even the Steam Survey, which includes 500 million users or so, points towards this. Common knowledge also points towards this being a case. If you have a 1080p and you have no intention to upgrade to higher res display (and we suppose the display is already 144hz), you are not stupid enough to pay hundreds of dollars extra for a GPU like the 1080, that won't help you benefit anything that a less powerful card would have done on that res/hz.

What we're trying to discuss here is whether it's relevant to test GPUs like the Titan XP and the GTX 1080 in 1080p, when it's not realistic for those with those cards. I don't mind 1080p by any means. But including a 1440p test, which they didn't, would be way, way more representative of the real-life scenario.

1080p tests are more realistic for GTX 1070s, 1060s, RX 480s, etc.

Profanity is not allowed in the technical forums
Markfw
Anandtech Moderator

 

[Crumpet]

Your anecdotes are proving what? Nothing. Sadly, Steam Survey does not include 4K resolution. But we're still talking about at least twice the amount of non-GTX 1080 users using 1440p displays. These 0.8% of users could be user whatever if its, without removing the fact that the rest would be GTX 1080 users.

You're right it doesn't.

It also doesn't show the several million of us that do Sim Racing using triple monitors between 3840x720p, 5760x1080p and 7680x1440p,..

-edit- A graphics card should be tested at the main resolutions, ESPECIALLY the industry standard, which happens to be 1920x1080p.

 

[DeletedMember377562]

You're right it doesn't.

It also doesn't show the several million of us that do Sim Racing using triple monitors between 3840x720p, 5760x1080p and 7680x1440p,..

It actually does. Maybe you should read the sources I give you more carefully? They have their own table for multiple monitors.

You're right it doesn't.

-edit- A graphics card should be tested at the main resolutions, ESPECIALLY the industry standard, which happens to be 1920x1080p.

No, a graphics cards should be tested at the resolutions that users of those cards play in. A GTX 1080 in 1080p is as relevant as testing GTX 1060/1070 at 1366x768 (which, by Steam Survey's numbers, is almost as much of a standard as 1080p is)

That is why every discussion about CPU-GPU game performance in over 1080p resolutions is only to impress and not for real world use.

Yes, anything over 1080p is "not for real world use" for GTX 1080 users... yet another fantastically ridiculous comment by you...

Insulting other members is not allowed.
Markfw
Anandtech Moderator

 

[lolfail9001]

That's completely untrue. Playing a GTX 1080 or OCed Titan XP in 1080p isn't reasonable. It's an unrealistic representation of a real-life scenario.

Who told you anything about "real-life scenario", dammit? We talk about testing CPU performance. CPU performance does not improve with resolution, so it is natural to test it at resolution that allows lower GPU load. Some go all the way, like [H] did. Others do not, and keep it at 1080p and high quality settings. But hey, it helps to establish the upper bound on overall framerates you can achieve in any resolution higher than 1080p.

You and others should learn the whole meaning of tests like these, and what they are supposed to do and what they are supposed to represent.

They are never supposed to represent real-life experience when they are CPU tests, they are supposed to represent CPU. Now, gaming tests is a whole another ordeal.

You don't play BF1 with your GTX 1080 in 1440p (which, naturally, is what you'd do) and go "oh damn!! I'm so glad I have a 6700K, because I know I would have been limited had I been playing in 1080p!".

The irony of this statement is that i am willing to bet BF1 is CPU-limited by i5 in 1440p too! Lemme check real quick... Yes, i probably would be CPU bottlenecked in 1440p by locked Haswell i5 on 1080. Fun stuff.

but this is what's called "real life".

Learn what's called "context". Then apply it.

But everyone on YouTube with SLI 1080s and a 6700K in BF1 have tested in 4K. Do you want to know why?

Because they are YouTubers with all that entails. Otherwise, how do you explain them using SLI 1080s in 2016/2017?

 

[Crumpet]

It actually does. Maybe you should read the sources I give you more carefully? They have their own table for multiple monitors.


No, a graphics cards should be tested at the resolutions that users of those cards play in. A GTX 1080 in 1080p is as relevant as testing GTX 1060/1070 at 1366x768 (which, by Steam Survey's numbers, is almost as much of a standard as 1080p is)


Yes, anything over 1080p is "not for real world use" for GTX 1080 users... yet another fantastically ridiculous comment by you...

Huh.. 15x more people use two 1080p monitors for gaming compared to 1440p users. And you don't think they'll be using a GTX1080?

Also ultrawides and multimonitor setups are becoming a lot more common now, and if anything i think we're likely to see more users on 2560x1080 than 2560x1440 in the coming years, that's my opinion.