Okay. So I have built a PC with a Ryzen 7 1700 which I have overclocked to 3.92 GHz. And I've been playing PS2 on it for a bit. And while the performance isn't terrible it's considerably lower than my main rig with the 7700K at 4.8 GHz. Looking at Task manager shows the game using almost all of the 16 threads quite evenly, so my question is, what's going on? is the game still bound by a single-thread? I think it obviously is. Ryzen owners; what sort of FPS are you getting in major battles? I dip to around 40-45 fps on my 1700, and it dips below 60 even in mid-sized battles. My 7700K, on the other hand, rarely goes below 60 and only in HUGE battles does it drop to the 50s. Also I've done some reading on Reddit and stuff, but kept seeing people saying things like: "ooh, my performance doesn't drop below 100fps ever! even in large battles!" which is obviously BS... So if you're here to make give anecdotal evidence how your super PC runs the game at a million fps, please don't. I only want real tests to see if this level of performance is normal for this processor. Thanks.
I don't have a Ryzen but reading the reviews, your experience sounds commonplace - the Ryzen IPC (instructions per clock) is slightly behind Intel so at the same frequency, the Intel wins. Ryzen does great in heavily multi-threaded applications but the reality is, writing a game to utilise many cores/threads efficiently is still a challenge. Add to that the fact that Ryzen is a genuinely new architecture with a very different multi-threading approach to the previous gen - that there may be some tweaks needed to the Windows Scheduler too - and it's no surprise that a high clocked Intel quad core is faster in PS2. All said and done - Ryzen is still excellent, giving a general price/performance kick up the proverbial to Intel who seem to be responding with something interesting rather than a re-hash of last years model +1-5% performance. Things can only get better but there is occasionally a price to pay for early adopters...
Only played 2 days, but i've yet to notice my performance drop below 120ish fps (not even kidding, if its happened, then i've really not even noticed) everytime i look up, the fps is 117-122. i7 6700k @4.4ghz and 1070 card. (16gb ram @3000mhz)
I have a Ryzen 1800x and never get CPU limited. None of its threads are ever maxed out, and even running CPU-intensive programs in the background (something I would never have deamt of doing with my old i7-4770K) doesn't decrease my framerate. My GTX 1080, on the other hand, clocks up to maximum in the huge fights, even on the lowest settings, and I don't get more than 60fps in those situations. Still, a marked improvement over my former i7-4770K,GTX780 system, which was always CPU-limited.
Done some more testing, and the performance seems to be around 40fps in most sizeable battles. It does seem to be using all 16 threads quite nicely though. What clock are you running the 1800X at? Do you mind doing some tests with the FPS counter for me, just so I can get an idea if the FPS is in the same ballpark? Try a big battle.
At what settings? Because that's about what I get with my FX-8350 with mostly medium or high settings (and shadows off).
Ultra 1080p. Hrm, 1700 should definitely be doing better than a Piledriver chip. If other Ryzen users are getting similar results to me then maybe the engine needs some tweaks to better run on the architecture. Depends on the clock speed you're running the 2600K at. In PlanetSide 2 and other single-thread bound games, Ryzen doesn't perform that much better than Sandy Bridge. But in other games, it does a lot better. I'll be honest with you, if you're playing games like PlanetSide 2, something like a 7700K will be a lot better than Ryzen, this is from my own experience. But it can change quite dramatically depending on optimisations for the architecture as I mentioned before. I just want to get some feedback from other Ryzen users about what sort of FPS they're getting. Maybe something's up with my machine, but I doubt it.
Yeah I heard i7 would be better for games but I also like to render stuff in 3ds max and I have seen mixed opinions on the 2 CPUs in that kind of task.
i7 will generally be better in games but it's not black and white - especially as some of the newer APIs (Vulkan, DX12) handle multitasking better. If you do 3ds Max it's simpler - the high thread count on the Ryzen is a winner. On benchmarks, an 1800x is slightly faster than an i7-6900k and way faster than an i7-7700k (like a third faster). To put that into perspective, an 1800x is faster than an intel costing over twice the price. If it's software that can utilise multiple threads well, the 1800x is more or less king of the hill. For games it's less clear cut.
Yeah if you're doing lots of rendering, Ryzen 7 is a brilliant CPU. The Ryzen 7 1700 is the best of the 8 core chips IMO, as they all overclock roughly to the same 4.0/4.1 limit, but the 1700 costs a lot less. Get the 1800X if you don't like messing with the clocks/voltages yourself, since that part has higher clocks out of the box.
I get a similar task manager utilization as you. I'm running the 1800x a stock clock speed (3.6ghz). 1080 is overclocked to 1960MHz. Another thing that tells me my GPU is the bottleneck is, in large fights, turning up the graphics settings has a dramatic negative effect on my framerates. I can try recording some footage of large fights with the frame counter if you're interested. Sadly the game is rather vague about actual player count, only saying '48-96' or '96+'.
Some of the graphics options increase CPU workload substantially (eg. shadows) so you might want to try having everything on ultra except shadows and compare. A 1080 is a seriously powerful graphics card and a 4+ year old graphics engine really isn't going to tax it much. PS2 is built on Forgelight and it doesn't really utilise multiple cores too well (which is why people see so many cores idling over). For newer games and especially those that have recently been optimised for the Ryzen architecture, the performance boost is dramatic (like +20%) but i'm not sure how much effort this takes. Suspect DBG have other priorities right now. As I keep saying - still early days with Ryzen and things will get better, and it's very far from bad right now.
Here's a short clip of me in a 96+ vs 96+ fight. Framerate counter is tough to see, but it fluctuates between 80 and 100. Had the task manager open on my second display; all cores showed around 40% utilization at most. GTX 1080 was at maximum clock the entire time. https://streamable.com/f0wz0
Wow, in a fight like that I would dip below 60fps easily. I'm running a 1400 @3.6Ghz and I get really bad fps. In that it would be at 40fps. The CPU is only half utilized...
I'm glad AMD is finally trying to reach intel and make a real gaming processor with the Ryzen. Coming from an FX-series processor, I don't know if I could ever go back to AMD. Something about that 62 degree max temp and having no sensors for individual core temps etc that threw it off for me. I had the best FX processor they built, but a simple I-7 blew it away not just in one performance category, but all categories.
Running on R5 1600. It's a step forward from what I had before, but still I play on lower details to get FPS. Overclocked i5 is probably better. Now I wanted to ask, since yesterday new Ryzen APUs came out, is anyone planning to buy one? I wonder if PS2 can be run on low details just on this chip.
specs:R5 1600 @ 3,7Ghz on stock voltage,16gb DDR4 2933 and a RX 580 4GB Settings:All maxed out at 1080p except shadows(off) and Perticles(medium),i also have all the boxes on the left side not ticked. In very large fights FPS can go as low as 45(for a twitch moment,it then goes above 60) but most of the time im checking it,its between 70 and 90 FPS. In smaller fights its often above 100 and in an empty WG it can go as high as 160 Id guess the average is around 75 and overall im very pleased with how Ryzen performs in such an old game.
