Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Ryzen 5 for FAF

2017-07-16T16:00:43+02:00

Just played on my mates 1600x and the cpu handled the game fine surprise surprise.

He has had some issues with his 3200 ram and itx boards aren't out in Australia still but it was totally fine for this.

Crunched through AotS very well as expected but man it's a terrible game.

Statistics: Posted by gumpy — 16 Jul 2017, 16:00

Re: Ryzen 5 for FAF

2017-07-14T06:25:12+02:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctgAzn5Wx8o&t=0s
Some more interesting stuff Can't wait for shit to hit the fan with Thread Ripper

Statistics: Posted by Endranii — 14 Jul 2017, 06:25

Re: Ryzen 5 for FAF

2017-06-29T23:51:42+02:00

Much more devastating:

object

Statistics: Posted by SpoCk0nd0pe — 29 Jun 2017, 23:51

Re: Ryzen 5 for FAF

2017-06-23T18:58:56+02:00

object

Statistics: Posted by tatsu — 23 Jun 2017, 18:58

Re: Ryzen 5 for FAF

2017-06-15T09:35:21+02:00

https://m.hardocp.com/article/2017/05/2 ... ng_guide/1

That Ryzen chip seems properly clocked, it is done with the bios updates and sceduler fixes etc.

What has been said over and over in this thread seems true: Ryzen is a great value proposition for multi threading applications. It is notibly slower then the I7 at single threaded tasks which affects many games. CPU performance isn't very important for many games in general though.

Pick your poison

I'm eager for 7820x benchmarks.

Statistics: Posted by SpoCk0nd0pe — 15 Jun 2017, 09:35

Re: Ryzen 5 for FAF

2017-06-15T07:23:36+02:00

Congratulations! She'll take good care o' ya.

Intel's architecture is beastly and they know it. I hope that isn't a bad thing.

Statistics: Posted by RocketRooster — 15 Jun 2017, 07:23

Re: Ryzen 5 for FAF

2017-06-15T03:21:47+02:00

Just reporting back folks... wow the thread kept going.

so the 7600k, mildly OCed to 4.6ghz is posting 125 in the FAF lobby. Has it helped me win matches? no... =)

It CPU to be honest is a monster and it's running AoS escalations very well. (wish FA could be put on that engine)

Nvidia will support Netflix 4k very soon so would I have changed the purchase to a 1600x? Possibly but there are still no b350 itx boards in Australia.

Honestly it's total overkill for me as expected but it does get warm for AoS which i've stopped playing as it's simply not very good compared to FA.

Statistics: Posted by gumpy — 15 Jun 2017, 03:21

Re: Ryzen 5 for FAF

2017-06-07T15:07:38+02:00

I should probably also point out that the cpu rating is basically nonsense and has surprisingly little to do with how well fa runs in any but the very broadest terms. It needs replacing.

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 07 Jun 2017, 15:07

Re: Ryzen 5 for FAF

2017-06-06T08:13:13+02:00

IPC is over 50% faster.

Statistics: Posted by RocketRooster — 06 Jun 2017, 08:13

Re: Ryzen 5 for FAF

2017-06-06T05:54:50+02:00

I expected larger single thread performance compared to older CPUs. Ryzen 2017, FX 2013, I7 2014.

Statistics: Posted by Dietmaster — 06 Jun 2017, 05:54

Re: Ryzen 5 for FAF

2017-06-06T03:29:57+02:00

Hang on a second. The Ryzen benchmarks are wrong because i7 is faster than FX?

I'm not following your reasoning here.

Statistics: Posted by RocketRooster — 06 Jun 2017, 03:29

Re: Ryzen 5 for FAF

2017-06-05T20:07:21+02:00

So it's in the benchmark on Ryzen wrong.
To compare the score, I add the calculations of my computers on which I play FAF.
All these are processors of a generation and older ones.

Core2Duo T9300 @ 2.5GHz - CPU score 340 (air) NB
AMD Phenom II X6 @ 4.2GHz - CPU score 240 - 250 (water)
AMD FX8370 @ 5.2GHz - CPU score 185 - 190 (water)
AMD FX9590 @ 5.3GHz - CPU score 175 - 180 (water)
AMD FX9590 @ 5.0GHz - CPU score 200 (air)
CORE I7 4790K @ 4.0GHz - CPU score 160 - 165 (air)

bye RA

Statistics: Posted by Dietmaster — 05 Jun 2017, 20:07

Re: Ryzen 5 for FAF

2017-06-02T04:51:32+02:00

<<<Statistics: Posted by Mel_Gibson — 02 Jun 2017, 04:51

Re: Ryzen 5 for FAF

2017-06-01T14:16:24+02:00

"The following is literally all I use this PC for:
1. Supcom
2. Zwift (cycling MMOG) - surprisingly hard on the GPU I run this at 4k on the TV
3. Netflix
4. Watching Films/Youtube etc etc
5. NFL Gamepass
6. Editing cycling footage from group rides
7. taxes... -_-"

For what you need get an i3 or i5 overclock-able version or even dual core with Z motherboard and try to clock that.

I have a ryzen 1500x , Overclock to 4 Ghz, 2400 dual channel memory , the best result i had on benchmark was 190. I was a bit disappointed since my phenom II @ 3.8 had 275 and especially when i saw 135 cpu ratings in game.
Ryzen in GENERAL does the same thing as intel at lower price. Its maybe 10% slower in mathematics clock for clock then Intel. In MODERN games its 5 to 10% slower so since supreme commander is pure sim and mathematics i expected to get around 150 score. Big disappointment with 190 and 220 at stock. As someone said i5 3570 has 190 score and i think i5 7600k has 150 on stock. I think its due to fact that legacy code and older games favor intel much more then only 10%. On top of that intel can be clocked much more.
If i were not planning to upgrade to ryzen 7 and do heavy computing i would go for fast overclock capable intel dual core or maybe 7600k since they achieve the best single core and overclock performance. Software might benefit from more then 4 cores but they will definitely benefit from high IPC and clock speed.
The only thing for which you need a good cpu from you list is supcom and it needs brutal single core performance.
The point is even if games start to utilize more cores or you start to use more demanding software in the future you will still be able to clock intel k series between 4.5 to 5 ghz to compensate for that.
Don't get me wrong ryzen is a great chip beating intel bang for buck and trailing in games only about 10% but in supreme commander this gap is much wider because its an old game and because intel can clock higher...

Statistics: Posted by niinja2 — 01 Jun 2017, 14:16

Re: Ryzen 5 for FAF

2017-05-18T21:55:48+02:00

Zen does not "kill" Intel at multithreading. Run the numbers. Not by a long shot. Zen offers very good multithreaded bang for the buck, but so did FX-8150. We all know how that story played out.

AMD's strategy is very risky. Their architecture is good but it's no resurrected Coppermine killer, as it were. They are competing on pricing and raw compute value per dollar because they know it's just not as powerful on a per-thread basis.

There is nothing wrong with that, except the elephant in the room is that Intel has been milking their dominance since Conroe was released a decade ago. A grand plus for a top of the line i7. The top of the line Ryzen 7 is half that with two extra cores.

So who exactly thinks that Intel will maintain this gouging market pricing? Or that Intel doesn't have a new architecture in the pipeline? Even if the latter doesn't become a reality soon, their simplest Zen killer is a price cut. They did it with Coppermine, they did it with Netburst.

Is it good for us? Oh yessir. But all this talk of pervasive multithreading and software revolution is just a load of hype and bollocks and it leaves me cold. Zen sits now precisely where FX and Phenom X6 sat then - good value but just not fast enough where it mattered to make decent money because by the time the software started catching up, the architecture was old, slow and power hungry and Intel had moved the goalposts. That will happen again.

Zen is already uncompetitive on a performance per watt basis and the arena where the money lies - the rackmount space - doesn't give a shit about performance per dollar if that outlay is recouped with a lower data centre TCO over time.

No server dude ever got fired for buying intel. It's a truism that continues.

Statistics: Posted by RocketRooster — 18 May 2017, 21:55