Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Bad performance with new AMD Ryzen 9 3900x


Recommended Posts

@Aza.2105 said:

@Aza.2105 said:

@Aza.2105 said:

@Amaranthe.3578 said:Don't buy amd.This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

With comments like this you can really tell how good Intel was at brainwashing people for their products. I have a all AMD system right now and i'm not having any issues at all in performance.

It's not about intel doing anything. It's threads like this one and talk about other gamers that can't play their favourite game because they bought AMD to save a few pennies. It's awesome that AMD exists because it keeps the greedy lazy bastards at intel honest but as things currently stand they aren't worth it for gamers since so many games just don't work well with AMD. That's without even mentioning their garbage GPUs.

Intels best gaming cpu is 5% faster than Ryzen on average in gaming while being much slower at everything else besides gaming. You are out of touch with reality, every hardware review site has agreed upon one thing: Intel has no answer to the Ryzen cpus at this time. It could be years until they create a cpu that can compete with it. And by that time AMD could possibly further ahead.That's bull-kitten. GW2 uses and old engine that can't handle multithreading very well and on top of that has been updated in terms of graphics to an extent which the engine can't handle anymore with decent performance. The engine is not efficient when rendering up-to-date visuals.

Intel has quite a big advantage in single threaded performance for three reasons:

1) The IPC of their skylake (coffee lake) architecture is still 10% better than AMDs zen2 architacture.2) Their CPUs run at higher clock speeds (up to 5 GHz without overclocking) than AMDs CPUs (up to 4.5 GHz without overclocking). That's another 10% of better single threaded performance.3) Intel CPUs improve their performance the higher the RAM clocks. They even benefit from DDR4 clocks above 4 GHz. Zen2 benefits until 3,6 GHz and then gets slower the higher the Ram clocks because the CPU gets synchronizing problems.

Since GW2 does not benefit from more than 6 cores (real cores, not threads!) an i5 9600K @ 5 GHz with DDR4 4000 will outperform any AMD CPU (even the 3950X!) for 30% and more.

@Amaranthe.3578 said:Don't buy amd.This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.That's bull-kitten too. AMDs Radeon Software is great in terms of functionality and the drivers are stable and updated regularely. Older GCN GPUs perform great in any DX12 or Vulkan game (better than Nvidias GPUs from that time) and the newer Navi GPUs added an efficiency that matches Nvidias recent Turing GPUs.

And if you play something else than GW2, their CPUs do well too, because single threaded performance is not that critical in newer games. Usually you get a better price/performance ratio with an AMD CPU.

No homie, I speak facts. I'm not talking about guild wars 2 only, I'm talking about all games. The 9900k is on average 5% -10% faster than the Ryzen 3xxx series. And thats at 1080p. Above that there really isn't any difference. I'm not even going to explain why, because all you and others have to do is google reviews and look at the benchmarks and what the reviewers say. Its not that difficult.

No, you don't speak facts, only a partial fact. That 5% average is exclusively based on the same bunch of latest AAA or esport games, that have huge studios behind them, able to either develop well designed game engines or do good implementations of available ones.

Once you move away from such trendy games, another reality shows up: Ryzen cpus are still quite behind Intel cpus, mostly because of much bigger latencies and not so big core frequencies.Hardware Unboxed, a quite relevant source, even spoiled it, testing up to 36 games instead of the same 4-10 games you see in most mainstream places. In 7 games the 3900x (12c/24t) is over 10% behind the 9900k (8c/16t).gamegpu.com is also a great place showing cpu comparisons of not so trendy games. It's very easy to find a pile of games where latest Ryzen are easily beaten by Intel cpus with quite a lot less cores.

Just because you have 100 people saying they are neck to neck in 10 games, doesn't mean in other 200 games it's the same case.

Oh you mean this hardware unboxed Ryzen 3900x vs i9 9900k?

The 9900k is a average of 6% faster AT 1080p! Who is going to buy expensive hardware just to game at 1080p?

yL2MjBg.png

jb7zVoB.png

Of course when you have games where a 9900k beats a 3900x by over 15%, then the 3900x becomes an expensive hardware, because in such games a simple 4c/8t from Intel can match it.

And then well, the majority of people are playing at 1080p and a lot throw 2070 or better gpus at it. So who is spending money on high end hardware? More people than what you think.

Anyway, what people do with their money doesn't change that fact that even ryzen 3000 are easily beaten by intel CPUs in a wide range of games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If you like Intel, enjoy losing more and more performance over time as they keep having to fix exploits, even their latest chips have exploits. Some of their older chips have lost more than 30% performance and they keep making the same mistakes, more or less.

Though if you aren't in comp sci I don't expect you to know how bad it really is..

Intel is good at brainwashing to keep their market share even though in reality they've been losing it rapidly for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ansau.7326 said:

@Aza.2105 said:

@Aza.2105 said:

@Aza.2105 said:

@Amaranthe.3578 said:Don't buy amd.This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.

With comments like this you can really tell how good Intel was at brainwashing people for their products. I have a all AMD system right now and i'm not having any issues at all in performance.

It's not about intel doing anything. It's threads like this one and talk about other gamers that can't play their favourite game because they bought AMD to save a few pennies. It's awesome that AMD exists because it keeps the greedy lazy bastards at intel honest but as things currently stand they aren't worth it for gamers since so many games just don't work well with AMD. That's without even mentioning their garbage GPUs.

Intels best gaming cpu is 5% faster than Ryzen on average in gaming while being much slower at everything else besides gaming. You are out of touch with reality, every hardware review site has agreed upon one thing: Intel has no answer to the Ryzen cpus at this time. It could be years until they create a cpu that can compete with it. And by that time AMD could possibly further ahead.That's bull-kitten. GW2 uses and old engine that can't handle multithreading very well and on top of that has been updated in terms of graphics to an extent which the engine can't handle anymore with decent performance. The engine is not efficient when rendering up-to-date visuals.

Intel has quite a big advantage in single threaded performance for three reasons:

1) The IPC of their skylake (coffee lake) architecture is still 10% better than AMDs zen2 architacture.2) Their CPUs run at higher clock speeds (up to 5 GHz without overclocking) than AMDs CPUs (up to 4.5 GHz without overclocking). That's another 10% of better single threaded performance.3) Intel CPUs improve their performance the higher the RAM clocks. They even benefit from DDR4 clocks above 4 GHz. Zen2 benefits until 3,6 GHz and then gets slower the higher the Ram clocks because the CPU gets synchronizing problems.

Since GW2 does not benefit from more than 6 cores (real cores, not threads!) an i5 9600K @ 5 GHz with DDR4 4000 will outperform any AMD CPU (even the 3950X!) for 30% and more.

@Amaranthe.3578 said:Don't buy amd.This is your brain on 2011. Don't do drugs, cubs.

You're always gonna have issues with AMD with how low their market share is. Buying AMD CPU's/GPUs is a mistake if you're a gamer.That's bull-kitten too. AMDs Radeon Software is great in terms of functionality and the drivers are stable and updated regularely. Older GCN GPUs perform great in any DX12 or Vulkan game (better than Nvidias GPUs from that time) and the newer Navi GPUs added an efficiency that matches Nvidias recent Turing GPUs.

And if you play something else than GW2, their CPUs do well too, because single threaded performance is not that critical in newer games. Usually you get a better price/performance ratio with an AMD CPU.

No homie, I speak facts. I'm not talking about guild wars 2 only, I'm talking about all games. The 9900k is on average 5% -10% faster than the Ryzen 3xxx series. And thats at 1080p. Above that there really isn't any difference. I'm not even going to explain why, because all you and others have to do is google reviews and look at the benchmarks and what the reviewers say. Its not that difficult.

No, you don't speak facts, only a partial fact. That 5% average is exclusively based on the same bunch of latest AAA or esport games, that have huge studios behind them, able to either develop well designed game engines or do good implementations of available ones.

Once you move away from such trendy games, another reality shows up: Ryzen cpus are still quite behind Intel cpus, mostly because of much bigger latencies and not so big core frequencies.Hardware Unboxed, a quite relevant source, even spoiled it, testing up to 36 games instead of the same 4-10 games you see in most mainstream places. In 7 games the 3900x (12c/24t) is over 10% behind the 9900k (8c/16t).gamegpu.com is also a great place showing cpu comparisons of not so trendy games. It's very easy to find a pile of games where latest Ryzen are easily beaten by Intel cpus with quite a lot less cores.

Just because you have 100 people saying they are neck to neck in 10 games, doesn't mean in other 200 games it's the same case.

Oh you mean this hardware unboxed Ryzen 3900x vs i9 9900k?

The 9900k is a average of 6% faster AT 1080p! Who is going to buy expensive hardware just to game at 1080p?

yL2MjBg.png

jb7zVoB.png

Of course when you have games where a 9900k beats a 3900x by over 15%, then the 3900x becomes an expensive hardware, because in such games a simple 4c/8t from Intel can match it.

And then well, the majority of people are playing at 1080p and a lot throw 2070 or better gpus at it. So who is spending money on high end hardware? More people than what you think.

Anyway, what people do with their money doesn't change that fact that even ryzen 3000 are easily beaten by intel CPUs in a wide range of games.

None of that matters, my point was that on average the 9900k is 5%-10% faster than the 3900x. You and other people here act like you can't read or just don't want to agree. I'm not saying Amd is faster that Intel in GW2, I'm not even saying that there aren't a few games that Intel beats Amd by over 10%. What I'm am saying is that when you factor in all of those games its around 5%-10%. That's nothing. Above 1080p you won't see much of a difference. Heck you won't see a difference now, its not like the majority of those games were running at sub 30fps. More than likely they were well over 90fps. So that means Amd runs at 90fps and Intel runs at 100fps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the above argument with dxvk ? Ryzen seems to benefit much more from dxvk (which now integrates d9vk). I see so much conjecture here, but unless the Ryzen 3rd gen CPUs are running below the adaptive sync/Freesync/Gsync range most people would opt for a Ryzen 5 3600 or Ryzen 5 3600x over an Intel i5 9600k or even i7 9700k. 6 physical cores is the optimal for low threaded apps due to Amdahl's law.In addition, in other use cases the additional savings on cooling requirements and motherboards can be put towards GPU , higher bin memory (3600 cl15/3200 Cl14/3600 cl16 B-die), or NVMe drives. The idea that you can overclock the i9-9900k to 5GHz all core with a budget motherboard is foolish because you will likely thermal throttle under 100% CPU load ; even out of the box it needs around 160W just to boost properly because when limited to 95W power limit it will only sustain around 4.1GHz all core. Per techpowerup's review of i9-9900KS at 5GHz , the sustained power draw is around 200W for what is essentially a highly binned i9-9900k. What this means for i9-9900k buyers is that you are likely going to need even more power if the CPU is indeed pegged at 100%.Ryzen CPUs will continue to see software improvements as the market expands , especially in gaming due to adoption by consoles. Intel CPUs have been getting security patches that severely cut some IO bound workloads, since they've been faster due to speculative execution and memory addressing that is conducive to side channel attacks when hyperthreading is on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I can only dream of this game getting an engine update, but it should be to Vulkan, not DX12, which is a proprietary low-level API, and nowhere as optimized as a Vulkan is, which is open source, and games such as Doom or Ashes of the Singularity have shown how efficient that API truly is. Besides, it would allow for "easy" portability to Linux.

To all Intel Fanboys out there, AMD is might not have highest clock speeds or the highest consistent fps averages, specifically 3950x vs 9900k. AMD has caught up to Intel on single thread performance clock per clock, but their OC potential is still limited. What is more important than fps averages are 1% lows because they are the difference between smooth or stuttering gameplay. When it comes to 1% lows AMD is king. AMD has more CPU cache in thier processors, and their infinity fabric allows for faster communication between cores and the motherboard. Odds are most people have other processes loaded while playing a game, a Ryzen CPU with its high cache, core count, and infinity fabric provides for a much higher 1% low than Intel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

There is a decent ammount of infos in this thread that you dont see much elsewhere, yes it derailed into another amd vs intel topic, but its still interresting, especially on blowing up the dx9 single thread myth, just as a reminder theres a switch in command line specifically for that: -dx9single, there is also -forwardrenderer.I understand perfectly most ppl argument on this subject, and they are right, obviously if you got 32 thread (vs 4/8) it wont increase the game performance, thats just pure logic there, but in contrast single core performance with higher clock speed will have an impact on perf.Unfortunatly, ppl with that mind set forgot a use case scenario, multibox, I know its very marginal and maybe there isnt many ppl running 10 accounts like me (well solo raiding per say), but I would have love to see that subject debated around performances.My main question would be, will there be a performance increase between a 12 threads (8700k) and a 32 thread (3950x) while running 10 clients.What rig would you define as the optimum for such a scenario, would you still recommand intel over amd (and why...).With that in mind, my performances arent as bad as you would excpect, im running a 8700k, dx9single and forwardrenderer options does increase performances for me, but what make it playable is to limit fps to 25 with the nvidia control panel (by adding 10 different exe), you might think theres ingame option to limit to 30fps, yes thats correct, but just lowering 5 fps and multiply by 10 clients, it make quite a huge difference on perfs, each clients is also forced to have one thread only (this only make a difference with dx9single, it avoid the cpu going 100% all the time), im having a rtx2070 in that rig but the load on gpu is extremly low (under 40% with all clients running) so in my case the gpu is totally irrelevant, suspecting dx9single there is also responsible for that, but in my tests ive never been able to see a difference between running single and multiple clients on the gpu, regardless of options used, does dx12 would make a difference here? im not sure really...For those who never saw it heres a video of me doing

, the encoding is done by the gpu (since unlike my cpu it got lof of head room).It is at the limit of playable in divinity reach, tequalt, aerodrome or any intensive place in the game (leaning toward unplayable sometimes), but in any instances (raid, fractal, dungeons ect...) the performances are good, solid 25fps with no input lag at all, well otherwise I wouldnt be able to record it.So same old question in the end, more threads or more clock speed per core for this scenario?The real advantage of amd here is you get double (or even triple) ammount of threads for relativly cheap compared to intel where you have to get a i9 minimun to see a difference with my i7 and get a dozen less threads for the same bucks. ive got 12 threads so 1 client per thread thats 10 used for gw2, the only upgrade possible is to have 2 threads per client, so you need a minimun of 20 threads to make any kind of theorical differences, for 3 threads per client you would need at least 30 threads then.Looking forward to get corrected if im making mistakes in my assumptions, and your opinions on this subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...