|
Hi. Are there some Ryzen 7 CPU players? Could You share to us some tests ? low/avg fps for example on test unit map with huge amount of units. We will be very much appreciated. I consider to buy Ryzen 1700 and I dont want to loose any current fps (i7-2600K)
Thanks, Cheers!
|
I wouldn't mind knowing FPS during an average game.
My 4720hq gets some ~200 at the start of a game on low, and somewhere below 60 during the late game. Something like that.
|
Thank You for reply. My question and this topic are stricte about Ryzen CPU handling Starcraft 2
|
sc2 only uses 2 cores, someone tested it with a strong dual core and overclocked it to 4 ghz and had the same fps as the top of i7 processors
the ryzen will suck for sc2
|
@Saggymidgetbooty6969, I know they are not monster of performance, but are they better or equal than my i72600K@4.4 ? I got some second hand test results and it seems like could have similar performance.
|
Dominican Republic590 Posts
just get the Ryzen 5 1600X is way better than a 2600x
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36692 Posts
|
SC2 community, players and stuff stricte are interested to this page I think (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/?filter=starcraft2) not main page forum (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/)
...where are many subjects:
- SC2 General - StarCraft 2 Tournaments - StarCraft 2 Strategy - SC2 Maps & Custom Games - BW General - Brood War Tournaments - Brood War Strategy - User Streams - Tech Support - TL Community - General Forum - Other Games - Counter-Strike: Global Offensive - Heroes of the Storm - Super Smash Brothers - Sports - Media & Entertainment - TL Mafia - Blogs - Fan Clubs - Website Feedback - Legacy of the Void - Single Player - Overwatch
so.....this thread will die quickly here ⊙﹏⊙ Please consider to put this on SC2 General. It's match.
PS. On internet there are not any information or tests about Ryzen 7 and Starcraft 2. Zero opinions. Let's find out here on teamliquid first, straight from our friendly players シ
Cheers, Have a nice day
|
sc2 only uses two physical cores, maybe get something with better single core performance if you don't plan to do work like rendering.
|
This review in German has SC2 benchmarks on page 2, and something about better RAM on page 3:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Ryzen-5-1600X-CPU-265842/Tests/R5-1500X-Review-Mainstream-1225280/
They seem to be using some replay with a lot of units and explosions on screens, and at a very low resolution, so should be a good benchmark.
The raw architecture seems to compete well with Intel's, but the problem is clock speeds. Ryzen loses really bad if you include those newest Intel models that are using higher clock speeds by default. Ryzen would also lose really bad against the previous Intel models if you do manual overclocking on those. It seems Intel's stuff can be pushed a lot higher than Ryzen, and then benchmarks should look really bad if it's for example 4.8GHz on Intel's newer stuff compared to 4.0GHz on AMD Ryzen.
On page three of the review, there's faster 3200 RAM instead of 2667 adding 7% to FPS.
|
On April 15 2017 07:54 Saggymidgetbooty6969 wrote: sc2 only uses 2 cores, someone tested it with a strong dual core and overclocked it to 4 ghz and had the same fps as the top of i7 processors
the ryzen will suck for sc2
For the main part of the game SC2 is actually single-threaded, although it does use a second core for some things (from memory it's stuff like sound and AI). Which means the extra cores of Ryzen won't be of any benefit whatsoever for SC2.
That said, it won't *suck* because for single-threaded things Ryzen is quite fast. It's *not* as fast as Intel's newest processors, but it *is* faster than Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge CPUs (which is what I'm running) and those are often averaging >100fps,
|
|
Dominican Republic590 Posts
ryzen 5 has more thread more cores and on top of that has a really god IPC and better power consumption / temps than intel does, Ryzen is a platform that can last you longer than intel since you dont need to change your motherboard to upgrade your CPU.
|
United Kingdom20164 Posts
On April 15 2017 12:47 Ropid wrote:This review in German has SC2 benchmarks on page 2, and something about better RAM on page 3: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Ryzen-5-1600X-CPU-265842/Tests/R5-1500X-Review-Mainstream-1225280/They seem to be using some replay with a lot of units and explosions on screens, and at a very low resolution, so should be a good benchmark. The raw architecture seems to compete well with Intel's, but the problem is clock speeds. Ryzen loses really bad if you include those newest Intel models that are using higher clock speeds by default. Ryzen would also lose really bad against the previous Intel models if you do manual overclocking on those. It seems Intel's stuff can be pushed a lot higher than Ryzen, and then benchmarks should look really bad if it's for example 4.8GHz on Intel's newer stuff compared to 4.0GHz on AMD Ryzen. On page three of the review, there's faster 3200 RAM instead of 2667 adding 7% to FPS.
SC2 benchmarks at low FPS are really weird because of engine quirks
You can have one CPU that's 20% faster than another (say if you tested a 7700k at 4.0 vs 4.8ghz) getting a 40% higher FPS number (average and minimum) while only perceptively being 20% faster.
That's because the FPS number even for minimum FPS is just a count of how many frames came in the last second but sc2 has extremely uneven frametimes with some frames taking 2-3x as long as others. A slower CPU might get stuck dealing with the game logic 90% of the time while a slightly faster one gets it done with say 75% and then gets a load of easy frames to render between simulation ticks; they massively inflate the FPS number without the actual part of the game that feels bad (the slow frames during simulation ticks) being improved at all.
That test seems to be scaling in that way because of the performance gap between CPU's and the minimum FPS range (below 20, sometimes far below) - sc2 runs at ~22hz, so that effect can get quite pronounced when FPS is dropping below the 40's. You can see that the ryzen cpu's are roughly level with the 6800.
I do expect Ryzen performance to be somewhere around Sandy Bridge for sc2 (OC vs OC)
|
I do expect Ryzen performance to be somewhere around Sandy Bridge for sc2 (OC vs OC)
Looks like could be true after my case but we should check by more tests. All I try to confirm is Ryzen 1700 lets to play comfortably or not.
Someone has Ryzen CPU? : )
|
Do you want to have it tested on highest settings? I'm using Ryzen 1700 (stock) and Geforce GTX 1070 with 16 gigabyte of RAM at 2133mhz because I didn't bother to configure XMP profiles yet. (I don't know if its single or dual rank RAM, but apparently it can make a difference of up to 10% for Ryzen CPUs in some games.)
|
United Kingdom20164 Posts
It's best to compare quite directly with two people repeating benchmarks from the same time of the same replay on the same settings, i usually used the fraps benchmark function to output frametimes as well as min,max,avg.
so.....this thread will die quickly here ⊙﹏⊙ Please consider to put this on SC2 General. It's match.
Yeah, that's unfortunate. Not neccesarily die but there is a lot less activity here since it got moved to be 2 and a half pages down the TL website a while back. There have been many website changes that were for the worse IMO, some with some positives and others that were just straight up bad but there is not much response to website feedback
|
I accidentally read over your entire replay post with the settings when I first read through the thread. For me the lowest FPS were 40 in the Zealot vs Ling/Bling fight. It wasn't a rapid drop in frame rate but rather continuous, so it didn't feel laggy at all for me. The other two fight's lowest FPS were 42(Voidray vs Corruptor) and 63 (Ultralisk vs Zealot). While there was no fight the FPS were between 80 and 120 depending on where the camera was and the movement of the units.
|
United Kingdom20164 Posts
You should disable Vsync for playing sc2 and especially for benchmarking it
I ran through that replay with standard benchmarking stuff (matched settings, locked to player camera, a hatchery selected) and started a 20 second fraps benchmark from 4:41 ingame time on Faster.
With a 6700k @4.5ghz and 3200mhz c16 RAM i got 87fps min, 119 avg, 180 max
frametime distribution, every dot is a frame:
Not exactly as it appears to be from the FPS number alone. The slowest frames during the start of the battle are hanging around 1/40'th of a second (40fps equivelant) even though the FPS number never dropped below 87 because of the highly irregular frametimes - There were 87 frames in that second but some of them were far, far slower and others far, far faster, it's just a very basic average over a time period (1 whole second) that is entirely too long for judging smoothness when frametimes are not consistent.
--
With some downclocking of my own CPU i can clearly see a disconnect between reported framerate and actual percieved performance. The percieved performance is very strongly tied to the amount of time that the slowest frames take while having a bunch of extra very fast frames between the slow ones does not benefit the feeling very much.
With a +25% to CPU clock speed i'm able to see the slowest frames get ~1.25x faster, the percieved performance getting 1.25x better but meanwhile the framerate increases by +40-45% - not a good representation of percieved performance. That will happen with RAM as well, the FPS goes up far faster than the engine and percieved performance does.
There's a set amount of work to be done per second and after that work is done, the CPU is free to make lots of frames that take much less time each. Those frames give a +1 to the FPS number but they don't speed up the game simulation and they don't really matter for percieved game performance so it makes things tricky to benchmark accurately.
Feels like i'm repeating myself a bunch and still not explaining adequately x.o
best bets, i think, would be running an extremely intense benchmark where Ryzen would get a minimum FPS in the low teens and even a 7700k would not be able to achieve >20 on (800 zerglings? ). Second best, run FRAPS benchmark set to record frametimes and then manually count out low long the slowest frames of the same fight took by comparison, that's what i did w/ different CPU clocks.
|
Canada13372 Posts
So... for game performance, Intel is still better than Ryzen?
I've seen people rave about ryzen for video encoding though.
So if I want to upgrade my PC in the future, I should stick on the intel OC train? Or are they close enough in 3D gaming performance that its worth saving the money and going ryzen?
|
|
|
|