![]() You can likely guess what would happen at 4K. The key thing to note when comparing Ryzen against Intel CPUs is that the 1800X trails the 6900K by 12% at 1080p yet moving to 1440p shrunk that margin to a nearly insignificant 4%. Those titles included Arma 3, Battlefield 1, Mafia III and Watch Dogs 2.Ĭonversely, disabling SMT boosted performance to some extent in Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, F1 2016, Far Cry Primal, Gears of War 4, Grand Theft Auto V, Overwatch and Total War: Warhammer, while we saw virtually no performance change in Civilization IV, For Honor, Hitman, Mirror's Edge Catalyst and The Division. Ryzen's overall average performance didn't look great but that's because the results in some games were actually hurt by turning off SMT. Of course, the company also said that about Bulldozer, but Ryzen appears to be in a much better situation.įixing SMT support should be a relatively easy first step and it will help improve many of the results. The State of Ryzen for PC GamingĪs noted in our full Ryzen review, at this point we're waiting for software optimizations and AMD promises they're coming. Here the Ryzen 1800X was just 4% slower than the 6900K and disabling SMT actually put the 1800X on par with the 6600K and 5960X. When gaming at 1440p things even out considerably as the GPU becomes a bigger factor in the equation. No, this doesn't reflect real-life gaming scenarios for a high-end GPU today when you'll likely be gaming at higher resolutions and with a certain level of GPU bottleneck, but it does represent where Ryzen stands in raw gaming performance. Based on the data above, Ryzen 7 1800X is on average 12% slower than the Core i7-6900K on gaming titles, which seems in line with what we found originally at 1080p. The effectiveness of turning off SMT varied from game to game and we hope that it won't be long before SMT stops being a burden for proper gaming performance (a software patch should do). From the 16 games tested we see that disabling SMT on the 1800X resulted in 3% more performance for the average frame rate and just 1% for the minimum. Firaxis if you are reading this.The average data above is not meant to be conclusive, but I know many of you really like it when I take all the games tested and provide an overall perspective of what we've been able to gather. It's just sad to see this lack of polish in a AAA production title like Civ V. All other modern games I've tried (XCOM, Shogun 2, Battlefield 3, etc.) scale really well to this 2560x1440 resolution. I would expect smaller resolution images like this in older games, but not in newer games like Civ V. ![]() The menu backgrounds really bother me though. I guess the second one is less noticeable. It's not bad for the most part, but the blue-ish bar on the right doesn't fit the full height of my screen. ![]() This second one shows the city screen UI. This low resolution black border image also shows up on loading screen images as well. This first one is the menu with the smaller BG. If a game supports these higher resolution in video settings, then you would think they would test and polish for those resolutions as well? Some of the in game UI elements like the fancy chrome borders don't scale to 1440 height either. Civ V plays well, but the menu backgrounds have black borders at sides AND top & bottom. Now that I am playing on a 2560x1440 monitor, it's sad to see how many games are broken at that resolution.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |