Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.
  2. Apologies for enabling the dark skin as the forum default. This was unintentional and the light theme that we've been using for the last couple of years will remain the default.

    For anyone who hasn't noticed:
    We've enabled a dark skin on the forums called Keen Software House - Dark. It's not perfect but it gets the job done for anyone who doesn't enjoy white backgrounds. Go to your preferences page https://forum.keenswh.com/account/preferences or click the skin name at the bottom left of any forum page to switch

Ryzen and Space Engineers?

Discussion in 'General' started by Helaton, Mar 7, 2017.

  1. Helaton

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2015
    Messages:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    52
    I'm considering future builds with either a 1700x or 1800x and wanted to see if anyone out there has already made the leap for Space Engineers in to the Zen architecture and if you wouldn't mind giving your feedback.
     
  2. Ronin1973

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2015
    Messages:
    3,557
    Trophy Points:
    207
    Ryzen has received a lot of early flak for poor under-performance in gaming.

    I would wait until the next generation of Ryzen to come out so that AMD can react to the market's response.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  3. PLPM

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2014
    Messages:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    122
    The ryzen procesors are more oriented at design applications and such with their number of cores, they´re slightly less efficient in single threaded applications than the top dogs of intel, but... that´s about it. Maybe some small opmizations to go, but this doesn´t make the ryzen bad at gaming.

    One has to wait for the following ryzen 3 and 5 to make a judgement.
     
  4. ViroMan

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2016
    Messages:
    620
    Trophy Points:
    52
    While AMD zen chips are not as good in single thread performance as Intel, they are still a good leap in performance for AMD chips. I would follow the advice to wait for the next iteration of chips though since as was stated... it appears to be under performing to some expectations(while still being an improvement).
     
  5. odizzido

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2016
    Messages:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Zen is very competitive against intel's 8 core CPU. I'd get zen over what intel offers without thinking.

    If you're looking for AMD's answer to intel's 4 core CPUs you will need to wait until they release their 6/4 core CPUs. Hopefully by then AMD will get a little more performance out of zen on the software side and will manage to get higher clocks on their 6/4 cores.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. Llessur

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    72
    I have seen benchmarks that show AMD better in multi but about the same maybe a little less on single core. I also read a PCMag article that said it does way better on newer games but does eorse on older lower res games and this was due to most games being built for 4 cores not 8 and that they where working with improving this but idk I love the price on them though compared to Intel
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  7. Ronin1973

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2015
    Messages:
    3,557
    Trophy Points:
    207
    Well, your 6 and 8 core Intel chips are going to work on a 2011v3 form factor rather than the 1000 series. The more cores that you have, the more heat that will be generated. Perhaps AMD has solved its heat issues or at least found a work around. But the clock speed is always lower since there are more cores on the die. The 6,8, and 10 core Intels are still stuck in the 6000 series even though the gaming cores are now in the 7000 series.

    So AMD is picking a fight with an older, mostly ignored dog. Most people stay away from 2011 motherboards and if 6,8, 10 you can't just pop those chips into 1150 etc. You have to go 2011v3. Which means basically you either build a 2011v3 machine or you stay with your 1150 set up with a max of 4 cores.

    That being said. The Ryzen 7 blows the doors off of the Intel i7-6900k (non-overclocked). The only thing the 6900 has an edge on is the cache with 4 more MB. Then there's price. Intel wants $1000 just for this chip. AMD is $499.

    Intel's response will be to drop it's price by $600 (can it?), blow out those 6000 series chips, and then answer back with better specs at the same price with a new 7000 series chip. I can't see Intel letting AMD gloat about beating up on one of its less popular kids and making the 2011v3 platform obsolete.

    AMD went after a segment of the market which is much smaller than the 2-4 core high speed market. But it's much smaller as now you're venturing into prosumer video editing, etc. where having a high core count helps with certain kinds of rendering.

    Is the Ryzen 8 core compatible with legacy motherboards? Can you take full advantage of the power of Ryzen without getting a brand new motherboard?
     
  8. Renegrade

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2015
    Messages:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    37
    I've been very discouraged about new processors of late. Wife's 6600K is actually slower than my 3820 based on my own benchmark (which is basically just a very simple test of my own game's core update engine), as she's running stock clock vs my 4200mhz mild overclock. I literally wiped away those years and generations of CPUs by upping my multiplier a bit (for most uses). :/

    I'm getting 140 single-threaded performance in Cinebench (662 multi). An i7-6900K gets 154 (Ryzen 1800 about the same). That's a lot of not-improvement for the better part of a decade of time. Adding more cores really only helps a select few; most problems cannot be subdivided in a productive way, meaning that applying multithreading as a solution won't help in those cases. Single-threaded performance will be important for the rest of time.

    It's really sad as one of my greatest joys in computing was holding off on upgrading for a long time, and then reveling in the big huge burst of performance. 386DX@33 to Pentium MMX@160 to P2@350 to P3@1000 to Athlon XP @1800 to Core 2 Duo @2600 ...and now it's fizzling away :/ The i7-920 was a massive disappointment (potato cooking monster, made more heat than performance), the 3820 wasn't too bad, but not spectacular either.. and now.. do I really want to put $1400 or so into a new system for a ten percent improvement?

    Moore's law is dead.
     
  9. Helaton

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2015
    Messages:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    52
    There's lots of benchmarks, but what I'm wondering (or hoping) is whether anyone actually has used it yet with space engineers.

    Intel has been long king of the hill via IPC and some IPC benches show the 1800x just 8% behind. But looking specifically for Space Engineers to see if someone has tried it yet.
     
  10. Ronin1973

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2015
    Messages:
    3,557
    Trophy Points:
    207
    Intel's focus of late hasn't been on increasing processor speed. It's mostly on the reduction of power draw. I wish I could say heat. But Intel doesn't do itself a favor by using cheap, shitty product on the die to transfer heat to the lid. Having to crack open your CPU just to get decent thermal material on the die is silly, especially when buying $300 on up for a four core CPU.
     
  11. Helaton

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2015
    Messages:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    52
    I remember considering delidding my processor but without an extra, couldn't afford to do it.

    Although would be interesting if SE could thread different regions of space that do not interact with each other onto different threads utilizing the view distance as the indicator. (You'd get massive local lag if you have several large ships in a single area loading a single thread, but a person in a small ship mining away from you would be unaffected and dancing with glee about the roid). That would really make AMD's shine for cost to core. Guess this would be like SESE's ability to unload objects if the player isn't near thus freezing the assets. Although you'd need a 'real time' option to keep everything going if a person had the core count/ghz to push to it (SE really likes the ghz was a notable difference for me from 3.5 to 4.3ghz).
     
  12. Syncaidius

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    653
    Trophy Points:
    147
    Agreed. So far it seems that flak is moving on to the board manufacturers for BIOS issues and Windows 10 for scheduler issues:
    http://windowsreport.com/amd-ryzen-performance/

    There's also another random (likely minor) bug where Win10 detects Ryzen has having 136MB cache instead of 20MB. :p

    ASUS AM4 boards currently have an issue where setting the memory clock higher (or using memory faster) than 2666Mhz destabilizes the system (even though the boards are rated for much faster memory than that). They're working on it from what I read couple days ago.

    But again, as with any new product/architecture, its best to wait a while for the bugs/kinks to be worked out. I remember back when Intel first added HT to their processors, all the random issues that caused in Windows during the first month of release was silly. Same can be said for things like USB 3.o, DDR4 quad-channel and so forth. :)
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Harrekin

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2015
    Messages:
    2,961
    Trophy Points:
    202
    Skylake and on took a massive leap forward regarding heat produced.

    I ran my 6600k at 4.8 on a standard Evo for a while and during stress testing never got above 70°C.
     
  14. Taemien

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2014
    Messages:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    102
    What exactly are you all playing that needs that sort of processing power? I run a 4790k @4.0 (no OC) and have yet to have my CPU be the bottleneck. Right now the only thing holding my PC back is its GTX970's apparently low video RAM. Didn't think 4GB would get 'low' that quickly.
     
  15. Harrekin

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2015
    Messages:
    2,961
    Trophy Points:
    202
    It's the individual core performance that has kept you ahead of the curve.

    Ryzen so far is way more about multi-tasking, we'll see what their 6 and 4 core chips are like but given they'll be the same cores I don't see them getting any better "per core" results.

    I dunno, I suppose it makes sense to someone running a server and playing and streaming at the same time?
     
  16. Taemien

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2014
    Messages:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    102
    Its why I chose the 4790K. I have yet to play a game that utilizes all cores equally. Usually its a main core supplemented by 'secondary' threads. Its also why I stick to 4 core vs 6/8.

    IIRC the SE dedicated server runs in a single core. So you could run a DS and an instance of the game and probably not notice on the 4790K, 6700K, and 7700K. And I think GPU's can directly stream now? I dunno.. we're starting to set the goalposts in a weird position to justify OCing some of these CPU's.

    And I say 'some of these CPU's' specifically to avoid a OC or Not-OC debate. Sometimes you've got to OC to extend the effectiveness of a older gen CPU. But one of those 3 I mentioned.. I would love to see the game that benefits from that. I will say this though... after playing Wildlands. I'm seriously wanting them to hurry up and come out with 16GB VRAM GPU's. Not even a year ago I thought 4GB was pretty damn good. Then I find out its limiting with some newer games here in 2017.

    8GB is enough, for now. But I like to be ahead of 'enough' so I can future proof. And 16GB seems like it will handle future 4k pretty well, for a little bit.
     
  17. ViroMan

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2016
    Messages:
    620
    Trophy Points:
    52
    Remember the days you could actually add more memory to your VCard? ahh them was the days...

    I would pay extra for that option.
     
  18. Taemien

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2014
    Messages:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    102
    I've seen hard drive cache like that. Might not be a bad idea.
     
  19. ViroMan

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2016
    Messages:
    620
    Trophy Points:
    52
    Your talking about raid cache right?
     
  20. Nacon

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2013
    Messages:
    561
    Trophy Points:
    137
    You guys realize you're getting way off the topic now, right? OP was asking how it performs on Zen. You guys went off comparing Intel and AMD, stop doing that.

    However, the biggest problem I see with Space Engineers that it doesn't use more than 2 cores on any CPU.
     
  21. Harrekin

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2015
    Messages:
    2,961
    Trophy Points:
    202
    It's a discussion about the benefits of solid single core performance for gaming...

    How could it be any more on topic given the OP asked about AMD's new "just give it more (but bad individually performing) cores" chips?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  22. PLPM

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2014
    Messages:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    122
    To be fair, AMD´s "Rice" 7 isn´t too far behind Intel chips in single core applications, but an advantage is an advantage I suppose.
     
  23. Harrekin

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2015
    Messages:
    2,961
    Trophy Points:
    202
    Unless you're doing heavy multi-thread/core work a 4690k is probably a better buy and a full 50% cheaper and actually still beats AMDs newest and best in SC performance.
     
  24. PLPM

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2014
    Messages:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    122
    Did... did you just compare the ryzen 7 with an i-5 in price?

    Well, that´s not fair. It would be more adecuate to wait for the ryzen 5 to talk about price, then we would be talking of the same market segment and we could draw a better comparison.

    You don´t buy an i-7 or a ryzen 7 and you go "This will be great for my single core performance"
     
  25. Harrekin

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2015
    Messages:
    2,961
    Trophy Points:
    202
    But we're talking about gaming; so 4 better cores is worth more than 8 less worthwhile ones.
     
  26. ViroMan

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2016
    Messages:
    620
    Trophy Points:
    52
    No but, you should heavily consider thinking that way. Lets face it... the software developing community is very slow to adopt multi-core able programming. There are tons of reasons for this that I don't completely care about but, for the gamer, IMHO single core performance is 2nd best metric to consider your CPU choices. Price, Single Core Performance, Overall Performance. I ended up with AMD because I was buying cheap stuff to put together a gaming rig. me sad.
     
  27. Harrekin

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2015
    Messages:
    2,961
    Trophy Points:
    202
    It's not even a case of them being slow to adopt it, more a case of how multithreading works. Unfortunately you can only do so much with it.

    It's great for doing large batches of calculations (as seen in a bigger scale in CUDA technology) not so great for doing loads of different things and trying to talk to each other.
     
  28. PLPM

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2014
    Messages:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    122
    That is definitely undisputed.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  29. ViroMan

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2016
    Messages:
    620
    Trophy Points:
    52
    off topic but, I wish I could find that research paper that described a way to make CPU's without transistors. It had the bonus features of putting out negligible heat (the main heat source in CPU's are transistors). The downside was that it took two "passes" for each instruction to process. Who cares about that though when you could stack 16 "cores" on each other in 3D and still air cool without fan.
     
  30. Taemien

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2014
    Messages:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    102
    There was a micro vacuum tube CPU being developed by Nasa that could reach 460GHz: http://hexus.net/tech/news/industry/71493-nasa-scientists-created-460ghz-vacuum-tubes/
     
    • Like Like x 1