Has anyone tried Ryzen 3 gen CPUs yet for playing ESO ?

rfennell_ESO · July 2019

rumple9 wrote: »

Problem with Intel is if you want to upgrade your CPU you have to buy a new mobo too so AMD is much better value

Generally with the way chipsets on boards work... it's always a factor to upgrade the board anyways.

Though Intel does get a little crazy with sockets. The fact that right now they have a number of sockets that are relevant... somewhere in the vicinity of 7/8 is ridiculous.

I can't even remotely name them... lga 1150, 1151, 1155, 2011... then a whole bunch for xeons.

MLGProPlayer · July 2019

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

rumple9 wrote: »

Problem with Intel is if you want to upgrade your CPU you have to buy a new mobo too so AMD is much better value

Generally with the way chipsets on boards work... it's always a factor to upgrade the board anyways.

Though Intel does get a little crazy with sockets. The fact that right now they have a number of sockets that are relevant... somewhere in the vicinity of 7/8 is ridiculous.

I can't even remotely name them... lga 1150, 1151, 1155, 2011... then a whole bunch for xeons.

AMD promises 4 generations of compatability with Ryzen. You just update your BIOS and you're good to go.

Having said that, AMD motherboards are so cheap, it wouldn't even matter if you had to upgrade your mobo along with the CPU. Intel mobos cost almost as much as the CPU. It's as if they're made from gold.

MLGProPlayer · July 2019

RouDeR wrote: »

p_tsakirisb16_ESO wrote: »

RouDeR wrote: »

p_tsakirisb16_ESO wrote: »

RouDeR wrote: »

ATomiX69 wrote: »

todokete wrote: »

Get a real processor lmao get an intel

3rd gen Ryzen is beating 9th gen Intel in every aspect, price, single/multicore-performance, core count, TDP all the stuff, check some benchmarks and realize you might be buying overpriced stuff just because it gets advertized more and because Intel used to have a monopoly on the CPU market about 3 years ago.

Say again ?

Irrelevant benchmark for ESO because
a) Uses RTX2080Ti,
b) Is just a single game out of dozens, so you cherry picking.
c) We know that a Vega 64 + 8600K @ 4.7Ghz has same FPS in ESO with 8700K @ 4.7Ghz and 2080Ti with maxed out settings. That is around 44 FPS in towns like Vulkhel Guard, and 120-144fps in dungeons at 2560x1440

Please do not apply for a job that requires critical/logical thinking
You just confirmed that 2 CPUs (same clock speeds) have the same performance, and u are using this as an argument just becaaaausee ??? please tell me why, i do not see the logic
GTX 1070, GTX 1080, GTX 1080ti, GTX 2060, GTX 2070, GTX 2080, GTX 2080ti, VEGA 56, VEGA 64, VEGA 7 will give you the same equal FPS when running the game at 1440p, because ESO is not GPU demanding game, however it is CPU demanding game and this is what we are comparing here.

I7 6700k, i7700k, 8700k and even 9700k will give you the SAME FPS performance if they have equal clock speeds, so i don't know what the heck are u talking about comparing 2 intel CPUs

I will tell you that :
If you use Ryzen 2700x clocked at 4.2 ghz with 2080ti
and i use Ryzen 1700x or intel 6700k clocked at 4.2 ghz paired with gtx 1070,

we will get EXACT THE SAME FPS in your so called Vulkhel Guard area of ~45 fps no matter of the GPU differences

You picked 1 game benchmark, using an RTX2080Ti. You didn't pick a dozen others.
And I am on critical thinking business, and I do apply logic every day, similarly to that if you do not have RTX2080Ti you won't see much different with lesser cards on any game. And especially in ESO doesn't matter either way.

You can carry now writing pointless essays, and bury deeper your self.

I will tell you what you clearly do not understand.
Take a look again at the screenshot and check the Clock speeds of the Intels CPUs vs the AMD 3 gen cpus.
This is what matters for ESO the clock speed of your CPU.
And if you think this is the only game that clock speed matter than take a look at the gaming benchmarks in the video below
https://youtu.be/PAGQwWDyURI

Nothing matters for ESO. I guarantee you'll get the same average FPS (+/- 1 or 2 fps) with an i9 9900K and an r5 3600.

MLGProPlayer · July 2019

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

Instant wrote: »

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

Overall either high end chip will be more (far more) than enough to run eso well.

@rfennell_ESO
There is not a single CPU that can run ESO at stable 60 fps on low settings in all the trials.

Motion pictures are 24 fps.

Just saying... The focus on max frame rates is overhyped.

Personally I've always capped frame rates because I don't see a point in just generating heat for something I barely see.

The goal should be to not drop below certain framerates. Just my opinion, I get why people focus on high frame rates.

Anything below 60 fps is clearly visibly degrading and less pleasurable to play and watch. If motion pictures had the camera swining around and back and forth like we do in games it'd look choppy and shoddy af.

Opinions vary.

I've never been bothered by sub 60 fps nor do I even notice screen tearing. My buddy who typically runs a similar system to mine and is usually upgrading at the same time is bothered by it and tearing.

Why that is... who knows. It's not a vision thing as he needs glasses for some things and I have very good vision.

The point about 24 fps and motion pictures is one part that it's sufficient frame rate for an action packed movie and that it's a consistent 24 fps.

As I said earlier...if you cap framerates closers to your low end you will see smaller swings. If you are running 60 fps, but get drops to 20's it will be really noticeable and out of rhythm. That's what I feel is the issue most have.. the swing, not the overall frame rate.

LegacyDM wrote: »

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

The AMD fanbois are a funny bunch. Usually falling for artificial benchmarks that have no real world implications.

The only time I went AMD the chip burned itself out with noticeable scorch marks on it. I still have it on my wall.

Overall either high end chip will be more (far more) than enough to run eso well. Then you have to good old reliability gap between them to consider. Maybe that gap has closed some... but, it's doubtful it really has.

Experience is that a "high end" intel chip will basically last until you retire that system.

If you are dead set on overclocking (you shouldn't be) and going overboard on cooling and getting crazy... well, you really don't have to. All you are really doing it burning electricity and generating needless heat for very little in return.

I'm on my 12th "build". I know because I have all the mobos with processors hanging on my wall as art.

Chasing the overclockers is somewhat pointless and a waste of money. Go for stability and durability on a good processor without doing anything but basic AI tuned overclocking and you won't look back. There is something about checking your temps and them being under 100 F year round (mobo usually at ambient temp) and not having to worry about heat. You can literally run everything on a good intel processor (an I7 or I9) with some basic understanding of system build (not stock, but reasoned decisions about case air flow and processor coolers) and have a rock solid totally reliable system that runs everything you will ever want to.

The concept of performance for less $$$ is always a flawed one.

In 2012 I delided my 3770k, slapped a Corsair h100 on it and overclocked it to 4.6ghz. Still going strong today without issues. With a gtx 1070 I can throw any game at it on max settings without a problem. Overclocking correctly will extend the mileage one gets out of the chip. In fact, my son just turned 7 and I decided to give him my 3770k and this past weekend built myself a new 9900k and just overclocked that to 5ghz. I expect to get at least 10 years out of that computer. I’ve been building computers since 1997 and I’m on my 5th build. Don’t know when you started but I’ll wager I’ve saved more money in the long run by overclocking and being smart about the components I buy.

Let's just say that board #1 on my wall is 486 dx2 (first computer I built) and it wasn't my first computer (first pc was a 386 with no math coprocessor).

Most of the systems on my wall didn't fail and were overclocked (some more than others) and were just retired for shinier things. Pentium 1, 2, 3, 4's, core 2. I got about 7 years out of my overclocked core 2 duo.

I have 15 video cards on the wall as well ;p (and 22 mice in my computer drawer)

Point being my computer building goes back a bit further than yours. Furthermore, some of the boards on my wall were kept as back up systems (running systems) operating in conjunction with a newer system.

The difference between 60 fps and 144 fps on a 144 hz monitor is astronomical.

I couldn't believe my eyes when I tried a high refresh rate monitor for the first time. It's like you're viewing your game through a window, not a computer screen.

LegacyDM · July 2019

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

Instant wrote: »

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

Overall either high end chip will be more (far more) than enough to run eso well.

@rfennell_ESO
There is not a single CPU that can run ESO at stable 60 fps on low settings in all the trials.

Motion pictures are 24 fps.

Just saying... The focus on max frame rates is overhyped.

Personally I've always capped frame rates because I don't see a point in just generating heat for something I barely see.

The goal should be to not drop below certain framerates. Just my opinion, I get why people focus on high frame rates.

Anything below 60 fps is clearly visibly degrading and less pleasurable to play and watch. If motion pictures had the camera swining around and back and forth like we do in games it'd look choppy and shoddy af.

Opinions vary.

I've never been bothered by sub 60 fps nor do I even notice screen tearing. My buddy who typically runs a similar system to mine and is usually upgrading at the same time is bothered by it and tearing.

Why that is... who knows. It's not a vision thing as he needs glasses for some things and I have very good vision.

The point about 24 fps and motion pictures is one part that it's sufficient frame rate for an action packed movie and that it's a consistent 24 fps.

As I said earlier...if you cap framerates closers to your low end you will see smaller swings. If you are running 60 fps, but get drops to 20's it will be really noticeable and out of rhythm. That's what I feel is the issue most have.. the swing, not the overall frame rate.

LegacyDM wrote: »

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

The AMD fanbois are a funny bunch. Usually falling for artificial benchmarks that have no real world implications.

The only time I went AMD the chip burned itself out with noticeable scorch marks on it. I still have it on my wall.

Overall either high end chip will be more (far more) than enough to run eso well. Then you have to good old reliability gap between them to consider. Maybe that gap has closed some... but, it's doubtful it really has.

Experience is that a "high end" intel chip will basically last until you retire that system.

If you are dead set on overclocking (you shouldn't be) and going overboard on cooling and getting crazy... well, you really don't have to. All you are really doing it burning electricity and generating needless heat for very little in return.

I'm on my 12th "build". I know because I have all the mobos with processors hanging on my wall as art.

Chasing the overclockers is somewhat pointless and a waste of money. Go for stability and durability on a good processor without doing anything but basic AI tuned overclocking and you won't look back. There is something about checking your temps and them being under 100 F year round (mobo usually at ambient temp) and not having to worry about heat. You can literally run everything on a good intel processor (an I7 or I9) with some basic understanding of system build (not stock, but reasoned decisions about case air flow and processor coolers) and have a rock solid totally reliable system that runs everything you will ever want to.

The concept of performance for less $$$ is always a flawed one.

In 2012 I delided my 3770k, slapped a Corsair h100 on it and overclocked it to 4.6ghz. Still going strong today without issues. With a gtx 1070 I can throw any game at it on max settings without a problem. Overclocking correctly will extend the mileage one gets out of the chip. In fact, my son just turned 7 and I decided to give him my 3770k and this past weekend built myself a new 9900k and just overclocked that to 5ghz. I expect to get at least 10 years out of that computer. I’ve been building computers since 1997 and I’m on my 5th build. Don’t know when you started but I’ll wager I’ve saved more money in the long run by overclocking and being smart about the components I buy.

Let's just say that board #1 on my wall is 486 dx2 (first computer I built) and it wasn't my first computer (first pc was a 386 with no math coprocessor).

Most of the systems on my wall didn't fail and were overclocked (some more than others) and were just retired for shinier things. Pentium 1, 2, 3, 4's, core 2. I got about 7 years out of my overclocked core 2 duo.

I have 15 video cards on the wall as well ;p (and 22 mice in my computer drawer)

Point being my computer building goes back a bit further than yours. Furthermore, some of the boards on my wall were kept as back up systems (running systems) operating in conjunction with a newer system.

Fair enough. Before 1997 I had an apple IIc, IIGS, and a performa mac. I didn’t have a need to overclock. I’m just confused by your commentary on overclocking.

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

If you are dead set on overclocking (you shouldn't be) and going overboard on cooling and getting crazy... well, you really don't have to. All you are really doing it burning electricity and generating needless heat for very little in return.

I'm on my 12th "build". I know because I have all the mobos with processors hanging on my wall as art.

Chasing the overclockers is somewhat pointless and a waste of money.

The concept of performance for less $$$ is always a flawed one.

For someone as experienced as you why is it flawed? Clearly we both got a lot of performance increases as well as longevity out of the chips.

CAB_Life · July 2019

https://www.resetera.com/threads/amds-ryzen-3600-benchmarks-leaked-rip-intel.125325/

I went with Intel for my latest config simply as AMD don’t have strong mobile CPUs yet. Next laptop in a few years I’ll probably do all AMD if the trend (of price/ performance competitiveness continues).

rfennell_ESO · July 2019

LegacyDM wrote: »

Fair enough. Before 1997 I had an apple IIc, IIGS, and a performa mac. I didn’t have a need to overclock. I’m just confused by your commentary on overclocking.

For someone as experienced as you why is it flawed? Clearly we both got a lot of performance increases as well as longevity out of the chips.

Oh I'm not against overclocking at all. Using a properly set up system (proper air flow, good case, good cpu cooler) and letting the AI tune overclock for you is a more reasonable approach than chasing max overclocks is all. The higher you go the less durable the system will be (and reliable). At a certain point it's not quite worth chasing the overclock as the yields are smaller and smaller and instability rises.

I've found, over years of building pcs and overclocking them... that you do get what you pay for though. A full intel system will cost more money, but tends to be more reliable. I'm sure AMD has bridged the gap some... but it's hard to compete with intel.

rfennell_ESO · July 2019

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

rumple9 wrote: »

Problem with Intel is if you want to upgrade your CPU you have to buy a new mobo too so AMD is much better value

Generally with the way chipsets on boards work... it's always a factor to upgrade the board anyways.

Though Intel does get a little crazy with sockets. The fact that right now they have a number of sockets that are relevant... somewhere in the vicinity of 7/8 is ridiculous.

I can't even remotely name them... lga 1150, 1151, 1155, 2011... then a whole bunch for xeons.

AMD promises 4 generations of compatability with Ryzen. You just update your BIOS and you're good to go.

Having said that, AMD motherboards are so cheap, it wouldn't even matter if you had to upgrade your mobo along with the CPU. Intel mobos cost almost as much as the CPU. It's as if they're made from gold.

It really depends on which Intel you are building. The 2011 boards are expensive, and they seem like the logically fastest system... but the core I9-9900k is not a LGA2011 it's a LGA1151. 1151 boards are not expensive, I think the newer AMD boards for the latest chips is actually more expensive.

rfennell_ESO · July 2019

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

Instant wrote: »

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

Overall either high end chip will be more (far more) than enough to run eso well.

@rfennell_ESO
There is not a single CPU that can run ESO at stable 60 fps on low settings in all the trials.

Motion pictures are 24 fps.

Just saying... The focus on max frame rates is overhyped.

Personally I've always capped frame rates because I don't see a point in just generating heat for something I barely see.

The goal should be to not drop below certain framerates. Just my opinion, I get why people focus on high frame rates.

Anything below 60 fps is clearly visibly degrading and less pleasurable to play and watch. If motion pictures had the camera swining around and back and forth like we do in games it'd look choppy and shoddy af.

Opinions vary.

I've never been bothered by sub 60 fps nor do I even notice screen tearing. My buddy who typically runs a similar system to mine and is usually upgrading at the same time is bothered by it and tearing.

Why that is... who knows. It's not a vision thing as he needs glasses for some things and I have very good vision.

The point about 24 fps and motion pictures is one part that it's sufficient frame rate for an action packed movie and that it's a consistent 24 fps.

As I said earlier...if you cap framerates closers to your low end you will see smaller swings. If you are running 60 fps, but get drops to 20's it will be really noticeable and out of rhythm. That's what I feel is the issue most have.. the swing, not the overall frame rate.

LegacyDM wrote: »

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

The AMD fanbois are a funny bunch. Usually falling for artificial benchmarks that have no real world implications.

The only time I went AMD the chip burned itself out with noticeable scorch marks on it. I still have it on my wall.

Overall either high end chip will be more (far more) than enough to run eso well. Then you have to good old reliability gap between them to consider. Maybe that gap has closed some... but, it's doubtful it really has.

Experience is that a "high end" intel chip will basically last until you retire that system.

If you are dead set on overclocking (you shouldn't be) and going overboard on cooling and getting crazy... well, you really don't have to. All you are really doing it burning electricity and generating needless heat for very little in return.

I'm on my 12th "build". I know because I have all the mobos with processors hanging on my wall as art.

Chasing the overclockers is somewhat pointless and a waste of money. Go for stability and durability on a good processor without doing anything but basic AI tuned overclocking and you won't look back. There is something about checking your temps and them being under 100 F year round (mobo usually at ambient temp) and not having to worry about heat. You can literally run everything on a good intel processor (an I7 or I9) with some basic understanding of system build (not stock, but reasoned decisions about case air flow and processor coolers) and have a rock solid totally reliable system that runs everything you will ever want to.

The concept of performance for less $$$ is always a flawed one.

In 2012 I delided my 3770k, slapped a Corsair h100 on it and overclocked it to 4.6ghz. Still going strong today without issues. With a gtx 1070 I can throw any game at it on max settings without a problem. Overclocking correctly will extend the mileage one gets out of the chip. In fact, my son just turned 7 and I decided to give him my 3770k and this past weekend built myself a new 9900k and just overclocked that to 5ghz. I expect to get at least 10 years out of that computer. I’ve been building computers since 1997 and I’m on my 5th build. Don’t know when you started but I’ll wager I’ve saved more money in the long run by overclocking and being smart about the components I buy.

Let's just say that board #1 on my wall is 486 dx2 (first computer I built) and it wasn't my first computer (first pc was a 386 with no math coprocessor).

Most of the systems on my wall didn't fail and were overclocked (some more than others) and were just retired for shinier things. Pentium 1, 2, 3, 4's, core 2. I got about 7 years out of my overclocked core 2 duo.

I have 15 video cards on the wall as well ;p (and 22 mice in my computer drawer)

Point being my computer building goes back a bit further than yours. Furthermore, some of the boards on my wall were kept as back up systems (running systems) operating in conjunction with a newer system.

The difference between 60 fps and 144 fps on a 144 hz monitor is astronomical.

I couldn't believe my eyes when I tried a high refresh rate monitor for the first time. It's like you're viewing your game through a window, not a computer screen.

I've seen it, I overclock my monitor to 100 hz (I could go higher).

I just find that pushing the boundaries and going for max isn't quite a cost effective way of being.

I'll admit there was a time I did go for max performance on everything while upgrading systems with new advances. It's fun, but when you realize it doesn't make that much difference overall it gets old. I've moved past the desire to upgrade every time a new video card comes out or processor.

I will "upgrade" when I see changes that are big though. When I see Intel roll out their 7nm process and DDR5 and pcie5/6 I will pair it with a new video card and do a build. That's the point I see it being worthwhile and that's not looking like until 2021.

coletas · July 2019

Asmedia chipsets vs Intel chipsets.. No thank you lol there are little chips that this people makes without bugs. They cant make a USB, camera or sata chipsets works and now they MB chipsets? Lol

CAB_Life · July 2019

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

Instant wrote: »

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

Overall either high end chip will be more (far more) than enough to run eso well.

@rfennell_ESO
There is not a single CPU that can run ESO at stable 60 fps on low settings in all the trials.

Motion pictures are 24 fps.

Just saying... The focus on max frame rates is overhyped.

Personally I've always capped frame rates because I don't see a point in just generating heat for something I barely see.

The goal should be to not drop below certain framerates. Just my opinion, I get why people focus on high frame rates.

Anything below 60 fps is clearly visibly degrading and less pleasurable to play and watch. If motion pictures had the camera swining around and back and forth like we do in games it'd look choppy and shoddy af.

Opinions vary.

I've never been bothered by sub 60 fps nor do I even notice screen tearing. My buddy who typically runs a similar system to mine and is usually upgrading at the same time is bothered by it and tearing.

Why that is... who knows. It's not a vision thing as he needs glasses for some things and I have very good vision.

The point about 24 fps and motion pictures is one part that it's sufficient frame rate for an action packed movie and that it's a consistent 24 fps.

As I said earlier...if you cap framerates closers to your low end you will see smaller swings. If you are running 60 fps, but get drops to 20's it will be really noticeable and out of rhythm. That's what I feel is the issue most have.. the swing, not the overall frame rate.

LegacyDM wrote: »

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

The AMD fanbois are a funny bunch. Usually falling for artificial benchmarks that have no real world implications.

The only time I went AMD the chip burned itself out with noticeable scorch marks on it. I still have it on my wall.

Overall either high end chip will be more (far more) than enough to run eso well. Then you have to good old reliability gap between them to consider. Maybe that gap has closed some... but, it's doubtful it really has.

Experience is that a "high end" intel chip will basically last until you retire that system.

If you are dead set on overclocking (you shouldn't be) and going overboard on cooling and getting crazy... well, you really don't have to. All you are really doing it burning electricity and generating needless heat for very little in return.

I'm on my 12th "build". I know because I have all the mobos with processors hanging on my wall as art.

Chasing the overclockers is somewhat pointless and a waste of money. Go for stability and durability on a good processor without doing anything but basic AI tuned overclocking and you won't look back. There is something about checking your temps and them being under 100 F year round (mobo usually at ambient temp) and not having to worry about heat. You can literally run everything on a good intel processor (an I7 or I9) with some basic understanding of system build (not stock, but reasoned decisions about case air flow and processor coolers) and have a rock solid totally reliable system that runs everything you will ever want to.

The concept of performance for less $$$ is always a flawed one.

In 2012 I delided my 3770k, slapped a Corsair h100 on it and overclocked it to 4.6ghz. Still going strong today without issues. With a gtx 1070 I can throw any game at it on max settings without a problem. Overclocking correctly will extend the mileage one gets out of the chip. In fact, my son just turned 7 and I decided to give him my 3770k and this past weekend built myself a new 9900k and just overclocked that to 5ghz. I expect to get at least 10 years out of that computer. I’ve been building computers since 1997 and I’m on my 5th build. Don’t know when you started but I’ll wager I’ve saved more money in the long run by overclocking and being smart about the components I buy.

Let's just say that board #1 on my wall is 486 dx2 (first computer I built) and it wasn't my first computer (first pc was a 386 with no math coprocessor).

Most of the systems on my wall didn't fail and were overclocked (some more than others) and were just retired for shinier things. Pentium 1, 2, 3, 4's, core 2. I got about 7 years out of my overclocked core 2 duo.

I have 15 video cards on the wall as well ;p (and 22 mice in my computer drawer)

Point being my computer building goes back a bit further than yours. Furthermore, some of the boards on my wall were kept as back up systems (running systems) operating in conjunction with a newer system.

The difference between 60 fps and 144 fps on a 144 hz monitor is astronomical.

I couldn't believe my eyes when I tried a high refresh rate monitor for the first time. It's like you're viewing your game through a window, not a computer screen.

This is exciting. I went with 1080p/ 144 over UHD/ 60 for my soon-to-be-arriving G7. Plus the performance you can squeeze out of a 2080 at that resolution is incredible.

p_tsakirisb16_ESO · July 2019

RouDeR wrote: »

I`m fairly interested how the new 3-gen Ryzen 3600, 3600x , 3700x, 3800x and 3900x will handle ESO

In theory they should do worse than 8gen and 9gen I7 and I9, because their single core boost and OC capabilities are not as good as Intel.
However the ryzens have advantage in the Cache, it is nearly 3 times more than intel's CPUs,

So have anyone here tried them yet?

OK. I tried the 3900X both in full 12c/24t and 6c/12t core configuration (equivalent to Ryzen 3600/3600X) with the CPU boosting at around 4.35Ghz (12core), but mainly sitting at 4.2Ghz where the ESO is running, while the 6core configuration (having activated Game Mode on Ryzen Master), the CPU clocks at 4.565Ghz. To do that I have my RAM running at 3533Mhz (native speed 3600Mhz) and IF 1767Mhz. There is a bug with current AGESA firmware, where at 3600Mhz ram, the CPUs boost lower than they should, that will be fixed with the next bios update for all motherboard manufacturers.

On Ultra settings 2560x1440, I do see few more FPS against the 8600K @ 5Ghz on the Vega 64 and 5700XT tested on max out settings.
That is lowest 55fps, average 62fps in towns like Vulkhel Guard (it was around 48fps up to now), and over 60fps in Rawl'kha (it was around 50 before). At least there is no less fps due to the lower clocked CPU.
Ofc lets not forget the IPC gains for the Zen 2 need to have the Intel equivalent run at 10% higher speed to see any performance difference.

Dungeons run at 144hz cap. (i have removed the limit on the config file).

If you need from me more tests let me know

RouDeR · July 2019

p_tsakirisb16_ESO wrote: »

RouDeR wrote: »

I`m fairly interested how the new 3-gen Ryzen 3600, 3600x , 3700x, 3800x and 3900x will handle ESO

In theory they should do worse than 8gen and 9gen I7 and I9, because their single core boost and OC capabilities are not as good as Intel.
However the ryzens have advantage in the Cache, it is nearly 3 times more than intel's CPUs,

So have anyone here tried them yet?

OK. I tried the 3900X both in full 12c/24t and 6c/12t core configuration (equivalent to Ryzen 3600/3600X) with the CPU boosting at around 4.35Ghz (12core), but mainly sitting at 4.2Ghz where the ESO is running, while the 6core configuration (having activated Game Mode on Ryzen Master), the CPU clocks at 4.565Ghz. To do that I have my RAM running at 3533Mhz (native speed 3600Mhz) and IF 1767Mhz. There is a bug with current AGESA firmware, where at 3600Mhz ram, the CPUs boost lower than they should, that will be fixed with the next bios update for all motherboard manufacturers.

On Ultra settings 2560x1440, I do see few more FPS against the 8600K @ 5Ghz on the Vega 64 and 5700XT tested on max out settings.
That is lowest 55fps, average 62fps in towns like Vulkhel Guard (it was around 48fps up to now), and over 60fps in Rawl'kha (it was around 50 before). At least there is no less fps due to the lower clocked CPU.
Ofc lets not forget the IPC gains for the Zen 2 need to have the Intel equivalent run at 10% higher speed to see any performance difference.

Dungeons run at 144hz cap. (i have removed the limit on the config file).

If you need from me more tests let me know

@p_tsakirisb16_ESO

Take a look at my other thread (main post)
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/486205/showcase-cpu-core-frequency-and-ram-frequency-fps-scaling#latest

Could you please go to the exact same spot in VVanderfel and point ur mouse at the wayshrine, than tell what fps you are getting.

You can find my game settings in the screenshots, Resolution is 1440p.

p_tsakirisb16_ESO · July 2019

RouDeR wrote: »

p_tsakirisb16_ESO wrote: »

RouDeR wrote: »

I`m fairly interested how the new 3-gen Ryzen 3600, 3600x , 3700x, 3800x and 3900x will handle ESO

In theory they should do worse than 8gen and 9gen I7 and I9, because their single core boost and OC capabilities are not as good as Intel.
However the ryzens have advantage in the Cache, it is nearly 3 times more than intel's CPUs,

So have anyone here tried them yet?

OK. I tried the 3900X both in full 12c/24t and 6c/12t core configuration (equivalent to Ryzen 3600/3600X) with the CPU boosting at around 4.35Ghz (12core), but mainly sitting at 4.2Ghz where the ESO is running, while the 6core configuration (having activated Game Mode on Ryzen Master), the CPU clocks at 4.565Ghz. To do that I have my RAM running at 3533Mhz (native speed 3600Mhz) and IF 1767Mhz. There is a bug with current AGESA firmware, where at 3600Mhz ram, the CPUs boost lower than they should, that will be fixed with the next bios update for all motherboard manufacturers.

On Ultra settings 2560x1440, I do see few more FPS against the 8600K @ 5Ghz on the Vega 64 and 5700XT tested on max out settings.
That is lowest 55fps, average 62fps in towns like Vulkhel Guard (it was around 48fps up to now), and over 60fps in Rawl'kha (it was around 50 before). At least there is no less fps due to the lower clocked CPU.
Ofc lets not forget the IPC gains for the Zen 2 need to have the Intel equivalent run at 10% higher speed to see any performance difference.

Dungeons run at 144hz cap. (i have removed the limit on the config file).

If you need from me more tests let me know

@p_tsakirisb16_ESO

Take a look at my other thread (main post)
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/486205/showcase-cpu-core-frequency-and-ram-frequency-fps-scaling#latest

Could you please go to the exact same spot in VVanderfel and point ur mouse at the wayshrine, than tell what fps you are getting.

You can find my game settings in the screenshots, Resolution is 1440p.

I haven't done much of the VVanderfel stuff, so which wayshrine it is and i will do it asap.

Ignore me saw the minimap

LeagueTroll · July 2019

todokete wrote: »

Get a real processor lmao get an intel

i get 30 fps with an intel 7700, i am gonna pass on that.

hmsdragonfly · July 2019

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

Instant wrote: »

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

Overall either high end chip will be more (far more) than enough to run eso well.

@rfennell_ESO
There is not a single CPU that can run ESO at stable 60 fps on low settings in all the trials.

Motion pictures are 24 fps.

Just saying... The focus on max frame rates is overhyped.

Personally I've always capped frame rates because I don't see a point in just generating heat for something I barely see.

The goal should be to not drop below certain framerates. Just my opinion, I get why people focus on high frame rates.

Depends on how much you cap the frame rates. You definitely should focus on getting 60FPS at the very least.

For casual gamer playing casual games, yeah 60FPS is okay-ish. For competitive games, once you go 144FPS with a 144Hz monitor, you will never be able to go back, it's a whole new world it will spoil you. 144Hz is so much better, everything is much more smoother, input lag is much less, to the point in competitive games like CSGO, LoL, Dota, R6 Siege, Overwatch etc it even improves your gameplay if you move from under 60FPS to constant 144FPS/144Hz.

I guess if someone is into trial, they are kinda in the competitive catergory, so for them to focus on getting high enough FPS makes sense.

And i don't see any point in playing at 24 FPS lmao. Motion picture is 24 FPS, but if you have played games on 60 FPS/60 Hz and above, 24 FPS is unplayable, maybe except for couch gaming on consoles.

hmsdragonfly · July 2019

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

I've never been bothered by sub 60 fps nor do I even notice screen tearing.

I am curious, how old are you? Are you into competitive gaming? What's your gaming background?

I mean if you are middle-aged, and have never been into competitive gaming, then I can see where you are coming from that you "have never been bothered by sub 60 fps". Like, you have never been exposed to 144Hz gaming when u were younger and now you just don't care.

But gamers who are into competitive gaming (LoL, Starcraft, Quake, CSGO, R6 Siege etc) will wholeheartedly disagree with this.

mrpaxman · July 2019

p_tsakirisb16_ESO wrote: »

RouDeR wrote: »

I`m fairly interested how the new 3-gen Ryzen 3600, 3600x , 3700x, 3800x and 3900x will handle ESO

In theory they should do worse than 8gen and 9gen I7 and I9, because their single core boost and OC capabilities are not as good as Intel.
However the ryzens have advantage in the Cache, it is nearly 3 times more than intel's CPUs,

So have anyone here tried them yet?

OK. I tried the 3900X both in full 12c/24t and 6c/12t core configuration (equivalent to Ryzen 3600/3600X) with the CPU boosting at around 4.35Ghz (12core), but mainly sitting at 4.2Ghz where the ESO is running, while the 6core configuration (having activated Game Mode on Ryzen Master), the CPU clocks at 4.565Ghz. To do that I have my RAM running at 3533Mhz (native speed 3600Mhz) and IF 1767Mhz. There is a bug with current AGESA firmware, where at 3600Mhz ram, the CPUs boost lower than they should, that will be fixed with the next bios update for all motherboard manufacturers.

On Ultra settings 2560x1440, I do see few more FPS against the 8600K @ 5Ghz on the Vega 64 and 5700XT tested on max out settings.
That is lowest 55fps, average 62fps in towns like Vulkhel Guard (it was around 48fps up to now), and over 60fps in Rawl'kha (it was around 50 before). At least there is no less fps due to the lower clocked CPU.
Ofc lets not forget the IPC gains for the Zen 2 need to have the Intel equivalent run at 10% higher speed to see any performance difference.

Dungeons run at 144hz cap. (i have removed the limit on the config file).

If you need from me more tests let me know

Thanks heaps for the Benchmark results.

My current system is:
i7 6700
Vega 64 Strix

1080p is about 30% GPU load
5760x1080 is about 60% GPU load

FPS is totally unchanged when i upgraded my graphics card from an old 290x at any of those resolutions in eso ONLY.

$1200AU PC upgrade for Intel + CPU cooler purchase
$600AU PC upgrade for AMD including a free CPU cooler.

AMD is now totally my winning choice

And i can upgrade my CPU any time in the future for a few hundred dollars. And save a massive amount on electricity with AMD. And not need to pay extra to have the CPU unlocked and me even needing an upgrade as i currently do. I have been ripped off enough by Intel. If i already owned an AMD system then all i would be looking at just the CPU cost to have new PC power.

Intel. Runs hotter and costs more to run. Welcome to 2019. Along with a long list of things it either loses badly with or is comparable. I'm not even thinking there is 1 thing it fails at doing so badly like Intel now does. Awesome for us the consumers with competition finally back.

On a side note it is far worse that i only need more CPU power for ESO. Either system is probably to expensive to just make 1 game playable while all others are beyond my monitors refresh rate.

coletas · July 2019

hmsdragonfly wrote: »

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

I've never been bothered by sub 60 fps nor do I even notice screen tearing.

I am curious, how old are you? Are you into competitive gaming? What's your gaming background?

I mean if you are middle-aged, and have never been into competitive gaming, then I can see where you are coming from that you "have never been bothered by sub 60 fps". Like, you have never been exposed to 144Hz gaming when u were younger and now you just don't care.

But gamers who are into competitive gaming (LoL, Starcraft, Quake, CSGO, R6 Siege etc) will wholeheartedly disagree with this.

The difference between 144 and 60 are nearly 10ms. BEST gamers can react a visual stimulus at about 100ms (and in benchmarks, where your brain is prepared to the worse all time). So you can tell me that you can see It better since eyes are a continuous/non-shuttering camera, but please, dont tell me is visual reaction issue because the Max you are going to get is 10ms at best. It must be a hell on earth (Doom days XD) to have a fluorescent bulb in the same room for this players lol (yes im a 40yo gamer very competitive on those days of medal of honor allied assault mohaa and never need anything but a k98 and a gun stock to kill'em'all XD just joking XD)

RouDeR · July 2019

mrpaxman wrote: »

p_tsakirisb16_ESO wrote: »

RouDeR wrote: »

I`m fairly interested how the new 3-gen Ryzen 3600, 3600x , 3700x, 3800x and 3900x will handle ESO

In theory they should do worse than 8gen and 9gen I7 and I9, because their single core boost and OC capabilities are not as good as Intel.
However the ryzens have advantage in the Cache, it is nearly 3 times more than intel's CPUs,

So have anyone here tried them yet?

OK. I tried the 3900X both in full 12c/24t and 6c/12t core configuration (equivalent to Ryzen 3600/3600X) with the CPU boosting at around 4.35Ghz (12core), but mainly sitting at 4.2Ghz where the ESO is running, while the 6core configuration (having activated Game Mode on Ryzen Master), the CPU clocks at 4.565Ghz. To do that I have my RAM running at 3533Mhz (native speed 3600Mhz) and IF 1767Mhz. There is a bug with current AGESA firmware, where at 3600Mhz ram, the CPUs boost lower than they should, that will be fixed with the next bios update for all motherboard manufacturers.

On Ultra settings 2560x1440, I do see few more FPS against the 8600K @ 5Ghz on the Vega 64 and 5700XT tested on max out settings.
That is lowest 55fps, average 62fps in towns like Vulkhel Guard (it was around 48fps up to now), and over 60fps in Rawl'kha (it was around 50 before). At least there is no less fps due to the lower clocked CPU.
Ofc lets not forget the IPC gains for the Zen 2 need to have the Intel equivalent run at 10% higher speed to see any performance difference.

Dungeons run at 144hz cap. (i have removed the limit on the config file).

If you need from me more tests let me know

Thanks heaps for the Benchmark results.

My current system is:
i7 6700
Vega 64 Strix

1080p is about 30% GPU load
5760x1080 is about 60% GPU load

FPS is totally unchanged when i upgraded my graphics card from an old 290x at any of those resolutions in eso ONLY.

$1200AU PC upgrade for Intel + CPU cooler purchase
$600AU PC upgrade for AMD including a free CPU cooler.

AMD is now totally my winning choice

And i can upgrade my CPU any time in the future for a few hundred dollars. And save a massive amount on electricity with AMD. And not need to pay extra to have the CPU unlocked and me even needing an upgrade as i currently do. I have been ripped off enough by Intel. If i already owned an AMD system then all i would be looking at just the CPU cost to have new PC power.

Intel. Runs hotter and costs more to run. Welcome to 2019. Along with a long list of things it either loses badly with or is comparable. I'm not even thinking there is 1 thing it fails at doing so badly like Intel now does. Awesome for us the consumers with competition finally back.

On a side note it is far worse that i only need more CPU power for ESO. Either system is probably to expensive to just make 1 game playable while all others are beyond my monitors refresh rate.

Sorry but i don't think you understand correctly his benchmark:

His new 500$ CPU 3900x is almost on par against my 3 year old 7740x in CPU frequency dependent games like 90% of the MMORPG genre games.

When he is using my settings at the same spot (but zoomed camera in which is reducing the CPU stress) he is able to achieve 122 fps, and my 3 years old CPU is achieving 125 fps because it is overclocked at 5.2ghz and the camera is zoomed all the way out.

About the power consumption thing, this is total nonsense that you will save from electricity, the differences are negligible.
While gaming my CPU clocked at 5 ghz is drawing only 65-85 Wats.

As far as pricing goes, if you go for Hi-End gaming CPU, there are almost no differences in price to performance ration when you compare AMD vs INTEL.

Ryzen is only better in the mid-range with it's new ryzen 3600 cpu which is pretty good value.

mrpaxman · July 2019

RouDeR wrote: »

mrpaxman wrote: »

p_tsakirisb16_ESO wrote: »

RouDeR wrote: »

I`m fairly interested how the new 3-gen Ryzen 3600, 3600x , 3700x, 3800x and 3900x will handle ESO

In theory they should do worse than 8gen and 9gen I7 and I9, because their single core boost and OC capabilities are not as good as Intel.
However the ryzens have advantage in the Cache, it is nearly 3 times more than intel's CPUs,

So have anyone here tried them yet?

OK. I tried the 3900X both in full 12c/24t and 6c/12t core configuration (equivalent to Ryzen 3600/3600X) with the CPU boosting at around 4.35Ghz (12core), but mainly sitting at 4.2Ghz where the ESO is running, while the 6core configuration (having activated Game Mode on Ryzen Master), the CPU clocks at 4.565Ghz. To do that I have my RAM running at 3533Mhz (native speed 3600Mhz) and IF 1767Mhz. There is a bug with current AGESA firmware, where at 3600Mhz ram, the CPUs boost lower than they should, that will be fixed with the next bios update for all motherboard manufacturers.

On Ultra settings 2560x1440, I do see few more FPS against the 8600K @ 5Ghz on the Vega 64 and 5700XT tested on max out settings.
That is lowest 55fps, average 62fps in towns like Vulkhel Guard (it was around 48fps up to now), and over 60fps in Rawl'kha (it was around 50 before). At least there is no less fps due to the lower clocked CPU.
Ofc lets not forget the IPC gains for the Zen 2 need to have the Intel equivalent run at 10% higher speed to see any performance difference.

Dungeons run at 144hz cap. (i have removed the limit on the config file).

If you need from me more tests let me know

Thanks heaps for the Benchmark results.

My current system is:
i7 6700
Vega 64 Strix

1080p is about 30% GPU load
5760x1080 is about 60% GPU load

FPS is totally unchanged when i upgraded my graphics card from an old 290x at any of those resolutions in eso ONLY.

$1200AU PC upgrade for Intel + CPU cooler purchase
$600AU PC upgrade for AMD including a free CPU cooler.

AMD is now totally my winning choice

And i can upgrade my CPU any time in the future for a few hundred dollars. And save a massive amount on electricity with AMD. And not need to pay extra to have the CPU unlocked and me even needing an upgrade as i currently do. I have been ripped off enough by Intel. If i already owned an AMD system then all i would be looking at just the CPU cost to have new PC power.

Intel. Runs hotter and costs more to run. Welcome to 2019. Along with a long list of things it either loses badly with or is comparable. I'm not even thinking there is 1 thing it fails at doing so badly like Intel now does. Awesome for us the consumers with competition finally back.

On a side note it is far worse that i only need more CPU power for ESO. Either system is probably to expensive to just make 1 game playable while all others are beyond my monitors refresh rate.

Sorry but i don't think you understand correctly his benchmark:

His new 500$ CPU 3900x is almost on par against my 3 year old 7740x in CPU frequency dependent games like 90% of the MMORPG genre games.

When he is using my settings at the same spot (but zoomed camera in which is reducing the CPU stress) he is able to achieve 122 fps, and my 3 years old CPU is achieving 125 fps because it is overclocked at 5.2ghz and the camera is zoomed all the way out.

About the power consumption thing, this is total nonsense that you will save from electricity, the differences are negligible.
While gaming my CPU clocked at 5 ghz is drawing only 65-85 Wats.

As far as pricing goes, if you go for Hi-End gaming CPU, there are almost no differences in price to performance ration when you compare AMD vs INTEL.

Ryzen is only better in the mid-range with it's new ryzen 3600 cpu which is pretty good value.

Frequency doesnt bother me. The IPC improvements equates to 4.6GHZ on AMD to 5.0 GHZ on Intel with the latest IPC improvements as the main reason. Nor do all the other specs like insanely more L3/gaming cache. I want whatever gives me performance with price not being ignored entirely.

My 3 year old cpu wont even get half that FPS. If i could get even 60 FPS in combat then i wouldn't need more CPU power. It could if Intel didn't lock it. That means im stuck at 3.4ghz. Ultimately the FPS is 25 in dungeons and 15 in trials. Even after buying a fairly expensive graphics card. That is the single reason i do not play this game any more and also demoted myself as GM. And is the deciding factor whether i can play the game again.

It is not nonsense when factoring in that Ryzen runs at 10 watts when idle in desktop. With minimal spikes while being used. My 6700 is using 125 to 130 watts on the desktop. 65w being on the lower power Intel cpu's. That in my (and majority of peoples cases) is far cheaper then anything else i could buy. 100% gaming and then the comparison does get far closer. My actual electricity cost will mean more money in my pocket with AMD. Electricity is not cheap where i live.

The CPU i am looking at is a 3600 or a 3600x. Gaming performance difference between the 3600x and the 3900x is basically nothing. The difference in frequency between all CPU's is so tiny. To get 3600x gaming level performance i need to spend a heap with Intel. If i were looking at getting the 3900x then yeah. I do not need a workstation so 6 cores is already 2 more then what i need. The price part is comparable. Unfortunately a 7700k second hand still costs $450+ and that is nothing more then a waste. And a 3600x out of the box will always slightly beat an overclocked 7700k at everything. The 3600x being only $319 in my country and also saves me paying about $150 more for a CPU cooler with Intel. The 3600x option is not only cheaper and better than either me upgrading just the CPU Even ignoring the fact i would need an after market cooler for that CPU at any kind of good overclock. Or buying the entire system upgrade. Everything works out about the prices i said. On top of all that i also see a massive saving cost in the future since i can upgrade my CPU which is yet another thing that Intel decided to not allow upgrading past 1 generation. And not even being for hardware reasons.

I am aware how Ryzen compares to Intel in each of the 3 API's used across a broad amount of games. And all other things like streaming, Workstations, etc. Just not ESO specific results. Older titles like this game that were made on Directx 9 were also claimed by AMD to see the biggest gains from improvements made.

The benchmark info is useful, as that is stuff i don't know about. Thanks for that. So many pages in this thread and very little results people sharing numbers

p_tsakirisb16_ESO · July 2019

mrpaxman wrote: »

p_tsakirisb16_ESO wrote: »

RouDeR wrote: »

I`m fairly interested how the new 3-gen Ryzen 3600, 3600x , 3700x, 3800x and 3900x will handle ESO

In theory they should do worse than 8gen and 9gen I7 and I9, because their single core boost and OC capabilities are not as good as Intel.
However the ryzens have advantage in the Cache, it is nearly 3 times more than intel's CPUs,

So have anyone here tried them yet?

OK. I tried the 3900X both in full 12c/24t and 6c/12t core configuration (equivalent to Ryzen 3600/3600X) with the CPU boosting at around 4.35Ghz (12core), but mainly sitting at 4.2Ghz where the ESO is running, while the 6core configuration (having activated Game Mode on Ryzen Master), the CPU clocks at 4.565Ghz. To do that I have my RAM running at 3533Mhz (native speed 3600Mhz) and IF 1767Mhz. There is a bug with current AGESA firmware, where at 3600Mhz ram, the CPUs boost lower than they should, that will be fixed with the next bios update for all motherboard manufacturers.

On Ultra settings 2560x1440, I do see few more FPS against the 8600K @ 5Ghz on the Vega 64 and 5700XT tested on max out settings.
That is lowest 55fps, average 62fps in towns like Vulkhel Guard (it was around 48fps up to now), and over 60fps in Rawl'kha (it was around 50 before). At least there is no less fps due to the lower clocked CPU.
Ofc lets not forget the IPC gains for the Zen 2 need to have the Intel equivalent run at 10% higher speed to see any performance difference.

Dungeons run at 144hz cap. (i have removed the limit on the config file).

If you need from me more tests let me know

Thanks heaps for the Benchmark results.

My current system is:
i7 6700
Vega 64 Strix

1080p is about 30% GPU load
5760x1080 is about 60% GPU load

FPS is totally unchanged when i upgraded my graphics card from an old 290x at any of those resolutions in eso ONLY.

$1200AU PC upgrade for Intel + CPU cooler purchase
$600AU PC upgrade for AMD including a free CPU cooler.

AMD is now totally my winning choice

And i can upgrade my CPU any time in the future for a few hundred dollars. And save a massive amount on electricity with AMD. And not need to pay extra to have the CPU unlocked and me even needing an upgrade as i currently do. I have been ripped off enough by Intel. If i already owned an AMD system then all i would be looking at just the CPU cost to have new PC power.

Intel. Runs hotter and costs more to run. Welcome to 2019. Along with a long list of things it either loses badly with or is comparable. I'm not even thinking there is 1 thing it fails at doing so badly like Intel now does. Awesome for us the consumers with competition finally back.

On a side note it is far worse that i only need more CPU power for ESO. Either system is probably to expensive to just make 1 game playable while all others are beyond my monitors refresh rate.

The CPU is fine tbh. I posted settings etc on the other thread. Everything maxed out, at 4K engine rendering, downscaled to 1440p, with mip -3, override AA with MSAA 2x and AF16 looks like this. (no injectors like reshade etc used)

With just Ultra settings no overrides etc, at 2560x1440 looks like this

I prefer the image quality if FPS is over 60. In dugeons I get 133-144fps in both cases as I have set a cap not to go over the Freesync range of my monitor.

If you have Vega 64, make sure you make a custom game profile for ESO and set the P7 state at the minimum speed also. It improves performance.

So conclusion those 3600/3600X Ryzen CPUs are fine, as I have turned off 1 CCX to test and FPS remained the same.

mrpaxman · July 2019

p_tsakirisb16_ESO wrote: »

mrpaxman wrote: »

p_tsakirisb16_ESO wrote: »

RouDeR wrote: »

I`m fairly interested how the new 3-gen Ryzen 3600, 3600x , 3700x, 3800x and 3900x will handle ESO

In theory they should do worse than 8gen and 9gen I7 and I9, because their single core boost and OC capabilities are not as good as Intel.
However the ryzens have advantage in the Cache, it is nearly 3 times more than intel's CPUs,

So have anyone here tried them yet?

OK. I tried the 3900X both in full 12c/24t and 6c/12t core configuration (equivalent to Ryzen 3600/3600X) with the CPU boosting at around 4.35Ghz (12core), but mainly sitting at 4.2Ghz where the ESO is running, while the 6core configuration (having activated Game Mode on Ryzen Master), the CPU clocks at 4.565Ghz. To do that I have my RAM running at 3533Mhz (native speed 3600Mhz) and IF 1767Mhz. There is a bug with current AGESA firmware, where at 3600Mhz ram, the CPUs boost lower than they should, that will be fixed with the next bios update for all motherboard manufacturers.

On Ultra settings 2560x1440, I do see few more FPS against the 8600K @ 5Ghz on the Vega 64 and 5700XT tested on max out settings.
That is lowest 55fps, average 62fps in towns like Vulkhel Guard (it was around 48fps up to now), and over 60fps in Rawl'kha (it was around 50 before). At least there is no less fps due to the lower clocked CPU.
Ofc lets not forget the IPC gains for the Zen 2 need to have the Intel equivalent run at 10% higher speed to see any performance difference.

Dungeons run at 144hz cap. (i have removed the limit on the config file).

If you need from me more tests let me know

Thanks heaps for the Benchmark results.

My current system is:
i7 6700
Vega 64 Strix

1080p is about 30% GPU load
5760x1080 is about 60% GPU load

FPS is totally unchanged when i upgraded my graphics card from an old 290x at any of those resolutions in eso ONLY.

$1200AU PC upgrade for Intel + CPU cooler purchase
$600AU PC upgrade for AMD including a free CPU cooler.

AMD is now totally my winning choice

And i can upgrade my CPU any time in the future for a few hundred dollars. And save a massive amount on electricity with AMD. And not need to pay extra to have the CPU unlocked and me even needing an upgrade as i currently do. I have been ripped off enough by Intel. If i already owned an AMD system then all i would be looking at just the CPU cost to have new PC power.

Intel. Runs hotter and costs more to run. Welcome to 2019. Along with a long list of things it either loses badly with or is comparable. I'm not even thinking there is 1 thing it fails at doing so badly like Intel now does. Awesome for us the consumers with competition finally back.

On a side note it is far worse that i only need more CPU power for ESO. Either system is probably to expensive to just make 1 game playable while all others are beyond my monitors refresh rate.

The CPU is fine tbh. I posted settings etc on the other thread. Everything maxed out, at 4K engine rendering, downscaled to 1440p, with mip -3, override AA with MSAA 2x and AF16 looks like this. (no injectors like reshade etc used)

With just Ultra settings no overrides etc, at 2560x1440 looks like this

I prefer the image quality if FPS is over 60. In dugeons I get 133-144fps in both cases as I have set a cap not to go over the Freesync range of my monitor.

If you have Vega 64, make sure you make a custom game profile for ESO and set the P7 state at the minimum speed also. It improves performance.

So conclusion those 3600/3600X Ryzen CPUs are fine, as I have turned off 1 CCX to test and FPS remained the same.

A massive thank you. So much of that info helps a ton. Yeah id be lucky to hit 60 FPS in those open areas at either 1080p or 5760x1080 being always CPU bound. The pics with those different resolutions is also awesome. 4k looks like the screen resolution of whats going on my wish list after the 3600x system upgrade i am now sold on entirely.

With my Vega64 (bought a few months back) i went with only undervolting (1050mv) then a memory overclock. 1050mhz on the memory keeps me from never crashing in any game (1100mhz is fine always for Timespy benchmarking or lasting hours in many games before a crash). I get more performance from undervolting then increasing memory speed, vs increasing GPU frequency. No memory overclock and ill still get a crash above 4% increase. After the memory overclock i can only get 1% to be stable but fluctuates more. So i just leave that default. Similar result happens with frequency slider increase, or manual changes to the last P states. After i learnt all that about Vega i loved the card lol. And the nice thing is that the faster memory still improves FPS in CPU bound games. Frequency increases just dropped my utilisation instead of improving FPS. Or at least does for me in ESO. That and it gets quieter and cooler then stock with undervolting as apposed to many other cards around that get louder and use more power when overclocking them.

hmsdragonfly · July 2019

coletas wrote: »

hmsdragonfly wrote: »

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

I've never been bothered by sub 60 fps nor do I even notice screen tearing.

I am curious, how old are you? Are you into competitive gaming? What's your gaming background?

I mean if you are middle-aged, and have never been into competitive gaming, then I can see where you are coming from that you "have never been bothered by sub 60 fps". Like, you have never been exposed to 144Hz gaming when u were younger and now you just don't care.

But gamers who are into competitive gaming (LoL, Starcraft, Quake, CSGO, R6 Siege etc) will wholeheartedly disagree with this.

The difference between 144 and 60 are nearly 10ms. BEST gamers can react a visual stimulus at about 100ms (and in benchmarks, where your brain is prepared to the worse all time). So you can tell me that you can see It better since eyes are a continuous/non-shuttering camera, but please, dont tell me is visual reaction issue because the Max you are going to get is 10ms at best. It must be a hell on earth (Doom days XD) to have a fluorescent bulb in the same room for this players lol (yes im a 40yo gamer very competitive on those days of medal of honor allied assault mohaa and never need anything but a k98 and a gun stock to kill'em'all XD just joking XD)

That's incorrect. In competitive gaming, even 5ms input lag matters.
Your aim will "feel" wrong if you have a high input lag. Gaming is all about "feeling", and in competitive gaming, if your aim "feels" wrong, you are not gonna track targets well, you are gonna miss most of your flick shots.

That's why people disable Vsync in competitive gaming. That's why people use gaming mouse instead of some terrible trash mouse. That's why people use low response time monitor instead of regular monitor/TV. That's why EVERY SINGLE ESPORTS PRO PLAYER uses 144/240Hz monitors.

If you talk to any competitive gamers (LoL, Dota, Quake, CSGO, R6 Siege, Overwatch etc), everyone will say that the best upgrade you can make to your setup is a 144Hz monitor.

You should watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV8P6T5tTYs

It is a fact that most people see a noticeable difference in their performance going from 60Hz to 144Hz.
There's no point arguing in this, this is one of those "you don't believe it until you see it" kind of things, your theory does not matter until you try.

coletas · July 2019

If you think im going to watch a video of linus as probe of anything... Lol i never (i promise, never) seen a guy working with hardware as neglected as him. I bet that with that faboulous head that 9,727 ms now are at least 50 lol buy the displays he will sure Will advertirse un the YouTube description. Is true? I dont want to click It pls XD

Cavedog · July 2019

Don't skimp....get an Intel processor....try the i9 9900k. You won't be disappointed.

Cavedog · July 2019

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

The AMD fanbois are a funny bunch. Usually falling for artificial benchmarks that have no real world implications.

The only time I went AMD the chip burned itself out with noticeable scorch marks on it. I still have it on my wall.

Overall either high end chip will be more (far more) than enough to run eso well. Then you have to good old reliability gap between them to consider. Maybe that gap has closed some... but, it's doubtful it really has.

Experience is that a "high end" intel chip will basically last until you retire that system.

If you are dead set on overclocking (you shouldn't be) and going overboard on cooling and getting crazy... well, you really don't have to. All you are really doing it burning electricity and generating needless heat for very little in return.

I'm on my 12th "build". I know because I have all the mobos with processors hanging on my wall as art.

Chasing the overclockers is somewhat pointless and a waste of money. Go for stability and durability on a good processor without doing anything but basic AI tuned overclocking and you won't look back. There is something about checking your temps and them being under 100 F year round (mobo usually at ambient temp) and not having to worry about heat. You can literally run everything on a good intel processor (an I7 or I9) with some basic understanding of system build (not stock, but reasoned decisions about case air flow and processor coolers) and have a rock solid totally reliable system that runs everything you will ever want to.

The concept of performance for less $$$ is always a flawed one.

Yep. If you are getting performance, you will be charged for it. That is how it works. That is why Intel processors cost more.

mrpaxman · July 2019

Not that i care about brand. If people really are interested i have always had Intel systems and i am planning on an AMD system for the first time. I would prefer to upgrade just my Intel CPU but Intel has prevented me from having that option. There is a lot of technical reasons why this latest generation of AMD CPU's are doing so well. Just the price part has a ton of reasons why it can be made so much cheaper then Intel can offer. All comparisons are found amongst reviewers

AMD gets 70% yield rate @7nm
Intel gets 30% yield rate @14nm

Intel is also larger and spends more making CPU's. They also have a ton of there own problems like being stuck on 14nm and supply shortages. Retailers are now even reporting more AMD sales over Intel. Intel is furious because of the amount of tech inside these new AMD CPU's when they are far larger and spent way more in every department meaning they cant even sell CPU's anything that low without making a loss. AMD literally gets over double the CPU's to sell while spending less time and money producing them. And they do that at half the size as well. That allows for many improvements in many areas of a CPU even when compared to there own last gen CPU's.

AMD is now using split chiplet design with this generation not having any latency issue between chiplet communication. the 3950x 16 core being released in September also beats Intel's own $10,000 workstation CPU.

Reliability on this latest gen is expected to be the best since it runs at such little power when not under full load and has lower temps then the great Intel CPU's being the 9700k and 9900k. 6000 series up to 9000 series is nothing more then a revamp of the same architecture. Intel improved there overclock about 300mhz roughly over 4 entire generations. They might be able to make something new next year. That would be great. This year all they have is the same 9900k re-released and the difference is that it has a 5.1ghz all core overclock already preset instead of just 1 core at that speed and it is sold for more. Intel also loses turbo boost after x amount of time. AMD always stays at full boost speed.

Out of the box the 9900k is better for gaming over the 9700k. overclocked to the same frequencies as each other and the best gaming CPU becomes the 9700k thanks to it NOT having hyper threading. Those were my picks over the last 6 months roughly but currently not enough money to have been able to buy a system upgrade allowing me to use either of those.

Those CPU's alone cost me a full AMD system upgrade. If money is no object then the 9700k overclocked and the 9900k overclocked are the technical best performers. That is when ignoring all other things like operating costs, temps. All of the new AMD CPU's 3600x and up are just a few % behind for gaming performance only comparisons. If you want to do anything other then game then the 3900x beats the 9900k and in many things. Even gaming and streaming or having other types of things happening while gaming makes the 3900x better then the 9900k. Gaming smoothness and also streaming smoothness is both better with the 3900x. I also have a full sim rig with over 13 programs running while online sim racing and heaps of accessories doing things like vibration motors, control inputs form all the devices and heaps of displays running with real time telemetry. With further things to get like VR, motion, traction control loss system. For my races i need the game to run as smooth as possible and a 3600x up to the 3900x is the best with things happening in the background like i so often do

When an Intel CPU or Motherboard dies. Only the same or 1 generation can be bought to get the PC up and running again. That is horrible when that happens because i end up replacing my system with a newer one when i was not wanting to upgrade. When an AMD CPU or motherboard dies. The option is there to buy any generation for either item allowing for fixing something old to work again. Or upgrading that part of the PC instead of doing it later for the part that did not break.

A lot in the tech world has changed since July 7th when this generation of AMD CPU's got released. There is still far more to know then things mentioned in this entire thread about all the current CPU's. Both companies make crap and good CPU's still to this day. When building PC's my personal recommendation is it is up to the buyers preference when it comes to the high end CPU's. Anything below the very top CPU's and AMD is being recommended by the vast majority of people, retailers and companies. Share prices from each company have changed heaps since then. Market share has shifted massively. When AMD is in notebooks like they are going to be. They will be able to run stuff like 12 cores in laptops and have far better thermals vs Intel. AMD OEM PC's are also being made and will be very common in shops quite soon.

I am getting something like a 3600 or a 3600x and if it said Intel on that CPU then it means no difference to me at all. It's just a word under a heatsink to me. The CPU itself is what i want to buy. I will buy other hardware for far better gaming on the price difference for my gaming performance i am after. Maybe a massive graphics card or VR headset upgrade. Or even a good gaming monitor with the price difference.

Hopefully this thread can be more on topic to what is about. Thank you to those providing useful info within there comments about Ryzen 3000 in eso.

coletas · July 2019

Lol i remeber that "generations" on socket s1. All fitted in the same socket, no one was compatible between them XD

rfennell_ESO · July 2019

If you are playing mmo's and/or don't really intend on "competitive" gaming you really aren't going to gain much by going all in on hardware.

It's nice to build a "world class" system that maxes out what can be done performance wise in a game. The problem is you get somewhere between 6 months to a year of being in that world class category. It's a cost prohibitive thing, to constantly try to be at max. It's easier to do when your part time job can be used to pay for it, but not the electrical bills for it (or rent or food etc).

My points were that with any of the high end processors out there and some understanding of how to build a system (which isn't as hard as non-techs might think it is)... the right amount of memory (16 gigs of ram really) and a good single video card(non sli, which doesn't prohibit you from trying it out... it's just not all that rewarding in many games)... you can get performance in a game like eso that's acceptable and it won't really cost that much.

The socket roulette that is Intel *is* an issue. It's a near constant with their development that they will switch sockets for little apparent reason. It does, at face value, appear to be a bigger issue than it is though. Point being that motherboard revisions make it so that the motherboard has nearly as much value in performance as a cpu upgrade does nowadays. That is, unless, you intend on upgrading processors at a very high clip (yearly for instance). They are constantly altering motherboard specs to a degree that it becomes worthwhile to upgrade them as well. You have memory speeds and ddr versions, on board pcie lanes, and a movement toward more and more pcie devices.. on top of the pcie version increases. They have pushed motherboards so hard and far that they have begun to use active cooling on them (my first "build" board that I have hanging on my wall didn't even have active cooling on the processor or even passive cooling).

The funniest thing I ever saw with a "build" was a buddy of mine that had moved a couple states away and wasn't able to get my eyes on the build like he was used to. When I visited him he noted that the system was always running hot and he didn't know what it was. A tissue soon resolved the issue... all case fans blowing in. Point being that air flow and case choice need to be understood and are not an afterthought.