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

hmsdragonfly · July 2019

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

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.

I understand that, that's why i said i get it.
But also, some folks who run trials for score are really competitive themselves, so for some of people it might be worth it going for good framerate in ESO.

MLGProPlayer · 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.

You don't even need to be into competitive gaming to enjoy 144 hz.

I love it in my single player games too. Playing something like TW3 or AC Odyssey on a 144hz monitor is jaw-dropping.

MLGProPlayer · July 2019

hmsdragonfly wrote: »

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

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.

I understand that, that's why i said i get it.
But also, some folks who run trials for score are really competitive themselves, so for some of people it might be worth it going for good framerate in ESO.

There is no hardware that will give you good performance in ESO.

MLGProPlayer · July 2019

mrpaxman wrote: »

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.

The 3600X is a waste of money according to all benchmarks (as was the case with the previous two Ryzeb generations). You're getting 200 Mhz of extra base clock speed, which will not result in any tangible performance benefits (1-2 extra FPS at best). Their overclock potential is equal. You're paying $50 extra for nothing.

Jagdkommando · July 2019

Actually RAM speed somehow making huge impact on this game, there is an youtube video about it, one guy tested.
In a nutshell
2666mhz = 70-80fps
3200mhz = 100-110fps

rfennell_ESO · July 2019

Jagdkommando wrote: »

Actually RAM speed somehow making huge impact on this game, there is an youtube video about it, one guy tested.
In a nutshell
2666mhz = 70-80fps
3200mhz = 100-110fps

And DDR5 will go up to 6400 mhz.

But it's a way off for those speeds and a motherboard with a memory controller for it. (Intel roadmaps it as 2021 with 7nm processor, but 7nm processor might not be that soon ) From what I've read it's their target for meteor lake.. which will be the 7nm power processor (as opposed to their low power mobile ones). 6 ghz+ with 6400 mhz ddr5 ram.

Eventually technology might catch up to poor coding!

RinaldoGandolphi · July 2019

Just to chime in but...

You all do know that Jim Keller, the same guy AMD hires to design their Zen CPU was hired by Intel to design their next gen CPU. If I’m not mistaken Ice Lake will be the last Intel CPU that uses the current Core architecture.

Since Keller will have designed Ryzen and the next gen Intel CPU, odds are both chips will probably be very similar and share many of the same characteristics.

mrpaxman · August 2019

@MLGProPlayer Yeah for sure. I was also after the better cooler that comes with the 3600x. With the RGB bling bling haha. And i have heard of many people using that 3600x CPU/cooler combo without the fan installed. With my good air flow case i expect that to work fine for gaming. Or having fan control and make it not spin until maybe about 50c. For quiet desktop reasons. I have since noticed that i can buy the 3600 and the really great copper heat pipe AMD cooler on the higher CPU's, for the same price as the 3600x combo. And i will also have the spare, only average cooler that comes with the 3600 for free. The temperature scaling seemed to play a worthwhile part between those CPU coolers with those particular 6 core CPU's in gaming.

mrpaxman · August 2019

The performance difference in Ryzen is about that 20% difference between 2133mhz and 3200mhz. From 3200mhz to 3733mhz is only about another 5%. For non CPU bound games then enough CPU is enough when it comes to the settings and graphics card type things. (ESO being massively CPU bound) A side note is do not run high core count CPU's like the 12 core above 3733mhz without further adjusting. Infinity fabric runs at the same as ram speed up until that. Manual infinity fabric adjusting is required if wanting to go above that. Infinity fabric must run not run below ram speed. Not doing so will introduce gaming latency associated with previous gen Ryzen split chiplet high core number CPU's as the infinity fabric will default back much lower. And just simply can not run faster then the ram speed. The infinity fabric increase is what mostly results in CPU performance gains on Ryzen. Having the faster ram makes that happen on Ryzen. Ryzen 3000 is now controlling ram speed. Not motherboards. MSI was able to run 5700mhz on DDR4 during testing on there latest top X570 board. Intel is fine at something like 2666mhz. I doubt there is anyone at all that can notice anything different with Intel from 3200mhz or higher in gaming. Between 2666mhz and 3200mhz on Intel the vast majority of people claim they can not tell the difference. Including reviewers. If not for cost and production reasons. DDR6 would be dead and we would all be using much faster HBM like on last the previous Vega graphics cards. The cost reason is basically why all graphics cards now use DDR6 instead of better performing HBM. About half the Radeon VII cost is said to be just in the memory. DDR5 would make no sense for any consumer CPU currently. Low cache latency timings also matter a lot for Ryzen. CL14 is really great but also costs a decent bit more than CL15 or CL16.

Intel have claimed for around 5 years that 10nm will be coming very soon. 2015 i think was the first time they said we would have it. Any time they say 10nm is coming soon it is just laughable until the point it is actually created. Which they will eventually. Then 7nm is just looking like the same time line again. Intel describes themselves as "in production hell" even prior to the new AMD CPU's. Only next gen of Intel Server CPU's are finally looking like being on 10nm next release. For the consumer CPU that is a long time off and means very little. Those are so stupidly expensive because the yield rate is such a small %. Samsung is already on reliable 5nm with UV lithography methods. Mobile needs the small dye size the most with its huge need for power consumption and heat which equates to how much performance can be used. Laptops come after that for similar reasons.

From the poor and limited information out there. Currently the best it looks like as being 2 more generation's of CPU's from Intel using the same architecture for consumer desktops.

Every time Intel has done a dye shrunk. It has taken them at least a couple generations to get back to 5GHZ. Intel will come back with better and so will AMD.

coletas · August 2019

So much dependent on memory speed? Try disabling triple buffer and enable direct framebuffer if its disabled on BIOS.

mrpaxman · August 2019

coletas wrote: »

So much dependent on memory speed? Try disabling triple buffer and enable direct framebuffer if its disabled on BIOS.

Yeah. Ryzen has always been known to be so dependant on ram speed due to it's ties with the infinity fabric. Last generation the CPU's would not really get past 3200MHZ for anyone. And gave big performance increases all the way up to that speed significantly. AMD also said the best price to performance point is 3200mhz with CL14 timings. Higher is better. Benchmark scores reflect that accurately as well.

mrpaxman · August 2019

Here is a basic video showing the difference in a CPU bound game with various ram speeds on Ryzen 3000

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yen7VH41zTo

RinaldoGandolphi · August 2019

As you can see in the following video. Which tests a Ryzen 3600 X, a Ryzen 3600, an i7-7700(non-k), and a I7-4790 all at stock settings. The differences are minimal. Stop believing the hype. If your CPU isn't any older than Devil's Canyon(Intel 4xxx series IE 4690, 4790, etc) Your wasting your money upgrading. The only people who might be interested in upgrading are those playing at 4k with 1,000+ Graphics cards such as Nvidia Titans or something.

AMD and Intel are in the core wars right now, but more cores only really help in productivity and science applications. Such as streaming, encoding/decoding video, compressing large files, etc.

NASA did an intense study on Hyper-threading and found in some cases hyper-threading and multi-threading can in some cases make performance worse due to cache sharing and resource contention. This is why Intel 4/4t, 6/6t, and 8/8t CPU will often beat their hyperthreaded counter parts on a core per core basis because they non SMT CPU are not sharing resources.

https://www.nas.nasa.gov/assets/pdf/papers/saini_s_impact_hyper_threading_2011.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd02w2Pw6Zg

If your CPU isn't older than Devil's Canyon, your wasting your money upgrading unless you fit the $1000+ 4k department. Intel Ice Lake/Ryzen 4000 will be the 1st actual upgrade worth the $ for most Devils Canyon, Sky Lake/Kaby Lake folks. Coffee Lake and Coffee Lake refresh folks(Intel 8000, and 9000 SKU) would be best staying put for another gen.

Im happy my 7700k is competitive with Ryzen 3000 despite two less real cores considering i got in on a flash sale two years ago for 299 bucks on Amazon. Ryzen 5000 owners should be a little ticked at a i7-4790k that was launched in the 2nd quarter of 2014(a 5 year old CPU) is able to trade blows with it in single threaded perf in games.

I'd even go as far as to say Ryzen 1600, 1700, and 1800 owners should hold off another gen before jumping to the next Ryzen chip. a 4790 is on par with an 1800X there isn't enough difference to warrant the cost. Use the money on more RAM, a better GPU, or even more solid state storage.

mrpaxman · August 2019

My 6700 can not get 60 FPS in any city. I get about half the FPS shown in the pics in this thread. My graphics card load says i need a LOT more CPU power. 30% at 1080p and 70% even when using triple screen. That is even before i start doing anything more than standing still in a city. Never once is it 70 FPS even in open world for me. Buying a graphics card of about double the power of my last one and only ESO not improving FPS at all is another good reason for me to upgrade. I have been looking at upgrading just the CPU to a 7700k and overclock it. A unlocked 6700k is still far to expensive even 2nd had for what its worth. My CPU should be good enough but is definitely not with games like this one. I am annoyed that i even need a CPU upgrade as ESO is the only game suffering so terribly for me. Intel has also made it so i can not upgrade to the latest CPU's which cost basically the same. I have no CPU bottleneck at all ever in over 50% of games i have played. A slight drop to about 90% GPU load is fairly rare in certain scenes of certain games if i exclude ESO. Even though from that to the latest is fairly similar gaming performance with overclocking. That also being a large reason why they have not dropped price much at all. Intel CPU's are only about 2% better gaming performance between generations between 6000 and current 9000. Going up to about 4% in very well optimised 4 core games. I would also have to buy a CPU cooler to overclock any Intel CPU. My current 3.4 GHZ i am locked to sits at about 65-70c with the crappy Intel cooler it came with. Upgrade replacing my CPU to a 7700k is very similar price to me getting a Ryzen 3600 and a good ASUS Strix B450 motherboard. A CPU cooler price will not be required for that as the supplied ones are between good and great depending which CPU is bought. With all the spare parts from getting a Ryzen system and other parts i already have laying around. I will get an extra PC from going Ryzen. Along with more features on the motherboard, more cores, less electricity, etc. Likely to giving the to some one or sell it if they don't want the PC. The FPS shown in the pics is about double what i get in those types of areas with a very similar graphics card to mine. Resolution is also entirely graphics card load so higher resolutions will not require any more CPU performance. Entirely more graphics card power for that. A 4790k overclocked is very comparable to a 6700.

NocturnalSonata · August 2019

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

As you can see in the following video. Which tests a Ryzen 3600 X, a Ryzen 3600, an i7-7700(non-k), and a I7-4790 all at stock settings. The differences are minimal. Stop believing the hype. If your CPU isn't any older than Devil's Canyon(Intel 4xxx series IE 4690, 4790, etc) Your wasting your money upgrading. The only people who might be interested in upgrading are those playing at 4k with 1,000+ Graphics cards such as Nvidia Titans or something.

AMD and Intel are in the core wars right now, but more cores only really help in productivity and science applications. Such as streaming, encoding/decoding video, compressing large files, etc.

NASA did an intense study on Hyper-threading and found in some cases hyper-threading and multi-threading can in some cases make performance worse due to cache sharing and resource contention. This is why Intel 4/4t, 6/6t, and 8/8t CPU will often beat their hyperthreaded counter parts on a core per core basis because they non SMT CPU are not sharing resources.

https://www.nas.nasa.gov/assets/pdf/papers/saini_s_impact_hyper_threading_2011.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd02w2Pw6Zg

If your CPU isn't older than Devil's Canyon, your wasting your money upgrading unless you fit the $1000+ 4k department. Intel Ice Lake/Ryzen 4000 will be the 1st actual upgrade worth the $ for most Devils Canyon, Sky Lake/Kaby Lake folks. Coffee Lake and Coffee Lake refresh folks(Intel 8000, and 9000 SKU) would be best staying put for another gen.

Im happy my 7700k is competitive with Ryzen 3000 despite two less real cores considering i got in on a flash sale two years ago for 299 bucks on Amazon. Ryzen 5000 owners should be a little ticked at a i7-4790k that was launched in the 2nd quarter of 2014(a 5 year old CPU) is able to trade blows with it in single threaded perf in games.

I'd even go as far as to say Ryzen 1600, 1700, and 1800 owners should hold off another gen before jumping to the next Ryzen chip. a 4790 is on par with an 1800X there isn't enough difference to warrant the cost. Use the money on more RAM, a better GPU, or even more solid state storage.

as far as eso goes, and for that matter, a lot of games, upgrading will net minimal fps increase. having tested an 7700k,8700k,9900k & 2700x @2k and above, the performance difference really does not warrant rushing out and upgrading, i would suggest that benchmarks done at 1080 are even less relevant to warrant an upgrade. However, as far as productivity goes upgrading is not necessary a poor decision, especially if you are sitting there with a 4 core, which lags massively behind modern 8 cores.

As far as (REAL) 4k gaming - i consider the whole thing to be stupid anyway, unless you are pushing very high refresh with matched fps, then its all a nice illusion, and to get those numbers you need some serious hardware with no guarantee that the games themselves are going to be optimised in such a way that you will benefit from it anyway (looking at you eso)

RouDeR · August 2019

mrpaxman wrote: »

My 6700 can not get 60 FPS in any city. I get about half the FPS shown in the pics in this thread. My graphics card load says i need a LOT more CPU power. 30% at 1080p and 70% even when using triple screen. That is even before i start doing anything more than standing still in a city. Never once is it 70 FPS even in open world for me. Buying a graphics card of about double the power of my last one and only ESO not improving FPS at all is another good reason for me to upgrade. I have been looking at upgrading just the CPU to a 7700k and overclock it. A unlocked 6700k is still far to expensive even 2nd had for what its worth. My CPU should be good enough but is definitely not with games like this one. I am annoyed that i even need a CPU upgrade as ESO is the only game suffering so terribly for me. Intel has also made it so i can not upgrade to the latest CPU's which cost basically the same. I have no CPU bottleneck at all ever in over 50% of games i have played. A slight drop to about 90% GPU load is fairly rare in certain scenes of certain games if i exclude ESO. Even though from that to the latest is fairly similar gaming performance with overclocking. That also being a large reason why they have not dropped price much at all. Intel CPU's are only about 2% better gaming performance between generations between 6000 and current 9000. Going up to about 4% in very well optimised 4 core games. I would also have to buy a CPU cooler to overclock any Intel CPU. My current 3.4 GHZ i am locked to sits at about 65-70c with the crappy Intel cooler it came with. Upgrade replacing my CPU to a 7700k is very similar price to me getting a Ryzen 3600 and a good ASUS Strix B450 motherboard. A CPU cooler price will not be required for that as the supplied ones are between good and great depending which CPU is bought. With all the spare parts from getting a Ryzen system and other parts i already have laying around. I will get an extra PC from going Ryzen. Along with more features on the motherboard, more cores, less electricity, etc. Likely to giving the to some one or sell it if they don't want the PC. The FPS shown in the pics is about double what i get in those types of areas with a very similar graphics card to mine. Resolution is also entirely graphics card load so higher resolutions will not require any more CPU performance. Entirely more graphics card power for that. A 4790k overclocked is very comparable to a 6700.

Your bottleneck is the RAM speed,
On my i7 7740x i use 2x DDR4 3733 mhz ram CL 16, you need Dual channel ram + high ram clock and low latency to make your CPU work harder in games like ESO
and my CPU is at 60-100% load all the time when playing ESO

in Towns like Deshaan, Stormhaven, Rawkha i get around 60-90fps
In Cyrodiil Zerg fights 100+ people i stay at around ~40fps

RouDeR · August 2019

Here is video demonstrating the CPU usage when you have fast ram (keep in mind that the CPU is also recording 1080p 60fps video 20mbps)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUjVwMHY9xo&feature=youtu.be

And a screenshot with my steady fps when there are no pple around

mrpaxman · August 2019

Thanks for the info. And taking the time to test and post that. Your video is so much smoother than my gameplay. My 3.4GHZ vs that 5.1GHZ i guarantee is the reason and can proof it with pictures. I would prefer to keep this thread more on the title but those pics and spec info can be found in many messages in my history. Either of us still can not use much of our graphics cards we pay for. About 30% GPU load is pretty terrible and a massive reason why they need to make the fixes they have "announced". Both of us using all of our CPU. ie, 1 thread hitting full. If it were possible to triple your CPU performance. Your FPS will triple. That is how badly i have proofed it in the past. This game is laughable to the far wider tech community. Those numbers show you own a high end graphics card to be only under that GPU load while the CPU is at 5.1ghz. A more or half powerful graphics card will still give very similar FPS. At that point the game will not be bottlenecking your CPU using your graphics card. Dropping your graphics card power to 50% of what it can do seems like it will be fine in that entire clip. The Graphics card never even got close to 100% used. Resolution being so massively on the graphics card means you could play eso up to about 4k and lose hardly any FPS. Just you will use your graphics card more which has tons to spare. 100% CPU load is bad including any 1 thread. 100% GPU load is good and happens for me in all benchmarking and other games basically always with very rare dips below 100% when ESO or a lot is happening on screen. Swap your GPU with something of half the power. an old 970 perhaps. Your FPS will not change and did not for me when i upgraded. I can now play every game between the very lowest minimum of 50 FPS to 120 FPS quite easily even with triple screen. My Benchmarking scores come in great also. Except for CPU being the lowest thing me in the future or always in ESO

Anything under 100% GPU load is CPU bottlenecking as 1 CPU thread has nothing more to give. I have many detailed threads about this in the past with tons of provided pics. Were told they were going to improve the multicore even further but years later and we still have not seen anything since initially going from a single core to a 4 core game.

The ram is currently set to 2600MHZ roughly, dual 2x8gb. Majority of people in this game do not even use XMP profiles and play with there ram only around 2100mhz default. But pay for way faster. There is about a 38% difference in our frequency and your FPS is about that % higher in those situations. If you put your CPU to 3.4GHZ like my 6700 you will see the FPS i get. Or dropping ram frequency to mine and not getting much loss at all will happen also. I guarantee it. Proofing me wrong will be great as many have tried that over this year. It would mean i would have played this year. Not demoted myself as a gm. And not wanting to log on to painful looking FPS.

A friends PC i built last year was a 8700k running stock, 2x8gb running at stock 2133mhz settting and a GTX 1060. His FPS is great in ESO. massively higher then my own. I have all better hardware except the CPU.

The ram kit you are talking about costs a LOT. That is a lot of money to put on the line to do nothing from much proof around. I would not be happy paying for that and not getting the FPS you say/show. All benchmarks show no difference and i see no difference changing the speed above that. If pics can proof that wide spread belief is actually wrong, that would also be great. Along with the many video's out there that show ram speed does not matter beyond what i use. Technically maybe ever so slightly at best. 2% nope. Me running at 2100MHZ vs 2666MHZ is below 2% at best for me. Businesses have put there reputations on the line by saying they can not see any difference between 2666mhz and 3200mhz on Intel in gaming.

ZoS knows how extremely badly this game is CPU bound. They have acknowledged it also. Just 1 Official comment about it is in the link below.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/5063953/#Comment_5063953

mrpaxman · August 2019

A fairly in depth video with a 3700x 8 core and it's power consumption is in the link below using an oscilloscope to monitor power in real time. For those not wanting to watch it.
- Desktop sits at around 18 watts
-1 core under full stress test load is about 40 watts
-8 cores under full stress test load is about 80 watts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORHYffg5ipM

My 6700 with a TDP of 130 watts always stays around 125 to 130 watts from the meter i have attached which i can always see. AMD basically has auto overclocking changing the voltages constantly and in under 2ms with Windows 10 version 1903 onwards. My stock i7 6700 sits at 1.20 volts always. Would be higher if i could overclock it which would increases watts even higher.

I am very impressed with the power saving of these CPU's. Especially considering games are mostly 4 core. Still many are 1 core. Only 1 or maybe 2 games ever support around 6 or 8 cores. Gaming power consumption on these new CPU's will be even lower than the video when using the shown amount of cores used in each test. Cinebench scores are also shown to help people compare the single core performance run which represents gaming close enough. Cinebench is a free and popular CPU only benchmarking program.

Uryel · August 2019

Kadoin wrote: »

Seriously doubt you would get any bad performance on a Ryzen 3000 when even a 2600X can play the game on ultra with no problem. The only lag you will see is in PvP, where it would lag anyway because of either bugs (like the infinite reloading texture bug), or coding routines that rely on network input from the server.

Don't know what CPU you have, but its unlikely you will see massive performance gains in this game on the live server. Though it does look like the PTS client was updated...

This.

Currently playing on a Ryzen 2600X, GTX 1060 3 GB, 16 GB of RAM, and the game runs as good as can be. Most settings are maxed out, tweaked the ini files to get better textures... I do have the extremely long loadings like everyoen else, and the unexplicable drops in performance like everyone else (like the game suddenly dropping to 10 FPS while in the middle of nowhere doing nothing), but mostly the game runs fine. Registry editing to disable superfetch and prefetcher, because those services can't be disabled in services anymore, helped with those weird slowdowns. I never set foot in Cyrodiil, though.

Don't listen to people who tell you to get a "real CPU, thus an Intel" or that one who extrapolates from their own, single experience of badly building a rig and burning it (or, if I'm charitable, encoutering a bad chip) to decide that all things AMD are crap. Intel DOES perform better, that's right, but they cost more too. Intel will give you more bang, but AMD will give you more bang for your buck, so it all depends on how much you can spend, and if you prioritize raw performance, or cost / performance ratio. If you're loaded, get the biggest Intel chip there is and be done with it.

What matters most is to balance your budget so that your CPU doesn't become a bottleneck for your GPU, and that no matter how badass your CPU is, you still have enough budget left for a GPU that will synergise well.

As for the funny person who considers having built 12 rigs make them an expert, well... Let's just say that there was a time when, if I built 12 rigs a week, it was a slow week. I've burnt a few chips myself, and even more motherboards. Bad series happen. I've had bugs with motherboards that were NOT compatible with the chips they were supposed to support (good old VIA chipsets and the infinite loops...), I've had a motherboard litteraly catch fire while I was playing a game (that sent of burnt plastic is a dead giveaway that your game night is over), I've had the year 2000 bug (in 2007, mind you, so it took me a while to figure it out) on a rig that was used to pilot measuring instruments for quality insurance tests, meaning every test would be unrecorded... Don't want to brag too much, but basically, if something CAN fail in a computer, I've probably seen it. Even things you have no idea they can even fail.

One thing I've learnt while I was a system tech is that fanboyism is plain stupid. You go with the tech that suits your need and budget at the given time, and just make sure to avoid the really bad ones. And by "bad", I mean "doesn't match the specs on the box" (like some low price power supplies) or "the whole series was faulty and they recalled it".

RouDeR · August 2019

@mrpaxman

Here are results how ESO performance scales with ram speed - going from 2133 mhz to 3600 mhz result in more than 20% performance:
Note about the ram being expensive: my ram is ADATA XPG 3600 mhz 2x8 and i was very lucky to buy it for only 85 EURO, after that i was able to even overclock it to 3733 mhz and keep the CL17 timings.

I chose 3 specific places in Auridon, Summerset and Elsweyr
Since i use 4.9 ghz clock speed for my CPU in my daily usage i decided to stick to that particular CPU speed only

Test 1: Ram 2133 mhz
Summerset: 80-81 fps
Auridon: 78-79 fps
Elsweyr: 97-98 fps

Test 2: Ram 3000 mhz
Summerset: 84-85 fps
Auridon: 86-87 fps
Elsweyr: 106-107 fps

Test 3: Ram 3600 mhz
Summerset: 102-103 fps
Auridon: 96-97 fps
Elsweyr: 120-121 fps

This data is from my original thread:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/486205/showcase-cpu-core-frequency-and-ram-frequency-fps-scaling#latest

mrpaxman · August 2019

RouDeR wrote: »

@mrpaxman

Here are results how ESO performance scales with ram speed - going from 2133 mhz to 3600 mhz result in more than 20% performance:
Note about the ram being expensive: my ram is ADATA XPG 3600 mhz 2x8 and i was very lucky to buy it for only 85 EURO, after that i was able to even overclock it to 3733 mhz and keep the CL17 timings.

I chose 3 specific places in Auridon, Summerset and Elsweyr
Since i use 4.9 ghz clock speed for my CPU in my daily usage i decided to stick to that particular CPU speed only

Test 1: Ram 2133 mhz
Summerset: 80-81 fps
Auridon: 78-79 fps
Elsweyr: 97-98 fps

Test 2: Ram 3000 mhz
Summerset: 84-85 fps
Auridon: 86-87 fps
Elsweyr: 106-107 fps

Test 3: Ram 3600 mhz
Summerset: 102-103 fps
Auridon: 96-97 fps
Elsweyr: 120-121 fps

This data is from my original thread:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/486205/showcase-cpu-core-frequency-and-ram-frequency-fps-scaling#latest

I appreciate all the work. Indeed it is all very interesting.

I will try to play around some more but both my motherboard and ram are rated to 2666MHZ so i can only do tests up to that speed pretty much. Getting the next bit of frequency beyond that is real trouble to do. A little annoyingly your 2133MHZ FPS numbers are about double of my FPS haha. Even though mine is running at a smig under 2600mhz CL15. Your Mournhold pic is double the FPS i would get in that spot. Very similar settings to mine with only me using less particles. If i want faster ram i can only do that after a motherboard upgrade. And purchasing a CPU to go with it. I will get a Ryzen system and being Ryzen i was either going to use the ram i have or try to upgrade to the best i can afford. Possibly even at a later time after getting the mobo and CPU. I still have to buy a new CPU + more unfortunately. I only have 60hz monitors and getting 60 FPS would make a world of difference. Banks, indoor areas and houses i do but that is just twisting the knife. For me the Aussie prices are still quite high. Same price as the motherboard. $219 is still a far better price then the other brands with that frequency though.

mrpaxman · August 2019

Uryel wrote: »

Kadoin wrote: »

Seriously doubt you would get any bad performance on a Ryzen 3000 when even a 2600X can play the game on ultra with no problem. The only lag you will see is in PvP, where it would lag anyway because of either bugs (like the infinite reloading texture bug), or coding routines that rely on network input from the server.

Don't know what CPU you have, but its unlikely you will see massive performance gains in this game on the live server. Though it does look like the PTS client was updated...

This.

Currently playing on a Ryzen 2600X, GTX 1060 3 GB, 16 GB of RAM, and the game runs as good as can be. Most settings are maxed out, tweaked the ini files to get better textures... I do have the extremely long loadings like everyoen else, and the unexplicable drops in performance like everyone else (like the game suddenly dropping to 10 FPS while in the middle of nowhere doing nothing), but mostly the game runs fine. Registry editing to disable superfetch and prefetcher, because those services can't be disabled in services anymore, helped with those weird slowdowns. I never set foot in Cyrodiil, though.

Don't listen to people who tell you to get a "real CPU, thus an Intel" or that one who extrapolates from their own, single experience of badly building a rig and burning it (or, if I'm charitable, encoutering a bad chip) to decide that all things AMD are crap. Intel DOES perform better, that's right, but they cost more too. Intel will give you more bang, but AMD will give you more bang for your buck, so it all depends on how much you can spend, and if you prioritize raw performance, or cost / performance ratio. If you're loaded, get the biggest Intel chip there is and be done with it.

What matters most is to balance your budget so that your CPU doesn't become a bottleneck for your GPU, and that no matter how badass your CPU is, you still have enough budget left for a GPU that will synergise well.

As for the funny person who considers having built 12 rigs make them an expert, well... Let's just say that there was a time when, if I built 12 rigs a week, it was a slow week. I've burnt a few chips myself, and even more motherboards. Bad series happen. I've had bugs with motherboards that were NOT compatible with the chips they were supposed to support (good old VIA chipsets and the infinite loops...), I've had a motherboard litteraly catch fire while I was playing a game (that sent of burnt plastic is a dead giveaway that your game night is over), I've had the year 2000 bug (in 2007, mind you, so it took me a while to figure it out) on a rig that was used to pilot measuring instruments for quality insurance tests, meaning every test would be unrecorded... Don't want to brag too much, but basically, if something CAN fail in a computer, I've probably seen it. Even things you have no idea they can even fail.

One thing I've learnt while I was a system tech is that fanboyism is plain stupid. You go with the tech that suits your need and budget at the given time, and just make sure to avoid the really bad ones. And by "bad", I mean "doesn't match the specs on the box" (like some low price power supplies) or "the whole series was faulty and they recalled it".

Yeah i definitely agree with it all. 1 guildie that streams has a 1600x and his trial FPS is double what i get. Me being 15 FPS in trials during combat is the norm. 25 FPS in dungeon combat. 40 to maybe low 50 FPS standing in Mournhold. I was thinking of getting the motherboard and if not being able to afford the 3600 then get a 2600 since those are so cheap now. Great value for how they perform. Every other title i play runs at massive FPS. Always smooth, well beyond my monitors refresh rate. triple screen, max settings.

MLGProPlayer · August 2019

RouDeR wrote: »

@mrpaxman

Here are results how ESO performance scales with ram speed - going from 2133 mhz to 3600 mhz result in more than 20% performance:
Note about the ram being expensive: my ram is ADATA XPG 3600 mhz 2x8 and i was very lucky to buy it for only 85 EURO, after that i was able to even overclock it to 3733 mhz and keep the CL17 timings.

I chose 3 specific places in Auridon, Summerset and Elsweyr
Since i use 4.9 ghz clock speed for my CPU in my daily usage i decided to stick to that particular CPU speed only

Test 1: Ram 2133 mhz
Summerset: 80-81 fps
Auridon: 78-79 fps
Elsweyr: 97-98 fps

Test 2: Ram 3000 mhz
Summerset: 84-85 fps
Auridon: 86-87 fps
Elsweyr: 106-107 fps

Test 3: Ram 3600 mhz
Summerset: 102-103 fps
Auridon: 96-97 fps
Elsweyr: 120-121 fps

This data is from my original thread:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/486205/showcase-cpu-core-frequency-and-ram-frequency-fps-scaling#latest

That doesn't really make sense with an Intel CPU as RAM speed is largely irrelevant to their performance. Is this some optimisation quirk with ESO?

mrpaxman · August 2019

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

RouDeR wrote: »

@mrpaxman

Here are results how ESO performance scales with ram speed - going from 2133 mhz to 3600 mhz result in more than 20% performance:
Note about the ram being expensive: my ram is ADATA XPG 3600 mhz 2x8 and i was very lucky to buy it for only 85 EURO, after that i was able to even overclock it to 3733 mhz and keep the CL17 timings.

I chose 3 specific places in Auridon, Summerset and Elsweyr
Since i use 4.9 ghz clock speed for my CPU in my daily usage i decided to stick to that particular CPU speed only

Test 1: Ram 2133 mhz
Summerset: 80-81 fps
Auridon: 78-79 fps
Elsweyr: 97-98 fps

Test 2: Ram 3000 mhz
Summerset: 84-85 fps
Auridon: 86-87 fps
Elsweyr: 106-107 fps

Test 3: Ram 3600 mhz
Summerset: 102-103 fps
Auridon: 96-97 fps
Elsweyr: 120-121 fps

This data is from my original thread:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/486205/showcase-cpu-core-frequency-and-ram-frequency-fps-scaling#latest

That doesn't really make sense with an Intel CPU as RAM speed is largely irrelevant to their performance. Is this some optimisation quirk with ESO?

It doesn't to me either. Not that i am saying it is not true at all. It is strange and i do wan't to investigate further if i am able to. I am not sure if it may be eso specific or CPU bound game compensation that happens. Or something else perhaps. I know if it is true then this is some serious controversial stuff amongst all the tech YouTubers that have videos saying those gains do not happen and have comments sections that would totally blow up seeing those number differences.

Lisutaris · August 2019

Screenshots, youtube vids are all nice and good to look at......

My personal experience with a Ryzen 5 3600 (no x) -> combined with 16gb Ram (3200 XMP) and a Radeon 580 (only 4GB Edition):

Zones. Housing, Delves, ... -> 60+ FPS ALL THE TIME.
Trials (even HELRA Split Boss) -> not dropping below 30-35 FPS. Honestly, it still feels like ~60 FPS. Tested it with AA,HELRA,SO,CR,SS .... there are some areas with framedrops, but you won't really "feel" them and have them disturb your rotation. If I did not use a tool to monitor my fps, i would not have noticed it at all.
--> The HELRA duo boss was one place, where I've thought :" well, was expecting it but I am still happy with the results!"

(still going strong with 75 distance settings :> + allied effects)

I am playing on 1080p with 2 IPS HP Displays, they are only 60 hz. No need for me to get more than 60 fps . Capped it with the Radeon graphics software.

Everything in settings is high. Only shadows are medium.
Distance settings ~ 75/100.
Ally effects are also activated!

Have to add -> I am using an OC mode to have it working at ~4200 GhZ. (perm).
(more than that is not really possible with the ryzen 5 3600 BUT, with a good cooling system you will always be between 50-60 °C and 30-37°C idle temp, which is awesome by itself!)

RouDeR · August 2019

@MLGProPlayer @mrpaxman

The faster ram is contributing for the better/higher CPU usage, especially with the latest Windows 1903 build where they significantly improved the Windows task Scheduler in terms of multicore usage optimization.

For example with 2133 mhz ram , my CPU usage in ESO is around 25-30%, with 3000 mhz ram around 35-40%
with 3733 mhz around 45-70% and goes up to 100% in massive battles.

Here are results from Witcher 3 testing, where the game is already perfectly optimized (here ram speed has almost no impact)

2133 mhz
480p Lowest settings: 197-198 fps
1080p Ultra: 114-115 fps (GPU bound)
1440p Ultra: 86-87 fps (GPU bound)

3000 mhz
480p Lowest settings: 202-203 fps
1080p Ultra: 119-120 fps (GPU bound)
1440p Ultra: 88-89 fps (GPU bound)

3600 mhz
480p Lowest settings: 210-211 fps
1080p Ultra: 118-119 (GPU bound)
1440p Ultra: 88-89 fps (GPU bound)

mrpaxman · August 2019

@Lisutaris
Awesome. Thanks for the spec numbers. That CPU and also the ram combo is exactly what i am looking at the most. Pairing that with my current Vega64 Strix. It definitely looks like my FPS will be close to double in ESO compared to what i have now.

RouDeR · August 2019

mrpaxman wrote: »

@Lisutaris
Awesome. Thanks for the spec numbers. That CPU and also the ram combo is exactly what i am looking at the most. Pairing that with my current Vega64 Strix. It definitely looks like my FPS will be close to double in ESO compared to what i have now.

Here is the best value combo for ryzen 3600, long story short - it works perfectly fine with 70$ A320 motherboard paired with 3600 mhz ram without any issues of boosting it clock speeds to 4.2 ghz

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF8EuEfKH3Q

Lisutaris · August 2019

RouDeR wrote: »

mrpaxman wrote: »

@Lisutaris
Awesome. Thanks for the spec numbers. That CPU and also the ram combo is exactly what i am looking at the most. Pairing that with my current Vega64 Strix. It definitely looks like my FPS will be close to double in ESO compared to what i have now.

Pls stop going offtopic. Also i won't change my setup and buy a A320 instead of using my b450 pro carbon. Posting vids are not really helpful, as they don't look at the ESO fps you will get. Try it out yourself, post experience ... nothing more pls.

ALso -> i can drive my char with 200 km/h and use 20l per 100 kilometres. Same with voltage and watts consumption with OC.
I DONT WANT THAT!