AMD Ryzen processors made a strong impression final week, however a number of technical difficulties and fourth dimension constraints resulted in more questions than answers when it came to the four games we managed to criterion in time for launch. As promised, we're back to follow up on our initial 1080p testing with a more in-depth look at Ryzen's gaming performance across a xvi titles played at 1080p and 1440p resolutions.

In addition to including more games, we're also calculation results for the 1800X and 1700X with SMT disabled as Anandtech forum-goers have discovered a problem with the Windows 10 scheduler that tin cause Ryzen to perform worse in lightly-threaded applications with SMT enabled. Evidently Windows ten treats all Ryzen threads the aforementioned (not identifying SMT from physical cores) and thus the operating system thinks all threads have access to their ain L2 and L3 cache when in fact they don't.

To start with a clean slate for this exam, I built a brand new test system using the Gigabyte X370 Gaming 5 motherboard and EK XLC Predator 240 all-in-one liquid cooler for good measure out. The Gaming 5 was updated with the latest F3 BIOS revision and my Corsair DDR4 memory was running at 1.5GHz for a double information rate of 3000 mega transfers per 2d.

With all of that being the case, we should be showing Ryzen in the best possible light equally it exists today and this is indeed the performance you lot tin can expect to come across if you invest in one of AMD'southward new processors.

Alee are the results from xvi games tested at 2 resolutions on 11 dissimilar processors (plus the two configurations sans SMT), making for a full of 416 results from at least 1,250 individual benchmark runs. Gathering all this data took effectually iv total days of work and let's just say I'k thankful I had the foresight to test Intel's processors before Ryzen arrived...

Let the Benchmarks Brainstorm!

The Division, Hitman, Civ VI, Overwatch

Starting with Tom Clancy's: The Division, we find a rather astringent GPU clogging (even at 1080p) when using the ultra quality settings. Of course it'southward not until nosotros await at the dual-core Intel chips or the AMD FX-8370 that we outset to run across operation fall away ever then slightly.

As you would expect, the 1440p results look much the same: the dual-core Intel chips take hold of up for the average frame rate, but are still lacking slightly when looking at the minimum. Needless to say, the Ryzen CPUs all exercise well here.

Using DirectX11 for testing, the Ryzen CPUs are like to the Cadre i7-5960X which makes them a good chip slower than the 6900K, 6700K and 7700K, though AMD'south new chips still did slightly better than the unlocked Core i5 Skylake and Kaby Lake CPUs. Disabling SMT support doesn't accept much of an impact on performance here though it did beget u.s. an extra frame or two.

Moving to 1440p shows some interesting changes in the results, though they are more often than not expected. As the system's GPU becomes the performance-limiting factor, the margins betwixt CPUs narrows. The 1800X for example is now only xi% slower than the 6900K where as it was nineteen% slower at 1080p. Overall, potent performance from Ryzen CPUs here as they roughly match the 5960X.

The Civilization 6 numbers might seem surprising but AMD's ain review guide showed Ryzen to exist quite a bit down on functioning here in relation to the Intel CPUs. Notwithstanding the performance was far from poor as the 1800X was just ten% slower than the 6900K at 1080p and just 7% slower for the minimum effect.

Jumping to 1440p, the results don't change much: the 1800X is however x% slower than the 6900K which is obviously a commendable attempt and a solid result for AMD.

I changed my methodology a bit for testing Overwatch. I now run a 12-role player bot match while spectating. The bots are set to easy and I but used the "Zarya" hero and the "Ilios" map. When the bots brainstorm battling I get-go the test which runs for v minutes and every bit always the average results from three runs are reported.

This is an in-depth test which I have found to produce accurate results. The only other modify here has been the upgrade from ultra to epic quality settings which helps to knock the frame rates downward from that 300 fps cap.

At 1080p we see that like my previous test, the Ryzen processors don't seem peculiarly impressive when looking at the average frame rate, though they are enough fast plenty to drive a 144Hz brandish in this title and what'south important to note hither is their minimum frame rate results.

Out of the box the 1800X isn't much slower than the 5960X, simply with SMT disabled information technology really pulls ahead. And then nosotros have here a adept example of why the Windows scheduler needs to exist updated for Ryzen.

Ryzen becomes rather competitive at 1440p. The 1800X pulls alee of the 5960X out of the box and this time disabling SMT doesn't lead to the aforementioned minimum frame rate gains. I have to say that both the 1800X and 1700X look slap-up here.