Mine was overclocked to 3.8 GHz during the test as well, it's the furthest I could go without overwhelming the stock cooler. Were you running it at 3x speed, by chance? My results are at 3x speed while looking directly down at the park, lowering the simulation speed increased frame rates significantly as expected.
Anyone testing planet coaster with new ryzen cpu?
- Thread starter smelly
- Start date
Mine was overclocked to 3.8 GHz during the test as well, it's the furthest I could go without overwhelming the stock cooler. Were you running it at 3x speed, by chance? My results are at 3x speed while looking directly down at the park, lowering the simulation speed increased frame rates significantly as expected.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Some progress, although not yet complete. I've still to add my GPU and a pair of HDDs to the build (and some more case fans) but otherwise the hardware / software side of the new PC is pretty much complete. Both Elite: Dangerous and Planet Coaster installed and they run (albeit very slowly with the HD4670 "temporary" GPU in place).
I'm travelling later in the week on business and then at EliteMeet at the weekend so if I don't get it completed tomorrow night then it will be next week.
I'm travelling later in the week on business and then at EliteMeet at the weekend so if I don't get it completed tomorrow night then it will be next week.
I am still working on my build. A completely scratch built wood case with cpu and gpu watercooling. Finally got the holes in my glass for my reservoir, so I am going to try and get that siliconed together tonight, and then to start work on the acrylic motherboard tray, backplate, and the glass work for the sides...and then I can start putting all the guts in
thanks so much for your very informative reply! some great reading right there!
Just going to copy-paste what I wrote on your youtube video comment here.
Just wanted to quickly say thanks so much for doing such an in-depth benchmark video on your findings here. It helps me, as someone who is actually still on an AMD FX 8320 @4.2ghz system to whether or not I should go for a Ryzen chip or an intel 6-core chip in the very near future. I was extremely surprised at your findings when you used the benchmark 2 I uploaded (btw i didn't make that park I just fixed it as it was broken and made 14k guests appear for benchmark purposes heh) that the difference between your Ryzen and my FX 8320 was 1FPS. You had a better FPS average score and lowest FPS score then me, by only a tiny 1 frame. That shocked me so I'm thinking that we've hit some sort of game-engine limitation here somewhere. Considering the vast difference in quality between your CPU and mine, I was expecting a huge difference with that particular test. In comparison to Elbinea Park though I think i was at around 12FPS so there is absolutely a difference here. Surprised it wasn't more, but then I am running a GTX 980 (which I think is slightly better then your current GPU) which might be making a difference here.
At some point I would love for you to run these benchmarks again with a newer GPU in the future just to see what you get, and if it made any impact for you. The low settings at 720p resolution made for an interesting piece as well, because I get no FPS difference switching from 1080 down to 720, its basically the same frame rate for me, which leads me to think your GPU could be bottlenecking your performance quite a bit here even at 1080 considering the boost you got at 720 res.
Ps. Your English is very good actually, understand everything you said perfectly.
Last edited:
No one "needs" 64GB system RAM for gaming. 16GB is enough. Even 32GB is a bit overkill.
I have an i7-6700k, EVGA GTX 1070 SC (overclocked), DDR4 RAM 16GB. MSI Afterburner is giving me 25-40fps but averages high 20s on 1920x1080 Ultra Preset settings with 6k people. Windows 10 Task Manager says I'm only using 5.6GB or my 16GB system RAM.
The i7-6700k is the fastest stock speed, 6th generation processor from Intel. 4 cores 8 threads and each one of those can do 4.2Ghz stock speed and that's not overclocked. The 6700k has a base speed of 4Ghz and turbo to 4.2Ghz. And it can be overclocked.
I was considering Ryzen but I would need a new motherboard. I had a look at it and the 1800x does something close to 4Ghz and 8 cores 16 threads. Issue is if game developers will support AMD's new architecture to it's fullest potential anytime soon. The 6700k has better performance 'per single core' than the 6 core 12 threads processors from Intel, as each core on the 6700k can do 4.2Ghz. Think of it this way. Businesses may higher less but better, workers (eg. receptionists, chefs). You may only see 1 receptionist at the desk or 1-2 chefs in a restaurant. Rather than a business hiring 10 staff at once and it looks like it's too much staff or too many hands. Yet if you hire quality staff, they perform their duties with less 'noise'. The 6700k is a quality processor, even though it has 4 cores 8 threads. The i7 6950X is still very expensive it's like selling in NZ for over $1,000.
Yes 8 cores 16 threads means being able to easily handle multitasking and demanding applications. But for me it's not worth paying the extra money which can still be quite a bit, for an extra 5-15fps. 20-30fps is still playable.
Last edited:
I did not suggest that 64GB is needed for gaming at any point. I stated that to utilise such a CPU as the 6950X you would want 64GB (now this is nothing to do with gaming). They are made for rendering videos/images. What I said was that people buying a 6950X would likely pair it with 64GB of RAM and so regardless of if it is needed that should be the test bed because it shows real world scenario of the system being used.
What it will also do is limit the overclock achieved either on CPU. RAM or both. With this it could show if there was a negative affect on the system instead with that amount of RAM.
However I would still suggest that people looking to go with 8-core or more should now be looking to get 32GB RAM. It gets a little more complicated in the point of dual and quad band RAM, however that should not affect gaming at all. Certainly not with the engines we have now (quad just doubles the throughput to the RAM but we are not utilising 100% on dual most the time).
Now you are talking direct with PC and what it uses, I am suggesting a gaming RIG for all games and day to day use. You will also find another 4-5GB of RAM can be used whilst online at same time and having say a 4k video playing, it can then add some more use when you stream or record. There are more factors here than just running PC.
PC use of RAM is actually relatively low in todays terms. Some online multiplayer game will by themselves use up 8GB RAM so you add 2-3G for the OS and then a few tabs in Chrome/Edge/FF then you are over the 16GB there.
Just to add you are talking completely about something that my paragraph and explanation does not correlate too.
With that in your case then the Ryzen system and the i7 system would see no difference in FPS but the Ryzen system will be smoother with less frame in the 1% area. That of course is up to you on the initial cost and trade off. We are looking at if you had to buy either a 4 core Intel or a 8 core Ryzen system for the same price then there is no reason to select the Intel system.
Now would that outlay of an additional £90 for a new motherboard be worth it in the long run compared to going to the i7 from an older CPU only you can decide. With that though as well the the R5 6 core would be cheaper, still add some more cores, still perform as well now and then offer better support in the long term.
Not sure what CPU you was looking at when you looked up the i7 6950X but it is $2500 NZ reduced from $4000 which actually makes it cheaper for me to buy that chip there than here where it costs £1700. Still I think you have missed the point of why all this was brought up, why we discussed comparing and what works best.
This is an incredible video showing off what the Ryzen can do with faster RAM speeds, seems as this post was talking about RAM paired up with a high-core count CPU and Ryzen in general.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZS...uxwp3fmugdl4hoymh1ybk0h00410.1490793494289653
Yepp, RyZen is a good bit hold back by RAM Speeds. AMD has announced a Microcode Update that works through Bios updates to support higher RAM speeds in may if i remember correctly. But to be on topic, i was not able to reproduce different performance results with RAM at 2133 or 2933MHz. Performance in Planet Coaster was exactly the same.
A poster on the reddit AMD forums has done a comparison of RAM speeds with Planet Coaster:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/62aigz/after_a_couple_of_days_running_benchmarks_i_am/
https://imgur.com/a/sbwqK
That's a nice 20% increase average frame rate.
"This was the only game to push the 1700 past 50% load BTW."
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/62aigz/after_a_couple_of_days_running_benchmarks_i_am/
https://imgur.com/a/sbwqK
That's a nice 20% increase average frame rate.
"This was the only game to push the 1700 past 50% load BTW."
The problem with PC is that it appears to be a bottleneck somewhere else as I am also not seeing any improvement on a 5.3GHz i7 7700K with 16GB RAM at 4200MHz and sli GTX1080TI compared to Ryzen at 3.9 with 16GB 2133MHz RAM and same sli GTX1080Ti. I have since updated the RAM to get 3200MHz, currently cant't reach 3600MHz stable on the suit I like to use although I suppose it is gaming stable in that I have played a number of games no issue.
With that it really does appear to have some odd things going on where the cobra engine almost becomes overwhelmed regardless of the hardware.
Sorry I should say both running W10 insider builder 15063 and OS & games installed to 2TB M.2 960 Pro. Only drive I am using. I am not aware of anything that could be holding back on these systems tbh.
With the above and what I understand though I would say that Ryzen is not the bottleneck even at 2133MHz and something else is bottlenecking the system. I have also only really been testing at 4K but for those who play at 1080p & 1440p it may well show the CPU bottleneck from Ryzen then.
Aye it really is amazing what can be done where the Infinity Fabric is causing a bottleneck. If you get results where the CPU is giving same frames at both 2133MHz and 3600MHz then you are GPU limited and not CPU limited basically. Where this shines it shows that at the lower res "CPU bottleneck" situations Ryzen is no more a bottleneck than that of the i7 7700K and actually in terms of the average and 1% low's is much better generally.
That comes back to my previous sentiment about Ryzen being smoother than the Intel chips.
Last edited:
Thats strange. In my tests Planet Coaster doesnt react to RAM speed. Thats another indicator that comparison needs screenshot or video of the exact scene that was tested. It really seems that PC can be hold back by various bottlenecks depending on the scene it has to render/calculate or what ever... [big grin]
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Tested this just now - I've put the RX480 into my PC and updated it to the Content Creators build of Windows 10: Zoomed right out I'm getting 15 FPS with the park running and 20 FPS with it paused. CPU utilisation is 55% running and 32% paused.
So what does that mean because I think I need a computer with a better CPU but I don't know which one and my friend says the Ryzen 1600x is really good but I don't know if it is good for Planet Coaster.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
At c.$250 the 5 1600X is, in my opinion, good value for money - and if you're not planning to overclock it then you could buy a less costly motherboard (than the X370 based ones).
My CPU was only c.55% utilised - the 1600X has 3/4 of the thread count so should be c.70%-75% utilised (as it shares the same base / boost clock speeds as the 7 1800X that I have).
My CPU was only c.55% utilised - the 1600X has 3/4 of the thread count so should be c.70%-75% utilised (as it shares the same base / boost clock speeds as the 7 1800X that I have).
Last edited: