I'm downloading Assassin's Creed: Origins (all in -- got the Gold Edition). Its a game I may like (huge open world, sneak around, historically reasonable, supposedly excellent graphics) -- and I can see for myself how it runs.

Played Assassin's Creed Origins for about an hour.

Ryzen 7 1800X not overclocked. Reference RX480 8GB not overclocked. 1440p (2K) monitor.

All graphics set to maximum possible -- including "screen resolution" at 200% (I assume that means 4K calculations for my 2K screen). 14fps. Character movements were delayed between my key presses and what showed on the screen -- very unacceptable. Animations did not seem choppy.

Set "screen resolution" back down to 100% (I assume 2K on a 2K screen). Mid 30s fps. It all works fine so far. Once its running over 30fps all the time, I'm not bothered by anything -- seems smooth.

16 CPU threads were in use at all times during the game. However the total use for the CPU was under 20 percent most of the time (according to Windows 10 resource monitor). Moreover, CPU total use never got much higher -- some individual threads approached 80 or 90 percent at times. I don't know how much overhead came from running Windows Resource Monitor.

RX480 used less than 4GB out of its 8GB of available memory (according to the Assassin's Creed graphics setup screen).

So, for me, Assassin's Creed Origins is very playable with all graphics maximized at over 30fps on Ryzen 1800X (no overclock) and RX480 (no overclock) at 1440p (2K). Not saying everyone would feel the same way.

Based on comments on the Steam Forum, its not working out that well for everyone.


UPDATE: Over 4 hours of play. I think I've seen all the main environment types -- had the quick reaction time fights (where the game has to handle key presses with no delays). No negative changes in performance -- the above still holds.

AMD's chief graphics architect took 40 days off. Then quit AMD. Then joined Intel. Hmmmm. I speculate a few dollars were thrown his way.

That kills all the birds (or, maybe, the bird) with one stone. Intel will now know AMD's secrets. Moreover, shortly (two or four years or so) Intel will have AMD level graphics near release. And, AMD has lost their Chief Architect -- those folks don't grow on trees.

Since Bitcoins and their like are causing inflated GPU prices for we gamers, I think its interesting to note that most think Bitcoins and their like are very poor long term investments -- just like the Tulip Bulb investment mania 400 years ago.

When I did a detailed study of stock market history and investing (a couple decades ago), I read that at the height of the "Tulip Bubble" a farmer gave away his land for "one" tulip bulb. Sounds like "betting the farm" -- story said he lost the bet. That also sounds like paying $7000 for Bitcoins that originally cost $2. I'm not a Bitcoin expert, so I may misunderstand how good a deal that is.

From the Wall Street Journal:



Again, I'm no Cryptocurrency expert. So, maybe Bitcoin investing isn't as misguided as it sounds. Or, maybe, the smart investors are just waiting to jump off the wagon and collect their profits -- at the expense of the folks holding the bags of bitcoins.

Article

Essentially a leaked information article. Preliminary tests are not at final clocks. Looks like the final version will beat all but 1080Ti. Looks expensive and large in the case.

I'm an AMD fan who likes Sapphire because AMD has a "deal" with Sapphire -- thus, Sapphire AMD products may have slightly better designs and seem competitively priced (e.g. one can buy a Sapphire Reference Vega at suggested list price -- even with most charging the Cryptocurrency markup).

However, when there is finally a choice of Vegas (beyond Reference Models), I'll buy what's priced right (and shows well in tests) regardless of brand name.

For those still on Windows 7:

The free update to Windows 10 (using a "trick") has been available; but, it was supposed to end December 31.

Microsoft intends to keep allowing W7 and W8 users to upgrade for free.



Article


I also note that Firefox browser has been updated (yesterday). I use it. Said to be twice as fast and use much less memory. The speed increase is due to going "multi-threaded" (from single threaded). So, core count will matter more and more for folks (probably 4 is enoogh for Firefox).

So, Nvidia is winning on gaming. AMD is winning overall. No doubt, the bigger profits per item are in the gaming market -- so, AMD needs to step up its game in the gaming market. But, we all knew that

Competition is good

The Firefox hardware survey only collates data (on a daily basis) from users that utilise the Mozilla Firefox browser.....not sure why you think this gives any accuracy whatsoever especially given the amount of browsers in use and the market share of IE and Google Chrome.

Given that most ‘gamers’ will use Steam and their browser use is largely irrelevant.....I’d suggest Steam is a more accurate reflection of market share in gaming terms. This is of course dismissing the type of ‘gamer’ that plays the likes of solitaire, minesweeper and Candy crush.

To that end AMD aren’t even close at winning anything......their gaming share sits at something pitiful whilst Nvidia has a gaming share of 85%......and I think you know that’s more than likely a true reflection. I do agree with you that AMD need to improve, the whole release of Vega cards has been nothing like the game changer that they promised.

As you note, the Firefox survey does not cover everyone. That "weakness" was discussed in the article.

For a while, I was NOT going to make the above post because the results can be questioned.

However, they did consider the other browsers and concluded this new type of information was "better than nothing" to provide a more complete (not necessarily more accurate) picture of the entire GPU market (including non-gaming).

Posted for what its worth -- and the value is open to question

Ryzen 7 1800X and 1700X have come down in selling price. We can get Ryzen 7 1800X for $350 at the local Micro Center (when on sale -- which it has been more than once). I paid $500 for my Ryzen 7 1800X.

Thinking of my wife's new PC intending to use Ryzen (which is cost effective). Checked DDR4 memory.

Wow! Fast DDR4 increased in price since I bought my 32GB for about $280. That exact make-model DDR4 is selling for $500 now. One can get fast 16GB DDR4 made for AMD Ryzen for $175 on special sale -- that still adds up to $350 for 32GB.

They say the increased DDR4 costs have several reasons -- including cell-phones starting to use it in large quantities.

But, that makes "right now' maybe not a good time to upgrade -- unless one really needs to do it. I'm putting it off until next April/May and see what happens to prices. Some say they will go back down. We'll see.

I'm still waiting to see some Vega 64 custom cards to choose from (at a reasonable bang per buck). As noted in posts above, one can get a Vega Reference model for normal list price (not sale price). Most sell above list.

Ryzen 7 1800X only $320 at Newegg today (early Black Friday sale price).

A question to AMD afficionados...

Is there any AMD equivalent to the Intel NUC, which packs a fairly powerful CPU with not-too-bad GPU and lots of connectivity into a box less than 5" square?
I've been impressed with this:
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/boards-kits/nuc/kits/nuc7i7bnh.html

I would have thought this would be an area that AMD could compete with some Ryzen/Radeon combination as the Intel units can be quite expensive, but I don't see any products...at least in the suppliers I normally use.

The Ryzen CPU/Vega GPU combination APUs will be released in the relatively near future.

How those are packaged into PCs, laptops, and other products will depend on the marketplace. Laptops are a sure thing -- some are expected by December according to this article.

I Googled and got this article at random.

The article is long and gives some performance metrics compared to Intel. Competitive on compute tasks. Excels at graphics (based on AMD data). No third party tests yet.



Article

The prices are marked down to new lows in many cases. Links provided to Amazon.

Article

Meantime, AMD Vega GPU prices are limited above list price items.

On the competition front: Nvidia GPU total market share has moved ahead of AMD's -- according to one measure.

This may change when the AMD APUs (with Ryzen CPU and Vega GPU) hit the market.

Also, some Intel CPUs will now sport adjacent AMD GPUs. Considering Intel's market share, AMD may "tag along" for a boost in sales.

Longer term, Intel is now going into the discrete GPU business (as reported). How that competition works out is to be determined.

Thank you! I'd forgotten the term 'APU'.

Looks like any products with a NUC style architecture, (essentially a powerful laptop without the battery,keyboard and screen) are some way off.
As I travel often between a few fixed locations, it's cheap enough these days just to have a mouse & keyboard at each one, and most TVs have a HDMI input now.
So, with the NUC I already have, I'll be laughing if and when we get a ban on carrying laptops in aircraft cabins.
Leaving a NUC at each location would cut down on things I have to lug around further, but that's too expensive right now....hence the question about AMD's presence in the market.

Anyway, thanks for the info. I expected a better answer here than just random searching, and am not disappointed.

Article Listing Games/Prices

I suppose this is not news. We all know prices drop on Black Friday. I've already spent over $100 the last day on a few Steam games because the price was right -- and there are no custom Vega GPUs to spend money on.

Of course, the whole point of buying a gaming GPU for $500 (Reference RX Vega 64) to $1250 (EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti K|NGP|N Hydro Copper GAMING) is to play all those $15 (on sale) games at highest settings -- and that very-occasional $100 game at 4K and 60fps. Hmmmm.

Trying to offset the overprice caused by Cryptocurrency mining. Runs from today to December 31.

I downloaded an ~375 page textbook on Bitcoin. All the whys and wherefores -- and how to do it. Only read the introduction Chapter. It seemed thorough and was interesting to read. However, it's still not obvious to me how Cryptocurrency does the average person any good -- its just another way to pay for things -- a substitute for normal cash and normal credit approaches.

Apparently, in the last almost 30 years there have been many dozens of approaches (about 50 important ones listed in the text) to transferring money anonymously (so that people can't steal your credit or banking information or trace your purchases). So far, of the 50 mentioned only PayPal has been truly partly successful, they say.

Hopefully, this will run its course so that I can consider buying a new GPU for gaming tha's priced for gaming (not priced for Cryptocurrency mining).

This is news because the launch is the first actual launch of a custom RX Vega. Supposedly happening now in some markets. So far, today, I haven't seen one.

New circuit board and improved cooling presumably supports higher overclock. However, standard clocks are provided.

I assume the current selling price will be out of my range. However, the first items to hit the shelves are sometimes sold at list price, initially.

Regarding the future of competition. As we've noted here -- the future will be all about "core count". A quad core will become the new "bottom of the line" - even for Intel. Doubtless, software and games will be programmed accordingly.



Competition is good