Hi everyone. I've recently had to do some work on a I7 4 gig machine for someone and while I was at it tested GG out with it. It ran quite a bit faster than my Ryzen 1700. I'm not really surprised, GG for certain prefers Intel CPU's, but it's still a little annoying. I've seen I5 systems run faster as well in the past.

I ran 3D Mark on both systems to compare and lo and behold my Ryzen trounced the Intel quite easily. With both my CPU and GPU being victorious! So I'd like to ask if the people behind GG updates at present (Preben probably) can take a look at this. I'm guessing it's GG's lack of multi-threading that is the main issue, but it may be other factors. For instance if I run a GG game and swap into task manager I can see both my GPU and CPU are hardly being used. On the Intel it's still not being used 100%, but it is much higher.

It's quite galling to see a system that is technically inferior running my game SO much better ( a good 20+ difference in places), while also having a slightly slower video card (960 compared to 970).

Wondering how others fare in this regard? Are you a Ryzen owner and suffering poor GG performance? Do you think TGC should spend a bit of time getting AMD systems to run better? Have you any similar experience with Intel's running way better?

i have a ryzen-5 3600 hex core, its been brilliant with all i throw at it from steam, even max does ok, except a few programs that seem to take ages.
i wonder if what you say is true then it needs to be corrected as there are many ryzen 5 users and are in use, they are a brilliant chip and finally caught up to intel. be a shame to not even optimize and streamline amd just because of preference.

Yeah my thoughts exactly. I could have swapped my Ryzen for the Intel if I wanted, but seems silly just for the sake of getting my GG games to run faster. Everything else is fine. Let's face it Ryzen is the gamers choice at the moment and any game released will have to run on both. At least when developing on AMD you get a chance to attempt to speed it up. Not that I have had much success in that area. Even deleting half the start area I gain 0 fps So it's not an easy thing to fix.

I even reduced the shadow size to 1024 compared to the default of 2048. Not even 1 fps gained! That seems crazy to me. Obviously my GPU is not even being remotely taxed if that is the case.

Don't own AMD, and about intel just as an integrated card, but working on Nvidia gfx 1060, with GG/GGmax.

@3com. I know English is not your first language, so know the spaghetti is just that. I'd be way worse

I'm assuming you have an Intel CPU. If you have a card of some sort, you have a very rare device (Intel did release CPU's as plugin cards (not sure what they were hardware wise, for sure at least PCI and not ISA. ) Lol, bringing back memories, Vesa local bus.

I'm pretty sure it's GG's old fashioned single core approach that causes it. It's probably just down to simple gigahertz of the CPU. The Intel was running at 4 gig compared to my Ryzen at 3.2. Having double the cores is not useful with GG. Still, bar better monitoring software, hard to see exactly why performance is lower, when every core seems to be well below max capacity. If I saw at least one core maxing out I could understand it.

@ DVader
My specs on my sig.