So what's the real story about Ryzen vs current i7s?
I keep seeing the 7700k beat the 1700x in games
But then another identocal bench shows the 1700x beating the i7 by a lot.
Are AMD shills making fake benchmarks?
Or are Intel shills making the fake benchmarks?
I can't seem to find solid answers.
Other urls found in this thread:
anandtech.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
pcworld.com
twitter.com
Could we not have the same thread on the same exact topic every single day?
>it's this thread again
Sage and hide, guys.
t. Intel fake news shill
I don't get how people keep on making these threads.
Go read the anandtech article so you have some understanding of CPU performance outside of muh games.
Here's the short of it:
7700k will perform better in the majority of games out right now. If you have a 144hz monitor and play at 1080p then this is the processor that makes the most sense.
However, that does not make the 1700 bad. You will still pull ~100+ fps in 1080p with one. IPC is at broadwell-e levels, so you are suffering primarily from a lower clockspeed. However, what you lose in fps you make up for in multitasking capabilities and multi-threaded applications.
It makes little sense in today's market to continue to recommend 4c8t processors. The market is indicating that more threads are the future, and if people buy processors with more threads then developers will be forced to start utilizing them.
Intel has held the cpu market in artificial stasis. 4c8t are only the norm because it is safe for Intel. Regardless of what team you're on, this is a good thing for consumers.
Developers made games to be played on intel since AMD was scratching their nuts in the corner for a decade Give them time to adjust to the brand new architecture. It's to fuck early
buy ryzen+radeon so I can laugh at you later
I'm going to say that gaming with Ryzen has better minimums and.... Less stutter. I cant explain it, was watching my buddy play with his new build, and everything felt smoother, despite another build having a 7700k with the same gfx card. I cant put my finger on it. Frametime benches show contradictions again, but I'm not sure what it is. Going to try and get both builds side by side and see whats up.
>the market is indicating that more threads are the future
Not for personal use.
Moar cores was a joke a few years ago and its still a joke now.
they're about even in gayming. and it depends on resolution and game which one you want to go with
if you want to future proof yourself, go with any R7 or R5 (should be out in a week) and you will be better off than the 7700K
Tripfag shills are double cancer.
>trying to do this on 7700K
maybe at 20GHZ
Never post that faggots video again.
Don't you get tired of being raped up the ass with the stupid shit you post?
Are you a masochist?
>So what's the real story about Ryzen vs current i7s?
Let the results speak for themselves. Spoiler alert: Ryzen is an utter fucking failure.
The Zen architecture has a few quirks that - if not understood - will bottleneck your performance. Primarily, the intra-CCX (2 sets of 4 cores) latency and bandwidth is ratio'd with your RAM speed and most RAM did not overclock easily out of the gate.
The intra-CCX bandwidth probably will be increased in a future Zen+ architecture. New microcode updates will make OC ram easier.
Also some games don't utilize the cores very well and so the higher IPC and clock rate of the 7700K means it outperforms the 1800x.
Although a lot of people find that games overall are smoother as the minimum framerate increases with the 1800x vs the 7700K in almost all cases that I have seen.
The 1800x also does not overclock by much as it a highly binned version of the 1700 which was designed and fabricated in a server class, (3.3GHz) low power process.
I've seen a few benches with updated Bios and 3200ddr4 that do Much better.
Unoptimized. The patch for Ryzen will correct this.
horrible, do not buy
>just wait™
Except it's still fucking shit, even with higher ram speeds.
After a windows update Ryzen are doing fantastic in games. If it has not already someone will probably post the one where the 7700K @ 5ghz is losing to a Ryzen 1700x @3.97ghz.
Still going to stick with my 6800k tho.
>go with any R7 or R5 (should be out in a week) and you will be better off than the 7700K
Thanks for the laugh.
youtube.com
>posting idiot shill video
the R7 already out performs the garbage 7700K in gaymin
>Outdated information posted as fact
To add onto that guys post, the architecture has quite a few oddities, most notably the CCX crosstalk latency. Ryzen is physically two quad cores on the same die connected by a 256 bit bus that runs at the same mhz your RAM does. If your RAM is slow then it fucks with bandwidth between CCX, this isn't much of a problem in most applications, but it matters quite a bit in games. Going from 2133mhz RAM to 3200mhz RAM on average will improve performance by 12%. This will actually put it past Kaby Lake in a lot of games.
Also, the "it can't overclock" is FUD, yeah they cap out at 4ghz, 4.2ghz with water cooling, but the 1700 has a baseclock of 3ghz, with a 3.2ghz all core turbo, and a 3.75ghz single core turbo. Majority will hit 3.9ghz which is a 22% OC over the stock turbo. 7700K has 4.4ghz all core turbo, and majority will hit 4.9ghz, which is only a 11% OC over turbo.
Most shills will then reply
>but the 1700X gets 11% and the 1800X 5%!
because they don't realize they're just higher bins for rich people. It's like the 9590, yeah it ran at 4.7ghz stock but any 8320 would hit that as well.
>eurogamer
Salazar is literally one of the best tech tubers out there. Fuck off.
See, that link is what makes me question Ryzen.
Ashes is an AMD game
It's designed from top to bottom to preform better on AMD hardware.
It also has a small player base, it's basically a dead game.
>Oh look we got 22% increase in a game designed by us!
He's a shit stirring troll. Calling him the best at anything is a low fucking bar.
...
he's fucking retarded
Fair enough. You have concerns, and it shows AMD has a tough road ahead for customers.
I will say this though, it is a brand spanking new architecture that is competitive with an architecture that has been the defacto standard in the industry for the past ten years. That has no more software optimizations and no more kinks to work out. And it's losing in most use cases to the brand new architecture.
>I am critical of Cooler Master products, this video brought to you by Corsair
Kill yourself.
what a shit cpu
> measuring a cpu in terms of gpu performance
Is it possible some cpu/gpu pairs just get along better than others?
Nah, he's a rich fag cock sucker that has a swagfag demographic
1440p benchmarks remove CPU bottlenecks.
Doom on vulkan also doesn't need a good CPU
I believe i3s even match i7s in Vulkan.
>Your cherry picking isn't fair to my cherry picking!
how are you still shitposting?
That's not an argument
1440p is a GPU benchmark, not a CPU bench.
Doom isn't a CPU bound game and is a bad test for CPU performance
Look at how well Old CPUs do here.
i wouldnt trust any Benchmark pictures here.
also keep in mind that benchmarks are going to rely on the micro code updates, Motherboard bios updates, games updating, particular setting in Windows 10 being on or off, whether or not its Overclocked, if they have features of the cpu disabled, or if the game they are using has been updated to support Ryzen or uses Multithreading at all. And stuff have been changing since the cpu launched, so benchmarks will be all over the place.
AMD's prerelease examples should not be trusted, as they were clearly not using a sound methodology. "we'll have intels machine look at the ground, and Our machine staring into the sky so there is nothing to render. will you look at that, Ryzen has better frame rate."
i looked at a bunch of youtube reviewers and the consistent outcome seems to be that Ryzen performs like an i5 7600k in most cases, but with higher Minimum frame rates and taking advantage of multithreading in some games. And absolutely crushes when given a heavily multithreaded task like Rendering a video.
Is it or is it not a test of the CPU?
Not really amd optimized, just actually using a new api correctly, its basicly the doom of dx12, it was made correctly so you see what happens when the devs aren't retards.
The important take away here is that amd is not held back by multiple cxc's exactly, 10 devs and one work week is what it takes to make a game work great on amd hardware, It's a shockingly small amount of time and effort, even when a dev does shit the bed and doesn't fix shit, the games still play more than adequately to not complain.
Yes.
at best it would be a sidegrade, at worst a downgrade from a 6800k depending on workload.
but you are also an outlier as far as cpus are concerned.
nvidia get along with amd better then amd amd and intel gets along with amd gpus better too...
its mostly to do with the overhead in the drivers where nvidia has lower, it allows amds cpus to be taken further, and amd requires more so intel cpus take them further
its showing of what vulcan can bring to the table now that I think its been definitively proven that dx12 is pure shit for games.
why does he have such a punchable face?
Results of those two CPUs are usually not far apart from each other in most games
CPU heavy games run much better on the 7700k, for example Arma 3 and CSGO
oh man 260 fps vs 320fps in CSGO what ever shall I do
>wanting tearing on your 300hz monitor
It's alright to admit you're gay
>, 10 devs and one work week is what it takes to make a game work great on amd hardware
See that's how I know ur an AMD shill.
It took them over 2 years to fully optimize the 290x
1 year to get the furyX running right
8 months to optimise the rx480
But sure all it takes is 1 week right?
>tearing
it would just be blurry
and by blurry i mean """"""""""""""""blurry"""""""""""""""""""""""
read any of the six billion articles talking about the 30% performance uplift on ryzen cpus in the new patch.
The short version of the story is:
-there was a decent sized gap on launch
-the gap has been narrowed with recent microcode and bios updates
-ryzen benefits massively from fast ram, which has only become usable with very recent bios updates
-games may be poorly optimized for ryzen, as shown by the double digit percentage fps gains in ashes of the singularity after a small code update
-ryzen is hands down better than anything intel has in multithreaded workloads, except maybe the 6950x, at a far lower cost
-all of that being said, the 7700k beats it in the vast majority of games for now
anyone heard/tried running 3466 CL15 RAM?
It's cheap right now.
actually AMDs microcode comes in may
the gap is being narrowed by bios updates that allow ram OCing and devs of gaymen fixing shit
the microcode will push ryzen equal or greater in nearly everything probably
where is it cheap?
I have pushed my ram to 3600 for le memes but I like it at 3200 cuz I am a pussy
>the 7700k beats it in the vast majority of games for now
Depends on metric you use, 1800x(1600x) flat lines fps and frametimes(except dx12 due to nature of API optimizations have to be done close to metal).
Bullshit AMDrone. Source for this magic performance fixing microcode that's supposedly coming out or I'll have raja install a toilet in your home.
$200 for 32gb
LPX though
motherboard vendors talked about it
most likely just RAM extension, hardware sure can push faster RAM
uhh they announced it like a month ago, dumbass
it comes in may
and the 4.0ghz R7's (any of them) are already btfoing 7700K
what's LPX then? I have LPX didn't know it was bad
Sane strategy, if you don't need 8 cores, would be to get R5 with overkill RAM - downclock it to whatever works for now and get zen+ r5/r7 next year which will run fast RAM out of box.
Changing CPU like it's GPU is cheaper in the long run. 200gpu+250 CPU every two years now possible.
Input lag maybe
everything's integrated onto the chip with ryzen so there's less for the motherboard to slow down
CMK16GX4M2B3466C16
I lied it's 16Gb.
pcie is under 1ms even if it's going through motherboard
pretty sure it's just that OS doesn't interfere with game running, like it usually does snatching CPU commands that were meant for GPU
well now the asus rog even can get 3600mhz so I don't think really any am4 motherboards over $170 can't clock to 3200+ without much issue
whatever upgrade they're getting in the future is going to be even crazier..
most b350 boards have 3200+ in specs meaning memory controller is not the issue it's agesa code that amd has to hurry up with
>Changing CPU like it's GPU is cheaper in the long run.
Not if you're an intel nigger. Every 2 years they change the fucking socket.
minor AGESA updates have been dripping by, but the major one is supposedly in May
Here are the facts:
Early reviews showed 7700k crushing AMD but they where using shitty early bioses coupled with 2133mhz ram.
Newer reviews show the 1700 overclocked beating or coming close to the 5ghz 7700k in most tests, this is due to better bios and higher frequency RAM, since ryzen needs at least 2933mhz to be any good.
But you get a fucking 8core/16thread cpu that is an absolute beast in many tasks and you get a gaming cpu thats comparable to a 5ghz oven.
>that face
nope.
you faggots don't need any of this shit, you all post from your phones anyways since none of you have the money to buy a desktop and play the jew game of going to college.
All phonefags need to banned from this site.
this, Intel fags btfo
moar cores is the future
AMD willl sure work on the CCX latency in the meantime use faster RAM
>he bought a 7700k
3600MHz RAM is literally 13 times more expensive than 2133MHz ram
Nope.
> yeah it ran at 4.7ghz stock but any 8320 would hit that as well
Nope, mine couldn't. I didn't overvolt it, tho.
IMO what AMD should have done with the interconnect speed is allow for partial decoupling of it from ram speed similar to what intel did with nehalem and gulftown/westmere.
you've never overclocked before have you
I call bullshit
Literally true, if you buy Ryzen you need 4200MHz RAM to be competitive and that costs $200 per 8GB
3 GHZ
If anyone can get that high memory running on a Ryzen It would absolutely demolish anything out right now.
Assuming the performance scaling doesn't cap out at 3600
shut the fuck up with this ccx shut you stupid nigger you aren't a CPU architecture designer
adolescent retard
now that's just straightup false
my field is mostly optimization work, but I designed a basic 16 bit harvard architecture CPU in mineman awhile back
or having it run 2:1 of the ram. simple yet perverted.
but its AMD: they cant do something without doing at least one thing wrong.
Having it run 2x of the ram speed would also backfire on them, as it would consume more power and decrease the number of viable dies due to defects in the interconnects area. Keep in mind the process doesnt clock high, and having it 2:1 would mean that even with the slowest supported ram the interconnect would be pushing 4.2ghz. Semi-synchronous (adjustable) or 1:1 synchronous would have been better than 1:2.
Who knows, maybe as bios updates come out and tweaks occur the ram and thus the interconnects can clock higher.
Seriously, why does ryzen seem to always have very stable frametimes?
alright. thanks for pointing that out man.
Btw has anyone seen any benchmarks of ryzen with 3200 cl12 ram? or 4266 cl19?
Both CPU brands are pretty competitive... and thats amazing, we've not been in this situation for a decade.
So people are fighting over 3-5% differences like they are the end of the world.
3200 theres likely a few floating around, but 4266 is currently beyond its means.
And continuing on with the interconnect: AMD does have a whole bunch of neat power and clock control circuitry on Ryzen. If they had opted for an adjustable Interconnect clock, they could have possibly rigged it up to dynamically clock up and down according to the load its under, so they get performance and low latency when they need it, and high energy efficiency when its not doing much.
I've got a 4690k that chokes in bf4 at 4,4ghz. Should I just get a cheap 4790k? Or is it better to step up from ddr3 1600mhz cas9 memory altogether?