Why does Ryzen gaming performance matter?

[He_162]

AMD Ryzen processors are polarizing the community, or is it the community that is polar about AMD products?

AMD Ryzen processors are somewhat worse than intel in gaming at 1080p, but despite this, they do their job, and they do it so well, that you really can't tell how much worse they are without the marker on the screen telling you it's worse.

 

That being said, they are over twice as cheap or up to 5x as cheap as the intel i7-6900K, and offer far better price / performance, and that is why they are here, budget. Did you guys expect a budget 8 core to perform almost as well as an i7-6900K?!??!

Secondly, Intel is on the verge of releasing a new series of extreme processors, meaning team blue fans do not need to care about the i7-6900K, or Ryzen's performance, as there is no way Intel is going to make a new series of processors that are worse than Ryzen, they can pay the premium price for a high end processor in the upcoming months, that will most likely be superior to Broadwell-E by at the VERY LEAST 10%, as if it wasn't at least that fast, Intel would be in trouble.

 

So with that in mind, why even bother talking about Ryzen if you aren't going to get it? Let people with a smaller wallet get an 8 core processor, and let them be great content creators, but keep your negativity out of the way of anyone wanting a better performance processor, or the best, instead, tell them to wait for Skylake / Kabylake - X.

Please, no fighting, we all know Ryzen at the current time performs worse in the average games, but better in others, that was  to be expected, and Intel fans jumped on the idea of Ryzen being worse. We do not need to discuss benchmarks, that was not the point of that processors release, the following topics should be discussed in this thread:

Price to performance

Content Creation

Future "extreme" processors / high core count processors

Streaming performance

 

Those topics are the relevant ones. Intel loses in the top one, and we can further discuss what these processors are mainly going to be used for here. Gaming at 1080p on a 500$ or 1100$ processor does not make sense anyway, so I should stress that I will not tolerate game performance discussions here, there are several hundreds of threads across the internet and on this forum for that.

[79wjd]

The big issue is that Lisa Su promoted an R7 based system as the "dream gaming pc of 2017." 

 

AMD wanted to sell Ryzen as a superior gaming platform, and hence all the hate they've been getting for it. 

[The Sloth]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

The big issue is that Lisa Su promoted an R7 based system as the "dream gaming pc of 2017." 

they talked lot about streaming games too, there demo is mostly multitasking demo with gaming and streaming scenario. 

[79wjd]

Just now, nerdslayer1 said:

they talked lot about streaming games too, there demo is mostly multitasking demo with gaming and streaming scenario. 

Yes, they ALSO demonstrated streaming and workstation use cases. But that doesn't change that it was also marketed as a gaming product (and a superior one at that). 

[He_162]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

The big issue is that Lisa Su promoted an R7 based system as the "dream gaming pc of 2017." 

 

AMD wanted to sell Ryzen as a superior gaming platform, and hence all the hate they've been getting for it. 

So when it performs like a dream for up to 1/5 of the price of a i7-6900K system, what is the issue? It gives you such a good experience at any resolution that you will not see lag in any game ever made, unless of course your playing Arma, which lags on all systems.

[He_162]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

Yes, they ALSO demonstrated streaming and workstation use cases. But that doesn't change that it was also marketed as a superior gaming product. 

But it is a great, and superior gaming product, depending on the game you play. Intel has tried this before as well.

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, He_162 said:

So when it performs like a dream for up to 1/5 of the price of a i7-6900K system, what is the issue? It gives you such a good experience at any resolution that you will not see lag in any game ever made, unless of course your playing Arma, which lags on all systems.

"dream gaming pc" implies the best gaming experience you can get, which goes to the 7700k, not an 1800x or the 6900k. The 6900k isn't a gaming CPU and it has never been marketed as one (afaik). 

 

Yes, Ryzen is a very capable gaming cpu, but why buy an inferior cpu?

[He_162]

Prove me wrong: THE R7 1800X IS THE BEST 500$ PROCESSOR YOU CAN BUY

[79wjd]

Just now, He_162 said:

Prove me wrong: THE R7 1800X IS THE BEST 500$ PROCESSOR YOU CAN BUY

For workstation use, yes it is (well, kind of, a 1700 is better). For gaming, a 7700k is better (and cheaper).  

[He_162]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

"dream gaming pc" implies the best gaming experience you can get, which goes to the 7700k, not an 1800x or the 6900k. The 6900k isn't a gaming CPU and it has never been marketed as one (afaik). 

 

Yes, Ryzen is a very capable gaming cpu, but why buy an inferior cpu?

Why spend up to 5x the money for a minimal 10 - 15% performance increase, when that increase is in no way noticeable whatsoever in any game, at any resolution, unless you have lackluster GPU performance?

[79wjd]

Just now, He_162 said:

Why spend up to 5x the money for a minimal 10 - 15% performance increase, when that increase is in no way noticeable whatsoever in any game, at any resolution, unless you have lackluster GPU performance?

I know this is a REAAAALY hard concept, but a 6900k isn't a gaming CPU. That falls to the 7700k, which is both better (in gaming) and cheaper than an 1800x. 

[He_162]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

For workstation use, yes (well, kind of, a 1700 is better). For gaming, a 7700k is better (and cheaper).  

But are they 500$, and have 8 cores?

The answer is no, yes, and no, no.

The i7 performs better in games, sure, but the R7 1700 is cheaper, comes with a fan, runs lower wattage, has cheaper motherboards that still allow you to overclock, and on top of all that, still provides a gaming experience that will not provide any stuttering, lag, or issues, it isn't noticeably worse than the i7 in any way.

 

Oh, and you could stream at the same time, and not worry about it lagging, just like the i7-7700K can, despite all that, Ryzen is newer, and with 8 cores, and 16 threads, you will only see better performance in games down the road.

[He_162]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

I know this is a REAAAALY hard concept, but a 6900k isn't a gaming CPU. That falls to the 7700k, which is both better (in gaming) and cheaper than an 1800x. 

So leave the R5 series to that, the i7-6900K is the R7 1800x's price point competitor.

 

The R7 1700 performs just as well in games, as in you won't notice any lag or stuttering, even when streaming on either the i7-7700K, or R7 1700, and the R7 is cheaper, and comes with a fan, on top of that, it's overclockable motherboards are cheaper.

[Enderman]

14 minutes ago, He_162 said:

That being said, they are over twice as cheap or up to 5x as cheap as the intel i7-6900K, and offer far better price / performance, and that is why they are here, budget. Did you guys expect a budget 8 core to perform almost as well as an i7-6900K?!??!

I don't think anyone is arguing that the intel extreme edition i7s are better.

It's obvious that for the price ryzen is a much better option than any extreme edition intel CPUs.

 

The point is, not everyone is a content creator and can make use of 16 threads, so a 7700k is still a better option for gaming.

[79wjd]

5 minutes ago, He_162 said:

But are they 500$, and have 8 cores?

The answer is no, yes, and no, no.

The i7 performs better in games, sure, but the R7 1700 is cheaper, comes with a fan, runs lower wattage, has cheaper motherboards that still allow you to overclock, and on top of all that, still provides a gaming experience that will not provide any stuttering, lag, or issues, it isn't noticeably worse than the i7 in any way.

 

Oh, and you could stream at the same time, and not worry about it lagging, just like the i7-7700K can, despite all that, Ryzen is newer, and with 8 cores, and 16 threads, you will only see better performance in games down the road.

Oh, okay, so Ryzen is better in the future (well, maybe....it could be, or single core performance could still remain king, both are equally likely).

 

I'm still not saying Ryzen is bad, it's a great choice for a lot of people, but it's still not the best gaming cpu there is. And so you can still blame AMD for marketing it as such. 

 

Right now, a 7700k is still a better gaming cpu. Period. End of a discussion. And you can certainly notice a difference if you play at high framerates, which people do.

4 minutes ago, He_162 said:

So leave the R5 series to that, the i7-6900K is the R7 1800x's price point competitor.

What part of this is hard to understand... AMD marketed the 1800x as a gaming cpu. Blame them. 

 

A 6700k/7700k costs $20~ more and performs better in games. 

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD RYZEN 7 1700 3.0GHz 8-Core Processor  ($328.99 @ SuperBiiz) 
Motherboard: Asus PRIME B350M-A Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard  ($89.99 @ B&H) 
Total: $418.98
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-03-06 23:45 EST-0500

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i7-6700K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($316.98 @ Amazon) 
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($29.99 @ Newegg) 
Motherboard: ASRock Z170A-X1 ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  ($91.00 @ SuperBiiz) 
Total: $437.97
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-03-06 23:46 EST-0500

[He_162]

Just now, Enderman said:

I don't think anyone is arguing that the intel extreme edition i7s are better.

It's obvious that for the price ryzen is a much better option than any extreme edition intel CPUs.

 

The point is, not everyone is a content creator and can make use of 16 threads, so a 7700k is still a better option for gaming.

No, it isn't.

 

You will never notice the performance gap between the two processors, and the R7 1700 is still cheaper, in motherboard cost, the cost of a fan, due to it coming with one, but also in the price of the motherboard it requires.

The i7 is simply losing the price war, and offering minimal increases in gaming performance, also, the 4 core will become obsolete sooner.

[He_162]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

Oh, okay, so Ryzen is better in the future (well, maybe....it could be, or single core performance could still remain king, both are equally likely).

 

I'm still not saying Ryzen is bad, it's a great choice for a lot of people, but it's still not the best gaming cpu there is. And so you can still blame AMD for marketing it as such. 

 

Right now, a 7700k is still a better gaming cpu. Period. End of a discussion. And you can certainly notice a difference if you play at high framerates, which people do.

What part of this is hard to understand... AMD marketed the 1800x as a gaming cpu. Blame them. 

 

A 6700k/7700k costs $20~ more and performs better in games. 

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD RYZEN 7 1700 3.0GHz 8-Core Processor  ($328.99 @ SuperBiiz) 
Motherboard: Asus PRIME B350M-A Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard  ($89.99 @ B&H) 
Total: $418.98
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-03-06 23:45 EST-0500

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i7-6700K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($316.98 @ Amazon) 
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($29.99 @ Newegg) 
Motherboard: ASRock Z170A-X1 ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  ($91.00 @ SuperBiiz) 
Total: $437.97
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-03-06 23:46 EST-0500

No, it is not necessarily better in the future, I misspoke, I should have said that 8 core processors will be better in the future in general, getting a Intel 4 core i7 now is a worse idea than getting the 8 core, simply because the 8 core offers the same performance, or unnoticeably worse, for a lower price.

[79wjd]

3 minutes ago, He_162 said:

No, it is not necessarily better in the future, I misspoke, I should have said that 8 core processors will be better in the future in general, getting a Intel 4 core i7 now is a worse idea than getting the 8 core, simply because the 8 core offers the same performance, or unnoticeably worse, for a lower price.

But it's not the same performance, nor is it unnoticeably worse if you play at high framerates. AND, if single core performance continues to remain dominant, then you'll want as much single core performance as you can get and those extra cores won't help. And by "lower price", you're talling about $20 -- $20 on a system that should cost almost $1500. 

 

Anyway, I'm done here. 

[Enderman]

2 minutes ago, He_162 said:

No, it isn't.

 

You will never notice the performance gap between the two processors, and the R7 1700 is still cheaper, in motherboard cost, the cost of a fan, due to it coming with one, but also in the price of the motherboard it requires.

The i7 is simply losing the price war, and offering minimal increases in gaming performance, also, the 4 core will become obsolete sooner.

GO look at benchmarks.

[He_162]

2 minutes ago, Enderman said:

GO look at benchmarks.

I have, and I have seen inconsistent results left and right, with optimizations made, the results are within 5% of intel's, and with the worst being 30% worse.

The thing is, the worst results were stable framerates in the most taxing games, with no visible lag or stuttering, even while streaming.

[He_162]

3 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

But it's not the same performance, nor is it unnoticeably worse if you play at high framerates. AND, if single core performance continues to remain dominant, then you'll want as much single core performance as you can get and those extra cores won't help. And by "lower price", you're talling about $20 -- $20 on a system that should cost almost $1500. 

 

Anyway, I'm done here. 

i7 system:

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/2MZmBP

 

Ryzen system:

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/QfHF3F

Ryzen is around 35 - 40$ cheaper if you get a decent air cooler on that i7, and then you can't overclock it to it's max potential.

 

Ryzen can overclock on it's stock cooler to it's general max of around 3.9 ghz on the R7 1700.

 

That being said, the people who are actually going to get either one of these instead of an i5, or wait for the R5 series, are people who want a powerful processor, in which case the Ryzen is a better all around, than the i7, and performs un-noticeably worse in games.

You realize the Ryzen processor is also more power efficient too, right?
Ryzen is winning, and you can't handle it, don't lie to people by claiming they are going to see the difference in performance on the i7, and if they really need the framerates, like a pro CS:GO player would, then all they need is an unlocked i5, or locked i7.

 

Either way, Ryzen is better for 99% of cases, not in performance, but in longevity, price, power consumption, and in the case of cooling, most likely lower noise.

Oh, and Ryzen 1700 comes stock with an RGB cooler.

[SSL]

8 minutes ago, He_162 said:

Oh, and Ryzen 1700 comes stock with an RGB cooler.

 

Oh Boy.

[Ithanul]

24 minutes ago, He_162 said:

So when it performs like a dream for up to 1/5 of the price of a i7-6900K system, what is the issue? It gives you such a good experience at any resolution that you will not see lag in any game ever made, unless of course your playing Arma, which lags on all systems.

Seriously, I don't know what people were expecting from AMD.  AMD seems to be focusing toward workstation and multitasking at low price range, which looks like the Ryzens are doing a very good job at.  Gaming only makes a small market of computer sales; business and average consumers are were the money is to be made.  Considering Ryzen release, I have seen a lot of Intel commercials of late with no mention of gaming but daily use and cloud usage.

[79wjd]

12 minutes ago, He_162 said:

i7 system:

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/2MZmBP

 

Ryzen system:

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/QfHF3F

Ryzen is around 35 - 40$ cheaper if you get a decent air cooler on that i7, and then you can't overclock it to it's max potential.

 

Ryzen can overclock on it's stock cooler to it's general max of around 3.9 ghz on the R7 1700.

 

That being said, the people who are actually going to get either one of these instead of an i5, or wait for the R5 series, are people who want a powerful processor, in which case the Ryzen is a better all around, than the i7, and performs un-noticeably worse in games.

You realize the Ryzen processor is also more power efficient too, right?
Ryzen is winning, and you can't handle it, don't lie to people by claiming they are going to see the difference in performance on the i7, and if they really need the framerates, like a pro CS:GO player would, then all they need is an unlocked i5, or locked i7.

 

Either way, Ryzen is better for 99% of cases, not in performance, but in longevity, price, power consumption, and in the case of cooling, most likely lower noise.

Oh, and Ryzen 1700 comes stock with an RGB cooler.

I couldn't help but respond, you just made it way too easy. But I'm done this time, the wall next to me is more responsive. 

 

A 6700k is the same as a 7700k and costs $20 less. Even at stock it's faster than an overclocked 1700 in gaming, and even a cheap cooler (like an hyper 212) can get 4.5ghz~, making it even faster. 

 

And no, a lot of people do get 6700k/7700k's for strictly gaming. It's not unnoticeable if you're playing on a high refresh rate monitor, and why buy an inferior product? If your intention is gaming, a 6700k/7700k is faster. 

 

You're right, the fact that Ryzen is a great cpu is making me want to kill myself. It's really just so unbearable. It's not like I've said on multiple occasions, that I would personally buy a 1700 over a 7700k. But that doesn't change the fact that a 6700k/7700k are superior choices for gaming.

 

Ryzen isn't better for 99% of use cases. For workstation users or streamers, it's amazing. For gaming, it's good, but not the best. Oh, and in terms of power consumption, it's not much better than Intel:

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-Review-Now-and-Zen/Power-Consumption-and-Conclusions

 

oooo, RGB, there we go, Intel lost, there's no coming back from that. 

 

2 minutes ago, Ithanul said:

Seriously, I don't know what people were expecting from AMD.  AMD seems to be focusing toward workstation and multitasking at low price range, which looks like the Ryzens are doing a very good job at.  Gaming only makes a small market of computer sales; business and average consumers are were the money is to be made.  Considering Ryzen release, I have seen a lot of Intel commercials of late with no mention of gaming but daily use and cloud usage.

They were expecting the "dream gaming pc of 2017", as that's how Lisa Su marketed claimed it would be. (For workstation/streaming use, it is extremely good)

[He_162]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

I couldn't help but respond, you just made it way too easy. But I'm done this time, the wall next to me is more responsive. 

 

A 6700k is the same as a 7700k and costs $20 less. Even at stock it's faster than an overclocked 1700 in gaming, and even a cheap cooler (like an hyper 212) can get 4.5ghz~, making it even faster. 

 

And no, a lot of people do get 6700k/7700k's for strictly gaming. It's not unnoticeable if you're playing on a high refresh rate monitor, and why buy an inferior product? If your intention is gaming, a 6700k/7700k is faster. 

 

You're right, the fact that Ryzen is a great cpu is making me want to kill myself. It's really just so unbearable. It's not like I've said on multiple occasions, that I would personally buy a 1700 over a 7700k. But that doesn't change the fact that a 6700k/7700k are superior choices for gaming.

 

Ryzen isn't better for 99% of use cases. For workstation users or streamers, it's amazing. For gaming, it's good, but not the best. Oh, and in terms of power consumption, it's not much better than Intel:

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-Review-Now-and-Zen/Power-Consumption-and-Conclusions

 

oooo, RGB, there we go, Intel lost, there's no coming back from that. 

Actually, those stats are off a bit, it performs better when it has the bios updates it needs, not prelaunch bios microcode.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu,4951-11.html

 

Also, there is a huge discussion going on, and we have found out, a 144hz monitor is really the highest refresh rate you need for gaming, unless you professionally play CS:GO, in which case, an i5, or locked i7 is all you need, and generally, they don't care about what processor it is unless it has high single thread performance, which the i7 offers, sure, but that's very few people.

Ryzen will appeal to almost all of the consumers looking for a 300 - 400$ processor, that performs well in games, is the best price / $ they can get, and offers the same performance, better, or slightly worse in gaming as an i7.

 

You just cannot win, can you?

 

If your intention is high end gaming, you will want the best you can get, and since Ryzen is the best you can get in terms of a cheap, but great processor, it's what you should get.

 

The i7 will no doubt, improve on those framerates, but it will not improve in the quality of your gameplay, as it will not be noticeable, and it's just silly, it's a 4 core processor, and they need to die, 8 core is the way to go, more cores is worth it in the long run, and if I ever see a i7 performing as well as a R7 1700 in 5 - 6 years, I will send you a message apologizing, sadly for you, I doubt you will ever see it in your inbox.