AMD Ryzen "Quad-Core" Config Tested vs i7-7700k

[The Sloth]

9 hours ago, Kloaked said:

For gaming. Ryzen is an okay inbetween for "work and gaming", but I would still buy an i7 over it as it sits right now.

for work and gaming, i would still get ryzen 1700 or a 6 core x99. 

9 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Well, you don't buy a CPU only to replace it after 2 years because it doesn't perform well in games anymore...

my 5820k still is a vary powerful cpu, you can easily get more than 4 years.  

[PCGuy_5960]

9 hours ago, nerdslayer1 said:

for work and gaming, i would still get ryzen 1700 or a 6 core x99. 

DEPENDS! If you game a bit more or if you use Adobe or if you need more than 64GBs of RAM or if you need more add-in cards, the i7 will be better...

9 hours ago, nerdslayer1 said:

my 5820k still is a vary powerful cpu, you can easily get more than 4 years.  

No shit Sherlock. But when it was launched, it was on par with Intel's top gaming CPU. Ryzen is not.

[Memories4K]

5 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

FIFY

Well, no, it still is much closer to Kabylake; an FX-8150 compared to a 2600k?
Yeah, good job on that purchase lol

But a 1700/1700X/1800X compared to a 7700k?
7700k is definitely better but it's not at all the same gap; at stock the difference between the FX-8150 and 2600k was about 35%, i believe.
While at stock the difference between the 1800X and the 7700k is only around 12%.

I'm not saying the 7700k won't smoke the 1800X, i'm just saying that it really is a hell of a lot closer.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

 

I just want to see an i7 7700K do this. 

 

Which ever wins will go into my rig. Come on, someone with a stock 7700K do this needlessly pointless test for me. 

[The Sloth]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

No shit Sherlock. But when it was launched, it was on par with Intel's top gaming CPU. Ryzen is not.

wait 6 months than judge, i want to give the new platform a chance before shitting all over it, hope its like the x99 stability problem. 

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, Memories4K said:

I'm not saying the 7700k won't smoke the 1800X, i'm just saying that it really is a hell of a lot closer.

Ryzen's IPC is 12% lower than Kabylake. Which puts it on par with Haswell. Combine that with VERY limited overclocking potential and you see where that a lot closer to Haswell comes from...

[The Sloth]

1 minute ago, Pohernori said:

 

I just want to see an i7 7700K do this. 

 

Which ever wins will go into my rig. Come on, someone with a stock 7700K do this needlessly pointless test for me. 

 

that's a really cool test, yea a 7700k would get smoked hard even compared to a 5820k. 

[Memories4K]

4 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Well, you don't buy a CPU only to replace it after 2 years because it doesn't perform well in games anymore...

Well of course not, because i'd buy a CPU that would last me longer than 2 years and hold a greater value; if a CPU doesn't perform well in games after two years of my purchase date then i memed myself and it probably wasn't performing well to begin with

[PCGuy_5960]

8 hours ago, nerdslayer1 said:

wait 6 months than judge, i want to give the new platform a chance before shitting all over it, hope its like the x99 stability problem. 

Stability will DEFINITELY improve. Gaming performance (most likely) won't...

8 hours ago, Memories4K said:

Well of course not, because i'd buy a CPU that would last me longer than 2 years and hold a greater value; if a CPU doesn't perform well in games after two years of my purchase date then i memed myself and it probably wasn't performing well to begin with

*cough* Ryzen *cough*

[Memories4K]

5 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

for work and gaming, i would still get ryzen 1700 or a 6 core x99. 

1600X is looking real good for the price of an i5.
I agree with you but once that 1600X releases, there's no way i could recommend something like a 5820k instead.

[PCGuy_5960]

3 minutes ago, Pohernori said:

I just want to see an i7 7700K do this. 

And I want to see a user that would do all of this

[The Sloth]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

*cough* Ryzen *cough*

give it time, before saying things, shitty unrealistic testing doesn't prove anything. also i am interested how a 7700k holds up 

 

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, Memories4K said:

1600X is looking real good for the price of an i5.
I agree with you but once that 1600X releases, there's no way i could recommend something like a 5820k instead.

Once again, it depends... The 5820K will outperform it in games. However, when compared to an i5, the 1600X will be a MUCH better value

[Memories4K]

3 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Ryzen's IPC is 12% lower than Kabylake. Which puts it on par with Haswell. Combine that with VERY limited overclocking potential and you see where that a lot closer to Haswell comes from...

Right, but i'm comparing it to Intel's current line-up.

I compared bulldozer to Sandy Bridge because that's when they release, otherwise i would've compared Bulldozer to the first gen Core series CPUs (Which Bulldozer has almost the same ratio to that Ryzen does with Kabylake actually)

[The Sloth]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

And I want to see a user that would do all of this

so, i also want to see a used having titan x sli and run at low setting all the time. 

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, nerdslayer1 said:

give it time, before saying things, shitty unrealistic testing doesn't prove anything.

I do agree that 1440p and 4K testing doesn't prove anything.... 1080p is much better for benchmarking CPUs

[Guest Kloaked]

1 minute ago, Memories4K said:

1600X is looking real good for the price of an i5.
I agree with you but once that 1600X releases, there's no way i could recommend something like a 5820k instead.

I'm personally hoping they get these "Windows bugs" sorted out (if that's even real) for the 8-cores because I would like one. As it sits right now though the i7 seems like a better value for me.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

6 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

that's a really cool test, yea a 7700k would get smoked hard even compared to a 5820k. 

 

Cool is one thing. 

 

I just need someone to multi box a few games + overwatch on their i7 7700K and have a look at the range of fps the 7700K gives. If it fails then Ryzen it is.

Going 5820K X99 costs me much more than a 1800X.

 

3 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

And I want to see a user that would do all of this

 

Welcome to the world of pointless multi tasking. 

 

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, nerdslayer1 said:

so, i also want to see a used having titan x sli and run at low setting all the time. 

CS:GO players do that all the time, to get 500+FPS....

[Memories4K]

1 minute ago, Kloaked said:

I'm personally hoping they get these "Windows bugs" sorted out (if that's even real) for the 8-cores because I would like one. As it sits right now though the i7 seems like a better value for me.

Honestly, the 1700 is the only real enticing option in my mind given the similar performance when OC'd and the much lower price.
I'm hoping the platform stabilizes too and no doubt the i7's the better buy for pure gaming right now.

[The Sloth]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

CS:GO players do that all the time, to get 500+FPS....

so csgo is a realistic test for all games, i personally never played csgo or  i care about 500 fps in games, pointless testing is stupid.

[Guest Kloaked]

Just now, nerdslayer1 said:

so csgo is a realistic test for all games, i personally never played csgo or  i care about 500 fps in games, pointless testing is stupid.

It's not pointless as it goes more in depth on the actual CPU performance.

[Vode]

These results are not saying much because of the difference in Cachesize compared to the actual Ryzen Quadcores...

 

 

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, nerdslayer1 said:

so csgo is a realistic test for all games

It is not. But how will you know if a CPU is good for gaming if you are INTENTIONALLY creating a GPU bottleneck?

[The Sloth]

Just now, Kloaked said:

It's not pointless as it goes more in depth on the actual CPU performance.

here it shows real cpu performance also